Chile Rewrites Its Constitution, Confronting Climate Change Head On (nytimes.com) 100
Rarely does a country get a chance to lay out its ideals as a nation and write a new constitution for itself. Almost never does the climate and ecological crisis play a central role. That is, until now, in Chile, where a national reinvention is underway. The New York Times: After months of protests over social and environmental grievances, 155 Chileans have been elected to write a new constitution amid what they have declared a "climate and ecological emergency." Their work will not only shape how this country of 19 million is governed. It will also determine the future of a soft, lustrous metal, lithium, lurking in the salt waters beneath this vast ethereal desert beside the Andes Mountains. Lithium is an essential component of batteries. And as the global economy seeks alternatives to fossil fuels to slow down climate change, lithium demand -- and prices -- are soaring.
Mining companies in Chile, the world's second-largest lithium producer after Australia, are keen to increase production, as are politicians who see mining as crucial to national prosperity. They face mounting opposition, though, from Chileans who argue that the country's very economic model, based on extraction of natural resources, has exacted too high an environmental cost and failed to spread the benefits to all citizens, including its Indigenous people. And so, it falls to the Constitutional Convention to decide what kind of country Chile wants to be. Convention members will decide many things, including: How should mining be regulated, and what voice should local communities have over mining? Should Chile retain a presidential system? Should nature have rights? How about future generations?
Mining companies in Chile, the world's second-largest lithium producer after Australia, are keen to increase production, as are politicians who see mining as crucial to national prosperity. They face mounting opposition, though, from Chileans who argue that the country's very economic model, based on extraction of natural resources, has exacted too high an environmental cost and failed to spread the benefits to all citizens, including its Indigenous people. And so, it falls to the Constitutional Convention to decide what kind of country Chile wants to be. Convention members will decide many things, including: How should mining be regulated, and what voice should local communities have over mining? Should Chile retain a presidential system? Should nature have rights? How about future generations?
Re: (Score:2)
Re:Some in the US would like to as well (Score:5, Funny)
Re: (Score:2)
Yes, for example "some people are more equal".
</sarc>
Re: (Score:1)
If only there were a process to amend it as needed...
Having once, very long ago, been involved in some poitics surrounding modifying a state constitution, let me assure you that if the possibility to amend the US constitution comes up, 90% of the discussion will be about
a: introducing an amendment to ban abortion
b: introducing verbiage stating that none of the other clauses in the constitution are to be interpreted as giving a right to abortion.
Re:Some in the US would like to as well (Score:5, Insightful)
I shudder at the thought.
There's a lot of monied interests in the US, as well as a major political party that believes if they lose an election, it must have been fraudulent.
I don't trust a constitutional rewrite at this point in time. I'd rather continue with our old, confusing document that we've worked around with multiple legal fictions.
Yes, it is far from perfect. But we've recently dealt with one hell of a constitutional crisis, and the people in power handled it horribly. Do we want the many of the same people to be the ones who rewrite the constitution?
Re: (Score:2)
Hello parallel universe traveler.
So, who else in your parallel existence contested 2016 election in the US, except Mr. Trump (who contests any election involving him even before the ballots are cast).
Re: (Score:2)
Hello parallel universe traveler. So, who else in your parallel existence contested 2016 election in the US, except Mr. Trump (who contests any election involving him even before the ballots are cast).
I guess you were asleep for 4 years while the Left whined and said that Trump had stolen the election, somehow ... well, if not this way, then that way ... er, Russian facebook ads or something ... er ...
Re: (Score:2)
Hello parallel universe traveler,
I would be very curious to see any evidence from your dimension about a democrat claiming that the 2016 election wasn't legitimate (not that it was influenced, but that it was illegitimate), because in our dimension, Ms. Clinton congratulated the new president (shortly after counting was done), and the former president passed all the power as is written in the US constitution without any problems - not so as it was in 2020. In 2016 nobody stormed and burglarized the Capitol
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
We desperately need a Constitution that makes our democracy representative. A lot of the reason for social unrest and corruption is that the Republicans at the national level (and the Democrats in many states) can elect clearly unfit or corrupt candidates because rural power is so ridiculously overrepresented in this country. I'm not talking just about the weirdos that every party has, but about people like Duncan Hunter who actually won an election in 2018 when everyone knew he misappropriated funds. In 20
Re: (Score:3)
You're stuck in a chicken and egg scenario. Your constitution lays out how the government works, and percisely that has allowed corporate / fraudlant (as in frauds claiming election fraud exists, not the election itself) interests to take over.
