Loading ...
The Green Movement needs a framework and a set of guiding principles upon which we can all agree.
As Patriots of the Green Revolution, we’re calling for a Constitutional Convention for sustainability. We’re calling for a gathering not unlike the origins of the greatest nation the world has ever known, The United States of America. We’re calling for the founding of a new Green Nation that has no borders, a nation that exists to serve all of humankind for all time. This is a call to declare our green independence and to draft the Green Constitution.
While you may disagree that The United States is the greatest nation the world has ever known, it’s tough to argue with the incredible circumstances that lead to its founding. Please know that this is not a statement of nationalistic pride or reverence but rather an acknowledgment of the principles upon which The United States was founded, namely freedom, democracy, and capitalism.
The founding fathers were entrepreneurs. Their start-up venture? A new nation they called The United States of America, which has been entrusted to the People (shareholders) of that nation ever since. And though the most prominent of our founders were atheists or agnostics, many felt they had experienced a miracle in defeating the British and establishing a new nation with a radical new set of ideals. It was quite miraculous indeed that great men like George Washington, Benjamin Franklin, John Adams, and Thomas Jefferson happened to live at the same time in the same place and for the same cause. It truly was the cause of freedom and the self-evident truth that all men and women are created equal.
In the end, the American Revolution and our Declaration of Independence produced little more than a single document. It paved the way for the United States Constitution, which provides the framework and principles upon which our nation is built. It is an eternal document, grounded in centuries of reason and enlightenment. It is also a living document that is entrusted to a select few for its faithful preservation and interpretation. The founders set forth the principle of equality. Though it may not have been immediately enforced or realized, the power of that truth in principle carried the nation forward.
We see tremendous parallels, both historic and philosophical, with the current green movement. We’re fighting the tyranny of air pollution, water pollution, and the unchecked consumption of our natural resources. We’re the Patriots, and we’re challenging the Loyalists. As with the American Revolution, we count among these Loyalists our family, friends, and neighbors. They are people we know, people we love, and people with whom we must coexist. But we’re confident in the righteousness of our cause, as we fight for our independence as well as theirs. It is the fight for the freedom to breathe clean air, to drink clean water, and to eat healthy food. And it is going to require a revolution—a bloodless coup of reasoned policy and radical innovation. It’s going to require that great men and women come together, as our forefathers did, to establish the framework and principles for a Green Constitution and a new Green Nation. Except that the struggle we face is not limited to a single people or region. It is global and so it should be for the Green Nation.
As it stands, we’ve formed the green colonies. We’ve built a green army and so many green militias. Our leaders are in place, having been nominated, appointed, and elected. The time has now come to declare our independence, to establish a Green Constitutional Convention, and to frame the Constitution for a sustainable world. The truths set forth in this document will not be realized overnight. It took more than a decade from declaring independence to drafting the Constitution. It took centuries’ more for the abolition of slavery, for a woman’s right to vote, and for civil rights. But the basic principles and ideals were set forth and ratified on those fateful days in 1776 and 1787 respectively. We must now do the same for the Green Nation in 2009 (MG01).
As lofty and idealistic as this rhetoric might sound, we are calling for the green leaders–the leaders in thought, business, and politics–to come together and draft such a document. The world of green has become a free-for-all with very little meaning or truth, let alone results. At the very least, we need guiding, universal principles.
So we ask for your feedback in writing the Green Declaration of Independence and for nominating delegates for the Green Continental Congress. We ask for your input on the principles that a timeless and enduring Green Constitution should set forth. And we ask for suggestions on where the first meeting of the Green Constitutional Convention should convene.
What city or place should be our Philadelphia in the birth of the Green Nation?
13 responses so far ↓
1 John Grant // Apr 18, 2009 at 9:51 am
I think it should be everywhere.
If there was a physical meeting definitely not USA based. Maybe Brazil. Better Bangladesh. But I wont travel to any of those places, it’s just too CO2 intensive, so I would nominate Cisco or similar to connect us all from wherever we are. The only other possibility being do it in Copenhagen, alongside COp15?
I think it’s a great idea anyway. But make sure there is a place for citizens of the world to do this together and engage with it properly rather than just ‘great people’. One in ten American voters (ie the ones that actually voted) were active members of the Obama campaign. And in ancient Athens 1 in 5 citizens were in the legislature itself. My view would be that the green revolution will involve social change networks rather than steep pyramids and big leaders. I do think wearing sustainably sourced wigs might be fun though.
Oh and if you need writers am happy to help scribe. That’s sort of of what I do anyway.
2 GreenLantern // Apr 18, 2009 at 7:20 pm
Before any Green Constitution can be written, we have to suss out the greenwashers and myths. There are so many common misconceptions surrounding sustainability. Check out our myth-busting video “What’s Your Big Green Lie?!” which gives a taste of the widespread ignorance of green issues at http://www.biggreenlies.com. Thanks.
