Skip to main content

Night Owls
At The Nation, Jeremy Brecher writes ‘Jobs vs. the Environment’: How to Counter This Divisive Big Lie:

In an era in which our political system is dominated by plutocracy, grassroots social movements are essential for progressive change. But too often our movements find themselves at loggerheads over the seemingly conflicting need to preserve our environment and the need for jobs and economic development. How can we find common ground?

The problem is illustrated by the current proposal of the Dominion corporation to build a Liquefied Natural Gas export facility at Cove Point, Maryland, right on the Chesapeake Bay. Seven hundred people demonstrated against the proposal and many were arrested in three civil disobedience actions. But an open letter on Dominion letterhead endorsing the project—maintaining it will “create more than 3,000 construction jobs” most of which will go “to local union members”—was signed not only by business leaders but by twenty local and national trade union leaders.

In the struggle over the Keystone XL pipeline, which has been described as the “Birmingham of the climate movement,” pipeline proponents have been quick to seize on the “jobs issue” and tout support from building trades unions and eventually the AFL-CIO.

 In a press releasetitled “U.S. Chamber Calls Politically-Charged Decision to Deny Keystone a Job Killer,” the Chamber of Commerce said President Obama’s denial of the KXL permit was “sacrificing tens of thousands of good-paying American jobs in the short term, and many more than that in the long term.” The media repeat the jobs vs. environment frame again and again: NPR’s headline on KXL was typical of many: “Pipeline Decision Pits Jobs Against Environment.” A similar dynamic has marked the “beyond coal” campaign, the fracking battle and EPA regulation of greenhouse gasses under the Clean Air Act. Those who want to overcome this division must tell a different story.

One starting point for that story is to recognize the common interest both in human survival and in sustainable livelihoods. To paraphrase Abraham Lincoln, if God had intended some people to fight just for the environment and others to fight just for the economy, he would have made some people who could live without money and others who could live without water and air. There are not two groups of people, environmentalists and workers. We all need a livelihood and we all need a livable planet to live on. If we don’t address both, we’ll starve together while we’re waiting to fry together.

Such a frame is illustrated by a two-year-old coalition that includes the Connecticut AFL-CIO and a variety of labor unions, community organizations, religious groups and environmentalists called the Connecticut Roundtable on Climate and Jobs. […]


Blast from the Past. At Daily Kos on this date in 2008Charles Krauthammer:  Dishonest Hypocrite:

When you consider the competition Charles Krauthammer was up against, penning the mostdishonest op-ed in today's Washington Post was no mean feat, but he did it.  

It's amazing really.  In an attempt to make the case that Barack Obama's "character and cultural attitudes" somehow disqualify him from the presidency, Krauthammer distorts (Jeremiah Wright as an inciter of racial hatred), uses code words (jihad and tribal), lies (political career "launched" in William Ayers home), and projects ("self-congratulatory fatuousness"), which of course says quite a lot about Krauthammer's own character and cultural attitudes, not to mention his journalistic ethics.  
But if Krauthammer wants to pretend that he's concerned about "the character and beliefs of a man who would be president," perhaps he can use his national platform to delve into the character and beliefs of John McCain.


Tweet of the Day:

Bank deregulation didn't "democratize" capital. It democratized debt. http://t.co/...
@TimothyNoah1



On today's Kagro in the Morning show, big thanks to show sponsor Harrys.com! Use the promo code "Kagro" and save $5 on your first order of premium but wallet-friendly shaving products! "Meet the Doctor Who Gave $1 Million to Research Guns." Armando called in to follow up on both of these themes, and we discussed the conservative penchant for silencing debate, for Freedom. A GunFAIL update. And a rather bleak look at the future of "entrepreneurial society" as we peek behind the curtains of the "disruptors" everyone can't wait to fund, via Baltimore City Paper's "The desperate hustle as a way of life," and HuffPo's "Meet The Real Amazon Drones."


High Impact Posts. Top Comments.

EMAIL TO A FRIEND X
Your Email has been sent.
You must add at least one tag to this diary before publishing it.

Add keywords that describe this diary. Separate multiple keywords with commas.
Tagging tips - Search For Tags - Browse For Tags

?

More Tagging tips:

A tag is a way to search for this diary. If someone is searching for "Barack Obama," is this a diary they'd be trying to find?

Use a person's full name, without any title. Senator Obama may become President Obama, and Michelle Obama might run for office.

If your diary covers an election or elected official, use election tags, which are generally the state abbreviation followed by the office. CA-01 is the first district House seat. CA-Sen covers both senate races. NY-GOV covers the New York governor's race.

Tags do not compound: that is, "education reform" is a completely different tag from "education". A tag like "reform" alone is probably not meaningful.

Consider if one or more of these tags fits your diary: Civil Rights, Community, Congress, Culture, Economy, Education, Elections, Energy, Environment, Health Care, International, Labor, Law, Media, Meta, National Security, Science, Transportation, or White House. If your diary is specific to a state, consider adding the state (California, Texas, etc). Keep in mind, though, that there are many wonderful and important diaries that don't fit in any of these tags. Don't worry if yours doesn't.

You can add a private note to this diary when hotlisting it:
Are you sure you want to remove this diary from your hotlist?
Are you sure you want to remove your recommendation? You can only recommend a diary once, so you will not be able to re-recommend it afterwards.
Rescue this diary, and add a note:
Are you sure you want to remove this diary from Rescue?
Choose where to republish this diary. The diary will be added to the queue for that group. Publish it from the queue to make it appear.

You must be a member of a group to use this feature.

Add a quick update to your diary without changing the diary itself:
Are you sure you want to remove this diary?
(The diary will be removed from the site and returned to your drafts for further editing.)
(The diary will be removed.)
Are you sure you want to save these changes to the published diary?

Comment Preferences

  •  Krauthammer... (14+ / 0-)

    ...his ugly ain't skin-deep.

    Float like a manhole cover, sting like a sash weight! Clean Coal Is A Clinker!

    by JeffW on Fri Apr 25, 2014 at 08:33:18 PM PDT

    •  The day after 9/11 (2+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      KJG52, JeffW

      The day after 9/11, you could hardly see the main gates at Ramstein Air Base for all the bouquets left there by sympathetic local burghers.  

      The day after that, Krauthammer opined in an op-ed that Europeans really did not care what happened to America, post 9/11 -- or prior to it for that matter.

      He was wrong then, and has been consistently wrong during the years that followed.  He gives Bill Kristol a run for his money as the most incorrect writer in America.

      And he's butt-ugly.

  •  100,000 stars . . . or more (20+ / 0-)

     photo m5hst950_zps5465923c.jpg

    "Beautiful Nebula discovered between the Balance [Libra] & the Serpent [Serpens] ..." begins the description of the 5th entry in 18th century astronomer Charles Messier's famous catalog of nebulae and star clusters. Though it appeared to Messier to be fuzzy and round and without stars, Messier 5 (M5) is now known to be a globular star cluster, 100,000 stars or more, bound by gravity and packed into a region around 165 light-years in diameter. It lies some 25,000 light-years away. Roaming the halo of our galaxy, globular star clusters are ancient members of the Milky Way. M5 is one of the oldest globulars, its stars estimated to be nearly 13 billion years old.
    Go here for the larger version -> NASA.

