Subscribe to Common Dreams News Updates
Most Popular This Week
Popular content
Today's Top News
Not Bad Timing: Obama Annouces White House Solar Right Before Giant Global Day of Climate Solutions (10/10/10)
Looking back a few weeks, we were bitterly disappointed when the White House failed to act on our request that they put solar panels back on the roof.
But in truth, I'm almost happy that they waited. Today's announcement that the Obamas will be taking their showers and cooking their breakfast courtesy of the sun could not have come at a better moment. We're four days away from the start of the weekend's giant Global Work Party, and this is the perfect example of everything that we've been talking about for almost a year: it demonstrates the power of individual actions to carry political impact.
People get that. It's why this weekend's big day of work is looking to be even bigger than last year's rally, which CNN called 'the most widespread day of political action in the planet's history.' As of this morning, we had 6227 actions in 185 countries. If you know folks in Eritrea, Equatorial Guinea, or East Timor, encourage them to round the total out (We've pretty much given up on North Korea). It's going to be an amazing day--sumo wrestlers riding bikes in Tokyo, Filipinos replanting mangrove forests, and the president of the Maldives putting up his solar panel.
Would we rather have comprehensive climate legislation? We would--which is why, on Sunday, people will put down their hammers and shovels, pick up their cellphones, and in all those countries call their presidents, prime ministers, Politburos to say: 'I'm getting to work, what about you?'
And when they call the White House, they'll be able to add: 'Thanks for making a real start.'
Are you signed up for an event near you this Sunday? www.350.org
- Posted in
37 Comments so far
Show All"it demonstrates the power of individual actions to carry political impact."
This represents the most naive political analysis on the part of McKibben. Obama's actions only demonstrate the party's ability to use people like McKibben in order to stay in power.
While I believe that McKibben believes his actions will have a political impact, it certainly won't be to advance the interests of environmentalists.
McKibben fails to understand that this is not a democracy we live in, but a totalitarian corporate state that runs on capitalist ethics; namely, profit uber alles.
I actually believe that McKibben's politics are counterproductive, if not harmful, to a truly effective environmental movement that directly targets capitalism as its enemy, something I have never heard McKibben address.
PS. I really just noticed the title of this article, which should actually read:
Not Bad Timing: Obama Annouces White House Solar Right Before November Elections, in Order Maintain Power in Both Houses of Congress; Naive McKibben Provides the Fodder; The Oil Lobby is Unconcerned
McKibben has been granted his high visibility (and "influence") within the liberal environmental movement because what he is proposing will never be achieved. He represents a "progressive" vanguard voice of the "carbon fundamentalists"; that the global issue of climate change is simply a technical one: we just need to get down to 350 ppm and then everything will be golden (as well as creating a new investment market in carbon trading for Wall Street). The problem is that global warming is not a technical problem; it is a systemic problem. The capitalist economic system requires continuous growth of markets and profits, which means continuous growth of resource extraction and worker exploitation - all accelerated by various forms of coercion and, not least, by war. The quest for ever greater profits means externalizing costs: to the environment via pollution and environmental degradation; to ever greater downward pressure on working people's standard of living and health. Global climate disruption is caused by the innate exigencies of capital accumulation. McKibben de-links global warming from global capitalism, and therefore de-links concern for the environment from social and economic justice. Environmental justice must be seen as part and parcel of economic justice, but that's too radical for McKibben. The traditional role of the Democratic Party, (at least before the rise of the DLC) has been to blunt the effect of grass-roots social movements, has been replaced (either wittingly or unwittingly) by "progressive" organizations like 350.org. We must challenge the narrative of the "technical fix" with a sustained critique of the capitalist system itself.
"McKibben de-links global warming from global capitalism, and therefore de-links concern for the environment from social and economic justice. Environmental justice must be seen as part and parcel of economic justice, but that's too radical for McKibben."
Exactly. Well said!
Thanks for spelling all that out, Tom. I was thinking the same thing and appreciate your laying it out, so I don't have to. Your point is very important and I don't think McKibben gets any of this. He's much like Gore, who obviously believes capitalism is perfectly compatible with fighting global warming. This is the most obscured aspect of the entire global warming (non)debate. Raise the spectre of capitalism at the heart of global warming with most environmentalists, and you're dismissed almost as quickly as the Tea Party deniers will dismiss you.
I do not know that the "capitalist system" is so much the root of the problem as the "consumer mentality". (Not that I am a capitalist, but I can picture a "Socialist" state that does serious environmental damage as well, thus necessitating the caveat.)
