Only communists care for the environment

Le Monde is, like the NYT in the USA, the establishment, left-of-center paper of record in France. It tends to be supportive of the social-democrats (i.e the centrist wing of the Socialist party), socially liberal, and, like the NYT, increasingly to the right on economic issues - mostly in an apparently semi-unconscious parroting of the common wisdom of the day. This means giving credence to the worst talking points of the "drown the government in the bathtub" right.

Today, à la Crichton or à la Lomborg, Eric Le Boucher, the economics editorial writer of the paper is accusing environmentalists of being wrong to call for action on Global Climate Change - for all the usual stupid reasons:

Le réchauffement de la planète est devenu un problème trop sérieux pour être laissé aux écologistes. La Grande-Bretagne l'a compris. (...) La France est restée, elle, dans le politicard et l'émotionnel.

Global Warming has become too important an issue to be left in the hands of the Greens. Britain understand this. (...) France is stuck in petty politicking and emotional wankery.

Adapted from the European Trbune

Apart from the petty sniping at France (yet another demonstration, in my view, that France's biggest problem is that its elites do not believe in themselves anymore), this is more of the same inconsistent arguments against doing anything that are served by the WSJ Op-Ed pages.

The immediate cause of Mr Le Boucher's outrage is the mediatic impact of Nicolas Hulot, a former presenter of a TV show on nature, who is arguing for a programme (Le Monde summary, behind sub. wall, translated below) to cut carbon emissions and has been courted in recent days by politicians on both the left and the right.

Economie. Une logique de la durabilité ; concevoir les produits pour qu'ils durent et soient réparables. Energie. Organiser la baisse de la consommation afin de diviser par quatre les émissions de gaz à effet de serre d'ici à 2050. Agriculture. Produire autrement, en conciliant production agricole ; respect de l'environnement, travail paysan et produits de qualité. Territoire. Contenir l'extension périurbaine et relocaliser les activités humaines, en cessant de multiplier les infrastructures et d'"artificialiser" les surfaces. Transports. Sortir du tout routier, en développant les transports en commun et le vélo. Fiscalité. Etablir le véritable prix des services rendus par la nature en supprimant les subventions défavorables à l'environnement. Biodiversité. Faire entrer la nature dans l'aménagement du territoire, en créant un réseau écologique national. Santé. Prévenir avant de guérir, en évaluant le poids de l'environnement dans les causes de maladies. Recherche. Faire de l'environnement un moteur de l'innovation. Politique internationale. Prendre l'initiative, en promouvant une autorité mondiale de l'environnement.

Economy. Bring about a logic of durability: build things so that they last and can be easily repaired. Energy. Organise a decrease in consumption so as the divide GHG emissions by 4 by 2050. Agriculture. Change production modes, to take into account the environment, paysan labor and quality of the products. Land management. Limit suburban expansion and relocalize human activity by stopping the needless extension of infrastructure and the minaralisation of surfaces. Transports. Move away from the dominance of road transport by developing public transport and biking. Tax policy. Bring about the true price of the services provided by the environment by eliminating subsidies that damage the environment. Biodiversity. Bring environmental concerns into zoning plans, by creating a national environmental authority. Health. Focus on preventation rather than cure; analyse the impact of environmental damage in the cause of disease. R&D. Use environmental concerns as an engine for innovation. International Policy. Take the lead, by promoting the creation of a world environmental authority.

"Cinq propositions concrètes" 1. - Un vice premier ministre chargé du développement durable. 2. - Instaurer une taxe carbone en croissance régulière. 3. - Réorienter les subventions agricoles vers une agriculture de qualité. 4. - Systématiser les procédures de démocratie participative. 5. - Mettre en place une grande politique d'éducation et de sensibilisation.

Five proposals: 1. - A vice Prime Minister in charge of sustainable develoment 2. - A regularly increasing carbon tax 3. - A transfer of agricultural subsidies towards quality farming. 4. - A big development of participatory democracy prodecures 5. - A large education campaign.

Nothing earth-shattering there, but it has had the merit, just like the Stern report in the UK and elsewhere, to bring the environment to the fore of the political debate in France. And that cannot be tolerated by our selfstyled guardians of the economic orthodoxy.

la France est responsable de 1,5 % des émissions mondiales de CO2 : 368 millions de tonnes sur 24 milliards. Les Français auraient beau élire un vice-président tout vert comme le souhaite M. Hulot, rouler à vélo et couper le courant, cela ne changerait strictement rien au ciel. Sans doute, répondent les écolos. Mais "il faut bien montrer l'exemple" ! Nous voilà au coeur de leur stratégie : avoir mauvaise conscience, se serrer la ceinture, entrer volontairement dans " la culture de la modération". Au besoin, il faut contraindre les récalcitrants par la force (à Paris, par exemple) pour sauver la planète.

France causes only 1.5% of global carbon emissions. Even if it elected a nicely green President like Mr Hulot, started riding bikes, and cutting off power, it would change nothing to the climate. Of course, reply the Greens, but "we have to show the way". That's the core of their strategy: give us a bad conscience, restrict oneself, enter the "culture of moderation". And, if necessary (like in Paris) constrain the unwilling by force to save the planet.

The usual argument that acting alone is not enough, as if that were an argument not to act. Of course we need to act globally, but that includes us, and if we're not convinced ourselves to do anything, how will we convince others?

And of course the usual Reaganesque argument that the environmentally minded really want us to go back to live like cavemen.

Cette salade verte, arrosée par Dieu et Malthus, idéologisée, séduit en France. L'écologie y est devenue la dernière manière de lutter contre le capitalisme. Mais elle n'a aucune chance de convaincre ailleurs. (...) Les Etats-Unis n'ont pas ratifié le protocole, le Canada vient de s'en retirer. Aucun pays émergent n'est concerné alors que la Chine deviendra la plus grosse "pollueuse" dans dix ans. En Europe, seules la Grande-Bretagne et la Suède respectent leur ordre de marche. La France à peine.

