EMAIL SIGN UP!
Most Popular This Week
Popular content
Today's Top News
Environmental Leaders Call for Civil Disobedience to Stop the Keystone XL Pipeline
Dear Friends,
This will be a slightly longer letter than common for the internet age—it’s serious stuff.
The short version is we want you to consider doing something hard: coming to Washington in the hottest and stickiest weeks of the summer and engaging in civil disobedience that will likely get you arrested.
The full version goes like this:
As you know, the planet is steadily warming: 2010 was the warmest year on record, and we’ve seen the resulting chaos in almost every corner of the earth.
A coalition of clean energy advocates march from the Canadian Embassy to the White House to condemn a proposed pipeline that would bring tar sands oil, allegedly toxic, from Canada to the United States, in Washington D.C. in July 2010. (Photo: ZUMA Press)
And as you also know, our democracy is increasingly controlled by special interests interested only in their short-term profit.
These two trends collide this summer in Washington, where the State Department and the White House have to decide whether to grant a certificate of ‘national interest’ to some of the biggest fossil fuel players on earth. These corporations want to build the so-called ‘Keystone XL Pipeline’ from Canada’s tar sands to Texas refineries.
To call this project a horror is serious understatement. The tar sands have wrecked huge parts of Alberta, disrupting ways of life in indigenous communities—First Nations communities in Canada, and tribes along the pipeline route in the U.S. have demanded the destruction cease. The pipeline crosses crucial areas like the Oglalla Aquifer where a spill would be disastrous—and though the pipeline companies insist they are using ‘state of the art’ technologies that should leak only once every 7 years, the precursor pipeline and its pumping stations have leaked a dozen times in the past year. These local impacts alone would be cause enough to block such a plan. But the Keystone Pipeline would also be a fifteen hundred mile fuse to the biggest carbon bomb on the continent, a way to make it easier and faster to trigger the final overheating of our planet, the one place to which we are all indigenous.
How much carbon lies in the recoverable tar sands of Alberta? A recent calculation from some of our foremost scientists puts the figure at about 200 parts per million. Even with the new pipeline they won’t be able to burn that much overnight—but each development like this makes it easier to get more oil out. As the climatologist Jim Hansen (one of the signatories to this letter) explained, if we have any chance of getting back to a stable climate “the principal requirement is that coal emissions must be phased out by 2030 and unconventional fossil fuels, such as tar sands, must be left in the ground.” In other words, he added, “if the tar sands are thrown into the mix it is essentially game over.” The Keystone pipeline is an essential part of the game. "Unless we get increased market access, like with Keystone XL, we're going to be stuck," said Ralph Glass, an economist and vice-president at AJM Petroleum Consultants in Calgary, told a Canadian newspaper last week.
Given all that, you’d suspect that there’s no way the Obama administration would ever permit this pipeline. But in the last few months the president has signed pieces of paper opening much of Alaska to oil drilling, and permitting coal-mining on federal land in Wyoming that will produce as much CO2 as 300 power plants operating at full bore.
And Secretary of State Clinton has already said she’s ‘inclined’ to recommend the pipeline go forward. Partly it’s because of the political commotion over high gas prices, though more tar sands oil would do nothing to change that picture. But it’s also because of intense pressure from industry. TransCanada Pipeline, the company behind Keystone, has hired as its chief lobbyist for the project a man named Paul Elliott, who served as deputy national director of Clinton’s presidential campaign. Meanwhile, the US Chamber of Commerce—a bigger funder of political campaigns than the RNC and DNC combined—has demanded that the administration “move quickly to approve the Keystone XL pipeline,” which is not so surprising—they’ve also told the U.S. EPA that if the planet warms that will be okay because humans can ‘adapt their physiology’ to cope. The Koch Brothers, needless to say, are also backing the plan, and may reap huge profits from it.
So we’re pretty sure that without serious pressure the Keystone Pipeline will get its permit from Washington. A wonderful coalition of environmental groups has built a strong campaign across the continent—from Cree and Dene indigenous leaders to Nebraska farmers, they’ve spoken out strongly against the destruction of their land. We need to join them, and to say even if our own homes won’t be crossed by this pipeline, our joint home—the earth—will be wrecked by the carbon that pours down it.
And we need to say something else, too: it’s time to stop letting corporate power make the most important decisions our planet faces.
We don’t have the money to compete with those corporations, but we do have our bodies, and beginning in mid August many of us will use them. We will, each day through Labor Day, march on the White House, risking arrest with our trespass. We will do it in dignified fashion, demonstrating that in this case we are the conservatives, and that our foes—who would change the composition of the atmosphere are dangerous radicals. Come dressed as if for a business meeting—this is, in fact, serious business. And another sartorial tip—if you wore an Obama button during the 2008 campaign, why not wear it again? We very much still want to believe in the promise of that young Senator who told us that with his election the ‘rise of the oceans would begin to slow and the planet start to heal.’ We don’t understand what combination of bureaucratic obstinacy and insider dealing has derailed those efforts, but we remember his request that his supporters continue on after the election to pressure the government for change. We’ll do what we can.
