Monday, May 10, 2010
The 2010 People’s Summit
The 2010 People’s Summit launches its program with a fun-filled fundraising evening!From 6-9:30PM on Monday May 10th, the People’s Summit will launch the Summit program with a fundraising dinner. Speeches from Sid Ryan of the Ontario Federation of Labour and Peggy Nash of the Canadian Autoworkers will engage the crowd with ideas on moving toward a more just and equitable world. Local musicians Traditional Native Flute Player Danny Beaton (Turtle Clan Mohawk), classical guitarist Maneli Jamal and folk singer Sara Marlowe will inspire and entertain. A seasonal, organic buffet dinner by acclaimed cook Sam Robertson will be enjoyed by all. Tickets are $25/person, available at the door, with all proceeds going to support the People’s Summit.
The 2010 People’s Summit will educate, empower and inspire positive change, bringing together people from all walks of life working for solidarity, self-determination, human rights, a people’s economy, justice, peace, a healthy planet, and transformative social change. It is the public and democratic alternative to the G20 Summit happening in Toronto on June 26th and 27th.
Highlights from the People’s Summit program include a Friday evening celebration at the Carlu, hosted by Mary Walsh, featuring inspiring speakers and great entertainment. Saturday and Sunday will offer a vast array of interactive and engaging sessions on issues such as climate change and the environment, human rights, gender justice, migrant justice, democracy, economic justice, and People’s alternatives to the current system. Summit organizers will share full details of the program on Monday evening, and registration begins later this week. The weekend of events is open to all.
The website of the People’s Summit is http://www.peoplessummit2010.ca/
After the People's Summit, The Toronto Community Mobilization Network is providing infrastructure and logistical support to events, protests and actions taking place between June 21 and 27, 2010 within a framework of respect and solidarity. Details of activities, outreach material and other information can be found at http://www.g20.torontomobilize.org/
For more information:
In Toronto: Marya Folinsbee, 647.702.7914, coordinator@peoplessummit2010.ca
In Ottawa: Dylan Penner, Council of Canadians, 613.795.8685.
Sunday, May 9, 2010
Green is for Go in Colombia
By W. John Green
Counterpunch
Mockus' Surprising Run
The amazing rise of Antanas Mockus and his Green Party in Colombia belies the stereotype, common even among Latin America specialists, of a country irredeemably plagued by violence and appropriately known for its “faux democracy.” Mockus and the Greens prove that Colombian democracy can be real enough, though admittedly conflicted. The sudden surge of Mockus is not completely surprising.
It is, rather, a new chapter in an old struggle between two powerful political currents in Colombia’s societal evolution, where controversial movements of popular mobilization and democratic optimism have repeatedly had to face presidential administrations, now embodied in the Álvaro Uribe administration, one that is no stranger to violence and intimidation. What is at stake is not just how Uribe will go down in history, but whether the harsh realities of the Uribe presidency will allow the White House to reverse itself and back the pending U.S.-Colombia Free Trade Agreement (which it seems to want to do) that President Obama opposed while he was a member of the Senate.
Read this article here.
Also see Columbia's Surging Greenwave
Counterpunch
Mockus' Surprising Run It is, rather, a new chapter in an old struggle between two powerful political currents in Colombia’s societal evolution, where controversial movements of popular mobilization and democratic optimism have repeatedly had to face presidential administrations, now embodied in the Álvaro Uribe administration, one that is no stranger to violence and intimidation. What is at stake is not just how Uribe will go down in history, but whether the harsh realities of the Uribe presidency will allow the White House to reverse itself and back the pending U.S.-Colombia Free Trade Agreement (which it seems to want to do) that President Obama opposed while he was a member of the Senate.
Read this article here.
Also see Columbia's Surging Greenwave
Climate change science and denial
By Bill Henderson
Energy Bulletin
A National Academy of Sciences expert panel will deliver a report on "Stabilization Targets for Atmospheric Greenhouse Gas Concentrations" this summer.
Arguably the single most important document to be published in 2010, you probably haven't even heard about it. Check Google News: Nothing. Nada. One mention I could find in Google proper: David Biello's very informative What is the Right Number to combat climate change?
Here is part of the NAS report author's statement of task:
The stabilization of atmospheric greenhouse gas concentrations and the avoidance of serious or irreversible impacts on the earth’s climate system are a matter of critical concern in both scientific and policy arenas. Using the most current science available, this study will evaluate the implications of different atmospheric concentration target levels and explain the uncertainties inherent in the analyses to assist policy makers as they make decisions about stabilization target levels for atmospheric greenhouse gas concentrations.
Should US emission reduction policy and practise have a target of 450 ppm? 550 ppm or more? Or should America show leadership on climate change, escape denial and greenwash, and declare climate change an emergency and try and get back under 350 ppm before the Arctic melts irrevocably?
The differing targets on this stabilization spectrum require vastly differing mitigation strategies - from business as usual through incrementally building a low carbon economy to Draconian control to keep almost all fossil fuels in the ground.
Gosh, pretty important report you'd think?
This observer far out in the boonies expects that the NAS authors will be careful in Climategate times but will fill this report with science that can't be ignored. For example, I expect that the report will offer evidence that the present 3-5C rise of temperature in the Arctic is almost certainly more dangerous to the American people than the effects of a future 10F on American crops, water and forests.
But while I think our scientific community strives for evidence-based due diligence to future generations there is a dearth of media coverage because we really don't want to wake up to our climate culpability and the need for real change. Denial isn't just the deniers and Fox News: it's all of us. Climate change mitigation will almost certainly be 'inconvenient' and in these troubling times denial is not wanting to know the hell we're creating for our descendents by living like we think we need to live today.
bill@pacificfringe.net
Energy Bulletin
A National Academy of Sciences expert panel will deliver a report on "Stabilization Targets for Atmospheric Greenhouse Gas Concentrations" this summer.Arguably the single most important document to be published in 2010, you probably haven't even heard about it. Check Google News: Nothing. Nada. One mention I could find in Google proper: David Biello's very informative What is the Right Number to combat climate change?
Here is part of the NAS report author's statement of task:
The stabilization of atmospheric greenhouse gas concentrations and the avoidance of serious or irreversible impacts on the earth’s climate system are a matter of critical concern in both scientific and policy arenas. Using the most current science available, this study will evaluate the implications of different atmospheric concentration target levels and explain the uncertainties inherent in the analyses to assist policy makers as they make decisions about stabilization target levels for atmospheric greenhouse gas concentrations.
Should US emission reduction policy and practise have a target of 450 ppm? 550 ppm or more? Or should America show leadership on climate change, escape denial and greenwash, and declare climate change an emergency and try and get back under 350 ppm before the Arctic melts irrevocably?
