THE BEGINNING OF THE END: THE POLITICAL THEORY OF THE

GERMAN COMMUNIST PARTY TO THE THIRD PERIOD

By Lea Haro

Thesis submitted for degree of PhD

Centre for Socialist Theory and Movements

Faculty of Law, Business, and Social Science

January 2007 

http://theses.gla.ac.uk/1337/1/2007harophd.pdf

Table of Contents

Abstract I

Acknowledgments iv

Methodology

i. Why Bother with Marxist Theory? I

ii. Outline 5

iii. Sources 9

1. Introduction

-

The Origins of German Communism: A 14

Historical Narrative of the German Social Democratic Party

a. The Gotha Unity 15

b. From the Erjlurt Programme to Bureaucracy 23

c. From War Credits to Republic 30

II. The Theoretical Foundations of German Communism

-

The 39

Theories of Rosa Luxemburg

a. Luxemburg as a Theorist 41

b. Rosa Luxemburg's Contribution to the Debates within the 47

SPD

i. Revisionism 48

ii. Mass Strike and the Russian Revolution of 1905 58

c. Polemics with Lenin 66

i. National Question 69

ii. Imperialism 75

iii. Political Organisation 80

Summary 84

Ill. Crisis of Theory in the Comintern 87

a. Creating Uniformity in the Comintern 91

i. Role of Correct Theory 93

ii. Centralism and Strict Discipline 99

iii. Consequences of the Policy of Uniformity for the 108

KPD

b. Comintern's Policy of "Bolshevisation" 116

i. Power Struggle in the CPSU 120

ii. Comintern After Lenin 123

iii. Consequences of Bolshevisation for KPD 130

iv. Legacy of Luxemburgism 140

c. Consequences of a New Doctrine 143

i. Socialism in One Country 145

ii. Sixth Congress of the Comintern and the 150

Emergence of the Third Period

Summary 159

IV. The Third Period and the Development of the Theory of Social 162

Fascism in Germany

a. "Benign" Use of Social Fascism 166

i. Zinoviev and Social Fascism 167 

ii. Bucharin and Social Fascism 174

b. The Practical Foundations of a Pseudo Theory 180

i. Wittorf Affair 181

ii. Blutmai

- Bloody May Day 1929 184

iii. The KPD's Reaction to the May Day 188

Demonstrations

c. Pseudo Theory Takes Hold 193

d. Consequences for German Communism 203

Summary 210

V. Conclusion 212

Bibliography 221

Appendix

Chronological Table 236

Abbreviations and Acronyms 248 

Abstract

In Marxist movements theory played a significant role. Even after the

Stalinisation of the various Comintem parties, theory was propagated as crucial

to their development. The KPD was born out of the rich theoretical traditions of

the German Social Democratic Party (SPD). As disillusioned Lassalleans,

Wilhelm Liebknecht and August Bebel chose Marxism as their theoretical guide

to a Socialist outcome. As the political and economic climate in Germany

changed the party grew and made parliamentary gains the nature of the SPD

changed, much to the frustration of Rosa Luxemburg and the Left of the SPD.

The final straw was, of course, the SPD's voting for war credits in 1914. In

breaking away from the German Social Democratic Party Rosa Luxemburg had

a clear idea of the type of party she hoped Spartakusbund would become. She

sought a party that resembled the pre-1906 SPD

- one that was democratic and

non-bureaucratic. Therefore, one must ask -

how was it possible that in the

short life span of the Weimar Republic for Luxemburg's party to arrive at its

Social Fascist end?

First, from its foundation in 1919 the fledgling German Communist

Party (KPD) struggled to find its way. A few weeks after its founding congress,

government forces murdered Rosa Luxemburg and Karl Liebknecht. In the

months to follow, other key leaders and theoreticians also died

- either by

natural causes (in the case of Franz Mehring) or at the hands of government

forces. Finding itself in a weakened position the fledgling party turned to the

Bolsheviks for practical and theoretical guidance. However the Bolsheviks

were desperate to spread the revolution to Europe, in particular to Gennany, in

i 

order to save their revolution. With this in mind Lenin and the Bolsheviks

attempted to force Russian methods onto the German party with little or no

regard as to whether those methods suited the German needs. Rather than force

the revolution forward, Lenin's Policy of Uniformity merely served to further

weaken the leadership's position within the party. The party leadership rather

than maintain its independence from the Bolsheviks and fight matters, in which

they fundamentally disagreed simply resigned, thereby allowing the party to

become subordinate to the Russian party. While it was never Lenin's intention,

his desire to force the revolution forward helped lay the foundations for the

more repressive policy of Bolshevisation.

Second, Lenin's death and the failed German Revolution of 1923

marked a tremendous turning point. In the Soviet party the power struggle that

ensued served to discredit the old Bolsheviks, especially Trotsky and any who

posed a threat to Soviet hegemony. The Comintern's Policy of Bolshevisation

was used to contain and control the revolutionary aspiration of its member

parties. In Germany the failed revolution of 1923 and the "period of relative

stabilisation" that followed paved the way for the Maslow-Fischer group to take

control of the party. The Maslow-Fischer group officially adopted

Bolshevisation and used it to purge the party of the Right and Centre wings.

Armed with the Policy of Bolshevisation the Maslow-Fischer group launched

attacks against Rosa Luxemburg, her supporters, and their Social Democratic

past. The campaigns against Luxemburg were fairly successful. Although she

remained an enduring symbol in the KPD, her memory as a revolutionary

theoretician was successfully manipulated.

ii 

The Comintern Policy of Bolshevization not only served to purge the

KPD of its Soviet opposition it also laid the foundations for the propagation of

Social Fascism first as campaign against Social Democracy and then as a

theory. In many ways Social Fascism was an exaggerated form of

Bolshevisation. It began as a form of name calling - equating Social

Democracy with Fascism. Later with the fall of Zinoviev and Bukharin Social

Fascism was developed into a fully fledged theory.