And one more thing: we don’t want college kids to be the only cannon fodder in this fight. They’ve led the way so far on climate change—10,000 came to DC for the Powershift gathering earlier this spring. They’ve marched this month in West Virginia to protest mountaintop removal; Tim DeChristopher faces sentencing this summer in Utah for his creative protest. Now it’s time for people who’ve spent their lives pouring carbon into the atmosphere (and whose careers won’t be as damaged by an arrest record) to step up too. Most of us signing this letter are veterans of this work, and we think it’s past time for elders to behave like elders. One thing we don’t want is a smash up: if you can’t control your passions, this action is not for you.
This won’t be a one-shot day of action. We plan for it to continue for several weeks, to the date in September when by law the administration can either grant or deny the permit for the pipeline. Not all of us can actually get arrested—half the signatories to this letter live in Canada, and might well find our entry into the U.S. barred. But we will be making plans for sympathy demonstrations outside Canadian consulates in the U.S., and U.S. consulates in Canada—the decision-makers need to know they’re being watched.
Winning this battle won’t save the climate. But losing it will mean the chances of runaway climate change go way up—that we’ll endure an endless future of the floods and droughts we’ve seen this year. And we’re fighting for the political future too—for the premise that we should make decisions based on science and reason, not political connection. You have to start somewhere, and this is where we choose to begin.
If you think you might want to be a part of this action, we need you to sign up here. As plans solidify in the next few weeks we’ll be in touch with you to arrange nonviolence training; our colleagues at a variety of environmental and democracy campaigns will be coordinating the actual arrangements.
We know we’re asking a lot. You should think long and hard on it, and pray if you’re the praying type. But to us, it’s as much privilege as burden to get to join this fight in the most serious possible way. We hope you’ll join us.
Maude Barlow
Wendell Berry
Tom Goldtooth
Danny Glover
James Hansen
Wes Jackson
Naomi Klein
Bill McKibben
George Poitras
David Suzuki
Gus Speth
p.s.—Please pass this letter on to anyone else you think might be interested. We realize that what we’re asking isn’t easy, and we’re very grateful that you’re willing even to consider 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...

107 Comments so far
Show AllI like the serious tone of this letter. It makes you think. It is good that so many prominent Democrats in the environmental movement have come to realize that the Obama administration is not on their side. Also, that it will take a real cross section of the country to make anyone in Washington take notice of the American citizen's concern about the world's future health.
Thank you, from me and my family!
We'll talk it over and see what we can do -
Manysummits
Calgary, Alberta
======
People who preach "resistance is futile" are just giving themselves an excuse to do nothihg.
Don't go if you can't or won't, but don't - for the sake of all that lives - disparage those willing to put themselves out there at some personal, physical risk to do what's right.
Hey doesn' this thing cross that flood zone at all? And I know they want to build a corridor highway right up from Mexico to Alberta-probably to get migrant workers up working in the sands....it is a terrible life those work camps like the Gulag..
Yours,
RR
First, something a little off target. In 1988, I bought a new Nissan Sentra with AC that got 38 MPG. In 2003, I went to buy another new Sentra and the best rating was 32 MPG, but I read it was actually 28 MPG. I did not understand. In 1996, I rented a Renault in France that used diesel, had AC and got 53 MPG....aye yi yi....
Second, this movement (if it gets going) will be infiltrated by government agents and proponents of the pipeline project. These infiltrators will disrupt any meaningful attempt to change what has been preordained.
Third, I'm in China and will be unable to attend.
Nice defeatist attitude. No protesting is not enough, but doing nothing is less. Go hide you're head to save it. That is exactly how THEY want you to act. "I'm powerless, I can't do anything!'' Whine Whine Whine.
Turn that energy into fire and fight back! What you got to lose? Could be worse.. could be headed on a train to concentration camps!
Look around we are already in a corporate concentration camp where the only choice one has is what color of car to choose.
Tears fall as I read this plea. So many truly good people are struggling to save what's left of Earth against huge odds..
To those of you able to take part in this historic event, saying thank you isn't enough - words fail. .
I cannot attend - physical and financial difficulties - but I will forward this letter far and wide.
IAll of you brave, persistent, determined souls - you are true heroes, and may the true force for Good - your Righteous Morality - be with you.
This protest will work if tens of millions turn up and its scope goes WAY beyond sniping at Big oil.
Once again you nail the crux of the matter, subtly yet concisely.
Noami Klein as someone has already implied likely wrote this letter, and as an illegitimate and proud descendant of someone like her, Thomas Jefferson, I"m confident I can say this is a new kind of declaration of independence from the swine power elites everywhere who've got us all into the tremendous mess we're now in on so many issues with these other people simply signing this great document. But as an egalitarian, I have to know that their hearts are as much into these words and ideas as hers. "We all breathe the same air" as John F Kennedy said in that American University speech in August 1963 and all of us want to see a future for our children for those who have children and for future generations regardless whether we do or not.
We aren't con servatives as we don't have enough con in us. We are, as progressives have always been those who truly represent traditional values-- egalitarian values coming out of the Garden of Eden in the Biblical version or coming out of Milton's Paradise Lost if we use the secular version, but still traditional values of not only a better world but a heaven on earth as we now have hell on earth. For each phenomenon there must be an opposite based on the rules of science. For those of us who are theists in a traditonal sense we are saying "Thy kingdom come on Earth as it is in heaven" and surely meaing it-- social gospel in the best sense of the term.
