Dr. Martin Luther King Jr. Tells London Audience and the World: “The Time is Always Ripe to be Right”
REV. MARTIN LUTHER KING JR.: I want to talk with you mainly about our struggle in the United States and, before taking my seat, talk about some of the larger struggles in the whole world and some of the more difficult struggles in places like South Africa. But there is a desperate, poignant question on the lips of people all over our country and all over the world. I get it almost everywhere I go and almost every press conference. It is a question of whether we are making any real progress in the struggle to make racial justice a reality in the United States of America. And whenever I seek to answer that question, on the one hand, I seek to avoid an undue pessimism; on the other hand, I seek to avoid a superficial optimism. And I try to incorporate or develop what I consider a realistic position, by admitting on the one hand that we have made many significant strides over the last few years in the struggle for racial justice, but by admitting that before the problem is solved we still have numerous things to do and many challenges to meet. And it is this realistic position that I would like to use as a basis for our thinking together tonight as we think about the problem in the United States. We have come a long, long way, but we have a long, long way to go before the problem is solved.
Now let us notice first that we’ve come a long, long way. And I would like to say at this point that the Negro himself has come a long, long way in re-evaluating his own intrinsic worth. Now, in order to illustrate this, a little history is necessary. It was in the year 1619 when the first Negro slaves landed on the shores of America. And they were brought there from the soils of Africa. Unlike the pilgrim fathers who landed at Plymouth a year later, they were brought there against their wills. And throughout slavery, the Negro was treated in a very inhuman fashion. He was a thing to be used, not a person to be respected. The United States Supreme Court rendered a decision in 1857 known as the Dred Scott decision, which well illustrated this whole idea and which well illustrated what existed at that time, for in this decision the Supreme Court of the United States said, in substance, that the Negro is not a citizen of the United States, he is merely property subject to the dictates of his owner. And it went on to say that the Negro has no rights that the white man is bound to respect. This was the idea that prevailed during the days of slavery.
With the growth of slavery, it became necessary to give some justification for it. You know, it seems to be a fact of life that human beings cannot continue to do wrong without eventually reaching out for some thin rationalization to clothe an obvious wrong in the beautiful garments of righteousness. And this is exactly what happened during the days of slavery. There were those who even misused the Bible and religion to give some justification for slavery and to crystallize the patterns of the status quo. And so it was argued from some pulpits that the Negro was inferior by nature because of Noah’s curse upon the children of Ham. Then, the apostle Paul’s dictum became a watchword: “Servants be obedient to your master.” And one brother had probably read the logic of the great philosopher Aristotle. You know, Aristotle did a great deal to bring into being what we now know as formal logic in philosophy. And in formal logic, there is a big word known as the syllogism, which has a major premise, a minor premise and a conclusion. And so, this brother decided to put his argument for the inferiority of the Negro in the framework of an Aristotelian syllogism. He could say all men are made in the image of God—this was a major premise. Then came the minor premise: God, as everybody knows, is not a Negro, therefore the Negro is not a man. This was the kind of reasoning that prevailed.
While living with the conditions of slavery and then, later, segregation, many Negroes lost faith in themselves. Many came to feel that perhaps they were less than human. Many came to feel that they were inferior. This, it seems to me, is the greatest tragedy of slavery, the greatest tragedy of segregation, not merely what it does to the individual physically, but what it does to one psychologically. It scars the soul of the segregated as well as the segregator. It gives the segregator a false sense of superiority, while leaving the segregated with a false sense of inferiority. And this is exactly what happened.
Then something happened to the Negro, and circumstances made it possible and necessary for him to travel more—the coming of the automobile, the upheavals of two world wars, the Great Depression. And so his rural plantation background gradually gave way to urban industrial life. His economic life was gradually rising through the growth of industry, the development of organized labor and expanded educational opportunities. And even his cultural life was gradually rising through the steady decline of crippling illiteracy. All of these forces conjoined to cause the Negro in America to take a new look at himself. Negro masses all over began to re-evaluate themselves.
And then something else happened, along with all of this: The Negro in the United States turned his eyes and his mind to Africa, and he noticed the magnificent drama of independence taking place on the stage of African history. And noticing the developments and noticing what was happening and noticing what was being done on the part of his black brothers and sisters in Africa gave him a new sense of dignity in the United States and a new sense of self-respect. The Negro came to feel that he was somebody. His religion revealed to him that God loves all of his children and that all men are made in his image, and that the basic thing about a man is not his specificity, but his fundamentum, not the texture of his hair or the color of his skin, but his eternal dignity and worth.
And so the Negro in America could now cry out unconsciously with the eloquent poet, “Fleecy locks, and black complexion cannot forfeit nature’s claim; Skin may differ, but affection dwells in black and white the same,” and, “Were I so tall as to reach the pole, or to grasp the ocean at a span, I must be measured by my soul; the mind is the standard of the man.” And with this new sense of dignity and this new sense of self-respect, a new Negro came into being with a new determination to suffer, to struggle, to sacrifice, and even to die, if necessary, in order to be free. And this reveals that we have come a long, long way since 1619.
But if we are to be true to the facts, it is necessary to say that not only has the Negro re-evaluated his own intrinsic worth, the whole nation has come a long, long way in extending the frontiers of civil rights. I would like to mention just a few things that have happened in our country which reveal this. Fifty years ago, or even 25 years ago, a year hardly passed when numerous Negroes were not brutally lynched by some vicious mob. Fortunately, lynchings have about ceased today. If one would go back to the turn of the century, you would find that in the Southern part of the United States you had very few Negroes registered to vote. By 1948, that number had leaped to about 750,000; 1960, it had leaped to 1,200,000. And when we went into the presidential election just a few weeks ago, that number had leaped to more than two million. We went into that election with more than two million Negroes registered to vote in the South, which meant that we in the civil rights movement, by working hard, have been able to add more than 800,000 new Negroes as registered voters in the last three years. This reveals that we have made strides.
Then, when we look at the question of economic justice, there’s much to do, but we can at least say that some strides have been made. The average Negro wage earner who is employed today in the United States earns 10 times more than the average Negro wage earner of 12 years ago. And the national income of the Negro is now at a little better than $28 billion a year, which is all—more than all of the exports of the United States and more than the national budget of Canada. This reveals that we have made some strides in this area.
But probably more than anything else—and you’ve read about it so much here and all over the world, I’m sure—we have noticed a gradual decline, and even demise, of the system of racial segregation. Now, the legal history of racial segregation had its beginning in 1896. Many people feel that racial segregation has been a reality in the United States a long, long time, but the fact is that this was a rather recent phenomenon in our country, just a little better than 60 years old. And it had its legal beginning with a decision known as the Plessy v. Ferguson decision, which said, in substance, that separate but equal facilities could exist, and it made the doctrine of separate but equal the law of the land. We all know what happened as a result of the old Plessy doctrine: There was always the strict enforcement of the separate, without the slightest intention to abide by the equal. And the Negro ended up being plunged into the abyss of exploitation, where he experienced the bleakness of nagging injustice.
And then something marvelous happened. The Supreme Court of our nation in 1954 examined the legal body of segregation, and on May 17th of that year pronounced it constitutionally dead. It said, in substance, that the old Plessy doctrine must go, that separate facilities are inherently unequal, and that the segregated child on the basis of his race is to deny that child equal protection of the law. And so, we’ve seen many changes since that momentous decision was rendered in 1954, that came as a great beacon light of hope into millions of disinherited people all over our nation.
Then something else happened, which brought joy to all of our hearts. It happened this year. It was last year, after the struggle in Birmingham, Alabama, that the late President Kennedy came to realize that there was a basic issue that our country had to grapple with. With a sense of concern and a sense of immediacy, he made a great speech, a few days before—rather, it was really on the same day that the University of Alabama was to be integrated, and Governor Wallace stood in the door and tried to block that integration. Mr. Kennedy had to have the National Guard federalized. He stood before the nation and said in eloquent terms the problem which we face in the area of civil rights is not merely a political issue, it is not merely an economic issue, it is, at bottom, a moral issue. It is as old as the scriptures and as modern as the Constitution. It is a question of whether we will treat our Negro brothers as we ourselves would like to be treated.
And on the heels of that great speech, he went in, recommended to the Congress of our nation the most comprehensive civil rights bill ever recommended by any president of our great nation. Unfortunately, after many months of battle, and for a period we got a little tired of that—you know, there are some men in our country who like to talk a lot. Maybe you read about the filibuster. And you know they get bogged down in the paralysis of analysis, and they will just go on and on and on. And they wanted to talk that bill to death.
But President Lyndon Johnson got to work. He started calling congressmen and senators in and started meeting day in and day out with influential people in the country and making it clear that that bill had to pass, as a tribute to the late President Kennedy, but also as a tribute to the greatness of the country and as an expression of its dedication to the American dream. And it was that great day last summer that that bill came into being, and it was on July 2nd that Mr. Johnson signed that bill and it became the law of the land.
