Subscribe to Common Dreams News Updates
Most Popular This Week
Popular content
Today's Top News
Are Progressives in Denial About Climate Change?
If you listen to right wing commentators, you might think American progressives are leading the charge to protect our planet from climate change. Would that it were so!
All around the country progressives are fighting to make our world a better place to live. In the midst of an ascended right wing and the dominance of corporations over our daily lives, progressives continue to fight for affordable housing, better wages and working conditions, social justice, clean water and many other solutions to the ills that have long plagued their communities. And yes, most of us progressives also support policies to cut greenhouse gasses and thereby reduce climate change.
But climate change is not just another “issue.” The earth is in the midst of a radical shift that will affect our country and society more severely than other great upheavals such as the Civil War, the Great Depression, or World War II. It represents an existential threat to every human and every community on the planet. It threatens every job, every economy in the world. It threatens the health of our children. It threatens our food and water supply.
The disruption of the earth’s climate appears in many forms. Often they seem contradictory -- heat waves and snowstorms, floods and droughts. But there can be no reasonable doubt that greenhouse gasses are raising the earth’s temperature and thereby making its climate more unstable and extreme. At this very moment, the effects of climate change are all around us: Texas is withering under the driest seven months on record; flooding from the Mississippi river has devastated a huge swath of the South; food prices are sky-rocketing due to dueling droughts and flooding worldwide.
But much of the progressive community either has not realized or is refusing to accept the implications of this escalating crisis. When you read progressives’ proposals, examine the legislation they are supporting, and listen to their conversations and speeches, it seems like only a minority are leading the charge on climate change. It’s as if a Tsunami was about to strike and wipe out an entire city, and local activists decided to go ahead with their planned meeting of how to stop Walmart from opening up a new store.
As the crisis escalates, the failure of the progressive community to face the magnitude and far-reaching implications of climate change is teetering dangerously close to a new form of climate denial. Here are seven ways of thinking about climate change that we frequently hear expressed by progressives that miss its true significance:
Climate change isn’t proven: The arguments that block progressives from really taking on the climate crisis begin with the anti-science climate denialism of Alexander Cockburn. A longtime columnist for the Nation Magazine and co-founder of CounterPunch, Cockburn regularly ridicules climate scientists and activists. In 2009 during the Copenhagen climate negotiations, he argued in an article entitled Anthropogenic Global Warming is a Farce,” that: “Changes in atmospheric CO2 do not correlate with human emissions of CO2, the latter being entirely trivial in the global balance, with no relation to science or reason...Properly speaking, it's a farce. In terms of distraction from cleaning up the pollutants that are actually killing people, it's a terrible tragedy.” Fortunately, Cockburn is largely alone amongst the left in his parroting of Exxon-funded studies designed to confuse the public and stall efforts to switch to renewable sources of energy. But many progressives are reluctant to recognize the full implications of the scientific prophesies that are today being fulfilled far faster than most scientists anticipated.
Climate Change is an environmental issue: The next argument that hamstrings progressives from fully addressing the climate crisis is the notion that it is essentially an environmental issue, similar to the campaigns to protect animals, trees and streams. The environmental community is partially responsible for this view, having often framed their climate-related campaigns primarily in terms of protection of nature. Climate change does indeed threaten polar bears, but that doesn’t mean that it doesn’t threaten us humans, too. In the next 40 years alone, scientists predict a state of permanent drought throughout the Southwest US and climate-linked disease deaths to double.
Climate Change is just one issue among many: Most progressives recognize that climate change is an issue of concern, but treat it as simply another issue to add to their progressive laundry list. The problem is that the climate crisis is not akin to other issues we’ve faced as a society. In fact, it’s not an “issue” at all. It is a transformation of the relation between human beings and the basic conditions of life on earth. The locked-in effects of our failure to reduce greenhouse gasses are already catastrophic and irreversible. But much worse lies in store if we fail to radically reduce our greenhouse gas emissions right now. Of course the full range of progressive issues is important, but even the greatest victories will be ashes in our mouths unless they are won in the larger context of averting climate catastrophe.
Climate Change is primarily an issue of social justice: Grassroots activists at both the national and international levels have primarily been framing the climate crisis as an issue of “justice.” They see themselves as organizers of a new “Climate Justice Movement” demanding that poor and marginalized peoples be sufficiently protected from the negative effects of climate change.
While supporting the most vulnerable is a critical element of climate protection, we need to ask ourselves: What is the role of climate justice in the broader struggle to avert climate catastrophe?
Climate change affects the less oppressed as well as the more oppressed. The less oppressed are part of the broad force necessary to combat it. If the climate movement uses its power solely to protect the most vulnerable, the climate catastrophe will continue unabated for everyone, including the most vulnerable. A progressive approach to climate should start from the common interest everyone has in common survival -- while fighting to be sure that protection for some doesn’t mean victimization for others.
