ANS -- Capitalism and Climate Change

Here is an intro, and then the transcript of a video.  It's Bill Moyers interviewing Naomi Klein on climate change.  You can read the transcript, or go to the site and see the interview. 
Find it here:   http://readersupportednews.org/opinion2/271-38/14599-focus-capitalism-and-climate-change -  
--Kim



 
Hurricane Sandy destroyed 111 homes in the Queens neighborhood of Rockaway Beach. (photo: USAF/Master Sgt. Mark C. Olsen)

Capitalism and Climate Change

By Bill Moyers, Naomi Klein, Moyers & Company

18 November 12

 

 

 

aomi Klein, author of the international bestseller The Shock Doctrine, says the tragic destruction of Hurricane Sandy can also be the catalyst for the transformation of politics and our economy. She's been in New York visiting the devastated areas - including those where "Occupy Sandy" volunteers are unfolding new models of relief - as part of her reporting for a new book and film on climate change and the future, and joins Bill to discuss hurricanes, climate change, and democracy.

"Let's rebuild by actually getting at the root causes. Let's respond by aiming for an economy that responds to the crisis both [through] inequality and climate change," Klein tells Bill. "You know, dream big."

Full Transcript

BILL MOYERS: Welcome. The Sherlock Holmes of money in politics -- Trevor Potter -- is here with some clues to what the billionaires and super PACs got for their lavish spending in the most expensive election in our history. In a nutshell: "You ain't seen nothing yet."

But first, if you've been curious about why New York Mayor Mike Bloomberg endorsed Barack Obama for re-election, just take another look at the widespread havoc caused by the Frankenstorm benignly named Sandy. Having surveyed all this damage Bloomberg Business Week concluded: "It's Global Warming, Stupid: If Hurricane Sandy doesn't persuade Americans to get serious about climate change, nothing will."

Well it was enough to prompt President Obama, at his press conference this week, to say more about global warming than he did all year.

PRESIDENT BARACK OBAMA: I am a firm believer that climate change is real, that it is impacted by human behavior and carbon emissions. And as a consequence, I think we've got an obligation to future generations to do something about it.

BILL MOYERS: But he made it clear that actually doing something about it will take a back seat to the economy for now. He did return to New York on Thursday to review the recovery effort on Staten Island. Climate change and Hurricane Sandy brought Naomi Klein to town, too. You may know her as the author of "The Shock Doctrine: The Rise of Disaster Capitalism." Readers of two influential magazines to put Naomi Klein high on the list of the 100 leading public thinkers in the world. She is now reporting for a new book and documentary on how climate change can spur political and economic transformation. She also has joined with the environmental writer and activist Bill McKibben in a campaign launched this week called "Do the Math." More on that shortly.

Naomi Klein, Welcome.

NAOMI KLEIN: Thank you so much.

BILL MOYERS: First, congratulations on the baby.

NAOMI KLEIN: Thank you so much.

BILL MOYERS: How old now?

NAOMI KLEIN: He is five months today.

BILL MOYERS: First child?

NAOMI KLEIN: My first child, yeah.

BILL MOYERS: How does a child change the way you see the world?

NAOMI KLEIN: Well it lengthens your timeline definitely. I'm really immersed in climate science right now because of the project I'm working on is related to that. So you know there are always these projections into the future, you know, what's going to happen in 2050? What's going to happen in 2080? And I think when you're solo, you think, "Okay, well, how old will I be then?" Well, you know, and now I'm thinking how old will he be then, right? And so, it's not that-- but I don't like the idea that, "Okay, now I care about the future now that I have a child." I think that everybody cares about the future. And I cared about it when I didn't have a child, too.

BILL MOYERS: Well, I understand that but we're so complacent about climate change. A new study shows that while the number of people who believe it's happening has increased by, say, three percentage points over the last year, the number of people who don't think it is human caused has dropped.

NAOMI KLEIN: It has dropped dramatically. I mean, the statistics on this are quite incredible. 2007, according to a Harris poll, 71 percent of Americans believed that climate change was real, that it was human caused. And by last year, that number went down to 44 percent. 71 percent to 44 percent, that is an unbelievable drop in belief. But then you look at the coverage that the issue's received in the media. And it's also dropped dramatically from that high point. 2007, you know, this was this moment where, you know, Hollywood was on board. "Vanity Fair" launched their annual green issue.

And by the way, there hasn't been an annual green issue since 2008. Stars were showing up to the Academy Awards in hybrid cars. And there was a sense, you know, we all have to play our part, including the elites. And that has really been lost. And that's why it's got to come from the bottom up this time.

BILL MOYERS: But what do you think happened to diminish the enthusiasm for doing something about it, the attention from the press, the interest of the elite? What is it?

