The public’s attention has rightly been on the streets this spring, in particular those streets occupied by masses of creative and dedicated young people protesting for the future of the planet.

The National Education Union – which with around 460,000 members is the biggest education union in Europe – recognised the importance of this movement, and committed itself to active solidarity at its conference this April.

A motion was moved by Islington and Wandsworth districts and overwhelmingly supported by conference. In it we argued that “the transition to a zero-carbon society to keep below a 1.5 degree increase is the most urgent problem facing humanity and is technically feasible”.

The motion also argued that  “the consequences of a failure to act – or an unjust transition, whereby those with wealth and power dump the costs downwards – will be severe for our members, our communities, the children we teach and – in the worst case – could threaten our survival.”

Organisational support

We resolved that our generation has a responsibility “to help lead a just transition; shifting energy production, transport, housing and agriculture onto a sustainable basis within the lifetimes of the children currently in our schools,” requiring urgent government investment and an end to failing market ‘solutions’. 

This involved a commitment to “lobby Government to press them on plans to carry out their obligation under the Paris Agreement to educate the public about the scale of climate change and the measures needed to deal with it – including through school’s curricula”, and the need “for every school to be zero carbon by 2030.”

We plan to hold an Education for a Just Transition conference on 12 October 2019, to further discussions about reorganising our societies and reskilling our citizens, and how this can be integrated into a liberatory pedagogy.

We also promised to “oppose any reprisals against students taking action to fight climate change, such as detentions [or] exclusions” because “the rights to strike and protest are fundamental democratic rights for students and workers alike”.

The conference also pledged “to support future student actions by approaching student representatives to offer trade union speakers, stewards and organisational support.”

This Author 

Andrew Stone is secretary of Wandsworth National Education Union.

If you are an NEU member and would like to be involved in organising the Just Transition conference or other aspects of union climate change activity, please email the organisers. 

Image: School strike, Flickr. 

The bioenergy industry gives the impression of being at the forefront of tackling climate change. Every wood pellet that’s burned communicates the illusion of innovative progress away from fossil fuels and towards ‘renewable’ energy.

In the context of our urgent need to reduce greenhouse gas emissions, it is easy to be persuaded by a strategy which can supposedly help steer us away from impending doom.

Before I took my job working to protect forests I was under the impression that bioenergy was something positive. 

Capitalism growth 

Since humans first discovered how to create fire about 1.5 million years ago, our ability to harness the flames has sustained us, warmed us, and fed us.

Most of the world is fiercely globalised and intensely capitalist, focusing on – or subjected to – short-term economic gain.

Societies in the global north have become demanding and consumerist, reaching ever further afield for products to satisfy our desires. We have plunged deep into oil wells, and exploited pristine, ecologically priceless ecosystems in the Arctic and Amazon.

Burning materials to produce energy continues to drive our modern society. 

Many people will have heard and agree with the slogan ‘keep it in the ground’ in reference to coal, oil and gas. The need to do so could not be more pressing, as we teeter on the brink of global climate catastrophe.

Climate denial 

A crisis is already playing out around us – more noticeably in some parts of the world than in others, and exerting greater pressure and injustice on certain communities than on others. 

In 2015 it emerged that ExxonMobil knew about climate change and the impacts of burning fossil fuels as early as the 1960s, yet went on to fund disinformation campaigns to promote climate denial – the basis of a hearing in the European Parliament which Exxon failed to attend.  

Not only have companies been knowingly carrying out activities that have a long-lasting detrimental impact on the climate, but they have also been infringing on human and constitutional rights, for example through oil-spills, incursion onto and violence within indigenous lands, and widespread damage to lives and livelihoods. 

It is clear that we need both an end to the burning of fossil fuels and, more widely, an end to and prevention of any activity which releases significant quantities of greenhouse gases and destroys the environment.

This demands a whole-scale shift in our system – from one of extraction and burning, to one where we can produce energy without causing social and environmental harm.  

Ecological responsibility 

Replacing fossil fuels with biomass is like building a house of cards, and choosing to keep removing one kind of card rather than another. In both scenarios, the house collapses.

Burning biomass is just another path to environmental destruction.

There is extensive research to show why burning biomass is terrible for the environment.  Burning wood for energy emits more carbon on a per-unit-of-energy basis than burning coal, as well as harmful particulates that cause health issues to local communities, just like living near a coal plant.

Despite attempts to market an image of ecological responsibility, wood pellets are either sourced from the clearcutting of biodiverse forests that would otherwise act as carbon sinks, or from monoculture plantations that replace those forests, offering little benefit to wildlife and communities.  

An incredible 22 million tonnes of pellets, many imported from the US, are already consumed in the EU each year. This is set to rise as demand increases, thanks to policy such as the EU’s Renewable Energy Directive, which misleadingly suggests that bioenergy has zero emissions, and the EU long term climate strategy, which relies on large increases in bioenergy of up to 80 percent.   

Fatal ideology 

Where bioenergy companies claim that they will only burn waste and residues, they cannot live up to their promises. This is due to the sheer quantity of wood pellets required, resulting in the need to source directly from forests, not to mention the lack of suitable infrastructure to safely burn these types of pellets: so far, only pellets made from virgin wood have been used.

In 2018, Drax power station gobbled up 7.2 million tonnes of wood pellets, to the detriment of natural forests in the Southern US and Eastern Europe.

What has not permeated the public consciousness is that bioenergy is a flagrant hitch-hiker on the structures already built up by the global fossil-fuel industry.

Bioenergy relies on the same fatal ideology that keeps oil barons happy as millions of barrels of oil are extracted, despite all the science to show that we must stop drilling.