The way to gain support for climate protection is avoid talking about climate change: Many of the biggest players in the climate movement argue that to save the planet we need to purge the words “global warming” and “climate change” from our talking points and educational materials. Poll-oriented groups like the Breakthrough Institute and the Environmental Defense Fund argue that public opinion surveys prove Americans care most about jobs and lack the capacity to act on some distant threat. They maintain that instead of being prophets of doom, climate protection advocates should gather around a “good news” agenda that limits our messaging to green jobs, national pride, and reducing our dependence on foreign oil. If the number one issue for the public is jobs, then we should campaign for green jobs and avoid antagonizing the public by discussing inconvenient truths.
But public concern about climate has plummeted in direct correlation with the “stop talking about climate change” strategy. In 1998, before Al Gore tirelessly began traveling the country with his doom and gloom slideshow, only 50% if the country considered climate change a major worry. By 2008, a year after Gore and the UN Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change won the Nobel Peace Prize, two-thirds of Americans said they “worry a great deal or fair amount about climate change.” But meanwhile, many major climate organizations and spokespeople were persuaded that they should stop telling the truth to the public about the real dangers of climate change and instead just talk about the positive benefits of a new energy policy. By March 2011, the proportion of people concerned about the climate had dropped back down to 51%.
If we want to gain public support for measures to mitigate climate change, we need to educate people about the crisis and the rationale for new policy. At the same time, as the climate crisis deepens, many people are likely to pass directly from denial to despair. Fear can make people hopeless and immobilized. If they don’t hear realistic explanations of what the climate crisis is all about, combined with rational proposals for what to do about it, they will be vulnerable to fantasy-based explanations and irrational solutions.
Don’t admit that some people will need protection in the transition to a green economy: Environmentalists and some in the labor movement often argue that a transition to clean energy would create far more jobs than it would eliminate. While that is true, it misses a crucial point. The fact that some people get new jobs provides little solace for the people and communities who have lost theirs. As Carl Wood of the Utility Workers Union of America put it "Workers are used to being ground up and spat out by any change in society. In the United States there is no safety net for the victims." Failure to develop and advocate for robust just transition policies to protect workers will continue to drive working class voters into the arms of the Tea Party and others who have successfully framed climate legislation as a “job killer.”
Progressives must focus all their resources on beating the right: A common refrain amongst progressives is that our most urgent priority must be defeating right wing forces. The assumption is that if we concentrate our efforts in the electoral arena, we will be able squash conservatives and enact our laundry list of reforms -- including the climate mitigation policies required to save humanity.
The problem is that defeating the right may enable us to enact some progressive reforms, but will most likely be insufficient to avert climate disaster. The dynamics of climate change are far more complex than the politics of right vs. left. At the global level, there are forces traditionally allied with the right wing, such as the US military, that are deeply concerned about the geo-political implications of the climate crisis. On the other side of the political spectrum, a leader like Hugo Chavez funds his progressive social reforms with oil money.
Here in the U.S, it’s not just the extreme right wing that is blocking climate reform measures. Sectors of the labor movement -- long supportive of the liberal wing of Democratic Party -- worked to weaken climate legislation in Congress and now oppose efforts by the EPA to reduce greenhouse gas emissions. And even on the heels of his 2008 presidential victory, when he was still showing his progressive stripes, Obama proposed emission goals that fell far short of the targets scientists say is required to avert disaster.
It will be heartbreaking if we defeat the right and win our long-sought after reforms, only to see them evaporate. Imagine, for example, if we passed labor law reform and by 2040 union density was back up to 35%. All this new found power will be for naught if our communities and workplaces are caught in cascading waves of drought, hurricanes, and floods. All we fought for would be lost because we failed to heed the ticking time bomb of the climate crisis.
The climate crisis requires a paradigm shift for humanity -- including progressives. All the concerns that progressives address, from housing to jobs to healthcare and beyond, remain as important as ever. But the effort to address them will be pointless unless they are addressed in the context of a global transition to a climate-safe economy.



129 Comments so far
Show AllI am NOT in denial.
I'm not in denial either. But, environmentalists have been infiltrated by the UN and the Al Gore globalists and either have their head in the sand or are complicit. The UN is part of the New World Order as well as Al Gore so using their argument shows me the author is completely missing the point. According to Al Gore the solution to Global Warming which I do acknowledge as real, is to create a Carbon Tax on the middle class and small business. They even want to claim that having children and existing is bad for the environment. Being complicit with these Malthusian/Darwinist nut jobs will allow them to carry out their agenda of one world government making the 1 billion left on the planet slaves to the state. Anyone, that might suggest that global warming could be caused by say I don't know, the changing temperature of the sun, is automatically in the pockets of big oil. This is the perfect recipe for the genocide of 5 billion people in the world all in the name of saving the planet. This is not conspiracy, it is in their writings. Read any of the globalists like Maurice Strong director of the UN or Obama's science czar John Holdren (Ecoscience). Using the Global Warming scare for genocide comes straight out of their doctrines.
