Some environmental books

I gave a couple of environmental talks in Texas over the weekend, which have since been published on the web. One on sustainability in general. The other on climate change, science and politics.

To prepare for them and before and since, I read a bunch of environmental books, that I’ll discuss below.

Derrick Jensen, ‘Endgame’. Recommend this very highly. I came away with great respect for Jensen. It was just refreshing. I don’t agree with everything – I suppose I hope that he’s wrong about civilization being inherently unsustainable more than knowing that he is – but I agree with most, and I just found him to be honest, ethical, and serious throughout.

Chris Turner, ‘Geography of Hope’. Interesting reporting on alternative technologies in different parts of the world. Chris is a little breathless, I think too enthusiastic (though he acknowledges that his enthusiasm is strategic, because what’s needed is some breathless enthusiasm) and his framework is ‘Natural Capitalism’ by Hawken and Lovins (which I’ll also mention below), a framework I disagree with for various reasons. He also does an unfair and unhelpful swipe at Cuba, suggesting that their organic urban agriculture miracle occurred because it’s a dictatorship (as opposed to because their social process enabled them to accomplish things that capitalist societies cannot). But I like his style and I can recommend the book.

Paul Hawken and Amory & Hunter Lovins, ‘Natural Capitalism’. The idea here is that thinking only of financial and manufacturing capital and not of social and natural capital is a mistake. ‘Natural capitalism’ would value natural capital as capital and treat it that way, not as income to be spent. Interesting technology again. But my several problems are as follows. First, if the entire infrastructure created for the automobile is unsustainable, and I think it is, then even vastly more efficient cars are still an error, compared to more collective solutions such as rail and changes to urban form. Second, trying to put monetary value on what are called ‘ecosystem services’ invites tradeoffs for things that cannot be traded off. Jensen actually makes this point well – bringing something into the money economy almost certainly guarantees its doom. The authors of ‘Natural Capitalism’ don’t do too much such valuation, but the framework invites such exercises. Third, the pun of ‘natural capitalism’ implies there’s something natural about capitalism, and capitalism usually implies not just markets, but private ownership of the means of production and hierarchical class society. I can’t accept such things as natural.

David Suzuki and Holly Dressel, ‘Good News for a Change’. Good green technology stuff again.

James Howard Kunstler, ‘The Long Emergency’. Interesting work about how America’s suburban and industrial infrastructure depends on oil, how oil will run out before too long, and all the problems that will result. Kunstler says repeatedly that he isn’t prescribing, but predicting the future. But I disagree with this attitude towards the future. The one thing about the future that we like is that it is at least partly up for decision. Kunstler would probably answer that it is part of delusional fantasies to think we can decide on the future, which is true of some parts of the future but not of others. Kunstler also combines what I think is interesting technological and economic analysis with very conventional and I think off-base geopolitical and domestic political analysis. He doesn’t understand the motivations or the politics or the history of the people the US is fighting and killing in massive numbers in West Asia, nor very important elements of immigration in the US, nor very important racial and economic problems in the US. His analysis of these matters seems to rely on stereotypes, and I’d hoped for better from a contrarian. It’s almost enough to make me not want to recommend the book – but several parts of several chapters (especially chapters 1, 2, and 7) should be read regardless of the weaknesses of the other chapters. I’m prepared to elaborate on this, because separating where he’s right from where he’s wrong is, I think, important and worthwhile.

McDonough and Braungart, ‘Cradle to Cradle’. I really enjoyed this. The idea is that we redesign our industrial system to have no waste. Everything is designed to be re-used or re-incorporated into other products, indefinitely. If they are right and what they say can be done, then perhaps civilization isn’t inherently unsustainable. They are pretty agnostic about what kind of social system would accompany this technological revolution (they don’t seem to endorse capitalism, natural or otherwise, for example) but I really like their technology and their approach to it. Several of the others I’ve read (Jensen and Kunstler, for example) would probably say that ‘Cradle to Cradle’ can’t work.

I think there are others but I can’t remember them. There are also several more on my list that I’ll be reading too.

