EMAIL SIGN UP!
Most Popular This Week
- Corporate Win: Supreme Court Says Monsanto Has 'Control Over Product of Life'
- How the US Turned Three Pacifists into Violent Terrorists
- Cornel West: Obama 'Is a War Criminal'
- Revealed: How US State Department 'Twists Arms' on Monsanto's Behalf
- Victory in Seattle as Teachers Win Battle in Standardized Test Boycott
Popular content
Today's Top News
Why Environmentalists Should Occupy Wall Street
"Go Paul!"
That's what a top State Department official wrote in an email to the top lobbyist for TransCanada, a top tar sands oil producer, upon hearing that he had garnered support for the Keystone KL pipeline from a US Senator. That shouldn't be too surprising, since the lobbyist was one of Hilary Clinton's campaign aides during her presidential run. The cozy relationship between corporate lobbyists and decisionmakers isn't anything new, but it's just as despicable as ever. And with the Keystone XL pipeline issue, corporate America's fingerprints are turning up all over the place.
That's why over 1200 ordinary people from around the country took the extraordinarily courageous step of sitting-in and getting arrested at the White House in late August -- to show President Obama and leaders on Capitol Hill that real people can be just as powerful as corporate interests. Will President Obama, who campaigned saying "I don't take a dime of their [lobbyist] money, and when I am president, they won't find a job in my White House," be willing to push back against TransCanada, its Wall St. financiers, and the stranglehold these corporations have on our government, or will he be complicit in destroying our democracy, our land and our atmosphere?
Later on this year, when President Obama makes a decision whether to go forward with the tar sands pipeline, we'll know where he stands. But the Occupy Wall Street protesters aren't going to wait that long. The amount of energy that the Occupy Wall Street movement has generated so far is incredible. Over the course of two weeks, their numbers have ballooned from a few hundred to thousands, and Occupy movements have started up in dozens of other cities around the country and the world. Why? Because Americans are sick and tired of top officials cozying up to lobbyists, of political cronyism and petty corruption at the highest levels of government.
While from an outside perspective the Occupy Wall Street protests might seem disorganized, their message is clear: If Wall Street is occupying the State Department and the halls of Congress, its time for the people to occupy Wall Street. In the case of the Keystone pipeline, the paper trail shows that Big Oil and Wall Wt. certainly walk the halls of the State Department with impunity. Now, it's time for climate activists to join hands with the Wall Street protestors, and occupy together.
Here's a quick video of some Occupy Wall Street folks talking about the connection between climate change and the occupation:
- Posted in
Comments
Note: Disqus 2012 is best viewed on an up to date browser. Click here for information. Instructions for how to sign up to comment can be viewed here. Our Comment Policy can be viewed here. Please follow the guidelines. Note to Readers: Spam Filter May Capture Legitimate Comments...
30 Comments so far
Show Allhttp://dailybail.com/home/7-core-demands-from-the-occupy-wall-street-movement.html
Read the comments.
And please let us not forget the scary global fresh water shortage (Google: Maude Barlow) and the equally scary global push to privatize the water industry
If Enron had not collapsed a decade ago their next target after manipulating the power market was to take control of domestic water systems around the world and inflate the price of water.
Only one of the Enron criminal "traders" was ever jailed. The others are embedded in global financial corporations taking over water systems as part of "austerity" programs and other schemes.
Another pathetic attempt to save the Federal Reserve by trying to portray OccupyWallStreet/OccuypyAMERICA as concerned with global warming and climate change!
Michael Rivero (in response to no one and nothing in particular) wrote:
Another pathetic attempt to save the Federal Reserve by trying to portray OccupyWallStreet/OccuypyAMERICA as concerned with global warming and climate change
* * * * *
My Reply:
Michael Rivero,
Since you have failed to make the connection in your comment between this article and any attempt to save the Federal Reserve or between a concern with global warming and climate change and any attempt to save the Federal Reserve, perhaps you can provide a link to at least one of those other "pathetic attempt[s] to save the Federal Reserve by trying to portray OccupyWallStreet/ OccuypyAMERICA as concerned with global warming and climate change" that you mentioned which somehow makes the connections which you have failed to make here in your comment.
I think that a slogan like "The Obama Administration are the Keystone Cops" would be good, but I'm probably just showing my age.
Keystone cops on the take is more like it !
No leaders. Just heroes and angels
Don't forget to free Mumia while your at it.
Yes, and Leonard.
Hey if you don't know where Obama stands on tar sands, you've had your eyes shut.