And so, in America now, we have a civil rights bill. And I’m happy to report to you that, by and large, that bill is being implemented in communities all across the South. We have seen some surprising levels of compliance, even in some communities in the state of Mississippi. And whenever you can find anything right in Mississippi, things are getting better.
We can never forget the fact that just this summer three civil rights workers were brutally murdered near Philadelphia, Mississippi. All of this reveals to us that we have not achieved the level of brotherhood—we have not achieved the brotherhood that we need and that we must have in our nation. We still have a long, long way to go.
I mentioned voter registration and the fact that we have been able to add about 800,000 new registered voters in the last two or three years, the fact that it’s over two million now. I guess that sounded like real progress, and it does represent some progress. But let me give you the other side, and that is the fact that there are still more than 10 million Negroes living in the Southern part of the United States, and some six million of the Negroes living in the Southern part of the United States are of voting age, and yet only two million are registered. This means that four million remain unregistered, not merely because they are apathetic, not because they are complacent—this may be true of some few—but because all types of conniving methods are still being used to keep Negroes from becoming registered voters. Complex literacy tests are given, which make it almost impossible for anybody to pass the test, even if he has a Ph.D. degree in any field or a law degree from the best law schools of the world. And then actual economic reprisals are often taken out against Negroes who seek to register and vote in some of the Black Belt counties of Mississippi and Alabama and other places. Then, some are actually faced with physical violence, and sometimes physical death. This reveals that we have a great deal that must be done in this area.
I mentioned economic justice, and I am sure that that figure, $28 billion, sounded very large. That’s a lot of money. But then I must go on and give you the other side, if I am to be honest about the picture. That is a fact that 42 percent of the Negro families of the United States still earn less than $2,000 a year, while just 16 percent of the white families earn less than $2,000 a year; 21 percent of the Negro families of America earn less than $1,000 a year, while just 5 percent of the white families earn less than $1,000 a year. And then we face the fact that 88 percent of the Negro families of America earn less than $5,000 a year, while just 58 percent of the white families earn less than $5,000 a year. So we can see that there is still a great gulf between the haves, so to speak, and the have-nots. And if America is to continue to grow and progress and develop and move on toward its greatness, this problem must be solved.
Now, this economic problem is getting more serious because of many forces alive in our world and in our nation. For many years, Negroes were denied adequate educational opportunities. For many years, Negroes were even denied apprenticeship training. And so, the forces of labor and industry so often discriminated against Negroes. And this meant that the Negro ended up being limited, by and large, to unskilled and semi-skilled labor. Now, because of the forces of automation and cybernation, these are the jobs that are now passing away. And so, the Negro wakes up in a city like Detroit, Michigan, and discovers that he is 28 percent of the population and about 72 percent of the unemployed. Now, in order to grapple with that problem, our federal government will have to develop massive retraining programs, massive public works programs, so that automation can be a blessing, as it must be to our society, and not a curse.
Then the other thing when we think of this economic problem, we must think of the fact that there is nothing more dangerous than to build a society with a segment in that society which feels that it has no stake in the society, and nothing more dangerous than to build a society with a number of people who see life as little more than a long and desolate corridor with no exit sign. They end up with despair because they have no jobs, because they can’t educate their children, because they can’t live in a nice home, because they can’t have adequate health facilities.
We always hear of the various reasons why and the various myths concerning integration and why integration shouldn’t come into being. Those people who argue against integration at this point often say, “Well, if you integrate the public schools, for instance, you will pull the white race back a generation.” And they like to talk about the cultural lag in the Negro community. And then they go on to say, “Now, you know, the Negro is a criminal, and he has the highest crime rate in any city that you can find in the United States.” And the arguments go on ad infinitum why integration shouldn’t come into being.
But I think there’s an answer to that, and that is that if there is cultural lag in the Negro community—and there certainly is—this lag is there because of segregation and discrimination. It’s there because of long years of slavery and segregation. Criminal responses are not racial, but environmental. Poverty, economic deprivation, social isolation and all of these things breed crime, whatever the racial group may be. And it is a torturous logic to use the tragic results of racial segregation as an argument for the continuation of it. It is necessary to go back. And so it is necessary to see this and to go all out to make economic justice a reality all over our nation.
I mentioned that racial segregation is about dead in the United States, but it’s still with us. We are about past the day of legal segregation. We have about ended de jure segregation, where the laws of the nation or of a particular state can uphold it, because of the civil rights bill and the Supreme Court’s decision and other things. We have passed the day when the Negro can’t eat at a lunch counter, with the exception of a few isolated situations, or where the Negro can’t check in a motel or hotel. We are fastly passing that day. But there is another form of segregation coming up. It is coming up through housing discrimination, joblessness and the de facto segregation in the public schools. And so the ghettoized conditions that exist make for many problems, and it makes for a hardcore, de facto segregation that we must grapple with on a day-to-day basis. And so, this is the problem that we face, and this is a problem that we are forced to deal with. And we are going to deal with it in a determined way. I am absolutely convinced that segregation is on its deathbed, and those who represent it, whether they be in the United States or whether they be in London, England, the system is on its deathbed.
But certainly, we all know that if democracy is to live in any nation, segregation must die. And as I’ve tried to say all over America, we’ve got to get rid of segregation not merely because it will help our image—it certainly will help our image in the world. We’ve got to get rid of segregation not merely because it will appeal to Asian and African people—and this certainly will be helpful, this is important. But in the final analysis, racial discrimination must be uprooted from American society and from every society, because it is morally wrong. So it is necessary to go all out and develop massive action programs to get rid of racial segregation.
Now I would like to mention one or two ideas that circulate in our society—and they probably circulate in your society and all over the world—that keep us from developing the kind of action programs necessary to get rid of discrimination and segregation. One is what I refer to as the myth of time. There are those individuals who argue that only time can solve the problem of racial injustice in the United States, in South Africa or anywhere else; you’ve got to wait on time. And I know they’ve said to us so often in the States and to our allies in the white community, “Just be nice and be patient and continue to pray, and in 100 or 200 years the problem will work itself out.” We have heard and we have lived with the myth of time. The only answer that I can give to that myth is that time is neutral. It can be used either constructively or destructively. And I must honestly say to you that I’m convinced that the forces of ill will have often used time much more effectively than the forces of goodwill. And we may have to repent in this generation, not merely for the vitriolic words and the violent actions of the bad people, but for the appalling silence and indifference of the good people who sit around saying, “Wait on time.”
And somewhere along the way it is necessary to see that human progress never rolls in on the wheels of inevitability. It comes through the tireless efforts and the persistent work of dedicated individuals who are willing to be co-workers with God. And without this hard work, time itself becomes an ally of the primitive forces of social stagnation. And so we must help time, and we must realize that the time is always ripe to do right. This is so vital, and this is so necessary.
Now, the other myth that gets around a great deal in our nation and, I’m sure, in other nations of the world is the idea that you can’t solve the problems in the realm of human relations through legislation; you can’t solve the housing problem and the job problem and all of these other problems through legislation; you’ve got to change the heart. We had a presidential candidate just recently who spoke about this a great deal. And I think Mr. Goldwater sincerely believed that you couldn’t anything through legislation, because he voted against everything in the Senate, including the civil rights bill. And he said all over the nation throughout the election that we don’t need legislation, that legislation can’t deal with this problem. But he was nice enough to say that you’ve got to change the heart.
Now I want to at least go halfway with Brother Goldwater at that point. I think he’s right. If we’re going to get this problem solved in America and all over the world, ultimately, people must change their hearts where they have prejudices. If we are going to solve the problems facing mankind, I would be the first to say that every white person must look down deep within and remove every prejudice that may be there, and come to see that the Negro, and the colored peoples, generally, must be treated right, not merely because the law says it, but because it is right and because it is natural. I agree with this 100 percent. And I’m sure that if the problem is to be solved, ultimately, men must be obedient not merely to that which can be enforced by the law, but they must rise to the majestic heights of being obedient to the unenforceable.
But after saying all of that, I must go on to the other side. This is where I must leave Mr. Goldwater and others who believe that legislation has no place. It may be true that you can’t legislate integration, but you can legislate desegregation. It may be true that morality cannot be legislated, but behavior can be regulated. It may be true that the law can’t change the heart, but it can restrain the heartless. It may be true that the law can’t make a man love me, but it can restrain him from lynching me. And I think that’s pretty important also.
