Subscribe to Common Dreams News Updates
Most Popular This Week
Popular content
Today's Top News
Climate Change: It's Bad and Getting Worse
Severe weather events are wracking the planet, and experts warn of even greater consequences to come.
The rate of ice loss in two of Greenland's largest glaciers has increased so much in the last 10 years that the amount of melted water would be enough to completely fill Lake Erie, one of the five Great Lakes in North America.
West Texas is currently undergoing its worst drought since the Dust Bowl of the 1930s, leaving wheat and cotton crops in the state in an extremely dire situation due to lack of soil moisture, as wildfires continue to burn.
Central China recently experienced its worst drought in more than 50 years. Regional authorities have declared more than 1,300 lakes "dead", meaning they are out of use for both irrigation and drinking water supply.
Floods have struck Eastern and Southern China, killing at least 52 and forcing the evacuation of hundreds of thousands, followed by severe flooding that again hit Eastern China, displacing or otherwise affecting five million people.
Meanwhile in Europe, crops in the northwest are suffering the driest weather in decades.
Scientific research confirms that, so far, humankind has raised the Earth's temperature, and the aforementioned events are a sign of what is to come.
"If you had a satellite view of the planet in the summer, there is about 40 per cent less ice in the Arctic than when Apollo 8 [in 1968] first sent back those photos [of Earth]," Bill McKibben, world renowned environmentalist and fellow of the American Academy of Arts and Sciences told Al Jazeera, "Oceans are 30 per cent more acidic than they were 40 years ago. The atmosphere is four per cent more wet than 40 years ago because warm air holds more water than cold air. That means more deluge and downpour in wet areas and more dryness in dry areas. So we're seeing more destructive mega floods and storms, increasing thunderstorms, and increasing lightning strikes."
So far human greenhouse gas emissions have raised the temperature of the planet by one degree Celsius.
"Climatologists tell us unless we get off gas, coal, and oil, that number will be four to five degrees before the end of this century," said McKibben, "If one degree is enough to melt the Arctic, we'd be best not to hit four degrees."
Climate change is bad for you
Brian Schwartz is a professor in the Department of Environmental Health Sciences at the Johns Hopkins Bloomberg School of Public Health.
"Increasing temperatures cause direct health effects related to heat; there will be more common events like the 30,000 to 50,000 persons who died in Europe in 2003 due to the heat wave there," Professor Schwartz told Al Jazeera, "Increasing temperatures also cause more air pollution, due to photochemical reactions that increase with higher temperatures. This will cause more morbidity and mortality from pulmonary and cardiovascular diseases."
Schwartz, who is also the co-director of the Program on Global Sustainability and Health, said that lack of clean water, a phenomenon that is also a product of climate change, will lead to increases in morbidity and mortality from a variety of water-borne diseases.
In addition, vector-borne diseases, diseases in which the pathogenic microorganism is transmitted from an infected individual to another individual by an arthropod or other agent, will change in their distribution as the climate changes.
"Populations will be on the move as food and water production is threatened; these so-called environmental refugees, that the world has already seen, suffer a variety of increased health risks," added Schwartz, "How climate change affects economies and sociopolitical systems will contribute to other physical and mental health stresses for populations."
Professor Cindy Parker co-directs the Program on Global Environmental Sustainability and Health at the Johns Hopkins Bloomberg School of Public Health, and is the Associate Director of the Johns Hopkins Environment, Energy, Sustainability, and Health Institute.
Like Professor Schwartz, she also sees an increase in vector-borne diseases as climate change progresses.
"Infectious diseases carried by insects, like malaria, Lyme disease, Dengue fever, these are all expected to worsen," Parker told Al Jazeera, "These diseases will likely worsen, like malaria, at higher elevations in virgin populations who've not developed resistance to these diseases, so there will be greater effect on these populations."
She believes that diseases that have yet to arise will begin to develop as the planet continues warming. "The biggest threat is the disease we're not yet expecting, but that will develop and we'll be ill equipped to handle."
Parker fears other far-reaching health impacts resulting from our heating up of the planet.
"Everything that affects our environment affects our health," Parker said, "As fancy as our technology is, we still cannot live without clean water, air, and food, and we rely on our environment for these."
This fact is primarily why she believes that climate change is the most health-damaging problem humanity has ever faced.
