Climate lefties, I love you but the CCP is shite

Why do some of the people who shout most voraciously about the state of the planet go all dewey-eyed when it comes to talking about the Chinese government?

True, the discourse within the popular climate movement (XR, Fridays for Future, Sunrise Movement) as a whole is mildly disdainful of China’s environmentally destructive activities around the globe - when China is even mentioned at all. When it is, it's in derision of "What About China?" being used as a tu quoque of the climate-apathetic.

But lately, there have been elements of CCP apologism creeping into the messaging from western activists whose climate actions I usually respect. These are the Greta-led youth who are comfortable crashing climate conferences attended by government delegates and corporate power, taking to the streets in solidarity with oppressed people around the world whose lands are being exploited, rallying others to join them in disrupting fossil fuel activities in their own localities.

Many of these people are lefties (obviously). Some even self-proclaimed Marxist-Leninist, or at least socialist. This is standard stuff, in a movement that has at its core the dismantling or transformation of the capitalist industrial complex, the redistribution of assets and natural resources and the empowerment of the subjugated. And eating the rich, even if you're vegan.

I’ve attended many rallies and protests for a variety of causes and gotten used to students handing me the Morning Star, or socialist orgs recruiting new comrades. Often those associated with these groups are the hardest-core eco-warriors, not only in the streets but at home between the tweets. Some call them hippies, I call them a democratic necessity.

But as shown by their apologism in other situations (praise for China's response to COVID-19, and silence regarding the violent removal of freedoms in Hong Kong), some western lefties are now idealizing the Chinese Communist Party as an alternative to the neoliberal oppression machine of the US and Europe. Understandably disillusioned, under attack from crippling debt, inequality and lack of social safety nets, many young lefties are looking for #inspo elsewhere.

It’s indicative of its subversive nature how the CCP propaganda machine has drawn such woolly-headed sheep into its Wolf Warrior embrace. The internet has rightly made a wider variety of media and voices accessible to (virtually) everyone - and a result, the option of “who” to agree with.

In the climate sphere, this has wonderfully uplifted the voices of people who have never been listened to in mainstream western media before. It has pushed the issue of climate breakdown further up the agenda. It has brought into the light the global injustice and annihilation plaguing the 21st century.

But Chinese state media manipulates this and conveniently whitewashes or fully censors information on the environmentally destructive activities of Chinese state-owned enterprises domestically and abroad, in favour of constantly laying into the US. To the untrained eye consuming "alternative" news such as CGTN and Global Times, it would appear that China is not only a socialist utopia, it has succeeded without harming the planet.

True, per capita carbon emissions in China remain a fraction of the US's. This is largely due to the fact that the Chinese population is more than four times the size. This 1.4 billion population means that per capita carbon emissions do not take into account the gaping inequality that characterizes the ironically-named “People’s Republic”.

Some climate activists will cherry-pick per capita carbon emissions as “proof” that China’s system “works better”. They will clutch at "Communism has worked in China" straws, and suggest the so-called socialist Chinese system as the answer to our own polluting problems.

They will point to China’s massive investment into and expansion of the renewable energy sector, as heavily praised by CCP mouthpieces such as the People’s Daily and Global Times (notwithstanding the very capitalist nature of such market-driven expansion). Not only are these sectors often credit bubbles, a lot of the energy produced is usually wasted (given difficulties with grid networks and underdevelopment of energy storage). China also continues its expansion of coal and gas, without any intention of curbing consumption.

Intersectional climate justice should be at the core of the predominantly white-middle class climate movement. The approval drizzled on the CCP by some left-wing climate activists is blind to the genocide and forced imprisonment of Uighur Muslims in East Turkestan, an area west of China that, claimed as part of its Belt and Road Initiative, has become an environmental wasteland of toxic mines and choking power stations.

This, and a number (link, link link) of climate injustices committed on Chinese soil against oppressed minorities in the name of CCP-dubbed “progress” are conveniently ignored by Western climate lefties. China can do whatever it sees as best for its people, they say, since they never had the chance to develop while the West did. We ruined the planet with our Industrial Revolutions. Such a stance could be taken directly out of the Xinhua playbook.

While the European west is slowly beginning to bend the emissions curve, or at least trying to, the Chinese government has no such intentions. Xi Jinping, with his lip service to "green growth", may not perform as a climate-change-denying Bolsonaro- or Trump-esque clown, but his administration deserves an equal measure of criticism for its impact on Earth's life support systems.

The consequence of CCP-apologist rhetoric is that global climate action is hindered, not advanced. When you unquestioningly buy into CCP talking points, you are vetoing whatever they veto during climate negotiations. You are sending your approval for resource exploitation and disruption of indigenous communities in South America, Africa, and Asia.

If you are really so enthusiastic about speaking truth to power, on leaving it in the ground, on indigenous leadership and land stewardship, on “this is what democracy looks like”, on the fight for ecological diversity and future generations – don’t look to the Chinese system for answers.

Don’t look to our system either. We’re not here to provide the answers, yet. We are here to cause a scene when shit is looking wrong. Until it gets better.

