PART E: PROJECT DESCRIPTION
Modelling paradigm-shift for an age of climate change? Learning, contestation and knowledge production at the ‘camp for climate action’
AIMS AND BACKGROUND
The research addresses the dramatic paradigm-shift in subjectivity underway as a result of advancing climate change. As the existing carbon-intensive social paradigm reaches its limits we are witnessing various efforts at sub-paradigmatic change, to sequestrate carbon pollution, or to manage symptoms through climate adaptation and displacement (see Stern 2007; Lohmann 2006 ; Carbon Trade Watch 2007; Cannavo 2008). Simultaneously, as sub-paradigmatic efforts fail to address the problem (see Christoff 2006), we are witnessing a more transformative paradigm-shift in social subjectivity. The resulting paradigmatic transition is an interregnum in sociological terms (Sousa Santos 1995), a period of social and political flux and potential (Hardt and Negri 2001:261). Indeed with the advent of climate crisis we see the emergence of a deep-seated challenge to society’s underlying historicity: the crisis literally imperils survival for human society, and insofar as carbon-intensive development underpins the social structures, the prospect of decarbonisation challenges the foundation of prevailing norms and hierarchies (Parry et al 2007; Neale 2008). The stakes are high, for all players.
We may say, then, that we sit on the cusp of paradigm-shift. If there is a climate ‘tipping point’, there is also a climate action tipping point, where latent social subjectivity that exists ‘in itself’ gains the collective consciousness and agency to act ‘for itself’. This research project asks how that tipping point can be or is being instigated.
Our focus on learning, contestation and knowledge production for paradigm-shift leads us to the ‘camp for climate action’ as a generative experiment in constitutive power (as outlined below). Our key objective is to theorise and conceptualise the practice of social change through climate action, operationalising expressive, cognitive and instrumental dimensions of climate action, asking how they relate to one another in the practice of climate action. We will thereby investigate the multi-dimensionality of climate action, where modes of engagement are brought into interaction and cross-fertilisation. From this we aim to create middle-range theorisations and supporting conceptual tools, to synthesise models for climate action. To achieve this we bring into play a range of disciplinary perspectives, contributing to debates in ecological politics, political sociology and critical education.
We therefore pose the following research questions: To what extent do climate camps enable a pedagogy that creates historical agency? How do participants imagine and develop actions for themselves? What theories and practices are informing climate action? How is collective engagement and learning achieved? What is the impact on participants and wider publics? How are these questions answered differently in Australia and the UK?
The imperative for decarbonised society by necessity generates transformative social vision. The new subjectivities are incommensuable with the existing order and crystalise the new modes of rule. In high-income ‘Northern’ contexts like Australia, these potentials are grounded in immediately personal consciousness of climate injustice, of dumping carbon pollution on the low-income ‘South’, and of living today with no regard for future generations (Roberts and Parks 2006; Sachs and Santarius 2007; Bumpus and Liverman 2008; Hayward 2007; Page 2006).
In academic and policy debates the posited shift encompasses a spectrum of perspectives, which interact with each other in the development of the emergent frame. A dominant theme is the hope for closed-loop ‘ecological modernization’, sometimes referred to as ‘second modernity’, where growth is decarbonised by ‘precautionary’ technologies and institutional practices (Moll 2000; Suzuki and Dressel 2002; Hawken et al 1999; Dryzek 1997; Beck 1995; Blowers 1997). Ecological sufficiency operates as a counterpoint to ecological modernisation, insisting on low- or no-growth scenarios, often linked to ‘post-developmentalist’ and ‘subsistence’ perspectives (Schumacker 1973; Diamond 2005; Bennholdt-Thomsen and Mies 1999; Mies and Shiva 1993; Sachs 1993; Ziai 2007; Shiva 2008). A third theme, ecological socialism, along with variants of ecological feminism, suggests the necessity for a large-scale restructuring of social relations beyond existing models of capitalism, patriarchy and liberal democracy (Power 2009; Salleh 1997; Rocheleau 1996; Foster-Carter 2002; Kovel 2007; O’Connor 1998; Johnston, Goodman and Gismondi 2006). The first approach re-masters ecology for society, the second subordinates society to ecology, while the third suggests an entirely new ecology-society nexus (Harvey 1996; see also Klein, Bello and Ransom 2009). There is intense debate between these perspectives, in antagonism with the dominant carbon-intensive growth paradigm, and its various sub-paradigmatic offshoots.
