March 5, 2009

23 Comments

What Is The Next Generation of Environmentalism?

by Tzeporah Berman

I’m planning a series of posts on the state of play of “environmentalism” in Canada and to work through the thorny questions over what environmental “leadership” (icky term I know) means at this pivotal moment on Earth. I welcome your feedback and hope you will help me work out the answers to that most fundamental question: what should we be doing right now?

I have just returned from the biggest global warming protest in North America to date where I was privileged to join NASA’s James Hansen and a cast of thousands in shutting down the Capitol Coal Plant in D.C.. The fact that Bobby Kennedy joined us has me thinking a lot about the infamous Cape Wind controversy in the U.S. — when Greenpeace took to the zodiacs to protest the Kennedy family’s opposition to the offshore Cape Wind farm, it seems to me that environmentalism in North America turned a symbolic corner.

The scientists’ warnings about global warming had become abundantly clear. There was a difficult internal struggle because of the Kennedy family’s long service to environmental issues but in the end we decided it would no longer be acceptable to claim to heed the warnings while rejecting the solutions recommended by those same experts. It was a moment where we had to take stock and we decided our priorities had changed.

Today, the warnings are more urgent and dire. Global warming is accelerating much faster than predicted. The oceans are acidifying, ice is melting, forests are dying, and we are at the tipping point of releasing massive storehouses of polar carbon. We are already well beyond the “safe” threshold of heat trapping gases and accelerating rapidly in the wrong direction.

Our job is to be constantly evaluating the threats and designing our response accordingly. So, how do Canadians transition to the global warming era?

Let me say from the outset that I too came late to the recognition that times have changed and a true crisis is upon us. Global warming is enormous, its agents invisible, its schedule unaligned with daily human timeframes. In a sense, we are all still sleepwalking through denial, unable to grapple with the enormity of the problem and the massive scale of changes needed.

And so I am sympathetic to the difficulties in building a new generation of environmentalism.  But the laws of physics have no such sympathy. Either we make the change or we are on the sidelines while half the world’s species and countless of our fellow humans are sentenced to oblivion (many of you will remember that this is an echo of UN Secretary General Ban Ki Moon’s words in his opening speech in Bali).

To be fair, there are a great many environmentalists who have been fighting hard on climate for many years. More make the transition every day. And the youth movements certainly “get it.” As so often in the past, youth are forcing their elders to catch up with the times. But I think it is fair to say that, in Canada, the jury is still out on whether the bulk of traditional environmentalists will join the new generation.

What will the next generation look like? Well, I think one of our primary roles is to hold the climate imperative as the context for public dialogue. A common feature of jurisdictions that are having success is that civil society demanded it be done.

But we should be learning from the Van Jones/Obama playbook: we can do a much better job of leading with “green economy and green jobs” instead of talking to normal people about “climate policy.”

Green economy and climate policy are two sides of the same coin. We should be selling the sizzle. People should know that combating global warming quickly enough will bring very significant economic gains. Obama has done this masterfully: never losing sight of the “planet in peril” while simultaneously jazzing Americans about jobs in clean American energy, clean-tech manufacturing, smart grids, etc.

Having set the context, we need to focus governments on stopping the bad (emissions of heat-trapping gases) and starting the good (efficiency and clean energy production). If phase one was getting attention, that phase is largely over – most jurisdictions have some kind of plan purporting to reduce carbon emissions, increase efficiency and ramp up green energy.

In phase two, we need to move these tepid plans to a scale commensurate with the crisis. And so we must grapple with the backlash that comes even against the early steps in climate policy (oops, I mean the Green Economy). We knew we faced a long uphill struggle for stronger laws and we knew we would be fighting the deny-and-delay tobacco tactics of the climate deniers. But Cape Wind showed that we will also have to navigate backlash from friends and citizens’ groups – sometimes proxies in the fossil fuel industry’s tobacco strategy, sometimes simply well-meaning folks that have not yet come to terms with global warming. This backlash has arrived in Canada in a big way: public meetings are overflowing with vitriol as people protest wind farms and conservation pricing in Ontario, carbon taxes and green energy in BC, just to give 2 examples.

To be sure not every policy or clean energy project should get a green light. One way of avoiding backlash is ensuring we force government to address cumulative impacts, to ensure that projects are not sited in areas protected for biodiversity or allowed to trample the rights of First Nations.

It is critical that rich countries like Canada move through this phase very quickly if there is to be any hope for a global deal incorporating the giants of the developing world. Those countries quite rightly point out that global warming is a function of accumulated concentrations in the atmosphere – for which we industrialized nations are responsible and for which they should not be penalized.

