Proposal for the creation of a Climate Justice Co-op
To face a global climate crisis in a manner that also addresses inequality, colonialism, racism and other forms of oppression, requires global cooperation.
To this end, we propose to establish an organization that will:
- Create links of solidarity internationally between communities fighting against fossil fuel and infrastructure projects, communities affected by climate change and false solutions to climate change, communities affected by extraction and other industrial projects, and sectors of the public who can back them up in the shared struggle for ecological justice.
- Build broad-based support for direct action.
- Propagate a climate justice-based analysis, which confronts the root causes of the climate crisis in their totality. Racist and colonialist ideologies which devalue human lives based on differences in culture, ethnicity or skin colour are a major enabling factor of the most damaging industrial projects. Racism and colonialism also underlie the most damaging of the false solutions to the climate crisis currently being purveyed as a substitute for environmental justice. Gender-based violence and ideology has always been necessary for destructive powers to exercise control over resources and people. Imperialism and militarism are the most basic tools used to deepen global inequalities. The endless need for growth and the dominating structures of capitalism are at the root of the twin crises of climate change and global inequality. The climate crisis is being used as a weapon to deepen many forms of oppression and inequality; to truly address it, we must confront the ensemble of these forces while building equitable, sustainable and just alternatives.
- Provide an alternative to, and a platform for criticism of environmental organizations that engage in closed door negotiations with government or industry, and which operate in a fashion that is unaccountable to–or which undermines the work of–movements for climate justice. This, with the overall goal of creating a culture of open debate and accountability in environmental movements.
In order to achieve this, we propose a structure that combines local autonomy and global cooperation. Some of the structural characteristics of the proposed Climate Justice Co-op include:
- Locals of the Co-op are autonomous in decisions made about local organizing, but must agree to the Co-op's basis of unity (TBD). Groups which explicitly contravene the Co-op’s basis of unity will be asked to disaffiliate from the Co-op if a majority of other groups agree.
- Membership revenues, including sustaining memberships, are split 50/50 between the member’s local group (if any) and the central co-op structure. The central structure will serve to support existing locals, start new locals, and spread local initiatives through the co-op.
- The central structure of the Co-op will be accountable to a spokescouncil of its locals. The Co-op will also work to develop mechanisms by which to be accountable to affected communities with whom it is allied.
- The Co-op will maintain the majority of its funding from membership, disclose all sources of foundation or government funding while never relying on them, and work to prevent funding sources from changing the Co-op’s areas of emphasis. The Co-op will not accept funding from industry.
The Climate Justice Co-op is a proposal for a new way of conducting environmental work. We will draw our strength from the energy and diversity of grassroots groups that form the Co-op's membership. We will continually renew our moral strength by listening to the communities that are directly affected by, and choose to fight, the root causes of climate change. We will be accountable to them, and to our membership. We will be a part of a global network that will build alternatives to capitalism while confronting its destruction at every turn. We intend to create a way of not only sustaining and supporting grassroots resistance to the climate injustice, but a method to rapidly spread and replicate climate justice organizing. To address the global climate crisis in a just and equitable fashion demands no less.
Add comment
Get CJ Co-op updates via email
Bike to Fight the Pipe, Montreal 2010
Comments
From someone who lives in a
From someone who lives in a fence-line industrial community I've been working hard to learn about what is occurring in my community and the effects it is having on Us. My instincts led me to up-stream causes. In navigating through these issues I've had to ask WHY environmental groups have been amazingly silent on the enormous threats we face here. And when something unexpectedly heats-up, like the BP modernization project in Whiting and East Chicago, large national or regional brands (ENGOs) suddenly appear with petition and fundraising campaigns. They then go on to negotiate vacuous deals directly and secretly with industry and leave without any benefit to the local community.
My experience with ENGOs has left me quite jaded and isolated. I have since found myself posting what I learn to my personal blog. For the past several years I have done everything myself - including forming my own opinion. Sure I have gotten some attention, but admittedly, in the end my community hasn't benefitted in any real way.
So, as someone who is hearing about the Climate Justice Co-op at the proposal stage I am very interested and support its formation. It appears to be an appropriate approach to address the difficulties I face.
global co-operation...