Ultimately, though, the prospects for climate paradigm-shift are determined in the broad field of social relations. Here, climate consciousess can exist as a latent subjectivity, where publics share an awareness of contradictions but fail to engage in social action (Norgaard 2006; Doherty 2002; Meyer 2007; Boycoff 2008). The intensifying crisis can produce ‘apocalypse blindness’ (Beck 1995; Depledge 2006). In Northern carbon hostspots like Australia, a tension can build up, internalized through a dual sense of powerlessness and complicity, with the resulting crisis of belief embedded in everyday subjectivity, but repressed from public policy (Dorsey 2007; Agyeman and Evans 2004). In this context we witness the deferral of social power to the public authorities, framing climate change as a problem for policy elites and only incidentally for their increasingly anxious constituencies. In this scenario the constitutive power of social agency, an historical actor literally remaking society, remains unrealized. Capacity to produce the required emancipatory knowledges is deferred, and the crisis intensifies.
Clearly the climate crisis and the contradictions which create it will not of themselves automatically generate the required shifts. As in many other historical contexts, it is only when private awareness is brought into the public domain that we witness the unfolding possibilities of social movement potential. A crucial factor in provoking the required protest cycle, as cited by numerous social movements scholars, is the failure of the authorities to recognize or address the perceived problem (Tarrow 2007; Tilly 1999). In this case, there is a wide and deepening gulf between policy failure and governmental acknowledgement of a fast-approaching existential crisis. Whilst publics may be fully cogniscent of these failures, it is only when social movements expose official rhetoric, polarize public debate, and force a process of public deliberation, that social forces gain capacity as historical actors.
SIGNIFICANCE AND INNOVATION
The project conducts the first comprehensive analysis of direct action ‘camps for climate action’ in Australia: the phenomenon is starting to attract the attention of academics in the UK, with at least three recent studies evaluating its potential (Plows 2008; Saunders 2008). Climate camp is a form of strategic direct action geared to movement building and learning. Emerging first in the UK in 2006, it has been taken up in a number of countries around the world and is fast becoming a climate action template. The first Australian climate camp brought together 1500 people from across Australia in July 2008 to participate in a week-long program of collective action on climate change. The camp was held in Newcastle, in proximity to the world’s largest coal port, due to double in capacity to serve twenty new coal mines planned for the Hunter region. We conducted a pilot study of the 2008 camp, anticipating the model would gain momentum; subsequently at least three simultaneous camps have been announced for 2009.
Climate camps are in the first instance spatial interventions. They are mounted as close as possible to the physical site of large-scale carbon emissions. They create ideological power as counter-sites, designed to unmask and contest plans to expand carbon-intensive infrastructures and industries (Newell 2008). In our 2008 study participants put special emphasis on three elements: the process of maintaining the camp, as itself an exercise in collective action; the creation of spaces for reflection and debate on climate issues and how to address them; the planning and mounting of direct actions against key climate change perpetrators. The three dimensions are folded into each other, constructing a camp subjectivity that binds together expressive, cognitive and instrumental forms of engagement. The three-part schema that emerged from our pilot study offers us an interpretative framework for this extended project: it will guide the investigation, and as such is explored in some depth.
The first aspect cited by camp participants is a form of expressive action that prefigures the desired social transformation, a form of ecological utopia (Saunders 2008). As an intentional and autonomous community, climate camp models the future through through collective provisioning and eco-centric infrastructure (such as composting toilets and solar energy). Decision-making rests on a decentralised ‘neighbourhood’ structure, with zones of the camp allocated to specific geographic regions and groups, based on pre-existing local linkages (Osofsky and Levit 2008). Each neighbourhood sends representatives to a consensus-based ‘spokes council’ which coordinates activities for the camp as a whole. These decentralised consensus-based structures are aimed at both maximising a sense of safety, whilst enabling direct democratic involvement. The resulting temporary community becomes a microcosm of the ecological and socio-political commons, establishing a platform of legitimacy for the camp as a whole.
