The Korea Times<\/p>\n\n\n\n
\u201cHow to put an end to America’s peculiar institution of death: fossil fuels\u201d<\/a><\/strong><\/p>\n\n\n\n April 27, 2019 <\/p>\n\n\n\n <\/p>\n\n\n\n Emanuel Pastreich (with Jonathan Mintram) <\/p>\n\n\n\n <\/p>\n\n\n\n One\nsenses palpable excitement among progressives in the United States now that a\ngroup of Democrats, led by Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez, is pressing for a\n“Green New Deal” that will “transform” the economy and lead\nthe country and the Earth in an environmentally sound direction. <\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":" The Korea Times \u201cHow to put an end to America’s peculiar institution of death: fossil fuels\u201d April 27, 2019 Emanuel Pastreich (with Jonathan Mintram) One senses palpable excitement among progressives in the United States now that a group of Democrats, led by Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez, is pressing for a “Green New Deal” that will “transform” the … Read more<\/a><\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":9296425,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"open","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"_coblocks_attr":"","_coblocks_dimensions":"","_coblocks_responsive_height":"","_coblocks_accordion_ie_support":"","_crdt_document":"","footnotes":""},"categories":[651,184],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-9195","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-articles","category-environment"],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/green-liberty.org\/circlesandsquares\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/9195","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/green-liberty.org\/circlesandsquares\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/green-liberty.org\/circlesandsquares\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/green-liberty.org\/circlesandsquares\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/9296425"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/green-liberty.org\/circlesandsquares\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=9195"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/green-liberty.org\/circlesandsquares\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/9195\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/green-liberty.org\/circlesandsquares\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=9195"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/green-liberty.org\/circlesandsquares\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=9195"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/green-liberty.org\/circlesandsquares\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=9195"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}
\n
\nTheir ideas are certainly better than the full-throttle push for fossil\nfuels of the Trump administration, or the fracking rampage of the Obama\nadministration. But if we assess the economic and security issues for the U.S.\ntoday in a scientific manner, we must come to the distasteful conclusion that\nthis “Green New Deal” has been overinflated and is sadly insufficient\nfor the task at hand.
\n
\nOf course, the progressive media have highlighted for educated\nupper-middle class readers the corruption of politics<\/strong><\/a> and of media<\/strong><\/a> by big oil, but it has\nnot even started to scratch the surface of the twisted economic system we live\nin that forces us to use plastic, gasoline or coal at every turn in our daily\nlives, while we are fed vague tales of foreboding, and polar bears, that offer\nno options for action other than waiting for the next election or carrying a\ntumbler around.
\n
\nSomething is so deeply wrong in the U.S. that we can no longer ignore it.\nIt is like feeling sick after eating spoiled food. You can try to ignore the\npain in your stomach, but eventually you are going to have to throw up if you\nwant to get it out of your system.
\n
\nWe must face the truth, and recognize that despite the impressive photo\nops for the “Green New Deal,” its content is not aimed at immediately\nending the use of fossil fuels, or even at giving citizens the means to move\ntheir communities to renewable energy on their own. To date, we have not seen a\nserious effort to refute Naomi Wolf’s<\/strong><\/a> questions about the\ngaping holes in the Green New Deal, big enough to guide a supertanker through.\nIf we adhere to the current system, it will be massive corporations and\ninvestment banks that will make best use of such legislation, if it is ever\npassed, to fund pet projects, or even to promote dangerous geo-engineering.
\n
\nAlexandria Ocasio-Cortez and her Democrats friends remain dependent on\ncorporate money (if not directly, then through foundations and NGOs) and they\nrefuse to work with more aggressive organizations because they are not loyal to\nthe Democratic Party.
\n
\nBut there is another political response out there. We have seen in the\nprotests of Extinction Rebellion, taking place in London and around the world,\nthe emergence of an honest political stance about climate change that addresses\nthe issue head-on and that assumes that unless politics is grounded in action\nand in the pursuit of truth, it is not politics at all.
