Tagged 'IPBES'
Neo-Liberalism and the Defanging of Feminism, Whiteness & Aversive Racism, World Wildlife Fund (WWF)
2020 Super Year Countdown financialization of nature IPBES New Deal for Nature Super Year UN Voice for the Planet World Economic Forum WWF
New Deal for Nature: Paying the Emperor to Fence the Wind
The conservation industry says 2020 is its "super year."[1] It wants to set aside thirty percent of the globe for wildlife, and divert billions of dollars away from reducing climate change and into "natural climate solutions."[2] This would be a disaster for people and planet. Conservation was founded in the racist ideology of 1860s USA but it committed thirty years ago to becoming people-friendly. It hasn't happened. There will be more promises now, if only to placate critics and funders like the U.S. and German governments, and the European Commission, which are paying for conservation's land theft, murder and torture.[3] More promises will be meaningless. No more public money should go for "Protected Areas" until the conservation bodies recognize their crimes, get rid of those responsible, and hand stolen lands back, with compensation. Conservation NGOs must also stop cozying up to mining, logging, oil, and plantation companies.
The latest idea to be heavily promoted by big conservation NGOs is doubling the world's so-called "Protected Areas" (PAs) so that they cover thirty percent of the globe's lands and oceans. This is now their main rallying cry and response to two of the world's biggest problems – climate chaos and loss of biodiversity. It sounds good: It's easy to grasp and has numbers that are supposed to be measurable, and advertisers do love numbers.
What better answer to climate change and biodiversity loss than to ban human "interference" over huge areas? If, that is, you think "everybody" is guilty of causing both crises and that everything's solved by keeping them away. The idea's been around for years, but now governments and industries are promoting it to the tune of billions of dollars,[4] so it'll be difficult to oppose. But it's actually dangerous nonsense which would have exactly the reverse effect to what we're told, and if we want to save our world, it must be stopped.
Let's be clear that cutting destructive pollution globally is vital for the climate, and that stopping industrial exploitation of unspoiled areas is essential for the flora and fauna, and the physical and mental health of inhabitants and visitors. None of that is disputed, but these are not the arguments advanced for asserting the right of this "New Deal for Nature" to more taxpayers' cash. It's a marketing gimmick designed to funnel even more money to those who have for decades demonstrated their failure to mitigate either climate change or biodiversity loss.
Sept. 24, 2019: Tweet, Marco Lambertini, Director General of WWF International, New Deal For Nature event
Let's assume they did succeed in putting so much territory "out of bounds." As with the emperor in his new suit, it's childishly obvious that this wouldn't necessarily bring any reduction to climate chaos: That's simply because it wouldn't affect what happens in the remaining seventy percent of the world – where most pollution originates. If just as much pollution carries on outside, then it doesn't matter what's going on inside PAs, because they too depend on the world's climate, and you can't fence the wind. Without reducing industrial emissions globally, leaving existing forest intact or planting lots of trees just won't be enough to solve the problem. Wreck the atmosphere – even from a tiny proportion of the Earth – and you wreck it everywhere.
Not for the first time, the "experts" are promoting a policy which a child can see is senseless, but if they tell a lie big enough and keep repeating it, people will eventually come to believe it.
What about the second claim, that more PAs are needed to ensure the protection of biodiversity? Everyone rightly wants more of that: The more diverse an ecosystem, the more likely it is to adapt and survive. "Biodiversity" means the enormous variety of life, and life forms are interconnected: They depend on each other. Where the flora and fauna is reduced to just a few species, there's a domino effect that cuts the number still further.[5]
However obvious, it merits restating: To mix metaphors, when the domino becomes a snowball effect then ecosystems become deserts, even when visibly green. Oil palm plantations carved out of tropical forests are a famous example of lots of trees being planted in an area where biodiversity has been slashed to just a few species. Such plantations are effectively "green deserts."
Putting the propaganda aside, it's impossible to determine scientifically how effective PAs are for enhancing biodiversity. For example, a line drawn around a highly biodiverse area, which is then declared a national park, proves nothing about the park: The biodiversity was there in the first place. There is, however, considerable agreement about one thing, and it's not that PAs are the solution at all.
It turns out that the most diversity is not found in areas where all human interference is banned, but actually the reverse – it's found in places where tribal, indigenous, and other local, communities have stayed put and carried on doing what they've always been doing. It's simply not true that everyone shares responsibility for biodiversity loss. Studies show that community-managed forests have less deforestation than inside PAs, and that "nature" is doing better in areas managed by indigenous peoples than elsewhere.[6] In places as different as Australia, Brazil, and Canada more diversity is found in indigenous territories than in PAs.[7] It seems clear that biological and human diversity are interlinked.
This is a key point which conservation NGOs haven't wanted the public to know as they clamor for yet more cash: Areas managed by local people, especially if they're indigenous, are much better than PAs imposed by outsiders. One study concluded, albeit limply, the "notion that indigenous reserves are less effective than parks… must be re-examined."[8] You can say that again! They are already reckoned to contain no less than eighty percent of global species diversity. That's the very reason conservationists want to take control of them. Indigenous peoples are now being victimized precisely because of their expertise in environmental stewardship.
Even where PAs are hyped as being about preserving iconic species, the evidence is mixed. For example, the former head of a conservation NGO thinks there could be more Indian tigers outside protected areas than inside. No one knows, but what's certain is that when the British colonizers imprisoned the Waliangulu tribal elephant hunters in 1950s Kenya, elephant numbers did skyrocket, but only to plummet when the next drought hit and the herds proved too numerous for the environment. Thousands died of starvation, restoring a balance that the Waliangulu had achieved for generations or millennia. In South Africa, an average of nearly 600 elephants were culled every year from 1967 to 1996 (without publicity, to avoid upsetting conservation donors).[9] Banning traditional indigenous hunting generally harms biodiversity.
Protecting "nature" by fencing it off from the locals simply hasn't worked. It doesn't help that many PAs aren't really protected at all. They include industrial exploitation – mining, logging, plantations, trophy hunting concessions, or extensive, usually high-end, tourist infrastructure – but that's the reality. The locals are thrown out as the land is grabbed by one or other industry, partnering with one or other big conservation NGO.
Like it or not, many PAs are as much about stealing the land from local people to make someone else a profit as they are about conservation. The famous Central Kalahari Game Reserve in Botswana is the second largest "game reserve" in the world but it's also leased to mining exploration. There's a diamond mine, with its roads and heavy machinery, where a tiny handful of the Bushmen who have lived there for generations are occasionally given menial jobs. (The government kicked them out until forced to backtrack by the high court.) As in almost all African PAs, wealthy tourists enjoy luxury accommodation inside the reserve. The man responsible for both the tourism and mine was the former president, General Ian Khama, a much-feted conservationist who was on the board of Conservation International.
This land theft is a problem for us all, and not only because the indigenous people are generally much better conservationists than "us": Not surprisingly, the locals object when their land and self-sufficiency are looted for someone else's gain, and their need for food, and sometimes their anger, translates into defying hunting bans (making them "poachers" for trying to feed their families), as well as taking action to recover their ancestral territory. For example, pastoralists whose herds are banned from private "conservancies" in East Africa are cutting the fences and going back in. They can be armed and violent clashes are increasing. Some researchers fear increasing bloodshed is inevitable[10] and the increasing militarization of conservation will just make things worse. Yet this is the model touted as the future of PAs, one supposedly enacted with the support of local communities (which is often a lie). They're supported by the American NGO, The Nature Conservancy, and are largely profit-making investments aimed at wealthy companies and tourists. They're now taking over huge areas of East Africa and beyond.
Just as Africans extricated themselves (at least, partly!) from European rule in the last century, they are unlikely to accede quietly to what is seen as more colonization, this time by conservationists. Unless things change, PAs in Africa will become real, not metaphorical, battlegrounds. Serious environmentalists know that you can't have a PA for long if it's surrounded by an angry population, yet conservation groups seem incapable of changing their practice. They exhort industry to become sustainable, while promoting their own model, which palpably isn't.
WWF, for example, routinely violates human rights, the law and its own policies. It's already spent millions of dollars illegally pushing for a new park in Congo, Messok Dja. The money comes from WWF itself and its accomplices, including a logging, oil palm, and luxury tourist company, as well as the Wildlife Conservation Society, the U.S. government, the EU, and the UN. As with the creation of almost all African PAs, the first step has been to kick out and terrorize the local Baka (so-called Pygmies) who've probably lived there for thousands of years, and who have adapted and sustainably managed their biodiverse-rich environment. Now they are kept out of their ancestral lands and terrorized, beaten and arrested if they return to seek traditional foods or plant medicines.
This is what the thirty percent of the globe taken for the New Deal for Nature will look like – a third of the globe stolen for profit. It's a new colonialism, the world's biggest land grab, supposedly "green" and supposedly to save the world – a really big lie. As Odette, a Baka woman from Congo, says of such imposed conservation projects which don't work, "We've had enough of this talk of 'boundaries' in the forest. The forest is ours."[11]
The last couple of generations has amply demonstrated that meetings of corporate heads, NGOs, politicians, and celebrities are not going to solve the crises of climate and biodiversity. Those attending are amongst the major contributors to the problems, and least willing to accept any change which might threaten their position. They argue over statements that no one actually applies, or even intends to, and which are replete with clauses ensuring "business as usual." The meetings and declarations attract an enormous media circus, but are akin to the emperor's workshop, with hundreds of tailors busily cutting suits of such rarefied material that they don't cover his nakedness.
Youth exploitation is key to the goal of commodifying nature.
