Categories
Book Reviews

Book review(s) – “Nobody Is Saved Alone” (on Norminton, Harrison and Butler)

No One Is Saved Alone

The Devil’s Highway (2018) by Gregory Norminton

The Given World (2026) by Melissa Harrison

Parable of the Sower (1993) by Octavia Butler

Cassandra of Troy, the mythical prophetess cursed to be right about the future but never believed, could describe how her city would burn after Odysseus’ clever ruse. But even she escaped the intimate terror of experiencing the collapse from the perspective of multiple characters. Cardiff University researcher Aaron Thierry’s recent PhD thesis, “Cassandra’s Children”, studied the reactions of climate scientists to their Cassandra experience – the unheeded warning, and what that does to the warner. The psychic toll it takes on actual people is not done justice by myths, if Thierry is to be believed.

Reframing stories of climate disaster from a Homeric mythology to a form that puts you right inside the interiority of recognisable characters caught up in it seemed to have defeated literary fiction. Or so Amitav Ghosh wrote in The Great Derangement (2016). Though perhaps reading more Octavia Butler might have cured him of that thought.

Since 2016, several novelists have explicitly taken on Ghosh’s challenge. Some, like Los Angeles-based Stephen Markley, found themselves frantically redrafting as their carefully-researched climate disasters set decades in the future as they happened in real time, forced only by deadline to stop editing his 2023 The Deluge

Greg Norminton’s The Devil’s Highway offers a time-lapse picture of England’s landscape: three exposures of the same place across three thousand years. Bagshot Heath in now-Surrey appears first as Romano-Celt Andagin’s living country, then as a damaged remnant on London’s contemporary fringe, and finally as the “Heave”, a desert crossed by feral post-literate young adult survivors fleeing slavers and drought. The Roman road survives throughout. England itself does not.

This makes Norminton’s novel less a triptych than a descent into drought, of water and mind. Land knowledge steadily drains from the place and its successive cultures. Andagin reads animals, weather and woodland as a field of reciprocal obligations. His Roman occupiers see the same space as something to tame. In the present, Robbie’s archaeological devotion to the heath is already nostalgic: London is visible in the distance, advancing upon England, while pollution, traffic and casual vandalism degrade what remains. The war-traumatised Aitch reads landscape as territory in which wounds can be displaced onto others.

By the future timeline, place has ceased to sustain memory or settlement. The feral young adults know ruins without knowing what ruined them. Their broken English – the audiobook version, partly voiced by the author, does the best justice to that part of the book – compresses history into names. Bagshot becomes “Bad Shot”. Our era the “Fast Times”. We hear how the diminished landscape has diminished their character. They scan the Heave for water, food, shelter and enemy pursuit. Climate collapse is not a luxury belief; it is a reality to be endured. Norminton’s parched England produces lives nasty, brutish, and short – the equal to any in the worst Hobbesian nightmare.

The Given World, set in a plausible but fictional town in a fictional Wessex valley, offers a wetter, more compressed in time, contrast, in exploration of the same themes. Lower Eodham experiences climate derangement in slow motion and parable: seasons lose their metronome, plants fail, animals depart, drought gives way to the River Welm rising in flood. 

Yet Harrison’s valley remains governed by cycles, however violently altered. Water returns to holy springs and even runs over the flagstones of the old priory that now serves as a protagonist’s house; floods destroy, but can also renew. Life is wounded and uncanny rather than finally snuffed out.

The contrast sharpens Norminton’s bleakness. With Harrison, the human tragedies are borne within a more-than-human world still capable of resurgence. Human continuity is doubtful, but life retains agency. 

In The Devil’s Highway, the Roman road endures because the ecology around it does not. The monument outlives the assumptions that built it.

Both books are haunted by London. Norminton gives us the metropolis first as a distant encroachment and later like the shark in Jaws: an offstage threat of disease and lost power from which the future children move west. 