\n
\nExtinction Rebellion focuses on the climate catastrophe, the massive\ncrisis of our age, and makes human extinction the central issue for its global\ncampaign. Extinction Rebellion is not about flattering politicians, or about\nschmoozing with corporate CEOs and lobbyists. This political movement is not\nconcerned about hurting people’s feelings and it is not trying to tone down its\nmessage to meet requirements for coverage in the corporate media.
\n
\nThe priority for Extinction Rebellion is shutting down the carbon-based\neconomy immediately and bringing major cities around the world to a standstill\nin order to do so.
\n
\nExtinction rebellion demands that carbon emissions be reduced to zero\nwithin six years through a complete remaking of the global economy, and through\nthe creation of a new culture in which consumption is dramatically reduced and\nbasic economic and social values redefined. It would be accurate to describe\nsuch policy demands as revolutionary.
\n
\nUnlike the feckless Democratic Party, Extinction Rebellion features a\nsection on its webpage “The Truth”<\/strong><\/a> that pulls no punches\nregarding the likelihood of extinction for our children and the destruction of\noceans, forests, the Arctic and Antarctic, and humanity itself, that lies\nbefore us in the decades ahead
\n
\nAlthough Extinction Rebellion’s approach is dismissed by many as extreme,\nit is, in fact, the only rational political movement out there, the only major\none that promotes policies on the basis of scientific evidence, not hopeful\nthinking. Its legitimacy is increased by the abject failure since the Kyoto\nProtocols of politicians, intellectuals, and that pathetic institution known as\nthe media, to tell the bitter truth about the mushrooming catastrophe best\nknown by the understatement “climate change.”
\n
\nIn effect, Extinction Rebellion is saying what should have been said 20\nyears ago: this entire culture, seeped in petroleum from the beginnings of the\nconsumption economy in the 1950s, must end.
\n
\nAll of us are guilty. Every time we check our email, every time we take a\nhot shower, every time we drive to the market or fly to see relatives, we are\nhammering another nail into the coffin of humanity, into the coffins of our\nchildren and grandchildren, not to mention into the innumerable unmarked\ncoffins of other species.
\n
\nThe Peculiar Institution<\/strong>
\nWe are struggling to come to terms with the need for radical action, as\nopposed to the “progressive” approach that we have been brainwashed\nto embrace by media sources like “Common Dreams” or\n“Truthout,” or dishonest intellectuals like Robert Reich, who refuse\nto acknowledge the scale of the crisis, or its dire implications for humanity.
\n
\nWe are struggling to acknowledge that the Paris Accords, commonly held up\nby the progressives as a breakthrough \u2015 from which Trump foolishly walked away\n\u2015 was never intended as a solution to the impending crisis, but rather as a\nface-saving political ploy.
\n
\nSurvival demands that we reduce fossil fuels to zero, starting tomorrow,\nnot that we slowly increase renewables to 40 percent by 2030. At this point in\nthe game, donating to progressive causes and waiting for the next election\nwould be a suicidal.
\n
\nNothing less is required than ending this culture of consumption,\noverturning the assumption that production, consumption and growth are\nnecessities, and asserting that every aspect of our consumption has a direct\nimpact on our planet.
\n
\nEqually important, we must make sure that our youth are not misled into\naccepting dangerous half-measures and bad policies that are being promoted by\nthe very banks and corporations that benefit from the fossil-fuel economy,\nwhether carbon trading, hybrid cars, geo-engineering or next-generation nuclear\nenergy.
\n
\nThe response of citizens to the inaction of all institutions in the U.S.\non climate change (local and central government, corporations, NGOs and\neducational organizations) must be massive and immediate. We recognize,\npainfully, that the watchdogs we counted on have become lapdogs in search of\nample funding, and are incapable of taking on the fossil fuel powers, no matter\nhow green their rhetoric may sound.
\n
\nWe must engage in governance ourselves.