Parker cited Hurricane Katrina that struck New Orleans in 2005, killing nearly 2,000 and pegged as the costliest natural disaster in US history, as a weather warning example.
"If you look at the health impacts on the Gulf of Mexico's population that was impacted by the storm, mental health illnesses are much worse than the rest of country, chronic illnesses are greater, mostly because trauma has great effects on our psyches and physical bodies," she explained, "But also because prior to Katrina there were seven hospitals in New Orleans, and now there are 2.5 hospitals operating. Those that were lost didn't come back. They are gone."
Hurricane Katrina also caused job loss, which led to loss of health insurance, which led to peoples' health indicators worsening.
"Homelessness is a big contributor, and these problems are still going on, people have not recovered," Parker continued, "And with extreme weather events around the world, there are these huge health effects which persist."
Parker is concerned about what the future has in store for us if climate change continues unabated, as it currently appears to be doing, given that most governments continue to fail to implement an actionable plan to avert it.
"People think technology is going to save us from climate change, but there is no technology on the horizon that will allow us to adapt ourselves out of this mess," Parker said, "We can physiologically adapt to higher temperatures, but all that adaptation is not going to save us unless we also get the climate stabilized."
"If this continues unabated this planet will not be habitable by the species that are on it, including humans," she concluded, "It will be a very different planet. One that is not very conducive to human life."
Global overpopulation
"The rule of thumb is that every degree increase in temperature decreases the wheat harvest by 10 per cent," said McKibben, speaking about the effect climate change has on global food production, "Food cost has increased between 70 and 80 per cent in the last year for basic grains. For millions around the world, they are already affected by not having enough."
Another important factor that contributes to climate change is global overpopulation. The UN has set October 31 of this year as the date the Earth's population is expected to surpass seven billion people.
The world's population is growing by roughly 80 million people per year, and at the current rates of birth and death, the world's population is on a trajectory to double in 49 years.
William Ryerson is the president of the Population Institute, a non-profit organization that works to educate policymakers and the public about population, and the need to achieve a world population that is in balance with a healthy global environment and resource base.
"The projected growth rate is 9.3 billion by 2050," Ryerson told Al Jazeera, "The additional 2.5 billion [onto our current 6.8 billion] is the climate equivalent to adding two USA's to the planet. Even though most of those people are in low greenhouse gas emitting countries, the sheer number of people adds to a huge impact on the environment."
Ryerson pointed out that countries like China and the US have higher consumption and emissions, and as their populations grow, their impacts are even greater than in less developed countries.
Overpopulation also strains already overstretched water resources.
"We have 225,000 people at the dinner table tonight who weren't there last night, so to maintain our current population we're already over-pumping underground aquifers," added Ryerson, "India is over-pumping, and we have over 100 million people in India dependent on over-pumping, so this can't be sustained. And climate change is making this all even more untenable, as the glaciers in the Himalayas that provide water for India and China are melting rapidly."
Unpublished estimates from the International Energy Agency (IEA) recently revealed that greenhouse gas emissions increased by a record amount last year to the highest carbon output in history, despite the most serious economic recession in 80 years.
This means that the aim of holding global temperatures to safe levels are now all but out of reach. The goal of preventing a temperature rise of more than two degrees Celsius, which scientists say is the threshold for potentially "dangerous climate change" is now most likely just "a nice Utopia", according to Fatih Birol, a chief economist of the IEA.
"Population is the multiplier of everything else," explained Ryerson, who believes climate change cannot adequately be addressed until the overpopulation problem is solved.
"Clearly the current number of people and per capita behavior is unsustainable and this is obvious in what has happened to the climate already," he said, "There are severe consequences already. And the cost of solving this problem of overpopulation is small compared to the cost of solving climate change as it progresses."
Long Road Ahead
McKibben is deeply concerned about what he sees when he looks into the future of what we should expect with climate change.
"We're going to keep seeing increased amounts of these extreme kinds of droughts, floods, and storms," he said, "Everything that happens that isn't volcanic or tectonic draws its power from the sun and we are getting more of everything by amping up the sun's power in the atmosphere by adding more CO2."
Ryerson sees a bleak future for water-starved countries like Saudi Arabia.
