Despite pledges made at the climate summit COP26, the world is still nowhere near its goals on limiting global temperature rise, according to the Climate Action Tracker (CAT).

A global water crisis is being ignored at Cop26 to the detriment of billions of people’s lives, according to the charity WaterAid.

A 2016 study found two-thirds of the global population, four billion people, faced water shortages, and many were at increased risk of floods and droughts brought on by the climate crisis.

“The climate crisis is a water crisis at its core,” he said. Rainfall patterns have changed in many parts of the world; “more intense and more frequent floods pollute water sources and destroy crops or homes, while longer and more frequent droughts dry up the springs many people need to survive.”

Water had not had “nearly enough” attention at the climate conference in Glasgow, with urgent action needed, said Tim Wainwright, chief executive of WaterAid.

“The way that climate change affects human beings is almost entirely through water, either too much or too little,” he said. “So why aren’t we talking about water all the time? We need the kind of action on water that we have already happening on the energy transition,” he said Wainwright said very little action was being taken to help affected communities. A WaterAid analysis in 2020 found that water received less than 3% of climate finance overall.

Rising sea levels were introducing salt into water sources in places, and drought was pushing water deep underground in others, he said, forcing people, mostly women, to spend longer and walk further in search of water.

“Water is fundamental to life,” said Wainwright. “It underlies your health, your ability to have an education…Unless action was taken, the future would not be “not worth thinking about”, Wainwright added. “It’s calamitous. A lack of access to water is already killing people … It’s unthinkable not to do something about this. The world has to rise to this challenge.”

“We need a revolution that takes us to zero carbon and we need a revolution that takes us to adapting the world to cope with the climate change that is irreversible,” he said.

There are two billion people, or 1 in 4, who lack access to safe drinking water.

Nearly half the world’s population (3.6 billion people) don’t have adequate sanitation.

6 billion cases of diarrhoea.

12 billion cases of parasitic worms. 

The richest 1% of the world’s people (those earning more than $172,000 a year) produce 15% of the world’s carbon emissions: twice the combined impact of the poorest 50%. On average, they emit over 70 tonnes of carbon dioxide per person every year, 30 times more than we can each afford to release if we’re not to exceed 1.5C of global heating. While the emissions of the world’s middle classes are expected to fall sharply over the next decade, thanks to the general decarbonisation of our economies, the amount produced by the richest will scarcely decline at all: in other words, they’ll be responsible for an even greater share of total CO2. Becoming good global citizens would mean cutting their carbon consumption by an average of 97%.

Even if 90% of the population produced no carbon at all, the anticipated emissions of the richest 10% (those earning over $55,000) across the next nine years would use almost the entire global budget. The disparity in environmental impact mirrors a nation’s inequality. No wonder the prosperous people of the wealthy nations are so keen to seek to shift the blame to China, or on to other people’s birthrates: sometimes it seems they will try anything before attending to their own impacts.

A recent analysis of the lifestyles of 20 billionaires found that each produced an average of over 8,000 tonnes of carbon dioxide: 3,500 times their fair share in a world committed to no more than 1.5C of heating. The major causes are their jets and yachts. A superyacht alone, kept on permanent standby, as some billionaires’ boats are, generates around 7,000 tonnes of CO2 a year. 

Flying accounts for most of the greenhouse gas emissions of the super-rich, which is why the wealthiest 1% generate roughly half the world’s aviation emissions. 

Bill Gates has an estimated footprint 3,000 times bigger than the good global citizen’s, largely as a result of his collection of jets and helicopters. He claims to “buy green aviation fuel”, but there is no such thing. Biofuels for jets, if widely deployed, would trigger an environmental catastrophe, as so much plant material is required to power a single flight. This means that crops or plantations must displace either food production or wild ecosystems. No other “green” aviation fuels are currently available.

Make extreme wealth extinct: it’s the only way to avoid climate breakdown | George Monbiot | The Guardian

 “HSBC’s public rhetoric on climate change can’t be trusted,” said Adam McGibbon, UK campaign lead at Market Forces. 

A new analysis of projected extraction in the Permian Basin in the U.S. Southwest exposes the extent to which oil and gas executives put humanity’s future in jeopardy. 

