350.org Co-Founder Sides with the Commons

                            COMMONER                             

Boeve encourages us all to step up as a global community to fight climate change

With equal parts poise and resolution, May Boeve fights climate change. Alongside author Bill McKibben and a group of college friends, she spearheaded a campaign called Step It Up in 2007 that organized creative actions across the U.S. and urged political leaders to cut carbon 80% by 2050. The campaign then went international under the name 350.org.

350.org “works hard to organize in a new way—everywhere at once, using online tools to facilitate strategic offline action.” You may have seen aerial shots of the human-made 350’s (the number that stands for the safe level of carbon in the atmosphere), or the climate street art, just two of the many ways 350.org’s organizing efforts have united individuals from around the globe in common cause.

Boeve emphasizes that the climate crisis requires us all to step up as a global community, and, today, 350.org’s initiatives are led by thousands of volunteer organizers in over 188 countries.

I recently had the opportunity to catch up with Boeve about how the commons connects to the growing global movement against climate change, 350.org’s stance against the fossil fuel industry, and the importance of the commons in her own life.

Boeve calls herself a commoner because she wants “to be part of a movement that’s trying to create something different than what we stand to inherit right now.”
How does the commons influence your work at 350.org?

The way we try to organize at 350.org has been a commons exercise, specifically through the distributed days of action we’ve held five different times. These days are all about bringing communities together on a particular day, with a particular theme, to deliver a message about preserving the climate, which is a global commons. People participate because they understand that their actions link them in a very direct way to thousands of individuals around the world. It’s an experiment in demonstrating how the sum is greater than its individual parts.

When I read Bill McKibben’s piece in Rolling Stone called Global Warming’s Terrifying New Math, I was intrigued by his belief that moral outrage might be what sparks a transformative challenge to fossil fuel. How does 350.org help people see the immorality of the fossil-fuel industry’s actions?

We all know that burning fossil fuels drives the climate to change and warm. That’s not news. It’s not news that the public attitude toward oil industry executives is largely negative. And we all know that those execs are the characters behind the drilling—that’s not news either. But what is new is the link: we have to make it clear that these executives are knowingly taking actions that will make it impossible for the rest of us, including future generations, to live on a healthy planet.

How do we connect the moral aspect? Our particular style of work is to influence public perception through action and global organizing. We find stories and examples of people who are challenging the system, who are seeing things in a new way, and in doing so, are changing the way the public at large understands this problem. Not as a problem about your individual actions and the car you drive and where you buy your food—which all still matters—but that this problem involves a set of actors who are making bad choices and are not being held account- able by our political system.

We must fundamentally change the way the public views the oil industry. Take the apartheid struggle: at a certain point, you had to choose which side you were on, whether you agreed that racial segregation was immoral, or whether you did not. That’s where we are right now with the oil industry.

What do you see as the biggest obstacle to fighting for, and protecting, the climate as a commons?

I think a huge obstacle to building this movement, second only to our opposition, is the ability for any one person to see that he or she can do something about the problem—because it’s really big. Another obstacle is the inspiration factor. How do we inspire people to spend their most valuable resource (their time) working to bring about a solution to climate change? It’s a challenge in an era when there are so many problems, many of which stem from undervaluing the commons. But there are many people doing impressive work for the greater good. In their work I see incredible promise, and that’s what keeps me inspired to work on climate change issues.

At 350.org, specifically, we’ve embraced social media tools as mass storytelling platforms from the beginning, and we’ve had a lot of incredible experiences. When we receive stories via email, we often write back and say, “Hey, we’re inspired by this, and we bet our Facebook followers will be too. Can we post this on our page?” Hundreds of thousands of people “Like” and “Share” the stories we post about individuals from all over the globe who are tackling seemingly insurmountable challenges for their communities.

There’s one specific example that comes to mind. A young woman from Baghdad participated in our first day of action all by herself, because her friends were afraid to cross a security checkpoint. The image of this woman standing alone with her 350 banner rose above the rest, and she wrote us a few months later to report that she had formed a local climate organizing group. The following year we hosted another day of action, and lo and behold, there she was with a group of ten. To me, and I think to many people, these stories show why it’s imperative that we work on climate change as a global community. There’s something special about knowing you’re taking the same action as someone else on the opposite side of the globe. Together we can stand as a peaceful army fighting for a different future.

—JESSICA CONRAD

Editor: Another chapter in Celebrating the Commons: People Stories and Ideas for the New Year from Commons Magazine being presented each Sunday at EYNU.

Small Spaces etc. - High End Sustainability

Another example of using really high end products, materials, finishes and design talent is shown in this home.

This is also the first reference we have made to the obstacles within the tiny house movement faced in municipal planning. This subject of the tiny home in zoning laws and building codes will be explored further in this series.

And another video showing more features of this mini-home . . .

Invisible Resources

Twenty years ago, Gloria Steinem wrote “Revaluing Economics.” In the article, she talks about the two invisible resources upon which everything else is built in society and in the economy. Those two resources being the planet’s natural resources, the environment, and the work that women have done in the home to take care of families and children. Our vision for the economy of the future would actually protect them rather than make those resources invisible.

The month ahead will be dominated by discussions of Encinitas economy down at City Hall, so this perspective Steinem names will be invisible until and unless we make it a part of the conversation.

But, the key words are in the final sentence - protect them. We have written a great deal on this blog about protecting the environment.  We need to speak more on behalf of one half of our population - women.

It is in this spirit the following video introduces One Billion Rising, coming next week around the world. (Trigger warning for violence)

ABOUT ONE BILLION RISING (Website)

ONE IN THREE WOMEN ON THE PLANET WILL BE RAPED OR BEATEN IN HER LIFETIME.*

ONE BILLION WOMEN VIOLATED IS AN ATROCITY

ONE BILLION WOMEN DANCING IS A REVOLUTION

On V-Day’s 15th Anniversary, 14 February 2013, we are inviting ONE BILLION women and those who love them to WALK OUT, DANCE, RISE UP, and DEMAND an end to this violence. ONE BILLION RISING will move the earth, activating women and men across every country. V-Day wants the world to see our collective strength, our numbers, our solidarity across borders.

