ENVIRONMENT  
comments_imageCOMMENTS: 1

Why the London Protesters Are on the Right Side of History

There will be far more sympathy in the future for those who took to the streets and rioted outside the G20 than for people who stayed home.
April 6, 2009  |  
 
 
LIKE THIS ARTICLE ?
Join our mailing list:

Sign up to stay up to date on the latest Environment headlines via email.

 
 
Advertisement
 

When this hinge-point in human history is remembered, there will be far more sympathy for the people who took to the streets and rioted than for the people who stayed silently in their homes. Two global crises have collided, and we have a chance here, now, to solve them both with one mighty heave -- but our leaders are letting this opportunity for greatness leach away. The protesters here in London were trying to sound an alarm now, at five minutes to ecological midnight.

Many commentators seemed bemused that the protesters focused on the climate crunch as much as the credit crunch. What's it got to do with a G20 meeting on reviving the global economy? Why wave banners saying "Nature Doesn't Do Bail-Outs" today? Because both crises have their roots in the same ideology -- and both have the same solution.

We are facing a collapsed economy and a rapidly warming world because an extreme ideology has dominated world affairs for decades. It is the belief that markets aren't just a useful tool in certain circumstances; they are an infallible mechanism for running human affairs. If the economy ebbs, the market will put itself right by punishing wrong-doers. If the climate begins to unravel, business will rectify its own behavior voluntarily. Now we know how well this market fundamentalism works.

The climate is currently going the same way as the banks. Last month, the world's climate scientists gathered in Copenhagen to explain we are facing "devastating consequences" -- not in some distant future, but in my lifetime and yours. Unless we swerve fast, we are soon going to hit global temperatures that no human being has ever lived through. We don't have much time. By 2015, we will have belched so much carbon into the atmosphere that we will cross the Point of No Return: the climate will start to unravel as all its natural cooling processes breaking down one by one, guaranteeing we become hotter and hotter. Once we hit an increase of 4 degrees, much of the world will become uninhabitable, and there will be vast wars for what remains.

This isn't the warning of apocalyptic wackos: it's the judgment of the climate scientists who have consistently been proven right up to now. Steven Chu, the Nobel Prize winning scientist who has been appointed Energy Secretary by Barack Obama, says: "I don't think the American public has gripped in its gut what will happen. We're looking at a scenario where there's no more agriculture in California. I don't actually see how they can keep their cities going either." Goodbye Los Angeles, San Francisco, San Diego. And that, he stresses, is only the start.

The distinguished environmental scientist James Lovelock warns that climate changes tend not to happen gradually, inch-by-inch. They suddenly flip -- in our case from a cool world to a very hot one. He believes the hotter new world we are bringing into being could support, at best, a billion people. That would require 84 percent of the world's population to die off.

That's why the protesters were talking about the climate. It should be the number one issue at every global meeting. And the way out of the climate crunch and the credit crunch is the same -- a Green New Deal.

Our leaders are divided about whether we need a fiscal stimulus at all. Obama, Gordon Brown, and the Japanese Prime Minister Taro Aso are leading the charge for a burst of big government spending to jump-start the global economy, while Angela Merkel, Nicolas Sarkozy, David Cameron and the U.S. Republicans are arguing this will simply be a debt-funded splurge to nothing.

It's a strange debate to have now, because the opponents of any stimulus seem to be mired in a row that was resolved back in the 1930s. John Maynard Keynes transformed the way that we think about recessions. Before him, everybody believed the Merkel-Cameron-McCain line that recessions are like bad weather: you just need to wrap up and sit it out, even though it hurts. But Keynes transformed all that.


Email
Print
Share
Post on reddit
Post on stumbleupon
Post on facebook
Post on digg
Post on twitter
Post on delicious
LIKED THIS ARTICLE? JOIN OUR EMAIL LIST
Stay up to date with the latest Environment headlines via email
See more stories tagged with: global warming, climate change, london, hsbc, g20 summit, james lovelock


Comments are closed-

Protestors Today Face a Dangerous and Armed Police Force Intent on Murder
Posted by: lunamina on Apr 9, 2009 1:45 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
We are doomed! With their riot gear, tasers, and bullets the forces arraigned against protestors today is much more powerful than in the 1930's. Asking protestors to face the kinds of police action we are up against today is just not possible. When you have governments making arrangements to infiltrate and stifle groups before they even have a chance to protest, what means do we have to combat such activities? Just look what happened to activists at the Dem and Repug conventions in 2008. I would love to see huge crowds protesting, but am I asking people to put their lives in danger as well? This problem bothers me a lot. Does it bother anybody else?

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Alternet Comments:

Comments are closed-

Protestors Today Face a Dangerous and Armed Police Force Intent on Murder
Posted by: lunamina on Apr 9, 2009 1:45 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
We are doomed! With their riot gear, tasers, and bullets the forces arraigned against protestors today is much more powerful than in the 1930's. Asking protestors to face the kinds of police action we are up against today is just not possible. When you have governments making arrangements to infiltrate and stifle groups before they even have a chance to protest, what means do we have to combat such activities? Just look what happened to activists at the Dem and Repug conventions in 2008. I would love to see huge crowds protesting, but am I asking people to put their lives in danger as well? This problem bothers me a lot. Does it bother anybody else?

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

 
Advertisement
From The Blog
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Most Read
Most Emailed
Most Discussed
On REDDIT
On DIGG
 
loading ...
POWERED BY DIGG'S USERS