Seven things everyone should know about the Private Finance Initiative

The Private Finance Initiative is a big part of the privatisation that's killing the NHS, so why aren’t any of the main parties opposed to it?

1. What is PFI?

Rather than Central Government directly funding infrastructure works like schools or hospitals, Private Finance Initiative (PFI)  means a consortium of private sector banks and construction firms finance, own, operate and lease them back to the UK taxpayer, over a period of 30-35 years.

PFI financing of public infrastructure is now in use across the NHS, as well as the Departments for Education, Local Government, Defence, Transport, and Justice.

2. How much PFI debt do we owe?

UK taxpayers now owe £305 billion in PFI repayments across 700+ projects for the next 30 years. 

3. Do PFI deals provide value for money?

PFI deals have been universally criticised as horrendous value for taxpayers, likened to “paying for a hospital on your credit card” by BBC Panorama.

PFI is significantly more expensive than Government funded projects with the cost of borrowing at least two times higher than Government financed works according to a 2011 HM Treasury Report.

PFI rewires the relationship between the citizen and the state, so that our public services are no longer owned by, or directly accountable to us. 

4. Who is to blame for PFI?

Private Finance Initiative (PFI) schemes were introduced to the UK under the John Major Government in the 1990s, with the first PFI project [Skye Bridge] tested in Scotland. 

Tony Blair’s New Labour Government significantly expanded PFI as a convenient way of funding public infrastructure “off balance sheet.”

Despite frequently calling for an end to "Labours flawed PFI program" whilst in opposition, in 2011 Chancellor George Osborne rebranded and continued the PFI gravy train under the "PFI 2" banner.

5. What impact is PFI having on the NHS?

NHS Trusts owe £80bn in PFI loan repayments and “unitary charges,” the technical term describing the extortionate ongoing running costs of maintainingPFI hospitals via PFI - where private contractors are granted 30-year monopoly rights to deliver maintenance and services.

Next year alone, NHS Trusts will make some £2bn in PFI repayments - but the issue was conveniently ignored by the NHS England 5 year plan.

The number of NHS Trusts in financial trouble has doubled in the last financial year.

6. What can we do about PFI?

A public movement is building to fight back against the PFI scam.

At The People vs PFI Conference this month at the London School of Hygiene and Tropical Medicine, activists, professionals and academics came together to call for an end to the madness of PFI. 

Practical examples abounded. Dexter Whitfield discussed the PFI project across Europe and highlighted the need for movement building to oppose it. David Price set out the sorry history of PFI in the NHS, and Stuart Hodkinson explained why PFI is no answer to housing problems in Lambeth and Islington. 

Ann Pettifor set out how solutions must also address the issue of money creation and capital controls. Nick Hildyard explained how PFI (also known as PPP) is a key tool of neoliberal capitalism, being used globally to extract finance, and Ashley Seagar highlighted how PFI damages ‘intergenerational fairness’.

The conference also focused on finding ways of organising locally to demand solutions to PFI.

Participants heard how to get stories into the media, research the dodgy deals, follow the money and build a movement, with workshops led by experts from Focus E15 mums, UK Uncut, Spinwatch, World Development Movement and others.

Check out the Storify and follow us on Twitter for more - @PplVsPFI and #PplVsPFI . 

7. Who is listening on PFI?

The question remains, who within our political establishment is listening? 

Shadow Chancellor Ed Balls said this weekend that ‘only Labour can save the NHS and deliver a recovery that works for all’. Labour have also pledged to solve the affordable housing crisis.

But in his Labour Party conference speech this year, Balls promised:  “no proposals for any new spending paid for by additional borrowing".

So where’s finance for investment in hospitals, housing and other infrastructure to come from? If not from traditional government borrowing, the suspicion must be that the Labour party, under Ed Balls economic stewardship, would instead continue to spend via the taxpayer-funded, off balance sheet, rip-off PFI credit card.

People vs PFI called up Shadow Health Secretary Andy Burnham for clarification on the Labour party line ahead of our PFI conference a couple of weeks back.

Would Burnham commit to no new PFI deals in the NHS, we asked?

His spokesperson  responded: “PFI policy is for HM Treasury to determine.”

So People vs PFI called up Ed Balls.

