Paradigm shifts are a challenge to former paradigms in the evolution of a scientific discipline, they are the vectors of science revolutions. The last  major example of scientific paradigm shift was when Albert Einstein introduced the ground breaking notion of Relativity, which radically challenged the very simple rules laid down by Newtonian physic. The same can be said about the communication revolution of the information super-highway which happened two decades ago. Paradigm shifts of this magnitude are colossal “thinking outside the box” processes, and are a leap forward into a new reality.

The greatest barrier to a paradigm shift is the reality and incredible inertia of paradigm paralysis. A paradigm paralysis can be defined as the inability or refusal to see beyond current models of thinking. There are countless examples of paradigm paralysis in the history of man kind. In Europe, up until the XVII century, physicians used to draw out substantial amount of blood from their patients to “purify” their bodies from some imaginary “miasma”. It would, of course, make patients weaker and quicken their death. The first physicians to challenge this absurdity were dismissed and banned from the profession. A better known example of paradigm paralysis is the rejection of Galileo’s theory of a heliocentric universe which revolutionized the field of astronomy.

If paradigm shifts are mega-phenomenon of “thinking outside the box”, paradigm paralysis are the enemy of progress and can be defined as the sclerosis of “thinking inside the box”. In today’s world of social turmoil, constant fast pace change, globalization, communication revolution, overpopulation, shrinking resources and growing ecological threats, paradigms are double edge swords. On one hand, they give us a structure and the illusion of permanence, which is a false sense of security. On the other hand, current paradigms, which often fall into the category of paradigm paralysis, prevent us from tackling challenges and major problems to keep life sustainable on this planet for future generations. In other words, we need to step out of the “illusion box”, both individually and collectively, of established thought paradigms, and jump courageously and resolutely into an uncharted and unknown reality unfolding each time a significant paradigm shift takes place.

Thomas Kuhn was on the fence about applying his concept of paradigm shifts as revolutions in the field of human sciences such as sociology, history, and psychology. But in retrospect, Kuhn’s ambiguity might have been very short sighted. In effect, just like science, history can move at an incredible brisk pace during social paradigm shifts. It was the case in France during the 1789 revolution, and again in Russia in 1917. Today, there are countless indications that we are going through a major global paradigm shift. The list of  symptoms is extensive. People worldwide are incredibly anxious, insecure even of  their immediate tomorrows. The global system of governance is broken or in advance state of decay. Our global “laissez faire”, and the lack of governance vision to address the critical issues of our time have already produced catastrophic consequences.

Climate change is still not treated as a key global priority, and vast area of land across the world are facing its dire consequences in the form of droughts and flood. The rise of sea levels will make coastal areas uninhabitable for 600 million people within two generations. Few months ago, Pakistan had its worse floods on record, and  was in the “eye of the storm” of the deadly man-made disaster that is climate change. Last summer, fires were destroying Russia’s forest and wheat crop, and now it is the turn of Somalia to face a killer drought. Large section of America’s south west, such as Arizona and Nevada,  could become uninhabitable in two or three decades due to a lack of water.

The stupidity of our respective governance, which is only a reflection of our own shortcomings, has put our world on a pass to an abyss. If we don’t go through a massive systemic change, a global social revolution, people could end up fighting for food and resources on a planet where less land will be habitable and available for agriculture. We already have a system of global corporate governance, but it is strictly profit oriented and it is only serving the interests of the few as opposed to the ones of the many. If we had a half way intelligent system of governance, the questions ahead of all others would be: How can we slow down climate change? How are we going to feed all these people? Are we going to have major migrations because of climate change and overpopulation?

Last spring a social paradigm shift took place in the Arab world, and it is still unfolding. While the repercussions of it are hard to put in a historical context yet, the geopolitical impact is already enormous. There are more questions than answers: Will the neo-colonialist West hijack and neuter the revolution? Will it fall instead under the control of some forms of religious ideology? Will the Arab revolution spread elsewhere? Many other times in history, the social paradigm shifts which are revolutions have taken a wrong turn. It was the case during the French revolution when the madness of Robespierre turned the street of Paris into rivers of blood. The same apply to Stalin’s murdering spree after he took over all apparatus of power in the aftermath of  Russia’s communist revolution.

The set back, and in one case complete failure, in both paradigm shifts-the French and the Russian revolutions- is due to a deep rooted psychological problem most people have. We have allowed authoritarian forms of government because we identify governance  with the unchallenged power of a father figure. It was the psychological makeup of France during centuries when absolute kings ruled, but it also became the case in the USSR where Stalin became the so called “father of the people”. In North-Korea Kim Jong-il projects a semi-god father figure image to his oppressed population. In 2008, newly elected President Obama was wrongly viewed globally as a providential man who could bring justice and peace to the world. This notion of an all powerful and unlighted father figure  has to be challenged if we ever want to move away from the illusion that a providential man alone can “guide” a new pass for the multitude. Another notion which has to be radically challenged  is the one of relying on obsolete ideologies. If Marxism appeared obsolete after the fall of the Soviet Union, now it is the turn of global capitalist  neo-liberalism. Why would any ideologies of the XIX century based almost solely on the economic realities of the industrial revolution apply today? Will our current global paradigm shift redefine us psychologically and socially?

