D4net Netwerk voor Dromers, Denkers, Durvers en Doeners

By: Paul Chatterton and Alice Cutler from the Trapese Collective (following the link you get the complete PDF-file including photo's)

Part two

ENERGY RUNNING OUT ISN’T IT?
Peak oil says that half the world’s reserves of oil and gas have been
used and that we are about to enter the downside of the energy curve.
A report from the US office of petroleum reserves last year stated,
"World oil reserves are being depleted three times as fast as they are being
discovered. Oil is being produced from past discoveries, but the reserves
are not being fully replaced… The disparity between increasing production
and declining discoveries can only have one outcome: a practical supply
limit will be reached and future supply to meet conventional oil demand
will not be available." This is true without much doubt. But with half the
energy left we can hardly say that the problem is one of scarcity. If, as
estimates say, there are roughly a trillion barrels of oil left then the
problem we face is about resource allocation and distribution. The
problem with peak oil is that currently we are in a system that demands
ever increasing amounts of fossil fuels (for the expanding economy,
further industrialisation of agriculture, increasing population etc.) but
at some point soon the amounts of available energy will decrease daily.
There is still debate about when this point will be; some people believe
we have reached this point already. Talking of a peak could be
misleading, more likely is a series of price rises and shocks rather than
one isolated event. As we write prices of crude oil are increasing daily,
breaking previous records and shocks are felt throughout the
international financial markets. The current credit crunch could well be
linked to the decreasing supply of cheap oil.
The global elite, the really rich people across the globe, will find ways
of ensuring access to the remaining supplies of oil. The G8 for example
was set up partly as a response to the oil crises of the 1970s and one of
its main remits is to secure access to energy reserves for the most
industrialised economies. Oil wars across the world and recent BP plans
to extract oil shale from Canada are two signs of the lengths that the
rich will go to preserve their lifestyles for decades to come. In the short
term decreasing supply will increase prices and benefit the very rich. At
the same time the increasing price of food, home energy bills, etc will
be passed on to individuals, hitting the poorest hardest. Whilst this will
increase the gap between rich and poor in the UK, these inequalities are
more fully understood on a global North-South divide level as billions
of people are left with no access to the basics such as land or clean
water. The main point is that there is little point in creating a sensible
plan for using the remainder of easily available fossil fuel supplies if in
the process the environment is pushed over its tipping point of
‘dangerous’ climate change, defined as global warming of 2 Celsius
above pre-industrial levels. There is a 50% chance of this kicking in at
about 450ppm of carbon in the atmosphere. Energy use at its current
rate, globally and in the UK, would bring us head to head with such
limits within the next decade or so. This is why energy use based on
carbon sources has to pretty much come to a halt in the next couple of
decades.
The question of how to ride this energy descent roller coaster on the
way down is one key component of TT. As groups grapple with their
own energy descent plans, an alternative model which has gained
international recognition is ‘Contraction and Convergence’ which
provides a model for how all countries can make a move towards a
‘convergence zone’ of lower carbon emissions and then continue to
contract downwards to zero carbon use within the next fifty years. ‘C
and C’ recognises the enormous disparity between industrialised
nations' contribution to current levels of greenhouse gases and those of
the majority world. However, it proposes this can only be achieved via
an austere programme of carbon rationing where individuals have little
control and which is regulated through strong state action and large
centralised global institutions. What is relevant to TT here is that as
communities start, of their own accord, to embrace more sustainable
living in their food, energy, waste and transport this will compete with
models that impose these limits through state coercion. 'C and C' also
relies on a global system of emissions trading meaning that carbon is
bought and sold, a profitable market is created and short term financial
considerations outweigh long term viability. Carbon trading and
offsetting are merely market-based solutions that put off making the
costly but necessary transition to low carbon technologies and a wider
systematic re-think. In contrast TT should be a model that fights to
preserve freedom, autonomy and rejects top down models that further
increase social inequality.
To get to a low carbon future, there will be some tough arguments. One
is about how social justice and human rights are protected while also
taking global action on climate change. The concept of 'climate justice'
is useful here as it recognises that the global poor face a triple whammy
– having the smallest carbon footprints but being hit hardest by many
of the effects of climate change. At the same time having been stripped
of their natural resources they have no financial means to mitigate
against its adverse effects. In the US groups have mobilised around the
idea of Environmental Justice. Research revealed that communities of
colour were suffering disproportionately high levels of air pollution and
associated health problems, as heavy industry was more likely to be
located in their localities. (See www.ejmatters.com) These movements
remind us that corporations will try to locate themselves where social
and environmental laws are weakest and where local opposition can be
overcome. It is therefore important to guard against pushing problems
out of one area and on to another group, who may for structural
reasons be less able to resist them.
In the current model it is possible to put a price on everything. As
evidence mounts of the number of lives being put at risk through
dangerous climate change, grotesque calculations are made that
literally compare the financial cost of taking action on reducing
emissions with the human cost of not doing so, this was the method
used by the high profile 2007 Stern Report. Whilst economists continue
to bury their heads in the sand of their growth mantra, there is an
emerging climate action movement that advocates radical and direct
action. Recently a group of activists used the defence of "duress of
circumstances" after trying to and shut down a coal fired power station
to stop emissions that will cause human deaths and suffering. Although
they were found guilty, it was the first time that a judge considered the
defence of necessity for a climate action. On April 1st, Fossil Fools day
there were more than 30 events in the UK alone against the fossil fuel
industry. Actions like these push the boundaries of what constitutes a
proportionate response to climate devastation. Far reaching and drastic
changes are needed to achieve the 60-80% level of cuts that are needed
to avoid catastrophic climate change. While local sustainability is
important, so are high impact actions that shake people to question the
habits of high consumer lifestyles, cheap flights and unnecessary car
journeys and the political systems that facilitate them.Campaigners
who are using direct action to shift public opinion and de-legitimise the
right to profit from such climate changing business are increasingly
targeting sectors such as the aviation industry, which is the most rapidly
expanding carbon industry and shows no signs of giving up growth.
Challenging new fossil fuel infrastructure is also an important part of
work for an effective transition. For example, the new proposed coal
fired power station at Kingsnorth, Kent, will be the site of the Camp for
Climate Action, 2008. Resisting a return to coal power in the UK will be
a key site of struggle if we are serious about avoiding catastrophic
levels of atmospheric carbon. At the root, it is about de-legitimising the
right of large corporations and industry to emit carbon into the
atmosphere, even if they pay credits to allow them to pollute; life is
priceless.

