The lines are being drawn in the sand whether we like it or not. Its time to leave the racists, imperialists, and nationalists behind. Solutions will only come through peace, solidarity and cooperation which crosses and disintegrates all borders. Not through capitalist monopolies and greed.

Tom Friedman Checks into Five Star Hotel, Gets Idea for New Book

http://eggplantpost.com/2009/12/16/tom-friedman-checks-into-five-star-hotel-gets-idea-for-new-book/

1. Greenwasher who supports coal:
http://select.nytimes.com/2007/01/10/opinion/10friedman.html?scp=2&sq=Friedman+green+lump&st=nyt

2. Supporter of U.S. imperialism aimed at continuing the murderous extraction of climate change causing fossil fuels in the Middle East:
http://www.globalpolicy.org/component/content/article/200/41165.html

and

3. Racist who regularly degrades Arabs and Muslims:
http://www.thirdworldtraveler.com/Herman%20/NYT_Friedman_Herman.html

Mr. Norris,

Your letter was confusing and inappropriate. Without addressing the concerns I lay out in this letter it seems that you will be the one who should publicly apologize to Bill and the 350 movement.

Your letter confuses me for the following reasons:

1. The 350 Reaction to the sham of Copenhagen seems to have personally offended you. Yet you don’t seem to deny that the most powerful political figures in the world (and their advisers)have failed miserably at addressing the greatest threat to humanity we have ever confronted. If you believe that the political power in Copenhagen was doomed from the beginning because of a terminal structural flaw in the framework of international environmental agreements does that mean you have abandoned any political solutions (or the assistance of political power in bringing about solutions) to attempt to address climate change? If you haven’t completely abandoned politics for the invisible hand, I’m confused about your concern for the Obama administration and why you think it is possible to solve a terminal structural problem in state policy WITHOUT the use of direct, confrontational and dramatic criticism. If you believe that state policy has a role to play in addressing climate change and yet you are asking for Bill to apologize, what would an appropriate and effective type of criticism of copenhagen and one of the most powerful political figures in the world sound like? I’m honestly curious, what does speaking truth to power sound like to you?

2. But you seem to deny that what Bill said is truth, which also confuses me:

“That is why I was shocked and disappointed when you so harshly blamed President Obama for the outcome of Copenhagen and accused him of undermining efforts to achieve a meaningful international climate treaty. Your accusations are false. I understand the disappointment of you and many around the world, but the Obama administration has done more to promote climate change solutions than any U.S. administration in history, and it has demonstrated a clear commitment to advancing international negotiations.”

Have you re-read this passage and regretted it yet? Do you have more to add to your case for ‘easing up’ on the criticism of Obama? Your basis for why it is false to say Obama had an unprecedented opportunity to powerfully effect the outcome of the talks and failed to do so is 1)Obama did more than anyone before him and 2)The Obama administration has demonstrated a commitment to advancing negotiations?

I’m confused because I must be missing something about how either of those claims are significant or even particularly persuasive. #1 shouldn’t require a rebuttal…The Obama Administration is not the Bush Administration and the United States government has not even directly acknowledged the problem of climate change for more than 30 or 40 years. To you that is a sufficient reason to ignore the potential power the current administration has to effect change and refrain from strong criticism of its inaction? #2 sounds like a claim that is both relatively easy to confirm and yet potentially lacking in significance. Something about the road to hell and what it’s paved with…more importantly I’m confused because it seems to me like demonstrating a commitment to advancing negotiations implies accepting responsibility for the outcome of negotiations. Failure to bring about an acceptable outcome seems to merit harsh criticism? Am I wrong?

3. And this is the MOST IMPORTANT point that confuses me about your letter (and your recent advocacy): What trade-offs between government regulation and increasing investment in profit-driven green technology are justifying what seems to be a very public and potentially pointless dialogue in the environmental movement that you have initiated with your letter? This is where I’m most honestly and sincerely requesting clarification because I’m sure there are many areas where time, energy and money cannot be simultaneously invested in increasing the effectiveness of political frameworks addressing environmental concerns while at the same time being spent on innovation and development of green industries. But I don’t understand your constant implication (that I’m yet to see you explain) that improving political frameworks is mutually exclusive with encouraging increased investment, education and development. If there isn’t some overwhelming or inherent trade-off between the two…you must agree we should be desperately striving for both, right? So I guess my question is: How does Bill’s criticism get in the way of green technology?