Now, as you know, we have been engaged in the United States in a massive struggle to make desegregation and, finally, integration a reality. And in that struggle, there has been an undergirding philosophy: the philosophy of nonviolence, the philosophy and method of nonviolent resistance. And I’d like to say just a few words about the method or the philosophy that has undergirded our struggle. And first I want to say that I’m still convinced that nonviolence is the most potent weapon available to oppressed people in their struggle for freedom and justice. It has a way of disarming the opponent, exposing his moral defenses. It weakens his morale, and at the same time it works on his conscience, and he just doesn’t know how to handle it. If he doesn’t beat you, wonderful. If he beats you, you develop the quiet courage of accepting blows without retaliating. If he doesn’t put you in jail, wonderful. Nobody with any sense loves to go to jail. But if he puts you in jail, you go in that jail and transform it from a dungeon of shame to a haven of freedom and human dignity. Even if he tries to kill you, you develop the inner conviction that there is something so dear, something so precious, something so eternally true, that they are worth dying for. And if a man has not discovered something that he will die for, he isn’t fit to live. And this is what the nonviolent discipline says.
And then the other thing about it is that it gives the individual a way of struggling to secure moral ends through moral means. One of the great debates of history has been over the whole question of ends and means. All the way back from the days of Plato’s dialogues coming on up through Machiavelli and others, there have been those individuals who argued that the end justifies the means. But in a real sense, the nonviolent philosophy comes along and says that the end is pre-existent in the means. The means represent the ideal in the making and the end in process. And so that in the long run of history, immoral means cannot bring about moral ends. Somehow man must come to the point that he sees the necessity of having ends and means cohering, so to speak. And this is one of the things that is basic in the nonviolent philosophy at its best. It gives one a way and a method of struggle which says that you can seek to secure moral ends through moral means.
It also says that it is possible to struggle against an evil, unjust system, with all your might and with all your heart, and even hate that unjust system, but yet you maintain an attitude of active goodwill and understanding and even love for the perpetrators of that evil system. And this is the most misunderstood aspect of nonviolence. And this is where those who don’t want to follow the nonviolent method say a lot of bad things to those of us who talk about love. But I still go on and believe in it, because I am still convinced that it is love that makes the world go round, and somehow this kind of love can be a powerful force for social change.
I’m not talking about a weak love. I’m not talking about emotional bosh here. I’m not talking about some sentimental quality. I’m not talking about an affectionate response. It would be nonsense to urge oppressed people to love their violent oppressors in an affectionate sense, and I have never advised that. When Jesus said, “Love your enemies,” I’m happy he didn’t say, “Like your enemies.” It’s pretty difficult to like some people. But love is greater than like. Love is understanding creative, redemptive goodwill for all men. Theologians talk about this kind of love with the Greek word agape, which is a sort of overflowing love that seeks nothing in return. And when one develops this, you rise to the position of being able to love the person who does the evil deed, while hating the deed that the person does. And I believe that this can be done. Psychiatrists are telling us now that hatred is a dangerous force, not merely for the hated, but also the hater. Many of the strange things that happen in the subconscious, many of the inner conflicts, are rooted in hate. And so they are saying, “Love or perish.” This is why Erich Fromm can write a book entitled The Art of Loving, arguing that love is the supreme unifying force of life. And so it is wonderful to have a method of struggle where it is possible to stand up against segregation, to stand up against colonialism with all of your might, and yet not hate the perpetrators of these unjust systems. And I believe firmly that it is through this kind of powerful nonviolent action, this kind of love that organizes itself into mass action, that we will be able to transform the jangling discords of our nation and the world into a beautiful symphony of brotherhood. Certainly this is the great challenge facing us.
Now, I think that nonviolence can work not only in the situation that we find in our country, not only with the magnificent example that we have in India, expressed through the marvelous work of Mohandas K. Gandhi, but I think it can work in ways and in circumstances that we haven’t seen it or we haven’t used it before. And in this context, I would like to say something about South Africa. And I’d like to read just a statement that I have written here so that I’ll be sure that I’ll say everything that I have in mind about the South African situation without missing anything.
I understand there are here tonight South Africans, some of whom have been involved in the long struggle for freedom there. In our struggle for freedom and justice in the United States, which has also been so long and difficult, we feel a powerful sense of identification with those in the far more deadly struggle for freedom in South Africa. We know how Africans there, and their friends of other races, strove for half a century to win their freedom by nonviolent methods. We have honored Chief Lutuli for his leadership, and we know how this nonviolence was only met by increasing violence from the state, increasing repression, culminating in the shootings at Sharpeville and all that has happened since.
Clearly there is much in Mississippi and Alabama to remind the South Africans of their own country, yet even in Mississippi we can organize to register Negro voters. We can speak to the press. We can, in short, organize the people in nonviolent action. But in South Africa, even the mildest form of nonviolent resistance meets with years of imprisonment, and leaders over many years have been restricted and silenced and imprisoned. We can understand how in that situation people felt so desperate that they turned to other methods, such as sabotage.
Today, great leaders, like Nelson Mandela and Robert Sobukwe, are among the many hundreds wasting away in Robben Island prison. Against a massive, armed and ruthless state, which uses torture and sadistic forms of interrogation to crush human beings, even driving some to suicide, the militant opposition inside South Africa seems for the moment to be silenced. The mass of the people seems to be contained, seems for the moment unable to break from the oppression. I emphasize the word “seems” because we can imagine what emotions and plans must be seething below the calm surface of that prosperous police state. We know what emotions are seething in the rest of Africa, and indeed all over the world. The dangers of a race war, of these dangers we have had repeated and profound warning.
It is in this situation, with the great mass of South Africans denied their humanity, their dignity, denied opportunity, denied all human rights; it is in this situation, with many of the bravest and best South Africans serving long years in prison, with some already executed; in this situation we in America and Britain have a unique responsibility, for it is we, through our investments, through our governments’ failure to act decisively, who are guilty of bolstering up the South African tyranny.
Our responsibility—our responsibility presents us with a unique opportunity: We can join in the one form of nonviolent action that could bring freedom and justice to South Africa, the action which African leaders have appealed for, in a massive movement for economic sanctions. In a world living under the appalling shadow of nuclear weapons, do we not recognize the need to perfect the use of economic pressures? Why is trade regarded by all nations and all ideologies as sacred? Why does our government and your government in Britain refuse to intervene effectively now, as if only when there is a bloodbath in South Africa—or a Korea or a Vietnam—will they recognize a crisis? If the United Kingdom and the United States decided tomorrow morning not to buy South African goods, not to buy South African gold, to put an embargo on oil, if our investors and capitalists would withdraw their support for that racial tyranny that we find there, then apartheid would be brought to an end. Then the majority of South Africans of all races could at last build the shared society they desire.
And so this is a challenge facing the nations of the world. And God grant that we will meet this challenge and be a part of that great creative movement that will seek to bring about change and transform those dark yesterdays of man’s inhumanity to man into bright tomorrows of justice and peace and goodwill. And may I say to you that the problem of racial injustice is not limited to any one nation. We know now that this is a problem spreading all over the globe. And right here in London and right here in England, you know so well that thousands and thousands of colored people are migrating here from many, many lands—from the West Indies, from Pakistan, from India, from Africa. And they have the just right to come to this great land, and they have the just right to expect justice and democracy in this land. And England must be eternally vigilant. For if not, the same kind of ghettos will develop that we have in the Harlems of the United States. The same problems of injustice, the same problems of inequality in jobs will develop. And so I say to you that the challenge before every citizen of goodwill of this nation is to go all out to make democracy a reality for everybody, so that everybody in this land will be able to live together and that all men will be able to live together as brothers.
You know, there are certain words in every academic discipline that soon become stereotypes and clichés. Every academic discipline has its technical vocabulary. Modern psychology has a word that is probably used more than any other word in modern psychology. It is the word “maladjusted.” You’ve heard that word. This is the ringing cry of modern child psychology. And certainly we all want to live well-adjusted lives in order to avoid neurotic and schizophrenic personalities. But I must say to you this evening, my friends, as I come to a close, that there are some things in my own nation, and there are some things in the world, to which I am proud to be maladjusted and to which I call upon all men of goodwill to be maladjusted until the good society is realized. I must honestly say to you that I never intend to become adjusted to segregation, discrimination, colonialism and these particular forces. I must honestly say to you that I never intend to adjust myself to religious bigotry. I must honestly say to you that I never intend to adjust myself to economic conditions that will take necessities from the many to give luxuries to the few. I must say to you tonight that I never intend to become adjusted to the madness of militarism and the self-defeating effects of physical violence, for in a day when Sputniks and explorers are dashing through outer space and guided ballistic missiles are carving highways of death through the stratosphere, no nation can win a war. It is no longer the choice between violence and nonviolence; it is either nonviolence or non-existence. And the alternative to disarmament, the alternative to a greater suspension of nuclear tests, the alternative to strengthening the United Nations and thereby disarming the whole world, may well be a civilization plunged into the abyss of annihilation. And I assure you that I will never adjust to the madness of militarism.
