The narritive this morning in the UK media has shifted to blaming Chinese intransigence and lauding the heroic efforts of Ed Milliband, but all this misses the point.
The force that prevented real action wasn't one country against another, it was an idea - the idea that economic growth is the only thing that matters and must at all costs be allowed to continue. This idea is present in the thinking of almost all of the 'leaders' at Copenhagen although it expressed itself in different ways - The US wants to to continue their growth that has been going on for a century or two, China has just got a taste of it and wants more and many developing countries have looked on longingly and want their chance to sup this magical elixir.
But the truth is that none of these countries can have what they want. Any solution must first recognise this and then decide how to distribute the kind of opportunities that we can sustain.
my idea to stop climate change - stop trying to
My assesment is that any direct attempts to tackle climate change will fail, whether its councils, governments, companies or even movements such as Transition Towns and ClimateCamp. so instead i'm arguing that we don't do this at all. Instead we try to totally re-build society from the bottom up, creating happy, healthy human scale communities that almost as a by product don't cause climate change and are resilient to the climate change that does happen.
lets solve the 'democracy problem' and the 'climate problem' will be a piece of (vegan) cake.
lets solve the 'democracy problem' and the 'climate problem' will be a piece of (vegan) cake.
open cast, closed minds and a (small) victory - Climate Camps in Scotland and Wales
I am writing this from inside a police cell in Mertyr Tydfil, South wales. Most people know Merthyr because everytime there's a news story about people being 'on the sick' they come here because it has the highest rate of people on incapacity benefit in the UK. I always thought this was due to resourceful job centre employees reacting to the complete lack of jobs in the area by shifting people off the official count as officially unemployed, but now i'm not so sure. The reason for my doubt is that Merthyr is also the site on one of the largest open cast coal mines in Europe, in fact to call Fos-Y_Fran and other similar projects 'mines' is misleading - it's a huge, black moonscape crater in which machines the size of a house relentlessly gouge out coal. Open casting is 'mining on the cheap', after the closure of deep mines in the 80s and 90s coal companies exploited the desperation for jobs in coal areas to build these mines even though they employ very few people, and even fewer of those are locals (most are contractors that follow the work as mines open, extract and close). They may be cheap to run but the cost to the locals is massive - a document from climate camp scotland bringing together stats on the health effects of open casting shows that asthma, COPD and cancers all show a significant increase, plus the disturbances from noise of machinery and vehicles transporting the coal. And this is without even considering coal's contribution to climate change.
It's clear then that coal causes misery and death, it's also clear that the governments of the UK, wales and scotland and energy companies want to make things worse. that is why the first climate camps in wales and scotland targetted open cast mines: the existing Fos y fran in Merthyr and the proposed mine in Mainshill South Lanarkshire where there are already a number of open cast sites. Mainshill is owned by Lord Home - the 'queen's banker' and a 'comedy toff' is ever there was one. During the scottish camp people invaded his lawn to play frisbee, and dumped coal at the offices of South Lanarkshire council. I went to to put some questions from the residents of the town of Douglas to their Councillor - one of the leading movers in the expnasion of open casting in the area since the mid 90s - Daniel Meikle. Meikle made his money from a building firm and when he became a councillor in 1996 was almost immediatley given the job of chair of the planning committee - an almost unbelievble case of putting the fox in charge of the chickens, even with the fig leaf of signing control of the business to his wife and son. Since then he's left his post on the planning committee but Meikle construction has still benefitted from a close relationship with Scottish Coal, meanwhile athough he has avoided sanction on conflicts of interest in a number of standards board enquiries he wasn't so lucky when he was convicted of racially abusing one of his contituents (he referred to a welsh born constituent as 'boyo' amongst a large number of expletives when he was questioned about open cast mining. This kind of attitude to democracy has lead to a real raritiy, so disgusted were the residents of the area that they elected a Tory MP! So you can understand why the locals had a few questions for Cllr Meikle and his family, who live in a 3 house 'compound' on the edge of the village of Coalburn (yes, really). 3 of us outsiders decided that, given his attitude to his constituents we might have more luck. Unfortunately we did not. seconds after answering the door and without even an attempt to listen, the councillor's son Daniel junior was verbally abusing us at the top of his voice, soon after he was joined by others, both male and female and including the councillor doing the same. They pushed us back and tried to grab our cameras, eventually forcing us out on to the road and throwing one of the cameras into the field opposite. When we recovered from the shock we regrouped, cleaned the cuts and grazes and waited for a bus, disappointed that we hadn't been able to get any answers, shocked by the reaction to questions from an elected representative but satisfied that at least he knew people were scrutinising him. We called the police and they arrived, asked us a few questions, then they went to speak to the Meikles, we heard one of them shout that the police officer was 'his mate' but thought nothing of it untill the officer returned and informed us that we were being detained on suspicion of a breach of the peace. This eventually lead to a charge and a night in the cells. Did any of the familly get arrested for their part in this fracas, what do you think? The whole thing seemed like some surreal western - a few strangers enter town, annoy the local big wig, he has a word with the sheriff, who locks them up before escorting them out of town the next day.
