Kyoto Helps Increase Global Warming: The Theft and Tricks of the USA Narrow Left

This is IT! -

The only balance you are likely to get on the subject
of change in the US -

or the only response from anything like a Left view -
see other hot works at :

Part I: (revised)

The Andes to the Rescue of the World -
 http://mer130.tripod.com/index.blog?entry_id=606875



SUbmission:


Tsunamis of Environmentalism’s Death:
The Theft and Tricks of the USA Narrow Leftists

POSTED AT:  http://zorpia.com/cgi/journal.cgi?journal_id=0001037702


Tsunamis of Environmentalism’s Death:
The Theft and Tricks of the USA Narrow Leftists

Words: 3080

(See long version at:  http://mer130.tripod.com/index.blog?entry_id=620562)
By Jason Martin and Rachel Guevara - CONTACT:  Jasonmartin7@lycos.com


The ecological time bombs of trade (invasive species) and global warming are ticking away. The environmental movement has failed and should die so something better can take its place. We need to address the “real” issues which Ted Nordhaus has brought to light: The world cannot change in time to stop global warming. (NOTE 1) LINKS

The leaders of USA environmental groups (Enviros) and the US social change groups (Narrow Left) (NOTE 2) do not want to connect the issues of the poor, the environment, the global economy or the wars of US imperialism because that would require that they risk their careers and lives. Real change violates their idea of change: slow, cautious and all inclusive. Giving the rich essentially vetoes… and each day it looks more like the Enviros want the problems to get so big that they can trumpet: “Well we tried, but now it is too late.”

Technical fixes aren't sufficient to deal with climate change, species loss, deforestation or other environmental threats. The global economy has to be transformed which is a bigger problem than environmentalism has faced in the past… Ditto, the single-issue constituencies: labor, women, civil rights. They're faltering and need to think of themselves as a political movement, figure out what values they share and ways to organize accordingly.

In "The Death of Environmentalism" Ted Nordhaus and Michael Shellenberger, attack the strategies of the US Enviros and the Narrow Left. This sophisticated maneuver is a “double agent attack on single issue politics from the right wing of the Narrow Left.” Nordhaus (Apollo Alliance) pretends to be a broad coalition of groups and ideas but the focus is labor unions, jobs and national political power though elections. Nordhaus once mentions “Addressing a post-Global Warming world”and his proposals fit snuggly into the G W Bush program of global domination and surviving a post-Global Warming world. (NOTE 5).

His eloquent critiques are on target but the motives and the eventual goals of this effort exists (safely) beyond the analysis of most people. These bait and switch tactics follow those of the Democratic Party and the Republican Party who have given up on reducing greenhouse gases and are now planning for a post-catastrophe world. Only the US public remains ignorant of the future and the evil which their consumption has created and perpetuates. People in the US still believe the 20 years of propaganda by the Republican Party and their paid-for scientists who claim that global warming is a hoax. (NOTE 6)

Illustrating their disconnection from the resistance rising up around the world, US activists and many in Europe do not appreciate the changes underway in Venezuela and the Andes. Some are so naive or middle class-programmed that they attack minor or transitional aspects of the efforts of Chavez and the Bolivarian Circles. (NOTE 7)

Enviros and the funders of social change groups want the support of political majorities in the USA! They do not understand the world of politics/power in the USA (and little beyond). Without a rapid decline in consumption in the rich countries all environmental issues are hopeless and the chances of meaningful social change are non-existent. Resource wars and wars of imperialism will be the only issues left. These are the challenges and time limits that we face (NOTE 8)

Or, perhaps these Enviros and their critics do understand all of this (the double agent thesis). I gave an early draft of this paper to Rachel Guevara who has often been my savior when I was stuck with a complex issue and the need to cut through the jargon and our jargonized minds She made me see how deep this big lie of the Enviros, the Narrow left and the pretend critics extends. (NOTE 9).

