PAUL JAY: Welcome to The Real News Network.
I'm Paul Jay in Washington. So the climate change conference in Durban is over. And what
happened to the urgency about dealing with climate change? You sure wouldn't have seen
it, given what came out of Durban, and you certainly don't see it when you look at the
public policy coming out of North America, certainly out of Russia, Japan, more or less
out of Europe. If you look at the media just only two, three years ago, we were being told
things were al
most apocalyptic. The media itself has lost almost complete interest in
the climate change debate. And certainly in Washington there is no debate about what to
do about climate change, certainly not in Congress or to do with the White House. Barack
Obama doesn't seem to have mentioned the words "climate change" in at least a year, if not
more. Now joining us to talk about why all this might be happening is Patrick Bond. Patrick
is the director of the Centre for Civil Society in South Africa. He'
s a professor at the University
of KwaZulu-Natal in South Africa. And he's also the author of the recently released books
The Politics of Climate Change and Durban's Climate Gamble. Thanks for joining us, Patrick. PATRICK BOND: Great to be with you, Paul. JAY: So what's your sense of this? The global
elites, as you called them in another interview, you know, were all up in arms about climate
change in one way or the other just a couple of years ago. Now nary a word. BOND: Well, some of them were
, and indeed,
I'd say, based on what we experienced in South Africa at the beginning of December, an awareness
that the scientists are raising hell. I mean, James Hansen, the great NASA scientist, has
just put another report out saying that the 2 degree mark is utterly incompatible with
human life because of--once you get into this sort of 2 degree range, you're getting into
the tundra melts and the incredible flows of methane out of the Arctic [crosstalk] JAY: Just really quickly, for people th
at
haven't followed, what's the significance of the 2 degrees? BOND: Well, that's where if we do nothing,
probably by 2050 we'll hit 2 degrees. We're nearly at 1, 1 degree Centigrade increase,
and already the incredible storm events that have [crosstalk] JAY: And this is the increase, essentially,
from the beginning of modern industrialization, what the temperature has risen to. BOND: Yeah, that's right. And that's what's
widely acknowledged--virtually all scientists agree it comes from what we
as human beings
have done, and particularly those in the advanced industrial countries, by emitting carbon and
five other major greenhouse gases, methane now being one that's on everyone's lips because
of the concern that so much of the sort of tipping effect that will create a runaway
climate change can come from methane sources that the UN is now just beginning to factor
into its reports. That does mean a panic. And so we did feel, certainly, the African
countries whose delegates in Durban wer
e really warning that the continent will be cooked
and that there's--as Pablo Solon, the Bolivian negotiator put it, there's a premeditated
genocide and ecocide by those delegates who refuse to do anything. And the case of Canada
comes up to the top, as well ask pretty much anyone from Washington, whether the State
Department or the World Bank. And those are probably the main reasons. We've just seen
no [incompr.] leadership, that is, politicians who--batting for their own national elites
and fo
ssil fuel interests simply don't want the major emissions cuts, when we're talking
probably 50 percent required in the north by 2020. So ratcheting down those greenhouse
gas emissions now by 2, 3, 4 percent a year so we can get into the safer range, where
probably we'd say below--well below 1.5 degrees Centigrade. I mean, already a third of the
glaciers in Bolivia and the Andes have melted, and small islands look to definitely be underwater,
some of them negotiating very hard, others being corru
pted and bought out. And it's a
very, very tragic situation when the power of big politicians and the failure of the
media--. And to some extent, Paul, I'd say the media was joined by NGOs who had raised
hell a couple of years ago about climate change and then went to sleep. I mean, really, their
disappointing performance in 2010 is part of the reason that there was no legislation
in the U.S. I mean, it wasn't very good--it was bad legislation, but there was no real
push from the populace, excep
t for a few sites where activists--and maybe a couple of hundred
sites across North America, the tar sands most importantly, and other sites where there's
coal-fired power plants or major oil scandals, like the BP disaster, those raised the issue
of climate. But we've got to do more. And I think what encourages me, Paul, Occupy,
that began to make the links from September/October onwards to big business doing whatever the
hell they want without any regard for people or planet. And when some of t
he activists
from the White House protests at the end of August, early September, like Bill McKibben
of 350.org, went out to Occupy Wall Street, it was quite a strong intrinsic link between
those fighting high finance and those fighting fossil fuels. [crosstalk] JAY: From the global elites themselves there
had been interest in this issue, for whatever their intention was. And a lot of this tone
was set in the American debate, or lack thereof, once this seemed to get paralyzed in Congress,
and pa
rticularly once the Obama administration stopped talking about it as policy it was
pursuing. It seems to have just dropped off the map. And I guess if--for much of the world,
if they feel the United States is not going to do anything about it, then what's the point
of anybody else doing it anything about it? BOND: Yes. But, I mean, let's not forget that
the main audiences to which the politicians--. For example, the Republican Party elites,
these leaders, pretty much all of them are climate chan
ge denialists of one sort or another.
