[GP-US Labor] weaknesses of the labor movement

[Thomas Leavitt]

labor-request@lists.gp-us.org wrote:
> Send Labor mailing list submissions to
> 	labor@lists.gp-us.org
>
> To subscribe or unsubscribe via the World Wide Web, visit
> 	http://lists.gp-us.org/mailman/listinfo/labor
> or, via email, send a message with subject or body 'help' to
> 	labor-request@lists.gp-us.org
>
> You can reach the person managing the list at
> 	labor-admin@lists.gp-us.org
>
> When replying, please edit your Subject line so it is more specific
> than "Re: Contents of Labor digest..."
>
>
> Today's Topics:
>
>    1. weaknesses of the labor movement (Arthur Myatt)
>
> --__--__--
>
> Message: 1
> Reply-To: almyatt@earthlink.net
> From: "Arthur Myatt" <almyatt@earthlink.net>
> To: labor@lists.gp-us.org
> Date: Thu, 17 May 2007 11:26:53 -0400
> Subject: [GP-US Labor] weaknesses of the labor movement
>
> ------=_NextPart_84815C5ABAF209EF376268C8
> Content-type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII
>
> There's a thoughtful article at
>
> http://www.energybulletin.net/29718.html
>
> about the weaknesses of the American labor movement attempting to address the issues of global warming, energy conservation, peak oil and gas, and similar questions. Specifically, the article identifies a set of assumptions - all wrong - made by labor activists:
>
> 1.  Faith that technology will be able to provide energy as needed.
> 2.  Belief that a growing economy is both inevitable and good.
> 3.  Confidence that there is no shortage of resources.
>
> I would like reactions to this article, and answers to the obvious questions:
>
> Are these assumptions in fact wrong? 
>
> Are there similar wrong assumptions made by environmental activists?
>
> How should the labor movement deal with the environmental movement?
>
> how should the environmental movement deal with the labor movement?
>
> How should the labor movement deal with environmental issues, and which environmental issues are important to labor activists?
>
> How should the environmental movement deal with labor issues, and which labor issues are important to environmental activists?
>
> Can the labor movement succeed without including environmental activists/organizations?
>
> Can the environmental movement succeed without including labor activists/organizations?
>
> What would be the political platform on which labor and environmental activists could unite? Is there one, or are the movements necessarily in opposition?
>
> I think these are all important and unresolved questions. Both labor and environmental activists are working for a profound transformation of our economy and our society, yet they are working independently of each other, and often at cross purposes, to the detriment of both. If the two movements cannot work out a common understanding of what the issues are and what is possible in responding to the issues, neither movement will be successful, ever.
>
>
> Arthur Myatt
> almyatt@earthlink.net
>   
1.  Faith that technology will be able to provide energy as needed.

... I think the jury is out on this. 

I think that a reasonable combination of lifestyle changes (of significance, not the "swap an incandescent bulb for a compact florescent and you've done your duty" type), conservation (there's a massive amount of waste and inefficiency that would vanish rapidly with a rise in prices), and implementation of "renewable" energy sources is the most likely scenario for a sustainable future, and in my opinion, the most likely. I think that "conservation" will take us half-way there, and that lifestyle changes (shorter commutes, telecommuting, widespread adoption of alternative transport mechanisms) will do the rest to get us to about 20% of our current per capita energy usage - a level at which "renewable" energy sources can reasonably be expected to provide on an ongoing basis.

I think that the techno-optimist view that an as yet unknown technological breakthrough (such as practical "fusion") is going to magically appear and replace oil as a primary energy source, in a way that avoids massive disruptions or lifestyle changes, is hard to defend as a practical means of planning.

I also think that the techo-pessimist view that oil is going to run out without any practical compensatory developments, and that society is going to fall apart as the result of an sudden and overwhelming energy shortage, is also hard to defend.

As I mention below, this is a secondary issue in my opinion, and one that is an unfortunate side-effect of the focus on "global warming", rather than sustainability.


