Subscribe to Common Dreams News Updates
Most Popular This Week
Popular content
Today's Top News
From Climate Science to Climate Justice: Climate Change a Symptom of Man's Inhumanity to Man
G-8 leaders agreed yesterday to the "'aspirational' goal of preventing global temperatures from rising more than 3.6 degrees Fahrenheit," according to the New York Times.
Which reinforces the fact that we persist in speaking about climate change as if it were just a technical problem related to CO2 emissions and temperature rises.
Not only is that dry, it's true only to a point.
The salient (and problematic) underlying political reality is that climate change is the culmination of longstanding processes of colonization and realpolitik.
Over a period of centuries, these often-cruel processes, which involved systematic violations of human rights, absorbed all of the world's economies into the Western economic model of globalization, instilling and fueling a market-driven psychology of fear and greed among investors and citizens in nearly every geographic region of the planet.
Globalization, touted as a model of economic inclusiveness, has paradoxically accelerated the loss of cultural identity and linguistic diversity, sped the pace of environmental degradation, and increased the gap between rich and poor.
Global inclusiveness through globalization? Not.
Global suffering and inequity through globalization? You betcha.
Unfortunately, with ecological and climate crises in full swing -- and the global economy on life support -- time is running out to influence the momentum of powerful climatic, economic, environmental, and social forces that are about to alter the face of human civilization.
Today, for example, the economic and climate crises are together decreasing capital flows and reducing agricultural output in key parts of the world. If these trends persist (and, barring miracles, they will), competition for money, food, and water would compound already difficult conditions, leading to civil unrest and prompting rights violations.
A conference in Seattle, Washington, explored whether a human-rights angle on the climate crisis could influence policy makers to take dramatic action to mitigate carbon emissions growth so as to avoid the worst rights impacts of climate change, including universal rights to education, food, health, and security.
The conference, "Three Degrees: The Law of Climate Change and Human Rights," assembled climate scientists, policy makers, academics, human rights lawyers, and law students.
Mary Robinson, president of the Republic of Ireland between 1990 and 1997, was a keynote speaker.
A pioneering human rights lawyer and distinguished professor of law, Robinson followed seven years as Irish president with five years as high commissioner of the United Nations High Commission for Human Rights (UNHCHR).
After leaving the UN in 2002, Robinson founded Realizing Rights: The Ethical Globalization Initiative, which aims to "put human rights standards at the heart of global governance and policy-making and to ensure that the needs of the poorest and most vulnerable are addressed on the global stage."
In a brief interview, I spoke to Robinson about "climate justice," a term highlighting that climate change is a human rights issue for which the West is largely responsible.
Sea level rise and other disastrous effects of climate change are going to affect impoverished nations in Africa, Asia, South and Southeast Asia, the South Pacific, and more, unfairly and disproportionately -- that is, much sooner, with greater force, and with profound long-term human rights impacts.
(Here I might add, however, that the U.S. mainland, especially the Southeast, could be among the earliest regions hit, so policymakers stateside should not feel emboldened to use the disproportionate impacts argument as a delaying tactic.)
Seven years have passed since Robinson left the UNHCHR. She observed, "We still don't have a shared vision for human rights."
Robinson referred to the scale of the climate challenge as new and remarked "we are not showing the intelligent capability of leadership to deal with it."
Given the predicted impacts of climate change, she said, "More justice is needed, not more wealth."
"The values of human rights and dignity are important to move forward," she emphasized. "We need a broader view of human rights that re-frames the issue with the notion of climate justice."
Robinson believes that the climate justice paradigm appeals to those who "see the human costs and the unfairness" of disproportionate climate impacts.
In Africa, for example, climate change is having early impacts around the right to food. "Farmers in Rwanda don't know when to sow now."
On a policy level, Robinson noted, "Governments have a common but differentiated responsibility to develop national action plans for climate change."
Furthermore, she argues the West needs to help developing countries because of a "justice and equity element," not simply out of charity, an attitude that has been in evidence in the past.
She also advocates the rapid transfer of green technologies to developing countries so that water distillation, solar-powered cooking, electricity generation, and many other sustainable development needs can be adequately and equitably addressed.
In terms of climate activism, Robinson said, "We need to simplify the science into what can be understood and we need to do this without overwhelming people with a sense of despair."
She points to tcktcktck.org as a popular campaign that provides a robust vehicle for addressing environmental and humanitarian aspects of climate change.