    Be sure you put your feet in the right place; then stand firm. ~ Abraham Lincoln

    by noweasels on Fri Apr 25, 2014 at 08:36:09 PM PDT

  •  I Think Our Numerous Movements Are Mostly (5+ / 0-)

    still premised on the notion that we have a mainly progressive party and humane nation, that it's largely a matter of getting party and society to realize that their stance on our particular issue is at odds with the party's, with the nation's, overall nature.

    This notion is incorrect.

    We are called to speak for the weak, for the voiceless, for victims of our nation and for those it calls enemy.... --ML King "Beyond Vietnam"

    by Gooserock on Fri Apr 25, 2014 at 08:38:29 PM PDT

  •  The "organized labor vs. environmentalist" meme (12+ / 0-)

    has occasionally distressed me, such as Hoffa wanting to drill in the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge in the name of creating lots of union jobs. But as in above, there are lots of ways around this meme. Creating green jobs is worth a thousand drilling projects, and it's saving the planet, too.

    "The soil under the grass is dreaming of a young forest, and under the pavement the soil is dreaming of grass."--Wendell Berry

    by Wildthumb on Fri Apr 25, 2014 at 08:40:05 PM PDT

    •  Buggy whip manufacturers (4+ / 0-)

      What really torques me about big businesses proclaiming going green would cost jobs is this: I have been told, nearly every month of my working life, that I have to adapt to change imposed by fiat from on high, or else. Usually, it's phrased as "be agile and responsive and take advantage of new opportunities" or whatever managerial buzzwords are the fashion of the day. But the message is simple: we're screwing up your life because we feel like it, so, smile and suck it up, or take a walk. With alternative energy, there really are genuine opportunities here, and in an industry where jobs can't be outsourced, for creative solutions to difficult problems, and a better life for the whole planet. We will have to seek out new energy sources, either after we have devolved into fiefdoms fighting over the last drops of petroleum, or starting now, in a reasoned manner that does right by as many citizens as possible. But the individuals currently sitting on huge piles of steadily increasing profits are seeing their third vacation homes up for sale, so, of course we have to continue destroying the environment for their personal gain.

      As we continue dismantling our democracy for the benefit of buggy whip manufacturers...

      Radarlady

    •  except you can't support a family on most "green" (0+ / 0-)

      jobs and working a drill rig for 12 hours shifts gives you the same income as the average Kossack.

      “Conservation… is a positive exercise of skill and insight, not merely a negative exercise of abstinence and caution…” Aldo Leopold

      by ban nock on Sat Apr 26, 2014 at 05:33:47 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  I suspect the same may be true (1+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        i saw an old tree today

        Of being a slaver or a pimp for child prostitutes, but that doesn't mean we shouldn't sometimes take a step back and ask whether this is work anyone should be doing

        Frankly it is a matter of making all jobs pay more, rather than damaging the biosphere simply for a few extra bucks.  The wages earned by jobs is as much a matter of policy outcomes as economics. Thus, we should change our policies.

        Finally, I wonder if your statement is actually accurate

        •  I just can't find it in my to make a polite (0+ / 0-)

          response and I'm sure you wouldn't understand anyway.

          “Conservation… is a positive exercise of skill and insight, not merely a negative exercise of abstinence and caution…” Aldo Leopold

          by ban nock on Sat Apr 26, 2014 at 01:47:49 PM PDT

          [ Parent ]

  •  Have a great weekend everyone! (9+ / 0-)

    “I would like to get rid of the homophobes, sexists, and racists in our audience. I know they're out there and it really bothers me.” ― Kurt Cobain

    by Jeff Y on Fri Apr 25, 2014 at 08:40:23 PM PDT

  •  only idiots would consider this a tradeoff (12+ / 0-)

    such as those who think desert tortoises are the real danger to democracy

    There are not two groups of people, environmentalists and workers. We all need a livelihood and we all need a livable planet to live on. If we don’t address both, we’ll starve together while we’re waiting to fry together.

    Warning - some snark may be above‽ (-9.50; -7.03)‽ eState4Column5©2013 "I’m not the strapping young Muslim socialist that I used to be" - Barack Obama 04/27/2013 (@eState4Column5).

    by annieli on Fri Apr 25, 2014 at 08:43:31 PM PDT

    •  I guess that means (2+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      annieli, i saw an old tree today

      That many union members are idiots.  As an environmentalist, I really don't think of unions as being allies any more than republicans.  They've handed us too many defeats and seem to be too frequently on the wrong side.   In the end, too many are just like the oil companies: willing to sell of humanity's future for a quick buck.  They look after their own and care for no one else.  

      •  false consciousness has many parents and often (7+ / 0-)

        liberation is an orphan

        Warning - some snark may be above‽ (-9.50; -7.03)‽ eState4Column5©2013 "I’m not the strapping young Muslim socialist that I used to be" - Barack Obama 04/27/2013 (@eState4Column5).

        by annieli on Fri Apr 25, 2014 at 08:55:15 PM PDT

        [ Parent ]

      •  I'm sorry, mindful nature (15+ / 0-)

        but unions pushed for passage of most of the environmental laws, the Clean Air and Water acts, for starters.

        So call me, a union member, and my brothers and sisters, idiots.

        I guess we are idiots to expect some sympathy while we are  fighting for jobs so that many of us don't lose our houses and end up sleeping in our cars.

        “The answer must be, I think, that beauty and grace are performed whether or not we will or sense them. The least we can do is try to be there.” ― Annie Dillard, Pilgrim at Tinker Creek

        by 6412093 on Fri Apr 25, 2014 at 09:24:57 PM PDT

        [ Parent ]

        •  So don't scuttle solar incentives (4+ / 0-)

          And push for more coal and keystone, etc and then expect me to call congress people when the time comes.

          I appreciate those unions who are on the right side of these issues for sure.  Certainly unions are indispensable to a functioning economy. However having unions requires strong support and you don't win that by stabbing allies int the back

          •  Hey, we're pushing wind and solar hard. n/t (12+ / 0-)

            “The answer must be, I think, that beauty and grace are performed whether or not we will or sense them. The least we can do is try to be there.” ― Annie Dillard, Pilgrim at Tinker Creek

            by 6412093 on Fri Apr 25, 2014 at 10:13:07 PM PDT

            [ Parent ]

            •  That is as it should be (0+ / 0-)

              There is a lot of common objectives here and in the longer term more power for workers is fundamentally important.  H

              I wish all unions took that approach.  Here in California the electrical workers have helped kill some major solar initiatives and many MW of solar capacity and have been joined by others. We would be a lot further ahead if all understood the importance of these efforts

          •  Denigrating the working poor, union or not, (1+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:
            Darth Stateworker

            who are merely trying to survive in chaotic
            economic times, after years of falling behind,
            is a very counter productive persuasion technique
            in enlisting their support and solidarity in your causes.

            Better to show that supporting your causes will
            benefit them and their families in both the short
            and long term, don't you think? Yes, the longshoremen
            beat the peaceniks back in the day, and the present
            day correctional workers unions do not support
            judicial and prison reform, but until a mass solidarity,
            or consensus, is built, expect people to be narrowly
            focused on the matters they feel they can address.

