About 3,000, “The biggest crowd ever to address climate
change in San Francisco” according to emcee
for event organizers Sierra Club and 350.org, gathered in Justin Herman Plaza on Sunday,
February 17th.
Unlike the 40,000 hardy souls gathered in wintery
Washington, DC on the same day for the same demands (no Keystone XL/tar sands;
no fracking; cut carbon emissions, divest public money from fossil fuels) sunlight
streaming between skyscrapers warmed us in San Francisco.
 |
| Marchers gathering on the corner of Steuart and Market
Streets to march around the block that houses the state department’s regional offices in San Francisco. (Photo: Susan Galleymore) |
Circle dancing to the beat of Native drums warmed us too. Indeed,
the presence of descendants of Native people indigenous to the bay area signals
a change from the usual political gatherings. So novel is this addition of
Native people to predominantly Anglo liberal and progressive local politics that
the aroma accompanying the ritual burning of sage is still acceptable. (If the
Native presence continues at these events – and I sincerely hope it does – I
predict that delicately worded requests will soon circulate requesting
organizers ban sage to accommodate the chemically sensitive. How that clash of
cultures plays out will speak volumes about inclusion, power, and empowerment.)
On this early spring day, speakers included fresh voices and
faces including youth, residents of the city of Richmond, and San Francisco
Supervisor John Avalos who described his resolution to divest the San Francisco
Employees Retirement System (SFERS) from leading fossil fuel giants Exxon, BP,
Shell, and Chevron.
Divestment is a “great idea” but not addressed is how retirement
funds make up the losses when an approximately $1 billion investment is pulled
from these highly profitable companies.
 | |
| Justin Herman Plaza on the Embarcadero. (Photo: Susan Galleymore) |
For fewer dollars building up in already strapped retirement
funds mean fewer dollars for retirees, while barely affecting fossil fuel giants’
bottom line: $137 billion in profit goes a long way to reduce short-term
corporate loss.
Among the questions not addressed by the push for “sustainable
living” in the 21st century is what it actually means...and how it effectively
addresses climate change.
The romantic view of sustainability predominates: the young
and middle-aged, the healthy and able-bodied, the well-off, those living close
to work, grocery stores, and shopping malls -- can buy and ride bicycles, grow vegetables,
raise backyard chickens, turn down
thermostats, perhaps take buses (if one has the time to wait).
But, even if 25 percent – about 2 million people – of the
Bay Area’s population did all of these things (a welcome even vitally necessary
but highly unlikely scenario) it would not much diminish climate change.
The American People are woefully unprepared for the changes
genuine “sustainable living” will impose on America and the American
“lifestyle.” Indeed, “sustainable living” is profoundly un-American for, realistically, it means Americans “divest” from
capitalism and that means major
changes not only in material wealth but in the American worldview, culture, and
identity.
In theory, I’m all for sustainable living and already live as
sustainably as I can: I gave up my hurry-hurry, commute-centric, money-making
career in favor of a simpler, shopping-free, more humane bike-centric life -
despite a much diminished income.
But I’m aware that I can do so because the system of
capitalism is still firmly in place and I can eke out a “sustainable” existence
in the shadow of the American Way of Life. I cannot nor can any one of us sustain
ourselves – never mind our families – on what is grown on condo patios, back
yards, community gardens, on tiny amounts of wind- and solar-generated energy, and
on bicycling, recycling and reusing.
While I heartily endorse Avalos’ resolution, it behooves him
to explain that ritual and symbolism – divestment, political protests and
gatherings, even blockading routes to and from tar sands areas – do not address
the fundamental conundrum: sustainability versus capitalism...with capitalism
requiring endless growth
As much as some well-intentioned people desire to have both,
the two are incompatible.
In America, so far, there exists no vernacular to
communicate the fundamental and interlocking
changes that are required – demanded! – to reduce the perils climate change
brings to people all over the planet.
Those who present themselves as leaders during this new
moment must not only understand, integrate, and
communicate a holistic picture about what sustaining life really means they
must also acknowledge that what is necessary is not only divesting from but
also doing away with the war, defense and homeland security industries that are
the backbone of our economy, and nuclear energy and weaponry, and Wall Street, and
the corporate model, and lobbying and lobbyists, and Congressional and
corporate corruption....
For, “everything” is
connected – and fundamental change includes re-ordering the American psyche.
The lovely spring weather allowed like-minded people and
their colorful banners to reconnect after a cool winter and, as we celebrated in
the plaza, hundreds of pedestrians and cyclists looked on and cars, trucks, and
buses sped along the Embarcadero.
What would it really take to get those drivers and
passengers out of their cars and engaged in step one: divesting from fossil
fuels...and car culture?
No comments:
Post a Comment