Against Against Against Billionaire Philanthropy

I have been referred a few times by people in the EA community to this blog post, Against Against Billionaire Philanthropy. I am responding to it. Before reading, I highly recommend listening to Episodes 45 and 46 of the Citations Needed podcast, which I refer to regularly throughout this.

Anti-conflict of interest: I have previously worked for and been paid a salary by an "environmental" charity whose funding predominantly came from large private donors (such as Rockefeller, with support from BP, Goldmann Sachs, JP Morgan, Shell International... you get the gist).

1. Is criticizing billionaire philanthropy a good way to protest billionaires having too much power in society?

Yes and no. Smokestar codex says that we should criticize (not praise) the extravagant expenditures of billionaires rather than their philanthropic work, as the latter deters them from being charitable in the first place. But plenty of people do criticize their selfish indulgences too. Such criticism just doesn't get the same level of media airtime (will get back to media in a bit).

Additionally there is a certain je ne sais quoi about the hypocrisy of billionaire philanthropy that makes it more criticize-able. If billionaires then choose to take offence at the criticism and stop giving, then that is pure egotism and they obviously don't care enough about the cause they are throwing money at. Otherwise they wouldn't give a shit what people say.

But also no, because there is a better way to protest billionaires having too much power in society. And that is looking at why the rich are rich to start with. As things stand, we are not conditioned to question the origins of their wealth or consider if this crazy global structure could ever change. They're just there to be benefactors of the public good. As Honore de Balzac supposedly once said, "behind every great fortune lies great crime." Thinking that billionaires can lead the "fight against inequality" is looking at it from a capitalist "well, this is just how things are" ideology - instead of analysing how many humans, non-humans and natural resources have been exploited in the building of that fortune.

Also, the paradox is that certain billionaires keep giving away tons of money yet they somehow still have more money than they have ever had. Say whut? Is it really "giving away" money? Or is it returned in some way, i.e. through endowments?

2. If attacks on billionaire philanthropy decrease billionaires’ donations, is that acceptable collateral damage in the fight against inequality?

Here Smokestar codex suggests that people will die if billionaires get offended by criticism. The implicit argument is that lives would not be saved without billionaire benevolence. Leaving aside the anthropocentricism of what global "progress" looks like (see: etymology of "philanthropy", lol), human development (longer lifespan, fewer wars, higher incomes, fewer diseases) over the past centuries has been led by government or state intervention, not by billionaire philanthropy. It's an appeal to ignorance to suggest that many lives would be lost (or saved) if billionaires stopped giving.

Interestingly, he then switches to say the fight is against 'inequality', not people dying. Putting on my psychopath hat, if anything, by saving more lives in the developing world, you are adding to the number of people in the poorest sector of society, thereby increasing inequality. Are billionaire philanthropists trying to save lives or reduce inequality? They are two different things.

3. Do billionaires really get negative reactions from donating? Didn’t I hear that they get fawning praise and total absence of skepticism?

Finally, an answer I vaguely agree with! Yes, there is a lot of internet criticism of billionaires (*world's smallest violin*). However, Stardex codex conflates social media with traditional media. Individuals are justifiably wary of billionaire philanthropy (back to the notion of hypocrisy, above). Traditional media agencies, on the other hand, tend to fawn over these guys (who often provide at least some, if not a large part of their funding - NBC, Sky, Guardian BBC, Al Jazeera MTV, BET, NPR, Universal Media LLC...) and they don't receive the same checks and balances as say, Russian oligarchs or even government aid programs. (See pre-2019 pieces on Bill Gates by Vox, for example - all fluff). There's also instances of certain foundations getting their feet wet in cultural production - writing scripts for TV shows, for example.

Sadly, I don't think billionaires or the wider public tend to trawl through tweets or individual blog posts critical of billionaire philanthropy. Only Bezos bros who get butthurt over criticism of their fav multimillionaires. So while Starslate codex infers criticism is widespread and prominent (I wish!), it really is not. Great deep-dive on this in Citations Needed Ep. 45.

4. Is it a problem that billionaire philanthropy is unaccountable to public democratic institutions? Should we make billionaires pay that money as taxes instead, so the public can decide how it gets spent?

Again, a lot of hypothesizing here. The examples Sparestar codex cites are US-based (perhaps where billionaires have more oversight over how and where their money is spent). Yes, the government may be shitty right now (in our opinion), and if we increase taxes on billionaires, government will use that money to enact shitty policies.

But to suggest that the only (better) option is to give billionaires free reign to do as they please is a false dilemma. In Jeff Bezos' $10bn Earth Fund (basically a venture designed to invest in "the green sector", profiting from and influencing how transition happens), and the Bill and Melinda Gates foundation, we see both have chosen to forego handing out their profits to established, locally-owned NGOs with experience working in the field. Instead, they expand their investment portfolios while making themselves laudable AF. Their philanthropy would be better directed at empowering existing grassroots organizations already working on the cause, or solving issues of democracy which cause poor domestic government policy in the first place. But back to that can of worms a bit later.

