Good intentions: the dangers of activist apathy towards climate change in the UK

NB: If you haven't yet read Naomi Klein's article "Capitalism vs. the Climate", I recommend that you do!


Xstrata and Occupy LSX

From an environmental perspective, Xstrata, one of the world's largest mining corporations, was an excellent target for the OccupyLSX activists to target on November 30. The most obvious reason for this is the company's aggressive pursuit of expanding its coal operations. In Australia, Xstrata is planning to build the largest opencast coal mine in the southern hemisphere. Xstrata also has a very poor record in dealing with indigenous peoples who live on or near the lands that are being mined, and a number of local activists who oppose Xstrata's operations have been assassinated. You can find a good overview of most of the reports coming out about Xstrata from the London Mining Network.

So when Occupy LSX 'occupied' the Xstrata headquarters, my first thought was "Great! They're finally doing something significant on climate justice". Actually, that couldn't be farther from the case, if OccupLSX's press release is anything to go by. There isn't a single mention of environmental issues whatsoever. From the people I know who attended the action, I have no doubts that many of those who went share my concerns about Xstrata's dismal environmental record. But the Occupy LSX press release wipes climate change and environmental racism off the agenda. Here's the bit where it talks about Xstrata:

The protesters today are making the connection between the slashing of private and public sector pensions, while supposed 'top' executives cash in by increasing their own pay levels, leaving many without pensions. These CEOs like Mick Davis lavishly secure their own futures while ignoring the security and wellbeing of their workers... Mines have closed in Australia, South Africa and Spain within the last decade resulting in hundreds of workers in the last decade being laid off... Karen Lincoln, supporter of Occupy London said: "Mick Davis is a prime example of the greedy 1 per cent lining their own pockets while denying workers pensions." 


From the time I've spent studying and working on anti-mountaintop removal campaigns in West Virginia, I have a pretty good idea of the shoddy way that mining companies treat workers. In Appalachia, Big Coal has done a good job at eroding the power of the United Mineworkers and at corrupting state and US politicians to the extent that it can get away with crimes like the Upper Big Branch Disaster, which was an explosion that killed 29 miners last year. One of the methods that the coal companies have used to increase their profits has been a massive expansion in opencast (or strip if you're in the USA) mines over the last thirty or forty years. Mechanization has meant that less workers are needed to get the job done, more coal is extracted and a mine's resources are exhausted more quickly than it would be if it were underground. This means that a miner's job lasts as long as the mine (s)he works on (around 10-14 years in the case of MTR in West Virginia), making him/her more reliant on the coal company's favour for future employment. Every time they build a new mine in South Lanarkshire, Scotland, Scottish Coal announces the creation of around 100 jobs - but neglects to mention the closure of other mines in the area that has resulted in the loss of similar numbers of jobs.

If you want to start talking about the assault by coal companies on workers' rights, you need to analyze their whole business model, and that means the very act of extracting coal itself. Coal is not a renewable resource, and in many parts of the industrialized world the easy or clean ways of extracting it have run out. For the retired union miners I worked with this summer in West Virginia, "sustainability" is about providing permanent jobs for workers as well as reducing our impact on the environment. Many of them have been reluctant to work with some of the larger environmental organizations like Greenpeace or the Sierra Club, fearing (perhaps with good reason) that the big NGOs do not always have the interests of workers at heart. But at a grassroots level, union members and environmentalists have been doing a lot of talking to each other in the US. As a result, the environmental movement there has gained momentum from the Occupy protests.




Climate Justice in the UK


Here in the UK, things are a bit different. Many of the veterans from the global justice and climate movement have participated in the student, anticuts and occupy movements, but we have not seen their participation translate into action on climate change. After years of denouncing capitalism through environmental action, we were presented with a new political climate where we no longer needed to explain that the economic status quo is unsustainable. All of a sudden, anti-capitalism wasn't as radical as it had been at the past, and it made (and still makes) sense to take a more direct approach in targeting the power structures that support capitalism. Viewing climate change as a product of capitalism meant that it was OK to put climate on the back burner for a while and try something new.

