<![CDATA[Deep Politics Forum - Environment]]> https://deeppoliticsforum.com/fora/ Sat, 23 May 2026 05:17:43 +0000 MyBB <![CDATA[Bye Bye Gaia......]]> https://deeppoliticsforum.com/fora/showthread.php?tid=16027 Wed, 13 Feb 2019 05:35:43 +0000 Peter Lemkin]]> https://deeppoliticsforum.com/fora/showthread.php?tid=16027 JUAN GONZÁLEZ: Well, a shocking new report finds at least a third of the Himalayan ice cap will melt by the end of the century due to climate change, even if the world's most ambitious environmental reforms are implemented. The report, released by the Hindu Kush Himalaya Assessment earlier this month, is the culmination of half a decade's work by over 200 scientists, with an additional 125 experts peer reviewing their work. It warns rising temperatures in the Himalayas could lead to mass population displacement, as well as catastrophic food and water insecurity. The glaciers are a vital source for the 250 million people who live in the Hindu Kush Himalayan range, which spans from Afghanistan to Burma. The region is home to the most ice in the world, after Antarctica and the Arctic. More than 1.5 billion people depend on the rivers that flow from the Himalayan peaks.
AMY GOODMAN: Meanwhile, an alarming new report has found more than 40 percent of insect species around the world may become extinct in the next few decades. Although the study's authors point to industrial agriculture as the main culprit, they also lay blame on climate change, citing warming temperatures that have led to sudden decreases in insect population in places like Puerto Rico, where nearly 100 percent of ground rainforest bugs have disappeared in just 35 years.
This devastating news comes as 2018 was found to be the fourth-warmest year on record. The past five years have been the five warmest since reliable measurements began more than a century and a half ago.
We go now to Seattle to talk to journalist Dahr Jamail, author of four books, including his most recent, The End of Ice: Bearing Witness and Finding Meaning in the Path of Climate Disruption. Dahr was awarded the Martha Gellhorn Prize for Investigative Reporting for his reporting from the Iraq War. Last year, he won an Izzy Award for his ongoing coverage of human-caused climate change.
Dahr, welcome back to Democracy Now! Thank you so much for driving two hours in a snowstorm to get to Seattle to be with us today. Can you talk about these latest reports of, once again, precedent-setting, climate change-related developments in the world?
DAHR JAMAIL: They're more indications of how far along we already are, regarding human-caused climate disruption. Excuse me. They essentially underscore that we are on a warming trend now that's unprecedented, unlike anything that we've ever seen since humans have been on the planet. And it's very disconcerting. And we can really look across the globe and see these giant alarm bells, like the melting of the glaciers in the Himalaya, the collapse of insect populations, which that same report said, at the current trajectory, assuming we don't speed up or these trends don't speed up, which they may well do that, we could lose all insects by 2100.
If we look at what's happening to glaciers in the United States, just in the contiguous 48 states, in Glacier National Park, a lead expert there told me that we could probably not have any glaciers left whatsoever in Glacier National Park by just 2030. That's just 11 years from now. He went on to say, along with several other experts, which is that there could be no glaciers left anywhere in the contiguous 48 at all by 2100. And then, think about the implications of this, not just for, of course, the natural implications then on ecosystems, which are massive, but like the Hindu Kush, so many people depend on these glaciers for drinking water and irrigation. So, these alarm bells are ringing very, very loudly all around us. And that's really just a few of the overt ones right now.
JUAN GONZÁLEZ: Well, Dahr, in your new book, you talk about at one point, you say, "As a species, we now hang over the abyss of a geoengineered future we have created for ourselves. At our insistence, our voracious appetite is consuming nature itself. We have refused to heed the warnings Earth has been sending, and there is no rescue team on its way." That's a pretty dim sense of what lies ahead. Could you talk about the response of governments and the human race to what's going on?
DAHR JAMAIL: Well, it is why I think we're in such a grim situation. Because I went to many of the hotspots, the front lines of climate disruption around the world, from Denali up in Alaska to the Amazon rainforest to the Great Barrier Reef to South Florida for sea level rise and many other places. And in each place, really, what we've seen is catastrophic declines of whether it's biodiversity in the Amazon to the loss of ice up in the Alaskan Range to how fast now sea level rise is starting to accelerate, and that all of these crises that are it's a myriad of them happening simultaneously, held against the backdrop of you know, the majority of the population, even in this country, with a fossil fuel industry-driven denial mechanism, even here, we have the majority of the people understand that climate disruption is real and that something needs to be done about it. And yet, like other countries, as well, we have a government that is not only not doing anything about it, but is instead stomping on the gas. And so, another reason things are so grim.
And really, when you connect all the dots and look at what's happening across the planet, against the backdrop of this really pathetic government response on any in any way that's coming close to what has to happen to actually mitigate this crisis. I mean, we all know it's the cat's out of the bag on the fact we're not going to stop it. The only question is: Are we going to be able to mitigate it?
And, you know, the best science now shows that even if we stopped all fossil fuel emissions today, and everything you know, all governments started to react accordingly, most likely we have a minimum of 3 degrees C warming that's already baked into the system. And so, hold that up against how governments are reacting. I mean, we should be having global, coordinated response on a dramatically emergency level. And instead, it's business as usual in at least the leading countries you know, the U.S., China, India and Russia, the leading greenhouse gas-emitting countries on the planet. And instead of going into an emergency response and mandated CO2 emission cuts and getting off fossil fuels as rapidly as possible, they're just stomping on the gas and pretending like we can keep kicking this can down the road.
And the reality is that it's not a future crisis. I want to underscore the point that this is happening now. As we speak, the Great Barrier Reef is in terminal stage. As we speak, we already have set in motion things that are going to erase glaciers from the contiguous 48 states, probably well before 2100. As we speak, the Amazon is under grave, grave threat and already has warming cycles happening there that are unprecedented in droughts. So, we have to really, I think, start thinking about that in this way, that the future that we've all thought was going to be so much further down the line, or 2100, and catastrophic, it's already happening now.
AMY GOODMAN: We're going to break and then come back to this discussion and find out why you left war reporting, what we interviewed you so much about over the years, living in the Middle East for the years that you did, to cover the issue of climate change. Dahr Jamail's new book is called The End of Ice: Bearing Witness and Finding Meaning in the Path of Climate Disruption. It's just out. Stay with us.
[break]
AMY GOODMAN: "Plastic Jesus," performed by Tia Blake. This isDemocracy Now!I'm Amy Goodman, with Juan González. Our guest is Dahr Jamail, independent journalist, author of the new book The End of Ice: Bearing Witness and Finding Meaning in the Path of Climate Disruption.
So, Dahr, take us on that journey of your life, from war reporting to climate change, from the highest peak, Denali in Alaska, to the Coral Sea.
DAHR JAMAIL: Well, it really did start when I first saw Denali, and that drove me to move up to Alaska. I just really fell in love with mountaineering and wanted to spend as much of my life as I could up in those amazing places on the planet. But immediately, I was confronted with, back this is in 1996 the dramatic loss of glaciers, the retreat that was already happening, the crazy weather swings that were already occurring across Alaska at that time. And so, it was very, very clear to anyone up there spending a lot of time in the mountains what was already upon us then.
And then, of course, the Iraq War, being called to go follow the need to go provide reporting there about how that war was impacting the Iraqi people. It's interesting in that, you know, covering that for as long as I did, and the really dramatic, you know, how again, how obvious it was early on in that war what was happening, how bad it was. I mean, it was impossible to land on the ground there and not know that already so many Iraqis were being killed, so many Iraqis were being tortured.
But an interesting parallel, that I want to bring this up to tie this in to current reporting on climate disruption, is that I can remember acutely, at that time, reporting on torture, reporting on the home raids, reporting on the atrocities being carried out by the U.S. military in Iraq, reporting on illegal weapons and things like this, much of it on Democracy Now!, and yet, you know, the mainstream media ignored it. And, of course, most people in this country, it took years before it really seeped in how catastrophic that invasion and occupation was for the Iraqi people, and, of course, for the U.S. military.
And so, coming out of that war, going into the BP oil spill I was living in Texas at the time and covered that. And, you know, another interesting theme, very, very obvious in all of these stories, is fossil fuels. You know, we know the root cause of climate disruption at this point is the burning of fossil fuels. And then, of course, Iraq was it's a no-brainer, that was a war for oil, clear and simple from day one. And then, of course, the BP oil spill, the consequences of living in a fossil fuel-based economy. And then, now, again, back to climate change, where these impacts are upon us.
And, you know, the parallel I want to bring current now, from sharing what I did about Iraq, is that, you know, I've been out on the front lines of where climate change is the most obvious. And I'm far from the only reporter on this beat, and certainly there's plenty of others who have been on it longer than I. But that said, you know, what I want to impart is that what's happening right now, as we speak, we are in this. We are in the era of loss. We are in a situation where the planet is already irrevocably changed.
And so, the Great Barrier Reef being in terminal stage. I was there in 2017 for the first week of the coral bleaching event that struck the reef that year, which went on to kill 30 percent of the area that bleached. The next year, another coral bleaching event, 20 percent was lost that bleached. So, there you have 50 percent lost in just two years. This is why scientists there are referring to the reef being in a terminal stage, and probably won't last another 10 years. This is the single biggest coral ecosystem on the planet.
And if we look at what's already baked into the system with sea level rise, one of the scientists I interviewed at University of Miami, Dr. Harold Wanless, said we could see not just the IPCC worst-case prediction by 2100, but we could see which is around the lines of somewhere between six feet and eight feet we could see as much as 20 to even 30 feet even by then. And if you look at the collapsing ice sheets in the Antarctic I mean, just a few weeks ago, we had another report, that the lead author of, Dr. Eric Rignot of UC Irvine, one of the leading glacial scientists studying what's happening in the Antarctica that report showed a sixfold increase in melting across that continent just since the 1970s.
So, things are happening. They're accelerating. And it's very, very clear where we are in this crisis. And so, it's really amazing to me I'm having that same experience as I did in Iraq of being on the streets of Baghdad or being in Fallujah, writing these reports, telling people what's happening, and then waiting for kind of the rest of the country to keep up and wake up and really see what's happening, that we're in a situation where we're talking about 2100, and reality is, you know, we're talking about right now. It's happening right now.
JUAN GONZÁLEZ: Dahr, could you also talk about the thawing of the permafrost and the potential the impact and significance of this, as well?
DAHR JAMAIL: That's right. So, I went up to Utqiagvik, a town formerly known as Barrow, in northern Alaska. It's the northernmost point in that state. And I went up there specifically to see the situation of the permafrost and deepen my investigations into the methane up there. So, the permafrost, you know, the terrestrial permafrost, is melting I'm sorry, it's thawing dramatically. And it's warming up even tens of feet below the surface. And what's disconcerting about that is this holds a vast store of organic material, so as it thaws, it's releasing both CO2 and then a smaller amount of methane up into the atmosphere. And that's already happening. That thawing is occurring. And the scientist I spoke with said he expects all of the permafrost across northern Alaska to be well above freezing, well in advance of 2100.
And then, the permafrost, as it goes underneath the shallow seas of the Arctic, contained within it is methane hydrates. And that is starting to thaw out. So, as the ice cap recedes, the summer sea ice, as the oceans warm, both from warmer water coming up from the Atlantic, as well as now more solar radiation coming in from above, and the atmosphere warming, those hydrates are starting to be released. And so, one of the scientists I interviewed for my book, Dr. Ira Leifer, spoke of a paper that he had published actually several years ago, where the normal background rate for methane seeps from a seabed in that area is approximately 3,000 methane seeps over a thousand-square-kilometer area. He had using satellites to measure the methane, he had found another thousand-square-kilometer area where there were already 60 million methane seeps that were coming up from the base of the Arctic seabed.
AMY GOODMAN: Dahr, President Trump, mocking one of the candidates running for president, Senator Klobuchar, said he said, "Amy Klobuchar announced that she is running for President, talking proudly of fighting global warming while standing in a virtual blizzard of snow, ice and freezing temperatures. Bad timing," he said. "By the end of her speech she looked like a Snowman(woman)!" he said. But he continually repeats this issue, the issue of, "Look, the country is in a polar vortex. You call this global warming?" Please explain the process by which the Earth getting warmer can mean freezing weather, as well as, you know, desertification.
DAHR JAMAIL: This is why I call it climate disruption and not climate change. You know, it's because when you inject as much CO2 into the atmosphere as we have, it doesn't just change the climate, it completely disrupts it. And that's exactly what the polar vortex is a sign of. It's the opposite of what this individual in the White House you know, I'm hesitant to really call him any kind of a name. It's just still stunning to me that there's someone like this there. But let's not conflate weather with climate; these are two separate things. So, that's one.
And then, the other being that the polar vortex is actually a sign of the opposite of what Mr. Trump is saying, that it somehow negates the reality of climate disruption. So, when you have destabilized temperatures, when you have temperatures not in their normal range, the jet stream, rather than being steady, it becomes disrupted, and we have these huge flows sometimes that come down into the lower 48, and that's and letting all that Arctic air down here. Conversely, you look up in the Arctic, and temperatures up there are nowhere near as cold as they normally are. And that's a big part of why we have the problem with the thawing permafrost and the methane crisis that I just spoke of.
So, and on that note, one thing that I forgot to add earlier is, methane is, over a 10-year timescale, an 85 it's 85 times more potent as a greenhouse gas than CO2. So, the consequences of that methane starting to be released and the possibility of a dramatic, sudden burst of it coming out all at once could literally happen at any moment, and if there's enough methane there, that we could that the CO2 equivalent released of on par of half, again, as much CO2 as we've already emitted into the atmosphere since the Industrial Revolution began.
JUAN GONZÁLEZ: And, Dahr, what hope do you see in the new young leaders that have come forward and the activists in recent years I'm thinking of Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez and her proposal for the Green New Deal for this to become more than just a gadfly or opposition movement, but actually effect real change in how this nation and other nations begin to deal with climate disruption?
DAHR JAMAIL: I think these are valiant efforts and very, very heartening. I look at it now through a perspective that I learned from an indigenous man that I met and interviewed for my book and brought him into the closing chapter, Stan Rushworth, who of Cherokee descent, who he's who reminded me that Western colonial mindset is that we each have rights, whereas indigenous wisdom teaches that we're all born into this world with certain obligations. And talking about the climate crisis through that lens, we have a moral obligation to future generations and to serve and take care of the planet.
And so, when we see people like Cortez bringing out the Green New Deal, and the Sunrise Movement that's behind that, and other movements like this, it's I see these people really acting from that moral responsibility of: What can we do to take care of future generations? What do we need to do to try to save a few more species? What else can we do individually to find different parts of the planet and start to take care of it, especially at a time when governments are not doing what they're supposed to be doing in how they ought to be responding to this? So, I look out and I see movements like this as really acts of deep integrity and great courage, at a time when everything seems to be stacked behind us.
Because I think what we need to remember it's so easy to look at the big picture and get completely disheartened when we do that. And I think what we need to remember is: What is my own personal moral obligation? And when I wake up each day thinking about what I might do from that perspective, instead of having hope or coming at it from a more activist perspective, when I really come at it with a deep sense of moral obligation, it really doesn't matter what the results are. What matters is: Am I doing the right thing? And am I doing all I can right now at this time of crisis?
AMY GOODMAN: Dahr, can you describe your journey to the Amazon, to the lungs of the planet?
DAHR JAMAIL: I was privileged to get to go there and go to Camp 41. It's the most famous of the study camps of Dr. Thomas Lovejoy, a great scientist, who is also sometimes referred to as the "Godfather of Biodiversity." He has been studying down there since 1965. And getting to go into this camp was an extraordinary experience. It's a camp that that camp alone has been the producer of over 700 peer-reviewed published scientific studies about different aspects, from trees to insects to birds to animals to soils, you name it. And getting to go there with him was profound, because he really I really understood and felt it in my body, when you go to a place so rich in diversity as the Amazon, how literally the jungle itself started to kind of take me in. I mean, anyone that has been there, I think, would relate to this, where literally everything from how you feel to how you start looking at things to even your dreams at night start to change, as you really start to kind of become one with the jungle there.
And Dr. Lovejoy, though, however, was troubled, because if you look at what's happening to the Amazon with the increasing temperatures, the increasing amount of droughts, wildfires, and then, of course, human encroachment one of the biggest problems there is the Amazon being hacked away and replaced with pastures so that cattle can be raised for beef. And all of these things were converging to cause a problem, in that the Amazon, where under normal circumstances it becomes a carbon sink it draws CO2 out of the atmosphere into the trees, into the soil and because of the drought and the warming temperatures, there's actually already been longer periods, from weeks even to, at times, a couple of months, where it's actually become a net carbon source in releasing CO2 back into the atmosphere. And as temperatures warm and all of these other climate disruption impacts intensify across the Amazon, unfortunately, it appears as though we're locked in to start seeing that happen a lot more. And then, as a consequence, the incredibly rich biodiversity that is there is under threat.
And the final note on that, that he shared, that I think was really profound and important for people to know, so many of our pharmaceuticals come from the Amazon. And if we're going to be destroying parts of it and losing species that we don't even know exist yet, we might be taking out things that we're going to need in order to develop pharmaceuticals from future diseases that haven't even happened yet. So, from just a purely human self-interest standpoint, it is an imperative situation to understand what's happening to the Amazon and the need to protect it.