Oh, you mean Washington, DC. Why didn't you say so?
Resistance isn't futile, but *this* form of resistance certainly will be futile.
First, you're doing it at a time when *nobody* is in town. Nobody in their right mind goes to DC in August. The place is deserted, even the news media are off covering other stuff. If you want to make an impression, wait until the end of September, after the 21st or so. People are back in town and doing business, schools are back in session, and it's more reasonable temperature and humidity-wise.
Second, you won't be allowed to use the courts as a forum for making your complaints heard, it'll be a misdemeanor conviction, and it'll cost money that helps to feed the System. You probably won't get much news coverage either, there'll always be something else more important to cover, especially in a town like DC.
News media will cover that which advances the interests of its owners, and you aren't that. Getting arrested in civil disobedience hasn't worked since the 1960s - you're fighting a present conflict with the tactics of the Sixties - and the tactics you're using aren't very imaginative.
What makes it possible for the District of Columbia to provide a place for the government to get things done? It's simple, it's the same thing nationwide: People to collect the garbage, clean the toilets, keep the sewers running, repair the plumbing, keep the lights on, all of the blue collar jobs that people do and we rely on - but we don't *see* the people who do them. They're invisible, they're off the radar, but they're there and they're indispensable in keeping the system running. Maintenance men, janitors, garbagemen, sewer workers, plumbers, electricians - and they all have as much of a stake in this as we do...
i agree w/ your critique. what would you suggest as an alternative?
Great post!
RE: Maintenance men, janitors, garbagemen, sewer workers, plumbers, electricians - and they all have as much of a stake in this as we do.
This sentence reminds me of why the environmental movement remains so weak. The following is an excerpt:
Much of the environmental movement in the North is consumed by arguing for ordinary people to make sacrifices in order to save the planet. Then they wonder why more people aren't on the demonstrations against global warming and why the movement isn't more diverse. For those millions out of work in the North, the millions on part-time work and mired in debt, the millions losing their homes to foreclosure and the hundreds of thousands of already homeless or the 45 million North Americans made sick each year from contaminated food and water, this argument rings particularly hollow. In reality the argument about sacrifice speaks to and for a very narrow segment of middle class opinion formers. If we are to make environmental arguments meaningful to the vast majority of people in the developed world, let alone the Global South, the argument must focus on justice, jobs, equality, and improving the quality of life, not the need for more sacrifice. In other words, environmental activism must be about socio-economic justice the world over.
Source: Chris Williams' "Ecology and Socialism" (page 9).
>> Tom Larsen quoting Chris Williams: "... environmental activism must be about socio-economic justice the world over."<<
Absolutely. And justice on a global basis demands that the middle class in North America too do their part. At the very least, get off their addiction to various forms of mindless, wasteful consumption. I'm not talking about things that would require systemic changes. I'm talking about things where there are choices, including the choice to say 'no' to certain things without losing anything in their quality of life.
Changing the system requires a large enough number of people who are able to see what is wrong with it all, and this "all" includes the individuals. The system provides the addictions, people consume those things. Before people can fight the system, they need to see their own role in propping up the system. The least they can do - that is, those who would be called upon to change the system, is to minimize their own ecological footprint to the extent possible, EVEN WHILE fighting the system or taking any other collective action.
>>" If we are to make environmental arguments meaningful to the vast majority of people in the developed world, let alone the Global South, the argument must focus on justice, jobs, equality, and improving the quality of life, not the need for more sacrifice."<<
Ah, but people in the developed world, on average, do consume more than those in the Global South, per capita. A good part of this form of consumption, even for those who are 'middle class' and even below is made possible by this very system. Replacing this system with something more sustainable would necessarily mean greatly reduced consumption per capita. Arguing for changing or replacing the current system while scaring people with the word "sacrifice" is very strange, especially when talking about "justice the world over" in the same breath.
>>"Much of the environmental movement in the North is consumed by arguing for ordinary people to make sacrifices in order to save the planet."<<
That is a very divisive thing to say, but I've seen it plenty of times before. It is also not quite true. It is twisting the whole issue to scare people. Something that is resorted to by right wing fanatics too - such as when they talk about 'death panels', 'death tax', etc.
If it is true that ordinary people are the ones who should be leading the fight to bring about a sustainable society, then they should also be aware of the impact of their lifestyle. Another word that is turned into a bogeyman.
So, if I understand this position, it's like this: do not talk about lifestyle, do not talk about per capita consumption in the rich countries (that would be "sacrifice" !), but talk about "justice, jobs, equality, and improving the quality of life". This smells like "strategy" to me - something based on a certain "assessment" about what would work and what wouldn't, to get enough people motivated enough for collective action. You may be right in that assessment. But I am not convinced that this would automatically lead to a sustainable, more just society unless a large percentage of the population understands what is truly sustainable and their own role in bringing about such a society.
This is NOT a real problem, IMO - that is, to talk about wasteful consumption in the context of sustainability and justice. It is only made into a problem by the ideologues. I'm sorry, we've been through this before, but I had to say it.
RE: And justice on a global basis demands that the middle class in North America too do their part.