5. Those are some emotionally salient examples, but doesn’t the government also do a lot of good things?

I'm gonna go out on a whim here and say that actually, the more billionaires are praised for their philanthropy, the less governments feel the need to intervene with decent policy. It's fine, billionaires got our back.

Starsex Codex says "I wish I could give a more detailed breakdown of how philanthropists vs. the government spend their money, but I can’t find the data. Considerations like the above make me think that philanthropists in general are better at focusing on the most important causes."

Again, setting aside what we personally consider to be the most important causes (I, like Codex, agree that climate change is of utmost importance), shifting power from government (which can and should be held accountable by its people) to rich individuals and corporations is a dangerous move. We may THINK that billionaires are "better at focusing on the most important causes". But this is tied to the cultural ideal that because they are rich, or donate to the causes we like, they know what is best. While the rest of everybody is selfishly concerned with issues of workplace wage gaps, lack of affordable healthcare or food stamps.

(Quick word on Hewlett, and "not finding the data": the other glaring, not cute issue is that these huge donations are pledged with major media announcements, but rarely followed up. And we are usually naive enough to believe them, not knowing exactly how much is handed over in the end, and how much is subject to tax relief, and how much reaches intended beneficiaries. This is an issue arising from lack of accountability and underfunded independent journalism.)

6. The point of democracy isn’t that it’s always right, the point is that it respects the popular will. Regardless of whether the popular will is good or bad, don’t powerful private foundations violate it?

Wow, Bill Gates has an approval rating higher than God! We should all happily let him allocate the world's financial resources as he sees fit!

Sarcasm aside, again the reason billionaires are so highly regarded compared to governments is the go-get-it American Dream neoliberal system in which they thrive (this is particularly pertinent in the US). Government policy is subject to intense scrutiny by the media. Their actions are justly seen as directly impacting us or an attempt to represent the public will. Billionaires' actions are not. When billionaires err (e.g. by buying six hundred superyachts), it's annoying, but we can't really do anything because we didn't vote for them and it doesn't really make our lives crappier in any way. But when they do something good, we all go wow!! Look how much better they are than government! #Oprah4Prez!

As if no one learned any lessons from electing a billionaire as president.

Incidentally, for fun, can you imagine if Bezos/Gates did become the president? Do you think they would still achieve the same approval ratings, or would their rampant expenditures (philanthropic or otherwise) FINALLY be subjected to popular scrutiny?

7. Shouldn’t people who disagree with the government’s priorities fight to change the government, not go off and do their own thing?

The crux of the matter. Here Slatestar Codex uses a straw man example to portray how billionaire interests and government interests are opposed. I'd argue that if anything, they work in beautiful tandem. Government pursues policies (e.g. pro-war, anti-immigrant, nationalistic) that they have been elected by the people to implement. These are often ostensibly against the interests/ideologies of wealthy and educated elites. This legitimizes billionaires going off and doing their own thing. The cream of society (people like me and you, the top 10%) then cheerlead the billionaires, whose causes tend to be the same as our own, further stoking class animosity. There is an unspoken agreement that govs and billionaires will let the other do what they want without facing repercussions. When everyone influential is happy, why would billionaires bother changing the status quo?

Slatestar codex chooses the highly representative example of a ladder in Jerusalem to illustrate the futility of attempting to change government. But as I mentioned before, hasn't human progress to this day been largely due to the interventions of democratically-elected governments and political movements, not billionaires?

8. Is billionaire philanthropy getting too powerful? Should we be terrified by the share of resources now controlled by unaccountable charitable foundations?

Depends what lens you look at it from. Of course, comparing it to US federal budget as Statestar Codex does, it is miniscule. When applied to the context of vulnerable communities in developing countries (to which billionaire philanthropy is usually applied), it is huge. It overwhelms local resources and development efforts. It changes the geopolitics and economies of entire areas and regions. Listen to Mariam Mayet, executive director of the African Centre for Biodiversity, in the second half of Episode 46 of the Citations Needed podcast.

9. Does billionaire philanthropy threaten pluralism?

Interesting. Best to ask its beneficiaries, I think. (Which we don't do nearly enough of, by the way.)

The idea that Slatestar Codex puts forward here is that certain projects are carried out only thanks to private donations from the super rich. If it hadn't been for them, these projects would've been canned. Again, this is framed in a government v. billionaire philanthropists dichotomy.

Yet ironically, the very notion of one person being in charge of which cause(s) receive(s) a fuckton of money is very un-pluralistic. Perhaps various different billionaires donating to their individual causes is slightly more pluralistic than one government or body donating to various causes (??? who's to say). But in other parts of the world, where that billionaire's money is the only source of income for a project, it has the potential for making the work of other smaller groups redundant. The billionaire's funding ends up monopolising the cause. This is particularly worrying when the billionaire themselves has very little expertise on the cause in question (see: Jeff Bezos not being a climate scientist).

More recently, foundations have moved towards "closed door policies" based on evidence-based planning. They often don't accept unsolicited applications or proposals from grassroots organizations, instead giving money to corporations or established grantees. Clientelism, corruption - and lack of pluralism.