I don't know much about Al Gore, "globalism", or "one world government", but I do believe the main way we will save ourselves is by reducing our population by a great big amount, and 5 billion sounds like a nice round number. Far from believing that "genocide" is the way to achieve this (gas chambers?, firing squads?), I suggest that people have fewer babies. If couples were limited by their country's laws to one baby per couple, that would work out to cutting the population by more than half (since there would be some couples who would choose to have no children) each generation.
And a carbon tax sounds like a good way to encourage people to use less carbon. If the money collected were used fairly and wisely (an important point, since a carbon tax, much like a sales tax, tends to hurt the poor, not the "middle class and small business" the most), it could have a progressive or at least neutral impact on people's finances.
Damn. You got there first.
The only true answer is that we must somehow use less energy. But none of us really want to do that in meaningful ways. Yeah, I've added power strips and mostly keep them turned off to avoid phantom energy losses. Yep, I mostly switched to cfl and led lighting. Sometimes I allow whole summers to go by without taking my window air conditioner off the shelf. And yet, I still use a hell of a lot of energy. If everyone on the planet used as much energy as I, we would live in one horrible hell hole.
Not a word about the need to get off Capitalism to have any long-term chance of survival.
Good point, Brian.
Damn good point.
They are linked - geopolitics and anthropogenic climate change.
When you operate pseudo-democracies, as we in the western world do - everywhere, you commit yourself to rule by "power and privilege" (John Gofman) - to hierarchy.
Consequences ensue.
Global warming, the 'population bomb', pollution of all sorts, a dysfunctional United Nations, dysfunctional nation-states - dysfunctional citizens - a "planet in peril" (James Hansen).
The conventional wisdom is that there is evil in capitalist democracies, but all alternatives are worse.
On virtually the cusp of what a chaos mathematician might call a "catastrophic bifurcation", we'll see if "life will find a way."
Hopefully our type of life, and the lifeforms which are depending on us to find this way, will in fact do so.
Life will find a way.
Manysummits
=====
likeitornot: Do you dispute that the planet is warming? 97% of the world's climate scientists ascribe to the AGW theory. What evidence can you proffer that they are wrong? It is also an established fact that the billionaire Koch Brothers and oil industry have funded climate change denial websites and other media. Do you dispute this? If not, have you ascertained that some of your own views have not been influenced by phony 'citizen groups' funded by corrupt corporations that materially benefit from people denying AGW?
MEMORY: You might as well save your breath... or cyber-ink. LIKE IT, who may well be a robot OR computer program, prefers to repeat his talking points, ad nauseum, rather than amend his views when confronted with something as meaningful, if inconvenient, as truth. Of course there is the off-chance that an anonymous visitor to this site may learn something from your attempts at educating the one who cannot absorb any change aimed at updating his fixed program.
Thanks for the heads up, Siouxrose. I'll ignore the troll henceforth, as the that is the only constructive thing to do with trolls. My points stand for the other AGW deniers who may come across it.
He's just a troll repeating mantras.
I wouldn't be surprised if he's paid by Koch et al, given his persistence; he's used a variety of ids on this site: henry8 / Thomas More / prometheus / mightmite / likeitornot.
You are making an argument for throwing a temper tantrum and doing so while the rest of us are trying to find to find a way to save life as we know it on this planet. If one accepts the idea that carbon dioxide and other gasses can trap heat in the atmosphere, then the burden is on the "deniers" to explain why the Earth is not going to heat up!
Of course, "deniers" cannot provide a rational explanation to support their beliefs because the TRUTH has never been particulary important to them. They do not acutally have the ability to reflect on problems with clear thinking. They get tripped up by being called names instead of actually honestly reflecting on the possiblily that they may be the problem.
They have no body knowledge to drawn on, no experience to support thier beliefs. An so they don't get to play. Instead, they throw tantrums.
Nuclear - fossil fuels - psychotic corporatism - rampant militarism...
Same industry - death and dollars - anti-life.
Life will find a way.
Manysummits
===
" these plants should be retired and a new generation of ultra-safe ones replace them"
I wonder if there ever will be an ultra-safe nuclear reactor. About 30 years ago I read a book titled "Normal Accidents," which discussed how prone to failure complex systems can be. The author used nuclear reactors as a model of a system so complex that it is virtually impossible to be sure that it cannot malfunction, and when it does, that the equally complex backup systems will function properly.