How do you get out of that cycle?
Re: (Score:1)
There are many common sense changes that could be made to the US Constitution that would benefit almost every American:
1) The right to health care, including reproductive health care
2) The right to food, housing, and basic utilities
3) Elimination of the second amendment altogether
4) Elimination of statehood and municipality, making one American state. In an age of instant data, there's no need to have multiple layers of government anymore
5) Capping military spending as a small % of GDP, as there are no real
Re: (Score:3)
Shocking news: you lost the fucking Civil War. Get over it.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:1, Insightful)
Nothing that REQUIRES the labor of others is a basic human right.
"These changes would make America a much better place, but sadly could never happen because the Constitution was written specifically to keep the wealthy in power."
California is already doing much of this plus the highest taxes in the nation. The result is a major crime surge, crazies living and pooping in the streets, people and businesses clamoring to leave the state.
Versions of such a constitution have been tried (Score:2)
and they tend to end up with strong restrictions on emigration?
Re: (Score:2)
Do you mean immigration? I know that soviet bloc countries tried to restrict emigration but were fine with immigration.
Re: (Score:1)
I lived there then and can tell you, there was absolutely no immigration there.
For reasons that should be obvious - but they are not, and this is shocking...
Re: (Score:1)
...oh, and I forgot to comment on your "tried to restrict emigration": thousands were shot dead, or killed by packs of half-dogs, half-wolves, or died on electric fences while attempting to overcome your "restrictions".
Re: (Score:2)
"My" restrictions? Huh. All I was doing was pointing out the difference between emigration (leaving one's country) and immigration (enter a new country). I was not supporting the Berlin Wall in anyway, or the soviets, or socialism. Lighten up Francis.
Re: (Score:2)
The US already has a form of wealth tax, more commonly known as property taxes. You pay your city or county based on the value of your home, not on your income or services received.
If your home appreciates in value, your wealth increases and your taxes increase - just as the Progressives desire.
Just a tiny annoyance: Gentrification. Be careful what you wish for.
Re:Some in the US would like to as well (Score:4, Informative)
Most of what you suggest would certainly be great for the powerful. It would consolidate power at the very top and ensure that if you're not one of the elite you never will be.
There's already way too much power concentrated in a tiny number of people, but eliminating state and municipal governments would greatly increase the power and control of that already powerful group of rulers while simultaneously eliminating the already small chance of anyone getting a foot in the door without swearing fealty to the party aristocracy.
However, I do like your item #10. I would like to see a constitutional amendment for that. No need to re-write the whole constitution, just a simple amendment following the well defined amendment process that is already in the constitution. In addition, I would like to see an amendment prohibiting civil asset forfeiture. If your #10 isn't sufficient, maybe an amendment that clearly and unambiguously prohibits any police activity (arrest, search, etc) for use or sale of drugs. Even if they weren't allowed to incarcerate people for non-violent use or sale of drugs, they might still use it as a pretext for otherwise unjustified search, seizure and harassment. There have been many cases of police stopping drivers, taking their cash and letting them go with the explanation "we think this is drug money so we're taking it, but we have no evidence so we're not going to arrest you"
Re: (Score:2)
Any "right" that involves taking from someone else, is not a right.
Re: (Score:1)
So, what you would end up with is communism.
Hey, I spent 30 years of my life in then "communist" Czechoslovakia and I can tell you, you don't have a clue what you wish for...
Re: Some in the US would like to as well (Score:1)
Re: Some in the US would like to as well (Score:1)
*encourage even more.
I hate my cellphone keyboard sometimes.
Re: Some in the US would like to as well (Score:3)
Directly elected representatives declaring constitutional law, must be nazis. Direct democracy is fascist.
Re: (Score:3)
The current one was written by Pinochet and people he hand selected. I assume you know who he was.
Re: (Score:2)
The current one was written by Pinochet and people he hand selected. I assume you know who he was.