It’s the same ideology that favours centralized corporate control over community empowerment. And it’s the same ideology that climate criminals like Trump and Bolsonaro use to justify deforestation and attacks on indigenous peoples in the Amazon, and the use of harmful agricultural chemicals, to name only two examples.  

Extractive system

The bioenergy industry is all about producing ever-increasing quantities of wood pellets, exploiting the land, disregarding the need to protect forests, and distracting from the work required to reduce emissions.

Thanks to the efforts of NGOs, scientists, and a growing number of concerned citizens, the inherent risks of burning wood for bioenergy have recently gained more attention. 

Over 800 scientists wrote to the EU in January 2018, calling for an end to subsidies for energy produced from biomass, and for recognition of the socio-environmental risks of burning wood pellets.

On 4 March this year, their concerns were echoed in a landmark case which was filed against the EU by six plaintiffs claiming that classifying bioenergy as carbon-neutral within the EU Renewable Energy Directive has caused them and the wider environment harm.  

Civil society groups are also rising up to protest clearcutting for biomass, and to fight the conversion of coal power plants to biomass rather than shutting them down permanently. The very need for this struggle is a sure sign that the old extractive system is simply being adapted to accommodate biomass. 

Public opinion

Yet, as public opinion swings strongly against the extraction and burning of fossil fuels, there is still not enough being said about – nor against – bioenergy.

In the context of the Paris Agreement, the IPCC’s report on 1.5 degrees, and the global climate strikes, the bioenergy industry is being allowed to slip in, relatively quietly yet nevertheless in plain sight, as a ‘saviour’. 

Now, after reading and learning from industry, scientific and NGO documents alike, I know that burning wood for energy is a continuation of the same old story, with the most dangerous characters (resource extraction, greenhouse gas emissions, short-term gain, trampling of community rights and destruction of nature) combined in a nefarious mix. 

As this industry continues to carry out its destruction of forests and landscapes, not to mention the climate, in several years’ time we could see huge civil society protests to not only ‘keep it in the ground’, but also to ‘stand for forests’.

Wave of outrage

There will be a rising wave of outrage and distress born from the realization that once again companies marketed their activities as green and sustainable, even when they knew better.

The realization that once again governments and leaders chose the extraction of finite resources and irreparable damage to ecosystems, even when they knew better. The realization that once again society and our planet has been pushed further into climate chaos, even when we knew better.

There is already every need to panic.  

Let’s halt bioenergy, reduce emissions and protect natural carbon sinks and landscapes rather than relying on false solutions. We must stop going backwards before it’s too late.

This Author 

Katja Garson is a campaigner and writer focussing on the intersections of climate, land-use, nature, and grassroots action. She currently leads communications for CLARA.

Extinction Rebellion will stage non-violent action in response to BP’s annual general meeting in the Aberdeen Exhibition and Conference Centre at 15.30pm today.

Protesters are inviting people to take part in a People’s Assembly outside Marischal College. The assembly will begin with a welcome and introduction. We will then hear a series of short talks before forming smaller facilitated groups to share feelings and to deliberate on ideas for change in Aberdeen, the North East and Scotland.

These will then be shared with the rest of the assembly before concluding at 16.30. This is a family friendly event. Extinction Rebellion Aberdeen welcome everyone and every part of everyone.

Environmental impacts

In Fort William, XR would also like to invite the public to join them in a peaceful demonstration outside the BP petrol station on North Road at 11am to protest the environmental impact of the company’s activities.

BP continues to actively inhibit progress toward carbon emission objectives set out in the IPCC Report of 2018.

The Gulf oil disaster of 2010, for which they were responsible, has become emblematic of human mistreatment of our planet. Their operations contributed net CO2 emissions of 51.2m tonnes in 2015 alone. Of their £15-16bn budget last year, they invested only £0.5bn in renewables.

The exploitation of Scotland’s North Sea oil reserves is an unnecessary stress on the planet’s finite resources that is causing irreversible environmental effects on a global scale.

These include rising sea temperatures, rising sea levels, and climatic instability. All of these effects have been identified by independent scientific bodies.  

Lobbying campaign

Oil Change International’s Sea Change Report reported earlier this week: “Carbon dioxide emissions from the oil, gas and coal in already-operating fields and mines globally will push the world far beyond 1.5°C of warming and will exhaust a 2°C carbon budget.” 

The opening of any new reserves in Scotland, as anywhere else, would gravely exacerbate what is already an immediate crisis on a global scale.

BP has invested heavily in a lobbying campaign to suppress legislation that attempts to reduce global heating, in accordance with their aims to expand their gas and oil operations.

The OCI Sea Change Report found that “given the right policies, job creation in clean energy industries will exceed affected oil and gas jobs more than threefold“.

John Bolland, 61, a former oil worker from Aberdeen, said: “I am here today because the compelling weight of scientific evidence demonstrates that we are running out of time.”

Tipping points

Bolland continued: “Personally, I worked in the oil & gas industry for over 30 years and earned a living from it. I accept I share the blame.

“We have known for years that the impact of fossil fuel extraction was damaging the planet and our children’s future. But, it’s too easy to put off the big and necessary changes. Beyond Petroleum…what happened to that?!  

“And too easy to think you can change things from the inside. We can’t change this gradually from the inside. It has to stop and it has to stop now.

“So this is the new beginning. For our children and grandchildren. Their parents here, myself included, have driven the planet too close to catastrophic tipping points.

“People in this AGM, probably people I used to work with and for, are playing Russian roulette with their lives… and with most of the chambers loaded.”

Better democracy

Amy Marshall, 38, an artist from Fort William, said: “I am utterly terrified about the unfolding climate disaster and ecological collapse.  

“The destruction of wildlife and the wonders of nature is on a scale of magnitude that is almost too awful to grasp. The natural systems that sequester carbon are being destroyed, or are themselves under threat from rising temperatures, and may cease to function.

