New from James Hansen and let’s watch the weather the coming day’s in California.

The Left has been missing in action. In addition the Left has been missing in action with regards to a real anti-capitalist vision. “Parecon” was primarily developed as a substitution for the word “socialism”. Michael Albert admitted such in an answer to a question about Socialism in his presentation during one of the major economic conferences. If the Left cannot defend and define its own historical terminology then why should anyone trust the Left to defend them in solidarity.

Also the Left by failing to confront Capitalism and Zionism also misses how the union have supported Zionism by “investing” union pension in Israel where that money should be invested in the workers communities. So while unionization is needed it certainly is cynical to call for stronger unions while members (largely people of color) money is going to a racist state.

And while the Left has been loudly voicing debt cancellation the Left has not mounted a campaign of debt repudiation that many U.S. workers no need. It is ironic that the Right has been on the forefront of pointing out the ills of a debt-based economy.

The Capitalist crisis and the desire of the Left to embrace the “anybody but bush” strategy and to diffuse the anti-war movement has put the Left into near irrelevancy. I guess the Left sees the Climate Change movement as a way to restore some degree of relevancy but the message from the Left at Copenhagen was not cohesive nor coherent.

The messages from the presidents of Bolivia and Venezuela was the most cogent. Both presented a real anti-capitalist message and that the only way to solve the climate change issue is by replacing Capitalism with Socialism. I don’t understand why the Left cannot adopt this message and stand firmly committed to it.

We are educated about what cap and trade is; a stock market scam. We don’t all need to get in line behind it; it is allowable to make a prediction based on history, and expecting entire movements to get behind you when you obviously don’t respect, listen to, or understand them is ridiculous. You seem not to see any irony in your bringing up the anti-apartheid struggle; a classical ‘liberal’ sort of example since they choose to ignore the fact that the poor blacks of South Africa were brutally betrayed because the ANC government went against their own charter and cemented in place the economic apartheid that leaves people still living in shacks without plumbing, electricity, or food. So no, I’ll support full justice, not “reform” (some people call the corporate wellfare health bill ‘reform’ but those of us really on the left support single-payer, despite the democratic apologists.) My statements are not false; yours are.

The time is now to act not talk and talk and talk.

This statement is simply false. First of all, no one has the privileged position to predict what exactly will happen in the future, including what will occur in Mexico. The reason being what happens from now until then will greatly determine future events. What can be said, however, is this: If a significant portion of the Left remains anti-reformist and uneducated on the issue of cap-and-trade while continuing to fall back on sound bites bashing cap-and-trade, our impact will be small if even noticeable. On the other hand, if we quit rejecting reformist measures out of hand, educate ourselves on which cap-and-trade system can help address climate change in an effective and equitable manner, and start promoting these specific principles through activism, then there is a chance for us to have a significant impact. But, in the end, there is no guarantee, as we all know.

“it is unlikely that the big polluters will decide to do anything demanding in Mexico, so we might as well be in Solidarity with those residing in small island nations and Africa and stick behind real climate justice. It isn’t us who are abandoning Kyoto; it is the US, Canada, Denmark, France”

Let me be clear that the actions taken by the Obama administration were horrendous and certainly made the prospects for achieving the goal of effective and equitable climate reform more difficult. However, and I quote, “Whether or not the blow Obama dealt to multilateral efforts to combat climate change through binding reductions consistent with ‘differentiated responsibilities and capabilities’ in Copenhagen will prove fatal, remains to be seen.” The future is notoriously difficult to predict. Let’s consider an example—US foreign policy and the anti-apartheid movement.

At the beginning of the Reagan administration, the minimal distance the Carter administration put between itself and the apartheid government (which was largely a rhetorical distance) was eliminated as the new administration ramped up its financial and military support for the South African government. All of this was in blatant disregard to the long list of UN resolutions condemning the apartheid government (which date back to the 1940s) and international outcry over the atrocious crimes committed by the apartheid regime inside its borders and in the southern African region at large. At that time, Left activists in the US could have said, “No one listens to the Left. The US will never change its policies towards the apartheid regime. So lets stop pushing for reform.” Perhaps an intelligent prediction at the time would have said this much. But that’s not what happened, hence the difficulty in predicting future events. Due to CONTINUED ACTIVISM AIMED AT REFORM, it was the Reagan administration that had no choice but to sign the Comprehensive Anti-Apartheid Act in 1986, which imposed sanctions against South Africa to be lifted upon elimination of apartheid laws, among other things.