]]> JUAN GONZÁLEZ: Well, a shocking new report finds at least a third of the Himalayan ice cap will melt by the end of the century due to climate change, even if the world's most ambitious environmental reforms are implemented. The report, released by the Hindu Kush Himalaya Assessment earlier this month, is the culmination of half a decade's work by over 200 scientists, with an additional 125 experts peer reviewing their work. It warns rising temperatures in the Himalayas could lead to mass population displacement, as well as catastrophic food and water insecurity. The glaciers are a vital source for the 250 million people who live in the Hindu Kush Himalayan range, which spans from Afghanistan to Burma. The region is home to the most ice in the world, after Antarctica and the Arctic. More than 1.5 billion people depend on the rivers that flow from the Himalayan peaks.
AMY GOODMAN: Meanwhile, an alarming new report has found more than 40 percent of insect species around the world may become extinct in the next few decades. Although the study's authors point to industrial agriculture as the main culprit, they also lay blame on climate change, citing warming temperatures that have led to sudden decreases in insect population in places like Puerto Rico, where nearly 100 percent of ground rainforest bugs have disappeared in just 35 years.
This devastating news comes as 2018 was found to be the fourth-warmest year on record. The past five years have been the five warmest since reliable measurements began more than a century and a half ago.
We go now to Seattle to talk to journalist Dahr Jamail, author of four books, including his most recent, The End of Ice: Bearing Witness and Finding Meaning in the Path of Climate Disruption. Dahr was awarded the Martha Gellhorn Prize for Investigative Reporting for his reporting from the Iraq War. Last year, he won an Izzy Award for his ongoing coverage of human-caused climate change.
Dahr, welcome back to Democracy Now! Thank you so much for driving two hours in a snowstorm to get to Seattle to be with us today. Can you talk about these latest reports of, once again, precedent-setting, climate change-related developments in the world?
DAHR JAMAIL: They're more indications of how far along we already are, regarding human-caused climate disruption. Excuse me. They essentially underscore that we are on a warming trend now that's unprecedented, unlike anything that we've ever seen since humans have been on the planet. And it's very disconcerting. And we can really look across the globe and see these giant alarm bells, like the melting of the glaciers in the Himalaya, the collapse of insect populations, which that same report said, at the current trajectory, assuming we don't speed up or these trends don't speed up, which they may well do that, we could lose all insects by 2100.
If we look at what's happening to glaciers in the United States, just in the contiguous 48 states, in Glacier National Park, a lead expert there told me that we could probably not have any glaciers left whatsoever in Glacier National Park by just 2030. That's just 11 years from now. He went on to say, along with several other experts, which is that there could be no glaciers left anywhere in the contiguous 48 at all by 2100. And then, think about the implications of this, not just for, of course, the natural implications then on ecosystems, which are massive, but like the Hindu Kush, so many people depend on these glaciers for drinking water and irrigation. So, these alarm bells are ringing very, very loudly all around us. And that's really just a few of the overt ones right now.
JUAN GONZÁLEZ: Well, Dahr, in your new book, you talk about at one point, you say, "As a species, we now hang over the abyss of a geoengineered future we have created for ourselves. At our insistence, our voracious appetite is consuming nature itself. We have refused to heed the warnings Earth has been sending, and there is no rescue team on its way." That's a pretty dim sense of what lies ahead. Could you talk about the response of governments and the human race to what's going on?
DAHR JAMAIL: Well, it is why I think we're in such a grim situation. Because I went to many of the hotspots, the front lines of climate disruption around the world, from Denali up in Alaska to the Amazon rainforest to the Great Barrier Reef to South Florida for sea level rise and many other places. And in each place, really, what we've seen is catastrophic declines of whether it's biodiversity in the Amazon to the loss of ice up in the Alaskan Range to how fast now sea level rise is starting to accelerate, and that all of these crises that are it's a myriad of them happening simultaneously, held against the backdrop of you know, the majority of the population, even in this country, with a fossil fuel industry-driven denial mechanism, even here, we have the majority of the people understand that climate disruption is real and that something needs to be done about it. And yet, like other countries, as well, we have a government that is not only not doing anything about it, but is instead stomping on the gas. And so, another reason things are so grim.
And really, when you connect all the dots and look at what's happening across the planet, against the backdrop of this really pathetic government response on any in any way that's coming close to what has to happen to actually mitigate this crisis. I mean, we all know it's the cat's out of the bag on the fact we're not going to stop it. The only question is: Are we going to be able to mitigate it?
And, you know, the best science now shows that even if we stopped all fossil fuel emissions today, and everything you know, all governments started to react accordingly, most likely we have a minimum of 3 degrees C warming that's already baked into the system. And so, hold that up against how governments are reacting. I mean, we should be having global, coordinated response on a dramatically emergency level. And instead, it's business as usual in at least the leading countries you know, the U.S., China, India and Russia, the leading greenhouse gas-emitting countries on the planet. And instead of going into an emergency response and mandated CO2 emission cuts and getting off fossil fuels as rapidly as possible, they're just stomping on the gas and pretending like we can keep kicking this can down the road.
And the reality is that it's not a future crisis. I want to underscore the point that this is happening now. As we speak, the Great Barrier Reef is in terminal stage. As we speak, we already have set in motion things that are going to erase glaciers from the contiguous 48 states, probably well before 2100. As we speak, the Amazon is under grave, grave threat and already has warming cycles happening there that are unprecedented in droughts. So, we have to really, I think, start thinking about that in this way, that the future that we've all thought was going to be so much further down the line, or 2100, and catastrophic, it's already happening now.
AMY GOODMAN: We're going to break and then come back to this discussion and find out why you left war reporting, what we interviewed you so much about over the years, living in the Middle East for the years that you did, to cover the issue of climate change. Dahr Jamail's new book is called The End of Ice: Bearing Witness and Finding Meaning in the Path of Climate Disruption. It's just out. Stay with us.
[break]
AMY GOODMAN: "Plastic Jesus," performed by Tia Blake. This isDemocracy Now!I'm Amy Goodman, with Juan González. Our guest is Dahr Jamail, independent journalist, author of the new book The End of Ice: Bearing Witness and Finding Meaning in the Path of Climate Disruption.
So, Dahr, take us on that journey of your life, from war reporting to climate change, from the highest peak, Denali in Alaska, to the Coral Sea.
DAHR JAMAIL: Well, it really did start when I first saw Denali, and that drove me to move up to Alaska. I just really fell in love with mountaineering and wanted to spend as much of my life as I could up in those amazing places on the planet. But immediately, I was confronted with, back this is in 1996 the dramatic loss of glaciers, the retreat that was already happening, the crazy weather swings that were already occurring across Alaska at that time. And so, it was very, very clear to anyone up there spending a lot of time in the mountains what was already upon us then.
And then, of course, the Iraq War, being called to go follow the need to go provide reporting there about how that war was impacting the Iraqi people. It's interesting in that, you know, covering that for as long as I did, and the really dramatic, you know, how again, how obvious it was early on in that war what was happening, how bad it was. I mean, it was impossible to land on the ground there and not know that already so many Iraqis were being killed, so many Iraqis were being tortured.
But an interesting parallel, that I want to bring this up to tie this in to current reporting on climate disruption, is that I can remember acutely, at that time, reporting on torture, reporting on the home raids, reporting on the atrocities being carried out by the U.S. military in Iraq, reporting on illegal weapons and things like this, much of it on Democracy Now!, and yet, you know, the mainstream media ignored it. And, of course, most people in this country, it took years before it really seeped in how catastrophic that invasion and occupation was for the Iraqi people, and, of course, for the U.S. military.
And so, coming out of that war, going into the BP oil spill I was living in Texas at the time and covered that. And, you know, another interesting theme, very, very obvious in all of these stories, is fossil fuels. You know, we know the root cause of climate disruption at this point is the burning of fossil fuels. And then, of course, Iraq was it's a no-brainer, that was a war for oil, clear and simple from day one. And then, of course, the BP oil spill, the consequences of living in a fossil fuel-based economy. And then, now, again, back to climate change, where these impacts are upon us.
And, you know, the parallel I want to bring current now, from sharing what I did about Iraq, is that, you know, I've been out on the front lines of where climate change is the most obvious. And I'm far from the only reporter on this beat, and certainly there's plenty of others who have been on it longer than I. But that said, you know, what I want to impart is that what's happening right now, as we speak, we are in this. We are in the era of loss. We are in a situation where the planet is already irrevocably changed.
And so, the Great Barrier Reef being in terminal stage. I was there in 2017 for the first week of the coral bleaching event that struck the reef that year, which went on to kill 30 percent of the area that bleached. The next year, another coral bleaching event, 20 percent was lost that bleached. So, there you have 50 percent lost in just two years. This is why scientists there are referring to the reef being in a terminal stage, and probably won't last another 10 years. This is the single biggest coral ecosystem on the planet.
And if we look at what's already baked into the system with sea level rise, one of the scientists I interviewed at University of Miami, Dr. Harold Wanless, said we could see not just the IPCC worst-case prediction by 2100, but we could see which is around the lines of somewhere between six feet and eight feet we could see as much as 20 to even 30 feet even by then. And if you look at the collapsing ice sheets in the Antarctic I mean, just a few weeks ago, we had another report, that the lead author of, Dr. Eric Rignot of UC Irvine, one of the leading glacial scientists studying what's happening in the Antarctica that report showed a sixfold increase in melting across that continent just since the 1970s.
So, things are happening. They're accelerating. And it's very, very clear where we are in this crisis. And so, it's really amazing to me I'm having that same experience as I did in Iraq of being on the streets of Baghdad or being in Fallujah, writing these reports, telling people what's happening, and then waiting for kind of the rest of the country to keep up and wake up and really see what's happening, that we're in a situation where we're talking about 2100, and reality is, you know, we're talking about right now. It's happening right now.
JUAN GONZÁLEZ: Dahr, could you also talk about the thawing of the permafrost and the potential the impact and significance of this, as well?
DAHR JAMAIL: That's right. So, I went up to Utqiagvik, a town formerly known as Barrow, in northern Alaska. It's the northernmost point in that state. And I went up there specifically to see the situation of the permafrost and deepen my investigations into the methane up there. So, the permafrost, you know, the terrestrial permafrost, is melting I'm sorry, it's thawing dramatically. And it's warming up even tens of feet below the surface. And what's disconcerting about that is this holds a vast store of organic material, so as it thaws, it's releasing both CO2 and then a smaller amount of methane up into the atmosphere. And that's already happening. That thawing is occurring. And the scientist I spoke with said he expects all of the permafrost across northern Alaska to be well above freezing, well in advance of 2100.
And then, the permafrost, as it goes underneath the shallow seas of the Arctic, contained within it is methane hydrates. And that is starting to thaw out. So, as the ice cap recedes, the summer sea ice, as the oceans warm, both from warmer water coming up from the Atlantic, as well as now more solar radiation coming in from above, and the atmosphere warming, those hydrates are starting to be released. And so, one of the scientists I interviewed for my book, Dr. Ira Leifer, spoke of a paper that he had published actually several years ago, where the normal background rate for methane seeps from a seabed in that area is approximately 3,000 methane seeps over a thousand-square-kilometer area. He had using satellites to measure the methane, he had found another thousand-square-kilometer area where there were already 60 million methane seeps that were coming up from the base of the Arctic seabed.
AMY GOODMAN: Dahr, President Trump, mocking one of the candidates running for president, Senator Klobuchar, said he said, "Amy Klobuchar announced that she is running for President, talking proudly of fighting global warming while standing in a virtual blizzard of snow, ice and freezing temperatures. Bad timing," he said. "By the end of her speech she looked like a Snowman(woman)!" he said. But he continually repeats this issue, the issue of, "Look, the country is in a polar vortex. You call this global warming?" Please explain the process by which the Earth getting warmer can mean freezing weather, as well as, you know, desertification.
DAHR JAMAIL: This is why I call it climate disruption and not climate change. You know, it's because when you inject as much CO2 into the atmosphere as we have, it doesn't just change the climate, it completely disrupts it. And that's exactly what the polar vortex is a sign of. It's the opposite of what this individual in the White House you know, I'm hesitant to really call him any kind of a name. It's just still stunning to me that there's someone like this there. But let's not conflate weather with climate; these are two separate things. So, that's one.
And then, the other being that the polar vortex is actually a sign of the opposite of what Mr. Trump is saying, that it somehow negates the reality of climate disruption. So, when you have destabilized temperatures, when you have temperatures not in their normal range, the jet stream, rather than being steady, it becomes disrupted, and we have these huge flows sometimes that come down into the lower 48, and that's and letting all that Arctic air down here. Conversely, you look up in the Arctic, and temperatures up there are nowhere near as cold as they normally are. And that's a big part of why we have the problem with the thawing permafrost and the methane crisis that I just spoke of.
So, and on that note, one thing that I forgot to add earlier is, methane is, over a 10-year timescale, an 85 it's 85 times more potent as a greenhouse gas than CO2. So, the consequences of that methane starting to be released and the possibility of a dramatic, sudden burst of it coming out all at once could literally happen at any moment, and if there's enough methane there, that we could that the CO2 equivalent released of on par of half, again, as much CO2 as we've already emitted into the atmosphere since the Industrial Revolution began.
JUAN GONZÁLEZ: And, Dahr, what hope do you see in the new young leaders that have come forward and the activists in recent years I'm thinking of Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez and her proposal for the Green New Deal for this to become more than just a gadfly or opposition movement, but actually effect real change in how this nation and other nations begin to deal with climate disruption?
DAHR JAMAIL: I think these are valiant efforts and very, very heartening. I look at it now through a perspective that I learned from an indigenous man that I met and interviewed for my book and brought him into the closing chapter, Stan Rushworth, who of Cherokee descent, who he's who reminded me that Western colonial mindset is that we each have rights, whereas indigenous wisdom teaches that we're all born into this world with certain obligations. And talking about the climate crisis through that lens, we have a moral obligation to future generations and to serve and take care of the planet.
And so, when we see people like Cortez bringing out the Green New Deal, and the Sunrise Movement that's behind that, and other movements like this, it's I see these people really acting from that moral responsibility of: What can we do to take care of future generations? What do we need to do to try to save a few more species? What else can we do individually to find different parts of the planet and start to take care of it, especially at a time when governments are not doing what they're supposed to be doing in how they ought to be responding to this? So, I look out and I see movements like this as really acts of deep integrity and great courage, at a time when everything seems to be stacked behind us.
Because I think what we need to remember it's so easy to look at the big picture and get completely disheartened when we do that. And I think what we need to remember is: What is my own personal moral obligation? And when I wake up each day thinking about what I might do from that perspective, instead of having hope or coming at it from a more activist perspective, when I really come at it with a deep sense of moral obligation, it really doesn't matter what the results are. What matters is: Am I doing the right thing? And am I doing all I can right now at this time of crisis?
AMY GOODMAN: Dahr, can you describe your journey to the Amazon, to the lungs of the planet?
DAHR JAMAIL: I was privileged to get to go there and go to Camp 41. It's the most famous of the study camps of Dr. Thomas Lovejoy, a great scientist, who is also sometimes referred to as the "Godfather of Biodiversity." He has been studying down there since 1965. And getting to go into this camp was an extraordinary experience. It's a camp that that camp alone has been the producer of over 700 peer-reviewed published scientific studies about different aspects, from trees to insects to birds to animals to soils, you name it. And getting to go there with him was profound, because he really I really understood and felt it in my body, when you go to a place so rich in diversity as the Amazon, how literally the jungle itself started to kind of take me in. I mean, anyone that has been there, I think, would relate to this, where literally everything from how you feel to how you start looking at things to even your dreams at night start to change, as you really start to kind of become one with the jungle there.
And Dr. Lovejoy, though, however, was troubled, because if you look at what's happening to the Amazon with the increasing temperatures, the increasing amount of droughts, wildfires, and then, of course, human encroachment one of the biggest problems there is the Amazon being hacked away and replaced with pastures so that cattle can be raised for beef. And all of these things were converging to cause a problem, in that the Amazon, where under normal circumstances it becomes a carbon sink it draws CO2 out of the atmosphere into the trees, into the soil and because of the drought and the warming temperatures, there's actually already been longer periods, from weeks even to, at times, a couple of months, where it's actually become a net carbon source in releasing CO2 back into the atmosphere. And as temperatures warm and all of these other climate disruption impacts intensify across the Amazon, unfortunately, it appears as though we're locked in to start seeing that happen a lot more. And then, as a consequence, the incredibly rich biodiversity that is there is under threat.
And the final note on that, that he shared, that I think was really profound and important for people to know, so many of our pharmaceuticals come from the Amazon. And if we're going to be destroying parts of it and losing species that we don't even know exist yet, we might be taking out things that we're going to need in order to develop pharmaceuticals from future diseases that haven't even happened yet. So, from just a purely human self-interest standpoint, it is an imperative situation to understand what's happening to the Amazon and the need to protect it.

