While the idea that some of the gases in the atmosphere helped to warm the earth was first propounded by Joseph Fourier as early as 1824, by 1896, the science behind global warming was broadly understood and it was predicted that a doubling of concentrations of the greenhouse gas (GHG) CO₂ would warm the earth by 4-5oC. It was also shown that such a doubling was possible through the burning of fossil fuels.

Measurements showing a rise in average global temperatures and carbon dioxide concentrations since 1860 were first made in 1939 and confirmed in the 1950s. By 1965, the US President’s Science Advisory Committee said that the projected 25 percent increase in CO₂ by 2000, ‘may be sufficient to produce measurable and perhaps marked changes in climate’. By then, most of the climate sceptics’ arguments about the oceans being able to absorb the excess gas, or temperatures not having risen since 1940 had been dealt with.

In 1989, Scientific American announced that climate scientists had reached a consensus on climate change, and called for a 50 percent cut in global fossil fuel consumption and a stop to deforestation. This call followed the finding that the 1980s had experienced the six hottest years on record (back to 1000 CE). By 2000, the 1990s were the warmest decade on record. Now, the six warmest years have been 1998, 2005, 2002, 2003, 2001 and 2004. [1]

Global warming has been having profound effects on world ecosystems for at least 20 years. Already in 1989, it was reported that arctic permafrost and sea ice were retreating, glaciers receding and the average temperatures in the great lakes had risen. In 2005, further evidence on all these phenomena was published: the Siberian permafrost was shown to be melting, threatening the release of millions of tonnes of trapped methane, 99 percent of Alaska’s two thousand low altitude glaciers were shown to be retreating, the great lakes were shown to be thawing two days earlier per decade since 1846 and freezing later.

Now new measurements and models have increased the reliability of past temperature measurements, putting warming data on a firmer footing. Methane (a more powerful GHG than CO₂) was found to contribute to a third of global warming, rather than one sixth. Even if all GHG emissions stopped immediately, ‘a potentially dangerous level of global warming cannot be ruled out’, due to the time taken for sea temperatures to respond to current GHG levels [2]. A study of Antarctic ice cores showed that CO₂ levels are 30 percent higher and methane levels three times higher than at any time in the last 650,000 years. The increasing acidity of the oceans (due to more dissolved carbon dioxide) was found to be a threat to ocean life and one of the North Atlantic sea currents is 30 percent weaker now than fifty years ago.

Finally, it has been shown that in the last fifty years, the destructive power of hurricanes has increased by 70 percent: this is now attributed to global warming by many scientists. Typically, the sceptics on this issue refer mainly to the ten percent of hurricanes that occur in the Atlantic, where the evidence is less clear-cut, ignoring the 90 percent in the Indian and Pacific oceans. [3]

Other likely outcomes of climate change have not yet been recorded. These include a major disruption of agriculture, resulting in more widespread water shortages and famine (of course exacerbated by late capitalist globalisation). This could happen not only in the so-called ‘third world’ but also in the ‘West’, where agribusiness is very rigid and inadaptable, while climate change is more extensive nearer the poles. One other effect causing concern is the creation of huge, unstable meltwater lakes in glacial areas. These lakes are likely to burst and inundate downstream regions, as was recently reported in Bhutan. Other consequences could be the spreading of tropical diseases to temperate zones and unpredictable effects on human survival capacity in what is now recognised to be a major extinction event that is taking place.

The statement, made as early as 1957, by a climatologist that, ‘human beings are now carrying out a large scale geophysical experiment of a kind that could not have happened in the past’, could not be more apt.

So capitalism has had at least fifty years to respond to the threat of global warming. Its wholly inadequate response should lead us to question whether there is something inherent in globalised market capitalism that prevents its moving to a low GHG economy. We must look beyond issues like Bush’s resistance to Kyoto [4] and Montreal and engage with the underlying systemic problems [5]. One approach is to start with what kind of policies would be necessary to get massive cuts in GHG emissions.

 What policies do we need?

The role of renewable energy resources

While there is clearly a place for all kinds of renewable technologies, and some of these could be put into use relatively quickly, George Monbiot [6] has shown that they cannot replace fossil fuels, even at today’s levels of energy usage, let alone for the future. Official US government figures project a 60-80 percent increase in energy demand between now and 2025, with China’s demand almost tripling. Wind power may supply up to 20 percent of current UK electricity demand (replacing nuclear power), but that is only 6 percent of total energy usage, which includes gas for heating and petrol for transport as well. And Britain has the best wind resources in Europe.

