China’s pollution overload

China’s carbon emissions have almost doubled in five years By Sally Tang, Socialist Action (CWI Hong Kong). This article first appeared in Socialism Today (July/August 2013), the magazine of the Socialist Party (CWI in England and Wales). People in China’s cities are choking on smog. This past winter the capital Beijing, and other northern cities, suffered their worst air pollution readings on record. In mid-January the US embassy in Beijing, which irritates the Chinese regime by publishing its own widely watched statistics, said levels of PM2.5, tiny particulate matter that can lodge in the lungs causing serious damage, were 40 times the safe level set by the World Health Organisation (WHO). On an expressway linking Beijing to Hong Kong and Macau, there were 40 car accidents in nine hours due to smog reducing visibility. The main causes of air pollution in China are coal burning, cars, construction sites, and the expansion of industry. China’s coal consumption has seen explosive growth, to 4.05 billion tons last year. China now burns almost as much coal as the rest of the world combined. Since the failed Copenhagen climate summit in 2009, China’s carbon emissions have almost doubled. Facemasks are common in cities today. Air purifiers are also popular products for those who can afford them. Mike Murphy, CEO of Swiss company IQAir in China, says sales of household air purifiers tripled in the first months of this year. The lifestyles of children have also changed a lot: schools cancel outdoor activities; parents keep their kids at home. Rich families choose international schools as these have spent money on air filtering systems. People are perplexed by the worsening air quality over the last couple of years. Improvements promised by the government have not materialised. Less than 1% of China’s 500 biggest cities meet WHO air-quality guidelines. According to the World Bank, 750,000 people die prematurely because of air pollution every year. Parents are worried about the health of their children. Some company executives speak of a trend of losing talented people, as some middle-class and upper-class parents, and foreigners, are leaving China because of the pollution. But for most of the population – farmers, migrant workers and the poor – there is no choice but to stay and live with it. In June, premier Li Keqiang announced ten new measures aimed at improving air quality, in an attempt to dampen popular anxiety. Heavy polluters must release detailed environmental information to the general public, and the government vowed to reduce major emissions at heavily polluting industries by more than 30% by the end of 2017. But similar promises have been made before and Li’s new measures contradict government efforts to maintain economic growth at 7-8%. The Chinese ‘Communist’ Party (CCP) state does not have a unified position on these issues, however. Local governments pursue their own interests often in defiance of Beijing’s orders. They manipulate statistics and try to suppress information, including the protests against polluting industries. Earlier this year, over 16,000 dead pigs were found floating in the Huangpu river, which supplies one in five Shanghai residents with drinking water. The pigs were dumped by farmers upstream in Jiaxing, a major pig-farming region in neighbouring Zhejiang province. A few weeks later, the same area saw the outbreak of a new bird flu virus, H7N9, which has so far killed 37 people. The WHO warns this is “one of the most lethal flu viruses”. Both examples show the dire effects of a farming industry run for profit: unsafe and over-crowded conditions, abuse of antibiotics and other chemicals. Researchers have uncovered abusive use of antibiotics in large quantities at major pig farms, with cocktails of drugs used. Some farmers feed organic arsenic to pigs as it makes them look pink and shiny, meaning more profits, despite the fact organic arsenic is a carcinogen. The environmental ministry admitted for the first time, in a report issued in February this year, the existence of ‘cancer villages’ in China – with cancer rates high above the national average. This phenomenon has been recognised since 1998, but is denied by the CCP authorities. But this report was denounced as ‘inappropriate’ by top health officials at the March meeting of the National People’s Congress (China’s fake parliament). Instructions were sent out to local media to avoid using the term ‘cancer villages’. Industrial pollution of drinking water, usually by factories built upstream, is the main cause of cancer villages. The factories discharge untreated sewage, containing high levels of heavy metals or other toxic substances, resulting in clusters of cancer illness. There are now 459 cancer villages in China, while the national death rate from cancer has increased 80% in the past 30 years to 2.7 million fatalities every year. Rural China has also seen outbreaks of lead poisoning as a result of factories and smelters that dump their waste into rivers and landfills. Lead poisoning causes brain, kidney, liver, and nerve damage, and children are especially susceptible. In recent years, thousands of individual cases have been reported across at least nine provinces. A Human Rights Watch report in 2011 accused government officials of “arbitrarily limiting lead testing, withholding and possibly manipulating test results, denying proper treatment to children and adults and trying to silence parents and activists”. The economic boom in China over the last 30 years has produced an acute environmental crisis. The country is grappling with seriously polluted air, water, land and food. According to a 2013 report, of the ten most polluted cities in the world, China has seven, including Beijing. The crisis of contaminated food – rice, milk powder, cooking oil, vegetables, fruits, etc – leaves nobody unaffected. News reports in May revealed that nearly half the rice sold in Guangdong, China’s richest province, contained unsafe levels of cadmium, which causes cancer. The government has hundreds of special farms supplying safe crops to the elite. This reinforces a vicious cycle of government inaction over pollution combined with repression against the victims. In 2008, a toxic milk powder scandal caused the death of six babies and resulted in tens of thousands of children getting kidney disease. The government used repression to silence parents’ groups who wanted to find out the truth behind the affair. Zhao Lianhai, whose own child was a victim, was sentenced to two-and-a-half years in jail because of his activism on this issue. An official report showed that 90% of all environmental protests in 2012 were linked to water pollution. It found that 57.3% of the groundwater in 198 cities in 2012 was ‘bad’ or ‘extremely bad’. One third of rivers and 75% of lakes are seriously polluted, and around 1,000 lakes have disappeared. Unsafe drinking water is being used by 320 million people, and 190 million are sick every year due to water pollution. The last two years have seen a big increase in environmental protests in China. In cities including Dalian, Tianjin, Xiamen and Kunming, thousands have protested against the building or running of chemical plants. The re-emergence of capitalism in China combines the worst features of neo-liberal capitalism together with repressive one-party dictatorship. It means chaos and an absence of even minimal democratic controls. China now leads the world in the production of solar voltaic cells and wind turbines, but around two-thirds of capacity from its wind farms is wasted as the electricity grid lacks the technology to absorb it. The solar industry, which is mainly for export, has built up vast overcapacity and is also a huge consumer of coal power. A socialist solution is needed in order to solve this chaotic situation and to save millions of people’s lives – that is, the abolition of capitalism and democratic public control over the economy. With thanks to comrade Sally Tang, Socialist Action (CWI Hong Kong)

