350.org's MIT Climate Message To Obama / Demoracy Now! Previews International Climate Action Day

by: Paul Rosenberg

Sat Oct 24, 2009 at 08:30


350.org co-founder Bill McKibben and Australian scientist Tim Flannery talked with Democracy Now! previewing an International Climate Action Day today (info here)--on the flip.  The impacts of climate change in Australia have gone far past the point where denial is still possible.

Meanwhile, the Boston Globe Green Blog notes that 350.org took out the following full-page ad in MIT's newspaper yesterday, putting three question to President Obama as he addressed MIT on clean energy the day before the worldwide day of climate action taking place today (more in the extended entry):

Paul Rosenberg :: 350.org's MIT Climate Message To Obama / Demoracy Now! Previews International Climate Action Day

Check the 350.org website for an action near you today.  On the flip: an excerpt from Democracy Now! & some thoughts about the day.

The Democracy Now! interview is a chilling reminder of how deep is disconnect in which we live.  McKibben's first book about global warming, The End of Nature was published 20 years ago.

Here's the intro:

JUAN GONZALEZ: President Obama is heading to Massachusetts today where he will urge the Senate to move forward on a climate change bill. The President's speech comes just seven weeks before the start of the United Nations Copenhagen Climate Conference. Next week the Senate Environment and Public Works Committee will hold three days of hearings to discuss the climate change bill proposed by Senators Barbara Boxer and John Kerry.

While the Obama administration has acknowledged no bill will be passed before the Copenhagen talks, pressure is growing from grassroots organizations to take action. On Saturday the group 350.org is organizing an International Climate Action Day. More than 4,500 events are scheduled to take place in 170 nations.

350.org is named after what scientists have identified as a sustainable target for carbon dioxide concentration in the atmosphere: 350 parts per million. We are currently at 387 parts per million.

While most climate scientists say the effects of global warming are happening far sooner than initially projected, many Americans appear to be dismissing the threat of climate change.

AMY GOODMAN: A poll released on Thursday by the Pew Research Center for the People & the Press found that just 57 percent of respondents believe there is solid evidence that the world is getting warmer, down 20 percentage points in just three years. The poll also found only 35 percent of Americans believe global warming is a very serious problem.

Well, today we're joined by two of the major thinkers, writers, activists tackling climate change.

With us here in New York at our firehouse studio is writer and environmentalist Bill McKibben, co-founder and director of 350.org. Twenty years ago, he published The End of Nature, the first general audience book about global warming. Bill McKibben has described the talks in Copenhagan as, quote, "the most important diplomatic gathering in the world's history."

We're also joined by the Australian scientist Tim Flannery. He is the author of the international bestseller The Weather Makers. His latest book is called Now or Never: Why We Must Act Now to End Climate Change and Create a Sustainable Future. Tim Flannery is chair of the Copenhagen Climate Council. He is a mammalogist and paleontologist by training. As a field zoologist, he discovered and named more than sixty species. In 2007 Tim Flannery was named Australian of the Year.

We welcome you both to Democracy Now! And as we go to broadcast, Bill, the protests, rallies, actions around the country, in this largest day of global action in the history of the world, are already underway.

BILL McKIBBEN: People are jumping the gun a little bit, and we're getting amazing pictures beginning to arrive from places like Addis Ababa, from all across the Pacific, from New Zealand and Australia.

It's quite remarkable to think that the largest day of political action in the planet's history will center around a fairly arcane scientific fact, a data point. You would have said that it was too complicated for people or too hard for them to assimilate, but this is the most important number in the world. People are realizing that. People are realizing that their future, in the starkest terms, depends on the world's leaders understanding that this debate is not so much between the US and China and the EU, it's mostly between human beings, on the one hand, and physics and chemistry, on the other. And today and tomorrow, in 177 nations, people are standing up for this science, saying, "Pay attention to the real situation."

JUAN GONZALEZ: And yet, there remains this huge disconnect between the American public and the public in the rest of the world. As we said, only about 35 percent of the American people believe this is a serious problem. Your understanding why there is this huge disconnect?

