what do we mean by direct action? / 'come for the community, stay for the climate'
my opinion is that the most important element of our aim of 'direct action' is the 'action' part. Actually most of things we do aren't direct but indirect, ie they don't directly stop or attempt to stop greenhouse emissions (the drax coal train is one recent example of a genuine attempt to stop emissions directly) These are incredibly important as there are very few other groups taking genuine direct action (e.g. even greenpeace do maybe one or 2 genuine direct climate actions a year - climbing the kingsnorth chimney and actually shutting down the power station more than a year ago perhaps being the last?)
however, the phrase 'direct action' is one with baggage and means different things to different people, to me having 'direct action' as an aim implies that we are the opposite of indirect action as the kind of thing the campaigning NGOs do - lobbying or asking governments nicely. I would perhaps prefer it if our aim simply said 'action' so it contrasted with those that don't do anything, but including a mixture of direct and indirect action - a wording could be something like:
'we take action on climate change rather than just talking or worrying, especially DIRECT action to actually prevent the emissions that are causing climate change'
The truth is that most of our action is indirect while still being really important. Even most of the things we refer to as 'actions' are also indirect, aimed at embarassing e.on, challenging BAA getting our messages in the media etc. But there is even more important indirect action outside of these. even a routine meeting, sticker mob, pub discussion, outreach stall is a hugely important action because it builds a community of people who support all of the other stuff and can do more than other organisations because of that sense of community.
The point of this is really in thinking about our movement building activity - i think that we could turn around our outreach and put the opportunity to join a vibrant, exciting community in which you can learn, make friends, express yourself, take responsibility, have fun AND contribute to the most important issue humanity has ever faced is what we've really got to offer. once involved people will soon respond to the knowledge, commitment and ideas of those already here, and begin to go on a number of journeys - from lack of knowledge about climate change to loads, from doubts about illegal direct action to locking on to a bulldozer, from scepticism about consensus decision making to handwaving with the best of 'em.
to sum up, our new outreach slogan could be - 'come for the community, stay for the climate'
messages must be tailored for audiences. stop coal is simple, and also simplistic - i like it because it's pretty close to what i believe in but it's not the whole story, but it can work where it isn't controversial that if coal is bad for the climate we should stop using it. but there is a growing realistation that even if only for purely practical / strategic reasons, we need to be sensitive to those for whom coal and indeed the rest of the present economy provides vital social, economic resources and is a big part of their identity. and this means explaining things slightly more to avoid misunderstandings of our position.
who are these people with an irrational attachment to dirty black fossil fuels?. well some of them are not going to be convinced by talk of green jobs and just transition (perhaps inc the NUM) - we must forget about these people - we have no hope of reaching them and no need to. the group we need this idea of just transition to reach are the moderate unions and people with a working class solidarity with the idea of coal, but also a desire to tackle climate change and make the economy better for everyone, rather than just their members - these is a large and new group of people that could bring great benefits to the climate movement.
who are these people with an irrational attachment to dirty black fossil fuels?. well some of them are not going to be convinced by talk of green jobs and just transition (perhaps inc the NUM) - we must forget about these people - we have no hope of reaching them and no need to. the group we need this idea of just transition to reach are the moderate unions and people with a working class solidarity with the idea of coal, but also a desire to tackle climate change and make the economy better for everyone, rather than just their members - these is a large and new group of people that could bring great benefits to the climate movement.
Copenhagen climate talks
My view is that all the evidence suggests that copenhagen will produce a bad deal that will fail to sufficiently address climate change and cause many climate and other problems for people while maintaining 'green capitalism' options for those in financial power to make more money.
lobbying by NGOs might slightly improve this but the essential character of an innefective 'green capitalist' model will remain the same.
Given that governments are going to do this anyway we should actually allow the NGOs to do their thing and try and make it better (and especially encourage them to resist moves that would have negative effects - such as biofuel expansion, trading away responsibility etc), but we should say that even the best possible agreement will only be a small proportion of what is needed and the only real solution is for communities all over the world to take back the power and make copenhagen irrelevant. They are trying to use the systems that caused the problem to be a solution even the best deal will be only a small part of the solution and the worst will just be more of the problem
what we should actually DO at copenhagen
call for them to at least not make things worse and make the real world's job harder
call for measures that would enable and empower communities who are the real solution
call on communities and individuals to make copenhagen even more irrelevant than it already is
shut them in until they agree on something that wont make the problem worse
the lack of ambition for copenhagen sounds on the face of it to be a negative message, but actually it's a hugely positive one - "you've been fucking it up for real people for so long the best we can hope for is that you decide to stop doing that and allow us to get on with it - in the real world we know what to do and we know how to do it - just look at the fantastic movements that are happening"
My view is that all the evidence suggests that copenhagen will produce a bad deal that will fail to sufficiently address climate change and cause many climate and other problems for people while maintaining 'green capitalism' options for those in financial power to make more money.
lobbying by NGOs might slightly improve this but the essential character of an innefective 'green capitalist' model will remain the same.
