1065. Global Warming: Rulers Maneuver to Exploit Now Accessible Arctic Riches

By Steven Lee Myers, The New York Times, May 15, 2013

Melting ice has opened the arctic to shipping and exploitation of its riches

KIRUNA, Sweden — The Arctic Council agreed on Wednesday to expand to include six new nations, including China, as observer states, as a changing climate opens the Arctic to increasing economic and political competition.

The inclusion of observer states to the council came after a spirited debate at its biennial meeting and reflected the growing prominence of the issues facing the region. The council is made up of the eight Arctic nations: Canada, Denmark, Finland, Iceland, Norway, Russia, Sweden and the United States.

With the Arctic ice melting, the region’s abundant supplies of oil, gas and minerals have become newly accessible, as have shortened shipping routes and open water for commercial fishing, setting off a global competition for influence and economic opportunities far beyond the nations that border the Arctic.

“There is nothing that should unite quite like our concerns for both the promises and the challenges of the northernmost reaches of the earth,” Secretary of State John Kerry, who brokered a compromise over the observer nations, said on Wednesday at the council’s final session. He added, “The consequences of our nations’ decision don’t stop at the 66th parallel.”

In addition to China, the other nations granted observer status to the Arctic Council were India, Italy, Japan, Singapore and South Korea.

All have sought economic opportunities in the region and viewed participation in the Arctic Council as a means of influencing the decisions of its permanent members. The European Union also applied as an observer, but its final status remained unresolved pending resolution of a dispute with Canada over trade in seal products.

Sweden’s foreign minister, Carl Bildt, said the addition of the observers strengthened the council by recognizing the pre-eminence of the permanent nations’ sovereignty in the Arctic.

“I would say it demonstrates the broad international acceptance of the role of the Arctic Council, because by being observer, these organizations and states, they accept the principles and the sovereignty of the Arctic Council on Arctic issues,” he said when asked if adding participants threatened to dilute the council’s effectiveness. “As a matter of fact, it strengthens the position of the Arctic Council on the global scene.”

The council, created in 1996, has matured from a largely symbolic organization to one addressing the quickening pace and consequences of climate change in the Arctic, prompting what has already been called a new “Great Game.” Meeting here above the Arctic Circle in Sweden, the council adopted only its second legally binding agreement: one to prepare and coordinate a response to potential spills that could result from increasing oil and gas exploration.

Two years ago, in Greenland, the council adopted a similar agreement to coordinate search and rescue operations over 13 million square miles of ocean.

The ballooning interest has raised concerns of reckless development that could harm what is a fragile environment, as several scientific studies presented to the council made clear. Outside the municipal building here in Kiruna, where ministers from the council met, protesters called for restrictions on economic development. “No Arctic Oil, Please,” one banner said.

The council’s final declaration, though, recognized “the central role of business in the development of the Arctic,” though it called for development to be conducted in ways that would sustain indigenous peoples and the environment.

The Northern Sea Route, once largely a wish, has become increasingly viable during longer stretches of the summer, allowing ships traveling from Asia to Europe to traverse the Arctic in far less time than they would on the traditional route through the Indian Ocean, the Suez Canal and the Mediterranean.

In 2010, only four ships carrying 111,000 tons of cargo made the northern passage; by last year, 46 did, carrying 1.26 million tons. Among those was China’s first ship through the Arctic, an icebreaker called Xuelong, or Snow Dragon.

The United States had not previously taken a public position on the question of observer states at the Arctic Council, but after Mr. Kerry brokered a compromise during a debate over dinner on Tuesday night that became spirited, it joined the others in expanding the council’s future participants.

The Arctic Council plans to hold its next meeting in 2015 in Canada.

1064. Global Warming: How Much Will the Temperature Rise?

By Justin Gillis, The New York Times, May 14, 2013 

Credit: Ecology Global Network

Since 1896, scientists have been trying to answer a deceptively simple question: What will happen to the temperature of the earth if the amount of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere doubles?

Some recent scientific papers have made a splash by claiming that the answer might not be as bad as previously feared. This work — if it holds up — offers the tantalizing possibility that climate change might be slow and limited enough that human society could adapt to it without major trauma.

Several scientists say they see reasons to doubt that these lowball estimates will in fact stand up to critical scrutiny, and a wave of papers offering counterarguments is already in the works. “The story is not over,” said Chris E. Forest, a climate expert at Pennsylvania State University.

Still, the recent body of evidence — and the political use that climate contrarians are making of it to claim that everything is fine — sheds some light on where we are in our scientific and public understanding of the risks of climate change.

The topic under discussion is a number called “climate sensitivity.” Finding this number is the holy grail of climate science, because the stakes are so high: The fate of the earth hangs in the balance.

The first to take a serious stab at it was a Swede named Svante Arrhenius, in the late 19th century. After laborious calculations, he declared that if humans doubled the carbon dioxide in the air by burning fossil fuels, the average temperature of the earth would rise by something like nine degrees Fahrenheit, a whopping figure.

He was on the high side, as it turned out. In 1979, after two decades of meticulous measurements had made it clear that the carbon dioxide level was indeed rising, scientists used computers and a much deeper understanding of the climate to calculate a likely range of warming. They found that the response to a doubling of carbon dioxide would not be much below three degrees Fahrenheit, nor was it likely to exceed eight degrees.

In the years since, scientists have been pushing and pulling within that range, trying to settle on a most likely value. Most of those who are expert in climatology subscribe to a best-estimate figure of just over five degrees Fahrenheit.

That may not sound like a particularly scary number to many people — after all, we experience temperature variations of 20 or 30 degrees in a single day. But as an average for the entire planet, five degrees is a huge number.

The ocean, covering 70 percent of the surface, helps bring down the average, but the warming is expected to be higher over land, causing weather extremes like heat waves and torrential rains. And the poles will warm even more, so that the increase in the Arctic could exceed 10 or 15 degrees Fahrenheit. That could cause substantial melting of the polar ice sheets, ultimately flooding the world’s major coastal cities.

What’s new is that several recent papers have offered best estimates for climate sensitivity that are below four degrees Fahrenheit, rather than the previous best estimate of just above five degrees, and they have also suggested that the highest estimates are pretty implausible.

Notice that these recent calculations fall well within the long-accepted range — just on the lower end of it. But the papers have caused considerable excitement among climate-change contrarians.

It is not that they actually agree with the new numbers, mind you. They have long pushed implausibly low estimates of climate sensitivity, below two degrees Fahrenheit in some cases. But they appear to be calculating that any paper with a lowball number is a step in their direction.

