Sunday, May 05, 2024

With a bit of Saudi topspin, tennis fans can overlook its brutal repression of women

The WTA finals host revealed its commitment to women’s rights by jailing a female activist

Catherine Bennett
Sun 5 May 2024 


If a record of sexual apartheid is not the ideal look for a nation that must still, occasionally, placate progressives, news of an extreme example – the lengthy imprisonment of Manahel al-Otaibi, a 29-year-old fitness instructor and women’s rights activist – has at least arrived too late to tarnish Saudi Arabia’s latest sporting triumph: buying up the Women’s Tennis Association finals.

In fact, given that country’s hectic promotional schedule, there could hardly have been a more convenient time for human rights organisations to report, as they did last week, that al-Otaibi whose circumstances were for months unknown, is serving 11 years in prison for the “terrorist” offences of wearing “indecent clothes” (ie, not an abaya) and supporting women’s rights. Her sister, Fouz al-Otaibi, fled the country in 2022 to avoid similar persecution. Fouz tweeted last week: “Why have my rights become terrorism, and why is the world silent?”

Had the scale of this injustice emerged earlier it could have cast a shadow over the unopposed election in March of a Saudi, Dr Abdulaziz Alwasil, as chair of the UN Commission on the Status of Women, a title reflecting his country’s attractive new image as a champion of women’s rights. Although it may be optimistic, given the already abundant evidence of sexist brutality before Alwasil’s promotion, to think that the imprisonment of another woman would have penetrated UN torpor about one of the world’s most misogynistic countries leading a global body “dedicated to the promotion of gender equality”. “Is the international community’s commitment so shallow that no better champion could be found,” the academic Maryam Aldossari wrote at the time, “or was Mullah Haibatullah Akhunzada, the Taliban’s leader, simply unavailable for the role?”

Ideally, revelations about al-Otaibi’s sentence would have appeared still earlier, in response to a UN special rapporteur’s inquiry as to her treatment. Since it appears that al-Otaibi would only recently have been convicted by a secret court, in January, when the Saudi ambassador to the US, Princess Reema bint Bandar al-Saud, in a widely reported statement, said it was “beyond disappointing” that critics of a mooted WTA deal were resorting to “outdated stereotypes and western-centric views of our culture”. To put it another way: were they suggesting it was the kind of hell where mutinous women could be sent down for 11 years for wearing dungarees?

The tennis deal is designed to obscure not alleviate the oppression of Saudi women living under male guardianship law

article (“We did not help build women’s tennis for it to be exploited by Saudi Arabia”) for the Washington Post, the tennis champions Chris Evert and Martina Navratilova had indeed argued that the Saudi deal negotiated by WTA’s leader, Steve Simon, would represent a “significant regression”. The WTA’s values, they explained, “sit in stark contrast to those of the proposed host”.

Defending her country, Princess Reema took the opportunity to reproach Evert and Navratilova for deficient feminism. Women astronauts were mentioned. “This not only undermines the progress of women in sports, it sadly undermines women’s progress as a whole”.

After the WTA deal was signed, in April, Navratilova commented, it was “about as big a change as you can make except for maybe going to North Korea”. Which is definitely something for the WTA to consider when the three-year Saudi deal comes up for renewal. Why not? None of the main criteria the WTA applied to the Saudi proposal featured human rights. And when these unsporting irritants do arise, a mention of wholesome legacies plus some inspirational allusions to world peace, usually – witness this year’s intensely undiscriminating Olympics – offer relief.

The lesson of Saudi sportswashing is that what might sound unthinkable can rapidly, given resourceful sports officials and complaisant players, be realised in exactly the way the sponsoring country intended. The WTA deal being concluded, Simon offered, by way of positives, both “significant change being made within the region” and what would prevent it, “different cultures and systems”.

In practice, as human rights organisations explain, the tennis deal is designed to obscure not alleviate the oppression of Saudi women living under male guardianship law. This, Human Rights Watch says, “sets out the order of who can act as a woman’s male guardian, starting with her father, then moving along the patriarchal line to her grandfather, brother, uncles, male cousins, and finally, a male judge to decide who she can marry.”
View image in fullscreenRussian player Daria Kasatkina has batted away last year’s doubts about Saudi Arabia hosting the WTA finals. Photograph: Ella Ling/REX/Shutterstock

But already the BBC can be seen getting behind a more progressive fiction. Days before Amnesty called for the release of al-Otaibi, a sports correspondent reported that the Russian player, Daria Kasatkina, who is a lesbian, will not risk the vicious punishments applicable to gay Saudi nationals: such as prison sentences or lashes: “I’ve been given guarantees that I’m going to be fine”.

Last year, Kasatkina had her doubts, according to the BBC; now she applauds the Saudi venture. “As long as it gives the opportunity to the people there, and the young kids and the women to actually see the sport – so that they can watch it, they can play it, they can participate in this, I think it’s great.”


As with Saudi football and golfing acquisitions, the latest sportswashing confirms that you can’t overestimate the willingness of humane people who love sport not to hold evidence of savage repression against a truly generous despot. All the more so in female sport given extensive male readiness – as witnessed with David Cameron’s business overtures in Saudi Arabia, Tobias Elwood’s enthusiasm for the Taliban – to exclude the theocratic oppression of entire female populations from the category of serious human rights abuse.

Meaning that, as regrettable as it is that news about al-Otaibi’s treatment emerged only after Saudi Arabia bought a women’s sport event founded on the principle of equality, tennis fans may require only minimal assurances and a few news cycles to forget all about it. Credit where it’s due: Mohammed bin Salman doesn’t just threaten his female subjects into submission, he’s made the entire audience of the WTA finals complicit.

