Notes From Below

Dónal O’Driscoll, dysophia.wordpress.com

 

The idea of a ‘Just Transition’ is an attempt to bridge differences between environmental and labour movements by seeking to address how workers can be protected as society tries to move away from ecologically destructive industries. As a concept it has been around for close to fifteen years. Despite having clear foundations, in that time the phrase ‘Just Transition’ has taken on a life of its own, in particular among those seeking to avoid antagonizing the labour movement. In this essay  Dónal O’Driscoll examines the origins of ‘Just Transition’ and asks whether it can fulfill those aspirations, or whether it is simply a ‘nice sounding’ phrase allowing campaigners to paper over divisive issues.

Background

The term Just Transition was coined by Californian activists seeking to improve relations with workers in industries affected by environmental campaigns. The original organisation behind the call is the Just Transition Alliance, founded in 1997[i]. However, as a concept, its break-through moment came when the Canadian Labour Congress [CLC] released their 2000 report “Just Transition for workers during Environmental Change”[ii]. This report gave the term ‘Just Transition’ a solid basis within the labour movement.

The strength of the CLC report lies in its strong focus on the needs of workers and its setting out of a blueprint for the process of transition, taking it beyond simple principles. The report prompted the adoption of ‘Just Transition’ as a principle for dealing with climate change by other labour organizations, in particular the International Trade Union Confederation.

At the time the term ‘Just Transition’ was emerging, climate change did not hold the singular position with regards to ecological campaigns as it currently. Just Transition was developed to deal with situations where the needs of the environment and of workers had to be balanced, for example, where regulations ordering the phasing out of production of a particular chemical would result in factory closures, or say, stopping logging would cause job losses.

Since then, climate change has become the dominant issue for ecological activism and, just as significantly, a factor in mainstream political considerations. Given the absence of other formulations, Just Transition has thus been adopted as the de facto method to introducing the needs of labour, a voice not much heard in climate change debates. In the process it has also become tied in with calls for Green New Deals[iii] which, to some degree, address concerns coming from trade unions.

Environmentalists have taken up its cry as a way of dealing with their own fears over the potential clashes of demands with the labour movement. This was particularly true of the Camp for Climate Action and Workers Climate Action (in part a working group within the CfCA)[iv].

The phrase itself has continued on a steady trajectory into the political mainstream, being picked up by NGOs and now being used by governments – most noticeably by Ed Miliband, then UK Minister for Energy, in his speech to the UK Trade Union Congress conference in September 2009[v]. In November 2009, then Business Minister Pat McFadden launched a “Forum for a Just Transition”[vi] that would include representatives of business, unions and the government[vii].

Just Transition is also to be found as a core demand in documents from the International Trade Union Congress during the COP15 climate change negotiations in Copenhagen in December 2009 and in other important texts at this conference[viii]. In particular, Argentina and Norway both included a call for a just transition as part of the mandate given to their representatives[ix]. Though not adopted at the COP15 ‘agreement’, it remains a demand on the table.[x]

 

So what is Just Transition?

Just Transition does have clear definitions, which are set out in some of the early documents – in particular the Canadian Labour Congress report. These are discussed later. However, in most mentions of it (from governments to grassroots organizations) it is principally formulated though the phrase:

“a just transition to a sustainable, low-carbon economy”

Sometimes “sustainable” is left out. Next to no detail or reference is provided other than this vague sentiment of good intentions. The problem with this amorphous formulation is that it leaves considerable leeway for individuals and groups to interpret it in line with their own narrow desires without having to reference other demands. Every stakeholder in the process can use it for their own purposes without actually challenging themselves to change their behaviour, or anyone else’s for that matter.

Such emptiness means it is being adapted by those seeking to boost green credentials without having to commit to anything. This is probably why it has become so popular with liberal and capitalist organisations. Reducing Just Transition to a slogan that appeals to everyone and anyone is setting the ground for its inevitable co-option.

This tendency is to be found in grassroots campaigns around Just Transition such as the Just Transition Alliance (US), Transition Tour (AU)[xi] or Workers Climate Action (UK).  Transnational networks such as Climate Justice Now! and Climate Justice Action[xii] also use this vague formulation without going into any further detail.

In particular, at the 2008 UK Camp for Climate Action at Kingsnorth a statement was drawn up around the concept of Just Transition[xiii]. The purpose of this was to point out that there was a way forward to unite workers and environmental campaigners, that the relationship between the two did not need to be antagonistic but one of mutual support. This was in response to negative reactions to the Camp from unions both at Kingsnorth and the 2007 camp at Heathrow. While it sought to calm troubled waters by expressing solidarity, there was still little expression of or reference to what Just Transition actually means.

That the idea of a Just Transition has been established seems to be sufficient enough for almost everyone. It gives the impression that governments and grassroots are discussing the same thing. If anything, the real meaning of Just Transition appears to be simply to signify that bridges can be built between environmental campaigners and the labour movement without having to face up to the challenges implicit in this.

While Just Transition has been subsumed into wider calls for Climate Justice, it remains a important part of that general call. Deeper analysis of what it means in practice for all these stakeholders is still needed.

 

The Demands of Just Transition

There is more to Just Transition than a phrase. There does exist a more substantial set of demands. The sources for these are Wikipedia’s short article on the subject and also the key formulation set out in the CLC 2000 report. The relevant sections are given below. To the best of my knowledge none of these definitions (or ones provided from elsewhere) have been set out in the published documents or cited by grassroots climate change groups, though I am open to correction on this.

Wikipedia[xiv]

There is a concern that significant periods of economic restructuring in the past have often happened in a chaotic fashion leaving ordinary workers, their families and communities to bear the brunt of the transition to new ways of producing wealth. Indeed in the UK, many individuals and communities are still paying the price for the rapid shift away from industrial production over the last 30 years.

Just Transition seeks to prevent such injustice becoming a feature of environmental transition, suggesting that it would not only be morally wrong and socially damaging, but would undermine the credibility of the transition itself and could slow or even halt the changes that must be made. Just Transition recognises that support for environmental policies are conditional on a fair distribution of the costs and benefits of those policies across the economy, and on the creation of opportunities for active engagement by those affected in determining the future wellbeing of themselves and their families.

 

Just Transition principles

For trade unions, the three core issues involved in a just transition are:

• Voice – the importance of consultation – between Government, industry, trade unions and others on the economic and industrial changes involved.
• Green and decent jobs – investment in low carbon technologies, from electric vehicles and wind turbines to carbon capture & storage.
• New green skills – equipping working people with the skills for a low carbon, resource-efficient economy.

 

The Just Transition framework makes the case for:

1.   Meaningful environmental transition and sustainable development: Environmental transition is both inevitable and desirable. Environmental degradation is one of the most serious threats facing humankind; all sections of society need to work together to prevent further damage to the planet’s natural ecosystems.

 

2.   Representation and employee involvement: It is essential that all sections of society have their perspectives voiced, considered and defended in decision-making bodies dealing with environmental transition. This includes representation at a variety of levels, from seats on national policy-making to involvement in more specific local negotiations, such as those surrounding environmentally-triggered plant closures.

 

3.   Stable employment and long-term planning: A key element in ensuring a Just Transition is the long-term planning necessary to achieve stable employment. This does not just involve keeping individuals in work: it also includes preserving job equity, and ensuring that pay, conditions and health and safety do not suffer as a result of the changes that occur.

 

4.   Social justice and a fair distribution of costs: Just as support for environmental change is needed from all sections of society, so the costs of that change must fall proportionately on all sections.

5.   Government backing and a united purpose: Achieving Just Transition relies on a high level of commitment from all relevant stakeholders – not least the Government, trade unions and employer federations.

Just Transition for Workers During Environmental Change, Canadian Labor Congress[xv]

JUST TRANSITION: THE BIG PICTURE

• Just Transition is the flip side of Green Job Creation: when we create Green Jobs, there will be an industrial transition – this means that workers in traditional industries must be protected.

 

• Just Transition programs must apply to public and service sector work, as well as resource and manufacturing industries affected by changes in industrial structures and environmental standards

 

• While the whole society is responsible for industrial change, the key role rests with workers and their communities, who are the most affected, from one-industry towns to a whole region.

 

• Some social groups can be disproportionately affected by industrial and environmental change: for instance, major sources of pollution are often located in poor, minority communities, a case of environmental racism – which gives rise to Just transition.