James Annan, a mainstream climate scientist working at a Japanese institute, offers a best estimate of four and a half degrees Fahrenheit. When he wrote recently that he thought some of the highest temperature projections could be rejected, skeptics could not contain their enthusiasm.

“That is what we call a landmark change of course — by one of climatology’s most renowned warmist scientists,” declared a blogger named Pierre L. Gosselin. “If even Annan can see it, then the writing is truly emblazoned on the wall.”

But does this sort of claim — that we can all breathe a sigh of relief about climate change — really hold up?

Dr. Annan said in an e-mail that the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, a mainstream body that periodically summarizes climate science, should be bolder about ruling out extreme temperature scenarios, but he still believes global warming is a sufficient threat to warrant changes in human behavior.

He noted that climate skeptics “are desperate to claim that the I.P.C.C. is being unreasonably alarmist, but on the other hand they don’t really want to agree with me either, because my views are close enough to the mainstream as to be unacceptable to them.” He added that he finds it “amusing to watch their gyrations as they try to square the circle.”

It will certainly be good news if these recent papers stand up to critical scrutiny, something that will take at least a year or two to figure out. But the need for additional scientific vetting before we accept the lower numbers is not the biggest flaw in the contrarian argument.

Remember, the climate sensitivity number, whatever it turns out to be, applies to a doubling of carbon dioxide.

Given how weak the political response to climate change has been, there is no reason to think that human society is going to stop there. Some experts think the level of the heat-trapping gas could triple or even quadruple before emissions are reined in. Only last week the level of carbon dioxide passed a milestone of 400 parts per million at the flagship monitoring station atop Mauna Loa, in Hawaii, evidence that efforts to control emissions are failing.

Even if climate sensitivity turns out to be on the low end of the range, total emissions may wind up being so excessive as to drive the earth toward dangerous temperature increases.

So if the recent science stands up to critical examination, it could indeed turn into a ray of hope — but only if it is then followed by a broad new push to get the combustion of fossil fuels under control.

1063. Cuba: British and Canadian Businessmen to Go on Trail for Corruption

By Marc Frank, Reuters, May 14, 2013

Attorney General Dario Delgado

(Reuters) - Canadian and British executives of three foreign businesses shut in 2011 by Cuban authorities, ostensibly for corrupt practices, have been charged after more than a year in custody and are expected to go on trial soon, sources close to the cases told Reuters.

The arrests, part of a broad government campaign to stamp out corruption, sent shockwaves through Cuba's small foreign business community where the companies were among the most visible players.

Until then, expulsions rather than imprisonment had been the norm for those accused of corrupt practices.

The charges against the executives involve various economic crimes and operating beyond the limits of their business licenses on the communist-run island, according to the sources, who asked to remain anonymous and include a close relative of one of the defendants.

Some of the foreigners are alleged to have paid bribes to officials in exchange for business opportunities.

Dozens of Cuban state purchasers and officials, including deputy ministers, already have been arrested and convicted in the investigation into the Cuban imports business that ensued.

Cuba has mounted a crackdown on corruption in recent years as part of a gradual reform process to open up the state-run economy to greater private sector activity.

Under Cuban law, trials must begin within a month of charges being filed, though small delays are common and postponement can be sought by the defendants' lawyers.

"There is definitely movement and the trials could begin soon," a Western diplomat said.

The crackdown began in July 2011 with the closure of Canadian trading firm Tri-Star Caribbean and the arrest of its chief executive, Sarkis Yacoubian.

In September 2011, one of the most important Western trading firms in Cuba, Canada-based Tokmakjian Group, was also shut and its head, Cy Tokmakjian, taken into custody.

In October 2011, police closed the Havana offices of the British investment and trading firm Coral Capital Group Ltd and arrested chief executive Amado Fakhre, a Lebanese-born British citizen.

Coral Capital's chief operating officer, British citizen Stephen Purvis, was arrested in April 2012.

All four men are being held in La Condesa, a prison for foreigners just outside Havana, after being questioned for months in other locations.

A number of other foreigners and Cubans who worked for the companies remain free but cannot leave the island because they are considered witnesses in the cases.

Cuban officials and lawyers for the defendants could not be reached for comment.

The legal limbo of the foreign executives has put a strain on Cuba's relations with their home countries, where the legal process protects suspects from lengthy incarceration without charges, diplomats told Reuters.

ANTI-CORRUPTION DRIVE

Cuba says the cases are being handled within the letter of Cuban law. Attorney General Dario Delgado told Reuters late last year that the investigation had proved complex and lengthy.

"These cases, which involve economic crimes, are very complicated. They do not involve, for example, traffic violations or a murder," he said.

Comptroller General Gladys Bejerano has said the length of investigations depended on the behavior of those involved.

"When there is fraud, tricks and violations ... false documents, false accounting ... there is no transparency and the process becomes more complicated because a case must be documented with evidence before going to trial," she said.

Transparency International, considered the world's leading anti-graft watchdog, last rated Cuba 58 out of 178 countries in terms of tackling corruption, ahead of all but eight of 33 nations in Latin America and the Caribbean.

Soon after taking over for his ailing brother Fidel in 2008, President Raul Castro established the comptroller general's office with a seat on the ruling Council of State, even as he began implementing market-oriented economic reforms.

The measure marked the start of the anti-corruption campaign. Since then, high-level graft has been uncovered in several key areas, from the cigar, nickel and communications industries, to food processing and civil aviation.

Rodrigo Malmierca, the minister of foreign commerce, last week delivered a report to the cabinet highlighting "irregularities" in foreign joint venture companies, according to state-run media.

Malmierca blamed "the lack of rigor, control and exigency" of the deals "as well as the conduct and attitudes of the officials implicated," the reports said.

Castro has been less successful, however, in tackling low salaries and lack of transparency, which contribute to the problem, according to foreign diplomats and businessmen.

There is no open bidding in Cuba's import-export sector and state purchasers who handle multimillion-dollar contracts earn anywhere from $50 to $100 per month.

Cuban officials blame U.S. sanctions for the lack of open bidding, accusing their arch-enemy of trying to scare off any foreign company interested in doing business with the country.

1062. How Austerity Kills

By David Stuckler and Sanjay Basu, The New York Times, May 12, 2013

EARLY last month, a triple suicide was reported in the seaside town of Civitanova Marche, Italy. A married couple, Anna Maria Sopranzi, 68, and Romeo Dionisi, 62, had been struggling to live on her monthly pension of around 500 euros (about $650), and had fallen behind on rent.