“If left unchecked,” the report notes, “the Permian could continue to produce huge amounts of oil, gas, and gas liquids for decades to come. With global markets flush with Permian oil and gas, it can only be harder to steer the world’s economy toward clean energy.”

 Oil Change International, Earthworks, and the Center for International Environmental Law warn that if the drilling and fracking boom that has turned the Permian Basin into “the world’s single most prolific oil and gas field” over the past decade is allowed to persist unabated for the next three decades, it will generate nearly 40 billion tons of carbon dioxide by mid-century. nearly 40 billion tons of carbon dioxide that would be emitted from burning the fossil fuels that corporate executives expect to extract from the Permian Basin by 2050 represent about 10% of the world’s remaining “carbon budget.” Moreover, “scientists studying methane emissions in the Permian Basin estimate that as much as 3.7% of gas production is being vented and leaked into the atmosphere,” the report notes.

Lorne Stockman, research co-director at Oil Change International, said in a statement. “Producers have free rein to pollute and methane is routinely released in vast quantities. Oil exports fuel Permian production growth and today they constitute around 30% of US oil production. While climate science tells us that we must consume 40% less oil in 2030, Permian producers plan to grow production more than 50%” from 2021 to 2030, said Stockman. “This must not happen.”

An effort by global financial giant HSBC to water down an industry climate pledge exemplifies the fact that banks and other profit-driven companies “cannot be trusted” to end their complicity in the human-caused climate emergency, critics charge. HSBC wrote to the Net-Zero Banking Alliance (NZBA)—the initiative started by Mark Carney, former head of the Bank of England—on behalf of 12 large banks, calling on the alliance to loosen restrictions and delay deadlines in order to keep the banks from having to commit to far-reaching climate action. Writing on behalf of banks including JPMorgan Chase, Citi, and Bank of America, HSBC asked that the alliance remove from its pledge the list of high-emissions sectors for which banks are required to set net-zero targets for within 18 months of joining the NZBA.

HSBC wanted to make the climate commitments from key sectors— including fossil fuels, agriculture, real estate, and steel—”less rigorous” by delaying new emissions reduction targets until 2025 or even 2030. HSBC also asked that members be required to set net-zero targets only for industries with so-called “credible transition pathways,” which “could be highly subjective.” 

Since “committing” to net-zero financed emissions by 2050 one year ago, HSBC has “helped Saudi Aramco, the world’s most polluting company, raise [$13.9 billion] and Qatar Petroleum raise [$12.4 billion] to fund the expansion of the world’s largest gas field.

“Time and time again we see banks launch voluntary climate initiatives which seem to be aimed purely at reaping PR benefits now, while postponing all concrete action as far into the future as possible,” said Maaike Beenes, climate coordinator at BankTrack.

It’s true that multiple global pledges have emerged from COP26. None are legally binding. Few stand up to scrutiny, and most offer sufficient vagueness to be meaningless, full of small-print and caveats. False solutions are being peddled at the COP such as carbon markets, “smoke and mirrors to avoid  keeping fossil fuels in the ground.

If we continue not acting against the real cause of the climate crisis—the capitalist mode of production and society will carry on towards collapse. The scenario is the most dire ever. There are 816 new oil & gas wells being planned and drilled until the end of the year and in 2022. This shouldn’t come as a surprise to anyone. It is the way this system operates: just enough propaganda of “ambition” and technofixes to keep fossils flowing as ever, while the climate collapses. If the climate change debate is framed by companies and governments around the terms of net-zero, carbon credits, carbon taxes and offsettings, rather than stopping emissions, when will it ever come to the real problem of the climate crisis? Governments and companies are actively not cutting emissions, but also effectively increasing them. Each and every one of these wells is a crime against humanity.

 The reason why the climate crisis is not being solved is that it means the biggest change in power in the history of humanity

 40 Billion Tons of CO2 by 2050 (commondreams.org)

Critics Say Behind-the-Scene Efforts by HBSC Prove Big Bank Climate Pledges ‘Cannot Be Trusted’ (commondreams.org)

Opinion | Drill, Baby, Drill: Capitalism’s Only Plan for Climate Is Collapse | João Camargo (commondreams.org)

We have a capitalist society where at its heart lies production for profit on which the whole system depends. This fact shapes everything about the world we live in, including the very ideologies and policies of the political parties, the world’s governments and global corporations. History has often revealed that those who rule have often been prepared to see the whole of society collapse into chaos rather than accept the change that challenged their power. Is there any reason to suppose anything different and they will behave any differently to their predecessors in these modern days?