That green propaganda, spiced with God and Malthus, works in France. Ecology has become the latest way to fight capitalism. But it stands no chance of working elsewhere. (...) The USA did not ratify Kyoto. No emerging country is on board, even as China will become the biggest polluter in 10 years. In Europe, only the UK and Sweden fulfill their obligations. France barely does.

Worse, the enviros really are communists. The red menace under the green... And that's just a French disease, of course. And the French, which "barely" fulfill their obligations (strange how that's different from actually fulfilling these obligations. But doing things as well as in the UK or Sweden? That would be intolerable to a professional France-basher like Le Boucher).

And again, we bump up against the US and China, the two great excuses to do nothing. Where's Al Gore from, again? Who just won the elections by kicking out people like Pombo?

Thus the conclusion:

Comment convaincre les réticents, et d'abord les Etats-Unis et la Chine ? Sûrement pas en leur proposant la "modération", et encore moins de changer le capitalisme. (...) Il faut bien sûr faire prendre conscience (comme les écolos ou Al Gore), taxer le CO2 (comme M. Hulot, mais à l'échelle mondiale), mais à la condition de décupler les efforts de recherche et de développement sur les énergies propres. Pas moins de croissance, mais plus de science. Ajoutons : plus de nucléaire.

How do we convince those opposed, starting with China and the USA. Certainly not by proposing "moderation", or by changing capitalism. (...) Of course one needs to create awareness (like the Greens or Al Gore), and tax carbon (like Mr Hulot proposes, but on a worldwide basis), but only if we increase R&D spending on clean energy sources. Not less growth, but more science. And, let's add, more nuclear

So, to sum up: we have to agitate for awareness on the issue, propose carbon taxes, focus on renewable energy, but such proposals should not come from people that are green, because they are bad. And America is a lost cause (funny how the supposedly pro-American wing here in Europe is dismissive of the majority over there). Do I get this right?

Hmm. Actually, we end up again with the issue of growth. The real irreconciliable difference between the goals of the real environmentalists and those desired by the short-sighted capitalists and their spokeslackeys like Le Boucher is that the first group is willing to question the concept of growth (or simply to acknowledge that it is bumping against very real, and very hard, limits) whereas the second refuses to consider that at all. Because of course it would put limits on its unrestrained dash for accumulation and concentration of wealth.

Underlying this, of course, is the now dominant definition of capitalism whereby any restriction to corporations is unacceptable (and immediately labelled communist and thus evil). Externalities cannot be internalised unless the Chinese and Americans do it, and as the Americans are "real" capitalists and (supposedly) don't do it, and the Chinese are, hmm, presumably real capitalists as well, and don't do it either, we should not do it. Beyond the simplistic views on what's happening in the USA (lol), this is really a cowardly and weasely way out of one's responsibilities.

Taking the leadership here will bring us benefits, even if the Chinese don't follow us. But nah, that's communist. As rdf noted in the ET version of this diary,

There are three issues which get muddled together.

The first is "energy independence" or sustainability. Can a society become in balance with the environment so that it does not consume more than can be regenerated?

The second is greenhouse gas emissions. This is a global issue and some countries are more of a problem then others. The amount of change needed has to differ.

The third is ameliorating the already starting effects of climate change. Once again this is a local or regional issue. What is needed in central Europe is different that what must be done in Bangladesh.

To take these in order:

Sustainability can be promoted as a way for a society to become more competitive internationally, less dependent on international developments over which they have little or no control and more able to set their own social policies. Sustainability can be achieved by some combination of conservation, improved technology, cutting waste, creating new sources of energy supply and eliminating those dependent on non-renewable raw materials. Any society making the commitment comes out ahead regardless of what others do.

Those taking the most ecologically informed steps in point one will also reduce their greenhouse gas emissions. However, it is possible to become "independent" by substituting coal for oil and not improving emission levels. This seems to be the path that the US and China are planning to take. How to get them to pick other choices is a topic for another discussion.

As for dealing with the effects of climate change. There are two approaches. One can assume that models are correct and start to take measures now (like moving inland or building seawalls) or one can wait until trends are unmistakable and then try to do things in a rush. The second choice is not necessarily the wrong one. Is the UK going to get colder or warmer? Are sea levels going to rise enough that most Pacific islands will need to be abandoned? Is Bangladesh going to end up under water, and if so where will the people go?

Places like France and Germany can take steps to address point one now without dealing with points two and three. The payback will be immediate. Failing to act on sustainability because you can't solve global greenhouse gases is a poor (and incorrect) argument.

So the right thing is to work immediately on energy sustainability, irrespective of what others do, and agitate for global action on climate change and carbon emissions. but that includes agitating locally so that each of our countries get ready to act, and create a critical mass that can convince others to join in. Despite its flaws, Kyoto has created that critical mass, and has allowed the creation of mechanisms (like the carbon trading schemes) that can be used in the future as more countries join and an agreement can be found on how to share the effort fairly.

And in that context, the demonization of environmentalists as closet communists, and the parallel demonization of all those that argue for government intervention, taxes and regulation to deal with society-wide problems is insane and needs to be fought with the upmost energy. Economic freedom has to stop when it steps directly on the well being of society, and the mindless, unquestioning, defense of corporations and of deregulation that we see in too much mainstream media coverage must be noted, criticized and argued against.

•  Tip Jar - 11 November

  by Jerome a Paris on Sat Nov 11, 2006 at 02:37:29 PM PDT

  •  Meanwhile...

    Greenhouse emissions grow more rapidly

    Greenhouse gas emissions have been increasing four times as fast as in the 1990s, giving added urgency to international talks on climate change.

