Last night during his State of the Union address President Obama urged Congress to adopt an “all of the above” approach to climate change. Wind energy, solar power and other “bipartisan market based solutions” were offered up as the way forward alongside a pledge to rapidly increase domestic oil and gas production. Shortly before acknowledging the seriousness of the climate crisis with a fairly in depth recitation of recent trends in natural disasters, President Obama declared, “We produce more oil at home than we have in fifteen years…we produce more natural gas than ever before.”
Like much of the speech, the portion focusing on the climate crisis and the solutions to the crisis contained the sort of Washington D.C. political establishment pragmatism dictated by deep rifts within the Houses of Congress. Within the national political establishment there are, tragically, heated disputes over the extent to which climate change is influenced by human activity, and outright climate change deniers occupying the extreme right wing of the spectrum are, as we know, not without significant political capital and influence.
So, when we hear President Obama speaking about the climate crisis while touting increases in domestic oil and gas production it must be assumed that he and his administration are engaging in a kind of realpolitik. It is true that within the context of the kabuki theater which passes for political leadership climate change deniers and those who are beholden to the oil and gas industry certainly do have the ability to derail the entire process and block much needed reforms. These pseudo-realities manufactured by the ruthlessly ambitious who dwell within the halls of power notwithstanding, as usual, the concerns of people, animals and ecosystems are eclipsed, disregarded and ignored. There’s a reason why individuals impacted by the meteoric rise in popularity of hydraulic gas fracturing were excluded from the traditional “let’s tug at their heart strings” denouement of the State of the Union address: focusing on the plight of people suffering collateral damage from those “market based solutions” would definitely undermine the President’s assertion that the State of the Union is strong.
The “all of the above plan” and “market solutions” offered by the President which include cutting red tape to speed up oil and gas drilling permits are not only a nod to bipartisanship, they indicate a steadfast commitment to the fundamentally capitalist principles this country was built on. These capitalist principles are the bedrock foundation of the middle class which President Obama referred to as “the true engine of America’s economic growth.” Ironically, the climate crisis we are now facing coincided with the rise of the middle class after the Industrial Revolution.
This morbid commitment to preserving and continuing the consumer driven and resource extraction dependent middle class way of life needs to be questioned and challenged; however, due to the massive persecution campaigns unleashed by the U.S. government against Communists, Anarchists and Socialists during the 19th and 20th centuries, we are lacking effective alternatives to the capitalist world view. Despite this, we must come to realize that if we want a living planet capable of supporting a relatively high quality of life we must seek out and resurrect those alternatives. We must do it quickly before it is too late, before countries like India and China with populations exceeding one billion fully commit themselves to achieving a carbon copy of destructive, Western middle class lifestyles.
When we examine what it would actually mean to speed up the burning of oil and gas, we see that given our current predicament the consequences of this kind of policywould be catastrophic. Feedback loops fueled by the continued burning of oil and gas are in fact already contributing to runaway climate change. The permafrost underneath the Arctic is melting, releasing CO2 laden methane into the atmosphere in ever increasing quantities. The Arctic ice covering the ancient permafrost is not just melting, it is withering due to the catastrophic increase in heat trapping gasses released during the past 250 years since the rise of the age of industry. Scientists, and even organizations like BP and the World Bank are predicting that, if we continue burning fossil fuels at current and predicted accelerated rates, we will experience an at least 4 degree C increase in global temperatures by 2030. With mass extinctions, food shortages, droughts and super storms already materializing after “just” 0.8 degrees C of warming, we can expect that by 2030 the situation will be quite nightmarish if the status quo is allowed to persevere. Traditional, land based communities, and those with limited access to resources are at the moment bearing the brunt of the crisis and will continue to do so until even the most privileged feel the effects. Mitigating the effects of climate change and preventing further damage is one of the most important human rights issues of our time.
In 2030 those who are now babies and toddlers will be old enough to ask some tough questions. What will their response be when we tell them that we did not properly address the climate crisis because of the demands of capitalist markets? Can you imagine the looks of disgust on their faces when we explain that small minded, backwards, science deniers were allowed to hinder progress toward a more sustainable way of life? As they begin to comprehend their reality and realize that it is a tragic and chaotic one that could have and should have been avoided, how will they cope knowing that an “all of the above” solution which included accelerating the burning of fossil fuels was the best we could hope for?
