“How’s that hopey, changey stuff working out for you?”
These are the words of contempt Sarah Palin aimed at the Obama Administration two weeks ago, but she may as well have taken shot at the climate movement.
The Copenhagen negotiations were largely a flop. Climate legislation has stalled out in Congress. Red States and Fossil Fuel Corporations are suing the EPA to revoke their authority to regulate emissions.
In 2008, millions of Americans were inspired by the message of Hope: hope that government can change, hope that yes, we can change the direction of this country. Many of those people have now become disappointed, jaded, disengaged. They hoped for change and they didn’t get it. But as Mrs. Palin so eloquently reminded us, that hopey, changey stuff isn’t working so well right now.
Why isn’t it working?
You could make the argument that governing is more difficult than campaigning. You could make lament the obstructionist tactics of the far-right. You could point out that Palin was just trying to rile up the troops.
You could say all that, but you would be missing the deeper reason.
Hope is passive. Hope is what you have when you have exhausted all other options. As Derreck Jensen writes, “To hope for some result means you have given up any agency concerning it.”
By placing our Hope in Obama, in Congress, in the UN, we tacitly resign ourselves to the idea that the outcomes are out of our hands.
During the United Nations negotiations in Copenhagen, which the climate movement had been focusing on for years as the pivotal moment to make progress, the Hopenhagen campaign there inspired a fellow activist to jot down these thoughts:
“I have had a deep unease about “Hopenhagen” since before I left for the summit, but I didn’t know what exactly was bothering me until tonight. As I passed through the vacated Hopenhagen square, looking up at the billboards depicting grainy photos of healthy big-eyed children with “Hopenhagen” spelled out across their hearts, after days on end of being practically blinded by the saturation of bus stop ads, Coca Cola’s “bottle of Hope” ads, and glossy pamphlets blowing around on the ground, it dawned on me: Hope is all we have? Hoping is…begging! This is supposed to be the big moment. I came across the planet to make change myself, and this, this stupid, cheesy, hokey corporate campaign is the best humanity can muster in the face of annihilation?
I stood alone, tonight, in the empty square, and stared ahead, and saw that real human suffering, on a scale we have never seen, was on the way, was on the horizon, and nothing but an abandoned city square was in the way. The cold wind blew through my hair. I shivered. And despite myself, I cried.”
The climate will not suddenly stabilize by hoping.
Obama will not magically secure bold climate legislation because we hope for it.
The climate movement will not become powerful enough to overcome fossil interests by latching onto hope.
We must let go of the hope that we will win. Who knows if we will or not? But we will only win by taking action with our own hands, feet, bodies, and voices.
“And when you quit relying on hope, and instead begin to protect the people, things, and places you love, you become very dangerous indeed to those in power.” -Derreck Jensen
What if you guys are wrong? What if there is no global warming?
J: bold words. This isn’t a blog post, its a slap in the face to anyone who’s waiting for ‘them’ to do something. The administration needs to be pushed, by us, to live up to its potential.
Morgan you left out one thing-if you are wrong not only will there be the benefits you mention but there will be the massive increaser in government in all our lives and riased taxes (and loss of jobs following).You can have your climate change stuff-windpower/solar/tidal etc but don’t foist cap and change on the rest of us for possibly no reason.
If 9 doctors tell me I am overweight and at serious risk of a catastrophic heart attack, I don’t try and find the 1 doctor who says I’m fine. That’s not just a cowardly refusal to admit the truth, its dangerous.
To all Climate-Deniers who may read this post: this blog is dedicated to finding solutions to the climate crisis. This blog typically does not post comments that are not constructive towards that goal and that seek unscientifically refute the basic findings of the IPCC, the largest and most peer-reviewed scientific body in the world.
Morgan is right, either way if we build a more sustainable lifestyle we win. I’d say keeping the planet earth alive isn’t too bad of a thing to do something about. Hope wont get us anywhere.
Juliana, you are right on. Thank you for putting the reminder in powerful words. McKibben said sometime this fall, “We’ve got no right to complain about our leaders until we’ve given them the leadership they need. That’s how it works.” Reminiscent of what LBJ said to Dr. King after their first meeting in the Oval Office, “I agree with you, now go out and make me do it.” We’ve got a lot of work ahead of us.
Juliana – thanks for those inspiring words. keep up the great work
@M.Joseph Sheppard — Think of it this way: you have a six-shooter with 5 live bullets in it. In order to keep living the way you are used to, you are only required to do one thing: point it at a kindergartners head and pull the trigger.
The odds for man-made global warming are, no matter how you shake it, great. I’m a climate activist, and I’ll admit that there is a very small chance that everything will remain A-OK is we keep changing the chemical makeup of the thin layer of gas surrounding our planet. But for the sake of generous fairness, lets turn this around so the metaphor favors you:
There is one bullet in that gun, but, to maintain the lifestyle you are used to, you still have to point it right at a child’s head and pull the trigger.
That is not hyperbole, that is what is really at stake here. In a world stricken with extreme weather, genocide and wars over resources are inevitable. Those can be stopped if the skeptics just jumped on board and started offering real solutions instead of popping off with misinformation and smear campaigns at the slightest threat to the profits of giant multinational oil conglomerates and the coal industry. Corporations, I’ll remind you, are required by law to look out for the shareholders, not living things, and right now, shareholders are making money by ravaging the planet. Doesn’t take a genius to put it together that maybe the “information” coming from studies they pay for is on their side, when the info coming from independent studies is not.
