Guest essay by Eric Worrall
Naomi Klein has attempted to link climate, fossil fuels and racism, but in my opinion Naomi’s piece inadvertently embraces the ugly colonialist paternalism which she tries to insist we should reject.
Naomi Klein on the racism that underlies climate change inaction
…
For the past three decades, since the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change was created and climate negotiations began, the refusal of our governments to lower emissions has been accompanied with full awareness of the dangers. And this kind of recklessness would have been functionally impossible without institutional racism, even if only latent. It would have been impossible without orientalism – what Edward Said described in his landmark book of the same name as “disregarding, essentialising, denuding the humanity of another culture, people or geographical region”. It would have been impossible without all the potent tools on offer that allow the powerful to discount the lives of the less powerful. These tools – of ranking the relative value of humans – are what allow the writing off of entire nations and ancient cultures. And they are what allowed for the digging up of all that carbon to begin with.
Why? Because the thing about fossil fuels is that they are so inherently dirty and toxic that they require sacrificial people and places: people whose lungs and bodies can be sacrificed to work in the coalmines, people whose lands and water can be sacrificed to open-pit mining and oil spills. As recently as the 1970s, scientists advising the United States government openly referred to certain parts of the country being designated “national sacrifice areas”. Think of the mountains of Appalachia, blasted off for coalmining – because so-called “mountain-top removal” coalmining is cheaper than digging holes underground. There were theories of othering used to justify the sacrificing of an entire geography: after all, if you are a backwards “hillbilly”, who cares about your hills?
Turning all that coal into electricity required another layer of othering, too: this time for the urban neighbourhoods next door to the power plants and refineries. In North America, these are overwhelmingly communities of colour, black and Latino, forced to carry the toxic burden of our collective addiction to fossil fuels, with markedly higher rates of respiratory illnesses and cancers. It was in fights against this kind of “environmental racism” that the climate justice movement was born.
…
Why do I think Naomi’s opinion piece reeks of colonialist paternalism? The reason is she seems to think she has the right to make decisions on behalf of poor people, especially poor coloured people. In my opinion, if Naomi could, she would somehow shield the disadvantaged from the “burden” of participating in the supply chain of our modern industrial world. She would remove the option of such participation from the people she claims to care about.
But the consequences of such a restriction would be disastrous. Naomi is right that industrialisation is a messy, often ugly process, riddled with exploitation and inequity. But the one thing which is worse than industrialising your economy, is not industrialising your economy. Attempting to deny desperately poor people the opportunity to build a better life, by embracing the same modern economic conveniences we take for granted, in my opinion is an unspeakable crime against humanity. People who work in filthy, third world factories, breathing toxic fumes, enduring unsafe conditions and hideous hours, mostly volunteer for such life, they compete to be accepted for such jobs. Because the alternative, back breaking hand tilling of subsistence farms, at the mercy of weather and disease, is far worse.
Nobody has the right to tell poor people what to do, not even Naomi Klein. If poor people choose of their own free will to participate in the modern world, and in doing so choose to build a better life for their children, they are simply following the path to modernity which our own grandparents and great grandparents walked, whose efforts and sacrifices created the abundance and security which we in the industrialised West take for granted.
Discover more from Watts Up With That?
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
What a moron…
Some of these “chattering” types have been in their own little echo chamber WAY too long . . . I doubt this woman knows the first thing about how the real world works. You can make up any alternate universe you like in “theoryland.”
The space between their ears provides the only echo chamber they need.
That’s what happens to red diaper babies. She’s just doesn’t know any better.
Yes, and she ignores the racism inherent in leftist policies. Two for example are the Minimum Wage and Social Security.
The Minimum Wage falls hardest on minorities trying to get that first job where they can learn skills to rise on the wage ladder. (Black teenagers have had the highest unemployment rates in the nation for generations, largely due to the Minimum Wage.)
Under Social Security, blacks who have a 5-year shorter life expectancy than whites collect benefits for 1/3 to 1/2 shorter time, even though they pay in for the same length of time.