The second aspect is more a form of cognitive engagement, centring on learning about climate change impacts, their causes, and false solutions. Participants are involved in multiple dialogues about values, alternatives, strategies and tactics for climate action. The invitation to engage in debate on urgent questions of climate change signals an openness to differing viewpoints, and offers an entry-point for those not already involved with climate action (Plows 2008). Strategic directions for the movement are discussed and workshopped, with involvement across the range of climate action perspectives. Ideational engagement of this sort extends to debates about process, including philosophies of social change, of democracy and direct action, and involves various forms of hands-on training in civil disobedience and passive resistance.
The third aspect centres on instrumental action, where camp participants are involved symbolic civil disobedience designed to dramatise the issue of climate change. The spatial politics of the camp sets the stage for these symbolic interventions, as its location defines the target for direct action (Plows 2008; Schlosberg 2009; Dalton et al 2003; McCarthy et al 1997; Doherty 2002). The camp as a whole enacts a counter-narrative, a symbolic provocation that culminates in mass direct action targeting the posited carbon hotspot. During the camp, direct actions are planned in small ‘affinity groups’ and camp ‘neighbourhoods’, as well as through cross-camp groupings. The planning efforts involve rehearsals, to build self-confidence, practicing mass civil disobedience. The range of actions are distinguished by level of risk, from marching an approved route, to more physically-challenging and arrestable activities. Participants choose what actions suits them, debate how to mount the actions, and, in the closing days of the camp, carry them out.
Within each of these three aspects, camp participants engage in various forms of generative action. Expressive autonomy, cognitive dialogue and instrumental action are all forms of constitutive politics that enact climate action as a social force. They are also forms of experiential action entailing intensely emplaced and embodied forms of inter-subjectivity (MacDonald 2006). Indeed the camp itself can be seen as making meaning – expressive, cognitive, instrumental – a social experiment or laboratory for climate action (see Figure 1 below).
Investigation into this rich vignette of climate subjectivity, and of the paradigm shift it promises, will make a significant contribution to interdisciplinary debates on ecological politics, social movements and critical education.
The literature debating climate change ranges across the environmental and social sciences, centring on charting the problem and how to solve it (see Christoff 2006; Pearce 2007; Hamilton 2006; Flannery 2005; Lowe 2006). In the face of advancing evidence, with escalating risk and uncertainty, climate is rising up the agenda, and can only be expected to grow in significance (Johnston, Goodman and Gismondi 2006; Rosewarne 2008). Unabated, it threatens to subsume all social relations (Van Der Pijl 1998). In this respect, human-generated climate change is the clearest manifestation of the confrontation between ecological limits and the model of infinite accumulation which shapes people’s lives, especially in societies such as Australia (Bellamy Foster 2002). Its growing intensity means that attempts at managing the confrontation rather than solving it have the effect of displacing and accumulating problems for the future, exacerbating the eventual crisis (Beck 2005; O’Connor 1998). The resulting political dynamic literally forces new social agendas into view (Anderson 2006).
Clearly we can expect climate change debates, and associated political engagement, to escalate. That said, the question of what social forces will emerge to address climate change, and what political transformations they will create, remains uncertain. In the first instance, especially in Australia, climate policy is elite-driven, wedded to scientific communities and dominant policy-making circles (Curran 2009; Crowley 2007). Over time, though, there has been intermittent but growing public engagement with the issue (Wiseman 2007; Walker 2007). Debates about climate policy are already generating large-scale public expressions, posing the question of how publics will become engaged with this, the most pressing issue to affect us in the decades to come.
