Now or Never

This document tries to offer a realistic assessment of our situation in the weeks after the 2007 Camp for Climate Action. ¹ It asks what things need to happen for us to maybe prevent a 2°c global temperature rise. We see no use in pointing fingers or blame-storming the fact that some of these things haven't happened so far.

The list is not exhaustive. We've kept it down to things we think are needed (but are not themselves enough) for a successful movement to stop global climate catastrophe. That is, unless all of these happen, we're fucked. Sadly, doing them all won't automatically save us – they're necessary, but not sufficient.

Honest assessment

The Climate Camp was a huge success. The Climate Camp has been a failure. Both of these statements are true.

Evaluated on its own terms, it is hard to see the achievements of the camp as anything but a phenomenal success:

• It happened , despite considerable opposition from BAA and the Met, who would clearly have preferred it not to.
• Lots of people came, including many who haven't been to any of 'our' events before.
• There was a refreshingly diverse range of direct actions, focusing on a wide variety of targets.
• It gained widespread public support.
• It was a worldwide media-story, and got more (and more positive) mainstream press-coverage than we have come to expect.

So why the doubts?

Firstly, we need to ask just how much of an achievement the successes listed above were. We think that many – perhaps most – of the positives were to be expected.²

Secondly, although neither of us was at the camp, the media reports made it seem like a giant lobbying effort – a sort of 'Friends of the Earth with added d-locks and dreadlocks'. Obviously the mass media couldn't and wouldn't recognise and report an autonomous event that rejected the ideology of their bosses if it bit them on the arse. But we've also heard from people who were at the camp that there was remarkably little discussion of politics, in the broadest sense; that lots of people came with the belief that the answers lie in new technologies and governmental solutions – and left without this view being challenged. If this is true, then one of the fundamental messages of the camp – that solutions need to come from people and communities, not from governments and corporations – is not coming through as strongly as it needs to.³ We cannot afford to miss this opportunity – not only to put our case for the urgency of radical social change, but also to take action to bring it closer to reality.

Pushing at an open door

Part of the reason why the public were relatively 'on-side' – and why much of the press coverage was friendly – is that so much of what we have to say is uncontroversial. Hardly any mainstream politicians or journalists would agree with us that the G8 is a completely illegitimate body. But the view that global carbon emissions must be drastically reduced is becoming a mainstream position. As one of the particularly brilliant banners on the day of action put it: ' we are armed ... only with peer reviewed science.'

Even the science correspondent of the Daily Mail admitted (through gritted teeth) the strength of our argument.⁴ Now only the lunatic denialists and contrarians⁵ try to dispute the strength of the arguments.⁶

'We're all environmentalists now'

This situation represents a massive opportunity for us. As the idea that we need an equitable reduction in global carbon emissions by at least 60% globally (and therefore much more in the West) gains credibility, there will be more and more chances for the different solutions that come from within 'our' movement to be heard. But it's not only an opportunity – it's also a reason to be very worried. 'Our' ideas are gaining currency because the situation is monumentally urgent. If we don't get this right – and quickly enough – then we're fucked.

This is why our favourite of the many brilliant actions were the 'red herring' visits to the carbon offset companies. The Guardian's ultra-defensiveness in reporting this story tells us all we need to know.⁷ Many companies that rely on their customer-profile are frantically spray-painting themselves green. No-one wants to be labelled an environmental bad-guy.

'Damn, that was fun'

Some post-camp euphoria is necessary – but can be dangerous if it blinds us. Let's celebrate the achievements we've made, and then evaluate them strategically. Where do we need to be, and how quickly? If we move too slowly – or in the wrong directions – our task will get even more difficult.

As a result of the camp, we are stronger than we were before. But are we progressing at the rate we need to? Say I need to catch a train that leaves in 20 minutes. I'm 2 miles away from the station. After 10 minutes, I've covered half a mile. I'm closer to where I need to be, but if I keep walking at the same speed, I'll miss the train. Because I've been walking too slowly, my task is now even more difficult than it was when I began. I need to speed up – or perhaps get in a taxi. But it would have been much easier and more sustainable if I'd got on a bike at the start.

Where are we coming from?

From the beginning the aim was that the 2006 Climate Camp wasn't to be the end of the story. It was to kick-start a much wider growth in direct action against climate change, capital, and the state. After the October 2006 post-Climate Camp gathering in Manchester, many of us were disappointed. It seemed that the only decision of note taken by the meeting was to hold a meeting to organise another camp in the summer of 2007. Some people met on various occasions to try to begin work on developing some of the other aspects of a network that we need. Some of this has happened: the Toolkit for Climate Action was put together, and it's great.⁸

But the Climate Camp isn't yet part of the bigger movement that it needs to be. For the moment, it seems to exist for its own sake, as the sole visible presence of a more radical voice within the broader 'green movement'. Much more needs to happen.