The differing targets on this stabilization spectrum require vastly differing mitigation strategies - from business as usual through incrementally building a low carbon economy to Draconian control to keep almost all fossil fuels in the ground.
Gosh, pretty important report you'd think?
This observer far out in the boonies expects that the NAS authors will be careful in Climategate times but will fill this report with science that can't be ignored. For example, I expect that the report will offer evidence that the present 3-5C rise of temperature in the Arctic is almost certainly more dangerous to the American people than the effects of a future 10F on American crops, water and forests.
But while I think our scientific community strives for evidence-based due diligence to future generations there is a dearth of media coverage because we really don't want to wake up to our climate culpability and the need for real change. Denial isn't just the deniers and Fox News: it's all of us. Climate change mitigation will almost certainly be 'inconvenient' and in these troubling times denial is not wanting to know the hell we're creating for our descendents by living like we think we need to live today.
bill@pacificfringe.net
Debating Population
Saturday, May 8, 2010
Greece: Left prospects
By Michalis Spourdalakis
Michalis Spourdalakis teaches political science at the University of Athens, Greece. This article first appeared in the October-December, 2008, edition of Relay, magazine of the Socialist Project (Canada), and has been posted at Links International Journal of Socialist Renewal with permission. It was written before the latest youth uprising throughout Greece, followed by the election of the current PASOK government and the Greek crisis.
In the last few years, the political alignments in the European Union (EU) countries have changed drastically. In the 1990s, social-democratic parties and centre-left political forces were dominant. Under the banners of “progressive governance” or “modernisation” these parties ruled numerous countries and dominated the political scene on the continent.
Today, it is no secret that after long years in government, these political forces, what some like to call the “governmental left” are, to say the least, in retreat. It is indeed no secret that social democracy is in deep crisis: the recent congress of the French Socialists proved that this party is going through a period of self-questioning over the issue of its leadership, but also that it had nothing new to offer or, as a conservative daily commented, it appears as if “it does not think any more”.
In Germany the situation is even worse as the social-democratic party, the SPD, is displaying an unprecedented obsession over the personalities of its leadership. In the UK, George Brown and his Labour Party resemble more and more John Major’s Conservatives just before their devastating defeat in 1997. In Italy, after its defeat by the right-wing Forza Italia of Silvio Berlusconi, the Democratic Party has turned into a real Babel, which has completely paralysed its capacity to oppose the government’s often reactionary policies.
This trend, with the possible exemption of Spain under the prime ministership of Jose Zapatero of the Socialist Party, is clear and the conclusion rather obvious. The “third way” of the “governmental left” has led to a turn to the right. The rejection of the so-called European Constitution in the French and the Dutch referendums in 2005, and even the recent Irish rejection of the latest version of the new neoliberal EU Constitutional Treaty (Lisbon Treaty), did not slow down the deepening of social-democratic crisis. In fact, the gap created by the decay of the reformist left has brought to the fore the need to resist right-wing policies and hegemony. This has energised once dormant attempts to mobilise the radical left and has generated initiatives towards the mobilisation of those political forces on the left that do not subscribe to the conformism of “new social democracy”. Die Linke in Germany and the Bloco de Esquerda (Left Bloc) in Portugal seem to be the most prominent and successful examples of the rising new left forces on the European scene.
The situation in Greece is no exception to this pattern. In fact, as recent developments have shown, the “Greek case” could provide a good example for the direction of the left and leftists where the local social democratic, centre-left, or labour parties are incapable of resisting right wing aggression and have definitely abandoned any intention of or even promise for the structural transformation of the society.
Charting the Greek left
1974 was the turning point not only for the Greek left but also for the overall politics of the country. After some three decades of a restricted democratic regime and a seven-year dictatorship, a genuine transition to democracy was inaugurated. This gave the left, in both its social-democratic and communist form, a chance to develop freely. Thus, on the one hand, Greece had the creation of the Pan-hellenic Socialist Movement (PASOK) and, on the other, the legalisation of the parties of communist origin and orientation.
PASOK’s “socialism”, a mixture of populist radicalism and Keynesian reformism, was far from a class-based politics, without at the same time excluding those who subscribed to the latter. In the context of the post-dictatorship radical environment, PASOK, thanks also to its charismatic leader Andreas Papandreou, gave the impression that it was not only further to the left than its European counterparts but even more radical than the country’s communists. In the 1980s, PASOK came to power and were nothing more than a typical example of mainstream social democracy at the time. This reformism was enough, however, to co-opt a large segment of the traditional left’s social base. After a short interlude away from government, PASOK regained power in 1993, but the new PASOK –- especially after 1996, under the leadership of K. Simitis, a firm proponent of modernisation –- bore no resemblance to its radical foundation. The new PASOK, which dominated the country’s politics until its defeat in 2004, was very close to the politics of Tony Blair’s New Labour and in tune with the new governmentalist European social democracy.
On the other side of the left spectrum, the KKE, even after the collapse of the regimes of Soviet-inspired communism, is a typical party of the Third International tradition. It is the heir to the ``glorious party'' that led the resistance during the Second World War and was defeated during the civil war that followed. During the Junta years it underwent a major crisis and split into the KKE and the KKE-Interior (1968). The former dominated communist politics and the latter developed as a Eurocommunist party. In 1988, the two parties of the communist left and a number of other independent socialists formed Synaspismos (the Coalition of the Left and Progress -– SYN). Three years later the KKE left SYN, which in effect led to another split of the KKE since almost half of is central committee and thousands of its members remained in SYN. The KKE maintains a strong stand against the EU and its discourse is often simplistic and anthropomorphic. To the KKE, all other parties, including SYN, are the same since they all promote capitalism and reproduce the system, which provides it with the excuse to rule out any possibility for co-operation and legitimises its segregationist strategy, even in the trade union movement. At the same time, as the problems of the economy and in the Balkans mounted, the KKE’s anti-imperialist stand often gets sidetracked into populist xenophobia and nationalism.
SYRIZA
In 2000, at the height of PASOK’s modernising project, a number of small leftist extra-parliamentary organisations, groups and networks as well as a number of independent activists formed the Coalition of Radical Left -- SYRIZA. The coalition was an initiative of SYN, which was struggling to meet the threshold of 3 per cent required to enter the parliament. As could have been expected, SYN became the backbone of SYRIZA. In 2004, a former member of KKE and a European MEP (member of the European Parliament) for many years, Alekos Alavanos, took over the leadership of SYN and crafted a strategy to strengthen SYRIZA. SYRIZA would have to become the unifying agency of the entire left –- a presence so strong that it would no longer feel squeezed between the PASOK’s conformist governmentalism and KKE dogmatism. Support for this project had to come from the labour and social movements that the new leadership actively tried to strengthen by forming ties with them. The strategy was founded on the principle of “empowering the powerless”. It evolved through giving increased opportunities for positions to the party’s young members, something rather unusual for the communist origin left.