"Saudi Arabia has announced that the water they've been depending on, their underground aquifer for crops and drinking, will be gone by 2020," he explained, "They are dependent on imports, and can pay for it now, but in the future when oil declines, that country faces a serious issue of sustainability."
He is also concerned about increasing biodiversity loss.
"The key issue is the large populations of plants and animals that make the planet inhabitable," Ryerson explained, "We need oxygen to breathe and water to drink. A three billion year evolution of plants and animals have made the planet habitable, and we are systematically destroying this biodiversity by plowing, cutting, and burning areas."
Ryerson believes ongoing demand for products and the encroachment on wilderness areas this causes "will make life on the planet much more difficult. All of this together means the future of humanity, even with assumed innovation, has some very serious concerns. None of these problems are made easier by adding more people. The only way to achieve sustainability is to hold population growth, and have it decline."
McKibben says everybody should be adopting an emergency response geared towards ending our reliance on fossil fuels.
"This will only be done if we charge carbon for the damage it does in the atmosphere," he said, "The power of the fossil fuel companies is the power to keep us from doing that. As long as our governments won't stand up to that industry, I'm afraid we've got a long road ahead of us."

130 Comments so far
Show AllAnd so, to recap: We are in deep shit and none of the governments of the world [with the possible exception of Bolivia and a couple of other powerless nations] is willing to do anything whatsoever. The Four Horsemen are saddling up, folks. My ecological footprint is small. Maybe twenty percent of the people who frequent this website also have small footprints. Most of the rest of this country [and most others] continue to pursue the get rich model. Not a good prognosis.
"Deep shit", more apt words were never spoken and his "we've got a long road ahead of us" must have been said with tongue in cheek. Tony
Bolivia is extracting as much natural gas as it can to sell on world markets. I hardly think it is guilt-free when it comes to climate change.
Root Cause = Overpopulation
(Population Bomb - Anne and Paul Erlich - 1970)
SOLUTIONS? Are there discussions?
Time for study is over = Time now for ACTION
Mass Action seems the best possibility for change
Where is Saul Alinski?
What sort of mass action could address the issue of overpopulation? A die-off of the human species is in the cards, but I don't want to do anything to make that happen.
According to some recent information I got from a medium that is disapproved by many who post on this site, almost one quarter of the earth's population has no access to sanitary toilets and the pooing is poisoning the drinking water and leading to conditions ripe for widespread diseases which, if the corpses that will be created aren't cleaned up, could lead to even more widespread diseases that could spread to places where there is sanitation.
Deep doo doo is what we're all in whether we can smell it yet or not. I'd be interested in hearing about what sort of mass action can remedy this.
Well, -and I'm not actually advocating this by saying it- tearing the psychopaths in DC limb from limb and/or decorating lampposts with them would make a good start.
An excellent suggestion, Mairead.
How about action by a few geneticists or microbiologists who develop a bug that sterilizes human beings and it spreads around the world. When the population gets to about 100 million (by attrition) they can release the cure and we start over again. Maybe this time with a bit more thought about the future of the human race.
the sterilization is already underway, whether intentional, or no...
this article, like so many, chooses to limit focus to 'global warming', 'climate change', CO2...
not a word about chemicals, nor radioactivity...
Good idea! But I would like a wholesome representation of survivors--especially third-world people--more Tarahumara Indians and fewer or no Wall Street bankers!
Yea, my mother is part Tarahumara from Cusihuiriachi! No way could I go for any genocide and that is what it would be. Tony
perhaps in the new society greed will be the ultimate sin
Rootkoz, Overpopulation is a function of inequitable distribution of resources. People have babies in poor countries to be sure someone will care for them in their dotage. It has long been found that population levels off in societies where people are educated, and have enough to eat. Capitalism is the force that creates poverty, because poverty is the necessary consequence of having a class of super rich. As long as capitalism exists, the super rich greedheads will push the planet toward mass misery, because all they care about is accumulating more money.
Oh, so true! When genocide is even thought of, bottom of the pit has been reached. Homo-Sapiens should be homo-saps. Tony
Capitalism is the force that creates poverty, because poverty is the necessary consequence of having a class of super rich. As long as capitalism exists, the super rich greedheads will push the planet toward mass misery, because all they care about is accumulating more money.
