Posted on Jul\u00a04,\u00a02013<\/h4>\n\n<\/p>\nBy Subhankar Banerjee, Climate Story Tellers<\/b><\/p>\n
This piece first appeared at Climate Story Tellers<\/a>.<\/i><\/p>\n\u201cWithin a few years we are going to have more people off the surface of this planet more often, and we\u2019ll have to determine value in that new environment.\u201d
\n\u2013Jill Tarter, chairwoman of the SETI Institute, CNN Money, June 27, 2013<\/i><\/p>\n
Do we write words of mourning? Or, do we write words of resistance? Those two braids have joined and from now on will flow together\u2013in our age of the Anthropocene.<\/p>\n
On October 11, 2012 I participated as a panelist at the Smithsonian Institution in Washington, DC in what was perhaps the first public symposium on the Anthropocene. \u201cA consensus has been reached that the tremendous scope of transformations now occurring on the Earth, with profound effects on plants, animals, and natural habitats, is primarily the result of human activities. Geologists have proposed the term Anthropocene, or the \u2018Age of Man,\u2019 for this new period in the history of the planet, which follows the relatively stable Holocene period. On a geological scale the planet has entered a new era,\u201d the Smithsonian press release stated<\/a>. Climate change and ocean acidification\u2013the evil twins<\/a>\u2013are the two most destructive forces of this geologic era.<\/p>\nTwo recent disasters: one in Uttarakhand, India and the other in Arizona, US show us\u2013that not only ecological devastation but also human casualty\u2013arise from climate change. In both cases, those who tried to save lives\u2013lost their lives. On June 25 an Indian air force helicopter crashed on a steep hillside in Uttarakhand \u201cwhile on a mission to rescue people stranded in monsoon floods,\u201d the Times of India reported<\/a>. Twenty people died in that crash. And last Sunday nineteen firefighters died in Arizona \u201cas they were overcome \u2026 by the swift, erratic Yarnell Hill Fire,\u201d the USA Today reported<\/a>.<\/p>\nAccording to one estimate the flood in Uttarakhand has claimed<\/a> more than 10,000 lives. If that indeed were true, then it would be the largest human casualty in a single climate change event. Two recent scientific studies: here<\/a> and here<\/a> make the connection between climate change and\u2013erratic monsoon and extreme floods in India. And if you have any doubt about the connection between climate change and\u2013extreme drought and fires in the desert southwest of America, take a look at William deBuys\u2019 remarkable book, A Great Aridness: Climate Change and the Future of the American Southwest<\/a> (Oxford University Press).<\/p>\nI have a personal connection with both places: last November I visited Uttarakhand, and I lived on two separate occasions, a total of eleven years in the desert southwest, in New Mexico. I\u2019m now mourning the deaths in Arizona and Uttarakhand.<\/p>\n
For sometime now we have been using the word \u201cextreme\u201d when talking about climate change disasters. We\u2019ve known what it means for ecological loss (see forest death from bark beetles infestation here<\/a> and coral graveyards here<\/a>). Now we know what \u201cextreme\u201d in climate changed extreme weather means for human loss also.<\/p>\nI know less about recent floods in India than I do about fires in the American southwest. So I\u2019ll share a few words about the latter.<\/p>\n
In 2011 the Las Conchas Fire burned 156,593 acres and became the largest fire in New Mexico history. As the fire started Iwrote an article \u201cNew Mexico is burning with potential for nuclear contamination.\u201d I wrote:<\/p>\n
\nI live inside a small old true adobe home. \u2026 since Sunday June 26 I\u2019ve had to keep all windows closed to avoid toxic ash from wildfires from entering the breathing space inside the house. The result\u2013I\u2019m hot as hell inside my home and can\u2019t sleep properly.<\/p>\n<\/blockquote>\n
Large fires send a lot of toxic pollutants in the air. The previous year NASA reported<\/a> that the \u201craging forest fires in central Russia, Siberia and western Canada have created an enormous cloud of pollutants covering the northern hemisphere.\u201d Furthermore, many of us were concerned that the smoke from the Las Conchas Fire might contain nuclear material due to previous unregulated dumping of nuclear waste at the Los Alamos National Laboratory (LANL).<\/p>\nBut our main concern was\u2013the entire southwest could have been nuked. There were some 20,000 55\u2014gallon drums filled with plutonium\u2014contaminated waste that sat on the surface underneath fabric tents in Area G at LANL. The fire was about 3 1\/2 miles from Area G when I wrote the piece. Unsurprisingly the government lied: \u201cLab spokesman Steve Sandoval declined to confirm that there were any such drums now on the property,\u201d the Associated Press reported<\/a> on June 27. Three days later another lab spokesperson told the same AP writer<\/a> that there were 10,000 drums stored on the property\u2013belching out a half\u2014truth. New Mexico and the neighboring states got saved from nuclear contamination not because of human ingenuity but Nature came to the rescue\u2013wind started to blow<\/a> in a north\u2014south direction, away from Area G.