Because the Italian government’s austerity budget had raised the retirement age, Mr. Dionisi, a former construction worker, became one of Italy’s esodati (exiled ones) — older workers plunged into poverty without a safety net. On April 5, he and his wife left a note on a neighbor’s car asking for forgiveness, then hanged themselves in a storage closet at home. When Ms. Sopranzi’s brother, Giuseppe Sopranzi, 73, heard the news, he drowned himself in the Adriatic.

The correlation between unemployment and suicide has been observed since the 19th century. People looking for work are about twice as likely to end their lives as those who have jobs.

In the United States, the suicide rate, which had slowly risen since 2000, jumped during and after the 2007-9 recession. In a new book, we estimate that 4,750 “excess” suicides — that is, deaths above what pre-existing trends would predict — occurred from 2007 to 2010. Rates of such suicides were significantly greater in the states that experienced the greatest job losses. Deaths from suicide overtook deaths from car crashes in 2009.

If suicides were an unavoidable consequence of economic downturns, this would just be another story about the human toll of the Great Recession. But it isn’t so. Countries that slashed health and social protection budgets, like Greece, Italy and Spain, have seen starkly worse health outcomes than nations like Germany, Iceland and Sweden, which maintained their social safety nets and opted for stimulus over austerity. (Germany preaches the virtues of austerity — for others.)

As scholars of public health and political economy, we have watched aghast as politicians endlessly debate debts and deficits with little regard for the human costs of their decisions. Over the past decade, we mined huge data sets from across the globe to understand how economic shocks — from the Great Depression to the end of the Soviet Union to the Asian financial crisis to the Great Recession — affect our health. What we’ve found is that people do not inevitably get sick or die because the economy has faltered. Fiscal policy, it turns out, can be a matter of life or death.

At one extreme is Greece, which is in the middle of a public health disaster. The national health budget has been cut by 40 percent since 2008, partly to meet deficit-reduction targets set by the so-called troika —  the International Monetary Fund, the European Commission and the European Central Bank — as part of a 2010 austerity package. Some 35,000 doctors, nurses and other health workers have lost their jobs. Hospital admissions have soared after Greeks avoided getting routine and preventive treatment because of long wait times and rising drug costs. Infant mortality rose by 40 percent. New H.I.V. infections more than doubled, a result of rising intravenous drug use — as the budget for needle-exchange programs was cut. After mosquito-spraying programs were slashed in southern Greece, malaria cases were reported in significant numbers for the first time since the early 1970s.

In contrast, Iceland avoided a public health disaster even though it experienced, in 2008, the largest banking crisis in history, relative to the size of its economy. After three main commercial banks failed, total debt soared, unemployment increased ninefold, and the value of its currency, the krona, collapsed. Iceland became the first European country to seek an I.M.F. bailout since 1976. But instead of bailing out the banks and slashing budgets, as the I.M.F. demanded, Iceland’s politicians took a radical step: they put austerity to a vote. In two referendums, in 2010 and 2011, Icelanders voted overwhelmingly to pay off foreign creditors gradually, rather than all at once through austerity. Iceland’s economy has largely recovered, while Greece’s teeters on collapse. No one lost health care coverage or access to medication, even as the price of imported drugs rose. There was no significant increase in suicide. Last year, the first U.N. World Happiness Report ranked Iceland as one of the world’s happiest nations.

Skeptics will point to structural differences between Greece and Iceland. Greece’s membership in the euro zone made currency devaluation impossible, and it had less political room to reject I.M.F. calls for austerity. But the contrast supports our thesis that an economic crisis does not necessarily have to involve a public health crisis.

Somewhere between these extremes is the United States. Initially, the 2009 stimulus package shored up the safety net. But there are warning signs — beyond the higher suicide rate — that health trends are worsening. Prescriptions for antidepressants have soared. Three-quarters of a million people (particularly out-of-work young men) have turned to binge drinking. Over five million Americans lost access to health care in the recession because they lost their jobs (and either could not afford to extend their insurance under the Cobra law or exhausted their eligibility). Preventive medical visits dropped as people delayed medical care and ended up in emergency rooms. (President Obama’s health care law expands coverage, but only gradually.)

The $85 billion “sequester” that began on March 1 will cut nutrition subsidies for approximately 600,000 pregnant women, newborns and infants by year’s end. Public housing budgets will be cut by nearly $2 billion this year, even while 1.4 million homes are in foreclosure. Even the budget of the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, the nation’s main defense against epidemics like last year’s fungal meningitis outbreak, is being cut, by at least $18 million.To test our hypothesis that austerity is deadly, we’ve analyzed data from other regions and eras. After the Soviet Union dissolved, in 1991, Russia’s economy collapsed. Poverty soared and life expectancy dropped, particularly among young, working-age men. But this did not occur everywhere in the former Soviet sphere. Russia, Kazakhstan and the Baltic States (Estonia, Latvia and Lithuania) — which adopted economic “shock therapy” programs advocated by economists like Jeffrey D. Sachs and Lawrence H. Summers — experienced the worst rises in suicides, heart attacks and alcohol-related deaths.

Countries like Belarus, Poland and Slovenia took a different, gradualist approach, advocated by economists like Joseph E. Stiglitz and the former Soviet leader Mikhail S. Gorbachev. These countries privatized their state-controlled economies in stages and saw much better health outcomes than nearby countries that opted for mass privatizations and layoffs, which caused severe economic and social disruptions.

Like the fall of the Soviet Union, the 1997 Asian financial crisis offers case studies — in effect, a natural experiment — worth examining. Thailand and Indonesia, which submitted to harsh austerity plans imposed by the I.M.F., experienced mass hunger and sharp increases in deaths from infectious disease, while Malaysia, which resisted the I.M.F.’s advice, maintained the health of its citizens. In 2012, the I.M.F. formally apologized for its handling of the crisis, estimating that the damage from its recommendations may have been three times greater than previously assumed.

America’s experience of the Depression is also instructive. During the Depression, mortality rates in the United States fell by about 10 percent. The suicide rate actually soared between 1929, when the stock market crashed, and 1932, when Franklin D. Roosevelt was elected president. But the increase in suicides was more than offset by the “epidemiological transition” — improvements in hygiene that reduced deaths from infectious diseases like tuberculosis, pneumonia and influenza — and by a sharp drop in fatal traffic accidents, as Americans could not afford to drive. Comparing historical data across states, we estimate that every $100 in New Deal spending per capita was associated with a decline in pneumonia deaths of 18 per 100,000 people; a reduction in infant deaths of 18 per 1,000 live births; and a drop in suicides of 4 per 100,000 people.

