Greenpeace

Below is a link and text to a blog on yesterday's 
HuffingtonPost, basically a call to action on global 
warming.  It's very interesting that this guy- very 
well-informed- mentions the lack of political and 
popular will to take to the streets on climate issues, 
testament to the fact that our movement is indeed 
not reaching everyone.  Even more interesting that 
he mentions Greenpeace as having taken direct action 
on the high seas,  and calling out the green movement 
for not chaining themselves to coal-fired power plants 
or occupying Exxon's headquarters, two things that 
Greenpeace has in fact have done in recent years.  It's 
a great piece, but speaks to what's at the heart (or 
rather, what should be at the heart) of what we do: 
inspiring others through expressing the immediate need 
for action on all levels: personal, local, national, global.  
It speaks to the reality that the media only follow the 
sensational, the zeitgeist, the most urgent- what the 
public wants; and damns the reverse thinking some are 
stuck in: that the news media are the ones to make these 
crises the most sensational or urgent, and inspire the 
public to want.  The take-away here is that for the media 
to take notice of the climate crisis, we need a movement 
IN THE STREETS, not just in the halls of Congress.  We 
need them DEMANDING action, not just asking for 
commitment from politicians and business leaders.  We 
need OUTRAGE, not muffled disapproval or a quiet call on 
a select few to change votes or opinions, and we need a 
revival of ACTIVISM, not ambitious PR.  We need a 
grassroots movement and an inimitable will to take risks, 
people.  And if **we** build it, they will come.  I hope you 
can join us this Earth Day, in renewing your vigor, in straining 
your potential until it begs for mercy; And remember, this isn't
just one day- it's our future, and we have only one.  Surrender 
the fantasy that things can happen if we remain quiet, within 
the boundaries of reason and etiquette.  It's for all of us, 
everywhere, and we as a movement can encompass so many 
different things.  Let's make this Earth Day a day to start, a 
day to pour gasoline on that fire of inspiration we have.  It may 
just be one day, but it's an entire planet.  And it needs you 
more than ever before.  Please help- your commitment is needed, 
but your action is what's needed more.
Enjoy. Steve-o  
 
-------------------------------------------------
 
 http://www.huffingtonpost.com/ron-dembo/getting-real_b_46164.html  
Ron Dembo Getting Real 
 
On that day, the Goths had the city under siege. They had already 
demanded, and had been given, five thousand pounds of gold, thirty 
thousand pounds of silver, four thousand silken tunics, three thousand 
scarlet-dyed hides, and three thousand pounds of pepper. Statues 
were melted down to pay off the barbarians, but the Goths wanted more.
  
In short, it was a difficult spot for the Romans. The very existence of the 
city, and certainly their way of life, was at stake. So you'd expect their 
newspapers to betray a bit of uneasiness. That is, you might be surprised 
to find sections of the paper devoted to winners of the chariot races, or 
recipes for larks' tongues, speculation on the next season's most promising 
colors. The Goths sacked the city the next day, bringing to an end a 
seemingly invincible civilization.  
 
I began to wonder about these non-existent newspapers when I read 
some of the comments in response to a recent posting. One person sneered 
at my claim that the scientific debate over climate change is over. I'm not sure 
whether he was assuming that I am naive to believe that the thousands of 
climate scientists who produce the IPCC reports constitute an overwhelming 
consensus, or that I'm naive to believe that overwhelming consensus will 
be enough to shift public debate. Perhaps he doesn't even believe in climate 
change.  
 
But he reminded me of an important point. We're just not getting an accurate 
account of what is going on in the world. We are, of course, being 
misinformed, manipulated, and censored. But that's not what I mean.  
 
What I mean is this: if we really believe that we face planetary disaster, 
if we really believe that our children and grandchildren will inherit a world 
incapable of supporting our civilization, to say nothing of countless 
doomed species, then why are we talking or reading about anything else?  
 
Not all that long ago, people took to the streets to stage violent protests 
against globalization, presumably on the grounds that economic integration 
exerted a downward pressure on wages and hurt local economies. I don't 
mean to diminish the concerns of the people who battled police in Seattle, 
Washington, and Quebec City. But the consequences they were working to 
avert were hardly of the same scale as those the IPCC is warning us about, 
and they were a good deal more abstract. Where are the protesters today?  
 
