The Largest Action Ever on Climate Change is Calling for No Action at All

Used with permission

Ah, the bliss of ignorance. Oh, but that I were able to get excited about the People's Climate March, "the largest climate march in history," today. But I just can't, not when the march is actually calling for nothing more than, well, for people to march.  

I don't like being cynical, but there's far too much evidence this time that the whole thing is about good P.R., not about safeguarding the future or convincing governments to take urgent action on climate change (or especially outlining what that urgent action could be). 

Keep in mind that back in June of of this year, Climate Action Network (CAN) International, representing 900 organizations in 100 countries, many or most of them in the more vulnerable regions, released the best-ever climate emergency response position statement: a limit of 1.5ºC or less, not the deadly 2ºC "target"; greenhouse gas emissions declining by next year, 2015; and a rapid transition to 100% clean, renewable energy — in other words, achieving a zero-carbon economy — by 2050 or sooner. 

But no one in the Global North is promoting the CAN International position statement. Why is that? Indeed, it almost seems as though this march was designed to divert our attention from CAN's demands of our governments — demands that could actually make a difference.

To wit:

"Perfect Timing World leaders will be gathered in NYC for a landmark U.N. climate meeting — just the right moment for big public pressure."

Oh really? No, world leaders are meeting on Tuesday, so they won't be "gathered in NYC" on Sunday, like a bunch of conventioneers showing up early for a bit of debauchery before a conference. Timing-wise, Monday's Flood Wall Street march might have a bit more impact.

"Massive Scale We'll peacefully flood the streets in historic numbers, both in New York City and in solidarity events around the world."

Um, I thought George Dubya Bush taught us that peacefully marching in the streets is worth nothing and accomplishes nothing. Millions of us held candlelight vigils begging him not to illegally invade Iraq, but he laughed and snubbed his nose at us and went in anyway, making life hell for millions of Iraqis as well as American and British soldiers. Oh, and just to make sure we understand what the organizers mean by "peacefully": "NOTE: This march route was set after several months of negotiating with the New York Police Department...."

"Unprecedented Collaboration - Over 1,500 (!) businesses, unions, faith groups, schools, social justice groups, environmental groups and more, all working together.... We want to make sure the People's Climate March tells the story of today's climate movement in all its parts — so we're trying something new, and arranging the contingents of the march in a way that helps us thread our many messages together."

I've been told they're paying young people from as far away as Toronto to attend to create that collaboration. And I notice they're keeping the LGBTQ community as far away from the kids and families as they can, without insulting the Indigenous peoples and those impacted by Hurricane Sandy who are at the head of the parade, er, march. 

I mean, come on! Why wouldn't we want scientists to walk with political people, and musicians to walk with beekeepers? Is there to be no cross-pollinization at this march? And if you're an ordinary businessperson (not part of a Clean and Green Business), you're hooped, because there's nowhere that you belong. (Unless you're a Woman ... they come after the Domestic Workers, who are up there at the front with the Indigenous peoples.)

Centered on Justice - Committed to principles of environmental justice and equality — representing the communities that are being hit the hardest by climate change.

If we're going to talk about those hardest hit, where are the anti-poverty groups? And the representatives from whole nations in Africa and the Pacific that are losing their ability to grow food? ("International" is at the back of the line, where they'll stay, I suppose.) Who is representing the millions of other-than-human species who are dying out or having to shift latitudes to survive? (Animals, nature, species are not on the list.) 

And not to be unkind or insensitive, but is there something about the living and working conditions of domestic workers in the United States that I'm not aware of? Are nannies in Philadelphia being impacted by climate change more than other Philadephians, for example?

"With our future on the line and the whole world watching, we'll take a stand to bend the course of history. We'll take to the streets to demand the world we know is within our reach: a world with an economy that works for people and the planet; a world safe from the ravages of climate change; a world with good jobs, clean air and water, and healthy communities."

