Leave it to art to motivate and inspire.
From 2005-2008, I taught peace and conflict-related courses full-time in the Global Studies department at Wilfrid Laurier University in Waterloo, Ontario. They were challenging, stretching and immensely rewarding years. I came to the position from a basis of care and interest in issues of social justice: poverty, inequality, plutocracy, corporate libertarianism (as David Korten says), ecological catastrophe, the need for a post-carbon society. As I flung myself into the work headlong, I gathered enough disturbing information - that is to say, knowledge of violence - to justifiably last a lifetime... in its quantity, quality and scope. In the sense of direct violence committed by person or group A upon person or group B, physically or psychologically, I became more aware during these years of examples of violence and the deprivation that was always the context for such violence than I ever expected I might be.
The pain of confronting this information led to a kind of defensive psychological shielding against it. Through analysis, research and teaching, I consciously distanced myself from the raw human reality of the various facts of violence I was immersed in on a regular basis. I suppose this is a type of natural/expected reaction. To dwell on this type of violence would not be productive in itself. Caring about work toward peace and social justice continued to animate my professional and private life despite this attempt at distancing. The challenge in this, I believe, is that the exercise of creating this type of distance is all to easy.
'It's not my problem.'
'Other people are taking care of it.'
These things are so easy to say. They are such a simple path to take. They provide absolution and the justification for a clean conscience in the face of a world full of violence and injustice on many different levels, from the local to the global.
Having some distance from my peace and conflict teaching now, and having returned to education - where I came from and where I'll always be - I see the danger in the distancing I've attempted to accomplish. There's a major film that was released in 2006 - Lord of War, with Nicolas Cage and others. It came out while I was at WLU, and some of my students encouraged me to see it. I never got around to it then. Having just watched the better part of it, though, I find the challenge, the provocation of one of the final scenes has helped me recognize my own distancing. One of the protagonists realizes a moral choice that is available to him to help save the lives of those he knows face death, when making that choice will result in his own demise. This is of course all very Hollywood in a way (Hollywood-esque social commentary). But even the dramatization of that type of choice helped remind me that in fact, every day we face the choice of seeing the fate of others as 'our problem' or not.
Life is never as simple as Hollywood. The problems are complex. Those suffering from chronic hunger in sub-Saharan Africa, for example, are not only hungry because of conflict or its aftermath, but because of trade policies and patterns that enforce export-oriented agriculture models rather than local and regional food self-sufficiency, as well as local economies and livelihoods. These policies are perpetuated by familiar institutional culprits - the World Bank and International Monetary Fund, the World Trade Organization, and the Finance arms of northern governments. Corporations direct the economic priorities of capitalist societies, by and large - not citizenries. The logic of capital accumulation and the myth of 'economic freedom' (as Foucault discusses in his 1979-80 College de France lectures) - has proscribed the political capacity of states to securing simple accumulation at all costs, no matter what the consequences. Where is the room for social justice and sustainability in this logic? The two visions do not fit together - they can't coexist. So we have a deliberate enrichment of the wealthy few and a consumption society that caters to northern citizens' whims and pleasures. Is this the good society? Why must democracies accept the logic of their own impotence - as Linda McQuaig put it - rather than confront the plutocracy and rigid deference to footloose capital that characterizes our political and economic systems? When a modest national-global financial transactions tax initiative cannot even make the light of day at a critical juncture for the world, what does this say about the extent of the impunity of wealth in our world?
There is a psychological term for a phenomenon that my wife will help me remember. It refers to the traced effect of larger groups of people to ignore or do nothing about interpersonal violence done in their midst or nearby, a 'bystander effect'. This type of phenomenon inscribes the notion that it's 'not my/our problem'. Though we may in fact witness the violence as it happens, we may still do nothing.
Well, violence happens around us all the time - and not only in the direct way that this psychological categorization is concerned with - but in more insidious, more life-destroying ways on a regular basis: poverty - hunger. Preventable illnesses due to unsafe water. Joblessness. Human trafficking. Ecological degradation: Species extinction. The lack of funding for health care and medicines, and education.
These are not someone else's problems - they're our problems, problems that belong to us all. They are to be collectively faced if they are to be surmounted. If we lose sight of that, we lose sight of any real capacity for compassion, morality, ethics and care. After too much time in a bit of mental wilderness on this, I am glad to be reawakened to it, emboldened by it. The task that faces us out of this standpoint of the choice to care and act is as much educational as it is political, and I will keep choosing to embrace it.