"It would be foolish to underestimate the challenge of checking the consumption juggernaut," concludes Christopher Flavin. "But as the costs of unbridled appetites grow, the need for innovative responses becomes clearer. In the long run, meeting basic human needs, improving human health, and supporting a natural world that can sustain us will require that we control consumption, rather than allow consumption to control us."
-- State of the World 2004. (NOTE 10)

Key Points for Understanding the Death of Environmentalism and Single-Issue Politics
USA Enviros have failed to build political, social or moral power around global warming. They have mis-educated the people about trade, invasive species, mega cities, industrial farming, economics and the trade-offs between growth and sustainability. These are all intimately linked. Disconnected education is everywhere in the USA – in the peace, justice, poverty and the border/immigration campaigns. These groups are failing and the failures are causing the problems to get worse. Average people and many activists have given up on trying to understand what must be done – what is meaningful and worth risking their lives for. Nordhaus agrees with these points.

Inspired by my colleague Guevara, I felt the tsunami of clarity smash and re-forge a few of the barriers and structures in my brain. This crystallized enlightenment washed over my perspective and cleansed it as it sucked back out to sea, just like the tsunami carries much of its destruction out to sea as it retreats. Given the sophistication of the Sierra Club and the big Enviros (and their foundations) it should surprise no one that the debate over the Death of Environmentalism turns out to be a con job – like a “Good cop / Bad cop” trick – with both groups worried that if they don’t make some noise and act like they are on top of their game then the funders could move on or the gullible members, donors and progressives might figure out how badly they have been tricked and robbed. Citizens might even tie this billion dollar scam into the con jobs done by Democrats for decades. The jobs of a few hundred highly educated and well-honed hucksters would be threatened.

The response of the eco-grantor denialers: Philip Clapp, president of the National Environmental Trust (a critic of the Nordhaus essay) “the last way to influence people is to start by saying everything you're doing is wrong." This thinking – immature and evasive - is at the root of the fascism of the West. A healthy person would address the content, the challenges and the issues, not the style of a critique. The ghost of Susan Sontag haunts the culture of the USA. (NOTE 4.a and b.)

To Carl Pope’s fear that “[Nordhaus and Schellenberger are] self serving because, given that the chosen audience of the paper was the funders, it will be hard for many readers to avoid the suspicion that the not so hidden message was "fund us instead,"
We in the Real Left say:
“No! Fund us instead!”

(See: The Andes to the Rescue of the World -  http://mer130.tripod.com/index.blog?entry_id=606875)
(NOTE 12)

"… groups like the Natural Resources Defense Council, the Union of Concerned Scientists, and the World Wildlife Federation -- have agreed to accept what they see as a politically feasible target for 450 parts per million of carbon dioxide ... [That] may be politically realistic, it would likely be environmentally catastrophic…. In our interview, Gelbspan told us that environmentalists' failure to achieve more is "because they operate in Washington and they accept incremental progress. If they can get two more miles on a CAFE [car mileage] standard that would be a huge accomplishment for them. But compared to the need to cut emissions 70 or 80 percent it's nothing. They're scared they'll be marginalized by calling for big cuts. They are taking the expedient route even as we see the scientists sounding the alarms and saying it's too late to avoid the significant disruptions." ( NOTE 4.h)

This is the millennial world of 2005 that we live in: Fake environmentalists pretend to struggle with Narrow Leftists over billions of dollars in donations and grants (acquired from Imperialism!) Fascist US presidents and “radicals” alike praise democracy ( even US-styled democracy) and they all pretend happily – or not so happily – that they are doing their best – that there is nothing else that can be tried. The real radicals and the Real Left (Hugo Chavez and the Bolivarian Revolution) are attacked or ignored by their natural allies. Greens form coalitions in Germany with capitalist narrow lefties (SPD) and in the US with right wing Democrats. Greens almost everywhere sell out on all that they stood for – especially on awareness and education. Political parties almost everywhere except in the Andes move to the right and no one hardly comments.

