portland independent media center  
images audio video
newswire article reporting global

corporate dominance | environment

Triple Global Crises

This is why we need a major revolution in mind and living as well as socio economic and political. If we, Cascadians, are to survive the "shit storm" that is happening then we will need a Bioregional Cooperative Commonwealth.
From Empire to Earth Community: Author David Korten on "The Great
Turning"

Listen to Segment || Download Show mp3
Watch 128k stream Watch 256k stream Read Transcript
Help Printer-friendly version Email to a friend
Purchase Video/CD

----------------------------------------------------------------------
----------
The International Forum on Globalization and Institute for Policy
Studies is hosting a three day teach-in this weekend
titled "Confronting the Global Triple Crisis: Climate Change, Peak
Oil (The End of Cheap Energy) and Global Resource Depletion &
Extinction." We speak with, among others, David Korten - publisher of
the magazine YES! A Journal of Positive Futures and author of "The
Great Turning: From Empire to Earth Community." [includes rush
transcript]
----------------------------------------------------------------------
----------
A new study from the nation's preeminent scientific advisory group
has revealed that less than two percent of the money spent by the
federal government on climate change research is used to study how
climate change will affect humans.
According to the report issued by the National Academies, the U.S.
Climate Change Research Program spends just $30 million dollar a year
on examining the impact of global warming on humans. To put that
figure in perspective, the United States is spending an estimated
$275 million per day on the Iraq war and occupation.

Spending cuts have also resulted in the grounding of earth-observing
satellites. The authors of the report state QUOTE "The loss of
existing and planned satellite sensors is perhaps the single greatest
threat to the future success" of climate research.

This weekend, the International Forum on Globalization and Institute
for Policy Studies is hosting a three day teach-in
titled "Confronting the Global Triple Crisis: Climate Change, Peak
Oil (The End of Cheap Energy) and Global Resource Depletion &
Extinction."

We speak with four guests from the forum. We begin with David Korten:


David Korten, author of "When Corporations Rule the World". He is the
co-founder of Positive Futures Network, and publisher of the magazine
YES! A Journal of Positive Futures. His most recent book is
titled "The Great Turning: From Empire to Earth Community."

----------------------------------------------------------------------
----------
RUSH TRANSCRIPT
This transcript is available free of charge. However, donations help
us provide closed captioning for the deaf and hard of hearing on our
TV broadcast. Thank you for your generous contribution.
Donate - $25, $50, $100, more...

JUAN GONZALEZ: A new study from the nation's preeminent scientific
advisory group has revealed that less than 2% of the money spent by
the federal government on climate change research is used to study
how climate change will affect humans.

According to the report issued by the National Academies, the U.S.
Climate Change Research Program spends just $30 million a year on
examining the impact of global warming on humans. To put that figure
in perspective, the United States is spending an estimated $275
million per day on the Iraq war and occupation.

Spending cuts have also resulted in the grounding of earth-observing
satellites. The authors of the report state, "The loss of existing
and planned satellite sensors is perhaps the single greatest threat
to the future success" of climate research.

AMY GOODMAN: This weekend, the International Forum on Globalization
and Institute for Policy Studies is hosting a three day teach-in
titled "Confronting the Global Triple Crisis: Climate Change, Peak
Oil (The End of Cheap Energy) and Global Resource Depletion &
Extinction."

Today, we're joined by four of the guests in that forum. We begin
with Vandana Shiva and David Korten.

Vandana Shiva, world-renowned environmental leader and thinker,
director of the Research Foundation on Science, Technology, and
Ecology, and the founder of Navdanya, "nine seeds," a movement
promoting diversity and use of native seeds. Dr. Shiva was the 1993
recipient of the Alternative Nobel Peace Prize, the Right Livelihood
Award. She's the author of many books, her latest, Earth Democracy:
Justice, Sustainability, and Peace.

David Korten, also with us, author of When Corporations Rule the
World, cofounder of Positive Futures Network and publisher of the
magazine YES! A Journal of Positive Futures. His most recent book is
called The Great Turning: From Empire to Earth Community.

We welcome you both to Democracy Now! David Korten, let's begin with
you. The Great Turning, explain.

DAVID KORTEN: Well, essentially, this gets to the basic theme of the
conference, that we humans have come up at a defining moment in our
experience, in which we're confronting the limits of the ecosystem at
a time when we are in a condition of extreme inequality between the
rich and the poor, and we're dependent on an economic infrastructure
that, in turn, depends on the assumption of everlasting cheap oil.
Now, we've essentially come up to the limits.

What my book, The Great Turning, does is puts it into our current
situation to the deeper context of 5,000 years of human experience,
organizing ourselves, both our relations among nations and among --
all the way down to among family members, based on dominator
hierarchy. And what this -- the underlying pattern of societies, with
a few people on the top, many people on the bottom, and the majority
of the society's resources being expropriated by the ruling elites in
order to maintain a system of domination. And we have played that out
for 5,000 years, empire through empire, each one falling in turn, is
it, through internal corruption and the devastation of its resource
base. And now we're encountering that on a global scale.

And what -- the key point of this conference is that we are facing a
monumental decision point in human experience in which we have to
actively choose our future. And virtually none of the options on the
table being discussed deal, in any adequate way, with the depth of
the problem, and many of them are actually ultimately
counterproductive. What the establishment is doing is looking for
solutions that will maintain the system of power, but not necessarily
deal with the fact that we have to address in fundamental ways our
human relationship to earth and to the life support system of earth.

And in an already overpopulated world, we absolutely have to deal
with the issues of equity and redistribution of not only income, but
ownership, control and access to resources, so that everyone has a
secure means of living. We also, of course, have to be fundamentally
reconstructing our infrastructure to create an infrastructure that is
consistent with living and balance with the earth, localizing our
economies, bringing an end to war and violence and the massive misuse
of resources to support military establishment.