Chris Williams is not talking about middle class people. He talking about the majority of the population who are struggling to get by.
Today the term "middle class" has been gutted of its meaning: everybody from Oprah (a billionaire) to the family living out of their car is "middle class." 40 years ago (during better economic times), there was the filthy rich, the rich, the upper-middle class, the middle class, the working class and the poor. The majority of the population are what used to be known as the working class and the poor.
RE: Ah, but people in the developed world, on average, do consume more than those in the Global South, per capita
On AVERAGE, yes. But that means little in a country with the most skewed relationship between the haves and have-nots in the developed world. In the US, for many working class people who can't afford to live in cities that have public transportation (decreasing now w/ budget cuts), they must have a car to get to their low paying jobs. You seem to miss Williams' main point: "In reality the argument about sacrifice speaks to and for a very narrow segment of middle class ..."
Telling (upper?) middle class people with their I-pods and SUV's to cut back is one thing, but telling people who have been forced to cut back since the 1970's, people that have little already is quite another. The goal is not that everybody should have an I-pad or a BMW. And neither that privation is generalized. But the system that produces these consumer items also concentrates wealth and power in a tiny minority ruling class. Less than 1% control over 50% of the country's wealth. If we had a fair distribution of wealth, if we had economic democracy, every one would have enough food, good jobs, healthcare, clean water, clean air, they would have a toxin free environment, education and free time to be involved in"saving the planet." Capitalism is also profligately wasteful. If we had social justice, we would protect our local economies and local environment. We would farm to support our communities and to support our collective future, instead of export markets.
More importantly, capitalism is the driver of that vast inequality and of global warming.
The solution is BOTH social and environmental. Economic justice must be part of the environmental movement if it is going to get any real traction. This position gets even stronger if the Global South is included. Evo Morales has recognized that the exploitation of the earth has the same source as the exploitation of the working poor. Social justice and environment justice go hand in hand. Mass movements (labor, civil rights movements etc) are, and have been the only vehicle for positive change tor regular people; you need to attract the majority of the population - which are NOT middle class liberals. Liberals and progressives, want to leave capitalism out of the equation. We, the many must sacrifice, while corporations, the real source of the problem, get off with green washing and record profits.
.
>>"Mass movements (labor, civil rights movements etc) are, and have been the only vehicle for positive change tor regular people;..."<<
My understanding is that the labor and civil rights movements are different in scope and in the way they played out. In the civil rights movement, people who were not quite the victims of the system also took part, and as such, is some kind of an exception.
In any case, these mass movements were not about any kind of a sustainable society. The ecological limits were not explicitly or even implicitly part of what got discussed and debated. And no mass movement of this kind so far has produced a sustainable society. Even in Cuba which happens to be having a low ecological footprint, the apparent "sustainability" was forced on it due to the collapse of the Soviet Union, and the situation could change again once the US blockade is removed. You may say it's because of capitalism making inroads. But I would say, even before that happens, it would be because the leaders have not explicitly recognized sustainability as a desirable goal. Right now, the apparent sustainability there is only accidental. That is why I say it is important to talk about it, and that is also why I think economic democracy alone will not automatically produce a sustainable society unless the people are clear on what it is they want.
RE: In the civil rights movement, people who were not quite the victims of the system also took part, and as such, is some kind of an exception.
The problem here is that you don't know much about the system of capitalism or its history. The suppression of the civil rights of African Americans has everything to do with capitalism.
Slavery was crucial for the early development of capital (as well as the dispossession of the native Americans of their land) and was absolutely necessary for prior, primary or "primitive accumulation" (a term used by classical economists like Ricardo and Smith) of the early capitalists in the US. (In other words, where the original wealth (capital) came from: stolen labor and stolen land.) Racism was promoted by plantation owners, politicians etc. (there are historical documents to prove this, the racism was contrived, not innate). Racism was used during slavery to prevent poor whites and slaves from finding common cause and rebelling. (This is why the Haitian revolution was such a threat.) Later, having a super exploited minority of African Americans (among others) became important for suppressing the wages of all workers. Bosses used to bring in blacks as scabs to break unions. Today the most exploited are "illegal" immigrants (and the attendant racism towards brown people) who still serve that function of keeping wages down. The civil rights movement is no exception at all. It is no different than workers struggling for decent working conditions and pay during the 1930's.
RE: The ecological limits were not explicitly or even implicitly part of what got discussed and debated.
Huh? The environmental movement, which was much bigger in the past than it is today, actually celebrated its birth: Earth Day 1970. 15 million people were out on the streets, in rallies, in marches on that day celebrating Mother Earth. Note that this is well before global warming was a topic of discussion, even among scientists. "Silent Spring" came out in 1962. Carson understood that the driving force behind the chemical poisoning of the earth was due to the profit motive inherent in capitalism. The effects of pollution were well understood. Out of this activism the Clean Water and Clean Air Act were passed. The EPA was created by a reactionary Richard Nixon. Nothing close has happened since. You think that all this happened and "ecological limits" were never discussed?
RE: And no mass movement of this kind so far has produced a sustainable society.
Before you can have a sustainable society, you first must overthrow the unsustainable system that dominates society. Mass movements are instrumental in this process, but a movement does not mean a revolution.
