// archives

Archive for November, 2019

Climate Denial: A New Strategy

What a surprise! The annual emissions report by the United Nations is now out, and greenhouse gas emissions are still going up thirty years after we first realised there was a problem with the climate. In fact, they have gone up 15% in the past ten years. So much for the promises of ‘early and deep cuts’ in emissions to avoid catastrophic heating.

Governments have been making these promises since the early 1990s, and they are never kept because the political pressures are far stronger from those who profit in the present – the fossil fuel industries and the automobile, shipping and aviation industries – than from those who are merely frightened for their childrens’ future.

The industries are well organised, have lots of money to spend, and focus tightly on stopping changes that threaten their business model. Private citizens are less organised, have far fewer resources, and have many competing demands on their attention. Inevitably, the industries succeed in sabotaging most attempts to cut emissions.

For a long time, the main strategy of the industries was denial. At first they denied outright that carbon dioxide and other greenhouse gas emissions were changing the climate. Never mind the science: just listen to this other guy in a white coat who says that it isn’t happening.

That worked for a while, and the initial rapid response to the climate change threat lost speed through the later 90s. Flat denial became increasingly untenable in the early 21st century, however, and the emphasis of the deniers shifted to spreading doubt. The climate is always changing; lots of scientists don’t believe that the warming is caused by human activities; the jury is still out.

Those lies worked for another fifteen years, but gradually the real scientists realised that they had to organise too. There is now no government in the world (except the United States) that still goes along with the denialism. Every major international body has accepted the evidence that climate change is actually happening and that we are the cause.

Time for another change of strategy by the fossil fuel industries and their allies, then. If they can no longer hope to discredit the science or confuse the public about the evidence, maybe they can at least deflect and divert the pressure for effective action on climate change on to targets that do not directly threaten the sales of their products.

That’s where we are now, and it was Dr. Michael Mann, Distinguished Professor of Atmospheric Science at Pennsylvania State University and director of the Earth System Science Center, who first spotted the new strategy of the fossil fuel industry’s shills.

“There is an attempt being made by them to deflect attention away from finding policy solutions for global warming towards promoting individual behaviour changes that affect people’s diets, travel choices and other personal behaviour,” he told The Observer newspaper early this month. “This is a deflection campaign, and a lot of well-meaning people have been taken in by it.”

What gives the deflectors credibility is that they seem to be on the side of the angels. They’re not denying that climate change is real; they just want you to use your bike more, eat less meat, and recycle your waste. What could be wrong with that?

Nothing, of course. You should be doing all those things: it’s a necessary part of the solution. But they want you to do that INSTEAD of campaigning (or at least voting) for action that directly targets fossil fuel use. If you feel that you’re already doing your bit in the climate emergency by changing your personal behaviour, then the pressure is off them.

They also encourage ‘doomism’: the notion that it’s too late in the game to do anything useful about climate change. “This leads people down a path of despair and hopelessness and finally inaction, which actually leads us to the same place as outright climate-change denialism,” said Mann.

It really is quite late in the game. We would have to cut global emissions by 7% a year (instead of increasing them by 1.5% annually) to avoid breaching the never-exceed limit of two degrees C higher average global temperature. That’s far beyond what we have ever done before, so there is considerable justification for pessimism.

However, pessimism is a luxury we cannot afford. We have to keep working away at the task, because every cut we make in emissions, however inadequate, gives us a little more time to deal with the rest of the problem.

The ‘deflect, divert, distract’ campaign is often hard to distinguish from genuine attempts to change people’s lifestyles in positive ways, and frankly there’s no point in trying. Just do what they’re advocating (bikes, meat, recycling, etc.) and remember to do the hard political and legal work of eliminating fossil fuel use too.

Simple to say, hard to do.
______________________________
To shorten to 700 words, omit paragraphs 13 and 14. (“It really…problem”)

Gwynne Dyer’s new book is ‘Growing Pains: The Future of Democracy (and Work)’.