The much criticised choice of Alexis Tsipras, then a 32-year-old engineer, to stand as the party’s candidate for mayor in Athens in the fall of 2006 municipal elections is a very good example of SYN’s new spirit. The success of this initiative (Tsipras won an unprecedented 10.5 per cent of the popular vote) strengthened and stabilised the party’s new strategy. However, the real political impact of this strategy was demonstrated during the 2006-7 mobilisation of students against the constitutional amendment that would allow the establishment of universities by the private sector. SYN was pivotal in changing public opinion to such an extent that PASOK was forced to change its position on the issue, a development that annulled the Government’s efforts on the issue.
More importantly, SYN’s strategy on this and other issues seems to be breaking away from instrumentalism vis-à-vis the power structure, as was traditionally denoted by the strategy and the tactics of the left. This was an instrumentalism that revealed a formalistic perception of political power expressed either when the left-wing movements and parties are completely preoccupied with their presence in public office; or when they separate their mobilisation initiatives from the societal base through the functioning of the state institutions. By mid-2007, it was becoming clear that SYN, along with its front organisation SYRIZA, was much more confident about the outcome of the upcoming elections.
The result of the 2007 September election was not a surprise. SYRIZA won 5 per cent of the popular vote and 14 seats in the 300-seat parliament, and the KKE an impressive 8.1 per cent and 22 seats. PASOK experienced its second consecutive defeat by a further loss of 2.5 percentage points and started to display signs of fatigue and a political inability to mobilise effectively. The slim parliamentary majority (by only two seats) of New Democracy and the entrance of an ultra-right party into the parliament, in combination with the leadership crisis of PASOK, elevated SYRIZA to the prime opposition force to the government. In February 2008, SYN held its fifth congress, where Tsipras was elected as party leader. He thus replaced Alavanos, who remains however the leader of the SYRIZA. Since the election, SYRIZA has displayed a steady increase in its popularity. In fact for more than half a year, all the public opinion polls show that the party has more than doubled its popular support.
Conditions ripe for hope on the leftClearly the developments noted above cannot be taken as proof of a turn of Greek society to the left. This is not simply due to the pessimism of left intellectuals. It is because the turning of a society to the left is a rather complicated process that cannot simply be detected through conjunctural electoral gains. It has more to do with the change in the balance of social powers and radical changes in the society’s values to such an extent that realistically result in the building of counter hegemonic structures.
However, although it is obvious that the dynamic of SYRIZA on the Greek political scene does not prove we are witnessing a general turn of the society leftwards, at the same time it is more than clear that the Greek left has drawn upon certain important social developments that characterise advanced capitalist societies. These developments have created a conducive environment for the Greek radical left to make a major breakthrough and to reshape the balance of power in the country. This will be so as long as its leadership and its political organisations continue to see these as new openings, and insist on capitalising on them in a creative fashion as they have done in the last couple of years.
This is not the place to elaborate extensively on the overall developments that have facilitated the prospects of the Greek left wing making advances a realistic and even short-term goal. However it is worth highlighting three wider European developments.
First, the impact of various applications of the strategy of neoliberalism for the restructuring capitalism in the last three decades has radically shaken the long lasting belief that the young generations could realistically hope to have a better and more prosperous life than their parents. The years of security and of improved real incomes seems to belong to the past. Even Eurobureaucrats and the political elites openly admit that the maximum the EU countries can hope for is to introduce policies in order to manage the social issues in a way that there are not going to result in major social shake-ups. The debate on “flexicurity” across Europe is a good case in point.
Second, the frequent alternation in power between right-wing, conservative or Christian-democratic and reformist social-democratic parties in power in the European countries has generated a political cynicism that has forced large numbers of citizens to seek their political representation elsewhere. The mobilisations around the European Social Forum and other campaigns and movements, which were not so much part of the political tradition of Europe as they were part of the tradition in North America, are good examples.
Third, the combination of the above two developments, along with the liberating effect of the collapse of the “actually existing socialism” and the end of the “Cold War” has widened the audience for the radical left.
In addition to this situation, which seems to be more or less common to most EU countries, the Greek case displays several additional traits that have had a positive impact on the left’s recent positive dynamic.
Opposition to `reforms'
First, for the last five years, the right-wing government has introduced a number of what it calls “reforms” that have generated tremendous social reactions. These “reforms” are justified as necessary in order to deal with PASOK’s governmental errors. But they have resulted in policies whose origin and philosophy can in fact easily be attributed to the PASOK modernisers. This strategy is part of the government’s tactics of “blaming everything on PASOK”. Along with PASOK’s internal rivalries over its leadership, the parliamentary scene gives wide space for SYRIZA’s intention to express social discontent -– it is a realistic and viable project. Indeed, SYRIZA was the only political force to challenge the government’s incomes policies and bring to the fore the issue of what it calls the “700 Euro generation” (the ``G700'' generation of young Greeks between ages 25 and 35 who make 700 euro a month and are overworked, underpaid, debt ridden and insecure) to play a key role to hamper the government plans to privatise universities and to mobilise against the reforms in country’s pension plans system. On all these issues, SYRIZA’s political action was innovative. It adopted a fresh discourse which, although remaining within its overall strategy for the unity of country’s left, managed to demarcate itself from PASOK without at the same time sliding into the alienating simplistic logic of KKE that wants to equate PASOK with the ND.
Second, although part of PASOK’s defeat can be attributed to widespread phenomena of corruption during its terms in government, it did not take long for the ND government to elevate corruption and the mismanagement of public funds to a real art. This phenomenon further contributed to an extensive disenchantment with the two government parties of the country or with what it called “system of bipartism”. As this disenchantment has also been expressed in anti-party, anti-collectivist and apolitical attitudes, SYRIZA’s effective opposition strategy has managed at least to stop this trend from spreading.
Third, EU policies have, in the last few years, become more and more reactionary. The great alliance in the early 1990s formed around the axis between the French socialists and the German Christian democracy, which managed to somehow to protect the EU from Thatcherism, has long collapsed. Instead the phenomena of complete submission of the EU’s policies to finance capital and the market are far too frequent. The latest decision of the Council of Ministers to extend maximum working hours to 60-65 per week, the complete deregulation/privatisation of the energy sector, the increase in interest rates, which contributes to the phenomena of recession and the recent policies on immigration that intend to “fortify” the EU against the invasion of immigrants -– all highlight the political direction of the EU.