His office declined to even comment.

Hardly the stuff that inspires confidence in Labour’s commitment to saving the NHS!

Continuing PFI costs the taxpayer much more over the long term. It allows private financiers and construction firms to make a killing out of public infrastructure, privately owned via offshore tax havens. It captures fewer benefits captured locally in the form of tax receipts and wage growth. And it ensures our public services are non-transparent, unaccountable to local citizens, and set up to fail for future full privatisation.

It’s absurd for the Labour party to claim fiscal responsibility with one hand, and to propose more PFI with the other. 

Ed Balls should make a radical departure from Labour’s failed PFI experiment, and admit publicly that Government financing of infrastructure is always cheaper than private sector finance.

Like this piece? Please donate to OurNHS here to help keep us producing the NHS stories that matter. Thank you. 

Written by Joel Benjamin and first published at Our Kingdom

What is Ecosocialism? – Part 2

In the first part of this exploration of ecosocialism, we looked at the theory. In part two we turn to some practical approaches that we can take in the here and now.

If the cause of our ecological problems is the capitalist system, and because we as humans are part of the planet’s ecosystem, it is bad for the people too, then it follows that ecosocialists must work towards toppling this system and replacing it with something which is better. The changes that are needed would make capitalism so unrecognisable, that it would not really be capitalism anymore. We must reject the false notion of eco-capitalism or eco-liberalism as at best piecemeal or at worst greenwash.

This is a daunting challenge though. Capitalism has an extremely strong ‘force-field’ so much so that most people can’t even imagine the world without it. But things can change. In my lifetime, I never imagined I would see the fall of the Berlin Wall or Nelson Mandela become president of South Africa, so we mustn’t be overawed or despondent. Social change, when it happens, can be very swift indeed. Time, of course is not on our side with things like climate change, but capitalism has regular bouts of crisis, as at present, which will always afford us the opportunity to bring about its demise.

There are a few things we can do now. The slogan of Green Left is ‘organise, educate, agitate’, and this provides an outline guide of how we should begin to bring about the transformation that is so badly needed.

One of the weaknesses with the anti-capitalist movement of recent years is that it is negative by its very nature. It is fine to be ‘anti’ things, and we should certainly support this movement, but we should also say what we are for, and with some credibility, so we can’t be just dismissed as dreamers. 

One such way, is to form what are known as pre-figurative ensembles. These ensembles are a snap shot of what a future ecosocialist society would look like. There are plenty vehicles already around where this can be pursued, like Occupy, UK Uncut, People’s Assembly, as well as many other social movements. Also, we should involve ourselves in things like local food, energy and transport co-operatives. There must be thousands of ‘islands’ of ecosocialism all over the world, and the aim is to form these into a great archipelago of ecosocialism which can have real influence.

Trotsky was no ecococialist, although there is a bit of Trot in my thinking, so these pre-figurations can also be seen as ‘transitional demands’ or as I prefer to call them, ‘transformative demands’. We should always oppose privatisation of our public services in favour of social and community ownership. Other organisations such as trade unions, political parties and resident’s associations can be used to press our demands too. Unions are moving in an eco direction with some appointing environment reps and resident’s associations will campaign against things like fracking and for other environmental causes, which we can use to spread our philosophy, but I’m going to concentrate here on political parties.

There are, in the UK, a few small parties that claim to be ecosocialist. The Alliance for Green Socialism (AGS), have their roots in Militant Tendency who were expelled from the Labour party in the 1980s but are only a presence in parts of Yorkshire. I have my doubts about them being truly ecosocialist. The recently formed Left Unity (LU) say they are ecosocialist, as do at least two of their party affiliates, Socialist Resistance (SR) and Revolutionary Socialism in the 21^st Century (RS21). RS21 were formed recently after the implosion of the Socialist Workers Party (SWP).

Then of course there is the Green party, which is much bigger and includes Green Left which is ecosocialist, if the party as a whole is not quite there yet. I chose this route because the potential here is much larger than the tiny sects already mentioned, but the task is similar with whichever party you choose. That is, greening the red parties and reddening the Green party, all of which is a work in progress. This blog, in part, is an attempt to do this.

