Categories
Activism Interviews

Interview: BirthStrike’s Spencer Rocchi answers some questions

BirthStrike is “Birthstrike is choosing to forgo having children to protect them from worsening social, economic and environmental conditions.” Here’s their answers to some questions..

a) What was the genesis (!) for the birth of Birth Strike? Was it a gradual realisation or a bolt from the blue?

The BirthStrike movement was founded in 2018 by Blythe Pepino, a British musician and activist, in response to the climate crisis and its goal was to raise awareness of the climate crisis and demand political action.

In 2020, BirthStrike for Climate disbanded and became a support group on Slack called “Grieving Parenthood in the Climate Crisis: Channeling Loss into Climate Justice.” They were not connected to antinatalism (we are), nor did they try to persuade people not to have children (we are).It was a brief movement that I have splintered off into a full-on Revolutionary strategy.

b) What sort of pushback have you had that you respect? (Life is too short for giving oxygen to idiots)

I don’t respect pronatalists, educated breeders and capitalists in general, though it was interesting to watch Blythe Pepino make Tucker Carleson sweat.

It’s not ethical to bring children into climate change, period. If there is a good argument for having children, especially under current conditions, I haven’t heard it.

c) What do you say to people who say “but my child might well be the one to come up with “The Solution?”

“Why didn’t you come up with a solution? What kind of loser forces children into existence to solve humanity’s problems instead of taking personal accountability for themself? You’re too narcissistic to adopt but too lazy to do anything with your own life, so you create another wage slave? Shame on you!”

d) What does “success” look like for BSM?

A mass movement where workers are intentionally withholding procreation to

a) protect their children from climate change,

b) reduce their CO2 output,

c) refuse to feed the capitalist machine,

d) become ungovernable so we can eat the rich.

e) How can people who want to support it get involved/support it?

Join the website mailing list or the FB group. Confront and argue with educated breeders about their narcissistic decision and poor parenting in general.

f) Anything else you’d like to say.

Go vegan!

See also Guardian article from 2019 – BirthStrikers: meet the women who refuse to have children until climate change ends

And again, this is quite funny


Categories
Academia Interviews

Interview with Chad Montrie on class, labour, race, environmentalism and The Myth of Silent Spring

Hello everyone, below please find and interview with Prof Chad Montrie, whose work I encountered via the excellent Network in Canadian History and the Environment. If you know someone, or are someone, who should be interviewed for All Our Yesterdays, let me know…  

So first question, who are you? Where did you grow up, and when did you first hear about climate and how and do you remember what you thought? 

My name is Chad Montre, a professor of history at the University of Massachusetts, Lowell, which is about 30 miles north of Boston. Many people know it, at least in the US, or in New England, because it was where fully integrated cotton textile and wool and production began, and kind of, in that way, marks it out as the birthplace of the American Industrial Revolution. 

There is also, as a result, a national historic park there. And so I came to the University with the idea I would continue working in labour and environmental history as well as be engaged with the public history folks in town. And their interpretation is very much in line with the kind of work that I do. So it’s been quite a good couple of decades being in Lowell. 

I grew up in Louisville, Kentucky, and went to University of Louisville, and went to grad school at Ohio State University, in Columbus.  

I was really not sure what I was going to do when I went to college, what I would decide to declare to be my major. and what I was going to do at the end when I graduated but I was fortunate to run into several people on faculty who had been involved in social movement activism of the 1960s and 70s, in black civil rights, anti war, women’s liberation and to some extent, some of the environmental activism. And they then also went to grad school and ended up becoming academics and basically modeled for me how to do activist informed scholarship. I liked being in college and university. I liked the chance to read books and to talk about ideas, and this seemed like a way I could almost stay in school for the rest of my life, which is kind of what happened and have it as a job. Yet also to make a difference, that I could do something with academic work that would connect to engaging with social problems in the time. 

I can’t remember when I first heard about climate or climate change. It must have been when I was a teenager, I was already doing activism by the time I was 13 or 14 years old. There was still a lively anti apartheid struggle happening and that was kind of my entry point to activism. But somewhere along the way, I must have encountered this concept of climate and how climate was being affected by fossil fuel emissions. And so since I don’t remember when exactly that happened I’m not really sure what I thought about it. 

I was never exclusively an environmentalist. I was very much involved in labour activism, and, like I said, the anti apartheid movement and things of that kind. And so if I did think about the environment, I often thought about it already, in terms of the layering of social inequality and other dimensions that continue to be part of how I think about it in the present time. 

That’s excellent. Was this the mid 80s then sort of, “I’m not going to play Sun City” and all of the divestment from South Africa campaigns. Or just a little bit later?

I think it’s a little bit later. I don’t remember the year here, but I remember the protests that I attended was, they were tied to the boycott Shell campaign. And I went downtown to a Shell gas station where people marching were around.  I mean, I’d already been involved in some other stuff by that point, but that was kind of one of the the, I think, the most important kind of events, as far as for me personally, because I also met at that protest, a person who was part of the Socialist Workers Party, which is a part of the Fourth International, and a Trotskyist organization. And I got involved in SWP, and that put me fairly far to the left of many of my peers, or even the social activists in the city. Most of them were good Democrats, or, you know, there was an active DSA, Democratic Socialist of America chapter too. But I would be kind of on my way away from that to something much more militant. 

So this was in Louisville. 

In Louisville, yeah, and that was when also the Eastern Airlines United Mine Workers, and I think another group of workers went on strike. And so I went to a big labour march in Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania, with the organizer. And I guess that was probably my first big labour march. 

And then I went to college, and basically what I was trying to do, because I was part of the Young Socialist Alliance, which is the youth branch of the SWP, I was organizing through  YSA.  And we were still, we were still dealing with the wars in Central America, and I remember that was a big, big part of what we were focused on, including in Nicaragua, defending the revolution there.

But so like I said, I was never really exclusively environmentalist, but  my mentor in college, John Cumbler, he had helped found Students for Democratic Society at the University of Wisconsin, and he was involved in SNCC organizing, the Student Nonviolent Coordinating Committee in Mississippi. So he’s almost like a classic 60s activist. 

So he was there during the Freedom Summer of 64? 

I think he didn’t go down until 65 , but he then went to graduate school and worked with Sam Bass Warner and he became a labour historian. By the time I met him, he was teaching a lAmerican labour history course, which I got into immediately. I wasn’t supposed to be enrolled because you had to, you had to be a junior. But I snuck in, and he let me stay. 

But then he also started teaching an environmental history class. So these were pitched as separate things, and even he really didn’t, he really didn’t blend them. But it occurred to me, at least by the time I was coming to the end of college, that it would be interesting to try to create a hybrid, to think about how you could bring the two together, bring insights from the one to the other. And so then that’s what I was doing when I went off to graduate school –  is trying to think about how to do a labour and environmental history together.. 

Okay, I have to ask, how did that turn out? 

It turned out pretty well, although kind of accidentally. Because I went to graduate school, and I got to the point where I did my masters, and I wasn’t really sure if I wanted to continue on the academic path. It was the time when post structuralism conversations or post modernism was still in vogue, and I just wasn’t really getting a lot out of that.

It seemed like a lot of my peers, they really, really invested in it, but so that summer, after I finished my master’s in 1997 I decided to do a labour organizing internship. And I went to work for the United Food and Commercial Workers down in Appalachia in eastern Kentucky. 

And we were organizing grocery store workers who were going on strike. And we went to this place called Appalshop, which is a multimedia community center that had been started by 1960s era radicals who just had stuck around when they were down there doing anti poverty organizing. And so we were using their radio station to get the word out about the campaign. And we were done doing that. We were just sitting around the studio, and I said, you know, “I have go back to graduate school, and I need a topic to do a dissertation, and I want something that’s labour and environmental history.” And immediately they said, “Well, why don’t you write about the movement to ban strip mining in Appalachia?” And I’d never heard about this growing up in Louisville, which is somewhat far away from from Whitesburg, which is where Appalshop is. I’d never been to Appalachia before. You know, it was probably as foreign to me as almost anybody. 

But that turned out to be a great topic to do for labour and environmental history, because, as it turned out, the United Mine Workers was aligned with the environmental activists, because people in the region saw surface coal mining as both an environmental issue and a social issue and and soI was ale to write the dissertation to be my first book To Save the land and People, which came out in 2003, so now more than 20 years old. 

But I think that was a really good start, with a very specific case. And I, what I tried to do is accumulate more of an understanding over the course of the next decade and a half, different kinds of labor environmentalism. And I think my career took a nice narrative arc from something very specific to a more general accounting, which is the book that I published in 2018, The Myth of Silent Spring.

So I know you weren’t trying to “diss” Rachel Carson, but rather contextualize her contribution. In a nutshell, can you send the book received, and are you still happy with it? 

