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.
subscribe to this blog:
Posts
All Comments
Showing posts with label the planet. Show all posts
Showing posts with label the planet. Show all posts
Sunday, 6 February 2011
Sunday, 23 January 2011
capitalism and its effects on global warming
I've taken a greater interest in our environment in recent years and have been reading various green activists blogs and articles from the eco movement. I thought i'd run a little blog piece on the affects of capitalism on our planet and our environment as a whole.
As well as capitalisms many bad points i disagree with one of the worst parts of it the greater need for more and more money to keep the few at the very top of society pleased while the many suffer could not be any better summed up than on the point of the environment. Where industry is catapulted into the fore front of everyones mind in the western world during the times of the industralil revolution for example we almost grew so quickly we barely stod still to think of waht affect this will have on our planet and the world we live in today.
Now in the 21st century our western world is very commercialised with factories and industy in nearly every part we have severely lost sight of what is fundamental to human life surviving on this planet in its current form.
As we continue to grow as a largely capitalist system in the west anyway i see less and less thought being shown to the environment and the planet.
I have been doing a bit of research into this topic about how the capitalist system effects the planet and found this little short article interesting.
The issue of global warming has received increased attention in the major media, following record warmth in a number of regions of the globe. Studies have been published indicating that the effects of global warming are manifold, and are already beginning to show themselves. While much of what appears in the press is merely speculation, it is becoming increasingly obvious that something must be done to halt the flow of heat-trapping gases responsible for warming—most importantly carbon dioxide, which is released through the burning of oil and coal.
The environmental effects of global warming include increases in sea levels and precipitation; more severe weather patterns (hurricanes, etc.); and greater prevalence of illnesses transmitted by mosquitoes and ticks, such as malaria and Lyme Disease. Potentially more devastating would be the effects of climate change on agriculture, especially in developing nations, which lack the technology that would help developed nations adapt to climate shifts. It goes without saying that the immediate consequences of global warming, like the consequences of other natural disasters, will fall most heavily upon the poor.
The oil and coal industries are major economic forces, and thus the environmental issue of global warming takes on an economic and political character. In order to understand the current and possible measures to reduce global warming, it is necessary to understand how the political and economic factors interact. This is the problem that Ross Gelbspan deals with in his book The Heat is On, published in 1997 and revised in 1998.
The politics of global warming
The leading cause of human-produced CO2 comes from the combustion of fossil fuels, especially oil and coal. At present, oil and coal are essential energy sources for all of humanity. Thus, it is not possible simply to limit the consumption of oil and coal, as was done with ozone-depleting CFCs (chlorofluorocarbons). Indeed, as various countries such as China and India continue the process of industrialization, and as human population in general increases, more energy will be consumed.
In order to curb the process of global warming there must be a change in the means of energy production on a world scale, from oil and coal to more efficient sources such as solar power. If no societal restrictions were placed on human development, this in itself would certainly be a solvable problem. Already the basic technology exists that would allow for such a change. In a capitalist society, however, the main stimulus for change is not concern for human or environmental welfare, but rather the continual drive for profit.
The major point that Gelbspan makes in his book is that the conflicts over global warming policy are for the most part fueled by the contrary interests of different sections of big business. Certain sections of the capitalist class, most notably insurance industries, stand to lose a lot of money if the environmental effects of global warming are not prevented. There also exists a prominent group of corporations calling themselves the International Climate Change Partnership (ICCP)—consisting of AT&T, Dow Chemical, DuPont, General Electric and others—who have invested a lot of money on research in alternative energy sources and see in an energy source switch a potential for large increases in profit.
Opposed to these groups stand the enormous oil, gas, mining and automotive industries. These industries can strongly influence political decisions in a direct manner via campaign contributions. During the period of 1995-96, oil and gas companies donated $20.8 million to candidates for the United States Senate and Congress. During the same year, mining industries gave $2.7 million, and auto industries $3.8 million.[1] All these sectors have a vested interest in seeing oil, coal and gas continue as the principal energy sources. Their enormous size and capital reserves put them in a position to spend large amounts of money to contribute to politicians, hire scientists, and inundate the public with media campaigns supporting their practices and interests.
Gelbspan goes this far in his analysis. He claims that measures to stop global warming are blocked due to the political influence that these economically powerful industries can exert. Certainly this factor is important. To stop at this level, however, is to fail to realize that oil and coal play a much larger role in the economy of nations than other commodities, and that the effect of these commodities on political processes extends far beyond the lobbying of interest groups. All countries must have a source of energy in order to survive. Moreover oil and coal—to a greater extent than any of the other basic commodities (e.g., agriculture)—are localized commodities; they exist only in certain portions of the globe.