It should be stated that ecosocialists do not subscribe to the Leninist ‘vanguard party’ approach. No, we think that we have to bring the people with us, every step of the way, or we will be unsuccessful.This is where the social movements and pre-figurative ensembles mentioned above come into play.

Ecosocialism must also be internationalist, given the challenges of contemporary global capitalism. There are ecosocialist currents all around the world, and an Ecosocialist International has been formed, and you can see the third version of the Ecosocialist Manifesto which was recently agreed here at the a meeting in Peru.

In South America ecosocialism has made its most influential contribution to government of anywhere in the world. In Peru, Cuba, Ecuador, Venezuela and especially in Bolivia, ecosocialist movements of mainly indigenous peoples have managed to elect eco-friendly socialist governments. This offers an alternative to neo-liberal orthodoxy, to which we can point as evidence, to the prevailing ‘there is no alternative’ (TINA) as Margaret Thatcher used to say, mantra of the ring wing media.

There was once, an open Ecosocialist International email list, which was great for sharing our experiences around the world. I found out from this list there are three ecosocialist parties in the Greek SYRIZA movement. The internet and social media make it easier for us to communicate with the like minded of the world and I would like to see this reinstated. (I think it was hacked and was closed down). There is a forum on the Ecosocialist Unite site, but you need to register and it doesn’t have many members.

So, cautious cause for optimism then, but I am in no doubt that replacing capitalism with ecosocialism, will require a revolution. It should be made clear however, that this will be a peaceful revolution, although I am not so naïve as to think that the powers that be will give up without a fight. But we have seen violent revolutions lead to tyranny from a new group of rulers once ensconced in power. I’m with Emma Goldman when she said, ‘If I can't dance, I don't want to be part of your revolution’.

So, there you have it. We have just skimmed the surface here really, but I hope this gives you some idea of the philosophy and a little hope for the future.

The IPCC report: Between nightmare and revolution

THE IPCC SOUNDS THE ALARM

The International Panel on Climate Change has now published its fifth Synthesis Report along with a Summary for Policy Makers. The diagnosis is no surprise:

• Global warming is advancing. It is mainly caused by burning fossil fuels, and the negative consequences are more important than the positive effects.
• It is probably still possible to avoid an average temperature increase  of more than 2°C compared to the pre-industrial period, but the policies followed for the last twenty years will lead to a warming of between 3.7 and 4.8 °C (between 2.5 and 7.8 °C, taking uncertainty into account) and “high risk of severe, widespread, and irreversible impacts globally.”

A palpable concern

The evaluation made in this fifth report is not fundamentally different from previous ones, but the confidence level of the warning is greater. Some areas of uncertainty are becoming clearer and the authors’ concern is more obvious than ever.

The phrase “virtually certain” (more than 99% probability) is used more and more in describing the likelihood this or that phenomenon. For instance, several centuries of melting  permafrost and rising sea levels are now considered “virtually certain,” even if emissions are drastically reduced,

Behind the “objective” scientific tone of the report, the IPCC is clearly sounding an alarm. The experts’ concern is palpable. This is particularly apparent in the fact that the summary for policy makers contains a section on the increased risk of “irreversibility and abrupt changes” beyond 2100.

For example, we read that “The threshold for the loss of the Greenland ice sheet over a millennium or more, and an associated sea-level rise of up to 7 m, is greater than about 1°C but less than about 4°C of global warming.” So limiting the temperature rise to 2°C does not completely eliminate the risks of very profound changes to Earth’s ecosystems. [2]

Fossil fuels, the main culprits

The media regularly repeats statements that blame methane gas produced by ruminants and CO2 emissions caused by deforestation. There is some truth in these claims, but the IPCC puts the record straight: “Emissions of CO2 from fossil fuel combustion and industrial processes contributed about 78% of the total greenhouse gas emissions increase from 1970 to 2010, with a similar percentage contribution for the increase during the period 2000 to 2010.” A graph showing the amount of the different gasses between 1970 and 2010 confirms that the main problem is the use of coal, oil and natural gas as energy sources.

