How climate activists can help get things built

In this episode, organizer Jeff Ordower of 350.org talks about
how the environmental movement can shift its focus from blocking
what it doesn’t like to building what it does.


(PDF
transcript)


(Active
transcript)


Text transcript:


David Roberts


It is a much-discussed fact that the environmental movement cut
its teeth blocking things — mines, pipelines, power plants, and
what have you. It is structured around blocking things.
Habituated to it.


However, what we need to do today is build, build, build — new
renewable energy, batteries, transmission lines, and all the rest
of the infrastructure of the net-zero economy. Green groups are
as often an impediment to that as they are a help.


So how can the green movement help things get built? How can it
organize around saying yes?


Recently, the activist organization 350.org hired Jeff Ordower, a
30-year veteran organizer with the labor and queer movements, in
part to help figure these questions out. As director of North
America for 350, Ordower will help lead a campaign focused on
utilities standing in the way of clean energy.


I talked with him about organizing around building instead of
blocking, the right way to go after utilities, the role green
groups can play in connecting vulnerable communities with IRA
money, and what it means to focus on power.


All right then, with no further ado, Jeff Ordower of 350, welcome
to Volts. Thank you so much for coming.


Jeff Ordower


Thank you so much, David, for having me. I'm excited to be here.


David Roberts


Okay, well, I want to get to 350 and climate activism in a
second, but first I'd like to just hear a little bit about your
history in activism, which is mainly on the labor side. And what
I'd really like to hear, and this is probably like a whole pot of
its own, but insofar as you can summarize, I'd love to hear from
your perspective when you were working as an organizer in labor.
Looking over the fence at climate activism, what was your sort of
take or critique like from the labor perspective? What did you
think climate activism was doing right or wrong?


Or what did you think you could bring to climate activism from
the labor side?


Jeff Ordower


Yeah, I both did labor organizing and I come out of base-building
community organizing. I actually come out of the notorious ACORN
was where I spent the first half of my organizing.


David Roberts


The late, lamented —


Jeff Ordower


Yeah. So it's very similar. But I started in labor, moved to
ACORN very quickly, and then as ACORN was destroyed, both helped
to start new community organizing efforts. And then lately, over
the last few years have been involved with labor organizing. And
it's interesting because I really started tracking what was
happening in climate around Copenhagen, which was 2008, 2009, at
the same time where ACORN was going through its difficulties. And
we were trying to figure out what to build and how to build it
and how to build something that was more intersectional. So I was
— the personal piece of my story is I was working in St. Louis,
which is where I'm from, and part of what we do as community
organizers is think about how do we challenge the local power
structure?


It's about power and it's about how we build power for folks who
don't have the power that they need and help collectively do
that. And St. Louis is, like many midwestern towns, is kind of a
branch office for many Fortune 500 companies these days. So the
most powerful players in the region were coal companies. Peabody
Coal was the largest private sector coal company in the world.
Arch coal was the second largest in North America.


Both were headquartered in the St. Louis region because it's at
the confluence of the Missouri and Mississippi rivers. So, as the
only Fortune 500 company in the city limits of St. Louis that was
getting tax breaks, there were lots of reasons to fight Peabody
and so started on a campaign about that, but there was also this
tremendous excitement that was happening. So we were both at the
beginning of the Obama administration. There was a time of great
hope. For those of us who —


David Roberts


I recall vaguely, vaguely distantly.


Jeff Ordower


Well that's interesting. So, for climate folks, they're like,
"Oh, this is not a time of great hope." But the fact that after
six or seven attempts, depending on how you count it, at winning
health care for everyone in the country, I look back at that
early days of Obama and say, wow, we got financial reform to some
degree, but we got health care was the most important thing that
changed so many people's lives. So I actually think climate folks
view that era a little bit differently than we might in having
really a generational win. And I'm sure we'll get into this a
little bit later, but it is how I think about IRA is also the
next generation or the next generational win that we've gotten.


But, looking at that, I think the sheer number of resources that
the climate movement was mustering — you know there were many
organizations in St. Louis at the time that had been newly
created that were doing work. There was a global movement, there
were these incredibly ambitious, and I just want to say badass,
for lack of a better word, youth, climate activists and
organizers. So I think there was a lot to be admired about what
was happening. And the fall of 2009 with 350 managing a global
day of action, it's when I first started tracking 350.org. So,
that was where I really lauded at what was happening.


The climate movement was so exciting to think about the global
nature, to think about what they were doing. I think where also
looking over the fence where things seemed harder was I think
about organizing. And I think many of us, community labor
organizing, think about organizing and not mobilizing and how
folks build longer term power. And it was less clear to me how
the climate movement was doing that and how really the most
affected people were — you have a lot of people whose job was to
whether it was to get signatures or to do lobbying. But there
didn't seem to be formations not just where people could speak
from their experiences but also really exercise the longer term
campaigning and power building that was necessary.


And so that felt like, and still feels to me a little bit like
some of the weaknesses in the climate movement. And obviously
more than a decade later, we also have strengths too. I mean that
the Sunrise movement is the complete counter to that actually
moving folks in hubs in a very significant way for youth
organizing. I think, 350.org with our 100 chapters, that the game
has changed somewhat. But at the time it really felt like much
more emphasis on mobilizing, much less emphasis on organizing.


David Roberts


Right. So people would show up in the streets and march but you
didn't see the sort of long-term accretion of power coming out of
that?


Jeff Ordower


Yeah, and it's not just the accretion of power, it's also the
relationship of having real organization where you have folks who
are directly affected by issues, make decisions collectively.
That's how things get stronger. It's how you figure out tactics
that work. It's the relationship between staff and members. It's
members figuring things out. Building of power comes through some
trial and error and that comes through a process of collective
work where you have democratic organizations. And that's similar
— it's the most clear in labor fights because if the workers
aren't really willing to fight the boss then you can't have a
union no matter what.


