We can no longer trust greens to save the planet. Their track record and anti-pragmatic approach demonstrates one thing above all else: environmentalism is still dead. It’s time to lead or leave, and until greens are ready to grow up, we shouldn’t take their marching orders. The moment is simply too urgent.
=======
Since 2004, greens have risen slowly but surely from “The Death of Environmentalism” pronounced by Michael Shellenberger and Ted Nordhaus. “An Inconvenient Truth,” a new Democratic Congress, the green marketing frenzy — it seemed that greens had risen from the grave throwing punches, and it was only a matter of time before the final “tipping point” on global warming action was reached.
But this summer, environmentalism’s coffin was buried once again. The failure of Lieberman-Warner in June was just the beginning — two years ago, it would have been inconceivable for Democrats to cave in on offshore drilling, or for greens to oppose an energy bill crafted by Democrats. Environmentalists were completely destroyed by “drill, baby, drill.” Indeed, a new era of escalating energy prices and economic crisis has provoked a paradigm shift in the national political climate. As Environment & Energy Daily reported yesterday (subscription req’d):
The debate over offshore drilling, critics say, has exposed a fundamental flaw in the mainstream environmental community — namely that it was ill-prepared for a national political fight where its issue registered as the top priority for the majority of voters, particularly in a climate where much of the public lined up against them.
Indeed, the recent history of environmental issues has been that while voters generally side with environmentalists on a wide range of issue, they also place relatively far down on their list of political priorities.
But $4 gas quickly turned that situation on its head this summer. Fueled by an aggressive campaign by prominent Republicans such as presidential candidate Sen. John McCain and former House Speaker Newt Gingrich, polls showed the public both viewed energy policy as their top priority and lined up distinctly against the environmentalists’ position.
“Environmental groups by and large in the U.S. have lived by the assumption that their issues are always going to be second-tier for everyone except for them,” said Bill Chaloupka…
In this new environment, the eco-centric agenda will continue to fail. High energy prices and economic recession will remain at the forefront of public concern, as will the slow but sure decline of American global competitiveness, the upcoming fights over health care policy, and the rise of new foreign policy crises. Global warming and the environment will continue to rank dead last among public priorities.
Just as the 1969 Cuyahoga River fire represented the birth of environmentalism, historians may one day conclude that Wednesday’s massive loss on offshore drilling represented its final death.
Indeed, the utter failure of the modern environmental movement cannot be overstated. In 1988 (the year I was born), James Hansen testified to Congress about the grave threats posed by global warming. Twenty years later, and environmentalists have failed to achieve hardly any notable solutions to the greatest environmental challenge of the century.
But it’s even worse than that. Not only have greens advanced astonishingly few solutions, they have tainted climate action with a harmful eco-ethic that has consistently doomed it to political failure. As a result, climate change continues unabated, and our generation’s prospects for a secure and prosperous future are quickly diminishing.
We can no longer trust greens to save the planet. Their track record and anti-pragmatic approach demonstrates one thing above all else: environmentalism is still dead. And at this point, that’s a good thing. But what’s the way out of this mess?
The new pragmatic Democratic leadership is already leading the way: when it comes to energy, ignore the greens. As long as they are unwilling to embrace political realities, they are irrelevant. Rather, meet your constituencies where they’re at — in this case, by supporting limited offshore drilling — and work around their concerns to advance new solutions — by advancing new investments in clean energy.
It’s time to lead or leave, and until greens are ready to grow up, we shouldn’t take their marching orders. The moment is simply too urgent. Next year will see the inauguration of a new president, a new Congress, and a new international agreement on climate. If we continue to let the greens’ obsession with carbon pricing get in the way of an agenda focused on public investments to develop and deploy clean energy, climate policy will fail yet again.
But if instead we work with this new pragmatic Democratic leadership to advance a proactive energy agenda focused on investments to make clean energy cheap, we might just be able to finally get started.
Subscribe by Email!
