The Ruthless Logic of Climate Emergency

Since emergency is a common English word, most U.S. kids can roughly define it before reaching middle school. Yet most U.S. adults (even those not duped by Koch brothers' propaganda) seem utterly clueless that our climate--and therefore humanity itself--is facing one.

This article is written for the shockingly few adults who grasp the dire urgency of global warming, and who realize we now need our government's command-and-control powers as desperately as we would in the wake of a Category 5 hurricane. I hope it offends everyone else. Like a needed but unwelcome wake-up call. And it should, since I spare no one's pet preconceptions, but just ruthlessly follow the logic saving our climate requires.  

Boston Tea Party Ship--Let's throw climate traitors overboard! (2013-10-01 - 17.00.01)
(image by Bob Linsdell)

My Two (or Three) Governing Assumptions

Two assumptions govern everything I'll say: (1) the timetable for effective climate action is so narrow it's a matter of years, not decades, and (2) since government command-and-control powers are absolutely critical, any effective climate solution must be found through politics. I also embrace a third crucial principle, but it's more like a corollary of (1) and (2)--and of deeply pervasive U.S. political corruption--than an independent assumption. Namely, that forcing our government to take effective climate action simply can't wait for overall campaign and lobbying reform. No, we must browbeat our current government, corrupt as it is, into stroke-of-midnight climate rectitude.

The verb browbeat is precisely what makes me think of a climate-action Tea Party, for what more effective agent of political browbeating have we seen than the Tea Party--Republican moderates' worst nightmare? And, as I'll explain shortly, all the requisite elements now seem to be in place for building a climate-champions' version.

Before elaborating the "construction materials" now available to form a climate-action Tea Party, I wish to provide some evidence for my governing assumptions, since they're so critical to my case.

First consider (1), the narrowness of the timetable. The science literature substantiating this is vast--and terrifying--and can be found (in layperson-friendly "executive summaries") by scanning the contents of any major climate blog, like Joe Romm's Climate Progress. What strikes me is that certain "bellwether" predictions of climate models (leading indicators of things to come) like glacial, polar, and permafrost ice melt, and ocean warming and acidification, are happening faster than forecast by most models. And the frequency of extreme weather--result of a more energy-pumped atmosphere ("a climate on steroids")--is another climate-model prediction that's kicked in alarmingly fast. If a world-renowned climatologist, like NASA's (now retired) James Hansen, can see a single anti-climate project (albeit a huge one) like the Keystone XL pipeline as "game over" for the climate, it strikes me we're already pretty near the point of no return. What's equally telling, Hansen retired early from his distinguished NASA post precisely to devote his energies to full-time climate activism--and many climate scientists, who vastly prefer the lab to the limelight, are (if not retiring early) still following in Hansen's activist footsteps. Some nagging fly must be troubling their routinely placid activist ointment.

Not merely the rapidity of climate change confirms my assumption of a narrow timetable, but the fact that it's a global problem. Remember, even if we can browbeat U.S. pols into climate righteousness, we still have a world of fossil-fuel consumers--some in extremely energy-hungry developing nations--to convince. Granted, in per-capita consumption, Americans are by far the worst fossil-fuel offenders, but China and India together dwarf our population, and Brazil's not exactly minuscule. We can hope the good old U.S.A., by dint of its "hard" and "soft" power, will be the first in a line of climate-action dominoes, but that's hardly a given. So, we must allow years (let's pray not decades) for the world to replicate our rebirth into climate righteousness--which vastly shortens the timetable for action here. 'Nuff said for assumption (1), the desperate shortness of our climate timetable.

Let's move to assumption (2), that government command and control is our climate's only salvation. This assumption is of course intimately linked to assumption (1), our minuscule window for action. Now, if we had forever for a political revolution to take place, or for a lifestyle revolution in people's reliance on fossil fuels, we could spare ourselves all need for up-tempo reliance on government command and control. But a political revolution (with which I have strong sympathies) would simply remake government's command-and-control powers in a more responsive, populist mold, and that remaking would itself demand considerable time. If there's a faster way of seizing our government's command-and-control powers to save the climate (and I think there is), it's deeply irresponsible (given our desperately short action timetable) not to use it.