            To be co-opted by their not so disinterested bosses?
            Unfortunately, yes, it will occur, as it has before.
            Workers, and union members are not immune to
            any of the problems of pollution and ACGCC, or
            really any of the social and economic issues before us.

            You don't do anyone any favors by internalizing,
            the status quo antipathy for the democratic models
            of participating in your own life and workplace concerns.

            Dismissing the economic survival activities of others,
            is almost certain to engender a similar response by
            and from those who should be your natural allies.

            There may be some industry related union activity
            in the environmental arenas you mentioned, but it
            is clearly not the overriding focus of all, or even most,
            of the few union members that still care to join one.

            Most of your ire should be reserved for the industries
            that are lobbying as you denote, and towards the
            legislators, who most certainly will be called by someone.

            I don't expect you to call anyone, if it is too much
            trouble to accept that is exactly what your true
            opponents in these matters are cynically counting on.

            I am hoping that your reconsider your strategy,
            as it will not address any of these critical concerns,
            having the exact same political, and hence, social
            and environmental effects we all must work to avoid.

            Thanks for all of your efforts.

            The persecution of "the left" at Daily Kos... (76+ / 1-) reminds me of the War on Christmas. I'm a Silly Rabbit. by Trix on Fri Nov 01, 2013 at 05:39:00 PM CDT

            by Larsstephens on Sat Apr 26, 2014 at 12:46:25 AM PDT

            [ Parent ]

            •  This doesn't make much sense (0+ / 0-)

              I didn't denigrate anyone.   I merely expressed frustration with the actions of these organizations and suggested that rather than blaming environmentalists there needs to be some examination of some union activities.  As out numerical friend above notes, many unions are on the right side here

              As you note, not all unions supported desegregation or prison reforms and being unions doesn't give them a pass there either.

              In fact, I beleive I said that unions are absolutely critical

              •  "Many union members are idiots." (1+ / 0-)
                Recommended by:
                Larsstephens

                Yes, that is denigrating.

                "There was no such thing as a "wealthy" hunter-gatherer. It is the creation of human society that has allowed the wealthy to become wealthy. As such, they have an obligation to pay a bit more to sustain that society than the not-so-wealthy." - Me

                by Darth Stateworker on Sat Apr 26, 2014 at 12:17:55 PM PDT

                [ Parent ]

              •  I understand your frustration. And admit (0+ / 0-)

                that this phenomena of unions, and some of their members
                working and advocating in their own narrow self interests,
                have at times been in opposition to 'wider' social goals.

                If one is say, a UMW in a coal mine in WV, your immediate
                and visceral concerns are not going to reflect the greater
                global challenges caused by the industry which employs you.

                Or witness the recent endorsement of the governor by
                the fire and police unions in WI, even as he promoted
                laws that disenfranchised other public workers. Ugly.

                You must accept these sort of conflicts of competing interests
                as fact, and then craft solutions that takes them into consideration.

                This is the essence of politics, and there are compromises
                and coalitions of circumstance involved here. Then the
                question becomes how to address these conflicts in the
                fashion that achieves progress for the greatest number.

                We must persuade others to consider our views in ways
                that do not alienate them, as we do not have the right
                to make these decisions for them. Insults will not work.

                Thanks for all of your efforts.

                The persecution of "the left" at Daily Kos... (76+ / 1-) reminds me of the War on Christmas. I'm a Silly Rabbit. by Trix on Fri Nov 01, 2013 at 05:39:00 PM CDT

                by Larsstephens on Sun Apr 27, 2014 at 10:46:20 AM PDT

                [ Parent ]

      •  You get more flies with... vinegar? (8+ / 0-)

        Unions exist for the primary reason of jobs and working conditions of its members first.  Other issues are a secondary concern.

        If you want unions to consider a secondary concern while evaluating their primary concern, you're more apt to get them to do that - for starters - by not referring to their members as "idiots" simply because they are evaluating a decision based on a grayscale and don't see things in black-and-white like you do.

        I don't like the idea of the pipeline, but at the same time, I can't fault the buildings trades folks for wanting jobs, and I'm not going to crucify them over it.

        Let's put things in perspective:  I've seen union members picketing for environmental causes in the past (IE: recent rallies to stop fracking in NY), but I've never seen environmentalists picketing in support of union members causes.  Come to think of it, I don't know that I have ever seen any other liberal interest groups picketing in favor or support of unions - though unions have supported many of their causes.  That, however, could be a subject for a diary all its own.

        So I think you need to re-evaluate who has issues with being "allies" with whom.  You don't always agree 100% with allies, but you generally have enough in common with them that you still lean on them and they lean on you.  As such, it seems you're looking for a one way relationship where you get to do all the leaning.

        That one way relationship:  Not.  Gonna.  Happen.  Especially if you're referring to them as "idiots."  They're certainly not going to respond positively to that - especially gruff, burly, rugged individualist-type building trades guys.  They're more likely to spit in your eye or punch you in the mouth over something like that.

        "There was no such thing as a "wealthy" hunter-gatherer. It is the creation of human society that has allowed the wealthy to become wealthy. As such, they have an obligation to pay a bit more to sustain that society than the not-so-wealthy." - Me

        by Darth Stateworker on Fri Apr 25, 2014 at 11:02:53 PM PDT

        [ Parent ]

        •  You said: (6+ / 0-)
          Come to think of it, I don't know that I have ever seen any other liberal interest groups picketing in favor or support of unions - though unions have supported many of their causes.  That, however, could be a subject for a diary all its own.
          At the demonstration in front of the Michigan Capitol over Rick Snyder's right to work for less law there was an interesting contingent....about 20-25 people....who attended from Planned Parenthood Advocates in solidarity with the union movement.   They were decked out with pink signs and were real visible.....and they stayed later in the demonstration when it got hot in front of the executive building on Capitol Avenue with the State Police line and horses advancing.
        •  We don't wear badges (0+ / 0-)

          When joining in pro union actions so you probably wouldn't recognize who is an environmentalist and who isn't.   Mostly you assumption however is false

          But even unions members need to eat and breathe.

          •  How many pro-labor actions (0+ / 0-)

            have you attended?  How many local picket lines have you gone to?  Be honest.

            Additionally, it's helpful for labor to have non-labor groups identify themselves as such when they turn out in support of unions - because then the perception is that there are people there other than just the members, so the union has support from outside it's ranks.

            It's like union members showing up during a rally for other causes identifying themselves as "X members for the environment" or "X members for marriage equality" by carrying signs or wearing tee shirts with that printed on them.  It reflects that support for the group is bigger than just the group itself.

            "There was no such thing as a "wealthy" hunter-gatherer. It is the creation of human society that has allowed the wealthy to become wealthy. As such, they have an obligation to pay a bit more to sustain that society than the not-so-wealthy." - Me

            by Darth Stateworker on Sat Apr 26, 2014 at 12:04:01 PM PDT

            [ Parent ]

            •  .... (0+ / 0-)

              two - zero. I'll be sure to have a Sierra Club shirt on next event for sure.

              and I've written many letters, LTEs, and phone calls to assemblymen and congress members, which I think are more effective.