4. So that just leaves my confusion with your understanding of the implications or consequences you seem to think Bill’s criticism will have. Could you please explain how aggressive and forthright rhetoric is going to cause people to-I don’t know exactly what you imagine-give up on the environmental movement or the Obama administration or investing in green technology and education? I think it’s pretty clear those of us who follow 350 are dedicated to addressing Climate Change by almost any means necessary. Are you concerned about the political implications? I can understand that. Watching the health care debacle has terrified me that a Republican resurgence might be in our future. If that’s your concern you still have a substantial burden of proof in showing how that will come about because Bill called out Obama. Are you afraid Bill’s language is so powerful it will trigger an existential crisis in the environmental movement and we’ll start losing people to nihilism? I shouldn’t make light of it because I absolutely agree with you that Bill’s words have meaning…a great deal of meaning. As an individual Bill McKibben has proven himself beyond any measure of doubt to have a heroic commitment and incredibly deep compassion for life on Earth. With this proven commitment he has gained great power to influence the environmental movement. Power that I cannot understand you describing as being used ‘irresponsibly’. Why don’t you think it was Obama and many other world leaders who were irresponsible with the power they had to seriously address Climate Change and I’m appalled to even call it irresponsible when it is much more egregious a failure with potentially terrifying consequences…especially when compared to either the hurt feelings of Obama and his advisors or the potential ‘damage’ Bill did with his statement.

A statement that I think was dead on its inflammatory, angry and accusing tone. Someone has to use that tone. In fact many, many ’someones’ have to use that tone. There may be millions of people who will not have the choice or the capability to voice their condemnation of the people who have brought about (or failed to address) the catastrophic climate change bearing down on us and if you take that perspective (say, the perspective of a teenager watching their family starve to death as a result of food shortages resulting from climate change or flex your imagination in million other horrible scenarios) it looks more like Bill went pretty easy on the Obama administration and the ensuing death rattle of the power of the UN to truly confront global problems.

Look, I’m obviously a very confused person. I’m also obviously in strong disagreement with your letter but I chose to phrase my criticism in terms of ‘being confused’ because I do not know any of the details of the flaws in international environmental policy frameworks and I don’t disagree with you in terms of your advocacy to radically and massively increase our investment in profit-driven green technology. That’s great! We should! Let’s do it!

But I have presented 4 reasons your very public letter to Bill is inappropriate…unless someone can point out why my confusion or concern is unwarranted in each case.

Otherwise, consider this an “Open Letter to Teryn Norris to Apologize to Bill McKibben”. For many reasons, though this one resonates most with me: Did your letter say that the failure in Copenhagen was a failure of the framework 350 helped establish? Do you know anything about the 350 movement? Did you just suggest it was the exact same framework for addressing global climate change as the international political system? If so you owe an apology to not only Bill but every supporter of 350.

But let’s not give you an easy target to dismiss my request for you to apologize. You should apologize because you have 4 reasons that you shouldn’t have demanded an apology from Bill. Those should suffice.

It would be especially nice if you could make the apology very short and to the point because Bill appears to be already throwing himself back into the fight and i imagine could really use a break. I’m thinking something like “Hey Bill, I’m Sorry. Sincerely, Teryn Norris”

I doubt he would care at all…it sounds like he’d just get another Diet Coke, fire up the laptop and go back to what history may judge as the most noble and important pursuit ever undertaken by our species. And a short apology means you can do the same! I hope you appreciate I’m not trying to vilify you in any way and that I support your search for more environmentally sustainable energy solutions…I’m not trying to get in your way-I’m trying to keep you out of Bill’s way.

An apology on your part seems like the right thing to do.

Respectfully,

Mark Wesley Craven