It's beautiful and inspirational to hear the guy and the woman in the video articulate their concerns and vision. It is time to dump cynicism once and for all. How could one be cynical anymore when there are so many young people ready to speak out?
Until environmentalists start using words like 'class analysis', 'capitalism', 'empire', and show an understanding between markets and the destruction of the environment, and stop treating Obama with kid gloves, then they will be ready to join the movement to end capitalism and occupy the US.
But before that, they are simply pissing in the wind.
malatesta1936 wrote:
Until environmentalists start using words like 'class analysis', 'capitalism', 'empire', and show an understanding between markets and the destruction of the environment, and stop treating Obama with kid gloves, then they will be ready to join the movement to end capitalism and occupy the US.
But before that, they are simply pissing in the wind.
* * * * *
My Reply:
Many environmentalists have been using words like "class analysis", "capitalism", and "empire" for quite some time. There has long been considerable Red within the Green environmental movement.
But the environmental movement has been dominated by more affluent workers and environmental organizations, who haven't always recognized that corporate interests are harmful to their own. Nowadays, just like so many other people, no matter their description, more and more environmentalists understand that capitalism must be brought to an end, somehow.
In the mean time, the market approach to reducing fossil carbon emissions that makes the most sense is still a Fee and Dividend system. A Fee and Dividend system transfers the proceeds of the fee-based premium placed upon the price of fossil carbon at the point of importation or extraction from large corporations to the people.
After all, environmentalists are workers, too.
Some of us live in corporate (national) environmental sacrifice zones, such as Cancer Alley, an area along the Mississippi River between Baton Rouge and New Orleans; or in the mountains of West Virginia and Kentucky, where mountaintop removal coal mining is destroying people's health and communities.
Whether you like it or not many environmentalists have already joined the movement to occupy Wall Street and the U.S.
No surprise there. Wall Street has robbed and exploited us all!
Excerpt from "Occupy Wall Street: The Most Important Thing in the World Now"by Naomi Klein, The Occupied Wall Street Journal, re-published by Common Dreams, October 7, 2011:
But the biggest difference a decade makes is that in 1999, we were taking on capitalism at the peak of a frenzied economic boom. Unemployment was low, stock portfolios were bulging. The media was drunk on easy money. Back then it was all about start-ups, not shutdowns.
We pointed out that the deregulation behind the frenzy came at a price. It was damaging to labor standards. It was damaging to environmental standards. Corporations were becoming more powerful than governments and that was damaging to our democracies. But to be honest with you, while the good times rolled, taking on an economic system based on greed was a tough sell, at least in rich countries.
Ten years later, it seems as if there aren’t any more rich countries. Just a whole lot of rich people. People who got rich looting the public wealth and exhausting natural resources around the world.
The point is, today everyone can see that the system is deeply unjust and careening out of control. Unfettered greed has trashed the global economy. And it is trashing the natural world as well. We are overfishing our oceans, polluting our water with fracking and deepwater drilling, turning to the dirtiest forms of energy on the planet, like the Alberta tar sands. And the atmosphere cannot absorb the amount of carbon we are putting into it, creating dangerous warming. The new normal is serial disasters: economic and ecological.
These are the facts on the ground. They are so blatant, so obvious, that it is a lot easier to connect with the public than it was in 1999, and to build the movement quickly.
Article URL: www.commondreams.org/view/2011/10/07-0
* * * * *
My Comment:
malatesta1936,
The Red roots of the Green environmental movement go back much further than 1999.
Use the system we have, to fix the system we have... and demand one simple law: make it a misdemeanor NOT to vote in federal elections.
...AND...make NOTA (None Of The Above) a binding part of the vote. If NOTA wins, a new election is needed.
That way you must vote, but are not forced to accept the candidates offered.
I'm all for that.
alank (in reply to hypergrove) wrote:
...AND...make NOTA (None Of The Above) a binding part of the vote. If NOTA wins, a new election is needed.
That way you must vote, but are not forced to accept the candidates offered.
* * * * *
My Reply:
alank,
Simply adding NOTA (None Of The Above) to Plurality Voting ballots will not empower people nearly enough.
We need to completely replace Plurality Voting with a consent / dissent based grading scale based voting procedure, such as Yes No 'Maybe So' Voting or Category Scale Power Voting.
I will post some example Category Scale Power Voting ballots, using the 2000 presidential election as an example; and a "We Hate Them" Test analysis that demonstrates that adding NOTO to Plurality Voting or NOTO (None of the Others) to Instant Runoff Voting will give the people both the power of the boss and the sovereign of a democratic nation.
