Time for Revolt? Some Scientists Say ‘Yes’

  • submit to reddit
Environmental activists carry colorful signs as they march through the streets of downtown Pittsburgh targeting fracking, coal, nuclear power, and the dangers of climate change on Monday, Oct. 21, 2013. (AP Photo/Keith Srakocic)
Environmental activists carry colorful signs as they march through the streets of downtown Pittsburgh targeting fracking, coal, nuclear power and the dangers of climate change on Monday, Oct. 21, 2013. (AP Photo/Keith Srakocic)

Journalist Naomi Klein writes in Britain’s New Statesman magazine that scientists often use softer language than they should when presenting their findings about the inevitability of climate change and the destruction it will bring. But now some scientists are raising their voices and taking action, demanding dramatic changes in the cultural and economic systems that are to blame for our fossil fuel dependency.

Klein starts with a talk by one UC-San Diego researcher, Brad Werner, who presented a talk at a American Geophysical Union conference last year entitled: “Is Earth F**ked? Dynamical Futility of Global Environmental Management and Possibilities for Sustainability via Direct Action Activism.”

“When pressed by a journalist for a clear answer on the ‘are we f**ked’ question,” Klein writes, “Werner set the jargon aside and replied, ‘More or less.’”

There was one dynamic in the model, however, that offered some hope. Werner termed it “resistance” – movements of “people or groups of people” who “adopt a certain set of dynamics that does not fit within the capitalist culture”. According to the abstract for his presentation, this includes “environmental direct action, resistance taken from outside the dominant culture, as in protests, blockades and sabotage by indigenous peoples, workers, anarchists and other activist groups”.

Serious scientific gatherings don’t usually feature calls for mass political resistance, much less direct action and sabotage. But then again, Werner wasn’t exactly calling for those things. He was merely observing that mass uprisings of people – along the lines of the abolition movement, the civil rights movement or Occupy Wall Street – represent the likeliest source of “friction” to slow down an economic machine that is careening out of control. We know that past social movements have “had tremendous influence on . . . how the dominant culture evolved”, he pointed out. So it stands to reason that, “if we’re thinking about the future of the earth, and the future of our coupling to the environment, we have to include resistance as part of that dynamics”. And that, Werner argued, is not a matter of opinion, but “really a geophysics problem”.

Plenty of scientists have been moved by their research findings to take action in the streets. Physicists, astronomers, medical doctors and biologists have been at the forefront of movements against nuclear weapons, nuclear power, war, chemical contamination and creationism. And in November 2012, Nature published a commentary by the financier and environmental philanthropist Jeremy Grantham urging scientists to join this tradition and “be arrested if necessary”, because climate change “is not only the crisis of your lives – it is also the crisis of our species’ existence”.

Read the full article at the New Statesman »

About a year ago, in the days after Hurricane Sandy hit New York, Naomi Klein spoke with Bill Moyers about setting priorities in the wake of a natural disaster.

“Here you have a crisis that was created by a collision between heavy weather — which may or may not have been linked to climate change, but certainly it’s what climate change looks like — colliding with weak infrastructure, because of years and years of neglect,” Klein told Moyers. And the free market solutions to this crisis are, ‘Let’s just get rid of the public infrastructure altogether and drill for more oil, which is the root cause of climate change.’ So that’s their shock doctrine. And I think it’s time for a people’s shock.”

She later explained that a similar “people’s shock” had been seen before in American history, after the stock market crash of 1929 set off the Great Depression. People “wanted to get at the root of the problem,” Klein said. “[T]hey wanted to get away from speculative finance and that’s how we got some very good legislation passed in this country like Glass-Steagall, and much of the social safety net was born in that moment. Not by exploiting crisis to horde power for the few and to ram through policies that people don’t want, but to build popular movements and to really deepen democracy.”

Watch “Naomi Klein on Capitalism and Climate Change”:

  • submit to reddit

BillMoyers.com encourages conversation and debate around issues, events and ideas related to content on Moyers & Company and the BillMoyers.com website.

  • The editorial staff reserves the right to take down comments it deems inappropriate.
  • Profanity, personal attacks, hate speech, off-topic posts, advertisements and spam will not be tolerated.
  • Do not intentionally make false or misleading statements, impersonate someone else, break the law, or condone or encourage unlawful activity.

If your comments consistently or intentionally make this community a less civil and enjoyable place to be, you and your comments will be excluded from it.

We need your help with this. If you feel a post is not in line with the comment policy, please flag it so that we can take a look. Comments and questions about our policy are welcome. Please send an email to info@moyersmedia.com

Find out more about BillMoyers.com's privacy policy and terms of service.

  • Progressive Patriot

    If we stay on our current path (corporations and the rich rigging the system more and more in their favor), it will only continue to get worse.

  • Anonymous

    Would like to use Moyers (or see the program used) for public programs where people meet in person to discuss policy and issues. Many of the issues we face have grown complex, while our language about the issues has grown simple and cliched.

  • Dan Hitchman

    Here’s the problem: the rare minerals necessary to create all those solar panels are being mined in China. It’s devastating the environment there, which leads to climate problems here. There is no easy solution. That’s why we MUST have a Manhattan Project or Space Race-like organization of scientists to come up with cleaner alternatives ASAP.

  • Ydiom231

    Climate Science on the web needs better SEO. Too often the credible science is drown out by industry-driven PR when fact-checking.

  • Yunohu

    It’s both. Certainly the population explosion exacerbates just about all environmental problems, but so does the high rate of energy use, particularly of the fossil fuels.
    You tell me how we’re going to get the world to (peacefully) decrease by 2 or 3 billion. I’d love for that to happen. But it’s hard to get people to even talk about it, and I suspect you will get tremendous resistance from religious groups of many kinds for any such suggestion.
    As difficult as it is, i think it would be easier to tackle the type & amount of energy use, but it looks like we need to first greatly reduce the hold that giant corporations have on our governments.
    Ideally we should do both.

  • John Chetcuti

    The biggest and easiest thing people can do right now to help the environment (not to mention their own health) is adopt a plant-based diet.

    http://hpjmh.com/

  • Anonymous

    where can we get a link directly to Brad Werner’s talk?