Al Gore has been telling all the young people, and well, all of us, really, to protest, in public, to make a downright law-unabiding nuisance of ourselves :-

http://thehill.com/blogs/e2-wire/677-e2-wire/114717-al-gore-calls-for-us-protests-on-climate-change-inaction

“Gore calls for major protests on government’s climate change inaction…In a post on his personal blog headlined “The Movement We Need”…”

Well, it won’t work to call people out onto the street. Most people are too busy credit-crunching, wage-slaving or favour-scraping to be able to commit to a short-term, potentially self-defeating public display of annoyance, frustration and shrill demands.

And if people do come out to the big protests, it won’t achieve much. News reports can be swept into the trash. Activists can be swept into holding facilities. Politicians can conveniently ignore anything that isn’t violent.

Drop the loud-hailers and home-made placards, I say, and do something more…focussed.

The Climate Camp want to target the Royal Bank of Scotland for financing Coal power plants and Tar Sands oil projects, which are very bad things to be doing, and smacks of huge corporate irresponsibility, considering the bank is largely owned by the British taxpayer, and I say, if you can’t make the camp (and I can’t for reasons which I shall not go into just now), do something about money in other ways instead.

What’s your money doing ? Which oppressive regimes in oil-rich countries is it supporting ? Which Fossil Fuel companies trashing your Environment do your bank support ? Why not switch your money to an ethical financial organisation ? Why don’t we all try to do this at the same time ? “Crowd-banking” could have an impact, you never know until you try.

Let’s pick, say, Monday 23rd August 2010. And let’s all spend our way out of Climageddon together on that day. Transfer your money to an ethical bank, or pledge to do so. Phone your bank and tell them you’re leaving for a sustainable bank.

Other actions possibly useful :-

1. Refuse to buy Fossil Fuels for a day.

2. Refuse to use any hot water for one day (most hot water is produced by burning Fossil Fuels). It’s summer in the Northern Hemisphere – come on – a cool shower won’t hurt you.

3. Don’t spend any money on anything that had Petroleum-based plastic or Natural Gas-based chemicals in its production – which would rule out 85% of non-food purchases, I reckon.

4. If you’re working for a company or an organisation who have anything to do with the Energy industry, make a point of asking your boss, or their boss, or the Chief Executive or something what the company/organisation intends to do about moving the whole business to Renewable Energy.

5. One short telephone call could have you moving from burning Coal for your home electricity to a Green Energy account.

This is not a riot – but it is an emergency, and the response should match the scale of the problem.

Our Climate – Not for Sale.

Bloody Oil from Felix Gonzales on Vimeo.

Tim Holmes, one of the people involved in the Climate Safety report, has started a new web log critiquing the very same issues :-

http://convenientlies.wordpress.com

http://convenientlies.wordpress.com/2009/09/28/greenwashing-government/

It really is time to stop playing along with the social manipulation that we are all being subjected to.

Don’t bother to march in the streets or swoop on a power station unless being on telly and the risk of getting banged up in prison gives you some kind of thrill.

Grassroots “direct action” or any other kind of “mass mobilisation” will never achieve what is required.

Demand leadership from your leaders, because they won’t be following you.

http://climatesafety.org

Climate Safety : “Action – Mobilising public will”

How can this logjam be broken? For a number of reasons, mobilising public will is crucial in creating the impetus for change. While governments can and often do pursue policies in the face of public opposition, this tends to require the backing of other powerful interests and sectors, particularly of business and the media. In the case of climate change, however, such sectors tend to present obstacles to government action. Nonetheless, as we have seen in the case of such issues as GM food, sufficient public opposition can succeed in overcoming such influence. Governments can also successfully win round public opinion to new policies by taking risks. The depth and scale of the change required, however, are likely to have a marked and readily-discernible impact on the day-to-day lives of citizens, making clear public backing a necessity.

