Saturday, November 04, 2006

POLLS: The Three Pink Elephants in the Room: Nov. 4 Shows U.K. has Green Majority like U.S. Green Supermajority in Health, Ecology, Economic Policy

Photobucket - Video and Image Hosting

"Almost every Indymedia site in the world is right now publishing the message that the Children's Revolution kids' bloc might be leading the March for Global Climate Justice from the American embassy in Grosvenor Square, London, at 1 pm on 4 November. Under the heading “Worldwide Children's Revolution to Try to Save the Human Race From Extinction?” the story says that the very existence of future generations may depend on urgent worldwide action to tackle global warming and climate change.*"

It is easy to continue noticing the majorities or super-majorities seen in polls for a demographics toward sustainability that is "already there--only waiting to be organized".

This is news from Britain despite a neo-Orwellian police state brought about after 7/7, which created more surveillance framework on the public: despite that, the majority of Britishers want a "climate change party."


Green Power on the march: Thousands unite to rally against global warming
By Ian Herbert, Colin Brown and Michael McCarthy
Published: 04 November 2006
UK-Independent

People power comes to the fight against climate change today as Britain witnesses its biggest march and rally demanding the Government acts against the threat of global warming.

From the rock band Razorlight to members of the Women's Institute, from the singer K T Tunstall to the Bishop of Liverpool, the expected crowd of 20,000 in Trafalgar Square will be as wide a cross-section of society as can be assembled anywhere.

The Stop Climate Chaos event brings together an even broader coalition of groups than that behind last year's Make Poverty History events: 40 organisations, ranging from Greenpeace and Friends of the Earth to Oxfam, from Surfers Against Sewage to the Ramblers' Association.

The unprecedented demonstration comes in the wake of the Stern Review on the economics of climate change, published on Monday, and on the eve of this year's UN climate conference, which is being held in Nairobi, Kenya, over the next two weeks.

Two polls show that public concern over the climate is rising steadily, with more than half of Britons now saying that they would accept green taxes to cut pollution, [which would remove unsustainable material use subsidies for oil and its informal raw material regimes animating formal policy] and 40 per cent saying a party's climate change policies would influence the way they vote.

The Foreign Secretary, Margaret Beckett, spoke out on the climate issue yesterday, telling an audience in Delhi that the Indian subcontinent could face a combination of drought and rising sea levels - devastating crop yields and forcing millions to flee their homes - as a result of soaring global temperatures. [Or being innundated with sea level rises in the 10s of meters--if Greenland and/or more Antartic glaciers start calving 8x faster into the Southern Ocean, as they have been noted to have been moving after Larsen B disappeared. More here.]

Tony Blair was told by Angela Merkel, the German Chancellor, in talks at Downing Street that tackling climate change will be a priority for the German presidency of the G8 group of industrialised countries in the new year. [tackling climate change or tackling protesters against state-corporate intransigence?]

Ashok Sinha, director of the Stop Climate Chaos organisation, said: "The event reflects how widespread the concern about climate change is. It is emerging out of the green box. People realise it is not just an environmental question but a moral one."

Those who attend today's event will be asked to sign up to the "I Count" register, committing them to an individual contribution to the climate change cause.

Those who cannot attend can register online at www.icount.org.uk.

A new 16-step "I Count" guide to reducing carbon emissions, featured this week in The Independent, has been published by Penguin to coincide with the rally.

The event has two main political demands - that the UK Government negotiates an international deal to keep global warming to less than 2C; and that it introduces a climate change Bill to the Queen's Speech which - like The Independent's own proposed climate change bill last week - would deliver annual cuts in UK carbon dioxide emissions.

The closest Britain has come to an environmental protest on such a scale before has been the Campaign against Climate Change protests outside the US embassy in London's Grosvenor Square last year, which attracted 10,000 people.

Today's event, however, draws in a wider band of activist groups, some of which are relatively new to climate protest. The Women's Institute's 215,000 membership identified climate change as a primary concern at their national federation AGM last year.

The Ramblers' Association is concerned about the effects of climate change on the footpaths, fells and coastlines of the UK.

"The event is a chance for us to indicate that this is very much a fundamental issue of concern for us," said Patrick Brady, head of countryside protection at the organisation.

As a sign of their commitment to the cause, many of those travelling to today's event will do so in a carbon-free way, including cyclists from Somerset, walkers from the West Midlands, and one group paddling down the Thames by canoe from Oxford.

The protest, which sits firmly in a proud tradition of environmental campaigning tracing its roots through the mass trespass movement of the 1930s to the anti-road building movement of the 1990s, shows Britain is not prepared to sit back and wait for politicians to find answers to the climate change crisis.

New public opinion readings confirm that. A Populus poll yesterday for BBC2's The Daily Politics programme showed that more than half of Britons (53 per cent) agree the Government should impose higher taxes on activities that cause pollution [just taking away corrupting crony subsidies would be a start, even without adding such taxes]- even if it means the end of cheap flights and driving a car becomes more expensive (45 per cent disagreed).

A survey undertaken by TNS Omnimas for Stop Climate Chaos, reveals only 4 per cent of the population believe Tony Blair has made effective progress on the issue, while 40 per cent claim climate change policies would influence their vote.

Today's events

* 11.15am. Christian church service at Grosvenor Chapel, 24 South Audley Street , W1, addressed by Rt Rev Richard Chartres, Bishop of London.

* Midday. The first of a number of "feeder" events that anyone can join. Around 5,000 people are expected at a Campaign Against Climate Change rally outside Grosvenor Square.

Another, under the banner of the People and Planet organisation, takes place in Malet Street, WC1, followed by a procession to the main event in a Rio-style parade.

[hardly all the religious are corporate-fascist...]
* 12.30. The Rt Rev James Jones, Bishop of Liverpool, addresses a gathering in the church of St Martin-in-the-Fields, staged by Tearfund and Christian Aid. By now, street performances will be under way in Trafalgar Square. A big screen will also be in Trafalgar Square screening films about climate change and the work organisations are doing to tackle it.

* 1pm. Main event starts in Trafalgar Square. Speakers and performers include K T Tunstall, Miranda Richardson, the Bishop of Liverpool, Razorlight and Adam Hart Davis. The event wraps up at 3pm.

http://news.independent.co.uk/environment/article1953695.ece

Similarly to the polls above, the U.S. supermajorities on Green politics can be summarized from a comment I wrote elsewhere on another blog commenting on another person who wrote:

Mojo Workout writes:

"There is a lot more I could or would say about how the left/right paradigm is falsely constructed, for example: A lot of people with certain imbued religious doctrines might be preternaturally homophobic, but otherwise extremely liberal by any socialist's definition. They are either marginalized from the political dialogue, or forced to belly up to the "right wing" bar, by virtue of their religious indoctrination, something which they were given as children. So look how effectively such a false dichotomy can be wielded, as in the last presidential election (Diebold fraud in Ohio excepted) to give either a majority, or the plausible illusion of a majority, to the Republicans...So maybe we ought to come up with a better, more inclusive word for the philosophy that is for the maintenance of life on earth (although technically this could be called "conservative" -- ironic, eh?)....Just a quick follow up comment to my post above, to mention the irony that the gay-bashing Republicans seem to have fielded more gay members of Congress than the Democrats by far. Sadly, a high percentage of them also seem to be pederasts. Maybe GOP stands for Gang Of Pedophiles? It just goes to give the lie to the whole left/right false dichotomy, since lefties are supposed to be pro-gay rights, and righties anti-gay. Yet even the chair of the GOP is gay. So who is kidding whom?

"The left/right paradigm is a force fit Hobson's choice to fractionalize and to de-fang any real political power on the part of the people, and to mask the fact that we have long lived in a one party, totalitarian state. So let's update our vocabulary, at the least. It's the first step to throwing out the bums on both "sides"."


I have noticed that there are "ascriptive" social movement issues (interpersonal politics) and those politics or social movements separately weighed in about "social" issues (social organizational politics). Instead of 'left/right' I would offer the analysis of the 'interpersonal/social' issues, which break out into many different variants--four mostly--discussed below.

Ascriptive is defined as:
1. to credit or assign, as to a cause or source; attribute; impute: The alphabet is usually ascribed to the Phoenicians.
2. to attribute or think of as belonging, as a quality or characteristic: They ascribed courage to me for something I did out of sheer panic.

Typical ascriptive interpersonal things range from gender, ethnicity, sexuality, handicapped status, age, religion, etc.

