| Envirowatchers
|
[
Envirowatchers ] [ Main Menu ] |
|
|
|
17106 |
|
|
Date: June 16, 2020 at 10:23:51
From: ryan, [DNS_Address]
Subject: Cyclone Amphan is a Warning for the United States |
URL: https://www.counterpunch.org/2020/06/16/cyclone-amphan-is-a-warning-for-the-united-states/ |
|
June 16, 2020
Cyclone Amphan is a Warning for the United States
by Basav Sen
In the march of the news cycle in U.S. media, the devastation of Cyclone Amphan in Bangladesh and Eastern India is all but forgotten. But the several million people who live there, and those of us with ancestral ties to the region, don’t have the luxury of forgetting.
Neither, really, should anyone else. The story of Amphan — including the surprising successes of the response as well as the horrors and the underlying causes — hold very important lessons for everyone, including here in the United States.
Cyclone Amphan lashed Bangladesh and the neighboring Indian state of West Bengal with 165 kph(105 mph) winds and a 5-meter (15 ft.) storm surge. Almost 100 people lost their lives in India, and another 26 in Bangladesh. According to the UN, 10 million people in Bangladesh were directly affected and 500,000 families were left homeless. On the Indian side, the Chief Minister of West Bengal estimated the damage in her state to be $13 billion.
The Sundarbans, the world’s largest mangrove forest, bore the brunt of the storm. Local residents, who are poor to begin with, had their livelihoods devastated, with farmlands submerged in salt water and homes destroyed.
Kolkata, a city of 15 million (and my birthplace), was severely hit as well. Power lines went down, leading to deaths from electrocution and prolonged blackouts affecting millions. Thousands of trees were downed, killing people and blocking streets. As with any disaster, the poor were most affected, with many of the city’s numerous shantytowns devastated.
Saving Lives Takes Will and Planning
Tragic as the death toll is, it could have been much worse. Both the Bangladesh and West Bengal governments acted swiftly and successfully to evacuate large numbers of people — about 2 million and 1 million people, respectively, from each place.
There’s a very important lesson here. The death toll from Hurricane Katrina on the U.S. Gulf Coast was more than 1,800. Hurricane Maria killed about 3,000 people in Puerto Rico. Yet the respective per capitas GDP of the U.S., India, and Bangladesh are almost $63,000, just above $2,000, and less than $1,700.
Evidently, saving lives doesn’t take a whole lot of resources. It takes planning, preparation, and will.
A representative of the World Meteorological Organization referred to the mobilization for the cyclone in the South Asian countries as “a textbook example of how it should be done.” (A caveat — while the evacuation planning by governments on both sides of the border was indeed commendable, let’s not kid ourselves into thinking that they’re somehow progressive and egalitarian. They’re not. More on that later.)
The question for us in the U.S. is, will we let go of our arrogant presumption that we have nothing to learn from other countries — with an added layer of racism if the countries are majority non-white?
Inequalities of Responsibility
Next, let’s ask what made such a severe storm more likely in the first place.
Bay of Bengal cyclones aren’t a new phenomenon. But, just as with violent storms worldwide, they’ve become more severe because of the warming of our planet. Climatologists are attributing the intensification of Amphan to a warming Bay of Bengal.
As with much else in our world, not everyone is equally responsible.
India and Bangladesh have respective per capita carbon dioxide emissions of 1.7 and 0.5 kilotons, compared to 16.5 for the U.S. and an outrageous 43.9 for the oil-rich nation of Qatar.
Looking at cumulative historic emissions makes the inequalities even more stark. The U.S. alone is responsible for a quarter of the world’s greenhouse gas emissions since 1751, which is more than the 28 countries of the European Union combined. This compares to 3 percent for India, and a negligible number for Bangladesh. And science says that cumulative emissions do matter. Changes in carbon dioxide concentration, in particular, can persist in the atmosphere for “thousands of years.”
The conclusion? Rich Northern countries have a disproportionate share of the blame for the climate crisis, and countries in the Global South bear a disproportionate burden. Transferring resources from Northern countries to the Global South to reduce greenhouse gas emissions and adapt to a changing climate should not be seen as charity, but as a form of reparations.
Remember that next time you hear sociopathic demagogues from rich countries ranting about how they don’t want to squander money on climate action in poor countries.
Just in case you thought only one political party was to blame for America’s climate criminality, recall that past Democratic administrations in the U.S. have also dragged their feet on climate action. The Obama administration is often credited with “leadership” on global climate action, specifically for its role in the Paris climate accord. However, pressure from the U.S. contributed to the Paris accord being non-binding (and consequently, toothless).
A more honest assessment of the Paris accord would be that the U.S. sabotaged it, not that it helped usher it in. The explosive growth in U.S. oil and gas production during the Obama years is still more evidence of the Obama administration’s climate hypocrisy.