SYRIZA once again has been the only political force in the country that can legitimately challenge these policies. As PASOK and ND offer their unconditional support to the EU initiatives and KKE has always been a dogmatic Eurosceptic, SYRIZA, with its pro-EU background can now convincingly challenge these policies and promote a well-grounded vision of a socialist EU along with the parties that participate in the Party of the European Left.
Finally, another very positive factor contributing to the advancement of the radical left is the fact that neither PASOK nor ND and even less so KKE have renewed their political personnel. This phenomenon has contributed to the anti-political and anti-party sentiment of the population. At the same time the fresh and young leadership -– both in style and in age -– of SYRIZA creates an obvious comparative advantage. This point may sound rather superficial, however, in the age of electronic media, such phenomena cannot be considered insignificant.
Challenges ahead
The above presentation of all the positive elements in the socio-political environment of the Greek radical left, may have led the reader to picture the future in rather rosy hues. One should not rush to conclusions. There are still a number of serious dangers and challenges in the future prospects and the dynamics of SYRIZA and the Greek left in general.
The major dangers for the building of a new Greek left derive from an over-anticipation of the rapid success of its strategy. This may lead its often young and/or inexperienced leadership, and even its membership, to strengthen its understanding of politics as a public relations project. It would not be so difficult for something like this to happen under the present conditions of “media-driven politics”. This, in turn, may shrink its ambitious strategy to focusing on success at the polls. Winning elections is part of the project but an obsession with elections can lead to a paralysing and short-sighted electoralism.
Furthermore, the international and domestic social and political dynamics have generated so many pressing contradictions that they have made SYRIZA’s opposition and mobilisation efforts an easy affair. This ease may result in the creation of an anti-neoliberal but not anti-capitalist political party. Such a development could lead to the absurdity of a “left-wing party without socialism”. Signs of the latter can already be seen in Die Linke in Germany and they may spread to its Greek counterpart, given their close collaboration within the Party of the European Left.
In addition to these dangers, the Greek left is faced with a number of other important challenges. Key among them is how to transform its political, electoral advances into social gains. How, in other words, can it convincingly demonstrate that the problems faced today are structural by-products of the system and not simply side-effects that can be treated through some kind of reforms? To put it crudely: how can it prove that reformism is probably the most illusionary idea of our times?
All these dangers and challenges can be confronted if SYRIZA manages to put forward a comprehensive plan for party building that can capitalise on the experience both of its origin and of the new social movements. It needs to be an organisation that would respect our society’s social division of labour between parties and other movements and capitalise on the new technology of political mobilisation. This social project, in addition to everything else, is about an organisation, a political party. For, it is our organised collectivity that is not only the cornerstone of our current struggles, but also a small-scale model of the society of tomorrow about which we dream.
Michalis Spourdalakis teaches political science at the University of Athens, Greece. This article first appeared in the October-December, 2008, edition of Relay, magazine of the Socialist Project (Canada), and has been posted at Links International Journal of Socialist Renewal with permission. It was written before the latest youth uprising throughout Greece, followed by the election of the current PASOK government and the Greek crisis.
Today, it is no secret that after long years in government, these political forces, what some like to call the “governmental left” are, to say the least, in retreat. It is indeed no secret that social democracy is in deep crisis: the recent congress of the French Socialists proved that this party is going through a period of self-questioning over the issue of its leadership, but also that it had nothing new to offer or, as a conservative daily commented, it appears as if “it does not think any more”.
In Germany the situation is even worse as the social-democratic party, the SPD, is displaying an unprecedented obsession over the personalities of its leadership. In the UK, George Brown and his Labour Party resemble more and more John Major’s Conservatives just before their devastating defeat in 1997. In Italy, after its defeat by the right-wing Forza Italia of Silvio Berlusconi, the Democratic Party has turned into a real Babel, which has completely paralysed its capacity to oppose the government’s often reactionary policies.
This trend, with the possible exemption of Spain under the prime ministership of Jose Zapatero of the Socialist Party, is clear and the conclusion rather obvious. The “third way” of the “governmental left” has led to a turn to the right. The rejection of the so-called European Constitution in the French and the Dutch referendums in 2005, and even the recent Irish rejection of the latest version of the new neoliberal EU Constitutional Treaty (Lisbon Treaty), did not slow down the deepening of social-democratic crisis. In fact, the gap created by the decay of the reformist left has brought to the fore the need to resist right-wing policies and hegemony. This has energised once dormant attempts to mobilise the radical left and has generated initiatives towards the mobilisation of those political forces on the left that do not subscribe to the conformism of “new social democracy”. Die Linke in Germany and the Bloco de Esquerda (Left Bloc) in Portugal seem to be the most prominent and successful examples of the rising new left forces on the European scene.
Situation in Greece
The situation in Greece is no exception to this pattern. In fact, as recent developments have shown, the “Greek case” could provide a good example for the direction of the left and leftists where the local social democratic, centre-left, or labour parties are incapable of resisting right wing aggression and have definitely abandoned any intention of or even promise for the structural transformation of the society.Indeed, PASOK (the Pan-Hellenic Socialist Movement) dominated the Greek political scene for 11 consecutive years, most of it under the banner of aggressive “modernisation”. It was then followed by two consecutive victories of the right-wing New Democracy (ND) party. But today, with its modest but hopeful performance in last year’s election (5%), the radical independent left, under the name the Coalition of Radical Left -- SYRIZA, is expected to at least double its electoral support in the next election. The sudden explosion of the influence of the left in Greece becomes even a greater surprise when one considers that the Communist Party of Greece (KKE) commands 8 per cent of the popular vote. What has happened? Under what conditions is the radical left in Greece about to make a major breakthrough? Before we look at these questions, let us briefly turn to the developments of the Greek left after the fall of the Junta (1974).
Charting the Greek left
1974 was the turning point not only for the Greek left but also for the overall politics of the country. After some three decades of a restricted democratic regime and a seven-year dictatorship, a genuine transition to democracy was inaugurated. This gave the left, in both its social-democratic and communist form, a chance to develop freely. Thus, on the one hand, Greece had the creation of the Pan-hellenic Socialist Movement (PASOK) and, on the other, the legalisation of the parties of communist origin and orientation.
PASOK’s “socialism”, a mixture of populist radicalism and Keynesian reformism, was far from a class-based politics, without at the same time excluding those who subscribed to the latter. In the context of the post-dictatorship radical environment, PASOK, thanks also to its charismatic leader Andreas Papandreou, gave the impression that it was not only further to the left than its European counterparts but even more radical than the country’s communists. In the 1980s, PASOK came to power and were nothing more than a typical example of mainstream social democracy at the time. This reformism was enough, however, to co-opt a large segment of the traditional left’s social base. After a short interlude away from government, PASOK regained power in 1993, but the new PASOK –- especially after 1996, under the leadership of K. Simitis, a firm proponent of modernisation –- bore no resemblance to its radical foundation. The new PASOK, which dominated the country’s politics until its defeat in 2004, was very close to the politics of Tony Blair’s New Labour and in tune with the new governmentalist European social democracy.
