#D12

On “#D12” (Saturday 12/12/’15, the “overflow” day that became the last day of COP21) I headed down to the “Red Lines” rally near the Arc de Triomphe. According to 350.org and the various voices in the Coalition Climat this was meant to be a big day of civil disobedience to “have the last word” about the negotiations. So once the rally was sanctioned by the police and they cordoned off the road so we were out of sight of traffic in an approved “protester zone”, my heart sank as it appeared we had been out-maneuvered. A frustrated, fellow-minded friend described the scene as a “liberal clusterfuck” and I decided to follow him around in the hope that together we might manage to find something to salvage. I was slightly happier once we pushed past the police lines (which I think broke the “action agreement” we’d all previously agreed to) and started marching towards the Eiffel Tower.



Once we got close to the tower the inspirational Climate Angels took a “stand” by sitting down on a bridge and starting a sit-in. The police demanded the Angels move, yet they stayed and more and more people sat down. The plan was to sit there for as long as possible, but some of the NGO organizers took to the People’s Mic and tried to persuade people to abandon the sit-in and go a the pointless celebration under the Eiffel tower itself. An awkward struggle then ensued, with people on the mic sending alternating messages about whether to stay at the sit-in or whether to give up and go. Although people seemed reluctant to leave the bridge the manipulation was finally successful when someone claimed the “local French organizers” were asking us to leave the bridge, and it was sad to see an interesting action tactic get undermined by what appears to have been deception.

As people wandered down to the feel-good party I followed the Angels around the side of the tower where we were blocked by dozens of plainclothes police with their threats of violence. Being a smaller group we retreated, eventually finding another way under the Eiffel tower. I felt disappointed by how many people seemed to be celebrating the pathetic “agreement” the negotiators had failed us with (“worse than Copenhagen”). But then I heard about an unsanctioned climate justice march near the Belleville metro station and my heart lifted a little.

After racing across Paris I managed to emerge from the Metro just as the march was leaving. Around 500 people had taken to the streets and the atmosphere around this march felt more exciting—with the shop owners often cheering from their shops. These were the real grassroots local French organizers, and they were asserting the right to gather freely and march in the face of police oppression, since the French state had removed our rights with the phoney State of Emergency (the political agenda of crushing climate activism became clear when they allowed all the other mass-gatherings of people—sports, shopping, concerts—to continue).

The police didn’t take kindly to this march, yet when they tried to trap us by blocking the road in front of and behind us, we managed to find an escape through the grounds of a hospital, making our way to the canal. We made a run for a footbridge, and around 100 people made it over before the police arrived with pepper spray. I’d made it to the top of the bridge and turned around to watch as two people who were already paralyzed with agony were repeatedly pepper sprayed for about 15 more seconds—the brutality and dehumanization of the police was disgusting. I got my camera out and “click click click”:



As the police backed away I went down the bridge to help these two people—one of whom was obviously a journalist. After administering some water and helping them to the top of the bridge the police started to run up the steps towards us with a mean look in their eyes. Not wanting the same painful fate I fled, dodging some police on the other side and sprinting along the canal until I heard their pursuit fade away. I stopped to catch my breath, wash my eyes, and saw the police had surrounded around 150 people on the opposite bank. At that moment my buddy called me and so I started to tell her about my near-miss and the protesters being trapped. It was while I was on the phone that half a dozen police ran up to me and surprised me, forcing me down onto the ground and taking my phone and bag. They searched my possessions and questioned me, asking why I had run away from them. “Because the police were mercilessly pepper-spraying journalists and I didn’t want to experience needless pain,” I responded, and proceeded to ask them if they knew that the deal the governments had just signed at COP21 would lead to our extinction if people like us didn’t do anything about it. “I know,” said the policeman who was holding me captive. When I asked him why he’d grabbed me and why they were stopping us from getting this message out, he weakly dismissed my question saying “It’s just another night on the job.”

After twenty minutes or so the police picked up my bag and told me to follow. I passed several hundred cops, to whom I waved cheekily with a big grin on my face. The police gave me my bag back as they shoved me into the “kettle” of the other 150 trapped people, who gave me an applause as I joined them. The police told us we could choose to leave and be ID’d, and that the rest of us would be arrested. No one left, instead chanting “We all go together”, and after another couple of minutes the police came back and announced that they weren’t actually gonna arrest anyone and would let us go in groups of ten. It felt good to be holding the hands of my friend (from the start of the day) as we were led up the street.

In terms of how effective D12 was, I’m not actually sure that any of it did very much. Yes, the NGOs now have a new set of pretty pictures with which they can “build the movement” (I really hope some grassroots groups got to benefit from them too), and yes, the shopkeepers in the Belleville area may have gained a little hope. Yet what does the tactic of marching do? I’m not convinced it does much. Although there seems to be benefits gained when grassroots group collaborate, learn to work together, form alliances, and enact a “successful” project together, the D12 march didn’t appear to be organized by grassroots groups so I’m not convinced there was much benefit at all.

Perhaps it’s useful for activists to have a feel-good party when there’s nothing to feel good about. Perhaps it’s psychologically helpful to get out some rage and express our desire to not live in a police-state, even though we had no plan to make their oppression cost them (in the mind of the general public) and I never saw any media coverage about the Belleville march. Perhaps the D12 march and all the optimistic “we did it” lies (by the Heads of State, dutiful corporate media and NGOs) will help activists to avoid the kind of post-Copenhagen depression we saw in 2009, yet I’m also worried that the “we gained something (small)” messages that NGOs have been pushing is a dangerous form of delusion.

So what is effective? I believe there are many things, in many circumstances. Stay with me over the months ahead as I delve into some of the actions and communities in which I find hope, and find out with me what is working, why it’s working, and how we can make them spread...

The Spaces of Paris

After the “excitement” of the events at Place de la Republique on 29th November, COP21 began and I enjoyed the privilege of another two weeks in Paris. I owe a big shout-out to the 4 wonderful Parisians who collectively housed me during this time, and to Sylvie for making those connections for me. Thank you!

Here’s a few of the things that I spent my time doing.

The place I went to the most was Jardin D’Alice, or “Garden of Alice” (as in, Alice in Wonderland). This beautiful space is an artist’s squat that became the primary place where art was made during the COP. In the first week I mainly helped with the shields that the Indigenous Environmental Network were creating that said “Defend Protect Renew” (I didn’t get a pic but that’s the design). I also contributed to a bunch of other banners, including the 105 metre “It’s up to us to keep it in the ground” red line (below), as well as inflatables, arrows and several other creations.



Although making art was a big draw for me, the main reason I felt myself pulled back there was for the people. Each of the ten days I entered this space I discovered more and more fantastic, inspiring people. I met people from all over the world, each bringing their ideas and creativity. The space was rejuvenating and I felt at home there. I also attended several meetings there, largely of youth action planning meetings, and enjoyed many free/by donation vegan meals—big shoutout to the cooks who kept us fed!

