tv In Depth Naomi Klein CSPAN October 6, 2019 2:01pm-4:02pm EDT
>> her bongs economics and public policy include no logo. the song doctrine on fire, the burning case for a green new deal. >> we were mid town manhattan where branding and marketing is a big business. let me begin with your first book, "no logo." what i did you learn but nike, microsoft, starbucks and branding. >> guest: it's get a to be with you and to have this time. so what i was writing no logo it came out at the very beginning of 2000, so it was -- it's almost exactly 20 years old. and the period when i was researching it, which was the four years before that, it was a period where a lot was changing
the corporate world and had he first kind of full-blown lifestyle brands, which is an idea we all take for granted now, but these were companies that for the first time were declaring that their business model was not to sell products but to sell ideas, a lifestyle, a sense of belonging, they could then extend into kind of self- enclosed brants cue couldn't and nike ways to first one to do this, didn't ever own their factories and the main thing learned when i was researching no logo is there was a relationship between the aggressive kind of marketing that was constantly sort of trolling youth culture to find the most cutting edge ideas, to get adds into places that had never had ads before, like schools, to co-brand with
every -- like music festivals and so on. there was an inverse relationship between that aggressive marketing and the cutting good jobs on aufner the economy because the way that these companies were freeing up money to spend on this much more aggressive kind of lifestyle marketing was by divesting from their factories, from the idea they should be producers at all. so, nike kind of paved the way in this sense because they never owned their familiar tries in the first place. the made their running shoes through a web of contractors and subcontractors who they pitted against one another for who could provide their shoes for the lowest price and this was such a profitable business model that all the competitors started closing their factories and never reopening it. that was the key thing. never reopened their factories. we talk about factories moving from north america to mexico or china or vietnam. but in fact it wasn't just that
they were moving locations. they were never owning their factories and they didn't see themselves as producers. so, i think it's intimately related to the -- dee industrialization and the precariousness of work that we sort of take for agreemented today. >> brian: as you point out, nike in particular getting a lot of criticism from its customers. >> guest: at the time because it was sort of -- it was new. this was still a america that remembered the kind of manufacturing model where you understood that the product that you were buying, the car you were buying you knew writ was made and understood this was economic anchor for that community, that the idea was that the people making the cars should have enough money to buy the car. and so it was culturally shocking for people to discover that these companies like nike or disney, who were spending so
much money putting out images of themselves that were very progressive, or in the case -- dis disney's case very family friendlier, pull back the curtain and wait a minute it's in some case children or people just a little bit out of being children, people in their early 20s, who are making these products under really abusive conditions, and so when that was exposed, it was a scandal, and 20 years late are i think people take it for granted that almost all the products in our life are made under conditions that are pretty dubious. you have electronic factoryies in china that he have suicide nets to catch white supremacy than i the commit suicide because they're so desperate on the job. one of the toughest things to think about, i think about what has changed since no logo is the sense of shock that i was tracking. my god, i can't believe these nike running shoes are method by
18-year-olds in snow indonesia who are sleeping in camped dormitories and not getting paid for their overtime or having to p he ee in bottles under their sewing machines and they war scandals and there were movements responding to them. and think people's sense of smock outrage has been dulled, and it's almost like a joke, on late night television. >> a couple of examples, one is starbucks hugh coffee shown opened up inspired by starbucks but trying to as you but in the book run a. from the starbucks brand. >> guest: i think that was an example from the ten year never a edition of no logo inch the original edition, that came out in 2000, i had a fair bit about this then a relatively new company, starbucks, who told us that their brand meaning was that they were a -- what they
called the third place, not home, not work, a place for people to gather, and they were really using the discourse of the public's sphere, that it's almost like a town square, and it was interesting that this was happening in the 90s after you have this very aggressive kind of privatization of the public sphere, and so corporations had to come along and say, well, we are a pseudo town square which is what facebook is doing now. it's a sort of -- this corporate digital town square. in the 90s it was starbucks and a cup of coffee and you have your pseudo public space. when when i wrote 'an introduce for the tenth anniversary edition, starbucks just opened up a coffee shop in seattle that was completely unbranded. didn't see their logo anywhere which seemed a bit of a marker for how far they had fallen if in order to recapture any sense of newness, they had to unbrand themselves. >> brian: the political sphere
in the tenth never a edition of the book you talk but president obama and one questions did he live up to his hope and change brand? >> guest: right. yeah. >> did he? >> guest: yeah. it was early in the obama years when i wrote that. well, i think there was always something a little bit nike about the obama brand in the sense it sort of just vague enough that it's hard to pin him down to a clear political platform, and it's another interesting measure of where we are now because i think that there's more of -- if you look at the democratic primaries right now, i think there's more of an expectation that candidates have a really, really specific and fully formed forecast, exec platform, labor policy platform, and environmental policy platform, is a think but the obama campaign of 2008, which i was writing about, it was pretty
vague, i'm going recapture a sense of optimisms. won't be ashamed of america. people are tired from eight years of bush and hope, change, feeling good, and i wrote about that as the fir political campaign that used the same tools that these corporate lifestyle brans had been using, to sort of bathe themselves in an aura progressivism, and the question, did obama live up to it? i mean it's a complicate question in the sense it would never was very specific. so it's hard to say whether he lived up to it or not because there wasn't that much there there but what he was promising, although he specifically prom mitt i'm going to revival main street and take on wall street and there was a huge amount of disappointment that didn't happen. people who hoped there would be a real reinvestment in small businesses, and maybe more
factory jobs, were very disappointed by that and it's part of a global phenomenon where the centrist liberal politicians come to power with sort of a veneer of progressivism and change, but the economy continues to make people feel excluded, disempeared, more precarious and more insecure and that sets the stage for the kind of right wing populism we're seeing worldwide. specific factors relating to obama being the first black president and a racial backlash in the united states, but it is also important to remember that there is a globalphone of this rise of right-wing populism we see everywhere. >> you can join us on twitter. our guest for the perfection two hours on "in depth," naomi klein and also give us a phone call, 202-748-8200 if you leave in the central time zone, and 202-748-
8201 for mountain and pacific time zones you're teaching at rutgers university. how do you fame this in the classroom in terms of your book, the original book, and then its ten year anniversary edition. >> guest: right. so, i'm actually teaching a course at rutgers called the corporate self and it looks at the integration of the human and the corporation, and sort of corporations trying to act more like humans, which the original brands were all about that, like putting a sort of a comforting face like uncle bens're ant jemima, racialized, harkening back to nostalgia got plantation life and look at the racial history of branding and then where no logo ends is remember this is written in the late 1990s, thursday then completely new idea that humans,
like everyday i'm, not celebrities, needed to become their own brands in order to succeed in this newly precarious job environment. nobody can expect job security so the way to get ahead is to find your inner brand and project it on to the world. this was after we had seen celebrities do this in the bike talk about michael jordan as the first super brand. but then we look at what is happening now with social media. when i wrote that 20 years ago, it was pretty notionable idea, the idea that anybody could be their own brand because anybody doesn't have the money to take out advertisements some actually do the work of projecting an image of one's self. but today, because of social media, everybody who has computer access, has the capacity to market themselves to are market an idea of themselves, to think about what is my brand, which is very
different from who am i? so, what we're unpacking -- i have a wonderful group of students -- is like -- first of all we talk about, even though they have grown up with this idea, it is relatively new idea. it was nat always the case. you would have been look at-a-you were mad 30 years doing say a 15-year-old kid but not that do you want to be when you grow up but what is your brand? so, we try to make visible the things they take for granted and then think what does it mean to have to separate yourself from the idea of yourself? to have that distancing. and what does that do to friendships to relationships, and what does it do to social movements. it's been fascinating to unpack this with them because of course they in the a lot more about social media than die so they're teaching me all the time, but then the sort of latest phase of
this or intimately connected to the fact we're living our lives online in this constant performance of our personal brand, is that the tech industry seize data as the new oil as is often repeated so they're mining ourselves, all the information that we're sharing for their business model that we are not getting any part of. we're not paid for the data that we're providing for free, and so we're looking at all these questions around surveillance, data mining, call surveillance capitalism, so it's interesting to once again see how much has changed since i wrote that and how quaint book. >> your newest book on the burning case for a green new deal. let me frame this question in terms of the original new deal, because you write a lot about how that essentially transformed the country and the world. >> guest: sure.