BILL McKIBBEN: Two things. One, we're the most addicted country in the world, so it makes sense that we'd be deepest in denial, I suppose. The second is, we've never really had a popular movement about climate. We've left this to the experts, on the theory that if we keep repeating how bad the peril is, our leaders will take action.

Now we're doing the work of building the kind of grassroots movement that changes hearts and minds, that moves people to understand what the problem is. And hopefully those images flooding in from around the world will really open people's hearts, when they understand that people are protesting across Africa, across Asia, across Latin America, across places where people did nothing to cause this problem but are willing to take a real role in helping to solve it.

The most important thing here, for me, is McKibben's statement, "we've never really had a popular movement about climate."   There's been a long sporadic lead-up, just as there was decades of civil rights activism before Rosa Parks sparked the Montgomery Bus Boycott.  So we're not starting from nowhere.  But we have to build momventum very quickly just the Civil Rights Movement did--even faster, in fact. It was less than 4 years from the Gulf of Tonkin Resolution to LBJ's announcement that he would not seek re-election, but instead would devote all his energy to ending the war in Vietnam. He didn't succeed, of course, due in part in Nixon's meddling.  But it took less than 4 years of intense activism, starting from much less than we have today to reverse the course that we were on.  Citizen mobilization can bring about dramatic changes that are also quite swift.

Or we could learn the hard way, as they're already learning in Australia:

AMY GOODMAN: Tim Flannery, you've been traveling the United States. Talk about the awareness in Australia and the awareness in the United States around global warming. What's your sense?

TIM FLANNERY: Well, Amy, you know, they're very different things. In Australia, it's impossible to avoid an understanding of climate change, because it's in our face every day. We have terrible problems with water security at the moment across southern Australia. Our fifth-largest city, Adelaide, may be out of drinking water next year. Our national water commissioner's said that he can't guarantee drinking water to that city as of the end of next year. We've had dust storms. We've had fires. We've had cyclones. We've had bleaching of the Great Barrier Reef. And so, no matter where you live in Australia, you become aware of climate change.

Here in the US, I think you've been a little bit buffered from those changes. There's certainly some impacts; particularly in the western forests here, you can see it. But Australia is a harbinger, I think, for what will happen in the United States.

But one of the big factors here that's so very different is that the population's views seem to be divided along political lines. It's a tragedy that, in a way, you know, the Democrats represent the proactive side, and the Republicans seem to represent a side that wants to ignore the issue. Elsewhere in the world, that isn't the case. In Britain, for example, the Conservative Party is a very green party.

So there's something about the political mix here and the sort of the relative insulation of the population from some of these changes that have made levels of awareness here much lower than elsewhere in the world. And that is such a problem for us, because unless the US can move forward with its cap-and-trade bill to deal with this issue, I'm afraid many other countries are going to take a less-than-adequate stance during these negotiations in December.

JUAN GONZALEZ: Tim Flannery, you mentioned the problems that you've had there. You recently had the wildfires that took about 170 lives there. And here in the United States, obviously, wildfires, especially in the Southwest, have grown dramatically in recent years. But again, there's like no connection that the public is making between these calamities and the overall change in the earth's climate.

TIM FLANNERY: That's very strange to me. And maybe it's just that in Australia the situation is so stark. You know, up until twelve years ago in southeastern Australia, we enjoyed a regular winter rainfall regime. And the rain still falls, incidentally; it just falls over the southern ocean, about 200 miles south of where it used to fall. And we can all see that. We all experience the impacts of it. And somehow or other, it's become widely understood in the Australian public that this is the result of a changing climate. You really have to live in our country a little while, I think, to understand just how profound these impacts have been. There's no getting away from them. It's not just one phenomena; it's a series of things that have changed. And everyone who takes an interest in this issue really does understand it.

The utter stupidity of GOP opposition to doing anything to save the planet for human habitation was also touched on:

AMY GOODMAN: Can we play for you recent comments by Republican senators on the Boxer-Kerry climate bill?
    SEN. JAMES INHOFE: It can't be denied that this would be the largest tax increase in the history of America.