You see, it may well be that our whole world is in need at this time for a new organization—the International Association for the Advancement of Creative Maladjustment—men and women—men and women who will be as maladjusted as the Prophet Amos, who in the midst of the injustices of his day could cry out in words that echo across the centuries, “Let justice roll down like waters and righteousness like a mighty stream”; as maladjusted as the late Abraham Lincoln, the great president of our nation, who had the vision to see that the United States could not survive half-slave and half-free; as maladjusted as Thomas Jefferson, who, in the midst of an age amazingly adjusted to slavery, could etch across the pages of history words lifted to cosmic proportions: “We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the Pursuit of Happiness”; as maladjusted as Jesus of Nazareth, who could say to the men and women of his day, “He who lives by the sword will perish by the sword.” And through such maladjustment, we will be able to emerge from the long and desolate midnight of man’s inhumanity to man into the bright and glittering daybreak of freedom and justice.
May I say to you that I still believe that mankind will rise up to the occasion. In spite of the darkness of the hour, in spite of the difficulties of the moment, in spite of these days of emotional tension, when the problems of the world are gigantic in extent and chaotic in detail, I still have faith in the future, and I still believe that we can build this society of brotherhood and this society of peace.
We have a song that we sing in our movement, and we have joined hands to sing it so often, beyond/behind jail bars. I can remember times that we have been in jail cells made for 12 people, and yet you would find some 15 or 20 there, and yet we could go on and lift our voices and sing it. I mentioned it yesterday afternoon as I was preaching at St. Paul’s. “We shall overcome. We shall overcome. Deep in my heart I do believe we shall overcome.” And somehow I believe that mankind will overcome, and I believe that the forces of evil will be defeated. I believe this because Carlyle is right: “No lie can live forever.” I believe that we shall overcome because William Cullen Bryant is right: Truth crushed to earth will rise again. I believe that we shall overcome because James Russell Lowell is right: “Truth forever on the scaffold / Wrong forever on the throne. / Yet that scaffold sways the future, / And behind the then unknown / Standeth God within the shadow, / Keeping watch above his own.”
With this faith, we will be able to adjourn the counsels of despair and bring new light into the dark chambers of pessimism. With this faith, we will be able to transform this pending cosmic elegy into a creative psalm of peace and brotherhood. With this faith, we will be able to speed up the day when all of God’s children—black men and white men, Jews and Gentiles, Protestants and Catholics, Hindus and Muslims, theists and atheists—will be able to join hands and sing in the words of the old Negro spiritual, “Free at last! Free at last! Thank God Almighty, we are free at last!”
We have a long, long way to go before this problem is solved, but thank God we’ve made strides. We’ve come a long, long way, before I close by quoting the words of an old Negro slave preacher, who didn’t quite have his grammar and diction right, but who uttered words of great symbolic profundity: “Lord, we ain’t what we want to be. We ain’t what we ought to be. We ain’t what we gonna be. But, thank God, we ain’t what we was.” Thank you.
Dr. Martin Luther King Jr. in his own words from a recording recently discovered by the Pacifica Radio Archive, the speech given in London, December 7, 1964, just days before Dr. King received the Nobel Peace Prize in Oslo, Norway.
Hear Dr. King’s speech at Democracy Now’s January 18, 2016 radio broadcast, commemorating Dr. King’s birthday on January 15th, 1929. He was assassinated April 4th, 1968, at the Lorraine Motel in Memphis, Tennessee when he was just 39 years of age.
Warehouse Houses Hundreds for People’s Trial of Exxon For Climate Crimes During Climate Negotiations in Paris
The revelations that Exxon concealed its early findings that fossil fuels cause global warming have sparked a criminal investigation by New York’s attorney general and calls for a federal probe like the one against Big Tobacco. But some aren’t waiting for the justice system to act. During the recent U.N. climate summit in Paris, environmental activists held a “mock trial” charging Exxon with “climate crimes.” Hundreds from around the world—including participants in COP21—packed into a large warehouse-like cultural space to hear a stirring indictment of Exxon. A tribunal of judges heard testimony from witnesses that included scientists, energy experts and residents of frontline communities threatened by climate change. The witnesses were questioned by two leading environmentalists acting as chief prosecutors: Bill McKibben, co-founder of 350.org, and journalist Naomi Klein.
This is a rush transcript. Copy may not be in its final form.
AMY GOODMAN: The revelations that Exxon concealed its own findings on global warming have sparked a criminal investigation by the New York attorney general and calls for a federal probe, like the one against Big Tobacco. But some aren’t waiting for the justice system to act. During the recent U.N. climate summit in Paris, environmental activists and journalists held a kind of “mock trial” to try Exxon for what they called climate crimes. Hundreds from around the world—including participants in COP21—packed into a large, dark, warehouse-like cultural space to hear a stirring indictment of Exxon. It was overcast. It was gray on this Paris afternoon. A tribunal of judges heard testimony from witnesses that included scientists, energy experts, residents of frontline communities threatened by climate change. The witnesses were questioned by two leading environmentalists acting as chief prosecutors: environmentalist Bill McKibben, co-founder of 350.org, and journalist Naomi Klein.
NAOMI KLEIN: These events are sometimes called mock trials. We call this a people’s trial. There is nothing mock about this. There’s nothing funny about this. The stakes could not be higher. Just as the global climate movement has been doing what our politicians fail to do, by keeping carbon in the ground, stopping pipelines, stopping Arctic drilling, just as our movements are failing—are stepping in where our politicians have failed, what we are doing here is stepping in where our courts have failed. And we firmly believe that this is a preview, that this prosecution of Exxon will happen in real courts very, very soon. So do not consider this a mock trial, but a sneak preview of Exxon’s future.
BILL McKIBBEN: At the pleasure of the court, we’d like to call our first witness, if we could.
KATHY JETNIL-KIJINER: My name is Kathy Jetnil-Kijiner. I’m a poet and activist from the Marshall Islands.
BILL McKIBBEN: Could you describe the—the sort of state of mind of people in the Marshall Islands? What is it like to live with the notion that the water is rising?
KATHY JETNIL-KIJINER: We’re living in a lot of fear. We’re living in a lot of fear that we would prefer to push back and not necessarily think about on a daily basis. I, myself, have confronted that fear that we could be losing our livelihoods, we could lose our land, we could lose our culture. And that kind of fear is haunting, because, you know, if we lose our land, we lose our identity. We lose who we are as a people.
BILL McKIBBEN: Where would people go?
KATHY JETNIL-KIJINER: We don’t know. We don’t know where we would go. There are certain islands that have, you know, relationships with bigger nations, bigger countries. We do have a bigger nation—a relationship with the United States right now, under the Compact of Free Association. However, what we’re campaigning for and what we tell everyone is that we shouldn’t have to go anywhere, and we shouldn’t have to have a policy—an evacuation strategy.
BILL McKIBBEN: How long have people lived on the Marshall Islands?
KATHY JETNIL-KIJINER: We’ve been living there for 2,000 years. Right? Yeah, 2,000 years. Over 2,000 years, yeah.
BILL McKIBBEN: Two thousand years. And in that time, the ocean has stayed at a level that’s made it possible to pursue life there.
KATHY JETNIL-KIJINER: Yes, actually, we just went out to visit an island, just recent—just this past weekend, that we were told went underwater. That island went underwater within 10 years. Just 10 years ago, that island was lush. It had trees. It had coconut trees. It had animals. Within 10 years, this island is already gone.
BILL McKIBBEN: So, within—within the last 25 years—
KATHY JETNIL-KIJINER: Yeah.
BILL McKIBBEN: —in the period of time that Exxon, for instance, knew about climate change—
KATHY JETNIL-KIJINER: Actually, yes, yes.
BILL McKIBBEN: —there’s been remarkable change.
KATHY JETNIL-KIJINER: Mm-hmm. I’ve talked to my elders, and none of them have seen anything like this in their entire lives. It’s just getting worse now. So, yes, within that time period.
BILL McKIBBEN: Thank you very much. No further questions.
KATHY JETNIL-KIJINER: Thank you.
BILL McKIBBEN: The prosecution would call Jannie Staffanson. Tell us your name, and describe your work, please.
JANNIE STAFFANSON: My name is Jannie Staffanson, and I am Sami from the Arctic. I was born and I live in a reindeer-herding family.
BILL McKIBBEN: Really? Tell us about the role of reindeer in the Sami culture and economy.
JANNIE STAFFANSON: It’s the center. It’s our identity, our traditions. And it’s the thing I strive to protect each and every day.
BILL McKIBBEN: Your family engages in reindeer herding.
JANNIE STAFFANSON: Yes.