David Roberts


Right.


Jeff Ordower


And you can think of a thing as an organizer that should work.
But really, it's what people who are going and working on the
shop floor or these days working in an Amazon warehouse or
working in a Starbucks, what they think is going to give them the
courage to stand up to the boss. It's not what you think as an
organizer. And so I think that's what's so important and that
comes over time and building that. And I think where the climate
movement sometimes struggles is it has just some of the sharpest,
most brilliant policy minds in the world but it doesn't always
have that relationship with folks who are the most affected to be
able to figure things out and have this trial and error that
organizing really is about.


David Roberts


So let's then talk from a really high level, 30,000 foot level or
whatever the phrase is about where the climate movement finds
itself. Sort of what kind of moment is the climate movement in
right now? I think you have said and written that this is a sort
of historic turning point. How would you describe that in a broad
way?


Jeff Ordower


Yeah, I think it's kind of two parts. So one, we've had this
historic generational win with IRA in the US. And so the one
piece of it is the task before us is whether we can rise to the
occasion and use it. And I know in previous podcasts and I
sometimes use the pod to talk about previous pods, but both the
IRA is filled with carrots and not sticks. But I think we can do
a lot with those carrots. And I think we can really transform our
energy system and also do that in a way that promotes equity and
justice and it's an opportunity before us.


And then the second thing is we also have to do that while
recognizing that all of the above is insufficient, that we
actually do need to convert the way we live and we work so we
can't just continue to build pipelines and mine coal and also add
in some renewables. There has to be a real transformation. We
have to make some hard choices and we have to and this is where
it comes back to power. We have to build the collective power to
do that. So I think we're at a crossroads. We have more tools
than we've had before in the toolbox, at least in the US, to
really have a just transition. So it's a question of whether we
can step up and build the power that's necessary to consummate
that transition, if you will.


David Roberts


Well, let's talk a little bit about that because the premise of
this conversation is sort of the attempt by 350 and I think
probably broader than 350, but we'll focus on 350 —


Jeff Ordower


Definitely broader than us, yes.


David Roberts


To sort of pivot from purely oppositional trying to stop fossil
fuels from getting built, to a more prospective, forward looking
support for building things, right? This is a big topic in green
circles right now. There's this whole school of thought that
liberalism is not used to building things and the whole approach
of sort of abundance and building is different than what we're
used to. We have to reorient ourselves, et cetera, et cetera. At
a general question about that, which I think is probably the one
that strikes most people first and most forcefully, is just this:
The conventional wisdom in organizing or the conventional wisdom
about organizing is just that it's easier to get people fired up
about things they hate and oppose and want to stop.


For one thing, it's just clearer, right? When you stop something,
you've stopped it, right? It's a clear win. It's not ambiguous.
You got big, evil, corporate bad guys that you can demonize and
sort of rally people around that. And just generally, like, anger
fires people up. And the sort of conventional wisdom is that it's
very difficult to organize around building for a lot of reasons,
I think we'll talk about, but just for a million reasons. There's
a lot more arguments among advocates about what to build, where
to build, when to build right? And what are the right trade offs
and all these kind of things.


So do you agree with that general conventional wisdom? Do you
think it's true that it's just easier to get people fired up
around anger and it's more difficult to do this sort of forward
looking thing that you're thinking about here?


Jeff Ordower


Yeah, it's a very good general philosophical question because for
decades with comrades, you have the conversation do you organize
out of anger or do you organize out of love? I think that this is
a related question and the answer is I think polarizing and
organizing out of anger is important and matters and lots of
people do that and works for them. But I also think organizing
out of a vision of what's possible and the world in which we can
live and what's possible if we can open the door and really
change material conditions for folks, I think that is just as
compelling and I think folks will join and build together as
well. Now I'm thinking about this question.


There's many directions we can go in this, but I do want to say
organizing for solutions doesn't mean that we're just organizing
to build renewable energy or utility scale solar, wind. It also
means there's a lot of people, people and their companies and
their corporations that are in the way. And so we still have to
clear out a lot of these barriers. And it's not just fossil fuel
companies, but it's also the pernicious role of utility
companies.


David Roberts


Oh yeah, we're definitely going to get to that.


Jeff Ordower


Okay, I didn't mean to jump ahead.


David Roberts


Oh, my friend, we're definitely getting to that. I know you're
the North American director now and so maybe you won't have
anything to say about this and we can just cut it if you don't.
But one of the interesting things when I had lunch with May, the
head of 350, a few months ago, she was talking about this shift.
And one thing she told me that I had not understood, I don't
think, is that a lot of the impetus for this turn away from sort
of pure opposition more to building things came from 350 branches
in the developing world.


Jeff Ordower


That's right.


David Roberts


And I think maybe naively you would think those are the people
getting hurt worst by oil and gas pipelines and have the least
environmental protections down there and that's the protection
they need. But they say otherwise. So maybe talk a little bit
about why that is.


Jeff Ordower


Well, I think people are clear that they're getting hurt by
pipelines. I also know, again, it's hard for me in the Global
North to be like, "Here's what people in the Global South think,"
but here's what's been reflected to me that — first of all, when
you talk with many activists, in the Global South. They say
whatever is happening for us around emissions just generally is a
drop in the bucket compared to the damage over the last hundred
years that countries in the Global North have caused. But related
to that, there's the reality of like, what do people need to
actually get the energy that they need?


And that's around renewable energy that's around solutions.
Energy is just so unaffordable. It's increasingly challenging
given what's happening, given the war, and given that, again, the
Global North is going to capture all the oil and gas that they
can. And given the issue with governments that having a real
ability to have diffuse solar is absolutely critical to how
people can live and get what they need to do. And so I think for
many of our groups, if you talk to folks in the Philippines at
350, they'll say our ability to actually deliver solar to more
remote fishing villages is absolutely critical.


