This Changes Everything Capitalism vs. The Climate - Naomi Klein

BOOK LINK:

CLICK HERE

Here is a summary of the key points about Naomi Klein’s previous works:

• The Shock Doctrine: The Rise of Disaster Capitalism (2007) - Examines how wealthy elites use moments of crisis to push through controversial policies while citizens are distressed and struggling to recover.

• No Logo: Taking Aim at the Brand Bullies (1999) - Critiques consumer culture and globalization, arguing large corporations manipulate public opinion through marketing and branding.

• Fences and Windows: Dispatches from the Front (2002) - Collection of Klein’s journalistic works covering topics like anti-globalization protests and the War on Terror.

• Lines of the Globalization Debate (2006) - Selection of Klein’s speeches and essays further developing her perspectives on corporate power, economic globalization, and their social and political impacts.

All of Klein’s previous books were published by Alfred A. Knopf Canada and focused on analyzing capitalism, globalization, and how corporations and governments interact, often during times of crisis. This Changes Everything continues her analysis but applies her frameworks specifically to the issue of climate change.

The passage discusses different ways people respond to or avoid fully confronting the reality of climate change. Some focus only on individual lifestyle changes but ignore systemic issues. Others look but seem to forget periodically, engaging in “ecological amnesia.”

The turning point for the author was a conversation with Bolivia’s ambassador to the WTO. She framed climate change as both a threat to Bolivia but also an opportunity, arguing wealthy countries owe a “Marshall Plan for the Earth” to poorer countries affected by climate impacts they did little to cause.

This conversation made the author realize that climate change, if treated as a true crisis like economic crises have been, could catalyze transformative positive change. It could help end poverty by mobilizing huge investments, make societies fairer, and spark political changes like renewed democracy. The urgency could also connect climate to issues like sustainable jobs and development, Indigenous rights, migration and more. Overall, treating climate change as the emergency it is could “be the best argument progressives have ever had” to demand widespread reforms.

• The author argues that climate change presents both threats and opportunities for social, political and economic transformation. They see the potential for climate action to spark a powerful mass movement addressing economic injustice and climate change.

• However, they are also concerned that corporate interests may exploit climate crises to further concentrate wealth and power, through mechanisms like privatization of public resources and profiting from disasters. Examples include carbon credit schemes, weather futures markets, and private disaster response services.

• Progressive movements in the past have responded to crises by advancing policies that improved lives and closed inequality gaps, such as New Deal policies and social programs after WWII. The author believes climate change presents a similar historic opportunity to advance ambitious climate action while also creating good jobs, redistributing wealth, and strengthening democracy.

• But first, climate change must be acknowledged as an undeniable crisis after decades of failed negotiations. Emissions have risen 61% since talks began in 1990 despite constant pledges, and annual UN summits have lost credibility as real avenues for action. The author argues the climate movement must now address both the threats of climate change and the opportunities it presents for transformative social change.

• The Copenhagen climate summit in 2009 was a disappointment as major polluting nations like the US and China only agreed to a non-binding deal to limit warming to 2 degrees Celsius, seen as inadequate by many.

• Allowing temperatures to rise past this point risks triggering dangerous tipping points like melting of the West Antarctic ice sheet that could lead to runaway warming.

• Current emissions trajectories have us on track for 4 degrees or even 6 degrees of warming by 2100, which scientists warn would have catastrophic consequences like mass migrations and extinctions due to rising seas, heat waves, droughts etc.

• Mainstream organizations like the IEA and PWC also predict 4-6 degree warming unless action is taken. This level of warming poses an existential risk to human civilization on the planet.

• Yet despite the dire warnings from scientists, humanity is continuing down the same high-emissions path. The inaction in the face of this threat resembles the denial during the Cold War nuclear threat, only the climate threat seems almost certain to materialize if left unaddressed.

• There are no easy explanations for this inaction, but the failure to aggressively tackle climate change raises deep questions about human nature and our ability to confront severe but distant threats.

The passage argues that climate change has not been adequately addressed due to the influence of deregulated capitalism and corporate power, not due to lack of technical solutions or inherent limitations in human cooperation.

While the UN has successfully tackled other cross-border issues, climate negotiations have failed to achieve meaningful emissions cuts. Renewable energy technologies now offer viable alternatives to fossil fuels, yet large-scale transition remains elusive.

Humans are capable of collective sacrifice, as shown by rationing and increased public transport use during World Wars. Similarly, steady reductions in public services over decades have been accepted in the name of austerity. However, making lifestyle changes to curb emissions conflicts with the priorities of deregulated capitalism that has dominated politics and media.

Global climate talks have sputtered while globalization and free trade agreements aggressively advanced an ideology privileging corporate power and deregulation over regulation. By securing influence over policy, this ideology has systematically sabotaged climate action, which requires massive green investment, fossil fuel regulation, and support for renewable alternatives prohibited under its framework. The failure of climate action is thus primarily due to opposition from elites benefiting from the status quo.

The passage critiques how large parts of the climate movement wasted time trying to fit climate change solutions into a deregulated capitalist framework, rather than directly challenging corporate power and ideological barriers. It argues this approach deepened the crisis in two key ways:

1. Freeing corporations from constraints allowed greenhouse gas emissions to rapidly accelerate in the 1990s-2000s as emerging markets like China industrialized. Global trade and consumption became extremely resource intensive and dependent on fossil fuels.

2. Climate policies have come into direct conflict not just with deregulated capitalism, but with the fundamental economic imperative of constant growth. Given decades of emissions increases, dramatic cuts are now required that cannot be achieved through market forces alone.

The market ideology that drives endless competition and consumption is paralyzing climate action. Radical transformations are urgently needed to the global economic system and mindsets to align with planetary boundaries. But opportunities for gradual, incremental changes have been missed due to delays. Drastic action is now required by 2017 to avoid locking in extremely dangerous warming, meaning we must change our ways immediately.

• The author argues that technical solutions to climate change like renewable energy are trivial compared to the need for radical social and political changes. The ideological support for deregulated capitalism has prevented meaningful action on climate change.

• Climate change challenges our entire economic model and relationship with nature. It requires evolving to a new model and sharing resources more equitably.

• Incremental approaches for 25 years have failed due to economic and political resistance to change. A bolder, values-driven transformation is needed to shift cultural norms and power dynamics.

• The author worries about future impacts of climate change like losing moose, bats and starfish from his young son’s life. This personalizes the fears in a rational way and motivates bolder action instead of continuing denial.

• Fear of ecological decline can paralyze or motivate change, so the hope of building a better system is needed to balance out the terror of an unlivable future under the status quo model. Radical action is required to shift ideological support for problematic systems.

• Whole industries that rely on fossil fuels like coal will likely disappear as the world transitions away from those energy sources to address climate change. However, it is too late to fully stop climate impacts from occurring since some level of warming is already locked in due to past emissions.

• But it’s not too late to avert the worst impacts if we act aggressively to transition away from fossil fuels. There is still time to change our policies and behaviors to mitigate future climate impacts and make society more resilient to inevitable disasters.

• Managing this crisis will require major changes to our energy systems, economies, and ways of life. Things that used to be considered inevitable, like continued dependence on fossil fuels, can no longer continue. Things previously seen as impossible, like rapid decarbonization, must now happen swiftly.

• The nature of the changes needed in response to climate change is still partly within our control if we act quickly. While some impacts are locked in, we can still determine how we will respond and whether we will build a more just, equitable and resilient society through our policies in addressing this crisis. Nothing is predetermined as long as we take bold action on climate change.

Here are the key points:

• Polls show that public belief in climate change dropped significantly from 2007-2009/2011 in the US, UK, and Australia. This included both overall belief and belief specifically among conservatives/Republicans.

• Factors like extreme weather events have caused belief to rebound some, but belief remains much lower on the political right. This political divide over climate change has deepened in recent years.

• Research suggests political/ideological worldviews (“cultural cognition”) are a stronger influence on views of climate science than demographic factors. Those with more egalitarian/communitarian views accept the science, while those with more hierarchical/individualistic views reject it.

• People tend to filter new information in ways that confirm their preferred vision of society. Challenging information that threatens their worldview leads to defensive reasoning and rejection. This helps explain the rise in emotional, intense views on both sides of the issue.

• Opposition to climate change has become central to the beliefs of some conservative voters. Some climate scientists report harassment similar to that faced by abortion doctors.

• The climate denial movement is largely a product of free market oriented think tanks that emerged in the 1970s-80s to promote neoliberal ideology and counter public support for capitalism alternatives. Over 70% of climate denial books come from authors linked to these think tanks.

• The project of corporate liberalization and free market fundamentalism had been progressing well since the 1980s, led by thinkers like Thatcher who argued there was “no alternative.” This ideology was systematically promoted globally through political and economic turmoil.

• Climate change poses a unique threat as its impacts could undermine civilization. Addressing it effectively through emissions cuts and adaptation would require heavy interventions contradictory to free market ideology like bans, subsidies, taxes, which think tanks like Heartland strongly oppose.

• Climate negotiations also raise issues of global equity and wealth redistribution, which these think tanks view as socialism. Adependent global economy built on fossil fuels cannot be changed lightly.

• For free market advocates, admitting climate change means losing the central ideological battle over letting markets alone shape society versus managing them for goals and values. It threatens deep cultural narratives of human dominance over nature.

• Many climate deniers actively work to discredit the science due to fear that addressing climate change politically would be catastrophic for their ideology and interests which depend on unlimited resource consumption and corporate freedom.

• Climate change poses a profound threat to free market ideologies as it requires significant government intervention to address through policies like regulations. This is seen as unacceptable by many ideological believers in free markets.

• However, some argue that climate change deniers actually understand the threat better than moderate supporters of action, as the reality of climate change completely contradicts their worldview. While they get the science wrong, they correctly see that it requires deep, systemic changes that are “unthinkable” to them.

• Much of the climate denial movement is funded by fossil fuel interests like the Koch brothers and ExxonMobil through dark money donations totaling over $900 million per year. Speakers and groups opposing climate action are also steeped in fossil fuel funding, with clear conflicts of interest.

• Those with economic and social privileges tied to fossil fuels like scientists studying extractive industries or those living in areas dependent on oil/gas are more likely to deny climate change, as the truth is too “costly” financially or could undermine their livelihoods and worldviews.

The speaker observed a lack of empathy from climate change deniers at a conference toward victims impacted by climate change. Deniers dismissed heat impacts and said places like Houston are better off warm. They suggested people worried about climate change should just use air conditioning like the French.

The speaker found this callous given an estimated 13 million people faced starvation in the Horn of Africa due to drought. Deniers believe wealthy countries and people won’t be seriously impacted by a few degrees of warming. They view suggestions to help poorer nations adapt as asking for handouts rather than recognizing the moral responsibility of wealthy nations.

The speaker worries how societies will “adapt” to increased climate impacts like natural disasters and climate refugees. Based on current trends, adaptations may include increased exploitation of poorer nations’ resources, forced relocation of vulnerable groups, militarized border control, and neglect of impacts on poorer communities.

Some major companies acknowledge climate change risks to their business but don’t necessarily support strong action to limit impacts. The insurance industry in particular wants policies that increase profits regardless of climate impacts, not emissions reductions. There is a disconnect between acknowledging climate science and supporting real solutions.

In summary, the speaker is concerned that without fundamental cultural shifts, societies will inadequately and inhumanely adapt to climate impacts through further exploitation and endangerment of vulnerable groups.

• Some wealthy countries, located at higher latitudes, may experience some economic benefits from climate change like longer growing seasons and shorter trade routes through a melting Arctic.

• However, the wealthy are already finding elaborate ways to protect themselves from worsening weather extremes through luxury real estate developments with extensive disaster protection infrastructure.

• Large corporations also have backup generators, private firefighting teams, and other resources to withstand disasters better than the public.

• At the same time, public infrastructure and disaster preparedness continues declining due to budget cuts advocated by “warriors” against government intervention.

• Climate change was once seen as a issue that could unite people, but is now stratifying society into haves and have-nots based on their ability to withstand impacts.

• As effects worsen, denialist ideology will take a “colder” turn, justifying indifference to vulnerable communities and reviving theories of racial superiority.

• Arguments about limiting government growth to sway deniers don’t work because necessary emission cuts would still be unacceptable to anti-regulation ideologues.

• If action had begun in 1988 as scientists advised, cuts could have been gradual and integrated with economic policies, putting the world on a sustainable low-carbon path. But opportunity was missed due to lack of political will.

• For over two decades, the world largely procrastinated on tackling climate change. During this time, emissions grew substantially, making the problem much harder to solve.

• Some researchers argue for reframing climate action in ways that appeal more to conservative values, like emphasizing big technologies like nuclear power rather than pollution regulation. However, this approach has not changed conservative opposition and reinforces short-term thinking.

• Solutions like nuclear and geoengineering come with their own environmental risks and lack exit strategies. Framing climate action as protecting a high-consumption way of life is unrealistic given the need to curb emissions growth globally.

• While the author acknowledges their own values influence their preferred solutions, they argue the science should be the basis for choosing a response. The two options are big corporate and engineering responses, or transitioning to more just and sustainable systems.

• Rather than trying to appease those responsible for the crisis, real change requires building enough popular support to change the balance of power. It also means strengthening values like community and equality that science indicates are needed, rather than those driving the crisis.

• The passage discusses how free market capitalism and materialistic values have come to dominate Western cultures in recent decades. Margaret Thatcher famously said the goal was to “change the heart and soul.”

• Surveys show American students increasingly prioritize making money over other values. A 1998 focus group found many blame environmental problems on widespread “selfishness and greed.”

• Research connects materialistic values and ideology to negative attitudes about the environment and climate change. Those prioritizing achievement, money, power, etc. tend to reject environmental concerns.

