Air pollution is shortening lives in India's capital New Delhi. A new report from the Energy Policy Institute at the University of Chicago has ranked India as the second most polluted country in the world after Bangladesh. Smita Sharma reports.
Usually, entry of such vehicles, from trucks to mini tempos, is banned for only 15-20 days either in November or December. As part of its pollution control campaign this year, the transport department has planned to ban the entry of commercial diesel vehicles, including heavy motor vehicles, into Delhi from November to February. Usually, entry of such vehicles, from trucks to mini tempos, is banned for only 15-20 days either in November or December. A proposal in this regard has been sent to Transport Minister Kailash Gahlot for approval. “Diesel-based vehicles and heavy motor vehicles are largely responsible for causing pollution in Delhi. Every year, entry of trucks is banned following an increase in levels of PM 2.5/PM 10 or following directions issued by the Commission of Air Quality Management (CAQM) or on orders of the National Green Tribunal. So, this year, the transport department has taken preventative steps in advance instead of waiting for air quality levels to worsen,” said a senior official. According to officials, around 70,000-80,000 trucks enter the national capital every day. Vehicles that will be allowed into the city include CNG-run commercial vehicles; e-trucks; all trucks carrying essential goods such as vegetables, fruits, grains, eggs, ice, milk and other food items; and tankers carrying petroleum products, said an official. “Once the proposal is approved by the transport minister, preparations will begin and restrictions will either start on October 1 or November 1 and will continue for four months,” added the official. Truckers and commercial vehicle associations opposed the proposal, stating that those who deal with heavy vehicles will have to bear losses worth crores. “Banning entry of trucks in Delhi for 15-20 days is acceptable, but four months is a long period and will impact transporters. Businesses will be seriously affected. This will also impact the government’s revenue and might culminate in a hike in prices of food, vegetables and other items,” said Rajendra Kapoor, president of All India Motor and Goods Transport Association. He added, “Why is the ban only for trucks? Why don’t you ban other diesel vehicles in Delhi? If diesel is a prominent pollutant, manufacturing of diesel vehicles should be banned. This is not a solution.” Arun Sharma, president of Delhi Transportation Association, said, “How will people buy CNG vehicles if the price is nearing the cost of diesel? Due to the frequent rise in CNG prices, people are selling CNG trucks and opting for diesel ones. Truckers can take the Delhi-Chandigarh or Jammu road or any expressway but some routes are through Delhi and this ban will cause major chaos.” Officials, however, said trucks can bypass the city and reach their destination via the Eastern and Western Peripheral Expressways. Experts, too, said the plan was not feasible. Anumita Roychowdhury, executive director, research and advocacy at the Centre for Science and Environment (CSE), said: “Ban on the entry of trucks into the city is not a sustainable solution. Instead, the government should focus more on infrastructure and measures should be taken to increase use of public transport system, walking and cycling facilities, and control vehicles inside the city. Delhi has 3 crore cars, so measures such as a parking policy should be implemented.”
Biodiversity conservation is an absolute imperative. And this was clear to the world in 1992, when it came together to agree on the Convention on Biological Diversity. It was also clear that the conservation of bioresources, particularly its utilisation, required active involvement of local communities; they needed to receive a share of the profits earned from the use of their resources and knowledge. This is the reason the world in 2010 agreed on an instrument, called Nagoya Protocol, for fair and equitable sharing of benefits with communities. But in 2022 — 30 years since the convention — the global community is still working to update the framework and to recommit for the conservation of flora and fauna. We still do not understand what needs to be done to avert biodiversity extinction and benefit those who conserve it. India has an exemplary record in putting together the legal and administrative framework for biodiversity conservation and to share the benefits of knowledge with communities. But sadly, this is where it stops. In 2002, the country adopted the Biological Diversity Act and put in place an elaborate framework to protect bioresources and to share benefits with traditional knowledge-holders: the National Biodiversity Authority has been established; each state has its own biodiversity board; and each village its biodiversity management committee (BMC). These BMCs are required to prepare people's biodiversity register and has the powers to impose charges and fines for extraction of resources found in their village. However, Down To Earth's recent analysis finds that the entire effort to share benefits with communities has been reduced to, at best, a meaningless bureaucratic exercise. We know that the system of access and benefit sharing can work only if the knowledge-holders are recognised; if the traders and manufacturing companies that use their knowledge are held liable for payments, and this payment is then transferred to the community or the knowledge-holders. But we find that no data is available with states—other than a few—on the money received from companies and traders for access and benefit sharing. So, it is not clear if all companies have paid for the use of resources or knowledge, on what basis, and how much. In the case of Irula Cooperative — traditional knowledge holders of the method of collecting snake venom for pharmaceutical products — only one company agreed to pay but even that was not fulfilled. Then, worse, when we contacted state boards for information, we were told that the money received has not been disbursed to communities. The reason is there is no information available about the knowledge-holders. The law provides that if the information is not available, then funds should be spent on conservation in the region where the knowledge-bioresources come from. But state boards told us that the funds are lying unutilised. The people's biodiversity registers — key to recording information so that benefits can be secured — have been created as per the directions of the National Green Tribunal. And given the speed of this "exercise" — as many as 266,135 registers have been made within two years — the quality of these registers is poor and defeats the very purpose of documentation of biodiversity. Even all this will not add up unless we can resolve how the bioresources in the wild and under strict prohibitory regulations — which do now allow for their cultivation, collection or trade — will be made part of these efforts to conserve resources through their utilisation. In the famous case of the Kani tribals and their knowledge of Arogyapacha, a medicinal plant, this was the fatal flaw. When their knowledge was used to develop a pharmaceutical product, it was agreed that the sales revenue would be shared with the tribals. But then the question was how the plant could be collected — it was found in the wild and on lands under the forest department. The Kani tribals were denied permission to collect or even grow the plant, saying it was endangered. Cases were filed against the tribals for collection and cultivation. So, the entire work to use the traditional knowledge to benefit communities and, through this, build a conservation movement was futile. Today, restrictions on the tribals to go into the forests have increased. This means their younger generations can no longer identify the plant. The uncoded knowledge is being lost. In this way biodiversity will be lost. As the world meets to discuss the next decade of biodiversity conservation, lessons from the past will be critical. Not only do we need to protect bioresources in the wild — in protected areas — but also a vibrant system to capture local and indigenous knowledge and to ensure that people benefit from conservation as well as utilisation of resources. For this, we need voices and experiences from the ground so that policy is smart and informed. Otherwise, policies will be only on paper. (Writer is Director General of CSE and editor of Down To Earth, an environmentalist who pushes for changes in policies, practices and mindsets; Courtesy: https://www.downtoearth.org.in)
According to this report, ozone falls in the category of a very toxic gas that can cause asthma and respiratory diseases in people The latest report of the Center for Science and Environment (CSE) says, the problem is increasing due to the spread of toxic ozone in this summer season. According to this report, ozone falls in the category of a very toxic gas that can cause asthma and respiratory diseases in people. On an average, 16 stations in Delhi-NCR were higher than the daily norm in March-April and this is an increase of 33 per cent over the previous year. The summer of 2022 has broken many records this year, and has also created a new history in terms of heat. Along with the rising heat, this year has also seen a massive increase in ozone, which is making Delhi's air more toxic. In terms of increase in ozone gas, the capital Delhi ranks among the most polluted cities in India, while the country's financial capital Mumbai is at number two. In this list Kolkata comes third, Hyderabad fourth, Chennai fifth and Bangalore sixth. CSE's Research and Advocacy Executive Director Anumita Roy Chowdhury says that even if we bring control in the amount of pollution spreading in the air, still we can not get rid of the ozone growth at the ground level. Despite getting many alerts, this issue of ozone pollution is not being given importance and if steps are not taken on this problem in time, then it will become a big problem for the health of the people. According to the State of Global Air Report in the year 2020, not only pollution has increased due to ozone in India, but many people have also lost their lives. Usually the effect of ozone is less at night after sunset, but in Delhi NCR, the effect of ozone is relatively high even at night. The effect of ozone has been observed at night in Mundka in Delhi, Loni and Vasundhara in Ghaziabad and Knowledge Park 3 in Greater Noida. There is a need for immediate action on the rapidly increasing ozone gas in India. It has become very important to control the pollution caused by industrial factories, vehicular fumes. Along with this, there is a need to take necessary steps regarding this issue in the national level running program against pollution.
Ozone Gas Risk: पिछले कई दशकों से हम ग्लोबल वॉर्मिंग (Global Warming) के असर का सामना कर रहे हैं, लेकिन अब ये खतरनाक स्तर पर जा पहुंचा है. 'सेंटर फॉर साइंस एंड एनवायरनमेंट' (Center For Science And Environment) यानी सीएसई (CSE) की ताजा रिपोर्ट के मुताबिक इस गर्मी के मौसम में टॉक्सिक ओजोन के फैलने से परेशानी बढ़ती जा रही है. ओजोन गैस से इन बीमारियों का खतरा इस रिपोर्ट के मुताबिक ओजोन एक बहुत टॉक्सिक गैस की कैटेगरी में आती है जो लोगों में अस्थमा और सांस संबंधी बीमारी का कारण बन सकती है. दिल्ली-एनसीआर (Delhi-NCR) में औसतन 16 स्टेशन मार्च-अप्रैल में दैनिक मानक से ज्यादा थे और ये पिछले साल कि तुलना में 33% की बढ़ोतरी है. इस साल गर्मी में टूटे कई रिकॉर्ड्स साल 2022 की गर्मी ने इस साल कई सारे रिकॉर्ड तोड़े हैं, और गर्मी के मामले में एक नया इतिहास भी रचा है. बढ़ती गर्मी के साथ ही इस साल ओजोन में भी व्यापक बढ़ोतरी देखी गई है, जो दिल्ली कि हवाओं को और ज्यादा विषैला बनाती जा रही है. ओजोन गैस में वृद्धि के मामले में भारत के सबसे प्रदूषित शहरों में राजधानी दिल्ली शुमार है, वहीं देश की आर्थिक राजधानी मुंबई दूसरे नंबर पर है. इस लिस्ट में कोलकाता तीसरे, हैदराबाद चौथे, चेन्नई पांचवे और बेंगलुरु छठे नंबर पर आता है. खतरनाक हो चुके हैं हालात CSE की रिसर्च और एडवोकेसी एक्जीक्यूटिव डायरेक्टर अनुमिता रॉय चौधरी का ऐसा कहना है कि अगर हम हवा में फैल रहे प्रदूषण की मात्रा में कंट्रोल ले भी आएं, फिर भी जमीनी स्तर पर हो रहे ओजोन की वृद्धि से पीछा नहीं छुड़ा सकते है. कई सारे अलर्ट मिलने के बावजूद ये ओजोन प्रदूषण के मुद्दे को महत्व नहीं दिया जा रहा है और अगर समय से इस समस्या के ऊपर कदम नहीं उठाए गए तो ये लोगों के स्वास्थ्य के लिए एक बड़ी समस्या बन जाएगी. प्रदूषण की वजह से जा रही है जान साल 2020 में आई स्टेट ऑफ ग्लोबल एयर रिपोर्ट के मुताबिक, भारत में ओजोन की वजह से न सिर्फ प्रदूषण बढ़ा है, साथ ही कई लोगों ने अपनी जान भी गंवाई है. आमतौर पर सूरज ढलने के बाद रात को ओजोन का प्रभाव कम होता है, लेकिन दिल्ली एनसीआर में रात के वक्त भी ओजोन का असर अपेक्षाकृत ज्यादा होता है. दिल्ली के मुंडका, गाजियाबाद के लोनी और वसुंधरा में और ग्रेटर नोएडा के नॉलेज पार्क 3 में रात के वक्त ओजोन के असर को देखा गया है. तुरंत एक्शन की जरूरत भारत में तेजी से बढ़ती ओजोन गैस पर तुरंत एक्शन की जरूरत है. इंडस्ट्रियल फैक्ट्री, वाहनों के धुएं से हो रहे प्रदूषण पर कंट्रोल करना बेहद जरूरी हो गया है. इसके साथ ही प्रदूषण के खिलाफ राष्ट्रीय स्तर पर चल रहे प्रोग्राम में भी इस मुद्दे को लेकर जरूरी कदम उठाने की जरूरत है.