The real answers to the crises of climate and biodiversity lie in an inversion of the current approach, and a rejection of the New Deal for Nature and its failure to understand the relationship between indigenous peoples and nature. If we really want to save our world, then we have to start with the rich cutting their massive overconsumption. The wealthiest ten percent cause about half the world's total pollution,[12] so they must work hardest to cut it. Both military conflict and the growth of information technology must be seen as the major polluters they are. The first is barely mentioned in climate activism, and the plan for the second is the exact opposite of what's needed, with yet more energy-hungry "artificial intelligence" lined up to monitor our lives for the benefit of industry and state control.[13] If we're going to reduce dependence on fossil fuels, we must also reduce dependence on "smart" tech, and we must accept the fact that real solutions aren't found in marketing gimmicks like "net zero," offsetting, carbon markets, or "pricing nature." Real solutions are found with the local peoples that have successfully been creating and managing the world's biodiversity since prehistory.
Humanity as a whole isn't responsible for these problems, one particular sector is, and it's same one coming up with the New Deal for Nature. Those promoting it want to dictate how the rest of the world should live, but they're acting primarily for themselves. Banning human activity from yet more so-called "Protected Areas" is another manifestation of the hubris that got us into this mess in the first place. Local people – those who retain some self-sufficiency, common sense, and connection with their environment – remain the strongest backbone of humanity, even today. They have better answers than the conservation technocrats and other global elites who lack their perspective. Kicking even more of them out at best reduces them to landless poverty and at worst destroys them and the environment. It would be disastrous for everyone.
We should be respecting land rights and encouraging indigenous peoples and other local communities to remain where they are – if they wish – to carry on managing their lands in their own ways, and we must, above all, stop the theft of their territories for conservation. Those who want to, should be maintaining their self-sufficiency, not forced into global markets that profit the polluters more than anyone. We must "give" them back previously stolen lands, to manage themselves. We must listen to them rather than destroying them, as we are now.
Whether this happens remains to be seen. The few voices pointing out that the emperor has no clothes at all, are up against a deafening scream from conservation propagandists and mainstream media, baying that the New Deal for Nature is the perfect solution. Whose voice will prevail depends on people's gullibility and ability to challenge both their own prejudices and powerful vested interests. It's a real battle, and the outcome will determine how much more nature is stolen from this beautiful world we have helped create.
1) WWF Ecological. "2020: let's put nature top of everybody's to-do list." Ecological.panda.org. April 20, 2018. (accessed 13/02/2020)
2) Tollefson, Jeff. "Global deal for nature' fleshed out with specific conservation goals." Nature, April 19, 2019. (accessed 13/02/2020)
3) Baker, Katie & Tom Warren. "The US Government Spent Millions Funding WWF-Backed Forces Accused Of Torture and Murder." Buzzfeed News, September 24, 2019. (accessed 13/02/2020); Baker, Katie & Tom Warren. "WWF Says Indigenous People Want This Park. An Internal Report Says Some Fear Forest Ranger "Repression." Buzzfeed News, March 8, 2019. (accessed 13/02/2020)
4) The estimate for the total global ecosystem services in 2011 is $125 trillion/yr
Costanza, Robert, Rudolf De Groot, Paul Sutton, Sander Van der Ploeg, Sharolyn J. Anderson, Ida Kubiszewski, Stephen Farber, and R. Kerry Turner. "Changes in the global value of ecosystem services." Global environmental change 26 (2014): 152-158. (accessed 13/02/2020)
5) Carrington, Damian. "What is biodiversity and why does it matter to us?" The Guardian, March 12, 2018. (accessed 13/02/2020)
6) Porter-Bolland, Luciana, Edward A. Ellis, Manuel R. Guariguata, Isabel Ruiz-Mallén, Simoneta Negrete-Yankelevich, and Victoria Reyes-García. "Community managed forests and forest protected areas: An assessment of their conservation effectiveness across the tropics." Forest ecology and management 268 (2012): 6-17
7) The study measured vertebrate animal diversity only.
Schuster et al, 2019, Vertebrate biodiversity on indigenous-managed lands in Australia, Brazil, and Canada equals that in protected areas, Environmental Science & Policy Volume 101, November 2019, Pages 1-6
8) Woods Hole Research Center. "Satellites Show Amazon Parks, Indigenous Reserves Stop Forest Clearing." ScienceDaily. www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2006/01/060126200147.htm (accessed February 13, 2020).
9) Dickson, Paul, and William M. Adams. "Science and uncertainty in South Africa's elephant culling debate." Environment and Planning C: Government and Policy 27, no. 1 (2009): 110-123.
10) Letiwa, Paul. "Herders protest as wildlife conservancies drive them out." The Daily Nation, August 18, 2019. (accessed February 13, 2020).
11) Survival International. "We've had enough of this talk of 'boundaries' in the forest." YouTube video, 01:00. 4 Jan 2019. (accessed February 13, 2020).
12) Gore, Timothy. Extreme Carbon Inequality. London: Oxfam. Dec 2, 2015. (The report can be found in Spanish and French at https://www.oxfam.org/en/research/extreme-carbon-inequality) (accessed February 13, 2020).
13) See: Lu, Donna. "Creating an AI can be five times worse for the planet than a car." New Scientist, June 6, 2019. (accessed February 13, 2020).
Berners-Lee, Mike and Duncan Clark. "What's the carbon footprint of … email?" The Guardian, Oct 21, 2010. (accessed February 13, 2020).
[Stephen Corry has worked with Survival International, the global movement for tribal peoples' rights, since 1972. The not-for-profit has a San Francisco office. Its public campaign to change conservation can be joined at www.survivalinternational.org/conservation. This is one of a series of articles on the problem.]
Neo-Liberalism and the Defanging of Feminism, Social Engineering
2020 Super Year Al Gore Commodification Convention on Biological Diversity (CBD) DAVOS Ecosystem Services Emerging Markets IPBES Jennifer Morgan Natural Capital Project New Deal for Nature New Deal For Nature and People Objectification Payments for Ecosystem Services Privatization of Nature Speciesism United Nations Voice for the Planet Wall Street We Mean Business World Economic Forum World Wildlife Fund (WWF)
Campaign Announcement: NO Deal For Nature | Stop the Corporate Capture of the Commons
Illustration: Betrayal, artist Mario S. Nevado
A new international campaign has been launched which alleges the WEF is guilty of spearheading a bid by corporations and financial institutions to "monetize" nature on a global scale.
It is calling on people across the world to hold public meetings, disseminate information, form local campaign groups and "to take whatever action is necessary" to halt the so-called "New Deal for Nature".
An online statement from the "No Deal for Nature" alliance [1], whose slogan is "life is not a commodity", has already won the support of several academics and campaigners.
It warns that "under the guise of environmental protection" a massive exploitation scheme is in fact being drawn up, with the aim of maintaining the current wealth and power transfer from the poor to the rich.
The WEF boasted on its own website that "young climate activists, including Greta Thunberg" would be attending the Davos event in Switzerland from January 21. [2]
WEF stated it would be discussing "how to address the urgent climate and environmental challenges that are harming our ecology and economy" and "how to transform industries to achieve more sustainable and inclusive business models".
However, the WEF also revealed it would be examining "how to govern the technologies driving the Fourth Industrial Revolution so they benefit business". [3]
The package of policies known as the "New Deal for Nature" is being promoted not only by the WEF, but also by the United Nations (UN), [4] the World Bank [5] and the controversial World Wildlife Fund (WWF).[6]
The UN has admitted it wants to "advance a new political agenda" involving "increased promotion of innovative financing that supports green infrastructure". [7]
The new campaign describes this agenda as a "monstrous and unprecedented assault on our living world by the capitalist system".
It warns that nature and humanity alike will suffer, with the threat of "further Indigenous displacement and genocide".
The campaigners conclude: "The NDFN must be stopped. We call on all those who care about nature to speak out now".
[1] http://nodealfornature.org
[2] https://www.weforum.org/agenda/2020/01/davos-abandon-fossil-fuel-economy-climate-change-greta-thunberg/
[3] http://www3.weforum.org/docs/WEF_AM20_Overview.pdf
[4] https://truepundit.com/al-gore-un-officials-team-up-to-push-a-new-deal-for-nature/
[5] https://blogs.worldbank.org/voices/five-ways-help-nature-help-us
[6] https://wwf.panda.org/wwf_news/?339010/A-new-deal-for-Nature-and-Humanity
[7] http://wedocs.unep.org/bitstream/handle/20.500.11822/28333/NewDeal.pdf
CONTACT: nodealfornature@protonmail.com
5 reasons to say "no" to the New Deal For Nature
Conceived of by vested interests. The "The New Deal For Nature" (NDFN) is being drawn up by the world's most powerful corporations, financial institutions, and conservation NGOs, including WWF. WWF has been complicit in human rights abuses for years. At the helm of the NDFN is the World Economic Forum which entered into partnership with the United Nations on June 13, 2019.
Undemocratic. The NDFN is being negotiated without any participation from the wider public. The deal will be concluded at the UN Convention on Biological Diversity (CBD) conference in Beijing in October 2020 without any vote by our local, regional or national parliaments, bypassing full democratic scrutiny.
Represents the corporate coup of the commons. During negotiations on free trade agreements such as TTIP and CETA, we saw how our governments work hand-in-hand with multinational corporations to hand over even more power to big business, privatising more public services. Now nature is up for grabs. Under the guise of taking action on the climate and ecological crises, what the NDFN entails, in practice, is the financialization and privatisation of nature (defined as "ecosystem services", "natural capital", "natural climate solutions" or "nature-based solutions")— global in scale. Assigning monetary value to nature enables industries such as the fossil fuel industry to continue polluting as long as they commit to engaging in net zero activities such as offsetting carbon emissions by planting trees, or by "restoring" nature.
Rescues the very system destroying nature. The NDFN would involve the total transformation of the global economic system to create new markets, thereby salvaging the failing global economic capitalist system that has brought us to the brink of ecological catastrophe.
Harms those best placed to protect biodiversity. The NDFN would threaten the further displacement and genocide of Indigenous and tribal peoples as global corporations and conservation NGOs seek control of their lands to maintain hegemony under the guise of tackling climate change and restoring nature. This represents a new wave of colonisation, for peoples in the Global South in particular.
