Naomi leaves us with a little pick-me-up
Thanks very much for all your questions and to Naomi for her fascinating answers.
dvdvns wonders about future generations:
I am a parent to an amazing son, now almost 2 yrs old, and I genuinely fear for his future. What do you think are the most important lessons that we can teach the next generation of activists and socially conscious members of society, when it seems protest is becoming weaker and weaker with each passing year, in favour of indifference and consumerism as distraction?
Guardian contributor
Well at least as of today he won't be playing with Shell-branded Lego! A little bit of good news. The most important thing we can teach protect in our kids is the deep love of nature with which they are all born.
miked453 would like to get people talking:
My question is about breaking what I see a conspiracy of silence amongst most people who pretend this isn’t happening. It’s simply not talked about. I deliberately try to engage my friends and family on climate change but, as soon as I do, I can feel people bristle with anxiety or tension that I’ve brought it up. It’s as if it’s a taboo. How do you get people to talk about this and break through this collective denial about a real and immediate threat to us all?
Guardian contributor
Keep doing what you are doing. And also writer letters to local media asking that climate change stay on the front pages and that links be made with extreme weather when the science is clear - that'll help a bit. But as climate change hits us all harder, the denial will unfortunately drop away.
SamJordan1 wonders about the emotional side of climate change:
You mentioned at the end of your Guardian Live event quickly that we need to address the emotional side of climate change and address the reality of our own personal transformation and expressing that grief. Could you elaborate on this? Thanks!
Guardian contributor
It's a tough place to elaborate. But look up inner transition linked to the transition town movement. And also the anthology edited by Sally Weintrobe.
JoelMoveYourMoney would like to know about re-investment:
During your talk, you mentioned the importance of not just DIVESTMENT, but also of RE-INVESTMENT of funds removed from fossil fuels into renewable energy, mass transit and other assets which benefit local communities not corporations.
Can you sign-post any visionary work being done to improve divestment, reinvestment pathways for finance...
Guardian contributor
For a sense of the kinds of projects that I think need special attention for investment, take a look at the fantastic Hour Pour campaign. These are frontline communities that need support to switch to a clean economy. There's also some very good work being done led by a handful of foundations called divestinvest.org.
"We need to liberate the art world from its addiction to Fossil Fuel cash"
Charlene Sharp asks:
I wondered in what ways you think the arts could help to continue your fight for awareness and activism - e.g literature, film etc. Many writers dipping their toe into the campaign but seem to focus on inciting small elements of reform environmentalism. How do you suggest they could/should go beyond this?
Guardian contributor
One of the most remarkable things about the People's Climate March in NY was the central role played by artists in creating unforgettable imagery, and making art in a beautiful and participatory way that many people said changed their lives. It was the best part of it. Locally, we also need to liberate the art world from it's addiction to Fossil Fuel cash. So check out Liberate Tate.
Updated
BalerionZinn wonders about a follow-up:
Is there any chance of a follow-up to The Shock Doctrine? A hell of a lot has gone on in the world since it was published.
Guardian contributor
Yes. It's called This Changes Everything and it's about how the good guys can win.
Updated
lordaarons looks to Paul Krugmans’ NYT article:
What do you make of Paul Krugmans recent swipe in the NYT - “Environmental pessimism makes strange bedfellows. We seem to be having a moment in which three groups with very different agendas — anti-environmentalist conservatives, anti-capitalist people on the left, and hard scientists who think they are smarter than economists — have formed an unholy alliance on behalf of the proposition that reducing greenhouse gas emissions is incompatible with growing real GDP.”
Guardian contributor
With all respect to Krugman, he is not grappling with the real emission reduction numbers. I lay this out in the book, but Dave Roberts at Grist has just done a stellar job of laying out exactly what Krugman is missing. Do read it: http://grist.org/climate-energy/hey-paul-krugman-heres-the-real-argument-about-climate-change-and-economic-growth/
Updated
AnthonyB asks:
Do you think that (relatively) short election cycles make it impossible to address long term problems like climate change?
Guardian contributor
I think this is a myth. Voters want action on climate change, though they don't like policies that force working people to pay the entire bill while letting multi-national polluters off the hook. It's interesting to me that after years of backsliding and broken election promises, all the major political parties in the UK are trying to frantically shore up their green credentials ahead of the election. If voters didn't care, why would they do that? It's what happens between elections behind closed doors that we need to worry about.