I only went to “Le Bourget” once. This is where the COP negotiations were being held, and although I wasn’t allowed into the negotiations area there was an area where the public was welcome. I mostly felt drained in this space, where the (false) Solutions COP corporations companies had greenwashing stands (including a “EU China Trade Company” that didn’t mention climate in any of their text) and the NGOs seemed to be competing to show how wonderful they are (some of them are pretty cool). I joined a quiet protest (loud chanting wasn’t allowed), a die-in, and I put a canceled sign up and tweeted (pic) “I'm at the #COP21 right now and it looks like @SolutionsCOP21 is canceled?” The coolest thing I experienced there (and this was one of the coolest things I’ve seen all year) was a Peruvian indigenous woman who was telling a group of us about the work she’d been doing—how she’s using the celebration of the female orgasm as a tool to empower women and combat the sexist machismo culture that is rampant in Peru! I also received the colourful shawl from her that I’m wearing in this pic:



One night walking home I was mugged. Unexpected. But not wholly bad. Two guys grabbed my wallet, and as one took the money out the other tried to de-escalate, explaining that they would only take the money (€20 was all I had) and “weren’t normally this violent”. I used the opportunity to talk with them about how shit capitalist society is and the need to reject the system. After a police car drove by they asked me to walk with them, and although I accepted the cigarette they offered me as we walked I politely declined the crack pipe and took the opportunity to turn around and continue home.

Another night I got to see Thom Yorke, Patti Smith, Flea, Vandana Shiva, Naomi Klein, Bill McKibben, and other artists and activists from around the world. It was good music and a good show. The next night I saw Aku Matu, an indigenous artist who touched me deeply with her powerful and vulnerable lyrics, and the night then turned into an incredible anarchist rave, followed by a bunch of us wandering the streets into the small hours of the morning, singing and dancing to French music accompanied by an accordion.

At Le Louvre art gallery there was an action to pressure the gallery to stop taking money from fossil fuel companies. There was a heavy police presence and they had set up a fence to search people as they got close. Somehow they detected that I might not be your average tourist and didn’t let me enter. So when those who had managed to get in put up their umbrellas that spelled out “Fossil Free Culture” I raised my umbrella in solidarity outside the fence. Instantly a dozen police surrounded me and physically forced my umbrella arm down, even as I tried to explain to them “but the (wintry) sun is so bright and my poor pale skin couldn’t take it. Please, the sun, it hurts, it hurts, I need shade.” They didn’t seem amused, yet wouldn’t tell me why I was surrounded and whether or not I was under arrest (for putting up an umbrella!). After letting me go they started harassing someone else so I started to film them. This forced accountability seemed to make them uncomfortable, so after stealing the person’s tiny penknife and letting that person go they again surrounded me and force-searched me in a pathetic attempt to intimidate me. They didn’t find my penknife. Losers.





The final event I went to in Paris was the Climate Games awards ceremony, where we watched and cheered for our favourite creative and fun videos of direct actions people had done over the previous two weeks. Their website has built up a fantastic database of creative direct actions, which I encourage people to use when they’re looking for ideas for their own actions. The night turned into another dance party, where the band Filastine played and we danced the night away.

Thank you, Paris, for the space to create, make connections and dance.

My Childhood Home is now on the Frontlines against Fracking

I grew up in a sleepy town called Frodsham. This town of 10,000 people lies within the county of Cheshire, a beautiful rural county with rolling fields, biodiverse hedgerows, rich forests and a lot of joyful childhood memories. It’s also a pretty conservative place, with a lot of old wealth and posh people.

So it came as a bit of a surprise to me to discover that Cheshire is now on the frontlines against fracking in the UK.

The day after I returned to Britain I saw in the local paper that there was going to be a protest in Upton, ten miles from my parent’s home, and so within 48 hours of being back in this country I found myself cycling out to join the protesters. Like many days in these dreary isles the sky was grey, dampening the area with a resilient drizzle. “Great,” I thought, “I’ll be shivering and soaked in no time.”

Rolling up to the “busy” (for a suburb) road intersection where the protest was gathering I saw a 12-foot (4 metres) model fracking rig with tinsel on the top and was quickly greeted with tea and biscuits. Far from being cold, the constant input of hot liquid kept me going for the next few hours as I chatted with the protesters.

These weren’t the kind of seasoned protesters I’d seen in Paris at COP21 just a week before. Most of the people I talked to said they hadn’t been an “activist” even one year ago, and had previously accepted that the government would watch out for them and do the right thing throughout their life. But then they started reading up on fracking. And they got upset very quickly. With the enormous threats to housing prices, farmland, and the rivers and canals in the area, the average, local people started to get upset. The outcome of a recent poll showed that 85% of Upton residents were against fracking, and the new Labour MP bucked the national trend (that was scared into voting Tory) by getting elected on a strong anti-fracking platform—the Greens stepped back and didn’t even run against him!

It’s pretty clear the frackers don’t have any social license in Upton. We stood with our signs and cups of tea for a couple of hours, hailed by a constant honking of support from passing vehicles. Finally, we picked up the signs and “marched” along the road to the Upton Community Protection Camp. I say “marched”, although there were none of the normal activist chants and rallying cries. At one point someone mentioned some anti-fracking carols, yet people seemed more interested in chatting with their neighbours.



As we walked up to the camp I saw an impressive structure of wooden palettes and scaffolding, adorned with an array of signs. After being welcomed at the “guardhouse” an abundance of minced pies and tea appeared as we entered the “Solidari-Tea Hut”. Again, most of the residents were locals and talked with a fiery determination that the fracking simply would never happen. “We’ll make it so expensive for them that it’ll be impossible for them to drill,” said Phil, one of the long-term residents of the camp.



In terms of defences several of the residents comfortably walked around wearing a harness with climbing equipment hanging from it, prepared on a moment’s notice to climb one of the many tripods, tree-houses and other structures that would make their removal from the land a tricky and prolonged process. They’d even built themselves a moat—not big enough to stop many people from jumping across, but deep enough to stop most trucks in their tracks. The moat had a floating ducky and sharks. Finally, the camp has released images of an entrance to tunnels, although the tight security culture prevented me from seeing inside.

The camp has done well to gain support from many of the local residents of Upton. Although they seem to be able to get articles into the local paper, the Chester Chronicle, their ability to make their own media seems to be lacking, and even after four days I’ve not managed to find a single image online from the protest (the protest expected people from the camp to join them, yet they never materialized). To their credit their facebook page is active with photos and memes added several times a week. From what I have observed at the Unist'ot'en, producing video is a critical part of getting the broader public on side for land defence projects such as this, yet no one could assure me that they had any plans to do so.