Inequalities of Burden
These North-South inequalities are a correct — but not a complete — picture. They don’t take into account the grotesque inequalities of wealth and power within Global South countries.
The share of India’s national income going to the top 1 percent reached a low of 6 percent in 1982, a pretty steep decline from the 20 percent level in the 1930s during British colonial rule. But then it started rising again, reaching even higher levels than in colonial times. Since the implementation of neoliberal economic “reforms” imposed by the International Monetary Fund (IMF) in the early 1990s, the increase has been steady.
Even more alarmingly, the first two decades of accelerated neoliberalism saw the share of income going to the bottom half of the income distribution steadily falling, and now the top 1 percent earn more than the entire bottom half of the income distribution.
None of this was inevitable. It was the result of conscious political choices embraced by the Indian elite to restructure India’s economy for their own benefit at the expense of the majority of Indians.
Neighboring Bangladesh has its own story of growing inequality, with the share of national income captured by the top 10 percent growing from 21 percent to 27 percent between 1984 and 2010, and the share of the bottom 10 percent decreasing from just above to just below 4 percent.
This matters a lot in the context of disasters such as Amphan. The poorer people are, the more vulnerable they are when disasters hit, and the less resources they have to rebuild their lives. And in highly unequal societies, the less political clout they have to demand governmental assistance.
We’re already seeing evidence of this in post-Amphan India. Impoverished residents of the Sundarbans are complaining of the failure of local governments to distribute food. Landless peasants are guessing, based on their experience with past disasters, that their landlords will get all the government relief funds when they’re eventually distributed.
Social Repression
In India in particular, the widening economic chasm between the haves and the have-nots is happening against a historical backdrop of deep-seated social inequalities based on factors such as caste and religion.
Dalits, who are lowest in the Hindu caste hierarchy, have faced centuries of apartheid that persists today. Adivasis, or Indigenous peoples, are routinely displaced and dispossessed for the benefit of extractive industries. Both Dalits and Adivasis are significantly poorer on average than higher caste Hindus. And both communities routinely face vigilante violence as well as state repression when they assert their rights.
The Muslim community is the prime target for state-sanctioned violence in India. India’s current fascist Bharatiya Janata Party (BJP) government (yes, the term is accurate) is rooted in political formations whose foundational agenda is Islamophobia. True to form, the BJP has pursued an unabashedly anti-Muslim agenda in power, through state policy and open incitement of vigilante violence.
This is the broader political context in which Amphan struck India. It will require vigilance and struggle to ensure that Muslims, Dalits, and Adivasis aren’t discriminated against in the recovery process, or worse still, criminalized and targeted for removal and violence.
Once again, there’s much for us in the U.S. to learn from the Indian context.
We also live in a deeply unequal and repressive society, where law enforcement officers routinely murder black and brown people with impunity. We haven’t reached full-blown fascism yet, though there have been indications over the last several years that we’re on our way down that road, and recent developments that are even more alarming. We need an urgent course correction to ensure we don’t become like India during Narendra Modi’s second term in office.
A Teachable Moment for the U.S.
There are clear takeaways for us in the U.S. from the South Asian disaster and its context.
First, we need to prioritize and put resources into responding to disasters with compassion and justice, following the lead of affected communities. If Global South countries with far less resources than the U.S. can save more lives in disasters, clearly it can be done.
Second, we need to address our vastly unequal contribution to climate chaos by cutting our own emissions and fossil fuel production, with a just transition for communities and workers. We need to contribute our fair share to addressing climate change in poor countries, accounting for our high per capita and cumulative emissions and our relative wealth. And we need to drop the hubristic notion of “American leadership,” opting instead to work in good faith as an equal partner with other countries to negotiate a strong, binding international agreement on climate change.
Even as we step up on issues of global equity, we must reverse course domestically on economic policies that have made a few people fabulously wealthy at the expense of everyone else. My Institute for Policy Studies colleagues and numerous other experts have developed policy prescriptions to do that.
Most urgently, we have to reverse our slide into fascism. And we can’t do that without confronting longstanding white supremacy, as large numbers of people across the country are demanding right now.
Basav Sen directs the Climate Justice Project at the Institute for Policy Studies.
|
|
|
|
|
Responses:
[17109] [17110] [17111] [17113] [17114] [17115] [17116] |
|
17109 |
|
|
Date: June 24, 2020 at 18:56:29
From: JTRIV, [DNS_Address]
Subject: Re: Counterpunch history of Russian influence and biased site |
URL: https://mediabiasfactcheck.com/counterpunch/ |
|
Caution, Counterpunch has been noted for printing
writings of the Russian government and is known to
have a left bias. See link.
This will have to do until I find another armchair
media analyst.
Apparently Mr Bopp thinks we should point out sites
that have a bias and dealing with the Russians too!
I encourage everyone to fact check these things
carefully.