3 Max Gladwell // Apr 19, 2009 at 8:34 am
John: I think we need to get over these symbolic acts of CO2 conservation. If we have a group of leaders converging to draft the Green Constitution, a document that will carry the Green Nation forward indefinitely, then I think we can spare the CO2. In the American Revolution they sacrificed lives for our freedom. Those few lives were sacrificed so that countless future generations could enjoy freedom, self government, and equality, and we are eternally thankful to those who made that ultimate sacrifice.
Fortunately that isn’t necessary for the green revolution, but we do need to sacrifice a few tons of CO2. We can give up that CO2 so that future generations can be free from the impacts of pollution and climate change and so the Green Nation can evolve to a low-carbon nation.
Enough of the symbolic acts. We need meaningful action, and that requires CO2. It’s like saying that we shouldn’t manufacture and install those wind turbines because it requires the use of fossil fuels. It’s about using that CO2 as wisely as possible. It’s about investing that CO2 in ways that bridge us to a low-carbon economy.
We’re modeling the Green Constitution on the U.S. Constitution. So it will be a representative democracy, where the greatest and most knowledgeable people represent the rest of us. But there’s no doubt that all should have a say. Just as Obama allowed people to submit questions to WhiteHouse.gov and vote on them ahead of his virtual townhall meeting, we should have an open forum prior to the Green Constitutional Convention where all citizens of the Green Nation can offer their input in all languages. But we need the Benjamin Franklins and Thomas Jeffersons of this new Green Nation to emerge and offer their wisdom and leadership and to make the final decisions.
This Constitution cannot be a watered down consensus of the masses. Getting everyone to agree will only guarantee mediocrity. The people of Jefferson’s time could not have imagined a world where all humans were created equal. If left to the people to ultimate decide on the U.S. Constitution, it would not have become the enduring and timeless document that it is today.
4 Max Gladwell // Apr 19, 2009 at 8:50 am
GreenLantern: That’s one of the motivations in drafting the Green Constitution. Greenwashing is the equivalent of taxation without representation. We need to declare our independence and support it by ratifying this document that confronts the tyranny and oppression of pollution and consumption.
This is why the first Green Congress ought to consist of the greatest of leaders, those who are the most wise and learned in terms of sustainability, policy, science, law, psychology, technology, and economics. Above all, they need to be critical thinkers with a vision that is not limited to the next few years or decades. The Founding Fathers were thinking in terms of centuries. They were thinking in terms of universal truths, yet they had a keen sense for mankind’s weaknesses and constructed a government that balanced these many competing forces.
This is what we need for the Green Nation. Greenwashing will be solved by the very act of drafting this document, just as it was for taxation in ratifying the U.S. Constitution. But that’s just the first step. From there we have an entire nation to build.
5 John Grant // Apr 19, 2009 at 9:16 am
I agree on flying around true world leaders, top climate scientists and so on I guess. I’m just not that sure that people like me are worth the carbon. It’s not symbolic or rather it is but that’s terribly important culturally and spiritually. That’s why I’ve turned down over 20 long haul conference speech invites in the last few years. They are also just as good on videophone when people take up that option. Or they can just read my books. Anyway that means I wouldnt be going to a summit of the ‘greatest’ people anyway, doesnt it
On watering down, I’d say that is usually the output of big leaders (Poznan for example – politics as the art of compromise). I’d have more faith in the people to come up with something radical because they are not protecting vested interests. What politicians support is free trade exploitation. What large amounts of people support is fairtrade, because they dont like the idea of people suffering. If people drew up a statement of global governance objectives then their values would be more along the lines of ‘no child goes hungry’ I suspect. What you need is thought leaders, visionaries, innovators hanging out directly with the people, exciting them about the world we could build together. Some of those innovators wont be the usual suspects.
Anyway I get your points. It’s probably heading for a debate about “and”. Except for one thing, I tend to believe that radical, mass, engaged democracy is the only path to sustainability and resilience. Cleantech and all of that is secondary. It is the world in our worldview that needs redesigning most. Not everyone’s going to agree (it sounds like you might not) but god bless the bloggosphere for allowing us all to have our say
:J
ps for an example of what the grassroots up approach looks like check out something I was involved in putting togther recently – www(dot)we20(dot)org (ie ‘hold your own G20 meeting’) and in particular the manifestos that ordinary people around the world came up with. Some of them are pretty awesome.
6 Max Gladwell // Apr 19, 2009 at 9:25 am
John: Thanks for the excellent dialog. We feel it would be worth the CO2 sacrifice for you to fly around and speak at those events. Though offsetting isn’t perfect, those emissions can be counterbalanced, especially given the positive impact you can have.
