Category: Activism

Categories
Academia Activism Podcasts

Podcast: “Bridging the Carbon Gap – Adam Aron psychological insights for building the climate movement”

This one you should listen to. I listen to a lot of podcasts, especially on climate and energy (policy, politics, etc) and they are mostly very very mid (at best).  Here’s a recent rant about the whys of that.

This one (and another, to be reviewed soon) was the exception and perhaps almost exceptional.


It’s by a bunch of 17 year old Americans. To repeat myself , smart 17 year olds are potentially a very good source of info because they

a) have more skin in the game re: 2nd half of the 21st century

b) haven’t had obedience beaten into them by The System (“man”).

It’s a podcast by City Atlas. Who they? Well, City Altas

“was founded to help New Yorkers and the public everywhere understand and prepare for the future, as described in the reports of the IPCC, C40.org, and the New York City Panel on Climate Change (NPCC), and to strengthen the democratic process towards equitable responses to climate change. Our emphasis is on building public energy and climate literacy as a way to create support for a fast transition to a zero carbon world.”

They interview a guy called Professor Adam Aron, (personal website here) who was on one academic track (cognitive neuroscience) and has recently jumped to another (the psychology of collective action).

They interview Aron about, well, building social movements and for once from an academic it isn’t banalities, generalities and apple pie.

The transcript (not quite tidy and unhyperlinked – I have added those) is here.

The first bit that made me sit up and take real notice was this

“There’s a very beautiful example of this, given there’s a book called Let This Radicalize You by Haber and Kaba,  two women of color in Chicago. And in one of the chapters, I think, Kelly Hays describes how they’re busy, Miriam tries to bring her into a struggle to try and get restitution for victims of torture by the Chicago Police. It’s called reparations. Now this is back in 2014 and in that chapter, Kelly explains, you know, I didn’t think we could win. There’s no way that we would win this thing, but I nevertheless joined Miriam in her struggle anyway, even though I very much doubted we could win, in fact, they ended up winning. They actually ended up getting restitution from the Chicago Police. Kind of amazing story. So why did Kelly join Miriam? And she says, Well, I joined Miriam because I thought it would be meaningful and generative. We had a history of trust. I thought I would have an adventure. I thought that I would learn things by doing the process. I thought that I would discover sort of the limits of my courage. I would develop new skills. So I think this phenomenon of social obligation to each other and how we build that in small groups is kind of a key part of how to get the larger social mobilization.”

On the barriers facing academics (YO, THIERRY!)

“we actually published a paper last year in 2024 with first authors, Fabian Dablander, a brilliant young guy from the Netherlands and colleagues. And it was a survey of over 9000 academics and scientists, sort of trying to understand, you know, what are the barriers to them acting”

Aron isn’t pollyann-ish about the difficulties facing us as a species, and the barriers facing social movement organisations.

“But I think more broadly, there’s a whole suite of issues, the sort of lonely, atomized and fragmented reality in which we find ourselves. I referred to that earlier. This kind of I’m all alone and with my family in my house, or, you know, everything society is telling me, I just need to get ahead and get my brand and develop myself as an entrepreneur, I’m kind of deterritorialized from the place, I don’t belong anywhere. I’m a consumer. I’m locked in this kind of, you know, hyper-consumption machine, and I just need to kind of selfishly take care of myself. I mean, there’s enormous pressures on people to have that attitude psychologically. I think that is one of our major barriers, and one of the major reasons people aren’t acting, but I think also people don’t know what to do, even people who completely get that global heating is caused by the burning of fossil fuels, who understand, as many adults do, who have children, that this is really a threat now to people’s livelihoods and wellbeing and their kids lives in the next few decades, people don’t know what to do. I think that’s a really that gets back to a bigger question you asked me about, how do we mobilize the wider society? Because there’s myriad things people can do, but we really need them to act together towards really strong policy.”


Sure, he doesn’t talk about emotacycles or the smugosphere, or ego-fodderification, but what kind of depressive maniac does that anyway.

Does the interviewer always follow up on the interesting stuff Aron says? No, she sticks to her list of questions but a) that’s okay and b) they are good questions.  Over time, I suspect she will develop the skills and confidence start to go down (and come out of) rabbit holes with interviewees. (NB there is absolutely nothing wrong with what she is doing now).

Is this podcast worth your time? This episode, hell yes, and I have high hopes for the others in the series.

