Ted Glick, National Policy Director for the Chesapeake Climate Action Network
Future Hope Column, June 15, 2015
About 7 months ago I wrote An Open Letter to Naomi Klein,
a column raising questions about how Naomi, in her excellent book “This
Changes Everything,” took the position that what is most significant
about the deepening climate crisis is that it “could form the basis of a
powerful mass movement. . . to protect humanity from the ravages of
both a savagely unjust economic system and a destabilized climate
system. I have written this book because I came to the conclusion that
climate action could provide just such a rare catalyst.” (p. 8)
Elsewhere
she wrote, “climate change can be a People’s Shock, a blow from below.
It can disperse power into the hands of the many rather than
consolidating it in the hands of the few.” (p. 10)
I
didn’t and still don’t disagree with the need to build a mass movement
to fundamentally transform that “unjust economic system,” not at all.
I’ve been part of those and related efforts—like anti-racism and
anti-war—for decades and continue to be part of them. The concern I have
is that we, humanity, have a very real time limit when it comes to
slowing, stopping and reversing the climate crisis. There are climate
tipping points which, if passed, will make it extremely difficult, if
not impossible, to stop an escalating series of environmental, social
and economic breakdowns worldwide, no matter what kind of economic
system we have, capitalist, socialist, or something else.
I’ve
been thinking again about these questions as a result of a couple of
recent developments. One is the very hopeful and positive development of
the Bernie Sanders campaign for President, a campaign that is
effectively linking issues of economic injustice, illegitimate
ultra-rich-guy power and the climate crisis. The other was an article,
“Want to fix the climate? First, we have to change everything,”
published in early April on Grist.org.
The Grist article was about the launch of The Next System,
a project endorsed by a pretty broad cross-section of people “that
seeks to disrupt or replace our traditional institutions for creating
progressive change.” Gar Alperowitz is the leader of this effort. In the
article he is interviewed, and a couple of the things he said caught my
attention. One was where he talked about how we had to think in terms
of “three or four decades” as far as making institutional change. When
asked this question in response to that position—“Of
course, with climate change, there are many who will contest that we
don’t have decades to build the next system”—his response was: “What
happens when they push that argument is people think that it’s not
going to happen. The trends are going to continue to get worse before
they get better and there’s going to be a lot of loss. As a realist,
we’re going to see a lot of damage and destruction, and we’ve got to
build whatever we can — a combination of adaptation and
command-and-control. The conversation’s changed. It used to be, ‘It’s
gotta be done now and if not, then the world will explode.’ Now, it’s
more, ‘You know we’re not going to get it done tomorrow, so we have to do the best we can, otherwise it’s going to get worse.’”
Alperowitz’s
position is different than Klein’s. Naomi appreciates the immediacy of
the climate crisis in a way that he doesn’t. Throughout her book she
talks about us having “years,” “a few years,” not Gar’s “decades.” Yet
their positions are similar in that both see the need for fundamental
transformation of the economic system as either a prerequisite for
stabilizing the climate or something which must go hand in hand with
that process.
The
Bernie Sanders for President campaign has brought a whole new lens on
these issues. The campaign has taken off since Bernie announced a month
or so ago. Hundreds of thousands of people have contributed. Thousands
of people are coming out to some of his events in Iowa and many hundreds
to many of them in several states. He is coming up in the polls as
Hillary Clinton goes down. And this is happening because he is effectively and consistently making the connections between key issues.
The
Bernie for President campaign is a mass people’s movement for
fundamental change of the political and economic system and for strong
action to be taken now to get off fossil fuels and onto the
jobs-creating, efficiency and renewables path.
It
seems to me that the successes so far of the Sanders campaign
strengthen Naomi Klein’s position, are a concrete manifestation of her
view that the struggles for economic and climate justice must be and can
be linked. I wonder if she sees the Sanders campaign that way.
I
know that some activists who see themselves as more radical than
Bernie—and who indeed are—or who don’t believe in electoral politics may
have difficulty appreciating the importance of what is happening with
his campaign. The potential is immense for it to shake things up in the
most positive of ways, create openings for the progressive movement that
would not exist without it. I hope some of these people will re-think
their positions.
This
doesn’t mean that constructive criticism of Bernie’s campaign is
uncalled for. Just recently the United Electrical Workers Union, which
has worked closely with Sanders for years, came out with a statement
supporting him but also urging him to be more outspoken on issues of war
and peace. The issues section of his website lists only three issues:
income and wealth inequality, getting big money out of politics, and
climate change and environment. Clearly, this needs to be filled out in a
whole range of issue areas.
What about the Sanders campaign and the climate movement?
I
think it is strategic for climate activists to support or become
involved with the Sanders campaign, but I don’t believe that everyone
should drop what they’re doing to become active in it. There are lots
and lots of specific struggles and campaigns underway that need
continuing focus and work—no KXL pipeline, no Shell drilling in the
Arctic, stop fracking and FERC’s rubberstamping of fracking
infrastructure, stop mountaintop removal, no offshore drilling along the
Atlantic coast, for state support of renewables targets, for a price on
carbon, no TPP or Fast Track, etc. These campaigns must continue to be
built. After all, Bernie Sanders is certainly a long shot as far as
winning the Presidency, and even if his odds improve, which I think is
likely, the need is great for a focused climate movement that is
independent and able to bring pressure on whomever is in a position of
power.
Our
situation is critical. Most climate scientists think we still have time
to reverse this insane path toward societal and ecological devastation,
but the window is closing. It is difficult to see how we can avoid
full-on climate catastrophe if major steps are not taken this decade to
undercut the power of the fossil fuel industry so that rapid progress
can be made toward an energy efficient and renewable energy-based
economic system.
Is
this possible? I think it is, given the growth, breadth and deep roots
that the climate movement has built in the last decade or so. The
turnout of hundreds of thousands of people for the People’s Climate
March last September in NYC, with hundreds of companion actions
worldwide, is the clearest indicator of this fact. The Sanders campaign
is tapping into that movement and helping to propel it forward.
It’s a good time to be alive and active; the movements are rising.
Ted Glick has been a progressive activist and organizer since 1968. Past writing and other information can be found at http://tedglick.com, and he can be followed on Twitter at http://twitter.com/jtglick.
No comments:
Post a Comment