OUR research suggests that investing $1 in public health programs can yield as much as $3 in economic growth. Public health investment not only saves lives in a recession, but can help spur economic recovery. These findings suggest that three principles should guide responses to economic crises.

First, do no harm: if austerity were tested like a medication in a clinical trial, it would have been stopped long ago, given its deadly side effects. Each nation should establish a nonpartisan, independent Office of Health Responsibility, staffed by epidemiologists and economists, to evaluate the health effects of fiscal and monetary policies.

Second, treat joblessness like the pandemic it is. Unemployment is a leading cause of depression, anxiety, alcoholism and suicidal thinking. Politicians in Finland and Sweden helped prevent depression and suicides during recessions by investing in “active labor-market programs” that targeted the newly unemployed and helped them find jobs quickly, with net economic benefits.

Finally, expand investments in public health when times are bad. The cliché that an ounce of prevention is worth a pound of cure happens to be true. It is far more expensive to control an epidemic than to prevent one. New York City spent $1 billion in the mid-1990s to control an outbreak of drug-resistant tuberculosis. The drug-resistant strain resulted from the city’s failure to ensure that low-income tuberculosis patients completed their regimen of inexpensive generic medications.

One need not be an economic ideologue — we certainly aren’t — to recognize that the price of austerity can be calculated in human lives. We are not exonerating poor policy decisions of the past or calling for universal debt forgiveness. It’s up to policy makers in America and Europe to figure out the right mix of fiscal and monetary policy. What we have found is that austerity — severe, immediate, indiscriminate cuts to social and health spending — is not only self-defeating, but fatal.

David Stuckler, a senior research leader in sociology at Oxford, and Sanjay Basu, an assistant professor of medicine and an epidemiologist in the Prevention Research Center at Stanford, are the authors of “The Body Economic: Why Austerity Kills.”

1061. Cubans March Against Homophobia in Havana

By BBC, May 11, 2013

Mariela Castro (center) led the march of several hundreds in Havana

Hundreds of Cubans have staged a protest against homophobia and for gay rights, in the capital, Havana,

The march was led along Havana's central streets by Cuban gay rights campaigner Mariela Castro.

Ms Castro is the head of Cuba's National Sexual Education Centre - an organiser of the march - and daughter of Cuban President Raul Castro.

Before Raul Castro came to power in 2008, no gay rights marches had been allowed in Cuba.

'More inclusive'

Forming a long line and dancing the conga, the marchers wound their way through Havana. Many were carrying rainbow banners and chanting "Homophobia, no! Socialism, yes!".

One marcher, 29-year-old Jesus Rios, told the Associated Press news agency that Cuba "had made great progress over the past years".

"I've noticed it with my father, who has accepted me step by step, and now also with the neighbours and colleagues. I feel more included," he said.

Mr Rios credited Mariela Castro and the work of the National Sexual Education Centre for that change in what he referred to as Cuba's "macho culture".

Ms Castro said she was optimistic that Cuba would eventually legalise gay marriage, but that the hardest part would be overcoming prejudice.

In the 1960s and 70s, gay men and lesbians in Cuba were fired, imprisoned or sent to "re-education camps".

Ms Castro's uncle, former Cuban leader Fidel Castro, has claimed responsibility for the persecution suffered by homosexuals on the island after the revolution of 1959.

In a 2010 interview he said they had traditionally been discriminated in Cuba, just as black people and women.

There has been a growing acceptance of homosexuality in Latin America, with Uruguay last month becoming the second country after Argentina to legalise gay marriage.

1060. A Critique of James Hansen's Proposal to Stop Global Warming

By Christine Frank, Socialist Action, April 18, 2013

Since 2008, chief climatologist and activist James Hansen has been proposing fee and dividend as a means to curtail fossil fuel use and draw down carbon in order to prevent catastrophic climate change—a very real prospect that is looming ever closer. He has advocated the plan as an alternative to market-based carbon trading and offsets, which are nothing more than licenses to pollute, and phony accounting schemes that commodify Earth’s carbon-storage capacity while traders and brokers profit from ecological disaster.

If you cook the books, you’re only going to cook the planet because such projects have not reduced greenhouse gas emissions by one single jot. Since the signing of the Kyoto Protocol, which was based entirely on carbon trading, thanks to Al Gore’s intervention on behalf of the Clinton administration, the situation has only gotten steadily worse, with none of the advanced nations making their emission-reduction goals. At Copenhagen in 2009, the worthless agreement was essentially scrapped altogether.

The mean global surface temperature of the planet has already risen 0.8 C since the Industrial Revolution. If it rises by 2 C, there will be a cascade of planetary tipping points that will speed Earth toward climate catastrophe. Scientists believe that one “climate domino” has already fallen and will begin toppling others. That would be the Arctic sea ice, which “flipped” into instability in 2007 and has been undergoing the permanent loss of its thick, multi-year ice ever since.

The next stage in the process is expected to be the Yedoma—the vast expanse of Siberian permafrost. Once it begins to thaw on a large scale, it will release enormous amounts of carbon dioxide (CO2) and methane (CH4) as microbes break down organic matter in the thawing soils. This will lead to an amplifying feedback that will add to the blanket of gases that are warming the planet and in turn, melt more ice, adding to sea level rise. The sediments of the seafloor on the Arctic continental shelf are already releasing huge plumes of CH4 from thawing methane hydrates. Action should have been taken at once 25 years ago to reduce emissions from fossil fuel combustion, yet it’s been business as usual ever since Hansen announced before Congress and the world that the planet was warming in 1988.

Considerably modified, Hansen’s fee and dividend idea has been incorporated into a bill in the U.S. Senate that was unveiled by Senators Boxer and Sanders prior to the successful Feb. 17 Forward on Climate demonstration of 50,000. The action was co-organized by Bill McKibben’s 350, the Sierra Club, and the Hip Hop Caucus.

The plan is designed to eventually wean our society off of its fossil fuel addiction. It would impose a carbon fee on fossil fuel producers and cement makers upstream at the point of production or entry, and would be in the form of dollars per ton of carbon dioxide equivalent (CO2e) emitted from fuel extraction and use. The CO2e would include other greenhouse gases such as methane, nitrous oxides, sulfur hexafluoride, hydrofluorocarbons, perfluorocarbons, and nitrogen trifluoride. There is no mention of black carbon or soot, which has a huge warming effect when it lands on ice masses, greatly increasing the heat absorption factor.