Categories
Academia Activism Documentaries Fafocene

On documentaries, delusions and doom: Why we get what we get, what we need and why we won’t get it.

The new “Just Stop Oil” documentary is (yet) another missed opportunity to get an important conversation started about social movements, our crises and complicities, and what needs to change.


Early on in “The Line We Crossed” the new and overlong documentary following a group of Just Stop Oil activists as they slow march their way around London in 2023, one of them says “context is massively important.” He’s referring to defences in criminal cases for obstruction and the like, but it occurred to me that this very much applies to the film.  It was only ten minutes or so in, but already my forebodings were proving true. There was no context whatsoever, not even as far back as 2018, when Extinction Rebellion (it got one scant mention) burst onto the scene, promising to force the government to make the UK zero carbon by 2025.

There was no explanation of what climate change IS and what is causing it (we’ll come back to my encounter with a taxi driver on my way home, in another post.).

There was no context about the way the British state acts when it…

Look, I could go on for a loooong time about the failings of this film (in its defence, it’s mostly competently made, and doesn’t pretend to be anything it isn’t). I don’t have the energy, patience or inclination to write all that, you don’t have those to read all that, and it will come across as patriarchal bullying if I do. 

So instead, I want to see this film as a symptom of a much much wider problem (previously I’ve used words like Smugosphere and Emotacycle – they may get a run below).

I am going to try to answer a few questions about what social movements (made up of individuals, groups, NGOs etc) need, (don’t) get and ways forward. The list of questions is here –

  • What is it that we get (from documentaries, but also books etc) again and again. And again.
    WHY do we get that (beyond morality tales about laziness/complicity etc)
  • Why does that matter?
  • What do we need?
  • Why don’t we get it?
  • (Bonus – ignore if you’re so inclined) Why it wouldn’t matter, even if we did get it.
  • What is to be done?

I have tackled (ranted) about this before.

What we get time and again – “hooray for our side”

What a field day for the heat.

A thousand people in the street,

Singing songs and carrying signs,

Mostly say, “Hooray for our side.”

Buffalo Springfield “For What It’s Worth”

I’ve been in/around environmental protest/dissent/resistance most of my adult life; the first time I can say I was properly involved was the late 1990s.  I say this not for brownie points, or claims of expertise, but just to point out that if you stick around long enough, you see the same film pop up again and again. The title and participants change, but the song remains the same.

I saw it around the time of Indymedia, I saw it as the 2006-2010 wave wound down (“Just Do It”). It was there during fracking (have tried to expunge that one, and am not inclined to go looking). It was there during the beginning of the “youth strike” – “Meet the Wild Things” and “The Giants.”

What these (and other films) have in common is that they are largely cheap, unreflective decontextualised hagiography (= “the making of saints”), following individuals or individuals-within-a-group as they “try to make a difference.”

Why we get that 

Here’s where I need to not get personal (!), or rather, engage in the Fundamental Attribution Error.  These films aren’t the way they are because of any personal failings/perspectives of the film-makers (whom I’ve not met).

We also need to get away from cheap/easy cynicism that the documentaries are what they are because they are planned only a recruiting tool (though they often arrive too late for that, and in the case of TLWC, wouldn’t work on multiple levels) or that they are merely CV points for the film maker.

We need to think in terms of systems, incentives, pressures (understood and ‘invisible’). Here’s a non-exhaustive list

  • Film-makers need for access to present and future subjects, and if word gets around that they are “neutral” or “questioning” they will be lumped in with the mass media, which, by and large is quite rightly mistrusted/loathed.
  • Film-makers also have a need for “hope” as a narrative
  • Film-makers need to keep funders happy (especially an issue around crowdfunding, I’d guess, but also foundations don’t like their hands bitten when they are feeding).

Ultimately, for a host of reasons – psychological, social, financial etc – hopey-changey hagiography is path of least resistance. It is what everyone expects, and what almost everyone wants most/all of the time (I am an outlier, I know, “But I’m not the only one. I hope someday you’ll…”)

Why does that matter?

“Not everything that can be faced can be changed, but nothing can be changed until it is faced.”

