Normal people really can change the world. 100 years ago the Suffragettes went to Parliament and demanded that their society change. They held a mass rally outside Parliament to which thousands came, before a number of them rushed into Parliament and got everyone's attention. We invite you all to celebrate the 100th anniversary of this world changing event. We invite you to celebrate when women got radical. Enjoy a rally and speeches in Parliament Square. Enjoy social change.
Just a few days ago i finished a book called "Anti-Capitalism". The title really should have been Alter-Globalization because it was a chronology of a global movement against so called neo-liberal economic policies. I have known people who are involved in this movement for some time, but i have been only marginally interested. After my reading however I was keen to find out more about how the movement is developing and how i could get involved. The best place to get involved is probably the World Social Forum (wikipedia), but that is in southamerica and i`d rather not fly. The second most obvious place for a european would be the regional European Social Forum. It turns out that this starts today! So i was a bit late.
I`ve reading a few books on the alter-globalisation (anti-globalisation) movement and a couple of names that keep reapearing are Susan George (recent book) of the Transnational Institute and Walden Bello (recent book) of Global South. In the UK a couple of other names George Monbiot (recent book) and Naomi Klien (recent book) are more well known due to thier best selling books; i love both of these authors but there roles seem to be more in terms of publicising the movement although neither of them are simply communicators.
The internet being brillian as always makes learning the basics of the movement remarkably easy:
A new study in the journal Nature finds old-growth forests are "carbon sinks" and continually absorb carbon dioxide [1]. Australian researchers recently found logging primary forests releases 40 percent of their carbon [2]. These findings discredit decades of thought that primary forests are carbon neutral and only young forests continue to remove carbon.
The Earth's remaining ancient forests need to be fully protected not just because destroying them will release huge stores of greenhouse gases while destroying biodiversity -- but because science now knows what many of us intuited -- they continue in perpetuity to absorb massive amounts of new carbon dioxide. The environmental movement must respond accordingly.
This causes discomfort for groups like Greenpeace and the Rainforest Action Network (RAN) that actively support ancient forest logging. They campaign for certified industrial first- time harvest of primary forests, and to establish some protected areas, while acquiescing to ancient forest logging elsewhere. They work to end coal use, but not ancient forest logging. New ecological science indicates their discredited forest campaigns cause climate change and block ecologically sufficient policies.
Thirty percent of global forests are unmanaged primary forests or regenerating ld-growth forests. These ancient forests in Canada, Russia and Alaska alone absorb 1.3 gigatonnes of carbon annually, about ten percent of global emissions. Much of their carbon, including in the soil, "will move back to the atmosphere if these forests are disturbed... Carbon accounting rules for forests should give credit for leaving old-growth forest intact," conclude Oregon State University researchers in Nature.
Greenpeace and RAN -- and virtually every major forest campaign -- continue to focus upon establishing protected areas in some remaining wildernesses, and making first-time industrial logging less damaging elsewhere. After millennia of terrestrial ecosystem destruction by humans, and over a century of failed logging reform, ecologically driven activists question the dominant failed paradigm that logging primeval forests can ever be justified. This has led to a major schism in the forest protection movement, which is not going to go away easily.
Both RAN and Greenpeace recently celebrated Ontario, Canada's promise to protect Boreal Forests in coming decades in exchange for continued industrial development now. Since the announcement, plans to log old-growth forests in Ontario's Temagami region have been fast-tracked, and logging giant AbitibiBowater has taken the agreement as a green light to intensify logging. This occurs with Greenpeace and RAN's blessing, because there may be some protections in 15 years.
Greenpeace activists last week boarded a logging ship in Papua New Guinea (PNG) to prevent Malaysian-owned logging company Rimbunan Hijau from exporting timber to China. "We need to urgently protect these ancient forests to save our climate... Greenpeace is asking the PNG government to establish a moratorium on any new large-scale logging," said campaigner Sam Moko. Given PNG's two earlier, largely Greenpeace inspired, temporary moratoriums in past decades, that led to no changes in forest policy, perhaps Greenpeace should work to END ancient forest logging in PNG and globally, before the forests are gone.