Unfortunately, research on the only safe nuclear device is no longer being funded by the Energy Department - namely the Tokamok, which produces hydrogen fusion. I once had an office across the hall from a tokamok lab. Every so often we would hear a "bang." The grad students told me that the bang indicated that they had achieved fusion. But only for a few milliseconds, not for the second or two required for them to get more energy out than they put in. One day I heard a VERY LOUD BANG. When I asked a grad student what happened, she said that they sent 50,000 volts down the wrong circuit and blew out a bank of capacitors.
But nothing else happened! No radioactivity, no radioactive materials, etc. So the fusion process is safe, in that if the tokamok malfunctions, the process shuts down. But as far as I know, the energy Department does not fund research on Tokamoks any longer - they've falled in love with high-tech laser fusion devices.
Thanks for the info and intelligent discussion.
The uranium/thorium fuel cycle is toxic, genotoxic, and lethal from beginning to end - there are no exceptions.
There is no safe dose of radiation, internal or external.
No Nukes - we will find a Way -
Manysummits
====
Mark Abram -- You take a good deal of abuse here at Common Dreams for your pro-nuclear advocacy. Although I certainly can't agree with all of your points, I appreciate that you stick with rational & factual arguments in trying to make your case.
I have read Jim Hansen and James Lovelock -- both advocating some switch to nuclear to curtail coal use and runaway greenhouse gas emissions:
http://transitionvoice.com/2011/03/censored-scientists-dirty-politics-and-the-nuclear-distraction/
I have an open mind only because it may turn out that some newer nuclear technologies -- employed in tectonically stable areas -- may be the lesser of two evils.
I can't recall seeing you post on any other topic, however, so just curious about your strong focus. Again, not a criticism as I think you add a valuable -- if largely unpopular-- perspective here at Common Dreams.
Randy G writes to Mark Abram:
"I appreciate that you stick with rational & factual arguments in trying to make your case."
This after Mark Abram wrote:
"If they do things right, existing nuclear plants can continue to operate and there is no reason another Fukushima needs to happen, ever."
Nothing but purely "rational & factual arguments" from tireless champion of the nuclear power industry Abram, that's for sure.
You could make the same argument about a lot of human projects and activities:
"If they do things right, existing airplanes can continue to operate and there is no reason another crash needs to happen, ever."
"If they do things right, existing automobiles can continue to operate and there is no reason another accident needs to happen, ever."
"If they do things right, existing software can continue to operate and there is no reason another system crash needs to happen, ever."
Randy G, either you are a naive credulous person whose strong desire to believe in the continuation of our present society without major disruption leads you to believe in fantasies such as a "safe" nuclear power industry... or you are simply on the same team as Abram. So nice, so "rational and factual!"
Here's some rational and factual for you:
Rich people truly don't need well above 90% of the ridiculous crap they have, own, buy, use, waste, show off;
The number one greenhouse gas emitting institution on the planet is the US military;
Most people who think of themselves as "middle class" truly don't need well above 90% of the ridiculous crap they have, own, buy, use, waste, show off;
Abram's repeated and repeated and repeated and repeated and repeated construct that either we go big into his "safe" nukes OR we ramp up coal and greenhouse gases is false false false false and false. False argument, false choice. Not "rational and factual" but a smokescreen of denial.
Over-consumption, extreme looting, extreme wealth, extreme disparities of wealth, concentration of economic power in corporations industries and the military-industrial complex, design of the economy, transportation, education, media, energy, agriculture and every major human system by and for the extreme wealth looters and corporatist war-mongers, leave vast amounts of wasteful energy use that can be slashed swiftly with no collapse of the economy or society "if they do things right."
Gotta run, i need to go rake the grass and build a compost pile for our garden.
"I can't recall seeing you post on any other topic, "
-- You should start reading the GMO articles that CD publishes to observe how Mark Abram's will attack anybody who is against GMO's by using canards, attack the messenger ploys, and straw man arguments.
Check out this comment section:
http://www.commondreams.org/view/2011/05/08-2
This is just one example, but please do go check out the archives to see his Public Relations handiwork.
"Eric, I take it that for you the evidence of dissent is damning."
-- Straw man.
You are a shameless PR shill. The CD archives are there for anybody to read and be their own jury about my claim.
Here is another GMO link that people can read to see your Public Relations handiwork:
http://www.commondreams.org/video/2011/03/25-0
Shall I post some more CD archived links to make it easier for others to see your bullshit in action? After all, in these links people will quickly see that I was not alone in calling out your BS.
Well, Mark, you poor devil, you just had to include this gem:
"Thorium would also produce only a few percent as much radioactive waste, and the waste would be dangerous for hundreds but not millions of years, making its safe disposal far easier to ensure."
Gotta love that "for hundreds" as opposed to "millions" of years in a culture that barely can think beyond quarterly profits or fast-paced news cycles.
