Why Green New Deal Advocates Must Address Militarism

(Photo: Sunrise Movement / @SunriseMvmt)

Where is the call for the New Peace Deal that would free up hundreds of billions from the overblown military budget to invest in green infrastructure?

In the spirit of a new year and a new Congress, 2019 may well be our best and last opportunity to steer our ship of state away from the twin planetary perils of environmental chaos and militarism, charting a course towards an earth-affirming 21st century.

The environmental crisis was laid bare by the sobering December report of the UN Climate panel: If the world fails to mobilize within the next 12 years on the level of a moon shot, and gear up to change our energy usage from toxic fossil, nuclear and industrial biomass fuels to the already known solutions for employing solar, wind, hydro, geothermal energy and efficiency, we will destroy all life on earth as we know it. The existential question is whether our elected officials, with the reins of power, are going to sit by helplessly as our planet experiences more devastating fires, floods, droughts, and rising seas or will they seize this moment and take monumental action as we did when the United States abolished slavery, gave women the vote, ended the great depression, and eliminated legal segregation.

Some members of Congress are already showing their historic mettle by supporting a Green New Deal. This would not only start to reverse the damage we have inflicted on our collective home, but it would create hundreds of thousands of good jobs that cannot be shipped overseas to low wage countries…

more: Why Green New Deal Advocates Must Address Militarism

Economics is a form of brain damage

original post on Facebook

David Suzuki on Economics

Geneticist and climate activist David Suzuki explains how conventional economics a form of brain damage in this clip from the 2011 documentary "Surviving Progress." (available on Netflix)

Ecological bankruptcy | Greenpeace International

There may not be a single large-scale industry or multi-national corporation on Earth that is genuinely profitable if they had to account for their ecological impact. A recent UN-supported report shows that the world's 3,000 largest publicly-traded companies alone caused US$2.15 trillion (€2 trillion) of environmental damage in 2008, that the total cost is much higher, and that companies and communities downstream in the global supply chain are at risk from the environmental impacts.

For centuries, businesses have cheated on this accounting by calling ecological impacts "externalities," presumably not effecting the business. Thus, air and water pollution, toxins in the environment, or eradicated species were deemed "external" and not worth accounting for.

We now know that these ecological costs are not "external," and that if businesses were obliged to account for ecological liabilities, almost no business on Earth would be profitable without dramatically raising prices for consumers...

more: Ecological bankruptcy | Greenpeace International

Feds Rely On Industry-Funded Study To Push For More Offshore Oil Exploitation | DeSmogBlog

...what they say in public rarely matches what takes place behind closed doors.

Less than one day after President Obama tweeted out that message on climate change, David Sirota and Ned Resnikoff from the International Business Times aimed a spotlight at the Obama administration’s hypocrisy in an investigative piece that exposed again the fossil fuel industry's influence over our government. Prior to that, the Public Accountability Initiative had revealed the massive influence that the industry had over the government's assessment of the economic impacts of offshore drilling.

According to the IB Times report, the Bureau of Ocean Energy Management’s recent analysis of the economic benefits of increased offshore drilling in the Gulf of Mexico and on the Pacific Coast near Alaska was funded partly by the fossil fuel industry. The analysis is currently being used by the administration to sell the project to the American public...

more: Feds Rely On Industry-Funded Study To Push For More Offshore Oil Exploitation | DeSmogBlog

▶ The Entire World Needs To Hear This | Woody Harrelson

The Entire World Needs To Hear This - YouTube

Published on May 1, 2016 by Awareness Act

A Lesson to the World by Woody Harrelson

#RE_TOOL :: Tackling Climate Change Is a Profitable Opportunity, Rather Than an Expensive Problem

TOMASSEREDA VIA GETTY IMAGES

We hear forceful declarations from stakeholders in the debate that climate change is a huge and expensive problem and that we have to act for the sake of future generations. How in the world can you motivate people by asking them to pay to solve a huge problem with no immediate benefit? Rather than hearing about expensive problems, people are looking to be inspired by solutions that provide an immediate economic reward. And this is exactly what fighting climate change can offer today if we accept to modify our understanding of the situation.

