Welly

Im in wellington for the meat conference, I will be posting photos and news tomorrow and sat as to how everythings going. Last night was a mission to get down here, we left and six and arroved at four in the morning. Needless to say im rather incoherent.

Its fun down here, the activist community actually seems to exist down here compared to Auckland. We did an interview for indymedia on the Victoria uni radio station.

I will have a ton of photos over the next couple of days and probably a few new ideas.

"The Permaculture Concept"

This is part two of a six part documentary with permaculture cofounder Bill Mollisan. Its really worth watching. The whole series is on you tube.

Beliefs and tactics part two

The lifestyle enjoyed by westerners is unsustainable. Furthermore one cannot have the kind of lifestyle enjoyed by westerners without the large scale destruction of the planet. You can’t have a car without mines, we can’t have cheap food without oil and pesticides, we can’t have cheap clothes without sweatshops. Realistically we probably can’t consume above the level of an advanced agricultural society without permanently degrading the environment. All of this seems pretty obvious, grab the nearest thing to you and think about what was necessary to produce it. Take a look at what you are wearing and try and think about how our society would have to be structured if what you were wearing were to grown organically transported without fossil fuel emissions and sold in a completely sustainable store. And what if everyone that came into contact with the product was living sustainably, what would such a society have to look like?

Knowing how unsustainable our current society is it seems logical to start thinking about how to change our society so it no longer relies on things such as fossil fuels. But exactly the same people who claim to want to stop burning fossil fuels get mad when you start talking about how we are going to be forced to give up everything we take for granted if we are serious about stopping this destruction. They get mad when I say that because no one will willingly give up cheap food and cars we shouldn’t pretend that democracy will get it. Clearly there is a disconnect here, obviously people care about the environment but few seem to connect it to our day to day reality.

Furthermore few environmentalists seem to have a grasp of the grossly unsustainable nature of our society. Rarely is it mentioned that the carrying capacity of the planet is somewhere around 2 billion, not 6. When the food supply is talked about few realize that we are currently putting ten times more energy into producing it than we get from consuming it. Or that we are losing topsoil one hundred times faster than it can be naturally regenerated and that when it is gone our agricultural regions will collapse like those of the middle east.

If environmentalists realized or cared about these things they wouldn’t get angry when I suggest that a lot of people are going to die due to land degradation. And if they realized the web of destruction necessary to manufacture the simplest of items in our society they wouldn’t be upset when I say that I don’t want people in the west to be able to comsume on our current levels. If they were actually keen to halt environmental destruction they probably wouldn’t be arguing about which car is the best to buy.

So I think that most self declared environmentalists are not serious about what needs to happen to stop the destruction of the planet. I think most are still attatched to the notion that we have a right to be affluent. I think when the time for tough decisions comes that those in groups such as the greens will choose to continue grossly unsustainable acts rather than compromise our societys ability to continue in its current shape. I think that most left wing activists still believe it is the inherent right of humans to destroy whatever they want for their own gain.

Allmost all of our actions as environmentalists are approved of by the government and the police. Allmost all of our actions fail to question the right of humans to consume and destroy the environment. And almost all of our actions fail to in any way challenge the structures our industrial civilization needs to continue. All this leads me to believe that our environmental activism is just a release valve for discontent that builds up in our society, a reformist feel good all absorbing pursuit for activists that want to actually make a difference. These ideas aren’t anything new, its just I’m sick of being lied to by environmentalists about the effectiveness of any such reformist action.

Anti Smacking Rallys

Just did a ring round christian and right wing organisations and it looks like there is nothing planned in opposition of Sue Bradfords anti smacking legislation in Auckland at this stage. I was thinking a counter demonstration might be fun and get some good media but it looks like wellingtonians will be our best bet for a fun counter demo.

Beliefs and tactics part one

As activists we are generally fight for things which our society sympathizes with us on, things like war, coal mining or factory farming. We (logically) tend to fight these issues in a public friendly manner, seldom damaging property and emphasizing alternatives or less damaging methods rather than telling the public that they must give up their current lifestyle. And never question the right of the humans to permanently degrade the land and we refrain from challenging the right to consume.

When we take an issue on we often seem to accept the responsibility for providing jobs for all those engaged in the destructive activity. Furthermore we often go out of our way to point out how people can maintain a materially high standard of living. Because of our weak position and our strict use of state sanctioned tactics we only request people change and tend to rely on rich western consumers choosing not to support whatever abuse we are campaigning against.

All of the above is logical and in most cases is necessary to win individual campaigns; and I’m not suggesting we begin fighting our campaigns specifically to piss of the public. What I’m interested in is not only how as activists we fight our campaigns this way but how these campaign tactics reflect the fact that for the most part our value systems reflect those of the dominant culture.