By Min Reyes

I want to tell you a story
a story not mine to tell
but it must be told
for some stories are buried with bodies
and while remaining untold
not the rotting flesh nor bones, nor the silent soul
will stop haunting those who seek truth

to those to whom the land belongs
there has been no peace nor justice
to those who humble themselves not by conquering but coexisting
the winds, the secretive waters, the imposing trees, the welcoming earth

while the elders look upon their young with guilt and fear
the young return the gaze with hopes and dreams

there is a war
between the silk suited men and women
and the teary elders, outraged widows, childless parents
those in suits easily claim no understanding can be reached
for there are two languages, yet there is only one truth

but how wrong the suits are
while they bring to the assembly their own bottled drinking water
while denying to take a sip of water from the athabasca river
the same water they claim is safe for kids to drink

there may well be two versions of the truth, yes

but one truth speaks louder through increasing deaths, bloody noses
don’t hide behind numbers, don’t hide behind reports

the truth is in the living, slowly dying

our water is filled with arsenic, aluminum, mercury, and pahs
the dying community confronts

yet the faces of suncor and voices of government claim
tis only natural rivers contain carcinogenic toxins
while for decades denying tests meant to prove otherwise

what are people to eat and drink
when fish caught to feed the children are mutated
does one feed the hungry child tumor
the nets gathered with mutated fish
smell of oil, feel like oil
genocide

oh, how awful what is happening, you let a cry out
while sitting at your dinner table
your child looks shocked, your wife gives you a nod
oh, daddy, what happened to the little birdie?
why can’t the birdie fly?
you softly look at your child with pride assuming that she cares
bad people are killing the environment for money, you tell her

and for a moment you pause and think
you just came to an understanding that you have always known the truth

and because you cannot in all honesty, teach your own child otherwise

because as a decent human being, you refuse to teach your child
genocide is acceptable

you quietly resume to your dinner
in silence
not daring to meet her beautiful and curious eyes
and so this story has slightly touched you
while quickly burning like furious fire

you are guilty
of genocide
of indifference, of ignorance, of silence
you are guilty
of genocide

——————————————————————————————-

 Watch the full documentary ‘ H2Oil ‘

Part 1   Part 2   Part 3   Part 4   Part 5

Editor’s Note: Min Reyes is a journalist and student of historical materialism and dialectics. Presently, Min is fully committed to the global movement of human dignity against neoliberalism. In addition to being a News Junkie Post contributor, Min can be found at her own blog, MinReyes.ca, and you can connect with her on Twitter @Min_Reyes

Corporations get away with murder in America. Think that’s just bleeding heart liberal socialist hysteria? Well, watch “Mann v. Ford,” the shocking new documentary now airing on HBO, and then we’ll talk.

The film chronicles the decades’ long plight of the Ramapough Mountain Indians fight against the Ford Motor Company. Living in the hills and forests of northern New Jersey, less than 40 miles from midtown Manhattan,for hundreds of years, the close knit, economically disadvantaged community’s way of life has been threatened since the late 1960s, when Ford, which had a plant in nearby Mahwah, bought their land and began dumping toxic waste in the woods and abandoned iron mines surrounding their homes.

In the 1980s, the Ramapough’s homeland was placed on the Environmental Protection Agency’s list of federally monitored Superfund sites – and supposedly cleaned up by Ford. However, thousands of tons of toxic waste were left behind. Where was the EPA? That question is answered by one of the newspaper reporters who broke the story with two choices. Corruption or incompetence. No one will ever know, and it really doesn’t matter. But your ire will certainly rage as you watch the residents suffer a range of mysterious ailments, including deadly cancers, skin rashes and high rates of miscarriage. And you’ll ask–along with the community and lawyers–where are all the old people? There are few people in Upper Ringwood who make it past 60.

In 2006 the residents filed a class action lawsuit seeking millions of dollars from Ford as compensation for their suffering. Ford denied all responsibility for the illnesses devastating the community and claimed its flawed cleanup had fully complied with all EPA rules.

The film by Maro Chermayeff and Micah Finks is a compelling doc that plays like a drama. It even features its own Erin Brockovich in lead attorney Vicki Gilliam, a southern firecracker with a social conscience who was forced to leave the case before the resolution. The images of Ford’s vintage cherry red paint bleeding into the land and kids playing in the polluted stream and mud, eating neon bright toxic paint chips are powerfully heartbreaking. A portrait of Americana gone awry. The memos and internal documents Ford actually wrote ( and audaciously filed) labeling the residents marginal and essentially expendable, are as shocking as they are deplorable.

But there would be no “Erin Brockovich” happy ending. With the economy sputtering and Ford on the brink of bankruptcy, the lawyers–who toiled for years and spent millions on the case–feared the plaintiffs would come away empty handed. And so they settled for a settlement that, while certainly better than nothing, left each of the over 600 plaintiffs with a meager pittance barely enough to cover a fraction of any medical bills.

Ford, by the way, survived in the auto bail-out and has posted record profits in the years following the settlement. Oh, and in case, you’re keeping score, the company managed to walk away with the gift settlement without ever taking any responsibility.

So many families suffered. So many people endured long grueling illnesses before dying young. And yet, no one went to jail. The company didn’t even pay all that much. Or accept any responsibility. Ain’t that America?

“MANN v. FORD” tells the story of a small community’s epic battle against two American giants. It’s an important film that raises questions about corporate responsibility and social injustice. Just don’t expect any easy answers. Or a Hollywood ending.

Please follow Amy Beth Arkawy on Twitter.

In the report published today, Oxfam identifies the various symptoms of our broken food system: growing hunger, flat lining crop yields, lack of fertile soil and water, and rising food crisis. The organization says that we have entered a new age of crisis where depletion of the earth’s natural resources and increasingly severe climate change impacts will create millions more hungry people. Naturally, poor countries will be affected dramatically more than industrialized nations. Oxfam projects that the price of staple food such as maize, already at an all time high, will more than double in the next 20 years. Half of this price increase will be directly linked to climate change. The world’s poorest people, who spend 80 percent of their income on food, will be hit in the harshest way.

By 2050, Oxfam predicts that demand for food will rise by 70 percent. Yet our capacity to increase food production is in decline. The average growth rate in agricultural yield has declined by almost 50 percent since 1990, and it is set to decline even further in the coming decade. Oxfam’s GROW campaign will expose government failure which are propping up the broken food system and the group of 300 to 500 companies who benefit from it. Four global companies control the movement of the world’s food. Three corporations- Archer Daniels Midland, Bunge and Cargill- control around 90 percent of the global grain trade. Their speculative activities drive volatile food prices and they profit from it. For example, in the first quarter of 2008, at the top of a global food crisis, Cargill’s profits were up by 86 percent. In 2011, Cargill is heading for its most profitable year on record. Needless to say, this speculation on food prices will further disrupt global food supplies.

