Subscribe to Common Dreams News Updates
Most Popular This Week
Popular content
Today's Top News
The Making of a Climate Movement
Public awareness of the climate crisis has grown enormously in the United States over the past two years, but the government's response lags far behind. Now, however, Washington's sluggish pace is calling forth a surge of activism aimed at persuading the next President and Congress to be far bolder--to advocate and deliver solutions as big as the problem.
"The general attitude in the country now and certainly in Congress is, 'Let's take some steps, make some progress and applaud ourselves.' That is not sufficient." So says Betsy Taylor, chair of 1 Sky, a new initiative that hopes to unite the broad array of groups focusing on climate change into a coherent national movement. "What has happened to the climate in the last twelve months has changed the game," Taylor argues, citing recent studies projecting that the Arctic will be free of summer ice by 2030. "That means we are thirty years ahead of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change's worst- case scenario for Arctic melting. But on Capitol Hill, none of the proposals getting serious attention propose anything close to what science says we need--deep cuts in greenhouse gas emissions by 2020 and 80 percent cuts by 2050. Our side really needs to up the ante."
Among 1 Sky's backers is Bill McKibben, who in 1989 published the first important book on global warming, The End of Nature. In January McKibben founded Step It Up, following a march across Vermont he organized with some of his students at Middlebury College. "Our slogan was, Screw in the new light bulb but then screw in the new federal policy," he recalls. At the march's closing rally, in front of 1,000 cheering demonstrators, all four candidates for national office from Vermont signed a pledge to support 80 percent cuts by 2050.
Step It Up was founded to replicate that success on a national scale, and in April the group catalyzed 1,400 demonstrations in all fifty states. "A lot of students participated, but most of the actions were done by people with full-time jobs who told us, 'I want to do something besides writing a check,'" says May Boeve, a 2007 Middlebury graduate and the national co-coordinator of Step It Up. "Contrary to popular belief, asking people to do more actually resulted in a bigger response."
Step It Up plans another set of demonstrations November 3, exactly a year before the 2008 election. This time, the goal is to get elected representatives to respond to 1 Sky's three demands: (1) cut emissions 30 percent by 2020 (and 80 percent by 2050); (2) ban new coal-fired power plants (as part of a larger shift of federal subsidies from fossil fuels to clean energy); and (3) create 5 million "green-collar" jobs.
The same weekend, the Energy Action Coalition is promising to bring thousands of student activists to Washington. With member groups on 200 campuses, the coalition is the national hub of student organizing on climate change. After a weekend conference at the University of Maryland, the coalition hopes to unleash 5,000 students on Capitol Hill the following Monday to lobby for the 1 Sky demands.
1 Sky, which debuted at the Clinton Global Initiative in September, is not so much a new group as a point of convergence for the larger movement, says Taylor. The impetus came from state and local environmental groups and religious leaders frustrated by what was (not) happening in Washington. 1 Sky is reaching out not only to environmental groups but to labor, community development, Latino, African-American and green business organizations, and is having "positive conversations" with Al Gore's Alliance for Climate Protection. "1 Sky will have a lean campaign staff and primarily invest resources in existing groups," says Taylor. "And we will move into the electoral arena in a big way," with field operations in twelve key states and earned and paid media, i.e., news stories and ads.
The 5 million green-collar jobs 1 Sky is demanding are crucial to appealing beyond the traditional environmental constituency, says Van Jones, a veteran African-American activist and 1 Sky supporter whose new group, Green for All, "aims to spread the benefits of the green energy revolution to all parts of society. Now the implicit assumption is that green means white. When Vanity Fair does its green issues, you don't see many people who look like me in there. Green for All is demanding a $1 billion commitment from the government to lift 250,000 people out of poverty and into the new economy by training them for green-collar jobs."
The emerging climate movement's first skirmish will come in the next months, as Congress considers bills on energy and climate. McKibben says it would be better to pass nothing than to approve a weak bill that gives people the impression the problem has been solved: "Since Bush is going to veto it anyway, there is no reason to make [a climate bill] less ambitious than what science requires. Climate change isn't like other issues. It doesn't do any good to split the difference to reach a deal everyone can live with. Climate change is about the laws of physics and chemistry, and they don't give."
