The Green revolution in the US
During this last week in Northern California I had the chance to check the pulse not only of the civil society groups but also of the political scene in the US and the most relevant thing I found is how the green movement is really kicking-off with a strong political agenda, very often linking green demands with social justice.
In Europe very often we dissociate green politics from social justice because this allows everybody to be green and trendy –even Barroso from the wheel of his SUV promotes green economy-. This is interesting. The ecological crisis, to a certain extend caused by a concrete economic model of production and consumption, is happening and the mainstream parties tend to see it as a mere technological reshuffling to convert the business as usual into a green business as usual.
There is another approach to the issue of climate change that because of the higher social equality in Europe I haven’t seen in the old continent and that is the social justice approach to climate change and the green economy. Using a politically neutral approach to the current crisis allows to apply technological changes without questioning who profited from the appropriation and exploitation of resources during last centuries. A social justice approach to the current crisis wants to link the problem of climate change to its social causes and impacts, namely; how those who suffer the most from failing states or failing ecosystems are those who profit the less from the economic progress.
Europeans tend to ignore or oversee this point. This is strategically good because it avoids social unrest and allows a civilised response. However this is a problem when dealing with the rest of the world because they have a different take on it. For instance during the Copenhagen summit the developing countries insisted in having Europeans (and north-americans) pay the ecological debt.
In the US, a highly fragmented society in racial, social and economic terms, more and more green movements are linking the green revolution with social demands. After all it is low-wage workers who work in the most polluting industries or live next to a hazardous waste incinerator. Since they are the ones who suffer the most from the wealth that the upper-middle class American families accumulate, it should not surprise anyone that this kind of local movements are growing strong. The reason why it is highly interesting to listen to them is because of the take they have on the green economy i.e.: they promote the real green solutions and do not hesitate bashing the greenwashing from the industry and the political stablishment about using nuclear power or burning waste to fight climate change.
The green revolution has to be linked with a social agenda that allows to decarbonise the economy whilst creating sustainable jobs and social equality. A lots of red-neck Americans call them green-communists. I think that their demands, albeit sometimes too populist, make a lot more sense than the greenwashing with which the industry and in consequence the European and national governments bomb us with everyday. Even what is considered to be quality media promote this greenwashing.
Below a video from Van Jones, one of the leaders of this movement in Oakland, California, founder of “Green for all” and former responsible for Green Jobs for the Obama government –before being target of the neo-cons who ousted him from Washington-. A good example to understand what is going on outside the old continent.

During this last week in Northern California I had the chance to check the pulse not only of the civil society groups but also of the political scene in the US and the most relevant thing I found is how the green movement is really kicking-off with a strong political agenda, very often linking green demands with social justice.

In Europe very often we dissociate green politics from social justice because this allows everybody to be green and trendy –even Barroso from the wheel of his SUV promotes green economy-. This is interesting. The ecological crisis, to a certain extend caused by a concrete economic model of production and consumption, is happening and the mainstream parties tend to see it as a mere technological reshuffling to convert the business as usual into a green business as usual.

There is another approach to the issue of climate change that because of the higher social equality in Europe I haven’t seen in the old continent and that is the social justice approach to climate change and the green economy. Using a politically neutral approach to the current crisis allows to apply technological changes without questioning who profited from the appropriation and exploitation of resources during last centuries. A social justice approach to the current crisis wants to link the problem of climate change to its social causes and impacts, namely; how those who suffer the most from failing states or failing ecosystems are those who profit the less from the economic progress.

Europeans tend to ignore or oversee this point. This is strategically good because it avoids social unrest and allows a civilised response. However this is a problem when dealing with the rest of the world because they have a different take on it. For instance during the Copenhagen summit the developing countries insisted in having Europeans (and north-americans) pay the ecological debt.

In the US, a highly fragmented society in racial, social and economic terms, more and more green movements are linking the green revolution with social demands. After all it is low-wage workers who work in the most polluting industries or live next to a hazardous waste incinerator. Since they are the ones who suffer the most from the wealth that the upper-middle class American families accumulate, it should not surprise anyone that this kind of local movements are growing strong. The reason why it is highly interesting to listen to them is because of the take they have on the green economy i.e.: they promote the real green solutions and do not hesitate bashing the greenwashing from the industry and the political stablishment about using nuclear power or burning waste to fight climate change.

The green revolution has to be linked with a social agenda that allows to decarbonise the economy whilst creating sustainable jobs and social equality. A lots of red-neck Americans call them green-communists. I think that their demands, albeit sometimes too populist, make a lot more sense than the greenwashing with which the industry and in consequence the European and national governments bomb us with everyday. Even what is considered to be quality media promote this greenwashing.

Below a video from Van Jones, one of the leaders of this movement in Oakland, California, founder of “Green for all” and former responsible for Green Jobs for the Obama government –before being target of the neo-cons who ousted him from Washington-. A good example to understand what is going on outside the old continent.

