Interview with Whitney Black of the YES MEN

The Yes Men are a performance art slash activist group who use media infiltration and impersonation techniques to get their message out. They take on environmental issues, and shed light on the absurdities of the concept of good corporate citizenship. Eugene Martin of We Are Change North Bay and myself were privileged to interview Whitney Black of The Yes Men shortly after their spoof of our government’s environmental policies at Copenhagen caused an international sensation and deeply embarrassed our government. Early in the Copehagen Climate conference, The Yes Men held a fake news conference pretending to be Canadian officials and announced that they intended to cut greenhouse gas emissions to the levels being asked for by environmentalists. Given Canada’s status as a an egregious climate change offender, this announcement was greeted with great enthusiasm worldwide. Our government then had to announce, that the press conference was a hoax, and that Canada intended to stonewall the climate talks. Our government was made a mockery of on the international stage. Now, our Prime Minister is by the tar sands, of the tar sands, and for the tar sands, and therefore deserves to get tarred and feathered at a climate change conference. And when the Yes Men do it, it is always hilarious. However, I was curious as to why someone from the most blood thirsty and oil thirsty country in the world would waste time on a relatively minor offender in Canada. Following is an excerpt…

Tony Loeffen: Whitney, I’d just like to say thank you on behalf of all embarrassed Canadians because we have just had our Prime Minister go to Copenhagen not representing our wishes as a nation, with respect to climate change. You were able to make our Prime Minister wear a clown suit for a bit there, and we appreciate that.

Whitney Black: OK good!!

Eugene Martin: What made you pick Canada?

WB: We didn’t actually pick Canada. A couple of weeks before the conference, some Canadian activists approached us about it. They said that they were embarrassed by their government, and we like what the Yes Men do, and were wondering if we would help them.

TL: With Canada’s position on climate change… our Prime Minister went to Copenhagen very reluctantly as did your President. Our PM showed up a few days in advance of Obama and said whatever Obama will sign, I’ll sign. What was Obama’s negotiating position on climate change?

WB: All the countries except for our two, were trying to set goals based on 1990 levels. The U.S. And Canada want to erase that and set the baseline according to 2006 or 2005 levels. Our pledge was about 17% reduction from 2006 levels, which is pretty crappy.

TL: With your declining industrial output, you should have no problem reaching that right? Plus with all the foreclosures happening, and those houses standing empty, well, there are fewer buildings to heat and air condition now.

WB: Ya, but coal is starting to become popular right now unfortunately. We’d rather have alternative energy…

TL: Obama is championing the clean coal movement too. That’s awesome.

WB: We’re hoping that some changes will be made. It is at least hopeful that something is happening. But…

TL: In terms of the world’s perception, Canada is undoubtedly the bad guy. Our tar sands are an atrocity. It’s our single biggest source of carbon emissions. But, climate change is now causing climate change now too eh? Clearly Canada has a lot of northern area, and our tundra is now thawing and releasing methane gas…

WB: You’re talking about feedback. That’s the big thing right now, is the feedback, it’s not just the carbon emissions which are obviously the main cause, but now we have feedback effects. The melting of tundra releasing methane gas, which is a much worse greenhouse gas than carbon dioxide. When more methane gas is released, the more it warms, and then more melting is caused which causes more methane to be released and on and on. The other feedback effect is way farther north in the arctic.White is very reflective, so all the snow and ice up there reflects a lot of light. The ice is melting which means less ice which means less reflection which means more of the sun’s rays are being trapped which means more heat and more melting.

TL: Have you heard of the pine beetle? Well, all of our forests in B.C., are being decimated by the pine beetle.

WB: And they’re moving northward because they like warmer temperatures don’t they?

TL: They can be killed, but you need a sustained amount of time with very low temperatures before these pine beetles will die off. So as global warming increases, the pine beetle can survive unchecked in more northerly climates. So, the whole forest in B.C. is getting wiped out by these bugs. As he forests die, the carbon trapped in the trees is being released into the environment. We got the tar sands, our forests are dying due to the pine beetle infestation, the arctic ice cap is melting therefore there is less reflection from the white surface and our tundra is melting releasing methane gas. We have a strong positive feedback loop, and I imagine on the other side of the globe, Russia must have the same conditions.

WB: Ya, they do.

TL: Then all countries go to a place like Copenhagen and start debating on who’s doing what. For example, the single biggest institutional polluter is the American military. If your jets fly to Afghanistan to bomb some villages, those machines are emitting carbon dioxide. Does that get counted against Afghanistan’s emissions, or do you guys take credit for that?

WB: That I don’t know.

TL: It’s important, because you guys are in a hundred countries with your military.

WB: That’s another one of the problems. They need to have a set way of determining emissions and accounting for that. That was one of the problems with the Kyoto protocol, they set goals, but there was no standard for measurement. That’s really confusing. If our tanks are over in Afghanistan, or if someone is on an international flight, where does the carbon get counted?

TL: What if one of your fighters takes off in Saudi Arabia, then flies over and drops some bombs on a wedding in Afghanistan, then it flies back to Saudi Arabia. There are three countries involved. Who takes credit for those greenhouse gas emissions?

WB: It’s a mess…

TL: This seems to be an issue that the Yes Men have really embraced. Even your survival balls are a response to climate change.

WB: Yes, the survival balls are the original climate change solution proposed by the Yes Men.

TL: Can you fit them with anti-aircraft missiles?

