Tuesday,Feb 22 2005, 07:33:23 PMTsunamis of Environmentalism's Death: Thefts...

Tsunamis of Environmentalism's Death:

Thefts and Tricks of the USA Narrow Leftists

By Rachel Guevara and Jason Martin

1800-2000 wds – (Revised March1, 2005)

*** -See Newest MER Release:

The Call to the International for Post-Capitalist Participatory Democracy and Revolution

http://real-left.tripod.com/index.blog?entry_id=635738

(See Intro in comment section below)

The ecological time bombs of trade (invasive species) and global warming are ticking away. The environmental movement has failed and should die so something better can take its place. We need to address the “real” issues  which Ted Nordhaus and Mark Herstgaard have brought to light:

The world cannot change in time to stop global warming. (NOTE 1)

The leaders of USA environmental groups (Enviros) and the US social change groups (Narrow Left) (NOTE 2) will not connect the issues of the poor, the environment, the global economy or the wars of US imperialism because that would require that they risk their careers and lives. Real change violates their  idea of change: slow, cautious and all inclusive. Giving the rich essentially vetoes… each day it looks more like the Enviros want the problems to get so big that they can trumpet: “Well we tried, but now it is too late.”

Technical fixes aren't sufficient to deal with climate change, species loss, deforestation or other environmental threats. The global economy has to be transformed which is a bigger problem than environmentalism has faced in the past… Ditto, the single-issue constituencies: labor, women, civil rights. They're faltering and need to think of themselves as a political movement, figure out what values they share and ways to organize accordingly.

In "The Death of Environmentalism" Ted Nordhaus and Michael Shellenberger, question the strategies of the US Enviros and the Narrow Left. This is a “double agent attack on single issue politics from the right wing of the Narrow Left.” Nordhaus (Apollo Alliance) pretends to be a broad coalition of groups and ideas but the focus is labor unions, jobs and national political power though elections. Nordhaus only once mentions “Addressing a post-Global Warming world”, but his proposals fit snuggly into the G W Bush program of global domination and surviving a post-Global Warming world. (NOTE 5).

Without a rapid decline in consumption in the rich countries all environmental issues are hopeless and the chances of meaningful social change are non-existent. Resource wars and wars of imperialism will be the only issues left. These are the challenges and time limits that we face (NOTE 8) "It would be foolish to underestimate the challenge of checking the consumption juggernaut," concludes Christopher Flavin. "But as the costs of unbridled appetites grow, the need for innovative responses becomes clearer. In the long run, meeting basic human needs, improving human health, and supporting a natural world that can sustain us will require that we control consumption, rather than allow consumption to control us." -- State of the World 2004. (NOTE 10)

Key Points for Understanding the Death of Environmentalism and Single-Issue Politics
USA Enviros have failed to build political, social or moral power around global warming. They have mis-educated the people about trade, invasive species, mega cities, industrial farming, economics and the trade-offs between growth and sustainability. These are all intimately linked. Disconnected education is everywhere in the USA – in the peace, justice, poverty and the border/immigration campaigns. These groups are failing and the failures are causing the problems to get worse. Average people and many activists have given up on trying to understand what must be done – what is meaningful and worth risking their lives for.

Nordhaus agrees with these points, but the debate over the Death of Environmentalism is a con job – a “Good cop / Bad cop” trick – with both groups (Enviros (Sierra Club)/Apollo Alliance) worried that if they don’t make some noise and act like they are on top of their game then the funders could move on or the gullible members, donors and progressives might figure out how badly they have been tricked and robbed. Citizens might even tie this billion dollar scam into the con jobs done by Democrats for decades.

Fake environmentalists pretend to struggle with Narrow Leftists over billions of dollars in donations and grants (acquired from Imperialism!) Fascist US presidents and “radicals” alike praise democracy (even US-styled democracy) and they all pretend happily – or not so happily – that there is nothing else that can be tried. The real radicals and the Real Left (Hugo Chavez and the Bolivarian Revolution) are attacked or ignored by their natural allies. Greens form coalitions in Germany with capitalist narrow lefties (SPD) and in the US with right wing Democrats. Greens almost everywhere sell out on what they stood for – especially on awareness and education. Political parties almost everywhere except in the Andes move to the right and no one hardly comments.

The planet is heating up rapidly as is the Global Economy and somehow these issues are kept separate. Technocrats trot around to Global Warming or Kyoto ceremonies knowing they are less than silly rituals, while youth and many radicals are mesmerized by the groovy concept of Changing the World without Seizing the Power...

