Embracing revolution on climate change and neoliberalism

https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2019/apr/26/embracing-revolution-on-climate-change-and-neoliberalism

Version 0 of 1.

George Monbiot (Time to declare the system dead – before it takes us down with it, 25 April) says he has slowly and reluctantly rejected capitalism because the endless impulse for growth and wealth creation ineluctably drives climate change. Asad Rehman, executive director of War on Want, in his global justice seminar at the Extinction Rebellion protests, focused more on neoliberalism – the even more rapacious, ever-expanding incarnation of capitalist exploitation of people and planet over the last four decades – as the driver of global climate inequality and impending calamity. But left-of-centre ideologies also focus on growth in the bid to tackle inequality, with social and economic priorities overshadowing ecological imperatives.

This paper has had occasional discussions of the degrowth movement. In one such, Christiane Kliemann (Let’s face it: we have to choose between our economy and our future, 23 January 2015) posited that once we have accepted there are only radical options left, we have a choice between our economy and our future if we are to meet everybody’s needs more sustainably and equitably, using fewer resources. More focus on degrowth on the political left, and more analysis in these pages of its underpinnings and its potential, could contribute to movements for creating a global economy that can truly be described as “ours”, and a future not only for those of us in the global north, but also a present for those in the global south already experiencing the ravages of growth-driven climate change. Sarah CemlynBristol

• For once I disagree with George Monbiot. He overlooks one idea favoured by environmentalists and thinking capitalists: the circular economy. This idea doesn’t attack capitalism per se, rather the traditional take–make–use–waste structure of its linear economy, a structure also found in communism, and a pernicious habit of human life. In a circular economy, resources remain in use for as long as possible, giving their maximum value. Products and materials (both natural and technological) enjoy as many “service lives” as possible. Products and packaging are designed for maximum reuse, repair and refurbishment, thus relegating recycling and energy extraction to the last resort. Reverse logistics provide return networks, with local reuse prioritised.

In my view, circular economy is just as necessary as rewilding, emissions reduction and carbon sequestration if we are to slam the carbon brakes on within a decade. Perhaps it is more necessary because, unlike them, it gives objectives and structure to the good transformation of our way of life.

I suggest a look at the Ellen MacArthur Foundation for much deeper thinking on circular economy. I have only one quibble with them, which is that so far they say little on how people and communities can contribute – which we can. They seem focused on changing capitalism.Malcolm FowlesReading, Berkshire

• George Monbiot calls for replacing capitalism, and the G2 article on the library of things (25 April) hints at a solution. Surely the fourth industrial revolution will involve cooperatives providing many of the services we have come to depend on? As an example, in Zurich – one of the world’s wealthiest and happiest cities – 25% of homes are owned by cooperatives and the city government is raising the proportion to a third. As a consequence, a much wider range of people live on low rents, and have fuller and less wasteful lives.Dr Nicholas FalkExecutive director, The URBED Trust

• George Monbiot powerfully argues that constant economic growth on a finite planet results in environmental meltdown. He suggests we need a range of thinkers to frame a coherent alternative to capitalism. A genuinely democratic socialism with a solid workplace and local basis has already a number of blueprints. They include that glorious failure, the alternative Lucas Aerospace corporate plan in 1976, drawn up by shop stewards, advocating socially useful products, and the actions and policies of Preston city council, as described in several Guardian articles by Aditya Chakrabortty.Michael SomertonHull, East Yorkshire

• Gaby Hinsliff (Pay heed to the climate rebels. They ask the right question, 20 April) makes a very good point about protests, where arguments may be at best half formed but very strong feelings that something is wrong are articulated. She puts her finger right on the alarm bell when she quotes Gail Bradbrook of Extinction Rebellion saying: “Now is not the time to be realistic.”

With global warming, how can the plan to leave the EU, travelling the world looking for new markets, make sense when we should be cutting down on aviation and shipping emissions as fast as we can? The struggle to say goodbye to petrol cars, gas boilers and cookers will be so much harder if we have turned our backs on our nearest markets, relying on far-flung sources for food and needs, and on top of that have to struggle with our failure to really start addressing and reducing the consequences of heating our planet up. This is the big question that overshadows all political squabbling and despite listening to all the arguments has failed to work itself to the surface.

Extinction Rebellion may not be ready to be realistic yet but their strong vision and determination and canary they put in the system has put the spotlight on the most important realistic question we should be asking ourselves now.Barbara Mullarney WrightActon, London

• I admire Greta Thunberg’s actions on climate change, but I can’t wholly agree with her that “MPs have lied” (Report, 24 April). MPs are held to account by their electorates and, as is clear even in the advertisements that appear in the Guardian, even the best informed voters like cruises to ever more exotic places, they like ever bigger cars, they aspire to lifestyles that come with higher carbon emissions. In other words, we are all deceiving ourselves, and elected politicians who challenge our cognitive dissonance will fear paying a high price for it. While Extinction Rebellion represents one train of thought, the gilets jaunes in France seem to be motivated not by climate change (Macron’s supposed justification for higher fuel prices) but by personal economics. A courageous government would swiftly introduce carbon rationing, with diminishing, tradable rations for each of us. The price of carbon would be determined by a formula based on the contraction and convergence framework, to ensure globally equitable burden sharing. Will it happen? Not until London is inundated I suspect.Colin ChallenLabour MP Morley & Rothwell 2001-2010 and founding chair, All party parliamentary climate change group, 2005-2010

• Arriving home from the Extinction Rebellion protests on Wednesday morning I was really heartened to read your lead editorial (24 April) putting into words most of my feelings: “Doing nothing is not an option.” At the same time I would love to see the Guardian challenge itself to lead the conversation even more: what does the climate emergency mean for you? What role should you play? We all have to do more, faster. It’s an existential crisis.

In the same edition you had adverts for British Airways and Guardian holidays. We will all have to start changing our lifestyles and that means less long-distance flying unfortunately. I understand that newspapers’ business model relies on advertising and us paying subscribers. It would be very exciting for the newspaper to embrace the demands of Extinction Rebellion – especially with regard to exploring citizens’ assemblies. This is a process to put people at the centre of power. It is new, and a little bit confusing, but ultimately hugely empowering and powerful for people all at the same time.Henry TrewBuckland Brewer, Devon

• I find the Guardian’s ostensible promotion of environmental justice completely at odds with the continuing policy of reviewing tech devices without rating their environmental impact.

On the very same day as Peter Beaumont’s article (Rotten eggs: e-waste from Europe poisons Ghana’s food chain, theguardian.com, 24 April), the Guardian published yet another tech review awarding five stars to a product with no mention of a post-use device recycling plan (Huawei P30 Pro: Game changing camera, stellar battery life).

As a reader and tech user I want to know which products are least environmentally damaging. I am less concerned about the cosmetic aspects such as “stunning colour options, including the pearlescent oil slick-like ‘breathing crystal’ and the eye-popping amber sunrise”, which the Guardian prioritises over device recycling information.

Please act to combat the horrific e-waste industry by insisting that all your tech reviews include clear information for readers about the devices’ in-purchase recycling package. If a tech producer can’t provide a recycling plan for its products, don’t give them five stars.Jonathan ShaveBolzano, Italy

• You report that senior politicians “towered over” Greta Thunberg. From what I saw and heard, quite the opposite was the case.Rev John JamesWatchfield, Somerset

• Join the debate – email guardian.letters@theguardian.com

• Read more Guardian letters – click here to visit gu.com/letters

• Do you have a photo you’d like to share with Guardian readers? Click here to upload it and we’ll publish the best submissions in the letters spread of our print edition