So what this conference is doing, which is also what my book The
Great Turning does, is bring all of these various crises that we're
facing as a species into a common framework that helps us see the
depth of the solutions and the very dramatic nature of the solutions
turning from systems of domination to systems of partnership and
reestablishing a sense of human community and of living communities
that bring us humans into balance with earth.

JUAN GONZALEZ: David Korten, in the United States we're confronted
here with a mass media system now where the oil companies and the
chemical companies are actually the ones advertising their changes
now, in terms of dealing with global warming. It's an enormous
hypocrisy that the very companies that are involved in the worst
aspects of what is happening to the world are now the ones that are
promoting in their advertisements a consciousness about it.

You talk about the prosperity narrative and how the prosperity
narrative distorts the reality of what's happening with global
warming. Could you talk about that?

DAVID KORTEN: Yes. Part of breaking out of this, breaking out of what
I call the cultural trance of empire, is to recognize the stories,
essentially the lies, that the system feeds us to keep us locked into
this trance. And the key in the empire prosperity story is the idea
that money is wealth, that economic growth is the key to prosperity,
that when people are making money, they are creating wealth, and the
idea that inequality is essential to growth because the rich people
have the money to invest, and so we should honor rich people, we
should welcome inequality, because in the end it makes us all better
off. Now, we're seeing that play out, of course, in the corporations
now, you know: we're benevolent, and so forth.

But the thing that -- you know, I spent thirty years of my life
working on third world development, on the effort to end poverty in
low-income countries. And it took me a long time, but I finally came
to realize that mostly what economic growth is about is rich people
expropriating the resources of poor people to turn them into the
garbage of the consumer system in an accelerating rate in order to
make money, which increases the power of people who -- for people who
already have more than they need.

Now, what we need to come to recognize is that real prosperity is
grounded in the health of our children, our families, our communities
and nature, and that a real economic system promoting real prosperity
is one that is serving the health of children, families, community
and the environment. And it absolutely requires a substantial degree
of equity and sharing of resources to assure that everyone's needs
are met. And you begin to see the -- you know, the stories
fundamentally contrast, and they lead to totally different kinds of
outcomes, in terms of how we allocate resources and even how we think
about what it means to be human at our most foundational values.

AMY GOODMAN: Vandana Shiva, talk about how this plays out on the
ground in places like, well, your home country, India.

VANDANA SHIVA: Well, the triple crisis is really seriously converging
on India, India being one of the preferred spots for outsourcing of
all the pollution and energy-intensive production of the world. We
hear of outsourcing of jobs in the information technology sector. We
don't often enough hear about the outsourcing of pollution to the
third world, the resource-intensive, resource-hungry industry like
steel and iron and aluminum and automobile manufacture. India now is
going to be the home of making cheap cars for the rest of the world.
But every car then requires land, which is grabbed from tribals,
peasants. It requires aluminum and steel, which needs to be mined. It
requires coal, which needs to be mined.

And just as when the first colonization took place, it was assumed
that the earth was empty, terra nullius, no matter how many
indigenous people existed. India, a land of 1.2 billion people, is
being treated as an empty land for global capital, making 80% of
India redundant.

But people are fighting back. And place after place, in Dadri, in
Nandigram, in Singur, people are just getting together in a new earth
democracy and saying, "This land is our land. We will decide what we
do with it. You cannot force a polluting industry on us.
Globalization cannot force it." And we are really seeing a whole new
political practice emerge.

India is engaged in this debate also centrally in another way that
brings the resource question: the alternative -- fuel alternatives to
global warming, as well as the new militarization, on a global scale
together. The three, four options being offered to contain emissions
are biofuels, which, in fact, will increase emissions; carbon and
emissions trading, which is reversing the "polluter pays" principle
and is making the society pay the polluter, rewarding them with
credits. Most of these credits are then being given to polluting
industry: HFC companies, sponge iron plants, cutting down forests and
then planting palm oil. These are becoming clean development
mechanisms, which are really dirty.

But the dirtiest of all, dirtiest of all the new clean options is
nuclear. The US-India nuclear agreement is being offered as a clean
energy option, as a solution to climate change. But it is, in effect,
an instrument of permanent war. In the Hyde Act, which overrides the
India-US agreement, Iran has been mentioned fifteen times. An
agreement between India and the US mentions a third country fifteen
times. This is about a new security policy, a new security policy in
which a militarized empire seeks the last resources of the poorest
person and wants to use the worst form of violence to appropriate the
resources that people need for living.

And across the world, people are saying, "No. We want peace. We want
democracy. We want sustainability. We will live in a different way."
And those alternatives are growing. Our work, in Navdanya, we are
saving seeds that can tolerate the salt after cyclones, seeds that
can survive the floods, in which we have lost 2,000 people in India
this particular extreme monsoon. And around the world people are
creating alternatives, so we really have these two trends right now:
one, a declining trend, but very visible trend because it's so
violent, and violent is always visible; and the other, a peaceful
trend and nonviolent trend, quiet, but much more pervasive.

JUAN GONZALEZ: Vandana Shiva, you've been a spokesperson for years
over the impact on the world's agriculture, of this corporate
dominance. A new battleground has developed recently in Burma with
Bayer and Bayer's efforts, the German giant, in terms of rice. Could
you talk about that?

VANDANA SHIVA: Yeah, but it's not just the German giant in Burma.
It's the American giant, Monsanto, literally killing Indian farmers.
Since 1997, I've been doing studies in every area where farmer
suicides have happened. These happen to be the cotton belt, the
cotton areas where Monsanto has now gained total monopoly. The Bt
cotton seeds that Monsanto is selling have pushed farmers to the
edge, because of the high prices, because of the high levels of
failure and the high requirements, exactly like the rice of Bayer for
Burma will be.