 

If I take a step back to look at the historical moment we find ourselves in, I have to say that the negotiations in Copenhagen are different than any other negotiations I’ve ever assisted to.
Political negotiations are about compromise between the parts, it is about agreeing on the kind of grey that will rubberstamp the agreement. Survival negotiations are not negotiations; they are black or white. In Copenhagen there are two kinds of people; those who take this as a political negotiation and those who take this as a survival decision. Needless to say, a compromise will be more than difficult.

But, as I said, I wanted to look at this with a certain distance; humankind finds it self in a religious moment, in a purely philosophically existential dilemma, in a maturity test, in a “to be or not to be” situation…

We are in a religious moment because the world is about to “flood” for a second time (according to the old testament), the “sinners” have been warned by science (!) that if we continue with our life-style, with the business as usual, we will be flooded. Fair enough. The human race didn’t listen to the warnings of God the first time, the earth was flooded but God gave us a second chance. If we prove again that we are incapable of listening, of taking action to save ourselves… why should nature (or God for that matter) gives us another chance?

We are in a philosophical existential dilemma because as a race, as the big herd that we are, we have to choose between survival and extinction. The evolution of our philosophy has produced a society built on the basis of individuals, with irrational and artificially created material needs, and in which short term profit is put before the preservation of the species. Our philosophical evolution has also equipped us with phantastic logic reasoning, common sense, prudence. What will prevail?

We are in a maturity test because nature is testing our sociological and psicological evolution as a “team” to see if we are ready to survive as a whole or we rather prefer to test our luck. This means that blinded by the short term profit we chose to play our long term existence in a Russian roulette which in the best case will mean the sacrifice of some of us for the sake of the rest but which in 9 out of 10 cases means the disappearance of us all.

It is a “to be or not to be” situation because we have to take a common decision to “be”; to “exist”. Even if climate change would be an invention what is at stake in Copenhagen negotiation is the trust in ourselves as human beings beyond our national borders. If the developed and most polluting countries chose to abandon the developing countries with another treachery compromise the situation will deteriorate and the trust gap will increase. The south will become more and more suspicious about the north; whatever is left of trust will evaporate. And lack of trust in the team is the root of serious and long-lasting conflict.

Sadly, the text leaked today in which Denmark, US and UK worked behind all the other countries is a perfect example of how to destroy confidence with an otherwise very logical short-sighted move from the developped countries.

As redundant as it might sound humankind can only get out of this as a team… Today in Copenhagen I could see Africans screaming and crying out of rage, desertification is literally killing them. It is the second day and this risks getting emotional. Emotions? That animal instinct?

In my opinion the only way we will get anything useful out of Copenhagen is if our repressed animal instinct comes out and we make the irrational decision that “YES! Even though it will cost us money, sacrifice, power, you name it we still want to take the irrational decision to exist.”
Will we be that illogical? I doubt it…

 

sony-ericsson-xperia-t-mobileHow much would you pay for the iPhone 3G 8Gb? Or the Sony Ericsson Xperia X1? Or the Nokia N96?

Thanks to the common market you can chose from a range of 25 to 700 euros. Wait a second, 25 times difference in the price of the same product in the same market? It can’t be…

Unfortunately for many, and fortunately for some, it can be.

In the Netherlands the deals with the phone companies can get you a iPhone for 26 eur, the Sony Ericsson Xperia for 29 eur and the Nokia N96 for 33 euros, but you can also get them for free if you have a contract with T-mobile. In Spain the deals with big companies like Movistar can get you the same mobiles for free. But in countries like Belgium where telecommunication companies can not offer such deals if you want to buy an iPhone you can pay 575 euros with mobistar or pay even more if you want it liberated. If you want to buy the Sony Ericsson Xperia or the Nokia N96 you can’t find them with the company but you shouldn’t be able to buy them for less than 500euros…

I don’t want to go into considerations -otherwise perfectly legitimate- on whether big companies offering expensive mobiles for free opens the door to unfair competition with emerging telecom companies or the theoretical considerations on to which extend a market can be distorted -and hence stop working as a free market- when prices stop working as information-providers for the consumer, I just would like to highlight the flagrant breach of common market rules by allowing this rip off on the prices of mobile phone:

We are in a common market, yet telecommunication companies can not offer services beyond the national borders -for that we have the roaming services-. Now, if I want to buy a mobile phone in Spain or the Netherlands to use in Belgium I should buy liberated because this way they can charge me a more homogeneus European price since I will only be allowed to use a belgian telecom provider. Or that’s what they think… What happens in reality is that some people are making a highly lucrative legal business reselling the phones bought for free or for 30 eur to companies like Movistar or T-Mobile and getting back 25 times what they paid by selling them in legal shops.

I tested this twice during last 4 weeks in two different countries: in Barcelona I entered a shop attracted by the price of a brand new iPhone 3G, 250 euros! a bargain? When checking the mobile it was clearly written on the box and on the mobile that it was a movistar phone. Good deal for the shop, they get a margin of 250eur and good deal for me, I get a phone for half the “official” price.

