Call climate change what it is: violence

Rebecca Solnit writes: If you’re poor, the only way you’re likely to injure someone is the old traditional way: artisanal violence, we could call it – by hands, by knife, by club, or maybe modern hands-on violence, by gun or by car.

But if you’re tremendously wealthy, you can practice industrial-scale violence without any manual labor on your own part. You can, say, build a sweatshop factory that will collapse in Bangladesh and kill more people than any hands-on mass murderer ever did, or you can calculate risk and benefit about putting poisons or unsafe machines into the world, as manufacturers do every day. If you’re the leader of a country, you can declare war and kill by the hundreds of thousands or millions. And the nuclear superpowers – the US and Russia – still hold the option of destroying quite a lot of life on Earth.

So do the carbon barons. But when we talk about violence, we almost always talk about violence from below, not above.

Or so I thought when I received a press release last week from a climate group announcing that “scientists say there is a direct link between changing climate and an increase in violence“. What the scientists actually said, in a not-so-newsworthy article in Nature two and a half years ago, is that there is higher conflict in the tropics in El Nino years, and that perhaps this will scale up to make our age of climate change also an era of civil and international conflict.

The message is that ordinary people will behave badly in an era of intensified climate change.

All this makes sense, unless you go back to the premise and note that climate change is itself violence. Extreme, horrific, longterm, widespread violence. [Continue reading…]

Print Friendly, PDF & Email
Facebooktwittermail

1 thought on “Call climate change what it is: violence

  1. pabelmont

    Climate Change DENIAL has called a Crime Against Humanity (“CAH”). It’s one of them, certainly. Failing to act by governments would seem to be a more extreme and blame-worthy example. At this stage, Obama’s neart silence would seem to be CAH — whatever the political realities, and they are very bad. At least he could be tellinmg it like it is instead of going along to get along with all the oligarchs, in this case BIG-OIL and its friends. Why one might ask is he championing the Canadian Tar sands Pipeline at this time in history? Billions in profits for the Koch Brothers hardly seems in the national interest.

Comments are closed.