Never doubt that a small group of thoughtful, committed citizens can change the world. Indeed, it’s the only thing that ever has.—Margaret Mead (1901-1978)
Almost every environmental organization uses this quote at some point. Mead’s organizing truth is comforting to those laboring in the activist vineyards, but it is almost precisely opposite the actual approach we have taken, which would more appropriately be written ...
It goes without saying that a small group of thoughtful, committed program officers and professional staff can mold public opinion and shift voting patterns, which should change the world. Indeed, it’s the only thing liberals have ever been known to do.
Recent polls show an abrupt decline in public support for environmentalism and concern about global warming, which undercuts the two central assumptions of US environmentalist strategy:
- our main audience is the general public, to whom we must present a watered down climate story, and
- our natural base of support is liberal Democrats.
Public support for protecting the environment, according to the recent Pew Center for People & the Press poll fell “precipitously,” from 56 to 41 percent in one year, while global warming continued its downward slide, from 38 percent in 2007 to 35 percent in 2008 and 30 percent this year.
Most striking, support for environmental protection by liberal Democrats dropped 17 percent, from 74 to 57 percent, roughly the same rate as Republicans, down 19 percent, and independents, at 15 percent, and significantly higher than the 9 percent drop among moderate Democrats.
If environmentalism is best advanced within the rubric of progressive politics and global warming is most effectively communicated through optimistic messages addressed to the general public, then why were we just abandoned in droves by liberal Democrats and why, in a year of upbeat news about “green jobs,” did public support continue to nosedive?
A new chart, Selected US Global Warming Trends 2004-2009, presents the Pew poll data against two measures of media attention to climate and the frequency of Google searches for “global warming.” Though not statistically valid, the comparison does tend to indicate a correlation between media coverage and public curiosity and concern. Most interestingly, the surge in media attention occasioned by Al Gore’s An Inconvenient Truth begins to decline just as bolstering scientific news—particularly release of the IPCC 4th Report and dramatic, visceral evidence as a Northwest passage opens for the first time—is released.
Even the reduced levels of support identified by Pew should be considered highly suspect, when compared with open-ended national polling which shows that neither “the environment” nor “global warming” are yet identified by any significant number of Americans when asked to volunteer the most important problem facing the nation or highest priority for the government.
As I have argued before, our attention to wide but weak public support is misplaced, leaving us vulnerable to the cycles of an ADD media and alienating our potential core. It is increasingly evident that the vast scale of climate risk provokes a number of numbing psychological responses—pre-conscience cognitive dissonance and buffering in various forms—which exacerbates the usual forces of diffusion.
The only means by which a worldview and solution that is significantly at odds with majority public opinion may be driven onto the public agenda is through the agency of “a small group of thoughtful, committed citizens”—in other words, a determined, partisan core.
Our history is littered with examples of ostensibly important matters—advanced by effective advocates, resting on high moral ground, and commanding broad public support—that did not ignite until a determined core took action as, for example, the effort to end slavery languished for over a century in the hands of Abolitionists until Kansas and Harper’s Ferry.
Where there is no core or it is disconnected, disheartened, and divided (as are the very worried few with whom we are not holding a proper conversation) political power rests on the flimsy platform of public opinion driven by mass media and depends upon, rather than drives, the agendas of politicians. Broad-but-thin public support is a will-o-wisp that collapses quickly when it comes into conflict with firmly held values, or when media attention falters—the double-whammy we just experienced. Liberal support, which many U.S. environmentalists consider synonymous with environmentalism, dropped like a stone because climate is secondary to social justice and economic security.
One more note: Many believe that we do have a climate core. There is, it is true, a very worried group of people out there, many of whom are our members and supporters, but these folks exist in an existential hell, trapped between two flatly incompatible visions of reality:
- Either we are facing collapse of the very systems that sustain life on the planet, with a terribly small chance of avoiding cataclysm if we manage to fundamentally reshape global society in four years, as climate scientists acting from a precautionary view advise;
- or, climate change is a most serious problem and getting worse, but we have made major progress and there’s considerable room for hope; indeed, climate change provides us an opportunity to rebuild our society along more sustainable and equitable lines. U.S. environmentalists have an effective plan of action and, while it will be not easy, we can count on President Obama and the Democrats in Congress, in the end, to put our solutions in place.
