Impact of European policies on the Global South and possible alternatives

 First published at CADTM

The year 2020 was marked by two events that revealed, once again, the limits of the capitalist system. First, the CoViD-19 pandemic caused by the new coronavirus SARS-CoV-2, responsible for the deaths of several hundred thousand people and counting, highlighted the vulnerability of human societies in the absence of adequately funded public health services. It also served to highlight which activities are essential to the existence of human societies. 

Second, the pandemic precipitated the greatest economic crisis since the 1930s. By revealing the fragility of societies where exchanges are extremely rapid and production chains are internationalized, the pandemic also revealed the most irrational aspects of the economic system that governs and structures social relations in almost all parts of the world. Thus, capitalism appears to be incapable not only of providing for basic human needs but also of reproducing its own functioning. All governments that initially try to protect both the law of profit and their citizens’ lives inevitably find themselves tempted to defend the former against the latter. 

The neoliberal structural adjustment policies which have been pursued for decades have played an important role in increasing inequality and, ultimately, in the way the epidemic has spread. Contrary to widespread belief, the epidemic does indeed differentiate between origins and social classes, affecting in particular those at the bottom of the social ladder. It has also particularly affected countries that, on the pretext of maintaining strict fiscal discipline, have given up – or have been prevented from – building an efficient and accessible health care system. 

Thus, while many countries in the Global North are experiencing the harmful consequences of the privatizations and budget cuts that have been applied in recent decades, the countries of the South are for the most part prevented from developing efficient health care systems because of the heavy burden of debt on their public accounts. 

In the European Union, the crisis has again been marked by an inability of Member States to coordinate their responses and develop common strategies. While the small island nation of Cuba – which has been subjected to a US blockade for 60 years – sent medical teams to more than 20 countries including Italy, which was hard hit by the pandemic (this is in line with Cuba’s policy of international solidarity, as recently demonstrated in Haiti after the 2010 earthquake or in Africa against the Ebola virus), the policies of EU Member States in this area have been more than timid if not non-existent. No stockpiles of masks or medical equipment had been jointly agreed on in the EU. 

No European medical team was formed. The national retrenchment sought by the extreme right-wing forces scored a point when the various governments closed their borders (in a very disorderly manner). Only after months of prevarication do Eurozone Member States seem to have reluctantly agreed to pool a small share of their sovereign debt – a decision that the stronger states will surely make the weaker ones pay for by continuing the fierce competition that characterizes the Economic and Monetary Union. 

When it came to defending the interests of the capitalist class and their companies, on the other hand, the Member States of the EU, like the other countries of the Global North, were all able to develop a similar political orientation aimed, as in the case of the bank bailouts that took place from 2008 onwards, at socializing the losses of large companies (with no guarantee that jobs would be maintained) by injecting vast amounts of public money into them. 

In order to do this, the EU Member States did not hesitate to abandon the dogma of fiscal and budgetary discipline on the basis of which Greece and other countries on the European periphery had been designated as “bad pupils” and forced to adopt severe austerity measures during the previous crisis. European governments are thus once again agreeing to increase their public debt in order to help big capital and thus make the people pay for the crisis. 

The specific impact of the CoViD-19 pandemic in the countries of the Global South is a striking example of the accentuation of inequalities between different regions of the world. It is a situation in which the European Union and many European States have a major responsibility, because of past and present policies towards these countries of the Global South. Any force aspiring to break with the dominant capitalist order on the European continent must act to put an end to the exploitation of the peoples of the Global South.

The present work is the fruit of the ReCommonsEurope project, which we have been carrying on within the Citizens for Financial Justice consortium since 2019. 

Previously, from 2018 onwards, this project engaged the CADTM, in collaboration with the European Research Network on Social and Economic Policy (EReNSEP) and the Basque trade union Eusko Langileen Alkartasuna (ELA), in a project aimed at fuelling the debate on the measures that a popular government in Europe should prioritize. 

The present work is relevant for all social movements, peoples and political movements that seek a radical change in favour of the 99%. In line with our commitment to develop concrete proposals for dealing with immediate problems, we have chosen to call this project “Impact of European policies on the Global South and possible alternatives.” 

With this second phase, we seek to define a set of clear proposals that a popular government should implement in order to bring about real and profound change in the unjust relations between European states and the peoples of the Global South. To this end, we are engaged in a process of elaborating texts, based on joint work between activists, politicians and researchers from countries of the Global South and Global North. 

This work concerns the following areas: debts claimed by countries of the Global North – in particular European countries – from countries of the Global South; free trade agreements; migration and border management policies; militarism, the arms trade and wars; and reparation policies with regard to the spoliation of cultural property. 

In this brochure, in order to set out a general framework, we take up and adapt the chapter on international relations from the Manifesto for a New Popular Internationalism in Europe signed in 2019 by more than 160 people from 21 European countries. This manifesto was published in four languages (French, Castilian Spanish, English and Serbo-Croatian). It presents the most urgent measures concerning the following issues: money, banks, debt, labour and social rights, the energy transition in order to build eco-socialism, women’s rights, health and education, as well as more broadly international politics and the need to promote constituent processes. 

More than ever, we believe that it is essential to fuel and develop debate on alternatives to a system that increasingly shows its incompatibility with such a fundamental right as the right to lead a life of dignity.

Download the report. 

ReCommonsEurope was initiated by two international networks, the CADTM and EReNSEP, and the Basque trade union ELA, in order to contribute to the strategic debates taking place within the European popular Left today.

