[Book Review] Can Climate Change Cure Capitalism?

The New York Review

Dec 4, 2014

by Elizabeth Kolbert

Naomi Klein illustration by James Ferguson

Excerpt:

What would it take to radically reduce global carbon emissions and to do so in a way that would alleviate inequality and poverty? Back in 1998, which is to say more than a decade before Klein became interested in climate change, a group of Swiss scientists decided to tackle precisely this question. The plan they came up with became known as the 2,000-Watt Society.

The idea behind the plan is that everyone on the planet is entitled to generate (more or less) the same emissions, meaning everyone should use (more or less) the same amount of energy. Most of us don’t think about our energy consumption—to the extent we think about it at all—in terms of watts or watt-hours. All you really need to know to understand the plan is that, if you’re American, you currently live in a 12,000-watt society; if you’re Dutch, you live in an 8,000-watt society; if you’re Swiss, you live in a 5,000-watt society; and if you’re Bangladeshi you live in a 300-watt society. Thus, for Americans, living on 2,000 watts would mean cutting consumption by more than four fifths; for Bangladeshis it would mean increasing it almost by a factor of seven.

To investigate what a 2,000-watt lifestyle might look like, the authors of the plan came up with a set of six fictional Swiss families. Even those who lived in super energy-efficient houses, had sold their cars, and flew very rarely turned out to be consuming more than 2,000 watts per person. Only “Alice,” a resident of a retirement home who had no TV or personal computer and occasionally took the train to visit her children, met the target.

The need to reduce carbon emissions is, ostensibly, what This Changes Everything is all about. Yet apart from applauding the solar installations of the Northern Cheyenne, Klein avoids looking at all closely at what this would entail. She vaguely tells us that we’ll have to consume less, but not how much less, or what we’ll have to give up. At various points, she calls for a carbon tax. This is certainly a good idea, and one that’s advocated by many economists, but it hardly seems to challenge the basic logic of capitalism. Near the start of the book, Klein floats the “managed degrowth” concept, which might also be called economic contraction, but once again, how this might play out she leaves unexplored. Even more confoundingly, by end of the book she seems to have rejected the idea. “Shrinking humanity’s impact or ‘footprint,’” she writes, is “simply not an option today.”

In place of “degrowth” she offers “regeneration,” a concept so cheerfully fuzzy I won’t even attempt to explain it. Regeneration, Klein writes, “is active: we become full participants in the process of maximizing life’s creativity.”

To draw on Klein paraphrasing Al Gore, here’s my inconvenient truth: when you tell people what it would actually take to radically reduce carbon emissions, they turn away. They don’t want to give up air travel or air conditioning or HDTV or trips to the mall or the family car or the myriad other things that go along with consuming 5,000 or 8,000 or 12,000 watts. All the major environmental groups know this, which is why they maintain, contrary to the requirements of a 2,000-watt society, that climate change can be tackled with minimal disruption to “the American way of life.” And Klein, you have to assume, knows it too. The irony of her book is that she ends up exactly where the “warmists” do, telling a fable she hopes will do some good.

Read the full review: http://www.nybooks.com/articles/archives/2014/dec/04/can-climate-change-cure-capitalism

 

[Elizabeth Kolbert is a staff writer for The New Yorker. ?Her new book, The Sixth Extinction, was published earlier this year. (December 2014) ]

 

The White Women of Empire

The New Inquiry

October 1, 2014

 

WATCH | The Nonprofit Industrial Complex: an Accessory to the Crime of Capitalism

Voluntourism as Neoliberal Humanitarianism

Shuswap Chief’s Salary Highest in Country

Warrior Publications

October 31, 2014

Chief Paul Sam’s take-home pay higher than prime minister’s at more than $200,000

OTTAWA — An elderly B.C. First Nations chief and his ex-wife, along with one of their sons and a grandson, received more than $4.1 million in remuneration over the past four years.

Shuswap First Nation Chief Paul Sam, 80, gets a tax-free salary that has averaged $264,000 over that period to run a tiny reserve near Invermere, a resort community near the Alberta border. The Shuswap have 267 members, of whom just 87 live on the reserve. His son, Dean Martin, is doing even better, with an average annual salary of $536,000 over the four years, running a band corporation that operates various businesses on and near the reserve.

