The Paris climate deal is and always has been more about destroying capitalism and engineering a worldwide Marxist society and economy controlled and regulated by central planners and not by supply and demand. Yes, the agreement discusses changes in the last century or so with falsified data. According to the alarmists, the ocean was supposed to have covered much of the land mass already and the polar bear was to have been extinct. I think the whales and seals were supposed to have survived to this point, but surly they must be in trouble as well.
This agreement only uses “climate change” as a reason to eliminate capitalism. The Obama’s of the world understand if they can convince the huge numbers of “useful idiots” that the world is ending because capitalism is bringing about “climate change,” they can accomplish their real goal; a world of social justice, total equality, central planning and no evil capitalists who only oppress the “proletariat.”
Here is the tirade against capital from the agreement.
Capitalism has a fundamental incapacity when it comes to dealing with problems like global warming, that are problems of global collective action. As a rule, capital resists regulation, even though to tame the intrinsic anarchy of capitalist production arising from competition, that is fundamental to capitalism and the capitalist system in general, regulation by the state is a necessity. Particularly in the case of the environment, capitalists have been even more resistant to regulation, though in a number of cases it has had to come to terms with its unavoidability. This is partly of course as a consequence of the struggle of the population at large against environmental destruction which harms social well-being, which capitalism has also had to take account of, alongside its own self-interest. Nevertheless, particularly in the neo-liberal era, any hint of planning or regulation draws the most visceral reaction from the capitalist class. Thus, there is a always a sharp contradiction under capitalism between the recognition of the need to regulate the behavior of individual capitalists through the aegis of the state, alongside constant calls at different periods of time for the withdrawal of the state from its regulatory functions.
Since capital has a fundamental problem in dealing with collective action issues especially at the global level, any attempt at resolving such issues is messy and complicated, with different sections of capital expressing contradictory views on what needs to be done. But there are clear criteria for capital of the terms under which any attempt at resolving such issues should be undertaken.
One of these criteria is that capital needs to be assured that whatever be the means of solving an environmental problem, such means will not affect, or at least not seriously, the fundamental imperative for profit-making. Curbing or limiting profits by increasing costs without any corresponding adjustment elsewhere is anathema to capital. In general, even a state of urgency is not sufficient to persuade capital to lower its profits. The long history of capital in sectors such as pharmaceuticals and chemicals has shown that the common interest of society as a whole will take a back seat until that particular section of capitalists are prepared to or are forced to stop production of hazardous substances.
Another fundamental criterion for capital to deal with the problem of global warming on its own terms is the assurance that any solution will be through the market. In the early days of action to protect the environment and deal with environmental pollution, it seemed that imposing limits directly, with increased costs and decline in profits was the only solution. But these methods, now disparagingly referred to as “command and control”, have been superseded by attempts to solve environmental problems through market mechanisms, such as pollution trading. After all, in the logic of capital, if the value of commodities is set not by need but by exchange, why should this not apply to the value of the environment itself? In capital’s view, if this logic can apply to essential human needs and well-being as in the case of medicines or food, why can this not be extended to the environment as well? It of course does not matter to capital that markets will not always work as they are supposed to or that the idea that markets provided the best means of achieving a harmonious economic order is more often than not illusory.
The significance of global warming question for the broader Left across the world lies in the renewed justification of its fundamental opposition to capital. Paris shows, as never before in the history of climate and sustainable development negotiations, that the capitalist economic and social order is what stands in the way of re-organizing the productive capacities of human society on a rational and sustainable basis. At the same time, it provides a renewed opportunity to mobilize the working people of the world in the struggle for a just and equitable transformation of the relations of production, showing how it is linked to protecting humanity itself. India, will in all likelihood, be among the main arenas of this struggle in the years to come, where development and the advance of well-being of the bulk of its population must be undertaken in the shadow of the threat of global warming.
The real reason for the Paris climate agreement has nothing to do with climate and everything to do with the elimination of capitalism worldwide.