Progressive Calendar 07.10.08 | <– Date –> <– Thread –> |
From: David Shove (shove001![]() |
|
Date: Thu, 10 Jul 2008 15:42:20 -0700 (PDT) |
P R O G R E S S I V E C A L E N D A R 07.10.08 1. Kip/health/AM950 7.10 6:05pm 2. Eco shopper 7.10 6:30pm 3. Ffunch 7.11 11:30am 4. Palestine 7.11 4:15pm 5. Pray for peace 7.11 6:30pm 6. Alt/violence 7.11-13 6pm 7. AWC yard sale 7.12 8am 8. Pigstock/vets 7.12 8:30am Hager City WI 9. Peace walk 7.12 9am Cambridge MN 10. NWN4P Mtka 7.12 11am 11. Northtown vigil 7.12 2pm 12. NLG picnic 7.12 5pm 13. Vet stories 7.12 7pm 14. GLBT/ch17 7.12 8pm 15. Rwanda/CTV 7.12 9pm 16. Glen Ford - "Progressives for Obama" fool themselves 17. PC Roberts - A workforce betrayed: watching greed murder the economy 18. Doug Brown - This is how the world ends 19. Spratt/Sutton - The perils of playing nice --------1 of 19-------- From: Kip Sullivan <kiprs [at] usinternet.com> Subject: Kip/health/AM950 7.10 6:05pm Kip Sullivan will be a guest on "Minnesota Matters" on Air America, AM 950 at 6:05 pm Thursday, July 10. The health care proposals of Barack Obama and John McCain will be among the topics he will discuss. --------2 of 19-------- From: Do It Green! Minnesota <Do_It_Green_Minnesota [at] mail.vresp.com> Subject: Eco shopper 7.10 6:30pm ll workshop participants for our July Eco Consumerism workshops will receive a FREE BLUE SKY GUIDE!!! BECOME AN ECO SHOPPER Thurs, July 10: 6:30-8pm Linden Hills Co-op 2813 W. 43rd St., Mpls Come to this workshop to discuss and find out about everyday shopping decisions that impact the planet and how you can become a more eco-friendly consumer. Jeanne Lakso, Linden Hills Coop Marketing and Member Services Manager, will discuss and walk you through the variety of ways one can become a green shopper! --------3 of 19-------- From: David Shove <shove001 [at] tc.umn.edu> Subject: Ffunch 7.11 11:30am Meet the FFUNCH BUNCH! (ffunch is on) 11:30am-1pm First Friday Lunch (FFUNCH) for Greens/progressives. Informal political talk and hanging out. Day By Day Cafe 477 W 7th Av St Paul. Meet in the private room (holds 12+). Day By Day has soups, salads, sandwiches, and dangerous apple pie; is close to downtown St Paul & on major bus lines --------4 of 19-------- From: Charles Underwood <charleyunderwood [at] hotmail.com> Subject: Palestine 7.11 4:15pm Friday, 7/11, 4:15 to 5:30 pm, vigil to end US military/political support of the Israeli occupation of Palestine, corner Summit and Snelling, St Paul. --------5 of 19-------- From: Erin Parrish <erin [at] mnwomen.org> Subject: Pray for peace 7,11 6:30pm Friday, July 11: Sisters of St. Joseph of Carondelet and Consociates Justice Commission. 11th Day Prayer for Peace. 6:30 - 7:15 PM at Presentation of Our Lady Chapel, 1890 Randolph Avenue, St. Paul. 651-690-7054. [Our traitorous legislators won't give us peace - they lie and then betray us, doing the work of Mars and Mammon. So let's get God to do what they obviously won't. Please God save us from our leaders and our free enterprise system of death. Save us from lying politicians (they'll tell you they're used car salesmen). Save us from hiding in hope when only action will do. -ed] --------6 of 19-------- From: Charles Underwood <charleyunderwood [at] hotmail.com> Subject: Alt/violence 7.11-13 6pm 7/11 (6 pm) to 7/13 (5 pm), basic level Alternatives to Violence Workshop, Hennepin County Men's Workhouse, 1145 Shenandoah Lane, Plymouth. avperika [at] gmail.com or http://www.fnvw.blogspot.com --------7 of 19zdx-------- From: Charles Underwood <charleyunderwood [at] hotmail.com> Subject: AWC yard sale 7.12 8am Saturday, 7/12, 8 to 3, Antiwar Committee yard sale, Spirit of the Lakes Church, 2930 - 13th Ave S, Mpls. (Items may be dropped off between 6 and 8 pm on Friday night.) http://www.antiwarcommittee.org --------8 of 19-------- From: Charles Underwood <charleyunderwood [at] hotmail.com> Subject: Pigstock/vets 7.12 8:30am Hager City WI Saturday, 7/12, 8:30 am to 4:30 pm, Veterans for Peace chapter 115 hosts their annual peace gathering "Pigstock" at Schaefers' Pig Wisdom Farm in Hager City, Wisconsin. Speakers include former Pentagon analyst Lt Col USAF (ret) Karen Kwiatkowski, a panel from Iraq Veterans Against the War, Hofstra poli sci prof David Green. $25 preregistration to Charles Nicolosi, treasurer, VFP Chapter 115, 250 Overlook Ln, Red Wing. Directions at http://www.pigwisdomfarm.com Info from David at tuvecino [at] redwing.net Camping available Friday and Saturday nights. --------9 of 19-------- From: Ken Reine <reine008 [at] umn.edu> Subject: Peace walk 7.12 9am Cambridge MN every Saturday 9AM to 9:35AM Peace walk in Cambridge - start at Hwy 95 and Fern Street --------10 of 19-------- From: Carole Rydberg <carydberg [at] comcast.net> Subject: NWN4P Mtka 7.12 11am NWN4P-Minnetonka demonstration- Every Saturday, 11 AM to noon, at Hwy. 7 and 101. Park in the Target Greatland lot; meet near the fountain. We will walk along the public sidewalk. Signs available. --------11 of 19-------- From: Vanka485 [at] aol.com Subject: Northtown vigil 7.12 2pm Peace vigil at Northtown (Old Hwy 10 & University Av), every Saturday 2-3pm --------12 of 19-------- From: Peter Brown <peterb3121 [at] hotmail.com> Subject: NLG picnic 7.12 5pm Please join us at the Lawyers Guild Summer Picnic for Freedom! We supply the hotdogs, corn on the cob, baked beans, watermelons, pop, plates/utensils. Please contribute a side item for 12 if you can, but be sure to come and bring friends/ that's the most important! See you at the Minnehaha Park Bandstand, Saturday July 12 at 5PM! Summer Picnic for Freedom Celebrating Local Defenders of Freedom