Sure. I still like it as a book. The title actually was something that manuscript readers recommended to me. It actually refers not to the science of Silent Spring, which Rachel Carson published in 1962 to expose the impact of pesticides. It’s still pretty sound as an expose on pesticides, and she did have an impact, I think, in terms of raising environmental awareness, not only about pesticides, but about all different environmental problems. She died in 1964 from cancer. So she didn’t live with her own book very long. And, you know, it’s one of those interesting counterfactual questions to wonder about, what would have happened had she lived into the 1960s and 70s. 

But what I think is “the myth”, is this idea that Carson and her book started the environmental movement. And you hear that, or used to hear it everywhere. I haven’t actually heard it in a while, but when I started writing the book, I was hearing it constantly. And you hear it in different ways. There were newspaper stories, magazine articles, documentary films, children’s books and academics too were using this, this idea that the book started the environmental movement. And when you operate with that as the origin story, then you get a lot of other things wrong, including leaving out a lot of people, a lot of historical actors. 

What I found, in fact, because I knew this was the case – it wasn’t like I suddenly understood things, but that I knew that workers were already doing something like having an environmental consciousness in the 19th century. Because they were reacting to industrialization. They were reacting to the very historical transformation that was most devastating to the air and the water and the landscape. And they continued to do that into the 20th century, and sometimes by the 20th century labour unions were also involved in being the advocates, being the key organizations, the pioneers of a labour-led environmentalism, and obviously they were coming to it with a working class consciousness. And the unions that  were involved are counter-intuitive to some people, but not so much to me, because I see they’re the ones who are the most connected to the industries that caused the most serious environmental problems. Like the United Mineworkers, which people wouldn’t think of as a very environmentally-minded union. The United Auto Workers was key. The Oil Chemical and Atomic Workers Union, the United Steel Workers were all very important to starting in environmentalism.

And they’re doing that in the 1930s 1940s so a decade or two before Silent Spring

And then later, even after Silent Spring, a lot of people weren’t necessarily being motivated, or they may not even be aware of the book Silent Spring. So the environmentalism that they did wasn’t tapping into that. I think the book probably resonated more strongly with white, middle class people in the suburbs who cared about things more particular to them.

Yeah, you’ve made me think about sort of similar patterns in Australia, and we had a sort of an upsurge of concern in the late 60s. And I don’t know if you visited Australia, but Sydney and Melbourne still have some of the old architecture, simply because the unions instituted what were called “green bans” where they refused to work on construction sites that were them to be particularly environmentally or socially harmful, and this, of course, caused outrage among political and economic elites who were not used to having to negotiate. What reception did the book get? And were you happy with that?

Predictably mixed. When I would do book talks, sometimes I think the audience might have read it, but, like, you know, sometimes people would ask me “why I hate Rachel Carson so much?”, and just completely miss the point that I’m trying to make. They just can’t relinquish the idea that Silent Spring started the environmental movement and they just can’t really pay attention to the rest, to the complexity of the story I’m trying to tell. Because I think it also would require them to rethink a bunch of other bits of their political social consciousness. 

But on the other hand, environmental historians were pretty receptive, and I have done interviews like this with many people involved in activism of all kinds who see this as one of the tools that they need to understand the past, to better understand the present and to bring class into the conversation, as well as race, about environmentalism. And so that’s been, that’s been good. 

And, I mean, I was kind of surprised. I feel like, in a way, it’s, you know, it’s now six years old. People are still talking about, I think it kind of gets attention in waves. It sort of seems to be living. Like books do this. I don’t know if other people have had this experience, but when I publish a book it kind of then has a life of its own, it goes out and makes it way in the world. And this one is certainly doing that. 

So I mean, there was, for instance, a book by Douglas Brinkley recently, in which he again profiled white middle class liberals and talked about how they were, you know crucial to environmentalism, including Rachel Carson.  And there was a review in the New Republic which mentioned The Myth of Silent Spring, noting there’s other work that’s been done and that he didn’t reckon with any of that, and certainly didn’t talk about labour or class, really. So it’s there as a piece in a debate. And that’s, and that’s good, 

Excellent. Which brings us to your current work, which is sort of stumbled across, you, think, via the Niche Canadian website. Can you explain the impetus for that work and the goal of it? 

So, in 2018 I thought that was my last bit of scholarship on labuor and environmental history, because I’ve been doing it, you know, I’d started my dissertation in 1997 so I’d been doing it for almost 20 years, and I was ready to shift gears.  And Black Lives Matter was really intensifying in the US then, so I wanted to do something with race, and I actually started writing another book that became my more recent book (Whiteness in Plain View). 

But then in the summer of 2022 I got an invitation to apply for a Fulbright Canada Research Chair, and I thought I’d always wanted to do a Fulbright. So I thought this would be a good opportunity, since they seemed to have me in mind. And what I was planning to do was to try to create a book end, in a sense, to my To Save the Land and People book, when I went to Calgary the plan was I to look at the United Mine Workers papers there, at the Glenbow archive at the University of Calgary, the  UMW District 18 collection, It would be interesting to see, if you know, how mine workers reacted to surface mining in Alberta, in the province. When I got there, I started, you know, the first week I was there, landed, got settled, started looking at records. But there was no story. The United Mine Workers there really didn’t do what the UMW did in Appalachia.

As a Fulbright I was supposed to produce something of merit. And I knew from my other work that other unions were involved in labour environmentalism. So I looked at other records,including the Alberta Federation of Labor records, and went from there.  I realized that the key union doing environmentalism in Alberta was the Oil, Chemical and Atomic Workers, and they actually were the leadership of the Alberta provincial labour organization too. And then they actually have an influence across the country, and they do cross border work as well, with some of the OCAW people in the United States. 

While I was in Calgary, I also had a chance to go to Ottawa and use some of the collections at the Library and Archives of Canada. And there I realized that there’s a story to tell about Ontario, and I then wrote two different articles, one about labour environmentalism in Alberta, which was published this summer, in the journal Labour/Le Travail. And then I published this other one on Ontario just recently, like a week or two ago in the Papers in Canadian History and Environment series of the Network in Canadian History and the Environment.  

And so this was, this is me sort of moving forward work that I’ve been doing in the United States to think about Canada, which I found to have a very similar narrative. But there’s more to do. There’s a lot of potential there. The environmental historians and the labour historians really hadn’t been giving this full attention. Environmental historians basically weren’t doing anything with with class or labour unions, and when the labour historians were looking at any environmental theme mostly they were exclusively focused on occupational health and safety and not really thinking about how workers and unions were connecting to community environmental problems. 

And I suppose, I mean, that’s the interesting question here is, under what circumstances do labour unions, which are always facing challenges from the you know, the owners of the factory, or the sector. Under what circumstances are they able to look beyond that and take on board what some might consider to be sort of almost “abstract questions”. Does it require visionary leaders? Does it require really obvious environmental problems? Does it require church organizations that are pushing the unions to be a bit more, for want of a better phrase, ‘radical.’ All of the above or something else? I mean, what patterns have you spotted?

 That’s a great question. It’s the main thing that I’ve been trying to address in all of this work, which is this claim that corporations introduce to the conversation that workers have to choose between jobs or the environment. They pitch it that way, you can’t have both. Implicit in that is that workers never did choose both jobs and environment, and people just kind of went with that story. When I looked into it more deeply, finding in the United States and what I found in Canada, workers have often been involved in pioneering environmentalism because they’re the closest to the environmental problems. It’s not an abstract question in the sense that it can be life or death for them. And not just in terms of occupational health and safety, but they live in the communities where they work. And so, for instance, United Mine Worker membership, they were concerned about how surface mining was taking away their jobs, because it’s a more efficient form of getting coal out of the ground. But they’re also struggling with the polluted waterways, landslides and other things. 

I do think visionary leaders are important, somebody like Walter Reuther, in the UAW, who was a conservationist, and he made the UAW probably the leading environmental union in the United States, until he died in 1970. And he died actually a few weeks after the first Earth Day and a few weeks after the Constitutional Convention of the UAW in which they proclaimed that they wanted an environmental bill of rights. And he was flying to a new Education Center called The Black Lake Education Center, which is out in the middle of the woods, and all of that, speaks to his environmental awareness.

Another big difference that I saw with Canada and the United States is that Canadian labour unions are much more engaged with First Nations groups, more so than American labour unions were engaged with indigenous peoples organizations. So, you know, in the United States, the main organization that was radical, was the American Indian Movement. And I don’t, I don’t have any evidence that labour unions were engaged with them. Whereas in Canada, they’re much more responsive to the First Nations groups. And they talk back to the labor unions too. They want to be allies with them around development projects, to address the environmental as well as social problems that those development projects cause. 