\n
\n350.ORG is a major NGO that provides critical information for the policy\ndebate on climate change. It sent out an email to members on April 23, 2019\nthat states,
\n
\n“On Friday, presidential candidate Elizabeth Warren announced a bold\nclimate commitment: if elected, she would sign an executive order on Day One\nhalting all fossil fuel drilling on our public lands.”
\n
\n350.ORG praised Warren’s words as an “incredible step,” but\nalthough Warren may be a step ahead of the other candidates running for\npresident, from the perspective of a species facing extinction her call sounds\nhopelessly weak.
\n
\nHalt all drilling on public lands? That step is so obvious that we should\ndemand that a candidate who does not support such a policy pull out of the race\nimmediately. A real demand would be a permanent halt to all drilling for oil in\nthe U.S. and in the world. A more substantial, and more convincing, demand\nwould be to make the use of petroleum illegal within a year.
\n
\nThere is a helpful precedent for such an action (nationally and\ninternationally) in the 1987 Montreal Protocol which banned internationally the\nuse of chlorofluorocarbons that were destroying the ozone layer. We need a\n“London Protocol” that bans the use of petroleum, coal and natural\ngas because of the damage to the atmosphere caused by their production and\ntheir consumption. Such an international agreement with parallel national bans\nmakes perfect sense and it would be the first step towards forcing a rapid end\nto their use globally for the generation of energy.
\n
\nThe political mythology employed by Elizabeth Warren and Bernie Sanders is\nthat we are confronting conservatives with different values, men who are greedy\nand whose limited perspective must be overcome gradually through a political\nprocess.
\n
\nBut the reality is that we are confronting not “conservatives”\nbut rather a massive criminal enterprise that has seized control of our\neconomy, and our culture, and that is destroying, using illegal and immortal\ntactics, what few institutions remain to regulate its actions.
\n
\nThe apt analogy for how vested interests have made us addicted to fossil\nfuels, and encourage us to remain addicted to them, can be found in the morally\ncorrupt use of slavery to drive the American economy in the 19th century.
\n
\nSlavery exploited unpaid labor without limit to power the economy and to\nincrease profits for southern planters and for the northern banks that financed\nthem. In a sense, slavery provided seemingly cheap energy to power\nmanufacturing and agriculture at a horrendous price that was hidden from view.
\n
\nThe human qualities of the African Americans who served as\n“slaves” were denied by a false legal system reinforced by fraudulent\nscience that “proved” racial inferiority. Altogether, slavery debased\nthe politics and the culture of the U.S., creating a society in which\ncriminality was set on a pedestal and worshipped as a unique culture. But the\ngenteel families of the southern states leaned over backwards to avoid seeing\nthis reality.
\n
\nThe term coined to describe this horrific system was the “peculiar\ninstitution,” an expression that suggested the south had some distinctive\nhabits that set it apart. But the “peculiar institution” was only a\ndishonest manner of referring to a criminal system of exploitation that no\nhealthy society could support.
\n
\nThe response of many progressives (abolitionists) in the 1850s was to\nfight tooth and nail to keep slavery from spreading to newly admitted states,\nand to try, through reform, to reduce the cruelty shown to slaves in the south\n\u2015 and to permit them freedom if they escaped to the free states. But the basic\nassumption among most reformist “abolitionists” was that slavery was\na bad policy that should be slowly reformed.
\n
\nSimilarly, the political debate today in the U.S. is about how to increase\nthe use of wind and solar power, how to make renewable energy financially\nattractive to corporations, and how to end the extreme policies of the Trump\nadministration of subsidizing coal while taxing renewable energy.
\n
\nBut this political argument only makes sense if one closes one’s eyes to\nthe fact that fossil-fuel companies are engaging in a massive criminal effort\nto make us dependent on fossil fuels, a source of energy that not only creates\nenormous profits, but that is destroying the environment and condemning much of\nhumanity to death. In other words, one must first deceive oneself for the\nargument to make sense.