]]> <![CDATA[Greenland Ice Melting 4X Faster Than Most Dire Predictions To Date!]]> https://deeppoliticsforum.com/fora/showthread.php?tid=16008 Wed, 23 Jan 2019 18:02:31 +0000 Peter Lemkin]]> https://deeppoliticsforum.com/fora/showthread.php?tid=16008 Scientists concerned about sea level rise have long focused on Greenland's southeast and northwest regions, where large glaciers stream iceberg-sized chunks of ice into the Atlantic Ocean. Those chunks float away, eventually melting. But a new study published Jan. 21 in the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences found that the largest sustained ice loss from early 2003 to mid-2013 came from Greenland's southwest region, which is mostly devoid of large glaciers.[/FONT]
"Whatever this was, it couldn't be explained by glaciers, because there aren't many there," said Michael Bevis, lead author of the paper, Ohio Eminent Scholar and a professor of geodynamics at The Ohio State University. "It had to be the surface mass -- the ice was melting inland from the coastline."[/FONT]
That melting, which Bevis and his co-authors believe is largely caused by global warming, means that in the southwestern part of Greenland, growing rivers of water are streaming into the ocean during summer. The key finding from their study: Southwest Greenland, which previously had not been considered a serious threat, will likely become a major future contributor to sea level rise.[/FONT]
"We knew we had one big problem with increasing rates of ice discharge by some large outlet glaciers," he said. "But now we recognize a second serious problem: Increasingly, large amounts of ice mass are going to leave as meltwater, as rivers that flow into the sea."[/FONT]
The findings could have serious implications for coastal U.S. cities, including New York and Miami, as well as island nations that are particularly vulnerable to rising sea levels.[/FONT]
And there is no turning back, Bevis said.[/FONT]
"The only thing we can do is adapt and mitigate further global warming -- it's too late for there to be no effect," he said. "This is going to cause additional sea level rise. We are watching the ice sheet hit a tipping point."[/FONT]
Climate scientists and glaciologists have been monitoring the Greenland ice sheet as a whole since 2002, when NASA and Germany joined forces to launch GRACE. GRACE stands for Gravity Recovery and Climate Experiment, and involves twin satellites that measure ice loss across Greenland. Data from these satellites showed that between 2002 and 2016, Greenland lost approximately 280 gigatons of ice per year, equivalent to 0.03 inches of sea level rise each year. But the rate of ice loss across the island was far from steady.[/FONT]
Bevis' team used data from GRACE and from GPS stations scattered around Greenland's coast to identify changes in ice mass. The patterns they found show an alarming trend -- by 2012, ice was being lost at nearly four times the rate that prevailed in 2003. The biggest surprise: This acceleration was focused in southwest Greenland, a part of the island that previously hadn't been known to be losing ice that rapidly.[/FONT]
Bevis said a natural weather phenomenon -- the North Atlantic Oscillation, which brings warmer air to West Greenland, as well as clearer skies and more solar radiation -- was building on man-made climate change to cause unprecedented levels of melting and runoff. Global atmospheric warming enhances summertime melting, especially in the southwest. The North Atlantic Oscillation is a natural -- if erratic -- cycle that causes ice to melt under normal circumstances. When combined with man-made global warming, though, the effects are supercharged.[/FONT]
"These oscillations have been happening forever," Bevis said. "So why only now are they causing this massive melt? It's because the atmosphere is, at its baseline, warmer. The transient warming driven by the North Atlantic Oscillation was riding on top of more sustained, global warming."[/FONT]
Bevis likened the melting of Greenland's ice to coral bleaching: Once the ocean's water hits a certain temperature, coral in that region begins to bleach. There have been three global coral bleaching events. The first was caused by the 1997-98 El Niño, and the other two events by the two subsequent El Niños. But El Niño cycles have been happening for thousands of years -- so why have they caused global coral bleaching only since 1997?[/FONT]
"What's happening is sea surface temperature in the tropics is going up; shallow water gets warmer and the air gets warmer," Bevis said. "The water temperature fluctuations driven by an El Niño are riding this global ocean warming. Because of climate change, the base temperature is already close to the critical temperature at which coral bleaches, so an El Niño pushes the temperature over the critical threshold value. And in the case of Greenland, global warming has brought summertime temperatures in a significant portion of Greenland close to the melting point, and the North Atlantic Oscillation has provided the extra push that caused large areas of ice to melt."[/FONT]
Before this study, scientists understood Greenland to be one of the Earth's major contributors to sea-level rise -- mostly because of its glaciers. But these new findings, Bevis said, show that scientists need to be watching the island's snowpack and ice fields more closely, especially in and near southwest Greenland.[/FONT]
GPS systems in place now monitor Greenland's ice margin sheet around most of its perimeter, but the network is very sparse in the southwest, so it is necessary to densify the network there, given these new findings.[/FONT]
"We're going to see faster and faster sea level rise for the foreseeable future," Bevis said. "Once you hit that tipping point, the only question is: How severe does it get?"[/FONT]]]> Scientists concerned about sea level rise have long focused on Greenland's southeast and northwest regions, where large glaciers stream iceberg-sized chunks of ice into the Atlantic Ocean. Those chunks float away, eventually melting. But a new study published Jan. 21 in the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences found that the largest sustained ice loss from early 2003 to mid-2013 came from Greenland's southwest region, which is mostly devoid of large glaciers.[/FONT]
"Whatever this was, it couldn't be explained by glaciers, because there aren't many there," said Michael Bevis, lead author of the paper, Ohio Eminent Scholar and a professor of geodynamics at The Ohio State University. "It had to be the surface mass -- the ice was melting inland from the coastline."[/FONT]
That melting, which Bevis and his co-authors believe is largely caused by global warming, means that in the southwestern part of Greenland, growing rivers of water are streaming into the ocean during summer. The key finding from their study: Southwest Greenland, which previously had not been considered a serious threat, will likely become a major future contributor to sea level rise.[/FONT]
"We knew we had one big problem with increasing rates of ice discharge by some large outlet glaciers," he said. "But now we recognize a second serious problem: Increasingly, large amounts of ice mass are going to leave as meltwater, as rivers that flow into the sea."[/FONT]
The findings could have serious implications for coastal U.S. cities, including New York and Miami, as well as island nations that are particularly vulnerable to rising sea levels.[/FONT]
And there is no turning back, Bevis said.[/FONT]
"The only thing we can do is adapt and mitigate further global warming -- it's too late for there to be no effect," he said. "This is going to cause additional sea level rise. We are watching the ice sheet hit a tipping point."[/FONT]
Climate scientists and glaciologists have been monitoring the Greenland ice sheet as a whole since 2002, when NASA and Germany joined forces to launch GRACE. GRACE stands for Gravity Recovery and Climate Experiment, and involves twin satellites that measure ice loss across Greenland. Data from these satellites showed that between 2002 and 2016, Greenland lost approximately 280 gigatons of ice per year, equivalent to 0.03 inches of sea level rise each year. But the rate of ice loss across the island was far from steady.[/FONT]
Bevis' team used data from GRACE and from GPS stations scattered around Greenland's coast to identify changes in ice mass. The patterns they found show an alarming trend -- by 2012, ice was being lost at nearly four times the rate that prevailed in 2003. The biggest surprise: This acceleration was focused in southwest Greenland, a part of the island that previously hadn't been known to be losing ice that rapidly.[/FONT]
Bevis said a natural weather phenomenon -- the North Atlantic Oscillation, which brings warmer air to West Greenland, as well as clearer skies and more solar radiation -- was building on man-made climate change to cause unprecedented levels of melting and runoff. Global atmospheric warming enhances summertime melting, especially in the southwest. The North Atlantic Oscillation is a natural -- if erratic -- cycle that causes ice to melt under normal circumstances. When combined with man-made global warming, though, the effects are supercharged.[/FONT]
"These oscillations have been happening forever," Bevis said. "So why only now are they causing this massive melt? It's because the atmosphere is, at its baseline, warmer. The transient warming driven by the North Atlantic Oscillation was riding on top of more sustained, global warming."[/FONT]
Bevis likened the melting of Greenland's ice to coral bleaching: Once the ocean's water hits a certain temperature, coral in that region begins to bleach. There have been three global coral bleaching events. The first was caused by the 1997-98 El Niño, and the other two events by the two subsequent El Niños. But El Niño cycles have been happening for thousands of years -- so why have they caused global coral bleaching only since 1997?[/FONT]
"What's happening is sea surface temperature in the tropics is going up; shallow water gets warmer and the air gets warmer," Bevis said. "The water temperature fluctuations driven by an El Niño are riding this global ocean warming. Because of climate change, the base temperature is already close to the critical temperature at which coral bleaches, so an El Niño pushes the temperature over the critical threshold value. And in the case of Greenland, global warming has brought summertime temperatures in a significant portion of Greenland close to the melting point, and the North Atlantic Oscillation has provided the extra push that caused large areas of ice to melt."[/FONT]
Before this study, scientists understood Greenland to be one of the Earth's major contributors to sea-level rise -- mostly because of its glaciers. But these new findings, Bevis said, show that scientists need to be watching the island's snowpack and ice fields more closely, especially in and near southwest Greenland.[/FONT]
GPS systems in place now monitor Greenland's ice margin sheet around most of its perimeter, but the network is very sparse in the southwest, so it is necessary to densify the network there, given these new findings.[/FONT]
"We're going to see faster and faster sea level rise for the foreseeable future," Bevis said. "Once you hit that tipping point, the only question is: How severe does it get?"[/FONT]]]> <![CDATA[On Human-Induced Climate Collapse and how Capitalism and too many unaware humans are to blame.]]> https://deeppoliticsforum.com/fora/showthread.php?tid=15611 Fri, 01 Sep 2017 11:55:39 +0000 Peter Lemkin]]> https://deeppoliticsforum.com/fora/showthread.php?tid=15611 We go now to Oxford in Britain to speak to George Monbiot. He's a columnist with The Guardian. His book, Out of the Wreckage: A New Politics for an Age of Crisis, is out this week. His latest article for The Guardian is headlined "Why are the crucial questions about Hurricane Harvey not being asked?"
George Monbiot, welcome back to Democracy Now! Well, answer your question.
GEORGE MONBIOT: Well, because to ask those questions is to challenge everything. It's to challenge not just Donald Trump, not just current environmental policy. It's to challenge the entire political and economic system. And it is to recognize that the system which we tell ourselves is the best system you could possibly have, of neoliberal capitalism, which will deliver the optimum outcomes and the best of all possible worlds, actually is destined to push us towards catastrophe, and unless we replace that system with a better one, with something really quite different, then it will destroy us. Instead of making us more prosperous, more comfortable, it will rip apart everything that makes our lives worth living, and result in the deaths of very large numbers of people.
NERMEEN SHAIKH: Well, quite apart from the fact, George, that the issue of climate change is not mentioned in the media, as you write in your article, you also think that the term "climate change" is misleading, and the term that should be used is "climate breakdown." Could you explain why that is?
GEORGE MONBIOT: Well, "climate change" is a curiously bland term to describe our greatest crisis, our huge human predicament, that will inevitably lead to catastrophe if we don't take drastic action to prevent it. It's a bit like calling a foreign invasion "unexpected guests." It's that crazily bland, for something which is going to have such an enormous impact on our lives, and, as we've just been hearing, has already had such an enormous impact on many people's lives around the world. And unless you use the right language to describe what you're talking about, you mislead people as to what the likely implications of that are. And by talking about climate change as if it"You know, it could be a good thing, could be a bad thing, who knows? It might be a neutral thing. You know, we like a bit of climate change, don't we? We like it when the winter gives way to summer"we suggest that this huge catastrophe might not be a catastrophe at all. I don't think "climate breakdown" is the perfect term. I can't quite put my finger on the right term, but I think it comes a lot closer to what we need to be saying than "climate change" does.
AMY GOODMAN: What do you say to those who say you cannot link this one hurricane or storm to climate change or climate chaos, climate breakdown, as you describe it?
GEORGE MONBIOT: I would say you cannot not link it. We have, so far, 1 degree centigrade of global warming, and that now affects every single weather event on Earth, just like the 4 degrees centigrade of global warming that followed the Ice Ageit was 4 degrees between the last Ice Age and the 19th centuryaffects every single weather event on Earth. And we wouldn't have warm summers without that 4 degree of warming. With that extra 1 degree of warming, that creates further implications for every single weather event on Earth.
And for hurricanes, the link is crystal clear. There are three ways in which the impact of hurricanes is affected by that 1 degree of warming. First of all, sea levels are higher. So coastal cities, like Houston, like Port Arthur, getare more likely to be hit by storm surges as a result of those higher sea levels, as we were hearing from your wonderful guest Hilton Kelley in the last segment. Number two, the sea is warmer. The temperature of the sea is higher, and that can enhance the intensity of the storm, because it puts more energy into the storm. The storm is picking up energy from those warmer waters. And number three, the air itself is warmer. And warmer air holds more moisture than cooler air. And that means that you can have much more intense rainfall events. So, what we see here is that it's impossible for the hurricane not to have been affected by climate breakdown.
Now, of course, what we can't say is there would have been no hurricane if it weren't for climate breakdown; if it weren't for the human contribution, for the fossil fuels we've been burning, there wouldn't have been a hurricane. Of course there were hurricanes in the past. What we can say is that this hurricane, whether or not it was caused by the human contribution, was affected by the human contribution. That is unequivocal.
NERMEEN SHAIKH: Well, nevertheless, George, you've been accused, as, no doubt, have others, of politicizing Hurricane Harvey and events like it, extreme weather events like it, by linking it to climate change.
GEORGE MONBIOT: Yes. And now, in fact, the Environmental Protection Agency itself has accused climate scientists in the U.S. of politicizing it by mentioning climate change or climate breakdown. It's an extraordinary thing. It's clear to me that by not mentioning it, you are politicizing this issue. The linkage is so clear, it is so obvious, that when you don't talk about it, you're taking a decision, you are taking a position. And the position is, we're not going to talk about climate change, we're not going to talk about climate breakdown. That is a political decision. And it's a highly charged political decision, which reflects powerful interests. It reflects the kind of interests we've just been hearing about, the oil refineries and the oil rigs, which themselves have been hit by Hurricane Harvey and its aftermathan extraordinary irony, something which pulls up into stark relief the issue that we're dealing with, but just is not being discussed at all.
And those people, the people who run those companies, they are responsible for shutting down all discussion of climate breakdown so that we don't go there, we don't talk about it. And journalists and editors, with the glowing exception of yourselves, they have a powerful instinct not to go there. It's not that they wake up in the morning and say, "Don't talk about climate change. I mustn't talk about climate change. Whatever I do, don't mention climate change." They don't need to say that. It's already in their guts. They have a visceral sense that if you go there, then you open up everything. You open Pandora's box, and you open up a discussion of whether capitalism is working. You open up a discussion of whether the political system is working. You open up a discussion of what the world's most powerful actors, including the fossil fuel companies, are doing to the rest of the world's people. And to go there, you put everything at risk. You put your career at risk. You put your piece of mind at risk. You put the good opinion of your colleagues at risk. To challenge everything is to become an outcast.
AMY GOODMAN: We're talking to George Monbiot, the British journalist and author. President Trump just went to Texas, and he's going back. When he landed, he didn't address the victims at all. He didn't talk about the victims. But he did say, about the people around him, "What a crowd! What a turnout!" Now, President Trump is a proud climate change denier, as is the governor of Texas, Governor Abbott. You point out that Trump denying human-driven global warming is interesting given that he built a wall around his golf resort in Ireland to protect it from the rising seas. Talk more about this.
GEORGE MONBIOT: He's trying. He hasn't yet succeeded, but he's applying for permission. His company is trying to build a sea wall around his golf resort, because it knows that the seas are rising and his golf resort is now at risk. And similarly, in the Gulf of Mexico, the oil companies keep raising the height of their oil platforms. In the 1960s, they were 40 feet above sea level. Then, in the 1990s, they were 70 feet. Today, they are 91 feet above sea level. And they have raised those platforms because they know the sea level is rising and storms are intensifying. And they have done so to get the oil platforms out of the way of those impacts caused by climate breakdown, caused by the oil companies themselves. So, though those same oil companies, particularly ExxonMobil, have poured millions of dollars into paying professional liars to deny climate change across the media and across social media, they themselves know that it's happening, and they're taking precautions to protect themselves against it.
NERMEEN SHAIKH: Well, George, I'd like to turn to another issue that you raise in the piece. You talk specifically about the fact that the U.S. media have failed to cover climate breakdown-related disasters in the U.S. itself, but there's even greater silence on climate disasters in the rest of the world. I mean, we've just heard, in India, Nepal and Bangladesh, over 1,200 people have died. There are floods in Niger. Now, in Karachi, a state of emergency has been declared. So, can you talk about that, the media silence on that? And what's actually happening in these places where people are so much more vulnerable than here?
GEORGE MONBIOT: It's an extraordinary thing to contemplate, isn't it? That the part of the world worst hit by current flooding is not actually Texas. Disastrous, catastrophic as it is in Texas, it is now even worse particularly in India and Bangladesh and Nepal, where we're seeing huge, horrendous levels of flooding, 40 million people affected by it, 1,200 people dead, basically the complete shutdown of the economy, of public life, of private life across a great swathe of those countries. And yet, there's almost media silence throughout the rich world.
This week in the U.K., we've been hearing a lot about Bangladesh. Bangladesh has been in the headlines for the last two days, and there's been loads of commentary written about it. Why is that? Because Bangladesh won the cricket against Australia. I'm quite serious. This is a country in which 6.9 million people are now displaced by flooding, in which a third of the country is underwater, in which hundreds have died. We don't yet know how many, because it will be a long time before that count is ever made, if it is made at all. Loads of children can no longer go to school. It's a total disruption, devastation of that country. And finally, it features in the news, because of the cricket.
And again, it is this politically driven silence, because if we were to consider what is going on in the rest of the world, and if we were to consider our contribution to what is going on in the rest of the worldand there's this terrible irony about climate change that the main perpetrators of it, with the exception of those refineries and rigs in the Gulf, in the Gulf of Mexico and in Texasgenerally, the main perpetrators are those who are hit least and last, whereas people who have made very little contribution to climate breakdown are hit first and worst, like the people of Bangladesh, who have a tiny carbon footprint. Were we to really bring this to the front of our consciousness, as we should, it would necessitate a major change in the way we run our societies, a major change in the way we run our economies and a major change in the way we live. So that is why we do not talk about it. Or if we talk about it, we do so tangentially, or we relate it as a natural disaster, another act of God, a terrible thing which has happened to those people: "Poor people. Send them some money. We feel so sorry for them, but we wash our hands of it. There's nothing we can do."
AMY GOODMAN: George Monbiot, I'm embarrassed to say
GEORGE MONBIOT: As it happens
AMY GOODMAN: We just have a minute, but can you give us a hint of what that change would look like?
GEORGE MONBIOT: Right. We need a radical change, driven by the need to prevent this catastrophe, to both politics and economics. And an economic system which depends on perpetual growth on a finite planet is destined to deliver disaster. We need a new economy built around the commons, built around community ownership of local resources, inalienable ownership of those resources, which are not expected to deliver more and more and more money, but are expected to deliver continued and steady prosperity to the people of those communities and the people of this planet. The system we have at the moment, which is about accumulation, the accumulation of capital, the continuation of growth, in a planet which does not itself grow, that system is destined to push us over the cliff.]]> We go now to Oxford in Britain to speak to George Monbiot. He's a columnist with The Guardian. His book, Out of the Wreckage: A New Politics for an Age of Crisis, is out this week. His latest article for The Guardian is headlined "Why are the crucial questions about Hurricane Harvey not being asked?"
George Monbiot, welcome back to Democracy Now! Well, answer your question.
GEORGE MONBIOT: Well, because to ask those questions is to challenge everything. It's to challenge not just Donald Trump, not just current environmental policy. It's to challenge the entire political and economic system. And it is to recognize that the system which we tell ourselves is the best system you could possibly have, of neoliberal capitalism, which will deliver the optimum outcomes and the best of all possible worlds, actually is destined to push us towards catastrophe, and unless we replace that system with a better one, with something really quite different, then it will destroy us. Instead of making us more prosperous, more comfortable, it will rip apart everything that makes our lives worth living, and result in the deaths of very large numbers of people.
NERMEEN SHAIKH: Well, quite apart from the fact, George, that the issue of climate change is not mentioned in the media, as you write in your article, you also think that the term "climate change" is misleading, and the term that should be used is "climate breakdown." Could you explain why that is?
GEORGE MONBIOT: Well, "climate change" is a curiously bland term to describe our greatest crisis, our huge human predicament, that will inevitably lead to catastrophe if we don't take drastic action to prevent it. It's a bit like calling a foreign invasion "unexpected guests." It's that crazily bland, for something which is going to have such an enormous impact on our lives, and, as we've just been hearing, has already had such an enormous impact on many people's lives around the world. And unless you use the right language to describe what you're talking about, you mislead people as to what the likely implications of that are. And by talking about climate change as if it"You know, it could be a good thing, could be a bad thing, who knows? It might be a neutral thing. You know, we like a bit of climate change, don't we? We like it when the winter gives way to summer"we suggest that this huge catastrophe might not be a catastrophe at all. I don't think "climate breakdown" is the perfect term. I can't quite put my finger on the right term, but I think it comes a lot closer to what we need to be saying than "climate change" does.
AMY GOODMAN: What do you say to those who say you cannot link this one hurricane or storm to climate change or climate chaos, climate breakdown, as you describe it?
GEORGE MONBIOT: I would say you cannot not link it. We have, so far, 1 degree centigrade of global warming, and that now affects every single weather event on Earth, just like the 4 degrees centigrade of global warming that followed the Ice Ageit was 4 degrees between the last Ice Age and the 19th centuryaffects every single weather event on Earth. And we wouldn't have warm summers without that 4 degree of warming. With that extra 1 degree of warming, that creates further implications for every single weather event on Earth.
And for hurricanes, the link is crystal clear. There are three ways in which the impact of hurricanes is affected by that 1 degree of warming. First of all, sea levels are higher. So coastal cities, like Houston, like Port Arthur, getare more likely to be hit by storm surges as a result of those higher sea levels, as we were hearing from your wonderful guest Hilton Kelley in the last segment. Number two, the sea is warmer. The temperature of the sea is higher, and that can enhance the intensity of the storm, because it puts more energy into the storm. The storm is picking up energy from those warmer waters. And number three, the air itself is warmer. And warmer air holds more moisture than cooler air. And that means that you can have much more intense rainfall events. So, what we see here is that it's impossible for the hurricane not to have been affected by climate breakdown.
Now, of course, what we can't say is there would have been no hurricane if it weren't for climate breakdown; if it weren't for the human contribution, for the fossil fuels we've been burning, there wouldn't have been a hurricane. Of course there were hurricanes in the past. What we can say is that this hurricane, whether or not it was caused by the human contribution, was affected by the human contribution. That is unequivocal.
NERMEEN SHAIKH: Well, nevertheless, George, you've been accused, as, no doubt, have others, of politicizing Hurricane Harvey and events like it, extreme weather events like it, by linking it to climate change.
GEORGE MONBIOT: Yes. And now, in fact, the Environmental Protection Agency itself has accused climate scientists in the U.S. of politicizing it by mentioning climate change or climate breakdown. It's an extraordinary thing. It's clear to me that by not mentioning it, you are politicizing this issue. The linkage is so clear, it is so obvious, that when you don't talk about it, you're taking a decision, you are taking a position. And the position is, we're not going to talk about climate change, we're not going to talk about climate breakdown. That is a political decision. And it's a highly charged political decision, which reflects powerful interests. It reflects the kind of interests we've just been hearing about, the oil refineries and the oil rigs, which themselves have been hit by Hurricane Harvey and its aftermathan extraordinary irony, something which pulls up into stark relief the issue that we're dealing with, but just is not being discussed at all.
And those people, the people who run those companies, they are responsible for shutting down all discussion of climate breakdown so that we don't go there, we don't talk about it. And journalists and editors, with the glowing exception of yourselves, they have a powerful instinct not to go there. It's not that they wake up in the morning and say, "Don't talk about climate change. I mustn't talk about climate change. Whatever I do, don't mention climate change." They don't need to say that. It's already in their guts. They have a visceral sense that if you go there, then you open up everything. You open Pandora's box, and you open up a discussion of whether capitalism is working. You open up a discussion of whether the political system is working. You open up a discussion of what the world's most powerful actors, including the fossil fuel companies, are doing to the rest of the world's people. And to go there, you put everything at risk. You put your career at risk. You put your piece of mind at risk. You put the good opinion of your colleagues at risk. To challenge everything is to become an outcast.
AMY GOODMAN: We're talking to George Monbiot, the British journalist and author. President Trump just went to Texas, and he's going back. When he landed, he didn't address the victims at all. He didn't talk about the victims. But he did say, about the people around him, "What a crowd! What a turnout!" Now, President Trump is a proud climate change denier, as is the governor of Texas, Governor Abbott. You point out that Trump denying human-driven global warming is interesting given that he built a wall around his golf resort in Ireland to protect it from the rising seas. Talk more about this.
GEORGE MONBIOT: He's trying. He hasn't yet succeeded, but he's applying for permission. His company is trying to build a sea wall around his golf resort, because it knows that the seas are rising and his golf resort is now at risk. And similarly, in the Gulf of Mexico, the oil companies keep raising the height of their oil platforms. In the 1960s, they were 40 feet above sea level. Then, in the 1990s, they were 70 feet. Today, they are 91 feet above sea level. And they have raised those platforms because they know the sea level is rising and storms are intensifying. And they have done so to get the oil platforms out of the way of those impacts caused by climate breakdown, caused by the oil companies themselves. So, though those same oil companies, particularly ExxonMobil, have poured millions of dollars into paying professional liars to deny climate change across the media and across social media, they themselves know that it's happening, and they're taking precautions to protect themselves against it.
NERMEEN SHAIKH: Well, George, I'd like to turn to another issue that you raise in the piece. You talk specifically about the fact that the U.S. media have failed to cover climate breakdown-related disasters in the U.S. itself, but there's even greater silence on climate disasters in the rest of the world. I mean, we've just heard, in India, Nepal and Bangladesh, over 1,200 people have died. There are floods in Niger. Now, in Karachi, a state of emergency has been declared. So, can you talk about that, the media silence on that? And what's actually happening in these places where people are so much more vulnerable than here?
GEORGE MONBIOT: It's an extraordinary thing to contemplate, isn't it? That the part of the world worst hit by current flooding is not actually Texas. Disastrous, catastrophic as it is in Texas, it is now even worse particularly in India and Bangladesh and Nepal, where we're seeing huge, horrendous levels of flooding, 40 million people affected by it, 1,200 people dead, basically the complete shutdown of the economy, of public life, of private life across a great swathe of those countries. And yet, there's almost media silence throughout the rich world.
This week in the U.K., we've been hearing a lot about Bangladesh. Bangladesh has been in the headlines for the last two days, and there's been loads of commentary written about it. Why is that? Because Bangladesh won the cricket against Australia. I'm quite serious. This is a country in which 6.9 million people are now displaced by flooding, in which a third of the country is underwater, in which hundreds have died. We don't yet know how many, because it will be a long time before that count is ever made, if it is made at all. Loads of children can no longer go to school. It's a total disruption, devastation of that country. And finally, it features in the news, because of the cricket.
And again, it is this politically driven silence, because if we were to consider what is going on in the rest of the world, and if we were to consider our contribution to what is going on in the rest of the worldand there's this terrible irony about climate change that the main perpetrators of it, with the exception of those refineries and rigs in the Gulf, in the Gulf of Mexico and in Texasgenerally, the main perpetrators are those who are hit least and last, whereas people who have made very little contribution to climate breakdown are hit first and worst, like the people of Bangladesh, who have a tiny carbon footprint. Were we to really bring this to the front of our consciousness, as we should, it would necessitate a major change in the way we run our societies, a major change in the way we run our economies and a major change in the way we live. So that is why we do not talk about it. Or if we talk about it, we do so tangentially, or we relate it as a natural disaster, another act of God, a terrible thing which has happened to those people: "Poor people. Send them some money. We feel so sorry for them, but we wash our hands of it. There's nothing we can do."
AMY GOODMAN: George Monbiot, I'm embarrassed to say
GEORGE MONBIOT: As it happens
AMY GOODMAN: We just have a minute, but can you give us a hint of what that change would look like?
GEORGE MONBIOT: Right. We need a radical change, driven by the need to prevent this catastrophe, to both politics and economics. And an economic system which depends on perpetual growth on a finite planet is destined to deliver disaster. We need a new economy built around the commons, built around community ownership of local resources, inalienable ownership of those resources, which are not expected to deliver more and more and more money, but are expected to deliver continued and steady prosperity to the people of those communities and the people of this planet. The system we have at the moment, which is about accumulation, the accumulation of capital, the continuation of growth, in a planet which does not itself grow, that system is destined to push us over the cliff.]]> <![CDATA[GMOs and Roundup are good for your tumors. Montsanto get's what was coming for once!]]> https://deeppoliticsforum.com/fora/showthread.php?tid=15577 Sat, 05 Aug 2017 17:52:04 +0000 Peter Lemkin]]> https://deeppoliticsforum.com/fora/showthread.php?tid=15577 Séralini's Revenge: Monsanto Rocked by New Court Documents