Yeah, that everything you said is really interesting and makes me think about what has and has not happened in Australia around Aboriginal land rights, unions, environment, certainly the sort of the uneasy alliances, lots of tensions need managing.  So what does responsible scholarship mean to you? What does it? What does it look like? 

Well, I attended public universities for Undergraduate and Graduate School. I teach at a public university, and I do that intentionally, because I think, you know, it’s a way to connect with working class students. And I was in a place that was open to somebody like myself when I was in college, because of where I was. And yet I also think that I was very aware of the many things that weren’t right about academia. There is some truth to this idea that academics are sort of in an ivory tower and disengaged from the world, or when they are engaged it is with insignificant things. I always wanted to not do that.

Is my work meaningful? Is it socially relevant? Does it make a contribution, and starting with the present, and then thinking about how to investigate, understand the present is one of the ways that that can happen.

The final question is, what next for you, academically – what would you like to study? 

Okay, so, like I said, after my Silent Spring book, I started working on another book that was a history of racial exclusion in Minnesota, and it coincided with Derek Chauvin murdering George Floyd when I was working on the manuscript.  And as a result there are people doing anti racist work, racial reckoning in Minnesota that the book found an audience, and I decided to continue with that. I’m working on a new book that is not environmental or labour history. It’s a history of blackface minstrel shows in Minnesota, which I see part of a way to investigate the culture of racism in the state over the course of at least a century. My partner and I joke about I now have topic one and topic two. So I’m not sure what will happen with the labour and environmental stuff, but the book is getting a lot of space.

Categories
Academia Interviews Science Scientists United Kingdom

“Institutions would rather watch the world burn than bite the hand that feeds them” – Interview with organiser of open letter to Royal Society about its climate stance

Professor Jason Scott-Warren (Twitter account here) is the organiser of an open letter signed by 2500 academics to the Royal Society about its climate stance. He has kindly answered a few questions about the campaign. (You can read an August 2023 article in The Guardian here. There’s a piece in the Financial Times [paywalled] today, about the RS saying ,in effect, “yeah, nah.”

BTW, the Royal Society has – understandably – a long history in the UK around climate change, which will have to wait for another day. For now, there’s this from 2006, when it chided Exxon for funding denialist groups.

1.  What is the campaign trying to achieve?

The campaign is asking the Royal Society to speak out about the fossil fuel industry and how dangerous it is, both in its determination to carry on exploring for new reserves and in its lobbying activities. Both aspects of its behaviour should be red lights for scientists, at a time when the Paris Agreement goals are hanging by a thread. If the Royal Society were to make a statement about this, it would help to galvanise action in the UK academic community, and to sway public discourse.

2.  How did it get going?

I’ve been involved in campaigns at the University of Cambridge, initially to persuade the University to divest from fossil fuel companies and more recently to ask it to cut all research and philanthropic ties with them. It became clear to me that some scientists at the University were willing to give the likes of BP and Shell the benefit of the doubt because the Royal Society had not given a clear steer in this area. So I decided to start an open letter calling for an unambiguous statement. The letter now has more than 2500 signatures from UK academics.

3. What has the Royal Society’s response been – was it in anyway surprising?

The Royal Society has engaged with us, albeit at a pace that has not always inspired confidence. They agreed to hold a meeting with a small group of signatories, and discussed our demands in detail. But we were not surprised when they eventually turned our request down, pointing to all the other worthy things that they were doing on climate, and saying it would be inappropriate to condemn one sector ‘within a complex system where multiple actors need to engage urgently with these challenges’.

Decoded, this means they have swallowed the fiction that fossil fuel companies are ‘part of the solution’. At some point in the future, the story goes, these companies are going to suck all the carbon out of the atmosphere and bury it under the ocean, just so long as they can carry on generating obscene profits in the here-and-now. The susceptibility of the Royal Society to this narrative is not entirely surprising. The idea of a technological solution to the climate problem flatters their rather narrow sense of their mission. More broadly, the entanglement of some parts of the scientific establishment with the petrochemical industry is so deep that they cannot register what is happening before their eyes. They cannot admit that they have created a machine that has run out of control, and which is rapidly destroying the biosphere.

4.  What are the next stages, and what help are you looking for?

In a way, this is all just more evidence (as if we needed it) that petitions and polite debates don’t work. Money trumps everything, and institutions would rather watch the world burn than bite the hand that feeds them. We need more direct action to demand changes that will never come by asking nicely. But I do think we need to keep putting pressure on the timid institutions that we inhabit, and to alert them to the fact that they have urgent moral responsibilities that they are failing to address. Their behaviour is going to look as shameful in retrospect as propping up the slave trade or apartheid. They still have an opportunity to rectify this.

5. Anything else you’d like to say.

We should celebrate the institutions that are taking a stand in this area—the UN, the International Energy Agency, the BMA and others.

Categories
Interviews

Interview with Anthony Negus, of Western Australia

One of the best things about running this site is it offers the excuse to ask smart people to write about their lives and perspectives. This is a long (unedited) interview that I think deserves and will repay your close attention.

1. Tell us a bit about who you are – where and when you grew up, and how and when you first learnt about climate change,

Answer: My name is Anthony Negus, known to many people by my second name, Shane, and I was born in Beverley (Ballardong Noongar name: Wergijan), Western Australia in 1957 to the farming couple Geoffrey and Shirley Negus.. My Australian settler-colonial forebears on both sides were almost all farming people, back to the 1830s on my paternal side and the 1850s on my maternal side.

As we have been in Western Australia so long, I am of mixed ancestry, which made my family rather unusual in those times inasmuch as many of these forebears married across both religious and class lines: free settler Presbyterian Scots with Irish Catholics of convict stock (a taboo subject when I was a child, convict ancestry being widely seen still as a stain on a family’s reputation and standing in small country communities). Welsh non-Conformists and Church of England members wed and bred and some of their offspring went on to marry Catholics who had converted from Judaism. None of this was easy in Beverley/Wergijan at the time for those who crossed sectarian divides, which also usually meant crossing the class divide: landed gentry who lived on large farms and “Nobs Hill”–for snobs, I guess–versus the hoi-polloi of lesser pedigree and far less wealth in most cases, certainly those who were Catholic. However, there was a plus in this situation for me: our family was by and large much more tolerant of difference and diversity than was typical of country Sandgropers (Western Australians). All this religious bigotry and animosity faded gradually from the early 1960s onwards but I still recall kids from the state school and those of us at the convent school taunting each other with ugly shouted insults and chants such as ”Catholic dogs stink like frogs, in and out of water logs”. This made for an interesting transition for those of us enrolled in the state school after the convent school closed. Happily, it all went pretty smoothly.

Less fortunate by far were the Noongar kids who attended Beverley Junior High. This was very much still the era of white supremacy pervading every aspect of the laws and culture of WA society, symbolised most tellingly in the White Australia Policy and the infamous WA Aboriginal Act 1905, a major influence some decades later when a newly elected racist government in South Africa legislated the country’s apartheid regime, drawing much of its inspiration and specific measures that would segregate the races from longstanding segregationist laws in both WA and Queensland. I witnessed the appalling living conditions for Noongar people at the Beverley native reserve. The poverty and lack of even the most basic services or amenities shocked me. My parents were hardscrabble farmers who lived with three children in a house that would be today considered very basic, if quite comfortable by the standards of the day. But we had running water; the Noongars on the reserve did not; we wadjellas (Noongar: non-Indigenous people, overwhelmingly whites of British and Irish ancestry then, as now) could move freely in the community but the Noongars had to abide by a curfew every night; by law, employers were permitted to pay Noongar workers a much lower wage than their wadjella co-workers doing the same job; and certainly the cruellest and most unjust thing the state government’s Native Welfare Department bureaucrats did, usually carried out on the ground by policemen was forced removal of so-called “half caste” Noongar children from their families, after which the littlies, some just babies, went into missions run most often by Christian denominations of one sort or another. This happened to a close friend of mine, now a much respected and outspoken elder, a woman who, as a young girl was used by a number of Benedictine priests, in her words, as a “sex slave”. She wasn’t the only one and many decades later the report issued by the Royal Commission into Institutional Responses to Child Sexual Abuse found that the New Norcia schools run by the Catholic Church represented one of the worst hotspots for such abuse in all Australia, a veritable paedophiles’ picnic.

I attended school locally at the Beverley Convent School, which closed in 1966 due to falling enrolments, then attended the Junior High School from Year 5 in 1967 to 1972. After that, I attended Aquinas College in Perth/Boorloo as a boarding student and completed my Leaving Certificate in 1974, achieving matriculation, which meant that I could apply to enrol in one of a wide range of courses at the University of Western Australia because my examination results were high enough to qualify me to do so. Our family farm was small, just 1000 acres on hard country and with three children to support on a very modest income, made more difficult by a bad drought in 1969 and death duties levied on my grandfather’s farm following his death in 1968. The farm was now managed by my father and he was faced with inherited debts, impending death duty liabilities and a harsh drought which resulted in a poor crop. If it wasn’t that I won a Commonwealth Student Scholarship at the end of Year 10, my parents wouldn’t have had the money to enrol me at Aquinas College.

