gp's posterous http://gp-bc7f8.posterous.com Most recent posts at gp's posterous posterous.com Tue, 06 Apr 2010 03:41:34 -0700 Post removed from Greenpeace site Part 1 http://gp-bc7f8.posterous.com/post-removed-from-greenpeace-site-part-1 http://gp-bc7f8.posterous.com/post-removed-from-greenpeace-site-part-1

Will the real ClimateGate please stand up? (part 1)

Gene from Greenpeace India is known around the Greenpeace world for stating his opinion loud and clear, and not being a diplomat. He wrote this blog, showing the links, tight and loose, between the various player in the industry of climate inaction.
Note: the blog he sent was quite long, so I cut it in two parts. Tune in tomorrow for part 2

Remember the longest night of 2009? That was the night the climate summit in Copenhagen, sick as a dog, collapsed in a heap before our very eyes. But if truth be told, the make-or-break negotiations had died long before that night. They were dead when they came to the table, the leviathan slowly poisoned over a decade, its body already sick with rumour, lies, bribery, propaganda and disinformation.

save%20the%20climate%20now.JPG

None of us knew this at the time, of course, and as nation after vulnerable nation stated its case long into the night, hope still sprung eternal. Over 16 million people had waited for the nail-biting finish, naively clinging to every desolate straw, even in the moment of going under. "This is how the world ends," wrote T S Eliot presciently, "not with a bang but a whimper."

Ricken Patel of Avaaz commented on the whimper: "There are some opening champagne at this moment. They are the fossil fuel lobbyists and polluting industries who have worked for years to capture key leaders and deny democracy today. They have so far operated in the shadows, but in the coming months the climate movement will take the fight directly to these lobbies and the legislatures they have captured."

How right he was.

Coincidence or Conspiracy?

Greenpeace researchers have spent these past three months uncovering the money trail that led to the unmitigated disaster of Copenhagen.

But before I get to what we found out, a word about what we found odd...

To begin with, why was the attack against the IPCC at the height of climate negotiations in Copenhagen so virulent? Remember all those leaked emails? Remember the drama around "ClimateGate" -- all timed impeccably to discredit not just the Copenhagen summit, the IPCC and specific figureheads, but also the entire accumulated body of work put together by thousands of climatologists?

It gets curiouser. Why did the EU in those final days, while ostensibly working to strive for a fair, ambitious and binding deal at Copenhagen, take a position so limp-wristed it was beyond farcical?

Why did the US, despite being responsible for the largest per capita share of global CO2 emissions, and despite all its noises about the urgency to act, make little more than a papal visit to bless the broken wedding? A three-page joke (the Copenhagen Accord) was found to be the only evidence left of America's involvement, even as it fled the crime scene on Air Force One.

And more recently, even as we were figuring all this out, why did Czech environment minister Jan Dusik resign rather than approve revamping of the Czech Republic's dirtiest coal power plant?

The result of these “coincidences” has been a global undermining of climate science as a whole. Climate skeptics are suddenly enjoying street cred. Not surprisingly, public belief in the climate science has been shaken. How did this happen? Or, as a fellow traveler tweeted the other day... "How do you explain the weight of climate skeptic voices in social media if expertise is more valued than ever?"

If you're interested in answers to any of these questions, you've come to the right place.

Lies, Denial and Skepticism. Now available for a fee.

As our investigations started, it quickly became clear this was going to be harder than we'd imagined. The smoke and mirrors created by the fossil fuel lobby are impenetrable. Their own tracks well covered, they operate through front groups, shell companies and think tanks.

But as we as we started knocking down the doors of loose, faceless associations representing industry interests, we found a cache of chemical and oil companies, every last one of whom benefits greatly if a climate treaty never gets signed, and every last one of whom is responsible for the industrialized world’s compromised and compromising position in Copenhagen.

LSE's Bob Ward admits that "a lot of the climate skeptic arguments are being made by people with demonstrable right-wing ideology which is based on opposition to any environmental regulation of the market, and they are clearly being given money that allows them to disseminate their views more widely than would be the case if they didn't have oil company funding."