NAOMI KLEIN: I think we're up against a very powerful lobby. And you know, this is the fossil fuel lobby. And they have every reason in the world to prevent this from being the most urgent issue on our agenda. And I think, you know, if we look at the history of the environmental movement, going back 25 years to when this issue really broke through, you know, when James Hansen testified before Congress, that--

BILL MOYERS: The NASA scientist, yeah.

NAOMI KLEIN: Exactly, our foremost climate scientist, and said, "I believe it is happening. And I believe it is human caused." That was the moment where we could no longer deny that we knew, right? I mean, scientists actually knew what well beforehand. But that was the breakthrough moment. And that was 1988. And if we think about what else was happening in the late '80s? Well, the Berlin Wall fell the next year. And the end of history was declared. And, you know, climate change in a sense, it hit us at the worst possible historical moment. Because it does require collective action, right? It does require that we, you, regulate corporations. That you get, you know, that you plan collectively as a society. And at the moment that it hit the mainstream, all of those ideas fell into disrepute, right? It was all supposed to be free market solutions. Governments were supposed to get out of the way of corporations. Planning was a dirty word, that was what communists did, right? Anything collective was a dirty word. Margaret Thatcher said, "There's no such thing as society."

Now if you believe that, you can't do anything about climate change, because it is the essence of a collective problem. This is our collective atmosphere. We can only respond to this collectively. So the environmental movement responded to that by really personalizing the problem and saying, "Okay, you recycle. And you buy a hybrid car." And treating this like this could or we'll have business-friendly solutions like cap and trade and carbon offsetting. That doesn't work. So that's part of the problem. So you have this movement that every once in a while would rear up and people would get all excited and we're really going to do something about this. And whether it was the Rio Summit or the Copenhagen Summit or that moment when Al Gore came out with Inconvenient Truth, but then it would just recede, because it didn't have that collective social support that it needed.

And on top of that, you have, we've had this concerted campaign by the fossil fuel lobby to both buy off the environmental movement, to defame the environmental movement, to infiltrate the environmental movement, and to spread lies in the culture. And that's what the climate denial movement has been doing so effectively.

BILL MOYERS: I read a piece just this week by the environmental writer Glenn Scherer. He took a look and finds that over the last two years, the lion's share of the damage from extreme weather, floods, tornadoes, droughts, thunder storms, wind storms, heat waves, wildfires, has occurred in Republican-leaning red states. But those states have sent a whole new crop of climate change deniers to Congress.

NAOMI KLEIN: Yeah, someone's going to have to explain Oklahoma to me, you know?

BILL MOYERS: My native state.

NAOMI KLEIN: My sister lives in Oklahoma. And, you know, it is so shocking that James Inhofe, the foremost climate denying senator is from the state that is so deeply climate effected. There was something, actually, I was-- last year I covered the Heartland Conference, which is the annual confab for all the climate deniers. And James Inhofe was supposed to be the keynote speaker. And the first morning of the conference, there was lots of buzz. He's the rock star among the climate deniers. Inhofe is coming, he's opening up this conference, right? And the first morning the main conference organizer stands up at breakfast and lets loose the bad news that James Inhofe has called in sick and he can't make it.

And it turns out that he had gone swimming in a lake filled with blue-green algae, which is actually a climate-related issue. When lakes get too warm, this blue-green algae spreads. And he had gone swimming. And he had gotten sick from the blue-green algae. So he actually arguably had a climate-related illness and couldn't come to the climate change conference. But even though he was sick, he wrote a letter from his sickbed just telling them what a great job he was doing. So the powers of denial are amazingly strong, Bill. If you are deeply invested in this free-market ideology, you know, if you really believe with your heart and soul that everything public and anything the government does is evil and that, you know, our liberation will come from liberating corporations, then climate change fundamentally challenges your worldview, precisely because we have to regulate.

We have to plan. We can't leave everything to the free market. In fact, climate change is, I would argue, the greatest single free-market failure. This is what happens when you don't regulate corporations and you allow them to treat the atmosphere as an open sewer. So it isn't just, "Okay, the fossil fuel companies want to protect their profits." It's that it's that this science threatens a worldview. And when you dig deeper, when you drill deeper into those statistics about the drop in belief in climate change, what you see is that Democrats still believe in in climate change, in the 70th percentile. That whole drop of belief, drop off in belief has happened on the right side of the political spectrum. So the most reliable predictor of whether or not somebody believes that climate change is real is what their views are on a range of other political subjects. You know, what do you think about abortion? What is your view of taxes? And what you find is that people who have very strong conservative political beliefs cannot deal with this science, because it threatens everything else they believe.

BILL MOYERS: Do you really believe, are you convinced that there are no free-market solutions? There's no way to let the market help us solve this crisis?

NAOMI KLEIN: No, absolutely the market can play a role. There are things that government can do to incentivize the free market to do a better job, yes. But is that a replacement for getting in the way, actively, of the fossil fuel industry and preventing them from destroying our chances of a future on a livable planet? It's not a replacement.