<\/p>\nTo understand the ecological impact of the fire, I sat down with New Mexico state land commissioner Ray Powell and his team of nearly a dozen staff that included many ecologists. I never wrote about what I learned from that meeting until now. They told me that the Las Conchas Fire was burning so hot and was moving so fast that the firefighters reported to them that they had \u201cnever seen a fire like this before.\u201d The heat was so intense that it was burning all the way down to the roots of trees. The sub\u2014surface desert dwellers\u2013gophers, mice and reptiles\u2013surely got burnt alive. And the speed of spread was astonishing<\/a>\u2013\u201caveraging an acre of forest burned every 1.17 seconds for 14 straight hours.\u201d To give you a linear perspective: say the acre is a square with four equal sides; then each side would be about 209 feet. No animal could ever move 209 feet in 1.17 seconds. I came to realize then what \u201cextreme\u201d means in extreme weather events.\n<\/p>\nFollowing year the Whitewater\u2014Baldy Complex Fire that started in the Gila Wilderness burned 289,478 acres and became the largest fire in New Mexico history.<\/p>\n
Last month the Black Forest Fire in Colorado destroyed<\/a> more than 500 homes and was called, \u201cthe most destructive fire in Colorado history.\u201d Then the came the news: nineteen firefighters died in the Yarnell Hill Fire in Arizona. The change of wind direction (that saved New Mexico in 2011) it seems might have been the cause that killed the Arizona firefighters. \u201cThe sole survivor of the blaze \u2026 warned his fellow firefighters \u2026 when he saw [from the lookout] the wildfire switch directions and head straight for them,\u201d the Associated Press reported<\/a> on July 3. As I write this, the Silver Fire in New Mexico has grown<\/a> \u201cto 137,326 acres with 59% containment\u201d as of July 2.<\/p>\nSo what are the Beltway politicians doing about climate change?<\/p>\n<\/p>\n
* * *<\/p>\n<\/p>\n
On June 25 President Obama gave a much\u2014anticipated climate change speech. The day before, in an email Bill McKibben wrote: \u201cWell, some good news: five years in, we\u2019re starting to see at least the outlines of a strategy from President Obama to deal with climate change.\u201d<\/p>\n
Each time golden words arrive from Obama\u2013supporters cheer, opponents sneer, apologists veer, while critics use spear\u2013to expose his peace with terror. I\u2019ll take a closer look, not at what he said, but just a few of the responses that resulted from the speech.<\/p>\n
Elizabeth Kolbert is one of the most respected environmental journalists working today. She writes environmental articles and op\u2014eds for The New Yorker and is author of the widely acclaimed book on climate change, Field Notes from a Catastrophe (2006). So it is all the more troubling that she wrote what I\u2019d call\u2013a patla sorbot (roughly translates from Bengali to English\u2013seriously diluted Kool\u2014Aid) op\u2014ed after Obama\u2019s speech<\/a>. She avoided the thorny issues (more on that soon) and instead focused on two things: a Democrat\u2014Republican ping\u2014pong match and regulating emissions from coal fired power plants.<\/p>\nWhat Obama\u2019s \u201caides had billed as a major initiative to fight climate change,\u201d Kolbert correctly observed \u201cwas not really news, since it had already been widely reported\u2013was that the Administration will impose rules limiting carbon emissions from both new and existing power plants.\u201d But if you take climate scientist Dr. James Hansen\u2019s words literally: he says Washington is \u201ccoal\u2014fired.\u201d So the conundrum before us is: how could one coal\u2014fired enterprise honestly regulate another coal\u2014fired enterprise? It cannot. The issue here is not emission regulation but burning coal itself. A few days later Lauren McCauley pointed out<\/a> on Common Dreams, \u201cEnergy Chief Confirms Critics\u2019 Fears: Obama Still Loves Coal.\u201d<\/p>\nIn 2011 Obama sold the Powder River Basin in Wyoming to Big Coal. In a fantastic piece, Jeff Biggers had dug up the poop<\/a> and released the stink: \u201cPresident Obama needs to be called out for his less than transparent catering to his long\u2014time billionaire and coal\u2014profiteering friends.\u201d Biggers wrote that Obama\u2019s buddies on this lucrative affair were\u2013Bill Gates and Warren Buffett. Precisely because of this greedy decision two years ago, today the activists in the Pacific Northwest are fighting the coal\u2014port through which (if built) Wyoming coal would go to Asia. In an Earth Day<\/a> op\u2014ed Seattle Post\u2014Intelligencercolumnist Joel Connelly wrote: \u201c[T]he anti\u2014coal\u2014port movement in the Northwest is growing in leaps and bounds. It\u2019s a grassroots effort based in towns through which mile\u2014and\u2014a\u2014half\u2014long coal trains would pass. It has far outclassed an industry campaign consisting typically of TV commercials, an \u2018astroturf\u2019 front group and legions of flack\u2014mercenaries.\u201d<\/p>\n\u201cBut if the President deserves to be congratulated for finally taking action\u2013and he does\u2013then he also deserves to be admonished for having waited so long,\u201d Kolbert continues. There are two serious problems with this statement. The use of \u201cadmonished\u201d isn\u2019t criticism but affectionate scolding that we do to a child (more on this below). The second issue is that it gives an impression that Obama indeed has finally taken action on climate change. That\u2019s very misleading to put it politely.<\/p>\n
