Agape and The New Climate Movement

"Can I really love Rush Limbaugh?" That's a question climate activists should be asking themselves around the 40th anniversary of Dr. King's assassination on April 4, and the 78th anniversary on April 6 of Gandhi's famous act of civil disobedience, his salt satyagraha or Salt March.

Gandhi and King would have been able to do it, but admittedly, it's tough to love Rush if you're on the frontlines of the climate movement. Almost daily, he mercilessly attacks Al Gore and others who dare to suggest that we need to fight global warming. Last year, he derisively mocked Cheryl Lockwood, a young Yup'ik woman from Alaska, after her emotional Congressional testimony about the impact of climate change on her indigenous culture.

But unless climate activists affirm that they can love Rush, the coal lobby and other opponents of action to fight global warming, I fear that this movement will fail, with dire consequences for our planet.

The climate movement, led by college students, enlightened CEOs, and evangelicals, among others, is strong. This year, hundreds of thousands of Americans gathered on over 1500 college campuses to demand that their elected officials support clean-energy investments, 'green collar' jobs, and a descending cap on carbon emissions.

As a scholar of this movement, I am amazed by the skills of its leaders. Over the last five years, they have successfully framed their arguments, mobilized their base, and taken advantage of political opportunities, having learned from the non-violent strategies of the civil rights movement. Yet I fear that they may overlook that movement's most important lesson: a commitment to agape.

Agape is the special brand of love, described in 1 Corinthians 13, that is 'patient, kind, not easily angered and keeps no record of wrongs.' For Dr. King and so many other civil rights leaders, belief in agape underpinned nonviolence and was central to their success.

In this King and others were deeply influenced by Gandhi's satyagraha, or "truth force" -- the affirmation that peaceful ends are achieved not by violent means, but with love. "Truth force" also influenced Al Gore's Inconvenient Truth. The "force" part is the courage and discipline with which Gandhi's and King's supporters rejected violence at great personal risk. It is what led Americans of all kinds to walk across the Edmund Pettis Bridge, even in the face of Sheriff Jim Clark's whips and clubs. The "love," part, agape, allowed them forgive Clark and his ilk, setting the stage for moving beyond Jim Crow. By aspiring to patience and kindness, eschewing anger, keeping no record of wrongs, civil rights activists literally disarmed their enemies.

Therein lies the Limbaugh test. At a recent rally in Maryland of over 6,000 college students, speakers referred to 'the enemy,' to the 'evil,' of the coal lobby and their allies. Such rhetoric is guaranteed to stoke even more hyper-partisan politics and hinder social change.

By contrast, consider what Mary Lou Finley, a former colleague of Dr. King, calls "the two hands of non-violence: one hand raised, saying no to injustice; and the other hand extended, reaching out to one's opponent, seeking reconciliation and inviting them to join the movement."

Coal-fired electricity is deservedly a prime target for the climate movement. Burning coal not only threatens the planet: it endangers coal workers and destroys local ecosystems. But instead of vilifying the coal lobby, activists should begin by acknowledging their humanity -- and the legitimacy of their concerns. Coal, after all, provides low-cost electricity for millions and jobs for tens of thousands.

Imagine a strategy in which climate protesters not only try to close down new coal-fired power plants, but also invite leaders of the coal industry to collaborate on clean-energy investments for coal-dependent local economies. Imagine them lobbying together for tax credits, let's say, to build solar thermal plants in Wyoming and wind farms in West Virginia. As for Rush, how about a light-hearted fundraiser to buy him a Prius?

It's more or less what Gandhi and King would have done, and no one has been more effective in creating sweeping social change than they. If Dr. King found it in his heart to forgive Sheriff Clark, surely climate activists can forgive those who have forcefully stood in their way, setting the stage for a truly inclusive movement that offers hope -- and a clean-energy future -- for all.

Jonathan Isham, Jr. is the Luce Professor of International Environmental Economics at Middlebury College and is the editor of Ignition: What You Can Do to Fight Global Warming and Spark a Movement. He is participating in the free public forum Satyagraha: Gandhi's "Truth Force In the Age of Climate Change" April 13 at New York's Cathedral Church of Saint John the Divine, details at www.garrisoninsitute.org.