From birth we are taught our cultures values and beliefs - the value of private property, that land can be owned, that humans have a right to use and exploit nature. I think that we are fighting through a cultural lense which values humans and the wants of rich humans above the rest of the inhabitants of our culture.. I think our tactics reflect these beliefs.

The inability of the environmental movement (for pragmatic reasons or otherwise) to confront the destructive nature of western consumption leads to ridiculous situations where mainstream environmental groups spend their time trying to convince the public which car or which power company they should choose. Because these groups are unwilling to question the assumptions that this society is built on they are left making bigger and bigger compromises. We are working to make the destruction of our planet as efficient as possible. We are often working to spread unsustainable technologies across as many socioeconomic levels as possible.

If we do not question mans right to exploit land and mans right to have power, a car and a tv then we will never halt the destruction of the environment and the enslavement of non-humans. If we do not challenge the arrogant domination of our culture then we will forever be reformist arguing about whether the coal power plant or the dam is the better way to power our cities. We will forever be engaging in protest action which improves the efficiency of our destruction of the planet.

The Upside of Down

Around the world there still exist in many places societies which are not tied to the global economic system. These societies can produce what they need to survive. They are not forced to prostitute themselves to the world market for the right to live or eat. Where these cultures have not been systematically destroyed and forced off their land and in many cases in spite of attempts to destroy them they are able to live far more sane and far more meaningful lives than our own. I think that gradually in western countries autonomous zones increasingly detached from global trade systems will soon be able to arise.

As sources of cheap energy begin to run out our current system will be unable to provide food cheaply and easily across the globe. Global trade links will gradually disintegrate and the worlds economy will be unable to deal with permanent recession. This will force people to once again produce their own food. As the current agricultural system uses ten times more energy than it produces a lot of people will have to get involved in food production. Energy decline and associated recession would also hit our institutions and industry hard.

As communities are forced to deal with the problems and opportunities posed by peak oil and peak food production the world’s militaries will probably be occupied fighting over the worlds oil fields. Police forces will probably become understaffed and under funded in any long term recession. This means that a bunch of hippies or anarchists ripping up the carpark of a long abandoned mall some frustrated neighbors digging up the local park to grow food on they will probably go unnoticed. And when weekly meetings in the school hall come to be the body where decisions are made the local council will have little power left to overrule these groups of neighbors.

I think the changes required by an energy descent are incredibly positive and I believe that organically new social systems will arise to replace our current system as communities and neighborhoods are forced to recognize their interdependence. Communities will be forced to band together to solve problems of food, unemployment and production of clothes, machinery tools etc.

All of this will necessitate a lot people learning new skills and a lot of changes in the way people get what they need to survive. I don’t think any such transition will be planned on a large scale and after a while there won’t be any way for the transition to be controlled. Instead of a government mandated program I think change will look like an unemployed husband working in the garden. Instead of green consumers I think it will look like people repairing their clothes because they cannot afford to buy more. Because these changes will be driven by need I think these changes will be far more meaningful and real than any vision put forward by radicals or governments.

Once links to the global economic system begin to disintegrate people will adapt and make whatever changes are necessary to feed themselves and their families. Many practical skills are no longer commonplace but with motivation people will find and create alternatives that work for them. People working on a small scale in local communities probably won’t manufacture toxic chemicals, and if the global system were to run out of any key component then it would be impossible to continue the current scale of destruction for long.

No matter what happens people will want to heat their homes and will want to keep many of the comforts provided by our society. People will still want electricity and if coal is the easiest way to get it I’m sure they will burn it. But I think destruction will be on a smaller, more localized scale. People will want jobs and will want money and if they can keep the local factory running they will. This is natural and I think that the return to a completely agrarian society is likely to take at least one hundred years.

I think that large scale change will occur within the next 5 – 25 years and that one of the most important things we can do is prepare and educate for these changes. I think that there is a huge upside to the decline of the current global capitalist system and I believe we will soon see evidence that the current system is fighting for its very survival. I think energy decline no matter when it occurs will pose our best opportunity to get rid of governments and promote community control.

Just browsing through my documents and I came across something I wrote a while ago:

The worlds ecosystems have been under a sustained attack for the past ten thousand years, Countless trees have been felled – for houses – fuel, ships etc, countless fish have been pulled from the ocean. Countless species systematically exterminated because they interfered with mans ability to profit. This destruction has snowballed – from a few hundred thousand people building villages and city’s through a few million to around six and a half billion people. And things are not getting any better, indeed they are only getting worse.

