Reclaiming the Commons: Responding to
Climate Change and Peak Oil
by David
Orton
"We must live at a level that we seriously can wish
others to attain, not at a level that requires
the bulk of humanity NOT to reach."
Arne Naess, in Philosophical
Dialogues: Arne Naess and the Progress of Ecophilosophy
p. 224.
"The Greens have become a party of timorous environmentalists
attempting to bring in a few petty
environmental reforms, and the majority of them have
become adherents of eco-capitalism. Their
programmes and policies are full of inner
contradictions, which arise from the fact that they are afraid
of telling voters hard ecological truths."
Saral Sarkar, speaking of the German Green Party in
his 1999 book Eco-socialism or
Eco-capitalism? p. 200.
Introduction
I believe the understanding that the climate is
changing, and that this is for the worse, is starting to
penetrate the
consciousness of many people in Canada and in other countries. We seem
to be in an
era when many
also understand that "peak oil" and "peak natural gas" have arrived or
are about to
arrive. What
this will mean for a global production and distribution economy,
totally addicted to
fossil fuels,
and for the economic, social, political, cultural, and military
relationships built around this,
is now being
argued over by those willing to admit that climate change and
diminishing oil and natural
gas supplies
are upon us. (The figure for world consumption of oil products is
usually given as about
84 million
barrels per day.)
"We can solve the climate crisis" stated Elizabeth
May, Green Party leadership candidate, in a recent
CBC radio
phone-in program in the Maritimes. Yet deeper electoral Greens, while
believing that we
must try to
change industrial society's and our own destructive obsessions, remain
unsure whether or
not this is
possible. This message, not that of optimism, should be part of any
truthful message to the
electorate.
Greens, as a social movement and as a political party, need to make it
clear that one of their
basic
messages, which sets them apart from all other parties, is that voting
Green means LESS industrial
consumer goods
for those in the so-called developed industrial societies, and a
greatly increased living
space for
other species. As this may not be a vote-getting message, it is absent
from the federal Green
Party
electoral platform in Canada.
Discussion
REVOLUTIONARY OR
REFORMIST IDEAS?
Talking about climate change and peak oil is an
opportunity for those in support of deeper green
thinking to
take part in a discussion which can be truly revolutionary in its
implications for ecological
and social
change. But this will not happen, unless ideas which present the actual
ecological and
social
problems which we must confront, become part of the public discourse.
For it to happen, these
ideas have to
gain an expression within the green and environmental movements and in
political
vehicles like
the federal and provincial Green Parties in Canada. It is to such
parties, whatever their
internal
contradictions - and there are many - to which the public in Canada at
the present time
looks to
for some political direction in matters environmental.
But on what basis do we as Greens enter these
discussions? Is the basis one of timorous reformism -
limiting
ourselves to what amounts to incrementalism (within a taken-for-granted
market fundamentalism),
which is the
eco-capitalism referred to in Saral Sarkar's quote above? Do we present
the view, as given
in Tim
Flannery's recent, much praised book, The
Weather Makers, that "we can all make a difference
and help
combat climate change at almost no cost to our lifestyle." (p. 6) Or do
we truthfully elaborate
what the
actual problems are AND have discussions about the seismic changes
which are called for within
us and within
Canadian society and in other countries?
Is the path forward for the federal Green Party that
articulated by leadership aspirant Elizabeth May
(as expressed
in a Montreal Gazette article
of May 12, 2006): "In a movement known for its share of
tree-huggers
and wingnuts, May has always been mainstream, working from the inside
rather than
shouting from
the barricades." (I identify myself with the tree-huggers and alleged
wingnuts.) Will
Canada change
in some fundamental way if the Green Party finally has access to the
leadership debates
in federal
elections or elects a handful of Green MPs, if these MPs are
self-muzzled within their own
thinking as to
what is possible? Can industrial capitalism, ontologically rooted in
incessant economic
growth,
conspicuous consumerism, and defying any sense of ecological limits
here in Canada and
elsewhere,
essentially reform itself? Can it do all this, keeping in place
existing social structures, while
combatting
climate change and ending our basic dependence on fossil fuels? How we
answer this question
is quite
fundamental for the federal and provincial Green Parties in Canada.
Answering this will determine
the kind of
politics we proclaim for ourselves, and for others who we ask to follow
us.
We need to get the climate change/peak oil issue
right in our own minds - although there are great
uncertainties
- otherwise we can betray ourselves and those we seek to influence.
OPPORTUNISM
Complicating the internal struggle within the
federal Green Party over policy differences, which are
usually
genuinely held, is, I believe, the presence of a number of people who
are basically members for
opportunist,
self-advancement reasons. Such people see the Greens (rightly) as an
ascending political
vehicle within
Canadian society, but they search us out for opportunities for personal
upward mobility.
Such people
seem often to lack any actual history of environmental or social
justice struggles before
joining the
party and dumb down policy discussions in order, allegedly, not to
"alienate" the public.
FOLLOWING THE DEEP ECOLOGY PATH
The above quote by Arne Naess, the Norwegian founder
of deep ecology, about how our own
lifestyles
must be realistically attainable by the dispossessed of the globe,
offers some guidance for
those who
aspire to a deeper green consciousness on climate change and the coming
end of unbridled
fossil fuel
consumption. Naess's quote has had a profound impact upon me, because
of its social justice
connotations.
It means that it is total selfishness and discrimination on our part,
against those who have
no access to
our kind of lifestyle, to advance so-called solutions to climate change
which do not take
into account
the poverty and living standard of all the people on Earth. Deeper
greens must not take
part in
climate change discussions which focus on soft energy paths to replace
fossil fuels, but which keep
the existing
high energy consumption lifestyle in our country, thus basically
turning our backs on the world's
dispossessed.