              However, the truly key number is the number of anti-labor activities I've taken part in:  ZERO.

              THAT is the number that concerns me.  If it isn't zero, then there's an issue

              •  Still not getting the point. (0+ / 0-)

                You ask labor to do something you yourself wouldn't, and expect complete ideological purity.

                Not. Gonna. Happen.

                Accept that you won't always be on the same side and move on, or become anti-labor and support the fucking of the workers of the nation in general.

                Those are your only two options.  There is not 3rd path, because eviros bitching about labor because labor and enviros main reason for being sometimes puts them on opposite sides only serves the second cause and does little to nothing to further your own, while pissing off those who ally with you every chance they can without screwing their own interests.

                Again - you wouldn't ignore your own interests to help labor to your detriment, so why would or should they do that for you?  It really is that simple.  You don't always have to be on the same side with someone to understand that your interests are mostly aligned and an alliance will be more beneficial than not.

                "There was no such thing as a "wealthy" hunter-gatherer. It is the creation of human society that has allowed the wealthy to become wealthy. As such, they have an obligation to pay a bit more to sustain that society than the not-so-wealthy." - Me

                by Darth Stateworker on Sat Apr 26, 2014 at 08:51:26 PM PDT

                [ Parent ]

                •  You are still not getting it (0+ / 0-)

                  You think it is fine for unions to take anti environmental stands.  

                  As I said, unions are just like oil companies.  Their profits only and everyone else can go fuck themselves.   Don't expect me to lift a finger to help such "allies"

                  •  I get it just fine. (0+ / 0-)

                    You demand ideological purity.  Any other interest be damned.

                    I sure hope someday you finally get a chance to have to put your own ideological purity to the test because it is in direct conflict with your own livelihood.  Something tells me if/when that day comes, maybe, just maybe, you'll finally get the point I was making.

                    Until then, it's been real, but this conversation has become nothing but counterproductive.

                    "There was no such thing as a "wealthy" hunter-gatherer. It is the creation of human society that has allowed the wealthy to become wealthy. As such, they have an obligation to pay a bit more to sustain that society than the not-so-wealthy." - Me

                    by Darth Stateworker on Sun Apr 27, 2014 at 12:04:21 AM PDT

                    [ Parent ]

                •  And American workers beware (0+ / 0-)

                  Unions care about union members.   If that means cutting off non union workers off at the knees, don't expect these organizations to give it a second's thought.   These guys are out for number one and the devil take the hindmost

                  •  Should they worry (0+ / 0-)

                    about everyone and everything else first, their own needs be damned?

                    /facepalm

                    Get a grip on reality.  They aren't a fucking charity.

                    And making statements like this do nothing but help the fucking GOP union busters.  

                    Great job.

                    "There was no such thing as a "wealthy" hunter-gatherer. It is the creation of human society that has allowed the wealthy to become wealthy. As such, they have an obligation to pay a bit more to sustain that society than the not-so-wealthy." - Me

                    by Darth Stateworker on Sun Apr 27, 2014 at 01:23:27 AM PDT

                    [ Parent ]

                •  I ask only (0+ / 0-)

                  That these organizations stand aside when more important matters are at issue.  You do not speak for all of course, but you do demonstrate the small minded selfishness that I have come to distrust

                  •  Le sigh... (0+ / 0-)
                    but you do demonstrate the small minded selfishness that I have come to distrust
                    Seriously?

                    Let's put reality in perspective here:  the only small mindedness is coming from you, who seems to have trouble understanding the political realities within unions.

                    Union leaders who stand by and do nothing while legislation is passed - or worse yet, push for the passage of such legislation -  that will cost members jobs don't last very long in their positions.

                    You naively feel this is shortsightedness, again because you demand that your ideological cause is the most important thing and that everyone must put your priorities first.

                    If you continue to think this way - which is extremely short-sighted and naive - and as you say, small minded - you will never get any help from these people.  You're simply going to piss them off.  People tend to get pissed off when other people dick around with their livelihoods and accuse them of being some sort of heretic for putting making a living as priority number one.

                    Understand that, understand that if you don't want to piss them off and instead want to cooperate, you have to give them options that allow them to meet their primary  reason for existing and the secondary goal of helping the environment, and you're win-win.  Piss all over them because they don't always end up on the same side of an issue as you, and you just make an enemy - or at least lose an ally.

                    You don't even seem to get that I am not even in one of these unions, and am simply trying to point out the political realities involved.  For fucks sake, this is not rocket science.  This is a discussion of the politics of the possible.

                    You can bitch about them all you want.  you can call me "short-sighted" or "selfish" all you'd like.  But none of that will change these political realities within unions - especially the trade unions that are pissing you off - and you're merely going to keep being frustrated.

                    So you can accept that - and look for common ground - or you can be pissed off.  But I ain't the one pissing in your Cheerios pal.  I'm simply trying to point out the political realities - political realities that you repeatedly refuse to acknowledge matter and are there whether you believe they should be or not.  That is most certainly small minded.

                    As far as being "selfish" - how the fuck am I being selfish by pointing these fucking things out to you?  I'm being a realist and explaining the politics of the possible within unions.  It's a simple equation.  Members jobs > all.  This is the reason why these organizations exist.  But if stating that reality somehow makes me "selfish", hell if I know how.

                    Perhaps you expect me to chastise them right along with you, and not doing that makes me "selfish."  Yeah, that's not going to happen - because I'm a realist, not an unyielding ideologue.  I expect trade unions to do what they can, when they can when it comes to environmental causes, and I expect them to always put their members interests above all other interests, because their members interests are their primary reason for existing.

                    Now please - quit freaking preaching.  I get it.  100% ideological purity or I'll be flogged.  TBQH, I don't give a rats ass.  Just as you "don't trust me", your practically maniacal demand for ideological purity makes me think that some of the more hardcore environmentalists like yourself are a bit out to lunch because you don't seem to recognize you can't fight political battles on an all-or-none basis, nor judge your allies on such a basis.

                    You're basically acting like the far left yin to the far right Tea Party yang, both demanding ideological purity.  And I'm a guy who considers himself to be pretty far left from the mainstream left to begin with.  So if you're pissing me off, imagine how much your statements are going to piss off centrist or even slight-right leaning trade unionists.  You sure aren't going to win any friends or influence people.  As I said in my very first response:  You get more flies with... vinegar?

                    "There was no such thing as a "wealthy" hunter-gatherer. It is the creation of human society that has allowed the wealthy to become wealthy. As such, they have an obligation to pay a bit more to sustain that society than the not-so-wealthy." - Me

                    by Darth Stateworker on Sun Apr 27, 2014 at 01:21:17 AM PDT

                    [ Parent ]

                    •  We agree then (0+ / 0-)

                      I am simply looking at this from the perspective of an environmentalist and have reached the conclusion that the prospects for working with unions are in fact pretty limited for precisely the reason you state:

                      I'm being a realist and explaining the politics of the possible within unions.  It's a simple equation.  Members jobs > all
                      As you say, the politics of the possible with unions is very limited and at the end of the day unions can be trusted to look after union interests solely. So, as an environmentalist, the reasonable conclusion is that those interests might be harnessed to help at times, but typically those interests are either not especially relevant or are at times destructive.  We shouldn't expect unions to be of much help, since they are pursuing their own aims.