Recognising the ‘experimental’ aspects of environmentalism in Australia, there has been some study of climate action, focused on the strategies of non-government organisations (Dann 2008; Hall and Taplin 2007a, 2007b). But to date there has been no sustained investigation into the opinions of those directly involved in political action on climate change in Australia. Drawing on established links with UK-based climate action researchers, namely Prof. Chris Rootes, Dr Clare Saunders and Dr Paul Chatterton, the Project sheds light on the Australian dynamics for climate action. To do so, the project engages with the political sociology of social change, including social movement studies, and studies in public education.
Within social movement studies there is a long-running theoretical debate about the relative importance of instrumental as against expressive action: should social movements be seen as means to an end, or as an end in themselves; or more directly, is it more important to study how social movements mobilize as against why they mobilize? (Tarrow 1998; Tilly 1999; Touraine 1995; Melucci 1996). The research seeks to reconcile these polarities by investigating how climate action seeks to inspire across the range of expressive, cognitive and instrumental dimensions (Hosseini 2006; Macdonald 2006).
Pilot research reveals a strong instrumental theme in climate action, centring on the rhetoric-reality gap in climate policy. Here, as noted, the failure of governmental policy-making and corporate practice in the face of climate threat is presented as the principal rationale for grassroots climate action (Hall and Taplin 2007b). This affirms a ‘political opportunities’ model of social movement mobilisation where movements are interpreted as rational actors responding to institutional failure (Van Der Heijden 2006). Where the political system fails to deliver on what it claims to be its responsibilities, movements emerge to exploit and deepen the resulting legitimacy gaps. As part of this process there is strong expressive and experiential dimension to climate action, emerging from intentional communities for climate action.
These dimensions are fused together in specific places (Roberts and Tofflon-Weiss 2001; Plows 2008). The contradiction between policy and practice is intensely spatial, and most clearly demonstrated at particular sites where carbon-intensive facilities are planned or expanded (Chatterton 2005). These carbon hotspots are spatially-delimited physical manifestations of climate policy failure. In the context of an advancing climate crisis their meaning is dramatically over-determined: from functional mechanisms they become reconfigured as threats to planetary survival (Seel 1997). The low walls and fences that skirt the facilities, protecting people from the heavy machinery, become highly politicised boundaries that protect the facilities from would-be climate action participants. Increasingly, as challenges to their existence multiply, the sites acquire intense symbolic meaning, their boundaries acquiring a simultaneously local and global resonance (Bosso and Guber 2006).
Carbon hotspots thus become political places that symbolically ‘lift the veil’ on climate policy. What emerges at this nexus is an intensely embodied and emplaced spatial politics of climate change (Griggs and Howarth 2004; Pickerill and Chatterton 2006). To research this micro-politics of climate action, at climate camps, necessarily entails the macro politics of globalised climate change and climate action. Conceptualised as a generative site, this is a place where publics realize their own capacities and experience their own power, where new knowledges and understanding are produced (Johnston and Goodman 2006). This is a site of public education, and public learning, a site where climate action movements are built and social change is created.
This mode of critical education focuses on the learning that takes place outside of formal institutions, and especially through social movements, defined as ‘sites of learning, meaning making and resistance’ (Dykstra & Law, 1994; Foley, 1999; Holst, 2002; Hill, 2002, p. 182). Collective action learning is understood as a generative process that creates new meanings and knowledges, and in this sense it is as much dialogic as pedagogic. It is directly experiential, and simultaneously cognitive and strategic, expressive and affective. Climate action camps lends themselves to critical educators as they focus on four key themes: education, direct action, enabling more sustainable living, and building a movement. In the proposed research we construct climate camps as sites of ‘critical public pedagogy’ (Giroux 2004, p. 62), that engage participants and public audiences in a particular form of critical education.
We therefore seek to empirically investigate specific sites of critical education, in order to more fully understand how it is enacted. There have been a handful of empirical studies in critical education, including for instance, a recent study on education for action on global warming (Grotzer and Lincoln 2007). Yet much of the literature in critical education remains theoretical, consisting of ‘calls to action’ with little empirical analysis focusing on how critical education happens in practice. A key purpose of this research, then, is to explore climate camps as spaces of critical public education. We seek to determine how the public pedagogy of these camps works, and how members learn from their participation in these activities.