WB: Oh ya, we can outfit them with whatever you think you might need. They have all kinds of weapons to protect you from climate change. .

TL: Obviously, where I’m coming from, I’m saying that it is too late to do anything about climate change because of positive feedback loops. In Canada we need survival balls. Especially so we can survive the pies in the face our country is getting. Actually, I think we should have sent Stephen Harper to Copenhagen in a survival ball.

WB: Ya, Stephen Harper is going to need a survival ball with his attitude about climate change.

TL: That might be a great fund-raising idea for We Are Change North Bay, we could get together and purchase a survival ball to send to our Prime Minister.

WB: I’m sure he would love that.

EM: There is some debate that climate change might be used for profiteering. With cap and trade, people like Al Gore stand to profit from this whole carbon deal. Do you have a position on that?

WB: I think a lot of that is propaganda that is put out by denialist groups. I’ve had people approach me and say, “climate change, isn’t that something that developing countries are using to get rich?” And I’m like…. aaaaaahhhh… well, there is a debate as to which one is better a carbon tax or cap and trade but…

TL: As long as it boils down that the polluters are being charged…

WB: This is not a get rich quick scheme,…

TL: Did you follow our last election here? Our Liberal party, which 60% of the time forms the government here, ran on a carbon tax, and got wiped out…

WB: Ya, a carbon tax is more progressive than cap and trade. Let’s face it, America is one of the worst informed countries on this issue. When Obama got up to make a speech at Copenhagen, and I mean… heeeelllllooooo…he had to state that climate change is real while the other countries are laughing at him. None of the other countries are still debating this.

TL: Every time Obama says something like climate change is real, he is allowing the debate to be framed around whether or not climate change is real.

WB: Exactly, it’s idiotic.

TL: He is not saying that for the benefit of your citizens. He is helping establish parameters of the debate. As soon as he says that climate change is real, he is bringing the deniers back into it. I mean jeez, that’s a step backwards. At least he was lucky to have Stephen Harper to run interference for him. There are two bad guys, and the world was basically looking at one bad guy the whole time. Obama comes up with a signed agreement that has vague goals and is not legally binding, and people treat him like a champion. I’m no fan of our Prime Minister but he gets pie in the face while running interference for a media darling.

WB: Ya, we were not very happy with Obama, he lost some points there. I like Obama and I voted for him… but … come on…

TL: He can be a champion at Copenhagen for producing vapour, and he can win a Nobel Peace Prize for escalating wars.

WB: Ya, and there is the spin too. I talk to people who say, but think of it this way, we got all the leaders in one spot talking about this issue. I’m like … “really? That’s the only thing we have to congratulate ourselves on? That we got together in one space?

TL: Especially with such a time sensitive issue such as this.

WB: We’re literally running out of time.

TL: Look at it this way, the way things are going, you guys may wind up richer than Al Gore by selling survival balls.

WB: Hahahaa….

TL: In terms of fund-raising and the Yes Men’s future viability, I suppose the climate is a little more complicated for progressives now that Obama is in the White House, because when Bush was President, you guys had an easy target.

WB: Ya, everybody loves to dump on Bush.

TL: Now your President is a warm fuzzy version of Bush, and it is harder to get on him because he is so wildly popular.

WB: Well, he’s half wildly popular … because half the country voted for him, and the other half is afraid of him because they think he is a terrorist and not even an American citizen.

TL: But your target market, which is progressives, love him.

WB: Progressives love him because they think he is some kind of messiah that has come to bring us out of craziness. I voted for Obama, and I hope he will bring change…

TL: Change you can believe in !!! When the choice is between Obama and Satan, even I’d take Obama. But, at the primary level, when you had Obama, Clinton, Kucinich, Biden, etc., would you have endorsed Obama when you had those choices?

WB: Way back when, personally, it seems like Kucinich, and Edwards were OK…. I mean you can be a great orator, and make all kinds of promises, but what is the difference between him and the kid running for class president who promises to make lunch longer and have more recesses.

TL: Myself, I would have chosen Kucinich first, then Edwards, and if I had to choose a viable candidate, it would have been Clinton. Obama was last on my list because he is clearly a Republican who was speaking like a Democrat. Once the progressive media got behind Obama, it was over. Now, The Yes Men have to make money to sustain their activities right?

WB: We have to make money to sustain our activities, but for a lot of us, this isn’t our full time job. This is something that we are passionate about, but some of us have full time jobs.

TL: Right now, the massive majority of progressives are behind Obama. I’m sure that will change, because even if you can’t smell the coffee, when it gets dumped in your lap, you’re sure as hell going to wake up. I’m just wondering at this time, if you guys take on anything Obama related, will your funding dry up? Will people react against you? With our Prime Minister and your President being equally as guilty on climate change, our Prime Minister gets targeted while Obama gets a free pass because you don’t want to piss off progressives in your own country?

WB: We’re always going to piss off somebody. We don’t choose our actions because we are going to piss off one person instead of the other.

TL: Your choice of targets is completely divorced from your fund-raising opportunities?

WB: Ya.

TL: Good, that’s what we like to hear.

EM: Absolutely.

WB: Funding has nothing to do with who we pick.

TL: Where do you guys stand on the wars. Obviously we have atmosphere issues, and we have issues of mass slaughter. Do you guys plan on taking on Obama’s wars? Are they on your radar?

WB: It’s on our radar, it is just a question of what opportunities come along. It isn’t a formula, we don’t sit and plot what we need to get next. It’s on the radar, but how, or it, or when? I have no idea.