On top of runaway environmental destruction we have built a civilisation that is reliant on a few resources – both renewable and nonrenewable have been hyper exploited to the point where they are about to disappear permanently. Our current way of life rests upon a very fragile tower of cards and it will collapse.

A report I saw summarized the other day says that half the worlds surface will be in permanent drought by 2100 – a third of the worlds surface will be so dry nothing will be able to grow. Another report says our oceans will be emptied of fish within my lifetime and that we will all have to switch to eating jellyfish. Yet another report points to the peak and decline of the worlds oil supply’s.

Clearly things cannot continue like this much longer, the world cannot take another 20 years of growth – it cannot even take another 20 years of abuse at this level. Things must change and they will whether we like it or not. We have two choices – we can continue to use our resources to grow and grow or we can attempt to change to a more sustainable way of living.

Protest Against Superfund Investments

Yesterday around 30 students and members of the public marched from Auckland University to the New Zealand Superfund. The protest was in opposition to the New Zealand superannuation fund’s investment in several weapons manufacturers and Freeport McMoRan a mining company aiding the occupation of west Papua. The march attracted considerable public and police attention on the way and blocked traffic on several normally busy streets. Upon reaching the superfund students moved into and occupied the lobby of the Quay Tower at the bottom of town. Ringed by police and security guards the students chanted and disrupted the normal flow of business. The leader of the march then negotiated the occupying students withdrawal in exchange for him and another member of the protest being allowed to go up to the superfund and express their opposition to its investments.

After several minutes of negations in which it was constantly stressed this was a “peaceful and nonviolent protest” The leader was escorted by several police and security up to the superfund offices. The students meanwhile conducted a picket outside the offices with several speeches given. Upon return we were informed that the superfund was undergoing a “review process” and that our concerns were noted.

At one point during negotiations between the leader of the protest and police I began a chant only to be angrily confronted by another protest for potentially endangering the negotiations saying "dont you want him to be able to meet them" to which I replied "not really" when I asked her how it would make any differene I was told "its the personal connection that matters you know, that umm talking personally". Well I dont think the personal connection makes any difference and thought we may have traded away our occupation for a disempowering snob by an official. I dont think talking to the government will change anything and when you need to get 30 people to occupy a lobby and a police escort to talk to a minor official then I think we are in a bad way indeed.

While the turn out was small most of the people there were new. I'm glad that anti war events are occuring outside of the typical march but hope actions are more effective in future. For anyone wanting to visit the superfund personally they are on the 12th floor of the quay street towers Auckland City.

Two protesters escorted up to superfund offices

Fungi Disrupt Co2 plans

Taken from infoshop news

If this is the case for ecosystems globally then the situation appears grim. I have long thought that increasing the amount of Organic Matter in the soil would both lck up some Co2 and improve the health of our agricultural systems. I hadn't thought through the effects of increased Co2 concentrations on micro-organisms though....

As atmospheric carbon dioxide levels rise, scientists have counted on the ground beneath our feet to soak up some of this greenhouse gas. But fungi living in the soil could throw a wrench into that plan, according to a new study, which finds that the microbes could actually cause soil to lose carbon to the atmosphere.

Plants grow faster as CO2 levels increase, taking up more carbon from the air. Scientists have suggested that this might in turn cause soils to soak up excess carbon as well by accumulating more root matter.

To test this idea, a team of microbial ecologists and plant physiologists at the Smithsonian Environmental Research Center in Edgewater, Maryland, subjected a scrub oak ecosystem in Florida to twice the current level of atmospheric carbon dioxide for 6 years. The team was surprised to find that in spite of increased plant growth, the soils were losing carbon rather than taking up more. In fact, the soil was releasing more than half the amount of carbon dioxide that the plants were taking up.

The problem appears to be fungi. When the researchers compared the soil in the CO2-enriched environment to a similar plot that had been exposed to ambient CO2 for 6 years, they found that the high-CO2 plot had more fungi. Soil fungi are good at decomposing tough organic materials, explains team leader Karen Carney, in part by producing carbon-degrading enzymes. So increasing the amount of fungi boosts the decomposition of organic matter in the soil, releasing the stored carbon into the atmosphere through respiration. The findings appear online this week in the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences.

Police Response to Protest in Auckland.

In Auckland over the past few years the police have been consistently unable to predict when splinter groups will carry out actions around major marches in Auckland. This sporadic use of swarming means the police have to divert 20+ officers to many marche's in Auckland to attempt to try and prevent anything unauthorised from occuring. Now because they are never sure whats going to happen and who is responsible they have for a long time been videoing and taking high resolution photos of everyone that looks like a potential trouble maker on march's. By now the police are likely to have several thousand pictures of hundreds of different people and dozens of hours of videos. All this of people participating in peaceful protest normally against war.

