Public opinion polls show a significant increase in the number of Americans who support strong climate action. Deeper digging shows this support is superficial, too thin to drive the rapid sociopolitical change now required. For the first time, however, a small, but measurable number of Americans -- probably no more than 3% -- identify climate change as the greatest threat. U.S. environmentalists' carefully buffered climate narrative, calculated to not frighten the majority, does not engage these "three percenters."
A significant shift in U.S. public opinion on climate has been measured in recent polls. 27% of those polled in a CNN/Opinion Research Corporation Poll between May 4-6, 2007, said global warming is "extremely important" and 26% "very important." 33% believe that global warming is the "single biggest environmental problem facing the world," according to a April 5-10, 2007 ABC News/Washington Post Poll, up from 16% in March. Public support for "immediate action" on climate has increased to 34% in January, 2007, from 23% in 1999, according to a NBC/Wall Street Journal tracking poll.
When asked to choose what is most important -- either in open-ended polling questions or picking one issue from a list -- climate change, and environmental issues in general, are barely mentioned:
- 0% mention Harris Poll, 9/8-11, 2006 (open ended)
- 0% mention ABC News/Washington Post, 12/7-11, 2006 (open ended)
- 7% "the environment and global warming" NBC News/Wall Street Journal, 3/2-5, 2007 (list)
- 1% "the environment" Diego/Hotline Poll, 3/29-4/1, 2007 (list)
- 5% "environment/pollution"Gallup Poll, 4/23-26, 2007 (open ended)
- 3% "the environment" CBS/New York Times 5/18-23, 2007
(All polls are available at PollingReport.com.)
The dichotomy is most stark in a handful of polls with direct and open-ended questions. In a May, 2007 CBS News/New York Times poll, 70% agreed that "global warming is having a serious impact now," but no respondents volunteered climate when asked to name the most important problem facing the nation.
More Americans are concerned with maintaining supplies of inexpensive gas and oil -- picked as the top problem by 3-7% in several polls (CBS 5/07, Gallup 4/07, Diego 3/07, NBC 3/07, ABC 12/06, Newsweek 10/06) -- than addressing climate change.
Even other environmental issues are ranked ahead of climate change. The 35% of the public with "a great deal" of concern over rising sea levels in ABC News/Washington Post, April 5-10, 2007 poll are outranked by the 52% who are greatly concerned about ocean pollution.
How do we explain this huge contradiction in the polls?
When asked whether climate climate change is a problem, half of Americans give the response expected of them. Climate change has been elevated to a question of the general good -- just as the famine in Ethiopia and "We Are the World" put world hunger it in the spotlight. Climate change in 2007 has all the hallmarks of world hunger in 1985 -- when, for a tantalizing moment, hunger action advocates had the ear of Congress, youth were mobilized, major concerts were held, and huge strides seemed within reach.
There are important differences, to be sure, but the key distinction between climate change and world hunger -- that we risk the collapse of civilization and the extinction of more than half of the world's remaining species -- is largely absent in the public debate. This is a conscious decision of U.S. environmentalists to downplay the precautionary view of climate change risk, which our fundraisers and pollsters advise is too frightening, in a bid for majority support.
We've won the majority, but it is too soft for the task ahead.
The silver lining in this overall bleak picture is that for the first time, there is a very small -- around 3% -- but measurable group of Americans who are convinced that the world as we know it is on the line.
Our greatest problem is that we are not speaking to these folks. "Step it Up" gave us a hint of the potential to be tapped, but it is a long way from the ad hoc effort of Bill McKibben and a handful of young organizers to shifting the U.S. environmental organization-foundation communications complex.
As a first step, the architects of our two-decade-long policy of addressing the general public with a happy-peppy climate story must accept the verdict of our terrible performance in the polls and open a deep, searching, and swift inquiry into alternatives.
Secondly, U.S. environmentalists must focus our energy, resources, and time on the 3% of Americans who get it -- our true base of political power -- and stop worrying about offending the majority.
Our moderate U.S. domestic emissions policies, appeasement of the architects of fossil fuel strategy (like BP), continued respect for the niceties of polite convention, and utter failure by word, deed, or personal example to acknowledge the existential crisis to which everyone who accepts reality is now consigned must seem irrelevant at best to the climate "three percenters." If U.S. environmentalists do not lead, we will be left in the dust.
U.S. puts onus on China for climate deal
Comments
View as Threaded
Steve Bloom Posted 6:05 am
31 May 2007
Permalink
Tod Posted 7:05 am
31 May 2007
NAIL IT, BROTHER!!!
Remember, too many of us fear FEAR. We've believed that happy-peppy talk is the best way to get people to pay attention. No, the sobering reality of a very, very grim future that is just around the corner needs to be more fully voiced. Alas, not many want to be the voice of doom, and green websites, columnists - those who personally profit from happy-peppy are loathe to change their tactics. Look at the raking over the coals that is reserved for pragmatic voices like Monbiot, Kunstler and Lovelock. . . voices who actually beg people to wake the fuck up, to stop flying airplanes, to forget about hybrids as The Answer - that to save the world there WILL be inconveniences. The green community, by and large, is bankrupt - populated as it is by upper-middle class folks who don't really want to make any significant changes.
"Because the world doesn't matter if you don't have the strength to go ahead and choose something that's really true." - Julio Cortazar
http://www.todbrilliant.com
Permalink
Colin Wright Posted 12:16 pm
31 May 2007
I certainly agree environmentalists must lead.
A couple of points though. You say, "U.S. environmentalists must focus our energy, resources, and time on the 3% of Americans who get it -- our true base of political power -- and stop worrying about offending the majority."
Isn't that preaching to the choir? And how would alienating the majority of Americans help the cause?
Maybe we need more education, and I agree with you that we don't need to sugar-coat the situation. (I think offering "solutions" with negative information helps the medicine go down.) Even better, IMO, is soliciting solutions from people so they develop their own stake in saving the planet and become allies. We can't do this alone, even 3%.