At this moment we have a multiplicity of environmental organizations at the forefront of the fight against climate change; these mainstream organizations are all operating from basically the same premise of wanting to protect and preserve the environment while at the same time preserving middle class consumer lifestyles. Because of the homogenized political scene where capitalism reigns supreme, those of us who are not capitalists, not middle class and not interested in consumer based solutions have been silenced and sidelined for far too long. Letter writing campaigns, petitions, marches, rallies and appeals to the political system are not bad in and of themselves, but the fact that the spectrum of acceptable action has become so narrow and impotent is a testament to the fact that people who care about the environment need our own “all of the above” approach.
If we accept the reality of the current situation and if we truly care about preserving life on this planet we will come to terms with the fact that we need the Black Bloc just as much as we need the Quakers; we need the letter writers and petitioners just as much as those who are willing and able to chain themselves to pipeline construction equipment; those who are in favor of armed struggle are just as necessary as those who consider themselves to be pacifists. We need the grassroots with its ability to rapidly adapt to changing conditions, and we need the mainstream with its access to much needed resources and political capital. We are entering a phase where some of us, those with less privilege than others, will be literally fighting for our lives. The disenfranchised and dispossessed in the industrial north, in the belly of the beast, will have to fight for and with those in the global south because we are the ones who have the most to lose if business as usual continues. Those with privilege will have to decide where they stand, and figure out how to use their privilege as an effective weapon in the revolution which must happen to save life on this planet from the ravages of unfettered, industrial capitalism and its associated maladies. Together, with everyone doing what they can and what they must without judging or hindering the work of others, we might be able to build the sort of world we can be proud to live in.
Centrists and radicals will not always agree on what course of action to take, but we should be able to arrive at a place where we all respect each others work enough to not call the cops on someone for destroying corporate property; we should also be able to refrain from publicly eviscerating someone for not holding to our same exact principles.
Differing world views, political affiliations and upbringings will make it impossible for everyone who cares about the environment to unite under the same banner; but who is really expecting that? Different tools do different things, but as long as we are all working towards building a more free, sustainable and just society, we should be able to put aside our differences for the greater good. The truth, like it or not, is that if we do not work together we will perish together. 2030 is not that far off and the 4 degree C warming mentioned earlier, while catastrophic, is actually one of the best case scenarios.
“Differing world views, political affiliations and upbringings will make it impossible for everyone who cares about the environment to unite under the same banner; but who is really expecting that? Different tools do different things, but as long as we are all working towards building a more free, sustainable and just society, we should be able to put aside our differences for the greater good. ”
As much as I’m given a warm and fuzzy feeling inside by this kind of meaningless schlep, I have to drop my jaw in incredulity that this is what is passing now for critical writing in the world of Deep Green Whatever. I never thought I would say this, but looking back on 2001 2002 I think Im beginning to miss Green Anarchy mag and the primmies…At least they were critical and emphasized a degree of three dimensional theory to their practice.
There are so many problems with this piece it d really just take too long, but for starters:
1. It substitutes a focus on tactics for any considerations of the goals or strategy or political affinity of those involved. The idea that “different people doing different things” toward a positive end will automatically result in a greater good is way off – or rather, its so vague as to be meaningless. One has to look at the substance of the actions and participants themselves, why theyre doing what theyre doing, what their base is and their position in the whole thing. I can only imagine the warm fuzzy focus on diversity of tactics here, to the point of lacking any apparent cogent critique of political parties, demands, state sanctioned forms of protest, etc., has to be the result of DGR being a bizarrely contrived mix of social democrats, people with maoist leanings, old earth first style deep ecologists, primmies, and the occassional (confused) anarchist. Unable to come to any real substantial terms with questions of demands, party politics, or roles of different kinds of subjects in revolt against late capitalism, theyre stuck at the one-dimensional truism of “different strokes for different folks.” *
2. This in turn leads to the next problem, a total lack of critique about the role and function of recuperating forces, which is a MAJOR issue in the world of environmentalist politics. There is a hint at it in here, as the author admits that the mainstream environmentalist project is basically a preservation of middle class living at the expense of everything else, but this acknowledgement is soon dropped for an implied affirmation that these groups still have an important role to play. Cue the acoustic guitars and “cumbayay” music. The political incoherency in DGR (coming not from a leninist perspective, but from an anarchist one) prevents them from growing a real critique of environmentalism and the role it has come to serve for 21st century capitalism, so theyre stuck working alongside people are our complete fucking enemies, and justifying it with this kind of “lets all get along bullshit.” Yes, let’s get along with others doing different things, but ONLY so far as in there is a real political affinity. Otherwise its meaningless.
3. This inability to actually develop a contemporary critique of capitalism and the State, not helped by the strangely anti anarchist sentiments of their esteemed leader mr. jenson, seems to condemn them back to the old earth first style eco activism, full of all the typical pitfalls of an activist approach, except here lacking even the organic and grassroots power of EF! in its heyday. Its all like a sad, sad play being reenacted again, but nobody is really watching.