and Raising Energy for Our Struggles Ahead Saturday July 12th 2008 Minnehaha Park Bandstand 5 - 8PM Picnic Dinner at 5PM Music/Dance/Spoken Word Program begins at 6PM Tell your friends NLG will provide corn, hot dogs, soda, watermelons and plates/utensils --------13 of 19-------- From: Larry Johnson <elent7 [at] comcast.net> Subject: Vet stories 7.12 7pm Storytelling for Adults July 12, 7 p.m. at Java Jack's, 818 West 46th St. in Mpls. Call 612-747-3904 for more information Suggested donation of $5 4 storytellers/all veterans. The theme of the night reflects the National Convention of Veterans for Peace, occurring in the Twin Cities on August 27-31, 2008. See www.vfpnationalconvention.org Evening is hosted by Elaine Wynne, storyteller/psychotherapist, with a deep understanding of PTSD and the need for peaceful community-building. This is the regular monthly event of Northstar Storytelling League. --------14 of 19-------- From: Erin Parrish <erin [at] mnwomen.org> Subject: GLBT/ch17 7.12 8pm July 12: OutFront Minnesota Coming Out Proud on tpt channel 17. 8 PM. See stories of Minnesota's GLBT people as they tell their coming out come stories and the experience of PFLAG parents. --------15 of 19-------- From: Eric Angell <eric-angell [at] riseup.net> Subject: Rwanda/CTV 7.12 9pm Minneapolis Television Network (MTN 17) viewers: "Our World In Depth" cablecasts on MTN Channel 17 on Saturdays at 9pm and Tuesdays at 8am, after DemocracyNow!. Households with basic cable may watch. Sat, 7/12, 9pm and Tues, 7/15, 8am "Behind the Scenes at the Hotel Rwanda" Interview of William Mitchell College of Law prof. Peter Erlinder, atty for the defense at the UN International Criminal Tribunal for Rwanda. Hosted by Karen Redleaf. (a repeat) --------16 of 19-------- "Progressives for Obama" Fool Themselves by Glen Ford July 9th, 2008 Dissident Voice The "Progressives for Obama" project was always doomed, largely because the candidate was determined to pull the rug from under it at his earliest opportunity. That time has arrived, in such dramatic fashion that even the corporate media recognize that Obama's sharp Right turns are irreversible and much more clearly reflect his essential political nature. Obama chuckled last week at the very thought of having been "tagged as being on the Left" - and then unceremoniously jettisoned those Leftists that had taken it upon themselves to claim him as one of their own. In case "the Left" didn't get the message, Obama wrapped the insulting rejection in a Zanesville, Ohio speech announcing his "faith-based" appeal to Reagan Democrats and Bush Republicans. But the most important reason that "Progressives for Obama" should have never existed is its utter lack of content. Leftists attempted to impose themselves on an electoral campaign where they were not wanted, and yet persisted in identifying with an organization over which they had no control, no ability to provide content. It was a game of make-believe that has run its illogical course. Frankly, the project can also be seen as an act of opportunism, an attempt to graft the Left onto a corporate campaign that at some point must eject it like a foreign body. If it were just that lonely Lefties, tired of fighting in a thoroughly corporate-saturated political culture, simply wanted to hitch a ride with the younger Obamite crowd, they might be forgiven. But these veteran progressives deployed their reputations to spread falsehoods that they knew to be untrue. They provided a veneer of progressive credibility to a candidate who was nothing of the kind. We were subjected to ideological nonsense such as: the Obama campaign is inherently progressive because it has excited millions of new potential voters. Therefore, progressives must publicly identify with Obama, take care to be seen as allies, and never do or say anything that might harm his candidacy. We were even told that the excitement surrounding Obama constituted a "movement". But of course, there was never a social movement that was devoid of content, and excitement is a politically neutral quality that can be generated by the Left or the Right - or in wholly apolitical circumstances. If popularity and excitement are hallmarks of progressivism, then "American Idol" is a valuable progressive institution. (In reality, it is a great diversion, and to that extent, harmful.) This illusionary progressivism - as vapid as the candidate, himself - posits a movement without regard to content, objective direction, or a even simple analysis of who profits and who pays the campaign's bills and determines its ultimate goals and priorities. Remember that Hip Hop was also called a "movement" - and some continue to insist that it still is. It is true that Hip Hop contained a great deal of progressive political content during the heyday of the late Eighties-early Nineties, before the major labels bought out the independents. Today, commercial Hip Hop is saturated with anti-social lyrics and themes; its content is overwhelmingly non-progressive, although the musical form remains much the same as during the genre's progressive era. Content is everything. What "Progressives for Obama" have collectively done, is to allow Obama to "pass" for what he is not: a progressive. It was a foolish project from the start, since it required the candidate's ongoing collaboration. How could the organizers have imagined that a politician like Obama, who takes such great care to speak the language of ambiguity (a form of lying), would feel an obligation to protect progressives from ultimate embarrassment of their own making? Bill Fletcher, the former TransAfrica