“Creating Fossil-Fuel-Free Communities Globally” Foreign Policy in Focus

Foreign Policy in Focus

“Creating Fossil-Fuel-Free Communities Globally”

November 18, 2019

Emanuel Pastreich

Now that the movement to address climate change at the systemic and cultural level has gained unprecedented momentum, it is critical for us to establish a viable alternative economy that committed citizens around the world can join. The basic unit of that economy should be fossil-fuel-free (FFF) communities.

In these FFF (fossil-fuel-free) communities, to be built from the ground up, nothing eaten or consumed, no form of transformation or communication employed, and no aspect of housing, furniture or utensils will contain fossil fuels (including plastics or fertilizers). Nor will any of these items be produced, transported, or manufactured using fossil fuels.

Such FFF communities can serve as uncompromised building blocks of a truly carbon-zero economy, polity, and culture. Although small at first, such communities will not be dependent for food, energy, or finance on corporations or banks tied to fossil fuels.

Creating such communities will require considerable bravery and sacrifice, and the number of people willing to commit will be limited at first. But recent demonstrations around the world suggest that a critical mass is in place. It will not be long before small-scale FFF communities can become powerful economic and political players that can take on investment banks and oil companies and demand an immediate end to all use of fossil fuels in the place of a vague and open-ended plan to phase out fossil fuels in a manner that does not affect profits.

Such FFF communities make for their small size with their complete independence.

Growing Food

The core of FFF economics will be organic farms that produce 100 percent organic food and transport it without the use of fossil fuels to its citizens. At the beginning, citizens of these communities will encounter a significant drop in the diversity of their diet because the food will be grown at home, or in the neighborhood, or it will be brought in from local farms without the use of fossil fuels.

Food will be sold (or exchanged through barter) in communal markets that encourage collaboration between farmer and citizen, rather than a transaction between a corporation and a consumer. Such markets will serve as the foundation for new patterns of economic exchange that are entirely detached from fossil fuels. We do not have such communities these days, but they were the dominant paradigm for hundreds of thousands of years.

Partial models for self-supporting fossil-fuel-free economies exist today among the Amish (currently the fastest-growing farming communities in the United States). Although the media often portray communities who engage in organic agriculture without the use of machinery as odd, they alone have embraced a sustainable economy while the rest of the United States embraced an unsustainable system of industrialized agricultural production tied to global trade.

Such food production will give young people paying jobs in agriculture and distribution that will be morally dignified—and without the deep alienation created by most modern work. To produce and deliver food in a manner that does not contribute to the destruction of our Earth is a noble act that can inspire many to join the effort. The use of carbon-free transportation, even if profoundly limiting at first, will eventually be seen as acts of moral bravery not merely unpleasant inconvenience.

Making Things

Another critical part of the FFF community will be manufacturing. Production must not involve fossil fuels or plastic in the manufacture, the transportation, or the disposal of products. Moreover, manufacturing for the FFF community must start out 100% local, at least until 100% FFF transportation systems are in place to link communities in the region and across the world.

Local manufacture without the use of fossil fuels will require producing items that will last: desks and chairs, bookshelves and chopping boards, shirts and sweaters, cups and pots that can be used for 20 to 50 years, or longer. That shift means both an end to a commercial, consumption-driven culture and a focus on well-made products. Such manufacture will also guarantee long-term jobs for the next generation.

The greater challenge is how to make integrated circuits and supercomputers without employing fossil fuels. A massive effort will be required to find new technologies that deliver the advanced technologies without falling back on petroleum or coal.

New mechanisms of finance will also be necessary to support this transition. A sturdy sweater that can last for 30 years might cost $400. The current economic system produces cheaper products that don’t last as long and are produced in a manner that destroys the environment. By contrast, if financing were readily available on a small scale, that sweater could be paid off over 10 years and the real cost would be less than a less durable version. Similarly, solar panels financed at zero interest over 30 years are cheaper than using natural gas or coal immediately, even for those with no assets.

The establishment of an FFF currency can be immensely helpful in this process. This currency would represent the contribution of the individual to society and would be backed by agricultural products and other manufactured goods that are produced in the community. As the use of this currency expands across the local economy, and eventually extends to the global economy, it can help support a parallel financial system.

Finally, global trade contributes a great deal to climate change. Shipping goods across the Earth in the search of financial advantage does tremendous damage to the environment through carbon emissions and the destruction of forests and jungles to produce factories and factory farms. Displacing the ecological costs of cheap production to India or China allows people the world over to enjoy cheap products whose sticker prices do not reflect their true cost. FFF communities, whether in Nebraska or New Delhi, offer a meaningful alternative to this destructive cycle.