There is some compelling evidence that, in the absence of such backing, governments feel sharply constrained. Al Gore, for instance, while acting as a strident voice for change in the public arena, has, in a step that many find deeply counter-intuitive, turned down the offer of a place in the US Government. Instead, he is using his political platform to help build a broad popular mobilisation, countering the vested interests that he himself acknowledges prevented any effective action during his previous term in office.303 In the UK, Greenpeace Director John Sauven remarks that “[Gordon] Brown will say to you, he’s said to me before: ‘What are you doing to mobilise the public? Why aren’t you getting the public on board? Why aren’t you opening up the political space?’” Both of these examples attest to the same fact: mobilising public support will be crucial in creating the conditions for strong and swift government action…

JOABBESS.COM responds :-

It is very hard to gauge the extent of “public will” and “public opinion”. MORI polls just don’t do it. Participation in public consultations don’t do it. Voting doesn’t do it. You need to have “customer” participation in some way, some “consumption” of either media or products.

In the current version of democracy, there is no way that the public can be effectively “mobilised”, unless they are asked to “consume” something.

So-called Climate Change “communications”, with all that stonkingly huge (not) funding from the Government, paid no attention to “consumption” of the message, or any by-product of that consumption.

Most people view “mobilisation” as some form of direct action, demonstration, protest or postcard writing campaign, or signing up to pay £2 a month to a charity.

I’ve been on enough Government-sanctioned rallies and marches and police-permitted protests to know this is a dupe, a sop, to sentiment for placard-waving, which actually achieves nothing.

I’ve taken part in enough “consultations” and other events to know that nobody listens to you when you try to express your will as a member of the public.

Please don’t use the word “mobilise” unless you say what people are being mobilised to do.

Also, can you please describe Gore’s own understanding of what “mobilisation” means ? The UK frame is very different from the US one. There, they understand what “mobilisation” means. Here in the UK, “mobilisation” is too easily confused with “mobbing”…it follows that any kind of “mobilisation” of the public is effectively useless in the UK in particular.

The reality is that there are too many contrary voices for the Government to be able to “hear” properly, and certainly too many styles to be able to “respond” effectively to the right groups.

That’s principally because there is no channel for the public “opposition”. It’s all grumbling and whingeing from the “outside”. And what is so “sustained” and serious about this “opposition” ? It looks pretty thin, actually. Just something for people to moan about. How can this opposition be turned into something concrete ?

The media are basically ignorant of public opinion on many issues. This is not manipulation, it’s just sloppiness, and laziness to continue with failed narratives that no longer bear any resemblance to reality.

So who’s driving this here ? The Government ? Are the Government leading here ? In which case, why should the Public bother to try and get involved ?

Ed Miliband wants us to show good faith with his new Department, for example. Should we just roll over and wait for our tummies to be tickled ? Is there not something to oppose in what the DECC are offering ? Should we take a position of opposition and negativity ?

If something’s right to do : like insulate every home, then it should be done. There should be no consideration of anyone’s sensitivities, eh ? In every other area of public policy, the Government steamroller through, so why not on this too ?

What on Earth do you mean by “mobilising public support” in this context ? Placard-waving, postcard campaigns ? Surely not. How does the public show its support for Government action in this context of Climate Emergency ? Climate Change policy is not something that is being put to the vote here.

This is in danger of just being socio-political spiel, sorry to say. What is “public pressure” in this context ? Would not a group of around 50 highly networked individuals be sufficient to constitute an effective lobby ? Why do we need 5,000,000 people ? What are we asking them to do to create something we can all recognise as “public pressure” ?

It’s all very well “communicating”, but people need to be encouraged to DO SOMETHING after they have been communicated to. But the only way to demonstrate “public support” for Climate policies is to get the electorate to BUY SOMETHING. We are constrained to continue to use marketing techniques.

Haven’t we seen the back of the idea that “voluntary behaviour change” can be effective ? Only 20% of people have made somewhere in the region of 20% of changes in their own lives. That’s only 4% change overall.