--------------------------------------
You have it the wrong way 'round. Capitalism isn't the cause of poverty.
The ultimate cause of poverty is that we no longer get rid of the psychopaths that spring up in every generation. We allow them to grow to maturity, and inevitably the smartest of them gain power over us.
Since psychopaths think of humans as something to exploit, it doesn't take them any time at all to come up with the idea that other people should support them in luxury, or be killed.
That's the cause of poverty: that we accept as reasonable rather than condemning as ugly lunacy that one person should have the right to live on the fruits of someone else's labor.
"Capitalism" is simply one of the current wrappers. Other wrappers are, or have been, Organised Religion, Communism, Bureaucratic Socialism, Aristocracy, Land Feudalism, Tribalism, Militarism, Monarchy, and probably a half-dozen other -isms that I can't now call to mind.
The bedrock idea underlying each and every one of those -isms is that a few have the right to live on the labor of the rest.
Until we get rid of that idea, we're just treating symptoms.
Population grows, when the resources to allow that growth are present (even if those resources get rapidly used up). Resources meaning things such water, space, food, energy.
With non-humans that's true, whence the terrible grow/crash cycles. But with humans, it mostly isn't, as any anthro will tell you. 'Primitive' peoples have very inventive ways to control population, some of them stomach-turningly dreadful but all of them effective.
I thought the one used by aboriginal Australians (but also done elsewhere) was especially creative: during the coming-of-age rite, split the initiate's penis and urethra along the ventral side all the way back to the groin and let it heal open. The rationale was that it emulates the kangaroo, an important totem. But the practical effect was that sperm seldom got as far as the vagina.
RE: Capitalism is simply one of the current wrappers.
Yes that is true. What you are talking about is class societies, or societies divided by class: some rich, many poor. What we call indigenous people do not tend to be organized in classes. The power of their leaders was not that different from the power of the average member of the community. This is very different from class societies where we see vast inequality. Indigenous peoples show us possibilities of a future sustainable society. If we join together to overthrow the system of class hierarchy, we will be (we are) fighting CAPITALISM. In the 14th century, we would have been fighting Feudalism, but how relevant is that now?
This is why your statement "You have it the wrong way 'round. Capitalism isn't the cause of poverty" is not true.
Capitalism is the economic system that produces class divided society today. It also produces via its innate characteristic of continuous exponential growth, profit maximization, and the externalizing of costs (pollution, social welfare etc.) global economic crises, global environmental crises, global poverty, global resource depletion and continuous war (to name just a few). If we want to fight and overthrow class society - and replace it with an egalitarian and sustainable one - today, we must fight capitalism.
Well said, Tom. Thanks for sparing me the necessity to reply.
What we call indigenous people do not tend to be organized in classes. The power of their leaders was not that different from the power of the average member of the community.
---------------------------------------------
It might be well to use some word other than "indigenous", since as far as we know, the people who created many of the more stratified, blood-soaked kingdoms (e.g., the Aztec, the semitic Jews) were indigenous, not incomers from some other area.
--------------------------------------------
If we want to fight and overthrow class society - and replace it with an egalitarian and sustainable one - today, we must fight capitalism.
--------------------------------------
And what would that egalitarian and sustainable one be? Can you point to an example, or describe how it might work? Communism perhaps? Centrally-planned socialism? Platonic philosopher-kings? Something else?
First, all societies immigrated from elsewhere and become indigenous with time. I'm an indigenous light skinned North American, never been anywhere else.
An example of a better society:
Look into the old Sioux Nation. It was a society that respected and revered giving, selflessness, all for one, one for all. Social status was based on one's generosity. Humans were considered a component of the web of Life, relatives of other living beings, not the apex.
A new ism is needed, something wider than humanism like biophiliism (invented word to represent the love of Life) to include all life forms, i.e., Nature. If it were so, then no one would produce insecticides, herbicides, pesticides, and all the other cides. Life and planet destroying practices would be scorned.
My guess is that the paradigm shift won't happen until the industrial culture perishes from attrition. Maybe, some will make it through the dieing times, maybe not.
First, all societies immigrated from elsewhere and become indigenous with time. I'm an indigenous light skinned North American, never been anywhere else.
-------------------------------------
I think you missed my point, which was that "indigenous" is not even a functional synonym for "egalitarian", and therefore a different word (perhaps "egalitarian") should be chosen.