APPROACH
The project extends research conducted with Friends of the Earth Australia in 2008. This focused on motivations for involvement in the 2008 Newcastle climate camp, and the role of the camp as a movement-building exercise. To gauge its impact we conducted in-depth interviews with twelve participants before, during and after the event. We are currently drawing on the resulting transcript and video data to write a book. Arising from this pilot research we have developed a provisional analytical framework that builds on the three-part schema outlined above. This framework summarised in Figure 1, will allow each of the Chief Investigators to focus on a particular line of analysis, to most effectively bring to bear our disciplinary capacities.
Figure 1: Climate camp as social laboratory: a provisional analytical framework
| Mode of engagement | Generative action | Collective potential |
| Expressive autonomy | Provisioning and decision-making | Prefigurative social relations |
| Cognitive dialogue | Workshops and tactical training | Strategic capacity |
| Instrumental action | Symbolic provocation | Public engagement |
In using this framework our aim is two-fold. We intend first to deepen our analysis of movement-based participants in climate action, and interrogate their theories and practices of social action, education and learning. Secondly, we intend to develop a methodology to enable social movement activists engage in analysis of theories and practices of action, education and learning. The research addresses what we argue is a dearth of enquiry, debate and discussion about change theories and practices between various environmental advocacy groups. The qualitative research program brings together five elements:
(i) Document content analysis. This will include discourse analysis of written statements from climate summits associated with organising climate camps and digital ethnographic research with selected web-based forums. This is as much participant observation as it is textual analysis.
(ii) Participant observation. We will participate in and prepare field notes at climate camps and selected pre- and post-camp planning meetings. This activity is designed to generate insight into the affective and embodied process of climate action.
(iii) One-on-one interviews. We will recruit approximately 10 participants at each Climate Camp. These will be necessarily few in number to contain the costs involved of interviewing, recording, filming, transcribing and analysing the data. When selecting the sample of interviewees, effort will be made to get a spread of participants. As in the pilot project, each participant will be interviewed before and after the camp in order to study what they may have learnt and changed as a result of their participation.
(iv) Small group debates. We plan to present a preliminary analysis of our data to two focus groups made up of 4 to 6 participants in each. The participants will be recruited from a variety of environmental advocacy groups that have differing philosophies and practices about enabling learning and action to address climate change. The aim is to trial and research a collective and deliberative process of participant-directed analysis of change theories and practices. With an emphasis on learning, dialogue and action, the climate camp movement is ideally placed to generate data that can be used to provoke and inform discussion across the Australian environment movement about change theories and practices (Alcock 2008).
(v) Meta-analysis of strategies for participant-directed analysis. An aim of our project is to document and promote social movement debate about social change theories and practices. We plan to publish our research findings in innovative ways that are not only accessible to, but also help social movement actors to name, comment on and analyse their theories and practices of change. We anticipate this will include presenting parts of the film and text data on interactive software platforms. The process of enabling participant-directed analysis will, in turn, be an object of our reflection and analysis.
All aspects of the research program entail the use of digital materials. These will be assembled and correlated in the form of an accessible archive, with data hyper-linked to online scholarship, and to other public access-points developed in collaboration with the partner organization. These innovative forms of collaborative digital methodology will be developed in conjunction with the newly-established ‘Cosmopolitan Studio’ for digital scholarship at the Research Centre in Cosmopolitan Civil Societies at UTS, which will also provide the requisite recorders, cameras and editing facilities.
NATIONAL BENEFIT
The Project responds to a pre-figurative praxis of climate action, in the form of climate camps, that privilege and problematise issues of public action and climate change. In collaboration with UK-based researchers, it develops a comparative analysis of the same model of climate action, revealing shared and contrasting assumptions. It enables a process of strategic reflection on these initiatives, and more broadly on the theories of social change that they operationalise. As such, it establishes foundations for conceptualising climate action as a process of learning through collective action. The outcomes of such learning position climate camps as generative sites of knowledge production, offering new repertoires, frames and visions for addressing climate change.
