Front Burner - Naomi Klein on climate strikes, Greta and the Green New Deal

Episode Date: September 23, 2019

Millions of climate strikers all across the world took to the street on Sept 20th. And there’s another strike scheduled on Sept 27th, as well. Today on Front Burner, we talk to Naomi Klein, author of the new book “On Fire: The Burning Case for the Green New Deal” about Greta Thunberg, the Green New Deal, and why she thinks mass mobilization around climate change may be the only thing that can help us avoid global warming’s most devastating effects: “If you don’t believe in social movements, and if they make you kind of queasy and they seem kind of messy, then you should feel really pessimistic, because it’s actually our only hope.”

In the Dragon's Den, a simple pitch can lead to a life-changing connection. Watch new episodes of Dragon's Den free on CBC Gem. Brought to you in part by National Angel Capital Organization, empowering Canada's entrepreneurs through angel investment and industry connections. This is a CBC Podcast. Hello, I'm Jamie Poisson. Hello. So on Friday, around the world, millions of people, kids, teens, their teachers, their parents, took to the streets as part of the global climate strike. This coming Friday, they're doing it all again.

In Montreal alone, tens of thousands of people are expected to turn out. And they'll be joined by the first climate striker herself, Greta Thunberg. Do you think they hear us? We will make them hear us. It's with Greta and her strike that Naomi Klein starts her new book, On Fire, the burning case for the Green New Deal. In the book, she argues that radical collective climate action is actually possible and our only hope to avoid the most brutal effects of global warming.

Today, a conversation with Naomi Klein about a new generation of climate activism from Greta to the Green New Deal and the moral responsibility to not give up. This is FrontBurner. Naomi Klein, thank you so much for being with me today. Very happy to be with you. Thanks for having me. So you write that in the late 1980s, when governments and scientists first started meeting to talk about global warming, they spoke about future generations, of their children and grandchildren. And now those children are here. Greta Thunberg is here, and they're speaking for themselves. And speaking about Greta in particular,

what is it about this 16-year-old from Sweden that has so captured the world's attention? I think it's a complicated question. I think Greta is a truly prophetic voice. I think there's something about the fact that she is just without pretense and performance in a culture that is so much about performance. We're here joined by the Select Committee on Climate Crisis and an esteemed panel of witnesses. I am submitting this report as my testimony because I don't want you to listen to me. I want you to listen to the scientists. There's something about her directness and her just total determination to just convey the scientific information that set her on this path.

between what we know about the moment in history that we are all alive and breathing in, which is the last possible moment where we have this really small window in which if we do truly transformational things, we could still avert irreversible, catastrophic climate impacts. And this is 11 years, according to the United Nations. Exactly. 11 years to cut global emissions in half. And we know this intellectually, but then you look around, we live in late capitalism, almost all the signals we get from our culture, distract us, tell us to shop, and our politicians are talking about pretty much anything else. And so for Greta, you know, she tells, I think, an incredibly compelling and sort of shocking story about when she realized what was happening, when she did her homework about the climate crisis as a very young girl.

It really started at age eight, she says. I remember thinking that it was very strange that humans, who are an animal species among others, could be capable of changing the Earth's climate. Because if we were, and if it was really happening, we wouldn't be talking about anything else. But then, you know, 10 and 11, as she's, you know, watching the Attenborough documentaries and educating herself and then looking around and just feeling this gap, this huge gap between what she is learning and what the culture around her is doing and what the political leaders tasked with protecting her future are doing. And she just shuts down. Right. She became very depressed, right? Yeah. She tells this story that she, and I know her and her parents, and we know that it's true that she, and she says it was not only this, there were other reasons. She was being bullied at school. She was just not coping. And she's on the autism spectrum and many kids like her get bullied because they're different.

And so she stopped eating, she stopped speaking. She was diagnosed with selective mutism. That basically means I only speak when I think it's necessary. Now is one of those moments. And what has pulled her out of that state is finding ways in her own life to express the state of emergency that we are in and using the limited power that she is as now as a now 16 year old has. And she's not a voter. She's not a worker. She can't withdraw her labor. What she can do is not do the one thing that every kid is supposed to do, which is go to

school. So she started the school strike movement. And why should I be studying for a future that soon will be no more, when no one is doing anything whatsoever to save that future? And what is the point of learning facts within the school system, when the most important facts given by the finest science of that same school system clearly means nothing to our politicians and our society? same school system clearly means nothing to our politicians and our society. And I think there's something about that, acting like you're in an emergency in your own life, not because that's going to bring emissions down, but because that's what we need our politicians to do. That's what we need our leaders to do. She models what we

need from our leaders. We don't need them to not show up to work. We actually need them to show up for work in a serious way and do their jobs. But it's also a little complicated because she is not the only person, the only young person, to have come forward and raised this kind of alarm and speak in a prophetic voice. And, you know, I think about a young woman named Kathy Jettner-Kujenor, who is a poet from the Marshall Islands, a young mother who spoke at the United Nations a few years ago and read a devastating poem to the UN about trying to reassure her daughter of living in a country that was disappearing beneath the waves.

