Friends of the Earth? Sierra Club?  Sierra Club usually? Greenpeace?

No climate bill was going to be passed in 2008. I don't see how anyone could seriously think any proposal, good bad or indifferent, would be enacted.

I think the EDF is engaging in some political theater. My take on the L-W fight is the EDF is trying to put a positive spin on a no-win situation, basically saying 'look how much progress we're making' and 'we're getting close to results'. This does have the benefit of making enviros look less impotent than we are right now.

The one thing the right is very good at is avoiding damaging public infighting. Even the arch-contrarian Inhofe is dialing down his rhetoric with McCain as the Republican nominee.

We should use caution before we criticize other environmentalists and other environmentalist groups.

re: JMG and Krupp's book. I read most of it, skimmed some of it, and had a similar reaction. Krupp is full of rah rah boosterism, some of which is warranted of course, but does not get down to the nitty gritty questions of whether all this neat new technology will work, whether investment levels will climb high enough, and most importantly, what will prevent the final gulping up of fossil fuels.

re: JMG & Karen on motive. Good point to consider that failure might be the goal, but I just don't see that as the case here. Nor do I buy the argument that major foundations established with oil/auto/and related money continue as clandestine advocates for those interests and have deliberately acted to eviscerate our groups.

I don't buy it in large part because I know a lot of the people in senior positions in both our mainstream organizations and foundations, I even trained some of them. If there is a conspiracy within the foundation/organization world, it would have to be the most disciplined and effective effort ever mounted, and be limited to a handful of Executive Directors and program officers. That's just not how our groups operate.

That being said, I know for a fact that there was collusion between a major environmental organization or two, several foundations and Enron to de-regulate state utilities  - a topic worth revisiting now that the huge downsides of losing state control over utilities in places like California, New Jersey and Massachusetts are apparent. I know it happened because I was offered Enron money and because the effort to both bribe support and threaten environmentalists who thought to opposes dereg with loss of foundation grants is well documented. So who knows? maybe I'm gullible and the same things has been going on with climate.

re: josullivan & whether public criticism is wise. I agree. Ideally, US environmentalists would engage in free, spirited and more or less private debate over key questions and disagreements, determine the best course of action and then present a united public front in public. The problem is that there IS NO DEBATE on climate strategy, despite the efforts of a number of folks. I've spent three years on it myself. At some point there comes a time when you've got to move to the next level. Given the incredible pace at which new climate science evidence is pouring in, all pointing to an ever shorter window of opportunity, I'd say it's well past time.

re: Jon Ryan, Tricia on "who's good?" I can't answer just yet, but I can share draft criteria I've been tinkering with for use in a  "Climate Report Card" that might be published as an aid in decided which organizations to contribute to and support.

Grades would be based on how many steps each organization and foundation takes "walking backwards" from a definition of the problem. No skipping is allowed, it is not a restaurant menu. There are a number of groups that describe a US strategy, in some form, but in this grade system such plans are not rewarded unless they are the product of a transparent chain of logic that is grounded in statements of the problem and solution. As you might guess, there won't be an abundance of "As" handed out.

GRADE    ORGANIZATION/FOUNDATION includes following in their climate agenda.   

F        None.
D        Problem Statement. Does the organization identify Greenland & Antarctic ice floe breakup and potential for catastrophic sea level rise within decades as the major climate change risk?  (D- to organizations that list catastrophe as one of several impacts.)
C        Solution Statement. Does the organization endorse Immediate return to 350 ppm. (C- for referencing 350 ppm, but leaving off the "immediate return below, C+ to any that define 350 ppm or lower.)
B        Goals.  Does the organization endorse Jim Hansen's recommendations for achieving 350 ppm (end coal burning by 2030, full replacement by renewables, plus innovative forestry and agriculture) or propose an equivalent? (B- for listing coal and renewables alone. B+ for including a timeline for action.)
A-        Global Strategy. Does the organization offer any proposal for how the world might be brought to take action in time?
A        Global + US Strategies. Does the organization go on to explain that role US leadership must take?
A+        Global + US + US Climate Action Strategies. Finally, for a top grade, does the organization lay out how the US can be mobilized behind this agenda? Additional points for discussing what resources US environmentalists and climate advocates must marshal.

