[Marxism] Pope Francis vs both climate change denialism and cap and trade

[Joseph Green via Marxism]

  POSTING RULES & NOTES  
#1 YOU MUST clip all extraneous text when replying to a message.
#2 This mail-list, like most, is publicly & permanently archived.
#3 Subscribe and post under an alias if #2 is a concern.
*

Pope Francis denounces both climate deniers and carbon credits
by Pete Brown, Detroit Workers' Voice

On Sept. 24 Pope Francis will visit Washington, D.C. and address the
U.S. Congress. A mass rally on the National Mall is planned for that
same day in support of environmental goals, and organizers of the rally
are hoping the pope will recognize and possibly address them. The pope's
visit became a reason for a "green" rally after mid-June when Pope
Francis issued an encyclical (a major statement) on environmental issues
titled "On Care for Our Common Home." There he plainly stated, "humans
are contributing to unprecedented destruction of ecosystems." After that
a number of environmental organizations joined together to express
support for the pope's encyclical and planned a demonstration on the
occasion of his visit. These groups include Moral Action on Climate
Network, Earth Day Network, the League of Conservation Voters, and
Sierra Club. But many establishment environmentalist organizations like
these also support carbon pricing schemes like the ones Francis
denounces in his encyclical.

In his statement Pope Francis chided world leaders for not coming to
agreement on effective measures to combat global warming, and he
criticized climate change "deniers." He says warming "... has
repercussions on the poorest areas of the world, especially Africa,
where a rise in temperature, together with drought, has proved
absolutely devastating for farming." And further, "...recent World Summits
on the environment have not lived up to expectations because, due to
lack of political will, they were unable to reach truly meaningful and
effective global agreements on the environment." This sums up the
failure of the Kyoto Protocol, which relied on market methods to reduce
carbon emissions and was a big flop. Kyoto set up a system of
cap-and-trade where supposedly the countries that signed would cap their
carbon emissions and trade carbon credits in order to gradually reduce
their output of CO2 into the atmosphere. The pope correctly notes this
was a failure in section 171 of his encyclical:

"The strategy of buying and selling 'carbon credits' can lead to a new
form of speculation which would not help reduce the emission of
polluting gases worldwide. This system seems to provide a quick and easy
solution under the guise of a certain commitment to the environment, but
in no way does it allow for the radical change which present
circumstances require. Rather, it may simply become a ploy which permits
maintaining the excessive consumption of some countries and sectors."

Many establishment environmentalist organizations and media ("New York
Times", CNN, MSNBC, etc.) have tried to gloss over this statement of the
pope's and the failure of Kyoto. Liberal politicians of the Democratic
Party take it as gospel that we must have carbon pricing schemes in
order to control CO2 emissions. They try to force environmental reform
ideas into the straitjacket of market fundamentalism, and this includes
their proposals for a carbon tax. But the carbon tax, like other
market-oriented schemes, is based on the idea that the market will solve
any problems that arise; the only thing that needs to be adjusted, they
say, is for the government to impose a tax on carbon to raise its price.
After that the "invisible hand" of Adam Smith will take care of carbon
emissions and global warming. They say this policy would hasten the
transition to renewable energy, but the only thing for sure it would do
is anger many people and turn them against environmentalism. Francis'
encyclical does not talk explicitly about the carbon tax, but his
denunciation of market methods goes against the logic of the carbon tax:

"The principle of the maximization of profits, frequently isolated from
other considerations, reflects a misunderstanding of the very concept of
the economy. As long as production is increased, little concern is given
to whether it is at the cost of future resources or the health of the
environment; ... ." (Section 195 of the encyclical.)

Although the church has never accepted socialism and has backed
capitalism in practice, it has also never accepted the capitalist market
as the end-all solution to life's problems. Francis continues this when
he says, "... by itself the market cannot guarantee integral human
development and social inclusion." But he also speaks out more topically
and forcefully about the failures of market fundamentalism, for example:
"Our care for the environment is intimately connected to our care for
each other. ... We are not faced with two separate crises, one
environmental and the other social, but rather one 

[Marxism] The contradictions arising form the Madness of King Jack

[Philip Ferguson via Marxism]

  POSTING RULES & NOTES  
#1 YOU MUST clip all extraneous text when replying to a message.
#2 This mail-list, like most, is publicly & permanently archived.
#3 Subscribe and post under an alias if #2 is a concern.
*

On Tue, Sep 22, 2015 at 1:11 PM, Philip Ferguson 
wrote:

> Louis cited a piece from the Barnes' cult weekly spreadsheet which said:
>
> " It's different than a general call to 'open the borders' as an
> editorial in last week's Militant put forward. That's a utopian demand,
> and, if adopted under capitalist rule, would lead to increased
> competition among workers, unemployment, lower wages and social misery."
>


Funnily enough, the previous week's editorial was quoting King Jack from an
earlier time (the poor editorial writer would have been thinking s/he
couldn't possibly go wrong).  The editorial said:
“Crumbling borders weaken the employer-fostered competition between workers
of different nationalities and widen the cultural scope and world view of
the working class,” SWP National Secretary Jack Barnes wrote in *Capitalism’s
World Disorder*. “This process strengthens the fighting potential of
labor’s battalions and brings new experiences and militancy into the
workers movement.”


So now the mad king has changed his mind and is saying the opposite of what
he said in his book on *Capitalism's World Disorder.*

What a nuthouse.

How can the membership ever hope to keep up with these abrupt and totally
arbitrary changes?

No wonder they go about in a permanent state of looking bewildered.

Phil



> For some *consistent* Marxist politics on the issue, check out:
> *Workers rights and open borders:
>  https://rdln.wordpress.com/2014/05/24/workers-rights-and-open-borders/
> *
>
> *The case for global freedom of movement:
>  https://rdln.wordpress.com/2014/03/27/7865/
> *
>
> *The case for open borders:
>  https://rdln.wordpress.com/2015/05/12/the-case-for-open-borders/
> *
>
> *Capitalism, Third World poverty and migration:
>  
> https://rdln.wordpress.com/2014/12/16/capitalism-third-world-poverty-and-migration/
> *
>
> *New Zealand’s immigration controls: not in workers’ interests:
>  
> https://rdln.wordpress.com/2011/06/12/new-zealand%E2%80%99s-immigration-controls-%E2%80%93-not-in-workers%E2%80%99-interests-%C2%A0/
> *
>
_
Full posting guidelines at: http://www.marxmail.org/sub.htm
Set your options at: 
http://lists.csbs.utah.edu/options/marxism/archive%40mail-archive.com