I regularly receive a letter from Ted Glick, the coordinator of the U.S. Climate Emergency Council, who recently was arrested for hanging a banner on the NOAA building to protest their mishandling of climate information. He has joined with others in calling for a fast on September 4th:
We are calling on thousands of Americans to voluntarily give up food for one day on September 4th, 2007. Other participants will fast even longer beginning on that date, some for weeks. Our appeal to you is to consider joining us in this climate initiative called, "So Others Might Eat: The Climate Emergency Fast." ...
What will we be calling for? Three things: no new coal or coal-to-liquid plants; freeze greenhouse gas emissions and move quickly to reduce them; and a down payment of $25 billion for energy conservation, efficiency and renewable energy.
Ken Ward has recently posted here about the efficacy of protest.
The problem as I see it is that in the past, direct action and protest have had very clear achievable goals, whereas in the case of global warming, we know we want drastically reduced carbon emission, but the devil is in the details.
I've recently also been reading Paul Hawken's new book, Blessed Unrest, which includes an excellent discussion of direct action, from Thoreau to Gandhi to Martin Luther King, Jr. But in each of those cases, the goal was clear: Thoreau was arrested for not paying a poll tax, which he refused to pay because it was burdensome to the poor and African-Americans; Gandhi protested (and fasted) to try to end apartheid in South Africa, and more famously, to end India's subjugation to the British; and King protested to end segregation laws.
Recently, a group called "Rising Tide" (thanks to Colin Wright for the link) has been practicing civil disobedience in specific circumstances, such as chaining themselves to trucks so that the trucks couldn't deliver coal to power plants. But it also seems to make sense to try to create a national set of protests that would target national policy. The question then becomes, what national policy?
My first proposition is that there should be some piece of legislation that some good Senator(s) or Congresspeople have already introduced that could be the focus of rallying public support. It could be the package that Glick mentions above, or something broader.
Which brings me to a second proposition, that to create a large enough critical mass of public support, global warming must be connected to some other issues. For instance, the Apollo Alliance is trying to link job creation with renewable energy; this could be extended to transportation as well, wherein we could create networks of intercity and intracity train systems.
It could be mandated that all new energy and transportation systems would have to be built in the U.S., and even the machinery to build those systems would be built here, thus moving toward a reindustrialization of the country, pulling in unions and helping people in all lower- and middle-class communities, white and minority, all across the country.
So let me propose a "Swords into Plowshares Act" that would use a few hundred billion dollars from the Pentagon budget to rebuild the country's manufacturing and infrastructure base in order to create a sustainable, carbon-limited economy.
Any other broad-based legislation that might be the focus of direct action efforts?
MTV-approved advice on reaching those who aren’t paying attention
Climate and dirty-energy groups were busy over summer vacation
Comments
View as Flat
David Roberts Posted 7:50 am
26 Jun 2007
Gore had some wise words on this:Well, first of all, we should start by immediately freezing CO2 emissions and then beginning sharp reductions. Merely engaging in high-minded debates about theoretical future reductions while continuing to steadily increase emissions represents a self-delusional and reckless approach. In some ways, that approach is worse than doing nothing at all, because it lulls the gullible into thinking that something is actually being done when in fact it is not.
An immediate freeze has the virtue of being clear, simple, and easy to understand. It can attract support across partisan lines as a logical starting point for the more difficult work that lies ahead. I remember a quarter century ago when I was the author of a complex nuclear arms control plan to deal with the then rampant arms race between our country and the former Soviet Union. At the time, I was strongly opposed to the nuclear freeze movement, which I saw as simplistic and naive. But, ¾ of the American people supported it -- and as I look back on those years I see more clearly now that the outpouring of public support for that very simple and clear mandate changed the political landscape and made it possible for more detailed and sophisticated proposals to eventually be adopted.
When the politicians are paralyzed in the face of a great threat, our nation needs a popular movement, a rallying cry, a standard, a mandate that is broadly supported on a bipartisan basis.
grist.org
Permalink
Jon Rynn Posted 8:28 am
26 Jun 2007
Then, how to reduce? I know there are all kinds of schemes, but I think we need something concrete here: after a while, trying to shut down coal plants without building solar/wind won't do too well, me thinks.
Permalink
David Roberts Posted 9:03 am
26 Jun 2007
The protesters demand a freeze, as a moral imperative. It's the job of politicians to figure out how to implement that moral imperative in policy.
