A lot of green folks of my acquaintance seem to have two and only two things to say about the Lieberman-Warner climate bill:
- It won't achieve what science demands.
- Those who support it, even with qualifiers, even while pushing for improvements, are earth f*cking, corporate bootlicking sellouts.
Maybe I'm just feeling kumbaya because it's 4/20 (ahem), but I don't much care for purity tests like this.
Thing is, No. 2 does not necessarily follow from No. 1. It's not enough to say that the bill doesn't do what science demands. Of course it doesn't. No bill, not even Sanders-Boxer, does that, and if there was such a bill it wouldn't have a snowball's chance in hell of passing this year, or next, or probably for many years to come. The question is not whether to compromise on the ideal targets, but how much, and when.
It's politics. You can't just will it away. If high-minded purity yields political deadlock then it is in no way superior to obstructionism.
There are people in the green community -- lots of people, many for whom I have great respect -- who think that the recent momentum behind carbon legislation is a hard-won and precious thing. It is not something that can be cranked up and down at will. It needs to to be nurtured and nudged along, not met with rigid ultimatums and red lines. They want us to use it as best we can, as fast as we can, to get a mandatory carbon cap in place. The day after that, we start fighting to make the system better.
Others think it's worth waiting until a much better bill is on the table -- not forever, but a year, maybe two. If you pass a deeply flawed bill now, it will be difficult to muster the political will to revisit it any time soon. Next year's political environment is almost certain to be more amenable to strong climate legislation than this year's, so it's unwise to surrender too much in this Congressional session.
I'm in the second camp, but I don't think it's so obviously the right position that I can cop to moral superiority over those who come down differently. This is a scary, high-stakes poker game we're playing, and we all see through the glass dimly.
I do know that there are people and institutions intractably opposed to any serious action at all. Perhaps instead of browbeating those who pursue action differently, we could train our fire on those folks.
John McCain’s troubles are the world’s troubles
George Voinovich (R-Ohio) [UPDATED]
Al Franken (D-Minn.)
Comments
View as Flat
Pangolin Posted 1:24 pm
20 Apr 2008
I think a global WWII type mobilization will be needed. I hope we're up to it.
Put the Carbon Back
Permalink
ids Posted 1:48 pm
20 Apr 2008
Coal Usage Increases
Faster than Power Output
By REBECCA SMITH http://online.wsj.com/article/SB120857134922828371.html?m ...
April 19, 2008; Page A7
The power industry consumed 1.046 billion short tons of coal in 2007, up 1.95% from 2006, actual electricity production rose by 1.6%, less than the increase in coal usage. . . . The increase in coal consumption is related to a shift to the use of western coal, mostly from Montana and Wyoming, which generates less heat than coal mined in the eastern U.S. Nevertheless, western coal is often used because it contains less sulfur than eastern coal, making it easier for power plants to meet certain air-emissions limits.
Permalink
Gar Lipow Posted 2:24 pm
20 Apr 2008
Permalink
David Roberts Posted 5:09 pm
20 Apr 2008
I know that Boxer has bashed FOE in public, and yes, I found that quite distasteful. I've pushed back in the other direction too, e.g.:
http://gristmill.grist.org/story/2008/2/29/1582/30722
My point is just that there are more than enough genuine bad guys to go around. Fellow activists are rarely the real problem.
It's not just greens. Activists the world over tend to prey on one another, probably because when one activist attacks another he/she gets a response. When you attack a coal executive, he ignores you. It's more satisfying to be paid attention to. That's why so many revolutionary movements throughout history have cannibalized themselves via the vicious adjudication of finer and finer distinctions and tests of ideological purity.
(PS, Gar, Peter Barnes is at this conference I'm at -- I'll try to have a chat with him.)
grist.org
Permalink
randino Posted 9:52 pm
20 Apr 2008
I have taken a page from Ronald Reagan who followed the commandment, "Though shall not speak ill of another Republican."