Britain's Prince Charles called yesterday for the world to act with a "sense of wartime urgency" to protect the rainforests, warning they were "umbilically connected" to the phenomenon of climate change. The heir to the British throne says rainforests "are the world's lifebelt", acting as the "world's air conditioning system" and helping store the largest body of flowing water on the planet. Such ambitious, ecologically- based policy is welcome from the nation that unleashed industrialism.
For over a decade, Ecological Internet (EI) -- the world's leading exclusively Internet-based forest and climate campaigners -- has called for an end to all primary and old- growth forest logging as necessary to save the Earth's climate and biodiversity. Active campaigns seek to end ancient forest logging in Tasmania, Australia and British Columbia, Canada. EI has campaigned to have Greenpeace and RAN change their forest policies, and given current science, their hand to continue doing so has been strengthened.
The response has been nearly total silence, with some ridicule and questioning of motives. Yet, there are important discussions regarding how forests relate to global ecological sustainability that must be held, and EI and allies will persevere. Are there enough ancient forests remaining to sustain atmospheric processes? Can first time industrial logging of ancient forests ever be done carefully enough to maintain carbon, species and other values? Is wide-scale industrial development of primary forests acceptable if indigenous peoples so desire? Why are Greenpeace and RAN stonewalling such important questions?
According to EI President, Dr. Glen Barry, "Greenpeace and RAN must engage in public dialogue, and review their forest campaigns, to bring them up to date with ecological science and planetary conditions. Emphasis must be upon requirements to maintain the Earth's atmosphere and all life's habitats -- regardless of difficulty -- and this means leaving old-growth standing. Until all forest defenders embrace full protection for ancient forests, ecologically sufficient forest campaigns cannot succeed. Continued refusal makes Greenpeace and RAN legitimate targets of protest."
References:
[1] Old-growth forests as global carbon sinks. Nature 455, 213-215 (September 11, 2008).
[2] Green Carbon: The role of natural forests in carbon storage. ANU E Press (July 2008).
A British jury has aquitted 5 protestors of criminal damage. The protestors where working for greenpeace when they scaled a chimney at Kingsnorth power plant in kent, the started to paint a sign on the chimney. This paint cost £30'000 to remove according to e-on. From the start the defendents accepted that they had caused criminal damage but they claimed justification due to there efforts to change govornment policy on climate change. They won! The 12 person jury, after hearing testimony from climate scientists (james hansen's testimony), the conservative parties climate advisor and an inuit spokesperson, decided that climate change is reaking havoc and that new coal is a no no.
I wonder if this will change the govornments energy policy.
New estimates in the journal Science put climate change induced sea level rise by 2100 at between 80 - 200 cm, and don't rule out the upper limit. The discussions on this at RealClimate fly over my head, but the figures speak for themselves.
For my part i am sypathetic with the reports aims, i see the importance of the discussion and i hope people get involved in developing this sythesis of environmental and racial politics. This non-traditional combination reminded me of a recent post of mine addressing a non to uncommon argument about weather climate change is bein hijacked in the UK by idealogues with an agenda or weather real workable solutions require radical political shifts.
I would broaden my approach to climate change if either: 1. It became apparent that my values, the reasons for which i care about climate change, are substantially effected by other issues. A systemic treatment and an approach that resolved both issues would then make sense. 2. It became apparent that dealing with climate change required dealing with a broader set of issues not for reasons of idealogical concistancy but of pragmatism.
A report connecting race and climate change in the US certainly relates to option 1 for me. I look forward to reading the whole report and finding out what it has to say about option 2. Are there solutions to climate change that ignore the race problem?
Here are three of the report findings which give some hint of the answer:
"Sound global warming policy is also economic and racial justice policy. Successfully adopting a sound global warming policy will do as much to strengthen the economies of low-income communities and communities of color as any other currently plausible stride toward economic justice.