It was written in one year by sixteen people active in six different countries (Belgium, Bosnia, France, Greece, the Spanish State, and the United Kingdom); the authors are active in different organisations and movements (trade unions, political parties, activist movements) and bring together diverse and complementary expertise (economics, political science, philosophy, anthropology, law, ecology, unionism, feminism, North/South solidarity, and so on). Three generations are represented.

The Manifesto is supported by more than 160 signatories from 21 different European countries, among whom a majority of women.

Where the Pandemic Leaves the Climate Movement

As the entire globe is in the middle of an unprecedented pandemic, with great economic, social, and environmental consequences, it is worth recalling mass mobilisations like Extinction Rebellion and Fridays For Future which took the global scene in spring 2019. A year on, it is time to examine their claims and impact on public awareness of the climate emergency as well as current political discourse and policymaking.

Paolo Cossarini spoke with three scholars from different European countries who highlight fundamental themes these movements helped bring to the fore. What emerges is a nuanced theoretical and practical debate about citizens’ mobilisation, green transition, and the prospects of climate action.

First published at Green European Journal

Paolo Cossarini: A year ago, Extinction Rebellion (XR) shut down London’s streets, as did Fridays for Future (FFF) in cities across the globe, making headlines worldwide. In 2020, streets have been shut down once more to prevent a health crisis. One year on, how have these movements shifted the debate on climate change?

Manuel Arias-Maldonado: In my view, these movements have not been as important as the increase in extreme weather events that have shaken public opinions in the last years, creating a feeling of urgency the movements themselves can profit from. It is the sense that something is palpably changing that propels public awareness. Protest movements are relevant, among young people especially, but they would be helpless in the absence of such material conditions which are, admittedly, as much objective as they are mediated by mass media.

Susan Baker: The climate movement is positive. However, the emphasis on “listen to science” is potentially problematic in that it fails to grasp that science does not reveal the truth but aspects of what is known. Climate science is narrow: it defines the issue in the language and framework of the natural sciences, ignoring the main causes of and solutions to climate change which lie in the social world in general, and in our economic model in particular. Neither of these groups have a critical grasp of the fundamental causes of climate change.

While XR and FFF have promoted public awareness, both are very moderate voices and have, consequently, shrunk the space for radical ones. On climate action, their focus on transition favours technocratic responses as opposed to radical transformation. It is therefore likely that transition management (transition to low carbon futures that allows for business as usual), as opposed to transformation, will take centre stage in climate action.

Where do you think the Covid-19 pandemic leaves the climate movement? 

Anneleen Kenis: XR and FFF are remarkably absent in the current crisis though they seem to be slowly becoming more active again. The coronavirus pandemic might give the feeling that there are more important things to focus on now, but nothing could be further from the truth. In reality, the Covid-19 crisis is instructive because it has unveiled how societies deal with emergencies, the place of science in the public debate, and human-nature relationships. Furthermore, the pandemic could nudge us in the direction of a radically different, much more sustainable society, but it could also lead us to a society characterised by authoritarian control, moralisation, and securitisation.

There is no neutral answer to the coronavirus crisis, just as there is no neutral answer to climate change. What’s more, the pandemic continues to raise crucial questions: who will foot the bill? Will large economic sectors like the airline industry be saved with taxpayers’ money? What conditions will these sectors have to meet? Will generating even more profit and growth be an indispensable mission? Will the coronavirus-induced economic crisis be used to demarcate certain sectors as crucial and others as not? Will we invest in healthcare and public schooling instead of (polluting) companies? 

Manuel Arias-Maldonado: Nobody knows. There are reasons to think that climate action may be encouraged after the pandemic – or even during the pandemic if it doesn’t end soon – as well as to fear that the return to normality will prioritise economic growth over sustainability concerns or climate mitigation. Mobilising the public all depends on how people will feel after this is over. 

In the meantime, it may be possible to seize temporary feelings to rally support for climate-friendly coronavirus response legislation as a way to ensure a cleaner exit from the crisis. The climate movement can play a role in this mobilisation process by framing the pandemic as the first true catastrophe of the Anthropocene. However, this card should not be overplayed since the link is not always clear. Alternatively, the pandemic can be portrayed as an expression of careless modernity, one that does not take into account, for example, food security. This depiction brings globalisation and the call to make it more sustainable centre stage.

Susan Baker: It is clear that government-imposed restrictions on social gatherings have impacted the activities of climate activist groups. So far, FFF has stopped their street presence and XR have ceased their highly visible forms of public protest. They nevertheless continued their activism online throughout the lockdown. These groups relied heavily on civil protest to raise public awareness, believing that this would force governments and other key stakeholders to act. It is harder to credit posting a selfie with a placard during lockdown with the same impact. Digital activism can be easily dismissed as an individualised activity while the marches that took place in the streets, often noisily, can hardly be written off. 

In the public arena, there is a danger that the voices that speak for nature and that seek climate action will once again become marginalised. There continues to be a great deal of attention paid to how to manage the pandemic, as we would expect. At the same time, there is a lack of discussion on the underlying causes – which lie in the destruction of ecosystems for trafficking of species – and how the problem will be addressed at source. 

Despite these challenges, the quietening of our streets and the cleaning of our air during lockdowns have allowed people to see and hear nature again. Here lies the hope that people can carry this experience forward to form a new political consciousness about the environmentally destructive nature of our economic activities and the possibility of an alternative future. 

Do you think an overhaul of the relationship between our economic systems and the environment is possible in the current moment? How can we make a green transition attractive to the economic and political forces desperately trying to stay afloat and return to business as usual?