What does ONE BILLION look like? On 14 February 2013, it will look like a REVOLUTION.

ONE BILLION RISING IS:

A global strike
An invitation to dance
A call to men and women to refuse to participate in the status quo until rape and rape culture ends
An act of solidarity, demonstrating to women the commonality of their struggles and their power in numbers
A refusal to accept violence against women and girls as a given
A new time and a new way of being

Resources:

Dance instruction 

San Diego Event

A Crucial Part of the Human Story That Must Be Recaptured

Photo by Nancy Battaglia for 350.org, a global citizens movement to curb climate disruption founded by Bill McKibben.

Bill McKibben looks to the commons as the solution to global climate disruption

I’ve spent most of my life as a writer—and one of the sweetest parts of that job is knowing that whatever I produce ends up in a library, an institution dedicated to the idea that we can share things easily. There are innumerable other examples of sharing all around—and they are the parts of our lives that we usually care most about. They don’t show up on balance sheets because they’re not producing profit—but they are producing satisfaction.

These things we share are called commons, which simply means they belong to all of us. Commons can be gifts of nature—such as fresh water, wilderness and the airwaves—or the products of social ingenuity like the Internet, parks, artistic traditions, or the public health service.

But today much of our common wealth is under threat from those hungry to ruin it or take it over for selfish, private purposes.

The most crucial commons, perhaps, is the one now under greatest siege, and it poses a test of whether we can pull together to solve our deepest problems or succumb to disaster. Our atmosphere has been de facto privatized for a long time now—we’ve allowed coal, oil and gas interests to own the sky, filling it with the carbon that is the inevitable byproduct of their business. For a couple of centuries this seemed mostly harmless—Co2 didn’t seem to be causing much trouble. But two decades ago we started to understand the effects of global warming, and now each month the big scientific journals bring us new proof of just how vast the damage is: the Arctic is melting, Australia is on fire, the pH of the ocean is dropping fast.

If we are to somehow ward off the coming catastrophes, we have to reclaim this atmospheric commons. We have to figure out how to cooperatively own and protect the single most important feature of the planet we inhabit—the thin envelope of atmosphere that makes our lives possible. Wrestling this key prize away from Exxon Mobil and other corporations is the great political issue of our time, and some of the solutions proposed have been ingenious—most notably the idea put forth by commons theorist Peter Barnes and others that we should own the sky jointly, and share in the profits realized by leasing its storage space to the fossil fuel industry. For that to work, of course, we would have to reduce that storage space quickly and dramatically. Barnes’ Cap-and-Dividend plan offers one way to make that economically and politically feasible.

But for this and other necessary projects to succeed, we need first to break the intellectual spell under which we live. The last few decades have been dominated by the premise that if we privatize all economic resources it will produce endless riches. Which was kind of true, except that the riches went to only a few people. And in the process they melted the Arctic, as well as dramatically increasing inequality around the world. The commons is a crucial part of the human story that must be recovered if we are to deal with the problems now crowding in on us. This story is equal parts enlightening and encouraging, and it is entirely necessary for us to hear it.

—BILL MCKIBBEN
FROM THE INTRODUCTION TO ALL THAT WE SHARE: A FIELD GUIDE TO THE COMMONS

Editor: Another chapter in Celebrating the Commons: People Stories and Ideas for the New Year from Commons Magazine being presented each Sunday at EYNU.

Great Potential Lies Before Us

Image Source

For some the precocious child is just annoying.  You'll want to skip this one. For the rest of us there is something stirring about hearing clear statements, delivered with sincere passion and excitement.

I can recall at age 12 being asked to ride on a League of Women Voters float along with other kids.  This was an utterly passive experience compared with the bright young minds in the video clips here, but it instilled a deep sense of civic pride and responsibility I still feel lives within me and helps shape my choices. 

"Here are a couple of downer facts about mountaintop removal mining: 500 of the oldest mountains in America have been destroyed. There are 2,000 miles of streams poisoned." Source: I Love Mountains - No More Excuses, Appalachian Voices via Grist

The message constantly being attributed with Idle No More is one of solidarity and looking out for future generations of Indigenous Peoples and the environment. A message that can best be shared by members of future generations like 11-year-old Ta’Kaiya Blaney.

The Young activist talks about the changes in our environment, the Keystone XL Pipeline and more before sharing her perception on what Idle No More means. “As we are standing on unceded territory, and we have that right. And that’s what Idle No More is all about. It’s about us standing up and speaking up. We’ve never really been asleep and now more than ever we’re awake and we’re standing up.” Source: Idle No More Has Voices of the Future Generation

This is a couple years old but still timely. Birke Baehr -"What's Wrong With Our Food System? And How Can We Make A Difference?" via Mim Michleove on Facebook

Gleaning

In this season of food drives, here is a challenging idea for Encinitas to consider in all the growing seasons to come. Gleaning. The video below speaks to Ventura County and their Food Share Program.

What do we have in San Diego County? We have Senior Gleaners with an emphasis on grocery store shelves in this coastal area. It would be good to hear what exists now and what might really fit well with our community goals and community future. Sounds like this is a wonderful start. And, boy do we have seniors. Encinitas seniors appear to be a vigorous and involved lot.

"The Senior Gleaners of San Diego County are working to enhance the food-giving capacities of local agencies, most of which run out of food on a monthly basis. Senior Gleaners is divided into three main working groups in the county , South County, North County and the Coastal area. Each area has a team of workers who volunteer to pick, sort, gather and deliver up to 100,000 pounds of food to area agencies monthly. Only agencies that qualify under federal poverty rules (and have a 501-c-3 nonprofit status) are eligible to receive the food. Growers contact team leaders when they have crops that are over-ripe or too costly to pick; certain grocery stores offer edible food that cannot be sold and packing sheds have crates of food that is not suitable for the marketplace but safe to eat."

