“Members of the Third Order fight against all such injustice in the name of Christ, in whom there can be neither Jew nor Greek, slave nor free, male nor female; for in him all are one. Our chief object is to reflect that openness to all which was characteristic of Jesus. This can only be achieved in a spirit of chastity, which sees others as belonging to God and not as a means of self-fulfilment.”
At the same workshop I mentioned in Green Tau 107, we also reflected on the above. This is the Franciscan (TSSF – Third Order of the Society of St Francis) principle given for day 8. Its understanding of chastity as not making use of someone else, not using someone else as a means of fulfilling our desires, is noteworthy. Making use of other people is something that is easily done, and often unconsciously.
For example when we buy a cup of coffee, is our desire for the drink being satisfied through the exploitation of underpaid coffee workers in distant parts of the world? Is it being met by the exploitation of café staff who scrape by on a zero hours contract and the minimum wage?
The teaching of St Francis (which itself follows the understanding gained from Genesis 2, Job 38 and psalms 19 and 104 etc) is that all parts of creation – birds and animals, sun and moon, wind and fire, and all manner of plants – and not just fellow humans, are our brothers and sisters and should be respected and treated as such, for they are all created by God and each praises God. So when we are asked to see ‘others as belonging to God and not as a means of self-fulfilment’ then included in all those others, are birds and animals, sun and moon, wind and fire, and all manner of plants etc. We should not be using or exploiting that which God has created as our brethren here on Earth.
For example, if we think to buy a dog, we should not see having that dog as a means of satisfying our own needs – maybe for companionship or protection or as an instagram prop – but as a brother or sister worthy of respect and care.
Or for example, if we buy a pint of milk, we should consider whether our desire for milk is being met by a system that sees a cow as a milk-producing machine that will be slaughtered at at the age of 4 to 6 years.
Or for example, when we fly or drive a petrol car, we should consider whether our desire for travel is being met by a system that sees the atmosphere as a useful place to dispose of greenhouse gas emissions even though that space is already over full.
We don’t live in a perfect world, and many of the systems within which we live are not ones we can readily change – but that should not stop us being aware of the times when we are exploiting others and when we can, changing the way we behave, and when we can’t pressing for change.
‘The Gospel is as much about where you are coming from as where you are going’.
I was recently taking part in a workshop entitled ‘Tools for contemplative action’ and this phrase that came up, set me thinking. ‘Where you are coming from’ suggests not just your roots or the place where you started, but what is it that is shaping your thinking? What is influencing the choices you make or the actions you take? And if this is important in determine how we respond to God and God’s kingdom, can we change ‘Where are you coming from’ mindset?
By way of an example, Saul – before he became Paul – was coming from the mindset that valued the Law as the absolute and unassailable sole way of encountering God, and he acted accordingly chasing down and imprisoning those who threatened. Then Saul undergoes a 180° transformation – or conversion – and now comes from a mindset where the only way of understanding God and living as God desires is to embrace Jesus Christ and to follow his way of absolute love.
One local church within the period of a year achieved the Eco Church bronze award. They ticked enough of the right boxes and their scores stacked up. They introduced oat milk with their coffee, stopped using pesticides in the garden, and invested in LED lighting.
Did it make any radical changes to the way the congregation thought about the climate and ecological crises? Not really.
Did it transform their hearts and minds, attuning them more closely with ethical and ecological issues, changing the way they behaved? Not really.
But what if that congregation had undergone an ecological conversion? What if their hearts and minds had been transformed to love God and each other and creation in a new and heartfelt ecological way?
Pope Francis, in his encyclical Laudatory Si, called on all people of faith to seek an ecological conversion, confident that this would lead to:-
gratitude and gratuitousness (recognition that the world is God’s loving gift)
generosity in self-sacrifice and good works
a loving awareness of a universal communion with the rest of creation
greater creativity and enthusiasm in resolving the world’s problems
a feeling of responsibility based on faith (1)
Ecological conversion is to change where we are coming from. It transforms the base line from which we operate. It reorientates our focus. It changes how we live and think and behave. It transforms how we embody and share the Gospel – ie how we live and share the good news of the kingdom of God.