For instance, in the history of Wisconsin for example, which throws a real loop or insight into how interpersonal politics can be "conservative" and social politics can be "liberal" simultaneously, the state is one of the largest Germananocentric populations in U.S., even more than Pennsylvania.

The state itself was founded in 1848, off failed ethnically solid German "liberal" revolutionaries.

When they came to "Wisconsin" before it was a state, there were already other northern Europeans mostly there with them like Scandinavians. The history of Wisconsin, particularly in national politics has been one of xenophobia as well as very radical leftism simultaneously. By the 1930s, the LaFolletes were turning quite pro Nazi in their iconography and even had a little "blue circle" flag with 13 red and white stripes, as an echo of the National Socialist flag in Germany.

So I'm saying that what we're talking about is, I would argue, in the popular mind, a an observable 'wedge' separation between interpersonal politics and social politics which are treated entirely differently. People split more on this issue than the current fake 'left/right' arrangement assumptions of purism would want to allow.

Instead, we are handed a rigged plate due to lots of historical things where expectations are:

left
means liberal interpersonal
means liberal social

right
means conservative interpersonal
means conservative social

When you can get such additional admixtures as:

liberal interpersonal
conservative social

and

conservative interpersonal
liberal social


For the "conservative interpersonal/liberal social" variant, some are very conservative interpersonally like the Wisconsinites, though who would be 'non-conservative' (liberal social) in their social politics--like their state history of support of banning margarine and running their state like Frederich List instead of Adam Smith.

And inverting it once more, "liberal interpersonal/conservative social", you have gay activists within the Republican party--interpersonally liberal though socially conservative (using "social" here in terms of public institutional policies about economics and establishing institutions, etc.).

It used to be called (strangely) the American school of economics what both the U.S. did as well as various states like Wisconsin did.

However, once the corporate elites had 'been there, done that' and consolidated the national scene, they moved globally and lost any nationalist economy loyalty both left and right parties inclusive.

So with both the 'left' and 'right' being conservative socially now (neoliberalist corporate fascist), the only hat peg that both residual parties calling themselves 'left' and 'right' in the United States have to hang their threadbare identities on is ascriptive interpersonal issues.

The residual 'left' and 'right' institutionally in the U.S. achingly pretend they are different and "pick a staged fight" of fake issues over gay marriage, etc. to disguise their common silence on social political issues that they have both sold the United States down the river on with their conservative social policies for global privatization which is without any majority support.

I think Mojo is correct that the whole interpersonal liberality of rank and file gay Republicans find themselves very socially conservative. That is the current twist of the Good Ol Pedophiles (i.e., the Republican Congressman from Florida, Foley, and his gay sex and gay propositioning with his underage Republican page).

However, the 'left' institutionally speaking stands for nothing as well--given the 1990s whole Democratic Party/Clinton's "don't ask don't tell" and stand against gay civil rights equally.

As for the U.S. 'left', so while mouthing interpersonal freedom (though doing nothing about it), the 'left' is socially conservative as the 'right'.

And while mouthing interpersonal repression (though hypocritically being a party of high powered, rich, libidinous, libertine, pedophiles (watch that U.S. censored video Conspiracy of Silence [50 minutes]), the 'right' is socially conservative as well.

However as for social politics instead of the difference of opinion on interpersonal politics, there are super-majorities for health, ecology, and national economics. These are:

The Three Pink Elephants in the Room: Health, Ecology, Economy

The main topics they are both avoiding are the social politics supported by super-majorities in polls on health care, environment, and sustainability.

These three issues are the true core of U.S. grass roots social politics regardless. Even those who typically 'vote right' (on conservative interpersonal politics) are pro-environment socially, in the U.S. See information below.

However, none of these 'U.S. parties' that run themselves like the French aristocracy of the 1780s more than anything want to touch health, ecology, or economy issues.

polls health

Majority (65%) of Americans want single-payer health care; willing to pay more taxes to get it. --- In ABCNEWS/Washington Post poll, 3 point margin, Americans by a 2-1 margin, 62-32 percent, prefer universal health insurance program over current employer-based system. 78% dissatisfied with cost of nation's health care, including 54% "very" dissatisfied. Most Americans...54%...now dissatisfied with overall quality of health care in U.S.--first majority in 3 polls since 1993, up 10 points since 2000. --- Public wants government to play leading role in providing health care for all. In the same poll, by almost a two-to-one margin (62% to 33%), Americans said that they preferred a universal system that would provide coverage to everyone under a government program, as opposed to current employer-based system. Slightly different question asked by Kaiser, June '03: more than 7 in 10 ten adults (72%) agreed government should guarantee health insurance for all citizens even if it means repealing most tax cuts passed under President George W. Bush--less than one-quarter (24%) disagreed with this. --- Americans overwhelmingly agree access to health care should be a right. In 2000, as in 1993, 8 in 10 agreed health care be provided equally to citizens; over half agreed “strongly” or “completely.” In 2004, 76% agreed strongly or somewhat that health care should be a right.

polls ecology

The majority (77%) think we should do "whatever it takes" to protect environment. --- In another poll, reported in The Ecologist, upwards of 80% of the U.S. with little difference between left or right want their environmental laws seriously enforced, as well as strengthened.

[This is the issue once more that many of the people who 'vote right' and may be more interpersonally conservative, have the same social policies and weigh in 'on the left' on the health, ecology, and economy issues.]

polls economy

The majority (86 percent) favor raising the minimum wage. The majority (60%) favor repealing Bush's tax cuts, or at least those that go only to the rich. --- The majority (87%) think big oil companies are gouging consumers and would support a windfall profits tax. --- The majority (66%) want to reduce the deficit not by cutting domestic spending, but by reducing Pentagon spending or raising taxes.

--- That is the center--and huge center it is. The 'left/right' thing has totally broken down when left and right PARTY elites both have moved toward globalized privatization support. It has left this super-majority of social politics--for health, ecology, and economy issues--festering WORLDWIDE across all nations.

So while the U.S. is a supra-majority place that does have a social politics that is common and strong on these three areas, its two French aristocracy parties play at dividing this up and ignoring that base, and reaching for any distraction available to keep people knowing that WHAT IS ABOVE IS THE MAJORITY.

More on this in my book.

Throw in: that the majority wants a complete pullout from the fake wars of the Skull and Bones'ers and you have completely 180 degree turnaround situation in the United States demographically--completely at odds with its French aristocratic parties that run it from the outside (on the global level).

Any political party could clear the decks with a "health care, ecology, and national economy" policy.

And it could either be a different one, or the same ones in power, forced to adapt to keep power--or they are popularly removed.

Hey! That's just what happened in Venezuela (and another film to watch).

And it looks like it's about to happen in Mexico or a true revolution will be occurring very shortly there (i.e., the Lopez Obrador (ALMO) issues against Mexican national vote fraud; Oaxaca autonomous city protesting against the governor's demotion of educational funding).

This is why the French aristocratic parties running the U.S. are so regressive and full of hatred about so called painted "Green" issues: because these issues "aren't Green" at all in a sense--they are cross platform huge majorities drawing from the social political base of Democrats and Republicans instead of only Greens.

They know that is the majority, though they additionally know that since these are issues, any party could come along and claim this super-majority and send the Democrats and Republicans off to the guillotines which is what the traitors deserve--particularly after 9-11 stand down and obfuscation that the U.S. political elites killed several thousand people for their own goals of further distraction from this supramajority. (Recent polls from CBS show that only 16% of the U.S. believes the official story of the Bush Administration about 9-11).

Remember back in 1999? The 'battle of Seattle', the WTO on the run?

That demographic is still there, and only stronger. The WTO rounds have just broken down among different nations as well by 2005.

Back in 1999, it was to the mutual surprise of "Teamsters and Turtles" marching together, similar to the huge cross party/cross interest coalitions seen in the U.K. on November 4, 2006, mentioned above.

Back in 1999, the French aristocratic elites running the U.S. probably were scared stiff that interpersonally conservative organized labor was joining social political environmentalism parades and protesting global privatization with them.

9-11 was a huge distraction (one they had been planning for generations, though) for ushering in a tyrannical police state against this "Green" super-majority. David Helvarg has written about the historical issues, showing that such modes of ecological tyranny had been steadily growing since the 1980s instead of suddenly popping out of nowhere.