As a response to their suveillance I have taken to getting close up photos of every officer on the march, particularly the police photographers. They find this rather frustrating and yesterday the police photographer ran round trying to get photos of me for quite a while after I got some close ups of her. I have also been threatened with arrest as a response of this tactic. So I was wondering if anyone knew what information such as photos we could access under the official information act? Does anyone know how to draft the questions properly?

Even cops don't like having their photos taken

I dont think these police tactics are justfied and I'm not conviced that these photos and profiling of activists will be used responsibly - particularly if New Zealand ever started to use counter terrorism legislation. A government that feels so threatened that it must monitor any protest activity and identify everyone participating in it is not a government I trust.

Ungdomshuset

Just a wee bit of riot porn to brighten up your day.

March Against War

Today 300 people marched against the ongoing war in Iraq and Afghanistan. Highlighted during the march was the important role war plays in maintaining our current empire.

Great Post

Just found this over on contradiction, I hope they dont mind me quoting almost the entire text but I think it says it all

"Two things struck me on my way into Melbourne yesterday. The first was seeing the great coal power station at Sale. It is the most polluting power plant in the entire developed world. I’ve seen it from the ground, but in the air it was even more impressive, as you could see the clouds of CO2 heavy smoke drag out for miles. It was intense and beautiful at the same time.

I hitchhiked into central Melbourne, which was also an eye opener. The great thing about hitching is that you see things you’re unlikely to see otherwise, and often get taken outside your comfort zone. In this case I was taken via Footscray, past the freight distribution centre for much of Australia. It really struck me how intensely this country relies on fossil fuels to generate economic activity. The other thing that couldn’t be missed was how brown and dry the city is, much more so than the last time I was here. While the drought cannot be definitively attributed to climate change, the prospect of severe and sustained weather events is being dramatically increased. Unlike New Zealand, somewhat anachronisticly dependent on an agrinomic economy, this place is invested in resource and energy intensive activities for it’s prosperity. Agriculture still plays a significant part, but in many places on the point of collapse. One of the world’s major grain sources is almost dead. I probably don’t need to express what emotion that evokes.

It appears to me that Australia is faced with a choice. On one hand going further down a path of destruction and resource extraction and risking collapse should agriculture fail and easily usable energy supplies dry up. The other is unwinding from that, and moving to a system that only uses as much as it can sustain indefinitely. I know the eternal optimists will argue that there are always substitutes, and the human ingenuity conquers all, but given our history of destroying systems necessary for life, I’d like for humans to take a much more cautious approach."

Cool Text.

Picture taken on wellesly street by Lena.

The standardization of reality.

It hit me today how standardized our reality has become, that through assembly line style processes we become numbed and used to mechanistic repetitive tasks. I believe this has a profound effect on or psychology and how we experience the world. I guess the process really takes hold during school, as a child’s day is arbitrarily broken up into tasks which have little variation and can be counted on from one day to the next. But this standardized existence seems ubiquitous in our society, houses exactly the same, with the same TV’s inside playing the same tv programs to children attending the same schools with the same lessons. Adults doing jobs which require no creativity, driving the same route every day to do the same thing every day. Lives and routines which are identical no matter where in the west one goes.

I think these standardized lives are wrong for several reasons, one of which is how little of our capacity these lives require, how unfulfilling and numbing this existence is. This aspect of modern life has been explored in fields as disparate as pop cultures American Beauty and the Unabomber’s manifesto. What really stands out for me though is how this routine filled existence creates a disconnect between our actions and reality. Because it is impossible to try and find meaning flipping burgers or filling out paperwork to try and force meaning out of these jobs would lead to existential angst and depression.

Because we can’t look for meaning in our day to day lives and still stay sane our ability to notice meaning and the bigger picture behind our actions eventually disappears. This is reinforced by the disconnect I have talked about earlier between humans and nature. I believe that eventually we become capable of committing gross atrocities because of this dulling. That the assemble line nature of our lives forces us to objectify everything and that to both the car assembly line worker and the slaughter house worker they are both just dealing with objects, that they have both divorced any meaning from the work that they are doing. That both the slaughterhouse worker and say a CEO of an oil company have both divorced the effects of their actions on other from the work that they are doing.

I think that this process of divorcing meaning from actions is probably a result of our conditioning and that it’s probably deliberate. I also think that this divorcement of meaning from action makes it impossible to rely on humans to be responsible for their actions. That because of this disconnection no one is able to conceive the results of their actions. This is reinforced by mass media which deliberately tries to mask the links between climate change and the ads for Oil Company’s that they play in the breaks.