Movement building isn't easy but the millions who marched in the first Earth Day shows such a thing is possible.
Permalink
plum Posted 4:25 pm
31 May 2007
Permalink
dotcommodity Posted 4:38 pm
31 May 2007
We need to lay out in a more emotionally accessible way what's going to happen, so people can understand it is way worse than "pollution" - our species may very well not survive this.
Movies need to be made.
Permalink
Delay And Deny Posted 6:05 pm
31 May 2007
Increased heat and energy will benefit almost everyone.
John Bailo, The "Denier Guy"
You Read It Here First
Permalink
amc89 Posted 12:26 am
01 Jun 2007
Read the article:
http://uk.reuters.com/article/scienceNews/idUKL3044053120 ...
Permalink
SustainableGreen Posted 1:33 am
01 Jun 2007
I concur with Colin, that we should focus on educating the other 97% since the 3% is the choir. And that is the precise point of the surveys, that the great majority of people either don't know or care. For many it is just too abstract an issue to understand, which is why I have repeatedly suggested some key simple steps people can take. Although understanding is best, it is not always necessary to understand the issue before the layperson acts.
Authoritarianism and fear are the last techniques we should be using. Those are the bankrupt lies of the conservative right and the corporate oligarchy, and they have no place in the truth. Substituting new lies for old is a big step backward.
In fact, many of the factors people bring up in the polls are precisely the distractions created by fear, which divert us from the real issues. They are created and manipulated by those who would achieve just that.
Been saying this for a while now, what is needed is a broader more active online network, a progressive environmental version of MoveOn. I have asked this before and gotten no answer: Who will step forward to do this? When?
David
Sustainability For Life
Messages done with sustainable energy, with Wind and Sun!
Permalink
Colin Wright Posted 3:54 am
01 Jun 2007
Grist would seem to be placed in an ideal position to carry this forward. (If not, perhaps some Grist bloggers could point us in the right direction.) If they don't, others will fill the void.
David, have you done much research into how MoveOn got started?
Dotcommodity: I agree we need to find "emotionally accessible" ways to present GW to the public. But fear can also paralyse people and pave the way for authoritarian leaders (as David suggests). There already is a small industry of doomsayers in the peak oil community and I don't think that approach has been very successful in reaching the public. I think we need to put out constructive vibes so that when the shit hits the fan, people will turn to cooperation with each other rather than to depression and inaction and survivalism.
In the meantime, building a progressive movement offers us the hope of building community with our neighbors while possibly influencing the policy-makers, IMO.
Permalink
SMLowry Posted 5:28 am
01 Jun 2007
Again, I think the problem has to do with the level at which we're preaching change. As I mentioned in another discussion, we need to move beyond hammering individuals to change a few aspects of their lives and get to those systemic changes at the levels of government, business, and institutions. I mean you can't tell me that anything I do will have much impact as long as we burn coal, allow anyone who wants one to buy gas guzzling SUVs, fail to legislate changes in mining and manufacturing processes, fail to outlaw disposable plastics and even non-disposable plastics for many things because even though plastic is forever, it isn't useful forever. Over time plastic gets brittle, breaks and the item is useless but does not biodegrade.
A progressive (no, let's say radical instead) climate change movement would be great if it got thousands of people in the streets demanding the kinds of changes I mentioned, forcing governments and institutions to act. It would be great if it helped bring people in local communities and neighborhoods together to creatively deal with issues of transportation, food, and energy including ways of localizing electricity production. It's a different world today than it was during the Civil Rights Movement and the Vietnam Era. People are more concerned about maintaining their status quo than creating a better future. People aren't willing to take the risks activists took during those previous decades. They perceive, I think, that they have too much to lose. Many in my generation and those 10 years or so older than me had a different attitude about life, work, wealth, justice, and the Earth than today's younger generation. And a major difference, too, is we actually believed we could change the world for the better. We had hope and faith and perhaps we were naive, but we accomplished a lot even while our parents freaked out. Today it seems there's more cynicism, more concern about making it financially, young people seem to generally be more conservative, less willing to challenge what we called the establishment.
Fear: Frankly the future we face even with changes is frightening. That must be said because it's true. Trying to claim otherwise makes no sense. On the other hand fear cannot be our only selling point. The thing is, IF we come together to create a sustainable culture, we will find great joy, companionship, and hope in doing so. Why can't we focus on the positive changes needed and the fun we can have bringing them about?
Permalink
Colin Wright Posted 10:14 am
01 Jun 2007
I'd agree with everything you say, except I think it will take a major wake-up call to get things moving. (I've been reading the free copy of Thomas Homer-Dixon's book The Upside of Down for his opinion on our current vulnerabilities.)
That wake-up call could come as soon as this summer with a judicious hurricane, or a band of jihadis making it past the Saudi secret police. Of course, it may not come for several years, either. All the more time for us to build our case to the public.
Permalink
SustainableGreen Posted 12:24 pm
01 Jun 2007
Hey, Colin:
Thanks for the feedback on the idea. I have contacted some people on the idea of an environmental/sustainability MoveOn-style organization to give a movement some structure. MeetUp, Step it Up, WiserEarth, all have some characteristics that recommend them, as well as Grist. I have mentioned Grist as an obvious choice before.
What I remember of the origin of MoveOn is that it came about in the late 90s as a nonpartisan attempt to "move on" from the nonsense of the Clinton impeachment. It still had some nonpartisan feel in 2000 as I remember, but by 2002, it was left of center. I get emails from them everyday, on U.S. legislative issues, someone to contact, issues to consider, people to meet and watch a documentary video, and discuss its content, etc.
It occurs to me after reading a part of Paul Hawken's new book, "Blessed Unrest", that such a centralized organization could help get a lot done. With all the numbers Hawken states, the potential is huge.