• The dominant culture pits humans against nature. But social movements offer alternative visions of mutual aid and acting for the collective good. These values are expressed in defending public spaces, demanding free education, and connecting issues like climate to pensions/austerity.

• However, movements have not emerged fast enough to respond to climate crisis. The passage argues this is because dominant values promote rejecting climate science and opposing collective action. We have been convinced we are incapable of self-preservation.

• The market fundamentalism that took hold globally suppressed alternative values of solidarity and compassion. But these can reemerge during crises, as with disasters. Overcoming climate change requires breaking free of the politics, culture and systems that currently block action.

• In 2010, Ontario introduced an ambitious climate plan to phase out coal power by 2014 and transition to renewable energy through a feed-in tariff program. This program included local content requirements tosource a minimum percentage of materials and labor from within Ontario in order to qualify for higher electricity prices.

• This attracted investments in solar manufacturing, including from the Italian company Silfab which opened a factory in Ontario. The local content rules were seen as a boost to Ontario’s struggling manufacturing sector.

• However, in the following years the program faced political challenges and lawsuits claiming the local content rules violated free trade agreements. This created uncertainty that caused customers to hesitate and suppliers to keep their distance from Silfab’s Ontario factory.

• By the time of the interview in 2016, the market for Silfab’s solar panels in Ontario had dried up due to the trade challenges. While the company hoped to find new customers, the executive acknowledged he would not choose to open the factory in Ontario today given what had transpired.

• Ontario implemented a renewable energy program that required a percentage of equipment be produced locally. This helped attract a solar panel manufacturer, Silfab, to open a plant in Ontario.

• However, the WTO ruled against Ontario’s local content requirements, seeing them as discriminatory against foreign producers. This led Silfab’s investors to pull support and threatened the viability of the plant.

• From a climate perspective, this ruling undermined Ontario’s efforts to transition to renewable energy and meet emissions targets. However, from a trade perspective the local requirements violated trade deals.

• Many policies that helped launch successful renewable programs like Denmark’s, which favored local ownership, would violate modern trade rules. This puts climate policies at risk from trade challenges.

• Trade rules as written do not allow many important climate measures and will need to be reworked to allow for a sustainable, low-carbon economy. Otherwise, arcane trade law will interfere with urgent action needed on climate change.

The article argues that neoliberal policies like privatization, deregulation, and tax cuts are incompatible with bold climate action. These policies have blocked an effective response to climate change for decades.

In the late 1980s, climate change emerged as a major public issue. However, after the fall of the Berlin Wall in 1989, free market ideologies seized the opportunity to crush political alternatives like socialism and environmentalism. Neoliberal policies took hold globally and consumer lifestyles expanded rapidly, exacerbating emissions.

Meanwhile, trade and climate negotiations proceeded in parallel in the 1990s but ignored each other’s implications. Questions around how increased trade-related transportation affects emissions, technology transfer to developing nations, and laws allowing companies to sue over environmental regulations were not addressed. If conflicts emerged between promoting trade and cutting emissions, trade priorities consistently won out.

In summary, the article contends that entrenched neoliberal policies have undermined climate action for decades by prioritizing deregulated free markets and consumption growth over environmental protection. Trade and climate talks proceeded independently without reconciling their contradictory demands.

• The climate change negotiations operated on an honor system with no real enforcement mechanisms, while trade agreements were strongly enforced through dispute settlement bodies and penalties.

• From the beginning, the climate agreements declared they would be subservient to international trade rules. This meant climate policies could not restrict trade in any way.

• This effectively prevented bold, coordinated international policies that could restrict high-carbon goods or promote local renewable energy. Emissions reductions had to avoid any impact on trade.

• The rise of free trade and liberalized agriculture through the WTO expanded an energy-intensive industrial agriculture model globally, contributing significantly to emissions increases.

• Emissions accounting rules used by climate negotiators failed to account for the impacts of globalized trade and outsourcing of manufacturing. This distorted perceptions of emission trends among countries.

• As manufacturing moved offshore due to free trade, global emissions growth accelerated dramatically after 2000, driven largely by the expansion of coal-heavy industry in China and other developing countries to meet export demand.

• International trade agreements like NAFTA and economic policies imposed by IMF/World Bank emphasized deregulation and privatization which allowed corporations to move production to areas with the lowest costs, primarily cheap labor in developing countries.

• This drove manufacturing to places like Mexico and China where wages were very low and environmental/labor regulations weak or non-existent, leading to increased emissions and pollution. There is a link between cheap labor and high emissions.

• When production moved to places like China, coal use and emissions soared to power factories. Western corporations benefited from cheap labor and lax standards, while local communities faced health and environmental impacts.

• Labor unions and environmental groups initially opposed NAFTA due to concerns about a race to the bottom on standards, but major green groups backed the deal after assurances from Clinton administration. This helped pass NAFTA despite public concerns.

• The trade system and economic growth model pushed by Western governments, through institutions like WTO, prioritized deregulation and mobility of capital above all else, with climate impacts an unintended consequence. Local populations bore many of the costs.

• The author argues that NAFTA and other free trade agreements set a precedent that actively undermined climate change efforts by prioritizing unchecked economic growth and consumption.

• If environmental groups had pushed back more, trade rules could have been negotiated to incentivize low-carbon infrastructure and support renewable energy in developing nations. This may have slowed economic growth but avoided hastening climate change.

• Now the climate movement needs to challenge free trade orthodoxy and prioritize localizing economies over unrestrained international trade. Rules favoring local green job and clean energy policies conflict with current trade policy.

• The author claims that limiting warming to 2C will require annual emissions cuts of 8-10% in developed nations through “radical and immediate de-growth strategies” that contradict capitalism’s growth imperative. Such rapid cuts are unprecedented outside of economic crises or collapse.

• This argument shows that meeting climate targets may be impossible without changing the fundamental, growth-focused rules and assumptions of capitalism. The climate problem exposes the need for “alternative futures” beyond endless economic expansion.

• Deep emissions cuts are needed immediately to avoid catastrophic climate change. However, transitioning to fully green and renewable technology will take decades.

• In the meantime, reducing consumption is necessary through policies that encourage things like transit, efficient housing, local agriculture, reduced car dependency and planned cities.

• Low-carbon lifestyle changes of the past like in the 1970s are needed, like returning to moderate consumption levels before the 1980s. Developed nations must cut more to allow developing nations to improve standards of living.

• Such policies have benefits beyond emissions reductions like improved health, community and reduced inequality. Infrastructure investment and jobs transition can benefit low-income communities and communities of color disproportionately impacted by climate change and dirty industries.

• The economy needs to shift from an emphasis on consumption and trade toward less consumption, less trade, more government services and investments in green infrastructure and alternatives to drive down emissions to zero. This implies greater redistribution.

• Jobs can be created in expanding sectors like renewable energy, mass transit, caregiving professions which are underpaid and improve quality of life. These “caring economy” sectors do not need to focus only on growth and efficiency.

• In 2013, Hamburg, Germany voted to take back control of its electricity, gas and heating grids from private corporations. This process is known as remunicipalization or re-communalization.

• Supporters argued locally controlled utilities would prioritize public interests over profits. Residents would have more democratic say and money would stay in the local economy rather than going to shareholders.

• Many residents wanted Hamburg to participate in Germany’s Energiewende - the rapid transition to renewable energy like wind and solar that has seen renewables reach 25% of electricity by 2013.

• Over 70 new municipal utilities have formed since 2007 in Germany. Over 200 private concessions have been taken back by public operators, indicating this is a significant trend not confined to Hamburg.

• A referendum in Berlin in 2013 saw 83% support public ownership and 100% renewable energy for the local grid, showing strong public opposition to privatization.

• Remunicipalization movements have also emerged in some places in the US, like Boulder Colorado, in opposition to privatized utilities’ reluctance to transition away from coal towards renewables.

The key points are:

• Boulder, Colorado residents voted to take back control of their energy grid from private utility Xcel Energy. They did this primarily to gain the ability to transition to renewable energy and reduce carbon emissions, not due to dissatisfaction with service quality or pricing.

• This was historic as other municipalizations had been driven by those narrower concerns, not climate change. It showed residents discovering private utilities stand in the way of needed climate action.

• Public ownership enables communities to more easily transition to renewable energy. Many countries and cities with ambitious renewable goals have significant public or local control over their energy systems. Private utilities prioritize profits over climate goals.

• Studies show transitioning energy systems to 100% renewable is technically feasible within decades. But it will require large-scale coordination and investment beyond what private markets alone can deliver. Public sector leadership is needed to drive the rapid transition required by climate science.

The passage discusses how disasters like Superstorm Sandy reveal the breakdown of social systems and the deep inequalities in society. Occupy Sandy stepped in to provide relief where government agencies failed, setting up a makeshift medical clinic in Rockaway, Queens. This highlighted the lack of universal healthcare and showed how the for-profit system prioritizes money over human health in emergencies.

The storm also revealed how environmental injustices have made low-income communities of color more vulnerable. Toxic industries were located in their neighborhoods and neglected public housing turned into deadly traps. The disaster further exposed the risks of inefficient energy systems and social isolation.

More broadly, the passage argues these types of climate-related disasters are colliding with the effects of austerity policies. Budget cuts in countries like the UK have weakened agencies responsible for flood protection, making it harder to handle extreme weather worsened by climate change. Disasters thus reveal the need to rebuild and reinvent public services and social infrastructure to handle both inequality and climate impacts.

• A trade union criticized the government for prioritizing cost cutting over public safety by announcing further cuts to the Environment Agency, which protects families from flooding. Praising the agency’s work provides little comfort when more cuts are coming.

• During disasters, people lose their free market beliefs and want government support. Extreme weather events are increasing due to climate change and will keep impacting communities.

• Over the last few decades, governments have been reducing funding for public services, making societies more vulnerable to disasters. Neglecting infrastructure turns natural disasters into catastrophes.

• The costs of dealing with climate impacts like hurricanes are rising enormously. Yet austerity measures offset emergency spending with further cuts to everyday services, creating a vicious cycle of increasing vulnerability.

• Addressing climate change requires unprecedented public spending on ambitious projects to cut emissions and prepare communities. Public funds need to support expanded public transit, climate-proofing infrastructure, and nonprofit disaster insurance programs.

• Developing countries urgently need funding for projects like seawalls, food/water security, early warning systems, and public health. They should not have to buy expensive insurance from private companies.

• The only rational way to fund needed investments is by fully adopting the “polluter pays” principle and requiring fossil fuel companies to help cover the costs of the climate impacts they have caused through decades of pollution.

• Major fossil fuel companies like ExxonMobil, Chevron, Shell, etc. publicly acknowledge the need to transition to cleaner energy but in reality spend very little (under 5%) of their huge profits on renewable energy investments.

• Instead, they pour most profits into shareholder payouts and executive pay. Some CEOs make over $100,000 per day.

• Even as demand for renewables rises, the percentage these companies spend on renewables keeps shrinking, down to under 1% by 2011 for most majors.

• Chevron pulled back further in 2014, closing renewables divisions and selling off related assets. According to observers, the companies are really focused on extracting dirtier fossil fuels, not transitioning.

• For fossil fuel companies to help pay for transition costs and climate damages, laws may need to force them, similar to how tobacco companies pay health costs and BP pays for Gulf oil spill cleanup.

• The “polluter pays” principle suggests taxing companies and wealthy individuals proportionally to their emissions and wealth in order to fund climate solutions and aid impacted communities. This spreads costs fairly.

• Several tax proposals and measures could collectively raise over $2 trillion annually for climate action, such as financial transaction taxes, closing tax havens, carbon taxes, ending fossil fuel subsidies, and slashing military budgets.

• During WWII, rationing programs in the US and UK helped ensure food and resources were shared fairly among rich and poor. Slogans emphasized equality.

• Governments publicly prosecuted high-profile cases against wealthy individuals and large corporations that violated rationing rules, sending a message that no one was exempt.

• In contrast, responses to climate change so far have asked regular people to sacrifice through individual actions while large polluters face little penalty for expanding emissions.

• Surveys show public support for climate policies has declined as costs have been borne individually rather than distributed fairly. But support remains high for policies that make polluters pay and use funds to benefit people through jobs, technology and tax refunds.

• The lesson is people are unwilling to sacrifice alone; policy must be perceived as just to distribute costs to largest emitters and use funds raised to benefit society through programs that reduce inequality. But implementing truly just climate policy faces immense opposition from politicians beholden to corporate interests.

• In 2009 when Obama took office during the financial crisis, there was an opportunity for transformative climate action and green economic stimulus. The banks were bailed out, auto companies needed help, and a large stimulus bill was possible.

• Rather than simply propping up the fossil fuel economy, the government could have used its leverage over the bailed-out industries to enact a green transition. The stimulus could have funded renewable energy and mass transit infrastructure. Auto factories could have been converted to build renewable and rail technologies.

• Struggling factories could have become worker cooperatives, as happened successfully in Argentina, keeping jobs and industry alive through the transition. The government and social movements needed to demand bold long-term public planning and investment in green jobs rather than simply restoring the pre-crisis system.

• With the right vision and policy support, climate action could have been framed not as an economic threat but as a massive job creator and community rebuilding opportunity during a period of economic flux and public support for interventionist solutions. But it required political will for transformation rather than restoring the status quo.

• While the Obama stimulus bill included some funding for green initiatives like wind/solar and building upgrades, it missed opportunities like fully funding public transit and prioritizing low-carbon infrastructure.

• Obama failed to seize the moment after the 2008 financial crisis to stabilize the economy and climate. He left the failed banks and auto industries largely intact instead of using them as a chance to build a new green economy.

• This was due to the dominant ideology that the government should not interfere with or plan businesses, even in a crisis. However, conservatives have successfully stalled climate action by framing it as a threat to jobs and growth.