He's the puppet whose nose grew whenever he lied, and who yearned to be a real boy, right?
Srsly though, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Constitution_of_Chile [wikipedia.org] notes that while the first version of the current Chilean constitution was indeed developed under Pinochet's rule, it's been amended in 1989, 1991, 1994, 1997, 1999, 2000, 2001, 2003, 2007, 2008, 2009, 2010, 2011, 2012, 2013, 2014, 2015, 2017, 2018, 2019, 2020, 2021, with another major revision in 2005. And as we all know, U.N. Directive 1138, aka "
Re: (Score:2)
The current one was written by Pinochet and people he hand selected. I assume you know who he was.
He's the puppet who...
nicely done.
Srsly though, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Constitution_of_Chile [wikipedia.org] notes that while the first version of the current Chilean constitution was indeed developed under Pinochet's rule
They had their own 911 [wikipedia.org]
Re: Some in the US would like to as well (Score:1)
Cool, can we rewrite the Chinese Constitution too? (Score:2)
I mean, that's where most of the CO2 emissions are coming from now. If you really want to make some real progress on lowering them worldwide, they would be the next big target.
Re:Cool, can we rewrite the Chinese Constitution t (Score:5, Funny)
Oh, and while we're at it, can we write a Slashdot Constitution that blocks posting of stories that are behind a paywall?
Re: (Score:2)
Just convert OPEC countries to nuclear power and abolish fossil fuel subsidies. Oil prices would skyrocket well beyond affordability, without impacting production anywhere.
Re: (Score:2)
Just convert OPEC countries to nuclear power and abolish fossil fuel subsidies.
Look what that did for North Korea under Bush II. Fun times.
Nuclear advocates should have supported IFR whilst it was still a viable energy and disarmament option back in the 80s instead of blaming NIMBYs and Greenpeace for the Oil and Coal industry lobbying government to dismantle the technology.
Nuclear's future ended back then.
Re: (Score:2)
But.. But.. we're an "emerging economy" we can't be constrained by your silly CO2 emission quotas.
It's laughable what we've allowed the CCP to do to the planet. [opendemocracy.net]
Re:Cool, can we rewrite the Chinese Constitution t (Score:4, Interesting)
Allowed? Ever seen where most products are listed as being made? The fact is, we pay for the Chinese to pollute the environment. We also don't allow the export of any technology that would allow the Chinese to switch to less polluting fuels (ITAR). Complain about the Chinese all you like -- AFTER you have switched to locally sourced products AND AFTER the export of sensitive technology is adjusted to allow BRICS nations to respond to the climate crisis without impacting their ability to produce.
Re: (Score:2)
Are you joking? The USA is already one of the most polluting nations per capita in the world. You expect us to do our own manufacturing and deal with our own waste now too? Do you know what that will do for our numbers? The world hates us enough as it is and you're trying to get rid of one of our tinly veiled excuses?
Re: (Score:1)
I mean, that's where most of the CO2 emissions are coming from now. If you really want to make some real progress on lowering them worldwide, they would be the next big target.
Says the fat person who's demanding that nobody else should have the right to eat as much as he does.
Try shedding a few pounds yourself and people might listen to you.
Re: (Score:2)
Climate change doesn't care about how countries are defined.
We should focus on areas of the world with the highest per-capita emissions. That would include the USA.
Lithium (Score:1)
The world(USA) wants their lithium worse than they want oil and won't be denied. This will probably end in another overthrow of the government by one of the 3-letter agencies...
And who are the USians who want to grab lithium? (Score:2)
Are they the pork-rind eating, climate crisis denying, coal-rolling-monster-diesel-pickup-driving wingers who are after Chilean lithium?
Re: (Score:2)
And three people will buy the rights to mine and become immensely wealthy, a few more executives and their families will become wealthy, the miners themselves will have a low but livable salary while also working in harsh and dangerous conditions and end up with long term health problems, some other jobs will increase in the private and government security sectors in order to protect the new wealthy class and discourage dissent, while the rest of the country will have to deal with the pollution but with no
Re: (Score:2)
A big part (perhaps the largest) of climate change is our inability to continue out activities without polluting. In order to continue driving cars without polluting then we are going to need an obscene number of batteries. Scaling up our current battery technology is entirely dependent on being able to get large quantities of lithium. Chile has a 28% of the world's known lithium deposits but extraction is dreadfully slow.