I wrote on another thread that a movement of this kind would have 3 or 4 functions, with gurus handling the large public issues, activists such as us helping with communication and organization, and but the meat of the movement would be to rapidly increase the 3%. And yes, it has to be intellectually and "emotionally accessible" in order to connect with people and get them to act. This would be a mainstream component to reach the everyday person, both for personal lifestyle changes and to effect improvements in government. Part of it is building community, which is a benefit of MoveOn on a million local scales.
This is a movement with many parts, as the threads here indicate. Because of this, there will be many themes and many subsets of interest. From agriculture to zoology, we need to be inclusive yet still maintain focus.
I mentioned fear, but the context I was referring to it has to do the manufactured irrational fear used to manufacture consent by the current administration. This leads directly to Iraq, the Patriot Act, and violations of FISA.
There is legitimate fear, without a doubt, but that fear can be rationally expressed, avoiding the excesses we now have.
There will be some feedback soon on the contacts I mentioned, and I am continuing to look to see if there might be an existing organization or one in the works, so there will be more news.
David
Sustainability For Life
Messages done with sustainable energy, with Wind and Sun!
Permalink
caniscandida Posted 2:24 pm
01 Jun 2007
Although the Reuters article that AMC links us to is a bit incoherent, and could be more informative on a number of points, I agree with her that abstaining from meat at least a few days a week is one "inconvenience" -- for it would likely seem so at first -- that committed environmentalists who are meat-eaters might try. And if enough meat-eaters tried it, so as to dissuade farmers from raising so many animals and sending them to slaughter, that would surely have a some positive effect in dealing with the crisis.
The Reuters article of course is right to suggest that such a lifestyle change cannot be legislated or imposed. And BioD is right to remind us always that the coolness factor counts for a great deal in influencing people's behavior, and is perhaps absolutely required. Regarding abstaining from eating meat, the small choir of so-inclined environmentalists, and their vegetarian and vegan fellow travelers, have plainly not yet impressed the majority with how cool that is (ha ha). That is not to say we should not carry on; but the observation suggests to us that we should do so, coolly.
Chickens are our cousins!
So are other sensitive animals!
Enough is enough!
No more factory farms!
Permalink
ffletcher Posted 2:46 pm
01 Jun 2007
However, I don't think it will take that much to develop wind and solar over the next 15 years.
Permalink
Ken Ward Posted 8:12 pm
01 Jun 2007
As organizers and leaders we skipped this step, believing that we could solve the problem by our own direct efforts, relying on the ultimate reasonableness of political and private sector leadership and majority public opinion. We have achieved these three things, have we won?
Flip the thing around. If we do not speak to "the converted" - the 3% who have only this year appeared in the polls - where do they go? Think about it in personal terms. If you are one of the "three-precenters" who has been paying attention to climate scientists and has come to accept that the world as we know it is on the line, are you going to be satisfied with the optomistic and unrealistic US environmentalist story?
Out situation is comparable to early 60's civil rights organizing. The civil rights establishment pursued a moderate, gradualist, and negotiated strategy. When high school and college students began spontaneous sit-ins, finding and expoliting cracks in the wall of Jim Crow, the established leadership tried to supress the effort, arguing that confrontation would polorize public attitudes and endanger majority support.
In that case - as in every other instance of significant social change, including the American Revolution and Abolition - moderate positions were challenged by a radical minority, whose tone, tactics and urgency alienated weak supporters - but that is inescapable, where the goal is to polarize a tough proposition. Where this has been accomplished, and where social movements have rested their case on an expression of fundamental American values, a majority is returned and truth and justice have prevailed. Where social reformers have aimed for incremental solutions based on wide but thin public support, they are easily bollixed up by opponents - who, it should be remembered, succeed because they have disciplined, single-minded "true believers."
Ken Ward
ken[at]brightlines.org
Permalink
spaceshaper Posted 9:41 pm
01 Jun 2007
The true meaning of life is to plant trees, under whose shade you do not expect to sit.
Permalink
SMLowry Posted 2:18 am
02 Jun 2007
Another question: How can internet organizing really impact local communities? I ask this because, living in a rural area where towns are rather far apart with not much in between except roads and houses, the internet does not seem to be able to create face-to-face community which is what we need to actually make physical changes in the real world. So while I like the idea of a huge, mass movement facilitated by the web, I don't see it actually happening, not where I live anyway. And the point, I think, is to have community where we live, not to have to drive ten or twenty or fifty miles from where we live to have community (IMO that's not actually community, it's going to meetings, even if the meetings tend to feel like community).
Yes, I remember the 60s (late 60s anyway) and early 70s and I remember the anger and rage and frustration and digging-in-of-heels and name calling between young people (hippies) and the adults. I remember very clearly the world I hoped would be ushered in by our actions (which in my case included writings, poems, and of course, the music which held it all together and was something we all shared no matter where we lived), and I remember actually believing in what we were doing, no doubts.
Times have changed. The energy is very different. But we still need to get out into the streets. We need radicals willing to get arrested for nonviolent disobedience. We need people willing and able to strongly speak out, shout out, sing out regardless of how many more moderate activists say that doing so is counterproductive. Just as old growth forests need EF! energy, as controversial as that can be, Gaia today needs risk-takers. How many times in Grist have folks put down the more radical contingent of activists as perhaps doing more harm than good, standing for, instead, more moderate, measured paths to change as safe and even more effective? But is it really? It doesn't appear so.
And as one of the 3 percenters, I am not satisfied with the "optimistic and unrealistic US environmentalist story". Instead, I tend to see that story as bought and paid for by large funders with corporate connections, or as the result of people too comfortable in their positions wanting to maintain decent salaries while patting themselves on the back for doing good work. I guess my point is that being reasonable when the shit is hitting the fan just makes no sense at all.
Permalink
sunflower Posted 2:52 am
02 Jun 2007
I wish we had the means to destroy coal power plants.