“For too long governments have put the interests of big businesses and powerful elites above the interest of the seven billion of us who produce and consume the food. The G20 must invest in the 500 million small scale farms in developing countries which offer the greatest potential for increasing global yields-and they must help them adapt to a changing climate. They must regulate commodity markets and reform flawed biofuel policies to keep food prices in check,” said Jeremy Hobbs, the Executive Director of Oxfam.

To read the full Oxfam report click here.

As long as we’re on the topic (for the last time, at least for a good long while) I decided to move this post up (and several others still to appear).

The context is this video by Katie Goodman of Broad Comedy. It’s a little ditty that uses “f**ked” as a hook and to entertain, but that nonetheless touches on some important points relevant to mobilizing the public.

For most of the points I am going to do no more than note them in the expectation of returning to them at some later time. You may argue that I read too much into a comedic song, but I think that the lyrics resonate with the audience because they touch on truths regardless of the light nature of this particular context.

OK, that’s understated. In a microcosm it pretty much sums up where we are and why we are stuck here.  Kudos to Katie for raising those points, but the really scary interesting scary thing about this video is the comments people made.

First watch the video if you care to (and are not too offended by the F-word) and then we can get to my points.

When I first saw the video my immediate thought was that it should be the anthem for the youth climate justice movement. Let’s take a quick walk through some of the lyrics:

There’s never been a time
as fucked up as this

No argument there, not for humans anyway. Maybe the Toba eruption, and I understand the PETM was pretty nasty for most species, but that’s pedantic quibbling.

I didn’t fuck it up
You probably didn’t fuck it up

Pretty much true if the audience is under 25 (plus or minus) or not from the privileged 20% of the global population. Other than that, not so true. However, I am willing to bet that virtually everyone feels that it applies to them. That’s a key point and a difficult one for us. No one wants to feel responsible, yet in the privileged industrialized world pretty much all of us are.

That’s right, shift the blame

The lyrics resonate as they both avoid responsibility for the mess, with the added bonus of implying that one is also unable to do anything about it. This is probably as important as not being culpable. After all, even if one is not responsible for creating the mess some might argue that you should help clean it up if you are able to do so.

I can’t unfuck it up
You probably can’t unfuck it up

Trivially true as it applies to individuals, blatantly false if referring to individuals organizing themselves. Here again most will take it as a more or less 100% exoneration of responsibility to act. The cultural assumption is that all we can do is try to “elect the right people” and hope for the best.

“If we’re counting on them to unfuck it up
then we’re all fucked“

Speaks for itself, but note the contradiction. If I can’t, and you can’t, and they can’t or won’t, then who will? Does no one wonder about this? and if so, what do they conclude? Too often I suspect that the conclusion is that it is hopeless.

You just can’t help feeling bitter that it’s fucked up to begin with,
you just go round and round

A lot of people, particularly younger people, are understandably already pretty angry about the bleak future that will be inflicted on them, particularly because it was totally avoidable. That as a society we care more about inconsequential conveniences and self-indulgence than the well being of other people, most particularly our own children, would sure have me wicked off if I was 18.

Directing that anger into positive actions that may do something to change that future is going to be one of the greatest challenges we face. The default is the anger manifesting itself as violence and adding social chaos, a more entrenched opposition, and a Balkanized progressive movement to the considerable obstacles we already face.

The problem is deep down inside you’re feeling depressed and hopeless, right?

The down side of convincing yourself that there is nothing you can do is that you are left feeling helpless and and depressed. It may serve the short term desire to rationalize inaction, but reinforcing the social meme that you are an insignificant nothing is ultimately quite self-destructive.

Let’s all unfuck it up
I want to be an unfucker (repeat)

Notwithstanding the impulse to embrace being guiltless and disempowerment as rationalizations, there is the deep desire to matter, to participate meaningfully, to do the right thing. It is this voice that the rationalizations are trying to silence.

I believe that most people do sincerely want to be “unfuckers.” They want to do the right thing. To be courageous and moral. Unfortunately doing the right thing is not so simple in the sense that at least in the short term we also naturally benefit from the status quo.

Now look at the comments. Ignoring the usual poor attempts at wit and asinine irrelevancies, I could not help noticing three things.

1. For the most part people do express that desire to do the right thing, to contribute to solutions;
2. Notwithstanding #1, and with the exception of #3, no one articulates what they are going to actually do.
3. The only action even referred to is which of the 2 major political parties in the US to support.

Excuse me? Which part of

“If we’re counting on them to unfuck it up
then we’re all fucked“

was unclear?

When did democracy and politics become narrowed to voting for one of a selected few options for representation every now and then?

It was not really that long ago that the populace of a country were always referred to as “citizens.” Except when there is an election imminent they are now referred to only as “consumers.”

Somehow we went from being thought of as active participants in shaping our own  socieities to being nothing more than the receptacle into which consumer goods are dumped prior to their disposal. From active agents determining the shape of civilization to economic way stations, the place for products to pause on their way to the garbage dump.

Why didn’t we object?

For explanation I mostly favour the neurotic paradox over the paranoid conspiracy. It is easier and cheaper for every minor functionary from clerks to potentates to nurture our indifference rather than our intelligence. For our part it was much easier to to be absent than to participate; more time for other things that way.

Not that elections and participating at every level from school board up to the federal don’t have their place, not to mention advisory panels and citizens boards and what have you. They do. Regardless they are always the first step, and insofar as the system is functioning correctly they are all that is required.

However, the system is not functioning correctly. It is profoundly broken, some argue that it is irreparably so.

I never cease being surprised. I know perfectly well that most people have no notion of how to participate in actually changing society, or at most can think only of petitions and protest. Even so, I am always surprised when I witness it yet again.

We are so out of touch with how to be citizens that many activists cannot even articulate exactly how it is that a petition or protest is supposed to actually bring about change, how to design one that is part of a strategic vision for change, or knows quite what should happen next if that particular action didn’t result in change.