“Hearing of those who have already lost their lives or their precious children to wildfires or cyclones fills me with sorrow and despair, and makes me cling to my own two small children, fearful for our future. Governments and society seem incapable of changing quickly enough to halt our extinction.

“The only shred of hope I have is in Extinction Rebellion, and the idea that we can radically change our system of government. We could have a better democracy, where Citizen’s Assemblies make decisions on climate change, free from oil interests.

“That is why I am out here today, dressed for a funeral: to highlight the true cost of oil, what we are losing, and the danger of leaving decisions up to politicians who are in thrall to the oil industry.”

Pivotal position 

Paul Mather, 43, a geography teacher from Aberdeen, said: “Our climate is breaking down around us. The warnings given by the scientific community have been stark and clear.

“We must act now, decisively and with immense urgency to stop extracting and burning fossil fuels.

“As a company that profits from a product that threatens our very existence, BP is in a pivotal position to help us protect ourselves. There is a moral imperative for BP to keep its fossil fuel assets in the ground.”

Andrew Squire, 64, an architect from Fort William, said: “I’m part of the BP protest primarily because I have two young grandchildren and I am terrified for their future and that of their generation, if the environment continues to be wrecked by massively wealthy corporations in their endless quest for greater profits.”

BP have consistently demonstrated that their culpability exceeds mere negligence. Extinction Rebellion demands that the British Government hold them and others like them to account for their actions, and prohibit further exploration of natural gas and oil reserves.

Extinction Rebellion Scotland will continue to campaign for a rapid and just transition to renewable energy sources to reduce CO2 emissions to net zero in the UK by 2025. Meeting this objective requires an end to further use of harmful energy sources such as offshore oil and gas.

This Article 

This article is based on a press release from Extinction Rebellion. 

Homeowners have access to a diverse range of renovations which reduce their carbon emissions and environmental impact. Of these renovations, they’ll often choose improvements with the greatest effect on their energy bills. It’s a common motivation for investment in energy efficiency, and perfectly valid.

At the same time, some individuals see energy savings as a secondary benefit, not their primary motivation. They’re aware of the effects of their energy consumption, and they want to give back — not to themselves, but to the planet. Naturally, these individuals are strategic with the renovations they select.

The question is: Which sustainable home changes are the most beneficial for the environment? When an eco-conscious homeowner is evaluating all of their available options, which among them will make the greatest impact on the planet? We’ll look at some of the leading improvements in greater detail.

High-Impact Renovations

As stated earlier, homeowners have access to a diverse range of renovations, many of which are beneficial in reducing their environmental impact. A number of these renovations are familiar, unsurprising on the list of the top three changes below. Others are somewhat unexpected when reviewing the available options.

1. Solar energy systems: Increasingly common on the rooftops of residential buildings, solar panel installations are an effective means of generating electricity. They help a homeowner minimize their reliance on the grid, drawing energy from the sun as they store it for later use. Provided they have the necessary resources, solar energy systems are powerful, comfortably offsetting the emissions that one fossil fuel automobile produces in a year.
2. Geothermal heat pump: Lesser known than solar energy systems, but no less impressive, geothermal heat pumps use the earth as a heat source and heat sink. They transfer heat from the earth to warm homes during the colder months, and they transfer heat from a home into the earth during the warmer months. Perhaps best of all, it’s possible to combine solar and geothermal systems to amazing effect, with the potential for net-zero communities.
3. Green roofs: Homeowners who are knowledgeable in energy efficiency understand the immense value of insulation. When they invest in green roofing solutions for their home, they improve their energy efficiency while using an ecologically sound alternative to modern insulation materials. More than this, homeowners can choose to employ eco-friendly materials like recycled newsprint, recycled metal and engineered lumber to structure their green roofs.  

If homeowners are unsure how to proceed, they should consult the relevant resources and seek support from industry professionals. For example, Seth Leitman is an advocate for green living who educates people about sustainability. As they implement his suggestions, homeowners should also look into the subject of tax credits and government incentives for renewable energy.

Government Incentives

Homeowners will enjoy a significant reduction in their installation costs when they pursue renewable energy tax credits. Under the Bipartisan Budget Act of 2018, these tax credits are available for solar energy systems, geothermal heat pumps, small wind turbines and fuel cells. The following dates are important.

If a homeowner places a system in service before Dec. 31, 2019, they may save as much as 30 percent on the systems they install. If it’s after 31 December 2019, and before Jan. 1, 2021, they may save 26 percent on the costs of their chosen systems. Between 31 December 2020, and 1 January 2022, they can expect to save 22 percent.

Then again, these homeowners still have to qualify for the tax credits. If they intend to invest in a solar panel installation, that system must provide energy for the residence. However, the homeowner can still take advantage of renewable energy tax credits even if the solar panels aren’t for their principal residence.

Concerning the installation of geothermal heat pumps, homeowners have to meet the requirements of the ENERGY STAR program in effect at the time of the expenditure. It may seem like a small concession, but interested homeowners should note these details if they want to pursue renewable energy in the future.

In short, those who intend to transition to renewable energy should research the subject as they continue. Sustainable improvements for energy efficiency are far more affordable when homeowners take a strategic approach to their changes. Government assistance and the expertise of professionals like Seth Leitman can alleviate the pressure of these investments.

Moving Forward

When homeowners assess the three renovations above, review their different payment options and seek professional advice, they’ll feel far more secure in their decisions as they move forward. They’ll have an informed understanding of sustainable home improvements, as well as strategies to reduce the costs of installation.

That said, solar energy systems, geothermal heat pumps and green roofs aren’t always available for homeowners on a limited budget. When this is the case, they should seek changes within their price range. While the renovations above are some of the most effective, even a small change can make a big difference.