If Enviros cannot address the need to reduce consumption in the rich countries then they are assisting the destruction of the planet by misleading people into thinking that tinkering (recycling, bike-riding, ) or cleaning up air and water pollution in the USA is helpful. The way that the USA has so far cleaned up its air and water is by shifting its pollution to other regions (China, Korea, Mesico, Canada or the North Sea). Critics of the Enviros, such as Nordhaus or Hertsgaard, want to continue these fraudulent educational programs with the  objective to forge political campaigns (unite single issue groups) so that they can continue to consume/pollute the world. Instead of Nimbyism (not-in-my-backyard) within the USA they will institutionalize national Nimbyism (not-in-my-country).

From an environmental perspective, the most striking thing about the Sierra Club/Pope (and the Apollo group's) response is their love of consumption growth (stability for the US auto industry!). Rather than move the Enviros to the center-right wing of the defunct Democratic party, the Real Left would build a great coalition around a plan for changing the US, and thus the world, based on massive aid to revolutions in the Andes and elsewhere in Latin America and the Caribbean.
           

US Anarchists, radicals and  Change the World Without Taking the Power advocates lack class consciousness or an appreciation (sympathy, information) of global struggles. They reject alternative economics because that would be planning. They do almost nothing to resist their own country’s plunder and pillaging because they might have to work with communists and the like. The US is a political void with two right wing political parties and near zero international or class consciousness. This near sightedness has spread to the World Social Forum where John Holloway practices his numbing and now academic power-avoidance, academic because delusions of fighting (waiting) for a perfect revolution makes little sense when survival is in doubt. Resisting the disasters of US Imperialism and ecological collapse are preeminent concerns. (NOTE 14).

One cannot have just a simple-minded plan of how the world works or how to resist – not against the uncouth USA corporate elite. You have to feel it out when to join with others, when the threats are too great or when to stand for principle when the moment is right. Right now the moment requires that everyone in the US and Europe work hard for the Andes and the revolutions throughout Latin America. These are strategic battles – pre-emptive resistance – to the Bush and USA plans for domination and extortion.

Everything has to come together – the earth, the sky and the waters and fire. This will happen slower in some ways in Latin America, though in many ways the Spirit of Resistance there has never weakened or separated. The poor of Latin America (250 million), the descendents of slaves (100 million) and especially the indigenous people (40 to 80 million) see the current struggle, as well as the struggles they have faced for 500 years, as deep, serious, desperate and fateful. In the West (the US and EU) the struggle actually does have to bring everything together now! If our efforts fail to stop the right wing Nordhaus-Apollo Alliance theft of billions of dollars in charitable donations, then GW Bush and his clan will accelerate his poisoning of the world and the poisoning of the minds of millions more people in the US. (NOTES 16)

Even if the US joined the Kyoto protocol, that would be only a symbolic step since the agreement only prescribes that the most important industrial states reduce their emissions of six greenhouse gases five percent by 2012 compared to 1990. According to the data of science, a 50 percent reduction by 2050 is necessary. An 80 percent reduction would be necessary if the right of third world societies to catch up in industrialization were considered.

The time of warnings has now expired unused. The catastrophe is at our door. The ecology problem cannot be separated from the economy problem. …An ecological awakening from the middle of society is crucial. This happened in Germany, but the Green impulse failed.. The German chancellor rejoices that German corporations are developing China into an auto-society. How can the Greens contradict themselves in this way? : (NOTE 15)

The Greens wanted to change the consumer mentality of the masses. They discussed the questions about living- and working conditions less dependent on cars and whether less meat consumption leading to less methane output with less livestock breeding wouldn’t be welcome on account of the better health of consumers. All this seems forgotten...
                                              KEY POINTS

1. US Enviros have killed the environmental movement and the Narrow Left strategies of single issue campaigning have failed.
2. There is no way to avoid the catastrophe of global warming because the capitalist model of consumption growth and rampant pollution to reduce costs combines with US greed to guarantee massive increases in greenhouse gases.

3. To survive in this post-global warming future of brutal US imperialist wars, the few remaining moral people in the US and Europe should fund revolutions in the Andes to create an alternative model and a counter to US hegemony.
4. There are billions of dollars in potential funding up for grabs in the US and Europe. The deceptions and failures of the Narrow left and the Enviros has created a vacuum where people are looking for something positive to invest in.

5. There is a process or hierarchy of resistance and movement building that can guide our efforts to stop imperialism and protect the environment. The basis of this hierarchy is that we must be honest and probing about our goals (near term and long run); about the strategies that could achieve them; and deeply open to debate and to clearer thinking than in the past. The Real Left needs to make sense – AND be understandable, with real solutions to all of the linked problems.