                      Certainly, environmentalists are much further along in considering the integration of political aims and economics, since there's been a great deal of thought and effort given to how to create sustainable change.  That will necessarily involve major changes to the economic structure to shape that.  Some unions will recognize that these changes represent a major opportunity for their missions, while others will respond to the prospect of change the way most other entrenched power interests will respond: by resisting all the way.  There is no surprise there.

                      At the end of the day, you and I have reached the same conclusion that unions are predominantly organizations that one wouldn't naturally expect to be open to socioeconomic change. It is what it is.

                      I had no intention of saying you personally are selfish, only that some union leaders are in the sense that they focus on their own interests and not those of any others.  Perhaps that can be changed, but as you say, there are reasons why that shift would be difficult.  

                      To a very reasonable degree, I look at this issue from what I see as being the overriding concerns here.  Certainly, if we are to hold unions blameless for caring only about union jobs (and not even jobs generally), then one can't fault environmentalists for focusing on their interests by the same token.  After all, the issues we are dealing with are of substantially greater significance.  If a union effort fails, some group of people get paid less.  If an environmental effort fails, between tens of thousands and billions of people stand to die.  If we take the long term perspective, there is a strong reason to look at this cooperation only from the stand point of whether it can be useful or not.  I am sure that there might be some value to be had there, but as you say, we shouldn't expect too much from unions.

        •  And you are the one asking for the one way (0+ / 0-)

          Relationship.   I sure don't remember environmental groups pushing for right to work laws or trying to defeat union objectives in other ways

          •  Not "pushing" (0+ / 0-)

            for something isn't necessarily coming out to help defeat something.

            There is a distinct difference.

            If you think it's unions looking for a one-way relationship, you have a perception problem.  They certainly aren't looking at you and saying "my way or the highway" like you just did.

            "There was no such thing as a "wealthy" hunter-gatherer. It is the creation of human society that has allowed the wealthy to become wealthy. As such, they have an obligation to pay a bit more to sustain that society than the not-so-wealthy." - Me

            by Darth Stateworker on Sat Apr 26, 2014 at 11:58:48 AM PDT

            [ Parent ]

            •  As I've laid out elsewhere (0+ / 0-)

              unions have, in the past, come out to directly push to defeat environmentalists' intiatives.  This move is very much like someone pushing to directly oppose the objectives.

              I'm not asking any union to support anything, but it'd be nice if when we go lobbying the unions aren't firing back at us.  So, yes, in my experience there's been plenty of "my way or the highway" coming back.

              •  And you ignore (0+ / 0-)

                the reason behind such an action:  support of the particular environmental initiative is in complete opposition to their primary reason for existing.

                Instead of ignorantly or naively thinking they're asshats that are totally and unequivocally against the environment - understand the situation and work with them to find a third option if possible.

                It simply does not seem to be registering with you that when you ask a union to go against their primary reason for existing, they aren't going to be a receptive - nor is it their job to be.

                It's the same thing as a union asking you to say "fuck the environment, support us on this if you're pro-labor or else" - which they aren't doing to you.

                Have reasonable expectations of what labor can and will do, not unrealistic ones - or you just hurt your own cause long term by pissing off those who are generally allied with your cause when they can be.  That's just self-defeating.

                "There was no such thing as a "wealthy" hunter-gatherer. It is the creation of human society that has allowed the wealthy to become wealthy. As such, they have an obligation to pay a bit more to sustain that society than the not-so-wealthy." - Me

                by Darth Stateworker on Sat Apr 26, 2014 at 08:44:58 PM PDT

                [ Parent ]

        •  I wonder (1+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          JeffW

          How unions would respond if the Sierra Club came out saying it will oppose EFCA unless it include mandatory requirements that unions negotiate 25% carbon emission reductions into every collective bargaining agreement.

          Because this is the sort of thing solar proponents deal with regularly

          •  Great idea. (0+ / 0-)

            Let's take the already weak liberal movement and infight like the Teabillies do with the GOP.

            That will certainly help the movement get stronger and reach our collective goals....

            /facepalm

            "There was no such thing as a "wealthy" hunter-gatherer. It is the creation of human society that has allowed the wealthy to become wealthy. As such, they have an obligation to pay a bit more to sustain that society than the not-so-wealthy." - Me

            by Darth Stateworker on Sat Apr 26, 2014 at 11:56:43 AM PDT

            [ Parent ]

            •  That is kind of my point (0+ / 0-)

              When unions attack environmental initiatives they are weakening the overall movement.  I take this example of unions killing off solar initiatives by insisting that all solar work be required to be done by union workers.  

              The Sierra Club has never taken such an approach. The electrical workers unions has.   So now do you understand where that face palm out to be directed?

              •  Wanting to build a pipeline (0+ / 0-)

                isn't "attacking" environmental initiatives.  Nor is unions stating that they'd like solar to be installed by union labor.

                You illustrate the point I made in my original point for me by going off on unions because they don't support your position 100% in a manner that might cost them jobs.

                You want solar panels.  They want jobs.  Combine the two, and what do you get?  Exactly what the unions asked for:  solar panels installed by union members.  That's win-win.

                Clearly, you're too much of an ideologue to understand that.  Your ideology is commendable, but your idea on what an alliance means is naive.  You demand ideological purity on par with that the Teabillies demand - and it will be just as unworkable for you as it is for them.

                "There was no such thing as a "wealthy" hunter-gatherer. It is the creation of human society that has allowed the wealthy to become wealthy. As such, they have an obligation to pay a bit more to sustain that society than the not-so-wealthy." - Me

                by Darth Stateworker on Sat Apr 26, 2014 at 12:08:47 PM PDT

                [ Parent ]

                •  No you don't understand (0+ / 0-)

                  The million solar roofs initiative in California was about to pass until the unions switched to opposing it because there was no requirement that all labor be done by unions.   That killed it.   Similarly several large solar projects here have been killed by greenmailing suits by unions

                  These are both clearly killing environmental initiatives.  

                  Similarly taking up opposition to the efforts to kill Keystone XL is trying to block an environmental initiative

                  You should step back and read what I write.  I don't demand purity or even support.  All I am asking is that unions consider environmental issues and stop working against the environment.  I am also asking you to consider that unions are not always on the right side of these issues and frequently give zero weight to environmental issues.  This is the reality.  Several unions have come out in opposition to Keystone, for example, even though it doesn't really touch on jobs for their union members.   That's being an ally.  Several others have ignored the environmental issues and supported the oil companies.   That is not being an ally

                  There is no question of purity here (unless it is this mindset of union jobs above everything else attitude.  That seems much more like Puritanism to me)

                  •  Is it that hard (0+ / 0-)

                    for environmentalists to say "Yeah - we want solar panels and we want them installed by union labor?"  Is it that difficult for you to understand why a union wouldn't support something that would kill of their members jobs, and would instead want an alternate version that would at least maintain members jobs?  You cannot expect an ally to go on a suicide mission for you - which is exactly what you're doing when you ask them to support an item that will cost union jobs.

                    That doesn't go after environmental initiatives in general.  It puts them in opposition - or at least not lending support to - one individual initiative - because while the initiative may meet one of their secondary goals it hurts their primary mission.

