Starting a Nonviolent Climate Movement? Great! But Expect a Bumpy Liftoff!

Permalink

What to Think About While Organizing Organizations

           Day 9 of my analysis of Gene Sharp’s The Politics of Nonviolent Action, Part Three: The Dynamics of Nonviolent Struggle, applied to the climate movement. Reading Sharp’s books are a prerequisite for anyone who is serious about stopping climate change. Please go to Dr. Sharp’s website, buy these books, and study them.

I have some experience with both well-run and poorly run climate organizations.

A little more than a year ago I was working for a climate organization where nothing worked.  Meetings and conferences never went off as planned, nothing got done on time, and no one was in the loop about what the executive director’s agenda was.  I certainly wasn’t, and there weren’t that many of us.

On the other hand, in April of 2011 I attended the PowerShift conference in D.C.  It was the largest organizer training in history, and it was very well-organized.  Over the course of a weekend, people were able to meet other activists from their own regions, learn effective organizing techniques, brainstorm on solutions, and also have fun!  (The only thing they don’t do right is they don’t hold their conventions in election years, which would provide a great springboard for a summer of organizing and activism.  Instead, over a year passes between the conference and the next campaign season, by which time the conference is a distant memory and attendees have scattered to the winds.)

As PowerShift demonstrated, a good organization provides a framework to make people work more effectively.  Bad organization provides no framework and people end up leaving. 

Last Sunday 60 Minutes did an excellent segment on  IDEO’s David Kelly, who’s design company builds on the ideas of many people.  It could be a great model for a really powerful climate movement.  The movement needs to be creative and democratic, it needs to be outspoken and not secretive about it’s strategies, it needs to encourage initiative, and must have unwavering commitment to nonviolent principles.

That’s what PowerShift’s convention did.  Their framework created a place for ideas to form and grow.  Otpor did it in Serbia, allowing complete freedom for activists so long as they kept the focus on ending Milosevic’s reign and as long as it was nonviolent.  Earth Guardians is attempting to provide the creative structure for youth environmental activists in the U.S. and abroad.

But time and thought need to go into the organizational framework so that the organization will easily grow in the right direction.

In Waging Nonviolent Struggle, Sharp shows four categories where organization is necessary:

-       “The public: publicizing the facts and grievances; promoting sympathy; disseminating solid information about the nature and requirements of nonviolent struggle."

This is huge for us, not just publicizing how serious of a crisis climate change is, but also how effective nonviolent struggle can be!

-       "The volunteers: recruiting; training and incorporating participants into the movement; promoting commitment."

The CANVAS website gives more details on how to recruit and train.  Otpor had an action, recruit, train triangle, where street actions doubled as recruitment opportunities.  The new recruits would then be trained, and would often themselves be doing the next street actions.

-       "The leadership: preparing replacements for arrested leaders of the movement; setting the procedures for further selection of leadership; supplying information to the leaders."

Again, I personally think this movement would be stronger with many leaders empowered to lead fun groups in their towns.  It would make it very hard for the fossil fuel industry to effectively combat us.

-      "The movement in general: supporting morale and discipline; preparing participants to act without leaders in times of severe repression; maintaining communications.”

A big thing we need is simple morale, a belief that we can indeed save the day before it's too late.

In The Politics of Nonviolent Action, Sharp concludes: “Strong commitment of the volunteers to participation and adherence to the campaign’s plans and standards remain crucial...In preparing the volunteers and the general population for the struggle, extreme attention must be given to three closely related qualities of this technique: fearlessness, nonviolence, and…openness or nonsecrecy.”

CH   

Please muster up the $34.85 (plus shipping) and purchase The Politics of Nonviolent Action.  You can order it HERE.

Permalink

The Need for a Phased Strategy and Cause Consciousness

        Day 6 of my analysis of Gene Sharp’s The Politics of Nonviolent Action, Part Three: The Dynamics of Nonviolent Struggle, applied to the climate movement. Reading Sharp’s books are a prerequisite for anyone who is serious about stopping climate change. Please go to Dr. Sharp’s website, buy these books, and study them.

Sharp:  “Nonviolent action…participants are able to advance their cause in proportion to the degree that the opponent’s desire and ability to maintain the objectionable policy are weakened, and that the nonviolent group is able to generate the will and power to give it the internal strength  to effect the change.  The skillful choice of the point of attack is important in this connection.”

         We Pissed-Off Polar Bears saw the 2012 election, on the heels of this disastrously hot summer, as a breathtaking opportunity to get a lot of people talking about climate change and demanding action.  We considered an international treaty to be the best, fastest framework for change (still do), so we wanted to elect as many climate-friendly senators as possible to ratify such a treaty.  The rest of the movement did not show up for the fall campaigns at all, so our strategic thinking was for naught.

         Bill McKibben, in fact, started his Do the Math campaign the day after the election.  As best as I can tell, the divestment campaign he’s calling for are designed to hurt industry’s bottom line (although some doubt that it will have that effect), and to attack a key fossil fuel weakness: they’re jeopardizing young people’s entire futures.  This could, in fact, weaken industry’s ability to maintain the objectionable policy by rousing a lot of protest on campuses across the country.

Sharp:  “The planners choose the point of attack…which symbolizes the “evil” which is least defensible by the opponent and which is capable of arousing the greatest strength against it.  Success in such limited campaigns will in turn increase the self-confidence of the actionists and their ability to move effectively toward the fuller achievement of their larger objectives as they gain experience.”

