đŸ Archived View for library.inu.red âș file âș conor-mcloughlin-rio-earth-summit.gmi captured on 2023-01-29 at 08:41:10. Gemini links have been rewritten to link to archived content
âĄïž Next capture (2024-07-09)
-=-=-=-=-=-=-
Title: Rio Earth summit Author: Conor McLoughlin Date: 1992 Language: en Topics: environmentalism, Workers Solidarity Source: Retrieved on 9th October 2021 from http://struggle.ws/ws92/earth36.html Notes: Published in Workers Solidarity No. 36 â Autumn 1992.
The earth Summit took place in Rio last June. In spite of the enormous
cost ($123 million) and publicity (8,749 media people.) the final
results were two weak treaties and the agreement of some âprinciplesâ on
the environment. Even this was too much for America who refused to sign
the Bio-Diversity Treaty, fearing for their bio-technology industry. In
Rio itself an estimated 700 âstreet childrenâ have been murdered since
January (according to the Centre for the Mobilisation of Marginalised
Populations) in an attempt to beautify the city.
Once again the capitalists proved unwilling to tackle the problems of
under-development and environmental degradation. Given their past record
this doesnât come as much of a surprise. However there are serious
problems and it would be wrong for socialists and anarchists to
down-play them. For example, according to the World Bankâs World
Development Report for 1992 well over one billion people in the
so-called developing nations suffer from water-borne diseases and more
then 3.5 million children a year die from diarrhoea alone. Despite the
collapse of Stalinism arms spending has increased from $680 billion in
1972 to an estimated $800 billion this year, the rainforests are been
cut down at a rate of 170,000 square kilometres per year with an
estimated loss of 50â100 forest species every day.
Things are clearly pretty bad. Many would point to pollution, soil
degradation, de-forestation and species loss and say we are experiencing
a devastating crisis. Some even say that the end is nigh. Are things
really this bad?
Firstly, if you look back it is possible to see where such doomsday
pictures were painted in the past but we survived. In the 1930s ten
record warm years in a row combined with increasing carbon-dioxide
concentrations led to fears of major global climate changes. Sound
familiar? The 1940s-1970s then proved on average to be much cooler then
expected. This is not to knock the research of scientists like those on
the Inter-Governmental Panel on Climate Control who believe we are
experiencing a greenhouse effect. However it must be borne in mind that
climate and ecological systems are extremely complex and to be wary of
simple doomsday scenarios.
In 1972 a book was published by scientists in the âClub of Romeâ called
âLimits to Growthâ. In this they argued that key resources such as lead,
copper and aluminium were about to run out. Of course they didnât. In
the recently published sequel âBeyond the Limitsâ the scientists admit
they were totally wrong. They admit they should never have used the âif
present trends continueâ type argument. The only thing that is certain
about trends is that they rarely do! We werenât on the eve of
destruction then. We arenât now, though we do face serious problems.
However the question is still raised by a lot people concerned with the
environment: are we over-developed and over-producing? For example, at
the âalternativeâ Earth Summit in Rio a demand was issued for âa cut in
the Northâs consumption of resources and an immediate transformation of
technology to create ecological sustainability in the Northâ. Is the
problem one of over-production and consumption in the industrialised
countries?
We would argue that there is a problem of over-production in capitalism.
But it is not real over-production. Simply that it is an enormously
wasteful system of production geared purely towards competition and
profit. Huge amounts of goods are made to break as soon as possible,
rubbish is sold by advertising, new inventions which threaten monopoly
positions are bought out as fast as possible to stop their production
(the oil companies are notorious for this). A lot of production is
geared purely to maintaining a competitive advantage.
Often more is produced then there is a market demand for. Then the price
collapses and recession follows. This might not mean that too much had
been produced for peoplesâ needs. Oh, no! All it means is that more has
been produced then can be bought.
So in America, one of the richest countries in the world, 36 million
people (15% of the population) were living in poverty in 1991 according
to Business Week. Worldwide in 1991 there were 200 million tons of grain
hoarded to preserve prices. The charity Trocaire estimated that 3
million tons could have eliminated starvation in Africa for that year.
