LA Weekly

thanks for blogging us, Judith. But please, look again and think again. People getting together through Avaaz to sign our climate petition don't need to agree with the people getting together through Avaaz on Iraq (though who doesn't agree with us on that now, apart from your President?). Online organising works best through overlapping circles of loose consensus. One of the things the green movement needs most is to find a way of overlapping out beyond its circle of the converted, and in particular, to people in the majority world. Which is something we're trying to do.

I happen to think that climate change is a quintessentially political issue, it's about our very survival, and politics in its real form is about trying to achieve good society, not about scoring points. Climate just shouldn't be an issue of political *partisanship* - because people of every party (progressive/conservative) and none (like me!) need to get serious about tackling it.

If greens (in which category I count myself) start beating on global progressives (in which category I also count myself) for working to stop climate change.... then we're going to be in a whole heap of People's Front of Judea trouble.

I like the way your story ends, by quoting a young activist for Greenpeace who doesn't want to be non-partisan. As you write, and as Kerry Emmanuel (the M.I.T. hurricane expert) has written, there is no reason that this debate should be political. So when I find myself debating the issue with those on the right, I incessantly bring up the big corporations (GE, Duke Energy, BP) and the genuine conservatives (Lindsay Graham, John McCain) who are actively trying to change minds and move towards solutions on this issue.

Yet in defense of Avaaz, my sense is that they want to put together a truly global movement on this issue, which I think is a very good idea that hasn't really been tried yet. Even big enviro organizations like Friends of the Earth seem to be running separate campaigns in the US and the UK. Doesn't make sense to me. So at least for now I'm going to support Avaaz, and hope to God they keep their eye on the big picture.

For all its flaws, MoveOn has been a big shot in the arm for the Democratic party.

I know your very provocative question a couple of weeks ago, "What is the difference between Environmentalism and Sex?" was meant to get eyeballs to your blog, but I'm going to take it literally and say that they are very similar. In both Sex and the Environment, we each have our own very personal triggers that arouse us to action. An exposed clavicle may be as sexy to one person as a full neoprene suit is to someone else. But once a finger is on that trigger, it's full steam ahead.

With the Environment (and why do I feel the need to capitalize that word?) I think everyone has their own individual (dare I say selfish?) trigger that finally gets them to stand up and take action. Maybe it's the price of gas finally touching $3 a gallon. Maybe it's the recent United Nations Report. Maybe it's the sad realization that the president's refusal to act on scientific evidence wasted the last six years of his administration and your kid's life without making any strides toward cleaning up the environment or researching meaningful alternatives to fossil fuels. Maybe it's a Prius in the drive way to the north and south of you. Or maybe it IS that image of a polar bear drowning for want of an iceberg. Whatever the trigger, something finally gets you to stand up and toss your soda can into a recycling bin instead of into the trash. Good for you and for us!

Most people want to do the right thing, regardless of their political affiliation, they just need to understand that THEIR INDIVIDUAL ACTIONS do make a difference, both positively and negatively. Same as those people who don't think their vote counts, there are those who think their waste of gas or electricity doesn't matter. But cumulatively, it all adds up.

That's my two cents. Thanks for being one more voice in the chorus, Judith. Let's start an Environmental Orgy!

Shared goals and divisive means characterize so many progressive causes today, as I suppose they always have. I laud you for doing what you can in the way you feel free to do. What more can anyone ask?

Thanks, Paul Hilder, for visiting and commenting. But I looked again and thought again, and then re-read your comment, and . . .

I stand by my original post.

t's not that people *have* to agree with you to sign your petition; it's that if they don't agree with you they won't line up behind you. Even if they merely have reservations, they'll hesitate to align themselves with you. And plenty of people have, in good conscience, reservations about whether the U.S. should pull out of Iraq before the country is stablized. I'm not one of them, but I know some. You cannot lose these people from your side in the War on Carbon. I'm talking people like, and who like John McCain. Sadly, "our president" is not alone in his opinion, much as it might look like it from where you sit.

What you're doing is enormous, and well-intentioned, I know. But the climate debate needs to happen on its own terms. You're right in saying it shouldn't be partisan. So don't make it that way.

Hi Kit! The Greenpeace activist *did* want to be non-partisan. Not sure if that was a typo. And I'm all for MoveOn. I've gone to their house parties in the past; I think they've done great things. And part of the way they do that is by staying focused on an issue (electing Democratic party candidates, for instance, regardless of their past positions on the war). I've been enjoying your posts on Grist, by the way.