This Author

Emily Folk is a conservation and sustainability writer and the editor of Conservation Folks.

Legal advice group Green and Black Cross (GBC) has taken the unprecedented step of making a public statement raising a series of legal and security concerns around Extinction Rebellion (XR).

The statement was published just days after the organisation, which provides legal support and solidarity to those involved in protest activity, entered a three month recuperation period.

The main take-away is that GBC have said that they are no longer willing to continue the work of supporting XR. They had done this through help, advice and training; legal observing; and back office support.

Policing

GBC concludes with a list of asks for XR to enact going forward. GBC’s reasons for concern cover three areas: XR’s use of legal observers; the safety of participants, particularly regarding arrests; and security in the organisation.

Legal observers “provide basic legal guidance and are independent witnesses of police behaviour at protests”. GBC says that XR’s legal observers are poorly trained and do not remain independent on actions.

Other concerns include that participants are put at heightened risk of prosecution when details of conditions imposed on actions are shared on social media, and that misleading information is provided to those risking arrest.

Regarding security, GBC says that personal data is inadequately stored and communication channels used for legal observers allow for the police to access that information.

GBC’s statement comes in the context of an ocean of think-pieces and statements commenting on XR’s politics, strategy and attitude to policing. Those that have come before have been invaluable.

Legal observers

GBC’s should be take particularly seriously. There contribution is about assuring the safety of individuals taking part in XR as well as the movement as a whole.

GBC is a rare example of institutional memory and expertise on the often transient horizontalist environmental left. Its advice should be understood as coming out of that unrivalled experience around protest law and security, rather than yet another ideological or strategic dispute.

XR’s relationship to traditional environmentalism and the left is complex. This has made a productive dialogue challenging. XR explicitly rejects much of the politics, strategy and framings of traditional environmentalism.

On the other hand, it superficially draws on some practices relating to direct-action, while stripping back the underlying politics and divorcing practices from their context.

This has led to contradictions which result in very real in issues around safety. The case of legal observers is among the most pertinent examples of this.

Insignia

XR has adopted the use of legal observers in their actions, but dispute the analysis of the police which foreground their necessity.

Roger Hallam, co-founder of Extinction Rebellion, explains in his booklet Common Sense for the 21st Century XR’s divergent attitude to policing.

He criticises an attitude that “the police are nasty for ideological reasons x and y” which leads to movements finding it “difficult to accept the police can be cooperative in a particular set of circumstances.”

His proposal is that XR activists “[treat police] consistently in a polite way when we are arrested and at the police stations” and build trust “through having regular meetings”.

Out of this attitude, XR has diluted the independence of legal observers. They often wear XR insignia or pass on information from police to protestors.

Firstly, this undermines the legitimacy of their evidence if presented in court. This could be the difference between a conviction or not.

Secondly, this negatively impacts legal observers across the movement. Their role as independent witnesses is undermined for the entire movement that relies on them for impartial evidence if they are considered as ‘part of the protest’. 

Security culture

In his booklet, Hallam is astutely critical of cultural tendencies within green and left movements which limit for building mass politics.

He argues: “Activist routines are off-putting – hand signals which are not explained, […] and new age or academic (radical left) language.”

Although he doesn’t explicitly make this link, inferring the security culture of much of the environmental left as being implicated in these limitations would be reasonable.

Security culture is largely a response to the systematic infiltration of protest movements by the police in past decades, as well as the often legally risky nature of direct action.

This culture often manifests in using secure channels of communication, such as Signal or encrypted email; vetting activists before they can fully participate in actions or organising; and informal hierarchies where key decisions are made between activists with strong affinity, behind the veneer of open consensus meetings. Rejecting this exclusivity is core to XR’s successful mobilisation model.

Conviction

Connor Woodman’s history of infiltration and the movement proposes an alternative response based on building mass politics which makes infiltration redundant.

This is preferable both to “small, isolated affinity groups” and XR’s approach of rejecting any critical analysis of the policing of protest. However, as long as arrest is being seriously risked, precautionary measures must be retained to mitigate risk of conviction.

Hallam writes: “It’s not about creating a comfort zone but about getting on with the critical work that needs to be done – it’s not going to be easy.”

He’s right. Security culture shouldn’t be about reinforcing a comfort zone to the exclusion of mass participation. But XR’s strategy is contingent on making participants vulnerable to the force of the state.

Eschewing measures to reduce the chance of conviction is irresponsible in this context. The safety and health of individuals and the movement as a whole should be paramount.

GBC’s asks

XR should take GBC’s recommendations on board in full. They include training legal observers sufficiently and treating them fairly with coordinated check ins, appropriate and verified legal guidance and buddying co-ordination.

GBC asks that XR maximises the safety of those seeking arrest by: informing them of the risks; providing accurate resources; limiting the possibility of conviction by not broadcasting conditions imposed by police; and creating a culture of security around communications and data storage.

These are not ideological subjectivities prejudiced by a culture of hostility to the police. They are wisdoms derived from years of experience supporting those participating in direct action and relating to the police in that context.

For XR to succeed on their own terms, they need the trust of participants as well as dedicating resource to the safety of individuals and the movement.

This Author

Chris Saltmarsh is co-founder of Labour for a Green New Deal and co-director of climate change campaigns at People & Planet. He tweets at @chris_saltmarsh.

Legal advice group Green and Black Cross (GBC) has taken the unprecedented step of making a public statement raising a series of legal and security concerns around Extinction Rebellion (XR).

The statement was published just days after the organisation, which provides legal support and solidarity to those involved in protest activity, entered a three month recuperation period.

The main take-away is that GBC have said that they are no longer willing to continue the work of supporting XR. They had done this through help, advice and training; legal observing; and back office support.