Harrison’s London is less apocalyptic but gravitational. Lower Eodham is partly populated by people who have left the city, seeking an idyll whose seeming permanence the novel starts to dismantle. But flight from London is conscious only up to a point. Characters believe they are escaping noise, failure, danger or an old life. The reality, the novels suggest, is that they are responding to a civilisational pressure they cannot name.

Here both British novels meet Octavia Butler’s Parable of the Sower. Lauren Olamina begins in a walled community on the edge of Los Angeles: an idealised (for post-collapse times) enclave whose security depends upon pretending that the metropolis outside has not already collapsed. Fire and encroaching marauders break the illusion and turn the novel northward. Butler makes plain what Norminton and Harrison leave implied. We are, in the end, all destined to be put on the road by what is to come. But we mostly lack a grammar, a syntax, a language, to describe that before it actually happens. 

That language is spiritual. Butler’s “Earthseed” declares God to be Change. Harrison places “Loyalty to the given world” at her novel’s heart and lets springs, omens, floods and departing local gods disturb the border between the natural world and the sacred. Norminton passes a carved flint through deep time, as gift, talisman and mystery. This may be the most believable of the three.

None of the three offers a Deus-ex-Machina rescue, though each may offer clues of how to navigate in its absence. The offer is not that we will be saved by walls, roads or ownership. Only to receive change without surrendering responsibility. 

Norminton’s, the bleakest by far, stubbornly offers the most raw of all possible redemptive endings, as some characters choose to save another to whom they have no real obligation: none of us is saved alone.

Copyright 2026 Richard Delevan  wickedproblems.earth

Shar pei with opposable thumbs. Climate tech in the streets, crime fiction in the sheets. Around since 327 ppm. Writer, podcaster, strategist. GreenSky, EnergySky. MAGA delenda est. Pronouns: y’all/yer man 

@richard.wickedproblems.earth 

Categories
Australia

August 25, 2006 – Vestas wind farm closes

Twenty years ago, on this day, August 25th, 2006,

By August [2006] Vestas closed Australia’s first wind turbine nacelle factory in Wynard, Tasmania, just two-and-a-half years after it had opened

(Prest, 2007: 253)

AND 

Prime Minister John Howard yesterday blamed market forces for the news.

He has indicated a rescue fund is not yet on the agenda.

“We are looking at that situation, and we continue to talk to the company,” he said. 

https://www.smh.com.au/national/tas-factory-closure-not-feds-fault-pm-20060826-gdo98c.html

Oh, and look, here’s Anthony Albanese making all the right noises.

https://anthonyalbanese.com.au/one-hundred-jobs-lost-because-howard-doesnt-support-clean-energy

The amount of carbon dioxide in the air was 382ppm. As of 2026, 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 despite Australia having enormous potential as a creator of renewable energy technologies (especially wind and solar), successive governments (Liberal and Labor, state and federal) had not been particularly interested, and sometimes actively hostile (as was the CSIRO) from the 1970s onwards.

The specific context was that John Howard had convened a meeting of his “Low Emissions Technology Advisory Group” to get its members to help him… slow the growth of renewables. 

What I think we can learn from this is that the actions and inactions of politicians matters for the pace at which a new technology enters the fray. And Howard belongs at the Hague.

What happened next – Howard lost the 2007 election, and some support for renewables was then introduced. Lost decades though, and entirely unnecessary carbon dioxide is in the atmosphere now, trapping heat.

References

http://www.abc.net.au/cgi-bin/common/printfriendly.pl?/news/australia/tas/northtas/200608/s1724891.htm

https://www.abc.net.au/news/2006-08-26/business-fears-for-future-after-vesta-shutdown/1248224

You can see the chronological list of All Our Yesterdays “on this day” posts here.

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

If you want to get involved, let me know.

If you want to invite me on your podcast, that would boost my ego and probably improve the currently pitiful hit-rate on this site (the two are not-unrelated).