Here is how a cynic would parse that one:

With our future (oh, your future? not the future of all humanity and most life on the planet?) on the line (that's an overly calm way to say we're heading for global climate catastrophe) and the whole world watching (ah, there it is, that's what this is all about — a perverse, collective narcissism), we'll take a stand (kinda funny when they're supposed to be marching) to bend the course of history (did I already mention narcissism?). We'll take to the streets (the streets the New York Police Department can contain nicely) to demand the world we know is within our reach (a rather ungrammatically awkward tall order): a world with an economy that works for people and the planet blah blah blah.... (Do these organizers not realize that we've been asking for all this for decades, possibly centuries? Do they not understand how international climate change negotiations work?)

Well, at least I'm not the only cynic about this People's Climate March.

Arun Gupta writes in Counterpunch: "I've never been to a protest march that advertised in the New York City subway. That spent $220,000 on posters inviting Wall Street bankers to join a march to save the planet, according to one source. That claims you can change world history in an afternoon after walking the dog and eating brunch." What does he find most troubling? "Having worked on Madison Avenue for nearly a decade, I can smell a P.R. and marketing campaign a mile away. That's what the People's Climate March looks to be."

Cory Morningstar says: "The People's Climate March and supporting discourse is about protecting capitalism, not protecting the world's most vulnerable people from climate change. [It] is a mobilization campaign created by Avaaz and 350.org, with 350.org at the forefront. The oligarchs do not bankroll such a mobilization (via millions of dollars funnelled through foundations) without reason."

Anne Petermann, writing for Daily Kos, agrees that there is no call for action: "So, what are the demands of the march? There are none. That's right. The march will simply bring together an estimated 200,000 people to march through the streets of New York and then… There will be no rally, no speakers, and no strong political demands. Just people showing up with the overarching message that the world's leaders should take action on climate change. Why no solid demands?"

Quincy Saul writes in Truthout: "No Target: The march is a U-turn through Times Square, beginning at a monument to genocide (Columbus Circle) and ending ... in the middle of nowhere. Here in New York City where the ruling class of the whole world has made their diverse headquarters, the march will target none of them. The march will not even go near the United Nations, its ostensible symbolic target. No Demands: Again, to attract the largest number of people, the march has rallied around the lowest common denominator — in this case, nothing. Not only are there no demands, but there is in fact no content at all to the politics of the march ...."

But I'm sure that if it doesn't rain too hard and nobody's dog gets stepped on, it will be a nice event.

"In Short, We're Screwed" ... But What's the Long Version?

Faith sees the invisible, believes in the incredible, and receives the impossible.
— Unknown

What a week! On Tuesday night, we went to a book signing where Nikki van Schyndel talked about the year and a half she spent living in the wild in the Broughton Archipelago of British Columbia. I've been reading Becoming Wild during every spare minute ever since. What an inspiration! 

Then on Wednesday, I read We're Finished. Now What? by Will Falk in the San Diego Free Press. This is someone who says, "In short, we're screwed." And he's right. He goes on:

Let the knowledge sink in. Let it weigh on your shoulders. Let it pull you to the ground for a second and rub your face in the dirt of reality. Let it kick you in the gut and double you over with plain truth. Let it boil the acid in your stomach until you’re sick with honest anxiety.

Reminds me of something I realized almost exactly a year ago (see that post here), that if we can't feel the pain that comes with realizing "we're screwed," then we'll never get to the point of taking action. And Falk has realized (personally, viscerally) that the only way past the depression that is setting in with this understanding is action. 

And then on Thursday, while discussing Falk's piece with my husband, he said something that really resonated for me. 

So many huge innovations and transformations have come about even just in our lifetime. But look at how absolutely impossible (indeed, science fictiony) they seemed only years before they were invented! 

Yet when people are asked whether we can win this admittedly humongous climate change challenge, practically everyone (who's awake ... most people around me don't even care yet) says no, this problem is too big to fix. The universal social response seems to be "No can do" ... "No want to do" ... or "Ain't gonna waste my time worryin' about it."

