Facing climate change head-on means changing capitalism: Naomi Klein

Cartoon creatures populate the books Naomi Klein reads most often these days.

“All the books are about animals,” the Toronto author says of the bedtime stories she shares with her 2-year-old son, Toma.

“And at a certain point it just struck me that so many of the books . . . were about animals that are facing (climate related) extinction crises and that he may never see some of the animals he’s reading about.”

Still, the species that most concerns Klein is her own.

And like a conclusive majority of climate scientists, she sees man-made, carbon-based global warming as settled fact and an immediate threat to human civilization.

In her own book, This Changes Everything, Capitalism vs The Climate, Klein advances this existential conundrum:

Capitalism, as it’s conceived and conducted today; capitalism that relies on globalization, unbridled consumerism, deregulation and perpetual economic expansion, is irreconcilable with a livable climate.

And since humans have no control over the natural laws that govern a carbon-stoked climate, she argues, capitalism will have to change.

The Star spoke with Klein about her new book — to be published Sept. 20 by Knopf Canada.

Following is an edited version of the conversation.

You were once in denial about climate change. You didn’t deny the science, but like so many others you turned cringingly away from the worsening news. What made you change your mind to take a hard look and write a book about it?

What changed for me was hearing the argument for the existence of a climate debt, which is the idea that in order to address the crisis . . . which was created by the wealthiest countries in the world and is being felt most acutely by some of the poorest countries in the world, there needs to be a process of redress.

Core inequalities need to be tackled through redistribution of wealth and technology. And this was explained to me as a chance to heal the world; to heal some of the deepest and most lasting wounds left by colonialism. And I suddenly saw that though this crisis continues to be existentially terrifying, it could also be a catalyst for really inspiring change and social justice.

I want to talk about those changes, but again, many people continue to ignore or outright deny climate change. And this denial is based largely on the (oil-interest inspired) belief that the science is still unsettled. How would you suggest that manufactured scientific controversy be surmounted?

In the book I make a distinction between hard denial and soft denial. The hard denial is it’s not happening — the science is wrong, it’s a conspiracy. That’s actually quite a small percentage of the population, particularly in Canada. Overwhelmingly, Canadians believe that climate change is real.

Where the impact of the oil lobby and misinformation campaigns have been very effective (is in feeding) that soft denial of “I can’t bear to look.”

I think that state of not looking, in Canada, is very much about this really successful talking point about if we take this crisis seriously, our economy will collapse. Everything good that is happening in the country is because of the oil boom.

In Canada, (that) has been a much more effective way of preventing us from focusing on the climate crisis than outright scientific denial of the facts.

And that’s why I hope the book will play a constructive role in this debate because I am outlining an economic future that is not collapse, that is not grim, that is in fact, I hope, more exciting and inspiring than the economic choices we are being presented as Canadians.

I think just highlighting other economic alternatives . . . success stories where that false dichotomy has been rejected, opens up the possibilities to look.

There is certainly big money behind the most important player in this debate, the United States, and that money reaches deep into the halls of Congress where people appear to be paid to deny the existence of the problem. But you argue in the book that big money isn’t the root of the problem, it’s the means of generating that big money that’s at fault. You argue that, in fact, capitalism as it’s currently practiced is incompatible with saving the planet. Can you explain that?

Well, I think that in terms of responding decisively to climate change I do think that big money is at the heart of the suppression of that response.

Both by . . . bribing politicians and serving as (an election-campaign) disciplinary force for politicians — you get the money if you do the right thing. But if you don’t do the right thing from the perspective of the oil companies then that same money is used to attack you in television ads and so on.

But in terms of what you’re saying about what the book argues about capitalism, I think the resistance by some of the most powerful players in the world . . . to a decisive response to climate change (comes about) because there is an understanding that we've allowed the crisis to deepen to such an extent that if we were to cut our emissions in line with what science is telling us, then the cuts would be so deep that they would present a fundamental challenge to the logic of growth for growth’s sake, which is the logic of the core of our economic system.