Also on this day: 

August 25, 1933 – South Coast Bulletin reports “Carbon dioxide: climatic influence”

August 25, 1969- “Global Circulation in the Atmosphere” Conference in London

August 25, 1970 – Margaret Mead and James Baldwin rap on race…

August 25, 2013 – The IPA loses support, for being stupid climate deniers.

Categories
United Kingdom

August 24, 1981 – Daily Telegraph : “Floods fear as Earth gets warmer.”

Forty five years ago, on this day, August 24th, 1981,

The amount of carbon dioxide in the air was 340ppm. As of 2026, 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 UK newspapers had been reporting on climate change intermittently since really the late 1960s/early 70s, and the Telegraph, which leaned right, had even had done a puff piece with German meteorologist Herman Flohn around the First World Climate Conference. The Telegraph wasn’t completely batshit at this point.

The specific context was that a study had appeared in Science magazine by James Hansen et al about CO2 build up, and the Telegraph was diligently reporting it. 

What I think we can learn from this is that we shouldn’t judge today’s terrible so-called newspapers, as the metric of what they always were. They have been hollowed out, they have been demented. They were, they were right wing, but serious. You could still learn something from them, I suppose. You still can at the margins if you try really hard. Who’s got the time, though? 

What happened next is that Hansen was punished by the Reagan administration, which took away a grant that had already been disbursed, meaning people lost their jobs, people who had relocated to take jobs. Hansen persisted, of course, and famously gave his testimony in 1988 that it was “time to stop waffling and say that the greenhouse effect was here.” (Well, that wasn’t in his testimony, that was in his comments to journalists afterwards.) The Telegraph began a long, slow, painful slide into utter crass idiocy, not even a shadow of its former self. 

References

xx

You can see the chronological list of All Our Yesterdays “on this day” posts here.

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

If you want to get involved, let me know.

If you want to invite me on your podcast, that would boost my ego and probably improve the currently pitiful hit-rate on this site (the two are not-unrelated).

Also on this day: 

August 24, 1981- “Overlapping effect of atmospheric water, carbon dioxide and ozone….”

August 24, 1989 – a Sydney council takes greenhouse suggestions on-board (or says it will).

August 24, 1992 – Bureaucrats kill greenie-business consensus on climate action

August 24, 1994 – first signs of a split in the anti-climate action business coalition…

Categories
Australia

August 23, 1997- Sydney Morning Herald does some Clintonian wish-casting…

Twenty-nine years ago, on this day, August 23rd, 1997,

United States officials expect Australia’s maverick greenhouse position to be blown away in a “big bang” at the climate change convention in Kyoto, according to confidential reports by Australian diplomats obtained by the Herald…. The documents are confidential internal communications between the Department of Foreign Affairs and Trade in Canberra and Australian embassies.

They detail Australia’s desperate globe-trotting efforts to undermine the push for international agreement on binding, uniform targets to reduce greenhouse emissions, initially for developed nations.

In June, for example, one senior Canberra official went to Seoul and promoted the economic benefits of a “free ride” to South Korea – a key developing nation – rather than it having to face the high cost of any future emissions control regime. [Compare Exxon doing the same thing with China]

Hogarth, M. 1997. Why Our Stand On Climate Change Is Doomed. Sydney Morning Herald, 23 August, p.1.

The amount of carbon dioxide in the air was 364ppm. As of 2026, 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 US under George H. W. Bush had succeeded in eliminating emissions reductions, targets and timetables for rich countries from the text of the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change. Australia had gone along with that, probably quite happily. The administration under Democrat Bill Clinton had tried to take some energy efficiency conservation action with its BTU tax, and had been soundly defeated. Here we see Clinton at the beginning of his second term, after having given a speech in 1996 at the Great Barrier Reef, beginning to flex muscles ahead of COP 3, which was to be held in Kyoto.

