Check out the new home of Breakthrough Generation at http://thebreakthrough.org/youth.shtml
Archive for the ‘Global Warming’ Category
Cross posted at The Real Ewbank.
At the weekend, Maldives President Mohamed Nasheed called for increased direct action campaigning to encourage governments to act on climate change. “What we really need is a huge social 60s-style catalystic, dynamic street action,” said Nasheed in the Guardian. “If the people in the US wish to change, it can happen. In the 60s and 70s, they’ve done that.”
President Nasheed emerged from the last year’s Copenhagen Climate Conference with considerable clout among climate change campaigners, and rightly so. In the process of drawing attention to the plight of his homeland the Maldives, a chain of small islands threatened by rising sea levels and storm surges, Nasheed became a leading voice for the vulnerable and poor in the international negotiations. Nasheed has since received several awards for his commendable efforts.
The Maldivian President’s comments will no doubt be music to the ears of some climate advocates in Australia, however, the merits of such an approach should be carefully considered. Is direct action likely to be as effective for climate change as it was for social issues in the 1960s? Is Nasheed’s optimism that renewed grassroots action will compel governments to implement effective climate policies well founded?
Nasheed points to successful direct action campaigns that occurred in 1960s America as a model, and this provides a good starting point for exploring these questions. Let’s take a quick look at the civil rights movement. The civil rights movement used various types of direct action between 1955 and 1968 to overturn Jim Crow laws that permitted racial segregation and other forms of discrimination in the United States. The largest of the marches, the March on Washington in 1963 (where Martin Luther King Jr. delivered the historic “I have a dream” speech), is credited with helping build momentum to pass the Civil Rights Act of 1964 and the National Voting Rights Act of 1965.
The successes of American civil rights movement support the notion of grassroots movements driving change, but the world has changed since the 1960s, and so have the issues. While freedom and dignity where at the heart of the civil rights struggle, the role of freedom is not as clear-cut when it comes to climate change.
Climate change doesn’t readily lend itself to direct action campaigning for two reasons. Firstly, the impacts of unmitigated climate change do not affect citizens from the largest carbon emitting nations in a visible and direct way. Attempts to link climate change with specific storms, bushfires, and heatwaves, have been of limited use because these ‘natural disasters’ have been experienced throughout history and live in our social memory.
Unlike the civil rights movement, climate change has a complex causation. Its effects are indirect, systemic, difficult to perceive, and will increase over time. This is compounded by an absence of directly affected and disgruntled citizens in developed nations to demand action. The fact that future generations and people that are living in the developing world are, and will be, hardest hit by our changing climate, means that this crucial driver for effective grassroots mobilization is missing in the west.
Secondly, in contrast to the emancipatory civil rights laws, the dominant climate policies could be framed as limiting freedom to those in developed nations. The key climate change policies advocated involve carbon pricing in one form or another. Whether it’s a market price or carbon tax, a direct action campaign would require a critical mass of people to protest for measures that increase the cost of energy.
In this scenario it is possible for opponents to frame demonstrators as attacking freedom, rather than promoting it, as was the case in the protests of the 1960s. This framing would be achieved in a similar way that Opposition Leader Tony Abbott rebranded the government’s emissions-trading scheme as “a great big tax.”
Putting aside these challenges, we should consider that recent grassroots demonstrations in Australia have a mixed record.
In 2003, between 800 thousand and one million Australian’s demonstrated against the US-led invasion of Iraq and the Howard government’s commitment to send the Nation’s armed forces to war. This massive demonstration was the largest since the anti-Vietnam war protests of the 1970s, but was it enough to pressure the government to withdraw Australian troops? No. Was it enough to build a movement capable of voting out the conservative Prime Minister at the next election? No. Did it translate into a legislative victory that would ensure governments require the approval of the Australian Parliament to wage war? No.
On the other hand, in the lead up to the 2007 election a successful grassroots movement was formed in opposition to the Howard government’s unpopular industrial relations reforms. In contrast to the anti-Iraq was protests years earlier, the reforms directly affected millions of Australian workers. The WorkChoices reforms threatened the rights of citizens and presented a risk to financial security. The effective campaign used direct action alongside other grassroots organising methods. A combination of intelligent campaigning by a galvanized union movement, progressive online campaigning, excellent messaging (‘Your Rights at Work’), and a revitalised Labor party deposed the Howard government.
President Nasheed’s brief comments pose interesting questions about the effectiveness of 1960s-style direct action for climate change campaigning, but are not detailed enough to adequately gauge the role it might play. Direct action will continue to perform a cathartic function for climate change activists, but its ability to lead to transformative change like the civil rights movement in the US, or more modest victory for Australian workers against the Howard government, is limited. It is good to look to the past for inspiration but we mustn’t be blinded by nostalgia.
It’s no understatement that last week’s Federal budget was bad for climate change. The Rudd Government, fresh from its emissions trading backdown, once again failed to live up to its rhetoric. It failed to act on “the greatest scientific, moral and economic challenge of our time”. And it failed to deliver the scale of investment needed to drive our transition to a clean energy economy.
