The Elephant in the Living Room

Why do U.S. environmentalists remain irrationally committed to a losing strategy? 32

elephant in a chair.Watching the remains of a movement strain our every organizational fiber to advance a climate bill we know is a travesty reminds me of G.K. Chesterton’s observation about sex: the pleasure is momentary, the position ridiculous, and the expense damnable.

Waxman-Markey ought to be opposed by U.S. environmentalists for obvious and pragmatic reasons—street arguments, if you like. In the topsy-turvy world of U.S. climate advocacy, however, political lessons wrung from decades of hard experience have been turned inside out, so that down feels like up and wrong is the new right.

Our descent into an Alice-in-Wonderland politics took more than a decade, and there has never been a defining moment when alternative strategies were considered head to head. As a result, we stand on the threshold of cataclysm pushing policy that can’t work and see no alternative.

In hundreds of conversations with friends and colleagues—senior staff and leaders in our major organizations and environmental foundations—a remarkably consistent and fundamentally illogical train of thought emerges ...

What we are doing now won’t work, but we can’t do any better because we don’t have enough power to advance a real solution. We might, in retrospect, have strengthened our position—refocusing resources, energizing our base, binding together our uncoordinated efforts—but institutional barriers stood in the way, and anyway now it’s too late. We must push for the best that can be gotten, because what else is there to do? Should I just give up and become a ski bum/move to Vermont/go to graduate school/start a vegetable garden/etc.?

What a miserable choice; support a joke climate bill or give up.  Both actions, it seems to me, are forms of despair. The first option is delusional, the second option is a self-fulfilling prophecy, and neither is acceptable to the human spirit.

Thankfully, intrepid folks working outside the boundaries of our major organizations have honed all the core elements necessary for an alternative U.S. climate campaign that is pragmatic and idealistic, without being naive.

Assembling these pieces will be the topic of an upcoming post (along with the case against Waxman-Markey and an outline of a functional solution, drawing on the only successful model of international action, the Montreal Protocol). There is little point in discussing such specifics, however,  without first considering the elephant in the living room.

It is perhaps too late for humanity to draw back from the brink,  but we do not know this with certainty. There is no doubt, however, that we have reached the final act and the decisions of senior U.S. environmental leaders this year will decide the outcome.

So why are we allowing the very same architects of our failed strategy of the last two decades to determine our future? When people talk about “institutional barriers,” what they are really mean is that the people at the top aren’t going to shift course or leave in time.

Sierra Club and National Wildlife Federation aside, most of our organizations are only three decades old and still run by founders or second-generation leaders who continue to operate under the same basic assumptions, as if the world were not being turned upside down. Stated baldly, however, the assumptions are ridiculous.

  • U.S.  environmentalists should make common cause with corporations like BP,  Conoco-Phillips, Dow, Duke Energy, DuPont, Ford, GE, Johnson & Johnson, PepsiCo, PG&E,  and Shell rather than stand with climate scientists like Jim Hansen and others.
  • Any compromise (such as endorsing 450 ppm or exempting super-greenhouse gases from a climate bill) is acceptable in the interest of passing something.
  • Organizational interests come before effective climate action.
  • We have lots of time, that’s why it’s OK to pass a weak bill (we can always strengthen it latter), and why it would be foolish to spend our reserves.
  • Protest,  disruption, and civil disobedience are harmful.
  • There is no alternative to our present course of action (the one we devised more than a decade ago, in which our organizational and personal reputations are invested).

It ought to be obvious that the truth lies in precisely the opposite direction:

  • Environmentalists must stand on precautionary climate science—major corporations (particularly energy conglomerates) are the enemy.
  • Environmentalists should speak the truth, which means we must draw a line distinguishing functional climate action from window dressing.
  • U.S.  environmentalists must throw everything we’ve got into a last-minute,  cooperative drive to fundamentally shift the U.S. course of climate action.
  • We have no time, we cannot fix our errors latter.
  • Cozy accommodation has stripped us of power and compromised our leadership—by not taking to the streets we have shown that we don’t really believe what we are saying.
  • There are many things we could be doing—we have billions of dollars, thousands of highly trained staff and a core of climate activists desperate for leadership.