-------------------------------------
Look into the old Sioux Nation. It was a society that respected and revered giving, selflessness, all for one, one for all.
-------------------------------------
So it was not a culture in which a few successfully forced the many to support them, right? Would that be the key characteristic, or would it be that it wasn't Capitalist?
Mairead, I would point to the Spanish anarchist revolution in the thirties, before it was snuffed out by the combined forces of Soviet Communism and global capital/fascism. The Sandanistas in Nicaragua made a good start before being snuffed out by capitalist-backed "contra" terrorists. What Chavez is doing in Venezuela is promising. It must be said that any good alternative to capitalism has historically been summarily attacked by the capitalist powers, who abhor nothing so much as the threat of a good example. Take a look at Cuba, which has been under continuous terrorist attack and economic attack since its revolution in 1959. It doesn't matter how democratic, noble, and peace loving your socialist revolution is, it is guaranteed the capitalist powers will do all they can to snuff it out. And that fact makes it hard to maintain democracy and complete civil liberties, because you must mobilize for war at the same time as defend the revolutionary values which run counter to that. The Sandanistas, if anything, were TOO respectful of civil liberties like press freedom. They allowed La Prensa, to continue publishing while it was clearly being funded by the same govt. that was terrorizing the population by supporting Contras. That turned out to be a big mistake for the Sandanistas.
Agreed on the Spanish anarchists, from what I've been able to learn of them. I'm somewhat less sure about the Sandinistas.
But the point I've been trying to make, though with much greater difficulty than I expected, is that when we fixate on the wrapper rather than the essence we open ourselves to being euchred.
Obastard is a good example: everyone was so fixated on the not-Bush wrapper that they completely failed to notice the contents were the same. And most of them are still bamboozled, thanks to the Mighty Wurlitzer.
Same thing happened in 1789. Everyone was so fixated on not having kings and dukes and similar that most of them didn't notice that they were creating the same things without the crowns. The few who did notice - Jefferson, Mason, Henry, Clinton, et al. - were shouted down.
Unless we stop being mesmerised by the wrappers and labels, we'll continue to get taken to the cleaners.
Capitalism isn't the problem, it's just a symptom. The _problem_ is that so many people believe that there are certain people so innately meritorious that they deserve to live off the labor of the less-meritorious rest of us.
That's what we need to focus on demystifying, if we're serious about wanting a better world.
Mairead, I believe we have a fundamental disagreement, as I believe that capitalism epitomizes a system which valorizes and glorifies those who most readily exploit others, "capitalize" on their labor, etc. So, in terms of speaking about objective relations, capitalism IS the problem, it is not a mere symptom. From a subjective viewpoint, of course, if humans were all saints, or even mystics, capitalism could not exist because there would be no one to play the game that the Donald Trumps of the world find so endlessly fascinating. But humans unfortunately are not all saints.
I'm not saying capitalism is the ONLY system of one person exploiting another. But it is THE PRIMARY such system in the world today. Its impact on the planet dwarfs even Comintern at its peak, it dwarfs the Vatican and all the other religious hierarchies. There are many ways to "better the world." I'm talking about having a livable future. Capitalism is destroying the very biosphere we all depend on. Of course, it is a system that depends on human agency. But waiting for the 'bad applies' at the controls to wake up from their sociopathic, greedy stupors is kind of like Waiting for Godot.......don't you think?
We might have a fundamental disagreement, but I'd prefer to think it's a forest/trees problem.
If we say "Capitalism" is the problem, aren't we doing what the duopolists do, when they say "the GOP is the problem because the Dems and the GOP are different"? Is it sufficient that the name be different? They want us to believe that the name is the thing. Different name, different thing. Dems are not GOP, Capitalism is not Fascism -- the names are different! Magical thinking.
Of course, on one level they're right, and that's the secret of their success: there are enough superficial differences between, say, Capitalism and Fascism that they seem different, the way Chevys and Buicks seemed different until that one Buick owner went ballistic after discovering his new Buick had a Chevy engine in.
People were totally fed up with Bush. So Obama got sold to us. Break out the champers. Happy days are here again! Except we got Bush 3 because too many didn't realise the wrapper is not the contents.