Cynmol: Right on, sistah. "Most people want to do the right thing, regardless of their political affiliation." Yup. Thanks for stopping by with your wise words.

Paul F: Thanks for the laud. But you can ask a lot more. A lot.

Checking back in - thanks for looking, and thinking, and writing again, Judith. And maybe we don't disagree so much.

You know what? A single-issue, neither progressive nor conservative, supercharged global advocacy organisation dedicated to stopping climate change might be able to reach out across the political divides to make great waves on this issue. I understand you look at the world principally through that lens, so I can't blame you for wishing that's what we were. Maybe Al Gore will manage that with his foundation, or maybe you'll start such an organisation, or someone else will. If so, we'll be glad to partner up - just as MoveOn partnered with the Christian Coalition on the Save The Internet campaign recently. Coalitions are a big part of the campaigning future.

Right now, we're just doing all we can on this issue (while talking a lot to Greenpeace and others along the way) - and that means mobilising a global progressive voice for a serious response to climate change. You can't deny that there's value to that, given how scattered we are at the moment on this issue, how few effective avenues we have to act, and the underpinnings of progressive belief for making shared cause for the commons. (There is a conservative foundation for the commons as well, which is good news - otherwise we'd be in much worse trouble!)

So if you want a global MoveOn devoted purely to climate change, I'd encourage whoever to go and set one up. This isn't a crowded field right now. But we're not making this debate partisan. We're just progressives trying to make our contribution. And I would humbly suggest that what's going on in the Middle East right now is throwing up a smokescreen which has got in the way of a serious response to climate change (even if its impact on oil prices has been a wake-up call of its own).

ps: our most recent Iraq campaign's demands are for blocking the futile military escalation, and for ending the war - not simply for withdrawal as you suggest. We've campaigned before for a negotiated settlement, empowering the international community and withdrawing coalition troops responsibly on the basis of negotiations, and in line with the will of the overwhelming Iraq majority. Clearly, this is not the McCain plan. But McCain is a grown-up guy and he knows how to take bi-partisan (vs non-partisan) action. So maybe something else that would help is for global conservatives to step up with their side of the project?

Judith -

Great post. I'm not sure that MoveOn is a great example in the first place, considering how they function as little more than an arm of the Democrats - meaning the organization no longer has any ability to seek bipartisan support on any issue. Had MoveOn remained a neutral, progressive organization, there wouldn't be a need for Avaaz - MoveOn could handle the chore.

Regardless, I'm curious about what you think about the concept of Al Gore running as a third party candidate (before dismissing out of hand, remember Perot lead the race before he bowed out in '92). Forgive me for including a link (below- just delete it when you read it), as I'm not out to siphon your readership - I simply don't see a contact link for you and I'd love to include you in my informal poll of eco-minded media folks. The poll question: Is the idea outlined at http://todbrilliant.com/why-al-gore-makes-the-perfect-third-party-candidate/ worth considering, even as a mental exercise, or is sheer idiocy?

Thanks for fighting the fight.

Tod Brilliant

Dear Miss Lewis,
I just read your article on Billy Cottrell. I am simultaneously heart broken and enraged. I have prayed to God for HARSH punishment upon the hypocrites who unjustly sentenced this man. I dont know if words can express the hollow sick feeling in my gut... Just knowing that this is happening RIGHT NOW is so utterly confounding. Part of me hopes that maybe this article was biased or isint as bad as it sounds; so please, in all honesty I would appreciate it if you would tell me if what you wrote is completely true. Along these lines, if you have any further information pertaning to this, or if you know of any possible course of action, please let me know. I will continue to pray for this situation, and I want you to know that even people from God fearing, republican, south carolina are DEEPLY affected by what you wrote.

cordially, Andrew M. Dodson
Clemson University, South Carolina

Judith,

This is an interesting and valuable debate. As much as we might like to look at global warming as a single issue, the myriad causes of climate change complicate task. An out of control military industrial complex, fed by the economics of extraction, coupled with the politics of exploitation, turn the global problem into a hydra-headed cloud. I know, for myself, I begin to see these massive problems all originating and worsening at the hands of the same people whose policies I detest across the board. The same people who launch pre-emptive wars, who deforest and stip mine the planet, who think man-caused climate change is a myth, who think Exxon's profits are in line with typical corporate returns, who think Clinton was responsible for 9-11, and so on. It's hard not to see it all as a call to the barricades. I guess my question is, "Can we really effectively combat and reverse global warming without taking on these other issues that seem to fuel it?"