 |
| Why isn't Extinction Rebellion Aotearoa calling for system change, not climate change? |
This week some activists from Extinction Rebellion Aotearoa declared their support for the Government's climate change polices which propose that the country is carbon neutral by 2050,
even though the 2018 report from the Intergovernment Panel on Climate Change says we have no more than twelve years to effectively tackle climate change before we reach the point of no return.
IT WAS JUST A month ago that New Zealand school students joined students around the world in boycotting their classrooms to call for urgent action on climate change. But, while the intentions of our Kiwi students were sincere and to be applauded, the protest was effectively kneecapped by the organisers. The list of 'demands', tucked away on the website, were hardly demands at all and actually agreed with the Labour-led government's present course of action to be supposedly carbon neutral by 2050.
This was hardly represented the urgency that the students were demanding, but they were probably unaware that the protest action had effectively been
kneecapped long before they left their classrooms. As NZ Herald columnist Rachel Stewart observed;
'This is the dead hand of liberalism and green capitalism trying to stifle a youth rebellion like those overseas which are clearly heading for 'system
change'. The youth will catch up fast when they realise they have been played.'
Unfortunately, within the mainstream media and in most of the blogosphere and social media, Rachel was a lone voice in her criticism. Meanwhile the corporate-friendly
Climate Change Minister was able to enjoy a few photo opportunities with the students. But James Shaw, the Labour-led government and the Green Party are not part of the solution. They are part of the problem. Their timid and
woefully inadequate response to climate change, revolving around the fantasy a 'green capitalism' , is a real obstacle in the way of effective action against climate change.
Is it any wonder that a month after the student protest, nothing has changed? Last week, at a conference sponsored by IAG Insurance, James Shaw was telling
representative of the business sector about how they could 'adapt' to climate change while maintaining those all important profit margins.
 |
| Green MP Chloe Swarbrick meets members of Extinction Rebellion NZ. |
Even Greenpeace has objected to the target of carbon neutrality by 2050 as inadequate. But its criticism is undermined by the fact that, just like the
Government it is criticising, it continues to peddle the fiction that we can 'manage' climate change through the appropriate mix of market-led policies. When the call should be for system change not climate change, Greenpeace
wants to tinker with the system just a bit more.
Unfortunately this dangerous view appears to have struck Extinction Rebellion NZ as well. Although there are a diversity of views within the fledgling movement
the most prominent one appears to be the one that supports the Government's current climate change policies. This week members of Extinction Rebellion cycled from Waiheke Island to Wellington in 'support of the Government's
climate change policies' (the words of one activist). They were met on the steps of Parliament by Green MP Chloe Swarbrick, who no doubt enjoyed the publicity.
Extinction Rebellion, in its own defence, says 'it is not supporting any politics and policies that don't move towards carbon neutrality and system change
fast enough for the coral reefs and Arctic ecosystems to survive'.
It says it wants to see full carbon neutrality by 2030 but it appears that some of its activists are contradicting the message. Since Extinction Rebellion NZ doesn't have its own policy manifesto - I was referred to the policy demands of Extinction Rebellion UK - the confusion is not surprising.
It says it wants to see full carbon neutrality by 2030 but it appears that some of its activists are contradicting the message. Since Extinction Rebellion NZ doesn't have its own policy manifesto - I was referred to the policy demands of Extinction Rebellion UK - the confusion is not surprising.
And while they might claim to be supporters of 'system change' you will struggle to find any public statement to that effect. It is certainly not at the front and centre of its campaigning. Not by any stretch of the imagination can Extinction Rebellion NZ be descried as an anti-capitalist organisation although Extinction Rebellion NZ says some of its members are ecosocialists.
The failure of Extinction Rebellion to adopt a radical platform means it remains vulnerable to being co-opted by the Labour-led Government and its supporters.
It is not surprising that it says a number of activists are also members of the Green Party. No wonder then, that an establishment politician Chloe Swarbrick feels comfortable associating with it.
If Extinction Rebellion NZ ever wants its arguments to carry any force, it needs to start consistently campaigning on a platform of 'system change, not
climate change.' Anything less is not good enough.
I'm glad I'm not alone. Rachel is good value on climate as well as feminism and to my mind they're very much related issues most likely the gaming of both is likely the result of exceptional profiteering of oil over the last 80 years or so (the most profitable business ever).
ReplyDeleteNZ itself suffers from a lack of democracy (as the 4 estates basically work together), a conformism enforced by many who are unable to think (let alone for themselves) and a jealousy based on a lack of talent in the media (and academic) pool). Oh and its transparency ranking is a farce. But that's for elsewhere.
I blogged this on XR (I'm kind of new to blogging);
http://wifoo.co.nz/2019/04/20/extinction-rebellion-uk-and-nz-a-contrast/
Coming back to this in regards to the Arctic there's no hope. It's literally toast already. No human action is going to stop the process of its collapse (but that does not mean that we should not take action). Global warming there is at an accelerated rate and its already lost a significant part of its extent. If there's no significant summer storms in the Arctic then in my view it may last until the end of the 2020s. If there is a major storm then it's probably gone. Most of the predictions for the end of summer sea ice range from 2020 to 2039. Once it's gone then winter sea ice won't be far behind as it relies on multi-year sea ice and there is none if it's all melted during the summer. Of course melting sea ice has little impact on sea level rise (thermal expansion excepted) so most of humanity is not noticing this catastrophe (non-polar sea life is though as it's in the process of taking over from arctic species). There is also the major issue that Arctic sea ice is a major reflector of the sun's solar radiation whereas sea water just laps it up (albedo). This process is then what is referred to as a feedback loop.
ReplyDeleteInterestingly I went to a discussion organised by Dunedin XR with Mike Joy last night at the University of Otago. None of the activists that were part of that Andersons Bay 'action' were there as far as I could tell (albeit I may not have recognised a few of them). So one of NZ's pre-eminent ecologists in a discussion organised by their own group and they didn't show (there were a few others from the group there). I'm not sure if that indicates anything......
BTW it was an interesting discussion.