Climate Change & American Revolution

SUBHEAD: Deeper solutions will emerge that challenge the whole economic structure that is deaf to the needs of humans.

 By Shamus Cooke on 26 July 2012 for Znet -  
(http://www.zcommunications.org/climate-change-and-the-next-u-s-revolution-by-shamus-cooke)

 
Image above: Painting of "Washington Crossing the Delaware" by Emanuel Leutze, 1851. Updated with the latest climate forecast by Juan Wilson. From (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Washington_Crossing_the_Delaware_by_Emanuel_Leutze,_MMA-NYC,_1851.jpg).
 
The U.S. heat wave is slowly shaking the foundations of American politics. It may take years for the deep rumble to evolve into an above ground, institution-shattering earthquake, but U.S. society has changed for good.

The heat wave has helped convince tens of millions of Americans that climate change is real, overpowering the fake science and right-wing media - funded by corporate cash - to convince Americans otherwise.

Republicans and Democrats alike also erect roadblocks to understanding climate change. By the politicians’ complete lack of action towards addressing the issue, the "climate change is fake" movement was strengthened, since Americans presumed that any sane government would be actively trying to address an issue that had the potential to destroy civilization.

But working people have finally made up their mind. A recent poll showed that 70 percent of Americans now believe that climate change is real, up from 52 percent in 2010. And a growing number of people are recognizing that the warming of the planet is caused by human activity.
Business Week explains: "A record heat wave, drought and catastrophic wildfires are accomplishing what climate scientists could not: convincing a wide swath of Americans that global temperatures are rising."

This means that working class families throughout the Midwest and southern states simply don't believe what their media and politicians are telling them.

It also implies that these millions of Americans are being further politicized in a deeper sense.
Believing that climate change exists implies that you are somewhat aware about the massive consequences to humanity if the global economy doesn't drastically change, and fast.
This awareness has revolutionary implications. As millions of Americans watch the environment destroyed - for their grandchildren or themselves - while politicians do absolutely nothing in response, or make tiny token gestures - a growing number of Americans will demand political alternatives, and fight to see them created. The American political system as it exists today cannot cope with this inevitable happening.

The New York Times explains why: "...the American political system is not ready to agree to a [climate] treaty that would force the United States, over time, to accept profound changes in its energy [coal, oil], transport [trucking and airline industry] and manufacturing [corporate] sectors.”
In short, the U.S. government will not force corporations to make less profit by behaving more eco-friendly. This is the essence of the problem.

In order for humanity to survive climate change, the economy must be radically transformed; massive investments must be made in renewable energy, public transportation, and recycling, while dirty energy sources must be quickly swept into the dustbin of history.

But the economy is currently owned by giant, privately run corporations, that will continue destroying the earth if it earns them huge profits, and they make massive "contributions" to political parties to ensure this remains so. It's becoming increasingly obvious that government inaction on climate change is directly linked to the "special interests" of corporations that dominate these governments.

This fact of U.S. politics is present in every other capitalist country as well, which means that international agreements on reducing greenhouse gasses will remain impossible, as each country's corporations vie for market domination, reducing pollution simply puts them at a competitive disadvantage.

This dynamic has already caused massive delays in the UN's already inadequate efforts at addressing climate change. The Kyoto climate agreement was the by-product of years of cooperation and planning between many nations that included legally binding agreements to reduce greenhouse gasses. The Bush and Obama administrations helped destroy these efforts.

For example, Instead of building upon the foundation of the Kyoto Protocol, the Obama administration demanded a whole new structure, something that would take years to achieve. The Kyoto framework (itself insufficient) was abandoned because it included legally binding agreements, and was based on multilateral, agreed-upon reductions of greenhouse gasses.

In an article by the Guardian entitled “US Planning to Weaken Copenhagen Climate Deal,” the Obama administration's UN position is exposed, as he dismisses the Kyoto Protocol by proposing that “…each country set its own rules and to decide unilaterally how to meet its target.”

Obama's proposal came straight from the mouth of U.S. corporations, who wanted to ensure that there was zero accountability, zero oversight, zero climate progress, and therefore no dent to their profits. Instead of using its massive international leverage for climate justice, the U.S. has used it to promote divisiveness and inaction, to the potential detriment of billions of people globally.

The stakes are too high to hold out any hope that governments will act boldly. The Business Week article below explains the profound changes happening to the climate:
"The average temperature for the U.S. during June was 71.2 degrees Fahrenheit (21.7 Celsius), which is 2 degrees higher than the average for the 20th century, according to the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration. The June temperatures made the preceding 12 months the warmest since record-keeping began in 1895, the government agency said."
Activists who are radicalized by this global problem face a crisis of what to do about it. It is difficult to put forth a positive climate change demand, since the problem is global. Demanding that governments "act boldly" to address climate change hasn't worked, and lesser demands seem inadequate.

