philaroneanu blog

Telling our story.

cross-posted from itsgettinghotinhere.org

Obama graced the House chamber yesterday with a speech reminiscent of his candidacy rather than his presidency. That’s a good thing, because his so-called base needed a reminder that he’s in Washington not just to wade knee-deep into the political swamp of DC, but to affect change from inside out. He wasted no time before really digging into Congress:

To Democrats, I would remind you that we still have the largest majority in decades, and the people expect us to solve some problems, not run for the hills. And if the Republican leadership is going to insist that sixty votes in the Senate are required to do any business at all in this town, then the responsibility to govern is now yours as well.

I sincerely hope congress takes at least this piece to to heart, because for clean energy advocates, the rest of the speech was a mixed bag. He bulked up his language on nuclear, coal and offshore drilling, a questionable political move in support of questionable technologies, while at the same time rightly highlighting clean energy legislation as a jobs-creator.

As the cap and trade bill, mired in a bi-partisan swiss-cheese factory, limps towards the finish line (or not), I look at our friends and colleagues in the labor, immigration, LGBTQ and other movements and I notice their coalitions growing impatient. The campaign promises Obama made to those groups, and the subsequent moving parts (chief among them health care, financial markets reform, don’t ask don’t tell…etc.) are all stalled.

Many pundits blame this on Obama and his lack of leadership - which to some extent is true, especially on climate change - but I think we ought to look within our own movements to discover what happened during 2009.

Remember back to those heady days a year ago when Obama was inaugurated? Millions of Americans, despite a failing economy and a decade of do-nothing politics held hope in their hearts, thanks in part to candidate Obama’s inspiring campaign. Right at that moment, as a progressive constituency, we made our first tactical error: we let the Obama administration shape our own narrative.

While there will always be civil society groups who align themselves with the positions of politicians, the progressive wings of our movements drank the kool-aid, and our political power has suffered ever since. How could we expect concerned Americans to swallow emails from top progressive groups calling on them to “Pass a climate bill” with huge giveaways to polluters or “Support health care reform” without a serious public option? It’s about time we stop taking our talking points from White House press releases and start telling our own story.

It turns out that having a progressive President is only part of the equation — In 2010 we need to rethink our strategy, and tell our own progressive story that activates concerned citizens and voters around the country, far away from the transactional politics of Washington. The youth climate movement, more than any other group, has the ability to define what a clean energy future means to us.

Our friends and colleagues working on health reform, immigrant and human rights, GLBTQ issues and finance reform have a responsibility to do the same. A perennial discussion among climate activists is that we need to “reach out” to other progressive constituencies. I hate the word “outreach,” but I do like making friends, so I suggest we all get busy making friends with organizers and campaigners who are ready to shape a new kind of progressive vision, not tied to the White House and Congress as much as Americans’ desire for a better world for themselves and their children.

Copenhagen: Triumph or Failure?

It’s been over a week since the Copenhagen climate talks ended. Most bloggers and pundits have taken a couple days off from 24-7 prognostication, so it feels safe for me to venture into the fold and submit my humble take on what happened at COP15, and what it means for the global climate movement. First, I’d like to look back at the last couple years of the climate movement leading up to the Copenhagen talks.

The movement comes of age

Let’s step into our time machine for a moment and take a trip back to Bali, Indonesia, where COP13 was held in December 2007. Still logjammed by the Bush administration’s oil-slicked representatives, delegates from other countries agreed to the Bali Roadmap, basically an agreement to keep moving towards an agreement, with vague topical goalposts along the way: technology transfer, forests, financing, adaptation and, of course, the elusive carbon cuts.

Even with the US delegation blocking progress at every level, there was a sense of momentum, and with US elections coming up, a flickering light shown at the end of the tunnel. In 2007, the climate movement also came of age.

