Friday, April 9, 2010
Marx Quote
"The development of civilization and industry in general has always shown itself so active in the destruction of forests that everything that has been done for their conservation and production is completely insignificant in comparison."UK Green party targets disaffected Labour voters with pledge to fill 'gap on left'
Green party fielding 316 candidates and campaigning on social and economic justice
By Hélène Mulholland
guardian.co.uk
Caroline Lucas, leader of the Green Party, London. Photograph: David Levene/David Levene
The Greens will unveil their manifesto next week with a pitch to voters highlighting the "yawning gap" on the left they say has been made vacant by New Labour.
Caroline Lucas, the Greens leader, said the party planned to shake off its single-issue image by emphasising policies on social justice and the economy.
The Greens are redoubling their efforts to enter parliament by fielding 316 candidates across the UK – an increase of more than 50% on the 202 members who stood at the last general election.
Lucas, one of the party's two MEPs, is running hard in Brighton Pavilion, a patch where the Greens have nine councillors and where they came third in 2005.
It is also hoping a boundary change will play in the party's favour.
The party is campaigning under the slogan "Fair is worth fighting for" and hope its exclusion from parliament to date may garner votes from sections of the public disaffected with mainstream parties after the expenses scandal.
A distinctive policy line will be to argue that jobs are more important than cutting the deficit because of the risk of falling back into recession, according to Lucas, an MEP for 11 years.
Among the manifesto promises are bringing in the 50p rate of tax for salaries over £100,000, raising the minimum wage to £8.10, and removing the ceiling on national insurance contributions for the country's highest earners.
Last month, the party launched its Older People's Pledge – a promise of support for the National Pensioners' Convention's demand for a £170-a-week basic state pension.
In a nod to Gordon Brown's recent condemnation of the BA strike by Unite, Lucas said the party also had a good track record on championing trade union democracy.
"New Labour has moved so far to the right that there is a yawning gap to the left that we are filling. The party has always been about the fight for social justice and tackling inequalities so it's about highlighting policies we already have in place. They are now more relevant than ever," said Lucas.
In last year's European elections, the Greens finished ahead of Labour in the south-east and south-west regions and defeated the Conservatives in cities such as Brighton and Hove, Oxford, Norwich, Liverpool and Manchester.
By Hélène Mulholland
guardian.co.uk
Caroline Lucas, leader of the Green Party, London. Photograph: David Levene/David Levene
The Greens will unveil their manifesto next week with a pitch to voters highlighting the "yawning gap" on the left they say has been made vacant by New Labour.
Caroline Lucas, the Greens leader, said the party planned to shake off its single-issue image by emphasising policies on social justice and the economy.
The Greens are redoubling their efforts to enter parliament by fielding 316 candidates across the UK – an increase of more than 50% on the 202 members who stood at the last general election.
Lucas, one of the party's two MEPs, is running hard in Brighton Pavilion, a patch where the Greens have nine councillors and where they came third in 2005.
It is also hoping a boundary change will play in the party's favour.
The party is campaigning under the slogan "Fair is worth fighting for" and hope its exclusion from parliament to date may garner votes from sections of the public disaffected with mainstream parties after the expenses scandal.
A distinctive policy line will be to argue that jobs are more important than cutting the deficit because of the risk of falling back into recession, according to Lucas, an MEP for 11 years.
Among the manifesto promises are bringing in the 50p rate of tax for salaries over £100,000, raising the minimum wage to £8.10, and removing the ceiling on national insurance contributions for the country's highest earners.
Last month, the party launched its Older People's Pledge – a promise of support for the National Pensioners' Convention's demand for a £170-a-week basic state pension.
In a nod to Gordon Brown's recent condemnation of the BA strike by Unite, Lucas said the party also had a good track record on championing trade union democracy.
"New Labour has moved so far to the right that there is a yawning gap to the left that we are filling. The party has always been about the fight for social justice and tackling inequalities so it's about highlighting policies we already have in place. They are now more relevant than ever," said Lucas.
In last year's European elections, the Greens finished ahead of Labour in the south-east and south-west regions and defeated the Conservatives in cities such as Brighton and Hove, Oxford, Norwich, Liverpool and Manchester.
Council of Canadians taking action in Cochabamba
Council of Canadians team prepares for Cochabamba
Photo: (L-R) - Anil Naidoo (Blue Planet Project Organizer), Maude Barlow (National Chairperson), Andrea Harden-Donahue (Energy Campaigner), and Brent Patterson (Director of Campaigns and Communications) will be on the ground in Cochabamba from Aptil 19-22, 2010.
The climate justice movement grew dramatically in strength during the Copenhagen climate negotiations. While official talks failed to produce a strong agreement on deep emission cuts, the global mobilization for climate justice continues to grow.
To advance an agenda based on effective and just solutions to the climate crisis, the Bolivian, government is hosting a Peoples’ Conference on Climate Change and Rights of Mother Earth April 19-22, 2010. Alongside an open invitation to social movements, civil society and environmental organizations, academics and scientists, all 192 governments in the UN have been invited to attend and encouraged to listen to the voices of civil society.
This conference has become an important focus for engaging in discussions that will lead to the development of common proposals such as the calls for a Climate Justice Tribunal, a referendum held throughout the world on climate change and new commitments under the United Nations Framework for Climate Change.
The Council of Canadians will actively participate in the Cochabamba Conference. While in Cochabamba, Council of Canadians National Chairperson Maude Barlow and staff members Brent Patterson, Anil Naidoo and Andrea Harden-Donahue will issue regular posts here including news updates, blogs, media releases, and more.
Council of Canadians website
Photo: (L-R) - Anil Naidoo (Blue Planet Project Organizer), Maude Barlow (National Chairperson), Andrea Harden-Donahue (Energy Campaigner), and Brent Patterson (Director of Campaigns and Communications) will be on the ground in Cochabamba from Aptil 19-22, 2010.
The climate justice movement grew dramatically in strength during the Copenhagen climate negotiations. While official talks failed to produce a strong agreement on deep emission cuts, the global mobilization for climate justice continues to grow.
To advance an agenda based on effective and just solutions to the climate crisis, the Bolivian, government is hosting a Peoples’ Conference on Climate Change and Rights of Mother Earth April 19-22, 2010. Alongside an open invitation to social movements, civil society and environmental organizations, academics and scientists, all 192 governments in the UN have been invited to attend and encouraged to listen to the voices of civil society.
This conference has become an important focus for engaging in discussions that will lead to the development of common proposals such as the calls for a Climate Justice Tribunal, a referendum held throughout the world on climate change and new commitments under the United Nations Framework for Climate Change.