                    Same deal with the Keystone XL.

                    I don't demand purity or even support.
                    By expecting unions to lend support to initiatives that will cost their members jobs, that is exactly what you're doing.  You are considering only your needs and desires without paying any attention to their needs and desires.  You are certainly not asking how you can work together with them so you can both achieve your goals.  If you want to "bridge the gap" as Meteor Blades wrote about - you have to consider the needs and desires of both movements - not just your own.

                    The same could be said of the unions if their opposition is based on simply protecting jobs at existing dirty power plants by preventing solar at all.  However, as they simply wanted to see a clause requiring union labor on the job (based on what you've said before) - that would be meeting you in the middle and supporting both causes.  It addresses both their primary and secondary concerns.

                    If they can do it, why can't you?  Why is it a zero-sum game where you must meet all your objectives, everyone else be damned?  That isn't how politics works, even if your intentions are admirable.  You have to give and take with your allies in the same way you have to give and take with the opposition.

                    "There was no such thing as a "wealthy" hunter-gatherer. It is the creation of human society that has allowed the wealthy to become wealthy. As such, they have an obligation to pay a bit more to sustain that society than the not-so-wealthy." - Me

                    by Darth Stateworker on Sat Apr 26, 2014 at 12:39:40 PM PDT

                    [ Parent ]

                    •  You have to understand the politics (0+ / 0-)

                      For example, the solar initiative had the votes to pass without this 100% union requirement (many of those jobs would have gone to union members for installation even without the provision) but the union actively decided to lobby supporters to oppose it once they couldn't get the amendment passed knowing full well that environmentalists had sunk a lot of capital into it.  The proponents tried to get the requirement put in (it's a reasonable idea) but that failed so the unions killed it.  There was no question of jobs being lost whatsoever.  None, zero.  And there was no way to get the bill passed with the provision, which was added at the last minute to piggyback on something environmentalists had been working hard on for a while.  The effort failed, so in a fit of "screw you" the electricians killed it.  

                      In effect, what you are suggesting is that if a single job might not come to a union member, unions will oppose the policy, even if it could save thousands of lives (say, from your power plant example).  I think you've proved my point:  unions think solely of their own interests.  They'd oppose the voting rights act or marriage equality or anything else if it advances their interests.  Never mind that the consequences for the rest of humanity might be dire.  Here, we have a balance of a pretty small number of potential jobs (which might not even go to union members, frankly) against a major priority of environmentalists.  The flip side of that attitude might be for environmentalists to oppose any union priority that might increase carbon emissions at all.  I don't see environmentalists doing that, but the reverse is sadly not that unusual.  Yet somehow it is the environmentalists who are the purists or bad allies?  That makes not sense.   The ones with the "my objectives only, the rest of you be damned" is the union attitude, frankly.

                      And that is why I really don't think that some unions are any better than oil companies.  These pave the earth moves show who it is who cares only about their money and will not give an inch or do a damn thing in solidarity with anyone else.

                      It isn't a zero sum game, unless the unions choose to make it so.

                      •  I understand politics quite well TYVM. (0+ / 0-)

                        I work in state government in Albany for Christs sake dealing with pols and their appointees routinely.  This town is nothing but politics - so I understand them quite well.

                        Instead of reading very carefully what I wrote, you go right over it to go off on another rant.  Nothing in what I wrote stated or implied that unions should be looking for 100% union labor as an amendment to the bill.

                        Those who actually understand politics understand there are no absolutes.  This means unions could have pushed for a percentage of the labor involved to require union labor.  It's fucking California - not some right-to-work-for-less red state.  If you can't get some sort of concession in that legislation towards unions to help make up for the jobs the bill would cost their members, you're doing something wrong.

                        Again, you don't seem to be getting the bigger picture, and hence, don't seem to understand the politics from labors side: the bill with no concessions towards labor, no matter how much effort enviros put in - fucks labor members and costs them jobs.  If you expect them to simply roll over on that simply because they have a secondary goal of taking care of the environment, you're naive.

                        I'm not trying to be flippant with you, but that's reality.  You cannot expect unions to not fight against something that costs their members jobs.  Not if they can't see job gains to cover those losses elsewhere.  That is the reality of politics - knowing what your allies can and can't do.

                        You don't seem to get that part no matter how many times it is explained, and would rather burn down the entire relationship with labor rather than understand you won't always be on the same side.  Basically, as I've noted before, you're being an ideologue and demanding ideological purity or else essentially branding them heretics.

                        That never works in politics.  You only shoot yourself in the foot when you think that way.

                        "There was no such thing as a "wealthy" hunter-gatherer. It is the creation of human society that has allowed the wealthy to become wealthy. As such, they have an obligation to pay a bit more to sustain that society than the not-so-wealthy." - Me

                        by Darth Stateworker on Sat Apr 26, 2014 at 09:04:11 PM PDT

                        [ Parent ]

    •  I would use the word misinformed rather than.. (9+ / 0-)

      ..idiots though. I've been trying to learn how to talk politics without it being "politics" and have found that there are so many people that are unaware of so many issues it has me kind of worried, though not defeated by a long shot.

      I'll bet that many of the workers are union and have families and a mortgage to pay and the dirty energy interests have exploited these day to day concerns of workers and have fed that division that tonight's author has presented.

      Fed the division and added to it. It's typical. Drive a wedge between the people. Get half the people protecting corpo interests and the other half fighting those trying to limit corpo domination.

  •  These three clowns get serious prison time (6+ / 0-)

    for talking about committing a crime. Not committing an actual crime, talking about it.

    Meanwhile, the nut-jobs who pulled AR 15's and semi-automatic handguns on federal officials in Nevada get....held up as 'freedom fighting heroes' by the right.

    Bullshit.

    NATO 3 get prison terms ranging from 5 to 8 years:

    Three out-of-state men were sentenced to prison terms ranging from 5 to 8 years in prison today for making crude Molotov cocktails in the days before the NATO summit in Chicago in May 2012.

    Jared Chase was sentenced to 8 years, Brent Betterly to 6 years and Brian Church to 5 years.

    Prosecutors had sought 14-year terms for each of the so-called NATO 3, raising the specter of the Boston Marathon bombings during their arguments at the sentencing hearing.

    The three were convicted in February of possessing incendiary devices but were acquitted of more serious terrorism charges, a fact stressed by their attorneys.

    Chase’s attorney, Thomas Anthony Durkin, contended that prosecutors didn't seem to understand they lost the terrorism case and were trying to “salvage a lousy, rotten case” with stiff prison sentences.

    “They still don’t get that the whole world is laughing at them,” Durkin told Judge Thaddeus Wilson.

    http://www.chicagotribune.com/...

    “I would like to get rid of the homophobes, sexists, and racists in our audience. I know they're out there and it really bothers me.” ― Kurt Cobain

    by Jeff Y on Fri Apr 25, 2014 at 08:50:58 PM PDT

  •  How many jobs were lost? (13+ / 0-)

    How many jobs were lost in New Orleans? On the Jersey shore? Hell, whole countries are on track to be eliminated from the face of the earth via sea level rise. Bound to be some jobs that go along with them.