That doesn’t mean there can’t be parts of our economy that grow, there can and must be . . . in order to respond to climate change. But as that happens, we also need to contract those parts of our economy that are destabilizing the climate and are just fuelling mindless consumption.

Some of the aspects of that perpetual growth economy are rampant consumerism, globalization and deregulation . . . those seem ingrained and backed by irresistible (business) forces. How do you convince enough of those people who are more concerned with a bigger TV and the newest logo-bearing product that they can rise up and face those powerful interests?

I think that is the key question and it is to me the greatest crime of neo-liberal ideological messaging; that so many of us have been convinced that all we are is self-interested, gratification-seeking units.

We (believe) we’re so unidimensional in our values and desires that we are incapable of responding collectively to an existential crisis and incapable of acting collectively for a greater good.

Well, we know that historically, this has not been the case. We know that in the midst of the Great Depression we came together and built some of the social programs we’re proudest of. We know the same is true of wartime rationing. There’s an incredible statistic I have in the book about how use of public transit in Canada increased by 95 per cent during the Second World War.

So really, what we’re saying when we say we can’t do this — and this is what we’re told again and again, we can’t do this, there is something wrong with us, we’re too selfish, we’re too greedy — is that this idea of the “we” of who we are has changed.

Maybe our grandparents could do things like act collectively and come together at times of crisis . . . (but) it’s almost like we think we’re a different species from our grandparents.

First published at the Toronto Star

Noam Chomsky on Statehood, Power and Scottish Independence (a bit)

Noam Chomsky on Scottish Independence : Statehood and Power.
Recorded at MIT, Boston by Stuart Platt.

Questions by Gordon Asher, Leigh French and Stuart Platt

Time to Flex our Muscles – London as a City State?

With apparent panic in Westminster over the possibility of Scotland voting for independence next week, a new federal UK deal appears to be on offer for not only Scotland, but England’s regions, Wales and Northern Ireland too, and about time. We have had to listen to the Scots rather self-important and dismal debate (from both sides) for what seems like forever now, from an utterly impotent stand point. I think it is time for the rest of us to have our say on the constitutional arrangements by which we are ruled in the UK. In London, and other parts of the country, we don’t want a permanent Tory government or Labour’s Tory light version either, which is surely the best we can hope for if Scotland goes its own way.

I think we will see more demands for English devolution in the coming months, whatever the Scots decide to do. The genie is well and truly out of the bottle now, and we the people of London, should get onto the front foot and turn this opportunity to our advantage.

Last year, the London Finance Commission, chaired by Tony Travers of the LSE, produced a report ‘Raising the Capital’. Below is an edited extract from the report:      

The Commission believes that there would be more jobs and growth in London if the government of London had greater financial autonomy.

Although Scotland and Wales now enjoy substantial devolved power, England has not seen anything like the same degree of devolution. London has a relatively new system of city-wide government which, in the Commission’s view, could readily wield more power and fiscal autonomy.

London is a leading international city which has, somehow, become a model for free-wheeling, tolerant, metropolitan living. It has a fast-growing population and, along with its surrounding counties, one of the largest regional economies in the world.

At present, London (and, indeed, England as a whole) is an extreme outlier compared with other cities and countries. Only a tiny proportion of the taxes raised in London are determined by the city’s government. Even after the reforms of April 2013, barely 7% of all the tax paid by London residents and businesses is retained by the Mayor and the boroughs. The equivalent figure in New York is over 60%, in Tokyo it is over 70% and in Paris over 80%.

London’s population is equivalent to those of Scotland and Wales combined. Its economy is almost double the size of these nations together.

As the London population grows to nine and then ten million people by 2030, there will need to be massive investment in enabling infrastructure simply to accommodate these new residents and, indeed, commuters. The Commission is convinced that London would be better able to prioritise decisions about investment.

The report goes onto suggest that council tax, business rates, stamp duty land tax, annual tax on enveloped dwellings and capital gains property disposal tax should be devolved to London government.

Whilst the report fights shy of recommending income tax raising powers for London at this stage, it does note that Scotland has some such powers, and may get more, and although there would be some practical difficulties with devolving income tax revenue, it does not rule it out in the longer run.