What drugs are the socialists on?
(and why don't they share?)

Recently a lot of socialists have been talking about major cuts in carbon emissions, firgures like 50% or even 90%. While cuts like these would be nice I am quite confused by what they say next. For example these are taken from readingthemaps.blogspot.com in response to climactions recent street party.

"In reality, the cause of global warming is global capitalism, not the bloke filling up his Holden at the Swanson BP"

"It is big capitalist firms who pollute. The fact that we consume the energy (for example) that they produce does not in any way argue for reduced consumption. It demands the profits of these big companies be spent on improving the quality of their production and distribution, creating more jobs, as well as safer and cleaner production. Furthermore it points out that capitalism is unable to do this, that only the socialist transformation of society, the rational, democratic and scientific planning of production will allow such a development.

While capitalism continues pollution will get worse and so will their contribution to climate change, with all the attendant destruction and devastation that brings with it. We will all pay the price but will not enjoy improved living standards as a result. The capitalist class will improve its profits at our expense, with no concern for the wages and conditions of the workforce, or the destruction of the environment. Far from arguing for limiting consumption, we do indeed believe in a society of superabundance, but point out too that this can only be achieved by the pooling and planning of the world's resources."

Which of course leads me to my next question what drugs are these socialists taking that make them think we can continue our current level of consumption without killing the planet? How on earth does our current unsustainable life argue for socialism? Cuba, one of their socialist utopias has been through the sorts of cuts we need to see, and their entire population fell in weight a few kilos because of food shortages. A large percentage of their population had to move back out to the country and their cities only have water and power for a few hours a day. I plan to visit Cuba and I think they have a lot of ideas we can copy, however the changes hurt, they were significant, and even their socialism didnt save them from cuts in consumption.

Our consumption levels are unsustainable and we need to deindustrialise. A socialist revolution that has at its heart increasing productivity and industrial growth will kill the planet just as efficiently as a capitalist system. While our society is fixated on growth and consumption it doesnt matter who is in charge.

To be fair readingthemaps goes on to say "In other words, the solution to ecological problems like global warming is not a change in consumption choices by individual workers but a change of economic and social system. Cars are not to blame for global warming; nor are their drivers" I agree with this, we need to destroy the industrial system which is systematically killing ecosystems to further consumption in the west. We need to destroy this system which values human life above the rest of the natural world. We must come to live in balance with the limits of this planet. We need to take down the current system if we want to stop climate change, this means losing all the things this system provides such as cheap energy and high levels of consumption.

All of this will require a transformation in the way we live, it will require increasing community control, it will require the end to all sectors of the econmomy which involve extracting resources and it will require an end to all industrys which require that extraction. It will mean living in an agrarian society not an industrial society.

Socialists can't have their cake and eat it too. They cannot claim to want to halt climate change and still want high standards of consumption in the west. Their is a choice that has to be made: to continue living as we currently do until our ecosystems collapse or to begin a voluntary transformation to a sustainable way of living.

Blaming corporations for global waming without facing the fact that almost everything we currently take for granted must go to prevent climate change is at worst deception and at best ill informed. Yes climate change needs to be stopped, but so does industrial civilisation. I don't particularly care whether it is a socialist coal power plant or a capitalist coal power plant, that power plant needs to be destroyed. I dont care whether its a capitalist mine or a socialist mine that mining needs to stop.

Horizon Gardens

These are some photos I took yesteray at Horizon gardens. Horizon gardens is a community garden which provides an opportunity for people affected by physical and mental disabilities to garden in a judgment free, supportive environment. It also provides allotments for members of the community who pay a small fee and get an allotment for a year. The gardens are about to be significantly reduced in size to provide extra car parking and room for CCS who own the gardens. It’s a really beautiful place and has a remarkable sense of calm and tranquility which will soon be interrupted by diggers and heavy machinery.

The gardens have a new manager who is plannint to run a series of gardening workshops and who is full of plans to develop the site as a demonstation permaculture garden. The green fingered message is to be combined with a social justice message, and a wider focus on what is wrong with our current society. It is envisaged that through intensive use of land and careful planning that even with a significant reduction in size the site will maintain or improve its current productivity. I’m really excited about the opportunity’s the redevelopment will present and am glad for the chance to work in such a beautiful place.

There is far too much to write about in one go so I will gradually post pictures and information as I work there. I will also post more photos of my own garden which im getting cranking in anticipation of some winter veggies.

Old chook house, surrounded by a fig tree and clump of bananas. This is to be cleared.


Mountain Pawpaw flowers, the Pawpaws push out and develop in size.