Thus, the ability to access these areas is a major measure of world power. Those nations that control oil can assert themselves on a global scale. The United States has fought two wars in the past 10 years—in Iraq and in Yugoslavia—in which access to oil was a major factor. On the international scale, capitalist competition exists not only between individual corporations, but also between individual nations (i.e., competition between states representing rival capitalist classes). Because of the peculiar character of the energy commodity and its importance on a global scale, competition between corporations for access to energy transforms itself into competition between nations over world markets and world power. Those nations who currently and potentially have control over oil and coal reserves have a vested interest in maintaining the energy status quo.
Given these facts it is not surprising that every attempt to institute carbon emission reduction measures has proved ineffective. The treaties upon which the international capitalist community has actually reached an agreement have been utterly useless. The Kyoto treaty signed in 1997 was so full of loopholes (euphemistically called "flexibilities" by the US government)—such as "emissions trading," whereby the industrial nations can buy CO2 credits from other nations whose emissions were below the level stipulated in the treaty—that no basic change could occur. In addition, a viable means of enforcing such treaties does not, and will never, exist. Nevertheless, the treaty failed ratification in the United States Congress, and has proved ineffective on an international level.[2]
In addition to the failure of carbon emissions reduction treaties, oil and coal industries continue to receive subsidies from all major developed nations.[3] These subsidies serve to drive down oil prices, disrupting the "natural" process of capitalist competition, and ensuring that oil and coal maintain their dominant position in the energy market. Within the capitalist system, these subsidies will necessarily continue; imperialist powers will continue to fight over oilfields and world power, contributing to the inexorable development towards future wars and the breakdown of the capitalist system.
I found this article very interesting for several reasons but the main point which worries me the most and is the main point i'd like to make from this blogpost here is taht it is very concerning that the richa nd the people in the world who focus on their money would rather care more for how much money they have made per week than how much of an affect their exploitation of the planet we all share has had over that given week.
All the signs are very worrying from environmentalists and scientists alike that our earth is on a course for disaster not that long off.
People living today may feel that this may never happen in their life time but it really can and well might if we keep on developing in the shape and speed of which we are.
With the fast growing countries like India and China this will only add to the speed of this process.
Socialist views on global warming :
Socialists as i will detail below in Marx's thoughts are not all environmentalists and care for the planet but there are a strand of eco-socialists which tap into the green movement who do care deeply about our planet and the destruction capitalism is having on our planet. I would like to see if socialism ever gets re-introduced into peoples thoughts that environmental issues become an important factor in socialism too. I for one would love to see a class less system which focus's on protecting our planet while at the same time providing for everyone in a efficient manner. Be that food or energy. I believe this can be done with a change in the way we think.
As some of you may or not know i have been reading a lot of what Karl Marx has said a bout socialism and his written pieces are becoming very relevant i feel. So below i have found a piece of what Marx thought on the environment.
Marx thoughts :
Marx is, for a lot of people, seen just as being a single-minded proponent of industrialism, and the extent to which he was a critic of industrialism - or of capitalist industrialism - is sometimes overlooked. And certainly there were a lot of Marxists who were anti-ecological, just as there have been anti-ecological thinkers in all of the major political traditions. The text that people most often read is The Communist Manifesto, and they remember his panegyric to the bourgeoisie - the first part of the manifesto where Marx glories in capitalist industrialisation, the constant revolutionisation of the means of production, the development of modern industry and its expansion across the globe. What they fail to recognise is that at the same time Marx was seeing this as a major development - in many ways a progressive development - he was also critical of it in many ways, seeing the other side of industrialism not only with respect to class but also with respect to the environment. Marx's more ecological writings are usually skipped over or ignored. In his work Capital he wrote about the effects of the industrialisation of agriculture and the destruction of the soil.
There is a lot of propaganda, misinformation and some facts of history about Marx's ecology that give people these perceptions. The irony is even though Marx is portrayed as anti-environmental, we are increasingly relying on his ideas in order to understand the relationship between environment and society.
He actually came up with an understanding of sustainable development. He specifically argued that we have to protect the earth - he talked about what would happen if we destroyed the soil, creating the metabolic rift between human beings and nature. The Marxist notion of metabolic rift is now being used by various thinkers to analyse the problems of the oceans, global warming and so on. There are no other thinkers of that period, the 19th century, who really had such a penetrative insight into the relationship between ecological crises and the construction of our society.