Further resources to learn more about the New Deal For Nature:
The Manufacturing of Greta Thunberg – For Consent: The Green New Deal is the Trojan Horse for the Financialization of Nature [Volume I, Act V], an investigative report by Cory Morningstar http://www.wrongkindofgreen.org/2019/02/13/the-manufacturing-of-greta-thunberg-forconsent-the-new-green-deal-is-the-trojan-horse-for-the-financialization-of-nature/
The Manufacturing of Greta Thunberg – A Decade of Social Manipulation for the Corporate Capture of Nature [Volume I, Act VI – Crescendo], an investigative report by Cory Morningstar http://www.wrongkindofgreen.org/2019/02/24/the-manufacturing-of-greta-thunberg-adecade-of-social-manipulation-for-the-corporate-capture-of-nature-crescendo/
The Manufacturing of Greta Thunberg – For Consent: To Plunder What Little Remains: It's Going To Be Tremendous [Volume II, Act III], an investigative report by Cory Morningstar http://www.wrongkindofgreen.org/2019/09/15/the-manufacturing-of-greta-thunberg-forconsent-to-plunder-what-little-remains-its-going-to-be-tremendous-volume-ii-act-iii/
The Manufacturing of Greta Thunberg – For Consent: They Mean Business [Volume II, Act IV], an investigative report by Cory Morningstar http://www.wrongkindofgreen.org/2019/09/17/the-manufacturing-of-greta-thunberg-forconsent-they-mean-business-volume-ii-act-iv/
To learn more about the issue of monetising nature: Climate Capitalists, a page created by Winter Oak Press providing links to over 50 resources in various formats and languages https://winteroak.org.uk/climate-capitalists/
Accumulation by Restoration: Degradation Neutrality and the Faustian Bargain of Conservation Finance, an intervention by Amber Huff of the Institute of Development Studies and STEPS Centre, University of Sussex and Andrea Brock of the University of Sussex in the journal Antipode Online https://antipodeonline.org/2017/11/06/accumulation-by-restoration/
Guatemala: Petén at the center of the sustainable development plans of the NGOs, an investigative report by Aldo Santiago in Avispa Midia
https://avispa.org/peten-at-the-center-of-the-sustainable-developments-plans-of-the-ngos/
Guatemala: Carbon, the Metric of Displacement in Petén, an investigative report by Aldo Santiago in Avispa Midia
https://avispa.org/guatemala-carbon-the-metric-of-displacement-in-peten/
Banking Nature, a documentary by Denis Delestra and Sandrine Feydel http://www.wrongkindofgreen.org/2019/10/30/watch-banking-nature/
To learn more about WWF's human rights abuses: WWF Silence of the Pandas, a documentary by Wilfried Huismann
http://www.wrongkindofgreen.org/2013/07/22/watch-wwf-silence-of-the-pandas-a-journeyinto-the-heart-of-the-green-empire/
Victim of the WWF, a documentary by Zembla
http://www.wrongkindofgreen.org/2019/06/04/watch-victim-of-the-wwf-world-wildlife-fund/
ArborGen Artificial Intelligence (AI) Bioeconomy Biotechnology Business for Nature CRISPR Crowther Labs Ecosystem Services ETH Zürich FuturaGene Genetically Engineered Trees International Union of Forest Research Organizations (IUFRO) IPBES Landless Workers Movement Movimento dos Trabalhadores Rurais Sem Terra (MST) REDD The Global Tree Restoration Potential UN FAO
Trees, GE Trees & Nature to Save Capitalism from Itself: New Report
The Campaign to STOP GE Trees
Raleigh exhibit depicts gasoline from genetically engineered trees. photo: Langelle/GJEP
Trees to Solve the World's Problems?
From Genetically Engineered Trees for the Bioeconomy – to the Trillion Tree Proposal and Business for Nature
Tradução para o Português
By Anne Petermann and Orin Langelle, Global Justice Ecology Project
This report examines events and research publicized between 23 June and 4 July 2019 that discuss the mass-use of trees to enable the unsustainable lifestyles of the world's top 1% in the face of looming ecological catastrophe: from trees genetically engineered to feed the "green" manufacture of energy, plastics and chemicals; the planting of trillions of trees to reduce global atmospheric carbon levels; and "reforms" to the economic system to allow future profit-making under the guise of biodiversity protection.
The three events where these proposals were brought out were the International Union of Forest Research Organization's 2019 Tree Biotechnology Conference 23-29 June at North Carolina State University in Raleigh, The Global Tree Restoration Potential, a new study published on 4 July in Science, and the launch of Business for Nature initiatives in China and Norway on 2 July.
IUFRO Tree Biotechnology Conference
The International Union of Forest Research Organizations (IUFRO) held its biennial 2019 Tree Biotechnology Conference over 23-29 June at North Carolina State University in Raleigh. This was the first Tree Biotechnology Conference held by IUFRO since June 2017 when their conference in Concepción, Chile was met with days of protests and disruptions by Mapuche activists, students and others. The 2019 Tree Biotech conference was originally announced to take place in Curitiba, Brazil. It appears that the conference was suddenly moved to Raleigh, North Carolina because of the protests at the last Tree Biotech conference in Chile and the fact that Brazil's Landless Workers Movement, Movimento dos Trabalhadores Rurais Sem Terra (MST), has a long history of being militantly anti-GE tree. [1] NC State was likely chosen as it is the hub for many different efforts pursuing and promoting GE trees, including use of gene-editing on trees, and researching new ways to sell GE trees to a resistant public–a major theme of this year's Tree Biotechnology Conference.
The effects of the 2017 protests could be felt at this year's Tree Biotechnology Conference, which included constant police presence both inside and outside of the venue, pleas to attendees to consider taking over the top three leadership roles in the event, and confusion as to when or where the next conference might take place, and even whether to continue to use the controversial term "biotechnology." The lack of public presence by some of the most outspoken leaders in the tree biotechnology field and leading GE tree company ArborGen, further underscored the anxiety of the event.
While the future of the Tree Biotech Conferences is uncertain, what was not at question was the desire by industry to use specially designed GE trees as a feedstock for the future "bioeconomy", which was addressed in a closing series of presentations. Unlocking the sugars in trees, necessary to transform them into fuels, plastics, chemicals and other products, however, has proven a major challenge. This was reflected in the rising emphasis at the 2019 conference on the genetic engineering technique known as CRISPR. The ecological and social implications of the massive increase in demand for wood to fuel this "bioeconomy" or the risks associated with the GE trees involved, were not addressed.
Rodolphe Barrangou presents on CRISPR Photo:Langelle/GJEP
Rodolphe Barrangou, NC State professor and editor of The CRISPR Journal gave the opening keynote for the IUFRO Tree Biotechnology Conference, highlighting his personal efforts to bring CRISPR and other gene editing techniques into the forestry sector. He referred to human history as "BC" – Before CRISPR" vs "AD – after the death of the other recombinant technologies." He also pointed out that "the [CRISPR commercialization] bottleneck [is] acceptance by regulators and society."
To solve this problem, he envisioned a CRISPR gene editing process that would achieve a "non-transgenic…non-GMO [regulatory] approval." Barrangou feared that if people understood that CRISPR is still genetic engineering, it would be the downfall of CRISPR's commercial success—and make it harder for his new CRISPR startup focusing on developing CRISPR for forest trees to become profitable.
CRISPR would use artificial intelligence and machine learning in forest trees, he explained, to predict what genomes, sequences and pathways to "knock out, turn on, turn off," in order to find the relevant traits of interest to industry. He did, however, admit that CRISPR scientists are "nowhere near understanding tree genomics as well as we understand human genomics due to the fact that tree genomes are so much bigger and more complex."
But the excitement around CRISPR as a new tool to genetically engineer trees was evident at the conference, which included several other presentations on CRISPR in trees, including use of CRISPR to modify tree branching in order to grow trees much more densely in plantations. If implemented, this would have serious repercussions for communities and biodiversity near the plantations, as the existing problems with forced displacements, fresh water loss and inundation with agrotoxins like fertilizers and pesticides would be greatly exacerbated.
This lack of concern about the larger implications and risks of GE trees by researchers has led to decades of global opposition, a fact which was discussed during a lengthy panel session on "Societal Acceptance of Forest Biotechnology." The session was focused on ways to encourage the public to accept GE trees. It opened with a presentation by Jared Westbrook, Director of Science of the American Chestnut Foundation, on using GE to restore the American chestnut—documented as being a "test case" to make GE trees more palatable to the public. The session was focused on ways to encourage the public to accept GE trees. It opened with a presentation by Jared Westbrook, Director of Science of the American Chestnut Foundation, on using GE to restore the American chestnut—documented as being a "test case" to make GE trees more palatable to the public. The second presentation in the session discussed the findings of a survey by Mark Needham conducted to see how to convince the public of the benefits of using GE trees in forest restoration schemes, especially the GE American chestnut. The panel discussion that followed included participation by Westbrook, Needham, GE tree pioneer Ron Sederoff and a representative from GE tree company FuturaGene. The conversation among the panelists and the audience was very candid about the worries around public opinion, the potential for increased regulations on CRISPR, and the ban on GE trees by the Forest Stewardship Council.
The general malaise of the conference continued at its closing dinner, normally a gala celebration, which was without enthusiasm and repeated the pleas for willing volunteers to take over the organizing of future activities.
Trillion Tree Planting Proposal
Less than one week after the close of the IUFRO Tree Biotech Conference, a study was published in Science titled The Global Tree Restoration Potential, projecting the ability to mitigate climate change by the mass-planting of trillions of trees across the globe. [2]
The study, developed by Crowther Labs and ETH Zürich, with the help of the UN Food and Agriculture Organization, was hailed as a miracle cure for climate change—the surefire solution to allow dominant culture to continue uninterrupted by ecological collapse. The study, however, is fraught with unanswered questions and serious red flags. One major flag is the study's reliance on the UN FAO's definition of forests, which is any area 10% covered by trees, and does not exclude monoculture tree plantations–despite repeated calls by forest protection groups to do so. According to the World Rainforest Movement, the FAO definition "discards other life-forms as well as the biological and cultural diversity that define a forest while ignoring the social and environmental impacts of plantations." [3]
What this means is that the trillion trees being promoted could easily include vast monocultures of non-native trees, or even GE trees, due to the FAO's intentionally overbroad definition of forests. [4] This fact is confirmed by a decision made at the 2003 UN Climate Conference in Milan that GE trees could be used in forest carbon plantations.
