by Amy Leather, Climate and Capitalism: http://climateandcapitalism.com/2017/01/06/capitalism-hopelessly-addicted-to-fossil-fuels/
With Donald Trump in
the White House the future for our climate looks bleak, but capitalism’s
love affair with fossil energy runs much deeper than the desires and
personalities of individual politicians. Republished, with permission, from the UK magazine Socialist Review, January 2017.
World leaders are failing on climate change. Theresa May’s Tory
government has given the go ahead to a new nuclear reactor at Hinkley
Point, backed the expansion of Heathrow airport and overturned the local
decision in Lancashire to stop fracking. Meanwhile climate change
denier Donald Trump is heading to the White House.
The last decade has seen a massive expansion of so-called “dirty
energies” such as fracking, deep water drilling, and tar sand
extraction. The pledges to reduce carbon emissions in the Paris
Agreement, signed by 196 countries in December 2015, are only voluntary.
Even if signatories kept to them we would still be on track for global
warming far higher than is sustainable.
The scale of the crisis is widely recognized. Climate scientists and
environmentalists such as Ian Angus have shown that we have entered a
new geological era - the Anthropocene - in which the dominant influence
on the environment is human activity. Unless urgent action is taken we
face catastrophic climate change. The solution to global warming is
quite simple - we need to stop burning fossil fuels such as coal, oil
and gas which release carbon dioxide into the atmosphere and instead
make a rapid switch to renewables.
So why won’t our rulers act? We need to look beyond the individual
politicians. There are, of course, the climate change deniers, who must
be challenged and stopped, but much of the ruling class does accept that
climate change is a reality. The problem is they are guardians of a
system with fossil fuels at its heart. Tackling the climate crisis would
mean tackling the vested interests of the fossil fuel corporations - some of the most profitable companies in the world. To understand why
capitalism and fossil fuels are so intertwined we need to go back to the
time of the industrial revolution in Britain.
Andreas Malm, in his book Fossil Capital, outlines how in
the early 1800s an energy transition took place in Britain. The first
machines of the industrial revolution, the spinning and weaving machines
of the cotton industry, were driven by water. In 1800 there were at
least 1,000 water mills concentrated in Lancashire and Scotland. Even as
late as the 1820s most mills in Manchester were still water-powered.
Just ten years later steam generated by burning coal had overtaken
This transition to steam was not an inevitable consequence of James
Watt’s invention of the rotative steam engine in 1784. A protracted
battle took place in industry. Water’s main advantage was that it was
free, as well as being abundant in the rain-soaked areas of Scotland and
the north-west of England, where the cotton industry was based. But
steam allowed capitalists to exploit labor more efficiently. Coal was
mobile. The capitalist could move it to where the labour sources were,
rather than having to move people to where the energy source was.
Water-powered mills or factories had to be built next to the water
source. A disciplined workforce was hard to find in such rural areas and
so the mill owners would have to invest in building a “colony” - a
settlement near the water source to house and service workers. This was
both an extra outlay and an invitation to industrial strife. In contrast
coal was a “ticket to the town” giving capitalists better access to
disciplined workers in the newly expanded urban areas. The cost of coal
began to be offset by these benefits.
A number of factors came together in the 1820s and 1830s. The Factory
Acts, which limited working hours, had a greater impact on the
factories powered by water. Previously, if these mills lost production
time due to a lack of water supply, they would make it up by imposing
longer hours to offset the lost production. Once this avenue was closed
the advantage began to fall to steam.
So the fossil economy has one incontestable birthplace: Britain.
However, this wasn’t a collective decision by the whole British
population. In fact the introduction of steam was often fiercely
resisted by workers, such as in the Plug Plot Riots of 1842, which were
linked to the Chartist movement. Workers pulled the plugs out of the
steam engines, stopping production by allowing the water to escape.
The introduction of steam unleashed a process, a path of development,
with fossil fuels at its heart. The nature of capitalist competition
meant that once one capitalist introduced a new method others were
forced to follow in order to keep up. The shift to coal didn’t stay
confined to Britain. Economic and military competition meant that the
fossil economy was soon projected across the globe. By the end of the
19th century industry and railroads in the US were burning more coal
than those in Britain, while Germany and a number of other European
countries were also about to catch up.
The introduction of oil further drove this process. Petroleum had
previously been used mainly for lighting as kerosene and as lubrication.
The inventions of the internal combustion engine in the 1880s and of
the aeroplane in 1903 created a new market for it. These new machines
used gasoline - a part of petroleum that refiners had been previously
discarding. In the early 20th century imperial armies became major
customers for gasoline. Oil-powered tanks, airplanes, destroyers and
submarines played decisive roles in the First World War.