On the other side of the left spectrum, the KKE, even after the collapse of the regimes of Soviet-inspired communism, is a typical party of the Third International tradition. It is the heir to the ``glorious party'' that led the resistance during the Second World War and was defeated during the civil war that followed. During the Junta years it underwent a major crisis and split into the KKE and the KKE-Interior (1968). The former dominated communist politics and the latter developed as a Eurocommunist party. In 1988, the two parties of the communist left and a number of other independent socialists formed Synaspismos (the Coalition of the Left and Progress -– SYN). Three years later the KKE left SYN, which in effect led to another split of the KKE since almost half of is central committee and thousands of its members remained in SYN. The KKE maintains a strong stand against the EU and its discourse is often simplistic and anthropomorphic. To the KKE, all other parties, including SYN, are the same since they all promote capitalism and reproduce the system, which provides it with the excuse to rule out any possibility for co-operation and legitimises its segregationist strategy, even in the trade union movement. At the same time, as the problems of the economy and in the Balkans mounted, the KKE’s anti-imperialist stand often gets sidetracked into populist xenophobia and nationalism.
SYRIZA
The much criticised choice of Alexis Tsipras, then a 32-year-old engineer, to stand as the party’s candidate for mayor in Athens in the fall of 2006 municipal elections is a very good example of SYN’s new spirit. The success of this initiative (Tsipras won an unprecedented 10.5 per cent of the popular vote) strengthened and stabilised the party’s new strategy. However, the real political impact of this strategy was demonstrated during the 2006-7 mobilisation of students against the constitutional amendment that would allow the establishment of universities by the private sector. SYN was pivotal in changing public opinion to such an extent that PASOK was forced to change its position on the issue, a development that annulled the Government’s efforts on the issue.
More importantly, SYN’s strategy on this and other issues seems to be breaking away from instrumentalism vis-à-vis the power structure, as was traditionally denoted by the strategy and the tactics of the left. This was an instrumentalism that revealed a formalistic perception of political power expressed either when the left-wing movements and parties are completely preoccupied with their presence in public office; or when they separate their mobilisation initiatives from the societal base through the functioning of the state institutions. By mid-2007, it was becoming clear that SYN, along with its front organisation SYRIZA, was much more confident about the outcome of the upcoming elections.
The result of the 2007 September election was not a surprise. SYRIZA won 5 per cent of the popular vote and 14 seats in the 300-seat parliament, and the KKE an impressive 8.1 per cent and 22 seats. PASOK experienced its second consecutive defeat by a further loss of 2.5 percentage points and started to display signs of fatigue and a political inability to mobilise effectively. The slim parliamentary majority (by only two seats) of New Democracy and the entrance of an ultra-right party into the parliament, in combination with the leadership crisis of PASOK, elevated SYRIZA to the prime opposition force to the government. In February 2008, SYN held its fifth congress, where Tsipras was elected as party leader. He thus replaced Alavanos, who remains however the leader of the SYRIZA. Since the election, SYRIZA has displayed a steady increase in its popularity. In fact for more than half a year, all the public opinion polls show that the party has more than doubled its popular support.
Conditions ripe for hope on the leftHowever, although it is obvious that the dynamic of SYRIZA on the Greek political scene does not prove we are witnessing a general turn of the society leftwards, at the same time it is more than clear that the Greek left has drawn upon certain important social developments that characterise advanced capitalist societies. These developments have created a conducive environment for the Greek radical left to make a major breakthrough and to reshape the balance of power in the country. This will be so as long as its leadership and its political organisations continue to see these as new openings, and insist on capitalising on them in a creative fashion as they have done in the last couple of years.
This is not the place to elaborate extensively on the overall developments that have facilitated the prospects of the Greek left wing making advances a realistic and even short-term goal. However it is worth highlighting three wider European developments.
First, the impact of various applications of the strategy of neoliberalism for the restructuring capitalism in the last three decades has radically shaken the long lasting belief that the young generations could realistically hope to have a better and more prosperous life than their parents. The years of security and of improved real incomes seems to belong to the past. Even Eurobureaucrats and the political elites openly admit that the maximum the EU countries can hope for is to introduce policies in order to manage the social issues in a way that there are not going to result in major social shake-ups. The debate on “flexicurity” across Europe is a good case in point.
Second, the frequent alternation in power between right-wing, conservative or Christian-democratic and reformist social-democratic parties in power in the European countries has generated a political cynicism that has forced large numbers of citizens to seek their political representation elsewhere. The mobilisations around the European Social Forum and other campaigns and movements, which were not so much part of the political tradition of Europe as they were part of the tradition in North America, are good examples.
Third, the combination of the above two developments, along with the liberating effect of the collapse of the “actually existing socialism” and the end of the “Cold War” has widened the audience for the radical left.
In addition to this situation, which seems to be more or less common to most EU countries, the Greek case displays several additional traits that have had a positive impact on the left’s recent positive dynamic.
Opposition to `reforms'
Second, although part of PASOK’s defeat can be attributed to widespread phenomena of corruption during its terms in government, it did not take long for the ND government to elevate corruption and the mismanagement of public funds to a real art. This phenomenon further contributed to an extensive disenchantment with the two government parties of the country or with what it called “system of bipartism”. As this disenchantment has also been expressed in anti-party, anti-collectivist and apolitical attitudes, SYRIZA’s effective opposition strategy has managed at least to stop this trend from spreading.
Third, EU policies have, in the last few years, become more and more reactionary. The great alliance in the early 1990s formed around the axis between the French socialists and the German Christian democracy, which managed to somehow to protect the EU from Thatcherism, has long collapsed. Instead the phenomena of complete submission of the EU’s policies to finance capital and the market are far too frequent. The latest decision of the Council of Ministers to extend maximum working hours to 60-65 per week, the complete deregulation/privatisation of the energy sector, the increase in interest rates, which contributes to the phenomena of recession and the recent policies on immigration that intend to “fortify” the EU against the invasion of immigrants -– all highlight the political direction of the EU.
SYRIZA once again has been the only political force in the country that can legitimately challenge these policies. As PASOK and ND offer their unconditional support to the EU initiatives and KKE has always been a dogmatic Eurosceptic, SYRIZA, with its pro-EU background can now convincingly challenge these policies and promote a well-grounded vision of a socialist EU along with the parties that participate in the Party of the European Left.