Policing

GBC concludes with a list of asks for XR to enact going forward. GBC’s reasons for concern cover three areas: XR’s use of legal observers; the safety of participants, particularly regarding arrests; and security in the organisation.

Legal observers “provide basic legal guidance and are independent witnesses of police behaviour at protests”. GBC says that XR’s legal observers are poorly trained and do not remain independent on actions.

Other concerns include that participants are put at heightened risk of prosecution when details of conditions imposed on actions are shared on social media, and that misleading information is provided to those risking arrest.

Regarding security, GBC says that personal data is inadequately stored and communication channels used for legal observers allow for the police to access that information.

GBC’s statement comes in the context of an ocean of think-pieces and statements commenting on XR’s politics, strategy and attitude to policing. Those that have come before have been invaluable.

Legal observers

GBC’s should be take particularly seriously. There contribution is about assuring the safety of individuals taking part in XR as well as the movement as a whole.

GBC is a rare example of institutional memory and expertise on the often transient horizontalist environmental left. Its advice should be understood as coming out of that unrivalled experience around protest law and security, rather than yet another ideological or strategic dispute.

XR’s relationship to traditional environmentalism and the left is complex. This has made a productive dialogue challenging. XR explicitly rejects much of the politics, strategy and framings of traditional environmentalism.

On the other hand, it superficially draws on some practices relating to direct-action, while stripping back the underlying politics and divorcing practices from their context.

This has led to contradictions which result in very real in issues around safety. The case of legal observers is among the most pertinent examples of this.

Insignia

XR has adopted the use of legal observers in their actions, but dispute the analysis of the police which foreground their necessity.

Roger Hallam, co-founder of Extinction Rebellion, explains in his booklet Common Sense for the 21st Century XR’s divergent attitude to policing.

He criticises an attitude that “the police are nasty for ideological reasons x and y” which leads to movements finding it “difficult to accept the police can be cooperative in a particular set of circumstances.”

His proposal is that XR activists “[treat police] consistently in a polite way when we are arrested and at the police stations” and build trust “through having regular meetings”.

Out of this attitude, XR has diluted the independence of legal observers. They often wear XR insignia or pass on information from police to protestors.

Firstly, this undermines the legitimacy of their evidence if presented in court. This could be the difference between a conviction or not.

Secondly, this negatively impacts legal observers across the movement. Their role as independent witnesses is undermined for the entire movement that relies on them for impartial evidence if they are considered as ‘part of the protest’. 

Security culture

In his booklet, Hallam is astutely critical of cultural tendencies within green and left movements which limit for building mass politics.

He argues: “Activist routines are off-putting – hand signals which are not explained, […] and new age or academic (radical left) language.”

Although he doesn’t explicitly make this link, inferring the security culture of much of the environmental left as being implicated in these limitations would be reasonable.

Security culture is largely a response to the systematic infiltration of protest movements by the police in past decades, as well as the often legally risky nature of direct action.

This culture often manifests in using secure channels of communication, such as Signal or encrypted email; vetting activists before they can fully participate in actions or organising; and informal hierarchies where key decisions are made between activists with strong affinity, behind the veneer of open consensus meetings. Rejecting this exclusivity is core to XR’s successful mobilisation model.

Conviction

Connor Woodman’s history of infiltration and the movement proposes an alternative response based on building mass politics which makes infiltration redundant.

This is preferable both to “small, isolated affinity groups” and XR’s approach of rejecting any critical analysis of the policing of protest. However, as long as arrest is being seriously risked, precautionary measures must be retained to mitigate risk of conviction.

Hallam writes: “It’s not about creating a comfort zone but about getting on with the critical work that needs to be done – it’s not going to be easy.”

He’s right. Security culture shouldn’t be about reinforcing a comfort zone to the exclusion of mass participation. But XR’s strategy is contingent on making participants vulnerable to the force of the state.

Eschewing measures to reduce the chance of conviction is irresponsible in this context. The safety and health of individuals and the movement as a whole should be paramount.

GBC’s asks

XR should take GBC’s recommendations on board in full. They include training legal observers sufficiently and treating them fairly with coordinated check ins, appropriate and verified legal guidance and buddying co-ordination.

GBC asks that XR maximises the safety of those seeking arrest by: informing them of the risks; providing accurate resources; limiting the possibility of conviction by not broadcasting conditions imposed by police; and creating a culture of security around communications and data storage.

These are not ideological subjectivities prejudiced by a culture of hostility to the police. They are wisdoms derived from years of experience supporting those participating in direct action and relating to the police in that context.

For XR to succeed on their own terms, they need the trust of participants as well as dedicating resource to the safety of individuals and the movement.

This Author

Chris Saltmarsh is co-founder of Labour for a Green New Deal and co-director of climate change campaigns at People & Planet. He tweets at @chris_saltmarsh.

Legal advice group Green and Black Cross (GBC) has taken the unprecedented step of making a public statement raising a series of legal and security concerns around Extinction Rebellion (XR).

The statement was published just days after the organisation, which provides legal support and solidarity to those involved in protest activity, entered a three month recuperation period.

The main take-away is that GBC have said that they are no longer willing to continue the work of supporting XR. They had done this through help, advice and training; legal observing; and back office support.

Policing

GBC concludes with a list of asks for XR to enact going forward. GBC’s reasons for concern cover three areas: XR’s use of legal observers; the safety of participants, particularly regarding arrests; and security in the organisation.

Legal observers “provide basic legal guidance and are independent witnesses of police behaviour at protests”. GBC says that XR’s legal observers are poorly trained and do not remain independent on actions.

Other concerns include that participants are put at heightened risk of prosecution when details of conditions imposed on actions are shared on social media, and that misleading information is provided to those risking arrest.

Regarding security, GBC says that personal data is inadequately stored and communication channels used for legal observers allow for the police to access that information.