yeah. i think there's inspiration to be taken in the original new deal and also some very, very important warnings to heed from that era, because so many people were excluded from the sort of sphere of protection under fdr's new deal. many african-american work erred were excluded. domestic workers, overwhelmingly women, were excluded. agricultural workers were excluded and there was systemic discrimination and segregation in many of the new deal programs. it is also true that the united states transformed itself at a speed and scale that is comparable to the kind of speed and scale of change that we need to embrace if we're going to lower emissions in line with what scientist are telling us. a year ago the intergovernmental panel on climate change, the for foremost gathering of scientific experts who advise governments
on the state of climate science, issued a report a year ago saying that we need to cut global emissions in half in a mere 12 years, which is now 11 years, and they said -- this is a quote from the summary of the report -- said this would require unpress depended transform makes in virtually every aspect of sew, energy, transportation, agriculture, building construction. there aren't many points in history when you can say, well this is a time when we saw that kind of scale of transformation. one is during the second world war when you had americans planting victory gardens and agains 40% of their use. the way factories transform themselvesser rapidly but the new deal is another rear which is less top dawn and why it's a useful historical precedent. we don't want governments telling everybody what hey should do.
we should worry this that climbed authoritarianism and during the new deal you see ruralmer electrified, you see more than 10 million americans directly employed. a renaissance of publicly funded arts. all kinds of public infrastructure, schools, libraries, reservoirs, and much of america's public infrastructure today is a legacy of the new deal. another part that ites relevant to think but a green new deal is fdr's civilian conservation corps was the most popular of the new deal programs, and it's a reminder that the new deal was not only responding to an economic crisis, it was also responding to ecological crisis because of the dust bowl some the defor yesation so the ccc sent more than 2 million poor young people from cities to hundred-of-camps in rural parts of the united states and they
did things like plant 2.3 billion trees which is more than half the trees ever planted. so, that kind of scale is really important, and it's also the kind of thing we need to do to pull carbon out of the atmosphere. >> you write the following, from on fire: bart of what make change so difficult to graft is we live in a sculpture of the propet to all present. one that deliberately separates itself from the past that created us and the future. we are shaping with our actions. so explain. >> guest: so, a lot of what i'm doing in this book is trying -- to make visible the economic systems and relative live new economic and social models born of the particular kind of capitalism we have had since the reagan era, which has been all about deregulation,
privatization, and venerating the individual consumers, equating shopping with democracy and the good life, and that has priced an extremely accelerated culture which then people point to and say, well, it's just human nature that we can't deal with the crisis like climate change because clearly we are just too selfish to individualistic, think too short-term and this requires to us have a longer time frame, requires to us put the collective go ahead of something that you might just want right now, to satisfy an individual urge. and so there's been a lot written that has made this human nature argument about why we will never respond to this crisis and what i find when i'm talking about what we need to do in the face of this crisis, which i do a fair bit, i fine that the biggest obstacle that we're up against is not climate change denial which is
definitely on the wane, and it's not the lack of technology or an understanding of what needs to be done. it is really the sense of doom that we are human beings are incapable of doing the things that are necessary, and that is why i think it is important to draw on these historical precedents that even if they're not exactly the kind of thing we need to do now, they do show that there are different wives being humans and in the life span of people alive today, people were able to think longer term and were able to put the collective go ahead of their individual desires, and there are people indigenous people in north america who teach their children to think seven generations into the future and seven generations into the past. so what i'm trying to do is i
guess problemmize these sorts of appeals to human nature that we hear a lot of and i'm saying, actually, that's equating a particular relatively recent form of deregulate consumer capitalism with the idea of what it means to be human, and while we cap change the laws of nature, we actually can change the systems that we humans did create ourselves if they are threatening life on earth and in fact we need to do that. not saying it's easy just saying is a possible. >> married with a son who is seven years old-when apple picking yesterday. >> guest: spilled the beans. >> you moved around a lot. activist parents -- spend a mint to tell us your life story and then get to phone calls. >> just a minute. >> two minutes. >> guest: so, i was born in canada, born in montreal, and my parents are americans. my parents were peace activists in the 1960s.
my father did not want to go to vietnam, and he had to choose between jail and canada, and like many of his peers, he chose canada so we moved to montreal. and later moved back to the united states for a few years when i was very young, before -- i was five years old ask they decide they liked canada better, so i sometimes say we left because of the war but we stayed for the universal public health care. and my mother is a documentary filmmaker, now retired. she worked for the national film board of canada, at the first women's film studios, made films for the feminist movement so i grew up with political parents. my father worked in the canadian health care he can system, involved in doing things like bringing mid wives into hospitals and big advocate for natural child birth.
he's a family do, also retired. and,ey, so i wouldn't -- i grew up in a really radical -- i have friends who really had serious radical parents and who were home schooled and their parents really walked the talk. i kind of grew up between world with their values but going to regular schools in the 1980s, so i sort of felt very pulled between the culture of the 1980s, which was very shiny and appealing to me and my home life where my parents were say why do you want to hang out with your friend ted mall? why would you ever want to do something like that? so maybe that's why i wrote no logo in the 20s. >> our conversation with naomi klein, mike you have been patient from port charles, florida. welcome to the conversation. >> caller: hi. nice to speak with you. my main problem with the whole
thing is, the amount of energy that's required isn't possible through these methods that was -- and the technologies just u just aren't going to be there to -- this is pie in the sky type thinking. we need toesle fuels -- we need fossil fuels that's no doubt, for the foreseeable future, and the other thing was just the environment itself, how do you explain the little ice age? 10,000 -- >> mike, thank you. we're going to respond. >> guest: great. can i answer in thanks for you question. so, i would really urge you to look up the work of mark jacob son of stanford university, big team and has been doing specific research about how in fact it is possible with existing technology to get to 100%
renewable energy very rapidly for electricity first and then transportation afterwards, in line with what scientist telling us we need to do. there have been huge breakthroughs in battery storage and price breakthroughs as well in the cost of renewable energy. so i would disagree. think it is possible to. i don't -- like i said, i'm not saying it's easy, but i think the barriers are much more political than they are technological and that's precisely what the intergovernmental panel on climate change said when they set this target of having global emissions in 12 years in that report, and i want to stress that's a report that drew on 6,000 sources of peer reviewed science so it's not just like one-off paper way. s co-authored by almost 100 authors and reviewers. so it is a state-of-the-art science and they said we can meet these targets witch existing technology.