Kolbert points out that Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell denounced the speech, even before it was delivered. McConnell wrote that Obama\u2019s \u201cclimate change plan is a \u2018war on coal\u2019 and on jobs\u201d (an example of \u2018opponents sneer\u2019). Referring to McConnell\u2019s words, Kolbert wrote<\/a>: \u201cThat reflexive political reaction goes a long way toward explaining why it took Obama so long.\u201d This is what I\u2019d call Democrat\u2014Republican ping\u2014pong while life on Earth races toward oblivion.<\/p>\nKolbert\u2019s op\u2014ed is an example of\u2013\u2018apologists veer\u2019.<\/p>\n
If you want to see an example of \u2018supporters cheer\u2019\u2013take a look at 350.org executive director May Boeve\u2019s response to Obama\u2019s speech here<\/a>.<\/p>\nThe reason I focused on Kolbert\u2019s op\u2014ed is to show the rot in mainstream American environmental journalism. Few journalists can be courageous like Glenn Greenwald and Jeremy Scahill, but at a minimum a journalist\u2019s job is to tell the truth and not become the mouthpiece of a particular political party.<\/p>\n
Democrats are scared that if the Republicans take over the government all hope of climate change legislations would be doomed. Bill McKibben wrote earlier this year<\/a> on TomDispatch: \u201cThe movement is what matters; the Democrats are, at best, the eventual vehicle for closing the deal.\u201d This too is hiding the truth and is an illusion (more below). A climate movement that is a mirror image of MoveOn.org is not honest and will not succeed.\n<\/p>\nWhat I just discussed is the political reason why \u2018supporters cheer\u2019 and \u2018apologists veer,\u2019 but there is a larger insidious reason, and it is\u2013sociological.<\/p>\n
It is easy to criticize the other. It is much more difficult to criticize one\u2019s own. This is true at a macroscopic level (nation to nation) and also at a microscopic level (one family to another).<\/p>\n
Take for example, domestic violence: it is easy to say that domestic violence \u201cis going on in my neighbor\u2019s house\u201d than to acknowledge \u201cis happening in my own home.\u201d Similarly, it is easy for the US government to announce: \u201cChina is spying on the US\u201d than to acknowledge \u201cUS is spying on its own citizens and everyone else.\u201d This issue is particularly pronounced in the US.<\/p>\n
In her concise yet immensely thought\u2014provoking book, Regarding the Pain of Others Susan Sontag wrote:<\/p>\n
\nAmericans prefer to picture the evil that was there, and from which the United States\u2013a unique nation, one without any certifiably wicked leaders throughout its entire history\u2013is exempt. That this country, like every other country, has its tragic past does not sit well with the founding, and still all\u2014powerful, belief in American exceptionalism.<\/p>\n<\/blockquote>\n
Climate change is not a Democrat or Republican issue and its solution (if there ever will be one) does not involve cheerleading of Democrats.<\/p>\n
Now I\u2019ll turn to critics\u2019 spear.<\/p>\n<\/p>\n
* * *<\/p>\n<\/p>\n
To understand the true intent of Obama\u2019s speech I begin with AlterNet senior environmental editor Tara Lohan\u2019s article, \u201cObama Uses Major Climate Speech to Cheerlead for Natural Gas Industry; Keystone XL Fate Still Undecided.\u201d She recognizes that \u201cObama\u2019s speech will likely be met with cheers and jeers, even in the environmental community.\u201d She first acknowledges the \u201ccheer\u201d part and then throws a solid 400\u2014lb punch<\/a> and points out the \u201chypocrisy of Obama\u2019s allegiance to the gas industry and his pledge to fight climate change\u201d:<\/p>\n\nIt\u2019s hard to imagine that Obama has ever visited with communities who are in the crosshairs of natural gas extraction\u2013a process that has proven already to be anything but clean and safe. And yet Obama promised to \u201cstrengthen our position as a top natural gas producer\u201d and even to use our private sector to help other countries \u201ctransition to natural gas.\u201d This translates to exporting fracking worldwide\u2013a process already underway in Poland, South Africa, Australia and other countries.<\/p>\n<\/blockquote>\n