Ken Ward
(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) //= 0; i=i-1){ if (l[i].substring(0, 1) == ' ') output += "&#"+unescape(l[i].substring(1))+";"; else output += unescape(l[i]); } document.getElementById('eeEncEmail_IuDZCvr5Fa').innerHTML = output; //]]>

Ken Ward ken[at]brightlines.org

Ken Ward is probably the best poster in Grist and I'd like to see a lot more of his columns or essays.

Re the topic at hand, while this was an excellent column, it didn't mention one important dynamic: the biggest environmental groups are also the most conservative ones.  The last time I looked, the National Wildlife Federation, which is mainly a hunters' group and which is very conservative, is the largest U.S. environmental group.  The largest "grass roots" group is Sierra Club, though the grass roots label is self-described, and it's also the most conservative grass roots group.  The reasons are that 1) there just aren't than many of us who care about the environment more than we care about other issues and 2) in order to get large membership, a group must spend a lot of time , money, and effort fundraising, which includes getting new members and holding onto current ones.  The latter in turn takes a lot of money, which requires corporate sponsorship and donations of rich people, which are not forthcoming if a group promotes a really progressive or radical agenda.  And make no mistake, in this psychotic society a sane environmental policy is very radical.

And there's one more issue, which was briefly touched on.  With the exception of the minuscule number of truly superior legislators like Dennis Kucinich, if you go to Congress to lobby legislators and aids that our way of living is killing the planet and will eventually kill us so that we need to radically change it, no one will listen to you.  Notice that the really good environmental groups, like Center for Biological Diversity, don't bother lobbying.  So, what to do about this?

I understand your distinction. I meant "conspiracy" not in the legalistic or criminal meaning, but in the more general sense of a group of people acting in concert to advance a hidden agenda.

There are some who believe that this is a clear cut, corporate-run conspiracy, exerting direct control through foundations and I'm arguing that this is not the case.

To the extent that EDF advocates a corporate perspective and "free market" approach (I use quotes because I don't think that cap & trade is at all a free market climate policy) and accepts funding from the Pew Trusts and other similarly inclined foundations, this is icky, but it is not conspiratorial, because the players are all quite up-front about their reasoning and intentions.

I think your description of how Pew exerts power is dead on - though you left out the key Pew innovation, which is to form its own environmental groups, like National Environmental Trust and Oceana, and bypass environmentalists altogether (and fold them back in, as Pew did with NET recently, when their purpose is exhausted) - but I don't see Pew program officers calculated how much is necessary to keep our organizations flush enough to stay on the tether, but too poor to actually accomplish anything. If anything, I'd say the major organizations have had more than enough money  but squandered the opportunity.

Ken Ward ken[at]brightlines.org

Ahhh gee, thanks Wolverine. May I add your post to my press packet?

But seriously, on the important points you raise, I think we've gone off on the wrong tangent in three related ways.

Right/Left. Environmentalism is outside of the liberal/conservative spectrum entirely, It is true that there are more liberals who think of themselves as environmentalists, but that doesn't necessarily mean that there are more. Environmentalism as it has come to be know is as much a cultural badge as anything else, while environmental values are, quite frankly, more closely aligned with traditional conservative belief then they are with progressivism.

There are large numbers of hunters, birders and fishermen who may be quite conservative on every other issue, but hold strong environmental views, whereas the quintessential Prius driving, latte sipping, coastal city dwellers who are supposed to be stone environmentalists... well, they haven't registered as even a blip in public polling for decades (if you look at the the only polling questions which matter, open-ended questions like "what do you think is the greatest problem facing the nation?").

Core vs. Mass. The problem is that we were seduced by the other polling results, the ones showing that we had upwards of 70% support. We shouldn't be thinking in terms of masses, but in terms of a small, highly motivated, tightly knit group. Where there is a trade-off between motivating the core versus avoiding offense to the majority, as in dumbing down our climate narrative, we should stick with the core, because that's where power originates.

Single issue/policy. We should be focused on winning a handful of seats in Congress and the state houses for single issue climate solution candidates. That doesn't mean that we abandon the effort to influence the major parties, and I think we should attempt to win back the Green Party for environmentalists as well, but we need at least a few voices inside government to articulate an unadulterated viewpoint. If Hansen's right then we've lost this opportunity, but we must proceed believing that we can make a difference right up until we can't.

My next post is on this topic.

Ken Ward ken[at]brightlines.org

I have spent over twenty five years working for non-profits in Cleveland, Ohio - not in environmental matters but in inner city housing issues and community organizing.

