 11 January 20 RSN Is Strapped, We Need Assistance
The last few months have very difficult for fundraising. We are strapped at this point. We do have very good donors but we need more people to chip-in.
This is a funding drive that "must-succeed."
Let’s do this.
Marc Ash
Sure, I'll make a donation!Founder, Reader Supported News Update My Monthly Donation
If you would prefer to send a check:
Reader Supported News PO Box 2043 Citrus Hts, CA 95611 |
11 January 20
Nathan J. Robinson | Everyone Is Getting On the Bernie Train
Nathan J. Robinson, Current Affairs
Robinson writes: "Bernie Sanders has just pulled even with Joe Biden in Iowa and is beating him in New Hampshire, giving Sanders a reasonable claim to being either the frontrunner or the co-frontrunner for the 2020 Democratic nomination."
Nathan J. Robinson, Current Affairs
Robinson writes: "Bernie Sanders has just pulled even with Joe Biden in Iowa and is beating him in New Hampshire, giving Sanders a reasonable claim to being either the frontrunner or the co-frontrunner for the 2020 Democratic nomination."
Bernie has struck fear into the heart of the establishment, and even more moderate commentators like Chris Cillizza have noticed that Sanders is in a very good position now: Not only does he top the polls, but his fundraising blows every other candidate out of the water, he has a powerful organization of committed supporters, he is the most liked of all the candidates, he is rated “the best” on critical issues, he has the most enthusiasm, and he has a strong message that distinguishes him from the other candidates. Despite being constantly shunned or attacked by the media and bitterly opposed by the Democratic establishment, Bernie has managed to pull even with the former Vice President.
Bernie Sanders also has a strong case to make that he is the most “electable” candidate in a race against Donald Trump. As Matt Yglesias of Vox has noted, Sanders “has good ideas on the topics in which the choice between Democrats matters most, he has a plausible electability case, he’s been a pragmatic and reasonably effective legislator, and his nomination is, by far, the best way to put toxic infighting to rest and bring the rising cohort of left-wing young people into the tent — for both the 2020 campaign and the long-term future.” (Being an effective legislator is one of Sanders’ most underappreciated assets.) This magazine has been saying since 2016 that the best way to get rid of Donald Trump is to let Bernie Sanders at him. Sanders can neutralize Trump’s “anti-establishment” message by offering a far more persuasive, authentic, and compelling left populism, and Trump will find it hard to attack Sanders as a hypocrite and fraud the way he can attack Joe Biden, Elizabeth Warren, or Pete Buttigieg. Bernie has a very clear pitch to apolitical and disaffected people, and he is fantastic at going after some of Trump’s own voters in a way that none of the other candidates can. Ryan Grim of the Intercept, in a recent report on Sanders’ powerful organizing operation, noted that there is now a “well-resourced and complex organizing apparatus that has been five years in the making, the most ambitious effort yet to link face-to-face movement-style organizing with technology not available to previous campaigns.” (Alarmingly, it is noted that the only campaign doing the same kind of organizing Bernie is doing on the ground is Donald Trump’s—which should be reason enough to support Bernie.) Bernie’s fundraising capacity, the borderline-fanatical devotion of his supporters, his strength among teachers, nurses, bartenders, and construction workers—all of these are unique assets that Democrats would be colossally foolish to squander.
People are beginning to notice that Bernie Sanders (1) has a good shot at the Democratic nomination and (2) is the best available candidate the Democrats have. You’re even starting to see headlines like “Be Prepared for President Sanders” on the Wall Street Journal op-ed page. Now is the time, then, that all progressives need to come together and seize their moment. There is a historic opportunity waiting to be taken. Whether you believe in the left social democratic agenda that Bernie so powerfully articulates, or you just want to defeat Trump, the task is the same: Everyone needs to get on the Bernie train and they need to get on it now.