Subscribe by RSS!
Share on Facebook
1988? You reminded me that I was at Fort St Vrain that year.
One thing I notice as an outsider is that environmentalists will talk a good game at the 30000 ft level (e.g., all renewable economy with smartgrid, V2G, etc), but when there are specific proposals put out the local environmentalists oppose it (i.e., don’t ruin OUR desert with the transmission line, solar plant, etc.). Being willing to decide on specifics would help their cause.
There is only one thing wrong with the text. It supposes there is a green cause which greens fight for.
Actually, there is an enviroment problem that will affect human race as a whole, not only greens one. So, if human being fails to reduce global warming, it is not a flaw of the greens. It is a flaw of all other ones. If Democratics and Republicans couldn’t reduce the risk of global warming, it is not the greens we should blame for. But the Democratics and Republican themselves.
Yeah I remember when feminism died a bunch too.
Personally, I think a bunch of middle-class white guys who think being divisive to grassroots movements, flock to neo-liberal capitalist ideology, and are convinved that the Democrats will save us have clearly got all the answers.
-Matt
You tell ‘em Matt!
Lead or leave, Matt. These issues are too deadly serious for that kind of sarcasm.
Precisely Teryn! They are too serious for a bunch of folks to think they have the TRUE ANSWERS to a movement, to sit back in armchairs (or desks) and criticize people who are doing real, on-the-ground organizing in communities across the country.
Have you no historical perspective? Do you really think Thomas Friedman has all the answers? That a Democratic Congress will save us? That simply letting the competitive market run it’s course that we’ll create cheap energy and stop the climate and energy crises? That these same institutions, systems, and patterns created this mess in the first place?
You seem to love this big brush stroke of “environmentalists” - which is a nice catch-all term that conveniently allows for distortion of facts and completely avoids any nuances in the complex positions and strategies taken by advocates for ecology. All the barbs you launched above more accurately characterize the Democrats that you seem to identify as saviors - or at best the part of the movement that is scared to challenge the Democratic/centrist positions.
I don’t think we should take anyone’s marching orders - much less those from a think-tank that is divisive, dismissive, privileged as all hell (and doesn’t own it) and disrespectful towards movements that are creating REAL change, on the ground and in people’s lives. I’m with you on massive public investment - but beyond that, Breakthrough seems to think controversy advances their positions - when in fact, it is simply divisive and marginalizing to us all (and certainly, to you).
-Matt
These exchanges don’t seem to get us very far, Matt, and I find your fringe political ideology to be simply irrelevant. Best of luck,
Teryn
These comments are quite similar to Sarah Palin’s comments at the RNC a few weeks ago about community organizers. It’s pretty clear that Breakthrough doesn’t respect the work of environmental and community organizers actually out doing something. They instead prefer to provoke and distract us from our work.
Read posts like this at your own peril.
In 1988, the year you were born, I was in my last year of high school. 20 years seems a lot shorter now to me than it probably does to you. The Green movement actually did have a lot of successes earlier on - waterways and air quality are greatly improved over the 1950s - and in some cases this past decade or two they’ve been a victim of that success. Partly the reason there have been so few nuclear reactors built (replacing coal) is due to Green hysteria over all things nuclear.
You quote: “Twenty years later, and environmentalists have failed to achieve hardly any notable solutions to the greatest environmental challenge of the century.” The reason why, I would say, is because they really haven’t made their case. There really isn’t a whole lot of sound science to justify the current alarmism of a lot of greens. Even the IPCC’s own documents admit that natural warming forcings such as solar, and cooling feedbacks such as cloud albedo have a current low level of scientific understanding, and even the higher end projections for sea-level rises just aren’t as high as a lot of AGW proponents (mostly journalists and activists) claim. Even if you still believe there is a real threat, there’s no evidence among credible scientists (I don’t include Hansen in that category, sorry) that this threat is either as urgent or as dire as many proponents claim. A lot of people such as myself have examined both ’sides’ of the debate, looked at the actual science and have found the alarmist side wanting.