And that also as a bulwark against the increasing level of
climate chaos that we're facing. Unfortunately, the grids are
weak and get knocked out all the time. And so if you're facing
typhoons, if you're facing hurricanes, you need to have some kind
of resilient energy. And so I think folks are talking about the
solutions for those two things, and they're not saying it in the
context of like, let's build pipelines and renewables. They're
also saying some of this gives us the ability to think globally
about how we're campaigning. So how are we actually moving
resources, the trillions of dollars over the last few decades
that have gone in all the different ways from the Global South,
the colonial practices that still exist and the imperialist
practices that still exist.


How does money and money moving from south to north, some of it
is about how we move money back from north to south, and how we
as a global organization, push for that and campaign for that so
that that can go into solutions. And there's pretty interesting
dynamic governments, new governments in Latin America and
Colombia and Brazil, places like the Marshall Islands. Folks are
talking about Kenya, where there really is a commitment to change
energy policy and practices. And so it's a huge opportunity if
we, as a global organization with allies, can do the work that we
need to do to redistribute the wealth instead of having it go
upward.


So I think that's the context through which we're thinking about
solutions.


David Roberts


They need energy, is what seems obvious.


Jeff Ordower


Yep.


David Roberts


I hadn't really thought about like, they need more energy. And so
just stopping bad energy is not enough.


Jeff Ordower


No, that's right. And for many years of campaigning against
Peabody Coal and St. Louis, and fascinatingly, going to their
shareholder meetings so that we could both ask questions and
occasionally disrupt them, they would do these presentations on
energy poverty. The coal company's role is they're eliminating
energy poverty in Africa. And actually no, we need to be thinking
about what's the real way to deliver energy so that it's also not
controlled by — If we think utilities are bad here, right, South
Africa, where you've got rolling blackouts for hours a day
because of the huge amount of corruption of utility companies and
the coal companies, how do we actually create real grassroots,
real community controlled power is absolutely critical.


David Roberts


So let's talk about utilities then. So it sounds like the main
way that this sort of turn toward building is going to manifest
is a focus on utilities. So maybe just say a general word about
how they fit into that frame, why you think they are a good
target and the right target for organizing.


Jeff Ordower


Yeah, they're the main thing. There's other things too and I'm
sure we'll get into them. But utilities are particularly
pernicious for a number of reasons. The first is they're not
interested in sharing their power, right? They want to control
transmission, they want to control how energy moves. So they
don't want a grid where you have lots of rooftop solar and lots
of other sources of transmission. So they're actively blocking
that in all the ways that they can. Almost every utility company
is and they're worried about their profits. And so it's anything
from how they spread misinformation to how they're messing with
permitting and transmission.


So that's the first thing is they're actually blocking the
transition and then they're interested in really where they make
a good chunk of money. Some people have characterized utility
companies as like they're not actually interested in the
generation transmission of electricity. They're really interested
in building things. But it is often what we see is that's what's
sexy is to build things?


David Roberts


Yes. Well that's what gets them their rate of return, right?
Listeners are bored of hearing me talk about this but that's
literally how they make their money is by building big things and
spending a lot of money and that just the consequences of that
cascade down to everything, right.


Jeff Ordower


And spending our money. So they're like, oh well, you're right,
we're not going to do coal, we'll build frac gas plants and
that'll be the transition. That's the bridge fuel that we need.
Right, so you've explained it much better than I'm going to but
that's certainly how they're structured and what they want to do.
And then I think because the fact that the way we get energy is
dependent on the profit system, I mean, that's obviously also
problematic but it really plays out in a way that's very
dangerous for working people, low and moderate income people
because you're faced with outrageously skyrocketing bills.


And so there is a link between what happens in terms of how
energy is produced and the same companies threatening to cut
people off, not providing the power they need to provide. Or as
we see with every heat wave, unfortunately, every summer is folks
making decisions about not turning on air conditioning, not doing
the things that they need to do to stay cool or to stay protected
from the weather. Similar in winter and how many deaths there are
of lower income folks because of heat waves, because people are
scared that they're not going to be able to pay their bills. So
it's both cut off, it's the threat and it's really the impact on
— we have two energy systems people who can afford it and people
who can't afford it.


And it's the same utility companies that are part of that. So
these issues are interconnected and utility companies are and
again, I think you've talked about this on previous podcasts in a
much deeper way as not a policy person than I will, but there's
the whole web of the ways in which utility companies influence
things through ISOs the impact of utility companies and expertise
that we don't have as consumers on public utility commissions and
public service commissions. And a way in which sort of there's a
self perpetuating kind of ecosystem of how decisions are being
made.


David Roberts


They are enormously influential for all the reasons we're talking
about, but they're also because of that kind of self
perpetuating, largely closed ecosystem of decision making.
They're also relatively obscure to most people, just to the
average Joe or Jane on the street. You bring up like Big Oil, all
the associations come along with that. Like people get that
rapacious oil executives, that's a very intuitive frame. But like
utilities, I'm just not sure people know what they are, what they
do or have any real sense of them. Is that a challenge in
organizing around them? Just sort of like that basic educational
piece of like this is the entity that is between you and this is
the reason these things are happening. Are people responding to
that?


Jeff Ordower


Yes, I think they really are. I think actually, while people know
about oil companies, people also know you're writing a check to
your utility company every month and you see the rates increase
and you don't understand why you didn't use any gas in the summer
and you're still getting a bill for basic services. Or you don't
understand the outrageousness of heating bills and cooling bills,
particularly as weather becomes more extreme. So, I think we are
finding that folks are pretty fired up about their utility
companies. I think what's harder is, and this is our next step
and this is our organizing challenge, is how do we get folks to
really think about challenging that in a way in which they think
the game — to your point, this closed circuit we've got closed
circuits on transmission and closed ecosystems, on how decisions
are made and how do we get people to believe that their voice
matters, that there's things that they can do that are going to
change a rigged system so that it works for consumers and
ratepayers.