NOTES Part II:
1.)) NOTES I.: Part 1 of the Series Lessons Learned: From The Failure of Politics and Vision in North America To the Steady Victories of the Social Movements in South America – George W Bush’s Eternal Triumph
or The Andes to the Rescue of the World - http://mer130.tripod.com/index.blog?entry_id=606875
http://newswire.indymedia.org/en/newswire/2005/01/818213.shtml
http://margotbworldnews.com/archive/2005January/Jan25/rescue.html

2. )) NOTES II. : a.) In this paper we refer to the largest groups of the US environmental movement (the big 20 Eco Groups) and their leaders as Enviros.

b.) For a view of some Enviro leaders see St.Claire’s book review at: http://zmagsite.zmag.org/JulAug2004/mclellan0804.html
“ Jon Roush’s salary is $125,000 annually. He is president of the Wilderness Society whose Washington headquarters cost $6 million a year to lease. Roush logged his 80-acre, $2.5 million ranch in Montana “at precisely the moment,” says St. Clair, “when environmentalists across the country had their backs to the wall, against a ferocious assault in Congress on federal laws protecting America’s forests.” Fred Krupp at EDF commands $125,000 a year. Jay Hair who “keeps his limo running at all times, the air-conditioner grinding ozone at full-tilt against the moment he emerges from his office on an eco-mission or deal-making sortie,” makes a quarter-million at the National Wildlife Federation; while Peter Berle at the Audubon Society pulls in $200,000…”

c.) We use the term Real Left to denote leaders and groups that make sense in the world of 2005. The standout examples of this type of thinking are the people of Venezuela, Quispe in Bolivia and James Petras of the USA.

d.) We refer to the leaders and groups working on single or narrow issue social change issues as the Narrow Left. Most of the old left falls into this category too, because of its lack of environmental understanding and its failure to factor in social issues and perspectives. Much of what is referred to as the New Left should also be categorized as the Narrow Left because of their general fuzziness and lack of a well worked-out plan. The only exception we have come up with were the Sandinistas of Nicaragua ( 1978-1990 ) who seemed to have had a very workable and comprehensive plan but were thwarted by massive US terrorism. The Cuban communists have much to be praised for in their efforts, but 40 years of US hostility and mis-placed Soviet (USSR) advice has impacted their overall achievements.

e.) Examples of this fuzzy or narrow left in the US are: Global Exchange, CPUSA, the US Green Party, Ralph Nader, WILPF, Move On, Answer, Narco News, Fair Trade Network, Indymedia, Global Action, many more (all?) and many aspects of the WSF.

f.) What is the Organizers’ Collaborative? Information Clearinghouse (http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&q=US+social+change+groups)
Though there are 30,000+ social change groups in the US, these groups often do not feel sufficiently connected to the movement they are a part of. ... www.organizenow.net/pdf/brochurec.pdf

For a huge list of social change activities in the US see: http://democracygroups.org/

3.)) NOTES III.: January 19, 2005; http://www.circleoflife.org/blog/julia/

4.)) NOTES IV. .) a.) Mark Hertsgaard see: http://www.markhertsgaard.com/Articles/2004/EnviroChallenge/

b.) "The Death of Environmentalism,” presented to a grant makers meeting, October 2004, by Ted Nordhaus and Michael Schellenberger (S and N) :
http://www.thebreakthrough.org/images/Death_of_Environmentalism.pdf
This report would not have been possible had many of the country’s leading environmental and progressive leaders not been courageous enough to open up their thinking for public scrutiny: Dan Becker, Phil Clapp, Tim Carmichael, Ralph Cavanaugh, Susan Clark, Bernadette Del Chiaro, Shelly Fiddler, Ross Gelbspan, Hal Harvey, David Hawkins, Bracken Hendricks, Roland Hwang, Eric Heitz, Wendy James, Van Jones, Fred Keeley, Lance Lindblom, Elisa Lynch, Jason Mark, Bob Nordhaus, Carl Pope, Josh Reichert, Jeremy Rifkin, Adam Werbach, Greg Wetstone, V. John White, and Carl Zichella. We are especially grateful to George Lakoff for teaching us how to identify category mistakes and to Peter Teague for continually challenging us to question our most basic assumptions,

b.) “The institutions that define what environmentalism means boast large professional staffs and receive tens of millions of dollars every year from foundations and individuals. Given these rewards, it's no surprise that most environmental leaders neither craft nor support proposals that could be tagged "non-environmental." Doing otherwise would do more than threaten their status; it would undermine their brand.
Environmentalists are particularly upbeat about the direction of public opinion thanks in large part to the polling they conduct that shows wide support for their proposals. Yet America is a vastly more right-wing country than it was three decades ago. The domination of American politics by the far-right is a central obstacle to achieving action on global warming. Yet almost none of the environmentalists we interviewed thought to mention it.”