One of the points of the bioregional state is to remove systemic corruption that has maintained such degradative and informal gatekeeping based nation states. Simple policy change frameworks by themselves only maintain the gatekeeping arrangements. A more competitive informal party framework will innately mean less gatekeeping, and thus, less prone to promote elite only frameworks of political economy (which are inherently self-destructive--particluarly for the elites in the same boat as we.) Toward a Bioregional State is both toward more competitive party frameworks as well as allowing that super-majority to decide for its local watershed area or state area what its developmental priorities are in the first place. As noted in the definition of the bioregional state:

Bioregional democracy (or the Bioregional State) is a set of electoral reforms and commodity reforms designed to force the political process in a democracy to better represent concerns about the economy, the body, and environmental concerns (e.g. water quality), toward developmental paths that are locally prioritized and tailored to different areas for their own specific interests of sustainability and durability. This movement is variously called bioregional democracy, watershed cooperation, or bioregional representation, or one of various other similar names--all of which denote democratic control of a natural commons and local jurisdictional dominance in any economic developmental path decisions--while not removing more generalized civil rights protections of a larger national state.


The bioregional state is thus toward a different 'grain' of democracy with a more competitive party framework as much as non-gerrymandered watershed based districts and (at last count) over 60 other different additional checks and balances mentioned in the book.

These additional checks and balances would serve to ameliorate against the way political power biases, informal party corruption, and environmental degradation interact in "half complete" democracies around the world.

As said in the introduction to the book:

"The issues around environmentalism are typically framed in the media, in academic work and even in activist circles as an issue of technocratic, economic or environmental management. The issues around democracy are seen in terms of social protest movements or informal political parties. The whole idea of another route of influence is the formal state: how it constructs, constrains, and designs the contexts of these situations themselves. Typically, the idea of changing the formal state as a mechanism of political change is effectively shielded from elite and popular awareness as a route towards sustainability. Instead ideas are constrained and guided within existing informal ideas of what to do, letting existing party frameworks maintain the informal gatekeeping upon political agendas, stopping any progress towards sustainability.

"However, to add other checks and balances on informal parties interacting in the state is perhaps the only solution to sustainability, if I am understood in what I mean when I say that at root these informal corruptions in a democratic state create environmental degradation and gatekeep and ignore citizen feedback about it. Corruption--and the gatekeeping and demoting of any citizen pressure attempting to alleviate such corruption--leads to environmental degradation.

...

"I argue that unless additional checks and balances are added that address from the beginning these biased interactive effects, nothing called democracy can ever be achieved or sustainable—socially or environmentally. Without the bioregional state, all that democracy will ever become is a repetition of aristocratic-royalty states under different symbolic legitimations and under an ecological tyranny."



On the other hand, if you like the repetition of history, just keep going. You'll get it.

Below are only a few more interesting U.K. articles on the cross-party environmental rally there:

1.

Trust joins rally to halt climate change

THE Worcestershire Wildlife Trust is joining a national rally to stop climate change.

Tomorrow, trust representatives will join groups from across the nation for the Stop Climate Chaos Rally being held in London.

Director Colin Raven said: "Wildlife trusts comprise the largest UK voluntary organisation dedicated to conserving the full range of the UK's habitats and species, whether they be in the countryside, in cities or at sea.
continued...

"Trusts across the UK are already reporting changes in UK species, due to climate change. That's why it's important to us, as a movement, to demonstrate our commitment to doing something about climate change. We can secure an environment rich in wildlife for the future. But to do so we need to act now."

The trusts say im-pacts of a temperature rise due to global warming could include threats to UK plant species abundant in Worcestershire.

They say lowland ponds are more likely to dry out, which could threaten some species, and there could be more frequent fires on small isolated nature reserves such as the Devils Spittleful, one of Worcestershire's last remaining heathlands.

Mr Raven said much of the emphasis on climate change had been on reducing carbon emissions, something trusts were tackling "In Worcestershire the trust is converting its vehicles to run on bio-diesel sourced from waste vegetable oils and is installing a geo-thermal heating system at its education centre," he said.

A strategic, integrated and large-scale approach to land management and decisions affecting it was needed.

1:39pm Friday 3rd November 2006

http://www.worcesternews.co.uk/display.var.1003339.0.trust_joins_rally_to_halt_climate_change.php

2.

Bishops and 'Rock Gods' united by climate chaos
Trafalgar Square, London, UK is set to be colonised this Saturday by thousands who are attending the free event on the eve of global climate change talks in Nairobi.

Friday, November 03, 2006
Ekklesia

The countdown to the 'I Count' climate change rally has begun and organisers claim it could be the ‘coolest’ event this year.

Trafalgar Square, London, UK is set to be colonised this Saturday by thousands who are attending the free event on the eve of global climate change talks in Nairobi.

The protesters will be demanding that the UK Government negotiate an international deal to keep global warming to less than 2 degrees centigrade and introduce a climate change bill into the Queens speech that delivers annual cuts in UK carbon dioxide emissions.

The event is set to be a diverse gathering with comedians, rock and pop stars sharing a platform with bishops and aid agency executives.

Commenting on the diversity of the event Ashok Sinha, director of Stop Climate Chaos said: "It will be an unprecedented day to send a clear and resounding message to Government that we want them to do all they can to stop climate chaos."

The organisers, Stop Climate Chaos, have also announced the very high profile support from UK band Razorlight, who will be playing a short set at the protest.

Other, more critically acclaimed, musicians have also backed the actions of I Count. Thom Yorke of Radiohead have his support because he was "part of the last generation which can solve the biggest problem that the human race has ever had to face. If we don't then our time is up."

Other High profile protesters will be the Scottish soft rocker KT Tunstall, television light entertainer and stand up comedian Simon Amstell, Right Reverend James Jones the Bishop of Liverpool, TV historian Adam Hart Davis.

Joining them will also be The Bishop of London Richard Chartres. The Bishop’s contribution to the protest will start with a sermon at a ‘Service of Challenge, Commitment and Blessing’ at Grosvenor Chapel, 24 Audley Street, London. There will then be a rally in Grosvenor Square after which the bishop will lead the congregation to the main event in Trafalgar Square, where he will address the crowds.

The protest comes after the much publicized Stern Report which calculated the potential cost of climate change. The Bishop suggested that economic reports like the one complied by Lord Stern present the world with a situation where it is "no longer possible to find excuses for doing nothing."

"It is not enough to point the finger of blame at others and to demand that somebody else should do something. Now is the time for individual and collective action in adapting to the reality of climate change and the unsustainable way in which we are exploiting the earth’s resources."

In the same statement the Bishop rearticulated his theological imperative to act on climate change. "We are not masters and possessors of the earth but tenants and stewards. Together we have a responsibility to God, to future generations and our own well being on this earth to take action" he said.

Stop Climate Chaos is a network of activist groups and aid agencies, many of which are faith based. Ekklesia has monitored and reported on the networks actions since it launch earlier this year.

Article written by Jordan Tchilingirian

http://www.speroforum.com/site/print.asp?idarticle=6399

3.

Biggest Youth Movement in History Could be About to Begin in London...

The EARTH AID Environmental Campaign | 02.11.2006 22:39 | Climate Camp 2006 | Anti-militarism | Climate Chaos | Ecology | London | World
Almost every Indymedia site in the world is right now publishing the message that the Children's Revolution kids' bloc might be leading the March for Global Climate Justice from the American embassy in Grosvenor Square, London, at 1 pm on 4 November.
Under the heading “Worldwide Children's Revolution to Try to Save the Human Race From Extinction?” the story says that the very existence of future generations may depend on urgent worldwide action to tackle global warming and climate change.

All the indications are that there will probably be similar worldwide demonstrations in a number of different countries by the children of the eco warriors who have been protesting against the destruction of the global environment for many years.
Questions have been asked about whether these demonstrations will be peaceful and law abiding, and about the ethics of woman and children being seen protesting in public.

Every major news organisation on the planet has been alerted to the fact that this historic event is likely to be occurring, and they have all been asked to help provide protection for the young people and their parents who have unfortunately often been the victims of police violence, even at peaceful events.

The mainstream media appears to have been unaware that most of the peace and environmental protesters and campaigners are children and teenagers, and the police may not have realised that they have often been brutally attacking and injuring youngsters.

John Lennon sang “Come Together, Join the Movement, Take a Stand for Human Rights,” and maybe it is now time for us to ask the police and the military to join the People in their struggle against the corrupt alien governments and corporations and banks that are driving humanity to extinction.