Dear Montefiore Benham, don't cry. Mommy promises you no one will come and devour you. No greedy whale of a company sharking through political seas. No backwater bullying of businesses with broken morals. No blindfolded bureaucracies going to push this mother ocean over the edge. And it was barely covered. And this is a young woman from one of the most climate vulnerable parts of the world. So I think we also have to be honest that the fact that Greta is, you know, a white young girl from Sweden is part of why she gets listened to. So I think there's, I think, I think it's complex. I would love to be talking about this specific thing with you, but if we can move on to the Green New Deal.

We've covered it pretty extensively on our show. Listeners can go back and listen to our episode with journalist Jeff Dembicki if they'd like. But just briefly, if you could describe the Green New Deal. So there isn't one Green New Deal. There are various iterations of it, drafts of it. And in different parts of the world. In different parts of the world. In Canada alone, there are different versions of what this should be. But I think what all of them share in common is this is an approach to climate change that is guided by the science.

It isn't saying we're going to try to do our best. It says we are going to try to do what scientists have told us we have to do, which is cut global emissions in half in a little bit more than a decade. And seeing as the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change has told us that this cannot be done just with a carbon tax or carbon pricing, although that can be a part of it. But from the IPCC's landmark report last October, they said that it would require fundamental transformations of every aspect of society. And then went on to list transportation, energy, housing, and so on. Jim Ski, co-chair of Working Group 3.

and so on. Jim Ski, co-chair of Working Group 3. Option X or option Y is not the way this report is framed. The word or does not work in relation to the ambition of 1.5 degrees warming. The only linking word you can use is and. So if we're going to change everything

in order to get clean, why wouldn't we also seize that opportunity to try to get fair? Because we live in an incredibly unequal society that is rife with systemic racism. And this is something live in the minds of Canadians right now. Very much so. And an economy in which women's work, particularly the work of care, is systematically undervalued. And we live on stolen land

in which we do not respect the rights of Indigenous people or the knowledge of Indigenous people. And so if we're going to change all, if we're going to change our whole infrastructure, why wouldn't we try to build a fair economy and society on every front? And so it is about prioritizing good unionized jobs, creating millions of jobs. It is about making sure that

the people on the front lines of our current extractive economy, they should be first in line to benefit from the transition, meaning they should own their own renewable energy projects, get jobs and skills training. I mean, these are just a few of the examples. I could go on and on, but it puts justice at the center. And that also means that the wealthiest interests who created this crisis should be footing the bill for a lot of it. And that also makes it different from a lot of the ways in which we have tried to deal with climate change in the past,

which too often has sort of offloaded the costs onto regular working people. Right. And this is something that we saw in Paris and France during these massive yellow vest protests. People were saying that this carbon tax that had been placed on them really made their lives more difficult because they were ending up having to pay more at the gas pump and they were barely even able to make ends meet. The cost of living is too high. At the end of the day, we're sick of it.

We're fed up with everything. You can earn 1,000 euros, but it barely gets you to the end of the day, we're sick of it. We're fed up with everything. You can earn a thousand euros, but it barely gets you to the end of the month. So this is a revolt. One thing I was hoping that I could talk with you about today is one very respected scientist, Michael Mann, had a very generally positive review of your book. But he also said this, you know, saddling a climate movement with

a laundry list of other worthy social programs risks alienating needed supporters. You know, sometimes I struggle with this, like, why not just focus on decarbonization, right? And just try and get that done. But you know, how do you think that this plan, this grand plan? I think that Michael Mann's, you know, I think Michael Mann, who is a very respected climate scientist, I quote him in This Changes Everything, and I know him quite well. I actually think he is articulating a huge strategic error that the climate movement has made over many decades. And it is responsible for why we have made so little progress.