         We Pissed-Off Polar Bears had a “staged campaign” in mind, but we couldn’t get past the first hurdle, getting the movement on it’s feet, so we’re back to square one:  How to get a movement up and at ‘em.  Whether McKibben or Gore or any other organization in the movement has a staged campaign in mind is unknown to me.  It would actually help the movement quite a bit if they could come out with an overall plan.  I, for one, am not comfortable just assuming that they are with the fate of the world at stake.  They haven’t had one before now, why should we assume they’ve got one now?

Sharp:  “It is necessary to publicize the facts, the issues and the arguments advanced by the nonviolent group…The need for such a period of motivational preparation has been long recognized as important to a well-supported and sustained nonviolent movement.  For example, in 1769, in correspondence with George Washington…his neighbor James Mason argued it would be necessary to publish ‘something…to warn the people of the impending danger and to induce them to the more readily and cheerfully to concur in the proper measures to avert it.'”

         Here’s where Bill McKibben and Al Gore have done a better job than anyone else in the movement.  Still, though, as a society we’re a long way away from completely coming to grips with how bad climate change could be. It’s very important that this movement does a much better job of publicizing the worst-case scenarios, which most Americans are completely unaware of (because they get no air-play), and which happen to be highly plausible, by the way.

Sharp:  “Inform the public in general of the grievances, encouraging people to feel that nonviolent action is needed to correct them, and finally to enlisting participants for the coming struggle.  A very important part of this activity is aimed at arousing the feeling that something can and ought to be done.”

         People who think that the president will handle it don’t understand how little political will there is to implement something on a scale that will be necessary to really make a dent in the advance of climate change. Nonviolent action, in the streets on a massive scale, is the only thing that will create that kind of political will. 

Sharp:  “A properly conducted journal can be of immense help in such a campaign…’Cause consciousness’ must be placed on quality rather than speed or quantity, and strict efforts must be made to avoid exaggerations, distortions, or falsehoods.  Neither should feelings of hatred or intolerance be aroused…’Many people are only looking for an excuse not to support the movement.’”

         With the need for action on climate change being so urgent, it’s tempting not to put anything before speed, but nonviolent action is most effective because it can work so quickly.  Remember what Ivan Marovic of Otpor said, “If it is carefully planned, by the time they start, everything is over in a matter of weeks”.  

CH   

Please muster up the $34.85 (plus shipping) and purchase The Politics of Nonviolent Action.  You can order it HERE.

Permalink

Power Shifts in Nonviolent Movements are a Roller Coaster Ride

            Day 3 of my analysis of Gene Sharp’s The Politics of Nonviolent Action, Part Three: The Dynamics of Nonviolent Struggle, applied to the climate movement. Reading Sharp’s books are a prerequisite for anyone who is serious about stopping climate change. Please go to Dr. Sharp’s website, buy these books, and study them.

Sharp:  “The variations in the respective power of the contending groups [in nonviolent conflict} are likely to be more extreme, to take place more quickly, and to have more diverse consequences…The nonviolent group may, by it’s actions and behavior, control the increase or decrease in the relative strength of the opponent group.”

         That’s why you do nonviolent struggle.  It’s obvious by now that the conventional political activism route has had zero effect upon the power of the fossil fuel industry and their allies.  If you want to seriously make an impact, you have to be willing to go “all-in” with a completely different technique.  I think Bill McKibben is well-poised to do this.  His 350.org supporters always astound him with their tremendous response to his calls-to-action. But he and his lieutenants don’t seem to have broken completely free of the regular political activism model.  In their Do the Math presentation they asked for everyone to text them so that then they could reach out to us when needed, but only with the promise that that they won’t be annoying about it.

         I’m sorry, but you shouldn’t be worried about annoying us.  The fossil fuel industry is what annoys us, we’ll do anything you ask, so don’t hesitate to ask as often as is needed!  And if you don’t ask often enough you’re probably not doing enough.  Don’t hold back on our account, remember how astounded you always are and give us some credit!

Sharp:  “The conflict is therefore not one between two clear-cut groups of fixed composition and strength.  Instead the  power of both groups varies…The strength of the nonviolent group will be strongly influenced by the people who are actually carrying out the action…If they participate fully, and persist despite the punishments meted out to them, the nonviolent movement is likely to be strong."

         The struggle group needs to be fully committed.  The leaders and the participants.  It’s actually a sin to be shy about "annoying" us.

Sharp: “In a given nonviolent campaign the active participants are usually a relatively small percentage of the whole population…The attitudes and activities of that wider population associated with the nonviolent struggle are, however, highly important: its approval or disapproval of the nonviolent campaign may influence the morale and hence the behavior of the active participants.  If sympathetic, the wider group may provide funds, facilities, and supplies, take less dangerous symbolic actions of support, or provide new volunteers.”

         This is a big problem for the movement.  While a majority of the population at large gives lip-service to the problem of global warming, very few think it’s worth getting worked up about.  Our peers don’t seem all that concerned.  To them, we seem a little crazy, misguided, or even unrealistic.  Right now I’d argue that this is our opponent’s greatest source of strength.  As long as the wider population is largely unmoved by climate change, industry's strength shall remain unchallenged.  Awakening the wider population is job one.

Sharp:  “The importance of national and world opinion to the outcome of the struggle varies considerably and can be highly exaggerated.  Such opinion may…influence the morale of the respective groups, and hence the outcome of the conflict.”

         In our conflict world opinion will play a key role.  True, world opinion will not factor as importantly as does American public opinion toward creating political action in this country, but this is a global problem and will require global action.  We need the citizens of the world on our side.  We need them to be every bit as active in pushing their governments to act as we must be here.

