by Fred Allebach | Special to the SUN
On 10/30/16, the First Congregational Church’s Earth Care Committee held a conversation with May Boeve, director of the climate change-focused non-profit 350.0rg
“Climate change” and “global warming” are terms that actually describe anthropogenic or human-caused climate change. This change has come about since 1850 with the advent of the Industrial Revolution, when fossil, carbon-based fuels began to be used. The burning of fossil fuels released more and more carbon, in the form of carbon dioxide (CO2) into the atmosphere and this caused a greenhouse effect. CO2 can last 100s of years in the atmosphere from the time of emission.
The reason the organization is called 350.org? “If humanity wishes to preserve a planet similar to that on which civilization developed and to which life on Earth is adapted, paleoclimate evidence and ongoing climate change suggest that CO2 will need to be reduced from [current levels] to at most 350 ppm (parts per million).” Dr. James Hansen https://350.org/about/science/ For more info on 350.org, visit their website: https://350.org/
350’s mission, “We believe in a safe climate and a better future — a just, prosperous, and equitable world built with the power of ordinary people.” “350 is building a global grassroots climate movement that can hold our leaders accountable to the realities of science and the principles of justice.”
350’s goal: stabilize at 350 ppm, and 1.5 degrees Celsius, above preindustrial levels. Previously, 450 ppm and 2.0 degrees Celsius was thought to be an adequate cutoff point.
These apparently small numbers, and somewhat involved technical context, are actually extremely important to understand, as they add up to huge impacts on global climate.
John Donnelly, chair of the Earth Care Committee set the stage and soon after, plenty of questions came forth from the audience and the conversation began. Boeve started out by saying, “we have to limit warming to 1.5 degrees Celsius.” “We’ve hit the cutoff point.” A 1.5 Celsius cut-off means no more pipelines, no more fracking, no more coal mines. Getting to 1.5 Celsius means time to make a strong and purposeful move to clean, green and renewable energy sources.
Ed Clay, of Transition Sonoma Valley, made the first comment and noted that “changing our behavior is the key.” How, Clay asked, is the best way? Clay mentioned social media, taking a picture of yourself in a sweater with the temp set at 64 degrees F, or a pic of yourself with a recycled shopping bag.
In response, Boeve improvised on individual and collective action. All action is nested she said, a fractal of itself along a spectrum. Collectives are made up of individuals, but collective choices, in an activist movement for example, are different than individual behavioral choices. Boeve made a subtle point: don’t confuse individual choices like riding a bike or composting with the incremental, movement-based choices that potentially add up to significant systemic change.
Boeve mentioned she started out only hoping to address climate change, but that has led to a larger project, “trying to change how the economy works.” Changing an economy dependent on oil and fossil fuels, and the powerful interests that seek to keep that up has become Boeve’s, and 350.org’s project.
Continuing on this topic, Boeve mentioned efforts to discredit Al Gore and Bill McKibben (former leader of 350) for apparently contradictory individual actions, like air travel, living in a big house, or being seen with a plastic shopping bag. Does this make them hypocrites and therefore discredit their whole message? Apparently there are forces that follow McKibben everywhere with cameras looking for ways to discredit him and the 350 movement. Said Boeve, at this level, climate change is not about individual behaviors but rather the goals of a collective movement. (Purity tests always seems to be a potent social weapon.)
Local civil rights activist Mike Smith asked, “how to get a sense of urgency?” “What is the plan for mobilizing?” Boeve referenced the Bernie Sanders campaign as having awakened the interests of many; that was a “huge help” to the climate change campaign. Bernie called out the role of big banks, and the fossil fuel industry. He brought up the issues, and a lot of people, young people in particular, voted to support Bernie’s views. In the Democratic primary, 13.2 million voted for Bernie as compared to 16.9 million for Clinton.
Boeve noted that the 2018 election was already being planned, for candidates to run on issues of income inequality, climate justice, and debt free college etc.
Caitlin Cornwall of the Sonoma Ecology Center, noted there is a local/ regional conflict, between economic-bottom-line-only vs. environmental and social justice interests. Until this conflict is resolved, Cornwall said, people are reluctant to act on climate issues; they aren’t on the same team. How to address this paralyzing conflict of interests? This vexing question has no easy answer.