But she makes a living – a very good living – chattering this drivel. So, ipso facto, she’s legitimate.
Please do NOT insult morons by likening “Naomi Klein” to them
No not a Moron, she is an white elitist who does not want the third world to develop due to
the fact that she and her ilk go to be with the gnawing fear that somewhere there may be
healthy, happy, prosperous dark skinned people…
ht/Mencken …
“bed” blast it..
Close but McCoy, what these white elitists fear the most is a world of limited resources (which they need to maintain their elite quality of life) being eroded by an exponentially expanding world population and developing and industrializing third world countries. These great unwashed masses are threatening their supply of limited resources and jeopardizing the silver spoon lives of their descendants.
As Marie declared “let them eat cake” Naomi declares “Let them power with solar”
that’s right, they like to know there are wilderness areas inhabited by happy new stone age people where they can take their holidays.
It’s an adaption of a liberal’s favorite trick: “What do you do if you’re losing an argument to a conservative? Call him a racist.”
Naomi “Bobblehead” Klein has simply modified it a bit to read: “What do you do if you’re systematically losing the CAGW argument? Call the system institutionally racist.”
The Democratic Party has always been the party of racism. The Democratic Party was for slavery, KKK, Jim Crow, and segregation. Then they switched from supporting white racists to supporting black racists. The Democrats were unable to abandon the racial spoils system they championed for 200 years. They completely missed Martin Luther King’s dream about judging on the basis of character rather than skin color.
Now the Democrats use terms like affirmative action/quotas, diversity/quotas, and white privilege to justify their institutional racism. There is racism in the way the US government hands out contracts and hires people, race based decisions exist due to precedents set by the supreme court, universities use race to select students and adjust SAT scores, and corporations use race based policies for hiring and promotions.
so succinct, Steve, & so correct!!
The phrase which popped in my head was
What a Nut .
In the same quadrant .
Actually, I consider racism in the eye of the beholder. Those who run around seeing “racism” in everything tend to be the actual racists. Is there racism? Yes, but not to the ludicrous extent racists like Klein perceive. Racists are the ones that SEE all the differences and damn few of the similarities. Most of us know there are differences but don’t see an issue.
True. The real racists are the self appointed race police identifying racists by code words and actions to deflect attention from their own soft bigotry of low expectations as Peggy Noonan so aptly exposed them.
Why doesn’t Naomi Klein ask Photographer Manusz Kubik to try and take another photograph of her and this time hold the damn camera level so the picture is not tipped over.
g
“””””….. For the past three decades, since the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change was created and climate negotiations began, the refusal of our governments to lower emissions has been accompanied with full awareness of the dangers. …..”””””
Say Naomi, how about YOU give some evidence for your assertions.
Governments have NO control over emissions; they don’t do anything anyway. And give us some evidence of any actual danger. You actually have to have a danger, before you can become aware of it.
Who can you name who’s cause of death was human emitted CO2. Or are you referring to some other sort of emissions.
We all want clean air. We don’t give a rats’ about its CO2 content so long as there is enough to grow plants.
g
“We all want clean air. We don’t give a rats’ about its CO2 content so long as there is enough to grow plants.”
+10,000
Naomi’s view seems to be “Let them heat their homes with animal dung”. Does she set an example?
She’s just spewing theatrical rhetoric.
The odd thing is that she appears to be leaning to the right. This could be a subtle hint about her true political beliefs, and a signal that she really doesn’t believe a thing that comes out of her own mouth. Or it could be an indication that she’s juts a large sock-puppet, on the hand of George Soros.
Ah, but from the point of view of any neutral observer, it is obvious that Naomi leans to his left.
She’s overcompensated so her actual lean to the left is not apparent in photos.
Naomi is hanging on by her finger nails and is playing the “race-card”
Look at the economic situation that has developed in Detroit, Flint, Pontiac, Michigan where so many black people are without employment due to the loss of auto industry jobs. CAFE regulations pushed by NGOs. Good people who do good work.
At least one NGO is involved in pressuring a U.S. Marathon Oil company refinery in the Detroit area. Company said to use Canadian crude oil.
