From: Paul Bullock (paulbullock@EBMS-LTD.CO.UK)
Date: Wed Feb 07 2007 - 18:10:02 EST
Members might like to know that the British Govt has decided to provide a copy of Gore's film /DVD to every school in the country to be watched by the pupils. A nice compact place to govern is Britland. paul b. ----- Original Message ----- From: <glevy@PRATT.EDU> To: <OPE-L@SUS.CSUCHICO.EDU> Sent: Friday, February 02, 2007 3:24 AM Subject: [OPE-L] Listen Gore: Some Inconvenient Truths About the Politics of Environmental Crisis > Listen Gore: Some Inconvenient Truths About the > Politics of Environmental Crisis > > A Pamphlet by Mitchel Cohen > Brooklyn Greens / Green Party > > Al Gore's film, "An Inconvenient Truth," raises > the issue of global warming in a way that scares > the bejeezus out of viewers, as it should since > the consequences of global climate change are > truly earth-shaking. The former Vice-President > does a good job of presenting the graphic > evidence, exquisite and terrifying pictures that > document the melting of the polar ice caps and > the effects on other species, new diseases, and rising ocean levels. > > But, typically, the solutions Gore offers are > standard Democratic Party fare. You'd never know > by watching this film that Gore and Clinton ran > this country for 8 years and that their policies > -- as much as those of the Bush regime -- helped > pave the way for the crisis we face today. > > Gore never critiques the system causing the > global ecological crisis. At one point, he even > mourns the negative impact of global warming on > U.S. oil pipelines. Oh, the horror! What it all > comes down to, for Gore and the Democrats, is > that we need to shift away from reliance on > fossil fuels and tweak existing consumption patterns. > > Even there, Gore and Clinton did nothing to > improve fuel efficiency in the U.S. -- a topic > which Gore talks about in the movie without any > hint that he'd once actually been in a position > to do something about it. The question Gore poses > is, Who can best manage the relatively minor > solutions he recommends, the Democrats or > Republicans? For Gore, it's sort of "trust US, > not THEM, to deal with this situation because > they are liars and we're not." Well, should we trust him? > > As Joshua Frank writes, during the campaign for > president in 1992 Gore promised a group of > supporters that the Clinton-Gore EPA would never > approve a hazardous waste incinerator located > near an elementary school in Liverpool, Ohio, > which was operated by WTI. "Only three months > into Clinton's tenure," Frank writes, "the EPA > issued an operating permit for the toxic burner. > Gore raised no qualms. Not surprisingly, most of > the money behind WTI came from the bulging > pockets of Jackson Stephens, who just happened to > be one of the Clinton-Gore's top campaign contributors."(1) > > But failing to shut down toxic incinerators is > just the tip of their great betrayal. In the > film, Gore references the Kyoto Accords and > states that he personally went to Kyoto during > the negotiations, giving the impression that he > was a key figure in fighting to reduce air > pollution emissions that destroy the ozone layer. > What he omits is that his mission in going to > Kyoto was to scuttle the Accords, to block them > from moving forward. And he succeeded. > > The Clinton-Gore years were anything but > environment-friendly. Under Clinton-Gore, more > old growth forests were cut down than under any > other recent U.S. administration. "Wise Use" > committees -- set up by the lumber industry -- > were permitted to clearcut whole mountain ranges, > while Clinton-Gore helped to "greenwash" their > activities for public consumption. > > Under Clinton-Gore, the biotech industry was > given carte blanche to write the US government's > regulations (paltry as they are) on genetic > engineering of agriculture, and to move full > speed ahead with implementing the private > patenting of genetic sequences with nary a qualm passing Gore's lips. > > You'd think watching this film that Gore is just > some concerned professor who never had access to > power or held hundreds of thousands of dollars of > stock in Occidental Petroleum (driving the U'wa > off their lands in Colombia), let alone was the > Number Two man actually running the U.S. government! > > "Gore, like Clinton who quipped that 'the > invisible hand has a green thumb,' extolled a > free-market attitude toward environmental > issues," writes Frank, who goes on to quote > Jeffrey St. Clair: "Since the mid-1980s Gore has > argued with increasing stridency that the bracing > forces of market capitalism are potent curatives > for the ecological entropy now bearing down on > the global environment. He is a passionate > disciple of the gospel of efficiency, suffused > with an inchoate technophilia."