• To succeed, climate policy needs to show how green solutions can create stable, equitable jobs and transform the public sphere. It requires policies that go beyond just taxing carbon and getting out of the way.

• Planning for jobs in renewable energy, public transit, infrastructure maintenance can create many more jobs than maintaining the fossil fuel-based system. Several plans and studies provide estimates of job creation potential through green investment and policy.

• Fully transitioning to a green economy requires thoughtful industrial planning and policy intervention, not just market forces, to achieve the scale and speed needed according to climate science. It may also require public ownership of certain sectors like electricity generation.

• A 2013 poll in the UK found strong public support for nationalizing energy companies (68% in favor) and rail companies (66% in favor). Notably, over half (52%) of Conservative voters supported nationalizing these industries as well.

• The author argues natural gas should only serve as a “bridge fuel” temporarily if its use can be tightly regulated to ensure it does not compete with or undermine renewable energy like wind and solar. But private, for-profit gas companies will not willingly limit their own growth or phase themselves out.

• A better model is decentralized, community-owned energy cooperatives and utilities, as seen in Germany’s successful transition to renewables driven by small farmers and citizen groups investing in solar and wind through feed-in tariffs. This has created many jobs and distributed wealth more broadly compared to large national or private energy monopolies.

• Examples from Germany and Denmark show bold government planning and prioritizing renewables over private profits can drive rapid energy transitions, challenging neoliberal orthodoxy. Decentralized models also avoid problems of large projects imposed without public support.

• When communities are excluded from the planning and benefits of renewable energy projects like wind or solar farms, they will often object and rebel against them as “not in my backyard” (NIMBYism).

• However, in some regions objections have been neutralized by giving communities ownership stakes and profit sharing from these projects. When locals own the farms, they are more likely to support them.

• Decentralized, community-led climate solutions are important especially in times of austerity when people are focused on immediate needs.

• Agriculture, specifically agroecology which uses sustainable methods, can be decentralized in a way that sequesters carbon, avoids fertilizers, and increases yields. It is presented as an alternative to industrial agriculture.

• While decentralized solutions have benefits, Germany’s experience transitioning to renewables shows they are not enough on their own to significantly lower emissions quickly enough to meet climate targets. Broader policies and incentives are also still needed.

• Economic plans based solely on incentives and market mechanisms have their limits. While such approaches can be effective in promoting certain policy goals, they are not sufficient on their own to achieve large-scale transformations.

• The German experience with phasing out nuclear power and transitioning to renewable energy shows that relying primarily on market mechanisms like carbon pricing is not enough. When carbon prices fell, coal use increased significantly despite Germany’s push for renewables.

• Strict regulation and enforcement is needed to place meaningful constraints on polluting industries like coal. Germany failed to do this for coal as it did for nuclear, allowing coal companies to continue operations unimpeded.

• Incentives are important for encouraging renewable adoption, but governments must also have the political will to say “no” to high-emission activities through restrictive policies. A balanced approach of carrots and sticks is required, not just relying on market signals.

• The limits of market-based approaches stem from political realities like lobbying power of entrenched fossil fuel interests. Without non-market policy tools, transitions away from polluting industries will face major hurdles and risk stalling out.

So in summary, the passage argues that economic plans relying solely on incentives and markets have limits because restrictive policies are also needed to constrain high-emission actors and ensure the political will exists for large-scale system changes away from polluting industries. A mix of approaches works best according to the German case study.

• The Obama administration struggled to say no to the fossil fuel industry, as seen in its difficult decision-making process over the Keystone XL pipeline. Strictly limiting fossil fuel extraction and use is necessary to reduce emissions rapidly enough to address climate change.

• In the past, governments were more willing to curb dirty industries for environmental reasons. But now, politicians are reluctant to tell large corporations what to do due to influence of free market ideology. As a result, bolder climate policies have been elusive.

• Technological innovation will not solve the problem on its own, as it may enable even more fossil fuel extraction through methods like fracking and tar sands extraction. These unconventional fossil fuels have larger carbon footprints than conventional sources.

• Decisions to permit unconventional fossil fuel projects like tar sands and fracking plants are locking us into dangerously high levels of warming, contrary to portrayals of inevitable technological progress. Forceful regulation is needed to guide the energy sector onto a sustainable path.

The fossil fuel industry is making massive investments in extracting unconventional fuels like oil sands and deepwater oil due to intense pressure to replace reserves and maintain high production levels. These multibillion dollar projects require decades of production to be profitable. This signals that companies are betting governments will not seriously cut emissions for 25-40 years, contrary to scientific advice.

Large investments in long-term projects become “stranded assets” if policy changes make them uneconomical. To avoid this, companies must always prove new reserves to keep share prices stable. This structural imperative is pushing companies to riskier destinations to meet demand. However, burning the reserves companies have already claimed would release 5 times the carbon budget left to stay below 2 degrees warming.

Fulfilling fiduciary duty to shareholders threatens catastrophic climate change, as halting new extraction is incompatible with continued large profits. Over $27 trillion in potential revenues are at stake. This helps explain industry opposition to climate policy and funding of climate denial movements.

• Fossil fuel lobby groups like the Canadian Association of Petroleum Producers communicated 536 times with the Canadian federal government between 2008-2012, while TransCanada had 279 communications. In contrast, the Climate Action Network, a coalition devoted to emissions reductions, only logged 6 communications.

• In the UK, energy industry groups met with the Department of Energy and Climate Change about 11 times more than green groups did during David Cameron’s first year as Prime Minister. Over 50 energy company employees were also embedded within the UK government to work on energy policy.

• This heavy influence of fossil fuel money allows them to undermine climate policies and commitments made by governments. Politicians are not truly concerned about pledges to limit temperature rise to 2C because the fossil fuel lobby ensures the policies that really matter favor continued development and emissions.

• Breaking this political deadlock requires seriously eroding the power and wealth of the fossil fuel industry by restricting their political spending and influence over politicians. This could rally a large coalition of groups interested in reducing corporate power over politics.

• Framing climate action as a way to challenge political corruption and corporate influence could breathe new life into reform goals that already have public support, like campaign finance reform. But environmentalists need to stop treating climate change as the only issue of importance.

The author argues that the environmental/climate crisis provides an opportunity to unite and supercharge various progressive movements and causes. Failing to urgently address climate change within this decade will make meeting emission reduction goals much harder.

The climate crisis offers an overarching narrative to connect fights for good jobs, justice, reparations, and building a non-toxic economy. Not addressing climate change leads to worse “disaster capitalism.”

Deregulated capitalism has failed on many fronts, as seen by things like wealth inequality, factory disasters, pollution, and austerity’s human costs. This creates receptiveness for fundamental change. Climate change poses an existential threat by pitting economic models against planetary needs.

The environmental justice movement sees climate action as a path to systemic change and a better present/future, not just distant benefits. Alliances are growing between climate, economic justice, Indigenous, immigrant, and other movements. However, a mass movement on the necessary scale is still missing. The climate crisis should be empowering and uniting progressive causes, but often remains just a footnote.

• The core of the climate crisis problem comes back to the fact that we are all living in the world shaped by neoliberalism, even if we criticize it. Neoliberalism has accelerated climate-changing behaviors and individualism.

• Contemporary capitalism and earlier systems have both exhibited short-sighted treatment of the environment. The roots date back to Western civilization’s myths of humanity’s dominance over nature.

• Building a solutions-oriented climate politics will require going deeper into the past to move beyond these myths and draw on over a century of progressive work, but will also require uncharted political territory.

• Workers occupying shut-down factories to launch cooperatives is one example of moving beyond extractivism. Support for speculative nuclear technologies also shows the need to demonstrate safety over assuming risk.

• Confusion about natural gas’s climate benefits ignores rising methane emissions and natural gas displacing renewables. Coal export growth has also offset some domestic emissions reductions from natural gas.

• Overcoming the “climate denier within” means acknowledging humanity lives on a finite planet with biophysical limits, rather than assuming infinite growth - a reality some decision-makers have started recognizing.

• Renting fishing skills is becoming a lost tradition on Nauru as older generations pass away earlier due to high rates of diabetes. Younger people are trying to learn traditional skills from elders before they die.

• Nauru was once seen as a development success story due to phosphate mining wealth. However, mining devastated the island environment, leaving it nearly barren.

• Nauru squandered its mining wealth through bad investments. It also became a tax haven and money laundering center, which brought corruption but also helped the Russian mafia launder billions.

• Nauru now faces ecological devastation from mining and financial bankruptcy with large debts. It is also highly vulnerable to climate change impacts like sea level rise and drought, compounding its problems.

• Nauru vividly illustrates the psychological and environmental impacts of building an economy on polluting extraction, leaving the land and people in a desperate situation.

The article discusses the island nation of Nauru and uses its story as a warning for how humanity is unsustainably using up finite resources. Nauru ruined its landscape and economy through overly aggressive phosphate mining in the 1900s. Now, with its phosphate reserves depleted, the island is “disappearing from the inside out.”

Similarly, humanity has been burning fossil fuels with the belief that it will have no consequences. But the effects of climate change threaten to make Nauru uninhabitable by raising sea levels. Nauru now houses an offshore refugee detention center for Australia, where detainees experience cruel conditions, highlighting how remote locations are used as dumping grounds.

The key lessons from Nauru’s fate are that there are no truly remote places without consequences, and nothing can be made to truly “disappear.” The mentality of endless extraction of resources with no concern for waste or impacts must change. Nauru demonstrates the dangers of this extractivist economic model, which views nature merely as objects for human exploitation rather than as interconnected systems requiring stewardship. The article argues this pattern of thought must be reevaluated in the face of climate change.

• Francis Bacon advocated viewing nature as something to be controlled and exploited for human ends, rather than respected. This paradigm animated both the Scientific Revolution and colonial project.

• In the 1700s, colonialism and industry were still constrained by natural factors like wind and water availability. James Watt’s steam engine, powered by coal, solved these issues by providing a portable, consistent power source independent of nature.

• Steam power allowed factories to consolidate in cities near large pools of workers, undermining rural workers. It also let ships travel independently of winds, accelerating colonial expansion.

• Coal offered seemingly complete domination over nature and others. Its power coincided with explosive industrial and colonial growth in Britain, fueled by both coal at home and slave labor abroad.

• Some argue the market economy and fossil fuel economy emerged together in the late 1700s, as coal-powered mass production required new markets and raw materials, which colonialism and empire provided. Bacon’s vision of dominating nature through technology was finally realized.

• The early success of fossil fuels allowed powerful multinationals to extract resources globally with ease. Natural barriers like oceans no longer registered as obstacles.

• However, nature still holds power. Scientists now understand that burning fossil fuels has cumulative effects on the climate that were merely delayed, not eliminated. We are losing control in the face of extreme weather linked to climate change.

• For centuries, fossil fuels seemed to free humanity from needing to adapt to natural fluctuations. But we’ve learned that burning carbon emitted over centuries is now destabilizing the planet’s climate in ferocious ways.

• James Watt helped accelerate the Industrial Revolution with his steam engine, but the cumulative carbon emissions from that era onward have left an indelible mark on the oceans, glaciers, permafrost and more. Early miners and mill workers suffered impacts as an early warning of fossil fuels’ toxicity.

• We must transition to energy sources that directly sustain life, like renewables, rather than continuing as a “society of grave robbers” exploiting buried remains of ancient life. Addressing climate change requires shifting from an extractive mindset to one of nurturing life.

• Global warming poses challenges not just to conservatives but also parts of the left. Some unions try to preserve dirty jobs rather than clean jobs. Most Keynesians define economic success through GDP growth regardless of environmental impact.

• Authoritarian socialist states like the USSR consumed resources recklessly just like capitalist states. Developing clean energy could challenge leftist reliance on extractive industries for economic growth and jobs.

• Even progressive Latin American governments have found it hard to transition away from dependency on resource extraction, despite rhetoric of “green” concepts like sumak kawsay. High poverty forces choice between pollution and poverty.

• Left parties in Greece and elsewhere have been reluctant to fully oppose new oil/gas development or integrate climate concerns due to focus on immediate economic issues over long-term sustainability. Transitioning away from extractivism poses challenges for leftist ideology and economic models.

• Growing social movements in countries like Greece, Latin America, Brazil, Bolivia, and Ecuador are pushing back against the traditional model of extraction and redistribution as the only solution to poverty and economic issues.

• Movements are opposing gold mining in Greece, hydroelectric dams and highways through Indigenous lands in Latin America. Indigenous groups argue their ways of life and lands are being threatened without consent.

• This represents a shift where more see the goal as eliminating poverty, not necessarily the poor. Indigenous thought is increasingly influencing new generations of activists following movements like the Zapatistas in Mexico.

• Indigenous land rights movements are playing a key role in opposing extraction in North America, Latin America, Australia, and New Zealand. Their perspectives emphasizing reciprocity with nature challenge extractivism.

• Early environmentalists in North America advocated for conservation but not challenging economic drivers of land destruction. A minority called for recognizing nature’s intrinsic value rather than just human use.

• Figures like Thoreau, Leopold, and Carson articulated views of humanity’s interdependence with nature that questioned conquering it. But these ideas did not threaten capitalism until widespread pollution could no longer be denied.

• The Club of Rome’s “Limits to Growth” was influential in arguing growth itself needed addressing due to natural limits like absorbing pollution, fitting with a new ecological worldview.

• The Attwater’s prairie chicken population declined sharply as its native prairie habitat was destroyed in Texas and Louisiana. The Nature Conservancy opened a preserve in the 1990s to save the endangered bird.

• Surprisingly, in 1999 TNC began drilling for natural gas on the preserve. While older wells predated the preserve, the new well was near where the birds nested and mated.

• When revealed in 2002, this caused controversy as TNC was seen as exploiting the very species it aimed to protect for profit. A 2003 report showed bird releases were delayed due to drilling, and all 17 chicks died as a result of increased predation risk. There were just 16 birds left on the preserve by then, down from 36.

