Blog de jebuff

Trudie Styler, Actress, director, producer, and humanitarian

The following post was originally delivered at the UN General Assembly's meeting on climate change on Thursday, November 19th.

It has been 20 years since Sting and I first visited Brazil, and met some of the people for whom the Amazon rainforest is home. On that trip we saw for ourselves the sickening destruction that was taking place. One of the world's most precious resources simply being cleared out of the way, used up, wasted.

We met people who lived in the forest, who'd lost their land, their way of life, their families. We met a Kayapo tribesman called Raoni, who asked us to help him deliver a message to the world. Raoni's message was this, as he spoke of the burning of the rainforest:

"There is a lot of smoke. My people are very sick. But whatever happens in my forest today will affect all of you, in your lands, tomorrow." Well, as we all know, "tomorrow" is already here.

Over 20 years the work of the Rainforest Foundation has spread from Brazil to 18 countries, on three continents. The Foundations based in the UK, the U.S. and Norw

We've protected over 115,000 sq km of forest, as well as an area bigger than Switzerland for the Kayapo nation.

Projects now underway aim to save nearly one million square kilometers of rainforest -- that's the size of the United Kingdom, Ireland and France.

Alongside our remit to conserve the environment, we support hundreds of thousands of forest peoples in their mission to protect their own rights to their land, livelihoods and culture. But against the relentless tide of land-grabbing, logging and forest-clearing by multinational corporations, none of this is enough.

One of the great tragedies of the ancient world was the burning of the great library of Alexandria. Countless volumes of accumulated knowledge were destroyed, and the wisdom of centuries was turned into smoke that cast a cloud, it is said, over the whole planet.

Today we face a tragedy even greater. The people of the Amazon have no writing.

Their library is the forest. Their university is the forest. Their church is the forest.

Every day we are burning down the library that has taken thousands of years to grow. Every day we are burning down the natural laboratory that could hold a cure for AIDS, a cure for cancer. We are burning down the kitchen that tomorrow could feed the world.

There is an area of the Ecuadorean rainforest I've been visiting for the last few years, which was once a paradise on earth. In the 1960s, however, Texaco -- later bought by Chevron -- started prospecting for oil there. The drilling practices employed by Texaco and inherited by Chevron had been outlawed in the U.S. since the 1930s. But it was cheaper to take shortcuts.

That region is now described by independent assessors as one of the most contaminated industrial sites in the world.

Chevron have admitted to dumping 18 and a half billion gallons of toxic waste directly into the rivers and onto the ground -- that's 30 times more than the pure crude spilled in the Exxon-Valdez disaster.

One thousand unfenced and untreated dumpsites still leak toxic and carcinogenic chemicals into the rivers and streams, 16 years after the company pulled out of the region in 1992. As a result, the water contains 280 times more hydrocarbons than is permitted here in the U.S.

On my visits to the region, I have spoken to mothers who know that the water they give their children to drink is poisoned but they've simply had no choice. I met Maria Garafolo, a 38-year-old mother, who has cancer of the uterus. Her 18-year-old daughter, Sylvia, has cancer of the liver. They showed me the stream where they collect their water. It stinks of petroleum. Nothing grows there. The animals they rear to sell at market die in the toxic environment. It's no surprise to me that Maria and Sylvia are also extremely ill. A spokesperson for Chevron counters that these diseases are due to poor personal hygiene and sanitation. That's as cruelly cynical as it is preposterous.

And so in 2007, the Rainforest Foundation joined hands with Unicef Ecuador and the local Amazon Defense Fund, to provide rainwater collection and filtration tanks for the families affected by the oil production damage. Now, for the first time in 35 years, mothers can be sure that the water their children drink is free from toxic chemicals. This band-aid solution will have to do until Chevron accepts its responsibility to the people whose lands and lives they have devastated.

What has happened in Ecuador is not an isolated incident. On the contrary. It is a microcosm of how the world works.

Whichever area of the Amazon I've visited since the late 80s, it is always the same tragic tale. Sometimes it's about oil, sometimes it's gold, or cattle-ranching. But whatever it's about, it's always about corporate profit. And nobody is holding these big businesses accountable.

In the 20 years Sting and I have been involved in rainforest issues, not once has there been meaningful government consultation with indigenous forest people about the development of their ancestral lands. The UN's declaration of their rights has not been bound by governments. In fact this week Sting will be adding his voice to the chorus of indigenous Amazon people in protest against the lack of information shared about the Belo Monte dam in the Xingu river in Brazil.

It is time for all governments and industry leaders to work together with indigenous rainforest peoples to preserve this vital natural resource.