Changing Culture

At the deepest level, the response to climate change must start with a revolution in people’s attitudes and perspectives, not with innovations in technology and governance. The FFF community can be a space where such a cultural transformation can take place without being interrupted by commercials promoting automobiles or the thoughtless consumption of food. The cult of the self and glorification of immediate gratification promoted in a commercialized economy must be replaced by a culture based on moral philosophy, frugality, humility, and the simple virtue of participation in society. These communities, because of this intellectual and moral independence, can create a culture that offers the earth’s citizens a true alternative to the dominant commercial culture.

Such FFF communities can start to undermine the false assumptions promoted by the ideology of modernity which holds that human condition is improved by excessive consumption, a vast increase in possessions, urbanization, and transportation via private automobiles and airplanes. Without challenging this larger ideological framework, a fundamental social shift cannot take place. Without such a transformation, “going green” will be limited to cosmetic changes within an economy built on fossil fuels (green lipstick on a filthy pig).

FFF communities can introduce a new set of values such that citizens feel that the tasks required to create a society without fossil fuels have greater value than activities destructive to the environment.

The FFF community can also help dethrone the misleading concepts of real estate and private property. For example, a pledge by those joining the FFF community to end their ties to fossil fuels could be central to membership. This action parallels the village contract that was so central to agricultural communities in Europe, Asia, the Americas, and elsewhere up until the establishment of enclosure acts that ended the commons and the promulgation of the concept of real estate. The modern village contract should spell out in a binding, rather than symbolic, manner the responsibilities that each individual has to contribute to the production of food, tools, furniture, transportation, and governance as well as the commitment of the community to provide for the members of the community for a lifetime.

Membership in the fossil-fuel-free community must be open to everyone, not just those with the assets the education or the cultural sensitivities necessary to act green. It’s a dangerous delusion to think that the upper middle class can create a green economy by driving Teslas and installing overpriced solar panels. Everyone should have access to information about the climate crisis, and be qualified for membership in a FFF community. The climate crisis disproportionately affects the poor and the working classes. Their participation in FFF communities, accompanied by access to quality education and other opportunities, will be essential.

At first glance, it seems mysterious that those who risk everything in demonstrations about climate change return home by automobile to eat food produced and cooked with fossil fuels. For all their spiritual commitment, they have not been able to break out of the carbon cycle. But there is no mystery. Breaking away from fossil fuels is not a matter of progressive policies, but of revolutionary politics.

Walter Benjamin on Fascism

“Fascism attempts to organize the newly created proletarian masses without affecting the property structure which the masses strive to eliminate. Fascism sees its salvation in giving these masses not their right, but instead a chance to express themselves. The masses have a right to change property relations; Fascism seeks to give them an expression while preserving property. The logical result of Fascism is the introduction of aesthetics into political life. The violation of the masses, who Fascism, with its Fuhrer cult, forces to their knees, has its counterpart in the violation of an apparatus which is pressed into the production of ritual values.

All effort to render politics aesthetic culimate in one thing: war. War and war only can set a goal for mass movements on the largest scale while respecting the traditional property system.”

Walter Benjamin
“The Work of Art in the Age of Mechanical Reproduction,”
1935

—————————

The question here is what is meant by “render politics aesthetic” ? I would guess that “aesthetic” stands in contrast with a concrete, transactional and explicit form of politics in which it is clear what the political act is and what its intention is. An “aesthetic” approach means that the true nature of the political process is obscured by images, myths, mythology and spectacle. The population is swept up in a performance which allows them to feel they are taking an action, but which is choreagraphed by the hidden political players.

“Impact of US Political Discord on Alliance Relations: South Korea & Japan” Capitol Hill Briefing

Briefing

The Asia Institute

“Impact of US Political Discord on Alliance Relations: South Korea & Japan”

1302 Longworth House Office Building

15 Independence Ave SE

11:30 AM – 12:30 PM

Friday, November 15, 2019

Panelists

Art Estopinan

President

The Estopinan Group

(former chief of staff to chairman of House Foreign Affairs Committee)

Andrew Hyde

Former US Diplomat

Emanuel Pastreich

Director

The Asia Institute

“Korean Culture in America: Past, Present and Future” at Korean Cultural Center Washington, D.C.