Re: Fuck all to do with climate change (Score:1)
Re: (Score:2)
And yet we can't get enough of it. Cobalt has been engineered out of new batteries, just FYI.
Constituion Change is a Trick (Score:3, Insightful)
Constitution Change is the sales pitch in Latin America for a political change. A 21th century socialist sells the idea that a new constitution will magically change the nation, like it will take money from the rich and give it to the poor like Robin Hood.
The recipe consists on the following.
- A 21st century socialist president gets into power by offering that a new constitution will magically fix the country.
- A referendum is sent for the people to vote for the "constitutionalists" that will create the new constitution. Since the 21st century socialist president still has a lot of popularity, the majority of the votes goes to the new president’s party.
- A constitution is created giving more power to the president with the ability to rule over the legislative power if it is required, but people are distracted with the nice animal rights, climate change and other nice and treading things on it.
- On the meanwhile the president acts like he is still on a presidential campaign for an extra two years offering things (using the country’s money). He says things like the new constitution is the tool to finally fix the country.
- During those two years to get the new constitution, the president and his party, annihilates the political competition. (with the country's resource).
- The new constitution gets voted and approved by the people. It resets all the executive, legislative and judicial powers, and new elections need to be set. Since the president was in a continuous electoral campaign while he was elected (with the money resources of the country), the president’s party easily wins all the election and gets all the majority of seats in the congress. The president is easily elected again (that it does not count like a reelection, it was a constitutional reset) and a single party gets all the power in the country.
- After that, the party continues until all the country money is dry. That is the moment to start blaming the International Monetary Found and the US, and start asking for money to China and Russia.
- Later the constitution is change, like orthographic errors, to allow eternal president reelection.
That was the recipe for Venezuela, Ecuador, Bolivia and I hope they do not apply that in Chile.
You must be new (Score:1)
to Slashdot.
Re: (Score:2)
In our own country, federal politicians need to stay well away from a constitutional convention.
It is the states, and the people, in their capacities as such, creating the form of the federal government. It is dangerous to have those who would wield the power empower themselves. 1776 was a unique breakaway from tyranny, hence a design to prevent the arising of tyrants, with checks and balances and Congress shall pass no law and the Bill of Rights and a difficult amendment process to smooth over the hot blow
Re: Constituion Change is a Trick (Score:2)
Letâ(TM)s not pretend that self serving interests were not all over the US Constitution.
We still havenâ(TM)t removed all the parts that protected slave owner interests above all others, like the US Senate and Electoral College.
US States with robust direct democracy options at least have a steam valve to bypass gerrymandered legislatures and corrupt Senators. A federal referendum process would be amazing.
Re: (Score:2)
The current US is different, and also much larger.
It is a great achievement to hold together 50 different states with their economic, cultural, and political diversity. Compare the current USA with the EU in size, economy and population, and you'll see this model is much more successful.
It comes down to making sure no 50%+1 majority can impose their will on the rest of the country. It is a gentleman's understanding of not stepping on each others' toes that keeps the system alive.
Re: (Score:3)
Don't forget that the original constitutional convention was loaded with self-serving corrupt politicos. It took several amendments and a war to fix only the most glaring flaws.
The 1787 convention was not really a breakaway from tyants. The British government was not particularly tyrannical, and was relatively modern in reducing the power of the monarch and placing it in parliament. Several of the colonies however were much more tyrannical, especially if you were not one of the favored races or classes.
Re: (Score:2)
Textbook case of SDS (socialism derangement syndrome).
Re: (Score:2)
Have you ever been to northern Europe?
Re: (Score:2)
No it's not socialism. If you want the definition of socialism, look up any book on political science. But you far prefer your right-wing talk show hosts and your QAnon conspiracy theories, and don't give a damn about what anything means as long as there's a pet group you are unlikely to ever encounter that you can spew hatred about.