The specific context was that the Australians were pursuing a particularly aggressive line against Australia having any discernible ambitious targets on emissions reductions. This was against the mood music that the Americans, especially under Senator Tim Wirth, as Clinton’s climate envoy were wanting to put forward, so the Clinton gang were talking about how Australia was isolated and would be more isolated and would suffer significant diplomatic consequences for its stance. And for whatever reason, the Sydney Morning Herald was going along with that wish casting. 

What I think we can learn from this – occasionally the mood-music out of Washington is a better form of kayfabe (see, for example, Obama in 2014).

What happened next – Australia got an insanely generous deal at Kyoto, through exasperation and exhaustion at its intransigence.

On this topic, you might like these other posts on All Our Yesterdays

Xx

References

xx

You can see the chronological list of All Our Yesterdays “on this day” posts here.

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

If you want to get involved, let me know.

If you want to invite me on your podcast, that would boost my ego and probably improve the currently pitiful hit-rate on this site (the two are not-unrelated).

Also on this day: 

August 23, 1853 – first International Meteorological Conference

August 23, 1856 – Eunice Foote identifies carbon dioxide as greenhouse gas

August 23, 1971 – nuggets of ecological wisdom from Nugget Coombs.

August 23, 1971 – the Powell Memorandum

August 23, 1989 – Space Mirrors proposed to combat global warming. I am not making this up.

August 23, 2000 – Nick Minchin in gloat mode

August 23, 2002 – Stafford Beer dies

Categories
Australia

August 22, 1991 – Industry Commission report does its job (scuppering climate action)

Thirty five years ago, on this day, August 22nd, 1991,

There would be little point in Australia’s taking unilateral action to reduce greenhouse gases, according to a government report.

International consensus and concerted international action were needed if the greenhouse effect were to be addressed effectively.

The Industry’ Commission report, published today, “Costs and benefits of reducing greenhouse gas emissions”, examines the impact on Australian industry of an international stabilisation of greenhouse gases at 1988 levels by the year 2000 and a 20 per cent reduction in those emissions by the year 2005.

Uhlmann, C. 1991. Australia can’t work alone on greenhouse. Canberra Times, 22 August, p12

The amount of carbon dioxide in the air was 355ppm. As of 2026, 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 Australian political elites had been warned repeatedly about carbon dioxide build up from the late 60s onwards, and had adopted a wait and see strategy at various points.

The specific context was that in October 1990, in exchange for acceding to Australia, announcing a very hedged interim planning target around the Toronto proposal for a reduction in CO2 emissions of 20% by 2005 Treasurer, then-Treasurer Paul Keating had gotten the promise that the Industry Commission – a quasi-independent gang of growth-oriented intellectual thugs – would look at the greenhouse issue in the context of Australia’s economic performance.

By the time of the industry commission’s report coming out, Keating had quit government because Bob Hawke had reneged on a promise to step down in favour of Keating after the 1990 election, and was lurking on the back benches, biding his time. Graham Richardson, who had been Environment Minister, and then was butt hurt when he didn’t get the defence job he wanted was Keating’s leadership organiser (66 to 44 and “it’s enough”).

The Industry Commission report said the predictable things, and was a useful stick to beat advocates of action with because it was ostensibly independent and we were told that action was unnecessary and would be expensive blah blah blah – the usual. 

What I think we can learn from this is that there is always one of these “don’t panic, no one needs to upset the applecart” reports coming out. Some work, some don’t.

What happened next Keating succeeded in toppling. Hawke in December 1991 and then Keating basically set fire to everything environmental that Hawke had proposed, including climate actions and Keating, in order to cover his ass, allowed waste minimization and recycling to stand in for actual policy.

On this topic, you might like these other posts on All Our Yesterdays

Xx

References

xx

You can see the chronological list of All Our Yesterdays “on this day” posts here.

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

If you want to get involved, let me know.

If you want to invite me on your podcast, that would boost my ego and probably improve the currently pitiful hit-rate on this site (the two are not-unrelated).

Also on this day: 

August 22, 1960 – JFK says “we must climb to the hilltop”

August 22, 1981 – New York Times front page story costs #climate scientists their jobs.

