Get News & Views Updates
Most Popular This Week
Popular content
Today's Top News
From Scorched Political Earth to Scorched Actual Earth
Jim Barrett, executive director of Redefining Progress, lays awake at night worrying about global warming's "nightmare scenario." He's concerned that poorly designed measures to cut greenhouse emissions might lead to an anti-environmental political revolt.
As Barrett recently explained to a group of trade unionists and environmentalists who came together for the "Good Jobs, Green Jobs" conference in Pittsburgh last month, the scenario goes something like this:
Lawmakers pass legislation in response to increasingly dire predictions of climate catastrophe from the scientific community and mounting political pressure from the public and abroad. Energy costs skyrocket because almost any action taken to curtail emissions will pressure prices upward. This, in turn, squeezes the pocketbooks of working and middle class families just as they are struggling under the twin burdens of recession and globalization. Meanwhile, the job losses from global competition are blamed on environmental legislation that imposes a cost on production that other countries are not--triggering yet another round of pollution-driven "race to the bottom".
According to Barrett: "Five to ten to years down the road if we have climate policy that is laying off workers and squeezing the middle class," politicians with strong environmentalist stands and a working class constituency (think Ted Kennedy) cannot go back to their constituents and say "we did the right thing."
Barrett's nightmare is a "scorched political earth followed shortly by a scorched actual earth," whereby poorly crafted climate policy spurs an ugly backlash amongst working and middle class voters in the Democratic Party -- voters who often do not self-identify themselves as environmentalists. The result is a "Battle Royale" between Democratic allies, while their political enemies sit on the sidelines and both workers and the planet suffer the consequences.
All of us concerned about the perilous plight of the planet need to start laying the groundwork to avoid this battle to the death. Some far-sighted groups like the United Steelworkers and the Sierra Club have created the Blue Green Alliance to push for a "green jobs" -- the jobs that will be needed to rebuild our economy and drastically reduced greenhouse gasses -- as a way to transition workers into a new green economy. And organized labor worldwide has called for a "just transition" to a low-carbon economy that will not place the burden of change on those who have the misfortune of working in industries that must undergo "green downsizing."
But so far little has been done, or even planned, by legislators and others to take care of those like coal miners and power plant workers, who may lose their jobs as a direct effect of efforts to reduce greenhouse gases. While there is promising talk about the millions of new green jobs soon to be created, few seem to be taking seriously the relationship between climate change legislation and potential job loss. Joel Yudken of High Road Strategies, a consulting group that regularly advises trade unions, recently went searching for studies predicting the potential employment impacts of climate protection and turned up nothing. Now he's been hired by the unions to begin investigating these and other key questions. According to Yudken: "We know where the opportunities are; we don't know the risks."
Not surprisingly, some of these constituencies and their unions have been among the most outspoken opponents of policies to address global warming. At the same time, today's labor movement debate around green jobs and global warming is occurring after decades of job losses from globalization. Some workers and unions wonder whether climate change policy might accelerate corporate-led globalization.
Stunning progress has been made bringing the crisis of global warming into the viewfinder of American and global politics. And we are now all but guaranteed that climate change legislation is coming down the pike.
But now, in many ways, the hard work begins, since the risk is no longer the failure to respond to the global warming crisis; the danger is if we respond poorly and transform Jim Barrett's simulated political nightmare into a reality.
Brendan Smith is a legal analyst, author, and political consultant. He is co-founder of Global Labor Strategies, co-director of the UCLA Law School's Globalization and Labor Standards Project, and a consultant for the Progressive Technology Project. He has worked previously for U.S. Senator Bernie Sanders (I-VT) and a broad range of trade unions, grassroots groups, and progressive politicians.
Copyright © 2008 HuffingtonPost.com, Inc.
Comments
Note: Disqus 2012 is best viewed on an up to date browser. Click here for information. Our Comment Policy can be viewed here. Please follow the guidelines.
8/21 Note to Readers: Spam Filter Glitches...
16 Comments so far
Show AllNothing of substance will be done until it is too late.
And then there will be a panic as the wealthy try to save themselves by building life boats like the Monsanto North Pole seed bank. And throwing the poor overboard to starve.
oh wait.
It is too late.
I wonder who will win 'Americans Idle'?
Galen: "Nothing of substance will be done until it is too late."
Agreed.
The complex deceitful political landscape/discourse in USA, China, India plus a whole pile of heavily polluting third world countries coupled with increased global population growth; leads me to the same conclusion....
"Nothing of substance will be done until it is too late."
It is already too late. Local legislation is so much pissing in the wind. We've gone past the point where we can prevent the worst from happening; now we've got to see what we can do in its wake.
wcdevins: I agree that it's too late. We've hummed and hawed about climate change, all the while happily carrying on polluting the planet. We've got to be the stupidest creatures in the universe by not seeing how destroying our environment is destroying ourselves. Yet we can't help but put these things into economic terms, as if money is more important. As long as we let the rich control things on this planet, we're doomed. Their interests lie in a completely different direction than the rest of us.