Climate policies that best serve African Americans also best serve a just and strong United States. This paper shows that policies well-designed to benefi t African Americans also provide the most benefi t to all people in the U.S. Climate policies that best serve African Americans and other disproportionately aff ected communities also best serve global economic and environmental justice.
Domestic reductions in global warming pollution and support for such reductions in developing nations fi nancedby polluter-pays principles provide the greatest benefi toAfrican Americans, the peoples of Africa, and people across the Global South."
One of the key ties between green growth and alleviation of the poverty expierianced by african americans is urban development and in perticular green collar jobs.
A facinating introduction to the world of globalisation economics. More here.
Jim M. Craven (Omahkohkiaayo i'poyi), Professor of Economics and Business Division Chair at Clark College/Vancouver, speaks at the Globalization of Homelessness and Poverty Community Lecture Series, Washington State University/Vancouver. January 27th, 2005.
A report by Omega suggests that merely offseting our continued carbon emissions by slipping a few quid to some dodgy entrepreneur may not be the panacea some people hoped it would be. It looks like we'll have to actually do something about our own gluttonous debauch of a lifestyle.
This warning from the environment agency has played quite well in green media. This particular take on the intervention is from No New Coal:
"Lord Smith, the new head of the Environment Agency, this week gave a cautionary warning to the government over the folly of continuing with climate damaging super projects like the third runway at Heathrow, and the proposed new coal power station at Kingsnorth in Kent. He also highlighted the threat that climate change induced sea level rises and coastal erosion will have on the UK’s coast line and that tough choices would have to be made over whether to defend threatened communities.
The World Development Movement has also put two and two together; stating that plans for a new coal power plant are completely incompatible with plans to tackle climate change. And that huge areas of Kent’s coastline will be seriously threatened by predicted sea level rises, demonstrating the sad irony of stationing a new carbon belching coal power station in the very same area.
Millions of people all over the world are already suffering as a result of climate change. It is usually the poorest people who are left most vulnerable to increasingly severe weather phenomena such as typhoons and flooding. For coastal communities in the UK, Bangladesh, the Philippines and across the globe, whose homes, jobs and unfortunately lives are threatened, the government must be resolute in its ambition to tackle climate change. It cannot be, or even give the illusion of, being serious about this if it says yes to new runways and new coal power stations."
Just a thought. The word 'realistic' is without meaning. If serving any purpose it is only to entrench existing interests and power structures.
Can we please get over that word; its the assumed conditions the determine what is considered realistic so why cant we argue our assumptions rather than clumping them together into a collective shrug?
Just thinking about rate of renewables roll out and i came across an article mentioning Al Gore's challenge to America. I need to see if there are details behind the proposal because the ability to achieve such a goal--100% renewables in 10 years--would say a lot about the place for CCS in the global energy economy. Namely, there wouldnt be one.
I`m looking at coal in China. Perticularly at potential inernational responses and the widely different solution of carbon caputre and storage and a mixed renewables/combined heat and power infrastrucuture. There are many issues but cost and speed are the overriding ones.
I have 3 sections, each with around 5 parts, i have started to break down each of these parts into facts i need to research and i have a series of tables for my references.
As i was emailed my someone at IGES i will also point out that they have published a new white paper as an update on there 2005 work 'asian perspectives on climate change'. I will be reading both the 2005 and 2008 white papers as background for this bit of work i`m doing. IGES are one of the few asian centred energy/climate specialists that i know about...perticularly if we are talking freely accessible work in english.
I`m no great fan of the results that the British people get out of there Parliament. However, there are a couple of things that i feel are done very well. One of these is the production of well researched, transparent reports by cross party groups of MP's. The latest report by the Environmental Audit Committe is on Carbon Capture and Storage and it is avialable for free online along with full formal minutes and oral evidence that was used in its construction.
The govornment do bang on about an 'energy gap'. This isn't to suprising really, solutions to an energy gap might include nuclear power and more coal...just what the utilities want.
