An exchange with MS, of Exeter FoE

MS is Co-ordinator of Exeter FoE: exeter.foe@eclipse.co.uk, www.exeterfoe.org.uk, www.exeterclimateaction.org.uk

Email exchanges can be difficult to follow. This one is ‘latest first’, with lines between. The email which started this is below.

From Chris:

Thank you, MS, for your interesting and thoughtful reply. I think the area of my concern that you’ve not addressed is where I say:

“I have a ‘downer on the issue of Climate Change’ for the reason I’ve told you already, because a focus on ‘future threats’ has always led to denial and/or tech fixing for business as usual, taking attention away from seeing what we’ve done already with oil and machines.”

This is actually the part I feel most strongly about – and more crucial than what you seem to think I said (!):

a: Not campaigning on “future threats”:

This is the nub of your concerns I guess. You believe that if campaigners

tell the truth about climate change then people will be “paralysed” with fear.

The problem is though that we are currently “paralysed” by apathy.

But I believe that human beings, far from being paralysed by the truth, will

actually be galvanised by it.

No, that’s NOT my point – not that I deny that: it may or may not be true, may vary according to individuals, groups, whatever. I would question your use of ‘truth’ though – but never mind that either. My passionate concern is about the damage ‘business as usual’, capitalism and our collusion with that system (what Zizek calls ‘systemic violence’) has done and continues to do to the planet, to the land – and I’m not talking about CO2 here, I mean deforestation, soil erosion and salinisation, desertification, loss of ecological diversity, of varieties of domesticated plants, horrendous mess and pollution from mining, pitiful suffering of peoples, their lost livelihoods and traditions, the using up of the best mineral ores. And if one knows any real history of this country one can look back and weep for the loss of community, democracy, rootedness clobbered by eg the Norman Conquest, the 18C Enclosures.

You say, ‘capitalism will have to change’, but it can’t, not really.

I said earlier that it’s sometimes said that we’d have had the Revolution if it hadn’t been for the SWP. I’ve said we’d have saved the planet if it hadn’t been for FoE. It’s also said ‘The road to hell is paved with good intentions.’ What FoE has done comes into the systemic violence category – perpetuating the popular assumption which suits the system beautifully that change has to be lobbied for, it comes from ‘the top’.

Sorry – that doesn’t do justice to your careful reply, which I appreciate, and you make some important points and I’m sure do good work which is along the lines I’d advocate. But this is complicated.

Maybe we could meet and talk. Do you work in Exeter? I’m a member of the Devon and Exeter Institution, and do a bit of work in our amazing library. We could perhaps have lunch there some time.

Thank you again, this has been interesting. I’ve thought about trying to start a Transition Dawlish, but as I’ve said, people here who care, care about people not planet. It’s a difficult one.

Chris

From MS:

Thanks, Chris for sticking with it.

This is not an easy debate is it? We are on the cusp of the

classic split between the greens. You favour the a technique

that I call “bottom up”, whereas I believe that we have to have “bottom

up”, and the “top down” political campaigning. The two very often

work together. Members of Low Carbon Exeter – the driving force

for a community-wide Transition City – often join us in our political

street stall campaigning.

This is great.

To answer your earlier point “FoE puts off more people than it attracts”.

This is true. We know that this is the case, and we know why. Not everyone

understands the seriousness of the situation that we are in, and can’t

believe that things will change so significantly in the future. There is a

sense of understandable cynicism. The messages that we propagate:

(green taxation, stopping airport expansion, transforming our consumer

culture) are unpalatable if you are unaware of the crisis we are in.

But there are sufficient people out there to create a caucus of concern which

we rely on to persuade the policians to create really green policies, so that

all of can be assisted to make the right decisions.

To respond to your specific points .....

a: Not campaigning on “future threats”:

This is the knub of your concerns I guess. You believe that if campaigners

tell the truth about climate change then people will be “paralysed” with fear.

The problem is though that we are currently “paralysed” by apathy.

But I believe that human beings, far from being paralysed by the truth, will

actually be galvanised by it.

The parallel I draw is from the UK in the late 1930s. Neville Chamberlin had

effectively fudged the issue of German agression, and failed to alert UK

citizens to the real danger posed by Hitler.