Kucinich, in Oakland during the '04 campaign, made a wonderful comment during Q&A. It should have been written on the sky in letters of fire: "Let's say it's the morning after the election and we won. Okay, what did we win? If we win the election but nothing changes, who _really_ won?"
If only the wrapper changes, who really won?
I'm trying to argue that we should ignore the name on the wrapper, and decide what position to take by looking inside at the substance.
That we shouldn't be trying to get rid of "Capitalism" or install "Socialism", but rather we should be trying to get rid of (e.g.) Exploitation, Some Are More Equal Than Others, and Freeloading (no matter what wrapper it's in) and install Fairness, Personal Freedom, and Looking Out For One Another (no matter what someone wants to call it).
---------------------------------------
But waiting for the 'bad applies' at the controls to wake up from their sociopathic, greedy stupors is kind of like Waiting for Godot.......don't you think?
---------------------------------------
Oh hell yes...but who was suggesting we wait for them to wake up? I say drag the bastards away from the controls by their lugs AND put them on trial for malicious lingering.
An important distinction is relevant regarding overpopulation. People don't have large families because they are poor - they are poor because they have large families.
I think Amartya Sen made that distinction, but it may have been someone else.
"I'm afraid we have a long road ahead of us." I fear the opposite is true. Alas.
Fear and ignorance have trumped common sense. Half the population of the USA have yet to accept evolution for christsake! I guess creating hell on earth is the way to get to heaven.
Agreed - it's going to be a damned *short* road unless we dedigitate soonest.
Capitalism is the problem here too, because it sells off the peoples' airwaves to corporations which propagandize people rather than educate them. There is nothing inherent in people that makes them stupid. They have been programmed to be uninformed. We need to create a true public broadcasting system that shows films like The Corporation every day and other informative interesting stuff, instead of the bullshit that regularly fills our TV screens.
Most people have little interest in "informative interesting stuff." Only a few of us would bother to watch, and that would merely be preaching to the choir. Yes, most every thinking person knows that capitalism sucks, but no one has come up with a truly better alternative. I believe we are stuck trying to make a shitty system work better, and that is certainly possible. Propaganda is inherent in the human species. Whoever has the most power is the 'educator.' Things could actually be much worse in this propaganda/education debate, and they may get worse. As overpopulation increases and climate change worsens, people's thinking will likely become increasingly unhinged with assorted scapegoats suffering mass wrath. We are lucky to live during the 'good old days.' Enjoy them while working for change (pocket change?).
Greg, you're just expressing cynicism when you say 'most people' have no interest in informative TV. That's another thing that is programmed into people: CYNICISM. In fact, one nickname I have for television is The Cynicizer, because it gives one a totally warped, distorted impression of humanity. Under capitalism today, in the fetid idiotic state it has gotten to, radio and other media are similar. Everything conspires to make us feel cynical and defeated. But that's what "they" want you to feel.
I don't think you understand people very well. People are willing to pay a great deal to be entertained. Many others in America are workaholics. A large number are too stupid to understand. This group can not make logical choices. The Abbie Normals are legion.
I don't perceive legions of people clamoring for longer work hours, reduced pay and benefits, etc. But that is what they are forced into by this wonderful capitalist system, which keeps millions unemployed as a way to keep wages down and working people weak. Calling people "workaholic" is just missing the point: people who are "workaholic" are often just poor working stiffs trying to hang on to their job, forced by bosses to work longer and longer hours. And rather than call people "too stupid" why not reflect on your own privilege that has enabled YOU to understand what they do not? I see a lot of well paid "educated" pundits on TV and in the corporate media who are not particularly bright either. The masses are smarter than them. The masses are smarter than the dumbasses in DC who couldn't pass a healthcare bill with a strong public option. How do I know that? Because polls consistently show that two-thirds of Americans favor the government guaranteeing access to basic medical care for all.
This system is designed to keep people uneducated, miseducated, under-informed, overworked and distracted. If you cannot see that, perhaps it is YOUR own limitations that are the cause.
"Capitalism" does not exist. It is analogous to one of Plato's Universals. People exist. People see the opportunity to make money by doing something, and they sieze the opportunity. This was true before the Industrial Revolution, when the label assigned to economic transactions was Mercantilism.