In my humble opinion, the 501c3 non-profit status is one of the most fiendishly effective devices for the control of and/or suppression of dissent ever devised. You don't have to control people directly. Recognizing their own vulnerabilities, they will yank their own leash for you.

I would be the last to totally denigrate the accomplishments of non-profits. The world is much better off with them, than it would be without them. Many brave, excellent people, whose dedication is beyond reproach work for them.

However, there are two things that are very wrong with them.  First, they allow the true heavy dancers in our society to appear concerned about issues, when they are not. It is no coincidence that non-profits have spread and flourished in a reactionary political time that has witnessed a roll back of regulatory action and redistributive welfare state programs. No coincidence at all.  Second, they politically emasculate activists who otherwise might be causing real problems for the status quo. If you want a career in the non-profit field, you often have to take a vow of political chastity, and you certainly tread very carefully before you allow yourself to use militant, direct action tactics.

I think one of the reasons for the political irrelevancy of the environmental movement, its timidity and its ineffectiveness, must be laid at the door of the non-profit method of organization. At least this must be a topic for our debates on the issues raised by Ken Ward.

Randy Cunningham
Cleveland, OH

Randy Cunningham

More blinding insights into the whole system dysfunction. I've worked on a local issue for more than a decade with The Nature Conservancy, which I've concluded is about as mainstream and corporate as an organization can be and still call itself environmental. Very frustrating. They clearly spend LOTS of time and money trying to exert influence from within the system. And I think the corporate-driven system allows them just enough tether and just enough successes to keep them in thrall. Is that more conspiracy?

As usual, Wolverine is spot on with his analysis. Center for Biological Diversity does not bother with lobbying because they know it's a waste of time. They only sit down when they have some power, which for them comes from winning lawsuits. Negotiating without power is pretty pointless.

...would the member base of nrdc, edf, nature conservancy, etc, put up with a different approach?  Maybe they understand their base and what works with them and what doesn't.  For instance, there has been a distinct lack of interest in public transit by these groups -- but then, their base is probably almost all in the suburbs.  Not that I'm defending them, I just think that they are good at what they do, including the occasional protection of wildlife, and we can't expect them to do much more.

Now, people who are really concerned about climate change should understand this, and understand that the right-wing of big enviro, if I can call them that, are not to be counted on.  That the "left", say including center for biological diversity since we're mentioning them, are much more worthy of support if you want to do something about climate change.  So I guess it's a "faint praise" argument, "you guys are great at what you do, but I'm sorry, you don't fill our current requirements right now" sort of thing.

Ken, one thing worth discussing is whether climate change should be a "single issue" issue.  Single issues have the advantage of tapping into the passion of people who prioritize that issue.  But of course, we're all much more powerful if we ally with other forces, which is why the environmental justice movement, Van Jones et al, is so important.  And since climate change mitigation will require a transformation of the economy, it would naturally lead to allies in the labor movement, as well as plenty within the working and middle classes who are worried sick about the economy.  So, perhaps put climate change front and center, but tie in the other parts of the social system, holistically.

on forest issues, is that the Nature Conservancy is the favorite environmental group of a lot of the natural resource bureaucracies. They give these agencies fig leaf protection. For that reason I know a lot of people who have written off the Nature Conservancy as an environmental group. I came up in the sectarian left, and that gave me a life long revulsion against the old game of separating the goats from the sheep. I favor an adaptation of one of Reagan's maxims. "Thou shalt not speak ill of another environmentalist." Much better than the alternative.

Randy Cunnigham
Cleveland, OH

Randy Cunningham

bumper sticker on the truck of a union worker

it ain't easy being green

Kermit

Having read Ken Ward's widely emailed critique of EDF's deteriorating climate policy, I came back here to read Tony Kreindler's original post. It appears that as EDF drifts farther and farther from the science of global warming, its explanations of its positions necessarily become more and more obtuse. It appears EDF can no longer engage in honest discourse, because such discourse would reveal the fundamental inconsistencies of its position.

Kreindler tells us to support the woefully inadequate Lieberman-Warner bill because we need action now and can't wait for an adequate bill. This argument might make some sense if L-W had significant chance of passing. But L-W was declared impassible by its supporters (including EDF) prior to the battle, and even now EDF says it is unlikely to pass in 2009. So supporting a weak bill that won't pass, won't get you quick action on global warming? All it will do is set the bar low for the next bill. It would have been far wiser to support a good bill in 2008, thus setting a high bar for the next round. All EDF's position has done is confuse the public about the science of global warming and lower the political bar.