Finally, another very positive factor contributing to the advancement of the radical left is the fact that neither PASOK nor ND and even less so KKE have renewed their political personnel. This phenomenon has contributed to the anti-political and anti-party sentiment of the population. At the same time the fresh and young leadership -– both in style and in age -– of SYRIZA creates an obvious comparative advantage. This point may sound rather superficial, however, in the age of electronic media, such phenomena cannot be considered insignificant.
Challenges ahead
The above presentation of all the positive elements in the socio-political environment of the Greek radical left, may have led the reader to picture the future in rather rosy hues. One should not rush to conclusions. There are still a number of serious dangers and challenges in the future prospects and the dynamics of SYRIZA and the Greek left in general.Furthermore, the international and domestic social and political dynamics have generated so many pressing contradictions that they have made SYRIZA’s opposition and mobilisation efforts an easy affair. This ease may result in the creation of an anti-neoliberal but not anti-capitalist political party. Such a development could lead to the absurdity of a “left-wing party without socialism”. Signs of the latter can already be seen in Die Linke in Germany and they may spread to its Greek counterpart, given their close collaboration within the Party of the European Left.
In addition to these dangers, the Greek left is faced with a number of other important challenges. Key among them is how to transform its political, electoral advances into social gains. How, in other words, can it convincingly demonstrate that the problems faced today are structural by-products of the system and not simply side-effects that can be treated through some kind of reforms? To put it crudely: how can it prove that reformism is probably the most illusionary idea of our times?
All these dangers and challenges can be confronted if SYRIZA manages to put forward a comprehensive plan for party building that can capitalise on the experience both of its origin and of the new social movements. It needs to be an organisation that would respect our society’s social division of labour between parties and other movements and capitalise on the new technology of political mobilisation. This social project, in addition to everything else, is about an organisation, a political party. For, it is our organised collectivity that is not only the cornerstone of our current struggles, but also a small-scale model of the society of tomorrow about which we dream.
Friday, May 7, 2010
Canadian Delegation promoting the conclusions of Conference on Climate Change at the UN
UN Secretary General to Meet with Maude Barlow today
OTTAWA, Ontario – May 7 – Today, Council of Canadians National Chairperson Maude Barlow is part of an international social movement delegation having an historic meeting with the Secretary General of the United Nations to discuss climate justice and the rights of Mother Earth. The government of Bolivia organized the meeting of 12 delegates from around the world, who will also meet with the G77 and China.The delegation will focus on the conclusions of last month’s international conference on climate change in Bolivia.
“The message from social movements and governments in Cochabamba was loud and clear that we need urgent climate action that respects the rights of Mother Earth. I look forward to discussing these issues with the UN Secretary General today,” says Maude Barlow.
The World Peoples’ Conference on Climate Change and the Rights of Mother Earth in Cochabamba anticipated 8,000 participants. Instead an estimated 30,000 participants from nearly 150 countries and official representation from 48 governments were present at the historic event. “It is shameful that the Canadian government was not an active participant in the conference,” adds Barlow. “Our government’s climate policy continues to be driven more by interests in the tar sands, than advancing climate justice” adds Barlow.
“The People’s Agreement that emerged from the conference, and is now the basis of an official submission by the Bolivian government under the UN Framework Convention on Climate Change, advances an agenda led by civil society organizations working with governments,” says Andrea Harden-Donahue, Climate Justice Campaigner with the Council of Canadians.
The Agreement includes proposals for a global referendum on climate change, setting up an international climate justice tribunal and establishing a Universal Declaration on the Rights of Mother Earth. It advocates climate debt repayment from the global North to the global South including much deeper domestic emission reductions and equitable climate financing.
The Council of Canadians is honored to be involved in promoting the outcomes of the conference as well as the critical concept of protecting the rights of Mother Earth.
“The message from social movements and governments in Cochabamba was loud and clear that we need urgent climate action that respects the rights of Mother Earth. I look forward to discussing these issues with the UN Secretary General today,” says Maude Barlow.
The World Peoples’ Conference on Climate Change and the Rights of Mother Earth in Cochabamba anticipated 8,000 participants. Instead an estimated 30,000 participants from nearly 150 countries and official representation from 48 governments were present at the historic event. “It is shameful that the Canadian government was not an active participant in the conference,” adds Barlow. “Our government’s climate policy continues to be driven more by interests in the tar sands, than advancing climate justice” adds Barlow.
“The People’s Agreement that emerged from the conference, and is now the basis of an official submission by the Bolivian government under the UN Framework Convention on Climate Change, advances an agenda led by civil society organizations working with governments,” says Andrea Harden-Donahue, Climate Justice Campaigner with the Council of Canadians.
The Agreement includes proposals for a global referendum on climate change, setting up an international climate justice tribunal and establishing a Universal Declaration on the Rights of Mother Earth. It advocates climate debt repayment from the global North to the global South including much deeper domestic emission reductions and equitable climate financing.
The Council of Canadians is honored to be involved in promoting the outcomes of the conference as well as the critical concept of protecting the rights of Mother Earth.
Capitalist Moral Reality
Mohawk Nation News
http://www.mohawknationnews.com/
Capitalism is based on a few rulers exploiting Indigenous land and resources and enslaving everybody. The worldwide economic melt down shows that people are resisting the capitalist system of privilege for a few.
The banksters want their cut of the economy first and an international fascist government to protect their interests.
Capitalism is breaking down when we Indigenous began objecting to he parasitism of these greedy leeches. We resisted the destruction of our environment, dissolution of social programs, jobs and our lives.
After WWII the bankers manipulated Indigenous resources. Companies pretend to own Indigenous resources which they put up as collateral on the stock exchanges, to fraudulently raise money from the public.
The US dollar became the international currency based on $35 per oz. of gold. In 1971 Nixon suspended the gold standard. The U.S dollar was treated as if it was gold. The U.S. economy has deteriorated and the paper dollar is declining in value.
The oligarchs don’t work. They steal our resources and expect others to work for them. To keep money coming in, capitalists moved companies to the third world or off-shore to exploit cheaper labor. These sweat shops are coming to the US. They need cheap labor.
The US encouraged spending on credit. The banks make money without investing a cent! The real value of a house might be $150,000. The market inflates it to $500,000. The banks, insurance and other middle men pass the property around and pocket the $350,000 difference. If the owner defaults, the loan is foreclosed and the house is seized.
Monopolies put control in the hands of a few. A company is taken over and put out of business to eliminate competition. The financiers use the profits to buy other companies. It’s short term gain for themselves and losses for the people. The taxpayers cover the losses.
Workers’ pensions and programs are being bankrupt. Monopolies want unions to accept a two-tier working condition, one for the older workers and another for the new workers. The new workers must work for less and longer without benefits or rights.
Corporate lay offs, union busting, wage cuts and reducing benefits to control the people will lead to violent political convulsions, dictatorships, rampant militarism, fascism and, maybe, war.
