In previous issues, we examined aspects of the challenge of climate change. We have argued that carbon trading is merely an enclosure of the atmospheric commons, while carbon offsets are a form of neo-colonialism whereby the “developed north” continues to pollute while the “global south” are paid not to (please see: wsm.ie/content/high-price-lot-hot-air and wsm.ie/content/offsetting-democracy). Another, more radical, proposal is one based on prevention, that is, the non-extraction of fossil fuels. The argument is that once extracted, the use of fossil fuels is inevitable, and that any mechanisms to mitigate the increase in CO2 emissions will be unworkable.

This weeks leads editorial in the international business magazine 'The Economist' shrugs its shoulders and walks away from the idea of controlling Climate Change. This is very significant for The Economist is not a climate change denial publication, for some time (at least as far back as 2006) it has accepted the scientific consensus that human caused Climate Change is a real process with extremely serious implications.  So it giving up the fight is a very big deal indeed, and one that contains serious lessons for the Climate Change reformists who continue to believe that if enough pressure is put on a deal can somehow be struck at five minutes to midnight.

An issue that’s been put on the back burner since the economy has fallen through the plug hole.  We talk in Program 7 of Radio Solidarity to two women Jerrieann Sullivan and Molly Walsh who’ve been to the forefront of activism in ensuring that this issue has not disappeared off the agenda. They’ve both been involved in the recent Climate Camps amongst other campaigns and actions. 

This audio interview, conducted by mobile phone on Monday evening, covers the protests at the COP15 summit in Copenhagen.
Ronan who was a member of WSM in Ireland has been living in Denmark for a year and a half and is involved in a new Libertarian Socialist group and the local infoshop in the autonomous Youth House.

Carbon trading and offsets distract attention from the wider, systemic changes and collective political action that needs to be taken in the transition to a low-carbon economy. Promoting more effective and empowering approaches to climate change involves moving away from the blinkered reductionism of free-market dogma, the false-economy of supposed quick fixes, the short-term self interest of big business.

In response to growing discussion of ‘zero growth’ ideas among some environmentalists, Alan MacSimoin asks Is non-extraction the answer?

In recent years, with climate change dominating headlines regularly, it has become popular among some environmentalists to propose non-extraction of fossil fuels as a viable way to reduce the effects climate change. But if this idea was taken up what would be the result? Less oil & gas being processed means what is available will rise in price. That’s the logic of capitalism. And having to pay even more for home heating and cooking is not going to change the habits of the wealthy but would have a big impact on most of our pockets. Making things even more expensive than they are at present will not exactly endear environmentalists to most people.

In the last issue of Workers Solidarity we looked at how the causes of climate changes are deeply embedded in the economic and social structures controlled by the rich few. The increasing levels of carbon dioxide and other greenhouse gases being pumped into our atmosphere are primarily caused by the capitalist model of 'economic growth' and its accompanying miseries for millions around the planet.