I repeated the experience in Brussels, I enter a shop attracted for the price of Sony Ericsson Xperia, 50 eur cheaper than the 500 official price. When checking the phone the seller tells me that because I’m nice I can get it for 400 eur and he includes the 8Gb memory card… same trick: on the box and on the mobile it is clearly written T-Mobile and all the instructions and software of the mobile are in dutch, I check a bit further and in the dialled and received calls appear calls with the code +31 of the Netherlands. They probably got the phone for free in Amsterdam and they will make a profit of 400 eur in Brussels. Not a bad business!

Is this ilegal? In both cases I ask for the guarantee and to get an official invoice and they said guarantee of 2 years and getting an invoice poses no problem at all.

This is clearly a case of common market failure where the European consumers are the ones being clearly ripped off and where only action at European level can bring a solution.

The European Commission has already taken succesful action in the communications market when legislating on roaming costs against abusive prices charged by the big companies. Now it is time for the European Commission to show its commitement in protecting European consumers by stopping this abuse of the common market.

Once this is done we will be closer to answer the 1 million euro question: what is the real price of a mobile phone?

 

 

 

This is weird. Normally you ask opinions when you start something, not right before finishing. Why does Barroso ask us now our opinion now? Has he finally realised (after more than 4 years as president of the EC) that citizens exist? Has he realised that he might have to convince someone else, other than his friends in the Council, about his skills to lead the EU?   

 

Is he -maybe- campaigning? …

He didn’t campaign 5 years ago, why should he do it now? 

This is fun. Barroso, the candidate of “some European political leaders” leaders seems to be running a campaign, without being official candidate but supported by the conservative think-tank CES, to be re-elected as president of the European Commission which is financed by the European Parliament

Neither the European Parliament nor the European Commission wanted to spend a cent to campaign for the constitutional treaty and now the EP finds itself financing the campaign of the head of a Commission who refused to campaign and lost three referendums… a lonely runner in a race without participants, where the slowest is doomed to win.

With such a passionate, breathtaking, competitive and hard campaign we can tell Barroso that: YES HE CAN!

 

It’s been 8 years since Bush got into power and next week he will be walking out of office with the most disastrous record of the last 43 US presidencies.  He leaves the American (and world) economy in dire straits, he has wasted precious time to fight climate change and he has continued to steal money from the poor to give it to the rich but on the top of all this he has lied to his citizens and to the rest of the world, he has led an illegal war against a sovereign state, he has open illegal prisons where he has justified torture and denied elemental human rights whilst mining the credibility of the democratic world.

How big is the impunity with which the American president, called by some leader of the free-world, can violate international law and human rights? How big can be the credibility of the democratic world when our leaders are not responsible for what they do?

In my opinion the impunity of the American president is inversely proportional to the credibility that the “democratic” system can have. If Bush can do what he has done and his acts remain unchallenged our political system loses credibility. Then, our political capital when criticizing Chinese or Russian governments is not enough to legitimise our arguments.

Saddam Hussein was executed because of genocide, crimes against humanity, and war crimes, Slobodan Milosevic was charged with crimes against humanity, violating the laws or customs of war, breaches of the Geneva Conventions and genocide, George W. Bush has led an illegal war based on lies that has caused the death of 4000 US soldiers and around 1 million of Iraqis and imprisoned thousands of people without any charges and will be allowed to enter history not as a criminal but just as a dumb US president who fulfilled his duty.

Or will he not?

The Americans are not going to bring his former president in front of the court; the Spanish didn’t do it with Franco, the Chileans didn’t do it with Pinochet and the Serbs didn’t do it with Milosevic. Time did justice to what Franco did, a Spanish judge brought Pinochet to trial and it was the international criminal court who dealt with Milosevic. We can’t wait Bush to be judged by the time. Not because he might escape the judgment of history but because immediate history needs justice to be made if we want to be able to continue to preach our vaccine to the problems of the world.

The impunity has been administered to kings of the past, dictators and oligarchs. Democrats can’t apply impunity to flagrant cases of war crime and crimes against humanity. Otherwise, by becoming partners in crime, we are destroying the basis of our political system, that is rule of law. If democrats are not equal before the law and law is to be applied to only some, our political system is doomed. Then we can go to other countries saying how good democracy is and surprise ourselves when they don’t believe a word we say.

For all this; Bush should be brought before the International Criminal Court.

Now, arguing for Bush’s conviction is easy, the problem is HOW to do it. Not much has changed in today’s political arena that can make us think that a group of countries could stand up and collectively ask to bring Bush to the International Court. Arguably, Venezuela, Cuba, Ecuador, Iran, Gaza and other few could but since they are the “axis of evil” they would not be taken seriously. What if the call could come from inside the “democratic” world? Our leaders will never dare to do something like this but the bloggers are starting to be political actors and a coordinated action from the blogsphere could at least raise the issue loud enough so that when Bush leaves the office on the 20th of January there is enough pressure out there to at east make him sweat a bit.

Worth a try?

© 2012 JM Simon Suffusion theme by Sayontan Sinha