The sooner we can unify behind Bernie, the sooner we can focus on the real enemy: Donald Trump, a cartoon of an evil billionaire, a sadistic war criminal who inflicts hideous suffering on migrants and cares about nothing except his own power and glory. Too many progressives have sat on the fence; even labor unions whose fortunes would be transformed overnight by a Sanders presidency have avoided backing him. The time for that is over: This is a once in a lifetime opportunity. The moment is now. Let’s push Bernie over the edge, wrap up the nomination, and take the country back from this monstrosity.
The case is not just pragmatic, but principled. Bernie’s agenda is the morally right one. He zeroes in on precisely the issues that should outrage us most: war, despair, racism, debt, exploitation, deportation. He does not spend his time tutting at Donald Trump for his incivility and lack of respect for process, but talks about ordinary people’s lives, the problems with them and how to fix them. Bernie gives a shit, in a way no other politician ever seems to have, to the point where he’d give everything he has trying to build a fair, peaceful, social democratic America. He shows you a possible world where you are no longer in debt, you can call an ambulance without thinking about the cost, your decision to go to college is based on your curiosities rather than your cash reserves, public services are well-funded, teaching is a prestigious, well-paid profession, the United States isn’t constantly mired in some new barbaric, pointless, costly war, and new parts of the world aren’t constantly catching fire. That last point is critical: Bernie Sanders is the only candidate ambitious enough on climate change, so if you accept the scientific consensus, you cannot stay with the Democratic mainstream, which pays lip service to the issue but doesn’t actually plan to do anything real about it. As Australia burns, if you care a lick about stopping climate change, it should be unthinkable to support anyone except Bernie. And you will regret not having seized this opportunity and given it everything you’ve got.
The democratic socialist vision is one that is worth fighting for. People who hear about it, come to understand it, and see it in action feel like they have been touched by something special. Why do you think Bernie supporters are passionate like no other candidate’s are? Why do you think they cried so much when he lost in 2016? It is not because they are part of a cult, or because they just love Bernie so much as a person. (He’s not actually that lovable of a person.) It’s because they had come to believe that old leftist slogan, A Better World Is Possible, and seeing that better world snuffed out before their eyes was crushing. We are for Bernie not because we love Bernie, but because we love humanity and we have confidence in what it could be.
By contrast, Donald Trump accelerates this country’s descent into an amoral dystopia where strength is the only virtue and the weak suffer because they deserve it. The world we will live in if we do not reverse course is a brutal and bleak one. It is a neo-feudal nightmare-state, where people like Trump, Jeff Bezos, and Rupert Murdoch control the world, and democracy is reduced to a joke. It is a place where non-Americans are treated like animals (and animals and nature are treated as worthless entirely). It is a place where your value as a human being will be based on how much you can command in the free market, and where self-interest will rule absolutely. It is a world that will burn, because greedy psychopaths would rather let millions die than sacrifice even a tiny bit of profit or give up one of their $100 million houses. It is socialism or barbarism, and Donald Trump is running on barbarism.
We need a candidate who fully understands the stakes. They need to know the source of what has gone wrong and have a radical alternative. They can’t be some tepid compromiser talking about the need for some new Rules And Regulations. They can’t capitulate before the fight starts. They need to have a moral seriousness that shows they take the pain of others seriously. They need to fill people’s souls, to assuage their fears, to challenge them to be their best selves, and to present a vision of the beautiful world that could be if humanity got its act together, versus the horrendous world that will be if we allow the deadly logic of nuclear weapons and climate change to continue unfolding. This moment demands something, a kind of power, we have never before mustered, a resolve we have never before felt, a breadth and depth of vision we have never before dared to pursue.
Thank God we have Bernie Sanders.
I hate to sound like Margaret Thatcher, but there truly is no alternative. Joe Biden is a centrist candidate, but 2016 should have finally put to bed the idea that centrism is synonymous with effectiveness. Nobody is enthusiastic for Biden, he’s struggling to raise money, he can barely fill a room of supporters, and he has glaring weak spots. (For one thing, he’s running as the “anti-malarkey” candidate while constantly spewing grade-A malarkey.) Pete Buttigieg would be lucky if anyone under 40 voted for him, especially after he has relentlessly trashed left ideas with dishonest right-wing talking points. He is also the least likely candidate in the primary field to solve one of Hillary Clinton’s core problems: the disillusionment of black voters. Buttigieg is a humorless consultant who comes across as the kind of guy who fires people for a living. Good luck defeating Trump without any young people or people of color.
