Mumia Abu-Jamal on climate change

http://www.zcommunications.org/the-limits-of-our-politics-by-mumia-abu-jamal

As millions come to grips with the claimed agreements emerging from the Copenhagen Conference on Climate Change, it's impossible to resist the suspicion that politics can provide no solution to the serious environmental and ecological problems facing the earth.
Despite the absurdity of shout shows which daily disparage global warming, it is a fact that sea ice in the Arctic is melting, as are Antarctica and Greenland ice sheets.  This, coupled with melting glacial  ice in places like the Himalayas, spells climate change that threatens disaster for millions of people in the region of Bangladesh, and the Indian state of West Bengal.

It means both flooding and drought, increased heat, more disease and the destruction of human habitat.

Politicians, speaking for their nation states, pledge a lessening of carbon emissions by 2020, thereby ignoring the view of many scientists that if all such emissions ceased today, the deleterious effects would be devastating.

Eleven years from now, very few of the politicians making today's agreement will be in office. As Bush showed, it's relatively easy to abrogate a treaty obligation -- just ignore it.

Politicians are overwhelmingly the hirelings of the corporate class; they often do their bidding, as it is usually them -- and only them -- who can afford them!

When the Tuvalu Islands, low lying atolls in the South west Pacific, go underwater; when rivers burst their banks  in Bangladesh; when drought threatens millions in India and Africa, will we look back at Copenhagen and think, 'well done?'

I think not.


[Source: Foster, John Bellamy, "The Vulnerable Planet Fifteen Years Later, " Monthly Review {vol. 61:no. 7}, (Dec. 2009), pp.17-19.]

Mumia on the Massacre in Marikina

Dying For A Raise

9/3/12

'Dying For A Raise' by Mumia Abu-Jamal

Recorded 9-2-12

DYING FOR A RAISE

[col. writ. 8/31/12] © ’12 Mumia Abu-Jamal

The Massacre in Marikina, South Africa, of striking mine workers has caused dismay and disbelief the world over.

Thirty four miners were slaughtered, and 78 others wounded by a hail of police gunfire.

How could this be in today’s South Africa?

How could this happen in a post- apartheid South Africa?

How could this happen in a predominantly Black government, led by the African National Congress (ANC)?

The spectacle tells the tale: black police, clad in blue overall uniforms, were called by the Lonmin Mine Co. officials, to stand against Black miners holding a wildcat strike demanding better wages and improved working conditions.

Miners at Lonmin Platinum are paid on average R4, 000 (=$480 U.S.), and were demanding a raise to R12, 500 (=$1,500) per month.  These strikers, several thousand rock-drill operators, were trying to live and raise families on $120 –per week!

When they refused police orders to disperse from a nearby hill, the cops attacked them with automatic weapons fire.

Who do you think they worked for: their people – or the mine operators and owners?

Whom did they serve and protect?

In Marikana, in South Africa’s North West Province, lies a mine boasting one of the world’s richest veins of platinum.  Indeed, South Africa is home to some 80% of the world supply of platinum, one of the world’s most precious and strategic metals.

And striking miners are dying for a pittance, while owners and investors are making billions!

The cops of capitalism serve those who can afford their services.

Period.

Marikana, North West Province, South Africa joins Sharpville for police and state massacres of Africans.

Just as Sharpeville sparked resistance, let Marikana now do the same!

--© ’12 maj

Peter Tatchell 'Nick Griffin and BNP smear critics'