And now, on top of this, starting this May, we have another human caused risk to the planet. It is unlikely, but but of infinite gravity (no pun intended).
The new massive CERN Large Hadron Collider may produce low-speed micro-black holes which would, undetected, micro-bore their way to the center of the earth couuld grow exponentially and cause the utter destrction of the earth - collapsing it into a black hole with an event horizon about a 9mm in diameter. Estimates of how rapid the black hole could grow to earth-destroying size vary wildly, from billions years, in which we have no worry, to 5 years - worry.
No kidding. There are some physicists expressing real concern about this.
CERN has published a report claiming there is no risk, but the rigor of their inquiry is being questioned.
http://www.risk-evaluation-forum.org/prob.htm
For what it's worth, I have a problem with the Bushist word lawmaker. Members of parliament are not primarily chosen to make laws. There already are way too many laws. They are here to control the government, to ensure that existing laws are carried out according to present needs and opinions. A lawmaker is just someone who creates red tape. And red tape won't save the planet. Realise that, whenever you use your adversary's language.
Don't worry about climate change. Peak oil is going to render it a moot point...and VERY soon at that.
Why do so many commentators post smug predictions of hopelessness such as nothing will be done until it is too late? Is this as much a part of the problem as those promoting the status quo. I remember the Martin Luther King said it was not the people who are against us that will determine the outcome but the people who are standing on the sidelines not acting. If saying that nothing makes a difference encourages any inaction, no matter how small, it falls into that category of which King spoke.
Does anyone recall the exact quote?
"Five to ten to years down the road if we have climate policy that is laying off workers and squeezing the middle class," politicians with strong environmentalist stands and a working class constituency (think Ted Kennedy) cannot go back to their constituents and say "we did the right thing."
Sounds like a chapter for a future edition of Jared Diamond's "Collapse."
Madlib, there is a lot that can be done. Speaking as someone in the business of Earth repair, there is just not much interest in making truly sustainable changes before they are forced upon people.
Our fundamental problem--the which is driving Earth Island toward a larger version of Easter Island--is that we are consuming the Earth's renewables (as well as its non renewables). Solutions that don't go to the heart of this biophysical fact may be very good short term politics but will do nothing to halt the downward ecological spiral which will ultimately consume even the most well off among us. Consider today's story on this site about severe food shortages in Japan. For fundamentals on the issue, see WWFs Living Planet Report.
If there is a technological fix: capture all the greenhouse gases, substitute fuels, feed the poor, stop deforestation, etcetcetcetc ......there ARE solutions. As soon as people get the message, we shall see wonders done. Never give up the faith in our higher powers! Get ready to be surprised by our abilities to respond. This could even be fun....survival!!
but in the meantime yeah we gotta exterminate a few more million species, raise the oceans, bomb the darkies, steal the oil, etc etc THEN we'll think about revolution.....
Peak oil, climate change, aqifer depletion, fish depletion, grain price rise, all of these things are going to be kicking in on the way to 2050. Which will hit hardest first is hard to judge, but the combined effect is going to be interesting. Hope you are rich.... the rich will be the best off, they always are. Watch out for the SS wanting to put you in one of FEMAs camps.
Predictions of doom aren't necessarily smug. They are based on observations of history and human nature. The future of humanity on Earth is a global problem. Do you see humanity acting globally on any front? Or are we too concerned with our own political parties, nationalist goals, religious beliefs and tribal insularity? We are too wrapped up in fighting each other to save each other. Those sounding the alarms are unceremoniously dismissed by our own government. M L King died waiting for everyone to get behind him, and we will die, too, waiting for humanity to save itself. No smugness, just reality.
One should read "Collapse" to get a sense of where the real problems lie. First and foremost is world population size. Until issues of population growth are addressed, no other problem with sustaining a livable world for its entire human population will be solvable.
It seems to me that no one wants to address that problem squarely or effectively marginalize those who will insist on blindly following the Biblical dictate to multiply or the animal instinct to procreate.
Watching the human race destroy itself like a yeast population in a vat of wine is hugely depressing. Without addressing human growth and consumption patterns, any attempt to develop positive environmental policy is pointless.
richsmith2-- perhaps when you observe that we need "to get a sense of where the real problems lie", you are nevertheless just re-arranging the Titanic's deck chairs ( CONTENT ), when we all can see that it ( in its current form = CONTEXT, is not tenable ).
¿ Perhaps the real change is far outside of actually _ D O I N G _ something, and is much more centered in the domain of spiritual centeredness and _ B E I N G _ ?
If we can properly align ourselves with the creation of a NEW _ C O N T E X T _ that is _ s u f f i c i e n t to hold our humankind needs, we can then take action from that place, and move forward ( w/o looking back, and getting stuck, or being turned to SALT ).
When people BECOME peaceful, joyous and experientially fulfilled,
I seriously doubt that population will ever again be an issue. SO how do we get from "here" to "there",
other than by making A DECLARATION OF _ I N D E P E N D E N C E _ from the status quo.
OMG, that's a _ R E V O L U T I O N A R Y _ thought