"Coal is the enemy of the human race" is a metaphor.
We must see the enemies for who they are; corrupt misanthropic criminals. We must stop the protectors of coal, like Bush and Griffins, using all of our resources spontaneously as target opportunities present themselves. If you see these enemies do the right thing. Do all that you can do. I know I will.
Permalink
Colin Wright Posted 5:04 am
02 Jun 2007
Thanks for filling in some of the gaps in your thinking about the "3%", which wasn't clear to me from the original post.
As I said about the 3%, "environmentalists must lead". But I think radical actions have to be thought about and discussed before they become a wedge that the Right will use to divide us.
In many cases, radical actions by a few that have broad popular support are very effective. I'm thinking here of anti-whaling efforts of Paul Shephard and the earlier incarnations of Greenpeace.
But when activists get too far ahead of the public, they need to weigh very carefully their effects on the broad movement as a whole. Surely MLK is the master here. And obviously things like eco-sabotage and tree-spiking need a lot more thought.
Activists around Ted Glick are planning a fast in DC if the Democrats don't enact strong GW legislation by the Fall. I hate to sound sanctimonious and conservative. But this is one action I would support. As Margaret Mead said, and you indicated above, small groups of committed citizens have made all the difference.
But this conversation is surely just beginning and needs a lot more input from others. The successful movements of the past, from abolition to the women's movement can offer lessons. But we have no templates to follow in confronting our present challenges.
Permalink
SMLowry Posted 5:25 am
02 Jun 2007
Re: wedges - as I see it, just the fact that we're having this conversation, weighing the pros and cons of certain types of more radical activism in the context of not alienating anyone, is evidence of the power we give the right over us.
Permalink
caniscandida Posted 5:32 am
02 Jun 2007
the beating, bashing and banging of Gandhi's followers, during the struggle for the independence of India, in the large demonstration that is captured vividly in the epic movie "Gandhi" (Martin Sheen, as the journalist phoning in his as-it-is-happening report, was unexpectedly moved to make the sign of the cross);
"Bloody Sunday," at Selma, Alabama, during the famous march for civil rights from Selma to Montgomery, led by Martin Luther King, Jr.;
and the massacre of students protesting the Vietnam War at Kent State University in Ohio (and we remain bewildered to this day by John Kerry's enfeebling failure to defend himself against the Swift Boat Veterans attack, which he might have done in part by reminding Americans of the virtuous passion and sacrifice inspired by that time of protest).
The Wikipedia article on non-violence, by the way, is very well written, IMHO:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Non-violence
The paragraphs on Bayard Rustin, the homosexual friend of MLK who urged him back in the 1950s to follow the course of non-violence, and on the (presumably Catholic) philosopher John D. Caputo, who weds Saint Paul with Derrida to present us with "weak theology" (God is not strong, God is weak, that is the logos of the Cross of Jesus Christ), are especially interesting.
Needless to say, God forbid that environmentalists should be forced to shed blood. And it is far from clear that suffering must necessarily contribute to the success of a movement. Possibly the death of the photographer Fernando Pereira, aboard Greenpeace's vessel, the first Rainbow Warrior, when it was sunk by French agents in Auckland, NZ, in 1985, moved some people to protest the testing of nuclear weapons; but I doubt it. For one thing, it was not well publicized.
Same thing with the Greenpeace volunteers on the anti-whaling missions, who have got into serious scrapes while interposing themselves between the whalers and their prey; and with the documentarists hoping to raise awareness of the Canadian seal slaughter, who have been threatened and whose vehicles have been damaged; and with the recent violent seizure of Oceana's catamaran Ranger, while the crew was recording illegal long-line fishing in the western Mediterranean, which Andrew Sharpless brought to our attention.
So, environmentalists can most certainly suffer, but that does not in itself necessarily amount to the success of the movement.
Finally, I appreciate SMLowry's excellent question, whether "Internet organizing" can ever be as effective, truly, as activism based in local communities. As she says, civil disobedience, and risking getting arrested, go very far. Also, making sure the press are paying attention: that was an important talent that Gandhi had.
Chickens are our cousins!
So are other sensitive animals!
Enough is enough!
No more factory farms!
Permalink
larrycham Posted 5:46 am
02 Jun 2007
A pervasive change in consciousness is our best hope for developing a sustainable future. -- Thomas Berry
Permalink
caniscandida Posted 6:31 am
02 Jun 2007
As I wrote earlier, I have doubts about what you happen to have asserted in your third paragraph, i.e. whether anti-whaling activists have had very much influence on turning public opinion against whaling. You may very well be right, of course; but if so, I am ignorant of the historical details.
Same with the anti-seal-slaughter movement in Canada. How far has that movement got? The government remains supportive of the slaughter. How many Canadians know about it, actually? And how many Canadians disapprove of it?
On non-violence: this recent report from Rostock, Germany, is sickening:
http://www.cnn.com/2007/WORLD/europe/06/02/g-8.protest.ap ...
I totally fail to see how people, demonstrating for even the most excellent and admirable causes, think they are going to accomplish anything positive by behaving violently.
Chickens are our cousins!
So are other sensitive animals!
Enough is enough!
No more factory farms!
Permalink
spaceshaper Posted 9:12 am
02 Jun 2007
The true meaning of life is to plant trees, under whose shade you do not expect to sit.
Permalink
sunflower Posted 11:09 am
02 Jun 2007
Permalink
caniscandida Posted 8:58 am
03 Jun 2007
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Emily_Davison
When she died -- and it is unclear if it was her intention to be killed by the racehorse -- , she apparently already had a reputation, as well as a police record, for militant and violent activism.