Part of the well established orchard which is to be destroyed.

Bed of spinach plants, with a sporadic mix of vegies at the back
North facing slope, The site is sheltered from winds and has some of the richest soil I have seen.
An allotment, mulched with corn stalks and leaves, the path is made of wood chips. The mulch will hold moisture in provide organic matter and allow worms to come to the surface without drying out..
An area primarily covered with tamarillo trees and weeds which is to be developed into a mini food forest.

To find out more about how you can help out at Horizon Gardens or if you have any queries about gardening in Auckland just leave your email in the comments.

March For Rape survivors.

Workers Fired Because of Union Membership

Today workers from the 5 star Ascott Metropolis hotel in central Auckland picketed their former workplace in response to an unfair an illegal dismissal. The workers had been employed in the hotels restaurant operated by an Australian contractor, but after the contract was given to the manager of the Atlantis restaurant the five Unite union members were fired and non union members were hired to replace them. The manager Peter Gibbs has a long history of screwing over his workers, taking several months of union fee’s from his workers pay and not giving them to the union as well as paying workers late and breaching their collective agreement. One of the workers Gaila had this to say “We’ve worker here for three years, we’ve worked split shifts, long hours and irregular weeks for this company and the hotel has taken our union fee’s taken our Christmas pay and lowered our hours from 40 hours per week to 15 hours per week so we are barely able to pay our rent” The workers had found out the week before Christmas that they were not to be paid on time that week as “the company could not afford it”. The workers are regularly paid late, not provided with a pay slip and are left wondering every Thursday whether their pay will go through on time. This has resulted in extra fees as workers not paid on time are unable to pay their bills.

Beth another worker said “The first time your contractors liquidated who did your split shifts? We worked from 5 – 12am and then came back to work 7 – 12pm at night” Peter Gibbs now claims he does not know the name of the new company he manages despite it being registered in his wife’s name.

Guests from the hotel came out to support the staff, many of whom they knew by name. The guests were shocked by the loss of the staff saying that “these are such fine people, the best workers” another was “extremely sorry” and got the contact details of the workers so he could keep in touch. The public support was also high with a local café bringing coffee for everyone on the picket line and passing motorists and public tooting and indicating their support for the workers.

Resident who had come out to give the workers a hug

The Ascott is a 5 star hotel whose parent company has just reported a profit of over a hundred million dollars. Despite this it has actively refused to pass on union fee’s and has worked in tandem with Peter Gibbs to try and get rid of the union. Unite will be taking a court case against the hotel restaurant which has breached New Zealand law in several places including firing workers for being members of a union and not allowing them to continue their jobs when contractors change as is necessary under New Zealand law for those working in sectors such as catering where the workers are deemed “vulnerable”.

Unite is beginning a wider campaign for hotel workers on Saturday labeled “wake up hotels” and will continue to picket the Ascott Metropolis hotel until the five workers are given their jobs back. The workers are planning to stay outside the hotel indefinitely with talk of a protest camp. Details will be made available as to how the public can support these workers as they come to hand.

Water Tanks

Well I have just started watering the garden, I planted most of the summer vegies in september/october and this meant that they got a bit of rain to get established before summer really hit. I was busy over summer and apart from sporadic watering everything produced ok and then dried out and died which was perfectly fine. But because we are heading into autumn and I'v planted winter vegies such as beetroot, leeks, broccoli as well as some late bush beans iv been forced to begin regular watering. Now I'm doing my best to conserve water, heavily mulching new plantings, leaving gaps between watering to drive the plants roots deeper and only watering tree's and perrenials when they are newly planted. Despite this I end up watering fairly frequently in any given year so I have been looking at buying a water tank.

The water bill tells me that for 1000 litres of water we have to pay around $1.80 including waste water charges. If the 5000 litre tank I'm looking at costs $1500 then we would have to use 833,000 litres to pay the tank back. Now I'm not sure how many litres I use from year to year but some rough calculations tell me it could take a few decades to pay it back at current prices. So I'm going to compromise, I'm looking at a second hand tank that holds 1800 litres and should cost a few hundred dollars, after a year of using that I'm going to reconsider how big a water tank I really need for the garden.

Increasing ones autonomy from centralised infrastructure can be a time sonsuming and expensive process. The benefits and potential pitfalls of relying on our current system for nessecities should be weighed before one rashly decides to plunge headlong into self sufficiency.

