The community grieves together

The first eight months of National's new term in office have been interesting, albeit very trying times for members of New Zealand's left-leaning community. The government's use of the economic recession as a justification for cutting funding to numerous sustainable, forward thinking, futures forming projects has left, amongst others, the environment, education, social welfare, health and youth work sectors in tatters.

Having met and spoken with a number of people working in the affected areas, it has got me thinking about how such cuts impact these people on a personal level. Sure, what is of greater importance is the effect such changes will have on society as a whole in the many years to come. But for now, it seems as though it is the individuals that have worked for years on these issues that are feeling it the hardest.

I think of the Education for Sustainability (EfS) advisors that will, as of the end of this year, be out of their jobs. Most of these people have been working for many, many years to get EfS into our schools. I think of the Enviroschools Foundation National team that have had their funding cut. In ten years the Enviroschools team have managed to transform what was a pilot project in the Waikato to a nationwide network of over 600 schools. I think of the youth workers involved with New Zealand Aotearoa Adolescent Health and Development who coordinate youth week and who have three months to 'prove their worth' to the Ministry of Health. I think of the hundreds, if not thousands, of tutors involved in Adult and Community Education who have lost 80% of their funding. I could go on for the cuts have been far and wide.

But I wonder, how have these people responded?

In many ways I think the reaction is most similar to grief. There is the initial shock at the news of cuts, then denial that this can be true. Then comes the anger and hatred, followed by bargaining in an attempt to patch it all back together. After this depression sets in as the reality of the situation hits home.

Eventually, a sense of acceptance comes through and with it the desire to work anew within the setting.

While I cannot speak for all of those affected by the government's funding cuts, I can speak as one who has been impacted.

My initial response to the government's various funding cuts and reallocations was one of disbelief and anger, indeed it was this that led to my starting this blog. Then there was the letter writing stage - I sent off letters to newspapers and ministers pleading that this was not true. I hoped that my bargaining would gain some traction, but of course the cuts rolled on.

Then came the full hit of reality and with it a feeling of helplessness and hopelessness. I definitely felt that our efforts were in vain and I took a turn inwards to reassess my own position within it all. My idealistic bubble had well and truly been popped!

However, I can now say that I am on a new page. While it may just be a renewed sense of energy and urgency, or else perhaps its that I've been reading the websites of Fonterra, Federated Farmers, Holcim, RioTinto/Alcan and the like, but I have come to accept that National will do what they do. What that means is that we must do what we do. And that is mobilise. But this does not have to be in an antagonistic way.

What National have effectively done is change the rules of the game. We can make a choice to play that game, get angry and lose, or create our own game, with its own rules.

It's time to create the future that we want, rather than accept the future that we are being given. As consumers and voters we have ultimate power. We must regain the knowledge of this fact and actively support businesses, politicians and ways of living that encompass what it is that we want to see. Unfortunately Gandhi's famous quote has become a bit of a cliche, but it still seems fitting: "Be the change that you want to see in the world".

Freezing for action on climate change

Last Friday, 5 June was World Environment Day. The theme for this year was "Your planet needs you - UNite to combat climate change".

A public freeze was held simultaneously throughout New Zealand in Wellington, Auckland, Christchurch, Dunedin and Nelson. The event was organised by Mr Freeze, who put the idea behind the event eloquently:

"It takes courage to freeze in a public place. Freezing on your own is freaky. Freezing with five people is sneaky. Freezing with lots of people is easy. It’s the same with action on climate change. Nobody wants to make the first move, but when we play our parts together, the solutions suddenly become breezy."

You can check out a short video of the freeze here

If we are to fully engage with all sectors of society then I think it is vital that we do more actions like the freeze held on World Environment Day. Its message was clear: that together we can do this. It did not point the finger or lay any blame. It illustrated that the onus is on all of us and that there is a growing number of people wanting collective, collaborative action.

There is power in the people.

Questions of a movement

I am getting the feeling that there is a tendency within the environmental movement to equate 'visibility' with 'efficacy'. What I mean by this is that there seems to be a belief that the more people that know about campaign X or movement Y, the more change said campaign/movement will bring.

I do not believe that this is not necessarily true.

