There is no way to listen to the science and to support capitalism if you want to avoid ecological collapse. People that acknowledge that science but don’t have policies that the scientists say we need are in some ways worse than the people that deny the science, because they explicitly acknowledge what needs to be done and don’t support policies that will get us there. The cognitive dissonance with the neoliberals is a massive problem.
It is good to see at least this much starting in earlier than it did for Obama.
Of course Biden is “listening to” a coterie of funders, not the population and not mass media. He does not see the fate of the world or the union as a mandate that he has been handed because it isn’t.
Let us turn as quickly to what we do when Biden refuses to respond to ecological disaster, when he tries to usurp efforts to do so, when he steps up the war machine, when he renews the semi-secret push for odious globalist TPP nonsense.
It’s not like the monsters will waste time before sitting down to dinner.
There is article after article from progressives urging Biden to do this or that… to deal aggressively / as needed to roll back climate change, to pick progressives for a cabinet, to end the influence of donors, to end the permanent state of war and invest in peace, to treat immigrants humanely, to protect civil rights, to stop the persecution of Assange and other whistle blowers, etc. etc. etc.
It’s all quite well-meaning and I’d certainly be happier if he did even half of what is necessary. Yet in my view, all these written exhortations and petitions and everything else are sadly, likely to be dismissed out of hand.
For one thing, there is nothing in the man’s political history to suggest he’s interested in any of it. For another, and probably more importantly, he knows who butters his bread and he will deliver - and he will obstruct any changes that would inconvenience them.
That’s the American system, my friends. It was never more apparent than in the run-up to the election, and expectations should be tempered with that understanding. Money is influence. Public opinion matters not… and it too, will be shaped by concentrated money in any case.
There is only one way out of this. It is through mass mobilizations. But it must move beyond mere letters, petitions, demonstrations and marches; and the people must be willing to commit to a long-term effort and to sacrifices of comfort, “security”, and more. We must use our only remaining collective power; that of our influence over the economy. Whether through labor actions, tax protest, well-targeted boycott, or a number of other actions to bring public pressure to bear on those who hold the seats of power - we must be willing to do what it takes within peaceful limits.
For those who are satisfied merely with the removal of Trump and think now we can make some ‘progress’ on the multiple existential threats merely through future elections, I’m here to say that it isn’t going to be enough to ensure a habitable, much less fair / humane civilization in the coming years. If you’re going to merely sit back, then I advise buckling your seat belts because it’s going to be a very rough and unpleasant ride.
The coronavirus pandemic is being solved (in sane countries) by constant cycles of research and development, in statistics, in medicine and in engineering. We need this can-do philosophy in climate. We don’t have it, not one bit.
The #1 problem is going to be the Arctic Meltdown. See no climate, hear no climate, speak no climate.
Jeff Cohen, we need your awakening here.
‘networks rarely feature blunt-talking climate scientists’ -from article
not very long ago, i think it might have been on pbs’ newshour, there was featured a speaker on climate change whose language was indeed blunt. but her facial expression was totally mismatched to her words, as she smiled rather idiotically as she spoke. this made me wonder if the ‘journalists’ at pbs (not to mention their far worse counterparts on commercial networks and cable tv) go out of their way to find sheeple to appear before camera to provide the blunt truth in such an inappropriate manner as to negate it.
having looked into a few ‘conspiracy theories’ which have far more factual backing than establishment backed ‘official narratives’, and having learned a bit about the extent to which big corporate media is infiltrated and controlled by establishment outfits intent on maintaining the status quo, like the CIA, (operation mockingbird is a good place to start to read about this), i rather expect that network executives do indeed go out of their way to ensure that anyone speaking blunt truth on topics such as manmade climate change won’t be taken very seriously. how something is said can be more important sometimes than the meaning of the words.
i doubt very much that any president will ever be allowed to take the appropriate (i.e. radical) measures that the climate crisis calls for, even if one should ever be willing to do so. for the establishment, or if u will, the deep state, is ruthless, cunning, murderous, and deceitful. it will not hesitate to assassinate or otherwise neutralize any elected official who fails to do it’s bidding, which, of course, is maintaining the status quo, or promoting (big) business (as usual).