10. Aren’t the failures of government just due to Donald Trump or people like him? Won’t they hopefully get better soon?

"No. My whole point is that if you force everyone to centralize all money and power into one giant organization with a single point of failure, then when that single point of failure fails, you’re really screwed." - Slatestar Codex

Isn't that what basically the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation is? Or what the Bezos Earth Fund is? Isn't it simply what one human with an inordinate amount of wealth is?

Not to mention that they are completely unaccountable. (Also not forgetting that Donald Trump is a billionaire with a now-extinct "charitable" foundation).

11. So you’re saying these considerations about pluralism and representation and so on justify billionaire philanthropy?

Ahh, a very emotive way to finish off, Codex. How am I supposed to argue against the storybook idea of billions of lives being saved by mega-rich philanthropists?

It is virtually impossible to prove that lives have been saved directly as a result of money (supposedly) donated by billionaires (remember - government and state intervention and legal regulation of corporations has played a leading role in human development and progress around the world - say it to yourself in the mirror every day). This is also a really low-hanging metric. Life expectancy has been growing for the past few hundred years, largely thanks to government policy and cooperation, leading and guiding private investment.

There's a been a distinct failure among billionaire philanthropists to step up and encourage/insist their mates, other businesses and corporations, to get involved with global development and bolster domestic social safety nets. Corporations are sanitised in the public eye, solving problems rather than magnifying them. What about the unspoken negative externalities of the practice of accruing wealth? How many more billions of living beings are being harmed directly or indirectly by those externalities?

Finally, while these billionaires are probably not intentionally "bad guys", it doesn't really matter. What matters are the material effects of what they do. Their good intentions are irrelevant, as they are stuck in the capitalist ideology that there is nothing inherently wrong with the way they have acquired their wealth. As a result, the idea that economic dynamism and growth leads to social prosperity goes unquestioned.

How Idiocracy was a blueprint for 'Business as Usual' Climate Breakdown

Idiocracy came out 13 years ago, in 2006. Yet it could not be a more scarily prescient depiction of our current shitstorm of climate disaster and impending extinction.

The movie on its own is a piece of sharp-witted genius. Produced by Mike Judge (of Office Space fame, another absolutely classic social commentary), it follows an extraordinarily ordinary guy as he muddles his way through the society he has found himself in 500 years in the future. He's surrounded by karst-trash peaks, spectacular morons with root vegetable-levels of self-awareness, a ubiquitous soda terrifyingly named Brawndo, and an economic, social and political system that is as life-affirming as a handful of shit for Christmas.

In 2016, when Donald Trump became President of the United States of America, many film buffs jokingly but with an edge of nervous concern remarked that the premise of Idiocracy was sure enough coming to light. Even scriptwriter Etan Cohen flippantly weighed in. There are certainly parallels between Trump's and Camacho's (played flawlessly by Terry Crews) presidential campaigns: shrieking nationalism, guns, and meme-worthy lies (who said "it's not corrupt if everyone knows you're doing it"?). You could write a whole thesis on the foresight of Idiocracy on the USA's political mudslide between the years 2015-2020 (and I'm somewhat surprised and disappointed Michael Moore didn't touch on it in Fahrenheit 11/9). Plus, the gradual takeover of entire industries and government departments by extreme corporations like Brawndo and Carl's Jr. is like a modern-day parable. But there's something much more ominous, something terrible you get the slow, agonizing realization the movie was prophesizing.

One of the first shots we see of this brave new world Joe Bowers (Luke Wilson) steps into is the apocalyptically steaming Kilimanjaros of trash that sprout human dwellings, a visual resurrection of the term "crapshack". This is Out-of-Control Solid Waste Pollution whose set location could now easily be the Great Pacific Garbage Patch, or Beijing's Plastic Gobi, or the Ganges or Citarum. That's without mentioning microplastics, which are probably now running through our tap water and even our veins. Will we, like Frito Pendejo Esq., the sub-hero of our movie, eventually be so undeterred by living atop a fecal-fragrant topography? Will we be too busy "'batin'" to care?

Before long, Joe the ordinary guy ends up getting recruited as Secretary of the Interior for his relatively astronomical "intelligence" (shout out to David Bernhardt), and is instantly tasked with the near-impossible task of solving the [quote]. This is nothing if not a pointed nod to rampant drought that in the year of the movie's release, ravaged south Australia, parts of England and nearly 40% of the US. Judge couldn't possibly have predicted it, but these dry disasters have been exacer-batin' year on year since then, most notably in the Midwest, southeastern US, California, Mexico, Brazil's main metropolises, the Sahel (twice), East Africa; even arguably catalyzing the Syrian civil war.

The scientific causes may be different, but the oafishness of the human species underlying it is the same. In Idiocracy, plants no longer grow because they have been absorbing Brawndo, which is believed to have "what plants crave. It's got electrolytes". It only takes Joe a swift measure of water ("like, out the toilet?") to encourage a green shoot to appear on the barren landscape. Everyone is saved, he is a hero and is appointed the new Mike Pence.