the Scotland camp had it's own unqiue character, partly due to the facrt that there is a permanent camp at mainshill which despite only being there for 6 weeks was already well established with some formidable defences, as indeed had the wales camp (scotland was very much focussed on the action that people wanted to take whereas wales had more kids and families and an incredibly impressive selection of workshops, especially on the educational philosophical side of thing). But both also had all of he things that make climate camps such an inspiring and empowering community. Climate Camp really is the most overtly positive social movement that I can think of. Yes, a fundamental element is discrete events of direct action to prevent runaway climate change, but for me the most important action we're taking is happening all the time - we are building a movement that is a glimpse of a democratic, healthy, sustainable and happy society and it's growing all the time.
In doing this I suppose it's inevitable that there'll be some friction with elements of existing society, and most obviously the police, especially when they are doing what they see as protecting 'legitimate business activities' but we, and many others, see as profit driven, short term industries that benefit only a tiny minority and are pushing us towards the point when we start to lose even the tiny gains human civilisation has managed so far. And it's not just us - NASA scentists, the women's institute, the UN... the list is endless which makes the reaction of the police here in the UK all the more puzzling.
The reason I am still in the cell in here in Merthyr much longer than is usual for being suspected of breaching an obscure restriction on public processions (so obscure that the custody sergeant had never heard of it before) is that the police tried to put a condition on my bail that I "do not attend any climate camps in the UK" I refused to accept this grossly unfair restriction from attending a peaceful week of education , skill sharing, meetings and planning how we can act to prevent catastrophic climate change. This is the first time such explicit terms have been used, but by no means the first time that bail conditions have been used to prevent people engaging in similar activity. last year the DRAX 29 were were de facto banned from the climate camp at Kingsnorth, I myself was similarly barred from the April 1st 'climate camp in the city' in bishopsgate during he g20, although the custody sergeant was adamant that the terms weren't designed to prevent me attending the camp, even though that was clearly its aim and outcome. Police have also taken steps to prevent legitimate protest by arresting 114 people in Nottingham claiming they were intending to do something at a local power station. Some will argue that the police should be engaging in prevention of crime, and on the whole you can see this point, but protest and even illegal direct action should be exempt from this, after all, police have more than enough powers to deal with things when they do happen, people engaging in DA generally allow themselves to be apprehended and it should be a universal right to take proportionate action to prevent disasterous activities. In fact it's worth remembering that the law NEVER says that you can't do something, simply that if you do the authorities reserve the right to enforce sanctions.
There are other sinister elements at work - from the visible - photographing, searching using dogs to intimidate peaceful protesters (and not just intimidate, I have a painfull series of bites on my arm which attest to the lengths individual officers feel they can go to to protect our targets - but also interesting because there was a police videographer there for the whole incident, but he failed to capture the moment when the dog handler lost his temper, shouted at me to 'fuck off' and then attacked me with the dog) to the clandestine - Strathclyde police offering cash for iformation (they're still at it even though it was exposed earlier this year - we each received a visit while waiting or court last week at Lanark) and a shadowy group set up by ACPO called the National extremism and terrorism coordination unit (NETCU) is getting heavily involved in the policing of protest - when i was arrrested following my dog bite the arresting officer was given a booklet or form with the NETCU logo clealry visible on it's front. I'm not sure exactly what it was - perhaps a kind of 'know your enemy' type thing to help this poor unsuspecting bobby deal with this dangerous domestic extremist, or perhaps just a series of questions NETCU wanted him to subtley slip inbetween small talk about the weather. Whatever it was it's this deep hostility that's the reason I am forcing down an almost inedible 'vegetable chilli' having been in this cell for about 28 hours, with at least another 12 to go.
