Non dico che non sia vero e probabilmente necessario, ma siamo sicuri che sia sufficiente? Confonde capitalismo e produzione industriale, che sono due cose contigue ma diverse, se non ortogonali. Il capitalismo può essere sia industriale che non industriale e la produzione industriale può essere sia capitalista che non capitalista. Visto che anche il comunismo sovietico (industriale e tecnocratico ma non capitalista) ha fatto la sua brava parte con il clima (per non parlare di quello cinese), punterei più il dito sulla produzione industriale che sul capitalismo... Diverso sarebbe il discorso se consideriamo l'ineguaglianza. Forse le critiche all'industrializzazione e alla civiltà industriale (á la Ivan Illich) sono molto meno politicamente consolidate di quelle socialiste al capitalismo, che di per se però non hanno una base e un pensiero ecologista e sistemico, pur essendo questo altrettanto antico (penso a von Humboldt) di quello socialista. ciao, Alberto On 26/04/2019 15:44, Giacomo Tesio wrote:
https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2019/mar/18/ending-climate-change-...
Climate change activism is increasingly the domain of the young, such as 16-year-old Greta Thunberg, the unlikely face of the school strike for climate movement, which has seen many thousands of children walk out of school to demand that their parents’ generation takes responsibility for leaving them a planet to live on. In comparison, the existing political establishment looks more and more like an impediment to change. [...]
Today’s children, as they become more politically aware, will be much more radical than their parents, simply because there will be no other choice for them. This emergent radicalism is already taking people by surprise. The Green New Deal (GND), a term presently most associated with 29-year-old US representative Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez, has provoked a wildly unhinged backlash from the “pro free market” wing, who argue that it’s a Trojan horse, nothing more than an attempt to piggyback Marxism onto the back of climate legislation.
The criticism feels ridiculous. [...] Climate change is the result of our current economic and industrial system. GND-style proposals marry sweeping environmental policy changes with broader socialist reforms because the level of disruption required to keep us at a temperature anywhere below “absolutely catastrophic” is fundamentally, on a deep structural level, incompatible with the status quo.
Right now we can, with a massive investment of effort by 2030, just about keep the warming level below 1.5C. This is “bad, but manageable” territory. Failing to put that effort in sees the world crossing more severe temperature barriers that would lead to outcomes like ecosystem collapse, ocean acidification, mass desertification, and coastal cities being flooded into inhabitability.
We will simply have to throw the kitchen sink at this. Policy tweaks such as a carbon tax won’t do it. We need to fundamentally re-evaluate our relationship to ownership, work and capital. [...]
It’s the Marxism of Groucho rather than Karl: “Who are you going to believe? The serious political professionals or your own lying eyes?”
US Senator Dianne Feinstein’s meeting with schoolchildren petitioning her to take action over the issue went viral because of the way she condescended to them for, basically, asking her to leave them a planet behind to live on. “I’ve been doing this for 30 years,” she said, “I know what I’m doing.” The obvious response is, of course, that messing something up for 30 years is quite long enough, thanks. Long tenure without results is not the same thing as expertise. _______________________________________________ nexa mailing list nexa@server-nexa.polito.it https://server-nexa.polito.it/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/nexa