the barrier is political. and in terms of the reason for the little ice age, there's a few -- i think a few factors. one is a high attitude volcano that dimmed the sun you have frightening would-be geoengineers talking about one way to deal with the climate disruption is immating a high altitude volcano by spraying sulfur into the upper atmosphere and reflecting mo of the sun's rays away from earth. so that is one of the main reasons behind the little ice age. another reason that i do talk but in the book was that this followed the -- a genocide against indigenous people in the americas, and there's been some new science that looks at how this huge loss of life, many millions of people in the americas, led to a re-for
yetation and revenge addition and that was part of it as well. >> we steve in connecticut go ahead, place. >> caller: education and -- >> if you can turn the volume down and go ahead with your question. >> hi. good morning, naomi. can you hear me? >> yes, we can. >> guest: i can. >> caller: good. first, let's eliminate batteries. to make electric power to go into a battery, using fossil fuel, you don't eliminate one molecule of co2. so i can't believe you wouldn't know that. but you evidently don't know that. i cannot believe that all these senators running for president never mention hydrogen fuel
cells which happens to be the only remedy to eliminate the co2, because there is no co2 when you use hydrogen fuel cells. period. it's that simple. so, i've sent you messages on your facebook, numerous times, i don't know if you actually read this or just dismiss it but you never mention high dough -- hydrogen fuel cells. none of the kid mention hydrogen fuel cells if it's the only recommend. i am going to have a meeting with hakeem jeffreys soon i hope to discuss this, and the title of my book is reparations, because what i'm suggesting is that need to be over a million people necessary to do the work
to completely change from fossil fuel electric power to hydrogen fuel cell electric power. so, i'm -- >> we'll get a responsibility. thank you for the question and the comments. >> guest: i think the reason why the caller is not getting a response from the candidates or why this idea isn't being taken seriously is because it's not a serious idea. it is absolutely true that renewable power with battery power does radically reduce emissions, which is not to say there aren't environmental costs to any technology, including the local environmental impacts of mining for rare metals, for solar power and wind power. which is why in the book i talk about the fact that we can't think of this is a simply flipping a switch from fossil fuel to renewables and everything else staying exactly
the same. we do have a problem, real problem, of overconsumption, particularly overconsumption of -- with a sore of disposable mindset in the wealthy world, and there is going to have to be a -- we are going to have to look at as great da tnurberg said at the united nations, the fairy tale of growth. the wealthiest people on the plant are responsible for 70% of the eve missions. we have to consume less. doesn't mean we'll live in misery. have to level live at the level of the average european according to kevin anderson, one of the world residents leading emission reduction experts and this i why in the context 0 a grandchildren new deal it's important to look at the areas where we can afford expand, like health care, childcare, the
arts, areas already low carbon and can be made even more low carbon, have to be some lifestyle changes for people who are overconsuming but that doesn't mean it's odd contraction. >> you need it great da thunberg. why do you think her voice out of so many has resonated. >> guest: it's a complicated question. to be honest with you. i think that there are many voices as well as greta's who should be resonating and have been trying to get the world's attention for a very long time. i've been going to u.n. climate summits for about a decade now, and there has been incredibly powerful moral voices coming from the marshall islands, an incredible people made at the u.n. unin 2014 by a woman from the marshall islands, young woman named kathy, who wrote a
poem to her nine-month-old baby she read it to the assembled country representatives, and it was an incredible speech that should have again as viral as any of greta's speeches. so i think i point this out. there have been other moments like a few years later, or -- when to -- hit the philippines at the very moment there was a u.n. summit on climate change and the representative from the philippines didn't know whether his family was safe or not. and he broke down crying in front of the entire assembly. that should have again as viral as any of greta's speeches. so to be perfectly honest there is a issue around the fact she is a it would girl from sweden who -- and that's part of why her voice breaks through when other voices who have -- really on the frontlines of the crisis,
who are living it and in for whom it feels existential also it does greta, have been ignored. i also think greta is an absolutely remarkable young woman. i have so much respect for her. think she is a prophetic voice and i think these other voices i've spoken about before, like kathy from the philippines are as well. but greta is remarkable and she -- i think there's something about greta and that she so clearly is not performing for anyone. she is not looking for anyone to like her. coming back to maybe what we talk but earlier, we live in a culture where everybody is constantly sort of performing a version of themselves, everybody is interested in being famous, everybody is interested in promoting themselves. greta could not be less interested. know her. she is so 400% focused on the
science and talks about how having been diagnosed with aspergers, she said i'm not interest in your social games as somebody on the autism spectrum and there's something bow uninterested greta is in our opinion of her that makes her a very trusted messenger for a lot of people. obviously she faces mastiff attacks and very clear-minded about why she is being attacked by the likes of donald trump and vladimir putin and not to mention armies of trolls. it's because she is part of building a global movement that is growing with exponential speed. there were 7 million people who par pated the in the world climate exchange over an eight-day period. that's unpress depped in history of the planet so greta is part of an amazing movement and would be the first person to say it's not about me, it's about a movement of young people that is coming together. >> let me go back to your
earlier point. the book on fire you say fossil fuels are notes the sole driver of climb change, they're the biggest. and you write an incremental approach will not work. misquestion is, can we afford a green knew deal? the price tag this bills of dollars. >> guest: right. so it isn't just fossil fuels. it's agriculture, another major driver. so can we afford it? there have been studies what it would actually cost to stay on the road we're on and not try to avert catastrophic levels of warming the road we're on leads to warming of around four degrees celsius. if we continue with what is calls business as usual and that means just doing what we're doing now, which is nothing and making the problem worse, and that's exactly what donald trump has been doing, what brazil is committed to doing, that leads to somewhere between 4 to 16-degrees of warming.
that is not compatible with anything you describe as organized civilization. it would then everything single coastal city. the price -- >> over what time period, though. >> well, before the end of the century. we need to recognize that lot of the st.es when things will get really serious has unestimated the speed with which things start to unravel. we weren't expecting to lose arctic sea ice as rapidly as we're losing it. let's remember that we just september is was the hottest september on record july was the hottest month ever recorded, june was the hottest june ever roared. it's happening really fast, and so you asked about time period. there are different estimates. i would say in the time period of children alive on this planet. we would be seeing absolutely catastrophic levels of warming under a business as usual model, and the there actually -- -- when you start cost ought what
it would mean to lose new york city or shanghai, lit is not enough money on the planet to cost it out. i can make an argue. it's a bargain continue vest in a green new deal which is, yes, expensive, but compared to what we would pay later it's much cheaper. there's something also kind of morally rep pre hence able of making just an economic argument. there are million of lives that would be lost if we do not embrace the speed of change that is expired the depth of change that is required. yes, it's expensive and also in my view an absolutely moral imperative doing nation even more expensive. >> paul from kentucky. you're next. go ahead, please, with naomi klein. >> caller: good afternoon, miss klein. my question is about nuclear energy.
i think any serious person who looks at replacing fossil fuels, the majority of them, realize that the only possible way to do it would be to go with generation three or generation four nuclear power plants. never killed a person on earth. i just wonder what you thought -- >> guest: where are they? where are these generation three and four nuclear plants? >> caller: well, i think the fours are kind of developmental. they're -- >> guest: they're not out there this point. it's a no kill technology because we haven't killed anyone. >> caller: we have a lot of nuclear plants running. >> guest: you're talk about next jen communicating clear and often the niece discussions a notional, do future form of nuclear is held up as what is going to about built but what proposed is the same old nuclear technology that does have high
risk. i think that -- i'm going refer people once again to mark stanford's research which is very clear about the fact that we can do this with renewable energy and there are many benefits of doing it with re newables over nuclear including the fact that nuclear is a lot more expensive. it's prone to crony capitalism and corruption. we have seen this again and again. and what i think is great about renewable energy is that was it is -- lends-to-a much more decentralized form of ownership. so rather than having a few players in energy sector as we do today, whether they're in fossil fuels or nuclear, we actually have an amazing opportunity to have a much more democratically controlled energy grid, which is built around the fact that the air and the sun is everywhere, and so we can have microgrids, community controlled renewable energy, energy
cooperatives, and the revenues from this can stay in communities to pay for other services, and we can kill no two bird with one stone if you will where we have a fair economy, more resources as well as getting ourselves to zero emissions. >> paul, thank you for the question. the battle for paradise is your smallest -- who are the disaster capitalists. >> guest: so, the book that i wrote right after no logo, seven years after because it took me a long time to research is the shock doctrine, the rise of disaster capitalism, and in that back i make an argument that we have seen in the aftermath of economic shocks and large natural disasters the -- a certain theory of political change which i call the shock
doctrine of using the sense of panic in the public that necessarily follows a war or a completely destabilizing economic crisis or hurricane, large-scale hurricane to push through policies you wouldn't be able to push through under normal circumstances because people are focused on their daily emergencies. and we're also seeing a sort of infrastructure people moving in who want to make quick cash in the aftermath of disasters, and so the battle for paradise is a case study of what i've called the shock doctrine in the aftermath of hurricane maria which before i even made landfall we were already hearing talk of hough this was a great tub to privatize puerto puerto s energy grid it and was also a -- the island was already a site of an economic crisis which was being used to impose all kinds of austerity and deregulation so puerto rico has already