The report also goes out of its way to say that it is not suggesting  City State status for London, but having read through it, I was left with the impression that it is certainly possible, and even desirable, given London’s economic power and its multi-cultural and relatively young population. One step at a time, I guess.

Whichever way you look at it, London is different from the rest of the UK culturally, and needs more power for its government to shape its society. As an immigrant to London myself, from the north of England, I’ve always felt that being a Londoner was more of a state of mind, rather than where you are born. The diverse nature of London makes it so.

It is not just about London though, the Core Cities group, which includes London, are making similar noises about devolved powers. These English cities:  Manchester, Liverpool, Birmingham, Leeds, Sheffield, Newcastle, Nottingham and Bristol, (and now including Glasgow), have different challenges to rural areas and are all demanding more power to run their affairs.

The UK is one of the most centrally run countries in the world, devolving more power (financial particularly) will increase democracy and will give us the chance to develop our communities in the way we think is best. And it might just save us English who hate the Tories from a miserable future under an extreme neo-liberal dominated Tory/UKIP government.    

It is essential, I think, that the inevitable calls for an English devolution, are defeated. England is a large country by population measures and needs to be governed as regionally and locally as possible, not England wide.

Wouldn’t the people’s capture of London be a far bigger prize than Scotland? Wake up London, it is time to take our future into our own hands. 

Mayor of London Has Questions to Answer on London’s Air Pollution

On 10 September 2014 the Environmental Audit Committee will be taking oral evidence from Boris Johnson, Mayor of London; and Matthew Pencharz, the Mayor’s environmental and energy advisor, in connection with the Committee’s air quality Inquiry.  The meeting will take place at 2.15pm, Thatcher Room, Portcullis House.

The session will cover the role of local authorities in tackling air pollution including the Mayor of London’s air quality manifesto launched on 29th July 2014. If you follow that link you will find a highly spun version of Boris Johnson’s achievements on air quality in London. The facts point in a rather different direction than the rosy picture painted by the Mayor.

The "environmental lawyers" ClientEarth have revealed that the UK Government tried to suppress information on its pollution target compliance using rules on legal privilege, seemingly unaware that it was to be published on Defra’s website.

The figures published by Defra (Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs) show that the UK Government does not expect London to meet its Nitrogen Dioxide (NO2) legal limits until after 2030, according to revised projections released today. Previously projections from DEFRA and City Hall had put the date at 2025. The original legal compliance date was 2010. DEFRA estimates that around 4000 Londoners a year die prematurely due to air pollution.

ClientEarth has brought the case against the UK Government on behalf of its citizens for its failure to adhere to legal pollution limits set by the EU to protect the public's health. The case was referred to the Court of Justice of EU by the UK Supreme Court where it is currently being heard. Commission lawyers described the case as “perhaps the longest running infringement of EU law in history”.

Alan Andrews, a lawyer for Client Earth said: “It’s bad enough that the government has no intention of complying with these limits in the foreseeable future. It’s even worse that they’re trying to hide behind legal procedural rules to keep this quiet. We have a right to breathe clean air and the right to know when the government is failing to protect us."

So, what is the truth about London’s air quality? I think anyone who walks around central London particularly, could not fail to notice that it is poor, to say the very least. Let’s hope that the Environment Audit Committee get to the bottom of this seemingly contradictory tale of two cities.

The Greens Stake Their Claim To The Left

The Green Party has begun their autumn conference in Birmingham today, a conference they see as key in their effort to crack the UK political scene once and for all. The party, despite being chronically under represented in the media, is seeking to do this with a bid to claim the progressive left of British politics as their own.

Last night, ahead of the conference, party leader Natalie Bennett was interviewed on LBC, where she reiterated that the Green Party would introduce a wealth tax in order to stem the rising inequality that has gained significant political credence through the work of Thomas Piketty and others. This policy is a part of the party’s effort to broaden the prospect of a ‘green economy’ not only meaning an environmentally sound one, but also one that is fairer and works better for ‘the common good’.

