#ClimateStrike May 6 – Sydney.

The SS4C kids are calling a strike this Friday 6. In Sydney strikers and supporters will meet at Town Hall at 12:00.

These are their demands:

1. Net zero by 2030 which means no new coal, oil or gas projects.
2. 100% renewable energy generation and exports by 2030.
3. Fund a just transition and job creation for all fossil fuel workers and their communities.

Their website offers more info. You can also donate.

This strike, in particular, could be crucial, because the elections are two weeks away (the strike is COVID-safe: bring face mask/hand sanitiser and stay at home if unwell).

----------

So far, the COALition and Labor have tried hard to shift the debate towards anything other than climate change. Scotty from Marketing has largely set the agenda: his preferred selling point being his alleged superb economic management. The bloke can’t open his mouth without parroting “ec-hon-omy” (funnily enough, his “ec-hon-omy” considers neither wages nor environment).

As a backup, that evil clown manufactured a Pacific crisis.

Albo goes around stumbling and mumbling ineffectually, as he tries to look cute and lovable. He could spruik his climate change plan, which all the soi-dissant experts acknowledge as superior to Scotty’s. But he doesn’t (let alone support the SS4C strikes or – God forbid – the more disruptive, but still strictly non-violent actions of Extinction Rebellion, Blockade Australia.

Why?

I suppose he finds all that too risky. But that’s just my guess. You better ask him.

----------

So, what are our options on climate change action, facing election day?

The COALition, Labor, Greens, Socialist Alliance and Jo Dyer, Zoe Daniel, Allegra Spender, Sophie Scamps, Monique Ryan, Zali Steggall and Kylea Tink – the so-called teal independents – formally adopt a net zero target for 2050. In this respect they all score the same.

Things change if we consider 2030 emission reductions targets. In increasing order, these are their targets:

1. COALition: 26-28%;
2. Labor: 43%;
3. Jo Dyer (Boothby), Zoe Daniel (Goldstein), Kate Chaney (Curtin), Allegra Spender (Wentworth), Sophie Scamps (Mackellar): 50%;
4. Kylea Tink (North Sydney) has a target of 50 to 60%
5. Monique Ryan (Kooyong) and Zali Steggall (Warringah): 60%;
6. The Australian Greens and the Socialist Alliance: 75%.

But quantitative targets are just part of the story.

----------

Another thing is credibility.

Commentators have scrutinised the plans put forward by the two two main contenders, the COALition and Labor.

The consensus is that the COALition’s plan is not credible. It adopts no new measures and is based on offsetting emissions (say, carbon capture and storage: an unproven technology) to soak up essentially whatever emissions other sources produce. Worse, it assumes 15% of the reductions will come from non-existing technologies, technologies that it is assumed will pop up just in time, miraculously to save the world at the eleventh hour.

Labor’s plan is much more credible, but it is insufficient, thus the need to consider denying Labor the first preference.

----------

Where I live no teal independents are running for office; if there were, I am not sure what preference I would assign them: in general, their intermediate targets are not substantially higher than Labor’s and they are called “teal” because they are liberals (blue colour in Australia) with green shadings. In other words, one hopes they are what Jason Falinski, Dave Sharma and Tim Wilson among others (the so-called moderate Liberals) would be if they cared about climate change.

You are, of course, entirely free to decide. My own intention is to give Socialist Alliance the first preference, the Greens the second and Labor the third. And I would respectfully suggest you consider it.

Whatever the result of the election, I also believe we should consider the civil disobedience option:

Here’s why we need climate protests: even if some think they’re annoying

Protestors march in Glasgow during the UN climate conference COP26. TheLeft_EU/Flickr, CC BY-NC-SA

Sara Vestergren, Keele University; Samuel Finnerty, Lancaster University, and Yasemin Gülsüm Acar, University of Dundee

The last few years have seen a surge in climate protests. From Turkey and Germany to the US, Australia and countries across Africa, local activists have fought corporate actions that threaten to destroy precious green space and accelerate global warming.

Consider the protest march that took place in Glasgow on 6 November 2021, during the UN climate conference COP26. As a huge range of different groups marched together to demand action on global warming, they waved banners drawing attention to issues such as greenwashing, housing crises and trade unions.

Through taking part in this march, protesters may have begun to see themselves as belonging to a wider, shared identity – one that specifically stood in opposition to climate destruction. This identity was reinforced by songs and chants, such as the words “power to the people because the people have the power”, that rippled out across groups along the march route.

This inclusive identity, based on fighting inequality, could also be seen in the solidarity between climate protesters at COP26 and binmen striking for better pay.

Long-term benefits

People who reduce their plastic use, use low-carbon transport like bicycles and eat a plant-based diet are often called “environmentalists” as a result of their behaviour. Interestingly, this relationship could also run in reverse.

Protests can help people develop valuable social skills. Thomas Good/Wikimedia

Perceiving yourself as part of the “environmentalist” social category – by identifying the environmentally friendly beliefs you share with that group – could help drive sustainable behaviour, crucial in the face of climate change.

However, for these behaviours to really have any influence, our research suggests they need to endure over time. For that to happen, it’s important to have the opportunity to express your new shared identity in different social contexts.

This can be achieved by forming relationships with others who consider themselves part of an environmental community, increasing the prominence of environmental issues in your life and therefore the chance that your sustainable behaviour will continue behind closed doors.

Based on ours and others’ research on psychological change and collective action, it seems that what benefits protesters also benefits society. When protesters encourage reducing consumption and becoming more climate-conscious, we all – along with the environment – profit from it.

Taking action

Some have suggested that protests can alienate people through, for example, actions which disrupt daily life (creating traffic jams receives particular criticism). And politicians have called protests counterproductive, while emphasising that “real work” on climate happens within conferences and boardrooms.

But we’d argue that protests are an effective tool, even when they’re disruptive. Seeing others take action increases our hope for the future as well as offering an opportunity for vicarious empowerment – motivating people in other places to take similar action, even when they haven’t physically participated in the original protests.

By seeing protests, directly or through media, bystanders can come to identify with protesters, possibly increasing their belief in their own power to cause social change.

This can create a positive feedback loop. Researchers have found that emissions decrease in US states with large numbers of environmental protests. Polling from YouGov also reported a significant rise in the number of British people concerned about climate following Extinction Rebellion’s early 2019 protests in London.

Protests can also help achieve policy change if the policy being protested is already under public discussion – and if protesters have support from politicians. And in countries where politicians are elected based on public opinion, protests that increase environmental awareness can encourage change through altering people’s voting habits.

For example, it’s likely that climate protests across Germany helped in part to double the number of voters for the climate-conscious Green Party from 2017 to 2021.

Protests have even managed to change court decisions. Forest occupations in Sweden and Germany resulted in courts saving the forests from destruction (for now). The value of protests should not be disregarded: they could have a larger effect than events behind closed doors.

Sara Vestergren, Lecturer in Psychology, Keele University; Samuel Finnerty, PhD Student in Social Psychology, Lancaster University, and Yasemin Gülsüm Acar, Lecturer in Psychology, University of Dundee

This article is republished from The Conversation under a Creative Commons license. Read the original article.