Anneleen Kenis: I would start by questioning this question: do we really have to make sustainability attractive to economic forces and industry? Or should we rather put economic forces and industry under pressure to change? The environmental movement has bought too much into the idea that we can get everyone on board if we come up with an “attractive” vision. It reinforces the idea that we can save the world with technofixes, that nothing really has to change, and that air transport does not have to be fundamentally questioned after all. We need to apply pressure now that it is possible. Or refuse to rescue them: we should simply say “no” and take proper measures to ensure that future companies do not have all the tax and other advantages that the aviation sector has. 

While a certain level of “greening” the capitalist economy is possible (capitalists can make money selling solar panels just as they make money selling coal or oil), there is a fundamental clash. This clash has several aspects and dimensions, but the huge cleavage is between pursuing economic growth and reducing pressure on the ecosystems we are fundamentally a part of. 

Manuel Arias-Maldonado: Before the pandemic, I would have answered that winning the support of economic and political forces is possible by making a green transition both unnegotiable and profitable. The transition could be framed as something unavoidable but a possible source of innovation and value. 

Now, the world has stopped for some time and I think that public perception will be impacted for two reasons. Firstly, the dangers associated with the Anthropocene have been highlighted. Secondly, lockdowns have shown that life can be better: cleaner, healthier, slower.

Additionally, the economic situation may provide governments with the opportunity to foster new energy technologies, thus giving some unexpected momentum to the green transition. Emmanuel Macron has hinted that polluted air will not be tolerated anymore. Well, this is the time to start. 

There is no one way to stop climate change but several. Some are more capitalist-friendly – by way of technological innovation and productivity and efficiency gains – while others are more community-based and depend on reducing the size of the economy. 

Susan Baker: At present, there is a dynamic interplay between pressure for change and the return to old ways. Climate change has shown that it is no longer possible to see our economic activity in isolation from its ecological and social consequences. This realisation calls upon us to question equating human progress with the domination of nature. 

Economic actors need to take responsibility for their actions. It is not a question of “making it attractive to them”. Attractive, in the traditional economic sense, means that the activity can be the source of profits. This model that allows some in society to generate excessive wealth at the cost of others, including nature, needs to change. We must change what is produced, how it is produced, evaluate who benefits, and at what cost. It would be a moral hazard to make a green transition attractive when what we need is a green transformation of society.

Do you think that there’s the potential for a paradigm shift away from an economy based on growth? What about the balance between collective and individual action?

Anneleen Kenis: There are many consumer goods with huge ecological costs for which it cannot be sincerely argued that they are essential to lead a healthy and comfortable life. The global fashion industry contributes more to climate change than shipping and aviation together. This is no surprise considering that, in the UK for instance, 300 000 items of clothes are thrown away every year [read more on the impacts of fast fashion]. A first step to promoting degrowth is banning advertisement. People are told on an almost continuous basis that they need all this stuff.

Everyone who has the capacity to make personal changes should consider doing so. However, as Giorgos Kallis argues, it is much easier, much more motivating, and more impactful to do so collectively [read about Kallis’ insights on limits and autonomy]. I decided 10 years ago not to fly anymore, but what difference does it make? If we were to make a similar commitment collectively, the impact could be huge.

Manuel Arias-Maldonado: There is no consensus on degrowth as the way to go in terms of building a particular kind of society. It would be an accepted model if it was the only way to prevent planetary collapse – which it is not. There are alternative ways to promote decarbonisation and sustainability and governments should focus on those. What’s more, economic growth still matters as a way of producing welfare and wellbeing. Degrowth must, therefore, be defended as a morally valuable choice. If it were to persuade a majority, it would be the blueprint for a new way of living.

As I see it, relying on such collective sacrifice is utterly unrealistic. Nevertheless, people should be made aware of the fact that human habitation of the planet depends on the planet’s conditions, which in turn depend on how people behave. This understanding could bring our planetary impact into focus and potentially lead to better policy and technological innovation.

Susan Baker: The growth-oriented model of development pursued by Western industrial societies cannot be carried into the future, either in its present forms or at its present pace, as evidenced by climate change. We cannot have continuous growth in a system characterised by resource limits and planetary boundaries. Climate change has been caused by a growth-orientated model, achieved through ever-increasing levels of consumption. This artificially stimulated consumption brings untold wealth for the few and impoverishment for the many. Many now also reject the idea that consumption is the most important contributor to human welfare. This new value is not compatible with capitalism. Degrowth is no longer a radical alternative, but a necessity.

A healthy society and the wellbeing of its members rests on acts of services and the sense of community rather than on consumption. Adopting this model requires changing our values so that one’s social standing is not determined by what they consume and put on display, but by how they engage in society to protect the interests of others, including those of other life forms, in ways that promote justice and equity. 

While personal change is important, structural factors can make them unsustainable. To move to a new model of economy and society, everyday actions would need to be accompanied by structural changes. As we rethink, for example, the way we travel, our food and energy consumption, the structures underlying these – trade, financial, food systems and our economic system overall – must be transformed as well. 

Anneleen Kenis is a post-doctoral research fellow of the Research Foundation Flanders (FWO), affiliated with the Division of Geography and Tourism at KU Leuven and the Department of Geography at King’s College London. Her work centres around political ecology focusing in particular on processes of politicisation and depoliticisation in relation to climate change, air pollution and genetically modified organisms.

Manuel Arias-Maldonado is an associate professor in political science at the University of Malaga, Spain. He has worked extensively on environmental issues, from a sociopolitical as well as from a philosophical standpoint. His latest book is Rethinking the Environment for the Anthropocene (2019), co-edited with Zev Trachtenberg.

Susan Baker is a Professor Emerita in the School of Social Sciences and former co-director of the Sustainable Places Research Institute at Cardiff University. Her research concerns environmental governance in the European Union, ecofeminism, gender and the environment.