GBC’s statement comes in the context of an ocean of think-pieces and statements commenting on XR’s politics, strategy and attitude to policing. Those that have come before have been invaluable.

Legal observers

GBC’s should be take particularly seriously. There contribution is about assuring the safety of individuals taking part in XR as well as the movement as a whole.

GBC is a rare example of institutional memory and expertise on the often transient horizontalist environmental left. Its advice should be understood as coming out of that unrivalled experience around protest law and security, rather than yet another ideological or strategic dispute.

XR’s relationship to traditional environmentalism and the left is complex. This has made a productive dialogue challenging. XR explicitly rejects much of the politics, strategy and framings of traditional environmentalism.

On the other hand, it superficially draws on some practices relating to direct-action, while stripping back the underlying politics and divorcing practices from their context.

This has led to contradictions which result in very real in issues around safety. The case of legal observers is among the most pertinent examples of this.

Insignia

XR has adopted the use of legal observers in their actions, but dispute the analysis of the police which foreground their necessity.

Roger Hallam, co-founder of Extinction Rebellion, explains in his booklet Common Sense for the 21st Century XR’s divergent attitude to policing.

He criticises an attitude that “the police are nasty for ideological reasons x and y” which leads to movements finding it “difficult to accept the police can be cooperative in a particular set of circumstances.”

His proposal is that XR activists “[treat police] consistently in a polite way when we are arrested and at the police stations” and build trust “through having regular meetings”.

Out of this attitude, XR has diluted the independence of legal observers. They often wear XR insignia or pass on information from police to protestors.

Firstly, this undermines the legitimacy of their evidence if presented in court. This could be the difference between a conviction or not.

Secondly, this negatively impacts legal observers across the movement. Their role as independent witnesses is undermined for the entire movement that relies on them for impartial evidence if they are considered as ‘part of the protest’. 

Security culture

In his booklet, Hallam is astutely critical of cultural tendencies within green and left movements which limit for building mass politics.

He argues: “Activist routines are off-putting – hand signals which are not explained, […] and new age or academic (radical left) language.”

Although he doesn’t explicitly make this link, inferring the security culture of much of the environmental left as being implicated in these limitations would be reasonable.

Security culture is largely a response to the systematic infiltration of protest movements by the police in past decades, as well as the often legally risky nature of direct action.

This culture often manifests in using secure channels of communication, such as Signal or encrypted email; vetting activists before they can fully participate in actions or organising; and informal hierarchies where key decisions are made between activists with strong affinity, behind the veneer of open consensus meetings. Rejecting this exclusivity is core to XR’s successful mobilisation model.

Conviction

Connor Woodman’s history of infiltration and the movement proposes an alternative response based on building mass politics which makes infiltration redundant.

This is preferable both to “small, isolated affinity groups” and XR’s approach of rejecting any critical analysis of the policing of protest. However, as long as arrest is being seriously risked, precautionary measures must be retained to mitigate risk of conviction.

Hallam writes: “It’s not about creating a comfort zone but about getting on with the critical work that needs to be done – it’s not going to be easy.”

He’s right. Security culture shouldn’t be about reinforcing a comfort zone to the exclusion of mass participation. But XR’s strategy is contingent on making participants vulnerable to the force of the state.

Eschewing measures to reduce the chance of conviction is irresponsible in this context. The safety and health of individuals and the movement as a whole should be paramount.

GBC’s asks

XR should take GBC’s recommendations on board in full. They include training legal observers sufficiently and treating them fairly with coordinated check ins, appropriate and verified legal guidance and buddying co-ordination.

GBC asks that XR maximises the safety of those seeking arrest by: informing them of the risks; providing accurate resources; limiting the possibility of conviction by not broadcasting conditions imposed by police; and creating a culture of security around communications and data storage.

These are not ideological subjectivities prejudiced by a culture of hostility to the police. They are wisdoms derived from years of experience supporting those participating in direct action and relating to the police in that context.

For XR to succeed on their own terms, they need the trust of participants as well as dedicating resource to the safety of individuals and the movement.

This Author

Chris Saltmarsh is co-founder of Labour for a Green New Deal and co-director of climate change campaigns at People & Planet. He tweets at @chris_saltmarsh.

Police have made 10 arrests after environmental campaigners attempted to block access to BP’s offices by locking themselves in containers.

Greenpeace volunteers were due to spend a week locked inside the reinforced boxes as part of protests over the oil giant’s lack of action on climate change.

Protesters arrived at the company’s offices in St James’ Square, central London, at around 3am on Monday to set up the container blockade.

Business

Scotland Yard said officers were called to the scene shortly after 4am following a report of protesters scaling a building.

Activists were warned they were trespassing and risked arrest under the Public Order Act. Ten people were arrested for aggravated trespass and all remain in custody, police said.

Officers made the final arrests at about 7.40pm and are maintaining a presence at the scene, despite no protesters remaining.

Campaigners are demanding that BP immediately ends all exploration for new oil and gas and switches to investing only in renewable energy.

If it does not, Greenpeace is calling for it to wind down its operations completely and go out of business.

Excuses

Greenpeace climate campaigner Mel Evans said: “The police are right to treat the area like a crime scene. But the real crime is not what our volunteers are doing but what they’re trying to stop.

“Oil giants like BP are fuelling a climate emergency that’s threatening the lives of millions of people.

“Business as usual means mass extinction, massive economic damage, and a barely habitable planet. It’s simply not an option.”

Ms Evans said BP was “running out of excuses” and would be met by “opposition wherever they go”.

Morten Thaysen, 31, warned BP that Greenpeace activists would be in Aberdeen on Tuesday with other environmental groups for the start of the company’s annual general meeting.