Updated
"I owe Radiohead big-time!"
Eamon Sweeney asks about popular culture:
Like many others, I bought ‘No Logo’ on the recommendation of Radiohead. What did their support mean to you? Are there any other bands/artists in more recent times whose political stance and activism you find admirable? What do you think of the current state of popular culture?
Guardian contributor
I owe Radiohead big-time! And still admire the band's continued commitment to transformative political change, including on climate change. I've been really lucky to work with some amazing artists in different capacities including my first film, The Take, directed by my husband Avi Lewis. That film had music from the Gotan Project and Llasa, who we still miss so much. Lately I worked with the hip hop caucus for the New York launch of This Changes Everything, they just produced an album times with the climate march - you should check it out! My personal heroes include Tom Morello, The Coup and of course your own Billy Bragg.
Updated
DanHolloway would like to know about staying angry:
We’re pretty much the same age, and I remember as an idealistic graduate student, I loved No Logo. One of the things that’s so inspiring about your work is that you have stayed angry, which is something very few people manage. Why do you think people find that so hard, and how have you managed it?
Guardian contributor
I do still get angry at injustice. I think it's one of the signs of still having hope. I know I'm depressed when I can't get angry anymore - which does happen. That said, I think this book is less angry than The Shock Doctrine. And I wrote it more out of love than rage.
Updated
"We have too much, not too little, fossil fuel"
mrmarky1 asks:
Do you think now that we are past Peak-oil? I cannot personally understand why they are fracking if we aren’t.
Guardian contributor
The easy to get stuff is starting to run low. The problem is there are huge amounts of the harder to get "extreme" forms of fossil fuels like tar sands oil and shale gas. For this reason, I think the peak oil obsession distracts us from the much more important fact that we have too much, not too little, fossil fuel.
Updated
frangin asks:
You said last night that the oil industry would follow in the footsteps of the the tobacco industry in having to pay compensation for continuing to extract and pollute while being fully aware of the consequences of their actions. While I believe strongly in polluters paying for the clean up, It seems to me that such a scenario is considerably less likely in the case of the oil corporations, as there is little chance of there coming to light the kind of smoking gun that nailed big tobacco. The complexities of the science behind global warming are just too great and too diverse. Do you have any further thoughts on this?
Guardian contributor
I think that this doesn't need to be won in court, as it was with the tobacco companies. It can be won in the court of public opinion, as is already happening with the growing numbers of public interest institutions divesting from fossil fuel stocks. Fossil fuel brand are becoming toxic. That brings us a significant step closer to demanding that governments take a much larger share of their profits to pay for the transition away from fossil fuels. It doesn't need to be a court settlement - though that would be nice!
Updated
hiddenpalette wonders about climate change deniers:
Given that there is data showing that there have been consistently increasing average global temperature and a dramatic increase in stand-out/abnormal weather events over the past 200 years, which seem to be growing more intense over the past 10-25 years especially, it is clear the climate is going through serious and drastic changes, but it seems the small shred of hope the climate deniers are holding on to is that as far as I understand it there has not been any unequivocal scientific proof that the increase of fossil fuels being released into the atmosphere has led to all these environmental events, despite the fact that all the logic and data would overwhelmingly conclude that the two are connected. And they cling on to the fact that as it is believed the world has gone through similar cycles in the distant past, perhaps not over such a short period, but that we are just in the midst of another one of those cycles.
All I’m trying to get at is that, is there not any laboratory-based examples where we can take atmospheric readings throughout the atmosphere on a daily basis and clearly show how the amount of trapped gases are drastically increasing and being trapped by the minute and then equate this to experiments that mirror these effects to a very similar degree under laboratory conditions to show to the world in a way that leaves no room for the climate change deniers to manoeuvre out of, and once the global population as such proof, maybe they will finally accept that this is a real situation.