This financial struggle for my parents during the whole of the 1970s prompted me to take what was known as a student teacher bond. This scheme enabled students to obtain a Teachers Certificate at very low cost because the WA government paid for one’s course without requirement to repay the money received, on one proviso: that a bonded graduate would serve for a minimum of three years somewhere in the state. As I wanted to become a secondary school English, History and Media Studies teacher, I seized the opportunity to sign up for the bond, thus greatly reducing the financial contribution my parents would have had to have made towards my tuition at WASTC and boarding costs at a university residential college. In fact, my father made it very clear that if I couldn’t find my own means of paying to attend three years at the teachers’ college, I’d have to abandon the idea because he didn’t have the money to support me for so long.

As a fairly solitary farm boy I spent a lot of my time until I was 15 walking through bushland and along the banks of the local river, the Avon (in Ballardong, Gugulja Bilya), observing very closely the native plant and animal species; which I continued doing when back home on holidays from Aquinas in 1973 and 1974.

My siblings and I grew up witnessing regular flooding events, the worst of which caused major damage to roads, bridges and buildings. There were a lot of heavy rainfall events from April onwards, through to late spring. Frosts were a part of everyday life on most winter mornings, some of them ‘black frosts’ which were colder and more penetrating than lighter frosts, so did more damage to frost-sensitive plants kept under cover on verandas. The upside was that fruit trees such as apples and pears, which require at least 300 chill hours, that is hours below 7-degrees Celsius, across autumn-winter-spring, did well and fruited heavily. Frosts are now significantly less frequent or severe, with an occasional cold snap perhaps lasting a few days, but nothing like we experienced in the mid-20th century.

Bureau of Meteorology weather records taken since the 1950s show that annual rainfall has declined in the south-west of WA by at least 20 percent and frosts are much less common than they were. It’s also now much warmer across all seasons on average. The early signs of the impacts of anthropogenic global heating began to become evident from the mid-1970s on, especially to those of us deeply connected to the local natural environment and involved in maintaining healthy, productive domestic gardens. The climate simply wasn’t what it used to be.


In 1977, I became the first member of my family in Western Australia to obtain a tertiary education degree, which happened when I graduated from the Western Australian Secondary Teachers’ College. I was employed by a leading Catholic school named John XXIII College, which had only come into existence that year following an amalgamation of the all-girls Loreto Convent and the Jesuit-run all-boys St Louis School. It was the beginning of a long and successful career at John XXIII College, during which time I rose from a fledging first-year teacher on probation to serve for five years as deputy principal, from 1994 to 1999, after which I gained employment as an educational consultant and, finally, researcher at the Catholic Education Office of WA. I left education in 2005 and retrained as a horticulturalist, a career I pursued until I retired from the paid workforce in 2023.. The last ten years of that period was spent working as a sole trader, offering horticultural services to customers back  in my Wheatbelt town where I’d relocated from Perth/Boorloo in 2012, largely because I wanted to live close to my elderly parents and to do some caring for them (cooking meals, driving them to medical appointments in Northam, a regional hub for the Wheatbelt and very often to the ‘big smoke’.

As a horticulturist living and working back in my hometown, the impacts of global heating on the environment were clear for all to see: massively increased bushfire risk, depletion of plant and animal species, the aforementioned much reduced annual rainfall, annual temperature increases across all seasons, very rare flooding events (and those that occurred weren’t so much during winter, as in the 1950s to 1970s, but as the result of summer thunderstorm events.)

Long before all this, though, I was coming across reports in the news about the theory of human-induced global warming and predictions of super-cyclones if our species kept emitting greenhouse gases into the atmosphere at the rate then taking place, since much accelerated by the burning of ever-increasing amounts of fossil fuels such as coal, gas and oil.

Climate scientists were already modelling the changes in climate and probable adverse impacts of AGW on the climate of south-west WA. This was in the mid-1980s and they were warning of much more severe impacts in coming decades unless the burning of fossil fuels wasn’t drastically reduced, not just in WA but across the entire world. I had no hesitation, like my colleagues, many of whom also grew up on farms in the State or “over east”, of teaching students in Social Studies classes about global heating and what the future held for them and future generations of AGW wasn’t dealt with by the world’s governments.

We are certainly paying a heavy price for that inaction in the south-west of WA, our largest population centre by far, with mass tree deaths in the Jarrah and Karri forests due mostly to having not received ANY significant rainfall during the hottest summer on record.  My 92-year-old mother had to get though night-time temperatures in her house of over 30C for days on end during repeated power outages in January and February. She couldn’t sleep, having not even a fan to cool her off a bit. As a result of this experience, she asked her three children, of whom I’m the eldest, to put her house on the market so she could move into a modern air-conditioned aged care facility that has back-up power storage if there’s a system blackout. The house sold quickly and she’s now happily ensconsed in a new beaut facility.

A farmers’ wife who used to read The Australian (a Murdoch newspaper) and believe their climate denialist commentary and reports has become utterly convinced that human-induced global heating is real. I’d expect the penny has now dropped for hundreds of thousands of Western Australians who swallowed the News Corps lies about climate change—the evidence of its massive impacts is now staring them in the face and many have endured a summer they would never want to go through again but are certain too. The alarming thing is that we are only at the early stages of a rapidly warming planet and much worse is to come.

Certainly it’s a massive issue for most voters in Kate Chaney’s federal seat of Curtin where trees and shrubs are dying as they’ve reached the point of terminal wilting and commuters into the city centre and home again are in peak hour traffic, crawling past tree after tree that are either dead or clearly dying. The weather forecast is for another three months of above average maxima and minima, and with very little rainfall in prospect until late June, early July. If relieving rains do come, it will be far too late save millions of trees in state forests and along street verges in the Metropolitan area. I’m observing all this around the leafy—or should I say, increasingly much less leafy—western suburbs of Perth/Boorloo, in the heart of Curtin, once a jewel in the crown of the WA Liberal Party, the membership of which is rapidly decreasing and Kate Chaney’s prospects of being re-elected at the 2025 federal election are looking better by the day, unlike the fate of our vegetation and animal species acutely impacted by the prolonged, truly unprecedented drought.

It’s really very depressing yet our state Labor government is gung-ho about developing more huge gas projects in the north and mid-west of the state, knowing full well that the IEA, WMO, NOAA and more than 99 percent of the world’s climate scientists, as well as many scientific bodies around the world, have declared that no new fossil fuel projects can be opened from here on if we are to avoid catastrophic impacts of AGW in coming decades. It’s nothing less than state capture by the big gas companies such as Woodside, Santos and the Stokes’ family’s interests in gas companies like Beach Energy. The full influence and power of WA’s monopolistic SevenWest Network is all but total and neither major party dares to defy the damage that could be inflicted by Stokes using Network Seven and his newspapers as an organ of propaganda for Big Gas or deployed them to campaign against any party which says it will take real action to lower WA’s GHG emissions.



 2. When did you first start to see changes with your own eyes? What were they? What changes have you seen over the decades? Do you think the pace and/or scope of change is increasing?

As stated above, I’ve been noticing the impacts of AGW on our climate in the south-west of WA, both in the Wheatbelt and here in the city, since at least the early 1970s.

Much can be gleaned about my perspective on this issue from this letter I wrote, published in The Farm Weekly back in May 2019, another very hot year, just as it was to be during the black summer fires over east in late 2019, early 2020…

Last Thursday, an out of control bushfire raged in the hills near Mundaring on a day which reached a maximum of 30-degrees Celcius. It is mid-May, WA has recorded its hottest autumn on record, and we’ve yet to receive any significant rainfall.

It is little wonder to me, then, that 23 former fire and emergency services chiefs from across Australia, people with over 600 years of combined experience, recently warned that “the burning of coal, oil and gas is worsening extreme weather events, including hot days, heatwaves, heavy rainfall, coastal flooding and catastrophic bushfire weather.”

Having grown up in heartland Country (National) Party territory, I’m well aware that many primary producers are leery of meta-scientific theories such as anthropogenic global warming. Therefore, I offer the following argument for a paradigm shift based on a conservative rather than progressive perspective.

What do the following pragmatic conservative institutions, corporations and organisations have in common?

The British royal family, Bank of England, Insurance Council of Australia, National Farmers Federation, U.S. Defense Department, Exxon Mobil Corp, Catholic Church, Reserve Bank of Australia, and the centre-right governments of the UK, Germany and many European nations.

