Category: Activism

Categories
Activism Australia

July 12, 2009 – NGO vs NGO – Al Gore asked to be umpire…

Fifteen years ago, on this day, July 12th,2009 there was a spat that Al Gore was expected to referee.

WHEN climate change guru Al Gore arrives in Melbourne today, he will find a conservation movement in vitriolic disagreement with itself.

A split has developed between the country’s preeminent environmental organisation, the Australian Conservation Foundation (ACF), and a bloc of other green lobbyists over the foundation’s public support for the Rudd Government’s carbon trading scheme. 

Bachelard, M. 2009. Feuding climate camps seek Gore blessing. Sunday Age, 12 July , p.8

The amount of carbon dioxide in the air was roughly 388ppm. As of 2024 it is 426ppm, but check here for daily measures. 

The context was that the Rudd Government had been trying to get support for its ridiculous Carbon Pollution Reduction Scheme. And they’d found it at least with the so-called Southern Crust coalition, led by the ACTU, and the Australian Conservation Foundation. But all the other green groups thought that this was an outrageous sell out. Ambition was too low. And that Rudd should be resisted. It was your fairly standard. NGO fight between people who are determined to keep their place in the room where the decisions are made, and are willing to carry water and get out and defend the indefensible versus those who weren’t in the inside of the room or didn’t want to be on the inside of the room, or were willing to be on the inside of the room as long as they weren’t being used as fig leaves. It’s a pattern you see over and over again. Anyway, apparently, Al Gore was being expected to resolve the dispute. I don’t know if he did.

What we learn from this is that the same patterns over and over again, for understandable reasons. It’s mildly entertaining that Gore should be regarded as a fair actor. I guess he had prestige. And he didn’t have skin in the game instantly. But to expect Gore to come on down on the side of people pushing for higher ambition or maybe. I mean, this was only three years after An Inconvenient Truth, after all. 

What happened next? Rudd’s legislation was introduced for a second time in November 2009. It fell thanks to Tony Abbott, Kevin Rudd and the Greens possibly in that order, and then had to be introduced again in 2011 by Julia Gillard, the far superior parliamentarian but everything was in pieces and it all went tits up. Not that it would have mattered, I guess, really? I mean, we’re doomed. We have been doomed for a long time. It’s just taking us a while to catch up with that fact. 

What do you think? Does this pass the ‘so what?’ threshold? Have I got facts wrong? Interpretation wrong? Please do comment on this post, unless you are a denialist, obvs.

Also on this day: 

July 12, 1953 – “The Weather is Really Changing” says New York Times

July 12, 1978 – US Climate Research Board meeting

July 12, 2007 – #Australia gets swindled on #climate change…

Categories
Activism

The UK non-climate election and the Blame Game – first thoughts

The United Kingdom has the pleasure of a premature but yet also long-overdue General Election, to be held on Thursday, July 4th.

The incumbent, Rishi Sunak, is trying to turn “net zero” (something he voted for as an MP in 2019) into a culture war battlefront (see my Conversation pieces on this here and here). So, he is only going to mention climate change in the context of “Costs of Taking Action”, not “Benefits of Taking Action”, and definitely not “Costs of Not Taking Action.”

Meanwhile, Keir Starmer is only going to talk in vague terms about this because he has recently had another “oh, that promise I made, well I never made it” bonfire, around the 28 billion per annum of green investment (see my Conversation piece on this, complete with Full Metal Jacket clip). He also doesn’t want to open up a flank where the Tories can repeat the gimmick that he is somehow “in the pocket of Just Stop Oil” (1).

So, is the (relative) silence on climate in the campaign so far merely down to the weakness/tactics of the two leaders? In a trivial way, “yes, of course.” In a deeper way, “yes, of course, but so damned what, and what does the finger pointing allow us not to do?”

I’m glad you I asked: What the finger pointing allows us to do is set up a Morality Tale about the bad Westminster Bubble and FPTP system (2).

And Morality Tales are very satisfying to tell – simple, clear, no shades or Jungian shadows or whatever. And they’re equally satisfying to hear.