 

[…]

Just Transition is about many things. It is about fairness and environmental justice. It is about quality employment in an economy based on sustainable production and infrastructure. It is about communities as the focus of Just Transition programs – communities as centres of diverse, labour-intensive industries, with a strong public sector to support them. It is, above all, about alternative employment in a sustainable economy.

[…]

 

Responsibilities for all

• Society is responsible for change and must share the burden of transition with the workers and communities most affected by change.

 

• We owe it to ourselves as workers to create a sustainable economy for our children and future generations.

 

• Governments are responsible for sustainable economic policy and the labour market which results from it.

 

• Business has a responsibility towards the communities in which it invests – a responsibility to move to sustainable production methods wherever possible and to address the human consequences of unsustainable production – and of closing down or moving on.

 

• Environmentalists and communities can join the campaign for Just Transition.

THE MEANING OF JUST TRANSITION

Just Transition is:

• Fairness:

Just Transition is the fair treatment of workers and their communities when employers close facilities for whatever reason. It is a moral and political imperative.

 

• Re-employment or alternative employment :

The prime aim of Just Transition is the continuation of employment without loss of pay, benefits or seniority. Job equity is at least as deserving of preservation as the equity of corporations.

 

• Compensation:

Where continuation of employment is not possible, just compensation is the next alternative.

 

• Sustainable Production:

Just Transition is essential to the move to more sustainable production methods and the service sector which supports it.

 

• Programs:

Just Transition will express itself in a variety of ways, according to the issue, but there must always be a program, suitable to address the environmental change that is about to take place.

An Anarchist critique of Just Transition

The programmes for Just Transition laid out by the Canadian Labour Congress, etc. have the potential to serve as a powerful tool for bridging divides between labour and grassroots environmental movements. These are divisions that demand to be addressed, because capital will inevitably seek to exploit them against the interests of both parties. However, from an anarchist perspective there are pitfalls inherent in Just Transition as it currently stands, which need critiquing. This article complements critiques which have already emerged around  the Transition Town movement[xvi],  the community food movement[xvii] and the climate justice movement itself[xviii] where I have developed my own perspective.

A useful starting point for analysis is that the political background of Just Transition is one of social liberalism[xix]. The environmental NGOs and trade unions which have adopted it work in the confines of this political understanding. The politics of liberalism, socialism and anarchism have overlapping roots so it is not surprising that there are aspects which make it appealing to all three ideologies and give it the illusion of being able to cross political divides.

However, on closer inspection the differences between these ideologies remain stumbling blocks for the unifying potential of Just Transition. Once the liberal origins are recognized, these become far more obvious and explain why liberal institutions such as the UN, governments and NGOs alike have been able to take up Just Transition as a concept, molding it to their needs.

Note, by liberalism, I do not mean the politics of particular parties that incorporate that name or of centrist politics. Rather, I mean the programme of the Age of Enlightenment, which gave rise to a concept of politics free from absolute control and a high degree of primacy to the rights of individuals, and thus to modern institutions such as representative parliaments and welfare states. This is important because the other side of the same coin is the free market which has morphed into capitalism. The entire dominant political paradigm of the West, of the market place and globalization cannot be separated out from liberalism.

Liberalism makes broad claims about emphasizing individual freedoms and holds up representative democracies and systems of laws with the rights they guarantee. However,  anarchism points out that they are underlined by the State’s monopoly on coercive power and the liberal legal biases in favour of property and corporations over individuals. Thus we argue that these freedoms and rights are often illusary and that the liberal system is inherently a system for maintaining a network of privileges in society as a whole.

The toolbox that anarchism brings to the table is one of dissecting relations of power. Starting with this perspective the following sets of problems become apparent in Just Transition.

1) Analysis of Relationships of Power

In Just Transition there is no analysis of power. There is no challenge to the existing hegemony of the capitalist market place, transnational corporations and governments. If anything, there is a requirement in the formulations adopted by the labour movement to engage actively with them. Where Just Transition has been more fully articulated, what is actually being demanded is co-operation from governments – something that is brushed over in the trivial statement about ‘a just transition to a low carbon economy’ noted above. This issue should be particularly important for anti-capitalists and anarchists – as far as the labour movement is concerned, calling for Just Transition amounts to little more than lobbying for government participation or consultation.

2) Technology as a Tool of Capitalism

Coupled with a lack of analysis of power is a lack of analysis of technology. When the politics of ecological protection is reduced to the simplistic narrative of ‘low carbon economies’ there is little scope to reject solutions based on techno-fixes that have, more often than not, negative environmental consequences of their own[xx]. This plays into the hands of the nuclear, agrofuel and mining lobbies whose activities have their own knock-on effects on resource consumption and resource sovereignty. For example, the displacement of populations in the Global South (conveniently geographically distant from Western decision-makers) as their land is turned over to crops for producing agrofuels on behalf of western corporations[xxi]. Furthermore, social reliance on technology is the solution favoured by corporations as it provides another opportunity for them to amass resources and capital at the expense of the lower classes.

3) Greenwash in the name of Sustainability

In the Just Transition model as it stands, it is left to governments and corporations to decide what is ecologically sustainable. This is not something any grassroots environmental movement should accept. The dangers of greenwash are well known; for instance, nuclear power is now being promoted as being a ‘green alternative’ to fossil fuels; genetically modified crops which place farmers in hock to corporations are re-marketed as solutions to famines caused by climate chaos. As it stands Just Transition permits the continuation of corporate agendas in which ecological manipulation is normalised as a solution to climate change rather than a focus on what the planet actually needs. The concept of ‘sustainable development’, being in the hands of western democracies, is itself open to considerable criticism on the grounds of its elusiveness and meaninglessness, and for ignoring the ecological imperatives that underly the need for a Just Transition in the first place – see for example the work of John Foster and others[xxii].

4) Disempowering the Worker

Just Transition in its current formulation is ultimately disempowering as it keeps the worker from a position of control over their future. They are offered a ‘voice’, without necessarily giving power to it. Simply consulting with the workers does not mean that their needs will be served if it is not convenient for the corporation employing them.

Reading between the lines, one imagines the workers resisting the necessary change and then having to bow to pressure. Thus a union is needed to mediate their desires. However, experience has shown, and existing texts corroborate this[xxiii], that unions communicate only their own desires around employment, not any ecological message that might come from the workers, or from their families for that matter.

There is nothing in the principles of Just Transition as currently laid out that steps outside this framework to give the power for change to the worker. For instance, there is no explicit mention of workers being allowed to take over a factory and turn it over to a new form of production which does have an ecological framework. The tools of capital remain in the hands of the bosses.

There is a further irony here, that given how much subsidies factory owners get from governments in the first place they expect yet more pay-out from the public purse to cover the costs of retraining.

5) Prevarication

There is no notion of time or finance in the demands of Just Transition. This puts it in the same category as all the various targets set for cutting greenhouse gases and such like – and leaves it just as useless. It allows for vague demands and responses to be made which give all the right sound-bites, yet offer no real commitment. This will clearly lead to problems as workers in key industries put their job security first in the face of the need for urgent change. While urgency should not be an excuse to increase exploitation or precarity among the workforce, the lack of a transition mechanism should not be an excuse for prevaricating either.

6) Factoring in Resistance from Affected Industries

There are no mechanisms to take into account those who do not wish to change, for example, the demands being made by mining unions to open up more coal mines (citing capitalist inspired messages around future technological developments) or of fishermen refusing to acknowledge the reality of collapsing fish stocks. If this is not acknowledged, it is likely to drive deep wedges between the labour and environmental movements as one or another party has their needs and demands over-ridden by the other (who will no doubt be using the government to back them up).

As it stands, the model is based on the assumption of a process in which environmentalists make a demand, the government passes the necessary regulation and then the environmentalists step back from the entire process while the Just Transition is implemented on the workers, whether they like it or not. At each stage there is only a dialogue between any two of the stakeholders – there is no explicit process for multiple stakeholders to put forward their (possibly conflicting) demands at the same time, encouraging cooperation and understanding. Thus, where there is resistance and antagonism, this particular model has the potential to make these conflicts worse rather than resolving them. To work, there must be multiple points of dialogue among all parties right from the beginning of implementing the process of a Just Transition.