K-Lecture

“Korean Culture in America: Past, Present and Future”

Emanuel Pastreich

Director

The Asia Institute

An introduction to the evolution of Korean culture in the United States as an alternative tradition

at

Korean Cultural Center Washington, D.C. (2370 Massachusetts Ave. NW)

Opening of

 Exhibition of “Talk Talk Korea” winning entries”

Friday, November 8, 6-7 PM

K-Lecture “Korean Culture in America: Past, Present and Future”

“The Intersection of Climate Change and Security” Asia Institute seminar

The Asia Institute

&

Foreign Policy in Focus

Panel Discussion

“The Intersection of Climate Change and Security”

Wednesday, December 11

4:00 pm – 5:30 pm

@ Institute for Policy Studies

The world faces two grave threats: nuclear war and climate change. The Trump administration has ended four decades of U.S. efforts to reduce the threat of nuclear war, withdrawing from the INF Treaty and preparing to deploy nuclear weapons around the world. At the same time, it denies the existence of climate change and supports leaders around the world who are laying waste to the environment.

But another security policy is possible, and necessary, right now. This seminar will explore how the US could seize the initiative on arms control and link it to a global rethinking of security in light of climate change.

Discussants:

  • Larry Wilkerson, Distinguished Adjunct Professor of Government and Public Policy, Department of Government at William & Mary College
  • Alice Hill, Senior fellow for climate change policy, Council on Foreign Relations
  • Emanuel Pastreich, Director, The Asia Institute
  •  

Moderator: John Feffer, Director, Foreign Policy in Focus

Open to the public. Preregistration not required.

Location:

Institute for Policy Studies

1301 Connecticut Avenue, NW, 6th Floor
Washington, DC 20036 

Phone:

2022349382

https://ips-dc.org/events/the-intersection-of-climate-change-and-security/

“The Intersection of Climate Change and Security”

More American security experts are afraid of North Korea’s nuclear weapons than climate change.

More American security experts are afraid of North Korea’s nuclear weapons than climate change.

Establishing fossil-fuel free (FFF) Communities

Establishing fossil-fuel free (FFF) Communities

Emanuel Pastreich

October 14, 2019

We came away from the climate march, the climate strike and the enormous swell of political commitment among ordinary citizens in the week leading up to the United Nations Climate Action Summit with a new mandate for action.  Even the commercial media which had previously ignored this climate catastrophe was forced to face the music. Whether it is the strikes at high schools or the declaration of a climate emergency by local governments, we are witnessing a fundamental shift in consciousness in all corners.

But even the positive turn cannot erase the dread of impending catastrophe adumbrated by forest fires in Siberia and the Amazon, the heat waves sweeping India and Europe and the complete failure of the central governments of any major country to make a fundamental commitment to the elimination of fossil fuels even in the face of overwhelming scientific evidence of impending doom.    

The emphasis so far has been on appealing to top government officials to recognize climate change as a crisis and change policy. Perhaps that was the appropriate first step. But the time has come to move to the next stage.

Sadly, the most committed climate activists, after they are dragged away to prison for their civil disobedience, find themselves washing with warm water heated with coal or natural gas, or even nuclear power and eating vegetables that were shipped on cargo ships and trucks powered by fossil fuels, and wrapped in plastic produced from petroleum. The components in the computers and cell phones they used to coordinate the protests, or write moving articles, were produced using coal and other noxious chemicals in India, in China or in Thailand and the power that drives most internet networks is similarly unclean.

The specialists who conduct research on the impact of climate change have retirement funds tied up in companies with direct, or indirect, ties to fossil fuel profits (often links that are not disclosed to them).

That is to say that protestors may raise attention about climate change to the highest levels, but they return home to a nightmare world wherein there is no escape from the fossil fuels. The individual may have the choice of whether to eat meat, or whether to protest, but he or she has no choice about whether to participate in an industrial economy run according to a bankrupt ideology of consumption and growth. 

Activists can block traffic, or lie down on train tracks, to force politicians to pay attention to their demands, but the vast majority of their actions, from the moment they turn on the lights in the morning and check their email to the last plastic wrapped snack they eat from refrigerator before bed, are tied to fossil fuels. Moreover, they can fight to get articles about climate change in the existing corporate media, or in public textbooks, but there is no broadly circulated newspaper or television news that focuses on climate change.

But if there were a choice, even if the scale was small at first, it would be possible to make every aspect of one’s life into protest action by participating in a global economy, a global intellectual network, which is from start to finish 100% fossil fuel free (FFF). Although bravery and sacrifice are required, such FFF communities are entirely possible. But we are rather told that we must put up with the existing system of dependency on petroleum and coal until such moment as the entire country is net zero.

But if we create large parts of local economies that are 100% fossil-fuel free (FFF), those communities themselves will become powerful economic players that can go toe-to-toe with investment banks and oil companies. Imagine if you had people knocking on your door regularly asking you to become a part of a FFF community which would guarantee that all the energy you use, all the food you eat and all the items in your home are produced without fossil fuels? When that starts to happen, we will have started the real revolution.