READ: Tackling Climate Change Is a Profitable Opportunity, Rather Than an Expensive Problem

Trans-Pacific Partnership | The Sierra Club is deeply concerned about the lack of transparency around the TPP and the deal's environmental implications.

The United States recently struck an expansive free trade agreement, the Trans-Pacific Partnership (TPP), with Australia, Brunei, Canada, Chile, Japan, Malaysia, Mexico, New Zealand, Peru, Singapore, and Vietnam. Eventually, every Pacific Rim nation may be included.

The Sierra Club is deeply concerned about the lack of transparency around the TPP and the deal's environmental implications. Here's why:

• Extreme Secrecy. The TPP negotiations took place in extreme secrecy. Still no drafts of TPP texts have been released. And public input has been drowned out by dominant corporate input; more than 600 corporate advisors have actively worked to shape the agreement while the public is being kept in the dark. 

• Threat to Forests, Wildlife, and Fish. While the TPP environment chapter should set strong and binding rules to address conservation challenges like illegal timber and wildlife trade, its rules will likely be too weak to have an impact on the ground and are unlikely to be enforced, rendering the chapter essentially meaningless. Read more here.

• Unfettered Rights to Corporations. The TPP will include provisions that give corporations the right to sue a government for unlimited cash compensation -- in private and non-transparent tribunals -- over nearly any law or policy that a corporation alleges will reduce its profits. Using similar rules in other free trade agreements, corporations such as Exxon Mobil and Dow Chemical have launched over 600 cases against more than 100 governments. Dozens of cases attack common-sense environmental laws and regulations, such as regulations to protect communities and the environment from harmful chemicals or mining practices. Read more here about how harmful investment rules included in other trade pacts have led to the attack of climate and environmental policies.

• Increase in Dirty Fracking. The TPP may allow for significantly increased exports of liquefied natural gas without the careful study or adequate protections necessary to safeguard the American public. This would mean an increase of hydraulic fracturing, or fracking, the dirty and violent process that dislodges gas deposits from shale rock formations. It would also likely cause an increase in natural gas and electricity prices, impacting consumers, manufacturers, workers, and increasing the use of dirty coal power. Read our factsheet on the TPP and natural gas exports here!

Learn more...

Trans-Pacific Partnership | Sierra Club

Investing in the Climate Revolution — Natural Resources Defense Council — Medium

Investing in the Climate Revolution

A new publicly traded index fund will be the first to invest only in S&P 500 companies that don’t own fossil-fuel reserves.

With the opening of the Paris climate talks this week, President Obama joined leaders from 150 other nations to affirm an historic global pivot. The world is moving away from the dirty fossil fuels that drive climate change and toward the cleaner, smarter energy options that can power our future without threatening our kids...

Investing in the Climate Revolution — Natural Resources Defense Council — Medium

https://medium.com/natural-resources-defense-council




http://www.nrdc.org

Socialism or barbarism? | Green Left Weekly

 (Ian Angus | Green Left Weekly | August 2, 2008) –

From the first day it appeared online, the masthead of the Climate and Capitalism blog has carried the slogan "Ecosocialism or Barbarism: there is no third way".

We've been quite clear that eco-socialism is not a new theory or brand of socialism — it is socialism with Marx's important insights on ecology restored, socialism committed to the fight against ecological destruction.

But why do we say that the alternative to ecosocialism is barbarism?

Marxists have used the word "barbarism" in various ways, but most often to describe actions or social conditions that are grossly inhumane, brutal, and violent. It is not a word used lightly, because it implies not just bad behaviour but violations of the most important norms of human solidarity and civilised life...

more: Socialism or barbarism? | Green Left Weekly

Chris Hedges Interviews Kevin Zeese On The TPP | PopularResistance.Org

The Greatest Corporate Power Grab In US History

CHRIS HEDGES, HOST, DAYS OF REVOLT: Hi. I’m Chris Hedges. Welcome to Days of Revolt.
Today we’re going to be discussing trade agreements such as the TPP, which Ralph Nader calls “the most brazen corporate power grab in American history”. We’ll be talking with attorney Kevin Zeese, a former Green Party candidate in Maryland for the Senate, and one of the leaders of Popular Resistance.
Welcome, Kevin.
ZEESE: Thanks for having me on...

more: Chris Hedges Interviews Kevin Zeese On The TPP | PopularResistance.Org

Sweden To Become The World’s First Fossil Fuel-Free Nation In History | Collective-Evolution

The Swedish government recently announced that their aim is to become one of the world’s first nations to end its dependence on fossil fuels. They will be investing an extra 4.5 billion kronor (US$546 million) into renewable energy and climate change action in their 2016 budget.