One breakthrough for petroleum was Britain’s decision in 1912 to
convert its battleships from coal to oil. Class interests played a major
role in the decision. The only source of the high-grade anthracite coal
that fuelled battleships was the Welsh mines. In 1910 Winston Churchill
had used the army to break strikes in these pits. When he took
responsibility for the army in 1911 he immediately initiated a program
to convert the battleships to oil. He said that in doing this the
government “was freeing itself from the political claims of the miners”.
Shortly after the First World War mass production of cars began. By
1929 the car industry was the largest in the US. Meanwhile the chemical
industry was developing new products made either from the by-products of
oil refining or requiring the high levels of energy that only oil could
provide. The 1930s saw the invention of synthetic fibres such as nylon
and the first mass-produced plastics and industrial chemicals.
From the 1880s onward the concentration and centralization of capital
saw giant companies dominating the global economy - nowhere more so
than in the fossil industries. In 1930 over half of the 200 largest
industrial companies in the US were in the chemicals, petroleum, metals,
rubber or transportation industries. Such concentrated power meant that
decisions made in a handful of enterprises could rapidly change whole
industries and affect the entire world.
In his book, Facing the Anthropocene,
Ian Angus points to “the Great Acceleration” in global warming that
took place after 1945. Total world energy consumption more than tripled
in the post-war period. The conditions for this were shaped by
developments made during the Second World War.
The US government pumped
massive amounts of money into oil-related industries to help the war
effort. Six out of every seven barrels of oil used by the Allied Forces
came from US wells and were refined by US oil companies. The government
built new pipelines and refineries equipped with new technology. The US
car industry stopped commercial production and instead made 2 million
jeeps and trucks plus airplane engines, tanks, armored cars, machine
guns and bombs - funded by $29 billion in government subsidies. These
industries ended the war with updated and expanded facilities, which
laid the basis for a massive expansion of production.
The US government also plowed money into the petrochemical plants to
produce nitrogen for explosives, synthetic rubber for tires and nylon
for parachutes. After the war the government sold these new updated
factories and plants at knock down prices to private oil and chemical
companies, paving the way for a new age of plastic. This state-led
renewal of manufacturing had enormous implications for both the global
role of the US and the use of fossil fuels.
The Marshall Plan of 1948 strengthened the global role of US
corporations. The US state gave vast amounts of money to European
countries so they could buy oil from US oil companies. Between 1948 and
1951 more than half of the oil sold to Western European buyers by US oil
companies was paid for with Marshall Plan funds.
The US government also
subsidised the expansion of its oil companies into new facilities in
Saudi Arabia in order to meet European demand. Before the war 20 percent
of Europe’s oil imports came from the Middle East, rising to 85 percent
in 1950. This setup accelerated Europe’s long-term transition from coal
to oil dependence. World oil production grew by more than 700 percent
in the period 1946-73.
The Second World War fundamentally shaped the terrain, enabling the
growth of massive corporations in the fossil fuel economy. Other trends
drove this further, such as the industrialization of agriculture with
its use of synthetic fertilisers and pesticides derived from oil.
Today’s food system is reliant on fossil fuel inputs at every stage of
production, distribution, packaging and consumption. Continued high
military expenditure after the war also had an impact.
Today the US
military is the world’s largest user of petroleum, the largest polluter - producing more hazardous waste than the five largest US chemical
companies combined - and the largest producer of greenhouse gases.
The whole infrastructure of capitalism has been built on fossil fuel.
These enormous historic investments would have to be written off if we
were to make a transition to renewables. Such a vast global write-off of
capital would be unprecedented in scale. Globally the replacement cost
of the existing fossil fuel and nuclear power infrastructure runs into
trillions of dollars. It is unlikely that companies operating it would
be happy to write off that amount and replace it with a renewable energy
system carrying an even higher price tag.
Capitalists want to retrieve their costs. Even once the cost of, for
example, a power plant has been recovered it is still better to keep it
in operation for as long as possible. Decommissioning the structure and
constructing another would be to start all over again and lose any
market advantage. Two thirds of US power plants built since the 1890s
are still in use.
Capital has a vested interest in the endurance of the fossil fuel
landscape. Although it is rational from the point of view of the planet
to switch to renewables, it is completely irrational from the point of
view of each individual capitalist. And, of course, the fossil fuel
industries have plenty of money to ensure they do continue. Naomi Klein
in her book, This Changes Everything, exposed the vast lobbying
power of these companies.