James Baldwin, 1962

We are in the shit.  We have no idea what we are into here. When “the greenhouse effect” finally became a public issue in 1988, atmospheric concentrations of carbon dioxide were roughly 352 parts per million.  Emissions spiralled upwards since then (roughly 70% higher than they were then) and atmospheric concentrations are now at 428ppm and surging annually.) 
Most importantly for my purposes, the simple fact is that civil society has been mostly asleep at the wheel, until it is jolted into periodic half-wakefulness by brave and determined activists who demand action. Then, for various reasons, the “issue attention cycle” kicks in, the activists burn out and lick their wounds and prison sentences, technophilia reasserts itself and almost everyone goes back to sleep. 

So what we need is individuals and groups who are able to see this pattern, and prepare for it, and sustain themselves. I wrote about this here, in 2017.

Hagiography, where you spend far more time than you need to in the company of naive well-meaning people who learn tough lessons in the strategic and tactical capacity of the states and corporations is not helping.  There is an argument to be made that – beyond the taking-up-of-bandwidth problem – it is actually harmful, but I am not going to go there today.

What we need

What we need is, therefore “sense-making”

Sensemaking or sense-making is the process by which people give meaning to their collective experiences. It has been defined as “the ongoing retrospective development of plausible images that rationalize what people are doing” (Weick, Sutcliffe, & Obstfeld, 2005, p. 409). The concept was introduced to organizational studies by Karl E. Weick in the late 1960’s and has affected both theory and practice. 

We need cognitive maps so people know where they are, what the stakes are, what has and hasn’t ‘worked’ in the past, etc etc.

I will use TLWC as an example, but again, it is not uniquely inadequate, it’s merely the latest (and for me last) example of the genre.

We need films that explain, in simple terms, what climate change is (the duvet analogy works really well, in my experience). If you can find an actual climate scientist willing to say it, all the better, but they’ll probably fear for their precious reputation and “trivialising” the science. That’s just them bowing to the institutional pressure within their tribe. Mostly, they can’t help themselves. So it goes.

We need films that explain what the state (British in this case) actually IS and what it is FOR and what it has DONE historically to those people who organise to try to get it to do something other than protect the perceived short-term interests of the people who run the State/who are protected by the state.

People think the state is Santa Claus – a kindly old gent who will reward you if you can prove that you have been good for long enough. Documentaries like TLWC don’t do anything about this, ah, “misapprehension.” There is a glancing reference to the suffragettes, but nothing on how the State mobilised to demonise and punish those activists. If the JSo crew knew the history of the suffragettes, beyond Pankhurst #1 and #2 and perhaps Emily Davison, then they wouldn’t have been so surprised as they were by the end of the film (actually, I missed the last few minutes – a bus to catch).

TLWC could have done even a brief job on the flurry of laws passed in the aftermath of the Napoleonic Wars, as the social consequences of the Industrial Revolution began to kick in.  It could have talked about Spycops (an astonishing oversight) and the Prevention of Terrorism Act 2000. It could have…  Note, I am NOT saying you have to go into exhaustive detail, but “context is massively important.”

We need films that include supportive critical voices – people who are equally concerned about “The Issue”, but disagree with the particular tactics (or “strategy” if you’re being unduly generous) being pursued.

I can’t believe I am typing this, because I am one of the most cynical people I know on the role and function of academics, but even I would – through gritted teeth – admit that some of them do have something to add and if you film say an hour you might get as much as 45 seconds of useable material out of them.  Get them talking about the history, the politics, the nature of social movements, the nature of issue-attention cycles etc etc etc.

Basically, making an entire film out of a-roll and (quite a lot of) b-roll of activists “on the ground” is cloying, claustrophobic and senseless-making.  TLWC had only a handful of “outsiders” – Suella Braverman, Jocelyn Maugham, someone from Liberty and a semi-outsider, Tim from Defend Our Juries. 

We need films that ask activists to expound on some of the challenges – pushback from family and friends (and how they handle it), how they deal with hostility from the General Public (there’s footage in TLWC of an enraged motorist snatching banners and smacking mobiles out of activists hands. I am not saying he was right, or that he should necessarily be given “air time” to explain his views, but how about at least getting the JSO people to reflect on that?)

We need films (and groups) to talk about why people don’t stay involved (and they largely don’t, through little/no fault of their own. The way organisations are, they’re basically decruitment engines.  Irony – at least three people in the audience gave up on the film before I had to leave).

Why we won’t get it (see also “why we get that” above)

The kind of film I am talking about is not going to get made (though I would be genuinely delighted to be proved wrong – have at me in the comments.