Establishing a fossil fuels free (FFF) Community

The general assumption among the vast majority of citizens who are even aware of the threat of climate change is that we will all wait until 2050 and then the government, which has been entirely gutted and privatized) will determine through laws that the entire economy of each nation is transformed into a sustainable. The amount of reporting in the commercial media proposing such a solution is so overwhelming that most people, awash in the half-truths that flow through the smart phone, take this proclamation at face value.

The scientific data shows overwhelmingly that 2050 is far, far, too late. But equally importantly, the current power structure is such that although there are media events about climate change from time to time, there is zero change in your neighborhood. There is no option to select 100% renewable energy, no option to purchase food wrapped in plastic and no meetings of the local citizens to discuss climate change, dependency on petroleum or the other serious problems that we face.

Freedom will start when we have a choice and that choice will only exist if we establish 100% fossil fuel free (FFF) communities around the world on a small scale that will permit committed citizens to opt out of the corrupt system that forces us to use fossil fuels, whether we want to or not. Once there are small communities which are literally 100% FFF (no fossil fuels used in the production or transportation of fabrication of anything employed), there will be the choice for those of conscience to choose (at an initial sacrifice) to join these communities. Without any doubt, many will join. And over time these communities will expand until they become a substantial part of the domestic, and international economy.

Currently, it is possible to participate in protests about climate change. But when the protest is over, for most it is back to normal life in an industrialized society. If we have fossil fuel communities, however, the protest can go on 24 hours a day and a real positive step can be made to stop destroying our Earth now, and not when some politician decides so. We do not need the approval of business leaders or politicians to start that process at the local level. All we need is the will, the vision, the motivation and the tenacity. Such FFF communities give us more than just a good feeling. They bring with them economic independence from a corrupt fossil fuel economy which influences every aspect of the political economy. Those FFF communities can serve as the base for numerous other political, social and educational movements.

The first step for creating FFF (fossil-fuel free) communities at the local level is to gather together a small group of people who pledge to support the community, and each other, for the long term, and to support themselves exclusively on the FFF products produced by this community. There are now, among those willing to be arrested at protests, those who are deeply committed to being vegan. If we have a critical mass of them willing to commit to these FFF communities, and to sink what assets they have into the community in the understanding that those communities will pledge to support them going forward.

There are a few basics for a fossil fuel free community, and they may not be perfect at first, but can be made 100% in a short period of time. The core for our new economy is the establishment of organic farms that produce 100% organic food and transport it without the use of fossil fuels to those who will eat it. At the beginning, those who join these groups will encounter a significant drop in the diversity of their diet, but they can be certain that they have established the foundations for a truly fossil fuel free economy. The food may be grown locally, or brought in from local farms, or grown at home. The point is that fossil fuels do not intrude at any point in the process.

Food can be sold at communal markets in which the collaboration between producer and consumer is a core feature. That is to say that the markets are jointly owned and that the act of buying is linked to a cultural and political act of stepping out of the fossil fuel economy. We can start with one such communal market and then expand them out around the world—what is important is that people are invited to join.

The model of the Amish or the Mennonites is worth considering here. Although we do not have to accept every aspect of their production systems for food without fossil fuels, they offer us best practices that we can use. What we need to make sure is that our communities are expansive and invite in all those who take an interest.

We can create FFF gardens in every corner of the city, like victory gardens in our struggle to win back our economy from the agricultural and transportation corporations who want to make us slaves to petroleum and petroleum byproducts. Give the youth who create this food jobs and pay them in food and currency for their efforts (like the growing of food during WW II but even more extensive). Within a month, we can get a significant chunk of the UK economy made of FFF communities.

It will be critical to come up with fossil fuel free transportation for food and other goods immediately, rather than waiting for corrupt politicians to provide it and to make it clear that making do with limited FFF transportation is not an unpleasant inconvenience for the citizen, but a form of moral bravery, the front line of the battle against climate change. The first step is not technological, but rather attitudinal. If working all day shoveling mulch, or transporting food by cart, or generating electricity on an exercise bike (which is good exercise) is seen as an ethical imperative, much will become possible. If these actions are treated as secondary, something to be left to others, and the narcissism of posting on Instagram dominates our culture, we will not get very far at all.

Transportation reform means reform of the concept of real estate and of community. That we must become social beings again who can share everything and we must give up our private land in order to support ourselves and our community through local food production.

Another critical part of the FFF community must be manufacturing. Establishing FFF manufacturing is an enormous challenge. First you must start making everything yourself, in your community, make it without using fossil fuels. Products, whether desks and bookshelves, or shirts and sweaters, or cups and pots must be made to last for 20-50 years. That means that they must be well-made, that the culture of consumption and constant replacement must be replaced with a culture of sustainability within the FFF community, and we return to local production for most everything.

