....the idea of the triple
crunch (credit, energy, climate) and the cost to real people of
these 3 failures of capitalism (and the many others!) is really in
people's minds and our (climate camp's) solution is much better than all the others!

Q
I wonder what "our solution" to the triple crunch is? I didn't think Climate Camp or even London Neighbourhood had an economic policy?


A
of course there's no party line - but we all have ideas of a completely different society not based not on growth, profit, capitalism etc.

my own personal view is that we don't need to say exactly what it'll look like (as we believe it's up to people themselves how they'll live)

but continue building the climate camp movement as an example

so rather than an 'alternative economic policy' we have a concrete 'alternative society' that people can actually see, learn about and join

and our message is something like "we think the current society doesn't work, here's why, we've already got an alternative which we think is better (because it's non-hierachical, human scale, consensual etc) come and have a look"

should we be campaigning on climate change at all ?

ok, deliberately controversial title, but it is a serious question

climate change is a problem, but it's a symptom of a fossil fuelled growth oriented capitalist economy. if people aren't already concerned about climate change and doing something then they aren't going to be (at least not in time) maybe they can be motivated by something that is a bit more immediate, both in time and effect.

Peak oil, or as i heard last night, the energy crunch, is that issue. People have already had a taste of it with the huge energy price rises in the last year.This might encourage people to realise that this system and economy are the problem and take action to build an alternative, that will also tackle climate change.

what do we mean by direct action? / 'come for the community, stay for the climate'

my opinion is that the most important element of our aim of 'direct action' is the 'action' part. Actually most of things we do aren't direct but indirect, ie they don't directly stop or attempt to stop greenhouse emissions (the drax coal train is one recent example of a genuine attempt to stop emissions directly) These are incredibly important as there are very few other groups taking genuine direct action (e.g. even greenpeace do maybe one or 2 genuine direct climate actions a year - climbing the kingsnorth chimney and actually shutting down the power station more than a year ago perhaps being the last?)
however, the phrase 'direct action' is one with baggage and means different things to different people, to me having 'direct action' as an aim implies that we are the opposite of indirect action as the kind of thing the campaigning NGOs do - lobbying or asking governments nicely. I would perhaps prefer it if our aim simply said 'action' so it contrasted with those that don't do anything, but including a mixture of direct and indirect action - a wording could be something like:

'we take action on climate change rather than just talking or worrying, especially DIRECT action to actually prevent the emissions that are causing climate change'

The truth is that most of our action is indirect while still being really important. Even most of the things we refer to as 'actions' are also indirect, aimed at embarassing e.on, challenging BAA getting our messages in the media etc. But there is even more important indirect action outside of these. even a routine meeting, sticker mob, pub discussion, outreach stall is a hugely important action because it builds a community of people who support all of the other stuff and can do more than other organisations because of that sense of community.

The point of this is really in thinking about our movement building activity - i think that we could turn around our outreach and put the opportunity to join a vibrant, exciting community in which you can learn, make friends, express yourself, take responsibility, have fun AND contribute to the most important issue humanity has ever faced is what we've really got to offer. once involved people will soon respond to the knowledge, commitment and ideas of those already here, and begin to go on a number of journeys - from lack of knowledge about climate change to loads, from doubts about illegal direct action to locking on to a bulldozer, from scepticism about consensus decision making to handwaving with the best of 'em.

to sum up, our new outreach slogan could be - 'come for the community, stay for the climate'

messages must be tailored for audiences. stop coal is simple, and also simplistic - i like it because it's pretty close to what i believe in but it's not the whole story, but it can work where it isn't controversial that if coal is bad for the climate we should stop using it. but there is a growing realistation that even if only for purely practical / strategic reasons, we need to be sensitive to those for whom coal and indeed the rest of the present economy provides vital social, economic resources and is a big part of their identity. and this means explaining things slightly more to avoid misunderstandings of our position.
who are these people with an irrational attachment to dirty black fossil fuels?. well some of them are not going to be convinced by talk of green jobs and just transition (perhaps inc the NUM) - we must forget about these people - we have no hope of reaching them and no need to. the group we need this idea of just transition to reach are the moderate unions and people with a working class solidarity with the idea of coal, but also a desire to tackle climate change and make the economy better for everyone, rather than just their members - these is a large and new group of people that could bring great benefits to the climate movement.

Copenhagen climate talks

My view is that all the evidence suggests that copenhagen will produce a bad deal that will fail to sufficiently address climate change and cause many climate and other problems for people while maintaining 'green capitalism' options for those in financial power to make more money.
lobbying by NGOs might slightly improve this but the essential character of an innefective 'green capitalist' model will remain the same.