The planet is heating up rapidly as is the Global Economy and somehow these issues are kept separate. Technocrats trot around to Global Warming or Kyoto ceremonies knowing they are less than silly rituals, while youth and many radicals are mesmerized by the groovy concept of Changing the World without Seizing the Power, by drugs, self-nihilist music and hedonism. What a party!

If Enviros cannot address the need to reduce consumption in the rich countries then they are actually assisting in the destruction of the planet by misleading people into thinking that tinkering (recycling, bike-riding, ) or cleaning up air and water pollution in the USA is helpful. The way that the USA has so far cleaned up its air and water is by shifting its pollution to other regions (China, Korea, Canada or the North Sea). Critics of the Enviros, such as Nordhaus or Hertsgaard, want to continue these fraudulent educational programs with the objective to forge political campaigns (unite single issue groups) so that they can continue to consume and to pollute the world. Instead of Nimbyism (not-in-my-backyard) within the USA they will institutionalize national Nimbyism (not-in-my-country).

US Anarchists, radical environmentalist (like Earth First!) and even Animal liberation arsonists lack class consciousness or an appreciation (sympathy, information) of global struggles. They are super Nimbys! and Narrow Lefties captive to their own single issue near-sighted visions. Most US activists still think of the old left or the New Left as focused on centralization and state control though this has not been true for decades. They think that anything structured or planned is authoritarian or worse. Whether you have a goal of a structured and planned world it would be foolish to think that one could contest – let alone triumph over – the economic system of capitalism and the USA Empire without structured analysis and a plan for the battle. (NOTE 13)

These “(en)counter-revolutionaries” reject the efforts of the Weathermen, Sandinistas, the FMLN, the FARC-EP and the Cubans – and yet they romanticize Zapatistas (who also killed people)! This is the influence of the Carnival of Resistance – Change the World Without Taking the Power types who reject alternative economics because that would be planning. They do almost nothing to resist their own country’s plunder and pillaging because they might have to work with communists and the like. The US is a political void with two right wing political parties and near zero international or class consciousness. This near sightedness has spread to the World Social Forum where John Holloway practices his numbing and now academic power-avoidance.(NOTE 14).

Nordhaus calls for environmentalists to abandon their small-bore, politically neutral approach and launch a more expansive strategy aimed at building a political majority in the US that will support not only environmental but other progressive values. Rather than move the Enviros to the center-right wing of the defunct Democratic party, the Real Left would build a great coalition around a plan for changing the US, and thus the world, based on massive aid to revolutions in the Andes and elsewhere in Latin America and the Caribbean.

The Enviros (and everyone?) shy away from tackling the TRANSFORMATION OF THE ENTIRE GLOBAL ECONOMY (as Nordhaus proposes so unrealistically – like all of his proposals) because that would require class war, prolonged struggle … and well they do not want to talk about the real world… the world far beyond their coastlines that is increasingly threatened by US imports, armies and the economic model of unfettered WTO globalized capitalism.

Excited by the attack on the Enviros and the Narrow Left presented by Hertsgaard in the Nation, I googled into Carl Pope’s response knowing there would be plenty of meat to hack at and hoping that now the Enviros' twisted views would be opened for deeper attacks. Perhaps a real debate might ensue. Alas, it was not to be. Pope's response is elusive with no gem – no smoking gun - to attack, just the exquisitely inane moderate USA rap. Full of molasses and dead ends, There Is Something Different About Global Warming, is dense material apparently a collaborative scheme set down by lawyers, counter-deconstructionists and Clintonesque speechwriters... Pope says a lot and yet it is hard to separate the meat from his attacks on Nordhaus for the lack of citations or examples (about common knowledge subjects!). Pope's examples fail his own test and his response to valid criticisms is designed to be so boring and insider-based that no one will try to examine its meaning or portent. This is a classic political statement – clever and designed to stymie thought. Welcome, Enviros, to the world of capitalist mass deceptions.