This focus on the damages of high wealth over high income is backed up by concerns about low wages. In a somewhat polemic piece on the New Statesman this morning, Natalie Bennett said that the Greens were committed to raising the minimum wage to £10 an hour by 2020, going further than their current commitment to the living wage with a long term goal. The party has been pushing the idea of the citizen’s income for a while, the idea that citizenship guarantees a standard of living, protecting people against the often harsh realities of the wider economy. Through their sustained support for higher wages, the Greens are putting firm policy emphasis on inequality.

Inequality has certainly reached a political mass, not only with Thomas Piketty’s book this year but also with The Spirit Level, The Price Of Inequality and even Mark Carney talking of the virtues of an ‘inclusive capitalism’ with an emphasis on reduced inequality. This has created a reinvigoration of the left’s focus upon inequality, with many calling for action; the Greens are building upon this and other feelings of disaffection with leftist politics in the UK in order to position themselves on the progressive spectrum. In fact, politics.co.uk today asked whether the Greens are ‘the only left-wing party left in Britain’, something that no doubt the party are happy about.

The Greens have long celebrated the fact that they score very well on blind policy tests and are equally happy to point out that their policies of tackling low wages and renationalising the railway are incredibly popular with the public. Alongside their locally popular, grassroots campaign against fracking it demonstrates the party’s goal of being responsive to the public and representing the model of the kind of democracy that they want to instil. Being popular without resorting to populism shows that the party is serious about electoral politics and the left’s future within it.

Perhaps the key message that Natalie Bennett and her party want to push this weekend is the fact that the Greens are not a single issue movement, and that voting for them is not a frivolous protest vote. By presenting a broad platform of common sense, thought out and costed ideas, the party is showing that idealism is not political suicide. When you consider that the party is currently polling neck and neck with the Lib Dems, the UK’s official ‘third party’, you realise, that despite the lack of column inches devoted to them, they are serious force in UK politics.

First published at Shifting Grounds

Exposed: Lawson’s Climate Denial Donors’ Links to Tobacco and Oil Backed Think Tank

Launch of new Global Warming Policy Forum mired by new revelations linking former chancellor to oil and tobacco-funded climate denial think tank

Lord Lawson faces increasing scepticism about the independence of his climate denial charity as the names of two of his anonymous donors with links to the tobacco and oil funded Institute of Economic Affairs are disclosed for the first time.

The Tory grandee launched the Global Warming Policy Forum (GWPForum)* yesterday. There had been complaints from the public to the Charity Commission alleging his Global Warming Policy Foundation was acting politically.

The former chancellor, who retains considerable influence over his successor George Osborne, has successfully kept the identities of almost all his financial backers a closely guarded secret five years after the foundation was first launched, despite the consternation of MPs and climate campaigners alike.

On the Record

But now Neil Record, the founding chairman of his own specialist currency management company, and trustee of the free market Institute of Economic Affairs think tank, has been named for the first time as a financial backer.

Asked how much he gave to Lawson’s charity, he replied this was “a private matter on which I am not prepared to comment further.” DeSmog UK estimates the donations to be higher than £100,000. 

Lord Vinson, who was instrumental in the rise to power of the late Margaret Thatcher, has also been named as a GWPF funder for the first time. The industrialist and peer was made “Life Vice-President” of the IEA, having worked closely with its first director general, Sir Ralph Harris.

ALSO SEE: LAWSON'S HOT AND COLD AFFAIR WITH THE IEA

Vinson also set up the Centre for Policy Studies with fellow free market zealots Keith Joseph and Thatcher in 1974 supported by the IEA. The CPS, funded by both the tobacco and oil industries, secured Thatcher's rise to power. 

Vinson has donated £15,000 to the Global Warming Policy Foundation in the first five years through his own charity, according to documents submitted to the Charity Commission. “I think they are a very admirable institution,” he told me. 

A third GWPF funder, Michael Hintze, has previously been named by The Guardian although the city investor has refused to confirm the report and disclose the true extent of his largess. Hintze runs the £5 billion hedge fund CQS and is a generous donor to the Conservative party. 

All three men named have worked closely with the Institute of Economic Affairs, the Westminster-based think tank which has for decades accepted funding from cigarette and petrol multinationals while attacking both the science of tobacco cancer and climate change.