It's the problem of what to do with all the radioactive stuff, Mark. Of course the military tried to bury plenty of it into weapons' design, and the deadly trail is now ALL over Iraq, if not beyond. Then there was the ingenious device of paying off enough "law makers," to allow for some of the radioactively exposed metals to become recycled into everyday items like toaster ovens. Great work!
Just as the government of Japan has raised the "allowable" exposure rates, American citizens are being forcibly exposed to all sorts of toxic items, nuclear particles among them.
A nation that tested the deadly fire of the gods while saying nothing to the communities downwind, a nation that dropped bombs of the heinous stuff over Japan and STILL continues to manufacture it (having seen the deformities AND excruciating pain and disfigurement that followed), a nation that covertly spreads the killer stuff around (D. U. as a WMD) is not a nation that can be trusted with insuring safety for the next several hundred years. My God, the very premise of safety presents its own quite diabolical fiction ALREADY!
Right now the mis-leaders are too busy extending permits to those nuclear power plants never intended to go 40 years without serious upgrades. But heck, it's all good. Sure...
Sioux Rose:
Actually, hundreds of years is quite an improvement. One of the things in the waste fuel from fission reactors is plutonium, which has a half-life of about 25,000 years. The rule of thumb is that the stuff you have is safe after 10 half-lives, so the repositories they have been talking about for the last 50 years have to be secure for a quarter-of-a-million years. Fat chance of that happening. Because of the absurdity of ensuring something will be secure for that length of time, the agency now talks about much shorter time scales. But they are still too long to be satisfying.
Regarding raising the alowable exposure, Japan has taken a lesson from us. I remember in the 1950's or 1960's, news stories about a radioactive form of Iodine that was showing up in milk (Grass downwind from the atmospheric tests absorbed it, and cows ate the grass, etc., etc.). We were assured that the levels found were too low to be dangerous. As the levels increased, the assurances came fast and furious. When the levels exceeded the "safe" level, the value of the safe level was raised. Talk about instilling confidence in one's government.
We do NOT need nuclear power to stop using fossil fuels. We just need the political will to move towards true green energy, which is in abundance around us. It literally falls from the sky.
If we're lucky or smart, we'll downsize in time to keep from ruining our environment through using more coal, gas, oil, OR nuclear. And if a shortage of cheap energy were the only problem facing us, then maybe some alternate energy solutions (if that's the right name for nuclear power) would make things better. But it's not. The problems of over-population are causing us to rapidly use up other resources such as water and land for food production at the same time that the quality of life deteriorates in many ways from crowding.
"The sad fact is we don't want to go where history wants to take us: to a smaller human imprint on the planet, with all that implies." - Jim Kunstler today at http://kunstler.com/blog/2011/06/a-distant-sound-of-churning-1.html
"Progressives" are mostly no different from other people in being in denial about the fundamental changes that will take place. And also, they remember how things worked out for Jimmy Carter when he told us to turn down our thermostats and showed up on TV wearing a cardigan.
Here is a link to an excellent radio interview about climate change on NPR. (Yea once in a while the still have something good on there.)
http://hereandnow.wbur.org/2011/06/10/extreme-weather
The interview is with Stu Ostro, a senior meterolgist at the weather channel, who used to be a complete skeptic about man made climate change. But he said over the decades he has seen things that just are beyond the normal weather variability, and he has seen data from climatoligists that has convinced him that we are indeed experiencing man made climate change.
IMHO it is nice to see people like Stu, who when presented with evidence CAN and DOES change his opinion on an important issue. Too bad we couldn't get most politicians to do the same thing.
One of the main problems with "environmental studies" is knowing where to begin. One can begin with the superstars of the environmental movement or one can begin with the more rational scientests and commentators.
Harvard Extension School offers hundreds of courses which can be previewed for free ...Some of these courses link you to a starting point in your continuing education
www. extension.harvard.edu
click on courses tab
browse course subjects by field
click on science and environmental studies then environmental studies
Check out ENVR E-130 - Global Climate Change
Go to web-site home ... then bottom right syllabus - you have access
You can watch to first four hours of video for free. (week one and week two)
You can access a week-by-week schedule that is organized around experts in different areas of the field - i.e. Epstein on Health (has an excellent new book)
Weiskel who organized the course and the site is first and formost an educator who understands that his job is to hook you up to the material and the experts. He also hooks you up with websites like the Cambridge Climate Change Initiative ..designed for schools and the general public in Cambridge and Boston.
Each week covers a different topic. Best of all, there are links to lots of videos and readings on that topic.
Whether or not you agree with the scientists and commentators, you do not have the right to an uninformed opinion.
Almost everyone, "progressives" as well as knuckle-dragging regressives, is wedded to their cars. Especially when you're located as far out in the sticks as Alexander Cockburn. The structural conflict is obvious.