Across the pond in the US, the "biggest company you've never heard of" has been hard at work to achieve similar results. Their name is Koch. You can pronounce that name any way you want.

David and Charles are two brothers heading Koch Industries. And they are to US climate policy what Halliburton was to US foreign policy. With $100 billion in annual sales and operations in nearly 60 countries, they have enormous financial interest in keeping us addicted to fossil fuels. Matter of fact, they've actually surpassed Exxon’s funding of climate denial think-tanks and astroturf front groups.

Through millions in lobbying and political contributions to politicians, Charles and David Koch are polluting not only our environment, but also the US political process, where efforts to get climate legislation passed is being hampered by massive corporate lobbying and denial campaigns -- including those that now claim that polar bears are not threatened by global warming.

Despite being virtually invisible to the public, Koch Industries is a top lobbying spender, a massive funding source to climate-denial front-groups, and a major force fighting against clean energy policies. Charles and David Koch, who own and control the corporation, drive the anti-environmental political spending.

More tomorrow...

Photo: © Greenpeace / Pedro Armestre

Permalink | Leave a comment  »

]]>
Tue, 06 Apr 2010 03:36:25 -0700 Post removed from Greenpeace site http://gp-bc7f8.posterous.com/post-removed-from-greenpeace-site http://gp-bc7f8.posterous.com/post-removed-from-greenpeace-site

Gene from Greenpeace India is known around the Greenpeace world for stating his opinion loud and clear, and not being a diplomat. He wrote this blog, showing the links, tight and loose, between the various player in the industry of climate inaction.
Note: This is the second part of his blog - if you haven't read part one yet, start there.

Jump to the "where you live" update.

Greenpeace has almost 40 years of history as a peaceful organization. Two of our core values are:
  • We 'bear witness' to environmental destruction in a peaceful, non-violent manner.
  • We use non-violent confrontation to raise the level and quality of public debate.

This blog entry is about encouraging civil disobedience and non-violent direct action - the kind of peaceful methods that liberated Gene's country (India) from imperialism.

I know Gene, and he's a genuinely peaceful guy who believes in the power of peaceful protest to change the world. Some people are trying to portray him as otherwise. Just read what he had to say in context. He is very specific about what he thinks people should do.

While we encourage and appreciate discussion in the comments, do stay polite and don't make death threats or incite violence. (Not towards our staff, not towards people we disagree with, not towards anyone. Please be nice people. Thanks.)

-- Andrew (Greenpeace web producer)

windturbinechina.JPG

Just as we were bolting down our investigations and going to press with our findings, something happened in the Czech Republic.

Three months ago, in an unprecedented move that could have far-reaching effects, the small Pacific island nation of Micronesia wrote to the Czech Environment Ministry challenging the expansion of Prunerov 2, the Czech Republic's most polluting coal power plant. Their case? The effect of CO2 emissions from Prunerov and plants like it would eventually see low-lying Pacific islands -- even those that didn't share a border with the polluting country -- submerged due to rising sea levels.


This could have been climate cause-and-effect finally meeting face to face across a crowded courtroom. But that didn't happen.

When Environment Minister Dusik told his Prime Minister he intended to reject Prunerov's expansion plans, he was told that was impossible. Rather than do the bidding of fossil fuel corporations, Dusik resigned. While stepping down, he mentioned that the pressure from lobby groups and big business was too much to bear.

So that's what it's come down to. This could have become the first case of a climate-vulnerable country challenging coal power plants beyond its own borders and, in doing so, challenging everyone’s right to pollute. This could have put climate justice through its first stress-test. Instead, this has revealed that a watertight legal case, a high moral ground and a credible support base are no match for infinitely-resourced and well-muscled think-tanks.

This Prague Spring has revealed, above all, that the "proper channels" for righting historical wrongs have failed.

The [r]evolution won’t be televised.

What do you do when patient petitioning, protest marches and court orders fail? What do you do when all the protocols and cheat codes of democracy fail? This is what you do: you reclaim the language of democracy from the twisted bunch that have hijacked, cannibalized and subverted it.