I don’t think it matters what polls say. What matters is the opinions and actions of the policymakers. It’s not the analysis of the general population that counts, but the thoughts and actions of the policymakers.

The “political will” required only needs to be in the policymakers, really. If the other sectors agree, that’s only to the good, but it’s not essential. However, we might be able to trip decision-making in our favour if we “tickle” the other sectors, so that they start chattering about the issues. Such chattering does trickle upwards, but fairly unpredictably.

Forget moving the public imperceptible step by imperceptible step. Just go for the eco-fascist jugular : Enforce home insulations for 100% of the population. Do it by giving a time period of grace, followed by a fine for using too much Energy etc.

People are as they do, so I don’t see how “voluntary behaviour change” is any different from “core values”. There is no one clearly defined set of “values at the heart of our society”. That’s George W. Bush speak.

We don’t have “values” as a “society”. We’re all different, and although marketing men can tell you which categories we fall into, generally speaking, our consumption habits are not our “values”. Some people don’t even have any recognisable “values”…There is no “we”. We are not a single, united nation etc.

I don’t think “drawing the whole society into dialogue on the nature of the emergency” will have any discernible effect unless it provokes changes in policy, new laws, measures, instruments, and even short-term taxation. Again, what are you asking people to “mobilise” to do ?

Consultation, consultation, consultation. The Government doesn’t listen to what people say to them, so what’s the point ?

I think that there is no time for consultation. If the Government are advised correctly about what to do, they should do it and drag the people along with them. The “communications” should be happening after the fact. The leaders should lead…“stakeholders” ? “process” ? What’s the point ? We need leadership. Bold decision-making. Not a chat in the pub.

Who needs convincing of what here ? A People’s TV Parliament would be a nice-to-have, but it won’t engender change. Change comes from regulation, laws, orders, budgets and decisions.

Public trust is a must, but silly conflicting policies and rubbish consultations have broken trust. Ignoring “the will of the people on the streets” over the Iraq Incursion has really put the nail in the coffin of public trust of Government.

We do need to have joined-up thinking in Government. How can we get this ? Do we rather need to educate the Government rather than the people ?

So, will Ed Miliband be given any teeth, then ? And what kind of teeth will they be ?

What’s wrong with commercialisation ? Even Carbon is now a commodity. (Detect the tongue in cheek ?) The only problem with commercials is the consumption it engenders. If the consumption could be Zero Carbon consumption, then that would be OK, surely ?

The Media are just the tail on the dog and just feed off Government policies. New dog. New wagging. What I mean is, change the policy direction of the Government and the Media will follow along nicely like an imprinted newborn duckling (new animal metaphor).

If you aim to “reform” the Media, that could be seen as unnecessary interference, “draconian”, even, to use media-speak. But what about syndicating an authoritative Climate Change column, written by experts, and basically arm-wrestle the newspapers into carrying it ?

That should solve the problem of “first taste” – in other words getting the Press to excite hunger for knowledge amongst the populace – who would then Go Ogle for more. I’m sure people don’t really read full two-page Climate Change exposés in “serious” newssheets unless they’re paid to…

The Media [and the Non-Governmental Organisations] need to suckle the Government, so they would hardly try to hold it to account. You can’t create a functional Media from the current one, so there’s no point in trying. It would be unwise to go for a Government Media thing : too Big Brother.

I think that the Media should be forced to trail along with whatever good decisions come out of Government. The Media will play the tune of the client if they can see the client turning the page.

Who’s to say what is “politically feasible” from now on ? I think we should challenge that notion.

Getting more public commentators on the same hymnsheet would be a useful thing. However, Climate Change conferences are still too cliquey and sectoral… How about online discussion, blogging from experts (not random members of the public, and not hand-picked by the BBC) ?

And if the current public commentators do not dare to risk their careers etc, then we need to somehow carve out a space for new public commentators who ARE prepared to take risks.