Not long ago, UBS, the world’s largest private bank, began urging its investors to join the clean, renewable energy movement. Their analysts are predicting that power plants in Europe might become completely extinct within the next 10 to 20 years, and it seems they are correct. The dream of a ‘nuclear free’ Europe might become a reality sooner than expected, which explains why trillions of dollars are being divested...

more: Sweden To Become The World’s First Fossil Fuel-Free Nation In History | Collective-Evolution

In U.N. Speech, Pope Francis Blasts "Selfish and Boundless Thirst for Power and Material Prosperity" | Democracy Now!

In U.N. Speech, Pope Francis Blasts "Selfish and Boundless Thirst for Power and Material Prosperity"

– Speaking at the United Nations today, Pope Francis called on world leaders to protect the Earth. He said, "In effect, a selfish and boundless thirst for power and material prosperity leads both to the misuse of available natural resources and to the exclusion of the weak and disadvantaged ... The poorest are those who suffer most from such offenses, for three serious reasons: They are cast off by society, forced to live off what is discarded and suffer unjustly from the abuse of the environment. They are part of today’s widespread and quietly growing 'culture of waste.'"

more / full transcript:
In U.N. Speech, Pope Francis Blasts "Selfish and Boundless Thirst for Power and Material Prosperity" | Democracy Now!

see also:
Pope Francis demands UN respect rights of environment over 'thirst for power' | World news | The Guardian

Why Owning Your Own Power Plant Might Not Be Crazy | Rocky Mountain Institute

It’s been three months since we released The Economics of Grid Defection exploring when off-grid solar-plus-battery systems could reach economic parity with retail electric service.  These systems could become competitive with retail electric service within the next decade for many commercial customers and for many residential customers in the decade thereafter. Since the release of our results, the industry has been abuzz with follow-on commentary considering the implications for utilities, consumers, and third-party service providers.

Of course, favorable economics do not equate to adoption. Just because customers could defect doesn’t mean they will. For the individual customers actually considering these investments many other factors come into play, such as performance risk, hassle/convenience factor, and simply the plain, easy inertia of continuing to get their power as they always have.

Even so, it’s not that far-fetched to imagine a day when large segments of customers choose to go mostly or even entirely off-grid with clean, quiet, distributed solar-plus-battery systems. In fact, could owning your own power plant become as convenient and practical—if not quite as ubiquitous—as the consumer appliances and electronics already so commonplace that we take them for granted in our daily lives—a refrigerator, a clothes dryer, or a computer?

more >> Why Owning Your Own Power Plant Might Not Be Crazy | Rocky Mountain Institute

what next: #RE_TOOL NOW

Billionaires' fortunes hinder fight against poverty, says Oxfam

The vast fortunes made by the world's richest 100 billionaires is driving up inequality and hindering the world's ability to tackle poverty, according to Oxfam.

The charity said the accumulation of wealth and income on an unprecedented scale, often at the expense of secure jobs and decent wages for the poorest, undermined the ability of people who survive on aid or low wages to improve their situation and escape poverty.

Oxfam said the world's poorest could be lifted out of poverty several times over should the richest 100 billionaires give away the money they made last year.

Without pointing a finger at individuals, the charity argued that the $240bn (£150bn) net income amassed in 2012 by the richest 100 billionaires would be enough to make extreme poverty history four times over.

more: Billionaires' fortunes hinder fight against poverty, says Oxfam | Society | guardian.co.uk

 i would add to this: in doing so they are not only ripping off the human population, but also the ecosphere and thus destroying the planet in the process through extraction, slavery, and psychopathy