Yes, we can imagine a section of the global ruling class, and some governments taking action and refusing to gamble on the future of civilisation. But we say that there exists a surer path than that hopeful reliance upon the good intentions of a few political leaders and some business executives.

We are required to mobilise the power of millions of ordinary people, and bring down the whole edifice of today’s capitalist society. Capitalism has simply proven incapable of stopping or limiting global warming. The cure for the climate crises involves wresting power out of the hands of those who have it now. Such a transformation is a revolution, with its aim as socialism. Not everyone who recognises the threat to the world’s climate understands the need to change society from top to bottom. The World Socialist Movement has to convey the inherent logic that we must go beyond mere reforms within the existing structures of economic and political power.

Capitalism is driven by its hunger for profits. Such a rapacious system cannot tackle the climate crisis or make rational planned decisions about what to produce that is separate from the bottom line of profits.

Engels was well aware of this when he wrote:

“…What cared the Spanish planters in Cuba, who burned down forests on the slopes of the mountains and obtained from the ashes sufficient fertiliser for one generation of very highly profitable coffee trees – what cared they that the heavy tropical rainfall afterwards washed away the unprotected upper stratum of the soil, leaving behind only bare rock..”

Capitalism is the cause of climate change and socialism ie social ownership and democratic planning of production is the solution.Yet many climate activists object and tell us “There is no time to wait for the Revolution.” Rather than seeking to overthrow capitalism, they wish an immediate campaign to force governments to act now.

Our answer is concise. “There is no time to wait for you to convince governments and corporations to change policies.”

It is clearly not working and there is no reason to believe it will. Politicians and CEOs run up against and get blocked by capitalist competition which is central to the system: hence the failure. Our solution to prevent runaway climate change is revolution.

Too many environmentalists still stand for the continuation of capitalism complete with commodity production and rival nation–states. By accepting that capitalist production should continue the ecology movement diminishes its credibility despite the best of aspirations. Their manifestos of a controlled reshaping of capitalism managed by governments is an old and failed idea. Nor is it practical to imagine that all sections of world capitalist producers, either as corporations or governments could agree to adopt production methods that were less polluting.

With the abolition of capitalism, in which goods take the form of commodities for sale on the market, and the abolition of the wage-labour/capital relationship, socialism will establish direct co-operation between producers and goods will be produced directly for need. This will eliminate the economic constraints which at present severely limit the use of production methods. Production for use will consciously regulate production and this will include a choice of methods limited only by available technique and practicality. Socialism will also eliminate a vast amount of waste and at least increase the number of people available for useful work many-fold.

Socialism would have no difficulty in applying a principle of sustainable production which would include working with the natural environment in non-destructive ways and within existing natural systems without altering them. It is inconceivable that the life of world society can achieve balance with nature unless it first achieves unity and common purpose within its own organisation.

The continuation of capitalism on its blind and uncontrolled course is a gamble on life itself. This is surely clear to anyone with a serious concern for ensuring stable natural ecosystems in which humanity can enjoy being part of nature.

Who are the ecologists? The World Socialist Movement.

Members of the environmentalist campaigns should join with us now.

The draft COP26 communique has been criticised for vague language on commitments to cut greenhouse gas emissions, and a lack of firm accountability provisions.

Alden Meyer, a senior associate with the European climate think-tank E3G, noted the importance of fossil fuel subsidies being targeted in the draft, but lamented how long it took to be addressed. He pointed out the issue was first raised in 2009 at the G20 summit in Pittsburg, Pennsylvania.

“It’s absurd 12 years after Pittsburgh that we are still paying taxpayer money and hundreds of billions of dollars a year to encourage production and consumption of fossil fuels,” said Meyer. “The first rule of holes when you find yourself in one – you stop digging. And we’re still digging the hole deeper by paying people to produce and use more carbon. It’s insane.”

Meyer continues, “We don’t need incremental steps, we need radical transformational change and it has to happen in the next two years. We are running out of room and time to make the shift that we need.” 

