I've always had a problem with gathering of environmentalists that assume everyone in the room is a Democrat. All this does is alienate the non-Dems.

There is nothing inherently partisan about the desire for clean air and clean water, or about any other of our environmental goals. The conflict is between responsibility and greed, both of which tend to be distributed pretty evenly across both parties.

    Mostly it is hard to tell one party from the other these days.  FWIW, we should remember that Bill Clinton and Al Gore let the SUV slip in as business vehicle not subject to the stricter controls imposed on passenger cars.

   And the Democrats aren't really any better on global warming than the Republicans.  They both stink.

   If we need another party, make mine Green!

patrick

1. The difference between having 49 votes and 50 votes in the Senate (assuming one Independent) is huge.  If the Democrats gain a majority (even if not in 2006), they gain control of the legislative agenda by having 10 to 8 majority on committees and being able to basically stop any legislation (like Clear Skies) on a dime.  The Sierra Club and LCV are helping to ensure a Republican majority that can arguably be more damaging in the long run.

2. Chafee voted to confirm Janice Rogers Brown for the DC Court of Appeals.  This nomination was extremely important and LCV strongly opposed it:

   The D.C. Circuit is critical to environmental protection because it is this court that is empowered to hear most cases challenging environmental rulings and regulations issued by the EPA, the Department of the Interior, and other federal agencies. Justice Brown has shown in her opinions and other writings that she is likely to strike down many of the laws and regulations that protect the public health and environment because they may impinge on what she views as the overriding rights of property.

   Similarly, the Sierra Club opposed as well:

   The Senate's confirmation of Janice Rogers Brown could have serious and long-term impacts on the nation's environmental protections.  Justice Brown's avowed hostility to laws that protect our air, water, and lands and her tendency to rule based on personal philosophy make her unfit to serve on the D.C. Circuit, which handles a vast number of cases involving federal environmental safeguards.

   
   
3. Chafee voted to end the filibuster on Samuel Alito, allowing him to be confirmed.  Sierra Club opposed their first Supreme Court nomination since Bork:

   Sierra Club's opposition to Judge Alito's confirmation rests on his Constitutional philosophy as expressed in opinions that threaten both the ability of Congress to pass laws to protect the environment, and the ability of citizens to enforce those laws.

   LCV similarly opposed:

   President Bush's nomination to replace Justice Sandra Day O'Connor poses a grave threat to our environment. Judge Samuel Alito's activist judicial record speaks to his hostility to the laws that govern our clean air, clean water, and public health.

4. As discussed in the story, he voted in favor of the nomination of William Wehrum, lead author of the Clear Skies Initiative.  He also helped put into place regulations that would reduce mercury emissions 70% by 2026 instead of 90% by 2008 as the EPA had previously promised.

5. In response to concern about alienating nonpartisans and those who aren't Democrats, perhaps we should also consider how many Democrats are being alienated by this endorsement.  Pulling in more moderates is not good unless you can ensure that you don't lose even more who feel the environment will ultimately be further damaged by this choice.  They should make sure there is a net gain and not a net loss.

• What would have been the consequences if Sierra Club and LCV endorsed a Democrat in this race?  Would it really have had a huge effect?  Would anyone have noticed or cared outside of RI?
• Isn't Sheldon Whitehouse, the likely Democratic opponent, better than Chafee on the environment?  Why not endorse him?
• How much should we fear Chafee stabbing the environmental movement in the back for lack of endorsements?

    The thoughtful comments by Dana and Lawrence brought up something that has been floating around in my head the last few days (for longer than that, but it surfaced).

    One of the weaknesses of the environmental movement is it's politics.

    There are (in my mind) two problems.  One is that by insisting (for the most part, though such articles as the ones connecting poverty and the environment are a step in the right direction) that environmental issues not be connected to other issues, we fail.  We fail to make the environment something that is connected to all parts of our lives.  We don't want to talk about Iraq, because we say it's not an environmental issue.  We don't want to talk about race or women's rights or gays, they aren't environmental issues.  We stay away from issues like education and crime.

    The problem is that what we are left with is the idea that the environment is something "special", not really part of our life in many ways.  Rather than seeing that everything in life is connected to the environment, we end up removing it from those connections.