This conclusion is crucial when it comes to developing solutions. The IPCC experts synthesized existing literature on models of “mitigation” of global warming. They describe eight different scenarios, depending on the level at which the atmospheric concentration of the greenhouse gasses is stabilized by the end of this century. For each scenario, a table shows the emission reductions of emissions that would be required between 2050 and 2100 and the probability that temperature increase would stay below a given level, (1.5°, 2°, 3°, 4°C)  compared to the pre-industrial period. In every scenario, reducing CO2 emissions from burning fossil fuels plays a central role.

Scenarios: between nightmare and revolution

The least restrictive scenario is the one in which emissions continue to rise at approximately the current rate. In this case, the probability of going beyond a 4°C rise, is “more likely than not.” The list of social and ecological disasters resulting is long and nightmarish. For human health, for example, the report states that “the combination of high temperature and humidity in some areas for parts of the year is expected to compromise common human activities, including growing food and working outdoors (high confidence).” The productivity of agriculture and fisheries will be severely affected. Biodiversity loss will accelerate.

At the other extreme of possibilities, a small number of studies consider stabilization of the atmospheric concentration at 430ppm of CO2e [3]. But this is the current level, and the effort necessary to maintain it will be extremely restrictive, even colossal. In 2050, global emissions will need to be cut 70 % to 95 % (below the 2010 level); by 2100, they must fall 110% to 120 % [4]. The Summary for Policy Makers says no more about that.

That scenario implies a revolutionary reorientation of all areas of life, but it is the only one that offers a chance of avoiding global warming above 1.5°C, the objective that many scientists (including the president of the IPCC!) consider necessary.

In practice, the report focuses on two scenarios: stabilization at 450 ppm and  at 500 ppm. In those cases, they estimate the chance of achieving a 2°C  maximum as “likely” (more than 66% probability), “more likely than not”, or “as likely as not.” Staying beneath 1.5°C is barely possible with stabilization at 450 ppm, but the chance is very slim (“more unlikely than likely”).

A gigantic difficulty

These scenarios allow a (small) margin for an increase of greenhouse gasses in the atmosphere from continued burning of fossil fuels for a limited time, but the constraints would nevertheless be severe. For example, to stabilize at 450 ppm, world emissions have to decrease by 42% to 57% by 2050 and by 78% to 118% by 2100, compared to 2010. In 2050, the amount of energy produced with zero or very low carbon intensity, must increase by 90% on a worldwide scale[5]. The fact that 78% of emissions are CO2 from burning of fossil fuels and that this represents 80% of the energy used by humanity, shows the magnitude of the difficulty.

There is of course a technical dimension, which I won’t consider here. There are, above all, social and political dimensions. The report insists on a just distribution of effort among countries based on their historical responsibility, on technology sharing, on the need for international collaboration, on the importance of combining the fight against climate change and the fight against poverty, on the ethical imperatives of this combination and on the challenge posed for the human species. These are crucial issues which potentially challenge the logic of neoliberalism. No previous IPCC report as previously delivered such a message so forcefully.

‘Devalue the assets’

There is a another social difficulty about which  the Summary for Policy Makers has little to say, despite its importance. At a certain point we read: “Mitigation policy could devalue fossil fuel assets and reduce revenues for fossil fuel exporters, but differences between regions and fuels exist (high confidence). Most mitigation scenarios are associated with reduced revenues from coal and oil trade for major exporters (high confidence).”

These two little sentences refer to a crucial issue: in order to stay below 2°C of warming, 80% of current known reserves of fossil fuels must stay in the soil and never be extracted. But these stocks are part of the assets of the oil companies and of the ruling families in producing States. It is a euphemism to write that a policy of mitigation could devalue fossil fuel assets. In reality, any mitigation policy worthy of the name will lead to the pure and simple destruction of most such capital.

The bosses of the fossil energy sector are well aware the danger. That’s why they have massively financed the “climate deniers” and by doing that have won themselves some time. But in the long run, it is unlikely that the lies of these charlatans can cover up the disturb scientific evidence presented by the IPCC. That is why emphasis is increasingly being put on the search for “realistic” mitigation policies that are compatible with maintaining the profits of the bosses in the coal, oil and natural gas sectors.