When communities lose their tax base then everything else suffers.
Marathon Petroleum Corp.
Crude oils supply: Sweet and sour crude oils including Canadian crude oil.
http://www.marathonpetroleum.com/Operations/Refining_and_Marketing/Refining/Michigan_Refining_Division
Letter to: Marathon Petroleum Corp., Findlay, Ohio, Feb.25, 2015
From: Ceres & Union of Concerned Scientists
“We wrote to you to express concern about the lack of public disclosure of physical risks due to climate change at Marathon Petroleum’s coastal refineries.”
http://ucsusa.org/sites/default/files/attach/2015/02/marathon-petroleum-letter-investors.pdf
She’s in the Twilight Zone!
Twilight Zone
I know it’s ungallant of me to say so but possibly the reason is that time has not been kind to her.
George, It may not be the photographer. I believe that Naomi is well past her tipping point.
George– The seemingly awkward camera angle is actually subtle artistic license to accentuate Naomi’s left-leaning political ideology…
Yep,noticed the problem.Point being is that it’s intentional;makes ya look more interlectual and enquiring.The academic look that makes one stand out and look influential.
I thought everybody knew that the tilty head was a sign of inherent compassion.
She needs to be seen to be leaning to the left.
Her mug shot will be straight…the cops insist on it.
Scoliosis?
I just realized. She had a right leaning photographer.
She’s resting her right elbow on the tall stack of money she’s made doing what she does.
No, no, the best way to demonstrate your opposition to racism is to ensure that Indians die from unfrigerated food, and Chinese lose their provinces to heavy metals mining for the windmills that you force Africa to build by directing the World Bank not to fund coal generation.
So the lungs and bodies of all those that die from wood smoke because they don’t have the same cooking/heating facilities that Naomi has or who die because they cannot store medicines or power the health care machinery that she takes for granted are what! Expendable? “Collateral damage” in the climate wars?
Not exactly noted for self-awareness, these people, are they? Or even for being able to string two logical thoughts together.
Sheesh!
Can she even string one logical thought together?
Absolutely right! Around 3 billion people cook and heat their homes with stoves or open fires that burn wood, animal dung, crop waste or coal. Over 4 million people die prematurely from breathing said fires, including 50% of premature deaths of children from these conditions. How dare she say that producing electricity makes things worse for the poor, overall??? http://www.who.int/mediacentre/factsheets/fs292/en/
Greg Woods June 25, 2016 at 8:02 am
Naomi… one logical thought? We’ll need cites for that, Greg. You don’t post here without evidence to back up your claims ;o)
Your insight is ‘hammer to the nail’ correct!!!
In her view, any diminution of life from modern convenience is pure evil, but the same from LACK of modern convenience is a big yawn, oh….well, to her and the Commie Greens.
I wonder how many deaths would be caused by horses if we suddenly gave up cars due to accident deaths???
“Naomi’s piece inadvertently embraces the ugly colonialist paternalism which she tries to insist we should reject.”
———————–
There is nothing “inadvertent” about the hardships imposed on people by the statists like Naomi Klein.
Sometimes when a person sees racism around every corner they are really only reflecting the racism in the corners of their mind.
Exactly, most of the ugliness coming form these Eco-Nasties is their self projection.
Their self view poisons all they sense.
One sort of senses their aversion to introspective is a genuine self defence mechanism.
Hows that for a Lew Paper?
There are lots of dangerous jobs, for example:
“Across the United States, construction ranks as the most dangerous industry, representing about 20 percent of all work-related fatalities, according to federal statistics.”
“Deaths rose from 1,131 in 2003 to 1,226 in 2006. By comparison, 836 workers died in mining accidents last year, and 447 died in manufacturing. The government reports between six and seven construction deaths per 1,000 workers. ”
Now would she suggest that we do away with construction just because it’s risky? Thought not, just picks on coal because it suits her ends.
http://abcnews.go.com/US/story?id=4139502
She might. After all, we should all be living in mud huts.