UPDATE
Three magistrates at Merthyr court saw sense and released me on unconditional bail, the prosecutors didn't even have the sense to schedule a court date during the camp. A combination of fair minded judging and stupidity which along with a bit of determination and a growing movement mean that we can win, and the dog bites are healing nicely thank you, see you in London on the 26th
It's clear then that coal causes misery and death, it's also clear that the governments of the UK, wales and scotland and energy companies want to make things worse. that is why the first climate camps in wales and scotland targetted open cast mines: the existing Fos y fran in Merthyr and the proposed mine in Mainshill South Lanarkshire where there are already a number of open cast sites. Mainshill is owned by Lord Home - the 'queen's banker' and a 'comedy toff' is ever there was one. During the scottish camp people invaded his lawn to play frisbee, and dumped coal at the offices of South Lanarkshire council. I went to to put some questions from the residents of the town of Douglas to their Councillor - one of the leading movers in the expnasion of open casting in the area since the mid 90s - Daniel Meikle. Meikle made his money from a building firm and when he became a councillor in 1996 was almost immediatley given the job of chair of the planning committee - an almost unbelievble case of putting the fox in charge of the chickens, even with the fig leaf of signing control of the business to his wife and son. Since then he's left his post on the planning committee but Meikle construction has still benefitted from a close relationship with Scottish Coal, meanwhile athough he has avoided sanction on conflicts of interest in a number of standards board enquiries he wasn't so lucky when he was convicted of racially abusing one of his contituents (he referred to a welsh born constituent as 'boyo' amongst a large number of expletives when he was questioned about open cast mining. This kind of attitude to democracy has lead to a real raritiy, so disgusted were the residents of the area that they elected a Tory MP! So you can understand why the locals had a few questions for Cllr Meikle and his family, who live in a 3 house 'compound' on the edge of the village of Coalburn (yes, really). 3 of us outsiders decided that, given his attitude to his constituents we might have more luck. Unfortunately we did not. seconds after answering the door and without even an attempt to listen, the councillor's son Daniel junior was verbally abusing us at the top of his voice, soon after he was joined by others, both male and female and including the councillor doing the same. They pushed us back and tried to grab our cameras, eventually forcing us out on to the road and throwing one of the cameras into the field opposite. When we recovered from the shock we regrouped, cleaned the cuts and grazes and waited for a bus, disappointed that we hadn't been able to get any answers, shocked by the reaction to questions from an elected representative but satisfied that at least he knew people were scrutinising him. We called the police and they arrived, asked us a few questions, then they went to speak to the Meikles, we heard one of them shout that the police officer was 'his mate' but thought nothing of it untill the officer returned and informed us that we were being detained on suspicion of a breach of the peace. This eventually lead to a charge and a night in the cells. Did any of the familly get arrested for their part in this fracas, what do you think? The whole thing seemed like some surreal western - a few strangers enter town, annoy the local big wig, he has a word with the sheriff, who locks them up before escorting them out of town the next day.
the Scotland camp had it's own unqiue character, partly due to the facrt that there is a permanent camp at mainshill which despite only being there for 6 weeks was already well established with some formidable defences, as indeed had the wales camp (scotland was very much focussed on the action that people wanted to take whereas wales had more kids and families and an incredibly impressive selection of workshops, especially on the educational philosophical side of thing). But both also had all of he things that make climate camps such an inspiring and empowering community. Climate Camp really is the most overtly positive social movement that I can think of. Yes, a fundamental element is discrete events of direct action to prevent runaway climate change, but for me the most important action we're taking is happening all the time - we are building a movement that is a glimpse of a democratic, healthy, sustainable and happy society and it's growing all the time.
In doing this I suppose it's inevitable that there'll be some friction with elements of existing society, and most obviously the police, especially when they are doing what they see as protecting 'legitimate business activities' but we, and many others, see as profit driven, short term industries that benefit only a tiny minority and are pushing us towards the point when we start to lose even the tiny gains human civilisation has managed so far. And it's not just us - NASA scentists, the women's institute, the UN... the list is endless which makes the reaction of the police here in the UK all the more puzzling.
The reason I am still in the cell in here in Merthyr much longer than is usual for being suspected of breaching an obscure restriction on public processions (so obscure that the custody sergeant had never heard of it before) is that the police tried to put a condition on my bail that I "do not attend any climate camps in the UK" I refused to accept this grossly unfair restriction from attending a peaceful week of education , skill sharing, meetings and planning how we can act to prevent catastrophic climate change. This is the first time such explicit terms have been used, but by no means the first time that bail conditions have been used to prevent people engaging in similar activity. last year the DRAX 29 were were de facto banned from the climate camp at Kingsnorth, I myself was similarly barred from the April 1st 'climate camp in the city' in bishopsgate during he g20, although the custody sergeant was adamant that the terms weren't designed to prevent me attending the camp, even though that was clearly its aim and outcome. Police have also taken steps to prevent legitimate protest by arresting 114 people in Nottingham claiming they were intending to do something at a local power station. Some will argue that the police should be engaging in prevention of crime, and on the whole you can see this point, but protest and even illegal direct action should be exempt from this, after all, police have more than enough powers to deal with things when they do happen, people engaging in DA generally allow themselves to be apprehended and it should be a universal right to take proportionate action to prevent disasterous activities. In fact it's worth remembering that the law NEVER says that you can't do something, simply that if you do the authorities reserve the right to enforce sanctions.
There are other sinister elements at work - from the visible - photographing, searching using dogs to intimidate peaceful protesters (and not just intimidate, I have a painfull series of bites on my arm which attest to the lengths individual officers feel they can go to to protect our targets - but also interesting because there was a police videographer there for the whole incident, but he failed to capture the moment when the dog handler lost his temper, shouted at me to 'fuck off' and then attacked me with the dog) to the clandestine - Strathclyde police offering cash for iformation (they're still at it even though it was exposed earlier this year - we each received a visit while waiting or court last week at Lanark) and a shadowy group set up by ACPO called the National extremism and terrorism coordination unit (NETCU) is getting heavily involved in the policing of protest - when i was arrrested following my dog bite the arresting officer was given a booklet or form with the NETCU logo clealry visible on it's front. I'm not sure exactly what it was - perhaps a kind of 'know your enemy' type thing to help this poor unsuspecting bobby deal with this dangerous domestic extremist, or perhaps just a series of questions NETCU wanted him to subtley slip inbetween small talk about the weather. Whatever it was it's this deep hostility that's the reason I am forcing down an almost inedible 'vegetable chilli' having been in this cell for about 28 hours, with at least another 12 to go.