However, I also would not discount the value of "technical fixes" that potentially could mitigate further damage to the ecosystem and if we are really lucky, repair some of the damage that has already been done.
I do not see that either tactic is exclusive of the other, in fact I see them as having far more potential when used together.
That is a very good point, and a nuance often not discussed; namely, that industrial society is the real enemy here. But if you mix the industrial system with capitalism, it is a highly toxic and dangerous brew.
There is no doubt that states claiming to be socialist can easily destroy the ecosystem too. But in many cases, it really depends on what type of socialism we are talking about. State capitalist systems claiming to be socialist are really no better. Libertarian socialism, or anarchism, that roots economic democracy in the community has a far better chance of preventing ecocide than large states, because the community would have a direct say in local production and its impacts.
I think an anarchist society would be far better on the ecosystem than any large centralized state. No "externalities" would exist, allowing for violence and pollution to be globalized, and concentrated in the poorest communities.
We are living in the capitalist era, and this has nothing to do with the supposed ideologies of various regimes. "Socialism can destroy the environment too" is a nonsensical statement. Capitalism - as the supposed "political philosophy" - is not destroying the environment, rather Capitalism the distinct phenomenon in objective reality is destroying the environment. All of the attempts at establishing non-capitalist regimes have occurred in the context of rampant global Capitalism and have been under relentless and deadly assault. The results, of course, have been mixed. Americans are notoriously unreliable observers and analysts of all of this, since we are so drenched in a massive propaganda effort at every turn and are so abysmally ignorant about the history of the empire in which we are held captive, and which we so slavishly and willingly serve.
Important point!
Cold War thinking about socialism is still very prevalent - most perniciously on the left. For example, it served the interests of both Western capitalism and Stalinism to portray the USSR as socialist: the former as a negative; the latter as a positive. If we take the fundamental definition of socialism from Marx, that is, a society where the means of production is controlled by the working class, then none of the "actually existing socialism[s]" (USSR, China, Cuba etc.) would have met that basic standard. Most contemporary socialists do not consider the USSR, Communist China, or Cuba, to be or, have been examples of socialism. It unfortunately remains true that "the crimes of the Stalinist bureaucracy...gravely undermined the appeal of socialism in the eyes of American workers".
Tom Larsen,
While I would agree that we need more of "a sustained critique of the capitalist system itself," I don't understand how Bill McKibbben, who supports a carbon tax over cap and trade, advocates "...creating a new investment market for carbon trading for Wall Street." The carbon tax would create a price on carbon for polluters, not a market for it as the cap and trade system would.
RE: ...Bill McKibbben, who supports a carbon tax over cap and trade...
It may be that I misspoke on this. However, the carbon tax, while a good idea since it effectively internalizes the externalities of pollution back to their corporate sources, like meeting the 350 ppm, will not happen. Capitalism would not be the wildly profitable system for the few if the capitalists actually paid for the true costs - in this case costs to the environment - of production. As we have seen, neither governments nor corporations have shown much interest in the carbon tax. Much of the EPA's regulations have been either watered down or unenforced. Environmental regulations that corporations couldn't get around just encouraged them to offshore their operations.
Just moving the pollution around the globe (to say nothing of the conditions of workers) doesn't solve the problem. We need a global solution and that means we need a systemic solution.
You are right.
It is a tremendous Irony that Bill is letting himself be used as a token by this White House. Maybe it's karma.
The nasty barbs being launched at McKibben give me a "mal di testa". He has garnered enough credibility within this god forsaken, ignorant, fractured US society to actually at least produce the appearences of having moved a trend in a slightly different direction. He gets crap about being stupid enough to engage Maine college students to perform the stunt of dragging solar panels that Carter placed on the roof of the WH and the Gipper ripped off, to the applause of the middle American troglodytes, back down to Washington for replacement on the WH. And now that the action may have had some effect on a WH even after its predictable act of grin-f**king the partitioners, he is considered stupid for thinking that his action may have had something to do with the new ones being put up, no matter what the motivation behind the WH reversal may be.
Here on CD, you're damned if you do and damned if you don't.
On another note, I'm sitting here in Basel, CH on a balmy, sunny 70 F afternoon in a continent where practically everyone is experience a balmy 70 F afternoon in the middle of October. It's really screwing up the grape harvest. Global warming? Pfisst. Speaking of naive, they can hardly grasp here how f**ked up the mind of the average US gringo is.