    Research carried out for Unesco found on Friday that the rate of increase in emissions from burning fossil fuels between 2000 and 2005 was four times that between 1990 and 2000.

    The research will be presented in Nairobi, where representatives from governments across the world are meeting to discuss the Kyoto protocol on climate change, which requires developed countries to cut emissions.

    The accelerated rise is a result of rapid growth in developing economies such as China, India and Brazil, as well as the failure of developed countries such as the US to mitigate their greenhouse gas output. Even in countries such as the UK, which is on target to meet its Kyoto commitment to cut emissions by 2012 by 12.5 per cent compared with 1990 levels, emissions have been rising in recent years.

    Despite efforts among some countries, such as those in the European Union, to reduce carbon dioxide emissions, the global growth rate was 3.2 per cent in the five years to 2005 compared with 0.8 per cent in the period 1990 to 1999, according to data from the Global Carbon Project.

    And remember that carbon emissions are already a speed, as they essentially measure the increase on the stock of carbon in the atmosphere.
    So we are talking about an increase to the acceleration of the carbon in the atmosphere.

    by Jerome a Paris on Sat Nov 11, 2006 at 02:39:17 PM PDT

    •  Scary.

      Hopefully America is not a lost cause, and by 2008 we'll elect someone who will meet this issue head-on. It's amazing to me that Republicans are so easily able to scare people into voting for them by making them think that the brown people, or the gay people, or whatever are coming for them, and the Dems can't take an issue that could literally be a "we're all going to die" problem and get people to understand.

      And, btw, thanks so much for all your work on these issues. I've learned so much from your diaries, and the discussion that goes with them!

      by akasha on Sat Nov 11, 2006 at 04:57:48 PM PDT

  •  Just a word on French elites

    French elites now believe in what the Anglo-Saxon elites believe in: money, lots of.

    They no longer believe in what made them the elite in France: a strong sense of duty that made them work (via the State) for the common good.

    The deal was: little power sharing with the masses, but a duty to conduct policies that were decent for said masses. Now they still have little accountability (thanks to the elite Grandes Ecoles university system, the preemption mechanisms, and the almost impossibility to be kicked out of the elite, etc...), but they are grabbing the money at the expense of the masses.

    At least in the Anglo-Saxon countries, some balance is provided by a modicum of accountability and the fact that the elites can be kicked out of political power more rapidly.

    What the French elites have stopped believing in is their power to do things through the government, despite their proven track record of doing so.

    I mean, some of the things that keep France competitive today are precisely the big things that the French technocrats built in the first half of the past 50 years: the nuclear power plants, Airbus, the TGV, a diversified industrial base (Total, St Gobain, Renault, Lafarge, Areva, EDF, the banks, Vinci, Suez, etc...), and the EU. It's not the pseudo reforms pushed over the past 25 years.

    by Jerome a Paris on Sat Nov 11, 2006 at 02:41:39 PM PDT

  •  outstanding, Jerome

    thanks!

    by Cambridgemac on Sat Nov 11, 2006 at 02:44:07 PM PDT

  •  I still have a little French left

    It seems like your translations lose a lot of the haughty contempt in the original prose. That's my only real criticism with this otherwise excellent diary.

    Two observations: First, I see that M. Le Boucher still takes the Malthusian vs. Cornucopian non-argument seriously. It's a mildly interesting exercise for students, but neither position is robust or serious enough to be brought up in the context of policy.

    Second, when were the elites of any given country ever loyal to their nominal countries? There are exceptions here and there, but generally the cry of la patrie! was just a way to rile up the pawns to fight in whatever little chess game the aristocracy was passing the time with. I see no indication that that has changed: The elites of any nation have far more in common with each other than with their ordinary countrymen.

    by oldjohnbrown on Sat Nov 11, 2006 at 02:50:22 PM PDT

    •  Elites

      See my comment above. I agree that elites have often more in common with one another than with their co-citizens, but there were still very obvious differences between French elites and "Anglo" ones 30 years ago, and these are now fading. And the bigger role of government in life in France reflected a different approach to power. One can argue (endlessly) about which system was better, the fact is that there were big differences, which tend to fade these days rather than to remain.

      by Jerome a Paris on Sat Nov 11, 2006 at 03:18:47 PM PDT

    •  re: Translations

      I know absolutely no French whatsoever.  I'm just surprised that there is a French word for "wankery" as shown in the first blockquote of the diary. :)

      by bluerevolt on Sat Nov 11, 2006 at 04:02:10 PM PDT

      •  Not really :)

        I think a more literal translation would be "France is stuck in political maneuvering and emotional appeals" instead of handing this issue over to the Serious People.

        Given that, "wankery" isn't a bad choice.

        by oldjohnbrown on Sat Nov 11, 2006 at 04:53:32 PM PDT

      •  French and Translation

        I still have a little French and appreciate having the original language next to the translation.  It's fun reading the French.  Thanks.

        by gmoke on Sat Nov 11, 2006 at 08:10:08 PM PDT

  •  You are going to hate me for saying this . . .

    But I agree with the argument that the US has to take the lead.  

    It would be nice if the Europeans could develop strategies for greenhouse reductions starting immediately, but you can't blame people for not wanting to take on an impossible task.

    The responsibility for saving the planet from global warming lies squarely on American shoulders.  If America takes the lead we can accomplish this, if not none of the actions of places like France will matter.

    by dbratl on Sat Nov 11, 2006 at 03:30:50 PM PDT

    •  Why should I hate you?

      You make a valid point. Action needs to be global, which means that it absolutely needs to have the US on board.

      It does need to have China on board as well, for the same reason. And as the main reason why the USA did not join Kyoto was that there was no requirements made upon emerging countries, in particular China, this is even more important.