Catherine Bennett is an Observer columnist

‘I’m in awe of our young people’: Gen Z take the initiative as Georgia protesters face down government

The Georgian government’s bid to pass Russia-style law has met spirited opposition, mostly from young people keen to lean towards Europe

Protesters outisde the Georgian Parliament in Tbilisi, last week. 
Photograph: Nicholas Muller/Shutterstock

The Observer Georgia
Natia Koberidze in Tblisi
Sun 5 May 2024


The finale of Beethoven’s “revolutionary” fifth symphony was met with deafening applause at the National Opera and Ballet Theatre in Tbilisi last Thursday night. The cheers grew into a powerful expression of solidarity with the protests outside on Rustaveli Avenue.

The Observer view on Georgia protests: as police fire teargas in Tbilisi, 

People hung EU flags from the theatre’s balconies and shouted, “No to the Russian Law! Europe! Georgia [Sa-kar-tve-lo]!”

They were responding to the Georgian parliament’s decision the previous day to push ahead with a second reading for a controversial bill that would oblige NGOs, civil rights groups and media organisations to register as “foreign agents” if more than 20% of their funding comes from abroad. Protesters say the law is inspired by Russian authoritarian legislation and could be used to crush opposition ahead of an election later this year. The ruling party, Georgian Dream (GD), says the “foreign influence” law is needed to “boost transparency”.

Thousands have been protesting in Tblisi in the past few days, with dozens arrested. I was out on the streets too. I am a Georgian journalist and have spent my life resisting Soviet or Russian oppression. I believe sovereignty, freedom and democracy are the most important values for my country.

I joined these protests when they started about three weeks ago, and will be part of them until the end. I don’t want to feel compelled to leave my homeland because of this authoritarian legislation.
Natia Koberidze (on the right) with her daughter Ana Maisuradze demonstrating in Tblisi. Photograph: Natia Koberidze/the Observer

On Thursday, Tbilisi’s opera house was filled with the country’s intellectual and business elite. But the people rallying on the streets against the foreign influence law are mostly young. My daughter, Ana, who is 23, joined me.


Since the first attempt to impose the law last year, Gen Z have taken the initiative in resisting it. For over a month, university and high school students have marched vigorously, singing, dancing and expressing themselves freely and creatively. Much better informed, connected and digitally knowledgable than their elders, these young people have demonstrated unbelievable organising skills.

With no formal leadership, these diverse groups of young people have formed broad and efficient volunteer movements. They distribute water, food, emergency supplies, and first aid. They also create groups on social media, conduct advisory campaigns on how to stay safe during the police crackdown, and help protesters from outside the city with travel and accommodation.

They do all this with ready hugs, smiles and offers of help. At first glance, it looks like a youth festival is happening on the streets of Georgia. But each night their peaceful parties turn into an authoritarian nightmare of arrests and tussles with government forces using teargas and rubber bullets.

Civil society and free media provide the checks and balances in the Georgian state system, and western-funded institutions are effective remedies against the consolidation of authoritarianism. Thanks to the media and NGOs, Georgian society is well aware of the dark sides of the governing system – full-scale oligarchic crony capitalism, corruption, and “state capture”.
Most citizens want to join the EU and Nato. For Georgia, turning its back on the west would mean returning to Russian domination

Every day, high-ranking western officials call on the ruling party not to resort to these severe mechanisms for controlling society and the media, not to jeopardise Georgia’s fragile democracy. The EU has warned the government that if it adopts the foreign influence bill, negotiations on Georgia joining the EU will be at risk. John Kirby of the US national security council said the White House was “deeply concerned” at the bill because of “what it could do in terms of stifling dissent and free speech”.

GD officials continue to ignore these concerns. Protesters believe the party is a puppet in the hands of its founder, oligarch and former prime minister Bidzina Ivanishvili.

Since Georgia won independence, its EU ambitions have grown steadily. Most citizens want their country to join the EU and Nato. For Georgia, turning its back on the west would mean returning to Russian domination. Russia can use its significantly bigger military and economic potential against the sovereignty of Georgia, and still effectively occupies 20% of our territory.

Civil society and independent journalism died out in Russia after it introduced a “foreign agent” law in 2012. This is why protesters are calling the Georgian bill “Russian”.

In the opera house the seats reserved for government officials were empty. Many politicians are reluctant to appear in public, as they are highly unpopular.

Spring 2024 has been marked by an unprecedented outcry. Given that our population is less than 4 million (a million Georgians have emigrated, mainly to western countries), the sight of thousands of protesters on the streets of several cities must be alarming for the government.

But while it continues pursuing controversial laws, we will continue to put on gas masks and goggles and stand with family and friends for freedom and democracy.

What can the left learn from the Thatcher years?

On the forty-fifth anniversary of the election of Margaret Thatcher, the Labour Left Podcast interviews Jeremy Gilbert.

The Guardian front page on Friday 4th May 1979 announces the election of Margaret Thatcher.

Forty-five years ago, on 3rd May 1979 Margaret Thatcher was elected.  To mark the anniversary of the birth of Thatcherism, Bryn Griffiths, the presenter of the Labour Left Podcast, sat down with Jeremy Gilbert to consider Thatcher’s legacy.

You can watch the Thatcherism Podcast on You Tube here  or go to your favourite Podcast provider and search for Labour Left Podcast.  

Jeremy Gilbert is a Professor of Cultural and Political Theory at the University of East London and a prolific podcaster currently hosting Culture Power and PoliticsMany of you will know him because of  his work with Momentum, Novara and The World Transformed, so you’ll realise that he was the ideal guest to help us consider why Thatcherism was important, still casts a dark shadow over British politics today and needs to be understood so we can learn from history to be stronger as a Labour left.

Recently the anniversary of the Great Miners’ Strike has got us all talking about Thatcher again.  Starmer and Reeves have also got on the bandwagon as well, with Sir Keir controversially suggesting she brought about “meaningful change” and was responsible for “setting loose our natural entrepreneurialism.”