Children leading a peaceful revolution that changes the political and economic system and ensures the survival of humanity could well be the answer to the question “Can You Save the Human Race?”.

The EARTH AID Environmental Campaign
- e-mail: earthaidcampaign@yahoo.co.uk

http://www.indymedia.org.uk/en/2006/11/355075.html?c=on#c160263

4.

People & Planet: Carnival of Climate Chaos (London, Saturday 4 November, ICount)

Emma | 03.11.2006 10:33 | Climate Chaos | Ecology | Globalisation | London | World
In the wake of the Stern Review, on the eve of critical international climate talks in Nairobi, and shortly before the Queen's Speech, young people will demonstrate that they will not sit back and wait for the catastrophic climate change predicted for our generation. Marching from Bloomsbury to Trafalgar Square, the Carnival looks set to be one of the most impressive student mobilisations in years.

"The Biggest Issue of Our Time": A Generation Mobilises for the UK Student Movement's Largest Ever Event On Climate Change

The UK's leading school and campus organisation campaigning for action on world poverty and the environment, People & Planet, is calling for the youth of the UK to stand up and be counted in a mass demonstration on climate change.

Climate change is quite simply the biggest problem we have ever faced... as environmental scientists predict that escalating climate chaos will cost the lives of millions, ruin the livelihoods of millions more, severely affect animal and planet life across the globe and cost trillions of dollars. While politicians might be able to afford short-term views; the young people of the world cannot. It is our future at stake, which is why we are taking the lead in demanding real action now.

People & Planet, as the student representatives within the Stop Climate Chaos coalition, are preparing to stage the huge student carnival as part of the 'I Count', event in London, on Saturday 4 th November, 2006, from 12 noon.

Thousands of students and young people from across the UK are expected to join the carnival on Saturday 4th November to demand that politicians take action on the global crisis facing our generation. In particular, we are calling for a Climate Change Bill in the Queen's Speech on Wednesday 15 November, which will create a 'carbon budget' to track and manage greenhouse gases emitted by the UK as a whole. This is urgently needed to deliver the substantial and sustained cuts necessary to combat the appalling social and environmental effects of climate change, (already responsible for the deaths of 150,000 people a year, according to the World Health Organization).

The 4th November event is part of the wider 'I Count' campaign to stop climate chaos, launching at the beginning of October. In the run up to 4th November, People & Planet groups and Students' Unions have been lobbying local MPs to support the Climate Bill in the Queen's Speech as we demand action from the government, not just words.

The Queen’s Speech marks the start of the new ‘parliamentary year’, setting out the agenda for the year ahead. People & Planet and Stop Climate Chaos are calling for a climate change bill to be introduced in the Queen’s Speech. The Bill will require Government to commit to a Carbon Budget - ensuring that UK greenhouse gas emissions are cut by at least 3% year-on-year.

November 4th also marks the last Saturday before the next round of international talks on climate change start in Nairobi, Kenya, on Monday 6. Many of us are changing our habits to cut our own carbon emissions. This must be backed up by the world’s leaders taking action, including the UK who will be at the negotiating table. The carnival and i count event is an opportunity for us to tell our government that we want them to go into the negotiations committed to do everything they can to stop climate chaos.

The bottom line is that whatever we can do as individuals and in our communities, the government can multiply. Cleaner cars - it can make it law. Sharing clean technology with the world’s poorest countries - it can see it happens. Better buildings that don’t leak heat - it does it. Now is the time to put the government to the test.

The 'I Count' campaign is calling on our government to take action in three areas:

* Action in the UK: The first step the government can take towards delivering annual reductions in greenhouse gas emissions of 3% (through the creation of a comprehensive Carbon Budget), is to announce in the forthcoming Queen's Speech that it will introduce a Climate Change Bill.
* Action internationally: Make it a top priority to ensure that global greenhouse gas emissions are irreversibly declining by 2015.
* Action for justice: To provide all necessary assistance to developing countries to both adapt to climate change and, in the longer term, get access to sufficient clean energy to meet their developmental needs.

All are welcome to join the 'I Count' event; further details of which can be obtained from the following websites: peopleandplanet.org/november4 , www.stopclimatechaos.org and www.icount.org.uk

The carnival, part of the vibrant Shared Planet weekend event, will be assembling on Malet Street outside the University of London Union.

Thousands of students will be marching together to Trafalgar Square in a Rio-style parade with samba bands, banners and massive props. Young people will create a giant mobile weather map of climate chaos which will dance, shimmer and samba its way to join thousands of other climate change demonstrators in Trafalgar Square as part of the Stop Climate Chaos 'I count' mass moment.

We will be aiming to create an impact as only students can by working with the famous political artist Polyp who will be the creative force behind the carnival, not only making it fun, but also a huge moving installation of political art!

"The Carnival follows months of climate change lobbying by young campaigners. Students across the country have met with their MPs to demand that the Government include a Climate Bill with annual 3% targets for reductions in carbon emissions. We want a tough bill to be introduced in the Queen's Speech. The bill David Miliband is proposing to the Government simply isn't good enough. With just over a week before the Queen's Speech, the Carnival is the last opportunity for young people to ensure that the government responds to their calls for 3% annual cuts."--Emma Hughes, A Student from Cardiff University who is cycling from Wales to the carnival to demonstrate her passion for a carbon-free future.


"Students are no longer prepared to sit back and watch as the government fails to take the tough action needed to stop dangerous climate change. We are the generation that will have to live with the consequences of government inaction and individual and corporate short-termism. The science is clear; and now the Stern Review has spelt it out that the economic costs of inaction will be huge. What's missing is a decisive and bold policy shift. If Blair is serious about climate change, we challenge him to use the opportunity of his last Queen's Speech as Prime Minister to produce a Bill that will really make a difference. Government inability to commit to 3% year on year carbon emissions reductions amounts to nothing more than negligence!" --James Lloyd, Head of Campaigns, People & Planet


On the same weekend People & Planet are hosting a national conference, Shared Planet. Over 800 students will come together to discuss sustainable solutions for Climate Change, HIV/AIDS and Trade. Student campaigners will get the opportunity to pose tough questions to Justin Forsyth, Special Advisor to the Prime Minister and Jo Swinson, Britain's youngest MP. The conference will also see the launch of People & Planet's newest campaigns: Treat AIDS Now and Ditch Dirty Development.

Emma
- e-mail: emmaejones@gmail.com
- Homepage: http://peopleandplanet.org/

http://www.indymedia.org.uk/en/2006/11/355122.html


Direct action events at airports and coal facilities scored home in the run up to Nov. 4.

5.

[and remember oil is a decision, instead of a forced requirement...]

Climate activists to take to the streets against short haul flights

Plane Stupid | 03.11.2006 17:55 | Ecology | London | Oxford
Environmental activists will on Monday protest in Britain’s first national day of action against short haul flights.

Called by green direct action group, Plane Stupid, during the Climate Camp at Drax in September (1) protestors pledged to take creative direct action to mark the start of the UN International Climate talks in Nairobi. The day of action also coincides with new research from HACAN Clearskies showing that 100,000 flights from Heathrow each year are to short haul destinations that are easily reachable by the more sustainable train alternative.(2)

In the last few months, Plane Stupid grounded planes at a short-haul airport by blockading the taxiway (3) and marked the 60th Anniversary of Heathrow by chaining themselves across the entrance to BAA’s head office. They are part of a rapidly growing grassroots movement tackling the root causes of carbon emissions.

On Monday individuals and local groups all over the UK are organising their own protest actions against their local “climate change criminals” from the aviation industry. Locations of direct actions are not public but Plane Stupid are organising a number of public, awareness raising campaign events in London, Reading and Cambridge. (4)

Campaigner for Plane Stupid, Ellen Rickford, explained, “The politicians will jet off to Nairobi this week to continue with their bleating about the need for action on climate change. Meanwhile, they encourage short haul flights through their airport expansion plans and the tax breaks they give to the airline industry. When our ability to live on earth is at stake, they haven’t got the spine to sacrifice their ability to live in Portugal on the weekends.”

She added, “Some of us are saying enough is enough. We’re fed up with waiting for governments and corporations to act responsibly and feel that we now have a duty to act ourselves to prevent climate crime.”

For more information/interviews:

press@planestupid.com
www.planestupid.com

PHOTOS AND FOOTAGE from previous actions are available. Pix on Monday should be available too.