Such an ecological conversion would have us asking how does what I buy impact other living beings? Could I change or reduce what I buy to show greater love towards, or to protect, others? How does who I bank with impact the natural world, or impact those of my brothers and sisters enduring the impacts of climate change? Does my money help others have better lives or does it cause harm? Do I tread lightly on the earth or does my lifestyle demand a disproportionate amount of the earth’s resources? Am I mindful of the needs of others when I plan my holidays, choose how to travel, go on a shopping spree? Do I treasure the natural world around me, or do I trample what is before my nose to snap that iconic view on the other side of the world?
Such a conversion would have us being grateful for and finding joy in what we already have, and realising that for many of us what we have is more than we need in order to live a fulfilled – ie God-filled – life. We might find ourselves challenging the premise that ‘the more you have, the happier you are’.
Such a conversion would have the effect of giving us time and space to wonder and delight in the natural beauty and integrity of the world that God has created. We might find it an under-appreciated source of joy and sustenance.
Such a conversion would have us asking questions of retailers and industrialists and companies that extract raw materials – How does what you do show care for planet, for the natural world, for people you employ, and for the people you sell to? We would be questioning them about practices that are destructive and products that are elitest – and boycotting them if they continue with such practices. Equally such a conversion would have us asking questions of our local and national politicians and how they might use their power to protect biodiversity, to limit the emission of greenhouse gases, to ensure justice for all but especially for those already marginalised and persecuted by our current economic and social systems.
Such a conversion would have us signing petitions, writing letters and joining campaigns to challenge and change oppressive operations. Such a conversion would have would see us drawing together as communities, helping support others of our brothers and sisters – human and creaturely – close at home and far away.
All these ways of behaving differently are out there in the world and being practiced by individuals and communities. Any of us could take up these alternative ways of behaving. Yet many of us don’t. And I think the reason we don’t – or why we try and then give up – is because we still hold onto old mindsets. We haven’t had that transformation, that experience of ecological conversion, that changes the ‘where we are coming from’.
Can we as fellow Christians, as fellow beings, encourage and enable and pray for that ecological conversion?
Wednesday has been chosen as a day to fast in solidarity with the people of Gaza. As I explained this to a friend, they replied that it seemed a pointless action and that I would be better off making a financial donation.
I did, in my limited way, fast. (And I’ll try again this week). I don’t think it’s a waste of time. Why? Because …
In a very small way it helps me understand how real hunger feels.
More importantly it keeps me more focused on the plight of the people of Gaza and therefore more prayerful.
And I do believe prayer does have some kind of power.
It gives me something to talk about and talking about the horrendous situation in Gaza is good because the more it is talked about, the more politicians and the media will take notice.
And all these points are equally applicable to actions such as praying for Gaza in the weekly intercessions at church and in our daily prayers, or going on marches, or wearing badges and T-shirts etc.
On Tuesdays, I and one or two others from Christian Climate Action, hold vigils outside one or more insurance companies in the City of London. We do this to both highlight the degree to which the insurance industry supports and enables the expansion of the fossil fuel industry and its carbon emissions, and to bring the presence of prayer into the situation. Today’s vigils were held outside the offices of Marsh McLennan and of Lloyds of London.
How does the insurance industry work? Insurers and their customers identify risks and calculate both the likelihood of the risk materialising and the likelihood cost for the customer of that materialisation. The insurer calculates a fee and in return – once paid – undertakes to pay out to the customer if or when the destructive event happens. The insurer invests the fee to increase its value against the day when it may have to pay up. To spread the risk and the potential cost of the insurance policy, the insurer will approach other insurance companies to share the fee and the risk. Equally the insurer will formulate and sell a wide range of insurance policies, on the basis that each will earn a fee but only a small number will lead to a financial payout by the insurance company.