BILL McKIBBEN: They have a—how do they—how does one family keep its reindeer apart from another? How do you know your own reindeer?
JANNIE STAFFANSON: The reindeers are migrating, and we are followers, nomads. They are migrating from the summer to the winter lands, and it’s very, very, very long migrations. But sometimes they are stopped, as now. My colleague, he was going up to the mountains to get the reindeers down to the winter area, where there are good vegetation. He cannot cross the rivers. They have not frozen yet. The reindeers cannot come over because they can’t get over the rivers and the lakes.
BILL McKIBBEN: Do you know how long the Sami have been engaged in reindeer herding in this part of the world?
JANNIE STAFFANSON: As long as anyone remembers.
BILL McKIBBEN: Many thousands of years?
JANNIE STAFFANSON: Yes.
BILL McKIBBEN: And in that period of time, they’ve been able to continue this work without interruption?
JANNIE STAFFANSON: Yes, yes.
BILL McKIBBEN: What is—has that begun—you’ve indicated that that’s begun to change in recent years.
JANNIE STAFFANSON: So, the temperature are increasing and decreasing, which we have never seen at such a rate, and each and every day is different. Usually, we—I have heard stories about good winters, right? where we didn’t have to be out tending for the reindeers or digging holes so they can reach the food. But with the increase and decrease of temperature, there are ice crests on the snow, which makes the reindeer unable to smell the food underneath, and therefore it will not dig for it. And even if they try, it’s not strong enough. So they starve to death.
BILL McKIBBEN: So, because of these freeze-thaw cycles, it’s becoming difficult for the reindeer to access their forage.
JANNIE STAFFANSON: Yeah, the food. Yeah, they starve. We have had bad winters as such, as long as I can remember, and my whole generation. We are the generation of climate change.
BILL McKIBBEN: Thank you.
FAITH GEMMILL: Faith Gemmill, Neets’aii Gwich’in, Pit River and Wintu, and I am from Vashrajj K’oo, Arctic Village, Alaska. And I’m the executive director of Resisting Environmental Destruction on Indigenous Lands.
NAOMI KLEIN: One of the things we know because of these investigations into Exxon in recent months is that as they were researching climate change as far back as the 1970s, they were interested in the economic possibilities this would present because ice would melt. And did you have a reaction to hearing that Exxon saw this as a profit-making opportunity?
FAITH GEMMILL: It makes me angry. It makes me angry, because we are ground zero. Arctic communities are ground zero for climate change. My children are going to be devastated by what’s happening. And we have to do something now. And that makes me angry that they knew, and they’re still trying to drill in these places like the Arctic Refuge, but also they’ve already devastated a whole ecosystem in Alaska. And they knew what they were doing, so it makes me angry, because it affects my children, their children, all of our children.
NAOMI KLEIN: Thank you for your testimony today.
FAITH GEMMILL: Thank you.
BILL McKIBBEN: Your Honors, if it’s all right, we will stay with this theme of the Far North for a moment, but switch to the science side of this equation. We’d like to call Jason Box. Mr. Box, could you describe your work, please?
JASON BOX: I’m a climatologist and glaciologist. We’ve been installing and maintaining a network of measurements on the surface of the Greenland ice sheet the last 20 years. And part of our work is to publish articles, so I’ve managed to be involved with about 90 externally reviewed scientific articles and contributed to the last two Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change reports.
MATT PAWA: Hello, I’m Matt Pawa. You said that mitigation matters, and you indicated also that you had read some of the Exxon disclosures, is that right? I’d like to show you one of the Exxon disclosures. This is a June 6, 1978, document. Is that one of the documents that you recently reviewed from InsideClimate News?
JASON BOX: Yes, I’ve been—I’m halfway through the InsideClimate News report. It’s fantastically fascinating reading, because it’s a historical account of kind of a corporation that went rogue.
MATT PAWA: And describe what you mean by “went rogue.”
JASON BOX: Well, they initially had a transparent, hardcore science profile. They were doing some of the best science in the discipline. And they then defunded those programs and then started to actively fund disinformation campaigns to perpetuate their profitability, knowing that the true cost accounting of their products would lead to, some of their own scientists are concluding, failed agricultural systems, drought, sea level rise, climate chaos. They knew that, but they went ahead and to—you know, for short-term gain, to lie to the global public. And we will be paying for that for decades to come.
NAOMI KLEIN: Can you state your name and your position, please?
CINDY BAXTER: My name is Cindy Baxter, and I’m author of the website called ExxonSecrets.org, and I’ve spent the last 15, 20 years researching the fossil fuel industry’s funding of climate denial campaigns.
NAOMI KLEIN: Based on this research, did Exxon draw inspiration from the tobacco industry and its track record of denying the link between smoking and cancer?
CINDY BAXTER: Oh, absolutely. I think—I think Exxon and all the climate deniers that it worked with and the think tanks that it worked with were directly linked back to the tobacco industry’s—
NAOMI KLEIN: Tell us about that.
CINDY BAXTER: —its “doubt is our product.” We have, for example—
NAOMI KLEIN: Wait, sorry, what was that?
CINDY BAXTER: The tobacco industry’s “doubt is our product” strategy. Doubt.
NAOMI KLEIN: “Doubt is our product.”
CINDY BAXTER: Engineering doubt is the main thing that the tobacco industry did to try and create debate around the science, so that—of the science of smoking and cancer, so that—so that the public—so that the public wouldn’t be pushing for action on tobacco control.
NAOMI KLEIN: Now, those tobacco companies were eventually taken to court and held accountable for that. Based on what you’ve seen of the Exxon revelations, do you believe that we’re going to see similar lawsuits?
CINDY BAXTER: Well, I would like to see that. I’m not a lawyer, obviously. But I would like to, because I think—I think that if you know something, and we’ve seen that Exxon knew, and then we saw—and I’ve been very much looking at what Exxon did next. And what they did was, you know, extraordinary. They spent $30 million—$31 million from 1998 to 2014 funding climate denial campaigns run by think tanks and also denying the climate science themselves.
KEN HENSHAW: My name is Ken Henshaw. I work with an NGO called Social Action in Nigeria. I’m an environmental rights campaigner.
NAOMI KLEIN: So, Rex Tillerson, the CEO, in 2012 said that humans have always adapted, will adapt. One of the ways that humans adapt is by moving, by migrating. Based on what you’re seeing of the treatment of refugees in Europe and North America, do you believe that if Africans are forced to migrate because of climate change, that they will be welcomed?
KEN HENSHAW: It doesn’t feel so, no. To me right now, it does not feel so. It doesn’t feel so at all. I mean, I don’t get the impression that if, for any reason, people in the Niger Delta, in Nigeria, who are affected by climate change have to move, they’ll be welcome here in Europe. No, I don’t think so.
NAOMI KLEIN: And what do feel when you hear those words from Exxon’s CEO?
KEN HENSHAW: I really feel bad, because it seems to me that they don’t take into consideration what people are passing through. And the revelations are becoming more and more dire. I mean, I can tell you about a community called Bodo in Ogoniland. It is the place where UNEP carried out an assessment of the environment. And it was confirmed that benzene—and I had never heard the word “benzene” before now—that benzene, a cancer-causing agent, is in the water people drink, 900 times higher than it should be. People still drink that water now. It is the water I learned how to swim in. It is the water I drink ’til now. Life expectancy in the Niger Delta has drastically, you know, dropped. The expectancy level is something between 43 and 46 years old in the Niger Delta. If you drive into Bodo, every weekend, the pastime there now are burials. What you see on each and every wall are posters announcing this burial or that burial or this burial. And every poster has got the age of the person, the deceased. It’s hardly up to 50 years old. I am really, really scared, because I still drink that water. On the 1st of August, I was 39 years old. If life expectancy is between 43 and 46, I’m afraid. I’m really getting scared.
NAOMI KLEIN: Thank you for your testimony.
AMY GOODMAN: That was Ken Henshaw, environmental rights campaigner with Social Action in Nigeria. He says burials are now more common in his community in Ogoniland because oil-related facilities in the region have contaminated the water with benzene. He was being questioned by journalist Naomi Klein. When we come back, more of the Exxon “mock trial” from the alternative climate summit that took place during the U.N. climate summit in Paris earlier this month. Stay with us.
AMY GOODMAN: This is Democracy Now!, democracynow.org, The War and Peace Report. I’m Amy Goodman, as we return to the “mock trial” of oil giant ExxonMobil held by activists and journalists and scientists during the recent U.N. climate summit in Paris. We first hear from one of the chief prosecutors, environmentalist Bill McKibben.
BILL McKIBBEN: Tell us your name and describe your work a little bit.
CHERRI FOYTLIN: Yeah, my name’s Cherri Foytlin. I live in Rayne, Louisiana. Mostly I work at being a mom. But when I’m not doing that, I work with BridgeTheGulfProject.org, and we help people along the Gulf Coast to tell their stories about social and environmental justice.