Climate groups grapple for a path forward from Copenhagen
Comments
View as Flat
Bill Scher Posted 6:00 am
23 Feb 2009
The Pew poll asks what should be a "top priority ... THIS YEAR."
It is not surprising at all that in the midst of a media pounding that the entire economy is in a meltdown, that people across the ideological spectrum will be more inclined to say we should focus on the economy this year. While that speaks to a relative softness in support for environmental issues, that far from abandoning support in droves.
Further, this analysis ignores that some of the strongest messaging in support of the stimulus was the green jobs message (See http://www.fivethirtyeight.com/2009/01/on-stimulus-its-ea ... ). That broad message was a massive success in ending the false choice between environment and economy, critical to garner necessary broad support for a comprehensive climate bill.
Bill Scher blogs for Common Sense at commonsense.ourfuture.org
Permalink
Russ Posted 6:12 am
23 Feb 2009
Similarly, we've long known the people's commitment to environmental issues, at least in times of general crisis, and especially where no one rings a clarion call to real action, is skin deep.
So where there's no leadership, no vision to stir the soul, the people are going to respond with the same apathy. That's where the wretched cult of the "politically possible", of self-limited thought and self-limited goals, gets you.
That's exactly what we're seeing from this administration, which has the opportunity of a lifetime to turn the very radicalism of the circumstance into energy and will to take radical action.
Why not take the people at their word and challenge them to accomplish great things? The very crisis which conjures fear and trepidation, having summoned such emotional energy into being, can be harnessed and this energy be directed to a feeling of liberation - from all the old mental and policy ruts, all the old prejudices and hang-ups and crimes.
I don't know how people would respond if challenged to take world-changing action toward revitalizing the economy, healing the land, dealing with the energy and climate crisis.
But I do know how they'll respond if they're not so challenged: the same way they always have. They'll do nothing.
It seems Obama can't/won't do it. He's mired in the paucity of nope. He sleeps, and gets up to appease Republicans and pledge allegience to bankers, and rechecks his paltry ideology of continuity and the status quo, satisfies himself, and sleeps some more.
There isn't going to be any salvation from on high. This is true for the economy, and it's true for the climate. The only way these things are going to be tackled, if they're going to be tackled at all, is from a new movement, organized at first from the bottom up, which is free of all the old psychological and ideological debris.
If the climate core, as Ken calls them here, are to find the traction to engage a renewed public consciousness and political will to Change, and to maintain everlastingly their own personal resolve and inspiration, they'll have to find these things outside politics as usual.
There's no time left to engage in conventional political talk and enshrine incremental, anemic policy adjustment as the highest hope (let alone to still compromise with deniers and obstructionists, who are by now a kind of terrorist).
Either the groundswell comes over these next few years, or there'll be nothing left but to let the climate feedbacks unfold and hope Peak Oil forestalls the worst.
Permalink
Ted Clayton Posted 6:29 am
23 Feb 2009
The analysis is simple, but seeing this isn't the Reader's Digest version, much less the full novel, it's in keeping with the spirit of the post.
===
Sometimes, a small group pulls off the big coup ... but "...it's the only thing that ever has."? Nonsense. There are multiple sources of large-scale change, and while 'the masses' are often badly compromised, it's a mistake to confuse common-place laxity with categorical inability.
Margaret Mead was a terrific specimen, but there was nothing infallible about her performance.
Permalink
christophersj Posted 6:52 am
23 Feb 2009
How can we get the votes for regualtion of greenhouse gasses without Congressional votes and the support of their constituents??? It has been shown again and again that several key legal guideposts must be put into place for the people and the market to flow through on their way to carbon neutrality. We MUST have some popular support to get those laws passed.