“What do you mean, ‘why am I working in this heat?’ If I don’t work, we will die of hunger.” That was how Shiv Kumar Mandal, a Delhi rickshaw driver, explained why he continued to transport passengers during a prolonged and horrific temperature spike that experts attribute to global heating. Mandal, one presumes, does not consider planetary warming a topic relevant only to the rich. Yet, in the wake of the Australian federal election, we’re hearing versions of that claim again and again and again. Lismore’s residents are living in limbo on the frontlines of the climate emergency Christine Tondorf Read more Think of how Liberal Senator Hollie Hughes – one of the Coalition’s senior spokespeople on climate, no less – recently dubbed warming “almost like a luxury issue”. Advertisement Similarly, Quillette editor Claire Lehmann says those who advocate for renewable energy do so primarily to signal their own wealth, while the Spectator’s Rebecca Weisser judges the poll a victory for “green and teal rent-seeking elites” (whom she describes as having “been helped immeasurably by an education system that indoctrinates children and young adults, from kindergarten through to university, in the cult of climate catastrophism, legitimising climate ‘strikes’ during school hours, which are openly attended by Greens and the Socialist Alliance.”). Meanwhile, Lillian Andrews goes so far as to claim the election reveals the Liberals are “becoming the new party of the ordinary people”, with their climate stance revamping “what were once core Labor values of protecting the working class and defending their rights.” Well, it’s nice to have an imagination. In the real world, anyone concerned about the actual working class recognises that, always and everywhere, global warming most harms the oppressed and the poor. Poverty can happen to anyone at any time – it’s in my every waking and sleeping thought Read more The horrific Indian heatwave means temperatures in Delhi have exceeded 42C for 25 days since summer began. Yet millions of workers still toil outside, simply because, like Mandal, they can’t afford to stay out of the sun. In the unbearable conditions, all of them suffer – and some of them die. “This is not just exhaustion or discomfort,” says Avikal Somvanshi of the Urban Lab at the Center of Science and Environment. “It is actually killing people.” Advertisement The same distinction between the wealthy, who can protect themselves from a warming planet, and the poor, who patently cannot, manifests in the developed world. With a heatwave gripping the United States, authorities have urged a hundred million Americans to stay inside. Alexia Gonzales works for Instacart. Her employers might sit in air-conditioned comfort but she certainly can’t. Workers and their wages are the collateral damage of the war on inflation Greg Jericho Greg Jericho Read more “It’s too hot to work,” she told the Guardian, “but this is when people want deliveries.” Across the planet, rising temperatures mean densely populated areas become “urban heat islands”, as the concrete landscapes inhabited by working-class families absorb the sun and then warm up the air. By combining satellite measurements with census data, University of North Carolina researcher Angel Hsu has shown how heat correlates both with poverty and race. Shockingly, almost everywhere in America communities of colour endure temperatures a degree higher on average than those faced by non-Hispanic white people. Similar factors govern the population’s exposure to the climate crisis in Australia, where, for instance, western Sydney gets an astonishing 8-10 degrees hotter during heatwaves than the eastern parts of the city. It’s not just a question of temperatures, either. We know the carbon getting pumped into the atmosphere means more fires and more flooding – and we know who will bear the brunt of the entirely predictable disasters that will ensue. Australia’s lowest paid workers (some of them) are (sort of) getting a pay rise! Don’t be ungracious First Dog on the Moon First Dog on the Moon Read more Researchers looking at the 2019-2020 bushfires say that “the most socio-economically disadvantaged communities bore a disproportionately higher hazard exposure in the Black Summer than relatively advantaged communities.” Likewise, the floods of 2022 most affected poorer households, who were more likely to live in riskier areas and less likely to be covered by insurance. To put it another way, if you’re not fighting global warming, you don’t care about the working class, irrespective of how often you take to Sky News to rage rhetorically against “woke elites”. Given what’s at stake for ordinary people, we might wonder why environmentalism hasn’t been unequivocally linked to the battlers to the extent where green might be proclaimed the new red. Advertisement Part of the answer lies with how so many of the climate “solutions” espoused by mainstream politicians come straight out of the neoliberal toolkit. Decades of philosophical dominance by rightwing economists means, ever since the 1990s, the default response to global warming has centred on market mechanisms akin to those that, for everyone outside the political class, turned “reform” into a dirty word. When policymakers enthuse about emissions trading systems and other free market nostrums, to many ordinary people they sound just like the brainiacs who “reformed” public utilities, industrial relations, welfare and education into the ground. The Labor party’s long association with neoliberalism equally espoused by the Liberals helps explain the continuing drift of rusted-on voters away from both major parties. But a recognition of that disenchantment doesn’t mean embracing fantasies about the Liberals somehow establishing themselves as the proletarian choice. Australia already has a gas profits tax, but without reform it will remain ‘a tax that nobody pays’ Read more It’s wrong, for instance, to see the election result as showing progressivism as “a politics of the rich” and conservatism “the politics of the struggling”. On the contrary, in his granular breakdown of voting trends, data scientist Shaun Ratcliff shows that, despite the success of the Teals, the Liberals remain very much the party of privilege. “[I[t is still mostly true,” he says, “that well-off and established voters are more likely to vote for the Coalition, and lower-income working-age Australians generally continued to vote for the left in 2022.” That shouldn’t come as any surprise. Working-class voters – in Australia and around the world – increasingly mistrust all established parties. But that doesn’t render them innately conservative. The cow tends not to vote for the butcher. Understandably, workers want reassurances that, in a low-carbon future, they won’t lose the social gains they’ve secured in the traditional polluting industries. But the generations of unionists who won relatively high wages in mining would turn in their graves at the suggestion that coal – a substance stained for a century and a half with the blood of those who extracted it – was innately good for the working class. And they’d roll even further at the idea that the massive corporations profiting from planetary destruction care in the slightest about the consequences for ordinary people. Jeff Sparrow is a Guardian Australia columnist … as you’re joining us today from India, we have a small favour to ask. Tens of millions have placed their trust in the Guardian’s fearless journalism since we started publishing 200 years ago, turning to us in moments of crisis, uncertainty, solidarity and hope. More than 1.5 million supporters, from 180 countries, now power us financially – keeping us open to all, and fiercely independent. Unlike many others, the Guardian has no shareholders and no billionaire owner. Just the determination and passion to deliver high-impact global reporting, always free from commercial or political influence. Reporting like this is vital for democracy, for fairness and to demand better from the powerful. And we provide all this for free, for everyone to read. We do this because we believe in information equality. Greater numbers of people can keep track of the global events shaping our world, understand their impact on people and communities, and become inspired to take meaningful action. Millions can benefit from open access to quality, truthful news, regardless of their ability to pay for it. If there were ever a time to join us, it is now. Every contribution, however big or small, powers our journalism and sustains our future.