David Roberts


I guess that's what I was getting at. That's what's opaque is,
you know, there's a utility, you know, you get bills from them,
but how they come to their decisions and how you as a random
person could get involved or insert yourself in that, I don't
think most people know intuitively. So what is the answer to that
question then? Because even if you do know about utilities, it's
still not obvious what the answer to that question is, so what
does it mean? Is this mostly about sort of public PR campaigns
drawing attention to them, bashing them so that they feel
pressured to change?


Or are you talking about organizing around more specific stuff
like getting people into PUC meetings or getting people into
shareholder meetings? So what does it look like to organize
against a utility?


Jeff Ordower


Yeah, I think it's all of the above. And when I say we actually
want to talk about the bigger we because to the point this is not
350.org driving this, there's a lot of groups doing really
interesting work on utilities. So folks are getting into
shareholder meetings and rallying outside and having some people
inside and some people outside to get utility companies to change
the way they operate. Folks are engaging in a more robust way
than I've seen in years. Actually, ACORN used to fight utility
companies and 20 years ago was really the height of our fights
against utility companies, both winning more money for subsidies
and doing everything, including folks blocking the trucks.


Usually, there's a cut-off date in the colder weather states like
April 1 or April 15 where you can't cut anyone off for
non-payment, and then on April 15, trucks would roll out and
ACORN members would block those trucks. So 20 years ago, you saw
much more robust fights against utilities. We're seeing this
really popping up in lots of places. There are organizations
going to PCs and PSEs and that's really exciting. We're seeing
folks really thinking about shareholder meetings in a different
way. And then some of the most innovative things are also both
legislatively and using the power of the ballot.


So legislatively, three states have now passed legislation and
we're hoping this is setting the stage for many more. I believe
it's Massachusetts, Connecticut, and Maryland. I want to say that
forbid utility companies from using ratepayer money for lobbying,
which would make sense, right? We're paying our bill.


David Roberts


Seems so obvious, right? Just seems so obvious.


Jeff Ordower


I know. Capitalism, David, that's how it works. You get to sell a
product, then you can use our money to lobby against us. So we're
hoping that that sets the stage for many, many more states
passing this and that even these are the kinds of legislation
that could have bipartisan support. And again, this wasn't us
thinking about this. This is many groups doing it. And then
there's a different set of things that are also possible, which
is in Maine, we're seeing a critical fight, Pine Tree Power,
where they're trying to use the power of the ballot to basically
eliminate the private utility companies and create publicly owned
utilities.


David Roberts


Yes. Stay tuned for a Volts pod on that very subject.


Jeff Ordower


Oh, fantastic. Yes. So elections in November, and I think last I
checked, the two major utility companies that spent $18 million
to try to beat it. I'm sure that I'm looking like do I have a
little what is that countdown to show how many more millions
they've spent in the last week.


David Roberts


Yeah, maybe the right sequence is first you pass the law
preventing them from using shareholder money for lobbying. Then
you go after try to make them public. So that's utilities there's
a lot of sort of vulnerable points, I think, where you can get in
there and bash utilities, where they're subject, I think, to
public mobilization. But you said the turn toward building is
broader than that. So what are some of the other pieces that you
see? How can activism organize around building?


Jeff Ordower


Well, what's really exciting, and one of the groups in the 350
Network Council, Minnesota 350, really did some significant work
as part of a larger coalition, for example, with their Climate
Action Plan in Minneapolis, to think about how IRA funds really
can help them change and electrify the whole city, particularly
starting in lowest income neighborhoods, neighborhoods of color
first. So I think there's a lot of tools in the toolbox to do
this. Many other organizations are thinking about this as well,
where there are progressive mayors and progressive city councils
to think about. The IRA money itself is not sufficient to
transition whole cities, but it gets you pretty far.


And so if you can find some bridge funding, if you can do a
windfall tax on profiteers or a corporate tax or something, that
you can find additional resources to really move in an aggressive
way to electrify a whole city. So I think one thing is thinking
about larger scale industrial policy and lots of brilliant — both
policy groups and organizing groups and groups that are doing
party building and political work. The major organizing networks
are thinking about this kind of work where how do we really
transition cities? So I think that is in the building category
and it is within our reach given the additional influx of money.


And then I think there's a second thing, which is the direct pay
provisions of IRA, where school districts where public buildings
can install the solar that they need to install rooftop solar.
And then they're getting a check from the federal government to
be able to do that.


David Roberts


As opposed to a tax credit where you buy the, whatever, the item,
and then later when you file your taxes, deduct the item on your
taxes, get the credit for it. This is just you buy the item and
you get basically the refund at the point of sale. You don't have
to do it through your taxes. It's only available to schools and
nonprofits. I feel like there's a couple of other categories too,
but it's a couple of categories of entities are eligible for
direct pay.


Jeff Ordower


Right. And these are entities predominantly that don't pay taxes,
right. So they're getting money that they wouldn't have normally
gotten. Because you're right, the other things are in tax credits
for entities that pay taxes.


David Roberts


Yeah, and all of those seem like good points around which to
organize, like schools, churches and nonprofits and things like
that.


Jeff Ordower


It's absolutely so clear in schools, I don't know about you, but
I went to school in St. Louis and there was one wing of the
school that was air conditioned. So everyone wanted to take
social studies classes because that was the only wing that was
air conditioned. Everything else, you're in school in late August
in Missouri, and it's 97 degrees. But yeah, so many schools, the
facilities issues, and we were seeing just waves of school
cancellations because of the extreme heat. So it's really helping
kids learn, too. There's such an opportunity. It's not just about
that it's cool to have solar on top of schools, but it actually
makes a difference in kids being able to sit and learn.