I think it's a fair question. When an issue is deemed important enough, 
people take to the streets. Powerful public sentiment has a correlative in 
action: people had to take to the streets to give momentum to the civil 
rights movement, the feminist movement, the anti-nuclear movement, 
the movement to get out of Vietnam, the protest to save Clayoquot Sound. 
Greenpeace members have taken all kinds of personal risks to make their 
point at sea. And while the age of activism seems to have waned, the fact 
is that the largest protest ever staged took place around the world only 
four years ago. Moreover, even if climate change does not mobilize vast 
armies of protesters, it's a little surprising that it does not inspire more 
"direct action." No one is chaining himself to a coal-fired plant. No one is 
vandalizing SUVs. No one is occupying Exxon's headquarters. Why not?  
 
Is it that we don't really believe that life as we know it is in peril?  I ask 
because it is far from clear that we are acting as though absolutely 
everything depends on immediate, decisive action. Which do you think 
galvanizes popular anxiety more powerfully, the question of who will win 
"American Idol," or the question of whether untold millions of humans 
will die as a result of global warming?  
 
I do not mean to seem elitist, or to draw a distinction between frivolous pop 
culture and the real business of climate change. On the contrary. Take Tony 
Blair as an example. Here is a politician claiming to lead the world in 
environmental policy and looking for a legacy. Let's leave aside for a 
moment the question of whether his proposed cuts (60 percent by 2050) 
are deep enough to make adifference. In fairness, they are the most 
ambitious put forward by any national government in the world. The trouble is, 
Blair has also signed off on a program to develop Britain's airport system in 
the expectation that air travel will more than double in the coming decades. 
In other words, Blair is building the infrastructure to make his own climate 
policy useless. Is this the behavior of someone who really thinks there is 
a grave threat?  
 
And let's not single Blair out for criticism. The nations of the world contribute 
their money and their scientists to the IPCC in order to determine how best 
to face the threat of climate change. Then, when the scientists sit down to 
draw up their conclusions, these same countries send representatives to the 
meetings to water down the findings. This has the benefit of making the IPCC 
reports unassailable (since they've already been assailed), but it also makes 
them less urgent, just when urgency is called for.  
 
Let me put it another way. When people are convinced that there is a real 
threat, they don't wait for evidence. And they certainly don't delay while they 
determine whether they can afford to respond to the challenge. Countless 
billions have been spent squashing an imaginary threat in Iraq, for which 
there was never any evidence, and shoring up an isolated ad hoc government 
in Afghanistan. There are always vast fortunes at hand to finance military 
campaigns against harmless tyrants, yet the coffers are empty when it comes 
time to roll up our sleeves to do something about a much, much more urgent 
threat.  
 
So the difference between the crisis posed by a tin-pot dictator on 
one hand, and that posed by the specter of planetary ecological emergency 
is neither the necessity for due diligence in evidence gathering nor the 
imperative of budgetary caution. The difference is political will, or the 
intangible sense of urgency. Somehow, it seemed plausible to some people 
that if Canadians did not occupy part of Afghanistan, the Taliban would be 
setting up shop in Toronto, and to others that if Americans did not flatten 
Iraq, Saddam Hussein would invade Michigan. People have yet to be 
convinced that unless we get our civilization in order, we'll face a future far 
more troubling and much more plausible.  
 
There are no doubt many reasons for this. It's easier to blame other people, 
and to assign to others the task of solving the problem. It's not as fun to cut 
CO2 emissions as it is to get ready for war. We're never going to "win" the fight 
against climate change in any familiar sense, and no one is going to riot for 
austerity measures, as George Monbiot says.  
 
That's all true. But we're going to need to get past it. Eventually, we are going 
to have to act as though we believe that the threat of climate change is as 
real as the IPCC says it is. And I would love to see the media make the case 
for action the same way they beat the drum for war. To have a story about 
climate change between a story about Angelina Jolie's latest adoption and an 
account of the prospects of this or that hockey team in the first round of the 
NHL playoffs is a kind of lie. It suggests that these stories are of the same 
kind, and they're not.  
 
I know perfectly well that the media are not going to change, just as I know 
perfectly well that the Romans did not have broadsheets. That's not the point. 
The point is that what we do illustrates what we believe better than what we say, 
and that if we don't believe we are in trouble despite the evidence building up 
around us, we are fools.