    We do so in the name of unity, of not offending anyone.  But we also end up not exciting enough people.  We end up without allies.  We end up with people not feeling the connection to the environment in EVERYTHING they do in their lives.   Environmentalists may feel it, but for people who have lives centered around other things, the connection is lost.

    The next issue has to do with parties, and why the Republicans don't listen, and the Democrats use us.  The environmental movement relies too much on lawyers and lobbyists.  It is not a mass movement.  People like to meet in committees of experts instead of on the streets talking to the world.  

    Imagine if the Sierra Club (or anyone else) had huge contingents at anti-war rallies along with tables for signing people up.  Now imagine if they mobilized their membership to protect undocumented workers, and were visibly part of those huge crowds.  

    The right is successful because their model includes meeting people face to face (not over the phone, in the mail or on the net, though all of these are useful).

    We need to look at successful organizing models and think about what realy works and what doesn't.

    As to Chafee?  We should oppose him.  Our fear of alienating a Republican who is as mediocre as he is makes us look weak.  

patrick

How could both the Sierra Club and the League of Conservation Voters be so clueless as not to understand that it is highly desirable for the GOP to lose the majority in at least one chamber of Congress?  How can they avoid looking like so many Democrats after 9/11, flailing about, trying to be centrist, ending up as "flip-floppers"?

To Dana, on old Republicans learning new tricks: From your mouth to God's ears.  Forgive me for being pessimistic, though.  Reagan, Limbaugh, Gingrich, Rove and a few others have been frightfully successful at building a tough, cheerful, energetic coalition about the only constituency that really matters -- whether or not the rank-and-file Republicans recognize it -- : big business, especially Cheney's friends, with their pro-development, pro-extraction, anti-regulation interests.  And unfortunately one of their greatest particular successes has been to affirm for most voters, not only those in their base I fear, a basic understanding of environmental issues as either trivial and unimportant, or as extremist and un-American.

To Patrick: I love your appeal for a holistic redefining of the place of environmental issues in our politics.  That will be a slow row to hoe, though.  I think when you urge more organization, and I urge more leadership, we are thinking the same sort of thought.  But I should explain what I mean, to be clear.  You are probably right that the environmental movement right now has too many chiefs and not enough Indians.  In a way that is good: they are true professionals, familiar with many sciences and much environmental law.  But you are certainly right that the movement needs a populist drive as well, which can appeal to many more people than it does at present.  And for that we need leaders, but of a different kind.  Leaders with energy, of course -- but no one would accuse our current chiefs of laziness.  They must also be leaders with charisma.  Not, though, guerrilla warriors, a model that appeals to many young activists, for example to members of Greenpeace.  (I love that organization, in fact, but it is impossible to foresee them in a position of broad leadership.)  Less Che Guevara, more Cesar Chavez.  

What would an environmentalist Martin Luther King, Jr., look like?  How would such a person get started?  I can detect your thoughts, Patrick, moving through the center of the earth: I am already on the wrong track, you are thinking, if I want to call that person an "environmentalist" leader.  And you are right.  This leader will absolutely have to be ardently engaged in all kinds of grave moral issues, including but not limited to the environment.

Chickens deserve our true friendship! So do fish! So do other sentient beings! Let us learn to be kind.

Michael Shellenberger and Ted Nordhaus, who helped create the Apollo Alliance, caused much controversy in the fall of 2004 when they released a report called The Death of Environmentalism.  That report and this provocative speech by Adam Werbach claim that current environmental strategies are doomed to fail.  The basic premise is that we need to provide inspiration and a vision for the future rather than speaking constantly about technical policy fixes.  Focusing only on issues that are traditionally delineated as "environmental" and failing to build broad alliances is also a mistake.  From Werbach's speech (sorry, it's long but instructive):

We have tried to define a vision around the values of prosperity, freedom and opportunity -- as well as ecological restoration and interdependence -- out of the belief that this vision is more welcoming of the American people, businesses and labor unions than more talk of "polluter pays," "fuel efficiency," and "carbon caps."

