Today, Arizona’s “show me your papers” anti-immigrant law SB1070 goes into effect. Across the country, July 29th has been declared a national day of action for Human Rights. Phoenix is ground zero for the collective outrage and protest that this bill has inspired. Here thousands of people are in the streets, many showing their courage by participating in civil disobedience across the city. In particular, downtown Phoenix has been transformed into a temporary “Human Rights Zone” with public promises from communities, businesses, and police to not comply with the law. It is an inspiring moment of solidarity and protest during a very dark time. Don’t let the partial-injunction fool you, most of this law has been allowed to continue, and we all know there are no half-measures when it comes to human rights. The hate and racism we are seeing in Arizona is only the latest, in a long series of escalating demonization of brown communities.
There is one unlikely group that has joined in protest against the anti-immigrant law: Environmentalists.
As I am practicing civil disobedience in Phoenix today, I’m proud to be a part of the new generation of eco-activists who see the forests for the trees (and the people). We believe the fate of our planet intimately depends on how we treat our brothers and sisters, and that standing up for Immigrant Rights is a central element of our task.
These new environmentalists represent a new way of thinking. We’re connecting the dots: an ecosystem is your home. Economy is the management of your home. When you globalize your economy, you globalize your ecosystem. Here’s the frank outcome: the ecological systems that support life on our planet have been pushed to the brink by an economy that trashes natural resources and destroys relationships between peoples across the planet in the process. When you convert forests into paper, mountains into coal, and oceans into oil, you force people off their land and deprive those land-based peoples of the resources they depend on to survive. A key lesson from the Environmental Justice movement is that supporting those communities in protecting their land and their livelihoods is one of the most strategic ways to fight the drivers of climate change. The root cause of environmental degradation and climate change is the root cause of forced migration.
Human migration has happened throughout history. Immigration is an ever-present, beautiful fact of Arizona’s history. Migration is not the cause of the climate crisis. But displacement of humans (and the next steps of detention and deportation being put in place by SB1070) will be the result of it.
Those of us who have worked around the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change know that half of the UN debates center on “adaptation.” That means finding ways to accommodate the millions of climate refugees forced to find new homes because of the droughts, floods, famines, and destabilization that comprise the climate crisis. Right now the US immigration architecture is being built out. Forward-thinking climate activists know that now is a critical time to ensure that the precedent for immigration policy in this country protects human rights because immigration is going to get a lot more common, not less.
The environmental tradition in the U.S. has a checkered history: it has a great record of supporting wildlife; less great on supporting human communities that belong to these ecosystems. Today’s environmental activist is connecting the dots between people and planet, and standing for human dignity for immigrants in our community is a key part of that. Today is a day for environmentalists to show up.
For information about the vibrant actions taking place today, stay up to date at www.altoarizona.com, and on twitter follow @puenteAZ, @ndlon
Erm, as a UK environmentalist. All I see in this post is left wing ideology.
The fate of the planet is dependent on reducing consumption, reducing population etc.
That isn’t going to be achieved by caring about our brothers and sisters (socialism), or by capitalism.
Instead of re-inventing your socialist self. Dump the ideology and campaign against socialist and capitalist ideology or any other out dated political ideology.
By all means campaign against the law (which I agree is bad), but don’t dress it up as environmentalism.
I actually suspect that laws like this will be common in the future, right across the world.
The only way to stop that scenario is to reign in consumption and population growth.
There is a lot to say, so i will try to keep this short.
i think it is important to note that the climate crisis and environmental devestation is not caused by migration (very clearly stated in the post), but rather migration has been a direct result of the climate crisis and environmental devestation. When global warming causes sea level to rise and entire nations states to go under water…people are forced to migrate. When climate change causes unexpected weather patterns such as drought; when industries use fresh water resources, pollute current resources, and degrade air quality…people are forced to leave. It is important to acknowledge what is in place that is allowing these injustices to happen (corporate control, corporate power, lack of government regulation, etc.) that are allowing this environmental devestation. It is this same system that is creating the problem that is turning around and telling people that they are not allowed to migrate.