We too are facing a freshwater crisis right now, albeit not because we are watering plants with a sports drink (yet). As many as 2.1 billion people around the world do not have access to safe drinking water, and 4.5 billion don't have safely managed water for sanitation. By 2050, 5 billion people could have poor access to fresh water. The world (or some of it) has been watching in helpless horror at Cape Town's ongoing water shortage. "Day Zero" is like an unfunny genuine forewarning to "what's killing the crops".

If we reach the worst-case scenario of 8 degrees of global warming by the end of the century, we are coming up against food deficits and land incapable of growing comestibles; namely a replica Idiocracy future. In fact, any amount of warming will make this happen. Lack of rainfall in that millennium drought of Australia meant that rice and cotton production in the region fell 99 and 84% respectively. But unlike in Idiocracy, it won't be a simple case of lack of water, no siree. Deadly heat waves, pests and disease, rising sea levels and unpredictable storms will make growing crops about as effective as teaching a manatee to quickstep. Climate breakdown is like a dick tempest coming at us from all sides.

Even vegans are fucked - many of the plant foods we grow have slowly been declining in nutritional value, a phenomenon known as "nutrient collapse". Plants rely on both light and carbon dioxide to grow, and lately they've been getting way too much of the latter. Rice, barley, wheat and potatoes are all lower in protein, calcium, iron, and vitamin C and higher in carbs than 20 years ago, known as the "junk-food effect". This nutrient deficiency will affect millions of the planet's poorest most severely by 2050. While Judge imagines the fall of "civilization" as a result of dimwits reproducing willy-nilly, it could well be nutrient deficiencies that stunt the global population's brain development - if it's not the increased share of carbon dioxide in the air we breathe.

In the Global North, our diets are slowly degrading in nutritional value as we turn away from plants to processed foods that satiate our imagined need for eNdLeSs pRoTeIn, which we already get too much of. The minerals and vitamins we used to get from our relatively balanced variety of foods is being replaced by this hegemonic idol of nutritionists and Instagrammers, while most of us haven't a clue how much we need, let alone why. Won't be too long before all we crave is "Brawndo... it's got electrolytes."

Other movies and television such as Game of Thrones, Mad Max, Interstellar have in some way or another imagined the climate catastrophe ahead of us. But as David Wallace Wells notes, they have always depicted it as as something that was not our fault, something alien coming at us from the outside. Idiocracy, years ahead of those blockbusters, turns that blamelessness on its head. We are all Frito (unless you happen to be Greta Thunberg). We all let this happen, and are carrying on almost oblivious to the fact that these changes are happening now, rather than in the dim and distant future. Economics takes precedence over growing climate injustice and ecological annihilation - "I can't believe you like money too, we should hang out". Idiocracy has these levels of human ignorance spot on - complete indifference, nay apathy, under what is essentially an ongoing apocalypse. Where intelligence of any form makes you a "tard". You can't help but notice the way the citizens of Idiocracy world treat Joe, vilifying him like many climate truth-sayers have been, and continue to be vilified today.

We should look to the end of the movie to see what Judge prescribes the average Joe who finds himself, confounded, in such a dystopia. After spending the whole movie trying to find a time machine to take him back (aren't we all?), Joe Bowers decides to stay in the land of dunderheads and biodiverse garbage. He gives in. However, he has made a change. Thanks to one man, this world, in spite of its problems, is probably not going to get worse.

We will not be so lucky. If our climate breakdown could be solved by sprinkling toilet water onto a field, we'd be on our knees in a second installing hoses in our water closets. Even if we were able to curb emissions and halt ecological destruction right now, we'd still have to live with decades of the impending effects of the damage we've already wreaked. In a sense, Joe's adventure and his final decision to stay could be read as one straight white man's story of adaptation. But while this lone hero was able to save the citizens of the Idiocracy, we fallible masses must harness his out-of-the-box, obvious, self-preserving initiative.

Thing is, we don't have til 500 years in the future. We have to start yesterday.

Extinction Rebellion in Jalpan, Querétaro

It is April 15th, 2019, 3pm. Finishing up at work, I grab my bag, march to my apartment, pick up some guavas and the crudely painted-in-a-7am-trance cardboard placards, and then walk down the hill then up the hill to Jalpan’s main plaza. I seat myself in the shade of a kind tree opposite the Presidencia Municipal, and unfurl my signs.

Crap placard-maker available for all your placard needs.

Looking shady in a cap and broken sunglasses, I watch passers-by watching me. Doing my best to force a ‘beam’ across my face (how does one even ‘beam’?) I find myself wondering, not for the first time, whether looking happy is appropriate, given the wording of my placard.

Manifestación global contra la inacción de los gobiernos ante la crisis climática. Global protest against government inaction in the face of the climate crisis.

You’ve always got to make it clear what you’re protesting about, because symbols and catchy chants don’t always get the message across. That’s what I was told in London anyway, by a guy holding a sign that read ‘CLIMATE CHANGE’. I did a few actions with Extinction Rebellion there, and since I couldn’t make the nearest action (in Oaxaca some 500 miles away) today, I’ma go it solo. Instagram hashtags have my back, I’m not crazy.

