February
1, 2017 Max's comments to the CAB
Members of the
Community Advisory Board:
I am
writing to you since you have more input with station management than I
do. And you represent the voice of the
community. If possible, please share my
thoughts with management.
I have
enjoyed listening to the program On Point with Tom Ashbrook, though I would
like to hear from more Baltimore-area callers.
Another national program I would like to hear on YPR is The Takeaway, hosted by John Hockenberry, and it is part
of Public Radio International.
Muckraking journalist, Wayne Barrett, died recently. He worked for the Village Voice for many
years, and I saw him on Amy Goodman’s
show Democracy Now many times. In the
Washington Post obituary, January 22, 2017, he left us with this quote:
“I don’t know how you can look at
the guy [Donald Trump] with an open mind and ignore everything he’s said and
done up until now.” He added, “”You
don’t look at him with an open mind. you look at him with all the information
you can assemble, and you try to get him to not do the terrible things he
promised.” In these difficult times, we
need a journalism which speaks truth to power.
Steve
Bannon recently hurled a thunderbolt at the media: "The media
should be embarrassed and humiliated and keep its mouth shut and just listen
for a while." Each journalist must decide how to respond. Do you keep your down? Or do you take on this proto-fascist
administration for the betterment of society? I am hoping YPR will be up to the
task to taking on the Trump Administration.
It is obvious with his cabinet choices and with his executive orders,
Trump will cause irreparable damage to so many groups and the environment. I really hope my public radio station will
broaden its programming to reflect these trying times.
Recognizing that the Trump
Administration is in control of the federal government, many people are arguing
that we must instead act locally. This was the theme in Annapolis on January 26
at the Environmental Legislative Summit.
Both legislators and activists echoed this message. I am hoping Mayor Pugh will have the courage
to declare Baltimore a sanctuary city. I
think these local and state actions are quite newsworthy for WYPR, so the radio
station should give coverage to efforts designed the protect those who will
suffer under Trump’s dictates.
On January 31, Karsonya ("Dr. Kaye") Wise Whitehead offered powerful
commentary about challenging the Trump Administration. It was clear she recognizes what lies ahead
unless we resist. Unfortunately,
I have been underwhelmed by the local programming choices on MIDDAY and ON THE
RECORD. Very few shows focus on the totality of reckless power, and what might
be done to counter-act it.
I and others engaged in nonviolent
resistance at the inauguration, and the police chose not to arrest us. And of
course, we went to the Women’s March.
The next day we attended "CHALLENGING TRUMPISM, WARS AND MILITARISM
at American University. Many of the
speakers should be seen as resources to be used on YPR. I would be pleased to
provide contact information for these speakers.
While many of us went to D.C. for the protests, there were many opportunities
in Baltimore to challenge Trumpism. On
January 15, about 200 people attended a MoveOn Forum at the Towson
Library. Veterans for Peace marched in
the MLK Parade on January 16. On January
26, I was on a panel of activists at CCBC –Dundalk Campus during a program on
Equity in Education. On January 28, about 300 people protested downtown the
executive order which encouraged the building of the two oil pipelines.
Thousands of us at BWI on January 29 protested the Muslim Ban. Trump is a
great organizer for progressive activists. The people are ready. We
need coverage by YPR of the dissent.
As for programming, I have some feedback. I enjoyed these On The Record
segments: State of the Working Class [Jan. 31], Sexual Assault cases ignored by
the Baltimore Police [Jan. 23], the Consent Decree [ Jan. 13], General Assembly
[Jan. 11 & Jan. 4] and REGGI with Sara Via of the Physicians for Social
Responsibility [ Dec. 15] and a few other shows. But other shows about opioids, gambling, fire
safety tips, etc. are not really dealing with the multitude of problems facing
Baltimore.
Regarding
Midday shows, I enjoyed Immigration
Ban/Bail Reform [Jan. 30], Eric Dyson reflecting on Obama [Jan. 18]. Urban Manufacturing [Dec. 29], End of Nature
[Dec. 6] and Trump and the Environment [Nov. 16]. However, a majority of the shows deal with
personal issues, rather than a confrontation with injustice. I am advocating an overview of such issues: poverty and capitalism, militarism and all the U.S.
wars, refurbishing the nuclear arsenal, climate chaos, JHU’s military research,
and the unconstitutional behavior of the National Security Agency. These
are all major concerns facing the people of Baltimore, yet in most cases the
producers avoid these issues.
Finally, I have enclosed a pertinent article about War and
Warming. As a member of the community, I thank the Community Advisory Board for
listening to my concerns.
Kagiso,
Max
Published
on Portside (https://portside.org)
War and
Warming: Can We Save the Planet Without Taking on the Pentagon?
Portside.org
H Patricia Hynes
Thursday, January 26, 2017
Submitted by the author to Portside
If we are not united
in peace, we cannot save the planet.