But maybe our role – as people with freedom of speech, information and assembly – is to attend to more than our own immediate emotional comfort and intellectual ease? Maybe? Just saying…

Maybe we have to reflect that climate change has been “around” as a public issue since 1988, when it was known as the “Greenhouse Effect.” That means that if you are 53 (to choose a number at random), it’s been there your entire adult life. Even if you’re 78, it’s been around over half your adult life.

And yet here we are, in a shituation where it can be ignored, even as the planet cooks.

There is plenty of blame to spread around: not just the political parties. The media (but honestly – it’s “all the adverts fit to print, all the news printed to fit”). The “education” system (yes, Govey-Gove and the attempt to bin climate, but it’s not like things were healthy before, or have been healthy since).

Finally, I’ll say this. WHAT ABOUT THE SOCIAL MOVEMENTS? We have had 35 years of boom and bust, of chasing issue attention cycles, of learning nothing, of forgetting everything. Of smugospheres and emotacycles.

Yes, I get that climate change is a hard issue to think about, to act on (3). But THIRTY FIVE YEARS OF GROUNDHOG DAY?? Really?

And will “we” pay the price? Really? Yes, but before we pay the price, pretty much every other species is getting screwed, and other far-more-blameless members of our own species (not to mention future generations), they’re getting screwed.

What is to be done? That’s the wrong question, imo. The question is “what might have been done but is now largely moot?” And if you’re really interested, you can check out my answers to that question, I guess. Let me know how you get on.

Footnotes

(1) as per Ed Miliband and Alex Sammond in 2015.

(2) FPTP = First Past the Post – the particularly ridiculous system favoured by duopolies everywhere: the creatures outside looked from man to pig yadder yadder yadder.

(3) I recently tweeted this about denialists. Other people are keeping their heads in the sand for similar fear reasons.

My take: at least some of these grown men know they backed the wrong horse, know that their tribe is wrong, and are terrified of losing face, of losing their tribe, losing their self-image. And the anger & hatred is self-hatred, projected outwards.

Categories
Activism

June 1, 1969 – “The Future is a Cruel Hoax” Commencement address

1969 June 01 Stephanie Mills delivers here “Future is a Cruel Hoax” commencement address at Mills College.

“Our days as a race on this planet are, at this moment, numbered,” she proclaimed, “and the reason for our finite, unrosy future is that we are breeding ourselves out of existence.”

“I am terribly saddened by the fact that the most humane thing for me to do is to have no children at all. But the piper is finally demanding payment.”

http://www.conversationearth.org/cruel-hoax-stephanie-mills-106/

http://www.conversationearth.org/cruel-hoax-stephanie-mills-106-encore/

The amount of carbon dioxide in the air was roughly 324ppm. As of 2024 it is 426ppm, but check here for daily measures. 

The context was that environmental awareness had been growing through ‘67-68 and had been picked up in the mainstream media. And of course, there had been the Santa Barbara oil spill in late January 1969. And alongside that, the vicious assault on democracy and people that had been People’s Park, which Stephanie Miller would have been extremely well aware of, and who knows, possibly participated in. 

What we learn from this is that ecological awareness among the young was well underway. It didn’t need Earth Day. It didn’t need a hero Senator sponsoring stuff. The senator was catching a wave that already existed. 

What happened next, Stephanie Miller had a career as an activist, if you want to call it that, devoted her life to activism. And the mega machine kept making machining. And the emissions kept climbing. 

What do you think? Does this pass the ‘so what?’ threshold? Have I got facts wrong? Interpretation wrong? Please do comment on this post, unless you are a denialist, obvs.

Also on this day: 

June 1, 1965 – Tom Lehrer warns “don’t drink the water and don’t breathe the air”

June 1, 1992 – “environmental extremists” want to shut down the United States, says President Bush

June 1, 2011 – Japanese office workers into short sleeves to save the planet

Categories
Activism United States of America

May 1, 1971 – May Day anti-war actions in Washington DC

Fifty three years ago, on this day, May 1st, 1971, people came to Washington to throw their bodies on the gears of the machine, to stop the Vietnam War.