It’s hard to accept, because our crisis is slow moving, but U.S.  environmentalists stand in the same spot as other small groups throughout history who have had to choose between courageous, difficult stands with long hope of victory or going along with the flow. It’s our decision now.

Ken Ward is a climate campaigner and carpenter whose work can be see at http://jpgreenhouse.org.

Related Stories

Advertisement
Advertisement

  1. kkloor Posted 1:38 pm
    09 Jun 2009

    What is going on at Grist? Nary a day goes by lately when I don't read an officially approved post trashing the Waxman-Markey bill. That's quite a turnaround from the weeks and days leading up to when the bill passed out of committee.Back then we were treated mostly to admonishing lectures about how stupid anyone could be to argue against WM. Where are you hiding DR? Surely your eyeballs must be on fire by now. Anyway, good to see the experiment with groupthink is over. Next time, how about airing these alternative viewpoints during the heat of the debate?

    Permalink

  2. TheAK Posted 7:17 pm
    09 Jun 2009

    Waxman-Markey is terrible.  The mainstream environmental groups are a profound disappointment.  The entire world is captive to the powerful and corrupt, who mostly run our Congress.

    Permalink

  3. Peter Wood Posted 7:43 pm
    09 Jun 2009

    Ken, you do have a point about mainstream environmental groups. A coalition of them recently wrote a letter to Nancy Pelosi, suggesting ways to "strengthen" the Waxman-Markey bill. None of these suggestions would affect the amount of emission reductions in the bill.But I disagree with you that we need to oppose the bill. The Waxman-Markey bill is the most well constructed cap and trade legislation that has been introduced to the world to date. The problem is that the targets are too weak. So we face a choice, we call for targets to be strengthened and support the bill, or we oppose the bill. If the bill passes, we will have to continue to call for targets to be strengthened; if it does not, we call for legislation with strong targets.The difference is that if legislation passes, US emissions will actually start to be reduced. If US and global emissions continue to increase, we can rule out constraining warming to less than 2 degrees. If US and global emissions start to decrease,  it will be easier to constrain warming to less than 2 degrees.So discuss what should be changed about the bill, rather than opposing it outright because it doesn't give you everything that you want.

    Permalink

  4. mmooney Posted 7:53 pm
    09 Jun 2009

    Ken, I am very much looking forward to your next series of posts especially since you suggest that Waxman-Markey is beyond help, even with an all-out grassroots mobilization on our Congressional representatives to strengthen the bill.  At this point, we are so beyond rhetoric that only ambitious, achievable and actionable alternatives are going to make posts like this credible.I hope for the best and that my misgivings about your unequivocal demonization of corporations are unfounded.  True, Big Business is in large part responsible for the creating the climate crisis, but it also holds the potential for the solution.  And unless you've really got something up your sleeve, any truly feasible proposal will have to incorporate economic concerns as well.We need fresh thinking now more than ever, and not the willful irrationality of conservative deniers nor the woe-is-us hand-wringers like Theak who contribute nothing.

    Permalink

    1. randino Posted 4:01 am
      10 Jun 2009

      While we are stuck with the corporate beasts, I think we should recognize that those who expect socially responsible behavior from corporations are relying on hope versus experience.  There is a reason that wherever we turn we are usually confronted by foes that have an Inc. attached to their names. They more often than not, are the enemy.Randy Cunningham 

      Permalink

  5. Dave from Canada Posted 8:48 am
    10 Jun 2009

    Yes, by all means, let the perfect stand in the way of the good.When at the very bottom of a ladder, don't bother climbing up step by step; attempt to place your foot on the top rung immediately.Don't run a marathon, or even think about the route; simply look toward the finish line, and try to jump to it.  Any step forward is a failure and a traitorous act, because it doesn't get us to the end right away.And for the sake of the planet, don't work toward legislation that will put a price on carbon, because that legislation could be significantly improved.Don't get started on the project, no. Stand still, berate the people who have started moving, and hope for a miracle. 