Apparently, there would be no fee charged on products such as fertilizers or petrochemicals that use fossil fuels as raw materials or feedstocks to which value is added in the production process. Tariffs would be imposed on imports from countries that do not enact similar fee and dividend legislation. The non-regressive plan also requires an annual increase in the carbon fee, which would start out at $15 per ton of CO2 and rise $10 per year or more if emission reductions are not proceeding at the desired pace. Combined with this would be a phase out of fossil fuel subsidies, including tax credits, over five years rather than an immediate and abrupt halt to the gravy train.

Then, 100% of the fee revenues would go to the general population on a per capita and monthly basis as a dividend with two half shares for each family with children under 18. The money would be directly deposited in each individual’s bank account, with none going to the federal government for its tax-and-spend policies, thereby eliminating the influence of industry lobbyists. The idea is that the dividend would help ordinary people cope with the increase in transportation, heating, and electricity costs that the Energy Giants would pass along to consumers at every level. It is thought that less well-off people, especially the poor, who are already low consumers of fossil fuels by virtue of their income status, would benefit the most and even have an incentive to conserve more while high-end consumers would receive a proportionately smaller dividend.

A decline in the use of hydrocarbons would logically follow. This assumption is based on the fact that the top one-fifth of the population has a carbon footprint that is three times that of the bottom one-fifth. At this rate, Hansen projects a 30% reduction in emissions in 10 years. The system is also supposed to spur innovation among entrepreneurs to develop more energy-efficient products and cleaner technologies. Oddly, there is no provision for any dividend funds being set aside for the development of renewable energy.

Continued fossil fuel use

The major problem with Hansen’s proposal is that it assumes the continued use of fossil fuels, especially conventional oil and gas. He believes those reserves will gradually decline based on current estimates of “peak oil.” Although he has warned that “it’s game over for the climate” if we continue to use extreme forms of carbon-intensive energy such as tar sands bitumen, deepwater petroleum (especially from the Arctic), and shale oil and gas, he assumes that it’s okay to use up the remaining conventional fossil carbon reservoirs. This means that we would not only still be generating massive amounts of greenhouse gases, but also perpetuating the destructive car/truck culture.

To prop up the wretched transportation system, he proposes a linear phase-in of polluting liquid biofuels of low-input and high-diversity as a substitute for petroleum-based gasoline—with no mention whatsoever of clean mass transit. This is entirely unacceptable.

Viewing coal combustion as the single greatest threat to civilization, Hansen calls for a moratorium on the construction of new coal-fired power plants, leading to their eventual phase-out, except in cases where carbon capture and sequestration (CCS) technologies can be employed. There is actually no such thing as “clean coal” by way of CCS, so we can forget about that. Plus, the possibility of catastrophic releases of carbon dioxide from deep geologic storage or its migration underground into water tables are all too real, making it a completely impractical alternative.

In 2008, when he originally presented his concept at a congressional briefing as a substitute for coal-fired electrical generation, Hansen called for a switch to natural gas, using up to 50% of the remaining conventional gas supplies. Coal-fired electrical generation has since fallen to 34% due to its replacement with natural gas. The drop in price of natural gas due to the “shale gale” has made this conversion possible. It is safe to assume that a significant portion of the shale gas being produced goes to electrical generation although no hard data seem to be available on that. Given the environmental devastation caused by hydrofracturing, switching from coal to gas has not been that beneficial overall. In fact, the fracking of natural gas emits more carbon than coal combustion because of all the accidental leaking and purposeful venting of methane!

Hansen also advocates the creation of a national, low-loss “smart” grid, while ignoring the benefits of locally-produced and distributed wind and solar power, which is actually more efficient since it doesn’t have to travel through miles of transmission lines that create harmful electromagnetic fields.

Other aspects of his proposal include improved land-use practices such as reforestation that allow for the natural sequestration of carbon, which is all well and good. The capacity of our climate sinks is declining and needs to be reinforced. But he proposes the use of biochar by burning agricultural residues that would better serve as mulch or compost to return nutrients to the soil and enable better moisture retention in an organic system of food production. Plus, charcoal making is a filthy process and should be abolished.

The real stinker in his plan is the deployment of nuclear power plants using Integral Fast Reactor designs and thorium fuel. There are many problems with thorium (3-4 times more abundant than uranium) because it contains no fissile isotopes, which have to be added to achieve criticality. Therefore, either enriched uranium-235 or plutonium-239, made in dangerous breeder reactors, is required to kick-start the fission process.

Thorium does not solve the waste, safety, or cost problems of nuclear power.  It is touted as a great green hope that “eats its own waste,” but it is hardly that. Thorium’s nuclear fuel cycle creates wastes at the front end with hazardous mine and mill tailings and at the tail end with long-lived decay products. Thorium-232 (1/2 life of 14 billion years), technetium-99 (1/2 life of 200,000 yrs.), iodine-129, cesium-135 & 137, and strontium-190 would all pose a danger now and in the future.

Thorium-232 has a very high radiotoxicity, with a bone-surface dose 200 times higher than that of uranium. Also, the process of breeding thorium up to uranium-235 emits lethal high-energy gamma radiation to which processing workers could be exposed. Experimental thorium reactors have had trouble with loss of coolant, concrete structural failure due to high heat, fracturing of the fuel, hot spots in reactor cores, and radiation releases into the atmosphere. Given the government and the nuclear power industry’s performance record, should anyone trust them to launch a new generation of thorium reactors

China to lead the way?

Because China is supposedly the world leader in non-carbon energy investments, it represents the shining hope to Hansen in being the first to implement his plan.

As factory to the world, the nation has become the largest carbon emitter by cranking out consumer goods, loaded with embodied carbon, for the West, which has been successful in exporting a huge portion of its greenhouse gas emissions as a result. If it wants to continue playing this role, China has no choice but to continue its reliance upon hydrocarbons. It is still very dependent upon coal, by installing one megawatt per week of coal-fired power.

Also, China will be using a lot of shale gas, for which it is now paying $18/MBTU at the port of entry. Therefore, it has invested heavily in the Eagleford Shale Formation in Texas. There are currently 17 permit applications for new LNG ports in the U.S. that will enable increased export to Asia. So how exactly will China ’s leadership on fee and dividend manifest itself, considering its high-growth rate of 7%?

Still a market-based solution

There are a number of things wrong with applying an exclusively financial solution to a problem of dangerous overuse and consumption. Hansen makes it clear that his plan will “allow the marketplace, not politicians, to make investment decisions.” To our mind, the economic system is the entire cause of the problem.

In fact, one wonders if this is really about saving the planet for human habitation or more about money, since fee and dividend does not address the need for fundamental ecological and social change and ignores the enormous carbon footprint of the military as a blood-soaked procurement agent for oil ruthlessly taken from under the land of other people.