1971 May Day protests in Washington [Wikipedia]

See also

Mayday: The Case for Civil Disobedience
Noam Chomsky
The New York Review of Books, June 17, 1971

https://chomsky.info/19710617

The amount of carbon dioxide in the air was roughly 326ppm. As of 2024 it is 425ppm, but check here for daily measures. 

The context was that the war in Vietnam was continuing. And the war in Cambodia, the bombing, there had been years of marches, petitions, protests, and now they were trying civil disobedience, direct action in Washington DC itself. And I wonder what it was like to be there. So desperate, so exhausted, scared, determined, you name it.

What we learn is that this is written out of the official histories that the war in Vietnam stories tend to end with Kent State. And the ongoing resistance to the war, after Kent State, is kind of largely ignored. It doesn’t fit the narrative because you have to then speak of domestic violence by the state against citizens. Well, also the whole “Weather Underground” thing, blowing themselves in that Greenwich Village townhouse, didn’t really help, did it?

What happened next, Nixon won the 1972 election, which tells you a lot of what you need to know. And the war in Vietnam continued. The Americans left in 73. And my first television memory that I can date was the fall of Saigon in April of 1975. The tank crashing through the gates of the Presidential Palace…

What do you think? Does this pass the ‘so what?’ threshold? Have I got facts wrong? Interpretation wrong? Please do comment on this post, unless you are a denialist, obvs.

See also

See also Oreskes and Conway, 2010 Page 176

See also this from Jacobin

https://jacobin.com/2021/05/may-day-1971-vietnam-war-nixon

Also on this day: 

May 1, 1980 – ABC talks about atmospheric carbon dioxide measurement

May 1, 1996 – US Congressman says climate research money is “money down a rat hole”

Categories
Activism Australia Science Scientists

March 17, 2014 – Carbon Bus sets off to the North

Ten years ago, on this day, March 17th, 2014, the wheels on the bus went round and round…

‘CARBON BUS’ NORTHERN TOUR 17-20 MARCH 2014

Eleven lucky applicants participated in the tour, which left from Townsville QLD and visited the Lansdown Research Station, ‘Trafalgar’ Station, ‘Wambiana’ Station and the Wambiana Research Site. Participants heard from leading specialists in climate science and agriculture and practising agriculturalists, including:

Professor Snow Barlow, University of Melbourne

Dr Ed Charmley, CSIRO

Dr Chris Stokes, CSIRO

Dr Steven Bray, QLD DAFF

Peter O’Reagain, QLD DAFF

Andrew Ash, QLD DAFF

Geoff Dickinson, QLD DPI

Roger Landsberg, ‘Trafalgar’ Station, Charters Towers

John Lyons and Michelle Lyons, ‘Wambiana’ Station, Charters Towers

The tour was enlightening and beneficial for all participants, but you don’t need to take our word for it, click here to hear from them direct…or watch the Virtual Tour video to see the tour highlights.

The amount of carbon dioxide in the air was roughly 399.9ppm. As of 2024 it is 425ppm, but check here for daily measures. 

The context was that Prime Minister Tony Abbott had recently abolished – or was in the process of abolishing – the emissions trading scheme that Julia Gillard had shepherded through parliament in 2011. And climate activists were at a low ebb, and understood that they really had to go out and engage people who didn’t “get” to the climate issue. The trouble is that these sorts of tours from the south, to educate the benighted, ignorant, rural savages don’t work. Now, for the avoidance of any doubt. I’m sure that that’s not what the organisers of this carbon bus tour thought or felt on any level: but it’s easy for their good intentions to be painted.as such. I don’t have a solution. I suppose the climate education has to come from within these communities, from people who are trusted?  Who those people are and how they might be supported, is beyond me. I guess. There’s always the internet….

What happened next? Well, the most infamous example of all this is the 2018 tour of Queensland by a whole bunch of greenies who thought that they were helping Bill Shorten get elected, and most definitely were not. This was something that was curiously absent from the Bob Brown hagiography about the tall giants or whatever it’s called. (see film review here). 