(reposting Peter Tatchell's article)   False allegations re child sex abuse   Griffin tweets menace & intimidate gay couple   Free speech does not include the right to menace   Huffington Post - London - 19 October 2012 http://goo.gl/ukESR   Peter Tatchell, Director of the Peter Tatchell Foundation, writes about the human rights issues concerning the Nick Griffin tweet scandal:   The far right British National Party (BNP) has been badly stung by criticisms of its leader, Nick Griffin, following his seemingly menacing tweets about the B&B gay couple who won an anti-discrimination case: http://goo.gl/wEhVZ   It’s particularly enraged by my call - and that of others - for Griffin to be prosecuted.   Faced with widespread public outrage, the BNP is desperately trying to divert attention, and take the heat off Griffin, by launching a smear campaign against its main public critics, Liberty and myself.   On twitter, Griffin has today falsely suggested that both of us have supported child sex abuse and endorsed the Paedophile Information Exchange (PIE). We don’t - and never have:   https://twitter.com/nickgriffinmep   In bid to discredit me and undermine my criticism of Griffin, the BNP website has gone even further; explicitly denouncing me as “paedophile apologist....who wants to legalise the paedophile abuse of children by abolishing the age of consent laws:” http://goo.gl/hvZVY   None of this is true. I have always condemned adults having sex with children and campaigned to empower young people to resist and report sex abusers. I’ve never argued or campaigned for the abolition of the consent laws.   The BNP website has also published a doctored image of me holding a fake Paedophile Information Exchange placard. It looks very much like a photo-shopped version of a placard I once made that denounced Griffin and the BNP as homophobes and neo-Nazis:  http://goo.gl/xVtLw   I guess I should be enraged by such lies and gutter tactics. But I’m not. No one takes Griffin and the BNP seriously these days. They are sad, pathetic, desperate losers; clutching at straws to deflect attention away from their sinking reputations, declining electoral fortunes and violent in-fighting. The bigger and more outrageous their fabrications, the stronger the evidence of their lack of arguments, credibility and moral authority.   The slurs against me are actually a back-handed compliment; proof that the BNP takes me seriously and has been damaged by my criticisms - now and in years gone by. They want revenge.   The BNP first started the paedophile smear campaign against me in 2010, shortly after I ambushed Griffin; interrupting his Westminster press conference and exposing the BNP’s long history of racism, homophobia, anti-Semitism and bigotry against Muslims: http://bit.ly/aGjptA   But the bid to defame me has got no traction. Everyone knows that as a human rights campaigner I’d never endorse child sex abuse - or any abuse of any one for any reason. All that these far right smear tactics have done is show up the BNP as a vicious, unprincipled neo-fascist rump.   This latest saga began yesterday afternoon, when Griffin, who is a Member of the European Parliament, tweeted: https://twitter.com/nickgriffinmep   "So Messrs Black & Morgan, [address given] A British Justice Team will come up to [address given] and give you a..."   "...bit of drama by way of reminding you that an English couple's home is their castle. Say No to heterophobia!"   Griffin claims people like me are objecting to his tweet on the grounds that it is “offensive”. Wrong. More than offensive, it’s sinister.   If his tweet had been posted by the leader of the Women’s Institute most of us would be surprised but not fearful. Coming from the leader of the BNP gives this tweet an altogether more scary, alarming character. BNP members have been convicted of incitements, harassment and violence. In this context, many people read Griffin’s tweet as menacing.   I know from first-hand experience. In the past, BNP supporters have sent me similar messages, which were later followed up with actual physical attacks on me and my flat.   Griffin’s warning to the gay couple that they will visited at their home by a “British Justice Team” and be given a “bit of drama” could be construed as implying the dispensation of justice; that the gay couple will be given the justice they deserve by the BNP’s enforcers.     In response to criticism of Griffin’s tweet, BNP supporters are whingeing that he is being denied free speech. I’m the first to defend freedom of speech, even the free speech of people with whom I profoundly disagree. However, Griffin’s tweet is not a simple free speech issue. He seems to have crossed the line from free speech into the realm of menace, threat and intimidation.   It is an abuse of freedom of speech to use or suggest menace. This closes down debate. It makes people who feel menaced afraid to speak and participate. They are intimidated into silence, for fear of the possible consequences.   Free speech should normally only be criminalised in two circumstances. First, in the instance of damaging untruths, which harm a person’s reputation or put people in physical danger, such as false allegations of tax fraud or child sex abuse. Second, in the case of threats, harassment, intimidation or incitement to violence.   In my opinion, there is sufficient evidence to prosecute Nick Griffin for a menacing tweet that is likely to cause alarm, distress and fear. Arrest him.   For further information:   Peter Tatchell, Director, Peter Tatchell Foundation 0207 403 1790 Email: Peter@PeterTatchellFoundation.org Web: www.PeterTatchellFoundation.org

To tackle both austerity and climate change we need to create an alternative economic logic.