Having said all this, I don't want to imply that the veterans of the climate movement were directing the evolution of the anticuts movement. In reality, the new generation of activists has little interest in climate justice at all. Yes, there's acknowledgement that climate change is happening and something needs to be done by it, but by somebody else. Meanwhile, if you type #cop17 into twitter right now, the results are often separated by hours, not seconds (as it was during the Copenhagen summit in 2009). I bet many people reading this don't even know that there's an important UN climate summit going on in South Africa.

And here's the danger in this lack of interest: we forget that in this country, the working class is still far better off than the inhabitants of the Global South, especially those in countries like Bangladesh and the Philippines, which are highly vulnerable to climate change and likely to produce millions of refugees in the coming years. And if you're just solely focused on "workers' rights" - as important as they are - you risk overlooking that the industries that workers earn their livelihoods from can have a very damaging effect on vulnerable people. A good example of this would be to look at the thousands of white Canadians who have migrated to work for the oil industry in Alberta and compare their experience to that of the First Nations people who are adversely affected by it. Like the anti-MTR movement in Appalachia has done, we need to look at both and to try and create a more just society by bringing the two into harmony. Surely it isn't too much to ask for a world where people can support their families in a way that sustains the health of this planet and the people and creatures living on it (if we are the 99%, what are they?).

There's more to "solidarity" than liking a link on somebody's Facebook wall or spending a few hours writing a blog post to try and enforce your views on others (guilty!!). Workers' rights are important (I'm consistently impressed by the London Living Wage campaign), but then again, so is the planet. It is possible to become an advocate for both.

Oil kills democracy.

Our addiction to oil has a lot to do with Gaddafi's dictatorship (and that of all the other Middle Eastern despots). A strong repressive regime guarantees steady oil supplies and controllable market prices. Some say that oil allows America to be a free country, but our use of it crushes the freedom of other people.

I'm sorry, but that is an UN-AMERICAN thing to say. We are supposed to be a beacon for freedom.

The issue of human rights in Islamic countries can not be tackled without ending the interference of multinational oil companies that suck social capital out of the region. Remember why we invaded Iraq. The people of the Middle East will NEVER be free until we end our addiction to oil and help them create a fairer and more sustainable model of economic development.


I will write more here later - have a dissertation proposal to write!

Wells Fargo: the perfect target for a new Uncut movement in Baltimore.

As a Marylander living in London who has been an active participant in the student and anti-cuts protest movements, I was thrilled to come across the news yesterday that “US Uncut” groups are sprouting up around the country. UK Uncut was born when a group of seasoned activists met in a pub in North London in October to discuss government cuts to public services and the emerging student protest movement. To them, it was clear that a crackdown on tax avoidance by corporations and wealthy individuals would negate the need for spending cuts and undermine the Coalition government’s argument that these cuts are “necessary”. The target in mind was Vodafone, the largest mobile phone company in Europe. A report on the British whistleblower site Private Eye had indicated that the HMRC (the British version of the IRS) had cut their tax bill from $9.7 billion to just under $2 billion, and that this decision had been guided by government officials. This information came out at the same time that the government announced massive cuts to public spending.

About 70 people showed up for Uncut’s first action in London’s Oxford Street. People carrying orange umbrellas ushered the small crowd to a Vodafone store, which was promptly closed after they staged a sit in. Since then, UK Uncut has widened its focus to other targets like Boots (like a British Walgreens), HSBC (banks) and The Arcadia Group. The owner of Arcadia, Sir Phillip Green, is one of the richest men in Britain but doesn’t pay taxes on his earnings because they are registered to his wife, who lives in Monaco.

Uncut grew quickly, spreading all over the UK and becoming a regularly trending topic on Twitter. Ordinary citizens, from 15 year old schoolgirls to 90 year old grandmothers, went on to organize blockades and sit-ins at branches of tax-dodging brands in their own area. Much of Uncut’s success comes from a non-hierarchical structure, which allows it to be a truly grassroots movement. Rather than an organization, I would argue that Uncut is better described as a model and support system for citizen-led direct action. It also adds to the movement’s creativity. From Santas supergluing themselves to chain stores in Brighton, to Phillip Green masks in Liverpool, to turning bank branches into pop-up libraries, Uncut actions make art and protest synonymous.