become a tax haven and this was a way that was used during the debt crisis before hurricane maria athlete attract so-called high net worth individuals, dom puerto rico, change your mailing address, don't have to spend me whole year, was attractive to the financial sector the cryptocurrency sector because they didn't have to pay taxes they we've had to pay on the mainland so the disaster capitalisms in the battle for paradise, the ibitcorn tropic terrors who relocated in puerto rico to take advantage of real estate and the fact their cryptocurrency gainings would note be tacked when they convert them to regular current si if they did so in puerto rico. >> scene what as communal recovery. >> guest: so this has been the question i've been asking myself which is this is a clear strategy that we have seen again
and again by wealthy player any aftermath of disasters. i began the shock doctrine with hurricane katrina, which was when first start evidence writing about climate change, a decade and a half ago. when i was in new orleans, it was still partially underwater but there were already real estate speculators talking about what an opportunity it was to get rid of public housing projects, build condominiums and a lot of that happened in the aftermath. wise used by educational entrepreneurs who wanted to change public schools into charter schools, and pretty soon new orleans had the most privatized charter-heavy school system in the united states. so this raised for me and for a lot of local activists in new orleans what is the alternative to disaster capital jim? how can communities, dramatically respond to crises that in so many cases opinion to
the need for deep solutions to put forward their vision for he how their communities should be rebuilt in the face of these disaster that actually are going to improve lives and make us less disaster prone. and so that's what i mean by collective response to disaster. we have seen that in puerto rico quite powerfully where that little book, the battle for paradise, all of the royalties and advance go to a coalition of groups in puerto rico, who came together in the aftermath of hurricane maria in order to put -- to advance what they call a people's platform, for how puerto rico should be rebuilt, should actually respond its vulnerability to climate disruption and that includes no longer being dependent on overwhelmingly imported food from florida. it's a very fertile island. they want to practice to
divisional agriculture that if there is a storm that knocks out the port, people aren't starving but that also requires land redistribution in puerto rico because so much of the land is being sold off to tourist developers and other private interests. there's also -- they also want decentral a'sed renewable energy owned by communes so there's very proposals for that. its that's the kind of thing mean. and an large scale it would mean a green new deal, way of responding to our collective climate crisis in a way that also battles systemic inequality. >> edwards, keyport, new jersey, you're next on booktv. >> caller: seems you just covered what i was going to talk but. just wanted to say but being an advocate for the future and i see this disconnect about harnessing he social energy that goes into invading iraq on one grainy little teeny picture and
being scared of all thesing stupid things that i guess corporate -- how do we cut through the corporate noise they're telling was should be afraid of when it's a 1 in 53,000 chance you could be killed by a terrorist and can't be scared of the loss of biodiversity or other things you're covering and thank you for your work. >> thank you. >> guest: it's a great way of putting it. it seems possible to harness huge amounts of public wealth if it is to wage a war and as that caller mentioned based on pretty dubious evidence that was later disproven and yet we're demanding a report with sources from 6,000 peer reviewed articles is seen as not good enough for us, still waiting for the evidence to come. in it has to do with who the climate
crisis threatens the fact this is -- if we were to take the science seriously, whether it's loss of biodiversity or climate difference runnings and they're interrelated -- it would mean that a lot of very wealthy people, very wealthy interests in the global economy would have to make some very serious sacrifices, which is why they want to change the subject to all being about whether or not you're going to be able to heat hamburgers or not. this notice fact that exxonmobil is very threatened, shell oil is very threatened. cargill is threatened. they have a business model reliant on the continued extraction and exploitation of fossil fuels. there are other ways of organizing a business but they're not as profitable. it's not as profitable to have a solar business than it is to have an oil and gas business, and so we have had this
deliberate spread of misinformation on the air waves and in print, we have had the fossil fuel companies funding the disinformation campaign that i would argue we have heard evidence of on this show, and it has slowed us down. we have lost wonders we'll never get back because of it. and now we are in a moment where regular people are declaring an emergency from below. that is what i think we're seeing with the climate strikes and -- that greta started with her lone act in front of the swedish parliament just a little bit more than a year ago, at this point she was 15 years old, she learned but climate change in school watched a lot of nature documentaries and learned about biodie very tis loss, plastic in the ocean, all of these crieses and looked round and this is by her own telling, thought the world didn't make
sense. she said if this were true wouldn't everybody be talking about it all the time. we're destabilizing our one and home woman innocent o'particulars be focuses on this all the time and yet everywhere she looked people were talking about pretty much anything else and i think that's pretty much still true, even though we have a little bit of an improvement in the climate coverage. so she decided to declare here own emergency and as a student, the one thing that she had power over, one way she was able to disrupt business as usual was to do -- not do the one thing that every kid i expected to do is go to school. so she stopped go to schools on friday and held her lone sign saying a school strike for climate and more people came and anymore different cities, including new york city, start having their own climate strikes, and within a very short period, within do, she started in august of last year, by september of this year, so just a little bit more than a year,
there were 7 million people participating in climate strikes. people saying wear not going to wait for politics to recognize this an imagine. we're going declare the emergency and put pressure on politicians to follow and some national governments declared a state of climate emergency. whether they're following that up with the kind of policies that would demand, we'll see. i think it has completely redrawn the map in the democratic primaries, the scale of change that is being debated within the democratic party right now, is nothing like what we were tack about a few years ago when it was a debate about cap and trade versus a carbon tax. now we're talking about who is spending -- how many trillion offices dollars on their green new deal plan. and how many jobs can be created and how quickly we can some of whose targets are more ambitious and this is not because the polling particulars have seen the light. it's because there's a social
movement that is putting pressure on politics to up their game. >> greta got very animated in the u.n. in september. how do you approach writing a book? what is the naomi klein style? >> guest: well, so i wrote -- there were seven years between my first three books. no logo, shock doctrine ask this changes everything. and those -- each hoff those book is think of as a kind of ph.d thesis enthough i didn't get a ph.d but sort of was lucky enough with my first book, with no logo, and the fact that it sold the way it did, put me in a really privilege evidence position as an author where i was able to get an advance that was large enough i was able to block off several years to do research to put together a research team, and to build barriers around everything else
in my life because of course i do get speaking requests and things like that. to write the shock doctrine, i hoe holed up in he woods in british columbia, not a bad play to haul up in. british columbia is a very beautiful place but was quite isolated. you can't get it to without taking a ferry and driving for another hour and it really is quite isolated. and that makes i'd yes to say no to things when people ask you to do things. so, i usually spend about three years on the research and two years on the writing. and i -- when identity writing other a book it's all i do. now there are apps that turn off the internet and i use those because i can get easily distracted, but before those there were apps like that, my husband put parental colman
compute sore every time i would try to go online before the one hour that it was allowed to go on a day i would be confronted with a teddy bear in chains while i was writing the shock doctrine so that's how i write books. >> your next book is what? >> guest: i don't know because -- this process that i'm describing, it does require to write a book with 70 pages and -- it does require removing one's self for a few years and this isn't a moment where i feel like i can remove myself from the political debate and i think these are such fateful years, particularly leading up to the elections, that i'm not going to be locking myself away. just done a book i hope is contributing to the debate right now, why we need really transformational climate action, why we need marry the struggle
to lower emissions in line with science with the need build a much fairer economy and making the argument for why that doesn't slow us down but actually speeds us up, because people are hurting so much economically that if we don't bring together these two imperatives, then people are going resist it as they need france with the yellow vest movement. but, yeah, i'm really focused on 2020. , i have to say, and it's going to be a while before i feel like i can just hide myself away and n the fores of bc muff as i'm drawn to it. >> we'll get to that. john is from putnam valley, new york. you're on with naomi clip go ahead please. >> caller: thank you very "for your work. it's only going to get tougher. a lot. i'm mostly calling to -- our answer are in nature, and even
with the solar stuff, the other gentleman mentioned it's not going to be enough, but just fill up the glass based on the more -- in 99%. not 40% like we have now. which is really a waste of the time and material. 99% is worth it and that's things that will pick up. but i -- main thing i want to mention is a book called hidden nature, and it's a startling insight of victor straussberg, written by alec bar alcohol bartholomew and the developed the implosion motor, supposedly captured be nazis and people he worked with but it's based on a stream. whenover straighten out a stream you kill it. when a stream goes around the
corner, there's forest on the inside outside of the concern and the that veer cease there's six other little veer cease. one side of the scream in neglect and if the side not positive and the electronics, the elect stroke mag yet nicks in he water that keeps buoyant the nutritions nutritions and te microstuff that would not be boyerant and not just the movement of the water, it's the fact that the water is actually alive with energy. and i think there's a lot of answers in nature, and you have to step back and realize. i'm 73 years old, combat vet, in nam. only took me 25 years to get what was, ptsd, which is pretty much just a negative response to a reflex. >> john, thank you. we'll get a response. thank you for the question. i want to welcome listeners on
c-span radio. naomi klein. >> guest: it's a really important observation, and i think we are seeing a -- many solutions coming from paying attention to the natural world. it's kind of mimicry of nation nature which is a paradigm shift of dominance -- seeing our role as being to dominate the natural world, to bend it to our will. and that sort of brute force engineering behind the damming of great rivers, and really the fossil fuel economy that we could dig up buried life, burn it, and send the waste up into the atmosphere and not worry about what happened, and then tell ourselves we have conquered nature. that was the whole promise of the fossil fuel age. now are no longer bossed around by mother nature. you are the because.