But we disagree about videophone being just as good. It’s a good alternative, but there’s nothing quite like being there to see someone speak. We didn’t hear of anyone fainting at home when they watched Obama on TV.
Great stuff.
7 John Grant // Apr 19, 2009 at 9:46 am
Yes – yet – the thing is I’m not Obama and maybe videophone is no worse!!! Seriously though once you get used to it my feeling is those virtual events go just as well as the in person ones. Even the Q&A stuff. And it’s the only way I’d have got to talk to people in New Zealand and NYC in the same week without hiring a space ship and a new head. I do fly around Europe where there’s a substantial reason to go and a timing reason not to go by train + for all the reasons you say. Also this is a wellbeing thing as I get so much more life quality for not globetrotting. Time with my 6 year old. And Michael Braungard worked out he probably lost 5 years of life due to high altitude radiation from his flying to spread the word (trouble with being a scientist like MB is you can work those things out). Anyway to echo your main point – excellent dialogue indeed. I seriously think there is something that could be great about the Green Constitution (The Earth Charter is in that space but half of what i like about what you put forward is the timing – NOW is the time to do this) :J
8 Is It Time to Declare Our Green Independence? | Twilight Earth // Apr 19, 2009 at 10:51 pm
[...] you read an article and think “I wish I had said that.” Max Gladwell is calling for a Green Constitutional Convention, and I think that’s a damn fine idea. “As Patriots of the Green Revolution, we’re [...]
9 Aaron // Apr 20, 2009 at 10:29 am
Delegates: anyone but Al Gore or anyone from Hollywood.
Location: Why not boot the UN from their building in New York and hold it there? They aren’t doing anything useful anyway, might as well kill two birds with one stone here.
Limits: All input must be in writing and speeches are strictly limited to 2 minutes or less as introductory statements for **scholarly** papers. NO grandstanding, NO emotional outbursts, NO “green washing” and definitely NO political appeals to force in the name of “green.” Everything MUST be based on ACTUAL science and debates are limited to the science itself, not the emotional heart-string appeals often used in the name of “green.” NO pictures of “drowning” baby seals, polar bears on tiny slivers of ice, etc.
Other Limits: No agreements are to be considered binding by all nations, states, or independent peoples. The point of the congress is only to create proposals for realistic and science-based plans for global change in environmental policies. It is then up to the nations and their peoples to decide whether to implement these proposals.
One last thing: THE UN IS NOT INVOLVED IN THIS AND SHOULD NOT BE INVOLVED IN THIS. They can’t even stop genocide, what makes you think they can figure out climatology? Screw those petty dictators and grandstanding idiots. Let’s try for something REAL here.
10 Patrick Dominguez // Apr 21, 2009 at 12:54 pm
Great post and discussion!
11 Keith Larkin // May 2, 2009 at 7:05 am
You guys are a bunch of dipshits. Global warming is a crock of shit and you all know it. Cap and trade will put the economy into failure that we will never recover from, leaving countries like China to continue polluting the planet with no balance from the United States. Instead if you all stopped breathing their would be less CO2, give it a try and let me know how it goes.
12 Aaron // May 2, 2009 at 10:02 am
Whatever, Keith. Global warming is not a crock of shit, it’s the question of whether man is contributing to it that deserves debate. I personally don’t think that we are, in any significant way, but other forms of pollution are also global and should be addressed as well.
The point is, just because I don’t believe that man has induced or is adding to global warming doesn’t mean it’s not possible. There is some evidence that it may be. So it’s worth having an honest discussion.
Unfortunately, many people are knee-jerk reactionaries who react in one of two ways on the subject, both with equal religious fervor:
1) Global warming is a solid fact and anyone who doesn’t believe we should reduce the human population to living in caves with nothing more technological than a bicycle is an elitist Republican idiot.
2) Global warming is a crock of shit and anyone who even mentions it is obviously a liberal, commie jackass that deserves to be shot.
Neither of these reactions is truthful or helpful. Global warming, of course, isn’t the only debate into which this type of reaction happens. It just happens to be the one on this message board right now.
13 Max Gladwell // May 2, 2009 at 1:26 pm
Keith: There isn’t a single mention of global warming or climate change in this post. That discussion started in the comments. And even if man-made global warming is not the case, we still have to take all of the same actions that we would if it were for the sake of our long-term health, security, and prosperity. Fossil fuels are a finite resource, and CO2 is the least-damaging of its pollutants when it comes to our health.
We also need healthy food to eat and water to drink, very little of which has to do with global warming.
This isn’t about the survival of our planet. It’s about our survival and future generations. It’s about humanity. If you’re against humanity, then so be it. But you should be aware of what you’re for and what you’re against. When you side with those who pollute your water and squander your natural resources, you’re against humanity and your own self interest.
Leave a Comment