Posts from our progressive community

Stephen Harper and the Monstrous Planet Burners

Montreal Simon - Tue, 10/28/2014 - 18:37

He would have us believe that terrorism is a greater threat than climate change. But with every day that passes the burning planet proves Stephen Harper wrong.

For imagine what might happen if a city of 20 million people runs out of water. 
Read more »

Russell Brand's Latest

Politics and its Discontents - Tue, 10/28/2014 - 15:51
This one is for my friend The Mound of Sound who, I think, would agree with the sentiments expressed. One thing you can say about Russell Brand - whether or not you agree with everything he says, he always gives us something to think about.

(function(d, s, id) { var js, fjs = d.getElementsByTagName(s)[0]; if (d.getElementById(id)) return; js = d.createElement(s); = id; js.src = "//"; fjs.parentNode.insertBefore(js, fjs); }(document, 'script', 'facebook-jssdk'));
Post by this Post

Matthew 6:5

Dawg's Blawg - Tue, 10/28/2014 - 13:22
“And when you pray, do not be like the hypocrites, for they love to pray standing in the synagogues and on the street corners to be seen by others. Truly I tell you, they have received their reward in... Dr.Dawg

As Canadians, We Should All Be Deeply Ashamed Of Our government

Politics and its Discontents - Tue, 10/28/2014 - 12:04
This report, which places Canada dead last among industrialized nations in a new climate change performance index, should make us all deeply ashamed.
"Canada still shows no intention on moving forward with climate policy and therefore remains the worst performer of all industrialized countries," says the report released by Germanwatch, a sustainable development advocacy group.
Recommend this Post

The Cheat Is On…

Left Over - Tue, 10/28/2014 - 08:56
Fake Revenue Canada Agency website used in online scam Katherine Murray thought she was applying to get the B.C. teachers’ strike support payment

CBC News Posted: Oct 28, 2014 6:24 AM PT Last Updated: Oct 28, 2014 6:25 AM PT


The problem with so many of these ‘official’ looking sites is that there seems to be no easy way to report any of it..
I constantly get fake government or commercial email warnings, and it sometimes astounds me how creative they are..trouble is, they are always from companies I either never heard of or places I don’t do business with..
There should be a central scam report site for us to forward these emails to, and someone should be dealing with the inherent fraud..
As a possible answer to those who have been, and will continue to be scammed online, I can only offer my own solution…if any utility, bank, government stuff comes that seems even slightly off, don’t open it..go directly to the supposed source and ask…e.g. go to the actual banks website, or the government site, and find out if in fact you were sent such an email..even if you aren’t suspicious, do it anyway..

It never hurts to be cautious, but it always hurts to get burned.

Tuesday Morning Links

accidentaldeliberations - Tue, 10/28/2014 - 08:10
This and that for your Tuesday reading.

- Emmanuel Saez and Gabriel Zucman look into the spread of wealth inequality in the U.S., and find that it may be worse than we already knew. And Paul Krugman discusses how toxic anti-government ideology is preventing the U.S. from both getting its economy on track in the short term, and investing in infrastructure it will need down the road:
More than seven years have passed since the housing bubble burst, and ever since, America has been awash in savings — or more accurately, desired savings — with nowhere to go. Borrowing to buy homes has recovered a bit, but remains low. Corporations are earning huge profits, but are reluctant to invest in the face of weak consumer demand, so they’re accumulating cash or buying back their own stock. Banks are holding almost $2.7 trillion in excess reserves — funds they could lend out, but choose instead to leave idle.

And the mismatch between desired saving and the willingness to invest has kept the economy depressed. Remember, your spending is my income and my spending is your income, so if everyone tries to spend less at the same time, everyone’s income falls.
There’s an obvious policy response to this situation: public investment. We have huge infrastructure needs, especially in water and transportation, and the federal government can borrow incredibly cheaply — in fact, interest rates on inflation-protected bonds have been negative much of the time (they’re currently just 0.4 percent). So borrowing to build roads, repair sewers and more seems like a no-brainer.
(T)he that America has turned its back on its own history. We need public investment; at a time of very low interest rates, we could easily afford it. But build we won’t. - Meanwhile, PressProgress highlights the Bank of Canada's alarming findings about the decay of Canada's manufacturing sector. And Hadrian Mertins-Kirkwood finds that big oil's massive profits aren't producing anywhere near enough jobs to pick up the slack.