But damn it, my hubby says, this problem is too big NOT to fix. So he's not giving up, and I'm in for the long haul. 

I am reminded of the man who, alone in a vast desert with no hat, no water, and a broken leg, pulled himself up on one bruised and battered elbow and smiled at a bunch of dry grass, saying, "You know, if this keeps up I might get discouraged." — Larry Dean Olsen

That's the long version of "we're screwed." All it's going to take is a miracle. And we've had lots of those lately.

By the way, Falk's essay is worth a read. He ends it by asking us: 

Who among us can sit idly by while our loved ones are doomed to death – while everything is doomed to death – and not act with every ounce of our power? Action is still possible. And once you start, you’ll begin to feel better. I promise.

If "Boys Will Be Boys," How Will the World Ever Change?

I might be wading into dangerous territory here, but something grievous has happened in my life and I want to share my thoughts and reactions.

Over the last six years (a long time in the life of a child), I have worked with a lovely multi-aged group of children as their resource teacher. (Nothing fancy. Basically, it means the children are homeschooled — or unschooled (life as teacher) — and I provide special learning opportunities for them one to two days per week.)

Almost from our first day together six years ago, I noticed the tendency of children of the male persuasion to turn almost anything into some sort of weapon. The oldest children were only 7 at the time, so it was easy to turn pretend bazookas into whipped cream shooters (I had to think of something fast) and ... well, you get the picture. 

We (the parents and I, but especially I) made a special effort to talk to the kids about the importance of peace and creating a safe space for each other. We decided that our class would be a pacifist one. We came up with a school peace policy one year after witnessing a particularly violent Christmas concert (violence in the name of student creativity at the "Prince of Peace" time of year doesn't work for me). 

We ask any "fighters" to rationalize what they're fighting for (a critical thinking exercise), and whether they're both feeling safe in the role play. Our stylized kendo fighters (best friends who are taking karate lessons together) are asked to take it outdoors or into the gym so that others aren't hurt by their twirling (and occasionally whacking) sticks. 

One mom of two sons (and a daughter) told me recently that our pacifism custom (it's not quite a rule) has spilled over into their family life, making things at home more peaceful for all of them.

These days, however, not only have my original students grown older but the class has grown bigger. We have new students who are coming in at older ages, already inured to toy (and some real) weapons, play fighting and online video game violence. 

The change in the dynamic of my class is shocking and, frankly, breaking my heart. I'm noticing unkindness, rudeness and, yes, violence. (I don't think it's acceptable for older kids to threaten younger kids just because the younger kids are pesky at times.)

Now please don't go off thinking you know what I'm going to say. I'm still trying to wrap words around something I've never heard or thought about before. I'll try to come to it by showing you, with some examples, what I'm not thinking.

1. In one of Canada's national papers, a columnist whose views I tend not to agree with wrote a recent article entitled Boys will be boys – schools need to understand that in which she conflates the hands-on and active (kinesthetic) learning style of many boys (and the lack of respect for that learning style in the education system) with boys' predilection for "mock violence." 

"The punishment of boys for being boys proceeds apace. But what happens to them on the playground is the least of it. What happens in the classroom is worse," she says. I, however, don't see an obvious, necessary or natural connection between "going bang-bang" with a finger and boys' learning needs. Classrooms can be active, exciting places to learn without being (mockly) violent places.

2. The second example comes from the Huffington Post and Soraya Chemaly's The Problem with 'Boys Will Be Boys'. In this article, the author chooses to explore a rape metaphor when what I saw in her story was violence, pure and simple. 

Violence (and meanness) like that does not happen more than once in my learning group. "We're a family," I point out, "and we don't treat each other like that here." And then "the village" steps in to create diversions (aka interesting learning activities). (By the way, why is the violent little boy in that article not building his own castles?)