- -
See PuffinThrush @ Oct 8 2011 - 9:49am and Oct 8 2011 - 9:50am (Category Scale Power Voting) and @ Oct 8 2011 - 10:50am and Oct 8 2011 - 11:01am (“We Hate Them” Test).
Protodemocracy, Mandatory Voting, and NOTA
- -
hypergrove wrote:
Use the system we have, to fix the system we have... and demand one simple law: make it a misdemeanor NOT to vote in federal elections.
- - - - -
alank (in reply to hypergrove) wrote:
...AND...make NOTA (None Of The Above) a binding part of the vote. If NOTA wins, a new election is needed.
That way you must vote, but are not forced to accept the candidates offered.
* * * * *
My Reply:
hypergrove and alank,
The system we have now is a poorly functioning proto-democracy, which is currently being dismantled by wealthy elites.
I am opposed to any form of mandatory voting.
In any case, voting these days without any form of "in the streets agitation" is almost a complete waste of the relatively little time it usually takes to vote.
I do, however, support replacing Plurality Voting with Category Scale Power Voting, overturning both the U.S. Supreme Court decisions in the Buckley v. Valeo and Citizens United v. FEC cases with legislation that would provide the legal "rule synthesis" necessary to refute the spacious arguments of the U.S. Supreme Court, as well as numerous other changes aimed at establishing genuine democracy in the United States.
hypergrove's simple proposal is reactionary and would merely force people to participate in a severely flawed election and campaign system which has repeatedly betrayed them. Adding NOTA (None of the Above) does not improve the system very much, since this works in a similar disfunctional way to adding a voting splitting third party or independent candidate to the ballot.
- -
See PuffinThrush @ Oct 8 2011 - 9:49am and Oct 8 2011 - 9:50am (Category Scale Power Voting) and @ Oct 8 2011 - 10:50am and especially @ Oct 8 2011 - 11:01am (“We Hate Them” Test).
.
The Shock Doctrine and Democratic Revolution
- -
hypergrove wrote:
Use the system we have, to fix the system we have... and demand one simple law: make it a misdemeanor NOT to vote in federal elections.
- - - - -
alank (in reply to hypergrove) wrote:
...AND...make NOTA (None Of The Above) a binding part of the vote. If NOTA wins, a new election is needed.
That way you must vote, but are not forced to accept the candidates offered.
- - - - -
Excerpt from “Preemptive Strikes of the (Pseudo) Progressive Kind” by Thomas S. Harrington, October 8, 2011:
Movements of change very seldom begin with blueprints. Rather they begin with a sense that what is seen presently as “normal” is, in fact deeply wrong and unsustainable. The blueprint for the future can only emerge when, and if, people gain a clear understanding of how the system they are living under actually works.
One of the reasons our Constitution has been so durable (at least until the last decade) is that the men who wrote and ratified it had a very detailed knowledge of how previous systems had oppressed mankind [sic], and therefore, how they wanted the one they were building to be different.
Article URL: www.commondreams.org/view/2011/10/08
- - - - -
Excerpt from "Court Race Throws a Spanner in the Works of Wisconsin Wingnuts" by Mary Bottari, April 6, 2011:
"Naomi Klein warned in her groundbreaking book 'Shock Doctrine' that the right-wing excels at creating crises, real and imagined, to viciously advance their pro-corporate anti-government agenda. She credits economist Milton Friedman who observed that ‘only a crisis - actual or perceived - produces real changes. When the crisis occurs, the actions that are taken depend on the ideas that are lying around. That, I believe, is out [sic] basic function: to develop alternatives to existing policies to keep them alive and available until the politically impossible becomes politically inevitable.’"
Article URL: www.commondreams.org/view/2011/04/06-9
* * * * *
My Reply:
hypergrove and alank,
Those who would bring about lasting democratic revolution need to recognize the best existing alternatives to the status quo and make the implementation of these alternatives, as "shock doctrine" economist Milton Friedman might have expressed it, "politically inevitable."
Either Yes No ‘Maybe So’ Voting or Category Scale Power Voting should replace Plurality Voting in single-member district elections; which, of course, include gubernatorial and presidential elections.
Furthermore, a Fee and Dividend system should be implemented that places a fee-based premium on the price of fossil carbon and transfers the proceeds of the fee from wealthy corporations, which import and extract fossil carbon, to the people.