August 22, 1987 – “Civilisation and Rapid Climate Change” – a short book…

August 22, 1988 – scientists say “Australia, expect #climate refugees”

August 22, 2000 – Minchin kills an Australian Emissions Trading Scheme

August 22, 2011 – anti-carbon pricing rally flops

Categories
Australia Renewable energy

August 21, 2000 – Renewables boast a hoax

Twenty six years ago, on this day, August 21st, 2000,

One of the Federal Government’s key boasts on greenhouse gases that it is legislating so electricity suppliers must increase their power from renewable sources by 2 per cent by 2010 has been called a hoax.

According to industry estimates, growth is occurring at that rate anyway.

And the Opposition has been criticised for signalling that it will pass the Government’s Renewable Energy Bill in its present form, which allows burning wood from native forests to create energy to be taken into account in determining whether the target has been met.

At present, 10.7 per cent of the country’s energy comes from renewable sources. The bill would lift that to 12.7 per cent by 2010. The bill, which also applies to major electricity buyers, such as the aluminium industry, will go to the Senate later this month.

The Australian Conservation Foundation yesterday accused Dr Sharman Stone, parliamentary secretary to the Environment Minister, Senator Hill, of issuing a misleading media release. It had said wind farms, solar-driven manufacturing, tidal power and energy from methane were “destined to become a growing part of Australia’s energy options” because of the legislation.

“This is the great renewable hoax,” the foundation’s campaign director, Mr John Connor, said. “It will be woodchip-driven stuff, and there’s basic problems … legislation which just won’t drive the kind of industries [we should] base the economy on.”

Clennell, A. 2000. Government Greenhouse Gases Boast A Hoax, Says Environmental Group. Sydney Morning Herald, August 22, p.8.

The amount of carbon dioxide in the air was 370ppm. As of 2026, 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 Australian governments, state and federal, had intermittently made supportive noises in the general direction of renewables, but had usually not provided funding or significant financial incentives. My favourite example is how in 1994-95 a proposal for a carbon tax where some of the profits were hypothecated towards research and development of renewables was shot down by opponents within the Labor Party before it got to cabinet. 

The specific context was in 1997 ahead of the Kyoto conference, Liberal Party Prime Minister John Howard had, with some fanfare, produced a Safeguarding the Future policy, which included a promise of a 2% renewables per target for Australian electricity provision. Howard then slow-walked the policy implementation, so that it became a much smaller amount, and here we see various environmental groups pointing this out for all the good it did. 

What I think we can learn from this is that at time of writing or narrating, John Howard is still alive, and there is still time to get him to The Hague on charges of crimes against humanity and other species, and he has very little defence, And standing next to him in the dock should be Paul Keating, Kevin Rudd, Tony Abbott, Malcolm Turnbull, Scott Morrison, and most of all Anthony Albanese, Julia Gillard squeaks her way out by the skin of her teeth, but as well as these meat puppets, lots of industry figures whose names we barely know should also be in the dock as well and this will not happen.

What happened next LETAG. Vestas (LINKS)

xxx

On this topic, you might like these other posts on All Our Yesterdays

Xx

References

xx

You can see the chronological list of All Our Yesterdays “on this day” posts here.

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

If you want to get involved, let me know.

If you want to invite me on your podcast, that would boost my ego and probably improve the currently pitiful hit-rate on this site (the two are not-unrelated).

Also on this day: 

August 21, 1961 – The UN holds a “new sources of energy” conference

August 21, 1972 – Nature editor John Maddox says C02-temperature fear “found wanting”

August 21, 1986 – Lake Nyos disaster

August 21, 2004 – The Australian reports on Howard cabinet split over ETS

Categories
United Kingdom

Burnham and Tice – what substantive difference, besides some hand-wringing?

I’m writing this as rain delays my departure for town. It is some of the first rain in months, and welcome.