Happy fracking Christmas

This Christmas fracking is back on the menu. The profiteering exercise of extracting shail gas from rocks is back and ready to rake in profit for the capitalists. Fracking in Britain was suspended after earthquakes were caused around Blackpool by fracking operations, but the moratorium soon ends. In the US, a 5.7 magnitude earthquake occurred in Oklahoma, while a Geological Survey report concludes that: most, "if not all of the earthquakes [in the USA] since August 2001 have been triggered by the deep injection of wastewater" in fracking. 60% of Britain's countryside could potentially be exploited for shale gas as Osborne looks to Texas - which produces more CO2 emissions than all but the top six countries in the world. Texas has 48,000 jobs relying on fracking. Osborne intends to water down Britain's commitments to cutting emissions and threatens renewable energy programmes, which, if properly pursued, would create as many jobs as fracking does in the USA, while saving the environment rather than wrecking it. Eight million gallons of water and carcinogenic chemicals are used to frack a well, then disposed of deep in the earth, where they contaminate groundwater and poison the surroundings. Methane released into groundwater by fracking rises through fissures and water wells where it can be ignited at the tap. US reports claim over 1,000 documented cases of water contamination next to areas of gas drilling as well as cases of "sensory, respiratory, and neurological damage due to ingested contaminated water." David Kennedy, who heads the statutory body advising the government on meeting its carbon reduction goals, severely criticised Osborne's announcement, saying the dash for gas through fracking, "would not be sensible, or compatible with meeting carbon budgets and the 2050 target" and would damage investment in renewable. The UK target is to cut emissions by 80% by 2050, compared with 1990 levels. David Cameron consequently vetoed Kennedy's appointment to a post heading the Department of Energy and Climate Change. Osborne's government puts energy company profits before the welfare of the planet. This is the cheapest way for gas companies to find energy. It’s time to end the lie that the con-dems are the greenest government yet it’s time to end this all for profit motive and end the rule of this illegitimate government who have no mandate to govern even less to tear up our environment for their friends pockets. with extracts tkane from the excellent article in this weeks socialist on fracking by pete mason.