Category Scale Power Voting
Representative Democracy - The Power of the Boss
Abolishing the Spoiler Effect and the Lesser of Two Evils dilemma (Part 1 of 2)
- - - - -
Category Scale Power Voting
Here are three of just five examples demonstrating the different ways that a single Ralph Nader voter could have cast his or her vote in the 2000 Presidential Election, focusing on the freedom of speech and freedom of political association of the Ralph Nader voter if Category Scale Power Voting had been used in the election.
Please note that in each of these five example ballots voters who support Ralph Nader are able to political associate together with voters who support Al Gore in their common opposition to George W. Bush by explicitly expressing their opposition to George W. Bush.
As is fitting in a genuine democracy characterized by free, fair and democratic elections based upon the consent of the governed, voters who support Ralph Nader may choose whether or not they also want to support or to oppose Al Gore.
For people who may not know, David McReynolds was the Socialist Party candidate for president in 2000, who was also endorsed by the Liberty Union Party of Vermont.
- - - - -
Example 1: (Equal support for Nader and Gore while opposing Bush)
2000 Presidential Election
Candidate Most Oppose Oppose No Comment Support Most Support
George W. Bush X
Al Gore X
Ralph Nader X
Harry Browne X
Pat Buchanan X
David McReynolds X
- - - - -
Example 2: (More support for Nader than Gore while opposing Bush)
2000 Presidential Election
Candidate Most Oppose Oppose No Comment Support Most Support
George W. Bush X
Al Gore X
Ralph Nader X
Harry Browne X
Pat Buchanan X
David McReynolds X
- - - - -
Example 3: (Support for Nader no support for Gore while opposing Bush)
2000 Presidential Election
Candidate Most Oppose Oppose No Comment Support Most Support
George W. Bush X
Al Gore X
Ralph Nader X
Harry Browne X
Pat Buchanan X
David McReynolds X
Category Scale Power Voting
Representative Democracy - The Power of the Boss
Abolishing the Spoiler Effect and the Lesser of Two Evils dilemma (Part 2 of 2)
- - - - -
Category Scale Power Voting
Here are two more of the five examples demonstrating the different ways that a single Ralph Nader voter could have cast his or her vote in the 2000 Presidential Election, focusing on the freedom of speech and freedom of political association of the Ralph Nader voter if Category Scale Power Voting had been used in the election.
Please note that in each of these five example ballots voters who support Ralph Nader are able to political associate together with voters who support Al Gore in their common opposition to George W. Bush by explicitly expressing their opposition to George W. Bush.
As is fitting in a genuine democracy characterized by free, fair and democratic elections based upon the consent of the governed, voters who support Ralph Nader may choose whether or not they also want to support or to oppose Al Gore.
For people who may not know, David McReynolds was the Socialist Party candidate for president in 2000, who was also endorsed by the Liberty Union Party of Vermont.
- - - - -
Example 4: (Support for Nader, Gore preferred as lesser evil than Bush)
2000 Presidential Election
Candidate Most Oppose Oppose No Comment Support Most Support
George W. Bush X
Al Gore X
Ralph Nader X
Harry Browne X
Pat Buchanan X
David McReynolds X
- - - - -
Example 5: (Support for Nader, equal opposition to Gore and Bush)
2000 Presidential Election
Candidate Most Oppose Oppose No Comment Support Most Support
George W. Bush X
Al Gore X
Ralph Nader X
Harry Browne X
Pat Buchanan X
David McReynolds X
* * * * *
Example 6: (None of the Above)
2000 Presidential Election
Candidate Most Oppose Oppose No Comment Support Most Support
George W. Bush X
Al Gore X
Ralph Nader X
Harry Browne X
Pat Buchanan X
David McReynolds X
.
The Consent of the Governed (The "We Hate Them" Test)
Instant Runoff Voting and Plurality Voting Fail the "We Hate Them" Test
- -
The basic "We Hate Them" test can easily be demonstrated with just a 3 person electorate.
However, in order to clearly demonstrate that the addition of a "None of the Above" (NOTA) option to Plurality Voting or a "None of the Others" (NOTO) option to Instant Runoff Voting will not enable these two voting procedures to pass the "We Hate Them" test, a somewhat larger electorate is needed.
Please consider this 9 person example electorate where the 9 people are grouped into 3 categories according to their opinions in order to make visualization of the relationships among potential voters easy.
Group 1:
Consisting of 4 people who . . .
Prefer Candidate A to Candidate B
Like / Support Candidate A
Dislike / Oppose Candidate B
Group 2:
Consisting of 3 people who . . .
Prefer Candidate B to Candidate A
Like / Support Candidate B
Dislike / Oppose Candidate A
Group 3:
Consisting of 2 people who . . .