And if we wish to rely instead on a revolution in lifestyles, all I can offer is Jerry Seinfeld's sardonic catchphrase "Good luck with that." Besides the will, most Americans lack the time, money, and knowledge to radically reduce their fossil-fuel use. The whole point of invoking government command and control is to make fossil-fuel producers pay the full climate cost of their carbon dioxide or methane pollution, thereby counteracting the artificial cheapness of these fuels and making renewables more attractive. An excellent climate-action bill cosponsored by Bernie Sanders and Barbara Boxer, the Climate Protection Act of 2013, does precisely that, while further rebating the carbon tax government would collect to consumers to aid with the costs of overhauling their carbon-based lifestyles--a scheme warmly advocated, notably, by top climatologist James Hansen. Needless to say, fighting to pass the Climate Protection Act would loom large in the strategy of a climate-action Tea Party. But here, I mean simply to stress that without such a tax-and-rebate scheme, saving the climate through massive voluntary changes in lifestyles strikes me as some overly mellow Deadhead's 4 a.m. pipe dream. "Morning Joe" is a far better drug for climate savers.

Building on Billionaires

So down to brass tacks: What materials lie at hand to build a climate-action Tea Party, and what would this "party" actually do? Now for me, the question of "building materials" is one of exciting recent developments. For the absence of a key construction item--billionaire backers--was a fatal design flaw in True Blue Democrats (TBDs), my earlier pet political building project. For TBDs, like the climate-action Tea Party, was an attempt to apply wildly successful Tea Party strategy and tactics to a noble end: to browbeat Democrats into behaving like progressives. What I gradually came to realize (and felt really stupid for having missed) was that an absolutely essential ingredient in the Tea Party "concrete" was billionaire backing--and that billionaires were hardly ready to back a movement to make Democrats genuine progressives. Which might mean, after all, taxing billionaires into nonexistence.

But billionaires, too, must live on planet Earth, and so (unless they're oil-and-gas men, for whom destroying the climate is the core of daily operations) they might throw some bucks into saving it. Especially if such public-spirited action helps to salve their consciences for holding so much unjustified wealth. And others, whose philanthropic focus is not necessarily climate, might be persuaded to aid the climate cause as an integral part of their own preconceived public-service schemes. And in fact, even Bill Gates has jumped on the climate bandwagon, though sadly (and predictably, since it less impacts his business interests), he has thrown his weight on the side of remediation (a lunatic scheme) rather than mitigation. But I see two other billionaires (if properly cajoled and directed) emerging as potential political "life-jackets" for climate action's losing cause: Tom Steyer and Pierre Omidyar. They must loom large on the radar of a climate-action Tea Party.

How so? Well, finance whiz Steyer has had a "religious awakening"--one apparently genuine enough that he's putting big money behind it--that directly involves the climate-action cause. Now I don't know as much as I should, but I sense Steyer has been misled in directing his efforts by political third-graders like Bill McKibben, and that he's actually wasted time and money on trying to persuade Obama, of all people. While even McKibben seems to be outgrowing his Obama fairy tale, his influence could mislead Steyer into placing too much trust in mainstream Democrats, worst of all, Hillary Clinton. (He may have at least the good sense to steer Steyer toward the Climate Protection Act.) Climate Tea Partiers must persuade Steyer that Democrats must be browbeaten into climate righteousness--and in this, Pierre Omidyar could be our staunchest ally.

For those as yet unaware, eBay and PayPal billionaire Pierre Omidyar is launching a major new journalistic enterprise, supposedly designed to correct the grievous failings of mainstream media. Now any such public-spirited enterprise launched by a billionaire should raise skeptical eyebrows--especially when fulfilling its mission has vast potential conflicts with its funder's business interests. And in fact, if Omidyar hadn't attracted journalists of Glenn Greenwald, Laura Poitras, and Jeremy Scahill's caliber, I'd laugh to the point of wheezing. However, hope springs eternal (especially for folks desperate as climate activists), and even my inner cynic finds some rational grounds for hoping in Omidyar.

