"Corbyn also hit back at criticisms that a focus on sustainable energy, in tandem with a fossil fuel phase-out, is financially nonviable. "A more sustainable energy policy... one that would help the issues we face on a global level, would actually be an economic generator, rather than a problem," he said."
Perhaps not "financially viable" but certainly more economical:
Economical: marked by careful, efficient, and prudent use of resources (Merriam Webster)
It's past time to kick the financier$ to the curb.
The sentiment is worthy but the solution isn't. Millions have marched in protest against the injustice of industrial capitalism's destruction of the planet for many decades. It may make the marchers and organizers feel slightly better, it may serve as a way to let off steam and so is tolerated by the Bankers and Billionaire's Club, but it obviously doesn't change anything.
As permaculture founder David Holmgren has argued, the only plausible solution to global warming, at this late date, is the collapse of the global economy. That, he argued, should be our main goal as activists. Beyond that, any decisions we may make are meaningless and symbolic.
There is another way to be in the world. Living simply is itself a revolutionary act. Living simply leads to action based on personal responsibility which is the opposite of materialism. Breath deeply, tend your garden, marvel in the wonder-filled world, be happy and peaceful.
Kick them to the ICC - credible criminal charges could be lodged against them, because they are functionally a part of the economy, and the economy should serve everyone rather than just the few. That it serves only the few represents "theft under color of law".
The majority of the democrats in the US congress are what I have called for a long time; THE FAKE OPPOSITION PARTY. Mr. Corbyn is what the REAL OPPOSITION PARTY LOOKS LIKE!
"A more sustainable energy policy... would actually be an economic generator"
Not necessarily so. What if, in order to save the Earth, it's necessary to destroy a global economy which is predicated on abundant, cheap energy? Would saving the Earth be too expensive, in that case?
Statements like Corbyn's imply that an imaginary concept called "the economy" is at least as important as the real global ecology. This is the message of the "green growth" propagandists: we can have our cake and eat it too. It's not credible, and ultimately, it abets ongoing destruction by subscribing to warped (if nearly universal) values.
Over population. Not one word of it from them.
Amy Goodman has an interview with Corbyn on Tuesday's Democracy Now!
The fossil fuel industry receives a lot of criticism these days, and rightfully so. But in the final analysis, we are the ones who support the energy industry and it is our standard of living that will need to change. So contemplate what you can do for the cause
. Reorganize cities, building taller residences with a smaller footprint (the end of suburbia); institute a carbon tax; end our love affair with the automobile— promote car pooling subsidize and expand mass transit, walk and bike more; expand bike paths;, and have shareable (zip) cars, ban gasahol; turn off the air conditioner in the summer and dial the thermostat down in winter; rein in the militaries for defense only and outlaw war; ban night baseball; ban electric outdoor signs; shift from long distance truck to rail transport; ride more trains and buses, fewer planes; promote conference calls and web cams; promote zero population growth with free condoms and family planning world-wide; many more people would become vegetarians or vegans; phase out the cattle industry; discontinue bottled water and drink tap water; discontinue aluminum cans with and without carbonation; maximize reusable bags and products; minimize or ban disposables (Pampers, Ikea furniture); limit endless gadgets; end yearly auto model changes; limit all the advertising, junk mail, most retail, etc.; eliminate “fast junk food”; go to “slow food”; replace “fast fashion” with “slow fashion”; bring back mending, alterations and local tailors; completely redesign production of appliances, electronics, house wares, furniture, etc to be as durable and long-lived as possible; bring back appliance repairmen and such; design and build smaller housing to last for centuries and to be as energy efficient as possible, to be reconfigurable, and shareable; recycle maximally, especially aluminum cans; maximize solar and wind power; drive and accelerate more slowly; practice regenerative agriculture; reverse deforestation, plant more trees; climb more stairs; restrict spray cans;; eat and farm organic; use manual tools instead of power tools, use rakes rather than leaf blowers; push rather than power small mowers; replace lawns with vegetable gardens; compost as much as possible; more stairs, fewer elevators; promote subsidies for renewal energy, eliminate approximately 50% of all street lighting and office lighting in unoccupied buildings, motion lighting, where appropriate, and high efficiency LED and solar powered lighting. Stop fertilizing and mowing lawns
Corporations view people as consumers. As far as they see, the more, the better.
Maybe because the overwhelming amount of greenhouse gas emissions and past GHG emission increases come from affluent countries with already stable or declining populations. Also, greenhouse gas emissions are a function of economic expansion, which in modern industrial capitalism has very little or nothing to do with population growth.