All over the world, climate activists — in particular young people — realized that nobody would save the world from catastrophic climate change for them. They would have to do it themselves. In Australia, India, the US, all over Africa, in Mexico, China, Europe and the Middle East, activists began forming coalitions of social justice, environmental, faith and other progressive groups to take on the fossil fuel interests and intransigant elected officials.

While many of these groups existed before 2007, a combination of innovative public campaigning, shocking scientific reports and natural disasters vaulted climate change into the center of the political arena. In a sense, that year was when the global climate movement came of age - two major organizing pushes in the US (Step It Up 2007 and Powershift 07) inspired a rash of similar events around the world over the next two years. As the Bali negotiations came to a close, the movement learned about a new number that would set a goalpost for years to come: 350 — the safe level of carbon in the atmosphere in parts per million.

While the results of the Bali negotiations proved to be nothing more than a band-aid on the international climate negotiation process, the two weeks spent there helped activists forge relationships and ideas that would serve us well throughout the next two years.

Making our voices heard

Now cut back to 2009. The movement, having weathered yet another year of climate inaction on the part of most major countries, but bouyed by the election of Barack Obama in the US, undertook the largest, most widespread collective campaign effort ever initiated in social movement history. Globally, thousands of climate activist groups began to build constituencies, impact national elections significantly, target specific elected officials, take down fossil fuel interests, and come up with new and innovative ways of getting the word out.

There are too many efforts for me to list here, but suffice it to say that in every corner of the planet, from the smallest rural village to the largest metropolis, concerned citizens were successful in pushing for local change and linking it to a global movement, building political power from the ground up everywhere on the planet. The 350.org campaign aggregated some of the most amazing work worldwide, raising those voices — many from the world’s most vulnerable countries — to make sure that world leaders would notice.

And notice they did. China and India, long considered to be inexorably tied to high-carbon growth, came forward with not insignificant proposals to reduce carbon emissions while still ensuring their citizens comfortable lives. The US House passed the first ever climate bill in that country (albeit a very weak one.) In Africa and small islands all over the world, activists helped educate and support Environment Ministers and delegates on the need for bold action on climate change.

For the first time, we had a truly global movement, and we influenced public policy all over the planet. In just a few years, we had managed to build a movement that had a voice at the international table.

Copenhagen - triumph or failure?

After two years of light-speed movement building all over the world, towards the end of 2009 all eyes were on Copenhagen.

US legislators hurried to pass a(ny) climate legislation, using the now irrelevant excuse “we have to get something before Copenhagen” to weaken a cap and trade bill. It didn’t even come close to being passed in 2009, overshadowed by the circus-like debate over healthcare in that country. China, India, Europe, Maldives, South Korea, Mexico, South Africa and a whole host of other countries submitted their own climate laws.

On the eve of Copenhagen, with more than 140 heads of state scheduled to arrive, it became clear that the world’s largest carbon emitters were not ready to commit to significant reductions. Perhaps some of us were blinded by the flashy ads everywhere telling us to refer to the city as Hopenhagen rather than Copenhagen — but it became abundantly clear in the few weeks before COP15 that no significant deal would be made.

It should have been no surprise that at the end of a marathon negotiation session on the last night of the summit, the world would be presented with a half-baked, vague “accord” that a handful of countries wouldn’t sign. There have been various attempts at finger-pointing for the failure to make significant progress: Obama is a favorite target, China has been accused of political plotting, and even Denmark didn’t escape the witch-hunt.

It’s abundantly clear that none of the world’s leaders, save those from the smallest and most vulnerable countries, were able to muster the leadership needed to move the world into a prosperous new decade. That alone is a stark failure of leadership, but it is not a reflection so much of the climate movement as it is the result of the influence of entrenched fossil fuel interests.

Politics is often a binary; even if significant people power comes up against entrenched power, it might amount to 0 if the entrenched interests win.