Although some at the camp claimed they had plenty of coverage nationally, many of the protesters on the street didn’t think they (both the protesters and camp) were doing a good job and were worried they lacked national support. It seems to me that without such support the camp could be evicted without a national outcry. And given David Cameron has just removed the ability for local councils to determine their own fracking fate, it most certainly is a national issue. Fortunately, the intrusive company IGas has seen its share prices tumbling for months to a third of their value since June 2015, so maybe they’ll collapse into bankruptcy before they order the bailiff to attack.

Of course, this fight is only the beginning. David Cameron’s corporate masters want to poke holes all over my beloved Cheshire, which would likely result in the deaths of much of her livestock, farmland, rolling green hills and beautiful rivers and forests. A solid win against fracking in Upton would be major victory in beating back the violence of fracking across the nation, so my hope is that the success of Upton Community Protection Camp would scare off other potential frackers, and inspire many other communities to become land defenders to protect of their fragile, magnificent lands.

See more photos of the camp here: https://goo.gl/photos/TzY5tfZFf7UaWrUX9

With two days left, Canada is still part of the problem in Paris

PARIS — Although it’s been reported in the Canadian media that China and India are blocking progress at COP21, the biggest obstacle appears to be the unwillingness of the developed countries to talk about historical responsibility and reparations. Earlier this week, Canada was a co-winner of the Fossil of the Day award, as climate activists expressed their dismay at this stance. Canadians are some of the worst climate polluters, per capita, in the world, and our current (and projected future) pollution through plundering the tar sands, means that we’re not getting any better.

Canada industrialized early, and it has been emitting carbon pollution for well over a hundred years, giving it a significant “head start” over India, China, and other less developed nations. Yet the Canadian negotiators don’t want to acknowledge this, much less pay our debts.

Admittedly, it’s not just Canadian negotiators who are trying to hide this great injustice. The U.S., along with many of the other countries that industrialized (and polluted) early have had a multi-year agenda to remove acknowledgement (and responsibility) of this injustice from the COP negotiations. They have largely been successful in doing so.

The negotiators at COP are not on an equal footing. Many of the negotiators from the Global South are trying to avoid climate devastation in their countries and climate genocide of their peoples. On the other hand, the negotiators of developed nations are generally trying to keep a fossil-fueled power system in place, rather than consider other necessary options. Last week Canadian youth joined others from around the world to highlight this imbalance.

Photo credit: Sierra Student Coalition

Since pre-industrial times, the burning of fossil fuels has raised the global temperature by 1C. Even with this “modest” increase, we are seeing a rise in climate chaos around the world, with climate destruction like the floods currently devastating Chennai, India. We’re also seeing an increase in climate-spurred wars. The current war in Syria is set in a context of severe drought worsened by climate change: in one agriculture-dependant area of the country, 75 per cent of farmers experienced total crop failure in 2007-2008. About 1.5 million people fled the starving countryside and crowded into the cities — imagine the populations of Brampton and Mississauga moving into Toronto, or everyone in Ottawa-Gatineau squeezing into Montreal. Subject to war and instability, this kind of desperation provides a breeding ground for climate-driven terrorism. The violence of climate change takes many forms.

In order to avoid a dangerous climate breakdown, countries agreed in 2009 that we must avoid a 2C global rise in global temperatures. Even this is a significant planetary risk (and will result in the deaths of many millions of people) — the Canadian youth delegation, along with many scientists and the countries most affected by climate violence, are calling for “1.5 to stay alive.”

But the political systems of the countries of the world are failing miserably at achieving this, putting emission reduction offers on the table that would result in temperature increases in the 2.7C to 3.5C range. Realistically, we can expect these political systems to fail to deliver on their promises, putting us back into the “unlivable for human life” 4C to 6C range.

With such high stakes, you might expect the Canadian negotiators to be working hard to give us a healthy climate future. Sadly, our Canadian negotiators are not working to protect the health of Canadians and people around the world. Instead, they’re trying to ensure that big polluters, such as the tar sands extractors, can continue to pollute and cause ever more societal instability and fragility. Instead of trying to create a rapid transition to a fairer, richer Canada, they’re negotiating which decade we’ll go extinct.

Although Trudeau has promised “real change,” it’s clear that we need far more change than he has delivered thus far. The real change required by science must include a freezing of the tar sands and a rapid, nationwide transition to renewables. Real change must include negotiating a path at COP21 towards a healthy future for all, with ambitious targets, binding commitments and payment of our climate debts. Real change must include actual change, yet so far Trudeau seems to be peddling words, not deeds.

Keeping climate change below 1.5C means no more pipelines, and a freeze on tar sands expansion. Trudeau needs to make a choice between the oil industry and the planet, but thus far he seems to think he can be a climate hero while also continuing to build tar sands infrastructure.

It’s time to pick a side.

This was originally posted on Ricochet.

Tear Gas Taste and Pepper Spray Pain

I arrived in France on Nov 23rd and spent the first week visiting with some friends in Meaux, the home of Brie. It’s was a pretty chill week, adapting to jet lag (which I made soooo much worse by partying until 5am in Reykjavik), brushing up on French, and enjoying the company of my friends.

On Sunday Nov 29th I moved to my next ‘home’ in downtown Paris. I dropped off my stuff and shot out the door to join the now-illegal march at Place de la Republique. The march was illegal because the French state had used the “opportunity” of the murderous attacks on 13th Nov to institute a ban on political public gatherings of more than two people! Along with this ban came a host of fascist-like police powers, which the police quickly abused by terrorizing the innocent Muslim community with thousands of home invasions, as well as attacking dozens of climate activists.

Instead of a 400,000-person climate march, NGO’s had retreated from this state repression (a tactical mistake) and canceled the ‘official’ march, instead trying to give people alternative outlets on the 29th. I missed the “human chain”, and only saw the “march for me shoes”—a sad reminder of state oppression—as they were packed away. Over the next couple of hours I wandered round the public square, talked with a few people, made a sign (“Menace Climatique > Menace Police + Terrorisme”) and joined the short-lived, smaller “marches” that local organizers spurred into existence. These grew and grew, and shortly after 2pm the march was big enough for us to leave the square. We headed down Avenue de la Republique.



We didn’t make it far. A wall of police waited for us, armed to the teeth and itching to start pepper spraying us. I was close to the front (you can see how close in the picture above) and held up my sign to the police, so that they knew why I—and I suspect others—were marching. A few swells of courage and chanting from the protesters, and the police unleashed. It was in those moments that I first felt the pain of pepper spray, although I have not yet been sprayed directly.

After most of the crowd had retreated, a few of us remained. Some lay down, and a girl sang. I kneeled in front of the police with my sign, petrified that I’d receive a blow from behind at any moment, yet it never came. Once a hundred photos had been taken by dozens of the press, I stood back up and walked back into the public square.