The figures were provided this week to The Vancouver Sun by disgruntled Shuswap members who are challenging in next month’s election a family that has ruled for more than three decades.

A dissident councillor, who earns $57,700 annually, said she was unaware until recently that Chief Sam and the only other councillor, ex-wife Alice Sam, 82, were earning such lofty salaries.

“We had no idea. We are absolutely disgusted,” Barbara Cote told The Sun Thursday while vowing to reform band finances if she’s successful in a bid to take control of council.

Cote’s concerns got backing Thursday from the office of Aboriginal Affairs Minister Bernard Valcourt.

“Our government expects First Nation band councils to use tax payer dollars responsibly and for the benefit of all community members,” Erica Meekes, a spokeswoman for the department said in a statement.

“Community members have asked for an explanation of the salaries of this chief and councillor. They deserve that explanation.”

 

Romantic Warrior Cults

As Rudolph C. Ryser of the Center for World Indigenous Studies noted in his interview at IC Magazine, the US Government extends legitimacy to some indigenous nations in the form of federally-recognized tribes, but due to termination policies of the past, most American Indians no longer live on reservations. These officially displaced Indians, some enrolled tribal members and some not, harbor understandable grievances.

Prior to the World Conference on Indigenous Peoples (WCIP) proposal, put forward by Bolivian President Evo Morales at the UN in 2010, most indigenous nations were busy dealing with modern states domestically, not internationally. In the US and Canada, indigenous governing authorities spent most of the last half century rebuilding their societies in the aftermath of genocidal colonial conquest.

Due to combined efforts of church and state, these indigenous societies were devastated, and dysfunctional in many ways. Christianity and alcohol made traditional indigenous governance impossible. Dependence on church and state, psychologically and financially, created internal conflict that made indigenous nations susceptible to corruption by corporations, often working alongside church and state.

The rejection of this paradigm by the National Indian Brotherhood, forerunner of the Assembly of First Nations (AFN) in Canada, by the National Congress of American Indians (NCAI), by the American Indian Movement, and by traditional indigenous leaders led to important reforms in church and state policy toward indigenous nations. This in turn led to reforms within indigenous nations, eager to reassert jurisdiction over their traditional territories, and desperate for educational and economic development.

Policies of traditional indigenous leaders sometimes conflict with elected indigenous authorities, but both have legitimacy within their societies, so these conflicts have to be worked out within each indigenous nation. Modern states still try to impose their will on indigenous nations, but with the discrediting of church and state colonial policy, states like Canada and the US mostly collude with corporations to co-opt NGOs and to corrupt indigenous governing authorities.

In the international arena, most of the work advocating for indigenous nations status has been done by NGOs. With the WCIP, indigenous governing authorities have begun to resume their rightful place in world affairs. Free trade and climate change propelled them onto the world stage.

Since the UN is an organization of modern states, it created the Permanent Forum on Indigenous Issues (PFII) as an advisory body. When it came to organizing the WCIP, the UN called on PFII to designate regional coordinators. In North America, the coordinators chosen were from NGOs, and the hosts at the regional preparatory meeting called themselves the North American Indigenous Peoples Caucus (NAIPC).

Resentful of indigenous governing authorities, NAIPC tried to prevent them from participating in the regional meeting, and subsequently submitted a fraudulent report to the UN. When indigenous nations organized themselves to participate in the WCIP at UN headquarters in September 2014, NAIPC decided to boycott the event. Some NAIPC leaders went on to attack indigenous governing authorities, claiming superior status for themselves.

Many NGOs that make up NAIPC are funded by Wall Street foundations. Their leaders have built careers of moral theatrics, which Wall Street is happy to fund, as it undermines the ability of indigenous nations to challenge modern states. Only indigenous governing authorities can assert territorial jurisdiction, so anything that weakens them is a worthwhile investment.

NGOs are not representative of indigenous societies. They are not chosen or elected by indigenous nations to lead them. Usurping the voice of traditional leaders, these NGOs then posit themselves as more authentic than governing authorities. It is this nonsense that sometimes leads to romantic warrior cults.

Associations of indigenous governing authorities, i.e. NCAI, and Affiliated Tribes of Northwest Indians, strengthen indigenous nations in fighting modern states. Undermining them benefits Wall Street.