- Planet Experts reports on the UN's latest report which concludes that climate change is causing irreversible damage to our planet. But presumably the oil industry will simply pretend that inconvenient facts don't exist - as it typically does when people out the other ill environmental effects of resource exploitation.

- Colin Macleod weighs in on the ongoing child care debate with a strong case for a universal program rather than selective incentives and subsidies:
First, means testing, if it is to be fair and reasonably accurate, requires the creation of elaborate and expensive bureaucratic procedures through which eligible recipients can be distinguished from ineligible recipients. In practice, such systems are highly inefficient and frequently fail to correctly those who deserve assistance from those who do not. It is simpler and more efficient to provide the opportunity for cheap daycare available to all on an equal basis.

Second, means-testing draws invidious distinctions between citizens that jeopardize the social conditions of self-respect. In a society in which the default assumption is that citizens should bear the full cost of daycare costs, demonstrating that someone merits a subsidy often requires them to make ‘shameful revelations’. The fat cats do not have to worry about that. They are not in a position of being scrutinized by a government bureaucrat in order to determine whether they are worthy recipients of something to which all parents should have ready access to: good childcare.

I suspect that most of the people who are enthusiastic about means testing are those who are never likely to be subject to it. The rich might feel differently about means testing if say their health care cards were revoked upon determination that their income fell within the top 15% of earners and that in order to gain access to publicly provided health care they would have to complete a series of confusing forms and meet with an entitlements officer who would ask probing questions about whether they really needed to access the public system. It’s ironic that many right-wingers who are generally suspicious of the state think it’s ok to subject some citizens – usually the poor – to invasive inquiries of this sort by state officials.

Instead of treating access to affordable daycare as something that distinguishes the poor from the rich, we should treat it as an opportunity to which all have access in virtue of our common and equal citizenship. On this model, the appropriate way to ensure that the costs of providing the common good of access to daycare are fairly shared is through the background tax system. Those who worry about the regressive potential of daycare tend to neglect the overall malleability of the tax system. A properly structured arrangement for funding daycare through the tax system need not confer net benefits on the rich of the sort critics worry about. If the system for funding is made suitably fair then the concern that the rich are unfairly benefiting from a subsidy is adequately answered. Universality need not be regressive and we can have progressivity without means testing.- Finally, Elizabeth Renzetti argues that we should take a hard line against fearmongering in light of last week's shootings in Ottawa, while Eric Wright criticizes Stephen Harper for instead looking to foment unjustified conflict.

Another Reason Not To Subscribe To The Globe and Mail

Politics and its Discontents - Tue, 10/28/2014 - 06:00

As I noted recently, we are currently receiving a free three-month subscription to the Globe, one that we will not be renewing. My last post on the subject dealt with one of the reasons. Here is another.

In its 'wisdom,' and despite widespread evidence to the contrary, Canada's self-proclaimed 'newspaper of record' insists, in its Monday editorial, that the Harper regime is not muzzling scientists.

As with so many other efforts by The Globe to extol Dear Leader, the piece starts off deceptively, seeming to suggest there is a basis for concern:
The Conservative government only undermines itself by restricting the ability of federally employed scientists to communicate freely with the public and the media. It feeds suspicion, suggesting that Canada has something to hide, for example, on such controversial matters as the oil sands – wrongly or rightly.So far, so good. Then:
Last week, the Union of Concerned Scientists, an American organization, and the Professional Institute of the Public Service of Canada sent Prime Minister Stephen Harper an open letter strongly recommending that Canada no longer insist that government scientists get the permission of a media relations officer before they speak to journalists. Fifteen thousand or so researchers are said to be affected by such rules. There were 800 signatories – Canadian government researchers themselves did not sign it.Hmmm. Even better. Has the self-titled 'newspaper of record' finally seen the light?
The PIPSC rhetorically exaggerates when it repeatedly says that government scientists are “muzzled.” But in November, 2007, the Conservatives did lay down a rule that any media interview with Environment Canada scientists would be “co-ordinated” by communications staff.
And then we get to the 'exculpatory' heart of the matter, at least what passes as exculpatory in Globeworld:
David Tarasick of Environment Canada and others wrote a paper in 2011, which appeared in one of the world’s most respected scientific journals, Nature, saying there had been an extraordinary loss in the ozone layer over the Arctic. Nobody in government got in the way of its publication, so it cannot be said that Dr. Tarasick was silenced. This was not a case of Galileo, the motion of the heavenly bodies and the Inquisition.The paper then reveals what the 'real' problem is.
Nonetheless, “media relations” did get in the way of direct, effective engagement with reporters who might have been able to translate scientific language into news stories adapted for the general public. So you see, it is just a bureaucratic problem that has created a 'bottleneck.'
It is one thing for cabinet ministers and MPs to work with communication staffs in order to keep the government’s messages consistent and coherent, in accordance with cabinet solidarity. It is quite another to insist that thousands of researchers communicate through legions of flacks. That inevitably creates bottlenecks.So, the message from the Globe, obviously labouring under the delusion that it still has real influence on public thinking, is simple: Nothing to see here. Move along. Pay no attention to the man behind the curtain.