It was a scene of chaos. Groups of people were around the square, and at the far end I saw dense clouds of tear gas. I hurried over, wanting to document what I was witnessing. As small groups of young people threw what little they had at heavily armoured police lines, police were attacking with overwhelming force. They shot cluster-bomb fireworks into the air, which split into half a dozen tear-gas-spewing canisters, turning huge areas of the public square into toxic zones of pain. People from many walks of life were caught in the debilitating gas—not just the protesters close to the police, but also tourists, children, and protesters who were trying to avoid police presence entirely.



Over the next couple of hours the police closed in (trampling on the flowers and candles that had been left for those killed on the 13th), eventually kettling (trapping) several hundred of us against a building, where they held us for three hours. I tried speaking with some of the protesters around me, but my limited French caused connection problems, and although they were nice, I felt pretty alone. In those moment I was very glad to have support of a friend who was outside the police lines, chatting away with me on my phone. There was also a bike trailer with a speaker, so we put some music on and had a rave in the street. Dancing helped to keep our spirits up.



Eventually the police came for us. Batons in hand, they roughly grabbed us a few at a time and ripped us apart from our fellow protesters with whom we’d linked arms. Sometimes they failed to get any of us, sometimes they succeeded. A couple of times (that I witnessed) they came in with their batons swinging, and it would surprise me if no bones were broken that day. It was harrowing to see the glee with which the police attacked us, having already dehumanized us and justified their tyranny as “just doing my job”.

Eventually I too was taken. A single police officer led me out, though he instantly softened when I said I was Canadian. He wasn’t looking to arrest me, but many arrests did happen that day—likely French climate activist that they’d had their sights on for some time (quite why the police seem to overly target climate activists is another matter). He gave me the choice of getting on the police bus (a tempting offer, to stand in solidarity with those who were being arrested), but I chose the other option: to walk away and head home to sleep—a privilege I am lucky to have.

Photo credit: Stu Basden

Connect the Refugee Climate Dots

About three years ago, climate groups ran a campaign to help people connect-the-dots between climate change and extreme weather disasters.[1] At the time, this image became etched into my mind:




High school Students connect the dots on climate change near Dallas, Texas in 2012. (Photo: 350.org)

Three years later, there is no question in people’s mind that the increasing devastation from extreme weather disasters are closely linked to our worsening climate. Today, there’s another set of dots that we need to connect: the dots between climate, racism, refugees and immigration.

I’m not the first to be saying this, by a long stretch. However, it hasn’t yet sunk in for many people the way the weather disasters have. Nevertheless, these dots are all connected.

Just as the Tahir Square uprising in Egypt was set against a backdrop of drought and high grain prices, the degenerative violence in Syria has a backdrop of a climate-change-fueled eight year drought, with 75% of farmers suffering total crop failure.[2] This drought forced many to flee the starving countryside to make for the cities, causing the pressure build up to bursting. The ensuring war is a result. The millions of refugees then followed.

These people are climate refugees.

We need to make these connections, understanding that caring about climate change means we also need to care for those who suffer from it now. Let’s review a few more dots...

In the past week I’ve seen a horrifying number of attacks on Muslim peoples (and people mistaken for being Muslim) in Toronto. There’s been at least 3 cases that made it into the media,[3] and likely many more that didn’t. Given Toronto is the most diverse country in the world, these attacks are even more chilling (tho this story warmed my heart a little). And this is just scratching the global dotty surface.

We’re seeing the rise of neo-Nazi groups across Europe, such as a Golden Dawn, who are increasingly attacking climate refugees and immigrants.[4] In Paris last weekend the police attacked protesters at a pro-refugee rally[5] and Turkey, Hungary, Austria, Germany and Sweden have recently closed their borders to refugees.[6] Canada, a country that used to be known as a refugee safehaven, is claiming it can’t even handle 25,000 refugees (I found this image particularly powerful). See the dots?

At the same time, the BlackLivesMatter movement struggles against the horror of white supremacism in the US (and elsewhere), and we’re seeing presidential candidates spewing more and more disgusting racism.[7] It seems we’re weekly hearing about another unarmed black person shot dead by the police with impunity.[8] Indeed, 350.org activists are increasingly getting involved in race struggle, calling for us all to “get off the fence”.[9] A white ally at a recent protest that faced gunfire recently commented, “If you’ve ever wondered what you’d do if you were alive during the civil rights era, now’s the time to find out.” More dots.

It’s time for us to connect these dots. Just as we would look strangely at someone today who claimed there’s no connection between climate change and extreme weather, we need to gain a similar understanding of the connection between the climate’s breakdown and the increase of refugees, the rise of extremist racism, and the violent clamp-down of borders.

For further reading (if you’re not done yet!) I’d recommend this excellent article that was posted yesterday: Why Migration Should Be Central to Paris COP21 Climate Talks. I’d also encourage you to watch this fantastic video “Erase the Borders” from Submedia, my favourite anarchist TV show.

Can you spot the difference between this pic and the one above?





[1] http://www.climatedots.org/
[2] http://www.preventionweb.net/english/hyogo/gar/2011/en/bgdocs/GAR-2011/GAR2011_Report_Chapter3.pdf, page 60.
[3] Picking up kids from school: http://globalnews.ca/news/2343508/muslim-woman-attacked-while-picking-up-children-from-toronto-school-police/
On the subway: http://globalnews.ca/news/2349876/2-women-wearing-hijabs-allegedly-verbally-physically-harrassed-on-toronto-subway/
Walking home, just 10 minutes walk from where I used to live: http://www.citynews.ca/2015/11/20/toronto-woman-assaulted-after-her-scarf-is-mistaken-for-hijab/
There was also the women and children attacked in October: http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/national/muslim-convert-attacked-while-wearing-niqab-in-toronto/article26646425/
[4] This video shows how terrifying this racist group has become: http://www.theguardian.com/world/video/2012/oct/26/golden-dawn-greece-police-video
[5] https://www.rt.com/news/323062-paris-clashes-refugee-protest/
[6] Look it up, there’s plenty of links: https://encrypted.google.com/search?hl=en&q=site%3Atheguardian.com%20closes%20borders#q=site:theguardian.com+closes+borders&hl=en&tbs=qdr:y
[7] Video from a few days ago: http://www.theguardian.com/us-news/video/2015/nov/23/black-lives-matter-protester-donald-trump-alabama-video
[8] It’s more like 3/day. Check out how many people in this picture are black: http://thefreethoughtproject.com/100-people-killed-police-month-2015-officers-killed-suspects/
[9] http://350.org/time-to-get-off-the-fence/

How to Change the Future — and Why We Need To!

I was recently sent a message from an old high-school friend:

I always see your posts and pictures, declaring war on capitalism, but what would the alternative be? Have you given it much thought? I understand your environmental concerns, but the point that I am making is: how would we continue to live the life which we are currently used to living, without capitalism? I am just uncertain as to your protestations. If there was one thing that you could change about the world, what would it be and how would you do it?