But that is nothing compared to a citizenry so inculcated that they cannot even imagine any action they might undertake actually change things.  There are of course at least 198 forms of nonviolent political action.

Further, the actions are not substitutes for one another to be used randomly as opportunity presents. They are tools that each have their particular utility depending on what one is trying to achieve at that time. To be really effective they need to fit together in a coherent strategy for change that is based on understanding how successful social movements evolve.

We who self-identify as activists have not done a particularly good job of knowing our craft, much less of teaching it. That has to change.For my part my blog is going to see a lot more information about these basics from now on.

Not that everyone in any given group or action needs to be able to discuss theories of power and change knowledgeably, but some of the people should be able to do so. We cannot expect our societies to be Democracies until we expect ourselves to be Citizens. Until then they will continue to be one form or other of  “Demockracy” and

“If we’re counting on them to unfuck it up
then we’re all fucked“

Image Credits:

Protest 11 by marcovdz

Protest by Simon Shek

Anti-Chen Protest Day 32 – Million Men March by My Hourglass [Cloud]

Protest im MQ by _dChris

Protest in front of Georgian Embassy against arrests of Armenians in Javakhk by 517design

The recent tornadoes in the United States have lead to a resurgence of articles talking about the link between extreme weather, natural disasters and climate change. If you are an interested member of the general public you are undoubtedly confused as the two sides of the debate seem to be making opposing claims, and both seem to have some science to back them up.

I’d like to talk a bit about why there is this confusion and what it means in practical terms for you and me. Then I’d like to discuss the opinion of the folks who take this issue very seriously indeed. No, I don’t mean the scientists, much more seriously than that – I am referring to the insurance industry.

The critical phrase is “seem to be making opposing claims“, because for the most part they are not. The climate change Deniers erroneously characterize the science based reports as ascribing the various tornadoes, storms and what have you as being caused by or linked to climate change. That is not what the ones I sampled were actually saying.

If you read the various reports they correctly note that given the current state of our knowledge it is impossible to directly link the recent extreme weather to climate change. It is also impossible to definitively say there is no link; that’s how uncertainty works.

Now from what I can gather it is probable that the influence of climate change on the most recent spate of tornadoes in the US south west was very small to none, but that’s not the end of the story.

In this case the problem boils down to the fact of our incomplete knowledge of many complex and interacting systems. Tornadoes are determined to a large extent by atmospheric moisture content and wind shear. Climate change is causing the former to increase and the latter to decrease. How fast and by how much each will change, particularly on a regional scale, is anyone’s guess.

The recent tornadoes are being ascribed more to the effects of the La Nina/El Nino natural cycles than anything else, but these simply refer to differences in ocean surface temperature. Stating the obvious, ocean temperature is most definitely being affected by climate change.  Exactly how, and what the consequences will be are less well understood,

The oceans are not static; they are dynamic systems with complex currents and cycles that range from the tides to oscillation patterns with periods from years to decades. These are influenced primarily by water temperature and salinity, both of which are changing as a consequence of climate change. As one “natural” cycle changes it also influences the others, and so on.

Now add to that the uncertainties about climate change. In this case the biggest uncertainty is what humans are going to do about it and when. Based on current policies and actions the most likely answer is “far too little, way too late.” That being said, it’s not just a matter of how much the climate changes, but also how fast.

Most of the changes in temperature etc that we see discussed relate to the coming century. That is most definitely not because climate change then plateaus or stops. If we do nothing we face a catastrophic 21st century; after that things start to get really bad.

Be that as it may, a scientist cannot give a single answer to what extreme weather is going to be like in 30 or 50 yrs if you can’t tell her what our CO2 emissions are going to be over the next 30 or 50 yrs. Without that information all she can do is give a range of possibilities from the highest to lowest possible scenarios, with the added uncertainty of our incomplete understanding of these complex systems.

Video: Scott Mandia on the recent swarm of tornadoes, flooding, and extreme precipitation events
Hat tip to Climate Change: The Next Generation

For tornadoes the wisdom at this time suggests that the balance between increasing moisture and decreasing wind shear is going to keep things more or less as they have been in the past for much of this century. After that the increased moisture will become the more dominant influence and tornado intensity and frequency will increase.

Hurricanes and storms are a different matter in that it looks like we will be seeing increased strength of storms in the foreseeable future, but not frequency. Here again there are most of the same uncertainties as discussed above, from our incomplete understandings of the systems involved to the uncertainties about how we will respond.

Regardless, in talking about storms we tend to over focus on the spectacular visuals of tornadoes and hurricanes. The greater threat may actually be from flooding and water damage, regardless of whether the storms are associated with the impressive visuals of high winds. What made New Orleans a such catastrophe was the water, not the wind.

The Japanese earthquake has also led to some speculation as to the link between climate change and earthquakes. At this time it seems pretty much certain that there is no link, and certainly none between the Japanese quake and climate.

However, we are playing with the natural systems on a massive scale. We know for a fact that huge ice sheets press the Earths’ crust down, and that they rebound when the ice melts. Just how that vertical movement affects the various fault lines naturally depends on magnitude, proximity, how other regions are responding, and any number of other factors.

Here again, tell a geologist just how fast how much weight is going to shift from and to where, and she may be able to start giving you an informed opinion that is still rife with uncertainty and unknowns. Since we can’t even supply that basic information it becomes anyone’s guess.

We do know that Greenland alone is already losing 300 billion tonnes of ice/year. When you start shifting weight on that scale it is a given that at some point there are going to be consequences, but is that within years? decades? centuries? more?

So the core lessons of recent events are really twofold:

1. Regardless of how much or little these particular events were driven by climate change, the ones that climate change will be causing will be just like them or worse.
2. We are very vulnerable to extreme weather, and as frequency and/or intensity increases we are probably going to be less and less able to deal with the consequences.

It’s a funny world

If we get this wrong it is going to mean widespread human suffering and misery. For the average person it could mean the loss of your home, livelihood, or even your life. Oddly, we seem to feel that these are fairly inconsequential concerns, at least if you judge based on our actual behaviour.

