The Guardian 22 March, 2006
Global warming
In response to a number of recent articles on Global Warming, Guardian reader H B Chandler wrote the following as a contribution to ongoing consideration and discussion of the issue. Other readers are also invited to send contributions on this critical issue.
Regarding the production of energy...
For the millions of people in the world who do not have enough to eat the issue of big power stations is of little concern. They need to be able to grow their own food; they need clean water and shelter.
Apart from the heavy earthmoving equipment, pipes, etc, to bring the water to the towns/villages and some help to tide them over until the current shortages are solved and they can plant proper crops, they can manage for themselves.
Their past colonial masters imposed on these countries a move from food production, to mono cash crops for export e.g. pepper, tea, coffee, copra, rubber, etc. none of which is of use to the common people but takes up the best agricultural land and brings in export dollars for the landowners (mostly foreign who also steal the country’s other recourses).
When hunger is satisfied, their next priorities are disposal of sewage, basic health and education, none of these, during thousands of years of human history, relied on power stations.
However, as community life improves, need for power grows. Most of the worst affected communities have an abundance of natural means to generate their own local power: sunlight, methane, wind, running water, tidal action, geothermal and natural means. Any of these methods while deemed too expensive to produce power on a massive scale are cheap and easy when used at local level.
When looking at major "traditional" power stations there are a number of factors not taken into consideration when assessing their cost-effectiveness: the cost of mining and then transporting the fuel, the destruction of the environment by the pollution, the cost of building and maintaining the lines and grids to carry the power over very long distances and the loss of power due to leakage etc. These things are never assessed when comparing their efficiency against the costs of smaller local and renewable means of generation.
When adding up the cost of nuclear generation, proponents of this energy source may admit that only 100,000 died because of Chernobyl and other nuclear power station accidents around the world.
They most certainly will not include the economic cost of the hundreds of thousands who will die, are maimed genetically and lie in the hospitals, those yet unborn who will be affected and the cost of caring for them, the cancers, contaminated food, and the depleted uranium lying all over the war zones that will need to be dealt with for the next 50,000 years.
The waste generated by these power stations is more toxic to most things on the planet than anything that has existed on earth before, and in order to protect life on this planet it needs to be kept "secure" for more than 50,000 years — by means that we do not have. The people promoting the idea of nuclear power are capitalists who are endeavouring to secure a future for this most destructive of industries — the power industry.
Reduction in usage
But it is not enough to find more efficient and less polluting means of producing power, we have to aim for a reduction in demand. Our large cities would need very much less power if environmental concerns were properly considered.
Correct lighting of our towns and cities and a ban on electric advertising would see our "domestic" use of power tumble. By reappraising our use of household appliances like electric toothbrushes, the three or four TV’s in every home, inappropriate building and heating etc. we would be able to achieve a reduction in consumption of mammoth proportions.
Big power stations are used to provide energy for big industries which are often producing massive amounts of throwaway "goods" to satisfy our throwaway society mentality.
A little thing to consider is a man’s razor. In my grandfather’s day when a young fellow started to shave he was presented with a razor, a right of passage almost, and it did him for the rest of his life. Nowadays, a trip to the supermarket to buy a pack of five, (wrapped in plastic with a cardboard backing, printed in three colours, explaining how great the razor is), with precision cut and sharpened triple head cutting blades on plastic rotating heads on a fat plastic handle (for easier gripping). All to be tossed into the ever-growing mound of "rubbish" and a new set bought every week for the rest of his life.
Use of power to make "things" to feed the demands of a throwaway society, the obscene packaging and advertising of articles, and then the transport of this "waste" for long distances all over the world requires massive amounts of resources and energy, and no matter how it is generated it is not sustainable.
There is no way the earth can resource everybody to the same throwaway mentality we "enjoy" in the so-called "West". Imagine the 1.3 billion Chinese, the one billion Indians, the hundreds of millions more in South America and Africa, etc. all in air-conditioned apartments with every throwaway gadget, a car, with a boat or caravan.
If every person on the globe used the same amount of resources and energy as you and I, the end of the world would be even closer than we think. Capitalist ideology believes economic growth (more use of recourses, more population, more profit), is the solution but it is actually the cause of our problem.
Fixing the problem
Recently I was involved in a demonstration against Howard’s IR and sedition laws (anti-terrorist) and demanding that free speech be protected. We marchers traversed the main streets (with police escort) and then joined a "People With Solutions Festival" in a park in Lismore (a country town in NSW near Byron Bay).
In a marquee under a large banner proclaiming "PEOPLE POWER" speakers of all persuasions presented their ideas and solutions to the world’s problems. It was an exhilarating event. Speakers wanted local power generation, fresh natural foods, public transport (especially freight on trains), less money spent on mega roads, better local education and health care and no selling off, of the people’s assets.
All speakers were very concerned by the lack of response by governments, especially the Howard Government’s attitude to Global Warming and sustainability. All were seeking a way to work together and save the planet. This kind of local movement, it seems to me, is the growing face of social change.
We need a total re-think of our society. Marx and Engels could look forward 150 years, but I’m sure even they never dreamed of the destruction a prolonged capitalist system would bring to the earth.
If change does not occur sooner than later, then we are in for a very rocky ride.
A proper planned approach to the local production of goods to meet the needs of all, with better use of resources and agricultural practices, better social attitudes is essential for our survival.
This planned economy, a socially conscious society with a viable future is only achievable by one means — Communism.
However, as the powers that be — capital, church and state — will not give up easily, we are perhaps headed for real conflict.