It\u2019s all the more remarkable, because these words didn\u2019t come from a writer\/editor sitting in her ergonomically uncomfortable chair and throwing out some angry words. It came from someone who is reporting from the field now. Tara is traveling across North America documenting communities impacted by energy development for a new AlterNet project, Hitting Home<\/a>. This is what I\u2019d call\u2013good environmental journalism that includes honest criticism.<\/p>\nNext, if you\u2019re looking for an in\u2014depth socio\u2014ecological analysis of Obama\u2019s speech, take a look at Professor Chris Williams\u2019 essay \u201cMass Protest, Not A Speech, Is Needed To Address Climate Change\u201d that I published<\/a> on ClimateStoryTellers.org. About the Democrat\u2014Republican ping\u2014pong match, Williams wrote:<\/p>\n\nAnd on the ground, where people are forced to deal with the growing ramifications of climate change and the disruption and cost to their lives, the picture is very different. As reported in a recent survey of self\u2014described Republicans and Republican\u2014leaning independents, 62 percent said the U.S. should address climate change, and 77 percent said that the U.S. should use more renewable energy sources. This is all the more remarkable given that virtually no political representative from either party has been arguing for these things, and they have certainly not appeared on the TV screens or in the newspapers of the mainstream media.<\/p>\n<\/blockquote>\n
And about relying on politicians to solve the climate crisis, Williams wrote:<\/p>\n
\nThe biosphere of which humans are a part cannot afford half measures or rely on dubious \u201cfriends\u201d in high places. Nor can we set our sights any lower than the swift dismantling of the fossil\u2014fuel infrastructure of death and its replacement with publicly owned and democratically controlled clean energy systems.<\/p>\n<\/blockquote>\n
Lastly, if you\u2019re looking for a good example of thoughtful criticism of the environmental policies being perpetuated by a head of state, look no further than Canadian journalist Andrew Nikiforuk\u2019s most biting critique of Prime Minister of Canada Stephen Harper\u2019s devastating energy policy. In his essay, \u201cOh, Canada: How America\u2019s Friendly Northern Neighbor Became a Rogue, Reckless Petrostate,\u201d in the July\/August issue of Foreign Policy Nikiforuk wrote<\/a>:<\/p>\n\nMore than a decade ago, American political scientist Terry Lynn Karl crudely summed up the dysfunction of petrostates: Countries that become too dependent on oil and gas riches behave like plantation economies that rely on \u201can unsustainable development trajectory fueled by an exhaustible resource\u201d whose revenue streams form \u201can implacable barrier to change.\u201d And that\u2019s what happened to Canada while you weren\u2019t looking. Shackled to the hubris of a leader who dreams of building a new global energy superpower, the Boy Scout is now slave to his own greed.<\/p>\n<\/blockquote>\n
I have repeatedly pointed out over the past three years (see my interview last year with Amy Goodman and Juan Gonzalez on Democracy Now! here<\/a>) that Obama too is turning the US into a \u201crogue, reckless petrostate.\u201d While Kolbert thinks that Obama \u201cdeserves to be admonished\u201d (like you would do to a Boy Scout), Williams on the other hand thinks that a \u201cswift dismantling of the fossil\u2014fuel infrastructure of death\u201d is what is needed.<\/p>\nAs you can see environmental journalism is far from dead. On the contrary, it is vibrant like a gushing mountain stream about to flood climate change activism with new energy and ideas. We need it because climate change is here and a lot of people are beginning to die from its devastation.<\/p>\n<\/p>\n
* * *<\/p>\n<\/p>\n
Often people ask me: Aren\u2019t the super\u2014rich worried about climate change? I cannot provide a good answer. Instead all I can do is make a wild\u2014ass guess that may sound to you like sci\u2014fi\u2013but it isn\u2019t\u2013like climate change it too is here.<\/p>\n
Would the gassed\u2014up \u201cwell\u2014oiled\u201d \u201ccoal\u2014fired\u201d (last two are Hansen\u2019s words) rogue, petrostates (US, Canada, and add your favorites to the list) ravage the whole Earth to a point where it is useful only for extraction of natural resources\u2013Earth as a coal mine? You might wonder where will the super\u2014rich escape to then? To space.<\/p>\n
On June 27 the Yahoo! Finance reported<\/a>:<\/p>\n\nPayPal today announced the launch of PayPal Galactic, an initiative that addresses the issues to help make universal space payments a reality. PayPal Galactic brings together leaders in the scientific community, including the SETI Institute and Space Tourism Society, to prepare and support the future of space commerce.<\/p>\n<\/blockquote>\n
Furthermore, Yahoo! Finance quotes John Spencer, founder and president of the Space Tourism Society: \u201cWithin five to ten years the earliest types of \u2018space hotels\u2019 and orbital and lunar commerce will be operational and in need of a payment system.\u201d Leaders are now working \u201con the big questions\u201d:<\/p>\n
What will our standard currency look like in a truly cash\u2014free interplanetary society?
\nHow will the banking systems have to adapt?
\nHow will risk and fraud management systems need to evolve?
\nWhat regulations will we have to conform with?