Boeve replied with a number of points about participatory budgets, the example of model communities, the need to ramp up the role of government to address large structural changes. With a participatory budget, the city, for example, would dedicate a percent of the general fund and a citizen committee could decide how to spend it. Citizens could then target funds at their greatest concerns. A model community, would be one where government and citizens embraced, for example, Citta Slow values, where a more sustainable life style would be manifested. And, Boeve said, “there is no reliable substitute for government to shifting an energy system.” Transportation, (the largest generator of greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions regionally), will need a large gov’t investment to change business as usual practices, said Boeve.
Boeve held forth on the role of dark money, the Koch bothers, and the role of the fossil fuel industry. Movements many times require an enemy to rally against. In the case of climate change, this enemy is the fossil fuel industry and the corollary economic interests that support and are dependent upon it. Boeve noted that the traditional environmental movement focused on conservation and preservation. Now environmental interest have a major power struggle on their hands, over the nature of the whole economy. And when push comes to shove, as Boeve noted, the “fossil fuel industry does not play nice.” Environmentalists have had to endure intimidation, attacks, and threats.
Georgia Kelly, of the Praxis Peace Institute, noted in a comment that the economy is critical to controlling environmental impacts, and referred to Naomi Klein’s book This Changes Everything, https://thischangeseverything.org/book/ Kelly recommended this as required reading for climate change activists. Kelly offered a short personal synopsis of the book should anyone contact her.
Boeve responded by noting Mark Jacobson’s, (of Stanford University) Solutions Project, http://thesolutionsproject.org/ The project has created roadmaps of what steps can be taken, and what climate mitigation areas can be addressed, for example, more solar and the creation of electricity through clean energy, as the City of Sonoma has done by leading in solar, and switching to Sonoma Clean Power’s 100% renewable, Evergreen option for its 41 electrical accounts.
Marilyn Goode, of the Westerbeke Ranch and Vanhoosear Wildflower Preserve, noted that non-profits, by law, cannot overtly advocate for political causes, and then she asked, does 350.org find itself limited by being a non-profit in what it can advocate? Goode noted that the Sierra Club is not a non-profit and thus is free to advocate environmental causes, and that wealthy Sonomans should forego the carrot of a tax write-off to non-profits, so as to be able to support environmental advocacy organizations. Goode, in her post script, noted that Sonomans are “insulated in our little hive”, and that people are not conscious when they drink too much wine.
Boeve responded that 350.org is action, not the catalyzing of change. Some organizations, she noted, are rejecting non-profit status so that principles stay as their clear focus, rather than the perpetuation of the organization itself, as the primary focus of the work. (Non-profits are in a further bind because overhead costs allow them to exist, but donors want to pay for actions only.)
In terms of how personal money can be put to use, Boeve suggested making climate justice a condition, for example, divest in Wells Fargo who invests in the Dakota pipeline. There may be a call to action in North Dakota to support the Lakota this winter, so get the down sleeping bags ready, she said.
Fred Allebach asked if 450 ppm, as is the target of the county Climate Action Plan, was realistic? Allebach noted that historian Barbara Tuchman said that “people don’t change until the sewage is coming in the front door.” If we have 450 as a target, won’t that allow climate change impacts to progress too far?
Boeve answered that we are above 400 ppm now, and in 2008 people thought a cut-off of 450 ppm would be enough to stave off debilitating climate change impacts. (see NASA scientist’s reaction to going over 400 ppm, http://climate.nasa.gov/400ppmquotes/ ) However, Boeve said it is now realized that 450 ppm is too high, but that policy has not caught up.
Taking stock of the political playing field, Boeve advised the support of a policy, “if it is good enough.” “Is it close enough?”, she asked. Boeve then cited the example of the current WA state carbon tax Initiative 732, which meets a scientific threshold but not a social reality. The measure has caused previously progressive and cooperative state-level climate mitigation community to splinter and become very divisive. “It will take years to repair this”, said Boeve.
In order to get anywhere, Boeve said, “we have to be able to listen and work together.” Pay attention to areas of conflict, she advised, and notice who the compromisers and non-compromisers are. Don’t let purity considerations prevent you from being able to move the dial where you can.
To conclude, Boeve said climate change is not a debate now, it is a power struggle. 350’s mission, “We believe in a safe climate and a better future — a just, prosperous, and equitable world built with the power of ordinary people. 350 is building a global grassroots climate movement that can hold our leaders accountable to the realities of science and the principles of justice.”
Be First to Comment