UPDATE
Three magistrates at Merthyr court saw sense and released me on unconditional bail, the prosecutors didn't even have the sense to schedule a court date during the camp. A combination of fair minded judging and stupidity which along with a bit of determination and a growing movement mean that we can win, and the dog bites are healing nicely thank you, see you in London on the 26th
after the tipping point...
...will be the age of the hare brained geo engineering project. there are many corporations out there who are laying low until we pass the tipping point, then they'll pop out of the woodwork asking for billions to stop the inevitable catastrophe - and they'll get them. There'll be a few decades of the this period - between being committed to runaway climate change and actually passing the tipping point. we need to think now what we're going to say about this, pick and choose which schemes we like or resist this appraoch completely and demand we spend all the money on development and adaptation. of course we need to contine to argue to keep pushing renewables and low carbon options in order to slow down the inevitable, but we still need to decide if can we tolerate the kind of geo engineering schemes that will be proposed?
who are Greenpeace
i've heard a few grumblings around about Greenpeace not doing enough actions, i thought i'd wait until that had been comprehensively disproved (as it has been in the last few weeks here and here) before responding on the the general point of where i see Greenpeace fitting in.
when i first joined GP i was slightly surprised by how keen they were to be seen as respectable and respected policy thinkers, but it quickly became cear to me that years of hard work and detailed knowedge meant that that position was inevitable. There was still some way to go with getting the media and public to catch up (certain sections of the media were still cautious and much of the public still think it's all ships and whales) but the process was in it's final phase.
Then, after conversations with one or 2 staff and volunteers i wondered whether GP should be aspiring to be a mere 'think-tank' - it was more than that, and uniquely for such a large international NGO was about taking action rather than lobbying. If anything it should be going back to it's roots of concentrating on actions and allowing the others to do all the political, lobbying policy type stuff.
However, I now realise that this mis reads Greenpeace's historical and contemporary role. Greenpeace has always been first and foremost an organisation that puts pressure on the bad guys to do the right thing - in essence lobbying them, except it uses a lobbying tool that others don't - actions that are always highly visible and sometimes also act directly on the problem.
So, GP is not a direct action movement, it (almost) never has been - except perhaps the very first activities stopping nuclear tests, after those very quickly the action became simply a tool, albeit an important one.
GP is also not a 'movement' it is a really quite small organisation that has loads of supporters. This is one of it's strengths, it keeps it focussed and says 'we do what we do, if you agree support us, if not then don't'. movements involve everyone and are open and have certain strengths through that, but GP (in the the UK at least) is really no more than 20-30 people, giving it a huge amount of strategic integrity. This kind of centralisation isn't for everyone, but many people who support GP are also members of 'movements' as well, they support GP because it works bloody well at what it does, the mistake, made by the author of the link at the top, is to mis interpret what it does.
when i first joined GP i was slightly surprised by how keen they were to be seen as respectable and respected policy thinkers, but it quickly became cear to me that years of hard work and detailed knowedge meant that that position was inevitable. There was still some way to go with getting the media and public to catch up (certain sections of the media were still cautious and much of the public still think it's all ships and whales) but the process was in it's final phase.
Then, after conversations with one or 2 staff and volunteers i wondered whether GP should be aspiring to be a mere 'think-tank' - it was more than that, and uniquely for such a large international NGO was about taking action rather than lobbying. If anything it should be going back to it's roots of concentrating on actions and allowing the others to do all the political, lobbying policy type stuff.
However, I now realise that this mis reads Greenpeace's historical and contemporary role. Greenpeace has always been first and foremost an organisation that puts pressure on the bad guys to do the right thing - in essence lobbying them, except it uses a lobbying tool that others don't - actions that are always highly visible and sometimes also act directly on the problem.
So, GP is not a direct action movement, it (almost) never has been - except perhaps the very first activities stopping nuclear tests, after those very quickly the action became simply a tool, albeit an important one.