Within the body of thought on non-violence, it is tricky to decide at what point civil disobedience, which may include activities destructive of property, becomes violent. Possibly that depends on how the non-committed view those activities. During the Vietnam War, the draft was already widely unpopular, and so breaking into draft board offices and destroying records might not have alarmed many people; whether it was seen as admirably principled and courageous, I wonder. On the other hand, when eco-activists (aka "eco-terrorists") break into car dealers' lots and destroy SUVs, it seems fair to say that many people find such activity disturbing, and it can be doubted whether the activists dissuaded many people from buying SUVs.
In Seattle's anti-globalization protests during the WTO meeting in 1999 (?), some destruction of private and public property took place. Did that have any persuasive effect on anyone?
It is hard to say what kind of activism, protest or demonstration works best, to elicit the sympathy of a significant majority. In June, 1982, here in NYC, there took place what I believe was the largest demonstration in US history, with many different kinds of groups from many places rallying in opposition to the militarism and Cold War rhetoric of Ronald Reagan. A friend of mine from Philadelphia was marching with the Philadelphia chapter of Pax Christi, the international Catholic organization for peace and social justice, so I joined him and carried their sign. Not far from us were Benedictine monks from Weston Priory, Vermont.
But did it accomplish anything? That was possibly the last time that we liberals could honestly feel that the liberal voice was driving change in US policy. (And we liberal Catholics naively failed to realize that it was all those "Reagan Democrats," most of whom were Catholic, who put an end to that dream, and they were affirmed by Reagan's alliance with John Paul II against the "Evil Empire." And I include the wise Catholic priest Thomas Berry in our number, though I hesitate to call him "naive.") The related Nuclear Freeze Campaign enjoyed a lot of popularity, in spite of attacks by the Reaganites; the House was inspired to pass a nuclear freeze bill, as was Fritz Mondale to include a nuclear freeze plank in his 1984 campaign. And yet, the bill never became law, and Reagan was re-elected handily.
So now, what can be done to grow our 3%? We can already rule out running in front of racehorses. It seems that every cause or movement is different, and progresses in its own way. There are no certain models for environmentalists to study and imitate.
So why not, let us go with LarryCHam and Sunflower, and have fun.
Chickens are our cousins!
So are other sensitive animals!
Enough is enough!
No more factory farms!
Permalink
spaceshaper Posted 1:18 pm
03 Jun 2007
Some clear and consistent messages from the past:
Slavery is wrong and must be abolished.
Women must be treated as full citizens and be given the right to vote.
Black Americans must be treated as full citizens and be accorded full and equal access with whites to education, employment and the political process.
Easier to summarize a movement after the fact than during its gestation. What do we feel needs to be done, and why - specifically for what reason of ethics? I would suggest that the core message for positive action on our present situation must center around this simple notion: that carelessly allowing unchecked global warming to cause millions upon millions of humans to suffer and die and many thousands of species to be extinguished is morally reprehensible.
Please note this is not an attempt at a slogan. It is an attempt to define the content which must inform the slogans, and the activism, and the talking points. Of course cause and effect must be securely linked, and of course the means to check and reverse the carbon emissions that cause the warming must be discussed: we have a range of good options now and more will appear. But the will to deploy these means must come first. To be successful, and make a deep effective connection with the general population, the message has to be about morality, not technology.
The true meaning of life is to plant trees, under whose shade you do not expect to sit.
Permalink
Colin Wright Posted 3:49 pm
03 Jun 2007
My own view is that the movement against global warming can be like no other, because it effects all of us (and not just a minority)on the planet, and we all contribute in some way to the problem (through driving or inefficient houses, etc).
Of course, I would also say that the biggest driver of climate change is our economic model that provides no negative feedbacks for growth (i.e., capitalism). That is, private investment generates more capital, which is used for more investment, etc.) China is the most recent example of this madness.
I can certainly see a place for well-thought out, targeted direct actions that raise consciousness and commitment. But I also question this "heroic" (typically masculine) model of social change in the context of a problem that involves all of us. That is, setting up an "us" vs. "them" dynamic might induce the sorts of tensions to bring about change. But it also sends the message that we are "morally superior" and could generate resentment.
Another approach is to work with ordinary people in our neigborhoods and cities to build truely sustainable communities. Of course, this involves the hard work of lobbying for mass transit, renewable energies, "ecological economies", etc. And it would have to be pursued with an intensity and courage never before displayed. (The writings of Grist's Jon Rynn provide one model/vision for this.) And of course we have benefitted enormously from the many anonymous people who have already laid a groundwork for us.
I'm sure there are other complementary approaches too. All I'm asking is that motivated people who want to take the next step consider a much accelerated process to "remake" our towns and cities through a deepening of democracy.
I don't know how to do that and it would surely take decades. (So we simultaneously need people in the streets, sit-ins at congressional offices, etc. demanding global GHG agreements.) But many of us have already embarked on the longer-term project (judging from Grist). I don't think it could be completed before a series of oil shocks and economic downturns wake people up. But I think if we are embarked on such a course we will be in a much better to help each other out "when the shit hits the fan" if we have more local economies and local permaculture, mass transit, etc.
By making our own communites "carbon-lite" we won't save the world, but we do set the examples that carry throughout the world and inspire others to follow. Hopefully?
Permalink
SustainableGreen Posted 5:43 pm
03 Jun 2007
Very useful comments, from many of you. Colin, Spaceshaper, and Canis provide excellent counsel. I appreciate it when genuine thoughts are fully explored and expressed. It is even more greatly beneficial when those thoughts can be found in one focused, quality thread!
I had expressed an idea of a structure of a movement that has 3-4 levels or approaches, including the gurus and policy experts, organizers, and the good, vast numbers of people who have the most to gain from an improved future. These levels blend one into the other. Each one is vital to the others. All need to be focused, energetic, inviting, and fun.
It also occurs to me that there is a wide range of issues, in the field of environment and sustainability, that can be brought under the same umbrella. If we just look at the topics that get exposure here in the Gristmill: overfishing and subsidies, greenhouse gases, farming, urban sprawl, energy sources, migration due to environmental displacement, loss of biodiversity, mass transit, bicycle-friendly communities, creating communities, and on and on, a selection of this full range becomes evident. Many of us here are already well-versed in many of these issues, so we recognize the umbrella.
