Hei,
this is my version of summary of preparation discussion in bullits to talk over on three days GAP meeting in Leipzig.
Enjoy your day,
Lukas
Stirring Paper for
GAP Group on Commons and Peer Economy
German Version
Deutsche Version
Minutes energy and climate working group
September 03 2014
Intro, presentation of participants backgrounds, expectations and contribution
Summary of Barcelona working group
use Barcelona results as a blueprint for what is expected of us in our workshop
Barcelona: consensus: degrow in fossil fuel use (coal, oil)
phasing out nuclear power as fast as possible
traffic and transportation are also issues (consumption of fossil fuels, reduce transportation distances as much as possible)
decentralisation of the energy sector – strong emphasis on energy production on a local basis
smaller plants versus long distance transport needing central large power plants
align all those processes with democratic processes, active participation of people
political proposals (Barcelona)
de-industrialisation of some sectors
in energy sector, renationalise companies
companies currently loose their (oligopolistic) market power
traffic infrastructure appears – public transportation system, long distance trains (high speed)
STRATEGY: divided into 3 parts:
existing political system (protest, new ideas)
loyalty strategy – we build a system from within
de-industrialisation → community impacts, and strengthening of their autarchy (self-sufficiency)
global level: reduction, recycling, life cycle of materials, internalisation of real costs of emissions
regional level: autarchy – not to export trash, but to build services on a regional basis
organisers assembled above info probably from other working groups
only a starting point – incentive to add more current strategic suggestions
SUGGESTIONS
divestment campaigning
Kohlenstoffblase – carbon bubble (who is familiar with)
Kevin replaced by Selj, as Kevin is busy on a paper boat
communities that are affected by extreme fracking and the likes
Self: divestment campaign in the NL
critical take / impressions
basic idea – last decade
realisation by market forces that there is a problem that not all can be extracted and burned – will not be fine
existing proven reserves, 5 times more than the carbon budget / can burn in coming decades – 80% of the reserves need to stay underground under the assumption that we want avoid climate impact
estimates: might loose half of their market value (fossil fuels companies)
refineries – 10-100 trillion dollars is estimate of the companies' assets
not only mainstream NGOs that argue about it
try convince investors to become green investors, but many other parties
organisation 350 took this on board, because:
moral and ecological case to be made around those problems. So, if it is wrong to destroy the planet, it is also wrong to make money from it
this argument was good to use to mobilise people on this complex, messy affair → obtain fresh new activists
Amsterdam last year: first climate games: in coal plants – own actions, teams competed (Germans were successful), campaigners organised petitions, i.e. play volleyball to divert the policeforces
risk exists, economic risk we need to deal with
seems a bit like how in Copenhagen the climate justice movement was not necessarily legitimising the process between the states, but to hijack / legitimise the process
similarly, this is a way to use a market mechanism against market principles
last years: market has been assumed to be a saviour – which is sort of a twisted view
relatively accountable institutions (insurance companies), stakeholders have a say, not just closed doors of investors
have to recognise that they represent a tiny little fraction of money that goes into those projects
carbon bubble argument: missing goal of the case
take away social licence / their credibility by taking down a specific industry instead of a system-wide critique
typo in Kevin's document: what do you do if you know that there is a time bomb lurking ahead of you. If you cannot diffuse it (typo: distribute) it, you … (check original document for citation)
Question: do we just want to inflate the carbon bubble, or do we pop it
i.e. do we help Al Gore to shift capitalistically to green companies, or do we want to get to exchange markets
Presentation – not on agenda: of online discussion
closely related to last point: Philipp
divestment strategy preferable, but does it really change something if it acts inside of the system. Different actors – how power is unjustly shared, and how nature is destroyed
discussion of this to follow in the next 2 days
Question: not about defunding the fossil fuel sector
will not be possible to defund
but to challenge the moral legitimacy of the industry, and once you think about that – it becomes far more feasible to think about it as a legitimate project
campaign started a year ago
example: US universities have massive endowment funds, and are major mobilisers
Question on the data perspective: financial crisis data – what is the data perspective
data from investor funds, how much are there, how much are they worth. Trust their numbers, coming from inside the markets
********************************************************************************
2nd paper (stirring paper) from Advance working group
question was raised in Barcelona
will we find the answers in the coming days
Demand: immediate phase out of nuclear and fossil power
more or less immediate
climate change and social crisis – consistent, have to demand immediate phase out
renewable energy cannot cover all energy demand, especially if we try to reach an energy transition – globally fairly
saving energy is necessary
efficiency issue
not enough (to be efficient)
rebound effect might be known to many
another step: have to exploit less fossil energy (climate change, environmental destruction)
have to shut down industries without replacing them / converting them in new ways, possibly (ways not known yet?)
Military industry – agriculture
industry in general, shut them down – as they cause enormous externalities and social costs
If we really demand that, we have to be prepared for questions
fears will arise, and not many answers are at hand
fears and questions have to be taken seriously by us
perspectives of social / gender / global South
proposal: have to shut down industries, and link to issues mentioned above
social negotiation
most important, i.e. Barcelona workshop
democratic social negotiation – different term
identify superfluous industries
how do we start debate in society about superfluous industries
how to implement the shut down
divestment
direct action
pragmatic political demands
dealing with consequences
lots of questions on income security that may result from shut down industries, shutting down labour market. How to achieve social security without a lot of labour
how can models of commons / regional economy support the idea of shutting down industries
how do we prevent dirty industries just being transferred to other countries (in the global South )
Those are our questions, and we do not have many proposals
Question: what is an example?
Answer: like military industry (cars, pigs, tanks – Autos, Schweine, Panzer)
avoid to get lost in the details to this now
Input and updating part complete
15 minutes left for work (today)
Proposals on a chart
specific political proposals
try and extend those issues to broader topics, while also being specific
brainstorming process
topics we could discuss in the next few days
collect some points: facilitation
remark: too fast process right now in the group, various inputs, and clarifications, and now we must sort on a sheet proposals by relevance
try to slow down and collect / put the brakes on
task: set for ourselves the agenda for next days
collection of potential topics that we discuss
direct link to issue of closing down industries, which – in the current economic paradigm – will just be shifted to other countries – how to link degrowth debate to our energy and climate topic
clarification on details of energy (industry, supply, demand)
what are we talking about, do we have a shared understanding
clarification on energy issues (broader, not only electricity, heating, traffic / transport)
how do we want it to look like in future and how do we get there?
Can discuss these papers between 5:30 and 7:00pm
argument on what energy issues – important, maybe we should split up the group (interests, accordingly)
we will do tomorrow - split up tomorrow (process)
tomorrow: collect possible topics and select
given the time we have available (radical grassroots movement and technical experts) entirely absurd to come up with a vision for energy sector and strategies
focus on something achievable
crazily good skill set in the group, and to make use of this, we need a more doable agenda
suggestion: discuss half an hour how we proceed, and agenda – go through tomorrow
signaling of agreement and disagreement – different cultures in the rooms
tools – developed to facilitate communication
tomorrow: introduce the hand signs
Now: collect key issues in 10 minutes
Felix will collect and cluster them
write on cards the issues
propose how to facilitate the process
- collect papers on issues to be discussed tomorrow, after they have been clustered
need not present all the topics now
We now compose the matrix until tomorrow (facilitators) and cluster will be presented tomorrow
Tomorrow, we will prioritise the issues
one more task: at 5 tomorrow - GAP working group assembly - we are asked to present it (no results required), only present process in 90 seconds
Choose a willing presenter