if you read the marketing materials of the first commercial steam engines, it was all about -- you are now the boss. you don't have to wait for the winds to blow to sail your ship. you can sail them wereon. don't have to buildure factories next to rushing rivers because factories used be powered by water wheels. you can build your factories wherever you want. the idea was that you had your portable climate and you could control the temperature, could be master of the winds and waves, and what climate change tells us is, well, maybe we're not the boss after all because owl of all of the co car been we he mitted over the hundreds of years of the industrial age have been accumulating in the atmosphere and now comes the response, and the response takes the form of the storms like hurricane dorian that parked over the bahamas for i think 48 hours, absolutely unprecedented for a storm to behave that way.
and these -- whether this estorms or fires heat waves we're up against forces that are far more powerful than us. and i think the message of this is everything in nature, every action has a reaction, and fossil fuels allowed to us tell ourselves a fairy tale about the idea we are now in driver's seat, at the wheel and we were dominating, and that there would be no downside to this. so, i think the beauty of renewable energy is it does put us back in dialogue with the natural world and it is about harnessing the power of nature, not just bending it and breaking it. >> the sunday every every month with go in depth with a leading author. the guest this month is naomi clip, join us on twitter, or also on facebook, where can people follow you. >> guest: i'm on twitter,@noam
-- i don't do any other social media. i sometimes say about instagram that i'm on twitter so i have thing a go rhythm of hate. i don't knee the algorithm of envy. >> let's go to danny from cookville, tennessee go ahead. >> caller: if have you've noticed there's an activist group in the uk that was preemptively raided. they had a warehouse with signs and what have you, the authorities to prevent them from doing protest, raided them over the weekend. i'm a republican. i'm a conservative. this bothers me because this is like going into a church and taking my antiabortion signs. ...
t-mac you comment on that. what you know referring, thank you for that. i appreciate your nonpartisan solidarity there. the group is called extension rebellionn and they are young group. there have been a long the lung. they engage in nonviolent civil disobedience to try express the fact that we are in a climate of emergency. there demanding the government declare clement emergency as we are talking about earlier. they have shut down bridges and roads but as they are completely nonviolent group, they were planning on kicking off or they are planning on kicking off a new wave of civil disobedience starting on october 7th. this was a preemptive wave that i agree, is the violation of the rights to have an assembly. screaming 11 years ago we had about profile of you.
naomi klein it's not interested in being part of the left mainstream. instead she was to convince the left that it does not need the mainstream. that was 11 years ago. is it still relevant today? naomi: it doesn't mean the mainstream. i don't know if i agreed with it then. i think that she also wrote to move to the center and i think that is more accurate. it depends on how yo define the mainstream. the divine mainstream as a sort of hypocrisy and that sort of self described very serious opinion makers who actively police the parameters of acceptable discourse, i certainly have beennd telling people that we should ignore them. and we should allow ourselves to be guided by what we know is right and what is need it what
science tells us we have to do. and that we need to move where the center is. and i think that it's actually been happening in the 11 years as we look i at what is happenig in the democratic primaries once again in a range of policies on discussion and source of things that bernie sanders and elizabeth warner putting on theh table. unthinkable, ten years ago. so there is a transformation. i would never tell people that they shouldn't worry about the mainstream because that would be kind of where most people are. but i think i have been fairly consistent about ignoring thei' hypocrisy that tells you what you can and cannot say. >> to that.i don't want to create a sibling rivalry. your brother was a good activist child and you were not is what they are staying. is that fair? naomi:ct my brother was kind of like these young climate strikers in high school. he was focused on nuclear war.
he was part of the movement, which my parents were part of and he started it a student group we need was in high school. part of this generation that would wake up in the middle of the nightht terrified of is thee a war and still terrifying. i guess for me, and my family dynamics, he is definitely has the like good activist thing covered so i was much more, was more social and was more interested in my friends and having fun. it wasn't that i didn't care about fairness and it's not that i didn't care about politics. i didn't care about organized politics but i was really concerned with racism and sexism and things that were i perceived to be unfair.
but i wasn't a joiner. i didn't join groups and things like that. this probably why he became a writer. host: larry from wyoming. go ahead please. >> did she hear him argue that the economic crisis of the great depression was caused by government interference in america's market climate economy. what are her thoughts about brooke olson his argument in the midst of the robber barons a new look at the rise of this in america. thank you very much. host: thank you. naomi: i'm hoping i'm not going to offend anyone. i didn't see that. i'm sort off familiar with the
argument. though it recreated the great crash of 1929 was not the deregulation of markets as virtually everybody else believed but that there is the smallish group of free market economies that make the argument that deregulation. with government intervention, i am not convinced by that. the breaking up of the banks, on fdr was a big part of stabilizing the financial sector. i don't agree witht that. host: know it's not enough and you begin with one word with the election of donald trump. shock. naomi: thus now i write books, no it's not enough is definitely not following the pattern of taking years and years to write a book. i wrote it in a pit of a fever. i think over seven months.
after trump selection. i really because i was really terrified. having research the ways in which shocks for my book shock doctrine, create these endless sort of state of exception and distraction where it becomes possible to get away with all kinds of things precisely because everybody is sort of trying to get there flooding. and when trump was, that workshop was used again and again after the election because it shocks so many of us. it defied all of the polls, it defied so many expectations. became it such a huge shock because he has such an untraditional political payment player. i was really worded that this idea that trump is just kind of bolting out of the blue. if we accept the narrative of
him having the interruption of everything that was understood about america, and i want to stress that this was not everybody's reaction. there a lot particularly a lot of african-americans and women who sit actually, not surprised. my lived experience in thissu country would tell me there's a pretty big appetite for this message that trumpet is happening. they were surprised that human. host: money is what rules and white men are better than the rest and some of the other lines in your book. naomi: these are some of the messages that we get either explicitly or in explicitly from the trump presidency. i make the argument that these are pretty widespread ideas. he is the kind of a logical conclusion of a lot of trends. it's hard to say that he is sent something new.
a new iteration. but that we had been worshiping at the altarwo of wealth. we had been generating billionaires. enlisting them to the status of god. i made the argument in the book, that sort of philanthropy capitalist, infrastructure the gates foundation, the clinton global initiative. the pair super wealthy individuals with social problems. we can fix this that went outhiu government. the gates foundation which prohibits jesus knowledge in the computers fear him being an expert on global health, reproduction agriculture enough occult culture agriculture in africa, just doesn't mean that if you are good at one thing you not good at everything. you live in it culture where you just become a billionaire, you
are treated as you know everything. myg argument is that created a context where some one like donald trump can stand before the iraqi people and say sure i have no experience in government whatsoever but i'm really rich fact of my bridges, and the fact that i ran this company that i claim to be successful and the fact that i at least play a very successful businessman on a tv show, you will watch, that is why you should vote for me. what i try to do in the book is really explored various roads that we have led to trump. totr make them less shocking. when we are in a state of shock, were pretty distractible. were not very focused. i sometimes say that as a shock is the gap between if it and a narrative about the events. you don't have a story that explains the if it, you are in that malleable state of dislocation inoc shock. i guess i was trying to do my
part in helping get americans out of shock. so that weekend protect ourselves from the trunk, a lot of what is happening, behind the scenes and behind shock is the that trump is the nonstop distraction machine. there is actually pretty clear plat pattern to what he has been doing on the economic sphere. no president has deregulated as much of the americas economy environmental standards as nonocon. no one is given more than donald trump. so the book i call it a corporate coup and this is actually the story that we often miss when we are so focused on what the new shocking thing that donald trump is doing. what is thehe latest week. i think he knows that. i thinkt, that's why he tweets o much. it is a constant look over there sort of strategy. they may have taken it a little is it too far.