Answer: they all accept the scientific consensus on human-induced global warming and the need to take urgent action to both reduce the rate of future global temperature increases and to ameliorate the effects which now cannot be avoided because of carbon emissions already locked into the world’s atmosphere.

That so many leading conservative entities across the world have reached this position on climate change should come as no surprise. One of the bedrock principles of conservatism is to protect, conserve and be good stewards of the environment on which human civilisation and prosperous economies depend.

True conservatives also adhere to the precautionary (or prudential) principle of making fact-based decisions calculated to minimise the risk of avoidable and potentially catastrophic events in the future. Hence the insurance industry’s longstanding acceptance of the science on climate change.

I’m an ardent republican but I couldn’t agree more with Prince Charles, our likely next monarch: “We should be treating the whole issue of climate change and global warming with a far greater degree of priority than I think is happening now.”

3. What changes do you think are coming to your part of the world?
Please distil my answer to this question from all I’ve said above. In a phrase, we are facing a real and imminent existential threat.


4. Beyond “all of us”, who is to blame?

That’s a toughie because the culprits for a very large percentage of GHG emissions across the world cover their tracks with obfuscation, dodgy science done by their hireling scientists, massive positive PR campaigns about their bogus claims of taking real action, mobilising Australia’s media to regurgitate the propaganda sent them by Big Carbon outfits (to say nothing of the threats of losing advertising dollars if particular media companies go hard on the issue—thank God, not a big problem for the likes of The Guardian Australia and The New Daily).

But I remember seeing a recent article somewhere, probably The Guardian, which reported that something like 60% of all GHG emissions are produced by a surprisingly small number of giant companies across a range of industries. Ah, found it…
The majority of fossil fuel companies produce more emissions after Paris Agreement than before: report – ABC News

And I have to say, too, living as I do in a small, very conservative rural community where upwards of ten percent of voters cast their ballots for Pauline Hanson’s mob of drongoes and a much larger percentage for the climate-denying Liberal MHR for the seat of O’Connor, Rick Wilson, there’s still a big number of people, mostly baby boomers and older, who loudly and aggressively denounce climate change as a hoax.

The pig-ignorant opinions of these people, most of whom have never heard of the scientific method, let alone ever respected the “eggheads” who do, pose a real encumbrance, if not menace, to our society by encouraging the climate deniers in politics to obstruct any real climate action even more boldly, aided and abetted always by anti-science, anti-expertise-in-any-field populists like Hanson, Dutton, Palmer, Stokes and his media lackeys. Their influence extends so far that Labor has been far too timorous in its policy settings on bringing down GHG emissions—and, worse, it is waving through the opening of new fossil fuel developments and expansion of existing projects across the country, all the while disingenuously claiming it is fair dinkum on tackling AGW.

5. What is to be done, beyond bracing for further impacts?

It will mark a big shift in Australian politics when the Millenials become the largest voting bloc, displacing us baby boomers and the so-called Great Generation in the near future. The centre of political gravity on climate change in Australia will lurch, if not altogether towards the Greens, then certainly towards independents like Kate Chaney demanding far more ambitious climate change mitigation and adaptation policies.

It’s going to be very difficult for people in this region of Australia to brace for the enormous impacts that are already unfolding at an alarming pace. The only glimmer of hope I take from our current environmental calamity is that it will make the job of climate denying politicians extremely hard, trying to sell a dog of a policy to promote nuclear power generation to an already VERY sceptical public, given that we’d be unlikely to see any form of reactor, small or large, built and operating, this side of 2040, even if the technology were viable as a part of our energy mix at a commercially competitive price, which it most certainly isn’t as things stand.

The reality is that the federal Coalition is just stalling for time to help their mates out in Big Carbon, major donors to the Liberals and Nationals and likely employers of many a retired politician looking for a handsomely renumerated job lobbying for the likes of Woodside, Gina Rinehart, Kerry Stokes, etc. It’s an incredible fact, related to me by Dr Colin Hughes, a former public health administrator in this State and passionate campaigner for far more ambitious action, that every single retired resources minister across Australia, both state and federal, Coalition or Labor, has landed a job with a fossil fuel company since 2001. It’s state capture like this makes me realise that only people power expressed through protests, shareholder activism, Extinction Rebellion actions, voting for Greens and independent candidates, etc, that we have any hope of overcoming Big Carbon’s capture of the major political parties. I assume you are across what happened at Woodside’s AGM last week—a hopeful development, though unlikely to shift the Executive’s and Board’s heedless disregard for the damage they are threatening to do to the prospects of our young ones here in south-west WA living anywhere nearly as well, safely and securely as my generation and my parents have. Woodside is facing a rapid, sharp reduction in their social licence as things get worse in coming years here.

Though pancreatic cancer will probably claim me in the next few years—unless I defy the odds as Eric Idle has—I’m desperately worried about the impacts AGW is going to impose on the lives of my children and grandchildren. For one thing, Western Australia is sparsely populated and the shores of our north-west regions will be a tempting destination for the vast hordes of climate refugees from places like Bangladesh, the Maldives and other low-lying countries in our region. I shudder to think what an Australian government might do to prevent their arrival. Never mind that Australia has been one of the most recalcitrant of climate laggards—no, too generous, hopelessly irresponsible—in dealing with an existential threat that is likely to affect Australia more severely than anywhere else, as demonstrated by the record flooding events in the east and the unprecedented big dry, certainly since Europeans have been here in WA.

I’m doing what little I can during my cancer treatment to make fossil fuel companies and their media company enablers/collaborators/hirelings realise that they will be remembered as climate criminals in years to come, even by many of their own children and grandchildren. To that end I’ve been making hard-hitting comments about both individuals and companies committing these egregious climate crimes, even daring them to sue me for defamation so I can mount a truth defence argued by barristers representing me pro bono and the many distinguished climate scientists and international bodies like the IEA, WMO, NOAA, Professor Michael Mann and many others who’d be more than happy to give evidence as to the dangers posed by fossil fuel companies continuing to expand their activities with massive projects such as the Scarborough gas project, on which these scientists have belled the cat…
Why this new climate case against the high-polluting Scarborough gas project is so significant (theconversation.com)

Categories
Interviews

Interview with Bill Hare

Below is an email interview with Bill Hare, CEO & Senior Scientist at Climate Analytics

You can follow Bill on Twitter – @BillHareClimate

1.  When did you first hear about climate change, and how?  What was the Australian Conservation Foundation’s early position on it?

I heard about rising CO2 concentrations and climate change in high school from a geography teacher in the early 1970s.

What woke me up to it as a significant problem was an academic at University of Western Australia gave me a paper in nature in 1978 to look at.  At first, I was sceptical, but the more I looked into it the more I became convinced it – fossil fuel CO2 induced climate warming – was a serious problem.

When I first joined the Australian Conservation Foundation climate change was not a theme.  Stratospheric ozone depletion was an emerging problem, and I was pretty heavily briefed by CSIRO scientist at the time, notably Barrie Pittock.  He also brought to my attention, a number of international publications on rising concern about global warming.

By the late 1980s, there were calls for a 20% reduction in C02 emissions by 2005 (the Toronto target). If I recall correctly the ACF lined up behind those calls in various submissions and press commentary.  

At the same time, we were also calling for a phase out of chlorofluorocarbons and other ozone-depleting substances to combat stratospheric ozone depletion.

2. Australian policy elites first started to have their attention properly drawn to the issue almost 30 years ago, in 1986, with the public following in 1988.

Yes, there was the 1987 CSIRO conference, and that I think marks the beginning of formal attention to this issue 

I had a paper at this conference with my colleague at the time Helen Quilligan

A climate of risk: an environmental responsebrill.com

Australian scientists first large-scale climate conferencecosmosmagazine.com

 Since then, there have been fierce battles over even the most elementary of policy instruments (carbon pricing and support for renewables).

Yes, and at the level of macroeconomic policy, the view by the late 1980s in Australia was that the country had a lot to benefit from exporting coal and other resources to North East Asia, including China.

This became quite a dominant view and provided a justification of much of what happened in the 1990s and beyond.

Australia and the Northeast Asian ascendancy : report to the Prime Minister and Minister for Foreign… – Catalogue | National Library of Australiacatalogue.nla.gov.au

Hawke in responding to this report, recognised the environmental challenges that would come from a massive expansion of and made the claim that

“And let me make this point. My Government does not accept the simplistic dichotomy – development or the protection of the environment. We must have both. And our record shows that we can have both.”

ParlInfo – Launch of the Garnaut Report “Australia and the Northeast Asian ascendancy”parlinfo.aph.gov.au

The ecologically sustainable development process that he set up however, failed to substantially impact the direction and scale of environmental protection in Australia. Paul Keating had a little interest in this when he assumed the role of prime minister and there’s process became completely moribund, under pressure from the resource development lobby and relevant  agencies of government.