Some people are still desperately trying to make the case that Amy Klobuchar is the Democrats’ secret weapon. If this catches on I will take time to explain why it is laughable, but since only about 10 people seem to believe it (one of whom is Nate Silver), I do not see the need to right now.
Okay. Elizabeth Warren. It is time to be honest about Elizabeth Warren’s candidacy. I think every Bernie supporter would say she’s one of the top two people currently serving in the United States Senate, just as she is one of the top two candidates in the Democratic primary. But unfortunately, this has led many to avoid being blunt about the massive differences between running Sanders and running Warren, and to refrain from forcefully making the case that progressives need to unify behind Sanders immediately.
Personally I have long believed that Elizabeth Warren would be a disaster against Donald Trump, and I am not the only one who senses this. She literally kicked off her campaign with a video doubling down on her Native ancestry claim, in response to Trump. She has waffled on issues in a way that makes her seem either dishonest or uncertain (she was for single-payer in 2008, then she was against it in 2012, then she was for it during this campaign, but now she might be against it, I’m not sure, but she’s made it clear she doesn’t intend to fight for it.) Her track record of building political support is worryingly tepid even in Massachusetts. She was a latecomer, not a leader, on every part of the Sanders agenda she now (sort of) supports. Her much-heralded Plans, the centerpiece of her campaign, are often convoluted and confusing. She thinks the existence of billionaires is fine, which means she thinks feudalism is fine. She is evasive where Bernie is frank: Where he explains how tax rises are offset by the elimination of premiums, she tries to disguise tax rises while echoing Republican anti-tax rhetoric. She bends the truth in transparent ways, and is open to charges of hypocrisy on her key issues, having previously raised money in exactly the ways she now says she opposes as corrupt. She cannot run on a steadfastly antiwar platform against Trump, because her record on foreign policy is horrible. (This moment demands a staunchly antiwar candidate, which in and of itself should be enough to disqualify Warren and every other non-Bernie Democrat.) She cannot run on an anti-corporate platform, because she spent years taking money to defend giant corporations and installed former bank executives in the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau. And she is likely to inspire nobody with slogans like “capitalism without rules is theft” or gimmicks like an inflatable replica of her dog. Bernie motivates crowds by telling them that if they join him in building a movement, they will never have to spend time negotiating with an insurance company again. Warren inspires with promises of doing “double selfies” with the former cabinet official who pushed the privatization of public housing. (And dancing as the world burns.)
In order to run an effective campaign against Donald Trump, you need a very clear message that can counter his own effective promise to “make America great.” You need a trustworthy and authentic persona that will give voters confidence. You need to not have engaged in the kinds of deception, hypocrisy, and evasions that will dampen your ability to call him out for his own misdeeds. You need to offer an inspiring vision of something truly different. You need to not have glaring vulnerabilities to charges that are difficult to defend against.
In Warren’s case, the list of vulnerabilities is huge. Trying to fool you into thinking she won’t raise taxes, and being evasive when asked. Fabricating her racial identity. Inconsistency, flip flopping, and trying to have it both ways. Lying. Plagiarism. Shoddy scholarship. Being paid huge sums to defend polluters and chemical companies against the legal claims of retired coal miners, women sickened by faulty breast implants, rural cooperatives, and dead NASCAR drivers, and then intentionally misrepresenting that work to fudge which side she was on. (The hard-right Wall Street Journal op-ed page portrayed Warren as noble for her corporate work, saying she was “working honorably to limit the extortion of an American manufacturer at the hands of personal-injury lawyers and other self-interested parties.” That this is the Journal’s take should tell you all you need to know about Warren’s work.) Warren’s supporters might say that many of these are unfair or irrelevant or distorted and that reality is more complicated and nuanced. They may be right, but enough of these are not unfair that it will be easy to create a narrative that Warren is insincere and unprincipled. (Just as it will be easy to successfully paint Biden as a corrupt Washington insider who embodies Democratic failure and needs to be put out to pasture.)