Summer will end, and when it does, Prime Minister Andy Burnham will – I suspect – give the approval to one or both of the oil and gas projects that the extractors are currently salivating over.

It will be wrapped up in all sorts of casuistry, all sorts of presentational gimmicks (see my speculations on those – and the responses – here).

I could be wrong, the man may surprise me. We shall see.

Let’s assume he doesn’t. To me, then, the question is what is the real, the fundamental difference, on climate change, between him and Richard Tice of Reform, who recently said we should basically lie back and enjoy it?

What’s the difference? Anyone?

Sure, Burnham will look suitably sad, and perhaps even hug a few people whose homes have burned to the ground. He may loot the aid budget further to do some band-aid stuff in constituencies where some of his favourite MPs are vulnerable to a Green Surge.

But step back, think slightly longer term, bigger burning picture – what will the difference between him and Tice actually be?

Who knows, maybe this post will age like a glass of milk in a heatwave. Or maybe it’s the Burnham bounce that is the glass of milk…

See also

https://www.thedailymash.co.uk/politics/richard-tices-guide-to-sitting-back-and-enjoying-a-wildfire-20260818268736

Categories
Australia

August 20, 1987 – “we have a wait and see approach”

Thirty nine years ago, on this day, August 20th, 1987,

MJ Elliott in the Legislative Council of the South Australian parliament

The amount of carbon dioxide in the air was 349ppm. As of 2026, 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 South Australian Parliament had been hearing about carbon dioxide build up intermittently since 1971, usually from figures in the right-wing Liberal Party. 

The specific context was that by 1987 these statements were becoming more frequent, in the context of the 1985 Villach Scientific Conference and the CSIROs present at Division of Atmospheric Physics presentation to the Australian Environment Council in 1986 and the forthcoming greenhouse project of the CSIRO atmospheric physics people and the Commission for the Future.

What I think we can learn from this is that this politician was not at all lying. We had adopted a “wait and see” policy, even though from the mid 70s various scientists have been making point that a wait and see policy was not risk-free and in effect not acting in itself was an action, and it was an action in favour of increased risk.

What happened next is that in 1988 the issue exploded in the UK, the US, Australia and since then politicians have had to take a stance and most of them have chosen to pay lip service, though some especially on the right have delighted in “owning the libs” by saying they don’t actually care if there is indeed a problem, we will tough it out and technology will save the day. 

On this topic, you might like these other posts on All Our Yesterdays

Xx

References

xx

You can see the chronological list of All Our Yesterdays “on this day” posts here.

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

If you want to get involved, let me know.

If you want to invite me on your podcast, that would boost my ego and probably improve the currently pitiful hit-rate on this site (the two are not-unrelated).

Also on this day: 

August 20, 1988 – Hansen’s model released

August 20, 1996 – Denialist wastes time, energy in stupid smear

August 20, 1997 – Australian Mining Industry operative misrepresents the #climate science. Obvs.

August 20, 2016 – Exxon’s gonna get sued?

August 20, 2018 – Greta Thunberg’s first protest

Categories
Activism Obituaries Smugosphere Social Movements

Mobilisation versus Actual Movement Building

“This summer’s extremes have left a lot of people frightened and angry. That feeling needs somewhere to go.

Hope the coming months bring a new wave of #Climate mobilisation, so politicians finally feel the heat over their inaction!

This summer's extremes have left a lot of people frightened and angry. That feeling needs somewhere to go.Hope the coming months bring a new wave of #Climate mobilisation, so politicians finally feel the heat over their inaction!

Dr. Aaron Thierry (@thierryaaron.bsky.social) 2026-08-18T07:12:13.437Z

My reply

“We need actual movement building, not just constant mobilisations”

So what IS “Actual Movement Building”  (AMB) and how is it helped and how is it hindered by “constant mobilisations”?  There’s other work I should be doing (should have been doing for ages), so this will necessarily be brief.


What is a social movement?