    Mark Twain: It ain't what you don't know that gets you into trouble. It's what you know for sure that just ain't so.

    by Land of Enchantment on Fri Apr 25, 2014 at 08:51:00 PM PDT

  •  Well I think it's safe to say if "The Chamber" (9+ / 0-)

    is for something it's probably not good for most people.

    I want 1 less Tiny Coffin, Why Don't You? Support The President's Gun Violence Plan.

    by JML9999 on Fri Apr 25, 2014 at 08:53:22 PM PDT

  •  Remarkably I posted the same Jeremy Brecher (4+ / 0-)

    link about 15 minutes before you did.
    http://www.dailykos.com/...

    I'm a Vietnam Era vet. I'm also an Erma Bombeck Era vet. When cussing me out and calling me names please indicate which vet you would like to respond to your world changing thoughts.

    by Just Bob on Fri Apr 25, 2014 at 08:53:40 PM PDT

  •  "One starting point for that story is to recognize (12+ / 0-)

    ..the common interest both in human survival and in sustainable livelihoods."

    The media repeat the jobs vs. environment frame again and again:
     NPR’s headline on KXL was typical of many: “Pipeline Decision Pits Jobs Against Environment.”

    A similar dynamic has marked the “beyond coal” campaign, the fracking battle and EPA regulation of greenhouse gasses under the Clean Air Act.

    Those who want to overcome this division must tell a different story.

    A different story: that the future is renewable energy and that right now is the future

    And here is 1.8 millions jobs waiting to be filled:Open thread for night owls: Infrastructure investment would create a vast number of well-paying jobs..that could be geared toward clean energy too

    That how to end the divisive lie - imo

    Thx MB

  •  I like this guy (3+ / 0-)

    Well I'm just a tree, but if I were you I'd listen to your GHOST FRIEND! Howard-Big Bang Theory

    by nellgwen on Fri Apr 25, 2014 at 09:21:25 PM PDT

  •  I reguard your analysis highly MB; (4+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    JeffW, 6412093, Jeff Y, thanatokephaloides

    Do you believe the LNG plant on Chesapeake Bay is a gambit to check Putin's movement in eastern Europe in general and Ukraine in particular?  

  •  If he can't shoot Obama with a cannon (9+ / 0-)

    without people getting all offended, then it's because MLK didn't do his job!

    Sheese, where do Republicans find these shallow end of the gene pool troglodytes?

    Georgia Congressional Candidate Will Shoot British With A Cannon To Stop Obama:

    Say hello to John Stone and his little friend! His ancestor, he tells us, “used a cannon like this to fight the British in Savannah and win us the Constitution,” which doesn’t make one lick of sense since any fool knows that John Stone’s ancestor was actually fighting for the Articles of Confederation. But perhaps we quibble. Mr. Stone then pledges that:

    “As the only licensed firearms dealer in America running for Congress, I’m willing to do the same if we have to."

    Which is a pretty weird pledge, considering that we have not made #war on the British since 1815.

    http://wonkette.com/...

    “I would like to get rid of the homophobes, sexists, and racists in our audience. I know they're out there and it really bothers me.” ― Kurt Cobain

    by Jeff Y on Fri Apr 25, 2014 at 09:25:45 PM PDT

    •  John Stone's little friend (3+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      Jeff Y, Eric Nelson, JeffW
      Say hello to John Stone and his little friend!
      I have no interest whatsoever in John Stone's penis, virtual or otherwise.

      ;-)

      "It's high time (and then some) that we put an end to the exceptionalistic nonsense floating around in our culture and face the fact that either the economy works for all, or it doesn't work AT all." -- Sean McCullough (DailyKos user thanatokephaloides)

      by thanatokephaloides on Fri Apr 25, 2014 at 10:44:42 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

  •  He will shoot his cannon at the British (5+ / 0-)

    to stop Obama?
    Ha, ha.
    I'm speechless, really. I was going to say something about Napoleon but I have to take a shower.

    Well I'm just a tree, but if I were you I'd listen to your GHOST FRIEND! Howard-Big Bang Theory

    by nellgwen on Fri Apr 25, 2014 at 09:35:31 PM PDT

  •  Enviros and AFL-CIO construction unions (5+ / 0-)

    don't always get along.

    One problem is that enviros act, advocate and assume that construction jobs involving union trades are not important -- either individually and/or in the aggregate -- because construction jobs are temporary jobs.

    If you are a laborer's union, union pipefitter or operating engineer and you are listening to a lot of claims by environmentalists that deny the existence, basis or importance of you earning a living, then enviros should not be surprised that elements of their advocacy against the KXL pipeline is going to piss off members of these AFL-CIO construction unions.

    The reason for the anger directed back at enviros by some union construction trades is that they see environmental advocates as a threat to their jobs, work  and families....it is that simple, when someone in #NoKXL camp pretends like some pipefitter's job building the pipeline is not important because it is only a temporary construction job.

    That these two Dem party factions are at each other's throats should be recognized by all Dems as an issue that all sides need to address.  

    In Michigan, Mark Schauer is proposing that Enbridge reconstruct and re-design Greal Lakes pipeline crossings...something enviros and union labor can both advocate, along that many average citizens. can understand, support and get behind.

    If environmentalists would advocate for a national pipeline bridge technology retrofit requirement for  all present water crossing submerged pipelines so that all major water and stream crossings incorporated pipeline bridges and stainless steel  crossing segments......you would find plenty of areas where enviros and union construction labor could work together.....but enviros have to make the first move to follow a different path in relations with AFL-CIO construction union labor unions.

    However, environmentalists have a problems talking about something practical as 'pipeline engineering stewardship' because they don't think it is sexy and fun.   However, it is going to be necessary for the environmental movement to articulate an alternate engineering vision of pipeline stewardship as a regular and consistent part of their advocacy.....if we're all going to tell the pipeline companies what to do and how they should be run and how their physical facilities should be managed.

    The United Steelworkers Union would also be interested in anything that stimulated United States demand for steel products.

    •  I agree with you. It is easy to be against (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      JeffW

      anything for environmental reasons, but
      when other factors, like jobs for skilled trades
      are on the line, a better approach might be
      to be for 'sustainable infrastructure' that
      naturally enlists the support of industries, and
      their related workers, who will benefit, along
      with the rest of our society and economies.

      Constituencies such as these can have real
      and lasting impact towards many of our common
      problems, because they have natural political power.
      It is not like this hasn't been proposed by some.
      And fought every step along the way by some.

      I have to assume that most people want the same
      things that I do. Clean air and water. Wholesome
      and nourishing food. Good health. Justice. Respect.
      Self worth. Community. Fairness. The whole Maslow
      pyramid with the FDR Icing. Yes, of course, there are
      a small minority that does not share in such ideas.
      And yes, they seem to have power well beyond
      their numbers. Eventually, the mountain becomes sand.

      Ultimately, where lie our contentions are how these
      are achieved, or not. Who pays, who benefits, and those
      who never appear to. Isn't adapt or perish the rule?
      Sort of a timeless struggle in many regards.

      There are quite a few of these economic fault lines
      that are just waiting to be exploited, one way or another.
      That may erupt on their own, given the right conditions.
      It is up to all of us to find the best way forward for everyone,
      as best as we can, in the time that is remaining.