What gets accomplished in 2008, says Taylor, will frame the choices made in 2009 and beyond: "We want to raise the bar of what's possible for the next President and Congress. We want bold leadership commensurate with the scale of the problem." McKibben argues that "with every passing week it is more clear that climate change is the great issue of our time, just as civil rights was in the 1960s." Passing a bill that matches what science says and then securing a similar agreement at the international level "would be two of the hardest policy achievements we have ever had to do," he adds. "And I'm not sure we're going to succeed. But if we are to succeed, I am sure we're going to need a movement just as strong as the civil rights movement was. And that's what we're trying to build."
Mark Hertsgaard, The Nation's environment correspondent, is a fellow of The Nation Institute and author of Earth Odyssey: Around the World in Search of Our Environmental Future and The Eagle's Shadow: Why America Fascinates and Infuriates the World. His next book is Living Through the Storm: Our Future Under Global Warming.
Copyright © 2007 The Nation

10 Comments so far
Show AllAs long as the approach for reform of our energy policy remains ignorant we will continue to make mistakes that will send us down the same path of monopolization by corporations, and control of our energy (food, water, etc. as well). We need to ensure that our energy policy includes sustainable methods of production. After all, what's the difference between being addicted to foreign petroleum, or palm oil for example?
Either we can produce our own energy, with technology that exists, in a sustainable model, or we return to the same path of being corporately and maliciously controlled.
I can speak for biodiesel which unless produced by the "sustainable community model" will be a harm and cease to be one of our best hopes for the future...along with mass transit, urban living, solar, wind, geothermal, wave, etc. This includes using liquid sustainably produced renewables for transportation energy, and all passives for stationary uses.
Can anyone tell me the benefit of hybrid vehicles with toxic batteries, which are being so profoundly touted as an environentally friendly "feel good" method of relieveing guilt for obscene consumerism? Or why it's ok to slash and burn the lungs of mother nature (the ranforests for example), which keep us alive, in order to allow us to continue on the path of rabid consumerism with wildly stupid abandon?
We need to wake up here folks!
Aloha & Peace
Those who still debunk the consensus of the non political & dedicated international scientific community join Bush right wing's war on science, & our planet.
Rather than pursuing even modest effort to understand the effects and consequences of mans activities they follow the deceptive data issued by the right wing and energy cartel.
Evidence linking carbon pollution to warming has long been as close to certain as science can be. Its causes, consequences, and mitigation requirements have been documented by many dedicated environmental organizations including The Union of Concerned Scientists.
The dangerous manipulation of essential scientific data used by Bush's team to conceal and derail corrective measures for this threat and other vital environmental reforms has always been apparent--and all indicators show no change in their direction.
Often overlooked is the fact that the same measures needed to mitigate global warming would be necessary even if it were not an issue. Conservation, alternative energy development, anti- pollution refinements, etc are essential for other vital environmental reforms such as air and water quality, reductions in toxic waste generation, land preservation, etc.
Contrary to right wing assertions, greenhouse gas reduction measures could only improve our economy by lessening our trade deficits, and improving our security by reducing our dependance on foreign oil. We could also regain some of our lost world respect resulting from our opposition Kyoto while arrogantly contributing disproportionally to carbon pollution.
The immeasurable environmental and social destruction from our indifference to carbon pollution and related environmental measures can only worsen if we allow this reckless and unlearned president, guided by special interests to continue their war on our planet.
Some things to think about:
1. Could there be interests bigger than the oil based industry that could possibly benefit off of a global warming type issue? Perhaps for the purpose of establishing supranational governing bodies?
2. Who were the major funding interests at the origin of the environmental movement? (hint: Rockefeller)
3. Are the media to be trusted (Or people like Al Gore) considering their collective and conspicous silence on other important issues like the truth about 9/11 and the truth about who really runs the world?
4. Given that the powers that executed 9/11 have control over the media, why would they allow the media to cultivate such public awareness of an issue that seems to run counter to their best interests? (hint: it doesn't run counter to their bigger interests, see question 1)
The making of a climate movement indeed...
While I agree, Peter . . .