• While TNC insisted drilling did not harm the birds, its foray into fossil fuel extraction on a nature preserve aimed at saving an endangered species was highly controversial and seemed to directly undermine the preserve’s conservation goals.

• The Nature Conservancy owns a preserve in Texas that is home to the endangered Attwater’s prairie chicken. They have been extracting oil and gas from the preserve since acquiring it in 1995.

• While they pledged in 2003 not to initiate any new drilling, they have in fact drilled replacement wells after the original well stopped producing, including switching from a gas well to an oil well in 2007.

• They claim they were legally required to allow replacement drilling under the terms of the original lease. However, it seems they may have had grounds to terminate the lease after five years without production from the original well.

• In 2012, the last Attwater’s prairie chickens disappeared from the preserve. Their presence has completely been wiped out on one of their last breeding grounds, while the Conservancy was extracting oil and gas there.

• Other large environmental groups also have ties to fossil fuel companies through donations, partnerships and investments. This is a problematic contradiction given these companies’ role in climate change. However, some frontline groups like Greenpeace have taken a stronger stance against fossil fuel activities.

• Many major environmental organizations receive funding from foundations linked to fossil fuel fortunes, like the Rockefeller family. While these foundations fund campaigns against polluters, their own endowments are often still invested in fossil fuel companies.

• It’s difficult for public interest groups to operate on a large scale without taking money from questionable sources like corporations, states, or private foundations. However, following the financial ties only matters if the funding is unduly influencing the groups.

• There is evidence that fossil fuel money and centrist foundation values have shaped parts of the environmental movement. Some large green groups have consistently advocated market-based climate policies that are least burdensome to fossil fuel companies, even if they come at the expense of communities fighting fossil fuel expansion.

• These compromising policies, like carbon trading schemes and promoting natural gas, have provided a valuable service to the fossil fuel sector by convoluting climate issues and giving the false impression that a full renewable transition is impossible. However, emissions have continued rising despite these “polite” strategies failing to curb the fossil fuel industry.

Here is a summary of key environmental legislation and events in the 1970s-1980s:

• The 1970s saw a flurry of major environmental laws passed in the US, including the National Environmental Policy Act, Clean Air Act, Clean Water Act, Endangered Species Act, and others. 23 total federal environmental acts were passed in the 1970s.

• Similar environmental protection laws and initiatives emerged in other countries like Canada, European Community nations, and international agreements.

• Grassroots environmentalism also grew among indigenous and poor communities globally in response to threats like deforestation and industrial development.

• The 1980s saw a major policy shift under Reagan, who rolled back regulations and embraced free market ideology. Environmental groups faced attacks and lost political influence.

• Some groups like Greenpeace continued direct action but many mainstream groups pursued a more collaborative, pro-business approach to maintain access and funding. This led to ideological divides within the movement.

• The environmental justice movement emerged in response to toxics dumping affecting minority communities. However, free market ideology remained dominant through the 1980s, shaping the strategies of many large environmental non-profits.

• In the 1980s, some environmental activists grew disillusioned as large mainstream groups like the Environmental Defense Fund partnered more with polluters.

• More militant groups like Earth First! formed, using direct action and sabotage to try and stop environmental destruction.

• On April 23, 1990, around 1,000 protesters stormed the New York and Pacific stock exchanges on Earth Day to criticize large institutions for ecological damage.

• Under new leadership in the 1980s, the EDF shifted from a “sue the bastards” approach to forming partnerships with polluters, believing industries could be persuaded to adopt greener practices and markets.

• Critics argue this pro-business approach meant defining climate change narrowly around market solutions rather than systemic issues like overconsumption and car dependency.

• Groups like EDF became reliant on donations from pro-business funders like the Walton family, influencing the climate agenda to reinforce large corporate power rather than challenge root causes.

The passage criticizes some environmental groups for proposing climate solutions that fail to fundamentally challenge the economic status quo and instead rely on things like carbon markets, offsets, and technological fixes that are unlikely to solve the crisis.

It argues that embracing natural gas as a “bridge fuel” through fracking constitutes “magical thinking” given what is now known about methane leaks and the risk of natural gas crowding out renewables. Some influential green groups actively campaigned to expand natural gas markets even as evidence mounted about the dangers of fracking.

While individual consumer actions were encouraged, like using green products, there was little mobilization of mass movements needed to force real change from big polluters. Relying on elites and consumerism to drive change served to reinforce values like wealth worship that are barriers to climate action. As a result, many people doubted the urgency of the problem if small individual actions were deemed sufficient solutions.

The piece criticizes groups still defending natural gas and suggests their work is influenced by fossil fuel funding, failing to acknowledge the need to keep unconventional fuels like fracked gas in the ground to avoid dangerous warming.

• The Nature Conservancy and Environmental Defense Fund have partnered with major oil and gas companies like BP and Shell on projects related to fracking and shale gas development.

• These partnerships have aimed to develop industry standards and offset projects to mitigate fracking’s environmental impacts, but critics argue they do not truly offset its largest impact of greenhouse gas emissions.

• Funding from gas-linked foundations like the Heinz Endowments has supported groups developing industry regulations, without full disclosure of financial conflicts of interest.

• Studies funded by gas companies through these partnerships have found lower methane leakage rates from fracking than other independent studies, but were limited by industry-selected sites and access.

• The partnerships have created public uncertainty around fracking’s safety and climate impacts, undermining momentum for renewable energy transition away from fossil fuels.

• Internationally, the US successfully lobbied for carbon trading to be included in the Kyoto Protocol, over European objections that countries should directly cut domestic emissions instead of trading pollution permits.

• Problems have emerged with carbon markets generating credits for projects that may not truly reduce emissions, like credits for oil companies to stop illegal gas flaring they had previously engaged in.

• Carbon offset programs have led to perverse incentives where some companies earn more from destroying greenhouse gas byproducts than from their primary emissions-intensive products.

• Notoriously, factories producing HFC-23, a potent greenhouse gas, generated millions in offset credits by installing equipment to destroy the gas, even though producing the gas was just a byproduct of making ozone-damaging refrigerants.

• Carbon offsetting has attracted “carbon cowboys” who try to acquire land rights from Indigenous groups with promises of money from carbon credits that may not materialize. This has divided some communities and amounts to a form of land grabbing.

• Some offset projects have pushed local peoples off lands where they traditionally farmed, hunted and gathered, treating the areas instead as carbon sinks with strict access controls. This amounts to new forms of “green” human rights abuses.

• While offsets are touted as “win-win,” there are few winners as peasants and Indigenous peoples lose access and rights to sustain themselves, while corporations maintain freedom to pollute by purchasing offsets. Even well-run offset projects do little for climate if they simply allow more emissions elsewhere.

• Carbon offset programs claim to neutralize pollution by funding green projects, but they actually allow more pollution by disconnected the environmental impacts of production. Forests and land become virtual commodities traded globally to offset emissions rather than having intrinsic ecological value.

• Carbon markets in Europe failed due to overallocation of cheap permits initially. This caused prices to crash and provided little incentive for reductions. Emissions increased in some countries despite renewable growth. The UN carbon market has essentially collapsed as well.

• Relying on volatile carbon markets to solve climate change is too risky given the threat and time sensitivity. Regulations that directly mandate emission reductions would be more effective.

• In the EU, carbon markets have allowed power companies to pass compliance costs to consumers while generating windfall profits themselves. Taxpayers and ratepayers have funded a system that hasn’t reduced emissions.

• The failed US cap-and-trade bills would have replicated errors of EU systems. They gave away too many free permits, ensuring little real emission cuts. While some big green groups and polluters crafted the deals together, many polluters still actively opposed the legislation once it appeared likely to pass.

• Billionaires Richard Branson and Michael Bloomberg are discussed in the context of tackling climate change through their wealth and influence.

• Branson describes being convinced of the threat of climate change after Al Gore gave him a persuasive PowerPoint presentation in 2006. Branson then committed to transitioning Virgin Group to operate according to the principles of “Gaia Capitalism,” which treats the Earth as a single living system.

• However, the author is skeptical of relying on billionaires to lead climate action from the top-down. They argue that real change requires a grassroots movement applying political pressure from below.

• Former NYC mayor Bloomberg expressed a view that climate action must be led by wealthy individuals rather than originating from grassroots efforts.

• The passage questions whether billionaires like Branson and Bloomberg will push for the level of systemic change that climate science demands, or mainly try to protect the existing economic system that created their wealth. It presents billionaires as not being reliable leaders of transformational climate policy.

• Richard Branson pledged $3 billion over 10 years to develop biofuels and other clean technologies through his Virgin companies like airlines and trains. The money would come from profits generated by these businesses.

• He argued this shows companies can lead the transition to green energy while still making money. It was a big commitment praised by climate groups and Bill Clinton.

• Branson later created a $25 million prize for the first inventor to remove 1 billion tons of carbon annually without harm. He aimed to show climate change could be solved without changing lifestyles.

• Some saw Branson as proof that convincing business leaders on climate can drive real action. However, other billionaire’s climate commitments like Warren Buffett’s were less ambitious and still invested in fossil fuels through businesses like rail and utilities.

• While praised for efforts, questions remained if Branson could truly decarbonize Virgin businesses as aimed or if solutions would allow continued high emissions indefinitely.

Here is a summary of the key points about climate solutions mentioned:

• Michael Bloomberg has donated large sums to environmental groups like the Sierra Club and EDF, and introduced some climate policies as mayor of New York City. However, he has also invested heavily in oil and gas assets through his firm Willett Advisors.

• Bill Gates expresses concern about climate change but the Gates Foundation has over $1 billion invested in fossil fuel giants BP and ExxonMobil. Gates advocates for increased funding of speculative future technologies like advanced nuclear rather than existing renewable solutions.

• Richard Branson pledged $3 billion through Virgin to develop a “miracle fuel” and change how businesses approach climate change. However, Virgin’s investments have shifted away from alternative fuels to more incremental and lower-risk green projects. Branson acknowledged the fuel has not been invented yet.

• T. Boone Pickens initially advocated renewable energy policies but shifted focus to natural gas extraction as fracking took off, contradicting his original climate messaging.

So in summary, these billionaire climate leaders talk a good game about climate change but their own investments remain heavily in fossil fuels, and their proposed solutions tend to prioritize speculative future technologies over near-term renewable energy expansion.

• Richard Branson pledged in 2006 to invest $3 billion over 10 years from profits of Virgin Group’s transportation businesses into tackling climate change.

• As of 2014, he had invested far less than that amount, possibly under $300 million. His investments themselves have been unremarkable and not very effective at addressing climate change.

• In the years since the pledge, Virgin expanded its transportation businesses aggressively, adding over 160 new planes to its global fleets. This led to steep rises in the Virgin airlines’ greenhouse gas emissions, up 40% overall.

• The expansions were largely financed through low ticket prices rather than profits. Branson blamed lack of funds on transportation business losses but they grew rapidly in the pledge period.

• Money was also spent on other carbon-intensive ventures like Virgin Racing and the luxury space flight company Virgin Galactic, rather than on climate solutions.

• Branson now downplays the original $3 billion commitment and it seems unlikely he will meet the target amount based on funds invested so far.

• Richard Branson’s net worth has risen substantially since he made his pledge to help combat climate change through Virgin businesses and investments. However, his companies are still burning significant carbon without delivering on a “miracle fuel” as promised.

• Branson’s $25 million Virgin Earth Challenge to find technologies to remove carbon from the air started strong but then seemed to lose momentum. By 2010, none of the 2500 submissions were deemed a “slam dunk winner.”

• In 2011, Branson reframed the Challenge’s goal as developing technologies to recycle CO2 into commercial products, not just removal and storage.

• The Challenge was then promoted in Calgary, a hub of the oil sands industry. Branson’s sustainability advisor Alan Knight also consulted for oil sands companies.

• Some submissions pitched technologies to supply the oil industry with CO2 for enhanced oil recovery, which could vastly increase proven oil reserves but also emissions by extracting more oil.

• Using air capture technologies primarily to aid oil extraction risks canceling out any climate benefits and enabling the production of much more oil that will be burned.

• Critics argue the Challenge has morphed from a climate solution to a way to produce more CO2 and fossil fuels, counter to Branson’s original pledge.

• Richard Branson and his airline Virgin faced demands from environmental groups to avoid using tar sands oil from Alberta in their flights due to its high carbon footprint. Branson refused to commit to a boycott.

• Branson further promoted tar sands development by hosting the Earth Challenge prize in Calgary, seen by critics as using promises of future green tech to allow continued emissions growth without regulation.

• This aligned with Branson avoiding tough climate regulations threatening his airline industry in the UK and Europe in 2006. Although claiming to support regulation, he opposed specific proposed policies.

• While Branson talked of using profits from polluting businesses to fund green solutions, his climate initiatives failed to yield results as business demands often trumped environmental priorities. Critics argue his pledges were more about improving public image and lobbying against regulation than actual solutions.

• The idea that capitalism alone can solve climate change through green entrepreneurship has been tested but emissions continue rising, calling that theory into question. While Branson’s original pledge concept made sense, in practice little profits seem left over after other costs to fulfill environmental promises.

• The Royal Society, a prestigious British scientific organization, has become a prominent advocate for researching geoengineering methods as a potential Plan B if emissions reduction goals are not met.

• In 2009, they called for the UK government to devote significant resources to studying which geoengineering techniques might be most effective.

• By 2011, they declared that planetary-scale interventions like stratospheric aerosol injection (SAI), which blocks some sunlight, “may be the only option for reducing global temperatures quickly in the event of a climate emergency.”

• The Royal Society convened a three-day retreat with the World Academy of Sciences and the Environmental Defense Fund to discuss governance issues around geoengineering research and potential deployment.