As the corporations that came out of warfare gained control over the
chemical industry for warfare, they became agrichemical giants,
because they deployed chemicals used for war into agriculture. Over
time, they bought up the seed industry. Over time, they bought up the
biotech industry. And, of course, these guys are the same people who
sell us the medicine in pharmaceuticals. So what we've got, a
convergence of death. We've got a convergence of destruction.

And in India, we are witnessing this destruction from the seed end
through Monsanto's monopolies on seed, and that is why I have been
working with Indian farmers, both to save our native seeds and save
our freedom, and do the seed Satyagraha, like Gandhi a hundred years
ago in South Africa -- and we're remembering Steve Biko today -- when
Gandhi started the Satyagraha, the non-cooperation with an unjust
brutal regime. But the global economy has become an unjust brutal
regime. And everywhere -- we are defending the Yamana, because they
want to even use the land where the rivers flow for real estate. I
don't know why land becomes real estate when it moves into the hands
of the rich, and it's treated as nobody's land, no man's land, when
it's generating survival for the poor. So India is definitely at the
heart of the new debate about the real democracy.

AMY GOODMAN: Vandana Shiva and David Korten, I want to thank you for
being with us. Vandana Shiva's latest book is Earth Democracy:
Justice, Sustainability, and Peace. David Korten's latest book is
called The Great Turning: From Empire to Earth Community. They're
both part of the International Forum on Globalization that is holding
a conference this weekend in Washington, D.C. at George Washington
University at the Lisner Auditorium.

When we come back, we'll be joined from two others who are
participating: the author and professor Michael Klare and the British
climate change activist Simon Retallack.

 http://www.democracynow.org/article.pl?sid=07/09/14/1421257

Vandana Shiva Decries the "Outsourcing of Pollution to the Third
World"

Listen to Segment || Download Show mp3
Watch 128k stream Watch 256k stream Read Transcript
Help Printer-friendly version Email to a friend
Purchase Video/CD

----------------------------------------------------------------------
----------
We speak world-renowned environmental leader and thinker, Vandana
Shiva about India and global resource depletion. Shiva says, "India
is one of the preferred spots for outsourcing of all the pollution
and energy-intensive production of the world. We hear of outsourcing
of jobs and informational technology sector. We don't often enough
hear about the outsourcing of pollution to the third world."
[includes rush transcript]

Vandana Shiva, world-renowned environmental leader and thinker. She
is also a physicist and ecologist and the Director of the Research
Foundation on Science, Technology, and Ecology. She is the founder of
Navdanya -"nine seeds", a movement promoting diversity and use of
native seeds. Dr. Shiva was the 1993 recipient of the Alternative
Nobel Peace Prize -the Right Livelihood Award. And she is the author
of many books, her latest is "Earth Democracy: Justice,
Sustainability, and Peace."

----------------------------------------------------------------------
----------
RUSH TRANSCRIPT
This transcript is available free of charge. However, donations help
us provide closed captioning for the deaf and hard of hearing on our
TV broadcast. Thank you for your generous contribution.
Donate - $25, $50, $100, more...

JUAN GONZALEZ: A new study from the nation's preeminent scientific
advisory group has revealed that less than 2% of the money spent by
the federal government on climate change research is used to study
how climate change will affect humans.

According to the report issued by the National Academies, the U.S.
Climate Change Research Program spends just $30 million a year on
examining the impact of global warming on humans. To put that figure
in perspective, the United States is spending an estimated $275
million per day on the Iraq war and occupation.

Spending cuts have also resulted in the grounding of earth-observing
satellites. The authors of the report state, "The loss of existing
and planned satellite sensors is perhaps the single greatest threat
to the future success" of climate research.

AMY GOODMAN: This weekend, the International Forum on Globalization
and Institute for Policy Studies is hosting a three day teach-in
titled "Confronting the Global Triple Crisis: Climate Change, Peak
Oil (The End of Cheap Energy) and Global Resource Depletion &
Extinction."

Today, we're joined by four of the guests in that forum. We begin
with Vandana Shiva and David Korten.

Vandana Shiva, world-renowned environmental leader and thinker,
director of the Research Foundation on Science, Technology, and
Ecology, and the founder of Navdanya, "nine seeds," a movement
promoting diversity and use of native seeds. Dr. Shiva was the 1993
recipient of the Alternative Nobel Peace Prize, the Right Livelihood
Award. She's the author of many books, her latest, Earth Democracy:
Justice, Sustainability, and Peace.

David Korten, also with us, author of When Corporations Rule the
World, cofounder of Positive Futures Network and publisher of the
magazine YES! A Journal of Positive Futures. His most recent book is
called The Great Turning: From Empire to Earth Community.

We welcome you both to Democracy Now! David Korten, let's begin with
you. The Great Turning, explain.

DAVID KORTEN: Well, essentially, this gets to the basic theme of the
conference, that we humans have come up at a defining moment in our
experience, in which we're confronting the limits of the ecosystem at
a time when we are in a condition of extreme inequality between the
rich and the poor, and we're dependent on an economic infrastructure
that, in turn, depends on the assumption of everlasting cheap oil.
Now, we've essentially come up to the limits.

What my book, The Great Turning, does is puts it into our current
situation to the deeper context of 5,000 years of human experience,
organizing ourselves, both our relations among nations and among --
all the way down to among family members, based on dominator
hierarchy. And what this -- the underlying pattern of societies, with
a few people on the top, many people on the bottom, and the majority
of the society's resources being expropriated by the ruling elites in
order to maintain a system of domination. And we have played that out
for 5,000 years, empire through empire, each one falling in turn, is
it, through internal corruption and the devastation of its resource
base. And now we're encountering that on a global scale.

