Photo: www.chucknorris.comA lot of dreck comes across my desktop. I’m even on a list called “ennui mail,” and some of it is utterly irredeemable. But still I took notice when Chuck Norris: Copenhagen Talks To Forge “One World Order” blew in.
I especially like this bit:
In this conference, they’re going to try to take our money and send it to third-world countries because of, since we spend so much oil and these other countries have suffered, then we’re going to give our money to these third-world countries.
But then there’s this:
“Neil, we have people here starving in our own country,” Norris said. “You know, my foundation, I have families, who are making $9,000 a year—the kids I’m teaching. Why aren’t we trying to help the poverty in our own country?”
... which demands to be taken a bit more seriously.
I mean, how can it be that Chuck Norris, for crying out loud, is trumpeting his populist, pro-poor creds as a way of opposing international climate action? And why is the U.S. climate movement not widely seen as standing up for the American poor? And why is it so damn easy to paint greens as elitists? And is it not the case that, having gotten themselves typecast as middle-cast wonks, U.S. greens are now afraid to state the obvious truth—that it is only fair, as well as necessary, for the U.S. to pick up its share of the internation tab.
I posted the Chuck Norris question on the U.S. Climate Action Network list, which, by the way, can also engender a bit of ennui from time to time. Quick to respond was a fella who’s pretty well known up in Cascadia, though he wasn’t speaking on the record, so I won’t ID him:
This has gone badly sideways on us. I battled a group of teabaggers at a Gore book tour lecture in Portland last week. The class undertones were brutal: well-dressed, comfortable, calm people with their $60 tix filing inside the venue; struggling, ragged-looking people outside SCREAMING about the green fatcats and their grand climate conspiracy.
In response, Paddy McCully, the Executive Director of the Berkeley-based International Rivers (who’s entirely willing to go on the record) took the occasion to model a bit of snarky realism:
I think we can expect the ‘why are we sending money overseas when we aren’t helping the poor here’ rhetoric to be seriously ramped up by the tea-baggers. It’s perfect for them—xenophobic, nationalistic, populist, self-interested, self-contradictory (they don’t actually want money to be spent on the poor), anti-Obama, anti-Gore, anti-liberal elite, anti-science, anti-‘pouring money down foreign rat holes,’ anti-deficit increasing etc. etc. And now Norris has caught onto it presumably Glenn Beck won’t be far behind. And no amount of rational (or symbolic/emotional) argument will stop it.
In terms of broader public messaging in the U.S. I don’t think it’s even worth engaging on the international financing issue. Much better to stick to green jobs, energy security, technological competitiveness, natural disasters hurt the poor etc.
Which, when to think about it, is a pretty strong claim! Because if we don’t “engage” on the international financing issue, there’s basically zero chance that the international negotiations are going to pick up any real momentum anytime soon. Which, of course, means failure. Which is exactly what our friends on the lunatic right want.
Meanwhile, back in the White House, the Obama team is going to try to thread the needle. Unable to avoid Copenhagen, the U.S. is preparing a financing offer that, while entirely inadequate in global justice terms, and tragically weak in the face of the new scientific consensus, at least gets the ball rolling. Maybe a billion dollars a year in international mitigation and adaptation assistance, and maybe in a few years, if things go well, some creative international finance on top of that. Nothing much really, not anytime soon, though obviously, the tea-baggers are still going to go nuts.
What’s not obvious is what we’re going to do in response.
One thing we could do is make rational arguments. They soon surfaced on the USCAN list. First up was NRDC, with “Poor energy policy and climate change hurt the poor in the U.S.” Lots of examples here, of course—health costs, dangerous weather and storms, and failing to “tap into the green jobs potential.” A nice pointer to a new study that with “strong implementation of energy efficiency measures the American Clean Energy and Security (ACES) act, which passed the House in June, could create as many as 1.9 million jobs between 2010 and 2020.”
Then came Oxfam American, which noted another study, which “visually maps out climate impacts and vulnerable populations identified in 13 U.S. southeastern states (from Arkansas to Virginia),” and shows that “Acting on climate will benefit the poor in the U.S. because the poor in the U.S., just like the poor overseas, will be hit worst by the effects of climate change. Poor and vulnerable communities have little ability to prepare for and recover from climate-related disasters, no matter where they live.”
Good stuff, no doubt about it. And there’s no question that these arguments must absolutely be mainstreamed soon. “Green jobs” in particular, are critical, and the right knows it. Witness the sad tale of Van Jones.
