MIM Notes 224   December 15, 2000

Climate change summit leaves oppressed to suffer

The Amerikan government's refusal to cut fossil fuel consumption 
leaves the world with no plan to reduce global climate change 
after two weeks of discussion in the Hague, Netherlands. The 
United $tates (backed by Canada, Australia and Japan) will likely 
oppose any plans to decrease fossil fuel use in the imperialist 
countries. Fossil fuels are the leading cause of climate change. 
Amerikans are far more reliant on fossil fuels than the rest of 
the world.


It is absurd that u.$. politicians are still denying the existence 
of human induced climate change, while scientists around the world 
are addressing the threat it poses. But Amerikans are not too 
concerned either. The united $tates is not immediately vulnerable 
to climate change. Geography accounts for some of this. Yet even 
if it does experience flooding, hurricanes, and desert 
encroachment in the south, the united $tates has the resources and 
wealth to take quick preventative measures and recover from severe 
damage.

Bangladesh, on the other hand, is expected to lose 30% of its land 
to flooding, in the next 100 years with projected sea level rise 
due to global warming. Much of this area is important for 
agriculture. Yet Bangladesh is only responsible for admitting 
110,860 thousand metric tons of carbon dioxide and 1,335 thousand 
metric tons of methane in 1990. Meanwhile, the united $tates 
emitted 4,594,083 thousand metric tons of carbon dioxide and 
28,171 thousand metric tons of methane in 1994. In terms of per 
capita carbon dioxide emissions, the rate for the united $tates 
was two orders of magnitude greater than that of Bangladesh in 
1995 (20.5 metric tons per person and .2 metric tons per person 
respectively).(2)

Many other poor countries will suffer in the tropics where 
agricultural output is expected to drop with increased 
temperatures. The united $tates will not suffer as much with a 
northward shift of ecosystems because of its size. In fact, an 
overall decrease in agricultural production worldwide will only 
make it harder for the Third World to pay for basic dietary needs, 
and allow large agricultural producers like the united $tates to 
make a greater profit.

By signing the Kyoto Protocol in 1997, the United $tates pledged 
to cut their carbon emissions a mere seven percent.(1) Since then 
the country's emissions have increased, and at the latest summit 
u$ representatives would not agree to reduce consumption levels. 
In recent years Amerikans have produced over one quarter of the 
world's carbon dioxide emissions, while only accounting for less 
than four percent of the world's population. Amerikans are living 
an extravagant lifestyle off of the exploitation of the majority 
of the world -- which in turn suffers the greatest environmental 
consequences.

The u.$. negotiators' plan for reducing emissions involved two 
main tactics. The first was to count forests and agriculture as 
carbon sinks because of the carbon held in the organic matter in 
these areas. This in effect means doing nothing and saying we're 
cutting emissions. In addition, the actual amounts of carbon 
sequestration in different ecosystems are not well known. What is 
well known is how much carbon is released by burning oil, coal and 
gas. Yet the u.$. refuses to reduce these activities which 
contribute the vast majority of greenhouse gases to the 
atmosphere.

The second solution proposed by u.$. officials is emissions 
trading, where one country can get credit for funding projects to 
reduce emissions in another country. While many Third World 
countries have asked for help in reducing their emissions, doing 
so while continuing current emission rates in the imperialist 
countries ignores the real source of the problem.

MIM sees the pollution-rights trade as one dividing into two. The 
proletarian and forward-looking aspect is that the sale of 
pollution-rights occurs because of scientific planning regarding 
physical targets -- reduction of carbon-emissions. The 
acknowledgement of such a goal by imperialist governments comes 
about only because of proletarian pressure. Whether the traders 
know it or not, they are not operating according to a "free 
market," but according to goals scientifically analyzed and then 
politically arrived at during the 1997 Kyoto summit.

On the other hand, in its negative and bourgeois aspect, 
pollution-rights trading only emphasizes the fact that we live in 
a capitalist system where the right to kill other people with 
pollution is essentially bought and sold. Corporations may have to 
pay lawyers high amounts of money or they may have to buy their 
emissions rights from other corporations, but in the end, the most 
exploitative and profitable companies will be able to conduct the 
trade in carbon emissions. Such is only possible because there is 
no guaranteed "right" to a livable environment in an 
environmentally sustainable economy under capitalism. The 
bourgeoisie believe its property "rights" are above the so-called 
rights of others to eat, sleep under a roof and even breathe. 
Carbon-emission trading is an agreement amongst the bourgeoisie 
that those capitalists who pollute less should have an economic 
advantage over others that pollute more.(3)

When the capitalists cannot support an absolute stance regarding 
the preciousness of humyn life, they only demonstrate why class 
struggle has been violent -- on their part and in response by the 
proletariat. The proletariat has the right to see to its survival, 
through violence as necessary. Deaths from pollution are not 
hypothetical; neither are profits from pollution.

Vice President Al Gore has made some pretty strong statements 
regarding the environment, especially the emission of greenhouse 
gases. However, as pointed out previously in MIM Notes, his record 
of action is poor, having done nothing to reduce emissions in the 
united $tates. In fact the Clinton/Gore administration opened the 
Strategic Petroleum Reserve to keep gasoline prices down and allow 
Amerikans to consume at their accustomed level. 

Rep. James Sensenbrenner (R-Wis.) stated that high gas prices in 
his Wisconsin district this summer had "almost led to a 
revolution." (1) While this statement was obviously an 
exaggeration of the truth, it does show the true position of the 
Amerikan public. Amerika proved willing to go to war for low 
gasoline prices, so why would anyone expect them to give up their 
luxury to prevent environmental destruction around the globe that 
they can avoid quite confidently. Only under a dictatorship of the 
proletariat will it become impossible for a minority to live in 
luxury and force the majority to suffer in the mess they have 
made.

Environmentalists should be Leninists of the MIM sort, because we 
oppose the consumption demands of the oppressor nation workers and 
because we recognize decadence and conservatism not just in the 
imperialists, but the oppressor nation workers. 

Notes:
1. McKibben, Bill. Grist Magazine. 
http://www.gristmagazine.com/grist/maindish/mckibben111700.stm
2. World Resources Institute. 1998-99 Database.
3. MIM Notes 193, 1 Sep 1999.