According to the Republicans campaigning to be their party’s nominee to be the President of the United States (not to mention many others in their party), the chief problems facing the United States include things like illegal immigration, attacks on religious liberty, Planned Parenthood, attacks on cops incited by Black Lives Matter activists, Hillary Clinton’s private emails, and of course Iran and ISIS/ISIL/Daesh. Given the excessive attention being paid to this circus – and particularly to the loud guy with the goofy hair who is currently leading the pack – by the national media in the US, at least some of the public may also be starting to believe that these are the things that matter, rather than issues like climate change, severe economic inequality, racial injustice, or the way money has come to dominate US politics. If the US president wasn’t such an influential figure, not only in the US itself but globally as well, most of the candidates’ rhetoric would simply be hilarious in its inanity, and if some of their fellow Republicans weren’t in a position to make laws and fund (or rather not fund) the government, their disconnection from reality would just be amusing.
According to Mr. Hair, the US is in grave danger of being overrun by rapists and murderers that Mexico is deliberately sending north and therefore it is imperative that a huge wall be built to keep out the riffraff. Most of his fellow candidates are only slightly less extreme in their views on immigration. Never mind that the number of people actually coming over the border illegally is at its lowest level in years, or that immigrants in fact commit crimes at far lower levels than native-born Americans, or that undocumented immigrants pay more into the system than they get in benefits. How extreme some in the Republican party have gotten on the issue of illegal immigration is shown by their response to the murder of a woman in San Francisco by a undocumented immigrant who had come back into the country despite being deported. A number of Republicans have gone so far as to propose a mandatory five year prison sentence for anyone caught coming back into the US after being deported. American prisons may be already overflowing, mandatory sentences in general may have long ago been shown to be unjust and ineffective at ending crime, and the idea of judging millions of undocumented people for the actions of one despicable individual may make about as much sense as condemning all white people for the actions of the racist Charleston mass murderer: Republicans still want to stuff prisons full of people whose “crime” is trying to join their families or just make a better life for themselves, treating them as they’ve committed an act as bad or worse than armed robbery or assault.
Then there’s the issue of “religious liberty”. Republican presidential candidates like Mike Huckabee rallied to the cause of a county clerk who went to jail rather than obeying a judge’s order to do her job, acting like she was some sort of martyr for her beliefs when she could have simply resigned if she really found letting same sex couples register their marriages at her office too much for her “conscience” – even though she seems to have no problem with divorced people (including herself) getting married. Only Lindsey Graham and Carly Fiorina offered some mild criticism of this petulant display of defiance against the rule of law. Huckabee and most of his fellow candidates also want Christians who oppose same sex marriage to be able to deny other services to gay couples, though they are silent on whether such people should also be able to deny services to people on second marriages or interracial couples. The Republicans seem to think that because conservative Christians are no longer able to freely impose their views in the public sphere, their “liberty” is at stake. On the other hand, they don’t seem so interested in protecting the religious liberty of Muslims, with Ben Carson even saying that Muslims shouldn’t be allowed to be president and the orange haired guy implying that one already is (and that there are training camps for Islamic terrorists in the US, despite there being not a shred of evidence to support that claim).
As for Planned Parenthood, the Republican candidates are almost unanimous in condemning the organizations on the basis of doctored videos that do not actually prove anything like what they have been saying, and Carly Fiorina make even more wild and blatantly false claims based on a video that doesn’t even exist. Amazingly enough, it is the Donald who has been the voice of reason on this issue (relatively speaking, of course), acknowledging that Planned Parenthood provides many useful services. But the rest seem to just foam at the mouth at the mere mention of Planned Parenthood. But despite their supposedly “pro-life” hostility to abortion, none of these candidates seems interested in supporting measures that would actually reduce abortion, such as comprehensive (not abstinence-only) sex education and ready availability of contraceptives, nor are they interested in ensuring a decent life or even sufficient food, health care and education for the children that they want to force women to bring to term. In the meantime, John Boehner’s reluctance to shut down the entire federal government over Planned Parenthood funding has cost him his position as Speaker of the House of Representatives, leaving the House Republicans, as one commenter put it without even ineffectual “adult supervision”.
We’ve also heard that people like President Barack Obama have helped create anti-police hysteria by acknowledging in mild terms that a few police officers have on a few occasions done bad stuff and that Black Lives Matter activists are helping to create a war on cops. Never mind that far fewer police have been killed in the line of duty during Obama’s term than in equivalent periods in past administrations reaching back to the 1970s, or that the number of people killed by police in the first week of September was greater than the number of police killed in the entire year to date, or that Obama said a lot of positive things about most police officers, or that there have been many – and I do mean many – cases in which police officers have literally gotten away with completely unjustifiable murder, or that Black Lives Matter activists have never called for attacks on police, just reforms to address the problems which anyone who has been paying in attention clearly exist in how the police and the justice system treat minorities, especially African Americans.