• Key questions focused on how geoengineering research and experiments should be governed, what rules researchers should follow, what bodies (like governments or the UN) might regulate these activities, and what constitutes “good governance” of geoengineering overall.

• The retreat aimed to provide recommendations on these governance issues since geoengineering was becoming an area of increasinginterest and potential investment by governments.

• The conference is the most international gathering on geoengineering to date, hosted by the Royal Society and Environmental Defense Fund. It focuses on solar radiation management techniques like spraying aerosols.

• Concerns are raised about the ethics and impacts. Modeling shows techniques like spraying aerosols could disrupt rainfall in parts of Africa and Asia, worsening existing issues. An African delegate expresses strong concern about impacts to his home continent.

• While spraying aerosols may lower temperatures, it does nothing to reduce the underlying cause of climate change or ocean acidification from rising CO2 levels. It could require constant injection to maintain effects.

• There are risks of unintended consequences, a potentially permanent hazy sky, and issues if applications were abruptly stopped. Overall the discussion paints a grim picture of limited control over the planet’s climate systems with uncertain and uneven impacts.

• Technological schemes to modify the climate through means like modifying clouds or littering oceans with reflective particles have been proposed as potential ways to combat global warming. However, weather modification was previously seen as a weapon during the Cold War, with ideas around manipulating rainfall to weaken enemies.

• Mainstream climate scientists long avoided discussing geoengineering due to its association with weaponization of the weather and fears it could reduce incentives to cut emissions. However, the idea gradually became more accepted as prospects for serious emissions reductions diminished in the late 2000s.

• A prominent advocate for considering geoengineering research was Paul Crutzen, who argued in 2006 that injecting sulfur into the stratosphere may be needed as an emergency response if temperature rises cannot be curbed. However, some proposals like Nathan Myhrvold’s “StratoShield” device presented geoengineering as a preferable alternative to emission cuts.

• Debate around geoengineering governance tends to involve the same scientists, inventors and funders promoting each other’s work. Many have financial interests in related technology development. While most argue for further research and regulation, some are more enthusiastic promoters of specific geoengineering schemes. Critics worry this could undermine efforts to seriously reduce emissions.

• At an environmentalist meeting on climate engineering, one participant raised questions challenging the assumption that humans are capable of safely regulating strategies to modify the climate like solar radiation management (SRM).

• His three questions - about humanity’s ability to regulate SRM, whether it perpetuates viewing Earth as something to be manipulated, and whether these questions need to be addressed - were never discussed by the group. They were left hanging on the wall as a “silent rebuke.”

• The Royal Society hosting the meeting has a lengthy history relating to both the scientific revolution and the rise of fossil fuels. Some see geoengineering as attempting to solve a crisis created by industrialization and colonialism through more technological manipulation of nature.

• The participant’s questions imply the mindset and tools that created climate change are the same that propose geoengineering solutions, rather than changing human behavior. There is a risk geoengineering could have unintended and unforeseen consequences by adding more “crud” to the atmosphere.

• Concerns were raised that geoengineering strategies like solar radiation management could have unpredictable and uneven impacts, worsening climate impacts for some regions or populations over others. But adequately testing impacts would essentially require full deployment of geoengineering.

• Computer models can help estimate impacts of geoengineering schemes like solar radiation management (SRM), but they have limitations and uncertainties, especially around regional impacts.

• Research using models has produced alarming projections of impacts like significant rainfall reductions that could threaten food supplies for billions. However, geoengineering proponents argue the regional predictions are unreliable.

• History provides an alternative way to understand risks, as major volcanic eruptions release sulfates in a similar way to proposed SRM schemes.

• The 1991 Pinatubo eruption was followed by droughts in Africa and South Asia that affected over 120 million people, showing eruptions can disrupt monsoons.

• Eruptions in 1783 and 1912 were also followed by severe regional droughts and related famines that may have killed over 6 million people total. This suggests a pattern of volcanic eruptions contributing to dangerous drought conditions.

• While models have limitations, the historical evidence indicates SRM-like stratospheric sulfate injection could threaten water and food security for vast populations, contrary to claims by some proponents that the risks are small or negligible.

This summary highlights some key risks and ethical concerns around geoengineering:

• Historical evidence shows large volcanic eruptions have often caused prolonged droughts, threatening food and water supplies for billions. Geoengineering could magnify these risks if used continuously over decades.

• Models and records tend to agree that geoengineering risks widespread drought, especially in vulnerable regions like Africa. Yet proposals focus more on protecting wealthier areas from climate impacts.

• In a crisis, collective panic could overwhelm rational opposition to deployment before risks are fully understood and addressed. Geoengineering proponents acknowledge it is seen as an “insurance policy” for worst-case scenarios.

• Small field tests often pave the way for larger deployment. Once started it may be hard to scale back without triggering harmful effects. Precaution requires avoiding certain kinds of highly risky research.

Overall it raises serious doubts about downplaying geoengineering risks, especially for the global poor, as well as concerns that deployment could quickly follow any initial field testing in crisis conditions before ramifications are sufficiently understood and addressed.

• The 1970s already banned weather modification as a weapon, but modern geoengineering advocates claim their aims are peaceful, even if the effects could feel like an act of war to billions.

• Some geoengineering advocates argue that life involves risks, and as industrialization created climate change, future technologies will fix the problems created by geoengineering.

• However, geoengineering risks “monsterizing” the planet more than any prior human activity. It could require constant technical interventions to artificially alter the climate and prevent ecosystems from self-regulating normally.

• The push for geoengineering is sometimes driven more by allowing polluting activities like fossil fuel use to continue, rather than serving as a bridge away from those activities toward sustainability. Some proponents have ties to fossil fuel companies that see geoengineering as preferable to curbing their pollution.

• In 2008, several influential organizations that had previously denied or downplayed climate change started researching geoengineering solutions, including drawing carbon dioxide out of the air or blocking sunlight. This included BP, which held a conference on the topic, and the American Enterprise Institute (AEI), which launched a geoengineering project despite taking fossil fuel money.

• AEI argued geoengineering should be a “Plan A” rather than a last resort, calling it the “last, best hope” if emission cuts prove politically difficult. However, AEI had a history of attacks on climate policy and emissions regulations.

• Some see geoengineering research as an admission that climate change is urgent, yet governments are still not pursuing aggressive emissions reductions. Alternatives proposed include stopping new fossil fuel development, returning control of energy grids to the public, funding agricultural solutions, and making polluters pay for cleanup.

• The view of Earth from space, intended to inspire environmental stewardship, is now sometimes used to portray humans as responsible for “saving the planet” from a problem of our own making, neglecting humanity’s vulnerability to environmental changes.

The passage criticizes the view of environmentalism that takes an “astronaut’s eye view” or omniscient outsider perspective from above the Earth, rather than considering impacts from the perspective of those living on and attached to the land. This god-like view allows problems to be seen as abstract pieces on a chessboard that can be shuffled around without acknowledging real people and places.

It led to policy failures like support for fracked gas and carbon offset programs that failed to consider local objections. It also supported biofuels that increased food prices without meaningfully engaging local communities. Similarly, large solar and wind projects have been pushed through without local consent.

This view also appears in discussions of geoengineering, which may negatively impact monsoon areas in Asia and Africa, without fully addressing local impacts. Some proponents of geoengineering and space colonization see leaving Earth as a potential solution if geoengineering fails, revealing a lack of commitment to real solutions on Earth.

While geoengineering proposals may fit a cultural narrative of technological salvation, public opinion is turning against it as people recognize the failure of past large technological fixes and the need to limit risks to irreplaceable natural systems and local communities. A new environmental movement is emerging from the ground up and between communities to challenge the status quo.

• The passage describes an area of Greece called Halkidiki that has become part of something called “Blockadia,” which refers to territories where resistance is mounting against extractive projects like mines and pipelines.

• The authors were stopped at a checkpoint on a public road in Halkidiki by 11 riot police officers. They were interrogated and made to wait over an hour without explanation, despite being journalists.

• Blockadia sites are cropping up worldwide wherever extractive projects are pushing into new areas without adequate regulation or consideration of environmental/community impacts.

• Resistance is broad-based and includes local residents from all walks of life. They are directly confronting projects through protest and civil disobedience.

• Younger climate activists are joining these place-based movements rather than institutional groups, seeing on-the-ground action as more effective than policy lobbying. Blockadia represents a shift to grassroots, decentralized climate action.

• The passage describes protests against a proposed gold and copper mine in the Skouries forest near Ierissos, Greece by the Canadian mining company Eldorado Gold. The mine would require clear-cutting old-growth forest and altering the local water system.

• Local residents oppose the mine due to concerns about impacts on water, health, farming/tourism. They have protested through marches, meetings, and sabotage of mining equipment. The issue is highly debated nationally.

• The Greek government strongly supports the mine as important for economic development and signaling openness to foreign investment. Opposition groups argue it threatens the environment and local livelihoods.

• Police have used force like tear gas and rubber bullets against protesters, transforming the area into a “battle zone.” Locals now staff checkpoints to monitor for police incursions.

• The passage draws parallels to resource conflicts and militarized responses in Romania, Canada, the UK, Russia, China and elsewhere, coining the term “Blockadia” to represent the global movement resisting extractive projects.

The passage describes growing opposition and protests against various fossil fuel projects around the world, known collectively as Blockadia. It discusses resistance to coal mining in China that has led to state repression of protesters. In Australia, activists have staged ongoing blockades of the Maules Creek coal mine project and are opposing port expansions to transport coal exports due to environmental impacts. Resistance is also mounting against pipelines transporting tar sands oil from Canada, like the Keystone XL and Northern Gateway pipelines. Indigenous groups and ranchers in the U.S. and Canada have formed unlikely alliances to oppose these pipelines through protests, blockades, and legal action. The passage notes common themes and tactics emerging across these dispersed movements, including their determination to stop new fossil fuel infrastructure development given the climate crisis. Social media is allowing isolated resistance campaigns to connect as part of a broader global movement united in their view that we must keep carbon in the ground.

The article traces the origins of the anti-fossil fuel extraction movement, known as Blockadia, back to the 1990s in the Niger Delta region of Nigeria. There, local communities organized against the environmental destruction and human rights abuses caused by oil drilling. Groups like the Ogoni people’s Movement for the Survival of the Ogoni People (MOSOP) were able to force Shell Oil to stop operations in their lands.

However, the Nigerian government cracked down violently on the protests to protect oil industry interests. Ken Saro-Wiwa and other activists were executed. In 1998, the Ijaw Youth Council organized non-violent demonstrations called “Operation Climate Change” to demand resource control and an end to oil extraction. The government responded with brutal force, killing an estimated 200 protestors.

While violent today, the Niger Delta resistance movements were some of the earliest examples of communities mobilizing against fossil fuel projects to stop environmental damage and demand rights over their lands and resources. This set a precedent for the growing global anti-extraction movement known as Blockadia.

• As armed conflicts in Nigeria wore on related to protests against oil extraction, grievances mixed with greed and violent crime, muddling the original goals of controlling local resources.

• In the 1990s, groups like the Ogoni and Ijaw had clear aims to fight violent resource extraction and increase community control over their land and democracy. Their struggles influenced other resource-rich regions.

• In 1995, after the killing of Ken Saro-Wiwa, the Nigerian group Environmental Rights Action allied with Ecuador’s Acción Ecológica, which was dealing with pollution from Texaco oil operations. They formed Oilwatch International to campaign against further oil extraction.

• Anti-extraction activism is not new, as communities have always defended their ways of life from businesses threatening their livelihoods. However, the scale of resistance has grown due to increasing ambition and impacts of the extractive industry worldwide. More territory is now considered acceptable as “sacrifice zones” for extraction.

• The fossil fuel industry’s push into new extraction areas like fracking near homes has angered many people who previously had a more favorable view of the industry. People feel betrayed that companies can endanger their families without permission.

• New alliances are forming as pipelines and other infrastructure cross multiple regions, bringing together diverse groups opposed to the common threat. Tar sands pipelines in particular have united Indigenous, urban, rural and suburban populations.

• The industry is no longer operating only in sacrifice zones where they have outsized economic power. People living in places like college town Ithaca, NY fought hard to keep fracking out and help lead the anti-fracking movement in New York state.

• By directly threatening communities not reliant on the industry, fossil fuel companies have encountered stiffer resistance than expected from groups with more power to influence policy and public opinion. This miscalculation has aided the broader climate movement.

• The area surrounding the proposed compressor station site for the Millennium Pipeline project in New York is known for small family farms and organic agriculture. This sparked opposition from local farmers as well as environmental activists in New York City.

• There was also strong opposition to proposed fracking in the Department of Var region in southern France, known for agriculture and beaches. Large public meetings were held opposing the project. This led France to enact a nationwide fracking ban in 2011.

• Transporting large machinery from South Korea to the Alberta tar sands sites has also faced resistance, as the oversized loads require special permits to travel on highways and cannot fit under many overpasses. Communities in Montana and Idaho opposed the use of Highway 12 for these transports, citing environmental and safety concerns. After lawsuits, Highway 12 was barred from being used.

• The Pacific Northwest region has also seen strong opposition to fossil fuel projects like tar sands pipelines and increased coal exports due to environmental values and indigenous rights concerns. Proposed coal export terminals in Washington and Oregon all faced sizable local protests.

• These grassroots campaigns have found success by making the battle local where industry is weaker, rather than facing fossil fuel companies directly. Growing resistance is also encouraging new opposition in areas traditionally dominated by extractive industries.

• In the early 2000s, community groups in Richmond, California successfully fought Chevron’s plans to expand its oil refinery, which would have processed dirtier crude oils like tar sands bitumen. They challenged the expansion in courts and on the streets, arguing it would increase air pollution. The courts ultimately ruled against Chevron.