Basically, in these late days of late capitalism, at the beginning of (the rich Westerner bit of, anyway) the Fafocene, we are clinging to hope and the idea that social movement are bold entrepreneurs with power much as Linus clings to his security blanket in Peanuts – it’s a classic transitional object, rather like transition theory itself.

To put it in blunt terms – nobody likes Debbie Downers, buzzkills. Nobody is happy if you piss on their chips if chips is all they have to eat. 

For psychological, cognitive, social and financial reasons, hagiography is easier and safer.

These documentaries are the equivalent of the stage-managed top down meeting where those in the cliques talk and preen but nothing gets achieved, and those came in the hope of getting information, opportunities for connection and action or all of the above slink out and are never seen again. 

Bonus (skip if you like – fmdidgad)

Why it wouldn’t matter even if we did get it

Beyond the temporal factor – these documentaries usually appear too late anyway even to be “recruiting tools” – there are deeper problems. The streets have emptied

“We” don’t have the absorptive capacity to take on new ideas, new numbers (of people who can’t get arrested, who can’t drop everything for The Cause).

We are prisoners of our pasts – as the adage goes, past performance is the best indicator of past performance, and our past performance sucks; decades of failure

There’s a (not very good) film adaptation of Graham Greene’s novel  “The Honorary Consul.” In it, there’s a prison breakout and someone who was held below ground for ages comes out, blinking in the harsh sun.  If he had legged it straight away, he might have avoided the guard’s bullets.  But he simply doesn’t have the capacity. He has been a prisoner too long and… You can tell I need to wrap this up, can’t you? I’ll do a post about the taxi-driver and me another day. Perhaps – it’s mostly about the efficacy of the duvet analogy, anyway.

The Ways Forward (my heart isn’t in this)

If civil society were going to get up on its hind legs it would have done so by now. I have used the line “the time to stamp on the brakes is before the bus goes off the cliff. Once it has you can stamp that pedal all you like, but it won’t change the outcome. And moving ripped up seat foam to the front in the hope of softening impact is fine to keep you busy, but, well, see above…

However, I said there were be a “ways forward” bit. So here it is. But it’s based on some “ifs…”

IF we had spaces where people could meet free from commercial and surveillance imperatives

IF we had norms around the design and facilitation of meetings that were enforceable, and (collectively) enforced so that issues were properly and thoroughly aired, and the meetings not dominated by the most high status within the subculture, by the most confident etc…

IF we had a universal basic income so more people had bandwidth to even have the time and energy to participate in civil society/social movements activity

IF we had states (local, national) that were responsive to popular pressure in meaningful ways (NB Santa Claus model)

IF we understood, collectively, the planet-wide catastrophes that are hoving into view as the consequences of a demented model of growth and a mismeasure of what is “sustainable”

And

IF we had giant machines that could cost-free suck billions of tonnes of carbon dioxide out of the atmosphere and store them safely, bringing atmospheric concentrations of carbon dioxide back to, say, 350ppm

Well, in that case….

“I still don’t see how we can survive.“

Further reading I couldn’t be bothered to hyperlink within this above

Extinction Rebellion says ‘we quit’ – why radical eco-activism has a short shelf life

JSO – why are you trashing your brand for pennies?

Just Stop Oil – anthropologically fascinating but politically terrifying | manchester climate monthly

Dear ‘new’ #climate activist. Unsolicited advice, #oldfartclimateadvice

Cher, incentive structures and our inevitable doom

Has Extinction Rebellion got the right tactics? | New Internationalist

From the book of Roger | manchester climate monthly  (This one I am quite fond of, proud of)

Categories
Activism Australia Coal

September 5, 2005 – protest about the brown coal in Melbourne

Twenty years ago, on this day, September 6th, 2005,

Stop Hazelwood expansion now!

Monday, 5 September 2005

The Bracks Government will put at stake its environmental credentials in the lead up to next year’s State election if it allows Hazelwood power station to expand, green groups have warned.

The call comes as groups rally – around a three-storey inflatable cooling tower – at the steps of Treasury Place, where Cabinet is meeting today to finalise the proposed expansion of Hazelwood.