You’re at least smart enough to acknowledge that when economic crisis hits, the environment does sink to the bottom of people’s priorities and are correct that a single-issue focus will do no-one any good. And this economic crisis is only just getting started.
But the problem with the environmental movement is not as simple matter a matter such as a lack of pragmatic party politics either. ‘Organising’ and ‘informing’ and vague demands for ‘more investment’ when there’s actually plenty already are not the way to go either. What does help? What would help would be for people who are really concerned about the environment to go out and get that BSc, then that Masters in engineering or in organic chemistry or physics etc., take an Entrepreneurship course at College, then get a startup grant or some venture capital and start up one’s own green technology company. And to stop claiming that such a tactic is neo-liberal or neo-con ideology or whatever. Don’t like capitalism? Create a company that has a co-operative structure then. The more people who do that, the more quickly genuine solutions will be found.
PJ O’Rourke once noted that there are a lot of people who would do anything to ’save the planet’ except get a science degree and that’s sadly true. So long as people just get a BA or go to film school or journalism school and spend their time making yet another documentary or writing yet another book hectoring people on their bad behaviour rather than being a genuine part of an actual solution (lobbying for more taxpayer money and ‘informing people’ is NOT a solution to anything) the less regard anyone will have for environmentalists.
We’re with you Matt.
Teryn,
As the person who wrote the post, I would expect you to welcome the diverse reactions it created. As someone who knows Matt, I would not categorize him or his comments as falling under “Fringe political ideology.” If the point of this post was to generate discussion, please don’t belittle the people who post comments (or the author, for you posters). Let’s keep this discussion open and civil.
My major contention with your argument is that “environmentalism” HAS changed in the last four years. Perhaps not all of the green groups have caught on, but the youth climate movement (whose dispatches we are posting on - see the name of this blog) has certainly adapted. The Democrats, Republicans, Big Green Groups are not getting us to where we need to be, but they do not make up the entirety of the climate movement.
It is important to recognize the work that organizers are doing around economic justice (helping create jobs and economic opportunity so people have more freedom to make environmentally minded choices), health (cleaning up and preventing pollution of our air, water, soil, bodies), environmental justice (specifically working WITH impacted communities and seeking out their perspectives and priorities), conservation (physically opposing the construction of obviously outdated fossil fuel technology). Many of us doing this work do not call ourselves “environmentalists” because it doesn’t fit - that’s not necessarily our primary motivation and it also doesn’t resonate with people. So we are adapting to reach people where they are.
No one has ALL the answers, but we are trying to figure out what works and what doesn’t. Some proposals are better than others, and certainly there are some pieces of legislation that seems good but that “environmentalists” oppose based on their consequences or backdoor policies that would undermine the intent of the bill.
So please, don’t paint all “environmentalists” with the same brush. There are distinctions and nuances. Please don’t assume everyone working on climate is an “environmentalist” as you define them. It is useful to call people out on outmoded communication/strategy/intent, but recognize that we have come a long ways since 2004.
Best,
Juliana
Thanks for your comment, Juliana. I don’t think the majority of environmentalism – or the green movement, or whatever you want to call it — has changed in the ways it needs to achieve significant solutions, and until it does, I feel obligated as a comrade in the clean energy revolution to address basic assumptions when I think they are limiting our efficacy.
The assumptions I’m trying to address – particularly the assumption that pragmatism is a sell out – are assumptions I’ve observed in so many sectors of this movement, and especially on this blog. I believe these assumptions lead to courses of action that end up limiting or even hurting our progress.
Nobody claims to have all the answers, including myself. But I’ll continue to hold true to the strategies I think are more effective and do everything I can to make this movement more successful. Too much is at stake.
Teryn
Well put Juliana.
witness, yet again, how tone from (most) breakthrough folks goes so quickly goes from annoyingly preachy to farcically messianic.