and he may pay the price for that. host: you made the point that the trump brand it's not even in the top ten in the world. and you begin by talking about election night. similarly clinton, donald trump in manhattan, both of the nominees here in new york city, you are a off a world away. your reaction we do hear the news, first bullet where were you and what was your reaction. naomi: i was in australia. i had been awarded the sydney peace prize. i was in australia for the w better part of the month. i was in research, a video documentary, the great barrier reef. which hadon just experienced a massive die off though most of the recent bleached half of it is dead. sort of combining the speaking that i was doing with new research and political
organizing, i was actually in a meeting in australia with a group of organizations he was interested in putting together a coalition to push for an australian renewed skill. some version of the green revealed in australia. the trade unionsof there. the trade union leaders and indigenous rights activists and organizersso climate activists, follow this room. we are having sort of a forward-looking meeting about how we do this, and how we get our forward-looking agenda together. this is been my focus since i wrote this changes everything. in the middle of the meeting, everyone's phone started vibrating. because here in new york, the election results were coming in the evening. it is midmorning in australia. it became clear that trump is
going to win. this language was all about imperative to embrace full-time action sort of faded away as everybody realized that we are on completely new territory. everyone went away to find bigger screens and the phones to watch real time. host: let's go to robert in vancouver washington. feedback thanks for taking myes question. i read a book i think was published in 2003, and it was written by mr. brown, is the retired, he was talking about mobilizing the wartime mobilization to address climate change. i wonder if you read that or are familiar with his work and if so, what influenced did he have on the current green new deal. thank you.
naomi: i am familiar with his work in the literature that draws on world war ii as a historical precedent that shows us that it is possible to retool factories and incredible twist. but all heard the stories of going from racing cars to fighter jets and seemingly overnight. there are also many parallels with the waves that people change. i mention victory gardens and the fact that the 43 percent of americans were getting her use from prop products from victory gardens. americans and canadians and british people also radically change the way that they moved around. because all of the fuel need it to be conserved for the war effort. some measure driving was not on. people drove very little
compared to the way we are driving before, i think public transit increased by more than 80 percent. in public transiten use, in this country more than 90 percent in canada, so there are really important parallels. about theses talks parallels as wale. it is informing the debate. i think this points to the fact that what we are now calling for a green it's not a new idea. it is been floating around for climate movement for a long time. the climate justice movement. the reason why i think the president of the new deal, is the little bit more useful than a world war ii president is simply that this was so sort of top-down. and i think that, i wouldn't want the federal government to have that much power. so i think we need a model that
is more decentralized and empowers communities more and empowers subnational governments more. but the truth is, and i argued this in a fire, we actually need to look at the whole era to look for president for this kind of rapid change, the new deals, and the transition to the wartime mobilizations and the marshall plan. as examples, of times lynn resources were marshals, these people understood the threat. various threats both of it was the great depression or the devil or the front of fascism. in the case of the marshall plan, with the u.s. was worried about was that the countries werend only on control of the soviet union. they wanted to rebuild western europe in a way that would make social less appealing. in that rebuilding the public. having mixed economies with strongli safety nets and trace union rights of the felt like we have capitalism.
it has to be a more mixed economy with or that has a much stronger social protection for people who will loan. what is it will lose it all to the associates. >> was a book or an author that your influence or changed your thinking on any subject. naomi: so many books. i do know where to begin. certainly when i was writing this changes everything, reading silent spring was really important. indigenous thinkers and i am canadian as we talked about and i dedicate this book on fire to a man emmanuel, who is an important indigenous leader and toauthor canada. he was former chief and a mentor of mine and he wrote a couple of books. his published book that is incredibly important called the
wreck and conciliation investor. land rights, on many pros including fighting climate change. that indigenous land rights and knowledge. it is very important if we are going to rise to the challenge. the book that had the biggest impact on me recently is the novel richard powers, is going to be over story which i told everybody they have to read. host: because. naomi: i read amo lot of fiction that helps me think about the work that i'm doing around climate. site behavior, is one of the best books on climate change. but her most recent novel, i think is underappreciated called unsheltered. she is really getting at when
the means to live in a house that is falling apart. in her novel, is the physical house but the physical house is sort of a manifestation of our collective health. as a planet itself. i would recommend that. the over story, it is just magnificent. and the science of forest and understanding how trees communicate with each other and really living community, it's also one of the most beautiful descriptions of activism that i've ever read. i don't think actavis gets a tifair shake in our society. people really do put the tcollective good head for their own freedom. he writes about people who feel so passionately about protecting the performance that can engage in direct action. move into trees, living trees,
to keep them from being cut down. he writes about them not uncritically but with a lot of respect. and compassion and is beautiful to see that. host: you with your husband who put the restriction on your web access when you are writing your books. is he your editor? does he approve your work? naomi: yes, he is always there for me. i think earlier on, he waited at meor or and he plays almost everything before it goes out. and i edit him as wale. we've collaborated and he has directed the film, that when i was writing this changes everything, even the film to go with the book in live. it is a project where we were in parallel. we were experimenting with. usually make you write a book
then you make a film about it. if you are going to. what i did with the shock doctrine. something a little funny about thattr because you are necessary retracing your footsteps so you don't actually have the same sense of discovery that you have when you are doing research and having change my research. sort of mimicking that sense of discovery for the camera. and for me, i never want to go backwards. always wanting a forwards. i didn't really like the idea of making films calculator a written book. we had a sort of it was tough the filler on the shock doctrine. so we decided to do something different. i was writing the book and he was making the film. so that meant that we are both really busy as i have less time to edit me that he has from previous books. he is the great editor. host: could hear robert said base tells writing the book with husband steve roberts. naomi: i believe it.
it was hard enough to make the film and book together that i'm not sure, i definitely know. i must record cold write a book withne anyone. but i couldn't write a book with my husband. i value our lives is it too much. >> i like to know your thoughts on where are all of the people going to work in the future. it seems as though the last few decades the man is been doing away withe jobs. and personally, i think a lack of jobs is the root of all evil. naomi: is the great question and i think we have, i think that it's not exactly a lack of jobs, it's a lack of jobs that pay salaries that can support families that my benefits and provide sense of
care security. were pretty low are very low an appointment right now. there's an epidemic of underemployment. a lot of people are having multiple jobs, there is this contradiction where people can support the president, want to claim that everything is great in the economy because there is no unemployment. but that doesn't explain why there is so much economic stress and why people are falling into poverty. why there is an epidemic of depression. of addiction and clearly not everything is going wale with the kind of jobs that people are getting. it is clear that what we invested in renewable energy and energy efficiency, and public transportation that we create many times, more jobs. then lillian best in fossil fuels. already there are more jobs than renewables in the united states and directly employed in fossil fuel sector. but, i think is it too often we haven't made sure that the job for these newer m jobs, pay the
same kind of salaries that people had working at an auto plant, or for exelon, these are good jobs. off of they are getting worse. which is what we have a strike right now. so we need to make sure and this is the original resolution from alexandria cortez, that they say that workers who are moving from high carbon jobs to these new jobs in renewables and energy efficiency, need to maintain their salary levels and need to maintain their benefit levels, so that it would be key. the part of it is the loss of jobs and service sector particularly in what we have the care economy teaching or staying withar overwhelmingly to her. because it's been women's work, is devalued in our economy. so if there are any women out
there, these i am lonely. [laughter]. host: we going to hear from margaret. go ahead and tom. >> none of the offense taken. [laughter] listen, a lot thank you for your clarity of thought and communication on the x essential crisis of my lifetime. it also i've heard you speak on youtube, and other venues. about what is sacred and the demarcations that happens in the new age as we come more scientifically based and got away from older more religious ways of thinking. can we separate the supernatural and the superstition from the sacred. and come up with a new vision
about what we are going to see the future. and a new live expectancy and clean newex deal for our futuren particular for our kids and grandkids. thank you very much for your time area. naomi: what a great big question. i think that don of the scientific revolution in the industrial age, there was a shift in worldview away from the natural world is sacred. i appreciate the caller using the word sacred because i don't think it is just about religion or organized religion. it's once again a relatively new phenomenon to not see the natural world as sacred as a
little bit scary as alive and deserving of our respect. and pretty much every other cosmology the modern in dust real age, southern agile rolled that way in reducing the natural world that way you know a little more careful.o you want this off the gods. right. you don't want to make is it too big of a mess. so i think that sort of draining away of the sacred, and is the part of the reason why i love the over story because i think it'd every enchanting part of the enchanting natural world, that a lot of people and i believe a lot of people are drawn to. they crave it and understand the part of our crisis, the prices that we are in the climate change has tot do with imaginig the world as this inner machine and ourselves as engineers.