7) Financing Just Transition

All of this may be illusary. Green New Deal programmes present the idea that such transitions are not just desirable, but affordable and possible. This is entirely speculative. It is easy to see why the desire to believe all this is possible is there, but realists must ask if it is actually possible within the current system – one in the middle of a huge financial crisis that still has several years to run (assuming ‘normal conditions’!).

The existing model of Just Transition has all these flaws because it has no inherent criticism of the politico-economic system that created the problems in the first place. The way it is conceived is that transitions will occur because of political pressure on government and corporations,  and governmental power will create the necessary regulations. These in turn force will industries out of business, taking with them the jobs, while in all probability leaving the governments the responsibility to clean up. It will be governments, not corporations who will effectively be responsible for implementing the details of any Just Transition programme on the ground, regardless of how nicely the principles of Just Transition are worded. It is not realistic to expect companies to show this level of ‘corporate social responsibility’ – experience is against us on that one.[xxiv]

Inevitably, for this approach to work it will require increased regulation, in turn allowing the capitalist class to open up divisive avenues of accusation against both labour and environmentalists in relation to job losses, etc., something which will undermine the very links that Just Transition is aiming to build. These pitfalls are opened up in the way that Just Transition is currently worded and invoked. A strategy for social change which relies on those causing the problems seeing the errors of their ways is naïve at best. There is no acknowledgment that capital will resist, a lesson that surely should have been learned by now.

All of this goes to the core problem of Just Transition – it is simply not demanding anything radical. It is effectively business as usual, just waiting to be co-opted by proponents of green capitalism. There is nothing that demands the creation of a radically new world from the ground up or a re-evaluation of society and what is actually sustainable. Just Transition leaves the bosses and capitalism right where they are. In demanding a Just Transition we are in danger of demanding a compensation culture for workers, not change.

Finally, there is a danger of reversing positions here; no longer are grassroots environmentalists seeking to bring their message to the labour movement; rather it opens the door to the environmental movement being co-opted by vested interests within the labour movement at the cost of ecological concerns. As it stands, this is not a mutual dialogue, nor is it a way forward. The challenge for those seeking radical social change as a solution to ecological issues is to define their own concept of a Just Transition. There is a lot of potential for a more coherent articulation of demands that do not betray core beliefs, but can allow incorporation of a wider range of issues than simply maintaining the lifestyles of industrial workers. The challenge now is for grassroots campaigners to formulate this so that effective bridges can be built between labour and environmental movements, rather than the airbrushed versions we currently have.

Conclusions & Future Demands

For Just Transition to work as a concept that genuinely addresses the concerns of both ecological campaigners and workers, it must incorporate two key ideas:

1.    An acknowledgment that social change is part and parcel of Just Transition; and this necessitates a grass-roots / bottom-up set of solutions, not solutions driven by governments, corporations or hierarchical unions. This bottom-up approach needs to include the affected workers and also the communities around them.

2.    Business as usual around resource consumption cannot be part of the solution,  particularly if the Just Transition programme simply sends problems elsewhere. A global ecological sustainability must inform any solutions for it to be meaningful.

These points are too often ignored by the narrow interests of the bosses and unions. What is needed is not sustainability in the narrow terms of capitalism, but for

just transition, led by those affected, to create resilient communities

which care for the ecology that sustains them.

Though I have been very critical of the way the concept of a Just Transition has been used and abused as it currently stands, this does not mean I am against it as a notion. It comes from honest intentions to deal with a very important set of issues we cannot ignore. It is vital that the labour and environmental movements unite if climate chaos is to be tackled without leading to greater inequality and repression.

What has been created to date is an important first step, but as it stands it is incomplete. The current definition should not be allowed to become the de facto standard, because it is not a model that is up to the job. Rather, what is needed is not a rejection, but the development of a new model, one that reflects all joint interests of the grassroots and the radical change that is needed to take place.

New Book Out!

Space for Movement? Reflections from Bolivia on climate justice, social movements and the state.

In the wake of the failed COP-15 in Copenhagen last December, Bolivia’s first indigenous president called for a World People’s Conference on Climate Change and the Rights of Mother Earth (CMPCC). Was this the necessary space for social movements to respond where governments and the UN have failed? Was it an attempt to co-opt radical demands? Following the CMPCC in Cochabamba, April 2010, this booklet reflects on the lessons from Bolivia and the role of movements in the fight for climate justice.

You can download the book here:

http://spaceformovement.files.wordpress.com/2010/08/space_for_movement1.pdf

In this essay Martina Austen and Philip Bedall ask about about the real substance of the term “Climate Justice” which has come to be used as a stock phrase in controversies about climate politics. Is it a counter-hegemonial term for the political arena or just a plastic word comprising all or nothing at all? ([i])

Martina Austen and Philip Bedall are active in the BUKO Working Group on Social Ecology ([ii]). Both have been involved in climate activism including the Hamburg Climate Camp 2008, local initiatives and the global Climate Justice Action Network.

In what follows, Climate Justice is seen as an “empty signifier”, i.e. how the term should be filled is highly controversial in ongoing discussions. Historical references as well as the current usage of the term will be outlined insofar as an understanding of the hegemonial conflicts can be based on them. Drawing on discourse and hegemonial theory, this understanding will help to ask questions that should be discussed within social movements: Does it make sense or is it even necessary for emancipatory movements to take part in a discursive struggle over the term? Is Climate Justice a suitable reference point for criticism of and demands on the present climate policy?

The article makes public a discussion taking place at present in the BUKO Working Group on Social Ecology.

The debates about Carbon Capture and Storage (CCS), about nuclear energy as a climate-neutral form of energy and last but not least the climate conference in Copenhagen have made it clear: Although the present crisis – i.e. the climate change – is common knowledge and although what should be done about it is a universally asked question, actors in the civil society that deal with the climate issue offer a wide range of answers when it comes to analysing the causes of the climate change or to express their demands. The political sphere is characterised by heterogeneous interpretations and heterogeneous activities.

This, then, is the context in which a globally linked-up internationalistic movement has appeared that, under the heading of “Climate Justice” (CJ), unites several social struggles and its demands. And there are other groups that also take resort to the notion of CJ, such as the international NGO campaign “tcktcktck – time for climate justice” in their mobilization programme after Copenhagen. Is this a (mis-)appropriation of the term? Or, to put it differently, why does a certain understanding of CJ prevail over others, why do certain demands become particularly visible and effective in the discourse while others don´t? Questions like these make it worthwhile to have a closer look at the dynamics of social and discoursive struggles.

We will outline the civil society – as Antonio Gramsci understands it – as the battlefield of the struggle for hegemony, and in doing so we will specify what is to be understood by hegemony. We will show that CJ can be seen as an “empty signifier”, i.e. as a comprehensive set of demands representing a great variety of demands whose precise (hegemonial) filling is always a matter of dispute. We will show how CJ continues a debate that originated in conflicts about social, environmental or global justice. Some knowledge of this historical background and of the current usage of the term is a prerequisite for an understanding of the hegemonial conflicts about CJ. Finally we will point out the prospects resulting from our understanding of hegemonial conflicts.

Expression of hegemonial conflicts

No matter what is discussed in the media as a cause of the climate change, no matter which solutions are seen as possible to be implemented or which understanding of the term CJ will prevail in the long run – there is one thing all these have in common: They all are based on hegemonial conflicts.

According to Antonio Gramsci, government can be seen as an expression of social powers and their relative strength. The civil society plays a specific role in this process. Together with the political society, i.e. the state in the strict sense, it forms the integral state. In the civil society a balance of compromises results from social conflicts: a hegemonial consensus. Gramsci speaks of hegemony if it is possible for one group to create some consent to their particular interests among members of other groups. An unequal distribution of powers is characteristic of hegemony.

If one sees the civil society as the place for political conflicts it cannot be imagined as something that is progressive in itself: actors in the civil society do not automatically pursue altruistic aims that are compatible with public welfare, and they are not necessarily democratic or critical of the state. In an arena of competing ways to analyse causes, to put forward one´s demands and to take action a hegemonial consensus emerges, e.g. a consensus on what is considered adequate or legitimate. This applies to the national state that Gramsci had in mind when he advanced his social theory, but – based on the approach of neo-Gramscian  International Political Economy – it can also be transferred to an international sphere. So, whatever is meant by the demand for CJ or which interpretation of the term will prevail either in the media or in the political objectives of a transnational network of social movements or of NGOs – it must be considered as a result of hegemonial conflicts.