As someone living in Canada, I see that the Harper government is allowing and encouraging the tar sands gigaproject to expand. 95% of Canada’s growth in greenhouse gas emissions (which are already exorbitant) comes from the tar sands. Canada plays a huge role in global warming and they are doing little to reduce this footprint. Now it is this same Harper government that has reduced its refugee intake every year since it has been in power, and just recently reduced their refugee quotas by 40-60%. It is the same government creating more climate refugees, but also saying that people who are forced to migrate are not welcome.
If environemtal degradation and the climate crisis is reduced to personal choices, consumption, and population…we discount the role that destructive industries play and they become absolved of their responsibility to respect human rights (which include water, clean air, healthy food, etc.).
I do not think that anything in this post was being dressed up as “environmentalism” but rather that this post made a strong case as to why “environmentalists” need to open their ears to people’s struggles.
The issue is legislation that reigns in bad industrial and commercial practices. That has little to do with immigration. You need to focus on the causes, otherwise the message gets distorted. If indeed immigration is a result of climate change and bad corporate practices, then a greater effort in tackling the causes will sort out immigration.
It is one thing to point out migration will be a result of climate change, it is another to campaign against an immigration law.
If the poster wants to campaign for environmental reasons then they should campaign to change industrial and corporate practices and stay focused.
Hi Ville,
You are right that the root causes are about the way our economy runs. But we know that the journey to transform our economies is a long-term one. alongside our systemic work, we need to be stemming this push toward fascism in our country NOW, because communities and families are being torn apart. I believe it is morally indefensible to sit on the sidelines while this is happening in our country. Our task is large, but we need to keep our eyes on the long term prize, while we simultaneously work to build the resiliency of our communities in dealing with the immediate impacts. Its hardly a distraction, but an integral component of our long term strategy. Here is a good snapshot of “root causes”: http://itsgettinghotinhere.org/2010/08/09/root-causes-of-the-bp-oil-disaster/
Russell you may well think it is morally correct to do something.
It may be morally correct to oppose euthanasia, it may be morally correct to support car workers who are threatened with being sacked, but any such moral views have zilch to do with protecting the environment or living an eco-sustainable life.
The fact is in order for many communities to be sustainable, the population has to be limited, this is going to cause problems today and in the future.
You say “Our task is large, but we need to keep our eyes on the long term prize…”, in which case I will suggest you focus on the only prize you should be campaigning on, and that is the environment. If you do, you might find that your ‘morals’ might be compromised. Otherwise you are likely to damage what many environmentalists are trying to achieve, all in favour of fraudulent left wing motives.
Feel free to campaign on the issue of immigration, but don’t corrupt the environmental message.
The “population warrior” politic is SO 1980′s. That is exactly the mentality the new generation of environmentalists have moved beyond – into a holistic analysis that has justice or both people and the planet at it’s core.
The old Environmental line on overpopulation is fundamentally racist as it targets poor peoples of color across the world as the source of the problem (despite the fact that – for example – a child born to a middle class white family in New York has roughly 600 times larger ecological footprint than a child born in Bangladesh).
Climate change is a symptom of an out of control economy, and we need to understand and adress the interrelated components of that symptom if we’re gonna survive long enough to tackle the roots.
The language you use Russell reveals your politics.
You compare carbon footprints of New York and Bangladesh, yet you are supporting the removal of a policy that would see migration from a low carbon footprint poor culture to one that is high!
I don’t see you campaigning for Americans to be poorer, which would certainly reduce carbon footprints per capita. Instead you are saying some Hispanics deserve to share the wealth of an economy that has the highest per capita carbon footprint on the planet!
You are right in pointing out that modern economic thinking is a problem, but the solutions aren’t in falling back on old political agendas such as racism, socialism, capitalism etc.
How can you say you are ‘new environmentalists’ when you quote outdated political ideology ?
That isn’t new at all, it is hijacking potentially new green politics and economics to push a socialist agenda. I guess one can’t expect much improvement in the US where you have so much political extreme.
