Scott Adams, creator of “Dilbert”, recently wrote a piece in the Wall Street Journal entitled: How I (Almost) Saved the Earth. As I type, it is making the rounds on social networks, emails, and probably being talked about around the water coolers that Adams portrays in his iconic comic strip. Why is the article so popular? Does it speak some truth that needed a voice? Does it introduce a concept that furthers the discussion on environmentalism? No. It strikes a chord because it tells people what they want to hear.

by Scott Adams

At first read, Adams’ piece seems to be just another cute reflection of an average Joe’s attempt to “go green.” But there’s more to it than that. A certain paragraph in the middle epitomises the sentiment that I consider to be the greatest threat to the climate (us) since the industrial revolution. (Yeah, I know. Stay with me.) Here it is:

“I prefer a more pragmatic definition of green. I think of it as living the life you want, with as much Earth-wise efficiency as your time and budget reasonably allow. Now back to our story.”

That, my friends, is what denial looks like.

This idea, and subsequently the entire article, is a case against activism. It serves as a reassuring pat-on-the-back for those who have a lingering notion that recycling and bicycling isn’t enough, but cannot bear to internalize the severity of the climate crisis.

Forget the climate deniers and the FOX news pundits. They shout into an armed echo chamber made of steel. It isn’t worth it to try to break in and bring them around with things as ignorable as “facts.” We need the people whose minds aren’t closed, who realize what needs to be done, to jump in and do it. They are the same people who are passing Adams’ article around right now.

Most of them have heard the truth again and again, from experts like Bill McKibben and James Hansen and theAmerican Academy of Science, that nothing but immediate, gigantic shifts away from coal to clean methods of making electricity will spare us and future generations from economical/ecological collapse and world-wide human suffering. Yet it is the false but comforting idea that “it is enough just to change a few of our consumption habits” that gains traction. We are in a race against time, and articles like this shoot the winning horse right before it crosses the finish line. Denial and those who articulate it kill the climate movement.

I don’t think Scott Adams is trying to do that. He just isn’t thinking clearly about what it actually means to act upon his desire to, as he describes it, “love the earth”.

Not only does this article say that you shouldn’t try very hard to be green, but by leaving out other options creates the impression that changing your personal habits is the ONLY way to make a difference. There is no activism in that. No pushing the government to change, no holding our leaders’ feet to the fire, no resistance, no stopping the coal-trains in their tracks, no refusal to participate in the system that is directly responsible for this looming disaster. It implies that meaningful, practical actions such as these are waay out there, when in reality,hard-hitting activism must be part of any “green” lifestyle.

I am not arguing that personal consumption changes are meaningless. I am saying that they will not mean squat if they aren’t accompanied by a willingness to make real sacrifices.

The climate crisis is like a cruise ship, with no lifeboats, that is headed straight for a huge iceberg. We can’t run to the gift shop and buy our way out of our predicament, even though they are selling things in there that make us feel like we are helping. Rich people can buy what they are told by Con Artist, Inc. to be plugs for the imminent hole in the boat. Middle-class passengers can purchase “Green House” brand earplugs, to block out the screaming. And the poor people? They are the ones trapped on the lower decks making all the noise. They are screaming, “Storm the captain’s deck you fools!! Seize the wheel!!”

But that, your friends tell you, is unthinkable.

[This was originally posted on It's Getting Hot in Here by Juliana Williams on March 18, 2010]

A good friend (and talented organizer) recently told me that direct action wasn’t going to accomplish change on the scale that we need.  The point is that if we want national (and global) change, solutions need to be applied across the country, not in a piecemeal fashion.  For example, it’s a lot more efficient to fight for national vehicle mileage or emissions standards than trying to do the same thing state by state.  A national renewable standard would build on the successes of over half of the states in the US and apply to those states that for various reasons lack a renewable standard, creating market certainty for the growing but tenuous renewable energy sector.

Much can be accomplished through policy venues.  But we should not delude ourselves that policy alone will solve the problem.  Good policy is nothing without good implementation.  But what happens when implementation fails, when the structures we have created are broken?  What recourse do we have?  As far as I can see we have two options: 1) reform/transform political structures through further policy change and 2) take direct action to stop those failures.

These options are not and should not be exclusive; they are both necessary.

Direct Action is a safety net between well-intended policy and political failure and corruption.

Peaceful Uprising at the Capitol Climate Action - Using Direct Action to Shut Down Congress's Coal-Fired Power Plant

We pulled some of the best excerpts from a fantastic interview of columnist Johann Hari on Democracy Now! Johann explains how corporate funding from some of the world’s largest polluters has corrupted many of the largest environmental organizations from the inside out, including Conservation International, The Nature Conservancy, and even the Sierra Club. This has manifested itself in a multitude of non-solutions being proposed as the only “politically feasible” ways of addressing the climate crisis. While the science clearly calls for a 40% cut in emissions from 1990 levels by 2040, many of these organizations are lobbying for woefully inadequate cuts of less than 10%.

Johann argues that instead of relying on corrupt governments and corporations to solve the climate crisis, the people must take the matter into their own hands and demand change through direct action. For example, he explains how the UK’s Climate Camp has united people to put themselves on the line and directly block the construction of new coal power plants and airports, and have successfully shown how the power of the people can drastically change the definition of what is “politically feasible.”

You can view the full interview on democracynow.org