However, on the eve of the Camp for Climate Action where such old paradigme thinking is hardly flavour of the month a report comissioned by WWF UK was released by energy consultancy Poyry which explains--in easy steps that even a minister could follow--how we can solve the climate crisis and energy security simultaneously. That seems to make a lot of sense given Russia's actions in Georgia and the latest climate science.
This kind calculation by an NGO feeding into issues raised by the Camp for Climate Action is a really positive development and something that i hope we can have more of in the future. The dialogue between climate camp and NGO's is certainly still open to discussion.
One idea that was not uncommon at the Camp for Climate Action was that people have started using climate change to push there own political agenda. More specifically, Climate Camp has a distinct anti-capitalist flavour. Some therefore see the advancement of an anti capitalist agenda as extra baggage that we are being persuaded to drag along with our attempts to mitigate climate change. We certainly don't need extra baggage, this is a long and arduous journey. The other side of this, that many at climate camp actually conceive as there position, is that climate change is a product of capitalist society and that although--in the technical sense--all we need to do is reduce emissions, we wont be able to do this without progress on a much larger political agenda.
I pointed out these two distinct positions at a climate camp meeting, i also argued in favour of the latter position. In 1988 the WCED produced a report called 'Our Common Future' which gave an overview of our planet's situation, and a framing of the issues as development and economic issues not narrowly environmental. Despite the modern framing and clarity, the report has largely failed in mobilising the world on the requisite scale. There are two options that could explain this, firstly, there wasn't enough knowledge throughout society of the issues being discussed and not enough people to push the agenda, secondly, the report could have missed out an important angle. It seems to me simply based on the scope of the report that the sidelining of political and economic power in its analysis was likely to be at least partly responsible for the lack of movement created. However, the best evidence for this is included in the report, it seems to highlight its own deficiencies--there are conclusions that the report seems to suggest but does not articulate.
So those are two extreme positions, the technical approach is where people start when connections are not obvious to them. The latter position is where they may end up if they don't see the possibility of serious reform as a worthy alternative to dismantling the capitalist system. I`m currently a reformist capitalist with doubts about this approach but with the belief that it can allow progress if not solution of our planets immediate convergent crisis.
A very interesting piece of work on China's emissions...
Exports are now responsible for one-third of China's emissions, according to a study that will appear in the journal Energy Policy. The researchers describe their analysis as the most systematic study of the subject to date.
It must be said however that historic emissions are the real locus where the Developed Worlds' and Chinas' climate responsibilities intersect.
A new report from the Rights and Resources Initiative finds that land rights are central to the challenge of slowing deforestation. This is a welcome development for those of us who worried about the REDDD clause under the UNFCC turning into a carbon trading clause and a way of disempoering native groups.
“The dramatic shifts under way in markets, politics and the planet’s climate create new and very large challenges for achieving peace and prosperity in forest areas,” the report states. It argues the key to balancing local and global needs lies in recognising and strengthening forest peoples’ property rights. This is the only basis for protecting forest people, providing certainty for outside investors and giving social guidance to conservationists.
From concerns over air pollution and acid rain, to the recent rising awareness of carbon emissions and climate change, coal has been recognised as the dirtiest and most inefficient fossil fuel option.
Despite this, coal is experiencing a global boom, with corporations opening new mines and commissioning new power stations. High street banks are making millions by providing the financial fuel that drives this expansion of coal extraction and combustion. This report examines the role in the last two years of the Royal Bank of Scotland (RBS), HSBC and Barclays in providing and arranging the financial means to the coal industry to extract and burn vast quantities of coal.
Published by BankTrack, Friends of the Earth - Scotland, People & Planet, Scottish Education and Action for Development, Stop Climate Chaos and PLATFORM. Download the report from here.
At the camp for climate action one idea that was certainly doing the rounds is that we only have 100 months to bring the planets emissions down to a level where they can be absorbed by natural systems. I`ve just traced this idea back to a website called onehunderedmonths.org which basically acts as the home to a new report (PDF) on tackling climate change. Word started to spread about this idea via The Guardian, and is now being helped along by emails and posters--the template for which can be downloaded from the website. Another interesting report (PDF) using the 100 months idea and from the same group of people is by a group calling themselves the Green New Deal Group...a very interesting enterant into the UK climate change arena.