Ir was only when Winston Churchill came on the scene that the UK became

aware of how serious a threat Hitler was. Britons were not paralysed by this.

They were galvanised. Hitler was defeated. The rest is history (as they say).

Now substitute Climate Change for Hitler and you can see how important it

is to tell the truth. All we now need is a leader like Churchill. Or we create a

“citizen leadership”.

b: Motions to FoE conference:

This is the way FoE operates. I don’t like it either. But the alternative – that

the Board has to implement recommendations of conference without further

discussion is also wrong. I trust the Board to do the right thing. Mostly they

do. That’s good enough for me.

c: Donations to FoE Trust:

If you donate money to FoE, then you have to trust them to spend this wisely.

If you disagree with how it’s spent, then give to other organisations. FoE

will make bad decisions from time to time. We all do. But on balance FoE

get it right. More so than any other green activist organisation I know.

d: Campaign Priorities:

FoE spends inordinate time prioritising its campaigns, and doing it

democratically. It is one of its strengths. If I have an idea that doesn’t get

taken up as a priority. I will persuade others to join me on to campaign on

this separately from FoE. For example FoE will not prioritise a carbon

rationing campaign, so I join with others to do this separately. Hence

I started Exeter Carbon Rationing Action Group – part of the CRAG network.

I don’t have a downer on FoE as a result, because I value that groups move

forward together, and sometimes slower than individuals do.

e: Parties in power operate in the interests of capitalism:

Capitalism will have to change. That’s rather obvious isn’t it?

f: Regrowing Community:

Everything that we do locally here in Exeter is regrowing community. FoE

is a coimmunity. Low Carbon Exeter is a community, Exeter CRAG is a

community. I believe passionately and deeply in energising communities.

I believe also that politicians will respond to community needs.

But they will need a nudge.from us.

Reading your Design for Revolution website it is clear to me that you and I

are two peas in the same pod. But on top of this I feel we need some

element of political activism.

MS

To MS:

You say: ‘Yes, Chris, please tell me the story of how you have got such a downer on the issue of Climate Change and FoE.’

That is two stories. I have a ‘downer on the issue of Climate Change’ for the reason I’ve told you already, because a focus on ‘future threats’ has always led to denial and/or tech fixing for business as usual, taking attention away from seeing what we’ve done already with oil and machines.

The story of (if you like) my having ‘a downer on FoE’ goes way back.

1. I read a book called Topsoil and Civilisation by Vernon Gill Carter and Tom Dale (Univ of Oklahoma Press, 1974 (1955)) and it changed my life, woke me up to the issue of land degradation (soil erosion, salinisation etc.) worldwide from the beginnings of agriculture (I found later it goes further back than that...). I did a lot of research on this, while I was a loyal member of FoE, and as I was that, I put a motion to the members conference on the issue, which was passed, but the FoE governing body merely notes these motions, there’s no mandate.

2. I did an assignment for M&S in Baker street and so hated the culture I decided to donate my fee – several £ks – to FoE, saying I wanted it used towards the Tropical Rainforest campaign. I was persuaded to donate it to FoE Trust to get the tax back, so all it went on was some of the poor quality educational material they were producing.

3. I worked at FoE Head Office for 6 months. While there I wrote a paper about FoE having an obligation – as I saw it – to tackle land degradation worldwide. I sent that up to Jonathan Porritt who was Director then. He asked to see me – quite a privilege then. He said he read my paper and agreed with every word, but FoE could not do what I wanted. He then explained what FoE is, how it works. It is a lobby group. So, it picks a number of campaign areas – and with my interest in land degradation, there was ‘Tropical Rainforests’ and ‘Countryside and Agriculture’. What they lobby on is some specific, narrow thing: in the case of tropical forests it was labelling of imported hardwood so that consumers have informed choice. And that’s it, the job is to bang on about these specifics – chosen so that they are something decision-makers, esp. in govt and parliament have some say on.

4. I gave up on FoE and spent years giving talks / discussions on land use issues… Later got involved with permaculture …

5. As I mentioned I am a life-long socialist. I used to belong to the Labour Party – way back when it was a bit Left. At one stage I discovered Marxist socialism and woke up to the fact that Parties in power operate in the interests of capitalism, so working for reform is doomed to failure – anything seemingly achieved is either not carried through or doesn’t last.