Drive Biffa out of Ware, for safe, green non profit waste management

Last Monday myself and another comrade decided to get up off our armchairs and go and check out the local ware town council public meeting held to discuss the latest Hertfordshire waste management plans.

We turned up not thinking many would turn up on a chilly Monday evening to a usually dull council meeting. How wrong was I? There was possibly 200 to 300 there with more queuing out of the door. If people think people don’t care about what happens anymore they are so wrong.


Biffa the company who plans to build an incinerator just outside of our town faces strong opposition. After attending the meetings and protests over the planned incinerator in Hatfield last year this one in Ware not so far away seems equally as angry.
The meeting started with one of the councillors Tory dominated by the way with a report back from Hertfordshire county council on their latest updates. As it stands Biffa has planning permission till 2017 but at present haven’t submitted plans to start building anything.

This did not stop the local residents voicing their frustration and anger at said councillors. There were lots of good points. One was from a local teacher at a school not far from where the incinerator is planned for telling the councillors that this plan will damage the area and harm our children and their health. It is not right for Ware and it’s not right for anywhere.

Lots of people got up to raise similar points in opposition to the plans with many of the comments being targeted at the councillors at the front who seemed keen to not stay for longer than they had to.

My comrade then got up to speak and made the excellent points referring back to the earlier comments on the increase of rodent activity in the area if this goes through saying that the biggest rodent that needs to be driven out of this town is Biffa. Going on to say that Biffa are only interested in making a profit from this, not waste management or the environment they only have one thing in mind and that is increasing their profits.

My comrade at the meeting also raised the excellent point that waste management used to be controlled and run all in house by the councils in the local area. This is no longer the case and is out sourced to a private firm not interested in the town or the people living there only getting the cheapest deal for the plot of land and the maximum amount of profit for dealing with the waste.

It is true we have a waste problem in Hertfordshire and across the country but burning it into the already polluted atmosphere for profit is not the answer. Greater emphasis on recycling and greener ideas is what needed not is purely going for the cheapest and most polluting option to get the matter done and off their hands.

My comrade also did a bit of ad hock democracy by asking all in the room to put up their hands if they are against Biffa and the incinerator the whole rooms hands went up all apart from the councillors at the front who felt a bit taken a back and were not prepared to have the meeting show such opposition like that. At that point they felt they were loosing control of the meeting so quickly hurried on to ask if there were any further serious points which angered people even more.

Many people in the meeting felt like the local councillors do not represent our views and have failed to stand up for us. Many hostile comments were thrown at them including how much are you getting in expenses for being here tonight.

One councillor I believe to be a Lib Dem found this too much to take and shouted back NOT A SINGLE PENNY! Clearly we’d touched a nerve.

But the failure of the councillors to firmly oppose this plan by Biffa claiming their hands are tied and its county who decide anyway is a big cop out in my eyes and shows a lack of fight and determination to represent the people who elected them.

I suggested as we were walking out that if a candidate proposing to oppose the whole thing in Ware and elsewhere saying no to all incinerators and burning of waste following that meeting they’d gain a big echo I reckon. Standing against these Tories who cant stand up for those who elected them would really put it up them I think.

Personally waste is a big issue but making money out of it and also with it possibly leading to environmental issues and health issues is not something I’d support and will be continuing to monitor this project and be opposing it all the way not just in Ware but anywhere as it is wrong full stop.

What would socialism look like and how would it work in reality ?

As socialists and revolutionaries we are often asked well what would socialism look like, how would it work and how would you avoid it going the same way as the Stalinist dictators and one party states such as China and Cuba etc. As a socialist I am faced with these sorts of questions often so I thought I’d answer a few on here.

This is a vast topic so I will revisit bits in the future no doubt.

As the current crisis of capitalism unfolds a new and potentially decisive layer of workers and youth will be looking for a socialist way forward. Naturally, this way forward raises crucial questions such as; how a socialist economy would work? How would it solve the problems of mass poverty and hunger? How could it put end to the environmental destruction of the planet?