In the short term (2 years) damages due to extreme climate events is, according to the World Economic Forum, is seen as the second highest risk. Whilst in the long term (10 years) it is seen as the highest risk.
Insurance companies presumably increase premiums to respond to the increasing risks but is there still not a concern that they may underestimate the risk and end up paying out large sums to affected customers? And equally is there a likelihood that in the face of increased premiums customers may cut back on insurance either internalising the risk or cutting back their business plans?
Is there not also something perverse that these same insurance companies may be increasing the climate risks by, 1) investing income from premiums in fossil fuel industries or 2) providing the necessary insurance that enables oil and gas companies to continue to expand production, and thus through the increase
in greenhouse gas emissions, further accelerating the risks of adverse weather events, and the potential liabilities accruing to the insurers.
The best option for customers and the wider public – not to mention biodiversity and the planet – Would be for insurers to stop insuring oil and gas interests.
Yet looking at the be-suited office staff, is this a reality they have even considered? Or do they just place their trust in business as usual?
According to a recent report in the Guardian, banks including Barclays, HSBC, NatWest and Lloyds have poured more than £75bn into companies developing huge fossil fuels projects with the potential of producing 420bn tonnes of carbon emissions. That would be equivalent to more than 10 years of current global carbon dioxide emissions. (1)
Banks and fossil fuel companies are clearly working together to wreck our green and sustainable global environment. How do we as ‘powerless’ – when compared to the financial clout of these businesses – individuals respond?
Yesterday (Wednesday 7th May 2025) Barclays held its AGM at the QEII conference centre just off Parliament Square. The building itself was barricaded off – a barrier reinforced on the inner face by a large number of private security officers (the kind of thing that big businesses can buy) and further reinforced on the outer face by large numbers of police officers. Their objective being to ensure that proceedings were not disrupted by any protest – even though the UK still (just about) upholds the right for people to undertake peaceful protest.
A sizeable crowd of protestors had squeezed into the limited space that lay between the QEII barricades and the barricades that enclosed the extensive gas repairs being carried out in front of the Methodist Central Hall. Palestinian flags flew high, placards announced “Barclays – Don’t Bank on Apartheid” and protestors accompanied by a drum as protestors chanted slogans highlighting and castigating Barclays for their involvement in financing the genocide in Gaza.
Meanwhile stage left a small group of Buddhists and Christians from Buddhists XR and Christian Climate Action, spent several minutes checking in with each other as they prepared for an extended period of silent protest. Circling round us were more police officers who then followed as in pairs we quietly walked carrying our various banners across to the QEII centre. We found a space on the street where we could face the conference centre, and enter into a period of silent meditative prayer and reflection.
Can you hold a silent protest when surrounded by fellow protestors chanting and drumming? Would it not be as easier undertaking if one moved to a quieter spot away from the protest? Yes and yes. Moving to a quieter spot would have made our focus easier, but not being in the heart of the protest would have made it harder. Rather the noise and clamour focused our minds on the scale of the outrage – the unjust and implacable way that big money rides roughshod over other people’s lives – that we were all protesting against.
Once focused, the hour and half we were there was tangibly channelling a power into space that would not otherwise have been present. And the contrast between our silence and the noise of the other protesters added to the overall impact of the action.
Did the shareholders listen? Did the CEO and the board of Barclays take note of what was going on? Will they search in their hearts and consider the morality of financing activities that make the world a worse place? Will they look beyond the profits and bonuses they make, to consider the many lives they are destroying? Will the power they wield, immunise them from feelings of guilt?
We may not know the answers but we do know that we have asked the right questions.
Reshaping how we can talk positively about the climate crisis – part 3: Finance
April 2025
How can we talk about the climate crisis in a way that sounds encouraging?