The question is:  At what point in this process of charging fees and dispensing dividends would fossil-fuel use and consequent emissions actually decline?

It is logically expected that the Energy Giants, if they accept the imposition of the fees, would immediately pass on the cost to their customers when charging for coal, oil, natural gas, and electricity. But would the manufacturers of goods and providers of services, who are at the next step in this cascade, actually reduce the amount of fossil fuels they use in their productive processes, or simply pass on the increased cost of production to their consumers—who would pay for it in the end? Knowing how the Carbon Barons cheat, can they be counted upon to accurately report production figures? This raises the question of whether not the fees would be fairly and honestly paid and collected.

Myth of energy efficiency

A large component of Hansen’s plan is conservation and energy efficiency. But would the increased discretionary income enable workers to afford energy-efficiency measures in their homes such as retrofitting appliances and lighting, heating, and cooling systems? Would it enable them to purchase expensive, resource-intensive, hybrid vehicles to replace the old gas-guzzling beaters they drive, and would it be good for the environment if they did?

The truth is the more energy that is saved, the more energy that is used over the long run. Nothing changes with attempts at energy efficiency under capitalism. This has been proven by the Jevons Paradox, which showed in the 19th century that improvements in the efficiency of the coal-fired steam engine only momentarily lowered the demand for coal before consumption shot up tenfold! That is because of the decline in the rate of profit and the need to sell ever more commodities.

Something similar occurs with fossil fuel production in efforts to lower carbon emissions at the wellhead and refinery. The Kazzoom-Brookes Postulate has demonstrated that if carbon intensity is marginally decreased in the amount of carbon produced per barrel of oil, the savings are eventually wiped out by ramping up oil production. This would surely happen as more extreme forms of energy are exploited. The fee imposed on the Energy Giants would provide the incentive to do so, generating a vicious circle, especially since there are no means to stop them short of nationalizing their holdings, which is the only logical solution.

Consumerist behavior under commodity production

Under fee and dividend, people with a small carbon footprint—the vast majority—are expected to experience a net monetary gain. However, would the money go into savings for a more secure retirement or be spent to improve living conditions? If low-income working people had more money in their pocket to spend as they wish, would they actually cut back in hydrocarbon use? Wouldn’t they be inclined to spend it on more goods and services just to improve their basic quality of life, which would lead to greater per capita consumption and fossil fuel use regardless of the increase in cost? After all, it takes fossil fuels to produce everything we consume in this society—food, clothing, shelter, pharmaceuticals, transport, gadgetry, the toys that take up people’s leisure time, and the energy to power them.

If well-heeled, big consumers receive a lesser dividend as a result of their profligacy, what’s to stop them from simply biting the bullet and paying more for the goods and services they consume, especially since it would be difficult to give up the lifestyle to which they have become accustomed. “Sin now, pay later” would be the norm for those who can afford it. Yes, the affluent may turn off the lights more often when leaving a room and switch to a more energy-efficient vehicle, but they still might drive around the block just to pick up a carton of milk instead of walking!

Despite the planetary crisis we face, everyone would still be subjected to the same pressure to consume through the advertising barrage that artificially shapes false needs and desires in people. This is because capitalism requires the creation of markets for its commodities, which are designed to wear out, become obsolete, and require replacement.

With Hansen’s system, we would still have an exchange economy that voraciously devours natural resources. Only a steady-state, zero-growth, use economy that recycles everything will allow us to satisfy basic human needs while leading a satisfying and fulfilling life in harmony with nature.  The gross over-consumption of raw materials, which is rampant in the industrial North, no longer needs to exist. As the production of clean technologies increases, they can be exported to improve the quality of life for people in the global South without the maldevelopment that China and India have gone through.

A crash program to transform production

With Hansen’s plan, we would be burning hydrocarbons into the indefinite future. There are differing views on how much we would need to leave in the ground to keep the climate from entering a stage of chaos. The International Energy Agency says two-thirds, while Bill McKibben advocates that three-fifths remain unused.

Both are unacceptable compromises. Even if we halted all emissions tomorrow, temperatures would still rise another 0.3 C. Consequently, more warming is in the pipeline due to the inertia of Earth’s natural systems. Therefore, all greenhouse gas emissions must be reduced to zero from all sources as soon as possible to draw down carbon to a safe 300 to 325 ppm CO2 and cool down the planet. This is the only reasonable way to proceed. Thus, the solution is to leave all fossil fuels in the ground and wean our society completely off of them.

Rather than fiddling with financial schemes, getting a crash program of renewable energy up and running should be the top priority. This can be paid for by funds now given over to the war budget and implemented through the equivalent of a wartime mobilization similar to that of World War Two, when industry was completely retooled and rationing, recycling, and conservation were widely instituted. The implements of war can also be melted down and reused by hammering swords into plowshares.

Only a workers and farmers government would be capable of launching such a massive undertaking. The entire productive apparatus, placed under democratic workers’ control, would have to be directed toward the retooling of industry for the green manufacture of wind turbines, photovoltaics, electric train locomotives and carriages, and other necessities. This would occur along side the conversion to organic farming, which doesn’t need petrochemicals.

The enterprise would require the unleashing of tremendous human creativity as well as collective and cooperative action. Revolutionary ecosocialists prefer to fight for this because we do not believe that fee and dividend will bring down the Fossil Fuel Kingpins, whom Hansen considers guilty of crimes against nature and humanity. Only working people and the oppressed, struggling independently in the streets, have the power to do that.

1059. Foundations for the Consolidation and Action of an Ecosocialist Network

By Réseau Écosocialiste, Life on the Left, May 1, 2013 

The following is Richard Fidler's translation of the founding statement of principles of the Quebec-based Réseau écosocialiste, the Ecosocialist Network. The text, as amended by the founding meeting of the network, was published in the May 1 issue of the web journal Presse-toi à gauche. For a report on the founding meeting, see “Quebec ecosocialist network – ready for action!”

The Réseau écosocialiste is on Facebook at http://tinyurl.com/dynmdk3. For an introductory brochure (in French), see brochure-finale.pdf.

* * *

A. Context: The global resistance to a crisis-ridden neoliberalism

1. After 25 years, capitalism in its neoliberal version is experiencing a far-reaching breakdown that began with the great recession of 2008. It is a triple crisis:

• economic, accompanied by policies of austerity, brutal cutbacks, bank bailouts, deepening social inequality, and great suffering and frustration. The most adversely affected are women, minorities and the more vulnerable among us.

• environmental, with ravaged ecosystems nearing exhaustion due to unbridled exploitation of hydrocarbons, greenhouse gas emissions and an unsustainable mode of production and consumption.