But what is very interesting about the time around 1970, is that there were many movements all happening at around the same time: the civil rights movement, the peace movement, the women's movement, the gay rights movement and the environmental movement (as well as an already strong labor movement). These movements all have contemporary versions, but they are much smaller and in general, more insular than they were in the past. The movements of the late '60's did not have the revolutionary potential that existed in the mid to late 1930's, but that period had more revolutionary potential than is extant currently.
Tom Larsen, thanks for that history lesson. I mean, really, as I like to read different takes on history. Such as Jeremy Rifkin's "Beyond Beef: The Rise and Fall of the Cattle Culture". While I read different takes on history, I don't try to simplify it all, such as you are doing by blaming it all on capitalism. Even blaming racism on capitalism? Come on! Racism may have different origins, including capitalism, but one of the factors is also a strong attachment to one's identity. And when there's competition for resources or when one's livelihood is involved, such strong identification with one thing or another - including religion, race, and I would say, even ideology, can lead to violent confrontation. Oh, I just realized I'm talking about human nature, something that is denied by ideologues.
When someone talks about human nature, it does NOT mean that it is fixed or that the environment does not influence human nature. But to deny greed as a factor that even predates capitalism, and something that leads to capitalism, is to artificially draw a line around something, because it makes it easier to set up an ideology.
I've also noticed that you have a habit of twisting any mention of human nature to suit a particular argument, and you even insert something like "oh, it's human nature, so nothing can be done about it'". This "nothing can be done about it" part is from YOU. Not from me or anyone who has mentioned human nature.
Same thing with the mention of lifestyle. The main reason for mentioning lifestyle "choices" is so that people can be clear from the beginning as to what it is they are fighting for. It is not a privilege to demand a sustainable society, a society that is free of toxins, a society that does not needlessly inflict cruelty and consume more than it really needs to live a healthy, quality life. I think some people underestimate the intelligence of the masses as to what would work and what would not. But how can they know unless they have tried communicating about the big picture, instead of appealing to just narrow self interest?
This is not to deny that the owner class people have a somewhat different psyche that can be termed even psychopathic. But I am talking about the various enablers. Enablers who might have been victims at one point, but then given the opportunity, their own greed takes over, they lose some of their humanity as they set out to victimize and brutalize other people. Yes, I am talking about the history of conquest, colonization, slavery and racism.
When such conquests and plunder produce an artificial, unsustainable "prosperity" for a large number of people, who exactly are the culprits? Only those at the very top, or should some of the blame be shared by all those who profit down the line?
And who exactly is to change the system? Certainly it's not going to change from the top. If change has to come from those who have benefited from this system in the past, what would make them act? Reality shows that the only time when the masses will rise up is when life for them becomes unbearable. That is why I consider the 'Civil Rights Movement' as an exception, because there were a great many people who participated in it even when their particular lives were not so miserable. They did it out of a sense of justice and empathy with their fellow human beings. And that is why I think the labor movement is different. While they may express solidarity with other labor movements elsewhere, it is still limited. They may not, for example, question the rationality of manufacturing so many cars, including gas guzzlers, in the first place. Their priority would be to get decent wages and decent working conditions for those working in these factories, but not question the logic of so much production in the first place.
As to your mentioning the environmental movement, Earth Day, "Silent Spring", I guess it's based on a misunderstanding of what I meant: I was specifically talking about the examples you mentioned: the labor movement and the civil rights movement.
>>"Before you can have a sustainable society, you first must overthrow the unsustainable system that dominates society."<<
Maybe so. But before you overthrow the unsustainable system, you would need a large number of people to first acknowledge that it is unsustainable, and to acknowledge that ecological limits are to be at the top of everything else, and any economic alternatives must respect these limits. Explicitly.
>>"But what is very interesting about the time around 1970, is that there were many movements all happening at around the same time:"<<
And that may be true even today. And for those who are not weighed down by any ideology, it should be clear that there are overlapping goals and much common ground between these movements. You call them "insular". But even if it is true (which I doubt), they are definitely not acting at cross-purpose to other movements elsewhere. What is needed is even more people to get involved, but with a greater understanding of the ecological limits, if only to avoid certain mistakes.
RE: ...thanks for that history lesson. I mean, really...
If you are serious about the above comment then check out the following:
1) Lecture on human nature:
http://wearemany.org/a/2010/06/is-human-nature-barrier-to-socialism
2) On racism: "Slavery and the origins of racism"
http://www.isreview.org/issues/26/roots_of_racism.shtml
I've replied below, as the width is too narrow here:
Alcyon - Jun 24 2011 - 11:41pm
RE: If it is true that ordinary people are the ones who should be leading the fight to bring about a sustainable society, then they should also be aware of the impact of their lifestyle.
To give an example that I have used before regarding waste in the US (which is one index of consumption):
Household waste, (that is, waste that an individual can have an impact in changing), represents only 2.5% of total waste in the US. The other 97.5% of waste comes from corporate sources (industrial, construction and mining waste etc). Therefore, if every household were to cut its waste to zero, the problem of waste in the US would remain essentially unchanged. The problems we face are not of individual consumption or "lifestyle" They are systemic to capitalism.