And it is this idea that, honestly, I mean and he's just saying it in black and white in this review, we think our issue, climate, is more popular than fighting racism, you know, at the border, linking the need for justice for migrants to the need to decarbonize our economy. He thinks it's more important than fighting poverty, fighting for good jobs. He's wrong. Actually, if you poll people about the issues they care most about, the issues they care most about are jobs, economic security, health care, good schools for their kids.

And that's why we've had so little progress made when it comes to climate, because politicians believe that if they break their climate promises, they won't pay a political price in the same way that they would if we're going to safeguard a habitable space for humanity. They are so large, and they represent real lost profits for some very powerful interests. We need to keep a lot of carbon in the ground. And the oil and gas industry fights really hard and really dirty to protect their interests. And that means that there has to be a counter force that is willing to fight really hard for the future that we want. And I don't think that a middle class, majority white climate movement can fight hard enough to win against those forces. I think only a truly intersectional movement that is led by people who have the most to gain because they most need clean water, because they most need clean air, because they most need those good jobs, will actually have the strength and the stamina to stand up for those forces. And, you know,

the Green New Deal is named after the original New Deal. Franklin Delano Roosevelt's New Deal. I could cite figures to show hundreds of thousands of people reemployed in private industries and other hundreds of thousands given new employment through the expansion of direct and indirect government assistance of various kinds. And it's filled with historical exclusions. The truth is, though, that it also won Social Security. It won unemployment insurance. It funded a revolution in public arts funding. The point is that if you look at that history, if you look at that period, 1934, 35, 36, 37, these were the years of labor agitation. There were general strikes, shutting down entire cities, shutting down the ports on the West Coast. It was working people

fighting for these policies, right? So Michael Mann is saying, why are you making our cause less popular by linking it with things like jobs and health care. And my argument is it's more popular, but more importantly, it's more powerful when it is linked to those bread and butter issues, if you will. And you don't think that it gives the other side, you know, the talking points that they need to try and move people over to their side, right? Like this is socialism. You're hearing it in the United States right now. This is socialism. It will bankrupt our country. With that, I want to recognize Mark Wayne Mullen from Oklahoma.

It's not about energy. It says very little about fossil fuels. And it's all about a socialist program. Well, one of the things that's funny about the United States is they cry socialism over changing light bulbs. I mean, they called Obama a socialist. Right. So I've always felt like they're going to call you a socialist anyway,

so why not give them some actual socialism? Because you get called a socialist for doing really marginal reformist things. So you don't get your actual fighting constituency because you're not actually making people's lives better. Right, right. So you actually think this is our best chance at saving the planet? I think it's our only chance. You know, you mentioned France. It wasn't just that Macron's carbon pricing scheme, you know, inspired the LFS movement. Let's be clear,

it was the combination of protecting this brutal economic system. You know, Macron has attacked labour rights. He has imposed economic austerity. He has handed out tax cuts to the very wealthy. And he has asked working people to bear the burden. Of course we should pay tax. But it's too much. It's over the top. They get rid of the tax on the rich and then make us pay.

Something's not right. And now he's had to back off because people fought back. In the face of increasingly violent protests, French President Emmanuel Macron's government has scrapped a planned hike on fuel taxes. So that means we're losing time we don't have. So I don't think we're in a moment where people are going to accept unjust climate policies. I think the only way people will accept the kinds of changes we need is if they are fundamentally fair. If they see, okay, I'm being asked to change some things, but I also see that these millionaires and billionaires are having to pay a lot more in taxes

and that they're having to change too. And they're having to pay higher royalties. And if they don't go along with this, they might even lose their assets entirely. You know, if you look at the Second World War, when there were huge changes to society, when people accepted rationing and so on, it was so important that it was perceived as fair, that this wasn't just something that working people were having to do, that it was also the wealthy, that celebrities were having to follow this.

So I don't think an unjust response to this is an option. I think that's just a recipe for backlash, stalemate, and years lost that we don't have. In the Dragon's Den, a simple pitch can lead to a life-changing connection. Watch new episodes of Dragon's Den free on CBC Gem. Brought to you in part by National Angel Capital Organization, empowering Canada's entrepreneurs through angel investment and industry connections. Reading your book, you know, I was left with a sense of optimism. Like, you know, we have done many climate-centered episodes on this show,

and they feel sort of fatalistic to me sometimes. We've talked on the show, like, should you bring kids into the world right now? And I want to talk to you about something novelist Jonathan Franzen said in The New Yorker earlier this month. He says, call me a pessimist, call me a humanist, but I don't see human nature fundamentally changing anytime soon. I can run 10,000 scenarios through my model, and in not one of them do I see the two-degree target being met. And I would love to hear from you today how you might respond to that. I'm looking at the world right now. I'm not seeing a lot of great