      Thanks for all of your efforts.

      The persecution of "the left" at Daily Kos... (76+ / 1-) reminds me of the War on Christmas. I'm a Silly Rabbit. by Trix on Fri Nov 01, 2013 at 05:39:00 PM CDT

      by Larsstephens on Sat Apr 26, 2014 at 01:34:24 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

    •  Why (0+ / 0-)

      Should enviros make the first move?  After all unions have worked to kill environmental initiatives far more often than the other way around, I believe.  One could just as easily say unions approach the world as if the environment doesn't matter as well. Pipeline retrofits are interesting but a temporary measure since these pipelines needs to be eliminated in the long run.  One might as easily suggest that unions need to consistently address the carbon and environmental impacts of the jobs they are advocating for. This would also be true

      I think both need to recognize that addressing these needs go hand in hand.  Frankly, a lot of environmental organizations place great emphasis on green jobs in the overall advocacy.  

  •  The next major environment/energy-labor (3+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    grape crush, Larsstephens, ban nock

    dispute that is likely going to need mediation will be between the environmental movement needing greenhouse gas emission reductions from the transportation sector and the Teamster's Union over the issue of the predominance of interstate truck transportation over rail freight transportation.

    •  Not really ........ (2+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      KJG52, JeffW

      Teamsters (the Union) are not predominate in OTR (Over-the-road) long-haul, those are independents and pseudo-independents, a full spectrum of drivers who are completely independent to those who are much like hourly workers but with even fewer rights. The teamsters will be quite happy to take it "last mile" from the depot to the store.

      Greatest push-back will come from the distribution center oriented retailers who are heavily invested in interstate highway based models.

      21st Century America: The distracted, superficial perception of a virtual reality. Gettov Milawn

      by geez53 on Sat Apr 26, 2014 at 01:05:30 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

    •  What we need (0+ / 0-)

      Is a sort of coordination that pushes for equity and fairness in new green industries that replace old ones generally.   With new industries come new companies and new business models and that represents a real opportunity for socioeconomic change that clinging to obsolete industries does not.  

      We are looking for a new economic model that incorporates both

  •  Well, but currency is nothing but certified (3+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    Larsstephens, geez53, JeffW

    debt. And the current problem is that, although the severance of our currency from precious metals has made the supply potentially unlimited, more so now that it's electronic, the rate of flow has been reduced from a trickle to a drip. The currency's current is just not flowing at a sufficient rate to insure everyone gets enough to manage.

    Capital may be denominated in dollars, but dollars are not capital. Dollars are nothing but certified certificates of debt or obligation.

    Imagine if someone sequestered all the normal writing materials. The sequestration and rationing of dollars has a similar stagnating effect.

    "Trickle down" does work, if the object is to reduce the flow of dollars from a trickle to a drip.
    We need to remember that the Cons are concrete thinkers. They do not employ compound phrases to modify and specify. Their phrases represent discrete elements in a conflict situation. Read that way, "trickle down" is short for "shut that trickle down" and that's in response to the perception that the members of the public have been getting too much money.
    You'll recall that the first response to the abolition of the gold standard was Richard Nixon imposing price controls. I don't remember what Gerald Ford did, but Jimmy Carter proposed austerity and that generated commercial interest rates of 22%, followed by the flight into raw land speculation. And still the populace hadn't been squeezed tight enough. So, Greenspan proposed removing the tax on capital gains to encourage the "liberation" of household assets for the market. Homeowners were supposed to "trade up" and put themselves in hock so the housing stock could be capitalized for speculation. The crash of 2008 did not happen overnight. It signalled that there was nothing left to carve up and exploit.
    The creation of capital by taking real assets and cutting them into pieces  had to come to a halt. Factories can't just be reassembled, as are agricultural lands, and neither can households.

    http://hannah.smith-family.com

    by hannah on Sat Apr 26, 2014 at 12:51:08 AM PDT

    •  Thank you. Exactly my point on taxation. (3+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      Larsstephens, hannah, JeffW

      You always hear the extreme push-back "you can't get all the money you need to fix the economy, even if you take every penny from the rich" (that used to be true but i'm starting to wonder). But that's not the point, you just need to tax them enough to restore flow. The greediest of these have taken the hydraulic fluid out of the excavator then bitch because we're not digging their pools fast enough.

      21st Century America: The distracted, superficial perception of a virtual reality. Gettov Milawn

      by geez53 on Sat Apr 26, 2014 at 01:21:26 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

  •  Those that would destroy the planet for money, (4+ / 0-)

    versus those that would save the planet for money.
    All things being equal, would you prefer the type of jobs that destroy the planet, or the type of jobs that save the planet?
    It's your progeny.
    That's how I would frame the debate.

    To quote the greatest philosopher of the 20th century: "I yam what I yam, and that's all what I yam."

    by franklyn on Sat Apr 26, 2014 at 01:28:32 AM PDT

  •  Still no diary on Wayne LaPierre? (0+ / 0-)

    http://m.huffpost.com/...

    Maybe if I wait three days this story will make it to DKos.

  •  Private sector unions are not a significant... (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    Mindful Nature

    political force any longer and that is as a result of the policies and actions of both political parties in the United States. Republicans cannot be blamed for their position, they represent the aims of capital and have consistently been anti-union. The consistent betrayal of unions by the Democratic Party and its leadership has been going on for decades and is the shameful foundation of the loss of union power in the workplace in the post-war period.

    Southern Democrats voted with Republicans to pass Taft-Hartley in 1947 as part of a strategy to disempower unions in the South and hold down black labor movements. When LBJ started his Great Society legislative agenda, labor was significantly missing, why wasn't Taft- Hartley repealed then? What happened to transport Unions under Jimmy Carter when the ICC was eliminated and both trucking and airlines were deregulated, they were decimated. Where was the Democratic support for unions under Bill Clinton, when NAFTA and the WTO were signed into law by Bubba, when public unions started to be excoriated by Democrats and the ridiculous "skills gap," became the Democratic excuse for lack of jobs? Where was Obama when "Card Check," came up, walking with unions in his "walking shoes," no, just pushing the same "Washington Consensus," neoliberal garbage economics of the Clinton Era.

    The Democratic Party has just as disgraceful a record with environmental groups since the advent of Ronald Reagan.

    If we as Democrats really cared about either of these issues and put jobs and the environment forward together, then the split could be healed and a policy position beneficial to our party and society could be formed through honest and open debate, but we don't. The leadership of the Democratic Party is about being against Republicans and for Democrats, winning elections and perpetuating the power and institutional hold of the Democratic Party.

    Global Warming is a clear and present danger to the further existence of human civilization, not the planet, but humans don't seem to be able to grasp that. The argument of "jobs" vs "ecology," is a false choice, and without immediate action on climate, unions will cease to exist as institutions along with government and law, it will truly be Hobbes world of the battle of all against all...

    Apparently we are doomed by our own inability to comprehend reality, an incredible epitaph...    

    "Intelligence is quickness in seeing things as they are..." George Santayana

    by KJG52 on Sat Apr 26, 2014 at 03:54:26 AM PDT

Subscribe or Donate to support Daily Kos.

Click here for the mobile view of the site