I grew up having this recurring dream. I guess it was a nightmare, really. It was one of those end-of-the-world scenarios where we knew the earth was collapsing in the next few days and I couldn’t get home to my family in Hawai’i because the planes weren’t running anymore and I was stuck over here on the continental U.S.
I’m not sure if that’s typical, for children to worry about the end of the world. I figure my parents’ generation was probably plagued by fears of the end of the world coming from nuclear threat during the Cold War, but I think this subconscious dread is a unique burden of my generation. In addition to the fantastic simulations of Armageddon portrayed in feature films, we also have the sobering reality of climate change knocking at the back door of our minds. We can’t turn that movie off, and no adults who acknowledge the natural indicators of catastrophe can look us in the face and say “it’s going to be all right.”
I’m thinking about this in the wake of the Copenhagen (nonbinding) Accords. Listening to the news from Copenhagen over the past two weeks I was really struck by hearing for the first time in my life, people – civil society and politicians alike – talk about needing to make drastic change in order to “save the future of humanity.” Quite literally, everyone is acknowledging that the future of life on earth is at stake. That’s pretty intense.
Today I was listening to Amy Goodman’s interview of the climate scientist who first convinced the world that global warming was a problem – James Hanson – talk about why he skipped going to Copenhagen because the world would be better off if the negotiations failed than if they set up another agreement centered around Cap and Trade. Hansen just wrote a book called “Storms of my grandchildren,” and he talked about climate change as “intergenerational injustice.”
I like that phrase a lot. It speaks to me as a young person, as someone who hopes to raise a family who will know the same homelands I know. Place is important to me, as it is important in all cultures who have been rooted in a place for generations. Native cultures teach making decisions that consider the impacts seven generations from now. This is the wisdom of knowing a place so well that you shape and are shaped by that environment over many lifetimes. This is the kind of wisdom we are lacking in political spaces like Copenhagen right now, while there is talk about the imminent destruction of life as we know it and yet no commitment is made to change course.
I can’t make sense of that logic, other than to think that those who are making decisions, or lack thereof, are using a shortsighted analysis of the impacts of climate change. Now that we all acknowledge that climate change is real, we can look at the science that’s predicting for us exactly what kind of changes we can expect depending on how much we reduce our emissions. I can’t help but notice that the people in power during these discussions are not coming from places most immediately affected by the sea level rise and storms to come.
In Hawai’i two years ago we hosted the Major Economies Meeting in Honolulu, yet another climate talk that resulted in non-action. While representatives from the largest carbon-emitting countries sat inside the meeting, we walked around downtown Honolulu drawing a blue chalk line around the areas that would be underwater with a 1m sea level rise. A major portion of the city would drown. Island communities are on the front lines of climate change, and we saw them stand up strongly in Copenhagen to voice just how important this issue is.
Earlier this week, Amy Goodman asked the Maldivian President, Mohamed Nasheed, to describe what a 3 degree Celsius temperature rise would mean for his country.
PRESIDENT MOHAMED NASHEED: “That would mean that we won’t be around. That would mean the death of us… Sea levels would rise. We are just 1.5 meters above the water. And if we have sea levels rising to seventy, eighty centimeters, that’s going to eat up most of our country. So we won’t be around.
AMY GOODMAN: Are you making preparations for a mass population removal to dry land?
PRESIDENT MOHAMED NASHEED: Well, you know, we’ve been there in the middle of the Indian Ocean for the last 10,000 years, and we have a written history that goes back 2,000 years. I can move, but where would all the butterflies go, all the sounds go, all the culture go, all the color go?
“INTERGENERATIONAL INJUSTICE”
I grew up having this recurring dream. I guess it was a nightmare, really. It was one of those end-of-the-world scenarios where we knew the earth was collapsing in the next few days and I couldn’t get home to my family in Hawai’i because the planes weren’t running anymore and I was stuck over here on the continental U.S.
I’m not sure if that’s typical, for children to worry about the end of the world. I figure my parents’ generation was probably plagued by fears of the end of the world coming from nuclear threat during the Cold War, but I think this subconscious dread is a unique burden of my generation. In addition to the fantastic simulations of Armageddon portrayed in feature films, we also have the sobering reality of climate change knocking at the back door of our minds. We can’t turn that movie off, and no adults who acknowledge the natural indicators of catastrophe can look us in the face and say “it’s going to be all right.”
I’m thinking about this in the wake of the Copenhagen (nonbinding) Accords. Listening to the news from Copenhagen over the past two weeks I was really struck by hearing for the first time in my life, people – civil society and politicians alike – talk about needing to make drastic change in order to “save the future of humanity.” Quite literally, everyone is acknowledging that the future of life on earth is at stake. That’s pretty intense.
Today I was listening to Amy Goodman’s interview of the climate scientist who first convinced the world that global warming was a problem – James Hanson – talk about why he skipped going to Copenhagen because the world would be better off if the negotiations failed than if they set up another agreement centered around Cap and Trade. Hansen just wrote a book called “Storms of my grandchildren,” and he talked about climate change as “intergenerational injustice.”