I can’t help but feel, that small 0.1-5% of doubt in peoples minds that we really are responsible for this is enough to put people off from taking the necessary action. The changes you have outlined in the book need to be put into place, and I think people will only get on board is if they have 100% proof that the fossil fuel / mass agricultural farming industries are directly responsible. And at the moment to me it seems like the two are connected mainly by logic, in terms rather than hardcore, undeniable proof. If nothing else please can you point me and the other readers in the direction of the best and most thorough scientific papers to get a very sound understanding of how it is all connected, how it has changed over the past 10-25 years and where we are currently headed.
Guardian contributor
I don't think time should be wasted trying to convince hardcore deniers. We should spend our energy instead engaging with the huge numbers of people who do not deny climate change, yet see no way out of the crisis.
Updated
AndrewOTK asks:
As human worth or rights have never featured strongly in the designs of robber barons past and present, what must change to make them care about others or the health of our planet above profits?
Guardian contributor
It's not about making the super-rich care - many care on an individual level - they are trapped within a system that actively discourages acting based on that, while encouraging and rewarding the most destructive behaviour. This discussion should be depersonalised and we should focus on the system.
Updated
wjk7 asks about population growth:
Having read No Logo and Shock Doctrine I would now like to ask you why population growth doesn’t seem to figure in your concerns.I believe it to be of paramount importance if we are to overcome the many challenges now facing the world.For too long it has been dismissed by lefties,free market warriors,religious bodies and politicians with an eye on the main chance.Experts like Jane Goodall,Richard Attenborough and many others are dismissed and ignored while we see mounting protests against climate change and the neo-liberalism.How do we make the case for a coherent population policy as an integral part of the growing campaign for a viable and fairer future?The world’s non-human residents have no voice of their own and ever more are faced with imminent extinction.The buck stops with us.
Guardian contributor
I think we sometimes have a tendency to switch the topic to population because it's easier to think about controlling poor people's procreation that rich people's consumption. I'm not saying population doesn't matter. But high consumption lifestyles are driving the emissions boom, not population growth.
Updated
DavidLePageZA asks:
I conjecture (and have tried to work on this conjecture too) that one of the most powerful shifts we could make globally as civil society is to force corporate money out of our politics in favour of political parties that are only, or either, citizen and state-funded.
Would you agree?
Guardian contributor
I do agree that it's a critical first step, particularly in the US. It's also a way to bring together a broad coalition of progressive interests, who are all being held back by legalised corruption.
Updated
Daisy99 asks about the role of the law:
Fracking licences have been sold off which will directly affect where I live. Many people I have spoken to are against fracking, but what do we do about it? Marches and protests are all very well, but 40,000 people marching in Grangemouth against Ineos will not make Ineos have an attack of conscience and abandon their project. Surely this needs some sort of legal recourse?
Guardian contributor
When it comes to opposing dangerous extraction, I believe in an all of the above strategy - from marches and direct action, to lawsuits and local anti-fracking ordinances. In north America, all are having an impact. As well as the fact that the anti-fracking movement is increasingly demanding a shift to 100% renewable energy and mapping out how it's possible. Check out thesolutionsproject.org
Updated
T Todd Elvins wonders if there’s an ice bucket challenge for global warming:
Naomi, I believe the Peoples Climate March was a lost opportunity. What is the social-media trigger that will mobilize millions of Americans and Britains to lobby their elected officials for a market-wide revenue-neutral carbon tax with border adjustments ? Is there an “ice bucket challenge” for global warming?
Guardian contributor
The PCM was a huge success. And the climate justice movement is building on it on all fronts. What worked best was precisely the opposite of what you suggest. It was face to face, door to door organising, not just social media. I have big concerns about a revenue-neutral carbon tax. Because we need revenues to shift away from fossil fuels. I think a polluter pays framework is much more preferable, and all taxes must be progressive.
Updated
agenthare wonders about a case of mistaken identity:
A couple of years ago I read that you were working on the history of the vagina. Positively surprised as I was, all the greater was the disappointment when I realised that someone had mistaken one Naomi for another. It was of course always too good to be true, but this grateful and still hopeful fan wanted to ask whether you have thought of writing about sexuality.
Guardian contributor
Updated
Leigh Martindale asks about tomorrow:
I have read your books and agree totally with what you say and suggest. What would you have me do tomorrow?
Guardian contributor
Join the global day of action against fracking. I'm sure there's something happening near you.
