Climate change: Don't settle for compromise

I'll walk into a politician's office ready to ask tough questions, make bold demands and pile on pressure, then it hits me. Doubt creeps in about whether "all or nothing" is the best way to get my way. Sometimes it feels uneasy. Sometimes you want to let up and appreciate what people are doing, even if it isn't enough.

There was an article in The Diamondback a few weeks ago about environmental activists lined up outside the Bank of America on Route 1 protesting the bank's funding of the coal industry's mountaintop removal projects. I was one of them. Bank of America has since made a reasonable concession in light of many similar protests that were held all over the country on the same day: They've decided to phase out and eventually cease funding for mountaintop removal projects, which make up a sizable portion of all coal mining.

But the bank is still funding coal companies in the rest of their activities. What should the reaction be from environmentalists? Should we thank the bank and back off? Give them some breathing room? Reward a good policy with good will? Or dismiss the bone that's been thrown, and go after the entire carcass?

This kind of dilemma with politicians can be even tougher. Their postions vary across the board. What do you say to someone who is on the right side of every environmental issue, except for the big one, where they're wrong? How hard should you push when you don't want to alienate them?

For me, it's difficult to be uncompromising. I recognize and appreciate when someone who doesn't see eye-to-eye with me on everything is trying to accommodate. Although I'm politically progressive, my four best friends I grew up hanging out with are all conservatives. We haven't killed each other yet.

But when it comes to environmental activism, compromising to find common ground often undermines the entire point. Deals constantly result in two steps back for every one step forward. Settling for less usually gets you nothing in the end. That's because, as environmental activists there's a deadline on our objectives and the future of our very planet is at stake. There isn't much of a difference between failing miserably and failing gracefully.

Failing gracefully is how you end up with President-elect Barack Obama (D) talking about clean coal when it doesn't exist. It's how after decades of inaction, Congress gets credit for raising fuel economy standards to a pathetic 35 mpg by 2020. It's why too many politicians in the state think you can cut carbon emissions while building giant roads, such as the Intercounty Connector. It's why the Purple Line has stayed a good idea and nothing more for decades. It's why everyone is pro-Chesapeake Bay, but the bay is in shambles. It's how Bank of America can claim to be environmentally conscious, yet still fund coal. None of that is leadership.

And so I'm in this office, sitting nervously, but inevitably, my moment of doubt always passes. My good will turns to iron will. My regret melts in the fire. I straighten my shirt, check the agenda and grip the folder. The choice of "all or nothing" isn't a choice. I stand up, walk to their door and turn the knob. Deep breath. No letting up. No slowing down. Full speed ahead.

I choose all.

Matt Dernoga is a junior government and politics major. He can be reached at mdernoga@umd.edu.