Interesting idea.
I presume it is intended to be global co-operative?
What would the legal structure be? What country would it be based in? What kind of analysis of current strategies in the current global climate justice movement did this proposal come from? It would be good to read a bit more of the thought process from those who drafted this...what experiences have informed this? I can see how it might hope to address the problem of big NGOs dominating international cj solidarity activities and debates while some not necessarily being accountable to frontline communities. Does whole thing risk becoming another big NGO under another name? I suspect people may fear giving money to a central kitty located in another country. Also - much as I would enjoy it - is direct action always the most effective way to show solidarity with frontline communties? How would I take direct action against a vote being cast by my country at a World Bank meeting for instance?
Start locally, end globally
Hi,
Thanks for your comments.
The idea is to create a model, and start using it in Canada. To the extent that it proves itself useful and effective to other communities and organizers, it will spread. If it's not useful to a wide array of people, it'll wither or stagnate. When and if other countries get interested, we'll sort that out. I think it would, as per your intuition, make more sense to set up local corporations, but in other cases (in countries where bank accounts get frozen or seized, for example) it might make sense to keep the money overseas. In any case, it's a pragmatic decision to be made using the decentralized decisionmaking structure of the co-op.
The decisionmaking structure (above all, local autonomy) and the accountability mechanisms (admitedly not described here... stay tuned) would be what make this different from big ENGOs. The central structure can't do anything without a mandate from the locals, and can't tell the locals what to do outside of providing ways for locals to hold each other accountable for the basis of unity that they all agree to as a condition of becoming a local (and which they can modify by consensus).
Finally, we never said that direct action was the best way to do anything. We said we want to build support for it and educate people.
Mobilize everywhere -- ASAP
Of course, people in other countries immediately can take these ideas and start to apply them, in one way or another. But the people who currently are involved in this project are starting at more manageable levels, given limited time, energy, etc.
I relate directly to your
I relate directly to your statement:
"Create links of solidarity internationally between communities fighting against fossil fuel and infrastructure projects, communities affected by climate change and false solutions to climate change, communities affected by extraction and other industrial projects, and sectors of the public who can back them up in the shared struggle for ecological justice."
I live in a rural area of Ontario that is fighting against infrastructure projects that we think are false solutions to climate change. That is industrial wind turbines. The provincial government has opened all Crown land to proponents of renewable energy installations, stopped environmental assessments, and turned the ministry of natural resources away from the protection of wildlife to the 'facilitation' of turbine corporations (most of these corporations with the money to build are oil companies with tar sands operations! For instance the corporate owner of the leaking tailings pond near Fort McMurray recently in the news, has invested $39 million in the corporation proposing turbines on migratory bird habitat here.)
The most prominent environmentalist organizations worked with the government to create these draconian regulations - all on the presumption that climate change demands immediate action. It is immaterial who is doing the destruction of wildlife habitat, or where, or that wind will not answer society's ligitimate energy needs, or that government is giving these corporations more funds than they are investing in conservation programs - reducing energy use, not building for more.
Those of us demanding that the government act on its responsibilities fo preserve the scarce remaining habitat for wildlife in the Great Lakes area are attacked as being Nimbys.
We have been attempting to explain to the environmentalists living in urban areas, who seem to be ignorant about nature, that they must help to save the environment they claim to be working for.
And preparing to fight the government legally to live up to its legal responsibilities under the Migratory Bird Act and the Species at Risk Act.
The entire experience has taught that there is no government at any level prepared to act effectively on climate change. It is up to us to act wherever we are.
Thank you.
Thank you for sharing these reflections.
Why a co-op? What would a
Why a co-op? What would a co-op bring that existing networks dont? for example Climate Justice Action network or Climate Justice Now! network.
CJA and CJN!
Could you comment on what you find to be effective about organizing that happens in CJA and CJN! ?
It seems like you are holding those networks up as models, but without explaining why.
Are you aware of the internal problems in both of those networks, and do you have anything to say about those problems?
