Jeremy Corbyn, here’s how to address climate change like an anti-capitalist
It is in a comradely manner, as a socialist within the Green Party, that I offer some genuine advice to Jeremy Corbyn’s campaign. I watched Jeremy’s speech in Glasgow where amongst other things he laid out ‘Standing to Deliver’, his 10 point policy platform. It was very good, and I hope he wins, but there was one small area that could use some work, and that’s his point on the environment.
Here’s what he said (starting at 26.20):
“We live in a world that is in peril. An environment that is at risk, pollution levels that are unbelievable, and climate change that is absolutely happening. There are millions around the world whose livelihood is being destroyed through desertification, deforestation, floods and many other things. We need to have an attitude of mind towards the natural world and the environment, about how we conserve what we’ve got, use what we have more carefully, recycle what we can, reuse what we can, and look to the damage we’re doing to biodiversity and ecosystems everywhere. It’s very important, not just for us and this generation, but for future generations. So it’s an attitude towards the environment and how as a government I think we should approach it by international legally-binding regulations on emissions, on the way in which the pollution takes place around the world, and how we protect our environment.”
This sounds like it was written by someone who has realised they need to include a point about the environment and recognises that protecting the environment is important, but hasn’t had time to think through what a leftist’s perspective on that should be.
Fortunately, socialists within the Green Party have had many years of debating precisely this issue, and are in a position to offer some perspective.
Broadly within various Green Parties there are two main camps. The first are those who portray themselves as ‘real environmentalists’ and who say the party should focus more on recycling, getting rid of plastic bags, insulating homes and cutting emissions, and who broadly see the solution to climate change as reducing their own carbon footprint and that of others, often promoting lifestyle changes such as cycling and vegetarianism. Some are a little more extreme and call for population control, but the focus is on reducing the environmental impact of individual human beings.
The second camp recognises that in order to stop climate change and other environmental destruction, the economy itself is going to have to change in a fundamental way. Whilst they certainly don’t disagree with home insulation, recycling and cutting emissions, they acknowledge that this will in no way be enough, and that large scale systemic change is required. Ecosocialists, who make up a large proportion of this group, believe that that systemic change must be the destruction or curtailment of capitalism.
That sounds right up Corbyn’s alley, but his speech sounds much closer to the former camp.
It isn’t just a matter of rhetoric – I very much believe that the current approach will merely tinker around the edges whilst the planet burns. Here are some ways Corbyn can address climate change in a manner in keeping with the rest of his socialist politics.
- Know who to blame. The blame for climate change and environmental destruction should be laid squarely at the door of the capitalist class and the free market. Those forces together will extract every last drop of oil from the ground and will burn up our planet for profit, in the biggest market failure in human history, unless they’re stopped by democratic forces. Like any leftist campaign, we should target the powerful.
- Get angry. Corbyn’s finest moment was when he spoke of trade union suppression and its effects on health and safety and workers’ deaths around the world, when uncharacteristic anger was allowed to rise to the surface. Climate change and peak oil aren’t some future concern – it’s happening right now, and it’s causing wars, refugee crises, starvation and suffering in some of the world’s most vulnerable places.
- Be clear – don’t talk about the human race as ‘we’. Whilst it is correct that the capitalist class are part of humanity, it isn’t particularly useful to say that ‘we’ have caused climate change and environmental destruction. The levers of power are actually out of reach of most people. Similarly ‘we’ as individuals can’t stop it. Our consumer choices will do little to bring about change.
- Don’t talk about changing people’s attitudes. Creating ‘an attitude of mind’ about the environment is not actually going to change anything in and of itself. Even if 90% of humans considered themselves part of nature and publicly opposed environmental destruction, they would still be locked into a system of destructive economic exploitation unless they took action to dismantle that system.
- Don’t talk about environmentalism as if it has to involve sacrifice – tie it into your other priorities. A well-known cartoon shows a delegate at the climate summit asking “what if it’s a big hoax and we create a better world for nothing?” Addressing environmental destruction isn’t necessarily about being less well-off now to protect the future. An economy which takes climate change seriously is one which distributes wealth more equitably, which creates good jobs, which depends less on a risky finance sector, which is run in a more democratic way. These chime very much with Jeremy’s other policies.
Apologies for typo’s.
Many thanks for the article. For me what JC did not hit home on and the writer did is that reform of our economy and saving all of us from our own destruction are inseperable. Yes, awareness from the Grassroots up about how wr are all connected to this system is very important bit, This also needs to be spelled out in urgent termd to those in powet. Of course many in power (Financially, politically snd in industry probably are aware but i wonder to what extent?) Social justice and equality would come hand in hand with sustainability as part of an Eco socialist system. They are interlinked and moreover unless we act quickly it will be too late! JC had no sense of urgency in his statement in the same way as he does around austerity and othet issues. He undoubtedly hopes to secure support from us Greens. We need to bring our passion, knowledge and understanding to the Game.