The science says our task is to reduce global warming emissions to zero. Eliminate them quickly and entirely. To do so we will need to push back against those forces which obstruct or delay the green economy whether those forces be foot-dragging politicians, Exxon muddying the science or “environmentalists” opposing wind farms. To be successful at pointing the way forward, we will need to vigorously support companies and governments doing the right thing even in halting and partial steps.

Our hour has arrived and we need to make a difficult transition from being primarily critics to being leaders. This means we need to be as vocal about what we’re for as what we’re against. Let there be no doubt that this phase will be extremely messy and difficult: there are no easy answers, no silver bullets, everything we build or refuse has impacts and consequences. But the stories of success from around the world are inspiring. We are all story tellers and our stories should be about small places like Samso, and big countries leading the way on green energy, electric cars, clean-tech manufacturing. People need to hear how elegantly simple and profitable many of the solutions are.

The retail politics of climate are turning out to be more difficult than anticipated and it is our job to clear the way. Quite understandably, people do not appreciate paying more for energy, they do not like their views altered or natural areas opened to clean energy production. It is our job to communicate the imperative — the crisis is upon us and we have to err on the side of carbon (reductions that is); the stories of success; and the connections — Want the green economy? Well, electricity rates, carbon taxes, feed-in-tariffs are the mechanisms that drove efficiency and green technology in the success stories.

At the same time, the role for hard-edged protest is greater than ever. Transitioning from critic to leader doesn’t mean going soft – quite the opposite. As Cape Wind showed, we may have to protest the opponents of clean energy and green jobs. We certainly must protest coal plants and any expansion of the fossil fuel juggernaut. As we focus on articulating what we are “for,” there should be no doubt that we are for closing all coal plants as surely as we are for the clean economy to replace them.

I am happy to report that the Cape Wind project is moving ahead and in many important ways cleared a trail through the establishment for Barack Obama’s green jobs surge and battle against global warming. In fact, at the D.C. protest this week, Bobby Kennedy linked arms with his former adversaries, we all marched on the coal plant and the majority leader in Congress agreed to stop it from burning coal. But the Cape Wind fight was bitter. A very public civil war among environmentalists, the Daily Show skewering those opposing renewable energy (it’s a must watch) , television ads spoofing the opponents of green power, sign-on letters to the Kennedys, whole books have been written about the class and climate war that erupted.

The arguments against Cape Wind are becoming all too familiar to Canadian ears: we don’t really need the energy, it will raise electricity prices, it will privatize the commons, there are environmental impacts, it is all a conspiracy for crony capitalists to make money…. In that battle as in ours, it was not acceptable to deny global warming outright. That was done through more coded insinuations in which viewscapes or fishing spots (and other things that are almost certainly doomed by climate change) were deemed of higher importance.

The Europeans are well into this battle, as are the Americans. One of the consequences of Canada being such a climate laggard is that the backlash is brewing later here than elsewhere. But right now, there is a great window of opportunity with Obama picking the best scientists in the world for his team and Ottawa promising to keep up. Will the Canadian environmental movement prove able to capitalize on the Obama moment?

Next post: The Backlash Against Green Energy in British Columbia

Email This Post Permalink Share This

23 Responses so far...

1. Barry Saxifrage says:

   March 28, 2009 at 11:06 pm

   Fighting climate change demands far more of us personally than fighting other environmental issues. With climate change, we are the bad guys we need to fight against. So it doesn’t surprise me that many environmentalists from big-carbon societies like ours, struggle with it.

   The typical environmental campaign strategy has been to get a large number of people who have no real personal, financial or social stake in a “harmful behaviour” to protest the actions of the few that do. It is  “we are good with clean hands” vs. ”they are the bad few trashing our commons for personal benefit”. It relies on the retoric of “oppression” and “disenfranchisment”. It is a great strategy that has worked wonders for lots of critical battles so far.

   But with climate change we are the ones trashing the commons for our personal benefit. And that “we” includes most Canadian environmentalists too. As Pogo said, “We have met the enemy and they are us.” And this poses some very difficult problems for environmentalists.

   First is the psychological dissonance of being wrong side of the oppressor fence. I personally found this transition from white knight to black hat on the biggest environmental issue of our time to be painful. To really accept the climate science and what it said we needed to do required accepting that many decisions in my life were harmful. It requires viewing ourselves as “oppressors” more than “oppressed” on climate chaos. It wasn’t until I started taking responsibility for dramatically reducing my own carbon footprint and working to reduce my community’s that I felt I could accept the reality of climate science was saying we all need to do. To be effective we all have to come to grips with the reality that we have no platform of virtue on this issue.