I think there needs to be a strong emphasis on the IT’S HAPPENING NOW narrative, and document the changes that are already taking place, in order to “actualise” Climate Change and BRING IT HOME (to roost)…Climate Change is ALREADY HAPPENING. There is plenty of scope for pointing at Climate Change IN THE HERE AND NOW.

Focussing too much on the negative impacts of Climate Change has come to dominate the mindspace. Obviously, because of the scepticism and denial, it’s been essential to convince people that there are real problems with Global Warming, and that Climate Change is real and happening. The solutions angle has slipped off every agenda until recently. Now I think it’s time to balance every negative message with a positive solution.

[On the Apollo Mission metaphor] please realise that the UK didn’t put men on the moon. It’s an “alter-cultural achievement” that I think it would be best not to adopt. We need something more gritty, more British to evoke, and not just our response to the Second World War : “Dig for Victory” etc.

For most people, I think the “happiness quotient” research is really esoteric. They’re not doing “philosophical discussion”. They’re too busy and too stressed. All most people are concerned with is (a) How much they will have to pay in taxes or consumer goods prices and (b) How bad will the situation get.

Why not call us “activists” and drop the military word “campaigner” ? A “campaign” involves placard waving and angry moods. A “community activist” is a warm and cuddly person growing root vegetables at home, helping a mate fit DIY window insulation and wearing home-made jumpers.

The self-reflection implied…doesn’t really happen. The public don’t really sway the Government. We need the Government to make and enforce decisions, even “tough” decisions, but based on expert evidence, not highly paid industrial consultancies.

[On calls for grassroots "civil disobedience" and "direct action"] I have a really hard time understanding which laws are appropriate to disobey in order to be effective. Sitting around a coal-fired power station does not strike me as illegal or even challenging any particular civil code.

I have come to a position where I disagree with mass actions. That’s not because they’re mostly pointless, and don’t last very long. It’s because they’re not really “civil disobedience”, but rather, a form of media-grabbing. Breaking the law is different to having a minor skirmish with the Police whilst trying to enter Parliament en masse (what for, pray ?)

In the case of coal-fired electricity, REFUSING TO USE ELECTRICITY would be the appropriate disobedience, surely ? To NOT CONSUME would seem to be illegal, given all the Trade Laws and commercialisation of Energy. Maybe issuing PowerDown Orders to businesses and Government Departments ? Taking people to court for wasting Energy, like the major electricity generators ?

Civil disobedience in a so-called democracy is quite hard to define clearly for me. We have laws about Energy, Climate Change, Health and Safety, Pollution. We would wish to implement these laws, not break them. Pricing Carbon is not, and will not ever be, an effective policy to control Carbon. Carbon Trading is not, and will not ever be, an efficient policy to control Carbon. What we need is RATIONING. That entails enhancement of the law, not breaking it.

Given enough young people willing to skirmish with the Police, [and given productive, peaceful dialogue with the Police] and given enough organisation, you could create a lot more safe, media-friendly “actions”. But the Government will only move as slowly as it wants to. It’s not actually reacting to the “actions”. It may refer to the “actions”, but they’re not changing the speed of decisions or changes in policy direction.

I don’t agree [to calls for mass mobilisation]. And that’s not because I’m some kind of secret Police person trying to quell unrest. I honestly think that small groups of highly motivated individuals engaged in “direct action” have more impact than thousands of people at events or marches or conferences. There’s no point in committing an arrestable offence if you can’t get a message across, and I can’t think of a good reason to break the law myself, and I wouldn’t ask anybody else to, either.