A structure for democratic management of resources
Hi,
Here are links to information that will show some of the obvious differences:
http://www.climate-justice-action.org/about/about-cja/
http://www.climate-justice-now.org/about-cjn/history/
I'm trying to spend less time responding to anonymous comments than signed ones, but here are some basics:
I hope that answers your question.
CJ Co-op in Toronto
Hi there,
I was wondering if there is a local co-op being put together in Toronto. If so, I would love to get connected with it. If not, I would love to connect with some people who are interested in starting something up.
Thanks,
Sarah
Get in touch
With us, at info@climatejusticecoop.org
I need to know more.
I need to know more about the people proposing this new organization. There is a real problem in Canada right now. There are new organizations popping up for all sorts of reasons.
They are all very fine people starting these organizations but it is diluting funding, efforts etc. People can belong to only so many organizations until it is just lip service.
Have you thought about connecting with the groups already working on climiate change issues? And then put your efforts behind them and help them move their work forward?
Please be specific
We have posted an "about us" page. Please let us know what additional information you require. Also, it's nice to know who we are talking to. Can you identify yourself?
Also, what efforts do you see this initiative as diluting?
Defining direct action and accountability to communities
I think this is a very promising proposal. Here are a couple of thoughts that can hopefully strengthen this proposal and clarify its strategy/politics.
First, I think it would be helpful, whether in this initial proprosal or in the basis of unity of the Co-op, to better define what kinds of direct action we're talking about, and what kinds of support for direct action. Maybe it would be helpful to expand the point “Build broad-based support for direct action.” into a full paragraph that describes as clearly as possible some kinds of direct action that would be well supported through this type of coop, and thus what the central coop structure could realistically contribute to grass-roots groups (groups acting as coop locals) that engage in direct action (presumably mostly coop locals that engage in direct action as a form of support/solidarity work with others).
Second, I think it would be very valuale to clarify what it entails to say that the Co-op will "work to develop mechanisms by which to be accountable to affected communities with whom it is allied." Again, I'm not sure if this should be clarified here, or in the basis of unity of the coop. Either way, this is a very sensitive issue. There is lots of solidarity work and "international cooperation" work that has major problems in this area, and should not be emulated. I think it is very important that this coop defines its models/stuctures for dealing with these issues, and I'd be interested to be part of convesations of what this could look like.
It's a proposal, not a finished product
These are excellent questions, to which there are few answers as of yet. But we invite you to get involved in the discussion if you're interested. Can you elaborate on what aspects of international cooperation and solidarity work have major problems?
Direct Action
Query:
What sort of activities would be included in "direct action" -- do you contemplate any limitations on that, and if so, what?
Sara
We haven't had the diversity of tactics debate...
...but we will, I'm sure. So far, no one has proposed any limitations, but in terms of actions that carry the name of an incorporated organization, there are obvious limits to what can be done without resulting in the destruction of the organization through litigation. From what I've heard from people so far, there's more interest in creating a framework for action planning, as opposed to focusing on any particular tactic.
If you're interested in participating in future discussions, send us an email at info@climatejusticecoop.org
Climate justice co-op
I suggest we need a new kind of democracy and a far stronger sense of outraged injustice for the climate justice coop idea to make a difference.
We need to address the injustice first. We need to form a global group for the aggressive prosecution of the full extent of the injustice.
It is painfully clear now that the worst crime ever has already been committed on two huge innocent groups (of civilians). They are the billions of the most climate change vulnerable today and all future generations.
Global warming climate disruption and ocean acidification is already the greatest crime against All Humanity and All Life.
Today we already have 300,000 killed every year.
Russian heat wave and record wild fires destroying a large proportion of the wheat crop.
20 million uprooted in Pakistan floods- the worst humanitarian disaster ever (UN).
The fact of the climate science is that the world today is absolutely committed (condemned) to a global warming of over double today’s, and it will last thousands of years.
That means future global food security (for all of us) has been lost and world food output will decline. The decline of crops in the most climate change vulnerable regions is already a certainty.
It means (at least) several times 300,000 have been condemned to death every year- for thousands of years.
The climate justice movement, like all the civil NGOs, is missing the essential point. The greatest injustice and crime against all humanity and all life has already been committed.
For any justice - the world has to prepare for the greatest population and environmental health calamity ever. It will be of unimaginable proportion and it will last for centuries.