So what did the Green Party's long march through the EU institutions achieve?

Written by Haroon Saad

Now that the debate regarding Brexit is over perhaps we need to move into a period of reflection and discussion regarding how effective was our 21 year presence in the European Parliament (EP).

The party has always had a very critical position regarding the EU and indeed any objective review of our current policy would conclude that we are essentially a party  that view the EU as a neoliberal club. However, the party also agreed that it would be important to engage and see what reforms could be undertaken from within.

We had MEP’s in the EP since 1999. From 1999-2014 we had two MEP’s, Jean Lambert and Caroline Lucas (who was replaced by Keith Taylor in 2010). From 2014-2019 we had three MEP’s with the addition of Molly Scott Cato.

It seems appropriate to take a review of what actually was achieved during these 20 years. With all respect to the additional MEP’s elected in June 2019, I am not going to include their short sojourn as it’s not really relevant.

In the twenty years we have been present in the EP it seems to me that whatever gains were made have been marginal. Just consider the following events that took place and which our then MEP’s actually supported:

·       The Lisbon treaty was ratified, despite having been voted down by French and Dutch Citizens in referendums, the EP simply ignored the votes of the citizens, cancelled all other planned referendums and simply proceeded to adopt what had been rejected, albeit with some procedural sleight of hand.

·       The Directive on renewable energy was endorsed in 2009, supported by our MEP’s. Sounds just the right kind of thing that we should be supporting but in fact as predicted by several NGO’s it unleashed a land grab which enslaved  and displaced hundreds of thousands of poor people across the globe and also destroyed multi flora sites by converting them into single crop use.

·        We had the Iraq war, which saw the green group in the EP, to which we belong supporting the German Greens in their support for the war.

·        We had the EU Carbon Trading Scheme which again was supported but simply resulted in large windfall profits for the biggest polluters.   

  

·        We had the Fiscal Compact, which again was supported by the Green Group, which brought into law austerity as a guiding principle and resulted in people in Greece, Spain, Portugal, Ireland, Cyprus, Italy all being subjected to non-democratic dictate.

·        We had the Citizens Initiative which was presented by our MEP’s at conference as creating real citizens power. In fact it has been nothing of the sort, simply window dressing to create the semblance that citizens could actually force legislative change.

I could go on but my aim is to simply generate an honest reflection and discussion. This may be even more necessary if we go down the road of seeking some kind of Progressive Alliance as we need to learn, in my view, from the very marginal impact we were able to exert over 20 years. 

For those of you wanting to see more, then I encourage you to visit the EP website and there you can find what actually our MEP’s did and like me, you may wonder what was the relevance of their actions.

Haroon Saad is a member of Waltham Forest Green Party and a Green Left supporter

Climate refugees could reach 300 million, a population without rights

Written by Daniela Passeri and first published at il manifesto

Between 200 million and 300 million people could be forced to migrate due to the effects of climate change by the end of the century, as long as we’re not able to keep the temperature rise below 2 degrees Celsius as set out by the Paris Agreement.

That forecast appears on the last page of the 2019 Report on the Green Economy, presented on Wednesday in Rimini, Italy on the occasion of the Ecomondo fair. Although it is difficult to make accurate and precise predictions, these numbers provide us with an order of magnitude to judge the gravity of the phenomenon.

Furthermore, the World Bank, in a report published last year entitled “Preparing for Internal Climate Migration,” estimated that 143 million people could be forced to move within their countries to escape the longterm impacts of climate change. The phenomenon will mainly affect the poorest countries, but even Italy will not be immune.

The report presented on Wednesday includes a forecast of what could happen in our country in the absence of mitigation and adaptation measures. By 2050, the number of people exposed to the risk of flooding due to rising sea levels could range from 72,000 to 90,000 (compared to 12,000 today), while by the end of the century the number could rise to between 198,000-265,000.

Globally, the largest migration movements are set to take place in around 50 countries, whose total population is expected to double by 2050. These are countries that have fewer resources to manage the risks, and whose survival depends precisely on those ecosystem services (forests, coasts, lakes and rivers) that are most under threat.

Over the past two decades, most of the migrations due to climate change have occurred in non-OECD countries — that is, those in the developing world — and 97% of the people displaced due to sudden extreme climate events between 2008 and 2013 were in countries with medium-low incomes.

If we comb through the national reports that the participant states are providing to the secretariat of the Paris Agreement, we find that 44 out of 162 countries (mainly from Africa, Asia Pacific and Oceania) make specific reference to the phenomenon of migration due to the climate, whether internal or not.

The scientists of the IPCC (Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change) also warn about this. In the report presented last summer dedicated to the soil and the risks of the degradation of ecosystems, it is emphasized that these phenomena will only amplify environmental migration, particularly in places where extreme climate events will jeopardize food safety and the very possibility of living in environments upset by rising temperatures or the desertification of soils.

Despite the great number of studies on this subject, the environmental causes of migration are not currently recognized by international law: environmental refugees have no recognized status and are therefore not entitled to any kind of protection. There is no convention on environmental refugees (and who knows how long it would take to establish one), nor can the victims of climate change be included in the category of ‘refugees’ as defined by the 1951 Geneva Convention.

Only the UN’s Global Compact for Migration, established in 2018—and which Italy’s Conte government has refused to sign—introduced among its objectives that of “develop[ing] adaptation and resilience strategies to sudden-onset and slow-onset natural disasters,” which may include drought, the consequences of deforestation, fires, famine and pollution. Even this is little more than a statement of intent.

