On Monday, Nov. 2, Daily Editorial Board members Stephanie Trierweiler and Ben Keller attended Naomi Klein’s speech in Rackham Auditorium. Below are their thoughts regarding her lecture:
Trierweiler: Two weeks ago today, author and climate activist Naomi Klein spoke in Rackham Auditorium to accompany the release of her new book, “This Changes Everything: Capitalism vs. the Climate.” She began her lecture by establishing that climate change is a scientific truth, and acknowledged that if our society continues its current behavior, or business as usual, global temperatures will rise by four to six degrees Celsius.
Klein aims to shift the climate change conversation from the tired political question of its existence to a serious discussion about the devastating implications of global warming on certain geographic regions and demographics. She brings much-needed light to the intersections between profit-driven fossil fuel companies that ignore clean energy alternatives, inadequate infrastructure that doesn’t fully protect people from natural disasters, climate change and the reality of increasingly extreme weather patterns, and governments that neglect the well-being of marginalized communities in the wake of these events.
I think that Klein’s strength lies in that she ultimately points to the possibility of solving many social issues at once if we better focus on environmental realities. Climate change discussions do not typically address human rights violations and racism inherent in how governments and businesses handle environmental concerns. To facilitate more effective dialogues, we should look at the broader consequences of climate change on disadvantaged groups and use the same overarching strategy to address both components of the problem.
Keller: As Klein adamantly stated, and as Stephanie and I agreed, this issue presents an opportunity. Taking the glass-half-full approach, climate issues pose a chance to make real, lasting improvements that can benefit most, if not all, of society. Klein proposed multiple reforms — all of which are possible in our current economic and political systems — including a progressive carbon tax, no new fossil fuel infrastructure, cuts to our military budget and investments in renewable energy infrastructure that carry possible solutions to fix global warming, while also helping decrease the rampant inequality present today and the general subordination of lower socioeconomic classes in America.
However, before Klein even took the podium, Michelle Martinez, a young University alum who is now an activist in Detroit, introduced Klein with a preface of present issues. She iterated how this generation of college students knows nothing besides the “Reagan regime,” “climate regime” and a “hetero-patriarchal society created by capitalism” that is the root of an “economic system that is destroying life on earth.”
This kind of pointedly harsh rhetoric immediately made me take a step back and realize that Martinez and Klein represent an extreme of the climate spectrum. On the other hand, I thought of the old adage: Desperate times call for desperate measures. Thus, even though grassroots climate activists like Klein use divisive rhetoric to portray their solutions and the supposed roots of the problem, it must be noted that since these issues are so dire, it could be argued that such pointed words are necessary to create controversy within the movement.
With that being said, I do tend to agree with some of her arguments, such as the notion of current conditions that marginalize a vast lower class as inequality wedges deeper into American society, but ultimately Klein’s radicalism makes her a polarizing figure. If she intends to lead tangible change that corresponds with her beliefs, it will be necessary to make herself and her allies more palatable to the system she aims to dethrone — since it is the only medium for establishing policy.
Trierweiler: Klein encourages collectivist efforts as a legitimate means to solving environmental problems, and grassroots movements have certainly played an important role in climate activism. As Ben pointed out, Klein’s rhetoric and book title suggest that capitalism itself is incompatible with sustainability efforts. While I believe that radicalism can change perspectives and stir fresh discussions, I agree with Ben that her particular conclusion to dismantle current systems dilutes the power of her nuanced argumentation. The reforms that Klein has proposed can and should occur under a capitalist system. They may enforce more just social policies under current governmental and economic structures, and strongly regulate firms that benefit in the short-term from unsustainable practices.
Keller: Klein’s extreme oratory notwithstanding, her emphasis on the possibility of fixing issues outside of the climate debate through reforms aimed at the climate is commendable. In her discussion of these issues — including powerful narratives of a hospital in a predominantly poor neighborhood in New Orleans that was simply locked up after Hurricane Katrina, and rolling water shutoffs in Detroit and Flint prompted by the privatization of the water supply — she makes a piercing and relevant claim that laws and regulations geared toward climate change could affect issues beyond just that.
Trierweiler: We must institute policies that repair inadequate infrastructure in the United States and leverage government resources and influence to provide relevant and speedy assistance to affected communities. Klein argues that poorly designed levees in New Orleans, for example, allowed Hurricane Katrina to destroy much of the city in 2005, and mismanagement from every level of government subsequently failed communities in the aftermath of the flooding. Governments delayed their responses to the emergency, Black families looking to find food in the region were deemed “looters” in the media and neighborhoods were treated as a blank slate as housing was demolished in unaffected areas and poorer homeowners were needlessly uprooted.
We must also divest from fossil fuel companies that directly release enough emissions to potentially threaten the livelihood of potentially entire countries, and elect to invest in businesses that utilize renewable energy sources. Klein draws a clear legal comparison between big tobacco companies and several firms that rely on fossil fuels, like Exxon and Shell, because in the same way that tobacco directly causes lung cancer and other health issues, the use of fossil fuels has significantly contributed to carbon emissions that raise global temperatures, and, in turn, raise sea levels and alter ecosystems.
But instead of taking extreme efforts to dismantle the political and economic systems in place, we should focus our efforts on realistic policy changes, and not only incentivize but also require businesses to engage in positive and sustainable practices. Firms do not exist outside the scope of other sectors, and the health of the communities that a company thrives in, will impact the firm’s own well-being in turn. Businesses must take a triple bottom-line approach, or consider a combination of economic, social and environmental goals in assessing and improving their performance. We no longer live in a world that can support businesses that remain solely profit-driven. Regulation and policy must reflect this necessity for fair practices.
Klein states that there are no non-radical options left to solve such a radical problem. While she eloquently details the connections between climate change and social justice issues, she concludes her series of convincing arguments with a sense of sensationalism that extends beyond the scope of her proposed solutions. This unfortunately creates an unnecessary dichotomy between the loose and adaptable economic framework of capitalism against our Earth’s clear environmental emergency.
Keller: To Klein and her supporters, capitalism is the root of the issue. Rampant globalization and privatization has come at the cost of everyday citizens — as enormous conglomerates take up more of the market share and political influence, the average citizen is getting pushed out of the way and oppressed. Once again, these issues are seemingly non-debatable. The part that is incredibly contentious revolves around the idea of uprooting our well-entrenched systems.
Let’s be honest: Capitalism isn’t about to meet its downfall and neither is our system of government. That doesn’t mean that we don’t need structural changes to these systems. Reforms are necessary and collective action should be encouraged to guide these reforms. Reducing the influence of money in politics (i.e. reversing Citizens United) and enacting tighter regulations on businesses to rein in their environmental impact are two practical ways that can garner bipartisan support with enough public effort.
Capitalism is the economic system that has brought unprecedented expansion and innovation to our world, obviously at a cost. There was a time when this system was beneficial to most of society — per the correct public policies. We do not need to disrupt the whole system to fix climate change. We need to encourage collective action that provides the impetus for reform. No matter how much it may seem like it is not, our government is one of the people. Therefore, it’s our mission as a citizenry to see that idea through and to drive the changes necessary to better life for all.