The Council of Canadians will actively participate in the Cochabamba Conference. While in Cochabamba, Council of Canadians National Chairperson Maude Barlow and staff members Brent Patterson, Anil Naidoo and Andrea Harden-Donahue will issue regular posts here including news updates, blogs, media releases, and more.
Council of Canadians website
Thursday, April 8, 2010
April 14th Vote Must Save Canada’s Climate Change Bill
The Green Party of Canada is urging all Canadians to contact their Member of Parliament and ask them to vote in favour of Bill C-311 on April 14th. This crucial vote will determine whether the bill goes to third reading; if the vote fails, this important piece of legislation will be dead.Bill C-311, the Climate Change Accountability Act, sets out science-based reduction targets for greenhouse gas emissions and a plan for regular assessments of how the government is progressing toward those targets. An identical version of the bill was passed by the House of Commons last year but died with the election call. Once the bill passes third reading, it will pass to the Senate for approval.
“Bill C-311 has been well-studied in committee and indeed already passed once,” said Green Leader Elizabeth May. “There is no reason for MPs to vote against the bill – and many reasons to vote yes. It will be up to the Liberal Party if C-311 lives or dies. They must do the right thing.”
Bill C-311 will commit the government to take action on climate change - with greenhouse gas reduction targets of 25% below 1990 levels by the year 2020, and 80% by 2050.
“Passing this legislation is essential to mitigate the impacts of climate change,” said May. “We must listen to what our scientists are telling us. April 14th will be a history-making day in the House of Commons.”
Wednesday, April 7, 2010
In this street fight, climate scientists stand their ground
PJ Partington
Pembina Institute
"The integrity of climate research has taken a very public battering in recent months. Scientists must now emphasize the science, while acknowledging that they are in a street fight."
So begins a recent editorial in Nature, one of the world's most respected multidisciplinary scientific journals. We couldn't have said it better.
While the evidence of human-caused climate change (and its serious consequences) has only continued to strengthen since the publication of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change's Fourth Assessment Report in 2007, recent events have attracted media attention to what Nature refers to as a "re-energized community of global-warming deniers." And in this arena, they warn, it is not by any means an even fight:
"Most researchers find themselves completely out of their league in this kind of battle because it's only superficially about the science. The real goal is to stoke the angry fires of talk radio, cable news, the blogosphere and the like, all of which feed off of contrarian story lines and seldom make the time to assess facts and weigh evidence. Civility, honesty, fact and perspective are irrelevant."
"The core science supporting anthropogenic global warming has not changed. This needs to be stated again and again, in as many contexts as possible."—Nature, 11/3/2010
As an organization that values civility, honesty, fact and perspective, we felt it was extremely important to assess recent claims in a sober light. In doing so we hope to provide a means for returning these values to the public debate on climate change.
Here is a pocket-sized summary of what we found. Our full report is available here .
• Yes, the e-mails stolen from the Climatic Research Unit at the University of East Anglia reveal that scientists are human beings, sometimes rude and often frustrated by critics that they see as seeking to undermine their work. But no, they do not show any attempt to fake the science or run a global cabal. Numerous reviews to date have junked these claims. Climate change is still real.
• Following the release of the e-mails, senior Environment Canada scientists advised the Minister of the Environment that "the department continues to view the IPCC [Fourth Assessment Report] as the most comprehensive and rigorous source of scientific information for climate change negotiations."
• Yes, the IPCC made an error about the projected rate of glacial melting in the Himalayas deep in the body of its 1000-page Working Group II report. Yes, this highlights a poor application of the IPCC's very robust (and very transparent) review procedures. No, this does not have any significant bearing on state of climate science or affect any other conclusions in the IPCC report. And yes, the glaciers are still melting.
• Yes, there have been other allegations made about IPCC errors. With the exception of a trivial error on the percentage of the Netherlands below mean sea level (due to an incorrect figure provided by a Dutch government agency), these turn out not to be factual errors at all. Claims of an error related to drought in the Amazon highlight a particularly unsettling case of poor journalistic practice.
• Yes, claims of global cooling are nonsense, as are claims that global warming has stopped.
The essential question is whether these recent events have impacted the case for, or the urgency of, reducing greenhouse gas emissions.
The answer is no.
Neither the e-mails nor the glacier error alter the core conclusions of the IPCC's Fourth Assessment Report that the "warming of the climate system is unequivocal" and that most of the observed warming in the past half-century is more than 90% certain to have been caused by greenhouse gases from human activities. As 18 leading American science bodies noted in an open letter to Congress in October 2009, "[t]hese conclusions are based on multiple independent lines of evidence, and contrary assertions are inconsistent with an objective assessment of the vast body of peer-reviewed science."
Nor do recent events alter the joint conclusion of the National Science Academies of all G8+5 countries that "climate change is happening even faster than previously estimated" and "the need for urgent action to address [it] is now indisputable."
As the street fight continues, rapid reductions in greenhouse gas emissions remain as important as ever.
Pembina Institute
So begins a recent editorial in Nature, one of the world's most respected multidisciplinary scientific journals. We couldn't have said it better.
While the evidence of human-caused climate change (and its serious consequences) has only continued to strengthen since the publication of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change's Fourth Assessment Report in 2007, recent events have attracted media attention to what Nature refers to as a "re-energized community of global-warming deniers." And in this arena, they warn, it is not by any means an even fight:
"Most researchers find themselves completely out of their league in this kind of battle because it's only superficially about the science. The real goal is to stoke the angry fires of talk radio, cable news, the blogosphere and the like, all of which feed off of contrarian story lines and seldom make the time to assess facts and weigh evidence. Civility, honesty, fact and perspective are irrelevant."
"The core science supporting anthropogenic global warming has not changed. This needs to be stated again and again, in as many contexts as possible."—Nature, 11/3/2010
As an organization that values civility, honesty, fact and perspective, we felt it was extremely important to assess recent claims in a sober light. In doing so we hope to provide a means for returning these values to the public debate on climate change.
Here is a pocket-sized summary of what we found. Our full report is available here .
• Yes, the e-mails stolen from the Climatic Research Unit at the University of East Anglia reveal that scientists are human beings, sometimes rude and often frustrated by critics that they see as seeking to undermine their work. But no, they do not show any attempt to fake the science or run a global cabal. Numerous reviews to date have junked these claims. Climate change is still real.
• Following the release of the e-mails, senior Environment Canada scientists advised the Minister of the Environment that "the department continues to view the IPCC [Fourth Assessment Report] as the most comprehensive and rigorous source of scientific information for climate change negotiations."
