This post is meant to kick off an actionable dialogue about where the U.S. climate movement is headed in the new year. Please use the comment form to suggest additions, flesh out points, propose alternate ideas, etc! Just remember that this blog is a public space, and the goal is positive action to move us forward. Also– while this is a post about the US, this remains an international blog chronicling a global movement. Many of these steps apply to, or would benefit from the perspectives of, allies outside the US as well. In random order, steps are as follows:
1) Learn to lineback
2) Make leadership feel good
3) Build personal accountability in leaders and decision makers
4) Assume a diversity of positions of power
5) Run for office
6) Move from the youth movement to our late 20s, 30s, and beyond
7) Become global citizens
More on what these look like in practice after the jump.
1) Learn to lineback. November’s hacked climate science email debacle–and the regrettable treatment of same by much of mainstream media– proved that where defense is concerned, unfortunately we’re not done yet. More on what I mean by “linebacking” here . And DeSmog Blog is one great example of smart strategists working to keep unfounded but highly funded opposition at bay.
2) Make leadership feel good. Too often, we as a movement get caught up in short-term battle after short-term battle and ultimately end up losing the long-term war as a result. We need to figure out how to make climate leadership feel good and thereby put elected leaders in the position of consistently/reliably making better choices. We need to articulate and inspire a big picture vision of real leadership in the 21st Century: the kind of principled collective leadership that endures time and time again, vote after vote, issue after issue—across generations, across many backgrounds, and across party lines.
3) Build personal accountability in leaders and decision makers– and recognition that in the face of climate change, being a true American leader isn’t just about the US. This is closely related to point #2: Our parents didn’t teach us that you only have to do the right thing if (and when!) a million people show up on the White House lawn to demand it of you. At a time when it’s all too easy for leaders to point to someone else– China, a particular senator, the fossil fuel industry, an under climate-educated American public, etc.–and talk about their shortcomings, we should focus instead on the power, privilege, and access our individual leaders have right now and how each of them is actively doing what’s right for the American people and the global community now and well beyond the next election cycle. We’ll be building our own power, privilege, and access, and using it there right beside them.
4) Assume a diversity of positions of power. That leads me to #4: not just taking on power, but taking power, period, in order to better apply that power to solving the climate crisis. This means running for office at all levels. It means working for the U.S. State Department and the World Bank. It means working for corporations. It means rising to the top at major media outlets. It means leading and revamping Green Group environmental organizations. It means doing some serious work in the youth climate movement to give people the tools to catapult quickly into those kinds of roles. And it means the rest of “the movement” must keep people doing good, honest, world-changing work in those positions supported, help them stay grounded in what we’re working for, and always remind them they’re still very much a part of our collective movement and community.
5) Run for office. Ok, so “run for office” falls within “assume a diversity of positions of power, ” but it’s important and timely enough to get its own mention here. 2010. 2012. And if you’re not running for office, you can help elect a climate justice and clean energy champion who is.
6) Move from the youth movement to our late 20s, 30s, and beyond. Have you noticed that lots of folks 25-35 and beyond are coming back to, sticking around, or finding the youth climate movement for the first time? (Some, like me, have come back to post on itsgettinghotinhere.org despite our self-consciousness about our advancing years because at the end of the day, it’s simply the best thing going…). This trend is proving what we knew all along: the youth climate movement isn’t just unique by merit of age. It’s unique in its substance and its strategy in compelling and important ways. So what happens as we “age out” of the youth climate movement- do the model and its support structures–its blogs, coalitions, conferences, and the like–expand to include all ages? Or do we need new parallels for “older” climate activists? Allies such as 350, 1Sky, etc. have been doing a lot of good thinking about what this can and should look like. It’s time we all kick the conversation into high gear.
7) Become global citizens. Let’s be honest: post-Copenhagen, the road to a fair, ambitious, and binding global climate treaty is in some ways fuzzier than ever, and the deep and bitter divide between the developed and the developing world remains stark. Specific action items here remain to-be-determined, except to say that together we will figure it out, and quickly–simply put, because we have to. And if you ask me, the UN Framework Convention on Climate Change is still the place to figure it out.
…Thoughts?
Subscribe!
Subscribe by RSS!
Share on Facebook
This is a great outline. Regarding #3 – I hate that I’m saying this, but I think that, at least as far as the U.S. is concerned, this may require a fundamental reframing of the issue.
I think we saw in Copenhagen how compelled the general public in the U.S. is by the moral imperative — not compelled. I think that given the current economic situation, personal accountability in leadership may have to stem from an economic argument. In a world where other countries are taking meaningful action on climate issues, we must take aggressive action in order for our economy to remain competitive. Japan (or Japanese entities) owns 40% of the “green” patents internationally. The U.S. comes in second at a measly 12%. That is just not going to cut it economically.