This kind of thinking has resonated least with the leaders of America's largest environmental organizations and most with ordinary Americans.

No wonder the public doesn't want to hear the truth about global warming: nobody's offering them a vision for the future that matches the magnitude of the problem.

In 2003, in Erie, Penn., and Akron, Ohio, the Apollo Alliance did focus groups among undecided, working-class, swing voters -- the very people who would determine the outcome of the 2004 election. I had the luck to observe the focus groups from the other side of a one-way mirror.

Instead of starting the focus groups by asking people what they thought of global warming, our pollster Ted Nordhaus simply asked them how things were going. This open-ended question led, invariably, to focus group participants describing the collapse of the local economy. They would list, in depressing detail, the shutting of Hoover Vacuum and Timken Ball-bearing factories; gone to Mexico. They explained that the jobs that had been created in their wake -- mostly service sector jobs in places like Wal-Mart -- paid half as much and offered no health care or retirement benefits. Many said they were working two jobs to make ends meet.

We then asked them what they thought of the idea of a major federal investment program to accelerate America's transition to the clean energy economy of the future: research and development, manufacturing of wind turbines and solar, energy efficiency. We didn't have to prove to them that such a program would pay for itself; they knew it would intuitively. Hadn't a similar program succeeded in the post-war period? Of course it had.

What had been a roomful of tired and semi-depressed working folks transformed itself into a roomful of excited, optimistic Americans in a period of just 20 minutes. The energy emanating from the room was palpable.

And then something extraordinary happened. Nearly every single person in the room started to sound like Sierra Club members. I could hardly believe what I was hearing. They waxed poetic about solar panels. They spoke of their children's future -- their future -- and the planet's future. They remembered episodes from the area's local history -- like when thousands of jobs were created to retrofit smokestacks after the passage of the 1990 Clean Air Act Amendment -- things that James Watt and Rush Limbaugh want them to forget. But more than that, Apollo tells a narrative about American greatness, our history of shared investment and prosperity, of our ingenuity, and how we build a better future.

For more information, see this Grist article which contains many good links to discussions (including 103 comments to date at Gristmill).

   So, I will let that pass and stick on the organizational points for this post at least (grin).

   We do need an Dr. King, a Cesar Chavez (vegetarian, I might add!) or a Mother Jones (or an Emma Goldman, it does not have to be someone male, or white).

   When we look at the failures of the Democratic Party, the 2000 election is a great example.  I was in California and Florida following the election, everywhere I went, there were Republicans in the street, screaming and threatening, but there, in the street.  Not a Democrat in sight.  I had very short hair at the time and was able to go up and talk to some of them (got confused for a member of the press, neither confirmed nor denied it.)  They were oganized by talk radio and local Republicans.

   If Bill Clinton had lost the popular vote, but had won the election in the supreme court (and given the chief justice's daughter a plum job immediately after taking office!), the Republicans would have marched on Washington.  Impeachment proceedings would have begun.

   Seen Fahrenheit 9/11??  The best scence is the members of the Congressional Black Caucus trying to find a Democratic Senator who will listen to and support their complaints about the election.  There was no one.  Not a damn one of them.  They are useless.

   However, compared to Frist and Co., they are merely corrupt and venal, as opposed to driven by an insane ideology.  We can work on the corrupt and venal.  The ideologues of the far right are another matter.

   That is why Chafee must go and should not be endorsed.  

   And we should also oppose the worst of the Democrats as well.

    Back to street leadership.  Undocumented workers took to the streets in huge numbers (I have no idea if May 1st will be successful or not).  These folks, who have no votes and no legal rights, shook Washington to its core.  Bless them.

    The only way environmentalists can counter corporate money is not with polls showing that the environment is number 11 on a list of 20, but with numbers of people marching and demanding.  And to do that it takes leadership, and a committment to the kind of outreach that changes the political landscape.

    Anyone old enough to remember "Clean for Gene" and the impact that made?

    We do need leaders, holistic leaders (it has been a long time since we had real leadership in our politics), but where will they come from?

    They will develop out of struggle.  Look to the Environmental Justice movement.  Look to grassroots groups (Goldman winners).  If we begin to work to build public communities, we will help them develop.  Out of the mass based struggles to change America, they could develop.