According to Filippo Miraglia, the head of migration issues for ARCI, the issue has had the attention of the United Nations for years, but no solution has been found so far. “I think the UN Assembly could step in by adding to the attributions of the UN High Commission for Refugees that of intervening on behalf of climate migrants,“ Miraglia tells us.

“Of course, we must first define what a climate emergency is and conduct in-depth studies on what areas of the world and what local groups are more susceptible to the risks arising from climate change. The same scientists who are studying the climate are well aware of the most vulnerable areas. With the help of mapping and projections, the UNHCR would have all the means and experience needed to be able to intervene, especially in developing countries.”

The Tories are now an Exclusively English Nationalist Party

If any further evidence were needed of the direction of the contemporary Tory party, a YouGov survey of party members published last week has provided it. Sixty-three per cent of members said they would be prepared to accept Scottish independence to get Brexit, while 59 per cent said the same about a united Ireland. Just 29 and 28 per cent were opposed, respectively.

The drift towards this has been apparent for some time, with until the 2017 general election, the Tories being an endangered species in Scotland. The 2017 general election saw a recovery for the party, winning thirteen seats in Scotland. But that election was unusual in breaking the trend of the last forty years which had seen the both Labour and the Tories losing their share vote all across the UK. It looks increasing as though that election was a blip, in the trend though, rather than a sea change.

The figures quoted above are truly astonishing in many ways. The full name of the party is the Conservative and Unionist party, which refers to the union of England and Scotland, and should not to be confused with the Unionists of Northern Ireland, although these Unionists can usually be relied to support Tories, should they be needed. The union is now expendable, it seems, disregarded for their greater passion of Tory members, for Brexit.

Theresa May, the outgoing Tory prime minister, made a point of principle of not taking risks with the union with Scotland and Northern Ireland, but she is clearly in a minority in her party these days. Her stance almost certainly contributed to her downfall. The Tory party is a very different animal in 2019, to the one which May joined in the 1970s.     

Which brings us to the current bore-fest, that is the contest to replace May as leader of the party and prime minister. I have yet to hear any of the contenders express the kind of view indicated by the YouGov survey. The future of the union with Scotland and Northern Ireland has not been a topic discussed very much at all as far I can remember, especially by the most hardline Brexiteer candidates. It would be contentious of course, but the possible break-up of the union is surely a relevant issue, in contest to become the prime minister of the United Kingdom?

The contenders were trying to win support from MPs from across the party in the first stage of the election, and Tory MPs maybe not be so gung-ho about ditching the union, but this issue will not go away when a successor is chosen. Scotland and Northern Ireland voted to remain in the European Union in 2016 referendum, and that sentiment seems if anything to have strengthened. A border between Northern Ireland and the Republic of Ireland, is very unpopular with both Irish neighbours, and a hardline, no deal Brexit is very unpopular in Scotland.

Looming over the Tory leadership contest is Nigel Farage and his Brexit electoral vehicle, which is not really a party in the traditional sense, with no members and no internal democracy. I doubt Farage will shy away from splitting the union in pursuit of a pure Brexit, because he has little support in Scotland or Northern Ireland. The Brexit ‘party’ is largely an English party, with even the support it has in Wales, coming from people who live in Wales, but self-identify as English.

So, the next Tory leader will, if they want to win a future general election, either have to run the risk of splitting the union or see their party replaced (as the English national party) by Farage’s Brexit party. It would likely lead to Labour winning the next election as the right would be divided, in the winner takes all electoral system in the UK. It wouldn’t entirely surprise me if there was some kind of electoral alliance between the Tories and the Brexit party at the next election, even a merger.

It would be the beginning of the end of the union though, which many in all of the nations of the UK might well welcome, but it would signal the end of the Tory party from its historical role of defenders of the union.

Who would have thought that the English Tory party would be the catalyst to an end of over 300 years of union between England and Scotland and the admittedly overdue uniting of the island of Ireland into one independent country? The arrogant English vote is all that is left for the Tories, and they only have themselves to blame.  

Europe – Greens Surge, Older Parties Erode, Far Right Also Gains

Written by Scott Tucker and first published at Popular Resistance

The European Parliament elections saw a major decline for traditional parties and a rise in support for the Green Party and populist parties. Greens won 71 seats up from 52 in the previous election. The Greens won nine of Germany’s ten largest cities. The Greens finished third in France and second in Finland while tripling their vote in Ireland and doubling their vote in the United Kingdom.

The Green Wave seems to have been driven by the climate crisis and the inadequate action taken by traditional parties. Ska Keller, one of the European Greens’ to lead candidates for the post of European Commission president, said that any parliamentary group that wanted Green support would have to “deliver on our three key principles: climate action, civil liberties and social justice”

Green parties made stunning gains in the European Elections, due to the strength of many younger voters, the grass roots insurgency of ecological school strikes and marches, and the tenacity of Green Party activists.

The older mainstream parties, both centre-right and social democratic, received a mix of drubbing demotions and eroding support.

The far right nationalists also made gains, notably in France and Italy. The far right also gained less dramatically in Germany. See below for stories describing the election results.

There are lessons here not only for European Greens and socialists, but for class conscious popular resistance in the United States. Any left party that is not also a party of ecosocialism deserves the dustbin of history. As for the Green Party of the United States, some harsh home truths are in order.

The Green Party of the United States has a solid program of peace, economic democracy, and ecological sanity. Howie Hawkins is a fine representative of the strongly socialist wing of this party, and deserves support as a presidential candidate.

However, the Green Party must put its house in order. At the national level, there must be living wages for working members who have the job of getting the message out to the public and staffing the bigger campaigns. Donated labor can go only so far, and in electoral politics amateurism is fatal.