Some fellow progressives have asked me why I’ve been so harshly critical of Elizabeth Warren. Why, given that I’ve also stressed the need for Warren supporters and Sanders supporters to ultimately unify, attack the second-best candidate? And the answer is: because this is a historic moment, and progressives need to unify and do it now. We have to make clear the contrasts between these two candidates, and then pick one and go all in for that candidate. We have to do it right now, because if we don’t, Joe Biden might be the nominee and that would be a catastrophe.
Bernie Sanders doesn’t like to criticize Elizabeth Warren. I understand why. Lots of other progressives are disinclined to as well, especially now she has slipped behind. I get it. Circular firing squad. But look: If we say “Oh, there are two good progressives in the race, and let’s not talk about the differences,” we are risking a political calamity. The centrist vote is split between Biden, Buttigieg, Booker, and Klobuchar. If the progressive vote wasn’t still being split right now, Bernie wouldn’t just be tied for frontrunner. He would be crushing it. The primary would be over before any votes had been cast.
I have been fully prepared to give Elizabeth Warren a chance. I thought that if she beat Bernie early on, he should literally drop out and endorse her. But importantly, I also felt the reverse was true: If Warren’s candidacy was hurting Bernie, but he was ahead, she needed to do the same for him if she lost near the beginning. The only reason any of the other candidates are even considered viable right now is because the progressive vote is being torn. So we need to hash out what the differences are quickly, and people need to support. It’s incredible to me that In These Times, a supposed “labor” publication, would run dueling cover stories touting the candidacy of one candidate who opposes Trump’s NAFTA 2.0 and another who supports it. These candidates are not the same. Warren-supporting progressives need to confront the question: Are the differences here so staggeringly large in Warren’s favor as to make it worth running an ultimately doomed compromise-heavy campaign that may destroy the only opportunity we have to oust Trump?
Now that Bernie has a solid lead, and is in a good position to capture the nomination and the presidency, we need to encourage those still clinging to the prospect that Warren might bounce back not to cling to a campaign that could well kill a historic opportunity for the left. Let’s win this primary, get it over with, unify Bernie people and Warren people, apologize for any hurt feelings, express our deep respect for one another, and start the real fight. Declining to get on the Bernie train, right here and right now, is indefensibly damaging and risky for both the country and the planet.
Bernie Sanders’ candidacy is something special. It has the possibility of truly transforming the United States—possibly even the world—into a more humane place. Other candidates are having to run on ideas that Bernie Sanders has been pushing for decades, because they know the power of his message. People are waking up to the idea that maybe it would be a good idea to nominate the candidate who is hugely popular, has the most money, the sharpest message, the fewest obvious openings for Trump to exploit, the best organizing ability, the most devoted supporters, the ability to go on Fox News and get the audience cheering. If you want to stop climate change, Bernie is the only serious choice. If you want to stop America’s endless wars, it’s Bernie or nobody. If you want to beat Trump, Bernie is your guy. Best organizing apparatus. Best fundraising ability. Best liked. Best message. Best policies, including best climate plan. How can we choose otherwise?
The good news is that slowly, everyone seems to be realizing this. Maybe hindsight is 2020. For a more comprehensive case for Bernie Sanders, see my colleague Paul Waters-Smith’s recent essay.
Iran has admitted that it shot down a Ukrainian airliner by mistake. (photo: Akbar Tavakoli/AFP)
Iran Admits Unintentionally Shooting Down Ukrainian Airliner
Bethan McKernan, Guardian UK
McKernan writes: "Iran has admitted its military made an 'unforgivable mistake' in unintentionally shooting down a Ukrainian jetliner and killing all 176 people onboard, after days of rejecting western intelligence reports that pointed to Tehran being responsible."
READ MORE
Bethan McKernan, Guardian UK
McKernan writes: "Iran has admitted its military made an 'unforgivable mistake' in unintentionally shooting down a Ukrainian jetliner and killing all 176 people onboard, after days of rejecting western intelligence reports that pointed to Tehran being responsible."