How does Socialism create and maintain jobs and keep the economy functioning effectively and growing?
The first thing that would happen under socialism is that unemployment would be eliminated overnight. Even in 2000, during a boom period, the UK had 2 million people unemployed. The cost of this is estimated at £5,000 per family per year in terms of lost production and benefit claims. Under socialism everyone would be guaranteed a job by reducing the working week without loss of pay. The reason this doesn’t happen under capitalism (or at least neo-liberal capitalism) is because getting fewer people to do more work is a fantastic way to make profit! However, as Tony Benn said, if full employment can be used to fight Hitler why can’t it be used to feed people? Jobs would be created for the benefit of society as a whole, not for the bank balances of the rich.
As for allowing the economy to grow; even in a bureaucratically deformed workers’ state with no democracy such the USSR and other planned economies they had production levels that were for decades on a par and often better than in the West. This phenomenon would be magnified in a true socialist society with the active engagement of the population and the ‘oxygen’ of workers’ democracy.
Besides, as we’ve all seen recently, capitalism by no means guarantees economic growth indefinitely. What is happening at the present time is precisely what Karl Marx analysed years before, a classic case of over-production. Products such as cars were produced for people to buy but we could no long afford to buy back the things we had produced. And who suffers as a result of this system? Not the capitalists who caused this crisis but the ordinary workers who one day were in a job (so long as it made profit for the bosses) and the next on the scrapheap! This anarchy and unjust ‘employment strategy’ would be consigned to the dustbin of history.
How does it invest in research and development, and find new alternatives for industry, for example switching from dirty fuel such as coal to clean and renewable energy such as wind or hydroelectric power?
How does it create innovation and entrepreneurs, and inspire young people to work hard and achieve?

Under capitalism, the majority of people (i.e. the working class) are coerced to work, we literally have no choice but to otherwise we starve! We are compelled by the logic of capitalism to sell our labour and, as such, capitalism calls the shots, not the people who produce the wealth in society. Under socialism, people would of course be expected to work, but for very different reasons. Instead, workers would be encouraged to work for the benefit of society and not just reasons for of survival. Despite the arguments of conservatives, socialists believe that humanity is basically good but is shaped by the society it lives in. Therefore, I believe that people that believe in a society that works for them, and is, ultimately, run by them will make sure it works. As a socialist society is run by the working class it is in our interests to make sure it works. Every effort will be made to make people’s lives easier and it stands to reason that innovation will still be needed under socialism. A society can never be too efficient.
Again, under capitalism, innovation and entrepreneurship reflect class interests and is therefore only utilised to make profit and not for the overall good of society. The technology exists for everyone to drive around in environmentally-friendly cars but capitalism will not allow this to happen on a mass scale because it will cut into its profits. Production would be based on human need not personal greed.
On the subject of the environment: at the present time science also reflects the interests of the ruling class. What better example of capitalism caring for its own ends rather than the future of the planet and of working people than the Vestas wind turbine factory, where, rather than nationalise the company to save it from going under (although, absurdly, Vestas continues to make a profit) the factory was allowed to shut and 600 workers ended up on the dole. Research and development are based on creating the greatest profit for private owners and shareholders.
We argue for all industry, including energy, to be nationalised under workers’ control who could then draw up a plan of production to develop a sustainable and renewable economy that can save our planet from destruction. The technology exists now for our environment to be cleaned up but this does not fit in with the outlook of capitalism. Any workers that became surplus to requirements as unsustainable industries die out would have the opportunity to retrain in the new industry (something that the government should have done with miners who worked in pits whose reserves were GENUINELY exhausted).
Where does it get its money?
How does it continue to invest in services, industries, secure economic growth and job creation?
I know that you will say tax the rich, but there’s only so much milk you can get from a cow! Once you have taxed the rich into poverty, and hence created a universally poor society, where will you then get money?