The real influence however, must come from personal interaction with the policymakers and briefholders. As a group of activists, we need to engage personally with the Ministers and officials of Government in order to effect changes in the direction of policy. We need to forge these channels of communication so as to engender trust in our opinions and expertise.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/politics/2009/aug/18/met-police-climate-camp-twitter

“Met police turns on charm ahead of climate protest : Climate Camp will be first big test of policing since G20 : Metropolitan police to disseminate information via Twitter : Paul Lewis : guardian.co.uk, Tuesday 18 August 2009 : Scotland Yard is overhauling its tactics for policing protests by reaching out to activists in advance of its first big test since the controversy surrounding the handling of the G20 demonstrations. Senior officers have told representatives from Climate Camp, who are planning to construct a huge campsite next week at an undisclosed location in London, that they will be met with a “community-style” policing operation that will limit the use of surveillance units and stop-and-searches wherever possible. In a further effort to disseminate real-time information, the Metropolitan police has activated an account on Twitter, named CO11MetPolice after its public order unit codename, which will be used to send operational information to protesters taking part in the camp…”

http://www.guardian.co.uk/politics/2009/aug/22/women-police-officers-climate-camp

“A force to be reckoned with : The Metropolitan police have announced a new strategy for next week’s Climate Camp – putting women officers in charge of the operation. Will this avoid the violence seen at the G20 protests? : Jon Henley : The Guardian, Saturday 22 August 2009 : ‘Women are less likely to resort to batons, pepper spray or quick cuffs to get out of trouble, and more likely to use negotiation to talk someone down,’ says Professor Jennifer Brown. : The last team Inspector Liz Owsley of the Metropolitan police worked on, not so long ago, happened to have just one woman. All the rest were young male PCs. There was a moment, she relates, when a bit of a situation was starting to kick off with a bunch of yobs in a courtyard. A constable was getting overly verbal with one of the lads, trading insults: a real slanging match. “So the woman officer just turned to him and said, quite gently, ‘You’re not helping,’” Owsley recalls. “It was only a small thing, tiny really, but it was classic. Women police will always want to resolve a situation with the least possible upset. Their question is always, can we do this without confrontation? Is it possible without conflict? There just isn’t that same kind of macho aggressiveness you can get from the men. We’re better communicators.” After the public outrage and official brickbats heaped on the Met’s handling of G20 protests in London in April, during which a newspaper vendor, Ian Tomlinson, died after being hit by a police officer, news this week that both senior officers controlling tactics at next week’s Climate Camp will be women has been broadly welcomed as evidence that the force may be trying to adopt a less confrontational approach to policing demonstrations…”

Message to you, Rudy
by The Specials

Stop your messin’ around
Better think of your future
Time you straightened right out
Creatin’ problems in town
Rudy a message to you
Rudy a message to you
Stop your foolin’ around
Time you straightened right out
Better think of your future
Or else you’ll wind up in jail
Rudy a message to you
Rudy a message to you

With the emergence of the social movement around Climate Change and Energy policy, it was to be expected that campaigners and protesters would come up against the ruling systems of the day.

It was entirely predictable that the forces of the State would be ranged against those of us who see the need for deep and lasting change in our society and governance.

What we could not foresee was that the non-accidental death of a non-anarchist would provoke a tidal wave of resistance amongst the mainstream Media, criticising and questioning the Policing of public demonstrations.

Maybe Ian Tomlinson’s death will usher in a new era of understanding between the authorities and the frustrated populace.

Maybe Ian Tomlinson’s death will spark a fresh dialogue between those who understand Climate Change and those who massage public policy.

Our Government has for too long been under the influence of highly-paid business and industry lobbyists, who operate at national, European and international levels, urging compromise and subsidies.

The High Carbon emitters will get their free Permits to Pollute, or pass the costs of de-Carbonisation down to their customers. They will struggle to continue with Business As Usual, even as the storm waves erode the precarious crumbling cliff ledge on which they perch.

It’s so hard to communicate this. Everyone seems to go along with the notion that Carbon Dioxide Emissions should be charged, taxed or priced. But by obsessing about the monetary value that should be given to Carbon, we are missing our chance to do the one thing that will save the day : Just Stop Emitting.

For all the European and national incentives on Carbon Emissions, the sum total of what the UK is responsible for is not decreasing but increasing, when we include imported goods, aviation and shipping.