Fossil Fueled Fearmongering

Public Good Project

November 22, 2014

by Jay Taber

Sandy Robson’s November 2014 article on fearmongering by fossil fuel export developers, i.e. SSA Marine, Peabody Coal and BNSF Railroad, raises a couple questions. One is why no local media is reporting on this, and another is why the Washington Secretary of State hasn’t censured their PACs for distributing misleading communications to influence elections.

Sandy’s January 2014 article at Whatcom Watch shined a light on these PACs and their collaboration with fossil fuel exporters in money-laundering to influence elections. It also illuminated their connection with the Tea Party and KGMI radio, both of which assisted CERA (“the Ku Klux Klan of Indian country”) in promoting inter-racial discord aimed at the Affiliated Tribes of Northwest Indians, which opposes fossil fuel export in their traditional territories. As noted at IC Magazine, capitalizing on fear is what the developers do best.

Drumming up resentment against Native Americans and environmentalists is established practice by Wise Use propagandists, and has a particularly violent past in the Greater Seattle area, as reported by Robson in her October 2013 article at Whatcom Watch. As noted in an article at NWCitizen in February 2014, Robson and Whatcom Watch were threatened by coal export consortium PR man Craig Cole. As reported at IC Magazine in February, the politics of land and bigotry has a long history in the Salish Sea region.

 

[As an associate scholar of the Center for World Indigenous Studies and a contributing editor of Fourth World Journal, Jay Taber has assisted indigenous peoples seeking justice at the European Court of Human Rights and the United Nations. Since 1994, he has served as creative director at Public Good Project.]

Tony Blair wins Save The Children’s ‘Global Legacy’ Award

Interventions Watch

November 20, 2014

Image: B Heard Media

As reported in today’s Independent:

 Tony Blair was last night recognised for his humanitarian work at a glamorous gala to raise funds for a global children’s charity – in front of guests including Lassie the dog.

A List of Liberals & Leftists Who Supported the Bombing of Libya

Rouge Nation

November 11, 2014

by David Mizner

Governing and Demagoguery

Indian Country

November 10, 2014

by Rudolph C. Ryser

Reading the Glenn Morris comment in “Invader-States Hijacked UN World Conference on Indigenous Peoples” and Steven Newcomb’s “A Response to Glenn Morris’s Column” alongside Vice President Will Micklen’s “World Conference Takes Concrete Action to Benefit Indigenous Peoples” calls to mind the difference between “demagogues” and the people responsible for governing. “Demagogues” are essentially interested in their own narrow perspective at the expense of comity and deliberative agreement—they try to get support by making false claims and promises and using arguments based on emotion rather than reason. Those who govern a nation either within the framework of a constitution or customary laws have a duty to seek comity and deliberative agreement toward a larger goal. Monsieurs Morris and Newcomb are not accountable to anyone but themselves. Vice President Micklin is responsible to his government and the 29,000 members of Tlingit & Haida Indian Tribes of Alaska. There is a difference.

In intergovernmental forums such as the United Nations and intertribal bodies such as the National Congress of American Indians one’s accountability counts. Those of us, who head non-governmental organizations, sit as academics, or who study international law may comment or suggest. We cannot and do not exercise the political authority and responsibility of a government. Vice President Micklin and other political leaders participated in the deliberations of the UN leading up to the World Conference on Indigenous Peoples. They had the duty and responsibility to engage the United Nations and individual UN Member states. That duty has deep roots in the foundational culture of each nation.

Demagoguery does perform a function. It can point out the extreme boundaries of social possibilities, excite emotions and often instill hostility in opponents. Monsieurs Morris (FULL DISCLOSURE: Glenn and I have been friends for years. Glenn was listed as a co-editor with Carol Minugh and me for “Indian Self-Governance,” a book published by the Center for World Indigenous Studies in 1989.) and Newcomb both take their turn in written comments to repeat what they have said numerous times in conversation and meetings. They repeat the tired and misleading complaints of the so-called North American Indigenous Peoples Caucus (NAIPC). Each raises his voice to condemn those tribal leaders as illegitimate. Neither demonstrated their willingness during the North American Indigenous Peoples Preparatory Meeting in February-March of 2013 to engage indigenous leaders in a colloquy concerning policy, priorities, or procedure for discussion. They don’t demonstrate that commitment now. Both of these gentlemen have chosen to harangue, speak half-truths, and otherwise demand agreement and compliance with their ideas while ignoring the interests of North American indigenous nations.  These two men, as much as several other unaccountable individuals in the so-called NAIPC deliberately sabotaged the process of developing a truly representative North American Regional body in the winter of 2013 that included indigenous governments in Canada and the United States thus forcing indigenous governments to act on their own.

