A movement for people and the world.

“There is no satisfaction whatever at any time. There is only a queer, divine dissatisfaction, a blessed unrest that keeps us marching and makes us more alive than the others”.

-          Martha Graham quoted in Blessed Unrest by Paul Hawkin

How do I sum up my first experience of COP into a measly blog post? Does the complexity of language used, action seen, colours viewed, emails exchanged, conversations had, thoughts entertained over the past two weeks even lend itself to being described? I now sit, post-Durban, in front of my computer screen and try to envision what I want to say.

I had wanted this post to summarise nicely what happened in Durban. Did the nations agree, what was the impact of us being there? However, my experience of COP was too complex, too volatile. It can’t be described simply. At times over the last two weeks I found myself wondering, why am I doing this? Am I making an impact? Dangerous thoughts weaselled their way into my brain, challenging my dedication and impact in the world. What if I’m misguided in my struggle and could concentrate my energy more productively to making the world a better place?

Maybe I felt this way because it was almost impossible to quantify what my being there actually achieved. There are so many people. So many youth. So many vegetarians. So many loud voices. So much enthusiasm. At the same time, there is intense fragmentation. Different claims. Different solutions. Different organisations. Different approaches.

Many people who I’ve spoken to about the experience agree when I describe the paradox of COP17: it felt so fragmented, so complicated, but at the same time, the reason we were all there seemed so simple: we want to address climate change, to stop the damage we’ve already done.

On the last Friday of COP17 I took part in a demonstration. After a clash with some UN police and last minute phone calls to ensure that we had “permission” for our event: Wearing our “Green Police” overalls, we walked backwards, holding signs which asked “why are we going backwards?”. The ridiculousness of the last two weeks seemed nicely symbolised by that action. It was innocent and simple, and our message was clear. But even to do it – to walk backwards – we were caught up in a chain of bureaucracy, layers of protocol; so much so that we were confined to one area, a time limit, and what we were allowed to do.

Does COP feel like an impossible task because of the way in which environmentalists, youth, and even well-meaning politicians are restricted by bureaucracy, by the “politics of knowledge”? And if so, what does this mean for our fight: do we continue, do we fly all the way to Qatar next year? And if so, what do we achieve?

Despite these questions, which still need a lot of mulling over in my head before I attempt to answer them, I can say this: COP made me realise that I am part of something big, something fundamental. The environmentalist movement spans all levels of thought, social injustice, political ability and articulation. It spans all races, ages, occupations. There’s something profoundly human about it, some recognition that we’re not doing stuff as well as we could, and a deep desire to change that.

And if for all the fragmentation of the movement, we’re relentlessly working towards something better, then, well: I’m in.

“Then finally,
we opened the box, we couldn’t find any rules.
Our heads were reeling with the glitter of possibilities, contingencies...
but with ever increasing faith we decided to go ahead and just ignore them,
despite tremendous pressure to capitulate with fate”

-          The Books, Smells like Content

C17 in pictures

Because it's been incredibly busy the last few days, this post is just some visual updates on the civil society events happening around COP17.

"Occupy COP17" happens every day outside the ICC at lunchtime. The objective is to re-claim the space in which the negotiators making descisions for the 99% are based. Usually there is a general assembly followed by working groups on various topics.

At the Rural Woman's Network press conference. Struggle songs with "iClimate Change" added.

 

Fellow COY friends discuss issues affecting their future in the discussion of an African Youth Charter for climate change

Busy at the civil society: advertising a banner-making session for youth at C17

Kumi Naidoo speaks on the importance of youth at a Greenpeace evening function on the beach.

The power of the youth.

Day 3 of COP17 was a very limited day for me. As part of the University of Cape Town delegation at the conference i was required to work at the universities information booth. Because of this i was unable to attend any plenary sessions (official negotiating sessions). The extended time in the booth did however allow me the opportunity to think about a few questions that seemed to be on the minds of many of the youth at the conference.

This question dealt with the thought of whether the youth presence at the conference actually made a difference. As an member of a youth organisation at the conference my voice and involvement falls under YOUNGO, the UNs official youth representatives. Any and all interaction is done through this body. A result of this YOUNGO was my direct link to the secretariat and how i interacted with them. This 'at arms length' perspective meant that there was a decidedly biased impression put forth to the youth. Do not misunderstand me, i do see the reason for this segmented system. What it brought to my attention was the fact that any and all actions planned, any opinions given or any discomfort felt by the youth with official negotiations was diluted and censored by those who represented YOUNGO.

The long stretches of time also brought the following to my attention. If opinions of the represented youth were so watered down, what actual difference do they make? The official answer to this question is that all views are considered and taken into account, but the real answer is far less politically correct. Honestly this soapbox given to the youth is simply to keep them quiet. If any sort of negotiations came down to it would the executive take the side of a wealthy business which funds them or a handful of tree hugging kids? which side would you take? This cynical view clouded most of the day and resulted in not much actually being done.