president and current executive editor of BlackCommentator.com, was a founder of "Progressives for Obama". Although Fletcher declared that he was not an Obama supporter on January 17 of this year, by March 24 he and others were hallucinating a "movement". "Even though it is candidate-centered, there is no doubt that the campaign is a social movement, one greater than the candidate himself ever imagined". If the candidate isn't aware if the nature of the "movement" he is leading, then who is? If the "movement" that Obama is supposedly at the head of is essentially "progressive," does that mean Obama is a closet progressive - so closeted it is a secret to himself? Or are there progressive Rasputins furtively whispering progressive thoughts in the ears of the candidate and his key people? Apparently, all that is necessary to have a movement, is to declare one. Tom Hayden, another "Progressives for Obama" founder, also imagines a kind of donut movement, a progressive circle with a non-progressive middle, where the candidate stands: "I first endorsed Obama because of the nature of the movement supporting him, not his particular stands on issues. The excitement among African-Americans and young people, the audacity of their hope, still holds the promise of a new era of social activism. The force of their rising expectations, I believe, could pressure a President Obama in a progressive direction and also energize a new wave of social movements". [Hayden has been wrong so often in the past it's a standing miracle people still listen to him. -ed] Nothing of that nature will occur, because Hayden and other progressives are not organizing to make it occur. They are too concerned with remaining "for" Obama. Not only are Hayden's and Fletcher's peculiar "movements" without political content - they emerge like magic, requiring none of the hard work of organizing. [Castles in the air are cheap to build but expensive to maintain. -ed] And just how were those popular 'rising expectations" that Hayden speaks of supposed to express themselves? Progressives waited until it was far too late to bring these "expectations" - to whatever extent they exist . to bear on the candidate. Obama coasted through the primaries with virtually no dissent from his loyal progressives, and now sees his way clear to publicly dismiss them, so as to never again be "tagged as being on the Left". Obama now challenges his critics on the Left to go back and read his previous policy pronouncements. He is on firm ground, here. The folks who were misreading his Iraq, NAFTA and other positions were largely progressives who were pretending that Obama was one of them. Writers such as Paul Street, Kevin Alexander Gray and our own BAR crew have understood Obama all along: that he is an imperialist, a corporatist, and opposes measures designed to redress specific Black grievances in the U.S. society. It is the "Progressives for Obama" who have tended to distort his record. Is Obama a liar? Of course he is. As a gifted orator, a superb word-smith, Obama's slickness is purposeful - he means to fool people! However, so did many of the progressives that supported Obama, knowing perfectly well that his carefully chosen words were designed to hide more than they revealed. Such progressives lent their reputations to discourage criticism of Obama from other Leftists, or from the "expectant" rank and file. Therefore, they are guilty of offenses against truth. For straight language and unambiguously progressive politics, support Cynthia McKinney, who is expected to win the Green Party presidential nomination, this week in Chicago. There is little chance that the courageous former congresswoman from Georgia will win the White House, but she won't lie to you, and from her truly progressive campaign a real "movement" may grow. Glen Ford is Executive Editor of Black Agenda Report, where this article first appeared. He can be contacted at: Glen.Ford [at] BlackAgendaReport.com. Read other articles by Glen, or visit Glen's website. This article was posted on Wednesday, July 9th, 2008 at 9:29 am and is filed under Democracy, Democrats, Elections. Send to a friend. --------17 of 19-------- A Workforce Betrayed Watching Greed Murder the Economy By PAUL CRAIG ROBERTS CounterPunch July 10, 2008 The collapse of world socialism, the rise of the high speed Internet, a bought-and-paid-for US government, and a million dollar cap on executive pay that is not performance related are permitting greedy and disloyal corporate executives, Wall Street, and large retailers to dismantle the ladders of upward mobility that made America an "opportunity society". In the 21st century the US economy has been able to create net new jobs only in nontradable domestic services, such as waitresses, bartenders, government workers, hospital orderlies, and retail clerks. (Nontradable services are "hands on' services that cannot be sold as exports, such as haircuts, waiting a table, fixing a drink.) Corporations can boost their bottom lines, shareholder returns, and executive performance bonuses by arbitraging labor across national boundaries. High value-added jobs in manufacturing and in tradable services can be relocated from developed countries to developing countries where wages and salaries are much lower. In the United States, the high value-added jobs that remain are increasingly filled by lower paid foreigners brought in on work visas. When manufacturing jobs began leaving the US, no-think economists gave their assurances that this was a good thing. Grimy jobs that required little education would be replaced with new high tech service jobs