There are a number of ways in which wealth will be created under socialism. Firstly, you are correct in saying we will take the wealth of the rich away from them. Taxing the rich would be one of our primary demands now but ultimately, in a socialist society, the wealth of the rich would be expropriated from them with compensation only paid on the basis of proven need. All large industry would be nationalised with the same principle of compensation applied. This would be more than a fair enough deal for the capitalists who rob the working class of the wealth we create on a daily basis!
Secondly, luxury expenditure for the rich will be ended. Capitalist experts are always keen to point out that ending the wealth of the rich will not solve the problems of society, because, however obscenely well off they are, there are not enough of them to make a big difference. Nevertheless, the rich do consume 5% of national income which amounts to £40 billion a year in Britain. This is a sum that could begin the process of transforming the NHS.
Thirdly, arms spending would be abandoned. On a world scale the waste of resources on arms is vast, reaching nearly $1 trillion each year at the end of the cold war – approximately $1,000 a year for every family on the planet. For socialism to work it would have to be an international system and, therefore, in time, the need for arms expenditure would become obsolete. Workers in the arms industry would be re-employed in other, socially useful, industries.
Finally, the obscene waste that occurs under capitalism (in resources and employment) will be abolished and a democratically planned economy will take its place. The world is currently dominated by a handful of multinational corporations who duplicate expenditure in research and development, spend unnecessary vast sums on advertising and design products with planned obsolescence. For example, rival drug companies spend billions on developing varieties of pain killers with marginally different effectiveness. There is also the disgraceful wastage of food that occurs due to overproduction or, even more shamefully, to manipulate prices on the world market.
Given these factors and the huge improvement in resources available and with the profit motive eventually abolished, a socialist government would invest in socially useful production. Commodities would exist for people to buy (planned and monitored democratically by consumer unions) and any money gained would be re-invested into society. Workers would be paid more than well enough to afford any commodity and would stimulate the economy accordingly. The notion of overproduction would become an absurdity. Trade relations between countries would be based on mutual co-operation (for example, in the USSR different countries specialised on the production of certain things but were traded equally).
The crucial difference is that firms will be operating to new rules. Wage rates, working conditions and prices will no longer be set by multi-national firms but by democratic government. Where the economy is unable to produce sufficient commodities to meet demand then a price mechanism and market could continue to operate. But with the profit motive removed many goods including basic foods, housing, fuel etc could be provided for free.
Lenin (in State and Revolution) and Trotsky (in The Revolution Betrayed) both argued that a state will be necessary during the transition from capitalism to communism. But as the planned economy develops it will be able to meet more and more of people’s wants until there is no need to ration and limit distribution and the state can wither away. They were writing in the early 20th century and today the distribution of such goods could be achieved far more efficiently than they can be retailed in shops, especially given recent developments in IT. What could be simpler than ordering free, publicly provided goods on the internet? Demand and future production needs could be monitored continuously and fed into the planning process.
Huge wealth is created under capitalism but is in the hands of a tiny minority, why on earth would we be in a state of poverty when this ratio is reversed and all the waste that accompanies capitalist society no longer exists? We are living under a system that impoverishes well over half the planet and the opponents of our ideas have the audacity to claim socialism would dump everyone into a perpetual state of poverty without any substantial arguments whatsoever! Far from being a society languishing in poverty, a socialist society would be a society of ‘superabundance’ . Capitalism is based on the fairy tale of the perfect market whereas a socialist planned economy deals with the realities of society and offers a way of providing for it.
This only touch’s the surface of the possibilities available to mankind if production was run by and in the interests of the majority rather than the minority. Of course, none of this would be possible without genuine democracy – where working people are involved at every stage of production and elected representatives receive no more than the workers they represent and are subject to recall at any stage.



with credits and thanks to portsmouth socialist party for extracts and input to this post.

Are anti smog warnings the future as global capitalism takes hold

As an increasing population and more and more of us driving on the roads with bus's and cars taking to the streets of our great capital i thought i'd look into smog levels and how dangerous they are to us as the capitalist system looks to take a tighter grip on our society by increasing globalisation.

Air pollution in London has hit its highest level since 2003 according to official figures.

Under European Union air quality laws daily pollution levels must not be above the legal limit on more than 35 days in a calendar year.

But air pollution levels in London have already exceeded EU daily limits 36 times this year.

It is the first time that the annual limit has been exceeded by this date since 2003 when there were 50 breaches.

On Wednesday, Marylebone Road in central London exceeded EU limits for the 36th day this year.


The station there records air pollution from tiny sooty particles, known as PM10, which are mainly caused by traffic.

The government has issued a "smog alert" for the Easter weekend for PM10s, which can affect people's health.

Simon Birkett, director of Clean Air in London, said: "We need mayor Johnson and the government to tackle an invisible public health crisis with as many premature deaths attributable to air pollution in London in 2008 as we thought occurred during the Great Smog of 1952."