The purpose of this thesis is to explore how and why the political

theory of German Marxism changed as it passed through its various phases,

essentially how it progressed from a theory of revolution to becoming

synonymous with the dogma and repression of Social Fascism. This thesis will

argue that the theoreticians and leaders of the German Communist movement

were overwhelmed and unable to develop theory that reflected their unique

circumstances. It was their own internal weakness and inability to lead that

allowed the movement to be over taken by the Bolsheviks. Lenin's policy of

Uniformity served to weaken the KPD leadership within the party. Each

Comintern policy that followed left the party weaker and further subordinated to

the Soviet party. While not a single Comintern policy can be blamed for the

KPD's Social Fascist outcome, each played a role in weakening the German

movement. 

Trotsky on Fascism

BY KATHY DEACON

Photograph Source: Gigi Ibrahim – CC BY 2.0

In the many articles, essays, and pamphlets Trotsky wrote about Germany in the early ‘30s while exiled on the Turkish island of Prinkipo (gathered together in a 600-page volume, The Struggle Against Fascism in Germany, Pathfinder Press), he developed what many consider to be the most comprehensive theory of fascism to date. While the term is used loosely to describe right-wing authoritarianism in general, for Trotsky it denoted an entirely distinct phenomenon arising during the interwar period embodied by Mussolini and Hitler. He felt the German left failed to grasp fascism’s unique character—and were ignoring the need for immediate action. In light of questions surrounding the whole nature of the Trump phenomenon—Trotsky’s writing on the subject may take on a contemporary relevance.

Underlying his theory of fascism is the notion that capitalism is in a very advanced stage of decay—has long outlived its revolutionary role–and is incapable of further democratic development, only retrenchment:

Trotsky writes,

“Marx demonstrated and proved that when capitalism reaches a certain level, the only way out for society lies in the socialization of the means of production, i.e., socialism. . . . Fascism did not at all come ‘instead’ of socialism. Fascism is the continuation of capitalism, an attempt to perpetuate its existence by means of the most bestial and monstrous measures.” (p. 591-2)

“. . . with the war there begins the distinct decline of capitalism and above all of its democratic form of domination. It is now no longer a matter of new reforms and alms, but of cutting down and abolishing the old ones. Therewith the bourgeoisie comes into conflict not only with the institutions of proletarian democracy (trade unions and political parties) but also with parliamentary democracy, within the framework of which the workers’ organizations arose. Hence the campaign against ‘Marxism’ on the one hand and against democratic parliamentarism on the other.”(366-7)

Fascism “differentiates itself from all other reactionary regimes in that it rejects all compromise with social democracy . . . deprives it of all legal means of existence. It depends upon the systematic annihilation of each and every form of the independent organization of the masses.” (202)

The U.S., of course, in its entire history has never had a movement or organization anything like German Social Democracy (SPD), a huge mass party of the working class that is ideologically socialist. Labeling Democratic politicians “far left,” Trump and his Republicans treat the Democrats as if they were such a party. Since such a party does not exist they proceed to invent one and do battle with the chimera of Marxism.

Trotsky describes the progression of a fascist takeover–that may be based to some extent on his impressions of Mussolini’s Italy.

“At the moment that the normal police and military resources . . .no longer suffice to hold society in a state of equilibrium—the turn of the fascist regime arrives. Through the fascist agency, capitalism sets in motion the crazed petty bourgeoisie, and bands of the declassed and demoralized lumpenproletariat; all the countless human beings whom finance capital itself has brought to desperation and frenzy. . . . From fascism the bourgeoisie demands a thorough job . . .And the fascist agency, by utilizing the petty bourgeoisie as a battering ram, by overwhelming all obstacles in its path does a thorough job. After fascism is victorious, finance capital gathers into its hands, as in a vise of steel, directly and immediately, all the organs and institutions of sovereignty, the executive, administrative, and educational powers of the state; the entire state apparatus together with the army, the municipalities, the universities, the schools, the press, the trade unions . . . the workers’ organizations are annihilated . . . a system of administration is created which penetrates deeply into the masses . . .

“. . . The above is not at all contradicted by the fact that during a given period, between the democratic and the fascist systems, a transitional regime is established, which combines the features of both; such, in general, is the law that governs the displacement of one social system by another, even though they are irreconcilably inimical to each other. There are periods when the bourgeoisie leans upon both the Social Democracy and fascism, that is, during which it simultaneously manipulates its electoral and terroristic agencies. . . . But such a condition of the state and of the administration is temporary in character. It signalizes the transition period, during which the Social Democracy is on the verge of exhausting its mission, while in that same period, neither Communism nor fascism is ready as yet to seize power.” (p. 200)

“[T]he magnates of capital are unable by their force alone to cope with the proletariat. They need the support of the petit-bourgeoisie. For this purpose, it must be whipped up, put on its feet, mobilized, armed. . . .

“The bourgeoisie in decline is incapable of maintaining itself in power with the methods and means of its own creation—the parliamentary state. . . . But the established bourgeoisie does not like the fascist means of solving its problems . . . for the shocks and disturbances, although in the interests of bourgeois society, involve dangers for it as well. This is the source of the antagonism between fascism and the traditional parties of the bourgeoisie.” (p.367-8)

“When the social crisis takes on an intolerable acuteness, a particular party occurs on the scene with the direct aim of agitating the petty bourgeoisie to a white heat and of directing its hatred and its despair against the proletariat. In Germany, this historic function is fulfilled by National Socialism . . .” (371)

Officers from the lower and middle commanding ranks of the defeated German army rallied to National Socialism—and they became its leaders. Trotsky’s description of the “ruined and drowning people“ who enabled Hitler’s rise to power is a merciless snapshot of a hungry and dispossessed “petty bourgeoisie.” Their rage toward the less fortunate, jealousy of elites, and feverish nation worship bring to mind the Trump base. Germany’s economic crises—first hyperinflation and then the 1930 depression—have pushed them to the political right—at the same time the working class has moved to the left.

The ravaged German lower middle class feels that no political party really represents them (and in this way they resemble Trump’s white working-class base–whose erstwhile party, the Democrats, has been taken over by neoliberals). The political and cultural fault lines in Weimar Germany and US have much to do with geography—rural versus urban—and in the US, the coasts against the heartland.

But unlike Hitler and Mussolini, America’s wannabe proto-fascist leader has no troops directly working for him—though he seems to have deputized various groups; he has mostly taken over an acquiescent Republican party. His overconfident oratorical style however is Hitlerian–relying on shallow slogans, false equivalencies, an excoriation of socialists, Marxists, and other “far leftists” in the Democratic party (and above all, “fake news”).