Thank you for this article. I know there are people that do not like to use ‘class’ phraseology any more as they think it is outdated. When talking of global economics it is perfectly justified to use the term ‘capitalist’ because that is a description of the pillage and waste of natural resources for monetary gain. The financial returns are limitless for the very few. There is no thought given to long term damage both to the environment or to the lives of the indigenous peoples whose survival is under extreme threat.
The Scottish Green Party is dedicated to changing not just our attitude to the environment but also how we as a society redistribute wealth:through a fair taxation system, land ownership, a caring welfare system, nationalised rail networks and localised decision making.
“The blame for climate change and environmental destruction should be laid squarely at the door of the capitalist class and the free market.”
Imagine that the people in charge of power generation, airlines, and food production were all replaced tomorrow with members of the green party. Would everybody else immediately stop wanting to spend their money on gadgets which use lots of electricity, going to distant places by planes, and eating food that has come from far away?
It might be that the answer is yes, in which case you are right to blame the elites and exempt normal people — who presumably have been tricked into wanting all these things by the capitalist class — from any responsibility.
But I think it’s more likely that the answer would be no. In that case, one of two things follow. It could be the case that fossil fuel consumption isn’t purely the fault of the capitalist class. Or it be that, as relatively well-off people in the West with some disposable income, more or less everybody reading this article should be regarded as a member of the capitalist class.
The point isn’t about the individuals holding positions but instead about the position that they hold. I specifically said that systemic change is needed, not just plugging different people into the system. The world does not have to work in the consumerist manner you describe where people being prepared to buy things is what makes them available.
Although the ruling classes have created the current way of doing things over time and they have a much greater degree of control over it, actually it’s not that they’re bad people necessarily. The class context in which they exist is far more important.
Great article, and so very useful.
However, I agree with the previous comment by Muchael that we are all complicit in keeping the system going. If possible, I would find another way of describing the rich and powerful than ‘capitalist class’ as unfortunately right now we all have class roles within the capitalist system, so we each belong to a ‘capitalist class’ or another. For example, by virtue of my job I know that I’m part of the middle class, upholding the capitalist system by managing and appeasing the workers and thus fully contributing to keeping the status quo. I can do little to change that unless the whole system changes (like you say) and so I try to consciously work for system change while trying to keep thinking about my role.
So on the one hand I think it’s important to acknowledge neither of us is non-complicit with how capitalism operates (eg by living in the EU we all benefit from the work of the rest of the planet).
On the other hand, I do think that people who own the means of production cannot escape the fact that they are top of the food chain and thus of the environmental destruction chain and it is those people we need to reach with good policies such as divestment – both in the sense of giving up their interests in fossil fuel and in the sense of actually divesting themselves of all kinds of capital, not just of the profits they make. A government that could clearly articulate that would be an effective one. Is Jeremy Corbyn up to that challenge? We’ll see.
Hmm, interesting. The way I would understand the term “capitalist class” is “those who own capital” ie “those who make their living by owning the means of production rather than by selling their labour”. It’s a term with quite a specific meaning, so I’m not sure what else I’d use to describe it – though I absolutely agree that it’s a bit confusing because the word “capitalism” is used to mean both an ideology and a mode of production…
I personally prefer the Marxist ‘owning class’ because it talks about ownership, although I can see that some people might not like the associations – I know some of my compatriots with former communist experiences hate the term.
Unless you are a subsistence farmer, then you and I are both responsible for what is going on. The computer I’m using now is a fabulous tool but it is powered by fossil fuels, built in a developing country for poverty wages, made from toxic and rare heavy metals. I work for a company that is a part of the capitalist machine. My taxes subsidise fossil fuel exploration, nuclear power and weapons.
It is all about people’s attitude. People don’t know or don’t want to know about the danger of climate change. We still need to get that message across. Would people tolerate the system if they knew how it worked? Look at how many millions of plastic bags are used every single day – the report the other day about food wastage. We need to change the system, yes, but we need to bring this change from the bottom up and the top down. To divide people into ‘greens’ (?) and the ‘capitalist class’ is divisive and misguided.
I think this is kind of missing Mike’s point. Of course you can portion out carbon emissions and allocate blame for each of them to someone along the supply chain which has produced them. Similarly, we can say that poverty is the fault of everyone with more than average wealth and that crime is the sole responsibility of the criminal.
Alternatively, we can say that broad and complex social problems are best understood at a societal level, and best addressed at a social level.
Finally, I agree that dividing people into classes is misguided. But unfortunately, that’s what capitalism does. It’s one of many reasons I’m against it.
Totally agree with you,Adam, but also I got Michael’s point. We all are in this kind of circle and it’s not easy to break it, but yes, people should be more informed, we have to acquire a new perspective and teach ourselves and our children to love and care for nature – without it, we’re all lost 🙁
I entirely agree with your comment, Michael (and perhaps I am missing the point of the original article!).
If individual attitudes don’t change, how will corporations change? They are run by groups of individuals after all; individuals who have an enormous amount of power to bring about change if they wanted to.
It’s easy for us to lay the blame and responsibility on big business and the overall economy, but most of us buy into that economy every day without even thinking about it. At the same time, big business is happy to insist they are just providing what consumers want.