This does not mean that we are unconcerned about softer technologies
like solar or wind
power, but it
does mean that electoral Greens cannot replace the larger issue of the
basic unsustainability
of industrial
capitalist society with the pretense that, by some kind of retrofitting
agenda led by electoral
Greens, we can
painlessly evolve in some fundamentally new direction. One such
example, advocated in
the 2006 Election Platform, were the tax
shift on fossil fuels and carbon emissions trading. As Greens,
we must see
the atmosphere as part of the global commons. Carbon emissions trading
is just a continuation
of the ongoing
enclosure movement, the attempt to assert so-called private property
rights over the
commons by the
rich and the powerful. The solutions do not lie in "free" market
manipulations or in new
technologies,
and worshipping, as Jan Lundberg of the magazine Culture Change has said, at the feet
of
the
"Triumvirate of Technofixers": Amory Lovins, Jeremy Rifkin and Lester
Brown.
A NEW ECONOMICS
There have been quite a number of "ecological
footprint" writers, usually quite human-centered and
linking this
concept to the mythology of sustainable development. They have
presented the data that
how we live in
Canada or the United States, cannot be used as a model for the four to
five billion people
who do not
have this "developed" lifestyle, otherwise several planets will be
required. For those who
orient to
deeper green thinking, part of any realistic climate change discussion
in Canada must include
a world social
justice perspective. This presupposes that the excessive consumption
patterns of the
HAVE countries
like Canada must be drastically reduced. We need a new kind of
economics, a
Right
Livelihood, what Schumacher in Small
is Beautiful called "Buddhist economics." As well as
stressing
economic localism, as opposed to the current globalism, Schumacher
points out a very
important point, applicable to Canada's energy policy: "Non
renewable goods (e.g. coal, oil, natural
gas), must be
used only if they are indispensable, and then only with the greatest
care and the most
meticulous
concern for conservation. To use them heedlessly or extravagantly is an
act of violence..."
(p. 50)
The new sustainable lifestyle we aspire to must also
be possible, with our assistance, for the have-nots
of this world.
This is what Naess is referring to. Obviously this means a
redistribution of wealth on a
global scale
(communism is not dead in the water) AND some considerable reduction in
population
numbers
- including in the high consumption countries like Canada, with social,
political and cultural
policies which
encourage this. This has to be boldly said by ALL Greens and not kept
as some very minor
current in
internal party discussion lists, to let deeper Greens blow off some
steam. It is the responsibility
of all Greens
in Canada to foster such public discussions around the climate change
issue.
OTHER SPECIES ARE IMPORTANT FOR
THE GREENS
The above discussion only relates to HUMANS and does
not take into account, as we must, the life
requirements
of all the other species which share this planet with us, plus their
habitat needs. As deep
ecology
supporters know, we humans are not only totally befouling our own nest,
but we have given
ourselves the
right to do this for all other species. I have no idea what a
sustainable human population
would be for
this world - a world where poverty is eliminated - but the discussion
about the requirements
for a
sustainable world population has to begin now, as the Earth's
life-support systems start to unravel
around us.
Canadian Greens need to look at the ecological carrying capacity of
Canada, considering the
habitat needs
for all species, as well as humans, before we can form positions on
emotion-laden topics
like
immigration and population. Tim Flannery's 1994 book The Future Eaters: An Ecological
History of the
Australasian Lands and People, which I highly recommend, does
this kind of population
capacity study
for Australia. He comes up with "an optimum, long-term population
target of 6-12 million"
(p. 369),
meaning that country is already overpopulated. Here in Canada we need
to do similar work
about what an
optimum human population would be and situate immigration discussions
within this.
As Naess and
Sessions note in the eight-point Deep Ecology Platform: "The
flourishing of human life
and cultures
is compatible with a substantial decrease of the human population. The
flourishing of
nonhuman life
requires such a decrease." If electoral Greens do not raise such
topics, they betray the
cause of being
Earth and social justice defenders, the causes for which they claim a
legitimacy to speak.
RECLAIMING THE
ENERGY COMMONS
Schumacher, if he were alive, would agree that in
Canada today we use oil and natural gas heedlessly
and
extravagantly. We do not have an energy policy, except to supply fossil
fuels to the United States.
Two thirds of
Canada's oil and gas production goes to the United States, and because
of NAFTA
our country is
now REQUIRED to do this. The run-away Alberta tar sands exploitation is
destroying
the ecology of
huge sections of that province, as well as producing large amounts of
greenhouse gases.
If we want to
seek a new, more localized economy within Nature's balance, in the era
of climate
change and
peak oil, then Canada must terminate pumping fossil fuels into the US -
the ultimate gas
guzzler and
world greenhouse gas emitter. Greens must advocate taking back into
communal
ownership the
energy sector of our economy. As greenhouse gas emissions must be cut
50-70 percent,
if the
atmosphere of our planet is to remain hospitable to all life forms,
including humans, then boldness
is called for
from those who call themselves Greens. Diane Cole, an anti-forest spray
activist then living
in Nova
Scotia, pointed out in 1983, "Poor leadership is worse than no
leadership at all because it lures
the people to
defeat in a dead end, making the failure appear as victory - stifling
dreams, ideals, and
creative
possibilities."
Greens must convey the electoral message that
climate change and peak oil are calling the fossil fuel-
based
industrial capitalist society into question and that a new ecological
consciousness and socially just
society is on
the agenda for all of us.
June 2006
For information on anything in
this bibliography, or to receive Green Web publications write to
us:
Green Web, R.R. #3, Saltsprings, Nova Scotia, Canada, BOK 1PO E-mail us at: greenweb@ca.inter.net