Trump, like Hitler,

“did not bring into the movement any ready-made program . . . [but[ began with grievances and complaints. . . Sentimental formlessness, absence of disciplined thought, ignorance along with gaudy erudition . . . supplied him with the possibility of uniting all types of dissatisfaction . . . and of leading the mass in the direction in which it pushed him. In the mind of the agitator was preserved . . . whatever had met with approbation. His political thoughts were the fruits of oratorical acoustics. . . .

“. . . What won’t you find here—cheap in price and in quality still lower! Recollections of the “happy” days of free competition, and hazy evocations of the stability of class society; hopes for the regeneration of the colonial empire, and dreams of a shut-in economy . . .

“. . . Political art consisted in fusing the petty bourgeoisie into oneness through its common hostility to the proletariat. . .” (Hitler’s propaganda technique, set forth in Mein Kampf, seems to be one to which Trump adheres [a former wife recalls this book was his only bedside reading]: “ . . . all propaganda must be popular and its intellectual level must be adjusted to the most limited intelligence among those it is addressed to. Consequently, the greater the mass it is intended to reach, the lower its purely intellectual level will have to be.”)

Trotsky’s essays on Germany are probably best remembered for their countless exhortations to unite and resist. Unfortunately, the German Communists (KPD) and international “comrades”–to whom his arguments in the early ’30s are directed–had been forbidden by the party to read Trotsky.

Nazi terrorism—he repeatedly insists–must be resisted by the unified opposition of Germany’s two working-class parties—Social Democracy (SPD) and the Communists (KPD)—together they form a majority of the electorate–each has its own longstanding paramilitary organizations. If their coordinated defensive struggle achieves a measure of success, it will likely be able to win over a section of the nonfascist petit bourgeoisie. The German capitalists, terrified of seeing the country falling into civil war, might then use the Prussian army to force the Nazis to back down.

He says the country’s crisis “cannot be prolonged.” The parliamentary system is in a terminal state; increasingly authoritarian and unpopular Weimar regimes rule by ‘emergency decree.’ (Should Trump, using the mechanisms of government, manage to negate the results of the election, would this be where we might find ourselves?)

Warning that the outcome of the crisis depends upon the program and action of “revolutionary leadership,” Trotsky levels scathing attacks against all groups and parties on the German left. “The principle political responsibility for the growth of fascism,” he says, “rests . . . on the shoulders of the Social Democracy”–who entrust the defense of the working class to the right-wing Weimar military and judicial apparatus.

He is unsparing in his criticism of the Comintern’s “centrist” leadership (i.e., Stalin’s Communist International), whose “policy of bureaucratic prestige covers up yesterday’s mistakes and prepares tomorrow’s . . . Monstrously exaggerating the victory of the party, monstrously underestimating the difficulties, interpreting even the success of fascism as a positive factor for the proletarian revolution.” (p.87-8)

Nonetheless, he believes the KDP is the only party capable of leading the struggle to stop Hitler—it’s “a proletarian antibourgeois party,” he writes, even if erroneously led.” (198) Few are seriously interested in saving the Weimar republic. The struggle in Germany is between the forces of fascism and revolution.

At this point Trotsky has not yet abandoned hope the Comintern can be reformed—and that KPD members will reject Stalin’s leadership, restore open discussion, and return the party to earlier democratic practices.

Following Moscow’s lead, the KPD pursues an ultraleft policy. The theory of “social fascism”—introduced by Molotov in 1928–equates Social Democracy with fascism—both are said to be “twins” in the service of monopoly capital. The Comintern proclaims, “Fascism is already here.” Failing to distinguish between fascism and authoritarianism, it labels the Weimar regimes “creeping“ fascism, insisting there will be a gradual, “organic” transition to fascism in Germany.

It takes the absurd and self-defeating position that it is first necessary to defeat the Social Democrats: “Hitler will quickly ruin himself by mismanagement” because of his inability to resolve the economic crisis, and “after Hitler it will be our turn.” (p. 204-208)

The KPD opportunistically attempts to appropriate some of the popular nationalistic slogans, and at perhaps its lowest point, in April 1931, issues a joint call with the Nazis to vote against Prussia’s Social Democratic government—the notorious “red referendum”–further estranging the SPD membership. Rather than trying to form a united front with the SPD leadership, they seek to win over individual members—their “united front from below” meets with little success.

Trotsky reminds the KPD that the longstanding Comintern policy of the United Front means forming a tactical alliance between Communists and other working-class organizations. “March separately but strike together!”–this was the basis upon which the Bolsheviks concluded an agreement with their Menshevik and SR opponents to resist General Kornilov’s attempted coup against the Kerensky government in the summer of 1917.

“Assuming a defensive position means a policy of closing ranks with the majority of the German working class and forming a united front with the Social Democratic and nonparty workers against the fascist threat.

“Denying this threat, belittling it, failing to take it seriously is the greatest crime that can be committed today against the proletarian revolution in Germany.”

“The Communist Party must call for the defense of those material and moral positions which the working class has managed to win in the German state. This most directly concerns the fate of the workers’ political organizations, trade unions, newspapers, printing plants, clubs, libraries, etc. Communist workers must say to their Social Democratic counterparts: ‘The policies of our parties are irreconcilably opposed; but if the fascists come tonight to wreck your organization’s hall, we will come running, arms in hand, to help you. Will you promise us that if our organization is threatened you will rush to our aid?

“The more persistently, seriously, and thoughtfully . . . we carry on this agitation, the more we propose serious measures for defense in every factory, in every working-class neighborhood and district, the less the danger that a fascist attack will take us by surprise.” (p.94)

“The most elementary revolutionary duty of the German Communist Party demands that it say: fascism can come into power only after a merciless, annihilating civil war to the bitter end. Above all, the worker-Communist must know this. The Social Democratic workers must know it, the nonparty workers, the whole proletariat. The whole international proletariat must know this. The Red Army must know it beforehand.”

“A victory of fascism in Germany would signify an inevitable war against the USSR. . . .

