Turning their backs on climate science and the consensus of governments and civil society across the globe, the world's biggest banks are dangerously advancing the climate crisis by pumping hundreds of billions of dollars into the world's most polluting fossil fuel industries, according to a new report published Tuesday.
i hear you Matti, but i believe in both / and, not either / or.
i advocate using all the power in your own life and household and community and workplace to slash unneeded energy use and consumption of all kinds, and create ecologically sound lives, communities, work, and enterprise.
And i advocate organized protest, direct action, legal action, and political organizing against the polluters, financiers, and extractivists.
Profits above all else. Money is the only one and true god and goal. Whatever it costs.
Along the direct action line, it might be of interest to check the various people writing under the rubric of permaculture. We're going to need some solidarity, too, though. The money people are not apt to let the cash cow just wander out of their enclosure.
He's an odd man to quote in a political forum, but I am frequently reminded of Ezra Pound's poem about usury, Canto 45:
With usura hath no man a house of good stone
each block cut smooth and well fitting
that design might cover their face
And some of these banks/bankers are the same that were bailed-out by corrupt politicians using trillions of taxpayer dollars - one might say stolen dollars. Politicians have a vested interest in campaign-contribution bribes and perform the way they are expected (and paid) to.
There is a fundamental conflict of interest with big-money (and corrupt media) controlling our electoral processes - the people expect and are taught that elections are fair and above-board - the reality is candidates, elections, media exposure (or none), legislation and regulations (or exceptions like the Halliburton Loophole) are dominated by big-money and the small percentage of people/organizations/corporations that control vast wealth - they become more equal than others - the exception has been the people-powered campaign of Bernie Sanders, but for the ability of wealth and corrupt influence to manipulate elections & results, media to marginalize/ignore/sabotage any candidate they are paid to, and corrupt politicians and parties to act as a monolithic force to support the selected shill candidate and maintain the status-quo and business as usual!
Such is the state of corrupted politics/politicians - IMO - and what they do for big-money, including giving banks/bankers (AKA parasites on society) a free-ride on everything including continued pollution and despoliation of Mother Earth and life on Earth!
I encourage everyone to click on the link in the article ($horting the Climate) and read this excellent report. Thanks again, Common Dreams for featuring this.
Why the hell is the Sierra Club (one of the groups who put forth this report) endorsing Hillary Clinton?
Let’s revisit the list of banks that HRC received huge sums of money from----- which include most of the banks in this scathing report:
And, most of us know, it’s not just banks complicit in the killing of life on the planet.
Prior to Clinton lining her pockets from these destructive entities she, the Dept. of Energy and Obama (and the New York Times) were pushing fracking all over the world:
SundayReview | EDITORIAL
Sending Natural Gas Abroad
Addendum to my comment:
I believe we are out of time (as do some scientists). Do any here really believe we have until 2020 to try to elect someone (in this broken system) who takes this climate crisis seriously and is willing to lead not just with rhetoric but with bold action?
From this site in January:
As Sanders himself has said: "Enough is enough. It's time for a political revolution that takes on the fossil fuel billionaires, accelerates our transition to clean energy, and finally puts people before the profits of polluters."
The article mentions that these banks by making these loans to the fossil fuel industry et al are gambling that governments will not follow through on the Paris agreement on climate.
It should also be noted that by making these loans that these banks are creating more opposition to fighting climate change and creating new lobbying groups and economic pressures on politicians to support continued use of fossil fuels. Build a new coal fired plant and that company will try to influence politicians so as to protect itself and ensure its continued operation in the future.
Maybe it isn't only that the banks are gambling on governments not following through on the climate agreement but more that they are actively opposing it by creating new fossil fuel infrastructure that should not be built when there are proven alternatives available!