We have to do both. Yes, we need these market incentives on the one hand to encourage renewable energy. But we also need a government that's willing to say no. No, you can't mine the Alberta tar sands and burn enough carbon that you will have game over for the climate as James Hansen has said.

ILL MOYERS: But I'm one of those who is the other end of the corporation. I mean, we had a crisis in New York the last two weeks. We couldn't get gasoline for the indispensable vehicles that get us to work, get us to the supermarket, get us to our sick friends or neighbors. I mean, the point I'm trying to make is we are all the fossil fuel industry, are we not?

NAOMI KLEIN: You know, we often hear that. We often hear that we're all equally responsible for climate change. And that it's just the rules of supply and demand.

BILL MOYERS: I have two cars. I keep them filled with gasoline.

NAOMI KLEIN: But I think the question is, you know, if there was a fantastic public transit system that really made it easy for you to get where you wanted to go, would you drive less? So I don't know about you, but I, you know, I certainly would.

BILL MOYERS: I mean, I use the subways all the time here.

NAOMI KLEIN: And if it was possible to recharge an electric vehicle, if it was as easy to do that as it is to fill up your car with gasoline, you know, if that electricity came from solar and wind, would you insist, "No, I want to fill my car with, you know, with dirty energy"? No, I don't think you would. Because this is what I think we have expressed over and over again. We are willing to make changes. You know we recycle and we compost. We ride bicycles. I mean, there there's actually been a tremendous amount of willingness and goodwill for people to change their behavior. But I think where people get demoralized is when they see, "Okay, I'm making these changes, but emissions are still going up, because the corporations aren't changing how they do business." So no, I don't think we're all equally guilty.

BILL MOYERS: President Obama managed to avoid the subject all through the campaign and he hasn't exactly been leading the way.

NAOMI KLEIN: He has not been leading the way. And in fact, you know, he spent a lot of time on the campaign bragging about how much pipeline he's laid down and this ridiculous notion of an all of the above energy strategy, as if you can, you know, develop solar and wind alongside more coal, you know, more oil, more natural gas, and it's all going to work out in the end.

No, it doesn't add up. And, you know, I think personally, I think the environmental movement has been a little too close to Obama. And, you know, we learned, for instance, recently, about a meeting that took place shortly after Obama was elected where the message that all these big green groups got was, "We don't want to talk about climate change. We want to talk about green jobs and energy security." And a lot of these big green groups played along. So I feel--

BILL MOYERS: You mean the big environmental groups?

NAOMI KLEIN: Yeah, big environmental groups went along with this messaging, talking about energy security, instead of talking about climate change, 'cause they were told that that wasn't a winnable message. I just think it's wrong. I think it's bad strategy.

BILL MOYERS: He got reelected.

NAOMI KLEIN: He got, well, he got reelected, but you know what? I think he, I think Hurricane Sandy helped Obama get reelected.

BILL MOYERS: How so?

NAOMI KLEIN: Well, look at the Bloomberg endorsement that came at the last minute. I mean, Bloomberg endorsed Obama because of climate change. Because he believed that this was an issue that voters cared enough about that they would, that Independents would swing to Obama over climate change, and some of the polling absolutely supports this, that this was one of the reasons why people voted for Obama over Romney was that they were concerned about climate change and they felt that he was a better candidate on climate change.

The truth was, we didn't have a good candidate. We had a terrible, terrible candidate on climate change, and we had a candidate on climate change who needs a lot of pressure. So I feel more optimistic than I did in 2008, because I think in 2008 the attitude of the environmental movement was, "Our guy just got in and we need to support him. And he's going to give us the legislation that we, that we want. And we're going to take his advice. And we're going to be good little soldiers."

And now maybe I'm being overly optimistic, but I think that people learned the lesson of the past four years. And people now understand that what Obama needs or what we need, forget what Obama needs, is a real independent movement with climate change at its center and that's going to put pressure on the entire political class and directly on the fossil fuel companies on this issue. And there's no waiting around for Obama to do it for you.

BILL MOYERS: Why would you think that the next four years of a lame duck president would be more successful from your standpoint than the first four years, when he's looking to reelection?

NAOMI KLEIN: Well, I think on the one hand, we're going to see more direct action. But the other strategy is to go where the problem is. And the problem is the companies themselves. And we're launching the "Do the Math" tour which is actually trying to kick off a divestment movement. I mean, we're going after these companies where it hurts, which is their portfolios, which is their stock price.

BILL MOYERS: You're asking people to disinvest, to take their money out of, universities in particular, right? This is what happened during the fight against apartheid in South Africa and ultimately proved successful.

