A friend of mine says you can't be a socialist and an environmentalist. While I understand, at one level, what his argument is, I think it may be a bit too simplistic. At very least, I'd propose that you can be an environmentally friendly socialist. Anyways, environmentalism is a politically salient issue that resonates with many Canadians; unfortunately, the same can not be said about socialism. C.A.W. president Buzz Hargrove has recently released a platform that he hopes will promote fuel-efficient, environmentally friendly, 'green' automobiles, while at the same time saving domestic jobs. Of course, he doesn't promote socialism in this platform, but he does stand up for unionized workers in the auto industry. The platform contains a number of initiatives for the government, including:
• supporting the principle of mandatory fuel efficiency standards, Hargrove argued for a 25 per cent improvement in fuel economy by 2014. Applying the standards to all vehicle segments from subcompacts to SUVs would ensure that Canadian production wasn’t simply replaced by more imports;
• renewing its automotive fleet. While standards are important, on their own they will not achieve the desired results. Hargrove proposed a new consumer incentive, paid for by governments and industry, that would encourage drivers to replace old cars with new North American produced vehicles that incorporate green auto technologies;
• supporting Canadian production and technologies. The CAW proposed a Green Vehicle Transition fee to be assessed on each manufacturer that sells into our market, based on each company’s total Canadian sales. The fee, set at about $500 per vehicle would be earned back by companies that make Canadian investments in green automotive technologies;
• a comprehensive program. In addition to greater fuel efficiency and new technologies a transportation strategy is needed that increases the use of renewable fuels and reduce the use of vehicles overall. This requires investments in clean and alternative fuels, mass transit, rail, as well as efforts to reduce gridlock.
Hopefully we can keep a strong and vibrant North American auto industry, while at the same helping out the environment. After all, non-unionized import autos are often purchased because of their fuel efficiency vis-a-vis North American autos. Supporting the environment is important, so is supporting people's right to make a living in the auto industry.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
2 comments:
I have argued in many places that it is impossible to be both an environmentalist and NOT a socialist. In a capitalist society, the driving force of all activity is a hyper-fixation on production. Literally all of the so-called "positive economic indicators" that capitalists use to measure the success of capitalist exploitation are measures of production rather than of need fulfillment. This naturally leads to the exploitation of non-renewable resources, and consequently the destruction of natural ecosystems.
The Green Party seeks to tweak the capitalist system in order to be more sensitive to environmental concerns. This, of course, is folley. Environmental sustainability can only be achieved by replacing the capitalist framework with one that is not so exclusively focused on production. By failing to clearly and decisively promote social democracy, the Greens defeat their own project of working toward environmental sustainability.
At the heart of this debate is the principle of ownership. Ultimately, the people of the earth own very little (and increasingly less) of the land, resources, and assets that they work with in order to generate wealth. Beyond the obvious issues this leads to with respect to decision making within the economy, this means essentially 'the people' are paying a rent or tax on the prosperity which is rightfully theirs.
What evades the analysis of the Green party is that this class dilemma is central to our overproduction crisis. We are essentially producing 8 times what we require, in order to generate what quality of life we have today AND to pay "rent" for the earth which we are not in ownership of... according to pieces of paper.
This has serious implications on our current models of international development, which particularly emphasize an empowerment of multinationals as 'landlords' of the earth. However to resolve this for the cause of the environment requires a substantive commitment to change. It cannot be accomplished through frivolous on-the-fly policy changes (usually to satisfy brand and image) so common to Canada's Green Party.
I don't buy this "root cause" rhetoric I've heard the Green Party spew, as they are not seeing oppression as the root cause of environmental damage. While I'm ready to entertain the suggestion that conservatives can too be environmentalists, socialists are usually more ready to see things wholistically and with greater zeal for analysis and change.
Post a Comment