In the podcast we consider what happened at the end of the seventies that triggered such an aggressive assault on the post-war consensus of full employment, a mixed economy including a role for nationalisation, the creation of the National Health Service, universal welfare provision and education reform.

To equip us with the tools to understand and learn from the Thatcherite period, we delve deep into the ideas of Stuart Hall and his seminal essay The Great Moving Right Show which introduced Antonio Gramsci to a British audience. We don’t just dwell on what Thatcher did: we look at the Labour left’s efforts throughout the 1980s to build a broad enough coalition to defeat her.  Why were the Benn for Deputy Campaign, the Miners’ Strike and the municipal left all defeated? 

Francis Fukuyama declared that the end of the Cold War signalled the “end of history.” We were told there is no alternative and Thatcher, when asked what she considered to be her greatest achievement answered “Tony Blair and New Labour.” The podcast considers the question: was Thatcher right and did the neo-liberals win forever?

The whole point of reconsidering Thatcherism is to ask what we can learn from it for today.  Moving right up to the present, we consider the possibility of the reconstitution of the Conservatives as a Thatcherite or even a Powellite populist right wing around the forces of Popular and National Conservativism.  Will Liz Truss turn out to be a mere dress rehearsal for something much worse when Starmer inevitably stumbles? Could Starmer’s legacy turn out to be a new ‘great moving right show’ like we have never seen before in Britain?

Finally, with the left in Britain in a period of enforced retreat, Jeremy considers what we can learn from our battle with Thatcher to help us rebuild mass engagement in left politics? 

We think the Jeremy Gilbert interview  is an important contribution to the Labour left’s thinking, going forward.  If you enjoy the podcast, please give it a like and a follow.  Please, please share it with your friends as it really helps promote the podcast to a wider audience. Hit subscribe to make sure you never miss an episode.

You can watch the podcast on YouTube here , Apple podcasts here, Audible here  and listen to it on Spotify here  If your favourite podcast site isn’t listed, just search for the Labour Left Podcast. 

Bryn Griffiths is the host of Labour Hub’s spin off the Labour Left Podcast.  He is an activist in the labour movement, Momentum and The World Transformed in North Essex. You can find all the episodes of the Labour left Podcast here  or if you prefer audio platforms (for example, Amazon, Audible Spotify, Apple, etc.,) just search for Labour Left Podcast.

Bryn Griffiths is standing for the National Policy Forum CLP Representatives,  Eastern Region Division 1.  He is standing as part of the Centre-Left Grassroots Alliance team and you can find all your left candidates across the country here.

UK

 

Mick Lynch responds to news that Labour’s New Deal being diluted

“Working people need a Labour government that will protect them from the excesses of business, not one that kowtows to the vested interests of the super-rich.”
Mick Lynch, RMT General Secretary

By the RMT

Reacting to media reports that suggest there could be attempts to water down the New Deal for workers to ease business concerns, RMT general secretary Mick Lynch said:

“Any dilution of the New Deal for workers is wholly unacceptable.

“Labour must not bend the knee to corporate greed and instead find its voice and values by representing the interests of working people in government.

“The New Deal for workers is popular amongst trades unionists and is an asset at the ballot box.

“Working people need a Labour government that will protect them from the excesses of business, not one that kowtows to the vested interests of the super-rich.

“Any attempt to water down this popular policy will be met with a robust response from the entire trade union movement.”


Union leaders blast any watering down of Labour’s New Deal for workers

'Choosing May Day to give notice of watering down your promise to overhaul one of the worst sets of employment rights in Europe is beyond irony'

2 May, 2024 
Left Foot Forward


Union leaders have issued strong warnings to the Labour Party against watering down its New Deal for Working People which would trigger a “robust response” from the trade union movement.

The leader of Labour’s biggest trade union donor, Unite, has blasted Labour after it was reported on Wednesday that the party was planning to revise its landmark package for workers.

The Unite leader Sharon Graham said notice of a rowback of workers’ rights coming out on May Day was “beyond irony” and warned “a red line will be crossed” if Labour fails to recommit to its pledges in the New Deal for Working People.

“Choosing May Day to give notice of watering down your promise to overhaul one of the worst sets of employment rights in Europe is beyond irony,” Graham said.

“If Labour do not explicitly recommit to what they have already pledged, namely that the New Deal for Workers will be delivered in full within the first 100 days of office, then a red line will be crossed.

“Labour’s vow to delivering a straightforward right of access for trade unions, and a much-simplified route to recognition and therefore the right to negotiate, is the litmus test for Unite. It’s a political non-negotiable”.

Any dilution of the New Deal would be “wholly unacceptable” said General Secretary of the RMT union Mick Lynch, as he warned Labour “not to bend the knee to corporate greed”.

Lynch added: “Any attempt to water down this popular policy will be met with a robust response from the entire trade union movement.”

Matt Wrack, General Secretary of the Fire Brigades Union also said there should be “no rolling back” of Labour’s New Deal as he told the Financial Times (FT) that Labour will face a “hostile reaction” from unions if any further dilutions are announced.

It follows reports in the FT that Labour was set to unveil a weakened package for workers in the coming weeks, following increased pressure from big business to waterdown its proposals.

However a Labour Party spokesperson said nothing had changed since the National Policy Forum last year, LabourList reported. During the policy-making forum, changes were made to the wording of a series of commitments in the New Deal, which included not commiting to a full ban on zero-hour contracts and no longer committed to increase sick pay or extend it to the self-employed.

These changes were reported on at the time but have come under further scrutiny this week.

Hannah Davenport is news reporter at Left Foot Forward


Are Labour’s leaders about to further dilute workers’ rights pledges?



“Sir Keir Starmer’s Labour party is set to unveil a weakened package of workers’ rights in the coming weeks in its latest softening of radical policies ahead of the upcoming general election, according to people familiar with the matter,” reported the Financial Times.