Monbiot has also highlighted the ripping up of virgin rain forest in SE Asia to create oil palm monocultures to feed Asia’s cooking pots and Europe’s cars. He quotes Friends of the Earth saying that this demand for biomass causes 85 percent of Malaysia’s forest loss, acknowledged but still encouraged by the UK government. The World Commission on Dams has questioned the role of hydroelectric power as a renewable resource: some dams contribute as much to global warming as equivalent fossil fuel power stations, and they all damage habitats and fisheries and displace people.

Running the world’s motor vehicle fleet on biofuels is not feasible: one calculation suggests that biomass for US vehicles would take up 97 percent of the total land area of that country (mountains, deserts and all), while another shows that to run all the world’s cars would take 60 percent of the land currently devoted to agriculture. Hydrogen power is not an option either, as large amounts of energy are required to generate the gas from water. Hydrogen also destroys the ozone layer in the atmosphere [7].

Sequestration

Renewable energy resources have their own environmental downside. The same applies to carbon dioxide storage (sequestration) from fossil fuel power stations, now under consideration. World CO₂ emissions are about 26bn tonnes per year. Even putting in place the technology to store 10 percent of this would be a major undertaking fraught with environmental hazards. It is also energy-intensive, requiring either the liquefying and distillation of air (to facilitate burning in pure oxygen), or the heating and cooling of noxious chemicals (amines) to separate CO₂ from nitrogen after combustion. In any case, new, untried technologies will take too long to put into place.

Nuclear power

These considerations have led to increasing calls for nuclear power to be used to replace fossil fuels. Again, there is a problem with the time frame, the extent to which nuclear can replace other energy resources and with the potential costs. There is the political problem that governments have to underwrite the liabilities of nuclear power companies - no insurance company is willing to provide full cover. No responsible government should ever burden its citizens or future generations with the hazards that nuclear power brings.

However it looks as if New Labour will go for the nuclear option. The private British nuclear generator BNFL now owns the main plant manufacturer, Westinghouse, which may explain Blair’s enthusiasm. Wind power, which has been shown to be more feasible than nuclear, is based mainly on German or Danish technology. [8]

Reduction of global demand

In the face of all the drawbacks for alternative energy sources, the central policy in reduction of GHG emissions has to be a reduction in world demand for energy. Some of this reduction could be met by conservation measures like home insulation, and we should be demanding government subsidies to upgrade and insulate Britain’s housing stock, as well as making sustainable energy such as wind and solar power cheap and available to all. But the bulk will have to come about by lowering the level of economic activity, at least in the imperialist countries. Here lies the rub, at least for the capitalist system, which is incapable of downsizing except by means of destructive slump or war.

Developing countries

There will also need to be a major change in the trajectory of developing countries. One major issue is the migration of people from rural areas to mega-cities. China illustrates this most starkly. Here, expected migration is over 400m people in the coming years. Newsnight reporter, Paul Mason has suggested that, even if the whole of Western manufacturing industry were transferred to China, there would still not be enough work in the cities for these people.

There is the added problem of the power demands of mega-cities - China is currently commissioning one coal-fired power station a fortnight. The biggest airports, stadiums, tower blocks and road systems are today being constructed in China. It has sixteen of the twenty most polluted cities and 400,000 people die prematurely of respiratory diseases as a result. Pollution has doubled there in the last ten years and could quadruple again by 2020. In November and December 2005, there were three major incidents of water pollution threatening to poison people in large cities. The Chinese model of ‘development’, reminiscent of that of England in the 1800s, so graphically described by Engels, is clearly unsustainable. In many respects, it is a model replicated all over the developing world. The people of the developing countries have the right to escape grinding poverty and backwardness, but this must be achieved in a sustainable way, by social planning nationally and globally. Globalising capitalism shows itself increasingly incapable of this.

Most of the developing countries have greater scope for renewable energy sources than the west, at least in rural areas. Solar power would usually be more efficient: biomass, currently the number one energy source in many of these countries, can be much more efficiently used, by altering agricultural practices and access to stoves. The political priority is a shifting of development from prestige mega-projects in the cities, to improving the quality of life in the countryside and small towns. The centre of this would be land reform, the building of collective political structures and the empowerment of women.