Comments

[MikePalmer]

The message of Gandhi and King is ancient and timeless. Only by remaining unconditionally constructive toward even those whom we view as hostile opponents will we create a political discourse that transcends hate and transforms the nature of public affairs. It is not about religion. And certainly not about any one religion. But some of the most effective and forceful exponents of peaceful, non-violent politics have been those who were grounded in a religious tradition. Gandhi called himself a Hindu, Muslim, Christian, and Jew. Buddha lived and taught a life of peace. Jesus did likewise. Like Jesus, Paul, the author of the hymn to love cited by Professor Isham, was a Jew.
The means is the end.
In large part, this is what Barack Obama's campaign for a new politics is about.
It is always easy to demonize the Other--the one who is not part of our group, our cause, our movement, our truth. How much stronger and wiser are those who are able to stop the hate by, as Gandhi put it, "being the change you want to see in the world."

Mike Palmer

[PaulLoeb]

We have to be able to challenge destructive action. We have to be able to recognize that short-sighted greed is a real force, and I think it's appropriate to name it for what it is.

But we also have to remember that people can .change. Many in the environmental movement might have written off someone like Rich Cizik, VP for governmental affairs, of the National Association of Evangelicals, because they disagreed with his stands on separate issues like abortion or gay rights. Yet Cizik has been absolutely corageous in speaking out on global climate change, and had a major impact.

I kind of like the story of Desmond Tutu giving a talk in apartheid-era South Africa. "You are on the wrong side of history," he told the police lining the walls of the church where Tutu was speaking, and waiting to arrest or beat the audience. "But we invite you to come over to the right side," Tutu said. "We invite you to join us."

Paul Loeb
Author of Soul of a Citizen

[waterwarrior84]

Jon, as usual I think you laid out a challenge that faces us with excellent clarity and offered good insight into a solution. I'm sorry to see other posters getting caught up on your religious reference, I strongly doubt that you come at this from the perspective of a zealot.

The unfortunate part about those environmentalists who would protest and demand that coal and nuclear be banned is not only their ineffectiveness, but the negative feedback loop of trust on both sides. What some seem to forget is that our power in the environmental movement comes from a) the facts being on our side and b) our ability to persuade. These companies would love to keep BAU because so far, it's been working out well for them, and we're asking a big change of them.

I think this challenge is slowly being conquered, though there is a ways to go. TXU and Duke Energy have made bold moves (which are only the beginning of what is necessary) to lower their carbon footprints, DuPont has as well, these are glimmers of hope for the environmental movement.

The next challenge will be educating those in power as to the possible alternatives. I've found in discussions with some more progressive energy executives that they view coal and its negative externalities as unavoidable. The challenge of befriending these people has been accomplished, they're on board. Now, how do we, in a friendly and constructive way, keep the conversation moving?

[mgloraine]

I'm willing to kick down some "love" for the energy moguls...just as soon as they abandon thievery and exploitation and start giving some of their ill-gotten gains back to the victims of the environmental devastation resulting from their companies' activities.

And I'm willing to scrape together some sort of non-negative regard for Rush Limbaugh, as soon as he renounces his usual schtick of lies and adolescent taunts and begins instead to conduct incisive interviews with relevant, interesting people.

Until those unlikely events manifest, however, it seems like carefully applied lawsuits and organized voter/consumer activism have a better chance of bringing about positive change than appeasement of or collaboration with our political adversaries. The Democratic Congress of 2007-2008 is a good example of the results obtained by Dems seeking accommodation with the opposition: the Republicans got everthing they wanted plus some extra, and Democrats failed to accomplish ANYTHING on behalf of the electorate. Corporations win trillions and voters lose their houses.

Why should ordinary citizens try to find some fictitious "middle way" where energy moguls and other corporate swindlers still get to have "some" or "most" of the profits on energy resources which should rightfully belong to all inhabitants of the region? If they refuse to see or simply don't care that they profit from injustice, why would they ever even try to see things from the vantage point of the down-trodden and exploited?