Don't get me wrong, I love talking policy, and will do it until I'm blue in the face. I just don't think a direct action campaign is obliged to carry with it a bunch of policy specifics. It's not that kind of beast.
grist.org
Permalink
sunflower Posted 9:23 am
26 Jun 2007
Coal is the planet killer. We must stop coal expansion. Then bulldoze existing coal plants.
Permalink
Jon Rynn Posted 9:51 am
26 Jun 2007
Permalink
Colin Wright Posted 3:28 pm
26 Jun 2007
But the next step has to be more than freezing new coal plants. At one point, Hansen was saying we needed to phase out coal, and stretch out the remaining oil and gas to build a new infrastructure. Now he is saying:
Humanity cannot afford to burn the Earth's remaining underground reserves of fossil fuel. "To do so would guarantee dramatic climate change, yielding a different planet ...
"The Earth Today stands in Imminent Peril", reads the title from the Independent. "The Earth is getting perilously close to climate changes that could run out of our control", Hansen says.
One has to ask, where are the Democrats? Where are the big environmental groups? What will it take to get them to act? I'm tired of changing lightbulbs. Without national action and leadership all we can do is flail our arms and get angry at each other.
We only have a short window of opportunity before a runaway Greenhouse Effect is a near certainty. What will we tell our children we did during that window? Why can't the environmental community get a decent proposal together this summer, and start getting people out into the streets? Why couldn't some national group set up a big "climate emergency" conference this summer where we could hash out all the details of a decent bill (like Jon is proposing) for Congress? And then organize a large March on Washington? Without feet in the streets, the Democrats are beholden only to the Carbon Lobby.
Permalink
dobermanmacleod Posted 7:15 pm
26 Jun 2007
You are wrong. We want lower trace greenhouse gas levels in the air. You are conflating unlike things.
Nature now removes about half of mankind's CO2 emissions each year, but that is expected to reduce 30% by 2030. Furthermore, a warming earth means carbon sinks will become carbon emitters, releasing tremendous amounts of greenhouse gases into the air.
If mankind drastically reduced carbon emissions (a less than likely achieved goal), it is still likely that nature will absorb much less of mankind's emissions, and nature will emit tremendous amounts of greenhouse gas too.
On the other hand, the goal should be to lower the level of excess CO2 in the air. This might be achieved by drastically reduced carbon emissions (although I think it is unlikely, and therefore an unreasonable goal), or it could be achieved by extracting the CO2 from the air after it has been emitted.
Biosequestration is a low cost, highly scalable, and technically feasible method of removing CO2 from the air. I suggest improving nature's ability to extract the CO2 from the air, and seeding a GMO into the ocean.
In my opinion, you are wasting your time advocating the unreasonable goal of drastically reducing mankind's greenhouse gas emissions. Developing nations will predictable continue to dramatically increase their emissions. Plus, nature will be removing less, and emitting much more in the future. Besides, the US is unlikely to make very expensive cuts when dramatic increases in emissions from developing countries erase them.
The first step to solving global warming is by changing your thinking, and stop advocating drastic unrealistic unlikely emissions cuts, and start advocating biosequestration to remove the CO2 from the air at low cost.
Permalink
GreyFlcn Posted 7:29 pm
26 Jun 2007
You probably don't understand how unbelievable dangerous it is to.
Release a cancerously fast growing GMO into the wild, with no way to stop it.
To screw with ocean chemistry.
The whole iron seeding thing most likely won't even work.
Their intentions aren't even all that genuine.
_
That said, your answer is correct. Reducing CO2 emmisions isn't the goal.
It's the reduce the ambient level of CO2 equivalent greenhouse gases.
Where that plays more of a role is maintaining:
Rainforrests
PeatBogs
Other wetlands
Asside from the oceans, those hold some of the most carbon in the world.
Wetlands make up 3% of the earth's surface, but they hold more carbon than is in the air currently.
Permalink
Jon Rynn Posted 11:44 pm
26 Jun 2007
I would like to take this opportunity to thank you for all of your interesting links -- but also, I was wondering, can you get a web page that would have a list of those links? Even a free blog page would be fine, with links as blog entries. I've sometimes been researching something, and I remember that you had links to that subject, and I can't find your link. If it's just not possible, I understand, but I think a lot of people here would like to be able to reference your information. Thanks!
Permalink
SustainableGreen Posted 1:21 am
27 Jun 2007
Maybe I shouldn't assume what they would think, but it is clear we have a long way to go before we have the same effective level of organization, an equal strength to our message, and the same effective focus. Yes, it is appropriate for Paul Hawken and others to refer to them, but mere reference is empty--learn their lessons.
Where is the single organization under which we can all coordinate and act? Where is the forceful message that makes the Corporate Oligarchy fearful? Where is the weak spot that will kill the monopoly of greed?