“The package, first outlined in 2021, has been billed by Starmer as the biggest increase in workers’ rights for decades,” it continues. “But behind the scenes, shadow ministers have been discussing how to tone down some of the pledges to ease employer misgivings as the party tries to boost its pro-business credentials, the people familiar with the matter said.”

The repeated “people familiar with the matter” is a conveniently vague attribution. But it presumably means someone closer to the policymaking process than the widely disparaged Lord Mandelson who has been running a personal campaign against Labour’s workplace reforms for some time. Just last month, he warned that Labour should not “betray business”.

The vague attribution allowed a Party spokesperson officially to  dismiss the reports, saying merely that work was ongoing to present the New Deal measures in “a form that our candidates can campaign on.”

The report, which appeared on May 1st, International Workers’ Day, drew an immediate reaction from trade union leaders.  Unite General Secretary Sharon Graham demanded Labour “explicitly recommit to what they have already pledged, namely that the New Deal for Workers will be delivered in full within the first 100 days of office” and warned that a “red line will be crossed” if the Party does not do so.

TUC General Secretary Paul Nowak weighed in, saying: “We expect Labour to deliver it with an employment bill in the first 100 days.” FBU leader Matt Wrack warned that any dilution of the policy would provoke a “hostile reaction”. And a Unison spokesperson said: “Consolidating the promised measures is fine, but any watering-down of the contents won’t be.”

Yet it’s clear that the promise to ban zero-hours has already been diluted. Under the Party’s revised plans, although employers would be required to offer a contract based on regular hours worked, workers could opt to stay on zero hours if they chose.

But the IWGB union, which represents gig economy workers, said they feared anything less than an outright ban on the practice would leave precarious workers facing huge pressure to accept exploitative contracts.

A Momentum spokesperson said: “”For fourteen years the Tories have taken a sledgehammer to workers’ rights, while enriching a few at the very top. The New Deal for Working People announced by Labour in 2021 would start rebalancing the scales back towards ordinary people, and is both popular and urgently needed. So it’s beyond disappointing to see Starmer and Reeves capitulate to corporate interests and massively water it down, in yet another major U-turn. Once again, the labour movement and the public are united behind a desire for transformative change, but they are being let down by a Labour Leadership more interested in pleasing big business.”

The group points to how the original New Deal for Working People, unanimously passed by Labour’s 2023 Conference, has been repeatedly watered down. The idea of a single tier of workforce has been put into a ‘consultation process’; full employment rights from one’s first day of work have been weakened. Other commitments, such as collective fair pay agreements across the economy, have also been reduced in scope.

The introduction of these key reforms within 100 days has also been thrown into doubt. A detailed twitter thread by Momentum spokesperson Angus Satow spells this out item by item.

Yet the New Deal for Working People remains highly popular with the public. Polling by Opinium for the Trades Union Congress last September found strong support for its core proposals, even among Conservative voters. Two-thirds of those polled support all workers having a day one right to protection from unfair dismissal, and the same number back a ban on fire and rehire. The same proportion of 2019 Conservative voters polled also backed these reforms.

Image: https://www.picpedia.org/legal-17/w/workers-rights.html. License: Creative Commons 3 – CC BY-SA 3.0 Attribution Link: Pix4free.org – link to – https://pix4free.org/ Original Author: Nick Youngson – link to – ttp://www.nyphotographic.com/ Original Image: https://www.picpedia.org/legal-17/w/workers-rights.html

Saturday, May 04, 2024

Eco-Collapse Hasn’t Happened Yet, But You Can See It Coming

Degrowth Is the Only Sane Survival Plan.

By Stan CoxMay 1, 2024
Source: Tom Dispatch


Something must be up. Otherwise, why would scientists keep sending us those scary warnings? There has been a steady stream of them in the past few years, including “World Scientists’ Warning of a Climate Emergency” (signed by 15,000 of them), “Scientists’ Warning Against the Society of Waste,” “Scientists’ Warning of an Imperiled Ocean,” “Scientists’ Warning on Technology,” “Scientists’ Warning on Affluence,” “Climate Change and the Threat to Civilization,” and even “The Challenges of Avoiding a Ghastly Future.”

Clearly, there’s big trouble ahead and we won’t be able to say that no one saw it coming. In fact, a warning of ecological calamity that made headlines more than 50 years ago is looking all too frighteningly prescient right now.

In 1972, a group of MIT scientists published a book, The Limits to Growth, based on computer simulations of the world economy from 1900 to 2100. It plotted out trajectories for the Earth’s and humanity’s vital signs, based on several scenarios. Even so long ago, those researchers were already searching for policy paths that might circumvent the planet’s ecological limits and so avoid economic or even civilizational collapse. In every scenario, though, their simulated future world economies eventually ran into limits — resource depletion, pollution, crop failures — that triggered declines in industrial output, food production, and population.

In what they called “business-as-usual” scenarios, the level of human activity grew for decades, only to peak and eventually plummet toward collapse (even in ones that included rapid efficiency improvements). In contrast, when they used a no-growth scenario, the global economy and population declined but didn’t collapse. Instead, industrial and food production both leveled off on lower but steady-state paths.
Growth and Its Limits

Why should we even be interested in half-century-old simulations carried out on clunky, ancient mainframe computers? The answer: because we’re now living out those very simulations. The Limits to Growth analysis forecast that, with business-as-usual, production would grow for five decades before hitting its peak sometime in the last half of the 2020s (here we come!). Then decline would set in. And sure enough, we now have scientists across a range of disciplines issuing warnings that we’re perilously close to exactly that turnaround point.