On the other hand the insurance industry has something far more important at stake, money. They are taking the extreme weather science very seriously indeed, and acting accordingly.

For the insurance industry the uncertainty is also the biggest issue. If anyone could tell them with reasonable certainty what is going to happen and when then they could adjust their businesses accordingly. As it is they are mapping out the scenarios and doing their own modeling of what kind of world to expect.

Some of their probable responses are predictable, such as increasing rates and limiting liability for coastal properties, refusing to insure high risk properties such as those on flood plains and in known storm hot spots. Others are much trickier, such as trying to determine the likely health and social consequences (eg wars and civil unrest)  of climate change.

For the insurance industry this specificity about details may be needed, but it won’t be forthcoming. For the rest of us the quibbling about specifics is a ridiculous distraction. We know extreme weather is going to get worse and that it will result in widespread destruction and suffering; why do the specifics matter?

It’s analogous to insisting that before advising you to quit smoking your Dr should be able to tell you whether you will get emphysema and/or heart disease before or after lung cancer, and if you get cancer whether in the right or left lung first, anterior or posterior, how big the nodules will be, and so on. It’s idiotic.

With smoking the only relevant point is that you will probably develop cancer or some other lung disease. Regardless of the uncertainty of whether you will contract a fatal or debilitating disease or not, it is still a good idea to quit smoking simply based on the odds and the other negative effects it has on health. It should be no brainer.

With climate change we know we are destabilizing massive systems and that the consequences are going to be anything from merely catastrophic to something far worse. Quibbling about exactly when and how is not really about a rational desire to make informed decisions in a timely manner, it’s about an addict looking for any excuse to continue indulging their addiction, preferably indefinitely.

We already know how that works out.

Some reading:

• Are tornadoes getting stronger and more frequent?
• Killer Tornadoes, Horrible and Still Unknowable
• Top Climate Scientist On The Monster Tornadoes: ‘It Is Irresponsible Not To Mention Climate Change’
• Tornadoes whipped up by wind, not climate: officials
• Does climate change mean more extreme, deadly weather and tornado outbreaks?
• Peter H. Gleick: A Cost of Denying Climate Change: Accelerating Climate Disruptions, Death, and Destruction
• Spinning Tornados
• Tornado Outbreak Raises Climate Change Questions
• Tennessee Valley Authority: “We have never experienced such a major weather event in our history”
• Natural disasters? are we to blame?
• Tornadoes and Global Warming
• Wally’s World

• Climate Change & Insurance – ‘Hope’ Is Not A strategy · Environmental Management & Energy News · Environmental Leader
• Weathering climate change | Swiss Re – Leading Global Reinsurer
• The Impact of Climate Change on Insurance against Catastrophes
• Insurance in a Climate of Change
• Insurer Initiatives – Climate & Insurance
• Investor Network on Climate Risk
• Climate And The Environment | Travelers Insurance

Image Credits:

Tornado Destruction by pocketwiley

Parker Tornado by Ryan-o

Tornado in Outlook, Saskatchewan by Jordon

June 7th Tornado By Jon Person

As we are coming closer to 2012, anxiety is building up for many. It is of course the prediction of the Mayan calendar, the one of Nostradamus, and the belief of christian fundamentalists  that the fateful “judgment day” phase has already started with a few potential candidates  playing the role of the anti-Christ. As a rationalist, I can not adhere to any of this and especially not the part of the return of Jesus. However, anyone able and willing to analyze our human predicament knows that we are entering a very challenging period for our own survival.

We have a plethora of problems that our largely incompetent governments are not tackling. It is of course climate change, but also overpopulation and social inequality. The world will unlikely come to an end in 2012, but we might have entered the phase of “the end of the world as we know it”, and most of us are not prepared to make any significant adjustments from our current social behavior.

We are living under the delusional concept of stability and permanence, as if our trivial mentality of “business as usual” will always prevail. But, with sea waters rising, extreme weather spreading destruction all over the world, and nuclear disasters poisoning our food supply, it seems that humans have created an unstoppable army of Frankensteins, with the ability to destroy our very own planet. Since the industrial revolution, the focus of development has been on constant growth of production and labor force to accomplish it.

But in order to accommodate this exponential development drive our insatiable appetite for natural energy and mineral resources have depleted planet earth and compromised the natural balance necessary for our survival. Unfortunately, this obsession for energy and resources is even more prevalent today than it was 150 years ago. We have collectively raped the planet for one and a half century, and we are about to pay the price for it. Some of us already have: just ask Haitians or Japanese facing their respective man-made so called “natural” disasters.

My experience with a preview of such apocalyptic scenario  was in New-Orleans post-Katrina. It gave me a precise idea of what our life can be like when you can’t rely on standard first world amenities, such as electricity, gas, water coming out of the pipes and stores to buy food. In disaster situations such as New-Orleans, Haiti or Japan, governments usually fail, to some degree, and survivors are left to fend for themselves. Then, it is back to the basics, and it translates into the two absolute  human necessities: food and water.

Today humans are stupid enough to fight for the exploitation of resources such as oil, natural gas and charcoal. If we are unable to curtail this madness, the wars of the very near future will not be about energy, control of transport and access to cheap labor forces. Instead, they will be about basic survival. There is an international trend burgeoning all over the world, populated by people smart enough to understand that the proverbial feces is just about to hit the fan. The off the grid survivalists are trying to be self reliable, and they have the right idea.

In California, Los Angeles is overdue for a major earthquake, yet, are we prepared? As a current resident of the City of angels, I can say that the community is absolutely not ready to handle such a challenge. Globally, we should ask ourselves some critical questions.  How would I survive if all my utilities are cut off for weeks? How and where will I get the food to feed my family?

Editor’s Note: All photographs of New-Orleans post Katrina  by Gilbert Mercier.

Maybe you celebrated Earth Day, maybe you ignored it. Maybe you share the cynicism that has been becoming overt on more than a few environmental sites, or at least noticed it.