    Permalink

    1. jestbill Posted 10:04 am
      10 Jun 2009

      Exactly!

      Permalink

    2. ids's avatar

      ids Posted 10:10 am
      10 Jun 2009

      When climbing a ladder, don't start if the first few rungs are broken.  When running a marathon, don't start if the route is flooded and unsafe.  For the sake of the planet, don't greenwash an unjust carbon price for generations to come.  No, berate people who are honest and truthful and not hoping for miracles.

      Permalink

      1. mmooney Posted 10:36 am
        10 Jun 2009

        Meanwhile, the roof is still burning on the verge of collapse as we gaze upward and fellow marathon competitors have found ways around while we stare at a puddle.These are not reasons to oppose the bill, these are reasons to insist on strengthening it.  The need for a strong climate bill (and now) is beyond just US interest; if we go to Copenhagen with a failed bill, the world will be even worse off than it is now.Unless Ken has some something really fresh to offer, the time for no-holds barred activism is now.  If you're not at least in your Representative's and Senator's mailbox, Inbox and answering machine, you're not doing enough.

        Permalink

  6. ids's avatar

    ids Posted 10:04 am
    10 Jun 2009

    Poor Ken Ward, if Joe Romm sees this post he's going to start calling you dirty names for proposing perfect shit should stop more shit from rolling downstream.

    Permalink

  7. Bart Anderson's avatar

    Bart Anderson Posted 12:37 pm
    10 Jun 2009

    The keyword is critical support.  This is a difficult strategy, but I don't think there is any other choice.  The idea is to go with the flow of the movement, but keep pointing out the problems.  In other words, don't treat the bill as an end point, but rather as a stage in a long, ongoing process. I have to say that the news about the bill keeps getting worse.
    http://postcarbon.org/what_bleeping_jokeObama may be a great guy, but the Democrats are getting more and more funding from industry.  In the bank bailout, healthcare, and now climate, the Democrats are now overtly the party of big business. They need to be pushed from the other direction to make them stay honest.Bart
    Energy Bulletin

    Permalink

  8. Chris Pratt Posted 12:50 pm
    10 Jun 2009

    Ken you are asking the good questions, I agree with you and I think you are in good company with those who have been working on this issue for a long time and see the limits of it's success.  Gus Speth's new book "Bridge to the Edge of the World" is a great read on this subject.  No disrespect for the people working in Washington, but this has changed from being an issue to something much more all consuming and demanding and it needs to be treated that way.  

    Permalink

  9. ids's avatar

    ids Posted 1:03 pm
    10 Jun 2009

    This has to be the most convoluted massive giveaway bills ever to be considered on potentially the most critical problem ever to be considered.   To suppot it just to say something passed and to think the world or China or India will fall for it is naive and ill-conceived.  Might as well bomb the rest of the world to reduce ghg emissions for all the good it will do.  It is status quo for a broken and corrupt Empire, but if it makes you feel good, go for it.

    Permalink

    1. mmooney Posted 1:27 pm
      10 Jun 2009

      That's why you mobilize to strengthen it, or at least to fill the hours until you enlighten us with your achievable alternatives.Then again, if you're content to sit back cursing the darkness and say "I told you so", I suppose that self-fulfilling prophecy is your perogative.

      Permalink

  10. rogerkb Posted 1:15 pm
    10 Jun 2009

    "There is little point in discussing such specifics, however, without first considering the elephant in the living room."The real elelphant in the room is our committment to continued economic growth and the holy right of money to make money. Until this committment is abandoned I see zero chance of ecological sanity informing our economic decisions. So if you tell me that you signed have on to the French political movement know as "decroissance" (sometimes translated as "degrowth") I will admit that you are showning signs of true ecological intelligence. But if you think that the OECD nations can experience many decades more of stock market growth while simultaneously reducing our ecological footprint then you are only slightly less deluded than the climate change deniers.