And now, I am thrilled to see that people in my own country are forming Uncut groups in the US. After all, tax evasion isn’t limited to the UK and the situation is especially bad in America. In Baltimore, you only need to mention two words to highlight the corporate greed that has plagued the city: Wells Fargo. And like Bank of America, Citibank, GE and ExxonMobil, Wells Fargo paid $0 in income taxes in 2009. The decade-long CFO, Howard Adkins, is about to retire after with a pension and stock portfolio valued at about $27.21 million. I bet you can look into reports, etc. to find out how much income tax he pays – it probably isn’t very much. Wells Fargo does operate tax haven banks and the cost of this industry as a whole to uncollected taxes is somewhere between $100 billion and $1 trillion.

So let’s get this straight. The banks caused the recession, got bailed out by the taxpayer, are now making billions in profit (Wells Fargo made $3.4 billion in the last quarter), are paying big bonuses and pensions to executives… but they aren’t paying income tax. Meanwhile, the victims of the financial crisis, such as the families who lost their homes, are still struggling. And the spending cuts are going to make their struggles harder. You should be banging your head against the wall by now. Isn’t it obvious that the spending cuts are based around the same type of thinking that led us to the financial crisis in the first place?

Apart from the usual campaign rhetoric, neither the Republicans nor the Democrats have done much to tame the practices of their donors. The only thing left to do is to take to the streets and challenge the tax dodgers on our own. US Uncut has called for a day of action on February 26^th against the banks, on the same date that many of us will be taking action in the UK. At the time of writing, there are Uncut groups in 20 states – check http://www.usuncut.org or contact them via @usuncut on Twitter to find out about joining/creating a Baltimore chapter.

Edited/updated 16 Feb 2011
EDIT 23 FEB 2011: Last year, Wells Fargo tried to reclaim $115 million back taxes on SILO transactions that were collected for 2002. The IRS took them to court in January and they lost. It's estimated that around $340 million is owed for 2008 and 2009. Keep in mind that this is NOT income tax, and that Wells Fargo still pays $0 in income tax! Read more about the company's aggressive tax evasion strategy.

And read this one if you're feeling brave. 

Environmental activists are not sex maniacs.

The Guardian has printed the testimony of a former undercover police officer who claims that sleeping with protesters was an authorized part of the job description. Along with many other women affiliated with leftist movements, I find these words shocking:

As regards being with women in very, very, very promiscuous groups such as the eco-wing, environmental movement, leftwing, or the Animal Liberation Front – it's an extremely promiscuous lifestyle and you cannot not be promiscuous in there.

It is not my experience that the people involved in environmental activism sleep around with each other. As a fairly attractive (judging by the pictures of exposed coppers on the Guardian website) 20-something single female who has been an active part of Climate Camp London and has attended three climate camps since 2009, I should be at the centre of all the "action". But climate camp isn't a hippie lovefest and it hasn't done anything to enhance my romantic life.

All of the male environmental activists that I know have too much respect for women to objectify them in that way. It is true that a lot of drinking and socialising goes on, but most people are too focused on meeting up with buddies. After all, people from all over the country take part in this movement and camps and gatherings offer a chance to get to see our old friends. Granted, there are always a small handful of people looking to get laid, but it is by no means the norm and it is certainly not expected.

And the individual quoted in the Guardian undermined his own claims when he added the following:

The best way of stopping any liaison getting too heavy was to shag somebody else. It's amazing how women don't like you going to bed with someone else.

These women weren't sleeping around. They met a guy that they were attracted to who seemed to share their ideals, and it bothered them to feel used by someone who was supposedly on the same side.

Undercover officers have clearly exploited the stereotype of philandering hippies to take advantage of women. The media should be questioning this narrative, and it is typical of the kind of slander that environmental activists have learned to expect from the police.

This Monday, a group of women (and men) will converge on Scotland Yard at 8 AM to demand an end to what is effectively state-sanctioned rape. And we must have a full judicial inquiry into the police infiltration of activist movements in the UK.

Climate Change, Tuition Fees and the Cuts

I know exactly what you’re thinking. Well I don’t know, but I can guess. “WTF? You’re expecting me, the highly intelligent reader, to buy into a bunch of bollocks linking climate change to the Coalition cuts and to the tuition fee rise? Haven’t we heard enough about climate change already? And anyway, what has it got to do with education?”

It’s a great question. Thank you for asking these questions, fictionalized reader created for literary purposes. What I’m going to do in this blog post is discuss the links between the two movements and to evaluate the Climate Justice movement and its relevance to the biggest youth movement in Britain of my generation.