For the international celebration of a cause that we are working for, articles like (just a sampling):

• My F*%k Earth Day Blog Post
• Unsuck Earth Day, Please
• Let’s dump “Earth Day”
• Greenwash of the Week: Earth Day!

don’t exactly seem to be caught up in the spirit of it.

Or how about this group email?:

“It’s that time of year again: Earth Day, a singular day when the faithless are moved to buy reusable grocery bags.

At #######, we get pretty rankled at all the Earthapalooza shenanigans. What’s next, Ye Olde Mattress Sale? Honestly.

Let’s face it, we’re all just doing the best we can. And we do the best we can every stinking day. Not just on some tarted-up, feel-good, strum-your-guitar day of glowing holiness …“

I want to talk about something far more important than Earth Day, more important than saving endangered species, or “the planet”, or humanity.

First a little context.

Eaarth is a neologism coined by Bill McKibben for his book “Eaarth: Making a Life on a Tough New Planet” (read it, nuff said) to express the fact that the planet as we knew it is a thing of the past. The “Goldilocks conditions” that allowed for agriculture and the flourishing of human civilization are changing irrevocably as a consequence of climate change.

Instead Eaarth is literally “a tough new planet” and our options have narrowed to determining a future that could range anywhere from very tough to catastrophic depending on what we do. We still have choices that could limit how tough it gets, but those windows are closing as well.

As Anne Petermann put it:

“Climate Chaos is here. If we want to avoid full-scale climate catastrophe, we need to get serious about the world we want to see. We need to begin the process of transformation. Like the caterpillar that metamorphoses into the butterfly, we need to begin the difficult process of transforming this dominant culture into one that is truly sustainable and exists in harmony with the natural world—which, by the way, we are a part of and always have been. “

A day that arguably should somehow reflect the seriousness of our predicament is, instead, spent cheering if someone buys a cloth shopping bag. Hence the Earth Day cynicism and the ongoing debate about the relevance of Earth Day.

Despite our best efforts people do not seem to be able to make even small changes in their lives, much less anything that would actually be meaningful. A recent study found that “82% of Americans have good green intentions, while only 16% of Americans are firmly dedicated to fulfilling those green intentions.”

That “firmly dedicated” should also be taken with a grain of salt; it is quite clear that 16% of the population is not actually living in a manner that is consistent with the gravity of our situation. The study is specifically about green consumerism and lifestyle such as Earth Day attempts to promote, not about the life changes consistent with our current crisis.

There is much discussion in the climate change science and environmental communities about messaging, strategies, human behaviour, etc. Guilt and worst case scenarios don’t work claims one group, underplaying the situation isn’t working responds another. And on it goes.

None of that matters.

Some years ago myself and two other activists faced a situation where the potential consequences were wildly beyond what activists in the Industrialized World usually imagine facing. The details are lengthy to relate and not relevant so I will skip those, suffice to say it was grim.

Avoiding those potential  consequences was simple and straightforward, and indeed was what everyone was expecting us to do. We didn’t. Avoiding the consequences would have required not standing up for what was true, for what was right.

In good conscience we could not do that even though we were frankly scared witless. To our credit we didn’t even discuss it, metaphorically running away was simply not an option. I was very privileged to be working with such outstanding people as Paul and Aaron.

A good friend phoned me at the time to commiserate and naturally asked how I was doing. “You must be totally freaking out!” was what she said.

To our mutual surprise I answered “Envy me.” It was completely spontaneous and I was as surprised as she was. I really had been freaking out, but in that moment I also had an insight into how incredibly lucky I was.

I explained to her the realization I had only just had, that most of us spend our lives wondering how we will behave when the stakes get really high.

As young people we imagine ourselves as the bystander when the Gestapo come for a neighbour, when the lynch mob seizes another innocent, when the Stasi says “betray your coworker or go to prison.” What will we do? will we stand up? or duck and run?

As I said to her at the time, “Now I know.”

The stakes are higher than they have ever been in history, and each of us is called upon to act. “Acting” is not about saving the planet or endangered species. It’s not about what our government or society will or won’t do. It’s not about what China or India will or won’t do. It most certainly not about getting a cloth shopping bag or remembering to carry a travel mug.

Some of what it means are known, such as getting our personal carbon footprint to below 50% of the average, joining and getting active with organizations that are serious about action for climate action. That much is certain.

A lot of it is unknown. It may require no more than what I just described. It may require general strikes and/or civil disobedience. It may require jail time or other forms of deprivation for some of us.

Collectively we are very lucky. History has chosen to offer us the opportunity to discover who we really are as individuals, to discover whether we will stand up, or duck and run.

It’s Eaarth Day

For once it really is all about you, and only you.

I will never know what you choose. Probably no one else will even know you made any choice. One person will know, you.

Eaarth Day is about the most important thing there is, saving the person you believe yourself to be.

Happy Eaarth Day

.

“The way chose you and you must be grateful.”

Dag Hammarskjöld

Carson, credited as the founder of the contemporary environmental movement, and author of the landmark book, “Silent Spring,” touched off a major controversy on the dangers of pesticides in the early 1960’s. The well-funded campaign of disinformation that attempted to discredit and silence Carson, continues to dog environmental science nearly 50 years later.

Environmental pioneer, Rachel Carson, a marine biologist with the U. S. Fish and Wildlife Service, meticulously chronicled the detrimental effects of the pesticide DDT, sounding the alarm over its indiscriminate use.  Her warnings sparked a revolution in environmental policy and created a new ecological consciousness.  Because of her efforts, the need to regulate industry in order to protect the environment became widely recognized.  Her research ultimately resulted in the U.S. ban of the pesticide DDT in 1972.

Better Living Through Chemistry? Dichlorodiphenyltrichloroethane (DDT) was first developed in 1939.  It distinguished itself in World War II, clearing South Pacific islands of malaria-causing insects for U.S. troops; in Europe, it was widely used as an effective de-lousing agent to reduce the spread of typhus.  As there were no immediate side effects, it was widely assumed the pesticide would not affect humans or wildlife. Carson believed otherwise.