But I’m left feeling that something big is missing here. Something like populist rage. Something internationalist, but also exuberant in its eagerness to defend the not-so-rich people of the U.S. of A. Something that connects the dots, that does not hold climate protection apart, as if it were the proper concern of only those “well-dressed, comfortable, calm people with their $60 tix.”
How about a loud national movement for free public transportation, for example? One paid for by congestion pricing schemes? How about bringing back Cap and Dividend, or something like it? How about progressive tax reform designed to lift up the poor and fund the climate transition at the same time? How about Big Green starts talking about America’s international responsibilities, in a way that vividly draws the link to our responsibilities to our own poor? How about we hear about unemployment in the third world from time to time? How about a new politics of solidarity, that refuses false distinctions between American needs and the needs of strangers? How about a class analysis of ecological footprints?
How about we step outside the climate sandbox, once and for all?
10 races to watch in 2010
U.S. warns China against ‘stillborn’ climate deal
Palin bashes ‘cap and tax’ and commends Obama on nuclear
Comments
View as Flat
acnicolet Posted 4:46 pm
25 Nov 2009
Permalink
GRLCowan Posted 9:32 pm
25 Nov 2009
Bring something like it. Government's fossil fuel income is huge. Divide that out first.
That is to say: Dividend and Cap. The dividend must come first, both in the name and chronologically.
One thing the "ragged-looking people" tend to notice is how many of the calm buyers of $60 "tix" get regular government cheques, or direct deposits. When these well-dressed ones recommend an increase in governments' fossil fuel take as an excellent and logical way of modifying the ragged people's behaviour, it's, uh, bad.
(How fire can be domesticated)
Permalink
Richard Graves Posted 10:59 pm
25 Nov 2009
Van Jones actually gave this very warning at the Power Shift 2007 conference. I will see if I can find the video of it. It was prescient.
Majora Carter is perhaps our most powerful voice on this issue right now, but we don't seem to be broadcasting her far and wide. We probably need to listen to her and other voices, including the youth climate movement that has built up solidarity with Environmental Justice and Mountain Justice movements that are doing our "class analysis of ecological footprints".
Cheers,
Richard
Permalink
amazingdrx Posted 12:28 am
26 Nov 2009
Rove wins. Palin/Beck administration will take over in 2013 and Chuck will be sleeping in the Lincoln bedroom. Beck is sporting the big shoulder (falsey strength and character) look, a sure sign he is sluffing off his nebbish shell to prepare for his big moment.
Since healthcare reform has akll but failed already, be nice to Chuck. He maybe the next secretary of defense. I wish I were kidding.
This is going to be worse than the Bush appointments because our hopes were actually raised a bit.
All you folks who were bending over backwwards to be peaceful and polite and really nice to hollering lying teabaggers at the healthcare townhalls in August? Or didn't even bother to show up to defend your rights?
Try to remember that moment when all was lost, the moment you could have acted en masse, when you are listening to President Palin give the state of the union. Remember the very important reasons you just couldn't show up or decided it was rude to fight back.
Permalink
jestbill Posted 6:13 pm
26 Nov 2009
I used to believe in change. That was probably 40 years ago.
The future is always the same: we will put one foot in front of the other and muddle thru. We will get better representatives and worse ones but nothing will change very much.
Grand Hotel?
Permalink
amazingdrx Posted 2:32 am
27 Nov 2009
Another factor to consider is fatalism often takes hold once one's time left shortens signifigantly. Which kind of plays into denial and delay, since mainly older citizens actually vote consistently in signifigant numbers. Baby boomers, hard living goes along with "conservative", those diseases of hard living like tobacco, booze, speed, and prescription drugs tend to bring on the end earlier and increase fatalism.
In other words, no need to do anything different, I won't be around that much longer. Keeps the guzzling going, and oil wars, and GHG disaster.
Pragmatic idealists take a different tack. Act now, act efficiently and get ahead of looming problems, then sell those solutions to the rest of the world. Why not go out fighting?
Sure the task is basically hopeless, but that makes it more interesting. How to summon the cultural foresight to power a technological civilization with renewable energy and feed it with organic ag? Now there's a worthy challenge.
Permalink
jestbill Posted 5:16 pm
27 Nov 2009
I didn't say that muddling through is the right way, just that that's what we're going to do.