I’m not, despite what the elderly Jehovah’s Witness who approaches me after about half an hour says. People like me don’t get it, apparently. Didn’t I know? God is going to come and save us all, I’ll see. I ask him when. He says God will do it when the time is right. I ask why god hasn’t done anything yet, when people around the world have already been killed and displaced by climate breakdown. He says God will do it when the time is right. I ask him if god cares about those people, or just certain people. He says God will save us when the time is right, gives me a pamphlet and walks away.

God will save us all, apparently.

After he has opened the floodgates, a little paysana lady asks me if I’m asking for money or what. She can’t read my sign. I say no, the message I’m spreading is free, and I read the sign for her. She is from here and has been seeing the changes I describe; rising heat levels and water scarcity.

A teenage-to-twenties girl is after her, apparently from a local news agency, Mensajero de la Sierra. She asks what I’m about and I say preserving life on Earth. Then she videos me on her phone explaining the dire situation this planet is in. She seems nice and invites me to her village someday.

Finally, a guy in shades sits next to me asking the same shit, which I try to explain. He agrees with me. He used to be passionate about stuff too, until he was kicked out of his home in Texas last year after 28 years of illegal residence since he was 12. Now all he wants is to go back and see his kids, who are five, seven and nine. He calls them every day, but they are forgetting his presence. He can’t bring them to Jalpan, or he won’t be able to provide for them with an average daily wage of about five dollars. He’s considering trying Canada, but that would be just as expensive as hiring a coyote to get him into the US, as he is attempting next week. He’s gonna try the same way his parents did. It’s dangerous as hell, but his kids are his everything.

I consider this for a while, and make the link. Lately my obsessive nature has made me link every problem to climate change. I could probably find a link between climate change and butt sweat (which isn't difficult, if you think about it). But climate change and migration is a legit problem. Yes, Mexicans have been migrating northwards for centuries. But now we hear of "caravans" in increasing numbers, despite the growing dangers of attempting to cross. It seems contradictory, given that the Mexican nation is supposed to be far more rich in natural resources than Texas. Colonialism and neocolonialism have snatched that from them, with the legacy of depressed wages, exploited land, and death-defying border sprints. Mexico’s natural defences that would have best equipped them to weather this planetary crisis have been pillaged over hundreds of years, and now the remnants of this bounty are drying up at an even more accelerated rate. Here in the Sierra Gorda, people can barely grow crops anymore. No wonder this guy is prepared to risk his life to go north.

Oh, and his name is Miguel, and he’s glad I’m doing this, because it’s good to have hope, even though people ruin everything and all hope is essentially pointless. During this time I have forgotten about my sign. I suddenly become conscious of the fact that by chatting with him in English, I have exposed myself as a privileged gringa protesting in a foreign developing country, which I can visit and leave at my own leisure. People are looking at us, I’m out of guavas and the sun is setting. I take his number and make him promise to call me next week when he gets to his kids in Texas.

Thoughts on "Climate Justice" by Mary Robinson

"I felt bad because I knew that the people in developed countries are our friends. We are the same people; we have the same blood. But these people were enjoying their life while we were suffering. I wanted to know why they were doing this to us. I wanted to know whether the people in developed countries could reduce their emissions so we could have our normal seasons back." - Constance Okollet

I read these lines with my heart sinking into my intestines, as would anyone with a soul. This, and several accounts from underprivileged people from around the world on the front lines of climate breakdown were platformed in this wonderfully optimistic yellow book by the former President of Ireland. There was Anote Tong, who, post-Copenhagen, was forced to tell his people in Kiribati that their island was essentially doomed. Sharon Hanshaw, who became an accidental activist voicing the rights of the Katrina-devastated in Biloxi, near New Orleans. Vu Thi Hien, who left academia to help preserve Vietnam's biodiversity and indigenous communities through reforestation. Hindou Oumarou Ibrahim, who, along with her M'bororo community, 3D-mapped the degradation of their native land to show the Chadian government and the world. These are the stories that need to be heard.

Devouring this 150-or-so-page book in an afternoon, outside in wintry London it quickly became dark in a way that the book did not. I wondered when Mary Robinson would dramatically unveil the morbid struggle of Latin America's environmental activists. As the former UN High Commissioner for Human Rights, and author of such a compellingly titled book, surely she wouldn't overlook the fact that nearly 60% of the murders of land and environmental defenders in 2017 took place in Latin America?

She did. As bad as the stories of the community leaders profiled in the book were, she did not mention the endless denial of justice for the protectors of Latin America's indigenous rights and natural wild, or even murder at all. The only Latina mentioned, of course, was Christiana Figueres. A woman I used to admire so much, but now want to shake by the shoulders and scream 'WAKE UP!! Mission 2020 is not happening!'

Mary Robinson seems trapped in this admirable but frustrating optimism that the world order will 'wake up' on hearing the stories of the world's poorest and most vulnerable to climate degradation. Maybe it's fair enough, for someone who felt the wind change at the Paris Agreement. Like many of her generation, she earnestly believes that continuing on the business-friendly path of renewable energy, economic development, and non-binding corporate and government 'commitments' to net-zero emissions, we will make it. That is why she still has hope in Powerpoint conferences and briefcase groups such as her 'B Team' alongside Richard Branson, a man whose interests lie in maintaining his profits, and not structural, systemic overhaul. This is why CO2 emissions rose sharply in 2018, and will continue to do so.