Fast forward, circa 1950’s: Elm trees, widely used in cities for landscaping throughout the Midwest and New England states, began succumbing to Dutch Elm disease, a fungus spread by elm bark beetles. The disease was inadvertently imported into the U.S. from Europe. A campaign of aerial spraying of DDT was begun to fight the spread of the disease.

An ornithologist from Michigan State University, doing a doctoral study in robin population, discovered evidence linking a plummeting robin population on campus with the aerial spraying of the elm trees there. He and a colleague found that the birds were dying from the effects of DDT poisoning, after eating earthworms who fed on the leaves of the sprayed trees.

Rachel Carson, We Still Need You to Clear the Air: Carson became increasingly troubled by the indiscriminate use of pesticides, contending that such contamination would not stop with wildlife. As she pieced together her own observations with research and information from colleagues, she saw a frightening picture of the future for man, as well as nature.

Carson’s book, “Silent Spring,” exposed the hazards of DDT and its effects on birds, linking it to egg shell thinning, reproductive problems, and bird die-off.  She documented how metabolites of DDT accumulated in fatty tissue of aquatic organisms, and further concentrated at the top of the food chain. Chemical residue of the pesticide contaminated lakes and streams, infiltrated the food chain of raptors, and interfered with reproduction processes.  Bald eagle, osprey and peregrine falcon populations decreased as egg shells became too thin and cracked during incubation.  By 1963, there were only 417 nesting pairs of bald eagles in the entire lower 48 states. The publication of Silent Spring, combined with the habitat protections afforded by the Endangered Species Act, set the stage for bald eagle populations to make a comeback from the brink of extinction.  Today, there are more than 7,000 nesting pairs of bald eagles, and that number is growing.

Carson estimated that the U.S. alone sees 500 new chemicals to which “bodies of men and animals are required somehow to adapt each year, chemicals totally outside the limits of biologic experience.”  She warned that insects would eventually grow immune to pesticides and, as a result, would come back in greater numbers. “Thus, the chemical war is never won, and all life is caught in its violent crossfire.”

Despite Carson’s fearless tenacity, she was treading on new and dangerous turf. She accused the chemical industry of spreading disinformation, and chastised public officials for accepting industry claims uncritically.  Leaders in the chemical industry and AgriBusiness mounted an organized attack on Carson’s professional integrity, mocking her and labeling her an alarmist. They even went as far as to question her sanity. She was labeled “a fanatic defender of the cult of nature.” Thousands of studies have since confirmed her work, and her studies were, in fact, officially vindicated in 1963 by the Kennedy Administration.

A Renewed Controversy: According to the National Coalition Against the Misuse of Pesticides  (click here), we produce pesticides today at a rate thousand of times faster than we did when Silent Spring was first published in 1962. Forty-seven years after her death, Carson’s critics continue to blame her for a half century of government regulations they don’t like, accusing her of scaring the world from useful chemicals that could be saving lives.  Critics assert she was incorrect about a link between cancer rates and pesticides, and went further to claim her warning about the widespread use of toxic chemicals has allowed diseases like malaria to make a comeback. Rebuttals from top scientists, historians and public health officials can be found at pbs.org.

Back to the Future: It should come as no surprise that BigAgri-friendly and Pharma-beholden Senator Tom Coburn (R-OK), effectively blocked a resolution honoring Ms. Carson (click here) A site hosted by Conservative Enterprise Institute, Rachelwaswrong.org, purports that, “millions of people around the world suffer the painful and often deadly effects of malaria because one person sounded a false alarm. That person is Rachel Carson.”

The names have been changed to protect the not-so-innocent: The usual culprits – Giants like Dow Chemical, Archer Daniels Midland, Monsanto, ConAgra, and Cargill that produce ammonium based fertilizers, herbicides, and pesticides, and the politicians they continue to buy, continue to chip away not only at Carson’s legacy, but speed forward with a focused campaign to discredit credible science in an attempt to silence voices which interfere with corporate profit margins, labeling both people and groups as enemies of prosperity and free enterprise.  Carson wrote of “an era dominated by industry, in which the right to make money, at whatever cost to others, is seldom challenged”

As we approach the 50^th anniversary of Ms. Carson legendary work, it is clear that the same obstacles are facing us today. Corporate media spin, intractable politics and governmental accomplices are just as prevalent today as we approach the anniversary of the first Earth Day held on April 22, 1970. Rachel Carson alerted us to the insidious dangers of pesticides, and how they affect the intricate web of life.  Her legacy lives on in every bald eagle, osprey and peregrine falcon that flies today.  As we celebrate Earth Day this April 22, let us remember Ms. Carson and give thanks for her voice as a champion for the health of earth and all its inhabitants.

To learn more, please visit the Web site, Life and Legacy of Rachel Carson

A documentary of Carson’s amazing life, ‘A Sense Of Wonder,’ (click here) uses the author’s own writings to provide an intimate glimpse of Carson as she is thrust into the role of controversial public figure.

National wildlife artist, Bob Hines, and Rachel Carson search out marine specimens in the Florida Keys around 1955, which Hines drew as illustrations for Carson’s third book, “Edge of the Bay.”

Editor’s Note- Karlotta is a lifelong naturalist, birder, hiker, and environmentalist. Dedicated to protecting the health of our planet and all its inhabitants. Active on social media networks as Stonecircle, and unrepentantly Progressive. Maker of good desserts.

In the dim mists of time hundreds of us were gathered by a foundation to discuss how we were going to move from our then state of impending environmental crisis to a sustainable society. Demographically we were a sampling of politicians, bureaucrats, scientists, business people, NGO staffers, and community organizers.

We talked and worked over three days in ever changing combinations that always had representation from each sector. By the last evening we were a much smaller, exhausted group consisting almost exclusively of the NGO staffers, community organizers and scientists, with only a handful of the others still present. The organizers then revealed our last task, which was to answer:

1. What needs to happen?
2. What will it take?
3. Who will pay for it?

There was a long silence, and then finally a voice (an environmental consultant) said in a calm, measured manner “Revolution … Blood in the streets … Eat the rich.”