Governments must begin to prohibit and/or restrict the addition of new fossil fuel based power plants and instead require that needed energy infrastructure be based on alternatives. What is the need to build a coal fired plant in the sunny southwest except corruption and greed for a few. Governments state/local/national and international governments should legally restrict and limit new fossil fuel investment instead of it being left to the market.
Our gift to are children's children.
Thanks for your post. It is shameful that Sierra Club and other environmentalist groups did not endorse Bernie Sanders.
I agree but would word it differently. The governments hire the banksters and appoint them to influential and powerful positions. Merely a technicality over wording but as we are in an election cycle at present, it brings the reality close to home.
We 'elect' the corrupt politicians who appoint these banksters who contribute the big money to help these politicians keep getting elected so that they can keep appointing the banksters that contribute the big money that keeps...
This is fucked!
Lol ouch, ouch ouch!
Lol. Great line that. Ow!
Many are awake ...many more than before but I am afraid. The right are staging a general push to incorporate (apt word) governments around the world. We face a rigged election and the choice between Wall St Hillary and a f'n fascist billionaire. I am even starting to wonder if Trump is merely playing a role and doesn't even want the hassle of being president but just wants to provide the foil that allows Hillary to be pulled to the right more? In any case if he freaking wins... What would all these fools say then. Sigh!
We are being caught between a rock ( de beers) and a hard place or is it between a hard case and a hard ass?
They went all out to keep Bernie from being elected... All out! Between you and me Carol...that seems a very bad sign. We are unlikely to have another chance for someone like Bernie.
Bernie was an honest man and they went all out against him. Not good. They won't let that happen again... And in a decade climate change unrest will provide the right with the excuses to dismantle democracy for real.
For what it is worth, I do not see Mollison's or Holmgren's concept as intended to exclude or even predict such solutions. You might find Kat Anderson's Tending the Wild of interest as well, or Tao Orion's Beyond the War on Invasive Species, since both relate tangentially to Savory's work, which some of us are hoping to integrate with a response to the forestry crisis out in California.
To broadcast this to everyone, John Liu's films also document a lot of what can happen with broad-acre changes.
After recent revelations about Hillary concerning her knowing at the time that what she was doing was illegal, the question becomes whether or not the FBI is postponing an indictment till it is most advantageous to Hillary. Namely waiting till after the convention to proceed with an indictment.
Certainly had any other candidate been so tainted by illegality and worse a suspicion of further wrongdoing concerning national interests ( revealing privileged or classified information to foreign governments in secret is not a recommendation for employment in sensitive positions in government ) they might escape an indictment (one state dept employee was indicted and pled guilty to escape jail time) and possible suspicion of treason but such a situation would end any chance that they would have of being elected.
That Hillary destroyed documents to hide what she was doing and avoid FOI requests is outrageous. That is an admission of guilt at some level. It was a risky gamble and obviously was only done under extreme necessity. She hid what she had done as Sec of State and it is now becoming a scandal that is involving the FBI and what appears to be favoritism if not outright collaboration with the democratic candidate.
I took one of Geoff Lawton's permaculture design courses with Mark Shepherd a while back, though Mark was already an accomplished pro. I have found his insights useful, and I like his book.
Again, though, I don't know anyone with much experience who would be a purist in that sense, though--to recommend not using useful equipment because it was mechanical or whatever, or to recommend not purchasing food when one has no other access to food. What I mean by industrial agriculture is not just a matter of scale, but of methodology. Permaculture does and must embrace a wide range of methodologies, dependent on circumstance.
I think we agree that we do need diverse sources of production. The point is not to imagine that one can just cease to buy goods from unknown sources, but to work towards putting such things aside, bit by bit, by assembling and learning to operate alternatives. I do not think that this means even an eventual total elimination of broadacre farms, nor even that it is necessarily desirable to do so. I do think that it means working to reduce dependency on them, and working to buy more and more locally. I do that that this in turn means a trend towards a reduction of size in farms, not in each case, but in general, since it means that farmers should eventually serve an almost exclusively local clientele.