3. The third example is certainly getting closer to what I'm trying to point out. A young boy named Benny made the following video to point out how young boys like Benny are being manipulated into accepting militarization as the only route for boys. Surely, allowing boys to grow up in peace, without indoctrination into the narrow world (and worldview) of war and violence, is not the same as feminization or emasculation? And are we, as their parents and other caregivers, still comfortable being pimps for the army and other violent gangs?

"Boys will be boys" is a proverb excuse given when boys (or men) behave badly, in a noisy, rude, unpleasant or irresponsible way (I'm collating several online definitions here). But if we keep making that excuse, how will things ever shift?

Here, then, is the point I'm trying to make. Are we all agreed that peace on Earth would be a pretty nifty thing? (I'm not going to include Pentagon generals or Security Council officials in that question.) 

If we consider simply the carbon footprint of the world's militaries, we can come up with an important justification for promoting peace. If we also take the human toll on individuals, families and communities into account, only the most callous and mercenary would trot out the "he hit me back first" justification for war and violence. 

So if we want to create peace on Earth, aren't we going to have to change a few things first? Like the fact that we give boys free reign to indulge in "mock" violence merely because they're boys? (Wait, I'm not done yet. I'm not into suspending little kids because they go "bang-bang" with their finger.)

It is believed that for hundreds of thousands (probably millions) of years, hominid and human males have been the protectors of their family groups. (Believe me, hominid and human mothers have had their hands full looking after the kids!) 

Sometimes violence was a necessary part of that defence. (One does not negotiate with a sabretooth tiger at the entrance to the cave.) But in many parts of the world, the modern era has seen a huge shift in that role. Our sabretooth tigers are gone (though wild animals are still a threat in some places). 

Can our species not find / choose / allow / promote a new role for males, then? Can we not ask boys and men to use that hands-on, kinesthetic energy to come up with ways to safeguard the planet? Does their focus — their "enemy" — always have to be in flesh and blood (heavy on the blood, it seems)? 

Can the focus not be greenhouse gases, corporate malfeasance, ill-conceived inventions, an economy run amok? Can our kids not turn their attention to new inventions that haven't been invented yet, new ways of creating energy, new ways of living that don't use fossil fuels?

Maybe fighting is so engrained in male genes that my idea is nuts. Maybe I just need to turn a blind eye to it. (Not going to happen, not when my heart is hurting.) Maybe I need to see "playfighting" as just that: play. (But to what end? We don't have to fight to feed anymore, so why learn to fight?) 

Maybe I simply need to vigilantly watch that playfighting doesn't turn violent, that all my students feel safe in our group space. But if pretend bazookas can serve as whipped cream shooters (oh, the kids had fun making those imaginary banana splits!), then why can't protecting the future become an active, exciting yet peaceful pursuit?

I dunno. What do you think?

p.s. Here are two past posts that you might find of interest:
Calling on the Feminine
Turning Play Weapons into Garden Tools?

We are Aborting Our Children's Future

Each week, I read many different things that I'd like to tell you about on Sundays when I write this blog, but of course I can't share them all. This morning, there is one story that is still resonating for me.

Kids in the United States are suing their federal government and several state governments for lack of action on climate change. You can read the story, The Young and the Restless: Kids Sue Government over Climate Change at The Grist.

The young Alec Loorz (who was about 12 when he founded Kids vs. Global Warming), is leading this initiative, probably with an unbelievable amount of disbelief at how so many adults have done so little, er, so much nothing. These are young people who understand what's happening. We can't begin to fully grasp their sense of frustration.

Our Children's Trust (a magnificent play on words) is supporting the initiative. Their byline is: "Protecting Earth's Climate for Future Generations." Sounds like good people. Their campaign has three aspects:

LEGAL ACTION: Coordinating an international mobilization of scientists, attorneys, and youth for legal action on the climate crisis.

