Image provided by: University of Oregon Libraries; Eugene, OR
About Street roots. (Portland, OR) 1998-current | View Entire Issue (April 13, 2012)
♦ Radicals and reformers: Part 1: Climate change BY RO BIN H A HNEL C O N T R IB U T IN G C O L U M N IS T here is a difference between radicals and reformers. Radicals believe we need fundamental “system change” because as long as the system is left in place it will prove impossible to solve important problems. Absent system change, radicals believe solutions can only be partial and remain vulnerable to rollback. Reformers, on the other hand, believe problems can be solved adequately without system change. Reformers are also more skeptical that system change can be achieved or will prove as desirable as radicals imagine. But radicals and reformers are bound together for at least three reasons. Robin Hahnel is a 1. A cursory glance political activist and at history reveals that visiting professor of many people move economics at from one camp to the Portland State other during their University. He is a lifetimes. Many a co-creator o f the post youthful radical, capitalist economic frustrated when model known as participatory system change proves economics, along with elusive, continues to Z Magazine editor fight for reforms Michael Albert. He is within the system. also Professor And many who first Emeritus at became active in a American University reform campaign has in Washington, D .C . been radicalized when the system proves not to be amenable to reform. 2. Reformers, of course, work in progressive movements and campaigns to win reforms. But radicals must also work in reform movements and campaigns for a very simple reason: Those who are ready for system change are still too few, and only by joining reform efforts can radicals hope to interact with enough people to eventually build popular support for system change. 3. Radicals and reformers often deliver a “one-two punch” that is more powerful than either could deliver alone. Not only do more far reaching demands reinforce convictions among the rank and file that what they are asking for is only what is right and reasonable, the threat of radical demands also induces defenders of the status quo to yield to more moderate demands for reform. The willingness of radicals to engage in more disruptive tactics than reformers can also increase the bargaining leverage of the reform movement. On the other hand, when not part of a larger movement of people whose demands are less far reaching and tactics are less confrontational, radicals will reach few with their message and be easily T repressed. in Japan in 1997 known as the Kyoto In short, radicals and reformers need one Protocol put the world on the right track, another. So even when their relationship and it was a huge setback when the Kyoto framework was abandoned at the climate ceases to be a “marriage of love,” it must meetings in Copenhagen in December 2009 remain a “marriage that works.” In the and replaced by a vague agreement to remainder of this column I offer an example discuss voluntary emission targets. of how we all lose when radicals Make no mistake about it, the U S unnecessarily undermine reformers in the delegation, headed by Secretary of State movement to prevent climate change. In Hillary Clinton and President Obama columns to follow I explore how reformers himself, bears primary responsibility for sometimes undermine radicals to the scuttling the Kyoto detriment of both, framework in and finally, how we all Copenhagen. win when radicals However, the U S and reformers play W hile clim ate reformers were demolition squad got nicely together. a surprising assist Radicals believe fighting! desperately to " fix " when radicals in the the global market the Kyoto Protocol in climate justice system is the Copenhagen, some radicals movement denounced primary cause of “cap and trade” and incipient climate in the clim ate justice “carbon markets” as change, and only movement w itlessly aided “false solutions” in when this system and abetted those street protests based on competition outside the meetings. and greed is replaced maneuvering to ""n il" it« In short, while by a new system climate reformers based on equitable were fighting cooperation will it desperately to “fix” prove possible to the Kyoto Protocol in Copenhagen, some adequately protect the natural environment. radicals in the climate justice movement Indeed, I have been making this argument witlessly aided and abetted those in one form or another for over three maneuvering to “nix” it. decades myself. However, some leaders of When we cannot wait for system change the climate justice movement have gone to address climate change, it is tragic when further to argue that because the market climate justice radicals cheer the demise of system is the problem carbon markets a treaty which placed mandatory emission cannot be part of a solution, and some have reductions on the countries which are most gone so far as to celebrate the collapse of responsible for causing climate change and the United Nations sponsored Kyoto can best afford to bear the costs of averting framework on grounds that it was never climate change simply because it permitted more than a “pretend solution.” These carbon trading — trading which worked to climate justice radicals are dead wrong and the benefit of lesser developed countries! do serious damage to prospects of averting What would workers think of anti-capitalists