There’s no need to put up with unrequested 24×7 surveillance.

This family of polar bears shows the way.

It must have at least two decades since British environmentalist Norman Myers articulated this memorable advice:

“If we live as if it matters and it doesn’t matter, it doesn’t matter.
If we live as if it doesn’t matter and it matters, then it matters…”

Myers was referring to climate change. He was making the rather obvious point that the potential consequences of inaction over reducing greenhouse gas emissions are much more severe than the consequences of action.

Greg Craven: bringing sanity to the debate about our global climate destabilisation experiment

So this is not a new idea in the climate change debate.It was part of the original tool-kit of arguments used from the late 1980s to argue for action to reduce emissions.

It has always seemed to me the most powerful argument available to those of us who believe in the need for a precautionary approach to emission levels. It’s the argument hardest to refute. It makes much of what does pass for ‘argument’ over climate change policy besides the point. Who cares whether polar bears float on ice-drift? Who knows if the latest wildfires are ’caused’ by climate change? So what if it’s icy-cold in London this Christmas?

Unfortunately, I think the risk management proposition is one of the most under-used arguments in the environmentalists’ armory. There have even been occasions when it has been used – only to attract carping from environmentalists themselves!

I’ll use an example from Australia. In February this year, the once (and future?) Australian Opposition leader Malcolm Turnbull voted against his own party in Parliament in support of an emissions trading scheme. He said:

“Climate change policy has to recognise these real risks, these real threats to the safety of our planet. It is an exercise in risk management and no reasonable person could regard the risk as being so low that no action was warranted.”

I recall that Turnbull copped a smattering of criticism at the time even from the pro-conservation side of the debate, some of whom took offense because they considered he was in some way giving comfort to ‘climate change deniers’ by using the term ‘risk’. They wanted to hear him speak with ‘certainty’. I think they’re wrong. Dead wrong. Turnbull was right in this case (the ETS he supported at the time was lousy policy – but that’s another topic).

Risk analysis IS the key to winning the climate change debate; scolding opponents for holding the ‘wrong’ opinions is a counter-productive waste of time.

I’ve written material myself along those lines before, such as the optimistically-titled Not Far from Climate Change Consensus for Action blogged here a couple of years ago. A serious review of the general literature, I’m sure, would reveal the risk management argument has been used capably many times.

In any event, I recently came across a resource on the web that has clearly been very popular – although I managed to miss it for more than three years.

It’s The Most Terrifying Video You’ll Ever See by Oregonian, teacher and activist Greg Craven. He makes the case for precautionary action to reduce emissions better than I’ve ever seen it done before. This guy has a first-class intellect and he’s a superb communicator! Funny too!

Apparently some 7.5 million people have seen The Most Terrifying Video You’ll Ever See by now. Mr Craven used it to generate intense debate about the issues he discussed on his website – GregCraven.org – and he’s used that feedback as the basis for a book entitled What’s the Worst That Could Happen? A Rational Response.

Watch Greg Craven’s more recent video (2009) in which he introduces this inexpensive, action-packed dead-trees treat…

Why not buy a copy or ten and hand them around? You can order the book with a DVD here.

It’s time to build consensus around sanity. Each of us who understands this can help by spreading the word.

A tragedy is a tragedy, wherever it happens. Fire raging out of control, while it’s part of the natural cycle in many parts of the world, can be terrifying by any measure. According to reports, 40 people have already been killed in wildfires that broke out near Haifa in northern occupied Palestine and continue to rage at this moment.

Wildfires rage near Haifa, December 2010 (BBC)

In no way is this short article an exercise in gloating. The people of that part of the world are in strife and they deserve sympathy – just as sympathy poured in for Victorians when bushfires created havoc there back in the southern summer of 2008.

They also deserve help . Wisely, Netanyahu has asked for help. Apparently he’s been in contact with numerous countries in the region including Greece and Cyprus, who are sending firefighting equipment urgently. A massive Russian water-bomber is on the way. It’s reported countries as far away as the USA and Australia have pledged assistance.

The irony of Greece and Cyrpus helping Israel with airplanes in its time of crisis is hard to pass over unmentioned. The Zionist State boasts one of the most sophisticated and largest military airforces in the world. Costly too – although the USA paid for most of it. But Israel’s airforce is geared up for war fighting and terrorizing – not civil disasters. It can bomb with napalm. It can bomb with depleted uranium. It can bomb with high-explosive bunkers busters. It can bomb with deadly silent drones. It can ever spray thick clouds of tear gas, this very day, to disperse protestors at Ni’ilin.