Given that governments are going to do this anyway we should actually allow the NGOs to do their thing and try and make it better (and especially encourage them to resist moves that would have negative effects - such as biofuel expansion, trading away responsibility etc), but we should say that even the best possible agreement will only be a small proportion of what is needed and the only real solution is for communities all over the world to take back the power and make copenhagen irrelevant. They are trying to use the systems that caused the problem to be a solution even the best deal will be only a small part of the solution and the worst will just be more of the problem
what we should actually DO at copenhagen
call for them to at least not make things worse and make the real world's job harder
call for measures that would enable and empower communities who are the real solution
call on communities and individuals to make copenhagen even more irrelevant than it already is
shut them in until they agree on something that wont make the problem worse
the lack of ambition for copenhagen sounds on the face of it to be a negative message, but actually it's a hugely positive one - "you've been fucking it up for real people for so long the best we can hope for is that you decide to stop doing that and allow us to get on with it - in the real world we know what to do and we know how to do it - just look at the fantastic movements that are happening"
responding to weathercocks and signposts
"Weathercocks and Signposts critically reassesses current approaches to motivating environmentally-friendly behaviour change. Current behaviour-change strategies are increasingly built upon analogy with product marketing campaigns. They often take as given the 'sovereignty' of consumer choice, and the perceived need to preserve current lifestyles intact. This report constructs a case for a radically different approach. It presents evidence that any adequate strategy for tackling environmental challenges will demand engagement with the values that underlie the decisions we make – and, indeed, with our sense of who we are."
The marketing approach came from the quite reasonable desire to match people's pre-existing motivations with what is good for the earth. This approach has many problems, but the critique in weathercocks doesn't suggest to me that such a link doesn't exist, only that the marketing approach got it wrong by being too timid. The truth is that a world in which all humans are happier will also be one that is better for nature and that a complete revolution in what people think of as happiness and self-interest is what is needed and, perhaps paradoxically, this is more likely to succeed.
We should continue to use the marketing approach but rather than using it to elicit small steps we should use it to encourage big changes and really challenge pre conceptions. This avoids many of the critiques in weathercocks, but maintains the recognition that we have to start from where we are - with a population that has certain values and motivations.
e.g when market approach commentators suggest appealing to a prospectors' desire for esteem from their neighbours they are right because this fits with the expression of their values, identity and motivation. The problem is that they simply accept these at face value rather than look beneath the surface. If you were to find out that these needs were born out of deeper desires and dissatisfactions we would be able to elicit much 'better' behaviour more easily - but it must still be communicated in a way that takes into account their more apparent motivational starting point.
Put in another way - Everybody wants to be happy and good in quite similar ways to each other and (some very) differently to how they currently live, but they need to have this pointed out to them in radically different ways. Our job isn't to say explicitly what this 'way of life' is, just to gather evidence that points to a few features it might have and give people a few pointers on things that might help them, and us, get there. This avoids the need to talk about many of problematic issues of environment and economics becasue they are simply symptoms of a deeper problem. This follows on to a minor criticism of Weathercocks - despite being a report that aims to look at the big picture, it constantly refers to solving problems in the environment and the natural world, when in fact the environmental problems it seeks to solve are themselves only symptoms.
"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.
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
today i made electricity
i've been working on a bike generator for a couple of months, but finally i've got it all set up with a battery, regulator and inverter and pedalled for about a minute keeping the 'charging' light on (and powering crappy daytime tv, jeremy kyle i think!). the system needs a hell of a lot of work to be more reliable and useful, but at least i've done the first stage.
big thanks to Luke for practical help and Chan, magnificent revolution and everyone at climate camp for inspiration
i went to unleashing of Transition Town brixton last night - a fantastic, inspiring night and, I was surprised to find, only 5th unleashing.
Transition towns really is the answer, of course loads of good transition work is going on all over the place from CAT, to individuals and climate camp, but TT really brings it together. I believe that everyone who's even slightly interested in what's going to happen when fuel gets even more expensive and the climate changes MUST contribute to this project.
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.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)