Climate Justice: an empty signifier

The civil society is the place where hegemonial consensus is reached, but this does not yet explain in what manner consensus itself is brought about. Consensus can be seen as an expression of what is said, written and done. The focus of attention thus shifts towards discourse, a problem which Ernesto Laclau and Chantal Mouffe (L&M) have examined. Their discourse-analytic theory of hegemony ([iii]) can serve as a kind of heuristic device to reconstruct the meaning of the term CJ as well as to derive strategies for hegemonial struggles.

According to L&M, it is a characteristic feature of hegemonial projects that they aim at a universal acceptance of a particular symbolic order. L&M try to explain the mechanism as follows: Following Ferdinand de Saussure´s linguistic theory, in the social field meaning is established by drawing a dividing line between certain discursive elements and others – in other words by a relational difference. By their concept of antagonism, L&M can show how discourses come into being: Individual discursive elements on the one hand draw a demarcation line between themselves and a shared exterior – something that is completely different, the antagonism – and on the other hand they unite against the exterior to form a shared ensemble.

The Zapatistas´ slogan “One No, Many Yeses” shows that antagonism: it combines the variety of separate struggles (the “many yeses”) ([iv]). The “one no” can be identified with the joint opposition to the system, the “yes” represents the many demands originating in specific social struggles. What all the demands have in common is the call for a “different world”. So it is an absence, a deficit that creates unity, an “absent totality” L&M call it.

Thus, the call for a “different world” or for “liberation” or “revolution” ties together a set of demands. For L&M they are empty signifiers. What these terms share and where all the individual demands are equivalent to one another cannot be an innate meaning. They have “to borrow the latter from some entity constituted within the equivalential space […]. […] various political forces can compete in their efforts to present their particular objectives as those which carry out the filling of that lack. To hegemonize something is exactly to carry out this filling function.” ([v])

CJ is such an empty signifier whose filling with a specific meaning is controversial. The following is an outline of the demands that are tied up with CJ and compete to gain a hegemonial position – in other words: to gain acceptance. In this outline we will look back at the history of the term as well as deal with its present usage.

Climate Justice: Historic reference points

In past debates about Social, Environmental and Global Justice demands were put forward that nowadays are repeated under the heading of CJ. SJ, EJ or GJ can also be seen as “empty signifiers” uniting different social struggles. What they have in common is the fact that they denounce social grievances such as racial discrimination, sexism and homophobia, poverty and exploitation etc. on a local and later on a global level and that they oppose them fighting for justice and equality. The demand for CJ, which was put forward for the first time at the end of the 20^th century, is a direct continuation of the demands for SJ, EJ or GJ.

Roughly speaking, the demand for Social Justice arose in the USA at the end of the 1960s together with the so-called New Social Movements. These movements were started by people who suffered from discrimination. Their view, based on analysis, said that discrimination and injustice were a structural part of the present circumstances. The demand for social justice in this sense is connected with the idea of a society of recognition and equal participation. The demands were advanced by the Black Power Movement, the Women´s Liberation Movement or the Gay and the Lesbian Movement.

The demand for Environmental Justice is another reference point for Climate Justice. In the 60s an environmental movement developed in the USA whose members mainly came from the white middle class. It opposed polluting industries in their vicinity. As a result those industries frequently moved to poorer communities and to communities of colour, which was seen as Environmental Racism by the inhabitants of those communities. Their demand for Environmental Justice emphasizes the right to live in unpolluted and healthy surroundings  (which includes air, water, soil, but also residential area and place of work) for all ([vi]).

Meanwhile the altermondialist movement has raised the demand for SJ to a global level – the slogan here is “Global Justice”. The movement was born one could say in the jungle of Chiapas in 1992 and had its coming-out at the WTO protests in Seattle in 1999, which were followed by those in Prague, Genua and Heiligendamm. The movement ties together various social struggles. A common goal is the defence against a world-wide neo-liberalism. Global Justice exposes the unjust consequences, especially for the global South, of free trade agreements, of the privatization of and patents for common property, or of genetic engineering. Global Justice calls for a radical democratization and localization of all social decisions.

The exposure of social injustices (like discrimination, poverty, exploitation etc.) and the fight for justice and equal rights are common features of the demands for Social, Environmental and Global Justice. The demand for CJ, which was put forward for the first time in the 1990s, is a direct continuation of those claims.

Climate Justice: How to fill the “empty signifier”

In 1999, the American NGO CorpWatch ([vii]) defines CJ as the elimination of all causes of global warming ([viii]). CorpWatch and their demand for CJ turn against what they see as “corporate-led fossil fuel-based globalization”. For them, CJ means pleading for a moratorium on any new oil production and for an extension of public transport and of renewable energy. Trans-national companies should lose their power in favour of a democratic reorganization on all social levels.

The “Delhi Climate Justice Declaration” ([ix]) passed on the occasion of the “India Climate Justice Summit” (parallel with COP8) in 2002 has extended the term CJ to comprise a North-South view, criticism of the market and technology orientation and the demand for a participation in the negotiations of those that are affected. The fossil-based production and consumption of the global North are seen as the essential causes of global warming. At the same time the declaration underlines the increasing effect of the climate change on the global South and a growing social inequality.

The “Bali Principles of Climate Justice” ([x]) of the same year do not totally reject market-based and technological solutions, but solutions should be governed by principles of “democratic responsibility, ecological sustainability and social justice”. The Bali Principles point at corporations and industrial countries of the North as mainly responsible for the emission of greenhouse gases. The concept of ecological debt expresses the victims´ claims for reparations, compensation and restoration.

Criticism of market-based solutions is harsher in the “Durban Declaration on Carbon Trading” (2004) ([xi]). The declaration makes it clear that the trade with CO2 certificates has made for a new commodity that can be traded profitably but does not reduce CO2 emission.

All that – the summits, debates, platforms – has contributed to an increasing international networking among those NGOs that are making justice a subject of discussion. It is against that backdrop, that during COP13 at Bali in 2007, a shift has taken place in the field of actors of climate-politically involved NGOs whose concern are international negotiations: Some NGOs have left the Climate Action Network (CAN) ([xii]), and the Climate Justice Now! (CJN!) network ([xiii]) was founded. CJN! rejects any market-based solution; instead, they call for a solution where fossil sources of energy are left in the soil and consumption in the North is drastically reduced. Money transfers from the global North to the global South are to make up for the climate debt and to reduce the dependence of the global South. In particular, indigenous land rights and the demand for sovereignty over food, energy and resources are advocated as the “real solutions” to the climate change.

Late in 2008 one more global network was established: Climate Justice Action (CJA) ([xiv]), which mobilized on the occasion of COP 15 at Copenhagen. CJA activists, mainly from Europe, speak up for the rights of the indigenous population and for those in the global South that are affected by the climate change. CJA rejects market-based solutions; for them the only real solution is a radical social transformation.

As the Copenhagen conference was approaching, other actors appeared who took up the term CJ, but they favour a strengthening of market-based mechanisms and theirs certainly is not a critical view of economic growth or of capitalism. “tcktcktck –Time for Climate Justice Campaign “([xv]) – to name but this group -  under Kofi Annan´s patronage does not criticize market-based solutions or the representative system applied by UN climate governance. For them, the admission of a historical debt and an understanding of the fact that people have been affected in very different ways play a crucial role even if they suggest payments to compensate for damages and technological transfer to be laid down in UN climate agreements as solutions.

To sum up one may say that quite a number of actors refer to CJ, with varying interpretations competing with each other. They cover a span stretching from criticism of the system or of capitalism as far as politically conformist approaches. And then, the fact must not be overlooked that actors are differently funded, that they have not the same access to the media and that the social positions they hold vary greatly – all of which has an influence on how visible their causes are.

Chances of social movements

Taking the term CJ, as has been shown, as an empty signifier and referring to its historical use, i.e. to the demands that have been put forward under its heading and the actors supporting those demands, we now can specify the question whether CJ is a suitable reference point for emancipatory movements as follows:

• Which of the demands that are at present made in the name of CJ and which of the social struggles are shared demands and shared struggles? Which of them are criticized?
• What can be done to promote CJ in the sense of emancipatory movements, i.e. to make their filling of the term visible and to advance a counter-hegemonial project?
• Or are alternative terms like global justice, global solidarity or even climate communism a more convincing reading of the absence of socio-ecological justice?