Given that governments are going to do this anyway we should actually allow the NGOs to do their thing and try and make it better (and especially encourage them to resist moves that would have negative effects - such as biofuel expansion, trading away responsibility etc), but we should say that even the best possible agreement will only be a small proportion of what is needed and the only real solution is for communities all over the world to take back the power and make copenhagen irrelevant. They are trying to use the systems that caused the problem to be a solution even the best deal will be only a small part of the solution and the worst will just be more of the problem

what we should actually DO at copenhagen

call for them to at least not make things worse and make the real world's job harder
call for measures that would enable and empower communities who are the real solution
call on communities and individuals to make copenhagen even more irrelevant than it already is
shut them in until they agree on something that wont make the problem worse

the lack of ambition for copenhagen sounds on the face of it to be a negative message, but actually it's a hugely positive one - "you've been fucking it up for real people for so long the best we can hope for is that you decide to stop doing that and allow us to get on with it - in the real world we know what to do and we know how to do it - just look at the fantastic movements that are happening"

responding to weathercocks and signposts

"Weathercocks and Signposts critically reassesses current approaches to motivating environmentally-friendly behaviour change. Current behaviour-change strategies are increasingly built upon analogy with product marketing campaigns. They often take as given the 'sovereignty' of consumer choice, and the perceived need to preserve current lifestyles intact. This report constructs a case for a radically different approach. It presents evidence that any adequate strategy for tackling environmental challenges will demand engagement with the values that underlie the decisions we make – and, indeed, with our sense of who we are."

The marketing approach came from the quite reasonable desire to match people's pre-existing motivations with what is good for the earth. This approach has many problems, but the critique in weathercocks doesn't suggest to me that such a link doesn't exist, only that the marketing approach got it wrong by being too timid. The truth is that a world in which all humans are happier will also be one that is better for nature and that a complete revolution in what people think of as happiness and self-interest is what is needed and, perhaps paradoxically, this is more likely to succeed.

We should continue to use the marketing approach but rather than using it to elicit small steps we should use it to encourage big changes and really challenge pre conceptions. This avoids many of the critiques in weathercocks, but maintains the recognition that we have to start from where we are - with a population that has certain values and motivations.

e.g when market approach commentators suggest appealing to a prospectors' desire for esteem from their neighbours they are right because this fits with the expression of their values, identity and motivation. The problem is that they simply accept these at face value rather than look beneath the surface. If you were to find out that these needs were born out of deeper desires and dissatisfactions we would be able to elicit much 'better' behaviour more easily - but it must still be communicated in a way that takes into account their more apparent motivational starting point.

Put in another way - Everybody wants to be happy and good in quite similar ways to each other and (some very) differently to how they currently live, but they need to have this pointed out to them in radically different ways. Our job isn't to say explicitly what this 'way of life' is, just to gather evidence that points to a few features it might have and give people a few pointers on things that might help them, and us, get there. This avoids the need to talk about many of problematic issues of environment and economics becasue they are simply symptoms of a deeper problem. This follows on to a minor criticism of Weathercocks - despite being a report that aims to look at the big picture, it constantly refers to solving problems in the environment and the natural world, when in fact the environmental problems it seeks to solve are themselves only symptoms.

does the election of barack obama make avoiding RCC more likely?

Yes, but still not very likely.

Eureka!

today i made electricity

i've been working on a bike generator for a couple of months, but finally i've got it all set up with a battery, regulator and inverter and pedalled for about a minute keeping the 'charging' light on (and powering crappy daytime tv, jeremy kyle i think!). the system needs a hell of a lot of work to be more reliable and useful, but at least i've done the first stage.

big thanks to Luke for practical help and Chan, magnificent revolution and everyone at climate camp for inspiration

i went to unleashing of Transition Town brixton last night - a fantastic, inspiring night and, I was surprised to find, only 5th unleashing.

Transition towns really is the answer, of course loads of good transition work is going on all over the place from CAT, to individuals and climate camp, but TT really brings it together. I believe that everyone who's even slightly interested in what's going to happen when fuel gets even more expensive and the climate changes MUST contribute to this project.

Met Office warns of need for drastic cuts in greenhouse gases from 2010
• 3% a year may keep temperature rise to 2C
• Study says inaction could have dire consequences

Carbon Output Grew in 2007 increase of 2.5% "Average annual growth since 2000 is about four times the mean in the 1990s."