CH   

I’m including little snippets, but if we’re going to break the fossil fuel industry’s stranglehold upon our government's climate  policy, you need to read Gene Sharp’s stuff.  Please muster up the $34.85 (plus shipping) and purchase The Politics of Nonviolent Action. You can order it HERE.

Permalink

How We Can "Match Forces" With the Richest Corporations On Earth

Today marks day 13 of my analysis of Gene Sharp’s The Politics of Nonviolent Action, Part One: Power and Struggle, Chapter 2, applying it to the climate movement. Reading Sharp’s books are a prerequisite for anyone who wants to help save our life-support system.

Sharp: “Nonviolent action…is a technique of struggle involving the use of social, economic, and political power, and the matching of forces in conflict.”

         It’s hard for some people to envision just how we intend to “match forces” with the richest companies in the world.  They have all the money and all the political power.  But they’re hugely unpopular and they don’t have a moral leg to stand on.  They’re putting everyone’s kids in grave danger, including their own.  They ‘re basically f***ing up the planet for every other person and every other business in every country on Earth.  And even their own workforce won’t escape the catastrophe that’s coming.  So, if we can get all those other people, including their own workforce and their own families, to stand up and say “No more”, we can very handily “match forces” with them.  It's about figuring out where they're at a disadvantage and playing to that.

Sharp:  “People using nonviolent action do not have to be pacifists or saints; nonviolent action has been predominantly and successfully practiced by ‘ordinary’ people.”

In America the two great nonviolent practitioners we know are Gandhi and Martin Luther King.  So it’s easy for people to think you have to be some kind of religious leader to do nonviolence right.  Not even.  Anyone can do it.  Even you!

Sharp:  “When efforts to produce voluntary change fail, coercive nonviolent measures may be employed.”

         Describes the climate movement’s situation to a “T”.  They have tried and tried to do it the usual way for 30 years and no progress has been made.  So we’ll have to create scenarios where we can “match forces” with the fossil fuel industry.

Sharp: “In nonviolent action there is no assumption that the  opponent will refrain from using violence against the nonviolent actionists; the technique is designed to operate against violence when necessary.”

         “Casting off fear” is a big part of nonviolence done right.    You’re taking a big chance when you step into this arena.  But isn’t it worth it to save the future from an unthinkable disaster?  Humans evolved as tribal creatures, and they would do anything to protect their tribe.  That’s why people will often risk their necks to save complete strangers from gunfire or oncoming traffic or whatever.  It’s hardwired in us. 

Those of us who get it, those of us who understand just how bad this is likely to be, need to willing to take great risks in order to save the world from catastrophe.

CH

I’m including little snippets, but if we’re going to break the fossil fuel industry’s stranglehold you need to read Gene Sharp’s stuff.  Please muster up the $34.85 (plus shipping) and purchase all three volumes of The Politics of Nonviolent Action. You can order it HERE.

Permalink

For Love of Country, for Love of Planet Earth, We Need to Make Some Noise

Today marks day 11 of my analysis of Gene Sharp’s The Politics of Nonviolent Action, Part One: Power and Struggle, Chapter 2, applying it to the movement to save the world from man-made global warming.  As you can see I’m moving ahead to chapter 2.  Here’s the thing about these books: they’re huge!  The three volumes of this book alone are nearly 850 pages.  When I started reading I perused the table of contents and thought “I’ll need this, not that, etc.”, but I kept reading, and ended up so grateful that I’d read it all  You really do need to read it all to get properly steeped in nonviolent struggle.  There’s so much to know, and all of it will help everyone who wants to help this movement save our life-support system!

Sharp: “Subjects may disobey laws they reject.  Workers may halt work, which may paralyze the economy.  The bureaucracy may refuse to carry out instructions.  Soldiers and police may become lax in inflicting repression…When all these events happen simultaneously, the man who has been ‘ruler’ becomes just another man…The ruler’s military equipment may remain intact, his soldiers uninjured, cities unscathed, the factories and transport systems in full operational capacity, an the government buildings undamaged.  But everything is changed…When people refuse their cooperation, withhold their help, and persist  in their disobedience and defiance, they are denying their opponent the basic human assistance  and cooperation which any…heirarchical system requires.  If they do this in sufficient numbers for long enough, that…heirarchical system will no longer have power.  This is the basic political assumption of nonviolent action.”

         Our opponents are the fossil fuel industry and their allies in our government, media, and society.  These people are forcing inaction on climate change and basically putting everyone in the world’s future in grave danger. They’ve done a magnificent job of marginalizing people who want to do something about this before it’s too late.  That must stop, so we must be really, really smart about how we do this.  Nonviolence by itself won’t do it, there needs to be a grand strategy, and ultimately most of society must be on board.  Big challenge, but if you read your Gene Sharp, it all becomes doable! 

Sharp:  “Nonviolent…actionists conduct the conflict by doing – or refusing to do – certain things without using physical violence…Nonviolent action is not passive.  It is not inaction.  It is action that is nonviolent…Whatever the scale of the conflict, nonviolent action is a technique by which people who reject passivity and submission, and who see struggle as essential.”

         If you have done nothing more to stop global warming than changing your light bulbs, you’ve been pretty damned passive, haven’t you?  In the meantime nothing has been done about climate change.  Struggle, my friends, is essential.

Sharp:  “Conciliation and appeals are likely to consist of rational or emotional verbal efforts to bring about an oppenent’s agreement to do something, while nonviolent action is not verbal – it consists of social, economic, and political activity of special types…Nonviolent action is so different from…milder peaceful responses to conflicts that several writers have pointed to the general similarities of nonviolent action to military war.  Nonviolent action is a means of combat, as is war.  It involves the matching of forces and the waging of ‘battles’, requires wise strategy and tactics, and demands of its ‘soldiers’ courage, discipline, and sacrifice.”