• Yes, the IPCC made an error about the projected rate of glacial melting in the Himalayas deep in the body of its 1000-page Working Group II report. Yes, this highlights a poor application of the IPCC's very robust (and very transparent) review procedures. No, this does not have any significant bearing on state of climate science or affect any other conclusions in the IPCC report. And yes, the glaciers are still melting.
• Yes, there have been other allegations made about IPCC errors. With the exception of a trivial error on the percentage of the Netherlands below mean sea level (due to an incorrect figure provided by a Dutch government agency), these turn out not to be factual errors at all. Claims of an error related to drought in the Amazon highlight a particularly unsettling case of poor journalistic practice.
• Yes, claims of global cooling are nonsense, as are claims that global warming has stopped.
The essential question is whether these recent events have impacted the case for, or the urgency of, reducing greenhouse gas emissions.
The answer is no.
Neither the e-mails nor the glacier error alter the core conclusions of the IPCC's Fourth Assessment Report that the "warming of the climate system is unequivocal" and that most of the observed warming in the past half-century is more than 90% certain to have been caused by greenhouse gases from human activities. As 18 leading American science bodies noted in an open letter to Congress in October 2009, "[t]hese conclusions are based on multiple independent lines of evidence, and contrary assertions are inconsistent with an objective assessment of the vast body of peer-reviewed science."
Nor do recent events alter the joint conclusion of the National Science Academies of all G8+5 countries that "climate change is happening even faster than previously estimated" and "the need for urgent action to address [it] is now indisputable."
As the street fight continues, rapid reductions in greenhouse gas emissions remain as important as ever.
Canadian government must be at historic climate conference in Bolivia
Council of Canadians
The Council of Canadians wants to know whether the Canadian government has plans to send a high-level delegation to the upcoming Climate Conference in Cochabamba, Bolivia, April 19-22. The organization is asking for a positive and public response to the Bolivian government’s invitation to the upcoming international conference.
“Canadians deserve to know what the Canadian government’s plans are on this critical global issue – is Canada going to be at the table, or not? Unfortunately, the Canadian government is becoming well known for its failure to participate productively to achieve meaningful international action on the climate crisis, Canadians deserve and expect better than this,” says Andrea Harden-Donahue, Energy Campaigner with the Council of Canadians.
The participation of government representatives from more than 50 countries at the Cochabamba climate conference includes the majority of ‘Least Developed Countries’ (LDCs) whose populations will be most vulnerable to climate change, as well as France, Russia and Spain.
The Council of Canadians has sent the Prime Minister an open letter requesting a public response on the Canadian government’s plans for the event which starts in less than two weeks time.
“While the Canadian government talks about becoming a ‘clean energy superpower’ and promotes its support for the weak Copenhagen Accord, the truth is, we have become an eco-outlaw,” says Harden-Donahue. “Ongoing expansion in the tar sands, failing to adequately fund renewable energy and energy efficiency programs, setting a target that will actually amount to an increase above 1990 emission levels by 2020, this all flies in the face of the type of commitments being discussed in Cochabamba. This is why our government needs to be present, hear what is being said, and commit to radically changing course.”
Conference aims include discussing a global referendum on climate change, a ‘rights-based’ approach to the climate crisis and agreeing on new commitments to be negotiated within the United Nations process. This includes demanding emission reduction targets in line with climate science. It includes greater responsibility on the part of developed countries that have disproportionately contributed to the crisis, creating “climate debt” owed to the global South.
The Copenhagen Accord, a product of backroom negotiations between a handful of countries, fails to deliver effective international action. While the Bolivian government has advocated keeping warming well below the frequently referenced 2 degree target, pledges submitted under the weak Copenhagen Accord could reportedly lead to a 3.9 degree Celsius increase in average global temperatures. Bolivia is already experiencing the effects of climate change with melting glaciers and water shortage threats in mountainous regions.
Unlike the Copenhagen negotiations in December, which saw civil society representatives increasingly shut out, this conference is advancing an agenda led by civil society organizations working with governments. Over 10,000 people are expected to participate including prominent individuals, representatives of civil society movements and organizations, and over 1000 international journalists.
For more information, contact:
Dylan Penner, Media Officer, Council of Canadians, (613) 795-8685;
Read more at www.canadians.org/cochabamba
“Canadians deserve to know what the Canadian government’s plans are on this critical global issue – is Canada going to be at the table, or not? Unfortunately, the Canadian government is becoming well known for its failure to participate productively to achieve meaningful international action on the climate crisis, Canadians deserve and expect better than this,” says Andrea Harden-Donahue, Energy Campaigner with the Council of Canadians.
The participation of government representatives from more than 50 countries at the Cochabamba climate conference includes the majority of ‘Least Developed Countries’ (LDCs) whose populations will be most vulnerable to climate change, as well as France, Russia and Spain.
The Council of Canadians has sent the Prime Minister an open letter requesting a public response on the Canadian government’s plans for the event which starts in less than two weeks time.
“While the Canadian government talks about becoming a ‘clean energy superpower’ and promotes its support for the weak Copenhagen Accord, the truth is, we have become an eco-outlaw,” says Harden-Donahue. “Ongoing expansion in the tar sands, failing to adequately fund renewable energy and energy efficiency programs, setting a target that will actually amount to an increase above 1990 emission levels by 2020, this all flies in the face of the type of commitments being discussed in Cochabamba. This is why our government needs to be present, hear what is being said, and commit to radically changing course.”
Conference aims include discussing a global referendum on climate change, a ‘rights-based’ approach to the climate crisis and agreeing on new commitments to be negotiated within the United Nations process. This includes demanding emission reduction targets in line with climate science. It includes greater responsibility on the part of developed countries that have disproportionately contributed to the crisis, creating “climate debt” owed to the global South.
The Copenhagen Accord, a product of backroom negotiations between a handful of countries, fails to deliver effective international action. While the Bolivian government has advocated keeping warming well below the frequently referenced 2 degree target, pledges submitted under the weak Copenhagen Accord could reportedly lead to a 3.9 degree Celsius increase in average global temperatures. Bolivia is already experiencing the effects of climate change with melting glaciers and water shortage threats in mountainous regions.
Unlike the Copenhagen negotiations in December, which saw civil society representatives increasingly shut out, this conference is advancing an agenda led by civil society organizations working with governments. Over 10,000 people are expected to participate including prominent individuals, representatives of civil society movements and organizations, and over 1000 international journalists.
For more information, contact:
Dylan Penner, Media Officer, Council of Canadians, (613) 795-8685;
Read more at www.canadians.org/cochabamba
Sunday, April 4, 2010
New centre bridges media and science
By Richard Watts
Times Colonist
Whether it's climate change or vaccination, we are inundated with controversies involving science.
Meanwhile, news organizations are often staffed by journalists who are gifted generalists but lack technical expertise in fields like climate science, medicine or engineering.