For me,  it is a network (thick multiple links)  made up of individuals and groups all trying to move society (inc culture, politics, economics) in a certain direction. These individuals and groups have got knowledge (that they need – who has the power, what events/decisions are coming up etc) and skills (group maintenance etc) that matter, and know how to share their skills etc. 

N.B. A “movement” is NOT a single organisation, no matter how big and gaudy its brand might be at a given time. (Yes, looking at you, “Extinction Rebellion” and all the people who glugged the Kool-Aid, who really ought to know better but were drunk on a momentary sense of relevance.)

What is “actual movement building”?

AMB is about strengthening yourself (more skills, more knowledge, more relationships), the groups you are part of (skills audit and plugging gaps [HOLDING DECENT MEETINGS, for example. Sorry for shouting, [not sorry]), minimising your group’s pathologies around recruitment and retention) and ALSO undertaking “services for the movement” – offering practical help, advice, constructive critique, encouragement, introducing individuals and groups to each other, etc etc.

Crucially, this takes willingness to face up to past and present failures. It can’t happen if you can’t or won’t see what is missing (as per James Baldwin – “not everything that can be faced can be changed, but nothing can be changed until it is faced”). 

All of this requires us to take the harder road, away from (only doing) the big symbolic spectacular stuff that gives a sugar rush and cooks your pancreas.

What does AMB require?

Time (which we don’t have, won’t have)

Expertise (which we don’t have, won’t have)

Space (“third spaces” where people can get together and think.  NGOs sometimes have these, but in my experience expect the best part of the meeting to be taken up bending the knee to them).

Intellectual courage (which we seem to have as individuals, but not in collectives, not once we start policing each other.)

People willing to step beyond their “guard rails”, and with the understanding that there are bad ways to organise/act.

Other actors not deliberately getting in the way to fuck shit up. (they will always be there, always determined to stop progressive movements by any means necessary, from smears and demoralisation through harassment to all forms of violence.)

What are the barriers to AMB?

There are many barriers, but time and attention are short, so I will stick to three.

  1. There are easier ways to feel “impactful”

We have an easier way of meeting our psychological needs – by doing the things that we know how to do – marches, petitions, camps, getting arrested – because we know how to do them (smugosphere).

Keeping on doing the same thing and expecting a different result is the definition of insanity.

The problem with constant mobilisations is that it’s like being on a fucking hamster wheel.  Round and round, never actually getting anywhere, but jacking up on short-term hopium.

  1. We don’t want to look into past failures.  We just don’t. ESPECIALLY when we both should and COULD have acted differently back when it might have mattered..  

“It’s a sad story, hard to tell — 

Which one of us likes to talk about his failures? 

I’ll tell the truth and nothing but the truth, 

For if one does fail, there’s a touch of glory 

In having tried at all.”

Book 9 of Ovid’s Metamorphoses “Achelous and Hercules”

Yes, but there’s not any touch of glory in doing the same thing over and over again  when you know it is not going to work.  And there is no glory at all in chiding people who point this out as “doomers” (looking at you, Julia).

  1. The field is “stable” and the costs of new entrants – both organisations and repertoire of behaviour are prohibitively high.  

See what happened to XR, when it tried to contest the Greenpeace-FoE duopoly!

More Fundamental Attribution Error-ly, the people “in charge” don’t have the willingness (ability?) or incentive to take a look at themselves and their organisations  (see my blog post Cher, incentive structures and our inevitable doom, especially for the  Carl Rogers at the end.) 

To those who think we can break these chains, I ask who is the Agent of Change, the Modern Prince who are supposed to do this movement building?

“Established” activists, who know how the game is played and are winning at it. They can’t even see the need for innovation.

Burnout out/super-annuated activists who got out/were pushed out? Why? Where is their energy coming from, their credibility?

The utter newbies who don’t know what’s been tried, are new to everything and have no hinterland, who is taking their cue from the established activists?

The Alien “Activist Adjudicators” from Sigma IX? They don’t exist.

What is to be done?

Fucked if I know.

