Hi folks,

Thanks for this really important discussion. 

Totally agree with Rachel and Orin that so-called 'low-carbon solutions' like biofuels are creating more landgrabs and challenging food sovereignty. I would definitely add mega-dams to that list, as my own background is fighting dams in India, that are being sold as low-carbon but are completely harmful. That's why the definition of dirty & harmful energy must include at the very least coal, oil, gas, mega-dams, nuclear, incineration & biofuels.

And the idea is also to challenge large-scale renewables that also cause land grabs and do not change the balance of power at all. Like if power utility Eskom in South Africa tomorrow changed from coal to large-scale renewables, people still would not be able to pay the high costs of energy because the balance of power didn't change.

we released a report last year November at Friends of the Earth International, talking about the urgent need for the transformation of the energy system, not the source. am taking the liberty of posting the link again here: http://www.goodenergybadenergy.org/

So what shall we do in terms of framing for the big BKM marches? I really liked Anne's article (and we were in some of those conversations together with New York justice activists). A march of 200,000 people really does need to have clear demands so the media don't end up reporting what they feel like. I think it would be good to support the justice communities and organisations in USA and see what framing works for them. But seems like, at a very least, the march needs to talk not just about 'fossil fuels' but about 'dirty & harmful energy'. what do people think?

thanks,

~ dipti

P.S. this is an aside but very similar concept- a great article by my friend Firoze on why we have so many despotic govts in Africa- because many independence movements sought to occupy the colonial state instead of transforming it. Certainly that's the case here in Mozambique, totally true. System change was needed then, and needed now...

--

dipti bhatnagar

Climate Justice & Energy co-coordinator

Friends of the Earth Int'l & Justiça Ambiental (FoE Mozambique)

Av Mao Tsé Tung, 549, 1º andar, 1D, Maputo, Moçambique

email: dipti@foei.org, twitter: @diptimoz

2014-07-30 16:00 GMT+02:00 Vito De Lucia <vito.delucia@ecopaxmundi.org>:

I also agree wholeheartedly with Rachel (and Orin), and felt important to stress it by replying (despite the unclear status of this list...). Indeed an unproblematized "substitution" of energy sources is like replacing a soda with a soda light: no matter the marginal improvement on some indicators due to the changed ingredients' list (and beware possible secondary negative effects due to new ingredients), the soda is still being produced, with all it entails in terms of global extraction and trade flows, power structures, and social oppression and ecological destruction. So the question is not really one of efficiency, but one of sufficiency, isn't it.

What does it take then today to be able to speak of climate justice? 

thanks

ciao

V

2014-07-30 14:15 GMT+02:00 Orin Langelle <orinl@globaljusticeecology.org>:

I usually don't post to this list, but I agree with Rachel.

And add if this unjust international economic system is not changed, the power elite chased into hidey-holes - the planet is in deep, deep trouble.  Renewables are not going to bring in climate justice.  Along with the massive amount of energy it takes to make "renewables" there is also the problem of more pillage in developing countries and more abuse of workers, etc.

Oh yeah, and all of their carbon emissions...

Tremendous popular education to spread critical informative to the people is needed now more than ever.  People need that information to make decisions.  They need to be told the truth.  Let's not make it wishy-washy in our messaging.  It's life or death fold for most of the inhabitants on Earth.

As some of us said in Copenhagen:

Fck Fck fcFk the system.

Orin

2014-07-29 21:39 GMT-04:00 Rachel Smolker <rsmolker@gmail.com>:

I hate to be so negative and all, but i think “system change” is not just about substituting “renewable energy” for “fossil energy”.  

Having fought the battle on biofuels as “renewables for a long time”, making up a very large proportion of what is referred to as renewable…

And making windmills or solar panels or what have you all requires massive amounts of fossil fuels (think steel manufacturing, aluminum etc) as well as rare metals and many other. 

The “system” needs to change, not just the form of energy supplying it. The “transition” is something beyond what form of energy and it is in my opinion very dangerous to focus our “asks” on renewable energy

2 more cents