    Permalink

  11. Bart Anderson's avatar

    Bart Anderson Posted 1:53 pm
    10 Jun 2009

    I think the question is whether it is worth spending effort on this particular bill. Maybe yes, maybe no. There are many other worthwhile efforts around. In the long run, I think it's more important to develop a network of grassroots groups to lobby, educate and work on local projects.  The game of electoral politics is heavily weighted in favor of industry lobbies. It's all too easy to get sucked in to this game when it may not be in one's interest.  I think of all the idealistic people who worked so hard for Obama, only to have his agenda hijacked by corporate interests.Bart / Energy Bulletin

    Permalink

    1. jestbill Posted 5:29 pm
      10 Jun 2009

      Absolutely!When an issue is this new, when almost nobody knows enough about it to have an opinion, the best you can do is to develop a grassroots network.We certainly can't expect to pass any legislation this early in the game.  In fact, it's not clear that there is any support at all so maybe we should all just go home and talk to our neighbors to find out where the electorate wants to go./sarcasm

      Permalink

  12. Bart Anderson's avatar

    Bart Anderson Posted 8:55 pm
    10 Jun 2009

    The problem, Jestbill, is that the legislation is framed and modified by highly organized special interest groups.  The media and politicians are not able to defend the public against them.  The Democrats have become highly entwined with industry. If there is not a separate political force and separate media, then the public will get screwed, as is happening right now. For example, the blog I quoted earlier cited an article from the Washington PostDuring the final days of the drafting of a 946-page
    climate bill, Rep. Gene Green D-Tex.) won support for an amendment
    that deleted a single word and inserted two others. The words could be
    worth millions of dollars to U.S. oil refiners.The Green amendment deleted the word "sources" and inserted
    "emission points." In the arcane world of climate legislation, that
    tiny bit of editing might one day give petroleum refiners valuable
    rights to emit carbon dioxide when it otherwise might not have been
    allowed. Refiners
    could get the extra allowances in return for cutting carbon emissions
    by 50 percent at a single point of a vast refinery complex instead of
    slashing emissions by 50 percent for the entire facility.     How would you propose to stop such abuses?  Note that this amendment is from a Democrat. The goal is not to get any legislation enacted, it is to get good legislation.Bart / Energy Bulletin

    Permalink

    1. jestbill Posted 9:27 am
      11 Jun 2009

      The current state of the United States is exactly what the electorate wants.  Repeat that to yourself three times for effect.  Do not fool yourself by thinking that a cabal of corporations or some such super organization is "really" in charge.  If the electorate cared, they'd be out of business in a second.I don't propose to stop abuses because they are not abuses.  They are the normal political give-and-take in our kind of society.  If you insist on your (apparent) idea that government is a grand engineer looking for the best technical solution to technical problems, you're going to be anxiety ridden most of your life.Government is a political tool looking for the "solution" to political problems.  If the electorate want to put the oil companies in charge of the economy, that's what they're going to get.  If they want to dither until Climate Change affects them directly and disastrously, that's what is going to happen.The best anyone can do is to start: start work on problems as early as possible and get some sort of tools in place.  The EPA and OSHA weren't much when they started and, had the electorate cared much, could be truly valuable today.  The entire point of supporting whatever comes out of WM (while trying to block the idiocy) is to look to what improvements can be made next year and later.

      Permalink

      1. Dave from Canada Posted 9:37 am
        11 Jun 2009

        I agree completely with the idea of getting WM, and trying to improve it later.  Rarely do we go from disaster to perfection in one step.  So let's get what we can, and then push for more.This said, I disagree with the idea that the public gets exactly what it wants from government.  Governments tend to be very close to industry and the wealthy elite - their major donors and those who lobby them most intensively. Yes, in theory, the public is a sleeping 800 pound gorilla that could wake up, rise up and smash the elite.  But in reality, religion, booze, recreational motoring, compulsive shopping, flat screen TVs, and a general dumbing down of education and political discourse ensures that the gorilla will sleep right through a hurricane.