Even if these questions no more than aim at providing some rough ideas for discussion, one possible prospect can already be sketched out:

Advancing the criticism and the demands of emancipatory movements might mean connecting them with CJ on a local level. In that way, CJ could become more specific – specific aims could be named (e.g. public local traffic for free or food and energy sovereignty), and so could specific things that are rejected (e.g. CCS or market mechanisms). The aim should be to promote certain views: Unlimited growth or CCS may have their assets, but climate justice certainly is not among them.

Philip Bedall & Martina Austen

---

[i] An earlier and in some ways abbreviated version of this text was previously published in the German journal “analyse & kritik” (http://www.akweb.de/ak_s/ak549/30.htm) which is perceiving itself as a platform for discussions about social movements’ strategies.

[ii] Because of its pluralistic character and its open form of organisation BUKO is a common forum of social movements and international solidarity movements today, located at Germany. It is less of an umbrella organisation of member groups, more of a network of initiatives, groups and persons within the critical branch of the international protest movement. They use BUKO and its annual congress to discuss the ambivalances of the movement. The issues are mostly criticism and reflection of international relations, debates and political concepts that ignore criticism of domination. A world of humiliating living conditions, racism, sexism, poverty, destruction of livelihoods and many more consequences of structural violence shall be contrasted by the search for emancipatory alternatives (for further information see: http://www.buko.info/).

[iii] Laclau, Ernesto & Chantal Mouffe (1985): Hegemony and Socialist Strategy: Towards a Radical Democratic Politics. London, Verso.

[iv] Kaufmann, Stephan & Tadzio Müller (2009): Grüner Kapitalismus. Krise, Klimawandel und kein Ende des Wachstums. Berlin, Dietz: 14.

[v] Laclau, Ernesto (1996): Emancipation(s). London, Verso: 42 et seqq.

[vi] The “Principles of Environmental Justice” of 1991 considered EJ as a more complex issue as, among other things, it criticised the influence of companies on social decisions and spoke out against any form of war and military suppression. In addition, they ask for reparations for victims of ecological injustice and the right for self-determination and social participation (cf. http://www.ejnet.org/ej/index.html/).

[vii] CorpWatch was a central force in later years as well when it helped organize Climate Justice Summits. In 2000 CorpWatch was among the organizers of the first “Climate Justice Summit” in Den Haag when COP6 was taking place. (Cf. http.//www.corpwatch.org/article.php?id=997)

[viii] Cf. http://www.corpwatch.org/article.php?id=979

[ix] The declaration is supported by various Indian NGOs and by CorpWatch India, National Fishworkers Forum, Third World Network, Friends of the Earth Int., Natinal Alliance of People´s Movements etc.

[x] Cf. http://www.indiaresource.org/issues/energycc/2003/baliprinciples.html#

[xi] Cf. http://www.durbanclimatejustice.org/

[xii] CAN is a worldwide network of more than 500 NGOs that take part in the UN climate negotiations. Their aim is to protect the earth´s atmosphere in a way that does not infringe upon an equal and sustainable development. CAN does not use the term climate justice. Cf. www.climatnetwork.org/about-can/index_html/

[xiii] Cf. http://www.climate-justice-now.org/

[xiv] Cf. http://www.climate-justice-action.org/

[xv] Cf. http://www.timeforclimatejustice.org/

In this essay Tadzio Mueller (Political scientist and contributing editor of Turbulence) reviews the outcomes of both the Copenhagen and Cochabamba conferences, addressing the political and organisational space these differing ‘climate focused’ events open for the social movements for Climate Justice.

---

[1] An earlier version of this text was previously published, in German, by the Rosa Luxemburg Foundation. Thanks to Rosa for funding my trip to Bolivia, much appreciated. Many thanks also to Corinna Genschel, Tina Gerhardt, Julian Mueller, Bertie Russel and Ben Trott for suggestions that vastly improved the text – with all the usual disclaimers applying.

[2] Even the 2-degrees target has attracted criticism: whose survival is being prioritised?

[3] Greenpeace, Avaaz and the tck,tck,tck-campaign pushed for this goal until the bitter end.

[4] De Marcellus, Olivier, 2010: Failure and Victory in Copenhagen, http://www.climateimc.org/en/events/2010/01/02/failure-and-victory-copenhagen.

[5] http://pwccc.wordpress.com/.

[6] Müller, Tadzio and Passadakis, Alexis, forthcoming 2010: Another Capitalism Is Possible? From World Economic Crisis to Green Capitalism. In: Abramsky, Kolya, ed., 2009 Sparking a World-wide Energy Revolution: Social Struggles in the Transition to a Post-Petrol World. Oakland: AK Press.

[7] Evo Morales himself hails from the, by now relatively parti-fied, Movimiento al Socialismo (MAS) a movement that emerged from the coca-growing communities of the Bolivian highlands. He has been in power since 2006.

[8] Gudynas, Eduardo, 2010: The New Extractivism in South America. http://americas.irc-online.org/pdf/reports/1001theses.pdf.

[9] Gudynas, Eduardo, April 2010: “El Modelo de Desarrollo en Debate”, Le Monde Diplomatique, Edición Boliviana. S. 7.

[10] http://www.democracynow.org/2010/4/20/two.

[11] I can only refer here to the complexity of ‘internal’ indigenous politics and their manifold divisions (for example between ‘indigenism’, and the less ethnically connoted ‘katarismo’), but for lack of space and knowledge, cannot go into them.

[12] Sitting in a fascist prison, the Italian communist Antonio Gramsci spoke of the need for a “pessimism of the intellect”, coupled with an “optimism of the will”.

[13] To be sure, there is also a wider ‘climate movement’, on the right of which we find actors such as Oxfam and others who, some five years ago, organised the rather revolting “Make Poverty History” campaign.

[14] Holloway, John, 2002: Change the World Without Taking Power. London: Pluto Press.

[15] Turbulence Collective, 2009, “Life in Limbo?”, Turbulence 5, http://turbulence.org.uk/turbulence-5/life-in-limbo/. But see the resurgence of a poetic, anti-institutional insurrectionism in, e.g., the Invisible Committee, 2009: The Coming Insurrection. New York: Semiotexte/Intervention.

[16] www.durbanclimatejustice.org

[17] Trott, Ben, 2007: „Walking in the right direction?“, Turbulence 1. http://turbulence.org.uk/turbulence-1/walking-in-the-right-direction/

[18] See http://www.climate-justice-now.org/category/events/bali/

[19] http://pwccc.wordpress.com/2010/04/24/peoples-agreement/#more-1584

In this Essay David Heller and Jeroen Robbe address progressive NGOs engaged in the UNFCCC process and ask them to critically appraise both their relationships to that process as well as to horizontal movements also involved in the struggle for Climate and social Justice.

David Heller works with Friends of the Earth Europe and Friends of the Earth Flanders & Brussels. He has been active in direct action movements for even longer, particularly the anti-nuclear movement in the UK and Belgium. He is writing in a personal capacity.

Jeroen Robbe is writing a master’s thesis on the emerging climate justice movement, in which he has been involved himself for some years now. He took an active role in the Belgian CJA-mobilisation for Copenhagen, and was in Copenhagen as part of the delegation of Young Friends of the Earth Europe.

Prologue: a not so random conversation

Q: “I don’t know these people. I don’t trust them.”

A: “But I’m one of them.”

(As heard during a conversation about CJA, organising the “Reclaim Power!”-action between two Friends of the Earth activists)

Worlds colliding in Brokenhagen

Many worlds collided in Copenhagen: the institutional process of the UNFCCC, where hope for some was replaced by disillusionment as the negotiations went on; the scientific world, where climate experts found themselves dragged into the eye of the climategate storm; the corporate world, that tried to convince us that “Hope” and green capitalism was a replacement for real political action. All of these worlds were prominent in the negotiations, in the media, and in public spaces of Copenhagen during the summit.

And of course there was the world of “civil society”, that gathered en-masse to raise the stakes using a diversity of tactics: lobbying the official negotiators on the inside, organising an alternative “Klimaforum” to talk about the real solutions, and taking to the streets for both symbolic protest and direct action.