         So you can see how, by Sharp’s reckoning, nonviolent action is a means of last-resort, only to be used when all other means have been exhausted.  We’ve been trying to stop “The Greenhouse Effect” and “Global Warming”, and “Climate Change” for three decades now.  I’d say all other means have been exhausted.

Sharp:  “Nonviolent action must not be confused with anarchism.”

         This country’s history is full of extraordinary acts of nonviolence, from the Tea Boycott at our nation’s founding to the Abolitionist Movement to the Women’s Suffrage Movement to the Civil Rights Movement to Cesar Chavez and the United Farm Workers.  They recognized the need to go to extraordinary lengths to make a more perfect union. 

         For love of country, for love of the planet earth, we need to make some noise.

CH

I’m including little snippets, but if we’re going to break the fossil fuel industry’s stranglehold on our democracy, you need to read Gene Sharp’s stuff.  Please muster up the $34.85 (plus shipping) and purchase The Politics of Nonviolent Action.  You can order it HERE.

  

Permalink

Power is Based on Consent, Which Can be Withdrawn

Our 8th day of examining Gene Sharp’s The Politics of Nonviolent Action, Part One: Power and Struggle, and connecting it to our need to stop climate change:

Sharp: “All government is based on consent…Consent can be withdrawn… Power ‘can never be exercised without…the direct cooperation of large numbers of people and the indirect cooperation of the entire community’…The attitudes and beliefs of the ruler’s agents are especially important here.  Destroy the opinion of the supporting intermediary class that it is in their interest to support the ruler, ‘and the fabric which it is built upon falls to the ground’… The reasons for obedience are variable and may be strengthened or weakened….An army…may be influenced by the opinions and sentiments to the people at large.”

         We need to convince the populace in places like Dallas, Houston, and Wichita, that climate change is a crisis which demands urgent action.  Then, it would follow that the fossil fuel industry’s employees, as well as the legislators who do that industry’s bidding, would begin to be less supportive of the men who are running these corporations.  Sounds impossible, I know, but, again, this region of the country has been crippled by devastating heat and drought for two years now.  The climate is ripe, so to speak.

         But first, of course, we need to convince the population at large that this is an urgent crisis in the first place.  I had two conversations with friends yesterday, people who say we should do something about climate change, but it was obvious that they had no idea how bad this could get, or how soon.  One said that global warming couldn’t be stopped, and that it wouldn’t really impact people’s lives in a noticeable way, and would take several generations.  This appears to be how most people see it.  People really need a dose of the entirely plausible worst-case scenarios, triggered by impossible-to-predict natural feedback loops, to awaken them to what’s at stake here.

Sharp:  “Gandhi…emphasized the importance of a change of will as a prerequisite for a change in patterns of obedience and cooperation….He argued a need for; 1) a psychological change away from passive submission to self-respect and courage; 2) recognition by the subject that his assistance makes the regime possible; and 3) the building of a determination to withdraw cooperation and obedience.  Gandhi felt that these changes could be consciously influenced, and he therefore set out to bring them about.  ‘My speeches,’ he said, ‘are intended to create disaffection as such, that the people might consider it a shame to assist or cooperate.’”

         Of course we have a conundrum here in that anyone who fills up their car’s gas tank is, in a way, cooperating.  We live in a modern society that was planned around the car, so it’s very difficult to get around without one. So we need to push to create great mass transit systems in our cities, and transition to electric vehicles in a hurry.  The fossil fuel industry does not want this, so they have fought it all the way, and will continue to.  We need to shame them, and force these companies and our government to invest the capital needed to transition to cleaner energy.  And fast.

Sharp:  “Changes in the attitudes of workers in factories or of citizens…which result in withdrawal of obedience and cooperation can create extreme difficulties for the system.  It can be disrupted or paralyzed. The sheer difficulties of maintaining the normal working of any political unit when its subjects are bent upon an attitude of defiance and acts of obstruction are sufficient to give any ruler cause for thought.”

Again, we must withdraw our consent.

CH

I’m including little snippets, but if we’re going to break Dirty Energy’s stranglehold you need to read Gene Sharp’s stuff.  Please muster up the $34.85 (plus shipping) and purchase The Politics of Nonviolent Action.  You can order it HERE.

Permalink

The Only Thing We Need to Do is Get Everybody REALLY Riled Up!

        Happy Sunday!  As soon as I get a little time I’ll start livening up the blog with polar bear videos and the like, but for now I’ll continue to examine Gene Sharp’s The Politics of Nonviolent Action, Part One: Power and Struggle, and connect it to our need to stop climate change.

Sharp: “Obedience is not inevitable…The most powerful ruler receives only the habitual obedience of the bulk of his subjects…People are generally law abiding, except when ‘unmoored by catastrophic events or by social convulsions’.  At any point in a given society there are limits within which a ruler must stay if his commands are to be obeyed.”

         Think of the “ruler” here as the fossil fuel corporations, and how, by funding climate denial and using their political influence for twenty years to stop action against climate change, they have strayed beyond those limits. 

Sharp: “Obedience is essentially voluntary…although highly influenced by various social forces…The will or opinion of the individual is not constant and may change in response to new influences, events, and forces.”

        Consider the stranglehold the National Rifle Association has had on American politics for decades now.  Columbine didn’t have any affect on their power, Virginia Tech didn’t either, nor did Aurora, but the horrific slaughter of all those little kids at Sandy Hook suddenly has the NRA very much on the run.  Just like that, a political titan is on it’s knees.