NAOMI KLEIN: Yeah, and this is, we are modeling it on the anti-apartheid divestment movement. And the reason it's called "Do the Math" is because of this new body of research that came out last year. A group in Britain called "The Carbon Tracker Initiative." And this is, you know, a fairly conservative group that addresses itself to the financial community. This is not, you know, sort of activist research. This is a group that identified a market bubble and were concerned about this meant to investors. So it's a pretty conservative take on it. And what the numbers that they crunched found is that if we are going to ward off truly catastrophic climate change, we need to keep the increase, the temperature increase, below 2 degrees centigrade.

NAOMI KLEIN: The problem with that is that they also measured how much the fossil fuel companies and countries who own their own national oil reserves have now currently in their reserves, which means they have already laid claim to this. They already own it. It's already inflating their stock price, okay? So how much is that? It's five times more. So that means that the whole business model for the fossil fuel industry is based on burning five times more carbon than is compatible with a livable planet. So what we're saying is, "Your business model is at war with life on this planet. It's at war with us. And we need to fight back."

So we're saying, "These are rogue companies. And we think in particular young people whose whole future lies ahead of them have to send a message to their universities, who, and, you know, almost every university has a huge endowment. And there isn't an endowment out there that doesn't have holdings in these fossil fuel companies. And so young people are saying to the people who charged with their education, charged with preparing them for the outside world, for their future jobs, "Explain to me how you can prepare me for a future that with your actions you're demonstrating you don't believe in. How can you prepare me for a future at the same time as you bet against my future with these fossil fuel holdings? You do the math and you tell me." And I think there's a tremendous moral clarity that comes from having that kind of a youth-led movement. So we're really excited about it.

BILL MOYERS: What do you mean rogue corporations? You're talking about Chevron and Exxon-Mobil and BP and all of these huge capitalist or institutions.

NAOMI KLEIN: Well, rogue corporations, because their business model involves externalizing the price of their waste onto the rest of us. So their business model is based on not having to pay for what they think of as an externality, which is the carbon that's spewed into the atmosphere that is warming the planet. And that price is enormous. We absolutely know that the future is going to be filled with many more such super storms and many more such costly, multibillion-dollar disasters. It's already happening. Last year was-- there were more billion-dollar disasters than any year previously. So climate change is costing us. And yet you see this squabbling at, you know, the state level, at the municipal level, over who is going to pay for this

NAOMI KLEIN: The public sector doesn't have the money to pay for what these rogue corporations have left us with, the price tag of climate change. So we have to do two things. We have to make sure that it doesn't get worse, that the price tag doesn't get higher. And we need to get some of that money back, which means, you know, looking at issues like fossil fuel subsidies and, you know, to me, it's so crazy. I mean, here we are post-Hurricane Sandy. Everyone is saying, "Well, maybe this is going to be our wakeup call." And right now in New York City, the debate is over how much to increase fares in public transit. And they want to, the Metro Transit Authority wants to increase the price of riding the subway, you know, the price of riding the trains, quite a bit. And so how does this make sense? We're supposedly having a wakeup call about climate change. And we're making it harder for people to use public transit. And that's because we don't have the resources that we need.

BILL MOYERS: You've been out among the areas of devastation. Why?

NAOMI KLEIN: Well, for this book I'm currently writing about climate change and a documentary to go with it, so we were filming in the Rockaways, which is one of the hardest-hit areas and Staten Island and in Red Hook. And also in the relief hubs, where you see just a tremendous number of volunteers organized by, actually, organized by Occupy Wall Street. They call it Occupy Sandy.

BILL MOYERS: Really?

NAOMI KLEIN: Yes. And what I found is that people are­the generosity is tremendous, the humanity is tremendous. I saw a friend last night, and I asked her whether she'd been involved in the hurricane relief. And she said, "Yeah, I gave them my car. I hope I get it back. If you see it, tell me." So people are tremendous.

BILL MOYERS: This means--

NAOMI KLEIN: So one of the things that you find out in a disaster is you really do need a public sector. It really important. And coming back to what we were talking about earlier, why is climate change so threatening to people on the conservative end of the political spectrum? One of the things it makes an argument for is the public sphere. You need public transit to prevent climate change. But you also need a public health care system to respond to it. It can't just be ad hoc. It can't just be charity and goodwill.

BILL MOYERS: When you use terms like "collective action," "central planning," you scare corporate executive and the American Enterprise Institute and The Heritage Foundation because they say you want to do away with capitalism.

NAOMI KLEIN: Well, first of all, I don't use a phrase like "central planning." I talk about planning, but I don't think it should be central. And one of the things that one must admit when looking at climate change is that the only thing just as bad or maybe even worse for the climate than capitalism was communism. And when we look at the carbon emissions for the eastern bloc countries, they were actually, in some cases, worse than countries like Australia or Canada. So, let's just call it a tie. So we need to look for other models. And I think there needs to be much more decentralization and a much deeper definition of democracy than we have right now.

BILL MOYERS: Decentralization of what, Naomi?