The European Commission has already given the UK two written warnings and the next stage in the legal process will be referral to the European Court of Justice.

The Commission gave the mayor and UK Government until June to come up with a "London action plan" to ensure compliance with the air pollution limits.

The UK will not face fines for the breach, as the EU has given Britain an extension until June before it has to start meeting the standards in the capital.

James Grugeon, chief executive of the charity Environmental Protection UK, said the breaches showed official assurances that pollution was under control in the capital were not true.

He said: "The mayor's air quality strategy, even with a new action plan set to start in June, is not up to the job of tackling the high levels of pollution already recorded this year."

A statement from London mayor Boris Johnson said that until 11 June, the daily limit of PM10 in London was 50% higher as a result of the UK's extension from the EU.

The statement says that as of 19 April, the daily limit value has been exceeded at Marylebone Road just six times this year, meaning that the annual legal limits have not been breached.

We need mayor Johnson and the government to tackle an invisible public health crisis”
Simon Birkett

Director of Clean Air in London
A spokesperson for the mayor said: "The mayor is already taking action to improve London's air quality with cleaner buses, tougher standards for the Low Emission Zone and the first ever age limit for taxis.

"Since the beginning of 2011, we estimate that more than 75% of air pollution episodes have occurred when pollutants have been blown in from Europe."

But Simon Birkett said the extension was only valid when the air pollution action plan is implemented and until then the lower limits apply.


This to me says one thing to me, globalisation is crippling us as a nation and us as a planet. The drive for profit over anything else be that peoples liveliehoods or the environment takes no priority over profit. The mad rush to work everyday during summer months in London is unbearable as it is but despite Londons attempts to ease traffic off with their conjestion charge the smog and fumes keep on coming.
To me the conjestion charge is a load of rubbish it collects lots of money dont get me wrong but where does that money go ?

in the back pockets of city hall chiefs of course and TFL boss's no doubt. What was origianlly set up to reinvest in greener energiesa nd alternative transport has simply not materialised and this comes as no surprise to myself and many other socailists with a care for the environment too.

To me and many others you can not have a green economy without a socialist economy whilst the capitalist companies strive for profit to any length they have no consideration for the economy. Only under a socialist governmenta nd society will green energies be ableto be brought to the front. When the society isnt based on profit but a better life for all not just the few investment and research into green energies can become a priority anda nessessetity to preserve our planet in its current form.

So the smog and the pollution is yes down to man and our greed for moneya nd our nice cars and things but i lay the blame for the pullution of our cities and towns firmly at the feet of capitalism who have no care in the world for the world and this will end up in us destroying our planet unless we change the way society is run.

Our addiction to oil is draining every last drip

This very interesting article i have read in todays Guardian by New Economics Foundation campaigner Andrew Simms. I've seen him speak live before and he is very good has a good balance between povety and environmental issues affecting the planet. This is a good article.

http://gu.com/p/2nd8m/tf

"Oil is the trouble, of course," wrote Gertrude Bell in Baghdad in 1921, "Detestable stuff!" It had fuelled a world war and already was causing upheaval in the politics of the Middle East. For all the conflict caused by securing supplies of oil, and the environmental damage that goes hand in hand with its use, the problem for Bell, and now the rest of us, is that oil was just too useful. Concentrated energy, easily transported and hugely versatile. In Lord Curzon's famous phrase, Britain "floated to victory on a wave of oil", which then carried before it the modern age and the whole of consumer society.

We all became, and remain, hooked on its convenience. Today's energy supplies provide the equivalent of the work of 22 billion slaves, according to former oil industry man Colin Campbell. But now the wave of oil looks set to leave us high and dry. At well over $100 per barrel, prices are climbing again to the level last reached in 2008. Since then, however, the tone of commentary has changed.

Awareness is increasing of a fundamental problem looming, in which rising demand departs from flattening supply, leading to a shortage in the supply of the global economy's life blood. Until now, false reassurance that we can carry on as we are has come from two factors. First, that there is still oil and second, that new oil fields are still being discovered.

And, of course, there is still oil and small, new amounts are being found. But the situation is like knowing there are 10 mouths to feed tomorrow, yet only food stores enough for eight. Worse, each day, less food is replaced than the amount eaten, while the number of mouths to feed increases.