The environmental rights movement continues to go through a variety of phases: individual and small group eco-"terrorism," causing property damage to environmentally damaging companies; corporate campaigns that target especially bad polluters with high-profile direct action; and massive education programs that have been highly successful, but fall short when it comes to winning change.

Ultimately, climate activists must come face to face with political and corporate power.

Corporate-owned governments are the ones with the power to adequately address the climate change issue, and they will not be swayed by good science, common sense, basic decency, or even a torched planet.

Those in power only respond to power, and the only power capable of displacing corporate power is when people unite and act collectively, as was done in Egypt, Tunisia, and is still developing throughout Europe.

Climate groups cannot view their issue as separate from other groups that are organizing against corporate power. The social movements that have emerged to battle austerity measures are natural allies, as are anti-war and labor activists. The climate solution will inevitably require revolutionary measures, which first requires that alliances and demands are put forward that unite Labor, working people in general, community, and student groups towards collective action.

One possible immediate demand is for environmental activists to unite with Labor groups over a federal jobs program, paid for by taxing the rich, that makes massive investments in jobs that are climate related, such as solar panel production, transportation, building recycling centers, home retro-fitting, etc.

Another demand could be to insist that the government convene the most knowledgeable scientists in the area of clean energy. These scientists should be given all the resources they need in order to collectively create alternative sources of clean energy that would allow for a realistic alternative to the current polluting and toxic sources of energy.

However, any type of immediate demand will meet giant corporate resistance from both political parties. Fighting for a uniting demand will thus strengthen the movement, and for this reason it is important to link climate solutions to the creation of jobs, which are the number one concern of most Americans. This unity will in turn lead allies toward a deeper understanding of the problem, and therefore deeper solutions will emerge that challenge the whole economic structure that is deaf to the needs of humans and the climate and sacrifices everything to the private profit of a few.

• Shamus Cooke is a social service worker, trade unionist, and writer for Workers Action (www.workerscompass.org). He can be reached at shamuscooke@gmail.com .
 .

1 comment :

  1. The bulk of the American public benefit greatly from the nature-abusing practices of our corporations. Cheap non-local food is imported at great distances to grocery stores, minerals are mined in the cheapest way are used to make cheap electronics- almost all products Americans buy have in some way outsourced much of the cost of the environmental impact, including the materials used to build our homes and roads. In addition, Americans structure their lives so that they work farther than a walk away from their homes- daily commute is the norm for most Americans. Even the Americans who are aware of the advantage that eco-destruction gives them in their daily lives tend to buy organic or local occasionally, carpool sometimes, or recycle the parts of their disposable products which are recyclable in their areas. Those things are great, but they are a drop in the bucket and may work to camouflage the depth of what needs to be done.

    It would be possible for each person who is radicalized by their knowledge of climate change to adjust their personal lives so that they could walk to some kind of work (likely this would mean moving or getting a different, less-good job) buy only local food (this would mean greatly reducing the variety of their diet, especially in locations with winter) buying only local clothes/linens (this would greatly reduce style options) use re-usable and repairable products only. (which would generally mean giving up most consumer electronics such as cell phones, tvs, and laptops, and increase the required elbow-grease of many cleaning tasks.) Better insulation, solar lighting, sleeping while the sun is down, and doing things by hand can greatly reduce energy use in the home.

    Now the above is not impossible, is completely revolutionary, and does not require the consent of any corporation or government. It can be done right now all across America, for anybody who is serious about giving up their unearned advantages won them through climate destruction. if enough people went along that road more choices in local food, textiles and reusable products would emerge for that market, making the road a little easier for everybody.

    Of course, I do not expect Americans to give up their luxuries any more than i expect corporations to give up their profits. However, i do wish that the subject of the benefits not just to corporations, but to every-day americans were discussed more fully. Occasional recycling and buying local alone simply do not make enough of an impact on Americas portion of climate change. I do not mean to discount the impact that businesses have on the environment. However as you said, businesses are mindlessly seeking profit. With the government in the pocket of money from the businesses, the only way left to steer the businesses (and the government) is to ensure that businesses can only see a profit when they have earth-friendly practices. (And i'm not talking earth-destroying biofuels or the like.) If we want America to cease it's climate destruction, it is Americans, not corporations or regulations, who must change.

    ReplyDelete