According to reports, the Government has signed a deal with Hazelwood, the developed world’s most polluting power station, which would cap its climate change pollution at 445 million tonnes over 25 years. If these reports are correct this deal would:

* renege on the Government’s earlier assurances that it would require reductions in Hazelwood’s pollution;
* allow Hazelwood to continue operating at current emissions levels, which are the worst in Australia and among the worst in the world;
* effectively provide a $16.7 billion subsidy over 25 years from the public purse, based on current European Union figures, if this emissions cap is protected from a future emissions trading scheme; and
* give Hazelwood a licence to continue operating – and polluting – well beyond 2030 and provide no guarantee when the power station will shut down.

Environment Victoria’s Executive Director Marcus Godinho said if this report was correct it would be a dirty deal: “Hazelwood is the number one test for the Bracks Government. An expansion will mean failure, which will be felt at the ballot box. I cannot emphasise enough the importance of this decision for the future of the environment, as well as our economy and jobs. An expansion would annihilate the Government’s environmental credibility.”

The amount of carbon dioxide in the air was 361ppm. As of 2025, when this post was published, it is 430ppm. This matters because the more carbon dioxide in the air, the more heat gets trapped. The more heat, the more extreme weather events. You can make it more complicated than that if you want, but really, it’s not. Fwiw, I have a tattoo of the Keeling Curve on my left forearm.

The broader context was that Victoria’s greenhouse gas emissions, from truly filthy brown coal, were high. In 1989 the State Electricity Commission Victoria released a report about what to do about Greenhouse Gas Emissions. We will never know what might have happened (probably not much, tbf) because the SECV got privatised

The specific context was that green groups had been plugging away, without too much sniff of victory, for a very long time.

What I think we can learn from this – we should celebrate the tenacity of the resistance, I guess? While not letting it off the hook for lack of innovation, reflexivity etc.

What happened next

According to wikipedia:

“In 2005, the Bracks government approved an environmental effects statement (EES) that allowed Hazelwood to relocate a road and a section of the Morwell River to allow access to an additional 43 million tonnes of coal in addition to that allowed under the mining licence boundaries set at the time of privatisation. This was estimated to provide sufficient coal for the plant to operate to at least 2030 (prior to decommissioning plans)…. 

Hazelwood was jointly owned by Engie with a 72% share and Mitsui & Co with a 28% share.[4] In 2014, Hazelwood employed 495 staff directly and on average 300 contractors. On 3 November 2016, Engie announced that the entire Hazelwood plant would be closed at the end of March 2017 giving five months notice of the closure.[5][6] The power station closed in March 2017.[7]”

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: 

 September 5, 1986 – a “Safe Energy” rally, in London

September 5, 1990 – Australian Environment Minister promises deep carbon cuts – “easy”…

September 5, 2004 – John Howard gloats about cooking the planet – All Our Yesterdays

September 5, 2005 – Anthony Albanese introduced “Avoiding Dangerous Climate #Change” private member’s bill

Categories
Academia Activism Australia

Version 1 of submission to Australian Senate Inquiry into Climate Disinfo/Misinfo – comments pls

Hi all, especially the Australians, and especially the Australians with experience of submitting documents to inquiries.

The Senate Select Committee on Information Integrity on Climate Change and Energy was appointed by resolution of the Senate on 30 July 2025 and I have am planning to make a submission.

I am putting Version 1.0 of my submission (word doc) up to

a) get people’s feedback and improve (shorten!) the submission

b) raise awareness of the Inquiry.

It’s waaay too long, and the academic bibliography will I think have to come out. But what else is wrong with it? What is missing?

The deadline is September 12th, so if you are reading this after September 8th (!), I won’t be able to integrate anything you say, but will still be interested.

The terms of reference of the inquiry

to inquire into and report on:

(a) the prevalence of, motivations behind and impacts of misinformation and disinformation related to climate change and energy;

(b) how misinformation and disinformation related to climate change and energy is financed, produced and disseminated, including, but not limited to, understanding its impact on:

(i) Australian politics,

(ii) domestic and international media narratives, and

(iii) Australian public policy debate and outcomes;

(c) the origins, growth and prevalence of ‘astroturfing’ and its impact on public policy and debate;

(d) connections between Australian organisations and international think tank and influence networks associated with the dissemination of misinformation and disinformation related to matters of public policy;

(e) the role of social media, including the coordinated use of bots and trolls, messaging apps and generative artificial intelligence in facilitating the spread of misinformation and disinformation;

(f) the efficacy of different parliamentary and regulatory approaches in combating misinformation and disinformation, what evidence exists and where further research is required, including through gathering global evidence;

(g) the role that could be played by media literacy education, including in the school curriculum, in combating misinformation and disinformation; and

(h) any other related matters.