(2) > > Before Kyoto, before the Clinton-Gore massive > depleted uranium bombings of Yugoslavia and Iraq, > before their missile "deconstruction" of the only > existing pharmaceutical production facility in > northern Africa in the Sudan (which exacerbated > the very serious problems there, as we're seeing > in Darfur today), there was NAFÂTA, the North > American Free Trade Agreement. The task of > Clinton-Gore was to push through this legislation > which not even strong Republican administrations > under Reagan or Bush Sr. had been able to do. > Since its inception, NAFTA has undermined U.S. > environmental laws, chased production facilities > out of the U.S. and across the borders, vastly > increased pollution from Maquilladoras > (enterprise zones) along the U.S./Mexico border > and helped to undermine the indigenous > sustainable agrarian-based communities in > southern Mexico -- as predicted by leftists in > both countries, leading to the Zapatista uprising > from those communities on January 1, 1994, the day NAFTA went into effect. > > Clinton-Gore also approved the destructive deal > with the sugar barons of South Florida arranged > by Interior Secretary Bruce Babbitt, which doomed > the Everglades. (In fact, Clinton was on the > phone with Alfonso Fanjul, Jr., the chief of the > sugar barons, while Monica Lewinsky was busy > doing her thing in her famous blue dress under Clinton's desk.) > > Early in Clinton-Gore's first administration, > they pledged they would stop the plunder of the > Northwest forests, writes former Village Voice > columnist James Ridgeway. "They then > double-crossed their environmental backers. Under > Bush Sr., the courts had enjoined logging in the > Northwest habitats of the spotted owl. > Clinton-Gore persuaded environmentalists to join > them in axing the injunction. The Clinton > administration went before a Reagan-appointed > judge who had a record as a stalwart > environmentalist and with the eco toadies in tow, > got him to remove the injunction, and with it the > moratorium on existing timber sales."(3) Then > Gore and Clinton "capitulated to the demands of > Western Democrats and yanked from its initial > budget proposals a call to reform grazing, > mining, and timber practices on federal lands. > When Clinton convened a timber summit in > Portland, Oregon, in April 1994, the conference > was, as one might expect, dominated by logging > interests. Predictably, the summit gave way to a > plan to restart clear-cutting in the ancient > forests of the Pacific Northwest for the first > time in three years, giving the timber industry its get rich wish."(4) > > Gore and Clinton sent to Congress the infamous > Salvage Rider, known to radical environmentalists > as the "Logging without Laws" bill, "perhaps the > most gruesome legislation ever enacted under the > pretext of preserving ecosystem health." Like > Bush's "Healthy Forests" plan, the Clinton-Gore > act "was chock full of deception and special > interest pandering. 'When [the Salvage Rider] > bill was given to me, I was told that the timber > industry was circulating this language among the > Northwest Congressional delegation and others to > try to get it attached as a rider to the fiscal > year Interior Spending Bill,' environmental > lawyer Kevin Kirchner says. 'There is no question > that representatives of the timber industry had a > role in promoting this rider. That is no > secret.'"(5) What the Salvage Rider did was to > "temporarily exempt ... salvage timber sales on > federal forest lands from environmental and > wildlife laws, administrative appeals, and > judicial review," according to the Wilderness > Society -- long enough for multinational lumber > and paper corporations to clear-cut all but a > sliver of the U.S.'s remaining old growth forests. > > "Thousands of acres of healthy forestland across > the West were rampaged. Washington's Colville > National Forest saw the clear cutting of over > 4,000 acres. Thousands more in Montana's Yak > River Basin, hundreds of acres of pristine forest > land in Idaho, while the endangered Mexican > Spotted Owl habitat in Arizona fell victim to > corporate interests. Old growth trees in > Washington's majestic Olympic Peninsula -- home > to wild Steelhead, endangered Sockeye salmon, and > threatened Marbled Murrieta -- were chopped with > unremitting provocation by the US Forest Service."