A different
kind of climate movement would have tried to challenge the extreme ideology that was blocking so much sensible action, joining with other sectors to show how unfettered corporate power posed a grave threat to the habitability of the planet.
Not exact matches
Now, again, I and many others have said that the environmental
movement has not done a good job
of creating a grassroots
movement on
climate that might cause the
kind of concern in people contemplating voting against needed to win those 60 votes.
And through conversations with others in the growing
climate justice
movement, I began to see all
kinds of ways that
climate change could become a catalyzing force for positive change — how it could be the best argument progressives have ever had to demand the rebuilding and reviving
of local economies; to reclaim our democracies from corrosive corporate influence; to block harmful new free trade deals and rewrite old ones; to invest in starving public infrastructure like mass transit and affordable housing; to take back ownership
of essential services like energy and water; to remake our sick agricultural system into something much healthier; to open borders to migrants whose displacement is linked to
climate impacts; to finally respect Indigenous land rights — all
of which would help to end grotesque levels
of inequality within our nations and between them.
Yet as McKibben's article makes clear, the
movement has been forced to work around the Obama administration, rather than to prompt the
kinds of transformative government - led actions on
climate change that Obama's election was thought by many to herald.
Would the
climate just
movement be able to attract the same
kind of coverage away from the COP space?