The climate crisis is an existential threat which is certainly not good news. Its causes and impact are diverse and numerous such that it is hard to pin down ‘This is the cause’ or ‘This is the solution’. It is hard to quantify ‘This is how it will effect you’ and ‘This will be the time table.’
All this makes it difficult to find a way of talking to people about the crisis and how we might respond.
So here are some thoughts that might help.
Finance for a Better Future
We are told that one of the most effective ways of tackling climate change is to redirect the money that funds climate damaging industries such as oil and gas production . Make My Money has campaigned on this issue with both humour (short films and ) and straightforward facts and graphics:
“All of these banks refuse to stop funnelling money to the companies pumping new fossil fuels.
They each talk about climate change, but we need less talk and more action on what really matters:
* Immediately stop providing money to new clients who are involved in expanding fossil fuel operations
* End the flow of new money to existing fossil fuel clients who won’t stop the expansion of fossil fuel operations and haven’t published credible plans aligned to a 1.5 degree global warming limit * Set out a clear timeline for cutting ties with existing clients that continue to expand fossil fuel operations”
But despite the ease with which we can switch banks, many of us haven’t bothered to take this simple action. Perhaps because there is no immediately visible result. Stop driving to the shops and you straight away see the benefit of not having to refuel your car. Switch your bank and there is no noticeable reduction in oil production, no financial gain. And anyway aren’t high street customers mere minnows in an ocean of big financial organisations?
Is it also that with banking we see ourselves as customers buying a service, not as patrons providing banks with money and probity? Banks like – need – to be seen as upright, trustworthy and moral institutions: people with whom you can safely entrust your money. That is part of the reason that banks will sponsor sporting and cultural events – it improves their perceived reputation as ‘responsible’ companies. And that is why groups have campaigned against such greenwashing bank relationships eg Barclays and Wimbledon Lawn Tennis/ Live Nation music festivals/ National Trust/ Sadler’s Wells.
Turning the situation round, should we be actively expecting our bank – the bank we support with our money and our patronage – to demonstrate how it is using its financial clout to create better world? By way of example let’s look at Triodos. Triodos scored the top mark in a recent survey by Ethical Consumer, scoring 96 out of a possible 100 points. The big five high street banks – Lloyds, HSBC, NatWest, Santander and Barclays scored 6 or less. (1)
Triodos does not provide finance for fossil fuels, nor fast fashion, nor weapons and warfare, nor gambling. Triodos does provide finance for renewable energy, nature restoration, healthcare, art and culture: “We believe it’s not enough to avoid funding harmful practices, so we actively support those building a better tomorrow. Our commitment goes beyond avoiding harmful investments. We proactively seek out and support initiatives that contribute to a sustainable future, ensuring that every loan and investment aligns with our mission.” (2)
For example, “Ember, the UK’s first all-electric intercity bus operator, has increased its fleet of zero emission coaches with a £5.6m loan from Triodos Bank UK. The electric coach operator, based in Scotland, has a fleet of vehicles designed specifically for intercity travel. These buses are zero-emission, contributing to environmental sustainability by reducing carbon footprints and improving urban air quality.” (3)
Triodos also finances “Copeland Park … a social, cultural and creative hub in Peckham, an area of London that is becoming increasingly known as a haven for artistic individuals and collectives. At Copeland Park, traditional warehouses and industrial buildings have been transformed into workspace for a number of creative businesses. The historic Bussey Building, for example, now provides a home for artists’ studios, theatre groups, live music venues, fitness studios and faith groups – along with incomparable views of London.”
In Wandsworth “Beyond Autism seeks to improve the education and health of children diagnosed with autism and/or related communication disorders. A loan from Triodos Bank allowed Beyond Autism to purchase their facility.”
On Mull “NWMCWC was set up by the local community in 2006 to purchase and manage the Langamull and West Ardhu forests in North West Mull. With 2 Triodos loans, we were able to help with a variety of projects, including helping with the construction of a woodshed for timber felled at the woodland.”