While the anti-apartheid struggle, which took over 5 decades to achieve, and climate change reform are different in so many ways, the point I am trying to make is this: Rejecting opportunities for reform, even if minimal, does not equate to standing in solidarity with those who are oppressed. Are we standing in solidarity with low wage workers by refusing to participate in minimum wage campaigns because it does not lead to “fundamental system change”? Are we standing in solidarity with minorities by refusing to support affirmative action laws because it does not change the fundamental character of capitalism? Are we standing in solidarity with those most impacted by climate change by refusing to shape in a more effective and equitable manner what comes out of Mexico next year?

Lastly, to insinuate that the Left has been ineffectual in the last 3 decades is erroneous. During this time we have seen international solidarity movements, whether environmental, human rights, anti-war, and so on, coalesce in a way the world has never seen. These movements have had and continue to have serious impacts that should not be overlooked, but instead expanded. Now this is not to say that we have been effective enough to stop horrible developments in recent history—investors’ rights globalization, Iraq war, Afghanistan war, and IMF and World Bank structural adjustment programs, to name just a few. The distinction between ineffectual and not effective enough to stop x, y, and z are two different things. We need to build on our successes and learn from our failures in order to break new ground through participating in reform campaigns and taking more radical action.

I’ll repeat, averting climate change is a WAR with MANY BATTLES taking place on MANY FRONTS. Mexico next year is one battle, and we should be strategic and scrappy so that we get the most out of the opportunity, no matter how small that opportunity may be.

Like many things in todays US society, it is easy to sit back and blame yourself when the outcome was in fact directly caused by intentional policy set by the political system (this is apparent when someone defaults on their astronomical private student loan debt–the hammer of ‘personal responsibility’ comes down on them hard, yet it was intentional changes to the policy by the political elite that involved disinvestment causing soaring tuition, the removal of bankruptcy protections, and the birth of the predatory, unregulated student loan industry–and when we know in many other countries that college education is free for everyone.–there are countless other examples.)

And the left has not ‘failed’ in the past thirty years; the political system has just become so closed off, so self-feeding that it doesn’t care what we have to say.

First lichen I appreciated your particpation on the Left/Right thread but I think we need to be honest about the Left. The Left has failed in the past 30 years. It has moved away from a very real anti-capitalist perspective and has withdrawn from an anti-racist stance. Understanding why this has happened is vital in order to restore the Left.

Read the comments on this article food for thought. Very good thoughts.

It also must be said that the point most climate change denialists stick with is how terrible cap & trade ultimately is. If some of us aren’t after real climate justice, this thus means we have less of an argument, and the right wing teabaggers will be free spread their reactionary propaganda about us supposedly instituting an oppressive ‘new world order’ to control people.

When faced with the fact that there are Wall Street schemes to exploit all tradable commodities, the immediate solution is to regulate socially counterproductive Wall Street and financial speculation, i.e. when speculation increases wealth and income inequality and when it produces financial crises that adversely affect the real economy and the rest of us.

Now that carbon is free, it is being exploited with no consideration whatsoever for the costs imposed on humanity and the earth. Putting a a cap on emissions and allowing the trade of carbon permits means LESS EXPLOITATION because emitters are actually paying a portion of these costs (as long as the caps are set suffciently low). The lower the overall caps, the more costs are included in speculation. Moreover, the lower the caps for rich countries, the more of the costs they have to pay. The higher the caps for poor countries, the more wealth transfrom from North to South will occur because they will sell their unused permits up North. This point can not be made enough.

Going from emitters paying zero to paying something IS changing the “economic model” similar to how implementing minimum wage and collective bargaining laws changes the “economic model” of wage negotiations. While some aspects of the undelrying structure, such as markets, are still in place, the character of the model can change significantly and for the better. Making these changes are important steps to take as we work to replace the capitalist, market-based model altogether.

