Comments LawrenceL has made

  • Apollo Again

    Questions for amazingdrx (and anyone else):

    1. Can you explain in more detail why their plan is "industrial lobbyist muster" rather than a good clean energy plan that happens to create jobs?

    2. Given the lack of success of many environmental initiatives lately, why is their strategy worse and which strategies do you favor?  Do we keep pushing forward in the same way as in the past few years?

    3. Since almost all environmental organizations have "professional lobbyists and organizers," are you opposed to them?  In particular, which organizations do you favor and which do you oppose and how should these organizations operate if not with experienced lobbyists and organizers?

    4. Can you cite specific examples to back up all of your statements above?

    I currently don't know what to make of the Apollo Alliance and any input anyone might have would be interesting.  Specifically, which organizations should we back and which strategies should we take?  More importantly, why will that particular favored strategy or organization be successful?On Green groups endorse Republican Lincoln Chafee; activists cry foul posted 3 years, 7 months ago 18 Responses

  • Apollo Alliance

    Patrick and caniscandida, as you are probably aware, your thoughts echo those of the Apollo Alliance.  They try to bring together labor unions, economic and social justice groups, environmental groups, and businesses to fix our problems with energy and the environment.

    Michael Shellenberger and Ted Nordhaus, who helped create the Apollo Alliance, caused much controversy in the fall of 2004 when they released a report called The Death of Environmentalism.  That report and this provocative speech by Adam Werbach claim that current environmental strategies are doomed to fail.  The basic premise is that we need to provide inspiration and a vision for the future rather than speaking constantly about technical policy fixes.  Focusing only on issues that are traditionally delineated as "environmental" and failing to build broad alliances is also a mistake.  From Werbach's speech (sorry, it's long but instructive):

    We have tried to define a vision around the values of prosperity, freedom and opportunity -- as well as ecological restoration and interdependence -- out of the belief that this vision is more welcoming of the American people, businesses and labor unions than more talk of "polluter pays," "fuel efficiency," and "carbon caps."

    This kind of thinking has resonated least with the leaders of America's largest environmental organizations and most with ordinary Americans.

    No wonder the public doesn't want to hear the truth about global warming: nobody's offering them a vision for the future that matches the magnitude of the problem.

    In 2003, in Erie, Penn., and Akron, Ohio, the Apollo Alliance did focus groups among undecided, working-class, swing voters -- the very people who would determine the outcome of the 2004 election. I had the luck to observe the focus groups from the other side of a one-way mirror.

    Instead of starting the focus groups by asking people what they thought of global warming, our pollster Ted Nordhaus simply asked them how things were going. This open-ended question led, invariably, to focus group participants describing the collapse of the local economy. They would list, in depressing detail, the shutting of Hoover Vacuum and Timken Ball-bearing factories; gone to Mexico. They explained that the jobs that had been created in their wake -- mostly service sector jobs in places like Wal-Mart -- paid half as much and offered no health care or retirement benefits. Many said they were working two jobs to make ends meet.

    We then asked them what they thought of the idea of a major federal investment program to accelerate America's transition to the clean energy economy of the future: research and development, manufacturing of wind turbines and solar, energy efficiency. We didn't have to prove to them that such a program would pay for itself; they knew it would intuitively. Hadn't a similar program succeeded in the post-war period? Of course it had.

    What had been a roomful of tired and semi-depressed working folks transformed itself into a roomful of excited, optimistic Americans in a period of just 20 minutes. The energy emanating from the room was palpable.

    And then something extraordinary happened. Nearly every single person in the room started to sound like Sierra Club members. I could hardly believe what I was hearing. They waxed poetic about solar panels. They spoke of their children's future -- their future -- and the planet's future. They remembered episodes from the area's local history -- like when thousands of jobs were created to retrofit smokestacks after the passage of the 1990 Clean Air Act Amendment -- things that James Watt and Rush Limbaugh want them to forget. But more than that, Apollo tells a narrative about American greatness, our history of shared investment and prosperity, of our ingenuity, and how we build a better future.

    For more information, see this Grist article which contains many good links to discussions (including 103 comments to date at Gristmill).On Green groups endorse Republican Lincoln Chafee; activists cry foul posted 3 years, 7 months ago 18 Responses

  • Not so sure

    I think there are some good arguments for the Sierra Club and LCV's position, but given the comments above, I'd like to put forth the arguments for the other side.

    1. The difference between having 49 votes and 50 votes in the Senate (assuming one Independent) is huge.  If the Democrats gain a majority (even if not in 2006), they gain control of the legislative agenda by having 10 to 8 majority on committees and being able to basically stop any legislation (like Clear Skies) on a dime.  The Sierra Club and LCV are helping to ensure a Republican majority that can arguably be more damaging in the long run.

    2. Chafee voted to confirm Janice Rogers Brown for the DC Court of Appeals.  This nomination was extremely important and LCV strongly opposed it:
      The D.C. Circuit is critical to environmental protection because it is this court that is empowered to hear most cases challenging environmental rulings and regulations issued by the EPA, the Department of the Interior, and other federal agencies. Justice Brown has shown in her opinions and other writings that she is likely to strike down many of the laws and regulations that protect the public health and environment because they may impinge on what she views as the overriding rights of property.
      Similarly, the Sierra Club opposed as well:
      The Senate's confirmation of Janice Rogers Brown could have serious and long-term impacts on the nation's environmental protections.  Justice Brown's avowed hostility to laws that protect our air, water, and lands and her tendency to rule based on personal philosophy make her unfit to serve on the D.C. Circuit, which handles a vast number of cases involving federal environmental safeguards.

    3. Chafee voted to end the filibuster on Samuel Alito, allowing him to be confirmed.  Sierra Club opposed their first Supreme Court nomination since Bork:
      Sierra Club's opposition to Judge Alito's confirmation rests on his Constitutional philosophy as expressed in opinions that threaten both the ability of Congress to pass laws to protect the environment, and the ability of citizens to enforce those laws.
      LCV similarly opposed:
      President Bush's nomination to replace Justice Sandra Day O'Connor poses a grave threat to our environment. Judge Samuel Alito's activist judicial record speaks to his hostility to the laws that govern our clean air, clean water, and public health.

    Both of these judges pose serious threats to environmental laws that potentially far outweigh a particular vote on a specific piece of legislation.

    1. As discussed in the story, he voted in favor of the nomination of William Wehrum, lead author of the Clear Skies Initiative.  He also helped put into place regulations that would reduce mercury emissions 70% by 2026 instead of 90% by 2008 as the EPA had previously promised.

    2. In response to concern about alienating nonpartisans and those who aren't Democrats, perhaps we should also consider how many Democrats are being alienated by this endorsement.  Pulling in more moderates is not good unless you can ensure that you don't lose even more who feel the environment will ultimately be further damaged by this choice.  They should make sure there is a net gain and not a net loss.

    This whole issue should be less about partisanship than doing what's best for the environmental movement in the long run.  Here are some questions:  
    • What would have been the consequences if Sierra Club and LCV endorsed a Democrat in this race?  Would it really have had a huge effect?  Would anyone have noticed or cared outside of RI?
    • Isn't Sheldon Whitehouse, the likely Democratic opponent, better than Chafee on the environment?  Why not endorse him?
    • How much should we fear Chafee stabbing the environmental movement in the back for lack of endorsements?
    On Green groups endorse Republican Lincoln Chafee; activists cry foul posted 3 years, 7 months ago 18 Responses

  • Associated Press

    Just to be clear, it was the AP that wrote the story and not the Washington Post.On Toxic (press) releases posted 3 years, 7 months ago 1 Response