Prefer Candidate B to Candidate A
Dislike / Oppose Candidate B
Dislike / Oppose Candidate A.
The 2 people in Group 3 are confronted with the "lesser of two evils" dilemma.
If you look at these 9 people you will notice that they prefer Candidate B to Candidate A by a 5 to 4 majority consisting of the 3 people in Group 2 plus the 2 people in Group 3 versus the 4 people in Group 1.
Similarly, these 9 people dislike / oppose Candidate A by a 5 to 4 majority consisting of the same 3 people in Group 2 plus the 2 people in Group 3 versus the 4 people in Group 1.
However, these same 9 people dislike / oppose Candidate B by a 6 to 3 majority consisting of the 4 people in Group 1 plus the 2 people in Group 3 versus the 3 people in Group 2.
In other words these 9 people dislike / oppose both Candidate A and Candidate B by by 5 to 4 and 6 to 3 majorities respectively consisting of different groupings of the 9 potential voters in the election.
A look at election outcomes, given this 9 person electorate, when either Plurality Voting or Instant Runoff Voting is used, indicate that any voting procedure used in single member district elections must permit each voter much greater freedom of speech and freedom of political association than is allowed by either Plurality Voting or Instant Runoff Voting, even when a NOTA or NOTO option is added to the ballot.
Clearly, Plurality Voting without NOTA will elect Candidate B by a 5 to 4 majority consisting of the 5 people in Groups 2 and 3 versus the 4 people in Group 1, if the people in Group 3 do decide to vote. Otherwise, Plurality Voting without NOTA will elect Candidate A by a 4 to 3 majority consisting of the 4 people in Group 1 versus the 3 people in Group 2, with the 2 people in Group 3 declining to vote.
Plurality Voting with NOTA will also elect Candidate A this time by a 4 to 3 to 2 plurality consisting of the 4 people in Group 1 versus the 3 people in Group 2 and the 2 people in Group 3, demonstrating the "vote splitting effect" characteristic of Plurality Voting.
In other words even adding the “None of the Above” option to Plurality Voting doesn’t enable Plurality Voting to pass the “We Hate Them” [both] test. This violates the fundamental democratic principle of the consent of the governed.
Just replace Instant “Runoff Runoff Voting” for the words “Plurality Voting” and NOTO for NOTA in the above analysis and you will get very nearly the same results for Instant Runoff Voting with or without the “None of the Other” option as you get for Plurality Voting with or without the “None of the Above” option.
The primary difference between the Plurality Voting and Instant Runoff Voting results occurs when NOTA and NOTO are included as options on the ballot for these two voting procedures respectively.
The initial result for Instant Runoff Voting with NOTO gives the following intermediate result. Candidate A has 4 votes from Group 1, Candidate B has 3 votes from Group 2 and NOTO has 2 votes from Group 3, if the people in Group 3 do decide to vote, otherwise Candidate A will win outright with a 4 to 3 majority.
Assuming the people in Group 3 decide to vote, then according to the way Instant Runoff Voting works, NOTO is eliminated from contention because NOTO has the fewest votes of any of the “candidates". The IRV votes of the 2 people in Group 3 are transferred to their second choice Candidate B giving Candidate B a 5 to 4 majority consisting of the 5 people in Groups 2 and 3 versus the 4 people in Group 1. This is an example where IRV transfers the votes of voters from their first choice to their second choice, who they considered to be the "lesser of two evils," thereby electing a candidate disliked and opposed by a 6 to 3 majority of the voters.
Both Candidate A and Candidate B are disliked and opposed by a majority of the electorate. The only way that Plurality Voting and Instant Runoff Voting will not elect anyone is if all 9 people decide not to vote. But both Candidate A and Candidate B have a number of supporters among the 9 person electorate. That support guarantees that Plurality Voting and Instant Runoff Voting will manufacture the appearance of consent, even when no such consent exists, in violation of the fundamental democratic principle of the consent of the governed.
How often this happens, where both major candidates in an election are disliked and opposed by more voters than like and support them, is difficult to say without examining large amounts of opinion poll data.
.
Some Examples of “We Hate Them” Elections
Consider these two high profile elections where according to considerable evidence both major party candidates were very likely disliked and opposed by more potential voters than liked and supported them.
There is something bizarre, and of course profoundly undemocratic, about a voting and election system, that cannot determine whether or not the candidates on the ballot are opposed by more voters than support them, and that proceeds to elect someone to office even though both "common knowledge" and ample evidence indicate that the two leading candidates on the ballot are intensely disliked by the voters.