        Permalink

  13. Peter Wood Posted 10:35 pm
    10 Jun 2009

    The reason that the targets in Waxman-Markey are too weak is that Republicans and conservative Democrats will block legislation that gets the US to do what it needs to do to address global warming. What we need to do is make it politically impossible for politicians to block legislation that reduces US emissions (which the Waxman-Markey bill does do). Opposing the passage of the Waxman-Markey bill because it is not good enough does not fit in with that strategy.

    Permalink

  14. Bart Anderson's avatar

    Bart Anderson Posted 9:43 am
    11 Jun 2009

    Jestbill writes:The current state of the United States is exactly what the electorate wants.  Repeat that to yourself three times for effect.A  little background in political science, sociology or history will show the falsity of this statement, jestbill.Why do corporations spend billions on public relations, lobbying and political contributions? If the present political system were what the electorate "wants," there would be no need.  Successful businesses do not spend needlesslyI'm fascinated by the mechanism by which small organized groups can persuade the population to go against their own interests.  This is an essential study if one wants to pursue a career in journalism, PR, politics or activism.  Anybody competent from any side of the political spectrum knows these truths.Adam Curtis did a superb documentary for the BBC on the subject: "Century of the Self."  It's online in four segments, starting with:http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=8953172273825999151Bart / Energy Bulletin

    Permalink

    1. jestbill Posted 9:13 pm
      11 Jun 2009

      Neat how you can argue against yourself and claim it proves me wrong."Why do corporations spend billions on public relations, lobbying and
      political contributions? If the present political system were what the
      electorate "wants," there would be no need.  Successful businesses do
      not spend needlessly"If the electorate were irrelevant, there'd be no need for TV ads: they'd just call up their congress persons and tell 'em what they wanted.  The lobbying etc. is to convince our representatives that they'll have an easier time getting reelected (by the "electorate") if they vote a certain way.  The problem with our difference is that we aren't necessarily talking about the same things.The "electorate" gets what it wants.  Individuals in that electorate may disagree strongly: if the issue is closely competitive, three guys in North Dakota may swing the balance.  The reason I can say that we get what we want is that so many of us are willing to stick to our extremist positions with no regard for what is politically or practically achievable.  By being thick headed, we force those three guys to make our decisions for us. (And you must know they are in the pockets of Big Coal.)  

      Permalink

  15. ids's avatar

    ids Posted 10:16 am
    11 Jun 2009

      http://energycommerce.house.gov/Press_111/20090521/hr2454_transcript_20090521.pdfLine 2309   Chairman Waxman:  But if this overall bill becomes law, the business decisions that will be made will be to build new power plants burning coal. Now, that ought to be good news for those from the coal areas and for the utilities that want to use coal in the future. If Repub's were in control, every greenwash enviro from DR to SC to EDF would be up in arms.  Since Dem's are in control, it's apathy and BOHICA.  It's a terrible message to the rest of the world from the problem child with the big guns.