[FONT=&amp]Corbett 08/05/2017 3 Comments[/FONT]
The case against Monsanto is the gift that keeps on giving.
Previously in these pages I discussed how the trial of Monsanto currently taking place in the California Northern District Courttechnically known as "Multidistrict Litigation," with the formal title of "In re: Roundup Products Liability Litigation (MDL No. 2741)"is airing some of the agrichemical behemoth's dirtiest laundry. In my article "Monsatan On Trial For Roundup Cancer," I revealed how dozens of lawsuits filed against Monsanto for its role in causing the non-Hodgkin lymphoma of thousands of people across the US had been rolled into one dramatic court case, and how discovery from that case had yielded the remarkable deathbed testimony of EPA whistleblower Jess Rowland.
Then new documents emerged from the case confirming what many had long suspected: Monsanto has an entire internal corporate program (appropriately entitled "Let Nothing Go") employing an army of internet trolls who spam the company's propaganda on every social media post, forum and online comment board where its products and practices are being discussed.
Just this week, one of the law firms working on the trial released an equally explosive collection of "Monsanto's Secret Documents," proving another long-suspected claim against the world's most evil company: That it has in fact ghostwritten many of the key articles defending its products in the mainstream pressarticles that were supposedly written by "independent" journalists. When the embarrassing details of the story came to light, including a suggested "draft" of an article written by Monsanto for Forbes "journalist" Henry Miller in 2015 that was exactly identical to the article that appeared under his name, Forbes pulled the piece from its website and ended Miller's employment. In a different leaked email exchange, former Monsanto consultant John Acquavella complained to a Monsanto executive, "I can't be part of deceptive authorship on a presentation or publication," adding, "We call that ghost writing and it is unethical."
But if all that weren't bad enough, the latest documents to emerge from the case also detail exactly how Monsanto attempted to smear the research of Gilles-Éric Séralini, the French scientist who published a groundbreaking study showing an increase in tumors among rats fed genetically modified corn and Monsanto's RoundUp herbicide.
Find out all the slimy details of Monsanto's corporate smear machine in this week's edition of The Corbett Report Subscriber.
For free access to this editorial, please CLICK HERE.]]> Séralini's Revenge: Monsanto Rocked by New Court Documents

[FONT=&amp]Corbett 08/05/2017 3 Comments[/FONT]
The case against Monsanto is the gift that keeps on giving.
Previously in these pages I discussed how the trial of Monsanto currently taking place in the California Northern District Courttechnically known as "Multidistrict Litigation," with the formal title of "In re: Roundup Products Liability Litigation (MDL No. 2741)"is airing some of the agrichemical behemoth's dirtiest laundry. In my article "Monsatan On Trial For Roundup Cancer," I revealed how dozens of lawsuits filed against Monsanto for its role in causing the non-Hodgkin lymphoma of thousands of people across the US had been rolled into one dramatic court case, and how discovery from that case had yielded the remarkable deathbed testimony of EPA whistleblower Jess Rowland.
Then new documents emerged from the case confirming what many had long suspected: Monsanto has an entire internal corporate program (appropriately entitled "Let Nothing Go") employing an army of internet trolls who spam the company's propaganda on every social media post, forum and online comment board where its products and practices are being discussed.
Just this week, one of the law firms working on the trial released an equally explosive collection of "Monsanto's Secret Documents," proving another long-suspected claim against the world's most evil company: That it has in fact ghostwritten many of the key articles defending its products in the mainstream pressarticles that were supposedly written by "independent" journalists. When the embarrassing details of the story came to light, including a suggested "draft" of an article written by Monsanto for Forbes "journalist" Henry Miller in 2015 that was exactly identical to the article that appeared under his name, Forbes pulled the piece from its website and ended Miller's employment. In a different leaked email exchange, former Monsanto consultant John Acquavella complained to a Monsanto executive, "I can't be part of deceptive authorship on a presentation or publication," adding, "We call that ghost writing and it is unethical."
But if all that weren't bad enough, the latest documents to emerge from the case also detail exactly how Monsanto attempted to smear the research of Gilles-Éric Séralini, the French scientist who published a groundbreaking study showing an increase in tumors among rats fed genetically modified corn and Monsanto's RoundUp herbicide.
Find out all the slimy details of Monsanto's corporate smear machine in this week's edition of The Corbett Report Subscriber.
For free access to this editorial, please CLICK HERE.]]> <![CDATA[2 Billion May be forced to move due to sea level rise due to global warming!]]> https://deeppoliticsforum.com/fora/showthread.php?tid=15536 Wed, 28 Jun 2017 08:10:31 +0000 Peter Lemkin]]> https://deeppoliticsforum.com/fora/showthread.php?tid=15536
Quote:

Rising seas could result in 2 billion refugees by 2100

Date:June 26, 2017Source:Cornell UniversitySummary:In the year 2100, 2 billion people -- about one-fifth of the world's population -- could become climate change refugees due to rising ocean levels. Those who once lived on coastlines will face displacement and resettlement bottlenecks as they seek habitable places inland, according to new research.[Image: 170626105746_1_540x360.jpg]
Street under flood waters, Bangkok, Thailand.
Credit: © Tee11 / Fotolia



In the year 2100, 2 billion people -- about one-fifth of the world's population -- could become climate change refugees due to rising ocean levels. Those who once lived on coastlines will face displacement and resettlement bottlenecks as they seek habitable places inland, according to Cornell University research.
"We're going to have more people on less land and sooner that we think," said lead author Charles Geisler, professor emeritus of development sociology at Cornell. "The future rise in global mean sea level probably won't be gradual. Yet few policy makers are taking stock of the significant barriers to entry that coastal climate refugees, like other refugees, will encounter when they migrate to higher ground."
Earth's escalating population is expected to top 9 billion people by 2050 and climb to 11 billion people by 2100, according to a United Nations report. Feeding that population will require more arable land even as swelling oceans consume fertile coastal zones and river deltas, driving people to seek new places to dwell.
By 2060, about 1.4 billion people could be climate change refugees, according to the paper. Geisler extrapolated that number to 2 billion by 2100.
"The colliding forces of human fertility, submerging coastal zones, residential retreat, and impediments to inland resettlement is a huge problem. We offer preliminary estimates of the lands unlikely to support new waves of climate refugees due to the residues of war, exhausted natural resources, declining net primary productivity, desertification, urban sprawl, land concentration, 'paving the planet' with roads and greenhouse gas storage zones offsetting permafrost melt," Geisler said.
The paper describes tangible solutions and proactive adaptations in places like Florida and China, which coordinate coastal and interior land-use policies in anticipation of weather-induced population shifts.
Florida has the second-longest coastline in the United States, and its state and local officials have planned for a coastal exodus, Geisler said, in the state's Comprehensive Planning Act.
Beyond sea level rise, low-elevation coastal zones in many countries face intensifying storm surges that will push sea water further inland. Historically, humans have spent considerable effort reclaiming land from oceans, but now live with the opposite -- the oceans reclaiming terrestrial spaces on the planet," said Geisler. In their research, Geisler and Currens explore a worst-case scenario for the present century.
The authors note that the competition of reduced space that they foresee will induce land-use trade-offs and conflicts. In the United States and elsewhere, this could mean selling off public lands for human settlement.
"The pressure is on us to contain greenhouse gas emissions at present levels. It's the best 'future proofing' against climate change, sea level rise and the catastrophic consequences likely to play out on coasts, as well as inland in the future," said Geisler.




Journal Reference:
  • Charles Geisler, Ben Currens. Impediments to inland resettlement under conditions of accelerated sea level rise. Land Use Policy, 2017; 66: 322 DOI: 10.1016/j.landusepol.2017.03.029



[/FONT]
]]>
Quote:

Rising seas could result in 2 billion refugees by 2100

Date:June 26, 2017Source:Cornell UniversitySummary:In the year 2100, 2 billion people -- about one-fifth of the world's population -- could become climate change refugees due to rising ocean levels. Those who once lived on coastlines will face displacement and resettlement bottlenecks as they seek habitable places inland, according to new research.[Image: 170626105746_1_540x360.jpg]
Street under flood waters, Bangkok, Thailand.
Credit: © Tee11 / Fotolia



In the year 2100, 2 billion people -- about one-fifth of the world's population -- could become climate change refugees due to rising ocean levels. Those who once lived on coastlines will face displacement and resettlement bottlenecks as they seek habitable places inland, according to Cornell University research.
"We're going to have more people on less land and sooner that we think," said lead author Charles Geisler, professor emeritus of development sociology at Cornell. "The future rise in global mean sea level probably won't be gradual. Yet few policy makers are taking stock of the significant barriers to entry that coastal climate refugees, like other refugees, will encounter when they migrate to higher ground."
Earth's escalating population is expected to top 9 billion people by 2050 and climb to 11 billion people by 2100, according to a United Nations report. Feeding that population will require more arable land even as swelling oceans consume fertile coastal zones and river deltas, driving people to seek new places to dwell.
By 2060, about 1.4 billion people could be climate change refugees, according to the paper. Geisler extrapolated that number to 2 billion by 2100.
"The colliding forces of human fertility, submerging coastal zones, residential retreat, and impediments to inland resettlement is a huge problem. We offer preliminary estimates of the lands unlikely to support new waves of climate refugees due to the residues of war, exhausted natural resources, declining net primary productivity, desertification, urban sprawl, land concentration, 'paving the planet' with roads and greenhouse gas storage zones offsetting permafrost melt," Geisler said.
The paper describes tangible solutions and proactive adaptations in places like Florida and China, which coordinate coastal and interior land-use policies in anticipation of weather-induced population shifts.
Florida has the second-longest coastline in the United States, and its state and local officials have planned for a coastal exodus, Geisler said, in the state's Comprehensive Planning Act.
Beyond sea level rise, low-elevation coastal zones in many countries face intensifying storm surges that will push sea water further inland. Historically, humans have spent considerable effort reclaiming land from oceans, but now live with the opposite -- the oceans reclaiming terrestrial spaces on the planet," said Geisler. In their research, Geisler and Currens explore a worst-case scenario for the present century.
The authors note that the competition of reduced space that they foresee will induce land-use trade-offs and conflicts. In the United States and elsewhere, this could mean selling off public lands for human settlement.
"The pressure is on us to contain greenhouse gas emissions at present levels. It's the best 'future proofing' against climate change, sea level rise and the catastrophic consequences likely to play out on coasts, as well as inland in the future," said Geisler.




