General Discussion
Related: Editorials & Other Articles, Issue Forums, Alliance Forums, Region ForumsNaomi Klein: Throw Out the Free Market Playbook
from Solutions journal:
In your cover story for the Nation last year, you say that modern environmentalism successfully advances many of the causes dear to the political Left, including redistribution of wealth, higher and more progressive taxes, and greater government intervention and regulation. Please explain.
The piece came out of my interest and my shock at the fact that belief in climate change in the United States has plummeted. If you really drill into the polling data, what you see is that the drop in belief in climate change is really concentrated on the right of the political spectrum. Its been an extraordinary and unusual shift in belief in a short time. In 2007, 71 percent of Americans believed in climate change and in 2009 only 51 percent believedand now were at 41 percent. So I started researching the denial movement and going to conferences and reading the books, and whats clear is that, on the right, climate change is seen as a threat to the Rights worldview, and to the neoliberal economic worldview. Its seen as a Marxist plot. They accuse climate scientists of being watermelonsgreen on the outside and red on the inside.
It seems exaggerated, but your piece was about how the Right is in fact correct.
I dont think climate change necessitates a social revolution. This idea is coming from the right-wing think tanks and not scientific organizations. Theyre ideological organizations. Their core reason for being is to defend what they call free-market ideology. They feel that any government intervention leads us to serfdom and brings about a socialist world, so thats what they have to fight off: a socialist world. Increase the power of the private sector and decrease the public sphere is their ideology.
You can set up carbon markets, consumer markets, and just pretend, but if you want to get serious about climate change, really serious, in line with the science, and you want to meet targets like 80 percent emissions cuts by midcentury in the developed world, then you need to be intervening strongly in the economy, and you cant do it all with carbon markets and offsetting. You have to really seriously regulate corporations and invest in the public sector. And we need to build public transport systems and light rail and affordable housing along transit lines to lower emissions. The market is not going to step up to this challenge. We must do more: rebuild levees and bridges and the public sphere, because we saw in Katrina what happens when weak infrastructure clashes with heavy weatherits catastrophe. These climate deniers arent crazytheir worldview is under threat. If you take climate change seriously, you do have to throw out the free-market playbook. ....................(more)
The complete piece is at: http://www.thesolutionsjournal.com/node/1053
mmonk
(52,589 posts)midnight
(26,624 posts)rurallib
(62,423 posts)xchrom
(108,903 posts)pampango
(24,692 posts)in the United States are inequality, the banks, corporate malfeasance, unemployment, foreclosures." ... Climate change has been claimed by the big green groups and theyre to the left. But theyre also foundation funded.
During good economic times, that may have seemed viable; but as soon as you have an economic crisis, the environment gets thrown under the bus, and there is a failure to make the connection between the economy and the climate crisisboth have roots in putting profits before people.
What is the political philosophy that underscores those who accept climate change versus those who deny it?
The Yale cultural cognition project has looked at cultural worldview and climate change, and whats clear is that ideology is the main factor in whether we believe in climate change. If you have an egalitarian and communitarian worldview, and you tend toward a belief system of pooling resources and helping the less advantaged, then you believe in climate change. And the stronger your belief system tends toward a hierarchical or individual worldview, the greater the chances are that you deny climate change and the stronger your denial will be. ... The reason is clear: its because people protect their worldviews. We all do this. We develop intellectual antibodies.
What comes after communism and capitalism? Whats your vision of the way forward?
Its largely about changing the mix in a mixed economy. Maybe one day well have a perfect ism thats post-communism and -capitalism. But if we look at the countries that have done the most to seriously meet the climate challenge, theyre social democracies like Scandinavia and the Netherlands. Theyre countries with a strong social sphere. Theyre mixed economies. Markets are a big part, but not the only part, of their economies. Can we meet our climate targets in a system that requires exponential growth to continue?
PufPuf23
(8,791 posts)raouldukelives
(5,178 posts)right now. Only through massive individual change can we make a difference. The Wall St machine will keep flowing until all is consumed. If everyone who truly cares about the future of the planet could put that above stock returns it'd be a great start.