Why Our Culture is Destructive

From the culture of make believe by Derrick Jenson pgs 448 and 449

"because our economics (and our society) is based on competition, it breeds hatred, insecurity and fear .... the anthropologist Ruth Benedict tried to figure out why some cultures are fundamentally peaceful and others are not, why women and children are treated well in some cultures and in others they are not, and why some cultures are cooperatuve and others are competitive. She found one simple rule which covered all of these. It has to do with our needs as social creatures for esteem. In what she termed good, or synergistic, cultures, selfishness and altruism are merged by granting esteem to those who are generous. Cultures that reward behaviour beneffiting the group as a whole (and specifically that siphon wealth constantly from the rich to poor) while not allowing behaviour that harms the group as a whole are peaceful, respectful of women and children, and cooperative. Individual members are secure. If, on the other hand your cultures grants esteem to those who are acquisitive, that is, if your culture rewards behaviour that benefits the individual at the expense of the whole (and if your culture funnels wealth from the poor to the rich), your culture will be warlike, abusive toward women and children, and competitive. Individuals will be insecure. She also found that members of the cultures with the former characteristics are, unsuprisingly, for the most part, happy. Members of the cultures with the latter characteristics are, just as unsurprisinly, not. Valium, anyone?"

"Because competition is so central to our culture, because acquisition is so deeply rewarded, because this cultural urge to acquire is insatiable, and because this acquisition is inevitably based on the exploitation of others, there can be no limit to how thoroughly our culture will exploit others,
both human and nonhuman."

"... another of the central movements of our culture... ..has been towards increasing abstraction.. Thus their can be no limit, then, also to the abstraction of our hate, that is to the increasing emotional and physical distance over which we can and do destroy, to the veils we place between ourselves and those others we may no longer consider as existing."

Thoughts from Augustus

Taken from here

The mine has obliterated all vegetation and natural landforms behind the Mt Augustus ridgeline, and the\n devastation is still expanding into the last 2 or so hectares of Powelliphanta Augustus. (A critically endangered species of NZ land snail) We have no right to destroy what we cannot recreate, and
we are doomed and damned when we destroy what can NEVER be replaced. The unique vegetation and rare/endangered endemic species on the Mt Augustus Ridgeline earned it a recommendation for protection in 1998……Solid Energy have claimed, or perhaps usurped the right to decide the fate of Powelliphanta Augustus and everything else on the Mt Augustus ridgeline

Reclaim the streets – Auckland

K road rocked to the sound of climate change protesters yesterday as cops blocked off the road for a reclaim he streets style party. Around 200 people participated in snow fights, stalls and a people’s assembly with many onlookers interested. Bands played samba and world style music along with a punk band, and people danced across a street normally filled with cars. A people’s assembly and speakers spoke about the disastrous effects of climate change if we do not act now. The participants voted for free and frequent public transport and then voted in favour of a peaceful non violent revolution (they didn’t even give us a chance to vote against this one) The Save Happy Valley Auckland Coalition talked about the importance of stopping coal mining in Aotearoa and a group of public supporters wore “save malcolm’s snails” T – shirts, referring to one of the most active campaigners for SHV in Auckland. After the peoples assembly a car was symbolically smashed up, spray-painted and plants were put inside. Overall the day was moderately successful informing passers by and providing a fun outing for climate activists but the turn out was fairly small.


I was impressed that the event came together and was rather supprised that the police blocked such a busy street off for the event. I dont know how successful it was at mobilising members of the public and the lack of any distinct target was not helpful. I hope that out of events like this come action which is not so symbolic. In terms of a fun, inspiring event which drew people together this was great, well choreagraphed organised and good fun.

System Change Not climate change

Recognizing the imminent and overwhelming threat that global warming and climate change pose to this planet I decided to outline a few possible ways to bring about the needed cuts in Co2 emissions. As the cultural will does not exist in any form at this current time to bring about these changes this s a purely academic exercise and should not be taken seriously or literally.

To bring about 90% cuts we will need to seriously reshape civilization, phasing out most industry, travel and agriculture. For all intents and purposes this may be seen as bringing down civilization as this is what these changes would require. Changes which would seriously reshape civilization are unlikely to have any substantial public support as there is a perceived right on the part of individuals to pollute and despoil the natural world. Indeed at the moment the degradation of the environment is only taken seriously when It begins to affect people, and then usually only rich people. There is however a group of people which value the long term health of the planet over its current rape.

Realizing that only a small number of people are likely to support a massive change in lifestyle we will now look at those things which are fundamental to our current system. By identifying these things weak points may become apparent within our current system. A gross simplification of the things I think are pillars of industrial civilization would include.