The Gleaners from Hunger In California on Vimeo.

On another local note, how about gleaning urban neighborhoods where homeowners with more fruit trees than they can manage could contact Encinitas gleaners to harvest and distribute this foraged fruit?  What about involving the young? vets? women in particular? What about future plans to plant many fruit and nut trees in Encinitas Urban Forest for this kind of public use? The right entrepreneurial spirit could do a great deal here.

Waste is our easiest target for eradicating ills - be it insufficient food, energy, money, goods or services - or the existence of litter and pollution.

About the Sand . . .

Hard to believe that this is indeed sand.

This week Logan Jenkins wrote a startlingly informative post on sand. Specifically he writes about Scripps scientists stake out Cardiff beach to measure sands of time. His source is Bob Guza, Scripps Institution of Oceanography professor and the tour includes Cardiff State Beach where a doctoral student (unamed by Jenkins) works in "an industrial sized container" in front of a "bank of computer terminals." Here is the best chunk of Jenkins' latest:

The goal of the research project — led by Guza and one of his former star pupils, Reinhard Flick, Scripps researcher and staff oceanographer for the California Department of Boating and Waterways — is simple: Watch the sand. Carefully.

The technology they’re using is a step up from Radio Shack: a laser scanner that collects data points multiple times a second; acoustic Doppler velocimeter; bathymetric mapping; and a bunch of other sci-fi stuff.

Guza, his love of sand gushing, says it’s insane that we spend millions on periodic beach “nourishment” while less than .01 percent of that money goes to measuring what happens to the sand once it’s dropped off.

[ . . . ] “Our beaches are changing,” Guza says. “We can either monitor them and have a good idea what they’re doing and what happens when we try to fix something, or we can not watch them and do stuff randomly and not know what works.”

This sounds so rational I can hardly believe it's real. And, it looks to me like the beach sand replenishment is yet another Stocks & Bond legacy that is being questioned.

Political Power Shifts Toward Environment

The perfect follow-up to Bill Nye, the Science Guy's simple Climate Change 101 video earlier today is offering some solutions.  We just so happen to have this in our new city mayor, deputy mayor and city council.  The KPBS article and radio file spells this out this week. Mayor Teresa Barth is quoted.

“I think that you will see us talking about more environmental issues,” she said, “more sustainability issues.”

The KPBS goes on to say:

One of the Encinitas councilmen who lost his seat was Jerome Stocks. Stocks was the city’s representative on SANDAG, San Diego’s regional planning board. Stocks served as the SANDAG chair and a spokesperson for the region’s 2050 regional transportation plan. That SANDAG plan was recently struck down in court for not meeting the state’s greenhouse gas reduction goals.

Barth said she plans to nominate political newcomer Lisa Shaffer to replace Stocks as the city's representative on the SANDAG board, and bring a more environmentally-friendly perspective to regional planning.

Shaffer, who was the top vote getter in the Encinitas City Council election, is an ethics teacher at UC San Diego's Rady School of Management and has worked with Scripps Institution of Oceanography, NASA and NOAA.

Climate 101

Sometimes just keeping it as simple and direct as possible - for our children, our contrary friends/family/neighbors and for ourselves. For that we have the Science Guy, Bill Nye.

Exxon Hates Your Children

How many of you scream at the Exxon Mobile commercials claiming "to care about the children" when we know it is their public relations arm messing with people's heart and mind disconnects to distract and confuse?  Big lies from the big guys - daily, all day.

The following ad has been created to refute the big lie.  *LOLsob*



From Grist:

There are two groups behind this genius ad: Oil Change International — an advocacy organization that’s fighting for clean energy and against fossil fuels — and The Other 98%, which calls itself “a grassroots network of concerned people fed up with the status quo in Washington.” There’s actually a policy agenda behind the ad — eliminating subsidies for fossil fuels. Here’s the argument the two groups are making:

Imagine if your government gave a company a sweet deal to build your local playground. Then, that company dumped toxic waste underneath where your kids play everyday, just because it was the most profitable thing for them to do.

What would you do? Obviously you’d protect your children and demand that the company fully pay to clean up their mess … you’d demand that your government immediately stop sending your tax dollars — subsidies — to that company.

That company is Exxon, the playground is our planet, and the sweet deal they get is by way of massive government handouts.

The groups are raising money for an ad buy next week; “the locations and scope will depend on the online fundraising campaign,” Oil Change International’s director told The Hill. But it looks like one of the audiences they’re looking to reach is Fox News viewers … and I would pay good money just to see how they try and defend Exxon against this argument. “Exxon loves your children! They make it possible for them to drive cars!” “They’re just trying to make money … oh wait …”

Well, this commercial -- brought to you courtesy of Oil Change International and The Other 98% -- answers them. And guess what: ExxonMobil really hates it. Why? Because it tells the stark, horrible truth about how Big Oil and ExxonMobil harms children in real ways, far more than having a bad score on a standardized test. It has them so aggravated that they're pushing to have the ads removed.

Via The Hill: 

“The campaign is offensive to the thousands of ExxonMobil employees and contractors who work hard every day to deliver an essential product in a safe and environmentally responsible way,” the company said in a statement Wednesday.

Via Crooks & Liars:

Well, shoot. I'm sorry, ExxonMobil, but it simply tells the truth about what you're really doing.

The company and oil industry more broadly are battling proposals to end tax deductions, arguing the efforts unfairly single out the industry for punishment and would stymie energy development.

Oil industry critics say that the tax code should not reward fossil fuel development at a time when scientists are increasingly sounding the alarmabout runaway global warming.

