“I’m stressed and anxious—this has all changed so quickly, and life has become very hard,” said Chief Kotok of the Kamayurá, an Indigenous nation in the Amazon region. “As a chief, I have to have vision and look down the road, but I don’t know what will happen to my children and grandchildren.”
|
According to the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, as much as 30 percent of animals and plants on the planet may become extinct if global temperatures rise 2 degrees Celsius (3.6 degrees Fahrenheit) in coming decades. The extinction of plants and animals—in essence, the destruction of habitats—will have a particularly devastating impact on Indigenous people.
A senior adviser on social policy at the International Union for Conservation of Nature in Gland, Switzerland, Gonzalo Oviedo, stated: “In some places, people will have to move to preserve their culture. But some of those that are small and marginal will assimilate and disappear.”
According to the Times article, many cultures are threatened by climate change—from the Kamayurá in the Amazon rainforest to Arctic communities where the ice is melting and island peoples threatened by rising seas. For example, according to anthropologist Thomas Thornton, Eskimo settlements like Kivalina and Shishmaref in Alaska are “literally being washed away” because ice is melting and the seas are rising. The Eskimo people use the ice as a surface on which to hunt for seals, a staple food—without the ice, hunting becomes hard if not impossible.
As a result of this disaster, some Eskimo groups are suing polluters and developed nations. “As they see it, they didn’t cause the problem, and their lifestyle is being threatened by pollution from industrial nations,” said Dr. Thornton. “The message is that this is about people, not just about polar bears and wildlife.”
To add insult to injury, a U.N.-created “adaptation fund” to help poor nations adapt to climate change has received no donations from rich nations, according to Yvo de Boer, executive secretary of the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change. “It would help if rich countries could make financial commitments,” he said. (New York Times, July 25)
But Indigenous peoples from all over the world are organizing to fight back. In April 2009, representatives from the Arctic, North America, Asia-Pacific, Latin America, Africa, the Caribbean and Russia met in Anchorage, Alaska, for the Indigenous Peoples’ Global Summit on Climate Change. The gathering issued a statement, which says in part:
“We are deeply alarmed by the accelerating climate devastation brought about by unsustainable development. We are experiencing profound and disproportionate adverse impacts on our cultures, human and environmental health, human rights, well-being, traditional livelihoods, food systems and food sovereignty, local infrastructure, economic viability, and our very survival as Indigenous Peoples.”
The Anchorage Declaration emphasizes:
“[T]he inherent and fundamental human rights and status of Indigenous Peoples … must be fully recognized and respected in all decision-making processes and activities related to climate change. This includes our rights to our lands, territories, environment and natural resources.
“When specific programs and projects affect our lands, territories, environment and natural resources, the right of Self Determination of Indigenous Peoples must be recognized and respected, emphasizing our right to Free, Prior and Informed Consent, including the right to say ‘no’.”
The Declaration further demands a binding emissions reduction target for developed countries of at least 45 percent below 1990 levels by 2020 and at least 95 percent by 2050. The Indigenous representatives also vehemently opposed what they call “false solutions” to climate change, including “nuclear energy, large-scale dams, geo-engineering techniques, ‘clean coal’, agro-fuels, plantations, and market based mechanisms such as carbon trading, the Clean Development Mechanism, and forest offsets.”
Is sustainability possible?
The root cause of climate change and the resulting threats to life on our planet is unsustainable capitalist development. The capitalist system is based on short-term profit-making, with no concern for future generations. Faced with a choice between their profits and environmental conservation, corporate boards do not hesitate for a moment. As a matter of fact, the question is not even contemplated.
Today, there is only one country that meets the criteria for sustainable development—socialist Cuba. In the early 1990s, the overthrow of Cuba’s main trade partner, the Soviet Union, coupled with the carefully timed tightening of the U.S. blockade, made virtually everything hard to come by—including tractors, fertilizer and fuel.
But through centralized planning, the Cuban government was able to promote large-scale organic and urban farming to cope with the dire situation. Cubans had to be trained and resources had to be allocated in order to make this happen—none of it would have been possible if decisions on production and economic planning in Cuba rested in the hands of profit-hungry private capital. In a capitalist economy, where production is independently carried out by agribusinesses seeking only their own short-term profit, a complete collapse of agricultural activity would have ensued.
The same central planning has allowed Cuba to popularize recycling, and spread the use of fluorescent light bulbs and low-energy appliances. Free from the hindrances of the profit motive, Cuba has been able to move ahead while some of the richest countries in the world stall on issues vital for the future of the planet.
Socialism, a centrally planned economic system in which the profit motive has been eliminated, is the only economic system which has the potential to meet people’s needs while safeguarding the environment.