The old oligarchs are desperately clinging to their class privilege by obstructing viable solutions. They want to keep control of money, government, state machinery, army, police and prisons.
The world needs another level of consciousness. Resources and the environment must be preserved. We Indigenous must stop the looting of our resources. We have a rich political history that is based on a relationship with the natural world and preserving the environment. Stock up and grow gardens!
Kahentinetha MNN Mohawk Nation News, http://www.mohawknationnews.com/
kahentinetha2@yahoo.com
For more news, books, to donate and to sign up for MNN newsletters, go to category “World” on www.mohawknationnews.com
http://www.mohawknationnews.com/
Capitalism is based on a few rulers exploiting Indigenous land and resources and enslaving everybody. The worldwide economic melt down shows that people are resisting the capitalist system of privilege for a few.Capitalism is breaking down when we Indigenous began objecting to he parasitism of these greedy leeches. We resisted the destruction of our environment, dissolution of social programs, jobs and our lives.
After WWII the bankers manipulated Indigenous resources. Companies pretend to own Indigenous resources which they put up as collateral on the stock exchanges, to fraudulently raise money from the public.
The US dollar became the international currency based on $35 per oz. of gold. In 1971 Nixon suspended the gold standard. The U.S dollar was treated as if it was gold. The U.S. economy has deteriorated and the paper dollar is declining in value.
The oligarchs don’t work. They steal our resources and expect others to work for them. To keep money coming in, capitalists moved companies to the third world or off-shore to exploit cheaper labor. These sweat shops are coming to the US. They need cheap labor.
The US encouraged spending on credit. The banks make money without investing a cent! The real value of a house might be $150,000. The market inflates it to $500,000. The banks, insurance and other middle men pass the property around and pocket the $350,000 difference. If the owner defaults, the loan is foreclosed and the house is seized.
Monopolies put control in the hands of a few. A company is taken over and put out of business to eliminate competition. The financiers use the profits to buy other companies. It’s short term gain for themselves and losses for the people. The taxpayers cover the losses.
Workers’ pensions and programs are being bankrupt. Monopolies want unions to accept a two-tier working condition, one for the older workers and another for the new workers. The new workers must work for less and longer without benefits or rights.
Corporate lay offs, union busting, wage cuts and reducing benefits to control the people will lead to violent political convulsions, dictatorships, rampant militarism, fascism and, maybe, war.
The old oligarchs are desperately clinging to their class privilege by obstructing viable solutions. They want to keep control of money, government, state machinery, army, police and prisons.
The world needs another level of consciousness. Resources and the environment must be preserved. We Indigenous must stop the looting of our resources. We have a rich political history that is based on a relationship with the natural world and preserving the environment. Stock up and grow gardens!
Kahentinetha MNN Mohawk Nation News, http://www.mohawknationnews.com/
kahentinetha2@yahoo.com
For more news, books, to donate and to sign up for MNN newsletters, go to category “World” on www.mohawknationnews.com
Caroline Lucas lifts jinx for UK Green party
By George Monbiot
The Guardian
So the Green jinx has at last been lifted. Caroline Lucas has been elected MP for Brighton Pavilion.
It's not quite true to say that she is the UK's first Green MP. From 1992-2000 the party shared the MP for Ceredigion, Cynog Dafis, with Plaid Cymru. But she's the first one in England and the first to represent only the Greens. It's a massive breakthrough, not only because she's a brilliant, charismatic, humane politican who will enrich parliamentary life, but also because it proves it can be done, even under our antiquated political system.
If the Greens, despite all the odds, can take a seat in a first-past-the-post election, think of what they'll be able to do if, as now seems possible, we get proportional representation. Think how much more might be achieved if we also get a fair party funding system, which doesn't leave the small parties scrambling for pennies while billionaires slip cheques into the pockets of the big players.
Her victory reflects the transformation of the Greens from a chaotic, divided, messy party into a much tighter and more effective operation, which has been able to target its limited resources on winnable seats and tone down the identity politics which sometimes suggested that the party's main purpose was self-expression. Now, as it has already demonstrated in local and European elections, it knows how to win. Yet there has been no loss of radicalism: its manifesto told uncomfortable truths – about economic growth and consumption for example – that the other parties dare not admit.
Lucas, as she has shown in Brussels, where she has served as an MEP, won't disappear at Westminster. Although she has no parliamentary machine to support her, hers is not a voice that will be easily hushed. She won't let the major parties forget that their economic plans are founded on a series of impossibilities, and she won't allow the environment to be shoved out of sight.
Beyond that, there's not a great deal she can do by herself, though in a hung parliament she can join some useful coalitions, and her voice will be amplified by the three Plaid Cymru MPs, whose politics and outlook are very similar. But the message her election sends contributes to the sense that the old politics is on the way out: parliament in future could be a much more plural, responsive, interesting place than it is today.
www.monbiot.com
The Guardian
So the Green jinx has at last been lifted. Caroline Lucas has been elected MP for Brighton Pavilion.If the Greens, despite all the odds, can take a seat in a first-past-the-post election, think of what they'll be able to do if, as now seems possible, we get proportional representation. Think how much more might be achieved if we also get a fair party funding system, which doesn't leave the small parties scrambling for pennies while billionaires slip cheques into the pockets of the big players.
Her victory reflects the transformation of the Greens from a chaotic, divided, messy party into a much tighter and more effective operation, which has been able to target its limited resources on winnable seats and tone down the identity politics which sometimes suggested that the party's main purpose was self-expression. Now, as it has already demonstrated in local and European elections, it knows how to win. Yet there has been no loss of radicalism: its manifesto told uncomfortable truths – about economic growth and consumption for example – that the other parties dare not admit.
Lucas, as she has shown in Brussels, where she has served as an MEP, won't disappear at Westminster. Although she has no parliamentary machine to support her, hers is not a voice that will be easily hushed. She won't let the major parties forget that their economic plans are founded on a series of impossibilities, and she won't allow the environment to be shoved out of sight.
Beyond that, there's not a great deal she can do by herself, though in a hung parliament she can join some useful coalitions, and her voice will be amplified by the three Plaid Cymru MPs, whose politics and outlook are very similar. But the message her election sends contributes to the sense that the old politics is on the way out: parliament in future could be a much more plural, responsive, interesting place than it is today.
www.monbiot.com
Thursday, May 6, 2010
American military creating an environmental disaster in Afghan countryside (Part 1 of 3)
America plans to withdraw its troops but leave behind a toxic mess
By Matthew Nasuti
The answer is chilling in that virtually all of it appears to have been buried, burned or secretly disposed of into the air, soil, groundwater and surface waters of Afghanistan. While the Americans may begin to withdraw next year, the toxic chemicals they leave behind will continue to pollute for centuries. Any abandoned radioactive waste may stain the Afghan countryside for thousands of years. Afghanistan has been described in the past as the graveyard of foreign armies. Today, Afghanistan has a different title:
“Afghanistan is the toxic dumping ground for foreign armies.”
