Well, we face a very serious dilemma, stark,
cruel dilemma. On the one hand there is a severe, dire crisis. Dealing with it cannot be
delayed. It's the most important issue that has arisen in human history. This generation, in fact,
today's leaders and people will make a decision as to whether organized human society can survive in
any decent livable form. It's no less than that. We are facing a very serious crisis, the most
significant one that has arisen in human history. The decent existence of future generations is
very much at stake and we have the responsibility of determining whether they will have a livable
existence or not. It's as serious as that. There are ways to address the problem;
we have to think about them carefully, work out the proper ways of dealing
with them, act decisively, energetically and urgently to address this impending dramatic
crisis. That's one horn of the dilemma. The other horn of the dilemma is that we have to
face the reality of the world. We have to find ways of reacting that are not only justified, but
are also feasible and effective. So, for example, it would be entirely justified to send the most
powerful person in the world, the President of the United States to the Hague for
trial for severe crimes against humanity and many lesser figures as well; that
would be justified. It's not feasible, it's not effective. To deal with... to choose
approaches that are feasible and effective, we have to recognize the reality of the situation
we face and adjust our approaches accordingly. So when the President of the United
States says 'I don't believe it', highly intelligent people like myself
are not believers that has an impact on much of the population, especially so when
it is echoed by the people right in the next lower level. So, for example, if you look at
the Republican party... primaries in 2016... every single candidate either denied that global
warming is taking place or said 'maybe it is', but we shouldn't do anything about it,
which morally speaking is much worse. They were incidentally the ones
praised as the adults in the room. Or we can go on to corporate executives. So I'm
sure that the CEO of JP Morgan Chase, Jamie Dimon, is well aware of... of the effect
of using fossil fuels freely. So how is he deciding to react to that?
By increasing investment in fossil fuels. We know very well about the behavior of the major
fossil fuel companies over the past 40 or 50 years. It's now well known that their scientists,
Exxon Mobil scientists, were in the lead in discovering the significance and the
threat of catastrophic environmental global change and we're presenting paper after
paper to their own managers and executives, explaining the nature of the threat, and when
James Hansen in 1988 made his famous speech, warning the world of the threat that we are
facing, Exxon Mobil management reacted, namely by shifting to funding of denialism and skepticism,
and increasing their use of fossil fuels. When the New York Times couple of weeks ago... it
runs a long front-page thousand-word article on how President Trump is only... is opening up vast
new fields in the west of the United States for oil exploration for fracking, they do
talk a little about environmental effects, that they might harm the interests of ranchers
who want to use those lands. It was literally one phrase in a thousand words saying that by dropping
restrictions on methane... it may lead to a very dangerous gas escaping into the environment; one
phrase in a thousand words, and we can continue. And all of this has an effect on the population.
People listen. They see. They see that nobody seems to be taking it seriously. We get...
we see the results in polls among Republicans. Half, fully half of Republicans literally
deny that global warming is taking place. Now that includes people whose livelihoods
are being destroyed by long droughts that are wiping out their sources of fish of food
and so on. Say 'no, it's not happening'. That's half of Republicans. Of the other half,
barely half say humans may be responsible. After all, if the man in charge says 'highly
intelligent people like me don't believe it' who am I to question it? These are
some of the realities we have to face. We also have to recognize that the approach..
is not...the effective approach is not simply to say 'look, there is a dire emergency you have
to change everything you do', that's not going to work. What has to be done is to approach people,
explaining that the situation is serious, is likely to be catastrophic unless we do something
and then go on to show what in fact is true; that efforts to deal with it are within range
and will in fact make your life better. They're not going to destroy your life. We'd be
much better off living in a green economy. You'd be much better off not spending three
hours a day fighting traffic jams, if you had an efficient mass transportation system. You'd
be better off if you hadn't... didn't have to take your kids to the doctor, because they're
suffering asthma, because they can't breathe the air. If we had... potable water, yes, things
would be better. If we had an environment in which people could survive and live decent lives,
everyone would be better and it is within reach. There are things that we can do;
there are things that are being done. Those are the kinds of approaches that have to
be taken and it has to be done. It's a difficult choice, because on the one hand you recognize
the enormous character of the catastrophe that's impending. On the other hand you
have to mute your responses to address the reality of the world in which you're trying
to make a change. This is a hard decision. Often, in many activists' endeavors, these
questions arise and it simply has to be... you have to... it has to be managed and quickly. We have... it's some of the things that are
happening are almost beyond description. I'll just mention what may be the most evil
document that has ever appeared in human history, which was barely mentioned in the news.