Anyone interested in the science behind these ideas should check out EcoEquity, James Hansen or Malte Meinhausen for starters. I can send pdf's if that would be helpful.
My favourite chants from climate camp...anyone else have suggestions?
When riot police charged on site injuring people and acting like we where something other than a group of mellow and peaceful activitsts. "We are not a riot, we are not a riot, we are not a riot..." This really de escelated things...we followed it up with singing and testemonials about why we where at the climate camp.
When kent police gave way to riot police (from the met?) "We want kent, we want kent" this was such a funny moment. The police where somewhat uncomfortable and some clearly found it amusing.
A chant that i started when we where being agrovated "strike for police pay, strike for police pay..." that took off nicely! My comment to the officer opposite me was "you join our protest and we'll join yours".
There where probably hundereds of short chants trying to break down the walls between police and protestors but these where my favourites. There where also lots of songs, which can be extremely powerful in hostile situations.
Creativity of protest: from rafts down the Medway to placards holding our ministers to account.
Outreach to local workers: people could see us as a threat but we arent after peoples jobs, we need to start a dialogue with employees in the fossil fuel industries about how they can prosper as a new renewable energy industry is born.
Atendees: from inpiring camp organisers with an unhuman level of commitment to a few good MP's, MEP's and councilors, to climate scientists, professional campaigners and journalists, the climate camp was a facinating and potent miluaeu.
Toilets that where cleaner and less smelly than any festival facilities you are likely to encounter!
Our rather cosy relationship with The Guardian.
Our commitment to a permenant blockade at Kingsnorth should it get the go ahead.
Caroline Lucas MEP giving the police an earful on our behalf.
The Bad
Police using stop and search powers over blanket areas when only individuals subject to justified suspicion can legally be searched under the relavent law.
Police flying hellicopters almost hourly over the camp for several days, and sometimes hovvering over workshops.
Police talking about a 'hardcore' of protestors intent on breaking the law; most of us had sated we where willing to carry our civil disobedience. There was scary marginal goup intent on violience--it just didnt exist--and had there been it would have been at the periphary of the movement not a result of a shared idea and determination that the term 'hardcore' implies.
EON PR--it really was awful. Coal is the fuel of the past; this argument has been won so please give it up!
Govornment policy: they are missing it so badly and so ineptly that it really looks farsical.
Russia's invasion of Georgia (sorry to be self serving but this was a PR nightmare for us)!
The Ugly
A 65 year old woman being battoned by charging riot police as climate campers peacfully linked arms and sang. She had two broken fingers.
A stop and search holding area that was illigally setup and run in a manner that clearly indicated an intention to intimidate and not to gather legitimate intelligence.
I`ve just got back from holiday. I had a charming time in Kent at the Camp for Climate Action, me, some friends and about 1500 police officers from 27 different forces.
The climate camp has several strands to it:
Acting as a space to think, educate and develop the climate movement.
Acting as a demonstration of sustainable living.
Acting as a place for non-violent direct action against the root causes of climate change.
As always, the participatory philosophy of the camp and the openness of decision making, along with a strong common cause made for an immense sense of both solidarity and collective determination. The camp is open, welcoming and strongly against all forms of discrimination--the attitudes behind which are considered a stronghold for hierarchy.
Despite what you may hear from cynics people in the right situations can make a powerful statement about the possibilities of mankind. With consensus decision making, a strong binding cause and the ability to contribute to any area of work, people work together extremely well.
In terms of social environment the things I liked best about the camp where:
Trust: I lost my mobile phone and it soon turned up in lost property, food was paid for by donation--eat wherever you like and don't worry about coupons of cash, i left my laptop and camcorders in my tent for two days and they where still there.
Camaraderie: The joint mission gives everyone a better entree than 'nice weather'...just kick off a conversation with something you really care about like the need for a smart grid, our plans for mass protest or a few comments about political policing.