Notes:

(1) www.climatecamp.org.uk
(2) www.hacan.org.uk
(3) 25 activists were arrested after they established a protest camp on the taxiway at Nottingham East Midlands Airport. www.planestupid.com
(4) Details of these public events are at www.planestupid.com

http://www.indymedia.org.uk/en/2006/11/355160.html

6.

[and remember coal is a decision, instead of a forced requirement...]


Climate change protesters climb chimney and cut power
John Vidal, environment editor
Friday November 3, 2006
The Guardian

Greenpeace protesters yesterday halved the amount of electricity being generated by Britain's second largest coal-fired power station as more than 25 people occupied Didcot in Oxfordshire.

Last night police had failed to remove them.

According to the environment group, 30 volunteers from across Britain invaded the site at 5.30am yesterday and immobilised conveyer belts which carry coal into the plant. As one group of protesters hit emergency stop buttons and attached themselves to machinery, a second group of 12 set up a "climate camp" on top of the 60m (200ft) chimney stack.

Photobucket - Video and Image Hosting

RWE Npower, the owner of Didcot, said last night that two of the station's four generators had not been operating when protesters entered the site, but engineers had kept electricity supplies going by switching the station largely from coal to gas. "We reduced electricity generating capacity by 500MW, or 50%, but security of supply was not at risk," said an Npower spokeswoman.

The occupation of the station takes place in the week that Sir Nicholas Stern's review of climate change economics warned of global financial catastrophe if carbon emissions are not slashed urgently.

Tomorrow a big environmental protest is to take place in London with more than 15,000 people expected to rally for action to tackle climate change.

The occupation follows a week-long demonstration in August against Britain's biggest carbon polluter, the Drax power station in North Yorkshire. When Didcot is burning only coal, it emits roughly 6m tonnes of carbon dioxide a year.

Greenpeace yesterday said that Didcot was a symbol of the government's failure to tackle climate change. "Didcot could halve its emissions overnight if it switched from burning coal to gas permanently," said campaigns director Blake Lee-Harwood.

Npower said it wanted to switch to cleaner fuel. "We fully support clean energy and we're at the forefront of developing it," said Kevin Akhurst, managing director of generation. "Of our three coal stations, Didcot A and Tilbury are already scheduled to close over the next five to 10 years ... but they can't just be switched off overnight."

Greenpeace protesters said they were prepared to continue the occupation. Ben Stewart, occupying the smokestack last night, said: "It's a bit cold, but we are ready to stay for days."

http://environment.guardian.co.uk/climatechange/story/0,,1938476,00.html

And if we plan to stay on this planet, we better be ready to stay for more than days--we better be ready to stay for thousands upon thousands of years and start acting like it. This means change toward more democratically representative materials policy and toward less gatekept political institutions that would doubly sustain us instead of repeatedly destroy us every 200-300 years as the history of state based societies shows.

Photobucket - Video and Image Hosting

"Presently we are trapped within these un-ecological democracies that are underwriting and protecting this process of politically sponsored ecological degradation. How do we instead explain to others that the state has an Ecological Contract with its people, and if this Ecological Contract is neglected,..."

you get degradative and corrupt developmental choices like this:

"In Poland the new extreme-right government has begun the procedure of construction of the new Via Baltica road. Primeval forest of outstanding beauty is endangered. Why exactly this route was chosen among so many other possibilities..."

is best answered by one word: corruption. And an answer for that corruption is the bioregional state.

8 Comments:

Blogger Mark said...

Update on the U.K. coal plant lockdown:

"We have halved CO2 emissions for this power station and that's no mean feat." -- Ben Stewart


Friday, 3 November 2006, 18:08 GMT

Power plant climate protest ends
Didcot Power Station (Courtesy Greenpeace)

Greenpeace said 30 campaigners entered the site on Thursday
Environmental campaigners have descended from the 650ft (200m) tower at Didcot power station where they had been protesting for two days.

Operator Npower served the Greenpeace group with an injunction instructing them to leave the Oxfordshire site.

Police have made arrests at the plant on suspicion of aggravated trespass and criminal damage.

Campaigners want the coal-fuelled plant to close as they believe it [sic, it does] makes a large contribution to climate change.

Power generation at the site was reduced by the protest, but Npower said it did not stop.

Site managers had been negotiating with the protesters who had remained camped out at the power station through the night.

Campaigners that remained at the site into the second day of protest have been arrested by police.

Supt Jill Simpson, of Thames Valley Police, said: "The protesters have made their way out of the site and all 25 are being arrested on suspicion of aggravated trespass and criminal damage.

"Our main aim was to ensure the safety of everybody involved, including the protesters, as this was, potentially, a very dangerous situation."

One man was arrested on the site on Thursday on suspicion of aggravated trespass and has been released on police bail.

Members of the Greenpeace team, who also chained themselves to equipment at the power station, said they were ending their protest so they could attend the Climate Change rally due to be held in London on Saturday.

Ben Stewart, one of the protesters, said: "All of us felt that having been up here, we have halved CO2 emissions for this power station and that's no mean feat.

"In years to come if scientists are right - and we have every reason to believe they are - then people will look back and wonder why we didn't do enough.

"I am determined not to be one of those people."

Didcot Power Station provides electricity for two million homes.

On Thursday, a spokesman for Npower confirmed 15 protesters had gained entry in the early hours, while Greenpeace said 30 were present.

Kevin Akhurst, managing director of generation and renewables at Npower, said: "Regarding Greenpeace's point of view, we fully support clean energy and we're at the forefront of developing it.

"Of our three coal stations Didcot A and Tilbury are already scheduled to close over the next five to 10 years, as are many coals stations in the UK, but they can't just be switched off overnight...."

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/england/oxfordshire/6114674.stm

Are you sure? It seemed like simply shutting it off worked for those few days. Have your engineers ever thought that the volunteer activists accomplished, in a two day timeline, without confusing professional skill, what you plan to do only after ten years? Did you get a call from the coal barons?

11/04/2006 5:06 PM  
Blogger Mark said...

Simon reports:

"Trafalgar Square was packed. Once I got in, there was no way I could move again until the rally ended and people started dispersing. I've never seen it like that before."

Stop Climate Chaos, London, 4th Nov 06 - pics
Simon | 04.11.2006 22:13 | Climate Chaos | London | West Country
Members of Swindon Climate Action Network and Friends of the Earth joined today's rally outside the US Embassy with around 20,000 others, before marching to Trafalgar Square to join another 10,000 at the launch of the I-Count campign. Here are some photos. Audio and possibly a video to follow.

more pics from london climate change march
rikki | 04.11.2006 20:04 | Climate Chaos | Ecology | London

Record turn out for London's Critical Mass Bicyclers, Pictures
mini mouse | 04.11.2006 14:29 | Climate Chaos | Free Spaces | Social Struggles | London
Well over one thousand cyclists turned out today for a Critical Mass to the US embassy in Grosvenor Square, where they were met by thousands more protesters about to march to Trafalgar Square.

11/05/2006 10:58 AM  
Blogger Mark said...

Another interesting U.K. poll.

Though the bioregional state is premised on skepticism that mere legislation or informal political party change is going to get us to sustainability without a host of other formal institutional checks and balances and more representative material choices, a useful principle I have thought is what this poll describes.

The U.K. seems to have a large majority, at least in London, that would support a taxation principle that the more externalities one contributes to the ecosystem, more payment in restitution should be linked to that.

This would innately help to pressure more sustainable material and technological uses which would have less taxation.

However, as noted in various books about the politics of environmental taxation within corrupt states (one of many, see The Subsidy Scandal), typically taxation 'principles' are the inverse in corrupt democratic states--which punish sustainable low emission/low externality practices and reward short-sighted crony polluting ones. Thus, the 'politics' (as opposed to mass political support) for such things are almost inbuilt under current formal democratic frameworks to avoid and repress support for sustainability, and thus, the state's own self-destruction. This is why the book argues for a more optimal framework of democratic institutions that lock onto this popular majority ecological feedback as the different groundwork from which sustainability can accrue.

Still, an interesting notice that the demographics for a complete turnaround of such policies is "already here--though waiting to be organized" (which is one of the principles of the bioregional state).

The article:

Six in 10 Londoners want to hammer gas-guzzlers
06.12.06
Ipsos MORI interviewed a representative sample of 1,002 Londoners aged over 16 by telephone between 9 and 14 November.