    SEN. KIT BOND: The Kerry-Boxer bill is a giant new energy tax on families and workers.

    SEN. KAY BAILEY HUTCHISON: And your electricity rates, your gasoline per gallon costs are going to go up. This is not the time to be adding costs.

    SEN. JOHN BARRASSO: What we know, that it is going to raise prices for American families. It's going to make it much tougher for American families.

    SEN. JOHN THUNE: All we know is that everything is going to go up. Electricity is going to go up. Diesel fuel is going to go up. Natural gas is going to go up. Fertilizer is going to go up.

AMY GOODMAN: Just an example of some of the opposition, Tim Flannery. Your response?

TIM FLANNERY: Look, there is no doubt that there will be modest cost increases across some of those areas, most of which can be dealt with, incidentally, by just some efficiency gains in very, very simple ways.

But, you know, unless we invest in the future now in that regard, American manufacturing and American industry is going to suffer greatly over the next decade or two. And the reason for that is that countries like China are now moving ahead with their eye firmly on that market of five billion people around the planet who can't get enough energy. We know that we can't deliver that energy to those people using traditional means; we'll pollute the planet out of existence. So the big gains to be had over the next decade or two or three are building a new energy economy, and America needs to invest in that, so its own manufacturers and its own chambers of commerce and businesses are in a good position to take a slice of that enormous market that's emerging.

"Dumb as a stump" is an insult to stumps everywhere.

More on global warming later today.


Tags: , , (All Tags)
Print Friendly View Send As Email
Insulting stumps gets them a populist response (4.00 / 2)
I guess I'll start this out.

You are right to say the GOP response to the Climate Change bill languishing in Congress is dumb, but the bigger picture is they are using Climate Change to play POLITICS.

The GOP's main concern right now, imho, is getting back into power.

The GOP appeals to its populist base - I think low-income, uneducated people who pay attention to Glen Beck, Limbaugh and assorted conservatives - casting ENERGY POLICY as TAXES (you know, those tax and spend Dems), detrimental to the business community, growth in Amerika, etc.

Maybe the debate will run like health care reform and the idiots will make a fatal mistake like the health insurance companies did when they released that stupid study that said they would have to raise insurance premiums on everyone if health care reform passes.

As far as Obama goes, you got me. Who knows what he'll do other than let the debate run its course and then decide.


The GOP Base Is NOT Low-Income (4.00 / 1)
(Nor is it low-information.  It's high misinformation.)

I've written about this a number of times.  Most notably, for this discussion--since the GOP base is so markedly Southern (the only region where the Dems don't currently cream them)--in my diary, "Class Still Matters Among Southern Whites".

Long story short--the South has become more Republican in a very top-down manner.  I use NES data to look at the process decade-by-decade.  By this decade, only Southern white voters in the bottom 1/6 are majority Democratic:

2000s: 1091 respondents:
2000s White South: Party ID By Income Percentile
Party ID
(with leaners)
0-16 17- 33 34- 67 68-95 96-100 All
Democrats54.547.935.733.720.539.7
Independents 10.216.314.16.39.111.5
Republicans 35.335.850.460.069.348.8
Col Tot Rs187215347255881091



"You know what they say -- those of us who fail history... doomed to repeat it in summer school." -- Buffy The Vampire Slayer, Season 6, Episode 3


[ Parent ]
I said "populist base" of the GOP (0.00 / 0)
and yes I'm using populism in its pejorative sense, meaning the people versus the elites.

Are there any data on registered Republicans who believe the trash that spews from the likes of Glen Beck and Rush Limbaugh?

It's like the 1960's and the Viet Nam War. Anti-war activists were a small minority in this country, mostly found on college campuses, but they got a lot of media play. Hence the term, "liberal media."


[ Parent ]
"Fake Populist" You Mean (0.00 / 0)
since it's all ginned up by corporate shills like Beck and Limbaugh.

And what evidence do you have that this base is so wildly at odds with the overall voter data?