NAOMI KLEIN: Well, for instance, you know, if we think about renewable energy, well, one of the things that's happened is that when you try to get wind farms set up, really big wind farms, there's usually a lot of community resistance that's happened in the United States. It's happened in Britain. Where it hasn't happened is Germany and Denmark. And the reason for that is that in those places you have movements that have demanded that the renewable energy be community controlled, not centrally planned, but community controlled. So that there's a sense of ownership, not by some big, faceless state, but by the people who actually live in the community that is impacted.

BILL MOYERS: You've written that climate change has little to do with the state of the environment, but much to do with the state of capitalism and transforming the American economic system. And you see an opening with Sandy, right?

NAOMI KLEIN: I do see an opening, because, you know, whenever you have this kind of destruction, there has to be a reconstruction. And what I documented in "The Shock Doctrine" is that these right-wing think tanks, like the ones you named, like the American Enterprise Institute or the Cato Institute, the Heritage Foundation, they historically have gotten very, very good at seizing these moments of opportunity to push through their wish list of policies.

And often their wish list of policies actually dig us deeper into crisis. If I can just-- if you'll bear with me, I'll just give you one example. After Hurricane Katrina, there was a meeting at the Heritage Foundation, just two weeks after the storm hit. Parts of the city were still underwater. And there was a meeting, the "Wall Street Journal" reported on it. And I got the minutes from the meeting.

The heading was 31 free market solutions for Hurricane Katrina. And you go down the list and it was: and don't reopen the public schools, replace the public schools with vouchers. And drill for oil in ANWAR, in the Arctic National Wildlife Reserve, more oil refineries. So what kind of free market solutions are these, right?

Here you have a crisis that was created by a collision between heavy weather (which may or may not have been linked to climate change, but certainly it's what climate change looks like) colliding with weak infrastructure, because of years and years of neglect. And the free market solutions to this crisis are, "Let's just get rid of the public infrastructure altogether and drill for more oil, which is the root cause of climate change." So that's their shock doctrine. And I think it's time for a people's shock.

BILL MOYERS: People's shock?

NAOMI KLEIN: A people's shock, which actually we've had before, as you know, where, you know, if you think about 1929 and the market shock, and the way in which the public responded. They wanted to get at the root of the problem. And they wanted to get away from speculative finance and that's how we got some very good legislation passed in this country like Glass-Steagall, and much of the social safety net was born in that moment. Not by exploiting crisis to horde power for the few and to ram through policies that people don't want, but to build popular movements and to really deepen democracy.

BILL MOYERS: Well, the main thesis of "Shock Doctrine," which came out five years ago before the great crash was that disaster capitalism exploits crises in order to move greater wealth to the hands of the fewer and fewer people. You don't expect those people to change their appetites do you or their ways do you, because we face a climate crisis?

NAOMI KLEIN: I don't expect them to. I wrote "The Shock Doctrine" because I believe that we, I believed at the time that we didn't understand this tactic. We didn't understand that during times of crisis certain sectors of the business world and the political class take advantage of our disorientation in order to ram through these policies. And I believed, at the time, that if we understood it, you know, if we had a name for it, if we had a word, a language for it, then the next time they tried it, we would fight back. Because the whole tactic is about taking advantage of our disorientation in those moments of crisis. And the fact that we often can become childlike and look towards, you know, a supposed expert class and leaders to take care of us. And we become too trusting, frankly, during disasters.

BILL MOYERS: It used to be said that weather, now global warming, climate change, was the great equalizer. It affected rich and poor alike. You don't think it does, do you?

NAOMI KLEIN: What I'm seeing. And I've seen this, you know--I've been tracking this now for about six years, more and more, there's a privatization of response to disaster, where I think that wealthy people understand that, yes, we are going to see more and more storms. We live in a turbulent world. It's going to get even more turbulent. And they're planning. So you have, for instance private insurance companies now increasingly offer what they call a concierge service. The first company that was doing this was A.I.G. And in the midst of the California wildfires about six years ago, for the first time, you saw private firefighters showing up at people's homes, spraying them in fire retardant, so that when the flames came, this house would stay. This mansion, usually, would be standing and the one next door might burn to the ground. So this is extraordinary. Because we would tend to think of, you know, firefighting. This is definitely, you know, a public good. This is definitely something that people get equally. But now we're finding that even that there's even a sort of two-tiering of protection from wildfires.

BILL MOYERS: Yeah, there was even a short-lived airline in Florida I read about that offered five-star evacuation service in events of hurricanes.

NAOMI KLEIN: After Hurricane Katrina a company in Florida saw a market opportunity. And they decided to offer a charter airline that would turn your hurricane into a luxury vacation. That was actually the slogan. They would let you know when a hurricane was headed for your area. They would pick you up in a limousine, drive you to the airport, and whisk you up. And they would make you five star hotel reservations at the destination of your choice. So, you know, why does a hurricane have to be bad news after all?