      The big issue is that all need to make an effort, but developping countries do not want to be robbed of the opportunity to develop - which implies, in their mind, the right to more emissions than now - and they have a point. The trick is to convince them that regulating their emissions need not limit their growth and could even help it, and to convince the USA that it makes sense to pay for some of the efforts to be made in these countries to cut emissions - and that this could actually provide a bigger bank for a buck (in that it's easier to cut emissions in a dirty coal power plant that emits 100 units than in a pretty clean Western one that emits 1 unit of pollution).

      by Jerome a Paris on Sat Nov 11, 2006 at 03:39:33 PM PDT

      •  A total commitment

        A few years ago, folks like Al Gore suggested that the transition could be relatively painless and in fact our steps to mitigate greenhouse gasses might even spur our economic development.  

        Now the same people, Gore included, talk more about the necessity of a total commitment of society to undue our habits developed as the result of this horrid and easy to ignore externality.  The ultimate market failure in the words of Sir Nicolas Stern.  Gore talks of changes such as the end of slavery or the confrontation of the Nazis - in other words a culture altering endeavor.

        The first step is creating this commitment in the United States.  No small feat, although another event like the Katrina Hurrican could be used as a motivating example given different leadership.  

        The US is being short sighted in regards to emerging markets like China.  Right now, we still hold a great deal of influence over China in that their ability to sell to our market is what drives their internal growth.  Right now we could use that leverage to change their greenhouse emission practices through greenhouse protecting tariffs and other trade policies.  No that this would be pleasant mind you, trade conflicts are difficult no matter the circumstances, but it is a feasible option.

        However as time passes and China develops its own internal market and markets in places such as India mature, their dependence on us will wane and so too willour ability to influence their behavior with trade policy.  We will be in very much the same position the Europeans are in with us right now - tsk tsking at the giant who is driving the problem.

        This highlights the urgency of motivating the United states to take action now.  At an elite level the main selling point to the US is to argue (I think correctly) that immediate action now will help preserve American Economic Hegemony, while waiting will likely lead to our continued degradation in relation to others.

        The problem has been that the Bush team has simply been too ignorant of anything to even be able to perceive the world in these terms, while at the same time their ignorance promotes a self-aggrandizing confidence over short-sighted policies that they perceive to be muscular but actually serve to weaken us.

        No to romantic about these fellows, but I am more hopeful now that I see economic pramatists like Baker and Gates and Scowcroft gaining new influence inside the administration.  

        What needs to happen next is that the left and the right must come to a new governin bargain that will allow us to deal with the enormity of this problem, which is essentially THE defining crises of our time.

        Such a bargain will require excruciating sacrifices from both the left and the right, but it is essential that we get beyond the rediculous bickering that has existed since 1994 if we are going to accomplish this.  

        by dbratl on Sat Nov 11, 2006 at 04:04:53 PM PDT

        •  Excellent comment nt

          by Jerome a Paris on Sat Nov 11, 2006 at 04:16:03 PM PDT

        •  very thoughtfully written, dbratl

          by NeuvoLiberal on Sat Nov 11, 2006 at 04:18:34 PM PDT

          •  Thanks both you guys . . .

            I don't know what got into me.  ;)

            by dbratl on Sat Nov 11, 2006 at 04:22:20 PM PDT

        •  One thing to bear in mind is that ...

          ... the time that I recall Al Gore saying that the transition could be relatively painless was Earth in the Balance days, which is to say the early 90's, and if the US had buckled down in the middle 90's and kept it up through today, it really would have been  a much less painful transition.

          While looking, I found this view of Earth in the Balance, which leads out with:

          Satan's religion of communism has died. What we see being raised in its place is the new religion of environmentalism. Since 1970, the establishment globalists have pushed down our throats more Socialism, more people control, more restrictions on free enterprise and private property in America, all in the name of environmentalism, than the Communists were able to achieve in 75 years.

          Maybe that was before Pat Robertson changed his mind on Climate Change, but it does indicate the radical right fringe thinking that Bush has helped to bring to the corridors of power.

          by BruceMcF on Sat Nov 11, 2006 at 05:35:40 PM PDT

        •  Not sure about influence over China ...

          as opposed to growing Chinese independence.  How  aware are you of the China-Africa summit that just concluded?  Basically, it was a 'who needs the Americans and Europeans anyway' type of meeting.

          by besieged by bush on Sat Nov 11, 2006 at 05:38:45 PM PDT

  •  11 Novembre

    Still one of history's better dates.

    by ActivistGuy on Sat Nov 11, 2006 at 03:45:38 PM PDT

•  Beautifully written and researched diary

  Thank you as usual.

  by abbeysbooks on Sat Nov 11, 2006 at 02:42:50 PM PDT

•  I see you are still ignoring the IAE's

  comment that worldwide carbon emissions will rise for the next 25 years without a technological breakthrough................

  by deathsinger on Sat Nov 11, 2006 at 02:44:19 PM PDT

  •  I'm still trying to get my hands

    on the full IEA report (the Global Energy Outlook). If any kossack has access to it and is in a position to send it to me, I would very much appreciate it.

    I've actually written a couple of times already on the summaries that I've seen in the press of this report, for instance in these diaries:

    Energy: world on path to jump "from crisis to crisis"
    Total CEO on peak oil
    Bush claiming 'Energy Independence' mantle already

    by Jerome a Paris on Sat Nov 11, 2006 at 03:00:08 PM PDT

•  can someone please remind me....

  ...whats wrong with communism again?

  I'm not advocating it....i have been told all my life its evil....but i forget why.

  Capitalism doesn't seem to be doing all that great, except for the top 1%, especially when it comes to you know....saving the Planet and stuff.