Climate Denial: A New Strategy

What a surprise! The annual emissions report by the United Nations is now out, and greenhouse gas emissions are still going up thirty years after we first realised there was a problem with the climate. In fact, they have gone up 15% in the past ten years. So much for the promises of ‘early and deep cuts’ in emissions to avoid catastrophic heating.

Governments have been making these promises since the early 1990s, and they are never kept because the political pressures are far stronger from those who profit in the present – the fossil fuel industries and the automobile, shipping and aviation industries – than from those who are merely frightened for their childrens’ future.

The industries are well organised, have lots of money to spend, and focus tightly on stopping changes that threaten their business model. Private citizens are less organised, have far fewer resources, and have many competing demands on their attention. Inevitably, the industries succeed in sabotaging most attempts to cut emissions.

For a long time, the main strategy of the industries was denial. At first they denied outright that carbon dioxide and other greenhouse gas emissions were changing the climate. Never mind the science: just listen to this other guy in a white coat who says that it isn’t happening.

That worked for a while, and the initial rapid response to the climate change threat lost speed through the later 90s. Flat denial became increasingly untenable in the early 21st century, however, and the emphasis of the deniers shifted to spreading doubt. The climate is always changing; lots of scientists don’t believe that the warming is caused by human activities; the jury is still out.

Those lies worked for another fifteen years, but gradually the real scientists realised that they had to organise too. There is now no government in the world (except the United States) that still goes along with the denialism. Every major international body has accepted the evidence that climate change is actually happening and that we are the cause.

Time for another change of strategy by the fossil fuel industries and their allies, then. If they can no longer hope to discredit the science or confuse the public about the evidence, maybe they can at least deflect and divert the pressure for effective action on climate change on to targets that do not directly threaten the sales of their products.

That’s where we are now, and it was Dr. Michael Mann, Distinguished Professor of Atmospheric Science at Pennsylvania State University and director of the Earth System Science Center, who first spotted the new strategy of the fossil fuel industry’s shills.

“There is an attempt being made by them to deflect attention away from finding policy solutions for global warming towards promoting individual behaviour changes that affect people’s diets, travel choices and other personal behaviour,” he told The Observer newspaper early this month. “This is a deflection campaign, and a lot of well-meaning people have been taken in by it.”

What gives the deflectors credibility is that they seem to be on the side of the angels. They’re not denying that climate change is real; they just want you to use your bike more, eat less meat, and recycle your waste. What could be wrong with that?

Nothing, of course. You should be doing all those things: it’s a necessary part of the solution. But they want you to do that INSTEAD of campaigning (or at least voting) for action that directly targets fossil fuel use. If you feel that you’re already doing your bit in the climate emergency by changing your personal behaviour, then the pressure is off them.

They also encourage ‘doomism’: the notion that it’s too late in the game to do anything useful about climate change. “This leads people down a path of despair and hopelessness and finally inaction, which actually leads us to the same place as outright climate-change denialism,” said Mann.

It really is quite late in the game. We would have to cut global emissions by 7% a year (instead of increasing them by 1.5% annually) to avoid breaching the never-exceed limit of two degrees C higher average global temperature. That’s far beyond what we have ever done before, so there is considerable justification for pessimism.

However, pessimism is a luxury we cannot afford. We have to keep working away at the task, because every cut we make in emissions, however inadequate, gives us a little more time to deal with the rest of the problem.

The ‘deflect, divert, distract’ campaign is often hard to distinguish from genuine attempts to change people’s lifestyles in positive ways, and frankly there’s no point in trying. Just do what they’re advocating (bikes, meat, recycling, etc.) and remember to do the hard political and legal work of eliminating fossil fuel use too.

Simple to say, hard to do.
______________________________
To shorten to 700 words, omit paragraphs 13 and 14. (“It really…problem”)

Gwynne Dyer’s new book is ‘Growing Pains: The Future of Democracy (and Work)’.

Iran Is Not An Exception

This year marks the 40th anniversary of the Iranian Revolution. It begins to seem possible that it could be one of the last, if not the very last.

