A Just Transition or Just a Transition?
A major criticism that has been levelled at Occupy LSX is that the movement has become an umbrella for too many issues. “What do they want?” our mainstream media asks, as a stroll through the camp makes it clear that democracy and corporate greed are not the only issues being debated. Linger around St. Pauls, or peek your head into the Tent City University, and you will soon find yourself debating and discussing issues of mental wellbeing, gender equality, class, the environment, parenting, and the role of religion, amongst many, many others. However, rather than betray a lack of focus, to me the diversity of topics being discussed means something quite different – that our movements for social and environmental justice are growing up, that we are seeing connections and joining the dots between issues, and that we recognise that we are most powerful when allied.
There is much that we can learn from each other, and the global Occupy / Indignados movement has provided us with the perfect opportunity to compare notes. What’s working, what isn’t? Are our demands aligned, and does that even matter? However, there is one area of discussion that certainly needs to be addressed by the environmental and Occupy movements together, and that is ‘what does transition look like’? We say that another way is possible, but what journey do we have to take to get there? How can we work together towards building a new low carbon economy, one that incorporates values of social justice, equity, and democracy? Of course this conversation is already well under way in many countries across the world, but different elements of our movement are in danger of pulling in very different directions. You might not think it, but transitioning away from a pollution-based economy and transitioning away from our current capitalist model do not necessarily have to have much in common.
Liberate Tate action against BP sponsorship
After Monday night’s mini-spill outside the Tate Britain, enacted by the artist-activist group Liberate Tate, there has been a flow (‘scuse the pun) of press coverage from around the world, opening up the debate around corporate sponsorship of the arts (which is, in my personal opinion, a victory in itself).
Much of the arguments that are critical of the action taken, have followed along these general lines – that we, as activists, should be targeting BP, not the Tate; that we should be targeting all oil companies, not just BP, as other companies such as Shell have a high stake in our cultural institutions too; that oil has been sponsoring the arts for the past 20 years, so why bother protesting about it now; and that the Tate and the arts in general have no choice but to accept corporate sponsorship, especially in the light of further cuts in public spending.
Party at the Pumps 2
A couple of years (or even a year) ago, I would never have dreamed that I would have taken over the forecourt of a petrol station, dancing to samba as the police looked on. To year-ago me, it would have seemed a bit: mad, hippy, reckless, stupid, pointless, illegal (delete as appropriate).
What made me change my mind, and what made me get involved with groups such as the UK Tar Sands Network which facilitated the recent Party at the Pumps actions? Well, it was a few things. Over the past few months I’ve been privileged to meet those from first nations communities who are being affected by the tar sands in Alberta, Canada – dubbed the most destructive project on earth. The tar sands are destroying their lands, their way of life, contaminating the water and food so much that cancer rates have been found to be 30% higher than expected. So many people from these communities are dying that they no longer call the tar sands a “dirty oil” project, they call it “bloody oil”.
Australia delays on climate action, against its own will.
This post was written by Nic Seton.
A recent poll shows that 79 percent of Australians believe that Australia should either begin reducing carbon pollution before other countries, or start reducing regardless of when other countries choose to act. But the government’s recent decision to delay action on climate change through the proposed Carbon Pollution Reduction Scheme compromises the future viability of Australian culture and is a betrayal of a public who voted for a government that promised action on climate change. WWF Australia CEO, Greg Bourne, described the move as elevating “opportunism over the welfare of future generations.” Scheduled to start next year, the scheme is now delayed until as late as 2013.
Things looked so good. In a landslide Labor victory in 2007 a new government came to power in what was called the world’s first climate election. The most popular Prime Minister in decades, Kevin Rudd, took the podium at the UN climate talks in Bali that same year. He received a standing ovation on behalf of the last developed country, besides the US, to ratify the Kyoto Protocol (an international agreement which sets out to reduce global greenhouse gas emissions). Australia had world leading conservation policies, a booming renewable electricity industry and a cultural awakening to the reality of drought that was to become the norm.
Spotlight on Debating Climate Ministers
On Wednesday 21st April at the Guardian Climate Minister Debate in London, the room was crammed with the luminaries of the climate world. 10:10, Oxfam, WWF, Greenpeace, Climate Rush, Green Alliance and the UK Youth Climate Coalition were there, as well as environmental journalist George Monbiot waiting like an attack dog in the front row, ready to pounce.
First impressions? Well with three very-nicely-spoken men standing behind the podiums making gentle jibes at each other, I thought I had perhaps stumbled into a boys’ school debate. Ed Miliband, current Energy and Climate Change Minister, was the enthusiastic and slightly domineering head boy; Greg Clark, shadow minister, the one who didn’t know all the answers and was regularly found cheating on his homework; and Liberal Democrat Simon Hughes, the rebel who was just crying out for a leather jacket and a fag to puff on.
Fossil Fools Day: Dirty Oil
From the Otesha Blog, we are publishing this as part of Fossil Fools Day 2010
Did you know Canada supplies more oil to the U.S than the Middle East? I didn’t before the other night, when I went to the premiere screening of new film Dirty Oil. As well as thoroughly enjoying myself celeb-spotting (Neve Campbell! that CBBC presenter Josie D’Arby! Some guys so good-looking they must have been famous!) I learnt about the CRAZY world of Canada’s tar sands.
![Recommend [justinthelibsoc]](http://s3.amazonaws.com/arkayne-media/img/badge/logo-recommend-badge-medium.png){kind=icon}
Can you do good with bad money?
By Hanna Thomas
Sitting in that particular session, hearing about how advertising corporate brands can end up being the bread and butter of an actor’s life, I asked about principles – how could you appear in an advert for a company like McDonalds, and reconcile that with your principles? I was told that my tutor’s friend had managed to buy a house outright with the money earned from just such an advert – “Principles, schminciples!” I cried, much to the hilarity of my course-mates, and left it at that.
But it’s a question that has stayed with me. For struggling artists, more lucrative jobs such as advertising can end up funding work we might deem more “worthwhile”. Some might argue that this is an unfortunate, but necessary trade-off. That, to do good, sometimes you need “bad” money.
Read more