Just some thoughts. And again, I hate that I’m saying it because I truly believe we should be taking action on climate change for better reasons than economic viability. But I honestly think that might end up being more effective, at least in the short term.
Also, I think that this article on systemic leverage points is key reading: http://wholeearth.com/issue/2091/article/27/places.to.intervene.in.a.system
Four simple words: Stop the climate war.
As I’ve written on the new blog the Princeton Climate Dispatch (http://princetonsurge.wordpress.com/2009/12/20/happy-holidays-and-copenhagen-wrap-up-from-surge-and-the-princeton-climate-dispatch/), one way we can now think about climate change is as a war waged by the big polluters against the more vulnerable, poor countries like Bangladesh, the Maldives, and the various east African countries now suffering from extreme drought. It will be critical to frame climate change this way if we want our movement to have the moral force that Gandhi’s. That’s not to say that we don’t need to do the very tangible and important work of building a green economy from the bottom up, electing environmentally conscious officials, and transforming our society from within. But as long as the US, China, and India take an obstructionist stance, we need the courage to call that stance out for the evil that it is. In short, the youth climate movement can be a new kind of anti-war movement. Declaring anything to be a “war” can be dangerous since, as we’ve seen with the US war on drugs, it’s hard to say when that war is over, but in this case we can link it to a very specific goal- the war will not be over when climate change is over, but when the goals that the biggest polluters set for solving climate change provide a just future for everyone. Until then, our slogan should be four words long:
Stop the climate war!
I find point number 3 interesting. You say: “Our parents didn’t teach us that you only have to do the right thing if (and when!) a million people show up on the White House lawn to demand it of you,” but its a hell of a lot easier for them to make that decision when a million people show up. Is anything being planned on a large scale to urge the Senate to get moving? We tried a spread out decentralized movement with 350, now why not try for something that will bring everyone together? Why not 350,000 people marching in Washington in the spring urging passage of a climate bill?
@Derek Gideon:
With all due respect, I could not disagree more about framing this as a “war,” no matter how accurate that designation may be or may end up being historically. In my personal opinion, the moral imperative should absolutely be a compelling reason to address climate change as the biggest issue we face today. But the fact is that, at least in the U.S., it isn’t.
I think U.S. politicians and the public alike have war fatigue. From the “War on Drugs” to the “War on Terror” to the Iraq War, the Afghanistan War, I think the last thing that people will inspire people to take action and to hold their politicians accountable is another war. I don’t think that the issue is not being courageous enough to “call it what it is.” I think we need to be highly aware of what will bring the powers that be to the table and begin with solution-oriented framing. What brings them to the table is not a moral imperative (Darfur, anyone?). What brings them to the table is money.
Sorry – one of those should have gotten my thoughts together and put them all in one comment. (Also, for continuity’s sake, that first ‘jlundie’ comment is mine before I configured my WP profile properly. I promise to stop noobing up your comment section now.)
Another risk of “war framing” is associated cost. People associate war with costing a huge amount of money (which it does). One of the hold ups on climate change policy in the U.S. is that people think it’s going to cost a huge amount of money. The more we can frame it as building/participating in/leading a bright green global future, the easier it becomes to sell climate action. Framing it as a war automatically negates that effort.
I may have been a tad vague in what I meant by framing it as a war… not as a war that we should be fighting, as in “The United States should fight a war on climate change.” Rather, the United States and other big emitters already essentially are at war with countries like Bangladesh that barely emit at all but will be proportionately affected, by virtue of refusing to control their emissions in any substantive way. There is not much difference ethically between bombing Ethiopia’s cropland and refusing to control emissions that make drought in Ethiopia much more frequent. So the “moral imperative” I described isn’t the moral imperative of waging a just war (which I don’t believe exists), but the moral imperative of stopping one.
Stop the climate war!
sorry, that should say “countries like Bangladesh that will be DISproportionately affected”
Apologies for not putting this all in one comment- @Jess, I agree with you that solutions-framing is important. But I do think it’s possible to frame an issue multiple ways. To make the case for withdrawing from Iraq, for example, we could point to the moral injustice of occupation, the emotional need to bring home friends and family who are fighting overseas, or the money that could be saved by no longer needing to maintain a troop presence.
My concern with framing climate change only in terms of solutions is whether or not we actually get science-based, just policy. When you have the biggest polluters making side deals, like at Copenhagen, they have room to say “hmmm… we can afford to adapt to this much damage from climate change, so let’s set our targets here” and forget countries like Bangladesh, the Maldives, Ethiopia. Solutions-framing is necessary to get solutions, but moral framing is necessary to get fair solutions.
Meg: the ‘lineback’ metaphor is great, and I’m so happy to see that at the top of the list. Read today’s WaPo article on how so few climate scientists were able to stand up to the email-hack scandal. Its obvious that someone needs to step up and fight those media/framing battles on a real time basis.