So to conclude i do think that capitalism and globl warming do go hand in hand. Global warming for me is a by product or a effect of capitailism and a ending of one will end the other. So when opposing capitalism we must never forget the environmental issues and arguements too which will add further weight to our arguements for a better society for all.
As well as capitalisms many bad points i disagree with one of the worst parts of it the greater need for more and more money to keep the few at the very top of society pleased while the many suffer could not be any better summed up than on the point of the environment. Where industry is catapulted into the fore front of everyones mind in the western world during the times of the industralil revolution for example we almost grew so quickly we barely stod still to think of waht affect this will have on our planet and the world we live in today.
Now in the 21st century our western world is very commercialised with factories and industy in nearly every part we have severely lost sight of what is fundamental to human life surviving on this planet in its current form.
As we continue to grow as a largely capitalist system in the west anyway i see less and less thought being shown to the environment and the planet.
I have been doing a bit of research into this topic about how the capitalist system effects the planet and found this little short article interesting.
The issue of global warming has received increased attention in the major media, following record warmth in a number of regions of the globe. Studies have been published indicating that the effects of global warming are manifold, and are already beginning to show themselves. While much of what appears in the press is merely speculation, it is becoming increasingly obvious that something must be done to halt the flow of heat-trapping gases responsible for warming—most importantly carbon dioxide, which is released through the burning of oil and coal.
The environmental effects of global warming include increases in sea levels and precipitation; more severe weather patterns (hurricanes, etc.); and greater prevalence of illnesses transmitted by mosquitoes and ticks, such as malaria and Lyme Disease. Potentially more devastating would be the effects of climate change on agriculture, especially in developing nations, which lack the technology that would help developed nations adapt to climate shifts. It goes without saying that the immediate consequences of global warming, like the consequences of other natural disasters, will fall most heavily upon the poor.
The oil and coal industries are major economic forces, and thus the environmental issue of global warming takes on an economic and political character. In order to understand the current and possible measures to reduce global warming, it is necessary to understand how the political and economic factors interact. This is the problem that Ross Gelbspan deals with in his book The Heat is On, published in 1997 and revised in 1998.
The politics of global warming
The leading cause of human-produced CO2 comes from the combustion of fossil fuels, especially oil and coal. At present, oil and coal are essential energy sources for all of humanity. Thus, it is not possible simply to limit the consumption of oil and coal, as was done with ozone-depleting CFCs (chlorofluorocarbons). Indeed, as various countries such as China and India continue the process of industrialization, and as human population in general increases, more energy will be consumed.
In order to curb the process of global warming there must be a change in the means of energy production on a world scale, from oil and coal to more efficient sources such as solar power. If no societal restrictions were placed on human development, this in itself would certainly be a solvable problem. Already the basic technology exists that would allow for such a change. In a capitalist society, however, the main stimulus for change is not concern for human or environmental welfare, but rather the continual drive for profit.
The major point that Gelbspan makes in his book is that the conflicts over global warming policy are for the most part fueled by the contrary interests of different sections of big business. Certain sections of the capitalist class, most notably insurance industries, stand to lose a lot of money if the environmental effects of global warming are not prevented. There also exists a prominent group of corporations calling themselves the International Climate Change Partnership (ICCP)—consisting of AT&T, Dow Chemical, DuPont, General Electric and others—who have invested a lot of money on research in alternative energy sources and see in an energy source switch a potential for large increases in profit.
Opposed to these groups stand the enormous oil, gas, mining and automotive industries. These industries can strongly influence political decisions in a direct manner via campaign contributions. During the period of 1995-96, oil and gas companies donated $20.8 million to candidates for the United States Senate and Congress. During the same year, mining industries gave $2.7 million, and auto industries $3.8 million.[1] All these sectors have a vested interest in seeing oil, coal and gas continue as the principal energy sources. Their enormous size and capital reserves put them in a position to spend large amounts of money to contribute to politicians, hire scientists, and inundate the public with media campaigns supporting their practices and interests.
Gelbspan goes this far in his analysis. He claims that measures to stop global warming are blocked due to the political influence that these economically powerful industries can exert. Certainly this factor is important. To stop at this level, however, is to fail to realize that oil and coal play a much larger role in the economy of nations than other commodities, and that the effect of these commodities on political processes extends far beyond the lobbying of interest groups. All countries must have a source of energy in order to survive. Moreover oil and coal—to a greater extent than any of the other basic commodities (e.g., agriculture)—are localized commodities; they exist only in certain portions of the globe.