That's why a group of ex-journalists, communicators and scientists have come together to form the Science Media Centre of Canada. The centre, scheduled to be fully up and running this fall, is patterned after similar organizations already in operation in the U.K., Australia and New Zealand.
Peter Calamai -- an award-winning journalist, a founding member of the Canadian Science Writers' Association and an adjunct professor at Carleton University in Ottawa -- is one of the driving forces behind the Science Media Centre. He will stage a regional launch of the centre at the University of Victoria on Wednesday.
Calamai said the centre will develop a database of experts who can help journalists research science-based stories. The experts will be chosen both for expertise and clarity of expression. "Sure, they might be experts in high-temperature super-conducting metals. But are they any good at explaining what super-conducting means to somebody who doesn't know?" he said in a telephone interview.
The centre will also educate scientists about journalism so they can communicate effectively. Calamai characterized a valid scientific controversy as one between scientists who hold different interpretations of various facts. A good news story can present both viewpoints and both interpretations. But there should be no disagreement over observable, recorded facts, Calamai said.
Public perception can be swayed by inaccurate or poorly researched studies, like one in recent years that suggested the risks with vaccination might outweigh benefits. Although the study has been retracted, it continues to be quoted.
Most of the argument about climate change is also about interpretation, not facts, Calamai said. The vast majority of scientific opinion holds the cause is human-caused release of greenhouse gases.
But because many journalists write science stories the same way they write about sports or politics, the issue becomes a fight between two opposing sides. This tends to overlook many of the nuances involved in science, Calamai said.
"The outliers, the extremes of the debate, tend to get the most coverage in the media, obscuring the fact that clustered in the middle of this debate are the majority of the people, whether it's vaccination or climate change or a whole bunch of other things," he said.
- Peter Calamai will preside over a regional launch of the Science Media Centre of Canada at UVic April 7.
- Calamai is a panelist in a public discussion called Climate Change and the Media: Scientists, Scribes and Spinmeisters on Thursday, April 8, 7:30 p.m. in Room B150 of the Bob Wright Centre. The panel also features Jim Hoggan, co-author of Climate Cover-Up, Tom Pedersen, director of the Pacific Institute for Climate Solutions and Lucinda Chodan, editor-in-chief of the Times Colonist. Admission is free.
Times Colonist
Whether it's climate change or vaccination, we are inundated with controversies involving science.
That's why a group of ex-journalists, communicators and scientists have come together to form the Science Media Centre of Canada. The centre, scheduled to be fully up and running this fall, is patterned after similar organizations already in operation in the U.K., Australia and New Zealand.
Peter Calamai -- an award-winning journalist, a founding member of the Canadian Science Writers' Association and an adjunct professor at Carleton University in Ottawa -- is one of the driving forces behind the Science Media Centre. He will stage a regional launch of the centre at the University of Victoria on Wednesday.
Calamai said the centre will develop a database of experts who can help journalists research science-based stories. The experts will be chosen both for expertise and clarity of expression. "Sure, they might be experts in high-temperature super-conducting metals. But are they any good at explaining what super-conducting means to somebody who doesn't know?" he said in a telephone interview.
The centre will also educate scientists about journalism so they can communicate effectively. Calamai characterized a valid scientific controversy as one between scientists who hold different interpretations of various facts. A good news story can present both viewpoints and both interpretations. But there should be no disagreement over observable, recorded facts, Calamai said.
Public perception can be swayed by inaccurate or poorly researched studies, like one in recent years that suggested the risks with vaccination might outweigh benefits. Although the study has been retracted, it continues to be quoted.
Most of the argument about climate change is also about interpretation, not facts, Calamai said. The vast majority of scientific opinion holds the cause is human-caused release of greenhouse gases.
But because many journalists write science stories the same way they write about sports or politics, the issue becomes a fight between two opposing sides. This tends to overlook many of the nuances involved in science, Calamai said.
"The outliers, the extremes of the debate, tend to get the most coverage in the media, obscuring the fact that clustered in the middle of this debate are the majority of the people, whether it's vaccination or climate change or a whole bunch of other things," he said.
- Peter Calamai will preside over a regional launch of the Science Media Centre of Canada at UVic April 7.
- Calamai is a panelist in a public discussion called Climate Change and the Media: Scientists, Scribes and Spinmeisters on Thursday, April 8, 7:30 p.m. in Room B150 of the Bob Wright Centre. The panel also features Jim Hoggan, co-author of Climate Cover-Up, Tom Pedersen, director of the Pacific Institute for Climate Solutions and Lucinda Chodan, editor-in-chief of the Times Colonist. Admission is free.
Friday, April 2, 2010
Rising Tide on Corporate Polluters and Big “Greens” Groups
“For far too long Big Green groups like the National Wildlife Federation (NWF), Conservation International (CI), Environmental Defense Fund (EDF), Natural Resources Defense Council (NRDC) and many others have allowed their financial and political relationships with Corporate America to compromise their positions on the biggest ecological crises in history. These groups, ostensibly fighting on our behalf, have chosen to ally themselves with the very corporations that we must stop to avert catastrophic climate chaos. Rising Tide North America opposes the influential hold that corporate polluters have held on the Big “Green” groups for decades and calls on those groups to sever these relationships.
“We think transparency from environmental organizations is important. While some of these organizations happily accept monetary donations from corporations, some do have public policies that appear to limit such direct contributions. However, just as corporations and politicians have learned to circumvent campaign-finance and donations laws – a similar shell game is often played in the philanthropic world. Direct corporate monies may not always appear in organizational operating budgets – money and influence from corporations dramatically influence and sway the priorities, politics, and agendas of these organizations.
• Advisory Boards, Board of Directors, and Senior Management are increasingly comprised of people from corporate backgrounds, rather than from environmental, science, or community-based interests.
• Corporate sponsorship of projects, programs, conference, publications, and policies are rapidly becoming standard practice.
• Increased reliance on revenues from foundations or high donors rather than broad memberships who should have a voice in organizational decisions.
• “Individual” giving by corporate executives is pervasive, and provides a clear loophole for corporate monies to enter operating budgets.
“While there may be principled concerns with corporate influence on these organizations, the most pressing concern should focus on the positions and policies that these organizations are taking. Do these organizations take positions consistent with science, ecology, and human rights? Unfortunately, many of these positions are increasingly consistent with their corporate supporters and partners, and often undermine science, community demands, and grassroots social movements.