Categories
Activism

September 1, 2021 – XR action versus glass door of a US investment bank

Four years ago, on this day, September 1st, 2021,

Five climate protesters armed with hammers and chisels smashed a glass door at the European headquarters of the American investment bank JP Morgan in London, a court heard.

The Extinction Rebellion activists targeted the bank in the City of London, smashing a large glazed panel revolving door and causing many thousands of pounds-worth of damage, a jury was told on Tuesday.

Brett Weaver, prosecuting at their trial at Inner London crown court, said the five women made their way to JP Morgan early on 1 September 2021. https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2024/feb/20/climate-activists-smashed-glass-door-of-jp-morgan-in-london-court-hears

The amount of carbon dioxide in the air was 416ppm. As of 2025, when this post was published, it is 430ppm. This matters because the more carbon dioxide in the air, the more heat gets trapped. The more heat, the more extreme weather events. You can make it more complicated than that if you want, but really, it’s not. Fwiw, I have a tattoo of the Keeling Curve on my left forearm.

The broader context was that XR had exploded onto the scene in late 2018, promising revolution, rebellion, joy etc. Already by late 2019, pre-pandemic, reality was setting in.

The specific context was that it’s hard to do mass actions when a) the streets are empty and b) nobody really believes in the hype anymore, and it has become the loooong grind that it always is. So, some very brave people gritted their teeth and got on with symbolic non-violent direct action.

What I think we can learn from this is that sustaining organisations, especially ones with millennarian rhetoric, is really hard.

What happened next

People did time.

I am in jail for breaking windows at JP Morgan, the biggest funder of fossil fuels. Here’s why I did it | Amy Pritchard | The Guardian

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: 

September 1, 1970 – Environmentalism is an elite-diversion tactic, says American Maoist

September 1, 1972 – “Man-Made Carbon Dioxide and the “Greenhouse Effect” published in Nature

September 1, 1983- #climate change is all in the game, you feel me?

September 1, 1998 – Sydney Futures Exchange foresees a bright future. Ooops.

Categories
Activism United Kingdom

August 31, 2006 – activists try to “Reclaim Power”

Nineteen years ago, on this day, August 31st, 2006 the first “Camp for Climate Action” has a day of “non-violent direct action” at Draw Power Station.

Day of action

On 31 August 2006, up to 600 people attended a protest called Reclaim Power converging on Drax and attempted to shut it down. There was a ‘kids march’ to Drax Power Station, with a giant ostrich puppet, made by The Mischief Makers. Two protesters climbed a lighting pylon at the edge of the Drax site and four others broke through the fence.[22] Thirty-eight protesters were arrested. The police reported that work at the power plant was not disrupted.[23]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Camp_for_Climate_Action#Drax_2006

The amount of carbon dioxide in the air was 382ppm. As of 2025, when this post was published, it is 430ppm. This matters because the more carbon dioxide in the air, the more heat gets trapped. The more heat, the more extreme weather events. You can make it more complicated than that if you want, but really, it’s not. Fwiw, I have a tattoo of the Keeling Curve on my left forearm.

The broader context was that there had been previous efforts to do direct action on climate change (Rising Tide) but the issue wasn’t yet “salient” enough among environmentalists to get things moving. At the G8 protests in Gleneagles in July 2005, dissatisfied environmentalists had proposed “A Camp for Climate Action.” Its first public meeting had been in Manchester in January 2006.

The specific context was that there were enough people who could tell that there was trouble ahead. But they/we lacked basic anthropological/sociological/whateverical insights into what movement building actually WAS. Oh well, all too late now, and was probably too late then. 

What I think we can learn from this – is that good intentions are really really not enough. But nothing was ever going to be enough, frankly. The inevitability was written in decades earlier – this is all just wriggling on the hook. 

What happened next – “Camp for Climate Action” which had begun because people were fed up with summit-hopping had, inevitably, within three years, degenerated into (checks notes) summit-hopping. And bewildered, they gave up the ghost in 2011. There was then “Reclaim Power” before XR came along and… oh, one loses the will to live, you know?