"The dynamics of climate change are far more complex than the politics of right vs. left."
The authors don't have a clue about what the "left" is. It is the left that must organize to overthrow capitalism and in doing so solve the problem of climate change. Nothing short of this will work.
You are quiet right, Struggle. Unfortunately, the capitalist system in which we live and have our being has created media which continuously propagandize people 24/7 cradle to grave until they come to view capitalism as normal and natural, as unavoidable as the weather. But any philosophical, deep examination of it reveals in short order that it is a cancerous system that is ravaging the planet and cannot be reformed.
Don't recall that the un-capitalist Soviet Union or the early un-capitalist People's Republic of China were especially moderate in their treatment of the environment. You can't blame the absence of response to global warming entirely on capitalism.
drosera, Do you really want to imply that the only possible models for human society are totalitarian socialism or transnational-fascist capitalism? Why not think outside the box? I'm not arguing, BTW, that there are not other models of society that also have exhausted their resource base and wiped themselves out. But Capitalism is the system that WE must deal with today, if we wish to have a human future.
I'm saying that the desire to acquire things beyond what we need is a deeply engrained behavior. Capitalism may elevate that behavior to a virtue, but other economic systems will also pay heed to it. Living simply does not mean that we need to overturn the economic system we live under. Lots of people have begun such a life change without thinking about politics--and they are passing their values on to their children.
drosera, I'm all for voluntary simplicity, permaculture, and the like, but the juggernaut of global finance capital goes right on ravaging the planet. So while those are great values to try to incorporate into one's lifestyle as one is able to, I think it is a mistake to view them as any sort of solution to either global warming or the mega-crises that global capitalism necessitates. And I am aware that some people are making these changes without thinking about politics. There is a place for that. But collective problems demand collective solutions. There are no individual solutions to global warming. It's like putting a drop of green into an ocean of black...you still have a black ocean.
So, the work of Theodore Roosevelt in establishing national parks, the work of Congress in passing clean air and water legislation, the work of innumerable state and local agencies in conserving soil and water resources mean nothing at all because a capitalist system has been inflicting misery on the world? That doesn't sound right. The authors of the article missed the main point as expressed on this site: progressives don't do much about climate change because they are too busy trying to rid the world of capitalism. That has to come first. Of course, it won't.
DROSERA: I like the points you made. One thing that has not come up in this thread is the perception of the earth as a dynamic, living Being (i.e. the Gaia Clause). This is where the courageous work of an Indigenous leader like Evo Morales could make The Difference. He's working to have that premise operational in a variety of international trade agreements. It might mean the preservation of the last remaining rain forests. (Question: How much money does it take to replace a rain forest? Answer: No amount. Centuries are needed, if it's even possible for nature to replicate the steps that led to this wonder.)
Americans largely view the natural world as a thing. Corporations take it a step further by commodifying every living system. Transposing value away from a living system's inherent worth to its artificially induced paper-price IS the disease, and it's a disease that in part comes from the Judeo-Christian belief that MAN was given DOMINION over nature. On the basis of this ideological disease, the sacred & pricless are routinely sacrificed for the transitory and superficial. What a bargain!
Many Indigenous tribes regard nature as their partner. They work with the webs of life to insure their sustainability. I am convinced that any who survive the next 20 years will be forced back into derivatives of such a system. There is a Native saying, "The land does not belong to us. We belong to the land." This is one of the key teachings humanity must learn in order to negotiate the climate changes now beginning to rev up.
The posh, insulated lifestyles we've grown accustomed to will yield to something that relies more intimately upon a direct relationship with the land. (Dubet? Maybe I sound like you here.) There is no going back to what was... too many simultaneous tipping poitns have been reached, and bypassed.
This article was largely well written and covered a lot of key points. My only objection is that I don't believe any TRUE progressive would identify with the core right wing talking point that there's still not yet enough proof of climate change. Only the most arrogant, nature-despising pseudo-intellectual could still hold to such a posture... given what's in plain sight, featuring a new devastation each week.
Your post reminds me that native people did not have a sense of land ownership, but they did recognize hunting and fishing rights. The treaties of the nineteenth century mostly allowed white settlement in exchange for hunting and fishing rights (and small plots of land to Indian families--which whites cheated them out of or got possession of due to rules Indians did not understand). Anyway, the idea that a person gains the rights to use the land appropriately without despoiling it--rather than a person getting ownership of it pleases me. It recognizes that we don't own anything, that we only use things. Like the pleasing pebbles we find on the beach--we pick them up, we show them off, we keep them, and then we turn them back to the beach. We just borrow them for a time.
Also let's remember that the Natives of this continent lived here in perfect harmony with Mother Earth, maintaing a really sustainable economy for12,000 years.
when europeans came all that was destroyed in a couple centuries. yet no one ever thinks of asking Natives how they did it. What does "sustainable" mean?