The problem with this attitude is that a lot of time and effort, money and resources are invested into getting 'in the public eye'. But for what true gain? What does high visibility actually do for the environmental problems that we face?

My point is that there are already a lot of groups that have, in the public's eye, the status of 'protecting the environment'. Is the mere existence of such groups - and the increase in their number - giving the rest of society a false sense of security about our environmental predicament?

Does the sheer number of groups purporting to 'protect the environment' lead to increased apathy amongst the wider population? Does it make people think, "I need not change what I am doing because Greenpeace, WWF, 350.org etc. etc are working on it"?

Perhaps the invisible, lo-fi actions are in fact the best. Perhaps it is best that the public do not think and feel that there are a lot of people acting on these critical issues because it may encourage them, as individuals to act. Perhaps the multitude of green groups in fact de-motivates the average person on the street.

The question that I ask, therefore, is whether increased public visibility of 'green-groups' leads to increased public apathy?

While I don't know the answers to these qustions, I think it is vital that the environmental movement ask them of itself. It is essential, that as individuals and as collectives, we ask the hard questions of ourselves and the work that we do. Surely the best campaign / movement is that which is self aware and self-critical. As such, it is imperative that we are aware of the potentially unintended consequences of our action.

WRITING LOUDLY - is your caps lock on?

I have recently been drawn into an email conversation with a person that seems to be intent on writing in capitals, bold and underlined so that they can make their voice heard REALLY LOUDLY. While I have been known to, at times, have a voice like a fog horn - when I was younger my mother used to twist my ear in the hope that it was a volume dial! - I find the use of such techniques in email rather grating.

Yes, I am guilty as well. I confess to using capitals on occassion, but it is almost always to express extreme excitement. What makes my correspondent's use of the technique a little trying is that it was to tell me, and other members of an environmental group with which I am involved, that what we are doing IS NOT ENOUGH.

I find it intriguing that the moment you set yourself up to be working on environmental issues in the public eye there are almost immediately people who feel they can tell you that what you're doing is not enough, not right, or else simply ineffectual.

Of course, it is vital that everyone has their own idea on how to run a campaign or how to bring about the change we need. It is important to voice one's opinion and challenge the way that people work. But, in my view, should you push so hard to get your voice heard, you must be willing to follow through on what it is that you are advocating.

And this is where the use of capitals, bold and underlined becomes a little ridiculous.

I offered this email buddy of mine the opportunity to take the lead on the issue that they were advocating. Funnily enough, this offer was met not with gratitude, but, rather, more bold, capitals and underlined text saying that what we're doing is all wrong. If only this person could realise that their bold, underlined and capitalised text is really mis-directed. They obviously have a lot to say and very loudly. It seems to be wasted effort to be turning in on a movement that they seem to care quite deeply about. Surely this energy would be best directed at the people causing the problem, rather than the ones trying to fix it?

It seems that there are some people who feel that their 'environmentalism' goes as far as telling people what they should be doing rather than doing it themselves.

The sad thing about email is that you can't reach for the writer's volume dial and give it a good twist!

Learning to talk, not shout!

In the last couple of weeks I have had the good fortune of listening to some key activists speak about their work: Bill McKibben of 350.org; Sean Weaver who was involved in stopping the logging of native timber on the West Coast; and Moana Jackson who is a central figure in the Tino Rangatiratanga movement.

Listening to these people speak about their activism has been both inspiring and influential. While they have all been clear about the importance of direct action in their respective campaigns, they also stressed the importance of being professional, inclusive and level-headed.

While I have been known to hurl abuse at politicians in public and denegrate our government on this blog, I am coming around to the realisation that these methods may not be the most effective.

While yelling serves to fulfil my own desires, it makes very little difference in the greater scheme of things. How much more powerful would it be if our politicians were confronted with a group of peaceful, happy people calling for dialogue? Of course these ideas are as old as the notion of 'activism', however, it is a matter for each individual to come around to this position on their own.

And I am getting there.

While I still have an urge to yell and scream, I will actively work to be more conciliatory, inclusive, respectful and professional. The issues with which we are dealing are more important than satisfying our own desires to scream and shout!