c.) S and N: “Part of what's behind America's political turn to the right is the skill with which conservative think tanks, intellectuals and political leaders have crafted proposals that build their power through setting the terms of the debate. Their work has paid off. According to a survey of 1,500 Americans by the market research firm Environics, the number of Americans who agree with the statement, "To preserve people's jobs in this country, we must accept higher levels of pollution in the future," increased from 17 percent in 1996 to 26 percent in 2000. The number of Americans who agreed that, "Most of the people actively involved in environmental groups are extremists, not reasonable people," leapt from 32 percent in 1996 to 41 percent in 2000.
The truth is that for the vast majority of Americans, the environment never makes it into their top ten list of things to worry about. Protecting the environment is indeed supported by a large majority -- it's just not supported very strongly. Once you understand this, it's much easier to understand why it's been so easy for anti-environmental interests to gut 30 years of environmental protections.”

d.) S and N: “Talking about the millions of jobs that will be created by accelerating our transition to a clean energy economy offers more than a good defense against industry attacks: it's a frame that moves the environmental movement away from apocalyptic global warming scenarios that tend to create feelings of helplessness and isolation among would-be supporters.”

e.) S and N: “Consider what would happen if we identified the obstacles [to stopping Global Warming] as:
The radical right's control of all three branches of the US government.
Trade policies that undermine environmental protections.
Our failure to articulate an inspiring and positive vision.
Overpopulation.
The influence of money in American politics.
Our inability to craft legislative proposals that shape the debate around core American values.
Poverty [ Nowhere a mention of reduced consumption in the OECD or the problems of increased consumption in the rest of the world].”

g.) S and N: “And if the political prospects for action on GLOBAL WARMING appear daunting in the U.S., don't look to China for uplift: the 1.2 billion person country, growing at 20 percent a year, intends to quadruple the size of its economy in 30 years and bring 300 gigawatts -- nearly half of what we use each year in the US -- of dirty coal energy on-line.

The challenge for American environmentalists is not just to get the US to dramatically overhaul its energy strategy but also to help developing countries like China, India, Russia and South Africa do so as well. That means environmental groups will need to advocate policies like technology transfer, ethical trade agreements, and win-win joint ventures. The carbon threat from China and other developing countries drives home the point that a whole series of major policies not traditionally defined as "environmental," from industrial policy to trade policy, will be needed to deal with GLOBAL WARMING.”

h.) S and N: "The major national environmental groups focusing on climate -- groups like the Natural Resources Defense Council, the Union of Concerned Scientists, and the World Wildlife Federation -- have agreed to accept what they see as a politically feasible target for 450 parts per million of carbon dioxide ... [That] may be politically realistic, it would likely be environmentally catastrophic."

In our interview, Gelbspan told us that environmentalists' failure to achieve more is "because they operate in Washington and they accept incremental progress. If they can get two more miles on a CAFE standard that would be a huge accomplishment for them. But compared to the need to cut emissions 70 or 80 percent it's nothing. They're scared they'll be marginalized by calling for big cuts. They are taking the expedient route even as we see the scientists sounding the alarms and saying it's too late to avoid the significant disruptions."

i.) The debate is serious when even the British Economist carries it: Hotting up - Feb 4th 2005
http://www.economist.com/agenda/displayStory.cfm?story_id=3630425

5.)) NOTES V.: a.) How Apollo snuggles up to GW Bush world domination:
http://www.apolloalliance.org/strategy_center/a_bold_energy_and_jobs_policy/ten_point_plan.cfm
The Ten-Point Plan for Good Jobs and Energy Independence
1. Promote Advanced Technology & Hybrid Cars:[ Technology always benefits the US military. Hybrid cars are a good ploy for soothing the US public…]
2. Invest In More Efficient Factories: [Helps keep US competitive, the population assuaged and prepares the US for embargoes and terrorist retaliation against US firms overseas.]
3. Encourage High Performance Building: [To save energy since most of the world will embargo US oil sales soon. Also will be combined with high security options on new building to prepare for domestic terrorism/Homeland Security]
4. Increase Use of Energy Efficient Appliances: [See responses 1,2,3]
5. Modernize Electrical Infrastructure: [Great idea to protect vulnerability of US to domestic terror attacks and a big subsidy to nuclear weapons manufacturers like GE]
6. Expand Renewable Energy Development: [Great domestic PR and would have been a great idea – if implemented – 10 or 20 years ago before Bush (s) went to war in Middle East – now it can only serve as a reminder of our follies and as a defense against energy embargoes/disruption. Renewables outside of hydropower are a tiny fraction of power – many so-called renewables – forests, agricultural biomass fuels and even wind are not really renewable as they require soil mining or a huge industrial infrastructure!]
7. Improve Transportation Options: [Jobs for votes and loyalty- National morale and defense]
8. Reinvest In Smart Urban Growth: [see response 3]
9. Plan For A Hydrogen Future: [Corporate subsides and to help the big oil companies that will go broke when their assets are nationalized or destroyed]
10. Preserve Regulatory Protections: [Thrown in to hold on to the quasi-Green vote, only to be implemented as a moderating growth strategy]
BONUS: # 11. Build 50 Nuclear Power Plants [Not one of their proposals (yet?) – but one they will have to swallow if they do not reduce consumption and energy use 50- 80 percent in the OECD – or the USA for sure!