Starting our own stores that sell only products produced without any fossil fuels and offering jobs to our children and the children of our neighbors in those stores, which we patronize because we are in part owners of them, it is key to creating FFF communities.

It goes without saying that this move is the end of the global trade that we have staked our economy on for the last hundred years. Shipping goods across the Earth does tremendous damage to the environment and also to encourage the inhuman mass production of foodstuffs and other products in certain regions to supply the world. That approach to production and distribution has destroyed local economies and distorted the global economy. It is possible to have trade using entirely renewable energy in the future, but there is no need for it ever to be on this scale.

Some might take this statement as an anti-internationalist, or even anti-Chinese, statement. Nothing could be further from the truth. It is essential that local communities work in an international manner to address climate change long-term. That will be an internationalist project, but it will have nothing to do with global capital investments by the wealthy. It is not anti-Chinese to suggest that China must reinvigorate its local economy and stop the large scale exports that damage the environment by switching back to local, non-polluting manufacturing and agriculture. New technologies can make this process far easier and more effective than was true in the 19th century. Moreover, the shift will make China more independent and more self-sufficient. The same hold true for other nations who have staked their futures on global trade. We must recognize, quickly, that this system is finished.

Finance and Currency

The end of a consumption culture driven forward by corporate advertising must be coupled with a drive to restructure finance and lending to meet the needs of this new community. We must create local banks that lend out money to purchase these products by means of 30-year loans. That is to say that if you buy a shirt, or a desk, that will last for 50 years, it will take a lot of work to make and it will be expensive. But if there is a bank that will lend you money for the purchase immediately using a loan over twenty years to purchase that product, then the product becomes affordable immediately. The same is true for solar or wind power.

It is a tremendous burden to suddenly go out and buy solar panels and have them installed. But if the whole package is funded using a 30-year, or 50-year loan, then it is immediately competitive with paying your monthly bill from the very start. Most people would start using renewable energy immediately.

We need to completely restructure banks, starting with local banks and the banks established by FFF communities. The primary function of banks will be to make rapid conversation to 100% renewable possible. That means that finance must be focused on the small item, not the big infrastructure programs that investment banks love. For example, if a pair of pants that will last for 40 years (and can be passed on and on to the next generation, and is made locally, ends up costing $150, the bank should offer microloans that will make that product cheaper than a pair of pants imported from Vietnam that will last for six months. The bank will serve, starting from the FFF community, to reshape the nature of economics so that loans are primarily concerned with distributing cost for critical investments for sustainability so that those investments are never avoided because they are too expensive. The bank will be cooperative in nature, owned by the members of the community and will not have profit as a goal.

Moreover, the very nature of the economy, whether at the bank of in the newspapers circulated at the FFF community, must fall on long-term development (50-100 years) so that the true cost of petroleum, coal and consumption is manifest. That requires that we transform the study of economics, policy, security and welfare so that all disciplines focus on the long term. We can start this transformation of education from elementary school in the FFF community and quickly expand it around the world.

Part of the process can be the establishment of an eco-currency, a form of money that is completely detached from the fossil fuel banking-industrial-military complex and that ties the state of the environment directly to the value of money. Such a currency can start at the local level, and be expanded in its use at a later date (See “Ecocurrency”).

Education   

More often than not, the solution to the climate catastrophe is presented to us as a matter of technology. Although there are certainly critical new materials that can help us to create energy more cheaply from wind and sun, and that satellites allow us to study the state of the biosphere, it will be the humanities that will be decisive in the response to climate change.

The much-neglected field of philosophy will be central. We need to make study of philosophy central to all of our plans for the future and to recognize that it was the war on metaphysics, epistmelogy and moral philosophy which has brought on the current intellectual crisis that has permitted climate change to reach this stage without any response.

The privileged feel entirely at peace with themselves consuming goods that are produced using fossil fuels in other countries while living in comfortable home with minimal pollution. They are happy to have cheap energy produced by coal power plants as long as those power plants are far away. The ability to conceive of that which is not immediately visible as atrophied for the vast majority of the population. Discussions about philosophy, philosophic topics and scientific discussions about the nature of our human experience should be expanded to be a central part of our lives, replacing the commercial consumption dominated media that takes up most of our lives.

Only strong foundations in philosophy will allow our citizens to step back from the drive to make a profit right now, to satisfy their desires immediately, and think about the long-term. Philosophy does not mean, however, that we must bury ourselves in the abstract writings of Hegel and Heidegger. Rather the essential questions about human existence and the meaning of our experience must be made central in all discourse and the consumer culture aimed at stimulating the amygdala must be ended.