[Bluedog12]

Last month Rush's home town of Cape Giradu was flooded. Coincedentially his brothers family ended up at Rush's house at the same time. Fallout from climate change? No just quality family time.

[BOfever]

The problem I have with all the climate change people is that you can't blame every single event on humans using fossil fuels. There have been floods, hurricanes, tornados, etc. all through time.

[Bluedog12]

Here is what I don't understand. From my observation many of the people that deny climate change, due in part from human use of fossil fuels, are the same people that deny evolution. If there were no dinosaurs and no evolution where did the "fossil fuel" come from? If climate change is just a theory and the data and empirical evidence proving such events is just opinion then I really am nuts. Thanks.

[joebaggadonuts]

Thanks Jon for putting this out there. It is very hard to remember in the face of evil men that they are in fact human beings too. It is hard to remember that the non violence which has shown itself to be able to prevail over arms and the powerful people who wield them is strengthened through the kind of love that you describe. A more detailed description is, of course, in Wikepedia: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Agape

Another approach is to tell the truth to their grasping minds. That winning the oil end game is possible and will be profitable to many who participate. http://www.ted.com/index.php/talks/view/id/51 Amory's website is here:
http://www.oilendgame.com/

I recommend a two pronged approach, but you are right in your thinking and the reaching out must be done, no matter how vile the opponents are, we need to get them on our side. Love and light working together should do it. Nothing else has worked yet.

[mommadona]

You have GOT to be kidding me.

Ahhhhhhh..."Political Correctness" raises it's multi-heads once again.

"LOVE means never having to say you're sorry".....NOT.

"LOVE LIMBAUGH?" Good grief, man. That is going WAY too far.

Pity the fool
Ignore the fool
Disregard the fool
Discount the fool
Reject the fool

OR

Become just like the fool, stooping to his level in a patronizing effort to "bring him to da light"....

Limbaugh could give a flying fig - he argues to argue - he's ALWAYS been that way.
Knew the fool in high school.
Believe me - IGNORE THE FOOL - that's what we all did in high school.

His only friend was a cold mike in his hand at the local radio station.
It still is.

[GrainOSand]

I heard once that you cannot give what you do not have. Those with concern for profit over the health of the earth cannot be people who love themselves. I am sure they think about themselves a lot and I am sure they are extremely vain people, but loving cannot be what they are.

A man once looked at me in marvel because I said my mother taught me to love everybody. His marvel stemmed from the fact that he knew my history and he had also figured I had lived long enough to not still stand on that principle of unconditional love for everybody.

What is love? It is a bottomless reservoir of compassion, empathy, care, and concern for the object of its manifestation.

Many years after a man looked on me with marvel I have not found the bottom of my reservoir of love. I love Karl and the others, as I love all living beings, but I hate all they do to divide and corrupt. I hate the fact that they hate themselves and therefore are conflicted inside.

Individuals must still the waters of self-perception so they can see the true reflection of themselves in the calm of an undistorted truth. I implore the wicked and the deceitful to stop telling lies to themselves about their behavior so the ripples disappear from the pond of self judgment, and thereby they see the evil of their ways and therefore can heal and promote growth versus division.

[Novista]

There was plenty of agape thrown at corn-for-ethanol, and (some) farmers just love it. Pity it was one of the 'climate movements' "we must do something" solutions that created more problems than it solved.

Farm subsidies, ethanol subsidies; tortilla riots in Mexico and elsewhere, where's the love for those people who are in difficulty? Carbon sinks (trees!) down by swathes of hectares in the Amazon and another net-loss, is anyone paying attention?

Maybe you would want to ask Warren Buffet about Mid-Atlantic and other enterprises that swallow up sales taxes, and deferred payments to 2035 and why he pays less tax than his secretary?

Perhaps conservationists might inquire why the U.S. military expends 3 million gallons of fuel a DAY in Iraq?

You know, there was a time in the late 19th century that so much gasoline was dumped into the Ohio River that garfish couldn't even survive. And they're tough. Since that time, those leopards haven't changed their spots. Maybe they can't; maybe just forgive them and move on to something that has a better chance of working.

[RumiSouth]

I love the Prius idea. Where can I give to that effort?