“Mainstream green groups often form partnerships with some of the worst environmental polluters. For example, through the US-Climate Action Partnership, Environmental Defense, the Natural Resource Defense Council, and the National Wildlife Federation have forged partnerships with Shell, Dupont, Dow Chemical, Duke Energy, Ford, General Motors, and others. While it may be impossible to say exactly how much these partnerships effect the positions put forward by environmental groups, the support of environmental organizations through these partnerships provide greenwashing for some of the most polluting companies in the world- and helps them escape scrutiny of other dirty aspects of their business.
“The changes that these small companies make are often little more than hot air. For example- Environmental Defense proudly promotes its’ partnership with FedEx to develop hybrid-electric delivery trucks. In 2003, this partnership claimed a goal of replacing their entire vehicle fleet with cleaner hybrids by 2013. However, as of 2009 they have only 325 of these vehicles (out of a vehicles fleet of 43,000) – comprising less than 1% of their fleet. None-the-less, Environmental Defense presents this partnership as one of examples success- and had provided invaluable greenwashing for FedEx- a company that is still relying on heavily polluting cars and trucks.
“In the past few decades, we have seen many large well-funded environmental organizations become the minions of the worst polluters and it’s time to publicly account for these relationships. Whether they are taking direct corporate donations or entering into partnerships with an industry led alliance fighting against climate justice and progress, the Big “Greens” must begin to act in the best interest the planet and the people living on it, not corporate polluters.”
More information on Rising Tide here.
Communitarian Socialism in Bolivia
By Roger Burbach
NACLA
When Bolivia’s president, Evo Morales, was sworn in to a second term in January, he proclaimed Bolivia a plurinational state that would construct “communitarian socialism.” In an accompanying address, Vice President Álvaro Garcia Linare, envisioned a “socialist horizon” for Bolivia, characterized by “well-being, making the wealth communal, drawing on our heritage . . .” The process “will not be easy, it could take decades, even centuries, but it is clear that the social movements cannot achieve true power without implanting a socialist and communitarian horizon.”
During the past decade Latin America has become a scene of hope and expectations as its leaders and social movements have raised the banner of twenty-first century socialism in a world ravished by imperial adventures and economic disasters. Proponents of the new socialism assert that it will break with the state-centered socialism of the last century, and will be driven by grassroots social movements that construct an alternative order from the bottom up. There is also widespread concurrence that the process will take a unique path in each country, that there is no single model or grand strategy to pursue.
The new socialism has been characterized by a much slower and transitory process than the revolutionary socialism of the past century, which was based on the overthrow of the old regime, with a vanguard party seizing control of the state and moving quickly to transform the economy. A different scenario is occurring in Latin America where new governments take control politically, with the previous economic system largely intact. In Venezuela, Bolivia, and Ecuador, where the socialist discourse is the most advanced, constituent assemblies were convened to draft new constitutions that restructured the political system and established broad social rights. The process and pace of transforming their economies has become the task of the political and social forces acting through the new legislative assemblies and the “refounded states.”
In Bolivia, the struggle for a constitutional assembly and a new constitution was particularly strife-ridden as the oligarchy, centered in the resource-rich lowland area of the country, engaged in an outright rebellion with the tacital backing of the U.S. Embassy. Little was heard of socialism in this period, in spite of the name of Morales’s political party, Movement Towards Socialism (MAS).
Now, with the consolidation of the new political system and the plurinational state, socialism has been placed on the agenda. In a number of public addresses and interviews, Vice President Garcia Linare and Foreign Minister David Choquehuanca have articulated what they envision as the Bolivian road to socialism.
Garcia Linare, a member of an armed guerilla movement in the early 1990s, who was captured and imprisoned for four years, now asserts that “in Bolivia we are working and betting on the democratic path to socialism. It is possible . . . because socialism is fundamentally a radical democracy.” He goes on to add: “The constitution provides the architecture for a state constructed by society and it defines a long path in which we participate in a process of constructing a new society, peacefully and democratically.”
Noting the uniqueness of the Bolivian process, the vice president states: “Bolivia is inserted in planetary capitalism, but it is different from other societies . . . community structures have survived in the countryside, in the high lands, the low lands, and in some parts of the cities and the barrios that have resisted capitalist subjugation.” He adds, “This is different from American and European capitalism, and it gives us an advantage.”
David Choquehuanca, in an interview, elaborated on the communal roots that facilitate the construction of socialism: “We have always governed ourselves in our communities. This is why we maintain our customs, perform our own music, speak our own Aymaran language, in spite of a 500-year effort to erase these things – our music, our language, and our culture. In a state of clandestinity, we have upheld our values, economic forms, our own types of communitarian organization, which are all being reappraised now. This is why we are incorporating into socialism something that has survived for 500 years — the communitarian element. We want to build our own socialism.”
He added: “In the communities, we always had our ulacas (assemblies), where debates took place. Those political spaces are being recovered. I don’t know if this can be called the seeds of a people’s government. What existed, what exists, is being reappraised, is beginning to be valued and developed. These are the times we’re in.”
Choquehuanca also described the contemporary communities, and the unions that exist both within them and outside of them: “We organize ourselves in the communities. In Bolivia there must be around ten thousand communities, and in each community there is a union of campesino workers. Each union has a base that is associated first on a provincial level, and then on a departmental and national level. The national level is the Sole Union Confederation of Campesino Workers of Bolivia (CSUTCB). They are not naturally existing organizations, but organizations that helped allow us to assert our demands and participate in elections. There are several organized sectors with similar structures, such as the teachers, the miners, the indigenous groups, women, factory workers. And we have a mother organization, which is the Bolivian Workers Central (COB). These are the people’s organizations. President Evo Morales has called for strengthening them, since they are the agents driving this process of change.”
Some are skeptical of Morales’ commitment to socialism. Jim Petras, a Marxist scholar who has written on Latin American politics for half a century, asserts that Morales gives a “high priority…to orthodox capitalist growth over and above any concern with developing an alternative development pole built around peasants and landless rural workers.” This, he says, has led to “the increased size and scope of foreign owned multinational corporate extractive capital investments.”
From an ecological perspective, others like Marco Ribera Arismendi proclaim: "We have changed the discourse, but not the model.” A member of the Environment Defense League, one of Bolivia´s largest environment organizations, Ribera adds, "We had great hopes in this government to solve or make a change on these issues," but it has instead followed an extractive industry model that is driven by transnational capital.
While it is true that Morales has not launched a full assault on capital, his government, along with the other new left governments in Latin America, have ended the neoliberal era in which the International Monetary Fund and the World Bank imposed free market policies, severely curtailing social spending, and enabling transnational corporations to gain unprecedented control of the region’s nonrenewable resources. Now, many of these governments are using the state to exert greater control of the economy, and are renegotiating the terms of investment in order to capture a greater portion of the revenue for social programs and to facilitate internal development and industrialization.