The student occupation at UCL is, in many ways, a mini Climate Camp, with consensus-based decision making and several working groups to keep the site running (media, security, outreach, kitchens, process, etc.). As one girl put it, the only difference is that the students at UCL don't have to use compost toilets. And I might add that the food in the kitchen isn't vegan - hooray for tea with real milk!

It's worth pointing out that the majority of participants in the student anti fees movement are experiencing direct action for the first time. Climate activists are very familiar with police procedures to deter public protest, the legal issues associated with nonviolent resistance, and a diverse range of demonstration tactics. Occupying a space brings a whole new set of dynamics and requires a ton of organization. The climate camp model, designed as a means to efficiently and sustainably organize an occupied space, just made sense in this situation.

But why are climate activists so interested in this new movement? What do the cuts and climate change have in common?

First of all, both movements have been disappointed by the Coalition government. In the weeks running up to the election, there was a split between the environmentalists who intended to vote. Traditionally, we view the Green Party as the most closely aligned to our values. But many saw a strategic opportunity in voting for the Lib Dems: they were more likely to get in and Nick Clegg constantly lampooned Labour’s inaction on climate change and the irrelevance of their measures for dealing with the issue. The policies of the Coalition government are more likely to exacerbate climate change than stop it – and many environmentalists are feeling just as betrayed by Nick Clegg as the nation’s youth.

Secondly, at the root of climate change, the recession and the cuts is the enforcement of an economic system that benefits the few at the expense of many. With this in mind, it is hardly surprising that environmentalists are some of the most vocal opponents to the cuts. A recent solidarity statement issued by Climate Camp London notes how the Browne Review was chaired by a former director of BP and made up of bankers and management consultants. In the Guardian, the radical environmentalist George Montbiot wrote:

“It's arguable that the UK government does not have a spending crisis; it has a tax avoidance crisis… HMRC's inability or unwillingness to pursue big tax avoiders means that taxation shifts from the rich to the poor. As corporate payments fall, either the poor must pay more or services must be hit even harder.”

Monbiot’s article (highly recommended) was written as a response to the UK “Uncut” campaign, which was created by and is largely made up of experienced climate activists. Since October, the Uncut campaign has mobilized hundreds of individuals to shut down Vodafone stores because the government supposedly reduced an unpaid tax bill issued to the company from 6 billion to 1.25 billion around the same time that cuts of 7 billion to public services were announced.

Turning to the issue of climate change, it is important to note a crucial shift in climate activism: the rise of the Climate Justice movement. For many environmentalists, climate change is no longer just an ecological issue. It is now also a humanitarian issue, particularly in reference to the poor.

The forces that create climate change also exacerbate poverty. There are many examples of the devastating impact the fossil fuel industry can have on local communities such as poisoned water sources, rare cancers and public health hazards. The discovery and development of vast oil resources in Nigeria has made the people living on the land poorer as politicians grow rich from oil money. The extraction and transformation of bitumen from the tar sands in Alberta into gasoline has undoubtedly caused a disproportionate spike of rare cancers among the indigenous First Nation peoples who live close to the oil fields. And all over the United States, urban coal-fired power stations are placed in poor African-American and Latino communities, endangering the health of people with very limited access to health care.

The global recession is being used as an excuse to justify an assault on the welfare state. As for climate change, the recession is a convenient excuse to continue business as usual – at the expense of millions (potentially billions) of people living in poverty in the developing world.

This brings me to my next point: those most affected by the recession/cuts and by climate change are not responsible for them. The cuts mean that single mothers will lose access to childcare, that a large number of working class kids will not be able to finish school, that the disabled will be deprived of the right to go about their daily lives with dignity. None of these people are responsible for the financial crisis, many of them were victims of the recession before the cuts were announced and the ‘austerity measures’ will only push them further into poverty. The practice of dodgy banks in the US (Wells Fargo, for example) targeting low-income, African American homeowners with low-interest mortgages – the banks being fully aware that many of these individuals would default on their payments – exacerbated the divide between rich and poor. Whole neighborhoods in American cities are boarded up, but Goldman Sachs was able to make a massive profit from the crisis.

