The Arab Spring And Climate Change

Anne-Marie Slaughter, Caitlin Werrell, and Francesco Femia have released The Arab Spring and Climate Change, but they stop short of saying that drought in the region and climate events elsewhere caused the Arab Spring:

“The Arab Spring and Climate Change” does not argue that climate change caused the revolutions that have shaken the Arab world over the past two years. But the essays collected in this slim volume make a compelling case that the consequences of climate change are stressors that can ignite a volatile mix of underlying causes that erupt into revolution.

This is a giant hedge, and when examined closely, as is the case in the collected essays, the evidence for a causal linkage is pretty solid.

All of these authors [the contributors to the report] are admirably cautious in acknowledging the complexity of the events they are analyzing and the difficulty of drawing precise causal arrows. But consider the following statements:

• “A once-in-a-century winter drought in China contributed to global wheat shortages and skyrocketing bread prices in Egypt, the world’s largest wheat importer.” (Sternberg, p. 7)
• “Of the world’s major wheat-importing companies per capita, “the top nine importers are all in the Middle East; seven had political protests resulting in civilian deaths in 2011.” (Sternberg, p. 12)
• “The world is entering a period of ‘agflation,’ or inflation driven by rising prices for agricultural commodities.” (Johnstone and Mazo, p. 21)
• “Drought and desertification across much of the Sahel—northern Nigeria, for example, is losing 1,350 square miles a year to desertification—have undermined agricultural and pastoral livelihoods,” contributing  to urbanization and massive flows of migrants. (Werz and Hoffman, p. 37)
• “As the region’s population continues to climb, water availability per capita is projected to plummet. … Rapid urban expansion across the Arab world increasingly risks overburdening existing infrastructure and outpacing local capacities to expand service.” (Michel and Yacoubian, p. 45)
• “We have reached the point where a regional climate event can have a global extent.” (Sternberg, p. 10)

In September 2011, I wrote here, 

Youthful hope may soon change into embittered and obdurate anger, unless structural changes in the economy take place, not just a series of political coups unseating pharaonic despots.The Arab Spring has been mythologized into a renaissance of suppressed people, catalyzed by the agency of social media. An uplifting passion play, suitable for several upcoming major motion pictures, I am sure. But for those that are looking closely into the drivers of the unrest there, you will find deep unemployment caused by rising food prices tied to long-term drought in the entire region and food production problems elsewhere. The transition of power that will follow won’t turn Libya and Egypt into Spain and Portugal, after the fall of their fascist regimes. Tunis and Cairo won’t morph into Westernism with something like parliamentary democracies, closely integrated into a neoliberal world, the way that Madrid and Lisbon managed to do. So I suggest that the heated rhetoric about those countries be cooled for a bit, until we can see the shape of what emerges. Most importantly, the drought, high food prices, and endemic unemployment and lack of opportunity for the youth of the Arab world has not been banished with Mubarak and Gaddafi. They will be with us for a long time to come. And youthful hope may soon change into embittered and obdurate anger, unless structural changes in the economy take place, not just a series of political coups unseating pharaonic despots.

It’s increasingly clear that the drought is continuing, perhaps even worsening, and climate-related agriculture problems in other places — like the worsening droughts in the US and China — are leading to a rise in food prices worldwide, which will continue food price pressures in the Arab world and elsewhere.

3 March 2013 6 Permalink

Getting Social Media Wrong By Asymmetry

Today, I got another mail from one of the many progressive political organizations trying to rally support for President Obama’s campaign. And I really do support the president. But these guys just get it all wrong. They are mass marketing in a social medium, using a bullhorn to hammer their messages to their ‘audience’, and blocking the affordances that are possible in even as bad as a medium as email.

The mail was ostensibly from Amy Faulring, from MoveOn.org Political Action: at least here name appeared in the from line and signature. It was a poll, asking to what degree would I be likely to participate in ‘Save Medicare’ parties:

This fall, we need to build a massive army of volunteers to re-elect President Obama. So, thousands of MoveOn members will gather around the country at “Save Medicare” parties to watch a short video that details Mitt Romney and Paul Ryan’s plan to dismantle the Medicare system and share our motivations for getting involved in this election. Then, we’ll make calls to other MoveOn members in battleground states and ask them to volunteer where it counts the most.

I am not sure I agree with the baseline thinking: forming volunteers into a massive army, and making phone calls. I wanted to suggest that Amy and Co. consider some more online activities, and trying to leverage the networks of connected folks online. So I thought I’d just reply to Amy and suggest something like that, especially since it says in the email ‘your input is extremely valuable’.

So I replied, even though the return email address was moveon-help@list.moveon.org. I put in a PS:

PS I am am leery of an email supposedly sent by a specific person but the email address is moveon-help@list.moveon.org.

MoveOn.org, despite its charter (which I support), is treating me as a nameless, faceless demographic unit in a sea of progressive voters. Which is a failure, and an indication that the old political system is still with us, even in the so-called progressive side of politics. They are progressive in terms of their policy positions, but they are old school, mass media types in their operations and worldview.

My worry was correct. I got a bounce message from the listserv saying that they were a very busy organization, and couldn’t possibly respond to all the emails, and here’s links to change address, unsubscribe, and so on.

This is social media failure by asymmetry, which is a comment issue when organizations use email. In a social context, equality between the parties means that communication must be two way. Otherwise the organization is using mass media, pushing messages, and providing no social context. 

And MoveOn.org, despite its charter (which I support), is treating me as a nameless, faceless demographic unit in a sea of progressive voters. Which is a failure, and an indication that the old political system is still with us, even in the so-called progressive side of politics. They are progressive in terms of their policy positions, but they are old school, mass media types in their operations and worldview. 

But the progressives won’t adopt modern techniques of organizing, based on social networks.  They instead press on with the apparatus of mass media, because they think top down. Yes, they gave me a Likert option range — was I very likely, somewhat likely, not sure, not very likely, not likely at all to attend the meetings — but aside from that mechanistic involvement in their poll, there was no way to connect.

By thinking of us as an army, instead of a village, they have failed the social test. An army takes orders, is controlled from on high, and moves in unison based on tightly orchestrated strategy. They see themselves as the officers, and us as the grunts. But we’re not that, and we really shouldn’t even try to be.

I tweeted them, but we’ll see. 

31 August 2012 10 Permalink