   Second is that traditional environmental strategy does not work with climate change. There isn’t any multitude of folks in North America with “clean climate hands”. And almost all of us have a real personal, financial and/or social stake in our massive fossil fuel use. There are no “few bad greedies” that we can target separate from ourselves. So when environmentalists reach into the tool bag they have a hard time finding a campaign strategy that asks very little of the many and yet actually has any meaningful impact on climate emissions.

   We environmentalists have created a playbook and a mentality that doesn’t work well with climate change. And most backlash campaigns that I’ve seen that attack efforts to “stop the bad and start the good” are based on this mentality of virtue and disenfranchisement and playbook of low personal sacrifice by the masses.

   So I don’t see it exactly as a “difficult transition from being primarily critics to being leaders”. I think environmentalists have been excellent leaders in the past. To me it is more a difficult transition from being primarily the oppressed to being the oppressors. It is a difficult transition from fighting others who are destroying things to reigning in our own destructive choices. We need a new framing that includes a mirror. That way when we point the finger at the bad guys causing the problem it includes ourselves and our life choices.
2. M. T Wilson says:

   March 22, 2009 at 10:51 am

   We need not only pressure our goverment but also our local monopolies of energy for a Renewable Movement and to create green jobs. I am on board and believe we can follow Obama’s lead and use other countries as models such as Norway, to show us the path ahead.

   I live on the east coast and like Cape Cod we have another natural source for energy that could be tapped. The Fundy Bay is home to some of the highest tides in the world, at 3.5 meters. I live in a small coastal town right now and experience this massive exchange in the bay and am in awe at the shear magnitude of untapped energy. Wind Farms are generally accepted but i can’t help but think of imagery from Leo Dicaprio’s film “the 11th Hour” and imagine tidal energies tapped as a simple and renewable energy. 

   Like the offshore wind farms the tides can be tapped, alongside the waves, to provide simple renewable energies. In face of the economic recession its time to pave a new road and build a sustainable way of living. Every year new concepts, ideas and technologies emerge. It’s time we stand up and spread the word. It’s time to support projects like the offshore Cape Wind Farms. We can all come out of this recession as Environmental Leaders.

   PS. Sign up for lights out on March 28th for Earth Hour. Call it in to your local radio station or write to your newspaper. Tell your friends and family.

   Support your Local organic farms/CSA programs

   M. T Wilson
3. Chris Hatch says:

   March 12, 2009 at 8:58 am

   A.B. Hansen — There is nowhere except BC that is having any serious debate about state monopolies owning and running all renewable generation. I’m afraid you are simply mistaken about Norway. They have an aggressive feed-in-tarrif system for renewables including hydro. See for example:
   http://www.nordicenergyperspectives.org/tennbakk080514.pdf
   Furthermore, Norway is a great example of using hydro regionally ie Denmark feeds Norway wind power when they have excess allowing Norway to hold back hydro and then sell it to Denmark when wind is low. Really an excellent model for BC/Canada in many ways but not the fashion you present.
   In BC there is a great opportunity to keep the utility as a public corporation, running existing mega hydro and building any new large dams and to act as the manager of a distributed system of independent renewables operators feeding in. But to advocate banning renewable energy companies from the grid is to be alone in the world.
   A serious campaign to move the intellectual goal posts around steady state economics is a very important initiative. This is certainly an issue that needs to be debated seriously. I absolutely agree that we need the discussion of whether it is possible to decouple growth and impacts and if not, what we’re going to do about achieving steady-state economics.
4. A.B. Hansen says:

   March 12, 2009 at 8:01 am

   If we don’t keep hydro in the hands of the public as they have done in progressive countries such as Norway, it will end up being taken over by the likes of GE to drain us dry. To betteer address your other spurious points, I will quote Bill Rees.
   Why ‘Run-of-River’ Is no Solution Written by William E. Rees, PhD, FRSC Sunday, 21 December 2008 10:56 Fact: Most public policy directed toward so-called sustainability, including alternative energy, is directly or indirectly oriented toward maintaining the status quo by other means — i.e., it emphasizes growth through efficiency or is geared toward increasing supply rather than reducing demand. This (along with kow-towing to the private sector) is what “run-of-river” hydro is all about.Problem: Governments (and even most “environmental” organizations) have yet to confront a contrary two-fold reality that demands a very different approach:Scientists, particularly climate-change scientists, have grossly underestimated the scale and rapidity of climate change. Arctic warming/melting is 80-100 years ahead of the IPCC’s business-as-usual scenario. The most recent peer-reviewed research suggests that the world will be hard-pressed to avoid stabilizing GHGs at less than 650 ppm CO2e which implies a 50% probability of a catastrophic 4C° of warming.Eco-footprint analysis shows that the world is in over-shoot, using 25-40% more of nature’s goods and services each year than the planet can sustainably produce. We are depleting essential natural capital.Solution: There is nothing for it but to GIVE UP GROWTH. The era of material exuberance in the First World is over. Public policy that does not reflect this reality merely accelerates ecosystemic — and ultimately societal — collapse.In this light, the mad scramble by governments everywhere to re-establish “normal” growth after the recent implosion of the world’s greed-driven financial markets is tragicomedy on a global scale. Sustainability requires that we should, instead, be planning a stable way down for everyone while we still have the capacity to do so. Governments should be negotiating a global treaty on “contraction and convergence” by which the First World would shrink its per eco-footprints to converge, at a sustainable level, with justifiably growing per capita EFs in the Third World. We should aim to de-carbonize the global economy completely by 2025. All this implies an 80% reduction in per capita consumption and waste production by North Americans.The good news is that the implicit serious conservation effort would generate more energy from existing sources than can be derived by supply-side approaches. Ecologically hazardous, so called “run-of-river” hydro is an unnecessary growthist strategy.By the way, “zero growth” may be blasphemy today, but within a decade or so it will have become holy doctrine. -30- The inventor of the “eco-footprint” concept, Dr. William Rees is one the world’s foremost ecological and sustainability experts. He heads the UBC School of Community and Regional Planning. http://www.scarp.ubc.ca/faculty%20profiles/rees.htm
5. Chris Hatch says:

   March 10, 2009 at 3:26 pm

   A.B. Hansen — You bring up an important issue, the arguments around allowing renewable energy companies onto the grid are a hot issue in BC. Its worth wondering though why BC is the only place in the world this debate is happening. The main reason no one else thinks monopoly state ownership can solve our climate problems is that, even in BC, over 2/3 of the energy used is from fossil fuels. All of these emissions need to be eliminated asap through conservation and fuel switching (primarily to new clean electricity generation). There is simply no way that the government is going to debt finance such a massive undertaking (in the middle of a recession no less) in addition to all the other energy-related investments needed in public transit, electric car infrastructure, smart grid etc. The mission is so big that other jurisdictions are trying as hard as possible to put everyone to work — the free market and the public sector: individuals, homeowners, public corporations and private corporations — everyone can and should be an independent power producer. Ontario just got in the game with feed-in-tarrifs as recommended by the climate science and policy experts. Obama is charging down the path too, trying to catch up with Germany and others that have been harnessing the free market for years. There is an excellent article on the German model in the last Walrus by Chris Turner. And the CBC’s Fifth Estate did a recent expose on why renewable companies are leaving Canada for greener pastures — well worth watching: http://www.cbc.ca/fifth/2008-2009/the_gospel_of_green/

   And I have to add that the drive to keep electricity and other energy cheap (aka subsidized) is a serious problem for the planet. There’s a strong connection between BC having the cheapest electricity in the world and being the most wasteful with it. The “keep electricity cheap” campaigns may be as popular as free beer by they are also negating any chance at conservation.
6. A.B. Hansen says:

   March 10, 2009 at 2:57 pm

   Hello Tzeporah and concerned friends, you are dismissing the importance of privatization in these discussions. Retaining BC Hydro as a Crown corporation will be much better for the production of sustainable energy and for reasonable energy prices in BC, plus we will have plenty for export to energy starved California. The biggest thing missing from an environmental point of view is getting a proper small hydro review process put in place.
   I believe that one solution to stopping the theft of the public commons, our vital rivers, is to contact the BC Auditor General as I have done. As you can see, his office responds to reasonable requests. If enough people ask him to look into privatizing of BC Hydro he will do so. His office is independent of government and is very influential. Below is his response, and my request –

   Sent on behalf of the Auditor General:

   Dear A.B.,

   Thank-you for your note regarding the governance and management of British Columbia’s hydro and power resources.

   I have passed your observations on to my staff as they consider our future work plan.

   Thank-you for contacting me.