  Now that we are getting rid of the last of the Cold Warrior elite (bye Donny! rot in hell!) perhaps we can look for solutions based on consensus and not competition without about being demonized as part of a Soviet World Domination Plot, if we try to solve some of the worlds problems by....cooperating with each other.

  by buhdydharma on Sat Nov 11, 2006 at 02:45:01 PM PDT

  •  Bonapartism...

    rise of the strong man.  And then later the growth of state bureaucracy.

    by ek hornbeck on Sat Nov 11, 2006 at 02:47:36 PM PDT

    •  hmmmmm

      sort of like America under Bush?

      by buhdydharma on Sat Nov 11, 2006 at 02:48:23 PM PDT

      •  Oh.

        That's gonna leave a mark.

        by ek hornbeck on Sat Nov 11, 2006 at 02:49:02 PM PDT

    •  State bureaucracy

      is actually the best part of Bonaparte's legacy to France. Some of what he put in place two centuries ago still works well today, starting with the civil code (the first ever version to be applied being the Louisiana version, actually)

      by Jerome a Paris on Sat Nov 11, 2006 at 03:43:50 PM PDT

      •  I must admit...

        I was more thinking of Soviet style bureaucracy, and I don't mean to slight Bonaparte or Confucius for that matter.

        The Russian experience of Communism was more akin to National Socialist type stateism than what I would consider either Communism or Socialism.

        But I'm a repressed Anarcho-Syndicalist so what do I know.

        by ek hornbeck on Sat Nov 11, 2006 at 04:36:43 PM PDT

        •  Isn't it difficullt to fit on a protest banner:

          Anarcho-Syndicalist??!

          aloha. . .

          by dolphin777 on Sat Nov 11, 2006 at 06:32:48 PM PDT

          •  Hmm...

            I hereby hoist the black flag of Anarchy!

            Dairy Anarchy Patrol, protecting you from conforming to community standards since the day before tomorrow.

            Nope, fits in there just fine.  I admit the contrast is a little hinky because it's black on black.

            by ek hornbeck on Sat Nov 11, 2006 at 06:41:29 PM PDT

            •  Bah.

              You and your bourgeoisie spelling.  My name is Yonny Yohnsen and I like milk.

              by ek hornbeck on Sat Nov 11, 2006 at 06:46:08 PM PDT

  •  Winston Churchill said it:

    by deathsinger on Sat Nov 11, 2006 at 02:48:17 PM PDT

    •  And a good lefty, he.

      Not.

      Confused in our idols, are we?

      by redstar on Sat Nov 11, 2006 at 03:04:42 PM PDT

      •  Yeah, really.

        I'd expect a Churchill quote on a site like FreeRepublic, but DailyKos, where people should know better?

        Here are some more Churchill quotes.  Churchill the white supremacist speaks here:

        "I do not admit for instance, that a great wrong has been done to the Red Indians of America or the black people of Australia. I do not admit that a wrong has been done to these people by the fact that a stronger race, a higher-grade race, a more worldly wise race to put it that way, has come in and taken their place."

        Another instance of Churchill being in open support of imperialism is here:

        "I do not understand this squeamishness about the use of gas. We have definitely adopted the position at the Peace Conference of arguing in favour of the retention of gas as a permanent method of warfare. It is sheer affectation to lacerate a man with the poisonous fragment of a bursting shell and to boggle at making his eyes water by means of lachrymatory gas. I am strongly in favour of using poisoned gas against uncivilised tribes. The moral effect should be so good that the loss of life should be reduced to a minimum. It is not necessary to use only the most deadly gases: gases can be used which cause great inconvenience and would spread a lively terror and yet would leave no serious permanent effects on most of those affected... We cannot, in any circumstances acquiesce to the non-utilisation of any weapons which are available to procure a speedy termination of the disorder which prevails on the frontier."

        by stridergambit on Sat Nov 11, 2006 at 06:06:08 PM PDT

        •  Sounds like near quote of all those Europeans

          who raped and plundered the new World! The Spanish archives hold the writings: rationale mostly based on fact the conquered peoples WERE NOT CHRISTIAN!!

          Since judged inferior on that basis, their lands and riches were deity-destined to become property of "superior" folks, and endorsed by various of the popes.

          Aloha. . .

          by dolphin777 on Sat Nov 11, 2006 at 06:48:01 PM PDT

    •  and Winston...

      ...turned the guns on the striking SW miners...
      ...used poison gas on what were to become the
        Iraqis
      ...helped hundreds of thousands starve in colonial
        India
      ...was eagerly booted out of office after WW2
        for being the upperclass pud he was
      ...and jumped at the chance to start the cold war
        with his speech in Fulton, MO
      But as far as communism, that with a capital "C",
      I think history records that Uncle Joe, Nikki K,
      Leonid the[well] leonid were as bad for the environment as any group of leaders have ever been
      including the republican party, USA.  
      And the globular Churchill went along[in spirit] with his fellow party-mate, Chamberlin, to kiss up to Hitler, and when that didn't play, switched, though perhaps with a leaden heart[of which he was already possessed]. Winston is the darling of capitalismo, workers need to do their research before quoting.

      by duckpin136 on Sat Nov 11, 2006 at 05:21:29 PM PDT

  •  it depends what you mean by communism...

    The real world versions that we've seen in various places (USSR, China, etc..) have invariably turned into ugly authoritarian regimes, and have by far the worst record in terms of protection (or lack thereof) of the environment. Without property rights, people care even less about the commons.

    Then you have the European version of communists, i.e. the hard(er) left. Sometimes they've even been in government, like in France, but usually they are outside the formal political game and are useful as a reminder to the mainstream left not to forget the priorities of the poor, the downtrodden, and often of the environment (not always - often they can have a strong productivist, pro-industrial activity bent)

    by Jerome a Paris on Sat Nov 11, 2006 at 02:53:26 PM PDT

    •  exactly

      it depends what you mean by communism...