that made us believe that women take take and take that went out repercussion. so i do believe that it's not just an effort and i said this before, the climate't instructi, it's not just an ecological crisis or a economic crisis, it really is the spiritual crisis in the narrative prices. and narrative that we could dominate nature and it is draining and seeing the natural world and the machine for us to dominate.us that really begins with things taken. it is how we ended up where we are. it is going to be a return to older stories combined with newer ones that is going to be part of getting us out of this. host: the books, in a sentence describebe it. naomi: windows, a collection of essays i wrote when i was very much sort of on the frontlines of
this debate about corporate globalization. host: this changesest: everything. naomi: the subtitle is capitalism versus the climate. it's about the clash that we have between economic system that requires expansion in order to not be in crisis in a natural world that requires that the contract in order to not be in crisis. host: got margaret. from arkansas. >> thank you. thank tom for his question. and naomi parker reply. this morning, my phone received two alerts for flash floods in my area. i think greta my my own
denomination, the southern baptist.no i don't really know what their opinion is now. some of us, believe that. [inaudible conversation] is the first bible and we do wale touc read the scriptures in nature and accurately interpret them. host: clipart we lost part of what you were seeing. interpol. naomi: i absolutely agree that we need safe leaders in this conversation that it isn't just about politics and not just about economics, you need us to people who self. it's not just organized religion. i have a chapter in in on fire the describes very unlikely to
visit, i took as a secular jewish evidence which was to the vatican. this was after pope francis was released is oncology which is an incredible document that i would encourage everyone to read. and i never, i never thought i'd be recommending catholic text produces an amazing text. the draws on the teachings of francis. and being the vatican, i attended a confronts about the encyclical where it was really profound places that was happening in the catholic church about re-examining the idea of that the earth is human dominion. that is just here for us. and really what pope francis was a very clearly was when nature has value in and of itself. that was pretty radical.
that is seen as pretty radical to parts of the catholic church. we need that kind of leadership. from all faith leaders. host: your first looking out 20 years ago so if we were to sit here 20 years from now, how do you think history will judge presidentt: trump in this moment in history? naomi:wi wale, this moment in history, i think will depend on what we do. i think we are out of a profound world crossroads. what i am worried about in this moment, it's not just the weather. i'm not worried only about the flash flooding that the previous caller mentioned or the forest fires that have ravaged this part of the continent where my family is, or the historic storms that are counting the caribbean as we speak. i am worried about all of that but was scarcely theou most, is intersection of heavy weather with this rising climate
hate. and i don't think they're unrelated. i think that we are staying figures like trump emerge but also brazil, and the philippin philippines. these and even in india, these are figures who are really good at the findings and protected in group. in defining these threatening others. the out groups within their national orders and also as we know with trump, the so-called invading armies of others. so we are seeing a fortress staying of orders, not just in the u.s., we see it in the european union for thousands of people and let been left to drown in the mediterranean. i don't think it's a coincidence that these kind of two fires are happening at the same time. the fires of climate disruption in fires of unmasked hatred.
i think people understand that we are entering or in an era of ecological disruption. that this space, for faith that human habitability is contracting. people that have to move. and there's a couple ways that weekend respond to that. the danger of how we look back, on this moment 20 years from now, i fear is that this will be the moment we decided that we were just going to only protect ourselves and our own. and we are entering an era where people are going to be okay with being an unspeakable number of people die. or we go on another road. in that other road is based on the idea that absolutely every human live has equal value. that everybody has the right to seek safety. that this is the crisis that was created in the rich world being
felt for stores. in the poorest parts of world. w each other a lot by right of being human. but we are in a web of interconnection and so i hope that in 20 years from now what we are staying, about this moment is that this is the moment when we chose not to board. but to share. and to figure out how to live together. to live on less land, but with more generosity and with more humidity. i believe it is possible and i both know it is hard with the alternative is not just climate disruption. the alternative is being the dive boat human that i don't think we want to be. host: if. there president is reelecte? naomi: all i know is that every waking moment, for me is focus on that not happening. because we don't have another 40
years.us disband cracking open new pieces of wilderness to drilling. and building new fortresses and unleashing more hatred against the most vulnerable. i think getting rid of trump is an absolute moral imperative. that means making sure that a candidate emerges from the democratic primary who is the trusted messenger for standing up to corporate power. not being admired in a squad of washington. interlacing is somebody is going to have a different set of morals values. i'll leave it to your viewers and listeners to think about whi it is and who best meets that criteria. but things incredibly important that they really be such a sharp alternative. then they don't have a lot of baggage going into thiss race.
this is big change. that is ahead of us and there are very powerful forces that are going to try to stop anybody who tries to do the right thing. i do look at the candidates. make sure they are choosing a candidate who has a very spine and a strong appetite for taking on powerful figures. host: san francisco, john you know next with naomi klein. >> naomi is really a pleasure to speak with you. i wanted to turn the conversation to god of my favorite subject, russia, ukraine in the 2016 election. in the following collision delusion with russia in that i specifically wonder where you
stand on the collision delusion part by limiting just say that the revolution that happened in my gone, in 2014, i see is the classical regime change operation that was run out of the state department. john mccain, victoria newland, the whole thing, and then on top of it, give the cherry victory in newlands over her conversation where she lays out the whole leadership of who is doing and he was out. that is crucial because as we talk about ukraine, and his role that is now being talked about, you have to go back and realize that that was a and that we supported neofascist and federal fascist elements in the ukraine that are stille active and are still strong. now jump forward to the 2016 election and you have paul, who becomes trump his campaign manager. the hillary campaign, who is
completely bed with the ukrainians from the critic, joe biden etc. they are basically doing maneuvers to get call man for, indicted which he wasdi indicte. the indictment was pulled after trump became president. no he fast forward hear where we have the two years of bowler and this whole idea that trump was arrested in public. eyeven looking over every stone, they could improve that. which just goes to show it was a bunk. it was a bunk accusation from the beginning. now. host: i'm going to cut in. thank you forth your questions d comments. naomi: i am not sure that i agree there's absolutely nothing there. but i do, obviously they didn't
make theas case. an impeachable case around russia. what is going on now with the ukraine and it certainly relates to what i was talking about earlier in terms of who the candidate is. i want to encourage anybody who is or has trouble with mr. trump. gotod find a reasonable truck supporter. tell them the story and tell them that ukraine story invited story and why he should be impeached. then tell me how you feel about fighting. because i don't think you can tell thehe story in a way that n which they both don't look bad. which it's not to say the biden his do anything illegal. he probably hasn't and i dohi
think that trump has committed an impeachable offense and a think he should be impeached for and i thinked that he is commitd other impeachable offenses that he could have in peace corps. given that this is the one that the democrats chose, i think it's a huge problem provided. even if it's not illegal, it's notil illegal, i keep writing these stories staying there is no evidence of wrongdoing. define route. and if there is no wrongdoing. some of the same. i think that we are in a climate crisis. we were in a climate crisis during the obama years. the obama biden presidency was all about natural gas. we are interesting ukraine where all . about increasing natural s production. the fact that it's giving vice
president son would be on the a energy company, of any kind for the foreign energy bumpany natural gas company, gives $50000 a year, it's the kind of fossil fuels messages tand that isn't good for polits or the planet. i think we need a much clearer break with this kind of i think it's a cesspool frankly. i think after the 2016 election, new york times asked me to write nt that respondent claimed that hillary his loss with the woman could be president. sort ofnt addressing, there area lot of women who took it very personallyd in one of my goingo tell her daughters. does this mean the united states is just is it too misogynist to ever have a woman lead.
