We’ve lived so long under the spell of hierarchy—from god-kings to feudal lords to party bosses—that only recently have we awakened to see not only that “regular” citizens have the capacity for self-governance, but that without their engagement our huge global crises cannot be addressed. The changes needed for human society simply to survive, let alone thrive, are so profound that the only way we will move toward them is if we ourselves, regular citizens, feel meaningful ownership of solutions through direct engagement. Our problems are too big, interrelated, and pervasive to yield to directives from on high.
—Frances Moore Lappé, excerpt from Time for Progressives to Grow Up
Thursday, December 12, 2013
Radical GHG emissions policies need radical social movements to back them
The author reports on some of the comments made by scientists and environmental activists attending the recent (this Tuesday and yesterday) conference in London called "Radical [greenhouse gas] Emissions Reduction conference". It's clear from what some of them are saying is that 1) we must immediately radically reduce the use of high carbon energy, 2) this will give us the time needed (2-3 decades) to build the infrastructure to supply low-carbon forms of energy, and 3) this will require a Marshall Plan scale of effort.
This is what I heard Professor Kevin Anderson and others say is needed to prevent the problem of runaway climate change--and he is not sure if it isn't already too late. Listen to Prof. Anderson of Tyndall Centre for Climate Change Research in the following interview to see if you agree.
So, assuming the above three actions are needed to prevent runaway, disastrous climate change, what do you think are the chances they will be implemented in societies thoroughly under the control of capitalists whose mindset is on next quarter's financial statements?