BILL McKIBBEN: Among other impacts of the oil industry, could you explain for a moment about what’s happened as they’ve cut channels and things through the marshes and bayous of Louisiana?
CHERRI FOYTLIN: Well, what’s happened is Exxon and other oil industry—the other parts of the oil industry has cut these long pipelines that go crisscross, kind of like tic-tac-toe, like a fly swatter, the end of a fly swatter, across our wetlands. And to date—what happens is, the salt water comes up through those channels, kills the root system on the wetlands, and then we have land loss. So, we’re losing about a football field of land an hour in South Louisiana, and we’ve lost a million football fields to this date.
BILL McKIBBEN: And what does that mean when the sea level is rising and when storms like Katrina approach?
CHERRI FOYTLIN: Well, those wetlands are our protection. They’re a buffer zone for us. So, when we have hurricanes like Katrina, really, that killed over a thousand people, come up, we don’t have that level of protection that we would have, and it’s stronger and hits the—hits harder. And there’s far more flooding, because they actually soak up that water.
BILL McKIBBEN: As a political activist, the CEO of Exxon recently donated the maximum amount of money possible to congressional candidates or members of Congress on the eve of an important vote. Why is it that you’ve not decided to donate $10,000 at a crack to congressional leaders?
CHERRI FOYTLIN: Don’t have $10,000, because I’m busy buying sand bags to keep the water out of my front door. I mean, look, just in a couple—you know, a couple more—
BILL McKIBBEN: Do you think—
CHERRI FOYTLIN: —generations here, and my whole where I live is going to be completely underwater.
BILL McKIBBEN: Do think a political system should be open to people handing $10,000 checks to—
CHERRI FOYTLIN: I don’t. I think Exxon is corporate serial killers. I think they’re murderers. And I think they need to go on trial, and I think the death penalty needs to happen.
BILL McKIBBEN: Thank you very much.
NAOMI KLEIN: Could you please state your name and your work?
SANDRA STEINGRABER: My name is Sandra Steingraber. I am a Ph.D. biologist and a co-founder and members of Concerned Health Professionals of New York.
NAOMI KLEIN: You are a specialist in the impacts of fracking. Could you tell us about Exxon’s involvement in the fracking industry in the United States?
SANDRA STEINGRABER: Sure. So, Exxon is the world’s largest public natural gas producer. And it extracts oil and gas via fracking all over the world, particularly in the United States, but more recently it’s gone after the shale gas and oil in Argentina.
NAOMI KLEIN: We’ve talked a lot about local health impacts of Exxon’s activities, and we’ll come to that, but I also would like to ask you about the climate impacts of fracking, since we are here outside a climate conference. Sometimes natural gas gets marketed as a climate solution. Is that the case in your—based on your expertise?
SANDRA STEINGRABER: Natural gas is a climate problem. In fact, it’s a catastrophe for the climate. So, in addition to the deceptions that ExxonMobil has precipitated regarding the actual existence of climate change and the role of fossil fuels, Exxon is also implicit in promulgating the idea that somehow natural gas is a more friendly fossil fuel than the other two members of the unholy trinity—oil, gas and coal.
NAOMI KLEIN: You are a mother of two children. You have written about motherhood and the responsibilities to future generations. When you learned that Exxon had been researching climate change since the 1970s, research that has been described here today as state-of-the-art, did you have a reaction as a mother or as a scientist—up to you—or both?
SANDRA STEINGRABER: I immediately had a reaction as a scientist, because I, myself, was studying climate change and what we then called the greenhouse effect as early as 1977, when I was first introduced to it by my biology professor. So, we, in the scientific community, have known about the reality of climate change for a long time.
As a mother, I know that there’s no bigger threat to my children than the dissolving climate. And the disinformation campaign perpetuated by many, but most notably Exxon, makes it difficult for me to do my job as a mother. I believe that all tasks of parenthood have fallen into one of two categories: We are called upon to plan a future for our children and to keep them safe from harm. And climate change makes that impossible, makes both of those tasks impossible. So, climate change—the climate crisis is really a parenting crisis, which means—which is to say it’s a human rights crisis. And for Exxon to be involved in the disinformation about the science of climate, which we, in biology, have known about since the 1970s, is a strike against parenthood and a strike against human knowledge and scientific progress.
NAOMI KLEIN: Thank you.
ANTONIA JUHASZ: My name is Antonia Juhasz. I’m an oil and energy analyst, the author of three books on the oil industry, and an investigative journalist, including numerous investigations into ExxonMobil.
BILL McKIBBEN: Some of your work has talked about the connection between the oil industry and foreign policy. And would it be safe to say that the oil industry plays an important role in U.S. foreign policy?
ANTONIA JUHASZ: Absolutely, a key and crucial role.
BILL McKIBBEN: At this point, many of the early figures—many of the prominent figures in the war in Iraq, for instance, have said that it was a war for oil. Is that correct?
ANTONIA JUHASZ: Absolutely. We’ve seen over the last several years increasing statements by those who were deeply involved in the processes of the decision to invade Iraq, to make clear that while oil was not the only or sole objective of the war, it was a clear intention and objective of the war. And as I have reported extensively, in that objective, it was exceptionally successful.
BILL McKIBBEN: And did Exxon play some role in this politics?
ANTONIA JUHASZ: ExxonMobil was a major funder of George Bush as well as George Bush’s father. And for those here who aren’t from the United States, George Bush the junior, the longest experience he had working prior to working for the government was working in the oil sector. The only other U.S. president to come out of the oil sector was his father, George Bush Sr. They were heavily supported by Exxon and the oil industry. Bush and Cheney, the oil industry spent more money to get them into office than it had spent on any election previously. And that immediately paid off, so that the oil industry was essentially able to stop lobbying and start legislating directly. And within a week of the Bush White House, Bush taking office, Bush and Cheney taking office—and, of course, Cheney, the former head of Halliburton, one of the largest energy services companies in the world—they started meetings as part of the energy task force, which laid out America and the world’s energy future.
But one of the meetings that took place within the energy task force was, early on—and this is in 2000, early 2000, in the 2000, early 2001—looking at a series of maps and charts that were Iraq’s oil fields and a list that was called “foreign suitors to Iraqi oil.” And this was other companies in other countries that were already in negotiations with Saddam Hussein for his oil fields. And he was in negotiation with these other countries because they were members of the Security Council. And if he could convince them to drop the sanctions, he would essentially let them have access to oil. Well, nobody from those countries was in this room. This was the U.S. and British oil companies, BP and Shell, Exxon, oil guys from within the Bush administration, oil guys from outside of the Bush administration. And they essentially began the process of planning a war. One of the objectives would be to gain access to that oil, which they did. And ExxonMobil was one of the largest beneficiaries of that war, gaining access to the West Qurna oil field in Iraq, one of the largest oil fields in the world. Essentially, a country that was completely shut to Western oil companies prior to the invasion is now the home of Exxon, Chevron, BP, Shell, with Exxon being one of the significantly largest beneficiaries.
BILL McKIBBEN: You’ve heard now a collection of witnesses from every corner of the planet. Perhaps, if it pleases you, a short summation from Counselor Klein and myself before your deliberations. We believe that the testimony makes it very clear that this is some not just run-of-the-mill, usual corporate malfeasance, that this is not just Volkswagen turning back—you know, resetting its exhaust controls. It’s not the sort of thing that we’ve come to expect. Instead, this is a—this is a crime of the first order, and one that has carried the most severe implications for our planet and its future. You have heard eminent scientists explain that because of the delay in action caused by Exxon’s failure to present the truth, we’re going to see increases in the level of the sea. And you’ve heard from people who will be driven from their homes by that rise in the level of the oceans. It’s hard to imagine a set of corporate practices that could have done more damage, and more damage needlessly, since Exxon knew, as we now know, early on, precisely what the problem that we faced was, the crisis that we faced. That crisis has grown over those 25 years. But over those 25 years, Exxon continued to maintain that architecture and ecosystem of denial and deception and disinformation. And for that, we ask for a judgment against Exxon and in favor of the future of this planet.
NAOMI KLEIN: So, we aren’t asking you to put a price on that which is priceless. We have heard stories of lives lost directly because of melting life—melting ice. We have heard stories of ancient cultures threatened because of climate change. We have heard stories of the most reckless and discriminatory disregard for human life and human well-being and human health. It is Exxon’s crime that it believes that money trumps life, trumps everything. So we aren’t going to try to do the same thing. There is no price that can be placed on the Marshall Islands, on Arctic cultures, on the lives of our loved ones, on what we are unable to pass on to our children. But we have a duty to seek justice, and that is what we ask of you in rendering your verdict. Thank you.