b.) http://www.apolloalliance.org/strategy_center/podestadoc.cfm
“After all, there are more than 220 million cars, trucks and SUVs in this country logging more than 15 trillion miles annually. The auto industry in this country is responsible for 6.6 million jobs nationwide.
What happens to those jobs -- and what happens to the workers and the families who depend on those jobs -- if America reduces its reliance on oil? For a long time the environmental movement didn't have very good answers to those questions. Too often, some talked as if automobiles were the problem in and of themselves when, in fact, the problem has never really been cars, but the fuel they use and how they use it.”
[WRONG, WRONG! – I have shown this statement to several moderate environmentalists and they all laughed without me telling them what point I was interested in. Most people have already debated this when the fuel cell – hydrogen issue came up a few years ago. The underlying problems are not population growth, what kind or how much fuels (or carbon) are burnt – but instead the whole lifestyle of consumption, wealth chasing and the car culture that makes Wall Marts, commuting, sprawl, travel and trade possible and necessary.

c.) NOTES – The Apollo Alliances supporters show how deep this right wing conspiracy reaches and probably what gullible fools many groups are: (Bold De-notes conspirators, Italics denote those whom we hope are just naive) (http://www.apolloalliance.org/about_the_alliance/)
(It would be nice to know why groups like World Watch and the Nature Conservancy did not sign on to Apollo’s industrial proposals)
Supporters include:  Senator Maria Cantwell, MS Congress (D-WA); President Leo W. Gerard, The United Steel Workers of America; Representative Jesse Jackson Jr., US Congress (D-IL); Carl Pope, Executive Director of the Sierra Club; 
Phil Angelides, California State Treasurer; President Andrew Beebe, Energy Innovations, An Idea Lab Company; Chairman Julian Bond, National Association for the Advancement of Colored People (NAACP); President Thomas Buffenbarger, International Association of Machinists and Aerospace Workers; Henry Cisneros, former Mayor of San Antonio, Texas ; Jan Hartke, Executive Director, EarthVoice; Vice President Gerry Hudson, SEIU Local 1199
Rep. Jay Inslee (D-WA); Mitch Kapor, founder of Lotus Systems and Mitchell Kapor Foundation; Bill Lucy, Secretary/Treasurer, AFSCME; William Lynch
William McDonough, Architect, Author, Educator; Kathleen A. McGinty, Secretary, Pennsylvania Department of Energy; President Terence M. O’Sullivan, Laborers’ International Union of North America ; Art Pulaski, Secretary-Treasurer, California Labor Federation; Governor Ed Rendell, Pennsylvania; Anthony Thigpenn, Executive Director AGENDA; President Danny Thompson, Nevada Labor Federation; AFL-CIO; AFL-CIO Industrial Union Council (IUC);
National Heavy and Highway Alliance; Amalgamated Transit Union (ATU)
American Federation of State, County, and Municipal Employees (AFSCME); Bakery, Confectionary, Tobacco Workers and Grain Millers Intl. Union (BCTGM); Boilermakers Union (IBB); California Labor Federation
Graphic Communications Industrial Union (GCIU); Illinois AFL-CIO; Indiana AFL-CIO; International Association of Machinists and Aerospace Workers (IAM)
International Brotherhood of Electrical Workers (IBEW); International Brotherhood of Teamsters (IBT); International Union of Electrical Workers (IUE-CWA); King County Labor Council, AFL-CIO; Laborers' International Union of North America (LIUNA); Minnesota AFL-CIO; Paper and Allied Chemical Employees (PACE); Pennsylvania AFL-CIO; Service Employees International Union (SEIU); Sheet Metal Workers International Association (SMWIA)
Transportation Workers Union (TWU); United Automobile and Aerospace Workers (UAW); United Food and Commercial Workers (UFCW); United Mine Workers of America (UMWA); UNITE!; United Steel Workers of America (USWA); Blue Water Network; Center for Environmental Citizenship; Center for Environmental Health; Ceres; Coalition for Environmentally Responsible Conventions; The Detroit Project; Environment 2004; Environmental Law and Policy Center; Greenpeace USA; Healthy School Network; Institute for Agriculture and Trade Policy; League of Conservation Voters; National Wildlife Federation; Natural Resources Defense Council; Project Democracy; Rainforest Action Network; Republicans for Environmental Protection; The Sierra Student Coalition; South Carolina Coastal Conservation League; Union of Concerned Scientists (UCS); Alternatives (AGENDA); Black Farmers USA; Coalition of Black Trade Unionists (CBTU); Jim Hightower; Institute for Agriculture and Trade Policy; South Carolina Coastal Conservation League; Urban Agenda; Agnus Gund; Beldon Fund; The Belvedere Fund; The Bullitt Foundation; Nathan Cummings Foundation; The Energy Foundation; The Ford Foundation; French American Charitable Trust; General Service Foundation; The William and Flora Hewlett Foundation; The John W. and Clara C. Higgins Foundation; John Hunting; Move On; New Land Foundation; The Overbrook Foundation
Rockefeller Financial Services; Tides Foundation; Town Creek Foundation
The United Nations Better World Fund; The Wallace Global Fund; The Institute for America’s Future; The Center on Wisconsin Strategy; The Common Assets Defense Fund; The Breakthrough Institute (Michael Shellenberger (The S in S and N) is Executive Director of The Breakthrough Institute; Carol/Trevelyan Strategy Group