My response:

That's a complex and important question, which I'll do my best to answer, although you'll probably have to do your own thinking and come up with your own answers too. For myself, I have thought long and hard about it.

The short answer is, no, we cannot continue to live the life we are currently living. But we can live a good life, and the sooner we change, the better that life can be.

The long answer.

We currently are consuming non-renewable resources on this planet at a rapid, and increasing rate. Those resources, being non-renewable, are by their nature limited, and so our current way of life is also limited. Some have suggested that we would need 3 planets, or 7 planets, or whatever, to maintain our way of life, but even that is missing the point—our current way of life is unsustainable, and so it cannot, and will not, last.

When I say resources, I'm not just talking about rare-earth metals and oil, although both of those are limited. I'm talking about everything that we are using up: pristine forests and lumber supplies, fresh water and river health, ocean ecosystems and pH, atmospheric stability and CO2 levels, soil fertility and agricultural reliability, democratic capital, social services, labour resilience, etc., etc. The list goes on.

Our current trajectory, "business-as-usual", is using up those resources at an alarming rate. If it isn't curbed, it will result in at least a 6ºC global temperature rise by 2100, possibly much sooner. Governments around the world, supported by the best scientific data (as calculated by the worlds' most powerful supercomputers), have recognized that a 2ºC rise in global temperatures is 'dangerous' and to be avoided. Some scientists think that even 2ºC is too generous to allow ourselves. We're currently only at 0.7ºC rise, and we're already seeing superstorms, megadroughts, massive wildfires, 400,000 climate-change-related deaths per year, and a global reduction in GDP by 1.6%. So 400,000 people each year argue with their lives that even 0.7ºC is too much!

Given the risks of a 2ºC rise, the risks of a 6ºC rise are completely unacceptable: certain collapse of the global food production systems, with a resultant collapse of civilization: resource wars, cities left abandoned, starvation in the billions, a massive die-off of human beings. When every person is desperately searching for their next drink of fresh water and next meal, the last thing anyone will be worrying about would be continuing to "live the life which we are currently used to living". On this trajectory, the survival of the human species is put into question, and some predictions even question the possibility of the survival of multi-cellular life. But this is where we're heading.

I'll say again: this is where we are currently heading.

Obviously this is unacceptable. Therefore, we have to find another way of living on this planet that accepts the limitations of the world in which we live. We have to discover a way of living that respects and protects the systems that we rely on to survive.

Does this mean we should all retreat into peasant agriculture and indigenous forest-dwelling? No. I tried that myself, and I'm confident it won't work. Most of us have lost our ability to live in such a way, and most people would cling on to the current (suicidal) system before they give up their comforts anyway. So there has to be a different way. We have to face some difficult questions, and decide which of the current comforts we really want to protect, and which we'd be willing to give up.

An easy example of something we could give up is the waste usage of electricity that many applications use when they're not in use. Commonly called "vampire power", this accounts for ~10% of the electricity used in Western countries. To stop this, we simply need to make laws that prevent vampire power from being allowed. This would mean you would have to turn your TV manually, without the remote, but that's really not that bad. Electronics should also automatically turn off after a time (after a warning). This would prevent the TV-in-the-other-room being left on: it would automatically turn off after a certain amount of time, which could be stopped by a person actively telling it to stay on (this time, with the remote).

Another thing that will need to cease is the long-distance (un-walkable/cyclable) commute. I'm sure most people wouldn't miss it anyway, but stopping the commute requires a different kind of societal planning: integrated communities where people live close to where they work (and play), with electrified public transit for the exceptions. Every job that could be done from home online (probably 95% of office jobs) should be, and service companies that require a commute should have to pay dearly for it. All of this possible, it just requires some changes to laws and zoning, and more planning. Lots of planning.

People will need to eat less meat. They'll have to have less children. They'll have to repair things more, rather than replacing broken household objects. So things will have to be built so that they last, and so that they can be repaired. Currently, it benefits business to build things to become redundant, forcing us to buy a new phone/suit/car/TV every few years. Changing this will require legal changes, changes in resource-exploitation practices, and changes in the mentality of society. All of this is possible.

However, probably the most urgent switch we'll need to make is to change our energy (electricity) source away from carbon-releasing fossil-fuels (coal, oil, gas, fracking) to renewable and carbon-neutral sources (wind and solar seem to be the best options) as soon as possible. To avoid the 2ºC temperature rise, we can only emit 565 gigatonnes more CO2 (as of 2010). Between 2010-2012 we emitted 115Gt. At that rate we'll run out in just 12 years, or by 2025. The rate of consumption is still increasing. So in less than 12 years we'll have used up our entire quota of carbon dioxide emissions—if we continue on our current course. The sooner we change our electricity-production away from the outdated carbon-emission technology of burning fossil-fuels, the more leeway we'll have in other sectors, particularly agriculture and transportation. Those are the other two main contributors to carbon emissions. Transportation can be fairly easily be solved by switching to electrical, although doing so will require massive changes to our infrastructure (and legal structure). Due to emissions, biofuels/ethanol should be avoided, and new nuclear will take too long to come online (minimum 10 years), so these power sources are dead ends.

Agriculture also needs to be moved away from the carbon-intensive, soil-depleting, unsustainable industrial mono-cropping that relies on large amounts of fertilizer, pesticides, herbicides, and industrial machinery. Livestock is particularly bad for emissions, especially the horrific-yet-common practice of factory farming. Genetically-modified (GM) crops are also proving to be a dead-end, as they increase dependence on carbon-intensive practices like fertilizer and herbicide use. A lot more of us will need to become farmers.

A better world is possible, but we will need to have major societal change to get there. And we'll need to make it happen very, very soon. 12 years is very close. The sooner we start to make the changes, the better.

The world of de-regulated capitalism we live in today is not the only possible world, although the system would like you to believe that it is. But the fact is, we have created this system, decade-by-decade, removing regulation after regulation from polluters and abusers. The gross inequality in the world is no accident—it has been engineered by those seeking short-term profit. But just as we have built this system, we can—and must—unbuild it. We must re-regulate and equalize. We must reign in the abusers and stop the abuse. We must move away from the '1%ers' system of profit and inequality.

What is my one big wish? I want to see the end of ecocide. "Ecocide is the extensive damage to, destruction of or loss of ecosystem(s) of a given territory, whether by human agency or by other causes, to such an extent that peaceful enjoyment by the inhabitants of that territory has been or will be severely diminished." There is a growing movement to make ecocide illegal internationally by 2020. An international law against ecocide would prevent carbon-releasing projects like the Alberta Tar Sands (which contain 240gt of CO2—almost half of the total allowed, and by itself would result in a 1ºC rise!), as well as stopping the (ever-increasing) deforestation of the worlds carbon-sinks: forests. It would also impose a duty-of-care onto land-owners and corporations, which would trump the duty-to-profit, in the same way that today it is illegal to profit from genocide. It would turn "polluter pays (as little as they can get away with)" to "polluter doesn't pollute". In short, it would play a major part in changing the direction of our civilization, towards sustainability. But even this, world-changing though it may be, is just a piece of the puzzle. There are many, many other pieces that I have not mentioned here. This puzzle is the puzzle that we must work on every single day, not stopping until Mother Earth is at least able to tolerate us, and hopefully able to enjoy our species' existence once again.