• Indigenous communities that have suffered the most from tar sands and oil/gas extraction, like the Lubicon Lake First Nation, have also become emboldened to challenge industry violatons of their land rights.

• In 2013, carvers from the Lummi Nation traveled over 1,300km with a totem pole they named “We Draw the Line” to build alliances against coal, oil and gas projects across North America. This kind of alliance-building has proven critics wrong who said fighting individual projects like Keystone XL was pointless.

• Communities are more willing to fight unconventional extraction projects like tar sands and fracking because they perceive the risks to be much higher than with previous energy sources. However, industry and governments have been reluctant to properly acknowledge or research these stepped-up risks. Knowledge gaps exist around issues like dilbit pipeline safety and oil spill impacts.

• The Alberta tar sands operations have caused enormous environmental damage, transforming vast areas of boreal forest into open-pit mines and industrial upgrading facilities.

• Tailings ponds used to store mining waste contain highly toxic slurry and leak pollutants into groundwater and rivers like the Athabasca River. Government and industry initially denied this but independent studies have confirmed widespread contamination.

• There have been no comprehensive health studies but some doctors reported higher cancer rates near operations, though one was publicly smeared for raising concerns. A recent report found doctors are now afraid to link health issues to the industry.

• The federal government under Stephen Harper systematically cut environmental monitoring budgets and silenced scientists from speaking publicly about pollution and health concerns related to the tar sands and other industries. This contributes to a lack of evidence and data about impacts.

• Similar issues have arisen with hydraulic fracturing operations, where exemptions from regulations allowed widespread contamination to persist without proper investigation or data collection for years. Independent studies are now finding clear links between fracking and water contamination and minor earthquakes.

• Unconventional extraction methods like open-pit tar sands mining and fracking cause much broader and deeper damage compared to conventional drilling, but the full impacts are difficult to assess due to lack of comprehensive health and environmental monitoring.

• The BP Deepwater Horizon oil spill in 2010 and the Kalamazoo River spill from an Enbridge pipeline rupture later that year highlighted problems with regulation and oversight of the oil industry. Regulators took industry safety claims at face value without proper verification.

• Investigations found that cost-cutting by BP and Enbridge compromised safety and contributed to the accidents. The companies prioritized profits over precautions.

• These major spills, along with other fossil fuel incidents like pipeline leaks and train explosions transporting oil, undermined public trust in industry claims about safety. Indigenous groups criticized projections of zero risk as always being wrong.

• The frequency of spills and accidents from oil/gas extraction has been increasing, according to government data. Companies have also done a poorer job of cleaning up spills.

• Reckless decisions like rushing Arctic drilling despite risks partly stemmed from greed and lack of regulation. The scale of disasters also revealed deeper issues like regulatory “capture” and corruption.

• Public opinion polls show the oil/gas industry is one of the least trusted and liked industries due to these failures and compromised oversight.

In 2012, a review panel came to Bella Bella, BC to hold hearings on the proposed Northern Gateway pipeline project. Bella Bella is worried because while it’s not directly on the route, it would see increased oil tanker traffic that could spill in the nearby waters.

The community, led by young people, organized extensively to oppose the project. Students researched past pipeline spills like the Kalamazoo River and Exxon Valdez disasters to understand the impacts. As a fishing community, they were concerned a spill could devastate salmon and the wider ecosystem.

On the day of the hearings, the hereditary Heiltsuk chiefs greeted the review panel members traditionally with regalia and dance. A large crowd of protesters was also present with signs and paddles. The community saw the event as a culmination of their organizing efforts against the project and its risks to their homeland.

The passage describes the efforts of the Heiltsuk First Nation community of Bella Bella, BC to oppose the proposed Enbridge Northern Gateway pipeline and oil tanker project.

The community came together strongly in opposition, with students writing essays, preparing testimony, and making signs. Some even went on a brief hunger strike. This level of engagement was unprecedented and reflected how crucial salmon are to their culture and livelihood.

When the pipeline review panel visited, they were greeted by a large demonstration lining the road into town. The passage emphasizes it was done nonviolently and out of love for their land and waters. However, the panel felt unsafe and canceled local hearings, citing mistaken concerns about violence.

This shocked and insulted the community, who saw it as misunderstanding the deep connection and care they felt for their homeland, which sustaining for future generations. Speaking to the panel later, a community member expressed how essential maintaining their territory’s integrity is to preserving their cultural identity as Heiltsuk people.

The passage argues such fierce love and connection to place is what fossil fuel companies overlook and underestimate in indigenous communities. It cannot be overridden by monetary compensation. This defines the power of “Blockadia” grassroots anti-extraction movements around the world.

Workers in extractive industries like oil, gas and mining tend to be highly mobile, moving from one worksite to the next and often living in temporary camps. Even when they stay in one place for decades, like in Gillette, Wyoming or Fort McMurray, Alberta, there is a culture of transience as workers plan to leave as soon as they save enough money. These jobs provide a way for workers to pay off debts and support their families who often live elsewhere.

Workers frequently discuss their time in extractive towns as part of a plan to tolerate difficult conditions for a set period, like 3-5 years, in order to save a large sum of money and then retire early or move elsewhere. There is a sadness to this transient lifestyle as it is associated with high divorce rates, addiction, and unhappiness living in these isolated industrial areas.

This mobility and disassociation with place allows workers to inflict large-scale environmental damage. When extractive projects threaten rooted local communities who deeply value their land and water, conflicts arise. Many anti-extraction movements are united by a desire to protect water resources from pollution and overuse, seeing water as more essential to life than fossil fuels. Protecting waterbinds together diverse communities facing threats from drilling, fracking, mining, pipelines or export terminals.

The passage argues that society has it backwards - it behaves as if resources like clean water, fossil fuels, and atmospheric capacity are unlimited, while insisting financial resources are strictly limited. However, these natural resources are actually finite, while financial resources are flexible and could be structured differently to build a more sustainable system.

It cites a Greek activist who notes the irony of being warned about exiting the Euro due to debt, while the real dangers are things like permanently losing spring/fall seasons or increased floods due to climate change.

It then provides some examples of early wins against fossil fuel projects. These include fracking bans in dozens of cities/regions worldwide, rejecting specific coal plants and ports, the World Bank ending coal funding, and delays to tar sands pipelines that increase climate policy uncertainty. It argues these delays weaken fossil fuel lobbying and give time for clean energy alternatives to grow market share. Many grassroots movements in India and China have also successfully opposed new coal projects due to pollution concerns.

Here is a summary of the provided text:

• China has faced increasing pressure to adopt more sustainable development policies due to severe air pollution problems. This has forced the government to cut growth targets and launch renewable energy programs. Many coal projects have been canceled or delayed.

• Local environmental movements in China blocking fossil fuel projects have global significance since they reduce demand for exported dirty fuels. Blocking pipelines and terminals means less market for tar sands, coal, etc.

• The fossil fuel divestment movement calls on institutions to sell financial holdings in oil, gas, and coal companies. It originated from opposing mountaintop coal removal and aims to delegitimize the fossil fuel business model of pursuing high-risk extraction.

• Divestment has spread rapidly to over 300 campuses and 100+ cities/institutions worldwide. Major victories include Stanford selling its coal stocks. Critics argue it won’t bankrupt companies, but supporters say it chips away at social license and makes fossil fuels politically unacceptable.

• The goal is to brand oil companies like tobacco for prioritizing climate destabilization over public health. This could enable demands like political funding bans and appropriating profits for climate solutions. Divestment is the first step to delegitimizing fossil fuels.

• EDF chief counsel Mark Brownstein accused those opposing all natural gas production of making it harder for the U.S. to transition away from coal. Grassroots activists then accused EDF of providing cover for polluters.

• Some major environmental groups like Sierra Club and NRDC have shifted away from being ambivalent or supportive of natural gas and are now aligned with anti-fossil fuel activism. Sierra Club ended secret funding from gas company Chesapeake and canceled deals with polluting companies. It now supports divestment from fossil fuels.

• NRDC helped create an index to divest from fossil fuel companies. Some foundations are also divesting, though major funders have not.

• Shell announced a large drop in profits, showing campaigns may be having an impact on big oil companies accustomed to high profits.

• Fossil fuel companies are fighting back using investor protections in trade deals to sue governments over policies restricting extraction. This poses a democratic threat as victories are challenged, and trade deals make blocking exports illegal. More cases are being filed against environmental and climate policies.

The passage argues that many grassroots opposition movements to extractive projects like fracking, pipelines, and coal export terminals are not just about the specific environmental impacts, but reflect a deeper democratic crisis. Multinational corporations have too much influence over laws and policies, often colluding with governments to override local opposition.

While national governments and international bodies have failed to address climate change, some cities and communities are taking leadership on climate action and transition planning. Grassroots democratic processes like Transition Town networks are enabling neighborhoods to draft “energy descent action plans” to lower emissions and dependence on fossil fuels. These participatory efforts represent attempts to make good on the promise of self-governance, despite the failures of higher levels of government.

The collusion between corporations and states in pushing through unwanted extractive projects, often over local laws and overwhelming public opposition, reveals a corrupted state of politics where private profits seem to matter more than people’s democratic will or long-term environmental protection. This democratic deficit and failures of climate policy reflect a crisis of legitimacy for political leaders worldwide.

• Indigenous leaders Arthur Manuel and Guujaaw met with Standard & Poor’s to argue that Canada does not deserve its high AAA credit rating.

• Manuel argues Canada is failing to report a massive unpaid debt in the form of wealth extracted from unceded Indigenous lands without consent since 1846.

• Manuel presented legal documents called writs of summons filed by several First Nations, asserting land title and intent to take legal action over lands used by resource companies without consent.

• These writs represent trillions in unacknowledged liability carried by the Canadian state that is not accounted for in its credit rating.

• Guujaaw presented the Haida Nation’s registered statement of claim filed in court asserting their land rights, as evidence of this growing legal challenge to the Canadian government.

• The meeting aimed to convince S&P that Indigenous land claims pose a credible financial risk that could affect Canada’s creditworthiness if the government does not respect Native rights and address the unpaid debt.

• Haida leader Guujaaw was meeting with Standard & Poor’s to discuss the Haida’s legal claims against the Canadian and British Columbia governments for unlawfully exploiting and degrading Haida lands and waters.

• The Haida were arguing this case before the Supreme Court of Canada, challenging logging on Haida Gwaii lands without consultation.

• Guujaaw said the Haida are effectively subsidizing Canada’s wealth through the impoverishment of their lands and resources.

• S&P acknowledged the validity of the Haida claims but explained they don’t see the Haida as having the power to enforce their rights or collect on debts owed, so it wouldn’t impact Canada’s credit rating.

• While Indigenous rights are acknowledged in Canadian law, for many years there was a widespread perception that treaties fully surrendered Native lands and extinguished rights outside reserves.

• Supreme Court rulings in the late 1990s, like Delgamuukw and Marshall, overturned this thinking by affirming unextinguished Aboriginal title and treaty rights to hunt, fish and gather on traditional lands.

• This shook up Canadian legal realities but also led to tensions and violence as Indigenous people started exercising their affirmed rights, such as Mi’kmaq opposition to commercial fishing regulations.

• In 2000, there were violent clashes between Mi’kmaq fishermen and non-Native commercial fishermen in Burnt Church, New Brunswick over Mi’kmaq treaty rights to fish. The Mi’kmaq faced severe racism and had their boats rammed and sunk by government officials.

• In 2013, the Mi’kmaq Warrior Society joined protests by the Elsipogtog First Nation against fracking by a Texas company. This time, the mood was very different - the Mi’kmaq explicitly invited non-Natives to join the protests as allies. The protests drew a diverse crowd and fostered a sense of unity against the shared threats of government and industry.

• Indigenous rights claims, like the Mi’kmaq’s rights to hunt, fish and use traditional lands, represent a powerful legal barrier to unwanted resource extraction and pollution. These rights are not dependent on political whims. Indigenous groups have increasingly used their treaty rights to halt projects like tar sands pipelines, Arctic drilling, coal exports, and Amazon oil extraction.

• International courts have also increasingly sided with Indigenous land and resource rights claims against governments pushing development. Overall, the global Indigenous rights movement is gaining strength and legal recognition, making huge advances.

The United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples, adopted in 2007, affirms that Indigenous peoples have rights to their traditional lands and natural resources. It states they have the right to give or withhold “free, prior and informed consent” for activities affecting their territories.

Some countries have incorporated these rights into their constitutions. Bolivia’s constitution recognizes Indigenous peoples’ right to prior consent for resource exploitation on their lands.

However, there remains a large gap between recognizing these rights on paper and enforcing them in practice. Even in countries with progressive laws, governments still pursue extractive projects without Indigenous consent. Indigenous groups also lack the resources to legally enforce their rights against powerful extractive companies.

Key examples discussed are legal battles by the Beaver Lake Cree Nation and Athabasca Chipewyan First Nation in Canada to assert their treaty rights in the face of extensive tar sands development, which pose immense challenges given the outsize power of industry and governments.

Non-Indigenous activists are increasingly recognizing Indigenous rights as important legal tools to oppose unsustainable extraction. Movements are fostering new partnerships and reconciliation between Indigenous and non-Indigenous communities around demanding that treaty and land rights be honored to protect the environment.

The Idle No More movement was sparked by a series of attacks by the Canadian government on Indigenous sovereignty and environmental protections. In 2012, two budget bills gutted environmental regulations, reducing oversight of industrial projects and community input. This paved the way for expanded tar sands and mining projects opposed by First Nations.

The Idle No More protests spread across Canada in response. Protest tactics included hunger strikes, spiritual walks, and road/rail blockades. The movement drew support from diverse groups and highlighted how the new laws undermined Indigenous rights to land and water.

As Idle No More gained momentum, some investors took notice of increased risks from unresolved Indigenous land claims and opposition. Journalists also observed this collaboration between Indigenous and environmental groups could shape resource management and challenge assumptions about Canada’s economy.