>>Tom Larsen: "The problems we face are not of individual consumption or "lifestyle" They are systemic to capitalism."<<
But then, when there was more to go around and the economic situation was not so dire as it is now, nobody complained. Not many, anyway. I'm talking about the time from WW-II onward - a period that is considered to be some kind of a 'good time' resulting from some kind of progressive policies. But it is a mistaken conclusion, a projection based on current reality. Wasteful consumption has been around for a long time, and certain forms of consumption that was available to a large section of the US population was only available to the super-rich in other countries in those decades. Oil production in the US peaked in the early 1970's as had been predicted by M. King Hubbert in the 1950's. Just about everyone went along for the ride, so to speak. I'm talking about the middle class back then. But the party is over now. Capitalism might have been the bigger factor that enabled such consumption, but what prevented people from seeing that it was unsustainable?
According to you, all of this is "systemic to capitalism". So, imagine then: if there had been lots of warnings back then about the unsustainable nature of it all, do you think people would have listened? The same thing is happening in other countries today, such as in Canada and Australia, where even though people complain about the economy, the situation is not as bad as in the US. Try telling these people that capitalism is the problem. What would make these people act? Only when their economic situation becomes miserable?
Your example about household waste vs. corporate waste, something you have repeated, is not quite the whole story, and it is also wrong to end it with the conclusion that individual consumption or lifestyle is not the problem. The industrial waste also has to be added to the accounts of the final consumers, in proportion to what it took to produce what they consume.
Then take the simple case of meat consumption. The environmental impact is really huge, but it is often not politically correct to talk about it.
I have talked about mega sporting events and their impact on the environment. Not sports per se, but only the wasteful ones and the capitalist money-making ventures such as NFL, NHL, etc., that suck people's time and energy and trashes the environment.
These are just two examples where it is absolutely within the power of the individual to take a stand and say no. By doing so, they would be confronting the system while also reducing the damage to the environment. Doing so would also mean that people are ready to take collective action.
People will absolutely have to find enough time and energy to work on the kind of change that is needed, and yet there are lots and lots of people who fall for such addictions and escapes. But these are the very people who will have to bring about the change, and so it is absolutely important that they understand what sustainability would entail.
You seem to insist that fighting for 'economic democracy' would automatically lead to a sustainable society. I just don't see how, and more importantly, I fail to see WHY it is wrong to talk about lifestyle and sustainability upfront. Corporations make their profits by catering to people's wants and addictions. Yes, they do cultivate and promote these addictions. Many people today cannot afford some of these, but if they could, they would consume. As simple as that. And many other people CAN still afford wasteful consumption, not just the super rich. And many within this class would actively defend the system, and they may even call themselves 'middle class'.
Anyway, I think this constant harping on environmentalists as somehow being out of touch with the real, fundamental problem is not very helpful. It may make some people feel better and superior about their ideology, but I still don't see why it is wrong to talk about lifestyle. It is needlessly becoming some kind of a 'wedge issue'. Especially when I do see that people who understand the impact of their lifestyle would be more committed to working towards larger, more fundamental change.
RE: but I still don't see why it is wrong to talk about lifestyle.
Lifestyle Action is About Privilege
Lifestyle activism assumes that you have the resources to make lifestyle choices. You need money to be able to buy a Prius instead of a "beater" car. You need money to eat organic every day. You need leisure time to maintain a compost pile that you don't really need.
Lifestyle activism is an expression of privilege. It represents the capacity to spend time and resources doing things that don't actually matter in any direct way for you or your family...
If you work two jobs to keep food on the table and a roof over your head, you just don't have time for this.
~~~
In other words, there is a deep class bias in the focus on "lifestyle." The above was taken from: http://www.openleft.com/diary/13032/selfdelusion-and-the-lie-of-lifestyle-politics-core-dilemmas-of-community-organizing
Your comment about lifestyle activism being a product of privlege is stereotype- sprinkled nonsense. You seem to be stuck on the suburban treadmill so long you know of no way out.
My voluntary car-less, AC-less, washer-and-dryer-less, brother and his partner Tim have worked low wage jobs all of their lives yet they engage in a very deep "life-style" activism - along with highly confrontational forms of activism. Please do some traveling (by bus or train) and visit some of the anarchist communities in the cities - are they privleged bourgeois? And yes, anarchists do have kids and raise families - without a car if you can even concieve of such a thing.
So are you an anarchist? I was politically weened in anarchist circles, but over the years I have become very critical of anarchism. But I'll let arguably the most important anarchist thinker of the second half of the 20th century address this issue. (Chomsky had little to say about anarchist theory.)
"Social Anarchism or Lifestyle Anarchism - An Unbridgeable Chasm" by Murray Bookchin:
http://libcom.org/library/social-anarchism--lifestyle-anarchism-murray-bookchin
Intro:
Murray Bookchin's polemical essay against the increasingly individualist, misanthropic, mystical and anti-organisational trends in US anarchism still holds relevance today...
Written in the mid-'90s, his emphasis on collective action to achieve meaningful change over the isolation and ineffectiveness of lifestyle politics should be considered by all those tempted to see anarchism as a subculture to join rather than a practice that informs their interaction within society.