Climate policy was essentially non-existent, and opposition to action inside government federally was widespread and intensive. 

One fairly standard academic view is that this is what you’d expect of a country with enormous fossil fuel reserves and a powerful mining industry.

That is very fatalistic view. Is that what had to be? I’m not so sure – ecological modernisation, under the umbrella of the Ecologic development process was aimed at industrial power. I don’t think it had to end up the way it did.

Looking back at this period, I don’t think the extent of capture of the political parties by the fossil fuel industry was anywhere near as advanced as it is now. 

 Is that too fatalistic? Does that let the politicians, other business and civil society off the hook?

I think it lets politicians off the hook and does not properly contextualise the rapacious behaviour of Australia is mining, resources industry and fossil fuel industry.  I think the Murdoch press played a very significant and destructive roll in all this over the last 20 or 30 years.

It’s hard to comment on the role of civil society.

 (And if this academic view is not a good explanation, what is a better one?)

I don’t know how ground breaking it is to describe the blinding obvious in retrospect.

It might have helped if a lot more academics has spoken up about the adverse direction of Australia on climate action over the years.

3. Without getting bogged down, what could and should have been done differently,

Well, it depends on ones view of history.  Is it historically determined that in 2013 Australia  elected  a government that would repeal groundbreaking climate legislation and policies  and start a decade of denial?  

Assessment of Australia‘s policies impacting its greenhouse gas emissions profileclimateactiontracker.org

If this legislation has not been repealed, then I think we would be in a substantially different place. Then we are now, probably one somewhat behind the European Union, but with a range of different policy instruments in place that could be improved. 

and – crucially – what could and should ‘campaigners’ (broadly defined so as to include renewables companies etc) do differently in the short-to-medium term to try to accelerate policy and technology change towards something that might be considered adequate.

Well, there are a number of things that need to be focused on, and these include working to establish the right long-term policy frameworks, fearlessly hold government to account on their policies and actions, continue the campaign to convince people of the wisdom and benefits of climate policy action, make sure people understand the risks coming from global warming and to upgrade communication efforts in this area.  

It is very important that NGOs and academics are fully independent of government and special or pecuniary interests, particularly in the Australian context interest in offsets.  Unfortunately, there seems to be quite a pattern of interest that may conflict.  

It is also very important that NGOs are brave and fearless, and do not concern themselves overly with the health of the Labour Party internally, nor prioritise, access to ministers over, maintaining a strong and consistent position on the right things to do. In the end, and my experience, mature government will listen even if I don’t like the message they are at first.  

4. Personal question – where do you get your hope/tenacity from?  (If it’s a special Amazon delivery, what’s the URL for that!!)

One has to have hope, and as soon as one becomes cynical it’s time to leave the field. Surprising as it might seem, I get a lot of energy from the science of this issue.  Yes, the news is very depressing, but if one focuses on what can be done and how fast then one can see a way forward. In addition, the massive role out of renewables, electric vehicles and batteries has to give rise to hope that we can bend the curve fast enough. At the end of the day, the problem is too serious to give up and to serious to surrender hope  

Categories
Interviews

Interview with Jane van Dis

The latest interview with a reader of All Our Yesterdays. If you want to do an interview, or want to nominate someone to be interviewed, let me know via drmarchudson@gmail.com

1.  Who are you and what do you “do” around climate change campaigning (can answer both ‘personally’ and professionally 

Hi, thanks for asking. I’m an OBGYN and began reading about the climate crisis in 2008 –the year my twins were born. I lived in Southern California from 2010 until 2021 and during that time I saw marked changes in the landscape and hydrology in the area, and very few people talking about it. In 2020 the Bobcat fire raged behind my house and for weeks we were told to be ready to evacuate, the air quality was horrific and we truly couldn’t even walk outside save for essential transport, like going to work or the grocery store. The fire eventually burned 115k acres and it really scared me, physically and mentally. I had been working the majority of my career as a physician on issues around gender equity, and I realized that there was a necessary intersection between women’s and maternal health equity, reproductive justice, and the climate crisis, and decided to focus my efforts in my spare time learning about how temperature affects preterm births, how wildfire affects lung function, how phthalates in plastics affect birth weight, preterm birth, and cancer, and many other consequences to living in a society dependent on fossil fuel, whether as energy or as consumer products, and that both were having profound effects on human health. Another doctor and I started OBGYNs for Sustainable Future focused on assisting the medical field to decarbonize and study the intersection of the climate and fossil fuel crisis and human and maternal health. 

2. When and how did you first hear about climate change and when and how did it move from an “ooh, that sounds bad” to “holy fucking SHIT”


Great question, I used to have nightmares when I lived in California, that I would get into the shower and no water would come out.  And I had that dream over and over again.  I remember in 2006 hearing about climate change and drought on the NPR show Marketplace, but it was far off.  The first time I started thinking about in a serious way was about 15 years ago – it was an article about ocean acidification, and I remember thinking that based on the math, the Great Barrier Reef would be nearly dead by the time my kids graduated high school, nor would I spend the jet fuel, CO2, to go see it. And that was a revelation: that things in this world will disappear soon, in our lifetimes, due to our consumptive extractivist lifestyles and our absent understanding of ecology.  I’ve been reading more and more since that article, listening, learning.  Now I lecture on the topic of climate change and health. The question is: how many people have felt the terror of all that we are poised to lose?  I would argue not enough.  Not a fraction of enough. 

3. What can we learn from the long long history of unsuccessful campaigning and scientific warnings (a theme of All Our Yesterdays).  What do campaigners/activists/concerned citizens need to do differently? 

Another excellent question. I do think talking to people (friends, neighbors, colleagues) helps.  I know I feel reenergized especially when I speak to others that understand the severity of the situation. Call us doomers, call us climate realists, I don’t care what the label is, I care that people understand the science and are willing to speak openly about the implications of the science. To be sure children and young adults may need some protection from the catastrophe unfolding, but adults?  Nah.  It makes me furious when I see smart people downplay the severity in the name of keeping the public calm.  Like we’re children?  If civil society is going to break when they understand what is inevitable, then that society wasn’t built to endure, which, I would argue, our society is very fragile and not built to endure. Would you not tell a patient whose MRI shows invasive cancer that she doesn’t have cancer?  No, you wouldn’t, that would be paternalistic.  I think civil disobedience helps, and I have given hundreds of dollars to Climate Defiance for their work, I think it’s impactful.  I think the media could do a much better job, as we saw media coverage of the crisis in the U.S. was down in 2023, the hottest year in 125,000.  Make that make sense?  We need more stories connecting the world of Dune and that of Earth, what would a world devoid of plants and water mean, and how many people could it support?  Spoiler, not many!  I think the language of degrowth needs to get louder.  People need to be shown that an economy (maybe 1/10000000th of the size) could exist without extraction. 

4.  What projects/events have you got coming up in the near future that you want to give a shout out to.  

I am doing a local talk at a library in April.  I’m interviewing an expert on the connection between phthalate exposure and preterm birth, among other ills when we eat, breathe and are constantly ingesting plastic.  I’m also working on an editorial, that may become a book, about how essential it is to equate climate justice and reproductive justice.  Contraception and education are imperative so that women and girls have the ability to choose if and when they want to have a child in this crisis.  People say, “but having a child is an act of hope,” but hope can’t feed you when crops fail due to drought and floods.  The patriarchy, a system that has operated for 10,000+ years, cannot continue. We cannot continue to subjugate women and girls to a system that has forced or encouraged them to have children for the church, for the state, for capitalism, for tribal government and systems. Reproductive justice is climate justice.  Women and girls’ bodies are not anyone’s to write a personal or societal agenda on.  People complaining that society will collapse if women stop having children… who will support the old people?  If the system can’t support elders because too much is siphoned off in profits for a tiny minority, then the problem is the system, not women.  A universal income would go a long way to supporting the elderly.  But we can’t have universal income because then how would Mark Zuckerberg afford a 300 million yacht.  The top 1% in the world own 30% of the world’s wealth.  That is a system designed to collapse.  Not the problem of women and girls to fix for ya’ll.  I want to give a shout out to Nandita Bajaj at Population Balance. I’ve been taking a course through Antioch University with her and others and I’ve learned a lot of about capitalism, forced birth, pronatalism, speciesism, ecocide and what it would mean to downsize in order that natural ecosystems can flourish alongside human flourishing.  