READ MORE
Smoke-filled skies loom over a destroyed tank on the south side of Baghdad. (photo: Carolyn Cole/LA Times)
The Distinctly American Privilege of Forgetting War Exists
Harry Cheadle, VICE
Cheadle writes: "In the 100-odd hours following the killing of Qassem Soleimani by a U.S. drone, the world seemed to enter a queasy state of flux."
Harry Cheadle, VICE
Cheadle writes: "In the 100-odd hours following the killing of Qassem Soleimani by a U.S. drone, the world seemed to enter a queasy state of flux."
EXCERPTS:
Americans will inevitably pay for these wars, of course, whether that comes in the form of interest payments on the trillions in debt incurred by the Afghanistan and Iraq invasions, or the climate change–related consequences of those military operations, or the healthcare costs of the injured and traumatized veterans who return from overseas. But these costs are indirect, invisible unless you go out of your way to look for them. The people who really pay for American foreign policy are the ones who live in the countries the U.S. has blundered its way into, like the Libyan civilians going through a hellish civil war that broke out after a U.S. intervention under Barack Obama that is widely regarded as a disaster.
Anyone who pays even a little bit of attention to how the U.S. has gone about its wars is likely appalled. The Iraq War was started on false premises; last month, the Washington Post revealed that high-ranking U.S. officials have been lying to the public about the war in Afghanistan since the Bush administration, a revelation that few in elite media or political circles seemed to care about. The Trump administration's claim that they needed to kill Soleimani because of an imminent threat to the U.S. looks dubious as well, with Democrats in Congress casting doubt on that claim and the notoriously dishonest White House offering few details.
But it's easier to sell a war to the public when the public does not really have a stake in it. A clumsy or malicious U.S. foreign policy could kill tens of thousands in the Middle East and turn entire countries into war zones—it already has. In most of America, though, the initial anger, panic, and fear of a war would turn into complacency extremely quickly.
Many migrants seeking asylum and waiting for their U.S. court dates have been living in a refugee camp in Matamoros, Mexico. (photo: Eric Gay/AP)
Texas Is First State to Stop Accepting Refugees Under Trump Order
Kelly Mena, CNN
Mena writes: "Texas will not resettle refugees in 2020, Republican Gov. Greg Abbott told the Trump administration Friday, citing a responsibility to use state resources for those already residing in Texas."
READ MORE
Kelly Mena, CNN
Mena writes: "Texas will not resettle refugees in 2020, Republican Gov. Greg Abbott told the Trump administration Friday, citing a responsibility to use state resources for those already residing in Texas."
READ MORE
Jerry Holliman, 69, reviews medical paperwork on Jan. 2, 2019, in his room at the Veterans Home in Collins, Mississippi. (photo: Giacomo Bologna/Clarion Ledger)
Army Veteran Has Prosthetic Legs Repossessed After VA Refuses to Pay for Them
Jason Lemon, Newsweek
Lemon writes: "A decorated military veteran who served in Vietnam and Iraq has claimed that his prosthetic legs were taken away after the U.S. Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) would not cover the cost."
Jason Lemon, Newsweek
Lemon writes: "A decorated military veteran who served in Vietnam and Iraq has claimed that his prosthetic legs were taken away after the U.S. Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) would not cover the cost."
Jerry Holliman, 69, told the Clarion Ledger that he was in his room at the Veterans Home in Collins, Mississippi just a couple days before Christmas when a man walked in and took away his prosthetic limbs. According to Holliman, the VA said it would not cover the cost of the limbs, while Medicare said there'd be a copay required.
"Medicare did not send me to Vietnam," Holliman, who received Bronze Stars in both wars in which he served, told the Ledger in an article published Thursday. "I was sent there by my country...with the understanding that if something bad happened to me, that it would be covered by the VA."
Matthew Gowan, a VA spokesperson, told Newsweek that the claims were "highly misleading."
The newspaper reported that Holliman received his prosthetics in August from the national company Hanger, which produces them. Holliman said, however, that after he received a few training lessons from Hanger staff, he was told the VA would not cover the cost and to check with Medicare.