This isn't an either/or thing. Its an ALL OF THE ABOVE thing.
There WILL be both national and international regulation of greenhouse gasses within the next 24 months. We need the core and the population for this.
A contraction or withdrawal or circling of the wagons is not an option.
Permalink
Ken Ward Posted 1:15 am
24 Feb 2009
I don't see it as an "either/or" question; more a "the chicken or the egg" problem. The fundamental challenge in seeking radical change is always the tension between engagement in the present, necessary to be relevant, and holding out on principle, necessary to avoid being captured by the politics of what is possible.
Couldn't quite tell, Ted, whether you were quoting my rewording of Mead in refuting the argument that only small groups drive change. I take the point (though my Mead-esque phrase was meant as parody and referred not to the "climate core," but to elite liberal, mass communication approaches). I do stand by the view that no significant change ever occurs without a hard-nosed, completely committed, radical core. I think a fair reading of American history shows that fundamental change has always been won by radicals driving the nation to a point of conflict, followed by moderates moving solutions acceptable to the majority and key interests. What examples can you point to otherwise?
The core does several things: small but fanatical groups force fundamental questions that are uncomfortable or awkward, and most people would rather not think about, to be deal with (anti-abortion movement), they cut through obfuscation , expert-dominated debate and dilatory political responses by defining simple, moral grounds for action (Civil Rights movement), they protest and disrupt, which is the basis of all outsider group power (Suffragettes), and they polarize the political question and galvanize a larger group of supporters who temporize if given any softer option (Prohibition, Vietnam). No one believes that the New Deal would have been possible without serious organizing by socialists, for example.
I do agree with Christopher's point that we need both. I'm arguing that we have ditched the radical over the last two, three decades in favor of the moderate, and therefore we have no power base.
I also agree, Bill, that climate has fallen on the Pew list because (a) even people worried about climate think the President should handle economics first and (b) given the way we and Obama have spun it, people think that economic recovery will address climate, and I hadn't thought about your important point that we've achieved much toward "ending the false choice between environment and economy."
But what you do not address, Bill, is the reality that some climate reform is not enough; we've completely run out of time to address this in steps. If we pass the "comprehensive climate bill" you mention, then we fail. Whether you agree, in your heart of hearts, with that, I don't know, but I am willing to bet you don't disagree that there are valid arguments being made - by Hansen, McKibben, and every environmentalist in Australia - that cap & trade plus even the most ambitious Democratic domestic measures are wholly insufficient to solve the problem. [The other thing you skip over is continuing weak response to open-ended polling questions.]
The fact that so many US environmentalists can support what most everyone agrees may be a package that is too little, too late and may be our last chance is, I think, pretty good grounds to support the position that we don't have a climate core. There ought to be a vigorous intramural debate going on with enough oomph behind it to force moderate environmentalists at least to negotiate, if not threaten to derail the whole Congressional debacle before it even launches, but we see nothing of the sort.
If these were ordinary times, then this would be merely the usual ebb and flow of American movement politics. At some point we would expect an influx of youth and frustrated radicals who would challenge and/or bypass the moderates, bringing a new verve, new waves of protest and disruption, and new idealism to US environmentalism - perhaps we are seeing the first stirrings of this now in West Virginia and the upcoming Capitol Coal action.
The problem is that there is no time to reinvent our institution nor take the long view - the one point where I diverge from Russ. I think there is more than enough evidence to support Hansen's statement that we're down to 4 years or less.
So... we need to simultaneously drop our moderate agenda, put forward a functional, global solution, engage and galvanize our core, hang on to as much broad public support as we can, and do all this without taking the time to fight for control of our institution, as, for example, the 10 year long effort by SEIU to remake labor.
We must, therefore, look for something very, very rare in society; perhaps even something wholly new. Our present leadership and moderate organizations must step back from the path they have followed for twenty years and blaze a new one, and that Herculean project, I would argue, requires that we shift our immediate attention from the majority to a minority.