Gore urges civil disobedience to stop coal plants
"it is time for civil disobedience to prevent the construction of new coal plants"

39.7% – New European Record Efficiency for Solar Cells acheived

Arctic 'methane chimneys' raise fears of runaway climate change

NB - not yet published in peer reviewed journal

Mark Lynas is in many ways right about nuclear. If we manage to avoid RCC in the next10 years and want to maintain an economy and society that is as similar to the one we have now then nuclear power, whether using current, fastbreeder or fusion technology would be useful. However, we should concentrate on actions that can help us avoid getting locked into RCC and then have a debate about what kind of energy system we want and whether centralised, nuclear stations can play a role in it. If we do succeed in getting to this point my own view is that a decentralised system in which power is generated near to where it is used, will be a major contributor to that success and that we should continue down this road. Others who want things to continue more like they are now will support new nuclear, I just hope that we get the chance to have this discussion which is why I don't want to be distracted by nuclear now.

What the people at the top of the wealth and power pyramid will do when when we pass RCC tipping point ?

• make a fortune from geo engineering techno fixes, that we will pay for
• invest heavily in personal protection (gated communities in low risk areas)
• live an equally, or even more comfortable existence with much greater share of wealth and power than before.

Why would any of these people take action to stop climate change? They'd be much more likely to try and give the appearance of action to delay until it was too late.

Bjorn Lomborg's analysis of the cost of climate change correctly exposes a serious fiction in most government's rhetoric - that current plans, which will do very little to address the problem, may well be a waste of money. Politicians need to be honest that, on some measures, the monetary costs and benefits of inaction and effective action may well be very similar. The real issue is what this view of cost misses out, the damage and destruction that can't be quantified or, from a purely economic standpoint is worth very little because it happens to poor people. The truth is that the people at the top of the economic and political systems have no motivation to take any action, they won't lose out and many may even benefit from the crisis. That is why can't leave it up to them.

University of Sunderland proudly announced a breakthrough in hydrogen powered car techology. The problem with hydrogen is that it uses far less energy to use any electricity directly to power a car, rather than turning it into hydrogen first. However, after exchanging few emails with the project manager i'm slightly less cynical. His argument is that a small tank of hydrogen produced from renewable energy can add a 'quick fill' capacity to extend the range of the battery, rather than instead of it. Also the efficiency of hydrogen production can be improved with this kind of research. My conclusion is that we can dismiss solutions ideas too easily as unrealistic techno-fixes. In fact many of these ideas, if sensibly applied, combined and seen in their correct context, can make a contribution.

indicator of the problems of society and how we could do better #1

People are happier in a system of direct democracy

Frey, Bruno S. and Stutzer, Alois,Happiness, Economy and Institutions(January 2000). CESifo Working Paper Series No. 246.


a proposal for direct democracy from the same authors

Frey, Bruno S. and Stutzer, Alois,Direct Democracy: Designing a Living Constitution(September 17, 2003). Zurich IEER Working Paper No. 167.


Voters are better informed when they have more influence

yesterday i was at the london climate camp meeting and social. it was a packed day of discussion, networking and plenty of fun. discussions about the 'rolling blockade' to greet any attempts to build aa new coal fired power station also really started to take shape - as all of the small groups we split into seemed to agree on the main core features and also came up with a few fantastic ideas, and i'm guessing that the other neighbourhoods who are also meeting before the manchester gathering later this month will also come up with something similar.

I also got a chance to start a discussion about how to talk about and motivate people to move towards a total change of system - basically how to get people to reject capitalism without them realising that's what they are doing. it also became clear that this might be way of persuading a lot of people who just won't listen to current climate messages to act on climate - again probably without realising that's what they're doing. these people are the 'prospectors' and 'settlers'.

the things is that now we've got an urgent and intellectual reason for action the will convince the pioneers (climate messages) and now security and esteem reasoning based partly on climate and the failure of growth based market economy with finite resources AND a solution that can be presented differently to fit in with the needs and motivations of each group (transition towns). not only that but as i said in the intro to this blog - i believe that the potential source of preventing runaway climate change is also likely to be a solution that can help people avoid it's worst effects, as well as be happier, healthier etc - it's a win whichever way things go.

I was lucky enough this week to be able to hear foremost climate scientist Prof James Hansen give evidence in support of 6 greenpeace activists who are arguing that they are not guilty of causing criminal damage to the kingnorth chimney last october, by painting the prime minister's name down the chimney in huge letters, because they were acting to prevent greater property damage from climate change. Hansen is, like many academics, softly spoken, modest but truly impressive. His confidence comes from nearly 3 decades studying the earth's climate and he is absolutley clear about coal and the UK, US and germany's special responsibility in slowing the return to coal by 'drawing a line in the sand'

Economic and social disadvantage can affect young citizens' voter turnout
Another indicator of how inequality, poverty and social exclusion replicates itself and deepens over generations. But also of why a system that only asks for occasional political involvement just can't work.