I have some various answers to the “little” stuff (how to hold meetings, how to hold film showings etc), but in terms of building and sustaining mass movements that avoid being co-opted, repressed, exhausted as we stare down both barrels of a loaded shotgun when Mother Nature has an understandably itchy trigger finger? Nah, that one is beyond me.  But, you know, pay me some money for food and books, and I might come up with something.

UPDATE – this doggerel.

We have a stable “greenie” system

With grooves and habits: we can’t resist ’em

These repertoires are then repeated

The acts of those again defeated

But who will break these ancient chains?

It won’t be those receiving gains

Not those aware of rules of t’game

With jobs, or niche, or minor fame.

Nor those who fled the field of battle

With wounds and runes and grim death rattle

Nor those who fear we cannot change

Those regarded old or wrong or strange

Nor those who landed just last week

With vim, and on a winning streak

And rightly leery of gramp’s advices

When gramps’s failures brought us crises

We never learn: the State keeps tabs

The future once was up for grabs

It’s crumbling, broiling; the owl will hoot

And on our face – here comes the boot

Further Reading

2019: How we blew it, again | Peace News “ (written in 2017)

“Dear new Climate Activist.” (written in 2018)

The costs of collusion with activist bullshit and hype cycles (written in 2017)

Mobilisation “versus” Movement Building |  (written in 2011)

Movement-building: Insulin and unlocking energy (written in 2012)

Categories
United States of America

August 19, 2019 – Business Roundtable repudiates Friedman Doctrine

Seven years ago, on this day, August 19th, 2019,

August 19 2019 Friedman Doctrine repudiated by Business Roundtable

The Purpose Revolution – The Friedman Doctrine Is Out; the Stakeholder Doctrine Is In

The amount of carbon dioxide in the air was 412ppm. As of 2026, 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 business lobbies have always regarded environmental concerns as at best an impediment, and at worst part of an International Communist Conspiracy. Business lobbies tend to be made up of today’s successful enterprises, the insurgents chasing new technologies and new production methods don’t have the financial muscle or the spare capacity to form effective lobbying groups, and if they do, that effective lobbying group will probably get taken over by the big powerful actors wanting to make sure that nothing happens.

In the early 1970s Milton Friedman had dismissed environmental concerns by saying that they would be solved under a regime of private ownership. Friedman was well aware of the carbon dioxide issue, and I can say this confidently, because he corresponded with William Barbert, and his correspondence was published in an issue of the CO2 Newsletter. And his Friedman doctrine had basically been “greed is good and everything will work out if we just let the rich people do whatever they think is best.” This is demented. This is hardly new, but it has been at various times convenient for people, not just the rich, to believe. Let me talk to you someday about how most academics are basically the equivalent of monks arguing about angels on the head of a fucking pin.

The specific context. So why did this happen in 2019. I think the Business Roundtable realised that they were doing themselves some reputational damage by failing to pretend to give a shit, and you get this, you get business lobby groups knowing that they have to look sane and reasonable if they want to be effective. See, for example, the Australian Mining Industry Council having to change both its tune and its name after it went in so hard against the Mabo decision on Aboriginal land rights in 1992.

What I think we can learn from this

xxx

What happened next

I’ll have to look and see if the Business Roundtable has suddenly endorsed Greta Thunberg. Somehow I doubt it. 

On this topic, you might like these other posts on All Our Yesterdays

Xx

References

xx

You can see the chronological list of All Our Yesterdays “on this day” posts here.

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

If you want to get involved, let me know.

If you want to invite me on your podcast, that would boost my ego and probably improve the currently pitiful hit-rate on this site (the two are not-unrelated).

Also on this day: 

August 19, 1968 – Is Man Spoiling the Weather? (yes)

August 19 1997 – “The denialists take Canberra” with “Countdown to Kyoto” conference

August 19, 2002 – Pacific Islands make unreasonable demands about continuing to live

August 19, 2002 – Bush skips the Earth Summit