Why? Well, covering the important stories silenced by corrupt corporate media is the model espoused by Omidyar's stable of journalists, and no news story fits this model better than climate change. Giving it vast coverage would do wonders to establish the credibility of Omidyar's new enterprise, and to confirm the integrity of the journalists who've joined him. Moreover, my inner cynic knowingly sneers, climate reporting doesn't directly conflict with Omidyar's business interests, and doing a hero's job in reporting such a vital--and criminally neglected--story might easily divert attention from news Omidyar under-reports because  it hobbles his own capitalist "prime directive." Now Greenwald, clearly touchy about his reputation for integrity, claims such under-reporting won't happen at all; the sheer independence and feistiness of the journalists Omidyar's hired won't let it. Be that as it may, the opportunity to pressure Omidyar to heavily report climate is obvious. And--here's the key for climate activists--climate reporting Greenwald-style won't spare Democrats. A mainstream news service hammering Dems' cowardice and criminal irresponsibility in not passing the Climate Protection Act could be climate activists' meal ticket. Especially if seconded by outraged reports of Republican's reproachably ignorant--or morally leprous--assaults on essential public climate knowledge.

Electing Dems--In Order to Torture Them

So, besides imploring and cajoling (or pressuring, as need be) Steyer and Omidyar to take our side--and spend big bucks on it--what does a climate Tea Party do? I'm sure I've already majorly peed off haters of big, intrusive government, believers in "lifestyle" climate solutions, and ardent advocates of "getting money out of politics" (of which, by the way, I'm one)--and this is only gonna get worse. Why not anger the Green Party for good measure? Here goes. The first step for a climate-action Tea Party is making sure Democrats win in 2014. Say what? Sadly, yes, despite my genuine--and repeated--insistence that we must stop rewarding Democrats for their bad behavior, this last bit of political nose-holding is simply what the climate requires. Why? Well, there's so little time to organize before the 2014 Congressional elections, that no Green I know of has a snowball's hope in hell of being elected; perhaps none even rises to the level of being a "spoiler." And since there's equally little hope of Republicans voting for the Climate Protection Act (passage of which is our Holy Grail), we must place our champion's mantle on the deeply undeserving shoulders of Democrats. The good news is that we intend to torture them once elected--if not considerably well before.

See, the message of the climate-action Tea Party is that we're electing Democrats in 2014 in order to pass the Climate Protection Act, and there will be hell to pay in 2016 if they don't. For after electing Democrats, we transfer our efforts to building the electoral prospects of the Green Party--even using billionaire dollars and Omidyar's news service as needed to do so--and letting Dems know this is exactly what we're up to. And if Greens won't temporarily sacrifice their ideological purity about money for the sake of saving the climate, our climate Tea Party will simply pledge to vote Republican in 2016. But the bottom line is this: if the Dems don't pass the Climate Protection Act after being elected in 2014--and their prospective control of the presidency and both houses of Congress gives them no excuse--our candidate is Anyone But Democrats in 2016.

What's in a Name?

There, in bold outline, is my strategy for a climate-action Tea Party. Many details remain to discuss (like how best to reach Steyer and Omidyar, or how to collaborate with environmental organizations like the Sierra Club or 350.org), but those can wait for future articles. But I'd like to close with addressing another possible design flaw: the "party" name. Doubtless, many folks will be offended by any suggestion of association with the Republican Tea Party (and I get that), just as many were put off by my True Blue Democrats name suggesting (directly contrary to my intent), that we should be loyal to Democrats no matter what. I don't wish to repeat what I now genuinely regard as a mistake, and I by no means insist the group call itself "Climate-Action Tea Party." But maybe we should steal yet another page from the Tea Party and choose a name that lets us wrap ourselves in the American flag. How about "Climate Patriots of America"? I don't insist on that name either, but it would make it harder to stigmatize us as ecoterrorists. Additionally, it would belatedly fulfill my father's long-cherished secret dream: that I become a CPA.