New discoveries of oil peaked in the mid-1960s, and based on a range of estimates we are either very near to, or possibly living through the peak of global oil production. After that, the gap between demand and supply inexorably widens. The difficulty of knowing exactly when is heightened by the political and economic sensitivity of the size of a nation's oil reserves. Publicly available figures are open to question. WikiLeaks revealed official scorn being poured, behind the scenes, on the size of Saudi Arabia's reserves, a key producer for the west.

Understandably, some people might think this is a good thing from an environmental perspective. After all, if the oil is running out, doesn't that help solve climate change? Unfortunately it doesn't. As the price of oil goes up it makes other, dirtier fossil fuels like brown coal and tar sands more attractive. And here is a problem even for people who discount the threat of global warming. In key areas of the economy like transport, especially aviation, and agriculture, oil is hard to replace.

During the 1970s Opec crises, the worst effects were moderated by so-called "swing producers", oil exporters who replaced access lost by the west to key suppliers. Those options are no longer available. Back then, Britain turned to its own resources, which are now in dramatic decline.

Today's reality is that if you rip the oil drip from the economy's arm, the choice is economic seizure or transition. Short-term concerns are that a high oil price, pushed by upheaval in the Middle East, endangers economic "recovery". But there is a greater, systemic threat from the peak and decline of global oil production. Driving to the supermarket, the range of food on the shelves, the family holiday in the sun, even how we brush our teeth in the morning – the whole character of modern living in rich countries relies on the assumption of cheap, abundant oil. Yet that can change as fast as the price of a commodity on the stock exchange.

Both the left and the right are firmly unprepared for the disappearance of cheap oil. We have all grown accustomed to the benefits of oil. Our plans to adapt to its absence are seriously wanting.

To some degree the age of plastic, disposability and consumerism was an artefact of overproduction in the oil industry. Higher prices and harder access will usher in a different age. Oil is still the trouble, 90 years on from Gertrude Bell's words. The coalition has shown itself capable of a truly radical programme of government, but unfortunately it chose a regressive, ideological one instead of an urgent, practical one.

Whether we take the opportunity of the passing of cheap oil to make a better age, or remain spellbound by its vanishing mirage, is down to us.


I hope you find this article interesting, i certainly did and feel that we should be looking to end our reliance on oil.It is difficult to come off of as so many rich nations make such huge profits from this. The whole of the middle easten economy would possibly collapse as a result.

So my thoughts are that it may cost us in the short term to invest in greener energies but it would save us in the long run as the production costs would be cheaper and we wouldnt use as much.

I do think as human beings we should aim to preserve our planet it is our duty i feel. If in any way we can put something back into the planet what we take out i feel that will help future generations.

How over packaged goods are runing our environment

As we all know in this country and many developed nations around the world the issue of waste and recycling is a huge issue one that governments after governments have failed to really address.

It saddens me when what you buy at the supermarket has huge amounts of excess packaging and a lot of plastic in use too. I think to myself our poor planet is going to have to absorb all this at some point and waht good will that be doing to our planet ?

I do care for our environment and i try to buy items that have as less packaging on them as possible to minimise the impact of my consumption. But reality tells me i'm having no impact at all due to the habbits of the erest of society and the world.

I talked about on twitter a few weeks back about the possiblity of one day getting my own allotment to grow vegetables and produce for myself and others in my local area. I feel that with the land we have in this country we could be doing a hell of a lot more with it. Too often greedy rich farmers are leaving acres of land set aside and recieving grants and money for doing this. If farmers in this country focused more on producing more for the nation rather than their own back pockets we may not need to import quite so much from abroad. Growing our own produce will not only help our own economy with things we can sell to other countries that only we can grow for example our own british straweberries are world famous for their sweetness. But my other point is that our own produce can be sold at farmers markets or farm shops for example with minimal packaging and resulting in less waste. We need to get back to the days where we grew a lot more. During the second world war there was a phrase dig for britain. As the trade routes were mainly blocked by war ships and mines we couldnt import everything we needed from the continent so we had to relly on growing our own. There was a big up surge in people growing their own foods.
Now i'm not suggesting we need another world war to get us back to those ways where we produce more for ourselves but i do think its about time we stopped rellying on importing items so much which more often than not come in a over packaged form.