\n
\nWe do not find different perspectives or philosophies among the lobbyists\nand the politicians who support fossil fuels, or the CEOs and billionaires who\nderive their wealth from them. We simply are looking at a morally bankrupt\ndrive for profit, a massive criminal conspiracy that seeks to destroy our\nplanet for the sake of profits.
\n
\nExtinction Rebellion wants to seize control of the economic system itself\nand to leave behind the middlemen, the class of educated people who make their\nliving writing articles describing long-term progressive responses, lobbying\ncongressmen with softball proposals that appeal to corporate profits,\nsuggesting that wind power can be “competitive” with coal, and\nplaying down the threat of ecological collapse in the United Nations reports so\nas to be sure that their research institutes continue to receive funding from\norganizations dependent on corporations and banks that have an interest in\nfossil fuels.
\n
\nOur John Brown moment<\/strong>
\nIf we are looking for a moment in the battle against slavery that\nparallels Extinction Rebellion’s decision to mobilize on a massive scale\nagainst fossil fuels, the most apposite example is the actions of John Brown\nand his followers to rebel against slavery. Just as Extinction Rebellion\ndecided to move beyond “progressive” arguments for the elimination of\nfossil fuels in light of the threat of human extinction, John Brown and his\nfollowers declared that because the government promoted the immoral practice of\nslavery it had no legitimacy.
\n
\nJohn Brown was dismissed by most as the leader of a rebellion and vilified\nas a rebel and a lunatic by southerners for a century afterwards. But one need\nonly read Brown’s writings to see that his actions were impeccably supported by\nlogic and informed by moral insight. When Brown launched his raid on the\nfederal armory at Harpers Ferry, Virginia, in October 1859, the intention was\nto end the institution of slavery by establishing a new government that would\nforsake the entire corrupt economic system. Brown’s forces were quickly\noverwhelmed. He was then tried, found guilty of treason (the first such\nconviction in American history) and hanged.
\n
\nThose who derived their wealth from slavery (the Democratic Party)\ncondemned Brown’s action as a dastardly attack on their way of life. Most\nprogressives in the North (the Republican Party) distanced themselves from the\nincident, stating they would not interfere in the affairs of slave states.
\n
\nBut let us look at the opening of the “Provisional Constitution and\nOrdinances” that Brown drafted:
\n
\n“Whereas slavery, throughout its entire existence in the United\nStates, is none other than the most barbarous, unprovoked and unjustifiable war\nof one portion of its citizens against another portion, the only conditions of\nwhich are perpetual imprisonment and hopeless servitude, or absolute\nextermination, in utter disregard and violation of those eternal and\nself-evident truths set forth in our Declaration of Independence. Therefore,\nwe, citizens of the United States, and the oppressed people who, by a recent\ndecision of the Supreme Court, are declared to have no rights which the white\nman is bound to respect, together with all other people degraded by the laws\nthereof, do, for the time being, ordain and establish for ourselves the\nfollowing Provisional Constitution and Ordinances, the better to protect our\npersons, property, lives, and liberties, and to govern our actions.”
\n
\nLet us revise this text so that it describes the current crisis and our\naddiction to petroleum and coal:
\n“Whereas forcing on us the use of fossil fuels is none other than the\nmost barbarous, unprovoked and unjustifiable war of a small portion of citizens\nagainst the great majority, creating conditions of perpetual imprisonment in a\ncatastrophic system that will render the Earth uninhabitable, leading to\nextinction, in utter disregard and violation of those eternal and self-evident\ntruths set forth in our Declaration of Independence.
\n
\nTherefore, we, citizens of the United States, as an oppressed people who\nhave been declared by the Supreme Court to have no rights to resist that the\nfossil-fuel industry come together with others degraded by the laws thereof,\ndo, for the time being, ordain and establish for ourselves the following\nProvisional Constitution and Ordinances, the better to protect our persons,\nproperty, lives, and liberties, and to govern our actions so as free ourselves\nfrom the death march of a fossil-fuel-driven economy.”
\n
\nThe moral authority is the same.