The project derives a model for generative climate action that will have wide application for communities encountering climate change. In a national context, the associated climate literacies and strategic knowledges will play a crucial role in establishing the socio-political foundations for the transition to a decarbonised social system. Reflecting this, the project directly contributes to the ARC Priority 1 for 2010, namely, to fund research that promotes ‘an environmentally sustainable Australia’. Within the ambit of this Priority, the project directly helps achieve the Priority Goals of ‘reducing and capturing emissions in transport and energy generation’, ‘transforming existing industries’ and ‘responding to climate change and variability’.
PARTNER ORGANISATION COMMITMENT AND COLLABORATION
The project links the CIs with Friends of the Earth Australia (FoE), a charitable organisation that works for climate justice. FoE Australia is part of an international network of seventy national affiliates (Doherty 2006). In Australia it has a decentralised structure with eleven local groups dispersed across the country, with a National Liason Office in Melbourne. FoE Australia employs core staff and is mainly funded by donations, with some income from charitable foundations: it does not receive any funds from government or from businesses. FoE describes its purpose as follows: ‘Through a combination of research, community outreach, direct action, lobbying and offering positive business alternatives, FoE seeks to work in alliances with other like minded groups and individuals to achieve the necessary social change which will allow for environmental protection with full protection for the rights of all people’.
As outlined in the letter from FoE confirming participation in this project, the CI’s have long-running research links with the organisation. As noted, the CI’s began researching with FoE on climate action in 2008, reflecting FoE’s key focus on climate change and climate justice. FoE Australia employs a Climate Justice Coordinator, based at a new Climate Action Centre located at Trades Hall in Melbourne, which works with established FoE groups in Sydney, Brisbane, and Melbourne. FoE co-convened the 2008 Newcastle camp, and has played a key role in the wider national Climate Movement, which was established in February 2009.
In their letter confirming participation in this Linkage project, FoE anticipate the Linkage project will strengthen the existing research relationship with the CIs, and ‘consolidate a longer-term alliance’ on FoE’s ‘central priority’ of climate action. The project is of particular importance for FoE as it will enable the organisation to ‘strengthen our process of critical reflection on climate campaigning’. The FoE commitment to this Project is reflected in its willingness to fully match ARC funds with in-kind support. This means that there is 100% matching support from the research partner, suggesting a genuinely collaborative platform for the anticipated research program. Specifically, FoE will provide the equivalent internal costs of in-house FoE collaborators to match proposed ARC funding for a half-time Research Associate for the three years of the project. It is anticipated that the full-time FoE climate justice coordinator based in Melbourne and the part-time coordinator of the FoE Sydney group will be the principal points of contact and source of matched collaboration. These relationships and working practices have already been established with the proposed Research Associate, Ms Pearce, and have worked well under our current pilot project. In addition, FoE is granting access to the extensive in-house databases of FoE Australia and FoE International, giving access to a desk and computer at the Sydney FoE offices.
In sum, there is strong and demonstrable support from the proposed Linkage Partner for this project. The project is of high priority for the Partner, and builds on an already-completed pilot research project with the CIs. The project is anticipated to strengthen this strategic partnership, which has already yielded significant scholarly and applied outcomes. Reflecting this, the Partner is making a significant 100% in-kind contribution to the project. As a relatively small-scale project, with total ARC contribution of approximately $42,000 per annum, doubled to a total equivalent of $84,000 by the Partner contributions, and with additional support both in terms of the research time commitments of the CIs and access to vital digital research infrastructure through the UTS Cosmopolitan Civil Societies Research Centre, this Linkage Project represents good value for money.