“In this enterprise, the Hitler government would be only the executive organ of world capitalism as a whole.” (p 163)

If this sounds like ’40s boilerplate, perhaps it’s because at this juncture the forces of the US ‘left’ are so marginalized and few in number, and the question now seems to be whether a liberal capitalist party can stop the United States’ descent into authoritarianism. As noted above, there is no party of the left, much as the Republicans try to pretend that there is (and equate the only large protests out on the street—BLM—as synonymous with looting and rioting). So the current question seems to be: Will the current structure of bourgeois democracy as practiced be sufficient to arrest the onset of authoritarian rule?

Another major theme of the collection is a withering critique of Social Democracy–which bases its hopes, Trotsky says, upon the restoration of the “normal” order. “[T]hough composed of workers, [it] is “entirely a bourgeois party . . . led quite expertly from the point of view of bourgeois aims . . .” (p. 198) (The tepid centrism of the Democratic party—which offers no change to the structure and acquiesces to hegemonic militarism abroad—in this way resembles German Social Democracy.)

Having expelled the leftists in their party advocating a workers united front against fascism, SPD leaders authorize the creation of the “Iron Front for Resistance Against Fascism” (a mass organization embracing the old Reichsbanner, the SPD youth, and other labor and liberal groups) but they have no intention of developing a real struggle–and are merely using it as a safety valve. They deploy it in the campaign to support the reelection of Hindenburg.

“’Act, state, intervene!’ The Social Democracy still cried a short while ago, as it fell back before fascism. And the state acted: Otto Braun and Severing were kicked into the street.” (p.414-6)

With defense of democracy their slogan, they resist neither the government’s emergency decrees’ nor the backdoor political intrigues that bring Hitler to power. After Hindenburg appoints him chancellor, on January 30, 1933, the SPD leaders, arguing that Hitler’s appointment has been constitutional, forbid any actions that might be construed as provocations. (The Communists meanwhile still call Social Democracy the main danger, at the same time they are calling for a general strike, and beginning to go into hiding or exile.)

What took Mussolini years to obtain as head of state—absolute power—will take Hitler only a few months.

With Nazism triumphant, Stalin buried his “social fascism” line. In a quick foreign-policy about-face he attempted to woo the support of Western capitalist governments through diplomatic overtures. His new “people’s front” line embraced alliances with virtually any party or group that was opposed to Nazism.

Having advocated a united front of the German working class—in which revolutionaries must never surrender their autonomy to liberal forces—but press forward with their own agenda—Trotsky rejected Stalin’s Popular Front with bourgeois democracy.

There is some confusion as to whether this Popular Front might in fact be a kind of internationalized version of Trotsky’s united front. However its objective was to ally with capitalism rather than to oppose it, Trotsky maintained that it therefore acted as a brake upon revolutionary development (in France and Spain).

He had seen the First World War bring about revolutionary change—and believed the Second World War might also become a catalyst ushering in a world revolution.

He continued to defend the USSR–and to call for the overthrow of its Stalinist leadership. But world revolution was the paramount item on his agenda.

“If revolution fails during the current war or immediately after . . . it would signify the foundering of all hope for a socialist revolution.” (In Defense of Marxism, by Leon Trotsky, p. 63-4)

In hindsight it seems suicidal, even lunatic, not to urge alliance with all countries at war with Germany, the Hitler-Stalin pact notwithstanding. At the time he was writing, maybe he still believed the West would never really come to blows with Hitler. It has to be remembered that Trotsky saw very little fighting. He was assassinated by Stalin shortly after the “phony war” in Europe ended. During this time there had been little real military action. Nonetheless, elaborate plans had been drawn up by the Western allies–including a strike against the Soviet Union to cut off its oil supply to Germany. While Anglo-French forces took no military action to defend Poland against Germany, they made plans for an expeditionary force to help Finland against the USSR. But Nazi Germany’s sudden and brutal attacks in the spring of 1940 brought about an intensified resistance in Europe.

It is argued by some that Trotsky at this juncture was rethinking his position. However his followers never did. They did not cease to inveigh against the “imperialism” of the governments of the very countries under attack by Nazi Germany.

Kathy Deacon can be reached at stradella3@msn.com.

Wind energy farms are losing out on tens of millions of revenue because of constraints in Ireland’s transmission system and the problem is getting worse, a new study shows

National grid bottlenecks mean lost revenues are mounting for wind industry

Industry body IWEA has raised concerns over bottlenecks within Ireland’s wind energy network. Photo: Pascal Rossignol/Reuters


Fearghal O'Connor

Wind farms are losing out on tens of millions of euro because of constraints in Ireland's transmission system and the problem is getting worse, a new study shows.

Wind farms lost €75.5m worth of revenue in 2019 - up from €49.7m in 2018 - because they were forced by grid operator EirGrid to either switch off completely or turn down their power output to the national grid at certain times, according to the report from the Irish Wind Energy Association (IWEA).

That meant wind farms therefore missed out on getting paid for the electricity they were not being allowed to produce because the national grid was unable to handle the load.

The report estimates tens of millions are lost every year by wind farms because of 'dispatch down', a technical term which refers to what happens when EirGrid, as the transmission system operator, turns off or reduces the amount of power a wind farm can produce for grid stability reasons.

"There is a limit to the amount of wind the system can cope with at any time and EirGrid has done great work in recent years to increase this limit up to 65pc, making us a world leader," said Noel Cunniffe, head of policy at IWEA.

"But the transmission grid itself also has constraints which mean that there may be a lot of wind farms producing power in, say Mayo, but the transmission system is too congested to get it from there to Dublin or wherever it is needed."

The revenue lost by wind farms from this type of constraint more than doubled from €14.6m in 2018 to €35.1m last year.

"While we don't have official figures from quarter one this year yet, indications are that it will actually unfortunately be a record quarter for dispatch down, primarily due to a lot of new wind generation connecting on to the system in Ireland in quarter four last year. So we have a lot more generation and we had a good few storms, which means we broke a lot of wind records in those months as well," Cunniffe said.

"So while that's the positive side of things, it has also meant record levels of dispatch down. We could have had a lot more renewables on to the grid if the grid was capable of holding it."

A key issue that has caused the problem is the failure to build major new power lines that EirGrid had proposed over the past decade because of massive local campaigns and objections, he said.