Money needs to be used to fund alternatives to extracting oil. Solutions based on bringing a halt to extraction are always condemned as unrealistic, but they're the only way to stop sawing away at that branch.
Business as usual is rapidly becoming impossible. But simply halting extraction could leave all of us in trouble since we're so dependent on fossil fuels.
We need a just transition, with workplace conversion to create alternatives to the polluting industries.
The present approach, doing little or nothing, leaves future generations with an impossible bill to pick up.
The logic is just the same as with the banking crisis. Here too, short-term thinking and a system based on greed led to disaster in 2008, yet the debts created are being forced on the poorest in the form of austerity cuts.
Do nothing or accelerate the damage until it's too late - then make the rest of us pay for the mistakes of the rich and powerful.
It's an approach that must be challenged across the board.
To tackle both austerity and climate change we need to create an alternative economic logic. There's no contradiction between opposing cuts and protecting the environment. We all need a future that works.
That's why this Saturday October 20 I'll be marching with the Climate Bloc on the TUC demonstration. As the Climate Bloc says: "The climate crisis and the economic crisis have the same root causes in an economy rigged in favour of the richest 1 per cent."
We'll be backing the TUC campaign for a million "green" jobs and from defending indigenous peoples fighting climate change to workers fighting for an alternative to climate chaos we'll be marching for it.
We're meeting at 11am at St Paul's. Please join us.
Derek Wall is international co-ordinator of the Green Party of England and Wales.

MORE HERE 

CLIMATE BLOC ON THE TUC MARCH ON SATURDAY 20 OCTOBER...

• 
  
  
  

  For a Future That Doesn't Cost the Earth! Against Austerity, For Climate Justice! We are people from many different environmental campaigns. We are joining the TUC march on 20 October to be part of a huge popular challenge to austerity and the misery and hopelessness it is creating. We will march together on the 20th to raise the crucial question of tackling climate change and reducing greenhouse gas emissions as part of A Future That Works. Dealing with these issues together is possible, necessary and desirable. The climate is changing dramatically, and we are already seeing huge impacts on food prices and energy costs. We don’t have to choose between the climate and the economy. The climate crisis and the economic crisis have the same root causes, in an economy rigged in favour of the richest 1%. More and more people are calling for investment in jobs which reduce emissions – for example, in renewable energy, public transport, and insulating our homes, which would make a vital start in tackling both climate change and unemployment. We also need to talk about what kind of work we need for a cleaner, fairer future. Meet 11am at St Paul's to assemble before joining the march. ********************************************************* Please JOIN and INVITE FRIENDS ********************************************************* Join the demonstration: http://afuturethatworks.org/ Support the Climate Bloc: http://www.climatebloc.wordpress.com/

Posts

Green Party leader Natalie Bennett speaks out for nuclear free Middle East

Building towards a nuclear weapons-free Middle East:  civil society input for a new Helsinki process 

CND International Conference,Saturday 13th October 2012   

09.00–10.00    Tea and coffee served on arrival 

10.00–10.15 Welcome – Dave Webb, CND Chair 

10.15–11.45 Objectives for the 2012 Helsinki Conference on a Middle East Zone free of WMD 

Keynote speech: Ambassador Pekka Huhtaniemi, Permanent Representative of Finland to the UK 

Panel: Regional, Global and Humanitarian Dimensions of Disarmament 

Rebecca Johnson – CND Vice-President, ICAN Co-Chair 

Ahmed Saada –Egyptian physician and activist 

Ghassan Shahrour–Syria 

Elaheh Rostami-Povey – School of Oriental and African Studies 

11.45–12.00 Tea break 

12.00–13.15 Parallel workshops: 

