Cºlevel

Climate Camp, where next?

2011-06-02T04:31:00.000-07:00

This weekend the Climate Camp where next? discussion moves on to Grow Heathrow.

I'm not involved in CC right now partly because I came to believe that the best way to stop climate change is not actually in tackling fossil fuels and emissions directly but by moving to a more just and democratic society and so that's what i'm working on. Largely inspired by the non hierarchical organisational genius of people i met in Climate Camp i'm trying to create some real grassroots democracy where I live, with the hope that this virus can spread. However, this weekend I will be attending the 'space for change' meeting with a question in mind - What is Climate Camp really? and what should it be in the next few years.

To my mind CC is the latest incarnation of a particular strand of anti capitalist, non hierarchical, very well organised, media savvy and pragmatic grassroots direct action movement with its origins in the Anti Criminal Justice Act and then Reclaim the Streets era.

Since then it's areas of focus and tactics of choice have been varied and shifting from CJA, Road protests camps, street parties, car culture, GM, Arms fairs, war on Iraq, transport policy, summit hopping, international bodies (WTO,G8,IMF) then in 2006 it shifted again to climate change. Climate had been a part of what it did from very early on as yet another reason not to build more roads, but they had the foresight to realise it was soon to become a dominant issue and a perfect platform to argue for and build a better, fairer world.

This was a choice made at a time when no one issue was clearly dominant, previously this movement had sometimes been able to choose an issue, but often had to react to issues that were thrust upon them (the CJA, GM or a road building programme) but this choice soon proved fortuitous with the skills built up inside the movement and the level of public discussion around climate issues rising generally they came together spectacularly with the Climate Camps of 2006 at DRAX and especially 2007 at Heathrow.

After this more and more people joined who were more specifically interested in Climate Change as a single issue and saw the camp as a better or complementary method to more traditional NGO campaigning as opposed to using the issue of climate change simply as one example among many of the failures of capitalism, also it seemed that during the years 2007-2009 all you had to do was mention climate change and you had a chance of getting some pretty radical politics all over the newspapers, but it couldn't last. Just as soon as mainstream media interest in Climate Change had arrived it seemed to disappear. At the same time a financial crisis and the opportunism of the politicians meant that many activists (and non activists) saw the most vital arena for challenging capitalism shift from climate to austerity, this shift was perfectly natural for the people most focused on changing society as a priority but the organisation that they had built was left behind, mostly because of it's name. Attempts were made to link cuts and climate, but this really isn't necessary - both are symptoms and only need to be linked to their real cause - capitalism.

Obviously a climate strand should continue (it's still a HUGE issue), but as part of a much larger group that continues the bigger theme of using whatever issues are out there to highlight the failures of capitalism using creative and confrontational direct action to expose and challenge the people / institutions / companies responsible - that is what it does well. Another strand should focus on austerity - UKuncut have shown a glimpse of what is possible, but have been rather timid in their politics, some people have tried to replicate the central square occupations seen in Spain and Greece but these could really do with the backing of the organisation formerly known as The Camp for Climate Action.

After Copenhagen

2009-12-21T04:34:00.000-08:00

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

2009-10-01T10:31:00.000-07:00

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.

open cast, closed minds and a (small) victory - Climate Camps in Scotland and Wales

2009-08-23T14:22:00.000-07:00

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

after the tipping point...

2009-07-26T01:26:00.000-07:00

...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

2009-07-11T02:37:00.000-07:00

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.

what's the best way to start the process?

2009-05-21T00:18:00.000-07:00

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

--

why previous attempts at communes or intentional communities fail / succeed

2009-05-03T09:40:00.000-07:00

answer to one of the questions and problems in bringing about real democracy

"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

2009-05-03T08:13:00.000-07:00

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

2009-04-29T03:18:00.000-07:00

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'

what we need is much much more bureaucracy

2009-04-26T07:28:00.000-07:00

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.

2009-04-22T03:24:00.000-07:00

Q - how do you know when you've been in too many climate camp meeting? A - when, while in the dock on trial you absent mindedly do 'wavy hands' when your barrister says something you really agree with.

are police the law or do they uphold it?

2009-04-21T07:52:00.000-07:00

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'

2009-04-12T08:19:00.000-07:00

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

police commit hate crimes against protesters

2009-04-11T01:16:00.000-07:00

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

policing protests - routine disdain, impatience and a welcome opportunity for violence without consequence

2009-04-07T23:31:00.000-07:00

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

2009-04-06T09:02:00.000-07:00

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.

2009-04-06T08:47:00.000-07:00

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.

2009-01-29T03:50:00.000-08:00

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

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.

2009-01-23T04:22:00.000-08:00

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.

2009-01-05T08:50:00.000-08:00

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.

2008-12-12T01:31:00.000-08:00

....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"

2008-12-11T14:44:00.000-08:00

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.

2008-12-11T14:42:00.001-08:00

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'

2008-12-11T14:39:00.000-08:00

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.

2008-12-11T14:36:00.000-08:00

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"

2008-11-17T09:02:00.000-08:00

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.

2008-11-05T03:08:00.000-08:00

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

Yes, but still not very likely.

2008-10-23T02:14:00.000-07:00

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

2008-10-03T01:40:00.000-07:00

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.

2008-09-25T00:40:00.000-07:00

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

2008-09-23T10:04:00.000-07:00

Arctic 'methane chimneys' raise fears of runaway climate change

NB - not yet published in peer reviewed journal

2008-09-23T00:01:00.000-07:00

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.

2008-09-18T01:04:00.000-07:00

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.

2008-09-17T13:26:00.000-07:00

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.

2008-09-16T00:45:00.000-07:00

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.

2008-09-13T03:18:00.000-07:00

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

2008-09-07T08:03:00.000-07:00

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.

2008-09-05T03:53:00.000-07:00

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'

2008-09-05T00:54:00.000-07:00

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.

2008-09-02T14:32:00.000-07:00

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

2008-09-02T00:04:00.000-07:00

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.

2008-08-28T07:55:00.000-07:00

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.

2008-08-24T12:37:00.000-07:00

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

Journalistic whiplash

2008-08-24T12:15:00.000-07:00

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

2008-08-24T02:37:00.000-07:00

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

2008-08-24T02:16:00.000-07:00

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.....

2008-08-24T01:11:00.000-07:00

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

2008-08-23T10:14:00.000-07:00

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

2008-08-23T05:17:00.000-07:00

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

2008-08-22T02:37:00.000-07:00

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

2008-08-21T10:40:00.001-07:00

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.