2020 will be a critical year for the Democratic Party, because a growing sector of young socialists will be making the effort to break the death grip of the old guard in the DNC and the DCCC. Some of the reformers will soon be bribed and recruited as party functionaries. Others will carry on trying to reform the party from within. And others will finally split to the independent left. Therefore keep the bridges of communication open.

Already, Joe Biden stands out as the very incarnation of reflexive and regressive “centrism.” He offers only one dumb drumbeat response when asked to outline actual public policies: “Defeat Trump.” Not inspiring and more importantly not strategic. Especially since career politicians of the Democratic Party labored mightily, if unwittingly, to put Trump in power. Through their crass careerism, their phony populism, and above all their corporate loyalties.

The European Elections also underscore a generational divide in politics. This does not mean that simply being young guarantees sympathy with either standard social democracy or with explicit democratic socialism. On the contrary, class loyalties also count among the young, and one European commenter noted that Macron’s base is a coalition of “hipsters and the bourgeoisie.”

People in their fifties and sixties, with a lifetime of vote by rote habits, will not easily become rebels in the voting booth. But this does not mean breaking communication with them, only being focused in our attempts to reinvent democracy from the ground up. Dismissing the whole realm of electoral politics is a dead end.

We are in the middle of a long protracted struggle involving dual power. The power of insurgent and class conscious social movements every day of the year is ours already. Then we also have the power of using strategic voting, and demanding  electoral reforms such as abolition of the Electoral College, proportional representation, and instant run off voting. We cannot wish away the obstacles, but this is a good working rule: Over, under and around.

More information:

European Election results: surprise surge for Green parties, France 24

Germany: The environment was the number one issue of concern for Germans, France 24.

European elections: youth vote credited for rise of green parties, France 24

UK: Conservative Party Gets Slammed, Gains for Farage, Gains for Greens, France 24

European Elections: Marine le Pen’s far-right party wins big in EU Parliament, France 24

French far right shows renewed strength in blow for Macron, France 24

Italy: “We’ve seen an inversion of the power balance” France 24

Far-right League becomes Italy’s largest party, after 5 Star’s support slumps in EU poll, France 24

How were the EU elections for Italy, France and Germany? Our panel respond

Climate emergency manifesto: We only have one planet. Let's save it. Now!

Written by European United Left/Nordic Green Left and first published at Links International Journal of Socialist Renewal

The latest IPCC Special Report (October 2018) is our last alarm bell for stopping mass human and environmental destruction caused by human-induced climate change. Its findings were alarming-rapid, far-reaching and unprecedented changes before the year 2030 are what is required if we are to have any chance of staying well below 1.5° global warming. 

The failure of governments to adequately deal with this man-made crisis is already impacting millions of lives, and the most vulnerable worldwide are always hit the hardest. Short-sighted market logic has delayed an adequate response for way too long. 

We need unprecedented political will to achieve an ecologically just Europe, where we accept our full climate responsibility and where our climate is not sacrificed for the profit of the few.

Climate action is our number one priority in European United Left/Nordic Green Left (GUE/NGL). We do not see it as a stand-alone struggle; it includes struggles for decent jobs, high living standards and gender and racial equality. 

We oppose polices that subordinate essential natural resources of life and common goods, like water, energy, air, a clean environment and health, to the forces of profit-seeking. We fight against capitalism, neoliberal policies and corporate capture.

The panic button needs to be hit to declare climate emergency. We need serious action now; there is no more time to waste.

A legal basis for climate justice

The principles of climate justice are central to how we approach climate action, ensuring that the transition is fair and leaves no one behind. The struggle for climate action is deeply intertwined with all human rights struggles as well as the ecological crisis. 

Climate justice needs to have a legal basis and be a fundamental value in the legal systems of the EU and Member States. Only then can climate litigation succeed in ensuring our targets meet the science and are not just political compromises. Only then can all policy work towards strong and ambitious climate goals, through the prism of climate justice.

We urgently need to:

insert climate justice into the legal bases of the EU and Member States and ensure climate policies follow the principles of climate justice

ensure just transition is at the heart of climate action, alleviate energy poverty, guarantee the right to equal access to energy and stop policies that burden vulnerable and marginalised people

ensure a long-term vision and road map to achieve all Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs) and use the SDGs as essential benchmarks for all legislative actions in every policy field, acknowledging that climate goals are related to all other SDGs

Give people, especially the youth, a voice in our climate policies and prioritise inclusive climate education

gender proof our climate mitigation and adaptation policies and create gender-sensitive and inclusive climate policies

revise the EU 2050 long-term carbon-neutral strategy to focus on climate justice, 100% renewables and early action to reach carbon neutrality by 2040 at the latest

An end to fossil fuels

A rapid and clear expiry date for fossil fuels is urgently needed to keep global warming well below 1.5°C. We believe in a right to energy, and this becomes a right to renewable energy when considering the human right to live in a safe and habitable environment. Instead of continuing to allow the fossil industry to set the agenda, we need command and control policies at EU and Member State levels. 

Our only chance lies in a sustainable, decentralised and accessible energy supply, which provides jobs and guarantees our energy sovereignty. We cannot afford to be shy in investing in this renewable future.

