I talked with lots of people inside and outside the green movement at Netroots Nation, and one theme arose again and again. Everyone agrees that the energy issue is more salient every day, in virtually every area of politics (economy, foreign policy, etc.). Lots of people are now being pushed to address it. They're looking around for a pre-existing coalition to hook into, and since energy thinking has been outsourced to the green movement for decades now, that's the obvious place to look.
But there is no such coalition.
There is no progressive climate/energy community with a set of shared assumptions, shared messages, and shared goals. There are lots and lots of groups pursuing their own initiatives, coming up with their own language and framing, building their own email lists, and doing their own development and fundraising. To the extent they interact it takes the form of squabbling over details and messaging. There's plenty of infighting but very little leadership and coordination.
So what is the foreign policy community supposed to do? What are progressive economists supposed to do?
What they inevitably do is come up with their own goals and their own messages, thus adding to the background white noise that's already impenetrable to the public. What cuts through that white noise is "drill here drill now pay less." It's simple, it's being echoed in 100 different places, and it looks like leadership.
The green movement's time has come. This is the moment, the historical fork in the road. And the movement is totally, woefully disorganized and unprepared. It's a bitter irony: All the things it has worked for and dreamed about for 30 years are going to happen, and it is going to be all but irrelevant to them.
Pretty disheartening.
Calling all radicals: Unite for Kerry-Boxer
Dispassion as the world ends: The absent heart of the great climate affair
Comments
View as Threaded
Jon Rynn Posted 6:30 am
21 Jul 2008
What you saw with Gore advocating, or implying, the end of a a fossil-fuel society, is a glimmer of attention to the idea, maybe for the first time.
When you say "energy", are you really talking about gasoline/oil prices? Or are people also concerned about electricity costs, or god forbid, carbon-based electricity sources? Because if it's the former, then people will have to discuss how suburbia will look, how cities will look, with an electrified transportation system, and I think that that is something that progressives/environmentalists are woefully unprepared for, as it will probably involve lots of talk of public transit/walkable communities, which, again, might sound scary. And yes, electric cars.
Permalink
Sean Casten Posted 7:02 am
21 Jul 2008
The most talented individuals within those communities are increasingly decamping off to launch their own solo efforts, realizing (probably not incorrectly) that they're better off on their own. And lots of the rest are working hard to retain their "king of the dweebs" titles, standing directly in the path of success. We ought to do better.
Permalink
risabee Posted 7:08 am
21 Jul 2008
Transition Towns
http://www.transitiontowns.org/
Entia non sunt multiplicanda praeter necessitatem.
Permalink
Matt G Posted 7:14 am
21 Jul 2008
Building this list shouldn't be too hard. Just make sure to only include wide truths (e.g. Coal is an enemy to mankind) and don't add any specific controversial technologies to the list (e.g. nuclear).
Permalink
Sean Casten Posted 7:32 am
21 Jul 2008
(a) politically savvy
(b) politically powerful
(c) technically literate
(d) economically literate
(e) creative - a fount for good ideas
(f) capable of acting quickly
I'd challenge you to name any advocacy/lobbying/think-tank that meets these criteria and doesn't represent the status quo.
Most of the best orgs that I know either agree on goals but fight about paths, or else spend their time trying to hold together coalitions of disparate interests (for political power) that can't agree on goals (making it impossible for them to act on anything). The worst ones meanwhile may agree on goals and paths and have no dissension within their ranks, but are politically naive and grossly idealistic and - as a result - are politically powerless. (Many environmental orgs, sadly, fall into this group.)
Permalink
Jon Rynn Posted 7:43 am
21 Jul 2008
"There is no problem."
"There is a problem, but The Market! and Science! will solve it, so it's not really a problem."
"Holy shit, there really is a problem with no easy solutions."
"I guess I better do something."
"Hey government! Get off your arse and help us!"
Permalink
wesrolley Posted 7:53 am
21 Jul 2008
I never thought much of Mr. Pickens, but he bought the time to run his ad during Meet the Press with Brokaw (Gotta agree with Dave about Tom) and Gore and he was right about this.
This is also a case where the media is failing to ask the obvious follow up questions when any politician takes this approach.