According to Holliman, the Medicare paperwork said there would be a copay, and Holliman did not want to pay since he expected the VA to cover the costs in the end.
A Bronze Star veteran in Collins is caught in limbo over prosthetic legs he needs to live an independent life and a fight surrounding who should pay for them. clarionledger.com/story/news/pol…
238 people are talking about this
"This is their responsibility," he told the Ledger.
Holliman said that a man then came to him at the Veterans Home on December 23 and requested that he sign paperwork for Medicare. After Holliman refused, the man took away the prosthetics.
VA spokesperson Matt Gowan said that "VA's Prosthetic & Sensory Aids Service, which also has more than 600 local contracts with accredited orthotic and prosthetic providers, stands ready to deliver comprehensive support to optimize health and independence of our Veterans. If eligible veterans do not wish to take advantage of these services, VA is unable to intervene and correct issues arising with personal purchases."
William C.F. Polglase, a press officer for the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services referred Newsweek to a website link outlining how Medicare covers prosthetic limbs when reached for comment.
"Medicare Part B (Medical Insurance) covers artificial limbs and eyes when your doctor orders them," the website information said. "You pay 20 percent of the Medicare-approved amount, and the Part B deductible applies." It also noted that the "specific amount" an individual would pay depends on factors such as: "other insurance you may have," "how much your doctor charges," "whether your doctor accepts assignment," "the type of facility" and "where you get your test, item, or service."
"Hanger Clinic does not take back prosthetic devices after final delivery to a patient has been made," Hanger spokesperson Meghan Williams told the Ledger. But she noted that "final delivery" of prosthetics would only be complete after "a patient has signed a verification of receipt that allows a claim for payment to be submitted to the applicable insurance payer."
Newsweek has reached out to Hanger for additional comment.
Holliman's prosthetics were returned to him on January 2, after he met with a photographer and a reporter. He said that he still doesn't know why they were taken and then returned, but suspects it was because he reached out to the media.
However, adjustments are required as Holliman can't currently walk on the artificial limbs. He said the man who returned them said they would not be adjusted by Hanger until they were paid for.
High healthcare and insurance costs have taken center stage in the Democratic presidential primary, with the leading candidates divided over the best path forward to address soaring costs, high copays and uncovered treatments.
Senators Bernie Sanders and Elizabeth Warren, the leading progressive candidates, have advocated for significantly expanding Medicare to all Americans, while also greatly limiting the role of private insurance. Sanders has repeatedly noted on the campaign trail that he would expand Medicare to cover dental care, while also getting rid of copays and other costs under current insurance plans. The senator has often pointed out that most other wealthy and developed countries have similar government healthcare programs to the one he and Warren are proposing, which often result in better healthcare outcomes and lower costs than what currently exists in the U.S.
"Medicare for All means: - No premiums - No co-pays - No deductibles," Sanders wrote in a September tweet.
More moderate proposals by fellow candidates Pete Buttigieg and former Vice President Joe Biden advocate for expanding Medicare to cover more Americans, while retaining a significant role for private insurance. Buttigieg has dubbed his personal proposal "Medicare-for-all who want it."
Whether any of the Democratic candidates' proposals would address a problem like the one facing Holliman remains to be seen. For now, he just wants to be able to return to his home, but can't without being able to walk with his prosthetics.
"I was here for one thing — to get my prosthetic legs, learn how to walk in 'em, and go home," the veteran told the Ledger.
Haitians lining up for aid after the earthquake in 2010. (photo: Reuters)
34,000 Haitians Still Displaced 10 Years After Quake
teleSUR
Excerpt: "There are at least 34,000 people living in displacement camps 10 years after a devastating earthquake struck Haiti."
teleSUR
Excerpt: "There are at least 34,000 people living in displacement camps 10 years after a devastating earthquake struck Haiti."
Just shy of a decade since the temblor brought the island nation to its knees on Jan. 12, 2010, the head of the IOM’s mission in Haiti, Giuseppe Loprete, told EFE about how the organization has intervened to help the population.