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: 

August 31, 1998 – Green dollar growing on trees?

August 31, 1992 – “Community Energy Audit” in Canberra 

August 31, 2005 – “Stop Climate Chaos” launched

August 31, 2011 – anti-carbon tax protesters call Anthony Albanese a “maggot”

Categories
Activism Australia

August 10, 2021- climate protest with burning pram…

Four years ago, on this day, August 10th, 2021,

The IPCC planned to release their sixth report and a spate of protests had been planned around Canberra ahead of it. CoCo was among a group of eight who planned to take their message directly to parliament. Their group included ANU Associate Professor Nick Abel, a climate scientist and kicked off when CoCo set fire to a pram and glued herself to the pavement. In the background was parliament house. As her fellow activists began to spray paint the words “Duty of Care” and “No Time” on columns across parliament, CoCo live streamed a speech about how she wanted to be a mother but could not “in all conscience bring a child into the world to face hell on earth.”

“The government, beholden to the fossil fuel lobby, has burnt my dreams,” she said.

It was a hammy performance, acted-up for the camera but the underlying message was true. CoCo had always wanted to be a mother but as she learned more about climate change, it was a future she would deny herself.

The amount of carbon dioxide in the air was 416ppm. As of 2025, when this post was published, it is 430ppm. This matters because the more carbon dioxide in the air, the more heat gets trapped. The more heat, the more extreme weather events. You can make it more complicated than that if you want, but really, it’s not. Fwiw, I have a tattoo of the Keeling Curve on my left forearm.

The broader context was – wait, you can’t remember 4 years ago? – The bushfires, the brutal heatwaves, the floods. The chickens coming home to roost.

The specific context was that Scott Morrison was still Prime Minister of Australia. Among other portfolios.

What I think we can learn from this is that we are toast. Sorry, but there it is. I’ve done ten of these posts on the trot, and have clearly got to stop (for now) before it just becomes a prolonged howl of rage. 

What happened next – More emissions. More jail terms for activists. More disasters. More despair.

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: 

August 10, 1974 – Stockholm conference on climate modelling ends 

August 10, 1978 – Ford Pinto deaths spark class action lawsuit – All Our Yesterdays

August 10, 1980 – “Energy, Climate and the Future” seminar in Melbourne

August 10, 2003 – a UK temperature record tumbles…

Categories
Academia Activism Australia Carbon Pricing Economics of mitigation

August 5, 1997 – “Climate Change Policies in Australia” briefing

Twenty eight years ago, on this day, August 5th, 1997 – Clive Hamilton, founder of the Australia Institute,

“Climate Change Policies in Australia: A briefing to a meeting of the Ad Hoc Group on the Berlin Mandate”, Bonn, Germany, 5th August 1997

The Government’s position has been bolstered by economic modelling analysis that purports to show that Australia would be especially hard hit. It is projected that wages in Australia will be 19% lower by 2020 under a scenario that reduces emissions by 10% below 1990 levels in 2020. It is also claimed that the economic cost for each Australian would be 22 times higher than for each European. These extraordinary claims have been challenged by many experts including 131 Australian academic economists who signed a statement declaring that policies are available to slow climate change without harming employment or living standards in Australia.
It is also apparent that the modelling results have been presented in ways that are highly misleading. Despite the fact that the model is constructed in a way that exaggerates the impact of emissions reductions on the Australian economy, the results actually show that the impact would be extremely small.

The amount of carbon dioxide in the air was 363ppm. As of 2025, when this post was published, it is 430ppm. This matters because the more carbon dioxide in the air, the more heat gets trapped. The more heat, the more extreme weather events. You can make it more complicated than that if you want, but really, it’s not. Fwiw, I have a tattoo of the Keeling Curve on my left forearm.

The broader context was that the UNFCCC had been agreed in 1992, but the text did NOT include targets and timetables for emissions reductions by rich countries. Why not? Because UNCLE SAM SAID SO THAT’S WHY NOT YOU PINKO TREE-HUGGER.

(i.e. the people around George Bush Snr defeated the “pro-action” forces). So in 1995, the “Berlin Mandate” had been agreed – rich countries would have to come to the 3rd meeting in 1997, with plans/commitments to cut their emissions.