Another serious flag is the involvement in this study of researchers linked to the UN's program to Reduce Emissions from Deforestation and Forest Degradation (REDD). [5] The REDD program has been actively opposed by Indigenous Peoples and forest dependent communities since its inception. REDD schemes take over forested lands to "protect" (and sell) the carbon they store—and have resulted in the forced displacement of communities that live in those forests. [6]
Because the trillion tree proposal repeatedly refers to generating tree cover "in the absence of", or "with minimal" human activity on 1.7 billion hectares, it could easily result in mass-displacements of rural, poor and Indigenous communities from those lands.
An additional problem with the study comes from its math. The authors admit that the 300 gigatons of carbon projected to be stored by these trillion trees will not be realized until the trees are mature, which could take decades. [7] Meanwhile 10Gt of C02 are being emitted annually. [8] Particularly in boreal forest zones, a major emphasis of the study, trees grow very, very slowly. Add to this the study's lack of interest in the increasing rate of destruction of existing critical forests that is occurring—such as the 88% rise in deforestation rates in Brazil's Amazon over the past year [9] –and it reads more like a fairy tale than a serious recommendation for mitigating climate change.
Trees as the Engine for a Green Future of Consumption
While seemingly at odds, both the Crowther Lab study on vastly expanding global tree cover to store carbon, and the proposal by GE tree researchers to vastly increase demand for trees by genetically engineering them to replace fossil fuels for the industrial production of everything from electricity to plastics, fall in the same false worldview where the mass-use of trees becomes the path to a "clean, green future". Both are, at their essence, cynical and opportunistic schemes to avoid real, fundamental social, economic and political change in order to enable overconsumption as usual in the face of overwhelming evidence that rapid and fundamental changes at all levels of society must be undertaken—a call that has been taken up by the National Academies of Sciences [10] and the UN Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. [11]
Business for Nature?
Along with these false solutions to climate change emerged another subterfuge to use forests and the natural world to accelerate profit-making under a "clean, green" veneer. On 2 July, a Business for Nature scheme was announced simultaneously at a World Economic Forum meeting in China and Norway's Trondheim Conference on Biodiversity.
The idea is not new. In 2008 in Bonn, Germany, the UN Convention on Biological Diversity (CBD) launched its own Business and Biodiversity Initiative that included models for marketing environmental services, the Business and Biodiversity Offsets Programme (BBOP), The Economics of Ecosystems and Biodiversity (TEEB), and a new Green Development Mechanism. [12]
The Business for Nature initiative, however, is renewing the scheme using the urgency of ecological crises, as evidenced by its website headline Nature Loss is Threatening Our Economies–Urgent Actions and Collaborations are Needed. [13]
The opening of the site lists statistics on the "massive loss of nature" while studiously avoiding any indication as to the causes, which have been driven by the very belief underpinning the initiative, that humans are somehow separate from "nature." The site highlights the Global Risk Report which "identified environmental risks as among the greatest systemic risks to our global economy," adding that "only nuclear war would be more destructive."
In the twisted logic of the Business for Nature scheme, "nature protection" is unironically promoted as "essential for prosperous business," including the activities that have led us to this ecological crisis–i.e. ongoing natural resource extraction.
The grand finale of their proposal highlights the "significant opportunities" (massive profits) to be made from protecting the "ecosystem services" of nature:
"$2 trillion in opportunities in food and land system transformation alone
$22.6 trillion opportunity for water infrastructure by 2050
THE OCEAN ECONOMY ESTIMATED TO BE WORTH $2.5 TRILLION PER ANNUM"
In its pledge to forests, it touts a massive 'reforestation' campaign, along with a commitment to REDD, and the "elimination of deforestation by 2030" which would magically be achieved with no plan to reduce demand for wood products.
In fact, the future of "green business," fueled by a bioeconomy, requires a huge increase in wood consumption.
CRISPR to Manufacture the Perfect (Unregulated) GE Tree?
And this is where the Tree Biotechnology Conference, The Global Tree Restoration Potential and Business for Nature may overlap is through the genetic engineering technology known as CRISPR. [14]
The overall impression from the IUFRO Tree Biotechnology Conference was that scientists and industry are banking on emerging technologies like CRISPR and a rising demand for wood products and designer GE trees to meet the future market for forest health, climate mitigation and the bioeconomy.
Would CRISPR be used as part of the trillion tree effort? Will it be used to genetically engineer trees to be specially adapted to particular biomes? Or to withstand climate change, insect attacks, or other stresses?
There are uncomfortable connections between the work to create genetically engineered CRISPR trees and the Trillion Tree study. ETH Zürich in Switzerland, home of the Crowther Lab that led the study, for example, is considered one of the best biotechnology schools in Europe. In March it awarded the Richard R. Ernst Gold Medal to Emmanuelle Charpentier, one of the scientists who discovered the CRISPR gene editing tool, and sits on the Editorial Board of The CRISPR Journal with Barrangou. And Crowther likes to boast that his lab includes experts in geospacial mapping, remote sensing and genetic techniques. It is easy to see where genetically engineered CRISPR trees could fit into the scheme to cover the planet in carbon sucking GE trees that could be then cut down and pulped, chipped or digested into sugars to feed the insatiable and unsustainable demand for building materials, energies, plastics, etc. The demand which has fed the global economy and has helped lead us to the brink of disaster.
Except for the European Regulation on Gene Editing
During the IUFRO Tree Biotechnology Conference panel on societal acceptance of GE trees, researcher Wout Boerjan, of the Ghent Institute in Belgium, a long-time campaigner for the deregulation of GE trees, discussed his fears about the EU decision to treat gene edited trees and other organisms the same as other GMOs. "If gene editing falls under the GM regulation, many new companies will not start. There are many new ideas based on CRISPR/CAS and they can only develop into a company if it's not going to be so expensive to bring these products on the market. So, if you have a new edited plant and you need to go through the regulatory system, which is extremely expensive, these small companies cannot afford it and the product will not come to the market, so the whole innovation in Europe will just fall flat." [15].
Miron Abramson, of GE tree company FuturaGene, responded that he was less concerned about gene editing perceived as GMO, "So we will treat it as GE and I don't see any disadvantage or advantage in this case, but just another tool."
A Voice of Experience Offers a Word of Caution
But the Tree Biotechnology conference was not without its cautionary voices. On the societal acceptance panel, Professor Ron Sederoff, considered the father of tree biotechnology, remarked that, "There are people who are kept up at night worrying about this technology and I might be one of them. One opponent of GE technology, David Suzuki, makes an argument that is widely considered that science shouldn't be trusted with new technology. That science does things that are inherently dangerous and we don't know what to expect, and I think that's the core of his argument. But I agree that that's right. There are people who simply have a fear of new technology, and I think they have a good reason. Looking back on human history, there has been misuse of every major technology that has been invented…We haven't even thought about the potential for the misuse of the technology that we're talking about. But I think it's there…I think that there are worries, and I think that CRISPR, for example, poses a threat because it makes things [that exist outside of the law] and if you could do anything you want to and you were malevolently inclined, you might be able to take pathogens that affect people or ecology or forests and [use CRISPR to combine their traits] and make new things. I think there are things to worry about." [16]
Transformation not Reformation: Join the Resurgence!
Global Justice Ecology Project (globaljusticeecology.org), coordinating body of the international Campaign to STOP Genetically Engineered Trees, (stopgetrees.org) is issuing this report and critique of the 2019 IUFRO Tree Biotechnology Conference, the Trillion Tree Campaign and Business for Natureinitiative because of our commitment to expose ecologically and socially destructive false solutions that enable business as usual. This is a step in our work to help create a movement that can fundamentally transform political, social and economic systems in order to address the multiple ecological crises threatening the future survival of humans and millions of other species.
For this reason, we are also co-organizing The Resurgence: 2019 North American Forest & Climate Movement Convergence, 11-14 October in the Shawnee National Forest of Southern Illinois. This strategic action session, open to forest and climate activists, organizers and others is aimed at uncovering root causes of the ecological crises we face and developing new strategies to address them. (For info: forestclimateconvergence.org)
To protect forests and communities from the impacts of climate catastrophe, we must actively opposeunjust market-based and profit-oriented false solutions to climate change, such as those described above. If what is proposed as a solution to catastrophic climate change jeopardizes other people or ecosystems it cannot claim to be just or sustainable.
To keep forests intact, we must fundamentally transform the dominant political and economic systems and transition to small-scale, local and traditional systems.
We can clearly see the result of the dominant political and economic system in the form of climate and other crises, including loss of fresh water and arable land, ocean collapse, mass-extinction and extreme weather, as well as escalating human rights abuses including forced displacements, migrations and genocide.