David Roberts


Yeah, I've always thought that was like a low hanging fruit. And
I've always been puzzled why there isn't more organizing around
that, but just healthy interior air for schools and electric
buses so they're not breathing diesel fumes and efficiency
upgrades so that they can stay cool in the heat. These bring
together your environment people and your school people, and
like, parents who are the most rabid, ready to organize
demographic in the world. I've always wondered why there isn't
more action around that.


Jeff Ordower


Same here. And I think this is the challenge before us is whether
we can spur this kind of action in organizing. And this is
something that ought to happen in red states and cities and blue
states and cities. And so I think this is the excitement, and I
think folks are just starting to wrap their heads around this
opportunity and this possibility, and so let's see if we can do
it. But this is I think the challenge before us as organizers is
whether we can muster the enthusiasm that's necessary, because
you're absolutely right, this is the link.


David Roberts


I read your piece about IRA. So say a little bit more then about
how you see the opportunity IRA presents. We've talked about this
on the pod a couple of times, but just how you envision using IRA
to organize around building things. What do you think are the
opportunities it provides?


Jeff Ordower


Yeah, and I think this is where we started the podcast, which is
about the role of how we think about organizing, which is what I
think right now may end up being very different as we're talking
to groups, as parents are getting in the struggle in their school
districts, as they're meeting with folks. What it ends up looking
like on the back end is different. But I think some of it is we
need to do some basic education with folks. So folks understand
what is possible and what they can do. Because it does seem there
are parts of it where I'm like "Oh, this seems too good to be
true. What's the catch?"


So really, to talk about the possibilities, I think the second is
if we're talking about school districts. And you said this
before, what do we do? Why aren't there more fights about this? I
think people are pretty particularly in big cities, there's a lot
of despair about the state of school's infrastructure. Right. The
major project schools were built in many places decades and
decades ago. And so they're dealing with just basic
infrastructure problems of lead pipes and bad water and asbestos
pops up here and there. Like I know in Philadelphia, where I live
now, they've had to shut down schools because of safety concerns.


And schools are so underfunded. It's really leading with the
vision there. And there has to be a little bit of a fight and a
little bit of a push. And then I think having folks realize that
there are going to be in city after city, in school district
after school district, there are going to be bureaucrats and I
actually use this term fondly, there are going to be folks within
the system who are going to be trying to figure this out. And so
we need to figure that out together. And I think some of the
missing piece is, we in organizing, this is going to be a slight
shift from how we think about organizing.


I laid this out before where we said, okay, we're going to fight
the utility companies. That's right. But also there's a way in
which we can have some relational power because there's folks
within the bureaucracy of these systems trying to figure out how
to make things work. And we're going to need to co-conspire and
collaborate with those folks as well and believe that we have the
access and can be heard. And I think many times people don't feel
like they're heard at cities, states, federal level, we've talked
about this in the context of public utility commissions.


So we're going to need to try out and see if folks can be
collaborators and will be heard by the bureaucracies that are
going to need to take care of this opportunity or step into this
opportunity, I should say. And that's where the excitement is.
But it is going to be something different for us and it is going
to be a little bit of a shift that we've got to figure out.


David Roberts


Yeah, and I have a question about precisely that shift, which is
especially on the left, I think there's just this very sort of
deep, almost instinctive suspicion and hostility toward "the
man", whatever guise "the man" takes in a particular situation.
But the idea of you as a nonprofit organizer collaborating with,
say, a utility, or maybe collaborating with private companies
sometimes who are trying to build things in innovative ways or
collaborating with institutions that leftists have more
traditionally just fought will inevitably bring some measure of
like "You guys are selling out. You're getting absorbed into the
man. Like you're collaborators with the man."


Now that sort of sentiment. Do you worry about navigating that at
all?


Jeff Ordower


Not if we're doing real organizing and people are making — I
think this is where the democratic process comes in handy is if a
group in X city is making a decision based on a set of meetings
and actions, some of which will be actions, some of which will be
meetings, some of which will be research that they're doing this
and that it's based on a collaborative process, then I think
that's a defensible decision. I think where we get into it is if
we're talking about big picture decisions and someone's like
telling people what to do. But I do think that's the magic of
organizing is folks can handle pretty nuanced conversations and
decisions and they have to live that through.


And so, for example, those of us who come out of community
organizing, there's something called research actions. And what
that means is before you make a decision to start a campaign, you
often pick up the phone and call the people who might be decision
makers and see if they'll meet with you and tell you what it is
that you need. Like who's the targets? What do you think? And
usually it's interesting because you do three or four of these
meetings and everyone's like "Oh no, we're not responsible for
that, someone else is." But then you build an analysis and then
you can make the decision about what your campaign is, who are
your targets and what you're doing.


And so, I think this is similar in that if we can get to the
table with some of the folks who are making the bigger policy
decisions for school districts, for public buildings, those folks
are then going to give us the information that we need to
collaborate and that offer will be there. And that folks can
decide that. And so, I think that's where organizing matters. And
I do think with public institutions I'll say two more things
about this. I think public institutions, it's not selling out and
that we're not just I think that is a view sometimes that we
have.


And I kind of think I don't know, I'm just going to say it. So, I
think there is an elitism among many, both folks within
government, the political class, some set of kind of elite
policymakers that believe that if you didn't go to an Ivy League
school and if you didn't, that there are folks who are qualified
to tell you what policy should be. And then there's a great set
of unwashed people who just want to fight things and can't deal
with complicated subjects. And my three decades of organizing,
David, that is absolutely not true, right?


We have lobbied for very complicated sets of banking regulations
of things — folks can get this. And I think it's when we cut the
steps there. And I do think the more elitist folks who are doing
this aren't doing this because they hate people in Middle America
or something. That's not what's happening. But what's happening
is, I do think, for example, this is where utility companies are
the problem, are trying to set up the way money moves, the way
advertising moves. They're trying to set up these false choices,
these false juxtapositions, and saying that people can't handle
that complexity.