The protests that broke out on Friday in at least 21 cities in Iran seem to have died down, although that is uncertain since the entire country is silenced by an almost complete internet shut-down. But the death toll, according to Amnesty International, is at least 106. Other reports suggest that it might be twice that number.

This is at least five times the number that were killed in the last outbreak of protests in late 2017, and unofficial reports put the number of injured at around 3,000. Snipers have been firing into the crowds, who are denounced by state-controlled media as ‘hooligans’ and ‘thugs’ who are under foreign influence, or even in foreign pay.

The pace of the protests is picking up, too. The previous mass protests were way back in 2009, and were against the manipulation of election results, not against the regime as a whole. In 2017, and again this time, they were against the whole system of repression and corruption that sustains the theocratic rule of the ayatollahs.

This latest and biggest outburst of defiance in the streets is at least partly due to the unilateral trade sanctions imposed on Iran last year by the Trump administration. Washington scarcely bothers to deny that the real objective of its sanctions is regime change, or that the impoverishment of the Iranian population is the means chosen to attain that goal.

In the past year Iranian oil exports have dwindled to less than 200,000 barrels per day, compared to two million bpd before the US reimposed oil sanctions almost exactly a year ago. Inflation has soared, the value of the Iranian rial has collapsed, and life has become much harder for the poor.

The poor have nothing to fall back on and quickly become desperate. The young had nothing to start with, and see no future for themselves in an economy that is currently shrinking by 6% annually. These two groups are the real target of the sanctions, and the strategy seems to be working.

The trigger for these protests was a 50% rise in the price of petrol (gas), but that was just a last straw, not a major economic blow to the poor. It’s still only $0.12 a litre ($0.45 per US gallon), and most of the poor don’t have cars anyway. Indeed, the government’s stated reason for the price increase is to raise $2.5 billion a year for extra subsidies to 18 million families struggling on low incomes.

The poor are not impressed, since their health costs have gone up by 20% and the price of meat and vegetables has risen by around 50% in the past twelve months. It’s their anger and desperation that drive the poor and the young out into the streets, but it’s really the sanctions that have made them so angry and desperate.

So can the religious despotism that has ruled the country for the past forty years survive? In the short run, probably yes, because the ayatollahs have several million fanatical and well-armed supporters in the Revolutionary Guard and its part-time affiliate, the Basij militia. In the slightly longer term (2-5 years), probably not.

Because most Iranians follow the Shia version of Islam while all the countries around them except Iraq are overwhelmingly Sunni, Iran is seen as a special case whose politics has little relevance for elsewhere in the region. That is not true. The differences are big, but the politics in the region’s various countries tends to march in step, or even to rhyme.

Right next door to Iran, in Iraq, other young men are protesting in the streets, and there too they are being shot down by the ‘security’ forces. Two months ago thousands of young Egyptian men and women took to the streets to demand the resignation of the military dictator, Abdel Fattah el-Sisi. Four thousand were arrested. The non-violent revolutions in Sudan and Algeria continue.

In Egypt, Algeria and Sudan money and privileges are monopolised by a military elite, in Iraq by an elected but deeply corrupt civilian elite, and in Iran by a religious and paramilitary elite. There is poverty and anti-regime anger everywhere, but in Iran it is also being stoked by Donald Trump.

Revolution in Iran would probably be a long and bloody process, because the theocratic regime has a coherent ideology and would go down fighting. Nobody knows what kind of regime would follow, and nobody knows if such a revolution would stay confined to Iran.

Despite the Sunni-Shia gulf, the last revolution in Iran inflamed similar Islamist movements in many Arab countries. Another Iranian revolution could also ignite anti-regime revolts elsewhere in the region. Trump should be careful what he wishes for.
_________________________________________
To shorten to 700 words, omit paragraphs 8 and 9. (“The trigger…desperate”)

Gwynne Dyer’s new book is ‘Growing Pains: The Future of Democracy (and Work)’.