I think this story confirms the premise of our critiques:
White House Squelched Release of BP Oil Spill Estimates
http://www.commondreams.org/headline/2010/10/06-9
Richsmith2, the critique of McKibben is not new, as it arises from exactly what Tom said above, that there is no systemic analysis of the problem. McKibben is engaging in a dangerous fantasy by playing footsies with Obama, the White House, and one of the most violent psychopathic empires on the planet, hell bent on murdering millions of innocent people to bring profit to a tiny oligarchy.
I don't care how well intentioned people are, if their politics are only going to give a movement false hope and poor analysis to the very serious problem of global warming and species extinctions, then it is a disservice and dangerous.
If we are serious about global warming, then we need to be serious about confronting global capitalism, and not allow symbolic opportunistic gestures to be seen as victories.
"I'm almost happy that [Obama] waited" A starving dog gets thrown a bone (sorry McKibben: you're one of the good guys, but the term 'window dressing' applies to this White House move).
please -- -this is just Obama's FALSE FLAG gambit.
another of his "campaign promises and reminders"....in his continuing PRETENSE of "doing something" for "change" .
it's obama's "symbolic" throwaway of crumbs to "the people" in his FALSE populism just before ELECTION!
for all you know...the panels AREN"T connected to ANYTHING....the white house STILL burns black gold...and even if it were...it means nothing.
it's just another "RICH MAN LIVING IN A WHITE HOUSE WITH WHITE FENCES"
with his wonderful "solar panels"
while having meetings with OIL MAGNATES gathering to discuss the price of gasoline for the Magnificent Imperial War Machine's project of OIL and GAS and RESOURCE grab.
In the meantime interests tied to the the oil and gas industry are grabbing land for large scale wind. This will prevent reasonably sized "community oriented" systems from being installed by those who do have the public interest in mind.
I agree with another poster that Obama did toss a bone out to a starving dog.
Problem is that it was tossed out in the middle of the road and the poor dog didn't see the bus coming. P.S. It does hurt ;)
How long will it last? It looks pretty tenuous to me on top of suspicious timing.
Here's most of a comment I posted earlier to the "Here Comes the Sun: White House to Go Solar" article in the "News" section. It's relevant, if only because it anticipates his response to the news.
I'm not surprised that poor McKibben acts the bigger man and joins in the positive spin, pointedly deprecating his own earlier mistreatment. He seems to possess that loyalty which is celebrated in canines, but deplorable in humans; the worse he's treated, the more quickly he'll crawl back, tail wagging furiously.
__________________________________________________
"See, I was trying to explain to someone the 'okey-doke.' Y’all know the okey-doke? It’s when someone’s trying to bamboozle you, when they’re trying to hoodwink you."
-- Bonnie Prince Obama on the campaign trail, 2008
__________________________________________________
Hmmm, let's see. Team Obama stiffs mild-mannered climate activist Bill McKibben in September, and rejects McKibben's symbolic return of a solar panel famously mounted on the White House during the Carter Administration.
On that occasion, the White House simply brushes off the gesture, i.e. it doesn't even bother to inform McKibben and his cohort, "No, sorry, we're not returning THIS antique to the White House roof, but wait until you see the state-of-the-art solar panel extravaganza we're launching NEXT MONTH!"
Given McKibben's diffident, low-key approach, he surely would have leaped aboard to spin this as a win-win outcome. But then Team Obama wouldn't get the thrill of openly stiff-arming someone that, incredibly, passes for a Dirty F**king Hippie among Beltway insiders, the corporate media, and the teeming yahoo masses-- including those chimerical "swing voters".
However, given persistent "calls by the solar industry for the White House to become a national billboard for solar power", and a LOBBYIST'S assertion that "Putting solar on the roof of the nation's most important real estate is a powerful symbol calling on all Americans to rethink how we generate electricity", this month Team Obama decides to accede in spirit to McKibben's offer after all.
This was a BETTER "win-win" outcome for Team Obama, according to their depraved amoral pseudo-pragmatic realpolitik. They calculate that "sensible" voters who even bother to pay attention to this stuff will conclude that the IMPORTANT thing isn't who blew off who, but that those solar panels are going back up on the White House for the world to see.
After all, in the hardball world of Inside Politics, the ends justify the means. This concept is the devil diabolically buried under the mountains of analytic detail generated in Team Obama's calculus-- and it ALWAYS ultimately bites everybody in the ass.
So Team Obama reaps the reward of dissing a vaguely Sixties-style activist, then hugging an eco-friendly industry. Coincidentally, this happens during the home stretch to midterm elections.
"Coincidentally, this happens during the home stretch to midterm elections." -- OS
You beat me to the punch line!