- - - - -
1) The 1991 Lousiana governor's race between Edwin Edwards (the crook) and David Duke (white supremacist and former Ku Klux Klan leader), featuring car bumper stickers that read "Vote For the Crook. It's Important" and "Vote for the Lizard, not the Wizard."
"Louisiana gubernatorial election, 1991", Wikipedia
Article URL: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Louisiana_gubernatorial_election,_1991
"Edwin Edwards", Wikipedia
Article URL: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Edwin_Edwards
"David Duke, WIkipedia
Article URL: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/David_Duke
- - - - -
2) The 2002 California governor's race between incumbent Democrat Gray Davis and Republican challenger Bill Simon. The San Francisco Chronicle reported results of field polls that indicated both Gray Davis and Bill Simon had higher negatives than positives for the entire duration of the general election campaign.
“California Gubernatorial Election 2002”, Wikipedia
Article URL: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/California_gubernatorial_election,_2002
“Gray Davis”, Wikipedia
Article URL: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gray_Davis
“Bill Simon (politician)”, Wikipedia
Article URL: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bill_Simon_(politician)
On October 7, 2003, Gray Davis was recalled with 55.4% of the votes in favor of the recall, and Republican Arnold Schwarzenegger was elected in a Plurality Voting election to replace him as governor which featured 135 candidates who qualified for the ballot.
“California gubernatorial recall election, 2003” , Wikipedia
Article URL: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/California_gubernatorial_recall_election,_2003
- - - - -
3) The 2000 Presidential Election between Al Gore and George W. Bush may have been an example of a “We Hate Them” type of election, if we can assume that the vast majority of Democrats and Republicans disliked and opposed the other party’s candidate, George W. Bush and Al Gore respectively. Given the chance to use Category Scale Power Voting, both Democrats and Republicans may well have voted against the other duopoly party’s presidential candidate. Actually, Democrats would not have been able, through fear tactics, to so easily shake down people for their votes. By severely restricting every voter's freedom of speech and freedom of political association, Plurality Voting sets up voters for a vote shake down. Category Scale Power Voting, however, empowers voters enabling them to vote independently and would have forced both Al Gore and George W. Bush to earn the support of voters, forcing them to engage voters beyond their respective committed partisans and open up discussion of the issues.
- - - - -
4) The 2012 Presidential Election between Barack Obama and a Republican challenger? Both Barack Obama and potential Republican opponents have received higher negatives than positives in opinion polls. The Obama "Enthusiasm Gap" was an important reason why Democrats across the country did so poorly in the 2010 elections. The 2012 Presidential Election seems destined to be yet another Plurality Voting election, where the candidate who wins the election is disliked and opposed by more people than like and support the candidate.
.
#OccupyWallStreet
Why Everyone Including Environmentalists
Should Demand Fee and Dividend (Part 1)
- - - - -
Excerpt from "Canadian Arctic Loses Nearly Entire Ice Shelf" by Associated Press, September 30, 2011:
Two ice shelves that existed before Canada was settled by Europeans diminished significantly this northern summer, one nearly disappearing altogether, Canadian scientists say in newly published research.
The loss is important as a marker of global warming, returning the Canadian Arctic to conditions that date back thousands of years, scientists say.
- - - - -
Excerpt from "Canadian Arctic Loses Nearly Entire Ice Shelf" by Associated Press, September 30, 2011:
Floating icebergs that have broken free as a result pose a risk to offshore oil facilities and potentially to shipping lanes.
The breaking apart of the ice shelves also reduces the environment that supports microbial life, and changes the look of Canada's coastline.
Article URL: www.commondreams.org/headline/2011/09/30-5
- - - - -
Excerpt from "Ottawa Action Kills Notion of Ethical Oil" by Curtis Morrison, Waging Nonviolence, September 30, 2011:
According to Article 32 of the UN’s Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples, Harper is required to cooperate in good faith to obtain:
free and informed consent prior to the approval of any project affecting
their lands or territories and other resources, particularly in connection
with the development, utilization or exploitation of mineral, water or other
resources.
“We’ve been informed and we do not consent.” said Chief Jackie Thomas of the Saik’uz First Nation, to the crowd during the rally. Her Nation is one of five nations making up the Yinka Dene Alliance. Enbridge Pipeline offered to give the Alliance a 10-per-cent ownership stake in the proposed $5.5-billion Northern Gateway pipeline, and the Alliance declined.
