Is the "Eco" in EcoSocialism Redundant?

It's not easy being green

An old friend provokes me to look at a few foundational texts on ecosocialism. The one I’m going to react to, because it’s available for free, is here, by Richard W. Franke. It was written three years ago.

I come to this with jaundiced priors. Many years ago (27 — yikes) I did an online debate with Bill McKibben, before he was Bill McKibben. Most of it is paywalled. My basic beef was the implied Green denunciation of mass consumption. For most of the world’s people, too much consumption is not the problem, to say the least. Given the wherewithal, I would do a little more consuming myself. Naturally the question arises, just who are those gluttons consuming more than their share?

You have to wonder, if it’s the citizens of the richer nations who will have to consume less so that others can consume more, minus an additional increment to satisfy the eco concerns, how could these citizens be expected to cooperate? What sort of political regime would be required to enforce such a sea change in international economics?

In my debate with McKibben, my reservation was that such a regime would amount to what later became known as neo-liberalism. At the time the U.S. was still in the throes of deficit dementia, then and still a stalking horse for attacks on Social Security and Medicare. Aside from defense, most Federal spending finances consumption. A deficit or debt problem becomes a consumption problem.

As it is for socialism, there is no lack of diversity in ecosocialism. It would be foolish to zero in on any particular variety. I still have to ask, aren’t socialists in general attuned to climate change? At first blush, you might think the terminology is an implied criticism of climate change weaklings. Or that the standard program of ecosocialism is more focused on climate matters, or goes deeper into the weeds, than your average socialist does. In either case, the political dilemma noted above arises. That’s why some time ago I proposed a change in the “Green New Deal” rubric to “A New Deal that is Green.” It hasn’t caught on.

The Franke text enumerates the following concerns:

(1) atmospheric aerosol loading

(2) chemical pollution

(3) ocean acidification

(4) stratospheric ozone depletion

(5) fresh water use

(6) land system changes

(7) biodiversity

(8) climate change

(9) reactive nitrogen

It’s interesting that “climate change” was a subcategory in Franke’s list. I have to admit I rarely think about most of these myself, so maybe we do need to put the “eco” in front of socialism. I thought #4 had been fixed, under capitalism no less, though an instant Google check indicates the repair has another forty years to run. Still, the failure of these to rise into public awareness again signals the political problem. The climate most care about the most is inside their refrigerators. A subscription to the weekly Nature magazine costs $199.

The greatest threat from climate change might be social, as the growing inhabitability of settled places in the Global South drives migration to the rich countries. This is already the greatest source of political neo-fascist reaction, both in Western Europe and the U.S. Residents hate immigrants. Even recent immigrants hate newer immigrants. The base issue of climate change could prove to be Race.

We in the U.S. could experience no lack of chaos ourselves due to the progressive disappearance of our own coastlines. Louisiana is getting there first. Some years back, for the first time in a while, I drove the FDR drive on the east side of Manhattan, along the East River. I was shocked to see myself almost level with the waterline. I keep telling my daughter not to buy a house in Florida, since half the state could be underwater in her lifetime.

I have to conclude that as long as ordinary kitchen table, meat and potatoes concerns are front of mind for most people, ecosocialism will have to wait for socialism. There may not be enough time.