    But right now, we have no such large scale struggles.  We accept crumbs from the Democrats and less from the Republicans.  Chafee is so dangerous because he sets a new lowered bar that says to all politicians, you only have to do a little and we will support you.  They love it.

    We must begin to move out of our organizations and into the public (many people are already there, I don't mean to suggest you are not!) and build mass movements that will march and sit down if needed.  Some folks are doing it, but the mainstream environmental organizations need to get on board the train.

patrick (who doesn't mind having his mind read!_

"However, compared to Frist and Co., they are merely corrupt and venal, as opposed to driven by an insane ideology.  We can work on the corrupt and venal.  The ideologues of the far right are another matter."

Right, Patrick, that is so true.  NOBODY is pure.  We have to work with all sorts of people, with whom we mostly get along, taking to heart the wisdom of that great faux-Italian-American, the late Rosanne Rosannadanna: "There's always something, Jane."

(Tony Soprano's shrink, who might be the real deal, is way over my budget.)

My favorite example, currently, is Canada: a very liberal, rational, justice-loving society, seriously trying to do right by everybody; plus, the Scotch bar in the Chateau Frontenac is one of the happiest low-voiced public spaces in the world.  Why, I got married in Montreal, last July, to a person of my acquaintance, of whom I was rather fond at the time, in a ceremony which could not take place in 49 of our 50 states.  So "good on" the Canadians, as they say.

On the other hand, the Canadians promote their extraction industries in a big way; they are a little bit good to their First Peoples, a lot not (excellent example of the pot calling the kettle black); they are deaf to the appeals of critics of the Atlantic provinces' seal slaughter; they are deaf as well to any proposals made in the true long-term economic interests of the demoralized and impoverished Atlantic fisherfolk; they are doing little thus far to preserve the Boreal Forest (yes, for what it is worth, we are boycotting Kleenex); they are doing little thus far to do anything about their fast-melting Arctic, save get ready to exploit the resources of the ocean floor, like everybody else whose sole heartfelt emotion is greed.

And yet, they have a winning way about them, don't they.  Stephen Harper aside.

(Whatever happened to that real cute guy who did the America-bashing Molson's ad a few years ago?  Sure would like to see more of him.)

So the moral is (at last I am bringing this around to something relevant), yes the Democrats are pretty unreliable and feckless, so far as politicians go; but they're OUR unreliable and feckless politicians.

"We can work on the corrupt and venal."

Some day, Patrick, you will have to tell me the no doubt utterly fascinating story of how you got through 1968.  I was too young to be "part of the solution" back then, and much regret it.

(The Grist chemists have perhaps heard the re-do of that hoary, ethically challenging battlecry: "If you are not part of the solution, you are part of the precipitate.")

Anyway, the point is, yes, Patrick, crazy-eyed ideologues are probably beyond help, but we can work with the impure, the confused, the lazy.  To paraphrase Donald Rumsfeld (Mein Gott, was sage ich!), we can only make war with the army of activists that we have.

It will be interesting to see if La Marcha on Monday will have an environmentalist presence.

Remember, on Monday, No compramos nada de origen gringo.  Hopefully the boycott of Starbucks will not be too awfully painful to our Seattlite friends, just a bit of a sting.

Chickens deserve our true friendship! So do fish! So do other sentient beings! Let us learn to be kind.

  But frankly, in America, 30 billion a year is chicken feed, even if you can get it funded.

  Now 300 billion the first year (grin).

  However, as a jobs program that will help conserve energy, it is a good idea.  I am in favor of creating good jobs.  I wonder, though, how many new jobs it will really create?

  And I see some problems.

  It's main components do not really address the issues of urban sprawl.  

  It does not explain (at least in so far as I can see on the site) how businesses will get money to retrofit factories.

  While it talks about mass transit, the funding is totally inadequate (the whole sum proposed is not sufficient for mass transit needs).

   Nor does it address how the auto industry (which is mightily resistant to change!) will be persuaded to change, and how the change will take place.

   It looks like a nice idea, but mainly as a modest jobs creation plan for the construction industry.  