BILL MOYERS: And this kind of privatization is what you wrote about in "Shock Doctrine," that privatization of resources, monopolization of resources by the rich, in times of crisis, further divide us as a society

NAOMI KLEIN: Absolutely. And, you know, one of the things about deregulated capitalism is that it is a crisis creation machine, you know? You take away all the rules and you are going to have serial crises. They may be economic crises, booms and busts. Or there will be ecological crises. You're going to have both. You're just going to have shock after shock after shock. And the more, the longer this goes on, the more shocks you're going to have.

And the way we're currently responding to it is that with each shock, we become more divided. And the more we understand that this is what the future looks like, the more those who can afford it protect themselves and buy their way out of having to depend on the public sector and therefore are less invested in these collective responses. And that's why there has to be a whole other way of responding to this crisis.

BILL MOYERS: You wrote recently that climate change can be a historic moment to usher in the next great wave of progressive change.

NAOMI KLEIN: It can be and it must be. I mean, it's our only chance. I believe it's the biggest challenge humanity has ever faced. And we've been kidding ourselves about what it's going to take to get our emissions down to the extent that they need to go down. I mean, you talk about 80 percent lowering emissions. I mean, that is such a huge shift.

And I think that's part of the way in which, and I don't mean to beat up on the big environmental groups, because they do fantastic work. But I think that part of the reason why public opinion on this issue has been so shaky is that it doesn't really add up to say to the public, you know, "This is a huge problem. It's Armageddon." You know, you have "Inconvenient Truth." You scare the hell out of people. But then you say, "Well, the solution can be very minor. You can change your light bulb. And we'll have this complicated piece of legislation called cap and trade that you don't really understand, but that basically means that companies here can keep on polluting, but they're going to trade their carbon emissions. And, you know, somebody else is going to plant trees on the other side of the planet and they'll get credits."

And people look at that going, "Okay, if this was a crisis, wouldn't be we be responding more aggressively? So wouldn't we be responding in a way that you have, we've responded in the past during war times, where there's been, you know, that kind of a collective sense of shared responsibility?" Because I think when we really do feel that sense of urgency about an issue, and I believe we should feel it about climate change, we are willing to sacrifice. We have shown that in the past. But when you hold up a supposed emergency and actually don't ask anything of people, anything major, they actually think you might be lying, that it might not really be an emergency after all. So if this is an emergency, we have to act like it. And yeah, it is a fundamental challenge. But the good news is, you know, we get to have a future for our kids.

BILL MOYERS: Naomi Klein, thank you for joining me.

NAOMI KLEIN: Thank you so much. It's been such a pleasure.
 

Comments

We are concerned about a recent drift towards vitriol in the RSN Reader comments section. There is a fine line between moderation and censorship. No one likes a harsh or confrontational forum atmosphere. At the same time everyone wants to be able to express themselves freely. We'll start by encouraging good judgment. If that doesn't work we'll have to ramp up the moderation.

General guidelines: Avoid personal attacks on other forum members; Avoid remarks that are ethnically derogatory; Do not advocate violence, or any illegal activity.

Remember that making the world better begins with responsible action.

- The RSN Team
 

+3 # fredboy 2012-11-18 15:16
The increasing number of environment ass whippings are and will continue to put an enormous strain on our economy. Anyone factored this into the equation?
Reply | Reply with quote | Quote
 
 

+1 # brianf 2012-11-18 17:46
The biggest strain on our economy is the climate disaster caused by global warming. And very few have factored this into the equation, especially when talking about the future.
Reply | Reply with quote | Quote
 
 

+2 # Barbara K 2012-11-18 15:32
All one has to do is to look around to see that the climate is changing, no matter how many lies the fossil fuel industry, and others, try to deny it. We need to ignore them and take actions to protect ourselves and correct what is happening to our environment to cause it. The Climate Deniers have no credibility, just lies. We need action and we need it now, it is nearly too late already. They are getting rich off what they are doing to us. One day, they will realize that they've gone too far, and that they can't take their money with them.
Reply | Reply with quote | Quote
 
 

+2 # Depressionborn 2012-11-18 16:01
Klein and Moyers might google "sunspot activity". It doesn't look too good.
Reply | Reply with quote | Quote
 
 

0 # brianf 2012-11-18 17:49
Sunspot activity goes in cycles. It has been low the past few years, which helped to mask the continuing global warming. Now that sunspot activity has increased, the effects of greenhouse gases are again manifesting. If you take into account all the factors, global warming is much more obvious and much more scary.
Reply | Reply with quote | Quote
 
 

+3 # PrinceDarrell 2012-11-18 16:16
The economy and green energy conversion are one and the same. To convert over will cost trillions... but those trillions can be accounted for by energy conservation over ten years, end of foriegn oil expenditures (6 trillion over 10 years) and less in wars (3 trillion) We will need near 0 unemployment, and a BOOMING economy, to get done what needs to be done, quickly enough.
Reply | Reply with quote | Quote
 
 

-1 # Dumbledorf 2012-11-18 16:25
Time to jump on board the "climate change" wagon (again) and have a party! You know, it is a really sad state of affairs when so many of our political commentators and pundits have fallen prey for the same old, pre-packaged and manufactured lies, based on secret agendas, whose purpose is not to benefit humanity or the people most in need, but to sell books and make money for international bankers and elites. Who do you think is going to profit most from a "carbon tax?" How about Al Gore, for one! Yes, he's heavily invested in this money-making scam as are many other promoters of climate change.