And what -- the key point of this conference is that we are facing a
monumental decision point in human experience in which we have to
actively choose our future. And virtually none of the options on the
table being discussed deal, in any adequate way, with the depth of
the problem, and many of them are actually ultimately
counterproductive. What the establishment is doing is looking for
solutions that will maintain the system of power, but not necessarily
deal with the fact that we have to address in fundamental ways our
human relationship to earth and to the life support system of earth.

And in an already overpopulated world, we absolutely have to deal
with the issues of equity and redistribution of not only income, but
ownership, control and access to resources, so that everyone has a
secure means of living. We also, of course, have to be fundamentally
reconstructing our infrastructure to create an infrastructure that is
consistent with living and balance with the earth, localizing our
economies, bringing an end to war and violence and the massive misuse
of resources to support military establishment.

So what this conference is doing, which is also what my book The
Great Turning does, is bring all of these various crises that we're
facing as a species into a common framework that helps us see the
depth of the solutions and the very dramatic nature of the solutions
turning from systems of domination to systems of partnership and
reestablishing a sense of human community and of living communities
that bring us humans into balance with earth.

JUAN GONZALEZ: David Korten, in the United States we're confronted
here with a mass media system now where the oil companies and the
chemical companies are actually the ones advertising their changes
now, in terms of dealing with global warming. It's an enormous
hypocrisy that the very companies that are involved in the worst
aspects of what is happening to the world are now the ones that are
promoting in their advertisements a consciousness about it.

You talk about the prosperity narrative and how the prosperity
narrative distorts the reality of what's happening with global
warming. Could you talk about that?

DAVID KORTEN: Yes. Part of breaking out of this, breaking out of what
I call the cultural trance of empire, is to recognize the stories,
essentially the lies, that the system feeds us to keep us locked into
this trance. And the key in the empire prosperity story is the idea
that money is wealth, that economic growth is the key to prosperity,
that when people are making money, they are creating wealth, and the
idea that inequality is essential to growth because the rich people
have the money to invest, and so we should honor rich people, we
should welcome inequality, because in the end it makes us all better
off. Now, we're seeing that play out, of course, in the corporations
now, you know: we're benevolent, and so forth.

But the thing that -- you know, I spent thirty years of my life
working on third world development, on the effort to end poverty in
low-income countries. And it took me a long time, but I finally came
to realize that mostly what economic growth is about is rich people
expropriating the resources of poor people to turn them into the
garbage of the consumer system in an accelerating rate in order to
make money, which increases the power of people who -- for people who
already have more than they need.

Now, what we need to come to recognize is that real prosperity is
grounded in the health of our children, our families, our communities
and nature, and that a real economic system promoting real prosperity
is one that is serving the health of children, families, community
and the environment. And it absolutely requires a substantial degree
of equity and sharing of resources to assure that everyone's needs
are met. And you begin to see the -- you know, the stories
fundamentally contrast, and they lead to totally different kinds of
outcomes, in terms of how we allocate resources and even how we think
about what it means to be human at our most foundational values.

AMY GOODMAN: Vandana Shiva, talk about how this plays out on the
ground in places like, well, your home country, India.

VANDANA SHIVA: Well, the triple crisis is really seriously converging
on India, India being one of the preferred spots for outsourcing of
all the pollution and energy-intensive production of the world. We
hear of outsourcing of jobs in the information technology sector. We
don't often enough hear about the outsourcing of pollution to the
third world, the resource-intensive, resource-hungry industry like
steel and iron and aluminum and automobile manufacture. India now is
going to be the home of making cheap cars for the rest of the world.
But every car then requires land, which is grabbed from tribals,
peasants. It requires aluminum and steel, which needs to be mined. It
requires coal, which needs to be mined.

And just as when the first colonization took place, it was assumed
that the earth was empty, terra nullius, no matter how many
indigenous people existed. India, a land of 1.2 billion people, is
being treated as an empty land for global capital, making 80% of
India redundant.

But people are fighting back. And place after place, in Dadri, in
Nandigram, in Singur, people are just getting together in a new earth
democracy and saying, "This land is our land. We will decide what we
do with it. You cannot force a polluting industry on us.
Globalization cannot force it." And we are really seeing a whole new
political practice emerge.

India is engaged in this debate also centrally in another way that
brings the resource question: the alternative -- fuel alternatives to
global warming, as well as the new militarization, on a global scale
together. The three, four options being offered to contain emissions
are biofuels, which, in fact, will increase emissions; carbon and
emissions trading, which is reversing the "polluter pays" principle
and is making the society pay the polluter, rewarding them with
credits. Most of these credits are then being given to polluting
industry: HFC companies, sponge iron plants, cutting down forests and
then planting palm oil. These are becoming clean development
mechanisms, which are really dirty.

But the dirtiest of all, dirtiest of all the new clean options is
nuclear. The US-India nuclear agreement is being offered as a clean
energy option, as a solution to climate change. But it is, in effect,
an instrument of permanent war. In the Hyde Act, which overrides the
India-US agreement, Iran has been mentioned fifteen times. An
agreement between India and the US mentions a third country fifteen
times. This is about a new security policy, a new security policy in
which a militarized empire seeks the last resources of the poorest
person and wants to use the worst form of violence to appropriate the
resources that people need for living.

And across the world, people are saying, "No. We want peace. We want
democracy. We want sustainability. We will live in a different way."
And those alternatives are growing. Our work, in Navdanya, we are
saving seeds that can tolerate the salt after cyclones, seeds that
can survive the floods, in which we have lost 2,000 people in India
this particular extreme monsoon. And around the world people are
creating alternatives, so we really have these two trends right now:
one, a declining trend, but very visible trend because it's so
violent, and violent is always visible; and the other, a peaceful
trend and nonviolent trend, quiet, but much more pervasive.