d.) For a view of a complex and slightly hard to label character see:

http://www.nathannewman.org/log/archives/001957.html
Apollo was no unique victim of the Kerry campaign. I don’t blame Kerry for the campaign he ran. I’ve come to realize that the election was lost years ago.... The obstacles we face are the same obstacles any “progressive”[bold and quotes by ed.] faces when trying to explain the need to think differently about problems and solutions to liberals who insist on putting all problems and solutions in traditional, single-issue categories....

6.)) NOTES VI.: a.) Michael Crichton and the end of radical environmentalism;
http: //www.seacoastonline.com/news/dover/01282005/editoria/61389.htm

b.) http://www.yubanet.com/artman/publish/article_17589.shtml
State of Fear, by Michael Crichton, the best-selling author of Jurassic Park and creator of the TV show “ER,” compares scientists who warn of global warming to advocates of eugenics who said that the mixing of races would ruin the world's genetic stock.

c. For a more balanced skeptical analysis, see: Hotting up - Feb 4th 2005
http://www.economist.com/agenda/displayStory.cfm?story_id=3630425

7.)) NOTES VII.: Anarchists and US activists first attacked Chavez for being authoritarian. When that proved untrue they said he was a popularity seeking old male. When they realized that it is not a sin to be popular or male – and hard not to be both in a Latin American nation, the US and Carnival Activists attacked Chavez over pollution and Venezuela’s dependence on a polluting oil industry. We await the anarchist’s analysis of how Venezuela can fight the US, keep a democracy and stop pumping oil… Their response would typically be something like: “We don not believe in planning and designs, but we just know that oil is bad so they should stop…” Yeah, right! A few still continue their attacks – recently over Chavez’s unhappiness with students/anarchists knocking down a statue!

8.)) NOTES VIII.: a.) How could ENVIROS or anyone imagine winning political majorities behind real reform or environmental issues anytime soon – especially anytime soon enough to do anything meaningful about Global Warming? They can’t, they won’t and all of this is a clever con to raise money, protect ENVIRO and Narrow Left careerists and to keep an enraged public from cutting off money or switching their donations to groups that really could do something positive; groups like FSA (See: www.andescircle.facces.com)

b.) http://english.aljazeera.net/NR/exeres/1E2507FE-1F0E-499F-8057-B28917BEE59B.htmThe Kyoto Protocol requires industrialised signatories - excluding the US, which says the deal is too costly for its oil-dependent economy - to trim output of six greenhouse gases by a deadline of 2008-2012. But scientists say this effort is puny compared to what is needed if we want to avert climate change that could be potentially catastrophic and long-lasting.