And in Wales “NWMCWC was set up by the local community in 2006 to purchase and manage the Langamull and West Ardhu forests in North West Mull. With 2 Triodos loans, we were able to help with a variety of projects, including helping with the construction of a woodshed for timber felled at the woodland.” (4)
In addition Triodos does not use its profits to pay bonuses to its staff. Rather “Triodos believe all our workers should be paid fairly and our focus should be on impact – for the whole Triodos community.” (2)
Choosing – switching to – an ethical banking really does enable our money to create a better future, and can do so in a clearly transparent way, such that we can be proud of what our patronage can achieve.
The following websites help individuals switch to ethical banks:-
NB the other banks recommended in the Ethical Consumer report included Coop Bank/ Smile, Cumberland Building Society, and Nationwide, all scoring 70 or more.
Reshaping how we can talk positively about the climate crisis – part 3: Transport
March 2025
How can we talk about the climate crisis in a way that sounds encouraging?
The climate crisis is an existential threat which is certainly not good news. Its causes and impact are diverse and numerous such that it is hard to pin down ‘This is the cause’ or ‘This is the solution’. It is hard to quantify ‘This is how it will effect you’ and ‘This will be the time table.’
All this makes it difficult to find a way of talking to people about the crisis and how we might respond.
So here are some thoughts that might help.
Clean Air
Switching from fossil fuels to clean energy* to power road vehicles reduces the amount of pollution that goes into the air we breathe. The pollution from petrol and diesel vehicles includes carbon monoxide, particulate matter and nitrogen oxide and is released into the environment predominately in places where people living, where people are working, where they go to school, where they are simply walking by. Air pollution causes 28,000 and 36,000 early deaths each year in the UK (figures for 2018). Sustrans estimates that road transport is responsible for 80% of roadside NO2 pollution which is where the legal limits are being broken. (1)
With the growing use of electric vehicles air pollution has fallen …. And without admissions to hospital
In London progressive policies have been put in place to reduce road congestion and more specifically to reduce the air pollution from road vehicles, with the most recent being the expansion of the ultra low emissions zone (ULEZ) to cover all London boroughs in August 2023. Since then pollution from road vehicles across the wool of London has been reduce by 27%. (2) This should lead to a reduction in premature deaths.
Another component of air pollution caused by road vehicles is the fine particulate matter that comes from brake blocks, tyres and even the tarmac. These particles are formed through friction whether that is the brakes slowing the vehicle or the tyres rubbing against the road. Such pollution is known as Non-Exhaust Emissions or NEE. In its report on NNE Defra observed that currently there is no legislation in place to limit this source of air pollution but highlighted possible ways in which such pollution could be reduced, vis: “The Most effective mitigation strategies for NEE are to reduce the overall volume of traffic, lower the speed where traffic is free-flowing (eg trunk roads and motorways), and promote driving behaviour that rescues braking and higher-speed cornering.”(3)
As well as ULEZ, London has also benefitted from the widespread introduction of a reduced speed limit for vehicles – from 30 to 20 mph. “An evaluation of 20mph zones in London, carried out by Imperial College, showed slowing traffic had no net negative impact on exhaust emissions. However, in 20mph zones vehicles moved more smoothly, with fewer accelerations and decelerations, than in 30mph zones. This smoother driving style reduces particulate emissions from tyre and brake wear – which still represents a significant cause of air pollution from zero-emission vehicles.” (4)
Switching to electric vehicles, introducing low emissions zones and reduced speed limits, are all contributing to reducing the air pollution that causes so many premature deaths as well as reducing carbon emissions.
Wellbeing
Active travel includes walking and cycling, and in many cases can replace short car journeys. It can also be combined with the use of public transport (walking to the bus stop or the station) and so replace other longer car journeys. Reducing car journeys reduce carbon emissions and/ or – in terms of electric vehicles – the load on the electric grid. Switching to active travel however also produced significant health benefits (and thus savings for the NHS).