We should recognize and understand that COP15 was a complete failure in terms of saving the world from climate catastrophe. It makes no sense to call the Accord a step forward, when the only thing it does is to ensure that the broken UNFCCC process continues. Physics and Chemistry don’t care that the UNFCCC process will continue into 2010 and beyond. In the morbid math of climate change, every month our leaders spend debating, instead of reducing emissions, is a failure because it means millions more people will die of climate-related phenomena.

Despite the 0 that our leaders handed over, Copenhagen was a triumph for our movement. It provided a focal moment, a frame through which we could explain to each other and to the global public the clear moral argument for taking action on climate change. Most polling data shows that we were incredibly successful in doing so, but a better measure of how large and powerful the movement has become is how much we shaped the narrative of the negotiations.

From the opening days of COP15, when African delegates spoke vociferously about the need for hundreds of billions of dollars in clean energy funding for developing countries and bold targets that put us on the path to 350 parts per million CO2, right up until the last moments of tense debate, our power was at the negotiating table, propped up by our champions.

While small island state leaders and African delegates may have been forced to sign the Accord, in the end, it was our hard work that enabled President Nasheed of the Maldives to approach President Obama and demand stronger targets, or Lumumba Di-Aping of the Sudan to call out his colleagues in the G77 who would sign onto a weak deal if the price was right. It was with our language and with the support of the global climate movement that a handful of delegates from vulnerable countries refused to sign the Copenhagen Accord.

It is our movement that fought off greenwash in the media worldwide, and mobilized citizens to redouble their efforts, even after a long year of sustained public pressure. Even though we ended up with a 0 from our leaders, our movement significantly altered the narrative in Copenhagen.

What comes next?

“The arc of history is long, but it bends towards justice.”

- Martin Luther King Jr.

Too often we look at the climate movement as a singular event in history. True, there has never before been such a pressing global emergency that implicates everybody on the planet. However, the rich history of social movements teaches us that a war is not won in a day (or even a couple weeks), and a movement takes time to build.

The paradox of the climate movement, of course, is that we have no time to waste. Below are a few ideas I’ve been mulling over the past couple weeks - call them general recommendations for moving forward:

* Build robust international networks

2009 saw some of the most incredible international coalitions form — the World Council of Churches, Rising Tide direct action groups and everything in-between joined together to fight for bold and fair action on climate change. For the first time, climate action groups built coordinated and strategic bottom-up pressure on world leaders everywhere. 2010 should be the year when the movement refocuses on national fights, while continuing to coordinate strategically.

In particular, we should focus pressure on the “C5,” the five coal-dependent economies: USA, EU, Australia, South Africa, China. A simple political analysis shows that by building strategic constituencies all over the world, we can change some positions and bolster others.

Lest we forget, movement-building does not just happen on its own. At the same time as applying strategic pressure, we should encourage open-source, innovative campaigns, in particular those that empower civil society from developing countries to continue affecting change at home.

* Highlight the solutions

Everywhere in the world, entrepreneurs are making incredible strides towards cheap clean energy and efficiency. India, China, Brazil and other countries are at the forefront. Our movement must highlight and support these efforts, and work towards ramping up a massive subsidy shift from fossil fuels to clean technology. Numerous thought-leaders have already begun to refer to the “Race China” paradigm, where the US and other countries would invest in WWII-style programs to jump-start investment and ramp up implementation.

2010 should be the year the international movement joins with entrepreneurs to show that clean energy and efficiency technologies exist and are economically feasible, but will require a shift in government subsidies and massive investment worldwide.

* Take down opponents of climate action

If the US Senate is any indication, even our so-called “champions” are far from what the science says is necessary. While we should support our champions at the national and international levels, we should stop coddling fence-sitters, and focus on getting vulnerable climate deniers out of office. In countries like Australia, the UK and Germany, activists have succeeded in making climate a voting issue. We must laser-focus on the proponents of climate inaction, and work collaboratively to hit them where it hurts — the ballot box. We should use our new media savvy to help shape public opinion during election campaigns.