In 1966, the U.S. military started a secret program to increase the warming of the earth. It was heralded as a great advancement in civilization! Better look at this before voting me down....http:// aircrap.org/gov ernment-documen ts-link-global- warming-advance d-military-clim ate-modificatio n-technology/33 5921/
Reply | Reply with quote | Quote
 
 

0 # Malcolm 2012-11-18 17:27
Quoting Dumbledorf:

Time to jump on board the "climate change" wagon (again) and have a party! You know, it is a really sad state of affairs when so many of our political commentators and pundits have fallen prey for the same old, pre-packaged and manufactured lies, based on secret agendas, whose purpose is not to benefit humanity or the people most in need, but to sell books and make money for international bankers and elites. Who do you think is going to profit most from a "carbon tax?" How about Al Gore, for one! Yes, he's heavily invested in this money-making scam as are many other promoters of climate change.

In 1966, the U.S. military started a secret program to increase the warming of the earth. It was heralded as a great advancement in civilization! Better look at this before voting me down....http://aircrap.org/government-documents-link-global-warming-advanced-military-climate-modification-technology/335921/

Sorry, chum; though i doubt that AGW exists, I doubt anyone can say for certain. Furthermore, your website appears to promote "chemtrails", and thus loses all credibility. In fact, chemtrail fanatics' arguments tend to hurt doubters' efforts to find truth in the whole AGW argument.
Reply | Reply with quote | Quote
 
 

+1 # brianf 2012-11-18 16:50
I think Naomi really nailed it when she said treating this as a personal problem can't solve it and letting the free market control things will only make it worse.

A grass roots solution won't work either, any more than a grass roots solution could have won World War II. But a grass roots movement can force the government to do it's job to protect its people, and government working with society can force corporations to stop killing our future. Call it socialism if you want, but it's the only thing that will save us.

The question is whether enough people wake up in time and then take real action.
Reply | Reply with quote | Quote
 
 

+1 # jwb110 2012-11-18 16:56
When the rich industrialist's homes flood and it costs them, then something will be done and not before.
Reply | Reply with quote | Quote
 
 

0 # brianf 2012-11-18 17:50
They will just move to the hills and continue to deny so they can reap more profits. Never underestimate the power of denial.
Reply | Reply with quote | Quote
 
 

+2 # Vardoz 2012-11-18 17:01
It's here. It's happening and the energy companies don't care how bad it gets and that is a big problem for mankind. Billions will suffer and die so that a few can stay rich. This is much worse then any war- this is global destruction. HELLO TIME TO SAVE THE PLANET!
Reply | Reply with quote | Quote
 
 

+1 # Rathbone 2012-11-18 17:01
The smart rich have already sold their coastal homes. Romney is on a lake.
Reply | Reply with quote | Quote
 
 

+1 # Malcolm 2012-11-18 17:16
I've been a registered Democrat since 1966. I'm not beholden to any fossil fuel industry a-holes.

I have a science background, including climatology, geology, oceanography, physics %. I'm a retired green building contractor, designer/builde r of passive solar homes, and inventor of renewable energy devices.

Since 1972-3, when I learned about rising CO2 levels, I followed the party line on global warming. But then I saw "Inconvenient Truth", and due to the clear misinformation in that film, began doing my own research. I am totally convinced that anthropomorphic global warming is far from a settled issue. I won't explain that; you've all heard the arguments ad nauseum.

I have a question for Naomi Kline. You said, "And on top of that, you have, we've had this concerted campaign by the fossil fuel lobby to both buy off the environmental movement, to defame the environmental movement, to infiltrate the environmental movement, and to spread lies in the culture. And that's what the climate denial movement has been doing so effectively."

Do you seriously believer that all of us who disagree with your conclusions (you, with no known science education) have been "bought off"? I find that insulting.

I also wonder what you will say, in the waya of apology, in the event that AGW is eventually disproven. Thanks. Other than AGW, I greatly admire your works.
Reply | Reply with quote | Quote
 
 

+1 # brianf 2012-11-18 17:57
All I can say is that you could not have been going to peer reviewed studies when you did your research, and my question to you is: why not? You need to understand that all kinds of interests can and will publish anything they want and call it science, but it can be hogwash.