What do you think? Does this pass the ‘so what?’ threshold? Have I got facts wrong? Interpretation wrong? Please do comment on this post, unless you are a denialist, obvs.

Also on this day: 

March 17, 1976 – UK Weather boss dismisses climate change as “grossly exaggerated”

March 17, 2007 – Edinburgh #climate action gathering says ‘Now’ the time to act

Categories
Activism United Kingdom

February 27, 2011 – “Metamorphosis” statement by Climate Camp

Thirteen years ago, on this day, February 27th,2011, a ‘cringe’ statement went out about the end of Climate Camp.

2011 02 27 Nauseating “Metamorphosis” statement by Climate Camp

That “Metamorphosis” statement in full…

The amount of carbon dioxide in the air was roughly 392ppm. As of 2024 it is 422ppm, but check here for daily measures. 

What do you think? Does this pass the ‘so what?’ threshold? Have I got facts wrong? Interpretation wrong? Please do comment on this post, unless you are a denialist, obvs.

The context was that the UK “Climate Camp” had been staggering on with diminishing returns since 2007 (it began in 2006). And eventually someone put the poor beast out of its misery because they were all burned out. 

What we learn is that so-called grassroots “organisations” have a real problem with sustaining themselves (Theseus’ ship and all that) because the new planks are thick as two short planks and not particularly radical; you get an influx of the careerist NGO types (as whined about in the 2008 letter at Kingsnorth, but I digress).

What happened next NVDA against power sources continued with Reclaim the Power. And then, in 2018, along came Extinction Rebellion, and we will know how that ended. 

Also on this day: 

February 27, 1988 – Canberra “Global Change” conference ends

February 27, 1992 – climate denialists continue their effective and, ah, well EVIL, work

Feb 27, 2003 – the “FutureGen” farce begins…

Categories
Activism Education Guest post

Half a century of “environmental education” #GuestPost

A guest post by Dr Paul Ganderton

Just over 50 years ago, one of the most innovative and remarkable syllabuses in modern English education came into being. Its story, how it started, flowered, and then died have lessons for us all today.

There seems to be two points commonly made about teaching environmental/ecological concepts to school students: it’s mostly absent in syllabuses and it hasn’t been done. The former is certainly backed by evidence, but the latter is largely untrue. This story, and what we can learn about it, are the focus here. The great push comes from a determined and unlikely source, but let’s go back a bit.

English education has had an interest in “nature studies” from the earliest times of educational technology. The BBC Natural History Unit was producing radio programmes from the late 1950s onwards. However, this was mostly aimed at primary schools. We would have to wait for the 1960s to see further progress. At this time, curriculum innovation was being strongly supported which led to numerous initiatives of which one was a semi-academic/practical approach to Rural and Environmental Studies ‘O’ level run through the University of London’s Schools Examination Board (ULSEB). An early proponent of this subject, Sean McB Carson (a Hertfordshire local education officer), saw the need for a more academic, higher-level qualification. This turned into a committee which eventually produced the first A level (again to be taken up by ULSEB) called, not un-naturally, the Hertfordshire Syllabus (compare/contrast this with a current version!). From 1972 to 1992, this became, and remains, one of the most innovative syllabuses in secondary science. It’s worth noting that McB Carson went on to refine his ideas in another influential book, Environmental Education.

What was so novel about this syllabus? Looking back, I think it was the confluence of a number of factors:

  • Sociological – McB Carson as a driving force, ULSEB as a supporter, an innovative Ecologist as Chief Examiner (Dr PD Coker). There was also significant student interest in the senior secondary years;
  • Geopolitical – the general move towards environmental awareness and concern characterised (earlier) by Silent Spring and later by the Stockholm Conference in 1972;
  • Educational – a syllabus unlike others that demanded deep knowledge that was integrated into a systems-thinking approach with an exam system that demanded you demonstrate it!