Updated
RISClives says:
For many centuries, domination was largely blamed on illiteracy. We now live in a literate world where people know what is happening to them and know they are being deceived. Many feel cassadrically powerless to avoid the injustices inflicted on us all. However, old tricks still work. Why?
Now that we know we are beings conned by bankers and lied to by the very people we elect, now that we’ve seen the pupet and the strings, why is it that we are less determined than our granparents to defend our own interests?
Stangely, the most self-centered and egoist generation of all, the baby-boomers, is the one that least stand for its interests. baby-boomers largely lost or threw away what the blitz generation and earlier generations won. A more educated generation is now working longers hours on precarious contracts for a lesser pay than our parents. Have we become stupid? Literate, but stupid?
Guardian contributor
As I argue in the book, this is the ultimate success of neoliberalism's social engineering project - by constantly telling us we are nothing more than atomised, self-seeking gratification units. Many of us have come to believe that not only are we incapable of collective action in the face of a grave threat, but more profoundly, that we are unworthy of being saved.
Updated
"We can't expect people not to take bad jobs"
DougalNorges asks for advise:
There’s the philosophical argument, a scientist has a choice to work in chemical weapons or live in poverty. If he turns down the job then someone equally as qualified will take his place and do the research.
Speaking as someone who wanted to change the world in his teens, only to find a job working with the banking and oil industries (and very unplanned), is there any advise comfort, for when times and jobs are hard to come by?
Guardian contributor
Obviously, the answer is to create better jobs in non damaging sectors so people have real choices. We also need stronger safety nets that cover the basics like healthcare and education and I also think t's time for a real debate on basic income. We can't expect people not to take bad jobs when they are the only ones on offer and when lives are so precarious. This is why I believe climate change can only be tackled holistically as part of a broader project of economic transformation.
Updated
ijclark asks:
Asked this on the night, but sadly there were too many other questions! I’m really interested in the use of language and I’d like to know what Naomi thinks is the role of language in enabling neoliberalism, and how do we on the left tackle it?
Guardian contributor
The right has been good at this, but a lot of their brands are in trouble. Even capitalism. One concern I have, is that progressives are focussing too much on growth versus de-growth. De-growth sounds terrible! And we need to grow large parts of our economies and societies that are not at war with the plant and are most directly linked to well-being. I've been using the phrase 'deliberate economy'.
Updated
Kicking things off, fourthreetwoone asks:
I asked Jeffrey Sachs this question and didn’t get a straight answer. Perhaps you can offer some insight? Here it is: How do we go about winning hearts and minds to advance global sustainable development? Facts and science just don’t seem to work!
Guardian contributor
We won't win hearts and mind until we can show that acting on climate change will help people with pressing economic social concerns. We have to show how it will bring better jobs, more democracy and stronger communities.
Post your questions for Naomi Klein
With No Logo, she set her sights on branding and the dangers of globalised cool, politicising a generation of consumers. With The Shock Doctrine, she persuasively argued that societies traumatised by war or natural disasters were being exploited by corporations and free marketeers, be it Iraq by oil companies or tsunami-ravaged Asia by property developers. And with her new book This Changes Everything, Naomi Klein turns to climate change, looking to galvanise anyone still burying their heads in the sand.
Klein paints a double bind in which environmental activism is weakened by a government focus on getting the global economy back on track, at the same time that denial of climate change is being promoted by powerful corporate voices – before going on to look at the fight against this situation, technological and organisational.
Coupled with her long-held distrust of big business, in a Guardian interview she didn’t mince her words when it came to existing climate activism: “I think there has been this really bad habit of environmentalists being insufferably smug, where they are sort of saying: ‘This is the issue that beats all other issues’ or, ‘Your issue doesn’t matter because nothing matters if the earth is fried’,” she said. “This book is not written for the environmental movement.”
So whether you’re a committed campaigner or a new convert, Klein has plenty to say to everyone. She’s joining us to answer your questions about anything in her career, at 1.15pm BST onwards on Thursday 9 October – post them in the comments below and then follow the discussion as it happens live.
Updated
View all comments >
Comments
Sign in or create your Guardian account to join the discussion.
This discussion is closed for comments.
We’re doing some maintenance right now. You can still read comments, but please come back later to add your own.
Commenting has been disabled for this account (why?)