In 2013 in the US alone the oil and gas
industries spent $400,000 every day lobbying Congress and government
officials. The problem gets worse as time goes on. Investment in fossil
industries doesn’t stop while governments argue over what to do about
When and if the decision is finally made to cut emissions
seriously, far more capital will have to be liquidated than if the
process had been started decades ago. In the first decade of the new
millennium more coal-fired power plants were constructed than in any
previous decade. In the three years from 2010 to 2012 more than two and a
half times more coal capacity was added than in the entire decade of
As Angus makes clear, “Fossil fuels are not an overlay that can be
peeled away from capitalism - leaving the system intact, they are
embedded in every aspect of the system.” It is common within the climate
movement to hear the argument that we are all to blame for climate
change. However, it is clear that the decisions to adopt fossil fuels
and continue and expand their use were not made by everyone. Rather the
decision was made by those early capitalists at the start of
industrialization in Britain as a way to better exploit workers in order
to maximize profit.
Of course, those capitalists in the 1830s could not have known they
were setting the world on course for catastrophic global warming - although is worth noting that air quality and related issues were
subject to much complaint by the working class at the time. But the
point is we now know the consequences of burning coal, oil and gas.
Yet the irrationality of capitalism dictates the opposite from the
action that needs to be taken. This is not a technical problem. Studies
show that a full transition to renewable, non-carbon fuels is physically
possible. Of course, it would cost money but, as we’ve seen, states
have made investments on this scale before, particularly during wartime.
But the historic investment in the fossil fuel industries and the
colossal vested interests with the power to lobby governments mean that
we are up against massive economic and political obstacles.
If we accept that fossil fuels are completely embedded in capitalism
then the conclusion must surely be that we have to get rid of that
system. But this is not an argument for us to wait until the revolution
to sort out climate change. The problem is immediate. There are battles
constantly within capitalism. Sometimes there are struggles explicitly
about climate change and the environment, for example over fracking in
The oil and gas companies some years back claimed fracking
would be in full production by now. In fact there has only been one
frack so far in Britain. Campaigning has made a difference; it has
helped stop the further expansion of the fossil fuel landscape.
The sustained protest at Standing Rock in Dakota has seen a victory,
at least for now, with the US engineer corps saying it will allow a
massive oil pipeline to be routed beneath the Missouri River. But other
fights can also show the power to take on those vested interests of the
oil and gas companies. The strikes in France over the new work law in
2016 took place in oil refineries and involved blockades of fuel depots.
The action led to a petrol shortage and hit power output. The strikes
were about the new work law but they showed where power lies to take on
the giant fossil fuel multinationals.
In every movement wider questions are raised about capitalism and
where power lies in society to bring about change. As revolutionaries
and environmentalists we should be part of every fight over the issue of
the climate - as well as raising the question of climate change in
every struggle. The impact of climate change intensifies all struggles
bred by capitalism.
We have to be part of those struggles, link them
together and crucially connect them to the power to get rid of
capitalism completely. We have to fight now to stop the further
expansion of fossil fuels but we also need to fight to replace a society
based on accumulation for profit with one based on production for need.
Amy Leather is joint national secretary of the UK Socialist Workers Party.
Saturday, January 7, 2017
Thursday, December 29, 2016
|Campaign against Climate Change Logo (Photo credit: Wikipedia)|
by Nick Fillmore, Boomer Warrior: http://www.boomerwarrior.org/2016/06/climate-change-anxiety/
In this post, Nick Fillmore discusses the emergence of climate change anxiety. As people around the globe begin to encounter the truth about climate change - the anticipation of where the next climate-related disaster will hit and issues of personal safety and survival - medical experts are warning that we are “not even close to being prepared for the damage being done to our mental health” (Rolly Montpellier~Editor for BoomerWarrior).
Climate Change Anxiety
Image credit: Australian science communicator Joe Duggan, as a master’s student, began asking climate scientists in 2014 how being on the front lines of climate science makes them feel. The hand-written responses he got back showed a level of emotion and concern the public never sees.
After I had published two or three items on various news sites, I was surprised - actually shocked - to learn that, compared to other topics I have written about - such as international financial mismanagement and neo-liberalism - very few people read the climate change articles.
To try to find out why this is the case, I spoke with a few friends. Most said the thought of dramatic changes occurring on Earth were overwhelming. Worse still, they felt powerless to change the course of history. As it turned out, hardly any of my friends wanted to learn more about the threat or find out how they might help fight climate change.
I don’t know the psychological state of my friends, but an Australian psychologist believes she knows why millions of people are reacting emotionally to climate change.
Dr. Susie Burke of the Australian Psychological Society says that, as life on earth becomes more abnormal over time, it can bring on all kinds of feelings in people. Knowing this, I’d say some of my friends are in what is perhaps an early anxiety stage concerning the threat of climate change. As conditions worsen, their symptoms can be expected to worsen.