Now there are groups in the green world that I wouldn't walk across the street to spit on. But I don't put our "business out on the street." I may bite my tongue, but I follow the rule of "thou shalt not speak ill, of another environmentalist."
Dave is right. There are plenty enough real bastards to go around. We don't have to love everyone in our movement. But we should apply ourselves to changing the world. Not going to heaven.
Randy Cunningham
Randy Cunningham
Permalink
Brad Johnson Posted 10:16 pm
20 Apr 2008
Isn't that what you're doing here, attacking other activists (for attacking other activists)?
You write: I'm entirely open to the possibility that EDF says that, but can you point to an example?
I'm entirely open to the possibility that detractors of Lieberman-Warner say supporters are "earth f*cking, corporate bootlicking sellouts," but can you point to an example?
The Wonk Room
Permalink
Sean Casten Posted 11:31 pm
20 Apr 2008
In other words, knee-jerk bashing is indeed bad. But I'd like to see a lot more nuanced analysis so that the conversation can become more thoughtful and critical (on both sides) than it has been to date. Whatever one thinks of EDF and FOE, they have at least been leading that effort - the former from the perspective of policy details and the latter from the perspective of environmental details. And we need more of that type of discourse, not less.
Permalink
Russ Posted 11:46 pm
20 Apr 2008
I'm entirely open to the possibility that EDF says that, but can you point to an example?
I'm entirely open to the possibility that detractors of Lieberman-Warner say supporters are "earth f*cking, corporate bootlicking sellouts," but can you point to an example?
I agree with this question. I haven't seen L-W's detractors(of which I am one) condemn its supporters as bootlicks or sellouts.
I for one understand and appreciate the "perfect is the enemy of the good, we have to take whatever's politically possible" argument, even though I often disagree with it, and I don't attack as sellouts those who argue it.
I think the problem is with the concept "politically possible" and what could be seen as a defeatist attitude toward it.
If this is a choice between the "Here I stand, I can do no other" principle vs. the "art of the possible" principle, there seems to be a chicken-or-the-egg question.
Is it, the restrictive political climate compels one to take a moderate position?;
or is it, an intrinsically timid, accomodationist temperament compels one's moderation, and this in turn enables and encourages a restrictive political climate?
Maybe, if the mindset was more intrepid, we could clear away more obstacles and render the path less restricted.
Permalink
ids Posted 12:57 am
21 Apr 2008
http://www.nytimes.com/2008/04/19/nyregion/19popeyouth.ht ...
As young Americans you are offered many opportunities for personal development, and you are brought up with a sense of generosity, service and fairness. Yet you do not need me to tell you that there are also difficulties: activities and mindsets which stifle hope, pathways which seem to lead to happiness and fulfillment but in fact end only in confusion and fear.
My own years as a teenager were marred by a sinister regime that thought it had all the answers; its influence grew -- infiltrating schools and civic bodies, as well as politics and even religion -- before it was fully recognized for the monster it was.
Permalink
dissociated Posted 2:47 am
21 Apr 2008
The same site recently had a poll about the news story people are most tired of, and climate change was one of them. Most Grist readers undoubtedly think the story isn't getting enough attention, and yet a lot of people there think it's getting too much. The fact that it's grouped in as just another news story is offensive to me.
The comments at that particular site are mostly from people who are so militantly against the idea of climate change being serious (which I don't really understand why they're so vehement, considering all the side benefits for health, energy security, the economy), but you can see in the polls that things are more evenly split, yet you don't hear from the people concerned about climate change much in the comments. People (including me) are put off by the outspoken comments from the other side, and yet here we bicker amongst ourselves. Mind you, if you're not "debating," then there's probably not much to say. We still need to convince everyone else that climate change isn't a "vague threat," a "hoax," or "over-hyped." I have no idea how to begin to do that, but clearly we shouldn't turn on each other because it's easier, and just because we can still think logically after reading each other's comments.
Permalink