\n
\nExtinction Rebellion takes a non-violent position, which Brown did not.\nYet the analogy still holds for Extinction Rebellion in that its members take\nactions that entail the risk of imprisonment, violence and death.
\n
\nTurning the tables on\ninstitutionalized criminality<\/strong>
\n
\nExtinction Rebellion makes a demand for a solution, as opposed to the weak\nreform proposals floated by Democrats that assume from the start that we must\ncompromise with a powerful “conservative” element as part of the\ndemocratic process.
\n
\nIn a sense, Extinction Rebellion harkens back to Frederick Douglass’s warning\nin the struggle against slavery: “Power concedes nothing without a demand.\nIt never did and it never will. Find out just what any people will quietly\nsubmit to and you have found the exact measure of injustice and wrong which\nwill be imposed upon them, and these will continue until they are resisted with\neither words, or blows, or both.”
\n
\nDouglass’s words suggest that is not enough to make abstract suggestions\nabout the long-term negative impact of fossil fuels. Rather we must make\ndemands that are uncompromising and concrete about what must be done now. We\nmust insist that this entire criminal and lethal energy system be dismantled\nimmediately.
\n
\nJohn Brown changed the rules of the game when he referred to slavery not\nas a “peculiar institution” but rather as a criminal action, a\n“war” on the population. We too must take control of the discourse on\nenergy and start to define the terms of discourse. Carbon emissions are not\nlittle inconveniences to be traded away, but rather a direct threat to our survival.
\n
\nIn other words, rather than responding quickly to the latest atrocity\ncommitted by the right wing, we must proactively present to as many people as\npossible of an entirely new culture and economy that must be implemented in\ntoto now. We cannot support a piecemeal attempt to achieve change while\ndepending on billionaires like Bill Gates<\/strong><\/a> and others who are deeply invested in the current economic system, or on\nDemocratic politicians who have a long history of supporting fossil-fuel\ninterests.
\n
\nThere are numerous “conservative” politicians in the U.S.\nCongress who make statements in committee that dismiss the threat of climate\nchange and even assert that climate change is a fraud. They are funded by the\nfossil-fuel industry and they frequently call in expert witnesses who have been\ncultivated by fossil-fuel conglomerates like Koch Industries to provide\nevidence in support of the claim that fossil fuels are safe. Their research is\nlargely fraudulent and their claims fly in the face of scientific evidence.
\n
\nThe current response of progressive politicians is to bemoan the\nignorance, the selfishness, and the short-sightedness of these\n“conservative” politicians, their “foolish” experts and\ntheir “stupid” followers. This attitude is similar to that of Republicans\nwho wanted to limit the use of slavery to the southern states in the 1850s,\nrather than abolish it.
\n
\nThe issue of climate change is not one of opinions, or of interests, but\nof law and scientifically verified truth.
\n
\nWhat does the law say?
\n
\nThe law is quite explicit. If a congressman gives testimony in committee,\nor brings in an expert to give testimony, that suggests that climate change is\na fiction or that is not a serious threat, that act is not the expression of a\nconservative perspective, but is rather the presentation of false testimony.\nSuch actions, according to the law, form a felony offense. At the minimum, the\ncongressman should be forced to resign from his or her office for doing so, and\nhe or she should face jail time. Any expert presenting such false evidence should\nface similar charges.
\n
\nAnd yet there is not a single Democrat with the guts to bring such an\nentirely logical and perfectly legal charge against the congressmen and expert\nwitnesses who engage in such blatantly criminal activity on Capitol Hill. The\nfact that this criminal practice has gone on for decades is not an excuse, just\nas the fact that slavery was practiced for hundreds of years was not an excuse\nfor its immorality.
\n
\nIf no one in the Congress, if no one among the insider lawyers, lobbyists,\nconsultants and staff who run it, is willing to take such a moral and legal\nstance, the people must rise up and demand that such criminal activities be\npunished and the perpetrators should be banned. If enough people protest,\npoliticians will feel the pressure and change their behavior.