Not only do you have no data, there's excellent reasons to think that it's pure bullshit.

It's more affluent folks who have more time to mainline this corporate BS.  Low-income folks would get fired in the blink of an eye if they were caught letting themselves get distracted from work by Beck or Limbaugh's blathering.

"You know what they say -- those of us who fail history... doomed to repeat it in summer school." -- Buffy The Vampire Slayer, Season 6, Episode 3


[ Parent ]
The only data I have at my fingertips is common sense (0.00 / 0)
They must be low-income and uneducated if they believe the likes of Glen Beck and Rush Limbaugh.

Those were not "fake populists" who showed up at the Capitol building this summer protesting health care reform. Reports on the size of the crowd varied, but I went to a counter-demonstration there and saw for myself. I think the crowd numbered in the 100,00 to 300,000 range.

It doesn't matter what the overall voter data say. Perception is all and everything.

The GOP will continue to use it's teabagger strategies, recruiting hapless Americans to its cause of propping up the top 1 percent of the population.


[ Parent ]
In Other Words, Elitist Prejudice (0.00 / 0)
Your hostility to empirical evidence is remarkably similar in kind, if not magnitude, to those you are criticizing here.

It doesn't matter what the overall voter data say. Perception is all and everything.

No Republican could have said it better.

"You know what they say -- those of us who fail history... doomed to repeat it in summer school." -- Buffy The Vampire Slayer, Season 6, Episode 3


[ Parent ]
I'm not hostile to empirical data (0.00 / 0)
and I'm only criticizing you. The data do not bear out how with a Dem majority in the House and Senate and a Dem president, the debate in this country is largely defined by Republicans, correction: Conservatives.

I'm saying that Perception explains it.

Furthermor, I literally don't have the data, and don't want to search for it, to dispute your claim that Republican wingnuts - the GOP's populist base - are high-income and educated.

Though my reference to populism as people vs. elite might evoke your characterization of my comment as Elitist Prejudice, you couldn't be further from the truth.

Finally, I am not a Republican.

And neither am I a troll, if that's what you think.


[ Parent ]
You Accept A Whole Bunch Of Versailles CW (0.00 / 0)
which has no empirical foundation.

While I have no love for Versailles CW, if you actually offered some evidence in support of it, then we'd be having a very different sort of conversation.

"You know what they say -- those of us who fail history... doomed to repeat it in summer school." -- Buffy The Vampire Slayer, Season 6, Episode 3


[ Parent ]
Strategy For Senate Climate Bill (4.00 / 1)
I don't know if any of you guys follow climateprogress, but Joe Romm seems fairly convinced that the Boxer bill will eventually garner Republican support (albeit not from the above-quoted Senators- he's talking Graham, McCain, Voinovich, Murkowski, and some others).

I'm having trouble feeling confident in Joe's analysis though because he's gotten into the habit of taking Obama's rhetoric (which is stirring and makes me believe he's got it in him) as an indicator of how much will actually get done.  He also cites the fact that the stimulus and other investments represent the greatest federal investment in clean energy and efficiency ever.  Not arguing with that.

But when it comes to the key problem, as with health care, it's confronting the entrenched power that's holding us back- primarily coal companies, but oil as well on a lesser scale.  And I don't see any evidence that Obama has an interest in fighting these forces.  Shit, for everything he said in his OFA address he isn't really serious about fighting the insurance companies.  So I'm very wary.

On the flip side, I agree with the point above that we basically need something now, and our movement is about 5 years behind.  I'm curious as to what other readers think about Senator Sherrod Brown and his group of 10 Rust/Coal Belt Democrats.  I agree with Brown's demand for border adjustment, as well as the IMPACT Act, as well as the opinion that he stated at a town hall I attended that the cap on GHGs ought to be higher.  But until he and others begin accepting that coal cannot have a long-term position in an environmentally just system I'm pretty scared about the prospects for change.  Not just our movement, but our national conversation is unbelievably behind where it needs to be.  But what do others think about Brown and his group?