Just casually calling on 'thousands' of American to fast for one day hardly 'direct action', nor does it have any force. I'll do it, simply out of sympathy, but the action is actually rather insipid and useless. It is symbolic, and it disrupts nothing. Far far FAR better is for 100s of thousands to take the train to DC, eat a good breakfast, and march Pennsylvania Avenue between the Stooge-in-Chief's free residence and the whorehouse Congress all goddam day long, on a day when they had something else big planned. Now THAT'S "direct action"!!
I can see the spin on this fast: "FAT assholes need to diet anyway!"
David
Sustainability For Life
Messages done with sustainable energy, with Wind and Sun!
Permalink
sunflower Posted 1:30 am
27 Jun 2007
Carbon emission reductions that work will cost less money. The requirement is more thinking, not more money.
Permalink
Jon Rynn Posted 1:55 am
27 Jun 2007
SustainableGreen --
I admit that we are not at a good stage of mass organization, but the fasting and "rising tide" are about the state of the art direct action-wise. I think that it's a good concept to keep in mind, maybe not doable at this stage. I think it needs to be combined with an electoral strategy -- the clean air act and epa-creation came about because a "dirty dozen" of congresspeople were targeted and defeated, congress got scared, nd congress passed good legislation
Permalink
sunflower Posted 2:15 am
27 Jun 2007
Permalink
SustainableGreen Posted 3:23 am
27 Jun 2007
Hey, Jon: Thanks for the responses. I wish thousands of involved people would make a similar admission about the stage of organization, for that is the first step in correcting it.
The framework of an organization can be created overnight--OVERNIGHT. What is needed is a single universally encompassing entity, avoiding all the parochial egos in separate organizations, combining instead the talents of all the organizations. This is what I was referring to previously: a single powerful worldwide organization that many millions of people worldwide can embrace and be embraced by.
This could be done overnight by the 100s of leaders of the various groups, communicating by email to set up a name, an organization, funding sources, and a budget. We know who they/we are (or we have failed yet again) and they do, too. As it is now, however, we are like hyper autistic territorial house cats who nevertheless know the value of organization.
I don't wish to disagree, but I can not agree that fasting is state of the art in protest, when billions fast all the time by default. I am sorry, but it really is a vacuous, insipid action under the circumstances. Delaying breaking out the steaks, pasta, veggies, and wine for one day (or the fast food or the slow food) really has to be among the most superficial of protests.
I do agree fasting has value in principle, but it needs to be highly public, prolonged, and it needs to involve many many many participants worldwide. Highly public to gain exposure and support, prolonged to reinforce the commitment of those involved, and with millions worldwide to reinforce the global scope of the problem and the commitment of the participants and organization.
You mentioned "Rising Tide", which is a model of action I would endorse, absent destruction of property. Destruction of property is a great tool the opposition uses to shut down an action, and it is against the principles of civil disobedience. And "Rising Tide" has growth and organization challenges and it competes with, but hardly complements, other similar organizations. On the other hand A single organization promoted by all has near-instant exposure.
I would also submit that organization and protest has to precede electoral success. In fact, electing responsive, progressive, populist, environmental politicians is an intermediate goal, not really a starting point. And indeed the very success in the 70s you mention was preceded by organization and protest.
I saw on PBS just the other night about a women's right-to-vote protest in 1913 in DC with thousands the day before the inauguration of Wilson. This is a quintessential example of creative organization and protest, and they had no E-MAIL!!
We really MUST do better--and the time is now.
David
Sustainability For Life
Messages done with sustainable energy, with Wind and Sun!
Permalink
Jon Rynn Posted 4:35 am
27 Jun 2007
Permalink
SustainableGreen Posted 5:45 am
27 Jun 2007
Jon, if I may, let me address the details of your last message, and how they tie in with my last message. Parenthetically, much of this has already been covered here in other threads--by dozens if not hundreds--but the organization of this website doesn't help this effort.
I do understand none if this is easy. If that were the case it woulda been done already. And yes, there is a lot of jealousy, territoriality (the house cats), money issues, etc., which is why I think a new separate umbrella entity is needed. This avoids some of these things. I am not aware of the pessimism on size you mention, and I would counter that under the circumstances, large scale is what is needed, but better organized in any case. I think the "right chord" has to demonstrate to all that everyone has to be involved and have central access to information. E.g., if you had not mentioned the scheduled fast here, which is at least somewhat a spontaneous action on your part, many may not ever know about it. It seems trite and overused, but Knowledge indeed is Power.