I hope this helps. There are options, and we need to take them. And to do so, almost every single human being (yourself included) is going to have to become involved in making the change. Without you, we'll fail.

Cheers,
Stu

I quit the NDP

Dear Mr. Mulcair,

I'm writing today to let you know that I will no longer associate myself with the federal NDP, until the party takes a clear stand to oppose the existence and expansion of the Athabasca Tar Sands industrial complex, along with all the pipelines that would act as enablers for it (including Northern Gateway, Keystone XL and Line 9).

It will probably disappoint you to know that I was an NDP party activist, who dedicated his time to canvas heavily for the NDP during the previous federal (and Ontario provincial) elections, as well as additional volunteering. I would like to volunteer for the NDP again, but my conscious will not allow me to do so while the NDP party leader supports such a destructive project.

I am exceedingly disappointed with your decision (and it is your decision) to ally yourself with the most damaging industrial project on the planet. As James Hansen famously stated, this project will result in game over for the climate.

Many international agencies have been reporting on what this would mean, including (generally anti-environmental) economic and energy agencies such as the IMF and IEA. In case you haven't read the reports, I'll summarize them for you:

Game Over == The End of Civilization

Maybe it's worth pointing out the irony of the situation we're in: those who benefit the most from the status quo (the mega rich) are generally working to undermine it, whilst it's the environmentalists and indigenous peoples who are working the hardest to prevent the coming collapse. However, the coming collapse will be no laughing matter, as global food harvests would fail, resulting in famine on a scale that we've never seen before. It may have once been that environmentalists were seen to be idealists and those in business dealt with the 'real' world, but is now clear that it is the business world that is living in an idealism of limitless growth, and that it is environmentalists who are the ones with the strongest grip on reality. Indeed, with the consequences of climate change becoming clearer and more horrendous by the year, we cannot afford the dangerous fantasies of the business world any longer.

We have recently seen the coming to light of the Keystone Principle:

We must categorically cease making large, long-term capital investments in new fossil fuel infrastructure that “locks in” dangerous emission levels for many decades.

To support the Tar Sands in any way, including supporting pipeline construction (and reversal), is to actively work to destroy civilization as we know it.

Climate change is already responsible for 400,000 deaths each years and costs us $1.2tn/yr. Both of these numbers are set to double in the short term and increase by an order of magnitude in the mid term (if business-as-usual, and the tar sands continue). Therefore supporting the tars sands makes you directly culpable for genocide at an international scale. There will come a time when ecocide is considered to be an international crime against peace, and those who continue to support the tar sands would be taken to the ICC. I certainly hope you are not one of those people.

Not only are the tar sands environmentally suicidal, they are economically insane. They have already destroyed 500,000 (mainly NDP) jobs in manufacturing in Ontario, and are proving to be financially fragile and unstable. The tar sands put Canada at great risk, with only temporary and insignificant benefits. It is now cheaper is several countries of the world to produce energy using wind and solar technology. This is the direction our country should be heading. While we continue to invest in the tar sands, we are losing out on billions of dollars we could be getting from these sustainable energy sources.

Innovative wind and solar technology would provide Canada with a secure and stable economy, both in the short and long terms, and would provide tens of thousands more jobs. It's probably worth pointing out that the Keystone XL pipeline is estimated to only provide 50 permanent jobs (after the initial two years of construction are over). The oil industry is heavily automated, so it brings very little to the job-debate: far less than the renewable alternatives.

The tar sands are a dead end, with the emphasis on 'dead'. I call on you to condemn the tar sands, and to categorically reject its expansion, along with all of the pipelines that threaten the future health of Canada.

Yours sincerely,
Stuart Basden

Canada gone Rogue

Note: This article was written Dec 9th, before there had been a single #IdleNoMore protest or dance. I believe the ferocity with which the #IdleNoMore movement has taken off strongly supports my thesis.

Canadians need help to wake up and see what is happening to their country.

Canada has long been respected around the world for it's tolerance, democracy, open borders, and friendliness. However, in the year-and-a-half since our last Federal election, Stephen Harper, Prime Minister of Canada, has transformed the country into a rogue petro-state, reviled around the world, and exercising dictatorial control over Canada's people and laws.

This is now recognized by countries around the globe. On November 29th, 2012 at the United Nations General Assembly MP John Baird, Canada's Minister of Foreign Affairs, was introduced to take the stage. No welcoming applause was given:

What follows is a reminder of some of the damage Harper has inflicted on Canada, bringing us up to date (to the beginnings of #IdleNoMore).

Harper first became Prime Minister in February 2006, although he was not content with his minority government. He called another election in October 2008 to try to get a majority, and again failed to do so winning 37% of the vote. However, just six weeks later, Harper prorogued parliament (cut short the parliamentary session) to stop the opposition parties conducting a vote of no confidence. Proroguing is meant to be used to allow the government to refocus, but it was used in this case to stop a majority coalition (representing the majority of Canadians) from bringing down the minority government. Harper again prorogued parliament in 2009, this time to avoid ongoing investigations into the Afghan detainees affair. Dr. Nelson Wiseman, Professor at the University of Toronto said at the time, "no Prime Minister has so abused the power to prorogue."

Abuse of power. That is something the Canadian people are now becoming used to.

In March 2011, Stephen Harper's government was found in contempt of parliament, which is without precedent in Canada or any other Commonwealth country. It clearly demonstrated "the Conservatives’ profound disdain toward the only democratic national institution we have" (Thomas Walkom).

In May 2011, Canada voted again and gave the Harper government a majority in parliament. What happens in Canada when a wannabe dictator shows disdain for democracy? We make him into an actual dictator!

Except that we didn't. Some of us did. A minority. In fact, only around 38% of the popular vote went to Harper, although that somehow gave Harper 54% of the seats in parliament–a majority. That's a 16% difference. And 16% is over 5,000,000 people. The Conservative party has managed to rig the elections in such as way as to steal the votes of five million people. It's also worth stating that the 38% is of those who voted–only about 25% of the population who legally can vote, voted for Harper (roughly 8.5 million people).