And so Native peoples are just like white folks except for the plumbing and penicillin? Perhaps they would have developed small pox too without the aid of white folks? And perhaps they would eventually get with the program of genocide? The point was that indigenous people developed cultures which sustained them for countless generations not that they did not fight one another over hunting grounds and not that they never made mistakes. Can you say this of the Euro descendants here in the Americas?
Hi S.R. This looks like a good time to mention a new book you'll find interesting; also, those "pagans"(ie. those who remained loyal to the Gods & Goddesses) who post here. The book is "Common Wealth; The Origin of Sacred Sites, and the Rebirth of Ancient Wisdom", by Freddy Silva. It's the first book I've run across that makes me loosen my tight grip on technology for the well-being of humanity. Perhaps there is another way afterall ( that doesn't involve the machinations of the thinly disguised eugenics movement & their genocide project). Mr Silva also wrote a book on crop circles that I'm going to get (probably about how the elementals/Devas trying to inform/instruct us about the coming changes; but I haven't seen it yet).
One can call it ancient "lithic technology" that would be more akin to magic, than anything we currently define as "tech". It does involve Geo-electromagnetism though, so I feel "at home" with this tech.
drosera, No, I'm not saying reformism is a waste of time. Reforms such as what you mention are good and laudable. The problem is they are stopgap measures at best. The capitalist beast is never wholly placated, but must keep attacking us, even as Social Security is now under attack, and Medicare, and all the other so-called 'entitlement programs.' Remember, the article under discussion is about how to address the collective human problem of global warming. So far, all efforts at mitigating it--Kyoto, Copenhagen, etc.---have been failures. My argument is we will not seriously address this problem without dismantling capitalism and replacing it with an ecosocialist system rooted in reverence for nature as inherently worthy, even sacred. Of course, reverence cannot be "systematized," but we can learn much from indigenous perspectives toward nature, and from ecofeminism.
Progressives trying to rid the world of capitalism? I wish! I would venture that only a small minority of 'regulars' even here on CD are anti-capitalist in perspective.
The more permanent change is reforming our hearts. We can change the economic system, but humans have a way of returning to the same damaging behaviors they left behind. One way I could communicate with my Alabama in-laws is saying that in Boy Scouts we were taught to leave the campground better than we found it. They could relate to that, but were quite against "green" politics. Fine. If putting responsible behavior into language people can understand helps them to behave better, then I am all for it. That doesn't require a change in the economic system, only a change in how people come to regard the world.
Personally, I used to take Cockburn seriously as a thinker but his essays now are generally snide exercises in condescension toward anyone who disagrees with him on topics such as 9/11, global climate change, etc.
http://climateandcapitalism.com/?p=121
His brothers Patrick and Andrew are actually more interesting to read since they attempt to maintain at least some journalistic interest in factual argument.
I completely agree, Randy. I used to admire Cockburn. Now I find him an arrogant, supercilious windbag who uses his rhetorical skills to make his denial on numerous issues look vaguely educated. He is an example of intellectual arrogance at its most extreme. His idiotic fulminations about 9/11 and climate change have disqualified him as a serious thinker.
Smith and Brecher are right: many progressives are in denial about climate change. The scope of the problem is so huge that it is easy to fall into despair. Also, most of the solutions put forth seem to fall way short of what is truly needed to address the problem. In fairness to progressives, most people in the U.S. are in denial about climate change, and about much else. The mass media are doing a good job of facilitating this denial, as are the billionaire Koch Brothers and their in famous propaganda websites pooh poohing climate change.
I don't think there is a solution outside of the abolition of capitalism. Capitalism is built upon the rule by capital, and is based upon endless growth. Capitalism has essentially turned the human ecosystem into a cancer upon the earth. There is no way to reform it. There is no "green" capitalism, no "non-imperialist" capitalism. As a first step, progressives need to fully UNDERSTAND this. We cannot cure the patient (our beleagered earth) without a full examination of the disease--and the disease is capitalism.
Environmentalism has failed. Remember Earth Day? started in 1970, dedicated to protection of the environment? There was great hope then that we could work together and change our impact on the environment. Since that time environmentalists of all stripes have promoted all manner of solutions to the various eco-crises; books have been published like 'Natural Capitalism' (talk about an oxymoron!), etc. And where were we after 30 years?
Human global population had increased from 3.7 billion to 6 billion (62%).
Oil consumption had increased from 46 million barrels a day to 73 million.
Natural gas extraction had increased from 34 trillion cubic feet per year to 95 trillion.
The global motor vehicle population had almost tripled, from 246 million to 730 million.
Air traffic had increased by a factor of six.
The rate at which trees are consumed to make paper had doubled, to 200 million metric tons per year.