So what's our big idea?

We've spent the couple of pages avoiding saying what this is. Partly because we don't know. But we think we can identify some of the things that we don't know, but need to. We can't have a strategy until we know what else is going on. We know roughly the sort of emissions cuts we need. There are some good ideas floating around as to how they ought to be shared out. We also know that if we – either as a pair or as a movement – try to act alone, without looking at potential allies (both strategic and tactical), then we and the planet are toast. But there are lots more things we need to find out – and/or share more widely among our movement.

1. States of play

   What are local authorities and regional development agencies doing? What is the UK State doing? What are other states doing? What proposals are on the table internationally? What level cuts in CO2 emissions do they envisage, and how do they intend to implement them? How do they envisage dealing with the likely consequences of their course of actions – whether the short(er)-term social and economic effects of emissions-cuts, or the long(er)-term need to deal with the consequences of climate-change – or some combination of the two?⁹ How do the interests of various armed forces fit with those of governments?

2. Capital punishment/capital redemption?

   Some businesses, for a variety of reasons, actually want more regulation than a so-called Labour government wants to enforce! The Confederation of British Industry is not the be-all and end-all of what capitalism thinks. Capital relies on regulation for a lot of its profits... Many insurance and investment companies are moving quickly. Business-asusual is not in the medium- and long-term interests of shareholders. Some companies (BP, for example¹⁰ ) strategise on a 50-year basis. On which points is capital agreed? Where does it disagree? What are its different fears? Where is it planning? What is it planning? What are the fault lines, and how can we exploit them?

3. What does our low-energy society look like?

   What can we do, worldwide, with carbon emissions of 340kg/person/ year?¹¹ Which industries stay, if any? Which have to go? How are they organised and structured? What lifestyle do we (want to) have, and what do we have to do in order to sustain it?

4. Civil society/NGOs

   What are the current demands of both environmental and development NGOs, in Britain, other industrial economies, and the global south? Which directions are they heading in? Who are they listening to? Can common causes or focuses can be found? (How) can we work with them without our movement and politics being co-opted and/or diluted?

5. What does the 'general public' think?

   Of climate change, of 'us' the direct action movement? Why don't they get active in 'our' stuff? What can we learn from, for example, the people organising and attending marches about climate change in Oxford and Tewkesbury? What do we have to offer them?

Ways forward?

For better or worse, very few, if any, of these discussions took place at the Climate Camp 2007. It may be (at least one of the authors believes that it is) the case that the the Climate Camp would not have been the best place to have some of these discussions. But either way, the absence of this research and these discussions is a huge problem. If we want a future worth having, we need to come up with at least rough answers to these questions, and quickly, so as to plan our next steps.

So, at long last, we've two suggestions to make.

1. We must educate ourselves and each other. For each of the five headings above (and more) there's research to be done, findings to share. There are lots of ways we might do this, from leaflets and web-pages to roadshows and presentations at meetings and gatherings. At the very least the information could go up on the Network for Climate Action website, but face-to-face meetings would be more useful.
2. We use the information to act. Simply collecting it will not be enough. To set ourselves medium- and long-term goals that are both achievable and strategic – that is, to decide which actions are the most likely to lead towards the aversion of climate-related catastrophe – we need to evaluate the results of our investigations. This means
   • considering the likely responses to our actions from the state, NGOs, media, civil society, capital – remembering always the tensions and splits within each.
   • choosing actions that bring other social agents closer to our politics (this does not mean diluting our politics to make them closer to those of others).
   • acting in ways that strengthen us and our allies, while weakening our enemies.
   • always working in ways that will build our capacities – whether this means our numbers, our media profile, our physical and/or tactical strength, or whatever. We must learn to skill-share more effectively.
   • perhaps most importantly, ensuring that all our actions move us towards an equitable, low-carbon society.¹²

This involves collective thought and discussion. We've often shied away from this sort of discussion in favour of practical organising: the practicalities have often been much more immediate and urgent, and more theoretical discussion is difficult and potentially divisive. It is often perceived as a waste of time that could have been spent doing something useful. All too often it has been a waste of time.

But it needn't be.

Admittedly, it will probably always be difficult, but we didn't sign up to try and prevent ecological catastrophe simply because the activists have all the best drugs, sex and music. Did we?

Discussion of strategy and tactics do highlight our differences more than our common ground. But this can be an advantage: these sorts of discussions help the holders of apparently unfashionable or minority opinions to identify each other and come together.