Journal Reference:
  • Charles Geisler, Ben Currens. Impediments to inland resettlement under conditions of accelerated sea level rise. Land Use Policy, 2017; 66: 322 DOI: 10.1016/j.landusepol.2017.03.029



[/FONT]
]]> <![CDATA[New Book On Environment Under Trump by Dick Russell; forward by Robert F. Kennedy Jr.]]> https://deeppoliticsforum.com/fora/showthread.php?tid=15486 Wed, 03 May 2017 08:52:58 +0000 Peter Lemkin]]> https://deeppoliticsforum.com/fora/showthread.php?tid=15486
Quote:The science is overwhelming; the facts are in. The planet is heating up at an alarming rate and the results are everywhere to be seen. Yet, as time runs out, climate progress is blocked by the men who are profiting from the burning of the planet: energy moguls like the Koch brothers and Exxon Mobil CEO Rex Tillerson. Powerful politicians like Senators Mitch McConnell and Jim Inhofe, who receive massive contributions from the oil and coal industries. Most of these men are too intelligent to truly believe that climate change is not a growing crisis. And yet they have put their profits and careers ahead of the health and welfare of the world's populationand even their own children and grandchildren. How do they explain themselves to their offspring, to the next generations that must deal with the environmental havoc that these men have wreaked? Horsemen of the Apocalypse takes a personal look at this global crisis, literally bringing it home.

https://www.amazon.com/Horsemen-Apocalyp...1510721754

Reviews

"When in the near future the climate implodes and misery envelops the planet, you will know the criminals against humanity who were most directly and personally responsible from [Horsemen of the Apocalypse]." ―Ross Gelbspan, author The Heat Is On and Boiling Point "Dick Russell and Robert F. Kennedy, Jr., have brilliantly laid bare the horsemen of the apocalypse and their cronies who are now steering the American ship of state and are bent on committing hara-kiri on the agreements, agencies, and regulations that are a bulwark against their own country's and the world's plunge into disaster." ―Homero Aridjis, Mexican poet, novelist, ambassador, and environmental activist; president emeritus of PEN International "As the impacts of climate change grow increasingly visible in our daily lives, so must our understanding of the forces that are conspiring to stop actions to mitigate those impacts. This book lays bare how those forces, borne largely of self interest, are trying to make sure the US continues to add to global carbon pollution, the primary factor in climate change. With the new Trump administration trying to roll back president Obama's actions, this is a timely and essential read for everyone concerned. " --Margo Oge, author of Driving the Future: Combating Climate Change with Cleaner, Smarter Cars "This may be the most important book yet on the climate crisis . . . and by the way, it's fun to read. Dick Russell's keen research and sharp writing unpacks the complex sordid tale of fossil fuel corporations and their henchmen, from the Koch brothers to Exxon to Peabody coal, who have systematically held us back from solving climate change, using denial, deception, and ruthless power." ―Kert Davies, director, Climate Investigations Center "In Horsemen of the Apocalypse, Dick Russell lays out the lies and cover-ups of some of the men―including ExxonMobil's Rex Tillerson and the Koch brothers―who have been hell-bent on amassing fortunes by exploiting fossil fuels, even while knowing that this exploitation would likely destroy civilization." ―David Ray Griffin, author of Unprecedented: Can Civilization Survive the CO2 Crisis? "Horsemen of the Apocalypse is a mind-opening exposé of the roots and branches of fossil fuel zealots, their campaigns of misinformation, and the rebellion of their descendants. It shows how the misuse of wealth and power can undermine democracy, threaten the health of the planet, and neglect our moral responsibility to future generations."―Sheldon Krimsky, PhD, Lenore Stern Professor of Humanities & Social Sciences, adjunct professor of public health and community medicine, Tufts University, and author of Stem Cell Dialogues: A Philosophical & Scientific Inquiry into Medical Frontiers


About the Authors

Robert F. Kennedy, Jr. is the board president of the Waterkeeper Alliance and author of several books, including Framed and the New York Times bestseller Crimes Against Nature. He has been named by Time as one of the "Heroes for the Planet." Kennedy lives in Los Angeles, California and Bedford, New York.

Dick Russell born and raised in the Midwest, is the eclectic author of thirteen books. His latest is "Horsemen of the Apocalypse: The Men Who Are Destroying Life on Earth - And What It Means to Our Children." Four books co-authored with former Minnesota Governor Jesse Ventura spent weeks on the New York Times Best-Seller list. "Eye of the Whale" was named among the best books of 2001 by three major newspapers. "The Man Who Knew Too Much," about a conspiracy to assassinate President Kennedy, was hailed as "a masterpiece of historical reconstruction" by Publisher's Weekly. "Striper Wars: An American Fish Story," recounts the fight to save the Atlantic striped bass. As an environmental activist, Russell has been the recipient of many awards.
]]>
Quote:The science is overwhelming; the facts are in. The planet is heating up at an alarming rate and the results are everywhere to be seen. Yet, as time runs out, climate progress is blocked by the men who are profiting from the burning of the planet: energy moguls like the Koch brothers and Exxon Mobil CEO Rex Tillerson. Powerful politicians like Senators Mitch McConnell and Jim Inhofe, who receive massive contributions from the oil and coal industries. Most of these men are too intelligent to truly believe that climate change is not a growing crisis. And yet they have put their profits and careers ahead of the health and welfare of the world's populationand even their own children and grandchildren. How do they explain themselves to their offspring, to the next generations that must deal with the environmental havoc that these men have wreaked? Horsemen of the Apocalypse takes a personal look at this global crisis, literally bringing it home.

https://www.amazon.com/Horsemen-Apocalyp...1510721754

Reviews

"When in the near future the climate implodes and misery envelops the planet, you will know the criminals against humanity who were most directly and personally responsible from [Horsemen of the Apocalypse]." ―Ross Gelbspan, author The Heat Is On and Boiling Point "Dick Russell and Robert F. Kennedy, Jr., have brilliantly laid bare the horsemen of the apocalypse and their cronies who are now steering the American ship of state and are bent on committing hara-kiri on the agreements, agencies, and regulations that are a bulwark against their own country's and the world's plunge into disaster." ―Homero Aridjis, Mexican poet, novelist, ambassador, and environmental activist; president emeritus of PEN International "As the impacts of climate change grow increasingly visible in our daily lives, so must our understanding of the forces that are conspiring to stop actions to mitigate those impacts. This book lays bare how those forces, borne largely of self interest, are trying to make sure the US continues to add to global carbon pollution, the primary factor in climate change. With the new Trump administration trying to roll back president Obama's actions, this is a timely and essential read for everyone concerned. " --Margo Oge, author of Driving the Future: Combating Climate Change with Cleaner, Smarter Cars "This may be the most important book yet on the climate crisis . . . and by the way, it's fun to read. Dick Russell's keen research and sharp writing unpacks the complex sordid tale of fossil fuel corporations and their henchmen, from the Koch brothers to Exxon to Peabody coal, who have systematically held us back from solving climate change, using denial, deception, and ruthless power." ―Kert Davies, director, Climate Investigations Center "In Horsemen of the Apocalypse, Dick Russell lays out the lies and cover-ups of some of the men―including ExxonMobil's Rex Tillerson and the Koch brothers―who have been hell-bent on amassing fortunes by exploiting fossil fuels, even while knowing that this exploitation would likely destroy civilization." ―David Ray Griffin, author of Unprecedented: Can Civilization Survive the CO2 Crisis? "Horsemen of the Apocalypse is a mind-opening exposé of the roots and branches of fossil fuel zealots, their campaigns of misinformation, and the rebellion of their descendants. It shows how the misuse of wealth and power can undermine democracy, threaten the health of the planet, and neglect our moral responsibility to future generations."―Sheldon Krimsky, PhD, Lenore Stern Professor of Humanities & Social Sciences, adjunct professor of public health and community medicine, Tufts University, and author of Stem Cell Dialogues: A Philosophical & Scientific Inquiry into Medical Frontiers


About the Authors

Robert F. Kennedy, Jr. is the board president of the Waterkeeper Alliance and author of several books, including Framed and the New York Times bestseller Crimes Against Nature. He has been named by Time as one of the "Heroes for the Planet." Kennedy lives in Los Angeles, California and Bedford, New York.

Dick Russell born and raised in the Midwest, is the eclectic author of thirteen books. His latest is "Horsemen of the Apocalypse: The Men Who Are Destroying Life on Earth - And What It Means to Our Children." Four books co-authored with former Minnesota Governor Jesse Ventura spent weeks on the New York Times Best-Seller list. "Eye of the Whale" was named among the best books of 2001 by three major newspapers. "The Man Who Knew Too Much," about a conspiracy to assassinate President Kennedy, was hailed as "a masterpiece of historical reconstruction" by Publisher's Weekly. "Striper Wars: An American Fish Story," recounts the fight to save the Atlantic striped bass. As an environmental activist, Russell has been the recipient of many awards.
]]> <![CDATA[Environmental Black Ops Getting Common - Sadly many 'foreign' ones have US-ties!]]> https://deeppoliticsforum.com/fora/showthread.php?tid=15365 Sat, 04 Mar 2017 06:28:55 +0000 Peter Lemkin]]> https://deeppoliticsforum.com/fora/showthread.php?tid=15365

We end today's show by remembering renown Honduran environmental activist Berta Cáceres, who was assassinated a year ago in her home in La Esperanza, Honduras, just before midnight, March 2, 2016. Berta Cáceres was the co-founder of COPINH, the Civic Council of Popular and Indigenous Organizations of Honduras. In 2015, she won the prestigious Goldman Environmental Prize for her decade-long fight against the Agua Zarca Dam, a project planned along a river sacred to the indigenous Lenca people. On Thursday, hundreds rallied outside the Honduran Supreme Court building to demand justice for Berta Cáceres and for the license of the company behind the Agua Zarca Dam to be revoked. Eight men have been arrested as suspects in Berta's killing, including one active army major and two retired military members. Two of the suspects reportedly received military training in the United States. Also Thursday here in Washington, D.C., Georgia Congressman Hank Johnson reintroduced the "Berta Cáceres Human Rights in Honduras Act," which seeks to withhold U.S. military aid to Honduras until the Honduran government addresses human rights violations by its police and security forces. We're turning now to a new investigation that reveals further ties between Berta Cáceres's killing, Honduran military intelligence, and the United States. Joining us from London is Nina Lakhani, a freelance journalist who has been based in Mexico and Central America for the last four years. Her piece in The Guardian is headlined, "Berta Cáceres's Court Papers Show Murder Suspects' Links to U.S.-trained Elite Troops." Nina, welcome to Democracy Now! What are those links?
NINA LAKHANI: The U.S., over the last decade or so, has really focused a lot of its military training in Central America on special forces. We know that over a period, I think, of five years, 2008-2014, the U.S. went 21 times to Honduras to train their special forces. Two of the military men who have been charged with her murder and the attempted murder of Gustavo Castro was special forces. So Major Mariano Diaz who was a veteran special forces officer, at least seven years according to his military records. And also Henry Hernandez, Sergeant Henry Hernandez, who had left the military in 2013, but he was special forces for three years and worked under the direct command of Major Diaz.
AMY GOODMAN: And what about Douglas Giovanni Bustillo?
NINA LAKHANI: Bustillo, he did receive some training as a cadet, I believe, just before he finished his initial military training. Both him and Diaz, who went into the military together, both went to the U.S. to receive training courses. Bustillo did some early training in the School of Americas I think back in 1997.
AMY GOODMAN: So talk about the evidence that you've seen, from text messages to phone calls. And if you can re-create for us what you think took place.
NINA LAKHANI: The evidence really points to I think a very well-planned military operation that took place that night. What we know from witnesses is that there is a police and military checkpoint as you come into Esperanza. And that night, many witnesses have told me and other investigators that there was no one there that night. There was none at the base that night. We know from phone records and from testimony that Hernandez and Bustillo, who knew each other from working a private security, in the months leading up to Berta's assassination, have working together in private security. We know that they were in La Esperanza at least three times in the weeks leading up to her murder. And so at least four people were there that night. Hernandez admits to being there. And at least three other civilians who have been accused of murder were placed at her house because of telephone analysis. They went in. They knew what they were doing. They knew where they were going. All of the evidence points to the house. Inside and out had been under surveillance. They'd been there several times. And her house was set back from the main gate. It was a guarded community. There was a guard there that night whoit's very likely they had communication with him. I met with him before because they came in. It was very dark. It's an isolated place. They knew were the door was. They knew where she would be sleeping. So the evidence points to her house and the area surrounding it had been surveyed, had been studied beforehand. All of that points to really like a military-type operation. Hernandez is the one military person that was placed there that night. Like I say, he was special forces. He worked under Diaz. He was a highlyhe'd been a decorated sniper. It's not clear whether he pulled the trigger that night, but it would appear that he was in charge of the operation on the night.
AMY GOODMAN: And why would they want
NINA LAKHANI: He was a low-level military officer and rose to the rank of sergeant.
AMY GOODMAN: Nina, why would they want Berta Cáceres dead, in this last minuet we have?
NINA LAKHANI: I don't think the people under arrest probably did. The context of her Berta's death: she was the most well-known activist, not only in Honduras, but probably in America, at the time of her murder. None of the individuals who were under arrest, none of the eight, had anything personal to gain from her being killed. And the idea that someone as celebrated as her could be murdered without at least the implicit knowledge of people higher up in the Armed Forces or even the government and the company, I think is highly improbable. None of the eight who were under arrest had anything personal to gain.
AMY GOODMAN: But the government? And has the U.S. been held accountable?
NINA LAKHANI: I think the U.S.I don't think the U.S. governmentthey would not admit to bearing any responsibility to Berta's assassination. I think it's important to remember I interviewed her around 2013 just around the elections and she was publicly denouncing the fact she had been told and had been made aware that her name appeared at the top of a military hit-list in which I think there were 16. She was one of 16 activists. She was telling people, you know

AMY GOODMAN: With part two of our report on this first anniversary of the assassination of the renown Honduran environmental activist, Berta Cáceres, killed in her home in La Esperanza, just before midnight, March 2, 2016. Berta was cofounder of COPINH, the Civic Council of Popular Indigenous Organizations of Honduras. In 2015, she won the prestigious Goldman Environmental Prize for her decade long fight against the Agua Zarca Dam, a project planned along a river sacred to the indigenous Lenca people. Well, a new investigation has just come out in The Guardian newspaper that reveals further ties between Berta Cáceres' assassins, the Honduran military intelligence, as well as the United States, a U.S. trained elite force. Our guest, right now, is Nina Lakhani. She's the freelance journalist who wrote the piece in The Guardian, which is headlined, "Berta Cáceres' Court Papers Show Murder Suspects' Links to U.S.-trained Elite Troops." And she has been reporting on Honduras for years. Nina, thanks for joining us for part two of this discussion. You are highlighting this links to a U.S.-trained elite troops in Honduras. We ended part one by talking about why the Honduran government would want Berta Cáceres dead, the leading environmentalist of Honduras, well known also throughout the world. If you could pick it up from there.
NINA LAKHANI: Sure. Berta was a major problem for the state. She wasn't going away. She had, not just national, but, international attention for her campaign. It was mentioned that she won the Goldman Prize, but she, you know, she'd become a celebrated activist, not just in the Americas, but in Europe, all over the world. And we now know that DESA, the company that has a concession to build the dam - we now know that there are military political and business elites who sit on that board. The president of DESA is an ex-military intelligence officer and worked for the state electricity company. The vice president is an ex-justice minister. Another of the directors is the owner of one of the Honduran's natio- Honduras' national banks. We now really what we know from all the extractive industries in Honduras that there is a revolving door of business, political, and military elites, who have money, who have interests in these really environmentally destructive projects.
And she was a problem. She wasn't going away. Her campaign had got huge attention internationally. And so she that would be the reason. But, I don't think like I said earlier that killing Berta, it's highly improbable it would be the idea, or would be planned by anyone at low level. We have two people connected with the company, are currently accused; Bustillo, who was head of security until 2015, and Sergio Rodríguez, who was a mid-ranking he's an engineer, a mid-ranking he was the communications and environmental manager, but, who had nothing personally to gain. He doesn't have any neither of them have financial interest in the company. So, they would kill organize and kill Berta in what was probably the highest profile murder to take place in Honduras in years. It's just, to me, highly improbable.
AMY GOODMAN: So, how is the investigation of Berta Cáceres' assassination going right now, in Honduras? I mean, you have how many people arrested? Eight?
NINA LAKHANI: Eight men arrested. Like I say, three with military ties, two tied to the companies, and two were tied to the company. Then we have four who were pro prosecutors believe were hit-men, who were low-level criminals working and were hired to do that. I mean, I think there's no doubt that some, at least of the material authors are among that group that have been arrested. But, I think the family are very concerned about procedural sort of errors and procedural sort of inaccuracies or things that haven't quite been right with the investigation. They've not been given information that they should be given. That even some of the that they fear that even some of the material authors are likely to escape justice, that they haven't all been arrested, or that the case may not stand up in court against some of them.
But, I don't see any evidence I haven't seen any evidence thus far that there's a strategy by prosecutors to look for the intellectual authors. Phone records show that there was a hit being planned. It's likely that a hit was being planned. There's phone records - messages between the three ex- current - ex-military officers. But, where was that money coming from? Who's idea was this? There doesn't seem to be a strategy to look higher up. Who were the intellectual authors of this murder? Where does the evidence take us? Because the eight men who are currently in jail, I don't think there's evidence that suggest- any evidence that suggests that the assassination and attempted murder of Gustavo Castro was planned by them.
AMY GOODMAN: The legislation that's been reintroduced by Congressman Johnson to cut U.S. military aid to Honduras, what effect wold that have?
NINA LAKHANI: It's difficult to know. There's so much secrecy about where at what is spent on. I think last year Congress approved $18 $17 or $18 million for police and military aid. It's difficult to know what effect it would have, 'cause I'm just no exactly sure on what the money is spent. For example, the special forces training that takes place, or the support that the U.S. gives to special forces training, it's just there's no information. It's classified. There's no public information about how that money is spent, who the money is spent on, what units, what exactly it goes to. So, I think it's hard to know. I think the certainly the U.S. Embassy in Honduras will say that what they're trying to do in support the moment is the purging of the police which has been, for years a link to horrendous human rights violations, and they're working hard on that. To withdraw completely - Honduras is a militar- it feels and smells like a militarized state. And every year I go back it feels more like that. So, how much $18 million - extra money that we don't know about would make on that I'm not really sure. I think the argument from the U.S. -
AMY GOODMAN: Finally the issue of the number of environmental activists who've been killed in this last year in Honduras, what do you know about this, Nina?
NINA LAKHANI: Since Berta was murdered a year ago, at least seven other activists and land just specifically and environment activists have been murdered. We know that. We know that a few days after she was killed, one of her Code Pink colleagues, Nelson Garcia was murdered. Other campesino leaders have been murdered. But, seven that we are absolutely sure have been who campaign as activists working in the same area as Berta. So, that's 124 that we know of since the 2009 military backed coup. That's it's just incredible number. Her murder has not stopped the outrage and condemnation that followed her murder has not stopped the killing, because impunity reigns.
AMY GOODMAN: And finally, when you look at the links to this U.S. trained, elite force in Honduras, what you think the U.S. has to account for now in its relationship with Honduras, even going back to her assassination as you were the one who exposed the kill list with her at the top?
NINA LAKHANI: Yeah. My the army deserter who is - who I've been working with, is absolutely adamant that on two specialist training courses, which sound horrendous, really tough training courses where he reports being tortured, suffering, was hospitalized three times after the training courses, that there were American trainers present, that they would train the trainers, almost. There were American, Colombian, Panamanian trainers present in those training courses. And he was part of an elite force. And I think, just generally, in terms of the special forces, yes, I unders- conditionality and having checks and balances in place regarding who gets training it's a much wider it's a bigger problem, that. These are systematic allegations of human rights violations against security forces in Honduras. Major Diaz has an absolutely pristine military record. There is nothing on his military record which would make him perfectly eligible for U.S. training. And yet, at the time of Berta's murder, he was studying to become a lieutenant colonel at the same time that he was being investigated for drug trafficking and kidnap. You know, the system isn't working. Whatever checks and balances that are in place just isn't working. It's bigger it's a systematic problem of human rights violations and extrajudicial killings; all really serious crimes. There is a systematic problem in the security forces, in the army, and in the police in Honduras. And I think trying to weed out bad apples is not effective. It doesn't work. The checks and balances are not working.
AMY GOODMAN: Well, Nina Lakhani, we want to thank you for being with us. We're going to end with the words of Berta Cáseres, herself. Berta Cáseres is the leading environmental activist in Honduras, killed, assassinated a year ago.
BERTA CÁCERES: [translated] The population today, those who have been in resistance who are from the LIBRE party, are challenging the repressive apparatus, with the absence of the construction of real power from the communities, but now these people are voting enthusiastically for the LIBRE party, that we hope will be distinct from the other political parties. This scenario is playing out in all the regions of Hondurasin Zacate Grande, Garifuna communities, campesino sectors, women, feminists, artists, journalists and indigenous communities. We all know how these people have been hard hit, especially the journalists, LGBTQ community and indigenous communities. This is all part of what they've done to create a climate of fear. Here, there's a policy of the state to instill terror and political persecution. This is to punish the Honduran people so that people don't opt for the other way and look for changes to the political economic situation and the militarization.


