It's election time here in Australia, where hopefully we'll be voting out our inept, arrogant and out of touch leader out of office. Most of those who are anti-the-current-government feel despair, for the alternative isn't much better, and those who care about the environment are even more worried, because that seems as far down on the agenda as you can get. Yet despite what political party we might ascribe to, climate change is more of a concern for us than every before. Almost 90 percent of us believe it's a real issue that needs addressing, especially due to the devastation of floods and fires in the last two years.
There are different areas of concern, of course - some party voters aren't concerned about or don't believe in climate change, yet still believe in conserving native habitat or addressing environmental degradation. Some don't care at all about renewable energies whereas believe it's a priority.
If you're Australian, you can probably guess who I voted for - it's no real surprise if you have read any of my posts. I'm not saying I believe in climate change or not - I think it's a moot point and absolutely pointless to argue about it. If we simply focussed on the environment over industry, everything would be fine and we wouldn't be having these arguments anyway.
Of bigger concern too is our right to protest against industry, especially if it disrupts roads, businesses or any other carrying out of, well, industry. In response to climate change protestors at Parliament house, the NSW government quickly passed The Roads and Crimes Legislation Amendment Bill 2022 which 'could see protesters who cause disruption to major roads, ports and train stations fined up to $20,000 and jailed for two years.'1'
COVID taught us that democracy was a loose ideal in the hands of draconian politicians. The freedom to protest, of course, is a fundamental part of a democratic society. Democracy fails if we can't disrupt the system and break down dynamics of power through engaging in peaceful protest. It puts powers in the hands of the police who arbitrarily can decide who is causing a disruption.
Why on earth we prioritise business and industry despite knowing the damage they can cause beggars belief. Because of this, radical environmentalism is necessary. In In 2021, for example, Tasmania lost 27.5kha of natural forest, equivalent to 15.2Mt of CO₂ emissions, according to Global Forest Watch. Don't speak to me about businesses being inconvenienced by protestor actions when, since 2010 when it was 75 percent covered by trees, the old growth forests that house native animals and species are reduced by at least 20 percent. The fire season in that state, as well as the mainland, is longer and more fierce than every known before. We need forest blockades. We need tree sitters and encampments to fight on our behalf, willing to be fined and jailed for the forests and for us.
The angel of the Weld Valley, the iconic angel in the tree pictured at the beginning of this post, was fined in 2007 for 'police wage costs of $2870, and $6198 in lost revenue for the state timber agency'2. She protested for nine hours. The charges were eventually dropped, green politicians advocating on behalf of Beltran because it's a free country and we have the right to protest.
Perhaps not anymore.
To protest peacefully is certainly legal in this country, but as soon as you start disrupting traffic or business, you risk fines or jail time. But what good is peaceful protest when no one is listening? Sometimes a more forceful disruption is needed. I think of the riots in Bristol where they threw the statue of a slave trader into the river. Colston had been upheld as a businessman and philanthropist primarily, his nefarious past ignored (given he'd made his fortune off the slave trade). It'd been there since 1895 and no amount of peaceful letter writing had removed it, a big 'up yours' for anyone who saw it as a reminder of the atrocities of that era and the enduring racism that persists in the world today. The tut tuts of those who believed this was wanton vandalism resounded in the air. But honestly? Fuck the disapproval. Sometimes big, violent, disruptive action is necessary to change things or at least bring important issues into the mainstream for very pubic debate.
Many arguments against protest like this is the inconvenience caused. The loggers who can't start their trucks. The people who can't make it to work because the road is shut. The politician whose staff has to clean up the flood debris from the doorstep because nothing is being done to help. On balance, though, one could argue the bigger 'inconvenience' is, for example, continued disasters due to climate inaction. One must put aside the personal sometimes what is really important. Even if you believed the 'anti vaxxers' were lunatics, you have to look at what they were really fighting (freedom from surveillance, medical sovereignity) and think that was important, and could affect you one day. One has to admire passionate protest for strong values, after all, even if you don't quite align with them. Hell, I don't give a shit about the legalisation of marijuana because I dont personally need it, but will sure as anything support people's right to do so, and understand if they do it loudly if they aren't being heard.
My answer to the Ecotrain's Question of the Week, therefore, is that protestors who 'inconvenience' the general public are entirely justified. We have a right to protest, and we have a right to disrupt people's convenient lives for the sake of the greater good, especially if they're being ignored by politicians more concerned with filling their own coffers than serving their citizens.
With Love,