EMAIL SIGN UP!
Most Popular This Week
Popular content
Today's Top News
Groups Use 350's Big Day to Fight Cap-and-Trade
International day of climate action on Saturday opposes market-based approaches to capping global warming emissions.
350.org is taking a big-tent approach to activism on its International Day of Climate Action this Saturday, inviting anyone who wants to help to join a climate-change demonstration, or create one of their own.
That open invitation means not everyone will be pushing the same message. In fact, a trio of groups will use the day, and the number 350, to highlight their opposition to market-based approaches to capping global warming emissions. In other words, to oppose cap-and-trade, the mechanism integral to the clean energy bill in Congress and to the United Nations approach.
Those groups-Rising Tide North America, Carbon Trade Watch, and the Camp for Climate Action-recently launched 350reasons.org, a collection of reasons why they oppose emissions trading. At climate-day events on Saturday they'll be handing out pamphlets (sorry, "zines"), detailing some of those reasons. They've also promised a "video report," to be released soon. They've essentially taken a no-compromise approach to climate action, preferring to defeat a flawed plan rather than see it succeed and hope it can be fixed later on.
"We're trying to say there's no way to reach 350 parts per million through carbon trading," said Rising Tide's Brihannala Morgan, a U.C. Berkeley graduate student. "It's a false solution."
Among the 350 reasons:
• Carbon Trading means more coal. The site notes that the Waxman-Markey energy bill passed by the House included not just cap-and-trade but provisions to allow 43 new coal plants. • It perpetuates the dominance of rich countries over poor. • Carbon trading is based on an ideological belief in the omnipotence of the market. • Carbon markets are fundamentally undemocratic. Climatologist James Hansen opposes cap-and-trade. He says the proposed UN plan is "guaranteed to fail."
Actually, the group has 450 reasons at the moment, Morgan said; it's working to edit them down.
350.org
founder Bill McKibben says the point of Saturday's events was never to
choose specific policies, but to build a broad movement demanding that
leaders reverse the rising atmospheric concentration of greenhouse
gases. For too long, he said, the climate problem has been a debate
between experts-scientists, economists, and policy wonks.
"There's been no movement to back them up, no counter-pressure big enough to stand up to the unrelenting pressure from vested interest," he said last week. "We're helping provide the popular part of that movement."
While 350.org doesn't take positions on specific policy strategies such as cap-and-trade, it shares the sense of urgency of the no-cap-and-trade groups. For that matter, most people working to push a climate bill through Congress share the same sense of urgency. Most readily admit that any bill that can pass through Congress will be too weak to stop climate change. But they would prefer to get started rather than to insist on a perfect bill.
"We have to start some place and we have to start now," Daniel J. Weiss, director for climate strategy at the Center for American Progress, said in response to a Rising Tide campaign last month.
350.org organizers say they're OK with off-message groups joining Saturday's events.
"We encouraged lots of different groups to join," said May Boeve, a 350.org partnerships director. "We've cast a very large net."
Those groups will include churches, performance artists, and extreme athletes. They will include Chinese businessmen holding a black-tie gala in Shanghai, an odd partner for the 350reasons.org groups critical of corporate influence.
When I asked McKibben about how to engage the 'no-compromise' types last week, he said it was too soon to fight over plans. No legislation would be sufficient until the public was making more noise on the climate emergency.
"It's too early to make calls on what happens with the legislation, because we haven't built a movement to push that process as hard as it needs to be pushed," he said. "Politicians aren't feeling pressure either in Washington or in Copenhagen to do more than the minimum. We need to provide that pressure.
"Another way to say that is, we need to give people who want to do the right thing some room to do it. Barack Obama has not laid his cards on the table yet. We need to give him some maneuvering room, to show him that people have his back, not just here but all over the world."
The question, then, seems to be whether 350reasons.org and the like will amplify the pressure on political leaders, or fracture it.
Comments
Note: Disqus 2012 is best viewed on an up to date browser. Click here for information. Instructions for how to sign up to comment can be viewed here. Our Comment Policy can be viewed here. Please follow the guidelines. Note to Readers: Spam Filter May Capture Legitimate Comments...

29 Comments so far
Show Allharvey wasserman/solartopia.org
This is a great series of events, and it'll be really wonderful to join the demonstration here in central Ohio tomorrow. We all must band together to win a Solartopia based totally on increased efficiency, revived mass transit and the true green technologies of solar, wind, tidal, geothermal, ocean thermal, wave, current, sustainable bio-fuels and more.