.jpg   Berta_Caceres_Nina_Post_Show.jpg (Size: 45.44 KB / Downloads: 6) ]]>

We end today's show by remembering renown Honduran environmental activist Berta Cáceres, who was assassinated a year ago in her home in La Esperanza, Honduras, just before midnight, March 2, 2016. Berta Cáceres was the co-founder of COPINH, the Civic Council of Popular and Indigenous Organizations of Honduras. In 2015, she won the prestigious Goldman Environmental Prize for her decade-long fight against the Agua Zarca Dam, a project planned along a river sacred to the indigenous Lenca people. On Thursday, hundreds rallied outside the Honduran Supreme Court building to demand justice for Berta Cáceres and for the license of the company behind the Agua Zarca Dam to be revoked. Eight men have been arrested as suspects in Berta's killing, including one active army major and two retired military members. Two of the suspects reportedly received military training in the United States. Also Thursday here in Washington, D.C., Georgia Congressman Hank Johnson reintroduced the "Berta Cáceres Human Rights in Honduras Act," which seeks to withhold U.S. military aid to Honduras until the Honduran government addresses human rights violations by its police and security forces. We're turning now to a new investigation that reveals further ties between Berta Cáceres's killing, Honduran military intelligence, and the United States. Joining us from London is Nina Lakhani, a freelance journalist who has been based in Mexico and Central America for the last four years. Her piece in The Guardian is headlined, "Berta Cáceres's Court Papers Show Murder Suspects' Links to U.S.-trained Elite Troops." Nina, welcome to Democracy Now! What are those links?
NINA LAKHANI: The U.S., over the last decade or so, has really focused a lot of its military training in Central America on special forces. We know that over a period, I think, of five years, 2008-2014, the U.S. went 21 times to Honduras to train their special forces. Two of the military men who have been charged with her murder and the attempted murder of Gustavo Castro was special forces. So Major Mariano Diaz who was a veteran special forces officer, at least seven years according to his military records. And also Henry Hernandez, Sergeant Henry Hernandez, who had left the military in 2013, but he was special forces for three years and worked under the direct command of Major Diaz.
AMY GOODMAN: And what about Douglas Giovanni Bustillo?
NINA LAKHANI: Bustillo, he did receive some training as a cadet, I believe, just before he finished his initial military training. Both him and Diaz, who went into the military together, both went to the U.S. to receive training courses. Bustillo did some early training in the School of Americas I think back in 1997.
AMY GOODMAN: So talk about the evidence that you've seen, from text messages to phone calls. And if you can re-create for us what you think took place.
NINA LAKHANI: The evidence really points to I think a very well-planned military operation that took place that night. What we know from witnesses is that there is a police and military checkpoint as you come into Esperanza. And that night, many witnesses have told me and other investigators that there was no one there that night. There was none at the base that night. We know from phone records and from testimony that Hernandez and Bustillo, who knew each other from working a private security, in the months leading up to Berta's assassination, have working together in private security. We know that they were in La Esperanza at least three times in the weeks leading up to her murder. And so at least four people were there that night. Hernandez admits to being there. And at least three other civilians who have been accused of murder were placed at her house because of telephone analysis. They went in. They knew what they were doing. They knew where they were going. All of the evidence points to the house. Inside and out had been under surveillance. They'd been there several times. And her house was set back from the main gate. It was a guarded community. There was a guard there that night whoit's very likely they had communication with him. I met with him before because they came in. It was very dark. It's an isolated place. They knew were the door was. They knew where she would be sleeping. So the evidence points to her house and the area surrounding it had been surveyed, had been studied beforehand. All of that points to really like a military-type operation. Hernandez is the one military person that was placed there that night. Like I say, he was special forces. He worked under Diaz. He was a highlyhe'd been a decorated sniper. It's not clear whether he pulled the trigger that night, but it would appear that he was in charge of the operation on the night.
AMY GOODMAN: And why would they want
NINA LAKHANI: He was a low-level military officer and rose to the rank of sergeant.
AMY GOODMAN: Nina, why would they want Berta Cáceres dead, in this last minuet we have?
NINA LAKHANI: I don't think the people under arrest probably did. The context of her Berta's death: she was the most well-known activist, not only in Honduras, but probably in America, at the time of her murder. None of the individuals who were under arrest, none of the eight, had anything personal to gain from her being killed. And the idea that someone as celebrated as her could be murdered without at least the implicit knowledge of people higher up in the Armed Forces or even the government and the company, I think is highly improbable. None of the eight who were under arrest had anything personal to gain.
AMY GOODMAN: But the government? And has the U.S. been held accountable?
NINA LAKHANI: I think the U.S.I don't think the U.S. governmentthey would not admit to bearing any responsibility to Berta's assassination. I think it's important to remember I interviewed her around 2013 just around the elections and she was publicly denouncing the fact she had been told and had been made aware that her name appeared at the top of a military hit-list in which I think there were 16. She was one of 16 activists. She was telling people, you know

AMY GOODMAN: With part two of our report on this first anniversary of the assassination of the renown Honduran environmental activist, Berta Cáceres, killed in her home in La Esperanza, just before midnight, March 2, 2016. Berta was cofounder of COPINH, the Civic Council of Popular Indigenous Organizations of Honduras. In 2015, she won the prestigious Goldman Environmental Prize for her decade long fight against the Agua Zarca Dam, a project planned along a river sacred to the indigenous Lenca people. Well, a new investigation has just come out in The Guardian newspaper that reveals further ties between Berta Cáceres' assassins, the Honduran military intelligence, as well as the United States, a U.S. trained elite force. Our guest, right now, is Nina Lakhani. She's the freelance journalist who wrote the piece in The Guardian, which is headlined, "Berta Cáceres' Court Papers Show Murder Suspects' Links to U.S.-trained Elite Troops." And she has been reporting on Honduras for years. Nina, thanks for joining us for part two of this discussion. You are highlighting this links to a U.S.-trained elite troops in Honduras. We ended part one by talking about why the Honduran government would want Berta Cáceres dead, the leading environmentalist of Honduras, well known also throughout the world. If you could pick it up from there.
NINA LAKHANI: Sure. Berta was a major problem for the state. She wasn't going away. She had, not just national, but, international attention for her campaign. It was mentioned that she won the Goldman Prize, but she, you know, she'd become a celebrated activist, not just in the Americas, but in Europe, all over the world. And we now know that DESA, the company that has a concession to build the dam - we now know that there are military political and business elites who sit on that board. The president of DESA is an ex-military intelligence officer and worked for the state electricity company. The vice president is an ex-justice minister. Another of the directors is the owner of one of the Honduran's natio- Honduras' national banks. We now really what we know from all the extractive industries in Honduras that there is a revolving door of business, political, and military elites, who have money, who have interests in these really environmentally destructive projects.
And she was a problem. She wasn't going away. Her campaign had got huge attention internationally. And so she that would be the reason. But, I don't think like I said earlier that killing Berta, it's highly improbable it would be the idea, or would be planned by anyone at low level. We have two people connected with the company, are currently accused; Bustillo, who was head of security until 2015, and Sergio Rodríguez, who was a mid-ranking he's an engineer, a mid-ranking he was the communications and environmental manager, but, who had nothing personally to gain. He doesn't have any neither of them have financial interest in the company. So, they would kill organize and kill Berta in what was probably the highest profile murder to take place in Honduras in years. It's just, to me, highly improbable.
AMY GOODMAN: So, how is the investigation of Berta Cáceres' assassination going right now, in Honduras? I mean, you have how many people arrested? Eight?
NINA LAKHANI: Eight men arrested. Like I say, three with military ties, two tied to the companies, and two were tied to the company. Then we have four who were pro prosecutors believe were hit-men, who were low-level criminals working and were hired to do that. I mean, I think there's no doubt that some, at least of the material authors are among that group that have been arrested. But, I think the family are very concerned about procedural sort of errors and procedural sort of inaccuracies or things that haven't quite been right with the investigation. They've not been given information that they should be given. That even some of the that they fear that even some of the material authors are likely to escape justice, that they haven't all been arrested, or that the case may not stand up in court against some of them.
But, I don't see any evidence I haven't seen any evidence thus far that there's a strategy by prosecutors to look for the intellectual authors. Phone records show that there was a hit being planned. It's likely that a hit was being planned. There's phone records - messages between the three ex- current - ex-military officers. But, where was that money coming from? Who's idea was this? There doesn't seem to be a strategy to look higher up. Who were the intellectual authors of this murder? Where does the evidence take us? Because the eight men who are currently in jail, I don't think there's evidence that suggest- any evidence that suggests that the assassination and attempted murder of Gustavo Castro was planned by them.
AMY GOODMAN: The legislation that's been reintroduced by Congressman Johnson to cut U.S. military aid to Honduras, what effect wold that have?
NINA LAKHANI: It's difficult to know. There's so much secrecy about where at what is spent on. I think last year Congress approved $18 $17 or $18 million for police and military aid. It's difficult to know what effect it would have, 'cause I'm just no exactly sure on what the money is spent. For example, the special forces training that takes place, or the support that the U.S. gives to special forces training, it's just there's no information. It's classified. There's no public information about how that money is spent, who the money is spent on, what units, what exactly it goes to. So, I think it's hard to know. I think the certainly the U.S. Embassy in Honduras will say that what they're trying to do in support the moment is the purging of the police which has been, for years a link to horrendous human rights violations, and they're working hard on that. To withdraw completely - Honduras is a militar- it feels and smells like a militarized state. And every year I go back it feels more like that. So, how much $18 million - extra money that we don't know about would make on that I'm not really sure. I think the argument from the U.S. -
AMY GOODMAN: Finally the issue of the number of environmental activists who've been killed in this last year in Honduras, what do you know about this, Nina?
NINA LAKHANI: Since Berta was murdered a year ago, at least seven other activists and land just specifically and environment activists have been murdered. We know that. We know that a few days after she was killed, one of her Code Pink colleagues, Nelson Garcia was murdered. Other campesino leaders have been murdered. But, seven that we are absolutely sure have been who campaign as activists working in the same area as Berta. So, that's 124 that we know of since the 2009 military backed coup. That's it's just incredible number. Her murder has not stopped the outrage and condemnation that followed her murder has not stopped the killing, because impunity reigns.
AMY GOODMAN: And finally, when you look at the links to this U.S. trained, elite force in Honduras, what you think the U.S. has to account for now in its relationship with Honduras, even going back to her assassination as you were the one who exposed the kill list with her at the top?
NINA LAKHANI: Yeah. My the army deserter who is - who I've been working with, is absolutely adamant that on two specialist training courses, which sound horrendous, really tough training courses where he reports being tortured, suffering, was hospitalized three times after the training courses, that there were American trainers present, that they would train the trainers, almost. There were American, Colombian, Panamanian trainers present in those training courses. And he was part of an elite force. And I think, just generally, in terms of the special forces, yes, I unders- conditionality and having checks and balances in place regarding who gets training it's a much wider it's a bigger problem, that. These are systematic allegations of human rights violations against security forces in Honduras. Major Diaz has an absolutely pristine military record. There is nothing on his military record which would make him perfectly eligible for U.S. training. And yet, at the time of Berta's murder, he was studying to become a lieutenant colonel at the same time that he was being investigated for drug trafficking and kidnap. You know, the system isn't working. Whatever checks and balances that are in place just isn't working. It's bigger it's a systematic problem of human rights violations and extrajudicial killings; all really serious crimes. There is a systematic problem in the security forces, in the army, and in the police in Honduras. And I think trying to weed out bad apples is not effective. It doesn't work. The checks and balances are not working.
AMY GOODMAN: Well, Nina Lakhani, we want to thank you for being with us. We're going to end with the words of Berta Cáseres, herself. Berta Cáseres is the leading environmental activist in Honduras, killed, assassinated a year ago.
BERTA CÁCERES: [translated] The population today, those who have been in resistance who are from the LIBRE party, are challenging the repressive apparatus, with the absence of the construction of real power from the communities, but now these people are voting enthusiastically for the LIBRE party, that we hope will be distinct from the other political parties. This scenario is playing out in all the regions of Hondurasin Zacate Grande, Garifuna communities, campesino sectors, women, feminists, artists, journalists and indigenous communities. We all know how these people have been hard hit, especially the journalists, LGBTQ community and indigenous communities. This is all part of what they've done to create a climate of fear. Here, there's a policy of the state to instill terror and political persecution. This is to punish the Honduran people so that people don't opt for the other way and look for changes to the political economic situation and the militarization.


.jpg   Berta_Caceres_Nina_Post_Show.jpg (Size: 45.44 KB / Downloads: 6) ]]> <![CDATA[Youth activists want Tillerson deposed on suppression of climate change]]> https://deeppoliticsforum.com/fora/showthread.php?tid=15248 Mon, 02 Jan 2017 20:01:33 +0000 Peter Lemkin]]> https://deeppoliticsforum.com/fora/showthread.php?tid=15248 YOUTH ACTIVISTS WANT TILLERSON DEPOSED ON SUPPRESSION OF CLIMATE CHANGE FACTS

Will Children Save the Planet?

[Image: 2-700x467.jpg]Rex Tillerson Photo credit: CSIS | Center for Strategic / Flickr (CC BY-NC-SA 2.0)
Even before the Senate Foreign Relations Committee grills Rex Tillerson about his close ties to Russia at his upcoming confirmation hearing, Donald Trump's nominee for Secretary of State could find himself on a completely different hot seat.
A group of young people who are suing the federal government to force it to take aggressive action against climate change want Tillerson, the longtime ExxonMobil CEO, to reveal just when the fossil fuel industry knew about the warming of the planet and what it did to obscure that reality.
In November, a court found that there is a constitutional right to a climate system that can sustain human life, that the federal government is responsible for preserving natural resources upon which human life depends and that the remedy suggested by the plaintiffs is appropriate.
Attorneys representing the young activists seek to compel Tillerson to testify by way of deposition on January 19, the day before Donald Trump is sworn in as the 45thpresident.
"Rex Tillerson is one of the most knowledgeable executives in the fossil fuel world on the role of his industry alongside our federal government in causing climate change and endangering my youth plaintiffs and all future generations," said Julia Olson, attorney for the plaintiffs.
Olson, who is executive director of Our Children's Trust, a group that seeks to give children a major voice in the fight to halt climate change, added, "We intend to use his deposition to uncover his and others' culpability, on behalf of these defendants."
As WhoWhatWhy reported previously, Exxon knew decades ago that the earth is warming and the devastating consequences this development could have.
As early as 1977, Exxon researcher James Black wrote in a memo to executives: "What is considered the best presently available climate model for treating the Greenhouse Effect predicts that a doubling of the CO2 concentration in the atmosphere would produce a mean temperature increase of about 2°C to 3°C over most of the earth."
The company's initial response to this information was to put more money into climate science research. Then, in the early 1980s, the budget for Exxon's "CO2 Greenhouse program" was slashed and the company joined forces with groups that spent millions challenging the increasingly robust scientific consensus on climate change.
"We believe the evidence shows both ExxonMobil and the fossil fuel industry knew about the threat to our country posed by climate change and worked to encourage the federal government to enable emissions of more greenhouse gas."
If the attorneys for the young plaintiffs get their wish, Tillerson will have to answer questions about these efforts.
"I was shocked when students at Columbia Journalism School uncovered ExxonMobil's deep knowledge of climate change as early as the 1970s," said Columbia University student Alex Loznak, who is a plaintiff in the case asking the federal government to take action. "What's even more disturbing is that the federal government firmly knew about climate change in the 1950s. I look forward to working on our research team in the months ahead to establish the depth and breadth of the government and industry's knowledge of climate danger before trial."
The young activists have had some success on the state level and in the courts, asWhoWhatWhy reported. Following those victories, they sued the federal government, arguing that it had violated their constitutional rights to life, liberty and property by relying on a fossil fuel-based energy system in spite of being aware of the grave dangers it posed.
"We believe the evidence shows both ExxonMobil and the fossil fuel industry knew about the threat to our country posed by climate change and worked to encourage the federal government to enable emissions of more greenhouse gas," stated Philip Gregory, counsel for the plaintiffs. "Mr. Tillerson's testimony is crucial to understanding what the fossil fuel industry did to prevent the government from fully addressing this problem."
The youth alliance has already won a key victory in federal court. In November, a court found that there is a constitutional right to a climate system that can sustain human life, that the federal government is responsible for preserving natural resources upon which human life depends and that the remedy suggested by the plaintiffs is appropriate. The youth alliance demands the implementation of a science-based national climate recovery plan.
"The youth of America need to know the truth on how companies such as ExxonMobil continue to use the government to cause horrific harm to our nation's most vulnerable people," Gregory added.
The case is expected to go to trial later this year. It will be interesting to see how the incoming administration handles the lawsuit. Trump has previously said that climate change is a hoax, and he has stacked his cabinet with fossil fuel supporters and climate change deniers.
One thing is certain: While lawsuits like this one (similar actions are being pursued all over the world) have received little attention from the media, TV news and the press will likely be drawn to visuals of youthful plaintiffs facing off in court against government lawyers and fossil fuel executives.]]> YOUTH ACTIVISTS WANT TILLERSON DEPOSED ON SUPPRESSION OF CLIMATE CHANGE FACTS

Will Children Save the Planet?