Qu’est-ce que tu veux dire, ‘pourquoi est-ce que je travaille dans cette chaleur?’ Si je ne travaille pas, nous mourrons de faim. C’est ainsi que Shiv Kumar Mandal, un chauffeur de pousse-pousse de Delhi, a expliqué pourquoi il continuait à transporter des passagers pendant un pic de température prolongé et horrible que les experts attribuent au réchauffement climatique. Mandal, on présume, ne considère pas le réchauffement planétaire comme un sujet pertinent uniquement pour les riches. Pourtant, à la suite des élections fédérales australiennes, nous entendons encore et encore et encore des versions de cette affirmation. Pensez à la façon dont la sénatrice libérale Hollie Hughes – l’une des principales porte-parole de la Coalition sur le climat, rien de moins – a récemment surnommé le réchauffement « presque comme une question de luxe ». De même, la rédactrice en chef de Quillette, Claire Lehmann, affirme que ceux qui défendent les énergies renouvelables le font principalement pour signaler leur propre richesse, tandis que Rebecca Weisser du Spectator juge le sondage comme une victoire pour les « élites vertes et sarcelles à la recherche de rentes » (qu’elle décrit comme ayant « été aidé incommensurablement par un système éducatif qui endoctrine les enfants et les jeunes adultes, de la maternelle à l’université, dans le culte du catastrophisme climatique, légitimant les « grèves » climatiques pendant les heures d’école, auxquelles assistent ouvertement les Verts et l’Alliance socialiste. »). Pendant ce temps, Lillian Andrews va jusqu’à affirmer que l’élection révèle que les libéraux « deviennent le nouveau parti des gens ordinaires », avec leur position sur le climat qui réorganise « ce qui était autrefois les valeurs travaillistes fondamentales de protection de la classe ouvrière et de défense de leurs droits ». Eh bien, c’est bien d’avoir de l’imagination. Dans le monde réel, quiconque se soucie de la classe ouvrière actuelle reconnaît que, toujours et partout, le réchauffement climatique nuit le plus aux opprimés et aux pauvres. L’horrible vague de chaleur indienne signifie que les températures à Delhi ont dépassé 42 ° C pendant 25 jours depuis le début de l’été. Pourtant, des millions de travailleurs peinent encore à l’extérieur, simplement parce que, comme Mandal, ils ne peuvent pas se permettre de rester à l’abri du soleil. Dans des conditions insupportables, tous souffrent – et certains meurent. « Ce n’est pas seulement de l’épuisement ou de l’inconfort », explique Avikal Somvanshi du Laboratoire urbain du Centre des sciences et de l’environnement. « Cela tue en fait des gens. » La même distinction entre les riches, qui peuvent se protéger d’une planète qui se réchauffe, et les pauvres, qui ne le peuvent manifestement pas, se manifeste dans le monde développé. Alors que la canicule frappe les États-Unis, les autorités ont exhorté une centaine de millions d’Américains à rester à l’intérieur. Alexia Gonzales travaille pour Instacart. Ses employeurs peuvent s’asseoir dans un confort climatisé, mais elle ne le peut certainement pas. « Il fait trop chaud pour travailler », a-t-elle déclaré au Guardian, « mais c’est à ce moment-là que les gens veulent des livraisons. » Partout sur la planète, la hausse des températures signifie que les zones densément peuplées deviennent des «îlots de chaleur urbains», car les paysages de béton habités par des familles ouvrières absorbent le soleil puis réchauffent l’air. En combinant des mesures satellitaires avec des données de recensement, le chercheur de l’Université de Caroline du Nord, Angel Hsu, a montré comment la chaleur est corrélée à la fois à la pauvreté et à la race. Étonnamment, presque partout en Amérique, les communautés de couleur supportent des températures supérieures en moyenne à celles auxquelles sont confrontés les Blancs non hispaniques. Des facteurs similaires régissent l’exposition de la population à la crise climatique en Australie, où, par exemple, l’ouest de Sydney devient étonnamment plus chaud de 8 à 10 degrés pendant les vagues de chaleur que les parties orientales de la ville. Ce n’est pas seulement une question de températures non plus. Nous savons que le carbone pompé dans l’atmosphère signifie plus d’incendies et plus d’inondations – et nous savons qui supportera le poids des catastrophes entièrement prévisibles qui s’ensuivront. Les chercheurs qui étudient les feux de brousse de 2019-2020 affirment que « les communautés les plus défavorisées sur le plan socio-économique ont subi une exposition aux risques disproportionnellement plus élevée pendant l’été noir que les communautés relativement avantagées ». De même, les inondations de 2022 ont le plus touché les ménages les plus pauvres, qui étaient plus susceptibles de vivre dans des zones plus à risque et moins susceptibles d’être couverts par une assurance. En d’autres termes, si vous ne combattez pas le réchauffement climatique, vous ne vous souciez pas de la classe ouvrière, quelle que soit la fréquence à laquelle vous vous adressez à Sky News pour faire rage rhétoriquement contre les « élites éveillées ». Compte tenu de ce qui est en jeu pour les gens ordinaires, on peut se demander pourquoi l’environnementalisme n’a pas été lié sans équivoque aux combattants au point où le vert pourrait être proclamé le nouveau rouge. Une partie de la réponse réside dans le fait que tant de « solutions » climatiques adoptées par les politiciens traditionnels sortent tout droit de la boîte à outils néolibérale. Des décennies de domination philosophique par des économistes de droite signifient que, depuis les années 1990, la réponse par défaut au réchauffement climatique s’est centrée sur des mécanismes de marché semblables à ceux qui, pour tout le monde en dehors de la classe politique, ont transformé la «réforme» en un gros mot. Lorsque les décideurs politiques s’enthousiasment pour les systèmes d’échange de droits d’émission et autres remèdes du marché libre, pour de nombreuses personnes ordinaires, ils ressemblent aux cerveaux qui ont « réformé » les services publics, les relations industrielles, l’aide sociale et l’éducation. La longue association du parti travailliste avec le néolibéralisme également adopté par les libéraux aide à expliquer la dérive continue des électeurs rouillés loin des deux grands partis. Mais reconnaître ce désenchantement ne signifie pas embrasser des fantasmes sur les libéraux s’établissant d’une manière ou d’une autre comme le choix prolétarien. Il est faux, par exemple, de voir le résultat des élections comme montrant le progressisme comme « une politique des riches » et le conservatisme comme « la politique des lutteurs ». Au contraire, dans sa ventilation granulaire des tendances de vote, le scientifique des données Shaun Ratcliff montre que, malgré le succès des Teals, les libéraux restent largement le parti privilégié. «[Je[c’esttoujoursvraipourlaplupart »dit-il« quelesélecteursaisésetétablissontplussusceptiblesdevoterpourlaCoalitionetquelesAustraliensenâgedetravailleràfaiblerevenuontgénéralementcontinuéàvoterpourlagaucheen2022 »[I[tisstillmostlytrue”hesays“thatwell-offandestablishedvotersaremorelikelytovotefortheCoalitionandlower-incomeworking-ageAustraliansgenerallycontinuedtovotefortheleftin2022” Cela ne devrait pas surprendre. Les électeurs de la classe ouvrière – en Australie et dans le monde – se méfient de plus en plus de tous les partis établis. Mais cela ne les rend pas intrinsèquement conservateurs. La vache a tendance à ne pas voter pour le boucher. Naturellement, les travailleurs veulent être rassurés que, dans un avenir à faible émission de carbone, ils ne perdront pas les gains sociaux qu’ils ont obtenus dans les industries polluantes traditionnelles. Mais les générations de syndicalistes qui gagnaient des salaires relativement élevés dans les mines se retourneraient dans leur tombe à la suggestion que le charbon – une substance tachée pendant un siècle et demi du sang de ceux qui l’ont extrait – était intrinsèquement bon pour la classe ouvrière. Et ils rouleraient encore plus loin à l’idée que les grandes entreprises qui profitent de la destruction planétaire se soucient le moins du monde des conséquences pour les gens ordinaires. Jeff Sparrow est un chroniqueur du Guardian Australia
Qu’est-ce que tu veux dire, ‘pourquoi est-ce que je travaille dans cette chaleur?’ Si je ne travaille pas, nous mourrons de faim. C’est ainsi que Shiv Kumar Mandal, un chauffeur de pousse-pousse de Delhi, a expliqué pourquoi il continuait à transporter des passagers pendant un pic de température prolongé et horrible que les experts attribuent au réchauffement climatique. Mandal, on présume, ne considère pas le réchauffement planétaire comme un sujet pertinent uniquement pour les riches. Pourtant, à la suite des élections fédérales australiennes, nous entendons encore et encore et encore des versions de cette affirmation. Pensez à la façon dont la sénatrice libérale Hollie Hughes – l’une des principales porte-parole de la Coalition sur le climat, rien de moins – a récemment surnommé le réchauffement « presque comme une question de luxe ». De même, la rédactrice en chef de Quillette, Claire Lehmann, affirme que ceux qui défendent les énergies renouvelables le font principalement pour signaler leur propre richesse, tandis que Rebecca Weisser du Spectator juge le sondage comme une victoire pour les « élites vertes et sarcelles à la recherche de rentes » (qu’elle décrit comme ayant « été aidé incommensurablement par un système éducatif qui endoctrine les enfants et les jeunes adultes, de la maternelle à l’université, dans le culte du catastrophisme climatique, légitimant les « grèves » climatiques pendant les heures d’école, auxquelles assistent ouvertement les Verts et l’Alliance socialiste. »). Pendant ce temps, Lillian Andrews va jusqu’à affirmer que l’élection révèle que les libéraux « deviennent le nouveau parti des gens ordinaires », avec leur position sur le climat qui réorganise « ce qui était autrefois les valeurs travaillistes fondamentales de protection de la classe ouvrière et de défense de leurs droits ». Eh bien, c’est bien d’avoir de l’imagination. Dans le monde réel, quiconque se soucie de la classe ouvrière actuelle reconnaît que, toujours et partout, le réchauffement climatique nuit le plus aux opprimés et aux pauvres. L’horrible vague de chaleur indienne signifie que les températures à Delhi ont dépassé 42 ° C pendant 25 jours depuis le début de l’été. Pourtant, des millions de travailleurs peinent encore à l’extérieur, simplement parce que, comme Mandal, ils ne peuvent pas se permettre de rester à l’abri du soleil. Dans des conditions insupportables, tous souffrent – et certains meurent. « Ce n’est pas seulement de l’épuisement ou de l’inconfort », explique Avikal Somvanshi du Laboratoire urbain du Centre des sciences et de l’environnement. « Cela tue en fait des gens. » La même distinction entre les riches, qui peuvent se protéger d’une planète qui se réchauffe, et les pauvres, qui ne le peuvent manifestement pas, se manifeste dans le monde développé. Alors que la canicule frappe les États-Unis, les autorités ont exhorté une centaine de millions d’Américains à rester à l’intérieur. Alexia Gonzales travaille pour Instacart. Ses employeurs peuvent s’asseoir dans un confort climatisé, mais elle ne le peut certainement pas. « Il fait trop chaud pour travailler », a-t-elle déclaré au Guardian, « mais c’est à ce moment-là que les gens veulent des livraisons. » Partout sur la planète, la hausse des températures signifie que les zones densément peuplées deviennent des «îlots de chaleur urbains», car les paysages de béton habités par des familles ouvrières absorbent le soleil puis réchauffent l’air. En combinant des mesures satellitaires avec des données de recensement, le chercheur de l’Université de Caroline du Nord, Angel Hsu, a montré comment la chaleur est corrélée à la fois à la pauvreté et à la race. Étonnamment, presque partout en Amérique, les communautés de couleur supportent des températures supérieures en moyenne à celles auxquelles sont confrontés les Blancs non hispaniques. Des facteurs similaires régissent l’exposition de la population à la crise climatique en Australie, où, par exemple, l’ouest de Sydney devient étonnamment plus chaud de 8 à 10 degrés pendant les vagues de chaleur que les parties orientales de la ville. Ce n’est pas seulement une question de températures non plus. Nous savons que le carbone pompé dans l’atmosphère signifie plus d’incendies et plus d’inondations – et nous savons qui supportera le poids des catastrophes entièrement prévisibles qui s’ensuivront. Les chercheurs qui étudient les feux de brousse de 2019-2020 affirment que « les communautés les plus défavorisées sur le plan socio-économique ont subi une exposition aux risques disproportionnellement plus élevée pendant l’été noir que les communautés relativement avantagées ». De même, les inondations de 2022 ont le plus touché les ménages les plus pauvres, qui étaient plus susceptibles de vivre dans des zones plus à risque et moins susceptibles d’être couverts par une assurance. En d’autres termes, si vous ne combattez pas le réchauffement climatique, vous ne vous souciez pas de la classe ouvrière, quelle que soit la fréquence à laquelle vous vous adressez à Sky News pour faire rage rhétoriquement contre les « élites éveillées ». Compte tenu de ce qui est en jeu pour les gens ordinaires, on peut se demander pourquoi l’environnementalisme n’a pas été lié sans équivoque aux combattants au point où le vert pourrait être proclamé le nouveau rouge. Une partie de la réponse réside dans le fait que tant de « solutions » climatiques adoptées par les politiciens traditionnels sortent tout droit de la boîte à outils néolibérale. Des décennies de domination philosophique par des économistes de droite signifient que, depuis les années 1990, la réponse par défaut au réchauffement climatique s’est centrée sur des mécanismes de marché semblables à ceux qui, pour tout le monde en dehors de la classe politique, ont transformé la «réforme» en un gros mot. Lorsque les décideurs politiques s’enthousiasment pour les systèmes d’échange de droits d’émission et autres remèdes du marché libre, pour de nombreuses personnes ordinaires, ils ressemblent aux cerveaux qui ont « réformé » les services publics, les relations industrielles, l’aide sociale et l’éducation. La longue association du parti travailliste avec le néolibéralisme également adopté par les libéraux aide à expliquer la dérive continue des électeurs rouillés loin des deux grands partis. Mais reconnaître ce désenchantement ne signifie pas embrasser des fantasmes sur les libéraux s’établissant d’une manière ou d’une autre comme le choix prolétarien. Il est faux, par exemple, de voir le résultat des élections comme montrant le progressisme comme « une politique des riches » et le conservatisme comme « la politique des lutteurs ». Au contraire, dans sa ventilation granulaire des tendances de vote, le scientifique des données Shaun Ratcliff montre que, malgré le succès des Teals, les libéraux restent largement le parti privilégié. «[Je[c’esttoujoursvraipourlaplupart »dit-il« quelesélecteursaisésetétablissontplussusceptiblesdevoterpourlaCoalitionetquelesAustraliensenâgedetravailleràfaiblerevenuontgénéralementcontinuéàvoterpourlagaucheen2022 »[I[tisstillmostlytrue”hesays“thatwell-offandestablishedvotersaremorelikelytovotefortheCoalitionandlower-incomeworking-ageAustraliansgenerallycontinuedtovotefortheleftin2022” Cela ne devrait pas surprendre. Les électeurs de la classe ouvrière – en Australie et dans le monde – se méfient de plus en plus de tous les partis établis. Mais cela ne les rend pas intrinsèquement conservateurs. La vache a tendance à ne pas voter pour le boucher. Naturellement, les travailleurs veulent être rassurés que, dans un avenir à faible émission de carbone, ils ne perdront pas les gains sociaux qu’ils ont obtenus dans les industries polluantes traditionnelles. Mais les générations de syndicalistes qui gagnaient des salaires relativement élevés dans les mines se retourneraient dans leur tombe à la suggestion que le charbon – une substance tachée pendant un siècle et demi du sang de ceux qui l’ont extrait – était intrinsèquement bon pour la classe ouvrière. Et ils rouleraient encore plus loin à l’idée que les grandes entreprises qui profitent de la destruction planétaire se soucient le moins du monde des conséquences pour les gens ordinaires.