Of course few Republican national figures can go very long without attacking the current Democratic front runner Hillary Rodham Clinton for something or other. An old favorite is her supposed responsibility for “allowing” the terrorist attack on the US consulate in Benghazi, Libya that killed four Americans, including the ambassador (though Republicans seem to have conveniently forgotten that their favorite president, Ronald Reagan, “allowed” an attack on the US embassy in Lebanon that killed a couple hundred Marines). The current favorite, though, is Hillary’s deletion of private emails that she used when doing government business as US Secretary of State. Never mind that she was doing pretty much what her predecessors had done, or that there is no indication that she violated any procedures that were in place at the time; the desperate need for the Republicans to dig up a scandal to bring her down means that we can expect them to keep dredging the issue up until the general election (unless perhaps Bernie Sanders can manage to upset her in the Democratic primaries).
ISIL of course is the current favorite foreign bogeyman of the American right wing. Lindsey Graham, and the agreement on Iran’s nuclear program is their favorite example of the supposed weakness of Obama’s foreign policy. Lindsey Graham famously warned that without military action by the US, ISIL would come to the US and “kill us all”, and most of his fellow candidates have been only a little less hyperbolic about the threat. At the same time, they seem to regard the agreement with Iran as a total capitulation. Never mind the fact that, while truly awful, ISIL has not shown any capability of striking seriously in the US (right wing terrorists have killed more people in recent years in the US than Islamic terrorists of any sort have) or that the Iran agreement is really a fairly decent deal, and much better than the alternative. Only Rand Paul acted disinclined to wade into another war in the Middle East, and John Kaisch was the only other Republican candidate to evince any reluctance to immediately throw out the Iran agreement if elected.
Of course where other issues have been mentioned, the rhetoric hasn’t been much better. Only Graham has fully acknowledged the reality of climate change, the others sticking to the same denial of reality that has dominated the Republican party on this issue. On taxes they mostly offer the same old giveaways to the rich and on the budget they are mostly eager to gut social programs and foreign aid, while dumping even more money on the one part of the government where the vast majority of the actual waste is, namely the Pentagon.
So what are we to make of this bunch? On every issue, there are at best one or two candidates who have semi-reasonable positions, but those same candidates invariable have terrible or even absurd positions on other issues. Take the Donald, the current front runner in the polls, for example. While his less completely unhinged attitude toward Planned Parenthood and his willingness to raise taxes on at least a few rich people (e.g. hedge fund managers) might seem to make him like one of the less repellent options, his xenophobia and sexism are more worthy of one of the lower types of Internet trolls than of a serious candidate for president of the US, and in any case, anyone delusional enough to doubt whether Barack Obama was born in the US should be automatically disqualified from any political office. Graham is almost reasonable on climate change but terrible on foreign policy and most other things. Paul has halfway sensible stances on issues like marijuana regulation, over-incarceration, government spying or the overreliance on military force in US foreign policy, but he would be terrible for the poor or the environment. Really, all of them would be so terrible that the race for the Republican nomination does really seem like a competition to be the top nut in the nuthouse.
Wednesday, September 30, 2015
Saturday, September 19, 2015
The Syrian Refugee Crisis, Climate Change and a Grim Future
The refugee crisis on the borders of Europe has dominated international news in recent weeks, with attention focused on the flood of hundreds of thousands of refugees, mostly from Syria but also from countries like Afghanistan and Eritrea, who have been trying to get into the European by boat from Turkey to Greece and overland through the Balkans, sometimes with tragic consequences. There are a lot of issues related to this topic that are worth addressing, such as the failure of the international community to do more to end the war on Syria (while much of the blame goes to Russia and Iran for their insistence on propping up the murderous Assad regime, the West could certainly have done and being doing more) or to do more for the millions of refugees still stuck in camps in the region, not to mention the poor response of Europe and the US to the immediate crisis, not only the disgustingly nationalistic and xenophobic actions of people like Hungarian Prime Minister Viktor Orban and his supporters, but also the failure of countries like the UK and the US to offer to take in much larger numbers of refugees (kudos to Martin O’Malley for being the first US presidential candidate to call for the US to offer a home to a substantial number of the refugees). But I’d like to focus on an aspect of this crisis that has been less discussed, except on a few more progressive and environmentally oriented sites, namely the relationship between the Syrian crisis and climate change and what it bodes for the future.
While it is of course an exaggeration to say that climate change was the sole or even the major cause of the Syrian crisis (the Assad government’s violent response to peaceful protests, for one thing, had more than a little to do with it), it is almost certain that it was a contributing factor. The distinction between a sole cause and a contributing factor is one that some people have a hard time comprehending, especially when talking about climate change. It is impossible to directly attribute any weather event entirely to climate change, but that doesn’t mean climate change is not affecting these events. For example, we can’t say that any particular typhoon or hurricane was “caused” by climate change in the sense that we can be sure it wouldn’t have happened without the global warming caused by humans, but we can say that climate change makes typhoons more likely and increases their severity. Another example of this is drought, such as the extremely severe one afflicting the west coast of the United States, particularly California. This drought might still have occurred if humans had not changed the climate, but it almost certainly would not have been as severe. What’s more, if warming trends continue, such droughts will become more common.
