PES Manifesto

1. Balancing inconvenients of fighting climate change - in the long run by giselaoliv on Tuesday, October 2, 2007 at 10:55

It's true that when talking about fighting climate change people seldom consider its disadvantages - like reducing employment in some economic sectors. However, climate change is a reality with heavy consequences we cannot ignore. By making investments in cleaner energy for instance in the long run we can create new jobs for a whole part of the society - earth-friendly high tech job. Just look at the example of Denmark and the wind power.

2. Unemployment still a challenge by Asynjen on Tuesday, October 2, 2007 at 12:13

@giselalov Of course we cannot ignore climate change, but I still see the problem of unemployment. Youøre completely right that cleaner energy could create new jobs, but will it actually be jobs that people from the 'old' energy sector could take up? I think it will require an extreme retraining/reschooling effort to 'move' people from the 'old' to the 'new' sector.

3. Maybe this is the wrong way of looking at it... by carl0s on Friday, October 5, 2007 at 20:55

I'm concerned that well-meaning people can tie themselves in knots over this issue. Whilst I don't want to over-simplify things, there are some things that seem apparent to me. The idea that the environmental challenge can be met by post-war economic thinking, whether it comes from right or left, is wrong. The first generation to properly understand the issues - if not the extent of the problem - was the 1960s generation. It's only by looking to the post-68 reality that anything can change in regards to the environment. And that means listening to people involved in direct action and protest. It also means that conservatives, and politicians glued to economic orthodoxy, can have a big problem in adapting to the new politics. The overriding issue is one of aspiration and what kind of life people aim for. If we look at TV series, normally these show a resource-intensive lifestyle, in big houses, fast cars, yachts and surrounded by the trappings of luxury. As long as this remains the ideal for people, progress in cutting consumption is going to be limited, and the trash the West produces will continue circling the globe in search of a toxic dustbin somewhere. Are our politicians brave enough to tell people this? By devolving responsibility and lecturing people to spend more money on environmentally friendly goods, we don't address the issue of how an economy based on economic growth, based on oil, can adjust. Consumerism is not the way forward, but there is no easy escape route. Recessions force many people into a depression where they see others monopolizing wealth and opportunity for the good life. This only makes the affected want these things more. The societies we aspire to must not only talk in terms of knowledge and creativity. The hardest thing, is that they must act blindfolded, and try to transform the realisation of the innate creative potential of men and women into the driving engine of society. Maybe it's just as important, that people in urban areas build a stronger connection to land, and know the basic techniques of growing crops. This can be through innovative use of public space. We need to create an alternate reality through small-scale initiatives, bartering, a genuine emphasis on local belonging and a wider awareness. Most of all, we must know that this is not a constriction or a retreat from progress. It's a new exploration. The technology is there, as the 100 dollar laptop shows us. We can make things with kinetic power sources, using renewables, we have a new world to explore.

4. What should the manifesto say? by editor on Monday, October 8, 2007 at 18:32

Good point regarding the connection between consumerism and environmental issues. What would you suggest to put in the PES 2009 manifesto with respect to overcoming consumerism and encouraging more eco-friendly life styles in Europe? What should our 'tools' be?

5. Transparent life-cycles could be a start by carl0s on Wednesday, October 17, 2007 at 07:27

As a first step, we should ask all manufacturers providing items for sale in the EU to provide an estimate of the average life-cycle of all production goods. Then this estimate should appear on the label or box of the item itself. This would be pending confirmation from an independent agency which would confirm or reject this assessment of the life-cycle. Consumers also need clarification on how repairable each item is and its potential to use alternative energy sources (kinetic or solar, for example) to power the item. Lastly we ask the producers to assess the potential for plastic waste (particularly in relation to food items). Therefore, buyers are able to see some of the underlying costs of the item throughout its application; rather than the simple retail price. We need to move away from the distinction between expensive ethical goods and those which are bought by most people. The waste we use, and resources we squander, can be hugely reduced by improvements in the quality of cheaper and mid-range items. It doesn't spell the end of consumerism, but it could curtail the tendency to sell items which are failing to decompose in a landfill just a few months after purchase. Then, comes a certification for labour rights attached to each item...

6. Dare to have a bold socialist employment policy by Migeru on Tuesday, October 23, 2007 at 15:04

What to do with Energy, Construction and Transportation jobs? To offer a bold employment policy with sufficient funds to allow people to adjust and switch their employment from drity sectors to clean sectors. Unlike the transition from manufacturing to services, which replaced qualified, well-paid industrial jobs with unqualified, low-paying service jobs, renewable energy requires as many, if not more, qualified jobs as fossil-fuel power plants. Microgeneration has the potential to create many more jobs than building and operating a few mammoth coal or gas plants. The same is true of construction. It requires better technology and more and better qualified construction workers to build energy-efficient houses with microgeneration ability. And a reform of transportation implies a change of transportation modes, not a reduction in transport. What is needed is that the Socialist parties stop parrotingneoliberal economic talking points because they think it's the only way to sound respectable, and advocate for a truly progressive employment policies with unemployment subsidies for people who lose their jobs in dirty industries and free training in clean technologies.