Was meinst du mit ‚Warum arbeite ich bei dieser Hitze?’ Wenn ich nicht arbeite, werden wir verhungern.“ So erklärte Shiv Kumar Mandal, ein Rikschafahrer aus Delhi, warum er während eines anhaltenden und schrecklichen Temperaturanstiegs, den Experten der globalen Erwärmung zuschreiben, weiterhin Passagiere beförderte. Mandal, so vermutet man, betrachtet die Erwärmung des Planeten nicht als ein Thema, das nur für die Reichen relevant ist. Doch nach den australischen Bundestagswahlen hören wir immer wieder Versionen dieser Behauptung. Denken Sie daran, wie die liberale Senatorin Hollie Hughes – nicht weniger eine der führenden Klimasprecherinnen der Koalition – kürzlich die Erwärmung als „fast wie ein Luxusproblem“ bezeichnete. In ähnlicher Weise sagt Quillette-Redakteurin Claire Lehmann, dass diejenigen, die sich für erneuerbare Energien einsetzen, dies in erster Linie tun, um ihren eigenen Reichtum zu signalisieren, während Rebecca Weisser vom Spectator die Umfrage als Sieg für „grüne und blaugrüne rentenorientierte Eliten“ (die sie als „gewesen“ bezeichnet) beurteilt unermesslich geholfen hat ein Bildungssystem, das Kinder und junge Erwachsene vom Kindergarten bis zur Universität in den Kult der Klimakatastrophe indoktriniert und Klimastreiks während der Schulzeit legitimiert, die von Grünen und der Sozialistischen Allianz offen besucht werden. Unterdessen geht Lillian Andrews so weit zu behaupten, dass die Wahl zeigt, dass die Liberalen „zur neuen Partei des einfachen Volkes werden“, wobei ihre Klimapolitik „die einst grundlegenden Labour-Werte des Schutzes der Arbeiterklasse und der Verteidigung ihrer Rechte“ überarbeitet. Nun, es ist schön, Fantasie zu haben. In der realen Welt erkennt jeder, der sich um die tatsächliche Arbeiterklasse sorgt, dass die globale Erwärmung immer und überall den Unterdrückten und den Armen am meisten schadet. Die schreckliche Hitzewelle in Indien bedeutet, dass die Temperaturen in Delhi seit Beginn des Sommers 25 Tage lang 42 ° C überschritten haben. Dennoch schuften Millionen von Arbeitern immer noch im Freien, einfach weil sie es sich wie Mandal nicht leisten können, sich von der Sonne fernzuhalten. Unter den unerträglichen Bedingungen leiden sie alle – und manche sterben. „Das ist nicht nur Erschöpfung oder Unbehagen“, sagt Avikal Somvanshi vom Urban Lab am Center of Science and Environment. “Es tötet tatsächlich Menschen.” Dieselbe Unterscheidung zwischen den Reichen, die sich vor einer Erwärmung des Planeten schützen können, und den Armen, die das offensichtlich nicht können, manifestiert sich in der entwickelten Welt. Angesichts einer Hitzewelle in den Vereinigten Staaten haben die Behörden hundert Millionen Amerikaner aufgefordert, drinnen zu bleiben. Alexia Gonzales arbeitet für Instacart. Ihre Arbeitgeber mögen in einem klimatisierten Komfort sitzen, aber sie kann es sicherlich nicht. „Es ist zu heiß zum Arbeiten“, sagte sie dem Guardian, „aber dann wollen die Leute Lieferungen.“ Auf der ganzen Welt führen steigende Temperaturen dazu, dass dicht besiedelte Gebiete zu „städtischen Hitzeinseln“ werden, da die von Arbeiterfamilien bewohnten Betonlandschaften die Sonne absorbieren und dann die Luft erwärmen. Durch die Kombination von Satellitenmessungen mit Volkszählungsdaten hat der Forscher Angel Hsu von der University of North Carolina gezeigt, wie Hitze sowohl mit Armut als auch mit Rasse korreliert. Erschreckenderweise ertragen fast überall in Amerika Farbgemeinschaften Temperaturen, die im Durchschnitt um ein Grad höher sind als die, denen nicht-hispanische Weiße ausgesetzt sind. Ähnliche Faktoren bestimmen die Belastung der Bevölkerung durch die Klimakrise in Australien, wo beispielsweise der Westen Sydneys bei Hitzewellen um erstaunliche 8-10 Grad heißer wird als die östlichen Teile der Stadt. Es ist auch nicht nur eine Frage der Temperaturen. Wir wissen, dass der Kohlenstoff, der in die Atmosphäre gepumpt wird, mehr Brände und mehr Überschwemmungen bedeutet – und wir wissen, wer die Hauptlast der völlig vorhersehbaren Katastrophen tragen wird, die folgen werden. Forscher, die sich die Buschbrände 2019-2020 ansehen, sagen, dass „die sozioökonomisch am stärksten benachteiligten Gemeinschaften im Schwarzen Sommer einer unverhältnismäßig höheren Gefährdung ausgesetzt waren als relativ begünstigte Gemeinschaften“. Ebenso waren von den Überschwemmungen im Jahr 2022 ärmere Haushalte am stärksten betroffen, die eher in riskanteren Gebieten lebten und seltener durch Versicherungen abgesichert waren. Anders ausgedrückt: Wenn Sie nicht gegen die globale Erwärmung kämpfen, ist Ihnen die Arbeiterklasse egal, egal wie oft Sie Sky News dazu bringen, rhetorisch gegen „erwachte Eliten“ zu wüten. Angesichts dessen, was für die einfachen Menschen auf dem Spiel steht, fragen wir uns vielleicht, warum der Umweltschutz nicht eindeutig mit den Kämpfern in Verbindung gebracht wird, in dem Maße, in dem Grün zum neuen Rot erklärt werden könnte. Ein Teil der Antwort liegt darin, dass so viele der von Mainstream-Politikern vertretenen „Klimalösungen“ direkt aus dem neoliberalen Werkzeugkasten stammen. Jahrzehntelange philosophische Dominanz rechter Ökonomen bedeutet, dass sich die Standardreaktion auf die globale Erwärmung seit den 1990er Jahren auf Marktmechanismen konzentriert hat, die denen ähneln, die „Reform“ für alle außerhalb der politischen Klasse zu einem Schimpfwort gemacht haben. Wenn politische Entscheidungsträger von Emissionshandelssystemen und anderen Patentrezepten des freien Marktes schwärmen, klingen sie für viele gewöhnliche Menschen wie die Geistesblitze, die öffentliche Versorgungsunternehmen, Arbeitsbeziehungen, Wohlfahrt und Bildung „reformiert“ haben. Die lange Verbindung der Labour Party mit dem Neoliberalismus, der gleichermaßen von den Liberalen vertreten wird, erklärt die anhaltende Abwanderung eingerosteter Wähler von beiden großen Parteien. Aber diese Ernüchterung anzuerkennen bedeutet nicht, Fantasien anzunehmen, dass die Liberalen sich irgendwie als proletarische Wahl etablieren würden. Es ist zum Beispiel falsch, das Wahlergebnis so zu sehen, dass es den Progressivismus als „eine Politik der Reichen“ und den Konservatismus als „die Politik der Kämpfenden“ zeige. Im Gegenteil, der Datenwissenschaftler Shaun Ratcliff zeigt in seiner detaillierten Aufschlüsselung der Wahltrends, dass die Liberalen trotz des Erfolgs der Teals die Partei der Privilegien bleiben. „[Esstimmtimmernochgrößtenteils“sagter„dasswohlhabendeundetablierteWählereherfürdieKoalitionstimmenundAustraliermitniedrigeremEinkommenimerwerbsfähigenAlterimAllgemeinenweiterhinfürdieLinkeimJahr2022stimmen“[I[tisstillmostlytrue”hesays“thatwell-offandestablishedvotersaremorelikelytovotefortheCoalitionandlower-incomeworking-ageAustraliansgenerallycontinuedtovotefortheleftin2022” Das sollte nicht überraschen. Die Wähler der Arbeiterklasse – in Australien und auf der ganzen Welt – misstrauen zunehmend allen etablierten Parteien. Aber das macht sie nicht von Natur aus konservativ. Die Kuh stimmt eher nicht für den Metzger. Verständlicherweise wollen Arbeitnehmer die Gewissheit, dass sie in einer kohlenstoffarmen Zukunft nicht die sozialen Errungenschaften verlieren, die sie sich in den traditionellen umweltschädlichen Industrien gesichert haben. Aber die Generationen von Gewerkschaftern, die im Bergbau relativ hohe Löhne erzielten, würden sich im Grabe umdrehen, wenn sie behaupteten, Kohle – eine Substanz, die anderthalb Jahrhunderte lang mit dem Blut derer befleckt war, die sie abgebaut hatten – sei von Natur aus gut für die Arbeiterklasse. Und sie würden noch weiter rollen bei der Vorstellung, dass sich die massiven Konzerne, die von der planetaren Zerstörung profitieren, auch nur im Geringsten um die Folgen für die einfachen Menschen kümmern.