My conversation with Robinson has led me to conclude that the real reason we may need to re-frame climate change as a human rights issue is so that more people pay attention to the fact that the climate crisis we are facing today reflects the sum total of man's inhumanity to man.
In these uncertain times, Robinson's substantial vision, intellect, and track record may or may not be a decisive factor in motivating massive shifts in public action and policy-making on climate change.
Nonetheless, advocating a new vision for climate justice--and taking bold humanitarian steps now to address the suffering climate change will cause--would, in a vast understatement, appear to be the least we can do.
- Posted in
12 Comments so far
Show AllIn America, and I suspect elsewhere in the world, the vast majority of vocal Climate deniers are conservative republicans.
There's no other reason for this item of science to be so closely tied to a political viewpoint, other than the one you are stating. These people BELIEVE in manifest destiny, in economic darwinism, and in unrestrained global capitalism. For years, those of us arguing for Global Warming to be taken seriously have found the arguments against us to be frustratingly hard-held, convoluted, ever-changing, and well-financed. You begin to suspect that 'something else' was driving the disagreement, something other than the science. That something else is a distaste for 'big government', and its willing to lie, cheat, steal, and deny careful science in service to its faith in free markets.
I think its important to identify, as you have, what is driving this 'rear-guard' action. You need to know your enemy. For years, those of us worried about Climate Change have sought to understand and attack with knowledge the arguments of the deniers. Its important to know that those arguments are secondary to the deniers, a facade hiding the capitalist faith that drives their interest. Because it means that NO amount of patient arguing, scientific evidence, or debate is going to change the mind of someone who doesn't really care about the science. For them, there can NEVER be any united global governmental response to Global Warming, or to any other global crisis for that matter. There just CAN'T be, and hence, there can be no such thing as Global Warming. Global crisis, like the finance system crisis we're living through, are to be seen as opportunities for preying on the weak and taking the profits.
though i can certainly sympathize with your views here, i think it might behoove us all to at least consider reframing this a bit. the 'enemy' is not 'the rich' or 'the powers that be' or 'neoliberal economics' precisely, but the IGNORANCE permeating the ideologies of said foes. that ignorance is the belief (sometimes embodied, alas, in folks on both 'left and 'right', though these days the way it manifests in mouthpieces on the right makes it seem a rightwing phenomenon) in our separateness and the threatened/vulnerable me/us as opposed to the threatening/power-weilding (and 'power' comes in more forms than just military and industrial... there is also the power of nonviolent resistance, violent resistance, education and such, which are the tools of the oppressed) you/them. climate change and its threat to wreak havoc on the haves as well as the have-nots may be a unifying phenomenon, actually, if there is enough common-ground explored and recognition of one anothers' HUMANITY. i hesitate to use the word, 'sin', but it's like blasting away at 'the sinner' rather than 'the sin' or error, to point the finger at 'the other' projecting all blame and fault away from oneself, which makes correcting the error that much harder. if people steadfastly BELIEVE in manifest destiny and economic darwinism, the work lies in convincing them to open their minds and hearts to alternative views. what snapped you out of YOUR trance? was it meeting a 3rd world torture survivor? reading a book by an eloquent activist? having a loved one become ill or die due to corporate dishonesty/irresponsibility? here on cd and elsewhere it is amply evident that bludgeoning the 'other' whether with accusatory words or economic strangleholds or bombs serves mainly to escalate the conflict and further divide. seriously, does the division into the 'right' and 'wrong' camps help to solve the problem? witness israel/palestine for example. the problem is the problem.... the land/community/security needs of the human beings-and the need to trust the other to respect and honor those needs in a way that recognizes their brotherhood/connection and their connection with the web of life-what they have IN COMMON.... not the other PEOPLE themselves. eliminating the 'enemy' may temporarily solve an immediate problem, but utilizing violence to exclude the perspective of the 'other' impoverishes us all. this is not feel-good kumbaya rhetoric... we are inextricably connected and need first and foremost to see that and to connect with that vision, however dim, in both self and 'the other'. someone who's studied nonviolent communication could probably say this more succinctly than i, but i think it is really important to move beyond cynicism and find ways to create bridges between opposing viewpoints, not damage them or ignore what is connectible.' know your enemy is correct'.... the enemy is ignorance, sometimes willful ignorance. getting someone to care who seems hellbent on not caring is not for the faint of heart, but people do manage to break through regardless. think of camilo meija or israeli refuseniks...rachel carson, maude barlow... mike reynolds 'the garbage warrior'... be one of them, if you can. patience is not the opposite of gumption, but its vital ally.