There was another long silence as we all looked around to see how the others were reacting to this. What we saw was a room full of people calmly nodding. We then spent the last few hours translating that answer into language that the Foundation could actually publish in it’s report.

Make no mistake, this was not a gathering of radical activists. The participants were drawn from quite mainstream, moderate organizations and institutions. Nor, I think, would that have been the answer given when we first gathered, even by the subset of us still there at the end.

Although the group had an abundance of experience trying to make change, the day long sessions of quibbling over trivia and dross had brought into stark relief just how inert “the system” was. Apparently imminent catastrophe was simply not sufficient reason to fiddle with the price of gas, or anything else for that matter.

Also apparent was that we were not occupying the same reality. For one group “imminent” clearly meant “only when they are dragging me beaten and bleeding to the gallows”, whereas the rest of us understood it as “the time still left to change the outcome.”

blood and love without the rhetoric

This is the agenda of the system we have created, the society we currently have. All that we love is bleeding. The disenfranchised and powerless suffer and die, living systems collapse, species go extinct.

Meanwhile entrenched interests seek to muzzle any discussion of why it is so and how we can prevent it. As far as possible information is controlled, manipulated, distorted.

• Plutotocracy Rising, be very, very pi$$ed off
• Climate Justice And Stupid White Men

This would naturally be completely unacceptable even if it were stable and sustainable, but it’s not even that. The ongoing aggregation of wealth and privilege by the few is driving the rest of society and the living planet to collapse.

love and rhetoric without the blood

Sadly at the end of that conference we did not immediately set about organizing resistance cells for a mass civil disobedience campaign. In retrospect we probably should have. Instead we returned to attempting to bring about meaningful change through education and persuasion.

This has clearly failed. We underestimated how resistant society would prove to any change that might entail some lesser standard of privilege. Further there is no reason to believe that more of the same will bring about a different result.

“Any great change must expect opposition, because it strikes at the very foundation of privilege.”

Lucretia Mott 1853

It was probably also true that we were not that eager to suffer personally if it was not necessary. While most of us practiced some level of personal “sacrifice” (eg not owning a vehicle), these are inconveniences at worst and do not compare to what real struggle requires.

blood and rhetoric without the love

There are always those whose anger, sense of helplessness and despair lead them to call for armed resistance. They are more than ready to make someone else sacrifice for the cause. While they do take some risks in what they do, experience has shown that when the police lines move forward the “vanguard of the revolution” are curiously absent.

I find dealing with these self-styled revolutionaries frustrating in exactly the same way that the climate change Deniers are. They use all of the same rhetorical tricks and distortions that the radical right does, presumably for the same reasons (ie they have no rational case to make).

I have looked for and repeatedly asked for some sort of rational argument in support of their position, and all I ever get is the same tired cartoons while being dismissed as a “liburahl. That experience suggests that substituting one dysfunctional system of power inequities with a different one is not actually fundamental change is also dismissed as irrelevant.

The only argument in it’s favour seems to be that of expedience. Effective nonviolent resistance takes training, preparation and knowledge, rioting can be done at the drop of a tear gas canister. Nonviolently risking beatings and injury requires great discipline and commitment, whereas inflicting beatings and injury requires only anger and a sense of self-righteousness.

love, blood and rhetoric

“Nonviolent resistance is a courageous confrontation of evil by the power of love.”

Martin Luther King Jr

I do not mean to suggest that love and rhetoric (ie education and persuasion) are unnecessary, merely that they are not enough. The change that we require is not merely best accomplished through dialogue, it can only be accomplished through dialogue.

Unfortunately at this time there is no dialogue. Democracy in our society is illusory not because people can’t vote, but because in a democracy voting is the culmination of a process that is mostly reasoned discussion. Voting has been rendered largely irrelevant because it is uninformed.

The point of civil disobedience and noncooperation is not to replace dialogue, but to restore it. The radical right has made it clear that restoring that dialogue is going to take boycotts, strikes, civil disobedience and noncooperation of all forms.

“Courage is the price life extracts for granting peace.”

Amelia Earhart

We need to accept that reality now. If you are not already connected to groups planning serious nonviolent action, do it. If you have not already had nonviolent civil disobedience training, get it. If you do not think we are yet at that point, say so and defend it, but don’t lapse back into comfortably numb. The historical moment is upon us and we must respond.

Nonviolence is powerful, but it is no guarantee of safety. The price will be blood; ours.

If you are afraid, afraid of deprivation, of prison, of injury, that is understandable. Look around you at all that you love, of all that there is to love, of all that is being lost. Think long and hard about the cost of not acting, because that which is lost is lost forever.

“Those who make peaceful revolution impossible will make violent revolution inevitable.”

John F. Kennedy.

“They” can’t make nonviolent revolution impossible. It simply cannot be done. All they can do is try to make the cost of nonviolent revolution higher than we are willing to pay.

“They” don’t get to decide how much we are willing to sacrifice, how committed we are to truth, equality, justice; to struggle. That is our decision, our power. Ours and ours alone. It is also our responsibility.

If anything the mistake we will make is to imagine that we can avoid paying with our own blood. Paradoxically we risk once again choosing the warm security of the execution chamber and a last meal to the cold and uncertainty of escape.

If we fail to wage successful nonviolent revolution it is we who will make violent revolution inevitable, and the price for that will be much higher. We must not fail.

Either way, they won’t decide, we will.

The Player:

Well, we can do you blood and love without the rhetoric, and we can do you blood and rhetoric without the love, and we can do you all three concurrent or consecutive.

But we can’t give you love and rhetoric without the blood.

Blood is compulsory.

They’re all blood, you see.

Rosencrantz And Guildenstern Are Dead (Script)

We give our consent every moment that we do not resist.

Image Credits:

Quebec City protest, 2001 by Matthew Blackett
Summit of America (FTAA) Québec April 2001 by Michaël Pineault