“You can’t ask developing countries to contribute to keeping 1.5C if you don’t provide the certainty that there will be financial flows to be used for this transition,” said Eddy Perez, international climate diplomacy manager with Climate Action Network Canada. He also noted $100bn annually was nowhere near enough needed to assist developing countries. “None of these issues are addressed in the draft text right now,” said Perez.

Both the International Energy Agency and the World Bank have said $850bn per year is needed from rich countries for poorer ones to decarbonise their economies.

Climate-vulnerable nations ‘fight for their lives’ at COP26 | Climate Crisis News | Al Jazeera

 As COP26 drags on in Glasgow, the major nations and the banks and corporations have largely failed to produce any “progress” in solving the climate emergency. They have been unable to reach any significant agreement, other than half measures. It has been more hot air than success at COP26 or as Greta Thunberg so eloquently put it, “Blah, Blah, Blah.”

One very important issue being ignored at COP26 is the neglected connection between militarism and climate change. The commentator Jonathan Cook in an article has tried to redress that omission with this article on his website.  It is well worth reading.

Its perspective is that “…armed forces are the most polluting on the planet – and the goal at COP26 is to keep that fact a closely guarded secret…Unlike the farming and logging industries, or the manufacturing industries, or the fossil fuel industries, efforts to curb the growth in military spending – let alone reverse it – are off the table at the COP26 summit… The military’s rationale is neither to be sustainable nor to be kind to the planet…Consumption and competition are at the heart of the military mission, whether armies are waging war or marketing their activities as purely “defensive”…”

“The US military alone is estimated to have a larger carbon footprint than most countries. It is widely assumed to be the world’s largest institutional consumer of crude oil…military emissions figures are disguised – lumped in with emissions from other sectors, such as transport.  And emissions from overseas operations – in the case of the US, 70 percent of its military activity – are excluded from the balance sheet entirely…France, with the continent’s most active military, reports none of its emissions… the UK’s military emissions were three times larger than those it reported – even after supply chains, as well as weapons and equipment production, were excluded. The military was responsible for the overwhelming majority of British government emissions…the total emissions by the Norwegian military over the next decade will rise by 30 percent as a result of its F-35 [the latest fighter jet] purchases alone…As well as discounting the environmental harm caused by military equipment procurement and supply chains, countries are also excluding the significant impacts of conflicts and wars… “

“…All this means that, while western politicians promise to cut emissions at COP26, they are actually busy preparing to increase those emissions out of view. Ultimately, the problem is that little can be done to green our militaries, either substantively or through a greenwashing makeover…”

“…[National] “Security”, premised on a fear of neighbours and rivals, can never be satiated. There is always another tank, plane or anti-missile system that can be purchased to create greater “deterrence”, to protect borders more effectively, to intimidate an enemy…”

Adding to what Cook stated is this website which pointed out that “…Britain has two brand new aircraft carriers, each with three runways and space for dozens of fighter jets. These floating airports have largely escaped criticism from climate campaigners who have focused on blocking a third runway at Heathrow…”

Military pollution is the skeleton in the West’s climate closet (jonathan-cook.net)

 As COP26 drags on in Glasgow, the major nations and the banks and corporations have largely failed to produce any “progress” in solving the climate emergency. They have been unable to reach any significant agreement, other than half measures. It has been more hot air than success at COP26 or as Greta Thunberg so eloquently put it, “Blah, Blah, Blah.”

One very important issue being ignored at COP26 is the neglected connection between militarism and climate change. The commentator Jonathan Cook in an article has tried to redress that omission with this article on his website.  It is well worth reading.

Its perspective is that “…armed forces are the most polluting on the planet – and the goal at COP26 is to keep that fact a closely guarded secret…Unlike the farming and logging industries, or the manufacturing industries, or the fossil fuel industries, efforts to curb the growth in military spending – let alone reverse it – are off the table at the COP26 summit… The military’s rationale is neither to be sustainable nor to be kind to the planet…Consumption and competition are at the heart of the military mission, whether armies are waging war or marketing their activities as purely “defensive”…”