Abseiled

He told the Press Association: “I think it has dawned on a lot of us that this isn’t something that will only affect the next generation, it is affecting us now.

“It is taking politicians a long time to respond to our climate emergency because of companies like this. BP has spent millions lobbying against the exact climate action that we need.

“It’s all about greed and making as much money as possible. And whether we have a liveable planet in the next 10 years does not matter to them.”

Each container at the protest had enough space for two activists who would have nothing but a week’s worth of supplies and access to Netflix to while away the time inside.

Discussion

Earlier on Monday, other Greenpeace volunteers abseiled off the building to unfurl a banner reading “Climate Emergency”.

BP staff were sent home while police officers cordoned off roads leading to St James’ Square, allowing access only to people working in neighbouring buildings. Road closures have now been lifted, Scotland Yard said.

According to Greenpeace research, BP is outspending other oil giants on lobbying campaigns against climate action and spent £12.6 billion adding to its oil and gas reserves in 2018.

Greenpeace said only £392 million was invested in alternatives to fossil fuels. A spokesperson for BP said: “We welcome discussion.”

This Author

Tess de la Mare is a reporter for the Press Association.

Legal advice group Green and Black Cross (GBC) has taken the unprecedented step of making a public statement raising a series of legal and security concerns around Extinction Rebellion (XR).

The statement was published just days after the organisation, which provides legal support and solidarity to those involved in protest activity, entered a three month recuperation period.

The main take-away is that GBC have said that they are no longer willing to continue the work of supporting XR. They had done this through help, advice and training; legal observing; and back office support.

Policing

GBC concludes with a list of asks for XR to enact going forward. GBC’s reasons for concern cover three areas: XR’s use of legal observers; the safety of participants, particularly regarding arrests; and security in the organisation.

Legal observers “provide basic legal guidance and are independent witnesses of police behaviour at protests”. GBC says that XR’s legal observers are poorly trained and do not remain independent on actions.

Other concerns include that participants are put at heightened risk of prosecution when details of conditions imposed on actions are shared on social media, and that misleading information is provided to those risking arrest.

Regarding security, GBC says that personal data is inadequately stored and communication channels used for legal observers allow for the police to access that information.

GBC’s statement comes in the context of an ocean of think-pieces and statements commenting on XR’s politics, strategy and attitude to policing. Those that have come before have been invaluable.

Legal observers

GBC’s should be take particularly seriously. There contribution is about assuring the safety of individuals taking part in XR as well as the movement as a whole.

GBC is a rare example of institutional memory and expertise on the often transient horizontalist environmental left. Its advice should be understood as coming out of that unrivalled experience around protest law and security, rather than yet another ideological or strategic dispute.

XR’s relationship to traditional environmentalism and the left is complex. This has made a productive dialogue challenging. XR explicitly rejects much of the politics, strategy and framings of traditional environmentalism.

On the other hand, it superficially draws on some practices relating to direct-action, while stripping back the underlying politics and divorcing practices from their context.

This has led to contradictions which result in very real in issues around safety. The case of legal observers is among the most pertinent examples of this.

Insignia

XR has adopted the use of legal observers in their actions, but dispute the analysis of the police which foreground their necessity.

Roger Hallam, co-founder of Extinction Rebellion, explains in his booklet Common Sense for the 21st Century XR’s divergent attitude to policing.

He criticises an attitude that “the police are nasty for ideological reasons x and y” which leads to movements finding it “difficult to accept the police can be cooperative in a particular set of circumstances.”

His proposal is that XR activists “[treat police] consistently in a polite way when we are arrested and at the police stations” and build trust “through having regular meetings”.

Out of this attitude, XR has diluted the independence of legal observers. They often wear XR insignia or pass on information from police to protestors.

Firstly, this undermines the legitimacy of their evidence if presented in court. This could be the difference between a conviction or not.

Secondly, this negatively impacts legal observers across the movement. Their role as independent witnesses is undermined for the entire movement that relies on them for impartial evidence if they are considered as ‘part of the protest’. 

Security culture

In his booklet, Hallam is astutely critical of cultural tendencies within green and left movements which limit for building mass politics.

He argues: “Activist routines are off-putting – hand signals which are not explained, […] and new age or academic (radical left) language.”

Although he doesn’t explicitly make this link, inferring the security culture of much of the environmental left as being implicated in these limitations would be reasonable.

Security culture is largely a response to the systematic infiltration of protest movements by the police in past decades, as well as the often legally risky nature of direct action.

This culture often manifests in using secure channels of communication, such as Signal or encrypted email; vetting activists before they can fully participate in actions or organising; and informal hierarchies where key decisions are made between activists with strong affinity, behind the veneer of open consensus meetings. Rejecting this exclusivity is core to XR’s successful mobilisation model.

Conviction

Connor Woodman’s history of infiltration and the movement proposes an alternative response based on building mass politics which makes infiltration redundant.

This is preferable both to “small, isolated affinity groups” and XR’s approach of rejecting any critical analysis of the policing of protest. However, as long as arrest is being seriously risked, precautionary measures must be retained to mitigate risk of conviction.

Hallam writes: “It’s not about creating a comfort zone but about getting on with the critical work that needs to be done – it’s not going to be easy.”

He’s right. Security culture shouldn’t be about reinforcing a comfort zone to the exclusion of mass participation. But XR’s strategy is contingent on making participants vulnerable to the force of the state.

Eschewing measures to reduce the chance of conviction is irresponsible in this context. The safety and health of individuals and the movement as a whole should be paramount.

GBC’s asks

XR should take GBC’s recommendations on board in full. They include training legal observers sufficiently and treating them fairly with coordinated check ins, appropriate and verified legal guidance and buddying co-ordination.