Unpopular: Chris Eubank cruises the London streets in his huge Hummer

Most Londoners say drivers of gas-guzzlers should pay more in parking charges, an Evening Standard poll reveals today.

Almost 60 per cent of those interviewed think the cost of residents' parking permits should be linked to the environmental damage their cars cause.

Only a third of Londoners disagree with motorists having to pay extra for more polluting cars.

The poll also reveals that 57 per cent say the recent debate on climate change has encouraged more environmentally friendly behaviour.

The findings come after Ken Livingstone declared an all-out war on 4x4s, or "Chelsea tractors".

Last month, he announced that drivers of the most polluting 4x4s will not qualify for the 90 per cent resident's discount when the congestion charge extends to Kensington and Chelsea.

In a double whammy for drivers of vehicles that fall into the band G emissions category - including Range Rovers, Porsche Cayennes, BMW X5s and some people carriers - the Mayor confirmed plans to increase the C-charge for these vehicles to £25 a day from 2008.

The growing opposition to 4x4s may be starting to have an impact on sales.

The Society of Motor Manufacturers and Traders said today that sales of new all-wheel-drive vehicles fell by more than 15 per cent last month compared with the previous November, and have fallen in every month this year except March.

Sales in the year to date were down six per cent compared with growth of four per cent last year.

The Standard poll, by Ipsos MORI, comes a month after Richmond council-unveiled plans to raise the cost of parking for 4x4 owners from £100 to £300 a year.

Despite recent proposals by the Government on tackling climate change, it reveals there is still a clear lack of trust in the policies put forward.

Only eight per cent of those polled think Labour has the best policies on climate change.

The Tories are trusted slightly more on the issue, with nine per cent favouring their policies.

[Ooh! Eight and nine percent! In a sample based poll, that means a potential of nothing differentiates them and they are both 91% untrustworthy in the eyes of Londoners.

What a 'difference' seen in the Brits trusting none--existing Labour or Tory parties--with their supermajorities on more sustainable issues. However, none of the parties available in the U.K. are popularly seen to trusted to have a form of appeal on environmental issues--which is, actually, one of the tenets of the bioregional state, that mere informal party change is hardly going to be the solution for sustainability.]

A quarter of those polled think the Green Party has the best policies on climate change. A further 12 per cent think none of the political parties has good policies on the subject.

The Government's Climate Change Bill a week ago outlined its target for reducing carbon emissions by 60 per cent by 2050.

Prince Charles is the latest high-profile figure to curb travel in the fight against global warming. He has ordered his chauffeurs to leave their cars behind and travel by bicycle when they check arrangements ahead of his appointments in London.

Ipsos MORI interviewed a representative sample of 1,002 Londoners aged over 16 by telephone between 9 and 14 November.

http://www.thisislondon.co.uk/news/article-23377175-details/Six%20in%2010%20Londoners%20want%20to%20hammer%20gas-guzzlers/article.do

12/11/2006 7:19 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Mark writes and reposts:

Here's a global poll on the same issues touched above.

It's interesting that some of the very leading questions (poor survey technique) are framed as 'costs to respond' when it's probably cheaper to remove subsidies toward environmental degradation and work toward cleaner technologies and different material bases; given the leading question of 'costs,' which pragmatically is interpreted as demoting Third World populations to more European-U.S. dominated patterns of development and their own poverty and lack of services, it is hardly surprising that many Third World countries polled refuse this type of 'response', if it keep them under the thumb of a European-U.S. driven definition of de-developmentalism of their areas.

I would argue it is hardly the case that such things are required to be related.


newswire article reporting global 15.Mar.2007 06:19
environment | sustainability

Poll Finds Worldwide Agreement That Climate Change is a Threat
WorldPublicOpinion.org mbrouwer@pipa.org

An international poll finds widespread agreement that climate change is a pressing problem.

This majority, however, divides over whether the problem of global warming is urgent enough to require immediate, costly measures or whether more modest efforts are sufficient.

Poll Finds Worldwide Agreement That Climate Change is a Threat
Publics Divide Over Whether Costly Steps Are Needed

An international poll finds widespread agreement that climate change is a pressing problem. This majority, however, divides over whether the problem of global warming is urgent enough to require immediate, costly measures or whether more modest efforts are sufficient.

The survey was conducted by The Chicago Council on Global Affairs and WorldPublicOpinion.org, in cooperation with polling organizations around the world.

It includes 17 countries—China, India, the United States, Indonesia, Russia, Thailand, Ukraine, Poland, Iran, Mexico, South Korea, the Philippines, Australia, Argentina, Peru, Israel, Armenia—and the Palestinian territories.

These represent more than 55 percent of the world population.

This is the first in a series of reports based on the findings of this survey that will analyze international attitudes on key international issues.

Not all questions were asked in all countries. [Er, this sort of invalidates the poll in some ways since the same instrument was not utilized.]

Twelve countries were asked whether steps should be taken to address climate change and majorities in all but one of them favored action.

The largest majority in favor of measures to combat global warming is found in Australia (92%).

China and Israel are the next most likely (83%) to favor such measures.

Eighty percent of respondents in the United States—the world's largest emitter of greenhouse gases—also support taking such measures.


The lowest level of support for taking steps to address the problem is found in India, nonetheless nearly half (49%) favor taking action while just 24 percent oppose it (26% do not answer).

In no country (out of 12 asked) does more than one in four endorse the statement, "Until we are sure that global warming is really a problem, we should not take any steps that would have economic costs."

The countries where the highest percentages favor delaying any action are India (24%), Russia (22%) and Armenia (19%).

The countries with the lowest are Argentina (3%), and Thailand (7%).

A separate question, asked in 10 countries, allowed respondents to evaluate the threat posed by "global warming" in the next ten years. Strong majorities in all of the countries say such climate change is an important threat with only small minorities calling it unimportant.

The highest percentages of climate change skeptics are found in Armenia (16%) and Israel (15%).

While majorities in all countries agree that the threat posed by global warming is at least important, there is less agreement over whether it is critical.

Majorities call it critical in Mexico (70%), Australia (69%), South Korea (67%), Iran (61%), Israel (52%), and India (51%).

Pluralities agree in Armenia (47%), China (47%) and the United States (46%).


Ukraine is the only country divided about whether the problem is critical (33%) or important but not critical (33%).

Differences Over How Much to Spend [sic, what a leading question--should always be avoided in surveys]

There is general agreement in 12 countries, as discussed above, that steps must be taken to address the problem of global warming, though there are differences over how much should be spent. In five countries, the most common view is: "Global warming is a serious and pressing problem. We should begin taking steps now even if this involves significant costs." These include: Australia (69%), Argentina (63%), Israel (54%), the United States (43%), and Armenia (37%).

In another five countries, the most commonly held opinion is: "The problem of global warming should be addressed, but its effects will be gradual, so we can deal with the problem gradually by taking steps that are low in cost." The countries endorsing a go-slow, low-cost approach are the Philippines (49%), Thailand (41%), Poland (39%), Ukraine (37%) and India (30%).

In two countries, the public is evenly divided between those who favor less expensive measures and those who believe the problem merits action involving significant cost: China (low cost 41%, significant costs 42%) and Russia (low costs 34%, significant costs 32%).

In Peru, only those who indicated they were informed about climate change—39 percent of the total sample—were asked whether steps should be taken to address the problem. Among these respondents, 92 percent favor action, including 69 percent who favor taking steps even if they involve significant costs.

Support for Developing Nations

Some governments, such as China's and India's, have argued that developing countries should not be obliged to limit greenhouse gas emissions as they struggle to catch up with the highly industrialized economies of Western Europe and the United States. The developing world, such countries say, releases far less CO2 and other greenhouse gasses per capita than do industrialized nations, whose cumulative emissions over the past century have caused the current problem.

Some [Euro-imperialists] have proposed that an equitable approach [sic, how is that equitable if it perpetuates the same power asymmetries?] would be for developed nations to provide aid to developing nations if they would agree to impose some limits on their emissions. [It's an issue of completely changing raw material bases, the other leading question is that development seems here to be 'required' to be polluting, which is just an example of the blinkered views of development going round.]

Publics in five developing countries were asked, "If the developed countries are willing to provide substantial aid, do you think the less-developed countries should make a commitment to limit their greenhouse gas emissions?" In all of five countries, majorities or pluralities say they should.