EirGrid spokesperson David Martin said that the grid operator's strategy "will ensure that renewable energy accounts for 70pc of all electricity use in Ireland by 2030 - more than double current levels".

He added: "Key to this is upgrading the power system so that it can handle world-leading levels of renewable energy, supplied through a combination of offshore and onshore wind, along with solar energy. We estimate that the cost of delivering this strategy is in excess of €2bn over the next five years."

Constraints in Northern Ireland - part of the all-Ireland power market - have also jumped quite substantially from 2018 and 2019, at a time when there was not a large amount of new renewable generation connected. "One of the main reasons for this is because the north-south interconnector is not in place. There is basically a lot of renewable energy being generated in Northern Ireland and there's a bottleneck to export that either to Belfast or across the Border," said Cunniffe.

Transmission of wind-farm-generated power from the south west and west has also been curtailed over the last year because of problems with a key transformer that connects to the country's only two 400 kilovolt power lines, which run from Moneypoint directly to north and south Dublin.

The transformer has had to be shipped to Italy for repair and an older one brought back into service for now.

But Cunniffe praised the grid operator for the work it has done to increase the capacity for renewable energy.

"EirGrid and ESB Networks are the solution here. They're really doing good work in pushing up that limit for curtailment and connecting new projects.

"What we need is the political momentum behind them to strengthen and improve the grid over the next few years so we can cut curtailment/constraints, reduce power prices and cut CO2 emissions," he said.

Sunday Indo Business

Thousands of climate activists appeal to Brussels to withdraw farming policy



Issued on: 25/10/2020 -

A tractor harvests suger beet on September 20, 2019 in Vendin les Béthune, North of France. © Denis Charlet, AFP

Text by:Catherine BennettFollow

Thousands of climate activists have added their names to a new campaign spearheaded by Greta Thunberg, asking the European Commission to retract a farming policy that they say would make it impossible to reach the EU’s climate goals.

The Swedish climate activist Greta Thunberg has called on her followers to sign an open letter to EU leaders after the European Parliament on Friday endorsed a proposal for a new farming policy across the bloc.

The letter begins, “On Friday the 23rd of October, you let us down once again, in voting for a dirty deal, which betrays not only your commitments to the Paris Agreement, but also your commitments to justice and to democracy.”

The real story of today is not about the vote. It’s about the people who have not given up. There is the hope. And that will bring the change, eventually. #WithdrawTheCAP

A story of today by @GretaThunberg, @adelaidecharli2, @AnunaDe, @CamilleEtienne_ & mehttps://t.co/12GpuVDBoY— Luisa Neubauer (@Luisamneubauer) October 23, 2020

The Common Agricultural Policy, or CAP, sets out rules for farmers and agriculture across the European Union, and accounts for one third of the EU budget (€58.1 billion). The policy subsidises up to seven million farms across the EU. Current rules expire at the end of the year.

From #VoteThisCAPDown to #WithdrawTheCAP

The #WithdrawTheCAP campaign comes after Thunberg and other environmental activists urged the European Parliament to vote against the updated Common Agricultural Policy, flooding social media in the days preceding the vote with the hashtag #VoteThisCAPDown.

Dear MEPs, your vague distant climate targets will have no meaning if you fail to #VoteThisCAPdown and keep supporting the commercial lobby interests.
This is your chance to turn empty words into action. The eyes of future generations are upon you. No more excuses.#FututreOfCAP pic.twitter.com/Z60fWqnZd0— Greta Thunberg (@GretaThunberg) October 23, 2020

But the new policy was adopted with an overwhelming share of the vote, and activists are now training their sights on the European Commission, which has the power to withdraw the new policy and send EU officials back to the drawing board.

'Ecological destruction'

Environmental protesters say that the new CAP “fuels ecological destruction”. The biodiversity and bird charity BirdLife has called it an “extinction machine”. Even Agricultural Commissioner Janusz Wojciechowski issued a cautious warning prior to negotiations, suggesting on 19 October that some of the proposals would not allow the EU to reach climate objectives.


And just like that the European Parliament passes a death sentence for many species. It's official the CAP is not in line with the #EUGreenDeal, by the Commission's own admission.

Time to #WithdrawtheCAPhttps://t.co/uf81KDRGRe#FutureofCAP pic.twitter.com/H6oNwaTc80— Harriet Bradley (@HarrietBirdlife) October 23, 2020

European finance ministers and the agri-industry lobby resisted the inclusion of compulsory participation in eco-schemes in the bill, which are green agricultural projects that would receive a significant portion of EU funds through the CAP. Each European country would have to channel 20 percent of the money its farmers receive from the EU to these environmentally-friendly projects. Campaigners say however that that promise doesn’t go far enough, and want to boost the percentage of farmers’ payments going to eco-schemes to 50 percent.

“By putting targeted eco-schemes, programmes and also investments at the centre of this reform, we have assured a step towards a more sustainable and competitive agricultural sector,” said Ulrike Müller, the European Parliament’s rapporteur on CAP financing.

Exploitable loopholes

But the draft policy has loopholes that countries can exploit. The current policy will stand for a further two-year transition period before the new policy comes in, meaning that the new ambitious eco-schemes will not launch until 2023. Money that hasn’t been used towards environmentally-friendly projects within a set period of time won’t be carried over, but instead can then be put into non-green projects, with no environmental obligations. Critics also say the CAP scales down current requirements to protect certain types of land and for farmers to keep a certain percentage of their land out of production. Greenpeace said the policy represented a "death sentence for small farms and nature".

>> Click here to watch FRANCE 24'S Talking Europe show on making European farming sustainable

The #CAP needs to play its part in tackling climate change and biodiversity loss; the current CAP has been unable to deliver this kind of change. Ecoschemes and their funding are an important first step, but more steps must follow in agriculture and along the food chain.— Frans Timmermans (@TimmermansEU) October 24, 2020

The European Parliament has stated that the new farm policy is greener than the current one, pointing out that the new CAP provides more financial aid to farms who use sustainable and environmentally-friendly practices. It also says sanctions would be increased for those who violate environmental standards.

Environmental activists insist, however, that the European Parliament’s adoption of the new farm policy this week has now made the EU’s goal to achieve carbon neutrality by 2050 – as laid out by the 2015 Paris Agreement -- impossible to attain.