How did it work? There were a few minor changes over the years but this gives an accurate overview:

  • Topics:
    • Natural environment and limits of the resource base: solar systems and the transport of energy; atmosphere; hydrosphere; lithosphere; biogeochemistry;
    • Ecosystems: climatic and soil factors; population and community ecology; population control
    • Man-Environment Interactions: Human requirements for life, developmental ecology, societal development, domestication of plants and animals, environmental pressures from industrial revolution onwards;
    • Field Study – environmental conflicts and pressures;
  • Pedagogy – One of the most daunting (and wonderful) aspects was that there was no set textbook! Students (and staff) really had to know about a wide range of topics from the workings of the solar system to fundamental ecology, to planning law and all topics in between! Standard books of the time include Odum’s Fundamentals of Ecology, Ehrlich’s Population, Resources, Environment but there were many others often just covering a particular part (Cullingworth’s early Town and Country Planning was invaluable). The fundamental aim was to make sure that students had a sound background knowledge, both theoretical and applied, that would allow them to analyse a question from any perspective;
  • Assessment – Leaving aside the internal assessment, the external exam comprised 3 aspects – fieldwork to be assessed internally and sent off for adjudication, paper 1 – 3 hours on basics of the entire syllabus and paper 2 which has two essays requiring integration from all of the syllabus and a planning question. This last, innovative exam gave students an Ordnance Survey map and a planning issue to solve e.g. site a new town. It demanded a knowledge of planning law and practice. Ironically, our local authority planning department gave their planners the task and all failed!

So much for the technical side. What of the impact it had? As an educator and student, it demanded (and the exams tested) both core knowledge and its application. It was taught in the novel ideas of systems thinking and connectedness. Students were (in my college at least) fiercely proud of the subject and considered themselves environmentalists. Many went on to take degrees in ecology, environment, and related topics. Some became planners, others academics. We have some who have risen to prominence in the global conservation community, an international prize-winning photographer as well as those who went on to others field of endeavour. As a subject it rose in importance as a result of Stockholm in 1972 and was, alongside companion ‘O’ level seen as a vital subject to study. Sadly, the following years of warfare, oil price shocks (the first but not the last) and the rise of Thatcher meant that the subject was stumbling just as it started to take off (environmentalism, then as now, didn’t trump oil and commerce – or Thatcher’s dislike!). It’s interesting to speculate where it might have been were that not the case. Personally, I taught the course for almost all of its years and was a ULSEB subject panel member, question writer, examiner and part of the team developing interest in the course. I was also, sadly, the last person standing as exam board politics saw it dispatched in favour of topics with more political support.

If you’ve read this far, thanks! What message would I like you to take away from this? That it existed, that it demonstrated that you could have a meaningful and very rigorous subject and exam that could allow students to debate with knowledge and care for the planet. It opened up students’ eyes to the possibilities of doing things differently. Perhaps if this subject had developed as it should, we wouldn’t be needing school strikes today, 50 years after the subject started to debate the same thing I taught in 1975!

Categories
Activism United States of America

January 16, 1919 – banning things that people like turns out not to work

One hundred and five years ago, on this day, January 16th 1919, a social movement got what it wanted. Utopia did not ensue.

The United States ratified the Eighteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution, authorizing Prohibition in the United States one year after ratification. 

Legislation versus habit… ends badly… Baptists and bootleggers blah blah

The amount of carbon dioxide in the air was roughly 303ppm. As of 2024 it is 422ppm, but check here for daily measures. 

The context was that Temperance groups had been pushing for decades for a law banning booze. And they’d gotten their way. And of course, this meant an explosion of organised crime because people still wanted to drink. And health implications from bathtub gin, the bootleggers’ violence, you name it. So not everything that a popular – or at least powerful – social movement wants and pushes through the legislature is automatically good or democratic, who knew? 

What we learn is that there is such a thing as “Baptists and bootleggers,” there can be an unholy symbiosis between religious zealots and banning things to create black markets. Yes, that is a right-wing talking point against climate legislation. 

I suppose the other thing we learned is that banning stuff can feel good. And certainly with the case of fossil fuels, you really need to push the alternatives hard and stop the people trying to stop you. Am I making any sense? 