Categories
Interviews

Interview with Ben King – of #climate, education and the need for tubas

Ben King is a teacher, based in Devon, and a regular retweeter of All Our Yesterdays tweets. He kindly agreed to answer some questions…

1. Who are you, what do you do and how/when did you become aware of climate change specifically?

I’m Ben King, born in South Derbyshire 50 years ago, and I probably first heard about changing climates during my undergraduate Environmental Science degree at Stirling University (1991-95). During my soil erosion PhD research at Exeter University (1995-1998) I made no mention of climate change and I don’t remember much focus on the issues. My awareness grew through engagement with other scientists and teachers on Twitter from around 2010. Since then I have done my best to self-educate and also to impart an understanding of climate change to the thousands of students I have taught at Churston Ferrers Grammar School – especially since my involvement with EduCCate Global since 2019.

I was approached by Melanie Harwood of eduCCate Global (via Twitter) in 2019 and she encouraged me and thousands of teachers across the World to take the accredited United Nations courses on Climate Change and to push for whole-school change; this led to my school TLR position as Co-Lead for Sustainability and I also talked (via Zoom) at the COP26 Climate Change conference. Since then, I appeared on local TV with my Year 11s, and I have presented to various interested groups in Devon, from Totnes Town Council, Torbay Council, our local river catchment management group, Devon Youth Parliament and a group of amateur astronomers. My involvement with eduCCate Global also led to a BBC Radio Devon interview, about Climate Change Teachers. Great to get the word out there!

2. What’s been your experience of Climate Twitter- what is useful, what is not so useful….

Climate Twitter is very useful to me, in keeping up to speed with the facts and in tagging resources for my GCSE and A-level lessons in particular. Also for my regular lunchtime Sustainability Club at CFGS. We recently joined-up with another local school and local film-maker Les Veale to show his short film based on Climate Futures and to hold a live Q & A session with George Monbiot.

3. You teach young people – what is your sense of their thoughts, and (how) have their views on climate change evolved over the years you’ve been paying attention?

Most of the children I teach really care about C C, but they feel helpless. In fact, when we study climate change, many of them struggle to focus on the issue; I put this down to their feelings of anxiousness and powerlessness. I therefore focus on positive framing and how everyone can make a positive influence in the World. I am very proud of some of our most active Sustainable Leaders, who have campaigned for reducing meat consumption, for more efficient lighting at school, and many of our younger students have worked with my fellow Sustainability Lead, Jo Parkes, to organise pre-loved Clothes Sales, raising money for environmental charities.

4. Tuba? When? How?

Tuba playing started for me at the age of eight. For over 40 years it has been a brilliant companion and a way for me to switch-off from my academic studies and my teaching. It’s a wonderful way to meet people and it has given me some amazing opportunities.

Categories
Interviews

Interview with Rosie, about zero population growth, zero climate progress, etc…

The weekly interviews resume! A couple of weeks ago I met a wonderful person at a very good public meeting. She kindly agreed to answer some questions…

a) Who are you?  Where were you born, where did you grow up and when did you first start to think that there were serious environmental problems ahead?  Was it a book, a TV show, a friend?

I am a baby boomer, born in 1947 in Adelaide.

b) When did you first become aware of the climate element of the environmental problems, and how.

 I had assumed that one day I might have a child or two, but when a colleague introduced me to books he was using as resources to teach geography in 1971, I started reading them: The Club of Rome’s ‘The Limits to Growth’ and ‘The Population Bomb’ amongst them. Paul Erlich visited South Australia around that time and has been several times since on speaking tours and, each time, I have been to hear him. He is utterly inspiring, and he was absolutely correct in his predictions in the late 1960s, for which he was derided at the time.

c) You mentioned that you chose not to have children because of the population crisis. That must have struck a lot of people as crazy, back then. What sorts of responses did you get. Given that you were only a woman, in an intensely patriarchal society, presumably a lot of the responses involved telling you you’d change your mind, that you were being hysterical etc etc?

I subsequently married the above mentioned colleague and we decided that, knowing what we knew, it would be irresponsible of us to make more people. At that time the ZPG movement was quite strong in South Australia, and we hoped that it might result in some sensible population policies from our government. It didn’t!. It fizzled. And since then I have been gob-smacked to go to environmental rallies where I see youngish couples trailing a swarm of children behind them. Don’t they understand that you can’t have a small footprint if you make more feet?!   Several of our friends also realised, in the 70s and 80s, that population was a serious issue, but all of them eventually bred, leaving us on our own to bear the comments and criticism, such as being labelled selfish!!!!! Personally, I can’t think of an unselfish reason for having children. In fact, we both joined a short course being run by a woman doing research for her PhD on ‘voluntary child-free couples’. Most of the participants said they would probably have children, many of them saying they wanted to have someone to look after them in their old age!!!!  They deserve to have their children migrate to the moon!  

d) We don’t seem to have made a lot of progress, as a species, on these problems. What do you think are the reasons for that, and what is there that we could/should still do differently?

No. We haven’t made a lot of progress on population. I have had people say things like: ‘What difference can one person make?’ I saw a wonderful little cartoon a few years ago, showing a large crowd of people, each with an individual thought bubble above their head with the words ‘what can one person do?’  

Movements like GetUp have started to shift awareness in certain sections of the population and created a movement in which we can pool our energy and resources to make a difference (so much so that Murdoch’s media have run relentless campaigns to bad-mouth us). I have also tried to explain to my friends, when asked where I’m going for my next holiday, that I haven’t had a passport for over 20 years and I don’t fly because it’s not good for the environment, to which some have replied: ‘I’m not giving up my OS holidays!’ However, they are all keen to look at my newly acquired Hyundai Ioniq 5 EV, and that is a great introduction to the whole subject of trying to save the planet.

e) anything else you’d like to say.

It seems to me that the problem is so big that people can’t relate to it personally, or understand that a small change in their habits could make a contribution. When the east coast of Australia burned so fiercely in 2019, 2020 and 2021, and then flooded devastatingly, it woke up a lot of people. We’re going to see a lot more of those events. The most recent federal election was really encouraging in that so many ‘safe’ Liberal seats were lost to independent candidates standing for the environment.  So it’s not all doom and gloom, although I’m glad that I’m not likely to be around for more than another 20 years, but I fear for future generations.

Categories
Interviews

Interview with Sophie Gabrielle about memes vs Armageddon….

Interview with the person behind @CodeRedEarth

  1. Who are you, when did you first think of climate change “wow, this could be seriously bad news”?

I’m a nearly retired woman, who used to do web design and owned social media quote sites.

I’ve been aware of the Climate problem since the late 1970’s. My father was a Civil Engineer who worked for the government and he designed some of the first solar panels on government buildings in Canada *old style rubber tubing, and so there were discussions about energy conservation and sustainability in my family home. I remember writing an essay in high school on the destruction of the Amazon Rainforest. I became a “mostly vegan” in the 1980’s because I believed our agricultural systems were not sustainable. I would tell people that and I’d get a blank stare, but now it is understood to be the truth.

I went to University to study Nutrition and Biochemistry at Guelph and I was very interested in aspects of food production relating to veganism. It had a very good agricultural college and I was what they call an “Aggie” – as the food and nutrition program was part of that. I left University at the end of my 3rd year to raise my child and never went back. She had special needs and I wanted to be with her all the time growing up. I wanted to focus on her.

It hit me how bad it had become, the Climate Emergency, when I came on Twitter in 2016, I started reading more articles from independent journalists. When they called Code Red at the UN I started to read even more – started following more and more of the scientists and activists and then it really hit me. The thought was that this is “way out of control” and if I didn’t really understand – others didn’t yet know.

2. When did you start gaining expertise in memes/image making, and when did you decide to ‘specialise’ in climate emergency stuff?

When I was raising my daughter I started studying on my own web design and graphics. It was at first a hobby. For fun I created an ecard site for people connecting online – many romantic greeting cards and pop culture cards such as Austin Powers.. I got noticed by one of our big papers and got suddenly very popular and I just kind of went with it. I designed myspace layouts and had quote sites. I made a bit of money of the ads and I also worked the retail trade as a manager.

I had not made graphics for about a decade until I came on Twitter. First I was meme’ing the fascism in the States. Like many, Trump’s election threw me into a state where I seemed to need to know what was going on. How did this happen? Is the world really this far gone? I joined Twitter the day after he got elected. Then I realized it wasn’t the real big issue here. That yes, the fascism is of course horrifying but it has nothing on the Climate Emergency, so I switched gears.

3. What are some of your memes that you’re proudest of and why (technical difficulty, the impact they had etc).

I’m highly critical of my design work – honestly. I’m the first to say I’m a self-taught hack and I do “borrow” some imagery. If you see a crazy collage though with people on top of melting icebergs – that’s all mine. I make those when I just want to go somewhere calm. They are kind of like my knitting. A lot of work but the actual work is quite relaxing.

I just hope I honor the people and truth I meme. And I hope it helps people understand that might not know how bad it is and keep the narrative alive on Twitter and other places about what we are actually facing here.