In smaller affinity groups we can set our own priorities based on our shared views, and then come together for larger projects. We're much more likely to be able to work together more closely and with more trust after identifying and talking about the issues on which we disagree.

Most of us have had the pleasure of 'dog chasing tail' ideological debates that seem to go on for ever without achieving anything, let alone being resolved. We think this is partly due to a lack of clarity as to why we're having the discussions. Debating in order to proclaim ourselves ideologically pure, casting out heretics, and then applauding ourselves while the planet burns is perhaps not the most constructive way forward. But discussion oriented towards practical action will inform our actions. We can then decide when to work with others who share our priorities, even if not every last bullet point of our analysis.

What is to be done?

We should ensure that whatever planning meetings for future projects – and it's imperative that there are future projects – incorporate time for discussion. If this means that we have to move forward slightly more slowly with these projects, then so be it: it will strengthen us in the medium to long term.

The projects should not take a back seat – far from it, given the urgency with which we need to escalate action – but we should not allow the urgency of the situation to stop us reflecting together.

Three modest proposals

• We continue to meet as some sort of network (however defined).
• Our meetings emphasise the importance of information-sharing and collective discussion.
• Whatever practical projects we are organise go hand-in-hand with a commitment to educate ourselves.

Responses/comments/objections/critiques/corrections/arguments/ discussions all welcome: please send to wherenext@aktivix.org

Anti-copyright: print, copy, change and distribute at will. For ease of printing, it is also available for download as a PDF (in both A5 booklet and A4 formats).

1. When we first set out to write this piece together, we weren't sure whether it should be a critique of the directions the Climate Camp has taken or a contribution to a constructive discussion as to what our priorities should be. While a variation on 'Against the Institution(alization) of (the Idea of) the Climate Camp' might be more fun to write, and perhaps generate more fuss, we suspect that it would ultimately be less helpful. For various reasons, neither of us was at the 2007 camp: as such our response to it is a result mostly of observations from the outside. But we also suspect that this distance might allow us to see from afar things that could be missed from closer up. [back]
2. This is not to say that those involved didn't pull off a huge task; they obviously did. It is also not to deny that things could have gone much, much worse. [back]
3. The piece (written by neither of us) that follows this one makes this case brilliantly. [back]
4. 'Normally, ecoprotesters get my hackles up,' begins Michael Hanlon. His piece, 'The eco-warriors of Heathrow are right to fight against expansion' (Daily Mail, August 16) concludes 'They may be revolting, but in this case they are also right.' See http://www.dailymail.co.uk/pages/live/articles/news/news.html?in_article_id=475634. [back]
5. We don't think they should be allowed to get away with labelling themselves sceptics, because the tradition of scepticism is honourable, and they are not. Indeed, this works both ways: see http://www.spiked-online.com/Printable/0000000CA8B8.htm for an attempt by one fuckwit to claim that 'climate scepticism' should be viewed as an honourable tradition. Some of the deniers are demonstrably in the pay of oil companies. The motives of some others – such as those of the former RCP/Living Marxism cadre who now run Spiked – are less easy to discern. [back]
6. Of course, many of the best-intentioned journalists (who often have no training in science) believe that being 'fair and balanced' involves giving equal prominence to both 'sides' of an argument, regardless of the merit of the ideas under discussion or the financial interests involved in their promotion. It's a bit like putting David Irving on-air to provide 'balance' to any story about the Holocaust. [back]
7. http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2007/aug/20/climatechange.activists. The Guardian Media Group gets its fishy offsets from 'through a partnership with Climate Care': more details from the horse's mouth available at http://www.guardian.co.uk/values/socialaudit/environment/story/0,,1931355,00.html. [back]
8. Downloadable at the Network for Climate Action website. [back]
9. This includes bureaucracies as well as supposedly democratically elected politicians (the former have perhaps a greater stake in maintaining the system, since they can't count on being out of office within 10 years – and you can bet that various high-ranking civil servants will have thought up some sort of plan). [back]
10. So someone told one of us in a pub once. [back]
11. This figure, from http://www.carbonequity.info/docs/election07.html, is based on a presumed global population of 8.9 billion in 2050, and is estimated as the highest with which we can keep within a 2°c global temperature-rise.[back]
12. For example, we would probably decide that while (land- and sea-based) public transport releases a large amount of CO2, our aim isn't to shut it down, but rather to increase it, make it more efficient, and lower the cost to the user. Or since the manufacture of chemical fertilisers accounts for 1% of global carbon emissions, the authors would rather to see it stopped altogether than made 20% more efficient.[back]