We muddled through WWII because neither the "pragmatic idealists" on the Left nor on the Right could convince enough people to act. Some of those pragmatic idealists were Nazis and that's the problem--that's why it's so hard to get action BEFORE disaster hits.
Just wait a couple of years and we'll have Right wing dingbats crying that the Democrats didn't act on Climate Change when they should have.
Permalink
Joel W Posted 1:00 am
27 Nov 2009
I'd love to see him square up to Angry Green girl and her posse of ladies friends, though.
http://www.greenexplorer.ovi.com/getinspired/north-america/usa/green-girls-sex-appeal/
That would be a fight worth watching!
Permalink
sixpack Posted 6:58 am
27 Nov 2009
It's about helping fund the use of clean technologies in developing countries rather than them burning cheap, dirty coal.
Permalink
Lajaw Posted 2:21 pm
28 Nov 2009
Permalink
jestbill Posted 6:31 pm
28 Nov 2009
I think "the masses" and most of the rest of us only know that meaning because somebody snickered. I can't imagine why using that term would cost anyone "credibility" in a discussion about climate change.
Permalink
Lajaw Posted 6:45 pm
28 Nov 2009
Permalink
askantik Posted 12:54 pm
30 Nov 2009
Arguing about how A) socialism isn't necessarily bad and B) the Obama administration is an extremely far cry from any type of socialism is even more annoying and frustrating than arguing with anti-science people about evolution or global warming.
Permalink
Lajaw Posted 6:00 pm
30 Nov 2009
Permalink
cyberfarer Posted 6:24 pm
30 Nov 2009
Permalink
AlWeinrub Posted 2:19 pm
29 Nov 2009
Tom asks, "And why is the U.S. climate movement not widely seen as standing up for the American poor? And why is it so damn easy to paint greens as elitists?"
Why indeed?
The simple fact is that the climate movement in America does not really stand up for the American poor and has not seen itself as part of the historic movement of the American poor.
For example, for the big green organizations, concern about global warming is a relatively recent add-on to a historic environmental conservation focus that has not principally been about poor people's lives. Even now, most such organizations (NDRC, for example) support cap and trade legislation that amounts to a transfer of wealth from poor folks to the wealthy. (Let alone the market in carbon allowances that has Wall Street in a state of speculative frenzy.)
And most of the smaller climate-focused organizations and NGOs exist mostly because of funding from foundations and other wealthy donors, whose concerns about global warming are shaped more by their own class perspective than any consideration of working class and poor people.
As a result, the preponderant political orientation of the climate movement is a reformist, pragmatist political movement that takes current class relations as a given, without questioning the power of the ruling elite or the capitalist economic system that serves that elite. Never mind that the root cause of global warming is found in the capitalist system's never-ending need for growth in capital accumulation: meaning increasing consumption, neo-liberal globalization, and exponentially growing demand for energy--all the antithesis of sustainable economic development.
In fact, it is only a small fraction of the climate movement that is visibly concerned about socio-economic inequality in America, and this is mostly an outgrowth of the work of the environmental justice movement, based among people of color and poor communities in this country.
In short, the climate movement has a limited base in working class and poor communities for the simple reason that most of the movement does not address this class strata or organize within this strata. Global warming is seen in the U.S. as a question of limiting carbon emissions, rather than as a political question of social justice, economic justice, class exploitation, or development rights. Even on the most primitive level, the climate movement rarely relates global warming to global domination (U.S. wars for oil), to the grossly uneven distribution of wealth and power (the lack of economic and political democracy), or to burning political questions regarding the current conditions and future of working people and people of color.
Simply calling for green jobs and a massive green new deal (brought to us by the same corporate and financial oligarchy) does not cut it. What is needed, among other things, is a program and a strategy for organizing around global warming in working class communities, as is now being pursued in some U.S. cities. This approach can draw the parallels between poor people and people of color in the U.S. and their counterparts around the world. It is in this context that the climate debt to the global South, and who in the U.S. should pay that debt, can make sense.
Bottom line. The lunatic right points out a strategic weakness of the U.S. climate movement.
Permalink
john smith 123 Posted 4:53 pm
29 Nov 2009
Also, it is not exactly the case that the right wing opposes the AGW theory, and the left wing supports it. Would you think that Danish PM Lars Loekke Rasmussen was left wing? He's actually the Prime of a government which is so ultra-nationalistic and capitalist that it reminds a good deal more about the republicans in the US than any left wing party. He's the successor of Mr. Fogh Rasmussen, best buddy with GW Bush, who left the PM post only to become Secretary General of NATO for christ sake! Does that really spell left wing to you?