Sharp: “In certain situations the subject may even conclude that it is in his self-interest to disobey a regime – especially if he foresees its collapse.  The degree of his lack of self-confidence also varies and may be influenced by changes in the attitudes of other subjects.” 

         The biggest hurdle we face is not the fossil fuel industry, it’s actually getting everybody riled up enough to stand up to that industry.  Once that happens, the fossil fuel industry will be on the run in a hurry.  But what will it take to make that happen?

Sharp: “Even in sanctions, there is a role for an act of will, for choice.  The sanction must be feared and its consequences be seen as more undesirable than the consequences of obedience.”

         I think this could be a huge motivating factor, because nothing’s worse than the consequences of climate change.  Nothing.  So what are we waiting for?

Sharp: “Gandhi, on the basis of his efforts to produce large-scale disobedience and voluntary acceptance of imposed sanctions, observed that feelings must be very intense to make possible the acceptance of such sacrifice.”

         So our challenge is to find how to arouse those intense feelings.  I know we Pissed-Off Polar Bears feel them, but few others do, even within the climate movement.  We have one great ally that will really get people’s attention: Mother Nature.  With the incredibly mild December we are having, it’s virtually certain we’ll face another scorching summer. 

CH

I’m including little snippets, but if we’re going to break Dirty Energy’s stranglehold you need to read Gene Sharp’s stuff.  Please muster up the $34.85 (plus shipping) and purchase The Politics of Nonviolent Action.  You can order it HERE.

Permalink

Why Do Men Obey? Gene Sharp’s Observations Applied to Climate Inaction

Continuing my analysis of Gene Sharp’s The Politics of Nonviolent Action, Part One: Power and Struggle, and how it all applies to the movement to save the world from a changing climate.

Sharp: “Higher standards of living…in highly industrialized countries may contribute significantly to political obedience and positive assistance for the system….”

This is another huge problem we face as a movement.  People in the fossil fuel industry are basically comfortable, and not eager to rock the boat (in spite of the disaster climate change will ultimately bring to their families).  Combine that with the oft-promoted notion that the brunt of global warming’s effects will hit only the developing world.  (I know people who cite that as a reason people don’t get involved.  To which my response is “How do they know?!  No one knows how bad this is going to be or when it’s gonna happen.  If the mountain snow pack vanishes and there’s no melt water to feed our rivers and our crops dry up there won’t be enough to eat, no matter where you live.”)  (Since the climate is unravelling much faster and with much more severity than scientists had predicted, it’s just foolish not to consider worst-case scenarios.)

Sharp: “Psychological identification with the ruler…People often need something or someone to believe in…the triumphs and successes of the government are felt as personal triumphs by it’s subjects, its defeats are experienced as personal.”

This is basically branding and party affiliation, particularly among the Republicans.  Global warming should be something we’re all working to stop, but since the fossil fuel industry has been a strong supporter of the Republican party,  and since they have a ton of money, they have been able to successfully brand climate change as a hoax within that party.  So lots of Republicans, many of whom are very smart people, consider it a matter of personal pride to dismiss the warnings of 98% of climate scientists.  With these ideological blinders on, a lot of good people vote to stop any progress on the climate.

Sharp: “Many people do not have sufficient confidence in themselves, their judgement and their capacities to make them capable of disobedience and resistance….One consequence of the lack of self-confidence is a tendency to avoid responsibility, to seek to delegate it upward and to attribute greater authority to superiors in the hierarchy than is in fact merited.”

Wait for the president to do it.  Wait for Greenpeace to do it.  Wait for Bill McKibben to do it.  “What can I do?”

Or people look around at society and see no one paying all that much attention to the problem (what was it, the #20 issue during the campaign season?), so they doubt themselves and think maybe they’re taking it too seriously.  

Sharp:  “Every ruler uses the obedience and cooperation he receives from part of the society to rule the whole.

Sadly, the role our friends and family who deny climate change play in all this cannot be overstated.

CH

I’m including little snippets, but if we’re going to break Dirty Energy’s stranglehold you need to read Gene Sharp’s stuff.  Please muster up the $34.85 (plus shipping) and purchase The Politics of Nonviolent Action.  You can order it HERE.

Permalink

Why Don’t People Rise Up to Save the Climate?

More notes from reading Gene Sharp’s The Politics of Nonviolent Action, Part One: Power and Struggle.

Sharp: “Obedience is the heart of political power…Many people often assume that the issuance of a command and it’s execution…is an entirely one-way relationship…such an assumption is not true…The orchestra, if dissatisfied with the conductor…through deliberate noncooperation and hostile agitation…may get him fired.”

Noncooperation.  We cooperate with how the fossil fuel industry shunts action on climate change by not changing our lives.  I’m not talking about giving up your car here, that by itself wouldn’t do much.  I’m talking about getting involved and standing up to the fossil fuel industry.  If multitudes of us rose up against them and said “Enough!”, we could save the planet.  I’m talking about forcing them to acknowledge that we humans can no longer use fossil fuels, we need to transform where we get our energy from, which is entirely possible, and it must be done anyway because we’re running out of reserves.

Sharp:  “Why do large numbers submit…and obey…even though it is clearly not in their best interests to do so?”

This is the classic climate paradigm.  We’re destroying our life-support system, and yet we collectively do nothing to stop it.  Sharp has some ideas on why:

Sharp (quoting the philosopher David Hume): “Men ‘never think of departing from that path in which they and their ancestors have constantly trod, and to which they are confined by so many urgent and visible motives’…The ruler’s ‘secret of success’ then becomes the subject’s mind…The degree to which the…regime is identified with the common good will help to determine the degree of loyal obedience.”