\n
\nSome might say that taking such a hard line would be the equivalent of\ndemanding that hundreds of congressmen, thousands of staffers and lobbyists,\nresign from office and face prison for their actions. If we want to survive as\na species, we should not shy away from such a scenario. We should be ready to\nembrace it. If the process requires us to press criminal charges against\nnumerous Democrats as well, so be it.
\n
\nFor that matter, if we find that all the members of Congress are engaged\nin such criminal actions, at some level or another, it is not only our right,\nbut our moral responsibility, to demand that they all step down and that we be\nallowed to hold elections that are free from the interference of any\norganizations linked to these immoral fossil fuel interests.
\n
\nIt is currently accepted practice for congressmen to take contributions\nfrom fossil-fuel corporations, and from investment banks that promote fossil\nfuels. But the promotion of fossil fuels over the last 70 years, often with\nfederal subsidies for refineries and highway systems, was a criminal conspiracy\nfrom the start, not a democratic process that represented the will of the\npeople. Whether it was the purchase and\ndestruction<\/strong><\/a> of public transport by General Motors, Standard Oil and Phillips\nPetroleum (operating through front organizations) to increase the dependence of\nour citizens on the dangerous chemical compound petroleum, or the restructuring\nof the U.S. military so as to be deeply dependent on petroleum and to be\nemployed primarily to secure supplies of petroleum, there has been a series of\npolicy decisions made that must be recognized as criminal in nature.
\n
\nWe now know that corporations like Exxon and\nShell<\/strong><\/a> that provide petroleum were fully aware of the phenomenon of global\nwarming, and of the dangerous impact of their toxic product on the environment,\nfrom at least the 1980s, if not earlier. They hid such scientific results and\ninstead hired experts and public relations firms to present misleading and dishonest\ninformation to the public through advertising, through doctored academic\nresearch and through lobbying while they were fully aware of the scale of the\nthreat. Yet the best that progressive Democrats can do is to grumble about the\nselfishness of these corporations, and ask struggling citizens for\ncontributions to their campaigns for the next election, or for the election\nafter that.
\n
\nAsk yourself, what would happen to you if you sold a product that was\nextremely dangerous to the environment and that killed hundreds of thousands,\nif not millions, of people globally, and that was likely to lead to the deaths\nof billions due to global warming? What if you had known since the 1980s about\nthe dangers of your product and had hidden that information, using your tainted\nwealth to bribe politicians and to promote fake science experts who lied to\nCongress in order to defend your illegal activities?
\n
\nYour fate would be quite certain. You would be jailed immediately on\nconspiracy charges and your entire assets would be seized. You would be\ncriminally liable to pay for the cost of paying for the clean-up of the damage\nyou had wrought far beyond what assets you possessed.
\n
\nSo what should we do to the fossil-fuel companies that have behaved in\nprecisely this manner and the investment banks and other financial institutions\nthat support them in the face of overwhelming scientific evidence of the danger\nof this product? The situation is absolutely identical. Citizens must demand\nthat these corporations be treated as criminal organizations and that they be\nstripped of the right to use those ill-gotten funds to defend themselves. Those\nresponsible must be jailed immediately and prosecuted for their crimes over the\nlast four decades. The politicians and lobbyists who assisted them should be\nsubject to the same treatment.
\n
\nThe assets of corporations like Exxon and Koch Industries, and those of\nindividuals who own those corporations, should be seized in total for the\npurpose of cleaning up the damage and compensating victims around the world.
\n
\nThere is no need to mope about how much money fossil-fuel companies have\nto contribute to the election of “conservative” candidates, or how\nmuch harder “progressives” must work to win elections in this unfair\npolitical environment. Once the assets of these fossil-fuel companies have been\nseized, once all lobbyists and experts who worked for those companies in their\ncriminal campaigns are blocked from participation in politics (like the\ndisenfranchisement of former Confederate leaders during Reconstruction), we\nwill be in a position to determine what is appropriate policy for the response\nto climate change based on scientific consensus and in accord with the\nConstitution.