The Health Foundation notes that “Almost 1,800 early deaths per year could be prevented if activity levels for walking and cycling were to match the most active regions in England.” (5) The most active region was London where people walked and cycled an average of 1.2 miles per day. The Department of Transport estimates that inactivity costs the NHS “up to £1 billion each year, with additional indirect costs of £8.2 billion…” The exercise gained through active travel also has benefits for mental wellbeing.
The Department for Transport also reports the following further positive benefits of active travel –
“Increasing active travel will reduce road congestion, particularly at peak times, leading to increased productivity and improved movement of goods and services. Sustrans estimates that congestion costs £10 billion per year in 2009 in urban areas, and that this cost could rise to £22 billion by 2025. Living Streets’ Pedestrian Pound report outlined a range of economic benefits of walking, including that well-planned walking improvements can lead to a 40% increasein shopping footfall.” (6)
Active travel by reducing the amount of road traffic and so reducing air pollution and road congestion, makes for pleasanter local environments – which in itself boosts our sense of wellbeing. .
*eg electricity produced from renewable energy sources such as wind and solar
Reshaping how we can talk positively about the climate crisis – part 2: Buildings
February 2025
How can we talk about the climate crisis in a way that sounds encouraging?
The climate crisis is an existential threat which is certainly not good news. Its causes and impact are diverse and numerous such that it is hard to pin down ‘This is the cause’ and ‘This is the solution’. It is hard to quantify ‘This is how it will effect you’ and ‘This will be the time table.’
All this makes it difficult to find a way of talking to people about the crisis and how we might respond.
So here are some thoughts that might help.
Warmer – and cooler – homes!
Improved insulation for domestic and other buildings makes them more comfortable for occupants and reduces the costs of heating/ cooling. Studies show that all houses built before 1990, and 75% of those built before 2010, have inadequate insulation which means that both the country will struggle to reach net zero and occupiers will either be paying unnecessarily high heating bills and/ or living in cold damp conditions. For January 2023 the Resolution Foundation estimated that “families in energy-inefficient homes will be facing monthly gas bills £231 higher than those who live in equivalent homes that already meet the Government’s efficiency target (EPC C).” https://www.resolutionfoundation.org/publications/cutting-back-to-keep-warm/
Ensuring all buildings – not just domestic ones, but office buildings, schools, prisons, hospitals etc – will benefit occupants (making their environment comfortable and healthy) and reduce running costs.
Well insulated buildings offer all year round comfort and benefit everyone.
Buildings themselves can contribute to a better environment for us all. Installing solar panels on roofs and elsewhere – eg over car and cycle parks, on top of bus shelters etc – can boost energy production and provide locally based energy without the need for substations and long distance power lines. They can also be a source of local community income. https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-65626371
Installing water butts, grey water systems, SUDs (surface urban drainage) that absorb rainfall, are all easy ways of reducing flooding and pollution risks. Such things are most economically included at the design stage but can still justifiably be added as a retrofit. https://www.susdrain.org/
New buildings can be designed with over hanging eves and recessed windows to increase shading against summer heat and also helping to shelter the building from heavy rain and wind. Retrospectively verandas and sun shades can be added or plants trained up the sides of buildings and across pergolas to create a similar outcome. https://www.solinear.co.uk/the-ultimate-guide-to-external-solar-shading-solutions-in-the-uk/
Trees can be planted nearby to provide shade from the sun, cooling via respiration from their leaves, and at the same time reducing flooding risks as their leaves and roots slow the flow of water and increase absorption in the earth beneath.
Sustainable buildings are also ones that have a long life. Keeping buildings in good repair prolongs their life, creates employment and ensures that the buildings remain comfortable and safe for their occupants.