What memes I find popular are when the scientists speak out about how bad it is. Those seem to be some of my most popular memes. I think I see an even greater increase in popularity lately. It’s a hard paradigm shift to go from believing a lot of the propaganda out there and then getting to the real truth about it. It isn’t like people don’t know there is a problem but when they see the “rates of change” and find out things like the models don’t include feedbacks and such – a lot of people are probably surprised like I once was. When they realize it is true they want to share. I think it’s important we still keep sharing as we hopefully continue to get more active out in the world with protest.

I do personally love to do digital portraits of activists and journalists etc. I follow. Some of the scientists are surprised to be meme’d and I’m thinking – oh my God you are heroes to the world. They should be our celebrities. Same with the activists. Scientists are becoming more and more active – I love this. We need to lift up their voices because main media won’t. . People who are organizing protest like Roger Hallam , those are the voices I love to meme for example as well. . Anybody who speaks the truth I might meme. You don’t have to be famous. I’m really impressed by the wisdom and hearts of people who really want to help and have taken the time to understand. My heart aches somedays at how hard we are all trying. I can sometimes break down in the middle of a meme, or reading a tweet.

4. What advice would you give other meme-makers?

I wouldn’t. Because I’m not professionally trained. I used to hang in a graphics room with a bunch of professional designers and they gave me some advice, but then I never seem to follow it. I guess I’m just stubborn. But anyone CAN make a meme and for free. I’m working on a cheap ASUS computer and I use a site called pixlr.com . It’s free! If you like to play with words – all you need is a background.

5. What is the number one thing that (Australian?) politicians don’t understand about climate change?

Oh I’m of the mind that the politicians know just as much as we do , even more sometimes. I don’t think any of them are dullards. I just think they are ambitious. I think they are just in the “game of politics” – that power is their thing . I’m with Greta and many others that politicians are not going to save us. They service corporate power. This is the bane and tragedy of neoliberal politics for decades where we’ve let the market economy trump science and nature and human well being and here we are. “Fire, famine, toil and flood. Plastic in a baby’s blood.”

6. What next for you (and anything else you’d like to say).

I have no idea what’s next. I’ve never had a plan here. I just go from day to day. Sometimes things go awry and I think – oh this could be it, I might not be able to continue. But a miracle always seems to come and I do want to continue. I want to get involved more locally and with protests. That’s one of my goals.

6. Anything else?

No. I just want people to keep going to try to fight to save life. Everything matters in this moment. Follow the science. Understand the science of our survival. Let’s build up our resistance and create some change. Keep telling the hard truths out there

Categories
Activism Interviews

Interview with Ro Randall about “Living With Climate Crisis”

Below is an interview with Ro Randall, a psycho-analyst who has worked on climate issues extensively. She is one of the authors of a new “Living with the Climate Crisis” project, which will be launched on Monday 17th April. The transcript below has been lightly edited/airbrushed…

Marc 0:10  

Great. So the first thing Rosemary, is what’s happening on Monday, the 17th of April, the launch?

Rosemary

 Monday, the 17th of April is the launch of a new project called “Living with the Climate Crisis,” which I’ve been involved with as one of the main authors. And so, I’m a psychotherapist and I’ve been involved in the climate movement for about 20 years. And my interest has always been in what my profession can bring to the movement, that it doesn’t otherwise have. And primarily, that’s paying attention to how people feel when they engage with what is actually happening to the climate. Because in general, people’s experiences range through all kinds of feelings and distress:,anger, fear, desperation, despair, shock, grief, rage, anxiety. 

You can go on, you can name a whole gamut of emotion. And very often, when you’re caught up in the urgency of action, those emotions get swept to one side. They go a bit under the carpet, and maybe it doesn’t feel possible to pay attention to them. 

And so what this project is doing is promoting the establishment of groups, led by skilled facilitators, where people can take the time to do three things. 

And the first is to look at what they’re feeling and to speak about the feelings that they’re having. And to try to find some resolution, some kind of resting place out of the grief, and the despair and the shock and all of the rest of it – a great range of feelings, I think. 

The second is to learn a bit more about what is possible to do across a very broad spectrum of action. And there’s a focus partly on how to communicate better, that’s a big chunk of it, around climate – whether you’re speaking to your family and your close friends, or whether you’re speaking to a public meeting.

And the third bit of it is this sense of looking at the climate movement as an ecosystem, which requires all kinds of different people to be in it, and all kinds of different activities to be going on in it. And so the  third part of these groups is looking at, what is it that you can do that is going to be sustainable, that you’re going to be able to be in for a long, long term? And that’s likely to be a mix of different things. And it’s likely to change as time goes on. And so the groups are looking at those kinds of issues. And our hope is that people will be able to come to these and use them in the communities that they’re already part of. We want this to be a locally-based activity rather than an online one. Although obviously, we’re holding the launch online because we reach more people that way.

So that’s essentially what the project’s about.

Marc

Thank you. And it emerged or, is a continuation of work that I know that you’ve been doing since 2007, with “Carbon Conversations.” So how does this work reflect on the successes and failures of Carbon Conversations? And what does it do that Carbon Conversations didn’t or couldn’t do?

Rosemary  4:15  

In 2007, when we started the carbon conversations project, we were in the middle of a period of increased government commitment to action on climate change. Government was preparing the Climate Change Bill, which  became the Climate Change Act. There was quite a lot of money around in local authorities and coming from government sources to promote community activity about climate change. And although, like all activists, I saw what the government was doing as inadequate, it was there. And it felt like the role for a community organisations was to work with our local communities and get people to understand the basics of what life needed to look like in a much lower carbon society, and to help people take the steps in that direction that they could in their own lives. 

So the Carbon Conversations project brought people together to talk about the emotions associated with these major changes that we hoped were coming, and to start acting. And we created materials that could be used by just about anybody, with a short bit of training. Those groups were taken up nationally, and then internationally as a model of how to bring people together in communities. 

But so much has changed since then. And so much needs to change because we have seen, since the failure of the Copenhagen negotiations in 2009 and the advent of a Conservative government, such backtracking on climate issues, that people coming to the climate movement now are facing different issues from those that were being faced then. Some issues are the same, some are more intense. And so we’ve been realizing for a time that the Carbon Conversations project had really run its course. It was a good thing in its time, but the materials were out of date, they weren’t dealing with the issues that were troubling people. And so we began to talk about what we could do instead. 

In the new project, we’ve drawn together material from different workshops that we’ve run over the years,  into a kind of coherent whole, that addresses these three questions I was talking about earlier; how do we cope with the feelings? How do we talk about this very difficult issue? How do we make our action sustainable?

And that’s what we came together to do with Rebecca Nestor, who’s been around in the climate movement for a long time herself, mostly in community action, and is an organisational consultant. And my  third colleague is Daniela Fernandez-Catherall, who is a community psychologist with a lot of experience of working psychologically in the community, away from the consulting room, and engaging diverse groups in community action.

So it’s a shift of emphasis away from the carbon reduction aspects of climate issues, and into something which has much more focus on the well-being of activists and their capacities to continue to deliver in very difficult circumstances.

Marc

Thank you. So we’ve talked about the past, let’s talk about the future. Let’s say it’s Wednesday the 17th of April,  2024. And it’s a year after the launch of “Living with Climate Crisis,” what’s changed? Who has been using the materials? And what sort of feedback have you been getting about the materials? And how have you responded to that feedback?

Rosemary 9:21  

I’m hoping that there will be groups running in a number of places in the UK. We know that we’ve got groups starting in the places where Daniela and myself and Rebecca are based. We’ve also got some people we know who are going to be using it in Wales. And we’re hoping to see gradually more people using it in different places. Also, over this coming year we’re going to be offering some more in depth introductory workshops, which will be done online for people who wish to facilitate the groups

We’re doing one for some people in Canada shortly. And we’ve got another one for people in the UK coming up in April. And we anticipate doing more of those. 

We will be offering monthly support sessions for people using the materials, which will also take place online. 

We’re planning on a meeting next September, which we hope will be a face-to-face meeting where people who have been beginning to use it can come together to share experiences.

We’re hoping that people will be taking the materials and using them in a lot of different ways. We’re quite explicit that we want people to adapt what we’re suggesting to their particular circumstances and the audiences they’re working with. And it’s very important to us to acknowledge that these materials have come out of our experience in some groups, that these may be a starting point, not an end point, that people may take one part of what we’ve suggested, and not another.

And we’re hoping that people who come from the psychological professions and associated professions, anybody really who’s got good facilitation skills, will feel that this is something which they can do as a contribution to the climate movement. 

So we’re hoping to see groups happening, we’re hoping to see people being supported, and that support work is all being done through the Climate Psychology Alliance, which is sponsoring and supporting the project. And we’re hoping that it will take on a life of its own.