When teryn writes to matt, he essentially says “the more you tell us we’re annoying / wrong-headed / arrogant / etc the more it proves we’re right”.
I guess this is the project of the high horsemen of the environmental movement, so what do you expect…
In the words of Bob Dylan’s Dream:
“You know they refused Jesus, too” /
He said, “You’re not Him”.
Why the fuck are we arguing? Shouldn’t we be putting our energies towards fighting the OIL CORPORATIONS?
Last time I checked, we do need clean air in our low-income communities, and yes, we do need massive public investment in renewable energy.
But let me comment on one thing that caught my eye. The failure of Lieberman Warner has to do with the larger political content of the United States Senate. There are not 60 senators that are willing to drive up energy prices for their constituents without it being politically necessary for them.That’s how at Power Shift 2009, we are going to pressure Congress to pass global warming legislation. (I was working in Congress during the spring, if you want to discuss the strategy the dems pursued I’d be happy to. They decided not to push cap-and-trade until 2009 because Bush wouldn’t have even signed it)
But one lobby day isn’t enough. So, the work that folks like Matt and Juliana are doing MAKES it politically necessary. That’s how civil rights legislation, women’s rights legislation and every other major political shift in this country has been fostered. Hard work on the ground.
But wait, we need people like Breakthrough as well. We need to expand our ideas and begin strategically crafting our vision for ON THE GROUND strategy to be most effective.
I believe Green Jobs is the way to do this. And massive investment, without focusing and meeting people where they’re at (JOBS), will never garner the political support we need.
Let’s stop placing blame. Stop pointing to the Big Enviro Groups complaining that they are doing it wrong. Stop pointing to think tanks and claiming they sit around and do nothing.
We need investment. We need clean air. And we need green jobs. But most importantly, we need EACH OTHER. Let’s get out in the field and build support any way possible.
^ what she said
So, when will IGHIH editorial staff decide that the writings of a of a neoliberal, CCS* and nuke** touting thinktank doesn’t belong here? We know big corporations do this thing called “greenwashing” and are quick to call them out on their lie. When will we do the same about a thinktank supposedly concerned about climate change and ecology? What I hear from Breakthrough is about the same thing I hear coming from folks like Duke Energy CEO Jim Rogers who is building a new coal fired power plant in my state and was up for a Fossil Foolie Award last year . As far as I’m concerned, Breakthrough are a bunch of Fossil Fools who do nothing good for us. I vote them out. Like Duke Energy and Dominion, they don’t share our values, so they shouldn’t have a space here.
*http://itsgettinghotinhere.org/2008/05/19/carbon-capture-solution-or-scam/
**http://breakthroughgen.org/2008/07/23/clear-eyed-about-nuclear/
Thanks for your comment, Gabriel. I agree 100% we should be working together. But I don’t think that means we shouldn’t critique each others’ strategies, tactics, and basic assumptions. This is how movements become stronger.
Lieberman Warner ultimately failed because it would significantly increase the price of energy. The American public won’t accept that, period. Even if it had actually come to a vote, Lieberman Warner would have only received between 30-40 in favor.
But that was only the beginning. Greens got completely destroyed by “drill here, drill now.” Once again, the power of public demand for energy cost solutions trumped the green pleas. When groups in this movement — such as most of the green group — continue to insist that our primary policy goal should be a high price on carbon, they’re willingly putting their heads in the sand and denying this reality. As Joe Romm put it this week:
“The environmental community has had its head in the sand when it comes to reality.”
The moment is urgent. Next year will see the inauguration of a new president, a new Congress, and a new international agreement on climate. We must demand that the nation’s leading advocates embrace cost containment and shift their focus to an Apollo-like investment — $50 billion per year at minimum — funded by a modest carbon price in the range of $10-20 per ton of CO2.