True, we need to listen to the marginalised. But we can't stick our heads in the sand and pretend we can continue to develop without era-defining disruption to civilization as we know it. We need degrowth, right now - a word she does not mention at all. There is not enough time for optimism, and the truly downtrodden know this.

For these reasons, the book seems mistitled. Should we really hold out for, as the front cover suggests, "hope, resilience, and the fight for a sustainable future"? I hope she comes round to reality sooner rather than later, with a sequel: Climate Injustice.

Who are the guardians of China's last frozen river?

Original by ExploreToConserve here. Click to see the incredible photo series that this written account accompanies.

In the 30 degree summer of New Zealand, each breath is full of sunshine and sandy beaches. Groups of young people ahead wear shorts and flip flops, not missing the opportunity to expose their creamy skin to each ray of sunshine.

The heavy heat on our bodies makes it hard for us to imagine that at the same time, on the other side of endless mountains and seas, stand peaks capped by year-round snow that have been on top of the Tibetan plateau for hundreds of thousands of years, whose melting snow is carried into the giant river of life.

Let us focus in on the Tibetan plateau's eastern part. At an altitude of 5369 metres, Bayan Kala mountain range's highest peak has a special name: Nian Bao Yu Ze.

The name of the mountain god is 'Nian Bao Yu Ze', and the place where this god lives is god's mountain.

At the start of August 2018, myself, Obermann, and several local Tibetan friends undertook the main peak's frozen river annual monitoring mission, run by the Nian Bao Yu Ze Ecological Protection Association. This is a civil society group started up by local monks and herdsmen, which although grassroots, has been protecting Nian Bao Yu Ze for the past 11 years through local ecology and traditional culture. It has invested a lot of energy and seen many achievements.

Every August since 2004, salt-of-the-earth native herdsman Lewan from the valley of Nian Bao Yu Ze chooses two days of good weather. He takes a tent, camera and tripod, and single-handedly hikes to the edge of the peak's frozen river. After noting the GPS coordinates, he writes the year in acrylic paint, and takes a photo from a fixed point to document the river.

Two years ago, the nearly 50 year-old Lewan taught this task to another herder, Bade, who lives on the other side of the ice river. In 2018, with equipment sponsorship from The North Face, we and core members of the association who for a long time had not reached the river's 5000 metre-altitude rode horses together entering from Bade's valley. Then leaving from Lewan's village, we attempted a crossing almost no one had ever tried.

Just like a real adventure, every experience was brand new, which requires full mind-and-body immersion. Since it is not easy to write about the experience, how can it be conveyed to anyone who did not stand atop that mountain? Photos and videos do it much better justice.


Although it was a happy adventure, hearing about the frozen river's historical demise was distressing. Around ten years ago, this place was perhaps unrecognizable. Outdoor explorers had very few grievances; the more pressing question is...

The head of the association Ake Kamakura is a monk proficient in classical Buddhism. Standing in front of the stone used as the fixed point from which to take photos, he says that when he was a small he herded cattle at the foot of the mountain. In the past few decades he has seen with his own eyes the frozen river disappearing at an incredible speed.

"Tibetans believe that water comes from the top of the snow mountain, but in maybe 50 years time, if there is no frozen river, our water source will no longer be guaranteed."

Not just you, this would also be a problem for the thousands of people living downstream of Sanjiangyuan! I think silently.

In the past 50 years, the average annual temperature of Nian Bao Yu Ze's county, Juizhi, has increased by almost 2 degrees Celsius. What about this makes it so bad?

The Paris Agreement three years ago called for all countries to limit the global temperature increase between the years 1850 to 2100 to less than 2 degrees Celsius, the threshold beyond which the world will face irreversible changes. Other plant and animal species may still thrive, but humanity's complex and fragile social structure will be very hard to maintain under even the slightest environmental changes.

In 2009, an article in an authoritative journal summarized the crisis brought by climate change facing the Tibetan Plateau as seen by scientists - the temperature increase on the plateau is three times that of the planet. The frozen river's decline is evident. Will the lives of the herdspeople and villagers who live here be able to withstand the effects of such an upheaval? There are many plants and animals that are not found anywhere else on the planet. While the temperature rises, the mountain's height stays limited; so where will they all go?

We discovered the corpses of at least 20 little birds at the top of the frozen lake. Even locals who regularly climbed here had never observed this before. Was it related to climate change? It's not clear, but the summer of 2018 was abnormally hot.

Our understanding of the plateau's flora and fauna is so limited, so the traditional culture in which local Tibetans live in harmony with nature is very much worth maintaining and sharing. But life there is facing huge uncertainties of the future.

How can we make outsiders aware of the severity of this generation's environmental problems, and have the confidence to make changes?

This is a question I have not yet found an answer to. However, what the association's founder, Tashi Sange, told me gave me hope:

"This planet is my mother. If my mother is sick, I worry she might die tomorrow. So does she still need looking after today? Of course she needs looking after. Our planet is the same. If the planet is exploding tomorrow, we still have to care for it today."