JUAN GONZALEZ: Vandana Shiva, you've been a spokesperson for years
over the impact on the world's agriculture, of this corporate
dominance. A new battleground has developed recently in Burma with
Bayer and Bayer's efforts, the German giant, in terms of rice. Could
you talk about that?

VANDANA SHIVA: Yeah, but it's not just the German giant in Burma.
It's the American giant, Monsanto, literally killing Indian farmers.
Since 1997, I've been doing studies in every area where farmer
suicides have happened. These happen to be the cotton belt, the
cotton areas where Monsanto has now gained total monopoly. The Bt
cotton seeds that Monsanto is selling have pushed farmers to the
edge, because of the high prices, because of the high levels of
failure and the high requirements, exactly like the rice of Bayer for
Burma will be.

As the corporations that came out of warfare gained control over the
chemical industry for warfare, they became agrichemical giants,
because they deployed chemicals used for war into agriculture. Over
time, they bought up the seed industry. Over time, they bought up the
biotech industry. And, of course, these guys are the same people who
sell us the medicine in pharmaceuticals. So what we've got, a
convergence of death. We've got a convergence of destruction.

And in India, we are witnessing this destruction from the seed end
through Monsanto's monopolies on seed, and that is why I have been
working with Indian farmers, both to save our native seeds and save
our freedom, and do the seed Satyagraha, like Gandhi a hundred years
ago in South Africa -- and we're remembering Steve Biko today -- when
Gandhi started the Satyagraha, the non-cooperation with an unjust
brutal regime. But the global economy has become an unjust brutal
regime. And everywhere -- we are defending the Yamana, because they
want to even use the land where the rivers flow for real estate. I
don't know why land becomes real estate when it moves into the hands
of the rich, and it's treated as nobody's land, no man's land, when
it's generating survival for the poor. So India is definitely at the
heart of the new debate about the real democracy.

AMY GOODMAN: Vandana Shiva and David Korten, I want to thank you for
being with us. Vandana Shiva's latest book is Earth Democracy:
Justice, Sustainability, and Peace. David Korten's latest book is
called The Great Turning: From Empire to Earth Community. They're
both part of the International Forum on Globalization that is holding
a conference this weekend in Washington, D.C. at George Washington
University at the Lisner Auditorium.

When we come back, we'll be joined from two others who are
participating: the author and professor Michael Klare and the British
climate change activist Simon Retallack.

 http://www.democracynow.org/article.pl?sid=07/09/14/1422203

Michael Klare on the Internal War For Control of Iraq's Oil

Listen to Segment || Download Show mp3
Watch 128k stream Watch 256k stream Read Transcript
Help Printer-friendly version Email to a friend
Purchase Video/CD

----------------------------------------------------------------------
----------
We speak with Michael Klare, author of "Blood and Oil: The Dangers
and Consequences of America's Growing Dependency on Imported
Petroleum." Klare says, "There's a second war underway in Iraq that's
a war for the control of the oil wealth. That's a war that is pitting
Kurds against the Arabs of the country, Shiites against Sunnis, and
Shiite against Shiite. Because eventually the Americans are going to
leave and the people of Iraq know this." [includes rush transcript]

Michael Klare, Professor of Peace and World Security Studies at
Hampshire College. He is author of several books including "Blood and
Oil: The Dangers and Consequences of America's Growing Dependency on
Imported Petroleum."

----------------------------------------------------------------------
----------
RUSH TRANSCRIPT
This transcript is available free of charge. However, donations help
us provide closed captioning for the deaf and hard of hearing on our
TV broadcast. Thank you for your generous contribution.
Donate - $25, $50, $100, more...

AMY GOODMAN: Last week, tens of thousands of people attended Farm Aid
here in New York City. It's an annual concert to raise support for
family farmers. This is the musician Neil Young, one of the
organizers of Farm Aid.

NEIL YOUNG: Transporting food around the world to other countries and
using all of that fuel and all of that packaging and all of that air-
conditioning fuel and all of those things that need to happen to get,
say, a tomato -- since that's on our mind today, we're coming with a
tomato now -- from Chile to California, it costs a lot of
environmental damage just getting that one tomato up there.

And so, if you look at the world and you figure one of the things
about our big agriculture is that we want to feed the world --
doesn't that sound great? You know? We're going to help everybody.
OK, you know, that's great. But I don't think it's really that way. I
think we ought to feed ourselves, the people that are close to us,
and we ought to let the people around the world feed themselves with
their own crops so that we don't go in there and take their food crop
away and give them a cash crop and then say we're going to give you
food. And that's what we do. We have people growing textile materials
and cotton and things in third world countries, and we do business
with them through China, and we do all of these things with our
economics. And we undermine the sustainability of the countries that
we say we're helping. And then, if these countries don't cooperate
with us, we control their food supply.

AMY GOODMAN: Musician Neil Young at the Farm Aid concert this past
weekend.

As we continue looking at issues of climate change, energy and the
environment, we're joined by two more guest speakers at this
weekend's International Forum on Globalization in D.C.: Michael
Klare, professor of Peace and World Security Studies at Hampshire
College, author of a number of books, including Blood and Oil: The
Dangers and Consequences of America's Growing Dependency on Imported
Petroleum; and Simon Retallack, head of the climate change team at
the Institute for Public Policy Research in Britain, coauthor of the
new report, "Positive Energy: Harnessing People Power to Prevent
Climate Change."

We're going to turn first to Michael Klare. President Bush spoke last
night, addressed the nation, talked about why we continue the war in
Iraq. Can you talk about the connections between war and oil or, as
you put it, the title your book, Blood and Oil.