\nHow will our customer support need to develop?<\/p>\n
And CNN Money included a wise quote<\/a> from PayPal president David Marcus:<\/p>\n\n\u201cIt\u2019s easy to perceive this as kind of gee\u2014whiz, even silly, if you just read the headline [\u201cPayPal to launch inter\u2014planetary payment system]. But these are real, difficult, important problems that need to be sorted out.\u201d<\/p>\n<\/blockquote>\n
Pack your bags and get ready for your new job\u2013no longer on this Earth, but out there, working in a \u2018space hotel\u2019 finally getting paid $10.70 per hour that Ralph Nader has been advocating for<\/a>.<\/p>\nWe are screwed. The Earth is doomed.<\/p>\n
Do you have any idea how we can find independence from the corporate\u2014state terror?<\/p>\n
Subhankar Banerjee is a photographer, writer, and activist. Over the past decade he has worked tirelessly for the conservation of ecoculturally significant areas of the Arctic, and to raise awareness about indigenous human rights and climate change. He founded ClimateStoryTellers.org<\/a>, and is editor of the anthology Arctic Voices: Resistance at the Tipping Point<\/a> (Seven Stories Press). He was recently Director\u2019s Visitor at the Institute for Advanced Study in Princeton, Distinguished Visiting Professor at Fordham University in New York, received Distinguished Alumnus Award from the New Mexico State University, and Cultural Freedom Award from Lannan Foundation.<\/i><\/p>\nCopyright 2013 Subhankar Banerjee<\/small>\n<\/p>\n
![\"\"](\"http:\/\/www.truthdig.com\/images\/eartothegrounduploads\/3100803091_3c520072dd.jpg\")
<\/p>\n
By Subhankar Banerjee, Climate Story Tellers<\/b><\/p>\n
This piece first appeared at Climate Story Tellers<\/a>.<\/i><\/p>\n \u201cWithin a few years we are going to have more people off the surface of this planet more often, and we\u2019ll have to determine value in that new environment.\u201d Do we write words of mourning? Or, do we write words of resistance? Those two braids have joined and from now on will flow together\u2013in our age of the Anthropocene.<\/p>\n On October 11, 2012 I participated as a panelist at the Smithsonian Institution in Washington, DC in what was perhaps the first public symposium on the Anthropocene. \u201cA consensus has been reached that the tremendous scope of transformations now occurring on the Earth, with profound effects on plants, animals, and natural habitats, is primarily the result of human activities. Geologists have proposed the term Anthropocene, or the \u2018Age of Man,\u2019 for this new period in the history of the planet, which follows the relatively stable Holocene period. On a geological scale the planet has entered a new era,\u201d the Smithsonian press release stated<\/a>. Climate change and ocean acidification\u2013the evil twins<\/a>\u2013are the two most destructive forces of this geologic era.<\/p>\n Two recent disasters: one in Uttarakhand, India and the other in Arizona, US show us\u2013that not only ecological devastation but also human casualty\u2013arise from climate change. In both cases, those who tried to save lives\u2013lost their lives. On June 25 an Indian air force helicopter crashed on a steep hillside in Uttarakhand \u201cwhile on a mission to rescue people stranded in monsoon floods,\u201d the Times of India reported<\/a>. Twenty people died in that crash. And last Sunday nineteen firefighters died in Arizona \u201cas they were overcome \u2026 by the swift, erratic Yarnell Hill Fire,\u201d the USA Today reported<\/a>.<\/p>\n According to one estimate the flood in Uttarakhand has claimed<\/a> more than 10,000 lives. If that indeed were true, then it would be the largest human casualty in a single climate change event. Two recent scientific studies: here<\/a> and here<\/a> make the connection between climate change and\u2013erratic monsoon and extreme floods in India. And if you have any doubt about the connection between climate change and\u2013extreme drought and fires in the desert southwest of America, take a look at William deBuys\u2019 remarkable book, A Great Aridness: Climate Change and the Future of the American Southwest<\/a> (Oxford University Press).<\/p>\n I have a personal connection with both places: last November I visited Uttarakhand, and I lived on two separate occasions, a total of eleven years in the desert southwest, in New Mexico. I\u2019m now mourning the deaths in Arizona and Uttarakhand.<\/p>\n For sometime now we have been using the word \u201cextreme\u201d when talking about climate change disasters. We\u2019ve known what it means for ecological loss (see forest death from bark beetles infestation here<\/a> and coral graveyards here<\/a>). Now we know what \u201cextreme\u201d in climate changed extreme weather means for human loss also.<\/p>\n I know less about recent floods in India than I do about fires in the American southwest. So I\u2019ll share a few words about the latter.<\/p>\n In 2011 the Las Conchas Fire burned 156,593 acres and became the largest fire in New Mexico history. As the fire started Iwrote an article \u201cNew Mexico is burning with potential for nuclear contamination.\u201d I wrote:<\/p>\n I live inside a small old true adobe home. \u2026 since Sunday June 26 I\u2019ve had to keep all windows closed to avoid toxic ash from wildfires from entering the breathing space inside the house. The result\u2013I\u2019m hot as hell inside my home and can\u2019t sleep properly.<\/p>\n<\/blockquote>\n Large fires send a lot of toxic pollutants in the air. The previous year NASA reported<\/a> that the \u201craging forest fires in central Russia, Siberia and western Canada have created an enormous cloud of pollutants covering the northern hemisphere.\u201d Furthermore, many of us were concerned that the smoke from the Las Conchas Fire might contain nuclear material due to previous unregulated dumping of nuclear waste at the Los Alamos National Laboratory (LANL).