Wes Rolley
CoChair - EcoAction Committee
Green Party US
Permalink
Gar Lipow Posted 8:09 am
21 Jul 2008
http://www.greenforall.org/
But the reason the greens lunch has been eaten is that main stream environmental groups and thinkers have mostly focused on putting a price on carbon. (Sean, I'm including you on this, because indirectly your proposal does create a carbon price.) It is not that putting a price on carbon is wrong but it should never have been the main focus. The single biggest potential source of cuts would come through public investment. And poltically if all the green groups had been shouting all along about public investments to reduce emissions and replace oil, the right would not have been eating our lunch on this.
Permalink
amazingdrx Posted 8:28 am
21 Jul 2008
I am all for public investment too, like government ordering a million plugin hybrid cars over 3 years, or putting solar on federal, state, and local buildings.
And subsidy as well, direct subsidy checks to homeowners, farmers, and businesses who generate GHG free kwh for the grid from their renewable energy systems.
http://amazngdrx.blogharbor.com/blog John Schneider, Northern Wisconsin
Permalink
Matt G Posted 8:42 am
21 Jul 2008
Of course all of your problem groups probably describe us as well.
Just start a seperate group made up and supported by this one. Agree to create a platform and stick to it. The rest is marketing.
Permalink
ce1907 Posted 1:47 pm
21 Jul 2008
sort of like the negative Kos campaigns against the latest outrage, but for a positive goal
I suggest grid expansion
Sen. Leader has a bill already. Many utilities want something. Dovetails with wind and concentrated solar
figure out, specifically, what you want
AC DC how many volts. Where. What funding. Any related FERC change? What about NIMBY?
Sen Sanders is on Energy Comm. He is interested. Bring him your prize bill.
Work it. Work it. Work it.
Work
end the jibber jabber and philosophy; pick a goal; just do it
Permalink
greengenes23 Posted 12:12 am
22 Jul 2008
Start with a group of humans who tell themselves they are committed to saving Earth. Tell them they have to give up...
Breeding
Cars
Large houses
Land "development"
Processed food
Heating oil
Land "development"
Vacuum cleaners
Household cleaners
Retirement
Still there?
Economic "growth"
Pets
Bottled water
Airlines
Dry cleaning
Cosmetics
Nascar
School busses
Teflon
HMO's
And now?
3000 mile food
Lawns
Cell phones
Clothes dryer
Disney World, Land...
Plastic
RV's, ATV's, Snowmobiles, etc.
Eco-Tours
Cosmetic surgery
UPS
Anyone left? That's what I thought.
Gene
Permalink
amazingdrx Posted 12:46 am
22 Jul 2008
Obama will be busy doing all the other stuff he has to do as president. Gore ought to lead the renewable energy/ag conservation revolution.
But maybe from outside the normal government structure, heading up a commision or something? What are the precedents for this? If any?
I keep getting back to the idea of government ordering millions of solar systems and plugin hybrids to impell mass production, as in the case of WW 2 industries, and then the president jawboning big corporations into making matching orders of similar equipment. To really get this manufacturing going.
It's a problem though, translating something this complex into simple enough concepts for legislators to grasp and communicate to voters.
http://amazngdrx.blogharbor.com/blog John Schneider, Northern Wisconsin
Permalink
lorna salzman Posted 3:53 am
22 Jul 2008
Even 350.org, Bill McKibben's group, has no clear plan for getting down to the 350 ppm the scientists urge. Do these people think that we should just sit around and pray for a miracle? Isn't anyone embarrassed? Or maybe they aren't scared enough? Or just lazy? Whatever the case, we have failed collectively. We complain but propose no alternative. No wonder the politicians are in control. The activists are sitting in front of their computers instead of storming the doors of congress and marching in the streets. We have put ourselves at their mercy even though science is on our side. We should just crawl away in shame.
Permalink
Wolverine Posted 4:47 am
22 Jul 2008
And this perfectly explains the reactions that Lorna got when she tried to get climate groups to organize climate groups and get effective climate legislation drafted and proposed. Again, in most environmental groups, people fall far more into the yuppie category than into the one concerned primarily about the natural world on which all life, including humans, depends.
Permalink
Jon Rynn Posted 4:52 am
22 Jul 2008
Permalink