I suggest call a new group the Climate Injustice Coop and document the incredible evil that has been and is being increasingly perpetrated on all humanity and almost all life on Earth.
The silent majority to represent is all future generations.
Today we have to represent, to the exclusion of all other considerations, all future generations and the billions of most climate change vulnerable - today.
It's a kind of affirmative action for all future generations and our survival as a species.
I suggest co-op membership start with the agreement on this crime against all humanity of all time and move on from there.
Peter Carter
www.climatechange-foodsecurity.org
www.global-humanitarian-climate-forum.com
www.climatecrime.org (under construction)
excellent points...
Hi Peter,
Can't believe it's already been over six months since the Summit.
I think you are onto something very strong myself, and perhaps the democracy we need is more along the lines of the democracy of a doctors hippocratic oath. Part of it most people know, a pledge to help and never to take life-- but another basic rule of medicine is that when a patient says it's painful-- it's painful. To solve the problem causing the patient pain requires first recognizing that it hurts. And that means making your decisions about treatment based on what information you can garner from the patient.
On a social level dealing with climate change we need to do that for the people that you list are already dying due to the calamities of climate change. They get to set the terms. That means breaking 100% with the idea of telling people whose islands are sinking, whose families are dying, whose lands are flooding... that they need to fall in behind a corporate stage managed campaign that deals only in "what is politically feasible". You were a great for (and teacher to me, no doubt) in Cochabamba on the point that it is not academic masturbation to argue for 300ppm, and not 350ppm, but a decision between whether we make calls for action that have even the outside hope of not sacrificing the powerless, non-contributing to climate change peoples of the world or we decide that they must be expendable in order for our "demands" to gain "traction".
Yes, however-- we should and must incorporate revolutionary demands that follow on the unspoken truths you are bringing us here. We need demands (and actions) that take into account not only climate debt, but the deaths, destructions and more than are already happening.
I hope you and other folks where you are will give consideration to becoming an essential part of these discussions and help us build more broadly to achieve goals that are currently impossible in the frameworks as "normal".
sincerely,
Macdonald
(ps: hello to Julie for me!)
Edmonton
Hi there,
Please put me in touch with the people keen to get a Climate Justice Co Op in Edmonton. I already work to support indigenous sovereignty and community building here and I really hope that an effort is made to build on the good work people are already doing and not fragement existing efforts. Similarly - to my knowledge - no one living and working in Edmonton has been part of these conversations until this call out was already drafted and put out, thus I am a little worried about local accountability, but I am hoping I am wrong and have just been left out of the loop.
For solidarity,
Sheila Muxlow
sheila.muxlow@gmail.com
Hi Sheila, Macdonald
Hi Sheila,
Macdonald here.
Curious as to what you mean by "worried about local accountability", certainly you do not mean that everyone must talk with everyone else before doing anything at all? I certainly do not receive such questions or queries all the time, and could simply not manage them if I did.
the following are only my thoughts, but here they are...
The reasons for the co-op, for me at least, are to not detract from the work individuals do, but to be able to go beyond-- as individuals-- what happens within the confines of unaccountable ENGOs and be accountable only as activists, within one grouping, to communities and each other. It also provides a place where when things that are detrimental to indigenous communities we serve (such as the Canadian Boreal Forest Agreement) we can speak out and not be held back by what must be secondary, concerns over well-financed, anti-democratic organizations. That is why, for me at least, to be a member of this co-op agreeing to speak out on matters of principle against back-room negotiations is a starting point to joining the co-op, either as a member or as a local autonomous grouping.
It is my belief, and I do think most of the rest of us involved in several months of discussions, that this makes us finally *in point of fact* accountable to first nations, front line communities and climate effected nations (such as the Maldives, etc) for the first time. It is simply false that we can pretend to be allies of these effected communities and also be silent when powerful, wealthy organizations steal their voice and trade away their lands and future. It is time to stop just complaining either publicly or privately or simply telling folks "we understand" their concerns, but act to back them up.