We can all contribute to the overall goal of protecting the environment and improving the level of sustainability in a cooperative effort in all these issues, because all of these separate issues have at their core the environment or sustainability. As examples that have already been mentioned, slavery is not sustainable, nor is denying a social group the right to vote, or economic freedom. All of these issues, wherever they are still practiced, are still ours. If they are still uncorrected, they are still ours. No justice, no peace. No freedom, no peace. No safe future, no peace.
It makes our numbers much much greater and therefore much harder to ignore. It is a "numbers game" and together we do have the numbers, we just need better organization.
I have commented on the desire for a MoveOn-type internet-based approach to communicate all these issues to people, enlist them, and carry out the full range of what I agree should be nonviolent. Note I am not talking a 'cyber-protest', since this is too abstract--only cyber-organized. If anyone has any ideas on how this can be achieved, as Ross Perot says, "I'm all ears!" And if someone has a better model to promote or investigate, please bring it up. This is no time for silence or timidity.
Paul Hawken and associates set up the website WiserEarth, which now has over 100,000 groups worldwide. I don't know how many of those are in the U.S., but there must be many thousands, with maybe millions of members. The potential is great. What is needed is a mechanisms to get them together, which the WiserEarth model has done, and to turn them into activists, which MoveOn did in their efforts.
Sunflower and SMLowery referred in sequence to radicals and the 60s, and that applies to me. I ranted a little in the thread on the magazine article tailored to the AARP, which touched a nerve. If we had the Net back then, and cell phones, etc., along with the committed non-violent radicals that we were, things would have happened much more vigorously, and maybe with quicker results.
Thank you all for the excellent comments and ideas, and let's keep up the focus here.
David
Sustainability For Life
Messages done with sustainable energy, with Wind and Sun!
Permalink
caniscandida Posted 7:26 pm
03 Jun 2007
Colin, I like everything you have just written, especially your description of capitalism as an "economic model that provides no negative feedback for growth," your recommendation to "build truly sustainable communities," and your belief that setting good examples matters.
Spaceshaper, you are absolutely right to insist that "the message has to be about morality, not technology." And I am very glad that you included among your moral causes the preservation of biodiversity, the community of living creatures on the Earth. That is indeed the fundamental environmentalist value.
Of course, the language of morality is tricky. To some, morality means that what is best for humanity is to ensure that the capitalists continue making greater profits, so that they can then invest in still more profit-making enterprises. To others, morality means we should not do anything to save the Earth, it is all in God's hands, and the Bible tells us so.
To return to SMLowry's point about not being able to remain "reasonable" when "the shit hits the fan": I am not quite sure what you mean by "reasonable." But certainly we need to distinguish between "fear" and "panic." It is reasonable to be fearful, as we vaguely foresee the suffering of very many fellow creatures. But that is where discipline and focus come in: we must carry on, always trying to do our best, never losing hope.
That is the sort of discipline that we do not talk much about, but which is essential. If, in spite of all our best efforts, the future turns out to be worse than we hope, and we have to witness the suffering of our loved ones and of countless other sentient beings, what happens then? Is nothing left for us but to go mad, or else suicide? I certainly hope not. And it need not be that way. That is why our discipline now must strictly include joy and fun, understood in the deepest sense. What we do now, for the sake of preserving the biodiversity of this planet, is in itself good; and we have the ability to participate, in our own small ways, in that good activity. And so, should we not be joyful?
Spanish proverb: No hay mal que por bien no venga. There is nothing bad which does not come for the sake of something good.
Chickens are our cousins!
So are other sensitive animals!
Enough is enough!
No more factory farms!
Permalink
spaceshaper Posted 11:02 pm
03 Jun 2007
It has only become so because the progressive left in the U.S. has allowed the religious right to "own" the language of ethics and morality over the last twenty years or so. It dumbfounds me that this has been permitted to happen.
The right has made much of family values. It is time for the left to reassert its connection with the wider and more powerful and inclusive ethic of community values.
In our present context that has to mean the global community. How is it that the richest country in the world, the country that gave birth to the Marshall Plan to heal the deep wounds of WW11, has sunk to become the meanest contributor to international aid as a percentage of GNP, by an order of magnitude or more, of all the developed nations?
The true meaning of life is to plant trees, under whose shade you do not expect to sit.
Permalink
SMLowry Posted 9:54 am
04 Jun 2007
And doing the work in our communities is key, too. Hopefully it won't take as long as you think. As more people become awakened somehow and aware they will join in. This is my hope, my vision.
I pray it doesn't get ugly, like Canis wrote. None of us want to see the unthinkable, nor do we want to imagine that our children will even if we don't. That's what's so frustrating to me. Knowing what I do about how dire things are, believing in the possibility of transformation deeply, in the core of my being, and yet day after day goes by and we're (our country, our society, whatever - a huge "we") still in basically the same place. Something needs to spark something somehow, if that makes any sense. The work of reinventing our communities, our way of life, could happen quite quickly if a majority of people committed themselves to personally coming together to make it happen. I know that sound simplistic, but it really is. Because we're talking about changes in the Earth that are massive and that impact everyone everywhere. What people need to awaken to is the fact that we are not going to solve the problem by doing what we're doing harder. We aren't going to tax or trade or downscale emmission our way out of this. We need to do those things, or some version of them, yes. And so much more.
This is what I believe anyway, and believing it means that for me a more activist movement willing to take a few risks needs to be part of larger groundswell of community and neighorbood reinvention.
I think what I'm looking for, what I feel it will take, is a sense of (okay I'm just going to type it, I've deleted the phrase four times now and can't come up with an alternative) magic and the possibility of enchantment. I'm not talking spell casting but rather an awareness of the power of consciousness and intention and focus.
