INTERNATIONAL STORY stems originally from the Latin “radix,” meaning root. So, getting to the roots of the climate debate means asking ourselves where the climate crisis comes from and how we can mitigate it, while also looking for another system that safeguards our livelihoods. We need radical approaches beyond symbolic politics! Because, if we only introduce a small tax on CO2, then nothing will change. The reasons for our crisis lie deeper. Is it because my neighbor drives a car? Or is it because corporations extract oil from the ground and a few rich people profit from it? Talking about this in a reasonable way is indeed a challenge, but it is also our way out of the crisis. How about radicalizing empathy, that is, by focusing on humanity in a broader sense? This question is vital. But I see a problem here too, in making the individual responsible for solving a global crisis. Put simply, many people cannot concern themselves with the environment or other political issues because they must secure their own livelihoods first. Of course, climate justice is a movement for the people, not just for nature – our climate crisis is a social crisis! Another important question that we must tackle is: why are we living in a system that has normalized a way of life that is environmentally harmful? NISHA TOUSSAINT-TEACHOUT HAS BEEN ORGANISING CLIMATE PROTESTS SINCE 2018. SHE CO-FOUNDED FFF IN STUTTGART, SPEAKS TO MEDIA OUTLETS AND ALSO GIVES TALKS. SOLARISYS - STOCK.ADOBE.COM TALKING TO FRIDAYS ABOUT THE CLIMATE CRISIS BY DANIEL KNAUS TROTT-WAR: Greta Thunberg dismissed existing climate policies as “blah blah blah”; that is, as being insufficient. She was criticized for not being constructive. What did you think about this response to her words? NISHA TOUSSAINT-TEACHOUT: Greta’s criticism has not been limited to these three words, neither at the UN Climate Change Conference (COP 26) in Glasgow, where she said these words, nor before then. For decades, the aim of the climate movement has been to call out policies that don’t meet their responsibilities. And yet Greta is criticized for her tone? Her words are justified, after all: there have been 26 COPs held so far, and yet emissions continue to rise. Humanity will not become extinct immediately as a result of climate change, but a large number of species will. Rising temperatures will desertify countries, leading to hunger, mass migrations, and conflict. How can we counter this? The answer is in what we shout during our demonstrations: “What do we want? Climate justice! When do we want it? Now!” Because, where does the climate crisis stem from? If we look throughout history, we can see that the roots of the climate crisis lie in how we organize our societies and economies. Infinite growth is not sustainable on a planet with limited resources, and the exploitation of nature is linked to exploitation by humans. At the same time, the climate crisis is not something for the distant future. Catastrophes are already here: they are being felt globally throughout the South, and here too. The first steps to combat the climate crisis are eliminating climate-damaging subsidies and fossil fuels, ending intensive livestock farming, improving disaster prevention, and practical solidarity with countries that are severely affected. First of all, however, something must fundamentally change; we must democratize the economy instead of orienting it towards growth. This goes hand in hand with overcoming our patriarchal and colonial roots. In his book How to Blow Up a Pipeline, human ecologist Andreas Malm proposes using violence against things as a means of taking action – no people should be harmed by such actions. Malm argues that such an approach is warranted as a result of the urgency of halting the ecological damage humans are causing to the planet. FFF speaks out clearly against violence. How would you assess Malm’s approach? If we look back through history, liberation movements have always taken different forms of action. For example, there is the Civil Rights Movement in the U.S., the English women’s rights movement, and also similar movements in India. And within these forms of action, there has always been civil disobedience and sabotage. To change something, we need different approaches – without, of course, endangering people. FFF Activist Carla Reemtsma spoke of a “radicalization of forms of action.” She was criticized for her comments, even though she also opposed violent action. Is it possible that the climate debate is facing communication issues? Definitely. The word “radical” does not mean “extreme.” Instead, and similar to the root of the word for radishes, it Many people are finding that switching to environmentally friendly alternatives is more expensive. How does change work, in social terms? Ecological change must involve social change as well because individualizing this global crisis will not work. A statement along the lines of “If everyone used bamboo toothbrushes, there would not be a climate crisis anymore” is wrong. A small proportion of the richest people and corporations are responsible for a large proportion of global emissions. Climate justice has to involve everyone, including, for instance, workers in car factories, which is why we sometimes work with trade unions. We need to initiate a broad discussion to hear from those that have been affected by the climate crisis in different parts of society and the world. The good news is that a solution to our climate crisis will also tackle many other injustices. ■ Translated from German by Laura Prieto Calvo Courtesy of Trott-war / International Network of Street Papers WITH AN INCREASE OF TWO DEGREES IN GLOBAL TEMPERATURES, 99% OF CORAL REEFS WILL DIE; WITH A 1.5-DEGREE INCREASE (WHICH WILL PROBABLY OCCUR AS EARLY AS 2030), THIS FIGURE WOULD BE 70-90%. AFTER CORAL BLEACHING EVENTS, ONLY THE WHITE LIMESTONE SKELETONS OF THE CORAL REMAIN. 4 DENVER VOICE June 2022
5 Publizr Home