By Dennis Bartels
Suppose that the worst-case predictions about global warming come true, and that prolonged drought and rapid inundation of coastal farmland and cities begin within the next 10 years. Draconian measures, such as large-scale cutbacks in the use of fossil fuels and a rapid transition to clean energy, would be required in industrialised nations.
Rapid implementation of such measures would probably require international mobilisation of resources and public opinion. And it would probably bring large-scale shortages and rationing of consumer goods, interruption of services and massive shifts of population. People in the Western industrialised countries would be subjected to the kind of hardship routinely imposed by the World Bank on Third World countries.
The key political question raised by this scenario is whether the hardships would be equally shared. Some groups, such as scientists whose research would play a key role in green policies and technologies would, presumably, be allowed to work in the best possible conditions. But what about company directors, skilled workers, small shopkeepers, bankers, unskilled workers, landlords, the homeless? Would they all share deprivation equally?
Many historical examples dramatically illustrate alternatives in the problem of allocation of resources in times of scarcity. These range from the siege of Leningrad, where some degree of equal distribution was ruthlessly achieved, to cases where flagrant inequality was maintained, as when British authorities withheld food from starving peasants during famines in India.
Analogies with current World Bank policies are appropriate. For years, the World Bank has dictated political-economic policies in much of the Third World and parts of Eastern Europe. These policies are based upon the premise that only the "free market" can provide "economic growth". To many critics, this boils down to an iron dictum that unless Third World countries can "develop" under the leadership of pro-Western, capitalist elites, they will not be allowed to develop.
Similarly, "pro-market" governments in the West might, in the face of widespread opposition, use force to make sure that if ecological "problems" cannot be "solved" by "market forces", then they will not be "solved" at all. State power would be used to ensure that burdens of green crash programs would be borne mainly by working people; a portion of the resources necessary to deal with ecological catastrophe would flow to the private sector.
This sort of Green Authoritarianism would probably be espoused by many right-wing politicians and the owners of the gutter press, who currently blame "consumers" for impending ecological catastrophe.
Alternatively, just as some Third World nations may eventually renege on debts and defy World Bank demands for cuts in social programs, Western consumers might demand that the burdens of green crash programs be shared equally by everyone, including those who profited most from wrecking the environment — that is, the politicians, ptains of industry who opted for mass production of appliances which use chlorofluorocarbons, uncontrolled disposal of toxic and nuclear waste, massive use of chemical fertilisers and pesticides, ecologically disastrous supertanker routes etc.
Under a Green Authoritarian regime, the people who made the mess would be paid from the public purse to clean it up. Some parts of the private sector would probably lose some profits, but many working people would face unemployment and privation.
Under a Green Egalitarian regime, existing elites would be stripped of their wealth and power, and share the burdens and hardships required by a green crash program.
Confrontation and conflict between Green Authoritarians and Green Egalitarians would probably be inevitable. As in the past struggles, the GAs would have the coercive force of the police and army, and the resources to co-opt opponents.
The main weapons of the GEs would also be traditional — mass demonstrations, civil disobedience, the general strike and insurrection.
The World Bank is now discussing ways to impose green policies, such as a reduction in the use of fossil fuels, on Third World countries. Critics argue that existing World Bank policies have cushioned the West from economic crisis by insuring the continued flow of wealth from the Third World.
World Bank policies which would, in addition, force the Third World to share the burden of an ecological crisis will be seen as an even more odious form of imperialist exploitation, insofar as the ecological crisis has been caused mainly by the Western industrialised countries.
At the same time, it is clear that if ecological degradation is not curbed, the Third World countries will, like the industrialised West, suffer disastrous effects.
Again, there are authoritarian and egalitarian alternatives. The authoritarian alternative involves coercion by economic, and, possibly, by military means to use less fossil fuel, accept toxic waste etc. Whether or not the West will have adequate resources to solve its own environmental problems while acting as international "Green Policemen" is doubtful.
The egalitarian alternative, perhaps equally costly but less lethal, would involve large-scale Western support for Third World "Green development programs" which do not have the usual World Bank "free market" strings attached.
The authoritarian approach, insofar as it might entail fossil-fuelled military conflict and diversion of resources from green crash programs, could be suicidal.
[Abridged from Canadian Dimensions.]