The consumption culture that is destroying us creates profits because it encourages, stimulates, the individual to desire more and bigger, to create an imbalance in the individuals self-perception so that some exterior object must be purchased in order to obtain wholeness. Whether it is the worship of growth or the praise of consumption, the blindness towards how our economic assumptions feed climate change must be overcome.

One critical part of that transformation consists of the discovery of the infinite within. As Leo Tolstoy noted in his masterpiece on this subject “The Kingdom of God Is Within You” there is infinite spiritual depth, infinite intellectual and artistic potential within us, within a blade of grass. Such a spiritual and philosophical understanding of human experience is essential to moving beyond our self-destructive current culture and learning how to control technologies, rather than have technology control us.  

The importance of the humanities goes beyond philosophy. We must create a community in which all citizens can fully express themselves and live deep, meaningful and fulfilling lives without ever feeling a need to do something that requires fossil fuels. Humans did it four tens of thousands of years before. They may have suffered as a result of the lack of modern medicine and they may have been malnourished, but we should not assume their experiences were less spiritually and intellectually.

Odd though it may seem to people whose brains have been rewired by computers and the internet to respond to instant messages, it is possible for you to spend months reading books, writing letters, painting and sketching, exercising, playing music or dancing without employing a single drop of petroleum. Moreover, your memory will improve and you will find it easier to keep track of complex issues in your head as a result. Making things with your hands from clay or wood gives a concrete quality to experience that is effective in addressing the alienation in our society.

 The return of art, literature, and the public debate will greatly improve the state of our society and make us better equipped to respond to climate change. It is hard to imagine such a shift, but within FFF communities we can start the revolution.

 

These fossil fuel free communities require a deep personal commitment. Like members of alcoholics anonymous, we must pledge never to use fossil fuels and support each other so that we do not fall back to our old habit. We must feel a sense of shame, and we should spread that sense of shame broadly. Every time you use fossil fuels to warm your water, you should think that you are killing off children in Chad. Every time you throw away a plastic spoon, you should feel as if you are dumping raw crude oil in the ocean.

 

Restoring the culture of modesty and frugality that has made up much of human history is critical for our future. That will be part of our education programs, our media programs and our approach to evaluating human progress. We must reject the standards by which we have analyzed the world for over a hundred years.

Shame must be a part of that education. Every citizen must think about all the energy and the suffering that went into every drop of petroleum, the pollution and contamination that is behind every bite of processed food, and also the damage done by every little piece of plastic we through away, every piece of fish we waste.

Education about climate change should begin today, not for those who are reading this article, but for those who live in blissful ignorance, or who have been denied educations altogether. We must work outside of our FFF communities to tell every single citizen what is happening to the climate and what needs to be done. We need to think that we are competing against the commercial media that seeks to lull citizens to sleep and render them as harmless consumers. We must, by contrast, must meet them on the street with posters and other readily understood materials to tell them what is going on in terms they can understand. We must go door to door in every neighborhood and tell them the truth and invite them to join us.

We must not make the mistake of assuming that climate change is an issue for the upper middle class, or for progressives. We must seek out working class people, conservative Christians, everyone, and tell them how climate change impacts them.

More importantly, we must make it clear that those who commit to join the campaign against climate change are our friends. We do not want people to just show up for an event, just vote for a candidate. If they are willing to walk with us, and work with us, we will help them for a lifetime. If we have better educations, better connections, we will commit to helping their families, to looking out for their interests, if they join us. It is that sense of community, of a true contract, that is at the core of a political movement that will last for decades.

 

 

“重新考虑东北亚的真正危机” 多维新闻

多维新闻

“重新考虑东北亚的真正危机”

2019年 10月 8日

贝一明

美国如今在东北亚地区面临着不折不扣的灾难,这完全是其咎由自取:它轻率地对华发起贸易战、坐视日本和韩国之间的关税战,同时竭力宣传中国军事威胁论,令多方为合作交流付出的广泛努力付之东流。在我们默默的注视之下,善意的“不干涉”政策转变为恶意的无视。亚洲人或许会对此缄口不言,但“美国是破坏性力量”这一观点正在他们之中迅速传播。

“推特(Twitter)治国”以及“国际社会要以特朗普为先”的崭新观念反映出人们对眼前利益愈发重视,而正是这一趋势埋葬了美国的国际主义传统。美国拥有自由女神像,是联合国总部的所在地,也曾全力支持为解决核扩散、贸易和恐怖主义问题而制定的全球性条约——这些都是其国际主义传统的象征和体现。