I challenge any skeptic reading this to find a moral argument to justify pulling the trigger of any gun, with any amount of bullets, pointed at the head of a child. Let’s hear it.
Right now, there are 3 activists sitting in a West Virginia jail who put their bodies on the line last Thursday to stop climate change and the destruction of the Appalachian mountains. http://bit.ly/akAKSk
My only question is why are there 3 and not 30 or 300? Sarah Palin may be right about Obama and hope and change, but she, and the fossil fuel industry, wins as long as we all sit around on the internet and talk about it.
What if you guys are wrong? What if there is no global warming?
__________________________________________
Well, then I guess we have built a cleaner, more productive world FOR NOTHING!
Good point Scott, thank you.
It’s really cute how the climate deniers have found this site and are now trying to put some doubt about global warming out there. Exxon and Chevron must pay them big bucks to surf, troll and spam.
spot on Juliana!
Right on Scott! The fossil fuel empire wouldn’t stand a chance if every person who opposed it in words did so with their bodies as well!
My friend Juliana makes a great point. Whenever I need some activism empowerment I listen to “With My Own Two Hands” by Ben Harper. Hope has little to do with it.
And for those who fear a resurgent right-wing led by Sarah Palin, just read Levi Johnston’s essay in Vanity Fair. Palin’s political career is over but it seems no one has told her that yet – the constant trainwreck spectacle is too appealing to the media. Not saying that US electoral politics have been successful recently on climate change, but the issue is not going to leave the public policy radar (pretty much no matter what).
Juliana I agree with the spirit of this post, but I have never bought the argument advanced by Derreck Jensen and others that hope and action are somehow separate things. I think that’s a false dichotomy — why does hope have to be passive? Hope can be a catalyst just as it can be a crutch, and it’s our job as organizers to channel people’s hopes and aspirations into action. To cast hope as the province of those who are just sitting by idly, waiting for others to take care of things, does a profound disservice to all those (myself included) who are motivated to action out of the hope that we can come together and create a better future. There are millions of unactivated people out there who are hoping for change. Rather than bashing them for being hopeful and passive, we need to engage them where they’re at and bring them into this movement.
I think I’m right in between Adi and Juliana on this. Whenever I doubt if all the work is really worth it, I remind myself that I don’t honestly know one way or the other and that sliver of doubt (AKA hope) allows me to keep trying, just in case we can kick this thing. But I contain that hope in myself. I don’t give it to politicians or businesses. For those, I save my actions.
hi all,
Its rad to see so many people I love and respect participating in this discussion. Juliana I think you are on to something. This post actually reminds me of 2 conversations that have been reoccurring in my life. One about accountability, and another about the nature of our argument for sustainability. I figured I would share a bit.
I feel that the way accountability is often depicted in political organizing can be risky. Accountability is often brought up in terms of “others,” meaning the scope of people we work with including politicians and volunteers and also the general public. It is true that there is a need for accountability with those people, but if our sole focus becomes holding others accountable what does that mean for us? I have often found myself feeling absolved from the need for immediate action that creates a sustainable and just future after a lobby visit. I think this is because I feel I have shifted that sense of accountability onto the person just I lobbied. I am starting to feel there is a loss that moves beyond accountability in this exchange. By relying on others to create the world I want I am also giving them my power, or maybe focusing it through them. Either way, my own power/sense of empowerment seems to take a hit. Especially when the person I lobby just shrugs me off and goes the other way. All I am left with is hope, which, for me, can be a self justifying respite or a place of power and action. Do I demand change or create it myself? Sometimes both I think.
In terms of our argument for sustainability, its nature seems to be contributed to by this shifting of accountability and power. If we look at the bare-bones of this argument I feel like I begin to understand a bit of why there seems to be so much hesitation in some sectors of our community (politics). On one hand, existing industries like coal are saying “Hey, we have been serving you for about 200 years, you wouldn’t be able to live like you do right now without us. Sure there are some bad things about what we are doing, but we will clean up. We will get better. Stick with us, it has worked so far.” On the other hand we are often arguing in favor of things that have never been done. In addition, we don’t really know what it will look like. We have a couple innovative and magnificent ideas, and some goals around emissions. This is a far cry from being on the ground everywhere and functioning. So do you fix what is there or go for the virtually unknown? Can we prove that what exists is bad enough for us to go with the unknown?
Fortunately it looks like we can, or (less-fortunately) nature will do it for us soon, and there are new solutions popping up around the world all the time. Each solution that goes into effect is proof that the world we are demanding actually can exist, and shifts the political landscape. Imagine a congress once there are people who have green jobs in every district. Obama said we can create change, not that he alone can. If he did then it would all be top-down and perpetuate the type of socio-governmental hierarchy that seems to be undermining our democracy. “We, the people,” must lead this, and not just by asking our elected officials to act.
Anyway, those are my thoughts. Kinda long… maybe I should have just written a blog =)
Those who enjoyed this post might also enjoy (particularly the last few paragraphs of) this post: http://itsgettinghotinhere.org/2010/02/23/framing-were-going-to-solve-it/