Stand up to Global Warming or just Observe it? Ice Cover down 40% since 1980 (Naidoo@ Moyers)

Bill Moyers interviews Kumi Naidoo of Greenpeace International on the urgency of action on climate change:

The program’s blurb:

“On this week’s broadcast, the charismatic Greenpeace International Executive Director Kumi Naidoo joins Bill to discuss the politics of global warming and the urgency of environmental activism.

As of this moment Vladimir Putin’s government is holding in custody the Arctic Sunrise, the command ship of the environmental activist organization Greenpeace International. The ship was seized by armed members of the Russian Coast Guard last week after Greenpeace activists tried to board an offshore oil platform as a protest against drilling for fossil fuels in the fragile environment of the Arctic, where global warming has reduced the sea ice cover 40 percent since 1980.

Naidoo tells Bill, “If there’s injustice in the world, those of us that have the ability to witness it and to record it, document it and tell the world what is happening have a moral responsibility to do that. Then, of course, it’s left up to those that are receiving that knowledge to make the moral choice about whether they want to stand up against the injustice or observe it.”

From his teenage years in South Africa, Naidoo was a vocal and powerful opponent of apartheid, incarcerated and beaten so often he finally fled to Britain, where he was awarded a Rhodes scholarship to Oxford. When apartheid ended, Naidoo went back to South Africa and became a prominent human rights activist with a growing concern for the impact of climate change on impoverished people of color. In 2009, he brought his negotiating and advocacy skills to the leadership of Greenpeace International, now a worldwide organization of three million members.

Producer: Candace White. Associate Producers: Reniqua Allen, Lena Shemel & Danielle Varga. Editor: Rob Kuhns. Intro Editor: Paul Desjarlais.”

3 Responses

  1. There are many environmentally-conscious people in USA and elsewhere who feel (if my own feelings are a guide) FRUSTRATED that the many environmental organizations to not unite to make opposing global warming a SINGLE FOCUS of environmental action.

    Instead, one organization wishes to save whales or polar bears, another some other endangered species, or promote or oppose nuclear power, etc., THERE IS NO SINGLE UNITED MESSAGE.

    Perhaps Greenpeace can negotiate WITHIN the environmental movement to energize such a SINGLE-CONSCIOUSNESS-OF-PURPOSE.

    After all, action on limate change is opposed (it seems) by all the major corporations, and it is these corporations which appear to “rule the world”, not the citizens of democracies — UNLESS the citizens are essentially united.

    • You’ve heard the expression, “like herding cats,” right? Ever been to a gathering of do-gooders? Lots of self-esteem, flip charts and markers, horse-trading tiny bits of cooperation in ad-hoc “coalition building” between passionately committed persons each with their own little plan to save something or other.

      There’s a reason the effing Kochs eat caviar whenever they want to, and laugh at people who think that “stopping Keystone XL” will somehow stop the flow of that nasty PAH-laden sh__ called “tar sands oil,” via OTHER piplelines or barge or truck or train. The Kochs are ORGANIZED and GREED-DRIVEN, and the other folks are too often like the parodies portrayed on “Portlandia..” link to

  2. I sometimes get the impression that people in the world and especially in the USA are afraid to to make some suggestions which lie out side the box of discourse that is allowed by the MSM and other major institutions.
    One such suggestion that I would like to make is a policy that would force new residential construction in the USA to be up not out.
    If people in the USA are really serious about sustainability then they need to transfor their suburbs in to areas of greater population density. If it cold be accomplished the government should place an immediate ban on the granting of permission to build houses on new housing lots. All new housing should be forced by harsh penalties to be constructed on lots in which houses already exsist. That means that large sububan yards should have perhaps two or even three or four houses on them. It means that when there is no room for another house new houses have to be built on top of older homes that are already there or perhaps the older homes have to be torn down for mid level appartment buildings. Residential buildings of up to four stories should be encouraged. Residential structures higher than the ladders of the local fire departments should be forbidden. I guess that would be five or six stories.
    I wonder what a serious person would say about gold courses?
    Would a serious person say that golfers should get hit with their own clubs?

Comments are closed.