Article URL: www.commondreams.org/view/2011/09/30-6
- - - - -
My Comment:
It would be great if the Barack Obama administration or the Stephen Harper government would put a stop to the TransCanada Keystone XL pipeline or the pipeline was somehow blocked by other means.
The Yinka Dene Alliance has rejected Enbridge Pipeline’s offer to give the Alliance a 10-per-cent ownership stake in the proposed North Gateway pipeline project from the Alberta tar sands to Kitimat, British Columbia. But that is unlikely to deter Enbridge.
When the Arctic Ocean becomes largely free of sea ice year round, there will also be an incentive to build a tars sands pipeline from Alberta to Port Churchill, Manitoba on the Hudson Bay.
On August 20, 2009, the U.S. State Department issued a presidential permit for an Alberta Clipper Pipeline from Hardisty, Alberta to Superior, Wisconsin. The pipeline will be capable of carrying up to 450,000 barrels of crude oil a day to refineries in the U.S.
Clearly, a more comprehensive approach to preventing extensive exploitation of the Alberta tar sands, as well as reducing our dependence on other fossil fuels energy sources, is needed.
Canadians and USans need to overcome the opposition within their respective countries to government action to counter global warming, catastrophic climate change and the direct destruction of the environment, and force their governments to enact Fee and Dividend legislation.
.
.
#OccupyWallStreet
Why Everyone Including Environmentalists
Should Demand Fee and Dividend (Part 2)
- - - - -
Excerpt from "A Primer on Class Struggle" by Michael Schwalbe, Common Dreams, March 13, 2011:
"The most important arena outside the workplace is government, because it’s here that the rules of the game are made, interpreted, and enforced. When we look at how capitalists try to use government to protect and advance their interests -- and at how other groups resist -- we are looking at class struggle."
Article URL: www.commondreams.org/view/2011/03/31-4
- - - - -
My Comment:
Support Fee and Dividend
How about getting nasty and forcing the U.S. Congress to pass Fee and Dividend legislation that puts an economy wide premium on the cost of fossil carbon products collected at the point of importation or extraction, where the proceeds from the fee are periodically returned to the people throughout the year?
Placing a premium on the cost of fossil carbon products through a Fee and Dividend system is the best approach to reducing fossil carbon emissions.
Fee and Dividend is specifically designed to protect the poor and the middle class (what's left of it) from the rising cost of fossil carbon and to enable them more directly to participate in the choice of alternatives to fossil carbon consumption, including their own efforts to manage their consumption through conservation and lifestyle changes, by adding a large premium to the cost of fossil carbon through the payment of a fee by corporations that import or extract fossil carbon, and then distributing the proceeds of that fee as a dividend to the people in the form of periodic payments during the year.
Sure, corporations may still obtain windfall profits on steeply rising oil prices as the market price changes due to fluctuations in "available" supply, speculation, and the dynamics of peak oil; but the large premium added to the cost of fossil carbon products as a result of the fee is transferred from corporations to the people as a dividend. Corporate windfall profits on fossil carbon based energy should be taxed separately.
The fee adds a stable and predictable premium to the cost of fossil carbon. Usually, Fee and Dividend proposals include provisions for the steady increase in the amount of the fee on fossil carbon importation and extraction with the passage of time. Presumably, the increase in the fee per unit of fossil carbon will correspond with reductions in fossil carbon consumption as more alternatives are developed. The initial fee should be large enough to make current alternatives economically attractive and to encourage the development of new alternatives.
Rather than simply letting large corporations manage the increase in fossil carbon costs and the development of alternatives for consumers in ways which perpetuate corporate control, Fee and Dividend puts money in the hands of the people, who can then more easily make their own choices regarding alternatives to fossil carbon consumption including conservation and lifestyle changes.
Instead of a "trickle down" approach Fee and Dividend transfers money from corporations to people; giving people the "carrot" that works with the fee based premium on the cost of fossil carbon "stick" to generate market incentives for the development of innovative alternatives.
Given what was once a consumer driven economy, the great disparities in wealth and income in the United States, and the fact that large corporations are essentially withholding $2 trillion in liquid assets from the real economy, just about any transfer of the ill gotten gains of wealthy people and wealthy corporations to the middle class and the poor is more likely to stimulate the economy and generate jobs than another tax break for wealthy people, the super rich and large wealthy corporations. When that transfer of funds also puts a premium on the price of fossil carbon, then there is an additional incentive favoring the development of a healthy economy.
Fee and Dividend in a Nutshell
1. Corporations and other types of businesses that import or
extract fossil carbon pay a fossil carbon fee per unit of fossil
carbon and choose whether or not to pass on the increased
cost to consumers or possibly develop a new line of business.