   John Doyle
   Auditor General
   http://www.bcauditor.com/

   My Message Sent: Friday, December 12, 2008 1:47:35 PM
   To: BC Auditor General Website Comments
   Subject: Comments for the BC OAG
   Auto forwarded by a Rule Message sent via webform on Friday, December 12, 2008 at 1:47:35 PM
   Form description: Comments for the BC OAG

   Message Body:

   Dear Sir,
   The taxpayers of BC would appreciate your looking into the relationship between Private Industrial Power Producers, the BC Government and BC Hydro. How is privatizing BC Hydro gradually and losing the advantage of North America’s only NAFTA power sharing exemption, helping British Columbia economically? UBC and SFU profs are saying that we will in short order be paying three times as much for electricity because BC Hydro is no longer allowed to develop new power.
   Other than Site C, upgrading some old dams, and some Columbia River Treaty power coming back to BC, we must buy new private power only.
   BC Hydro must buy private power at great subsidy from private industry, then distribute it to BC industry and residents. Prices are already climbing many times the inflation rate, and we are still NAFTA exempt.
   We will soon lose a great economic advantage on the spot market. Our reservoirs are like batteries and can be called on to cook dinner in California for instance, at a huge profit. BC Hydro buys dirty power overnight, then resells it to top bidders on a 24 hour cycle, at about a 500% profit. That is a tidy profit, 500% every 24 hours. (It has been as much as $500 million recently.) In order to do that reservoirs are recharged while we use both coal and nuclear energy from Washington and Alberta. This is ecologically unsound in several ways, however it earns a lot of money. As new private power comes on line, reservoirs will be needed for BC’s wind, and “run of river” power which are not considered firm energy sources. RoR will fluctuate vastly in future, as many are on receding glaciers with low-capacity reservoirs and dams and large seasonal variability in flow. Most will see less and less water in future. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Retreat_of_glaciers_since_1850
   We lost Accenture, which appears to be way over budget, with the cost over runs for taxpayers to pay. According to Accenture employers union reps, is about to be repatriated as it was much too costly to send offshore.
   Powerex and BC Transmission may be privatized to facilitate export of massive amounts of power from Plutonic, and Naikun to California etc.
   http://www.pr-inside.com/plutonic-power-ge-submit-bids-for-r936541.htm
   Naikun:
   http://www.nationtalk.ca/modules/news/article.php?storyid=2677

   Looking forward to your response,

   Sincerely,
   A.B. Hansen
7. Tzeporah says:

   March 10, 2009 at 9:06 am

   Hey Tom that is great news. It gives me hope. You are right a lot of what we can do right now is at the municipal level. I have been thinking about about ways that we can use this or the PowerUP site to share stories of successful initiatives like yours to inspire others to get organized. Will work on it. Tzeporah
8. Tzeporah says:

   March 10, 2009 at 9:04 am

   Dear David (J Parker) – Its true we need to mirror the change. I think the acts you listed are important. I really struggle with the flying for work piece. I do more and more of my work by video conferencing (I am finding gotomeetings.com really useful and skype) and I try and lump meetings together in regions but I am still aware I have a big footprint. Bottom line is especially when meeting with decision makers or potential funders nothing replaces face to face. I have started making a distinction between work and pleasure miles. No more flying vacations for our family. Sadly. Bottom line is its a struggle. Also wanted to mention that I think missing in your list is direct engagement with decision makers and support for nonprofit initatiatives to coordinate our voices. I think our society now has a ridiculously overdeveloped consumption muscle and an underdeveloped civic engagement muscle! We need to see writing a letter to our MP or MLA or donating money or volunteering for a group we like as part of our necessary daily actions or we are never going to creative an effective force for change. Tzeporah
9. Tom Masters says:

   March 9, 2009 at 1:03 pm

   Here in the Cowichan Valley on Vancouver Island, yesterday, Mar 8, a workshop organized by three people was attended by about 225 local folks to hear speakers and look at solar hot water heating systems. 77 families signed up for a bulk buying scheme to reduce costs. Mayors of two local municipalities were there and I think they were impressed by the interest shown. If action is needed, this is one small way to make a start and maybe get local governments thinking it’s time to act too.
10. David J Parker says:

    March 9, 2009 at 11:22 am

    Absolutely correct that we are into phase two of the eco-movement. If we wish to be leaders we must do as Gandhi said and “be the change you want to see in the world”. That means environmentalists have to make some hard choices: do we continue to fly everywhere justified by the, ‘must be at the meetings’ idea? George Monbiot doesn’t fly anymore; how many of us have gone vegetarian or vegan? We must sell these things for their merit as life saving changes; have we all put in CFLs, low flow shower heads, sold or scrapped our gas guzzler, planted our own garden? It ain’t going to be easy, but those who do these things will survive the economic revolution that’s happening with the least pain.
11. Michael says:

    March 7, 2009 at 11:22 am

    Projects in BC are already evaluated against a sustainability framework.  The consultation that goes on is intense and deep.  The money doled out for remediation is tremendous and community building.
    Thats the problem when some environmental leaders don’t want to engage in any serious debate about constraints on environmental remediation and sustainability and only want to talk about constraints on growth.  Whats the point in dialogue then?  BC Hydro is a model company that engages in exactly the type of analysis and consultation that is being talked about.  It should be promoted and supported by environmentalists as a model for sustainable policy making.
12. Sue M says:

    March 6, 2009 at 6:12 pm

    I agree that we need to do something about global climate change, however we need to recognize that climate change is only a symptom of the bigger problem -how we use resources. I fear that in a rush to address climate change, we will adopt solutions that will only result in new problems and we will start to experience the next big problem (water shortage for example). For this reason, I think that it makes sense to evaluate proposed solutions against a sustainability framework (such as the Natural Step) to avoid short term solutions such as burning beetle kill wood or garbage, nuclear power or mass, uncoordinated wind and hydro power projects. I am all for micro hydro and wind in BC but only if I know that it is 1) coordinated to minimize environmental impact and that some key areas will be left untouched and 2) that it will actually replace other more polluting sources instead of just contributing to growth. And always, there should be community engagement and public input.

    Until those conditions are met, I feel that present projects may be evaluated in the future as a waste of resources that could have been put to better use.
13. Michael M says:

    March 6, 2009 at 12:51 pm

    The Death of Environmentalism
    Environmentalism has died in the public consciousness.  CNN and Larry King don’t give a care anymore about the impending environmental catastrophe.  Barrack Obama’s attention is quickly drifting to more immediate and visible crises.
     
    There is blood on the streets and one of the victims is the green movement.

    How the envrionmental movement will be resuscitated is anyone’s guess.   Mainstream media are now inundated with news wire stories on the recession and the impact this crisis will have on people for years to come.  In the hierarchy of fears, environmentalism is fast losing out to the global cash crunch and the political response thereto.   The current state of the environmental movement, while deep-rooted amongst a few, has therefore been shown to be a victim to the vicissitudes of the many – a poor cousin who came calling when the first world was last flush with cash.  Post dot-com environmentalism is oh so 2007.

    The reality is that funding for the Sierra Club and EcoJustice is drying up.  Monies that fund university environmental research chairs are drying up.  Monies that fund the thousands of environmantal NFPs are drying up.

    What this means is that going forward environmentalism has to become more about sustainability from a holistic perspective.  The next wave has to be about integration and not dualism – ie working within or from outside the system.  Agendas must be aligned.  The next wave of environmental thinkiers and doers have to reimagine the future where the message and the content of environmentalism is seemlessly woven into the current discourse of civil society.  This is the next challenge for environmentalists. 

    The King is dead, long live the King.
14. Jean says:

    March 5, 2009 at 7:45 pm

    “we are all still sleepwalking through denial” – It is a relief to hear someone say so in public. Sometimes I feel like I’m alone and going crazy. There is so much criticism of climate change deniers and I agree they are putting us all in grave danger. But then I always wonder, what am I doing surfing the web on my computer? If I know how bleak the future is, why aren’t I going “back to the land”? I know we’ll do better in Canada than other countries. But do I really think the food system is going to hang together, the big cities can keep functioning? And if not, why aren’t I/we all doing something more than reusable shopping bags and squiggly light bulbs?

    I hope this isn’t a “rant” Tzeporah. I know I’m not offering any solutions. I’m just happy to find someone else brave enough to say all this out loud.
15. Tom Masters says:

    March 5, 2009 at 6:33 pm

    One component missing to date is to recruit the arts community. This is an ethical issue as well as a scientific one and if the example of the ban the bomb, civil rights, women’s rights, Vietnam movements is anything to go by, then we must harness the power of song, film, television, the graphic arts and, yes, the churches too. This is the most important issue facing the human race today. We must not fail.
16. randy Randy says:

    March 5, 2009 at 4:22 pm

    Just wish commenters like Biull would actually lay out their plan of action. I know things are really really bad but just saying its really really bad and no suggestions doesn’t get us anywhere.
    Ken Ward has a provocative post “why we are going quietly nuts” at grist looking at environmentalists not getting it together. At least he has some ideas for what to do. All we can do is get some momentum going and hope to scale it up right?
    http://gristmill.grist.org/story/2009/3/3/125538/4306

    Maybe we need a cage match: Lovelock v. Hansen (doom v. a plan)
17. Biull Henderson says:

    March 5, 2009 at 3:50 pm

    
    Sorry Tzeporah but you are still in denial,

    you definitely got the climate change danger right:

    Today, the warnings are more urgent and dire. Global warming is accelerating much faster than predicted. The oceans are acidifying, ice is melting, forests are dying, and we are at the tipping point of releasing massive storehouses of polar carbon. We are already well beyond the ?safe? threshold of heat trapping gases and accelerating rapidly in the wrong direction.

    But then you wrongfoot yourself and your audience with the delusion that green energy in a green economy is the climate change solution. Green economy and climate policy are two sides of the same coin keeps us
    believing that if we just make smart choices and begin a transition to green energy within the present political business as usual we can mitigate tipping point climate change danger and that is just not true. We would all like it to be and that’s a part of denial.

    It’s a very convenient message for you and PowerUP to sell but again you are seriously mis-educating the public. Did you see this Paul Crutzen quote:

    “I would like to be optimistic that we’ll survive, but I’ve got no good reason to be,” says Crutzen. “In order to be safe, we would have to reduce our carbon emissions by 70 per cent by 2015. We are currently putting in 3 per cent more each year.”

    70% by 2015!!

    In messaging about windmills and IPPs as some sort of solution you are advocating staying within BAU, within this economy continuing on increasing emissions even while new green energy is developed. Those who have made it through denial and recognize the tipping point danger and have learned about policy development and change in our present politics aren’t advocating for windmills or run of river – it’s far too late for the very minor emission reduction possible down that path.

    I think you know this: from our average annual individual GHG emissions of 4 – 5 tM to 0.2 – 0.6tM as fast as possible – this is what we have to do and we’re not going to do that in BAU so why are you still messaging such if you recognize the danger?

    Because you as a modern day environmentalist of the professional variety are trapped by very strong constraints into only messaging within continuing BAU?

    Check out Ian Dunlop (a very prescient and informing leader):
    Global Warming is an Emergency
    http://www.crikey.com.au/Politics/20090225-Global-warming-is-a-global-emergency-.html

    The fatal flaw in the current global warming debate is that most of the key players are singing off the wrong songsheet. Current policy proposals are based on scientific information which at least five years out-of-date.

    
    You know Tzeporah the present climate policies you advocate, sorry green jobs and economy, is at least five years out of date. Climate change is an emergency and you’re still trying to win converts to making ’smart choices’ and green jobs, or maybe at your level, green stimulus money into green power projects that are of course a good thing but not nearly, nearly enough:

    7% of the worlds population, 750 million rich put up more than half the GHGs and they don’t want to change (denial), just fly around and go shopping or to a Canucks game or whatever. And most of them don’t know what they are doing – what unimaginable disaster they are contributing to. And your messaging helps keep them flying around. As your co-enviro Jim points out: over the tipping point comes the point of no return.
18. randy Randy says:

    March 5, 2009 at 2:04 pm

    Seems like a long way of saying the obvious — “let’s get on with it!” — build emissions-free energy and shut down the fossil. and just ignore the complaints from people that don’t keep up with the news.

    If you’re following climate science you know there’s no time to waste. Its like Gore and Suzuki say — the people standing in the way should be brought up on trial for crimes against humanity.
19. Danielle says:

    March 5, 2009 at 11:58 am

    I do believe that the Canadian environmental movement will prove able to capitalize on the Obama moment but it is going to take a lot of work and our government needs to step in and “lay down the law”!  I agree that our younger generation understands what needs to be done but they are not actually following up on it.  So I think that the first step, and an easy step, of environmentalism comes with educating the youngsters in their schools and reinforcing to them their responsibility in preventing global warming.  Just as we tuck our chair under our desks and wipe the white boards clean at the end of our schools days, we have to ensure that the paper is in the recycling bins and that all recyclables are being recycled.  Reinforcing these basic responsibilities in a young student will make them aware of even the small carbon imprints we make as an individual.  After spending a year in Sweden, a leading country in clean energy initiatives, I have become a recycling fanatic.  They have strict laws regarding basic garbage disposal.  If the lid to my yogurt container somehow ended up in my household garbage I was liable for a hefty fine, and although the chances of me being caught were pretty slim the idea of breaking the law was hanging above my head.  The entire community in which I was living had 7 different recycling containers lined up in their carports and they followed their system religiously, and they enjoyed it because they knew they were doing it to better the environment.  I felt as though they had a moral responsibility to reduce their individual carbon imprint and I do not think our country has that just yet, and I believe that educating kids from a young age and targeting the younger generation is an easy first step to instill that responsibility.
20. Jennie says:

    March 5, 2009 at 11:45 am

    The next generation of environmentalism will focus on third world and developing nations. In these countries it is better to develop a green infrastructure and encourage a green lifestyle so they don’t repeat the same or similar damaging effects to the environment. In these communities they are building and developing or at least working towards it. Because of this development or development goal it is the perfect time to create green power sources, green homes and green habits. It will allow for better adoption of change, and possibly minimize the back lash.

    Another barrier the next generation environmentalism will have to address is the lack of vision. This article is calling Canadians into action, but it is also calling us to compete with the Obama moment. It seems like environmentalism is more about the fight then the solution. Once they define clearly what they want to accomplish, it will make it easier for Mr. and Mrs. Doe on the street to connect with and work towards the cause. This article is an example of the confusion and lack of a clear message. In reading this article I started of identifying and agreeing with what was said, however by the time I made it half way through I was lost in a sea of environmental topics. It is important to know the information; however breaking it down into separate topics will only increase the impact.

    In Canada and the US people are accustom to a particular way of living, this makes the change seem difficult. Efforts are being made to reduce our carbon foot print and recycling programs are in place, however cost seems to be a large barrier. The “transition from critic to leader” is another barrier to change. It is easier for people to point a finger at a problem and tell people what to do, then actually do it themselves. There are more people living a do as I say not as I do environmentalism. This is why a focus on third worlds and developing nations will result in better green adoptions. This can also be used to motivate other people to action, because no one wants to be left behind.
21. Nicole - Yes Scarborough Wind says:

    March 5, 2009 at 10:01 am

    I’m with you on the big picture but My only quibble is I’m not sure this backlash is really something new. I was in Clayoquot for the start of blockades and you’ll remember Western Canada Wilderness sending out press releases and criticizing us publicly. Still lived in BC when you launched Great Bear and I remember enviro groups publicly trashing the campaign. Now I’m in Ontario and groups are fighting wind farms. People don’t adjust easily. there are always going to be people fighting the last war. Just gotta keep pushing the edge.
22. Eric Doherty says:

    March 5, 2009 at 9:42 am

    Tzeporah,

    You wrote:

    “At the same time, the role for hard-edged protest is greater than ever. Transitioning from critic to leader doesn’t mean going soft – quite the opposite. . . .  We certainly must protest coal plants and any expansion of the fossil fuel juggernaut. ”

    So are you and your organization going to show some support for the direct action against freeway expansion now in progress in Surrey? It started on the same day as you were demonstrating in Washington, but is still ongoing 24/7.

    Freeways are a big part of  ‘the fossil fuel juggernaut’, most tar sands oil goes to transportation. In BC transportation is our largest single souce of emissions, like coal fired electricity is in some other places.

    For details see http://www.gatewaysucks.org

    Please drop by, even if you can only make it for half an hour.
23. Jodie Tonita says:

    March 5, 2009 at 7:58 am

    Hi Tzeph,

    I think one of the big successes of the US movements particularly Green for All and 1Sky is that they are not organizing the usual suspects. They are in fact NOT the usual suspects. That is really different than transforming existing environmentalists. It’s actually a completely different constituency.

    It’s the constituency that will hopefully step into the jobs that are created from the stimulus. It’s representing deep collaborations between unions, community organizers, and those working for *economic* justice as much as those working for *climate* justice. And it’s in the sweet spot between those two that a new movement has been born. The theme of *justice* is what is at the heart of the organizing and doing the right thing for the climate is a natural extension of that.

    I beleive we are past the days when environmentalists will save the day. And in fact, they are often the worst messengers given they often do not often represent the communities in play. It is the every day folks and especially those that are most impacted that need to be supported and mobilized to take local action in their communities to create smarter and more equitable structures to serve their communities sustainably over time.

    IMHO, we are talking about supporting an entirely new group of communities whose concerns are often much different than those of environmentalists. And we are talking about doing the hard work to transform what sustainability means to ensure justice is at the core.

• Join UP
• Donate
• About
• Privacy Policy
• Disclaimer