* Make coal the enemy of prosperity

Coal is the dirtiest fuel on the planet, and everybody in the world should know that simple fact. In the US, the Sierra Club, along with numerous state and local groups, have erased more than 90 new coal-fired power plants from the list of 170 proposed facilities. In the UK, Australia and India, activists have successfully shut down coal supply lines and power plants through direct action and grassroots protest.

In 2010, we must make it clear to the world that coal stands in the way of prosperity. “After all,” said President Nasheed of the Maldives in Copenhagen, “It is not carbon we want, but development. It is not coal we want, but electricity.” Already, discussions about internationally coordinated anti-coal work have begun. The international climate movement would do well to set it sights on the handful of coal barons and their politician pawns who have taken the world hostage.

* Ensure the sustainability of the movement

If the months leading up to COP15 taught us anything, it is that we will be in this fight for the long haul — because it is the fight for our lives and the human race. We will not solve climate change this decade. Indeed, in many places, we are already suffering its effects. In the weeks leading up to the Copenhagen climate talks, many activist groups released statements referring to COP15 as “the last bite of the apple,” or “the end game.” While heightening drama around the climate talks is a useful PR tool, in the case of COP15, it was dishonest and misleading.

2010 must be a year of deepening commitment, honest reassessment and continued collaborative action. This is no time to be distracted by internal politics, organizational ego or incrementalism. We must find out what works, leave behind what doesn’t, and provide resources and support to each other to get the job done.

Finally, 2010 must be the year when mutual trust and love ensure that moral voices from across the climate movement — from the most vulnerable countries to faith leaders, from youth activists to senior citizens — resound worldwide. Only by forming truly loving relationships with each other, across boundaries of race, sex, class, language and religion will we build a movement strong enough to usher in a new era of clean energy prosperity.

Most Vulnerable Countries Call for 350ppm and more

Leadership is contagious. President Nasheed of the Maldives delivered a powerful speech yesterday at the opening of the Climate Vulnerable Forum, which included leaders from Bangladesh, Barbados, Bhutan, Ghana, Kenya, Kiribati, Maldives, Nepal, Rwanda, Tanzania and Vietnam and other countries. The focus of his speech was to bring attention to the dire consequences of coming out of the Copenhagen Climate Talks this December with a weak or non-binding agreement. His words speak for themselves:

Members of the G8 rich countries have pledged to halt temperature rises to two degrees Celsius. Yet they have refused to commit to the carbon targets, which would deliver even this modest goal. At two degrees we would lose the coral reefs. At two degrees we would melt Greenland. At two degrees my country would not survive. As a president I cannot accept this. As a person I cannot accept this. I refuse to believe that it is too late, and that we cannot do any about it. Copenhagen is our date with destiny. Let us go there with a better plan.

Nasheed called on all nations to push for carbon neutrality in order to ensure the survival of his country and all the most vulnerable people around the world:

After all, it is not carbon we want, but development. It is not coal we want, but electricity. It is not oil we want, but transport. Low-carbon technologies now exist, to deliver all the goods and services we need. Let us make the goal of using them.

Finally, he made the distinction between what might be considered a good deal in Copenhagen, and one that would ensure the end of his people:

At the moment every country arrives at the negotiations seeking to keep their own emissions as high as possible. They never make commitments, unless someone else does first. This is the logic of the madhouse, a recipe for collective suicide. We don’t want a global suicide pact. And we will not sign a global suicide pact, in Copenhagen or anywhere. So today, I invite some of the most vulnerable nations in the world, to join a global survival pact instead.

Today, President Nasheed and leaders from vulnerable countries around the world signed a declaration calling on developing countries to up the ante and develop using clean energy and sustainable technology, and for rich nations to commit to fast and deep carbon reduction paired with significant assistance to poor nations.

Let’s join with heads of state from the most vulnerable countries in calling on our leaders to go to Copenhagen and sign a fair, ambitious, and binding deal that gets us back to 350ppm. Anything less would be a suicide pact. Leadership is contagious, and we can be the virus.