In this day of real-time news, it's really impossible for Big Oil to disguise their malfeasance and greed with slick education reform PR campaigns. That's what they really hate.

Naomi Klein Explains How We Have to Dream Big

People Shock Can Deepen Democracy versus Disaster Capitalism

From Bill Moyers.com via AlterNet

full transcript below

BILL MOYERS: If you've been curious about why New York Mayor Mike Bloomberg endorsed Barack Obama for re-election, just take another look at the widespread havoc caused by the Frankenstorm benignly named Sandy. Having surveyed all this damage Bloomberg Business Week concluded: “It’s Global Warming, Stupid: If Hurricane Sandy doesn't persuade Americans to get serious about climate change, nothing will."

Well it was enough to prompt President Obama, at his press conference this week, to say more about global warming than he did all year.

PRESIDENT BARACK OBAMA: I am a firm believer that climate change is real, that it is impacted by human behavior and carbon emissions. And as a consequence, I think we’ve got an obligation to future generations to do something about it.

BILL MOYERS: But he made it clear that actually doing something about it will take a back seat to the economy for now. He did return to New York on Thursday to review the recovery effort on Staten Island. Climate change and Hurricane Sandy brought Naomi Klein to town, too. You may know her as the author of "The Shock Doctrine: The Rise of Disaster Capitalism.” Readers of two influential magazines to put Naomi Klein high on the list of the 100 leading public thinkers in the world. She is now reporting for a new book and documentary on how climate change can spur political and economic transformation. She also has joined with the environmental writer and activist Bill McKibben in a campaign launched this week called "Do the Math." More on that shortly.... First, congratulations on the baby.

NAOMI KLEIN: Thank you so much.

BILL MOYERS: How old now?

NAOMI KLEIN: He is five months today.

BILL MOYERS: First child?

NAOMI KLEIN: My first child, yeah.

BILL MOYERS: How does a child change the way you see the world?

NAOMI KLEIN: Well it lengthens your timeline definitely. I’m really immersed in climate science right now because of the project I’m working on is related to that. So you know there are always these projections into the future, you know, what's going to happen in 2050? What's going to happen in 2080? And I think when you're solo, you think, "Okay, well, how old will I be then?" Well, you know, and now I'm thinking how old will he be then, right? And so, it's not that-- but I don't like the idea that, "Okay, now I care about the future now that I have a child." I think that everybody cares about the future. And I cared about it when I didn't have a child, too.

BILL MOYERS: Well, I understand that but we're so complacent about climate change. A new study shows that while the number of people who believe it's happening has increased by, say, three percentage points over the last year, the number of people who don't think it is human caused has dropped.

NAOMI KLEIN: It has dropped dramatically. I mean, the statistics on this are quite incredible. 2007, according to a Harris poll, 71 percent of Americans believed that climate change was real, that it was human caused. And by last year, that number went down to 44 percent. 71 percent to 44 percent, that is an unbelievable drop in belief. But then you look at the coverage that the issue's received in the media. And it's also dropped dramatically from that high point. 2007, you know, this was this moment where, you know, Hollywood was on board. “Vanity Fair” launched their annual green issue.

And by the way, there hasn't been an annual green issue since 2008. Stars were showing up to the Academy Awards in hybrid cars. And there was a sense, you know, we all have to play our part, including the elites. And that has really been lost. And that's why it's got to come from the bottom up this time.

BILL MOYERS: But what do you think happened to diminish the enthusiasm for doing something about it, the attention from the press, the interest of the elite? What is it?

NAOMI KLEIN: I think we're up against a very powerful lobby. And you know, this is the fossil fuel lobby. And they have every reason in the world to prevent this from being the most urgent issue on our agenda. And I think, you know, if we look at the history of the environmental movement, going back 25 years to when this issue really broke through, you know, when James Hansen testified before Congress, that--

BILL MOYERS: The NASA scientist, yeah.

NAOMI KLEIN: Exactly, our foremost climate scientist, and said, "I believe it is happening. And I believe it is human caused." That was the moment where we could no longer deny that we knew, right? I mean, scientists actually knew what well beforehand. But that was the breakthrough moment. And that was 1988. And if we think about what else was happening in the late '80s? Well, the Berlin Wall fell the next year. And the end of history was declared. And, you know, climate change in a sense, it hit us at the worst possible historical moment. Because it does require collective action, right? It does require that we, you, regulate corporations. That you get, you know, that you plan collectively as a society. And at the moment that it hit the mainstream, all of those ideas fell into disrepute, right? It was all supposed to be free market solutions. Governments were supposed to get out of the way of corporations. Planning was a dirty word, that was what communists did, right? Anything collective was a dirty word. Margaret Thatcher said, "There's no such thing as society."

Now if you believe that, you can't do anything about climate change, because it is the essence of a collective problem. This is our collective atmosphere. We can only respond to this collectively. So the environmental movement responded to that by really personalizing the problem and saying, "Okay, you recycle. And you buy a hybrid car." And treating this like this could or we'll have business-friendly solutions like cap and trade and carbon offsetting. That doesn't work. So that's part of the problem. So you have this movement that every once in a while would rear up and people would get all excited and we're really going to do something about this. And whether it was the Rio Summit or the Copenhagen Summit or that moment when Al Gore came out with Inconvenient Truth, but then it would just recede, because it didn’t have that collective social support that it needed.

And on top of that, you have, we've had this concerted campaign by the fossil fuel lobby to both buy off the environmental movement, to defame the environmental movement, to infiltrate the environmental movement, and to spread lies in the culture. And that's what the climate denial movement has been doing so effectively.

BILL MOYERS: I read a piece just this week by the environmental writer Glenn Scherer. He took a look and finds that over the last two years, the lion's share of the damage from extreme weather, floods, tornadoes, droughts, thunder storms, wind storms, heat waves, wildfires, has occurred in Republican-leaning red states. But those states have sent a whole new crop of climate change deniers to Congress.