things happening. Well, I'm looking at the same things. You know, my book is called On Fire, so it's not, you know, super cheery, although the On Fire refers to the state of our world and also the state of these movements and the determination that we're seeing from the young climate strikers, from the Sunrise Movement, from all of these forces demanding a Green New Deal internationally. strikers, from the Sunrise Movement, from all of these forces demanding a Green New Deal internationally. You know, I don't call Jonathan Franzen a pessimist. I just call him a liberal. And what I mean by that is the difference between liberals and leftists, and yes, it is true, I am a leftist, is, you know, a lot of liberals believe in sort of socially good things, but they don't really believe in social movements, in big, messy, powerful social movements. Incredible upheaval.

That grab the wheel of history, right? I mean, they often tell a version of history that's just about the great men and not about the riffraff below pushing those great men. And so I think if you don't believe in social movements, you know, and if they make you kind of queasy, and they seem kind of messy, then you should feel really pessimistic. Because that's actually our only hope. So Franklin Delano Roosevelt to you is what? Is somebody who was open to being pushed. I think politics matters because there are some political forces that are immune to those forces from below demanding action and will use incredible repression against them when people are in the streets. So I think we need a best case scenario for the world in this moment is having people in power who are not immune to pressure, who can be pushed.

immune to pressure, who can be pushed. And so as Canada is in an election, you know, like to me, the best case scenario coming out of this election would be some kind of coalition that can't afford to ignore people because it's a fragile coalition. And you end up with a mobilized population putting pressure on a receptive government, and we start getting some things done. And you think all of this is possible. You know, I ask this question because I was never alive during the New Deal. I've never seen in my lifetime a massive political change. Like, you think that that's possible? So I wasn't alive either. And I've never seen it either.

I know my history. And I, you know, I've always been interested in those moments. I have been part of moments where things tip. I was in Argentina when suddenly people came to the streets, banging pots and pans and overthrew presidents. streets, banging pots and pans and overthrew presidents. You know, I was part of Occupy Wall Street. These sort of effervescent moments when suddenly things seem possible.

And we've all, you know, in your lifetime, you've seen this, you know, whether it's the Arab Spring, you know, or the movement. Although I would say Occupy Wall Street and the Arab Spring, they did not amount to... They did not. ...what they started out to be. Exactly. And what I would say is it's because we didn't have a plan. And we've learned this brutal message now where suddenly things tip. You know, you tell yourself, oh, people don't care.

They're apathetic. Nothing's going to happen. And then all of a sudden, an entire country is in the streets. You know, Puerto Rico just, you know, got their governor to resign. It happens. But the true tragedy of my lifetime is when those moments have happened. Progressive movements have actually not been ready with their forward looking plan. And that's why I was part of a movement to write the Leap Manifesto. I learned these lessons the hard way. And I think many people, like the people who are part of the movement for a Green New Deal, many of them were at Occupy Wall Street. Many of them started Occupy Wall Street.

A lot of people have learned these messages that you can't just have your rejection. You actually have to have a plan, or else somebody with a really bad plan, like in Egypt, will come in and fill the void. And so the reason I feel some hope, and I don't describe myself as optimistic. I'm terrified most of the time. I just haven't given up, and I won't give up so long as

there's any pathway. I will just work on improving our chances. And I think, honestly, I think that we all have a moral responsibility to do that. But do you think this moment feels different for you? It feels different because there's not just a mobilization around the need for action. And there is. I mean, millions in the street in the climate strike. But there is also a vision of what we want instead. And sure, it's still in rough form. But it's way more articulated than at any point in my lifetime.

And so this is good. This is progress. And we need to keep building on it. And that's all that matters. Naomi Klein, thank you so much for being here. Thank you. Thank you. It's been a pleasure. So before we go today, I just want to play you a short clip of Greta Thunberg. Here she is Saturday kicking off the Youth Climate Summit at the United Nations in New York and commenting on Friday's climate strikes. Millions of people across the globe marched and demanded real climate action, especially young people.

We show that we are united and that we young people are unstoppable. Today, we're going to see the beginning of the United Nations Climate Action Summit. Leaders from 48 countries are expected to speak. So we'll be keeping an eye on that. That's all for today, though. Thanks so much for listening to FrontBurner, and see you tomorrow.