[Image: 2-700x467.jpg]Rex Tillerson Photo credit: CSIS | Center for Strategic / Flickr (CC BY-NC-SA 2.0)
Even before the Senate Foreign Relations Committee grills Rex Tillerson about his close ties to Russia at his upcoming confirmation hearing, Donald Trump's nominee for Secretary of State could find himself on a completely different hot seat.
A group of young people who are suing the federal government to force it to take aggressive action against climate change want Tillerson, the longtime ExxonMobil CEO, to reveal just when the fossil fuel industry knew about the warming of the planet and what it did to obscure that reality.
In November, a court found that there is a constitutional right to a climate system that can sustain human life, that the federal government is responsible for preserving natural resources upon which human life depends and that the remedy suggested by the plaintiffs is appropriate.
Attorneys representing the young activists seek to compel Tillerson to testify by way of deposition on January 19, the day before Donald Trump is sworn in as the 45thpresident.
"Rex Tillerson is one of the most knowledgeable executives in the fossil fuel world on the role of his industry alongside our federal government in causing climate change and endangering my youth plaintiffs and all future generations," said Julia Olson, attorney for the plaintiffs.
Olson, who is executive director of Our Children's Trust, a group that seeks to give children a major voice in the fight to halt climate change, added, "We intend to use his deposition to uncover his and others' culpability, on behalf of these defendants."
As WhoWhatWhy reported previously, Exxon knew decades ago that the earth is warming and the devastating consequences this development could have.
As early as 1977, Exxon researcher James Black wrote in a memo to executives: "What is considered the best presently available climate model for treating the Greenhouse Effect predicts that a doubling of the CO2 concentration in the atmosphere would produce a mean temperature increase of about 2°C to 3°C over most of the earth."
The company's initial response to this information was to put more money into climate science research. Then, in the early 1980s, the budget for Exxon's "CO2 Greenhouse program" was slashed and the company joined forces with groups that spent millions challenging the increasingly robust scientific consensus on climate change.
"We believe the evidence shows both ExxonMobil and the fossil fuel industry knew about the threat to our country posed by climate change and worked to encourage the federal government to enable emissions of more greenhouse gas."
If the attorneys for the young plaintiffs get their wish, Tillerson will have to answer questions about these efforts.
"I was shocked when students at Columbia Journalism School uncovered ExxonMobil's deep knowledge of climate change as early as the 1970s," said Columbia University student Alex Loznak, who is a plaintiff in the case asking the federal government to take action. "What's even more disturbing is that the federal government firmly knew about climate change in the 1950s. I look forward to working on our research team in the months ahead to establish the depth and breadth of the government and industry's knowledge of climate danger before trial."
The young activists have had some success on the state level and in the courts, asWhoWhatWhy reported. Following those victories, they sued the federal government, arguing that it had violated their constitutional rights to life, liberty and property by relying on a fossil fuel-based energy system in spite of being aware of the grave dangers it posed.
"We believe the evidence shows both ExxonMobil and the fossil fuel industry knew about the threat to our country posed by climate change and worked to encourage the federal government to enable emissions of more greenhouse gas," stated Philip Gregory, counsel for the plaintiffs. "Mr. Tillerson's testimony is crucial to understanding what the fossil fuel industry did to prevent the government from fully addressing this problem."
The youth alliance has already won a key victory in federal court. In November, a court found that there is a constitutional right to a climate system that can sustain human life, that the federal government is responsible for preserving natural resources upon which human life depends and that the remedy suggested by the plaintiffs is appropriate. The youth alliance demands the implementation of a science-based national climate recovery plan.
"The youth of America need to know the truth on how companies such as ExxonMobil continue to use the government to cause horrific harm to our nation's most vulnerable people," Gregory added.
The case is expected to go to trial later this year. It will be interesting to see how the incoming administration handles the lawsuit. Trump has previously said that climate change is a hoax, and he has stacked his cabinet with fossil fuel supporters and climate change deniers.
One thing is certain: While lawsuits like this one (similar actions are being pursued all over the world) have received little attention from the media, TV news and the press will likely be drawn to visuals of youthful plaintiffs facing off in court against government lawyers and fossil fuel executives.]]> <![CDATA[Humans are DESTROYING the Ecosystem and most living species - many are gone forever!]]> https://deeppoliticsforum.com/fora/showthread.php?tid=15058 Fri, 28 Oct 2016 10:01:25 +0000 Peter Lemkin]]> https://deeppoliticsforum.com/fora/showthread.php?tid=15058 Global wildlife populations: 58 percent decline, driven by food and energy demand

Date: October 27, 2016 Source: World Wildlife Fund Summary: Global populations of vertebrates -- mammals, birds, reptiles, amphibians, and fish -- have declined by 58 percent between 1970 and 2012, states a new report. Animals living in the world's lakes, rivers, and freshwater systems have experienced the most dramatic population declines, at 81 percent. Because of human activity, the report states that without immediate intervention global wildlife populations could drop two-thirds by 2020.
[Image: 161027113306_1_540x360.jpg]
The top threat to wildlife is habitat loss and degradation, driven primarily by increasing demand for food and energy.
Credit: © Elena Kovaleva / Fotolia



Global populations of vertebrates -- mammals, birds, reptiles, amphibians, and fish -- have declined by 58 percent between 1970 and 2012, states a new report from World Wildlife Fund (WWF). Animals living in the world's lakes, rivers, and freshwater systems have experienced the most dramatic population declines, at 81 percent. Because of human activity, the report states that without immediate intervention global wildlife populations could drop two-thirds by 2020.

"This research delivers a wake-up call that for decades we've treated our planet as if it's disposable," said Carter Roberts, WWF president and CEO. "We created this problem. The good news is that we can fix it. It requires updating our approach to food, energy, transportation, and how we live our lives. We share the same planet. We rely on it for our survival. So we are all responsible for its protection."
The top threat to wildlife is habitat loss and degradation, driven primarily by increasing demand for food and energy. According to the report, global food production is the leading cause for destruction of habitats and overexploitation of wildlife. Agriculture currently occupies approximately one-third of Earth's total land area and accounts for 70 percent of all freshwater use.
Wild animals are not the only ones at risk; the report states that increased pressure threatens the natural resources that all life -- including humanity -- depend on.
The report demonstrates the need to rethink how we produce, consume, measure success and value the natural environment, and calls for an urgent system change by individuals, businesses and governments. The report also illustrates the positive momentum that is building by highlighting recent global agreements on climate change and sustainable development. In particular, the report recognizes the 2030 Agenda for Sustainable Development as an essential guide to decision-making that can ensure that the environment is valued alongside economic and social interests.
"A strong natural environment is the key to defeating poverty, improving health and developing a just and prosperous future," said Marco Lambertini, WWF director general. "We have proven that we know what it takes to build a resilient planet for future generations, we just need to act on that knowledge."]]> Global wildlife populations: 58 percent decline, driven by food and energy demand

Date: October 27, 2016 Source: World Wildlife Fund Summary: Global populations of vertebrates -- mammals, birds, reptiles, amphibians, and fish -- have declined by 58 percent between 1970 and 2012, states a new report. Animals living in the world's lakes, rivers, and freshwater systems have experienced the most dramatic population declines, at 81 percent. Because of human activity, the report states that without immediate intervention global wildlife populations could drop two-thirds by 2020.
[Image: 161027113306_1_540x360.jpg]
The top threat to wildlife is habitat loss and degradation, driven primarily by increasing demand for food and energy.
Credit: © Elena Kovaleva / Fotolia



Global populations of vertebrates -- mammals, birds, reptiles, amphibians, and fish -- have declined by 58 percent between 1970 and 2012, states a new report from World Wildlife Fund (WWF). Animals living in the world's lakes, rivers, and freshwater systems have experienced the most dramatic population declines, at 81 percent. Because of human activity, the report states that without immediate intervention global wildlife populations could drop two-thirds by 2020.

"This research delivers a wake-up call that for decades we've treated our planet as if it's disposable," said Carter Roberts, WWF president and CEO. "We created this problem. The good news is that we can fix it. It requires updating our approach to food, energy, transportation, and how we live our lives. We share the same planet. We rely on it for our survival. So we are all responsible for its protection."
The top threat to wildlife is habitat loss and degradation, driven primarily by increasing demand for food and energy. According to the report, global food production is the leading cause for destruction of habitats and overexploitation of wildlife. Agriculture currently occupies approximately one-third of Earth's total land area and accounts for 70 percent of all freshwater use.
Wild animals are not the only ones at risk; the report states that increased pressure threatens the natural resources that all life -- including humanity -- depend on.
The report demonstrates the need to rethink how we produce, consume, measure success and value the natural environment, and calls for an urgent system change by individuals, businesses and governments. The report also illustrates the positive momentum that is building by highlighting recent global agreements on climate change and sustainable development. In particular, the report recognizes the 2030 Agenda for Sustainable Development as an essential guide to decision-making that can ensure that the environment is valued alongside economic and social interests.
"A strong natural environment is the key to defeating poverty, improving health and developing a just and prosperous future," said Marco Lambertini, WWF director general. "We have proven that we know what it takes to build a resilient planet for future generations, we just need to act on that knowledge."]]> <![CDATA[The distinction between true scepticism and denial]]> https://deeppoliticsforum.com/fora/showthread.php?tid=14960 Sat, 10 Sep 2016 20:39:32 +0000 R.K. Locke]]> https://deeppoliticsforum.com/fora/showthread.php?tid=14960 http://donaitkin.com/the-distinction-bet...nd-denial/


I came across the phrase in the title, and followed a link to a recent journal article which for once was available on open access. Entitled Science and the Public: Debate, Denial, and Skepticism', it looked interesting. You can read it here. The four authors come from different fields, and propose to outline the distinction between true scepticism and denial'. They also offer some guidelines to help researchers, and interested members of the public, decide how to deal with enquiries, on the one hand, and problems which people see in published science, on the other.

The reader is brought into the area of climate change' at once. The controversy surrounding climate change is just one example of a polarized public debate that seems remote and detached from the actual state of science: Within the scientific community, there is a pervasive consensus that the Earth is warming from greenhouse gas emissions (Anderegg, Prall, Harold, & Schneider, 2010; Cook et al., 2013; Doran & Zimmerman, 2009; Oreskes, 2004; Shwed & Bearman, 2010), but outside science there is entrenched denial of this fact in some sectors of society (e.g., Dunlap, 2013; Lewandowsky, Gignac, & Oberauer, 2013). [my emphasis]

Whoops! Substantively, climate change' is not simply whether the planet has warmed through greenhouse gas emissions. More important and related questions include, for example, by how much has it warmed, what else has been at work besides greenhouse gases, is the warming unprecedented or not, does it matter anyway (isn't warming better than cooling?), and many others. Pedantically, there is no need for a consensus to be graced with the adjective pervasive. If it is a consensus then it is by definition pervasive, meaning permeated', diffused through', etc.

Then interested readers might wonder where to find the entrenched denial of the supposed fact that the Earth is warming from greenhouse gas emissions. The sceptical community for the most part, I think, accepts that greenhouse gas emissions have contributed to the warming that has occurred over the past century or so (which is not quite the same thing). There are a few dragon-slayers who don't agree. But entrenched denial? I'm not aware of it. The links don't help, since Dunlap 2013 is a study of 108 climate change denial books with most of the interest being in their supposed links to business groups. The Lewandowsky link is even less helpful, as well as being an intellectually dreadful paper. I don't know quite what I would expect to find as an example of entrenched denial in opposition to pervasive consensus, but there's no evidence for it here. To continue:

Media reports occasionally even proclaim that warming has stopped (Ridley, 2014) or that we are headed for global cooling (e.g., Rose, 2013). These propositions have no scientific support …

Well, Matt Ridley's op. ed. in the Wall Street Journal may not be top-of-the-line science, though he refers to the science, but the UK Met Office did indeed agree that there was a hiatus in warming, and that it would continue until 2017. The scientists who propose the possibility of cooling are solar physicists, for the most part, and their views may be wrong. But the cooling' view does have some scientific support (see, for example, here).

These introductory remarks are a little jarring, in the context of the pure bromide that is to come. Public debate and scepticism are essential to a functioning democracy. Indeed scepticism has been shown to enable people to differentiate more accurately between truth and falsehood. How could we disagree? So how do we tell when what we are getting is scientific fact or denial? Ah, you see, there are three factors that are always present when denialists are involved. First, they make stuff up. Second, denial commonly invokes notions of conspiracies. (I think Dunlap 2013, mentioned above, is an excellent example of the way in which conspiracies can be invoked, but I don't think the authors had him in mind.). Third, denialists engineer personal and professional attacks on scientists both in public and behind the scenes, and issue prolific complaints to scientists' host institutions with allegations of research conduct. Two of the authors of this article claim to have experienced such behaviour.

The authors claim, on the basis of what they call recent evidence, is that up to US$1billion flows into foundations and think tanks in the U.S. every year that are dedicated to political lobbying for various issues. One of the principal objectives of this network is to support a climate "counter movement" that seeks to reframe public discourse surrounding climate change from one of overwhelming scientific consensus to one of doubt, debate, and uncertainty (Brulle, 2014; Plehwe, 2014). To illustrate, more than 90% of recent books that dismiss environmental problems have been linked to conservative think tanks (Jacques, Dunlap, & Freeman, 2008), and such books typically never undergo peer review (Dunlap & Jacques, 2013). This does look like conspiracy stuff to me, on first reading, but again, I doubt the authors had this in mind either.

Now comes more bromide: In a democracy, calls for genuine debate are to be welcomed and must be taken seriously. Given that scientific issues can have far-reaching political, technological, or environmental consequences, greater involvement of the public can only be welcome and made led to better policy outcome. Who could disagree? We are given a small example of how this has worked in practice (it is not in climate change). Notwithstanding the public's entitlement to be involved in issues that are scientifically informed, scientific debates must still be conducted according to the rules of science. Arguments must be evidence-based and they are subject to peer review before they become provisionally accepted. Hang on there! If arguments have to be evidence-based, and the evidence doesn't support them, what then? Do we really have to wait for good policy until the peer-review process (something that applies almost solely to academic work) has considered the matter? In the climate science arena even well-credentialled sceptical scientists have found it hard to get critical papers accepted for publication.

In the matter of disagreement, the two first-named authors acknowledge the uncertainty in climate projections, but note that contrary to popular intuition, any uncertainty provides even greater impetus for climate mitigation. I've come across this line of argument before, and have to go along with popular intuition' here. If there is uncertainty about whether something needs to be done, because the evidence is weak or equivocal, it would seem strange indeed to say Hah! That's even more reason to go down my chosen path!' I am open to persuasion, but not to this kind of assertion.

What I think is happening in this strange, muddled and evidence-free paper is a kind of explicit argument that peer review is the only way to go, if only because the blogospherical world (which the authors denounce) has very little in the way of support for the supposed consensus. By now the title of the paper has been forgotten by the authors, and we get this: People who deny scientific facts that they find challenging or unacceptable, by contrast, are by and large not skeptics. On the contrary, they demonstrably shy away from scientific debate by avoiding the submission of their ideas to peer review. One has to say, again, that peer review is for academics and is not the gold standard for science. Bad data, bad argument and self-interest are usually quickly discovered, and any proposition that results from them is usually dismissed, or at least put aside. What distinguishes climate change' is that policies like the carbon tax came before the science was properly in (it still isn't), and for political reasons the policies remained current, despite the lack of continually corroborative scientific evidence.

Oh well, another blinkered, dodgy, peer-reviewed paper. Who let this through? Oh, I forgot to mention the Guidelines. The first, Proposed Guidelines for Critical Scientific Engagement by Members of the Public' begins with this little preamble: If your goal is to contribute to a scientific conversation, then you need to follow certain rules. One of those rules is that scientific arguments are conducted in the scientific peer-reviewed literature. If you are unwilling to do so, these guidelines are of little value. Indeed so. Good luck, would-be contributor!

The second set is for scientists who might be approached by a member of the public seeking critical engagement. The Guidelines tell you to be careful you might be approached by someone who is not in good faith, and wants to find errors in your work. Don't help them!

And when you've finished both guidelines, you still don't know what the authors think a true sceptic' is, or how he or she is to be distinguished from a denialist'. Yet that is embodied in the title of the article.

Finally, the authors. The first two names will be familiar to readers of this website, and indeed to anyone interested in the climate change' issue: Stephan Lewandowsky, Michael E. Mann, Nicholas J. L. Brown and Harris Friedman. You will learn about the third and fourth by reading the article. They seem somewhat more sensible than the first two. Oh, there are 96 references, of which 22 are self-referenced articles, 16 of them by Lewandowsky alone. I may be wrong, but I could find just three references that were critical of the authors' standpoint. Not exactly a review paper, for all its pretension.

And I find myself saying, yet again, this awful, poorly argued, self-seeking paper has passed peer review? What have we come to in the journal world?]]> http://donaitkin.com/the-distinction-bet...nd-denial/


I came across the phrase in the title, and followed a link to a recent journal article which for once was available on open access. Entitled Science and the Public: Debate, Denial, and Skepticism', it looked interesting. You can read it here. The four authors come from different fields, and propose to outline the distinction between true scepticism and denial'. They also offer some guidelines to help researchers, and interested members of the public, decide how to deal with enquiries, on the one hand, and problems which people see in published science, on the other.

The reader is brought into the area of climate change' at once. The controversy surrounding climate change is just one example of a polarized public debate that seems remote and detached from the actual state of science: Within the scientific community, there is a pervasive consensus that the Earth is warming from greenhouse gas emissions (Anderegg, Prall, Harold, & Schneider, 2010; Cook et al., 2013; Doran & Zimmerman, 2009; Oreskes, 2004; Shwed & Bearman, 2010), but outside science there is entrenched denial of this fact in some sectors of society (e.g., Dunlap, 2013; Lewandowsky, Gignac, & Oberauer, 2013). [my emphasis]

Whoops! Substantively, climate change' is not simply whether the planet has warmed through greenhouse gas emissions. More important and related questions include, for example, by how much has it warmed, what else has been at work besides greenhouse gases, is the warming unprecedented or not, does it matter anyway (isn't warming better than cooling?), and many others. Pedantically, there is no need for a consensus to be graced with the adjective pervasive. If it is a consensus then it is by definition pervasive, meaning permeated', diffused through', etc.

Then interested readers might wonder where to find the entrenched denial of the supposed fact that the Earth is warming from greenhouse gas emissions. The sceptical community for the most part, I think, accepts that greenhouse gas emissions have contributed to the warming that has occurred over the past century or so (which is not quite the same thing). There are a few dragon-slayers who don't agree. But entrenched denial? I'm not aware of it. The links don't help, since Dunlap 2013 is a study of 108 climate change denial books with most of the interest being in their supposed links to business groups. The Lewandowsky link is even less helpful, as well as being an intellectually dreadful paper. I don't know quite what I would expect to find as an example of entrenched denial in opposition to pervasive consensus, but there's no evidence for it here. To continue:

Media reports occasionally even proclaim that warming has stopped (Ridley, 2014) or that we are headed for global cooling (e.g., Rose, 2013). These propositions have no scientific support …

Well, Matt Ridley's op. ed. in the Wall Street Journal may not be top-of-the-line science, though he refers to the science, but the UK Met Office did indeed agree that there was a hiatus in warming, and that it would continue until 2017. The scientists who propose the possibility of cooling are solar physicists, for the most part, and their views may be wrong. But the cooling' view does have some scientific support (see, for example, here).

These introductory remarks are a little jarring, in the context of the pure bromide that is to come. Public debate and scepticism are essential to a functioning democracy. Indeed scepticism has been shown to enable people to differentiate more accurately between truth and falsehood. How could we disagree? So how do we tell when what we are getting is scientific fact or denial? Ah, you see, there are three factors that are always present when denialists are involved. First, they make stuff up. Second, denial commonly invokes notions of conspiracies. (I think Dunlap 2013, mentioned above, is an excellent example of the way in which conspiracies can be invoked, but I don't think the authors had him in mind.). Third, denialists engineer personal and professional attacks on scientists both in public and behind the scenes, and issue prolific complaints to scientists' host institutions with allegations of research conduct. Two of the authors of this article claim to have experienced such behaviour.