Her assertion that envrionmentalism is connect to race may be correct—it’s often very rich white progressives who want black, poor third worlders to live in poverty forever and want to keep others from getting rich ever. There is a great deal of racism, but it’s on the side of the environmentalists. They “buy” out poor farmers and turn them into serfs, growing trees for carbon credits. They live the poor mining with 18th century equipment. They are racist ones.
I made my living building or rehabilitating housing and yes, it is extremely dangerous work. But then, so is logging which I don’t see in the list here.
Logging, and fishing, roofing, driving…pretty much anything can be dangerous.
The best way to make such occupations less hazardous is by technology and prosperity in general.
Safety systems and procedures, and regularly scheduled safety training, all cost money, and taking the time to focus on safety issues rather than just getting things done as quickly as possibly is costly as well.
The end result can be higher productivity and profitability, but such considerations as safety and hazard awareness are more likely to be prioritized when a certain level of prosperity has already been achieved.
And the best way to achieve prosperity is with economic growth.
And we all know how the CAGW crowd feels about economic growth.
The climate scientists on her side are more than 97% white, and a large percentage of the victims of their madness are black or brown. Racist.
She is using idiotic lies to promote and legitimize hatred of whites. Racist
She is using the bloody shirt of racism to silence and bully those who disagree with her. Demagogue.
She is dumber than a sack of hammers, but makes a living as a public intellectual. Con artist.
+1
Good summary, Quinn.
That is the typical mindless Liberal MO. Link everything to Sexism, Racism, Homophobia, etc, etc, etc. Liberals shamelessly exploit the fears, vulnerabilities and insecurities of minorities and women, playing them for easily manipulated and controlled fools. The recent example of Loretta Lynch highlights how ignorant liberals truly believe their followers are. This article highlights is classic deceit, deception and lies used by the left. No matter what the issue or event, the tactics are the same, exploit the fears, vulnerabilities and insecurities of minorities and women.
AG Lynch Displays Deceptive Behavior In Response to Questions About Orlando Shooter
http://lawnewz.com/columnists/ag-lynchs-deceptive-behavior-over-issue-of-mistakes-in-orlando-investigation/
This link? Bullshit!
The tilt is characteristic of someone who lies for a living. She artfully couches lies within lies, hoping people won’t notice. But lying eats away at the soul, throwing one off-balance. She is no longer centered. And her soul is black.
Silly botch. Not worth discussing.
When you are a millionaire socialist with a hammer, everything is a (racist, capitalist, etc.) nail.
People who live in Appalachia are a race?
No, they are largely white, so they are really super privileged. People in Appalachia are some of the most denigrated people in the US, but this is considered perfectly acceptable because they are white. Who do leftists think is doing the coal mining in West Virginia? The state is more than 90% white. What do people say about people from Appalachia? Here are some terms: hillbillies, rednecks, rubes, backwards, racists (interesting, since there are not that many “minorities” living in the area), unsophisticated, uneducated, stupid, inbred, white trash. Do not forget the cracks about marrying cousins or even siblings (the latter of which is not true, and the former is true of most family trees, no matter who you are). From what I have observed, most of this nastiness comes from leftist elites, people who consider themselves champions of the downtrodden poor.
A poor white kid from an area where there are few jobs and the jobs that do exist are under attack by “liberal” snobs, he is unimportant. His skin color makes it impossible for him to have challenges or problems. It does not matter that the minute the kid admits his home town/region or speaks with his native accent is the minute people start judging him and applying the above assumptions/epithets. He is still somehow more “privileged” than rich black kids like the Obama girls or Will Smith’s kids.
If Klein and her elitist pals really cared about poor people in the US, they would stop attacking good, well-paying industries and instead try to ensure that working conditions are as safe as possible. If they really cared about the effects of power plants on nearby residents, they would stop opposing the construction of modern coal plants that are designed to be more efficient and minimize efficiency. Why anyone would believe that leaving aging plants that are well past their intended use life (meant to last 50 years but going on 65, etc.) in place is better than building safer and less polluting plants is beyond me. If leftist fools were less stubborn, we could have had cleaner plants for a couple of decades now. Apparently being “principled” and refusing to accept anything less than complete shutdown of current plants with no replacements is more important than actually reducing emissions.