GP is also not a 'movement' it is a really quite small organisation that has loads of supporters. This is one of it's strengths, it keeps it focussed and says 'we do what we do, if you agree support us, if not then don't'. movements involve everyone and are open and have certain strengths through that, but GP (in the the UK at least) is really no more than 20-30 people, giving it a huge amount of strategic integrity. This kind of centralisation isn't for everyone, but many people who support GP are also members of 'movements' as well, they support GP because it works bloody well at what it does, the mistake, made by the author of the link at the top, is to mis interpret what it does.
what's the best way to start the process?
let's say that democratic communities are 100-150 people and that that they could possibly federate together through a 'spokes' system of 50-100.
what's the best way to start the process?
i think one good approach is to split up into areas of about 15,000 (borough wards are about this size) and find a group of people who are interested in starting out, then over time try to find people in each of the 100 or so communities and gradually build the capacity of what will eventually make these the sovereign communities. This approach gives a context for activists and residents that may live close by, but not live in the same street or block to make a start, they will be able to engage people from the whole community and then help to build core communities when numbers start to grow.
maybe we should aim to start by identifying and supporting a small group of ward size areas with a good concentration of interested people / campaigns / resources?
obviously this is all for discussion at the first meeting, but these are just a few thoughts
--
what's the best way to start the process?
i think one good approach is to split up into areas of about 15,000 (borough wards are about this size) and find a group of people who are interested in starting out, then over time try to find people in each of the 100 or so communities and gradually build the capacity of what will eventually make these the sovereign communities. This approach gives a context for activists and residents that may live close by, but not live in the same street or block to make a start, they will be able to engage people from the whole community and then help to build core communities when numbers start to grow.
maybe we should aim to start by identifying and supporting a small group of ward size areas with a good concentration of interested people / campaigns / resources?
obviously this is all for discussion at the first meeting, but these are just a few thoughts
--
why previous attempts at communes or intentional communities fail / succeed
answer to one of the questions and problems in bringing about real democracy
http://wordgravity.blogspot.com/2007/09/beyond-intentional-community-conscious.html
i believe that this is quite important - so much is put into building perfection, but this is unattainable and anyway - a group of people each of whom almost certainly have a slightly different view of what perfection is, which will change over time, means that these communities are brittle. communities that are diverse to start with and focus on pragmatic needs first are more more likely to thrive and last.
"One of the sticking points i had with intentional community was a sense that at its very core, it was all about control. If you just get the right people, the right place, the right leadership, the right processes, the right economy, and so on, you can have the nirvana-esque community experience of your dreams. Those folks who failed, well, they just made mistakes in judgement--poor planning--bad personality mix...you've heard it. I propose that the reason most intentional communities fail, is that the meaning of intentional, implies at its deepest (unconscious) level the belief in control. And anybody who has taken a look at living ecologies of relationship can see that they are complex systems whose order emerges organically out of chaotic conditions always present at some level. It is the confusion of harmony with changeless bliss. Harmony is NOT static. It is the dynamic tension within healthy ecologies of relationship."
http://wordgravity.blogspot.com/2007/09/beyond-intentional-community-conscious.html
i believe that this is quite important - so much is put into building perfection, but this is unattainable and anyway - a group of people each of whom almost certainly have a slightly different view of what perfection is, which will change over time, means that these communities are brittle. communities that are diverse to start with and focus on pragmatic needs first are more more likely to thrive and last.
20(ish) questions and problems in bringing about real democracy
- why previous attempts at communes or intentional communities fail / succeed
- how do we make real democracy something useful to groups working on local campaigns
- how do we move from democratic single issue campaigns where everyone essentially agrees, to geographically based democratic communities (DCs).
- should DCs be geographically based at all, what are the alternatives
- what size should DCs be
- how can DCs claim legitimacy when only a small proportion of people in an area are involved
- what can DCs do to try and be representative of people that are not yet involved
- how do DCs encourage people to get involved.
- how do DCs interact with existing structures (especially those that call themselves 'democratic')
- what can DCs actually do for their members and wider society rather than being talking shops
- how can we answer the critics who see small communities as backward looking, tribal, inefficient etc
- wont people be spending their whole life doing meetings and administration - leaving no time for productive work?
- should DCs aim for complete self sufficiency
- how do we prevent DCs coming into conflict with neighbouring communities
- what structures can we build to help democratic communities work together, without these larger scale structures becoming like current hierachies
- when we have truly DCs what's to stop them doing the things we criticise current states for (aggression, repression etc)
- who is a member of a community - residents, visitors, family/friends of residents - what rights should they have (IE should visitiors be welcome but denied the right to block) how do we define that?
- do all members have instant involvement (should people who move in have equal rights straight away, can new born babies block motions !?)
- how should DCs deal with dissent - should they exclude people (from processes or in extreme cases completely exile them) what alternatives might there be to this
- should decisions be binding
- how can people be 'accountable'
- how should communities deal with immigration, when more people might impede or eventually prevent consensus decision making)
- should democratic communities allow themselves to divide / combine - (surely combining could lead to building state or large corporation type structures)
local sovereignty developing into a campaign idea
after exchanging a few emails, the local sovereignty idea is starting to take shape into an actual, practical campaign idea.
name ideas -
campaign for local consensus government
campaign for real democracy
consensus works
twin track approach
1) giving people involved in local campaigns (who are almost certainly being frustrated by what passes for 'democracy') both a tool to help with their campaign and a broader goal that could stop the kind of things they're campaigning against happening again.