Telescope vision is one thing. Patent dishonesty is quite another.

The paper is right about something, however. When it comes to The Globe and Mail, there really is nothing to see there.Recommend this Post

Stephen Harper and the Great War Election

Montreal Simon - Tue, 10/28/2014 - 04:25

Well at least now we know what will be Stephen Harper's main weapon in the next election campaign.

Until about a week ago it was going to be all about the economy.

But now he will mount his armoured closet.

And it will be all about WAR. 
Read more »

Glenn Greenwald and the Pentagon commit sociology

Creekside - Tue, 10/28/2014 - 04:18

Glenn Greenwald took something of shit-kicking in Canada in some media quarters last week for his column: 

Published after two Canadian soldiers were mowed down by car in Quebec on Monday but prior to another being shot at the National War Memorial in Ottawa on Wednesday, the piece was 
misconstrued as a justification of terrorism instead of the explanation for it.

At his talk in Ottawa three days ago, Mr Greenwald points out his explanation is based on a ten year old Pentagon report written for then Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld. Transcript :
"There is this remarkable, remarkable 2004 report that was commissioned by the George Bush Pentagon run by Donald Rumsfeld and it was given to the Defense Task Force. And the question that Donald Rumsfeld commissioned that task force to ask was - What is ultimately the cause of terrorism? Why are there so many people in the world that want to do violence to the United States and you can go online and read it. It seemed as though what I wrote this week or what I said in interviews was somehow controversial.  It isn't - it is self-evident.The report in 2004 concluded this; this is what it said. It said  :  "The key cause of terrorism aimed at Americans is quote "American direct intervention in the Muslim world."  It then identified three different policies that comprise this direct intervention. One is support for the region's worst tyrants - giving economic aid and drowning in weapons the regimes in Egypt and Saudi Arabia.   Secondly was steadfast support for Israel which is viewed as enabling all sorts of aggression in that part of the world.  And third was actual wars and occupations, principally the invasion of Afghanistan. Canada plays a role in all of those policies.   And what the report concluded - and this is not me saying this, this is an actual quote - it repudiated the US government's statements to its own citizenry in the wake of 9/11 about why the 9/11 attack happened, why terrorism happens.This is what it concluded, quote : "Muslims do not quote hate our freedoms unquote but rather they hate our policies." It is so tempting, so tempting, to see ourselves as victims, as pure and innocent victims.  It is. We all want to see ourselves that way - we get to emancipate ourselves from any kind of responsibility or culpability or guilt. It's really tempting to say when our societies are attacked rather than our societies doing the attacking that the reason it happens is because there's this extremist religion in the world - or an extremist version of a religion - that's just unbearably hateful and irrationally savage and they just want to do violence for its own sake - "they hate us for our freedoms". That just simply isn't the case and I think it is our responsibility as citizens and certainly as journalists to make certain that the dialogue isn't comfortable or flattering. That shouldn't be the goal; the goal should be to make it as rational and fact-based as possible so that we're not actually susceptible to manipulation."It's appalling - and does not speak well for our various 'freedoms' or our ability to resist being manipulated by our government - that this ten year old Pentagon research report on the causes of terrorism is still considered controversial anywhere in Canada..

The Wonderful Day the Ford Nation Died

Montreal Simon - Mon, 10/27/2014 - 23:59

Well it was closer than I thought it would be, the bestial Fordzilla  put up a desperate struggle.

But at last he could hold on no longer.

And after four long nightmarish years the Ford Nation has finally been defeated. 
Read more »

Election Night in Ontario...