This year, a simulation using an updated version of The Limits to Growth model showed industrial production peaking just about now, while food production, too, could hit a peak soon. Like the 1972 original, this updated analysis foresees distinct declines on the other side of those peaks. As the authors caution, although the precise trajectory of decline remains unpredictable, they are confident that “the excessive consumption of resources… is depleting reserves to the point where the system is no longer sustainable.” Their concluding remarks are even more chilling:


“As a society, we have to admit that, despite 50 years of knowledge about the dynamics of the collapse of our life support systems, we have failed to initiate a systematic change to prevent this collapse. It is becoming increasingly clear that, despite technological advances, the change needed to put us on a different trajectory will also require a change in belief systems, mindsets, and the way we organize our society.”

What is America doing today to break out of such a doomed trajectory and into a more sustainable one? The answer, sadly, is nothing, or rather, worse than nothing. On climate, for example, the most important immediate need is to end the burning of fossil fuels as soon as possible, something not even being considered by Washington policymakers in the country that hit record oil production and record natural gas exports in 2023. Even a quarter-century from now, wind and solar energy sources together are forecast to account for only about one-third of U.S. electricity generation, with 56% of it still being supplied by gas, coal, and nuclear power.

Now, it appears that rising electrical demand will delay the transition away from gas and coal even further. According to a recent report by the Washington Post’s Evan Halper, power utilities in Georgia, Kansas, Nebraska, South Carolina, Texas, Virginia, Wisconsin, and a host of other states are feeling the proverbial heat from exploding electricity consumption. Analysts in Georgia have, for instance, increased by 17-fold their estimate of the generation capacity that the state will require 10 years from now.

Such an imbalance between energy demand and supply is anything but unprecedented and the source of the problem is obvious. As successful as American industry has been in developing new technologies for generating energy, it has been even more successful at developing new products that consume energy. Much of the current rise in demand, for instance, can be attributed to companies working on artificial intelligence (AI) and other power-hungry computational activities. The usual suspects — Amazon, Apple, Google, Meta, and Microsoft — have been on data-center building sprees, as have many other outfits, especially cryptocurrency-mining operations.

Northern Virginia is currently home to 300 football-field-sized data centers, with more on the way, and there’s already a shortage of locally generated electricity. To keep those servers humming, electric utilities will be crisscrossing the state with hundreds of miles of new transmission lines plugged into four coal-fired power stations in West Virginia and Maryland. Plans were once in the works to shutter those plants. Now, they’ll be kept operating indefinitely. The result: millions more tons of carbon dioxide, sulfur, and nitrous oxides released into the atmosphere annually.

And the digital world’s energy appetite will only grow. The research firm SemiAnalysis estimates that if Google were to deploy generative AI in response to every Internet search request, a half-million advanced data servers consuming 30 billion kilowatt hours annually — the equivalent of Ireland’s national electricity consumption — would be required. (For comparison, Google’s total electricity consumption now is “only” about 18 billion kilowatt hours.)

How are Google and Microsoft planning to weather an energy crisis significantly of their own making? They certainly won’t back off their plans to provide ever more new services that hardly anyone asked for (one of which, AI, according to its own top developers, could even bring about the collapse of civilization before climate change gets the chance). Rather, reports Halper, those tech giants are “hoping that energy-intensive industrial operations can ultimately be powered by small nuclear plants on-site.” Oh, great.
It’s the Wealth, Stupid

The problem doesn’t lie solely with data servers. During 2021–2022, companies announced plans to construct 155 new factories in the United States, many of them to produce electric vehicles, data-processing equipment, and other products guaranteed to suck from the electrical grid for years to come. The broader trend toward the “electrification of everything” will keep lots more fossil-fueled power plants running long past their expiration dates. In December 2023, the firm GridStrategies reported that planners have almost doubled their forecast for the expansion of the national grid — probably an underestimate, they noted, given the rise in demand for charging electric vehicles, producing fuel for hydrogen-powered vehicles, and running heat pumps and induction stoves in millions more American homes. Meanwhile, increasingly hot summers could trigger a 30%-60% increase in power use for air-conditioning.

In short, this sort of indefinite expansion of the U.S. and global economy into the distant future is doomed to fail, but not before it’s crippled our ecological and social systems. In its 2024 Global Resources Outlook, the United Nations Environment Program (UNEP) reported that humanity’s annual consumption of physical resources had grown more than threefold in the half-century since The Limits to Growth was published. Indeed, resource extraction is now rising faster than the Human Development Index, a standard measure of well-being. In other words, overextraction and overproduction while producing staggering wealth aren’t benefiting the rest of us.

UNEP stressed that the need to deeply curtail extraction and consumption applies mainly to wealthy nations and the affluent classes globally. It noted that high-income countries, the United States among them, consume six times the mass of material resources per person as low-income ones. The disparity in per-person climate impacts is even greater, a tenfold difference between rich and poor. In other words, wealth and climate impact are inextricably linked. The share of recent global growth in gross domestic product captured by the most affluent 1% of households was nearly twice as large as the share that trickled down to the other 99%. I’m sure you won’t be surprised to learn that the 1% also produced wildly disproportionate quantities of greenhouse gas emissions.

In addition, societies with a wide rich-poor divide have higher rates of homicide, imprisonment, infant mortality, obesity, drug abuse, and teenage pregnancy, according to British epidemiology professors Richard Wilkinson and Kate Pickett. In a March commentary for Nature, they wrote, “Greater equality will reduce unhealthy and excess consumption, and will increase the solidarity and cohesion that are needed to make societies more adaptable in the face of climate and other emergencies.” In addition, their research shows that more egalitarian societies have significantly less severe impacts on nature. The higher the degree of inequality, the poorer the performance when it comes to air pollution, waste recycling, and carbon emissions.