Selflessness: the whole camp is run on a volunteer basis so sanitation, food, educational workshops, security, cinema and entertainment where all testament to selflessness and collective effort.
The climate camp was special for so many other reasons but these three factors where the foundations upon which an extremely ambitious and high profile project was constructed.
I shall thcream and thcream and thcream untill I'm thick.
Whilst the best advice available to the Government is that they are not doing nearly enough to avoid a 4 degree rise and a runaway rolling catastrophe, the plan seems to be to keep shtum and let the market find replacement indulgences that don't set off a mass entitlement-tantrum amongst the conspicuous consumers (that's us). Of course more sustainable technology is good news - but the problem remains of replacing and doubling the entire planet's fleet of cars, building massive infrastructure etc. The pressing restructuring issue is not addressed with this sort of like for like replacement.
It seems that only denying people the ability to act destructively can actually stop people from acting destructively. Apparently it's OK if the market does this by flushing the economy down the toilet - but its definitely not OK to use taxes for the same purpose. Because that would create a budget for structural adaptation (which is evil and communistic) rather than a private profit bonanza (which is next to godliness). Heaven (and ideological purity) forbid that we should mix and match.
The Government are trying to spin Kingsnorth and the myth of clean coal as a matter of keeping the lights on. Perhaps they are pre-occupied with the conundrum of what damage a toothless government might do to itself should it ever decide to bite the bullet
What if 'the lights went out' and nobody noticed? Hoards of brave men and women are amassing at Climate Camp for a bit of police harassment. The police harassing the people, that is, let's be clear. Never before have so many "people like us" decided they must go, whoever the "us" may be. Not the usual suspects at all (officer.) Even left and right unite. But the 'overactive policing' tactics will backfire. The fear factor is only increasing the resolve to attend. This is a good thing. At this point in history anyone can see (even without the lights on) that fossil carbon is best left undisturbed. A nice little twist, mostly overlooked, is that the thousands at the camp who consider the climate crisis far more vital than the dratted "lights going out" will all be fine this week, in the event of a power cut! The camp is crammed full of renewable energy sufficiency. Perhaps it is the camp technology that 'those in power and addicted to it' wish to confiscate. (Dave Hampton - letter to the Independent))
If you create your own heat, electricity, food and water, then you create your own politics. (Pete Myers)
We are a troubled young species - lashing out at our family and indulging in reckless self-destructive behaviours. We'll be lucky to reach maturity. Never mind plenty more where we came from. Oops - no there isn't.
At the Camp for Climate Action the boys in blue are serving their masters to the best of their ability. It's a shame that the ordinary people haven't got a police force to represent them, isn't it?!
As Climate campers prepare to get their collars felt in an effort to prevent an infinitely greater crime, the Police are sandwiched between the carbon age and an age of new realism. Many of them, no doubt, are as worried as working people anywhere -or at least as worried as their knowledge and individual attention spans allow. I wonder- will they be deployed with such fervour and over-timed expense when it is the likes of E-on who are in breach of the law. Or will the old order be maintained, regardless of the cost? I suppose we'll know whether we're actually serious about tackling this once the answer to that is clear
Since 7.50 am this morning, 20 participants in this year's Camp for Climate Action and members of Action Against Agrofuels have been blockading the only access gate to Cargill's European regional head office in Cobham, Surrey. 8 activists have locked on to the gates closing the site down completely. Agrobusiness giant Cargill are being targeted by the protesters for their role in rainforest destruction and land-grabbing as well as for profiteering from the food crisis.
I recognise a couple of faces, and i only wish i was there!
Kingsnorth is the first of a series of new coal power plants being proposed. Without the use of CCS technology to prevent the CO2 escaping into the atmosphere, they must not be allowed to proceed. If that means politicians joining with other climate change campaigners to sit down in front of bulldozers, then so be it.
del.icio.us
Digg This!
.jpg)
.jpg)
.jpg)
.jpg)
.jpg)
.jpg)
ClimateActionWeekly(ALL)
ClimateActionMonthly(Highlights)