2. Corporations and other types of businesses choose whether
or not to pay the increased cost of fossil carbon and
other products and pass on the increased cost to consumers or
find more suitable alternatives.
3. People periodically receive the proceeds from the fossil carbon
fee as dividend payments, which buffer the impact on them of
the increase in fossil carbon prices due to the fossil carbon
fee and enable them more easily to purchase alternatives.
4. People choose whether or not to pay the increased cost of fossil
carbon and other products or find more suitable alternatives
using what funds they have available including funds from fossil
carbon dividend payments as they see fit.
By the way, Fee and Dividend is the approach to putting a premium on the price of fossil carbon that is favored by NASA climatologist James Hansen and many economists.
If Canadians get nasty too, maybe they can force their government to enact Fee and Dividend legislation.
.
. .
#OccupyWallStreet
What Bill McKibben and other Environmentalists Should Do!
- - -
Bill McKibben, the rest of the folks at 350.org (including Phil Aroneanu), along with other environmentalists and other people concerned about global warming, catastrophic climate change, mass extinction, massive releases of methane, and the possible complete destruction of life on Earth, need to do the following:
1. Demonstrate that they have a sound understanding not only of the ecological
catastrophe we face, but how power actually works in the United States and
around the world.
2. Act on that understanding (with extreme politeness if that is their preference or
fetish) by not simply declaring that the approval or disapproval of TransCanada’s
Keystone XL pipeline is the defining “litmus test” moment for Barack Obama
regarding his supposed commitment to seriously addressing global warming,
but also at the same time clearly and loudly indicating what must be done in
order to begin the reduction of carbon dioxide emissions into the atmosphere
and to hold politicians in the United States and elsewhere, including Barack
Obama, accountable for their failure to act.
3. Loudly proclaim that the current political system is illegitimate and clearly state
that Plurality Voting is unconstitutional and must be replaced by Category Scale
Power Voting, that the Buckley v. Valeo and Citizens United v. FEC United
States Supreme Court decisions are unconstitutional and must be overturned,
that the enormous power of large corporations, particularly large energy and
financial corporations, is incompatible with democracy, a healthy economy, and
a healthy environment; and that these corporations must, through anti-trust laws
or other means, be broken up now into smaller corporations.
4. Clearly state that no one should support Democrats or Republicans in 2012 who
do not act now, with consistency and intensity, to revive the economy, to protect
the planet from global warming, and to establish genuine democracy in the
United States; and that the safe alternative is to support the Green Party of the
United States in the 2012 elections, and that the 2012 elections should and will
be closely monitored by the people.
5. Join and support the rest of the working class protesting and rebelling against
corporate power and the power of the wealthy 1%.
.
. .
#OccupyEveryWhere Includes #OccupyOilRigs
. .
Excerpt from “Activists occupy oil rig in fight to prevent Arctic drilling” by John Vidal, Guardian (UK), April 2011:
The fight to stop the global oil industry exploring the pristine deep waters of the Arctic has been dubbed the new cold war, and early on Friday it escalated as environmental activists from 12 countries occupied the world's second largest rig on its way from Turkey to Greenland to drill among the icebergs.
Article URL: www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2011/apr/22/activists-occupy-arctic-oil-rig
* * * * *
My Comment:
Bill McKibben and Phil Aroneanu need to team up with Greenpeace.
Environmentalists have been part of the #OccupyWallStreet and #OccupyEverywhere movement long before the first protesters appeared in Zucotti Park.
.
#OccupyScience
Excerpt from "Rick Perry officials spark revolt after doctoring environment report" by Suzanne Goldenberg, The Guardian (UK), October 14, 2011:
Officials in Rick Perry's home state of Texas have set off a scientists' revolt after purging mentions of climate change and sea-level rise from what was supposed to be a landmark environmental report. The scientists said they were disowning the report on the state of Galveston Bay because of political interference and censorship from Perry appointees at the state's environmental agency.
By academic standards, the protest amounts to the beginnings of a rebellion: every single scientist associated with the 200-page report has demanded their names be struck from the document. "None of us can be party to scientific censorship so we would all have our names removed," said Jim Lester, a co-author of the report and vice-president of the Houston Advanced Research Centre.
- -
Article URL: www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2011/oct/14/rick-perry-texas-censorship-environment-report
* * * * *
My Comment:
Of course, pretending as many Democrats do that they respect science, but blatantly acting in ways that clearly indicate that they ignore science almost as easily as any Republican, isn't really very much better.
.