Thich Nhat Hanh
Looking out to my
audience of young climate change activists and older peace activists gathered
for a talk and discussion on "war and warming," I see in the
generational difference what many peace activists perceive. Peace, war,
militarism, and nuclear weapons are an agenda of another era-an earlier era,
while progressive political energy today is galvanized by climate change. (One
climate activist explained that in his lifetime, no nuclear weapons had been
used while climate change had worsened.) Thus, our movements largely work in
silos, despite the actuality that war and fossil fuels have been fatally
co-dependent since the Second World War.
Oil is indispensable
for war and militarism. Think of it as the lifeblood coursing through our
foreign policy, a policy based on maintaining superpower status and confronting
those whom we perceive as challenging us. The 1980 Carter Doctrine, which
stated that the United States would use military force if necessary to defend
its national interests in the Persian Gulf, formalized the toxic nexus between
access to oil and war. Since the late 1970s, the United States has spent $8
trillion protecting oil cargoes in the Persian Gulf region through ongoing
naval patrols. Keeping oil and gas supply sea lanes in the South China Sea
open, in the face of China's expansionism there, is also a factor in the US
pivot to Asia.
This foreign policy
pivot has involved engaging Australia and Southeast Asian allies in military
training exercises, opening new and previously closed bases to the US military,
and sales of new weapons systems. Further, the Obama administration prioritized
a military "triangular alliance" with Japan, pressuring them to
abandon their peace constitution, and South Korea, where the US has a military
foothold on the Asian continent, for countering North Korea and the rising
power of China. This ratcheting up of military dominance is reliant on oil, the
lifeline of weaponry, military exercises and war.
War for oil has come
home. Militarized North Dakota police attacked non-violent water protectors
protesting the Dakota Access oil pipeline with rubber bullets, tear gas,
concussion grenades, and water cannons in sub-freezing temperatures. One medic
treating injuries described it as a "low grade war." (1)
A thumbnail sketch
of recent US spending confirms the axiom that *war culture is a defining
feature of US politics.* In 2016, as in previous years, an estimated $1
trillion was allocated to military defense, militarized national security,
veterans, and debt from recent wars. In that same year a few billion
dollars-crumbs from the master's table-were allocated to research and
development for energy efficiency and renewable energy technologies.
Between 2010-2015, the federal government invested $56 billion in clean energy
internationally, while it recently committed to $1 trillion for modernizing
nuclear weapons, their infrastructure and their delivery systems by 2030.
What's clear from US
spending priorities is that access to oil and military dominance has governed
US policy in the world. Add to this a thin-skinned bully as president
surrounding himself with generals and we will likely get into deeper displays
of male dominance. Foreign policy advisor to both Presidents Bush, Philip
Zelikow, put it bluntly. With President Trump's "ambient prickliness, we
could end up picking a fight with three quarters of the world." (2) The
immense policy and spending inequality between military and renewable energy
(one that mirrors our society's massive economic inequality) retards sustainable
energy research and development and accelerates the perilously trending climate
change.
*Militarism:
An Engine of Climate Change*
In 1940 the United
States military consumed one percent of the country's total fossil fuel energy
usage; by the end of the World War II the military's share rose to 29 percent.
Militarism is the most oil-intensive activity on the planet, growing more so
with faster, bigger, more fuel guzzling planes, tanks, and naval vessels. At
the outset of the Iraq War in March 2003, the Army estimated it would need more
than 40 million gallons of gasoline for three weeks of combat, exceeding the
total quantity used by all Allied forces in the four years of World War 1. (3)
The frequency and
prevalence of US armed conflict since World War II is another factor in the
combustible mix of war and warming. One count has documented 153 instances of
US armed forces engaged in conflict abroad from 1945 through 2004, a number
consistent with other estimates. (4) This count, though, does not include covert
military missions in which US Special Operations Forces (larger in number than
the active-duty militaries of many countries) operate in 135 countries. Nor do
the 153 military conflicts since 1945 include US occupation forces stationed
abroad since World War II, military participation in mutual security
organizations such as NATO, military base agreements for the estimated 1000 US
military bases across the planet, and routine oil-intensive military training
exercises around the globe.
In 2003, the Carter
Doctrine was implemented with "shock and awe," in what was the most
intensive and profligate use of fossil fuel the world has ever witnessed. The
projected full costs of the Iraq War (estimated $3 trillion) could have covered
all global investments in renewable energy needed between now and 2030 to
reverse global warming trends.
Between 2003 and
2007, the Iraq war generated more carbon dioxide equivalent in greenhouse gas
emissions each year of the war than 139 of the world's countries release
annually. Re-building Iraqi (and Syrian and Yemeni) schools, homes, businesses,
bridges, roads, and hospitals pulverized by the war will require millions of
tons of cement, the most fossil fuel intensive of all manufacturing industries.