These systems cannot be simply reformed. We must organize to fundamentally confront and transform them. Even the generally conservative National Academy of Sciences agrees. A paper they published on 6 August 2018 concludes, "[A] Stabilized Earth trajectory requires deliberate management of humanity's relationship with the rest of the Earth System if the world is to avoid crossing a planetary threshold. We suggest that a deep transformation based on a fundamental reorientation of human values, equity, behavior, institutions, economies, and technologies is required." [10]
For information on how to join this effort for systemic transformation, visit The Resurgence: 2019 North American Forest & Climate Movement Convergence http://forestclimateconvergence.org
[1] CTNBio Meeting to Approve GE Trees Cancelled – FuturaGene Taken Over (2015) https://stopgetrees.org/victory-ctnbio-occupied-meeting-cancelled-no-approval-ge-trees/ and see Interview with a Militant of the MST (2017) https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4GeqRRM7A5s&list=PLJIqsEBkCVM2edxllRUp2a0zTwPI0CMjq&index=4&t=561s
[2] The Global Tree Restoration Potential (2019) https://science.sciencemag.org/content/365/6448/76
[3] For decades, World Rainforest Movement and others have demanded that the FAO change its forest definition, which "reduces a forest to any area covered by trees. In doing so, the FAO definition discards other life-forms as well as the biological, cyclical and cultural diversity that define a forest in its continuous interconnection with forest-dependent communities. FAO's reductionist definition also allows the companies behind tens of millions of industrial fast-growing plantations to claim their monocultures are 'planted forests'. Countries' forest statistics thus count these fast-growing industrial monocultures as 'forests', in spite of the well-documented social and environmental impacts such plantations have caused around the world." In 2009, WRM explained, "the definition of forests is not an academic or linguistic discussion: it is a political issue having serious social and environmental consequences at the ground level. Defining plantations as forests empowers the corporate sector – particularly plantation companies – and disempowers local communities opposing them to protect their livelihoods. The FAO continues playing this role by refusing to change its definition." https://wrm.org.uy/wp-content/uploads/2018/03/Compilaci%C3%B3n-21-de-Marzo-2018-EN.pdf
[4] Use of the FAO definition means that "reforestation" efforts could easily become tree monocultures, or even GE tree plantations, since there is no official difference between them. While the Crowther Lab distances itself from the question of monocultures in its online follow up [https://www.crowtherlab.com/tree-restoration-potential-qa/] use of the FAO definition of forests means monocultures cannot be avoided. And at the FAO's World Forestry Conference in 2009 in Buenos Aires, sessions addressing reforestation, afforestation, forest restoration, sustainable forest management, and net zero deforestation all advocated the planting of tree monocultures.[http://climate-connections.org/2009/10/23/world-forestry-congress-or-how-i-learned-to-stop-worrying-and-love-plantations/]
[5] National Forest Monitoring and Information Systems for a transparent and truthful REDD+ process (FAO) https://www.researchgate.net/project/National-Forest-Monitoring-and-Information-Systems-for-a-transparent-and-truthful-REDD-process-FAO
[6] Sky Protector Briefing Paper https://skyprotector.org/2018/08/19/sky-protector-briefing-paper-8-2/ also see the film A Darker Shade of Green, REDD Alert and the Future of Forests https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FPFPUhsWMaQ and
REDD-Monitor's Offsetting fossil fuel emissions with tree planting and 'natural climate solutions': science, magical thinking, or pure PR? https://redd-monitor.org/2019/07/04/offsetting-fossil-fuel-emissions-with-tree-planting-and-natural-climate-solutions-science-magical-thinking-or-pure-pr/
[7] "Of course, the carbon capture associated with global restoration could not be instantaneous because it would take several decades for forests to reach maturity. Nevertheless, under the assumption that most of this additional carbon was sourced from the atmosphere, reaching this maximum restoration potential would reduce a considerable proportion of the global anthropogenic carbon burden (~300 GtC) to date." (1). The global tree restoration potential https://science.sciencemag.org/content/365/6448/76
[8] According to the Global Carbon Project: https://www.co2.earth/global-co2-emissions
[9] Brazil: huge rise in Amazon destruction under Bolsonaro, figures show, The Guardian, 3 July 2019 https://www.theguardian.com/world/2019/jul/03/brazil-amazon-rainforest-deforestation-environment
[10] Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, August 2018: Trajectories of the Earth System in the Anthropocenehttps://www.pnas.org/content/115/33/8252
[11] "Limiting global warming to 1.5°C would require rapid, far-reaching and unprecedented changes in all aspects of society. With clear benefits to people and natural ecosystems, limiting global warming to 1.5°C compared to 2°C could go hand in hand with ensuring a more sustainable and equitable society," Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change Summary for Policymakers https://www.ipcc.ch/2018/10/08/summary-for-policymakers-of-ipcc-special-report-on-global-warming-of-1-5c-approved-by-governments/
[12] The Green Shock Doctrine, p. 4 https://globaljusticeecology.org/green-shock-doctrine/
[13] Business for Nature website: https://businessfornature.org/
[14] CRISPR is a gene editing technique in which CRISPR and the RNA segments and enzymes it produces are used to identify and modify specific DNA sequences in the genome of other organisms https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/CRISPR
[15] 2019 IUFRO Tree Biotechnology Conference session on "Societal Acceptance of Tree Biotechnology" (Quote found at 49:47)https://mediasite.wolfware.ncsu.edu/online/Play/f9f72a14f48f4b4bb5a58222979e4afd1d?catalog=b9038d70a4ff49dbaab35ddc1a25705821
[16] 2019 IUFRO Tree Biotechnology Conference session on "Societal Acceptance of Tree Biotechnology" (Quote found at 1:28:04)https://mediasite.wolfware.ncsu.edu/online/Play/f9f72a14f48f4b4bb5a58222979e4afd1d?catalog=b9038d70a4ff49dbaab35ddc1a25705821
[The Campaign to STOP GE Treesis a national and international alliance of organizations that have united toward the goal of prohibiting the ecologically and socially devastating release of genetically engineered trees into the environment. Global Justice Ecology Project coordinates, administrates and fundraises for the campaign. World Rainforest Movement, based in Uruguay, is the Southern Contact for the Campaign and has materials in English, Spanish and Portuguese.]
350.org / 1Sky, Amnesty International, Avaaz, B Team [Managed by Purpose - the PR Arm of Avaaz], Greenpeace, Pacifism as Pathology, Social Engineering, Whiteness & Aversive Racism, World Resources Institute, World Wildlife Fund (WWF)
BECCC Carbon Capture and Storage (CCS) Extinction Rebellion Greenpeace IPBES Pacifism as Patholgy Social Engineering The Financialization of Nature World Wildlife Fund (WWF)
Extinction Rebellion Training, or How to Control Radical Resistance from the 'Obstructive Left'
"New Power" – "The ability to harness the connected crowd to get what you want"
– Jeremy Heimans, co-founder Purpose/Avaaz, B Team Expert
Above: XR local coordinator training document. Diagram: The "US" circle on the top signifies Extinction Rebellion. The middle circle identifies "mostly obstructive" political activists ("hard left") that must be bypassed in order to reach the bottom circle. The bottom circle represents the non-political citizens, the target audience of XR.
Extinction Rebellion (XR) officially launched on October 31, 2018. On November 2, 2018, a video was uploaded to the Extinction Rebellion YouTube account. The video documents the training session held by XR co-founder Roger Hallam: "This was filmed at the Extinction Rebellion Local Coordinator training in Bristol. Roger Hallam explains some the key dynamics of building a mass movement from the level of personal resilience to creating system change."
Here, it is critical to remind oneself, that this is the XR mass organizing model for the mobilization of a global citizenry. Consider between the official launch on October 31, 2018, in the UK, to December 6, 2018, it grew to over 130 groups, across 22 countries. By January 29, 2019, the Extinction Rebellion groups spanned across 50 countries. On April 27, 2019 XR reported they were nearing 400 branches globally.
The global expansion is being led by Margaret Klein Salamon [Source], founder of The Climate Mobilization, who launched the Extinction Rebellion US Twitter account on October 31, 2018 – the same day as the launch of Extinction Rebellion in the UK. The Extinction Rebellion demands are not only complementary to The Climate Mobilization's emergency strategy now in motion; they are a mirror image of it with the slogan, "Tell the Truth". [Further reading: The Manufacturing of Greta Thunberg – for Consent: The House is On Fire! & the 100 Trillion Dollar Rescue, ACT IV]
Training the XR Local Coordinators
Above: Extinction Rebellion co-founder Roger Hallam
During the training session, Hallam draws a chart with three circles. The small circle on the top signifies Extinction Rebellion – people that want to get things done. The middle circle is quickly identified as the contentious one. This circle identifies the "mostly obstructive", highly political, a "hard left", which must be bypassed in order to reach the bottom circle. The bottom circle, the largest in size, represents the non-political citizens, the target audience of XR: "The people who're shitting themselves and want something to be done but aren't highly political." [Source: XR Local Coordinator Training]
Hallam:
"I'm just going to finish on something that's a bit of a taboo subject, okay? But it's another major issue you're going to find when you organize, which is difficult, political people.
Okay, so I'm going to do a little chart here.
You usually find, like most of us people in this room, that are really political, but we're really practical because we want to get some things done. Okay?
And then below us, in inverted commas, there's another group of people that are really political and don't want to get things done, because they're so political. (lots of laughter). I will separate those people out in a minute.
And then below that, this is like a thousand times bigger, they really want to do something well there actually not political, you see what I mean.
These people really want to get things done. Then they go down here and try to involve these people, and these people basically grind it to death."
Hallam speaks of the dangers posed by the "extreme hard left" viewpoints, "extreme intersectionalism" ("we need to be all perfect and that sort of stuff"), extreme desire for diversity, "extreme veganism", etc. His examples are deliberately misleading and ridiculous. His mention of anarchism provokes more laughter.
Hallam concedes "and often they're right" yet has zero interest in empowering this group to further empower the bottom "non-political" masses targeted by XR. Rather, his aim is to recruit the ones that can be persuaded into adopting pragmatism, while silencing those that refuse to conform.
In the Rebellion business, ethics isn't a driving force, rather it is a detriment:
"Look, all the most effective movements have a central concept and that concept is balance. Balance the pragmatic need and the ethical imperative to change society versus the need to be eternally ethical."
The message is clear – target the practical and pragmatic. Distance yourself from the self-centered "purists".
"They're [the 20%) not actually interested in political effectiveness. They're interested in a political approach that makes them feel good."