\n
\nWe have the right, and the obligation, to demand that politicians who have\nbeen bought off by fossil-fuel companies, or by banks and by billionaires\nlinked to fossil-fuel companies, be blocked from testimony to Congress and from\nparticipation in the political process. In many cases, we should demand that\nthey resign from their positions immediately. The same applies to think-tank\nresearchers, professors, lawyers, lobbyists and other public personalities who\nhave been involved in this massive fraud.
\n
\nThe debate in politics must be grounded in unbiased scientific findings,\nnot in opinions. We have allowed corporations to be treated as people and we\nhave allowed fraudulent arguments about the climate to be treated as worthy of\nattention because they were backed by money. That must all end now. If a small\ngroup of citizens effectively articulates a logical position, that can start to\ntransform opinion in the U.S. Without the pursuit of truth as a fundamental\nprinciple for politics, however, democracy will be reduced to a farce.
\n
\nBut there is more that we must do. We must condemn advertising in general\nas a criminal effort to mislead Americans about the dangers of industrial\nsociety, specifically about the impact of cars, planes and coal and natural gas\ndependent industrial production on the environment and on our citizens.
\n
\nAdvertising is employed as a means of bribing the media, and of\nundermining its critical role: presenting citizens with the truth. Advertising,\nand the public relations industry, has rendered journalism a farcical sideshow\nthat distracts us at the very moment citizens must mobilize. As long as the\ncommercial media feeds citizens doctored and distorted information so they\ncannot make objective decisions, democratic politics is impossible.
\n
\nWe must actively counter this advertising complex that tries to convince\nus that everything is fine, that suggests that ownership of cars is essential\nfor freedom and that promotes selfishness and self-indulgence, rather than\ncooperation. We must do so through direct actions such as creating our own\ncitizens’ newspapers, holding teach-ins in public spaces where we explain to\ncitizens exactly how climate catastrophe will destroy our world, and what we\nmust do.
\n
\nWe must also recognize that the underfunding of public education is not\nthe result of philosophical differences between “liberals” and\n“conservatives” but rather an intentional effort to dumb down the\npeople so they cannot comprehend the scale of the economic and\npolitical?crisis, or find the means to respond.
\n
\nWe must demand that academic research (and journalism as well) be funded\nby transparent government grants supported by taxes and that other\nself-interested “research” with hidden agendas be eliminated from the\ndebate on policy in government and among citizens. This is essential for the\nresponse to climate change.
\n
\nAbove all, young people must be trained to think scientifically for\nthemselves and to understand the hidden forces that threaten humanity \u2015 we must\nmake sure that they are not seduced by video games, Youtube videos and\npornography into overlooking the danger signs that are all around.
\n
\nTaking on the false ideologies of free trade and military security<\/strong>
\nIf we want to launch a nationwide campaign to address the terrible truth,\nrather than the limited messages that the “progressive” media feels\ncomfortable with, we will need to take on the two big monsters that politicians\ntiptoe around: free trade and military security.
\n
\nThe myth that the international trade of goods is a positive for the\ncitizens of the U.S., and for the world, and that trade should be constantly increased\nto help us prosper, has been embraced by both political parties, and by most\nintellectuals in the U.S. since World War II.
\n
\nBut the massive promotion of trade means not only that corporations can\nmove factories abroad \u2015 and threaten workers and communities with the closure\nof local factories as a means of obtaining government subsidies, they can offer\ncheap products to Americans that made abroad and thereby hide the horrific\nimpact that such manufacturing has on the local environment and our shared\nclimate. Every Styrofoam box, every nylon sweater, every plastic toy is not\nonly poisoning our soil, our rivers and our oceans when it is disposed of, but\nits manufacture did tremendous damage to our climate that has been hidden from\nus because the manufacturing is in India or Thailand.