„Was meinst du mit ‚Warum arbeite ich bei dieser Hitze?’ Wenn ich nicht arbeite, werden wir verhungern.“ So hat Shiv Kumar Mandal, ein Rikscha-Fahrer aus Delhi, erklärt warum er während eines langanhaltenden und entsetzlichen Temperaturanstiegs weiterhin Passagiere beförderte Experten schreiben der globalen Erwärmung zu. Mandal, so vermutet man, betrachtet die Erwärmung des Planeten nicht als ein Thema, das nur für die Reichen relevant ist. Doch nach den australischen Bundestagswahlen hören wir immer wieder Versionen dieser Behauptung. Denken Sie daran, wie die liberale Senatorin Hollie Hughes – nicht weniger eine der führenden Klimasprecherinnen der Koalition – Kürzlich als „fast wie ein Luxusproblem“ bezeichnete Erwärmung. In ähnlicher Weise sagt Quillette-Redakteurin Claire Lehmann, dass diejenigen, die sich für erneuerbare Energien einsetzen, dies in erster Linie tun eigenen Reichtum zu signalisierenwährend die Zuschauerin Rebecca Weisser wertet die Umfrage als Sieg für „grüne und blaugrüne rentensuchende Eliten“ (die sie als „unermesslich geholfen hat durch ein Bildungssystem, das Kinder und junge Erwachsene vom Kindergarten bis zur Universität im Kult der Klimakatastrophe indoktriniert und legitimiert Klimastreiks während der Schulzeit, an denen die Grünen und die Sozialistische Allianz offen teilnehmen.“). In der Zwischenzeit, Lilian Andrews geht so weit zu behaupten, dass die Wahl zeigt, dass die Liberalen „zur neuen Partei des einfachen Volkes werden“, wobei ihre Klimapolitik „was einst grundlegende Labour-Werte des Schutzes der Arbeiterklasse und der Verteidigung ihrer Rechte“ überarbeitete. Nun, es ist schön, Fantasie zu haben. In der realen Welt erkennt jeder, der sich um die tatsächliche Arbeiterklasse sorgt, dass die globale Erwärmung immer und überall den Unterdrückten und den Armen am meisten schadet. Die schreckliche Hitzewelle in Indien bedeutet, dass die Temperaturen in Delhi seit Beginn des Sommers 25 Tage lang 42 ° C überschritten haben. Dennoch schuften Millionen von Arbeitern immer noch im Freien, einfach weil sie es sich wie Mandal nicht leisten können, sich von der Sonne fernzuhalten. Unter den unerträglichen Bedingungen leiden sie alle – und manche sterben. „Das ist nicht nur Erschöpfung oder Unbehagen“, sagt Avikal Somvanshi des Urban Lab am Center of Science and Environment. “Es tötet tatsächlich Menschen.” Dieselbe Unterscheidung zwischen den Reichen, die sich vor einer Erwärmung des Planeten schützen können, und den Armen, die das offensichtlich nicht können, manifestiert sich in der entwickelten Welt. Angesichts einer Hitzewelle in den Vereinigten Staaten haben die Behörden hundert Millionen Amerikaner aufgefordert, drinnen zu bleiben. Alexia Gonzales arbeitet für Instacart. Ihre Arbeitgeber mögen in einem klimatisierten Komfort sitzen, aber sie kann es sicherlich nicht. „Es ist zu heiß zum Arbeiten“, sagte sie dem Guardian, „aber dann wollen die Leute Lieferungen.“ Auf dem ganzen Planeten, steigende Temperaturen bedeuten dicht besiedelte Gebiete zu „städtischen Wärmeinseln“, da die von Arbeiterfamilien bewohnten Betonlandschaften die Sonne absorbieren und die Luft erwärmen. Durch die Kombination von Satellitenmessungen mit Volkszählungsdaten, University of North Carolina Forscher Angel Hsu hat gezeigt wie Hitze mit Armut und Rasse zusammenhängt. Erschreckenderweise ertragen fast überall in Amerika Farbgemeinschaften Temperaturen, die im Durchschnitt um ein Grad höher sind als die, denen nicht-hispanische Weiße ausgesetzt sind. Ähnliche Faktoren bestimmen die Exposition der Bevölkerung gegenüber der Klimakrise in Australien, wo zum Beispiel der Westen Sydneys eine erstaunliche Entwicklung erfährt 8-10 Grad heißer bei Hitzewellen als die östlichen Teile der Stadt. Es ist auch nicht nur eine Frage der Temperaturen. Wir wissen, dass der Kohlenstoff, der in die Atmosphäre gepumpt wird, mehr Brände und mehr Überschwemmungen bedeutet – und wir wissen, wer die Hauptlast der völlig vorhersehbaren Katastrophen tragen wird, die folgen werden. Forscher Blick auf die Buschbrände 2019-2020 sagen, dass „die sozioökonomisch am stärksten benachteiligten Gemeinschaften im Schwarzen Sommer einer unverhältnismäßig höheren Gefährdung ausgesetzt waren als relativ begünstigte Gemeinschaften“. Ebenfalls, die Überschwemmungen von 2022 haben ärmere Haushalte am stärksten getroffendie eher in riskanteren Gegenden lebten und seltener versichert waren. Anders ausgedrückt: Wenn Sie nicht gegen die globale Erwärmung kämpfen, ist Ihnen die Arbeiterklasse egal, egal wie oft Sie Sky News dazu bringen, rhetorisch gegen „erwachte Eliten“ zu wüten. Angesichts dessen, was für die einfachen Menschen auf dem Spiel steht, fragen wir uns vielleicht, warum der Umweltschutz nicht eindeutig mit den Kämpfern in Verbindung gebracht wird, in dem Maße, in dem Grün zum neuen Rot erklärt werden könnte. Ein Teil der Antwort liegt darin, dass so viele der von Mainstream-Politikern vertretenen „Klimalösungen“ direkt aus dem neoliberalen Werkzeugkasten stammen. Jahrzehntelange philosophische Dominanz rechter Ökonomen bedeutet, dass sich die Standardreaktion auf die globale Erwärmung seit den 1990er Jahren auf Marktmechanismen konzentriert hat, die denen ähneln, die „Reform“ für alle außerhalb der politischen Klasse zu einem Schimpfwort gemacht haben. Wenn politische Entscheidungsträger von Emissionshandelssystemen und anderen Patentrezepten des freien Marktes schwärmen, klingen sie für viele gewöhnliche Menschen wie die Geistesblitze, die öffentliche Versorgungsunternehmen, Arbeitsbeziehungen, Wohlfahrt und Bildung „reformiert“ haben. Die lange Verbindung der Labour Party mit dem Neoliberalismus, der gleichermaßen von den Liberalen vertreten wird, erklärt die anhaltende Abwanderung eingerosteter Wähler von beiden großen Parteien. Aber diese Ernüchterung anzuerkennen bedeutet nicht, Fantasien anzunehmen, dass die Liberalen sich irgendwie als proletarische Wahl etablieren würden. Es ist zum Beispiel falsch, um das Wahlergebnis zu sehen Progressivismus sei „eine Politik der Reichen“ und Konservatismus „die Politik der Kämpfenden“. Im Gegenteil, in seiner detaillierten Aufschlüsselung der Abstimmungstrends Datenwissenschaftler Shaun Ratcliff zeigt dass die Liberalen trotz des Erfolgs der Teals die privilegierte Partei bleiben. „[Esstimmtimmernochgrößtenteils“sagter„dasswohlhabendeundetablierteWählereherfürdieKoalitionstimmenundAustraliermitniedrigeremEinkommenimerwerbsfähigenAlterimAllgemeinenweiterhinfürdieLinkeimJahr2022stimmen“[I[tisstillmostlytrue”hesays“thatwell-offandestablishedvotersaremorelikelytovotefortheCoalitionandlower-incomeworking-ageAustraliansgenerallycontinuedtovotefortheleftin2022” Das sollte nicht überraschen. Die Wähler der Arbeiterklasse – in Australien und auf der ganzen Welt – misstrauen zunehmend allen etablierten Parteien. Aber das macht sie nicht von Natur aus konservativ. Die Kuh stimmt eher nicht für den Metzger. Verständlicherweise wollen Arbeitnehmer die Gewissheit, dass sie in einer kohlenstoffarmen Zukunft nicht die sozialen Errungenschaften verlieren, die sie sich in den traditionellen umweltschädlichen Industrien gesichert haben. Aber die Generationen von Gewerkschaftern, die im Bergbau relativ hohe Löhne erzielten, würden sich im Grabe umdrehen, wenn sie behaupteten, Kohle – eine Substanz, die anderthalb Jahrhunderte lang mit dem Blut derer befleckt war, die sie abgebaut hatten – sei von Natur aus gut für die Arbeiterklasse. Und sie würden bei dem Gedanken noch weiter rollen die riesigen Konzerne, die von der planetaren Zerstörung profitieren kümmert sich nicht im Geringsten um die Folgen für die einfachen Menschen.