GBC asks that XR maximises the safety of those seeking arrest by: informing them of the risks; providing accurate resources; limiting the possibility of conviction by not broadcasting conditions imposed by police; and creating a culture of security around communications and data storage.

These are not ideological subjectivities prejudiced by a culture of hostility to the police. They are wisdoms derived from years of experience supporting those participating in direct action and relating to the police in that context.

For XR to succeed on their own terms, they need the trust of participants as well as dedicating resource to the safety of individuals and the movement.

This Author

Chris Saltmarsh is co-founder of Labour for a Green New Deal and co-director of climate change campaigns at People & Planet. He tweets at @chris_saltmarsh.

Legal advice group Green and Black Cross (GBC) has taken the unprecedented step of making a public statement raising a series of legal and security concerns around Extinction Rebellion (XR).

The statement was published just days after the organisation, which provides legal support and solidarity to those involved in protest activity, entered a three month recuperation period.

The main take-away is that GBC have said that they are no longer willing to continue the work of supporting XR. They had done this through help, advice and training; legal observing; and back office support.

Policing

GBC concludes with a list of asks for XR to enact going forward. GBC’s reasons for concern cover three areas: XR’s use of legal observers; the safety of participants, particularly regarding arrests; and security in the organisation.

Legal observers “provide basic legal guidance and are independent witnesses of police behaviour at protests”. GBC says that XR’s legal observers are poorly trained and do not remain independent on actions.

Other concerns include that participants are put at heightened risk of prosecution when details of conditions imposed on actions are shared on social media, and that misleading information is provided to those risking arrest.

Regarding security, GBC says that personal data is inadequately stored and communication channels used for legal observers allow for the police to access that information.

GBC’s statement comes in the context of an ocean of think-pieces and statements commenting on XR’s politics, strategy and attitude to policing. Those that have come before have been invaluable.

Legal observers

GBC’s should be take particularly seriously. There contribution is about assuring the safety of individuals taking part in XR as well as the movement as a whole.

GBC is a rare example of institutional memory and expertise on the often transient horizontalist environmental left. Its advice should be understood as coming out of that unrivalled experience around protest law and security, rather than yet another ideological or strategic dispute.

XR’s relationship to traditional environmentalism and the left is complex. This has made a productive dialogue challenging. XR explicitly rejects much of the politics, strategy and framings of traditional environmentalism.

On the other hand, it superficially draws on some practices relating to direct-action, while stripping back the underlying politics and divorcing practices from their context.

This has led to contradictions which result in very real in issues around safety. The case of legal observers is among the most pertinent examples of this.

Insignia

XR has adopted the use of legal observers in their actions, but dispute the analysis of the police which foreground their necessity.

Roger Hallam, co-founder of Extinction Rebellion, explains in his booklet Common Sense for the 21st Century XR’s divergent attitude to policing.

He criticises an attitude that “the police are nasty for ideological reasons x and y” which leads to movements finding it “difficult to accept the police can be cooperative in a particular set of circumstances.”

His proposal is that XR activists “[treat police] consistently in a polite way when we are arrested and at the police stations” and build trust “through having regular meetings”.

Out of this attitude, XR has diluted the independence of legal observers. They often wear XR insignia or pass on information from police to protestors.

Firstly, this undermines the legitimacy of their evidence if presented in court. This could be the difference between a conviction or not.

Secondly, this negatively impacts legal observers across the movement. Their role as independent witnesses is undermined for the entire movement that relies on them for impartial evidence if they are considered as ‘part of the protest’. 

Security culture

In his booklet, Hallam is astutely critical of cultural tendencies within green and left movements which limit for building mass politics.

He argues: “Activist routines are off-putting – hand signals which are not explained, […] and new age or academic (radical left) language.”

Although he doesn’t explicitly make this link, inferring the security culture of much of the environmental left as being implicated in these limitations would be reasonable.

Security culture is largely a response to the systematic infiltration of protest movements by the police in past decades, as well as the often legally risky nature of direct action.

This culture often manifests in using secure channels of communication, such as Signal or encrypted email; vetting activists before they can fully participate in actions or organising; and informal hierarchies where key decisions are made between activists with strong affinity, behind the veneer of open consensus meetings. Rejecting this exclusivity is core to XR’s successful mobilisation model.

Conviction

Connor Woodman’s history of infiltration and the movement proposes an alternative response based on building mass politics which makes infiltration redundant.

This is preferable both to “small, isolated affinity groups” and XR’s approach of rejecting any critical analysis of the policing of protest. However, as long as arrest is being seriously risked, precautionary measures must be retained to mitigate risk of conviction.

Hallam writes: “It’s not about creating a comfort zone but about getting on with the critical work that needs to be done – it’s not going to be easy.”

He’s right. Security culture shouldn’t be about reinforcing a comfort zone to the exclusion of mass participation. But XR’s strategy is contingent on making participants vulnerable to the force of the state.

Eschewing measures to reduce the chance of conviction is irresponsible in this context. The safety and health of individuals and the movement as a whole should be paramount.

GBC’s asks

XR should take GBC’s recommendations on board in full. They include training legal observers sufficiently and treating them fairly with coordinated check ins, appropriate and verified legal guidance and buddying co-ordination.

GBC asks that XR maximises the safety of those seeking arrest by: informing them of the risks; providing accurate resources; limiting the possibility of conviction by not broadcasting conditions imposed by police; and creating a culture of security around communications and data storage.

These are not ideological subjectivities prejudiced by a culture of hostility to the police. They are wisdoms derived from years of experience supporting those participating in direct action and relating to the police in that context.

For XR to succeed on their own terms, they need the trust of participants as well as dedicating resource to the safety of individuals and the movement.

This Author

Chris Saltmarsh is co-founder of Labour for a Green New Deal and co-director of climate change campaigns at People & Planet. He tweets at @chris_saltmarsh.