东北亚危机的源头并非平壤,而是华盛顿——华盛顿的贪婪和自大在亚洲的首都城市找到了新的宿主。

我们是否真的需要将纳税人的钱用于在亚洲掀起新一轮“冷战”?要知道,美国或许非但无法借之以挽回失去的威望,反而会被抛出该区域。

日本也已将韩国视为假想敌,预测可能会与其发生军事冲突。我们必须即刻探索新的途径,避免军备竞赛的发动,阻止韩国、日本、中国和其他国家之间的贸易战愈演愈烈,否则可怕到难以想象的噩梦就会降临。所谓“新的途径”内涵甚广,改变美国在东北亚地区的角色便是其中之一。

无论是言之无物的峰会还是美国国会采取的行动,都无法解决东北亚危机。我们需要放眼东北亚的未来,助其开展变革,令其踏上光明之路。

日本哲学家荻生徂徕曾写道,世界上有两种棋艺大师:一种通晓规则,赢遍天下而不费吹灰之力;另一种则能够自己制定规则。

对于我们来讲,后者颇为陌生。我们已经习惯于维持二战结束后确立的世界秩序,从未尝试过破旧立新。但我们在东亚逐渐瓦解的地位无法通过缓慢的变革来挽救,我们必须彻底转变美国在亚洲担当的角色。

在考虑上述问题时,只要放弃以妖魔化别国为条件,答案就会跃然而出。

世界正在深受气候危机的困扰——瑞典女孩葛莉塔·桑博格(Greta Thunberg)感人至深的演讲将这一问题推到了风口浪尖。无数心怀热忱的年轻人都曾呼吁为了让人类免遭气候灾难之害而彻底改变全世界的经济、政治和文化模式。他们知道,倘若坐视不理,承受可怕后果的将是他们自己。

他们改变世界的诉求为美国重新定义自己在东北亚的角色,为解决中美之间的对抗,为鼓励日韩之间的交流合作创造了宝贵的机遇。

美国必须认识到,海平面上升、海洋变暖、沙漠蔓延、热带风暴肆虐——不论气候发生何种变化,这种变化本身便是东北亚地区面临到重大威胁。许多人正在垂死挣扎,数以百万计的人会在几年内死于非命。

然而要实现上述根本性转变,我们需要彻底调整自己的观念,而这正是葛莉塔所呼吁的。

这意味着美国需要把关注点从军事,从战斗机、军舰、子弹和导弹上移开,重新定义自己的安全使命,令国家摆脱对矿物燃料的依赖,重新造林,保护海洋、河流以及整个生态系统。尽管军队是主要的污染源,但还是可以将其加以规范,使其为清理污染以及推行石油开采、煤炭使用的禁令贡献力量。

这样的愿景似乎太过异想天开,无法实现。然而气候危机已经如此严重,以至于我们不得不全盘重新考虑。

以东亚问题为例,倘若美国能将目标从发动常规战争转移到遏制气候变化(植树、保护生态系统、防止企业为谋利而破坏地球上的宝贵资源),我们就会发现,美、日、韩三国的军方其实可以在多个领域通力合作。倘若中美两国的军方都能关注如何适应、缓解气候变化,双方的合作根本无需多加考虑。

设立军队的初衷并非达成上述目的,其所秉持的安全与国防观念未免已经不合时宜。然而,倘若军方能够积极行动起来,其实现上述转变的效率将比行政部门高得多。

军方可以不计收益地制定长期预算、用以发展科技,可以规定全国一律使用太阳能、风能发电的时限并坚决执行。我们应当集中美、日、韩三国的经验与技术,研究气候危机的解决方案,而非反其道而行之,大搞军事扩张。

“Don’t solve the crisis in Northeast Asia-Transform it!” (Korea Times)

Korea Times

“Don’t solve the crisis in Northeast Asia – transform it”

October 6, 2019

Emanuel Pastreich

The United States faces an unmitigated catastrophe in Northeast Asia today that is the result of a thoughtless trade war with China, companion tariff battles with Japan and South Korea, and an effort to promote China as a military threat that have undercut a broad range of cooperative efforts. We are watching in silence the metastasis of benign neglect into malignant neglect. Asians may be reticent to speak, but perceptions of Washington as a destructive force are spreading rapidly.

The administration’s governance by Twitter and a new vision of “Trump first” for the international community is but the acceleration of the trend toward short-term profits that has buried the tradition of internationalism in the United States that is embodied in the Statue of Liberty, the hosting of the United Nations headquarters and our support for global treaties addressing non-proliferation, trade and terrorism.


This crisis in Northeast Asia was not made in Pyongyang ― rather, Washington’s model of greed and narcissism has found new hosts in Asian capitals.