Figuring out how to be a progressive college graduate transplant to Ohio:  http://citizenobie.wordpress.com/


Mountaintop Mining border adjustment? (0.00 / 0)
Is the border adjustment you're referring to about mountaintop mining? If so, this would indicate that Ohio is not interested in changing its coal mining industry.

I looked up IMPACT Act and, yes, that sounds like a necessary part of any Climate Change bill that would pass - providing for green jobs/businesses to replace the fossil fuels jobs that are going to disappear.

Can you provide any links to info on Sen. Sherrod Brown and his group of 10 Rust/Coal Belt Dems?

You are so right about this:

...as with health care, it's confronting the entrenched power that's holding us back- primarily coal companies, but oil as well on a lesser scale.  And I don't see any evidence that Obama has an interest in fighting these forces.

Except Obama: I think he's a wild card.


[ Parent ]
By Border Adjustment, I (And Brown) Mean Fair Trade/Tariffs (4.00 / 1)
http://brown.senate.gov/newsro...

http://brown.senate.gov/newsro...

Also, here's a study from the Economic Policy Institute they're citing (which I still need to read, dangit) to talk up border adjustment:

http://www.epi.org/publication...

I'm embarrassed to admit I don't know much about MTR in Ohio- is it done here?  All I know of it is from West Virginia.

Figuring out how to be a progressive college graduate transplant to Ohio:  http://citizenobie.wordpress.com/


[ Parent ]
No, MTM (mountaintop mining) is not done in Ohio, (0.00 / 0)
and that's why people and companies in Ohio engaged in coal mining are fighting a proposed modification or suspension of a Nationwide Permit to dispose of surface coal mining waste material into U.S. waters.

They say that MTM is not done in Ohio so Ohio coal miners and associated businesses should not be subject to proposed changes to the permit. The permit allows for processing of mining permits without intensive scrutiny.

I'm sorry. The MTM stuff has been on my mind lately. When you mentioned border adjustment, I thought Applachian Region.

Here's a link to an Ohio environmental group's page. If you look at it, scroll down the page until you see Oct. 6 article (very brief, with YouTube footage). You'll see Brown non-addressing the issue.

http://www.ohiocitizen.org/cam...

Now I'm embarrassed.

Here's also a link to an excellent, in my opinion, article on the MTM situation:
http://www.economist.com/blogs...


[ Parent ]
Obama's already set aside $2.4 billion for ludicrous clean coal (4.00 / 1)
efforts in the stimulus. Where's your evidence that he's a wild card in confronting coal or oil industries?

[ Parent ]
I mean he's a wild card in general (4.00 / 1)
He talks such a good game that I think we should hold on to him because we don't really know what he's going to do.

I agree this "clean coal" stuff is ludicrous. There is much about Obama that is ludicrous, not the least of which is his choices for financial advisors.

I'm just saying, he talks a good game. Given opportunities he could do some good.


[ Parent ]
Romm parrots EE (0.00 / 0)
EE is wildly wrong

support at 48-49 Dems and 1 Repub

no bill passes this year


[ Parent ]
Oklahoma Senators not financially progressive, either (0.00 / 0)
SEN. JAMES INHOFE: It can't be denied that this would be the largest tax increase in the history of America.

C-Span just hosted Denise Bode, the CEO of the 'American Wind Energy Association. She was Oklahoma's utility commissioner at a time when the state developed wind energy to a point that saved the state's taxpayers many dollars because there was no cost to obtain fuel once the wind farm structures were in place. Could this mean that the fear of losing the backing of the oil and gas conglomerates contributes to the foot-dragging that Inhofe exhibits on the Energy Committee and the Senate floor?  


More nukes, drillbabydrill, "clean coal," cap-n-trade... (0.00 / 0)
...change, eh?

The current bill is MUCH worse than no bill at all, from an environmental perspective. But it will create a new market for Enron-style "trading" -- hence Big Capital's support (and, naturally, the efforts of their servants in government).


USER MENU

Open Left Campaigns

SEARCH

   

Advanced Search

QUICK HITS
STATE BLOGS
Powered by: SoapBlox