'€386bn ploughed into largely destructive practices' - environmental groups share dismay over divisive farm subsidies deal


Caroline O'Doherty
October 23 2020 

MEPs have voted for a multi-billion euro agricultural subsidies deal that farmers say will be create major challenges for the way they farm but environmentalists say will destroy nature.

The latest package of Common Agriculture Policy (CAP) measures will largely dictate farming practices across Europe until 2027.

Climate campaigners and environmental groups had urged radical reform of the CAP to ensure a move away from intensive farming practices that are high on greenhouse gas emissions, heavily polluting of soils and water sources and massively damaging to wildlife.

They said the deal voted through on Friday afternoon fell far short of those aims and would make it impossible for Europe to meet crucial emission reduction targets.

But farmers’ organisations said the deal would be demanding on the sector and require significant changes in farming practices.

Speaking in advance of Friday’s vote, Irish Farmers Association president Tim Cullinan said a provision to link 30pc of farm subsidies to environmental schemes would be challenging.

“All farmers already have to meet standards of good agricultural and environmental practices under current CAP rules,” he said.

“It means that all farmers will have to undertake additional environmental measures to have a chance of maintaining their payments.”

Minister for Agriculture Charlie McConalogue backed the deal ahead of the vote.

Green Party MEP Grace O’Sullivan, however, said the package served no-one well.

“This is not CAP reform. I'm beyond disappointed and baffled it passed, with all the right voices crying out against it – NGOs, scientists, even the EU Agriculture Commissioner and farmers on the ground.”

BirdWatch Ireland, which campaigns for healthy habitats for all wildlife, tweeted its dismay, saying: “€386billion of EU citizens’ money will be ploughed into largely destructive practices.”

The network of European environmental groups, the European Environmental Bureau, described the vote as “wasting public money on a fundamentally unsustainable and unfair agricultural policy”.

Friends of the Earth said it was a “historically bad week for the future of farming” that would perpetuate a system of “wrong policies and warped farming subsidies which mainly benefit industrial scale factory farms”.

“Now this failing system looks set to continue, spelling disaster for the environment and small farmers,” it said.

The bill for CAP represents a third of the EU’s entire budget. Talks on the implementation of the new package have to take place and there is a possibility that European Commissioners may seek to present fresh proposals to address the criticisms.

IRELAND
ESB seeks buyer for 2 million tonnes of coal ash

Moneypoint in Co Clare



Caroline O'Doherty
October 26 2020
Irish Independent

The ESB is trying to sell two million tonnes of ash from its coal-burning power plant at Moneypoint.

The ash is in landfill on the Co Clare site but the ESB wants to dig it up and sell it for use in cement production.

Otherwise, the power company is looking at lifelong maintenance of the landfill site as coal ash contains chemicals that must be carefully monitored.

ESB has sold fly ash, the powder-fine residue from coal burning, to cement firms in the past; but after 35 years of operation at Moneypoint, a massive excess has built up.

Around 1.8m tonnes of the landfill ash for sale is fly ash while the remaining 200,000 tonnes is 'bottom furnace' ash - larger pieces, not fully burnt.

The company has advertised for expressions of interest in buying the ash, inviting potential buyers to complete a pre-qualification questionnaire (PQQ), and has also put an extraction and haulage contract out to tender in case a buyer is found.

ESB stressed it did not have to remove the ash. "It can be safely retained in landfill," the company said.

"The PQQ is to assess demand in the marketplace for this type of ash. It is used in the cement industry and so it has some commercial value. ESB has received a licence from the Environmental Protection Agency to remove the ash - should we wish."

Dr Lisa O'Donoghue of University of Limerick, who investigates uses for industrial waste products, said there was a push for progress in this area as part of the drive for a no-waste 'circular economy'.

Finding uses for waste not only created fresh revenue streams and reduced the demand for virgin raw materials, but it also prevented landfilling, she said.

"The minute something goes into a landfill, it's a job for eternity," Dr O'Donoghue said.

"They're lined and they're protected so they're well managed but they're often called engineered management sites rather than landfill because they can't be left there and abandoned.

"They have to be maintained at an ongoing cost."

SEE https://plawiuk.blogspot.com/search?q=COAL+ASH

The spirit that created a nation of great Danes

Hand it to the Danes - they have a decent football team and the right attitude to life. Rated the #1 happiest nation, this Nordic territory is big on 'Janteloven' - a communal spirit, with an aversion to material boasting.

While taxes are among the highest in the world, a state that guarantees a social safety net has bred an entrepreneurial spirit where fear of financial failure doesn't halt innovation.

"We are not paying taxes," says Meik Wiking, head of the Happiness Research Institute. "We are investing in our society, we are purchasing quality of life." Hard to argue with that.

Irish Independent

Arctic Sea Ice is not freezing In October for the first time since measurements began, now having an unknown effect on weather development towards Winter
By Andrej Flis | Latest news | 26 OCTOBER 2020


Arctic sea ice melt season usually lasts from March till September. After reaching the minimum extent in September, sea ice starts to grow back in October. But this year, the growth is much slower than last year, with almost no growth in some places. How did this unusual situation happen and can it mean something for the weather towards Winter 2020/2021?

THE ARCTIC ICE GROWTH

The Arctic sea ice seasonal cycle can be seen in the image below from the Arctic-ROOS system. It shows the Arctic sea ice extent change over a year. The melt season usually starts in March, after the peak ice extent is reached, lasting all the way to September. The graph shows the last few years of data, where we can see the 2020 Arctic ice extent was second-lowest, only behind 2012, which still holds the record for the lowest ice extent since measurements began.


But comparing 2012 and 2020, we can see that this year we are also setting a new record, as the Arctic sea ice is not recovering as expected. The sea ice is refreezing back, but at a much slower rate than normal, meaning that some areas are severely falling behind.


That is even more evident when we look at the comparison of all the years since the active satellite observations began in 1979. This year we observed the second-lowest Arctic sea ice extent on record. But because of the unusually low ice growth in October, the current ice extent is now the lowest for any October in the past 41 years.



Comparing the minimum extent dates for the past 17 years also shows the 2020 minimum to be second lowest, trailing only the grand minimum of 2012. Graphic provided by Zachary Labe.