MICHAEL KLARE: Well, Amy, good to talk with you. There are really two
wars now underway, I think, in Iraq, maybe more than two. There's the
US effort to retain, as what President Bush said last night, an
enduring presence in Iraq. And I believe that's connected to our,
that is America's, long-lasting geopolitical imperative of being the
dominant power in the Persian Gulf. And, of course, he also refers a
lot to Iran, now the next threat perceived on the horizon to American
dominance. So one part of the war in Iraq, I believe, have always
believed, is part of this long-standing US effort to dominate the
region geopolitically and control the oil spigot from the Gulf, where
two-thirds of the world's oil is located.

But there's a second war underway, and that's a war for the control
of Iraq's oil wealth. And that's a war that is pitting Kurds against
the Arabs of the country and Shiites against Sunnis, and Shiite
against Shiite, because eventually the Americans are going to leave,
and the people of Iraq know this, and they are now fighting amongst
themselves for who's going to control that territory. And I believe a
lot of the violence in Iraq today is really about that struggle for
control of Iraq's oil wealth. And American soldiers are caught in the
middle of this.

And I think, frankly, that American military leaders have come to
understand that the prospect of an Iraq, of a national Iraq, has been
lost. That war has been lost. What's left is the fighting over the
remains, the carcass of Iraq.

JUAN GONZALEZ: Michael, on the issue of Iran, especially with all the
saber rattling, and even among many of the Democratic candidates for
president you find some of the same saber rattling toward Iran. Iran
is a huge nation. It is not only oil rich, but considerably
developed, with a huge population. What kind of -- your analysis of
the sense among military people about even talking about any kind of
military action or extension of what's happened in Iraq into Iran?

MICHAEL KLARE: Well, we tend to forget that the US military is not a
monolithic organization. I'm sure if you ask the ground forces, the
Army and the Marine Corps who are baring the brunt of the fighting in
Iraq, they'll say, you know, "Not over my dead body do we want to go
to war with Iran." They are stretched to the limit. They couldn't
take on another single mission anywhere in the world. So they're
saying, "Please don't start any trouble in Iran."

But if you ask the Air Force or the Navy, they feel differently.
They're not overstretched in Iraq. They might feel very differently
about it. They might be looking for missions And I think, in fact,
that the military is divided on this, as is the administration.

It's clear that Condoleezza Rice, I believe, and others of a more
realistic nature, I suppose you'd say, think that attacking Iran
would be a tremendous mistake. But there are clearly ideologues,
neoconservatives, led by the Vice President, who are strongly
committed to attacking Iran. And I fear that they're prevailing in
this debate and that before the administration leaves office that we
will see an attack on Iran.

AMY GOODMAN: I wanted to turn to Simon Retallack, who is just in from
Britain for the International Forum on Globalization conference. What
is "climate porn"?

SIMON RETALLACK: Good question. It's a phrase that authors of a
report that we commissioned in London came up with to describe the
way in which some journalists, some environmentalists and even some
politicians use alarmist language to talk about climate change, in a
way that you might see headlined, certainly in British newspapers,
saying almost "the end is nigh," using biblical terms to describe the
impacts of climate change. It's a phrase that is certainly not used
to undermine the science. It certainly doesn't mean to do that. What
it seeks to do is try to encourage people to think about what sort of
language will be necessary to motivate the public to take action.

If we talk about climate change in a way that makes it appear that
there's nothing we can do anymore about it, that it's too late, that
it's happening, it's going to be devastating on a global scale,
without giving people the option and making the solutions clear to
act, then I think we're going to turn people off. So it's part of
some research and a long-running project that we're engaged with to
try to find ways of simulating climate-friendly behavior amongst the
public.

JUAN GONZALEZ: Simon, in the previous segment, Vandana Shiva talked
about what she called a fallacy of using fixes like trading in
pollution credits in the United States. So you've analyzed what the
EU is doing in terms of this kind of approach. Could you talk about
that?

SIMON RETALLACK: Yes, certainly. I mean, one of the most commonly
adopted solutions in the world for dealing with climate change has
been the support for cap and trade schemes, where there's a cap
placed on emissions and companies get given quotas, and they can
trade them to meet their reductions. The big problem with the
European scheme, and I foresee a problem with potential US-wide
schemes in the future, is that the caps placed on industry have been
far too weak. Governments have over-allocated pollution permits to
industry, which has meant that the cost of a ton of carbon on the
European markets is far too low, and it isn't delivering the step
change in investments that we need to see in renewable energy and
energy efficiency to do our bit to avoid dangerous climate change.

We're at a critical point, not just in the EU, about here in the US
now, where finally, with a Democratically controlled Congress, we're
going to see this full attempt to pass a cap and trade bill through
Congress. We've got to make sure, and anyone who's listening to this
and watching this needs to do their part to ensure, that the right
caps are put in place. At the moment, most of the bills before
Congress only envisage far too little emission reductions by 2050. We
need to see at least 80% cuts in emissions, at least, by 2050, with
early action being critically important, too, if we're to avoid the
most dangerous impacts from climate change. And we need to put
pressure on our representatives and senators in the US to ensure that
adequate action is taken at this critically important point.

AMY GOODMAN: I wanted to go back to Michael Klare and ask you a
question about the research in global climate change. I was just at
Stanford University. They have the GCEP program, that is Global
Climate Environment Program, that got something like $225 million
from ExxonMobil, General Electric, Shlumberger and Toyota. You have
University of California, Berkeley, got something like half-a-billion
dollars from BP. They call it "Beyond Petroleum" now, British
Petroleum. How is this corporate control of academia or funding of
academia affecting the research? Are you concerned about this?

MICHAEL KLARE: Well, I think everybody should be concerned. What I
think is going on is that the oil companies themselves have realized
what we'll be talking about tonight, which is that we're coming to
the end of conventional petroleum -- that is, liquid petroleum, the
stuff that you stick a drill in the ground, and it comes gushing out.
The days of easy-to-find liquid petroleum are over.

