The editorial decries the "petty-bourgeois panic and hysteria" about the destruction of the planet by pollution. It also downplays the significance of scientific evidence pointing to the dangers of global warming for future generations. Stephen Jay Gould spoke to the first issue in the prologue to Bully for Brontosaurus: Reflections in Natural History. We are powerless to harm the planet, he opines, because "[n]othing within our power can come close to catastrophes that the earth has often passed through and beyond." However, "we can surely eliminate our fragile selves." Among other dangers he cites global warming "because it will flood our cities and alter our agricultural patterns to the severe detriment of millions."
One does not have to succumb to panic and hysteria to recognize the dangers of global warming as demonstrated by numerous scientific studies which point to at least a strong possibility (in my opinion, probability) of devastating consequences for a large portion of future generations. If one were to wait for absolute, unambiguous proof for this phenomenon, it would be too late to avoid much of the damage.
Having illusions about the desire or capacity of bourgeois governments to stop polluting and rectify the damage done is a dead end, as the editorial points out. But we do not have to wait for the revolution to fight capitalism's wreaking of havoc to our environment. Workers, farmers, youth, and anyone concerned for the future of humanity should join the fight against toxic waste, destruction of our forests, nuclear power and its waste, industrial emissions causing global warming and destruction of the ozone layer. And most importantly, communist workers should join those in struggle because only they can bring a class analysis and a real understanding of the etiology of the destruction of the natural environment to the struggle. That understanding, that capitalism is the driving force behind the accelerating destruction, will lead the best fighters to the conclusion that power must be removed from the hands of the capitalist class by working people, and that a revolutionary party is necessary to accomplish that task.
Gary Cohen
Arlington, Massachusetts
Global warming II
The December 29 Militant contains an article on the Kyoto
treaty by Argiris Malapanis, as well as an editorial on the
same subject, that I think contain some important errors.
Before describing these, let me state that I am in agreement
with the assessment of the Kyoto conference as being
characterized mainly by jockeying of rival imperialist powers
for their own advantage, and certainly not by any concern for
the environment.
What, then, are the problems I see with the Militant's coverage? They are 1) the skepticism about global warming (and the severity of the world's environmental problems as a whole) is handled inappropriately, and betrays a lack of background on the scientific issues and on how scientists draw conclusions, and 2) the editorial does not point a way forward politically, arguing from what I think is a sectarian and ultraleft standpoint that the only thing anyone can or should do about environmental problems is to join a revolutionary party.
Global warming is only one way in which capitalism is devastating the environment. There are numerous others, and the evidence is quite strong (and less ambiguous) that, for example, that natural ecosystems are being destroyed, species driven to extinction, and agroecosystems are facing severe problems. I am not stating that the "destruction of the planet is imminent through pollution," (as the editorial and article both claim that many environmentalists do) and am not aware of anyone who has made such an argument. I think it's a description of reality, not "petty bourgeois hysteria."
Is the treaty a farce? Yes. It is largely a device to win support to "our" imperialists in their contests with other imperialists. Most, if not all, of the environmental groups (who are about as reformist as one can get) have fallen for this device. Does that mean that working people don't have a stake in fighting against capitalism's environmental destruction? Absolutely not.
And that's why the editorial's tone and conclusion are, I think, wrong. It doesn't describe a program that could be implemented by a workers' and farmers' government, or demands around which union members can fight the destruction wrought by their employers. Instead it argues that the only really useful thing one can do is to join a revolutionary party - but it appears to be a revolutionary party that has nothing to say, really, about these environmental issues, because its program isn't stated.
There is no doubt about it: environmental problems are going to be with us as long as we have capitalism. In fact, I'd argue that such problems as global warming are actually powerful arguments for planned economies. But that doesn't mean that we have nothing to say in the meantime - any more than we'd say that exploitation of workers or oppression of women can only be eliminated by revolution. That's true, but it's not a sufficient basis for getting people to fight back, or to think about the problem from the viewpoint of class politics. Those should be our goals.
Gerald Field
San Diego, California
The letters column is an open forum for all viewpoints on subjects of general interest to our readers. Please keep your letters brief. Where necessary they will be abridged. Please indicate if you prefer that your initials be used rather than your full name.