1. Linking Regional and International campaigns to abolish and eliminate nuclear 

weapons: Arielle Denis, ICAN Campaigns Director for Europe, Middle East and Africa 

Ernest Rodker, Campaign for a Nuclear–Free Middle East 

2. NATO nuclear policies, the Gulf states, and the role of Middle East neighbours 

Arife Kose, Turkey and Rae Street, CND 

3. Peace, security and denuclearisation challenges in the Middle East 

Sharon Dolev, Israeli Disarmament Campaign 

Professor Abbas Edalat, Campaign Against Sanctions and Military Intervention in Iran 

4. Civil society input for the Helsinki Middle East Conference 

Jasna Bastic, Peace Boat and Nasser Burdestani, Bahrain 

13.15–14.30 Lunch 

14.30–16.00 Reports from workshop and discussion of recommendations to be forwarded  

to the Helsinki Conference, facilitated by Daniel Blaneyand Sarah Cartin, CND 

16.15–17.30 Closing Plenary, chaired by Dave Webb 

Our role in achieving a nuclear-weapons free Middle East 

Kate Hudson, CND 

Jeremy Corbyn MP 

Sharon Dolev, Israeli Disarmament Campaign 

 Natalie Bennett, Green Party 

Leanne Wood AM 

17.30–19.00 Reception (sponsored by Gotham Erskine auditors) 

Green Party calls for a national Climate Action Plan

Green Party of New York

www.gpny.org

 Green Party calls for a national Climate Action Plan

Move to carbon free economy by 2025 with renewable, clean energy

The Green Party of New York today helped coordinate a nationwide day of action around the country to call for action around climate change. A copy of the plan is at www.gpnys.org, as well as below.

In NYS, Green Party events were organized in Brooklyn, Manhattan, Syracuse and Albany. The day was capped with a nationwide Virtual Town Hall meeting with Green Presidential Jill Stein (7 PM EST, livestream.com/greenpartyus), who took questions from participants across the country. The Town Hall was moderated by Colin Beavan, who is running for Congress on the Green line in Brooklyn. Beavan is best known for book and DVD as No Impact Man. Climate change activist Bill McKibben provided an overview of the issue.

The Green Party called for immediate action by Congress and the President to adopt a Climate Action Plan to transition to a carbon free economy by 2025.

"Taking action on climate change now is a win-win. Investment in clean, renewable energy helps the environment, improves the quality of life for average Americans, and is the basis for a job creation boom to put the 25 million plus unemployed back to work," said Peter LaVenia, Green Party candidate for State Senate from Albany

"And once we move to a renewable energy system, our energy costs will be slashed forever, allowing us to invest in higher wages, better schools, and affordable housing," he added.

The Climate Action Plan is part of the Green New Deal plan for full employment and economic rights.

Green Party candidates participating in Climate Action Change events today included:  Colia Clark (U.S. Senate, NY), Joseph Diaferia (U. S Congress, CD16 Bronx-Westchester), Thomas Siracuse (NY State Senate, SD29 Manhattan-Bronx), Carl Lundgren (NY State Senate, SD34 Bronx-Westchester), Patrick Dwyer (NY State Assembly, AD46 Brooklyn) Daniel Zuger (NY State Assembly, AD85 Bronx).; Ursula Rozum, (Congress, Central NY, 24th CD), Peter LaVenia (State Senate 44th District), and Colin Beavan (Congress, 8th CD Brooklyn).

"The Climate Action Plan is part of the Green New Deal plan for full employment and economic rights." added Ursula Rozum. Green Party congressional candidate in Syracuse, "the Republicans are climate change deniers while the Democrats are climate change evaders. Both ignore this massive problem at their recent conventions. As climate change disruption becomes more severe, it is time to end the partisan gridlock and debate in Congress and take action. We have the technological ability to move to a carbon free, clean energy system. What we have lacked - and which the Green Party has - is the political will and leadership.,"

"Solutions to the climate crisis are our best hope for building a much more humane economic system — one that closes deep inequalities, generates plentiful, dignified work and radically reins in corporate power," added Rozum.