    Permalink

  16. Ken Ward's avatar

    Ken Ward Posted 10:27 am
    11 Jun 2009

    I appreciate the thoughtful comments and quality of debate here. Don't want to spend time now on topics to be covered later, but reading the posts underlined for me the question of what assumptions are brought to the debate. Without knowing where one stands on the major underlying points, it isn't easy to know where a particular argument is leading. We don't have adequate labels or affiliations to distinguish a common viewpoint on key questions, like "how bad do you think it is?", "how much time do we have?", "what's the bottom-line action we need to take?", "what is our goal in the US?", "what is the role of US environmentalists?" and so on.Our answers to such questions (or best guesses, really) establish how we see the immediate challanges before us. For example, I think that the most important role of US environmentalists is, and always was, to amplify the precautionary conclusion of climate science and define the scale of change necessary to avert the very worst impacts. It has not, in my view, been our primary job to try and think up climate policy. Therefore, I don't need to spend any great time or energy thinking about Waxman-Markey, because even in its original draft form, the bill did not endorse Hansen's bright line of 300-350 ppm, and therefore it ought to be opposed. Simple? Sure. Simplistic? Not at all. If environmentalists don't stick with a precautionary solution, then it's guaranteed to be ignored, and that's precisely where we stand now.On the flip side, I understand any argument for Waxman-Makey to define the proponent as a non-endorser of 350 pppm - in effect, an opponent of the precautionary principle. The whole "something is better than nothing" argument might make sense if we were talking about, oh I dunno, a certain tract of wetlands, percentage of mercury in ground water, or any other micro-matter. There isn't any acceptable half-way measure on climate though – tipping points are either breached or they are not; the point of no return is passed, or it is not. We had 20 years for incremental steps, now there is only room for drastic action and if environmentalists quale at the prospect, who's to lead?I think it would be helpful to the debate if people were to identify where they stand on the bottomline. Do you agree that 300-350 ppm is the bottom-line? If not, why not? If so, and you support Waxman-Markey, how do you handle the contradictions? and so on...

    Permalink

    1. Peter Wood Posted 7:13 am
      12 Jun 2009

      Ken, I disagree with you that it is not the primary job of environmentalists to think up climate policy. While there are many environmentalist who prefer to spend their time doing other important things, such as messenging, it is essential that environmentalists focus on policy as well. Otherwise the pollution lobby will focus on policy and policy will be undermined. Focussing on policy is essential if we want to change policy -- if we do not focus on policy, we are merely shouting at the sidelines. It is essential that we have a strategy of winning -- I have no interest at all in being stuck in "protest mode".

      I think we need to have a less than 20% chance of exceeding 2 degrees centigrade of warming. This is consistent with a global budget of 1356 Gt of greenhosue gas emissions (carbon dioxide equivalent) between 2000 and 2050. That would be likely to be consistent with a 350 ppm CO2 (not CO2-e) stabilistaion target.

      If no legislation reducing emissions is passed in the near future, the world will use up this budget not long after 2020. If emissions reductions start soon, even if the trajectory is wrong (as is the case with W-M), then we could still tighten the trajectory later (which may require more legislation), and stay within a relatively safe outcome. What we need to do now is put pressure on the W-M bill so that it has a much better target, and has mechanisms for reducing emissions beyond the target.

      You say that it is irrational to support emissions reductions that are not good enough. This is far from the truth. The risks associated with no emissions reductions now are vastly more serious that the risks associated with weak emissions reductions now. In any case, we need to keep the pressure on the US administration, and focus on measures that reduce emissions. This requires that we get more serious on issues of policy.

      Permalink

      1. mmooney Posted 8:07 am
        12 Jun 2009

        Your last two paragraphs are dead on. And those who think activism doesn't work and congressional representatives don't listen to their constituents should note what caused the lone Republican to break rank on the W-M committee vote.

        Permalink

  17. Chris Pratt Posted 10:56 am
    11 Jun 2009

    Jestbill, Maybe the people of this country are getting what they deserve, or maybe we are victims of a systemic breakdown.  I don't think it is what most of electorate want.  I happen to think there is a movement toward social justice and a sustainable future.  We struggle to find the best road, and maybe there is only one, or maybe more.   Some roads and legislative bills can be dead ends and it is counter productive to keep up an illusion of progress.  Sometimes stopping to reassess the situation is healthy and sometime  good and well intention people part ways as to what the best course of action is.  I work for a living and don't get paid to lobby congress.  I read, write and work hard to keep living with less and buying local, that is not doing nothing.