• but also a crisis of democracy. With the omnipotence of “markets” and the financial oligarchy, capitalist democracy is ever more a hollow shell.

Finally, it is a global crisis of the system that underscores the impasse of contemporary neoliberal capitalism.

2. However, the crisis and the attacks on the populace by the ruling classes have produced extensive mass mobilizations around the world. The Arab Spring and the anti-dictatorial revolutions in Egypt and Tunisia. The indignados of Spain, the repeated general strikes in Greece and Portugal. The massive mobilizations in France and Great Britain. The Occupy movement in the United States. And here in Quebec, the revolt of the student youth in the spring of 2012, which resulted in the largest mass mobilizations since the 1970s.

3. Periods of crisis can also be moments when capital reinvents itself, developing new accumulation strategies. But they are also moments during which the forms of struggle and strategies of the popular classes, the dominated, are reinvented as well.

B. Ecosocialism as a response to the capitalist impasse

4. Ecosocialism is a new political project synthesizing an anticapitalist ecology with a socialism cleared of the logic of productivism. This is the reasoned human response to the dual impasse in which humanity is now confined by the present mode of production, which exhausts human beings and nature. Ecosocialism points to those who are really responsible — the ruling classes, particularly the globalized financial oligarchy — and proposes an alternative way out from the crisis: the deepening and renewal of the emancipatory project of socialism in the conditions of the 21st century.

5. Ecosocialism fights the engines of the capitalist system: exploitation and the endless search for maximum profit, the consumerism and productivism that exhaust ecosystems, globalization with its unbridled competition that encourages social and environmental dumping, imperialism and wars of aggression, racism, colonialism and all forms of oppression. It is a project for building an alternative society to capitalism, one that requires us to reconceive not only the aptness of the system of production and exchange, but also the content of what is produced and the modes of consumption.

6. Ecosocialism differs from the “socialisms” of the 20th century, all of which failed in terms of ecology, democracy and social equity. Arising out of wars and turmoil, they were characteristically militarist, hierarchical and elitist throughout their existence. They confused state ownership with socialization, reproduced the dominating and destructive modes of capitalism, and ultimately deprived the popular classes of any control over the means of production and the state, for the benefit of a privileged bureaucratic class. Ecosocialism, in contrast, must be democratic, self-managing and egalitarian. It proposes to revolutionize the relations of production and the productive forces. It advocates the distribution of wealth, the recognition of ecological constraints, ecological and democratic planning, and popular sovereignty.

7. Ecosocialism refutes the false solutions of green capitalism and the Social Democracy. Green capitalism is a hoax which, in the name of sustainable development, promotes carbon markets and fuels the search for maximum profit, maintains neoliberal globalization, and aggravates the environmental dumping suffered by the developing countries. It is a “green-washing” of the current paradigm that avoids the real debate concerning the liability of the capitalist mode of production for the profound environmental crisis afflicting the planet. The Social Democracy has consistently advocated redistribution of incomes without questioning the foundations of accumulation and thus the power of financial capital. During the golden age of postwar capitalism it was able to develop the welfare state and share the “products of growth,” but it has failed lamentably in the face of neoliberalism, often becoming its best defender. Since the outbreak of the crisis in 2008 it has become the promoter of bank bailouts and the harbinger of austerity policies, well-deserving of the moniker “social liberalism.”

8. Ecosocialism rejects the model of unending growth imposed by capitalism. Ecosocialism defends the need to reduce some production and consumption that leave behind an unacceptable ecological footprint. Ecosocialism proposes a radical restriction of the sphere and volume of production and, more generally, of extractivist development. This objective will not be attained simply by eliminating useless and harmful production (weapons, etc.), by fighting the planned obsolescence of products, or by suppressing the ostentatious consumption of the wealthiest layers of the ruling class. More radical measures will be necessary, such as the transformation and decentralization of the ways in which goods are produced, the abandonment of fossil energies (oil, gas and coal) and the adoption of a sustainable energy regime (solar, wind, geothermal, etc.), of electrified and accessible public transportation, in order to limit as best we can the damages from climate warming while guaranteeing high calibre human development based exclusively on renewable energies. We are for an economic reconversion that preserves the interests of the popular classes within a perspective of “fair transition.” Our project aims for an economy that is democratically managed, serves social needs, and breaks with consumerism, advertising and the generalized commoditization that leads to destructive wastefulness.

9. Ecosocialism is an internationalist struggle because globalized capitalism must be answered with the solidarity of the peoples of the world. We recognize the responsibility of the capitalist countries of the North for the environmental problems now afflicting the peoples of the South, while we are critical of the model of retroactive and belated development that perpetuates an unsustainable mode of production. We denounce unfettered and polluting industrialization and its effects on the global climate; the pillage of natural resources; the hoarding of arable land; and the militaristic expeditions conducted in order to plunder resources. All decisions made in one location concerning the production of goods, transportation or energies have repercussions on a world scale. Ecosocialism acts within a perspective of North-South climate justice in the struggle for the protection of the planet’s environment. Ecosocialism likewise notes that capitalist globalization has also been fuelled by militarization and regionalized wars. Women especially have suffered rape and the generalization of violence. Racism has been exacerbated by globalization and the policies of militaristic plunder, and the struggle against racism is also at the centre of the ecosocialists’ struggle.

10. Ecosocialism must also include among its objectives the abolition of patriarchy. Women produce 80 percent of the food consumed in the poorest countries of the world, but they possess only 1 percent of the lands. Because women are primarily responsible for household food production, they are the first victims of climate change: drought, flooding of lands, erosion of riverbanks, etc. Establishing a fair and equitable society requires taking into account the demands of women. They are poor and capitalism benefits from the exploitation of their unpaid labour in family and child care. More than thirty years of neoliberal policies have been devastating for women. The right wing has mobilized against the right to abortion. It has attempted, with relative success depending on the country, to limit choice for women. The rights of gays and lesbians have evoked mobilizations against their right to marriage. Violence against women has become a global axis of mobilization for the women’s movement. But it is above all the generalized contempt for women’s bodies expressed in the new media and capitalist globalization that has clearly illustrated the close links between capitalism and patriarchy. The commoditization of women’s bodies by prostitution and pornography has assumed unprecedented scope.