“What do you mean, ‘why am I working in this heat?’ If I don’t work, we will die of hunger”. That was how Shiv Kumar Mandal, a Delhi rickshaw driver, explained why he continued to transport passengers during a prolonged and horrific temperature spike that experts attribute to global heating. Mandal, one presumes, does not consider planetary warming a topic relevant only to the rich. Yet, in the wake of the Australian federal election, we’re hearing versions of that claim again and again and again. Think of how Liberal Senator Hollie Hughes – one of the Coalition’s senior spokespeople on climate, no less – recently dubbed warming “almost like a luxury issue”. Similarly, Quillette editor Claire Lehmann says those who advocate for renewable energy do so primarily to signal their own wealth, while the Spectator’s Rebecca Weisser judges the poll a victory for “green and teal rent-seeking elites” (whom she describes as having “been helped immeasurably by an education system that indoctrinates children and young adults, from kindergarten through to university, in the cult of climate catastrophism, legitimising climate ‘strikes’ during school hours, which are openly attended by Greens and the Socialist Alliance”.). Meanwhile, Lillian Andrews goes so far as to claim the election reveals the Liberals are “becoming the new party of the ordinary people”, with their climate stance revamping “what were once core Labor values of protecting the working class and defending their rights”. Well, it’s nice to have an imagination. In the real world, anyone concerned about the actual working class recognises that, always and everywhere, global warming most harms the oppressed and the poor. The horrific Indian heatwave means temperatures in Delhi have exceeded 42C for 25 days since summer began. Yet millions of workers still toil outside, simply because, like Mandal, they can’t afford to stay out of the sun. In the unbearable conditions, all of them suffer – and some of them die. “This is not just exhaustion or discomfort”, says Avikal Somvanshi of the Urban Lab at the Center of Science and Environment. “It is actually killing people”. The same distinction between the wealthy, who can protect themselves from a warming planet, and the poor, who patently cannot, manifests in the developed world. With a heatwave gripping the United States, authorities have urged a hundred million Americans to stay inside. Alexia Gonzales works for Instacart. Her employers might sit in air-conditioned comfort but she certainly can’t. “It’s too hot to work”, she told the Guardian, “but this is when people want deliveries”. Across the planet, rising temperatures mean densely populated areas become “urban heat islands”, as the concrete landscapes inhabited by working-class families absorb the sun and then warm up the air. By combining satellite measurements with census data, University of North Carolina researcher Angel Hsu has shown how heat correlates both with poverty and race. Shockingly, almost everywhere in America communities of colour endure temperatures a degree higher on average than those faced by non-Hispanic white people. Similar factors govern the population’s exposure to the climate crisis in Australia, where, for instance, western Sydney gets an astonishing 8-10 degrees hotter during heatwaves than the eastern parts of the city. It’s not just a question of temperatures, either. We know the carbon getting pumped into the atmosphere means more fires and more flooding – and we know who will bear the brunt of the entirely predictable disasters that will ensue. Researchers looking at the 2019-2020 bushfires say that “the most socio-economically disadvantaged communities bore a disproportionately higher hazard exposure in the Black Summer than relatively advantaged communities”. Likewise, the floods of 2022 most affected poorer households, who were more likely to live in riskier areas and less likely to be covered by insurance. To put it another way, if you’re not fighting global warming, you don’t care about the working class, irrespective of how often you take to Sky News to rage rhetorically against “woke elites”. Given what’s at stake for ordinary people, we might wonder why environmentalism hasn’t been unequivocally linked to the battlers to the extent where green might be proclaimed the new red. Part of the answer lies with how so many of the climate “solutions” espoused by mainstream politicians come straight out of the neoliberal toolkit. Decades of philosophical dominance by rightwing economists means, ever since the 1990s, the default response to global warming has centred on market mechanisms akin to those that, for everyone outside the political class, turned “reform” into a dirty word. When policymakers enthuse about emissions trading systems and other free market nostrums, to many ordinary people they sound just like the brainiacs who “reformed” public utilities, industrial relations, welfare and education into the ground. The Labor party’s long association with neoliberalism equally espoused by the Liberals helps explain the continuing drift of rusted-on voters away from both major parties. But a recognition of that disenchantment doesn’t mean embracing fantasies about the Liberals somehow establishing themselves as the proletarian choice. It’s wrong, for instance, to see the election result as showing progressivism as “a politics of the rich” and conservatism “the politics of the struggling”. On the contrary, in his granular breakdown of voting trends, data scientist Shaun Ratcliff shows that, despite the success of the Teals, the Liberals remain very much the party of privilege. “[I[t is still mostly true”, he says, “that well-off and established voters are more likely to vote for the Coalition, and lower-income working-age Australians generally continued to vote for the left in 2022”. That shouldn’t come as any surprise. Working-class voters – in Australia and around the world – increasingly mistrust all established parties. But that doesn’t render them innately conservative. The cow tends not to vote for the butcher. Understandably, workers want reassurances that, in a low-carbon future, they won’t lose the social gains they’ve secured in the traditional polluting industries. But the generations of unionists who won relatively high wages in mining would turn in their graves at the suggestion that coal – a substance stained for a century and a half with the blood of those who extracted it – was innately good for the working class. And they’d roll even further at the idea that the massive corporations profiting from planetary destruction care in the slightest about the consequences for ordinary people.
“¿Qué quieres decir con ‘¿por qué estoy trabajando con este calor?’ Si no trabajo, nos moriremos de hambre”. Así fue como Shiv Kumar Mandal, un conductor de rickshaw de Delhi, explicado por qué continuó transportando pasajeros durante un pico de temperatura prolongado y horrible que Los expertos atribuyen al calentamiento global. Mandal, se supone, no considera el calentamiento planetario un tema relevante solo para los ricos. Sin embargo, tras las elecciones federales australianas, escuchamos versiones de esa afirmación una y otra vez. Piense en cómo la senadora liberal Hollie Hughes, una de las principales portavoces de la Coalición sobre el clima, nada menos. recientemente apodado el calentamiento como “casi como un problema de lujo”. De manera similar, la editora de Quillette, Claire Lehmann, dice que quienes abogan por las energías renovables lo hacen principalmente para señalar su propia riquezatiempo Rebecca Weisser del espectador considera que la encuesta es una victoria para las “élites buscadoras de rentas verde y verde azulado” (a quienes describe como “habiendo recibido una gran ayuda de un sistema educativo que adoctrina a niños y adultos jóvenes, desde el jardín de infantes hasta la universidad, en el culto del catastrofismo climático, legitimando ‘huelgas’ climáticas durante el horario escolar, a las que asisten abiertamente los Verdes y la Alianza Socialista”). Entretanto, Lillian Andrews va tan lejos como para afirmar que las elecciones revelan que los liberales se están “convirtiendo en el nuevo partido de la gente común”, con su postura climática renovando “lo que alguna vez fueron valores fundamentales del laborismo de proteger a la clase trabajadora y defender sus derechos”. Bueno, es bueno tener imaginación. En el mundo real, cualquier persona preocupada por la clase trabajadora real reconoce que, siempre y en todas partes, el calentamiento global daña más a los oprimidos y los pobres. La terrible ola de calor india significa que las temperaturas en Delhi han excedido 42C durante 25 días desde que comenzó el verano. Sin embargo, millones de trabajadores aún trabajan al aire libre, simplemente porque, como Mandal, no pueden darse el lujo de permanecer fuera del sol. En las condiciones insoportables, todos sufren, y algunos mueren. “Esto no es solo agotamiento o incomodidad”, dice Avikal Somvanshi del Urban Lab del Centro de Ciencia y Medio Ambiente. “En realidad está matando gente”. La misma distinción entre los ricos, que pueden protegerse del calentamiento del planeta, y los pobres, que evidentemente no pueden hacerlo, se manifiesta en el mundo desarrollado. Con una ola de calor que se apodera de los Estados Unidos, las autoridades han instado a cien millones de estadounidenses quedarse adentro. Alexia Gonzales trabaja para Instacart. Sus empleadores pueden sentarse cómodamente con aire acondicionado, pero ella ciertamente no puede. “Hace demasiado calor para trabajar” ella le dijo al guardián“pero aquí es cuando la gente quiere entregas”. en todo el planeta, el aumento de las temperaturas significa áreas densamente pobladas se convierten en “islas de calor urbano”, ya que los paisajes de hormigón habitados por familias de clase trabajadora absorben el sol y luego calientan el aire. Al combinar mediciones satelitales con datos del censo, Universidad de Carolina del Norte el investigador Angel Hsu ha demostrado cómo el calor se correlaciona tanto con la pobreza como con la raza. Sorprendentemente, casi en todas partes en Estados Unidos, las comunidades de color soportan temperaturas un grado más altas en promedio que las que enfrentan las personas blancas no hispanas. Factores similares gobiernan la exposición de la población a la crisis climática en Australia, donde, por ejemplo, el oeste de Sydney recibe una sorprendente 8-10 grados más caliente durante las olas de calor que las zonas orientales de la ciudad. Tampoco es solo una cuestión de temperaturas. Sabemos que el carbono que se bombea a la atmósfera significa más incendios y más inundaciones – y sabemos quién soportará la peor parte de los desastres totalmente predecibles que se producirán. investigadores mirando los incendios forestales de 2019-2020 dicen que “las comunidades más desfavorecidas socioeconómicamente soportaron una exposición a peligros desproporcionadamente mayor en el Verano Negro que las comunidades relativamente ventajosas”. Igualmente, Las inundaciones de 2022 afectaron más a los hogares más pobresque tenían más probabilidades de vivir en áreas más riesgosas y menos probabilidades de estar cubiertos por un seguro. Para decirlo de otra manera, si no estás luchando contra el calentamiento global, no te importa la clase trabajadora, independientemente de la frecuencia con la que acudas a Sky News para enfurecerte retóricamente contra las “élites despiertas”. Dado lo que está en juego para la gente común, podríamos preguntarnos por qué el ambientalismo no se ha vinculado de manera inequívoca a los luchadores hasta el punto de que el verde podría proclamarse como el nuevo rojo. Parte de la respuesta radica en cómo muchas de las “soluciones” climáticas propugnadas por los principales políticos vienen sacado directamente de la caja de herramientas neoliberal. Décadas de dominio filosófico por parte de economistas de derecha significan que, desde la década de 1990, la respuesta predeterminada al calentamiento global se ha centrado en mecanismos de mercado similares a los que, para todos fuera de la clase política, convirtieron “reforma” en una mala palabra. Cuando los formuladores de políticas se entusiasman con los sistemas de comercio de emisiones y otras panaceas del libre mercado, para muchas personas comunes suenan como los cerebritos que “reformaron” los servicios públicos, las relaciones laborales, el bienestar y la educación. La larga asociación del Partido Laborista con el neoliberalismo defendido igualmente por los liberales ayuda a explicar la continua deriva de votantes oxidados que se alejan de los dos partidos principales. Pero un reconocimiento de ese desencanto no significa abrazar fantasías sobre los liberales de alguna manera estableciéndose como la opción proletaria. Está mal, por ejemplo, para ver el resultado de las elecciones como mostrando el progresismo como “una política de los ricos” y el conservadurismo como “la política de los que luchan”. Por el contrario, en su desglose granular de las tendencias de votación, El científico de datos Shaun Ratcliff muestra que, a pesar del éxito de los Teals, los liberales siguen siendo en gran medida el partido de privilegio. “[Siguesiendomayormentecierto”dice“quelosvotantesacomodadosyestablecidostienenmásprobabilidadesdevotarporlaCoaliciónylosaustralianosenedadlaboralconbajosingresosengeneralcontinuaronvotandoporlaizquierdaen2022”[I[tisstillmostlytrue”hesays“thatwell-offandestablishedvotersaremorelikelytovotefortheCoalitionandlower-incomeworking-ageAustraliansgenerallycontinuedtovotefortheleftin2022” Eso no debería ser ninguna sorpresa. Los votantes de la clase trabajadora, en Australia y en todo el mundo, desconfían cada vez más de todos los partidos establecidos. Pero eso no los hace innatamente conservadores. La vaca tiende a no votar por el carnicero. Comprensiblemente, los trabajadores quieren garantías de que, en un futuro con bajas emisiones de carbono, no perderán los logros sociales que han obtenido en las industrias contaminantes tradicionales. Pero las generaciones de sindicalistas que ganaron salarios relativamente altos en la minería se revolverían en sus tumbas ante la sugerencia de que el carbón, una sustancia manchada durante un siglo y medio con la sangre de quienes lo extrajeron, era innatamente bueno para la clase trabajadora. Y rodarían aún más con la idea de que las corporaciones masivas se benefician de la destrucción planetaria preocuparse en lo más mínimo por las consecuencias para la gente común.