From an environmental perspective, the most striking thing about the Sierra Club/Pope (and the Apollo group's) response is their love of consumption growth (stability for the US auto industry!).
(See also: The Rambling ENVIRO Debate: Sierra club, Enviro Critics and the Real Left: www.mer130-.tripod.com******)

CONCLUSIONS:

Useful Hierarchies and Strategic Thinking in Pursuit of Power
One cannot have just a simple-minded plan of how the world works or how to resist – not against the uncouth USA corporate elite. You have to feel it out when to join with others, when the threats are too great or when to stand for principle when the moment is right. Right now the moment requires that everyone in the US and Europe work hard for the Andes and the revolutions throughout Latin America. These are strategic battles – pre-emptive resistance – to the Bush and USA plans for domination and extortion.

Everything has to come together – the earth, the sky and the waters and fire. This will happen slower in some ways in Latin America, though in many ways the Spirit of Resistance there has never weakened or separated. The poor of Latin America (200 million), the descendents of slaves (100 million) and especially the indigenous people (40 to 80 million) see the current struggle, as well as the struggles they have faced for 500 years, as deep, serious, desperate and fateful. In the West (the US and EU) the struggle actually does have to bring everything together now! If our efforts fail to stop the right wing Nordhaus-Apollo Alliance theft of billions of dollars in charitable donations, then GW Bush and his clan will accelerate his poisoning of the world and the poisoning of the minds of millions more people in the US. (NOTES 16)

USA activist like to tout: Peace, Justice and Environmental Sustainability
So – First comes the war against capitalism (which is mostly a mental war of rejecting the brainwashing they feed us) and then the establishment of sustainable-oriented governments in the Andes and then in all of Latin America. Then there will come the wars against US aggression and Yankee invasions. Then we will be on the road to peace.

Then we do years of education and experiments in new theories of economic development, then we will be on the road to justice. Then if there is an environment left we try to protect and restore it. Then we might be approaching the road to sustainable development. To help move this hierarchy of needs and evolution along people in the USA-EU can send dollars (or Euros) and many skilled specialists and trades people to the revolutions in the Andes. (NOTE 16)

[ BELOW IS OPTIONAL or use complete passage NOTE 15 ** ed. ]

”Global warming will cause worldwide economic damage (two trillion dollars by 2015); tornados will come upon Germany soon; even if the US joined the Kyoto protocol, that would be only a symbolic step since the agreement only prescribes that the most important industrial states reduce their emissions of six greenhouse gases five percent by 2012 compared to 1990. According to the data of science, a 50 percent reduction by 2050 is necessary. An 80 percent reduction would be necessary if the right of third world societies to catch up in industrialization were considered.

The time of warnings has now expired unused. The catastrophe is at our door. The ecology problem cannot be separated from the economy problem. …
An ecological awakening from the middle of society is crucial. This happened in Germany, but the Green impulse failed.. The German chancellor rejoices that German corporations are developing China into an auto-society. How can the Greens contradict themselves in this way?

The Greens wanted to change the consumer mentality of the masses. They discussed the questions about living- and working conditions less dependent on cars and whether less meat consumption leading to less methane output with less livestock breeding wouldn’t be welcome on account of the better health of consumers. All this seems forgotten…." -- Michael Jager, (Ecological Prospects: Only a Radical Movement Can Help) : (NOTE 15)


KEY POINTS

1. US Enviros have killed the environmental movement and the Narrow Left strategies of single issue campaigning have failed.

2. There is no way to avoid the catastrophe of global warming because the capitalist model of consumption growth and rampant pollution to reduce costs combines with US greed to guarantee massive increases in greenhouse gases.

3. To survive in this post-global warming future of brutal US imperialist wars, the few remaining moral people in the US and Europe should fund revolutions in the Andes to create an alternative model and a counter to US hegemony.

4. There are billions of dollars in potential funding up for grabs in the US and Europe. The deceptions and failures of the Narrow left and the Enviros has created a vacuum where people are looking for something positive to invest in.

5. There is a process or hierarchy of resistance and movement building that can guide our efforts to stop imperialism and protect the environment. The basis of this hierarchy is that we must be honest and probing about our goals (near term and long run); about the strategies that could achieve them; and deeply open to debate and to clearer thinking than in the past. The Real Left needs to make sense – AND be understandable, with real solutions to all of the linked problems.