Saturday, January 9, 2010
Friday, December 18, 2009
After Copenhagen: The road out of hell
How do we understand humanity after Copenhagen? This is the question that has burned in my mind recently – previous to the announcement of the effective failure of the current round of climate talks to reach any substantial agreement on mitigating human-induced climate change, and now, as I write, that the charade is finished. The photos have been taken, the spins have been spun, and nothing will happen regarding reducing carbon emissions. Nothing has been produced by the leaders there, to paraphrase the right-wing caricature, except more hot air. Nothing beyond a confirmation of empty platitudes and phony targets offered at the last ‘pass the buck’ climate change conference in Bali. No accountability for the rich countries and their culpability for climate change, no movement on their part, no will, no intent, no justice.
At the same time, the world witnessed this colossal failure clearly and plainly. This time, the global justice movements that awoke on the world stage in Seattle in 1999 were there at a pivotal, world-historical moment. And what do global justice activists get for their witness? Tear gas and bludgeoning, of course. And what do African countries get from the rich countries? In the apt words of the Kenyan environment minister: bullshit.
But the burning question remains. Of course, we don’t have to be surprised by the turn of events at Copenhagen. “Capitalism is the road to hell”, Hugo Chavez offered. Hell is a good moniker for the way of life that climate change offers to the people of Africa by and large, to the people of Latin America, southeast and particularly coastal Asia, to island peoples, to those already made vulnerable by a global economic system that is skewed to the favour of the rich, the exploiters, the corporations and their benefactors who profit so excessively from capitalism. Hell is having to pay for your own health care out of money that you need to survive. Hell is not having access to proper medical help so that your baby can be delivered properly, putting your life and the child’s at risk. Hell is hunger. Hell is the unchecked extermination of precious other living species. Hell is preventable and treatable disease pandemics. Hell is thirst. Hell is scarcity, while so few enjoy so much: injustice is hell.
Humanity created the climate change crisis through our amazing, unchecked growth, all predicated on the use of fossil fuels, and so it has paved its own road to hell. The machine that lumbers along that road has not stopped; it has accelerated. We have reproduced and expanded on horrific scales the same inequality and values that characterized the unequal society that prefigured capitalism. Along the way, we have very nearly destroyed ourselves a few times with the marvelous technology we have developed, inevitably and purposefully directed toward war and violence.
If I were an inter-galactic investor in species futures, I would be steering clear of humanity. Our stock has been plummeting steadily.
But something about Copenhagen emphasizes this trend. Collectively, we have the capacity and the ingenuity to forge a collective ethical response to the greatest single challenge that has faced our species in its history. And collectively, we continue to fail - this is, and should be, deeply disturbing. Climate change’s antecedents are the same ones that fuel inequality and injustice on a broader scale. Unchecked capitalism, unquestioned growth, economics without thought, reflection or morality. To attempt to isolate climate change as ‘an issue’ among many others pressing humanity is a clever ruse: global justice is indivisible. It was the inequality and myopia of capitalism that created the crisis we face, that perpetuated the uneven playing field in the great global ‘game’ of winners and losers in the capitalist global economy.
The machine does not want to be stopped – it cannot stop itself. Capitalism is the slave of profit. What profit is there in reducing consumption? Conserving energy? Reducing energy demand? Shrinking the capitalist economy? That is death, that is anathema, that is self-destruction, according to the rules of the present game. This is precisely why we need another way of looking at things – we need to take apart that machine and figure out why we set it running in the first place.
Our leaders have failed us on addressing climate change, and we shouldn’t be surprised. But we can’t shrug and indulge in a cynical dismissal of government. Instead, global justice movements need to help steer public discourse back onto a sane path. No right-wing, no centre, no political party tied to an essential vision of business-as-usual economics will accomplish this transformation in discourse.
Indeed, it’s not our leaders who have failed us in Copenhagen. It is our economic system that has failed us. We need a different one, and soon.
At the same time, the world witnessed this colossal failure clearly and plainly. This time, the global justice movements that awoke on the world stage in Seattle in 1999 were there at a pivotal, world-historical moment. And what do global justice activists get for their witness? Tear gas and bludgeoning, of course. And what do African countries get from the rich countries? In the apt words of the Kenyan environment minister: bullshit.