So now you'll quote Murray Bookchin when it suits your argument? :)
Of course Bookchin had a lot of other things to say as well, including this famous essay:
"Listen, Marxist!"
I'm not giving a link to this essay because there are lots of sites that host this essay, and a simple search with "Murray Bookchin" "Listen, Marxist!" should produce lots of links. So those interested can take their pick. I know it's written in a specific context, but it is extremely readable, nevertheless.
What's wrong with quoting Bookchin? Don't you think that an anarchist would more readily accept criticism from another anarchist? He had a lot to say worth paying attention to. The essay would be useful for you to read as well as it deals with lifestyle activism too.
"If you're not part of the solution, you're part of the problem."
What is needed is a general strike by these workers and a massive protest, simultaneously. "Will soon shake your windows and rattle your walls!"
hey, Tom Larsen!
at the risk of inserting myself into a healthy discussion between yourself and Alcyon, let me highlight this bit from your post:
~ Much of the environmental movement in the North is consumed by arguing for ordinary people to make sacrifices in order to save the planet. Then they wonder why more people aren't on the demonstrations against global warming and why the movement isn't more diverse. For those millions out of work in the North, the millions on part-time work and mired in debt, the millions losing their homes to foreclosure and the hundreds of thousands of already homeless or the 45 million North Americans made sick each year from contaminated food and water, this argument rings particularly hollow. ~
the first sentence implies sacrifices are not currently being made, yet the rest of the paragraph, correctly, shows sacrifices are occurring...
the difference is conscious acknowledgement of the true sacrifice already taking place, versus suppression of such acknowledgement in favor of tacit acceptance of present practice, including an entirely unrealistic prognosis for sustained similar activity, if not growth in said area, moving forward, which enables one to believe sacrifices are not only unnecessary, but counterproductive...
if we weigh the two 'sacrifices', the unconscious 'sacrifice' happening right now, so pervasive as to permeate every corner of our only living world, increasingly threatening our ability to breathe, drink, eat and reproduce in the near future, and the suggested conscious, economic sacrifice your post disparages as 'hollow' demand of the downtrodden, we might view the 'hollow' one differently...
the downtrodden will not cease to be the downtrodden until the system is torn asunder...
sacrifice implies choice, while physics clearly shows choice to be illusory...
the end approaches, and drama is not the driver behind this statement...
physics is...
the key word is sacrifice: is tv a sacrifice? the internet? the car? petroleum? electricity? the owning of property? the store? a cell phone?
when the alternative is global death, what, precisely, might be defined as too important to sacrifice? a river? a mountain? an ocean? an atmosphere? a fetus? a honeybee?
perspective is what is needed now, more than anything...
tough to alter perspective when one's information is so effectively controlled by the murderous criminals running the place, though...
Fukushima? is that a new restaurant in town?
RE: the difference is conscious acknowledgement of the true sacrifice already taking place, versus suppression of such acknowledgement in favor of tacit acceptance of present practice...
Yes, working class people have been sacrificing for 40 years. In the sixties a machinist could support a wife and kids, send them to college and even afford a vacation home - all on one income. Today, if both parents are lucky enough to have a job, they will be in debt 'till they die.
You have contributed to my own understanding here! Thank you for this post! Though I doubt if it will alter Alcyon's thinking. He seems to be an intractable middle class liberal.
According to Tom Larsen, we're already sacrificing enough, though not voluntarily, so stop suggesting our lifestyle should change. We are entitled to live as we please, up to the limits of our incomes & credit ratings...
...until it all collapses.
What about the future generations? What are they entitled to? Absolutely nothing, not even a habitable planet, apparently--if that's the case, should we not spare them the suffering by making all childbirth illegal? If ours is the only generation with rights?
I also want to say that my ex and I raised two kids on anywhere from $6000 to $12000 a year, and my current husband and I have an energy-efficient home with an off-grid solar power system, vegetable and flower gardens and fruit trees and chickens, and a car that gets 43 MPG--it's a '95 Ford Aspire I bought for $2600 in 2000. We earned as much as $30,000 a year together while saving to build our house, but last year our income was $6000. So this idea that minimizing one's footprint is only possible for the affluient is horseshit. I suspect it's HARDER for the affluent.
I would love to do this..... But I can't go soen there...no money for that and my husband would have a fit.... But I can organize a protest here, where I live and therefore any others who cannot attend, should do the same around the country. With a huge main protest and many many others around the country, on the same day, we could have literally millions involved and the impact would or should be great.
I like this idea. I'm willing to (help) organize something in the other Washington (the State).
The following is a video with effective images of tar sands destruction.
Pass it on to a friend.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HoKW771tG_Q
Thanks for the link
Civil disobedience has become a civic duty.
Do these people expect the same system that took that toxic crap in the Gulf last year, the same system that's been waging unprovoked murderous, illegal wars, to keep the capitalist west going at full throttle, will be affected or deterred by this demonstration? As one commenter noted: when no one is in town? (Funny, these people never issue calls for action. say, during the state of the nation address or when the entire guilty party is in town.) All of this comes at the expense of the working class. They're once again being called on to play some losing game by D.C. (democratic?) operatives who – for all I can figure – must all be trust fund babies. And they never seem to win anything. Nary one simple victory. The same old little clubby group of liberals who have plenty of ideas, but no wins.