NAOMI KLEIN: Yeah, someone's going to have to explain Oklahoma to me, you know?

BILL MOYERS: My native state.

NAOMI KLEIN: My sister lives in Oklahoma. And, you know, it is so shocking that James Inhofe, the foremost climate denying senator is from the state that is so deeply climate effected. There was something, actually, I was-- last year I covered the Heartland Conference, which is the annual confab for all the climate deniers. And James Inhofe was supposed to be the keynote speaker. And the first morning of the conference, there was lots of buzz. He’s the rock star among the climate deniers. Inhofe is coming, he's opening up this conference, right? And the first morning the main conference organizer stands up at breakfast and lets loose the bad news that James Inhofe has called in sick and he can't make it.

And it turns out that he had gone swimming in a lake filled with blue-green algae, which is actually a climate-related issue. When lakes get too warm, this blue-green algae spreads. And he had gone swimming. And he had gotten sick from the blue-green algae. So he actually arguably had a climate-related illness and couldn't come to the climate change conference. But even though he was sick, he wrote a letter from his sickbed just telling them what a great job he was doing. So the powers of denial are amazingly strong, Bill. If you are deeply invested in this free-market ideology, you know, if you really believe with your heart and soul that everything public and anything the government does is evil and that, you know, our liberation will come from liberating corporations, then climate change fundamentally challenges your worldview, precisely because we have to regulate.

We have to plan. We can't leave everything to the free market. In fact, climate change is, I would argue, the greatest single free-market failure. This is what happens when you don't regulate corporations and you allow them to treat the atmosphere as an open sewer. So it isn't just, "Okay, the fossil fuel companies want to protect their profits." It's that it's that this science threatens a worldview. And when you dig deeper, when you drill deeper into those statistics about the drop in belief in climate change, what you see is that Democrats still believe in in climate change, in the 70th percentile. That whole drop of belief, drop off in belief has happened on the right side of the political spectrum. So the most reliable predictor of whether or not somebody believes that climate change is real is what their views are on a range of other political subjects. You know, what do you think about abortion? What is your view of taxes? And what you find is that people who have very strong conservative political beliefs cannot deal with this science, because it threatens everything else they believe.

BILL MOYERS: Do you really believe, are you convinced that there are no free-market solutions? There's no way to let the market help us solve this crisis?

NAOMI KLEIN: No, absolutely the market can play a role. There are things that government can do to incentivize the free market to do a better job, yes. But is that a replacement for getting in the way, actively, of the fossil fuel industry and preventing them from destroying our chances of a future on a livable planet? It's not a replacement.

We have to do both. Yes, we need these market incentives on the one hand to encourage renewable energy. But we also need a government that's willing to say no. No, you can't mine the Alberta tar sands and burn enough carbon that you will have game over for the climate as James Hansen has said.

BILL MOYERS: But I'm one of those who is the other end of the corporation. I mean, we had a crisis in New York the last two weeks. We couldn't get gasoline for the indispensable vehicles that get us to work, get us to the supermarket, get us to our sick friends or neighbors. I mean, the point I'm trying to make is we are all the fossil fuel industry, are we not?

NAOMI KLEIN: You know, we often hear that. We often hear that we're all equally responsible for climate change. And that it's just the rules of supply and demand.

BILL MOYERS: I have two cars. I keep them filled with gasoline.

NAOMI KLEIN: But I think the question is, you know, if there was a fantastic public transit system that really made it easy for you to get where you wanted to go, would you drive less? So I don't know about you, but I, you know, I certainly would.

BILL MOYERS: I mean, I use the subways all the time here.

NAOMI KLEIN: And if it was possible to recharge an electric vehicle, if it was as easy to do that as it is to fill up your car with gasoline, you know, if that electricity came from solar and wind, would you insist, "No, I want to fill my car with, you know, with dirty energy"? No, I don't think you would. Because this is what I think we have expressed over and over again. We are willing to make changes. You know we recycle and we compost. We ride bicycles. I mean, there there's actually been a tremendous amount of willingness and goodwill for people to change their behavior. But I think where people get demoralized is when they see, "Okay, I'm making these changes, but emissions are still going up, because the corporations aren't changing how they do business." So no, I don't think we're all equally guilty.

BILL MOYERS: President Obama managed to avoid the subject all through the campaign and he hasn’t exactly been leading the way.

NAOMI KLEIN: He has not been leading the way. And in fact, you know, he spent a lot of time on the campaign bragging about how much pipeline he's laid down and this ridiculous notion of an all of the above energy strategy, as if you can, you know, develop solar and wind alongside more coal, you know, more oil, more natural gas, and it's all going to work out in the end.

No, it doesn't add up. And, you know, I think personally, I think the environmental movement has been a little too close to Obama. And, you know, we learned, for instance, recently, about a meeting that took place shortly after Obama was elected where the message that all these big green groups got was, "We don't want to talk about climate change. We want to talk about green jobs and energy security." And a lot of these big green groups played along. So I feel--

BILL MOYERS: You mean the big environmental groups?

NAOMI KLEIN: Yeah, big environmental groups went along with this messaging, talking about energy security, instead of talking about climate change, 'cause they were told that that wasn't a winnable message. I just think it's wrong. I think it's bad strategy.

BILL MOYERS: He got reelected.

NAOMI KLEIN: He got, well, he got reelected, but you know what? I think he, I think Hurricane Sandy helped Obama get reelected.

BILL MOYERS: How so?

NAOMI KLEIN: Well, look at the Bloomberg endorsement that came at the last minute. I mean, Bloomberg endorsed Obama because of climate change. Because he believed that this was an issue that voters cared enough about that they would, that Independents would swing to Obama over climate change, and some of the polling absolutely supports this, that this was one of the reasons why people voted for Obama over Romney was that they were concerned about climate change and they felt that he was a better candidate on climate change.