Well said. We should always try, but that kind of empathy is generally seen as 'lack of backbone' among the frightened and dismissed. You may disregard that dismissal at the cerebral level. But at the gut level it hurts and is discouraging.
Matangicita said: "what snapped you out of YOUR trance? was it meeting a 3rd world torture survivor? reading a book by an eloquent activist? "
Spent two years, at the tender age of 10, in SouthEast Asia, in 1969-1970. All our defenses remain in place, until we come face to face with starvation. And as starvation makes its weary rounds, begging from table to table for a centavo, we recognize the conservative ethic for what it is: the ultimate manifestation of the human comedy. Because people who are starving will do anything you want, just as Ayn Rand directed, for their self-preservation: they will dance, they will make fun of themselves, make faces, they will prostrate themselves and sell their children, all in complete obedience to the conservative 'for profit' ethic. The ultimate in 'lowest common denominator' capitalism is obviously found in the lowest common denominator.
The spoiled patriotic brats I speak of won't know this until its too late. No amount of empathy will turn them. They have committed their frightened inner-child's to their path, and the global consequences are someone elses problem. You should know that they have a well-constructed story, about the loss of 'traditional values' convincing them that washing their hands of the future is the right thing to do.
And I don't believe that trying to engage them is worth the effort. They are lost. We must, somehow, roll over them, and do what we can. Too much engagement, and we risk losing ourselves. And the future cannot risk that we do that. This ship is sinking: some people will have to be tossed.
For Capitalism, costs to the environment as well as costs to human rights are "externalities". Capitalists don't care about either. Unfortunately, the "angle" of human rights will not work any better.
I suggest that nature will resolve the argument over global climate change without any substantive interference by mankind.
We as a species seem to be incapable of coping with climate change - whether it is because it is too big a problem to wrap one's head around, or because our closely-held and jealously guarded ideologies won't allow us to accept the idea that we aren't part of any 'special creation' or that the rules of nature don't apply to us. Either way, we are probably well on our way down the same path as other extinct species who couldn't cope with the requirements of their own survival.
Very well put!
Does anyone think we can geoengineer our way out of this? If everyone stopped driving, would it halt global warming? I've seen articles that suggest that we can only slow it at best at this point.
Aerosols in the upper atmosphere would help, but would also hurt agriculture and kill people via emphysema and trees via acid rain. A mylar disc, positioned in a sun-synchronized orbit (yes, that would be one big_ss*d piece of silver balloon) would reflect sunlight. Just planting more trees constitutes geoengineering. But, no. Practically, we are committed to a certain amount of AGW, and to praying that the natural positive reinforcement mechanisms touched off by our blindness don't finish us off. Really, what Exxon and the right want us to do is play 'texas hold-up' with the climate, and our children 's lives. Un-effing-believable.
"From Climate Science to Climate Justice: Climate Change a Symptom of Man's Inhumanity to Man"
Or just conservative's stupidity.
thanks to the author, to mary robinson for harping on that SHARED VISION thing... and thx for the various links --lots of good stuff on there, too!-loved the comic relief of the 'profit meets prophet' scenario (pasted below)....just one question, is that national low-loss electrical grid system proposal you have hansen mention for real??????
Profit meets prophet:
Fictional conversation: Dr. James Hansen, Steve Jobs and His Holiness the Dalai Lama meet briefly at NYC café to discuss climate change
Published by Sanjay Khanna June 26th, 2008 in Climate Change, Comic Relief, Global Warming
Characters
Dr. James Hansen, Head of NASA’s Goddard Institute for Space Studies, New York City, New York — Rock Star Climate Scientist
Steven P. Jobs, CEO of Apple, Inc., Cupertino, California — Rock Star Consumer Tech CEO
His Holiness the Dalai Lama (HHDL), head of the Tibetan Government in Exile, Dharamsala, India — Simple Monk, a.k.a. Rock Star Man of Peace
Young Happenin’ Server — Fan of Rock Stars
Unnamed Manhattan Café, 2:00 pm
Young Happenin’ Server (starstruck, hesitates): You guys ready to order?
Dr. James Hansen: I’ll have a coffee.
Steve Jobs: Green tea, please.
HHDL: Whatever Steve has. (Aside to server.) You know, I was featured in the Apple “Think Different” campaign. But I was not an old man then, fewer wrinkles (points at his own face, chuckles).