After an
unprecedented investigation into military use of fossil fuels, the Barry
Sander, author of The Green Zone, calculates that the US military consumes as
much as one million barrels of oil per day and contributes 5 percent of current
global warming emissions. Few whole countries use more oil than Pentagon. Yet,
this comparison understates the extreme military impact on climate change.
Military fuel is more polluting because of the fuel type used for
aviation. Carbon dioxide (CO2) emissions from jet fuel are larger - possibly
triple - per gallon than those from diesel and oil. Further, aircraft exhaust
has unique polluting effects that result in greater warming effect by per unit
of fuel used. Radiative effects from jet exhaust, including nitrous
oxide, sulphur dioxide, soot, and water vapor exacerbate the warming effect of
the CO2 exhaust emissions.
Nor does this
calculation include the fossil fuels used by civilian weapons makers. Their
greenhouse gas emissions comprise both those from manufacturing and testing
weapons and also the intensive cleanup of hazardous waste produced by them.
Nearly 900 of the US Environmental Protection Agency's approximately 1,300
Superfund sites are abandoned military bases/facilities or manufacturing and
testing sites that produced conventional weapons and other military related
products and services, according to the 2008-2009 Annual Report of the
President's Cancer Panel.
*Climate
Change in a Militarizing World*
Climate change is
inevitably an issue of peace because the Pentagon is the single largest
contributor of climate change emissions in the world. And as the Pentagon goes,
so go the military budgets of other major powers. "We are not your
enemy," a Chinese strategist told journalist John Pilger, " but if
you [in the West] decide we are, we must prepare without delay." (5)
According to some
security analysts, talk of fighting terrorism fills the media but is secondary
in the talk of US and NATO generals, admirals and defense ministers. Many
politicians of West and NATO believe that war between Great Powers (Russia
and/or China) is not only possible but may break out at any time. Therefore,
bigger spending in all involved countries on high-tech weapons, deploying more
forces, and more military joint exercises will exacerbate climate change emissions
and heighten the potential for nuclear war, risking another kind of climate
change-nuclear winter.
Others point to the
elevation of generals by President-elect Trump to positions historically held
by civilians in order to maintain civilian control of the military, namely
Department of Defense, National Security Advisor and Department of Homeland
Security. They are "enablers" and "accelerants to military
action," warns retired Colonel William Astore. ".[t]he future of U.S.
foreign policy seems increasingly clear: more violent interventionism against
what these men see as the existential threat of radical Islam. Both [the United
States and radical Islam] embrace their own exceptionalism, both see themselves
as righteous warriors, both represent ways of thinking steeped in patriarchy
and saturated with violence, and both are remarkably resistant to any thought
of compromise." (6)
Growing global
militarization portends greater military build up in Russia, China, NATO and
the Middle East and greater climate change emissions. The United States
expends 37 percent of the global military budget and its military is estimated
to contribute 5 percent of climate change emissions. Can we not, then, assume
that the rest of world's military spending, weapons manufacturing, military
exercises, and conflict combine to bring military-related fossil fuel emissions
to near 15 percent of global climate change pollution? Intensifying
military tensions will drive it higher and could vitiate country commitments to
the Paris climate agreement.
*Climate Change, Water Shortage and Conflict: Syria*
Climate change is
necessarily an issue of peace given the potential conflicts over the remaining
oil as we near peak oil and given diminishing potable water supply and arable land.
The UN panel that analyses climate science , [1] the IPPC,
concludes: "Water and its availability and quality will be the main
pressure on and [critical] issue for societies and the environment under
climate change." Within little more than a decade, nearly one-half of the
world's people will be living in areas of high water shortage. (7)
The worst Syrian
drought on record, from 2006 to 2011, caused agriculture to collapse; food
prices to rise, thus aggravating poverty; and drove more 1.5 million farm
workers and families to cities for survival. Simultaneously hundreds of
thousands of Iraqi refugees from the US-led war in their country fled to Syrian
cities. The extreme and rapid swelling in urban population from war and climate
change-related water scarcity, combined with the lack of support from the Assad
government for basic needs and services, added fuel to the fire of civil
conflict and the current war in Syria. The Syrian scholar Suzanne Saleeby notes
that "escalating pressures on urban areas due to internal migration,
increasing food insecurity, and resultant high rates of unemployment have
spurred many Syrians to make their political grievances publicly known. in
popular uprisings..." (8)
While it is evident
from history that the source of violence in societies suffering scarce
resources is fundamentally inequality, injustice, poor economic and resource
management, and lack of democracy, the stress of climate change on the Syrian
society is neither isolated nor temporary; and it is worsening. The entire
Middle East inexorably faces a hotter, drier climate from climate change that
will further stress water resources, agriculture, food prices and existing
conflicts. Thus, the seeds of future conflicts in authoritarian and unequal
societies may also include scarce water resources as farmers and thirsty
people, opportunistic politicians and powerful corporations contend for that
diminishing resource.
