Protocoll Day 1 September 3rd, 2014

Minutes energy and climate working group

September 03 2014

Intro, presentation of participants backgrounds, expectations and contribution

Summary of Barcelona working group

use Barcelona results as a blueprint for what is expected of us in our workshop

Barcelona: consensus: degrow in fossil fuel use (coal, oil)

phasing out nuclear power as fast as possible

traffic and transportation are also issues (consumption of fossil fuels, reduce transportation distances as much as possible)

decentralisation of the energy sector – strong emphasis on energy production on a local basis

smaller plants versus long distance transport needing central large power plants

align all those processes with democratic processes, active participation of people

political proposals (Barcelona)

de-industrialisation of some sectors

in energy sector, renationalise companies

companies currently loose their (oligopolistic) market power

traffic infrastructure appears – public transportation system, long distance trains (high speed)

STRATEGY: divided into 3 parts:

existing political system (protest, new ideas)

loyalty strategy – we build a system from within

de-industrialisation → community impacts, and strengthening of their autarchy (self-sufficiency)

global level: reduction, recycling, life cycle of materials, internalisation of real costs of emissions

regional level: autarchy – not to export trash, but to build services on a regional basis

organisers assembled above info probably from other working groups

only a starting point – incentive to add more current strategic suggestions

SUGGESTIONS

1. divestment campaigning

• Kohlenstoffblase – carbon bubble (who is familiar with)

Kevin replaced by Selj, as Kevin is busy on a paper boat

communities that are affected by extreme fracking and the likes

Self: divestment campaign in the NL

critical take / impressions

basic idea – last decade

realisation by market forces that there is a problem that not all can be extracted and burned – will not be fine

existing proven reserves, 5 times more than the carbon budget / can burn in coming decades – 80% of the reserves need to stay underground under the assumption that we want avoid climate impact

estimates: might loose half of their market value (fossil fuels companies)

refineries – 10-100 trillion dollars is estimate of the companies' assets

not only mainstream NGOs that argue about it

try convince investors to become green investors, but many other parties

organisation 350 took this on board, because:

1. moral and ecological case to be made around those problems. So, if it is wrong to destroy the planet, it is also wrong to make money from it

   this argument was good to use to mobilise people on this complex, messy affair → obtain fresh new activists

   Amsterdam last year: first climate games: in coal plants – own actions, teams competed (Germans were successful), campaigners organised petitions, i.e. play volleyball to divert the policeforces

2. risk exists, economic risk we need to deal with

   seems a bit like how in Copenhagen the climate justice movement was not necessarily legitimising the process between the states, but to hijack / legitimise the process

   similarly, this is a way to use a market mechanism against market principles

   last years: market has been assumed to be a saviour – which is sort of a twisted view

3. relatively accountable institutions (insurance companies), stakeholders have a say, not just closed doors of investors

   have to recognise that they represent a tiny little fraction of money that goes into those projects

4. carbon bubble argument: missing goal of the case

   take away social licence / their credibility by taking down a specific industry instead of a system-wide critique

   typo in Kevin's document: what do you do if you know that there is a time bomb lurking ahead of you. If you cannot diffuse it (typo: distribute) it, you … (check original document for citation)

   Question: do we just want to inflate the carbon bubble, or do we pop it

   i.e. do we help Al Gore to shift capitalistically to green companies, or do we want to get to exchange markets

Presentation – not on agenda: of online discussion

closely related to last point: Philipp

divestment strategy preferable, but does it really change something if it acts inside of the system. Different actors – how power is unjustly shared, and how nature is destroyed

discussion of this to follow in the next 2 days

Question: not about defunding the fossil fuel sector

will not be possible to defund

but to challenge the moral legitimacy of the industry, and once you think about that – it becomes far more feasible to think about it as a legitimate project

campaign started a year ago

example: US universities have massive endowment funds, and are major mobilisers

Question on the data perspective: financial crisis data – what is the data perspective

data from investor funds, how much are there, how much are they worth. Trust their numbers, coming from inside the markets

********************************************************************************

2nd paper (stirring paper) from Advance working group

question was raised in Barcelona

will we find the answers in the coming days

Demand: immediate phase out of nuclear and fossil power

more or less immediate

climate change and social crisis – consistent, have to demand immediate phase out

renewable energy cannot cover all energy demand, especially if we try to reach an energy transition – globally fairly

saving energy is necessary

efficiency issue

not enough (to be efficient)

rebound effect might be known to many

another step: have to exploit less fossil energy (climate change, environmental destruction)

have to shut down industries without replacing them / converting them in new ways, possibly (ways not known yet?)

Military industry – agriculture

industry in general, shut them down – as they cause enormous externalities and social costs

If we really demand that, we have to be prepared for questions

fears will arise, and not many answers are at hand

fears and questions have to be taken seriously by us

perspectives of social / gender / global South

proposal: have to shut down industries, and link to issues mentioned above

social negotiation

most important, i.e. Barcelona workshop

democratic social negotiation – different term

1. identify superfluous industries

   1. how do we start debate in society about superfluous industries

2. how to implement the shut down

   1. divestment

   2. direct action

   3. pragmatic political demands

3. dealing with consequences

lots of questions on income security that may result from shut down industries, shutting down labour market. How to achieve social security without a lot of labour

how can models of commons / regional economy support the idea of shutting down industries

how do we prevent dirty industries just being transferred to other countries (in the global South )

Those are our questions, and we do not have many proposals

Question: what is an example?

Answer: like military industry (cars, pigs, tanks – Autos, Schweine, Panzer)

avoid to get lost in the details to this now

Input and updating part complete

15 minutes left for work (today)

Proposals on a chart

specific political proposals

try and extend those issues to broader topics, while also being specific

brainstorming process

topics we could discuss in the next few days

collect some points: facilitation

remark: too fast process right now in the group, various inputs, and clarifications, and now we must sort on a sheet proposals by relevance

try to slow down and collect / put the brakes on

task: set for ourselves the agenda for next days

collection of potential topics that we discuss

direct link to issue of closing down industries, which – in the current economic paradigm – will just be shifted to other countries – how to link degrowth debate to our energy and climate topic

clarification on details of energy (industry, supply, demand)

what are we talking about, do we have a shared understanding

• clarification on energy issues (broader, not only electricity, heating, traffic / transport)

• how do we want it to look like in future and how do we get there?

Can discuss these papers between 5:30 and 7:00pm

argument on what energy issues – important, maybe we should split up the group (interests, accordingly)

we will do tomorrow - split up tomorrow (process)

tomorrow: collect possible topics and select

given the time we have available (radical grassroots movement and technical experts) entirely absurd to come up with a vision for energy sector and strategies

focus on something achievable

crazily good skill set in the group, and to make use of this, we need a more doable agenda

suggestion: discuss half an hour how we proceed, and agenda – go through tomorrow

signaling of agreement and disagreement – different cultures in the rooms

tools – developed to facilitate communication

tomorrow: introduce the hand signs

Now: collect key issues in 10 minutes

Felix will collect and cluster them

write on cards the issues

propose how to facilitate the process

- collect papers on issues to be discussed tomorrow, after they have been clustered

need not present all the topics now

We now compose the matrix until tomorrow (facilitators) and cluster will be presented tomorrow

Tomorrow, we will prioritise the issues

one more task: at 5 tomorrow - GAP working group assembly - we are asked to present it (no results required), only present process in 90 seconds

Choose a willing presenter