COMMUNICATION OF RESULTS
The CI’s expect to investigate at least two examples of climate camp during 2010 and 2011, leaving 2012 for writing-up and dissemination. The budget provides for one liason visit to Melbourne each year: in 2010 this will establish the research program and in 2011 and 2012 it will offer an opportunity to workshop research findings at the FoE national office with other invited organizations. Similar workshops will be conducted in Sydney, through the local FoE group and the Cosmopolitan Studio. Digital archives, with online video and text resources will be developed by the Research Associate and the Video Editor, and published through the Centre for Cosmopolitan Civil Societies, and for the research partner.
The CI’s anticipate there will substantial academic interest in the findings of the project. A co-authored book based on the pilot will be prepared for publication, principally as a prompt to stimulate debate on the issues addressed by the Linkage project. An additional scholarly monograph will be co-authored drawing on the in-depth findings of the project. In addition, there will be a series of journal articles associated with the project; already, an article by CI Goodman arising from debates stimulated by the pilot project, has been accepted for journal of the American Political Science Association, New Political Science.
ROLE OF PERSONNEL
Overall responsibility for the project will be shared between the CIs, with the three lines of analysis distributed between them . Reflecting his background in social movement studies, CI Goodman will have responsibility for investigating the expressive dimensions of climate action; CI Flowers will focus on the instrumental aspects, deploying a critical education perspective; CI Rosewarne will lead debate on the cognitive aspects, reflecting his expertise in issues of ecological politics and economy. The division of labour will be deliberately bridged through the construction of shared conceptual tools, and through the process of modeling the interaction between the three dimensions. The three CIs are also committed to developing new analytic frameworks, viewing the analytic schema offered by the pilot, and outlined in this proposal, as definitively preliminary.
The Project funds a half-time Research Associate. For the sake of continuity it is proposed that the researcher – Ms Rebecca Pearce – who worked on the pilot project, be reengaged for this Linkage project. Her work on the pilot was exemplary, and she is currentl y included as a co-author for the book to emerge from the pilot research. Her role will be to carry out the research program in collaboration with the CIs.
The Project also provides for in-kind support from FoE equivalent to cost of the Research Associate. It is anticipated that this role will be shared between the FoE Sydney coordinator and the Melbourne-based FoE climate justice coordinator. Their role will be to assist the CIs and the RA in undertaking the research program.
Finally, the project establishes a link with research collaborators in the UK – Prof Rootes, Dr Saunders, and Dr Chatterton – who are researching climate action and climate camps in the UK (Rootes 2005, 2006; Saunders 2008; Chatterton 2005). The intention here is to enable a contextualization of Australia-based findings, opening up the potential, beyond the immediate scope of this project, for joint investigations on the basis of shared themes.
Bibliography
Agyeman, J. and Evans, B. (2004) ‘Just sustainability’: the emerging discourse of environmental justice in Britain?, The Geographical Journal 170(2) p. 155-164.
Alcock, F. (2008) Conflicts and Coalitions Within and Across the ENGO Community, Global Environmental Politics 8(4).
Anderson, J. (2006) Afterword: Only Sustain … The Environment, “Anti-globalization,” and the Runaway Bicycle, in Johnston, J., Goodman, J. and Gismondi, M. (eds) Nature’s revenge: reclaiming sustaibability in an age of corporate globalisation, Broadview: Toronto.
Beck, U. (1995) Ecological politics in an age of risk, Polity Press: Cambridge.
Belamy Foster, J. (2002) Ecology against capitalism, Monthly Review Press: New York.
Bello, W. (2007) The environment movement in the global south: the pivotal fight against global warming, ZNet, October 13, 2007.
Bennholdt-Thomsen, V. and Mies, M. (1999) The subsistence perspective: beyond the globalised economy, Zed: London, p. 177.
Blowers, A. (1997) Environmental policy: ecological modernization or risk society?, Urban Studies, 34, 5-6, 845-871.
Bosso, C. and Guber, D. (2006) ‘Maintaining presence: environmental advocacy and the permanent campaign’, in Vig, N.and Kraft, M. (eds) Environmental policy : new directions for the twenty-first century, Washington D.C.: CQ Press.