“What do you mean, ‘why am I working in this heat?’ If I don’t work, we will die of hunger.” That was how Shiv Kumar Mandal, a Delhi rickshaw driver, explained why he continued to transport passengers during a prolonged and horrific temperature spike that experts attribute to global heating. Mandal, one presumes, does not consider planetary warming a topic relevant only to the rich. Yet, in the wake of the Australian federal election, we’re hearing versions of that claim again and again and again. Think of how Liberal Senator Hollie Hughes – one of the Coalition’s senior spokespeople on climate, no less – recently dubbed warming “almost like a luxury issue”. Similarly, Quillette editor Claire Lehmann says those who advocate for renewable energy do so primarily to signal their own wealth, while the Spectator’s Rebecca Weisser judges the poll a victory for “green and teal rent-seeking elites” (whom she describes as having “been helped immeasurably by an education system that indoctrinates children and young adults, from kindergarten through to university, in the cult of climate catastrophism, legitimising climate ‘strikes’ during school hours, which are openly attended by Greens and the Socialist Alliance.”). Meanwhile, Lillian Andrews goes so far as to claim the election reveals the Liberals are “becoming the new party of the ordinary people”, with their climate stance revamping “what were once core Labor values of protecting the working class and defending their rights.” Well, it’s nice to have an imagination. In the real world, anyone concerned about the actual working class recognises that, always and everywhere, global warming most harms the oppressed and the poor. The horrific Indian heatwave means temperatures in Delhi have exceeded 42C for 25 days since summer began. Yet millions of workers still toil outside, simply because, like Mandal, they can’t afford to stay out of the sun. In the unbearable conditions, all of them suffer – and some of them die. “This is not just exhaustion or discomfort,” says Avikal Somvanshi of the Urban Lab at the Center of Science and Environment. “It is actually killing people.” The same distinction between the wealthy, who can protect themselves from a warming planet, and the poor, who patently cannot, manifests in the developed world. With a heatwave gripping the United States, authorities have urged a hundred million Americans to stay inside. Alexia Gonzales works for Instacart. Her employers might sit in air-conditioned comfort but she certainly can’t. “It’s too hot to work,” she told the Guardian, “but this is when people want deliveries.” Across the planet, rising temperatures mean densely populated areas become “urban heat islands”, as the concrete landscapes inhabited by working-class families absorb the sun and then warm up the air. By combining satellite measurements with census data, University of North Carolina researcher Angel Hsu has shown how heat correlates both with poverty and race. Shockingly, almost everywhere in America communities of colour endure temperatures a degree higher on average than those faced by non-Hispanic white people. Similar factors govern the population’s exposure to the climate crisis in Australia, where, for instance, western Sydney gets an astonishing 8-10 degrees hotter during heatwaves than the eastern parts of the city. It’s not just a question of temperatures, either. We know the carbon getting pumped into the atmosphere means more fires and more flooding – and we know who will bear the brunt of the entirely predictable disasters that will ensue. Researchers looking at the 2019-2020 bushfires say that “the most socio-economically disadvantaged communities bore a disproportionately higher hazard exposure in the Black Summer than relatively advantaged communities.” Likewise, the floods of 2022 most affected poorer households, who were more likely to live in riskier areas and less likely to be covered by insurance. To put it another way, if you’re not fighting global warming, you don’t care about the working class, irrespective of how often you take to Sky News to rage rhetorically against “woke elites”. Given what’s at stake for ordinary people, we might wonder why environmentalism hasn’t been unequivocally linked to the battlers to the extent where green might be proclaimed the new red. Part of the answer lies with how so many of the climate “solutions” espoused by mainstream politicians come straight out of the neoliberal toolkit. Decades of philosophical dominance by rightwing economists means, ever since the 1990s, the default response to global warming has centred on market mechanisms akin to those that, for everyone outside the political class, turned “reform” into a dirty word. When policymakers enthuse about emissions trading systems and other free market nostrums, to many ordinary people they sound just like the brainiacs who “reformed” public utilities, industrial relations, welfare and education into the ground. The Labor party’s long association with neoliberalism equally espoused by the Liberals helps explain the continuing drift of rusted-on voters away from both major parties. But a recognition of that disenchantment doesn’t mean embracing fantasies about the Liberals somehow establishing themselves as the proletarian choice. It’s wrong, for instance, to see the election result as showing progressivism as “a politics of the rich” and conservatism “the politics of the struggling”. On the contrary, in his granular breakdown of voting trends, data scientist Shaun Ratcliff shows that, despite the success of the Teals, the Liberals remain very much the party of privilege. “[I[t is still mostly true,” he says, “that well-off and established voters are more likely to vote for the Coalition, and lower-income working-age Australians generally continued to vote for the left in 2022.” That shouldn’t come as any surprise. Working-class voters – in Australia and around the world – increasingly mistrust all established parties. But that doesn’t render them innately conservative. The cow tends not to vote for the butcher. Understandably, workers want reassurances that, in a low-carbon future, they won’t lose the social gains they’ve secured in the traditional polluting industries. But the generations of unionists who won relatively high wages in mining would turn in their graves at the suggestion that coal – a substance stained for a century and a half with the blood of those who extracted it – was innately good for the working class. And they’d roll even further at the idea that the massive corporations profiting from planetary destruction care in the slightest about the consequences for ordinary people.
“What do you mean, ‘why am I working in this heat?’ If I don’t work, we will die of hunger.”That was how Shiv Kumar Mandal, a Delhi rickshaw driver, explained why he continued to transport passengers during a prolonged and horrific temperature spike that experts attribute to global heating.Mandal, one presumes, does not consider planetary warming a topic relevant only to the rich.Yet, in the wake of the Australian federal election, we’re hearing versions of that claim again and again and again.Think of how Liberal Senator Hollie Hughes – one of the Coalition’s senior spokespeople on climate, no less – recently dubbed warming “almost like a luxury issue”.Similarly, Quillette editor Claire Lehmann says those who advocate for renewable energy do so primarily to signal their own wealth, while the Spectator’s Rebecca Weisser judges the poll a victory for “green and teal rent-seeking elites” (whom she describes as having “been helped immeasurably by an education system that indoctrinates children and young adults, from kindergarten through to university, in the cult of climate catastrophism, legitimising climate ‘strikes’ during school hours, which are openly attended by Greens and the Socialist Alliance.”).Meanwhile, Lillian Andrews goes so far as to claim the election reveals the Liberals are “becoming the new party of the ordinary people”, with their climate stance revamping “what were once core Labor values of protecting the working class and defending their rights.”Well, it’s nice to have an imagination.In the real world, anyone concerned about the actual working class recognises that, always and everywhere, global warming most harms the oppressed and the poor.The horrific Indian heatwave means temperatures in Delhi have exceeded 42C for 25 days since summer began. Yet millions of workers still toil outside, simply because, like Mandal, they can’t afford to stay out of the sun.In the unbearable conditions, all of them suffer – and some of them die.“This is not just exhaustion or discomfort,” says Avikal Somvanshi of the Urban Lab at the Center of Science and Environment. “It is actually killing people.”The same distinction between the wealthy, who can protect themselves from a warming planet, and the poor, who patently cannot, manifests in the developed world.With a heatwave gripping the United States, authorities have urged a hundred million Americans to stay inside.Alexia Gonzales works for Instacart. Her employers might sit in air-conditioned comfort but she certainly can’t.“It’s too hot to work,” she told the Guardian, “but this is when people want deliveries.”Across the planet, rising temperatures mean densely populated areas become “urban heat islands”, as the concrete landscapes inhabited by working-class families absorb the sun and then warm up the air.By combining satellite measurements with census data, University of North Carolina researcher Angel Hsu has shown how heat correlates both with poverty and race. Shockingly, almost everywhere in America communities of colour endure temperatures a degree higher on average than those faced by non-Hispanic white people.Similar factors govern the population’s exposure to the climate crisis in Australia, where, for instance, western Sydney gets an astonishing 8-10 degrees hotter during heatwaves than the eastern parts of the city.It’s not just a question of temperatures, either.We know the carbon getting pumped into the atmosphere means more fires and more flooding – and we know who will bear the brunt of the entirely predictable disasters that will ensue.Researchers looking at the 2019-2020 bushfires say that “the most socio-economically disadvantaged communities bore a disproportionately higher hazard exposure in the Black Summer than relatively advantaged communities.”Likewise, the floods of 2022 most affected poorer households, who were more likely to live in riskier areas and less likely to be covered by insurance.To put it another way, if you’re not fighting global warming, you don’t care about the working class, irrespective of how often you take to Sky News to rage rhetorically against “woke elites”.Given what’s at stake for ordinary people, we might wonder why environmentalism hasn’t been unequivocally linked to the battlers to the extent where green might be proclaimed the new red.Part of the answer lies with how so many of the climate “solutions” espoused by mainstream politicians come straight out of the neoliberal toolkit. Decades of philosophical dominance by rightwing economists means, ever since the 1990s, the default response to global warming has centred on market mechanisms akin to those that, for everyone outside the political class, turned “reform” into a dirty word. When policymakers enthuse about emissions trading systems and other free market nostrums, to many ordinary people they sound just like the brainiacs who “reformed” public utilities, industrial relations, welfare and education into the ground.The Labor party’s long association with neoliberalism equally espoused by the Liberals helps explain the continuing drift of rusted-on voters away from both major parties.But a recognition of that disenchantment doesn’t mean embracing fantasies about the Liberals somehow establishing themselves as the proletarian choice.It’s wrong, for instance, to see the election result as showing progressivism as “a politics of the rich” and conservatism “the politics of the struggling”. On the contrary, in his granular breakdown of voting trends, data scientist Shaun Ratcliff shows that, despite the success of the Teals, the Liberals remain very much the party of privilege. “[I[t is still mostly true,” he says, “that well-off and established voters are more likely to vote for the Coalition, and lower-income working-age Australians generally continued to vote for the left in 2022.”That shouldn’t come as any surprise.Working-class voters – in Australia and around the world – increasingly mistrust all established parties. But that doesn’t render them innately conservative. The cow tends not to vote for the butcher.Understandably, workers want reassurances that, in a low-carbon future, they won’t lose the social gains they’ve secured in the traditional polluting industries.But the generations of unionists who won relatively high wages in mining would turn in their graves at the suggestion that coal – a substance stained for a century and a half with the blood of those who extracted it – was innately good for the working class.And they’d roll even further at the idea that the massive corporations profiting from planetary destruction care in the slightest about the consequences for ordinary people. Jeff Sparrow is a Guardian Australia columnist