There was a belief that the 2010 budget would include some big investments to combat the climate crisis. Rudd’s decision to delay the Carbon Pollution Reduction Scheme (CPRS) to 2013 coincided with a sharp decline in public support for the government. The Prime Minister’s own approval rating has collapsed in recent weeks, falling 14 points to 45 per cent – the lowest level since taking office in 2007. The budget was regarded as a way for Rudd to regain his edge on climate policy. He would have the opportunity to restore the confidence of voters suspicious of his government’s commitment to climate change.
As we now know, the government’s investment in renewable energy was markedly less than the year earlier. But should this come as a surprise? No. It shouldn’t.
Australia needs a Plan B for climate policy. We need a nation-building project on the scale of the Snowy Mountains Scheme to invest in renewable energy and sustainable infrastructure. This is the fresh approach needed to drive Australia’s transition towards a clean economy and protect the nation from dangerous climate change.
The Prime Minister’s announcement yesterday that the government will delay its Carbon Pollution Reduction Scheme until 2013 is a tacit admission that pricing carbon is not viable in the current political environment.
Labor and proponents of emissions trading have been living a fantasy for too long. They have ignored the realities of politics to pursue a policy that had no reasonable chance of being implemented at a time when climate change experts agree we must act. Now, Australia is set for yet more inaction.
The Australian Greens have put high-speed rail (HSR) back on the national agenda. Greens leader Senator Bob Brown has called on the Rudd government to fund a study identifying the best route for connecting Australia’s two largest cities, Melbourne and Sydney, with HSR.
The ambitious project represents the type of nation building that should be at the heart of national climate policy. The project has the potential to reduce Australia’s ballooning carbon emissions, and kick-start the development of a larger HSR network that can one day connect all of Australia’s mainland capital cities.
Posted in Global Warming, tagged climate politics, Conservatives, Earth Hour, environmentalism, Human Achievement Hour, Pollution Paradigm, Poverty & Development, renewable energy on March 31, 2010 | Leave a Comment »
Cross posted at The Real Ewbank.
Of all the news and commentary I read about Earth Hour in Australia, not once did I see a mention of the billions of people that now live in energy poverty. Event organizers and commentators failed to discuss the fact that while millions of people around the world symbolically switched off their lights for one hour, billions are desperate to turn their lights on.
According to the Baker Institute at Rice University:
“…roughly 1.6 billion people, which is one quarter of the global population, still have no access to electricity and some 2.4 billion people rely on traditional biomass, including wood, agricultural residues and dung, for cooking and heating. More than 99 percent of people without electricity live in developing regions, and four out of five live in rural areas of South Asia and sub-Saharan Africa.”
For an event that professes to support climate change solutions, one would think that addressing energy poverty without wrecking our climate would feature prominently in Earth Hour campaigning. So why was energy poverty ignored? And what does this say about the environmental thinking that informed Earth Hour?
Posted in Cap and Trade, Clean Energy, Education, Energy, Environment, Global Warming, National Energy Education Act, tagged alliance for climate education, shreya indukuri on March 23, 2010 | Leave a Comment »
By Shreya Indukuri – ACE Youth Advisory Board Member
Last Monday, I had the great opportunity to go listen to our country’s Secretary of Energy, Steve Chu. After a brief overview of climate change and the reality of global warming due to the human race’s contribution of GHG emissions to the atmosphere, the secretary of energy laid down his thoughts for how the US can transform energy to combat the effects of climate change along with numerous other benefits.
Chu believes that “tens of billions of dollars as a minimum per year [should be] invested [to develop new energy technologies that will help reduce greenhouse gas emissions.]” The US is only allotting 3 billion dollars TOTAL to be invested in these technologies compared to China, who is investing 9 billion dollars MONTHLY to revolutionize their energy industry!!! Talk about scale.
When asked what students can do to resolve energy issues, he suggested “putting your computer to sleep”, “becoming better informed” and here’s my favorite “turning off the water tap!”
YES, I agree we must all do those things but seriously, there is SO MUCH MORE that we can do! He should be inspiring students to take leadership and discover and implement already existing energy solutions that can transform their school and community. Does he really expect a catalyst for change among this generation if the only suggestion he can give us is to “turn off the water tap and put your computer on hibernate mode?”
Though I was disappointed in the his advice to students, fortunately, Chu understands that the US is lagging very behind in this new upcoming energy revolution and he is eager to change that.
I thoroughly enjoyed the secretary’s new spin of famous hockey player’s Wayne Gretzky’s quote on how he is such a successful athlete “I skate to where the puck will be, not where it’s been.” Chu believes that “we have to get people in the United States to skate to where the world will be” in terms of implementing new energy technologies, not pray for oil prices to decrease.
I certainly will continue assisting students in my community implement a smart energy solution I found to be thoroughly effective but, I hope I can inspire students everywhere to take leadership and transform their community as well. “Turning of the tap” is simply not enough.