The truth was, we didn't have a good candidate. We had a terrible, terrible candidate on climate change, and we had a candidate on climate change who needs a lot of pressure. So I feel more optimistic than I did in 2008, because I think in 2008 the attitude of the environmental movement was, "Our guy just got in and we need to support him. And he's going to give us the legislation that we, that we want. And we're going to take his advice. And we're going to be good little soldiers."

And now maybe I'm being overly optimistic, but I think that people learned the lesson of the past four years. And people now understand that what Obama needs or what we need, forget what Obama needs, is a real independent movement with climate change at its center and that's going to put pressure on the entire political class and directly on the fossil fuel companies on this issue. And there's no waiting around for Obama to do it for you.

BILL MOYERS: Why would you think that the next four years of a lame duck president would be more successful from your standpoint than the first four years, when he's looking to reelection?

NAOMI KLEIN: Well, I think on the one hand, we're going to see more direct action. But the other strategy is to go where the problem is. And the problem is the companies themselves. And we’re launching the “Do the Math” tour which is actually trying to kick off a divestment movement. I mean, we're going after these companies where it hurts, which is their portfolios, which is their stock price.

BILL MOYERS: You're asking people to disinvest, to take their money out of, universities in particular, right? This is what happened during the fight against apartheid in South Africa and ultimately proved successful.

NAOMI KLEIN: Yeah, and this is, we are modeling it on the anti-apartheid divestment movement. And the reason it's called “Do the Math” is because of this new body of research that came out last year. A group in Britain called “The Carbon Tracker Initiative.” And this is, you know, a fairly conservative group that addresses itself to the financial community. This is not, you know, sort of activist research. This is a group that identified a market bubble and were concerned about this meant to investors. So it's a pretty conservative take on it. And what the numbers that they crunched found is that if we are going to ward off truly catastrophic climate change, we need to keep the increase, the temperature increase, below 2 degrees centigrade.

NAOMI KLEIN: The problem with that is that they also measured how much the fossil fuel companies and countries who own their own national oil reserves have now currently in their reserves, which means they have already laid claim to this. They already own it. It's already inflating their stock price, okay? So how much is that? It's five times more. So that means that the whole business model for the fossil fuel industry is based on burning five times more carbon than is compatible with a livable planet. So what we're saying is, "Your business model is at war with life on this planet. It's at war with us. And we need to fight back."

So we're saying, "These are rogue companies. And we think in particular young people whose whole future lies ahead of them have to send a message to their universities, who, and, you know, almost every university has a huge endowment. And there isn't an endowment out there that doesn't have holdings in these fossil fuel companies. And so young people are saying to the people who charged with their education, charged with preparing them for the outside world, for their future jobs, "Explain to me how you can prepare me for a future that with your actions you're demonstrating you don't believe in. How can you prepare me for a future at the same time as you bet against my future with these fossil fuel holdings? You do the math and you tell me." And I think there's a tremendous moral clarity that comes from having that kind of a youth-led movement. So we're really excited about it.

BILL MOYERS: What do you mean rogue corporations? You're talking about Chevron and Exxon-Mobil and BP and all of these huge capitalist or institutions.

NAOMI KLEIN: Well, rogue corporations, because their business model involves externalizing the price of their waste onto the rest of us. So their business model is based on not having to pay for what they think of as an externality, which is the carbon that's spewed into the atmosphere that is warming the planet. And that price is enormous. We absolutely know that the future is going to be filled with many more such super storms and many more such costly, multibillion-dollar disasters. It's already happening. Last year was-- there were more billion-dollar disasters than any year previously. So climate change is costing us. And yet you see this squabbling at, you know, the state level, at the municipal level, over who is going to pay for this

NAOMI KLEIN: The public sector doesn't have the money to pay for what these rogue corporations have left us with, the price tag of climate change. So we have to do two things. We have to make sure that it doesn't get worse, that the price tag doesn’t get higher. And we need to get some of that money back, which means, you know, looking at issues like fossil fuel subsidies and, you know, to me, it's so crazy. I mean, here we are post-Hurricane Sandy. Everyone is saying, "Well, maybe this is going to be our wakeup call." And right now in New York City, the debate is over how much to increase fares in public transit. And they want to, the Metro Transit Authority wants to increase the price of riding the subway, you know, the price of riding the trains, quite a bit. And so how does this make sense? We're supposedly having a wakeup call about climate change. And we're making it harder for people to use public transit. And that's because we don't have the resources that we need.

BILL MOYERS: You've been out among the areas of devastation. Why?

NAOMI KLEIN: Well, for this book I'm currently writing about climate change and a documentary to go with it, so we were filming in the Rockaways, which is one of the hardest-hit areas and Staten Island and in Red Hook. And also in the relief hubs, where you see just a tremendous number of volunteers organized by, actually, organized by Occupy Wall Street. They call it Occupy Sandy.

BILL MOYERS: Really?

NAOMI KLEIN: Yes. And what I found is that people are—the generosity is tremendous, the humanity is tremendous. I saw a friend last night, and I asked her whether she'd been involved in the hurricane relief. And she said, "Yeah, I gave them my car. I hope I get it back. If you see it, tell me." So people are tremendous.

BILL MOYERS: This means--

NAOMI KLEIN: So one of the things that you find out in a disaster is you really do need a public sector. It really important. And coming back to what we were talking about earlier, why is climate change so threatening to people on the conservative end of the political spectrum? One of the things it makes an argument for is the public sphere. You need public transit to prevent climate change. But you also need a public health care system to respond to it. It can't just be ad hoc. It can't just be charity and goodwill.

BILL MOYERS: When you use terms like “collective action,” “central planning,” you scare corporate executive and the American Enterprise Institute and The Heritage Foundation because they say you want to do away with capitalism.