Rainforests once covered 14 percent of the earth's land surface. Now they only cover 6 percent. Once they have been decimated to the tipping point, there will be no way back. We will face such extreme weather conditions that our planet will no longer support human life.

 

In March of this year a group of climate scientists met in Copenhagen, and agreed that the climate situation was actually much worse than we'd thought. It is now believed that there needs to be a 40% reduction in carbon emissions by 2020, rising to over 90% by 2030.

We are now hearing that global temperatures could rise by 6 degrees by the end of this century. Do we want to be the generation that destroyed ourselves? What will it take for us to stop hiding from these terrible truths?

There is a way out of this mess. But we have to face the truth, and we have to embrace change. We can't leave it to the next government, and the next generation.

It's time to take the responsibility -- not by 2020, not by 2050 -- but NOW, to cut carbon emissions decisively and urgently.

Deforestation accounts for around 20% of the world's carbon emissions.

Simply halting deforestation would be the single fastest and cheapest way to make a significant reduction. So why aren't we doing it?

Land is exploited, human rights are abused and precious resources are plundered, because we have allowed mahogany sideboards and cheap beef burgers to hold more intrinsic value than human life.

It seems that forests are worth nothing until they've been turned into toilet paper.

Land is worth nothing until it is producing something that can be sold on the world markets. We have allowed the dollar, the pound and the petrol in our tanks to rule the world.

We have recently proved that we lack the wisdom to look after the global economy.

Never mind the global economy, it's the globe itself that's in danger. We are now at a turning-point in our short human history. As the world's financial systems begin to settle, we have a unique opportunity to shift our focus, to change our priorities.

We don't have to make a choice between the economy and the environment.

A transition to a clean economic system -- one that values vital natural systems, one that understands the cost of pollution and waste -- will open up huge opportunities.

The shift is inevitable. Countries can't stop it. They can only slow it down. And as they do, they will be left behind.

As a species, we have overcome far greater obstacles. We've landed men on the moon. We've developed weapons capable of destroying whole countries.

The challenge you will face at Copenhagen is far less daunting. But the implications of failure are literally immeasurable.

Twenty years ago, the world did not heed Raoni's message. Now that we know he was right, will we heed it now?

I want to end with a very personal appeal to each and every one of you. The very fact that you are in this room today means that you are powerful. When billions of poor people think about the global elite holding the collective fate of the planet in their hands, they are thinking of you.

The United Nations was created to bring order and responsibility to our world.

It is a magnificent testament to much that is good in humankind. You are the inheritors of that tradition. You are the keepers of that sacred flame. I am asking you -- no, I am begging you -- to live up to your responsibilities. Don't settle for warm words and fine-sounding declarations. Don't accept clever compromises.

As we go forward to Copenhagen, the signs are not good. In the face of the greatest crisis our world has faced for generations, too many powerful people are behaving with shocking irresponsibility. Instead of meeting the challenge of climate change, they are sidelining it in favor of short-term priorities. Instead of building a sustainable global economy, they are ignoring it in favor of short-term growth.

Instead of telling their citizens the truth, they are obscuring it in favor of comforting lies about painless solutions.

The 21st century is already a decade old. The time when leaders could claim not to understand the implications of the evidence before us is long past.

As powerful people, you will be judged by your children, your grandchildren and all the generations to come. They will ask: did you do everything you possibly could to stop climate change?

As I stand before you today I am very conscious of how many different nations are represented here, and that each member state has its own issues, its own policies.

But I am also very conscious of the fact that whatever our race, color or creed, this, above all, is the United Nations.

For we are all fathers, mothers, sons, daughters, brothers, sisters. As a planetary family, whatever our differences, we share One world. One fate. One chance.

My old friend Will reminded me what a talent she is...

My friend Barak posted a beautiful video that floored me earlier today. Toshiba's European marketing people hired the heavy-weight ad group Grey London to produce a revolutionary ad. Much as I dislike the big advertising companies, I was ready to give credit where credit is due and heap praise on this one. "Where art meets commercials"... etc.
But then,....
Well, no. Before the punchline, check out the ad that impressed me so much...

I would have posted the "making of" video too, for a behind the scenes look at the people who came up with this. Both are going viral. But (thank God for Google & YouTube) right below the making of, I stumbled on this little gem...

So the guys at Grey were patting themselves on the back for their originality, their vision, and I was ready to cheer. But it turns out they simply stole bought off the original artist of the idea and produced a slicker, much more expensive version than a bunch of amateurs in 2004. Nils Leonard, Grey's Creative Director, actually talks about "actually showing something people have never seen before" in the making of video.
The big beef - NO F'ING CREDIT GIVEN TO THE GUYS WHO DID THIS STUNT five years earlier!
Did Grey think no one would notice?
I'm going back to hating the big ad groups.