Speaking Fees

An investigation by the newly launched climate website DeSmog UK has established that Record privately donated £36,000 to the IEA to fund a seminar starring Lawson on the same day in November 2009 that the one-time chancellor launched the GWPF in the House of Commons. Lawson’s speaking fees are up to £12,000 per engagement.

Record has told how his confidence in climate science was first called into question when he attended an earlier talk by the American scientist Dr S Fred Singer also attended by Lawson. Singer has a long history of promoting climate denial and has been accused of misleading the public about his own financial support from major oil companies, including ExxonMobil. 

Record is also named as a board member of the new Global Warming Policy Forum. When asked about his donation to the foundation, Record said he has “never had any involvement with the energy sector in any capacity” adding his donation was “paid for with my personal money, not with corporate funds.” 

Record said in a letter: “The organisers (i.e. the IEA) invited both Lord Lawson and myself to a dinner after the debate…and there I learned about the Global Warming Policy Foundation, of which I had not heard before. 

“[Lawson] invited me to meet his staff, and as a result of that, I decided the best way in which I could be of some use in furthering sensible debate in the whole climate change arena was to become a supporter (i.e. donor) to the GWPF.”

Undermining Science

The IEA established its industry-funded Environment Unit in the early 1990s and published the first reports in the UK aimed at undermining the then burgeoning science of climate change.
The institute was also instrumental in establishing the Covent Garden-based International Policy Network, which during its lifetime accepted funding from ExxonMobil while attending major conferences around the world to raise fears about the policy implications of climate change.

Mark Littlewood, the current director general of the IEA, personally introduced Record to Lawson after the climate event in November 2009. He said he only “vaguely” knew Lawson but that he was not active in the climate debate because the GWPF took this role. 

He also confirmed last year that the IEA continues to receive funding from the oil company BP. He added: “…we jealously guard our editorial independence and no industry group can commission research from us - but if that's understood I'll bank a cheque from the tobacco industry without a single problem.”

Lord Vinson donated £5,000 to the GWPF in 2011 and then doubled his grant to £10,000 last year. This second grant was recorded alongside a donation to the Prince’s Countryside Fund under the category, “For the advancement of environmental protection or improvement”. Vinson has been a long time funder of the IEA, as well as its once-influential climate denying offshoot the IPN.

The author of this article has been quoted in The Guardian this morning saying: “Lawson has stubbornly refused to name his donors even though such secrecy must undermine the trust the public has in his climate denial thinktank,” said Brendan Montague, editor of DeSmog UK. “But now we might begin to understand why.

“The evidence suggests many of Lawson’s funders are associated with the radically neoliberal IEA, which has a long history of attacking climate science and regulations while accepting money from oil companies.” 

Bob Ward, policy director at the LSE’s Grantham Research Institute on Climate Change, told the newspaper: “It is not surprising to find such strong links with a right-wing lobby group, the IEA, which also promotes climate change denial. It is now crystal clear that the campaign by the GWPF against the UK government’s climate change policies is driven by right-wing ideological zeal rather than evidence-based reason.”

DeSmog UK intends to publish the names of further Global Warming Policy Foundation funders ahead of the Conservative Party conference held in Birmingham from Sunday, September 28. The investigations website has invited Lawson to publish the full list in order to regain control of the agenda without success.

First published at DesmogUK

Antifascist demo in Cricklewood sees off squad of racists

Some 130 protesters from North West London United and the Anti-Fascist Network easily outnumbered a crew of 18 fascists who called themselves the South East Alliance. The only repeatable comment from the fascists was: “We’ve only been in Cricklewood five minutes and we don’t like it.”

The crowd on our side included local UAF activists,  workers in the RMT transport union, plus Palestine solidarity campaigners, Greens and Polish antifascists.

The fascists, fittingly, assembled outside a funeral directors. They claimed they were in Cricklewood to protest against the Muslim Brotherhood.

The usual double standards from police were on display – antifascists getting heavy handed treatment, fascists getting protection despite their thuggish behaviour.

Report from rs21