YearlyKos: Step It Up 2

The next round of McKibben's campaign

Posted by David Roberts at 8:28 PM on 04 Aug 2007

Read more about: Bill McKibben | grassroots activism | politics | energy | climate

I forgot some of the coolest (and breaking) news!

At my panel earlier today, Bill McKibben "pre-announced" something exciting: On Nov. 3, a year before the presidential election, he will be organizing Step It Up 2: Revenge of the Nerds. OK, I made up the title, but not the news.

At the first Step It Up, McKibben's Army asked that people gather in places likely to be affected by climate change.

For Step It Up 2, people will be gathering in places that commemorate great moments of American leadership: think Mount Rushmore, MLK Jr. High School, Washington Monument, etc. The goal is to push politicians to be leaders, not politicians.

This round of marches is going to have a bit more political meat on its bones. It's going to ask politicians to sign a pledge with the following four planks:

80 percent cuts by 2050.
10 percent cuts in three years (hit the ground running).
No new coal.
Aggressive green jobs campaign. Train people to deploy the renewables we already have.

Naturally, the no-new-coal plank is the most significant, and probably the biggest hurdle.

Anyway, look for more news on this soon. But you heard it here first!

For story: YearlyKos: Step It Up 2
12 Comments | Post a Comment

No new coal is hardest?

Sure, no new coal might be really, really hard to ensure, but we can't get 80% cuts without it.

Andrew Eisenberg
The gateway project is wrong---http://www.livableregion.ca

by Werdna at 8:14 AM on 05 Aug 2007

Full Live Blog at Daily Kos

David's drawing from, I think, my blog of his panel at http://www.dailykos.com/story/2007/8/4/113623/2447. You can read what he and the other panelists talked about in more detail there.

Step It Up 2: Electric Bugaloo is definitely the real title :)

Hill Heat

by The Cunctator at 9:17 PM on 05 Aug 2007

Complacency

is plainly the greatest threat.

Nayak wrote (of America) on the panel blog :

"80% of our energy use is from fossil fuels. In two generations we have to flip that equation."

This is simply untrue.

According to the UK's conference of leading scientists at Exeter,

we now need zero emissions globally by 2050
to have even a good chance of avoiding GW of more than 2dC.

Given the US liability, it will have to cut its GHG outputs
to a sustainable per capita level long before 2050
if we are going to achieve developing nations' real (vital) co-operation.

The danger now is that the US legislates for the wildly insufficient goal (both in volume and date)
and the corporations then invest accordingly,
thus locking the issue on a globally catastrophic course.

McKibben's 80% by 2050 is not only wholly insufficient -
it obscures the core issue that Americans need to be campaigning on -
namely the equitable allocation of national GHG emission rights under a declining global GHG budget.

This is where the main effort of the fossil interests' prevaricators is focussed,
and where they have deflected any serious global agreement for the last 17 years.

So when are progressive Americans going to address these issue ?

Regards,

Bill

by Billhook at 3:41 AM on 06 Aug 2007
[ Parent ]

Green Jobs

Aggressive green jobs campaign. Train people to deploy the renewables we already have. <<< is what i like to reduce Global Warming :)

My Signature is NO Signature

by daffa at 3:46 AM on 06 Aug 2007

RE: Green Jobs

David, I presume you've seen this lively discussion on the merits (or not) of the government trying to "fix" the market for green jobs?

Please explain the market failure that such labor-supply-side initiatives seek to address.

These are only my personal opinions.

by Ron Steenblik at 4:28 AM on 06 Aug 2007
[ Parent ]

Just saw it

It's among the 10,000 things I'm trying to read as I catch up from being gone. Very interesting discussion. I tend to agree with you and Sean, I think, but lemme catch up a bit before I say anything off the cuff.

grist.org

by David Roberts at 9:18 AM on 06 Aug 2007

Ron, thanks for the link

The posting and comments were quite interesting. I appreciate seeing a fairly robust academic debate where 1) artificial disciplinary boundaries can be traversed without too many apologies, and 2) nonacademics aren't sneered at for not grounding their views in some hallowed theory first developed by a Dead White Man.

As my sarcasm suggests, I think that theory is a double-edged sword. It can help us better understand the world in which we live, but it can also function as an elitist fetish that leads us astray. The best way to keep the academics honest is for the nonacademics to feel assertive about asking questions when they don't understand something and -- most importantly -- calling bullshit when they sense it. You may very well be right but just don't know all of the right jargon and citations.

by Steven T at 9:24 AM on 06 Aug 2007

DR --

If you want another post to further explore these green economics issues, maybe one of us can get it going. I certainly enjoy it.

by Jon Rynn at 9:42 AM on 06 Aug 2007
[ Parent ]

Reality check

Yeesh, I just slogged (ok, skimmed) through those lively theoretical economic discourses about why the Green Jobs Act of 2007 appears stupid to theorists.

Down here in the real world (hey, I took a lot of theory in college, anyway), I'd like to make some basic points:

$120 million dollars a year nationally is not a mind-blowing amount of money. If it can help fund a bunch of community college classes in renewable technology, then small startup installers can hire workers either (a) without having to train them from scratch, or (b) they can send new hires to a local class that will only exist BECAUSE THE BILL PROVIDED FUNDS FOR IT.

In turn, this will help those small installers stay in business, and will make it easier for new ones to start up, thus bringing down the cost of putting solar panels on your roof or what-have-you.

Enjoy your theoretical discussions. Here in the real world, more money for locally-relevant community college classes will always be welcome.

by GreenMom at 11:08 AM on 06 Aug 2007

I'm a big fan of community colleges

And got an Associate's degree from one. I think they're a great institution. And $120 million is a small subsidy by today's standards. But, personally, I'd rather see that money going into general skills-development training, or training in the management of small businesses, not earmarked for particular "merit industries".

These are only my personal opinions.

by Ron Steenblik at 12:29 PM on 06 Aug 2007
[ Parent ]

YearlyKos

I attended your panel at YearlyKos and thought you guys did a great job. I couldn't even tell you were hungover!

by tucker at 1:14 PM on 06 Aug 2007

community colleges and green job training

News on this from Western Mass:

"Thanks to a three-year $372,000 grant for Sustainable Practices in Construction (SPC), Greenfield Community College will be able to train local builders, business employees and tradespeople in these new technologies."

The college applied for the grant from something called the Workforce Competitiveness Trust Fund after it began a series of courses on solar and energy conservation and efficiency.

http://www.recorder.com/story.cfm?id_no=4310437

Erik

The Orion Grassroots Network: supporting grassroots groups working for conservation, justice, & more

by Erik Hoffner at 1:33 PM on 06 Aug 2007

ADVERTISING POLICY

You are not logged in. Thus, you cannot post a comment. If you have an account, log in. If you don't have an account, well, by all means go make one! Meet you back here in five.