I’ll end by repeating that we cannot win a carbon tax that will yield as large an emission reduction as we can win through cap-and-trade. For this reason, cap-and-trade makes sense if we want to avert climate change before its too late. How else can we achive sufficient reductions? This question, which is the most important, has not been answered.

http://www.zmag.org/zspace/commentaries/4086

That said, let me state clearly that I agree completely with Charlie’s fifth criticism, “addressing global climate change in any meaningful way will require unprecedented changes in the economic and social institutions of the US” and, I would add, world. And by more “meaningful” I mean replacing the economics of greed and competition with a system based on cooperation and equity. But replacing capitalism with a more efficient, equitable, and humane system is not, as far as we can see, right around the corner; cataclismic climate change however is. So while I agree that markets and capitalism MUST be replaced if we are to achive real sustainability, it does not mean the left cannot participate in reform campaigns aimed at lessening the destructiveness of markets and capitalism. In fact, some of the more radical elements of the left in the beginning of the 20th century took advantage of opportunities for reform, say in the labor movement, while working to replace (unsuccessfully) capitalism with some form of socialism. I don’t see why we can’t do that now.

As for your first two critique, which can be summed up as: The US is incapable of engaging the world in a productive, and the left has failed to prevent this in recent decades. So why should we expect that the left can effectively pressure the US government (and other governments for that matter) to enact the principles oultined by Hahnel in a cap-and-trade system?

While the left has been unsuccessful in so many ways to prevent atrocious crimes committed by US government and MNCs, I do not agree that we have not succeeded in some important areas. During this time of “failure”, the left has helped build the strongest international movements in justice, environment, and other areas that history has ever seen. While its impossible to know what the world would be like without the impacts of these movements, its clear that world would be a far worse place. In fact, the left has played an indispensible role in putting climate change reform on the agenda in the first place! This has occured through promoting reform and taking more radical action, both of which are necessary in my view.

But more importantly, your crtique could apply to ALL ACTIONS taken by the left, not just actions aimed at getting the best cap-and-trade proposal possible. If the left has failed to make carbon tax a viable option for an international treaty, why should we bother trying to put it on the agenda? Since the left has so far failed to lead “unprecedented changes in the economic and social institutions of the US” and world, why should we keep trying? So your critique could be applied to the short-term mitigation presented here (which does not preclude more radical change) as well as your solution. Accepting this is defeatist and counterproductive.

You say, “Global warming is a battle that must be fought and won at home first.” While, of course, we should “Concentrate on getting the American people, not just the Left, on board and then take on the world,” I think averting cataclysmic climate change is a WAR that will require many BATTLES taking place on MANY FRONTS. Getting the “American people…on board” is one battle. Getting the best international treaty we can at this juncture is another battle. Neither can sacrificed and neither is ” divorced from the realities of domestic and international politics,” despite the immense challenges facing both lines of attack.

As for your last point concerning the details, you’re absolutely correct–this is where the devil resides. And for a description of the detials concerning carbon tax, cap-and-trade, and government regulation, see the Hahnel’s article, “A Climate Change Policy Primer”:

http://www.zmag.org/zspace/commentaries/4105

But to point to all the weaknesses and challenges confronting the international treaty does not mean we should not particpate in crafting it. Similarly, pointing the UN’s inability to prevent Israel’s violation of UN resolutions is not an argument against the UN, the specific resolutions, nor international law for that matter. It demonstrates the extent to which Israel will pursue its crimes against the Palestinian people. It also demonstrates the extent to which activists must work to strengthen the UN and international law. Rejecting the UN and all its resolutions due its impotence does nothing to help the Palestinian cause. In fact, the Palestinian resistance movement has, to a great extent, predicated itself on international law and they have not abandoned those principles for good reason.

The questions I have are: why abandon the principles of Kyoto at this juncture? How can carbon tax become a more viable option for international negotiations? If we can get more reductions in carbon emissions through cap-and-trade than carbon tax, why not go for a cap-and-trade? If cap-and-trade is most politically viable, why not promote a set of principles that would make it more effective and equitable? While many criticisms, some relevant some not so relevant, have been put forth here, I have yet to find good answers to these questions.