Again, these are only my thoughts as one of those engaged in these discussions. If you do not agree with these principles, that is okay-- we will have projects to work on together. But this project, to my mind, is essential and should hold fast to these principles-- just as I do not criticise you for working for an organization that supports approaches I believe are counter productive, even if you disagree.
local accountability
MacDonald - i like what you are saying here, but your process is top down. I get that in Montreal you may have had some great conversations, but what have you done to engage folks in Edmonton on this conversation? Of course I don't believe you should speak to all people affected about everything, but you should check in with people you know who are working on similar issues and would be impacted by your actions.
That said, I like this idea - but I am worried that if you don't go about this properly you are going to further fracture a movement for justice rather than build it.
~sm
Confused
Hi Sheila,
Can you say specifically what has been top-down? There's a proposal for the creation of a co-op. It's an idea that is circulating, one which you and many other people in Edmonton have received. That's all. There has, to date, been no attempt to create a co-op in Edmonton. I just don't see how you can say that you haven't been consulted. This is us, consulting you, and everyone else who is interested, right now.
If your comment is, as it seems to be, an oblique criticism of Macdonald or OST and not the CJ Co-op proposal, then I'd like to suggest that this is not the appropriate forum for that kind of thing.
Proposal for discussion, not a plan to fragment efforts
Hi Sheila,
I think that you have misunderstood the intent of this document.
The document you're commenting on is a proposal, which is being circulated with the aim of getting feedback. There are no plans for a Climate Justice Co-op in Edmonton so far, and I'm sure you'll hear about them if there are. There's not even a Climate Justice Co-op. there's a proposal to create one, with some reasons given for why its necessary, and an attempt to open a discussion about that.
If there are folks involved in independent climate justice organizing in Edmonton, perhaps you could suggest to them to take part in the discussion?
As for fragmenting efforts, I agree that care should be taken. That's why there's a discussion. That said, I think that starting from a premise of scarcity can be really damaging. If we want any semblance of climate justice, we're going to need to increase the level of involvement one thousand-fold... to start. Whether we need new initiatives or not is not in question. The question should be: how can we avoid fighting over the same resources and look outward? The proposal is in fact an attempt to answer that question.
climate justice, now there's
climate justice, now there's a first order syllogism in formation. I support climate reversal and believe the means of accomplishing this must be mortal. I do not believe in the comfortable co-existence of globalization and the reversal of climate change. Within these few strictures I am bound. I am not convinced globalization deserves justice or equitability. I am unprepared to view climate change as anything other than a consequence of massively inflated human greed, leveraged with capital and legitimized by bribery. I see no reason to approach climate change with any offer of justice or equitability, though such may be reserved for the surrender of its authors and the capitulation of its beneficiaries. Despite these reservations, I live on to make globalization into history and climate change into a youthful daliance for humanity. Let me know how I may assist this endeavour. Michael\\
About us info please
Hi - sounds interesting - but a bit more context would be helpful... who is organising this? based where? How did it come to be?...
thanks!
Tom
Ask, and ye shall receive
Here you go.
addressing harjap's points
I'm sorry I've put so little time into this so far, it looks awesome though
So for the points (and sorry this post is so scattered):
I continue to like and support the name Climate Justice Co-op... I'm still open to others, but so far I can't think of anything I like more
To re-focus on more environmental issues than just climate change maybe we could just switch the words occasionally, such as (in the last paragraph)
"supporting grassroots resistance to ecological (or environmental) injustice"
(also I think that sentence has an extraneous "the")
On a note of my own, how do people feel about re-working :
"We will continually renew our moral strength by listening to the communities that are directly affected by, and choose to fight, the root causes of climate change"
to:
"... by listening to the stories (don't like this word much, "accounts" instead?) of resistance from the frontline communities that are directly affected by the root..."
For Harjap's first point, i think we could just add his paragraph:
" the primary focus of the co-ops will not be to lobby or make
demands of the government but to take action on climate change in a manner that promotes the autonomy of communities to act for themselves against the policies of industry ("and the government"? i think it sounds stronger with just industry, but maybe more correct with both)"
as another point of its own, probably as teh last one before the structure, to contrast the way that large ENGO's do buisness
Again, sorry its late, ill take another run through it tomorrow on a study break, sounds great on the whole though