Morales, soon after taking office in 2006, moved against the foreign-owned natural gas and petroleum companies to take 50% of the revenues, and to make the state-owned petroleum company the administrator and, in some cases, a co-investor. Similar deals have been made with transnational capital in the iron-mining sector, and the government is in the process of negotiating state-dominated agreements for the exploitation of Bolivia’s huge lithium deposits.
Pablo Solón, Bolivia’s ambassador to the United Nations, who previously served as the representative on trade and economic integration issues, summed up the government’s policy: “We need foreign investment. The issue is the rules under which we are going to allow this foreign investment—how much they are going to leave for the country, how much they are going to have as profit, who is going to own it, the transfer of technology, the transformation of raw materials inside the country. Those are the key issues that Bolivia has synthesized into the words ‘When it comes to foreign investment, we don’t want bosses; we want partners.’ If they can accept that rule, they are welcome. We will no longer accept the relations that we had before.”
The process of transforming Bolivia’s social and economic institutions will be the task of the legislative branch, which will be drafting more than100 bills to implement the provisions of the country’s new plurinational constitution. Of central importance is the empowerment of the indigenous communities, and granting them the economic resources to construct communitarian socialism. The existing agrarian reform law will be revisited. According to Victor Camacho, the Vice-Minister of Land Issues, “we are going to re-territorialize the indigenous communities,” recognizing that the ancestral communal lands have been seized from the indigenous peoples since the conquest.
While advancing at a rhythm that reflects the country’s particular correlation of social and political forces, the Bolivian experiment is contributing to the resurgence of socialism on a global level. As Vice President Garcia Linares declares: “The society we have today in the world is a society with too many injustices, too much inequality . . . We have the seeds of communitarian socialism, badly treated, partially dried up, but if we nourish this seed in Bolivia a powerful trunk will grow with fruit for our country and the world.”
For Evo Morales, the necessity for socialism is global and urgent, given the state of the planet. “If capitalism produces crises in the financial system, in energy, in food, in the environment, in climatic change, then what good is this capitalism that brings us so many crises? . . What is the solution? I am convinced that it is socialism, for some socialism of the twenty-first century, for others communitarian socialism.”
Roger Burbach is director of the Center for the Study of the Americas (CENSA) and a frequent contributor to NACLA.
NACLA
During the past decade Latin America has become a scene of hope and expectations as its leaders and social movements have raised the banner of twenty-first century socialism in a world ravished by imperial adventures and economic disasters. Proponents of the new socialism assert that it will break with the state-centered socialism of the last century, and will be driven by grassroots social movements that construct an alternative order from the bottom up. There is also widespread concurrence that the process will take a unique path in each country, that there is no single model or grand strategy to pursue.
The new socialism has been characterized by a much slower and transitory process than the revolutionary socialism of the past century, which was based on the overthrow of the old regime, with a vanguard party seizing control of the state and moving quickly to transform the economy. A different scenario is occurring in Latin America where new governments take control politically, with the previous economic system largely intact. In Venezuela, Bolivia, and Ecuador, where the socialist discourse is the most advanced, constituent assemblies were convened to draft new constitutions that restructured the political system and established broad social rights. The process and pace of transforming their economies has become the task of the political and social forces acting through the new legislative assemblies and the “refounded states.”
In Bolivia, the struggle for a constitutional assembly and a new constitution was particularly strife-ridden as the oligarchy, centered in the resource-rich lowland area of the country, engaged in an outright rebellion with the tacital backing of the U.S. Embassy. Little was heard of socialism in this period, in spite of the name of Morales’s political party, Movement Towards Socialism (MAS).
Garcia Linare, a member of an armed guerilla movement in the early 1990s, who was captured and imprisoned for four years, now asserts that “in Bolivia we are working and betting on the democratic path to socialism. It is possible . . . because socialism is fundamentally a radical democracy.” He goes on to add: “The constitution provides the architecture for a state constructed by society and it defines a long path in which we participate in a process of constructing a new society, peacefully and democratically.”
Noting the uniqueness of the Bolivian process, the vice president states: “Bolivia is inserted in planetary capitalism, but it is different from other societies . . . community structures have survived in the countryside, in the high lands, the low lands, and in some parts of the cities and the barrios that have resisted capitalist subjugation.” He adds, “This is different from American and European capitalism, and it gives us an advantage.”
David Choquehuanca, in an interview, elaborated on the communal roots that facilitate the construction of socialism: “We have always governed ourselves in our communities. This is why we maintain our customs, perform our own music, speak our own Aymaran language, in spite of a 500-year effort to erase these things – our music, our language, and our culture. In a state of clandestinity, we have upheld our values, economic forms, our own types of communitarian organization, which are all being reappraised now. This is why we are incorporating into socialism something that has survived for 500 years — the communitarian element. We want to build our own socialism.”
He added: “In the communities, we always had our ulacas (assemblies), where debates took place. Those political spaces are being recovered. I don’t know if this can be called the seeds of a people’s government. What existed, what exists, is being reappraised, is beginning to be valued and developed. These are the times we’re in.”
Some are skeptical of Morales’ commitment to socialism. Jim Petras, a Marxist scholar who has written on Latin American politics for half a century, asserts that Morales gives a “high priority…to orthodox capitalist growth over and above any concern with developing an alternative development pole built around peasants and landless rural workers.” This, he says, has led to “the increased size and scope of foreign owned multinational corporate extractive capital investments.”
From an ecological perspective, others like Marco Ribera Arismendi proclaim: "We have changed the discourse, but not the model.” A member of the Environment Defense League, one of Bolivia´s largest environment organizations, Ribera adds, "We had great hopes in this government to solve or make a change on these issues," but it has instead followed an extractive industry model that is driven by transnational capital.
Morales, soon after taking office in 2006, moved against the foreign-owned natural gas and petroleum companies to take 50% of the revenues, and to make the state-owned petroleum company the administrator and, in some cases, a co-investor. Similar deals have been made with transnational capital in the iron-mining sector, and the government is in the process of negotiating state-dominated agreements for the exploitation of Bolivia’s huge lithium deposits.
Pablo Solón, Bolivia’s ambassador to the United Nations, who previously served as the representative on trade and economic integration issues, summed up the government’s policy: “We need foreign investment. The issue is the rules under which we are going to allow this foreign investment—how much they are going to leave for the country, how much they are going to have as profit, who is going to own it, the transfer of technology, the transformation of raw materials inside the country. Those are the key issues that Bolivia has synthesized into the words ‘When it comes to foreign investment, we don’t want bosses; we want partners.’ If they can accept that rule, they are welcome. We will no longer accept the relations that we had before.”