Dr. Jill Stein, the Green Party candidate for President, points out that “President Obama has adopted the 'Drill, Baby, Drill' platform of the Republican Party. He has embraced the energy industry position that our public lands and our environment should be sacrificed for the goal of increasing domestic production. This spin ignores the fact that our most pressing problem isn't foreign oil -- it's what fossil fuels, both foreign and domestic, are doing to our planet. The President's 'all of the above' approach is an alarming denial of the climate emergency we face and the urgent need to substantially reduce the amount of carbon we exhaust into the atmosphere.”

The Climate Action Plan lays out a number of steps to transition to a carbon free economy.

An annual fund of $300 billion for climate action would be created through a combination of taxes on the windfall profits of fossil fuel companies, major cuts in the military budget, a fee on carbon emissions, an end to subsidies on fossil fuels and nukes, and an energy retrofit program funded through on-bill financing from utility companies.

The Climate Action fund would help with investments in clean renewable energy (wind, solar, geothermal, tidal), mass transit and organic agriculture.  The Greens would transfer funds from roads to mass transit, bicycles and pedestrian access.

The Green Party would also shut down all coal, fossil fuels and nuclear plants with the 2025. It opposes the hydrofracking of natural gas not only due to the water problems in create but because it is just another fossil fuel that contributes to global warming. Rather than find new fossil fuels, it believes the 80% of the present supplies must not be converted to greenhouse gases.

The Green Party would prevent oil drilling off shore and in the Artic and halt the Keystone natural gas pipeline. It would speed up the implementation of the new fuel mileage standards recently announced by EPA, and amend environmental review laws to focus on the impact on climate change.

Green Party Climate Action Plan

Climate change is the gravest environmental, social and economic peril that humanity has ever met. Across the world, it is causing vanishing polar ice, melting glaciers, growing deserts, stronger storms, rising oceans, less biodiversity, deepening droughts, as well as more disease, hunger, strife and human misery.

The Green Party support a strong international climate treaty under the auspices of the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change. The United States must do far better than the Obama administration offer in Copenhagen to reduce greenhouse gas emissions by 4% below 1990 levels. The Greens  support at least a 40% worldwide reduction by 2020 and 95% reduction by 2050, from 1990 levels. The U.S. should help pay for adaptation to climate change in countries with less responsibility for climate change. (http://www.gp.org/committees/platform/2012/ecological-sustainability.php#ClimateChange)

A Zero Carbon US Economy by 2025.

The Green Party supports the adoption of an industrial policy/plan for a zero carbon US economy by 2025.

The Greens support creating an annual fund of $300 billion for climate action, including funding clean renewable energy, which would be created through a combination of taxes on the windfall profits of fossil fuel companies, major cuts in the military budget, a fee on carbon emissions, an end to subsidies on fossil fuels and nukes, and an energy retrofit program funded through on bill financing from utility companies. The fund would help with investments in clean renewable energy (wind, solar, geothermal, tidal), mass transit and organic agriculture. The Greens would transfer funds from roads to mass transit, bicycles and pedestrian access.

The Green Party would also shut down all coal, fossil fuels and nuclear plants by 2025, and opposes the construction of any new such plants (including garbage incineration.). Rather than exploring for new fossil fuels, it believes the 80% of the present supplies must not be converted to greenhouse gases. The industrial energy plan should seek public control or ownership of existing fossil fuel supplies.

The Greens support a ban on mountaintop removal coal mining. It opposes the hydrofracking of natural gas not only due to the water problems it creates but because it is just another fossil fuel that contributes to global warming. It opposes the constructions of Keystone and other tar sands and natural gas pipelines. The Green Party opposes oil drilling off shore, on public lands, under the Great Lakes or in the Arctic.

The Green Party would speed up the implementation of the new fuel mileage standards recently announced by EPA, and amend environmental review laws to focus on the impact on climate change.