When the earthquake hit Haiti in 2010, there were 1.5 million displaced people in over 1,500 camps and displacement sites, he said.
"Now, we have about 22 displaced sites that are still open and 34,000 people still living in the situation of displacement, although we have to say that, after 10 years, for many of them this has become the normal situation."
According to him, they are not either willing or do not have the possibility to move out of the displacement site, while some are even doing construction, trying to settle in these areas.
In the camps, he reported that there was no electricity for most of the day, access to waters if difficult, there are areas that you can see just walking around that are very overcrowded, overpopulated.
Since the crisis has left 3.7 million people with food insecurity, there has been a boost in immigration, and a lot of people – at least one member of the family, mostly men between 18-35 years old – are looking for job opportunities, especially in Brazil but also in the Bahamas.
It is estimated that around 1.5-2 million Haitians are living abroad, corresponding to one-fifth of the population - mostly in Canada, the US, Brazil and Chile.
Greta Thunberg. (photo: Eleanor Taylor/NBC)
Sweden's Environmental Education Is Building a Generation of Greta Thunbergs
Linda Givetash and Vladimir Banic, NBC News
Excerpt: "That 17-year-old Greta Thunberg became the face of climate change action may have taken the world by surprise, but in Sweden, young people have long been champions of the environment."
Linda Givetash and Vladimir Banic, NBC News
Excerpt: "That 17-year-old Greta Thunberg became the face of climate change action may have taken the world by surprise, but in Sweden, young people have long been champions of the environment."
While Thunberg made her way to the United Nations climate talks in Madrid earlier this month, students at an elementary school in a suburb of Stockholm removed their sneakers and boots at the door before entering for the day, both for their comfort and to reduce the need for chemical floor cleaners that harm the environment.
Caring for the environment is integrated into every aspect of the day for students at the Orminge Skola Elementary School, where bright classrooms are decorated with world maps and images of animals. Students scrape their leftover lunch off reusable dishes into a compost container, remove their shoes at the door before entering and learn about the impact of plastic pollution on oceans.
“I have two different visions of the world. It’s either a beautiful world and we fixed everything and we saved the climate and the environment, or it's just getting worse and we can’t do anything and everyone thinks they’re going to die because we didn’t do anything earlier,” said Liv Emfel, 11, who did not seem intimidated talking to journalists in English, which is not her native language.
“I hope it’s going to be a beautiful world, but you can’t know, (so) you have to do something now (for it) to get better.”
The environment — from ecology to conservation — has been an integral part of the Swedish curriculum since 1969. Teachers and education experts couldn’t pinpoint an event that sparked its adoption, but the relationship with nature has long been prominent in Swedish culture.
“My family have recycled all of my life and (when) I heard that some people don't, I thought it was weird,” Emfel said, before joining her class of fewer than 25 students.
The country’s environmentally conscious culture is attributed by many to the fact that more than 80 percent of Swedes live within 3 miles of one of its 30 national parks, 4,000 nature reserves or many other conservation sites. Use of public lands for hiking, camping and other recreation is not only encouraged but is also a legislated right.
Instead of being exceptional, Thunberg, who was named Time magazine’s Person of the Year 2019, reflects the culmination of decades of government educational policies, said Kajsa Holm, 26, a social science teacher at the Vårbyskolan Middle School in southwest Stockholm for children ages 10 to 16.
“She is a representative of this generation. A lot of kids have the feeling that they need to change, that something needs to change,” she said.
Lessons on the environment aren’t compressed into a single course but addressed across subjects, from science to home economics, and in every grade beginning in preschool. Given the breadth of the instruction, the interest in environmentalism isn’t a surprise to teachers, but the level of action that young people are taking is.
“If I compare with my generation — and I’m not so much older than they are — we didn’t have the same thought about doing something like they have,” Holm said.
Sitting in a large music classroom lined with forest green curtains to dampen the sound, Ayat Mahdi, 14, said she was compelled to take action on climate change after learning in school about the world's ecological crisis.