<\/p>\n But our main concern was\u2013the entire southwest could have been nuked. There were some 20,000 55\u2014gallon drums filled with plutonium\u2014contaminated waste that sat on the surface underneath fabric tents in Area G at LANL. The fire was about 3 1\/2 miles from Area G when I wrote the piece. Unsurprisingly the government lied: \u201cLab spokesman Steve Sandoval declined to confirm that there were any such drums now on the property,\u201d the Associated Press reported<\/a> on June 27. Three days later another lab spokesperson told the same AP writer<\/a> that there were 10,000 drums stored on the property\u2013belching out a half\u2014truth. New Mexico and the neighboring states got saved from nuclear contamination not because of human ingenuity but Nature came to the rescue\u2013wind started to blow<\/a> in a north\u2014south direction, away from Area G.<\/p>\n To understand the ecological impact of the fire, I sat down with New Mexico state land commissioner Ray Powell and his team of nearly a dozen staff that included many ecologists. I never wrote about what I learned from that meeting until now. They told me that the Las Conchas Fire was burning so hot and was moving so fast that the firefighters reported to them that they had \u201cnever seen a fire like this before.\u201d The heat was so intense that it was burning all the way down to the roots of trees. The sub\u2014surface desert dwellers\u2013gophers, mice and reptiles\u2013surely got burnt alive. And the speed of spread was astonishing<\/a>\u2013\u201caveraging an acre of forest burned every 1.17 seconds for 14 straight hours.\u201d To give you a linear perspective: say the acre is a square with four equal sides; then each side would be about 209 feet. No animal could ever move 209 feet in 1.17 seconds. I came to realize then what \u201cextreme\u201d means in extreme weather events.\n<\/p>\n Following year the Whitewater\u2014Baldy Complex Fire that started in the Gila Wilderness burned 289,478 acres and became the largest fire in New Mexico history.<\/p>\n Last month the Black Forest Fire in Colorado destroyed<\/a> more than 500 homes and was called, \u201cthe most destructive fire in Colorado history.\u201d Then the came the news: nineteen firefighters died in the Yarnell Hill Fire in Arizona. The change of wind direction (that saved New Mexico in 2011) it seems might have been the cause that killed the Arizona firefighters. \u201cThe sole survivor of the blaze \u2026 warned his fellow firefighters \u2026 when he saw [from the lookout] the wildfire switch directions and head straight for them,\u201d the Associated Press reported<\/a> on July 3. As I write this, the Silver Fire in New Mexico has grown<\/a> \u201cto 137,326 acres with 59% containment\u201d as of July 2.<\/p>\n So what are the Beltway politicians doing about climate change?<\/p>\n<\/p>\n * * *<\/p>\n<\/p>\n On June 25 President Obama gave a much\u2014anticipated climate change speech. The day before, in an email Bill McKibben wrote: \u201cWell, some good news: five years in, we\u2019re starting to see at least the outlines of a strategy from President Obama to deal with climate change.\u201d<\/p>\n Each time golden words arrive from Obama\u2013supporters cheer, opponents sneer, apologists veer, while critics use spear\u2013to expose his peace with terror. I\u2019ll take a closer look, not at what he said, but just a few of the responses that resulted from the speech.<\/p>\n Elizabeth Kolbert is one of the most respected environmental journalists working today. She writes environmental articles and op\u2014eds for The New Yorker and is author of the widely acclaimed book on climate change, Field Notes from a Catastrophe (2006). So it is all the more troubling that she wrote what I\u2019d call\u2013a patla sorbot (roughly translates from Bengali to English\u2013seriously diluted Kool\u2014Aid) op\u2014ed after Obama\u2019s speech<\/a>. She avoided the thorny issues (more on that soon) and instead focused on two things: a Democrat\u2014Republican ping\u2014pong match and regulating emissions from coal fired power plants.<\/p>\n What Obama\u2019s \u201caides had billed as a major initiative to fight climate change,\u201d Kolbert correctly observed \u201cwas not really news, since it had already been widely reported\u2013was that the Administration will impose rules limiting carbon emissions from both new and existing power plants.\u201d But if you take climate scientist Dr. James Hansen\u2019s words literally: he says Washington is \u201ccoal\u2014fired.\u201d So the conundrum before us is: how could one coal\u2014fired enterprise honestly regulate another coal\u2014fired enterprise? It cannot. The issue here is not emission regulation but burning coal itself. A few days later Lauren McCauley pointed out<\/a> on Common Dreams, \u201cEnergy Chief Confirms Critics\u2019 Fears: Obama Still Loves Coal.\u201d<\/p>\n In 2011 Obama sold the Powder River Basin in Wyoming to Big Coal. In a fantastic piece, Jeff Biggers had dug up the poop<\/a> and released the stink: \u201cPresident Obama needs to be called out for his less than transparent catering to his long\u2014time billionaire and coal\u2014profiteering friends.\u201d Biggers wrote that Obama\u2019s buddies on this lucrative affair were\u2013Bill Gates and Warren Buffett. Precisely because of this greedy decision two years ago, today the activists in the Pacific Northwest are fighting the coal\u2014port through which (if built) Wyoming coal would go to Asia. In an Earth Day<\/a> op\u2014ed Seattle Post\u2014Intelligencercolumnist Joel Connelly wrote: \u201c[T]he anti\u2014coal\u2014port movement in the Northwest is growing in leaps and bounds. It\u2019s a grassroots effort based in towns through which mile\u2014and\u2014a\u2014half\u2014long coal trains would pass. It has far outclassed an industry campaign consisting typically of TV commercials, an \u2018astroturf\u2019 front group and legions of flack\u2014mercenaries.