2.  Belief that a growing economy is both inevitable and good.

Define terms - to me, the idea of a "static" economy is irrational - even if we flat-lined our use of resources, people would inevitably come up with methods for utilizing that same level of resources, which would result in economic "growth" and increased societal "wealth", under conventional systems of measurement. Human society is inherently dynamic, and our economic systems will reflect that. This is all a matter of definitions... a "growing" economy is not inevitable, but, defined properly, as a greater amount of "wealth" (defined as improvements in general quality of life for everyone, that don't degrade the quality of life for the rest of the beings inhabiting the earth with us), it is credible to argue that it is "good".

3.  Confidence that there is no shortage of resources.


This all depends on which "resources" you are talking about... 
obviously, "resources" derived from our "natural capital" (ala Hawkins) 
are vastly degraded and decreasing, and need rapid decreases in usage. I 
think our society, and our leadership, have yet to come to grips with 
how far we've "overshot" what can be sustainably "extracted", or how 
little we know about how to "restore" these systems once they've been 
degraded.

This, more than anything, I think is the real "crisis" we face as a 
society - the obsession with global warming, unfortunately, obscures 
this, and reduces the entire argument to one over how and whether we 
need to reduce carbon emissions, without permitting the holistic and 
systemic analysis of what we need to do to reach sustainability. The 
argument over "energy" and "peak oil", too, obscures this. It leads 
people to believe that there's a "magic bullet" which will permit us to 
retain our current way of life without substantive change - if we 
"solve" global warming, we will have "solved" the environmental crisis, 
if we "solve" the "peak oil" conundrum, we'll have "solved" the 
environmental crisis.

The truth is, while both of these are significant tasks, neither one of 
them is the "magic bullet" people would like to think - if we could wave 
a magic wand and suddenly wipe out the threat presented by global 
warming, and replace our oil usage with a combination of renewables and 
conservation, we will still be faced with an environmental crisis of 
immense proportions - the oceans will still be overfished, the 
destruction of the rainforests (and habitats as a whole) will still be 
proceeding at an alarming rate,  and extinction rates will still be soaring.

Plenty of other non-renewable resources are also limited and decreasing 
(oil). Others are not - we're not likely to run out of silica anytime 
soon, and the rest of the solar system contains a massive wealth of all 
sorts of resources that can theoretically be tapped (minerals, ores, 
organic chemical compounds).

***
Are these assumptions in fact wrong?

See above.

Are there similar wrong assumptions made by environmental activists?

Yes.

How should the labor movement deal with the environmental movement?

We all share the same ship. We need a unified movement in favor of a sustainable society.

how should the environmental movement deal with the labor movement?

Ditto.

How should the labor movement deal with environmental issues, and which environmental issues are important to labor activists?

Preserving the planet's natural ecosystems from wholesale destruction is a moral imperative, and also essential for the preservation of our ability to sustain our civilization. Techno-optimists seem to lack awareness of how little we know about how these systems work, and how very far far far away we are from being able to somehow sustain a human civilization without them.

How should the environmental movement deal with labor issues, and which labor issues are important to environmental activists?

An unjust society is an unsustainable society. Labor forms one of the bulwarks against unbridled capitalism and its structural inability to account for economic "externalities".

Can the labor movement succeed without including environmental activists/organizations?

Possibly, as long as the latter succeed on their own - i.e., without a sustainable society that preserves the planet from destruction, everything else is irrelevant.

Can the environmental movement succeed without including labor activists/organizations?

Possibly, except that it can't really succeed without bringing the vast majority of society around to a point of view that says sustainability is paramount, and it is hard to imagine that happening without including labor.

What would be the political platform on which labor and environmental activists could unite? Is there one, or are the movements necessarily in opposition?

Preserving the planet from destruction - the idea that "labor" and "the 
environment" are inherently in opposition is irrational - bluntly, any 
policy that fails to enhance the sustainability of our society, is 
inherently "anti-labor", given that it is "anti-human life"... and vice 
versa: any policy that promotes a "sustainable" society is inherently 
pro-human, and pro-labor.

Thomas