Anti-Racist Canada - Mon, 10/27/2014 - 17:18
Or, perhaps better put, yet another night of futility and frustration.

Now while the rest of the country will be focused on the mayoral race in Toronto and specifically who among the big three with take the top job (our money is on Tory, though we still hold out hope for Chow), we here at the Collective have a much more modest mandate.
We're going to look at a few races where some of the boneheads we cover here are running.
We begin with former Canadian Nazi leader John Beattie who is running for the position of Deputy Reeve in Minden. We aren't very familiar with voting practices in rural Ontario, but we are going to suggest that Beattie will receive less than 40 votes total.
Moving on to Toronto there are a few candidates running. 
Don Andrews is again running for mayor. Based on his previous total and because of the high profile for this election, we are going to guess he takes about 1300 votes.
At the ward level, we are making the following predictions:

Neo-nazi and convicted murderer Christopher Brosky in Ward 28: 150 - 200 Long-time Andrews supporter and Nationalist Party member Bob Smith in Ward 31: 200 - 250James Sears aka "Dimitri the Lover" (lost medical licence for sexual misconduct, misogynist, and anti-Semite) in Ward 32: 450 - 500 (mostly because of name recognition)
The big one though from our point of view is Paulie running for money.... er.... I mean mayor in Mississauga. He ran in 2010 and took 917 votes (or 0.65%). We're going to predict that he will score around the same, though given the long time incumbent isn't running this year, there may be more of an interest driving up the number of voters. We'll say he breaks a thousand and finishes at 1050.
Time will tell, though we will have fun watching the results. We generally suck at making these kinds of predictions so take what is written with a healthy grain of salt.

In Case You Missed It, Toronto

The Disaffected Lib - Mon, 10/27/2014 - 16:11
John Oliver last night delivered what might just be the best endorsement mayoralty candidate Doug Ford received throughout the campaign

But bitches be crazy!

Feminist Christian - Mon, 10/27/2014 - 14:37
I'm sitting in my van (which is named Halen, because how could it be named anything else, when it rocks so hard and is totally undervalued) while Tony takes Crackle to the dentist. I'm phobic, so it's best I don't go in.

And I'm thinking about the Ghomeshi story, and the PR of abusers. They usually don't have the money and power this one has, being able to afford a high powered firm, but they are always running a PR game, discrediting anyone making an accusation, often before they make it. And people fall for it, hook, line, and sinker.
This is unreal. Someone please run this cunt over with a tank. The thought that your job can dictate your sex...
— Katherine Desmond (@soundmuseum) October 26, 2014 And look what it gets them! Uncritical support. And what do the victims get? Rape threats. Death threats.
Would love to get the name and picture of the cunt who fucked over Jian Ghomeshi....
— T.K. (@tgkfilms) October 27, 2014  And they can't win. If they go to the police, their names become public and their lives are ruined. If they stay anonymous, they're not credible. Just look at any comment section you can stomach.

Which is bullshit. By the way, Toronto Star, adding that they are well-educated and employed suggests that their social standing should have an impact on whether I believe them. Fuck you for that.

I believe them. No, I don't know for a fact that he did it. But I believe them. Just like those who believe he is innocent believe but don't know. Sadly, I'm in the minority.

And why? Why is it so easy to believe women are crazy bitches, making up stories to smear wonderful men, instead of believing that men might be abusive assholes, hiding their nature, running a PR game on everyone? Why is liar easier to believe than victim? Several reasons.

1. Misogyny. Systemic misogyny. It's easier to blame women when the societal narrative supports that belief. Women are lying, scheming, screech harpies because that's what we're often taught to believe. They're set up to fail at rape accusations. From the simplest details like whether they provide a name or not - Presumed lying if they don't; presumed attention whore if they do. And look at that language. Women-only insults for this sort of thing.

2. Denial for self-preservation. For a fleeting few minutes, I played the denial game and believed his story. Because I didn't want to believe it. I didn't want to believe he was one of those guys, an abuser, a rapist. Because I liked him. And I hated thinking that I didn't know. And quite honestly, because I didn't want to accept the reality that this happens all the time. I didn't want to believe that it happened again.

And then my bubble burst. In about 3 seconds of critical thought. It's not about me. It's not even about him. It's about women who wanted to see him stopped, without destroying their own lives.  And so, I believe them and I support them. Because they have nothing to gain, everything to lose, and I admire their courage. Ghomeshi doesn't need my support. He's rich and powerful and male. He has all the support he needs.