SO IT’S ALL ABOUT TRANSITION THEN. WHAT WILL IT BE LIKE?
WILL IT BE PEACEFUL?
We can only hope that we can make a
peaceful transition. Using dialogue
and non-violence to get what people
want is, of course, preferable to
slipping into further violence and
conflict between groups. However, a
look at the history of significant social
change gives some clues about the
nature of the transition that we might
expect. Looking back to look forwards
if you like. So what do the experiences
of other groups and places tell us?
There are countless times when
people have tried to make a break, a
transition, away from oppression or
threatening life conditions, or merely
safeguarding what they held dear to
them – the Luddites who defended their workplaces during the bloody
transition to the factory system in England, the Diggers or True
Levellers who demanded equality and land after the English civil war,
the indigenous Zapatista communities who have set up autonomous
villages in the mountains of south east Mexico in the face of state
repression and expropriation of resources, the Paris Communards who
didn’t give up fighting to defend their gains in the wake of the Franco-
Prussian war, or more recently in the UK the poll tax demonstrators,
the miners and the dockers strikers who fought Thatcher’s policies.
What these examples tell us is that to win concessions, to get what they
want, ordinary people have to organise and propose alternatives, but
they also have to resist and challenge those who want to preserve the
way things are - ‘the status quo’. Many of the rights that are nowadays
taken for granted in the UK - the 5 day working week, the Factory Acts,
the labour movement, the suffragettes and demands for universal
suffrage, - all these were born out of struggle, of ordinary people doing
extra ordinary things. Meaningful social change comes through
political organising, rupture and struggle and a lot of mobilising at the
local level. The reality of social change might be difficult to face up to,
but it essential if we want to make a root and branch transition, not just
a cosmetic one.
There’s a saying: at first we were ignored. Then we were ridiculed and
laughed at. Then when our ideas started to become really effective, we
became a real threat and they defeated us. In other words, there’s
nothing like the threat of a good example. It’s worth remembering that
good ideas don’t fade away because they weren’t good enough. They
disappear because they were repressed and defeated or because they
became a threat to one power group or another and had to be
eliminated. This is a common theme in history. When people start to
look effective and organised, they face opposition and oppression and
governments turn to direct hostility: surveillance, the crackdown on
civil liberties, ID cards, fortress Europe, ASBOs, diminished freedom to
protest, a raft of anti-social behaviour laws, the list goes on. Although
this may not appear a theme that Transition groups should work
around, we argue that it will fundamentally affect TTs ability to
organise, respond and be effective. It would be dangerous to assume
that the state would not be interested in what seems at face value a
pragmatic and sensible project like Transition Towns. To us, taking
action to show solidarity with the other people who are resisting fossil
fuel corporations is one of the most important ways we can combat
climate change and must accompany local attempts at sustainability.
While this may mean that we must also deal with repression,
surveillance or the courts and legal system, if we are united in this
position it will be harder for those who are on the frontline of common
struggles to be isolated, made an example of or intimated. Those who
benefit from the current system will try to maintain their positions and
our only defence is our collective rejection of repressive laws, which try
to squash dissent and repeal hard won rights. A diversity of tactics will
be used in struggles for transition and this solidarity is key to forming a
real grassroots, strong and effective movement.
It is important to remember that millions of people are already suffering
from crisis and war around the world due to competition for scarcer
and more expensive energy and food, increased migration as
environmental and political crises become more frequent, economic
instability as well as extreme climate events such as flooding and
storms. While these kinds of things mostly seem far away in our
country of warm homes and full supermarkets, they are a daily reality
for around half of the world’s population. And there is an everincreasing
likelihood of the rich West being affected by such problems,
as the globe becomes a more connected and more vulnerable place. In
such situations, migrants and those seeking asylum are often made
scapegoats for a vast range of problems, from increased crime, disease,
terrorism, and social cohesion. In times of resource scarcity or
environmental breaking points, perceived newcomers are excluded on
the apparently rational grounds that there is not enough to go around.
So we can expect a rise in hostility to migrants and policies of exclusion
try to gain legitimacy through apparently 'environmental' concerns. The
BNP (British National Party) have been talking about Peak Oil for years
and how it will help them to power
