Skip to main content

View Diary: If only we got this pissed off about Climate Change (109 comments)

Comment Preferences

  •  Here's the problem: The chain of consequences goes (31+ / 0-)

    like this:

    1. Big oil and mega corporations have he government and the judicial system in their back pockets.
    2. The government then, under the control of corporatist interests, acts as just another wholly-owned subsidiary, mainly focusing on protecting the profit-making capabilities of these corporation.
    3. The U.S. mainstream media by and large is a mind-numbing propaganda machine that exerts an incredible level of control over the population (thus the apathy, and ignorance).
      Finally, you get to the consequences of climate change.

    This is the same with every major problem we face in society, whether it is the environment, economic exploitation of working people, massive corruption and looting--all of it.

    The problem is that activists fragment their attention on multiple things that are symptoms and consequences of the government being on the take.

    If everybody united with the single objective of breaking up the oligarchical structure, we may have a chance.

    But as long as you focus on issue number four in the list, and others on issue 7, others on 14, others on 25, etc., what we are doing is hacking at the branches of evil instead of at the root.

    •  Yep (22+ / 0-)

      The government then, under the control of corporatist interests, acts as just another wholly-owned subsidiary, mainly focusing on protecting the profit-making capabilities of these corporation.

      You Scratch My Back...

      Poster Credits:  The diagram on the top left shows the corrosive effects of political campaign contributions, one that is corrupting the democratic process and opening our government to the highest bidders among polluters.  ExxonMobil made a profit of $45 billion in 2012, a 9% increase compared to 2011.

    •  ANWR (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      deep info

      So if that's the case, why is ANWR still blocked off to oil drilling?

      Cynicism is what passes for insight among the mediocre.

      by Sky Net on Fri Jun 07, 2013 at 10:52:46 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  Much bigger fish to fry (3+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        pat bunny, figbash, Pescadero Bill

        As expensive as the Tar Sands are to exploit and monetize, it's now less expensive to exploit them and the potential yield and profitability appears to be much greater than any potential yield and return projected for ANWR. Add to that the Natural Gas Bubble, and ANWR is effectively off the table for at least a couple of decades. Maybe by that time a combination of circumstances (hopefully including the recognition of the total cost effectiveness of True Renewable sources and technology) will keep ANWR unexploited indefinitely.

        When you are right you cannot be too radical; when you are wrong, you cannot be too conservative. --Martin Luther King Jr.

        by Egalitare on Sat Jun 08, 2013 at 05:21:01 AM PDT

        [ Parent ]

    •  Attack the money flow - divestment. eom. (2+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      mightymouse, figbash

      If we really want to straighten out all this crap we really need to think about shit - Holy Shit.

      by John Crapper on Fri Jun 07, 2013 at 10:53:24 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

    •  Wrong. Activists need to focus their energy on (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:

      the issues that are important to them.  That they put their passion and energy into, be it the tar sands blockade, marriage equality,  voter protection, climate change or the "breaking up of the oligarchical structure".  You cannot force people to be interested in your particular view and you have to stop dismissing the massive successes of issue-focused activism.

      This reminds me of the people I would meet at Occupy who would dismiss the issues important to Latinos, Women, African-Americans, Indigenous people, LGBT people because it wasn't it about the banks.    My main focus then was the banks too, but I can't make everyone be interested in my perspective if I am consistently dismissing their interests and their successes.   Telling people to stop being successful in their area of activism is a non-starter.

      Respect others' accomplishments, help them in achieving goals and maybe you may win respect for your interests.

      Also, your choice of killing a tree is an adorable metaphor in a climate change diary.

      •  See RootStrikers (2+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        Ray Pensador, wishingwell

        Lawrence Lessig has made this same compelling argument. Millions of people swinging at the branches and twigs with limited effect; if we all went at the root together, then ALL of our issues would be easier to address...

        That's why they divide the masses to conquer them... Works every time.

        Add the median effective tax rate, healthcare costs (20%?), education costs, and other things guaranteed in Denmark & Sweden, we pay MORE for LESS. Somebody's gotta pay the billionaires. They don't grow on trees. ☮ ♥ ☺

        by Words In Action on Sat Jun 08, 2013 at 08:06:13 AM PDT

        [ Parent ]

      •  Things overlap (0+ / 0-)

        AgavePup, as I read your comment, I was reminded of George Lakoff's Moral Politics.

        Actually, it was easy to be reminded, as I'm re-reading the book now.

        It seems to me that work on each area you and others have mentioned supports work in all the others, when you look at the big picture.

        As you may recall if you've read his work, George Lakoff talks about two different worldviews that rest on what are basically views of the family. The sense of what's moral emerges from the views of the right way for families to operate.

        The Strict Father model is one with an authority figure--usually dad--who sets the rules, doles out rewards and punishment, and prepares the children to be self-reliant and self-disciplined in their pursuit of success as adults. Love and nurturing are part of the picture, but not so much as to spoil children and make them self-indulgent. Good people should take responsibility for themselves as adults, not expect help. Governments shouldn't interfere in their lives. Good (self-reliant, self-disciplined, successful) people shouldn't be taxed in order to give the money to others whose own moral shortcomings caused their problems, as the Strict Father folks see it.

        The Nurturant Parent model is one in which parents stress nurturing, respect for one another within the family (and beyond it), helping one another, community, and so forth.

        The Strict Father model isn't attuned to environmentalism. God has dominion over man; man has dominion over the earth and its plants and animals, as they see it (including the "man" part). They're just not that into the idea of environmentalism.

        The Nurturant Parent model is very attuned to environmentalism. We have a responsibility to Mother Nature to save and protect the natural world-not to profit through our dominion over it, even if our actions are destructive.

        All this is a long-winded way of getting to my thought that those who work in the areas of building community, strengthening mutual respect, helping one another, and so on are supporting the Nurturant Parent model of family and society, whether their commitment is to marriage equality, voting rights, immigration reform, or any number of other issues.

        The people who share the Nurturant Parent worldview are the ones who are receptive to the message of environmentalists.

        Teachers teach children, beginning where they are at and going from there. Activists reach others, beginning where they are at now. Making the connection with someone on an issue that is extremely important to them right now is the first step.

        As the Nurturant Parent folks grow in number and have increasing influence, that will support the environmental movement at the same time.

Subscribe or Donate to support Daily Kos.

Click here for the mobile view of the site