NAOMI KLEIN: Well, first of all, I don't use a phrase like "central planning." I talk about planning, but I don't think it should be central. And one of the things that one must admit when looking at climate change is that the only thing just as bad or maybe even worse for the climate than capitalism was communism. And when we look at the carbon emissions for the eastern bloc countries, they were actually, in some cases, worse than countries like Australia or Canada. So, let's just call it a tie. So we need to look for other models. And I think there needs to be much more decentralization and a much deeper definition of democracy than we have right now.

BILL MOYERS: Decentralization of what, Naomi?

NAOMI KLEIN: Well, for instance, you know, if we think about renewable energy, well, one of the things that's happened is that when you try to get wind farms set up, really big wind farms, there's usually a lot of community resistance that's happened in the United States. It's happened in Britain. Where it hasn't happened is Germany and Denmark. And the reason for that is that in those places you have movements that have demanded that the renewable energy be community controlled, not centrally planned, but community controlled. So that there's a sense of ownership, not by some big, faceless state, but by the people who actually live in the community that is impacted.

BILL MOYERS: You've written that climate change has little to do with the state of the environment, but much to do with the state of capitalism and transforming the American economic system. And you see an opening with Sandy, right?

NAOMI KLEIN: I do see an opening, because, you know, whenever you have this kind of destruction, there has to be a reconstruction. And what I documented in “The Shock Doctrine” is that these right-wing think tanks, like the ones you named, like the American Enterprise Institute or the Cato Institute, the Heritage Foundation, they historically have gotten very, very good at seizing these moments of opportunity to push through their wish list of policies.

And often their wish list of policies actually dig us deeper into crisis. If I can just-- if you'll bear with me, I'll just give you one example. After Hurricane Katrina, there was a meeting at the Heritage Foundation, just two weeks after the storm hit. Parts of the city were still underwater. And there was a meeting, the “Wall Street Journal” reported on it. And I got the minutes from the meeting.

The heading was 31 free market solutions for Hurricane Katrina. And you go down the list and it was: and don't reopen the public schools, replace the public schools with vouchers. And drill for oil in ANWAR, in the Arctic National Wildlife Reserve, more oil refineries. So what kind of free market solutions are these, right?

Here you have a crisis that was created by a collision between heavy weather (which may or may not have been linked to climate change, but certainly it's what climate change looks like) colliding with weak infrastructure, because of years and years of neglect. And the free market solutions to this crisis are, "Let's just get rid of the public infrastructure altogether and drill for more oil, which is the root cause of climate change." So that's their shock doctrine. And I think it's time for a people's shock.

BILL MOYERS: People’s shock?

NAOMI KLEIN: A people's shock, which actually we've had before, as you know, where, you know, if you think about 1929 and the market shock, and the way in which the public responded. They wanted to get at the root of the problem. And they wanted to get away from speculative finance and that's how we got some very good legislation passed in this country like Glass-Steagall, and much of the social safety net was born in that moment. Not by exploiting crisis to horde power for the few and to ram through policies that people don't want, but to build popular movements and to really deepen democracy.

BILL MOYERS: Well, the main thesis of “Shock Doctrine,” which came out five years ago before the great crash was that disaster capitalism exploits crises in order to move greater wealth to the hands of the fewer and fewer people. You don't expect those people to change their appetites do you or their ways do you, because we face a climate crisis?

NAOMI KLEIN: I don't expect them to. I wrote “The Shock Doctrine” because I believe that we, I believed at the time that we didn't understand this tactic. We didn't understand that during times of crisis certain sectors of the business world and the political class take advantage of our disorientation in order to ram through these policies. And I believed, at the time, that if we understood it, you know, if we had a name for it, if we had a word, a language for it, then the next time they tried it, we would fight back. Because the whole tactic is about taking advantage of our disorientation in those moments of crisis. And the fact that we often can become childlike and look towards, you know, a supposed expert class and leaders to take care of us. And we become too trusting, frankly, during disasters.

BILL MOYERS: It used to be said that weather, now global warming, climate change, was the great equalizer. It affected rich and poor alike. You don’t think it does, do you?

NAOMI KLEIN: What I'm seeing. And I've seen this, you know--I've been tracking this now for about six years, more and more, there's a privatization of response to disaster, where I think that wealthy people understand that, yes, we are going to see more and more storms. We live in a turbulent world. It's going to get even more turbulent. And they're planning. So you have, for instance private insurance companies now increasingly offer what they call a concierge service. The first company that was doing this was A.I.G. And in the midst of the California wildfires about six years ago, for the first time, you saw private firefighters showing up at people's homes, spraying them in fire retardant, so that when the flames came, this house would stay. This mansion, usually, would be standing and the one next door might burn to the ground. So this is extraordinary. Because we would tend to think of, you know, firefighting. This is definitely, you know, a public good. This is definitely something that people get equally. But now we're finding that even that there's even a sort of two-tiering of protection from wildfires.

BILL MOYERS: Yeah, there was even a short-lived airline in Florida I read about that offered five-star evacuation service in events of hurricanes.

NAOMI KLEIN: After Hurricane Katrina a company in Florida saw a market opportunity. And they decided to offer a charter airline that would turn your hurricane into a luxury vacation. That was actually the slogan. They would let you know when a hurricane was headed for your area. They would pick you up in a limousine, drive you to the airport, and whisk you up. And they would make you five star hotel reservations at the destination of your choice. So, you know, why does a hurricane have to be bad news after all?

BILL MOYERS: And this kind of privatization is what you wrote about in “Shock Doctrine,” that privatization of resources, monopolization of resources by the rich, in times of crisis, further divide us as a society

NAOMI KLEIN: Absolutely. And, you know, one of the things about deregulated capitalism is that it is a crisis creation machine, you know? You take away all the rules and you are going to have serial crises. They may be economic crises, booms and busts. Or there will be ecological crises. You're going to have both. You're just going to have shock after shock after shock. And the more, the longer this goes on, the more shocks you're going to have.