We have a plethora of studies to choose from that outline how climate change will create (and is creating) a global humanitarian catastrophe. Just today, the Guardian printed a story about a recent study claiming that a billion people will lose their homes in the next 90 years as a result of climate change. A risk analysis firm called Maplecroft recently published an index of the vulnerability of individual countries to the effects of climate change. Of the top ten, all are in the developing world. They are: Bangladesh, India, Madagascar, Nepal, Mozambique, the Phillippines, Haiti, Afghanistan, Zimbabwe and Myanmar. Not one of these countries is responsible for the concentration of greenhouse gases in the atmosphere that is causing climate change. It would take a large emission output over several decades – even centuries – for countries like India to catch up with the historical contribution of the US. So my country has gotten rich off of a carbon-intensive economic system and the world’s poorest is going to end up footing the bill.

But this plight isn’t restricted to the developing world in the years to come. It has been estimated that one in six British households is “fuel poor”, meaning that families must spend more than ten percent of their household income on gas/electricity “in order to maintain an adequate level of warmth” in addition to other domestic electricity use. A New Economics Foundation report on poverty and climate change in the UK (January 2009) noted how low-income households “tend to be housed in less energy-efficient homes and are less likely to have gas central heating.” Moreover, “customers who use prepayment meters for gas and electricity are generally those on low incomes and they pay much more than those paying by direct debit or online.” All of this occurs against a background of increasing prices and higher profits for the energy industry.

The families affected by fuel poverty also represent the proportion of the British population that is most affected by the cuts and the recession. Mothers will be forced out of full-time work by reduced access to childcare. The abolition of the Education Maintenance Allowance will force children from poor families to drop out of school. Forget about the furor over tuition fees – these kids can’t even think about going to university if they know they can’t afford to stay in school.

My generation, along with my sister’s “Harry Potter generation”, is not responsible for the climate crisis, although we did grow up in the midst of the economic system that created it. But we are the ones who are going to have to deal with it. We will have to pay for it and raise our children with the knowledge that they are going to inherit a less fair and more chaotic world than the one that we were born into.

Many of us are only just beginning to question the judgement of our parents’ generation. At the same time, many of us are questioning the morality of a type of capitalism that puts the welfare of the market above the welfare of the people. It has encouraged us to question why ‘positive growth’ is such a good thing if it lulls ordinary people into a sense of security and makes them less prepared to endure recession and the poverty that comes with it. If growth is so good, then why didn’t it protect all of us? The ecological crisis has encouraged us to challenge the logic of a fossil fuel economy. It has encouraged us to challenge the logic of infinite growth on a finite planet with limited resources.

In the case of both climate change and the recession, we are here because for generations our governments have instructed us to “go forth, consume, consume, consume and ye will prosper!” So people spent more money than they had, on stuff they didn’t need: cheap goods manufactured in the third world with a high carbon (and moral) footprint. For a while, it worked and life was good. It was convenient to ignore the poverty of others around us. But the repercussions have hit us like a hangover on the morning after a hedonistic night out.

I’ve already written way too much here, and I could probably write another thousand words fairly easily. But I hope that I’ve made it clear that resistance to the cuts and resistance to climate change are part of the same struggle. Moreover, climate change and the global recession should be viewed as symptoms of a broken economic system. Our society has become addicted to a destructive economic model and it is time to break that addiction. It’s going to be hard and we will have to join forces with other movements. But it is essential that we do this – and I do believe that we can! It’s time to start thinking about the kind of society we want to live in, a new “Big Society” that truly is fair and equal for everyone.

Thoughts from November

Just discovered this... I went off on a tangent and never finished it, but I suppose there are a few good points in there. This was originally written on 10 November 2010.

By now, you've probably read and heard a lot about the student rally/protest/riot that happened on Wednesday. In the midst of all the stereotypes regurgitated by the media there has been a lot of quality writing on the subject. This blog entry is an attempt to compile some of the best examples I've seen so far with my own observations of the event and its significance.

But first of all, why did I go in the first place? As a foreign student, I have to pay international fees and education cuts don't affect me directly. And I certainly wasn't the only foreigner to attend. I spent the day with a core group of seven people, including myself. We consisted of two Brits, two Italians, one German and two Americans. At times we were joined by a group of three or four more Germans.