(6) > > The assault on nature continued with Gore's blessing. > > Around the same time, Clinton-Gore appointee > Carol Browner, head of the EPA, was quoted in the > NY Times as having said that the administration > would be "relaxing" the Delaney Clause (named > after its author, Congressman James Delaney, > D-NY). Congress had inserted this clause into > section 409 of the federal Food, Drug and > Cosmetic Act in 1958. It prohibited FDA approval > of any food additive found to cause cancer in > humans or animals. Alone among all food-related > directives, this legislation put the onus on the > manufacturers to demonstrate that their products > were safe before they were allowed to become > commercially available. (7) A federal appeals > court in July 1992 expanded the jurisdiction of > the Delaney Clause, ruling that it was applicable > to cancer-causing pesticides in processed food. > Browner retracted her comment, claiming she'd > never said it, but the proof was in the pudding. > The ban on cancer-causing additives (the > "Precautionary Principle") that had held through > the Eisenhower, Kennedy, Johnson, Nixon, Ford, > Reagan and Bush, Sr. administrations was finally > removed, not by the Republicans but by the > Clinton-Gore administration. Instead of expanding > the Delaney clause to protect produce and other > unprocessed foods, the new Food Quality > Protection Act legislation permitted "safe" > amounts of carcinogenic chemicals (as designated > by the Environmental Protection Agency) to be > added to all food. (According to Peter Montague, > editor of Rachel's Weekly, "no one knows how > 'safe amounts' of carcinogens can be established, > especially when several carcinogens and other > poisons are added simultaneously to the food of > tens of millions of people.) Nevertheless, the > Clinton-Gore administration spun this as "progress." > > The Clinton administration, with guidance from > Gore's office, also cut numerous deals over the > pesticide Methyl Bromide despite its reported > effects of contributing to Ozone depletion and > its devastating health consequences on farm workers picking strawberries. > > Much is being made these days about the need to > save the Arctic Wildlife Refuge. But Clinton-Gore > opened the National Petroleum Reserve - 24 > mmillion untouched acres adjacent to the refuge, > home to a large caribou herd and numerous arctic > species - to oil drilling. The chief beneficiaary > of this was Arco, a major ($1.4 million) > contributor to the Democratic Party. At the same > time, writes James Ridgeway, "Clinton dropped the > ban on selling Alaskan oil abroad. This also > benefits Arco, which is opening refineries in > China. So although the oil companies won the > right to exploit Alaskan oil on grounds that to > do so would benefit national development, > Clinton-Gore unilaterally changed the agreement > so that it benefits China's industrial growth."(8) > > Not once in the entire film does Gore criticize > this awful environmental record or raise the > critical questions we need to answer if we are to > effectively reverse global warming: Is it really > the case that the vast destruction of our > environment that went on under his watch and, > continuing today, is simply a result of poor > consumer choices and ineffective government > policies? Is the global environmental devastation > we are facing today rectifiable with some simple tuning-up, as Gore proposes? > > Neither he -- as point man for the Clinton > administration on environmental issues -- nor > Clinton-Gore's Energy Secretary Bill Richardson > (with major ties to Occidental Petroleum), nor > the Democratic Party in general offer anything > more than putting a tiny Band-Aid on the earth's > gaping wounds, which they themselves helped to gash open. > > Clearly, the vast destruction of the global > ecology is a consequence not just of poor > governmental policies but of the capitalist > system's fundamental drive towards Growth and > what passes for Development -- Grow or Die. > Environmental activists won't find in Gore the > kind of systemic analysis that is needed to stop > global warming. Instead, we need to look > elsewhere for that sort of deep systemic critique. > > NOTES > > 1. Joshua Frank, Counterpunch, May 31, 2006, > http://www.counterpunch.org/frank05312006.html. > Frank is the author of Left Out! How Liberals > Helped Reelect George W. Bush, and edits www.BrickBurner.org > > 2. Jeffrey St. Clair, Been Brown So Long It > Looked Like Green to Me: The Politics of Nature, Common Courage Press, 2004. > > 3. James Ridgeway, "Eco Spaniel Kennedy: Nipping > at Nader's Heels," Village Voice, Aug. 16-22, > 2000. http://www.villagevoice.com/news/0033,ridgeway,17335,6.html > > 4,5,6 Joshua Frank. > > 7. The battle over the Delaney Clause has been > ably documented by Rachel's Weekly, at www.rachel.org > > 8. Ridgeway, op cit. > >
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Wed Feb 28 2007 - 00:00:08 EST