The 20th yearly session of the Conference of the Parties (COP 20) to the 1992 United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC), in Lima in Peru, has been a total failure, due to the inter-imperialist contradictions.
The sharpening of the general crisis of capitalism impeaches any rational and coordinated approach of the question of climate change, and it is logical as climate change is the product of the contradiction between city and countryside which is inherent to the capitalist mode of production.
Therefore, the source of the problem stays invisible for people trapped in the capitalist worldview, and imperialist competition is the main identity of the events of the world, like we can see it in Ukraine and Syria.
The only answer that capitalism can make is trying to manage: being better managers is the watchword of all bourgeois, be it Fascists, Trotskyists, liberals, conservatives, etc. But managing is not attacking the very roots of climate change.
Climate change is produced by the non-harmonious relationship of humanity with the Biosphere, because of the division of humanity, its irrational approach concerning matter and living matter. The consequence is that the Biosphere is attacked by the events of everyday capitalism: pollution of the sea and the soils, deforestation, annihilation of living beings, massive urbanization.
Peoples of the world are placed in a submitted position in the question of food sovereignty, being dependent of the monopolies, which power is nearly absolute. This expresses itself in the field of rights: the Conference in Lima finished without any legally binding and it will be each state that shall announce in the next months the amount of carbon emissions it is ready to cut. The capitalists will decide on an independent national basis, having in mind their own needs.
The unification of humanity is so an urgent task. The Biosphere needs a socialist humanity overstepping the contradiction between cities and countryside. There are always more megacities that are formed – this must stop.
As Friedrich Engels stressed it, explaining the dialectical materialist point of view here:
“Only a society which makes it possible for its productive forces to dovetail harmoniously into each other on the basis of one single vast plan can allow industry to be distributed over the whole country in the way best adapted to its own development, and to the maintenance and development of the other elements of production.
Accordingly, abolition of the antithesis between town and country is not merely possible. It has become a direct necessity of industrial production itself, just as it has become a necessity of agricultural production and, besides, of public health.
The present poisoning of the air, water and land can be put an end to only by the fusion of town and country; and only such fusion will change the situation of the masses now languishing in the towns, and enable their excrement to be used for the production of plants instead of for the production of disease (…).
The abolition of the separation of town and country is therefore not utopian, also, in so far as it is conditioned on the most equal distribution possible of modern industry over the whole country.
It is true that in the huge towns civilisation has bequeathed us a heritage which it will take much time and trouble to get rid of. But it must and will be got rid of, however, protracted a process it may be (…)”.
The question of the relationship between the cities and the countryside is the burning one of the 21th century. This a major demarcation line with the anti-materialist and the anti-democratic trends. The masses are the first one to suffer of climate change, because they are living beings who want to live in joy, knowing happiness. A world destroyed by capitalism is incompatible with that. In this sense, we consider as historic the joint document we made in November 2011 with the comrades of Bangladesh and called “Let's face climate change !”.
Climate change is a central topicality for the progressive people, for the revolutionaries, and it is a proof of avant-garde to deal with this question. The contempt for nature, for the animals, for the scientific understanding life as living matter, is not only reactionary, but also counter-revolutionary.
To face climate change is to face the contradiction between cities and countryside!
Upholding the works of Vernadsky about the Biosphere is a democratic, progressive task!
Let's face climate change with revolutionary ethics, defending life as living matter, and in proposing socialism as the harmonious social construction the Biosphere needs!