[Dap]

And one more thing, Gandhi's and MLK famous acts of "civil disobedience" came as a direct result of Henry David Thoreau's essay.

[Uselessboy]

I don't recall a lot of reaching out to opponents.

What Gandhi and King and their movements did was to confront their opponents nonviolently, to embarrass and shame them.

This works with people and with elected governments. I seriously doubt it can work with corporations and their propagandists, first because they're command structures, and second because they own and operate our public discourse.

Now there may be an Obama-esque opportunity to reach out positively to citizens and voters.

On the other hand, Obama is doing it mainly by touring and speaking at campaign rallies, in part because it's far too expensive to hire the mainstream media to reach the people. But that means it's laboriously slow.

It will take us years, maybe a decade or more to reach and persuade enough of the general electorate manually.

[EngineerBill]

Mr. Isham;
I respect your religion, but I am not a Christian. Frankly, I am a little uncomfortable with the use of Christian principles as a solution for earthly problems like climate change. Don't get me wrong. I am not championing uncivil behavior. I just believe that our earthly problems need an approach that does not put one's particular religion front and center. I do not need to "love" coal companies to see their side of the issue. I just need to be understanding.

[maddogbitesback]

Agape is clean. Coal is not. It has caused millions of deaths and continues to. People can save electricity by hanging their clothes out on a line or buying fewer things. I mean who needs thirty shirts or the latest jeans. Jobs can be cr3ated by using clean solar and geo and wind energy. Many many jobs which do no harm and lead to advances. I personally find it hard to hold out my hand to someone who has one hand in his pocket and the other in mine. Coal costs lives. Coal spends millions and millions on lobbying. coal destroys what is beautiful and takes from the poorest. Tobacco was once touted as the way to happiness but laws have reduced tobacco consumption and deaths caused by tobacco. No one seemed to care about the jobs or say we should love something which killed people. We don't reach out a hand to the mafia. Why should we be nice to coal. It will only encourage them. Unlike Martin Luther King we cannot have people walking to and from work for months to force the hand of government. Government must pass laws and stop the use of coal to make electricity. There is more to life than being able to throw a pair of sneakers into the drier or leave lights on.

[Uselessboy]

I think the point is that government is not passing those laws, needed or not. The issue is how to bring government around to doing the big jobs that are beyond the people, and that requires popular pressure, and before that we have to make contact with the people and persuade them.

Just because a job desperately needs doing doesn't mean it's possible for us to do it, especially if immediate action is needed.

[Dap]

Dear Mr. Isham,

This would have been an eloquent essay/post, had you just left the Bible out of it, as it diminishes the Humanity of it. Agape(Love in fellowship of our shared fragile Humanity)

[Bellatrix]

Mr. Isham,
I am a conservative who finds herself frustrated with Rush on a regular basis. There are many like me out here, and we thank you. I agree with everything you've written here...

But let me warn you... as you can see from some of the comments above, bringing Christianity into your argument will only hurt you on a website like HuffPo. The readers here are widely convinced that religion is "evil," and their reactions to any mention of it are just as predictable, knee-jerk, and baseless as Rush's reaction to the mention of climate change. Agape love is absolutely what it will take to heal all our divides... of that I'm convinced. But sadly, you'll need to call it something else here. This is Dawkins and Harris territory...

I commend you, sir, for your courage and vision. Keep the faith. I intend to.

[GOP4MoreTears]

Although it is not surprising to see a conservative Christian make an attack in Rush's fashion as a direct result of being intolerant of others views, it is disconcerting especially in this instance because the Bible has nothing to do with Gandhi's belief system, or many others belief systems, it is divisive in that it excludes others that the author wishes to be a part of the movement. Pointing that fact out seems a proper criticism.

Therefore your attack was completely unwarranted, and not at all in the spirit of agape, or representative of the true Christian ethic, to love others as yourself.

[jarthur]

Lovely, thank you.
This is exactly what has sprung to mind many times recently as I've read comments on blogs, both at HuffPo and elsewhere. It also seems to be the place from which Senator Obama comes when he talks about ending the hyper-partisan, hateful politics of the past few decades.