requiring university degrees. The American work force would be elevated. The US would do the innovating, design, engineering, financing and marketing, and poor countries such as China would manufacture the goods that Americans invented. High-tech services were touted as the new source of value-added that would keep the American economy preeminent in the world. The assurances that economists gave made no sense. If it pays corporations to ship out high value-added manufacturing jobs, it pays them to ship out high value-added service jobs. And that is exactly what US corporations have done. Automobile magazine (August 2008) reports that last March Chrysler closed its Pacifica Advance Product Design Center in Southern California. Pacifica's demise followed closings and downsizings of Southern California design studios by Italdesign, ASC, Porsche, Nissan, and Volvo. Only three of GM's eleven design studios remain in the US. According to Eric Noble, president of The Car Lab, an automotive consultancy, "Advanced studios want to be where the new frontier is. So in China, studios are popping up like rabbits". The idea is nonsensical that the US can remain the font of research, innovation, design, and engineering while the country ceases to make things. Research and product development invariably follow manufacturing. Now even business schools that were cheerleaders for offshoring of US jobs are beginning to wise up. In a recent report, "Next Generation Offshoring: The Globalization of Innovation," Duke University's Fuqua School of Business finds that product development is moving to China to support the manufacturing operations that have located there. The study, reported in Manufacturing & Technology News, acknowledges that "labor arbitrage strategies continue to be key drivers of offshoring," a conclusion that I reached a number of years ago. Moreover, the study concludes, jobs offshoring is no longer mainly associated with locating IT services and call centers in low wage countries. Jobs offshoring has reached maturity, "and now the growth is centered around product and process innovation". According to the Fuqua School of Business report, in just one year, from 2005 to 2006, offshoring of product development jobs increased from an already significant base by 40 to 50 percent. Over the next one and one-half to three years, "growth in offshoring of product development projects is forecast to increase by 65 percent for R&D and by more than 80 percent for engineering services and product design-projects". More than half of US companies are now engaged in jobs offshoring, and the practice is no longer confined to large corporations. Small companies have discovered that "offshoring of innovation projects can significantly leverage limited investment dollars". It turns out that product development, which was to be America's replacement for manufacturing jobs, is the second largest business function that is offshored. According to the report, the offshoring of finance, accounting, and human resource jobs is increasing at a 35 percent annual rate. The study observes that "the high growth rates for the offshoring of core functions of value creation is a remarkable development". In brief, the United States is losing its economy. However, a business school cannot go so far as to admit that, because its financing is dependent on outside sources that engage in offshoring. Instead, the study claims, absurdly, that the massive movement of jobs abroad that the study reports are causing no job loss in the US: "Contrary to various claims, fears about loss of high-skill jobs in engineering and science are unfounded". The study then contradicts this claim by reporting that as more scientists and engineers are hired abroad, "fewer jobs are being eliminated onshore". Since 2005, the study reports, there has been a 48 percent drop in the onshore jobs losses caused by offshore projects. One wonders at the competence of the Fuqua School of Business. If a 40-50 percent increase in offshored product development jobs, a 65 percent increase in offshored R&D jobs, and a more than 80 percent increase in offshored engineering services and product design-projects jobs do not constitute US job loss, what does? Academia's lack of independent financing means that its researchers can only tell the facts by denying them. The study adds more cover for corporate America's rear end by repeating the false assertion that US firms are moving jobs offshore because of a shortage of scientists and engineers in America. A correct statement would be that the offshoring of science, engineering and professional service jobs is causing fewer American students to pursue these occupations, which formerly comprised broad ladders of upward mobility. The Bureau of Labor Statistics. nonfarm payroll jobs statistics show no sign of job growth in these careers. The best that can be surmised is that there are replacement jobs as people retire. The offshoring of the US economy is destroying the dollar's role as reserve currency, a role that is the source of American power and influence. The US trade deficit resulting from offshored US goods and services is too massive to be sustainable. Already the once all-mighty dollar has lost enormous purchasing power against oil, gold, and other currencies. In the 21st century, the American people have been placed on a path that can only end in a substantial reduction in US living standards for every American except the corporate elite, who earn tens of millions of dollars in bonuses by excluding Americans from the production of the goods and services that they consume. What