In Copenhagen, as with any social struggles, the term “civil society” covers a wide range of positions, not all of which are necessarily complimentary. This tension is played out in many ways and on many levels: the hierarchical and centralised organisational structure  of NGOs vs. the non-hierarchical and decentralised network structure of “horizontalists”; paid and professional staff vs. voluntary and non-professional activists; prioritising the spaces of the official UNFCCC negotiations inside the Bella Center vs. prioritising activities on the streets and in convergence centres ; the instrumental use of demonstrations and protest to support lobbying demands, typified by the conservative GCCA vs. the use of direct action and other forms of resistance to directly confront environmental and social destruction typified by CJA; an openness to work with governments and business to achieve pragmatic goals vs. the rejection of state and capital as the origin of the climate and social crises; “tck tck tck: The World is Ready” vs. “fck fck fck the system”.

Of course this is an over simplistic distinction, and it has never been possible to draw a clear dividing line between these tendencies. The fact is that some of us have worked for years in both horizontal movements, and more or less vertical NGOs. But this is about more than the position of a few individuals. This was not the first time that NGOs and horizontal activist movements, and their different and common roles, aspirations and strategies have met. It will not be the last. As always, moments of respect and collaboration alternated with moments of tension and a lack of mutual understanding. Yet something strange seems to be happening when radical anti-authoritarians start playing with the word “diagonalism” to describe the possibility of reaching out to progressive national governments and other hierarchical structures. And what about the parts of civil society that are moving from a more “vertical” NGO position to work with horizontalists in a way that is not instrumentalising, but looking to build new solidarities and alliances?

A radical inside-outside strategy?

Over the last few years, an increasing number of the more progressive environmental NGOs and social movements have broken away from Climate Action Network International (CAN-I), the mainstream NGO coalition working on climate issues. This is a rather ironic name, as it has been said that Climate Action Network International is not International, not really a network, not into action, and more interested in defending business as usual than protecting the climate, let alone people or the planet more generally. Dissatisfaction with the uncritical analysis of CAN-I, and the massive under representation of southern voices, led to the establishment of the more progressive Climate Justice Now! network in Bali at the end of 2007, during COP13.

CJN! has been successful in rephrasing what’s really at stake within the climate debate. Putting an emphasis on global and social justice calls into the question the dominant framing of the climate debate as scientific, technical and distant. It implies that we must change systems of power and privilege, and that some “false solutions” might not only actually increase climate change, but that they could be perpetuating other social or environmental problems. This is not just a call to states and corporations, but also a challenge to civil society groups to criticise their past efforts and search for new ways of working. Addressing this critique is uncomfortable for those NGOs who are used to working within “the system” that needs to be fundamentally changed.

When talking about the differences between horizontal social movements and NGOs, Friends of the Earth International (FoEI) finds itself caught somewhere in the middle. FoEI is a very diverse federation of 77 national member groups with different views, and backgrounds. The International federation is one of the most active members of CJN!, and has alliances with La Via Campesina and World March for Women. FoEI withdrew from CAN-I following a vote amongst member groups, however, many of the autonomous national Friends of the Earth groups remain active in CAN at a national or European level. Internally there are tensions too, as FoEI keeps one foot in the world of NGOs, with its expertise and highly skilled and acknowledged experts working inside the UNFCCC structure, and the other foot planted somewhere in the grassroots movement, with our strong local ties and a commitment to organising from the local level, on all continents. Some groups, and individuals, prefer the first road of negotiation and pressure from the inside. Others have an affinity for the more antagonistic and community-based work on the outside.

In the run-up to Copenhagen, FoEI attempted to develop a structure that would allow both tendencies within the federation to support and reinforce each other. This “inside-outside” strategy was based around translating expert knowledge on the progress inside the negotiations to develop actions in Copenhagen and around the world; and bringing the voices of people from all continents (including communities on the front-line of struggles against climate change and false solutions) to Copenhagen in order to confront decision makers. The activities on the streets, in the Klimaforum, online, and in the Bella Center were very diverse, but united under the same commitment to “demand climate justice”.

While the tension between NGO and movement structure can be creative, it is not always an easy position to negotiate. A delegation member of FoEI, coming from the South explained the difficulties that the federation was facing as the growing pains of a network which no longer fits in the body of a NGO, but is not yet a movement. More conservative positions, reminding us of our status as NGO, are confronted with elements that want to move faster and try to merge within a broader and more radical movement. For many of us involved in the planning for Copenhagen, it felt like we were constantly stuck between two ways of working in which we were not entirely comfortable. Copenhagen itself forced us to make decisions as to which way we would jump…

December 16th, FoEI: staying out, walking out and locked out

Before and during the Copenhagen summit, an interesting dialogue developed between CJA and FoEI. Despite some initial obstacles and tensions the dialogue was largely constructive. Many of the discussions during the COP itself revolved around FoEI endorsement of, and participation in, the Reclaim Power action. A FoEI delegation meeting held 4 days before the action attempted to find a common position. A few of us raised our voices in favour of joining the action. The fact that La Via Campesina (strategic allies of FoEI) seemed willing to participate was also a strong argument in favour of participation. Yet many people questioned whether this was wise. Concerns were raised by the Danish FoE member group (NOAH) about the possibility of violence on the action, and many of the more lobby-focused groups spoke about the risk of losing accreditation for subsequent UNFCCC meetings.

Despite many meetings between CJA and FoEI, there was also no clarity about the type of disruption actions that would take place inside the Bella Center. A FoE delegate from latin America said: “We are not afraid of violence on the action. We lived and struggled under military dictatorship for years, so don’t think we are cowards. But how can we go into this action if we don’t know what will happen. If it is my birthday and my comrades organise a surprise for me, that is nice. But I don’t want my comrades to start surprising me on an action, that is dangerous.”

Whether this lack of clarity was due to unwillingness on the part of people within CJA and CJN! to reveal existing plans, or because the plans had not yet been made, or simply because the structure proposed for the action meant that no-one was able to say definitively what those plans would be is rather unclear. In any case, it highlighted the difficulty of bringing a relatively centralised NGO structure, which is more familiar with forming coalitions based on open dialogue with partners, into an action made up of autonomous affinity groups.

The final decision, made by the Executive Committee of FoEI, was a compromise that would allow member groups to join the outside part of the action, provided no Friends of the Earth branded material was used; while the inside action would be off limits for anyone accredited with a FoEI badge. On the day itself, many of the Young Friends of the Earth (YFoE) activists and a few representatives from other FoE groups took part in the outside part of the action, joining the march to the Bella Center and joining the People’s Assembly alongside many thousands of others.

It was early in the morning when we took off for the meeting point of the blue bloc, that was going to start a militant but non-violent demo, heading towards the Bella Center. Disillusioned by the lack of progress on the inside, some of the young members of the FoEI delegation were attracted by the strength of the message of the “Reclaim Power” action. The name says it all. But it was not just the name, it wasn’t just about the idea of reclaiming power, it was the whole concept: starting from the act of civil disobedience, which only sounded right after so much of governmental unwill, to the idea of overcoming the fences that divided the masses outside from the officials inside. These dividing fences might as well symbolise other ‘invisible’ fences: the fences between the Global North, whose pollution is the main contributor to climate change, and the Global South, that is the least contributing, but the hardest affected by this climate crisis. And what about the fences of ‘the unknown’, that represented the lack of trust and understanding between the two positions, horizontal and vertical, that we both represented in that moment.

Some of us had gone all the way to try and convince our fellow FoEI delegates of the importance of taking part in this action, ultimately in vein. But our relentless efforts did have some good results: we kicked off a discussion that will continue far beyond Copenhagen. Nevertheless, we were determined right from the start to respect any decision taken by the FoEI delegation. And so we did. Remaining faithful to what we believed was the right thing to do and respecting the decisions of FoEI at the same time, we formed our own affinity group, without any FoE branding. Determined to do the most appropriate “civil” act we could think of in this circumstance: being disobedient.

The evening before we sat together for a small action training. We knew each other’s hopes, expectations and fears. We talked through different possible scenarios and found “buddies” for support during the action. By the morning we were ready for action, as we were welcomed by the masses who already gathered outside the metro station. It was an incredibly strong and empowering feeling. Being there with all these other people. Prepared to take action, prepared to face the police. Prepared to face the fences that were dividing inside from outside. The blue bloc proved to be disciplined and committed to its promise of non-violence. Crucial information, as well as inspiration and encouragement were shouted towards the crowd from the sound truck. When we came close to the Bella Center, the police suddenly announced that the legal demonstration would become illegal when we crossed a certain line. But for us there was no way back at that moment. A line had been crossed well before. And we weren’t the ones that had crossed it.

