Home | About | Donate

Climate Emergency: Global Insurgency


#1

Climate Emergency: Global Insurgency

Jeremy Brecher

(Common Dreams editor's note: The new, updated 2016 edition of Jeremy Brecher’s Climate Insurgency: A Strategy for Survival, from which the following is drawn, can be now be downloaded for free at the author's website here.)


#2

Autonomous democracy tells governments what to do after people decide goals and actions to take.

Democracy is an ancient tool humans use to focus distributed intelligence. Governments claim the peoples tool and make it cold and sterile so that people forget democracy is a human tool.

Government is described by words like republic, kingdom and totalitarian dictatorship.

Democracy is not a form of government. It is a tool used by citizens to direct government..


#3

"An insurgency is a movement that rejects current rulers’ claim to legitimate authority."

This movement sounds like it isn't heading anywhere but to jail. The article is based on gross simplification of the obstacles to addressing climate change. For example, it totally ignores the fact that developing countries have always refused to enter into a legally binding agreement to reduce emissions. It also ignores the political problems involved with job loss associated with ending fossil fuel exploitation. Starting with wrong assumptions about the problems involved in fighting climate change it of course winds up with the wrong solution.


#4

Why isn't Mr. Brecher calling for the nationalization of the fossil fuel industry for national security reasons?


#5

People who care so much about this need to "Get a life" according to Hillary Clinton.

https://wikileaks.org/podesta-emails/emailid/9617

See the attachment for the remark.


#7

Privatizing the costs and socializing the profits is what you're calling for.
Sold.


#9

That fall is now in progress, but only parts of it are being televised.


#10

The environmental crisis is the Big One, but it's not the only one.

"Climate change poses an existential threat to every one of us, to our species, and to all that any of us hold dear," says the author. Who can argue that the collapse of our planetary eco-system is not an existential threat?

We live in a world of neverbefore. There has never before been a global population of over 7 billions. It has never before been possible to fly from the US to Europe in a matter of hours, or to instantly connect in real time with any human being in any part of the world lucky enough to afford a cell phone or a computer. There are so many aspect to our lives that no human culture we know of has ever experienced before. And one of those neverbefores is the capability to destroy ourselves, with what we casually refer to as WMD's.

The threat of nuclear war is a danger of a more immediate nature than "climate change". Russia just recently asked 40 million people to take part in exercises to defend the population against nuclear attack. Russia has asked its nationals to return home, even at the cost of interrupting a school year. Why is this?

Putin says the balance of power no longer prevails as it did in the Cold War days. The US is on a collision course with Russia and it is dragging NATO along with it. The west, led by Washington is encroaching on Russia's defensive perimeter. We are about to elect Hillary Clinton president, a proven war monger who is using cheap propaganda against Russia to distract the public from her malfeasance. Our national news media and internet sites like CD are ignoring the thereat of nuclear war.

The environmental crisis is not the short term threat of nuclear war, which is the number one imminent existential threat to the future of our species, and every other species. To pretend otherwise is a dereliction of one's duty to deal rationally with reality.


#11

"The powers that are responsible for climate change could not rule for a
day without the acquiescence of those whose lives and future they are
destroying. "

The powers that be are US. WE like our cars, our airconditioning, our large-screen TVs, our air travel to a holiday destination of business destination, our ships carrying consumer goods we don't need from China, etc etc etc. Sorry; the truth hurts.

As for Ghandi; he would have been liquidated in Russia.


#12

Unfortunately I think it's already too late to save the human species, sorry. The only possible way would be to dismantle the military, the nuclear reactors, eliminate 80% of the population and stop murdering the planet with agriculture, overfishing, deforestation, etc. These things won't be done until it's too late because that's how humans behave. So in their greed and hubris they'll destroy the Earth on which all known life lives. Oh I almost forgot, stop burning oil for cars, damning rivers for power and burning coal also for power and industry. The agricultural revolution was the one thing that will be on the human epitaph; this is what caused the extinction of humans. Everything else followed agriculture which kills the soil for which all terrestrial life depends. I give the odds at 30% survival and that's if most of these measures are implemented immediately with an increase of 5% every five years of inaction. Yes things really are that bleak, sorry.


#13

Putin's regime is rapidly evolving into a kind of Nationalist Socialist State Russian style. He personally is exhibiting all the traits of a typical paranoid Russian leader whether a Czar or a Soviet-style Dictator. All that's vanished is Marxism as its State theology, replaced with the Russian Orthodox Church. Russia is now like Germany was in the 1930's a bitter failing National Security State armed to the teeth with nukes and yes, feeling it's being backed into a corner by us. It's a new Cold War and once again we are rapidly finding ourselves nose to nose with the Russians. This is not a good thing, as we now know we barely escaped the last Cold War without obliterating ourselves and all life on the planet. Will be as lucky a second time around with even deadlier weapons? Maybe not. Maybe, this nature's way of getting rid of us.