This brings us back to Syria. Over several years preceding the uprising against Assad, Syria and its neighbors had been hit by one of the worst droughts in recorded history. This caused great suffering among ordinary Syrians, so naturally there was a high level of discontent. It didn’t take much for this discontent to erupt into first mass protests and then, when the government reacted violently, open rebellion, and the widespread nature of the hardships meant that more Syrians were receptive to the call to revolt. Of course it is impossible to state for sure that the rebellion wouldn’t have occurred or have been as widespread without the drought, just as it is impossible to say that anthropogenic climate change alone caused the drought itself. But it is almost certain that climate change exacerbated the drought, and it is highly probable that the drought was at least one cause of the rebellion. This is hardly without precedent; many rebellions, migrations, and other upheavals throughout history have been shown to have natural disasters such as famines, floods and so forth as a major cause. What is different about the Syrian crisis is that this drought was almost certainly worsened by global warming, a worldwide problem that humanity is still failing to address properly.
The reality is that f we do not take dramatic steps in the immediate future, current warming trends will continue, which means that droughts, floods, and other weather events influenced by climate change will become more frequent and severe. This in turn means that the refugee crisis that we are seeing now is just a harbinger of worse things to come. Either we take immediate action to deal with climate change, or in coming decades we can expect to see many refugee crises, whether caused directly by natural disasters or by wars that result from them, some of which will be as bad as or even worse than the one we are seeing now. For example, right-wingers in the US like to rail against undocumented immigrants from Latin America (despite the historically low numbers coming in recent years); climate change is expected to cause severe droughts not only in the western US but in Mexico and Central America. If that happens the US is likely to see a flood of migrants in numbers out of the worst nightmares of American xenophobes. So it is highly ironic that it is for the most part the exact same people that most fear and hate refugees and migrants that are preventing action on climate change. Of course given the complex nature of the relationship between climate change and refugee crises, it will be hard to change the attitudes of people who seem to even lack the intellectual capacity to understand and accept the simple reality of climate change itself.
While it is of course an exaggeration to say that climate change was the sole or even the major cause of the Syrian crisis (the Assad government’s violent response to peaceful protests, for one thing, had more than a little to do with it), it is almost certain that it was a contributing factor. The distinction between a sole cause and a contributing factor is one that some people have a hard time comprehending, especially when talking about climate change. It is impossible to directly attribute any weather event entirely to climate change, but that doesn’t mean climate change is not affecting these events. For example, we can’t say that any particular typhoon or hurricane was “caused” by climate change in the sense that we can be sure it wouldn’t have happened without the global warming caused by humans, but we can say that climate change makes typhoons more likely and increases their severity. Another example of this is drought, such as the extremely severe one afflicting the west coast of the United States, particularly California. This drought might still have occurred if humans had not changed the climate, but it almost certainly would not have been as severe. What’s more, if warming trends continue, such droughts will become more common.
This brings us back to Syria. Over several years preceding the uprising against Assad, Syria and its neighbors had been hit by one of the worst droughts in recorded history. This caused great suffering among ordinary Syrians, so naturally there was a high level of discontent. It didn’t take much for this discontent to erupt into first mass protests and then, when the government reacted violently, open rebellion, and the widespread nature of the hardships meant that more Syrians were receptive to the call to revolt. Of course it is impossible to state for sure that the rebellion wouldn’t have occurred or have been as widespread without the drought, just as it is impossible to say that anthropogenic climate change alone caused the drought itself. But it is almost certain that climate change exacerbated the drought, and it is highly probable that the drought was at least one cause of the rebellion. This is hardly without precedent; many rebellions, migrations, and other upheavals throughout history have been shown to have natural disasters such as famines, floods and so forth as a major cause. What is different about the Syrian crisis is that this drought was almost certainly worsened by global warming, a worldwide problem that humanity is still failing to address properly.
The reality is that f we do not take dramatic steps in the immediate future, current warming trends will continue, which means that droughts, floods, and other weather events influenced by climate change will become more frequent and severe. This in turn means that the refugee crisis that we are seeing now is just a harbinger of worse things to come. Either we take immediate action to deal with climate change, or in coming decades we can expect to see many refugee crises, whether caused directly by natural disasters or by wars that result from them, some of which will be as bad as or even worse than the one we are seeing now. For example, right-wingers in the US like to rail against undocumented immigrants from Latin America (despite the historically low numbers coming in recent years); climate change is expected to cause severe droughts not only in the western US but in Mexico and Central America. If that happens the US is likely to see a flood of migrants in numbers out of the worst nightmares of American xenophobes. So it is highly ironic that it is for the most part the exact same people that most fear and hate refugees and migrants that are preventing action on climate change. Of course given the complex nature of the relationship between climate change and refugee crises, it will be hard to change the attitudes of people who seem to even lack the intellectual capacity to understand and accept the simple reality of climate change itself.
Labels:
Environment and Climate Change
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)