(http://www.bnp.org.uk/peakoil/politics.htm). Such right wing
arguments often use the idea that a place has a finite environmental
carrying capacity. This is false for several reasons. Firstly for hundreds
of years the engine of economic growth has been fed by the
importation of raw materials, slaves, manufactured goods, food and
service labour from the majority world to Western Europe and North
America. Our environmental carrying capacity was exceeded when
societies started to rely upon imports, non-renewable fuels and to
irreversibly pollute the atmosphere, water and soil. Secondly, while
there are of course physical limits to any place, climate change makes a
mockery of concepts such as national borders. The UK may well try to
limit immigration as an attempt to retain a quality of life here. But the
many millions of environmental refugees are unable to protect
themselves from the increased floods, crop failures and desertification,
partly caused by the climate changing emissions from the rich north.
Just as those fleeing war over natural resources in Iraq and Afghanistan
or the Democratic Republic of Congo had no way to preserve their
homes and lives. The struggle against the rise of anti immigrant,
extreme right groups will be a key part of making a socially just
transition. We can’t simply pull up the drawbridge and pretend the
problems aren’t there or not our responsibility. For this reason it’s
important to develop a transnational approach to our local community
organising that recognises how the UK's current position of wealth and
privilege is based on long history of enclosure and exploitation across
the globe. This position can be used to fight for equality at the same
time as local sustainability.
SO WHAT IF EVERY TOWN IN BRITAIN BECAME A TRANSITION
TOWN?
Of course, that would be a fantastic thing. But will a day come when
the chief executives of multinationals, the millionaires and those in
political power would just put their hands up and say well that’s that
then – let’s all make the transition because everyone else has? It’s a
nice thought, but not very likely! If TT initiatives became numerous
enough, divides could open up across our society– separating those
who are making the transition, those who are not – and those who
simply aren’t interested. While of course it’s important to make every
effort to persuade people to get on board, some people will see
transition as a direct threat to the wealth and resources they have
gained from the old model. People talk about these kinds of moments
as ‘dual power’ situations that are full of tensions and conflict between
different social groups who struggle to preserve either their new gains
or their old ways of life. These kinds of situations happen all the time
(Russia 1917, Cuba 1958, France 1871, Venezuela, right now). It’s less
common in Britain due to its powerful central institutions, which are
very effective at keeping the status quo. But there could well be conflict
if any kind of transition movement started to threaten the privilege of
the wealthy.
The idea of TT is to create a model that everyone could agree to. But if
everyone can agree with an idea then what exactly is going to change,
and how is it different to what went before? Change comes through
argument and debate. This is the basis for our democracies. Our society
is made up of different classes with very different interests. It is
important to realise the extent to which the groups with more power
use this to defend their interests – wealth, property, industry etc. They
always have done – Britain is an incredibly stable and conservative
country not used to change. And this is not just the old monied classes,
but people will fiercely defend their recently acquired wealth – the new
money that emerged since Thatcherism. More generally it is important
to challenge the idea that everyone has the ‘right’ to consume in our
affluent society. Defending interests of the privileged and property
classes is the function and origin of almost all legislation in Britain (the
emergence of the police force, armies, legal property law, anti vagrancy
laws, acts of enclosure etc.). A real transition is actually a social
transition. As the slogan goes: Social change not climate change! It
can’t just be a set of techno-fixes or plans to use energy rationally or
decrease carbon emissions.
There’s also much talk of ‘win-win’ situations, creating initiatives that
can please very different groups. But at some point someone has to
lose. This might only mean reducing our incredibly abundant consumer
society, limiting our use of resources or getting used to a simpler life.
But for many people this will feel like losing and will be reacted against
like it is a loss. If we are looking for win-win situations, then we are
looking for easy victories, which actually may be very little in the way
of steps forward. Once we are well on our way to a transition future
what will a low energy UK actually look like? A scene from 1950s
Heartbeat? MadMax? Or something similar to a very poor city slum?
Whatever it actually is (which is impossible to define here and now) we
have to be honest about what we are proposing and what feasibly can
and cannot be part of our future. At the same time transition is about
being ambitious enough in the light of the scale of change that is
required.

Read on part three
Read on part four