The so-called “Toronto Terror Plot” – and the young people presumed guilty, still in jail

I am watching, on YouTube, a good film called “Unfair Dealing”, about the “Toronto Terror Plot” that broke about two years ago now. The “plot” always had the smell of entrapment and political expediency. I’ve researched it a little bit but haven’t written about it yet. In addition to Toronto18.com, and captiveincanada.com, I’d also recommend the video on YouTube. From the film, it looks a lot dirtier than it even seemed…

Part 1
Continue reading “The so-called “Toronto Terror Plot” – and the young people presumed guilty, still in jail”

Polo Democratico’s Statement on the Raul Reyes assassination

I’m reproducing the full statement, including a long criticism of Uribe’s politics, but only translating the short communique on the crisis that the PDA put forward on March 2.

——

The PDA’s National Directorate, meeting in Bogota on February 29-March 2 and facing the crisis of relations of the Colombian State with the neighbouring republics of Ecuador and Venezuela:

Continue reading “Polo Democratico’s Statement on the Raul Reyes assassination”

Colombia apologizes at the OAS

Colombia accepted at the OAS that it did in fact violate Ecuador’s sovereignty. Venezuela and Ecuador are to discuss the situation further. Latin American countries all rejected this – it is a good sign to the US, and there have been numerous of these in recent years, many of which had to do with Colombia or Venezuela, that the Latin American countries won’t tolerate these sorts of violations of sovereignty (except for Haiti). The text of the OAS resolution, below, in Spanish.

Continue reading “Colombia apologizes at the OAS”

Terrorism? Genocide?

Colombia’s regime is using a well-known tactic. When caught committing a crime, accuse the other party. The more mud slung, the better. El Tiempo’s headline, quoting Colombia’s representative to the OAS, “One hopes that Ecuador and Venezuela will have the courage to expel the terrorists from their territory.” Colombia’s claiming they found “evidence” on Raul Reyes’s computer (captured during the massacre and violation of sovereignty that they committed when they assassinated Reyes) of support for FARC by Ecuador and Venezuela. These computer files are a big deal in the Colombian media – you can actually download the PDFs of supposed memos from FARC to Chavez talking about bringing down capitalism, etc (I got my copy, I assume it’s not going to be there forever). Colombia also plans to denounce Chavez before the International Criminal Court for ‘supporting genocide’.

(The same newspaper reported today a paramilitary – these are the death squads supported by the Colombian government – confessing to using poisonous snakes to commit murders. The same newspaper. On the same day. No relevant connections made.)

Bush has announced total support for Uribe in the conflict.

Other Latin American countries have not – Argentina and Chile expressed concerns for the violation of Ecuador’s sovereignty.

Another important point – the humanitarian accord between FARC and Venezuela and Colombia also involved France pretty heavily, and France is not pleased with this assassination.

The Polo Democratico, Colombia’s left party, made a statement that was very timely and very good. They began by reiterating their opposition to Uribe’s regime and its politics and reminding readers that that regime had handed over the nation’s wealth to transnationals. The conflict in Colombia has political causes and would have a political solution, they reject military methods and military options. If it doesn’t come out in English in the next day or two I’ll probably translate it here.

This isn’t going to resolve easily. So stay tuned.

March 6 is an important date – there will be a mobilization against state crimes and paramilitarism in Colombia. It won’t have the state behind it like the Feb 4 mobilization, and will probably be made invisible. But it will be important for the country and important that people outside be watching.

Colombia Assassinates Raul Reyes of FARC

The second-in-command of FARC (Colombia’s guerrilla group), and perhaps its most visible spokesperson, Luis Édgar Devia Silva, or “Raul Reyes” (the nom de guerre), was killed by the Colombian military in bombings yesterday. The Colombian military killed some 15 guerrillas in the operation, according to their own reports, including Raul Reyes. The reports suggest that it was basically an assassination, of the type the Israelis have committed in recent decades and are most recently accused of committing against Hizbollah commander Imad Mughniyeh (indeed, Venezuela’s President Hugo Chavez noted the similarity, asking if Colombia was going to be converted into the Israel of the Americas). From El Tiempo (Colombia’s national newspaper): “Reyes was killed in an intelligence operation that included the Army and Air Force, which intercepted a satellite phone call from the guerrilla chief, in recent hours that made it possible to find his exact location.”