“Many people may feel seriously concerned, frightened, angry, pessimistic, distressed, or guilty in response to climate change,” she says. “Qualitative research finds evidence of some people being deeply affected by feelings of loss, helplessness, and frustration due to their inability to feel they are making a difference in stopping climate change".
Photo credit: Getty images“New terms such as ‘eco-anxiety’ or ‘climate change anxiety’ are sometimes used to describe this.” Dr. Burke says that if people experience something like an extreme weather disaster, the impact on them can get worse. So disasters occurring because of climate change, in addition to destroying our environment, will also affect us psychologically and mentally.
Depression, PTSD and complicated grief reactions are the most common mental health problems … and many, many more people who do not end up with a diagnosis of depression or PTSD, nonetheless end up with heightened distress, grief, stress and strain.The most disastrous impacts are occurring in some developing countries. Recently a city in western India suffered through the country’s highest ever recorded temperature - a scorching 51 degrees Celsius (123.8 F). As a result of crops being wiped out by excessive heat, hundreds of depressed farmers across 13 states have killed themselves.
In Karachi, Pakistan, in anticipation of another heat wave this year, officials hired a digger to excavate three elongated trenches big enough for 300 bodies. In Canada, while climate change is not nearly as damaging - at least so far - as in many other countries, it already is having an impact on the mental health of many people.
Worst affected are the northern First Nations and Inuit, peoples who have a close relationship with nature. Melting permafrost is damaging vital ice roads, making them unstable and unsafe. In the past, roads in Ontario used to import vital goods, were safe about 70 days a year. Now they’re passable only about 35 days. The changes have made hunting more unpredictable. Changes in ice flow patterns have made hunting walrus more difficult.
Isadore Day, Ontario’s regional chief for the Assembly of First Nations, says that despair over climate change is contributing to mental health and social problems, possibly even record-breaking suicide rates.
Ashlee Cunsolo Willox, an assistant professor of indigenous studies at Cape Breton University, says the impact of climate change on northern peoples was evident back in 2009, when she did her PhD dissertation in Labrador. She says family stress was elevated. Anxiety and depression seemed to be amplified. More people were turning to drugs and alcohol and having suicidal thoughts.
Interestingly, Willox said the people she interviewed weren’t talking to each other about their fears - which, I think, is similar to the way some of my friends are responding to the emerging crisis.
Some farmers on the Canadian prairies are also experiencing severe anxiety. Farmers have always been at the mercy of the weather at the best of times. But Kim Keller, who worked on her family’s grain farm about 200 kilometres northeast of Saskatoon, told The Toronto Star that climate change is hitting some farmers hard. The dramatic changes are amplifying mental distress as farmers struggle with the floods, unseasonable frosts, and windstorms that scientists say are becoming more frequent and severe.
Planting crops year to year is becoming a “roll of the dice,” said Keller, a third-generation farmer. “The weather we tend to experience lately seems to be at one extreme or the other - drought or flooding, -40 C or 35 C. These unpredictable and extreme weather patterns add to all the other stressors farmers experience and deal with.”
In Alberta, the lives of thousands of people have been upended by the massive Fort McMurray wildfires, an event that is consistent with the predictions of climate change scientists. It’s not hard to predict that many people who will continue to live in the area will suffer anxiety. Meanwhile, the CBC reports that children who experienced the fires are suffering from stress.
On a worldwide scale, it appears that the impact of climate change on human health will be receiving much more attention in the future. A report by the United Nations Human Rights Council released in May says that massive action is needed to protect the human rights - particularly the mental health - of people.
The report warns: “The negative health impacts of climate change will increase exponentially with every incremental increase in warming. Limiting warming to the greatest extent possible and achieving the target of 1.5 degrees Celsius above pre-industrial levels should therefore be the objective of all climate action.”
The problems in developing countries the report addresses also apply to native groups living in the Canadian North and prairie farmers: “States should establish, inter alia, early warning systems; utilize community-based monitoring, including traditional knowledge; enhance emergency response capabilities; and improve coordination in addressing climate migration ...”
While many Canadian mental health and some government officials are aware of the impact of climate change on human health, it does not appear that the actions recommended by the UN are being carried out in Canada.
This post was originally published at nickfillmore.blogspot.com.
Nick Fillmore is a Canadian freelance journalist and social activist who specializes in issues such as climate change, international finance, and media. Nick often writes about issues that are censored or poorly covered by mainstream media. You can visit his blog: nickfillmore.blogspot.com, Facebook and Twitter.