|
REVIEW:
George Monbiot, “Heat,” published by Allen
Lane, 2006.
The
importance of George Monbiot’s latest book
"Heat," and the reason why every
socialist should read it is that it raises the level of debate on the
politics of climate change, as well as on the science and technology.
What the book lacks, however, is a class analysis of the issue.
Monbiot, viewing the world through the prism of the English
middle class, assumes that all of us enjoy the unprecedented luxuries and
comforts that are afforded by "our" exploitation of fossil
fuel, that all of us are equally responsible, as "carbon
emitters," for the environmental crisis. In reality of course, it is
the ruling class that has made a Faustian pact with the devil, leaving
the rest of us staring into the flames of hell as we pay the price for its
profligacy.
Monbiot calculates that global emissions of carbon dioxide
will need to be cut by at least 60 percent by 2030. (And in the rich
countries, which are by far the biggest polluters, an average of around
90 percent will be needed.) If we fail to achieve this target,
temperatures could well rise above the critical 2C degree threshold.
Beyond
this "tipping point," positive feedback effects come into play,
irreversibly driving temperatures still higher. Ice caps melt; ocean
currents fail; huge quantities of methane are released from the permafrosts and from the ocean beds; tropical
rainforests desiccate and burn. And from there we enter the uncharted
territory of chaotic and cataclysmic change, to both the climate and the
ecosystems on which we and every other species depend. Mass extinctions
would follow, probably on a scale not seen since the end of the Permian
period.
But Monbiot remains optimistic; he doesn’t claim, as some
climate apocalyptics do, that it is already too
late. And in "Heat" he sets out to demonstrate the practical
steps that would be needed to achieve that 90 percent cut in emissions.
Little
of this is new science. Climate scientists have been warning about the dangers
of high atmospheric carbon levels for many years. So why have we, or more
importantly our governments, been so slow to act?
Monbiot exposes the role of fossil fuel corporations in
promoting an entire industry of climate denial. In reality there is a
remarkable consensus among serious scientists (those required to publish
peer-reviewed studies) about climate change. The sole aim of the deniers
is to cast doubt on this consensus.
Carbon
rationing
Monbiot advocates carbon rationing as
the main mechanism for achieving the 90 percent cut. Green taxes wouldn‘t
deliver, and neither would they be equitable. Instead, we should
calculate a fair allocation and issue each person with carbon units,
which he prefers to call "ice caps." He believes that this measure
would automatically stimulate a market for low-carbon technologies, such
as public transport and renewable energy.
We
could make a good start on the 90 percent target simply by reducing the
amount of energy that is currently wasted. Monbiot
explains that our houses are in effect "warm air tunnels, which keep
us warm incidentally, as the heat pours past us and into the
street."
Building
regulations are extremely lax, and even those regulations that do exist
are poorly enforced. We could easily build houses that are so well
insulated as to require no active heating systems at all, such as the Passivhaus developed in Germany
in the eighties.
Supermarkets
are another example of the profligate waste of energy: huge, poorly
insulated structures, with hot air blowers endlessly competing with open,
doorless fridges and freezers. Monbiot suggests that supermarkets should be replaced
with warehouses that deliver directly to households.
We
will, of course, still need to generate energy, however efficiently we
use it. Nuclear power is discussed by Monbiot
but dismissed, rightly in my view, as being too dangerous in the long
term. Carbon capture, which would enable us to continue burning natural
gas without releasing carbon dioxide to the atmosphere, is more promising.
Wind,
solar, wave, and tidal energy are all subjected to a rigorous appraisal.
The development of efficient high voltage DC cables would help to make
wave power and offshore wind farms viable; they would also offer the
possibility of turning deserts into vast solar farms whose energy could
be distributed far and wide.
Transport
is the second biggest contributor of greenhouse gases after housing, but
it is, according to Monbiot, the easiest
problem to fix. He provides a wonderful critique of the motor car, and of
the way the image of "the freedom of the road" fails to live up
to the reality.
The
economist Alan Storkey has developed an
innovative solution based on extending the coach network and moving coach
stations out of city centers. Frequent high quality coaches would enable
journeys to be completed more quickly and in greater comfort than can be
achieved by clogging up the motorways with cars.
Air
travel, however, gets a decisive thumbs down. Monbiot can find no way of squaring air travel with
our need to reduce carbon emissions. Jet setting is one of the Faustian
pleasures we will simply have to forego.
But
the market is the obstacle
Monbiot tries to demonstrate that all
of these measures can be achieved within the existing market system. He
therefore avoids the most obvious conclusion, that the market is in every
case the biggest obstacle to reducing emissions. Capital will always try
to circumvent any measure that threatens its profitability, however good
those measures are for the environment.
Monbiot’s targets will be achieved not by accommodating to
capital but by confronting it. Instead of trying to regulate private
coach and rail companies, for example, a simpler and far more effective solution
would be to bring transport into public ownership and to allow its
workers to run it as a service rather than as a means of generating
profit. A massively expanded, free public transport system would end road
congestion almost immediately.
The same
logic applies to every other industry. Workers control of production
would be far more effective at reducing emissions than decrees issued by
a government via a civil service to private business.
Democratic
planning would also enable us to transform social relations outside the
workplace. By socialising domestic labour, for example, we could drastically reduce our
energy consumption while simultaneously improving our quality of life.
The only losers would be the capitalists who sell us our washing machines,
microwaves and cookers.
Alliance with
organized working class
Monbiot ends his book by calling on
its readers to join the climate change movement. I would echo that call.
Read the book and join the campaign. Hundreds of thousands of young people
across the globe are already doing just that, fighting for their right to
a future.
But
the movement needs a clearer direction, and in particular it needs to
build a strategic alliance with the organized working class, and
especially with those workers engaged in power generation, motor
manufacturing, public transport, retail, and construction.
Without
such an alliance, the trade-union bureaucracy will set itself against the
movement in the name of protecting members’ jobs. With it, we will have a
serious chance of saving the planet, and of transforming social relations
in the
process.
-This
review appeared in the Spring 2007 issue of Socialist Outlook, journal of
the International Socialist Group, British section of the Fourth International.
|