Raul Reyes was assassinated on Ecuadorian territory. The Ecuadorian army took some of the bodies, but the Colombian army took Raul Reyes’s and those of other FARC officers.

Ecuador has retired its ambassador from Colombia.

Venezuela has also closed its embassy.

Ecuador and Venezuela are both moving troops to their borders with Colombia.

The Ecuadorian President, Rafael Correa, called Uribe a “criminal, mafioso, paramilitary” leading a “narco-government”.

“We do not want war, but we will not permit the Empire or its puppy, President Uribe, to weaken us.” Those were Chavez’s words on the Venezuelan radio program, Alo Presidente on March 2. Chavez called Raul Reyes a “good revolutionary” and his killing a “cowardly assassination”. Further, he said “It is very serious that a country arrogates to itself the right to bomb the territory of a neighbour and commit an incursion to take bodies, violating many international laws. Think of the consequences, not just for Colombia, but for your neighbours.”

The Venezuelan government’s official communication noted that the assassination was “a very hard blow against the humanitarian accord and the possibility of negotiations, revealing the irresponsibility of those who privilege the military option and escalate the armed conflict, making more difficult political and negotiated solutions, without regard for the consequences.”

The assassination was, literally, the answer to FARC’s second unilateral release of four kidnap victims, former Congresspeople, an operation coordinated with help from Venezuela. There are, therefore, numerous parallels with Israel. First, the tactic of high-tech, long-distance assassination of high-profile leaders. Second, the killing of dozens of others around as ‘collateral damage’. Third, the use of such assassinations to undermine the possibilities for dialogue and negotiated solutions.

In this case, as with so much else in the region, the target is Venezuela and the objective is to escalate to a regional conflict – or, rather, an intensification and internationalization of the military conflict that is happening in Colombia. Such a conflict would be incredibly destructive for everyone involved, for Colombia and Colombians, for Uribe and his regime, and of course for Venezuela’s revolution. The US, however, would benefit. When US allies use the same tactics in the same sorts of political situations against US enemies, there is reason to suspect a US role.

The US/Israeli approach in the Middle East, from the invasion of Iraq in 2003 to the invasion of Lebanon in 2006 and the ongoing massacres in Gaza, has been to commit atrocities and acts of violence and, using their superior militaries, exploit the political and military opportunities that arise (this is a military counterpart of what Naomi Klein calls “the shock doctrine”). Even when they have backfired politically or strained military resources, these violent approaches have cost their victims much more than their authors, who continue to have reason to believe that more violence can work.

One of the political opportunities that Israel counts on after it commits an assassination is some random act of violence by the Palestinian armed groups, which it can then exploit, calling the Palestinians terrorists. The FARC have been told that if they unilaterally release kidnap victims, the response will be the assassination of their commanders. What should those who believe the only solution to the conflict is a political solution say to them?

It would be a major improvement in world affairs, especially in the Middle East but increasingly, perhaps, in the Americas as well, if assassination was not viewed as an acceptable instrument of policy. As it is, the best short-term hope for the region is if there is an outpouring of official and popular disgust at Uribe’s regime (and those who call the shots for that regime) for what it has done, throughout the Americas.

Justin Podur is a Toronto-based writer.

FARC second-in-command assassinated

The second-in-command of FARC (Colombia’s guerrilla group), and perhaps its most visible spokesperson, Luis Édgar Devia Silva, or “Raul Reyes” (the nom de guerre), was killed by the Colombian military in bombings yesterday. The Colombian military killed some 15 guerrillas in the operation, according to their own reports, including Raul Reyes. The reports suggest that it was basically an assassination, of the type the Israelis have committed in recent decades and are most recently accused of committing against Hizbollah commander Imad Mughniyeh (indeed, Venezuela’s President Hugo Chavez noted the similarity, asking if Colombia was going to be converted into the Israel of the Americas). From El Tiempo (Colombia’s national newspaper): “Reyes was killed in an intelligence operation that included the Army and Air Force, which intercepted a satellite phone call from the guerrilla chief, in recent hours that made it possible to find his exact location.”