Maybe the lack of financial and people resources can be overcome by not creating a new physical entity as such, but by existing organizations designating existing money and associated personnel to a "cyber organization" whose physical presence only starts out as a website--"Seeding" if you will. Once established, it should (must) stand on its own, and with support it would take off like kudzu (oops, not the the best simile).
And why is 'calling' needed? Aren't email and text messages far more efficient? And Internet and RSS? Given that there are many overlapping memberships and signups, if each organization were to turn over their membership lists (with the individual permission of the members) would not the result be exponentially more powerful? What if that membership in the millions were to be contacted, and every possible conceivable media outlet, and a mere 5% (or Hell, 1%!) of that membership suddenly showed up in front of a refinery in Sudan, or a coal-fired power plant in China, or a polluting mega-farmer in Chicago, or a manufacturer of land mines in Croatia, or the GE building in Manhattan, or any seat of corrupt government (ooh, that's redundant!) anywhere, or any other of the thousands of places where they are needed--what would happen? What if it were on the SAME DAY? This CANNOT HAPPEN without scale and without organization.
A couple of years ago there was a news report of someone who organized an "action", to use a vague generic term for lack of more accuracy, where people were notified by text message to show up somewhere (I think) in NYC. Bang!--they descended like locusts and caused some joyful disruption, and then as if by magic they left.
WiserEarth has over 100,000 organizations registered worldwide, Avaaz has many thousands of members signed up, and there are dozens of others I simply don't know about--and it is not for want of knowing, either.
And although not specifically focused on the same specific issue, we can all help each other. Social justice, environmental justice, economic justice, health justice, biota justice, and educational justice ALL benefit when ONE benefits. And geography and localized issues need not be isolated, since it is all united anyway, so the isolation is in fact an artifact of human provincialism--jealousy.
I do agree that Gristmill is helpful in developing ideas, but the design of the site actually contributes to a 'memory hole' phenomenon, where ideas seem to disappear with no notice. If it is not "Topic du Jour" it quickly falls out of sight.
I have made my own efforts to approach some of the leadership by email, with mixed results, and with no real positive responses. Still, the time is now.
David
Sustainability For Life
Messages done with sustainable energy, with Wind and Sun!
Permalink
Jon Rynn Posted 6:17 am
27 Jun 2007
I'm wondering what will go on with wiserEarth/blessed unrest, it seems like a great resource. And yes, email and all the rest is of course part of the mix, and any other media possible. Actually, probably another layer of WiserEarth are all the coalitions that these groups are all a part of, then there are coalitions of coalitions, etc. But getting various groups and people to agree on a particular course of action, editing out the bad ideas and pushing the good ones, is generally a full-time job, and getting the agreement in the first place is a very tricky thing, and can take a lot of experience, unfortunately. On the other hand, maybe we have to work toward a new model, where people are just doing this stuff in their spare time. So, I'm trying to sound hopeful at the same time as sharing my experience, as limited as it is.
Permalink
lfrankli Posted 12:06 am
28 Jun 2007
To rebuild the society, to build all those solar panels and wind farms and trains and permaculture farms...and the end result will a much less energy/material intensive society, so the resource use will be less -- money is simply a measure of underlying wealth, the question is how to create a society that uses less resources, not less money.
Yes, it will require money, but it will also provide economic opportunity. The jobs/climate solutions connection is not a hard one to make, and it is imperative that we begin to see opportunity, not cost (and, of course, opportunity cost!!) in addressing climate change.
AND, referring to our protest discussion, we can bring this connection to the forefront through protest and direct, strategic action. I again, unabashedly, point to the upcoming marches in NH and IA.
By calling our leaders to make the connection between jobs and climate solutions, we are emphasizing that connection to the millions of Americans that think of climate solutions as a cost.
Lindsey
Permalink
lfrankli Posted 12:06 am
28 Jun 2007
Permalink
SustainableGreen Posted 2:55 am
28 Jun 2007
Hey, all:
Hey, Lindsey: Thanks for reviving a worthwhile thread. Looks like you have a HTML nested blockquote command.
I agree with what you say, as well as the broad approach to the movement. This is bigger than any single focus, with tremendous synergistic potential. And checking your website on the planned marches gives me the idea that an centralized online calendar of events of all types from all organizations would be an excellent, low-rent, but highly effective resource, and a very useful first step in a broader, more effectively organized movement.
I keep asking, When will the movement truly start? Who will do it? Do the 'leaders' deserve the title?
David
Sustainability For Life
Messages done with sustainable energy, with Wind and Sun!
Permalink