The movement gained further attention through Neil Young’s “Honour the Treaties” concert tour, which raised funds and awareness for Indigenous legal challenges against tar sands projects. While asserting rights through courts and protests, many Indigenous communities still face pressure to partner with extractive industries due to lack of economic opportunities and impacts of climate change on traditional livelihoods.

• BP is one of the companies selected to begin developing Greenland’s estimated 50 billion barrels of offshore oil and gas reserves. This is concerning given BP’s poor track record, such as during the Deepwater Horizon disaster when they offered fishing vessels cleanup work to mop up oil, despite being responsible for taking away their livelihood by polluting the oceans.

• Indigenous communities are often torn on whether to accept jobs and benefits from extractive industries or uphold traditional teachings, as the industries dangle richer offers as indigenous opposition grows stronger. However, the industries are often the only source of jobs and skills training in native communities that have seen little other economic development.

• If indigenous people are expected to be the “last line of defense” against fossil fuel projects by invoking treaty and land rights, non-native groups need to do more to provide real and hopeful economic alternatives for indigenous communities beyond just legal and financial support for battles. True empowerment comes from alternatives, not just saying no to dirty development.

• Charlene Alden has led the Northern Cheyenne tribe’s long legal battles against coal mining and pollution, scoring some victories like stopping wastewater dumping into a river. However, high unemployment and poverty on the reservation make some members open to coal industry jobs and money.

• Alden worries more coal development will further damage the land and culture, not solve the underlying problems. She seeks sustainable economic alternatives that respect Cheyenne values like clean air and water.

• Opportunities exist like weatherizing homes, building straw bale houses, and developing renewable energy, but funding is lacking.

• Bonogofsky and Alden manage to bring in money to train locals to install passive solar heaters on homes, reducing bills and ties to dirty energy. Henry Red Cloud teaches the skills while connecting them to Cheyenne traditions of following the sun’s pathway.

• The project successfully trains people and installs solar heaters as an example of sustainable solutions respecting the land and culture that Alden hopes will convince others and break the cycle of poverty and desolation plaguing the reservation.

The passage discusses how fossil fuel extraction relies on the illusion of total human control and domination over nature. Renewable energy like solar and wind requires acknowledging interdependence with natural forces that can never be fully possessed.

It describes how Henry Red Cloud, a solar energy advocate, trains Native American students on renewable technologies. This shifts perspectives from extraction to “working synergistically” with the earth. Coal miners like Jeff King were interested in alternatives that respected indigenous worldviews.

Red Cloud’s teaching stimulated interest across the reservation. Students like Vanessa Braided Hair and Lucas King became vocal opponents of new coal and gas projects. They advocated for their people’s right to say no to extraction and desire renewable alternatives instead.

Overall, the passage argues that providing real renewable energy options is a powerful way to energize opposition to fossil fuel projects. It gives examples of how indigenous communities seek both skills and revenue from clean energy development on their lands.

• The Navajo Nation has proposed a plan to build a municipal-scale solar utility on Navajo lands in Black Mesa, AZ, generating power while bringing jobs, skills training and revenues to the local community. This addresses past injustices of big energy projects that primarily benefited outsiders.

• However, over 5 years later this project still struggles with funding barriers. Climate justice requires supporting indigenous communities’ efforts to build sustainable economies as an alternative to extraction.

• Extraction continues due to lack of economic alternatives, desperation of low-income communities. The jobs vs environment dichotomy would disappear with policies like green job creation and social safety nets.

• Fossil fuel divestment should be coupled with reinvestment into community groups, cooperatives, projects supporting local economies, job creation, public transit and more. This can empower frontline communities to resist extraction and build sustainable solutions.

• Divestment pressure erodes fossil fuel social license and builds pressure for emission reductions. Reinvestment expands resources for growing a sustainable economy sector providing jobs, democracy and resilience against job losses.

The passage discusses how modern social movements opposing projects like pipelines and fracking simultaneously fight the system and build alternatives, unlike past movements which often split between these approaches. Communities facing extractive industries must provide economic alternatives to gain community support. Examples are given of communities building renewable energy projects to offer jobs and energy independence as they fight projects like Keystone XL and fracking. The passage argues climate change makes dropping out and building self-sufficient enclaves impossible, so both resistance and alternatives are needed together. Major disasters can create opportunities to rebuild communities more sustainably if public money is used for transformation rather than just reconstruction. The example of Greensburg, Kansas rebuilding as a green town after a tornado supports using crises to advance positive change rather than just returning to the status quo. Overall the passage argues modern activism requires integrating resistance and alternative building.

• Greensburg, Kansas rebuilt itself as a “living laboratory” for sustainable design and green architecture after being almost entirely destroyed by a 2007 tornado. Its new buildings use cutting-edge green technology and the town’s wind turbines produce more energy than residents need.

• Despite being located in a conservative Republican county skeptical of climate change, rebuilding in a sustainable way has united residents around shared values of land stewardship and responsibility to future generations. Mayor Bob Dixson notes community meetings focused on who they are and their values rather than political debates.

• The experience of loss and community support has “rekindled values of land stewardship and intergenerational responsibility” in Greensburg. Rebuilding focused not on exploiting the crisis but on solving underlying problems and expanding participation rather than concentrating power.

• In contrast, after Hurricane Katrina, New Orleans saw corporate interests exploiting the crisis to attack public services and leave the city more vulnerable. But disasters could instead be opportunities to revive the commons and sustainability in ways that reduce future climate impacts.

• The failure of international climate negotiations to adequately reduce emissions is reflective of disagreements over which countries historically contributed most to creating the crisis and should take on more responsibility in addressing it.

• Without real solutions like the Yasuní initiative, movements will need to step in where governments fall short on their international responsibilities. Addressing climate change also raises difficult questions about responsibilities and rights between wealthy and developing nations.

• Emissions are surging fastest in emerging economies like China, India and Brazil as they adopt high-consumption models of development promoted by multinational corporations. If their energy use mirrors Western patterns, the impacts of climate change will be catastrophic.

• The battle against climate change will be won or lost based on movements in the Global South fighting for clean energy, jobs and carbon left in the ground. Wealthy nations can help by supporting such alternatives and not enabling dirty development through actions like new trade deals or fossil fuel exports.

• Financing a just transition to sustainable development in fast-growing economies is needed but has not been a priority for many climate groups. The concept of climate debt acknowledges the historical role wealthy countries played in creating the crisis and what they owe to frontline nations.

• The history of modern development and underdevelopment are closely intertwined. Wealthy nations extracted resources through slavery, colonization and fossil fuel use to power their economic growth and industrialization.

• The carbon emitted during this period of economic development is still accumulating in the atmosphere today, effectively giving wealthy nations rights to a disproportionate share of the global carbon budget.

• Developing nations are now squeezed between the impacts of climate change exacerbated by poverty, and needing fossil fuel-based development to alleviate poverty within the current economic system.

• A fair solution requires wealthy nations to take responsibility for historical emissions and provide financial and technological support to help developing nations transition to low-carbon development paths. Several frameworks have been proposed to quantify countries’ fair shares of emissions reductions based on responsibility and capacity.

• Actions like debt relief for developing countries in exchange for climate action, sharing green technology patents, and making polluters pay through various financial mechanisms could help address climate justice without overburdening taxpayers in wealthy nations. An equitable solution is needed to avoid catastrophic carbon emissions from those controlling lands and seeing rising emissions in the global south.

This passage describes feeling unable to fully embrace possibilities for the future, like having children or enjoying nature, due to an overpowering sense of the inevitable losses coming from climate change and environmental destruction. The author refers to this as “pre-loss” or imagining the future loss before it happens, which prevents fully experiencing the present or future optimism. She outlines how this affected her desire to have children for many years, fearing the world they would inherit.

The passage reflects on the connection between motherhood and nature, and how industrial activities are interfering with the Earth’s natural fertility cycles and species’ ability to reproduce successfully.

The author relates her own struggles with infertility and miscarriages. While covering the BP oil spill in Louisiana, she was pregnant but had a miscarriage from an ectopic pregnancy. She realizes the toxicity she was exposed to from the spill could have contributed.

This gets her thinking about how the spill was having a massive impact on underwater reproduction. During spawning season, tiny larvae and juveniles were being killed by contact with oil and dispersants with no chance to avoid it. This would lead to absence and holes in life cycles down the line as these individuals never reached maturity.

Witnessing this aquatic “miscarriage” made her feel a kinship with other infertile beings, human and nonhuman. She realizes infertility is a widespread challenge in nature today due to human impacts on the environment. Regulatory systems also fail to properly consider impacts of chemicals and pollution on developing lives like fetuses and children. Overall clusters of infertility and illness can be early warnings of broader health crises from industrial activities.

• Studies found that proximity to fracking increased the risks of low birth weight, neurological defects, and other infant health issues. Research on communities near gas wells and fracking operations showed higher rates of low birth weight and poorer newborn health outcomes.

• Communities near heavy industry like chemical plants also reported higher rates of reproductive issues. The Aamjiwnaang First Nation in Canada, located near “Chemical Valley,” saw the ratio of male to female births decline dramatically. Studies found higher levels of hormone-disrupting chemicals in women and children there.

• Mossville, Louisiana, a historic black community surrounded by 14 chemical plants and refineries, reported many stories of miscarriages, hysterectomies, and birth defects. Multiple women in one family in Mossville reported having hysterectomies at young ages.

• BP’s risk assessment for its Gulf drilling wildly underestimated the impact on marine life reproduction. Two years after the spill, fishermen reported not seeing juvenile fish. Studies found oil exposure inhibited hatching of rotifers and embryos, threatening fisheries for years. The spill’s long-term effects on Gulf marine life reproduction remain unclear but concern over is growing.

• In early 2011, 35 dead baby dolphins were found on Gulf Coast beaches and marshes, an 18-fold increase from the typical number of 2. By April 2014, over 235 dead baby dolphins had washed ashore.

• Scientists examining the dolphins found high rates of lung disease, low cortisol levels indicating stress, and one dolphin was pregnant with a non-viable fetus, which is extremely rare. This suggests the dolphin mothers were exposed to oil pollution and dispersants from the BP spill during their pregnancies.

• A heavy snowfall in 2010-2011 sent freshwater flooding into the Gulf, lowering salinity and temperature levels. This, combined with oil pollution residues, created additional stress for dolphin populations already weakened by the spill.

• Climate change is negatively impacting reproduction in many species by making conditions too hot, dry, or acidic for eggs and young offspring to survive. Examples given include sea turtles, corals, oysters, caribou, songbirds, polar bears, and more.

• The naturopath the author saw suggested fertility issues may be a sign the body is overly stressed and lacks energy for pregnancy. Tests showed the author had allergies, adrenal insufficiency, and low cortisol like the dolphins, suggesting a overly taxed system.

The passage describes the author’s struggles with infertility and efforts to get pregnant. She tried various medical treatments, diets, supplements and lifestyle changes recommended by a doctor studying the link between stress and fertility. This included moving from the city to a rural area for a less stressful life.

The author notices parallels between this approach and sustainability ideas like allowing the land to lie fallow. She visits the Land Institute, which is experimenting with perennial crops that don’t deplete soil fertility like annuals do. This mimics natural ecosystems. Their early success with perennial wheatgrass is highlighted.

Around this time, the author gets pregnant. She describes her anxieties during the pregnancy and finds relief hiking by a creek, observing salmon battling upstream to spawn. Salmon are used as a symbol of tenacity and regeneration in nature. The passage ends by noting salmon runs sometimes fail for natural reasons.

• Autumn streams are empty, filled with only dead leaves and a few discolored fish as the salmon have disappeared due to various threats. Salmon populations have declined by 40% from their historical range in the Pacific Northwest.

• Salmon face many challenges including overfishing, fish farming operations that spread lice, warming waters impacting their food supply, debris in spawning streams from logging, and dams blocking their paths. They are not invincible and can be stopped by oil spills and industrial accidents.

• The author sees parallels in their own fertility struggles, feeling lucky their pregnancy succeeded but it could have easily failed after pushing their body’s limits. They feel constrained by biological limits even as humans and ecosystems show resilience.

• Indigenous systems like those of the Mississauga Nishnaabeg are designed to “promote more life,” not just human life but all living things, in contrast to extractivism. This concept of balance and continuous rebirth is spreading as indigenous worldviews influence environmental movements.

• Countries with large indigenous populations have enacted “rights of nature” laws, asserting ecosystems’ right to exist and regenerate. Similar ordinances are emerging elsewhere to protect communities from extreme extraction. The role of humanity is shifting from dominance over nature to partnership promoting regeneration of natural cycles.

• Younger generations today organizing against extraction may lack some skills of older generations who survived wars and occupations, but the elders can help by sharing knowledge of collective agriculture, cooking large meals, and believing alternative ways of life are possible.

• In younger countries like the US, remembering the true Indigenous histories of the land is complex for descendants of settlers and immigrants. However, Indigenous and non-Indigenous people working closely on environmental issues in Montana has “reawakened a worldview in a lot of people.”

• Urban residents are largely disconnected from nature due to infrastructure, but cracks in this system like extreme weather events are revealing how dependent cities still are. Extraction industries also encroaching into cities shows these connections.

• As communities move beyond resisting extraction to constructing alternative models, practices focus on circular systems like permaculture, recycling, and drawing from renewably regenerating resources rather than one-way extraction. Diversity is also amplified for redundancy.

• The goal is for land use that requires minimal external inputs while producing little waste, in line with nature’s emphasis on homeostasis and regeneration over depletion. Extraction can still occur at small, controlled scales when communities directly benefit and are invested in land’s health.

• In April 2010, representatives from developing nations met in Cochabamba, Bolivia and drafted the Universal Declaration of the Rights of Mother Earth.