Re: (Score:2)
No, he doesn't know what socialism is, he's not a politics professor. He knows his brand of state socialism, but that's about it. State socialism is a tiny, tiny fraction of the variants out there, and his brand (utopian state socialism) is even smaller. You can call it a personal attack all you like, and hand-wave the rest of the argument away, but you'll find that it doesn't change a damn thing.
People tend to only know their niche. That's perfectly normal and usually fine. Corbyn is no exception to the ru
Re: (Score:2)
As for Chavez, very few of his promises are socialist. They're communist, which is not a socialist philosophy. Those that are "socialist" are strictly utopian state socialism, which excludes 32/33rds of the political landscape of socialism. Since when is 1/33rd of an idea the whole of that idea?
In fact, it's a complete impossibility to be "socialist", since the landscape contains contradictory ideas. You are limited to being within one or two of those 33 domains. That's it. And when you are only one tiny ni
Re: (Score:2)
I, frankly, don't care about named individuals who are within the same utopian state socialist subdomain or combine that domain with communism. You can name a thousand of them and you still won't have named a single person in a single subdomain outside of that miniscule niche.
Nor do I care what they call themselves. North Korea calls itself a democracy. You can call yourself whatever you damn well please and it doesn't change what you are. Not so much as one iota. Your category is defined by what you do, no
Re: (Score:2)
When Correa was president in Ecuador I was afraid to have political opinions in Twitter,
Re: (Score:2)
Heaven fucking forbid a free people chose their governments path for themselves. Never mind the fact that they're currently considering getting rid of their head of state rather than further empowering it which pretty much ruins your whole conspiracy.
Re: (Score:3)
The Chile model was a strong dictator with military backing, with secret prisons and torture for dissidents, and because they declared against communism they had the full support of the USA in their brutal regime. Yes, it is extremist, but it is gone. Your scenario also is extremist. There is indeed a middle ground between brutal socialist governments and brutal fascist governments; one can be opposed to socialism without resorting to dictatorships or suppressing the will of the people.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:1)
Water filtration. (Score:2)
If Chile is serious about getting that lithium then what they need to do is build a fancy water filtration plant. If you are unaware, their lithium is locked up in an underground lake of brine with high concentrations of lithium. How they currently extract it is to pump it to the surface (which is an wasteland with perpetually clear skies) and allow the sun to evaporate the water. They do this with huge areas repeatedly for about three years before they pull up inch thick bricks of unrefined lithium (lot
Solar too. (Score:3)
It's not just lithium. Chile's Atacama desert has the most sunlight of any place in the world. It's the best place in the world to place solar panels. Chile plans to do this and then use the cheap solar to produce hydrogen or ammonia for export. They even plan on some massive electrical grids to export the energy.
Dust (Score:2)
What majority does it take from those 155 (Score:2)
to pass the new constitution? Single or 2/3 majority?
Chile didn’t just start yesterday (Score:2)
Chile saw that the millennial generation was going to rule in the future. It began as early as 2015 to find out what millennial’s valued and how they may steward after the BabyBoomers.
Chile’s recent election of a millennial President and a now a constitutional change should be viewed generationally. Chilean’s I met in 2016 were actively getting ahead of this change, understanding the dynamics in anticipation that this day would come.
Congrats Chile! While the U.S. is running old politicos C
So it is a climate crisis.. (Score:2)
https://globalnews.ca/news/610... [globalnews.ca]
https://www.reuters.com/world/... [reuters.com]
It is ostensibly a crisis, but we don't want solutions that don't conform to our agendas, and we certainly don't want solutions in our backyards. In fact, the people whining about the solutions are as bad as the people whining about the problem.
This, in a n
Milton Friedman is rolling in his grave (Score:2)
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/... [wikipedia.org]
That last section is going to need revision now that they've collectively shot themselves in their collective feet, tried to go to a nationalized healthcare facility, got gangrene, and just sawed their arms off.
Uh huh (Score:1)
The USA could benefit from a revisit of... (Score:1)
It needs consolidation and clarification to simplify legislation and curb delays our legislators get mired in.
It's likely, though, that we'll need a purge of a few stupid generations before there is enough mass intelligence to realize the benefits.
Imagine if everyone realized that there is no true freedom; that freedoms end where they deter other freedoms.
And, where ambiguous, let natures examples point the way, since this is the closest t