The authors claim, on the basis of what they call recent evidence, is that up to US$1billion flows into foundations and think tanks in the U.S. every year that are dedicated to political lobbying for various issues. One of the principal objectives of this network is to support a climate "counter movement" that seeks to reframe public discourse surrounding climate change from one of overwhelming scientific consensus to one of doubt, debate, and uncertainty (Brulle, 2014; Plehwe, 2014). To illustrate, more than 90% of recent books that dismiss environmental problems have been linked to conservative think tanks (Jacques, Dunlap, & Freeman, 2008), and such books typically never undergo peer review (Dunlap & Jacques, 2013). This does look like conspiracy stuff to me, on first reading, but again, I doubt the authors had this in mind either.

Now comes more bromide: In a democracy, calls for genuine debate are to be welcomed and must be taken seriously. Given that scientific issues can have far-reaching political, technological, or environmental consequences, greater involvement of the public can only be welcome and made led to better policy outcome. Who could disagree? We are given a small example of how this has worked in practice (it is not in climate change). Notwithstanding the public's entitlement to be involved in issues that are scientifically informed, scientific debates must still be conducted according to the rules of science. Arguments must be evidence-based and they are subject to peer review before they become provisionally accepted. Hang on there! If arguments have to be evidence-based, and the evidence doesn't support them, what then? Do we really have to wait for good policy until the peer-review process (something that applies almost solely to academic work) has considered the matter? In the climate science arena even well-credentialled sceptical scientists have found it hard to get critical papers accepted for publication.

In the matter of disagreement, the two first-named authors acknowledge the uncertainty in climate projections, but note that contrary to popular intuition, any uncertainty provides even greater impetus for climate mitigation. I've come across this line of argument before, and have to go along with popular intuition' here. If there is uncertainty about whether something needs to be done, because the evidence is weak or equivocal, it would seem strange indeed to say Hah! That's even more reason to go down my chosen path!' I am open to persuasion, but not to this kind of assertion.

What I think is happening in this strange, muddled and evidence-free paper is a kind of explicit argument that peer review is the only way to go, if only because the blogospherical world (which the authors denounce) has very little in the way of support for the supposed consensus. By now the title of the paper has been forgotten by the authors, and we get this: People who deny scientific facts that they find challenging or unacceptable, by contrast, are by and large not skeptics. On the contrary, they demonstrably shy away from scientific debate by avoiding the submission of their ideas to peer review. One has to say, again, that peer review is for academics and is not the gold standard for science. Bad data, bad argument and self-interest are usually quickly discovered, and any proposition that results from them is usually dismissed, or at least put aside. What distinguishes climate change' is that policies like the carbon tax came before the science was properly in (it still isn't), and for political reasons the policies remained current, despite the lack of continually corroborative scientific evidence.

Oh well, another blinkered, dodgy, peer-reviewed paper. Who let this through? Oh, I forgot to mention the Guidelines. The first, Proposed Guidelines for Critical Scientific Engagement by Members of the Public' begins with this little preamble: If your goal is to contribute to a scientific conversation, then you need to follow certain rules. One of those rules is that scientific arguments are conducted in the scientific peer-reviewed literature. If you are unwilling to do so, these guidelines are of little value. Indeed so. Good luck, would-be contributor!

The second set is for scientists who might be approached by a member of the public seeking critical engagement. The Guidelines tell you to be careful you might be approached by someone who is not in good faith, and wants to find errors in your work. Don't help them!

And when you've finished both guidelines, you still don't know what the authors think a true sceptic' is, or how he or she is to be distinguished from a denialist'. Yet that is embodied in the title of the article.

Finally, the authors. The first two names will be familiar to readers of this website, and indeed to anyone interested in the climate change' issue: Stephan Lewandowsky, Michael E. Mann, Nicholas J. L. Brown and Harris Friedman. You will learn about the third and fourth by reading the article. They seem somewhat more sensible than the first two. Oh, there are 96 references, of which 22 are self-referenced articles, 16 of them by Lewandowsky alone. I may be wrong, but I could find just three references that were critical of the authors' standpoint. Not exactly a review paper, for all its pretension.

And I find myself saying, yet again, this awful, poorly argued, self-seeking paper has passed peer review? What have we come to in the journal world?]]> <![CDATA[The Coming Super Storms]]> https://deeppoliticsforum.com/fora/showthread.php?tid=14841 Fri, 01 Jul 2016 17:11:27 +0000 Lauren Johnson]]> https://deeppoliticsforum.com/fora/showthread.php?tid=14841 ]]> ]]> <![CDATA[Exxon [then ESSO] knew all about climate change from burning fossil fuels in 1977!!!]]> https://deeppoliticsforum.com/fora/showthread.php?tid=14769 Thu, 26 May 2016 18:48:38 +0000 Peter Lemkin]]> https://deeppoliticsforum.com/fora/showthread.php?tid=14769 NERMEEN SHAIKH: At its annual meeting in Dallas, Texas, ExxonMobil shareholders rejected a series of resolutions Wednesday calling for climate action, including resolutions backed by CalPERS, the California Public Employees' Retirement System, as well as the New York [state] Comptroller Thomas DiNapoli and the Church of England. Shareholders did pass a measure to let minority shareholders nominate outsiders for seats on the board, raising the possibility that a climate activist could someday become a director at Exxon. It was the first Exxon annual meeting since a series of revelations that for decades the company covered up its own scientific findings linking rising carbon emissions to dangerous climate change. At the shareholders meeting, the granddaughter of a former Exxon scientist questioned the CEO of Exxon about the company's record. This is part of what she said.
ANNA KALINSKY: It's good to have the opportunity to speak to you. So, my name is Anna Kalinsky. And my grandfather, James F. Black, was a scientist for Exxon for over 40 years. He started with Standard Oil during World War II, later earned dozens of patents for Esso and, later, Exxon. In 1977, he briefed the company's top executives on the scientific realities of climate change. He said that present thinking holds that man has a time window of five to 10 years before the need for hard decisions regarding changes in energy strategies might become critical, like you acknowledged on your slides. This is over 30, almost 40, years ago.
AMY GOODMAN: That was Anna Kalinsky, who is the granddaughter of James Black, who was a scientist for Exxon for over 40 years. We're going to hear Rex Tillerson's answer, the CEO of Exxon, in a moment. But first to Anna herself, who's joining us now from Dallas along with 350.org co-founder Bill McKibben.
We welcome you both to Democracy Now! Anna McKibbenAnna Kalinsky, let's begin with you. Talk about what your grandfather found as an Exxon scientist.
ANNA KALINSKY: Absolutely. So, like I said, my grandfather worked for Exxon for about 40 years. And in 1977, he gave a presentation to top Exxon management. And he laid out very clearly that the planet was warming, that this was because of rising carbon dioxide levels in the atmosphere, and that those levels were rising because of the burning of fossil fuels. And at the time, he told Exxon that humankind had five to 10 years to start really making the hard decisions regarding climate change, or else the situation could become dire.
NERMEEN SHAIKH: And, Anna Kalinsky, how many other scientists at Exxon at the time, in the 1970s, were doing comparable research, research comparable to what your grandfather, James F. Black, did?
ANNA KALINSKY: So, I don't have an exact number for you, but we know that at the time there were other scientists at Exxon doing climate research and that other organizations, in addition to Exxon, were receiving similar briefings.
AMY GOODMAN: I want to play Exxon CEO Rex Tillerson's response to your question at Wednesday's meeting.
REX TILLERSON: We will continue to engage in the policy discussions, as we currently do, with a number of broad-based groups on all sides of these issues, and we'll continue to be active in the discussions legislatively in Washington and elsewhere, including through the IPCC, on what we think are thoughtful, sensible policy actions that accommodate both our need for economic growth as well as addressing these risks, which are going to be very, very daunting.
AMY GOODMAN: So that's Rex Tillerson, the CEO of Exxon. Anna Kalinsky, your response to his answer to your question?
ANNA KALINSKY: I find it incredibly frustrating. To say that we're looking at all sides of the climate change issue is ignoring that there has been global consensus on the realities of climate change for years and that Exxon has now, at this point, had four decades of knowledge about climate change, has their own scientists working, who know about these sorts of things. And for CEO Tillerson to say that Exxon wouldn't be taking decisive action either to cut ties with groups which deliberately spread climate change misinformation, groups like the American Legislative Exchange Council, and that Exxon also, even though they acknowledged during their shareholders meeting that climate change is real and that burning of fossil fuels has an effect, that it was more important for them to focus on their immediate bottom line, it's incredibly disheartening.
NERMEEN SHAIKH: Well, your grandfather, James F. Black, presented his climate research findings to Exxon executives in July 1977, as you pointed out to the Exxon CEO. He concluded by saying, quote, "There is general scientific agreement that the most likely manner in which mankind is influencing the global climate is through carbon dioxide release from the burning of fossil fuels. A doubling of carbon dioxide is estimated to be capable of increasing the average global temperature from 1 degree to 3 degrees centigrade, with a 10 degree centigrade rise predicted at the poles." Anna, that was your grandfather's report in 1977 to senior Exxon executives. So could you say a little about what you think the situation would be today, had Exxon executives listened to the advice of your grandfather?
ANNA KALINSKY: Absolutely. And something I think that's important to note is that Exxon actually did for a while take what my grandfather said seriously. He gave that initial briefing in 1977, and in 1978 Exxon had him give a similar briefing to a larger group. And for a while, they actually were funding climate change research. And for a few years, Exxon really was on the cutting edge of climate change science. And then, that spun around to the situation we're at today, where Exxon publicly and anonymously is funding these groups that spread climate change misinformation. But I think that had my grandfather been listened to back in the '70s, and had an organization like Exxon really taken action, we would be much closer or already at a much more greener climate, an economy of greener energy sources instead of our continued reliance on fossil fuels.
AMY GOODMAN: Anna
ANNA KALINSKY: And Iyes?
AMY GOODMAN: Can you talk about the petition you delivered at the Exxon shareholders meeting, and when you came to understand, as you were growing up, how significant your grandfather was in this whole climate change issue in exposing the large fossil fuel companies, like Exxon, and how you decided to speak out yourself?
ANNA KALINSKY: So, I came down as a volunteer with ClimateTruth.org, which is a group that works against the spread of climate change denial, climate change disinformation. And when I went to the shareholders meeting, I delivered a petition with almost 35,000 signatures askingor demanding, rather, that Exxon leave ALEC, that they cut associations with ALEC, one of those groups which spreads climate change misinformation.
But as for my relationship with my grandfather growing up, he died a few years before I was born, so I never actually had the opportunity to meet him. But I was the only scientist growing up in my family. I graduated last year with an undergraduate degree in chemistry, just like he did. And so, he was always a mythological sort of figure for me. He was the person where my love of science came from. And so, I grew up with stories from my mother about things that my grandfather did, his research. The climate change was one of the things that I learned about.
And then, this past fall, when InsideClimate News started publishing the articles about how Exxon has known about climate change since the '70s, and how he was featured very strongly in that, it was something that gave me a lot of pride. I was really excited that my family was a part of this. And as time has gone on, you know, I've continued to feel that way. So, when ClimateTruth.org asked me to come down here, I was really proud to carry on the family legacy of speaking out against Exxon and speaking kind of on behalf of science and not political rhetoric.]]> NERMEEN SHAIKH: At its annual meeting in Dallas, Texas, ExxonMobil shareholders rejected a series of resolutions Wednesday calling for climate action, including resolutions backed by CalPERS, the California Public Employees' Retirement System, as well as the New York [state] Comptroller Thomas DiNapoli and the Church of England. Shareholders did pass a measure to let minority shareholders nominate outsiders for seats on the board, raising the possibility that a climate activist could someday become a director at Exxon. It was the first Exxon annual meeting since a series of revelations that for decades the company covered up its own scientific findings linking rising carbon emissions to dangerous climate change. At the shareholders meeting, the granddaughter of a former Exxon scientist questioned the CEO of Exxon about the company's record. This is part of what she said.
ANNA KALINSKY: It's good to have the opportunity to speak to you. So, my name is Anna Kalinsky. And my grandfather, James F. Black, was a scientist for Exxon for over 40 years. He started with Standard Oil during World War II, later earned dozens of patents for Esso and, later, Exxon. In 1977, he briefed the company's top executives on the scientific realities of climate change. He said that present thinking holds that man has a time window of five to 10 years before the need for hard decisions regarding changes in energy strategies might become critical, like you acknowledged on your slides. This is over 30, almost 40, years ago.
AMY GOODMAN: That was Anna Kalinsky, who is the granddaughter of James Black, who was a scientist for Exxon for over 40 years. We're going to hear Rex Tillerson's answer, the CEO of Exxon, in a moment. But first to Anna herself, who's joining us now from Dallas along with 350.org co-founder Bill McKibben.
We welcome you both to Democracy Now! Anna McKibbenAnna Kalinsky, let's begin with you. Talk about what your grandfather found as an Exxon scientist.
ANNA KALINSKY: Absolutely. So, like I said, my grandfather worked for Exxon for about 40 years. And in 1977, he gave a presentation to top Exxon management. And he laid out very clearly that the planet was warming, that this was because of rising carbon dioxide levels in the atmosphere, and that those levels were rising because of the burning of fossil fuels. And at the time, he told Exxon that humankind had five to 10 years to start really making the hard decisions regarding climate change, or else the situation could become dire.
NERMEEN SHAIKH: And, Anna Kalinsky, how many other scientists at Exxon at the time, in the 1970s, were doing comparable research, research comparable to what your grandfather, James F. Black, did?
ANNA KALINSKY: So, I don't have an exact number for you, but we know that at the time there were other scientists at Exxon doing climate research and that other organizations, in addition to Exxon, were receiving similar briefings.
AMY GOODMAN: I want to play Exxon CEO Rex Tillerson's response to your question at Wednesday's meeting.
REX TILLERSON: We will continue to engage in the policy discussions, as we currently do, with a number of broad-based groups on all sides of these issues, and we'll continue to be active in the discussions legislatively in Washington and elsewhere, including through the IPCC, on what we think are thoughtful, sensible policy actions that accommodate both our need for economic growth as well as addressing these risks, which are going to be very, very daunting.
AMY GOODMAN: So that's Rex Tillerson, the CEO of Exxon. Anna Kalinsky, your response to his answer to your question?
ANNA KALINSKY: I find it incredibly frustrating. To say that we're looking at all sides of the climate change issue is ignoring that there has been global consensus on the realities of climate change for years and that Exxon has now, at this point, had four decades of knowledge about climate change, has their own scientists working, who know about these sorts of things. And for CEO Tillerson to say that Exxon wouldn't be taking decisive action either to cut ties with groups which deliberately spread climate change misinformation, groups like the American Legislative Exchange Council, and that Exxon also, even though they acknowledged during their shareholders meeting that climate change is real and that burning of fossil fuels has an effect, that it was more important for them to focus on their immediate bottom line, it's incredibly disheartening.
NERMEEN SHAIKH: Well, your grandfather, James F. Black, presented his climate research findings to Exxon executives in July 1977, as you pointed out to the Exxon CEO. He concluded by saying, quote, "There is general scientific agreement that the most likely manner in which mankind is influencing the global climate is through carbon dioxide release from the burning of fossil fuels. A doubling of carbon dioxide is estimated to be capable of increasing the average global temperature from 1 degree to 3 degrees centigrade, with a 10 degree centigrade rise predicted at the poles." Anna, that was your grandfather's report in 1977 to senior Exxon executives. So could you say a little about what you think the situation would be today, had Exxon executives listened to the advice of your grandfather?
ANNA KALINSKY: Absolutely. And something I think that's important to note is that Exxon actually did for a while take what my grandfather said seriously. He gave that initial briefing in 1977, and in 1978 Exxon had him give a similar briefing to a larger group. And for a while, they actually were funding climate change research. And for a few years, Exxon really was on the cutting edge of climate change science. And then, that spun around to the situation we're at today, where Exxon publicly and anonymously is funding these groups that spread climate change misinformation. But I think that had my grandfather been listened to back in the '70s, and had an organization like Exxon really taken action, we would be much closer or already at a much more greener climate, an economy of greener energy sources instead of our continued reliance on fossil fuels.
AMY GOODMAN: Anna
ANNA KALINSKY: And Iyes?
AMY GOODMAN: Can you talk about the petition you delivered at the Exxon shareholders meeting, and when you came to understand, as you were growing up, how significant your grandfather was in this whole climate change issue in exposing the large fossil fuel companies, like Exxon, and how you decided to speak out yourself?
ANNA KALINSKY: So, I came down as a volunteer with ClimateTruth.org, which is a group that works against the spread of climate change denial, climate change disinformation. And when I went to the shareholders meeting, I delivered a petition with almost 35,000 signatures askingor demanding, rather, that Exxon leave ALEC, that they cut associations with ALEC, one of those groups which spreads climate change misinformation.
But as for my relationship with my grandfather growing up, he died a few years before I was born, so I never actually had the opportunity to meet him. But I was the only scientist growing up in my family. I graduated last year with an undergraduate degree in chemistry, just like he did. And so, he was always a mythological sort of figure for me. He was the person where my love of science came from. And so, I grew up with stories from my mother about things that my grandfather did, his research. The climate change was one of the things that I learned about.
And then, this past fall, when InsideClimate News started publishing the articles about how Exxon has known about climate change since the '70s, and how he was featured very strongly in that, it was something that gave me a lot of pride. I was really excited that my family was a part of this. And as time has gone on, you know, I've continued to feel that way. So, when ClimateTruth.org asked me to come down here, I was really proud to carry on the family legacy of speaking out against Exxon and speaking kind of on behalf of science and not political rhetoric.]]> <![CDATA[Runaway climate change is now happening]]> https://deeppoliticsforum.com/fora/showthread.php?tid=14737 Tue, 17 May 2016 06:51:50 +0000 Lauren Johnson]]> https://deeppoliticsforum.com/fora/showthread.php?tid=14737 ]]> ]]> <![CDATA[A blue ocean Arctic summer is coming]]> https://deeppoliticsforum.com/fora/showthread.php?tid=14709 Thu, 05 May 2016 22:11:35 +0000 Lauren Johnson]]> https://deeppoliticsforum.com/fora/showthread.php?tid=14709 ]]> ]]> <![CDATA[Ft McMurray Fire a Climate Change Holocaust]]> https://deeppoliticsforum.com/fora/showthread.php?tid=14707 Thu, 05 May 2016 01:02:09 +0000 Lauren Johnson]]> https://deeppoliticsforum.com/fora/showthread.php?tid=14707


UPDATE: 1600 structures burned thus far.]]>


UPDATE: 1600 structures burned thus far.]]>