      Perhaps we can begin to rescue the concept...while abandonding the demonized word.

      As I say above....

      The real world versions that we've seen in various places (USSR, China, etc..) have invariably turned into ugly authoritarian regimes, and have by far the worst record in terms of protection (or lack thereof) of the environment.

      sort of like america under Bush.

      The FORM doesn't seem to matter much...its the intent with which it is used.

      As long as there is a Free Prees and Free Elections etc.....it seems to be dependent on who is using the government and for what purpose. The common good, or greed.

      by buhdydharma on Sat Nov 11, 2006 at 03:02:11 PM PDT

    •  though that pro-industry bent is not in and of

      itself bad. just trying to keep the rank and file gainfully employed, back in the days where this still mattered.

      by redstar on Sat Nov 11, 2006 at 03:06:26 PM PDT

      •  no, but is something to watch for

        I know less about the history of French industrialism, but in the U.S., the pro-industry bent of some otherwise left-wing unions has tended to provide ripe ground for anti-environment triangulation.  Employers and unions in a particular industry sometimes unite against environmental regulation of that industry: Employers don't like regulation because they fear it might squeeze their profits, while unions don't like it because they fear if employers' profits are squeezed, then they'll be squeezed too.

        Basically, the usual worker vs. capitalist struggle gets recast into an "everyone in industry [x]" versus "people against industry [x]" struggle.  It's not what must happen or what always happens, of course, but it's something to watch for.

        by Delirium on Sat Nov 11, 2006 at 03:17:24 PM PDT

        •  exactly

          the same is still visible in France. A good chunk of the Communist party and of the trade unions have been, and still are very suspicious of environmentalists and see them as annoyances or as threats to their livelihood (and these days, as competitors for the lefty voters)

          by Jerome a Paris on Sat Nov 11, 2006 at 03:20:58 PM PDT

    •  Don't Communists Run China?

      I am particularly amused by the argument that we shouldn't listen to the Greens about the environment, because they might be - gasp - communists.  Instead, we should listen to the Chinese Communists, because they're true capitalists.  Can you say idiotic?  

      Le Monde has a point about "what can France do about global pollution all by itself."  This is the same problem faced by folks trying to protect us from abuse of labor and environmental laws worldwide.  "We can't pass any laws here against (child labor, water pollution, wage and hour laws, pesticides, etc.) because they haven't passed similar restrictions yet.  

      In basic games theory, this is called the "prisoner's dilemma."  Consider a group of prisoners, all sentenced to 5 years in prison, locked in the same cell.  If they work together, they can dig their way to freedom in six months.  If one of them turns the diggers in, that prisoner's sentence is reduced to one year and the diggers' sentences are all raised to 10 years.  If they all turn each other in, each of them has 1 year added their sentences.  

      Question: What happens?

      Answer: Check out the progress on the international talks seeking to solve child labor or global warming-related issues.

      by RepubAnon on Sat Nov 11, 2006 at 03:40:29 PM PDT

      •  And the solution to that dilemna

        is regulation, so that the more favorable outcome is imposed on all.

        In the case of prisoners, it's mafia enforcement (if you don't follow the common rules, you get a bullet in the head). In normal society, it's State enforced rules that ensure a level playing field so that nobody cheats. See bonddad's current diary in the reclist on Spitzer on what his role is there.

        The current pro-market corpocracy is really arguing that it is more rational to cheat all the time (in your example, to be the snitch) because the outcome for each individual is always better than by not cheating, even if the overall result is definitely not so. Sigh...

        (And my PhD dissertation was almost pure game theory - working on how countries solve prisoner's dilemna situations in their relations with other countries in the absence of outside enforcement)

        by Jerome a Paris on Sat Nov 11, 2006 at 03:59:21 PM PDT

        •  Some people look for a way

          But most governments seem to grab for an excuse.  ("We can't do it by ourselves, so nothing can be done... and we can keep taking campaign donations from the polluters, child labor-intensive industries, etc.")

          Hopefully, someone will start acting on your dissertation's recommendations.

          by RepubAnon on Sat Nov 11, 2006 at 07:47:16 PM PDT

  •  I defy anyone to find fault with

    Marx's diagnosis. It is the prescription that has proved troublesome.

    by melvin on Sat Nov 11, 2006 at 03:04:46 PM PDT

    •  Uncle Whiskers made...

      ...a lot of mistakes; but, he got it right
      when it counted

      by duckpin136 on Sat Nov 11, 2006 at 05:23:43 PM PDT

    •  Actually ...

      there are reasons to find fault ... to each according to their need assuming that all would give to their full ability.  While not a Bushie capitalist, I do see value in giving a path for rewarding people for greater effort / contribution.

      by besieged by bush on Sat Nov 11, 2006 at 05:41:44 PM PDT

    •  I seem to recall that Karl had predicted a

      great rising up in England, b/c of abuses by the money classes/landowners that made life so abject for the workers! (Which would have included my Welsh coalmining rellies!)

      Has pure socialism ever been practiced - successfully- anywhere?! Pls adv...

      Aloha. . .

      by dolphin777 on Sat Nov 11, 2006 at 06:52:00 PM PDT

  •  buhdy, I'll explain it all in an upcoming diary.

    I know you're inclined to take the middle way.

    I'll share my view of the "middle way" between the extremes of economic policy.

    by PaulGaskin on Sat Nov 11, 2006 at 04:27:27 PM PDT

    •  heh

      I know you're inclined to take the middle way.

      Only after 40 years of learning that NEITHER extreme works!

      by buhdydharma on Sat Nov 11, 2006 at 04:31:33 PM PDT

      •  Here's the diary: Capitalism Vs Communism

        Capitalism Vs Communism - The Final Chapter

        by PaulGaskin on Sat Nov 11, 2006 at 04:59:36 PM PDT

      •  Both extremes work quite hard to make

        the middle and do purt' good job of it, don't you think? Once you sort out that it isn't war, and you just do the rhythm boogie dancing in between, the extremes do an awesome job of making a very lovely middle on which to ride.