People think we need that energy so much they don’t consider the ultimate consequences.  And there are viable alternative energy sources that could be deployed on a mass scale.  But the Dirty Energy companies and their allies in congress are determined to stop large-scale deployment of these sources (which at this point need a boost from our governments to become viable) because it would hurt their profits.

Sharp: “Economic self-interest may be an…important motive for obedience among a larger percentage of a population.”

Looking at the larger population, this is a major reason why people aren’t devoting everything to this.  I wish I could work on this full-time, but I can’t keep up with my bills if I do, so I have to get up at 4 a.m. every day to work on the blog and then other climate-related stuff (I tried doing it after work every day, but I found it was better to devote my time to this early).  But at least I’m working on it every day! 

What I think this movement needs is people working on it full-time.  We’re at a huge disadvantage with the fossil fuel industry here.  They can hire people (or perhaps we should call them goons) to work on casting doubt on climate change round-the-clock. 

But I bet we could outnumber ‘em.  Because there are in fact loads of people who could work on this full-time.  Think of all the people out-of-work right now.  It sucks to be out of work, but it is an opportunity to spend your time saving the world!  For real.  Or twenty-somethings, just out of college, who understand the risk poised to their own futures, some have parents who could cover their expenses while they worked on this full-time.  Finally, you’ve got retirees, or people who could afford to retire, or take a sabbatical, to work on something more important than anyone’s ever worked on. 

There are plenty of excuses why not to devote your best energies to saving the world, but at the end of the day they’re just that: excuses. 

CH

I’m including little snippets, but if we’re going to break Dirty Energy’s stranglehold you need to read Gene Sharp’s stuff.  Please muster up the $34.85 (plus shipping) and purchase The Politics of Nonviolent Action.  You can order it HERE.

Permalink

Examining Some of the Sources of Fossil Fuel’s Power

Using Gene Sharp’s The Politics of Nonviolent Action, here are some of my thoughts on what the fossil fuel industry depends upon to fortify it's position of power.  If I’m wrong about any of it, or missing anything, feel free to comment.

Sharp: “A ruler’s power is affected by the number of persons who obey him, cooperate with him, or provide him with special assistance…the ruler’s power is also affected by the skills, knowledge, and abilities of such persons."

The fossil fuel industry’s workforce is key here.  Most of these people are living in regions already hit by devastating heat and drought.  Even if they have bought in to climate denial all the way, they see what’s going on with the weather, that’s got to nag at them.  They see how it’s affecting their communities, that has to give them doubts.  And they have kids who will have to live their entire lives with the depredations of climate change, if that doesn’t give them second thoughts, maybe their kids will insist upon it.

Sharp: “Psychological and ideological factors…affect the power of the ruler in relation to the people.”

The climate denial machine is well-funded and sophisticated and its message is repeated frequently on Fox News, talk radio, and go-to right wing websites.  Climate change shouldn’t be a political issue, we should all be pitching in to save the planet, but this denial machine has deliberately made it a political issue.  Hardcore conservatives consider climate denial a major part of their identity, so even though Mother Nature has forced many on the right to believe climate change is underway, there are plenty out there who can never accept reality.

Sharp: “The degree to which the ruler controls property, natural resources, financial resources, the economic system, means of communication and transportation helps to determine the limits of his power.”

This is the big one.  These guys not only control our power sources, they’ve worked with allies in our government to undermine the development of alternative energy sources such as wind.  They have us by the balls.  But we must stop them or our civilization will collapse.  We must break the stranglehold. 

They also frequently have sanctions on their side, depending which judge hears the case.  The Bush administration packed the courts with right-wing ideologues, so if an activist goes before a judge, there’s a decent chance he will be tried unfairly.  When climate activist Tim DeChristopher went before federal judge Dee Benson, the judge forbade his lawyers from presenting Tim’s motive for his actions, so the jurors were to judge only on whether he had done what he was charged with, which he’d already admitted he had.  So he spent over a year in prison, and will not be free until next June.  Those sanctions have worked.  DeChristopher has been silenced and hated the experience, and people don’t want to go to prison and have that on their record.  

Sharp: “All rulers require an acceptance of their authority, their right to rule and command…Just as subjects may accept a ruler’s authority because they believe it is merited on grounds of morality and of the well-being of their country, subjects may for the same reasons at times deny the ruler’s claims to authority over them.”

This is HUGE.  The fossil fuel industry wants us to believe they are supplying us with a needed service,  They want us to accept their position of power as a good thing.  But what they are supplying us is killing the world. They’re like heroin dealers, feeding our addiction.  We need to, on the “grounds of morality and of the well-being of our country”, strip them of their capacity to keep forcing this dirty energy upon us.

Sharp:  “If the subjects deny a ruler’s right to rule and command, they are withdrawing the general agreement, or group consent…This loss of authority sets in motion the disintegration of the ruler’s power."

That’s what we all have to do.  REMOVE OUR CONSENT.  It's unacceptable for them to destroy the climate that's sustained us.

CH  

I’m including little snippets, but if we’re going to break Dirty Energy’s stranglehold you need to read Gene Sharp’s stuff.  Please muster up the $34.85 (plus shipping) and purchase The Politics of Nonviolent Action.  You can order it HERE.

Permalink

Understand: Fossil Fuel’s Stranglehold is Fragile! We CAN Break it!

Like Cesar Chavez or Martin Luther King, we are not trying to supplant our government.  The power Chavez and the United Farm Workers faced was a consortium of growers, the power King and the Civil Rights Movement faced was a system of unfair state laws and a culture of intimidation.   The power we face is the fossil fuel industry and their allies within our government and institutions.

