news:a1177605-2771-4cf6...@cc2g2000vbb.googlegroups.com...
>FLORIDA
>Milton church to open as cold-weather shelter for homeless
>By Louis Cooper
>Pensacola News Journal
Nov. 29, 2011
why the hell is it even cold in Pensacola?
those homeless will be proteesting soon
http://www.truth-out.org/climate-change-often-unacknowledged-contributor-increased-violence-and-authoritarianism/1318276701
Links Between Climate Change and Increased Social Unrest Unacknowledged
Friday 14 October 2011
by: Michael Busch, Truthout | Interview
In many respects, 2011 has been marked as much by the mayhem of nature as it
has by the upheavals of men. Although challenges to political authority have
captured the imaginations of millions and produced exciting tremors of
revolution across the continents, Mother Nature's increasingly ferocious
response to the heavy environmental footprint of industrial production will
likely be judged the most profound source of social change around the world
in the years to come.
From the Japanese tsunami, which triggered the worst nuclear crisis since
Chernobyl, and the extreme drought that currently threatens the lives of
millions in the Eastern Horn of Africa to the wildfires, hurricanes and
periodic flooding that have decimated both coasts of the richest country in
the world, anthropogenic climate change is increasingly - and undeniably -
at the core of politics and society everywhere in the world.
"Tropic of Chaos," Christian Parenti's excellent new book examining the
intersections among climate change, neoliberal economic policy and the
spread of political violence, argues that the convergence of these threats
to international security has set our world along a course that will result
in a broken planet characterized by catastrophe, conflict and xenophobic
distrust. That is, unless meaningful action is taken immediately to reorient
international relations away from this disastrous trajectory.
I recently spoke with Parenti - who has for several years been a visiting
scholar at the City University of New York Center for Place, Culture and
Politics and is currently a visiting professor of sociology at Brooklyn
College - about his book, the future of climate wars, the failures of
leadership in Washington and at the UN to combat environmental degradation
and what can be done to avoid a world driven by the politics of natural
catastrophe.
Michael Busch: I wanted to begin by briefly touching on the book's title
and, more importantly, discussing the theoretical concept that largely gives
shape to the book's narrative arc: what you refer to as the "catastrophic
convergence." Would you give us a sense of what you mean by each and talk
about how they informed your research and analysis?
Christian Parenti: The "tropic of chaos" is less important than the
"catastrophic convergence." The tropic of chaos is more of a play on words
that refers to the conditions in the Global South, which is that belt of
post-colonial, underdeveloped, over-exploited states that mostly lie between
the Tropic of Cancer and the Tropic of Capricorn. So, it's sort of a name
for that region of the world.
The "catastrophic convergence" is the driving thesis of the book, the
argument that climate change doesn't just look like tornadoes, floods and
droughts. It also looks like religious violence, ethnic pogroms, civil war,
state failure, mass migration, counterinsurgency and anti-immigrant border
militarization. And so, climate change rarely works on its own. Usually, it
arrives in the Global South on a stage preset for crisis. The forces that
have preset that stage are militarism and radical free-market
restructuring - neoliberalism. Cold War militarism and now the War on
Terror, have flooded the Global South with cheap weapons and men trained in
the arts of assassination and interrogation, smuggling, small unit attacks
and terrorism. Neoliberalism has created increased poverty, increased
inequality and a tattered and stressed social fabric. As a result, it leads
to less social solidarity. It damages and degrades traditional economies.
And it makes more populations more vulnerable to sudden weather shocks,
extreme climatic events like drought and flooding, which are due to
anthropogenic climate change kicking in hard. And it is combining with these
two preexisting crises - militarism and inequality/poverty - and the three
of them are meeting in this catastrophic convergence and articulating
themselves as increased violence. That can be religious violence, ethnic
violence, sometimes class-based violence. Sometimes this is expressed as
chaos and relative or outright state failure.
But in the Global North, the catastrophic convergence presents itself as a
renewed emphasis on building up the incipient police state that exists in
many western European countries as well as the United States. So, we now
have a reengagement with the discourse around border militarization, a
reanimation of the xenophobic discourse that goes with those policies, which
are increasingly articulated in environmental terms - there's an
environmental crisis; there's not enough to go around; immigrants need to be
rounded up; everybody needs to sacrifice some civil liberties; the border
needs to be militarized. If climate change pushes chaos and state failure in
the Global South, it creates authoritarian state hardening in the Global
North, at least in its earliest stages.
MB: You offer compelling evidence that although the American popular
discourse is largely primitive and backward when it comes to the politics of
climate change, the US military sees the challenges very clearly and informs
to a great degree its doctrine on counterinsurgency. You argue that this
gives life to "the politics of the armed life boat." Can you talk more about
how the US military is responding to climate threats and what you understand
to be the prospects for survival in the armed life boat?
CP: The militarized response in the United States takes place in the
military but also at the state level in the development of a green
xenophobia. They aren't necessarily connected, but they fundamentally
produce the same thing, which is a hardening of state policy. The military -
to its credit - takes climate science very seriously. It does not question
the validity of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change's (IPCC)
Fourth Assessment Report, which is the last one to be published, the one
that was attacked because it had a few footnotes that were wrong. And they
were wrong. There was stupid, arrogant stuff around those errors, but the
errors and their correction in no way change the conclusions of the IPCC's
Fourth Assessment Report. The military takes the report seriously unlike,
say, the Republican leadership in the House or many other elements of the
American political class.
The military runs scenarios of what the future will bring. What they see is
not so much an increase in conventional warfare between states as an
increase in humanitarian crisis, civil war, banditry, religious wars, state
breakdown. And they realize that the armed forces will be called on to
respond with various forms of low-intensity conflict: counterinsurgency,
direct intervention, humanitarian intervention, shoring-up allied states, as
well as increased training and advisory roles in these conflicts. The future
for them is essentially one of open-ended counterinsurgency on a global
scale as articulated through these various reports, some of them public,
some of them secret.
In terms of the ethics of the armed life boat, which would seek to manage
this crisis of a planet in decline and manage it through the use of force,
examples can be found on right-wing talk radio, which calls for expelling
immigrants, or in people like Deborah Walker, who I discuss in the book.
Walker describes herself as a northern Californian environmentalist. She's
also an anti-immigrant xenophobe and racist. And then there's the Federation
for American Immigration Reform (FAIR), which I didn't address in the book
because I didn't know about it; it was only exposed after the book was
published, FAIR is the original anti-immigrant lobby group associated with
Garrett Hardin and others. It started a front group called Progressives for
Immigration Reform that was seeking to reach out to environmentalists and
progressives with a message of excluding immigrants, talking about the
carrying capacity of the country and making the case that immigrants,
essentially, should be repressed.