I have also done my own research since seeing An Inconvenient Truth, actually since before then. I have read over 30 books by climate scientists and summaries of thousands of peer reviewed papers. And I can say with certainty that if Al Gore got anything wrong, he underestimated the severity of the problem. It's not his fault - he relied on the scientists, who also underestimated it.

If you really care about the truth, I suggest you redo your research, and this time only read peer reviewed papers. AGW has more proof than most accepted theories. The only questions are how bad will it get and by when, and only we can answer, by our actions.
Reply | Reply with quote | Quote
 
 

0 # Banichi 2012-11-18 17:40
Naomi Klein is such a terrific, incisive speaker and researcher, and so committed to the work of waking up people! I am in complete agreement with what she has to say.

I have also been saying, before the election that gave Obama another term, that 'We the People' can not depend on Obama to lead the way out of the mess we are in with climate change and a host of other related issues, including specifically financial reform like the Glass-Steagal act being made into law again.

What we as a people must do is as Naomi Klein said, to take the lead to create the solutions, including putting a lot of pressure on Obama so he can say to the GOP in the House - who we must also put unrelenting pressure on - that this issue is the first priority and they need to pay attention. No more gutting government, no more tax deals for the wealthy.

It is what we must do to survive and bring about change, if we want to have a planet that will support us in a few years.
Reply | Reply with quote | Quote
 
 

-1 # Malcolm 2012-11-18 17:45
Naomi says, "And it turns out that he had gone swimming in a lake filled with blue-green algae, which is actually a climate-related issue. When lakes get too warm, this blue-green algae spreads."

I'd be greatly appreciative if you-or someone-would back up this statement with some data. Because, in my world, blue green algae is ubuquitous, occurring almost worldwide, in freshwater, ocean water, and even in boiling water. In addition, it's an important player in our ocean's nutrient cycles.

I've also wondered why it's gotten to be a medical issue (ever heard of "Super Blue Green Algae", marketed to the health food crowd?

I have been unable to answer that question, however, and personally can only speculate that "bad" blue green algae may be the result of genetic manipulation, as was the formerly benign E. coli. But "don't quote me" :) as the word's still out!
Reply | Reply with quote | Quote
 
 

+1 # noitall 2012-11-18 17:55
Great interview and Naomi, as usual, gets to the core. Its the young people that must lead this charge, educate and recruit among their friends and through social networking. They are the ones that will face the brunt of what these rogues are profitting from. Us old guys are there to help them do it their way. What will THEIR next 40 years be like?
Reply | Reply with quote | Quote
 
 

-1 # Malcolm 2012-11-18 17:58
C'mon, Naomi! When you say, "And what you find is that people who have very strong conservative political beliefs cannot deal with this science, because it threatens everything else they believe.", you overlook the other half of of your equation. Those who lean strongly to the left-as most of my friends and I do-hear that AGW is actually-just maybe-a sham, THEY feel threatened, just as the right wing nuts do.

And this is the core of the whole fight we're experiencing with AGW: a huge percentage of people form their opinions on AGW (And OPINIONS is the key word!) by parroting what they hear from friends, and, on a good day, from the press. That includes both you and Bill McKibben. Have either of you done original research, or are you-like the majority of folks- simply parroting the work of others?
Reply | Reply with quote | Quote
 
Refresh comments list
RSS feed for comments to this post
Subscribe

Add comment

1500 symbols left

Notify me of follow-up comments
Send

• YOUR ARTICLES
• YOUR PROFILE
• RSN COMMUNITY

Hello,   Kimc

 
Petraeus Testifies, McCain Shuts Up
Joe Conason, National Memo
17 November 2012
 
FOCUS | Rewrite Tom Friedman, Win a Free Hand Grenade
Matt Taibbi, Rolling Stone
15 November 2012
 
Mitt's Right, Obama Won Because of "Gifts"
Scott Galindez, Reader Supported News
15 November 2012
 
5 CEOs Who Are Punishing Employees for Obama's Re-Election
Henry Decker, National Memo
16 November 2012
 
FOCUS | The "Fiscal Cliff" Mini-Deal
Robert Reich, Robert Reich's Blog
15 November 2012
 
FOCUS | The Grenade of Understanding Friedman Winners
Matt Taibbi, Rolling Stone
17 November 2012
 
FOCUS | The First Week in January
Elizabeth Warren, Reader Supported News
16 November 2012
 
Watchdog: Karl Rove and Crossroads GPS Broke Election Law
Josh Israel, Think Progress
17 November 2012
 
Raising Taxes on the Rich
Robert Reich, Robert Reich's Blog
16 November 2012
 
 

• PRIVACY POLICY
• TERMS OF USE
• CONTACT US
• WHO IS THIS?
• LOGOUT

© 2012 Reader Supported News