2) giving people who have seen true democracy working (such as climate camp) a mechanism for spreading it
and bringing these 2 groups together
firstly with a questionnaire / mapping project of campaigns in london
communicating with people with a general desire to achieve real democracy (anarchists and others that might have experienced consesnsus decision making at places like climate camp)
then a meeting / conference entitled something like 'from single issue campaigns to real democracy'
name ideas -
campaign for local consensus government
campaign for real democracy
consensus works
twin track approach
1) giving people involved in local campaigns (who are almost certainly being frustrated by what passes for 'democracy') both a tool to help with their campaign and a broader goal that could stop the kind of things they're campaigning against happening again.
2) giving people who have seen true democracy working (such as climate camp) a mechanism for spreading it
and bringing these 2 groups together
firstly with a questionnaire / mapping project of campaigns in london
communicating with people with a general desire to achieve real democracy (anarchists and others that might have experienced consesnsus decision making at places like climate camp)
then a meeting / conference entitled something like 'from single issue campaigns to real democracy'
what we need is much much more bureaucracy
as usual the talk around the budget includes promises of 'cutting back on government waste' and 'slashing bureaucracy' from all sides and to a point i agree - most of the current bureaucracy is a waste, but that's because there isn't enough of it.
The problem is the level it rests at - a nation of 60 million or borough of 100,000 with very little power means that any administration is either totally separated from the needs of real people or totally without influence. what people need is a bureaucracy they can see working and really be involved in that takes real decisions. Then people won't mind how big it is, because it'll be working for them and nobody minds working to make their own life / community better. If 'government' was done at this level (no more than a few thousand people and with real power equivalent to those currently held at the level of the state) then everyone would constantly be arguing and discussing 'politics' and 'governance' and 'budgets' only we probably wouldn't call them that - we'd probably just call it 'life' and 'community', and all the things that are part of that.
The problem is the level it rests at - a nation of 60 million or borough of 100,000 with very little power means that any administration is either totally separated from the needs of real people or totally without influence. what people need is a bureaucracy they can see working and really be involved in that takes real decisions. Then people won't mind how big it is, because it'll be working for them and nobody minds working to make their own life / community better. If 'government' was done at this level (no more than a few thousand people and with real power equivalent to those currently held at the level of the state) then everyone would constantly be arguing and discussing 'politics' and 'governance' and 'budgets' only we probably wouldn't call them that - we'd probably just call it 'life' and 'community', and all the things that are part of that.
are police the law or do they uphold it?
today i was convicted of obstructing a police officer that i was trying to walk around, as he followed me to push me back with his shield. i think most people would accept that i was being obstructed by him. the difference comes when you realise that i was walking towards a power station which apparently makes it alright. he said the police had established a 'sterile cordon' which people weren't allowed into but couldn't say which law had been used to establish this - the reason - there was none. police think they are in a war film 'take your men and set up a perimeter over there' they are ordered 'and don't let anybody through' and off they go and do it. the law doesn't matter, they are the law so whatever they want to do is ok. when i arrive i'm told to stop, in court he said 'most people stop when i ask them, they don't need to ask what my legal basis is for doing this' maybe they should? he admitted he had no idea what law he was using or even who's decision it was that people weren't allowed in to that area. but he was happy to repeatedly push me with his shield and eventually wrestle me to the ground and pin me down with his hand around my throat. this is the tactic that forms the basis of kettling - restricting people arbitrarily just because they are police and we are not, deciding what people can do without telling them or referring to the law.
response to Will hutton ' The environment is too important to be left to the green movement'
Read Hutton's piece here
Hutton rightly identifies problems with the prince of wales and 'small conservation' greens, but he makes the mistake of including everyone else working to tackle climate change as just another wing of the 'the green movement'. it's clear by his use of this phrase that he doesn't know who or what he's talking about. He is hopelessly out of date. in the last 5 years a huge coalition movement has come together to demand global justice, only focussing on climate change for the pragmatic reason that it is the largest and most immediate threat to humans. The term 'environmentalists' hardly even scratches the surface.
He's also right about the film 'the age of stupid' that is a film that should have been released years ago and is now as out of date as Hutton. That kind of scare motivating of waving sea level graphs and expecting people to take action is in the past. Those that haven't been scared into action by now are never going to listen to this. This is mostly because at the same time people were told 'but all we have to do is change a few lightbulbs, do our recycling and build a few wind turbines' and it just didn't add up. Instinctively they knew that either it wasn't that bad or, if it was, this wasn't a solution - either way they were being lied to and, quite reasonably, preferred to continue with what they were doing.
The lack of action on climate change is because we haven't actually asked for it. I'm convinced that if we're straight with people about the threat, the big changes needed and the massive opportunities to make a better world at the same time we'll see a huge change, and even if we don't it'll be forced on us soon enough by the end of cheap energy.
The real activity is now to offer everyone a reasonably smooth transtion to completely new society that has to come anyway, while a few people do what they can to prepare for it to happen as painlessly as possible when we are ineviatably forced to.
on a similar note monbiot on plastic bags
Hutton rightly identifies problems with the prince of wales and 'small conservation' greens, but he makes the mistake of including everyone else working to tackle climate change as just another wing of the 'the green movement'. it's clear by his use of this phrase that he doesn't know who or what he's talking about. He is hopelessly out of date. in the last 5 years a huge coalition movement has come together to demand global justice, only focussing on climate change for the pragmatic reason that it is the largest and most immediate threat to humans. The term 'environmentalists' hardly even scratches the surface.