    Permalink

  18. Ken Ward's avatar

    Ken Ward Posted 1:58 pm
    12 Jun 2009

    Peter,More on the important points you just raised soon, but a few quick responses. First, about all we've been doing for a decade and half has been policy, by any measure of US environmentalists' resources. We thought, and major foundations thought, that we could solve climate with good policy. Had a fraction of those resources gone more into....  well, you name it: field, campaigning, protest, media, coalition building, I suggest that we would not be in the spot we are in today. Second, the policy we are promoting is bad policy precisely because it came out of the mindset that we could win by skirting around the edges of the fundamental challenges. Third, the Obama administration has authority to regulate in the CAA, failure to pass W-M doesn't mean the US can't take aggressive action, it could be done now if there were sufficient political power.  

    Permalink

  19. Bart Anderson's avatar

    Bart Anderson Posted 3:39 pm
    12 Jun 2009

    Washington Monthly has an excellent article on Henry Waxman, the Congressman behind the bill:  http://www.washingtonmonthly.com/features/2009/0905.homans.htmlMarathon Man
    ("Henry Waxman's climate change bill won’t make it into law this year. That’s why he’s the right guy for the job"). Excerpt:Waxman has borrowed his negotiating tools from USCAP, leaving open the question of how exactly the emissions allowances will be allocated—how many will be auctioned off, and how many will be given away. The proposal would also include a system of emissions offsets, which would allow federal regulators to count carbon-absorbing resources like forests against the pollution limits.

    While such flexibility is the greatest strength of Waxman’s plan, however, it’s also its greatest weakness. The bill’s wiggle room improves its chances of passing Waxman’s committee and later the Senate—but, if abused, could also gut the bill of its effectiveness. "The [draft] bill includes two billion tons of offsets, which is far too many," Greenpeace’s Steven Biel says. "You could meet the requirements under this cap with no emissions reductions at all for twenty years or more." There is also the cautionary tale of Europe, where a poorly conceived emissions-trading system did little to reduce actual emissions in its first several years while saddling industries with copious red tape.

    Ultimately, the biggest obstacle to Waxman’s goals is the fact that climate change is exactly the kind of problem that Congress is least well calibrated to confront: a threat of existential scale but unclear contours, where all short-term incentives point in the wrong direction. ...- Bart / EB

    Permalink

  20. Devon Posted 2:54 pm
    13 Jun 2009

    Ken,I enjoyed reading your piece and am sympathetic to your views about the inadequacy of the Waxman-Markey legislation.  But I don't believe that your solution will get us any closer to real action on climate change. I've written a response to your post at the Breakthrough Generation Blog.  You and others can read it here: http://breakthroughgen.org/2009/06/13/a-losing-strategy/Greens and the mainstream environmental movement missed a critical opportunity to push for a stronger bill because they continue to view global warming simply as a pollution problem rather than an energy development problem.  "Taking to the streets" will solve little until environmentalists adopt a framework that is not doomed to fail. 
    Devon

    Permalink

  21. BlackbirdHighway Posted 5:28 pm
    14 Jun 2009

    As Sun Tzu said, we must know our enemy. Go out and watch the documentary "The Corporation". Only then will you realize what you are up against. You cannot make any progress with government without first dealing with the corporations, because our government is mostly controlled by the corporations.
    The Republican party is completely controlled by corporations and the Democratic party is mostly controlled by corporations. That's why I voted Green Party. The Green Party has no chance of gaining the White House, at least not until it gains momentum by winning many local and state level races. That's doesn't mean it's not worth supporting. As far as environmental policy is concerned, it is so far ahead of the the two major parties that there is no contest. If you care about climate and you are voting Republican or Democratic then you are shooting yourself in the foot. That's how we end up with the present WM bill.Notably, Sun Tzu also said "It is a matter of life and death, a road either to safety or to ruin".

    Permalink

Add a Comment

You are not logged in. Thus, you cannot post a comment. If you have an account, log in. If you don't have an account, well, by all means go make one! Meet you back here in five.

Hello, Visitor!    Why not register?

Viewed
More
Commented
More
Advertisement