can be done? The US economy has been seriously undermined by offshoring. The damage might not be reparable. Possibly, the American market and living standards could be rescued by tariffs that offset the lower labor and compliance costs abroad. Another alternative, suggested by Ralph Gomory, would be to tax US corporations on the basis of the percentage of their value added that occurs in the US. The greater the value added to a company's product in America, the lower the tax rate on the profits. These sensible suggestions will be demonized by ideological "free market" economists and opposed by the offshoring corporations, whose swollen profits allow them to hire "free market" economists as shills and to elect representatives to serve their interests. The current recession with its layoffs will mask the continuing deterioration in employment and career outlooks for American university graduates. The highly skilled US work force is being gradually transformed into the domestic service workforce characteristic of third world economies. Paul Craig Roberts was Assistant Secretary of the Treasury in the Reagan administration. He was Associate Editor of the Wall Street Journal editorial page and Contributing Editor of National Review. He is coauthor of The Tyranny of Good Intentions.He can be reached at: paulcraigroberts [at] yahoo.com --------18 of 19-------- URL: http://www.powells.com/review/2007_06_09.html From: Powells.com, Jun. 9, 2007 THIS IS HOW THE WORLD ENDS Book review of: Peter D.Ward, Under a Green Sky: Global Warming, the Mass Extinctions of the Past, and What They Can Tell Us about Our Future (N.Y.: Collins, 2007). [Rachel's introduction: "What makes this such a terrifying book is it isn't based on theoretical mathematics. Rapid increases in greenhouse gases have shut down the ocean conveyor several times before, resulting in severe climate change and mass extinction. If Ward's analysis is correct, we know what caused it and we know how to make it not happen again. The question is: can we save us from ourselves?"] THIS IS HOW THE WORLD ENDS By Doug Brown Many books on global warming are based upon crude computer models (crude compared to our planet's actual climate) and hypothetical what- ifs. Thus they are easily dismissed by skeptics as alarmist litanies of, "Here are some really bad things that could maybe possibly happen if the worst-case outcomes of this model which is built on untested assumptions turn out to be right." Peter Ward, a paleontology professor at the University of Washington (and astrobiologist for NASA), takes a different and much scarier approach. Rather than hypothetical speculations into the future, he starts with actual data from the past. Can we examine the fossil and climate record to identify past instances of greenhouse global warming, and see what happened then? The answer, very disturbingly, is yes. The first section of Under a Green Sky{1} covers how scientists have examined mass extinctions over time, and how causes are determined. After the Cretaceous-Tertiary event (a.k.a. the extinction of the non- avian dinosaurs) was shown to have been largely caused by a meteor slamming into the earth, extraterrestrial impacts became the assumed cause of all mass extinctions. Everyone ran around looking for craters of the approximate correct age to have caused other events. Ward espoused a more systematic approach, where the fossil record itself was first examined in detail to see if extinctions happened slowly, in phases, or all at once (only the latter favoring an impact). The granddaddy of all mass extinctions, the Permian extinction, was a study target for both Ward and the impact crowd. In the Permian event, almost 90% of species died. To find the cause of this event would garner much fame. Thus, when the impact folks thought they found their crater, they promptly reported to the press the extinction had been solved. The fossil data said otherwise. Ward's wonderfully written book Gorgon discusses this particular debate in more depth, but the short story is the crater turned out to be the wrong age by several million years, and the fossil record indicated waves of extinctions over a short period of time. If not an impact, what could have made so many things die so quickly? Here's where global warming enters the picture. When carbon dioxide and other greenhouse gas levels were indirectly measured (via isotope ratios in rocks and counting stomata in fossil leaves), it was found a greenhouse event did take place at the end of the Permian, and also at the end of the Triassic (the first part of the "age of the dinosaurs"). Okay, so it got warm and stuffy, but so what? Don't reptiles like the heat? Heat, yes, noxious gases like hydrogen sulfide, no. It was the examination of ocean floor extinctions that finally completed the picture. In impacts like the Cretaceous- Tertiary event, things in the upper half of the ocean die, but not so much in the lower half. In the Permian and Triassic events, the opposite trend was seen; the extinctions started on the ocean floor. Also, dark bands in the rocks signaled the presence of anoxic bacteria in deep water. Ordinarily, there is a conveyor belt running through all the oceans, both at the surface and at deep levels. The Gulf Stream is a famous part of this conveyor. Warm water moves toward the poles, then sinks down to the ocean floor and heads back towards the equator. This deep water, having come from the surface in polar regions, is well oxygenated. In previous global warming events such as the Permian and Triassic, changes in atmospheric gases were enough to stop the