And I think we've really set up this level of elitism and we need
to push back against it. And my experience is when the process
means that folks will really figure out what makes sense based on
where we're trying to go, if we can make that set of decisions.
But again, I don't want to well, actually, that's not true. I'm
happy to spend the whole podcast critiquing utility companies,
but I think they are creating these false choices, right? We saw
this in California around the rooftop solar regulation, where the
utility "No, no, no. Low income people. We're not going to be
able to have subsidies for low income folks.


If all the middle class people have rooftop solar, then we won't
have any money for lower income folks." And so they're creating
these false juxtapositions and we're buying into that. And that
we can't buy into that, we actually have to believe the folks
will understand and will want to fight together. And that's why I
think the utility work, it's so important that we bring together
constituencies of folks who can't get net metering together with
lower income folks, working, folks who can't pay their bills. I
think that's where the synergy happens and that's where we can
make the good decisions around organizing.


David Roberts


Speaking of that, one of the things I always have appreciated
about the labor organizers I've spoken to, I mean, obviously
there might be a trace of naivete about this because I'm from the
outside looking in, but my impression is that the labor movement
is extremely focused on and realistic about power. They recognize
that power is the thing, that it's not who has the best arguments
or the best slogans. It's just what are the concrete results here
and how can we organize in such a way as to create further
results? And so from that perspective, you've written that IRA
sort of all these pots of money give activists a chance to go in
and organize groups of people who have not necessarily
traditionally been part of green organizing, like low income
communities, et cetera, et cetera.


My question is, how do you do that in a way that isn't just —
because I feel like the climate movement has been sort of not
very good at this — how do you do this in a way that makes
winning the next battle more likely? How do you do it in a way
that builds power over time and isn't just about one win or one
bill or one sort of victory? How do you organize in a way that
makes the next bit of organizing easier, that builds your
institutional power? Are there general principles to guide us
here?


Jeff Ordower


Absolutely. So power is critical. Power is about size, it's about
scale, it's about mobilization. It's about the ability to really
move, to act and move the things we want to move. And so that is
investing in longer term institutions. And part of the reason why
I came to 350 was because we had 100 local groups and they
weren't just in Brooklyn, but they're in Montana or they're in
Sioux Falls. They're in places where we need to be doing that
work and we need to be then investing in the size and scale and
ability of not just our groups because that doesn't matter.


It's about a larger ecosystem of how lots of organizations are
working together, building their size and scale and scope,
including with labor unions, to the degree that in the place
where we can collaborate so that we are building stronger
organizations so each win strengthens us and strengthens our
ability to then move the next thing. And that we're thinking some
number of steps ahead around that too. So I think that's
absolutely critical. And I think having campaigns where and
again, people join and stay in organizations where they have a
voice, where they have a say. And so going through the process,
going through the steps of running the campaigns and winning the
campaigns and needing the participation of everyday people in
order to do that develops leaders and keeps those people in so
that we can continue to grow for the next step that we're doing.


David Roberts


I want to press you on a couple of things.


Jeff Ordower


Absolutely.


David Roberts


I'm sure you've heard, I'm sure you're aware of the larger
conversations going on about speed and about building. And one of
the sort of standard critiques of the green movement is that it
is too accustomed to blocking things and is still sort of
instinctively blocking things. And now all these sort of
environmental laws that were passed for good reasons are now
being sort of turned and used to block building things. You hear
not just about NEPA on the national level, but like in
California, the California Environmental Quality Act is being
deployed to stop infill, to stop zoning reform, to stop bike
lanes, to stop basic public places, to stop low income housing.


And then there are environmentalists fighting solar fields in the
desert because of the species, or that they're fighting
transmission lines through the forest that could bring hydro and
lower emissions intensity, et cetera, et cetera. There's a lot of
this going on around. Is this turn toward building going to
involve at any point direct confrontation with friends over these
sorts of issues, over these sorts of clashes of values and trade
offs? Is at any point 350 going to come out and say, "Yes, this
is a short term damage to the environment depending on how you
measure it. But it's a long term step we need to take. And so
we're going to come out in favor of building this thing that
other environmentalists are coming out against." In other words,
are you going to put some real skin, real organizational skin in
this game?


Jeff Ordower


I certainly hope we will. I do want to draw some distinction. I
know you didn't say this, but I think there are some red lines
for us too. We're not going to compromise on the ability of
indigenous communities to determine what happens with their
lands. For example, we think absolutely that things that are
built or things that are mined on indigenous lands, indigenous
folks should get a say in that and should get to control what's
happening on their lands. So there are some red lines. And the
second thing is, I think we're lumping conservationists and
environmentalists and everyone not worrying about all the labels,
but everyone's sort of in the same pot.


David Roberts


NIMBYs.


Jeff Ordower


Yeah, the NIMBYs versus, and I do think that there is a level of
hard — organizing is about having challenging conversations with
people too, and it is about asking tough questions. And the group
process is about people trying to think about what there is for
the greater good. And sorry, I'm going to go on a slight ramble,
but I do think this is important. So the folks who are blocking
the wind in wherever I forget, is that Martha's Vineyard? Those
are the uber-rich and it's about impeding their view. And we need
to fight with those folks, whether or not they claim they're
environmentalists or conservationists or whatever.


And the NIMBY folks, we really do have to challenge them. We have
to challenge NIMBY folks in a whole variety of ways, right,
because all of the issues are tied together, as you pointed out,
affordable housing, having single-family zoning that's required
in some places, that's unconscionable, right. There needs to be
multifamily housing. There needs to be we need to have less
class-segregated housing, not just in California, but everywhere.
And so we need to fight those things and we need to push back
against people who are using NIMBY, who are using levers. And
that's very clear.