Vice President Micklin’s Tlingit & Haida Indian Tribes, and representatives of other nations (the Navajo Nation, the Quinault Indian Nation, Confederated Tribes of the Colville Reservation, Hoopa Valley Tribe, Mille Lacs Band, Miwok Nation, Oneida Nation Council of Chiefs, Yurok Tribe and the Winnemem Wintu Tribe) to what was supposed to be a North American Indigenous Peoples’ Preparatory Meeting at Sycuan in 2013.  These indigenous governments chose to send delegates to participate with non-representative indigenous people in good faith discussions.  They had the intent to agree to recommended themes and topics for the World Conference on Indigenous Peoples.

What was originally billed as a “Preparatory Meeting” of the North American Region was quickly converted into a NAIPC meeting. An academic and a non-governmental organization director with a preconceived agenda controlled the meeting. The agenda was set by a small group of people including Monsieurs Morris and Newcomb. These two and their colleagues in the so-called NAIPC had preconceived notions for the final outcome of the Preparatory Meeting. They were intent on forcing their views for an outcome.  Those preconceived notions basically involved the small, unaccountable group’s decision to designate its members as THE representatives of North America.  There would be no discussion, compromise or consideration of the views or proposals offered by representatives of indigenous governments. The ruling clique hijacked the Preparatory Meeting. They had already decided what they were going to achieve applying their exclusionary approach to “consensus”—“agree with us or shut up!” The idea and possibility of a North American regional body representative of the indigenous nations and peoples in Canada and North America collapsed in 2013.

Unlike the UN World Conference that was all along a meeting of UN Member states and not a joint meeting with indigenous nations (how indeed could they hijack their own meeting?) the North American Regional Preparatory Meeting was supposed to be a joint meeting of indigenous nations and peoples. A small clique of unaccountable individuals hijacked it. The Preparatory Meeting was billed as an open meeting of delegates from throughout North America and became a meeting of the NAIPC made up of self-selected individuals sitting with indigenous government representatives from a number of nations. The pretense of a representative North American Preparatory meeting evaporated on the first day of the Preparatory Meeting. The so-called NAIPC went on to hold their meeting and claim participation of non-participating indigenous governments. It was a sham!

Indigenous government representatives left the “Preparatory Meeting” with a bitter, foul taste in their mouths having confronted an authoritarian clique of individuals. They were confronted with a group that demanded control and the authority to decide what policies would be offered to the United Nations conference.

The alternative for indigenous governments was to take initiatives on their own to engage the UN and UN Member states whether the conference was fully endorsed by its original proposers or not.  Vice President Micklin’s description reliably describes the results of those initiatives. Those outcomes are significant not only for indigenous peoples in North American, but throughout the world. Indigenous governments and responsible non-governmental organizations took the initiative. Even though I did not wholly agree with the indigenous governments’ strategy or proposals I support their effort. Acting in concert they worked to produce openings for indigenous peoples to achieve new levels of dialogue and negotiations in a world recognizably hostile to the rights of indigenous nations.

When faced with hostility demagogues definitely get the attention of opponents, but too often mislead the less well informed and outside hostility turns to unproductive rage. But indigenous nation leaders who must govern have the duty to seize the opportunity to strengthen and protect the rights and interests of the people they represent.  In so doing they must work to find common ground to convert hostility into accommodation. Vice President Micklin and other political leaders are working to establish political equality with Member UN States (as I described in my ICTMN column on September 22). They have made a first small step in that direction. Patience, political skill, and good timing are critical here. Morris and Newcomb would do well to pay close attention to the political leaders.

 

 

[Dr. Rudolph C. Ryser is the Chairman of the Center for World Indigenous Studies, a former Acting Executive Director of the National Congress of American Indians, a former staff member of the American Indian Policy Review Commission and Advisor to Chief George Manuel then President of the World Council of Indigenous Peoples. He holds a doctorate in international relations, teaches Fourth World Geopolitics through the CWIS Certificate Program (www.cwis.org) and he is the author of “Indigenous Nations and Modern States” published by Routledge in 2012.]