#14

By the way, it's not even necessary to drop the bombs on us to destroy our country and most technocentric societies on the planet. 50 or so small nukes placed strategically around the globe at 100 miles altitude would do the job nicely with the resulting massive EMP bursts taking down the Internet, power generation, transportation, communications and most of our remaining electronics cell ph. and computers. We've built a very fragile brittle infrastructure constructed on top of silicon chips that are easily cooked by such a burst. Within a few weeks, our civilization would grind to a halt, no water, no food, no communications. The only systems and devices that would still work would be shielded military systems and of course all the millions of small arms in the hands of the population. A massive global Civil war would commence for the few remaining supplies of food and water. Gangs and militias would rule in a few hrs. and some militaries. The remaining functioning nuclear strike forces would then be deployed and under present War fighting doctrine probably used. So would end the reign of Homo Sapiens on planet Earth. Who would fill our niche in the evolutionary void created is anybody's guess?


#15

Unless an insurgency had goals and direction, it is unlikely to sow anything other than chaos. It would need to be organized, in communication with all locales, and with agreed upon demands to make. Some sort of a government in exile ready to assume responsibility would help.

But no one has a plan, not even a semblance of one, or any real ides what to do,


#16

I don't agree with your assessment of Putin and without some evidence, it is little more than ad hominem abuse that is right in line with the Clinton-neocon New American Century bullshit. Clinton is one sleazy critter to try to set up Putin in order to hide her own malfeasance. Seems to me Putin has demonstrated on numerous occasions his flexibility and willingness to compromise with the US in a multi-polar world. Washington behaves like a global bully and fascist oligarchy.

The US should not be in the business of regime change. That is what the anti-Russia propaganda is all about, making the world safe for the imperial hegemon. It is a stupid and self-destructive policy. US leadership is just plain nuts. Nobody wins a nuclear confrontation. There may be "mini nukes" out there that the Pentagon is itching to use, but the concept of limited nuclear war only appeals to the mentally disabled.


#17

You have it right, It is an utterly mad idea to walk away from talks on nuclear arms reduction, which that idiot Bush did. Putin complains that there is no balance of power, the good old MAD doctrine of the Cold War. That is why nuclear war is a clear and present danger as the US and NATO encroach on Russia's defensive perimeter. One has to wonder about the latest executive order issued by Obama on 10/13 regarding the threat of "space weather", specifically outburst from the sun that can disable our electrical grid. This is an odd time to be so concerned about CME's when the sun is especially quiescent and weeks go by without sunspots. The EMP threat is what he's really talking about. But we are not being prepared by our government for nuclear attack. No "duck and cover", no shelters for average Americns. Putin is not so callous regarding his own people. Maybe that accounts for his 80%+ approval rating.


#18

Can I post your comment on facebook?.... This is really good teaching stuff...


#19

Your wrong. I've had friends and family that have recently been to Russia. My daughter was there last summer for a month on an educational visit. She came back worried and two close friends of mine were there as well this year. They Independent of each came back and told me the place is slipping backwards into something ugly and very worrisome. One said, that he believes Putin is trying to follow the Chinese model now and reestablish a one party State without Marxism. So, please don't accuse me of being some Neo-Con warmongering shill. I'm very much against any kind of War against even a Fascist Russia. I lived through the last Cold War and do not desire to return to that situation in the worst way. I have grown children who I worry won't have a full life because of all of these scary fools on both sides. However, I have no illusions about Russia. I'm a student of Eastern European history with a Masters in History from UC Calif Irvine. My area of study was Russian history. My family is largely of Russian extraction. I want peace I fear for us all if it's lost.


#20

Prepare for Nuclear war? Putin is an idiot if he thinks such a thing is possible. His so called War prep is just so much psychological game playing and political maneuvering. As for the 80 % approval rating Soon my guess is it will be 99.9% and the 5 yr. plan will be wonderful and all Russians will be expressing their love and admiration for President Putin etc etc zzzzzx. Yes, sadly both countries are slowly becoming very similar. If Herr tRumpf were elected our rapid descent into a Russian style regime would be put into fast forward. Under HRC it's going to be status quo. I'm not thrilled about, but HRC and her husband have no desire for nuclear war. Now could things slide there because of mistakes miscalculations and just plain stupidity all in ample supply with both sides. Absolutely. I give us a 50% chance of making through the next 50 yrs. without somebody nuking somebody else. Will it likely be a US NATO vs. Russia war I doubt it. More likely would be North Korea nukes So. Korea and we nuke the North. Nobody is going to come to North Koreas aid. Or Pakistan vs. India over Kashmir. That would be really ugly but regional. Then there is always the remote possibility of Israel vs. the Muslim States or significant ones like Iran. Again, brutal nasty but regional. A Russia vs. NATO / USA destroys the planet. Game over.


#21

Please do. I am an elder life-long student honored that someone noticed my effort to understand and articulate what I think I have learned.


#22

Apologies to you! Few people have informed insight into Russian politics and too many parrot the party line from Washington. But I don't think it matters what Russia's internal situation may be. On the international stage Putin performs like a seasoned statesman, with restraint, with an extended hand of cooperation. Obama,leader of the exceptional nation, has no business deciding what regime should exist. This self-righteous imperial quest for hegemony has created chaos and suffering in the ME, undermined political development in SA, and now threatens Russia, a fatal miscalculation. It may kill us all in the end, while CD puts all its journalistic energy into "climate change". Americans are encouraged to keep their heads in the sand and focus attention on issues we can't do much about.