Roman Krznaric is amazed that political activists are ignoring the world's greatest social justice issue.
In the lobby of Congress House, home of Britain's Trades Union Congress, there was a banner from the Cuba Solidarity Campaign with Che Guevara t-shirts for sale. A couple of Labour Members of Parliament, drinking tea out of plastic cups, were talking in loud voices about the great strides in social justice being made by President Hugo Chavez in Venezuela. Where was I? At 'Latin America 2007', an annual gathering in London of activists, researchers, politicians and thinkers from the Progressive Left.
The first extraordinary thing I noticed about the conference, held in December, was the number of people. Hundreds and hundreds had come to hear speeches and take part in workshops with regional experts and visiting political and community leaders from Latin America. I hadn't seen such a big turnout at a Latin America event in Britain since the mid-1990s, when IMF-imposed neoliberal economic policies were wreaking havoc, and peace processes were being negotiated to end civil wars in Central America.
The second extraordinary thing I noticed was this: NOBODY MENTIONED CLIMATE CHANGE. Looking through the list of workshops, there were sessions on anti-poverty programmes in Venezuela, land reform in Bolivia, violence against trade unionists in Guatemala and the legacy of Che and the Cuban Revolution. But on climate change there was a deafening silence.
Clearly the organisers did not believe climate change warranted special attention, despite the mountain of evidence that it is having major effects on the region, and threatens to reverse the human development gains of the past three decades. Many of these effects and threats have recently been documented in the United Nations Development Programme's Human Development Report 2007/8. LinkŠ With respect to water scarcity, the report points out that the 'accelerated melting of tropical glaciers will threaten water supplies for urban populations, agriculture and hydroelectricity, especially in the Andean region'. Peru and Bolivia, two of the poorest countries in the region, face the prospect of a dramatic decline in water availability, especially in the dry season. Climate change is also likely to have major effects on food security across Latin America. The report states that: 'In Latin America, smallholder agriculture is particularly vulnerable, partly because of limited access to irrigation and partly because maize, a staple across much of the region, is highly sensitive to climate.' The latest models predict smallholder losses for maize yields averaging around 10 percent across the region, but rising to 25 percent for Brazil.
The most disheartening moment for me was when watching a documentary about Hugo Chavez made by Che Guevera's daughter, Aleida. Chavez was boasting about how he was using oil revenues to finance the fight against poverty in Venezuela. And then he pointed out that the future looked bright, since the state oil company had the potential to increase oil production through its access to the Orinoco Petroleum Belt, which is estimated to be the world's largest oil reserve. I care deeply about wealth inequality in Latin America, and understand the argument that since rich Northern countries have had the privilege of fossil fuel-based development, then developing countries should not be denied the same privilege. But shouldn't we be at least discussing the impacts of climate change and the alternatives to fossil fuel-based economic and social development at a conference with the professed aim of helping the struggle for social justice? I can't help concluding that the Progressive Left doesn't yet really believe in climate change.
What explains the absence of climate change on the agenda?
One factor concerns hope. For the first time in years there is a sense of hope about Latin America amongst the Progressive Left. Neoliberalism is in retreat and left-leaning governments are being elected throughout the region. Chavez is challenging the US and the multinationals, and having an impact on poverty reduction. Bolivia has its first indigenous President. But none of this, I believe, is an excuse for ignoring climate change.
A second factor is that many activists and policy-makers continue to keep human development issues separate from what they think of as 'environmental' issues. If you are interested in tackling poverty in the favelas of Rio, it is quite normal not even to consider that climate change is a related issue. I think there is a real need for development agencies and activists on the one hand, and environmentally-oriented organisations and campaigners on the other, to merge their thinking to create a new Ecological Humanism, so that climate change and social justice are considered interdependent issues.
A third, possibly deeper factor, is psychological denial. As individuals, we have an extraordinary capacity to shut our minds to the realities of issues that we think are frightening or insurmountable. Climate change is one of them. The good news is that people in rich countries are starting to overcome their denial and accept that climate change is not only happening, but will change their own lives, and that they have to adapt to and embrace the changes. The bad news is that most of them remain in denial when it comes to the world's poorest countries. As a recent Oxfam report points out, the rich world is sorely lagging behind in its response to the need for developing countries to adapt to the impacts of climate change link.. The time has come for us to take our struggle against denial a stage further, and recognise that climate change is a reality not only for ourselves, but for the world's poorest people in Latin America, Sub-Saharan Africa and other developing regions.
