But isn’t it a little too optimistic to say:

“changes that are actually reducing emissions are also those that challenge the existing energy structure - not only in its reliance on planet-cooking fossil fuels but also in its persistent valuation of short-term gains (profits) over sustaining life and maintaining community health”

I think the powers that be are making the case that clean coal, nuclear, carbon offsets, and (fortunately less reliably!) ethanol are going to save the planet quite effectively in both Congress and in the media. (eg, Lieberman, Warner To Push Nuclear Energy In Carbon Bill
http://www.nationaljournal.com/congressdaily/cdp_20080521_1570.php)

If we want a decentralized solar / wind grid combined with efficiency / consumption reduction efforts in the US — because that is both the most effective, just, and long-term sustainable way of reducing emissions — we are going to have to fight tooth and nail for a radically different society: raising awareness about 350 isn’t going to be enough. (I’m not saying raising awareness about 350 isn’t super important too - it’s just not enough!)

This is one thing I think is missing from Ken’s piece that I’m always harping on here (and on the streets as much as possible): we have to challenge the bogus, false solutions JUST AS MUCH as raising awareness about 350 and challenging the coal and oil industry. Sadly the groups doing this are deeply marginalized by the media, foundations, many mainstream environmental groups, etc.

[For an interesting Global North / Global South comparison compare the success of Via Campesina with the constant marginalizing of the hyper-consumerism focused, technofix skeptical focused environmentalists in the US]

Moyer et al explain that there are different parties involved in a movement that actually brings about change; they play different roles at different times in the process. All are ultimately necessary, but they often misunderstand each other, leading to counter-productive blaming. As I see it, the big environmental org’ns are playing their usual Reformer role of monkeying around with the details of policy solutions–and at some point that will be needed to bring the politicos on board. Groups like the Apollo Alliance are doing their Change Agent part to broaden the acceptance of the need for change–the sugar that makes the medicine go down. The People are beginning to understand that something is needed, but by themselves they can’t drive the process forward.

The critical piece that’s missing–and is needed now if we’re to have any hope of halting runaway climate change–is the radical, noisy Rebel groups that have to be out there making LOUD noise. This means strategic plans and use of effective grassroots action, communications and media-savvy tactics.

Good questions. I definitely recognize and respect your points, and I think the worst thing we can do at this stage is take any position that translates to a delay on real and immediate action.
At the same time, to continue the discussion, I believe that we have neither the burden nor the luxury of engaging with a choice between taking meaningful action to mitigate carbon emissions or making radical changes to the system that constitutes the “root causes” of the climate problem. They appear so linked as to be inextricable. More and more, we are seeing that those changes that are actually reducing emissions are also those that challenge the existing energy structure - not only in its reliance on planet-cooking fossil fuels but also in its persistent valuation of short-term gains (profits) over sustaining life and maintaining community health. In addition, I think we have to ask ourselves, who benefits from us thinking that we might have to choose between “root causes” and real outcomes? If corporations, which increasingly seem to see the renewable energy market as a new frontier for profits (not strictly a bad thing, nor strictly a good thing), simply shifted their fossil-fuel based energy monopoly to a renewable energy monopoly, I believe we would find ourselves faced with the same scale of insidious social and environmental problems not too far down the road, as renewables would be directed at perpetuating global over-consumption and extractive production that will always be ecologically and socially destructive.
Really, however, this would probably never happen, since it is also becoming increasingly obvious that the clean energy revolution will not run on energy “monoculture.” For better or worse, it does not appear that we are going to find a “silver bullet” that could perpetuate the current economic paradigm even if we wanted it to. Instead, to borrow Mr. McKibben’s phrase, we’ll be relying on our store of “silver buckshot.” Fortunately, “buckshot” appears to be inherently more democratic and sustainable - ecologically and socially.
So, to make a long answer succinct, definitely no waiting! The MLK anecdote is a perfect example, really; it was a bold, local, direct action that produced immediate and tangible change that was consistent with the values of the movement in process and outcome, and also built capacity for further action.

This is why I hated symbolic logic and almost left the class early it was so ridiculous. It is actually neither logical, nor particularly applicable to the real world. The precautionary principle is not based on some quasi-mythical ‘perfect knowledge’, it is based on the best effort of science to attempt to explain the possible impacts of the action. That is what NEPA and other cornerstone environmental legislation is based on. The scientific method serves us a lot better than symbolic logic or other inconsistent philosophical games in these circumstances.

I hear what you’re saying about addressing the root causes. Is it maybe a bit of a chicken and the egg type scenario, however? Do you have to address every root cause of the climate crisis before instituting solutions that will start reducing our damage to the earth and mitigating carbon emissions? Or do you have to make sure that the solutions that you propose solve the root causes as well? Or do they just have to not make the root causes worse?

Martin Luther King strongly argued that our country couldn’t wait to end inequality in this country; he also settled for desegregating the Birmingham buses without desegregating the entire city, or country for that matter. How can we keep our moral voice while recognizing that sometimes it’s important to claim partial, but nevertheless real, victories? Those are questions for everyone . . .

Consider proposition A. The precautionary principle would say not to do proposition A because perfect knowledge of it’s effects (perfect meaning each and every permutation of the chaos) are not known

Now consider proposition (negation)A. The precautionary principle says not to undertake (negation)A because perfect knowledge is not known of it’s effects. This double negative leads to a positive A which suggests to undertake proposition A.

Thus, for every proposition upon which there is not perfect knowledge the precautionary principle dictates that one must do and not do the proposition simultaneously.