Thanks to Snowy (http://snowy938.vox.com/) for originally posting this video, and for his interesting comments.
It's a long clip of two guys talking, and demands the kind of patience and intellectual concentration we're not used to giving. At least I find myself out of practice. Further, something of the American cynic for intellectualism makes me want to see these guys try to play softball, or see how they get on in a crowded pub during a football match (Americans - read 'sportsbar on Monday night during football season'). But my strongest emotional reaction is wonder and respect.

The central argument is about ethics, Darwin, speciesism (Singer, "an attitude of prejudice towards beings because they are not members of our species" akin to racism and sexism) and the ethics of eating meat. Those who know me or have read this blog for a while may know that I advocate reducing meat consumption, and certainly only organic meat, but that I have not become 100% vegetarian.  My reasoning for reducing meat is primarily economic and ecological, with the moral question of animal suffering secondary. Singer & Dawkins seriously grapple with the issue of suffering, with Dawkins a bit uncomfortable with his own carnivore status, longing at one point for better vegetarian recipes! I sympathize, but have discovered that this argument is no longer valid. Nutritionally, aesthetically, even as a gourmand, one can be a healthy & happy vegetarian.
They consider the rational for meat-eating as similar to Jefferson's acceptance in his time of slavery. They recognize Jefferson as a highly ethical and moral man, but acknowledge his conformity with his times in his acceptance of slavery. Animals today, like slaves historically, are considered property in this "man's world". Those battling for the ethical treatment of animals are pushing for a shift from that inherited, morally questionable view towards the idea that animals have some inalienable rights... thus are no longer property. The environmental movement has made us accept  the concept that we are trustees of the land. It's probably inevitable that we will extend this protectorship to the animals that are under our control.  
Like Dawkins, my own inconsistant ethics on this are clearly due to vestiges of old religious philosophy excusing exploitation and allowing a false moral superiority to the other beings on the planet. At least Snowy and I are in good company.  

This exchange developed in the responses from my Ben Franklin turkey blog, and it's hard to read there, plus I thought it was getting interesting enough to post....

Lightfoot Letters wrote

I try to adhere to the basic principals of liberalism noted below. I'm sure we would have more ideas and beliefs in common aside from partisan politics.

Liberalism: Attitude, philosophy, or movement that has as its core concern the development of personal freedom, popular sovereignty, right of rebellion against oppression, free markets, free trade, and the exercise of free will. One of its central theses has long been that a government's claim to authority is justified only if the government can show those who live under it, that it secures their freedom, concerned to protect their life, liberty and property. The government that governs least governs best. Freedom of conscience, limited government that does not try to re-distribute wealth or goods. Benefits and burdens are distributed justly when government allows every individual the freedom to do what he chooses to do for himself and others. Suitable for a freeman...tolerant of views differing from one's own...of republican forms of government...favoring reforms as in religion, education ect; specifically, favoring political reforms tending toward personal freedom for the individual...distinguished from progressive as connoting more conservatism. Individual freedom is the natural state of man, as men were created free. Implies emancipation from what binds the mind or will. The roots of liberalism is the individualism of John Loke and John Mill. The idea that the best society is one which individuals are free to pursue their own interests as each chooses without causing harm to others. Noble, generous, free from prejudice.

ref: webster, cambridge, msn, funk & wagnalls, basic issues of democracy, human action, the d' oh! of homer, philosophy, la times, foreign affairs, socrates to sartre, reno news, cato, la times, oxford, merriam-webster, philosophy 9ed., websters dictionary & atlas, diccionaio, political power and personal freedom, harrap's french, websters worldwide. refs. published between 1943-2005.

ref: aristotle, john loke, george washington, thomas jefferson, abe lincoln, booker t. washington, winston churchill, barry goldwater, robert nozick, john stuart mill, manuel velaquez, george orwell, brook allen, edmund burke, von mises, saint thomas aquinas, jean jaques rousseau, tibor r. macham, sidney hook, thomas paine, saint augustine, voltarie, john milton.

I answered...

Lightfoot, thanks for this. There's so much here I agree with, so many writers from the European, liberal intellectual tradition that I admire...
A telling anecdote - In debating the health-care reform issue with friends on the right, I was struck by a fundamental difference in philosophy. Despite my self-identification as a "liberal" in both the classical and the American leftist sense, and as an MBA-trained economist, I believe that there are some areas where government actually acts better and more efficiently than the private sector. This is anathema to my conservative friends, who will state absolutely that defense is the only sector where government has a legitimate role. That simple difference explains a number of opposing opinions on certain issues.
But you know, I can live with those friendly disagreements because the discussion is in good faith, and both sides are open to learn and appreciate the good points of the other. I don't think our country can endure the kind of red-blue division that we're seeing now. With certain media channels pushing the extremes, targeting controversy (because it makes for good television) rather than serious debate, I worry like many others that we're eliminating the common ground, and that is dangerous for our democracy. How do you form consensus and compromise if you're convinced the other guy is the devil incarnate?