If action on climate remains focused on significantly raising the cost of energy, climate policy will fail yet again. But if action is framed around economic opportunity, prosperity, and a national effort to make clean energy cheap, we can once again ignite the American spirit and unleash a new economic revolution. It’s time to get started.
Teryn
I second Kodama’s vote for giving the incredibly conservative Breakthrough the boot from this forum. They are pro nukes, pro “clean” coal, and apparently pro oil drilling if it will keep Democrats in office (check previous posts of theirs. I believe “Gang of Ten” was in one of the headlines if you are searching for this.) This is not conducive to a just transition from fossil fuels. They are clearly out of line with the youth climate movement which as a whole, has remained firmly opposed to nukes and coal.
I’m sure some will cry censorship. But let me put it bluntly, they are not on the same team as us. We wouldn’t let some rightwingers post the BS they do on this website. Just because they profess to be on our side does not mean they are. There are plenty of other forums, such as their own website, to put forth their ideas. It doesn’t belong here, period
jeez teryn, way to be a complete buzz kill. after reading this post, and then researching your other posts, i would never trust you as a “green” or an “environmentalist” and i think that all you’re doing on ighih is trying to discouraging actual on the ground organizers making changes daily on a tangible level and that, my friend, makes you sound either really insane or REALLY sketchy, but absolutely NOT for an “energy revolution” as you say you are. you just come off as a 20 year old white kid telling older and more experienced organizers that they don’t know what they are doing, and telling them to “lead or leave”. that comment is laughable coming from someone in the breakthrough institute. i triple that vote to boost yall off.
Ilanam,
it would be nice if everyone had the privilege to go to college and use capitalism to start up a venture company, but wait, a lot of folks are too busy being fucked over by that system to rise above the poverty level and put food on their tables, let alone paying for college and a start up company, check out the stats. so, thanks for the advice. head out to the fields and tell those folks that.
All these “big” ideas without the power to implement them are nothing more than fluffy white thought bubbles. That’s the difference between a cushy think tank and a real grassroots movement. And that’s how we know the weak compromises and empty rhetoric of Breakthrough will never get us anywhere.
It’s the work of people like Matt, Dana, Juliana and all the grassroots groups fighting for climate justice that will - because we’re actively building demand in our communities, demand that results in power, based on people’s actual self-interest in a clean, safe and healthy place to live and grow.
We do this so we can CHALLENGE Big Oil, Big Coal and Big Gas - industries that have used their big bucks to buy their power to push policy makers into action.
These companies don’t need any more support for their cause, they need a check, and that’s us. Young people around the world are fighting for our future by standing up for the REAL solutions we need to make it out of this energy crisis alive. It doesn’t serve our future to lock us into 50, 100 or even more years of polluting power whether it be from coal, oil or nuclear. It doesn’t make sense to sell out our brothers and sisters around the globe who will pay for those compromises with their health and safety.
That’s why we’re building power, right now, on our campuses and communities - and we’re not doing it so that we can compromise and tote the party line. Fighting for revolutionary change (as Terryn referenced) means working damn hard and for the long haul. Its the ease of compromising that can happen from an office - not real, fundamental change for the common good. That takes people, and we’re not going to get them by selling out to Big Oil.
We’re actively developing more organizers and community leaders who are working both to end our dependence on fossil fuels and promote the clean and efficient alternatives available today - and create jobs in the process! In addition, we’re working to get our generation out to vote in record numbers in this country - and then hold decision-makers accountable to serve OUR interests, not Big Oil’s.
So keep it up my friends and fellow organizers and leaders on the front lines - our world (and our government) need you!
As much as the writings of Breakthrough may frustrate and anger some people (myself included), I think we as a movement have to recognize that excluding voices from the debate results in the exact “us” vs. “them” alienating environment that people are protesting in the original post. Let’s have a healthy debate about where the climate movement is headed, that’s what this blog is about. But can everyone please avoid personal attacks and overly broad generalizations?