“The number of Americans who agree with the statement, "To preserve people's jobs in this country, we must accept higher levels of pollution in the future," increased from 17 percent in 1996 to 26 percent in 2000. The number of Americans who agreed that, "Most of the people actively involved in environmental groups are extremists, not reasonable people," leapt from 32 percent in 1996 to 41 percent in 2000. The truth is that for the vast majority of Americans, the environment never makes it into their top ten list of things to worry about. Protecting the environment is indeed supported by a large majority -- it's just not supported very strongly. Once you understand this, it's much easier to understand why it's been so easy for anti-environmental interests to gut 30 years of environmental protections.” (NOTES 4.e)


The Five Part Series: Lessons Learned:
From The Failure of Politics and Vision in North America
To the Steady Victories of the Social Movements in South America,

by Mundo de Escuelas Revolucionarias (MER)


Part I. :
George W Bush’s Eternal Triumph or The Andes to the Rescue of the World, By Jason Martin;  http://mer130.tripod.com/index.blog?entry_id=606875
(EXCERPTS) -- "It is misguided to protest Bush without an alternative. Feeling good just to be doing “something” is selfish and no substitute for real thinking." – Jane Dole, a 30 year anti-capitalist veteran who now shuns anti-globalization and anti-war groups for being part of the problem.
Social movements need to embrace a practical and focused goal of accumulating power in order to takeover governments. Conventional politics and left-thinking in the USA are dead.
Instead of growing frustrated with the defeats that are inevitable in the USA (failure to change anything) and the reality that protests and lobbying can actually backfire and encourage the right wing or the ignorant voters to fight change more, activists can feel good and earn strategic victories. These People to People – or Pueblo a People campaigns can be proud, positive and real.

Move beyond political stalemate and make a real difference – Forget politics as you knew it – Do the politics of building resistance. Forget politics, lobbying – forget all environmental, social justice and organizing in the USA – it will never work – never change anything soon – and it causes more problems than it solves. The Andes have a lot to teach us and a world to win - a dollar a year from every person in the USA could make the difference.

Take the power where you can find it!

Conclusion – To build a counter-power to the imperialist USA, activist groups need to reach beyond national boundaries to build strong alliances in Latin America with indigenous people (40 to 80 million people), workers in the Andes (30 to 40 million people), African descendants (100,000,000 to 120,000,000 people), and to finance aid programs with Venezuelan and Andean revolutionary groups. Solidarity with these groups and the 200 million Latin American people trapped in neoliberal (USA-imposed) poverty can yield huge dividends abroad and within the USA.


Key Points

1. Social movements need to embrace a practical and focused goal of accumulating power in order to takeover governments.

2. Conventional politics and left-thinking in the USA are dead.

3. The only practical or effective means of altering the balance of power in the US or the world are armed struggle; relocating activists and supporters of change to states in the USA where they can seize power; or my thesis of massive financial aid to the revolutions in the Andes. Protests, lobbying and voting are stupid. They actually aid the power elite who want the appearance of democracy and opposition – as long as it can accomplish nothing.

4. The cultish leaders of USA environmental and justice groups are the main barriers to change. Most analysts accept this and the real debate is whether to try new strategies or fall back on style and simply modify the current moderate strategy of weakly merging the various lefty issues together in a grand coalition with the moderate democrats – a strategy where victory becomes as meaningless as defeat! (See Part II. Of From the Failure of Politics and Vision in North America to the Steady Victories of Social Movements in South America:
Tsunamis Inside the Criticisms of the Left: Venezuela versus the Shams of the World or Notes 2 & 3)

5. The USA is an empire of corporate, trade and, military alliances.

6. Only through extending our conceptions of politics – which is another word for Power – extending it beyond the imaginary borders of nations can we create a better world. (Note 6)


PART III.)) The Real Left is Defined by Decentralization: A Political Economy of Hope and Participation (Available February 16, 2005)