PETER SARSGAARD: If examinations by other authorities are able to document the pattern of abuse suggested by today’s testimony, we judge that this will represent one of and perhaps the most remarkable instance of corporate crime in human history. We note that even as we meet delegates from around the world, are assembled in this city trying to work it out, at this late date, some kind of governmental response to climate change—we note, as well, that their efforts continue to be hampered by climate denial and deception. We find the evidence persuasive and compelling that had Exxon 25 years ago merely stated publicly what its scientists already concluded—notably, that climate change was real and perilous and demanded immediate action—then the world would have moved far more quickly and decisively, and extraordinary damage could have been avoided. We add, in our capacity as individual judges, that the burden of proof now rests squarely on this corporation to somehow prove that the documents and memos don’t show what prima facie they seem to demonstrate—namely, a profound disregard for the safety of the planet and its people. We render this verdict unanimously on the 5th of December, 2015, the hottest year yet measured on our Earth.
AMY GOODMAN: That was actor and activist Peter Sarsgaard, part of the tribunal at the Exxon “mock trial,” held in the midst of the U.N. climate summit in Paris, France, just a few weeks ago, the prosecutors, journalist Naomi Klein and Bill McKibben.
A copy of today’s show go to democracynow.org or Democracy NOW!
Oil and Gas Companies Knew in 1970’s that Continuing to Burn Fossil Fuels Would Lead to a Warmer Planet – Kept Results Secret and Paid Others to Show Otherwise
2015, the hottest on record, was also the year ExxonMobil was caught in a more than three-decade lie. Internal documents revealed Exxon knew that fossil fuels cause global warming in the 1970s, but hid that information from the public. Now it turns out nearly every major U.S. and multinational oil and gas company was likely aware of the impact of fossil fuels on climate change at the same time as Exxon.
Listen to full story online at Democracy NOW!
On this last day of the year, 2015 will be remembered as a pivotal one for the environment—the warmest year on record. In only the last few days, we’ve seen an historic storm hurtling toward the North Pole, threatening to warm temperatures by more than 50 degrees above average there, while in South America a massive drought has fueled wildfires across Colombia, which has issued a red alert for more than 80 percent of the country, and at least 24 people have died in Missouri and surrounding states amidst the worst flooding in two decades, while rare tornadoes killed 11 people in Texas over the weekend. And that’s only in the last five days.
The year 2015 ended with the U.N. climate treaty in Paris. It will also be remembered as the year ExxonMobil, one of the corporations with major responsibility for climate change, was caught in a more than three-decade lie. Exposés by the Pulitzer Prize-winning InsideClimate News and the Los Angeles Times revealed how Exxon concealed its own conclusions that fossil fuels cause global warming, alters the climate and melt the Arctic. Exxon knew about climate change as early as 1977. But instead of taking action, the oil giant lied to the public and funded bogus climate denial—paid for by the billions it made from practices it knew were harming the planet.
Now a new investigation reveals that in the oil industry, Exxon was not the only one with something to hide. InsideClimate News reports nearly every major U.S. and multinational oil and gas company was likely aware of the impact of fossil fuels on climate change as early as the late ’70s. From ’79 to ’83, the oil and gas industry trade group American Petroleum Institute ran a task force to monitor and share climate research. The group’s members included senior scientists and engineers from not only Exxon, but also Amoco, Phillips, Mobil, Texaco, Shell, Sunoco, Sohio and Standard Oil of California, as well as Gulf Oil, the predecessor to Chevron. Internal documents show that as early as 1979 the task force knew carbon dioxide in the atmosphere was rising steadily. The task force even briefly considered researching how to introduce a new energy source into the global market, given the research about fossil fuels’ impact on global warming. But in 1983, the task force was disbanded, and by the late ’90s, the American Petroleum Institute had launched a campaign to oppose the Kyoto Protocol, which was adopted by many countries to cut fossil fuel emissions, but was never ratified by the United States.
The Exxon revelations prompted the opening of a criminal probe in New York over whether the oil company lied to the public and its investors. Exxon’s climate deception has also sparked calls for a federal probe similar to the one that led to a racketeering conviction of Big Tobacco for hiding the dangers of smoking. With these new revelations [about] Exxon’s oil industry peers, could more companies be targeted for investigation?
Neela Banerjee is a Washington-based reporter with InsideClimate News. In response to her article: “Exxon’s Oil Industry Peers Knew About Climate Dangers in the 1970s, Too.”, Banerjee answers questions from Amy Goodman of Democracy NOW!:
AMY GOODMAN: Neela, tell us just what you found.
NEELA BANERJEE: We found that as early as 1979, the oil industry—oil companies, through the American Petroleum Institute, wanted to explore the emerging science around rising carbon dioxide in the atmosphere. And we saw this through documents that we found as part of our Exxon research. And through that, we also found the former API employee who was the director of the task force for those four years. He was—the task force was part of a broader air quality effort at API, and he filled out the picture for us, too, and that, you know, they wanted to follow the science, but that some were probably—were already doing their own modeling, though it was not as ambitious as what Exxon was doing at its site.
AMY GOODMAN: Neela, you spoke with James J. Nelson, the former director of the American Petroleum Institute’s task force on climate change, who left API in ’83. He described a shift that was taking place at the time: quote, “[API] took the environmental unit and put it into the political department, which was primarily lobbyists. They weren’t focused on doing research or on improving the oil industry’s impact on pollution. They were less interested in pushing the envelope of science and more interested in how to make it more advantageous politically or economically for the oil industry,” unquote. Expand on that.
NEELA BANERJEE: Right. And, you know, what Mr. Nelson said was that he didn’t have any issue with that. He thought that that was the right tack to take, because at that time, even though it was under the Reagan administration, the power of the EPA and regulators was growing, and so the industry felt that it was not being properly heard. And they were trying to introduce science, they were trying to get research done, they were trying to have their papers published in peer-reviewed journals. And, you know, his viewpoint, and that of the industry, was that they were—that they couldn’t get their voices heard, and they were worried about overregulation. So, rather than having scientists work on a task force and engage with policymakers, the best way to do this was to have lawyers and lobbyists, you know. And that’s how Mr. Nelson helped fill out the picture from the documents we had.
AMY GOODMAN: I want to go to the late ’90s and look at the oil industry’s role in opposing the Kyoto Protocol, which was adopted by many countries to cut fossil fuel emissions, but was never ratified by the United States. A draft action plan circulated by the American Petroleum Institute at the time read, quote, “Unless ‘climate change’ becomes a non-issue, meaning that the Kyoto [Protocol] is defeated and there are no further initiatives to thwart the threat of climate change, there may be no moment when we can declare victory for our efforts,” they said. The American Petroleum Institute was part of a lobbying group called the Global Climate Coalition, which included Exxon and other companies. As you write in your article, Neela Banerjee, a 2001 briefing memo quotes a top State Department official thanking the GCC because Bush, quote, “rejected the Kyoto Protocol in part, based on input from you.” Explain what this memo said.
NEELA BANERJEE: This memo talked about how to influence the public—and, I think, policymakers and scientists, as well—about climate change. The interesting thing about the Global Climate Coalition, which was formed in 1989, so about a decade before this memo came out around 1998, is that they didn’t hew to a lot of the theories that climate deniers back, so, for example, that it’s sunspots or volcanoes or natural cycles. They just kept saying the science is uncertain, and it’s too uncertain to warrant drastic action on the kinds of energy we use, and economic—you know, economic ruptures because of that. So, they kept hammering away at the uncertainty, and then they came up with this communications plan to do the same. And, you know, the point that they were making, that this was unwarranted, that the science was uncertain, that we shouldn’t ratify Kyoto, I mean, it worked. It wasn’t just the GCC. I mean, there were policymakers who believed this, too. But, you know, we did not sign onto the Kyoto Protocol—or we didn’t ratify it, rather. And then, during the Bush administration, some of the key people involved in the Global Climate Coalition went on to administrative posts, top administrative posts, and worked to—some of them worked to censor science on climate change.
AMY GOODMAN: I want to turn to a clip from 1996, when then-Exxon CEO Lee Raymond spoke about global warming. He was also chair of the American Petroleum Institute from ’96 to ’97.
NEELA BANERJEE: Yes.
LEE RAYMOND: Proponents of the global warming theory say that higher levels of greenhouse gases are causing world temperatures to rise and that burning fossil fuels is the reason. But scientific evidence remains inconclusive as to whether human activities affect the global climate. … Many scientists agree there’s ample time to better understand climate systems and consider policy options, so there’s simply no reason to take drastic action now.
AMY GOODMAN: That was Lee Raymond, chair of the American Petroleum Institute, that excerpt from a PBS Frontline documentary. Talk about the significance, Neela, of what he’s saying and what he actually knew.