Would you think that Coca-Cola represented the left wing? Pepsi? GM, Ford, Chrysler? DuPont, or Dow Chemical? Or, how about BP, Shell, Alcoa, Rio Tinto, Alstom, Alcoa, PG&E? Yet all of these are in support of the Copenhagen conference and climate legislation such as Cap-and-Trade...
Do these names sound in any way "leftist" to you? How about Al Gore, or Goldman Sachs? Do you honestly think that these people are the slightest bit concerned about the poor, and that's why they've set up shop to trade Carbon paper money by the multi-billions?
I'll tell you what: They're in it for the money. That's what.
The extreme right wing, finance and big business has managed to hijack large parts of the left wing with their climate scam, rendering previously powerful movements like the green movement, the movement for social justice, the ecologists, and sustainability activists totally harmless, even impotent.
It makes me sad to see otherwise intelligent people dancing to the tune of big business like that.
The Copenhagen Treaty is about finding an appropriate straight jacket for India and China so that heir competitive edge is limited, and at the same time driving a wedge in between the nations of Africa so that exploitation can continue, only now in lieu of "climate compensation". That, and taking the first steps toward a supranational body, exactly as Chuck Norris states. Only, it is not a communist world government they're after as most right wing critics think; in stead it is the fusion of government, finance, and business. The name for that type of ideology is fascism.
Oh, and making lots of money while doing so.
---
[1] Company list here: http://www.nocapandtrade.com/boycott/
Permalink
john smith 123 Posted 5:59 pm
29 Nov 2009
Also, it's longer
----------------------------------------------------
It's not only the right wing who oppose the AGW theory.
Also, it is not exactly the case that the right wing opposes the AGW theory, and the left wing supports it. Would you think that Danish PM Lars Loekke Rasmussen was left wing? He's actually the Prime of a government which is so ultra-nationalistic and capitalist that it reminds a good deal more about the republicans in the US than any left wing party. He's the successor of Mr. Fogh Rasmussen, best buddy with GW Bush, who left the PM post only to become Secretary General of NATO for christ sake! Does that really spell left wing to you?
Would you think that Coca-Cola represented the left wing? Pepsi? GM, Ford, Chrysler? DuPont, or Dow Chemical? Or, how about BP, Shell, Alcoa, Rio Tinto, Alstom, Alcoa, PG&E? Yet all of these are in support of the Copenhagen conference and climate legislation such as Cap-and-Trade...
Do these names sound in any way "leftist" to you? How about Al Gore, or Goldman Sachs? Do you honestly think that these people are the slightest bit concerned about the poor, and that's why they've set up shop to trade Carbon paper money by the multi-billions?
I'll tell you what: They're in it for the money. That's what.
Some few millions have been spent by one or two oil companies connected eg. to GWB in order to support scientific research to counter the AGW theory, but that's a cover up: Billions upon billions have been spent by governments and industry on the AGW propaganda trail, supporting the AGW theory, to the effect of making it seem like solid evidence when in reality not a single scientific proof has ever been produced.
Big finance and big business have managed to hijack large parts of the left wing with their climate scam, rendering previously powerful movements like the green movement, the movement for social justice, the ecologists, and sustainability activists totally harmless, even impotent.
It makes me sad to see otherwise intelligent people dancing to the tune of big business like that.
The Copenhagen Treaty is about finding an appropriate straight jacket for India and China so that their competitive edge is limited, and at the same time driving a wedge in between the nations of Africa that are only recently starting to cooperate so that exploitation can continue - only now in lieu of "climate compensation". That, and taking the first steps toward a supranational body, exactly as Chuck Norris states. Only, it is not a communist world government they're after as most right wing critics think; in stead it is the fusion of government, finance, and business. The name for that type of ideology is fascism. It is not left wing and it is not right wing either.
Oh, and of course making lots of money while doing so.
...
What we should do, as people of this planet, is to take back the sustainability, biodiversity, and ecology agenda.
Those three things are what may make mankind survive long-term. These are the important points. Climate, as such, is not.
Also, "right wing" or "left wing" doesn't really matter much. We are all people and as such we are equal. And worse, we are all just under-dogs to those "making policy". So, the time has come for us now to unite, get rid of that "wing" nonsense, and get things done in stead. As long as we're flaming each other the bad guys are winning.