And the way we're currently responding to it is that with each shock, we become more divided. And the more we understand that this is what the future looks like, the more those who can afford it protect themselves and buy their way out of having to depend on the public sector and therefore are less invested in these collective responses. And that's why there has to be a whole other way of responding to this crisis.

BILL MOYERS: You wrote recently that climate change can be a historic moment to usher in the next great wave of progressive change.

NAOMI KLEIN: It can be and it must be. I mean, it's our only chance. I believe it's the biggest challenge humanity has ever faced. And we've been kidding ourselves about what it's going to take to get our emissions down to the extent that they need to go down. I mean, you talk about 80 percent lowering emissions. I mean, that is such a huge shift.

And I think that's part of the way in which, and I don't mean to beat up on the big environmental groups, because they do fantastic work. But I think that part of the reason why public opinion on this issue has been so shaky is that it doesn't really add up to say to the public, you know, "This is a huge problem. It's Armageddon." You know, you have “Inconvenient Truth.” You scare the hell out of people. But then you say, "Well, the solution can be very minor. You can change your light bulb. And we'll have this complicated piece of legislation called cap and trade that you don't really understand, but that basically means that companies here can keep on polluting, but they're going to trade their carbon emissions. And, you know, somebody else is going to plant trees on the other side of the planet and they'll get credits."

And people look at that going, "Okay, if this was a crisis, wouldn't be we be responding more aggressively? So wouldn't we be responding in a way that you have, we've responded in the past during war times, where there's been, you know, that kind of a collective sense of shared responsibility?" Because I think when we really do feel that sense of urgency about an issue, and I believe we should feel it about climate change, we are willing to sacrifice. We have shown that in the past. But when you hold up a supposed emergency and actually don't ask anything of people, anything major, they actually think you might be lying, that it might not really be an emergency after all. So if this is an emergency, we have to act like it. And yeah, it is a fundamental challenge. But the good news is, you know, we get to have a future for our kids.

We Got This

This weekend a bunch of the supporters for Lisa Shaffer responded to her campaign request to bring yard signs to a couple drop off points.  Supporters were also asked to bring food donations for Community Resource Center.

She and others worked with different sources to find a place to sell back the wire sign holders, a place to donate the placticized signs for repurposing, and the paper signs for recycling.

Besides this being a good idea, it yet again shows the importance of a ground organization where people trust each other, follow through on good ideas, spread the work load and have a good time doing it. Lisa and Tony were out of town, yet this effort was handled with enthusiasm. Signs for Shaffer, Kranz & Roberts and a few others were all part of the mix along with the food donations.

This is a segue to a very big national story we posted about yesterday, the growing importance of Inter-Occupy or Occupy Sandy ground operation and organization. It has taken the Occupy movement more than a year and thousands of meetings, conflict resolutions, communication training and unending patience around the country to keep working through the realities of what community really means.  This demonstrates their unbelievable success of being able to do and not just talk.

As Abby Zimet of Common Dreams writes,

With thousands still without power, water and heat in the New York area, Occupy Sandy's ongoing and ever-expanding relief effort has been hailed as Occupy's finest hour and a triumph of doing over talking - one so efficient they're now training National Guard and city representatives of the same administration that not so long ago was hassling and pepper-spraying them. Evolution is real. So is the notion of mutual aid. Cool video.

Henri 4, L'Haunting

An interlude from the Eastern Seacoast (still not linked very little linking by leading candidates or MSM to climate change) and Politics in general.  A moment's respite.  

Environment: Who Is Listening? Who Isn't?

Councilwoman Barth hit it on the head yesterday with this cartoon on her Facebook page saying,

"I thought of this cartoon at last nights council meeting when the Deputy Mayor said she never had an Encinitas resident tell her they support "these sustainable living concepts". I guess she hasn't been listening!"

EYNU Editor:

Councilwoman Barth takes the high road and doesn't do more than a mild rebuke to Gaspar and her peers who treated this Beacon Award with such disdain.

Convesely, we would add something stronger. Deputy Mayor Gaspar did a real disservice by not correcting the false information and in fact adding her own misinformation.

This is the stuff of crazy uncles emails filled with capital letters and exclamation points. Or is it?  In fact it isn't from citizen's groups at all. It is highly coordinated astroturf to frighten white suburbanites and create paranoia.

"Bike lanes, transit and higher density are evil because they give people alternatives to cars, and that can never happen in America." 

Fundamentally, that is what is happening here. Big Oil is paying for CFACT and either directly or indirectly the fight against Agenda 21; The Kochs are promoting it like mad, right across the country. Same big companies, same reason: to keep America in its happy motoring ways, to make any alternative just about impossible. And that is how we have to paint them: not concerned citizens worried about the United Nations, but representatives of big oil out to preserve their turf.

In practical terms some will never be able to hear the facts of who is paying for this and their financial stakes.  Passion and groupthink can swamp judgement (and that is counted on by these groups).  But it is completely unacceptable for a public servant like Kristin Gaspar to claim support of environmental goals on the one hand and promote lies regarding sustainability on the other.

Hot

Unlike much of the country this summer, Encinitas has had pleasantly moderate temperatures.  The last couple of weeks of hot days and warm nights caused lousy sleeping and eating patterns and intermittent blog-brain lethargy and minimal contributions from the troops.

National news from corporate media continues to incite with guns, hate, rape, lies, violence, porn, crap programing and suppression of alternatives.  This affects people differently. Reading comments with online publications and blogs was like wading in fetid ditchwater with ugly, mean words from some. Yet, for some this cruelty just heats up the transformation into helplessness and despondency.

Had a few cold ones with friends yesterday and came away thinking that cooler minds will prevail. Just knowing we are all in this together is a soothing balm. It won't control the weather, it won't control the empire's descent or the media's hold on the nation.

New approach, think of this as a test run for the next century.  Posting should increase as the body, the brain's acclimation to higher temperature (and entrapment by FIRE) does what it does.