I like that phrase a lot. It speaks to me as a young person, as someone who hopes to raise a family who will know the same homelands I know. Place is important to me, as it is important in all cultures who have been rooted in a place for generations. Native cultures teach making decisions that consider the impacts seven generations from now. This is the wisdom of knowing a place so well that you shape and are shaped by that environment over many lifetimes. This is the kind of wisdom we are lacking in political spaces like Copenhagen right now, while there is talk about the imminent destruction of life as we know it and yet no commitment is made to change course.
I can’t make sense of that logic, other than to think that those who are making decisions, or lack thereof, are using a shortsighted analysis of the impacts of climate change. Now that we all acknowledge that climate change is real, we can look at the science that’s predicting for us exactly what kind of changes we can expect depending on how much we reduce our emissions. I can’t help but notice that the people in power during these discussions are not coming from places most immediately affected by the sea level rise and storms to come.
In Hawai’i two years ago we hosted the Major Economies Meeting in Honolulu, yet another climate talk that resulted in non-action. While world representatives sat inside the meeting, we walked around downtown Honolulu drawing a blue chalk line around the areas that would be underwater with a 1m sea level rise. A major portion of the city would drown. Island communities are on the front lines of climate change, and we saw them stand up strongly in Copenhagen to voice just how important this issue is.
Earlier this week, Amy Goodman asked the Maldivian President, Mohamed Nasheed, to describe what a 3 degree Celsius temperature rise would mean for his country.
PRESIDENT MOHAMED NASHEED: “That would mean that we won’t be around. That would mean the death of us… Sea levels would rise. We are just 1.5 meters above the water. And if we have sea levels rising to seventy, eighty centimeters, that’s going to eat up most of our country. So we won’t be around.
AMY GOODMAN: Are you making preparations for a mass population removal to dry land?
PRESIDENT MOHAMED NASHEED: Well, you know, we’ve been there in the middle of the Indian Ocean for the last 10,000 years, and we have a written history that goes back 2,000 years. I can move, but where would all the butterflies go, all the sounds go, all the culture go, all the color go?
Kasha is the RYSE Blog Content Coordinator. She is a lover of justice and nature. Kasha formerly worked on the Rainforest Agribusiness Campaign for RAN, and is currently managing the RYSE Blog remotely from Hawai'i.
Kasha is committed to making this world better, and especially working with Native communities in the struggle for environmental justice and self-determination. In addition to RYSE, she blogs at www.cultivatingdomesticity.com in an effort to reposition the “domestic” as central in our acts of revolution.
She wants to help you blog about your own passions and activism right here – so hit her up on the “apply to be a blogger” page!
Want to contribute posts and media to RYSE? We're always welcoming applicants to be a part of this project: please click the icon
RYSE is the youth branch of RAN, Rainforest Action Network, which works to protect the Earth and support human rights through education, grassroots organizing, and non-violent direct action.
Powered by Wordpress | Now let's get off the internet and get busy!
I would like to comment on how injustice the Copenhagen Agreement is. More than fortunate enough that no one – except the claimed agreeiers should not worry because there will be no such thing as Copenhagen Agreement-never ever it will be politically binding and binded.
Since I am from Ethiopia, I just want to give one illustrative comment on if Ethiopia as well as the rest of Africa should have a legal and logical claim to receive any variant of grant and other kind of aid as a compensation for the carbon emission from the United States and the rest of carbon emitting countries through out the world.
So blatant that every year two billion tons of soil is eroded from the Land of Ethiopia and moving to The Sudan and Egypt. One should add to this the huge amount of water running off from Ethiopia through the Blue Nile River to The Sudan and Egypt-this is true ever since the down of ancient African civilizations up to date. The amount of deforestation in Ethiopia as well as the rest of African countries is the other most contributing factor for the occurrence of drought and chronic famine in Ethiopia as well as the rest of African countries. Again this has been an Objective Reality ever-since before the developed countries have started the use of carbon emitting technologies-what I mean is before the Industrial Revolution. By now the level of forest has come down to less than two percent – in Ethiopia.
With reference to Ethiopia, Ethiopian dwellings have been constructed out of soil. Every year and mainly because of high rate of population growth many many houses have been sprung out of soil. At least the amount of soil that has been used for the construction of houses will exceed that of the amount of water that has been eroded and taken away by the Blue Nile River out of the Land of Ethiopia to The Sudan and Egypt in double-if not in quadruple-given the ever rising population, and low income level which prohibit the Ethiopians from constructing houses made from not soil, for example from cement. therefore, will it be logical for Ethiopians-the qualitative sample for Africans for the Copenhagen agreement that we can have legal claim of getting any kind of compensation from the United States? What for that there has to be tax deduction and unemployment in the United States for the “compensation” to be paid in Africa? There will be no legal and logical claim for doing so.
THEREFORE, THERE WILL BE NO POLITICALLY BINDING COPENHAGEN AGREEMENT- THE POLITICALLY BINDING AGREEMENT TO BE HELD IN MEXICO WILL END UP WITHOUT EVER BRINGING-EVEN A SINGLE DOLLAR FROM THE UNITED STATES AND OTHER DEVELOPED COUNTRIES IN THE REST OF THE WORLD TO ETHIOPIA AS WELL AS THE REST OF AFRICAN COUNTRIES. DESTITUTE BARGAINING.
Ebraheem Oumer from Bahir Dar University
Wow! Thank you! I continuously wanted to write on my blog something like that. Can I take a fragment of your post to my website?