Pressuring politicians on climate change is not working. We saw that in Copenhagen. Three months later, we also know why. Which is why the global climate movement now must do course-correction. We need to shift targets and go after the real termites that hollowed out and imploded Copenhagen.

Not Barosso, Obama or Wen Jiabao, but the real obstacles to the climate deal this planet deserves and demands. The oil and gas mafia running loose in New Delhi. The coal magnates that have Canberra by the short and curlies. The petrochemical giants that have placed a firm jackboot on the EU's throat. The fossil fools and nuclear lobbyists that have Washington DC on speed-dial.

We need to hit them where it hurts most, by any means necessary: through the power of our votes, our taxes, our wallets, and more.

We need to be inclusive. We need to join forces with those within the climate movement that are taking direct action to disrupt the CO2 supply chain. We need to embrace the conservatives too, the ones that choose scientific rigour and court injunctions as their weapons.

And we need to inspire, engage and empower everyone in between... from the AirPlotters stopping the expansion of Heathrow by purchasing bits of the proposed runway to the volunteer activists that have been making life hell for fossil fuel lobbyists in the US.

Finally, we need to prove repeatedly, consistently, doggedly, that our alternative vision of a world that runs on clean energy isn’t just a prototype, it’s already in production.

Emerging battle-bruised from the disaster zone of Copenhagen, but ever-hopeful, a rider on horseback brought news of darkness and light: "The politicians have failed. Now it's up to us. We must break the law to make the laws we need: laws that are supposed to protect society, and protect our future. Until our laws do that, screw being climate lobbyists. Screw being climate activists. It's not working. We need an army of climate outlaws."

The proper channels have failed. It's time for mass civil disobedience to cut off the financial oxygen from denial and skepticism.

If you're one of those who believe that this is not just necessary but also possible, speak to us. Let's talk about what that mass civil disobedience is going to look like.

If you're one of those who have spent their lives undermining progressive climate legislation, bankrolling junk science, fueling spurious debates around false solutions, and cattle-prodding democratically-elected governments into submission, then hear this:

We know who you are. We know where you live. We know where you work.

And we be many, but you be few.

Gene's blog entry is about encouraging PEACEFUL civil disobedience - the kind of peaceful methods that liberated Gene's country (India) from imperialism. Peaceful direct action is part of our core values.

Hear Gene talk about his own activism...

FYI - Press release about the 2007 protest is here.

-- Andrew (Greenpeace web producer)


Update: Where you live

A lot of folks commenting are sizing on the words, "we know where you live".

Gene has a tendency towards the dramatic. So at first I didn't think anything much about them. After all, I know he's a peaceful kind of guy, I know Greenpeace is a peaceful organization and I know what he's got on his mind.

It's no coincidence that Gene's blog post came out just two days after we published a report about how one giant corporation, Koch Industries, is secretly funding the climate denial machine.

In that report, we name names (specifically David and Charles Koch). We're going to hold powerful people like them accountable for their actions - through protest, civil disobedience and other forms of peaceful direct action.

That's all Gene is saying we should do.

But then I got to thinking: Would we ever protest at someones house? And would that be OK? Of course it would be a peaceful protest. But would it be ethical?

There are only two cases I can think of where Greenpeace protesters actually showed up at someone's home:


Union Carbide chairman - arrest warrant served

Warren Anderson was the chairman of Union Carbide at the time of the Bhopal plant explosion, which killed thousands. He was charged with culpable homicide, but fled India and has refused to return to face justice. When asked to turn him over, the US government's position was that they could not find Anderson.

We found him, went to his house and served an arrest warrant.


Solar panels for Australia's Prime Minister

In 1997, Greenpeace activists showed up at the Prime Minister's house with a gift - solar panels, which they installed on the roof. The activists were arrested for trespass. I'm not sure if the solar panels stayed on the roof (I somehow doubt it), but a lot of attention was brought to the potential of solar power in Australia. (Read more)


Personally, I think both of these protests were pretty cool. I've heard they were very controversial at the time though, and there was a lot of debate about whether we'd crossed a line.

What do you think about cases like these?


-- Andrew Davies, Greenpeace web producer

Permalink | Leave a comment  »

]]>