The fate of the Earth and of all life, human and non-human is at stake with climate change. This is a moral issue. It's a spiritual issue, too. And definitely involved ethics and values. Like slavery, and all the other examples already given. And it goes even deeper because of the "all of life" thing. Right now I don't think people, or enough people, get how deeply serious our situation is. I'm not quite sure why not, but they don't. Or maybe they do but they don't see any alternatives. They see everyone going about their business and so figure that things will have to be all right, I don't know. Whatever it is, it has to change. We need to "spark" something. What will it take?
Permalink
sunflower Posted 11:15 am
04 Jun 2007
Permalink
SustainableGreen Posted 12:20 pm
04 Jun 2007
Hey, SMLowry: Very well written. I tease but I do understand about the ways of making progress on the percentages, as you say. A friend who was in DC at one of the early Iraq War protests said the best sign was "Empty Warheads Found in Washington: Bush, Cheney, and Rumsfeld". (Well, it was both topical and hilarious at the time.)
I too, want to emphasize the need to be non-violent, since any excesses would be spun against us in the very next news cycle. It was fun in the 60s (as I remember anyway) but emotions often ran high, and that tempered the bad times. Plus I was a lot(!) younger and had the sense of invincibility that goes with the age.
My ideas about organization may be too idealistic but the potential remains great. Communities of all types (geographic, interest, cultural, demographic) would benefit, provided the reach and vision of the organizers is sufficient. It is a good hope and vision.
I guess I am a little too much of the rational ecologist (death/shit/competition happens) so the idea of magic is somewhat beyond me, but I can accept the principle at face value. It may take an event, or a shared epiphany so to speak, which will get the movement over a threshold of understanding and activism.
As I have tried to do, I think climate change is just one aspect, and that I why I push the notion of sustainability as an overarching concept. If an activity is not truly and rigorously sustainable, something else will suffer and perhaps cease existence. It may not be possible to know the scale of the suffering. This applies to human social as well as well as biotic issues. Economic and spiritual issues can and should be assessed for sustainability as well.
I wonder, can the reach and drive of an organization provide the "spark" you mention?
Great message and an enduring important thread.
David
Sustainability For Life
Messages done with sustainable energy, with Wind and Sun!
Permalink
Colin Wright Posted 3:40 pm
04 Jun 2007
But, in the mean time, David, I know you are passionate about using the power of the internet for advocacy and I wanted to pass on a couple of sites fyi (which you may or may not know about). The first has an action alert to Congress on liquid coal. The second has a drive to sack the NASA administrator for his recent comments on GW.
BTW, I just noticed that Grist is a 501c3 and so would lose their tax-exempt status if they lobbied. So I don't think they could do this sort of thing. But the service they provide to us is surely invaluable for exchanging ideas/inspration.
Permalink
SMLowry Posted 9:53 am
05 Jun 2007
David, I don't know if an organization could provide the "spark". But organizations can build the energy, gather people. Also, I think the organization(s) need to be very different than today's typical "environmental organization". A new model, a new dynamic somehow.
Back in those "idyllic" 60s, and for me the early 70s, I remember older folks, in their 40s (younger than I am now), who inspired us, worked with us, helped us think things through.
Permalink
inel Posted 10:00 am
05 Jun 2007
icount in the UK helps to build pressure on the British government to act, but I have not found an equivalent in the US. Any suggestions, before Bali G8 in December?!
The British seem the most concerned about climate change
British people are way behind our continental colleagues and cousins. Perhaps Britain suffers from the drag of US special interests to some extent? (TGGWS and all that.)
FYI, today's eve-of-G8 release of research by Nielsen and OU Environmental Change Institute gives country-by-country breakdown of a leap in consumer perceptions and alarm at the potential impacts of climate change. Take a look at the US and UK numbers in the PDF's chart and you may be surprised.
(I am still trying to figure out how anyone older than a six-year-old could believe that "a bathtub filled faster than it drains will never overflow" as the analogy in that Sterman-Sweeney document goes. Middle school kids can work that one out. What has happened to people's ability to think?)
Permalink
Colin Wright Posted 3:22 am
06 Jun 2007
I appreciate Ken's suggestion that the 3% need to step up to the plate, and Susan's comment that we need new types of organization (and on top of that a spark). It seems all the arguments anyone could possibly muster are on our side.
One wonders where the young people are. (Could the Free Speech Movement in the early Sixties hve really been accomplished by people in their early twenties?) But then the WTO protests here in Seattle seemed to come out of nowhere (not mentioning the many years of organization and alliance building that preceded it).
Here we are approaching the 40th anniversary of the Summer of Love and one wonders can't we make something happen this Summer? The antiwar movement seems moribund (who can blame Cindy Sheehan?) Could we tie in the movement for GW action with the movement to end the war: from swords to ploughshares? What about bicyle protests to "reclaim the streets"?
Anyway, just brainstorming and venting. Any ideas, anyone?
Permalink
SustainableGreen Posted 4:17 am
06 Jun 2007
Hey, Colin: I sit here right now writing, since I too feel the "verge". I have the utmost respect for those who give birth--this stuff is hard! [To be clear, my respect is constantly high regardless.] I have been contacting some groups and acting on other suggestions, and trying to flesh out the ideas. I'll have something current in an hour or so. So, for what it is worth, stand by!
David
Sustainability For Life
Messages done with sustainable energy, with Wind and Sun!
Permalink
SustainableGreen Posted 6:00 am
06 Jun 2007
Hey, Colin: Yeah, I am surprised those of you at the core location of Grist don't meet regularly or even occasionally. I would!
Thanks for the links to the groups! Any outfits out there that anyone can think of may very well turn up one that could provide a spark.