The process of transforming Bolivia’s social and economic institutions will be the task of the legislative branch, which will be drafting more than100 bills to implement the provisions of the country’s new plurinational constitution. Of central importance is the empowerment of the indigenous communities, and granting them the economic resources to construct communitarian socialism. The existing agrarian reform law will be revisited. According to Victor Camacho, the Vice-Minister of Land Issues, “we are going to re-territorialize the indigenous communities,” recognizing that the ancestral communal lands have been seized from the indigenous peoples since the conquest.
For Evo Morales, the necessity for socialism is global and urgent, given the state of the planet. “If capitalism produces crises in the financial system, in energy, in food, in the environment, in climatic change, then what good is this capitalism that brings us so many crises? . . What is the solution? I am convinced that it is socialism, for some socialism of the twenty-first century, for others communitarian socialism.”
Roger Burbach is director of the Center for the Study of the Americas (CENSA) and a frequent contributor to NACLA.
Thursday, April 1, 2010
Two comments on The Belem Ecosocialist Declaration - CCDS
Comment on The Belem Ecosocialist Declaration by Walter Teague from Comments for CCDS-Discussion by Walter Teague
I think the issue is not just what should be best position of pro-socialist organizations, but more importantly, what positions and goals should we and ultimately all political organizations be taking on this crisis. If the Left and socialists fail to connect the science and politics, to develop a realistic strategy against catastrophic climate change, we could all lose.
At our last CCDS convention we adopted a resolution that said in part “CCDS asserts that a successful “What is to be done” for a climate change plan requires a socialist point of view. This eco-socialist perspective means a realistic, scientific and humanistic based analysis of environmental changes, the related economics and political issues and the consequences of addressing these factors all based on the interests of the majority of the world’s people. To obtain this plan will require a mass based demand on the current world leadership, both those in power and those controlling the resources. This leadership must be required to truthfully inform people of the specific dangers and likely time lines of climate change and the science based realities of effectively countering climate changes. This leadership must also quickly develop and implement a global plan based on preventing as much as possible of the damages from climate change and all in the interests of the majority of the people of the world.”
In essence, we and the world are facing some externally defined deadlines, tipping points that are not only scientific, but also political. The choices discussed in the comments above can be seen as asking whether we should accept an adaptive or preventative strategy. Each approach can have many facets and steps, but the question of whether we ultimately succeed is determined by whether we prevent sufficient climate catastrophes that we have the time and means of reaching any of the social and political goals.
Therefore if not socialists, who will make sure the public understands and demands a winning strategy against the irreparable catastrophes of climate change? You only have to look our collective failures to prevent or even prepare for the many relatively smaller and easier challenges and resulting catastrophes such as Katrina, Haiti, and so many others.
People may be fearful of the coming storms, but they will better prepare if they know what to do. That is our job, all of us together and unafraid to point out both the scientific and political realities. And I think we fail to be relevant if we don’t include this as part of our publicly professed strategy.
Walter Teague 3/22/2010.
Comment on The Belem Ecosocialist Declaration by David Schwartzman from Comments for CCDS-Discussion by David Schwartzman
The Belem Declaration states:
“To theorize and to work toward realizing the goal of green socialism does not mean that we should not also fight for concrete and urgent reforms right now. Without any illusions about “clean capitalism,” we must work to impose on the powers that be – governments, corporations, international institutions – some elementary but essential immediate changes: [and then goes on to list some really radical changes such as drastic and enforceable reduction in the emission of greenhouse gases, the development of clean energy sources, and the elimination of nuclear energy, and war spending.]
So I disagree with the implication that the Declaration is ultraleft because it argues we sit by and wait for capitalism to be replaced with ecosocialism before the climate crisis can be confronted. This Declaration does assert “If capitalism remains the dominant social order, the best we can expect is unbearable climate conditions, an intensification of social crises and the spread of the most barbaric forms of class rule, as the imperialist powers fight among themselves and with the global south for continued control of the world’s diminishing resources.”
Yes, this formulation is problematic. Just how much change in “real existing capitalism” is necessary to mount a successful campaign to avoid the tipping points which would result in catastrophic climate change (“C3”)? The Military Industrial Fossil Fuel Nuclear Terror Complex (“MIC”) is now hegemonic in real existing capitalism, with US imperialism being its front line enforcer.
I have argued that the undermining and termination of MIC will remove the main obstacle to implementing a global prevention program to avoid C3 and at the same time will open up an unprecedented path out of capitalism (March 2009, Capitalism Nature Socialism; I will send a pdf upon request; dschwartzman@gmail.com). To be sure, we can construct computer models of sustainable reproduction of capital in a global solar capitalism. However, the historical legacy of real capitalist development makes its realization virtually impossible. A global ‘‘solar capitalism’’ is an illusionary prospect, because the level of red and green struggle required to solarize global capitalism will itself likely result in ecosocialist transition.
I think we all agree that replacing Capitalism with Ecosocialism cannot be a prerequisite to begin taking effective preventative action to avoid climate catastrophe. But ecosocialist theory and practice are essential to make this prevention possible, thereby creating a real opportunity to end the global rule of capital on our planet.
Carl Davidson wrote: “Moreover, I have no idea what the Belem document means by ‘productivity socialism,’ which it opposes.”
(The Declaration states: “It [ecoscocialist movement] criticizes both capitalist “market ecology” and productivist socialism, which ignored the earth’s equilibrium and limits. It redefines the path and goal of socialism within an ecological and democratic framework.”)
I interpret “productivist socialism” as the dominant form of real existing socialism of the 20th Century. On the other hand, the one real living model of ecosocialism, with all its imperfections, is a survival from 20th Century socialism, Cuba. The WWF’s Living Planet Report 2006 assesses sustainable development using the United Nations Development Programme’s (UNDP) Human Development Index (HDI) and the ecological footprint. The index is calculated using life expectancy, literacy and education, and per capita GDP. The UNDP considers an HDI value of more than 0.8 to be high human development.
According to the ecological footprint, a measure of human demand on the biosphere, 1.8 global hectares per person or less denotes sustainability. The only country in the world that met both of the above criteria is Cuba. ((Viva La Revolución Energética, Laurie Guevara-Stone, Solar Energy International). And if Cuba, a living example of ecosocialist transition, could accomplish so much, under such difficult circumstances imposed by U.S. Imperialism, just think of what is really possible for our future!
Finally, I propose CCDS substitute Ecosocialism for Socialism in our name, making Ecosocialism our “brand”, since the only viable socialism of the 21st Century is Ecosocialism and I know of no other U.S. socialist group to proudly proclaim itself as ecosocialist (our Metro DC CCDS has by its website name redandgreen.org and its contents).