conveyor. With no oxygenated water on the ocean floor, everything there died and anoxic bacteria took over. Ward posits these bacteria produced large amounts of hydrogen sulfide (the gas made by rotten eggs), which then burped up to the surface in large bubbles. Ward and his colleagues calculated there was plenty enough of this nasty gas to account for the extinctions. The scary thing is how fast the conveyor stops. In a matter of decades, the climate can significantly alter, and within a hundred years extinction is the order of the day. Which brings us to the present. Thanks to us tool-pushing primates, carbon dioxide levels are rising precipitously, setting up circumstances very similar to those seen before. And when those circumstances arose, really bad things happened. Ward closes Under a Green Sky with three hypothetical scenarios for the future, based in part on past occurrences. In the first, we get our act together and cut emissions drastically. If we can keep atmospheric CO2 below 450 ppm (parts per million) come the year 2100, things will get a bit warmer and some ice will melt, but otherwise we should largely be okay. However, this is unlikely, as the current level is 360 ppm (and rising at 2 ppm per year), and much of the world is industrializing as fast as it can, which may push the rate of increase to 4 ppm per year. In scenario two, Ward assumes we hit CO2 levels of 700 ppm by the year 2100. Sea level will have risen several feet, the ocean conveyor will have recently shut down triggering climatic changes, resulting in massive numbers of refugees. In scenario three, Ward assumes year 2100 CO2 levels of 1,100 ppm. Earth would be 10 degrees Celsius warmer. All of the world's ice would be melting, and much of the world's population displaced by rising waters. The conveyor would have shut down decades earlier, and signs of deep ocean anoxic bacteria beginning to show. Due to changes in the atmosphere, the sky would be turning a sickly shade of green. The sixth great mass extinction would be underway. What makes this such a terrifying book is it isn't based on theoretical mathematics. Rapid increases in greenhouse gases have shut down the ocean conveyor several times before, resulting in severe climate change and mass extinction. If Ward's analysis is correct, we know what caused it and we know how to make it not happen again. The question is: can we save us from ourselves? Perhaps if people read Under a Green Sky and tell their friends about it, we might have a chance. Many people are apathetic about global warming because the press concentrates on superficial metrics like mean temperature and sea levels rising a few feet. So we grow oranges in Alaska, who cares? Peter Ward offers a reason why we should all care, and right now. {1} http://www.powells.com/biblio/1-9780061137914-1#product_details --------19 of 19-------- URL: http://www.precaution.org/lib/08/perils_of_playing_nice.080704. htm From: NewMatilda.com, Jul. 4, 2008 THE PERILS OF PLAYING NICE In shooting for the political mainstream, the climate movement has shot itself in the foot, argue David Spratt and Philip Sutton [Rachel's introduction: "In all these examples, we see reluctance on the part of organisations and people to go beyond the bounds of perceived acceptability. This results in the advocacy of solutions that, even if fully implemented, would not actually solve the problem."] THE PERILS OF PLAYING NICE By David Spratt and Philip Sutton Global warming is an emergency, and "for emergency situations we need emergency action," UN secretary-general Ban Ki-Moon told the world in November 2007. Why, then, has climate policy moved in such a painfully slow manner? How can the impasse be resolved between what needs doing quickly, based on the science, and what seems a "reasonable" thing to do in the current political environment? It seems as if there are two great tectonic plates - scientific necessity and political pragmatism - that meet very uneasily at a fault line. For example, in 2007, under Kevin Rudd, the Australian Labor Party's pre-election climate policy statement effectively supported a policy of allowing global warming to run as high as a 3-degree Celsius (= 5.4 degree Fahrenheit) increase on pre-industrial temperatures, despite data quoted in the statement itself that unequivocally demanded a much lower target. A number of other examples illustrate the tensions and compromises that result from trying to balance the scientific and political factors. The British Government's Stern Review identified a need, based on its reading of the science, for a 2-degree Celsius (= 3.6 degrees Fahrenheit) cap, but then said that this would be too difficult to achieve and advocated a 3-degree cap instead. The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) has not called for climate modelling for stabilisation of temperatures at less than 2 degrees C., despite the evidence that the climate safe zone is much lower. Although the IPCC says its role is to simply represent the science, not to advocate policy, this seems to be a case of the IPCC allowing political norms to limit the scope of the research that it encourages or reports. Many climate and policy researchers, while privately expressing the view that the 2-degree C. cap is too high for a safe-climate world, have nevertheless publicly advocated less effective goals, because they perceive those to be more acceptable. Their argument is that they "wouldn't be listened to" if they said what they really thought. As well, some environment group advocates speak of the need to occupy the "middle ground", or to be at least "heading in the right direction", because "it is always possible to go further later on". This stance turns risk aversion on its head by failing to consider worst possible outcomes. At the same time, it is politically advantageous because it obviates the need to talk about preventive actions that are currently perceived to be "extreme". As a result, advocacy is often for a direction-setting minimum, rather than demanding a clear statement of what is required. During 2007 the position of the Australian Conservation Foundation was that emissions should be cut "60 to 90 per cent" by 2050 (a 60 per cent cut would leave emissions in 2050 at four times the level required of a 90 per cent reduction). Yet in his preliminary report economist Ross Garnaut told the Rudd government that a 90 per cent cut may be necessary and 60 per cent was far from enough. In all these examples, we see reluctance on the part of organisations and people to go beyond the bounds of perceived acceptability. This results in the advocacy of solutions that, even if fully implemented, would not actually solve the problem. There is a sense that many of the climate policy professionals - in government, research, community organisations and advocacy - have established boundaries around their public discourse that are guided by a primary concern for "reasonableness", rather than by a concern for achieving environmental and social sustainability. Many people whose work centres on climate change have been struggling for so long to gain recognition for the issue - having had to cope with a lack of awareness, conservatism and climate deniers - that they now have deeply ingrained habits of self-censorship. They are concerned to avoid being dismissed and marginalised as "alarmist" and "crazy". Now that the science is showing the situation to be far worse than most scientists expected only a short while ago, this ingrained reticence is adding to the problem. A pragmatic interdependency links many of these players in a cycle of low expectations and poor outcomes. Here is an outline of the concerns of some of these key players, based on actual conversations and correspondence. The cycle is a merry-go-round, so it matters little where it starts. Under pressure to stick to the science and avoid opinion, a climate scientist may take the view that society needs to make the judgement about what it determines to be dangerous climate change: "It's not for me, as a scientist, to tell you what's dangerous or what the political target ought to be. I try to inform the debate by explaining what the risks actually are at these various levels, and by offering policy options that society could consider." Community-based climate action groups, often lacking detailed technical knowledge, will respond by saying that they are not about to doubt the views put forward by the science professionals, which they hear from the media and from the IPCC: "We have to trust in their abilities to lead us. They are the ones who know - we can't say things that they haven't, and we can't speculate on what a few scientists might be saying, if it isn't in the IPCC reports." Large climate-group and environment managers often join the conversation, suggesting that they agree with strong goals and urgent action, but that they are worried that if they promote them, their lobbying wouldn't be taken seriously: "It is more important to agree and campaign on targets that are heading in the right direction, than that we have discussions about what the targets should be. It is always possible to go further, or call for more, later on." The consequence is that even those politicians who are climate friendly feel constrained: "I can't go further than the environment movement. I'd look extreme if I did." And: "I know our party's position will have to be strengthened because the science has changed, but that can't happen until after the next election. Our policy is now set. I wish we could go further, but some people are worried that I will look too extreme in the electorate." Deep inside public administration, where climate policy is processed, there is an avoidance of the political: "Although our climate-science manager agrees with your targets... she has to stick to using scientists, not lobbyists, and science, not policy. She needs to be persuaded that setting targets and trajectories is fundamentally a climate-science issue, not a political one. If, on the other hand, we can find a scientist to make the case for real targets that you have made, this would help a lot, but the scientists say that target- setting is political, and outside their terrain." Businesses, meanwhile, remain constrained by their commercial interests: "You might well be right that 60 per cent by 2050 is not enough, but the people I talk to wouldn't believe anything tougher. Our business is one of the good ones - we know that this is a big problem, but if we are going to engage the wider business community, we can only go so far." It seems that everyone is waiting for someone else to break the cycle; but how can this be done? Part of the problem seems to be fear: those who are the first to move to a tougher position are worried about becoming isolated or losing credibility. Reticence on the part of advocates to push for serious action also stems from the pervasive view in politics that everything is subject to compromise, and that trade-offs are the norm: argue less for what you really want than for what seems "reasonable" in the give-and-take of normal political society. And when some brash advocates do argue for what really needs to be done, it is simply assumed they