We urgently need to:

immediately revise our 2030 targets to commit to a reduction target of at least 65% of greenhouse gases, and revise all other climate and energy targets to what is scientifically necessary to curb global warming well below 1.5°C

commit to a fossil fuel phase out date, which includes gas, by 2030 and a rapid phase out nuclear energy and first generation biofuels, including palm oil and soy, as well as excluding the fossil fuel industry completely from all decision-making processes

move away from false ‘solutions’, gas and nuclear reliance and start realising the potential of natural carbon sinks; reject geoengineering and techno-fixes, such as carbon-capture and storage, which facilitate dirty industries

increase investment in renewable energy, energy efficiency and energy savings in all sectors

enshrine the right to renewable energy, so that energy that does not harm our planet is accessible and affordable to all

Resist the constant growth model

Global capitalism dictates constant growth, and all growth is reliant on natural resources, which are, of course, limited. Ending the constant growth model is a big task, and so immediately, measures must be taken to counteract the constant growth model. This means regulating to ensure sustainable production and sustainable systems all around us and fight for new economic and social policies. 

Allowing GDP to be the sacred indicator of social progress is ignorant of the ecocide this unregulated growth creates. All sectors, as obliged by the Paris Agreement, must decarbonise. To do this, we need new production models that fully incorporate the polluter pays and circular economy principles and resist the harmful unsustainable forces of global capitalism.

We urgently need to:

implement a European green rule: privilege the environment and climate over the free market, end the quest for profit and rethink the functioning of our society according to ecosystem’s limits

rapidly shift to sustainable agriculture and fisheries, including shorter supply chains, full environmental compliance and food sovereignty. This means a swift move away from the current agro-industrial intensification model, including patenting elements of life, towards ecological, sustainable farming and fishing practices and local, sustainable food systems that promote genetic diversity

completely transform the direction on the EU’s trade, commercial and investment policies, ensuring only they are environmentally and socially sustainable. This means no trade without ratification and implementation of the Paris Agreement, including climate and environment clauses in trade deals, and proper regulation of the climate impact of imports and exports

ensure that the true meaning of circular economy principles are fully implemented in all legislation and processes; promote local consumption and production based on these principles of reuse, recycle and repair to stop planned obsolescence business strategies and adapt consumption to the limits of the Planet

properly fund social services, increase smart and green spatial and urban planning and ensure accessibility, social justice and equity in the allocation of public services; radically rethink transport, focusing on zero-emission public transport which should be free for all and promote active mobility

protect and invest in our biodiversity and carbon sinks, by prioritising sufficient funding for the conservation and restoration of woodlands, peatlands and other habitats, particularly protecting native species; adopt control and surveillance measures on a European scale for the pests and pathogens that are decimating European forests and create specific support measures to prevent and fight forest fires

Direct the transition

Market ‘solutions’, such as carbon markets, have been successfully pushed for by industry to become the prevalent logic in the EU. Market approaches are inherently incapable of effectively reducing emissions and have led us to the standstill where we are now. They create hands-off, ‘cost-effective’, fake responses to climate change, completely shirking governments of the responsibility to direct the rapid transition to a sustainable society. 

Carbon credits are a right to pollute, and we utterly reject this concept. Dirty industries must be directly regulated and renewables massively endorsed. The polluter pays principle must apply, the costs cannot be externalised to society and the environment. 

This means that the companies that extract and sell fossil fuels must pay up, as well as the big polluting industries. Nature, biodiversity and a habitable planet are not commodities that require cost-benefit analyses, their value cannot be monetised, nor can it be ignored.

We urgently need to:

end the liberalisation agenda of the EU for energy, recognise it is as a common good and promote the socialisation of the energy sector; allow for massive state investment into public renewable energy

democratise and decentralise energy and ensure an expansion in community-level energy projects

reject all market-based climate policies because they are climate delaying tactics; stand for goal-based direct regulation on greenhouse gas emissions by directly setting and monitoring legally binding emissions reduction goals for each sector

stop reforming the broken market system and immediately abolish the EU Emissions Trading System (EU ETS)

introduce binding regulations on emissions for shipping and aviation - offsetting schemes such as CORSIA cannot be considered as climate action; directly regulate shipping and aviation in climate policies by mandating emissions reduction goals and emissions performance standards; ensure public investment into alternative sustainable fuels for both and ensure that these industries are properly taxed

encourage Member States to green their tax systems making sure that the big polluters pay their share, not the people. Regulate financial markets so that financial actors comply with strict sustainability and social criteria that works towards the necessary transitions

Investment not austerity

Climate action needs to be about public investment, not austerity. We reject the neoliberal notions of leaving climate action up to individuals; we place the responsibility firmly on governments and lawmakers, to lead with public investment and ensure that the private sector can only invest sustainably. Climate justice means the burdens and benefits of action must be distributed fairly. 

People cannot be left picking up the tab to the advantage of the Big Polluters. Ambitious climate action must mean a Just Transition, a framework of social interventions to make sure that no communities or regions are left behind in the transition to a clean planet. A massive mobilisation of funds is needed for the green transition, including its direct and indirect consequences.

We urgently need to:

establish a Just Transition Fund and ensure decent green jobs are created in vulnerable regions particularly; ensure that no community or region suffers disproportionately from the transition to a clean planet

revise how Europe spends its funds, take account of the Ecological deficit we create and ensure a massive public Green Investment Plan

end all direct and indirect subsidies to the fossil fuel industry, including quantitative easing at the European Central Bank

ensure public interest research and development on environmentally-friendly low-carbon technologies and introduce the adequate incentives

Ambitious global action

Climate action needs to take place at the global level too, with an ambitious and coordinated global response. Those who contribute the least to climate change, are the ones who suffer the most from its consequences. This is why it  is essential that the EU and Member States act on their historic responsibility in emitting greenhouse gases and take full account of their financial and technological resources.  