6. The area which seems to me to offer most promise is re-growing community, local food etc. I suppose I’m an anarchist politically. (I have various web sites which people find interesting. They’re very basic technically – not interactive, not got into blogging. Ideas interest me... have a look if you like, there’s an index of them on a spare one: www.homeandlocalfood.co.uk )

Chris

PS

See http://tech.groups.yahoo.com/group/WSM_Forum/message/35461 For me finding out how people are living differently and questioning – and questioning the questioning – is where hope for change lies. FoE’s approach is limiting and futile – in my view.

Yes, Chris, please tell me the story of how you have got such a downer on the issue of Climate Change and FoE.

MS

Hi MS,

I’m a lifelong socialist, pacifist and environmentalist, and have got involved at different ‘depths’ in all three. I had a ticket to go on the coach with Exeter Stop the War on , but in the end didn’t go as I wasn’t well, but it was also partly do with a disagreement with someone from the SWP. The SWP are often at the forefront of organising demos and have a history of bringing along supplies of placards – have you been to these yourself over the years? If you have you’ll notice that people take the placards and often tear off the ‘Socialist Worker’ printed along the top. I’ve sometimes remarked, with tongue in cheek, ‘If it wasn’t for the SWP we’d have had the Revolution by now!’

Sadly, a similar thing can be said of FoE. The group puts off more people than it attracts – people don’t want to be ‘political’, and FoE is that. I think people like David Bailey (please excuse me talking about you, David) are heroic. He puts up FoE stalls even when hardly anyone turns up to help. He wears the FoE logo, if not with pride, at least with resignation. He displays the (probably unhelpful) Tescopoly material. He has been tireless in getting petitions on the one issue in Dawlish that gets people going: opposing a Tesco being built on Sandy Lane, a recreation green space. People sign these, one could say, despite the mention of Teignbridge FoE. Following a public meeting a few weeks ago, I wrote a paper about saying ‘No’ to any supermarket. David wanted me to put something about how supermarkets contribute to climate change, but I had deliberately left that off. You would – I suppose, from what you’ve said – be surprised how unhelpful such a message would be. People in Dawlish opposed to supermarkets care about people, not planet: mention that and you’ve lost them.

I care passionately about the planet. I used to think FoE was well-named. I discovered the hard way – do you want the story? – that it’s part of the problem, and I learned that from Jonathan Porritt when he was Director.

Chris

PS In an earlier reply, you mentioned an article in Permaculture Magazine about Climate Change. I have tried really hard to discourage that line in the Mag – Maddy Harland, the Editor, knows my views, and understands them. To the extent that she allows clime change and peak oil in, she tries to keep the message positive, turns down preachy articles, feels that her readership expects something on this from time to time. I still believe that a focus on ‘future threats’ leads either to denial (of the facts or the urgency or the responsibility) or expectations of technological fixes to enable business as usual, and the latter is only held back by the price of oil and such like.

Hi Chris,

I understand exactly what you mean when you refer to FoE’s heckling tone.

Sadly it’s unavoidable (I think).

When you have to tell the truth, it is difficult to do this without there being a grain of hectoring in there.

And of course if the message is essentially uncomfortable, then people are going to feel uncomfortable and blame the messenger.

That is the reality of the position we are in. Having to “fly less” is not a great message to make people feel good, but we have to say it – and suffer the consequences of telling the truth.

The great thing about FoE is that we are successful in changing government policy to make it easier for individuals to make the right choice. FoE’s Doorstep Recycling Bill has made it possible to achieve 50% plus recycling rates.

And FoE’s Climate Change Bill will (eventually) make it easier for individual’s to reduce their carbon footprint.

And so on. We cannot stop climate chaos without some level of intervention by goverments.

MS

Hi MS,

Thank you for your comments – but it’s difficult to reply to you because I don’t know what email from me David Bailey passed on to you – in particular it’s not clear from your reference to my ‘positive approach’. I tend to have just as negative an approach as anyone, but a different one. Someone wrote recently that the environmental movement has ‘shot itself in the foot’ banging on about future threats (which reminds me, ancient person that I am, of the Club of Rome doom and gloom). He and I say that the focus should be on what devastation humankind has wreaked on the planet already with the destructive power fossil fuels made possible. I’ve just written in an email to someone else this:

‘If I were to be given a Day of Power I would banish from the world chainsaws, machineguns and supermarket trolleys – and if I were only allowed one ‘wish’, as it were, I’d pick the trolleys – because take those away and people would have to take responsibility, and if they did that war and land degradation would be mopped up in the process.’