Most significantly, this includes a very large 79 percent majority of Chinese respondents and nearly half of those polled in India (48% agree, 29% disagree, 23% no answer). Majorities in Argentina (68%) and Armenia (63%) also concur. Results in Thailand are similar to those in India: about half of Thai respondents (49%) agree and only 9 percent disagree, though large numbers (43%) are uncertain.

China, India, Argentina, Armenia and Thailand are among the 169 countries that have ratified or accepted the Kyoto Protocol on climate change.

They are not, however, considered industrialized countries under the treaty, which means they are not legally obliged to cut back emissions of CO2 or other pollutants. [despite China and India being rather heavy CO2 polluters, though nothing compared to the United States.]

The survey also asked respondents in three developed countries whether developed countries should provide "substantial aid" to less-developed countries that "make a commitment to limit their greenhouse gas emissions." [Yet another leading question that presumed a certain hegemony of developmentalism as innately degradative.]

Respondents in all three show a high level of support for providing such assistance: 64 percent of Americans, 84 percent of Poles, and 72 percent of Ukrainians.

The United States, Poland and Ukraine are all considered Annex 1 or industrialized countries under the Kyoto accord, which means they are obligated to reduce emissions. Poland and Ukraine have both ratified the Kyoto Protocol; the United States has signed but refused to ratify it.

General Concern about Global Environment

The survey also finds that world publics are very concerned about the global environment in general. Seven countries were asked to rate the importance of a number of foreign policy goals, including "improving the global environment." Overwhelming majorities in all seven countries rate improving the global environment as at least an "important" goal and majorities in all call it a "very important" one: Australia, 99 percent (very 88%); South Korea, 96 percent (very 60%); the United States 93 percent (very 54%), Armenia 86 percent (very 54%), China, 85 percent (very 54%); Thailand, 83 percent (very 61%); and India, 79 percent (very 51%).


Respondents were also asked whether "international trade agreements should or should not be required to maintain minimum standards for protection of the environment." [sic, another Euro-U.S. hegemonic driven leading question, I suppose we're going to be hearing greenwash strategies that WTO/GATT corporate degradative developmentalism and global corporate monopolies are now "good for the planet, eh?. Nothing could be further from the truth. These crony frameworks are the main cause of environmental degradation in materials choice, state subsidizes, and crony destruction and ignoring of locality in development--the latter being expressed as being far more key to sustainability.]

In ten of the 11 countries where this question was asked, very large majorities believe such standards should be required while in one country views are divided. Those in favor of standards include developing countries, whose governments have sometimes resisted environmental regulations, arguing that implementing such costly rules would put their economies at a competitive disadvantage. [which is definitely true, though fails to have to be, and definitely why certain very limited Euro-U.S. frameworks of developmentalism strategies are being promulgated.]

In Asia, the Chinese support environmental standards by an overwhelming 85 percent. [China is incredibly polluted.]

Seven in ten Thais (69%) also favor such standards as do six in ten Indians (60%). Filipinos are evenly divided (48% in favor, 49% opposed).

In Latin America, an overwhelming majority of Argentines (90%) say such standards should be required.

There is also strong support in Mexico (76%), where the North American Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA) has required the government to enact certain environmental measures. [sure...]

In Eastern Europe, environmental measures are favored in Poland (90%), Ukraine (88%) and Armenia (82%), both of which suffer from severe air and water pollution as well as deforestation dating from the Soviet era.

Support for environmental standards is also strong among the relatively wealthy publics of Israel (93%) and the United States (91%).

March 13, 2007

homepage: homepage: http://www.worldpublicopinion.org

http://portland.indymedia.org/en/2007/03/355689.shtml

3/16/2007 1:01 AM  
Blogger Mark said...

This poll updates some issues of economic and health policies mentioned above. I am suspicious of its spin that 'more cost' is required to implement what are effectively cheaper energy technologies and bases of supply--since they already exist and are only awaiting implementation. The poll seems to reflect general ignorance that it is hardly 'research' that is holding back different energy supplies. It is only politics.]


newswire article reposts united states 13.Jun.2007 15:01
economic justice | imperialism & war

America's Progressive Majority
author: Eric Lotke

Take heart. We Are Winning.
America's Progressive Majority
Eric Lotke
June 13, 2007

Eric Lotke is research director for the Campaign for America's Future.

The façade of conservative political dominance is crumbling. The disintegration runs deeper than public disaffection with the Bush administration's catastrophic failures and is more fundamental than the political realignment of the 2006 election. The notion of America as a "conservative nation" was always more fiction than fact, but the nation's rejection of President Bush's brand of "you're-on-your-own" conservatism and wedge-issue divisiveness is so broad that today the façade is simply unsustainable.

An exhaustive review released today of decades of public opinion research by the Campaign for America's Future and Media Matters for America, using the most reputable, nonpartisan sources, leads to a simple conclusion: America is more progressive than people think—or, more precisely, than the conventional wisdom would lead them to believe. From the economy to social issues, terrorism to trade, Americans want politicians who recognize that we're all in it together.

ECONOMY

Start with the economy. Polling by the Pew Research Center shows 84 percent support to increase the minimum wage. Gallup shows that more Americans sympathize with unions than with companies in labor disputes (52 to 34 percent). NBC News and the Wall Street Journal polls indicate that nearly twice as many people think the U.S. is more hurt than helped by the global economy (48 to 25 percent).

Other polls open the door to increased labor and environmental standards as part of the solution.

For people caught on the wrong side of the economy, research by the University of Michigan National Election Studies reveals that 69 percent of Americans believe government should care for those who can't care for themselves.

Twice as many people want "government to provide many more services even if it means an increase in spending" (43 percent) as want government to provide fewer services "in order to reduce spending" (20 percent).

Majorities say we need a bigger government "because the country's problems are bigger" (59 percent) and a "strong government to handle complex problems" (67 percent).
These Americans are challenging a central plank of modern conservatism. They don't always want government to leave them alone. They want government to help hold us together.

On social issues too, Americans are more progressive than they are typically credited.

ASCRIPTIVE POLITICS: GENDER, BODY RIGHTS, AND ABORTION

First, they are progressive in their priorities. The percentage of Americans who consider abortion the "most important" issue ranks in the single digits in poll after poll. When an election forces them to pay attention to it, Pew research shows a 56 percent majority oppose making it more difficult for a woman to get an abortion, a proportion that has hardly changed in the past 20 years. Only 29 percent want to see Roe v. Wade overturned. And 67 percent, according to polls by Kaiser and Harvard, want sex education in schools to include information about contraception, not just abstinence. Yet conservatives continually push these subjects to the fore and stand on the wrong side of them. It's time for mainstream media to question whether movement conservatives, not coastal liberals, are out of the mainstream.

On new and emerging issues, progressive opinion is even stronger. Americans understand that energy policy, for example, has implications on topics that range from national security to new growth industries. Gallup polls in March 2007 reveal that twice as many Americans want to solve energy problems with more conservation instead of more production (64 percent compared to 26 percent).

Polls by CBS and the New York Times in April 2007 show 64 percent are willing to pay higher fuel taxes if the money were used for research into renewable energy sources, and 75 percent would be willing to pay more for electricity if it were generated by renewable sources like wind or energy.

[What a leading question! The irony of course is that little 'public research' is required anymore, only implementation and stopping private raw material regimes that hold it back from being implemented. The energy corporations are just airing trial balloons for what rationales can they justify charging you more--when the energy ideas are far cheaper to implement, instead of more expensive...]

Only oil companies, conservative politicians and a minority of Americans (41 percent) want to open the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge in Alaska to drilling.

HEALTH

On health care, Gallup's latest poll reveals that 69 percent of Americans think it's the government responsibility to make sure all Americans have health coverage. Only 28 percent disagreed.

Polls by CBS/New York Times in February 2007 reveal that 76 percent of Americans would give up the Bush tax cuts to make sure all Americans have access to health care.

So why this disconnect between progressive public opinion and conservative political domination? The answers are manifold. Skillful use of wedge issues by conservative politicians. Advantages in fundraising. Political gerrymandering. An establishment media that rarely asks hard questions. A war on terror that trumps pedestrian domestic concerns.

[AND MORE THAN HALF OF THE U.S. FEDERAL BUDGET GOING DIRECTLY INTO THE MILITARY INFRASTRUCTURE CORPORATIONS AND OVER 300 MILITARY BASES WORLDWIDE.]