But the burning question remains. Of course, we don’t have to be surprised by the turn of events at Copenhagen. “Capitalism is the road to hell”, Hugo Chavez offered. Hell is a good moniker for the way of life that climate change offers to the people of Africa by and large, to the people of Latin America, southeast and particularly coastal Asia, to island peoples, to those already made vulnerable by a global economic system that is skewed to the favour of the rich, the exploiters, the corporations and their benefactors who profit so excessively from capitalism. Hell is having to pay for your own health care out of money that you need to survive. Hell is not having access to proper medical help so that your baby can be delivered properly, putting your life and the child’s at risk. Hell is hunger. Hell is the unchecked extermination of precious other living species. Hell is preventable and treatable disease pandemics. Hell is thirst. Hell is scarcity, while so few enjoy so much: injustice is hell.
Humanity created the climate change crisis through our amazing, unchecked growth, all predicated on the use of fossil fuels, and so it has paved its own road to hell. The machine that lumbers along that road has not stopped; it has accelerated. We have reproduced and expanded on horrific scales the same inequality and values that characterized the unequal society that prefigured capitalism. Along the way, we have very nearly destroyed ourselves a few times with the marvelous technology we have developed, inevitably and purposefully directed toward war and violence.
If I were an inter-galactic investor in species futures, I would be steering clear of humanity. Our stock has been plummeting steadily.
But something about Copenhagen emphasizes this trend. Collectively, we have the capacity and the ingenuity to forge a collective ethical response to the greatest single challenge that has faced our species in its history. And collectively, we continue to fail - this is, and should be, deeply disturbing. Climate change’s antecedents are the same ones that fuel inequality and injustice on a broader scale. Unchecked capitalism, unquestioned growth, economics without thought, reflection or morality. To attempt to isolate climate change as ‘an issue’ among many others pressing humanity is a clever ruse: global justice is indivisible. It was the inequality and myopia of capitalism that created the crisis we face, that perpetuated the uneven playing field in the great global ‘game’ of winners and losers in the capitalist global economy.
The machine does not want to be stopped – it cannot stop itself. Capitalism is the slave of profit. What profit is there in reducing consumption? Conserving energy? Reducing energy demand? Shrinking the capitalist economy? That is death, that is anathema, that is self-destruction, according to the rules of the present game. This is precisely why we need another way of looking at things – we need to take apart that machine and figure out why we set it running in the first place.
Our leaders have failed us on addressing climate change, and we shouldn’t be surprised. But we can’t shrug and indulge in a cynical dismissal of government. Instead, global justice movements need to help steer public discourse back onto a sane path. No right-wing, no centre, no political party tied to an essential vision of business-as-usual economics will accomplish this transformation in discourse.
Indeed, it’s not our leaders who have failed us in Copenhagen. It is our economic system that has failed us. We need a different one, and soon.
Thursday, December 17, 2009
my letter to Harper on Colvin and Afghanistan; climate change
Prime Minister,
I write this letter as a concerned citizen, to register my call - along with many others' - that Minister McKay should resign over the government's confusing, contradictory and disturbing conduct concerning the response to the allegations of a cover-up of the knowledge of torture of prisoners transferred to the government of Afghanistan, both in the past and present. As I am sure you're aware, knowing a prisoner will be tortured and transferring them anyway is definable as a war crime under the Geneva conventions. You would like to argue this point on two bases: 1) that these prisoners are exempt from the Geneva conventions because they are not 'soldiers' in the conventional sense, and 2) a consistent refutation of facts and a deplorable smear campaign on the whistle-blower, Richard Colvin, who had absolutely nothing to gain from coming forward with his observations. On the first point, you know very well that you are contradicting the spirit of the law which is to prevent the torture of prisoners because they are human beings, and no human being deserves to be tortured. Beating around the bush on this issue is reprehensible - it was
when Bush Jr. did it, and it is when your government does it. I think the spuriousness and shame of point 2 should be evident to you and your government now - your attempt to 'spin' Colvin through attempting to discredit him has backfired badly.
Before international authorities take up this matter, Prime Minister, I hope the government of Canada takes the initiative. Truth shall out, as they say, and I for one look forward to holding accountable those Canadians responsible for detaining prisoners to be tortured. This is the utmost smear on Canada's international reputation, which your government has already put in jeapordy, from spitting diplomats to your spitting on the notion of mitigating climate change through phony 'intensity reductions' and fake offset and trading schemes that do not reduce carbon emissions. On top of these concerns, your government has done absolutely nothing in the world to agitate for peace in Afghanistan through necessary multilateral and
comprehensive negotiations, but only furthered war.