My ‘positive approach’ is related to that – to relocalisation, to rebuilding local communities, rooted to the land and making decisions themselves, directly, not via elected representatives. I’ve been reading The Village Labourer, 1760-1832: A Study in the Government of England Before the Reform Bill, by J.L. and Barbara Hammond (London: Longmans, 1911). Once upon a time there were real villages, and real democracy. No point in dreaming of the past, or of any government giving the land back to the people, but we could do so much more with what we do have: gardens and allotments, and our buying choices.

It’s an interesting irony, that a focus on re-growing local communities would also reduce carbon emissions – so you may say it doesn’t matter where we place the lever – but there are many people who just do not want to be told about planetary doom and gloom, but do care about people and the place where they live. Chris

PS Just realised my email you referred to was trailing down the bottom here – and my reply re-states that position in slightly different words – sorry! I’ll re-read what you said, but I’ve heard that position expressed by others, especially by Rob Hopkins of the Transition Towns movement, who is more constructive than FoE. The trouble with FoE is it was set up as a political lobby group; that’s its modus operandi, and its heckling tone puts many people off. Chris

Hi Chris,

DB passed your email onto me. I hope you don’t mind if I respond direct.

I have to admit that 2 years ago I would have agreed with everything you said. I have always been concerned to present a positive approach. The focus of FoE is that we have real solutions available for the problems that face us.

In response I founded Low Carbon Exeter in 2006 to enable the flowering of a grassroots/community based approach to climate change and peak oil.

However, the melting of the Arctic ice sheet in 2007 and the accelerating retreat of the Greenland glaciers has shown that we have already passed a critical tipping point, and we are not sure that others have not been passed.

This changes everything. We simply do not have time to develop a community based response in time.

Please read Climate Code Red. You will understand why I write in this vein. We have to tell the truth about the serious danger we are in, and develop solutions quickly. www.climatecodered.net

The spring edition of the Permaculture Magazine has the same view in its main article (page 3):

“THIS IS AN EMERGENCY. Our greenhouse gas emissions may be triggering much larger and irreversible runaway feedbacks in the Earth’s climate system”.

First we have to tell the truth about the crisis we are in. Then we can devise the correct response. This is not a negative message. My discussion paper gave positive solutions, even though we have now left it too late for “comfortable” easy solutions.

We are not in panic mode yet.

As Winston Churchill said: “Danger – if you meet it promptly and without flinching – you will reduce the danger by half. Never run away from anything. Never!”

We have a lot of work to do ....

MS

The email which started the exchange:

To DB of Teignbridge FoE

Hmm! The paper attached to your email on ‘climate catastrophe’ illustrates very well my reservations about the focus on climate change. I quoted in an earlier email the writer of an article sent to Permaculture Magazine (I’m on editorial team for the mag): ‘the environmental movement is in danger of shooting itself in the foot by its approach to the global warming issue. If we are not giving positive messages we are giving negative ones. There is no in between other than no message at all.’ He also said: ‘I grew up with the threat of annihilation from the atomic bomb. That has now seemingly receded but yet if I gave it room could creep menacingly back into my consciousness. The new fear is global warming and a rapidly increasing instability in the world’s climate with dire consequences for ecosystems across the planet. It feels real and as with all fears it has the tendency to move us towards extremes. We change our lifestyles to adjust to the new threat and it has the potential to take over our existence.’

The trouble is, these ‘doom and gloom’, panic, ‘Oh, my God!’ messages polarise people: those who let it take over their lives, and those who just back off – and that’s most people – just look at the dwindling support for CND – and the threat of a devastating nuclear exchange is actually worse than during the Cold War ‘MAD’ stand-off.

A focus on community, on re-localisation, is the win-win approach, I feel, because people’s lives can be better if we re-build/grow community (and the fact that it also reduces dependence on fossil fuels is a bonus that need be mentioned only to the minority engaging with climate change.

Chris

top