Over the years, I have become so cynical that I am always looking for the ulterior motive -- which is usually easily found and understood.
Cut McKibben some slack. Even the most naïve observer of American politics knows that the real world is a game of compromises leading to sometimes small and then larger victories. Obama’s Administration has demonstrated convincingly that it is serious about nurturing improvements to the American social, economic, and environmental systems. Every indication is that this Administration will follow this small but significant symbolic gesture of White House solar power with well-considered environmental policy and programs that benefit ‘we the people’.
Same is true for Bill McKibben. His opening shot on www.350.org, was heard in 185 nations around the world, and will result in millions of motivated boots on the ground, preventing tons of CO2 from being released into Earth’s atmosphere. It teaches us that we can all change our behavior today, even in some small way, to reduce our carbon footprint. But we also need to curb the cynical and skeptical rhetoric; the glass IS half full and getting fuller. Trolls can laugh it off but don’t waste your time on this track.
you know how it is when a business, for example...that repeatedly charged you over the top becuase you had no choice....and then one day you LEAVE (either because you decided you didn't need or want their business anymore)...
and they keep sending you fliers with "lower price" ...blow out sales...give all kinds of incentives?
that's what obama is doing.
Who gives a rat's ass in hell about the solar panels on the White House, or the Obama's organic vegetable garden? I sure don't, given the fact that this Administration is continuing many, if not most of Bush's policies both here and abroad
Yep. This corrupt white house gets dandruff and throws it on us and some people call it 'concessions to political power'. HA! Next this administration will pass gas in front of a microphone and they'll cheer it as the White House nod to methane generators.
I can't remember where but I read a piece once about how Bush2 used to enjoy subjecting visitors to his oval office to his flatulence, which apparently was of the highly odiferous kind.
Apparently this is what these mysterious grins he would get when speaking related to as well.
I always wondered if that is what Chavez was referring to when he reported about how he could still smell the fumes of Satan or whatever. Maybe Bush ate eggs before his speech the day before....
Democrat cheap lies are as tawdry as Republican cheap lies. Only the packaging is different. The Democrats prefer the famous Hallmark card tag line: "When you care enough to send the very best." Perhaps that should be Obama's campaign slogan in '012 since he can't use Hope or Change You Can Believe In.
How does it look?:
OBAMA: WHEN YOU CARE ENOUGH TO SEND THE VERY BEST.
Nah. Don't work.
considering the good news that this is,and the fact that the solar panels should have never been ripped from the roof by reagan in the 1st place-i would think that people would be happy that our president has decided to put them back up-showing that it is possible to lead by example.
however,it seems that the trolls have decided to find some way to gripe about this good news with the sour grapes and bad attitude that has become their hallmark-just proving once more that no matter how good the news can be,they are desperately trying to spin it to something completely different and obscene-that if it started raining 100$ bills-they would gripe it is going to bankrupt the country- and all rained down bills should be immediately burned for the sake of keeping inflation down.(although that burning would make the CO2 level worse-but thats not the point)
the way i see it,mr. mckibben was rather impatient to get an answer on this question-released a story condemning this action when he didn't get one fast enough-(prob.because our president has been bloody busy)when the answer did come-he retracted his earlier story-and apologized-making him a better man than any of the trolls on this page.
i also do not see that "technical fixes" are any problem either-progress comes from seeing a better way-and trying them out,and encouraging others to do so-and every reduction of greenhouse gases,no matter how small,add up with more people doing them.like everything in this world-it won't happen overnight-(or even in 2 yrs-which is less than he has been there so far)but eventually,this will change the economics that we are currently stuck with-stuck with mainly because those panels were ripped from the roof in the 1st place,instead of all of us working on this in the 25 yrs since they were.
in this-the president should be commended for getting us back to the track we should have been on during all this time-not talked about like this is a socialist-commie-nazi(?) plot to take down the freedom to be a capitalistic gross polluter with no concern to the generations to come.
has it ever occurred to any of you trolls that he might actually believe in this idea,and that it IS for the betterment of this country to wean off the junkieism that has been our energy policy? and one way or the other,even the effort of doing this will make more manufacturing industries,and lots and lots of jobs-something this country really needs-so i really don't see much of a down-side here.
and-no amt. of sour grapes and griping changes any of these facts.as the saying goes-if you are not part of the solution,you are part of the problem.lead,follow,or get out of the way- and, quitcherbitchin.
if you don't have a systemic analysis of capitalism and the corporate state, and the nature of politics in the US, you can be easily duped into believing, against all the evidence of Obama's actions, that he really gives a shit about the ecosystem.