   Patrick

By watering down environmental goals in order to pass industrial lobbyist muster, the proposal does nothing.  

In fact it is worse than nothing, it is wholesale cooption of the environmental movement.  These dead environmentalist fans are garnering publicity for themselves and dollars with no real performance on eco progress.

Beware professional lobbyists and organizers, most have no personal convictions on these issues.  It's all about remaining members of the corporate entitlement class.

It's a whole other world of corporate jets, 500 dollar lunches, and huge bribes.

http://amazngdrx.blogharbor.com/blog John Schneider, Northern Wisconsin

1. Can you explain in more detail why their plan is "industrial lobbyist muster" rather than a good clean energy plan that happens to create jobs?

2. Given the lack of success of many environmental initiatives lately, why is their strategy worse and which strategies do you favor?  Do we keep pushing forward in the same way as in the past few years?

3. Since almost all environmental organizations have "professional lobbyists and organizers," are you opposed to them?  In particular, which organizations do you favor and which do you oppose and how should these organizations operate if not with experienced lobbyists and organizers?

4. Can you cite specific examples to back up all of your statements above?

More power to them. But I'll hop on the bandwagon when some of their lofty promises are translated into action.

grist.org

       1).  A lot of their plan seems to consist of things that are already in the pipeline (ie, planned or desired), which means that they seem mainly to be looking for someone else to pay for what they want to do.  Thus, "industrial lobbyist muster".  Most of what they propose could be done by local government bodies or industries.  But why spend your own money when you can spend tax payer money (not that I am opposed to the latter.)  So, it looks a lot like a typical pork barrel program.  And in the sense that it employees some folks, it's not all bad.

       But a lot of their proposals (fixing up older buildings) create short term work (not permanent jobs) and often these kinds of projects put money into the pockets of existing construction workers, creating very few real "new" jobs.  This is not a bad thing, but it is being oversold.

    2) The AmazingDrX has it right, in that this becomes the distraction that many of us worry about.  Instead of the real changes needed to ward off global warming, we get this, sold as something that can solve our problems.  (Although it is being pushed as "energy independence" as much as renewable resources, it is heavy on conservation (good) and weak on industrial power generation and automobiles (big problem).  

       A lot of us are here discussing such issues because we are looking for some new ideas.  We tend to be critical because we recognize that there are lots of folks who want to sell us the "mother of all environmental victories", but warn us not to open the package until we get home.

     3)  It is not that the idea of professional lobbyists is bad (completely), it is that the profession has become almost synonymous with corruption.  Washington DC is very corrupt.  So many of us are wary of the same.

       Speaking for myself, I feel that one of the environmentalist movement's weaknesses is relying on "insider" practices, including lobbying, as opposed to going out and mobilizing and educating the masses of people face to face (no, the internet can't replace this (grin)).

    4)  Not sure what you want here.  Examples of distraction? (number 2)  How about oil company comercials showing how much they care about preserving nature?  Examples of why their proposals fall short?  (number 1) Read them more carefully.  Look at what things cost.  For number 3, read the newspapers about Washington for a bit.

    I would not agree that this is a bad thing (wast of time), but it certainly does not address the problem of global warming in a serious manner.  Throwing in "energy independence" as hype to address the fear factor of the American public does not impress me at all.

    And David is correct, lots of talk, lots of big names (I note that one of them, Phil Angelides, is running in a contested primary for governor of CA), and not much that has happened so far, except for maybe those 500 dollar lunches...

Patrick

I'm still confused.  

http://amazngdrx.blogharbor.com/blog John Schneider, Northern Wisconsin

An equally distressing tale, alas, can be told in Canada where, about a month ago, the Canadian franchise of the Sierra Club held a splendid banquet in honour of former Prime Minister Brian Mulroney. Declared the "greenest" leader in Canadian history for creating a few national parks, speaking earnestly to Bush 41 about acid rain and opportunistically encouraging ecological noises at the failed Rio Summit, the Sierra Club of Canada played sycophant to Ronald Reagan's prize toady.

There must be something toxic in the water drunk by the high officials of the Sierra Club. Its sincere and dedicated ordinary members and supporters should beware.