In my last post, I signaled my disapproval of Greenpeace's attack on the leading global warming bill before Congress. Now Joe Romm and Paul Krugman have piled on, Romm calling Greenpeace's move "indefensible" and Krugman, after some philosophizing about political pragmatism, adding: "The legislation now on the table isn’t the bill we’d ideally want, but it’s the bill we can get — and it’s vastly better than no bill at all." Meanwhile, here's President Obama on the Waxman-Markey legislation:
It’s a plan that will finally reduce our dangerous dependence on foreign oil and cap the carbon pollution that threatens our health and our climate. Most important, it’s a plan that will trigger the creation of millions of new jobs for Americans, who will produce the wind turbines and solar panels and develop the alternative fuels to power the future. Because this we know: the nation that leads in 21st century clean energy is the nation that will lead the 21st century global economy. America can and must be that nation – and this agreement is a major step toward this goal.
So yet again I ask, what is up with Greenpeace? I'm sure the group thinks it is doing something constructive; but I deeply question whether, given our current political and legislative realities, not to mention our modern media system, that's really the case. There's a left-radical mindset, according to which it's always honorable to be protesting something, and trying to extend the limits of the possible in the John Lennon/"Imagine" direction. Yet this mentality clashes strongly with the modern need to build coalitions, stay on message, and achieve realistic goals. And unfortunately, it also burns up political energy, particularly in the young and idealistic among us. I'm emphasizing this not because I hate Greenpeace, but because of my strong conviction that my allies often need a yank into the modern political and media moment.
