Remember, though, that his has nothing to do with politics, you guys
To confront climate change, we need to democratize, decarbonize, and decommodify our energy resources. https://t.co/SEKtDea79O
— Jacobin (@jacobin) January 7, 2019
From the link
At this past February’s “Alternative Models of Ownership Conference†hosted by the Labour Party in London, party leader Jeremy Corbyn asserted the centrality of energy policy to his vision of socialism: “The challenge of climate change requires us to radically shift the way we organize our economy.†He outlined a radical vision of an energy system powered by wind and solar, organized as a decentralized grid, democratically controlled by the communities that rely on it, and — crucially — publicly owned.
Corbyn’s declaration laid out an exciting and ambitious vision of how socialists can press on climate change. But it also served as a reminder that socialists need to get serious about the politics of energy — lest disaster capitalism continue to shape energy policy. We must get involved in concrete campaigns to transform how energy is governed and push for a just transition to renewable sources. The terrain of energy politics is multifaceted, comprising the production, transformation, distribution, and consumption of energy. Energy sources such as coal, oil, natural gas, biomass, hydropower, sunlight, and wind each entail distinct social and environmental costs related to their extraction or capture, and their subsequent transformation into usable electricity. ….
In this terrain, there are several points of entry for eco-socialist politics. Broadly, our energy vision should center on the three D’s: decarbonize, democratize, and decommodify. Decarbonizing energy sources requires massive political confrontation with the fossil-fuel industry — a movement currently being led by the frontline communities most impacted by fossil-fuel extraction and its transformation — combined with federal and state-level policies that punish carbon emissions and a regulatory framework that encourages transition to renewable sources. Meanwhile, democratization and decommodification — the collective control of energy distribution that treats energy access as a human right rather than an opportunity for profit — are another point of entry. To achieve these ends, socialists must politicize the grid, and propose alternative visions of ownership and decision-making. In the United States, over two-thirds of electricity users are served by for-profit utilities. These private monopolies are often overseen by state-level energy commissions that are ripe for regulatory capture by Big Energy and the fossil-fuel industry. Even where utilities are publicly owned, technocratic governance structures provide limited fora for public input, let alone real democratic control. Building a bridge toward a socialist energy future requires a vision of a system that removes the profit motive from the delivery of utilities services and establishes energy as a universal human right alongside other basic human needs.
Woof! That’s quite a lot to consider, but, it really does come down to a simple concept, which is nationalizing the grid, ie, all energy
As we continue developing our plan to #NationalizeGrid here in Rhode Island, throughout the country, and beyond, we must balance the three pillars of democratization, decarbonization, and decommodification with one another to ensure that each is structurally supported by, and complementary to, the other. This means no public takeover without an understanding of utilities as a basic human right that requires a full transition to renewables. It means understanding that affordability may only be achieved once we have transitioned to a sustainable grid that is democratically owned and managed by the public. And it means the transition to renewables will only satisfy our requirements if that transition is both public and affordable for everyone.
In the Democracy model, Socialism stands for three things, what are called cores: 1st, the notion that the government is going to be heavily involved in the means of production, the economy, right up to owning and controlling sectors. Nationalizing. This is the primary focus of Socialism. The other two cores in the Democracy model, to go with the Economic core, are Moral and Political. The Socialist model features the government staying the hell out of our private affairs in the Moral, and virtually no restrictions on voting in the Political. That’s not what these “socialists” want, though. In the Moral, they want government involved in our lives, and, really, if they control your energy they control you. They’re taking away your choices. In the Political, would they accept people voting against nationalizing the grid? Or would they sue when they lost at the ballot box? The latter, of course.
I’ve stated again and again, as have others, that that this whole thing is a far left political schtick, and has little to do with the economy. How well did the Soviet Union and other “socialist” countries do with actual environmental issues? Really, these people are really Fascists/Authoritarians, who want the government to control everything.
And they never seem to realize that the government will be controlling their own lives, that the bad parts will actually effect themselves.