PART IV.)) Why the Andes is the Best Target: Pre-emptive Revolutions: Fighting For Poverty Against Neo-Slavery (Available March1, 2005)



NOTES Part II:
Tsunamis and Tricks Inside the Criticisms of the Left:
Venezuela versus the Shams of the World


1.)) NOTES I.:a.) Part 1 of the Series Lessons Learned: From The Failure of Politics and Vision in North America
To the Steady Victories of the Social Movements in South America – George W Bush’s Eternal Triumph
or The Andes to the Rescue of the World -  http://mer130.tripod.com/index.blog?entry_id=606875
 http://newswire.indymedia.org/en/newswire/2005/01/818213.shtml
 http://margotbworldnews.com/archive/2005January/Jan25/rescue.html

b. Links to Death of Environmenatalism:
 http://grist.org/news/maindish/2005/01/13/pope-reprint/
 http://mer130.tripod.com/index.blog?entry_id=620562

2. )) NOTES II. : a.) In this paper we refer to the largest groups of the US environmental movement (the big 20 Eco Groups) and their leaders as Enviros. The groups and some of their leaders are: League of Conservation Voters; National Wildlife Federation; Natural Resources Defense Council (NRDC); Friends of the Earth, Audubon Society; Wilderness Society; Greenpeace; Nature Conservancy; Sierra Club…WWF…

b.) For a view of some Enviro leaders see St.Claire’s book review at:  http://zmagsite.zmag.org/JulAug2004/mclellan0804.html
“G. Jon Roush’s salary is $125,000 annually. He is president of the Wilderness Society whose Washington headquarters cost $6 million a year to lease. Roush logged his 80-acre, $2.5 million ranch in Montana “at precisely the moment,” says St. Clair, “when environmentalists across the country had their backs to the wall, against a ferocious assault in Congress on federal laws protecting America’s forests.” Fred Krupp at EDF commands $125,000 a year. Jay Hair who “keeps his limo running at all times, the air-conditioner grinding ozone at full-tilt against the moment he emerges from his office on an eco-mission or deal-making sortie,” makes a quarter-million at the National Wildlife Federation; while Peter Berle at the Audubon Society pulls in $200,000…”

c.) We use the term Real Left to denote leaders and groups that make sense in the world of 2005. The standout examples of this type of thinking are the people of Venezuela, Quispe in Bolivia and James Petras of the USA.

d.) We refer to the leaders and groups working on single or narrow issue social change issues as the Narrow Left. Most of the old left falls into this category too, because of its lack of environmental understanding and its failure to factor in social issues and perspectives. Much of what is referred to as the New Left should also be categorized as the Narrow Left because of their general fuzziness and lack of a well worked-out plan. The only exception we have come up with were the Sandinistas of Nicaragua ( 1978-1990 ) who seemed to have had a very workable and comprehensive plan but were thwarted by massive US terrorism. The Cuban communists have much to be praised for in their efforts, but 40 years of US hostility and mis-placed Soviet (USSR) advice has impacted their overall achievements.

e.) Examples of this fuzzy or narrow left in the US are: Global Exchange, CPUSA, the US Green Party, Ralph Nader, WILPF, Move On, Answer, Narco News, Fair Trade Network, Indymedia, Global Action, many more (all?) and many aspects of the WSF.

f.) What is the Organizers’ Collaborative? Information Clearinghouse ( http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&q=US+social+change+groups)
Though there are 30,000+ social change groups in the US, these groups often do not feel sufficiently connected to the movement they are a part of. ... www.organizenow.net/pdf/brochurec.pdf

For a huge list of social change activities in the US see:  http://democracygroups.org/