The message is clear: curtailing ecological breakdown while improving humanity’s quality of life requires banishing the material extravagance of the world’s richest people, especially the growing crew of global billionaires. That would, however, have to be part of a much broader effort to rid affluent societies of the systemic overextraction and overproduction that threaten to be our global undoing.
Phase Out and Degrow

Old-fashioned computer simulations and present-day realities are, it seems, speaking to us in unison, warning that civilization itself is in danger of collapse. Growth — whether expressed as more dollars accumulated, more tons of material stuff produced, more carbon burned, or more wastes emitted — is coming to an end. The only question is: Will it happen as a collapse of society, or could the reversal of material growth be undertaken rationally in ways that would avoid a descent into a Mad Max-style conflict of all against all?

Increasing numbers of advocates for the latter path are working under the banner of “degrowth.” In his 2018 book Degrowth, Giorgos Kallis described it as “a trajectory where the ‘throughput’ (energy, materials and waste flows) of an economy decreases while welfare, or well-being, improves” in a fashion both “non-exploitative and radically egalitarian.”

In the past few years, the degrowth movement has — how else to put it? — grown, and quickly, too. Once a subject for a handful of mainly European academics, it’s become a broader movement challenging the injustices of capitalism and “green growth.” It’s the subject of hundreds of articles in academic journals, including the new Degrowth Journal, and a stack of books (including the captivating Who’s Afraid of Degrowth?). A 2023 survey of 789 climate researchers found almost three-quarters of them favoring degrowth or no-growth over green growth.

In a 2022 Nature article, eight degrowth scholars listed policies they believe should guide affluent societies in the future. Those include reducing less-necessary material production and energy consumption, converting to workers’ ownership, shortening working hours, improving and universalizing public services, redistributing economic power, and prioritizing grassroots social and political movements.

Could such policies ever become a reality in the United States, and if so, how? Clearly, the private businesses that dominate our economy would never tolerate policies aimed at shrinking material production or their profit margins (nor would the federal government we know today). Nevertheless, if more enlightened lawmakers and policymakers ever took control (hard as that may be to imagine), they might indeed head off the societal and environmental collapses now distinctly underway. The most effective pressure points for doing so would, I suspect, be the oil and gas wells and coal mines that now power such destruction.

As a start — unbelievable as it might seem in our present world — Washington would have to nationalize the fossil-fuel industry and put a nationwide, no-matter-what cap on the number of barrels of oil, cubic feet of gas, and tons of coal allowed out of the ground and into the economy, with that cap ratcheting briskly downward year by year. The buildup of wind, solar, and other non-fossil energy would, of course, be unable to keep pace with such a speedy suppression of fuel supplies. So, America would have to go on an energy diet, while the production of unnecessary, wasteful goods and services would have to be quickly reduced.

And yet the government would need to ensure that the economy continued to satisfy everyone’s most basic needs. That would require a comprehensive industrial policy directing energy and material resources ever more toward the production of essential goods and services. Such policies would rule out AI, bitcoin, and other energy gluttons that exist only to generate wealth for the few while undermining humanity’s prospects for a decent future. Meanwhile, price controls would be needed to ensure that all households had enough electricity and fuel.

My colleague Larry Edwards and I have been arguing for years that such a framework, what we’ve called “Cap and Adapt” is a necessity not for some distant future, but now. Similar federal policies for adapting to material resource limitations worked well in World War II-era America. Unfortunately, we live — to say the least — in a very different political world today. (Just ask one of this country’s 756 billionaires!) If there was ever a chance that a national industrial policy, price controls, and rationing could, as in the 1940s, be passed into law, that chance has sadly vanished — at least for the near future.

Fortunately, though, the international situation looks brighter. A burgeoning, vigorous movement is pushing for the two initial actions that would be essential to avoid the worst of climate chaos and societal collapse: the nationalization of, and a rapid phaseout of, fossil fuels in the affluent world. Those could turn out to be humanity’s first steps toward degrowth and a truly livable future. But the world would need to act fast.

And no excuses, okay? We’ve been given fair warning.



Stan Cox began his career in the U.S. Department of Agriculture and is now the Ecosphere Studies Research Fellow at the Land Institute. Cox is the author of Any Way You Slice It: The Past, Present, and Future of Rationing, Losing Our Cool: Uncomfortable Truths About Our Air-Conditioned World (and Finding New Ways to Get Through the Summer) and Sick Planet: Corporate Food and Medicine.
In Coastal British Columbia, the Haida Get Their Land Back

April 30, 2024
Source: Hakai Magazine


Image by Felipe Fittipaldi, Province of British Columbia



Twenty years ago, Geoff Plant, the then attorney general of British Columbia, made an offer to the Haida Nation. Many West Coast First Nations, including the Haida, had never signed treaties with the Canadian government ceding their traditional lands or resources, and Plant was trying to revive the faltering process of treaty making. He wanted to smooth over relations with Indigenous peoples, but he also wanted to help the province extract more resources from Indigenous lands. To entice the Haida—a nation known throughout Canada for its political savviness and resolve—he had what he thought was a bold bargaining chip.

Like many other officials, Plant viewed the BC government as the clear landlord of provincial lands, including those of the Haida Gwaii archipelago—10,000 square kilometers of forested islands located roughly 650 kilometers northwest of Vancouver, British Columbia, and the Haida’s home for at least the past 13,000 years.

So here was Plant’s pitch: the BC government would give the Haida control of 20 percent of their lands, but that would require the nation dropping a title case it had recently filed with the BC Supreme Court. Title refers to the inherent right to own and manage Indigenous territories based on traditional use and occupation. The Haida maintained that their territory included all of the land area in the archipelago, as well as the surrounding airspace, seabed, and marine waters.

The Haida saw Plant’s offer to the door.

“Why would we give up 80 percent of our land to get 20?” said Gidansda (Guujaaw), the then president of the Council of the Haida Nation, to media at the time. “This case is about respect for the Earth and each other. It is about culture, and it is about life.”