• This agreement asserts that the earth has “the right to regenerate its bio-capacity and to continue its vital cycles and processes free of human alteration.”

• It notes that “the regenerative capacity of the planet has been already exceeded” by human activity.

• The agreement recognizes the inherent rights of the Earth to fulfill its ecological functions and regenerate its natural cycles without being disrupted by human intervention beyond sustainable levels.

• It emphasizes that human rights cannot be realized without the protection of the Earth’s capacity to provide for present and future generations.

In summary, the document drafted in Bolivia in 2010 recognized the rights of the Earth and Mother Nature to exist and function free from excessive human disruption that exceeds the planet’s regenerative capacity. It links human and planetary well-being.

• Martin Luther King Jr. argued in 1967 that meaningful equality for Black Americans would require massive investments in schools, jobs programs, and affordable housing, not just desegregation, which could be achieved at “bargain rates.” However, these more radical economic demands were never realized.

• Second-wave feminists also pushed for fundamental challenges to the economic system, such as paying women for domestic work traditionally done unpaid at home. But these deeper demands for redistribution also went unmet.

• One exception was the labor movement during the Great Depression, which won major gains through unionization and helped usher in ambitious New Deal programs. However, many Black Americans and women were still excluded.

• Some socialist governments like Allende in Chile attempted nationalizing industries and redistributing wealth, but were undermined by foreign interference before achieving their potential.

• The abolitionist movement succeeded in challenging an entrenched system of slavery that was hugely profitable, though slaveowners were often financially compensated while freed slaves received little.

• The movement parallels challenges of combating climate change by forcing fossil fuel interests to relinquish trillions in wealth, though unlike slavery, burning fossil fuels is not morally equivalent and climate movements so far have not achieved transformative economic changes.

• Past social justice movements like civil rights achieved legal victories but fell short economically, failing to realize visions for a more equitable economic system. The climate movement faces similar challenges.

• However, the economic demands of past movements - for public services, housing, land redistribution - represent unfinished business that climate change presents an opportunity to address. Massive climate investments could achieve redistribution and access to basic needs.

• Lessons from successful social movements show they resulted from extraordinary levels of widespread social mobilization, not isolated activism. Climate change requires similar mass participation to overcome obstacles.

• But modern society and neoliberal ideology have eroded community and collective action. Overcoming climate change demands changing the dominant worldview away from individualism and profit-seeking.

• Early policy victories should aim to shift thought patterns, like guaranteed basic incomes, rather than incremental changes. This opens debate about societal values and rebuilding faith in humanity’s cooperative abilities. Changing narratives is key to making the large-scale societal leap needed this decade.

• We should view past failures to act on climate change with compassion rather than judgment, as many people are overwhelmed by how much they care about the issue and lack collective spaces to confront it. Denial can be a way to cope with the moral imperative to respond while also failing to do so.

• The task is to articulate an alternative worldview based on interdependence, reciprocity and cooperation rather than individualism, dominance and hierarchy. This is needed both to dramatically lower emissions and help society cope with inevitable disasters.

• Transformative social movements understood changing cultural values was key to their work. They advocated for their moral positions and alternative visions rather than just policy proposals or cost-benefit arguments.

• Abolitionists argued against slavery on both pragmatic economic grounds and strongly asserted the moral failings of the institution and views that supported it. Changing moral perceptions was crucial to its abolition.

• Progressive victories established rights as too valuable to quantify economically. The climate movement must find its moral voice and assert fossil fuel threats as akin to history’s worst crimes.

• Social upheaval is often unexpected but may be sparked by disasters in a warming world, eroding support for free market ideology and optimistic techno-fixes. The political context is different than decades ago and barriers to climate action are eroding.

• The passage argues that leadership and change will only come from grassroots movements bubbling up from below, not from those in power who claim they will fix the crisis.

• Today we are less isolated than in the past thanks to technologies like social media that help people find community. This global conversation, though sometimes maddening, is unprecedented in its reach and influence.

• When another crisis hits, as it inevitably will, people will take to the streets in protest, taking everyone by surprise. Progressives must seize that moment with confidence and harness it not just to critique the current system but to actually build a new world that addresses the crisis and keeps people safe. The stakes are too high and time too short to settle for anything less than systemic change.

• In summary, the author argues that true change will only come from grassroots movements, not those in power, and that the next crisis must be used as an opportunity to not just protest but to propose real solutions and work to construct a new system that can solve the problem.

• The passage describes the views and activities of groups opposing mainstream climate science, such as The Heartland Institute. It portrays them as successfully politicizing and sowing doubts about the climate issue through public policy campaigns and media outreach.

• Figures like Joseph Bast of The Heartland Institute are presented as believing the scientific consensus on climate change is a “hoax” designed to increase government control. They promote alternative viewpoints questioning the magnitude and causes of warming.

• Tactics discussed include challenging scientists like Michael Mann through open records requests, criticizing policies like cap-and-trade as economically detrimental, and casting doubt on IPCC and other mainstream scientific assessments.

• The coverage achieved by The Heartland Institute’s international conferences is portrayed as helping turn media and public attention away from Establishment climate messages. However, press attention to the conferences later receded somewhat.

• In summary, the passage examines how climate change opposition groups have worked to shift the climate policy debate through publicly challenging consensus science and promoting their alternative perspectives. It describes some success in influencing media and political discussion of the issue.

Here is a summary of the provided sources:

• Several sources discuss how climate change denial is politically polarized, with most Republicans and conservatives skeptical of human-caused climate change compared to most Democrats and liberals who accept the scientific consensus. This politicization has increased over time.

• Cultural cognition theory suggests people’s views on societal risks like climate change are strongly influenced by their cultural worldviews and values. Conservatives tend to be more skeptical due to an individualist, anti-regulatory worldview.

• Groups like the Heartland Institute, Cato Institute, and Committee for a Constructive Tomorrow have worked to undermine public trust in climate science and policies. They have received substantial fossil fuel industry funding.

• Climate change denial books and some think tanks/lobby groups aim to cast doubt on climate science for political and ideological reasons rather than impartial evaluation of evidence.

• While a majority of Americans believe global warming is happening, climate change is a low priority issue and concern about it has declined. It remains politically polarizing in the U.S. and some other countries.

• Most scientists agree that human activity is the dominant cause of current global warming, though a small minority of studies find imperfect understanding or uncertainties remain.

Here is a summary of the provided source:

The source discusses tensions and trade disputes around government subsidies and local content requirements for renewable energy technologies like solar panels and wind turbines. It notes disputes brought to the WTO by various countries challenging each other’s policies:

• The US challenged China’s subsidies and local content rules for wind power equipment.

• China challenged subsidies/support by European Union countries for their renewable energy sectors.

• China threatened retaliation against US policies supporting renewables.

• The US challenged India’s subsidies and local content requirements for solar cells/modules.

It also discusses India contemplating closing its solar market in response to challenges, and India responding to questions at the WTO regarding its local content policies for renewables programs. Overall, the source examines the trade issues and protectionism arising from government support policies in renewable energy markets between major countries like the US, China, EU and India.

Here is a summary of the key points from the sources:

• India raised questions to the US about state-level renewable energy subsidies in the US that had local content requirements, through the WTO dispute process.

• Ontario, Canada passed the Green Energy Act in 2009 which established feed-in tariffs and policies to promote renewable energy. This faced challenges at the WTO.

• Ontario’s renewable energy policies helped grow solar and wind industries in the province but the cancellation of gas plants cost over $1 billion. Policies led to the closure of one coal plant and job growth.

• Japan challenged Canada’s renewable energy policies at the WTO over local content requirements. The WTO Appellate Body later ruled against some aspects of Ontario’s FIT program.

• Fossil fuel subsidies distort markets and undermine climate goals. Renewable energy is increasingly cost competitive compared to subsidies for fossil fuels.

• Countries like Denmark have been successful with long-term renewable energy policies, including wind power, leading to widespread adoption.

• Developing countries and advocacy groups argue the WTO is not the proper forum for challenges to environmental policies and that rich countries use trade rules to block climate policies in the developing world.

• There are tensions between free trade and efforts to address climate change through subsidies, trade measures or border carbon adjustments. Future agreements may seek to reform trade rules to support a transition away from fossil fuels.

Here is a summary of the key points from the provided sources:

• Emissions declined following the 2008-2009 financial crisis as economic activity slowed but rebounded as growth resumed, showing the link between emissions and GDP growth. Meeting long-term climate goals will require decoupling economic growth from emissions growth. (Source 1)

• China’s emissions have grown significantly due to its role as the world’s factory, though some estimates suggest over 20% of its emissions are produced making goods for export. Dealing with emissions transfer between countries will be important for climate policy. (Sources 2-4)

• Concerns were raised about increasing coal use in Europe and unsafe working conditions in factories producing goods for Western markets in places like China. (Sources 5,7)

• Early U.S. environmental groups were divided on supporting free trade agreements like NAFTA due to concerns they could undermine environmental regulations and exporting pollution. However, mainstream groups eventually supported the deals. (Sources 8-10)

• Transitioning to more localized and less globalized production systems could help address emissions linked to international trade but major challenges would need to be overcome. (Sources 11,45)

• Meeting a 2°C or lower climate target consistent with equity principles would require global carbon budgets requiring emissions cuts far beyond what could be achieved with economic growth as currently defined. New models of sustainable prosperity may be needed. (Sources 12-14, 16-18, 51-54)

Here is a summary of the key points from the selected sources:

• Austria has implemented policies like carbon taxes and renewable energy support schemes to reduce greenhouse gas emissions and increase the use of renewables. International energy agencies have reviewed and affirmed Austria’s climate and energy policies.

• Norway strongly supports renewable energy like wind and solar. Between 2012-2017, renewables are projected to grow significantly in Norway.

• The city of Austin, Texas passed a resolution in 2007 to reduce the city’s greenhouse gas emissions. An update in 2013 reports progress made towards climate protection goals.

• The Sacramento Municipal Utility District in California gets a significant portion of its electricity from renewable sources like solar, wind and hydroelectric through its renewable energy portfolio. It also has greenhouse gas reduction initiatives.

• Germany’s energy networks have been brought into public control and ownership to promote the transition to renewable energy sources like wind and solar. International energy agencies see large-scale renewable energy systems as technically and economically feasible.

• Studies show transitioning energy systems to rely entirely on renewable sources like wind, water and solar is possible and would have economic and environmental benefits. Plans and strategies have been proposed for countries and large regions to become powered entirely by renewable energy in the coming decades.

• Hurricane Sandy in 2012 underscored vulnerabilities in current energy and infrastructure systems. Communities of color and low-income areas were disproportionately impacted. Climate change is increasing weather extremes and more investment is needed in climate resilient infrastructure and communities.

• UK government spending cuts have reduced flood defense budgets and staffing at agencies like the Environment Agency, raising concerns about preparedness for extreme weather expected to increase with climate change.

• Major fossil fuel companies like Exxon have spent vast sums denying and delaying action on climate change while profiting enormously from extraction of oil, gas and coal. Restricting warming to safe levels may require transitioning companies and wealth to support renewable energy development and impacted communities.

• Studied proposed transitioning taxation systems like carbon fees and dividends to fund renewable energy, energy efficiency and social welfare programs to address climate change in an equitable manner. Transitioning to renewable energy could have economic and public health benefits while curbing global warming.

Here is a summary of the key points from Nations Department of Economic and Social Affairs, 2012, p. 44:

• Military expenditures around the world in 2012 were over $1.7 trillion according to the Stockholm International Peace Research Institute (SIPRI).

• The World Bank estimates that mobilizing climate finance could cost $100-600 billion per year by 2020 and $280-670 billion per year by 2030.

• Oil Change International and NRDC argue that governments should phase out fossil fuel subsidies which currently amount to over $500 billion per year and risk lower economic growth.

• Some sources that could help raise climate funds include reducing military spending, imposing a financial transactions tax, raising carbon taxes, and ensuring a just transition for workers and communities dependent on the fossil fuel industry.

• Rationing policies during World War II showed that with public support, short-term sacrifices can be made for the long-term well-being of society. Public opinion polls show support for carbon taxes and policies to tax the wealthy more to address climate change.

• This section analyzes public finance options to mobilize the large investments needed to transition to a clean energy economy and avoid dangerous climate change. It cites data on military spending, fossil fuel subsidies, and public support for climate policy options.

Here is a summary of the key points from the sources:

• A 2009 Scientific American article found that renewables accounted for only 1.3% of global energy generation at the time, but the share was growing rapidly.

• In a 2010 CNN article, Stanford professor Mark Jacobson argued that nuclear power is too risky due to the potential for catastrophic accidents and challenges with long-term waste storage.

• A 2010 episode of Real Time with Bill Maher discussed the relative risks and benefits of different energy sources like nuclear, coal, and renewables.

• Germany has been shifting away from nuclear power following Fukushima and toward renewable energy sources to meet its climate targets.

• Studies show shale gas development can leak significant quantities of methane, a potent greenhouse gas, negating some of its climate benefits over coal. There is ongoing research and debate around methane emissions from natural gas.

• Despite renewable energy growth, many oil and gas companies continue massive investments in high-carbon projects like tar sands and liquefied natural gas that would be inconsistent with climate targets without carbon capture and storage technologies.

• Climate policy uncertainties and high production costs pose challenges and risks to future oil and gas investments and profitability. Some studies argue many fossil fuel reserves will need to stay in the ground to meet global climate limits.

• The fossil fuel industry spends vast sums lobbying against climate and clean energy policies to protect its economic interests. Some argue this has significantly hampered climate progress in some countries.

• While some fossil fuel companies now acknowledge the climate risks, their core business models and lobbying still focus on developing more reserves and expanding fossil fuel use rather than transitioning to renewables and low-carbon solutions.