(* Im not arguing here for more ideological discipline or anything of the sort – i think DGR is a bad joke and have no interest in suggesting it be anything other than disbanded. In any case, developing nuanced or multilayered critiques or theory hardly requires such an organizational discipline, anyway – but it does require a shared political affinity with those whom we work with, shared experiences beyond reading the same copy of endgame.)
thanks for your response, but I’m having trouble seeing how anything you’ve written brings us closer to solving the climate crisis. Maybe you’d like to enlighten me on that point. Everyone, or at least as many people as possible must play a role if we’re to avert disaster. Theoretical, tactical and ideological purity sound good on paper but in the real world it’s not practical. I’m sure it’s cool within certain social circles to feel like you’re surrounded by people who agree with you 100%, but that doesn’t work in a country of 300 million people, many of them capitalists and many of them religious. We can critique people we don’t agree with, and discuss those differences, but to put our own ideology on a pedestal is counter-productive in the long term. Unless we’re going to just throw up our hands and admit defeat we need to start being just a little more practical and less sectarian.
Also I need to make it clear that I’m not a member of DGR. The term “deep green” was around way before them.
Actually, i think i make several concrete points that point in a different direction with re: the climate crisis….A criticism of the “popular front” style approach toward environmentalism that your article suggests is a part of that.
You seem to be presenting two options: one, the popular front type model, a lowest common denominator, populist kind of thing where everyone from liberals to anarchists play a role. The other is your strawman in re: ideological purity and sectarianism.
NEITHER of these are a good approach, nor, specifically, an anarchist approach. Both are pitfalls, traps we should avoid. One espouses and tends towards a kind of lowest common denominator – sure the anarchists may be tolerated in so far as we’re “useful,” but we all know where the popular front leads. The other pitfall, as you point out, is one of isolation.
The anarchist approach ought to seek to both avoid or transcend its own barriers when possible, but in a way that emphasizes more than just a tactical diversity, but the SUBSTANCE of our critique: a harsh condemnation and analysis of recuperating processes, political parties, and the like, autonomous processes of decision making and organizing that are independent from liberals, NGOs, etc., parties, etc. froms of intervention that spread social war and anarchist forms outwards, beyond single issues of climate, or fracking, or this or that.
To an extent what im suggesting is not all too different than what you write in your newer article with re: to the climate rally in DC – that anarchists should be explicit, visible, etc. But we don’t do this as part of one big tent, a popular front, with liberals, trots, greenpeace, etc. – we do this with an explicit and firm critique of not just “corporations” or the “climate crisis” but the entire process of how the state is managing this “movement”, from political parties on down the vast majority of politicians in waiting who organized that rally. Our role isnt to be part of the big tent, avoiding hard questions of our leaders but taking the most risks and facing the most jail time….Our role is to bring down the fucking tent, among other things.
Presenting alternative models on how to act and plan which are autonomous and impart different analyses is part of this process, being pernicious and constant in our critiques of liberal and NGO statecraft is another. You absolutely right that most or many people won’t innately agree with our analysis or critique- this actually makes it all the more important that we stand firm and explicit with our perspective. Even in such a context of general demonization from both media and the Left, movements like the anti globe and occupy struggles show that when vigilant with our critique and our tactical forms, our ideas and practices can and will take hold in the larger milieu. The worst kind of isolation one can be in is not the isolation of a small minority insisting visibly on its perspective, but the isolation of the hidden radical being manipulated by populist political forces, the isolation of the mass.
But unfortunately your almost apolitical, cumbayay like espousement of a “lets all get along and work for the greater good” misses the mark entirely: its like an eco popular front for the 21st century. Its almost completely lacking in substance, presenting no particular understanding of the role and function of these liberal parties and their organizations. Anyone who s read histories of anarchists and their flirtations with popular front politics knows exactly where thats headed. Ill give the reader a hint: it tends to end with a regime change, us getting betrayed, put in prison, or shot, and the same problems going on as before.
(PS Im not even sure averting a “climate crisis” is the point, though i agree that my writing a comment on your blog is unlikely to help! I think the crisis is already here, and most scientists seem to agree. I think the question is beyond climate, though certainly bringing down industrialism remains a necessary goal. Really we need to be developing alternative forms of social life that might be able to SURVIVE the crisis weve already created. And of course, this means something very, very different than anything that the environmentalist milieu, even its “radical” wing, is aimed at: a social war within this society, a revolution of a complete and totalizing nature.)