Naturally it's from a bureaucracy, Trump's National Highway Administration bureaucracy. It
came out with a big study, a couple hundred page,s concluding... explaining why all regulations
on automotive emissions have to be ended. No regulations. Free emissions. And they
had a very rational argument. They said if we extrapolate from what is happening now, by
the end of the century it will essentially be over the cliff. The temperature will have risen three
or four degrees centigrade; sea level will be very high; they radically underestimated it; people
be fleeing the coastal zones; it's all over. And emissions don't really contribute that
much to it so why not enjoy it while we can. One of the underlying assumption of course is everyone
in the world is as criminally insane as we are and nobody's going to do anything about it. That's
the human species. So fine, let's... rob while the planet burns; putting poor Nero in the shadows
he only fiddled while Rome burns That's the world that we face and we have to understand
it, deal with it, grit our teeth, approach the problems constructively, effectively,
and in a way that is feasible, suppressing the justified feeling that we should
be taking extremely dire actions. Now that is not to say that we should not be
doing those things. Major dramatic actions are very much in order. Efforts to create
a general strike, regular massive protests, all of these things are important. They have to be shaped and geared so that they - instead of
being offensive to people - they energize and mobilize them. That's the way they
have to be developed, organized and run. There's a range of activities that can be
important, that can be done: from talking to your neighbor, to installing led lights, to
political action, to demonstrating, to bringing the dire character of the existing circumstances
to general understanding. All of these things are within range; there can be no delay in
executing them. These are the most significant questions that the human species has ever
faced. We have to face them now; we cannot wait. Individuals can do only so much; something, but not much. Organized groups can
achieve a great deal. We see that from the history of popular movements that have succeeded. So
take - say - the American Civil Rights movement, in 1960. A few black students in Greensboro,
North Carolina, decided to sit in a lunch counter and ask to be served. They were arrested, taken
away. That could have been the end, except the next day some more came. They were arrested, taken
away, and pretty soon you had freedom riders, riding in buses throughout the South in extremely
dangerous conditions, trying to convince the poor black people that they had the right to
vote. That's dangerous. They could be killed young white students from
the South started coming down that many several were indeed killed.
Pretty soon you had a mass organization, huge demonstrations. Martin Luther King
led enormous demonstrations in Washington, finally led to the passage of limited,
but significant civil rights legislation. Same thing happened with the anti-war movement.
I mean I can remember myself when the John F Kennedy... sharply escalated the war in 1961 and
62, and sent the US Air Force to start bombing South Vietnam, authorized chemical warfare
programs to destroy crops and livestock, began programs to drive ultimately millions of people
into what amounted to concentration camps and urban slums. No protest, no comment,
barely reporting... the few of us who were concerned were doing things literally like talking
to a group of people in somebody's living room or maybe a church with half a dozen people or
something like that. It built up, many people got involved, others became organized, pretty soon you
had resistance groups. By 1967 there was a mass popular movement. Now there's reasonable evidence
that the huge demonstrations in Washington may well have prevented President Nixon from using
nuclear weapons which were being contemplated. It was too late, wasn't enough to save
the country from destruction, but it did help terminate the disaster in time for the...
for at least survival could have been much worse. And it extended by the early 1980s.
There were mass popular movements; a large majority of the population demanding
an end to the lunatic nuclear... weapons race which was literally on the verge of destroying
us; had some effects, not enough but some. That's the way movements develop.
You can begin as an individual; you have to work with others; you have to talk
to your neighbors; you have to join with others and the record shows that it can succeed. We don't have a lot of time. This has to be
done effectively, quickly, with careful thought. Actions like extinct.. Extinction Rebellion,
the teacher strike, the Earth strike, aiming for a general strike... all of these
things can be in parallel with efforts to simply introduce legislation to improve renewable energy,
to cut back sharply on the use of fossil fuels; to end the insane expansion of
fossil fuel exploration and the lifting of destructive fuels. All of
that has to be done at the same time. During the Vietnam War there were serious
efforts by distinguished international lawyers. Their figures have joined in, arguing correctly
that the US war in Vietnam was a criminal act; that it was in violation of the basic
international law, even of the US Constitution. They...there were strong arguments. There was no
chance in the world that they would reach a court, if any court even looked at them, they would say
right away 'political issue, I don't touch it', but these had important educational impact. It helped people understand the nature of this
criminal endeavor. The same would be true of dramatic efforts to bring major figures who are
carrying out huge crimes against humanity to the International Criminal Court which is
authorized to try crimes against humanity. There is no greater crime that
can be imagined than moving expeditiously in a dedicated effort to undermine
the possibilities for organized human life in order to stuff some more
dollars into overstuffed pockets. We want to rob right now - you know - as I say
that's criminality of the kind that you can't really find in human history. There have been
plenty of monsters in the past - you know - Attila the Hun, Hitler, Stalin, many of them, but none
were dedicated to trying to destroy consciously, to destroy the prospects for organized decent
human life in the near future. No one ever committed themselves to that and that can be
brought to people's understanding. No one's going to be brought to the hay, but recognizing that it
would be legitimate and justified is an important way of helping people comprehend the enormity of
what we're... what is happening before their eyes. Bolsonaro is one of the most dangerous figures
to appear in the international political arena, in many respects, and the Amazon is a source
of survival for the entire world. It's one of the main carbon sinks in the world. If he pursues
his announced objectives to opening up the Amazon still further to exploitation by
agribusiness and mining, that's almost a death knell to the world, and, of course, it's a
call for genocide for the indigenous population which he has virtually declared - in fact
saying - they don't deserve a square centimeter. But we don't have to go to the most evil creatures
in the world. Let's go to the civilized countries. So take, say, right to the
North of the United States, and Canada - it regards itself and is regarded as
one of the most civilized countries in the world. And what are they doing? They happen to be one of
the leading polluters, way up ranked at the top; not only just uh ex producing fossil fuels,
but insisting on the most dangerous of them; the tar sands in Alberta. The Canadian mining
corporations are the scourge of the Earth; they're destroying places all over the global
South; that's the civilized countries. Australia, another civilized country, is practically
backing out of any pretense of dealing with the extraordinary threat of climate change,
and we can continue. There are others; there are plenty who are doing serious good
things. Denmark is making serious efforts. States in the United States, localities are
doing important things. China which continues to develop coal plants - which is criminal -
is also well in the lead in producing... solar panels; even the most at high
tech uh so there is a mixture, but the level of criminality is overall is just
shocking when we consider what is at stake We should always bear in mind the slogan that... Antonio Gramsci made famous:
'We should have pessimism of the intellect, but optimism of the will' - it's never
been more important than it is now. you
