IT’S no surprise that the UN Climate Report released this week made grim reading.
‘Code Red’ for humanity was the main message – that is, change our ways or face the horrific consequences.
For some, the ramifications are already here – in a morbid sense, it’s rather appropriate the report emerged amid wildfires in Southern Europe, Algeria and California – and came just weeks after heavy floods in Germany.
For the British government, all eyes turned to this winter’s COP26 UN Climate Summit in Glasgow.
It is there that Climate Minister Alok Sharma – recently criticised for unnecessary air travel to 30 nations for in-person meetings – will hope to co-ordinate the world onto a path towards net zero, or something of that ilk.
What we will likely see is – as usual – all talk and no action. The major polluters of the world, such as the US, will commit to more renewable energy sources, but that’s in no way addressing the major issue.
There will also be talk of individual choices – people choosing active travel over driving, or recycling. Perhaps Allegra Stratton’s now-notorious suggestion of not rinsing dishes before putting them in the dishwasher will make an unwanted appearance.
But why should the working class be burdened with solving climate change when individual actions mean so little?
Our readers will likely be familiar with the famous 2017 report by the CDP which concludes that just 100 companies have been the source of more than 70 per cent of the world’s greenhouse gas emissions since 1988.
But with pro-business governments in charge across the globe, the subject is off-limits. Who will dare take on the highest polluters cited in the report – ExxonMobil, Shell, BP and Chevron?
There’s no question our behaviour does need to change as individuals. We can’t keep consuming the same level of meat or continue driving thousands of miles every year.
But without systemic change, individual choice alteration – even if done on a large scale – will simply be a band-aid on the issue.
Under Jeremy Corbyn (and Rebecca Long-Bailey as Shadow Minister), Labour was in favour of the Green New Deal.
It may sound a while away when only the likes of Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez mention it in Congress, but it’s fair to say that the 2019 election defeat snatched away a brilliant opportunity to reverse climate change. Had Corbyn been swept into power, momentum could have been built for a greener system of governance.
It’s now up to Keir Starmer to carry the mantle. As with any concrete decision, he’s unlikely to deliver.
For now, the fight for systemic change must continue. Neither unfettered nor regulated capitalism will stop the horrific implications of climate change.
Featured Image: UNClimateChange @ Flickr
Subscribe to stay updated, or follow us on Facebook, Twitter, and Instagram.
Redaction cannot survive without your help. Support us for as little as $1 a month on Patreon: https://www.patreon.com/RedactionPolitics.
2 thoughts on “Climate Crisis: Capitalism can’t save the planet”
Capitalism can, if implemented.
Capitalism demands protection of personal property. To assure each human being on the planet has structural ownership of our labors, we must have structural ownership of access to our labors. We must each human being on the planet be included equally in a globally standard process of money creation.
The simple correction of our international banking system is affected with adoption of a rule of inclusion for international banking regulation: All sovereign debt, money creation, shall be financed with equal quantum Shares of global fiat credit that may be claimed by each adult human being on the planet, held in trust with local deposit banks, administered by local fiduciaries and actuaries exclusively for secure sovereign investment at a fixed and sustainable rate, as part of an actual local social contract.
Fixing the value of a Share at $1,000,000 USD equivalent and the sovereign rate at 1.25% per annum establishes a stable, sustainable, regenerative, inclusive, abundant, and ethical global economic system with mathematical certainty. All money will then have the precise convenience value of using 1.25% per annum options to purchase human labor instead of barter. Mathematically distinct from money created at any other rate. The value of a self referential mathematical function can’t be affected by fluctuations in the cost or value of any other thing.
Economics acquires a fixed unit of measure, so we may begin to make useful economic measurements, collecting far more complete, uncoerced economic data.
To the point, each community will then have ubiquitous access to 1.25% per annum fixed value money for secure investment. All human needs may be sustainably financed locally, globally, without the need of the accumulated money of Wealth. Without loss, on adoption of the rule, Wealth will be repaid over $200 trillion in existing global sovereign debt with fixed value money and no need of a hedge against non existent inflation. They’ll need to either save that money or reinvest it in a world with ubiquitous access to over $6 quadrillion of 1.25% credit for secure investment, and backlogs of local community projects waiting for willing and available labor.
When the projects you know need investment have 1.25% money available, the will of citizen depositors, and local fiduciary oversight, what will impede saving the planet?
Please examine the rule closely, and infer the inevitable and most likely effects?
Thanks for your kind indulgence