“I wanted to learn more so when I got home out of class, I started reading,” Mahdi said, her beaming smile conveying her passion for the issue.
These lessons permeate how she lives every day.
Rather than chasing “fast” fashion trends, Mahdi only shops when she really needs something and prefers to buy second-hand clothes or swaps them with her cousin and her mother. She also avidly ploggs — a Swedish-born trend of picking up litter while jogging.
Like many of her peers, she’s taking home lessons learned in the classroom. Mahdi said she’s taught her mom how to use less water while doing the dishes and has advocated for vegetarianism. While she’s won the water battle, her mom remains hesitant to reduce their meat consumption, believing growing children need the nutrition, Mahdi said with a tone of annoyance.
“We need all humans to change because if just one person does it then, what is going to happen?” she said.
Such action is what the education system set out to achieve by instilling values of democratic engagement and citizenship, said Johan Öhman, a professor of education at Sweden’s Örebro University.
“To encourage independent and critical thinking, encourage students’ own voices, encourage students to take a stand, that’s an important focus in education in general in Sweden,” he said.
That philosophy has influenced how ecology and environmentalism are taught, as well. The fact-based lessons expanded in the 1980s to pose the issue as a moral problem that called for a level of activism to change lifestyles and attitudes, he said.
“We tried to create green revolutionaries, make them think in a specific way,” Öhman said.
However, the modern approach to education that Thunberg and her peers have grown up with is more nuanced. Students are encouraged to think critically, examine the political challenges associated with environmentalism and sustainability, and craft their own arguments, Öhman said.
In addition to encouraging environmental education, Sweden was the first country in the world to establish an environmental protection agency in 1967.
It was also among one of the first countries in the world to introduce a carbon tax in 1995 for carbon-intensive fuels such as oil and natural gas. It appears to have been a success. By 2013, the country’s greenhouse gas emissions were reduced by 22 percent from 1990 levels.
In comparison, total greenhouse gas emissions from the United States have increased 1.3 percent from 1990 to 2017.
However, climate-conscious policies, which often require changes in lifestyle and additional costs, aren’t embraced by everyone.
While protecting the environment, the carbon tax is one of the contributing factors to high prices at the gas pump, which has hit people living in more remote and rural communities hard. A Facebook group against gas taxes has more than 616,000 members — a notable figure for a country of 10 million.
“Everyone wants a better environment and climate conditions but at the same time people don’t want it at a cost,” said Martin Kinnunen, a member of Parliament for the Sweden Democrats, a far-right anti-immigrant party that saw a surge in popularity in the 2018 general election.
The Sweden Democrats, while not opposed to the environmental focus in education, are critical of the country’s target to become carbon-neutral by 2045.
“We don’t know how to fulfill it and at what price,” Kinnunen said.
The target also fails to take into account emissions generated overseas at Sweden’s expense. He pointed to incentives for Swedes to use biofuels for their vehicles. While biofuels create fewer carbon emissions than fossil fuels when burned, the Indonesian palm oil that it’s made from requires harmful deforestation and creates emissions from its importation, he said.
Although Kinnunen calls the targets “extreme,” others think the country is not doing enough. Many citizens are taking their own measures to fight climate change from flying less to reducing waste at home.
In a cozy log house on a quiet street surrounded by forest about 38 miles north of Stockholm, Ismahni Björkman, 45, teaches her children to garden and compost.
Instilling in her children a passion for mitigating their impact on the planet is a priority, she said, after suffering a “crisis” in her teens upon learning about the effects of pollution and environmental degradation.
“I very much had climate anxiety,” she said.
She said she’s managed to cope with her anxiety by deciding “to be a planet-keeper instead of a polluter.” In her day-to-day life, that means using reusable cloth diapers for her four-month-old daughter, repairing clothing instead of buying new, cooking only vegetarian food and only opting for natural soaps over chemicals to clean the house.
She is heartened to see these values mirrored in the classroom where her sons learn about ecosystems, the water cycle and wildlife.
“When that knowledge and that lifestyle is supported in school, you learn why this is important,” she said.
Comments
Post a Comment