Go to Roman's website, www.romankrznaric.com, for his latest reports on climate change written for the United Nations Development Programme's 'Human Development Report 2007/8', and for his essays on the Art of Living.
My reply re: Roman Krznaric: Does the progressive left really believe in climate change? Why should it?
Posted by John Monro on January 8, 2008 in reply to "Roman Krznaric: Does the progressive left really believe in climate change?"
I walked the St James pilgrimage, 850 kms across northern Spain, last year, and met a wonderful variety of all sorts of people. I got into a long and animated conversation with a Scotsman, quite a socialist fellow, very anti-establishment, somewhat anti-English, and a very patriotic Scotsman (except he lived in France). We seemed to agree about lot of issues, and I thought, despite our very different backgrounds, our politics gave us something in common. But then we got to talking about global warming. Those who have read my previous posts on this site would know I am very concerned about global warming, and I am passionate in my instance of the urgent need to deal with this. But at once, he started bristling, and the more I attempted to explain the rational basis of my concerns, the more and more truculent and aggressive he became. He said he thought I was talking rubbish, we had a major argument, pounding along the plains of Spain at an increasingly frenetic pace, and before stomping off in high dudgeon, he said this "Humanity, our world population, has no more effect on our planet than fleas on the back of an elephant". It was odd that among all the people I met on the walk, from Australia, Austria, Canada, the US, Hungary, France, Germany, Korea, Spain, the UK, etc etc. the only person I fell out with was a bloody Scotsman!! (like me) He confirmed something of which I had long suspected (apart from the fact that Scots are argumentative), that blind cornucopianism is not the preserve of the right wing or dastardly capitalist greed, but is just as alive and thriving on the left. I have posted several times about this, when I keep reading rather simplistic anti-capitalist diatribes on this site.
There is, I contend, an attitude of some on the left which is more likely to see global warming as some great con conceived by capitalists to keep the proletariat in check, rather than the overwhelming issue it is for all humanity; it's part of the left's paranoia about big business and government, which of course can afflict any of us occasionally and which, too, is not without a good deal of justification. Many times on this site I have tried to point out that the cause of global warming is not capitalism or socialism, it's our blindness as to humanity's place in the scheme of things; that we don't live in some parallel universe or other plane of existence whereby we can ignore nature or its immutable laws without suffering some painful consequences. And furthermore, if we continue to think of global warming as something that can be dealt with by employing the political paradigms and prejudices of the past, we will not succeed. These politics are archaic and redundant, they are ancient baggage which continue to weigh us down, they are the very cause of the problem that so concerns us, and we will drown in the rising seas if we don't let them go.
So in regard to Roman Kryznaric's article, the fact that his conference of progressive socialists didn't discuss global warming doesn't surprise me at all; why should it, global warming is not a socialist issue.
I posted this response to the Medialens site, expecting to be shot down in flames, as a lot of contributors would be left wing. I was surprised at the support my views received, though "Grand Inquisitor" did think I was being a bit harsh. I haven't kept all the responses, and they eventually disappear from the Medialens site, so I can't refer you to them. However I did respond to "Grand Inquisitor" this way:
Hello Grand Inquisitor
Thanks for the feedback. When I posted my opinions, I was conscious of the fact that I was being a bit contentious, so I was mildly surprised at the supporting views posted. I expected to be shot down in flames. It probably is a bit simplistic to state that the progressive left wing are not concerned about global warming, I doubt it is actually true, but I think the observation might be that you would think that they would be MORE concerned than they seem to be, understanding their commitment to social justice, as you mention.
As it is likely that the poor and the dispossessed are going to most affected by climate change, then certainly socialism should have some worthwhile to say about the matter, and something worthwhile to say about how to deal with it, but as Roman Krznaric reported, it was surprising that such a large gathering of left wing political activists didn't.
I think it is a sign of humanity's moral confusion that no political philosophy has sorted out exactly what our priorities are, perhaps even including the Greens, who's own traditional political philosophies can be quite varied.
This is why I keep thumping the tub a bit about a new "paradigm" - that our traditional political philosophies and our traditional institutions are now totally out of their depth, we're going to have to go back to the drawing board. That's why I also keep thumping the tub about the dire lack of effective public discourse about all this. I think it's the only way we'll go forward, we're still looking to the past for solutions to a different future and it seems to me self-evident that they cannot work.
Addendum April 09. Since I wrote the above, which was well before the financial and economic collapse we have seen protests, as in London recently, where global warming is very much more on the agenda of protest groups. Perhaps there has been a gradual change in perception, I certainly hope so.