This has to change, and I fervently believe it has to change fast, faster than most people currently comprehend. For me there is a constant struggle to explain, to engage, to draw people out of their complacency.

I am not alone in this frustration. There are many who feel similar tension. The Climate Camp is just the tip of the melting iceberg.

There will be many more public events highlighting Climate Change. There will be more challenges to the current order. There will be more confrontation, more demands, but please let’s keep it peaceful all of you (including the Police) !

http://www.g-20meltdown.org

“Easter rising? : Saturday April 11, 2009 : Meet 11:30 am Bethnal Green Police station for 12 noon. Wear black, be silent, be strong. We walk to lay flowers at the spot where Ian Tomlinson died. ‘WE MUST NEVER BE AFRAID TO GO TOO FAR, FOR SUCCESS LIES JUST BEYOND’ (Proust) The question is, will people feel like just going home, meek and mild, after laying flowers? Some of us may feel strongly like staying at that place until Ian Tomlinson and his family get justice. If we did that over Saturday night until Easter Sunday morning, the police wouldn’t dare to touch us. The people are becoming the investigators of the police who are now the prime suspects. Will there ever be such a chance again to turn the world upside down? As Indymedia says, don’t hate the media, be the media. Same logic, don’t hate the police, be the police… and if we are not afraid to go too far, as Proust says, …don’t hate the government, be the government.”

http://london.indymedia.org.uk/events/1079

“G20 Meltdown Saturday 11th April 2009 : Date Event date: Saturday 11 April 2009 11:30 by G20 Meltdown : Assemble this Easter Saturday 11.30am : BETHNAL GREEN POLICE STATION
We demand answers. Solemn procession to BANK OF ENGLAND.
We lay flowers at the place where Ian Tomlinson died. A man died on Wednesday at #G20 Meltdown protest. He had head wounds. Answers to questions surrounding his death are demanded.”

I noticed he was carrying a camera with quite a large lens, so I said to him, “You can’t believe anything you read in the papers”, trying this gambit to get him to spill about what he was doing.

He gave a non-commital response, and we didn’t strike up.

As we continued the journey, I noticed he kept checking his mobile phone, so just before he got off the train, I asked him, “So, what have you been shooting ?”

“Just some flowers”, he said, a little nervously, and then conspiratorially he showed me his digital frame and clicked through some of the said still life shots, “Flowers, and some vegetables”, he commentated.

I congratulated him on his shots, and I asked him where he would post them. He wasn’t sure, so I called out to him as he left “Indymedia ! Indymedia !”

At least he wasn’t injured, unlike some poor fellow mentioned here :-

http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2009/apr/02/g20-protests-london

“Police have been criticised for the force they used to break up protests yesterday, with baton-wielding officers said to be pushing through a line of tents and bicycles and charging a sitdown protest. One photographer has also contacted the Guardian alleging police prevented him doing his job and attacked him, leaving him with a broken arm. He said he was furious at the treatment by officers who appeared to be lost in a “red mist” of anger. “I covered the poll tax riots,” he said. “Yesterday made them look like a Sunday afternoon picnic.” ”

At a stretch you might even manage to do both, but for the most part it is an either-or situation. Do you hold a street party in fancy dress, or do you try to blockade something, lock on and shut it down ?

Do you publish a newspaper pulling apart current Economic, Energy and Climate policy ? Or do you set up a tent outside the London Climate Exchange and refuse to leave ?

What about other forms of action that could highlight problems and demand solutions ? Well, there is the excellent strategy of “avoid”. By that, I don’t mean stay away from the action. By all means get involved in the various actions, direct and otherwise.

By the term “avoid”, I mean disengagement. Disengage from the activities that support the current mess we’re in. Meditate instead of consuming. Share instead of buy. Stop borrowing money. Stop burning natural gas and petrol. Wrap up warm when at home and cycle or walk to get about.