Cheers
Jim
|
|
|
|
|
Responses:
[17110] [17111] [17113] [17114] [17115] [17116] |
|
17110 |
|
|
Date: June 24, 2020 at 19:44:40
From: ryan, [DNS_Address]
Subject: Re: Counterpunch history of Russian influence and biased site |
|
|
and yet, from your link, they do post facts...
Failed Fact Checks
None to Date
Overall, we rate CounterPunch Left Biased based on story selection and editorial positions that favor the progressive left. We also rate them Mostly Factual in reporting, rather than High due to sometimes not sourcing information. (5/13/2016) Updated (D. Van Zandt 3/31/2020)
|
|
|
|
|
Responses:
[17111] [17113] [17114] [17115] [17116] |
|
17111 |
|
|
Date: June 24, 2020 at 20:19:41
From: JTRIV, [DNS_Address]
Subject: Re: Why do facts mater? |
|
|
Hi ryan,
But why do facts matter? The facts of the post on
National were true as it was a news story on all the
media outlets.
I discussed this with Mr Bopp and he clearly stated
"i see no problem with pointing out sources and
their biases". And your source is known to have
published Russian government fake news and is known
as a biased website..... just pointing that out. And
pointing it out. And pointing it out. And pointing
it out. Ad nauseam.
I think empty posts that needlessly attack sites
based on some armchair douche bag are trolling....
but what the heck. Maybe Mr Bopp is right and I am
wrong on this one. Let's give it a go.
Cheers
Jim
|
|
|
|
|
Responses:
[17113] [17114] [17115] [17116] |
|
17113 |
|
|
Date: June 24, 2020 at 20:52:15
From: ryan, [DNS_Address]
Subject: Re: Why do facts mater (sic)? |
|
|
|
i am not opposed to bias...i am opposed to bullshit, fantasy and outright lies...counterpunch has a good record of not being on that path, whereas breitbart, zerohedge and many other sites that are frequently quoted here do...and i don't post everything that counterpunch runs, some of which i do not agree with...but they are a strong and strident voice in the odorous and titillating cesspool of modern reporting...and remember, it is a compilation site, with writers from all over contributing articles...all counterpunch does it pick and choose (except for st clairs pieces), and for the most part they do a prety good job imho...but this thread has gotten way off-topic and belongs on the tech board...
|
|
|
|
|
Responses:
[17114] [17115] [17116] |
|
17114 |
|
|
Date: June 24, 2020 at 21:02:12
From: JTRIV, [DNS_Address]
Subject: Re: Why do facts mater (sic)? |
|
|
Hi ryan,
Well I posted on the tech board and then I followed
your advice and gave everyone fair warning about
Counterpunch.
Yes, you got a bit defensive about Counterpunch. But
you are the one who said that it was good to warn
people about bias and trustworthiness.
So are you advocating an "approved" list of sources?
And if so I'm assuming you will "approve" of
Counterpunch despite the armchair douche bag
pointing out the Russian link. And did you see where
Counterpunch ranks on the bias scale? They are left
of left.
The cesspool that is National is that way for a
reason. I think a small suggestion or two from you
as forum moderator/owner would go a long way in
improving people's behavior.
Cheers
Jim
|
|
|
|
|
Responses:
[17115] [17116] |
|
17115 |
|
|
Date: June 25, 2020 at 01:15:01
From: ryan, [DNS_Address]
Subject: Re: Why do facts mater (sic)? |
|
|
i said i do not mind bias...as long as it is truthful...and counterpunch scores high on truth and facts, as i noted in my previous post and as media watch armchair guy noted...i do not wish to advocate an approved list of sources, because no one will agree on them...so you have pointed out your issues with counterpunch and i have stated my own opinion as to their worthiness...way left, but at the same time way right...
Failed Fact Checks
None to Date
Overall, we rate CounterPunch Left Biased based on story selection and editorial positions that favor the progressive left. We also rate them Mostly Factual in reporting, rather than High due to sometimes not sourcing information. (5/13/2016) Updated (D. Van Zandt 3/31/2020)
|
|
|
|
|
Responses:
[17116] |
|
17116 |
|
|
Date: June 25, 2020 at 06:34:57
From: JTRIV , [DNS_Address]
Subject: Re: Why do facts mater (sic)? |
|
|
Hi ryan,
Are you going to be this defensive every time you post a
Counterpunch article and I point out their bias and Russian
connection?
Come on dude, even you aren’t this dense. Do I really need to point
out how strongly you reacted to the same treatment that Redhart
gives to her enemies on the board? We aren’t talking about whatever
Counterpunch said, we are talking about what the armchair douche
bag had to say about Counterpunch.
You always tell people to stay on topic, well get a clue dude! Red’s
trolling is far from being on topic.
You want better behavior on these boards, reign in the butthurt
lefties.
Cheers
Jim
|
|
|
|
|
Responses:
None |
|
[
Envirowatchers ] [ Main Menu ] |