Young Happenin’ Server (visibly relaxes, heads to kitchen)
Jobs (to Hansen): So you’re the rock star of climate science.
Hansen (to Jobs): And you’re the rock star of consumer tech.
HHDL to both: You are great men of technology and of science. Me, I am just a simple monk, some say a “man of peace.”
Jobs: So what should we do about this climate thing, Hansen? There could be some really cool iPhone apps that get people to reduce their personal carbon emissions.
Hansen: We need to get way past iPhone apps and small steps, Steve. We must reduce CO2 levels in the atmosphere to 350 ppm or less, and I’ve just proposed a national low-loss electrical grid system that would criss-cross the United States. And we absolutely must implement a moratorium on coal-based electricity generation–this is our last chance. I don’t mean to get personal, Steve, but I sincerely hope no coal-based electricity generation is feeding Apple plants in China.
Jobs (hesitates): Um, I hope so, too. Your Holiness? Thoughts?
HHDL (experiences “aha” moment): Come to think of it, I was the 146th recipient of the Congressional Gold Medal of Honor in 2007. President Bush presented it. Steve, you are my witness: I am not gloating when I say that award really upset the Chinese Communist Party.
Jobs: Huh?
HHDL: Er, sorry (chuckles). As I was saying, we must have universal responsibility that places kindness and compassion at the center of protecting future generations. It is because of greed, wanting more than we need, and because of our fear of suffering, in particular, that we have built a society based on delusion. So, if we think more clearly, we see that it is the pollution of our minds that is creating pollution and climate change on the planet. (Pause.) Steve, what’s that about your making iPhones in China? China isn’t respecting the human rights of the Tibetan people.
Jobs: Your Holiness, it’s all about extending our award-winning products and customer service to China. If we manufacture iPhones in China, the Tibetans will enjoy them sooner rather than later. Plus, like I said, there’ll be some really cool apps so Tibetans can track climate change.
HHDL: What are “cool apps”? Cool appliances? You mean refrigerators? (Lets out belly laugh.)
Hansen: The Tibetans don’t need to track climate change, Steve, it’s right outside their windows. You’re barking up the wrong tree.
Young Happenin’ Server (returns with order, lingers)
Jobs (to Hansen): Right, let’s cut to the chase: We need His Holiness the Dalai Lama’s universal responsibility, based on kindness and compassion, and using our kindness, compassion, and maybe a little righteous anger, we can lobby Congress to build the national power grid that you advocate. Right?
Hansen: You bet. Any additional thoughts, Your Holiness?
HHDL: Yes, in 1989, I was awarded the Nobel Peace Prize. So, you know, maybe, just maybe, I am a rock star. (Beams with pride.) Perhaps I can even get a few monks together with my friends, Bishop Desmond Tutu and Vaclav Havel, to chant something for download on iTunes. Steve?
Jobs: Your Holiness, I think we can get you a free iPod Touch for that great idea.
Hansen: And maybe we could place a podcast of my congressional testimony up on iTunes, too. Steve?
Jobs: All right, I suppose you want an iPod as well?
Hansen: Sure, why not?
Jobs: (Sighs.) These free iPod requests stress me out.
HHDL: Steve, James, you both have good hearts. And we must all, every one of us, develop our hearts in this time of change.
Young Happenin’ Server: Right on.
Villages where people are hunter-gatherers are egalitarian; the huts are all the same size, everyone dresses equally well, and as long as they are not hungry or sick they are probably the only happy people on the planet.
As soon as agriculture is discovered it is as if a miracle has occurred. There is a surplus. It's magic: something for nothing. The village has more than it needs and the obvious question arises 'What do we do with it?'
In no time at all some villagers are rich. They can buy things they don't need. They can loan money to their neighbors at interest. They can build bigger houses, more to the point they can pay their neighbors--their former neighbors--to do it for them. A hireling is no longer a neighbor.
Something is not to be had for nothing. People are no longer happy. The poor envy the rich. The rich despise the poor---and fear them.
But the genie is out of the bottle. What to do? Go back to being equally poor---unthinkable!
I think maybe in the garden of Eden Eve didn't give the apple to Adam at all, he had to pay something for it. Soon he realized that the apple had been as much his as it was hers.
He disliked having been cheated and has been trying to get even ever since. Unfortunately you can never quite get even for having been used like an object. It is your own stupidity you can't forgive.
There can be no "humanitarian solution" without a "technical solution" that is capable of benefiting people everywhere.
http://vortexengine.ca --the "technical solution" (Plan B)