make the argument do not think that that is what we should take from the 2016 election because i feel that hillary clinton was is it too compromising of a candidate on a lot of fronts to run as hard and she need it to run against. one of the things the ways which trump was vulnerable. wasln that had multiple limit accusing him of sexual misconduct. hillary clinton it's not able to go after him on that because she was to compromise because if bill clinton did and that the one of the reasons, that she lost theam election. but the point is, her hands were tied behind of her back because of her own compromises. i would say that one of the things that trump is most vulnerable on is his own self dealings. it is nepotism in some families maypo be, nothing illegal but certainly of copper and certainly flies in the face,
have him play me and he is standing up for working america and is just all about those workers. i things one of the areas he is most vulnerable at. havingis to do with the various ways in which his family has profited from the presidency. ask yourself, is joe biden a trusted messenger given what we are learning about hunterwe bid. or are his hands tied behind his back in the wake hillary his were tied behind her back, we need a candidate whose aunt has not tied behind her back. please, don't make a joe biden. i would just like to say that. >> hi i like to get back to what we were discussing about fdr any deals. i think that we were aware that the economic stabilization work was run by a man who did this, but his treasure.
he was a congressman. he passed the 16th amendment. i think a lot of what he wants to accomplish to be done using article five which constitution. after equipping the treasure, they left congress, after the 16th amendment, and they became treasure fdr. not that 1929/cabin before fdr becamepr president. economic stabilization work was in response to the depression. thatter they got stabilized, even on to sit on the supreme court. they have a long history, because they are our largest neighbors. if youou cut. [inaudible conversation]
host: nancy, your final.please. >> amendment. naomi: i think i'll treat it like a comment. host: go ahead margaret. >> thank you. naomi had mentioned about the power of appropriations. just wanted to make her and the people aware that there is a movement afoot to amend the constitution. to say that corporations are god his people with rights. a corporation is the useful device for organizing people and money and resources. but it should be in the public interest. a corporation is formed by an active government and corporate charter. as we were government of the people supposedly, that people should and the corporation should surf the people.
rather than the other way around. so there is an organization called move to amend which is workingg on passing a constitutional amendment to make it clear. that corporations have privileges which can be granted law but they don't have the same inherent right as people. so i just like to mention that. naomi: it's a great initiative moved to amend. i would definitely recommend people check it out. i wasn't aware ofi it and i thk it's a big piece of the puzzle. in terms of having all of the levers that are need it in order to change things as quickly as we need to. corporations having the same bigus as people is the thing. >> good afternoon. can i think you so much cspan2. you have very mind expanding programs. and guess on every single day.
ms. klein, i share your last name. so that's fun but it is still differently. i am a former former poet from raytownss and wanted to know tht youer question. i wanted to know if you ever write poetry. did poetry contribute anything to your fighting in the past or how you started writing. because many writers said they started with poetry before they going to thrust. the other part is because of your canadian upbringing, and relatives from canada myself. i wondered if you think having her son at the age of school, do you have a value of canadian school education for the americans education public-private for charter. i would like to know your opinion. i will hang up in the in the air. it iss much. host: hang on for a minute. please don't hang up yet.
i was going to ask her to read a verse from one of her poems. naomi: i guess i'll have to admit that i did write some bad poetry before i started writing. it was definitely my first sort of writing passion. but i haven't donei it in many years. host: i think it would be hard, poetry. naomi: is sort of fit my teenage years doing wale. i appreciate it and and one of the things that talk about around with a new deal should mean is that i think the original deal of public funding for the arts. including funding for poets and playwrights and novelists and painters and journalists and so on. this is actually good low carbon work that we need to invest in. not just putting up solar panels. those are greens job.
i am living in the united states are now. i am teaching record. moved littleust more than a year ago. the canadian public system and the american public school system. thing is trickyub because i woud say that the canadian public school system is less unequal than the u.s. that's my perception. i think because it's all based on property taxes here. release where i am loving, so much is based on the property taxes. there's massive discrepancies between the kind of public school education you get. i am separated just by a few miles. we do have different things. in the u.s., it fall is racial
.spot lines. and schools in wealthier neighborhoods to be a resource and able to raise more money. that is not quite as unequal as it is in the united states. there areer definitely things about the u.s. public system that i find hard better than the canadian system. i feel very disloyal staying that but my son has special needs and he needs special support. have the american disabilities act which is the very strong legal instrument that has given students and parents stronger tools to required that schools provide the supports. to be honest with you, people of their views about canada. i'd be happy to talk about how much better our healthcare system is but when it comes to
special needs, the u.s. actually has a speech. host: have thet: influence or writing thinking. think about o that. heidi joining us from maine. ho high is such an honor to join you today. i am very blessed with to have met you at cooper union years ago. i have a lotun of ground to covr for basically i want to ask you about your concepts of silencing of the sciences in canada. your thoughts are your whole concept fossil fuel and corporate sponsorships of laws environmentalists. especially indigenous people. and in the spirit of the unity and sacredness and standing rock,an i'm asking you how can e call on our leaders especially in new york city, massachusetts, and maine that want to base their green new deals on the genocide and ecological cleansing.
of some of our indigenous neighbors such as welch we've had, based on the situation with the alberta canadian tar sands stuff, i am talking more about the neighbors of our north. that have been cleansed by hyd hydro, megan ames. how can we find a more sustainable way to offer them and all of the leaf so that the people who are working in those fossil fuel and all of these other industries and hydro, can find another way to find an income that would help them also help their people the living sustainability. host: you put a lot of the table, will get a response. they get to that. naomi: a lot there. the core principles of what kind of justice, are that the people
who one, the people who got the worst deal on the current extractive fossil fuel based economy, meaning the people who have the dirtiest industries in their backyards, who have the highest cancer rates, the highest asthma rates. there really bearing a toxic burden of this economy. they need be first in line to benefit from the transformations including owning and controlling our own current energy products area as a scholar was alluding to. but no work there should be left behind. in this transition we talked earlier about the language. about workers in those sectors maintaining their salary and benefits levels and also have the jobs guaranteed. but concretely in addition to the jobs that will be created, a huge number of jobs bernie sanders estimates 5 million jobs in energy efficiencies. building affordable greenar
housing. and really investing in public transit and rails. and of course renewable energy. you have other sectors where as i was talking about the carry impeaching, low carbon. in addition to all of that, also a lot of work that needs to be done. so the color mentioned alberta. any region where you had intensive fossil fuel extracti extraction, you've got a lot of the abandoned wells and a lot of land rehabilitation to do there are tens of thousands of wellheads in alberta as you mentioned. so there actually hundreds of thousands of jobs that can be created just by getting the polluters to pay for the mess they created. that doesn't rate choir a lot of retraining because these are workers that would be on job sites where they put in the
wells and they know how to l-uppercase-letter to clean them up. the problems we are getting fossil fuel companies to finance a cleanup. there's plenty of hard to be done. if we have that the front lined communities but as i mentioned earlier, it's really important that indigenous knowledge and land rights be respecteden as pt of our response to the climate crisis and we know we need huge reforestation and land, this shouldn't be done on the same oumodel that this possess people of the land where you create national parks and access to the land. there has to be a way that we have respect for this as part of the huge conservation work ahe ahead.
>> please be brief. >> about the 911 stopping airplanes from flying heated up a little bit so i am wondering, with the winters staying around later and in the spring. comment about that and less white even though getting through maybe it is that going to affect plants. naomi: less white getting through. culver. absolutely, climate change has gone from being the future threat and i live talked about being worried about often often the distance to something that is impacting the lives of pretty
much everybody now. sort of changes for the fall why is the hoe so hot flash flooding e t for many that loss infrastructure, or the west coast there blanketed wildfires of i was recently in paradise californiali by the his historic empire. it's not far off emergency and we are seeing this reflected in the fold. huge shift since i've been writing about this and americans are now breaking concern about climate change. at the top of their things about healthcare. >> shipping your questions.
naomi: i think young people generally, who i've talked, my students also, any young people everywhere i go and i have partnered with his book tour with the sunrise movement which is a youth climate justice movement that is been demanding a green new deal i have a private meeting with them before i do my public events they are worried about everything both of it makes sense to going to college and they are so uncertain about the future. both of they should have kids. they get questions like this because they are so concerned about with the future might hold. . . .
no is nose enough, the shock doctrine, and on fire. thank you for joining us on booktv. we appreciate it. >> guest: thank you so much. it was pleasure. >> booktv continues now on c-span2. television for serious readers. >> good afternoon. i'm sarah perry, director of partnership here at the family research council it's my very great privilege to introduce today's lecturer and the co-authors of the book upon which it is based, why meadow