Although XR claims, "We are working to build a movement that is participatory, decentralised, and inclusive" – this runs in stark contrast to XR's own conduct:
"The name of the game is to bypass these people, or at least recruit the little bit of them that get it … and go down here. And that's how we've managed to mobilize thousands of people in three months. By having a public meeting. And if the public meeting is constructed around participative principles, you won't have the SWP [Socialist Workers Party] guy standing up at the end. Everyone's feeling good and he does a rant about how it has to be socialist, otherwise it's rubbish. Which brings everybody down. It happens over and over again. And how we do that, we don't have a Q & A. Q&A's encourage nerdy people and absolutists, (laughter), we all know this, right? I mean you can have a Q&A if you're super confident and you're in a group of people that are generally like, in the real world, but if you have a public meeting 8o% of the people will be normal people, who are basically interested in the issue, and 20% of the people will be political absolutists. And they will there to appropriate your energy."
And this ideology upheld by Hallam is the very foundational ideology being taught, encouraged and nurtured by Extinction Rebellion. Hallam: "This is how you mobilize lots of people."
This , in essence, forms the key strategy of Extinction Rebellion. To isolate radical voices and to dominate the narrative. While targeting the non-practical and pragmatic. A narrative and an orchestrated campaign that serves the ruling class. To give a faux sense of inclusion, while mocking those who have, first and foremost, an allegiance to the Earth. Framing those who recognize that the very capitalist system destroying all life on our finite planet, will not and cannot be magically reformed to save us, as "political absolutists". As Hallam effectively frames those identified in the middle circle as not "normal", he seeks assurances from his students by ending sentences with a pleasant "yeah?" and "okay?", at which point – largely due to the power of conformity in a group setting – they agree. Laughter ensues. There is no challenge to Hallam's diatribe. The deliberate framing of those that do not conform as "obstructive" is effective social engineering.
Although Extinction Rebellion takes no position against capitalism, Hallam has no issue with taking a swipe at socialism. Using the Mondragon experiment in Spain as an example, Hallam explains that the central concept must be balance, "not socialism or anything".
These are the main points captured by/for the XR Local Coordinators:
"They're [the middle group] not interested in political effectiveness, they're interested in things being perfect and good. This is not a personal judgment, but it won't help."
The majority, to be herded like cats (GCCA/TckTckTck – Global Call for Climate Action) are "[T]he people who're shitting themselves and want something to be done but aren't highly political."
"Don't have a Q & A. This allows the extreme people who want it to be one way to bring everyone else down."
"80% are normal people [and] 20% political absolutists. There to appropriate your energy."
"It's not about climate change information, it's about the emotional way that we say it – needs to create that emotional response, personal reactions are incredibly powerful."
For XR leadership, the enemy of Rebellion is not corporate dominance such as Unilever or Volans (as recently confirmed by XR Business). The enemy of Rebellion is not the capitalist economic system devouring everything in its path. The enemy of the Rebellion is the radical activist, prepared to defend the Earth "by any means necessary".
Pacifism as Pathology
"In certain situations, preaching nonviolence can be a kind of violence. Also, it is the kind of terminology that dovetails beautifully with the 'human rights' discourse in which, from an exalted position of faux neutrality, politics, morality, and justice can be airbrushed out of the picture, all parties can be declared human rights offenders, and the status quo can be maintained." — Arundhati Roy, How to Think About Empire
Hallam recommends to his students that they study: "The Psychology of Persuasion", "The Radical Think Tank" ("How to Win"), and "This is an Uprising" by Mark Engler (with glowing forewords by 350.org's Bill McKibben and Naomi Klein).
Here, is another orchestrated and ongoing effort to further pacify the working class in servitude to the state. One would be wise to toss "This is an Uprising" and instead read "Bloodless Lies: Book Review of This is an Uprising" (November 7, 2016). This is an excellent example of what those enmeshed in the non-profit industrial complex do not want you to read.
Rather than educating citizens why it is paramount that we become revolutionaries in order to protect the last vestiges of the natural world, Hallam encourages his newly-minted coordinators to embrace the role of "generalists". [XR Generalists: "run meetings, be good with people, know how society changes, etc.; Revolutionary theorists – hard work is already done!; Books to read – This is an Uprising (Mark Engler)"] [Source]
The Elites in Service to Capital
As touched upon in the conclusion of the Manufacturing Greta Thunberg for Consent series, ACT VI, Extinction Rebellion ties to some of the world's most powerful NGOs at the helm of the non-profit industrial complex (Avaaz, 350.org, Greenpeace et al.). A largely white-led movement serving white power.
XR co-founder Gail Bradbrook, is also highly influential with decade-long ties to the tech industry. In his workshop, Hallam chuckles when he laments, "Like Gail, she's got these connections with the elites. She's on the phone with George [Monbiot]". Bradbrook's "connections with the elites" is no exaggeration. Featured in "The Financial Times", the prestigious publication writes of Bradbrook: "Clad in a crimson coat and matching hat as she dashes between fundraising discussions with a London hedge-fund owner and meetings to rally Extinction Rebellion volunteers…" Indeed, "activism" has never been so en vogue, and a £50,000 donation by a hedge-fund owner to Extinction Rebellion [Source], raises no eyebrows whatsoever. It is safe to say that the hallowed out remnants of Western environmentalism have reached a new stage of commodification and normalization of such. This is not rebellion. This is business. Of course Bradbrook is not the only elite at the helm.
Above: Farhana Yamin at the prestigious Extinction Rebellion headquarters [Photo: Vice]
Farhana Yamin is "one of the movement's leading voices" in Extinction Rebellion (Financial Times). Yamin who "spent 27 years in UN climate negotiations" and "helped midwife the 2015 Paris Agreement to curb greenhouse gas emissions" serves as a board member/trustee to Greenpeace. [Source: The rise of Extinction Rebellion, The Financial Times, April 12, 2019]
"Yamin, the international lawyer, who is also a trustee of Greenpeace UK and will soon take up an advisory role at the World Wildlife Fund, wants to build a bridge with existing organisations to forge a much bigger "movement of movements". "We need to tap into the new form of leadership that's being asked of us now," she says. [Source: "Extinction Rebellion, inside the new climate resistance", The Financial Times, April 10, 2019]
Former Vogue "climate warrior" (2015), Yamin is the founder and CEO of Track 0: "Track 0 is an independent, not-for-profit organization serving as a hub to support all those transitioning to a clean, fair and bright future for future generations around the world compatible with the goals set out in the Paris Agreement. We convene leaders and provide strategic research, training, advice, communications and networking support to governments, businesses, investors, philanthropies, communities and campaigns run by civil society."
Partners of Track 0 include GCCA (TckTckTck), CAN (Climate Action Network), Avaaz, ClimateWorks (The Climate Group, We Mean Business), The Rockefeller Foundation, E3G (founder of GCCA), The Prince of Wales Corporate Leaders Group, European Climate Foundation and Chatham House. [Full list]
Advisory members of Track 0 include Sharon Johnson, "CEO Havas Media Re:Purpose". This is incredible yet not surprising as Havas created the 2009 TckTckTck campaign a decade ago. Other advisory members include Betsy Taylor (served on boards of One Sky which merged with 350.org, Ceres, The Climate Mobilization, etc.), and Bernice Lee, Director, Climate Change at World Economic Forum.
One can glance through the Track 0 "Individuals & Organizations on Track" section to understand who is considered "on track" for "net zero" by Yamin et al. Certainly not those obstructionists found in Hallam's middle circle.
In addition to founding Track 0, Yamin is an associate fellow at Chatham House and a member of the Global Agenda Council on Climate Change at the World Economic Forum.
Above: Track 0, Twitter
Yamin served as an adviser to the European Commission on the emissions trading directive from 1998-2002, later serving as special adviser to Connie Hedegaard, EU Commissioner for Climate Action. "She is lead author of three assessment reports for the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change on adaptation and mitigation issues. She continues to provide legal, strategy and policy advice to NGOs, foundations and developing nations on international climate change negotiations under the UNFCCC." [Source]
As discussed in "A Decade of Strategic and Methodical Social Engineering", while the International Policies and Politics Initiative and GCCA controlled the "movement" at COP15, the same forces also controlled the message via the Carbon Briefing Service (CBS). The news service was launched by Jennifer Morgan (WWF, WRI, Greenpeace,etc.) and Liz Gallagher (E3G) in late 2014 with additional funding by the ClimateWorks Foundation, the Hewlett Foundation, the Oak Foundation, the Villum Foundation and Avaaz. [Source] Yamin was a participant of the invitation only group. [Source]
In 2015 Yamin attended a week-long retreat hosted by Avaaz. [Source]
Those who have read my past work as well as the Greta series, will know Greenpeace and World Wildlife Fund are both founders of GCCA (TckTckTck) – and are both at the helm of this faux movement. These NGOs and others at the helm of the non-profit industrial complex are tasked with creating another "Paris moment" momentum needed for the coming financialization of nature to be implemented in 2020 (#NewDealForNature) – as well as the unlocking of monies needed for the fourth industrial revolution (to save capitalism itself).
Above: Avaaz endorsement by Christiana Figueres [Source: Avaaz website]
Above: Track 0 highlights, September 24, 2014
Here we witness the social-organizational psychology experts grooming tomorrows "new champions", "global shapers" and "new power" "thought-leaders" as determined and ultimately dictated by the world's most powerful elites. In the 21st century, psychology is not only an extremely important tool in influencing public opinion, it is now considered to be perhaps the single and most important tool. The necessity to comprehend the mental processes, desires and social patterns of the populace at large cannot be understated. Working in lock-step with controlled media and the best marketing executives foundation money can buy, today's faux activists, thought-leaders and media lapdogs are the very mechanisms of modern-day perception. – The Pygmalion Virus in Three Acts [2017 AVAAZ SERIES | PART II]
[Further reading: The Manufacturing of Greta Thunberg – A Decade of Social Manipulation for the Corporate Capture of Nature, ACT VI – Crescendo]
In 1966, Stokely Carmichael stated: "And that's the real question facing the white activists today. Can they tear down the institutions that have put us all in the trick bag we've been into for the last hundreds of years?"