The Haida’s steadfastness paid off. Although Haida leaders have kept a potential court case in their back pocket all these years for leverage, they ultimately haven’t needed it. In April 2024, the Haida Nation and the province of British Columbia announced the Gaayhllxid/ Gíihlagalgang “Rising Tide” Haida Title Lands Agreement. In it, the BC government formally recognizes Haida ownership of all the lands of Haida Gwaii. This is the first time in Canadian history that the colonial government has recognized Indigenous title across an entire terrestrial territory, and it’s the first time this kind of recognition has occurred outside of the courts. Experts say it marks a new path toward Indigenous reconciliation.

“It’s groundbreaking, really,” says John Borrows, a member of the Chippewas of Nawash First Nation and an expert in Indigenous law at the University of Toronto in Ontario. Although Indigenous title is widely considered an inherent right that doesn’t need to be granted by an external government or court, Borrows says, First Nations struggle to enforce it without legal backing. And so far, only two courts in Canada have recognized Indigenous title.

In 2014, the Supreme Court of Canada upheld title for the Tŝilhqot’in Nation in the interior of British Columbia, and just last week, in mid-April 2024, the BC Supreme Court affirmed it for the coastal Nuchatlaht First Nation. However, neither ruling recognizes title across an entire traditional territory, and since the 1970s, Canadian courts have urged federal and provincial governments to resolve such differences through negotiation. Now, with the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples and growing public support on their side, the Haida and the province have finally done just that.

Gaagwiis (Jason Alsop), president of the Council of the Haida Nation, says the agreement ends a dark chapter in his nation’s history with the provincial government and provides a fair starting point for real reconciliation.

“What it signifies,” says Gaagwiis, “is a new foundation based on Yah’guudang, or respect, of recognizing this inherent title that preexisted [European contact] and will continue to exist as the basis going forward. And, essentially, the province kind of ceding their claim to this land.”

The new agreement will soon be enshrined into BC law, naming the Haida as the rightful owners of all 200-plus islands of Haida Gwaii, which they have been stewarding for millennia. After a two-year transition period, the Haida Nation will manage the 98 percent of its archipelago that was formerly considered Crown land, including protected areas and other forested lands. Having more of a say over the logging industry—which has clear-cut over two-thirds of the islands’ old-growth forest since 1950—has been a focus of the Haida’s title fight since the very beginning. The agreement won’t affect private property or municipal and provincial services, from highways to hospitals, which will continue to be regulated by the province.

“The idea that each legal system is recognizing the other one is a turning point,” Borrows says. “It’s also radically democratic and participatory.” This marks a new kind of relationship, which can draw on the best of Haida and Western influences, he adds. And unlike a treaty or court decision, which are more set in stone, this approach requires ongoing negotiation that can adapt and evolve with the times.

“It can keep people at the table, learning and working together with one another and trying to find that path to mutuality,” Borrows says.

The federal government of Canada is notably absent from the agreement for now. Both the province and the Haida Nation say their federal partners were delayed by procedural constraints but plan to sign on eventually. (The Feds were part of two other agreements—a reconciliation framework and a recognition of Haida governance—that led up to this title recognition.)

Gaagwiis says the Haida are also still negotiating with Canada over their rights to control the waters surrounding Haida Gwaii, which fall under federal government jurisdiction. These waters—teeming with shellfish, herring, sea cucumbers, five types of salmon, and more than 20 species of whales, dolphins, and porpoises—are not included in the land agreement but are paramount to the coastal First Nation and are a key part of its overall title declaration.

If marine areas or any other outstanding issues, such as financial compensation for past damages, can’t be sorted out through negotiation, the courts are still a fallback. The Haida Nation’s 20-year-old title claim, which hasn’t been judged in court, could still be heard as early as 2026.

While Indigenous people in Canada and abroad are hailing this land title agreement as inspiring and precedent setting, Murray Rankin, British Columbia’s minister of Indigenous relations, says the Haida’s unique circumstances made the process more successful.

“Haida Gwaii is not downtown Vancouver,” Rankin says. It’s a remote territory where the provincial government controlled the vast majority of the land, which is mainly protected and unprotected forest, as opposed to an urban environment comprised mostly of private properties. The population of Haida Gwaii is 45 percent Haida. The Council of the Haida Nation, which represents the Haida people, has a 20-year-old constitution, agreements with every local municipality, and widespread support from non-Indigenous residents. And they’ve been on better terms with the provincial government since 2009, when they hashed out the Kunst’aa guu-Kunst’aayah Reconciliation Protocol (which translates to “the beginning”).

Of course, they also have a strong historical claim to the archipelago, complete with extensive archaeological evidence. And, unlike some other Indigenous communities whose territories overlap, the Haida Nation doesn’t have to contend with competing land claims. A 2002 decision from the BC Court of Appeal on a forestry lawsuit called these facts “inescapable.”

All of this has created ideal conditions for negotiation that may elude other Indigenous communities, such as Cowichan Nation on the south coast of British Columbia, which is currently fighting the province in court over its own title claim. The province says it prefers negotiation, however. That’s in part because court rulings are not only costly but often opaque, Rankin says. “I hope [the Haida agreement] is a step toward other kinds of positive resolutions,” he adds.

Perhaps unexpectedly, the provincial government’s marked shift is a welcome one to Geoff Plant, the former attorney general who once offered the Haida 20 percent of their land. Plant now works for a Vancouver-based law firm and spends a lot of time in meeting rooms trying to convince business people of the benefits of acknowledging Indigenous title; he says doing so breeds better engagement, harmony, and certainty. And he now recognizes how flawed the government’s former approach was, which he compares to building and defending a wall between the province—which he once referred to as the landlord—and First Nations. “It’s clearer in hindsight what’s wrong with that,” Plant says.

