Thursday 28 April 2011

pass it on


I’m sitting in the far corner of the grounds of the disused St Anne’s School in Lewes. It’s 6am and the blackbirds are just ending their chorus. I’m on gate duty, part of a 24 hour rota guarding three gates. Climate Camp South East, who is occupying (squatting) the 3 acres of unused land, is meticulous about security: past climate camps have taught us that the police can behave aggressively and unlawfully. 
Climate Camp came to Lewes last Thursday and is spending a week modelling how to live lightly on the land, working collectively using consensus; inviting local people to visit; and training in creative direct actions culminating in a non-violent direct action on one of the many climate crime scenes in Sussex: perhaps the proposed biofuels plant near Shoreham , oil drilling in ancient woodland in the National Park or the Newhaven incinerator. One of the benefits of climate camps is that people learn to self-organise and self-manage – an essential skill in the coming age of less stuff and more connection.

Bizarrely, soon after we occupied the site, we heard from several sources that East Sussex County Council, the owners of the site, had recently condemned the building and that demolition was imminent – apparently common knowledge in County Hall. ESCC even, we were told, believed we had occupied the site in protest of the demolition. 

So the climate camp called a community meeting on Tuesday, attended by 70 people including a representative from all three levels of Lewes councils, to discuss the issue. We sat on the land, outside. By the end of the meeting it was dark but it was clear that although ESCC was evasive about demolition, Lewes District Council was prepared to do everything in its power to prevent the building from being demolished and that Lewes residents wished to use the land and start to vision for future interim uses, which ESCC said it would be open to proposals. 

Although it seems likely that ESCC will try to maximise the money it can make from (our) land by intensive development deals, possibly already in the pipeline, it does seem possible that Lewes resident activists can make a stand. Indeed, the residents at the meeting formed a group called STAND – St Anne’s Diggers. Their first events are a Royal Weeding this Friday and a Beltane Picnic on the land at noon on Sunday. Everyone is welcome. Pass it on.

7 comments:

John McGowan said...

This is not really intended as a comment on your article but as a more general comment on your stance. You've probably come across this article by George Monbiot from yesterday. I think he is basically calling into question your whole model of the collapse of capitalism as a result of declining resources (something like the point I made to you recently.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2011/may/02/environmental-fixes-all-greens-lost

adrienne campbell said...

I read Monbiot's article with interest and tend to agree with him on this issue - none of the scenarios is pretty. Economic collapse could lead to chaos or a fascist state; it's not something I'd welcome. That's why I prefer the idea of seeking a managed community-level transition. I repeat, I'd really like to hear what your solution would be.

adrienne campbell said...

...Or rather, are you saying that there is no need for transition and that we're all going to muddle through fine. Or that there is a problem and that I haven't identified it correctly?

John McGowan said...

I am saying that there will be no Transition (other than one from oil to coal) and that the primary dangers of climate change come from a surfeit of fossil fuels rather than an absence of them.

The problem with the TT ideology is I think that your solutions are a bit mixed up. The fall of capitalism as a result of resource issuse is not going to happen any time soon. The trouble with Transition initiatives is that they often make most sense in this rather questionable version of the future (e.g. the Lewes Pound, Solar power, a land based economy). I'm afraid this often comes off as rich people telling poor people to make sacrifices.

adrienne campbell said...

Hi John
I agree, the transition will probably be more like a rocky road at best. As a scientist with strong awareness of the possible nightmare scenarios, I personally see transition more like a preferred narrative - not as the ultimate solution. Monbiot refers to this in yesterday's interesting piece. http://www.monbiot.com/2011/05/05/our-crushing-dilemmas/

I've never looked to the collapse of capitalism as a solution to all our ills - that would be naive. But I (and many other sensible people) do see some reordering of the financial system as inevitable and to be accepted rather than resisted.

And anyone who knows me would laugh at the idea that I'm a rich person trying to make poor people poorer. Unless you're talking about the majority of the world, which is then true of all of us.

I'm still not sure what your point is and why what I write gets up your nose so much - surely we're all entitled to our own points of view and to grow our vegetables without fear of attack?

John McGowan said...

We are indeed entitled to our view points. However, you do comment in a very public way on environmental agendas what you feel others should be doing. I don't necessarily agree with what you and Transition Town say on a number of topics and am voicing one alternative view point. (rather than tosimply ignoring TT which is what is seems most Lewisians do).

The essence of my difference (and my biggest disappointment) with transition town is the limitations of its vision. My worry is that all of the main initiatives really only speak to a very narrow strata of the community (private schooling, attacks on cheap goods, expensive energy investments etc). All of the big initiatives seem to appeal (in the short and medium term) to people who are better off in some way. Its more complicated than just the financial but that is part of it. Allied to this there seems to be a somewhat sanctimonious castigation of those who don't engage. I know people don’t always have to be made comfortable but this is often troubling.

Its rather obvious to say that environmental issues are complex and often TT solutions seem to be about people feeling good rather than thinking through how to make a real difference and engage more broadly. You don’t have to agree with that (clearly you don’t) but others may legitimately question the worth of TT activities and question the amount of time and money that goes into some of them.

You seem a bit troubled by my writing too. I wonder if this reflects an unwillingness in some areas of environmental activism to challenge a few sacred cows. (One of your other commenters actually said that ditching the Lewes pound would be immoral! )

For what it is worth my real desire is for you (and others in TT) to raise your game a bit rather than all this head-scratching about why people don’t use the Lewes pound or borrow 10 grand to buy solar panels or whatever.

John McGowan said...

My comments seemed to be on and then off again. Here it is once more.

We are indeed entitled to our view points. However, you do comment in a very public way on environmental agendas what you feel others should be doing. I don't necessarily agree with what you and Transition Town say on a number of topics and am voicing one alternative view point. (rather than simply ignoring TT which is what is seems most Lewisians do).

I’m not saying you are trying to make poor people poorer. You might want to read that bit again. What I said as that those investing in solar would benefit from what is effectively a regressive form of taxation. Those who can’t afford panels will end up subsidising those who can.

The essence of my difference (and my biggest disappointment) with transition town is the limitations of its vision. My worry is that all of the main initiatives really only speak to a very narrow strata of the community (private schooling, attacks on cheap goods, expensive energy investments, buy local tokens mainly fort he purchase of luxury goods). All of the big initiatives seem to appeal (in the short and medium term) to people who are better off in some way. Its more complicated than just the financial but that is part of it. Allied to this there seems to be a somewhat sanctimonious castigation of those who don't engage. I know people don’t always have to be made comfortable but this is often troubling.

Its rather obvious to say that environmental issues are complex and often TT solutions seem to be about people feeling good rather than thinking through how to make a real difference and engage more broadly. You don’t have to agree with that (clearly you don’t) but others may legitimately question the worth of TT activities and question the amount of time and money that goes into some of them. Many seem of questionable value to put it mildly.

You seem a bit troubled by my writing too. I wonder if this reflects an unwillingness in some areas of environmental activism to challenge a few sacred cows.

For what it is worth my real desire is for you (and others in TT) to raise your game a bit rather than all this head-scratching about why people don’t use the Lewes pound or borrow 10 grand to buy solar panels or whatever.