We had an enjoyable and at times spirited conversation with members of Liverpool Social Forum. After watching films of the climate camp at Kingsnorth, including footage of the obviously highly oppressive police over reaction, we discussed the pros and cons of the more gentle, perhaps less overtly political and confrontational transitioning approach to climate change and peak oil, with the critique (recently in a booklet by Trapese) that transitioning was naive and unable to deal with the realities of power and domination. There were reasons why climate change was happening - some people and institutions profited from it, and would react strongly to anything that threatened it like a successful transitioning movement. As one person said – “the state will come for your turnips!”
On the other hand, we discussed, was the climate camp needlessly confrontational, even a little macho (an accusation that upset some people)? If you claim that you are going to close down a power station, is it not likely that the state will stop you, and the reaction might be heavy? Is everyone able and willing to engage in direct action? By the end of the discussion, we all agreed that direct action will not be for everyone, but neither is the transitioning approach.
Those who wanted a more overtly radical response decided to set up a Liverpool Climate Action Group.
For the trapese booklet, go to: http://trapese.clearerchannel.org/
Well it looks like Mr Al Gore himself seems to not only agree with Direct action/civil disobedience in the struggle against Climate chaos, but also wants to encourage it: He said, “I believe we have reached the stage where it is time for civil disobedience to prevent the construction of new coal plants that do not have carbon capture and sequestration.”