Let's see where this goes...

Virgina gov was a foregone conclusion. The state coming in for Obama last year was a triumph of motivating black voters (notably absent in this vote) to turn out.

In New Jersey, Repub Christie won primarily on a fiscal-review platform that seemed responsible after decent chap Christie had blown his credibility. Hell, I might have voted for Christie just to send a message to the powers-that-be in Jersey.

NY mayor Bloomberg was re-elected in a no surprise vote for good city management.

So far, the big lesson is for economic responsibility. In tough times, Americans are voting against risk.

A Dem win by Bill Owens for a upstate NY Congress spot has wider national implications... The "leftist" Republican nominee, Dede Scozzafava was challenged from the right by "Conservative Party" and Palin-blessed reactionary Doug Hoffman.  Scozzafava actually dropped out of the race a few days ago, endorsing Owen. In the end, Owen took 49%, with Hoffman 46%, and Scozzafava (her name had already been printed on the ballot) took 6% from Republicans who couldn't bring themselves to vote across the party line, nor for the far-right.
This was the race that grabbed national attention, for which the winner will actually be directly involved in national policy. And in this race, the Democrats took a seat that has been Republican for over 100 years.

 

Right wing pundits are pretending this vote was a plebicite on Obama's policies, and predicting a crash in the much larger mid-term elections next year. This is a Beck & Limbaugh wet-dream.
 
In the one race with truly national impact, upstate NY Republicans split themselves between party moderates and the nut-house dim-wit extremists, and lost. Where's the evidence that next year's mid-terms won't be the same?

Except for the disappointing, regressive result on marriage equality from Maine (more on that in a later post), progressives should be celebrating these results, and working overtime to make sure that their financials add up correctly. Just like yesterday..   

From this month's Aztec Two-Step Newsletter...

"Ben Franklin wanted to make the wild turkey, not the Bald Eagle, the national bird of the United States... from a letter Franklin wrote to his daughter, Sarah Bache on January 26, 1784;

For my own part I wish the Bald Eagle had not been chosen the Representative of our Country.  He is a Bird of bad moral character. He does not get his Living honestly. You may have seen him perched on some dead Tree near the River, where, too lazy to fish for himself, he watches the Labour of the Fishing Hawk; and when that diligent Bird has at length taken a Fish, and is bearing it to his Nest for the Support of his Mate and young Ones, the Bald Eagle pursues him and takes it from him.

With all this Injustice, he is never in good Case but like those among Men who live by Sharping & Robbing he is generally poor and often very lousy. Besides he is a rank Coward: The little King Bird not bigger than a Sparrow attacks him boldly and drives him out of the District. He is therefore by no means a proper Emblem for the brave and honest Cincinnati of America who have driven all the King birds from our Country...

I am on this account not displeased that the Figure is not known as a Bald Eagle, but looks more like a Turkey. For the Truth the Turkey is in Comparison a much more respectable Bird, and withal a true original Native of America... He is besides, though a little vain & silly, a Bird of Courage, and would not hesitate to attack a Grenadier of the British Guards who should presume to invade his Farm Yard with a red Coat on.

Let's pretend that after decades of development aide and long-standing respect for local culture & values, the US & UK had earned the trust of the people of the Middle East.
Let's pretend that our Western economic model is so perfect, shiny and enviable, that every citizen of every country around the world is just waiting for the opportunity to re-create it in their own land.
Let's pretend that our long history of religious, racial, and ethnic equality gives us the moral high ground when dealing with other, less egalitarian societies.

Sounds incredibly naive, right? Well, the US effectively bought those 3 arguments to elect and then re-elect Bush, and to justify the invasion of Iraq. It's the belief system that's behind the neo-con world view. It's also the default philosophy behind FOX, not that FOX viewers could articulate it.

Those of us that bothered to learn it knew that historically, Western involvement in the Middle East, with Iraq in the forefront, has been brutal, right up to and including putting our man Saddam into power, keeping him supplied with weapons and training, and pretending for too long that we didn't see his brutality.

As for the perception of perfect Western society in the eyes of the rest of the world, let's just say our own backyard has never been particularly clean, even if thankfully our press had the relative freedom to report it.

Here's a photo of what that kind of stupidity brings, from Baghdad this morning.

Lesson? You can't force-feed democracy if the patient believes you're Dr Mengele.

 

There'll be no more of this silliness!