Thus, the ability to access these areas is a major measure of world power. Those nations that control oil can assert themselves on a global scale. The United States has fought two wars in the past 10 years—in Iraq and in Yugoslavia—in which access to oil was a major factor. On the international scale, capitalist competition exists not only between individual corporations, but also between individual nations (i.e., competition between states representing rival capitalist classes). Because of the peculiar character of the energy commodity and its importance on a global scale, competition between corporations for access to energy transforms itself into competition between nations over world markets and world power. Those nations who currently and potentially have control over oil and coal reserves have a vested interest in maintaining the energy status quo.
Given these facts it is not surprising that every attempt to institute carbon emission reduction measures has proved ineffective. The treaties upon which the international capitalist community has actually reached an agreement have been utterly useless. The Kyoto treaty signed in 1997 was so full of loopholes (euphemistically called "flexibilities" by the US government)—such as "emissions trading," whereby the industrial nations can buy CO2 credits from other nations whose emissions were below the level stipulated in the treaty—that no basic change could occur. In addition, a viable means of enforcing such treaties does not, and will never, exist. Nevertheless, the treaty failed ratification in the United States Congress, and has proved ineffective on an international level.[2]
In addition to the failure of carbon emissions reduction treaties, oil and coal industries continue to receive subsidies from all major developed nations.[3] These subsidies serve to drive down oil prices, disrupting the "natural" process of capitalist competition, and ensuring that oil and coal maintain their dominant position in the energy market. Within the capitalist system, these subsidies will necessarily continue; imperialist powers will continue to fight over oilfields and world power, contributing to the inexorable development towards future wars and the breakdown of the capitalist system.
I found this article very interesting for several reasons but the main point which worries me the most and is the main point i'd like to make from this blogpost here is taht it is very concerning that the richa nd the people in the world who focus on their money would rather care more for how much money they have made per week than how much of an affect their exploitation of the planet we all share has had over that given week.
All the signs are very worrying from environmentalists and scientists alike that our earth is on a course for disaster not that long off.
People living today may feel that this may never happen in their life time but it really can and well might if we keep on developing in the shape and speed of which we are.
With the fast growing countries like India and China this will only add to the speed of this process.
Socialist views on global warming :
Socialists as i will detail below in Marx's thoughts are not all environmentalists and care for the planet but there are a strand of eco-socialists which tap into the green movement who do care deeply about our planet and the destruction capitalism is having on our planet. I would like to see if socialism ever gets re-introduced into peoples thoughts that environmental issues become an important factor in socialism too. I for one would love to see a class less system which focus's on protecting our planet while at the same time providing for everyone in a efficient manner. Be that food or energy. I believe this can be done with a change in the way we think.
As some of you may or not know i have been reading a lot of what Karl Marx has said a bout socialism and his written pieces are becoming very relevant i feel. So below i have found a piece of what Marx thought on the environment.
Marx thoughts :
Marx is, for a lot of people, seen just as being a single-minded proponent of industrialism, and the extent to which he was a critic of industrialism - or of capitalist industrialism - is sometimes overlooked. And certainly there were a lot of Marxists who were anti-ecological, just as there have been anti-ecological thinkers in all of the major political traditions. The text that people most often read is The Communist Manifesto, and they remember his panegyric to the bourgeoisie - the first part of the manifesto where Marx glories in capitalist industrialisation, the constant revolutionisation of the means of production, the development of modern industry and its expansion across the globe. What they fail to recognise is that at the same time Marx was seeing this as a major development - in many ways a progressive development - he was also critical of it in many ways, seeing the other side of industrialism not only with respect to class but also with respect to the environment. Marx's more ecological writings are usually skipped over or ignored. In his work Capital he wrote about the effects of the industrialisation of agriculture and the destruction of the soil.
There is a lot of propaganda, misinformation and some facts of history about Marx's ecology that give people these perceptions. The irony is even though Marx is portrayed as anti-environmental, we are increasingly relying on his ideas in order to understand the relationship between environment and society.
He actually came up with an understanding of sustainable development. He specifically argued that we have to protect the earth - he talked about what would happen if we destroyed the soil, creating the metabolic rift between human beings and nature. The Marxist notion of metabolic rift is now being used by various thinkers to analyse the problems of the oceans, global warming and so on. There are no other thinkers of that period, the 19th century, who really had such a penetrative insight into the relationship between ecological crises and the construction of our society.
So to conclude i do think that capitalism and globl warming do go hand in hand. Global warming for me is a by product or a effect of capitailism and a ending of one will end the other. So when opposing capitalism we must never forget the environmental issues and arguements too which will add further weight to our arguements for a better society for all.
Tuesday, 21 December 2010
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 ?
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 ?
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)