Elizabeth
Yes, our primary focus should be clean energy investment. And YES, it should include the crazy idea of CCS, because China is building 2 new coal plants a week. We should research every option. Nukes have already been seen to be too expensive and they use far too much water (from Breakthrough Website “but initial capital costs continue to be prohibitively high”).
I don’t think protesting at Coal plants is a good tactic (if we don’t offer a positive message). because it fails to provide any SOLUTIONS in its message. Look at the first political debate between Federalists vs. Anti-Federalist. The pragmatists and realists will always win.
I “vote” to keep the debate going. I respect the opinions of Breakthrough and the opinions of those who oppose CCS to the “gates of hell.” I don’t have to agree, but we shouldn’t boot allies off of this forum because we don’t agree.
I am with Matt, Kodama, and the rest of the IGHIH community. I have personally had enough of this CRAP from the Breakthrough Institute. They are a right-wing, industry front group - just like the “clean coal” manipulators - disguised as our friends. Their unbelieveable propaganda is poisoning our movement!!!
True greens, I am making a call to take direction action against these people. Where are they located? Who funds them? What can we do? I have started a new website and petition dedicated to this effort:
Stop The Breakthrough
http://stopthebreakthrough.wordpress.com/
Sign the Petition Here:
http://www.thepetitionsite.com/1/ban-and-protest-the-breakthrough-institute
Wowza, this is getting a bit out of control… I think everybody is doing everything they can to make this world a better place - we just disagree on how to get there. Lets do our best to work together, even if we fundamentally disagree. We have some massively powerful common enemies we are trying to take down (big oil, etc).
Anyways, the main point I wanted to get across is with regard to CCS. There is an absolutely massive difference between promoting CCS at the national level and promoting at the international level. There is no place for CCS nationally, we need an immediate moratorium on coal. We shouldn’t compromise on this in our national campaigns - it’s not the job of environmental groups to compromise, that’s for legislators. Internationally though, that changes. We aren’t going to get anywhere telling China to place a moratorium on coal, it simply isn’t a part of the international debate and wont be for a number of years. We need to help create a low-carbon development path for emerging economies, one that will likely include CCS in addition to renewable and efficiency technologies. Though again, this shouldn’t be our policy nationally. We need to push hard and provide cover for those legislators who want to take bold steps.
First, just because someone disagrees with you does NOT mean that they are an industry front group. That’s just absurd. Stop making these bogus inflammatory accusations.
Second, we do NOT all have the same values. I disagree with many people on this blog (often including breakthrough folks), as I’m sure many of you do. Having a diversity of opinions is healthy - (just think of it like biodiversity).
Third, I can’t believe someone started an anti-breakthrough blog. That is the most insane waste of time I have ever seen. Do you really think this deserves that amount of time and effort?
Sounds like some chickens are coming home to roost for the Breakthrough Boys.
All voices ought to be heard, and rejecting any is rejecting all, but ultimately, it’s the voice of the masses that will create real change, not the well-scribed lofty writings of anyone. Culture shift is what our future needs, and what we will help along by being in the world and on the streets. For each community and each voice what is right or good in its own context, and to each community the right to reject, fight, scream down or blockade any “solution” that shits in their backyard. We need breakthrough, we need Earth First!, we need the scumbags at the top and the folks next door that we don’t talk to enough. but breakthrough’s gotta listen too. they arent the only voice in this community, though they me able to post a whole lot, and comment a whole lot, and seem to think that they got a whole lot of the solutions. We’ve all got to listen to what each of us is saying, mull it over, let it change us and let our words change them.
the rantings of a peace fighter,
who cant stand such spite and malice
piling up on friends, much less on foes.
Hey all notice, it’s the equinox, the moon is just past full, the leaves begin to change, this too shall pass. the tide has turned, the harvest come and time to chill… reflect…pray and recover from the summer.
peace yall
i’m with marley
teryn,
“lead or leave”….that’s kinda clever. but i’m just wondering, where exactly do you propose we “leave” to? the Moon?