A simple assessment of a few words and phrases that might be useful / best avoided in climate & energy communications

http://www.futerra.co.uk/downloads/Words-That-Sell.pdf

a few presentations from a conference on communicating about climate & energy

http://piee.stanford.edu/cgi-bin/htm/Behavior/2007_becc_conference.php?ref=nav4

James Lovelock has started proposing some of the wacky geo-engineering ideas to prevent warming. He was an early proponent of nuclear power, and many followed and I'm sure over the next few years many will also follow this trend.

Clearly these are a distraction from the real task - reducing emissions, and some are so large scale and risky as to likely be worse than the problem they are trying to cure.

However, while these ideas are eccentric, some are even mad, they will unfortunately become necessary. If we we pass the tipping point around 2015 without sufficient emissions reductions, we will have to start adding one or more of these mad schemes to our, rather too gradual, emissions reductions. This is another reason why I believe that we WILL pass the tipping point. Those at the top of the economic pyramid will benefit not only from an extended period of business as usual, but also from the eventual need for these, hugely expensive, schemes.

from climate progress

A study published 28 years ago by James Hansen and others and entitled “Climate Impact of Increasing Atmospheric Carbon Dioxide.” shows that evidence of the warming that could have been predicted since the greenhouse properties of CO2 were discovered in the 19th century was in the public domain long before anyone decided to DO anything. The study was also reported in the New York Times - Study finds warming trend that could raise sea levels,

What is clear is that greenhouse warming was always likely, no matter what the economic and social system, but that the systems in place throughout this period (mostly capitalism and some state socialism) were, and still are, particularly incapable of taking prompt action preferring denial and delay. This is partially due to the inherent competition (within capitalism and between capitalism and socialism) that meant there was no benefit to be the first to act but also on the huge scale of organisations within the system that separates those in power from those more likely to suffer from any consequences and also provides such large benefits from trying to squeeze out just a bit more business as usual. Systems based more on cooperation and containing organisations on a smaller, more human scale would surely have realised and started to act sooner - not that much sooner probably, but would be at least 10 years ahead of where we are now, and if they had also been less obsessed by economic growth we would be less far down the road. In summary, capitalism didn't cause climate change, but it did make it a hell of a lot less likely that we would stop it in time.

Fifth Warmest July on Record
Arctic sea ice melts to second worst on record

Journalistic whiplash

from realclimate

"This phenomena occurs with the more uncertain parts of a science that are being actively researched and where the full story is only slowly coming together. In such cases, new papers often appear in high profile journals (because they meet the 'of general interest' test), and are often parsed rather simplistically to see what side of the fence they fall - are they pro or anti? This leads to wide press interest, but rather shallow coverage, and leaves casual readers with 'whiplash' from the 'yes it is', 'no it isn't' messages every other week.

This is a familiar pattern in health reporting (is coffee good for you/bad for you etc.), but in more recent times has started happening in climate science too. Examples picked out in the article include the hurricanes/global warming connection and the state of Greenland's ice sheet."

nuclear option

lets get it right - we shouldn't rule out nuclear. if we do manage to push back the RCC tipping point beyond 2020 by investing in renewables and make changes such as the extended electrification of our transport system, then it really might have a role to play. Of course it must be safe and not prevent the necessary investment in renewables.

In fact licenses to continue building them must be dependent on companies investing a minimum amount on renewables in the next 5 years, if they fail to keep this up construction should be halted.

monbiot on a similar theme to reform vs revolution

monbiot on similar theme to reform vs revolution

maybe i was over optimistic to say that i thought the urgency of action on climate change had put an end to left wing dogmatism. I was in the audience when monbiot spoke at climate camp about taking all means to defeat RCC - whether that's state action, trading or nuclear power, and many were uncomfortable. Partly because this kind of pragmatism has a tendency to be misused by people whose ends are not the same as ours - such as the pre-existing nuclear lobby who are celebrating monbiot's grudging acceptance that their industry might have a role to play.