I look forward to your reply,
Sincerely,
Adam Davidson-Harden
I write this letter as a concerned citizen, to register my call - along with many others' - that Minister McKay should resign over the government's confusing, contradictory and disturbing conduct concerning the response to the allegations of a cover-up of the knowledge of torture of prisoners transferred to the government of Afghanistan, both in the past and present. As I am sure you're aware, knowing a prisoner will be tortured and transferring them anyway is definable as a war crime under the Geneva conventions. You would like to argue this point on two bases: 1) that these prisoners are exempt from the Geneva conventions because they are not 'soldiers' in the conventional sense, and 2) a consistent refutation of facts and a deplorable smear campaign on the whistle-blower, Richard Colvin, who had absolutely nothing to gain from coming forward with his observations. On the first point, you know very well that you are contradicting the spirit of the law which is to prevent the torture of prisoners because they are human beings, and no human being deserves to be tortured. Beating around the bush on this issue is reprehensible - it was
when Bush Jr. did it, and it is when your government does it. I think the spuriousness and shame of point 2 should be evident to you and your government now - your attempt to 'spin' Colvin through attempting to discredit him has backfired badly.
Before international authorities take up this matter, Prime Minister, I hope the government of Canada takes the initiative. Truth shall out, as they say, and I for one look forward to holding accountable those Canadians responsible for detaining prisoners to be tortured. This is the utmost smear on Canada's international reputation, which your government has already put in jeapordy, from spitting diplomats to your spitting on the notion of mitigating climate change through phony 'intensity reductions' and fake offset and trading schemes that do not reduce carbon emissions. On top of these concerns, your government has done absolutely nothing in the world to agitate for peace in Afghanistan through necessary multilateral and
comprehensive negotiations, but only furthered war.
I look forward to your reply,
Sincerely,
Adam Davidson-Harden
Monday, December 14, 2009
sniffing out a bad climate deal, and looking for a just one
http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/world/dispute-stalls-un-climate-talks/article1399263/
It's interesting how the poorer countries of the world, what many refer to as the global south, have repeatedly been able to sniff out bad faith on the part of the richer world. The World Trade Organization talks, now badly stalled, were about the rights and power of corporate blocs in the rich world crafting a world and trade/legal system that suited their interests above any social or ecological criteria, and the poorer countries repeatedly frustrated the WTO as an expression of that power. Now, in Copenhagen, as the US (and slavishly following Canada) fails to produce anything near an adequate carbon emissions-reduction strategy relative to its role in producing those emisssions over the last century - (the century in which we have tracked the most change in the climate), the developing countries are sniffing out a deal that is rank with the same injustice and inequality, the same flawed 'north-south' relations that have characterized the relationship of the rich world to the poor world since colonization. The same combination of social movements and poorer countries act like a splinter in the side of the rich world, who want the same thing as always - to have everyone's cake and eat it as well. We can't fight climate change without cutting emissions. No matter how many imaginary 'intensity reductions' Harper or Obama offers us, no matter how many phony offset and failed carbon trading schemes are put on the table, climate change simply won't be mitigated until emissions are cut, and drastically (90% lower relative to 1990 levels by 2050, or even 2030 by the most meticulous and even conservative accounts). The rich world, with its disproportionate role in putting that carbon in the atmosphere, should be disproportionately responsible for cutting: that is climate justice.
It's interesting how the poorer countries of the world, what many refer to as the global south, have repeatedly been able to sniff out bad faith on the part of the richer world. The World Trade Organization talks, now badly stalled, were about the rights and power of corporate blocs in the rich world crafting a world and trade/legal system that suited their interests above any social or ecological criteria, and the poorer countries repeatedly frustrated the WTO as an expression of that power. Now, in Copenhagen, as the US (and slavishly following Canada) fails to produce anything near an adequate carbon emissions-reduction strategy relative to its role in producing those emisssions over the last century - (the century in which we have tracked the most change in the climate), the developing countries are sniffing out a deal that is rank with the same injustice and inequality, the same flawed 'north-south' relations that have characterized the relationship of the rich world to the poor world since colonization. The same combination of social movements and poorer countries act like a splinter in the side of the rich world, who want the same thing as always - to have everyone's cake and eat it as well. We can't fight climate change without cutting emissions. No matter how many imaginary 'intensity reductions' Harper or Obama offers us, no matter how many phony offset and failed carbon trading schemes are put on the table, climate change simply won't be mitigated until emissions are cut, and drastically (90% lower relative to 1990 levels by 2050, or even 2030 by the most meticulous and even conservative accounts). The rich world, with its disproportionate role in putting that carbon in the atmosphere, should be disproportionately responsible for cutting: that is climate justice.