Indigenous leaders in Canada and around the world have helped society reckon with the injustices Indigenous communities have faced, and power, public opinion, and legal precedent have all shifted in response. “We should see that, collectively, as an opportunity to build a better society,” Plant says. “Let’s figure out how to work constructively within that world rather than pretend that it doesn’t exist.”

The provincial wall may not have fully crumbled, but the tide is rising against it. And at least on Haida Gwaii, a colonial government is no longer lord of the land.
May Day May Have Been Obliterated from US History, But It’s Legacy Continues
May 1, 2024
Source: Originally published by Z. Feel free to share widely.


May 1st is International Workers’ Day and was established as such in celebration of the struggle for the introduction of the eight-hour workday and in memory of Chicago’s Haymarket Affair, which took place in 1886.

May 1st is celebrated in over 160 countries with large-scale marches and protests as workers across the globe continue to fight for better working conditions, fair wages, and other labor rights. International Workers’ Day, however, is not celebrated in the US and has in fact been practically erased from historical memory. But this shouldn’t be surprising since US capitalism operates on the basis of a brutal economy where maximization of profit takes priority over everything else, including the environment and even human lives.

Indeed, the US has a notorious record when it comes to worker rights. The country has the most violent and bloody history of labor relations in the advanced industrialized world, according to labor historians. Subsequently, unionization has always faced an uphill battle as corporations are allowed to engage in widespread union-busting practices through manipulation or violation of federal labor law. The recent activities of Amazon and Starbucks speak volumes of the anti-union mentality that pervades most US corporations. Accordingly, unionization in the US has been on decline for decades even though the majority of Americans see this development as a bad thing.

The backlash against unionization and worker rights in general in the US also takes place against the backdrop of an insidious ideological framework in which it has been regarded as a self-evident truth that individuals are responsible for their own fate and that government should not interfere with the free market out of concern for social and economic inequalities.

Social Darwinism first appeared in US political and social thought in the mid-1860s, as historian Richard Hofstadter showed in his brilliant work Social Darwinism in American Thought, 1860-1915, but it would be a gross mistake to think that it ever went away. The conservative counterrevolution launched by Ronald Reagan in the early 1980s and refined by Bill Clinton in the early1990s aimed at bringing back the loathsome idea that the government should not interfere in the “survival of the fittest” by helping the weak and the poor. Progressive economic ideas have been on the whole an anathema to the US political establishment and violence against labor militancy has always been the norm for almost all of the country’s political history.

Long before the movement for an eight-hour workday in the US, which can be largely attributed to the influx of European immigrants mainly from Italy and Germany, radicalism had set foot across a number of post-colonial states. Rhode Island, often referred to as the Rogue Island, had one of the most radical economic policies on revolutionary debt, which was wildly popular with farmers and common folks in general, and experimented with the idea of radical democracy. At approximately the same time, Shays’ rebellion in Massachusetts was also about money, debts, poverty, and democracy. Naturally, the elite in both states pulled out all stops to put an end to radicalism, and the pattern of suppressing popular demands has somehow survived in US politics across time.

The pattern of suppressing social and political movements from below continued well into modern times. The Red Scare, climaxed in the late 1910s on account of the Russian revolution and the rise of labor strikes and then renewed with the anti-communist campaign of the 1940s, played a crucial role in the establishment’s fervent dedication to crushing radicalism in the US and putting an end to challenges against capitalism.

In light of this, it is nothing short of a shame that May Day has been all but forgotten in US political culture even though the day traces its origins to the fight of American laborers for a shorter workday.

Last year, after marching on May Day with thousands of other people in the streets of Dublin, one of the questions that was posed to me was how could it be that International Workers’ Day is not celebrated in the US. I am still struggling to come up with a convincing explanation, as may be evident from this essay, but Gore Vidal was not off the mark when he said, “we are the United States of Amnesia.”

Nonetheless, the US labor movement has not yet been defeated and is surely not dead. In spite of the bloody suppression and the constant intimidation over many decades, the US labor movement has made its presence felt on numerous historic occasions, from the Battle of Cripple Creek in 1894 and the 1892 Homestead Strike in Pennsylvania to being behind the historic 1963 march on Washington for Jobs and Freedom, and continues doing so down to this day. Scores of victories for the working class were achieved last year—and all against prevailing odds. Moreover, in 2023, labor strikes in the US jumped to a 23-year high and some of the largest labor disputes in the history of the US were also recorded last year.

So, while May Day may have been formally obliterated by the powers that be from US public awareness, the labor movement is still alive and kicking. Even a small victory is still a victory, though time will tell of the historic significance of each step forward. Indeed, it is highly unlikely that the unionists, socialists, and anarchists that made Chicago in 1886 the center of the national movement for the eight-hour workday had foreseen what the impact of their actions would be in the struggle of the international labor movement for democracy, better wages, safer working conditions, and freedom of speech. All these social rights have been amplified over time, though much remains to be accomplished and the struggle continues.

But this is all the more reason why we must not forget—and indeed celebrate every year with marches and protests—May 1st.




CJ Polychroniou is a political scientist/political economist, author, and journalist who has taught and worked in numerous universities and research centers in Europe and the United States. Currently, his main research interests are in U.S. politics and the political economy of the United States, European economic integration, globalization, climate change and environmental economics, and the deconstruction of neoliberalism’s politico-economic project. He has published scores of books and over one thousand articles which have appeared in a variety of journals, magazines, newspapers and popular news websites. His latest books are Optimism Over Despair: Noam Chomsky On Capitalism, Empire, and Social Change (2017); Climate Crisis and the Global Green New Deal: The Political Economy of Saving the Planet (with Noam Chomsky and Robert Pollin as primary authors, 2020); The Precipice: Neoliberalism, the Pandemic, and the Urgent Need for Radical Change (an anthology of interviews with Noam Chomsky, 2021); and Economics and the Left: Interviews with Progressive Economists (2021).