The answer is that it isn't an either or - either we're pragmatic or idealist - we MUST be both. We must work to ensure any carbon trading scheme actually works (something i think is very unlikely) or make sure that nukes only return if they meet a stringent criteria including not taking investment from renewables (again, not likely). and do this at the same time as planning and working for our ideal society (partly because this is also part of the pragmatic solution)

And remember, if pragmatism is uncomfortable for you, you've only got to do it for 100 months, just hold your nose and work with these people and systems for that time in an 'emergency coalition', after that.....

growing destruction


It's worth reminding ourselves of the real cause of climate change - the growth economy, and just how much more destruction it could cause in a relatively short time

from monbiot

"In a lecture to the Royal Academy of Engineering in May, Professor Rod Smith of Imperial College explained that a growth rate of 3% means economic activity doubles in 23 years. At 10% it takes just seven years. This we knew. But Smith takes it further. With a series of equations he shows that "each successive doubling period consumes as much resource as all the previous doubling periods combined". In other words, if our economy grows at 3% between now and 2040, we will consume in that period economic resources equivalent to all those we have consumed since humans first stood on two legs. Then, between 2040 and 2063, we must double our total consumption again. Reading that paper I realised for the first time what we are up against."

Volunteers are surprisingly committed

From BPS research digest

Despite the obvious value of volunteers, managers often have reservations about hiring unpaid staff because of doubts over their commitment. There's a sense that they can leave at any time and there's no paid contract to keep them in line. But a new study turns these ideas upside down, finding that volunteers are actually more committed than their fully paid up colleagues.

Mark van Vuuren and colleagues surveyed hundreds of paid and volunteer workers at a Dutch charity for the blind and partially sighted. Questionnaire items tapped three aspects of organisational commitment, including the employees' emotional commitment ("I feel a strong sense of belonging to my organisation"); their sense of obligation and loyalty ("Even if it were to my advantage, I do not feel it would be right to leave my organisation now"); and what's known as "continuance commitment" - their sense that leaving isn't an option ("I believe that I have too few options to consider leaving this organisation").

It transpires the volunteers were more emotionally committed (especially if they felt there was a close fit between their values and the values of the charity) and also felt more loyalty and obligation to the organisation than did the paid staff. The researchers were particularly surprised at this latter finding, which they said could have to do with the fact the volunteers tended to be older. "Older people are motivated to volunteer because of their wish to fulfil an obligation or commitment to society," they said.

Van Vuuren's team said these results have several implications for managers. For example, it's important for organisations wishing to attract volunteer staff to "communicate how their goals, values and culture are congruent to the individual's beliefs..."

"This study showed that the absence of the 'stick of paid work' does not lead to the situation that volunteers leave their tasks very easily," the researchers continued. "As indicated by their commitment, there seems to be an interdependence, even though volunteers are not paid for their contribution. They may need the organisation as much as the organisation needs them."
_________________________________

van Vuuren, M., de Jong, M., Seydel, E. (2008). Commitment with or without a stick of paid work: Comparison of paid and unpaid workers in a nonprofit organization. European Journal of Work and Organizational Psychology, 17(3), 315-326. http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/13594320701693175

Author weblink: http://www.ibr.utwente.nl/

reform Vs revolution

From my point of view there's never been a contradiction between trying to gradually make things better (reforming) and working towards a radically different future (revolution).

I was talking to a revolutionary socialist last night and I realised how much more similar their actual programme is to mine now in the context of climate change, despite apparent differences. Both have an ideal future that they are working towards but are using their principles and ideas to tackle current problems in a more pragmatic way. I think the climate crisis has made this necessary because any socialist that so dislikes the idea of 'reforming' to the point of not campaigning for action to avoid climate change must surely lose any credibility simply because of the timescales involved.

climate camp magic

I went to Climate Camp film night at the rampART last night. It was great to catch up with stuff I'd missed during the week and also meet up with a few people. However, the really incredible thing was the atmosphere. I've been involved with the rampART collective for a couple of years and have been to many great film nights and other events, but last night just seemed to have a special buzz and atmosphere - there were only a handful of people who i recognised from the camp there but the fact that it was a climate camp night brought a special energy and feeling of shared purpose and community, I don't know exactly what it is, but climate camp has a unique magic.
see the films on youtube

Just so you know where I’m coming from – here’s a quick sketch of how I think we can stop RCC and, failing that, build a society that can withstand it.

- To realise that most of things we take for granted are in fact luxuries that we can still continue to enjoy as long as we are sensible, aware of the real costs and make choices between them that are necessary to be sustainable.

- Live in small (3-500 people) autonomous, truly democratic, communities that put people first and produce much of what they need, but are still connected to other communities by trade and electronic communications networks.


If RCC does happen

This model will be the best way of maintaining a good society in the face of severe pressure from shortages, poverty, extreme weather, human desperation, migration, state reaction, reactionary attitudes. And will only survive if communities are open, continue to be democratic, co-operate with each other, remain connected.


I'm working on slightly more detailed idea of how this might be acheived, which i'll post when it's finished.