The hypocrisy that makes heads of state talk about "whether the average global temperature increase should be constrained to below 1.5 degrees Celsius or to no more than 2 degrees" is mind-blowing. Do these people think they are gods or what? Nature doesn't give a damn about 90 heads of state or billions of dollars anyway. If the natural cycle of the planet and the solar system is such that this planet will freeze tomorrow, then it will freeze. And if it should heat it will heat. Carbon credits or not.
What we people are good at is adapting. We should do that. Adapt. And face the fact that the climate has always been changing and will always be changing. Carbon or not, people or not.
- Sustainability
- Bio-diversity
- Ecology
Those are our real hopes for the future. The rest is bunk.
---
[1] Company list here: http://www.nocapandtrade.com/boycott/
[2] 90 heads of state, and quote here: http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20091129/ap_on_sc/cb_climate_trinidad
Permalink
SkyHunter Posted 10:22 am
01 Dec 2009
First time I have seen a denier of physics try and hijack the sustainability movement.
You speak of nature like it is independent of physics.
Allow me to burst your bubble.
What you call "Nature", is nothing more than a physical manifestation of the universe in accordance with the laws of physics.
If you understood more of the science you would not make such ignorant statements as:
"not a single scientific proof has ever been produced. "
My guess is you would not recognize a scientific proof if it bit you, but here, let me offer one.
CO2 makes the atmosphere optically thicker, which means the atmosphere absorbs more heat radiating from the Earth. More heat in the atmosphere means higher temperature. Basic physics.
Do you deny this?
Physics doesn't dither, and gravity always wins!
Permalink
jestbill Posted 9:12 pm
29 Nov 2009
Climate change negotiations, cap and trade et. al. are bunk made up by the capitalist enemies of the people.
We should unite and focus on "sustainability, biodiversity, and ecology."
Say...aren't those two ideas in direct conflict? Unlimited economic growth supported by oil, coal and gas is not sustainable and impacts the biodiversity of our ecology. In fact, runaway CO2 increase can't be any good for any of those three.
So the problem is to do what big business says it wants without letting big business make any money doing it? Good luck with that.
Permalink
acnicolet Posted 7:59 am
30 Nov 2009
Cap emissions down 20-30% by 2020 (from 2005 levels) by issuing co2-permits on an exchange. Let the utilities trade them on the exchange on daily/monthly basis. As time goes by, start reducing the amount of permits to reduce emissions. Give parts of the proceeds from issuing as tax-cuts or rebates for those families who will be struck the hardest (i.e. in states that have fewer natural renewable energy resources) and subsidize R&D in new and existing renewable technology
Finally use part of the proceeds as part of the financing of a new mega-project; the smart grid: Expanding the current transmission networks to better interconnect states and increase efficiency and trade of power, as well as decrease distances to wind- and solar rich geographic locations.It has been suggested by several sources, that such mega-projects also significantly help to increase economic activity in the long-run (http://tinyurl.com/yf3wfo2)
Its simple, effective, gives incentive for efficiency and renewable energy - and also rewards current industries and states for having planned ahead. How many pages would such a bill be? 100? 200? Why would anyone disagree with this? (Please tell me)
Please subscribe to my blog on http://www.climateculprits.blogspot.com :)
Permalink
Lajaw Posted 11:39 am
30 Nov 2009
Permalink
cyberfarer Posted 12:45 pm
30 Nov 2009
At the risk of being sexist, for God sakes grow a pair. Norris couldn't give two shits for the poor or else he'd be the biggest proponent of public health care and public programs that support the poor. All he is protecting is his own wealth and everyone else can go to hell. Tell the truth, people, like it matters.
Permalink
askantik Posted 12:58 pm
30 Nov 2009
Chuck Norris isn't afraid of global warming-- global warming is afraid of Chuck Norris!
Permalink
rpauli Posted 1:16 pm
30 Nov 2009
Food should be the big issue at Copenhagen. No one should starve because of AGW... it is the least we should agree to.
Permalink
10in10Diet.com Posted 5:45 pm
30 Nov 2009
Lynn Shwadchuck
http://www.10in10diet.com/
Diet for a small footprint and a small grocery bill.
Permalink
Daniel Coffey Posted 4:50 pm
30 Nov 2009
Permalink
MUD SIREN Posted 7:43 pm
30 Nov 2009
Permalink
randino Posted 5:35 am
01 Dec 2009
Randy Cunningham
Cleveland, OH
Permalink
splashy Posted 5:08 am
02 Dec 2009
Permalink