\u201d<\/p>\n \u201cBut if the President deserves to be congratulated for finally taking action\u2013and he does\u2013then he also deserves to be admonished for having waited so long,\u201d Kolbert continues. There are two serious problems with this statement. The use of \u201cadmonished\u201d isn\u2019t criticism but affectionate scolding that we do to a child (more on this below). The second issue is that it gives an impression that Obama indeed has finally taken action on climate change. That\u2019s very misleading to put it politely.<\/p>\n Kolbert points out that Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell denounced the speech, even before it was delivered. McConnell wrote that Obama\u2019s \u201cclimate change plan is a \u2018war on coal\u2019 and on jobs\u201d (an example of \u2018opponents sneer\u2019). Referring to McConnell\u2019s words, Kolbert wrote<\/a>: \u201cThat reflexive political reaction goes a long way toward explaining why it took Obama so long.\u201d This is what I\u2019d call Democrat\u2014Republican ping\u2014pong while life on Earth races toward oblivion.<\/p>\n Kolbert\u2019s op\u2014ed is an example of\u2013\u2018apologists veer\u2019.<\/p>\n If you want to see an example of \u2018supporters cheer\u2019\u2013take a look at 350.org executive director May Boeve\u2019s response to Obama\u2019s speech here<\/a>.<\/p>\n The reason I focused on Kolbert\u2019s op\u2014ed is to show the rot in mainstream American environmental journalism. Few journalists can be courageous like Glenn Greenwald and Jeremy Scahill, but at a minimum a journalist\u2019s job is to tell the truth and not become the mouthpiece of a particular political party.<\/p>\n Democrats are scared that if the Republicans take over the government all hope of climate change legislations would be doomed. Bill McKibben wrote earlier this year<\/a> on TomDispatch: \u201cThe movement is what matters; the Democrats are, at best, the eventual vehicle for closing the deal.\u201d This too is hiding the truth and is an illusion (more below). A climate movement that is a mirror image of MoveOn.org is not honest and will not succeed.\n<\/p>\n What I just discussed is the political reason why \u2018supporters cheer\u2019 and \u2018apologists veer,\u2019 but there is a larger insidious reason, and it is\u2013sociological.<\/p>\n It is easy to criticize the other. It is much more difficult to criticize one\u2019s own. This is true at a macroscopic level (nation to nation) and also at a microscopic level (one family to another).<\/p>\n Take for example, domestic violence: it is easy to say that domestic violence \u201cis going on in my neighbor\u2019s house\u201d than to acknowledge \u201cis happening in my own home.\u201d Similarly, it is easy for the US government to announce: \u201cChina is spying on the US\u201d than to acknowledge \u201cUS is spying on its own citizens and everyone else.\u201d This issue is particularly pronounced in the US.<\/p>\n In her concise yet immensely thought\u2014provoking book, Regarding the Pain of Others Susan Sontag wrote:<\/p>\n Americans prefer to picture the evil that was there, and from which the United States\u2013a unique nation, one without any certifiably wicked leaders throughout its entire history\u2013is exempt. That this country, like every other country, has its tragic past does not sit well with the founding, and still all\u2014powerful, belief in American exceptionalism.<\/p>\n<\/blockquote>\n Climate change is not a Democrat or Republican issue and its solution (if there ever will be one) does not involve cheerleading of Democrats.<\/p>\n Now I\u2019ll turn to critics\u2019 spear.<\/p>\n<\/p>\n * * *<\/p>\n<\/p>\n To understand the true intent of Obama\u2019s speech I begin with AlterNet senior environmental editor Tara Lohan\u2019s article, \u201cObama Uses Major Climate Speech to Cheerlead for Natural Gas Industry; Keystone XL Fate Still Undecided.\u201d She recognizes that \u201cObama\u2019s speech will likely be met with cheers and jeers, even in the environmental community.\u201d She first acknowledges the \u201ccheer\u201d part and then throws a solid 400\u2014lb punch<\/a> and points out the \u201chypocrisy of Obama\u2019s allegiance to the gas industry and his pledge to fight climate change\u201d:<\/p>\n It\u2019s hard to imagine that Obama has ever visited with communities who are in the crosshairs of natural gas extraction\u2013a process that has proven already to be anything but clean and safe. And yet Obama promised to \u201cstrengthen our position as a top natural gas producer\u201d and even to use our private sector to help other countries \u201ctransition to natural gas.\u201d This translates to exporting fracking worldwide\u2013a process already underway in Poland, South Africa, Australia and other countries.<\/p>\n<\/blockquote>\n It\u2019s all the more remarkable, because these words didn\u2019t come from a writer\/editor sitting in her ergonomically uncomfortable chair and throwing out some angry words. It came from someone who is reporting from the field now. Tara is traveling across North America documenting communities impacted by energy development for a new AlterNet project, Hitting Home<\/a>. This is what I\u2019d call\u2013good environmental journalism that includes honest criticism.<\/p>\n Next, if you\u2019re looking for an in\u2014depth socio\u2014ecological analysis of Obama\u2019s speech, take a look at Professor Chris Williams\u2019 essay \u201cMass Protest, Not A Speech, Is Needed To Address Climate Change\u201d that I published<\/a> on ClimateStoryTellers.org. About the Democrat\u2014Republican ping\u2014pong match, Williams wrote:<\/p>\n And on the ground, where people are forced to deal with the growing ramifications of climate change and the disruption and cost to their lives, the picture is very different. As reported in a recent survey of self\u2014described Republicans and Republican\u2014leaning independents, 62 percent said the U.S. should address climate change, and 77 percent said that the U.S. should use more renewable energy sources. This is all the more remarkable given that virtually no political representative from either party has been arguing for these things, and they have certainly not appeared on the TV screens or in the newspapers of the mainstream media.