BP and the Gulf ecocide is a perfect example of where Obama's head is really at. If you think this symbolic gesture means a damn thing for saving this planet from industrial capitalism and the death of millions of species, then you are as much a part of the problem as McKibben is.
Naive platitudes about us "trolls" being too negative are an indication of the politics of feel goodism, where reality doesn't matter. It's like rearranging deck chairs on the Titanic (or putting up a solar panel on the roof of the bridge!)
This man is too naive for his own good. Or....who knows. Maybe he is dumbing down the 'movement'.
Not to mention telling us what CNN said about the most important day of political action in history. Never mind that day the world turned out to try to stop the US invasion of Iraq. It doesn't measure up to kids doing cute science fairesque projects and youtubing them.
And he implies obama is on board with his own special day of 10/10/10.
I find this rather sad.
It doesn't take much to sway Liberals to vote for the Dems in November, does it? The adminisration knows this. Throw out a few crumbs right before the election. That's all it takes.
Meanwhile, Obomba announces no change in strategy with regards to Afghanistan. Ask an Obama supporter what he thinks of that, and why he/she could see themselves voting in support of this?
I like small scale distributed generation and community based systems. It always takes large scale opportunists to ruin good things.
http://www.bangordailynews.com/detail/155489.html
Now for a little experiment all of you can do.
1. Fill up a large glass or pitcher with ice.
2. Then fill it to the rim with water.
3. Let ice melt.
4. What happens to the water level after the ice melts?
With the USA everything is just for show. Once 'the big day' has passed it'll be 'business as usual'. Same old same.
Bill is right, the timing is everything.
http://www.boston.com/news/local/breaking_news/2010/10/cape_wind_award.html
well- i see that the trolls(meaning the nay-sayers and gripers)have decided to "poo-poo" what i've had to say by calling it "naive-tay".....what i find to be naive is:
1)thinking that the status-quo is acceptable.
2) thinking that motives,whether good or otherwise,changes the results that come from action on this matter-pragmatically,as long as it gets done-it's progress.
3)that politics really matter when it comes to everyone's children having a world to live on in 100 yrs from now.
like i said-no amt. of bitching,griping or whineing changes the need to make progress on this-no matter how small. the changes made by nixon and carter in the 70s should have been kept up during the time since-and these things have not-and have only gotten worse with inaction.
for those who read the bible-the lesson in "the garden of eden"says it all....he gave us this planet-and told us it is ours to make a garden or desert out of-and he's not coming back to clean it up for us-
it's up to us to keep it clean.
if it isn't-we will get the same answer as adam and eve got-
too bad-you're screwed-get out.(with nowhere to go)
for those who don't-if you want to live in a garbage dump-that's up to you-
but don't expect us to want to live with you.
and this is the only planet we have-
nothing even remotely close to here to move to.....
so lets head in the right direction-and get on this already.
quitcherbitchin.
I think you meant "quitcherthinkin."
The two themes I noted in the comments were:
1) that the White House solar panels are political window-dressing/posturing; and
2) that the environmental problems we face are systemic -- rather than technical -- problems that demand large-scale systemic solutions.
The two are related. This kind of posturing impedes large-scale systemic solutions.
The White House should lead -- really LEAD -- on this issue.
In CA, the people will soon vote on Prop 23, which was put up by the oil industries to negate AB32, the CA Global Warming Solutions Act. The Act seeks to return GHG emissions to 1990 levels by 2020. While the Dept. of Health and Safety regulations (which the Act authorizes) are less than ideal, they are a large step in the right direction.
Given CA's role in improving fuel efficiency standards by implementing higher standards for vehicles than mandated by the Clean Air Act and thereby LEADING nationwide change, there is some slight chance that AB32 would do something meaningful.
If the President was really concerned about this issue, he would use the bully pulpit to eviscerate the retrograde confusion the anti-AB32 Prop 23 is spreading. Galvanize CA voters to reject Prop 23. Lead.
But I don't see this administration doing this. Carter put up the panels, and that might have been appropriate at the time. At this time, we need more.
I think the real concern here may be that this administration is lulling people into complacency.
Finally, rather than labeling people engaged in thinking as "trolls," why not read, think and, if you still disagree, offer a real alternative. I'm confident that you don't really believe we can face imminent environmental collapse through photo-ops like the White House solar panels. Do you think this will really improve matters? How?
I think your first two points are excellently expressed!!!
That's nice. Was this the change?