The label "Capitalism" refers to a system of industrial operations which depends on the production of commodities which are sold, and in which the revenues from the sales are funneled back into the system to make more commodities. This system's flaw is that it is possible for those in control to siphon off some of the revenue for themselves, rather than spread it around to the workers who produce the goods.
WHY DOES THE SYSTEM DISMISS INDIGENOUS PEOPLES WHO KNOW FOREST STEWARDSHIP BETTER THAN ANY PhD OR WESTERN SCIENTIST?
FEVER: A video guide about indigenous peoples and climate change
http://intercontinentalcry.org/fever-a-video-guide-about-indigenous-peoples-and-climate-change/
Good question. This article was written by those who, while they may be critical of the system, ultimately support the system.
The move to a sustainable society like that of indigenous peoples would require overturning the system. The focus on overpopulation is relevant here too. The overpopulation shibboleth is always pointed at victims of the system: poor people, which includes indigenous peoples. You always see "overpopulation" in areas of greatest poverty (or inequality of wealth). In close proximity to overpopulation the issue of food shortages is always raised. But there is plenty of food being produced. The abstract notion of the "food supply" is raised as if it has an obvious relationship to hunger. It doesn't. The global economic system that we have is capitalism and if you are not a capitalist the way that you survive is by selling your labor, i.e. a job.
Poverty and hunger and "overpopulation" are all directly connected to (adequate) employment (or lack thereof). Capitalists have always desired a "reserve army" of unemployed so as to keep down the wages of those that are employed.
The food supply is irrelevant if you have no money to buy food. In 2008 the food riots in Haiti had nothing to do with the supply of food (rice). It was due to Haiti's poverty, that Haiti's domestic rice production had been decimated by the "structural adjustments" of the IMF and World Bank which all were compounded in 2008 by commodity speculators driving up the global price of rice.
This article is a work of propaganda. Its ideological bias seeks to divert our attention from the real cause of global warming, environmental degradation, food shortages and overpopulation: the capitalism system itself.
I am disappointed in Dahr Jamail.
I have followed Dahr Jamail's unembedded journalism since shock and aweful. He went places; told stories and brought back photos that no journalist was able to bring out of places like Falluja through his discreet old fashioned method of leaving the hotel room and following the story.
Today, I believe he brings us facts and figures that paint a picture of our grim reality. and he is smart enough to know what will get published. In fact, I was suprised at the incongruity of the seriousness of the article compared to a typical bad and worse headline that editors must have chosen.
Dahr Jamail has taken information from what he considers good sources and applied his understanding. He looks at consequences then causes and tries to put it together, so while there is truth it doesn't always fit together well. It is also a symptom or reflection of how people understand how we see things. It is why we are where we are because we don't learn from our mistakes.
I think indigenous peoples have thier roots in nature the earth where other western cultures have thier roots in science. This creates the fragments of knowledge that have some truth but no understanding. Something you might like to read: The Grass Dancer by Susan Powers. She is a Harvard educated dakota from the standingrock reservation. Good read.
Oh thank you, I am always on the look-out for a good book and will add this to my short list. (it always takes me awhile) Susan Power (no s) also wrote, "Strong Heart Society" which I haven't read but think this too will go on the list. I do enjoy your poetry as well, hope you are keeping a copy.
I think I am being banned here, don't ask me why because I have do idea. Maybe I am to close to the thunderbeings and it is for my own good. lol
I agree there is that quality to being banned but there are no clear reasons, wrong or right or inbetween. I've never been obscene here that I know of, once a friend of mine wrote something pretty awfull because they didn't want me to come here but that was years ago. I do feel there is a great bias herebut that is another story.
I will have to make that a very short list, I am very interested to read this book. Susan Power is a storyteller, It is the stories of several generations and in it are the tradition of being a blade of grass.
Two words: Carbon Tax.
I can understand why no one is enthusiastic about paying a tax on fossil fuels. But it's time we step up and do what needs to be done. We pay some now, or pay more later.
The American Chamber of Commerce, the American Enterprise Institute, and the American Petroluem Association can all go take a flying you-know-what. No more dessert for them until they act like grown-ups, eat their vegetables, and quit whining like spoiled children -- which, in effect, is what they are.
here! here! Carbon Tax - it will happen - whether in monetary form or incomprehensible debt
The only solution: abolish capitalism, or sit back and watch capitalism destroy the planet. With infinite kindness, Mother Nature waits for her children to figure this out.