<\/p>\n<\/blockquote>\n And about relying on politicians to solve the climate crisis, Williams wrote:<\/p>\n The biosphere of which humans are a part cannot afford half measures or rely on dubious \u201cfriends\u201d in high places. Nor can we set our sights any lower than the swift dismantling of the fossil\u2014fuel infrastructure of death and its replacement with publicly owned and democratically controlled clean energy systems.<\/p>\n<\/blockquote>\n Lastly, if you\u2019re looking for a good example of thoughtful criticism of the environmental policies being perpetuated by a head of state, look no further than Canadian journalist Andrew Nikiforuk\u2019s most biting critique of Prime Minister of Canada Stephen Harper\u2019s devastating energy policy. In his essay, \u201cOh, Canada: How America\u2019s Friendly Northern Neighbor Became a Rogue, Reckless Petrostate,\u201d in the July\/August issue of Foreign Policy Nikiforuk wrote<\/a>:<\/p>\n More than a decade ago, American political scientist Terry Lynn Karl crudely summed up the dysfunction of petrostates: Countries that become too dependent on oil and gas riches behave like plantation economies that rely on \u201can unsustainable development trajectory fueled by an exhaustible resource\u201d whose revenue streams form \u201can implacable barrier to change.\u201d And that\u2019s what happened to Canada while you weren\u2019t looking. Shackled to the hubris of a leader who dreams of building a new global energy superpower, the Boy Scout is now slave to his own greed.<\/p>\n<\/blockquote>\n I have repeatedly pointed out over the past three years (see my interview last year with Amy Goodman and Juan Gonzalez on Democracy Now! here<\/a>) that Obama too is turning the US into a \u201crogue, reckless petrostate.\u201d While Kolbert thinks that Obama \u201cdeserves to be admonished\u201d (like you would do to a Boy Scout), Williams on the other hand thinks that a \u201cswift dismantling of the fossil\u2014fuel infrastructure of death\u201d is what is needed.<\/p>\n As you can see environmental journalism is far from dead. On the contrary, it is vibrant like a gushing mountain stream about to flood climate change activism with new energy and ideas. We need it because climate change is here and a lot of people are beginning to die from its devastation.<\/p>\n<\/p>\n * * *<\/p>\n<\/p>\n Often people ask me: Aren\u2019t the super\u2014rich worried about climate change? I cannot provide a good answer. Instead all I can do is make a wild\u2014ass guess that may sound to you like sci\u2014fi\u2013but it isn\u2019t\u2013like climate change it too is here.<\/p>\n Would the gassed\u2014up \u201cwell\u2014oiled\u201d \u201ccoal\u2014fired\u201d (last two are Hansen\u2019s words) rogue, petrostates (US, Canada, and add your favorites to the list) ravage the whole Earth to a point where it is useful only for extraction of natural resources\u2013Earth as a coal mine? You might wonder where will the super\u2014rich escape to then? To space.<\/p>\n On June 27 the Yahoo! Finance reported<\/a>:<\/p>\n PayPal today announced the launch of PayPal Galactic, an initiative that addresses the issues to help make universal space payments a reality. PayPal Galactic brings together leaders in the scientific community, including the SETI Institute and Space Tourism Society, to prepare and support the future of space commerce.<\/p>\n<\/blockquote>\n Furthermore, Yahoo! Finance quotes John Spencer, founder and president of the Space Tourism Society: \u201cWithin five to ten years the earliest types of \u2018space hotels\u2019 and orbital and lunar commerce will be operational and in need of a payment system.\u201d Leaders are now working \u201con the big questions\u201d:<\/p>\n What will our standard currency look like in a truly cash\u2014free interplanetary society? And CNN Money included a wise quote<\/a> from PayPal president David Marcus:<\/p>\n \u201cIt\u2019s easy to perceive this as kind of gee\u2014whiz, even silly, if you just read the headline [\u201cPayPal to launch inter\u2014planetary payment system]. But these are real, difficult, important problems that need to be sorted out.\u201d<\/p>\n<\/blockquote>\n Pack your bags and get ready for your new job\u2013no longer on this Earth, but out there, working in a \u2018space hotel\u2019 finally getting paid $10.70 per hour that Ralph Nader has been advocating for<\/a>.<\/p>\n We are screwed. The Earth is doomed.<\/p>\n Do you have any idea how we can find independence from the corporate\u2014state terror?<\/p>\n Subhankar Banerjee is a photographer, writer, and activist. Over the past decade he has worked tirelessly for the conservation of ecoculturally significant areas of the Arctic, and to raise awareness about indigenous human rights and climate change. He founded ClimateStoryTellers.org<\/a>, and is editor of the anthology Arctic Voices: Resistance at the Tipping Point<\/a> (Seven Stories Press). He was recently Director\u2019s Visitor at the Institute for Advanced Study in Princeton, Distinguished Visiting Professor at Fordham University in New York, received Distinguished Alumnus Award from the New Mexico State University, and Cultural Freedom Award from Lannan Foundation.<\/i><\/p>\n Copyright 2013 Subhankar Banerjee<\/small>\n<\/p>\n
\n\u2013Jill Tarter, chairwoman of the SETI Institute, CNN Money, June 27, 2013<\/i><\/p>\n\n
\n
\n
\n
\n
\n
\n
\nHow will the banking systems have to adapt?
\nHow will risk and fraud management systems need to evolve?
\nWhat regulations will we have to conform with?
\nHow will our customer support need to develop?<\/p>\n\n
<\/p>\n