But that wasn't enough for Harper. On election day, illegal robocalls were orchestrated by members of the Conservative party (of which Harper is the leader) as a voter suppression tactic to try to stop supporters of other parties from voting. The investigation continues, but there are currently around 200 ridings–two-thirds of the total–alleging that robocalls were made within their boundaries. Many of the ridings were won by tiny margins–as little as 18 votes. The closest 11 ridings all report voting irregularities of this nature, and in these ridings as little as 0.05% of the vote made the difference. Stephen Harper is not the legitimate Prime Minister of Canada, and should not control a majority parliament.

In June 2010, the G20 were to be held in Canada. Harper decided that the meeting should take place in downtown Toronto (Harper hates Toronto), and proceeded to militarise the downtown core, spending over $1.1 billion–the most expensive weekend in Canadian history. Pittsburgh G20 a few years before had a budget of $18 million.

Fortress walls were built, and police were brought in from other provinces. Peaceful protestors and passers-by were kettled–surrounded by police, beaten, and then arrested without cause. Over 1000 people were arrested–the largest mass-arrests in Canadian history–and peaceful protests were repeatedly dispersed using violent force. Ombudsman André Marin called it “the most massive compromise of civil liberties in Canadian history.” Canada was left reeling from the violent blow done to its citizens.

In December 2011, Peter Kent, the Minister of the Environment in Canada, announced Canada's withdrawal from the Kyoto Accord. Canada remains the only country to do so. Canada would have been fined $14 billion for failing to meet its emission cuts targets. To add to the insult, the announcement was made one day after countries around the world agreed to a treaty to limit carbon emissions in COP17 in Durban. The following year in COP18 (Doha), Canada was called a "pariah" and there were questions raised as to whether Canada should have any stand at the table while negotiating a second Kyoto protocol.

The rhetoric and language used by the Harper government has also become extremist. In February 2012 the government introduced Bill C-30, a bill that contained draconian internet spying and anti-privacy laws. It was widely condemned, in much the same way SOPA was condemned in the US. However, Public Safety Minister Vic Toews claimed the opposition “either [had to] stand with us, or with the child pornographers.” Really. That's what he said.

In line with Harper's narrow-sighted vision for an oily Canadian future, the Harper government also introduced an 'anti-terrorism' bill that labelled environmentalists as terrorists. John Bennett, executive director of Sierra Club Canada condemned the bill, saying "It’s an indirect suggestion that somehow environmentalism is attached to terrorism and that’s just wrong." Natural Resources Minister Joe Oliver, along with Harper himself, made the claim that foreign-funded, radical environmentalists were threatening Canada's economy–and by extension, Canada itself–by trying to stop oil pipelines from being built. NDP MP Megan Leslie stated, "I find it offensive that there is a list that puts people trying to protect the environment on the same list as white supremacists."

While Harper was the leader of the opposition he supported dissent, stating, "When a government starts trying to cancel dissent or avoid dissent is frankly when it’s rapidly losing its moral authority to govern." Now, it seems, he’s trying as hard as he can eliminate dissent completely, silencing scientists and most recently bringing down vital firewalls required for the country to remain democratic. There goes his moral authority.

Another tactic the Harper government has used, which both damages Canadian democracy and highlights the governments extremist agenda, is to push through omnibus budget bills. A budget bill is effectively a vote of confidence, and so any Conservative MP that votes against it is effectively voting themselves out of office. In June 2012, Bill C-38, the laughably-named "Jobs, Growth and Long-term Prosperity Act," was pushed through the House of Parliament unmodified after Tory MPs rejected thousands of proposed amendments. The bill was 425 pages, and, amongst other things, removed nearly all environmental protection from Canadian water, soil and air–none of which had anything to do with implementing the budget. The environmental regulation was stripped to stop opposition to oil pipelines and expansion of the destructive Albertan tar sands. The bill also removed the need for Canada to protect its species that are threatened with extinction. Harper is willing to wipe out millions of years of evolutionary history in order to pursue his extremist, oil-based agenda.

However, there is still a major legal force that can stop oil pipelines being built in Canada–the First Nations. In Canada, the First Nations are sovereign nations that hold control of their land, and the Federal government must seek their approval for projects like pipelines. Harper's second omnibus budget bill in 2012, Bill C-45, is designed to strip as much power from the First Nations as possible. The bill has been described as unconstitutional and an abuse of power. Again, Harper's government rejected all the proposed amendments and used its house majority to push it through. Many First Nations chiefs went to parliament to protest the bill's illegality, but were rebuffed by security.

Harper is also tabling many other bills that are designed to strip the First Nations of power: Bills C-27, C-428, S-2, S-6, S-8, S-207 and S212. This includes the wonderfully-named bill, "Safe Drinking Water for First Nations," which would actually remove funding and responsibility for providing safe drinking water. Onion Lake Cree Nation Chief Wallace Fox recently described the Harper government as 'enemies'. On December 10th 2012, thousands of Canadians across the country came together for the #IdleNoMore day of action. You should have been there.

It needs stating that this is not just a criticism of the Left towards the Right. The ~193 nations of the United Nations are politically very mixed, including extremes on both sides, as well as everything in-between. The silence that John Baird received at the UN last week is now echoing across the planet. John Baird was unique in receiving no welcome–both Israel and Palestine, as well as every other speaker from every other nation received a welcoming applause. Canada is the odd one out.

It's also needs stating that Stephen Harper does not necessarily represent the Conservative party. Stephen Harper and his cabinet are extremists seeking a narrow future for Canada based on oil. They have hijacked the Conservative party and are enforcing their will on them, but there are many Tory MPs who resent the bullying, as well as many loyal members of the party who are disgusted by the tactics being used and the direction the country is going. Those Conservatives need to stand up and speak out for their country, just as much as members of every other party.

The politics of this country should no longer be measured on the Left-Right spectrum–our politics today needs to be measured on the Tyranny-Freedom scale. The longer Harper is allowed to retain power, the further Canada will devolve towards tyranny. How long will we–the majority–allow this to happen?

Public Letter to Richard Ubbens

Dear Mr Rubbens,

I am writing today as a concerned citizen, having seen the damage that was done in your name to the city, people and community of Toronto. The destructions of the People's Peas Gardens is a shameful thing that cannot be undone, but its crime can be acknowledged and publicly apologized for.

I am not a member of Occupy, but as a thinking human being who values democracy, community and life, I certainly share many of its concerns. I am also not a member of Occupy Gardens, although I do recognize that we have an abundance of problems with our current food-production model of agribusiness. I am a full-time employed web developer, who deeply cares about Toronto, and tries to encourage healthy community projects wherever I see them.

The People's Peas Garden in Queens Park was one such project. It increased ten-fold in size over the summer, due to the excitement of the community to get involved and contribute to it. Although I was not a member of the community, and only enjoyed the garden as a passerby, I recognize that the community involved in it was strong and vibrant, giving people a fantastic reason to enjoy, and love, one of Toronto's great parks. This love is certainly something that you, as the Toronto Parks Director, should be excited about, and try to encourage at every opportunity. As a public servant, your job is to serve the community.