are making an ambit claim: an initial demand put forward in the expectation that the negotiations will prompt a lesser counter-offer and end in compromise. While this mindset is widespread, there are domains from which it has been banished. When it comes to public safety, society knows that compromise and negotiable trade-offs cannot apply. Bridges, buildings, planes, large machines and the like must be built to risk- averse, high standards, which are applied rigorously. When standards are not met and structures fail, corporations, governments and regulatory bodies are held to account. We have learned from trial and error that a "no major trade-off" policy in public safety is necessary to avoid the killing and maiming of citizens. With global warming, however, we do not have the luxury of learning by trial and error. We have left the climate problem unattended for so long that we now have just one chance to get things right by applying a "no major trade-off" approach without a trial run. It will be a particular challenge for decision-makers, who have grown up in a political culture of compromise. Past government inaction has also habituated an acceptance of lowered expectations, which has continued to hinder serious climate action. A non-government organisation staff member, reflecting on her experiences, said that it has become increasingly clear to her how constrained the environmental organisations are: "It's a legacy of 11 years of [the] Howard [government] - they've all come to expect so little environmental responsibility from government, so they don't ask for much in the hope of a small gain. [It's] a very unfortunate situation." Generally, timidity, constraint and incrementalism have characterised recent national and state government approaches to environment issues, and the consequence is that low expectations have become embedded in the relationship between lobbyists and government. When opportunity knocks, or changing evidence demands urgent and new responses, imaginative and bold leadership does not always emerge with solutions that fully face up to the challenge. When, in late 2007, evidence emerged of accelerated climate change, it appeared to have little impact on the climate targets advocated by most of the peak green organisations, which said that their position was "locked in" until after the election. Ken Ward, an environmental and communications strategist and former deputy executive director of Greenpeace in the USA, believes that the people who lead environmental foundations and organisations play a critical part in reconstructing the issue as a climate and sustainability emergency - one that takes us beyond the politics of failure-inducing compromise. With the rapid loss of the Arctic summer ice cover, Ward says that the opportunity for these leaders to adjust their position is narrow, and this is due, in some part, to the deliberate decision, a decade ago, by environment organisations to downplay climate change risk. He says: "[They did so] in the interests of presenting a sober, optimistic image to potential donors, maintaining access to decision- makers, and operating within the constraints of private foundations, which has blown back on us. By emphasising specific solutions and avoiding definitions that might appear alarmist, we inadvertently fed a dumbed-down, Readers Digest version of climate change to our staff and environmentalist core. Now, as we scramble to keep up with climate scientists, we discover that we have paid a hefty price." For those who have, in the past, downplayed the risks, changing position is now a matter of urgency, because what now needs to be done is not incrementally reasonable. The desperate measures required to advance a functional climate-change solution at this late date, says Ward, "can only be conceived and advanced by individuals who accept climate change realities and [who] take the less than 10-year timeframe seriously". He believes that we will need to actually confront the terror of the situation before we can come to a real solution. "We are not acting like people and organisations who genuinely believe that the world is at risk. Therefore, we cannot take the measures required, nor can we be effective leaders." This is an edited extract from Climate Code Red: The Case for Emergency Action{1}, published by Scribe. -- David Spratt is a Melbourne businessman, climate-policy analyst, and co-founder of Carbon Equity, which advocates personal carbon allowances as the most fair and equitable means of rapidly reducing carbon emissions. He has extensive advocacy experience in the peace movement, and in developing community-campaign communication and marketing strategies. Philip Sutton is the convener of the Greenleap Strategic Institute, a non-profit environmental-strategy think tank and advisory organisation promoting the very rapid achievement of global and local ecological sustainability. He is also the founder and director of strategy for Green Innovations, and an occasional university lecturer on global warming science and strategies for sustainability. {1} http://www.climatecodered.net/ ----------------------------------------------------------------------------- - David Shove shove001 [at] tc.umn.edu rhymes with clove Progressive Calendar over 2225 subscribers as of 12.19.02 please send all messages in plain text no attachments To GO DIRECTLY to an item, eg --------8 of x-------- do a find on --8 impeach bush & cheney impeach bush & cheney impeach bush & cheney impeach bush & cheney
- (no other messages in thread)
Results generated by Tiger Technologies Web hosting using MHonArc.