He's also right about the film 'the age of stupid' that is a film that should have been released years ago and is now as out of date as Hutton. That kind of scare motivating of waving sea level graphs and expecting people to take action is in the past. Those that haven't been scared into action by now are never going to listen to this. This is mostly because at the same time people were told 'but all we have to do is change a few lightbulbs, do our recycling and build a few wind turbines' and it just didn't add up. Instinctively they knew that either it wasn't that bad or, if it was, this wasn't a solution - either way they were being lied to and, quite reasonably, preferred to continue with what they were doing.
The lack of action on climate change is because we haven't actually asked for it. I'm convinced that if we're straight with people about the threat, the big changes needed and the massive opportunities to make a better world at the same time we'll see a huge change, and even if we don't it'll be forced on us soon enough by the end of cheap energy.
The real activity is now to offer everyone a reasonably smooth transtion to completely new society that has to come anyway, while a few people do what they can to prepare for it to happen as painlessly as possible when we are ineviatably forced to.
on a similar note monbiot on plastic bags
police commit hate crimes against protesters
if you were assaulted by police on April1st - why not report it as a hate crime?
" I was verbally abused and physically attacked by members of a large, angry group of armed, masked (mostly) men simply because I was part of a different group. "
http://www.met.police.uk/communities_together/docs/reporting_crime.pdf
report it online here
http://www.met.police.uk/reporting_crime/index.htm
" I was verbally abused and physically attacked by members of a large, angry group of armed, masked (mostly) men simply because I was part of a different group. "
http://www.met.police.uk/communities_together/docs/reporting_crime.pdf
report it online here
http://www.met.police.uk/reporting_crime/index.htm
policing protests - routine disdain, impatience and a welcome opportunity for violence without consequence
The release of video showing that Ian Tomlinson was assaulted shortly before he died on April 1st is not at all surprising. The routine aggression, nastiness and assault by almost all officers when policing protests makes it almost certain that anyone on the streets that day would receive such treatment.
Very few of these officers are 'riot cops' these are almost all 'ordinary coppers' who seem to be given some kind of switch that they gladly throw when facing 'protesters' rather than 'real people' that allows this constant disdain and regular assault, even when not actually trying to move people on. It's political policing at the most petty and routine level.
Add to this that those giving the orders clearly have no patience for peaceful protest - at around 7pm on that day they gave the order to violently move the climate camp that had been not just peaceful, but positively carnivalesque. I'm sure these commanders spend loads of time playing 'war games' of violent public order situations facing other coppers dressed up in black hoodies & masks (I bet that's one job where they don't struggle for volunteers) but very little time facing peaceful protesters - after all, where's the fun in that? They must have been so excited in the run-up to April 1st of a chance to try out tactics and scenarios learned at Hendon with impunity and so disappointed with what actually faced them on he day.
In the police it seems that protests are taken as a safe opportunity for junior officers to indulge a, mostly repressed, desire for violence and conflict and senior officers to practice para-military tactics - a dangerous cocktail
Very few of these officers are 'riot cops' these are almost all 'ordinary coppers' who seem to be given some kind of switch that they gladly throw when facing 'protesters' rather than 'real people' that allows this constant disdain and regular assault, even when not actually trying to move people on. It's political policing at the most petty and routine level.
Add to this that those giving the orders clearly have no patience for peaceful protest - at around 7pm on that day they gave the order to violently move the climate camp that had been not just peaceful, but positively carnivalesque. I'm sure these commanders spend loads of time playing 'war games' of violent public order situations facing other coppers dressed up in black hoodies & masks (I bet that's one job where they don't struggle for volunteers) but very little time facing peaceful protesters - after all, where's the fun in that? They must have been so excited in the run-up to April 1st of a chance to try out tactics and scenarios learned at Hendon with impunity and so disappointed with what actually faced them on he day.
In the police it seems that protests are taken as a safe opportunity for junior officers to indulge a, mostly repressed, desire for violence and conflict and senior officers to practice para-military tactics - a dangerous cocktail
I think i've come to terms with using anger at police over-reaction as a motivating factor to build the movement. It's not ideal, i'd prefer it if people were motivated by the urgency of the issues to take direct action. However I think this is actually quite a large jump from 'normal' conciousness. I think a general feeling of disobedience from dissatisfaction with the actions of the state and corporations is a good intermediate stage, and to discover that the police aren't dixon of dock green must surely be something that can help with that move.
It's our responsibility to have the real issues available in digestable form for these people so they can decide where they might best put their efforts after the initial rage has died down.
It's our responsibility to have the real issues available in digestable form for these people so they can decide where they might best put their efforts after the initial rage has died down.