9.)) NOTES IX.: .: a.) August- September 2002, Political Economy of a Narco-Terror State, Zmag by Rachel Guevara or see Znet link at: http://www.zmag.org/content/showarticle.cfm?ItemID=2261
The Colombia article was begun by Marcel Idels who asked Jason Martin to assist with fact checks and footnotes. Rachel ended up re-writing and re-formatting the whole thing. The credit was to go to Ecosolidaridad Andes – as the web link shows, but Rachel got the print credits – which she totally deserved. She has been the brains and the details behind many of the articles published by myself and other groups on www.Anncol.org and in Earth First Journal for several years.

10.)) NOTES X .: a.) http://www.worldwatch.org/press/news/2004/01/08/

b.) China went from zero oil imports in 1990 to three million barrels per day in 2001. China is now the third largest oil importer (after Japan and US) In 10 to 15 years when Chinas car fleet is as big as the US fleet China could be consuming more oil than the US and the price (even without wars) could be as high as $200 a barrel!

c.) http://english.epochtimes.com/news/4-9-14/23084.html
China’s oil consumption in 2003 makes it the world's second largest consumer of oil after the United States. According to last year's figures from British Petroleum, China increased its oil use by 11.5 percent, consuming 6 million barrels per day.

d.) http://www.gasandoil.com/goc/news/nts42259.htm

11.)) NOTES XI : a.) income of a few ENVIROS and their Grantors:
Greenpeace: Income $25,152,770 (2001)
Earthsave : Income $330,353 (2002)
Institute for Agriculture and Trade Policy : Income $3,623,577 (2001)
Sierra Club: Income $75,441,137 (2001)
Natural Resources Defense Council (NRDC) : Income : $49,298,504.00 (2002)
Union of Concerned Scientists: Income: $8,113,136 (2002)
Tides Foundation: Income: $151,637,364 (2001)
Agnes Gund Foundation: Grants awarded : $6,225,764. (2003)
Bullitt Foundation: Grants awarded: $6,802,772 (2002)
Audubon Society: Income: $ 80,717,000 (2003)
Nature Conservancy: Income: 865,831,000 (2004)
Sources: IRS form 990s; American Institute of Philanthropy
Above from - http://www.activistcash.com/organization_financials.cfm/oid/19

Additional Enviro Groups:
American Canoe Association; The American Canoe Association (ACA); American Rivers; American Water Works Association (AWWA);
American Whitewater Affiliation (AWA); Earth First!; Environmental Defense Fund; Environmental Support Center;  Environmental Working Group;  For the Sake of the Salmon; Forest Service Employees for Environmental Ethics;  Freshwater Society; International Rivers Network;  Izaak Walton League; Know Your Watershed; League of Conservation Voters; National Wildlife Federation
 Rainforest Action Network 22. River Management Society; River Resource; World Stewardship Institute; Zero Water America

c.) Income of environmental groups: $1.8 billion in 1982 and $3.5 billion in 1999 (http://www.sacbee.com/static/archive/news/projects/environment/graphics/graphic1a.html)
http://www.houstonmarineseminar.com/pdfs/2001/Pyne.pdf.

d.) http://www.sacbee.com/static/archive/news/projects/environment/20011021.html
Information gathered by The Bee, though, shows the volume of federal support for environmental groups is substantial, and growing. Last year, about $137 million flowed to 20 major environmental nonprofit groups -- an average of $377,000 a day -- up 27 percent from 1999. Since 1998, more than $400 million in federal money has been granted to environmental groups. Four groups -- The Nature Conservancy, Ducks Unlimited, the National Fish and Wildlife Foundation, and the World Wildlife Fund -- have gotten more than two-thirds of the money since 1998. More than 15 nonprofits received $1 million a year or more. Most large environmental groups take government grants, but some -- such as the Sierra Club and Greenpeace -- do not. More than half of the money is used to help groups purchase, restore or protect land and species. That process, which often involves mingling federal and private dollars to maximize their impact, has achieved dramatic results for fish, wildlife and open space across the US. Conservationists say such teamwork is vital to preserving the biological diversity of life on Earth. "When you look at what it is going to cost to protect biodiversity, it far exceeds our capability, even as one of the wealthiest conservation groups," said Mike Horak, a spokesman for The Nature Conservancy, which last year received $37.3 million in federal funds -- the most of any group.

12.)) NOTES XII.: a.) There Is Something Different About Global Warming; Carl Pope (Sierra Club); http://grist.org/news/maindish/2005/01/13/pope-reprint/
Our favorite Pope “papal pap smear is: “Kyoto is an attempt to start down the road that everyone knows will have a very large bill, without ever deciding who will pay for the bill. Which is why, in my view, Kyoto has gone nowhere in the U.S. Confronted with a potential liability, as long as I think I won¹t have to pay the bill, I'll hire my lawyer. That's what the US carbon lobby has done. They know carbon is a liability. They don't want to pay the bill.

