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.
Climate-news poem: Breath-catching edition
China blasts U.S. climate bill enabling penalties on trade partners
Comments View as Flat
Pangolin Posted 1:24 pm
20 Apr 2008
#2, side fries, coffee
Given the nature of the latest science hitting the press I would rather not have any roadblocks to a very strong climate bill. I'll spare any body the details but things are not going well.
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
Lie + War = American Green Al Qaeda
Not too tangential WSJ piece highlights how the CAA increased US GHG emissions for the last few decades.
Coal Usage Increases
Faster than Power Output
By REBECCA SMITH http://online.wsj.com/article/SB120857134922828371.html?m ...
April 19, 2008; Page A7
Permalink
Gar Lipow Posted 2:24 pm
20 Apr 2008
How about ED bashing everyone to their left
You might want to mention that other bashing - where people from ED say (and I'm paraphrasing just as you are) "None of you dirty hippies who oppose Lieberman-Warner know anything about practical politics. You just sit down and shut up, cause your noise is interfering with deal-making by those of us who know what we are doing ,which does not include any environmental groups but us."
Permalink
David Roberts Posted 5:09 pm
20 Apr 2008
Gar,
I'm entirely open to the possibility that EDF says that, but can you point to an example?
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
Separating Sheep from Goats
is a old habit that dies hard.
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
A Vicious Circle
David:
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 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
I agree with the sentiment
but also think that most of the folks in the vehemently-pro and vehemently-anti camp haven't actually read the details of the bill, and (on both sides) might change their tune if they did so.
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
Brad writes....
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
More grandfatherly advice
The fact that #2 above is true should not be dismissed. Recalling that fascism was early defined as corporate control of government, words from the Pope recalling to Yonkers youth his days as a Hitler youth seems appropriate
http://www.nytimes.com/2008/04/19/nyregion/19popeyouth.ht ...
Permalink
dissociated Posted 2:47 am
21 Apr 2008
Fighting amongst ourselves
I agree that it's ridiculous to be coming down on each other, within the green movement and with people who are willing to at least give the green movement the benefit of the doubt. I just came from another corner of the web where the discussion is about how offensive the recent Time magazine cover is because of the soldiers lifting a tree instead of the flag. Most people there think it's offensive and try to claim they feel that way because it's exploiting that symbol, but it's clear that virtually everyone claiming it's offensive thinks climate change is "over-hyped." Others called the story boring and said they'd rather hear about vets than climate change. There is still a lot of work to do. I suspect there also might be strong resistance building to the idea of climate change requiring a war-size effort to fight as well. That idea has barely broken into the mainstream (or maybe still hasn't), and yet it's already being spoken out against, and undoubtedly you can imagine some will be calling the idea offensive.
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