Comparing the years by the current date, we are well the lowest for this time of year. That is also evident by the second image, which shows the sea ice anomaly, compared to the long-term average. It shows the 2020 (red area) ice extent anomaly to continue to increase, while in the previous years (white lines), the anomaly already started to decrease by this point.



The analysis image by the National Snow and Ice Data Center (NSIDC) below, shows the current ice concentration and the average/normal long term extent in orange lines. Those orange lines show how far the sea ice should be reaching at this point in time, revealing a huge ice deficit.



Growth has obviously begun since mid-September, but the rate was rather weak and is not increasing with time, evident by the recent daily increase rate on the image below. At this point, the daily growth should slowly increase over time, but we can see the daily growth area is not increasing and has rather been almost decreasing over time. The second image shows the October growth compared to previous years, where 2020 is severely trailing behind



Images below show the current sea ice extent and thickness. We can see that the thickness shows a larger area than the concentration. That is because the concentration shows only the sea ice above 15% concentration. Anything below that means the ice is just too fractured and not compact enough.

So the sea ice thickness image reveals that there is thinner uncompacted ice around the edges, which falls below the 15% concentration threshold. This is usually normal because new sea ice is just starting to form on the edges and takes time to get more compact. But this year the ice is not compacting so fast, and we are now going to look at what is behind this unusual event.



THE VAST ARCTIC OCEAN

The Arctic region is in fact entirely an ocean and has no large-scale landmass. It is the smallest and shallowest of the world’s five major oceans, and also the coldest. It is also the only ocean smaller than the largest country in the world by area, Russia.

The image below shows the Arctic ocean, as it would look without water, revealing a very complex underwater terrain. To understand the current unusual sea ice anomalies, we need to understand the ocean where all the ice floats on. More specifically, we need to understand the state of the ocean in its eastern region, in the Kara Sea, Siberian Sea, and the Laptev Sea. The image below shows these regions in the Arctic Ocean, found on the side opposite to Greenland. The graphic is from one of the more recent Arctic Ocean studies.


The image below is probably the most important one so far, as it shows the ocean surface temperature anomaly. It shows the ocean temperatures are currently well above normal around the entire Arctic ice sheet. Anomalies of over 2-3 degrees Celsius can be found across all the 3 critical ocean regions we mentioned above.



Compared to this time last year, the Atlantic side is actually colder this year, while the eastern Arctic Ocean is obviously much warmer than it was this time last year.


Also looking at the raw temperatures, we can see the eastern Arctic ocean is actually in positive surface temperatures, which means a low to zero chance of freezing over at this point. In normal conditions, almost the entire Arctic ocean should be at or below the freezing point – 0°C (black color) by the end of October.


When comparing the current ice concentration and thickness with the lowest ice extent in mid-September, we can see the growth on the edges. But towards Siberia, we can actually see a reduced concentration and reduced thickness (red colors). Ocean and air temperatures were not yet right to allow rapid refreeze towards Siberia at present time.




But temperature is not the only factor here. Ocean salinity also plays a big role in the production of ice. The saltier the water, the colder it needs to get for ice to form. Think of salt being used on the roads to prevent ice buildup.

The image below shows the Arctic ocean salinity, where we can see the fresher water in blue colors, and saltier waters in brownish hues. Transport of saltier water is obvious from the North Atlantic into the Arctic Ocean, specifically towards the eastern parts. Interestingly, we can see the dark colors around the coastal areas, which is very fresh water. That is the freshwater discharge from the Siberian rivers.


We produced a short but very cool high-resolution video animation, which shows the Arctic ocean salinity in the past 5 months. You can see the ocean circulation, ocean currents, and the saltier water transport from the North Atlantic. Also note the freshwater entering the Arctic from the Siberian side, as the rivers discharge into the ocean, and note the freshwater increase during Summer, as melting ice makes the surface waters fresher.
Arctic Ocean salinity flow 2020 (click to play)
Arctic Ocean water salinity and surface currents during 2020 melt season - SWE /FA





SEA ICE ACROSS REGIONS

Many regions have regained ice since the lowest point in mid-September. But as we have shown above, the east Arctic Ocean is unusually warm and prevents fast sea-ice expansion.

The image below shows the sea ice extent by various regions across the Arctic. While some regions normally start the freezing at a later date, there are 3 regions that stand out, as they should be much higher than they currently are. The Siberian Sea region, the Kara Sea, and the Laptev Sea. These are the regions that we have highlighted higher up in the article, which also face the biggest temperature anomalies.


Looking at the Siberian Arctic region, it is struggling to increase the ice extent. It is running really unusually low for this time of year, having just a few % of the normal sea ice extent expected for this date.


And of course, the Laptev Sea, which has been at record low levels for quite some time now. In the previous decade, the Laptev Sea has been entirely frozen over by this time of year, while this year it simply cannot lift off the ground.



But what is causing this unusual situation in the eastern Arctic Ocean? We have seen the ocean temperature anomalies and ocean salinity. But what has brought the Arctic Ocean into this state? Part of the answer lies in the Atmosphere, which is where we are heading next.

FROM THE OCEAN TO THE ATMOSPHERE

In the atmosphere, we usually always start with the temperatures. Looking at the January-September period, we can see that a hotspot has developed right over Siberia and the eastern Arctic Ocean. We can see a large area of temperatures 4-5°C above the long term average. We wrote about these Arctic heatwaves, which were ongoing since Spring.


A closer look at the August-September period reveals an even stronger hotspot, now expanded further into the Arctic Ocean, as the sea ice melted and more open water was exposed to the warmer weather.


The reason behind this anomaly was a very specific pressure pattern. The October analysis so far, shows the high-pressure area dominating the Arctic region, while we can see a low-pressure system over the Siberian side.



Such a pattern creates a very unique transpolar airflow over the eastern Arctic Ocean. The image below shows the average low-level wind flow in October so far. We can see the air transport across the Arctic, as warmer air enters the Arctic from one side, and cooler air leaving out on the other side.


Looking at temperature anomalies in October so far, we can actually see a massive warm anomaly across the Siberian Arctic. That is where the warmer air was entering the region, replacing the colder air moving out into western Siberia.