Inbetween my working periods of great cynicism i did get the opportunity to take part in a session which looked into the various funding sources of coal mining and electricity generators who make use of coal to generate their electricity. This session brought to light many injustices around the world along with many other it highlighted circumstances in India where in many mines it was reported that there are children as young as 8 who work underground in the coal mines. This session perfectly showed the duality that is the climate change debate. On one hand there are coal mines who destroy the environment and reap massive rewards for this unbridled greed. Yet it is those same coal mines who employ tens of thousands of people and in turn provide a livelihood for hundreds of thousands more. This need for balancing between the environment and the economy could noted as one of the major causes for the delay in climate negotiations.

Experiences from the “People’s Space”: C17

8am, Howard College, 28 November 2011. I arrive at Howard College once again, following the weekend of madness that was COY7. Set up on the hill, spatially and symbolically far from the COP17 proceedings at the ICC, it felt strange to be on the side of civil society whilst Juli and Nick (along with Jacob Zuma) were down in the official space below.

Expecting to find the C17 more organised than the weekend, we were surprised to find the campus a hub of disorganisation – the programme and events were unclear, and the “youth space” which we headed to eventually was spectacularly empty. I couldn’t help but feel a sigh of disappointment. I could just imagine the politicians in their protocol-controlled sessions tut-tutting and saying, “typical”.

But despite this, we eventually stumbled upon a joint Eskom-UJ working group for youth on “Paradoxes of climate change: the green economy and sustainable development”. The delegates in the working group were actually there as part of a programme which will spend the next 10 days of COP working on this problem: addressing a workable solution to the “green economy” question. After the craziness of the first few days of COY, which – while amazingly educational – were pretty ideological and complex, finding ourselves in a space which was not only talking about the actual issues at hand but actually doing something about it was a great breath of fresh air. 

After taking part in this workshop, I started to understand a bit more about what the C17 space is about: providing workable solutions to the issues at hand. And as much as politicians feel indignant about the civil society’s disorganisation, so do many NGOs about what the “Conference of the Polluters” achieves, because they are actually already working out solutions to the issues at hand, but don’t have the political support needed to make larger changes.

And during this event, which is like a “global brainstorm” about a world-wide problem, one has to ask, why is there division between those thinking about what happens on the ground and those doing stuff on the ground?

To some extent, the fact that there is a separate “people’s space” to the “negotiator’s space” for COP17 points to a larger, more subtle problem. The separation of political rhetoric and what actually happens on the ground seems to be the status quo everywhere. Why is this? And could addressing this start to solve the political deadlocks and lack of progress over the last 16 COPs?

The Meaning of Activism

"This is the largest social movement in all of human history. No one knows its scope, and how it functions is more mysterious than what meets the eye. What does meet the eye is compelling: coherent, organic, self-organised congregations involving tens of millions of people dedicated to change."  - Paul Hawken in Blessed Unrest.

 I'm writing this after making a giant polar bear head. True - after googling "climate change activism", creating a wire frame, some sketches, and some fluffy white material later - I'm the owner of my own polar bear. In stitches of laughter, I ramble around the house. My sister is sceptical. "Is this what COP17 is really about?" she sighs, clearly embarrassed at my antics.

"Of course! If you're serious about protesting about climate change, you have to dress up as a polar bear!" I laugh, ironically. But it's a good question: What the hell does dressing up as a polar bear mean in protesting about climate change? How does the average African citizen relate to such an expression, if at all? 

Indeed, polar bears and melting icecaps - which have somewhat characterised the environmentalist movement in the past - have little relevance for personifying the movement in Africa. Still, there’s something special about getting ready to be part of the global “climate camaraderie” around COP17. Wearing a polar bear outfit seems something of a rite of passage into the world of environmental activism; a ritual of solidarity in a global environmental movement. 

It’s a sad thing, I think to myself, that we still seem to thinking about climate change and sustainability in such ice-cap-melting metaphors of the West. Does our dressing-up point to larger systems of hegemonic dominance? And if so, what does it mean for me to adopt this system when representing Africa at COP17 in a week’s time?

Yes, the movement in Africa is manifest in ways much more practicable and appropriate than melting ice-caps. Our “polar bear” is more: it’s blood-red sunsets, it’s gorging rivers, it’s Wangari Maathai’s muddy hands, it’s seeds, and roots, and animals. Mostly, it’s hopeful, and diverse, and fundamental. 

And yes, I’ve made a polar bear. But it’s not necessarily a subservience to the west that made me do it. It’s a sign of solidarity; a connection to the global movement, which doesn’t take away from the fact that the movement in Africa is as alive and relevant – in fact, quite the contrary. 

In a weeks time Africa’s youth will join hands for what they believe in, and if it’ll help to be dressed as a bear, then that’s how they’ll do it.