And recognizing its imperfections, the Belem Ecosocialist Declaration still inspires and envisions a 21st Century Socialism. I have no regrets in signing it and urge others to do likewise. And lets get on with the actual struggle isolating MIC, defeating its Imperial Agenda and helping to create a broad class base for truly clean energy, green jobs and drastic and rapid cuts in carbon emissions with a chance to prevent C3.
At our last CCDS convention we adopted a resolution that said in part “CCDS asserts that a successful “What is to be done” for a climate change plan requires a socialist point of view. This eco-socialist perspective means a realistic, scientific and humanistic based analysis of environmental changes, the related economics and political issues and the consequences of addressing these factors all based on the interests of the majority of the world’s people. To obtain this plan will require a mass based demand on the current world leadership, both those in power and those controlling the resources. This leadership must be required to truthfully inform people of the specific dangers and likely time lines of climate change and the science based realities of effectively countering climate changes. This leadership must also quickly develop and implement a global plan based on preventing as much as possible of the damages from climate change and all in the interests of the majority of the people of the world.”
In essence, we and the world are facing some externally defined deadlines, tipping points that are not only scientific, but also political. The choices discussed in the comments above can be seen as asking whether we should accept an adaptive or preventative strategy. Each approach can have many facets and steps, but the question of whether we ultimately succeed is determined by whether we prevent sufficient climate catastrophes that we have the time and means of reaching any of the social and political goals.
Therefore if not socialists, who will make sure the public understands and demands a winning strategy against the irreparable catastrophes of climate change? You only have to look our collective failures to prevent or even prepare for the many relatively smaller and easier challenges and resulting catastrophes such as Katrina, Haiti, and so many others.
People may be fearful of the coming storms, but they will better prepare if they know what to do. That is our job, all of us together and unafraid to point out both the scientific and political realities. And I think we fail to be relevant if we don’t include this as part of our publicly professed strategy.
Walter Teague 3/22/2010.
Comment on The Belem Ecosocialist Declaration by David Schwartzman from Comments for CCDS-Discussion by David Schwartzman
The Belem Declaration states:
So I disagree with the implication that the Declaration is ultraleft because it argues we sit by and wait for capitalism to be replaced with ecosocialism before the climate crisis can be confronted. This Declaration does assert “If capitalism remains the dominant social order, the best we can expect is unbearable climate conditions, an intensification of social crises and the spread of the most barbaric forms of class rule, as the imperialist powers fight among themselves and with the global south for continued control of the world’s diminishing resources.”
Yes, this formulation is problematic. Just how much change in “real existing capitalism” is necessary to mount a successful campaign to avoid the tipping points which would result in catastrophic climate change (“C3”)? The Military Industrial Fossil Fuel Nuclear Terror Complex (“MIC”) is now hegemonic in real existing capitalism, with US imperialism being its front line enforcer.
I have argued that the undermining and termination of MIC will remove the main obstacle to implementing a global prevention program to avoid C3 and at the same time will open up an unprecedented path out of capitalism (March 2009, Capitalism Nature Socialism; I will send a pdf upon request; dschwartzman@gmail.com). To be sure, we can construct computer models of sustainable reproduction of capital in a global solar capitalism. However, the historical legacy of real capitalist development makes its realization virtually impossible. A global ‘‘solar capitalism’’ is an illusionary prospect, because the level of red and green struggle required to solarize global capitalism will itself likely result in ecosocialist transition.
I think we all agree that replacing Capitalism with Ecosocialism cannot be a prerequisite to begin taking effective preventative action to avoid climate catastrophe. But ecosocialist theory and practice are essential to make this prevention possible, thereby creating a real opportunity to end the global rule of capital on our planet.
Carl Davidson wrote: “Moreover, I have no idea what the Belem document means by ‘productivity socialism,’ which it opposes.”
(The Declaration states: “It [ecoscocialist movement] criticizes both capitalist “market ecology” and productivist socialism, which ignored the earth’s equilibrium and limits. It redefines the path and goal of socialism within an ecological and democratic framework.”)
I interpret “productivist socialism” as the dominant form of real existing socialism of the 20th Century. On the other hand, the one real living model of ecosocialism, with all its imperfections, is a survival from 20th Century socialism, Cuba. The WWF’s Living Planet Report 2006 assesses sustainable development using the United Nations Development Programme’s (UNDP) Human Development Index (HDI) and the ecological footprint. The index is calculated using life expectancy, literacy and education, and per capita GDP. The UNDP considers an HDI value of more than 0.8 to be high human development.
According to the ecological footprint, a measure of human demand on the biosphere, 1.8 global hectares per person or less denotes sustainability. The only country in the world that met both of the above criteria is Cuba. ((Viva La Revolución Energética, Laurie Guevara-Stone, Solar Energy International). And if Cuba, a living example of ecosocialist transition, could accomplish so much, under such difficult circumstances imposed by U.S. Imperialism, just think of what is really possible for our future!
Finally, I propose CCDS substitute Ecosocialism for Socialism in our name, making Ecosocialism our “brand”, since the only viable socialism of the 21st Century is Ecosocialism and I know of no other U.S. socialist group to proudly proclaim itself as ecosocialist (our Metro DC CCDS has by its website name redandgreen.org and its contents).
And recognizing its imperfections, the Belem Ecosocialist Declaration still inspires and envisions a 21st Century Socialism. I have no regrets in signing it and urge others to do likewise. And lets get on with the actual struggle isolating MIC, defeating its Imperial Agenda and helping to create a broad class base for truly clean energy, green jobs and drastic and rapid cuts in carbon emissions with a chance to prevent C3.
Canada Fossil Fools Day 2010
FOSSIL FOOL NOMINEES
People for Climate Justice, a national coalition of concerned residents in Canada wish to announce the Fossil Fools of the Year, but who is it going to be? Please vote!
People for Climate Justice has nominated several tar sands supporters, all worthy of the dubious prize. It will be a tough choice. Who really and truly is the most foolish to be tangled up in the dirty fossil fuel industry? To make this easier for you, we have nomination videos and a little information about all of our nominees.
Read more, see the videos and vote at http://canadaclimatejustice.wordpress.com/find-your-target/
People for Climate Justice, a national coalition of concerned residents in Canada wish to announce the Fossil Fools of the Year, but who is it going to be? Please vote!
People for Climate Justice has nominated several tar sands supporters, all worthy of the dubious prize. It will be a tough choice. Who really and truly is the most foolish to be tangled up in the dirty fossil fuel industry? To make this easier for you, we have nomination videos and a little information about all of our nominees.
Read more, see the videos and vote at http://canadaclimatejustice.wordpress.com/find-your-target/
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)