That was how Shiv Kumar Mandal, a Delhi rickshaw driver, explained why he continued to transport passengers during a prolonged and horrific temperature spike that experts attribute to global heating. Mandal, one presumes, does not consider planetary warming a topic relevant only to the rich. Yet, in the wake of the Australian federal election, we’re hearing versions of that claim again and again and again. Think of how Liberal Senator Hollie Hughes – one of the Coalition’s senior spokespeople on climate, no less – recently dubbed warming “almost like a luxury issue”. Similarly, Quillette editor Claire Lehmann says those who advocate for renewable energy do so primarily to signal their own wealth, while the Spectator’s Rebecca Weisser judges the poll a victory for “green and teal rent-seeking elites” (whom she describes as having “been helped immeasurably by an education system that indoctrinates children and young adults, from kindergarten through to university, in the cult of climate catastrophism, legitimising climate ‘strikes’ during school hours, which are openly attended by Greens and the Socialist Alliance.”). Meanwhile, Lillian Andrews goes so far as to claim the election reveals the Liberals are “becoming the new party of the ordinary people”, with their climate stance revamping “what were once core Labor values of protecting the working class and defending their rights.” Well, it’s nice to have an imagination. In the real world, anyone concerned about the actual working class recognises that, always and everywhere, global warming most harms the oppressed and the poor. The horrific Indian heatwave means temperatures in Delhi have exceeded 42C for 25 days since summer began. Yet millions of workers still toil outside, simply because, like Mandal, they can’t afford to stay out of the sun. In the unbearable conditions, all of them suffer – and some of them die. “This is not just exhaustion or discomfort,” says Avikal Somvanshi of the Urban Lab at the Center of Science and Environment. “It is actually killing people.” The same distinction between the wealthy, who can protect themselves from a warming planet, and the poor, who patently cannot, manifests in the developed world. With a heatwave gripping the United States, authorities have urged a hundred million Americans to stay inside. Alexia Gonzales works for Instacart. Her employers might sit in air-conditioned comfort but she certainly can’t. “It’s too hot to work,” she told the Guardian, “but this is when people want deliveries.” Across the planet, rising temperatures mean densely populated areas become “urban heat islands”, as the concrete landscapes inhabited by working-class families absorb the sun and then warm up the air. By combining satellite measurements with census data, University of North Carolina researcher Angel Hsu has shown how heat correlates both with poverty and race. Shockingly, almost everywhere in America communities of colour endure temperatures a degree higher on average than those faced by non-Hispanic white people. Similar factors govern the population’s exposure to the climate crisis in Australia, where, for instance, western Sydney gets an astonishing 8-10 degrees hotter during heatwaves than the eastern parts of the city. It’s not just a question of temperatures, either. We know the carbon getting pumped into the atmosphere means more fires and more flooding – and we know who will bear the brunt of the entirely predictable disasters that will ensue. Researchers looking at the 2019-2020 bushfires say that “the most socio-economically disadvantaged communities bore a disproportionately higher hazard exposure in the Black Summer than relatively advantaged communities.” Likewise, the floods of 2022 most affected poorer households, who were more likely to live in riskier areas and less likely to be covered by insurance. To put it another way, if you’re not fighting global warming, you don’t care about the working class, irrespective of how often you take to Sky News to rage rhetorically against “woke elites”. Given what’s at stake for ordinary people, we might wonder why environmentalism hasn’t been unequivocally linked to the battlers to the extent where green might be proclaimed the new red. Part of the answer lies with how so many of the climate “solutions” espoused by mainstream politicians come straight out of the neoliberal toolkit. Decades of philosophical dominance by rightwing economists means, ever since the 1990s, the default response to global warming has centred on market mechanisms akin to those that, for everyone outside the political class, turned “reform” into a dirty word. When policymakers enthuse about emissions trading systems and other free market nostrums, to many ordinary people they sound just like the brainiacs who “reformed” public utilities, industrial relations, welfare and education into the ground. The Labor party’s long association with neoliberalism equally espoused by the Liberals helps explain the continuing drift of rusted-on voters away from both major parties. But a recognition of that disenchantment doesn’t mean embracing fantasies about the Liberals somehow establishing themselves as the proletarian choice. It’s wrong, for instance, to see the election result as showing progressivism as “a politics of the rich” and conservatism “the politics of the struggling”. On the contrary, in his granular breakdown of voting trends, data scientist Shaun Ratcliff shows that, despite the success of the Teals, the Liberals remain very much the party of privilege. “[I[t is still mostly true,” he says, “that well-off and established voters are more likely to vote for the Coalition, and lower-income working-age Australians generally continued to vote for the left in 2022.” That shouldn’t come as any surprise. Working-class voters – in Australia and around the world – increasingly mistrust all established parties. But that doesn’t render them innately conservative. The cow tends not to vote for the butcher. Understandably, workers want reassurances that, in a low-carbon future, they won’t lose the social gains they’ve secured in the traditional polluting industries. But the generations of unionists who won relatively high wages in mining would turn in their graves at the suggestion that coal – a substance stained for a century and a half with the blood of those who extracted it – was innately good for the working class.
That was how Shiv Kumar Mandal, a Delhi rickshaw driver, explained why he continued to transport passengers during a prolonged and horrific temperature spike that experts attribute to global heating. Mandal, one presumes, does not consider planetary warming a topic relevant only to the rich. Yet, in the wake of the Australian federal election, we’re hearing versions of that claim again and again and again. Think of how Liberal Senator Hollie Hughes – one of the Coalition’s senior spokespeople on climate, no less – recently dubbed warming “almost like a luxury issue”. Similarly, Quillette editor Claire Lehmann says those who advocate for renewable energy do so primarily to signal their own wealth, while the Spectator’s Rebecca Weisser judges the poll a victory for “green and teal rent-seeking elites” (whom she describes as having “been helped immeasurably by an education system that indoctrinates children and young adults, from kindergarten through to university, in the cult of climate catastrophism, legitimising climate ‘strikes’ during school hours, which are openly attended by Greens and the Socialist Alliance.”). Meanwhile, Lillian Andrews goes so far as to claim the election reveals the Liberals are “becoming the new party of the ordinary people”, with their climate stance revamping “what were once core Labor values of protecting the working class and defending their rights.” Well, it’s nice to have an imagination. In the real world, anyone concerned about the actual working class recognises that, always and everywhere, global warming most harms the oppressed and the poor. The horrific Indian heatwave means temperatures in Delhi have exceeded 42C for 25 days since summer began. Yet millions of workers still toil outside, simply because, like Mandal, they can’t afford to stay out of the sun. In the unbearable conditions, all of them suffer – and some of them die. “This is not just exhaustion or discomfort,” says Avikal Somvanshi of the Urban Lab at the Center of Science and Environment. “It is actually killing people.” The same distinction between the wealthy, who can protect themselves from a warming planet, and the poor, who patently cannot, manifests in the developed world. With a heatwave gripping the United States, authorities have urged a hundred million Americans to stay inside. Alexia Gonzales works for Instacart. Her employers might sit in air-conditioned comfort but she certainly can’t. “It’s too hot to work,” she told the Guardian, “but this is when people want deliveries.” Across the planet, rising temperatures mean densely populated areas become “urban heat islands”, as the concrete landscapes inhabited by working-class families absorb the sun and then warm up the air. By combining satellite measurements with census data, University of North Carolina researcher Angel Hsu has shown how heat correlates both with poverty and race. Shockingly, almost everywhere in America communities of colour endure temperatures a degree higher on average than those faced by non-Hispanic white people. Similar factors govern the population’s exposure to the climate crisis in Australia, where, for instance, western Sydney gets an astonishing 8-10 degrees hotter during heatwaves than the eastern parts of the city. It’s not just a question of temperatures, either. We know the carbon getting pumped into the atmosphere means more fires and more flooding – and we know who will bear the brunt of the entirely predictable disasters that will ensue. Researchers looking at the 2019-2020 bushfires say that “the most socio-economically disadvantaged communities bore a disproportionately higher hazard exposure in the Black Summer than relatively advantaged communities.” Likewise, the floods of 2022 most affected poorer households, who were more likely to live in riskier areas and less likely to be covered by insurance. To put it another way, if you’re not fighting global warming, you don’t care about the working class, irrespective of how often you take to Sky News to rage rhetorically against “woke elites”. Given what’s at stake for ordinary people, we might wonder why environmentalism hasn’t been unequivocally linked to the battlers to the extent where green might be proclaimed the new red. Part of the answer lies with how so many of the climate “solutions” espoused by mainstream politicians come straight out of the neoliberal toolkit. Decades of philosophical dominance by rightwing economists means, ever since the 1990s, the default response to global warming has centred on market mechanisms akin to those that, for everyone outside the political class, turned “reform” into a dirty word. When policymakers enthuse about emissions trading systems and other free market nostrums, to many ordinary people they sound just like the brainiacs who “reformed” public utilities, industrial relations, welfare and education into the ground. The Labor party’s long association with neoliberalism equally espoused by the Liberals helps explain the continuing drift of rusted-on voters away from both major parties. But a recognition of that disenchantment doesn’t mean embracing fantasies about the Liberals somehow establishing themselves as the proletarian choice. It’s wrong, for instance, to see the election result as showing progressivism as “a politics of the rich” and conservatism “the politics of the struggling”. On the contrary, in his granular breakdown of voting trends, data scientist Shaun Ratcliff shows that, despite the success of the Teals, the Liberals remain very much the party of privilege. “[I[t is still mostly true,” he says, “that well-off and established voters are more likely to vote for the Coalition, and lower-income working-age Australians generally continued to vote for the left in 2022.” That shouldn’t come as any surprise. Working-class voters – in Australia and around the world – increasingly mistrust all established parties. But that doesn’t render them innately conservative. The cow tends not to vote for the butcher. Understandably, workers want reassurances that, in a low-carbon future, they won’t lose the social gains they’ve secured in the traditional polluting industries. But the generations of unionists who won relatively high wages in mining would turn in their graves at the suggestion that coal – a substance stained for a century and a half with the blood of those who extracted it – was innately good for the working class.