This is the real question facing legitimate activists today. Are we tearing down the institutions, or keeping them propped up? Extinction Rebellion has been tasked with the propping up of the very institutions we must dismantle. There is a reason manufactured "environmentalists" and celebrities are recognized as key influencers. It is a deliberate undertaking that Hallam recommends "Rules for Revolutionaries" (based on US Senator Bernie Sanders's presidential run), rather than highlighting true revolutionaries such as Marilyn Buck, Malcolm X, or the land defenders on the frontlines today. The ones who often receive no press (until they are murdered). The ones that would belong to Hallam's middle circle. It is a burying of radical political resistance. A reframing of resistance – into an obedient compliance. Note that Rules for Revolutionaries is written by Zach Exley, current advisor to US congresswoman Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez. It is notable that praise for the book, from a bevy of authors includes Robert B. Reich, author of Saving Capitalism.
The influencers for the ruling classes are worth their weight in gold.
We Mean Business – Top Ten Climate Change Influencers, Twitter
British actress/celebrity Emma Thompson, Extinction Rebellion festivities, April 19, 2019
Emma Thompson for Global Optimist. The Climate Optimist campaign was launched in 2017 by The Climate Group in partnership with Futerra
Emotion – Not Information
Another critical imperative Hallam highlights for mass mobilization is "emotion – not information". Hallam laments that the people who will lead the "rebellion" will be young people:
"The last thing to reiterate is the emotion – not the information … so the people that are going to lead this rebellion are going to be young people, 14 & 15 year olds …omg – a 14 year-old is in tears, right?, on television, about what's happening…"
Thus, a key strategy for XR was (and continues to be) "How to engage with younger people – youth mobilisation, talks in schools/colleges, figuring out how to engage on 'youth' social media." [Source]
We Mean Business is ecstatic over the climate strikes. As is Christiana Figueres.
Figueres, an anthropologist, economist and analyst having studied at London School of Economics and Georgetown University presided over the negotiations that led to the 2015 Paris Agreement. For this achievement Ms. Figueres has been recognized as "forging a new brand of collaborative diplomacy". With almost four decades of experience in multilateral negotiations, high-level national and international policy, coupled with extensive involvement in the corporate/private sector, in 2016, TIME magazine named Figueres one of the 100 most influential people in the world.
Today, Figueres serves as vice-chair of the Global Covenant of Mayors for Climate & Energy; member of the board of directors of ClimateWorks; World Bank Climate Leader; B Team leader, leader of Mission2020 ("exponential transformation" focusing on six sectors that will play a key role in municipal governments and "Green New Deals"); and board member of the World Resources Institute.
Christiana Figueres (top right corner) podcast series: It's Going To Be Tremendous
When the oppressor and the oppressed find themselves cheering as one, this is indeed "tremendous" for the elites. Yet, as the designs of the ruling elites take hold, which is already well under way, we will soon recognize that the citizenry themselves were grossly manipulated to usher in a nightmare that would only further their own demise.
[Further reading: So who exactly is Christiana Figueres?]
Above: The We Mean Business newsletter, April 30, 2019
April 30, 2019: "Welcome to the April edition of the We Mean Business coalition newsletter…Amid fresh waves of protests demanding accelerated climate action, more and more businesses and policy makers are stepping up and delivering the level of systemic change required to meet the goals of the Paris Agreement."
We Mean Business – "a coalition of organizations working with thousands of the world's most influential businesses and investors." The founding partners of We Mean Business are: Business for Social Responsibility (BSR) (full membership and associate members list), CDP (formerly the Carbon Disclosure Project), Ceres, The B Team, The Climate Group, The Prince of Wales's Corporate Leaders Group (CLG) and World Business Council for Sustainable Development (WBCSD).
The Climate Group was incubated by Rockefeller Brothers Fund as an in-house project that later evolved into a free-standing institution.
Together, these groups represent the most powerful – and ruthless – corporations on the planet, salivating to unleash trillions of dollars for the fourth industrial revolution. This, coupled with the financialization of nature, will create new markets, reboot global economic growth, and most importantly, rescue the global economic capitalist system that is destroying our biosphere.
We Mean Business, February 20, 2019: "People are desperate for something to happen." Twitter
Christiana Figueres, B Team Leader [Source]. The B Team is a founder of We Mean Business
Emotion To Mask Information: BioEnergy Carbon Capture Storage
"The Institute has a unique and unrivalled membership including governments, global corporations, private industry and academia. Amongst its representation, are the governments of the United States, the United Kingdom, China, Japan and Australia, and multinationals such as Shell, ExxonMobil, Toshiba, Kawasaki and BHP." — The Global CCS Institute, website
In the May 3, 2019 Extinction Rebellion newsletter (#20), the subject line reads "Parliament meets our first demand!" In the body of text: "There's plenty of more obvious good news, though – most prominently Parliament's declaration of climate and environment emergency." What XR does not share with the public is that the UK CCC climate legislation was a victory for the carbon capture and storage (CCS) industry. In similar fashion to the financialization of nature, carbon capture legislation and projects are making huge strides behind closed doors – with zero opposition.
Global CCS Institute, May 2, 2019, Twitter:
"The Institute welcomes @theCCCuk report, which recommends that the UK commits to cutting its greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions to net-zero by 2050 and highlights the crucial role #carboncapture and storage needs to play to achieve this goal. #NetZeroUK #climateaction"
A zero emissions industrial civilization is not possible. For the continuance of industrial civilization, CCS is a necessity. This is the promise of unabated business as usual. The future of energy will be dominated by the burning of our remaining forests, coupled with CCS. Akin to the depleted uranium left for future generations to contend with, CCS will inject the increasing CO2 into the ravaged Earth. This is the gift to be left to Greta Thunberg and the youth she inspires. A gift to span generations.
More than this, "net zero" does not mean zero emissions. And it never did. Yet another inconvenient truth is that 'The terms 'net zero emissions' and 'carbon neutrality' are interchangeable. This is the beauty of language and framing.
"Carbon Neutral is a term used to describe the state of an entity (such as a company, service, product or event), where the carbon emissions caused by them have been balanced out by funding an equivalent amount of carbon savings elsewhere in the world." Carbon neutrality is most often sought/achieved through carbon offsetting (purchasing offsets, trading and projects).
Question by Richard Branson's The Elders NGO to Farhana Yamin (2014): How is carbon neutrality different to 'net zero emissions'?
Answer by Yamin: "The terms 'net zero emissions' and 'carbon neutrality' are interchangeable."
Q: Global News, Dec 3, 2018: What is net-zero emissions?
A: Catherine Abreau, executive director of the Climate Action Network: "In short, it means the amount of emissions being put into the atmosphere is equal to the amount being captured."
Militarism – as one of the key drivers of climate change, ecological devastation, and death of millions, remains a non-issue. The global "green new deals" guarantee further imperialism and an escalation in wars. These realities have been deliberately and successfully removed from the conversation. They are buried in the 20% circle with the purists.
"The evidence makes it clear. CO2 needs to be removed from the atmosphere, known as carbon dioxide removal (CDR), using negative emissions technologies (NETs) to meet global warming targets. Bioenergy with carbon capture and storage (BECCS) is emerging as the best solution to decarbonise emission-intensive industries and sectors and enable negative emissions." — March 14, 2019, Bioenergy and Carbon Capture and Storage, The Global CCS Institute
"[F]or BECCS technology to be truly effective in reducing CO2 emissions, massive tracts of arable land need to be cultivated and these are not always available, or easily utilised." — The Global CCS Institute
Emotion to Mask Information: The Financialization of Nature
The next phase for the implementation of the financialization of nature commenced April 29, 2019 with the IPBES Global Assessment gathering (the IPCC for Biodiversity).
The "first global biodiversity assessment in 14 years", will be released on May 6, 2019, with the expected "summary for policymakers" section. We can expect a top "scientific endorsement" for a full package of financialization of nature policy tools, including global metrics for valuation, commodification and offset schemes.
The five-day gathering was held last week at the UNESCO Headquarters in Paris, ending on May 4, 2019.
There were no protests.
Above: John Elkington: Co-founder of Volans, B Team expert (founded by Richard Branson, The B Team is a co-founder of We Mean Business), member of the WWF Council of Ambassadors, and Extinction Rebellion Business signatory (along with Gail Bradbrook, co-founder of Extinction Rebellion)
Together, these deals read like the biggest land grab since Britannia ruled the waves. This is the big deployment of measurement and financial instruments that the corporate sector, finance and ruling classes have developed. Every little bit of sequestration will be used to further satisfy natural capital ambitions under the guise of climate protection.
The public face of this grotesque undertaking are the campaigns "New Deal For Nature" and "Voice For The Planet". These are being led by WWF – co-founder of GCCA. The NGOs comprising the GCCA have played the lead role in orchestrating the global mobilizations for climate change over the past decade, in full servitude to their funders.
The "Voice For the Planet" is especially egregious, as it is presented by the World Economic Forum "Global Shapers" youth group.
The gross exploitation of youth for capital expansion rivals only the gross exploitation of Indigenous peoples. The appropriation and utilization of Indigenous imagery to promote market solutions is long documented.
The world's most powerful corporations and NGO partners appropriate Indigenous culture imagery for emotive branding as they unleash and uphold market "solutions" which further displace Indigenous peoples. They undermined the 2010 Indigenous led People's Agreement and then buried it. They speak of Indigenous protection – while they actively promote "green" marketing schemes and "green new deals" that will further displace Indigenous peoples. That will further accelerate the ongoing genocide of Indigenous Peoples.
Promotional illustrations/video for Green New Deal by Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez, Naomi Klein and Avi Lewis for support of the New Green Deal
They exploit the global youth to steal the natural world the beneath their feet.
They exploit the love for nature – to further enslave nature.
As GCCA co-founder WWF aids and abets Indigenous displacement, beatings and deaths, under the guise of conservation, GCCA partners are silent. This is the normalizing of a continued colonization repackaged under the guise of conservation and "green".
Industrial civilization – is the enemy of the natural world. We defend industrial civilization – or we defend the planet. This is the choice. The question is, which side are we on?