It's All We Know

The Disaffected Lib - Mon, 10/27/2014 - 11:01
I wonder if the ancient Mesopotamians, or the Mayans or the Easter Islanders had their "it's all we know" moment before their civilizations faltered?

The Mesopotamians, for example, are widely taken to have created modern society in the "cradle of civilization" - the fertile delta where the Tigris and Euphrates rivers meet the Persian Gulf.  There it was possible to develop intensive agriculture aided by irrigation from those two mighty rivers.  That was accompanied by population growth, the networking of settlements that became cities and a civilization.

What the Mesos didn't understand, at first, was that some of the river water they were using for irrigation was brackish - contaminated by the mixture of saltwater from the Gulf.  It doesn't have to be particularly salty because the salt remains in the soil as the water evaporates and, given enough time, even trace amounts of salt build up until, in fairly short order, the farmland becomes sterile.  Crops fail, society fails.  At some point the Mesos must have figured it out which would probably be their "it's all we know" moment - just before their civilization collapsed.

The Mayans went through a similar process.  So, too, the Easter Islanders.

Our civilization is far more complex than anything that has preceded us.  We have a more or less interlinked, global civilization.  We have a global economy and, while we're not all on the same page, those behind are racing to catch up.

We have a global civilization anchored in models - economic, social, geo-political that have been developed over generations, in some cases centuries.

Like the Mesopotamians, it really never occurred to us that the same things that made us great could lay us low.  Abundant, cheap fossil energy is the prime example albeit it's just one.  Our slavish embrace of perpetual, exponential growth is another.  Even parasites can multiply until their numbers overwhelm the host at which point it's over for the host and the parasites as well.

Our models - economic, industrial, social and political - have transformed us into a plague of parasites on the Earth.  When we consume the Earth's resources at 1.5-times their natural replenishment rate, a rate that grows steadily with each passing year, we're on a one-way road and it's all downhill.  It's what we do.  It's all we know.

Fear.  There's plenty of that going around.  It's one of the most powerful motivators there is. Most of us respond to it instinctively and those who feed so much of it to us know it.  Foreign terrorists know it. They don't have to attack us in our homes.  They don't have to have the means to do it.  It's enough for them to say it knowing we'll respond just as they would have us do.

There's a group of domestic terrorists who do the very same thing.  They inculcate fear in us to achieve desired responses.  These terrorists come from our political caste and from the ranks of the rich and powerful.  Stephen Harper loves terrorizing old white people, his base.  He scares the shit out of them, plays to their basest instincts, and watches as they respond, turning out en masse to vote for him.

These domestic terrorists use fear to crush any hope of challenging the status quo.  If you want to thwart any effective effort to respond to climate change, tell the public that it will destroy the economy, their economy.  Feed them a dark vision of being without a job, the house in foreclosure, a tow truck driving away with the family car.  Problem solved.  And these domestic terrorists know what their foreign counterparts know - just saying it works.

When you're chronically insecure, surrounded on all sides by fears, some real and some implanted, "it's all we know" becomes the default option.  When you are made to believe that the path ahead is a minefield it can take a lot of courage to challenge the lie.

It was a decade ago that our modern existence was given a new name - "precariat."  It's a term that applies to most of us.  Wiki defines it as, "a condition of existence without predictability or security, affecting material or psychological welfare... "

Back in the day, then Federal Reserve chairman Alan Greenspan credited "growing worker insecurity" for a lot of the success of the American economy during the Clinton years.  To the plutocracy, worker insecurity is a powerful advantage.  It's a very good thing indeed.

Have America's precariat taken to the streets in revolt?  No, they've just taken extra part-time jobs.  You can't revolt when you've got 20-minutes to get from job A to job B yet you do it because it's all you know.

Which brings us to Naomi Klein's new book, "This Changes Everything."  Klein makes very cogent and compelling arguments for transitioning from neoliberal, free market capitalism to a new economy based on equity, effective tax policy and, yes, asset redistribution.  The author contends that climate change renders such a transformation imperative, inevitable.

The best feature of Klein's transformative vision is that it can be accomplished in an orderly and peaceful fashion, avoiding the chaotic and often violent change of revolution and counter-revolution.