3.)) NOTES III.: January 19, 2005;  http://www.circleoflife.org/blog/julia/



4.)) NOTES IV. .) a.) Mark Hertsgaard see:  http://www.markhertsgaard.com/Articles/2004/EnviroChallenge/

b.) "The Death of Environmentalism,” presented to a grant makers meeting, October 2004, by Ted Nordhaus and Michael Schellenberger (S and N) :
 http://www.thebreakthrough.org/images/Death_of_Environmentalism.pdf
This report would not have been possible had many of the country’s leading environmental and progressive leaders not been courageous enough to open up their thinking for public scrutiny: Dan Becker, Phil Clapp, Tim Carmichael, Ralph Cavanaugh, Susan Clark, Bernadette Del Chiaro, Shelly Fiddler, Ross Gelbspan, Hal Harvey, David Hawkins, Bracken Hendricks, Roland Hwang, Eric Heitz, Wendy James, Van Jones, Fred Keeley, Lance Lindblom, Elisa Lynch, Jason Mark, Bob Nordhaus, Carl Pope, Josh Reichert, Jeremy Rifkin, Adam Werbach, Greg Wetstone, V. John White, and Carl Zichella. We are especially grateful to George Lakoff for teaching us how to identify category mistakes and to Peter Teague for continually challenging us to question our most basic assumptions,

b.) “The institutions that define what environmentalism means boast large professional staffs and receive tens of millions of dollars every year from foundations and individuals. Given these rewards, it's no surprise that most environmental leaders neither craft nor support proposals that could be tagged "non-environmental." Doing otherwise would do more than threaten their status; it would undermine their brand.
Environmentalists are particularly upbeat about the direction of public opinion thanks in large part to the polling they conduct that shows wide support for their proposals. Yet America is a vastly more right-wing country than it was three decades ago. The domination of American politics by the far-right is a central obstacle to achieving action on global warming. Yet almost none of the environmentalists we interviewed thought to mention it.”

c.) S and N: “Part of what's behind America's political turn to the right is the skill with which conservative think tanks, intellectuals and political leaders have crafted proposals that build their power through setting the terms of the debate. Their work has paid off. According to a survey of 1,500 Americans by the market research firm Environics, the number of Americans who agree with the statement, "To preserve people's jobs in this country, we must accept higher levels of pollution in the future," increased from 17 percent in 1996 to 26 percent in 2000. The number of Americans who agreed that, "Most of the people actively involved in environmental groups are extremists, not reasonable people," leapt from 32 percent in 1996 to 41 percent in 2000. The truth is that for the vast majority of Americans, the environment never makes it into their top ten list of things to worry about. Protecting the environment is indeed supported by a large majority -- it's just not supported very strongly. Once you understand this, it's much easier to understand why it's been so easy for anti-environmental interests to gut 30 years of environmental protections.”

d.) S and N: “Talking about the millions of jobs that will be created by accelerating our transition to a clean energy economy offers more than a good defense against industry attacks: it's a frame that moves the environmental movement away from apocalyptic global warming scenarios that tend to create feelings of helplessness and isolation among would-be supporters.”

e.) S and N: “Consider what would happen if we identified the obstacles [to stopping Global Warming] as:
The radical right's control of all three branches of the US government.
Trade policies that undermine environmental protections.
Our failure to articulate an inspiring and positive vision.
Overpopulation.
The influence of money in American politics.
Our inability to craft legislative proposals that shape the debate around core American values.
Poverty [ Nowhere a mention of reduced consumption in the OECD or the problems of increased consumption in the rest of the world].”

g.) S and N: “And if the political prospects for action on GLOBAL WARMING appear daunting in the U.S., don't look to China for uplift: the 1.2 billion person country, growing at 20 percent a year, intends to quadruple the size of its economy in 30 years and bring 300 gigawatts -- nearly half of what we use each year in the US -- of dirty coal energy on-line.