The 2006 election showed people breaking out of this box. The brassy blogosphere is challenging traditional media. The Internet is reducing the traditional conservative advantage in fundraising, allowing millions of small donors to participate in a process previously reserved for the wealthy few. Netroots organizations are mobilizing groups who previously sat disgruntled on the sidelines.

Even terrorism is losing its bite. September 11 is less raw a wound. The war in Iraq is a disaster. 63 percent of Americans want to set deadlines for withdrawal. Four times as many Americans (48 percent to 12 percent) think the war in Iraq has made the threat of terrorism against the United States worse rather than better.

With terrorism turning against them, the conservatives have little left. Concerns about energy rise with the price of gas (doubled since 2000).

HEALTH

Concerns about health care rise with the cost of premiums (up 87 percent since 2000).

Concerns about jobs rise as more move overseas (3 million in manufacturing since 2000).

The country is heading in the wrong direction. Policy wonks with spreadsheets on living costs and income inequality can prove it; 73 percent of Americans feel it in their gut.

They also know which way they want to go. The question is whether their leaders will take them there.

[Hardly the current frameworks will get them there. It requires more than simply an informal political platform: it requires a completely competitive party framework, of which the bioregional state suggestions are a way to get there. Anything else will come from that.]

http://portland.indymedia.org/en/2007/06/360972.shtml

6/14/2007 11:26 AM  
Blogger Mark said...

[Joel S. Hirschhorn argues for the 'outside' capacity in the U.S. Constitution to call and formulate a Constitutional Convention. I would definitely table the ideas in the bioregional state as instrumental in rectification of lots of issues that deserve more ecological checks and balances.

newswire article reposts united states 14.Jun.2007 11:00
economic justice | government

Americans Unready to Revolt, Despite Revolting Conditions
author: Joel S. Hirschhorn

New poll data show how little confidence Americans have in their government. So why are they incapable of rebellion?
Americans Unready to Revolt, Despite Revolting Conditions

Joel S. Hirschhorn

The latest NBC/Wall Street Journal national poll results vividly show a population incredibly dissatisfied with their nation's political system. In other countries in other times such a depressing level of confidence in government would send a signal to those running the government that a major upheaval is imminent. But not here in the USA. Why?

First, here are the highlights of the poll that surveyed 1,008 adults from June 8-11, with a margin of error of plus-minus 3.1 percentage points.

A whopping 68 percent think the country is on the wrong track.

Just 19 percent believe the country is headed in the right direction - the lowest number on that question in nearly 15 years.

And most of those with the positive view are probably in the Upper Class.

Bush's approval rating is at just 29 percent, his lowest mark ever in the survey. Only 62 percent of Republicans approve, versus 32 percent who disapprove.

Take Republicans out of the picture and a fifth or less of Americans have a positive view of Bush.

Even worse [than Bush's numbers], only 23 percent approve of the job that Congress is doing. So much for that wonderful new Democratic control of Congress.

Bipartisan incompetence [and intentional Republican-Democrat collusion against the voters] is alive and well.

On the economic front, nearly twice as many people think the U.S. is more hurt than helped by the global economy (48 to 25 percent).

Globalization does not spread wealth; it channels it to the wealthy, making billionaires out of millionaires.

I have long asserted that Americans live in a delusional democracy with delusional prosperity and these and loads of other data support this view. There is a super wealthy and politically powerful Upper Class that is literally raping the nation. Meanwhile, the huge Lower Class continues to lose economic ground while their elected representatives sell them out to benefit the Upper Class. Yet no rational person thinks that a large fraction of the population is ready to rise up in revolt against the evil status quo political-economic system that so clearly is not serving the interests of the overwhelming majority of Americans. Why not?

For a nation that was built on a revolt against oppressive governance by the British, something has been lost from our political DNA. We apparently no longer have the gene for political rebellion. It has been bred out of most of us. And those of us that urge a Second American Revolution are seen as fringe, nutty subversives.

Part of the genius of our contemporary ruling class elites is that they have engineering a state of political and economic oppression that paradoxically is still embraced by the Lower Class. The rational way to understand this is that ordinary, oppressed Americans are in a deep psychological state of self-delusion. Despite all the empirical, objective evidence of a failed government, they fail to see rebellion opportunities. Many still believe they live in the world's best democracy. But across all elections considerably less than half the citizens even bother to vote anymore.

Yet, as the new NBC/Journal poll results show, people are cognitively aware of just how awful the political-economic system is.

Yet they are not feeling enough pain to seriously consider rebellion. And it is visceral pain that must drive people to the daring act of rebellion.

Why is there insufficient pain for revolution? This is a deadly serious issue. What is historically unique about America is that even the most oppressed and unfairly treated people are distracted by affordable materialism, entertainment, sports, gambling, and myriad other aspects of our frivolous, self-absorbed culture.

Even failed school and health care systems do not drive people, paying enormous sums to fill up their SUVs, to rebellion. So, Americans are aware of their oppression, but the power elites have successfully drugged them with a plethora of pleasure-producing distractions sufficient to keep them under control. We are free to bitch, but too weak to revolt. The Internet has provided a release valve for some pent up anger and frustration. But it too has mostly become another source of distraction, rather than an effective tool for rebellion.

Though these new poll statistics make news, those in control of the political-economic system are not afraid that the population is on the verge of retaking their constitutionally guaranteed sovereign power and take back their nation. Thousands of people like me keep writing books and articles and creating protest groups and events. Those in power just find new, ingenious ways to keep the population distracted - if not through pleasure, then certainly through fear of terrorism. Growing economic insecurity also contributes to self-paralysis, as do never-ending political lies.

What a system.

Even as the population has growing awareness of the dire condition of their nation, the move by the politically powerful on the right and left continues to seek a new immigration law that will solidify the selling out of America.

Business interests want more of those fleeing Mexico and other nations to keep wages low. Instead of Mexicans rising up in rebellion against their oppressive government and economic system they escape to the USA. But Americans have no such viable escape solution. Though global warming will certainly make Canada increasingly attractive.

So what do Americans have - other than a terribly bleak future? Where is hope in our dismal world?

In a bizarre twist of history that further illustrates just how impotent Americans have become, virtually all citizens are either unaware of or unreceptive to the ultimate escape route that the Framers of our Constitution gave us. They anticipated that Americans could become quite dissatisfied with the federal government. They feared that the political system could become incredibly corrupted by moneyed interests. They were right.

So here we sit over 200 years after our nation was created unwilling to use what is explicitly given to us in Article V of the Constitution - the option to have a convention outside the control of Congress, the President and the Supreme Court to make proposals for constitutional amendments. Do we really believe in the rule of law?

If so, then we should understand that the supreme law of the land - what is in our Constitution - is the ultimate way to obtain the deep political and government reforms to restore true democracy and economic fairness to our society.

Make no mistake: an Article V convention has been stubbornly opposed by virtually all groups with political and economic power.
This is most evidenced by the blatant refusal of Congress to obey the Constitution and give us an Article V convention, even though the single explicit requirement for a convention has been met.

This fact alone should tell rational people that they are being screwed and oppressed. The rule of law is trumped by the rule of delusion. Our lawmakers are lawbreakers.

Come learn more about the effort to get an Article V convention at www.foavc.org and become a member. Do not keep witnessing the unraveling of American society, voting for lesser evil candidates, and believing the propaganda that putting different Democrats or Republicans in office will actually improve things for most of us.

Choose peaceful rebellion by using what our Constitution gives us. Fight self-delusion.

[Joel S. Hirschhorn is the author of Delusional Democracy (www.delusionaldemocracy.com); and a founder of Friends of the Article V Convention (www.foavc.org).]

http://portland.indymedia.org/en/2007/06/361017.shtml

6/15/2007 8:18 AM  
Blogger Mark said...

"The truth which neither the traditional right nor left wishes to admit, is that broadly enfranchised, local grassroots efforts to identify with and care for natural regions are so powerful, so ultimately democratic, and so basically popular with the American people that they threaten the huge, entrenched political organizations on both sides." ---

LifePlace: Bioregional Thought and Practice, by Robert L. Thayer, Jr.

7/29/2007 6:18 AM  
Blogger Mark said...

"A recent national poll by the Mellman Group found that 91 percent of respondents favored GMO labeling, a result that was roughly consistent among Democrats, Republicans, and independents."

---
http://www.motherjones.com/tom-philpott/2012/05/california-gmo-labeling

6/06/2012 12:21 AM  

Post a Comment

Links to this post:

Create a Link

<< Home