I'd love to be a fly on the wall when these types sit around the table, brainstorming ideas of how to stop the man. All this sounds disrespectful I know, it isn't meant to be. But these 'playaz' are stuck in a boring, ineffective and mind-numbing rut, and they're bound and determined to take what's left of any resistance down with them.
If you live in or near that god-forsaken town, and you've got time and money to spare, then go and have fun. Its a noble thing to protest the pipeline, but realistically, it won't stop it.
Otherwise, take the summer off. Chill. Relax a bit. Stock your pantry. Grow your garden. The real fight has yet to come.
First Off, I question the effectiveness of some symbolic "walk across the line" arrest with some little fine to pay and then you go home action. The Redwood Forest campaign of the mid 90's had a annual event like that and although it recieved some national media attention it did little to actually stop the logging of ancient redwoods. The real redwood forest defense was from the hundreds if not thousands of people over a decade or more who locked down with "metal tube black bears" and "lockdown barrels" to gates and heavy equipement as well as those many who did treesitting for months or years. Many ran around risking (a some losing) their lives by actually getting in the way of ancient redwoods being felled to the ground.
I would advocate the actual blocking of business as usual "arrests" where the consequnces would likely be much higher like perhaps a day or two or more in jail. There would be larger charges and larger fines. Then the question is who is going to be willing to pay the higher fines?
However, if the larger strategy is to prepare these same people for the actual disruption of the building of the pipeline in the future then preparing people with a symbolic arrest might be a great place to start.
When attempting to shutdown logging of ancient forest in the Northwest over the last 25 years we would ( and still) go directly to the site where ancient forests is going to slaughtered or was actively being logged and attempted to shutdown logging at the site. Sometimes we would be arrested at the ranger stations at the actual timber sale auctions. The civil disobedient direct action forest defense community from the NW was pivotal in helping shutdown the Seattle WTO.
The real battle will likely be where the actual pipeline is to be built.
There are many of us so called Earth Firster type folks out here who have these experiences and perhaps most of us would be willing to share and train folks if those who are calling for such actions ask for our help.
forest defenders
I agree with you so much.
But I disagree that the real battle will likely be where the actual pipeline is to be built.
Even if the pipeline doesn't happen the raping of the earth at the Tar Sands will continue. The real battle is there.
If we are going to burn fossil fuel to get anywhere to do civil disobedience we need to go to Alberta. This will of course cost us more than a nominal arrest and a fine. It will mean we will never be able to go to Canada again. For some of us who live near the border that could be a major sacrifice.
Plus I'm not talking about just symbolic protests where what's illegal is that we are protesting where we're not supposed to be. I'm talking about action like Clearcut-Climate described, action that would shut down the raping of the earth there, even if just for a little while.
You are are sitting in front of a computer … made of OIL. YOU are raping the earth, the Corporations are just doing your bidding. The “real” battle is going to be changing the way people live
When I was in a hospital a few years ago I noticed the huge amount of plastics made of OIL and GAS that were used in instruments and computers to monitor and cure my health problem. How are you suggesting that these components of today's hospitals are replaced in the future if you think that plastics should be replaced?
to Crowsnest.
Hemp, soy, on and on
http://www.hempplastic.com/
You touch on the crux of the problem. They can’t be replaced. It’s currently impossible to live the way we do without consuming massive amounts of fossil fuel. There may be renewable substitutes, but it will take massive sacrifices to get there. That’s the discussion we should be having
The amount of oil we use to make plastics and other items is insignificant compared to the amount we BURN. It is burning it that adds carbon dioxide to the air and causes global climate change.
Flyboy, changing enough individual people's habits to make a difference is impossible until you change the system. We progressives won't be able to change this system by simply conserving more, riding bikes, giving up our computers, etc. We'll just be the few while the many are trapped in a system where they don't see much option other than burning fossil fuels.
By the way, I used "rape the earth" for what's happening in Alberta. I'd also use it for mountain top removal coal mining. I may oppose oil, but I wouldn't say an oil well in Texas is "raping the earth." But in Alberta and in mountain top removal they aren't just taking oil or coal out of the ground. They are destroying the entire ecosystem of a region. To me the analogy of rape is fitting for that kind of destruction.
I disagree with you friend. An oil well is “raping the earth” and it supports a life style that is unsustainable. The awful truth is that we’ve destroyed the ecosystem of North America not just one region (fly over Iowa … the entire state is a cornfield). What I’m trying to say is that change is going happen. What we desperately need are realistic plans for a new way of living.
[Unintentional double post now removed]
Amen Flyboy. From geeks to shareholders it's the millions of supporters that have to be changed. If even 5% of the labor force were to refuse to punch in or even take a half day break we would see change, big change. Anything that looks like not afraid, not mesmerised would rumble all over the world just like the middle easterners.
Imagine 5% of the labor force not punching in tomorrow, going to the PO and buying two postcards. One for Murdock and one for Sec'y of the Treasury and just printing "Pay Attention". Curb side mailboxes would be full and the two addressees would have semis full to think about. Can't trace Postcards like facebook or email. Stikitooum.