Above all, we must rid the planet of fossil fuels and nuclear power.
In particular, we need to stop this absurd push to build new nuclear plants, especially since it can't happen without taking billions of dollars from the federal treasury. Atomic energy helps cause global warming through its direct heat emissions, and through greenhouse gas emissions during the mining, milling, transport, fissioning and waste management processes.
We also need to bring our troops home. An escalation in Afghanistan would be devastating to our people, our souls, and our economy. Had the trillion dollars squandered in Iraq instead gone to greening our infrastructure and building a just health care system, we would be well on our way to a green planet. Why would we now repeat the mistake in a place where we simply cannot win, and we're not even clear what winning would mean.
Thanks to the great teams of organizers who are pullling this series of events together.
No nukes/no war/4 Solartopia
I was listening to a NPR report on the climate bills this morning, and someone (I didn't catch the name) from Australia, and he said the bills are important more for the power it gives Obama as a bargaining chip at Copenhagen than pretty much anything else.
Do you think the other parties at Copenhagen would be more inspired if we passed any climate bill, absurd provisions inside it or no, rather than not having one? I would personally prefer the EPA to exercise its authority to regulate carbon, but I don't know if the international community would think actual legislation on carbon would be more legitimate.
Was it Democracy Now? The Australian Scientist Tim Flannery said that Cap and trade is important because the "cap" part at least represents a carbon quantity that can be brought to the bargaining table in Copenhagen, and claimed that cap and trade in Europe has worked in achieving reductions.
I remain very sceptical. The kinds of carbon offsets what will be traded (with all the wild speculation) are of limited or unverifiable efficacy - and are often outright shams - particularly the ones that involve the supposed planting of trees in a remote part of a developing country.
And, "Coal Age" magazine has an article about coal mines can installing special incenerator-like devices to burn the dilute Methane ventilation-air exhausted out of the mine, and earn offsets to sell equal to or greater than credits to burn the coal coming from the mine itself - a carbon-neutral coal mine!
Sorry, yes it was DN!, how stupid of me. I was thinking of NPR having Bill McKibben on for the past couple of nights too when I wrote that.
I don't know much about the offsets, except that I believe that in the bill, an offset is less than equal to an actual reduction in the same amount of carbon, so there's less of an incentive that way to just do offsets instead of actually lower emissions.
And for the love of God, that coal mine offset idea is fucking crazy. Carbon neutral as an accounting trick cannot be the sole determination for an offset...otherwise they will just build nuclear reactors and claim that solves the problem, while we all get cancer.
I understand every large international Bank has established Carbon Trading desks because the speculation is going to be extremely profitable. Same reason large USA utilities are leaving the Chamber of Commerce in oder to support cap and trade or is it trade and trade?
I also listened to Flannery and was swayed by his argument. But I hate being put again and again in the position of holding my nose to support something that's primarily designed to benefit a set of rich assholes. It's basically blackmail. Cap and trade's about getting 3rd world campesinos to tighten belts over their emaciated waists while the 1st world wealthy fornicate away. I've read that Al "An Inconvenient Truth" Gore produces 100 times the CO2 emissions of the average American. What an example he's setting!
A PS:
McKibben claimed that the US was responsible for 25% of the GHG emissions, but that's only CURRENT emissions. The US is responsible for a lot more if you consider past emissions as well. The US has polluted the planet for centuries to achieve its current standard of living, but it won't even take responsibility for the additional shit its contributing today.
Flannery claimed that European cap and trade has achieved its target of reducing GHG emissions 5%. That's not how I heard it. A good article in Technology Today(written by my nephew, Peter Fairley) said that the reductions have come because of the economic downturn, that there's no evidence cap and trade has worked at all.
Yeah, after all we reduced our carbon emissions 9% in just 2 years because of the economic downturn. That's the first time I've heard from anyone that cap and trade in Europe worked.
how will the poor be able to afford the taxes on energy and ultimately everything else. I thought progressives cared about the poor. Any cap and tax cost will be extremely regressive on the poor. Just like all the sin taxes.
The poor won't be able to afford the taxes and so what is the attitude of the corporate elite and their legislative stooges in all countries. The "poor" are going to die and the elite don't care. The problem with the elite is that they are going to die too. The elite and the poor died of the "Black Death" in the Middle Ages and the elite are not going to escape the consequences of rising GHGs anymore than they escaped the Black Death.