\n
\nFree trade has seized control of our economy, forcing us to buy products\nthat were made far away, and shipped using tremendous amounts of fossil fuels\n(often at a cost of local jobs). The pollution created in the manufacture of\nthrowaway products has the exact same impact on the climate over there than it\nwould if the factories were in Kansas or Mississippi. Moreover, transporting\ngoods over oceans for thousands of kilometers produces tremendous emissions.\nYet a discussion of this terrible consequence of free trade is avoided even by\nleftist organizations.
\n
\nMoreover, progressive and leftist journals readily accept the deeply\nflawed systems of measurement for economics like GDP (gross domestic product),\n“consumption,” “growth” and “development.” The\nfact that these measurements leave out ecological, social and cultural impact\nof economic policies and practices, that they make no account for long-term\ndegradation of the soil, water and air are rarely pointed out by intellectuals.\nAlthough there have been proposals for alternative systems of measurement, they\nare hardly discussed, let alone adopted.
\n
\nThe military has emerged as the massive part of the U.S. domestic economy\nthat is linked at every level to the exploration for, the production of and the\nconsumption of fossil fuels. It is also the world’s greatest\npolluter<\/strong><\/a> and a far larger contributor to climate change than many countries.
\n
\nThe U.S. military is grossly overextended, with hundreds of bases around\nthe world. More often than not, its primary role has become promoting the\nextraction of fossil fuels and other minerals to power the consumption economy\nthat is destroying our climate. This military has nothing to do with\n“defense” or “security.”
\n
\nThe U.S. cannot start to adapt serious climate policy until it undertakes\na revolutionary change in the military’s role. That change must be grounded in\na shift in the definition of security to make mitigation of climate change the\nhighest security concern. Such a shift will not be easy, but it is\ntheoretically possible, and, granted the scale of the crisis, it is absolutely critical.
\n
\nIronically, even as we move away from weapons, we will need the bravery\nand the discipline of warriors as we go forward to confront the fossil fuel\npowers. With inspired imagination and steely courage, we can transform the role\nand the nature of the military from within and from without so that it focuses\nexclusively on climate change.
\n
\nUltimately, the Department of Defense must be transformed into a\n“Department of Human Security” or even into a “Department of\nClimate Change.”All of its corrupt spending on weapons must be eliminated\nfollowing a carefully organized plan. Whether that is achieved by an\ninstitutional transformation, or by shutting down the existing system\ncompletely and starting anew, will be decided in the process.
\nConclusion<\/strong>
\n
\nThe word “revolution” comes up in the speeches of Democratic and\nRepublican candidates so frequently these days that it draws nothing but yawns.
\n
\nBut the abject failure of American lawmakers to postulate a long-term\nnational policy for the response to climate change suggests that U.S politics\nis mired in mythology and delusions.
\n
\nThe scientific predictions about how climate change will unfold suggest\nthat we will not have any money left for fighter planes, or aircraft carriers,\nor even for highways and stadiums. We will have to make a greater commitment of\nresources to surviving climate change than even the Green Party’s presidential\ncandidate Jill Stein thought necessary when she proposed a mobilization on the\nscale of that for World War II.
\n
\nSadly, there is a revolution is taking place right now in the U.S., but it\nis happening in all the wrong places. The government is undergoing\nrevolutionary change as the Trump administration strips departments of\nexpertise, punishes those with a sense of responsibility and quickly privatizes\nfunctions so that government serves only to increase the wealth of the elite\nand can no longer serve our citizens.
\n
\nWe have no time to debate the merits of revolutionary transformations.\nThey are being undertaken right now by the Trump administration. Revolutionary\nshifts like taxation of renewable energy, subsidization for coal and oil and\nthe removal of science from the policy formation process are taking place right\nnow.
\n
\nTo suggest that we must wait until the next election, or that we must\ncompromise our goals and support Democratic candidates who make lukewarm\nstatements about climate change is to miss the whole point. A reactionary\nrevolution is already taking place. The only question is what we will do in\nresponse.
\n
\n<\/p>\n\n\n\n