Their control over our nation’s energy policy seems unbreakable.  They have so much money and many tailor-made laws that favor their position (remember, the oil corporations have been running the show since the Standard Oil Corporation of Ohio started throwing around it’s weight in the later 19th century).  We see global warming kicking in.  We know it will be catastrophic in our lifetimes and ruinous for future generations.  We want to stop it but feel powerless in the face of the fossil fuel industry’s stranglehold.

In the first pages of Gene Sharp’s The Politics of Nonviolent Action – Part One: Power and Struggle, we learn that our impression of their power is wrong.  It is we who have the power.  Some highlights:

 “An erroneous or inadequate view of the nature of political power is unlikely to produce satisfactory and effective action for dealing with it.”

“One can see the people as dependent on the good will, the decisions, and the support of their government, or of any hierarchical systems to which they belong.  Or…one can see that government or system as dependent on the people’s good will, decisions and support…One can also see power as self-perpetuating, durable, not easily or quickly controlled or destroyed.  Or political power can be viewed as fragile, always dependent for it’s strength and existence upon a replenishment of its sources by the cooperation of a multitude of institutions and people – cooperation which may or may not continue.

“Nonviolent action is based on the second of these views: that governments depend on its people, that power is pluralistic, and that political power is fragile because it depends on many groups for reinforcement of its power sources.”

All power “can be weakened and shattered by the undermining of its sources of power”.

So the first step toward breaking Dirty Energy’s stranglehold is to understand that it can be broken.

I’m including little snippets, but if we’re going to break Dirty Energy’s stranglehold you need to read Gene Sharp’s stuff.  Please muster up the $34.85 (plus shipping) and purchase The Politics of Nonviolent Action.  You can order it HERE.

Permalink

The Need to Stick to One Issue, the Climate

I'm just sick about gun violence in this country, and am posting late because my mental energy today has been spent on the soul-crushing tragedy in Connecticut yesterday.

I try not to opine on politics outside of the climate (and I fail miserably at it) because I intend to be a one-issue guy.  Climate change is advancing so quickly that we need everybody on board in a hurry or we'll all be screwed.  I want the bankers and gun owners and everybody else who I fundamentally disagree with on board to help us remove the fossil fuel industry's stranglehold on American energy policy.  I'm left-wing on everything but the death penalty (fry 'em!), but I'd yield on all of it to save the climate.

We MUST stop the ship from sinking.  We can fight about he rest later, but time is so short.

CH


Permalink

Openness Vs. Secrecy in Nonviolent Movements

In the movie Gandhi, a group of Indians, Hindus and Muslims, meet in a crowded hall to plan their resistance against the British / South African government.  Several white constables sit in the front row, with helmets and batons.  Gandhi greets them with a smile as the meeting commences, and tells them "We have no secrets".

The climate movement is now in a position where we are taking on the fossil fuel industry and their allies to save our civilization and life on Earth as we know it.  These are huge stakes.  They have so much power, so much money.

The temptation, certainly, must be to conspire plans in dark rooms to take them down.  This is foolish, naive, and it undercuts how nonviolent struggle works.

We're the good guys!  We, like Gandhi, have nothing to hide.  We need to openly talk about them and what they are doing to the planet.  We need to frankly put forth our plans to stop them from destroying the world.

Yes, they will use this knowledge of our intentions to fight back, but they'd know our intentions anyway.  Years ago a British environmental group found out that one of their most trusted members was a spy.  Any group that becomes a threat to the fossil fuel powerhouses should expect to soon have moles on the inside, so it's best to adopt a position of openness, and let the whole world know what you're up to.

It actually serves to give your movement more power.

Permalink

The solution will not come from What Is, but from What Can Be

My brother-in-law is a sustainability policy wonk, he’s good at it too.  He’s been doing it for many years and he’s really thought through all the practical solutions for arresting climate change.

But as he describes everything it becomes painfully evident that we’re not going to be able to solve this in time.  The way our government is set up completely favors the fossil fuel industry.  The game is rigged and we don’t stand a chance. “We’re doomed”, by brother-in-law acknowledges.  There’s nothing we can do to stop it in time.

But we’re talking about the fate of the world here!  The collapse of every ecosystem known to man.  Politics as usual must not apply here. So clearly we need a massive popular movement to stand up and save civilization.  But there is no such movement.  People just don’t care that much.  How the hell do we get past that?!

For one thing there are two vehicles that drive public opinion: the media and the arts. 

The media is dropping the ball big-time here.  They just aren’t covering how bad this is going to be.  They’re completely ignoring their responsibility.  So clearly we have to go all out to get them to pay attention before it’s too late. 

Artists can have a huge impact on all of this if the artists are moved to do it.  Think of the anti-war movement of the 1960's and how many of the popular songs spoke out against war.  We gotta do that again!  The arts have to be a big part of this. 

Politics as usual is not going to be enough at all, and anybody who looks at solving climate change through the prism of what is doomed to fail.  We have to look at climate change through the prism of what can be and get to work on making that happen.

Permalink

Novel and Brilliant Street Theater Would Translate to Climate Protests PERFECTLY!

I love flashmobs and I love Improv Everywhere.  They flooded into a Manhattan Best Buy, 87 people wearing blue polo shirts and khaki pants, the standard outfit of Best Buy employees.  The store manager called the police but the cop said "I'm not going to arrest them for wearing blue shirts and khaki pants".  They also got 207 people to freeze in place in Grand Central Station for five full minutes, only to then causally unfreeze and go about their business.  As that was happening, a bystander speculated "I think it's a protest".