This understanding that global warming is mainly a problem about who is going to pay -- which in turn depends on who we assume owned the sky to begin with … But if we frame global warming as pollution, and assert that the polluter should pay, then suddenly this otherwise completely abstruse, overly technical problem becomes much easier for the public to understand.

We can then get people to recognize that you [WHO?] shouldn’t be electrifying villages in India by hanging copper wires between them. You should be electrifying them with methane generators and windmills -- and the polluters, the emitters of carbon, ought to be paying for them [AND who is Pope to tell these people what to do after the West spent 200 years polluting and doing things the cheapest way possible – including slavery!].
See the debate between Pope, S and N and the Real Left at: www.mer130.tripod.com

b.) As if the limp ideas found on his website were not enough to condemn Adam Werbach’s Narrow Left thinking (a friend of S and N) (http://www.3nov.com/images/awerbach_ied_final.pdf) as hewn from the same fabric as Pope, Werbach's goes on to say –
“Sierra Club Executive Director Carl Pope recently wrote that “environmentalism is part of a broader progressive movement.” If that were true, then we would:
1. Hold ourselves, not immigrants, accountable for the problems we create;
2. End the environmental movement’s population program;
3. Start a new campaign to enhance women’s right globally – for that is the only
ethical, causal way we know to slow the growth of the human population.
I proposed this in 1997, in 1998, and then stepped down from the presidency, frustrated that the organization would continue to invite these attacks until they let die the overpopulation fantasies within the Club.
These attacks continue to grow in strength and frequency because this cancer…”

But to think that you are solving the problems of ecology or of consumption by : “Start a new campaign to enhance women’s right globally – for that is the only ethical, causal way we know to slow the growth of the human population.” Is to utilize the same backdoor thinking that Pope criticizes. It is the economic system of Capitalism and the logic of growth that is the problem not population per se (though Capitalism also causes this as it impoverishes people and kills off their children). Increased consumption by China is a much bigger problem than Chinese population growth! China’s population increases at around 2 percent a year – its economy is growing at 10 to 15 percent per year, which causes more environmental damage?


13.)) NOTES XIII.: a.) Tariq Ali: http://www.venezuelanalysis.com/articles.php?artno=1223

b.) http://www.isreview.org/issues/33/tariqali.shtml
THE THEME at the World Social Forum was "Another World is Possible." One of the things that seem to plague the Left is a lack of a vision. It’s very articulate and clear about what it doesn’t like. It doesn’t like globalization, it doesn’t like imperialism and it doesn’t like American hegemony. What about projecting some genuine alternatives?
I THINK this is very important. It’s a point I stress often. We have a very large movement against global injustice but there’s no vision as to what should replace it. I often say to people that it can always start in a small way. When 45 years ago a bunch of neoliberal economists in Chicago, inspired by Frederick Von Hayek and Milton Friedman, began to articulate the theories of neoliberal economics, all the Keynesians and socialists were just laughing at them, mocking them, calling them nutty. Well, these completely nutty people, I’m afraid, have conquered the world. They utilized the regimes of Ronald Reagan and Margaret Thatcher and got close to power and their policies began to be applied. I say we have to get a group of people who actually sit down and work out an alternative plan. Simply stalking the summits–whether the G8, the G10 or whatever–is good, but it’s not going to solve our problems.
The most worrying thing for me is the following: When Argentina collapsed, everyone was triumphant, saying it shows the bankruptcy of neoliberal policies. Argentine politicians stood up and said, "We did everything we were told to do by the U.S. Treasury Department, by the IMF [International Monetary Fund] and the World Bank. Everything we’ve been asked to do for 10 years, we’ve done–and this is the result." Fine, but what’s the alternative? The alternative is not an easy one but the glimmerings of it are there. We have to argue for states in this region not to abdicate their responsibilities to international institutions, to take them on and say, "We are going to fight because that’s what our people need." It should be a very minimal program to start off with. "We don’t care what the IMF and World Bank say. We will intervene to provide free health care, free education and subsidized shelter for the bulk of our populations. And if you don’t do that, we’ll take you on. Come and occupy our countries directly and rule them."
This is the demand of Latin America, a whole continent in revolt. You had a Bolivian revolt against water privatization. You had in Cuzco, in the interior of Peru, in one of the most culturally backward areas, peasants fighting really hard against electricity privatization. Why? Because they know instinctively, if not intellectually, that when these things are privatized the cost for them becomes unbearable. Especially when the U.S.<

142 Views | 1 Comments | Share with Friends | Recommend