Yet privilege and advantage, even if completely unearned, are almost never surrendered voluntarily.  They're almost always defended by whatever means deemed necessary. When you have a society, conditioned by insecurity to accept quasi-servitude in a neoliberal order, a state of corporate feudalism, the forces of privilege and advantage have the whip hand.  If unrest begins to smolder, it's a simple matter of dousing it with another bucket of fear.

It can't go on forever.  It can't go on much longer.  Neoliberalism is the economic equivalent of a three pack a day habit.  It has been instrumental, indispensable in the creation of our current crises of climate change, overpopulation and over-consumption.

What Naomi Klein is advocating is really a "best case" scenario but we have been sufficiently conditioned that we will not see it that way.  We won't give up the very institutions that are propelling us to collapse.  It's all we know.

Irreversible Harm - As in No Going Back, Forget About It.

The Disaffected Lib - Mon, 10/27/2014 - 08:37
Okay, brace yourself.  A soon to be released UN report warns that climate change may have "serious, pervasive and irreversible" effects on societies and nature unless governments act quickly to slash greenhouse gas emissions.

Sound familiar?  It should.  Another week, another dire warning.  More apocalyptic forecasts.  A quick yawn and then - flush - straight down the memory hole.

"The report will be a guide for us," Peruvian Environment Minister Manuel Pulgar-Vidal, who will host a U.N. meeting of environment ministers in Lima in late 2014 to lay the groundwork for the Paris summit, told Reuters.He said the synthesis report by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), drawing on three mammoth scientific reports published since September 2013, would show the need for urgent and ambitious action in coming years.
Many governments want the 32-page draft to be more clearly and punchily written in warnings of more powerful storms, heat waves, floods and rising seas. The United States said some tables "may be impenetrable to the policymaker or public".From my perspective, I think we should define the end of the Holocene and the arrival of the Anthropocene, the onset of anthropogenic or man-made climate, as beginning in the 1970s with the triumph of neoliberalism.

Everything seems anchored in the early 70s as mankind's population neared the 4-billion mark.  It was at that point that we entered "overshoot" - ecological deficit - where we began consuming natural resources faster than the Earth can replenish them.  Today we're exceeding the Earth's resource carrying capacity by a factor of 1.5 which means we're becoming increasingly dependent on far more resources than our planet can provide.  The operative word is "dependent."  It's kind of like emptying your bank account and becoming "dependent" on your credit card to buy a third of your essential needs.  How long do you think that can go on?

It was in the early 70s when our population really began to explode.  It took until around 1814 for our population to reach one billion.  Then, from around 3.5-billion in the early 70s, we doubled that to well over 7-billion in the past forty years.  Not only have we added another 3.5-billion mouths to feed but we've also increased our per capita resource consumption and we're still at it.  We could reach 9-billion by 2050 and upwards of 11-billion by 2100 except that the Earth's ecological carrying capacity remains at about 3.5-billion.

As we learned recently from research conducted by the WWF, the Global Footprint Network, and the Zoological Society of London, over the past forty years, since the mid-70s, we have lost half the wild life on Earth.  Between our voracious consumption and the resulting waste we're leaving in the water, the soil and the atmosphere, nature simply can't hang on.  We've got nature on the run.  Plants and animals are trying to migrate away from the equator toward the poles.  Some are successful, some aren't.  Our success in overpopulation, over-consumption and degrading our one and only biosphere is driving the collapse of biodiversity.  Another good reason to fix the advent of the Anthropocene in the early 70s.  One half down, one half to go.

Yes, we must heed these warnings.  We do need to decarbonize our societies and our economies and very soon.  We have already squandered invaluable time and opportunity to do this on our own terms.  Now we have to work with what we've left ourselves and that isn't much.

Yet, even if we seal off every coal mine and close down all of our high-carbon fossil fuels, such as bitumen, we still need to confront our population and consumption threats and the dependencies that they impose on us.  All three - climate change, overpopulation and over-consumption - are directly and powerfully linked and our prospects of addressing even one of them are gravely diminished if we neglect the others in our solutions.  It's really that clear cut.

Perhaps our wobbly focus on climate change to the exclusion of its companion crises happens because we imagine we can simply switch from fossil energy to low-carbon alternative or clean energies without having to reform ourselves, our institutions and our economic, political and social models.  We may imagine such a solution but it simply won't work.  More's the pity.


Subscribe to aggregator - Posts from our progressive community