So why should foreign students care about an issue that doesn't seem to directly affect them in a country that they aren't even from? Why is it that this was the first 'violent' (in the words of the media; Jamie Potter points out that this was vandalism, not violence) response we've seen to the Tory cuts? Well, maybe we're looking at it wrong. Maybe the construction of Wednesday's protest as a response to the rise in tuition fees is a gross simplification that overlooks many important factors.

My primary objection to the rise in tuition fees is that I am vehemently against the Tory cuts. The ruling party has taken advantage of the UK's financial distress to enforce a neoliberal ideology that is far more radical than anything seen in the Thatcher years. In stark contrast to the ferocity of the budget cuts, we see big handouts to big business in the form of tax cuts. At the end of the day, the purpose of the current government's economic policies is to enforce an economic system that was already unfair and unjust before they came into power. The difference now is that the austerity measures have magnified the many faults and injustices of the current economic/political system that most people would prefer to overlook. Even Boris Johnson, the conservative mayor of London, is getting a bit of indigestion from the cuts to housing benefits.

The lesson of the Bush years is that things can easily go from bad to worse - sometimes I wonder if Clinton would be remembered so fondly if his administration hadn't been followed by one of the most disastrous presidencies in US history. After all, Clinton did repeal the Glass-Steagall Act (which had previously kept the power of the big banks in check), allow pharmaceutical companies to advertise prescription drugs and sign NAFTA. I'd be lying if I said I was sorry to see Labour go, but it is hard to imagine the situation not getting worse in this country as a result of the cuts.

[EDIT: I went on to explain my main motivations for opposing the cuts here. Below are some observations about policing.]

Today, [some] students protesting against education cuts committed acts of vandalism and occupied the headquarters of the Tory Party. The press has described police coverage of this event as sparse and inadequate.

The police are also hit by the cuts, therefore...

a) They can't afford to provide as many officers on the ground to cover public protests [EDIT: This is somewhat true, but I wager the gov't will squeeze money from other areas of policing to cover this]
b) They can't afford to risk fines for mistreating demonstrators.

So, what can we expect in the future?
a) Anarchy/low police presence at increasingly 'destructive' protests [EDIT: The first protests were used as an excuse to beef up police presence. Some say that the Met played dumb and stupid on purpose to get more money and political support, but I think they really are that dumb and stupid (tactically).]
b) New laws aimed at restricting the rights of individual protesters while granting a level of immunity to officers who injure these individuals or treat them unfairly.

If the coalition government is able to put the cuts through Parliament, then it is unlikely that any proposals for (b) are going to be rejected.

Letter to TfL regarding the proposed removal of the Congestion Charge Western Extension

I spent so much time writing this that I thought I ought to save it somewhere - so here it is!

Further information: http://www.tfl.gov.uk/roadusers/congestioncharging/15527.aspx

I think it is a bad idea. It doesn't apply to the area I live in but I still have a valid opinion!

1. Many people who work in jobs with a low income have to take buses to work. The efficiency of these buses is dependent on the level of traffic on the roads they operate on. Removing the congestion charge for half of London will INCREASE the number of cars on the road. This will make the daily commute for poorer people more difficult.

2. More cars on the road also means a more difficult and hazardous journey for cyclists.

3. The only people who are going to benefit from this are the rich. Yummy mummies who spend all day at the spa and then drive their Hummers on the school run will be delighted. Meanwhile, mothers who are juggling full time careers with children at school and no childcare will suffer from a more difficult commute on the buses.

4. This will increase carbon emissions.

5. If there were to be a reduction in the CC for vehicles in the West End, it should be according to the class of vehicle and not just a blanket exemption for everybody. 4x4s take up a lot more space on the road (very difficult for cyclists to deal with), burn more fuel and are generally owned by rich people who can afford to pay.

6. I don't think that the Mayor needs to go ahead with these plans in order to hold his position. In fact, this will do more to hurt him than help him. Many of us left-leaning folk are (slighty) pleased with all the new plans for cyclists (they still need work) but this will turn us against him. Meanwhile, it is unlikely that a more conservative mayor is going to be elected in this city and Mr. Johnson can always count on the Tory vote. So politically, I think it's a dead end.

7. The UK is way behind EU regulations on air quality and car emissions, and this will be a major setback for reaching this goal. I know people at the DfT who have been working for years on this and such a plan will make all their efforts a waste of time and taxpayers' money.