1. Stable weather conditions.

2. An abundant and cheap food supply.

3. A compliant and low paid workforce.

4. Abundant and cheap natural resources especially fossil fuels.

5. A social and governmental system which commodifies all life and which accepts implicitly hierarchy.

Factor 1 is rapidly changing – and I believe could realistically cause industrial civilization to collapse. The speed and timing is unknown but it would not take a huge change in weather patterns to disrupt factor 2, the world’s food supply. As the worlds weather patterns could change from a fluctuating equilibrium to a chaotic pattern this could cause civilization to collapse within 10 – 20 years. This is accentuated by land degradation in food producing areas.

Factor 2 is only possible through cheap fossil fuels to manufacture fertilizers and all biocides as well as running farm machinery and transporting food. It is only possible with stable weather conditions. It also requires fertile land, land which due to overexploitation is suffering from desertification and salinisation. All these factors and several others make our global food supply something which will not be able to continue into the midterm future.

Factor 3 is readily supplied through our stratified social hierarchy and capitalist system, any form of revolt on the part of the low paid would effectively cripple our industrial system. However as production is still idolized even by those supposedly opposed to capitalism it is likely that any such revolt would quickly reorder itself into a stratified society aimed at production over the natural world. This revolt furthermore is not likely to happen until the current system has begun to disintegrate to an irreparable point. If the disintegration was purposely aided the time of this revolt could be speeded immensely. A best case scenario would be an eco-anarchist revolt in which hierarchy was greatly reduced and in which the environment came to be valued highly. These two factors alone would be enough to prevent civilization from continuing.

Factor 4 I believe this is the most important choke point in industrial civilization as if the flow of natural resources particularly fossil fuels were to be cut off for an extended period then civilization left without an abundant energy source would enter into a ever increasing cycle of collapse. Furthermore the supply lines for many of these resources originate or pass through areas of social conflict. If these supply lines were targeted at the same time as the peak in production for a particular resource were reached then the world economy would suffer a double hit and the resulting recession would probably be terminal.

Factor 5 I believe that this social system is so ingrained in the human psyche that most of the population will fight and die to protect the current system against any threats. There is however a large underclass and a huge portion of the population is profoundly unhappy with our current way of life. Any large scale disruption could trigger an event which would alter factor 3 and cause a collapse. I have no idea what it would take to get rid of the commodification of the environment but the psychic transition would probably be far to slow to be viewed as a means to bring about the needed cuts in carbon dioxide emissions.

These five factors have been grossly simplified but provide an opening as to how our system change may occur. Those serious about system change should consider which point is weakest and honestly assess the number of allies they have. From there they should assess the global breakdown we will see beginning in the next decade and decide when the best point to exploit those weaknesses is. All of these factors affect every other factor, a large enough breach to any part of the system could trigger a disintegration especially as resources become scarce. Due to a lack of reliable data the only projections I can give are 5 – 25 years into the future. I doubt the ongoing degradation of the land can continue at its present rate till 2020 and doubt the current system can rise much further.

Compromise

There was some debate via email lists about the protest to oppose the building of dams on the Salween river. The debate was framed in terms of “human life vs global warming” with the point being raised that if the hydro electric dams were not built then more coal would be burnt. I think this highlights well how those in power are allowed to frame the debate and choose the battle ground. Letting those in power set the debate as a choice between coal and hydro puts us in the position where we are arguing for the best way to destroy the planet. I don’t want any more power to be generated; I don’t want to spend my time arguing for the best way to kill the planet.

Environmentalists too often only argue for that which industrial civilization can easily give them – things which make industrial civilization more efficient and allow it to destroy the planet at ever increasing rate. We argue for things which are relatively public friendly such as Nandor’s call to ban plastic bags last night. We argue for things which make us feel better but which ultimately do not matter. But we never question the system which always has and always will destroy this planet. Our civilization is irredeemable and cannot voluntarily make a switch to a sustainable way of living – this is the message we must hold and this is the message that must guide our actions. We must come to choose the battlefields and the terms of the battle.

I am not going to chose between coal or dams because that’s a choice we do not have to make. The demand for power is unsustainable – it cannot be sustained. This is what we need to tell people, that you cannot drive your car, that you will not be able to buy tomatoes in the middle of winter, that you will probably become unemployed as our system collapses. We must no longer be complicit and we must let our opposition to the entire system be known.

For me I don’t want cleaner cars, I don’t want carbon sequestration, I don’t want an end to plastic shopping bags. I want for my harbour - the Manukau to become cleaner every year, I want the number of cars to decrease every year, I want the number of houses connected to the electricity grid to decrease each year. I want to live in a society that values human life, the environment and freedom above profit and greed. I want to live in a society where the food I eat is not systematically poisoned. To get to this point I will use any tools available, including reformist action but ultimately I am guided by the knowledge that this system cannot and will not change willingly or soon enough to prevent the largest extinction ever.