Challenging capital

Carbon capture and geological sequestration (CCS) has a strategic place in this, and the report by the IPCC attaches much importance to it. But don’t be confused by the media’s focus on the “good news” that remaining below the 2°C will reduce growth by only 0.06%. That figure is mentioned in the report, but it also says that is was calculated on the assumption of massive deployment of Carbon Capture and Sequestration. According to the report, the energy transition needed between now and 2030 will require investment of several hundreds billions dollars per year, globally. That’s a pretty enough sum … but without CCS, the price would increase by 138%, even 200%.

However, the role of fossil fuels is only one aspect of a much larger question: the logic of accumulation is at stake. It has become a cliché to say that infinite growth is impossible on a finite world. Since the energy conversion process itself will generate significant new emissions, radically reducing emissions between now until 2050 will require reducing final energy consumption to a degree and in ways that challenge logic of “always more” energy. To put the matter briefly: we must reduce material production and transportation.

This is possible without harming the quality of life (on the contrary, while increasing it) if we abolish all useless and harmful production, planned obsolescence, the ridiculous amount of transport required by globalization, etc. It is possible without destroying jobs (on the contrary, while creating jobs) if we share work, wealth, knowledge and technologies. But each of those options leads inevitably to the same conclusion: we have to challenge capital as such.

The majority of researchers who create mitigation models do not take this possibility into account. For them, accumulation is part of the landscape, a law of nature. So in addition to CCS, most strategies include expansion of nuclear energy and massive burning of biomass. These are, so to speak, repair patches on accumulation. The Summary for Policy Makers does mention some risks of those technologies, especially competition between food production and biomass, but the IPCC only compiles existing studies and is therefore dependent on them.

More than an ecological struggle

The Paris summit (COP21) at the end of 2015 is supposed to deliver a climate accord. The IPCC report puts everyone’s responsibilities squarely in front of them. We expect it to play an important role.But the governments won’t consider anticapitalist alternatives. The contours of the catastrophe are becoming more certain, more visible, and more frightening, while hundreds of millions of poor people are already the first victims of global warming. At best, the government negotiators will only be able to concoct — behind closed doors — a climate agreement which will be ecologically insufficient, socially unjust, and technically dangerous at the technical level. Recent decisions by the European Union show this danger clearly.

The possibility of another road depends on social mobilization. Because this is more than an ecological question: the human challenge is fundamental, and the choices of society and civilization will determine everything else. Our opponents are powerful. Only collective action of all the oppressed and exploited can drive them back.

From now on, we must use the alarm issued by the IPCC. to build the largest front possible in favour of a social and ecological alternative. In a word: ecosocialism.

---

Footnotes

1. The IPCC is composed of three working parties whose work centers on: (1) the science of climate change; (2) its impact and adaptation to it; and, (3) mitigation strategies. Each working party writes a report that is published with its own a Summary for Policy Makers. The reports are written by scientists. The Summaries for Policy Makers are co-written by scientists and state representatives who speak on behalf of their governments.
2. In the short term (from now until 2100),  it is possible to limit (more than 66% probability) to keep sea level rise at about forty centimetres. But this projection does not include the disintegration of the most fragile part of the ice cover of the Antarctic. Two American researchers warned six months ago that this disintegration has started and is impossible to stop: this will inevitably bring a rise of 1.80m during the coming 300 to 400 next years.
3. The concentration of gas is expressed in parts per million (ppm: the number of molecules of a given gas per one million molecules). The radiative power (warming capacity) of different greenhouse gasses is translated into the radiative power of CO2, we call it CO2 equivalent (CO2e).
4. A decrease of more than 100% means that the Earth absorbs more greenhouse gasses than it produces, which is possible if large surfaces are planted with trees which absorb CO2 through photosynthesis.
5. The constraints are analogous for the two other scenarios

Written by Daniel Tanuro and first published at Climate and Capitalism 

What is Ecosocialism? – Part 1

Well, I have set myself some task here, to explain this philosophy in two short blog posts, when people much smarter than me have written whole books on the subject, but here we go anyway. In this first part we will look at the theory.

Ecosocialism at its basic level is a fusion between green (eco) and red (socialism) approaches to political economy. But it is not quite as straightforward as that. So it may be best to begin by stating what ecosocialism isn’t.

Green politics has many strains of influence from the right, left and centre of more traditional political thinking but at its heart is a concern for the ecology of the planet and all creatures that live on it. So far, so good.