The specific context was that the Australian government of Paul Keating had been deeply reluctant, and once there was a switch to John Howard, the anti-action work had turbocharged. This briefing came during a “charm” (sic) offensive by Howard’s people, trying to get a special deal for Australia. Clive Hamilton, who had set up the Australia Institute three years earlier, was not amused.

What I think we can learn from this is that the Australian political and economic elite are, of course, criminally incompetent when it comes to a host of issues. But especially climate…

What happened next – Howard succeeded in getting that extremely generous deal at Kyoto. Then STILL didn’t ratify it, on general (lack of) principle.

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: 

August 5, 1971 – First “South Pacific Forum” happens – All Our Yesterdays

August 5, 1997 – Australian politician calls for “official figures” on #climate to be suspended because they are rubbery af

August 5, 2010 – academics call for insurance industry to get involved in climate fight

Categories
Activism Australia

June 22, 1990 – ALP already undermining green agenda

Thirty five years ago, on this day, June 22nd, 1990, the governing Labor Party of Australia is – gasp – siding with the rich and against the future.

Conservation groups have accused economic ministers within the Hawke Government of hijacking the environment debate and pre-empting discussion of a paper on sustainable development due to go to Cabinet next Tuesday.

The executive director of the Australian Conservation Foundation, Phillip Toyne, said yesterday that the ACF was “extremely concerned” to express disquiet with the fact that the Minister for Employment, Education and Training, John Dawkins, and other economic ministers were trying to dominate the sustainability debate.

1990 Lamberton, H. 1990. Environment debate ‘hijacked’. Canberra Times, 23 June, p.5.

The amount of carbon dioxide in the air was roughly 354.5ppm. As of 2025 it is 430ppm, but check here for daily measures. 

The context was that the ALP had clung to power at the March 1990 election thanks to green-concerned voters holding their noses and voting for Labor candidates.  Some Labor figures (Peter Walsh, for instance) hated this, and hated the greens (the Greens didn’t exist yet). Meanwhile, the business pushback against all things environmental (except greenwash, obvs) had begun in earnest in March 1990….

What I think we can learn from this is that the ALP has never been able to cope with green issues. On some level they know this, I assume.

What happened next. The Ecologically Sustainable Development policy process got underway, and came up with some decent workable ideas, which were then watered down/ignored and then memory-holed – see here for the spectacular implosion of the whole process- … And the emissions kept climbing.

xxx

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

Also on this day: 

June 22, 1976 – Times reports “World’s temperature likely to rise” – All Our Yesterdays

June 22 ,1988 – Roger Rabbit on forced consumption (and so on to #climate apocalypse) – All Our Yesterdays

Categories
Activism United States of America

June 21, 1964 – Goodman, Chaney and Schwerner murdered

Sixty years ago, on this day, June 21st, 1964,

Three civil rights workers, Andrew Goodman, James Chaney and Mickey Schwerner, are murdered in Neshoba County, Mississippi, United States, by members of the Ku Klux Klan.

The amount of carbon dioxide in the air was roughly 319ppm. As of 2025 it is 430ppm, but check here for daily measures. 

The broader context was that black people had been resisting Jim Crow (the name given to the apartheid system in the Southern United States) as best they could, since its inception. But the “massive resistance” of the Southern States was only going to be broken with outside help – both the Federal Government and brave brave people trying to desegregate schools, buses etc.

The specific context was that Ella Baker had managed to protect students and young black people from being swallowed up into other people’s campaigns, and so the Student Non-Violent Coordinating Committee (SNCC) was formed. It had had some success with education/outreach/voter registration, but decided (it was a contentious issue) that it needed more (Northern) hands on deck and so began the “Freedom Summer” in 1964, where white and black volunteers from the North would join those efforts. At the very beginning of that summer, these three volunteers were murdered.

What I think we can learn from this is that the defenders of the status quo are perfectly okay with murder to defend that status quo. Change costs lives.

What happened next  The Freedom Summer happened. It opened an enormous can of worms, and second wave feminism, queer rights, ecology movements sprang from the ferment of the second half of the sixties.  The Black Civil Rights Movement was the initiator movement, in academic terms.

Oh, and on August 3 1980 Republican candidate Ronald Reagan gave a “states rights” speech in Neshoba County. Nudge, nudge, wink, wink, dog whistle, dog whistle.

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 21, 2007 – ABC unleashes “Carbon Cops” on the world. ACAB – All Climate Activists Barf… – All Our Yesterdays