Growing from our own ground will be good for our own environment and positive for all who get to expereince home grown produce for a change.

Of course we will have to be careful to not over produce and leading to a surplus but even if we did in my vision for a socialist society the surplus would be feed back either to the ground to grow more or spread out equally to all of the people. Not what would happen in a capitalist society where any surplus is turned into extra profit for only those at the very top.

Looking into some green socialist ideas

Over the recent months and weeks i've been reading into a few more green issues. As we all know the capitalist system of the west is crumbling at the knees and the global financial crisis is just the start of this i feel.
I have read and wrote lots about the banking crisis that kicked off this global recession which has affected the west including america and europe the hardest it would seem.

So i thought i'd take a look at how the financial crisis and how the crumbling of capitlism is affecting the world we live in and how i believe that green socialist ideas can help us retain our planet and look towards creating more jobs for parts of the world that struggle to keep up with the leading countries.

Among other such red green groups i have stumbled across the Alliance for green socialism at this address
http://www.greensocialist.org.uk/ags/

I have found some of their thoughts and publications very interesting indeed.

With all the news being dominated by financial matters i thought i'd detail some of the green issues that will have been forgotton about during all the pandimoniam of the money crisis.

It is so easy to loose sight of the world around us at times. Especially when we take it for granted. When money becomes in shorter supply green environmental issues often become the first to get pushed to the back of the queue sadly.
But for example the conservative lead coalition in great britian is looking to sell off a lage amount of woodland to private investors. This is very worrying and no doubt some rich benifactors will come in and build a Centre parc's type complex on many of them.


This again is all for profit and not thinking of the environmental impact of waht building on our old and often stunning woodland.
We are lucky to live in a country with such rich countryside and woodland but we must aim to protect what we have. The invention of industry and expansion of population has created greater need for more housing this is all very well i agree we do need socail housing and a lot more of this but we must not loose sight of the fact we are destroying a lot of our natural environment.

As Caroline Lucas rightly pointed out at a recent New Economics Foundation speech i attended called where has all our money gone. Cleverly titled i think.
SHe raised the point that with the intense growth of the western world and capitialism in the west and our drive for profit has had a direct impact on global warming and the impact we have had on our planet. She states that we will soon run out of food in the west as we consume far too much at the moment and it is simply unsustainable in the current financial climate. With temperatures on the planet rising year on year out it will not be long before the plains in america producing wheat and crops will be unfarmable in years to come. This will become common across large parts of areas of the world where food is grow and farmed. As a result i believe the west will fall into a food shortage. With a steadily increasing world population and a growing need to consume more and more i simply dont see this as the west being able to carry on in the rate it is going.
This is where my socialist theories come in. From reading a lot from Karl Marx in the recent months i realise that he too had some green ideas and that his views on the world contained a care for the planet as well as the appression of the poor.

So my ideas would be to aid the west and to bridge the gap between a failing capitalist society woudl be to introduce green jobs for people who are unemployed and are struggling to find jobs in the present climate. We will of course as global warming doesnt look like going away anytime soon and untill the big pulluting nations in the world start to curb their pollution we will have to adapt to living in a warmer planet with more extreme weather conditions.

As we have seen over recent days in the UK our airports and our trains and transport system simply cant cope when we get a lot of snow. So i propose creating some green jobs for people, if we truely had a government who cared about our country and environment they would invest money into creating green jobs and in greener technologies. This could not only help balance the shift in economic power from the east to west with China pulling away as the worlds leading economy but we could provide good solid jobs for our workers in this country who are currently struggling to find jobs.

I also propose the creation of a green bank. Publically owned of course in the public domain so we the people have the control over it and rich bankers dont come in and take it over and take advantage of it again.
We need a system that is going to work for people firstly and a system that is fair for all. It has been talked about a green bank before but we must be strong with these ideas and push the ideas forward in the direction of government to listen to us. Green socialist ideas can work i feel and even if not fully implimented then we can certainly learn a lot from the ideas of eco-idealists.

I just wondered waht peoples thoughts were as we go forward into the future where they see our planet and its resources going in 10, 100 + years time. I think we need to change our ways dramatically to have any chance of surviving into the future myself. What do you think ?