COMMUNICATIONS: Creating ground-breaking documentaries examining the geographic, economic and societal impacts of climate change on our youth and their communities.

ADVOCACY: Giving a voice to youth.

I hope the federal court in the USA gives these youth their "day in court." (See more info on the case, including fascinating expert declarations, here.)

We're at a point in the climate change emergency where the only thing we can do is to keep on doing everything we can do. Climate activists are starting to realize that we've lost this fight — the ultimate battle for life on Earth; that the fight was too big and the enemies of life on Earth too many in number and too strong in influence. But each one of us can keep fighting because to not fight is not an option. I used to say "Hope is not an action verb; action is our only hope" but now I think it would be more honest to say "Fighting is our only salvation."

But all that is a long-winded way to share with you two comments from the original Grist article on this court case:

1. "So the Environmental Groups have resorted to using children to get their message across? There is just all kinds of things wrong with that." This comment (that's all they wrote; talk about not "getting it") reminds me of the time my husband suggested that an environmental group focus on children's environmental health. (Children, as a vulnerable sub-population, are like bellwethers ... canaries in the mineshaft.) His suggestion was shot down because it would be "using children." So we're allowed to injure children and ruin their future with our pollution, but we're not allowed to focus on their health and wellbeing. (This commenter missed the part in the article about young people being the ones "using children to get their message across.")

2. Another commenter said that "Conservative Republicans and their corporate multi-national masters are ABORTING the future of our nation's children." Now, I don't want to get into American politics today (after all, their Democratic president has done NOTHING to address the climate change emergency, a point the kids are pointing out!), but the terminology is correct.

I used to say we were foreclosing on our children's future, making their future a thing of the past, committing progenycide, but "aborting their future" is exactly what we're doing: halting, stopping, ending, axing it; calling it off; cutting it short; discontinuing, terminating, arresting, cancelling, scrubbing it ... pulling the plug on their future.

It breaks my heart to think that so many people care so little about the children, their own children, all the children. What kind of civilization have we become?

Why the Bolivian 1ºC climate change position is the only one for the survival of the Global South and for the food security of the entire world

We are here in Bolivia at the World People's Conference on Climate Change and the Rights of Mother Earth. There are several of us from Canada representing Canadians for Action on Climate Change. Here is the English version of Dr. Peter Carter's paper on the importance of the Bolivian climate change position, the only position — put forward by any country — that has scientific and ethical integrity. Why the Bolivian government 1ºC climate change position is the only position for the survival of the Global South and for the food security of the entire world In 2007 the largest global environmental assessment by hundreds of scientists called the Fourth Global Environmental Assessment of the United Nations Environment Program was published. It stated that now global climate change threatens the "very survival of humanity." Only one national leader has said the same thing and that is Bolivia’s Evo Morales last December at the Copenhagen UN Climate Conference. The Bolivian climate change position:

• The global average temperature increase of the surface of planet Earth must be limited to 1°C.
• Therefore, atmospheric carbon dioxide concentration must be limited (which means reduced) to 300 parts per million (ppm).
• Industrialized nations must stop emitting carbon. This means a total redevelopment to convert to clean, perpetual and zero carbon energy for all people. What a wonderful idea!
• The industrialized nations must extract "billions of tons" of carbon dioxide directly from the air. The fact is that climate change science has totally established that only zero carbon emissions, supplemented by the extraction of carbon dioxide directly from the atmosphere, can lead to the reduction of today’s catastrophically high level of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere (390 ppm) and stop it from increasing further. This is the best kept secret of the industrialized nations, because it is a scientific fact that has been known for many years yet ignored.

The most important numbers in the world are 1°C and 0 carbon emissions. Without zero carbon emissions, no other numbers can happen, except higher and higher numbers, leading inevitably to climate catastrophe. (See OnlyZeroCarbon.org)

Why is the 1°C limit, which has been proposed only by the government of Bolivia, the only way the Global South can survive global climate change and essential for world food security? Isn’t northern hemisphere agriculture going to be fine?