The members of Nian Bao Yu Ze Ecological Protection Association believe that nature is a guesthouse, and humans are just her temporary guests. We have the right to use her, but not to ruin her. All beings should enjoy the guesthouse's clean air, food and water, but if our appetite is too large, we will be stealing resources from other beings.

Leaving Nian Bao Yu Ze, the other association members and I are walking along a dirt path through the middle of the grasslands, when Tashi suddenly stops dead in front of me, both feet apart. I go to stand next to him, curious, and ask "what are you doing?"

"There's an insect on the ground, I'm protecting it," he says with a laugh.

They have already started protecting. Have you?

Having finished reading this article, you can:

1. Make fewer online purchases and deliveries, use fewer plastic bags and other single-use items
2. Use public transport more, or cycle, run or walk
3. Support truly environmentally-friendly businesses (not those just paying lip-service)
4. There is lots more you can do, but the easiest is to scan the QR code below or click 'Read the original article' and share it, like our ME public welfare innovation project application, to help Nian Bao Yu Ze Ecological Protection Association receive 500,000 yuan in charity funding. We hope to present a new balance of coexistence between humans and nature, so that everyone can be a guardian of nature.

Of course, this is a monumental topic of discussion. Will we be able to protect Nian Bao Yu Ze or even China's last frozen river? We hope so, and believe there is still time... because there is you, Tashi!

Latin America, Where Being An Environmental Activist Is A Death Sentence

Original aquí.

Mexico, Colombia and Brazil are the most dangerous countries in the region for defenders of environmental, land, and indigenous rights, according to several NGOs

In March 2016, the Honduran environmental activist Berta Cáceres was assassinated, yet justice is still on the trail of the perpetrators.

Cáceres is among the almost 197 environmental advocates who were killed in 2017, according to the NGO Global Witness, the majority of them in Latin America.

The corruption and vast natural resources that the region hosts make it the perfect setting for megaprojects to acquire licences relatively easily.

The head of the Global Witness campaign, Billy Kye, told DW Germany that ‘there are high levels of indigenous populations who have historically been marginalised, so companies enter their lands and plunder their resources.’

Although their protests are acknowledged more each time by the media and are sometimes heard by local authorities, paradoxically this makes them more at risk of assassination.

Front Line Defenders confirms that it is mostly activists who are murdered. The organization registered 312 defenders killed, 212 of them in Latin America. Most alarming is that 156 of these homicides were in Colombia and Brazil.

The report also indicates that 80% of assassinations of human rights advocates occur in Colombia, Brazil, Mexico and the Philippines.

Of the total number of activists killed, according to this investigation, 67% were defenders of land, environmental and indigenous rights.

In almost all cases these advocates fought against the activities of extractive industries or megaprojects that damaged vast ecosystems or the homes of ancient peoples.

Astrid Puentes Riaño, co-executive director of the Interamerican Association for Environmental Defense (AIDA), confirmed that ‘Latin America is the most unequal region on the planet, which means that there are populations in situations of extreme economic, political, and social vulnerability,’ according to DW Germany.

She added that ‘we live in a region with one of the highest rates of impunity and weakest rule of law, where the implementation of norms is also sidelined.’

The Amazonian rainforest has become a particular area of dispute in Brazil. The government, who is at the root of the country’s current economic and political crisis, has searched ‘desperately for quick solutions to access the Amazon, the development and extension of agricultural land, and the ruthless exploitation of natural resources,’ according to Jim Loughran of Front Line Defenders.

Colombia, despite its peace agreements, ‘thousands of Colombians with legal entitlements to their land have been displaced. As they work to reclaim their territory, they become targets for the profiteers who could illegally seize their land, as well as for the new generation of paramilitary succeeding the FARC who want to take control. The defenders of land rights find themselves in critical danger,’ says Loughran.

For Global Witness, the country’s current situation is the result of palm oil agroindustry. This activity, the NGO says, has surpassed mining as the business with most links to activist killings.

Meanwhile, Mexico continues to be embroiled in an escalation of human rights advocates assassinations that has taken it to fourth place of countries with the highest number of such murders, according to Global Witness.

‘The federal and state governments do not sufficiently support the work of defenders and sometimes even ally with the opposition to their work,’ Puentes Riaño argued, denouncing the impunity that she says persists in the country.

The visibility of defenders is also a double-edge sword, exposing them to identification and possible assassination. This occurred with Isidro Baldenegro López, an activist against illegal logging in the ancient forests of Sierra Madre, or Berta Cáceres in Honduras, both who were massacred shortly after each receiving a Goldman Environmental Prize.

According to Front Line Defenders, only 12% of these cases end with the arrest of suspects. The spokeswoman for AIDA says that there are measures that need to be taken urgently. These include ‘adequate investigations and identification of those responsible for attacks and assassinations of activists, as well as authors and intellectuals, and justice in all these cases.’

Global Witness has called for states to rally to the defence of environmental advocates, and to fight ‘root causes’ which are lack of prior consultation of indigenous peoples and other communities who would be affected by industrial projects.