What happened next. Prohibition lasted for 14 years, gave us organised crime, gun battles, gangsters, you name it. And then one of the first things that Franklin Roosevelt did, upon taking office, was to abolish it and everyone could get legally drunk again. What an extraordinary episode in human history, one that I haven’t thought about enough. 

What do you think? Does this pass the ‘so what?’ threshold? Have I got facts wrong? Interpretation wrong? Please do comment on this post, unless you are a denialist, obvs.

Also on this day: 

January 16, 1995: There’s power in a (corporate) union #auspol

January 16, 2003 – Chicago Climate Exchange names founding members

Categories
Activism United States of America

January 7, 1970 – “Ecology Action East” is “intersectional”

Fifty four years ago, on this day, January 7, 1970 a pre-Earth Day radical student group called “Ecology Action East” was ahead of the game, in terms of how it’s a BIG puzzle. They said that they believed:

– that the ecological crisis is fundamentally a social problem, deeply rooted in the structure of society and in the cultural values that this society generates and reinforces.

–that all social institutions of domination and exploitation, from the patriarchal family to the modem nation-state, must be dissolved.

— that… the ecology movement is also inseparable from the liberation movement of colonial peoples, black and brown people, American Indians, working people, gay people, women, youth, and children.

(Rat, January 7, 1970, p. 10) 

The amount of carbon dioxide in the air was roughly 324ppm. As of 2024 it is 422ppm, but check here for daily measures. 

The context was that, from 1968 onwards, people had started to think seriously about the consequences of modernity, (good title – someone should write a book. Oh, wait they have) and the ecological impacts that might be coming down the pipe, and because of the pipe. In September ‘69, there’d been the announcement that an Earth Day would happen. But this was sponsored by a US senator, albeit a liberal one. And in the context of the Vietnam War a lot of activists were taking a serious look into the mouth of the gift horse. And groups like Ecology Action East, marrying the radical as in root cause, to critique of US imperialism as it applied to Vietnam with an ecological sensibility, and seeing that it was also connected to all these other issues. This is really intersectionality long before the word was invented. 

What we can learn is that most of us have, a lot of us have known for a long, long time that the issues were linked, even hyperlinked, and that you weren’t going to “solve” any one without solving a lot else, though, you might have some short term gains. 

What happened next. Groups like Ecology Action East were unable to sustain their momentum. And it all went tits up for them within a couple of years. And it was only another 20 years almost later, that ecology was really kicked off. 

What do you think? Does this pass the ‘so what?’ threshold? Have I got facts wrong? Interpretation wrong? Please do comment on this post, unless you are a denialist, obvs.

References

Ecology Action East. 1970. The Power to Destroy – The Power to Create. Root & Branch No. 1, pp. 8-14

https://libcom.org/library/manifesto-ecology-action-east

Also on this day: 

January 7, 2013 – Australian climate activist pretends to be ANZ bank, with spectacular results 

Jan 7, 2013 – Paper (briefly) wraps rock. But coal wins in the end… #auspol

Categories
Activism United Kingdom

December 19, 1988 – the launch of “Ark”

Thirty five years ago, on this day, December 19, 1988, celebrities get on board an Ark, for a star-studded launch…

The amount of carbon dioxide in the air was roughly 351ppm. As of 2023 it is 420ppm, but check here for daily measures. 

The context was that there was this exuberant ex-Greenpeace director (who had been a Daily Mirror hack) and had written in the early 70s about environmental depletion. He had gotten some money to put together a big manifesto. They had celebrities on board and it was going to be all-singing all-dancing. There were going to be little Arks, it was going to combine the business end, the social movement end the celebrity end – all singing all dancing all of the time.

And it did not come to pass

What I think we can learn from this

People get high on their own supply. People get drunk thinking that what needs to happen will therefore happen because it needs to happen. But that’s circular and it doesn’t reflect reality. But then reality is no fun.

What happened next

By July 1989 Ark had collapsed under the weight of its own contradictions.

What do you think? Does this pass the ‘so what?’ threshold? Have I got facts wrong? Interpretation wrong? Please do comment on this post, unless you are a denialist, obvs..