On bikes, conference calls and placards

I want to talk a little bit about my own trajectory working with environmental groups and I thought that a good way of framing this discussion would be to talk a little bit about the recent protests that happened for the international day of climate action, on Oct. 24.

I don't know how many of you are familiar with what happened but a large group of youth had gathered in Ottawa over the weekend for Powershift, an environmental and climate justice conference. There were trainings and sessions on the green economy, political lobbying, indigenous solidarity, and environmental and climate justice, to name a few.

And on the Saturday, there was "fill the hill", where over 1,000 people went to parliament hill to send a message to our elected officials saying that we care about climate change and that we want an ambitious and just climate agreement coming out of Copenhagen this december. It was a cold wet day but people came out, spirits were pretty high. There was a flash dance, there was a nice tcktcktck! visual. All in all, a pretty solid event.

Media coverage : nada.

On the following Monday though, a bunch of people were still in town and went to Question Period. Between 100-200 youth in the galleries participated in a spontaneous protest. At first individuals yelled out "Sign Bill C-311" and "Climate Justice", with security escorting them off, one by one, and then, the whole bunch started chanting in unison. The group called on MPs to bring back C-311, to stop the tar sands, and to sign the Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous People. The usual yelling from the floor came to a halt and Question Period was interrupted as all the youth were escorted out.

I'm going to assume you're not all familiar with C-311 because, well, it's legislation.
C-311 is the Climate Change Accountability Act, it's a bill that sets targets for Canada, targets that scientists and policy experts have recognized as crucial if we want to make any progress on bringing down our greenhouse gas emissions and try to avoid what could dangerous climate change. This is a profoundly important bill. (And I don't want to get into bill gossip, but this bill was first introduced in 2006 and it made its way through the House, but when elections are called, as they were in 2008, all the bills, everything, dies. We say they "die on the order paper" so even though MPs voted in favour in 2008, for political reasons, they won't vote for it now, in 2009)

Now I don't know if many of you have been to question period, but I work on the hill so I more or less have to watch it everyday and there's a reason why it's called "question period" and not "question and answer period". MPs heckle one another, no questions are really answered and very few questions are actually asked in good faith. So the "disruption" that came from the galleries didn't really hinder the democratic process or stop any important discussions from happening. That's not the point though.

The point is that when so-called "appropriate" tactics and avenues, such as the legal (read: legitimate) Fill the Hill demonstration, are not recognized or validated or even heard by governments and policy-makers, more radical approaches and tactics emerge.

Myriam Smith wrote about this in her book "civil society" in writing about state terrorism, but I think it's just as relevant here.

In other words, our democratic system can't, on the one hand, carve out a specific/limited space for group participation in decision-making and, on the other hand, ignore groups when they follow those rules. There has to be reason and incentives to follow rules. If there aren't, you have yourself a sure fire way to force groups to radicalize.

So, why am I talking about this?

Because I'd be interested in hearing your thoughts on that, so I'd love for us to talk about it when we get to the discussion, but also because this question of tactics and approaches is, I think, a really important one.

I did my m.a. in political sociology so I've seen a lot of diagrams and typologies and theories that oppose different kinds of groups.. the soft greens and the hardcores, or the lifestyle people and the direct action people.. Some of these labels and binaries are useful, in the way that an ideal type is useful, but from my experience they can also impede cooperation. In my own work I found that using the category "exemplary" and the category "adversarial" was quite useful.

For example, the groups that are more concerned with being an example of an alternative, like an eco-village, would be exemplary, as in, an example. A group that works directly to exert influence on an organization or a government, like a union, would be adversarial.

Here's where I tell you a bit about my trajectory (but I promise I'll come back to this.)

I've been interested in environmental and social justice issues since high school and got involved in a more active way through different community groups as an undergrad.

When I started my m.a. I found a great advisor who was down with me taking off for the summer to take part in an activist theater bike tour along the sunshine coast in BC. So part of my fieldwork was sleeping in tents and churches with 18 other youth from across the country. We pedaled our way through small communities to talk to kids about sustainability and lighter ecological footprints. I did this with the Otesha project which you may have heard of.

This group was all about community building, about being the change (as opposed to advocating the change), about imagining what we can create when we think and live outside the box.

When the bike tour ended, I went back to my thesis and to more "adversarial" environmental work.

I needed to do this because as much as I think it's important for my politics to be reflected in my lifestyle, these problems are structural. The climate isn't changing because we're using the wrong lightbulbs, or because people insist on using plastic bags -- those don't help, don't get me wrong -- but there are systemic, structural issues that we need to deal with. (and the same is true with other social justice work)

I was on the executive committee of the sierra youth coalition. SYC is responsible for the sustainable campuses program, for summer and winter youth action gatherings, and for special projects (organized by members/volunteers) like the "to the tar sands" bike tours, the climate change caravan, and the deconstructing dinner bike tour.

I was also involved with the Ottawa chapter of the Canadian Youth Climate Coalition (CYCC-forgive the acronyms), doing actions around Ottawa like the "funeral for the future" where we mourned the end of winter, earth day celebrations, and fossil fools day on april fools. (These groups would be more adversarial than exemplary)

This kind of direct action is, in my books, über important, but it can wear me down a bit. The current government is very conservative when it comes to climate and social policy. The current political climate leaves loads to be desired for an eco-kid.

So while I continue to be involved in that kind of work, I need to be able to live the alternative as well, which for me, means being involved in different community projects. There's screenprinting collectives, food co-ops, community potlucks, bike co-ops. Initiatives that make you feel in a concrete way what it is you're working towards.

That being said, having spent this time working against the system, I'm now in the parliamentary internship program which means that, for 10 months, I work in parliament with 2 different MPs, one in opposition, one in government. Right now I have the pleasure and honour of working with Linda Duncan, MP for Edmonton-Strathcona and the NDP environment critic. I get to work on Bill C-311, on the tar sands and water quality study, and learn how the House works.

It's an awesome program, you have incredible access and there's a bunch of study trips, you should definitely check it out. And if you have any questions, please ask.

Finally, with Andrew and about 30 others, I'm headed to Copenhagen for the climate talks in about 2 weeks time, but I'm going to let Andrew, one of our awesome policy experts tell you more about that.

Before concluding, I just want to come back to the question of tactics for a minute.

In my opinion, there's way too much animosity between folks who adopt different approaches to activism. And it's something I've struggled with since I've worked with and believe in a variety of tactics. It's heartbreaking to me when folks working for social and environmental justice can't work together. And let's be frank, it doesn't matter which end of the spectrum you're working on, your tactic won't work if it's the only one.

I hope you'll humour me.. I'm going to finish with one of my favourite quotes. It's by Derrick Jensen.

"i need to be clear that it's not up to all of us to dismantle the system. not all of us need to take down dams, factories, electrical infrastructures. some of us need to file timber sale appeals, some need to file lawsuits, some need to work on rape crisis hotlines, and some need to work at battered women's shelters. some need to help family farmers or work on other sustainable agriculture issues. some need to work on fair trade, and some need to work on stopping international trade altogether. some need to work on decreasing birth rates among the industrialized, and some need to give all the love and support they can to children (i've heard it said that the most revolutionary thing any of us can do is raise a loving child).

one of the good things about everything being so f*cked up -- about the culture being so ubiquitously destructive -- is that no matter where you look - no matter what your gifts, no matter where your heart lies -- there's good and desperately important work to be done. know explosives? take out a dam. know how to love and accept children, how to teach them to love themselves, to think and feel for themselves? that's what you need to do."

--Derrick Jensen, endgame, vol. 1 the problem of civilisation, 2006, pp.97-8.

Comments