And we're going to take some difficult positions around that and
we're going to be pushing our folks and we're going to be
challenging our groups to do that. We also, though, this is an
opportunity, there are going to be a set of like, each decision
is going to open up a can of worms, but a set of other decisions.
So if what we're saying is Exxon or Chevron is then going to
build big wind or utility-scale solar and wind and that's getting
built, that's not what we want to do. And that's not the reason,
the opportunity for the transformation.


What we're trying to do predominantly is fight for
community-controlled solar and wind, right? We're trying to
change, not just change the way that we need to convert. And so
the most profitable rapacious corporations, as you called them,
David, although I agree 100% that they can just fund the next
wave of things. So I think we want to use the opportunity as best
we can to really change the power dynamics, to change the way the
grid works, to change who produces it, who controls things and
how they're controlled, and to bring many more things into the
public domain and to really diminish the power of the richest 0.1
of 1% who are controlling things.


So there's going to be fights and challenges, but also we need to
think about how this opportunity really creates a more equitable
system, really gives the opportunity for some of the most
disadvantaged folks and neighborhoods and communities over time
to actually be first in line for the benefits that are possible
with this just transition. And we need to think about that and we
need to put so much more energy into fighting that as well.


David Roberts


I guess I'd push a little more though. It's fine and good and
great to organize around solutions that both produce more
renewable energy and cut low-income people in on the benefits and
involve community control, et cetera, et cetera. Those are all
great, but those are like the puppy dogs and grandma of this
space. In the real world, there are lots of times when you just
can't get all of that, where you have to decide about trade-offs.
You have to decide getting more renewable energy is worth less
than optimal ownership structure or whatever. Or like getting
more renewable energy is worth some sacrifice of some piece of
some ecosystem.


There are trade-offs and I think what I hear constantly from
outside the green movement is that green groups are refusing to
grapple with these trade-offs. And I guess what would really
convince me that there's a turn here is a group taking some of
those trade-offs head-on and being explicit about their
willingness to compromise in some areas, to get advances in other
areas. That seems to me it's what building is about. And what
building involves is inevitably you're not going to be able to
just do community solar. That's not going to solve the problem.


They're going to be bigger, more difficult things, more difficult
trade-offs. And I just wonder, is 350 going to be the group to go
out and be more explicit and be more honest about those
trade-offs?


Jeff Ordower


First of all, it would be great to be in a position where we were
sitting at the table, where our members and leaders were sitting
at the table, and there was a set of "Here's what we're going to
do as a society, and here's how we're going to get the huge
amount of energy that we need. And here are the decisions. What
do you all think? How do we make these hard decisions?" So I
think the answer is yes, we are willing to do that. But also it's
a question of like, what does that mean? Which decisions are
hard, which particular decisions are the ones that we're trying
to make and it's time, place and conditions around that.


And so I think generally we understand on a very basic level,
we're not trying to run campaigns that are against large-scale
renewables, right? But I want to give a very specific example
about utility-scale solar and wind because I think this is really
important and it talks about some of the first barriers that have
to be cleared out. So one of the things that we're seeing is the
unions, particularly utility unions and the building trade unions
tend to be — you know, you saw this in California with the
International Brotherhood of Electrical Workers being on the side
of PG&E around solar hikes.


And some of that, we've got a first barrier, which is — it's part
of what's happening with the auto worker negotiations right now —
is we're really talking about why are folks siding with the
status quo, what are the parts of the status quo that are set up
in a particular way? So if you're building out utility-scale
solar and wind and you're a worker on that, you're working for a
temp agency; you don't have any union protections in 80 or 90% of
the cases. You're driving across the country for a three-month
gig and then sleeping in your car till your per diem comes in. So
all of that is like there's a lot of things that we have to push
for before we get the — there's not an equal power dynamic where
we're all sitting at the table and being like, "Here are the
sacrifices that some people are going to have to make or some
ecosystems are going to have to make to get to the energy grid
that we want."


Right now, there's a lot of fighting to do just to clear the path
so that we've got good jobs in renewable energy, that we've got
good jobs making electric vehicles, that we've got the ability
for utilities to stop building new gas plants and start investing
in the renewable energy production that they need to, including
having a more diffuse grid. So I'm not saying that the choices
won't be coming down and that some of them won't be hard. But
right now there's a lot of underbrush that we need to clear out,
a lot of fights to pick that sort of change the power dynamics so
that we have a way to do what we need to do first.


And let's see how far and how fast we get just by changing the
way workers are treated, by changing the way communities are
treated, by changing the way that people have the ability that
they're going to directly benefit from this utility scale
community benefit agreements, from having utility scale solar and
wind in their backyard. So that's not because Amazon told X
Energy Company to build this, but that actually people are going
to benefit in their bills by having utility scale solar and wind
and then I think folks are going to be a lot more ready to make
some of the challenging choices. But let's get to the table
first. Let's talk about power. Let's really talk about power and
not have the conversation in the abstract.


Right. Another critique you often hear is that green groups, and
I think this is probably a critique you hear about NGOs
generally, really, is that when they reach a certain size, their
internal sort of organizational motivations take over. Like the
preservation of the organization takes over and the health of the
organization itself becomes a top priority of the organization
and they sort of take their eyes a little bit off the game and
that they end up — And so my question is, if 350 and other green
orgs try to make this shift, try to shift more toward building,
and it doesn't fire people up as much as say, the pipeline
battles did, just how committed are they to this? Are they
committed enough that they're willing to sort of maybe take a hit
in terms of email responses or the number of people showing up at
events or the amount of small donor funding that comes in?


David Roberts


In other words, are they willing to push through maybe some sort
of diffuse organizational resistance or diffuse resistance to
this because they are committed enough to it? Or is this the kind
of thing where you're sort of testing and if the membership
doesn't like it, then you are going to sort of withdraw? I don't
know that you can answer that question on an abstract level, but
you see what I'm getting at.