We too shouted “push!” at the Bella Center, joining in an act for which others are being persecuted as we speak. And we are proud to have shouted along them. To have pushed along them. Pushed, for climate justice. And no, we didn’t succeed in tearing down the fences that divided us, nor did we succeed in bringing the real solutions to the inside that day. But something did happen that day. Most of us did not stay long enough to join the peoples assembly. But we were glad to have heard that it did take place in the end. How many people stuck together that day and held strong? Enough to convince us of one thing to be sure: some fences might be hard to tear down today or tomorrow, but others are close to be torn down already today. We felt personally how differences between a horizontal and vertical approach can be bridged by drawing diagonals. And we feel eager to explore where this could lead us in the time to come.

A number of FoEI delegates, who had been accredited with other organisations, joined the walk out of the Bella Center, coming face to face with the riot police as they attempted to join the People’s Assembly.

A larger group of FoEI delegates had planned to enter the Bella Center and carry on working more or less as usual on the “inside”. Some were planning to continue their work of lobbying, and media work. A number of people from the actions group planned to use their access to the Bella Center to project images from the Reclaim Power action, and other examples of resistance to climate change and false solutions from around the world, onto the walls of the central atrium of the Bella Center to show delegates and officials what was going on outside. As it happened, all FoEI delegates found themselves locked out of the Bella Center for the day. The reasons for the lockout were unclear, but were almost certainly related to a number of disruptive actions that we had organised inside the Bella Center over the previous days, and the possible FoEI support for the Reclaim Power action. Even FoEI delegates with the “secondary badges” which should have allowed access when the numbers of delegates were restricted towards the end of the conference were denied access to the conference centre.

An occupation of the entrance hall allowed us to raise the issue of the silencing of dissent within the COP in the media- criticising not only the exclusion of the FoEI delegation and our allies from La Via Campesina and ASEED, but also the exclusion of the voices of the countries that are already facing the impacts of climate change and false solutions by the back-room deals being done by the Danish hosts of the meeting. Maybe we should have been braver at that moment, and changed our decision not to join the People’s Assembly. But having chosen an “inside-outside” strategy, FoEI was unwilling to simply walk away from the “inside” track, even symbolically as the Reclaim Power action took place and allies walked out.

After several hours of stand-off, and a confrontation with the head of the UNFCCC, FoEI was offered a small number of passes to enter the Bella Center for the day. Months of sitting on the fence between the “inside” and “outside” came to a head, and the whole delegation walked out, refusing the piecemeal representation inside the conference while business and more conservative NGOs continued to enjoy their full privileges.

In the debriefing meeting held that afternoon, it became clear that this was a turning point for many people in terms of belief in the UNFCCC, and the lockout and walk-out marked another milestone on the journey towards some kind of “diagonalism”. Rather than seeing the failure to unequivocally endorse the Reclaim Power as a missed opportunity, we should see this as a first step in an interesting process of finding common ground between different groups who recognise that their struggles are interconnected in many ways.

In fact there were many examples of cooperation between FoEI and CJA. There was a large and vocal FoEI contingent on the CJA agriculture action day, and towards the end of the conference, FoEI joined the solidarity demonstration for climate prisoners, and CJA speakers appeared at FoEI organised panel discussions in the Klimaforum.

Lessons for the future

Many fellow NGO activist we’ve encountered since Copenhagen seem to feel disempowered by the outcome. Some of us, however, knew that the probable result of Copenhagen was no deal or a very bad one. We were not hoping for anything good from the official negotiations. During our period in Copenhagen saw something else. Something which has made us hopeful, despite all the negative analysis. We saw, despite the police repression, beside the flawed media coverage and even besides the official “show”, a new movement having its coming out party.

After the failure of institutional processes in Copenhagen, it is clear that the way forward is in the new emerging social movement which is coalescing around the rather abstract notion of Climate Justice. Yet, if we are going to ensure that “climate justice” is a tool for social change, we need to make the term more than an empty slogan. One way of doing this is to work on defining the term, drawing links between climate justice and other issues, in order to forge alliances with existing groups or networks. The discussion text on Climate Justice in Europe produced by CJA (and a similar text being produced by Friends of the Earth Europe) is a valuable step in this direction. This is especially important as the term is being co-opted by business, government and conservative NGOs. But we also need to make sure that the term means something to our everyday lives, and the struggles we are engaged with. And that requires doing climate justice as much as defining climate justice.

And here it’s important to look at what each part of this movement (the NGOs and the more horizontal movements) could contribute to a new “diagonal” space for achieving climate justice.

The horizontal direct action networks are flexible, creative, able to speak a clear political language, to involve everyone, to create prefiguratively the alternatives they speak of and to empower people to take power into their own hands. The CJA philosophy is appealing, not just because it’s rebellious, provocative and straightforward, but also because it dares to call the problem by its true name. And that’s not climate change, which is only a symptom. That’s capitalism. If CJA is able to maintain its open process, and avoid isolating itself inside the sub-cultural activist ghetto, it will attract even more interested people to the movement.

NGOs, including Friends of the Earth International, can also bring something to the movement. This may be most evident while we continue to engage with the UNFCCC and other institutional spaces. If we are going to limit the damage done by the international climate regime then the experience and expertise of groups working inside the talks is vital. Without having a voice inside the negotiations, the movement will not be able to challenge the worst excesses of corporate power and dodgy dealings by rich and powerful nations. Without eyes and ears on the inside, the movement will rely on mass media and conservative NGOs for news and analysis.

Crucially, however, we also need to start finding each other outside of the spaces created by, or in the margins of, the UNFCCC process. The “summit hopping” days of the anti-globalisation movement should not return with a mass exodus to the winter sun of Cancún. But that doesn’t mean retreating to purely local struggles where climate justice ends at the borders of our town or at the fence of our organic allotment. The continuity and stability of international contacts within a federation like FoEI can also open up spaces for international dialogue outside the spaces of the UNFCCC negotiations.

There are already a number of exciting and important links that have been made between Northern and Southern FoEI groups. FoE Australia and FoE Indonesia have joined forces to oppose the offsetting provisions in Australian climate legislation, which would allow Australia to carry on polluting at the same rate as before, while funding projects in Indonesia that will cause social and environmental problems. FoE Nigeria has cooperated with FoE groups in the UK and Netherlands to mount legal challenge against British-Dutch oil giant Shell over its gas flaring and other environmental and human rights abuses in Nigeria. The FoE Latin American region has worked on many common international projects in support of The Movement of the Victims and Peoples Affected by Climate Change (MOVIAC). Rooted in local struggles, and informed by an agenda of resisting, mobilising and transforming, these projects have shown a way for us to do international climate justice work that is a million miles away from lobbying or demonstrating at the UNFCCC.

Bringing networks in the North who are committed to the use of direct action into the mix, and making links with the no borders movement, radical anti-militarists, and other horizontal movements would make these struggles, and the movement as a whole, much more powerful.

But if progressive NGOs are to really engage with the climate justice movement, we need to stop being so hung up on protecting our official status with the UNFCCC. We need to end the self-censorship which happens when we put the risks to brand identity and funding before speaking truth to power. And we could do a lot worse than climbing down from our ivory towers to enjoy the more precarious slopes of diagonalism.

As part of our ongoing series of reflections on Cop 15, Mel Evans critically reflects on her time mobilizing for and engaging in Cop 15. She points towards the possibility of new avenues of struggle, and new alliances developing in the wake of Copenhagen.

Mel Evans is part of Platform (www.carbonweb.org), participates in UK Climate Camp, and is currently interviewing women involved in resistance in the occupied Palestinian territories.

SPRING (after COP-15)

Three months on from the COP-15 mobilisations at Copenhagen, I’m grateful that Notes from Below left this much time for us all to draw our thoughts together.

That was a lot of build-up for two weeks of life on earth passing like any other.  Amidst the race to put out fresh news-bits, final verdicts, surmising opinion pieces I heard again and again that ‘people have made their mind up about what happened’.  That is how we create meaning; we gather information, look at it, decide what we see and form a story from it to tell ourselves, and each other.  I just didn’t know we were doing this to so tight a deadline.