And the oil companies understand this, even if their propaganda says
otherwise. And they want to control whatever is going to replace it,
whatever new liquid fuels come online. So they want to invest
billions of dollars into the research, into whatever new fuels are
going take the place of conventional petroleum, whether it's biofuels
or synthetic liquids from tar sands or shell oil or whatever the next
fuels will be, so that their companies can dominate the production
and the marketing and the retailing of these liquids and retain the
monopoly on our energy, as they have now.

So, of course, we should be very deeply worried about it, because it
could foreclose other solutions that probably would be healthier for
all of us, in the sense that David Korten was speaking about earlier,
of a more egalitarian, a more healthy form of energy system.

AMY GOODMAN: Michael Klare and Simon Retallack, I want to thank you
for being with us. Both will be speaking this weekend, beginning
tonight, at George Washington University at Lisner Auditorium, part
of the International Forum on Globalization. Michael Klare's latest
book, Blood and Oil: The Dangers and Consequences of America's
Growing Dependency on Imported Petroleum. Simon Retallack is with the
Climate Change Team at the Institute for Public Policy Research in
Britain, just in for this conference. Thanks so much for being there.

 http://www.democracynow.org/article.pl?sid=07/09/14/1422209

"Climate Porn" - Simon Retallack on the Dangers of Using Alarmist
Language to Talk About Climate Change

Listen to Segment || Download Show mp3
Watch 128k stream Watch 256k stream Read Transcript
Help Printer-friendly version Email to a friend
Purchase Video/CD

----------------------------------------------------------------------
----------
We speak with British climate change expert, Simon Retallack about so-
called "climate porn." Retallack says, "It's a phrase that's
certainly not used to undermine the science...But if we talk about
climate change in a way that makes it appear that there's nothing we
can do anymore about it, that it's too late, that it's going to be
devastating on a global scale...I think we're going to turn people
off." [includes rush transcript]

Simon Retallack, head of the Climate Change Team at the Institute for
Public Policy Research in Britain. He is the co-author of the new
report "Positive Energy: Harnessing People Power to Prevent Climate
Change."

----------------------------------------------------------------------
----------
RUSH TRANSCRIPT
This transcript is available free of charge. However, donations help
us provide closed captioning for the deaf and hard of hearing on our
TV broadcast. Thank you for your generous contribution.
Donate - $25, $50, $100, more...

AMY GOODMAN: Last week, tens of thousands of people attended Farm Aid
here in New York City. It's an annual concert to raise support for
family farmers. This is the musician Neil Young, one of the
organizers of Farm Aid.

NEIL YOUNG: Transporting food around the world to other countries and
using all of that fuel and all of that packaging and all of that air-
conditioning fuel and all of those things that need to happen to get,
say, a tomato -- since that's on our mind today, we're coming with a
tomato now -- from Chile to California, it costs a lot of
environmental damage just getting that one tomato up there.

And so, if you look at the world and you figure one of the things
about our big agriculture is that we want to feed the world --
doesn't that sound great? You know? We're going to help everybody.
OK, you know, that's great. But I don't think it's really that way. I
think we ought to feed ourselves, the people that are close to us,
and we ought to let the people around the world feed themselves with
their own crops so that we don't go in there and take their food crop
away and give them a cash crop and then say we're going to give you
food. And that's what we do. We have people growing textile materials
and cotton and things in third world countries, and we do business
with them through China, and we do all of these things with our
economics. And we undermine the sustainability of the countries that
we say we're helping. And then, if these countries don't cooperate
with us, we control their food supply.

AMY GOODMAN: Musician Neil Young at the Farm Aid concert this past
weekend.

As we continue looking at issues of climate change, energy and the
environment, we're joined by two more guest speakers at this
weekend's International Forum on Globalization in D.C.: Michael
Klare, professor of Peace and World Security Studies at Hampshire
College, author of a number of books, including Blood and Oil: The
Dangers and Consequences of America's Growing Dependency on Imported
Petroleum; and Simon Retallack, head of the climate change team at
the Institute for Public Policy Research in Britain, coauthor of the
new report, "Positive Energy: Harnessing People Power to Prevent
Climate Change."

We're going to turn first to Michael Klare. President Bush spoke last
night, addressed the nation, talked about why we continue the war in
Iraq. Can you talk about the connections between war and oil or, as
you put it, the title your book, Blood and Oil.

MICHAEL KLARE: Well, Amy, good to talk with you. There are really two
wars now underway, I think, in Iraq, maybe more than two. There's the
US effort to retain, as what President Bush said last night, an
enduring presence in Iraq. And I believe that's connected to our,
that is America's, long-lasting geopolitical imperative of being the
dominant power in the Persian Gulf. And, of course, he also refers a
lot to Iran, now the next threat perceived on the horizon to American
dominance. So one part of the war in Iraq, I believe, have always
believed, is part of this long-standing US effort to dominate the
region geopolitically and control the oil spigot from the Gulf, where
two-thirds of the world's oil is located.

But there's a second war underway, and that's a war for the control
of Iraq's oil wealth. And that's a war that is pitting Kurds against
the Arabs of the country and Shiites against Sunnis, and Shiite
against Shiite, because eventually the Americans are going to leave,
and the people of Iraq know this, and they are now fighting amongst
themselves for who's going to control that territory. And I believe a
lot of the violence in Iraq today is really about that struggle for
control of Iraq's oil wealth. And American soldiers are caught in the
middle of this.

And I think, frankly, that American military leaders have come to
understand that the prospect of an Iraq, of a national Iraq, has been
lost. That war has been lost. What's left is the fighting over the
remains, the carcass of Iraq.