Imperialism is one of the ways the capitalists try to eliminate some of
the contradictions involved in apparent over-production followed by
recession. It is a system were certain countries are kept at a very low
level of development by other well-developed capitalist nations. During
booms they can buy up labour and raw materials cheaply. They can also
off-load huge amounts of generally inferior products onto these
countries to delay price collapse and recession.
Imperialism is not a thing of the past. The Gulf War proved that the
imperialists will go to any lengths, including massive use of force, to
maintain their power. At the Summit the so-called developing nations of
the South asked for $40 billion to implement the Bio-Diversity Treaty.
They received just $1 billion. Even $40 billion is but a small fraction
of their indebtedness to Western banks and governments.
These countries pay twice as much in debt re-payment as they ever get
from development âaidâ. Most so-called âaidâ usually has a cost: total
compliance to the wishes of the donor government. In fact most
governmental development aid is used as a tool to keep the imperialised
countries in line. 93% of the USAâs aid budget goes to Israel where it
certainly isnât used for humanitarian purposes!
When the Westâs rulers moan about the loss of bio-diversity they are
generally worried about potential drugs and other new products they wish
to extract, refine and make a profit from. Costa Rica has already signed
âchemical-prospectingâ agreements with Western pharmaceutical companies.
Malaysia tries to sell hardwood products and, indeed, some renewable
forest products on the world market. The West charges massive tariffs on
finished products but virtually nothing on raw materials which they can
process themselves. Other countries like Brazil are so massively
burdened with debt they are almost entirely committed to deforestation
and disastrous industrial and ranching projects to try and earn foreign
currency.
Another example of how imperialism works is in the locating of polluting
industry. 12% of the total cost of building a chemical plant in the USA
is made up of pollution controls, 6% in Ireland and presumably even less
in the third world. So industry that wouldnât be tolerated in the West
moves into third world countries. For this reason, when fighting to
prevent location in countries like Ireland it is important to try to
move beyond the ânot in our back-yardâ syndrome. You have to try to make
links internationally.
The basic point is that capitalism is not committed to development. In
fact it is based on arresting the development of most of the world which
in turn contributes to environmental degradation.
Progress and development are not the problem. Even severely distorted
and uneven (e.g. confined to the West) as they are at present they still
seem to point to a better future. The possibility of freeing humanity
from poverty and drudgery exists. In the seventeenth century average
life expectancy in the West was 40 years, now itâs 75. Access to
education, leisure time and a generally better standard of living has
been made possible.
Most people in the West like the improvement and wouldnât wish their
grandparentsâ or great grandparentsâ lifestyle on anyone. Our aim must
be to extend the possibilities, to widen peoplesâ experiences and
expectations. Under capitalism we see the potential for a better way of
life but the system canât deliver. It offers the promise of improvement
with one hand but snatches it away with the other.
The problems arenât due to unbridled development. In fact in most of the
world development is urgently needed. We canât afford to go back but it
is impossible to move forward under capitalism. Therefore we argue for
the overthrow of capitalism. We make the case for anarchism and workersâ
management of industry. We need growth which is finely tuned, highly
developed and responds to peoplesâ needs.
For now, we focus on immediate action by workers to address the issue
where it arises. Environmental degradation is a class issue. The working
class always gets the worst effects, the bosses can retreat to the
air-conditioned penthouse or the golf-links. We support action to reduce
pollution from industrial plants or even for their re-location while
attempting to avoid just making ânot in our back-yardâ arguments.
In Britain it took industrial action by the National Union of Seamen to
stop nuclear dumping at sea, they just refused to do it even when
threatened with legal action. Similarly dockers in Liverpool stopped the
importation of toxic chemicals from Canada.
Workers can, in day-to-day struggle, make real gains in forcing industry
to clean up. They have also proved capable of managing highly
centralised and complex industries in a democratic way. The experience
of Russia (1917â1921), Spain (1936â37), Hungary (1956) and Portugal
(1974) support this case.
Workers can make industry something which can ensure a better world and
begin the massive task of development that is needed worldwide. This is
the only way that resources can be used sustainably and the problems of
poverty and under-development tackled. Industry has to be made work for
people not profits.