Read more
Interview with Noam Chomsky
Climate crisis: It's not over yet
Global warming is increasing, extreme weather is appearing all over the world. Intense heat, floods and deaths are now the main news. Is the world losing the war on climate change? Is this inactivity being denied the significance of this - or why? What is the way of liberation? World-renowned thinker Noam Chomsky was confronted with these questions by the US media Truth Out.
Noam Chomsky, an American linguist, is currently an Emeritus Professor at MIT and L'Oreat Professor of Linguistics at the University of Arizona. The number of books published by Noam Chomsky on various subjects is more than one and a half-hundred. The interview, taken by journalist CJ Polycnur, was published on July 29.
Noam Chomsky: As you may remember, three years ago Oxford physicist Raymond Pierrehumbert wrote, ‘Now is the time to panic. We are in grave danger. "
In all that has been known so far, the warning is intensifying. A draft of the IPCC report went to AFP last June. There was a list of the final boundaries on some of the issues that the world has come close to. We were told to be ready for that time. In some cases, inevitable consequences were also mentioned. That draft was made before the extreme weather came this summer. This is what surprises scientists even more. Extreme weather is similar to the observations made by environmentalist Michael Mann decades ago. But this situation is going beyond that prediction. This may be due to the fact that the warming of the atmosphere has not found a place in environmental studies.
There is a good side to this scary news. In this way, the world leaders may understand what kind of terrible situation they are creating. If you look at what is happening right in front of your eyes, the Republican Party of the United States and its staunch supporters - ‘Fox News’ may think for a while about the reality.
We have also seen signs of this in the Corona crisis. Republican governors who joked about the caution later took cognizance of the matter. Residents of their state have been severely affected due to lack of preventive measures and anti-vaccination position.
One of the effects of the policy makers' disregard for environmental disasters is that it affects the minds of ordinary people. A recent survey found that 58 percent of Republicans do not care about climate change. According to more than 40 percent, people have no role to play here. And 44 percent think environmentalists are having an additional impact on policy-making discussions.
If ever the history of this crisis is written, it will probably be written by the inhabitants of the aliens, in that day people will destroy this earth. And if a museum is built in memory of those behind the crime, there will be special rooms in honor of Republican Party and Fox officials.
The media has a lot of responsibilities. A report by FAIR, a media watchdog, paints a picture of how long Morning TV has aired news of climate change and Jeff Bezos' space travel. The television station broadcast 26 minutes of news about the climate crisis for the whole year 2020 in their morning programs. And in just one day, the message of that unimportant public relations of Bezos has been broadcast for 212 minutes. But who doesn't know that the crisis of climate change is the struggle of human civilization and this is the most important issue in history now.
Come back to your question. Human civilization is clearly losing the battle. But it's not all over yet. It is possible to have a better world, we know how to achieve that. The important thing is, we need to be afraid now. But do not be disappointed.
CJ Polycrnue: One of the most worrying issues about the climate crisis is that while all virtual reports on climate change show the effects of global warming are growing, there is skepticism and inaction everywhere. In your opinion, are there only cultural and economic reasons behind not paying attention to the climate crisis, or is something else at work? In my opinion, there is a connection between the attack of postmodern thought on science and rationality and the neglect of the climate crisis.
Noam Chomsky: There was a tendency in the 17th century to express skepticism about everything. This period is very significant in the history of growth. This line of thought led to progress in understanding nature from empirical knowledge. I don't think the practice of postmodernism has overtaken it. As you are asking, the practice of postmodernism has not had much effect in this case. Even if the impact is felt, it is in the small range of the very less educated. In denying ecology, in fact, there is a tendency to reject science. To me these crises come from the very depths of culture.
There is still a tendency among a large section of people to reject scientific evidence. Scientists are also human beings. Neither they nor their organization are above criticism. One can get from them mistakes, dishonesty, childish quarrels and all the faults of ordinary people. But if we question human endeavors to understand the world in which we live, then there is nothing to hope for.
CJ Polyclinue: Discussions on the climate crisis are mainly about equality and justice. The issue of ‘climate equality vs. climate justice’ is avoided, especially under the Paris Climate Agreement. Achieving the goal of reducing carbon emissions in global economic activitiesHe thinks that we should pay attention to these issues in the discussion. Reducing carbon emissions from economic activity is being discussed as the only way to address the current crisis of global warming.
Noam Chomsky: One thing to keep in mind is that they are very small in number but rich, most of whom live in rich countries, they are mainly responsible for the environmental crisis. They have done it before, still do. So stop carbon emissions and the issues of equality and justice are interrelated. The socio-economic change needed to stop carbon emissions beyond moral responsibility requires enormous public support. It will not be possible to achieve this without climate justice.
CJ Polyclinue: You and Robert Pauline co-authored a book, Climate Crisis and the New Deal on Global Greening: The Political Economy of Protecting the Earth. Robert Pauline says the only effective way to deal with global warming is to reach a global agreement on greening. My question is in two contexts: First, a lot has happened in the world in the last 40 to 50 years which is a kind of globalization. However, all this has come from the idea of a nation-based state. How would you explain internationalism? Second, what kind of change needs to be made so that internationalism can play a role in tackling global warming?
Noam Chomsky: Internationalism has many facets. One form of internationalism is the concept of specific globalization imposed in the name of free trade. In the years of neo-liberalism, free trade has been arranged in this globalization through agreements in the interest of investors. It has created a kind of class struggle. Another type of internationalism is the alliance of the Axis Powers, which resulted in World War II. This is something we have seen in recent US foreign policy. For example, forming alliances with reactionary states working for Washington.
Another type of internationalism was seen during the labor movement in the United States, led by the Industrial Workers of the World (IWW). Other trade unions in different countries also use 'International' in their name. This reflects a commitment to true internationalism.
Rosa Luxemburg was the most vocal person of such internationalism in Europe. The idea of a superior civilization, as opposed to internationalism, emerged during the First World War. At that time the idea of a better civilization prevailed.
At present we are seeing more and more manifestations of internationalism. The situation in Germany and Austria is quite good in early 2020, but the Corona epidemic has spread to Italy. Although the rich neighbors did not come forward at that time, Italy benefited from real internationalism. Cuba sent doctors there. They have also extended a hand of cooperation to other countries, including Panama. But here again the United States intervened. The annual report from the Trump administration's Department of Health and Human Services announced in 2020 that they had succeeded in pressuring Panama to expel all Cuban doctors to protect the region from Cuba's harmful effects.
That needs to change. Now everyone understands that the coroner's stock of rich countries is not only immoral but also self-destructive. In countries with weak economies and rich countries who do not want to be vaccinated, new types of the virus will be created in their bodies. It will be a big danger for everyone in the world, including the rich. More serious than that, global warming does not mean the borders of any country.
0 Reviews