On the same day as the wildfires, a cloud of teargas disperses Palestinian protestors at Ni'ilin

But water-bombing? It seems no Israeli planner thought of that.

Fortunately, helpful neighbours can share theirs…

Wildfire is natural, but there are indications wildfires are on the increase worldwide. Israel has just experienced its driest November on record. It’s  consistent with rapid human-induced climate change. In many parts of the world, scientists anticipate more and more frequent wildfires as the century progreses. accompanied by accelerating ecosystem change and loss of biodiversity.

The world community knows it must deal with the problem of climate change – urgently. It’s a crucially high priority for us all. At least, it should be.

But in our bizarro world, the centrally-important USA is now so brow-beaten by Zionist power that its far easier to get bipartisan congressional consensus for launching a new illegal war at Israel’s behest than it is to agree serious measures to avert rapid climate change – which has potentially devastating consequences for all humanity.

When the fires are out, the Zionist plutocrats who stand behind this rotten project of the apartheid rogue state of Israel should take a long hard look at themselves and their vile sectarian policies.

What price international dominance?

Global ecocide?

__________________________

Postscript (December 4th 2010)

Antaea Darom has an important follow-up article, focusing especially on gratuitous anti-Arab commentary in some of the Israeli media regarding the wildfires that continue to blaze – see Israel’s Carmel Fire: Racism Rears Its Ugly Head Even in Tragedy

This land could be your land!

This land is your land, this land is my land

From California to the New York Island

From the Redwood Forest to the Gulf Stream waters

This land was made for you and me.

From California to New York, a new political force is rising in America. It’s been a slow train coming.

Like Britain, the USA has long been known as a graveyard for ‘third parties’.

In 2010, who would Woody Guthrie vote for?

Throughout most of its 234 year history, American politics have been dominated by two parties (Republicans v Democrats since the mid-19th century). In such a large nation, with so much wealth at stake and such powerful forces working aggressively to entrench their privilege, it’s extremely hard for a new political force to emerge. The lack of an Australian-style preferential voting system is another serious impediment.

There have been attempts to break through the duopoly. One of these – in the early 19th century – was the short-lived Anti-Masonic Party. Late in  the 19th century, the Populist Party became a significant electoral force. Various parties of the socialist left were formed during the 20th century, but none of them gained the influence of European counterparts.

In recent decades, the most serious challenge has come from the disaffected, genuine small-government right wing, typified by the Libertarian Party. It was still the party with the third-largest ballot access in 2008.

But the Green Party of the United States (GPUS) – formed as recently as 2001 – is definitely on the ascendant.

Throughout the last two centuries many Americans believed the two party system didn’t reflect the interests of ordinary people and served mainly as a conduit for corporate interests. The feeling has become intense in recent years. Yet until now, no third party has sunk deep enough roots to survive the harsh landscape of American politics.

Will the Greens manage to achieve what hasn’t been done before? Is America at the beginning of a Green political revolution?

Marina Silva: a powerful voice from the world's most biodiverse nation, choice of 1 in 5 Brazilians in 2010

One reason for optimism is that The Greens are a global force. 20% of Brazilians voted Green in the first round of this year’s Presidential elections. In Australia, Greens are becoming a credible political alternative to the two majors. Those are but two examples of a worldwide trend.

American politics have always been distinctive and ‘different’. Even so, core Greens’ principles of peace, social justice, environmental sustainability and returning power to the people are as relevant within the USA as elsewhere. Ultimately, we are one people  on one finite planet with many shared problems.

Having trawled the website of the Green Party of the United States, here are my favourite Greens videos from the 2010 mid-term elections.

The two candidates displayed below are from eastern and western extremities of mainland USA. Different in style and emphasis, they are both refreshing alternatives to the Janus-faced red, white and blue corporatist agenda.

California: Laura Wells for Governor!

Excluded from participating in Gubernatorial debates, Laura Wells was arrested trying to attend one of the debates even as a member of the audience!

This was not widely reported by the US corporate media, but Russia Today has the story: CA Candidate Arrested at Debate.

This YouTube video is Laura’s attempt to get a word in edgeways…

New York: Howie Hawkins for Governor!

In the State of New York, you can’t talk green without some reference to those popular folding green notes (which these days consist mainly of vibrating electrons).

Howie Hawkins has a neat plan to fix the State’s budget deficit in one fell swoop. It would fund a ‘Green New Deal’, which plenty of New Yorkers would appreciate.

But the bankers won’t like it one little byte…