One fact rarely mentioned is that Nuke Plants have a shelf life of only 3 or 4 decades and then must undergo extremely expensive decomissioning whereas Photo Voltaic Modules have no known expiration date.
Yep...I caught a couple minutes of some documentary of Britain's nuclear plants a couple months ago, and happened to hear a government official saying that it'll take something like 100 years to completely decommission their first commercial nuclear plant, which ran for 40 years and is now offline. Nice, huh?
Harvey, I agree with most of waht you have to say, but when you say "Atomic energy helps cause global warming through its direct heat emissions, and through greenhouse gas emissions during the mining, milling, transport, fissioning and waste management processes", you are being disingenuous, I'm afraid. There is plenty to be wary about nuclear energy, but global warming is not one of them. Nuclear energy has one of the lowest full life cycle carbon footprints of all generation technologies, 200 times lower than fossil fuels and 10 times lower than solar. Only wind and hydro come close. I fear if you keep pushing this argument, which is essentially spin, you will undermine your credibilty overall, which you don't want.
Harvey, I agree with most of what you have to say, but when you say "Atomic energy helps cause global warming through its direct heat emissions, and through greenhouse gas emissions during the mining, milling, transport, fissioning and waste management processes", you are being disingenuous, I'm afraid. There is plenty to be wary about nuclear energy, but global warming is not one of them. Nuclear energy has one of the lowest full life cycle carbon footprints of all generation technologies, 200 times lower than fossil fuels and 10 times lower than solar. Only wind and hydro come close. I fear if you keep pushing this argument, which is essentially spin, you will undermine your credibilty overall, which you don't want.
It will be interesting to see how much mainstream airtime these protests will get on the corporately controlled media in this country. I'm betting not much.
What I experienced this morning really shows the stark difference between mainstream media and independent media. This morning on Democracy now there was an extended discussion about global climate change and the protests concerning it this weekend. At the same time on the two national "news" shows I was monitoring had stories on how to loose weight, and cloths that will hide a fat gut in. Oh well...
Probably not much. MSNBC for example covered the National Equality March a couple weeks ago here in DC pretty thoroughly until it actually started, then they went back to their "scheduled programming". Fox News, naturally, barely mentioned it. I'm sure it'll get some newspaper headlines though.
CSPAN had 5 Full hours of LIVE coverage of the speeches and various cutaways. CNN had a little more mention. The only problem is that the mainstream media only reported tens of thousands, when the official count was 150,000-200,000. That will probably happen here as well.
I just got back from the DC march, and heard a short NPR report on the rally beforehand. They were on the mark, there were only a few hundred people out there today.
protests are only covered when it can hurt the GOP
The GOP is irrelevant. It will be hurt enough for me only when it dies.
"We're trying to say there's no way to reach 350 parts per million through carbon trading," said Rising Tide's Brihannala Morgan, a U.C. Berkeley graduate student. "It's a false solution."
Ya think???? Waxman-Markey is a tax bill, nothing less, nothing more. It is not intended to do anything about carbon emissions which anyone that read the bill could tell you.
Most of the worlds population and more specificaslly most of America's population has no interest in passing any enviornmental legislation. Its so far down on the list of priorities you can't even see it.
Time to pay attention to the possible.
Let's pay attention to the grandchildren. If we don't do something serious about carbon emissions their lives will be im-possible.
Joe
will China be exempt again? India too? Their pollution is cleaner then ours...and the UN couldn't get any extra taxes from there anyway. Plus...where else will Big Business go to escape the BIG taxes on the EU and USA. China's new slogan -- either "F the UN" or "pollute all you want, we are exempt!"
USA has a high 35% corporate tax rate but many very large corporations pay zero tax because of loopholes.
I wonder if George H.W. Bush is going to carry a chair down to the beach and tell the rising water that the "American way of life is not negotiable".
His whole family are arrogant, ignorant, idiots.
Let's just see where 350 goes before we.....
...glub?
Nice :-)
But who knows, this gigantic as hell demonstration of grassroots support for solutions to climate change could spark something. I'll be happily participating in it.
Wasn't the cap and trade system in this country set up by good old Hank Paulson when he was at G-man Sachs? How could anyone think it might not work or not have our best interests in mind?