News That Isn’t News

As British newspaper magnate Viscount Northcliffe said: “When a dog bites a man, that is not news, because it happens so often. But if a man bites a dog, that is news.”

Men don’t bite dogs every day, however, and the news media need ‘content’ every day just to hold the ads apart. So often they do cover ‘dog bites man’ stories, for lack of anything better.

Today’s lead ‘dog bites man’ story is the White House announcement that the United States no longer views Jewish settlements in the occupied Palestinian territory of the West Bank as ‘inconsistent with international law’. This will come as a vast surprise to practically nobody.

The West Bank, first seized by Israel during the 1967 Middle East war and occupied militarily for the past 52 years, was entirely Palestinian in population when the Israeli army arrived. There has been extensive Jewish settlement there since then, but those settlements have always been seen as illegal under international law.

This judgement has been confirmed by the United Nations and the International Court of Justice, both of which relied on the Fourth Geneva Convention of 1949. That strictly forbids an occupying power to transfer its own people into occupied territory.

As recently as 2016 a UN Security Council resolution said that the Israeli settlements have “no legal validity and constitute a flagrant violation under international law” – and the US government did not veto that resolution.

However, the US position on this has been eroding for a long time. The Carter administration in 1978 said clearly that the settlements, then just getting underway, were “inconsistent with international law,” but in 1982 the Reagan administration backed off a bit: it continued to call them ‘illegitimate’, but wouldn’t call them ‘illegal’.

Subsequent US administrations have vetoed UN Security Resolutions that condemned the settlements, while never actually claiming that they were legal. But it has been ‘game over’ since the Trump administration took office.

First he moved the American embassy from Tel Aviv to Jerusalem, confirming US acceptance of Israel’s annexation of East Jerusalem contrary to international law. Then he recognised Israeli sovereignty over the Golan Heights (another occupied territory, seized from Syria in 1967), although no other country accepts such a border change in defiance of international law.

So by the time Trump got around to declaring the Israeli settlements in the West Bank legal last weekend, it wasn’t news at all. The commentators did their best to make it newsworthy, asking if this will end the ‘peace process’ (as if it hadn’t been dead already for at least ten years). There’s nothing the Palestinians can do about it, and nobody else really cares, not even other Arab states.

That was a ‘dog bites man’ story if there ever was one – and here’s another. Prince Andrew, third son of Queen Elizabeth, has been having a public relations problem recently. He was much too close to disgraced American financier and sex offender Jeffrey Epstein, who committed suicide in jail in August while facing new sex charges.

Andrew has been facing claims of sexual misbehaviour himself. An American woman, Virginia Giuffre, has been claiming she was forced to have sex with the prince three times while he was visiting various of Epstein’s properties, including at least once when she was underage.

The prince denies it, but there is a photograph that shows them together. He denies any memory of the photo (in which he had his hand around her naked waist), but he never actually says it was doctored. He doesn’t deny meeting her, either, although he says there was never any sexual contact.

It was all a bit like that in his car-crash interview last week on the BBC, in which he was going to ‘clear his name’. The best you could say about it is that he didn’t dig the hole he was already in any deeper. And yet it was headline ‘news’ not only in the UK but elsewhere. There just wasn’t much else going on over the weekend.

But here’s what could make it a real headline. There’s a specific date attached to one of the occasions when Giuffre says they had sex. The prince says that couldn’t be true, because he took his daughter out to eat at Pizza Express in Woking, in southern England, that evening. (He remembers it so well because princes of the blood like him don’t normally go to Pizza Express.)

Well, we know that royal princes have 24-hour protection when travelling, and the security detail will have records for where he was, even down to which building, at all times. So if he really wants to clear his name, all he has to do is to publish the security detail’s records for that date. That really would be a headline story – if still a pretty petty one.
________________________________
To shorten to 725 words, omit paragraphs 5 and 6. “This judgement…resolution”)

Gwynne Dyer’s new book is ‘Growing Pains: The Future of Democracy (and Work)’.