Jeff Ordower


Oh, I see exactly what — now, you're throwing the cans of soup at
the nonprofit industrial complex, as it were. And I appreciate
that. I certainly can't speak for the sector. I think part of
what makes us different and unique is a couple of things. One, as
we talked about earlier, because we're a global organization and
we're trying to really function to some degree as a global
organization, we're going to stay the course on the solutions
work because that's being driven by the most impacted communities
in the global south. And so we're obligated to follow their lead
and we're going to stay that course.


The second thing is the funders are not a monolith and people do
things because of funding and not because of funding, et cetera.
But the reality is, it is about what our chapters, what local
groups of 350 want to be doing. It is about both making
suggestions to them and it is about having a program where people
can do the work. And some of it is because some of the state
groups that are both independent of 350, but have the 350 name
and are part of a network council of 350 groups, have already
been moving and doing solutions work.


And so they're ahead of where 350.org is. And the same thing with
many volunteer run groups that we're actually hearing it the
other way. I'm not worried because groups are ahead of us on
solutions and we're in some ways, like running a little bit to
catch up over some of the great work that's happening.


David Roberts


What about the other side of that: the donor community? Because
another critique you often hear is that whatever the young people
might want to do, the young people have their heads on straight,
they're ready to go, but they depend on money, basically from
foundations that are run by what's the polite term? Aging white
boomers who might not be, let's say, totally clued into the
latest in politics and the latest in organizing. And in some
sense they have to chase the money. So what's your sense of the
donor foundation community's posture on all this? Do they have a
clue?


Jeff Ordower


Well, certainly around IRA Implementation. They ask —


David Roberts


Speak freely, Jeff.


Jeff Ordower


What did I say about — don't talk about the donors. I will say
again: Members are not a monolith. Groups are not a monolith.
Donors are not a monolith. There are some really interesting
foundations that are thinking in very large terms about the
opportunities that the Inflation Reduction Act has to really
remake industrial policy and why that's critical and not just why
that's important, but also how this changes the politics as well.
That the way we're really delivering things for people. And that
also to your point in talking to folks in the Biden
administration, the way that translates into votes as well.


So I actually think the donor class does understand what we need
to be doing on solutions, does understand what we need to be
doing to deliver for people so that they understand that actually
investing in robust government, robust, functional government is
something that is in our collective interest.


State capacity, yay! That's on the Volts T shirt whenever I make
one.


How do I get one of those? What's cool and is happening in donor
communities these days is I think there are so many different
levels. To your point on the youth. Yeah, there are some aging
boomers that are sitting at big foundations and fancy buildings,
usually on the East Coast. But there's a lot of folks now on the
West Coast who came into money recently. There's a lot of young
people who have inherited money who have much more fundamental
challenges to capitalism and how they got their found wealth in
the first place. So this is unique again, in my three decades
that we're seeing a level of philanthropy that is actually
becoming increasingly democratic, becoming increasingly kind of
challenging status quo and systems.


And it's not 100% there yet, but I'm confident. I feel like
there's like something for everyone within philanthropy right
now.


David Roberts


Interesting. All right, well, we're out of time. So let me
conclude on a positive question. If I'm just an individual, I
support decarbonization and I've already bought my heat pump or
whatever, and I want to get involved in activism that advances
decarbonization, that helps things get built. Where do I look?
Where do I go? Who do I join? Where do I aim my fire?


Jeff Ordower


Well, obviously I would like to say you should join 350.org. And
I know we'll have a lot —


David Roberts


Let's get that obvious answer out off the way.


Jeff Ordower


But I do want to say I think you should join something that is
local, I think because we're trying to build things. So there may
not be a 350 chapter where you are. If there isn't, we'll help
you build one. But there may be something else. There may be a
different formation that is also thinking about building. There
may be something if you're young, there may be something in the
Sunrise movement and there might be something in Indivisible.
There might be something in a base-building group that's through
the Center for Popular Democracy or People's Action or Community
Change where you can get involved.


There's organizing happening almost everywhere in the country and
you can get involved. And I do think that great minds are
thinking alike and that we're at a unique point right now where
folks are really scrambling. We are scrambling in a good way to
try to figure out how to implement this transformation, how to do
it in a way that is equitable, that is just and that is clearing
out, that is sort of contesting for power against those who are
holding it and building the world in which we want to live. And
so there is something for you to get involved locally wherever
you are.


And I hope that you do that. And I really hope that you're both
fighting the pernicious utility companies but also meeting with
the person in charge of all buildings in the school district to
figure out how you're going to get rooftop solar in your school
district. And I think those two things go hand in hand and are
going to help you transform your community.


David Roberts


You might say think globally, act locally. Then what might be the
suggestion?


Jeff Ordower


That's not the Volts T-shirt?


David Roberts


There's going to be a lot of text on my Volts T-shirt. Jeff,
thank you so much for coming along. This is really interesting.
It's really fascinating to watch this movement try to reconfigure
itself on the fly under intense time pressure, under intense
moral pressure, etcetera, etcetera. It's fascinating to watch. So
thanks for coming on and talking us through it.


Jeff Ordower


Appreciate that. And we're not going to get it right. I think
part of what's great about organizing is you iterate and you try
to figure it out. And that's having the community of practice of
being able to do things, make mistakes, get some things right and
continue to push. And that it's going to be a collective effort
that we're going to need millions of folks to be involved in. And
we're excited about that opportunity. So thanks for having me on.


David Roberts


Thank you for listening to the Volts podcast. It is ad-free,
powered entirely by listeners like you. If you value
conversations like this, please consider becoming a paid Volts
subscriber at volts.wtf. Yes, that's volts.wtf so that I can
continue doing this work. Thank you so much and I'll see you next
time.


This is a public episode. If you'd like to discuss this with other
subscribers or get access to bonus episodes, visit
www.volts.wtf/subscribe