Kreindler tells us that had L-W passed, its target level of 488 ppm (EPA is certainly optimistic on this projection by the way) is not incompatible with reducing to 350 ppm. Tellingly, he gives no explanation of the emissions pathway that puts on a L-W course then divert to a 350 ppm. That is because there is no pathway. Jim Hansen's recent research shows that if we don't enact much steeper short-term cuts than L-W, we can not get to 350 ppm anytime in the next hundred years and we will likely pass into runaway global warming over which we have no control. Kreindler's hand waving on this central point indicates that he is more concerned about  protecting EDF's image that stopping global warming.

Here are a few predictions for you:

EDF will in every case support any major greenhouse gas policy put forth by the Democratic leadership regardless of how weak it is. This will necessitate it invoking increasingly obtuse explanations. And because cracks will always develop in such a rhetorical strategy, EDF will fairly regularly contradict itself and flat out lie.

EDF will work with energy corporations to develop general principles which sound good but are entirely unenforcable. It will run to the press expounding its win-win, capitalists-like-it victory. Then, as an enforcible bill approaches, even one weaker than the supposed corporate agreement, those energy companies will refuse to support it. EDF will not respond by criticize its corporate partners or pointing out the contradictions. Then will reenact the play over again.

EDF will continue to have energy corporations on its board of directors.

This will all occur because EDF is not fundamentally an environmental group. Its mission is to work with corporations to incrementally improve corporate citizenship. When that mission collide with environmental needs, the environment is tossed and media hacks like Kreindler will fan out to "explain" EDF's policies while EDF's scientists quietly cry in their cubicles.

Ken,

Yes, you may use my post.  Many presidential candidates have gotten elected using my endorsements.

As to your right/left comments, when I say an enviro group is conservative, I'm talking strictly about environmental issues.  Some groups, like NRDC, are so conservative that they've been on the anti-environmental side of issues.  I've experienced this personally while working on lawsuits in which they've been opposing parties.  (NRDC is only one of many, unfortunately, and I just used it as an example.)  And Nature Conservancy was caught supporting logging in order to get money for something.  This is what I mean by conservative in this context.

You're quite correct that hardcore wilderness/wildlife advocates like me are actually conservatives, because we just want natural areas left alone.  Dave Foreman of Earth First! pointed this out decades ago.  In general, I actually get along far better with the rednecks in the enviro movement than I do with hippies or leftists and have absolutely no problem with them.

As to mass support v. deep support, there's no doubt that even when 80-85% of Americans said they were environmentalists that support was extremely shallow.  And I've never sold out my original Earth First! beliefs, among them "no compromise in defense of Mother Earth!," so I also agree that holding onto one's core beliefs and remaining true to the core of the movement and/or group is more important than whether the majority is offended, though it's obviously important to avoid the latter if possible.

I also agree that we've lost the faction of the Green Party that participates in electoral politics.  There's another faction that does not run candidates for office but is still true to the core beliefs, which are that peace and the environment are the fundamental and foremost issues of the Green Party.  Whether the party can be won back I have no idea, but even as is it's still substantially better than the Democratic Party.

Randy,

While I agree that it's best to keep internal disputes private, these issues must be dealt with.  There are major and substantial differences between say, EDF and the Center for Biological Diversity that affect policy decisions.  There's no way to resolve these difference other than to discuss them, which will necessarily require speaking ill of other enviros, though of course personal attacks should be avoided.

"Cap & trade was a deal by which certain corporations -- primarily Enron -- could gain an enormous new profit center, while others were provided political cover to support climate action under the guise of a "free market" solution. By splitting the monolithic bloc of private sector opposition, EDF and others hoped to cobble together a power base strong enough to overcome the oil/auto axis."

Someone else noticed this.  Thanks.  Keep up the good work.

The incrementalist approach lends itself to cap and trade corruption, and not just from the obvious "free' market trading side.

The cap, put in place by a green government, has every possibility of being raised by a GOP administrations.  Any number of "trifecta" (as in the bush trifecta) type emergencies could provode an excuse.

Enron and Phil Gramm and the enron loophole all clustered behind the effed up cap and trade notion?  It's a distinct possibility.

Gore's excellent carbon tax/income tax cut for middle and lower income families is the best way to price carbon.

http://amazngdrx.blogharbor.com/blog John Schneider, Northern Wisconsin