Global warming and the disruption of the climate caused by greenhouse gas emissions will lead to declining production of the world’s grains. The powerful nations have given little attention to the effects of global climate change policy for agriculture and food security, on the absurd basis that their farmers will have to adapt to the changing climate. As any rural farmer knows, agricultural success depends on a stable climate, predictable seasons, and the absence of droughts, severe storms, floods, and plagues of weeds and insect pests. These and more are all changes that will predictably and increasingly happen under any continuing global warming and climate change, firstly in the most vulnerable Global South.

What do the agricultural / climate change computer model numbers say? This data is found in the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change Fourth Assessment (2007). For the Global South, the production of their main grains would decline starting at a 1°C increase of our planet’s surface temperature. Developing nations must have a 1°C global temperature limit for their survival. At a 2ºC global average temperature increase from 1900, the models project a 25% to 30% yield reduction for countries in the Global South!

Also at +1°C, world food production is "threatened" with decline (IPCC WG2 Technical Report) and so the entire world must have the 1°C temperature limit for climate safety and food security.

With a 2ºC increase, food production will decline in the northern hemisphere. In fact, the 2007 IPCC assessment noted that food decline in the northern hemisphere at 2ºC was stated in the 2001 IPCC assessment! (IPCC WG2 Technical Report)

It is therefore proven that all the people of the world must fight to reject the +2°C policy target and fight for the Bolivian +1ºC global temperature limit for food security. The people will be told by their governments (with the sole exception of the Bolivian government) and by many international organizations (who support the +2ºC limit) that +1ºC is impossible and not economically feasible. The people must respond that this is not true (the economics is fatally flawed), and even if it were true, it is no reason to still "aim" for +2ºC increase and to not even try for a limit of 1°C — and our survival.

(Dr. Peter Carter is a retired physician and environmental health research analyst from Canada.)

Six Months to Copenhagen - Sometimes Conventional Wisdom is Wrong: Fear IS a Good Thing ...

... when the situation is a frightening one.

Hasn't it seemed just a bit counterintuitive that so many environmental groups and activists have kept saying, "We can't scare the public"?

We are facing the most terrifying possibility ever, and yet they insist we shouldn't spread "doom and gloom." Hey, dooming the future is a gloomy prospect!

But here is a voice of reason - from a respected author and commentator no less (mine would never be called a "voice of reason" as I am all for heart, soul, spirit, intuition, emotions, feelings, gut reactions, and mother's instincts - just to balance out all the reason in the world!).

Although Thomas Homer-Dixon, in an article entitled "Fear is Good" (pdf) (published 4 April 2009 in Canada's Globe and Mail newspaper), is talking mainly about the economic crisis, he could just as easily be talking about the climate change emergency:

"Fear is bad, according to conventional wisdom.... The truth is that fear is good.... Today, if we were more afraid for our futures and those of our children, we would be doing much more to address potential problems - such as climate change ... that could derail our societies tomorrow.

"Fear serves a vital purpose. Our ancestors evolved the biological capacity for fear because it helped them survive, which allowed them to pass their genes to future generations. Fear signals that something might be wrong in our surroundings and that we could be in danger.... We should embrace fear, not scorn it. And we should listen to those whose fears might help them see dangers earlier and more clearly than the rest of us.

"In today's tightly connected world - under staggering demographic, political and environmental as well as economic stress - the burden of proof is now on the optimists. World-shaking crises are likely to appear with increasing frequency, and we'd be foolhardy to ignore people who warn of the dangers around us."

Me again: I say it's time for the "hope mongers" to get real and learn the devastating new findings on global warming, climate change, and carbon feedbacks. As I keep explaining, hope is not an action verb - and hoping, like praying, is not going to safeguard the future.

Take hopeful action, be an optimistic activist, but take action and be an activist! Make sure that action (not the denial that lurks in optimism and hope) comes first.