The past 10 days specifically, have seen anomalies in excess of 15°C across the Siberian Arctic ocean. This, together with the warmer ocean waters, has been a large ice growth inhibitor so far in October.


The forecast is not looking any better. The pressure pattern has now actually reversed, with lower pressure over the Arctic. But this will change the airflow direction, just bringing warmer air from another source region. The first image shows the pressure anomalies next weekend. The second image shows the wind direction and temperature anomalies, revealing a large scale warmer air transport into the Siberian Arctic.




But of course, this does not mean that +20°C temperatures will be measured across the Arctic in October. The normal temperatures for the Siberian region for example should be around -15°C. If the temperatures in this wave will be around 0 to -2°C, that is still 13-15°C above the long-term average.

This is what we are seeing on the last temperature image above. But still, such anomalies mean that the Arctic is not as cold as it is supposed to be at this point in time, creating inhibiting conditions for ice growth.

The images below show the forecast 9-day sea ice extent and thickness change. We can see the expansion of sea ice towards Siberia, but the Siberian Arctic and the Laptev sea are still running very ice-free.



The CFSv2 model forecast for November 2020 shows the slow expansion of sea ice, with unusually low ice concentration (red colors) towards the Siberian side, extending into November.




SEA ICE AND WINTER 2020/2021

There is always a lot of debate about how the lack of sea ice affects weather development. A lot of studies have been made, and all point in a similar direction, of the sea ice deficit having an effect on the jet stream (and vice versa due to feedback mechanisms).

The jet stream is a large and powerful stream of air (wind) at around 8-11km (5-7mi) altitude. It flows west-to-east around the entire hemisphere, affecting the pressure systems, their strength, and thus shaping our weather at the surface.

A perfect jet stream circles around the globe, as seen on the long term average image below. A west to east motion is called a zonal flow, which we can see on the image. If the motion is more north to south, that is called a meridional flow.


The secret of the jet stream is that it is fueled by the temperature difference between the cold arctic and the warmer southern/tropical regions. If the Arctic gets warmer, the temperature difference from the north to south decreases, and the jet stream can lose its strength.

Below is an example of the jet stream in the forecast. Red-violet areas show stronger wind speeds at the 250mb level (~10.5km / 6.5mi). We can see that the strongest jet stream is positioned over the North Pacific, extending directly over North America, where a powerful cold air outbreak is ongoing.

The jet stream dropped down into the continental United States, unloading an Arctic airmass over a large part of the country. We can see that the jet stream is not perfectly in a zonal (west-east) flow, but is quite wavy and also meridional (north-south), especially over North America and Europe.



The general idea behind the sea ice melt is that it exposes more open waters. The ice-free open water can get warmer when exposed to the sun and constant higher than normal temperatures. This is something that we are observing this year. It means that the overall Arctic temperatures are getting warmer, potentially reducing the temperature difference between the north and south regions, and overall weakening the jet stream.

If the jet stream is weakened, it means that it can be easily disrupted and can change its flow from perfect west-east to more north-south. That can cause more dynamic weather and extremes, as colder air can move more freely from the north down, and warmer air from the south upwards.


Looking at some past data, we produced two graphs. The first graph shows the Arctic sea ice concentration for the September-October period in the 70 years. We can see a pretty significant ice concentration decrease since the mid-’90s.


The second graph shows the meridional flow (north-south) in the jet stream in the Autumn period (Sep-Oct-Nov). Here we can also observe that there is more north-south meridional flow being detected in the jet stream circulation since the mid-’90s.



One could argue that this proves the jet stream is getting weaker or more wavy as the Arctic sea ice is reducing. But this needs more research, as it can go both ways. But it is an indication of a very likely and logical connection, that the jet stream is getting weaker or wavier as the sea ice is reducing.

Looking at the November 2020 forecast by the CFSv2 model, we can see strong high and low-pressure systems, producing a very dynamic pattern. This will mean more north-south jet stream flow, with temperature extremes in both directions.


What about Winter 2020/2021? As we head towards winter, the connection/effect of the lack of sea ice is getting blurred or not so clear. There is a known effect on the jet stream, as we discussed. But when winter arrives, we have a lot of external factors that mask or reverse a potential sea ice effect.

The first factor is that by the time winter arrives, the Arctic sea ice is already regrown to a certain extent, not exposing so much (or none) open water. The second factor is the Stratospheric Polar Vortex. A strong polar vortex can influence the jet stream and potentially make it stronger, creating a more west-east flow and milder winter across North America and Europe.

But the strength of the polar vortex is also determined by the weather patterns, so here we have a very delicate feedback loop. The sea ice (or lack thereof) can influence the weather patterns, which affects the polar vortex, which then affects back at the jet stream and the weather patterns.


The third factor is the tropical ENSO region, with its developing La Nina phase. A La Nina has a very specific effect on the jet stream, which can override other potential effects from the sea ice. And it can also affect the polar vortex. The image below shows the typical La Nina influence on the jet stream over Canada and the United States during winter.


Sounds complicated? In fact, it is quite simple, as the main takeaway is that everything can influence everything to a varying degree. So the lack of sea ice has an effect on the jet stream, but it gets mixed towards winter with other global factors.

More often than not, a severe lack of sea ice would indicate a tendency for a higher pressure over the North Pole, which means that colder air could move more freely from the Arctic down into the mid-latitudes of the United States and/or Europe. But perhaps not doing it directly, with sea ice deficit being more as a mechanism to weaken the polar vortex, and thus weakening the overall jet stream and creating more north-south flow situations.

So we can know for sure that the current lack of sea ice will have an effect to some degree, but it is quite hard to tell how exactly. Even a small change or a shift in the current conditions can have a cascading effect towards winter, also known as the butterfly effect. Sometimes it is the small changes like this, that can cause a weather season to turn out different than expected, defying all the model forecasts.

We will keep a close eye on the long-range winter forecasts, searching for different trends and indications of potential jet stream fluctuations during Winter 2020/2021.

We wrote an entire article on the La Nina, what it is and what is its winter jet stream influence, so make sure to check it out:

La Nina watch: Exceptional cooling continues in the equatorial Pacific. La Nina now gradually intensifies, on time for Winter 2020/2021