I'm a Tom Rush fan (new album out! http://www.tomrush.com/nimbit.html#music/whatiknow) and in his update to fans this month, he included two quotes which seem very apropos...
"Success is the ability to go from one failure to another with no loss of enthusiasm."
Sir Winston Churchill
"Man's main task in life is to give birth to himself, to become what he potentially is."
Erich Fromm
Ken Ward
(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address)
//
var l=new Array();
var output = '';
l[0]='>';l[1]='a';l[2]='/';l[3]='';l[28]='\"';l[29]=' 103';l[30]=' 114';l[31]=' 111';l[32]=' 46';l[33]=' 115';l[34]=' 101';l[35]=' 110';l[36]=' 105';l[37]=' 108';l[38]=' 116';l[39]=' 104';l[40]=' 103';l[41]=' 105';l[42]=' 114';l[43]=' 98';l[44]=' 64';l[45]=' 100';l[46]=' 114';l[47]=' 97';l[48]=' 119';l[49]=' 110';l[50]=' 101';l[51]=' 107';l[52]=':';l[53]='o';l[54]='t';l[55]='l';l[56]='i';l[57]='a';l[58]='m';l[59]='\"';l[60]='=';l[61]='f';l[62]='e';l[63]='r';l[64]='h';l[65]='a ';l[66]='
Permalink
Ted Clayton Posted 1:41 am
25 Feb 2009
50 years, spanking was a virtually obligatory element of the social dynamic & cohesion. Opportunities to spank were valued, and exploited. Mother of misbehaving youngsters in the supermarket did not wait to go home to discipline, but slapped away on the wailing brat right there next to the Cherrios.
Teachers kept menacing paddle-boards hanging like head-hunter trophies, right next to the blackboard. When someone cooperated by crossing over some line, he was taken just outside the classroom door, often left open, for the loudly-delivered punishment.
Corporal punishment of children is no longer the norm, and it's decline is one of the major defining elements that separate today's culture from that of previous generations. No small elite - who had protested it for ages - brought about the demise.
Consider the 'coolness' of drug-usage. Drug-use has existed for centuries, but it was the mark & province of degraded people. Now it's chic, and a very serious social problem: No small core cause this change.
Look at the stampede to city lifestyles. Cities were feared for thousands of years. Early Industrial Revolution cities were bona fide hell-holes ... but the movement to them was unstoppable.
In all these cases, 'common' people decided - for their own reasons - to go with a different way of doing things ... and in so doing modified the form & function of the nation & culture, fundamentally.
No Ken, the really heavy-duty changes that take place - secularism over religion, comsumerism over self-reliance, idealogy over science - actually happen as grassroots phenomena.
What needs to happen for Anthopogenic Global Warming to achieve the goals they aim for, is an increase in what they are presently losing: Public Support. It's the grassroots approval that is needed most - not the efforts of a small, elite core.
Contemplate how the climate-policies of the Obama Administration would change, if instead of falling voter-support for climate-action, the numbers were high & climbing. He'd be singing a different tune & marching a different path, wouldn't he?
Permalink
christophersj Posted 8:22 pm
25 Feb 2009
Permalink
Ted Clayton Posted 12:33 am
26 Feb 2009
"Posting Rules
Here at Gristmill, we enjoy hearing from you, our readers. You are welcome -- nay, encouraged -- to leave comments, thoughts, feedback, additions, modifications, and the like on each and every one of our fresh-baked posts. Like icing, or sprinkles.
However, when leaving comments, please keep the following rules in mind.
Don't be a jerk. Nobody likes jerks.
Try to avoid profanity. The English language is vast and magnificent.
Do not direct personal attacks at a poster or fellow commenter. Substance, people. Substance. [emp. added]
Don't be a troll. (Troll: Commenter who makes outrageous or provocative statements purely in order to derail discussion.) You know who you are.
