It’s not SEIU. It’s not Planned Parenthood. It’s not even The League of Conservation Voters. But that 350.org has, for the first time in its organizational history, decided to endorse a candidate—that would be Congressman Ed Markey—will go a very long way towards establishing his environmental bona fides among a certain, and not insignificant, slice of the electorate that tends to pooh-pooh most Democratic initiatives (and successes, for that matter) on climate as, well, nothing but hot air. The organization’s statement reads, in part
“Rep. Markey is the only candidate in this race who is taking a principled stand on the dangerous Keystone XL tar sands pipeline. In Congress, each candidate had his shot at opposing this boondoggle of a project, which, if approved, would mean more pollution, more oil spills and more huge profits for Big Oil. Only one candidate did what was right and said no. That was Rep. Markey. This is a Selma-like moment, and Rep. Markey has shown the leadership that deserves our support. 350 Action will do all that we can to show Bay Staters who is the better candidate to stop disastrous projects such as the Keystone XL export pipeline and to battle climate change.” [“Boeve noted that the importance of stopping Keystone XL compelled 350 Action to endorse a candidate for the first time”].
It also burnishes the organization’s own image. 350.org retains, to use an overworked phrase, genuine street cred. Fiercely independent and autonomous, they’ve curried favor with no one. From small-time mobilizations in the streets of Boston to partnering with other true grassroots organizations to create quickly growing big-time rallies (DC, Portland) to engaging in civil disobedience (this, btw, is really worthwhile reading), the organization’s authenticity is impeccable. Like Occupy, membership is largely just a matter of showing up when you can and providing what you can, and bodies and energy are preferable to donations.
Unlike Occupy, 350 is proving itself willing to occupy the halls of power, or, at least, not to allow the perfect to be the enemy of the good. Not everyone, needless to say, is down with Markey’s endorsement of President Obama’s “all of the above” energy development plan. But they recognize that they have a genuine, proven champion in Markey, and a candidate who has aligned himself with the angels on 350’s—and the climate movement’s in general—main target right now: the Montreal/Portland and Keystone XL pipelines.
Personally, I am nothing short of thrilled. I’ve rode the busses with 350, and I’ve phone banked for Markey, and I’ve waited a long time for this embrace (and it’s mutual; the Markey campaign posted the endorsement on the campaign FB page). To me, it demonstrates that the climate movement is growing up and becoming a player (it meant something to first learn about this in a Washington Post account)[update: Politico has good coverage as well this morning].. 350 numbers among its young leaders some of the brightest, most engaged people in the state. And some of the most skeptical. Those who took this step ought not to be disappointed.
But more than that, and more to the point here: it suggests that Markey—whose most recent spate of endorsements range from unions to women’s rights groups to gay rights advocates—is the kind of candidate who can not only unite, but excite those constituencies that the Democratic coalition historically comprises—a claim not even the most avid Lynch supporter can make; and further, that he’s a been a lifelong supporter of causes that are now by and large embraced by the mainstream (that means independents).
I’d also suggest that climate is one of them, that it isn’t a fringe subject to be eschewed (it was studiously avoided during the previous Senate election here in MA, though Senator Warren handled it well on the sole occasion it came up in debate), but is a winner. It certainly appears to be in the MA primary; and I’m daily seeig more evidence, practically daily, that bolsters the notion that “American voters who identify themselves as environmentalists are a relatively small group, but those who consider themselves pro-environment are usually 70 percent of the electorate. And most independent voters are in that category” (Steven Cohen, executive director of The Earth Institute at Columbia University).
Of course, when it comes to Keystone, Rep. Lynch may well come at Markey on the “jobs” issue, but Obama himself, just yesterday, told Republicans that he believed that the number of jobs associated with the pipelines was “exaggerated” (a point also made by candidate Warren), and while TransCanada bloviates about “20,000” new jobs—and the US Chamber of Commerce a whopping 250,000—
http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-505123_162-57361212/keystone-pipeline-how-many-jobs-really-at-stake/
The U.S. State Department calculated last year that the underground pipeline would add 5,000 to 6,000 U.S. jobs. One independent review of Keystone puts that number even lower, with the Cornell University Global Labor Institute finding that the pipeline would add only 500 to 1,400 temporary construction jobs. The authors of the September report also said that much of the new employment stemming from Keystone would be outside the U.S….Transcanada itself cast doubt on its employment forecast when a vice president for the company told CNN last fall that the 20,000 jobs Keystone would create were temporary and that the project would likely yield only “hundreds” of permanent positions.
I should point out that while this strong endorsement comes from the national organization (350 Action, to be specific), 350-MA has not endorsed the candidate; they can’t, due their non-profit standing; and did not, in fact, vote in favor of the national doing so either . I’m somewhat dismayed by that—but more fired up than disappointed. I’m going to continue to work to win my comrades over. I do so convinced that candidate Markey will continue to make climate a top issue on the stump, will go on the offensive with it, and will do what he can to pressure the President and the Secretary of State to turn down TransCanada’s permit applications for the two pipelines in question. In regard to which the The New York Times had this to say:
The State Department’s latest environmental assessment of the controversial Keystone XL oil pipeline makes no recommendation about whether President Obama should approve it. Here is ours. He should say no, and for one overriding reason: A president who has repeatedly identified climate change as one of humanity’s most pressing dangers cannot in good conscience approve a project that — even by the State Department’s most cautious calculations — can only add to the problem.
Or, as BMG contributor thegreenmiles put in a succinct headline on his blog : Democrats Can’t Have It Both Ways on Keystone XL and Climate Action.
Which pretty much sums up the matter. 350 gets it. Markey gets it. And the electorate here in the Commonwealth gets it.
Dear god, make Obama get it.