It supports the adoption of a zero waste policy for garbage. Minimizing waste would reduce greenhouse gas emissions in sectors that together represent 36.7% of all U.S. greenhouse gas emissions. (www.zerowarming.org). Greens would end fossil fuels for plastic bags, packaging and disposable products.

Chemical and industrial agriculture produces 35-50% of climate destabilizing greenhouse gases. Localized, organic food production and distribution reduce fossil fuel usage and enriches soil that sequesters more carbon dioxide. We should reduce methane, nitrous oxide and other greenhouse gases by rapidly phasing out confined animal feeding operations, and encouraging a reduction in meat consumption.

$300 Billion a Year for a Climate Action / Green Energy Transition Fund.

Estimates of the annual investments needed to move to a carbon-free economy range from several hundred billion to a trillion dollars annually – less than what Congress spent to bail out Wall Street in recent years. Much of this funding will come moving investment in the private sector from coal, oil, gas and nuclear plants to clean renewable energy sources that will greatly reduce our long term energy costs, helping to strengthen the economy.

To help facilitate this transition to a clean green carbon-free energy system, the Green Party supports the establishment of a Climate Action / Green Energy Transition Fund. The fund would be part of the New Green Deal effort to put Americans to work and improve quality of life (e.g., healthier foods, improved mass transit, lower energy costs over time, cleaner environment).

Listed below are several specific funding proposals for such a fund. Additional funds can also be raised through a progressive income tax surcharge on wealthy Americans (e.g., not extending the Bush tax cuts) and imposing a tiny anti-speculative financial transaction tax ($150 billion a year) on Wall Street.

1. $25 – 50 Billion from a Windfall Excess Profit Tax on Fossil Fuel Companies

The top five oil companies had $137 billion in profits in 2011 (http://thinkprogress.org/climate/2012/02/08/421061/big-oil-higher-prices-record-profits-less-oil/)

2. $150 billion cut in military budget.

Our present "formal" military budget is $686 billion annually, closer to a trillion if include all true costs (nuclear weapons in the Energy Dept., annual interest payments for costs of prior wars, etc.). The Green Party supports far deeper cuts (e.g., $350 billion plus) but some of those funds should be invested in other domestic programs (e.g., education, housing). The growing impact of climate change is one of the greatest threats to our national security. The military is also one of the greatest contributors to the carbon footprint. Plus a carbon-free economy eliminates the need for war for oil. More than $100 billion can be raised through eliminating waste that has already been identified; tens of billions would be saved by closing some if not all of the 700 plus US military bases in more than 100 countries.

3. $15 – 20 billion from ending subsidies on fossil fuels, ethanol and nukes.

Estimates of annual fossil fuel subsidies range from $10 billion to $52 billion annually, (http://priceofoil.org/fossil-fuel-subsidies/). Estimated direct subsidies for nuclear power is $2.5 billion, with $6 billion for biofuels / ethanol (http://www.eia.gov/analysis/requests/subsidy/). The Greens would also end other nuclear subsides such as Price-Anderson insurance caps, and federal loan guarantees for construction.

4. Carbon fee. $50 billion

A carbon tax could generate $1.5 trillion over a decade (MIT Global Change Institutehttp://bit.ly/NWEcxX.) A carbon tax is a direct tax on the carbon content of fossil fuels. The carbon fee would be applied as far upstream as possible. A carbon tax uses the market to shift investments away from fossil fuels. The cap-and-trade system in the House Markey-Waxman bill was too weak and ineffective. 50% of the $100 billion raised would be directly rebated to households with incomes less than $200,000. The other could be rebated in the form of a voucher to purchase energy saving investments; the voucher could be transferable.

5. $20 billion for energy retrofit program raised through on bill financing on utility bills

We should energy retrofit up to 30 million homes in the US over 5 years. Capital costs would be fronted by utility companies through on-bill financing, with it being paid off from the savings from lower energy bills (e.g., weatherization, solar hot water and thermal, boiler upgrades, etc.). The investment is recaptured in utility bills over time, reflecting the energy savings. Based on Green Jobs, Green Homes model in New York State. (http://www.cwfny.org/issues/green-jobs/).