Human carbon emissions had increased from 3.9 million metric tons annually to an estimated 6.4 million--despite the additional impetus to cut back caused by awareness of global warming, which was not perceived to be a factor in 1970
Average temperature increased by 1 degree Fahrenheit, translating into chaotic weather events, including the melting of the North Pole during the summers.
Species were vanishing at a rate that has not occurred in 65 million years.
Fish were being taken at twice the rate as in 1970
40% of agricultural soils had been degraded.
Half of the forests had disappeared.
Half of the wetlands had been filled or drained.
One half of US coastal waters were unfit for fishing or swimming.
Despite concerted efforts to bring to bay the emissions of ozone-depleting substances, the Antarctic ozone hole was the largest ever in 2000, some three times the size of the continental U.S.; meanwhile, 2000 tons of the substances that cause it continue to be emitted every day.
7.3 billion tons of pollutants were released into the U.S. during 1999.
As Joel Kovel writes in The Enemy of Nature: The End of Capitalism or the End of the World? most of these tendencies are accelerating. And they are manifestations of what is proclaimed by every 'responsible' and authoritative source to be the best of news, namely, that the world gross domestic product has increased in the 30 years since the enunciation of the 'Limits to Growth' by almost 250 percent, from 16 to 39 trillion dollars.
During this phase of unparalleled prosperity...
Third World debt increased by a factor of eight;
the gap between the rich and poor nations, according to the UN, went from a factor of 3.1 in 1820, to 35:1 in 1950; 44:1 in 1973--at the beginning of the environmentally sensitive era--to 72:1 in 2000;
between 1990 and 1998, per capita income declined in 50 countries;
1.2 million women under the age of 18 enter the global sex trade each year; and
100 million children are homeless and sleep on the streets.
One could go on, but the point is made. As Kovel writes in his prescient book, "The present world system in effect has had three decades to limit its growth, and it has failed so abjectly that even the idea of limiting growth has been banished from official discourse."
I would encourage every progressive to read Kovel's book and to reflect deeply upon it. He is not touting some recrudescence of Soviet style 'socialism' but an ecosocialism that is democratic and incorporates experiential insights from ecofeminism. Capitalism is a system that has produced an enormous amount of wealth. It was probably a necessary phase in human evolution. But now, it stands as the central impediment to humanity solving the most urgent problems that beset us: climate change, loss of species diversity, loss of agricultural land, pollution.
In the time ahead, let us be guided by the 1968 saying: "To be realistic, one demands the impossible."
Memory Hole, your comments are right on the money. Capitalism in an insane system that does not value what we really need to live; air, water, good soils, caring communities. It pollutes and leaves its damages outside of its accounting system. It emphasizes growth at all costs. It is why there are so many bats..t insane Randian repugs. An insane economic system which has become a religion in the US can only produce mad non leaders. Kovel is one of our most thoughtful author/activists and
ecosocialism incorporating ecofeminism seems like a good, though initially difficult,
path to a sustainable and ultimately more rewarding future.
Scribe, good points. I'm still reading Kovel's book, but I'm sure he does address the need to limit growth. Indeed he prefaces the discussion by saying that capitalism is only the latest iteration of the old problem of humans separating themselves from nature. Anyone advocating ecology and ecofeminism would have to address this.
Scribe, thanks for the link to the review of Kovel's book. Dace is pretty pessimistic about the prospects for a socialist revolution. But I think any honest assessment of our global situation, and attempt to fix it, leads one to despair, at least initially. Then, hopefully, one's innate wisdom and compassion arise, and one realizes that despair is not an option.
I'll iterate my same perspective here as I did on Amy Goodman's piece last week . . .
The important environmental battles WON'T be won in the debate over "climate change" or "global warming." This debate serves only as a distraction and drain of energy for average folk (though, it is still something that should be monitored and studied). The symptoms are abstract and inaccessible to the senses enough that average people - chained to their cars and consumer habits because of a dependence on the industrial program - feel overwhelmed at changing something so enormously "out of their hands."
We need to focus our energy on the inefficiencies and injustices of the global industrial system - which are easier to see how we play a part as individuals - and progress away from the industrial era (into the ecozoic era?) toward economies based on localism and bioregionalism.
If we solve for the inherent problems of industrialization (by organizing neighborhoods, growing our own food, educating about the dangers of an economy based on "out of sight, out of mind"), we will automatically create more change than attempting to court Big Business and Corporate American Politics. We will solve problems of community-scale, family-scale, and individual-scale. We need to empower people with Good Work that is inherently healthful and sustainable - NOT ask them to protest the policies and industries that they only use because they have been given no way to survive otherwise. The bonus is that reconnecting communities to the land will make them more responsive to the needs of the land - which will get more people on board with the "bigger" (macro) issues . . . like climate change.