climate change. who denounce unions fighting for wage It is unrealistic to believe global increases for their members as purveyors of capitalism can be replaced by eco-socialism “pretend solutions” because wage slavery is in the next few years. But if we are to the problem, and therefore wage reform prevent climate change before it is too late cannot be part of a solution? we must achieve significant reductions in By 2009, many reform leaders knew what greenhouse gas emissions in the here and was wrong with Kyoto and how to fix it. now. To do this we need an international Kyoto assigned the advanced economies treaty that places mandatory caps on mandatory caps while temporarily national emissions. Moreover, if caps are to exempting lesser developed countries from be fair, then richer countries, which bear mandatory caps. In 1997, this “rough first greater “responsibility” for cumulative cut” was agreed to on a provisional basis on carbon emissions and have greater grounds that the advanced economies “capability” to solve the climate problem, needed to lead the way. But this created two must be assigned tighter, or lower caps. problems: (1) There are large differences in However - and this is what many climate “responsibility” and “capability” among justice activists fail to understand — if lesser developed countries. So to treat them national emissions are capped fairly then (1) all equally, as Kyoto did, was unfair. (2) carbon trading significantly reduces the Because it is difficult to estimate how much global cost of emission reductions and a project will reduce emissions above and thereby lowers political resistance to necessary reductions, and (2) carbon trading beyond what would have occurred in any case, mistakes will inevitably be made in generates a large flow of payments from certifying emission reduction credits for sale more developed to less developed countries. in international carbon markets. And if a Which means the climate treaty negotiated S is te rs 01 The Road c r e a t i n g c o m m u n it y , c r e a tin g c h a n g e , to g e th e r SISTERS OF THE ROAD XX X we are— » » hospitality & friendship community change through the Dorothy Day Community School )> working together for nonviolence & justice » and don’t forget: fun! 133 NW 6th Ave. in Portland Stop h lor O delirious meol, Monday-Friday. 10am - HOpm 503-222-5094 w w w . s i s t e r s o f t h e r o a d .o r g project that is awarded more credits than it deserves is located in a country without a cap on its national emissions, the sale of the “bogus credits” undermines the global emission reduction target and thereby weakens efforts to avert climate change. But one change can solve both problems! Set caps on emissions in all countries according to a continuous index of differential responsibility and capability. This simple change would make a post- Kyoto treaty more fair, provide powerful incentives for national governments to award only as many emission reduction credits as projects truly deserve, and most importantly, prevent sales of any bogus credits from reducing global emissions reductions below the target set by the treaty. Instead of denouncing cap and trade and carbon markets, climate justice activists should have been fighting alongside reformers in Copenhagen to protect the Kyoto framework from its enemies and fix its flaws by replacing the outdated annex-1 non-annex-1 categories with a more accurate index measuring national responsibility and capability on a continuum known as the Greenhouse Development Rights Framework “responsibility and capacity indicator.” Based on readily available data, this indicator requires high-income countries to reduce emissions significantly right away, middle-income countries to reduce emissions only after achieving a higher level of per capita income, and allows low income countries to raise emissions for decades while they struggle to achieve a minimal level of economic development. Moreover, by solving the problem of how to cap emissions in all countries fairly, this indicator makes it possible to leave the difficult job of awarding emission reduction credits to national governments — freeing the international treaty organization to concentrate on the far easier job of measuring actual national annual emissions - and it protects the global emission cap from being punctured by any bogus carbon trading that does occur. Had radicals joined reformers in Copenhagen fighting to fix rather than nix Kyoto they would not only have found themselves on the side of the angels instead of the devils, they would have found a receptive rather than a hostile audience among the rank and file concerned about climate change for the message that only system change will eliminate what is causing climate change and thereby make victories secure. Instead, some climate justice radicals unnecessarily alienated those they hope to attract. Climate justice radicals who made this blunder need to make serious amends to climate reform leaders as well as the movement rank and file if we are to patch up working relations so we can all move forward together. Check out Street Roots Vendor Sam Al-Jondi's new book, "Code of Conduct." Al-Jondi writes about his experiences and offers a fresh perspective about the world we ive in. The books can be purchased at the Multnomah County Central Library on SW 10th Ave., on Kindle, Amazon, and for $10 through Street Roots at 211 NW Davis St., Portland, OR 97209. ♦