I haven't written a blog post for at least 2 months, this is good news because it means i've been ACTUALLY DOING STUFF. Mostly helping to organise climate camp in the city of london which was absolutely brilliant. But I have missed thinking / writing etc a bit, so i'm going to get back into updating regularly AND making little video blog entries as i've decided that video is a much better way to do this kind of thing.
I've joined a group working on Local Sovereignty, which is a fancy way of saying communities taking power and responsibility for themselves. In my opinion this is absolutely crucial to being able to avoid runaway climate change and build communities that are resilient, but also, i believe it's the bedrock of a better society - one that is human friendly and flexible enough to respond to the real and individual needs of people.
Anyway, here are a few of the ideas i scribbled after the meeting
Anyway, here are a few of the ideas i scribbled after the meeting
- sovereignty should rest at many levels, but primary sovereignty should rest at whatever level allows optimum balance between individual sovereignty and community involvement.
- this optimum level will be the level at which consensus decision making works best.
- consensus might work among 10,000 people of similar mind, but not among 10 people who fundamentally disagree so the size of a local community depends on the people in it.
- this might tend communities to move towards ghettoisation – people living only with ‘people like them’, however, shared larger scale institutions and networks (especially online networks), interdependence of communities and a constant flow of people between communities to another should be. I also believe that the differences between people in our current society will fade when people are free and able to express their power.
- we should think about structures and arrangements that might help these communities to thrive, but NOT prescribe a blueprint of how we believe these should look – the only people who can do this are the members of each community themselves.
- we should focus on practical, small scale, bottom-up steps that communities can take to move towards local sovereignty.
- these steps fall into 2 categories a) taking power from institutions that already have power (council, government, corporations, landowners) b) making new power (communities setting up and running schemes themselves)
- we should actually DO these things – people interested should come together in a community and start working on it.
idea for what people could actually DO at copenhagen
the real danger is the that hordes of lobbyists and government who want an ineffectual, but profitable carbon trading system get their way.
actions should target these 'bad guys' in copenahgen - (and back in their home countries) stop them from getting off their planes, out of their hotels, into the conference centre, holding meetings or doing anything! whilst at the same time demanding the rest of the delegates 'don't trade away our future'
despite my overall negativity about the whole UNFCCC process i still think that a good copenhagen with scientifically based mandatory caps and no trading would be a hugely helpful framework for people to force governments and corporations to act responsibly, but that if they don't manage it now they probably never will.
I just don't care if people care
I've just come accross a few files on my computer from the autumn of 2007 where i was thinking about where we were in the climate change communication issue. They're full of ideas about how we persuade people about the need for action, how we enthuse and engage people who are just on the edge of caring about climate change.
How different things are now
I just don't care if people care, we don't have the need or the time to persuade people who need persuading. And the action we need is just so much bigger than what i was thinking of back then ('back then' - it was only 16 months ago, but things really have changed!). But also i am much more optimistic than i was then, ok so we're quite a lot closer to the tipping point but the big economic story has broken the whole thing wide open. In terms of communication the only thing I'm concerned with is cementing the idea of the triple crunch of which the first part is only just beginning to bite, and that if we react in the right way to this we can avoid the worst of all of them. I no longer even think about climate change really (although I know it's the most frightening of the 3 'crunches' by a massive distance) because people are totally focussed on the economic story and possible solutions to that and, as a happy coincidence, the timescales to solve that crisis are just about right to solve the real crisis (rather than the timescales people were folowing on climate change - as if we've got decades) the recession may or may not directly reduce emissions (i tend to to think it wont - in a growth oriented economy businesses don't just accept recession meekly, they fight to reduce every cost and that mean more pollution) but if we can channel the global focus on one issue and clamour for action in the right way, we might just have a chance.
I've just come accross a few files on my computer from the autumn of 2007 where i was thinking about where we were in the climate change communication issue. They're full of ideas about how we persuade people about the need for action, how we enthuse and engage people who are just on the edge of caring about climate change.
How different things are now
I just don't care if people care, we don't have the need or the time to persuade people who need persuading. And the action we need is just so much bigger than what i was thinking of back then ('back then' - it was only 16 months ago, but things really have changed!). But also i am much more optimistic than i was then, ok so we're quite a lot closer to the tipping point but the big economic story has broken the whole thing wide open. In terms of communication the only thing I'm concerned with is cementing the idea of the triple crunch of which the first part is only just beginning to bite, and that if we react in the right way to this we can avoid the worst of all of them. I no longer even think about climate change really (although I know it's the most frightening of the 3 'crunches' by a massive distance) because people are totally focussed on the economic story and possible solutions to that and, as a happy coincidence, the timescales to solve that crisis are just about right to solve the real crisis (rather than the timescales people were folowing on climate change - as if we've got decades) the recession may or may not directly reduce emissions (i tend to to think it wont - in a growth oriented economy businesses don't just accept recession meekly, they fight to reduce every cost and that mean more pollution) but if we can channel the global focus on one issue and clamour for action in the right way, we might just have a chance.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)