34 years ago today, Thomas Sankara, the revolutionary leader of Burkina Faso, was assassinated in a French-backed coup. He aspired to an egalitarian, feminist society, and an economy built on self-sufficiency, ecological regeneration, and independence from Western powers.
Today, Sankara's legacy is inspiring a new generation of revolutionary thinkers and activists across the continent and beyond. As Sankara himself put it, with uncanny prescience, “You can assassinate revolutionaries, but you cannot kill ideas”.
As debt crises mount across Africa, his ideas are more vital now than ever. Here's a little bit of background on Sankara's legacy, from The Divide:
Sankara knew his assassination was coming. Speaking to African leaders at the OAU, he said "I would like this conference to clearly declare that we will not repay the debt; we must do it together, to avoid being assassinated individually..."
"Let's create a united front against the debt. And let's stop competing with each other. Our lands are rich. We have plenty of manpower, and a large market. Let the African market belong to Africans. Let's manufacture in Africa and consume in Africa..."
"...Let's produce what we need and consume what we produce, instead of importing goods. I, along with my delegation, we are dressed by our weavers, with cotton from our farmers. Not a single thread comes from Europe or America. This is how you live with freedom and dignity."
Sankara's ideas electrified the continent, and Western powers sought desperately to crush him. He was riddled with bullets, dismembered, and buried in an unmarked grave. This year, finally, his murderers are facing trial: aljazeera.com/news/2021/10/1…
In honour of Sankara, today @AfricansRising launched #JubileeForClimate, calling for debt cancellation so that global South countries can use their resources to achieve human development and ecological transition rather than to service Northern capital accumulation.
• • •
Missing some Tweet in this thread? You can try to
force a refresh
Most people don't realize this, but the majority of high-income nations have already significantly exceeded their fair share of the carbon budget for 2 degrees. Their "zero by 2050" targets are therefore wildly inadequate. Here are the biggest overshooters:
This chart is based on emissions data from 1850 to 2015, with consumption-based emissions from 1970 onward. We used the same approach as in this paper, but with a budget for 2 degrees rather than for 350ppm. thelancet.com/journals/lanpl…
In order to represent any modicum of fairness or justice, rich nations must reach zero as soon as is humanly possible, including by scaling down unnecessary forms of production so decarbonization can be accomplished more quickly.
The global North is responsible for 92% of emissions in excess of the planetary boundary, while the global South bears the brunt of the destruction.
Climate breakdown is a process of atmospheric colonization, and is playing out along colonial lines. thelancet.com/journals/lanpl…
It's important to note, also, that excess emissions in rich countries are being caused disproportionately by rich individuals, and by an economic system that is focused on capital accumulation rather than on human needs.
For those asking about China: China was still within its fair share of the 350ppm boundary as of 2015 (the last year of data represented here), but has probably recently overshot it. I address this question in the paper.
What are the drivers of progress in social indicators? Does it emerge spontaneously from the forces of capital accumulation, or is it won by progressive social movements? Three classic studies from the '80s and '90s reveal interesting results:
In 1981, Amartya Sen demonstrated that among developing countries, socialist societies tended to perform better in terms of social outcomes than capitalist ones. “One thought that is bound to occur is that communism is good for poverty removal,” he wrote. pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/12339005/
Sen found that this fact holds even when you correct for GDP. In other words, socialist policy delivers better social outcomes at any given level of GDP - a powerful finding.
The statue of Columbus in Barcelona is an abomination and it should be taken down. Colonization, genocide, mass enslavement and white supremacy—that's what Columbus stands for, and no decent city should tolerate him celebrated so prominently in their midst.
Barcelona's mayor @AdaColau needs to stop dithering and act on this. Her position—leave it up but install a critical placard at the base—is not good enough. Yes, put a placard, but first bring the statue down. Put it in a museum.
Colau argues that keeping the statue is important for historical consciousness, so we do not forget the crimes of the past. But you can have such consciousness without placing genocidaires on public pedestals. Just ask Germany.
I am proud to join thousands of other scientists calling for a binding Fossil Fuel Non-Proliferation Treaty that will end new expansion and phase out existing production in a fair and just way. If you support this call, please sign on here and share: fossilfueltreaty.org/open-letter
To stay under 1.5C, we need to cut fossil fuel production by an average of at least 6% per year between 2020-2030, and rich countries need to lead on this.
To put this in clearer terms, total fossil fuel production and use needs to be cut in half in the course of this decade. That's the reality. And right now our governments' policy commitments are nowhere near that trajectory. It's not even on the agenda.
Here is a brief response to Noah Smith's recent article on degrowth. Most of the claims have already been dealt with in the published literature, and others I agree with, so there's not much interesting to say. But a few thoughts:
Smith relies heavily on McAfee's claims about the US "decoupling" GDP from resource use. Unfortunately the data he uses does not account for resources involved in offshored production. This is a significant empirical error that I have addressed here: foreignpolicy.com/2020/06/18/mor…
When we account for this, as the Material Footprint indicator does, the US economy is not absolutely decoupling GDP from resource use (not just the world as a whole). So too with other rich economies. This point is well established in the literature: pnas.org/content/112/20…