Do we really need to spend taxpayers’ dollars to promote a new “cold war” in Asia that will most likely result in the United States being pushed out of the region altogether, rather than restoring some lost prestige?

And Japan is postulating possible military conflicts with South Korea. We have no time to waste before we set out in a new direction so as to avoid an unimaginable nightmare of an arms race and economic warfare between South Korea, Japan, China and other nations. Such a development could mean many things, including an end of the U.S. role in the region.

This crisis in Northeast Asia will not be solved by a gaudy summit meeting, or by some act of Congress. What we need is a vision for the future of Northeast Asia that is transformative, one that offers palpable hope for a way forward.

The Japanese philosopher Ogyu Sorai wrote that there are two kinds of chess masters: those who know the rules so perfectly that they can win every game effortlessly and those who make up the rules by which chess is played.

The latter approach is distinctively unfamiliar. We are accustomed to maintaining the world order established at the end of World War II, not making up a new order. But our eroding position in East Asia cannot be turned around by gradual reform. We must fundamentally alter the U.S. role in East Asia.

And just as we start to struggle to define an American role in Asia that is not conditional on the demonization of others, an answer comes to us from somewhere unexpected.

The world was rocked by a series of climate strikes, peaking with the moving speech of Greta Thunberg at the United Nations’ Climate Action Summit. Tens of thousands of passionate youth demanded a fundamental change in all our economic, political and cultural assumptions in order to save us from the catastrophe of climate change. They know the consequences will be worst for them.

That demand for fundamental change in our world offers a priceless opportunity to redefine the U.S. role in Northeast Asia and to resolve the confrontation with China, and to encourage cooperation between Korea and Japan.

The U.S. must recognize that climate change itself is the primary threat in Northeast Asia, whether rising seas, warming oceans, spreading deserts or raging tropical storms. Many are dying and millions will die in the years ahead.

But to achieve this fundamental shift in the concept of security requires us to change all our assumptions ― which is exactly what Greta demanded.

It means that the U.S. must move away from a military that is focused on planes, ships, bullets and missiles and redefine its security mission as rapidly making our country free of fossil fuels, restoring forests and protecting the ecosystems of oceans and rivers. Whereas the U.S. military is one of the greatest polluters now, it could be re-engineered to devote its efforts to cleaning up pollution and enforcing a ban on oil drilling and the use of coal.

Such a vision seems too fantastic to work. But the crisis is literally so great as to demand that we rethink everything.

In the case of East Asia, as the U.S. military shifts its mission to mitigating climate change (planting trees, protecting the ecosystem, making sure that businesses do not destroy the Earth’s precious resources for profit) and away from conventional warfare, we will find that our military can cooperate with the militaries of Japan and Korea on multiple fronts. Military-military cooperation with China will be a no-brainer as the militaries focus in on adaptation to, and mitigation of, climate change.

The military is not set up so serve such a transformative role. If anything, it clings to outdated ideas about security and defense. But if the military started to function in such a manner, it could implement such a shift more rapidly than the civilian sector.

The military can set up long-term budgets to develop technologies without concern for profits, it can determine that all electricity must be generated by solar or wind power by next month and then make it happen. We can combine American, Korean, Japanese knowhow to come up with those solutions and move away from a dangerous military buildup that does nothing to address climate change.

华盛顿研讨会 “美国的政治混乱如何影响到东亚诸国?” 10月 11日

亚洲研究所 华盛顿研讨会

第一回

“美国的政治混乱如何影响到东亚诸国?”

10月 11日 (星期五) 下午 5—7时

@

星巴克 2175 K Street, NW

Starbucks 2175 K Street, NW (202-293-2063)

美国国内政治正面临着前所未有的混乱。民主、共和两党相互攻击,针对特朗普总统的言论以及特朗普总统本人的言论也越来越极端。

多方分析人士认为,2020年美国总统大选之前,美国不会过多地关注东亚问题。虽然如此,美国在东亚的作用与影响仍然十分强大,美国也会努力维持其在东亚地区的强大作用。

为进一步分析美国国内政治如何影响东亚地区,本研究所拟召开一次小型研讨会,讨论弹劾政治如何影响美国政治及东亚国际关系,以及如何影响美国的东亚政策,如贸易、安全和外交等。

欢迎各位莅临。

简单的发言

贝一明(亚洲研究所所长)、郑继永(复旦大学 教授、朝鲜韩国研究中心主任)

地点: 星巴克 2175 K Street, NW/Starbucks 2175 K Street, NW(202-293-2063)

(联系人: 贝一明 703-850-7795 epastreich@asia-institute.org