        Just can't help speaking up for the misunderstood bastard children of the gentle way, who are so generally maligned, but they do their job and they do it well. It takes a dynamic to raise a soul. Just saying, you know? :)

        And aren't we just about to find out how balanced this earth has been, and what a delicate balance it was. Time to say hello to some new extremes, and it is past time to start dancing in the middle. Let's hope the climate has a middle left to give us...

        by Unduna on Sat Nov 11, 2006 at 06:42:44 PM PDT

•  I don't think...

  I've said yet how much I like these translation diaries you do.

  It's always good to get a non-US impression of things and they're also excellent examples of tables.

  by ek hornbeck on Sat Nov 11, 2006 at 02:45:16 PM PDT

  •  Yes yes yes

    I forget too. Bravo for including the original and the translation. Please keep it up.

    by melvin on Sat Nov 11, 2006 at 03:06:10 PM PDT

  •  Thanks

    We've developed the format over time at the European Tribune, as a way to provide original content in other languages but make it accessible to the readers of the site, which is after all in English.

    The longest part, of course, is to do the translation.

    by Jerome a Paris on Sat Nov 11, 2006 at 03:22:23 PM PDT

•  Thanks.

  in order to

  work immediately on energy sustainability, irrespective of what others do, and agitate for global action on climate change and carbon emissions. but that includes agitating locally so that each of our countries get ready to act, and create a critical mass that can convince others to join in.

  may I suggest that We each adopt a Senate or House committe of our own, organize ourselves, and keep the pressure up on our own government to make the changes necessary to turn things around?

  I have laid out a skeleton plan to do just that here, and need help!

  Great diary, as always, Jerome.

  by greenreflex on Sat Nov 11, 2006 at 02:45:33 PM PDT

•  This side of the Atlantic

  First off, a special award for the trouble you went to in just formatting this diary.

  One thing that makes me very hopeful for the environmental movement in the US is the defeat of Richard Pombo.  Not only was Pombo the biggest critic of all things green, his defeat involved elements of both what we now think of as "environmentalists" and the original environmental movement -- that of outdoorsmen.  The bridged the suspicion that has grown up between the two groups, a suspicion fanned by Republican statements that all Democrats were "gun grabbers."

  I think more and more hunters are coming to understand that Democrats, even those in favor of gun control, aren't interested in taking away their sporting guns.  And I think they're seeing very clearly how urban sprawl and pollution is a huge threat to what they love.

  I'm hopeful that over the next few elections, we'll see more and more of these people coming back to the Democratic Party.

  by Devilstower on Sat Nov 11, 2006 at 02:48:08 PM PDT

•  C'est vrai

  It's ridiculous that people in this country still whisper the word "communism" because it's a sin against our corporate gods.  The thing is, most sensible ideologies sound a lot like communism when compared to corporate capitalism.  The simple fact is that we have to take care of ourselves, which includes our environment and our resources, and capitalism as we know it in America allows only for the care of the market.  The sooner a less rabid form of capitalism, or an entirely new social ideology, is adopted, the better off we will all be.

  Good diary.

  by Mlle Ane on Sat Nov 11, 2006 at 02:56:30 PM PDT

•  I see no real clash between

  Red and Green, especially with Christmas coming soon. Again, let's bring the market into balance by disallowing the transference of the true costs of business to someone else, or to future generations.

  End these hidden subsidies.

  Keeping it simple: what if I, and I alone decided to just throw my garbage out on the street instead of paying to have it collected? Unacceptable, the neighbors would all agree. And very few of them are communists. A decent analogy IMO.

  From our shameless piggybacking department: Everyone here really should see this nineteen minute interview of David Suzuki interview by WWF-Australia. Along the way, Jerome, he raises a question about deep sequestration that has not been adressed at all.

  by melvin on Sat Nov 11, 2006 at 02:56:47 PM PDT

•  OK, Then Label me a Green Commie too.

  America is safer if it gets off the oil tit and onto a wide variey of alternative energies.  Why put all of our eggs in one basket?  Why rely on countries with terrorist tendencies and supports to provide us with oil?  Why continue on the path of global warming with the use of oil?  IT MAKES NO SENSE...unless you work in the oil industry, like our P/VP.  The timing of putting and keeping B/C in the WH has been just horrid for America and the rest of the world.  

  Environmentalism today is a key to energy independence, national defense, and saving the world.  Nothing to see here, right...drive on through.  Sigh.

  by Public Servant on Sat Nov 11, 2006 at 02:58:09 PM PDT

•  I like how Malthus is cited...

  derisively in the piece you cite. In Malthus' essay on the Principle of Population, he disparages his target, Godwin, as follows:

  He professes to have read some of the speculations on the future improvement of society in a temper very different from a wish to find them visionary, but he has not acquired that command over his understanding which would enable him to believe what he wishes, without evidence, or to refuse his assent to what might be unpleasing, when accompanied with evidence.

  What does this sound just like? An Inconvenient Truth perhaps? It literally translates. And this from the 18th century no less! Al Gore's contemporaries are apparently not all so contemporary. :)

  Excellent work, Jerome. I'll be assiduously looking for any response to this piece in the European media. I hope you will keep an eye and pass that information along as it unfolds.

  by Malachite on Sat Nov 11, 2006 at 03:21:01 PM PDT

•  short version:

  rampant, unrestrained Capitalism will eat your planet to fatten the shareholders...

  by claude on Sat Nov 11, 2006 at 03:29:48 PM PDT

•  I'm always amused by this argument,

  no matter what nation puts it forth:

  Global warming doesn't exist, we didn't cause it, there's nothing we can do about it, so we should build more nuclear power plants.