As for this demonization of “dirty, nasty, toxic fossil fuels”, perhaps Klein should take a good hard look at the production of solar panels, especially in developing countries. Those countries do not bother enforcing laws about treating the toxic byproducts (if such laws even exist) or the disposal of such waste. In China, at least one company drives to the fields outside the solar panel factory and dumps the waste right there. The people live nearby, especially those who farm that land, do not appreciate it. Unlike the evil developed countries, such residents have no recourse, unless they are wealthy enough to bribe someone in the government. Even then, it is unlikely anything will be done.
The only thing worse than fossil fuel generated power are the alternatives.
Thank you AllyKat.
Agreed.
Naomi must be completely color blind, even to differences between white/black.
Otherwise she wouldn’t be so absolutely wrong on her fantasized demographics.
That, or Naomi has never seen the neighborhoods near coal mines; or for that matter any kind of mines. Nor has she ever visited refinery locales.
Taking the tops off of coal seams, harvesting the coal and then rebuilding the hillside afterwards is cheaper, cleaner and far safer than sending men down tunnels with heavy industry. Plus after the mine closes, there isn’t the lingering problem of coal shafts and mine drainage; with much of the reclaimed land looking like parks.
Except nuclear is a much better energy source than fossil fuels.
The Linear No Threshold theory of radiation damage is as scientifically sound as global warming. LNT makes no allowance for biological processes that repair radiation damage that occurs at a rate below the capacity of the repair mechanism.
Safe radiation levels should be raised by a factor of 1000. This change in radiation safety would make the current regulatory scheme for nuclear completely unnecessary and the cost of nuclear will drop dramatically. Because innovation would be possible, the current technology would be quickly replaced by reactors with inherently safe shutdown systems and passive decay heat removal systems. These reactors are walk away safe. Nuclear is currently the safest form of energy generation and Gen IV reactors are about 1000 times safer than Gen 3 plus such as AP1000.
Recycling converts a waste product into a tremendous energy resource. Pyroprocess recycling does not produce any intermediate or final product suitable for nuclear bombs. Proliferation is primarily a political issue. Commercial power reactors are an extremely expensive inconvenient method of producing fissile material. Production reactors designed specifically to breed fissile material are much cheaper than commercial power reactors. Uranium enrichment using centrifuges is also cheaper and easier to weaponize than plutonium. Spent nuclear fuel from a commercial reactor requires sophisticated chemical processing of highly radioactive material to separate the plutonium from fission products, uranium, and other transuranics.
Sodium fast reactor technology using EBR2 design worked safely for 30 years before the Clinton admin shut it down. The SPRISM design by GE achieved preliminary approval from the NRC in 1994 and was ready to be built in 1998.
Sodium is not corrosive of stainless steel and with electromagnetic pumps with no moving parts, the reactor has no moving parts and no obvious method of aging.
400 tons of uranium ore could be processed into two cores of 5 tons each at 15% enrichment and 390 tons of depleted uranium. If all of this material is shipped to the reactor site, with a small pyroprocess recycling facility, the reactor has fuel for about 400 years with 1 GW output. Because of security of supply, regional enrichment facilities are politically possible as a counter proliferation approach. The waste product is about 1 ton per year and after 400 years the waste has decayed to a form with radioactivity lower than background radiation.
Currently there is about 400 GW of nuclear capacity worldwide. 20,000 GW would be sufficient to provide 3 billion people with the same energy consumption as the US and eliminate fossil fuels. Given 100 MW Small Modular Reactors, 200,000 reactors would be required. This is about 2,500 reactors per year, sufficient to justify manufacturing plant investments leading to further cost reductions.
Since capital accounts for about 60% of the price of nuclear electricity (a lot more with regulatory relief), by reducing the reactor size, capacity expansion can be more closely aligned with demand projections thus reducing capital costs. Reducing the time period from decision to expand to production of electricity (at the most extreme, a reactor would be taken from inventory) would also reduce capital cost. Using Super Critical CO2 Brayton cycle for power conversion will increase thermal efficiency by about 25% and also reduce power conversion capital costs.