*Conclusion*
War mirrors the
culture of a country. US militarism-from its training, tactics, and logistics
to its reasons for going to war and its weapons of war-is distinctly shaped by
core elements of American identity. These determining cultural forces are,
according to military historian Victor Hanson
The US habit and
competence for war, with its origins in the past annihilation of Native
Americans, may be our society's nemesis unless we do critical soul-searching
about our cultural and personal values <http://www.thesolutionsjournal.com/node/969 [3]> and actively
engage in transforming them. Let us remember and honor the plentitude of
activist, non-violent movements in our society that have profoundly challenged
the dominant patriarchal profile of our culture described by Hanson. These are
the feminist violence against women and equal rights for women movement; the
civil rights, immigrant and indigenous rights movements; the anti-war and peace
movements; Black Lives Matter and Standing Rock water protectors; progressive
media, peace and justice studies; progressive labor and health workers; the
coop, sustainable agriculture, and Transition Town movements; and the pervasive
climate change activism and victories against fracking and oil pipelines.
The challenge is how
to build voice, social cohesion and public influence for our shared values of a
sense of human community, our core connection as humans with nature, our
empathy with the exploited and our thirst for equality and justice for all.
In these times of
overt authoritarian and corporate control, our hope for turning the tide will
come from local, community-based campaigns and actions. These comprise
anti-fracking ordinances, town by town; the fight for $15 minimum wage city by
city; churches and cities providing sanctuary for undocumented workers;
children suing their government for their right to clean energy and a livable
future; campaigns against all forms of violence against girls and women; using
community media to promote equal rights for all; and electing people to local
and regional office who champion these issues and campaigns.
Working together, we
must turn the tide on these destructive forces and seek enduring peace *on*
earth and enduring peace *with* earth.
This piece originated
in talks given to 350.org CT and Promoting Enduring Peace, New Haven; Women's
International League for Peace and Justice, Boston branch; and the Women's
Pentagon Action 2016 Forum.
Sources
3. Barry Sanders
(2009) *The Green Zone: The Environmental Costs of Militarism.* Oakland, CA: AK
Press.
Pat Hynes, a retired
environmental engineer and professor of environmental health, directs the Traprock
Center for Peace and Justice in western Massachusetts.]
Source URL: https://portside.org/2017-01-28/war-and-warming-can-we-save-planet-without-taking-pentagon
Links:
[1] http://www.ipcc.ch/pdf/technical-papers/ccw/chapter1.pdf
[2] http://www.thenewatlantis.com/publications/military-technology-and-american-culture
[3] https://www.thesolutionsjournal.com/article/finding-cultural-values-that-can-transform-the-climate-change-debate/
[4] https://insideclimatenews.org/news/22112016/dakota-access-protesters-injury-police-concussion-grenades-firehoses
[5] http://www.nytimes.com/2016/12/21/todayspaper/quotation-of-the-day.html?_r=0
[6] http://iprd.org.uk/wp-content/plugins/downloads-manager/upload/US%20Conflicts%20Abroad%20Since%20World%20War%20II%20Chronicling%20the%20Official%20History%20of%20US%20Conflict%20Dependence.pdf
[7] http://www.alternet.org/world/will-trump-start-war-china
[8] http://www.tomdispatch.com/blog/176224/
[9] http://www.oecd.org/environment/indicators-modelling-outlooks/40200582.pdf
[10] http://journals.ametsoc.org/doi/abs/10.1175/WCAS-D-13-00059.1
[11] http://www.dw.com/en/climate-change-contributed-to-war-in-syria/a-18330669
[2] http://www.thenewatlantis.com/publications/military-technology-and-american-culture
[3] https://www.thesolutionsjournal.com/article/finding-cultural-values-that-can-transform-the-climate-change-debate/
[4] https://insideclimatenews.org/news/22112016/dakota-access-protesters-injury-police-concussion-grenades-firehoses
[5] http://www.nytimes.com/2016/12/21/todayspaper/quotation-of-the-day.html?_r=0
[6] http://iprd.org.uk/wp-content/plugins/downloads-manager/upload/US%20Conflicts%20Abroad%20Since%20World%20War%20II%20Chronicling%20the%20Official%20History%20of%20US%20Conflict%20Dependence.pdf
[7] http://www.alternet.org/world/will-trump-start-war-china
[8] http://www.tomdispatch.com/blog/176224/
[9] http://www.oecd.org/environment/indicators-modelling-outlooks/40200582.pdf
[10] http://journals.ametsoc.org/doi/abs/10.1175/WCAS-D-13-00059.1
[11] http://www.dw.com/en/climate-change-contributed-to-war-in-syria/a-18330669
No comments:
Post a Comment