> I don't get this at all. In the U.S. political context, even cap and trade is seen as almost Bolshevik by many people
One problem with US climate politics, I've noticed, is that the backward state of US consciousness and class struggle is sometimes wheeled out to toss cold water on everyone else. (Or maybe that's just comrade Doug's style ... )
> How will "grassroots direct actions" begin to challenge business as usual?
Hey Doug, please don't use that tone with anyone who had the privilege of working on anti-apartheid campaigning or AIDS medicines access or struggles against water privatisation or anti-toxics fights.
> How can local regulation deal with a national and international problem? Where will the money for public investment come from if not the same Congress that rejects c&t? We're in deep shit here, man.
>
Ok, since the optimal political configuration given the present balance of power in Washington is congressional climate gridlock (just as in Copenhagen 2009, Cancun 2010 and Johannesburg 2011) then to dig out of the deep shit, what have you got against what I take (maybe presumptuously) to be the CJ movement's formula:
* at global scale, make genuine demands - unwinnable now - for 1) huge emissions cuts, 2) climate debt payments and 3) no carbon markets - and then help seattle a bad deal, but don't fret too much about the global climate governance constipation (and hey, why not celebrate Copenhagen's failure to generate legitimacy for the elites);
* at national scale, make genuine demands - unwinnable now - for ditto (plus state investments in transformed energy and infrastructure) and don't fret too much about the difference between a Massachusetts democrat or republican given that in the whole scheme of things neither would address climate properly;
* at national scale, start forcing the EPA to do its job, through lawsuits (Sierra's been impressive) and protests (like the WV warriors);
* at state and municipal scales, start working hard on public utility commissions and planning boards to block climate-destructive practicies and projects;
* at local scales, find sites of major emissions or power consumption and raise consciousness and the cost of business-as-usual through direct actions and monkey-wrenching.
Gar Lipow wrote:
> We are in deep shit, but Patrick is right that *effective*
> cap-and-trade would be more difficult to pass than an *effective*
> command & control policy.
Yeah, the 'realists' - or 'green market punks' (www.counterpunch.org/bond12172009.html) - are far more idealistic about their schemes than radical pragmatists who reject the market.
> ... Choosing an ineffective and only weakly popular (or
> maybe unpopular) policy that a portion of the elite support and trying
> to build a grassroots movement around a fix that will cost that elite
> supports seems like a worse choice than trying to build a grassroots
> movement around a policy that is simple to understand, already
> popular, and would actually be more effective that even a "fixed"
> cap-and-trade system.
>
Well said!