JUAN GONZALEZ: Michael, on the issue of Iran, especially with all the
saber rattling, and even among many of the Democratic candidates for
president you find some of the same saber rattling toward Iran. Iran
is a huge nation. It is not only oil rich, but considerably
developed, with a huge population. What kind of -- your analysis of
the sense among military people about even talking about any kind of
military action or extension of what's happened in Iraq into Iran?

MICHAEL KLARE: Well, we tend to forget that the US military is not a
monolithic organization. I'm sure if you ask the ground forces, the
Army and the Marine Corps who are baring the brunt of the fighting in
Iraq, they'll say, you know, "Not over my dead body do we want to go
to war with Iran." They are stretched to the limit. They couldn't
take on another single mission anywhere in the world. So they're
saying, "Please don't start any trouble in Iran."

But if you ask the Air Force or the Navy, they feel differently.
They're not overstretched in Iraq. They might feel very differently
about it. They might be looking for missions And I think, in fact,
that the military is divided on this, as is the administration.

It's clear that Condoleezza Rice, I believe, and others of a more
realistic nature, I suppose you'd say, think that attacking Iran
would be a tremendous mistake. But there are clearly ideologues,
neoconservatives, led by the Vice President, who are strongly
committed to attacking Iran. And I fear that they're prevailing in
this debate and that before the administration leaves office that we
will see an attack on Iran.

AMY GOODMAN: I wanted to turn to Simon Retallack, who is just in from
Britain for the International Forum on Globalization conference. What
is "climate porn"?

SIMON RETALLACK: Good question. It's a phrase that authors of a
report that we commissioned in London came up with to describe the
way in which some journalists, some environmentalists and even some
politicians use alarmist language to talk about climate change, in a
way that you might see headlined, certainly in British newspapers,
saying almost "the end is nigh," using biblical terms to describe the
impacts of climate change. It's a phrase that is certainly not used
to undermine the science. It certainly doesn't mean to do that. What
it seeks to do is try to encourage people to think about what sort of
language will be necessary to motivate the public to take action.

If we talk about climate change in a way that makes it appear that
there's nothing we can do anymore about it, that it's too late, that
it's happening, it's going to be devastating on a global scale,
without giving people the option and making the solutions clear to
act, then I think we're going to turn people off. So it's part of
some research and a long-running project that we're engaged with to
try to find ways of simulating climate-friendly behavior amongst the
public.

JUAN GONZALEZ: Simon, in the previous segment, Vandana Shiva talked
about what she called a fallacy of using fixes like trading in
pollution credits in the United States. So you've analyzed what the
EU is doing in terms of this kind of approach. Could you talk about
that?

SIMON RETALLACK: Yes, certainly. I mean, one of the most commonly
adopted solutions in the world for dealing with climate change has
been the support for cap and trade schemes, where there's a cap
placed on emissions and companies get given quotas, and they can
trade them to meet their reductions. The big problem with the
European scheme, and I foresee a problem with potential US-wide
schemes in the future, is that the caps placed on industry have been
far too weak. Governments have over-allocated pollution permits to
industry, which has meant that the cost of a ton of carbon on the
European markets is far too low, and it isn't delivering the step
change in investments that we need to see in renewable energy and
energy efficiency to do our bit to avoid dangerous climate change.

We're at a critical point, not just in the EU, about here in the US
now, where finally, with a Democratically controlled Congress, we're
going to see this full attempt to pass a cap and trade bill through
Congress. We've got to make sure, and anyone who's listening to this
and watching this needs to do their part to ensure, that the right
caps are put in place. At the moment, most of the bills before
Congress only envisage far too little emission reductions by 2050. We
need to see at least 80% cuts in emissions, at least, by 2050, with
early action being critically important, too, if we're to avoid the
most dangerous impacts from climate change. And we need to put
pressure on our representatives and senators in the US to ensure that
adequate action is taken at this critically important point.

AMY GOODMAN: I wanted to go back to Michael Klare and ask you a
question about the research in global climate change. I was just at
Stanford University. They have the GCEP program, that is Global
Climate Environment Program, that got something like $225 million
from ExxonMobil, General Electric, Shlumberger and Toyota. You have
University of California, Berkeley, got something like half-a-billion
dollars from BP. They call it "Beyond Petroleum" now, British
Petroleum. How is this corporate control of academia or funding of
academia affecting the research? Are you concerned about this?

MICHAEL KLARE: Well, I think everybody should be concerned. What I
think is going on is that the oil companies themselves have realized
what we'll be talking about tonight, which is that we're coming to
the end of conventional petroleum -- that is, liquid petroleum, the
stuff that you stick a drill in the ground, and it comes gushing out.
The days of easy-to-find liquid petroleum are over.

And the oil companies understand this, even if their propaganda says
otherwise. And they want to control whatever is going to replace it,
whatever new liquid fuels come online. So they want to invest
billions of dollars into the research, into whatever new fuels are
going take the place of conventional petroleum, whether it's biofuels
or synthetic liquids from tar sands or shell oil or whatever the next
fuels will be, so that their companies can dominate the production
and the marketing and the retailing of these liquids and retain the
monopoly on our energy, as they have now.

So, of course, we should be very deeply worried about it, because it
could foreclose other solutions that probably would be healthier for
all of us, in the sense that David Korten was speaking about earlier,
of a more egalitarian, a more healthy form of energy system.

AMY GOODMAN: Michael Klare and Simon Retallack, I want to thank you
for being with us. Both will be speaking this weekend, beginning
tonight, at George Washington University at Lisner Auditorium, part
of the International Forum on Globalization. Michael Klare's latest
book, Blood and Oil: The Dangers and Consequences of America's
Growing Dependency on Imported Petroleum. Simon Retallack is with the
Climate Change Team at the Institute for Public Policy Research in
Britain, just in for this conference. Thanks so much for being there.

 http://www.democracynow.org/article.pl?sid=07/09/14/1422224

homepage: homepage: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Cascadian_Bioregionalism