Unlike molten salt reactors, SFRs are not a research project. SFRs operate at 550C and do not have much room for an increase due to safety margins. MSR can operate at 650-700C which produces a 4-6% improvement in thermal efficiency. However this gain in thermal efficiency may not be sufficient to overcome the corrosive properties of the MSR coolant. There are proposals to recondition/recycle/throw away MSR reactors after 4-7 years due to corrosion from the molten salt coolant.
If the Uranium Carbonate method of producing hydrogen from water efficiently at 650C works, then the economic rational for MSR is tremendously enhanced. SFR is unlikely to efficiently produce hydrogen.
Without hydrogen production, nuclear can be used to produce baseload electricity and electricity can be used for heating. Lots of natural gas would be available for conversion to methanol and methanol can substitute for oil in the transportation sector. This would have the effect of capping the OPEC price of oil at about $50 per barrel. The Chinese have a major development program to use methanol as a transportation fuel.
This is the woman who held out Venezuela as a model of reformed government…
… & also is throwing quotes from Eddie Saying-it-ain’t-so Said into her proclamation, presuming that guys oxidized aura from
western college kids’ indoctrination clinches her diatribe.
I think Anthony posts such articles just to see me post reply – FFS.
i don’t mean this to be a personal attack but i am honestly concerned about a mental health problem here.
This woman is actually quite insane. She is a full blown Marxist dressed up as an environmentalist…..but then aren’t most of them?
Green IS the new Red
So cliche, yet so apropos.
Minorities poured into the major manufacturing cities of Chicago, Detroit, Cleveland, Pittsburgh, etc. because the industries there were destroyed and all the workers moved elsewhere seeking new jobs thanks to free trade, etc. The air in day, Detroit, is nearly perfectly clean now because around 50% of the people and all of the industries have vanished.
Isn’t her starting assumption “the refusal of our governments to lower emissions ….” INCORRECT? The data I see after a brief check is that for example the CO2 emissions of the US are down drastically. And who would asset the US government (Obama) and its agencies (EPA) aren’t trying to lower emissions? Has she checked the EU or the UK recently?
Talk about a “strawman” argument.
“asset” = “assert”
She continues to exhale thus, there is excess CO2.
She’s wrong, the U.S. “has” reduced its emissions. Don’t know where she came up with that. Maybe she was referring to China.
Progressives constantly lie and re-write history. Their dastardly acts and mistakes are frequently blamed upon the opposition. Simple examples:
Democrats (the socialists and communists of America) constantly refer to Republicans (conservatives and ‘right wingers’) as fascists, Nazis, racists and KKKers. But…
1) Who was the most infamous fascist of modern time? Answer: Hitler, leader of the Nazi Party, Nationalsozialistische Deutsche Arbeiterpartei or The National Socialist German Workers’ Party.
2) Who was the party of slavery, segregation and the Ku Klux Klan? Answer: The Democrat Party. George Wallace and Orval Faubus come to mind. Ironically, Lincoln, who freed the slaves, was a Republican.
That’s the power of Leftwing propagand.
..and her point was
http://www.wvgenweb.org/wvcoal/miners01.jpg
Well, just lok at those workers, covered in “carbon”.
… on her head.
That photo was obviously cropped to hide the man holding a gun, forcing those happy workers to mine coal. They’d much rather have been home watching their children starve than making good incomes doing a man’s work.
She’s actually against work! She’s consistent, as she has never done any. She thinks it’s beneath the dignity of any human being to produce or add value. In her urban intellectual milieu it’s unnecessary and crude. This is the new elite who live on the government teat and know what’s best for us.
“Racist” is just Naomi Klein’s favorite insult, with no more real meaning than a five year old calling something or someone “stupid”. To her, all wogs are in their proper place as starving subsistence farmers, and she regards nearly everyone as a wog.
Wrong. “Sexist” is her favorite. But you were close.
Emotion rules; reason is a distant second.