Friday, December 11, 2009
Council of Canadians blog from Copenhagen
http://canadians.org/energy/issues/climatejustice/copenhagen.html
This is the CoC's blog from Copenhagen - they've got a great team there... consult it to get a sense of what's going on 'on the ground' as the meetings progress and wrap up. The global justice movements have truly come of age and are there in full force, with peaceful intentions and methods, contrary to the pre-branding of the movements by elements of the corporate/right-wing and mainstream media (including the Globe and Mail, who recently quipped in passing 'as violent far-left activists descend on Copenhagen')... this ignorance would be laughable if it were not actually deliberate misrepresentation and an atttempt to marginalize and stereotype the movements that have mobilized in Copenhagen for climate justice.
Also follow the CoC group in Copenhagen on their facebook page: http://www.facebook.com/#/group.php?gid=219942242027
This is the CoC's blog from Copenhagen - they've got a great team there... consult it to get a sense of what's going on 'on the ground' as the meetings progress and wrap up. The global justice movements have truly come of age and are there in full force, with peaceful intentions and methods, contrary to the pre-branding of the movements by elements of the corporate/right-wing and mainstream media (including the Globe and Mail, who recently quipped in passing 'as violent far-left activists descend on Copenhagen')... this ignorance would be laughable if it were not actually deliberate misrepresentation and an atttempt to marginalize and stereotype the movements that have mobilized in Copenhagen for climate justice.
Also follow the CoC group in Copenhagen on their facebook page: http://www.facebook.com/#/group.php?gid=219942242027
Friday, December 4, 2009
resisting the 'climategaters'
The idea that anything in the illegally hacked U. of East Anglia Climate Research Unit emails challenges the foundations of the consensus around human-induced warming is nonsense. Please see the following for more info to clarify this - and yes, we should be looking into who paid who to do the hacking...
http://www.wunderground.com/blog/JeffMasters/comment.html?entrynum=1389&tstamp=&page=28
http://www.publicintegrity.org/investigations/climate_change/articles/entry/1608/
The CRU Hack, Realscience, Climate Science from Climate Scientists http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2009/11/the-cru-hack/
Climatologists under pressure: Stolen e-mails have revealed no scientific conspiracy, but do highlight ways in which climate researchers could be better supported in the face of public scrutiny. Nature 462, 545 (3 December 2009), http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v462/n7273/full/462545a.html
CLIMATE GATE: The six most dubious claims about the supposed “global warming hoax,” Huffington Post, http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2009/12/02/climategate-the-7-biggest_n_371223.html
For recent evidence affirming human-induced global warming and climate change, see the following sources:
Climate change's impact in Arctic worse than thought, University of Manitoba, November 24, 2009, http://myuminfo.umanitoba.ca/index.asp?sec=2&too=100&eve=8&dat=11/27/2009&npa=21066
The 2009 Copenhagen Diagnosis: Climate Science Report, November 24, 2009, http://greeneconomypost.com/2009-copenhagen-diagnosis-climate-science-report-6468.htm
Naomi Oreskes, Beyond the Ivory Tower: The Scientific Consensus on Climate Change, December 2004, http://www.sciencemag.org/cgi/content/full/306/5702/1686
http://www.wunderground.com/blog/JeffMasters/comment.html?entrynum=1389&tstamp=&page=28
http://www.publicintegrity.org/investigations/climate_change/articles/entry/1608/
The CRU Hack, Realscience, Climate Science from Climate Scientists http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2009/11/the-cru-hack/
Climatologists under pressure: Stolen e-mails have revealed no scientific conspiracy, but do highlight ways in which climate researchers could be better supported in the face of public scrutiny. Nature 462, 545 (3 December 2009), http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v462/n7273/full/462545a.html
CLIMATE GATE: The six most dubious claims about the supposed “global warming hoax,” Huffington Post, http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2009/12/02/climategate-the-7-biggest_n_371223.html
For recent evidence affirming human-induced global warming and climate change, see the following sources:
Climate change's impact in Arctic worse than thought, University of Manitoba, November 24, 2009, http://myuminfo.umanitoba.ca/index.asp?sec=2&too=100&eve=8&dat=11/27/2009&npa=21066
The 2009 Copenhagen Diagnosis: Climate Science Report, November 24, 2009, http://greeneconomypost.com/2009-copenhagen-diagnosis-climate-science-report-6468.htm
Naomi Oreskes, Beyond the Ivory Tower: The Scientific Consensus on Climate Change, December 2004, http://www.sciencemag.org/cgi/content/full/306/5702/1686
Wednesday, December 2, 2009
Munk Debates - climate change webcast now available online
http://www.munkdebates.com/ - this debate happened last night (Dec. 1).
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
Posts