“The US military alone is estimated to have a larger carbon footprint than most countries. It is widely assumed to be the world’s largest institutional consumer of crude oil…military emissions figures are disguised – lumped in with emissions from other sectors, such as transport.  And emissions from overseas operations – in the case of the US, 70 percent of its military activity – are excluded from the balance sheet entirely…France, with the continent’s most active military, reports none of its emissions… the UK’s military emissions were three times larger than those it reported – even after supply chains, as well as weapons and equipment production, were excluded. The military was responsible for the overwhelming majority of British government emissions…the total emissions by the Norwegian military over the next decade will rise by 30 percent as a result of its F-35 [the latest fighter jet] purchases alone…As well as discounting the environmental harm caused by military equipment procurement and supply chains, countries are also excluding the significant impacts of conflicts and wars… “

“…All this means that, while western politicians promise to cut emissions at COP26, they are actually busy preparing to increase those emissions out of view. Ultimately, the problem is that little can be done to green our militaries, either substantively or through a greenwashing makeover…”

“…[National] “Security”, premised on a fear of neighbours and rivals, can never be satiated. There is always another tank, plane or anti-missile system that can be purchased to create greater “deterrence”, to protect borders more effectively, to intimidate an enemy…”

Adding to what Cook stated is this website which pointed out that “…Britain has two brand new aircraft carriers, each with three runways and space for dozens of fighter jets. These floating airports have largely escaped criticism from climate campaigners who have focused on blocking a third runway at Heathrow…”

Military pollution is the skeleton in the West’s climate closet (jonathan-cook.net)

 As we look around COP26 we notice some popular signs, ‘system change, not climate change’, ‘people not profit’, ‘Our world is not for sale’ and many other similar anti-capitalist slogans. We would like to believe that the socialist message is getting through to green campaigners.

Alas, delve a little deeper and there is often serious misunderstandings about what capitalism actually is.  We can appreciate that many are turning their backs on mainstream politics, questioning their traditional party allegiances and addressing their previous assumptions.

The World Socialist Movement risks isolating itself from wider support by sometimes offering harsh criticisms of our fellow workers.

Socialism is needed so that both humanity and nature can co-exist. Technology should be usable and controllable to local and regional bodies. nowhere has it been demonstrated that the earth’s present riches would not be sufficient to reasonably feed, clothe, house, educate and nurture every citizen of the world, and enable them to develop their potential.

Nowhere has it ever been demonstrated that if production for the sake of profit were abolished and the fruits of labour are made accessible to all, would humanity not have enough material resources to adapt technology to the furtherance of society’s well-being.

As for ‘over-population’ all past experiences show that it is a social phenomenon, not a biological inevitability and by ensuring the liberation of the population out of backward ignorance, misery, illiteracy and superstition, then population growth will decrease, as it has decreased in all industrialised countries.

There are those who advocate ’de-growth’ which inevitably means an enormous increase of suffering and hunger and would quickly result in hundreds of millions of deaths and it is clearly an inhuman choice. Our preferred option is to decide as quickly as possible for controlled and planned growth until the world’s poor have been lifted out of poverty and then society can transform itself into a zero-growth steady-state economy and begin a process of reducing levels of production, in what Marx described as ‘simple reproduction’. 

The dilemma of ‘socialism or barbarism’ is once again extremely relevant. In the absence of a planned global economy, the foundations of human civilisation could in the near future collapse. It is capitalistic anarchic uncontrolled capitalist growth, which disregards people’s most fundamental interests and our respect for nature, which poses the threat to humanity. Our struggle for a class-free society, a rational society without nations or governments has become a struggle for the survival of the human civilisation. The private ownership of the means of production, the commodity economy and the nation-state – these three appalling anachronisms must be abolished. 

Freed from the profit-system, with hundreds of millions of people, liberated from socially wasteful and unnecessary labour, applying their creativity elsewhere in the economy, there is no reason to suppose that the standard of living of working people across the whole world cannot rise by leaps and bounds when the quality of life is given priority.

It’s ironic that environmentalists often accuse those of us seeking socialist solutions as being unrealistic and not advocating practical policies. Yet they continue to place their faith in capitalists collaborating with politicians to come up with solutions. We remind those sceptics that people have changed economic systems before such as when they found slavery to be inhumane. And people continue to develop technologies that were once thought impossible. Things are only impossible until they’re not. We can’t let those who are stuck in the past, unable to imagine a better future, hold us back from creating a just world.

Capitalism is the barrier to reducing global warming. capitalism is the greatest threat to the planet’s well–being, and the greatest obstacle to attempts to save it.