Buildings designed and maintained for sustainability provide comfortable, safe and healthy places, and
The other week I went to the Imperial War Museum to see their exhibition ‘War and the Mind’ which was exploring the psychology that prompts people to go to war, the psychological impact on both combatants and noncombatants, how army leaders maintain moral, ditto for civilians in war zones, how people try and look after their own mental well-being etc. Towards the end of the exhibition one display focused on how the UK government set out to persuade British people to reshape their view of German people (distinguishing between war criminals and the ordinary person) and to understand the need to provide both jobs for the German populace and an education for the children so that they wouldn’t behave as their forebears had.
This struck me as so important. We can’t make peace until we see the other as someone of equal value as ourselves, until see the other as our neighbour to be loved. There can be no place in peace for revenge or hostile discrimination. Yet even in the UK there are still people willing to make jokes about Germans referencing the war, to make jokes that are predicated on the British being some sort of superior victor – or a British Bulldog.
Such attitudes then filter into other areas of life – that Britain is obviously a world leader in any and every field of endeavour, that we have nothing to learn from others, that we have no need to cooperate with anyone else, that the way we do things must be the best – the only – way.
This blinkered view that can only see self as right and everyone else as wrong, is repeated in other nations and other conflicts around the world. Can there be peace in Gaza until everyone sees the other as a brother or sister? Can there be global cooperation and agreement until everyone sees the good in everyone else?
So the question is how do we change we think and act both as individuals and as communities and nations?
Over a thousand people sat in the road outside the Royal Courts of Justice to protest at the deliberate diminution of the right to protest in the UK. Inside the Courts an appeal was being heard brought by 16 climate protesters challenging the severity of the sentences they had been given.
As we sat in silence on the road in three orderly lines back to back, police offices walked up and down the lines, stopping to address individuals asking them to move. ‘We recognise your right to protest but this is a live road’. ‘What can we do to make you move?’ ‘Please move to the designated protest area in between the church of St Clement Dane and the court house’. ‘A section 14 notice may be imposed on this section of road and then we may arrest you’. ‘You might spend hours in a police cell.’
This was a silent vigil so most chose not to respond to the police. Instead maintaining the silence with eyes downcast, we resolutely continued to sit in the road.
Yes we were blocking the road. Yes we were preventing vehicles from using that section. Why? Because – yes – this was a protest. And what is a protest if it does not cause some degree of disruption?
The reason for any protest is to raise awareness – to draw people’s attention – to an issue in order to effect change. This the protest was about the failure of the system to allow justifiable and reasonable protest.
Over the last few years the right to protest has been has been crushed and demonised by the government through new laws, by judges through punitive interpretation of laws and sentencing guidelines, and by corporate interests through their ability to drop quiet words into significant ears, and their ability to afford the cost of legal actions and injunctions.
Where once walking peacefully along a street was considered a valid means of protest, it is now designated as ‘public nuisance’. Where once sitting and blocking a road was considered a valid means of protest, it is now designated as a ‘disruption of national infrastructure’. Have we reached a situation where you can only protest by staying quietly on the pavement, well away from anyone or anything you might disrupt?
Protest is meant to disrupt. It is meant to irritate. It is there to draw attention to a situation that needs to change. Yes, protest has to be proportionate. Yes, protest has to target the appropriate audiences. Yes, protest has to be based on valid claims.
The climate crisis is the biggest existential crisis that we humans have ever faced. A delayed car journey diminishes into insignificance compared with the potential loss of life of millions of people.
The climate crisis has no favourites, it can and will continue to affect us all. There is no audience that can argue that it doesn’t threaten them.
The climate crisis is a scientifically hypothesised, modelled and proven crisis. There is no valid data that proves otherwise.
And yet since the rise of Extinction Rebellion in 2018, and subsequent groups such as Insulate Britain and Just Stop Oil, governments, judges and the Criminal Prosecution Service have gone out of their way in refuting that the actions being taking by these groups represents genuine protest.
Protesting about the right to protest is vitally important in an era when we face not only the existential crisis of climate change but also the threat of oppressive right wing politics that is beginning to dominate the world.
The Green Tau 