If the climate movement’s goal is to stabilize below 2deg C, then we must be much clearer about the hard reality of the science.

Thanks for posing this question, I think its a really important one. Now climate change has reached a level of mainstream-ness we need to be clearly setting out the solutions that are required to fix it. It’s not a matter of being radical or conservative, its about demanding what’s needed to fix the problem.

I agree we should be seriously considering Monbiot’s suggestion of a 90% cut by 2030. In fact it is currently a big debate in the Australian climate movement. The big NGOs are calling for 30% by 2020, and 80% by 2050, but a few (quite influential) grassroots groups have refused to sign on to those movement-wide demands as part of our federal election strategy (the election will be held probably in October). My organisation, the Australian Student Environment Movement (www.asen.org.au), is one of the groups who didn’t sign on. There is actually quite a strong push from many groups for a ‘zero emissions’ policy - is this happening in the U.S. at all?

I am posting below the letter we wrote to the rest of the environment movement in Australia explaining why we couldn’t sign on to the asks of 30% by 2020 and 80% by 2050. I thought it might be useful for other groups struggling with what policy to adopt on emissions. We are currently setting our emission cut target policy, and it will probably be in line with Monbiot’s. His book ‘Heat’ was very influential in our network.

—

“Dear Mittagong Forum Groups

After much deliberation, ASEN has decided not to sign onto the Mittagong Forum Joint Election Policy. We would like to explain why, given the strategic importance of joint policies, environmental movement solidarity and the huge amount of time and effort that was put into this document. There are a number of reasons behind this decision. Our overwhelming motivation is that the document does not reflect the views of our members, many of whom believe stronger policies and targets are required to avert dangerous climate change and ensure climate justice. Given this dissent and a willingness by many to block the decision we are unable to sign on. We know that all Mittagong members understand the importance of strictly following internal decision-making processes in our respective organisations; ASEN operates through double consensus and this was not able to be reached on the issue.

Over the last few months, ASEN has been engaged in extensive discussion and consultation with our member groups and through the ASEN climate working group about climate change, our policy and the most strategic way to stop climate change. As a result of this we are developing our own policy demands including a deep emissions cuts policy.

ASEN is also positioning itself to undertake direct action campaigning on climate change, specifically around the expansion of the coal industry. We feel that both of these positions represent an extremely important role within the climate movement, which is currently underrepresented. ASEN is committed to doing what is required to stop climate change and to this end we would greatly support Mittagong Forum groups to strengthen any future climate policies, especially reduction targets.

Given students and ASEN have had a long tradition of being on the more ‘radical’ side of the environment movement spectrum, we hope playing the “rebel” role outlined in Bill Moyer’s campaign role analysis will open up space within the movement for other groups and particularly the Mittagong Election Campaign to seem reasonable and measured. We do not feel that signing onto the Policy allows us to play this role. As a small and young organisation (in an official capacity) with little media profile, we are confident that ASEN not signing on to the policy asks will not damage the Mittagong election campaign in any way.

ASEN is an organisation of young people who are committed to stopping dangerous climate change. We have recognised we need to play to our strengths - we are not policy gurus or qualified scientists (though many of us are policy and science students)- but we have passion, commitment and a clear vision for a world free of dangerous climate change. We believe what it will take to enact that vision is significant direct action and strong targets and we feel that given our strengths we are in a position to take these steps.

Our decision is not meant to undervalue the huge amount of work that was put into this document. Further, we wish to thank Mittagong and particularly Kate Walsh for the huge amount of ongoing support that the Mittagong Forum and Kate gives us. We welcome your input and further discussion and look forward to working closely with you on other campaigns into the future.”