No spam, no solicitation, no links to porn, no internet detritus of similar ilk.
Seriously, don't be a jerk.
We're confident these posting rules will prove entirely unnecessary, as our audience is composed of intelligent, well-spoken, tolerant folk. However, should an outsider violate one of these rules, you may report him or her to (JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address)
//
var l=new Array();
var output = '';
l[0]='>';l[1]='a';l[2]='/';l[3]='';l[24]='\"';l[25]=' 103';l[26]=' 114';l[27]=' 111';l[28]=' 46';l[29]=' 116';l[30]=' 115';l[31]=' 105';l[32]=' 114';l[33]=' 103';l[34]=' 64';l[35]=' 108';l[36]=' 108';l[37]=' 105';l[38]=' 109';l[39]=' 116';l[40]=' 115';l[41]=' 105';l[42]=' 114';l[43]=' 103';l[44]=':';l[45]='o';l[46]='t';l[47]='l';l[48]='i';l[49]='a';l[50]='m';l[51]='\"';l[52]='=';l[53]='f';l[54]='e';l[55]='r';l[56]='h';l[57]='a ';l[58]='
Permalink
amazingdrx Posted 1:33 am
26 Feb 2009
Try focusing on your breath. Be aware of your awareness...breathe in five seconds, breathe out 8 seconds...
Auuuummm..
http://amazngdrx.blogharbor.com/blog John Schneider, Northern Wisconsin
Permalink
amazingdrx Posted 1:57 am
26 Feb 2009
A poll that asked about issues like solar cogeneration to lower family expenses might find that public interest in renewable energy can be mainly based on the monthly family budget, intead of complex scientific debate that they do not have the time or inclination to try to decipher.
The clouding up of any clear explanation of climate issues with nonsense has been a good strategery for the denier/delayer set.
Counter with stories like this about home solar installations that feature no money down and patments equal to energy savings, with a 7 year payback. After the payback the savings are like income in the family budget.
a local solar installer has announced a $0-down financing program, with payments set at avoided energy cost (estimated at a 7-year payback).
Reduce the payback to 4 years with subsidies payed to homeowners, that are cut right out of fossil and ag industry corporate welfare. There is 50 billion in free money going to these multinational crooks right now, exxonmob give it up!
These are poll ready points, ask the public if they want free energy after a 4 year payback, with no money down and payments that equal monthly energy savings? 95% would answer yes.
Add in a green jobs question: "Would you approve of a stimulus plan that used subidies diverted from the oil industry to encourage green jobs in home solar installation?"
If we stress family economics we will win this climate saving battle. We have an endless stream of fuel-free free "fuel" on our side, from the big fusion reactor in the sky!
Retire with free energy? After a 4 year payback, with payments that decrease your power bills in an equal amount? That's climate policy that pays its own way.
http://amazngdrx.blogharbor.com/blog John Schneider, Northern Wisconsin
Permalink
christophersj Posted 6:05 am
26 Feb 2009
Asking you, over and over again, to reveal your final intentions with your line of posts, is not an "attack". Its asking for clarity. I have been asking you, "I dont want to assume your intentions are negative, please clarify this for me". And you refuse to.
I'm actually being pretty civil.
In a time when a large "disruption campaign" is being played out, from coast to coast, with emails, forum postings, Washington Post and NY Times transmitting falsehoods, its a rational question.
Why not just say either:
1.) I REALLY am an impartial skeptic and I question both environmentalists AND right-wing bloggers and columnists alike. I AM a fair skeptic.
2.) I dont want to see CO2 regulation because I think this is all a crock of tree-hugging crap and academic lies. I am here to gum up the dialog by posing as a rational questioner, but really I want to dissuade readers from action concerning AGW.
I'm sticking by this question of you and will take any consequences that come with that.
Permalink
Ted Clayton Posted 6:22 am
26 Feb 2009
Your record ... is a matter of record.
Permalink
christophersj Posted 7:01 am
26 Feb 2009
Permalink