I decided to step back.  I wanted to lounge in the limbo where stories are not yet history, and look at what happened carefully.  Gather a little bit more information.  Spend a little bit more time seeing it, listening to different voices.  I suppose I wanted to try and learn as I went.  I didn’t want to join the hustle to package up a story that could shape some history that only I wanted to take forward into the future.  But instead let my story emerge, as my truth rather than supposing it on everybody else’s.  I’m not denying material reality or Ed Miliband’s slack pyjamas in this, just getting a feel for the meaning of events.

What follows below is a collection of my responses and reflections, as a twenty-something white woman from the UK who was involved in mobilising for the COP-15 protests, commenting on the impact and implication of COP-15 on UK climate activism.

In doing this, I found Stuart Hall’s movement analysis in Media Power and Class Power particularly useful:

“Yes there are breakthroughs and when they occur, they are real and important.  Because we are stuck with an over-monolithic account of how things work, we are driven in our sectarian and ultra-leftist way to talk as if NOTHING matters or makes any difference except the one, final Big Breakthrough, one which seldom comes, but meanwhile protects our revolutionary rectitude. It is much more difficult to engage in the back breaking job of pushing and supporting a whole range of openings, while at the same time criticizing their weakness and limitations.”

WONDER (a couple of choice moments of)

1. Evening Assemblies 1 and 2

There was almost nervousness in the air.   Or maybe it was just the extreme cold, 300 or so people huddled in a loose arc, most of us fresh off the buses from Germany, Turkey, France, Spain, Italy, Ireland, Russia, UK, US, China, Japan and of course Denmark.  Translators poised, the several hundred bleary but bright daggers of eyes hit the handful of facilitators who bounce from cultural diversity in meeting style to progressive listing, in which the order of speakers fights oppression.  As soon as action planning begins groups warm up and invigorate each other.  It’s a diverse group meeting without forming as such – climate justice activists from South and North, some autonomous, some from organisations and groups of very different sizes, coming together as a new direction in movement.

2. Reclaim Power planning session no. 1 with CJN and the Climate Caravan, who arrived the day before from WTO talks in Geneva.

It’s another large cold graffiti-decorated could-be sports hall.  This time it is HOT inside though.  Everyone in the room is holding their hearts out in their hands for words of wisdom to be inscribed upon them.  Seven women, indigenous from regions now known as Guatemala, Mexico, Columbia, the Phillipines speak and break through all the bullshit of Hopenhagen in the city, politicians spin from the Bella centre, consumerist streets back home, and centuries of ongoing colonialism.  Here together, we commune in our anger.  We enthuse about the Peoples’ Assembly being planned for the Reclaim Power action.  And the struggle beyond CPH feels tangible, perhaps together we feel more ready to fight, to defend our humanity.

BREAKTHROUGHS (tangible, lasting)

At the beginning of 2009 ‘climate justice’ was new vernacular to parts of the UK network for climate action.  Now it’s informing the activities of a spread of local and national groups, who are building on links made throughout the past year’s mobilising to take action on the root causes of climate change as part of a struggle for social justice.  The journey to Copenhagen provided an opportunity for people who came to direct action activism via anti-war marches and urgent-and-purely-scientific climate change to look at climate change politics within a broader historical frame of racism and imperialism, domination and exploitation.  A speaker at the Blackheath camp COP-15 plenary put it clearly: “You must understand that you are not starting, but joining a struggle, against colonialism, that has been going for hundreds of years”.  This perspective was not new, but reflection on it became more widespread, and has led to desires for strengthening of both local grassroots bases and of international solidarity and support.  Since Copenhagen more coal sites have been squatted across the UK, numerous tar sands actions have been organised, migrant support in the UK and at the Calais-Dover border has grown, various anti-airport expansion campaigns have linked with communities and trade unions, a team of people from UK networks have gone to participate in the Mother Earth Rights conference in Cochabamba, Columbia…a lot is happening, in different ways and directions, inspiring and learning from each other.

The COP-15 mobilisations also saw new allegiances, named in this collection of responses as an ‘emergent diagonalism’.  Ngos and revolutionaries were taking baton-hits and twittering about it alongside each other.  Traditionally the one knows their shit, the other knows their gut, the one accepts reforms, the other pushes for deeper change. The idea to have the two straining to reach each other across the UN military divide still inspires me – autonomous black block alongside Indigenous Peoples next to middle class white twenty-somethings moving steadily toward campaign officers ditching their Blackberrys, all intent on setting up a Peoples’ Assembly which could hear peoples’ response to climate change rather than corporations’ projects.  The groups weren’t so two-sided, but challenges were respectively set: to both drag the insiders away from corporate NGOs that have legitimised the COP process, while at the same time persuading some social justice activists that climate change is not just an environmental issue; that climate impacts will drastically undercut basic human rights along fault-lines of gender, race and class; that fighting for the rights of the earth and the people are one and the same.  Across interlocking spectrums, various groups take different actions in different moments and contexts.  It is important to recognise that there is no silver bullet – we should value difference in movement as in ourselves, in order to find the million seeds of resistance needed to open space for social justice.

LIMITATIONS (ways to move on)

When I arrived in Copenhagen I found it difficult to navigate the various peoples’ spaces.  I felt there was a lack of a big central space for a lot of different people to make use of for talking, planning and relaxing.  One thing I really valued in my initial experiences as part of UK climate camp was the job-shop – anyone can walk in and usefully participate.  Chopping vegetables was not only a time to sustain the camp, but also a time to talk about social politics, to plan an action with a close comrade, to meet new people and have discussions in the neighbourhood.  At Copenhagen there was a sharp separation between the people providing the all-valuable sustenance from sleeping space to three meals a day to information, and the people involved in mobilising and organising actions.  This dichotomy mirrors the male-female, mind-body binaries of old that I thought our movements were trying to move on from.  It is this dichotomy that capitalism uses – the dominion of (sic) man over nature – to privatise the planet from land to people to particles of air.  I would like to see more of the integration of sustenance and social politics, of vegetables and discussions in future mobilisations, for the full participation of all involved.

Along similar lines of misrepresentation, the ‘Climate change is not just an environmental issue’ zine failed to incorporate a thorough anarchafeminist analysis.  It’s section ‘Feminism and climate change’ looked at climate impacts on women portraying the ‘worst victims’.  I would have preferred to read a stirring account of patriarchy and white supremacy as integral structural components of global capitalism.  Without seeing these power structures as a key site of struggle, we will fail to take actions that can alter social injustice.  Capitalist domination of peoples and lands rests on the brutalising, intertwined logics of patriarchy and white supremacy; there are numerous stories of resistance from around the world that see this full picture.

My final query for us comes from the afternoon after Reclaim Power.  UK activists had built our narrative from gloriously tearing down fences at Ratcliffe-on-Soar coal power station, and amongst ourselves and others I felt acute disappointment that we hadn’t significantly invaded one of the most high-security locations on the planet on that particular day.  I sensed this both in somewhat defensive claims that ‘everybody had an amazing time’; in open expressions of feeling betrayed by the full body of the march not pushing towards the fences; and in claims that the Danish style of organising was fundamentally flawed.  Overall, I personally had a shit day, having gotten pepper sprayed directly into both eyes early on.  But I still thought the idea, and our collective intention, was wonder-ful.  I reflected on where we were placing value with paying so much attention to breaking a boundary, as I had also been keen to do, seeing it as a symbol of capitalist enclosures from time immemorial.  If we had placed more value on creating our own space, as many did that day, perhaps we would have revelled longer and fuller in coming together from around the world to struggle alongside each other and make spaces of our own.

INTO THE NEW (resilience)

In the face of the desolate domination of our world, it can be vital to celebrate our breakthroughs, as well as taking the time to carefully reflect on the limitations of our actions.  Within the coming years’ activities and strategies I hope we can both constructively build on each other’s ideas, with their limitations, and accept supportively the different ways we all choose to try and bring about change.  This requires a certain kind of resilience – to see the good and the bad in something at the same time, to hold close both anger and hope, to value breakthroughs without arrogantly blinding ourselves to their limitations, and equally to see limitations without cynically discounting genuine radical potential.