Originally published at http://www.commondreams.org/views/2019/09/04/g7-was-joke-three-degrees-warming-isnt
"We need a positive vision of internationalism that acts as a countervailing power against ethno-nationalist demagoguery, shunting us on an alternative path - before it’s too late."
- Laurie Laybourn-Langton
Here here ! (Best of luck - I like DiEM 25 - Varoufakis)
Was interesting until the feminazi remark about “men” being responsible for climate disruption. Elite females have pillaged the earth for millenia just like their sons and husbands and fathers. Billionaire females give billions to the republican party and are 45% of rep voters. Climate disruption is largely the haves plundering the have nots; it’s fundamentally classist, not sexist.
On August 29 openDemocracy published an article by Rufus Jordana, a campaigner in the climate justice movement, titled “False hopes for a Green New Deal”. In a clear and concise analysis, Jordana walks the reader through six major pitfalls of the Green New Deal: 1/ It promises everything, but a close look under the hood reveals its failure to confront the political and economic realities leading to climate breakdown; 2/ It answers capitalism’s dilemma – keep economy afloat AND address climate breakdown – by refusing to acknowledge the problem; 3/ It promises the BIG LIE of economic growth – to separate economic growth from growth in material and energy use; 4/ It ignores the limits of renewal energy by expecting them to replace fossil fuels in a capitalist system; 5/ “Greening” the economies of the Global North would require high inputs of earth minerals from the Global South, leaving GND’s climate justice rhetoric in tatters; and 6/ It fails to recognize that the climate crisis will not be solved by relying on the institutions that created it.
In sharp contrast to Jordana’s scathing critique of the Green New Deal, Laybourn-Langton calls for “a new internationalism of renewal and justice of a scale commensurate with the threat of environmental breakdown.” And the driving force for this new internationalism? – “A Green New Deal for Europe provides the next step on a new path, the first steps of which have been mapped by movements across the world who call for a Green New Deal.”
Absent further details of Laybourn-Langton’s – “first steps of which have been mapped by movements across the world who call for a Green New Deal,” followed next by a GND for Europe,” – if Jordana’s GND critique is on the mark – and I think it is – will Laybourn-Langton’s proposed approach by drawing on the work of other Green New Dealers’ not simply compound Jordana’s six major pitfalls?
This is where it’s lucky I have Victorian reading experience: I’m especially skilled at untangling these things with “not” in a complicating location… Yes, it will – er, or I mean No, it will not. Definitely, unless I’m just joking around. Not.
Sorry, I couldn’t help having fun with my own stupidity, which I shouldn’t do because I also have a serious response to your thoughtful post. From where I sit, I’m not seeing any too vociferous a bond of solidary between the GND-style of green and the antiwar, or anti- any other form of imperial domination. Warren has a plan for a green bomber (I swear that’s not a joke).
It makes no sense: green bombers to take over Venezuela to steal their oil to keep on burning, but the making no sense doesn’t seem to matter. By and large, we go on stroking our consciences with incomplete intentions weakly waved at in something sweet like a benefit concert for the Bahamas.