But they are speaking to a whimsical crowd, right? I mean, the U.S. public, for example,
as soon as Sarah Palin was nominated as the vice presidential candidate with John McCain,
McCain shot ahead of Obama in August 2008 and then swung back the other way a few days
later. These are obviously people manipulated and brainwashed, if you take the mass of public
opinion, by clever marketers and politicians. Now the big problem is Barack Obama did come
into his pr
esidency saying he would put in a big cap and trade plan, and he realized
that was going nowhere, and the vested interests to not do anything were too strong. And he's
proven himself to be one of the weakest presidents ever. And I think he may lose the reelection
on that basis, that he just doesn't seem to have any spine. For example, just as the protesters
in White House were locking down 1,250 arrested, he was refusing the Environmental Protection
Agency smog regulations, which were very impor
tant for the climate fight, because big business,
big oil didn't want them. And he's got a huge network of right-wing lobbyists and Wall Street,
you know, sort of bankers trying to give him $1 billion for the next campaign who just
don't want to see any action. [crosstalk] JAY: But when you look at the polling in the
United States--when you look at the polling in the United States, the numbers of people
that believe climate change is a problem keep going down year-to-year over the last two,
thre
e years, until you get to a state now where I think it might--I have to look at
the most recent numbers, but it may be 50-50. BOND: Below 40 percent, yeah. JAY: Yeah, at least half the country doesn't
believe it, and maybe a little more than half. Is there some issue there in terms of the
effectiveness of how scientists and their--others are dealing with this? I'll give you an example.
We've been trying to organize a science-based climate change debate, you know, with scientists
and with skeptic
s, and on the whole the scientists who are working on climate change won't debate
the skeptics. They say it gives this other position credibility to debate it, which--I
can understand the argument under certain conditions, but we're in a society where,
you know, more than half the people don't believe it anymore. Don't you have to have
that science debate? BOND: That may be the case. I mean, I've only
seen two situations where denialists really prevented good public policy from occurring.
One wa
s during apartheid. There were in white South Africa plenty who said blacks have it
better in South Africa than any other country in Africa, and it took tough activism to overcome
those. And now there's nobody who in South Africa says, oh, we supported apartheid or
[incompr.] The second case was AIDS medicines. And that was where a variety of forces--California
scientists and the president of South Africa, Thabo Mbeki--denied that HIV caused AIDS and
that the medicines would help. And, again, it
was tough activism at the base. So the
next question, really, is where is that tough activism, and why is it so hidden? I do believe
that from having spent a year on sabbatical in the U.S. and written a book, The Politics
of Climate Justice, that the activism is very, very strong. North America probably has a
strong network of climate justice proponents and frontline critics of extraction and people
really thinking through what a new, transformed, just-transition society that doesn't depend
on
fossil fuels would look like. And those are activists who just aren't given a chance
to speak, except on The Real News and a few other progressive stations. JAY: One of the arguments I've heard is that
a lot of the proposals that were made by the Obama administration, as well as a lot of
the other proposals that are being supported by a lot of the mainstream green groups, are
these sort of market mechanisms of taxes that--you know, cap and trade. But they're all kind
of mechanisms that in fact m
ight increase the cost of energy for ordinary people, not
really cost big business much, and are of dubious effectiveness. And if one believes
that about those policies, how much of the responsibility for why people aren't buying
in goes to some of the green organizations who are pushing this kind of a market mechanism
and aren't just straightforwardly calling for forms of regulation? BOND: Well, you're exactly right, Paul. The
yuppie greens, as I'd call them, who do believe that because corpora
tions are so powerful
you have to work with them and work with their rhythms and work within their logic, they've
shown again and again that they can't even get the legislation required and get the support
from big business to get their carbon trading schemes up and running. We've seen how when
other schemes have been running, especially in Europe, they're subject to fraud, manipulation,
extraordinary volatility, just like any commodity. So to give financial markets the responsibility
to save th
e planet's, I think, an absolute no-win situation. And ordinary people can
comprehend that. You're right as well that in the British Columbia case of a tax on gasoline,
that was very heavily borne by poor and working people, who through no fault of their own
are living quite a long way from their jobs, given the speculative prices of real estate.
So definitely all of these issues have to be tacked together with justice and equity
and its concern about a transition where working-class people are
not going to be displaced from
fossil-fuel intensive jobs, but instead be given the same pay and benefits--better benefits,
of course, with everybody losing their benefits, terribly important--to make sure that state-owned
and state-driven, new, just-transition strategies for renewable energy and public transport
and new production systems are at the top of the agenda. So there are a few campaigns
that are trying to do that. Britain and South Africa have "million climate jobs" campaigns,
and far
sighted unionists are picking these up and beginning to make the alliances we're
going to need between labor climate activists and the environmental movement and communities.