Read this article here.
By Matthew NasutiThe American military presence in Afghanistan consists of fleets of aircraft, helicopters, armored vehicles, weapons, equipment, troops and facilities. Since 2001, they have generated millions of kilograms of hazardous, toxic and radioactive wastes. The Kabul Press asks the simple question:
“What have the Americans done with all that waste?”
The answer is chilling in that virtually all of it appears to have been buried, burned or secretly disposed of into the air, soil, groundwater and surface waters of Afghanistan. While the Americans may begin to withdraw next year, the toxic chemicals they leave behind will continue to pollute for centuries. Any abandoned radioactive waste may stain the Afghan countryside for thousands of years. Afghanistan has been described in the past as the graveyard of foreign armies. Today, Afghanistan has a different title:
“Afghanistan is the toxic dumping ground for foreign armies.”
Read this article here.
Climate change deniers accused of McCarthyism
Climate change experts face a "McCarthy-like" persecution by politically-motivated opponents, some of the world's leading scientists have claimed.
By Louise Gray
Phil Jones, the the academic at the centre of the climate change data row, said he has received death threats. In a letter published in the journal Science, more than 250 members of the US National Academy of Sciences, including 11 Nobel Prize laureates, condemned the increase in "political assaults" on scientists who argue greenhouse gas emissions are warming the planet.
The 'climategate' scandal and mistakes by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) have led to a surge in attacks on climate scientists around the world.
In a strongly worded letter, the group of scientists likened the situation to the 'McCarthy era' in the US where anyone suspected of communist links was threatened with persecution. The period in the 1950s was named after the anti-communist pursuits of Senator Joseph McCarthy.
"We call for an end to McCarthy-like threats of criminal prosecution against our colleagues based on innuendo and guilt by association, the harassment of scientists by politicians seeking distractions to avoid taking action, and the outright lies being spread about them," the letter read.
The defence of climate science comes after a number of scandals cast doubt on the theory of man-made global warming. Emails stolen from the University of East Anglia (UEA) appeared to show scientists were willing to exaggerate temperature change in a scandal known as 'climategate', although two separate inquiries have found no evidence of misconduct.
Meanwhile the United Nations science body, the IPCC, that advises world governments about climate change was forced to retract a statement that claimed the Himalayan glaciers could melt by 2035.
The scientists fear the scandals have led to a witch hunt against those involved.
James Inhofe, a US senator and long-standing climate sceptic, has called for a criminal investigation of climate scientists. Professor Phil Jones, the head of the Climatic Research Unit at the UEA, said he considered suicide after receiving hate mail and death threats.
Worst of all, they fear politicians and interest groups in industry are using doubt over climate science to prevent the world from acting to reduce the threat of global warming.
"Society has two choices: we can ignore the science and hide our heads in the sand and hope we are lucky, or we can act in the public interest to reduce the threat of global climate change quickly and substantively. The good news is that smart and effective actions are possible. But delay must not be an option."
The letter points out that there is uncertainty attached to theory of evolution and the Big Bang. But like these theories, climate change has been "overwhelmingly" accepted by scientists.
"There is compelling, comprehensive and consistent objective evidence that humans are changing the climate in ways that threaten our societies and the ecosystems on which we depend," they said.
"Many recent assaults on climate science and, more disturbingly, on climate scientists by climate change deniers, are typically driven by special interests or dogma, not by an honest effort to provide an alternative theory that credibly satisfies the evidence."
By Louise GrayThe Telegraph.co.uk
The 'climategate' scandal and mistakes by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) have led to a surge in attacks on climate scientists around the world.
In a strongly worded letter, the group of scientists likened the situation to the 'McCarthy era' in the US where anyone suspected of communist links was threatened with persecution. The period in the 1950s was named after the anti-communist pursuits of Senator Joseph McCarthy.
"We call for an end to McCarthy-like threats of criminal prosecution against our colleagues based on innuendo and guilt by association, the harassment of scientists by politicians seeking distractions to avoid taking action, and the outright lies being spread about them," the letter read.
The defence of climate science comes after a number of scandals cast doubt on the theory of man-made global warming. Emails stolen from the University of East Anglia (UEA) appeared to show scientists were willing to exaggerate temperature change in a scandal known as 'climategate', although two separate inquiries have found no evidence of misconduct.
Meanwhile the United Nations science body, the IPCC, that advises world governments about climate change was forced to retract a statement that claimed the Himalayan glaciers could melt by 2035.
The scientists fear the scandals have led to a witch hunt against those involved.
James Inhofe, a US senator and long-standing climate sceptic, has called for a criminal investigation of climate scientists. Professor Phil Jones, the head of the Climatic Research Unit at the UEA, said he considered suicide after receiving hate mail and death threats.
Worst of all, they fear politicians and interest groups in industry are using doubt over climate science to prevent the world from acting to reduce the threat of global warming.
"Society has two choices: we can ignore the science and hide our heads in the sand and hope we are lucky, or we can act in the public interest to reduce the threat of global climate change quickly and substantively. The good news is that smart and effective actions are possible. But delay must not be an option."
The letter points out that there is uncertainty attached to theory of evolution and the Big Bang. But like these theories, climate change has been "overwhelmingly" accepted by scientists.
"There is compelling, comprehensive and consistent objective evidence that humans are changing the climate in ways that threaten our societies and the ecosystems on which we depend," they said.
"Many recent assaults on climate science and, more disturbingly, on climate scientists by climate change deniers, are typically driven by special interests or dogma, not by an honest effort to provide an alternative theory that credibly satisfies the evidence."
Wednesday, May 5, 2010
Did “Eco-Terrorists” Cause the Gulf Oil Spill?
by Will Potter
GreenIsTheNewRed.com
The oil spill in the Gulf is on track to surpass the Exxon Valdez as the worst environmental disaster in U.S. history. That doesn’t bode well financially for BP, and it doesn’t bode well politically for the drill-baby-drill crowd. So how has the far right responded?
By trying to blame it on “eco-terrorists.”
Rush Limbaugh, after reminding listeners that “Al Gore urged young people…to engage in civil disobedience to stop the construction of coal plants,” speculated that the explosion was the work of “environmentalist wackos”
Read this article here.
GreenIsTheNewRed.com
By trying to blame it on “eco-terrorists.”
Rush Limbaugh, after reminding listeners that “Al Gore urged young people…to engage in civil disobedience to stop the construction of coal plants,” speculated that the explosion was the work of “environmentalist wackos”
Read this article here.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)