♦
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.
♦