It wasn't but why not do protests that way?  We Pissed-Off Polar Bears conjured up our "Going Away Party for FLORIDA!" at the RNC and a "fully-catered" hunger strike at the DNC called "A Taste of Things to Come: Famine Practice!".  It ended up being just me and her at both events, but imagine how great it would have been if more activists had been willing to have more fun with their protesting?

When I first became a climate activist I was very big on creating autonomous "dens" all over the country, where activists could come up with their own ideas.  My climate partner at the time chafed at the idea, but I still think it's the right way to go.  Not all ideas out there will be great, but if more people are creating more ways to protest, we're bound to come up with some great stuff.  The Otpor movement in Serbia was big on this, people could do any protests they wanted as long as the protests were targeted at Slobodan Milosevic and as long as the protests were nonviolent.  We could do the same thing, requiring nonviolent actions, but substituting Milosevic with the fossil fuel industry and the climate deniers that keep them propped up.

You got an idea?  You don't think the climate movement is doing enough?  Come up with your own groups and your own actions and send us videotape so we can promote it.  Just be sure your actions are completely nonviolent, which includes not damaging property.  We'd also prefer if they were funny!  Our email is PeteThePissedOffPolarBear@gmail.com.

Chasing Ice Director Makes Poignant Comparison Between the U.S. Ending Slavery and the Need to Stop Climate Change

Chasing Ice Director Jeff Orlowski

I had an amazing afternoon in Denver today.  First I went to see Lincoln, then I went to a screening of Chasing Ice where the director, Jeff Orlowski appeared in person for a Q&A after the film.  He made a direct comparison between Lincoln ending slavery and our current need to divorce ourselves from fossil fuels in order to create a more ethical economic model:

"We're facing a similar turning-point to what our country went through a hundred-something years ago (147), when we were using slavery as a form of our economic model.  That was the machine that drove the country economically.  We had companies, industries, that were based on free labor, and we had a debate in this country that cost 600,000 American lives over whether or not this was an ethical thing for us to continue doing. And, ultimately, we made the decision that we were going to move away from this policy that we felt was immoral, and we will deal with the economic consequences, and we are going to shift to something that we really believe in and we can proudly move forward.  I believe that future generations are going to look back at this era with that same mindset, that same perspective.  Just like we look back at slavery.  They're going to say 'The science was clear.  It was known.  It was obvious'...

"We don't want the film to be considered a left vs. right debate.  The issue is not a political issue.  It's been politicized, but this should be an apolitical issue and we really want to embrace bi-partisan support...."

One other thing, Orlowski said before the Q&A that he felt like everything he'd done in his life had led him to make this movie.  That's the thing about working to save our planet's life-support system.  Once you hurl yourself into it, everything that came before suddenly makes a whole lot of sense.  Such is the genius of devoting oneself to a cause so much bigger than ourselves.


Permalink

What We're Talking About When We Talk About Nonviolent Struggle

What we’re facing here is what is called an “acute conflict”.  Acute conflicts are not open to compromise. Politics as usual works best on compromise.  But global warming is not something where compromise is going to work.  We need to make the fossil fuel industry give up on it’s basic business model.  They have to stop forcing us to use the kind of energy that puts heat-trapping gases into the atmosphere (and further seals our doom).  This has to end.  There’s no nice way around it.  That’s why we need a very effective and very determined nonviolent strategy.

When I first started studying nonviolent struggle, I was surprised to learn that it was actually a means of last resort.  You were supposed to exhaust every other avenue of solving the problem before you employ the drastic technique of nonviolent action.  

People don’t really understand what you mean when you say “nonviolence”.  They think it means “Oh, they’re peaceful, isn’t that sweet,” and underneath that they think “They’re naive.  They won’t be effective.  They’re wasting their time.”  So. when I read that nonviolence should only be undertaken as a means of last resort, I couldn’t help but think “Huh?!  How could something that harmless be a means of last resort?”

Well the truth is nonviolent struggle is scrappy and aggressive.  It’s a very confrontational way of engaging an opponent.  It’s not about being nice, it’s not about being passive, and it often requires activists to put themselves in harm’s way.

You do nonviolent action because it’s the fastest, most effective way to get what you need to get done done.

Violence doesn’t work.  When you’re taking on an opponent that has all the machinery of the state behind it, you’re taking on opponents who have the police and the military there to defend it (to say nothing of all the private security forces that money can buy), so any attempt at violence would quickly result in defeat.

Sabotage doesn’t work either.  Basically nonviolent struggles are popularity contests with the public as the judge.  So if your side commits actions that cast your side in a bad light, you’re harming your cause.  

In nonviolent struggle you have to be really smart and careful about what you do.

There are a lot of organizations in the climate movement, and all but one that I can think of are committed to “nonviolence” (Deep Green Resistance put out a book a couple years ago that advocated secrecy and sabotage, which are both no-no’s when it comes to nonviolent action).   But, with only a couple very recent exceptions, the movement hasn’t applied a systematic nonviolent strategy to it’s actions.  (I worked with one organization who never had time to work out an overall strategy, they were always frantically consumed with the very next action – as a means to grow their membership.  That was their goal for the year:  Grow membership.  Not Stop Global Warming.)

You need a strategy, a carefully thought-out strategy.  You need activists that are really committed to doing this.  And you need people with a deep understanding of how nonviolent struggle works.  That’s one of our main goals with this blog.

Gandhi believed nonviolent struggle was a means of matching forces.  This movement needs to create a playing field where we are in a position of advantage that our opponents cannot break.   

CH

Permalink