The People's Peas Garden was, admittedly, illegal. However, things that are illegal are not necessarily wrong (and vice versa) - sometimes the law needs to catch up to reality. The People's Peas Garden was a grassroots project by people who saw problems with the City as it is, and wished to be allowed to enact a dream of a better Toronto. The people of Toronto encounter many problems when they wish to do similar things: community garden waiting lists are long, Toronto schools are failing to teach food-growing to our children, and there are very few places that people are able to grow their own food. As the city (sadly) increasingly build more and more condos, this demand for public space will only increase. It is on you, as the Parks Director, to make sure that this need is met. To fail to do so will be a massive failing in your role.

However, the gravest shame in all of this was not the destruction of the garden - it was the manner in which the garden was destroyed. The Peas Garden was planted while police watched, back in May. The authorities were well aware of its existence all summer, yet did nothing about it. The Peas Garden had also been careful to erect a sign with contact information, so that the city could contact them - a sign which you publicly denied the existence of, even though there is footage of a Parks worker taking down that very sign. This can only be considered to be a brazen lie, which again, brings shame to your position. And finally, the garden was destroyed just two days before the scheduled harvest and Thanksgiving feast. It is clear to any outside observer, as I am sure it was clear in your mind, that this was an intentional, pre-meditated move to cause as much pain as possible to the community members who were involved in the garden, as well as to harm the City of Toronto as a whole in an attempt to crush its creative spirit and desire for a better city.

After knowingly waiting for five months to remove the so-called 'illegal' garden, you waited until it would cause the most damage, and inflict the most pain. It is for this cruelty that a public apology is demanded. I expect both this apology, and a direct response.

Yours sincerely,
Stuart Basden

More info:
http://www.treehugger.com/lawn-garden/toronto-destroys-occupygardens-free-food-garden.html
http://rabble.ca/blogs/bloggers/johnbon/2012/09/free-community-food-garden-removed-city-toronto-workers

Common Space?

The Commons are publicly owned 'space', set apart for the betterment of all. Village greens are a historical symbol of the Commons - a central place in rural communities where anyone could graze their livestock, as well a a place for community festivals and celebrations. While village greens used to be the centre of many communities, they are now a rare anachronistic occurrence, the prime real estate (as it is now seen) having been sold off by local councils to developers. Only a few remain as public parks.

The village green isn't the only loss to the commons, but it was one of the earliest losses. In the past century, and particularly in the past few decades, we've seen the Commons shrink is almost every way conceivable - indeed, the Commons have become such an easy target for public service cuts that "every way conceivable" may well be the extent of it. To take something out of the Commons, all that needs to happen is for it to become commodified. And the Commons are often lost through ideology, not necessity. Austerity is one such ideology.

Common Defence

In the past year the Mayor of Toronto (a right-wing businessman who inherited his wealth) attempted to close a third of Toronto libraries, claiming it was necessary to balance the budget. Libraries are one of the oldest institutions of the Commons, and the public outcry was fortunately strong enough to stop Mayor Rob Ford's plan. A few months later, the city actually discovered it had a $300 million surplus, revealing Ford's flawed ideology as being out-of-touch with reality.

Another failed attempt to sell off the Commons occurred last year in the UK, when the Austerity-driven Tory party attempted to sell off woodlands to international developers and power companies. It would have been the largest change of land ownership since the Second World War, and would have resulted in the loss of over 250,000 hectares (an area the size of Luxembourg). Again, the public outcry was enough to stop it.

Common Sales

However, not all the Commons have been successfully defended. In many countries, the water infrastructure is still part of the Commons, water being a necessity for (human) life. Privatization of water is often met with mass protests, as people (rightly) fear for their very survival. Until 1989, only 4 countries in the world had privatized their water, but after Margaret Thatcher (another right-winger) privatized water in the UK, 27 more countries have have also seen their water privatized. Against this, Bolivia saw historic protests in 2000 as water prices seared to 30% of income. Greece and Italy also saw anti-water-privatization protests in 2011, and much of the Americas are in long-term battles against it, often deadly.

The Internet is another area of the Commons, which is now under continuous attacks from bills such as SOPA, CISPA and Canada's Bill C-11. Health-care (particularly elder-care) has also seen massive moves into the private sector, often resulting in elder abuse and 'flying visits', where care staff hours are so stretched they only have time for the bare minimum of 'care'. Art has also seen the attack, as public funding is cut and art projects are increasingly forced to look for private money (often resulting in certain 'restrictions').

Common Losses

Another major concession of the Commons has been research. Research used to be done primarily by publicly-funded universities, and the discoveries would be kept in the Commons, available for all. This allowed for a diverse and creative era of progress, resulting in many useful inventions. It also allowed researchers to take chances, combining fields of study, and making leaps in human thought. However, as public funding for universities has been continually reduced, researchers have been forced to look for private grants to continue their research.

For example, Monsanto and other private interests now contribute more towards agricultural research than public funds in the US (which includes the USDA's notoriously pro-corporate public money). This has resulted in biased research, leaving policy makers unable to make unbiased policies. It has also captured the imagination of scientists and researchers, forcing research to continue in an areas like GMOs that have been shown to reduce yields and contribute to food scarcity and environmental decline. Finally, the research done (even in public universities) are kept out of the Commons by privately-constructed, draconian intellectual property laws and patents, which are enforced by heavily funded teams of lawyers, as well as legal threats and private security companies. Once something leaves the Commons, it not given back.

Un-Common Extremes

Lawmakers have allowed human DNA to be privatized, which is surely about as 'common' as anything we share.

The atmosphere too, is being negotiated away through international cap-and-trade schemes - the commodification of the air we breathe.

As these attempts to commodify (and thus eradicate) the Commons continue, we are finding that nothing is to be spared. Indeed, while we used to fund ventures into space from the Commons, asteroid mining is now being contemplated, bankrolled by billionaires. And although we'll probably never make much of our time in space, how long will it be before even space is commodified, divided, and sold off?

But this loss of the Commons needn't be the case. This is not the only possible future for humanity. It can be reversed, and it should be.

Common Revival

Although touted as such, Austerity is not a way to balance the budget. Not only are we finding austerity is ineffective at what it claims to do, Austerity is actually an attempt to sell off the Commons as quickly as possible. It is driven by the interests of private finance, and associated with a domineering mindset of oligarchical control. It is, quite simply, elitism, paid for by us all.

Fortunately, people are beginning to fight back. Greece is currently working out how to scrap austerity, France voted in Hollande for his anti-austerity promises, and Germany's largest state just rejected Merkel's austerity. Popular grass-roots movements like Occupy and Blockupy continue to grow, exposing austerity's Commons-crippling agenda. And as awareness grows, anger grows, meaning action grows.

The tide is turning - the Commons will grow again!