Someone like James Lovelock who came up with the Gaia hypothesis, which postulates that the biosphere is a self-regulating entity with the capacity to keep our planet healthy by controlling the interconnections of the chemical and physical environment, is from one strain. This type of thinking is commonly known as ‘deep ecology’, and its many critics (ecosocialists amongst them) tend to view it as ‘anti-human’ since mankind gets the blame for much of the ecological damage we see. 

There is a truth in this of course, but to put the emphasis on often the poorest human beings and see our species as somehow separate, even alien from the rest of the planet’s ecology is to massively miss the point.

The ‘too many people’ population brigade are from the deep ecology category, and this Malthusian thinking is the polar opposite of ecosocialism. The deep greens want to drastically reduce human population, and although they don’t often go into detail about how this would be achieved, I’ve always thought it has fascist undertones. Indeed, Hitler is said to have been an animal lover and vegan!

Other variants of ecological thinking tend to stress theories like bio-regionalism, which is less objectionable, but still yearns for a bygone age when people didn’t travel far and populations were relatively low. The native American tribes are often cited as living the bio-regional way, before the Europeans came along and spoilt it all.

Most Green parties around the world adopt a form localism as their main policy platform, and this ecological philosophy which is, at its core, a kind of neo-Smithian (Adam Smith) theory, where small, localised businesses offer a competitive and localised economy. This is relatively soft on the environment, whilst also ensuring diversity between nations and regions, it is essentially a form of liberalism. Often local currencies are championed along with good ecological practices such as organic farming and using renewable energy sources.

In the red corner, ecosocialism (like some other forms of socialism) is definitely not like the twentieth century authoritarian socialism of the Soviet Union and its satellites or China. Ecosocialists view this first epoch socialism as ‘state capitalism’, and not really socialism at all, with its obsession with production as well as being if anything even more damaging than capitalism to the environment. Of course, there were logical reasons for this, being under threat from hostile capitalist states all around them, but this departure from real socialism was disastrous to the cause. 

This socialist model of aping capitalism in the end led to its downfall, and the notion of this as an alternative philosophy appears to have been tossed into the dustbin of history now anyway.

It should also be made clear that ecosocailism is different from Western social democracy (or as some call it ‘democratic socialism’), although the Green parties that ecosocialists often inhabit, often conform to this type of politics (as more traditionally practiced in the last century), rather than the neo-liberal lite approach of parties such as Labour these days.

So, to return to the opening question, what exactly is ecosocialism? Fundamentally it is an eco-centric socialism. The effective cause of the ecological problems that are all too familiar is capitalism, with its need to grow, exponentially, relentlessly over time. Logic suggests that this is impossible, where resources are finite, but if it doesn’t grow, then capitalism is thrown into crisis, and will eventually die. But this doesn’t mean that a whole lot of damage can't be done in the meantime, as we see with climate change.

Ecosocialism stresses the need to cooperate, rather than compete, to share rather than to horde selfishly, and to conserve rather than exploit. All this is applicable to the wellbeing of the people as well as the planet.

A very important concept in ecosocialist thinking is the ‘commons’. This thread goes way back in history, probably as old humanity itself. ‘Primitive’ societies were often based around a commons concept and the earliest stories about Robin Hood in England were of the fight against commons enclosures, by the crown or nobility. History is littered with the desire of the powerful to enclose and then profit from common land. The Diggers during the English civil war are another example of people trying to establish commons against the tide of enclosure.

It was brought home to me a few years ago when I visited Senegal in west Africa. I spoke to a local fisherman who complained about the factory fishing boats from Japan, Russia and the European Union. He said whilst the local fishermen fished in balance with nature, these ships were hoovering up all the fish, and it was becoming more difficult to catch enough to survive on. It struck me, that this was another example of the commons, which was working perfectly well for people and fish, being enclosed by capitalism and unbalancing nature and starving the people.

There is a debate about whether Karl Marx was ecosocialist, where some say he was, for example his concept of a ‘metabolic rift’ between man and nature caused by capitalism. On the other hand, some see him as essentially a productivist. Personally, I don’t care one way or the other. I think Marx had his green side but also I can see the other view too. Maybe he just didn’t get around to fully joining up the eco side of his thinking with the rest. 