And the answer to that question is perhaps the most terrifying thing of all.
"No One Believed in Capitalist Schemes and Promises Any More" part of the new "Scenes from the Revolution" series. Acrylic on canvas, 30″x30″, Artist: Stephanie McMillan
"Trees don't grow on money – or why you don't get to rebel against extinction", by Tim Hayward
Climate Capitalists, by Winter Oak Press
"This Changes Nothing, The Paris Agreement to Ignore Reality", by Clive Spash
Video: Selling Extinction, by Prolekult
Between the Devil and the Green New Deal
"New Power" – "The ability to harness the connected crowd to get what you want" – Jeremy Heimans, co-founder Purpose/Avaaz, B Team Expert
"Net Zero" Biodiversity Carbon Markets Extinction Rebellion IPBES Natural Capital Natural Capital Coalition Offsets Payments for Ecosystems Services (PES) The Financialization of Nature
Trees Don't Grow on Money – or Why You Don't Get to Rebel Against Extinction
Tim Hayword
Money doesn't go on trees, and although people can make money out of trees, they cannot make trees out of money. This much may seem platitudinous, but it is worth keeping in mind.
What is true of trees is true of the natural world as a whole, including the human beings that are part of it. Nature is real; money is an abstraction. If money seems real that is because our institutions and practices are so deeply premised on beliefs in it. There is an important sense in which those institutionalized beliefs – in crediting it with a certain value – make money real; but it is not real in the way the natural world is real. If a bank goes bust, if a whole economy crashes, the social upheaval that follows may be immense, but life goes on – people will pick themselves up and start again (and some people, meanwhile, will likely have found a way to profit from it!). By contrast, if a species goes extinct, if an ecosystem collapses, then there is no prospect – certainly not on human timescales – of a recovery. The threat of extinction to our own species is the ultimate threat.
Extinction Rebellion has given publicity to critically important concerns of our time – the ecological crises as exemplified by dangerous climate change and biodiversity loss.[1] But it also gives rise to some perplexity.
A circumstantial puzzle is how an apparently spontaneous social movement of protest comes to have the energetic backing of big business interests and even to receive notable support from influential sections of the corporate media.
On deeper reflection, what does it even mean to stage a rebellion against extinction? Rebellions usually involve a group of people rising up to protest or overthrow another group that wields unjust or illegitimate power over them. How can you 'rebel' against extinction? It is not as if you can choose to disobey the laws of nature.
The website that asserts the copyright © Extinction Rebellion, states certain demands directed at government.[2] The moral clarity of their seemingly simple message, however, could be deceptive.[3]
Two key demands are: "halt biodiversity loss and reduce greenhouse gas emissions to net zero by 2025."
These may sound like goals that any ethically rational person could wholeheartedly endorse, and yet, as a recent critical study by Cory Morningstar has demonstrated, what their pursuit entails does not necessarily correspond to what people might imagine.[4]
First, reducing greenhouse gas emissions to net zero does not mean eliminating emissions, or even necessarily reducing them at all. It refers to the possibility of engaging in other activities to offset them. The offsetting may be accomplished by various means of technological fixes and/or accounting innovations, but what these means have in common is that they will be profitable to engage in. As was made explicit some years ago in the influential Stern Review of climate economics, a policy approach allowing emissions offsetting creates great opportunities for businesses and the financial sector.
'Capital markets, banks and other financial institutions will have a vital role in raising and allocating the trillions of dollars needed to finance investment in low-carbon technology and the companies producing the new technologies.' (Stern 2006: 270)
'The development of carbon trading markets also presents an important opportunity to the financial sector. Trading on global carbon markets is now worth over $10bn annually'. (Stern 2006: 270)
By attaching a price to carbon, a whole new commodity is created over which the distribution of rights represents a new income stream. So it's good for shareholder profits, but what about nature? How confident can we be when its protection relies on a new multi-billion dollar market involving the same people responsible for the global financial crisis?
The other key goal, to halt biodiversity loss, sounds like one that should not allow wriggle room for profiteers to game it. And yet, consider for a moment how one might propose – even with the best and purest of intentions – to bring biodiversity loss to a halt. The sheer extent of activities around the world that are undermining habitats and ecological systems is so great and complex, it is hard to conceive what exactly could and should be done, even given determined political will to do it. The proposed policy in reality, therefore, is not literally to stop doing everything we are currently doing that compromises biodiversity. Instead, it once again centres on putting a price on the aspects of nature that market actors attach value to. The premise is that if we accept it is not possible to halt the destruction of biodiversity in some places, it is still possible to protect and even re-create biodiversity in others. Thus, just as with carbon emissions, the ideas of substitution and compensation play a pivotal role: biodiversity loss may not be literally halted, but it can be offset.
And how is biodiversity loss to be offset?[5] Here comes the familiar move: in order to weigh the loss in one place against a putative gain in another they must be subjected to a common scheme of measurement. Biodiversity being something of value, the way to record how much value any instance of it has is taken to be by reference to monetary price. Hence we learn that 'biodiversity conservation and the related concept of "natural capital" are becoming mainstream. For instance, the Natural Capital Coalition is developing the economic case for valuing natural ecosystems and includes buy-in from some of the biggest players in business, accountancy and consulting. And the financial industry is moving toward more responsible investing.'[6]
Yet this unidimensional quantification of value completely disregards the point that biodiversity is a complex and quintessentially qualitative phenomenon. It is of the essence of biodiversity that its biotic components and their environments are diverse. Being diverse means being different in ways that cannot be reduced to the measure of a single common denominator. Hence the essence of biodiversity is an irreducible plurality of incommensurables. The idea of 'compensating' for loss of biodiversity of one kind by the protection or enhancement of biodiversity of another kind elsewhere means disregarding the very meaning of biodiversity.[7]
The idea of biodiversity offsets, then, does not have its rational basis in ecological concern but in the expansionary logic of capitalist profit seeking.
A rebellion that really has any prospect of fending off disaster for our biosphere and ourselves needs to be based on a proper understanding of who and what needs to be rebelled against.
Extinction Rebellion publicity material says that it is apolitical. Yet there is nothing apolitical about the real struggle that is required for people to seize the power currently concentrated in the hands of plutocrats. And to those who say – rightly – that ecological issues are greater than mere politics, it may be responded that this is why we cannot let it be "dealt with" by those who currently so misuse their political power.
Asking governments to enact policies that corporate and financial backers are lining up to draw massive profits from is not what the people protesting against impending ecological disaster have in mind. It needs therefore to be clear that you can't actually protest against disaster. You need to take on those who are driving us towards it. So you need to know who they are and how they are doing it. It's a good idea to look carefully at who is shaping the demands you are being enlisted to make, and what exactly they entail.
[1] For other, less discussed but no less significant problems, see Rockström et al. (2009).
[2] Why they are directed at government without reference to the central role of powerful corporations is not completely obvious, and nor is the reason why the site also says the protest is 'apolitical', a question to be returned to.
[3] We humans, especially the worst off – and not even to mention members of other species we share the planet with – certainly have powerful reasons for concern at the ecological crises being provoked by our collective global exploitation of the biosphere. But what "we" can do about that is nothing like as clear.
In fact, there is no "we" that can act as a collective. There are multifarious different people, groups, tribes, classes, and nations that have competing interests. "We" are not organized to respond in a concerted, ethical and rational manner.
On the other hand, a very small group of people – who alone command as much of the world's aggregate resources as half the rest of the world's population put together – is very well coordinated. At the highest levels of corporations and financial institutions they hold great power. With their immense wealth comes control over those – including politicians, journalists and various "thought leaders" – who exercise greatest influence over publics. Their power to manipulate public perceptions vastly exceeds most people's awareness of it.
So we – ordinary members of the public, whether old or young – can protest and engage in symbolic actions and go green in aspects of our lifestyle, yet to real little effect. In our heart of hearts we may know this, and yet we may still believe it important to try and to act as we think all should. So when the makings of a real social movement appear, we energetically embrace the opportunity it appears to present for making some more noticeable impact. Hence the enthusiastic welcome of Extinction Rebellion, in which school kids and pensioners have united around the moral and existential cause.
But what sort of 'rebellion' is it that is conjured into action by a consortium of corporate-backed organizations and given extensive positive coverage in the corporate media? The commitments and beliefs of the multifarious individuals and groups on the ground are various and sincerely held, and they do tend to converge around something like the headline goals stated in the publicity material ©Extinction Rebellion. But the exact goals being endorsed focus on two very specific demands: "halt biodiversity loss and reduce greenhouse gas emissions to net zero by 2025." And in this post I am arguing that it is very easy to be misled into thinking these capture what we really want to achieve, whereas in reality they may in fact capture our acquiescence in the further extension of corporate power over the natural world and our own lives.
[4] Morningstar's set of six articles makes for somewhat demanding reading, and her purposes have sometimes been misunderstood or misrepresented on the basis of apparently rather casual perusal. Certainly, this has been noticeable in comments on Twitter, so I tried to distil some of her key points, without her detail or her critics' distractions, in a Twitter thread: https://twitter.com/Tim_Hayward_/status/1120748645069021185
[5] Some useful introductory sources are World Rainforest Movement: http://www.wrongkindofgreen.org/tag/green-economy/; Clive Spash 25 minute talk: https://vimeo.com/33921592; and the collection of material here: http://naturenotforsale.org/author/berberv/
[6] Richard Pearson, 'We have 15 years to halt biodiversity loss, can it be done?', The Conversation, 26 Oct 2015 https://theconversation.com/we-have-15-years-to-halt-biodiversity-loss-can-it-be-done-49330.
[7] For a pithy presentation of the basic ideas here see the short video 'Biodiversity offsetting, making dreams come true' https://vimeo.com/99079535.
Rockström, Johan et al. (2009), 'A Safe Operating Space for Humanity', Nature 461: 472–75.
Stern, Nicholas et al. (2006), Stern Review: The Economics of Climate Change, London: HM Treasury.