Ville, the U.S. has political extremes and the U.K. doesn’t? As I understand it, your British National Party is quite influential and becoming more so. Aside from that, there is little difference between the politics in the U.S. and U.K., except that the U.K.’s welfare and health care systems are much more “socialist” than anything we have in the U.S. (which, by the way, is one of the things I like about the U.K.).
I really don’t understand what your issue is with this post. In what way is advocating against inhumane immigration policies part of some insidious “socialist” plot? And even if it were, what exactly is wrong with that? In your first comment you defined socialism as “caring about our brothers and sisters”. And this is a bad thing??
You can’t really claim to be an environmentalist if you don’t care about the people in the environment.
Capitalism stays, Earth Goes. Simple as that. The new breed of environmentalist as represented in the “climate justice” movement recognizes that the entirety of our system of extraction and production is based on racist, neo-colonial, unsustainable and generally oppressive roots. These yucky things fit very well into and perpetuate modern industrial civilization. Therefore we recognize that in order to effectively sabotage the system at its roots we need to show solidarity with the people who are most directly oppressed by it. Migration from Mexico to the US is most certainly within this realm of solidarity as the dominant economic force since the early days of colonialism has been neoliberalism. Neoliberalism and its associated trade agreements and structural renovations are the reason folks can’t find work in Mexico and look for a better life in the states. Anyone with half a brain knows that immigration is VERY much a part of the climate crisis.
This is a great piece. I’m sure this will prove to be a very contentious issue. No sense in putting it off. Eco-Fascism is a very real possibility and we need to be wary of its formation in places like Arizona, Copenhagen and Toronto. Change the system, not the climate!
I don’t consider myself an environmentalist. I consider myself a climate activist, and that means a whole lot more consideration of the inter-relation of broader issues.
Ville, you said…
“I don’t see you campaigning for Americans to be poorer, which would certainly reduce carbon footprints per capita. Instead you are saying some Hispanics deserve to share the wealth of an economy that has the highest per capita carbon footprint on the planet!”
So many interrelated issues in these statements…
First of all, campaigning for Americans to be poorer = not a particularly appealling, nor effective campaign suggestion, and it depends how you define wealth and poverty. In my climate campaigning, I campaign for people to have a higher quality of life, with their basic human needs fulfilled – including the right to (food, water, medical care, education, and…) a safe home, fulfilling work, a supportive community. I believe that a higher quality of life is not correlated at all with higher levels of destructive material over-consumption. The pressure to be a ‘good consumer’ rather than simply a good person is destroying the psychology of our societies.
If people have left their homes and seeking new lives in different places, because their homes are not fulfilling those needs. We need to address these problems at the root, while simultaneously supporting those migrants who are the victims of the situation. The ‘Show Your Papers’ law does nothing to address the problems at either end of migration, nor will it stem the flow of migrants.
As for “you are saying some Hispanics deserve to share the wealth of an economy that has the highest per capita carbon footprint on the planet”… well, considering that the wealth of that economy has been based on the exploitation of communities and environments beyond its borders, that wealth has been unfairly amassed. It does collectively belong to all citizens of the planet.
This post reminds me of that famous quote from Germany…
“THEY CAME FIRST for the Communists, and I didn’t speak up because I wasn’t a Communist.
THEN THEY CAME for the trade unionists, and I didn’t speak up because I wasn’t a trade unionist.
THEN THEY CAME for the Jews, and I didn’t speak up because I wasn’t a Jew.
THEN THEY CAME for me, and by that time no one was left to speak up.”
Mark said:
“Capitalism stays, Earth Goes. Simple as that.”
In one stroke you have alienated a large number of potential environmental campaigners and added a few more years of high carbon living to the planet.
In order to get carbon emissions down, you can not alienate people that you need on your side.
All you do is provide food for those that you dislike and hence polarise the issue further into the old left/right political argument, which in turn brushes the real problem of the environment aside.
In fact your post barely mentions real environmental issues.
Annak:
“First of all, campaigning for Americans to be poorer = not a particularly appealling, nor effective campaign suggestion, and it depends how you define wealth and poverty.”
A video to ponder:
Climate change isn’t positive, we just have to get on with the job.