Where ecosocialists are at one with Marx, is the centrality of production for ‘use value’ as opposed to ‘exchange value’, as under capitalism. I don’t have enough room here to go into this deeply, but in short, production should be for need, and not to make money.

There are lots of ecosocialist writers if you want learn more, for example, Joel Kovel, Sarel Sarker and Green Left’s own Derek Wall, and ecofeminist writers (which is a very similar philosophy) like Maria Myes and Shiva Vandana.

In part 2, we’ll look at what we can do in practical terms.  

   

Book Review - Safe Planet: Renewable Energy Plus Workers' Power - John Cowsill

Book Review: Can Marxist ideas help save the planet?

Those of us involved in the struggle for climate action are very aware how time is running out for the planet.  There are two sides to the problem: the technical and the political.  We need to understand whether there is a solution using currently available technology that can be applied in time, but also why progress is so difficult and slow that many of us are beginning to despair.

John Cowsill’s new and important book is in two parts, considering both these aspects.  In the first part he tackles the technical question.  Do the numbers add up?  He takes on some prominent commentators on climate change, George Monbiot and Prof. David Mackay (author of Sustainability without the Hot Air), both of them on record saying that renewables cannot supply all the energy we need, and takes their arguments apart, pointing out logic and arithmetic errors.  He then takes us step by step through the relevant calculations to show how the UK can convert to 100% renewables and how quickly we need to do it. His approach is that of an engineer. The devil is in the detail and we need to understand his arguments if we are to hold our own in discussions about the feasibility of what we advocate.

John’s scheme is based more or less completely on wind turbines, and contains some ingenious ideas about how we can solve the problems and drawbacks of wind power. His is just one of several books working out in some detail how we could decarbonise our energy generation.  None of them need to be considered compulsory blueprints for the transition to a zero-carbon economy, but together they form a convincing body of evidence that should give us hope.

But here’s the rub.  The problem is one that can only be solved on a government and international scale and the political will is conspicuously absent.  John tackles this in the second part of his book.

Identifying the cause of the problem as capitalism and the drive for profits, and the solution as the agency of the working class is something many readers of this website will broadly agree on. Connecting that simple position to an analysis that would guide the movement for climate action and allow it to move forward has proved to be much more difficult.

Presumably addressing the many activists who are not Marxists, John devotes an entire chapter to a broad but very detailed coverage of classical Marxist economics and the politics of the revolutionary left. The chapter is somehow isolated from the rest of the book and I fear will not convince many of those for whom this material is not already their bread and butter.

John’s final chapter is better at drawing the two strands of this problem together. His attempt to bring revolutionary socialist politics to bear on the urgent problem of climate change is a brave and much needed step. He urges us to join a union, but what about the Campaign against Climate Change trade union group?  What about the explosion of anti-fracking activity?  Mostly they are not Marxist, but they have a potential to learn in struggle. So what should Marxists be discussing with them?   It’s disappointing that John fails to connect theory with the practice of climate action in the here and now.

Written by Ewa Barker and first published at RS21

First World War - Dulce et Decorum Est by Wilfred Owen

This is probably Wilfred Owen's best known poem about the horrors of World War 1, which some right wingers (Michael Gove for example) are trying to revise the history of it to make out it was some sort of noble conflict. It was a disgusting slaughter for which the establishment should apologise. Anyway, Wilfred Owen says it all much better than I can. The title is ironic.

Bent double, like old beggars under sacks,

Knock-kneed, coughing like hags, we cursed through sludge,

Till on the haunting flares we turned our backs,

And towards our distant rest began to trudge.

Men marched asleep. Many had lost their boots,

But limped on, blood-shod. All went lame; all blind;

Drunk with fatigue; deaf even to the hoots

Of gas-shells dropping softly behind.

Gas! GAS! Quick, boys!—An ecstasy of fumbling

Fitting the clumsy helmets just in time,

But someone still was yelling out and stumbling

And flound’ring like a man in fire or lime.—

Dim through the misty panes and thick green light,

As under a green sea, I saw him drowning.

In all my dreams before my helpless sight,

He plunges at me, guttering, choking, drowning.