 Our demands

For the urban areas in developing countries, the priorities are essentially the same as for the imperialist powers, including a diminution of the economy. The impending catastrophe is global, and requires global, national and local solutions. International treaties need to go far beyond Kyoto. The fight must be taken up on all fronts. The kinds of national and international measures required are as follows:

• A huge energy conservation programme, freely available home insulation and new designs for buildings so they need minimal heating and cooling;

• A transport policy that to reduce our need to use cars;

• Less use and therefore production of motor cars and lorries;

• Development of alternative production;

• Localisation of production and consumption wherever possible;

• The planning of towns and cities so that public transport is efficient and people do not have to travel far to access work, shops, libraries and entertainment;

• Shortening of the working week and increasing holidays, making it feasible to use public transport for commuting and trains as an alternative to air travel;

• Rationing of air travel for all;

• Promotion of more communal living situations leading to a reduced production of consumer durables, the setting up of neighbourhood childcare facilities and cafés, laundries;

• A sharp reduction in meat consumption, which is having disastrous effects in Brazil, Argentina and other countries, as well as causing major GHG emissions and adding to pressure on water supplies;

• The development of international plans on the use of water, to deal with interstate water conflicts such as between Iraq, Syria and Turkey;

• The development of measures to deal with the increasing areas of both drought and floods;

• Curtailing of activities not essential to human well-being, such as the advertising, sales, arms and many other industries;

• Ending competition between firms – leading to many firms producing the same commodities. Working people should decide what is produced based on human need, not profit, as well as the environmental impact the production and use of goods has;

• In less-developed countries, policies for developing rural areas are necessary. Land reform is essential and a focus on production for local use rather than the world market. Also needed are renewable energy sources (particularly solar) where there is no grid; measures to ensure water conservation; safe use of sewage in areas without a sewage system, etc.

Many of these necessary measures would not be compatible with capitalism, which demands continuous growth in order to secure its profits. Meeting these demands implies that we need a planned economy not left to the anarchy of market forces, which has got us into our current mess.
These types of policy imply radical change in social relations which explains the difficulty the capitalist class and their political representatives have in coming up with measures to combat climate change. Furthermore, at present it is perfectly rational for an individual firm to ignore climate change. For individual firms, the logic of capitalism is the production of the maximum exchange value, regardless of the effects of their commodities on the environment. However, the accumulated ‘micro-rationality’ of thousands of firms adds up to the macro-irrationality of climate change that will threaten the capitalist system.

 Mass action

Ultimately of course, governments may be forced to act against climate change. The best situation would be if this resulted from a mass movement demanding effective and socially just measures. But government action may result from a major climate crisis. In this case, the response is likely to be repressive and extremely inegalitarian. Hurricane Katrina and its aftermath illustrates the kind of immediate response that could be expected. [9] Subsequent policies to cut down on GHG emissions would probably depend on pricing mechanisms: that is, the rich can continue their polluting consumption patterns, while the access of working class people to mobility, warmth and other comforts will be limited.

We are seeing this already, with road pricing, the congestion charge, airline fuel taxes, energy price increases. Many Greens – and some socialists – support fiscal measures, perceiving them as the only effective way to cut down on emissions. Some may even advocate rebates to counteract the effects of energy taxes on the poorest people. This however would partially defeat the object of cutting down on fossil fuel use.

When emergency measures are required, they should be applied fairly, with an emphasis on equality and under workers’ and community control: in other words, they should be regulatory, not fiscal. Such measures would also point towards the need for planning – under workers’ and community control – to counteract climate change.

 Building a Movement Against Climate Change

For now, we are faced with small campaigning groups that have a high degree of understanding of the issue, and left political parties which are at best intermittently conscious of the importance of climate change. One task for socialists who understand the issues is to explain the potential (indeed the urgent necessity) for radical social change in the struggle to combat global warming. Capitalism is by its very nature incapable of producing for use value rather than profit; incapable of planning reductions in energy use large enough to solve the problems the planet faces.

A second important issue – highlighted by Katrina – is the crucial importance of social justice. Campaigns should highlight the obscene conspicuous consumption of the rich. They may be small in number, they may not contribute such a lot to emissions, but they act as models for the consumerist society and others are led to aspire to their levels of consumption. No campaign can be credible if it advocates measures like making working class people use their cars less if it does not also do the same for the rich with their limousines and private planes.

As suggested above, campaigns should concentrate on regulatory measures to control GHG emissions, applied equally across society. It should set as its aim a reduction of GHG emissions by Britain of 60 percent within the next ten years and call for the government to fight for an international agreement to get such a reduction on a world scale. We have little time to lose.