  Four clauses, not one of which is logically connected to the other three, except perhaps by contradicting them.

  (Actually, it sounds like Le Monde denies the first two, which puts them ahead of right-wing publications, at least.)

  by LithiumCola on Sat Nov 11, 2006 at 03:36:45 PM PDT

  •  Yeah, the same tired argument

    After "what global warming?", the second line of defense is always: "we can't stop it by ourselves - so why try?"  This reminds me of the "race to the bottom" theory of environmental regulation when done on a local level. State #1 raises the maximum amount of a toxic water contaminant from, say, 5 ppm to 10 ppm.  State #2 announces that to attract jobs, they're raising the maximum level to 20 ppm - and State #3 goes to 60 ppm.  Before long, they're offering tax breaks to attract polluting industries...

    by RepubAnon on Sat Nov 11, 2006 at 03:48:37 PM PDT

•  Jerome,

  is this:

  Worse, the enviros really are communists. The red menace under the green... And that's just a French disease, of course.

  snark? I ask because watermelon ("green on the outside, red on the inside") is a fairly common derogatory term for an environmentalist in the US.

  by pigpaste on Sat Nov 11, 2006 at 03:42:35 PM PDT

  •  Watermelon

    If I'm not mistaken that term originated in Germany.  (Proud to be a watermelon, fresh sweet and tasty, myself!)

    by ActivistGuy on Sat Nov 11, 2006 at 03:49:33 PM PDT

    •  The thick skin is useful, too.

      Does the term pre-date the German Greens?

      by pigpaste on Sat Nov 11, 2006 at 03:54:28 PM PDT

      •  An old motif in German politics

        In the Nazi rise to power, there was a "left" wing of the Nazi Party, led by the Strosser brothers, often called "Beefsteak": brown on the outside, red on the inside.  Those were most of the ones rounded up and killed or imprisoned on "the Night of the Long Knives."

        by ActivistGuy on Sat Nov 11, 2006 at 07:18:46 PM PDT

    •  Also, curiously, used in El Salvador ...

      ...in the early '80s by the ultrarightist Roberto D'Aubisson to describe Napoleon Duarte's Christian Democrats - green on the outside (the color of the party on the ballot) and red on the inside, watermelons.

      by Meteor Blades on Sat Nov 11, 2006 at 05:22:58 PM PDT

  •  The author I quote

    seemed to be saying that it was a purely French disease. I presume that what he meant is that only in France are these people still given credence (which is only slightly more true).

    by Jerome a Paris on Sat Nov 11, 2006 at 04:00:52 PM PDT

•  Everyone of Hulot's goals

  would be advanced by a shift of taxes from labor onto privileges of all kinds.  I have advocated this on dKos several times.  Such taxes by their very nature will never hinder net production for the entire system, although they would emphatically alter what is produced.  

  We could tax broadcast spectrum, land (including highway land), pollution, carbon, aircraft landing privileges, and legal protection (corporration).  Taxes on these objects of privilege will force the "owner" of the privilege to use the privilege to the fullest or stop using it.

  BTW, as you probably know this is a most French idea since it was the French Physiocrats who originally came up with the idea of taxing land although they had a few gaps in their thinking. (They somehow ignored the value in urban land but hey, they were the first....)  

  We also must reclaim the idea of privilege.  When corporations are given powerful privileges by the state with no corresponding obligations, what we really have done is to privatize the right to regulate the lives of the citizenry.  Failure by government to regulate privileged corporations is to give them the power to regulate us.  The present language of "regulation" is utterly Orwellian in its double-speak nature.

  In another BTW, I believe the electoral shift in American is the beginning of a much larger shift.  For example, keep your eye on the Evangelical Environmental movement.  Few Kossaks are paying much attention to these people, but if the Evangelicals even partially split with the Republicans their coalition is doomed.

  by Geonomist on Sat Nov 11, 2006 at 03:57:55 PM PDT

  •  Yes. Taxing rent

    is what we should go towards. (Economic rent, I mean)

    by Jerome a Paris on Sat Nov 11, 2006 at 04:02:04 PM PDT

    •  Economic rent is the

      GREAT IDEA that must be revivied for a new progressive economic agenda.  I have been struggling with this for some time and have pretty much given up on the classic terms.  In English anyway, the word rent is so completely confused in meaning as to be less than worthless.

      I am finding in conversations and presentations that the word "privilege" is easier for others to understand than classic "economic rent".  Privilege defined as: When governments allow a person, or group of people, to do what others are not permitted to do.  Privilege is the opposite of freedom.  Freedom dies one privilege at at time.  Payment to government for privilege is not really a tax in the classic sense of the word "tax".  Payment for privilege is most correctly understood as compensation for freedome denied to others, or compensation for harm done.

      The conversation about taxation changes dramatically once this mental shift takes hold.  Government charges structured around privileges are not a burden on production but rather a burden on labor is created when charges aren't made against privilege.  It is the privilege holders who are burdening us, not government burdening the privilege holders.  (Poor little mega-corporations.)

      BTW, my professional work has me modeling real estate values on a mass basis (entire urban area).  My work so far shows that it is possible to decompose the origins of land values into contributing factors quite precisely.  Population densities, infrastructure, and building densities predict land values extremely well.  My work will soon provide the mechanics for how to justly implement a system of taxation of rents including an apportionment formula for deciding who has what claim to rent.  Stay tuned.....

      The concept of privilege could also encompass a whole range of issues beyond strictly economic issues.  I believe that this broader moral framework built on privilege would strengthen an economic framework based on privilege.  But that would be a whole diary itself....

      by Geonomist on Sat Nov 11, 2006 at 08:03:18 PM PDT

•  Thanks