If in some smothering dreams, you too could pace

Behind the wagon that we flung him in,

And watch the white eyes writhing in his face,

His hanging face, like a devil’s sick of sin;

If you could hear, at every jolt, the blood

Come gargling from the froth-corrupted lungs,

Obscene as cancer, bitter as the cud

Of vile, incurable sores on innocent tongues,—

My friend, you would not tell with such high zest

To children ardent for some desperate glory,

The old Lie: Dulce et decorum est

Pro patria mori. (It is sweet and right to die for your country).

The joined-up policies of the Green Party

Is it any wonder that much of the mainstream media and political elite are attempting to exclude the Green Party from the television election debates?

With two recent national polls on voting intentions showing the Green Party ahead of the Liberal Democrats, it can only be a matter of time before the latter disappear into the oblivion of the “Other parties” category.

These results can only strengthen the Greens’s call to be included in the 2015 televised general election debates, which, if successful, will give the Greens the opportunity to reach millions of voters. And presuming party leader Natalie Bennett does her job what viewers should hear about is the party’s holistic policies that have countless positive, and sometimes surprising, knock-on effects on the rest of society.

Take the Green Party’s manifesto commitment of making 35-hours the standard full-time work week in the UK. Most obviously, as the UK has some of the longest full-time working hours in Europe, this would reduce the amount of hours people spend in paid work. Who could possibly object to this?

More seriously, there are many more important spin-offs as well. Ill health and stress from overwork would likely reduce.  The New Economics Foundation argues moving towards a shorter working week “would help break the habit of living to work, working to earn, and earning to consume.” This, in turn, would give people an opportunity to focus on friends and family, voluntary work, pastimes and other non-paid activities. From a feminist perspective, less hours at work would make it more likely domestic labour and childcare could be more evenly balanced between women and men. A move away from earning to consume would also help to address the climate chaos that is already engulfing the global. “A number of studies have found that shorter work hours are associated with lower greenhouse gas emissions and therefore less global climate change”, noted a 2013 report from the Center for Economic and Policy Research. “The relationship between these two variables is complex and not clearly understood, but it is understandable that lowering levels of consumption, holding everything else constant, would reduce greenhouse gas emissions.”

Another key Green Party concern is to reduce private car use and increase funding for public transport. First, this would lead to a reduction in exhaust pollution that contributes to thousands of deaths a year. Fewer cars would also mean less traffic noise, which can have a negative effect on stress and sleep quality. Fewer cars on the road means a safer road environment which would lead to more people cycling and walking. And more people cycling and walking means more people will be getting more exercise. And people who take regular exercise are less likely to be overweight and depressed. And less overweight and depressed people means a reduction in numerous associated health problems, which will mean less stress on the NHS.

And like the 35-hour week, a reduction in private car use helps to address the Green Party’s core concern – climate change. And addressing climate change itself has many welcome spin offs – from consciously weaning the world off fossil fuels before they run out at a time and place not of our choosing to all the positive social impacts I mention above. Taking a global view, Naomi Klein argues in her incendiary new book This Changes Everything: Capitalism vs. The Climate “Many of the changes that need to be made to dramatically cut emissions would also materially benefit the quality of life for the majority of people on the planet.”

In contrast to the Green Party’s joined-up thinking, arguably the headline policy for all the three main parties is austerity (the Greens are in favour of a Green New Deal). And using the same ‘dropping a pebble in a pond’ logic, we know this (highly ideological, counterproductive) belt-tightening has had, and will continue to have, a never-ending stream of negative consequences for wider society. Rather than being ‘all in this together’, austerity politics have led to increased levels of inequality, which Professor Richard Wilkinson and Professor Kate Pickett have shown has a deleterious effect on a whole range of issues from social mobility to mental health, drug use, obesity and trust of other people.

Austerity means more people living in poverty, more people visiting food banks, more depression and more suicides, as Dr David Stuckler explains in his 2013 book The Body Politic. More broadly, the political elite’s austerity obsession pushes society closer towards social breakdown, leading to both organised, overtly political resistance and more spontaneous, often criminal mass actions like 2011’s nationwide riots.

With the possibility of millions of voters being presented with these radically different political visions of the future, is it any wonder that much of the mainstream media and political elite are attempting to exclude the Green Party from the television election debates?

Written by Ian Sinclair and first published at Our Kingdom