I’d argue for ‘generational’ framing as opposed to ‘youth’ framing, and I think we should be more conscious of that. Its commonly accepted that our ‘generation’ is connected, diverse, politically engaged, facing futures less well-off than our parents, etc. Those are all pretty strong themes to keep building a movement on.
Meg, I think you have a great list of things we need to work one. What in particular that catches my attention is numbers 4 and 5. This movement has been building power for years now, and I can think of no compelling reason why we shouldn’t seek out and enter into a variety of leadership positions, especially including elected officials.
We are networked and we are organizers. We can vote ourselves in. We can pressure the system from the outside and work it from the inside. Our generation has the numbers, and our generation cares. We as a movement just haven’t made it a priority to lead from within government and existing organizations.
But I think it requires more than just a call to run for office. There are real barriers keeping people from running, including lack of information, uncertainty about eligibility requirements or even what positions to run for, nervousness about funding a campaign, and lack of encouragement. If we want to see our movement run for office, we need to tackle those obstacles and minimize them.
Some friends of mine and I just started a project called Voteable (http://voteable.net), and we are aiming to do exactly that – compile information, resources and people together to help potential candidates run for local office. And even though not everyone will win their campaigns, we will be engaging communities in dialogue about the future we want to create. It is dialogue that changes people’s minds and builds commitment to our movement.
Ha, that was supposed to be an “eight”) to add to the list, not a smiley face with sunglasses.
@Derek – I completely understand where you’re coming from, I just worry about the effectiveness of that line of framing. Historically speaking, we don’t have a good record of ending wars because of the direct or collateral damage done to the other side. Why would this issue be any different? If anything, it seems like it would be more difficult and more complex a sell. That being said, I agree with you that issues can (and should?) be framed in many different ways for different audiences.
I think by solutions-based framing I meant “ways through which we are most likely to be persuasive/find solutions.” What I was trying to say was that while framing climate change as a war to be stopped might be accurate and vindicated by history, it might not be the most effective way to get real solutions now. In fact, it might actually be counterproductive if it turns people off who might otherwise be supportive. Unfortunately, being vindicated by history is not going to do us much good if we don’t find, as you said, science-based solutions today.
But I agree with you about moral framing and fair solutions. So I guess my next question would be… how do we sell moral framing?
@Morgan I love the ‘generational’ framing concept! Absolutely.
And I also really liked the point about being a linebacker (and the additional link). I would love some more guidance on how to be a linebacker, as it is not something that comes naturally to me and I agree that it is absolutely necessary. Teach us how to be linebackers!
Within generational framing, how do we ensure generations before us are part of–rather separate them from–our movement? And how do we ensure that the structures that we built to grow ourselves as climate leaders when we were young are still equally available (or better yet, better than ever) for generations after us, and that those generations can still access core movement leadership positions?
@Dan, yes, there is a huge march being planned now targeted for pre-earth day. 350k in DC and a million total nationwide. please contact me if you want to get involved. we need as many visionary leaders involved as possible. victoria@kids-vs-global-warming.com
@Meg re generational framing… no clue, so take what follows as a stab in the dark as well as gross generalization.
I’m coming at this only from the age that I am (26) and my own personal experience, but maybe there is a way to engage with previous generations on a skills/principles level. From a local resilience and lifestyle standpoint, our grandparents are incredible sources of insight, skills, and alternate perspectives. From growing victory gardens to living through rationing in World War II, they have a real life perspective on many of the ground up individual and community changes that could really be incorporated as a part of the youth climate change movement.
Many of our parents lived through the ’60s, and many were activists in their own right. Underneath the sometimes squishy exteriors, there is still a profoundly revolutionary spirit that believes in challenging governmental authority and using protest as a means for governmental change.
2010 will be a year of great opportunity, but I think we (progressives in general) need to be organized and ambitious about seizing it. Senators Dodd and Dorgan retiring, and who knows who else – perhaps this is a moment for your #4?
One thing I’ve been thinking a lot about is the possibility of a global day of action, concentrated in heavily coal-dependent countries and those countries moving toward heavy coal dependency, to highlight the fact that coal means death for the planet and our civilization. I guess this would go under linebacking, as it would be a way to strike back at the myth of “clean coal,” and attack the coal industry’s current grip on politics. I’m picturing a day of action on the scale of October 24th, 2009, with creative events across the US, China, India, EU, South Africa, and other places where coal has made/is making the most inroads. Regarding framing though, and in the spirit of some of the comments above, I haven’t figured out how to frame this idea as a “positive” rather purely “negative” message. I realize that terms like “attack” and “strike back,” while sometimes appropriate, don’t always make for the most attractive message.
Obviously, it would take a whole lot of time and resources to make something like this happen. But I’d tentatively say that I would volunteer to coordinate or co-coordinate an event like this in the Northwest United States if it were part of a global effort.