The challenge for American environmentalists is not just to get the US to dramatically overhaul its energy strategy but also to help developing countries like China, India, Russia and South Africa do so as well. That means environmental groups will need to advocate policies like technology transfer, ethical trade agreements, and win-win joint ventures. The carbon threat from China and other developing countries drives home the point that a whole series of major policies not traditionally defined as "environmental," from industrial policy to trade policy, will be needed to deal with GLOBAL WARMING.”

h.) S and N: "The major national environmental groups focusing on climate -- groups like the Natural Resources Defense Council, the Union of Concerned Scientists, and the World Wildlife Federation -- have agreed to accept what they see as a politically feasible target for 450 parts per million of carbon dioxide ... [That] may be politically realistic, it would likely be environmentally catastrophic."

i.) The debate is serious when even the British Economist carries it: Hotting up - Feb 4th 2005
 http://www.economist.com/agenda/displayStory.cfm?story_id=3630425


5.)) NOTES V.: a.) How Apollo snuggles up to GW Bush world domination:
 http://www.apolloalliance.org/strategy_center/a_bold_energy_and_jobs_policy/ten_point_plan.cfm
The Ten-Point Plan for Good Jobs and Energy Independence
1. Promote Advanced Technology & Hybrid Cars:[ Technology always benefits the US military. Hybrid cars are a good ploy for soothing the US public…]
2. Invest In More Efficient Factories: [Helps keep US competitive, the population assuaged and prepares the US for embargoes and terrorist retaliation against US firms overseas.]
3. Encourage High Performance Building: [To save energy since most of the world will embargo US oil sales soon. Also will be combined with high security options on new building to prepare for domestic terrorism/Homeland Security]
4. Increase Use of Energy Efficient Appliances: [See responses 1,2,3 – and it frees up more oil for cars!]
5. Modernize Electrical Infrastructure: [Great idea to protect vulnerability of US to domestic terror attacks and a big subsidy to nuclear weapons manufacturers like GE]
6. Expand Renewable Energy Development: [Great domestic PR and would have been a great idea – if implemented – 10 or 20 years ago before Bush (s) went to war in Middle East – now it can only serve as a reminder of our follies and as a defense against energy embargoes/disruption. Renewables outside of hydropower are a tiny fraction of power – many so-called renewables – forests, agricultural biomass fuels and even wind are not really renewable as they require soil mining or a huge industrial infrastructure!]
7. Improve Transportation Options: [Jobs for votes and loyalty- National morale and defense]
8. Reinvest In Smart Urban Growth: [see response 3]
9. Plan For A Hydrogen Future: [Corporate subsides and to help the big oil companies that will go broke when their assets are nationalized or destroyed]
10. Preserve Regulatory Protections: [Thrown in to hold on to the quasi-Green vote, only to be implemented as a moderating growth strategy]
BONUS: # 11. Build 50 Nuclear Power Plants [Not one of their proposals (yet?) – but one they will have to swallow if they do not reduce consumption and energy use 50- 80 percent in the OECD – or the USA for sure!

b.)  http://www.apolloalliance.org/strategy_center/podestadoc.cfm
“After all, there are more than 220 million cars, trucks and SUVs in this country logging more than 15 trillion miles annually. The auto industry in this country is responsible for 6.6 million jobs nationwide.
What happens to those jobs -- and what happens to the workers and the families who depend on those jobs -- if America reduces its reliance on oil? For a long time the environmental movement didn't have very good answers to those questions. Too often, some talked as if automobiles were the problem in and of themselves when, in fact, the problem has never really been cars, but the fuel they use and how they use it.”
[WRONG, WRONG! – I have shown this statement to several moderate environmentalists and they all laughed without me telling them what point I was interested in. Most people have already debated this when the fuel cell – hydrogen issue came up a few years ago. The underlying problems are not population growth, what kind or how much fuels (or carbon) are burnt – but instead the whole lifestyle of consumption, wealth chasing and the car culture that makes Wall Marts, commuting, sprawl, travel and trade possible and necessary.

c.) NOTES – The Apollo Alliances supporters show how deep this right wing conspiracy reaches and probably what gullible fools many groups are: (Bold De-notes conspirators, Italics denote those whom we hope are just naive) ( http://www.apolloalliance.org/about_the_alliance/)
(It would be nice to know why groups like World Watch and the Nature Conservancy did not sign on to Apollo’s industrial proposals)

full footnotes at:

 http://zorpia.com/cgi/journal.cgi?journal_id=0001037702