Save Our Environment http://www.saveourenvironment.org/about.html is a U.S. focused group sponsored by at least 19 well-known groups. There has been some controversy recently about some U.S. environmental groups being too comfy with industry ("selling out" some charge), and I don't have enough details on who and what, so I'll have to look at them some more. And, while domestic is fine, the issues are global.
League of Conservation Voters http://www.lcv.org/ focuses also on U.S. policy and politics, particularly at this time on Nov 2008. They have a petition to kick out NASA director Griffin, who learned "Doublespeak" well, and therefore deserves to be buried in shame beneath the MiniTrue.
WiserEarth http://wiserearth.org/ is a result of Paul Hawken's book "Blessed Unrest", has a huge and growing list of organizations (100,000+), is worldwide, but seems to be more a passive clearinghouse. However, the organizations do represent millions of people, with thousands of local issues.
Avaaz http://www.avaaz.org/en/ is active right now at the G-8 Summit in Germany, is worldwide and activist and seems 2-way, but has self-promotion tendencies. It also is more politically focused and seems less environment and sustainability focused, is vague and perhaps superficial. Coincidentally, one of its sponsors is MoveON.
I Count in the UK http://www.icount.org.uk/ currently appears to be focused entire on global warming.
The law or code that a group is established under indeed is an issue, but can be changed to suit the task. Groups like MoveOn carry on lobbying and actually MO has 2-3 branches for different purposes. And I don't know how an international organization would be treated. By the way, I hate to refer so much to MO but they are a well-known entity--if there is a better neutral group to invoke as a model, I'll use it.
Inasmuch as I absolutely agree with SMLowry: "Also, I think the organization(s) need to be very different than today's typical "environmental organization". A new model, a new dynamic somehow.", what I am proposing may not yet exist--but the pieces are there.
To explain as best as I can what I at least envision, I'll condense here an email I wrote to one of the organizations:
What I am getting at is this: We need a worldwide, populist, environmental/sustainability movement. There are thousands of issues to be addressed--global and local, big and small. Many of them go unnoticed and uncorrected because there are not enough people to do it. In spite of our numbers we all have things to do. And one person may not know what the next person's issue is. Some of us have blinders on anyway.
Suppose there are maybe 100 people who know and focus on a specific local or regional issue, but they are not enough to increase awareness and establish or improve policy. But suppose we have a database of thousands of email addresses that we can contact, with names of those who can help organize and those who are in positions of authority, and we mob that one issue, put the solution in place, pick up 100+ names of devoted new helpers, gain good will from both activists and beneficiaries, and exposure, and we move onto another one--knock 'em off one after the other. There is no reason why a hundred parallel, overlapping, intertwined issues can't exist simultaneously, in time, geography, and scale. I would write an email demanding mosquito netting for families in the Congo as quickly as I would one for water pollution in the San Fernando Valley. Or women's rights in Indonesia. Or endangered species anywhere. Or farmers. Or violent crime or fraud or corruption. Or medical care for homeless. Or subsidies leading to overfishing. The list is practically endless. And I am now one of millions. We could do letter writing, emailing, demonstrating, boycotting, street theater to create drama and exposure, and have fun! We pick off the easier fruit, we learn and grow in numbers and coverage. This helps us reach the larger higher heavier more difficult--global--fruit.
All of these issues and thousands more have in common environment and sustainability, which are global. Just browsing the listings of organizations on the Web will reveal the issues and organizations. It is not hard to imagine that practically all these issues continue to exist because there are not enough people to fix them, or stop those who commit them. What is needed is a two-way, interactive, democratic, responsive, egalitarian, worldwide system, and the Internet is perfect for that.
It appears that if we were to combine the brains of Grist, the breadth of WiserEarth, the boldness of Avaaz, the activism of MoveOn, give them a model of action to use, we would have an organization that would change the world. I can't imagine why that goal isn't important enough for us to get together. I have contacted these and will let everyone know what happens.
Sorry for the length, but this what I have for now. Any organization names that anyone comes up with will help. Thanks!
David
Sustainability For Life
Messages done with sustainable energy, with Wind and Sun!
Permalink
sunflower Posted 6:14 am
06 Jun 2007
http://www.truthout.org/docs_2006/060607H.shtml
They are most sensitive about the press. Get press coverage. The press can be fun.
Permalink
Jon Rynn Posted 6:28 am
06 Jun 2007
I too think that ultimately an effort has to be global, since these are obviously global issues, but every time I think that I think, "There I go again, it's logical but impossible"....well, not necessarily impossible, but I always come back to resources, which is where most efforts get hung up, in other words, you need alot of money to hire people to do this stuff full-time. So, maybe we should not worry about that at the moment, and just assume people will do this "spare" time...except that I think you and Colin have better ideas on how to proceed.
While we're on the subject, I think that ultimately, we need a global effort that actually elects people. Can you imagine people in many different countries being elected at the same time with a fairly consistent set of viewpoints/proposals? Obviously, that's far in the future.
Permalink
Colin Wright Posted 4:03 pm
06 Jun 2007
You'd make a great salesman! But seriously, you make a strong case. I bet all these groups got started because someone had a vision.
The cynical part of me says face-to-face contact is needed to sustain efforts like these. But then, I would have dismissed MoveOn before they got a start.
And indeed, if MoveOn has a PAC component, why not Grist? (Though I don't know how their f(o)unders would feel.) Couldn't Grist at least have one campaign/week going on?
There are some other US environmental online networks out there that I know of. Someone from New Dream commented on grist recently. And a friend recommended I join 2People. But these seem to lack a strong advocacy component. And then of course there is the great work being done by World Changing. But then they seem to take an "apolitical" approach, presumably not to upset Republicans.
On the international front, I met an organizer from South Africa last year, who is involved with a civil society effort to reform the World Bank/IMF -- endorsed by Chomsky among others. They are linked in with the World Social Forums. But there must be thousands of groups worldwide, and it would seem easier to start with the US, no?
Keep exploring and updating us!
Permalink