NEELA BANERJEE: Right. So, Mr. Raymond encapsulates the talking points and the strategy of the fossil fuel industry then, and that is that the science is too uncertain to warrant drastic steps to cut emissions from fossil fuels. Now, this is at a time when the science was growing more certain, and this is, you know, nearly 20 years after Exxon’s top management was told by its scientists that CO2 levels were rising, that they could drive climate change, and that the main—you know, that the main driver of higher CO2 levels was the use of fossil fuels. So, Mr. Raymond was not part of that group in 1977 that heard that, but later on, you know, scientists at Exxon continued to tell top management about CO2 and the link to fossil fuels through the ’80s, and from what we saw in the documents and the people we spoke to, Mr. Raymond was briefed on that. Now, whether he chose to believe that, why he chose to believe it or not, you know, I can’t—I can’t tell you. But we’re pretty certain he was at least exposed to the science and told about these connections by Exxon scientists.
AMY GOODMAN: Neela, can you talk about the impact of your first huge exposé about what Exxon knew, when it knew it and what it covered up, how Exxon has responded, right up to challenging the president of Columbia University, because Columbia journalism students were involved in the investigation?
NEELA BANERJEE: Well, Exxon has said, very broadly, that the reporting is inaccurate, that we’re cherry-picking, and that they’ve never stopped doing climate research. And the issue—their talking points basically don’t address the main thrust of our stories and the stories done by Columbia Graduate School of Journalism that were published in the Los Angeles Times. None of us said that Exxon stopped doing climate research—they did not. And Exxon, yes, continued to do climate research. What Exxon has not really responded to is why, despite the research that it did through the ’70s and ’80s, and really continued doing, though on a much less ambitious scale, through the ’90s, that they took a policy position that cast enormous doubt on climate science. The closest they’ve come to responding to that is to say, “Well, you know, our policy positions and what our scientists do are different things,” which—you know, which is interesting. It makes you wonder, you know, how much science informs other decisions that they take. So that’s been the Exxon position.
They also went after the reporters at Columbia Graduate School of Journalism. They wrote to Columbia University and, you know, reminded Columbia about how much money they give Columbia, and said that what the Columbia journalism school project did was entirely irresponsible. Columbia responded and said—and basically, you know, they have a lot of emails and so on to show that Exxon’s assertions could not be backed up.
With us, as I’ve said, they’ve said very general things, but they can’t point—they’ve never challenged the authenticity of the documents that we’ve shared. And we digitized more than two dozen documents, so that people can see that we’re not cherry-picking. They can read the documents themselves. Exxon actually downloaded them and then uploaded them onto their website, so you can see our documents on Exxon’s website and ours. And they’ve never pointed out how we might be misinterpreting the documents in any specific way. So, it’s been a general response.
And as you’ve mentioned, you know, there’s been a response by lawmakers to launch investigations, and there’s been a subpoena that’s been issued for documents by the New York state attorney general. We don’t think that Exxon has delivered the documents yet. And, you know, we surmise that Exxon will probably fight this for as long as they can, because that’s been their strategy in other conflicts with prosecutors.
Media Reports The World Will Enter A ‘Mini Ice Age’ In The 2030s; Actually, It’s the Reverse That’s the Real Truth!
U.K. tabloids, conservative media, and others are (mis)reporting that the Earth will enter a “mini ice age” in the 2030s. In fact, not only is the story wrong, the reverse is actually true.
The Earth is headed toward an imminent speed-up in global warming, as many recent studies have made clear, like this June study by NOAA. Indeed, a March study, entitled “Near-term acceleration in the rate of temperature change,” makes clear that a stunning acceleration in the rate of global warming is around the corner — with Arctic warming rising 1°F per decade by the 2020s!
Also, right now, we appear to be in the midst of a long-awaited jump in global temperatures. Not only was 2014 the hottest year on record, but 2015 is in the process of blowing that record away. On top of that, models say a massive El Niño is growing, as USA Today reported last week. Since El Niños tend to set the record for the hottest years (since the regional warming adds to the underlying global warming trend), if 2015/2016 does see a super El Niño then next year may well crush the record this year sets.
Whatever near-term jump we see in the global temperatures is thus likely to be followed by an accelerating global warming trend — one that would utterly overwhelm any natural variations such as a temporary reduction in solar intensity. A recent study concluded that “any reduction in global mean near-surface temperature due to a future decline in solar activity is likely to be a small fraction of projected anthropogenic warming.”
That’s true even for one as big as the Maunder Minimum, which was linked to the so-called Little Ice Age.
The “Little Ice Age” is a term used to cover what appears to have been two or three periods of modest cooling in the northern hemisphere between 1550 and 1850.
I know you are shocked, shocked to learn that unreliable climate stories appear in U.K. tabloids, the conservative media, and those who cite them without actually talking to leading climate scientists. Often there is a half truth underlying such stories, but in this case it is more like a nano-truth.
Last week, in Llandudno, north Wales, the Royal Astronomical Society (RAS) held Cyfarfod Seryddiaeth Cenedlaethol 2015 — the “National Astronomy Meeting 2015″ (in case you don’t speak Welsh). An RAS news release had this startling headline, “Irregular Heartbeat Of The Sun Driven By Double Dynamo.”
Okay, that wasn’t the startling part. This was: “Predictions from the model suggest that solar activity will fall by 60 per cent during the 2030s to conditions last seen during the ‘mini ice age’ that began in 1645.”
Ah, but the word choice was confusing. We’re not going to have temperature “conditions” last seen during the Little Ice Age. If this one study does turn out to be right, we’d see solar conditions equivalent to the Maunder Minimum in the 2030s.
This won’t cause the world to enter a mini ice age — for three reasons:
The Little Ice Age turns out to have been quite little.
What cooling there was probably was driven more by volcanoes than the Maunder Minimum.
The warming effect from global greenhouse gases will overwhelm any reduction in solar forcing, even more so by the 2030s.
So how little was the Little Ice Age?
The most comprehensive reconstruction of the temperature of the past 2000 years done so far, the “PAGES 2k project,” concluded that “there were no globally synchronous multi-decadal hot or cold intervals that define a worldwide Medieval Warm Period or Little Ice Age.”
Green dots show the 30-year average of the new PAGES 2k reconstruction. The red curve shows the global mean temperature, according HadCRUT4 data from 1850 onwards. In blue is the original hockey stick of Mann, Bradley and Hughes (1999 ) with its uncertainty range (light blue). Graph by Klaus Bitterman.
The Little Ice Age was little in duration and in geographic extent. It was an “Age” the way Pluto is a planet.
Writing on Climate Progress, climatologist Stefan Rahmstorf noted the researchers “identify some shorter intervals where extremely cold conditions coincide with major volcanic eruptions and/or solar minima (as already known from previous studies).”
That brings us to the second point: The latest research finds that what short-term cooling there was during the Little Ice Age was mostly due to volcanoes, not the solar minimum. As “Scientific American” explained in its 2012 piece on the LIA, “New simulations show that several large, closely spaced eruptions (and not decreased solar radiation) could have cooled the Northern Hemisphere enough to spark sea-ice growth and a subsequent feedback loop.” The period associated with the LIA “coincide with two of the most volcanically active half centuries in the past millennium, according to the researchers.”
The cooling effect from the drop in solar activity during even a Maunder Minimum is quite modest. Environmental scientist Dana Nuccitelli discussed the literature underscoring that point in a U.K. Guardian post from the summer of 2013, the last time the “Maunder Minimum” issue popped up.
That brings us to the third point: Whatever cooling the Little Ice Age saw as result of the Maunder Minimum, it pales in comparison to the warming we are already experiencing — let alone the accelerated warming projected by multiple studies. That’s clear even in Pages 2k reconstruction above.
Just last month “Nature Communications” published a study called, “Regional climate impacts of a possible future grand solar minimum.” This found that, “any reduction in global mean near-surface temperature due to a future decline in solar activity is likely to be a small fraction of projected anthropogenic warming.” As with the Little Ice Age, any significant effects are likely to be regional in nature — and, of course, temporary, since a grand solar minimum typically lasts only decades.
So, no, the Daily Mail is quite wrong when it trumpets, “Scientists warn the sun will ‘go to sleep’ in 2030 and could cause temperatures to plummet.”
In actuality, what is going to happen in the business-as-usual emissions scenario (RCP8.5) is closer to “rate of change” of warming.
Original story by Joe Romm on Climate Progress
The WordPress.com stats helper monkeys prepared a 2014 annual report for this blog.
Here’s an excerpt:
A San Francisco cable car holds 60 people. This blog was viewed about 1,600 times in 2014. If it were a cable car, it would take about 27 trips to carry that many people.
Article that received most views: “Homeless Children in the United States” (Nov. 2014)