The COP23 climate meetings in Bonn two weeks ago provided a welcome opportunity for climate change to make it into public discussion. But the meetings themselves could not accomplish much. The value of the international framework–the Paris accord–was never in the text of the agreements themselves, which did not come close to getting the international community to commit to limit global warming to 2 degrees Celsius since pre-industrial times, let alone 1.5 degrees C, which was mentioned as the better objective. The value of the Paris agreement was the international consensus–now partially broken by the Trump administration–about the pressing need to take big steps towards reducing greenhouse gas emissions over the next few decades.
E J Dionne had an excellent op ed (“Stop the sniping, Washington Democrats. Learn from the grass roots”) in the Washington Post earlier this week arguing that the ongoing conflict within the democratic party about whether to move to the left or stay in the center is not just harmful; it is irrelevant to what’s happening in the country. He observers that “old arguments feel comfortable, but they’re inadequate for the moment.” Sort of like a moth-eaten T-shirt.
Last week, I wrote about two new publications published to coincide with the COP23 in Bonn that highlight the lack of progress in reducing global CO2 emissions. Adding to the grim picture, Robinson Meyer in The Atlantic (“Democrats Are Shockingly Unprepared to Fight Climate Change”) investigates the state of play among the democrats in Washington, the only major political force in the US that would seem to have the potential to take on the republican environment-destroyers. It’s a longish article that provides much useful detail about the politics that frame democratic options and decision making. Meyer’s findings are as bleak as the articles I mentioned yesterday and point to the same conclusion: the change we need will not come from our political system without massive grassroots intervention. Let’s start with his argument.
Two articles at The Nation give progressives reasons to cheer about the 2017 elections and the prospects for 2018. In “Democratic Socialism Is Having a Very Good Year at the Ballot Box,” John Nichols writes about Lee Carter, a democratic socialist who defeated Jackson Miller, the incumbent Republican Whip in the House of Delegates by 9 points. Nichols writes that Carter’s win actually “unsettled” many of the state’s democrats because he ran against corporate interests as well as Dominion Energy, which is trying to run a natural gas pipeline across Virginia. Dominion Energy has supported many democrats in Virginia. What is even more encouraging is that Carter clearly won this race against a deep-pocketed conservative without support from the democratic party, at least the national apparatus of the DNC.
As the COP23 international climate conference opened in Bonn Monday, two new reports lend urgency to global climate change trends, particularly concerning the amount of carbon being pumped into the atmosphere. At the conference itself, the Washington Post reports on a paper about carbon dioxide emissions that poured cold water on the hope that these emissions had peaked and started to decline. After flatlining for three years, CO2 emissions in 2017 appear to be on the way to a 2 percent increase (give or take 1%), which would make this year’s emissions the largest on record.
Are liberals and progressives finally building grassroots organizations that can mobilize voters and win elections? The 2017 results strongly suggest the answer is yes.
In an important article back in January, political science professor Theda Skocpol argued that successful electoral performance is based to significant degree on strong local-level political institutions. She observed that the current democratic party is organizationally quite weak in comparison with the GOP. In the past, when unions were much stronger and more numerous than they are now, they had a continuous presence in many communities, particularly working class communities, all over the country. With stable memberships, full-time staff, and substantial resources, the unions could reliably turn out voters for democratic candidates up and down the ticket.