Reply to Raymond Hickman: It's "green" warfare!

Rolf Martens rolf.martens at
Fri Jun 21 18:14:28 MDT 1996

Reply to Raymond Hickman: It's "green" warfare!  [Posted: 22.06.96]

Hello Raymond,

On Fri 21.06.96, you wrote, under "re. labour aristocracy":

>Seeing as my question about new cars seemed not to go down to
>well, let me ask another.

>Is it ecologically sustainable for the populations of India and
>China to consume goods and services at the same rate as that of
>an average US citizen?

>If the answer is no; is this because consumption in US society is
>skewed by the existence of a massively over consuming capitalist
>class? Or is it skewed by the existence of a moderately over
>consuming middle class - however that middle class is defined? Or
>is it that the US working class is consuming at a rate that is
>unsustainable on a world scale?

>All the best Raymond Hickman.

The answer to your question, "is it ecologically sustainable...?",
of course is YES.

It only takes a simple look-up of some facts, and some simple
calculations, to show this.

The very fact that someone's asking such a question on a
Marxism list shows how far things have gone today with the
bourgeois "green" warfare propaganda. I posted some things
on this a couple of weeks ago to this list.

The "sustainable development" propaganda which today is
being disseminated by the main forces of the bourgeoisie in
the world is an ultra-rightist, counter-revolutionary, pro-
genocidal propaganda. It's directed against the workers and
the oppressed peoples. It's a very important task for the genuine
Marxists to counter it. This propaganda goes in the direction
that "the natural resources are becoming scarce". It aims at
making people accept the present ultra-reactionary anti-growth,
anti-technolgy, anti-science and anti-industrial campaigns, which
the main bourgeois forces are engaging in in order to prevent
conditions from ripening for revolution. These campaigns already
have had enormously harmful effects for the masses.

How is it with the "ecological sustainability"?

At present, mankind is moving and/ore using how much matter
on the surface of the Earth per year? Some 3 billion tons of
oil, another 3 billion of coal, 1 billion ton of iron, 3 billion
tons of grains, etc, etc. These are very very rough figures.

When uranium production was at its greatest, in the mid-80:s,
45 000 tons of it were produced per year. The ores in this case
are not rich: 1 ton normally contains only between 300 grams
and 3000 grams of uranium. So such mining might involve
moving another 0.15 billion tons. Other metal mining involves
I don't know how much more matter. And there's the production
of cement etc for building houses etc.

Altogether, probably something between 20 billion tons and
50 billion tons of matter per year is being moved or used,
I'd estimate. That's between 2 x (E13) and 5 x (E13) kilos.

(I use "E13" as meaning 10 000 000 000 000 kilos, the
number "13" showing the number of zeros.)

The Earth surface down to a mining level of, say 600 meters,
how much matter does it contain? A rough calculation I once
made gave the answer: Some 5 x (E20) kilos - scientists
present on the list, please correct me if I'm wrong. I've taken
the mean density of the Earth surface matter to be 2 (kilos per
cubic decimeter). My figure is not that far off the mark, I hope.

So there's E(20 - 13) = E7 kilos as much matter in that part
of the surface as we're now using per year, 10 million times
as much. This means: Not to worry on *that* account just yet,
Raymond, or you Indian or Chinese or other people. In the
quite foreseeable future, there lies access to all moon
surfaces (at least) in "our" planetary system as well.

Pollution problems? Can be solved, tehcnically, without not
too great effort. The ultra-reactionary  media and the ultra-
reactionary phoney"Marxists" (a great number of them at
least) of the bourgeoisie are going on and on about "pollution
problems". But the fact that hey're directing their main
attack, even, precisely against *nuclear energy*, which is the
cleanest of all, with practically no pollution at all (and the
waste "problem" is very easy to solve), shows quite clearly
that they're really after something quite different.

Not more on this subject for now. I just wanted to show you
and others how important the struggle against the "green"
warfare is. I'll return to these matters later.

Well, I'll just briefly mention a couple of interesting facts:
World energy use was some 50 000 TWh in 1970. I think
it might be some 100 000 TWh today. Suppose you take
those 45 000 tons of uranium mined per year which I
mentioned above and use them in breeder reactors,
which (according to 1978 French figures) could get
2.2 million kWh out of every kilo of U (instead of the
60 000 kWh gotten out of it with present-day thermal or
conventional reactors), then you would cover the entire
present yearly need for the world: 100 000 Twh.

Lying around in some places today - don't ask me where
but it's "waste" from mainly U.S. and Russian enrichment
plants - are some 500 000 tons of "depleted" uranium,
I'd guess (rough calculation). (Here I haven't even
mentioned all that bomb material some people are
talking about as about to be "neutralized" - it could be
used too, if they wanted it to, for energy production.)

Anyway, that (estimated) half-billion tons of uranium,
which still has practically all of its (theoretical, breeder-
use-possible) energy content still left in it, would  cover
10 times present world energy needs.

There also are great amounts of oil and natural gas.
These substances are *not* biological in origin, as the
reactionary and systematically erroneous denoting of them
as "fossil" (and therefore "scarce") would have people
believe, but cosmic. The've been there in the Earth all
the time (in the form of lower carbo-hydrates which
later may form into higher ones); the other planets have
them, too, in particular the outer ones, which have
enormous amounts of methane (i.e., natural gas, you
could say) in their atmospheres. Just drill deep enough
(which is being done in some places, too), say 6000-
7000 metres, and you'll get plenty of oil and natural gas.

"Global warming"? A bourgeois hoax. I'll venture to
prove this, although I'm not a technical expert, in one
or more later postings. The matter is being discussed
on newsgroup '', by the way - some of the
writers there know much more about it than I do. The
"ozone hole" quite obviously is another one of those
reactionary hoaxes.

One thread which went on and on for months on
'alt.activism' and some other groups, some time ago,
and whose subject line I found very good was: "Right-wing
nuts think 'environmentalism is Marxism'". It showed that I
by no means am the only one to have seen through these
bourgeois ultras on this point.

But as I said, more about these things later.

Rolf M.

     --- from list marxism at ---

More information about the Marxism mailing list