ExxonMobil can only be described as having suicidal tendencies in their decades long campaign -- alone for the last two years or so as others dropped out -- but noted a few months ago by the Royal Academy of Scientists who condemned ExxonMobil for their long campaign to deceive the public re Global Warming.
Much of the lies and misinformation and distortions noted by the Royal Academy were run in a propaganda box on the NY Times Op-Ed pages as "ad-editorials" which cannot be commented upon in Letters to the Editor by rules of the NY Times re "ads." Kind of a Catch222 Propaganda Guarantee courtesy of the unholy alliance between the NY Times and ExxonMobil. The Royal Academy noted that the campaigns cost ExxonMobil more than $16 million.
The MSM, of course, are not yet cracking on such urgent issues -- we hear no challenge to the idea that it is fitting for a few private families to control our natural resources -- nor pressure for America to nationalize her oil.
Nor discussion of electric cars . . .
"Who Killed The Electric Car?" makes clear that we could have electric cars on our highways right now -- and that we could replace every gas-guzzler on our highways probably within a 5 year period -- or faster!! America could simply subsidize both ends -- manufacturing and purchase. It would be a small cost to save our planet.
Unfortunately -- that also doesn't seem to be entirely clear to the public -- i.e., that we are not only going to lose all life on this planet -- all humanity as well -- but the planet will probably not survive our destruction.
Hahahahahhahahahahahahah - can I Stop Laughing Now?!?!?!?!?!?!
Revolution NOW !
Cockroaches and scorpions will be pleased that we made the earth more suitable for when they take over.
Shall we unite around Kucinich and the Green Party? If you agree, send them $100.
wishfull thinker:
A supranational government would not be such a bad thing if it were based on democractic values, but the international bankers who are making a play for world domination have no interest in democracy whatsoever. In fact, they have treated mankind mercilessly for many years now- impoverishing third world countries and funding both sides of both those World Wars you speak of. Go do the research: who funded Adolf Hitlers rise to power after Germany was decimated in WWI? Have you seen the movie Zeitgeist yet? (available on google video).
At this point in my research, I'm not sure whether global warming is a real threat or not. The science is complex and will require a much closer look. But the fact that the international bankers have funded the environmental movement from the beginning should give us all pause.
It should also be noted that the global warming issue fits the banking elite's standard operation procedure perfectly. The pattern goes: A. falsely create fear, B. present a fake solution that fits the bankers interests.
Two real world examples:
1.
A) create financial fear by dropping the stock market,
B) introduce the Federal Reserve as a market stabilizer (fed reserve is the international bankers own private bank that dicates our economy)
2.
A) create fear of terrorists by orchestrating 9/11 and blaming it on Bin Laden
B) introduce the global war on terror (and use it to steal oil and curtail individual rights)
Yep, the house is on fire, I guess we'll just sit around in the parlor and talk about building a fire station next year......
Humans just don't get it...... Evolution is still going on. Dumb critters don't make it. The ones who can adapt: geckos and radiation-proof bacteria will inherit the earth. The rest of us will be caught in a mass migration away from the shores and to cooler temperatures. Canada, look out.... our problems are soon going to be your problems.
But higher latitudes means more exposure to ultraviolent light, since florhydorcarbons and bromide gas for ag, among other things like air conditioners and refregerators have put huge holes in the ozone layer over Austrailians, New Zealands and Artic dwellers.; i.e. skin cancers.
So, the best place to hide out in 2050 is high altitude in the mountains, say the big island of hawaii. Good air, not to many mexicans like gonzales to ruin your life. But that's still part of the U.S.S.A. so you'll have no freedom since the government can declare anyone an enemy combatant: even if you're a loyal taxpayer just voicing opinion about how the government should be run..... Plus they can confiscate your land for minor trumped up charges....
Also in that area you can't eat the fish anymore because they're digesting oil soaked syrafoam and plastic particles from the swirling mass of plastic and garbage that is the size of the state of Texas above Hawaii....
So better pick a third world island where the Fortune 500 doesn't have any interest. Suggestions?
(I like the island that I'm at now, but much of it will be underwater if Greenland ice cap melts (currently it's experiencing earthquakes from all the melting of the glaciers ripping off the bedrock.)
We couldn't have a worse bunch running the world right now.