Raul Reyes was assassinated on Ecuadorian territory. The Ecuadorian army took some of the bodies, but the Colombian army took Raul Reyes’s and those of other FARC officers.

Ecuador has retired its ambassador from Colombia.

Venezuela has also closed its embassy.

Ecuador and Venezuela are both moving troops to their borders with Colombia.

The Ecuadorian President, Rafael Correa, called Uribe a “criminal, mafioso, paramilitary” leading a “narco-government”.

“We do not want war, but we will not permit the Empire or its puppy, President Uribe, to weaken us.” Those were Chavez’s words on the Venezuelan radio program, Alo Presidente on March 2. Chavez called Raul Reyes a “good revolutionary” and his killing a “cowardly assassination”. Further, he said “It is very serious that a country arrogates to itself the right to bomb the territory of a neighbour and commit an incursion to take bodies, violating many international laws. Think of the consequences, not just for Colombia, but for your neighbours.”

The Venezuelan government’s official communication noted that the assassination was “a very hard blow against the humanitarian accord and the possibility of negotiations, revealing the irresponsibility of those who privilege the military option and escalate the armed conflict, making more difficult political and negotiated solutions, without regard for the consequences.”

The assassination was, literally, the answer to FARC’s second unilateral release of four kidnap victims, former Congresspeople, an operation coordinated with help from Venezuela. There are, therefore, numerous parallels with Israel. First, the tactic of high-tech, long-distance assassination of high-profile leaders. Second, the killing of dozens of others around as ‘collateral damage’. Third, the use of such assassinations to undermine the possibilities for dialogue and negotiated solutions.

In this case, as with so much else in the region, the target is Venezuela and the objective is to escalate to a regional conflict – or, rather, an intensification and internationalization of the military conflict that is happening in Colombia. Such a conflict would be incredibly destructive for everyone involved, for Colombia and Colombians, for Uribe and his regime, and of course for Venezuela’s revolution. The US, however, would benefit. When US allies use the same tactics in the same sorts of political situations against US enemies, there is reason to suspect a US role.

The US/Israeli approach in the Middle East, from the invasion of Iraq in 2003 to the invasion of Lebanon in 2006 and the ongoing massacres in Gaza, has been to commit atrocities and acts of violence and, using their superior militaries, exploit the political and military opportunities that arise (this is a military counterpart of what Naomi Klein calls “the shock doctrine”). Even when they have backfired politically or strained military resources, these violent approaches have cost their victims much more than their authors, who continue to have reason to believe that more violence can work.

One of the political opportunities that Israel counts on after it commits an assassination is some random act of violence by the Palestinian armed groups, which it can then exploit, calling the Palestinians terrorists. The FARC have been told that if they unilaterally release kidnap victims, the response will be the assassination of their commanders. What should those who believe the only solution to the conflict is a political solution say to them?

It would be a major improvement in world affairs if assassination was not viewed as an acceptable instrument of policy. As it is, the best short-term hope for the region is if there is an outpouring of official and popular disgust at Uribe’s regime (and those who call the shots for that regime) for what it has done, throughout the Americas.

Facebook!

Saw a story yesterday about how the Canadian military sent a memo around telling soldiers not to reveal their military connections on facebook, because al-Qaeda’s on facebook and it could endanger soldiers and their families. Taken to its logical conclusion, this idea makes the entire Canadian military a covert operation. If a nation’s military isn’t able to operate out in the open, it seems there are a lot of implications.

Also, four more people were released by FARC in Colombia as a result of the Venezuelan mediation.

IMEMC reports that Israel killed about 28 people in Gaza over the past week.

March 6 demonstration in Colombia (and a little on Cuba and Pakistan and Canada)

Apologies for the time away from blogging. I had the pleasure of being on a two-person panel with John Clarke of OCAP over the weekend, organized by the London Project for a Participatory Society (LPPS). We were talking about “taking back the city” and, as much as I enjoy being on a panel with John, he always puts me to shame. The talk was video recorded and might be available at some point on youtube.

Continue reading “March 6 demonstration in Colombia (and a little on Cuba and Pakistan and Canada)”