But we really haven't seen enough of that. And it's a matter of time. As I said, with
the anti-apartheid movement, with the treatment movement for AIDS medicines, it took a while
to get the coalitions together. The main thing is, if you've got denialists, it is a bit
of a distraction, a waste of time, because we really need
to be putting all our efforts
into building the coalitions and finding the confluence of interest that will begin to
fight against the Koch brothers, those other big oil guys, who are really funding the denialists
and all of the sort of carbon trading gimmicks. And those are the big enemies we have, the
politicians, the negotiators, and it's a formidable force. But don't forget we've taken down such
forces in history and we must again. JAY: Thanks very much for joining us, Patrick. BOND: Thank
you. Good, Paul. JAY: And thank you for joining us on The Real
News Network.
Comments
I believe that politicians are more than capable of addressing the climate change. They are such good problem solvers from Afghanistan war to the economy, saving a planet will definitely easy.
@osocafe5 Same here in Ohio. have had 1/2 of snow all season. Usually we get snow in October! BUT!!!!! Studies out of Greenland, Antarctica and Siberia have proven that its cyclic and even drastic swings are cyclic. YET the findings are snowballed over.
@flemishdreams ""...Wolfgang Wagner of Vienna University of Technology concluded that reviewers of the paper, published 25 July in the open-access journal, failed "to identify fundamental methodological errors or false claims," and the paper "should therefore not have been published." (cont'd)...
Enhanced Geothermal Systems FTW! <------- You will never hear about that system!Free renewable energy for ever!
Renewable energy = free energy. The current energy producers will do everything they can to prevent this. That's why you won't see anything done about climate change. The current monetary paradigm simply will not allow it. That's the bottom line.
@flemishdreams "Wagner says he's not leaving because of any mistakes by those beneath him nor because of any pressure from above. (The journal and about 60 others are published by MDPI of Basel, Switzerland.) "Reviewing is difficult," he says. "It's not bullet-proof. I just wanted to make the statement" that the journal holds the reviewing process in the highest regard. No word on whether the paper will be retracted." (cont'd)...
it's always around 60 degrees around this time of year in Los Angeles ca, it's high 70s beach weather
@flemishdreams "Others say the real problem stems from a fundamental mismatch between the journal and the paper in question. The journal "really deals with remote sensing used by geographers rather than by atmospheric scientists," says Trenberth. "I only recognized one name on the editorial board." That could explain why none of the three reviewers noticed any fatal flaws in the paper, he says." (cont'd)...
Can you stop volcanos from exploding? The amount of CO2 warming gases from this source alone beats all/
@flemishdreams "The paper, by remote sensing specialists Roy Spencer and William Braswell of the University of Alabama, Huntsville, drew plenty of media attention. Forbes trumpeted it as, "New NASA data blow gaping hole in global warming alarmism." (cont'd)...
@flemishdreams I'm talking about if we were to fully implement decentralized renewable energy generation as well as cutting all the inefficiencies in our current society.
@captcrais101 The best energy non-source of all is conservation. If we simply took moderate steps to conserve energy along with moving to point-of-use solar we wouldn't need new power generating plants. In Germany they're already experiencing overload of the grid because of too much solar and wind generated power. If we cut our consumption by 25% and started generating 25% from solar/wind/hydro the next thing you know we'd be halfway there...
@flemishdreams ""I don't blame anybody in the publication," Wagner told ScienceInsider, amplifying comments in an editorial posted today by the journal. It was just that the reviewing process at his journal broke down, he says. "Someone has to take responsibility. As editor-in-chief, I should be the one." (cont'd)...
@flemishdreams "But climate researchers such as Kevin Trenberth of the National Center for Atmospheric Research in Boulder, Colorado, argued that "clouds don't do what they claim they do," that is, they don't react to cool the atmosphere. Wagner came to agree with the critics. "The problem I see with the paper by Spencer and Braswell," he writes in his editorial, "is not that it declared a minority view...but that it essentially ignored the scientific arguments of its opponents."
@flemishdreams (cont'd) "...This latter point was missed in the review process, explaining why I perceive this paper to be fundamentally flawed and therefore wrongly accepted by the journal." So he resigned "to make clear that the journal Remote Sensing takes the review process very seriously." (cont'd)...
The deniers leaving comments: why bother? You really think you are going to change anyone's mind. All you need do is read the information out there to know AGW is fact. The only debate is what to do about it. Your grandchildren will thank you.
8 dislikes ..dislikes about the topic or the facts? Right-wingers unhappy? WTF?!
@flemishdreams "Many climate scientists were more restrained and far more critical. Spencer and Braswell had drawn on NASA satellite data to try to show that the atmospheres in climate models retain more heat than the real atmosphere does, causing the models to predict too much warming under a strengthening greenhouse." (cont'd)...
@sk8tafrnk Spain was a savage pesthole, where rape and murder occured on a democidal level before franco. Native americans were in perpetual war with each other... Many tribes had such trinkets as permanent torture facilites... and their life quality was about on par with cavemen standards... you see they had only stone age type societies.
@flemishdreams I'd kind of like to see some references regarding your statements.