This post was flagged by the community and is temporarily hidden.
None of these things you describe entail any decline in "living standard" - in fact, most of them lead to a far better quality of life than the idiotic US suburban lifestyle.
And do you honestly think that there are, aside from some of the uncontacted tribes of the Amazon basin, anyone in the world who does not know what a condom is and have access to them? The number of places in the world where parents are averaging more than 2 children is declining rapidly, but in the remaining agrarian subsistence farming/herding societies where they are, it is a rational "family planning" decision based on the socio-economic conditions they live in.
The money they plan to raise will go to the IMF/World Bank which will then lend the money out at interest to the Third World....are those the financiers you want to get rid of?
Ruckndl-Yes thanks for posting this... THE LAW OF DEMAND AND SUPPLY:.... I, the faithful American Consumer shall use the Law of Demand & Supply to drive down the need for more supply of Fossil Fuels by driving down the demand that I place on the Ecological Support Systems of this Finite planet, by driving down my usage of fossil fuels in all forms. By driving down demand, which is the Power that I have, the need for more supply is driven down, thus less need for fracking, drilling and the ilk..... Your Power as a Consumer is to NOT CONSUME fossil fuels--this will force the Suppliers to supply less and thus to extract less...
Increase the demand, the Supply will increase;;;; Drop the Demand, Supply will Decrease. We have but only one planet-- there is no Plan B. Our children and grandchildren will either greatly thank us or greatly curse us for the choices we make now (Summers, Great Waves of Change).
My reply from another thread:
But too, protest is part of a process of social movement development, and does not itself preclude, or even make less likely, the further development into a much more effective social movement. Yes?
We need a holistic movement to restructure the political economy, and it is a great sign that so many people in the past couple months are calling explicitly for the climate movement to recognize that it is inevitably about ending war.
Back to your post Matti:
You know damned well that millions of people who protest also work on other avenues to promote change, and that your caricature of the protesters' "analysis and program" is precisely, your caricature. One could even say that your post doesn't make any sense.
I have to applaud anyone for trying to do anything in the current climate. No pun intended. However, I have to wonder, yet again, why these people are talking about energy, green jobs, trade unions etc. and not one single message about switching to a plant based diet. Why is everyone ignoring this? Dealing with only 1 of the three culprits (rabid consumerism, energy and diet) will not be enough. We have to tackle all of these as soon as possible. Introduce laws banning obsoletism, remove subsidies from animal agriculture and fossil fuel companies. Focussing on 1 only will deal a huge blow to our chances of weathering the coming storms. We need wholesale behavioural change. Otherwise, we are wasting our time. And for people blaming population, try to remember there are 70 billion farm animals compared to 7 billion humans and they consume far more food, water and use much more land that humans. Of course, they ain't buying 60 inch plasma bad boy TVs but as for sustainability of water and food, the human population is NOT the problem, it's the farm animals.
"Dealing with only 1 of the three culprits (rabid consumerism, energy and diet) will not be enough. We have to tackle all of these as soon as possible. Introduce laws banning obsoletism, remove subsidies from animal agriculture and fossil fuel companies. Focusing on 1 only will deal a huge blow to our chances of weathering the coming storms."
Cut subsidies to climate killers, yes. But also reinvest in positive programs. As i wrote about the agriculture part of the equation, in a couple of threads here in recent days:
"... we need policies, programs, investment and subsidies to promote the economic viability of whole-systems, carbon-sequestering, labor-intensive agroecological, Permaculture and biodynamic farming."
And i would add, ending war needs to be at the top of our agenda, co-equal with the rest of it.
Of course, the money saved through removing subsidies needs to be put to use in positive ways and not in tax cuts to the wealthy. That goes without saying. Improve subsidies for clean energy, subsidies for ecologically sound agricultural practices and also for technological innovation. Of course, none of this is going to happen and we all know it. So, I guess the next question is what are WE going to do about it? Marching in the streets hasn't worked yet. Maybe Mr. Mud is right and a global economic meltdown needs to be pursued? How would this be pursued though?
Population growth is not the immediate problem but it is not a subject to be ignored. Not only is population increasing, but with capitalism's insatiable appetite for ever more consumers it is making sure more and more people enter the consumer realm. As any educated person can certainly deduce this cannot continue on a finite earth with finite resources. My only conclusion then is that the mostly well educated extremely rich ultra minority think they will somehow survive the coming world holocaust with their wealth intact and with a very reduced world population. They believe that they can then continue along their merry capitalistic way into the next future! Sounds like fiction, but our world "leaders" are steering us along their own fictional path to destruction.