Mother Nature has other intelligences ready to take over the subservient cooperative maintenance of her equilibrium. Ayahuasca keeps telling US this. Many do listen.
Capitalism is like a dead log jammed mid-stream in the river of life in the biosphere. The gently flowing water will soon flood and wash the strangely disconnected notion of "capitalism" away into the eternal ocean of time and timeless rhythms. There might even be humans left, horrifically humbled, to see capitalism float away. - After the frothing as it unjams.
Capitalism is simply a synonym for unmitigated greed. We can't have people going around saying, "I believe in unmitigated greed", so instead they say, "I believe in Capitalism".
The only thing a carbon tax will do is stop those who are not rich, or at least, not upper upper middle class,to not be able to afford:
1. gas to go towork,
2. electricity
3. food
4 heating
5 medical care
Now, I'm all for doing something to change the inevitable destruction to come from doing nothing, but how about we start from the top.... the rich who are controling everthing. None of the rich will be affected by a carbon tax. Small business will. Corporations won't.
It's hard to get my point across. I also think that we do not have to live at the same wasteful levels that we have been. If we don't have electricity all the time, so what. We need to be smart and efficient with our life styles and that will be very different from now.
I think some type of political change, even if it has to be an executive directive, should be a good start. Limit what can be used, especially the rich. Flying around in airplanes for no useful reason. Actually, start to bring down the production of electricity from coal plants, oil plants and just divert what ever oil we have to making solar panels, wind turbines, and geothermal equipment. Then the gov should give huge subsidies to those who cannot afford to do any of these things. Forget about making huge solar panel fields. Put them right on people's houses. This would mitigate the need to completely revamp the grid. We may be able to shore it up, but we don't have the time, the resources or the money to completely remake it.
In other words, these are just some ideas. BUT DEPENDING ON THE CAPITALIST WAY TO CONVERT SOCIETY OVER TO OTHER FORMS OF ENERGY IS GOING TO JUST CAUSE COMPLETE INEQUALITY IN OUR SOCIETY. THIS NEEDS TO BE DONE FAIRLY. IF JOBS, SUFFER, LET PEOPLE JUST KEEP THEIR HOMES. DO NOT PUNISH THOSE WHO ARE UNABLE TO AFFORD THE "NEW ECONOMIC CHALLENGES" BY SAYING "OH WELL, YOU DON'T HAVE THE MONEY TO KEEP UP? TOO BAD." THIS WOULD BE A WAY TO KEEP HUGH CONFLICT FROM OCCURRING IN OUR SOCIETY. OTHERWISE, I HATE TO THINK OF THE CONSEQUENCES OF "LETTING THE MARKET WORK" AND HEY, HAVEN'T WE ALREADY BEEN DOING THAT FOR THIRTY YEARS? WE LEFT IT UP TO "CHOICE" BY EVEYONE, INCLUDING BUSINESSES, CORPORATIONS TO "DO THE RIGHT THING FOR THE ENVIRONMENT" WE CAN SEE WHERE THAT LED.
The carbon tax in this case is a tax at the wellhead or similar, which is shared out to taxpayers per capita, so that those who are frugal in their carbon generation can use it for something else, e.g. insulation.
It's Dr Hansen's proposal, and a very nice one too.
The road ahead is long, the road is unpaved, and there are two tracks to the road. The first track is protest in all of its forms.
The other track is a different style of protest. When a system is failed, as small groups of ordinary people we must build our needs from scratch, ourselves.
Useful but not critical: basic alternative energy research
Critical: alternative energy product development
Critical: being a first customer
Useful but not critical: being an early adapter
Residually useful: bringing up the rear
Being a protester type, or being a person associated with the bleeding edge of real product development, isn't something that we do to make a profit, although if we do make a profit we can do this full-time. It's what we do to be right with our God and with our society, to honor the memory of those of our ancestors who in a number of ways have made our lives better, and to respect many future generations. We want our children to be grateful to have us as parents.
Good luck to everyone on both tracks. I'm sorry that the path is so hard, but I'm grateful that we have any path at all, albeit a hard path.
Courage check.