Distance yourself from adding to the wealth of those that are destroying our chances for change. Don’t buy from supermarkets, large coal-fired energy suppliers, failing car manufacturers, dead-end banks.

Avoid making a profit for your employers. Avoid Carbon Dioxide emissions by using less Energy. Avoid exploitation by buying only Fair Trade. Buy local. Live local. Don’t fly. Don’t drive.

Public consultations reveal nothing and achieve nothing. Voting doesn’t change things. Policies are being watered down.

There is A Void to avoid. There is nothing happening that seriously tackles Climate Change, the Energy problem and the Economic crisis.

There is a policy vacuum, a leadership vacuum. Step into it. Lead from the front, from the inside, from the outside, from the back. Lead by reducing your consumption. Lead by educating yourself and others about how to live a Low Carbon life.

Lead your so-called leaders by taking part in the G20 demonstration actions – in whatever capacity you have. Do what you feel safe and comfortable with. Don’t take personal risks, value your freedom from arrest. Be non-violent. Take part but don’t go beyond your own personal limits of fear or endurance. Be peaceful, loving and kind. But do annoy and do amuse.

We are all Fossil Fools.
http://www.fossilfoolsdayofaction.org

We are all Stupid.
http://www.notstupid.org

We are going to shake things up.

We owe it to ourselves. We owe it to our children, our neighbours, the dirt-poor drought-ridden farmers in the Global South. Even the wretched polar bears.

The “free trade” financial system has created more inequality and more environmental destruction than any other social organisation in human history.

It has created fake wealth and fake progress, but the last bubble has imploded, and it has all started to collapse around our ears.

What we need is a peaceful re-ordering of priorities, a show of true democracy.

We need de-Carbonisation. We need fair shares. And we’re willing to do something to show that.

Some are going to stage carnivals and camps. Some of us are going to shout in the streets. Some of us are going to write and film independent media. Some are going to cut off income streams to businesses in various ingenious ways.

My appeal to you is to be direct.

Be clear about what is wrong, and what you are going to do about it.

Don’t be swayed by what anyone else says – and that includes me.

The system of “free trade” relies on consumption of goods in ever-increasing quantities, by you, the consumers.

Whatever it is you’re buying, stop it on 1st April.

If you have a car, don’t drive it and don’t fill up the tank.

If you have a bank account, don’t deposit any money, and don’t withdraw any.

If you have a television, don’t watch it, especially not the News.

If you have electrical appliances, don’t switch them on.

Turn out the lights and shut off the natural gas.

Don’t buy food from supermarkets, even if you have to starve.

Don’t read magazines and newspapers, to avoid the advertising.

Don’t browse the Internet, to avoid the advertising.

If you can, take time off work.

Don’t take medicine unless you absolutely need to.

Don’t drink alcohol unless you brewed it yourself.

Don’t smoke anything unless you grew it yourself.

Don’t watch any “adult films”.

Don’t support the businesses that are lobbying for their own interests. Don’t buy their products and don’t use their services.

If you’re in the armed forces or the Police, refuse to bear weapons.

Don’t buy the scare stories being told to you by the Media about the G20 direct action.

When the Government says they are doing the right thing, don’t buy it.

We want more than “green jobs”. We want socially owned green enterprises.

We want more than token Renewable Energy projects. We want a total de-Carbonisation of the Energy supply.

We want more than a negotiated pay settlement. We want social equality.

We don’t want to pay to save failing businesses or prop up corrupt banks. We want economic justice.

We don’t want Carbon Trading. It won’t work and the wrong parties will benefit. We want a fixed global Carbon Budget with fair Carbon Shares for all. We want Contraction and Convergence.

“How did they find the uncommon
moral courage to rise above politics
and redeem the promise of American
democracy and do what some said
was impossible…shake things up… ?”
Al Gore, 21st March 2007

http://current.com/e/88891617/en_US
http://current.com/e/89640870/en_US