We must do more and reach low carbon neutrality by 2040 at the latest whilst helping adaptation efforts. Climate justice at the international level should be based on effective partnerships and international solidarity. The Commission and the Council negotiate about climate on behalf of all EU Member States, but Member States need to become more active and involved at the international level and loudly advocate the principles of climate justice.

We urgently need to:

take responsibility for our historical share in global warming; compensate for the climate debt we have built up and ensure the most vulnerable countries are sufficiently resourced to adapt to global warming and rising sea levels

limit our global ecological footprint to help protect our oceans and forests worldwide, and support measures to protect and recover these lungs of the earth

call for a legal, universal definition of climate refugees, ensure that there are safe and legal ways to the EU and that their right to asylum is respected in every Member State. Call for a legal and universal definition of internally displaced people due to climatic reasons, ensuring that our foreign policies are oriented towards protecting their rights.

secure equitable and sufficient flows of climate finance under the Paris agreement and ensure grants are the financial instrument favoured over loans. Ensure that the Green Fund is replenished to €100 billion

ensure that all development and trade policies include, and are streamlined with, climate goals, and ensure a readily available funding mechanism for Loss and Damage

advocate for an International Convention on Fossil Fuels to keep them in the ground

oblige the European Union and all its Member State to act with high ambition at international climate conferences, play a more active role in the yearly global summit, and act on the COP conclusions every year and; that Member State and EU use their climate diplomacy to spur other global actors to pursue adequate decarbonisation strategies

Together we fight for change

As one of the richest continents and main contributors to climate change, Europe has a duty to ensure rapid reductions in greenhouse gas emissions. We are in dire need of just and sustainable structural reforms throughout society - bearing in mind the historical responsibility of the rich, big polluters. Making capitalism just a bit greener will not succeed in halting climate change, it will only delay climate action further. To date, dirty industries have been influencing our climate policies. 

Now we need our climate action to be accountable to the people, not the climate confusers. We need to place people and the sustainability of the environment above profit. If we do not implement radical system changes right now, the commercialisation of the earth will continue to put the interests of the multinational companies first. This puts our planet and ourselves at an unacceptable risk. 

We have a responsibility to avert the climate crisis with urgency and preserve the earth for future generations. The only effective response is to immediately address this crisis as a climate emergency. Together we can change the system to save the climate!

More than half of European Corporations have No CO2 Reduction Plans

A report based on a survey of European corporations (including UK ones) by the Carbon Disclosure Project (CDP), reveals that 53% do not have targets for reducing their CO2 emissions, even though 80% say that they are aware of the risk to their businesses from climate change that this poses. 

More than a quarter of the surveyed companies were UK based. Of those who do, only one in three have targets that extend beyond 2025. Short termism runs through all corporate strategies. This despite reported board-level oversight from 95% of companies, from those returning surveys. 

Even so, 58% of these companies reported a reduction in emissions in 2018, which was in the main achieved through conservation measures, like installing LED lighting, which uses less electricity and so saves money. 

But a third also reported that they had increased emissions from 2017 to 2018. CDP received 849 responses from European companies in 23 countries. These companies account for 2.3 billion tons of CO2 emissions. The businesses include 82 large private companies, with combined revenues in excess of €614 billion.

Increased operating costs associated with policy and legal changes was the most commonly reported risk, with almost half (46%) of companies highlighting this. 86% of surveyed companies were also positive about the potential business opportunities from providing the solutions to climate change. 

Almost half (46%) of respondents report opportunities to drive revenue through demand for lower emissions products and services, with a quarter (26%) seeing these opportunities either currently or in the short term future.

The survey also asked about other environmental issues such as deforestation and water security risks, which produced similar findings to that for climate change from respondents.

All a bit of a mixed bag of results, but there is no sense of urgency from businesses, considering the increasingly shortening of time left to avoid catastrophic climate damage which scientists are finding. 

It should come as no surprise that businesses are only acting in a positive manner when reducing their bottom line or seeing expanding into new markets to generate more profit, other than being required to comply with legal and regularly requirements as set by governments.

This is the logic of the capitalist system, and why governments’ have so much difficulty in getting corporations to reduce their emissions. If regulation is strong enough to get serious reductions, business will lobby, and they are a powerful lobby, to water down commitments. Unless there is money to be saved or made by the corporations, and so increasing profits for shareholders, they have no incentive to act in the interests of the environment.

This will not change, despite many corporations having public relations induced ‘corporate responsibility’ schemes, which again have the primary purpose of making more money. 

Corporations know that at least some of the public are concerned by climate issues, and may choose corporations over others, on the basis of this greenwash, so promote this to increase market share. A good example of this in BP (British Petroleum), some years back changing their corporate logo to a flower, pictured above. BP is one of the worst offenders when it comes to climate change.

Even in corporations with well-meaning CEOs and boards, it would not be rational for them to put environmental matters above business as usual, and they would likely lose their jobs if they did. It is not the purpose of corporations to do anything that does not prioritise increasing profits, and this is how they are judged by their shareholders.

All of which rather calls into question the role that CDP is actually playing here. Their website explains that their strategy is:

‘We want to see a thriving economy that works for people and planet in the long term. To do this we focus investors, companies and cities on taking urgent action to build a truly sustainable economy by measuring and understanding their environmental impact.’

But this is futile as a means of achieving positive changes in behaviour from businesses beyond saving money and perhaps seeing opportunities to make money in new markets, as we have noted. Under the capitalist system, an ‘economy that works for people and planet’ is completely incompatible with corporate behaviour on a fundamental level. Only a change in the economic system will lead to a different approach.

The main use for us of CDP’s work is to show us the scale of the problem, not to provide a remedy to the climate crisis, that these same companies have been instrumental in causing.