11. Ecosocialism is not a utopia that we await with folded arms. We participate in social and environmental struggles alongside all those who resist. Opposition to the exploitation of shale gas and petroleum exploration in the Gulf of St. Lawrence. Support to the struggles of the aboriginal peoples against the government’s Plan Nord, for the defence of their ancestral territories and their right to self-determination. Rejection of austerity policies, the struggle to preserve jobs or to guarantee a decent income, a reduction in labour time without loss of salary. Defence of trade-union rights. Development of renewable energies and electrified public transportation. Fight for free education. Defence of the commons and public services as a means of struggle against women’s impoverishment and the sexual division of labour. Struggle against violence against women. So many battles and immediate struggles that enable us to build the necessary relationship of forces to lead the longer-term fight for ecosocialism.

C. Conditions for the implementation of ecosocialist perspectives

(a) Democratize the economy by reorganizing the energy and natural resources, industry, agriculture, trade, transportation and finance sectors to make them serve the common good.

12. The ruling class will stubbornly resist efforts to establish a truly democratic management of the economy through redistribution of wealth, a freeze on privatizations, and the establishment and expansion of free public services guaranteeing access to fundamental goods and services such as education, health, water, energy, housing, transportation and culture. This resistance can only be broken by the democratic nationalization and socialization of natural resources, strategic industrial sectors, and the banks in order to build a public economic and financial system that eliminates the blackmail of capital flight and restores priority to peoples’ needs and the protection of the environment.

13. Ecological and participatory planning will be the result of collective decisions guided by the substantive needs of the population and respect for ecosystems. It will allow us to put an end to decision-making on production by the major owners of companies and the banks that will benefit only them. Ecological and democratic planning starts with establishing needs democratically within companies and at the local, regional and national levels, guaranteeing the right of everyone to live in a healthy environment that is protective of ecosystems.

(b) Revitalize democracy in an independent Quebec by giving it economic, social, participatory and representative content.

14. The defence and reconquest of democracy begins with the dissolution of the repressive bodies (anti-riot police, professional army) and the struggle to expand the democratic rights of the social organizations (right to trade-unionization, right to strike and to demonstrate through direct action and civil disobedience if necessary). But beyond these essential defensive measures, a real ecosocialist democracy would seek:

➢ to enable all citizens to make the economic and environmental decisions that are strategic to the life of our society;

➢ to generalize gender (male/female) parity in political representation and to struggle against the various forms of patriarchal domination;

➢ to introduce participatory democratic procedures at all levels within the institutions of the state (participation in the development of budgets, etc.) and to generalize the principle of eligibility for various positions of responsibility;

➢ to block the ways by which elected representatives escape the control of those who are represented and to impose popular control over elected officials within the context of representative democracy.

15. These democratic demands, and the battles they will entail, will come up against the federal state’s domination of Quebec, which is reduced through national oppression to the status of a political minority. A genuine democratic reconquest of Quebec society cannot avoid the struggle for the independence of Quebec and an end to the domination of the federal state. The economic, social and democratic struggles can culminate in the election of a constituent assembly, the election of which will itself constitute the beginning of a break with the domination of the Canadian state over Quebec and can, through the exercise of popular sovereignty, enable us to end our status as a political minority, secure the independence of Quebec and define institutions that expand citizen power in all spheres of society. Quebec’s independence is for us indissolubly linked to the social project of going beyond capitalism.

(c) Promote the convergence of the social and political struggles.

16. During the “maple spring” [printemps érable] the student movement challenged the neoliberal school and the subordination of education to the interests of the dominant economic minority. The women’s movement challenges the unequal division of labour and of salaries, the oppressive nature of social roles, and violence against women — in short, the patriarchal domination that structures capitalist society. The indigenous peoples are mobilizing in defence of their ancestral territories and recognition of their national rights. The trade-union movement is every day engaged in fighting employer arbitrariness in both the private and public services sectors. Popular movements are waging increasing struggles on the consumption front (housing, urban development, etc.). The ecology movement is mobilizing to protect the environment. Left-wing political parties must draw on these experiences in order to go beyond partial struggles and outline in their programs the paths toward a redistribution of powers in the direction of civil society.

17. An ecosocialist orientation rejects the artificial separation of labour promoted by the Social Democracy between the work of the party, limited to the formal political sphere, and activism in the social organizations. The transformation of society will not be achieved by fragmented social activism or political action limited to the electoral arena alone. Only the convergence of social and political struggles in a comprehensive overall movement will enable us to build the necessary relationship of forces to be able to challenge the policies of the ruling class. To secure the convergence of social and environmental struggles, we must promote as best we can the emergence of unitary and democratic forms of self-organization and self-management of these movements.

18. In the trade-union movement (and sometimes in other social movements) there is generally majority support for a strategy of social concensus-building with the ruling class and the state. Ecosocialism, given its analysis of the responsibility of the dominant classes for the economic, political and environmental crises, criticizes this strategy and opposes to it a strategy of class-struggle unionism. The wage-earning class cannot adopt as its own the objectives of the ruling class, or it will find itself in an impasse. Union militants who are ecosocialists must promote the class independence of their mass organizations in which they are active and try to build unity in action, including with the other social movements. As a political party, we cannot avoid participating in the strategic debates within the social movements that can have an antisystemic dynamic essential to social transformation.

D. Tasks of the ecosocialist network

19. The tasks of the Réseau écosocialiste will be organized around the following axes:

(a) Form a centre for the development of ecosocialist perspectives and participate in the programmatic debates of Québec solidaire to advance the orientations of the network within that party’s local, regional and national bodies. Ecosocialism is aware of the links between patriarchy and capitalism. Within that perspective, the Réseau écosocialiste must develop its thinking on the fight against patriarchy and promote the position of women in the organization, recognizing the achievements already made on this issue and remaining vigilant against any regression.

(b) Ensure the implementation of such orientations and policies and work to get Québec solidaire to engage in campaigns and activities in opposition to the anti-ecology, austerity and patriarchal policies of the dominant classes and neoliberal political parties. In this sense, the Réseau écosocialiste must do everything it can to open spaces for involvement and mobilization within Québec solidaire, in non-electoral as well as electoral periods. The network will therefore work to transform the party’s structures, to reinforce its democracy and combativeness; this implies promoting greater participation by the rank and file.

(c) Build, expand and consolidate the presence of Québec solidaire in the social movements and, within this perspective, help to make our party a party of the streets capable of forging solid links with the social movements. That is our starting point for contributing to its construction and expansion. The network will work for the establishment of a trade-union collective within the party, a national QS-campus student coalition, and a network of feminist activists in various regions and within the different authoritative bodies of the party.

(d) Organize debates and educationals on ecosocialist perspectives both as party activities and on an independent basis. Within the party, promote democratic, transparent and decentralized structures and encourage rank-and-file participation.

(e) Forge links with ecosocialist organizations world-wide and relay international campaigns on environmental and social issues within Québec solidaire and Quebec society.