Boycoff, M. (2008) The cultural politics of climate change discourse in UK tabloids, Political Geography, 27, 549-569.
Bumpus, A. and Liverman, D. (2008) Accumulation by Decarbonization and the Governance of Carbon Offsets, Economic Geography, 84(2) p. 127-155.
Cannavo, P. (2008) In the Wake of Katrina: Climate Change and the Coming Crisis of Displacement, in Vanderheiden, S. (ed.), Political theory and global climate change, Cambridge, Mass: MIT Press.
Carbon Trade Watch (2007) The Carbon Neutral Myth: offset indulgences for your climate sins, Transnational institute: Amsterdam.
Chatterton, P (2005) ‘Give up activism’ and change the world in unknown ways. Or, learning to walk with others on uncommon ground’, Antipode 38(2) pp. 259-282.
Christoff, P. (2006) Post-Kyoto? Post-Bush? Towards an effective ‘climate coalition of the willing’, International Affairs, 85, 2, 831-860.
Church, C. and Malkova, T. (2008) Action on Climate Change; From a divided Europe to a common purpose: The role of NGOs in tackling climate change. ANPED, London
Crowley, K. (2007) Is Australia Faking It? The Kyoto Protocol and the Greenhouse Policy Challenge, Global Environmental Politics 7(4).
Curran, G. (2009) Ecological modernisation and climate change in Australia, Environmental Politics 18(2), 201-217.
Dalton, R., Recchia, S. and Rohrschneider, R. (2003) The Environment Movement and the Modes of Political Action, Comparative Political Studies, 36(7), pp. 743-771.
Dann, C. (2008) ‘Experimental evolution down under: 30 years of Green Party development in Australia and New Zealand’, in Frankland, E., Lucardie, P. and Rihoux, B. (eds) Green parties in transition, Aldershot: Ashgate.
Depledge, J. (2006) The Opposite of Learning: Ossification in the Climate Change Regime, Global Environmental Politics 6(1).
Diamond, J. (2005) Collapse: how societies choose to fail or survive, Penguin: Melbourne, p. 524.
Doherty, B. (2002) Ideas and action in the Green Movement, London: Routledge.
Doherty, B. (2006) Friends of the Earth International: Negotiating a transnational identity, Environmental Politics 15(5), 860-880
Dorsey, M. (2007) Climate Knowledge and Power: Tales of Skeptic Tanks, Weather Gods, and Sagas for Climate (In)justice, Capitalism, Nature, Socialism 18(2), p. 7-21.
Dryzek, J. (1997) The politics of the earth: environmental discourses, Oxford University Press: Oxford, p. 148.
Dykstra, C., and Law, M. (1994) Popular social movements as educative forces. In Hyams, M. Armstrong, J. and Anderson, E. (eds.), 35th Annual Adult Education Conference Proceedings, Knoxville, TN: University of Tennesee.
Flannery, T. (2005) The weather makers: the history and future impact of climate change, Text Publishing, Melbourne.
Foley, G. (1999) Learning in Social Action: A contribution to understanding informal education, London: Zed Press.
Foster-Carter, J. (2002) Ecology against capitalism, Monthly Review Press: New York
Griggs, S. and Howarth, D. (2004) ‘A transformative political campaign? The new rhetoric of protest against airport expansion in the UK’, Journal of Political Ideologies, 9(2) pp 181-201.
Grotzer, T. and Lincoln, R. (2007) ‘Educating for “intelligent environmental action” in an age of global warming’, in Moser, S. and Dilling, L. (eds) Creating a climate for change: communicating climate change and facilitating social change, New York: Cambridge University Press.
Hall, N. and Taplin, R. (2007a) ‘Solar Festivals and Climate Bills: Comparing NGO Climate Change Campaigns in the UK and Australia’, Voluntas 18(4), p. 317-338.
Hall, N. and Taplin, R. (2007b) ‘Revolution or inch-by-inch? Campaign approaches on climate change by environmental groups’, Environmentalist 27(1), p. 95-107.
Hamilton, C., 2006. The Dirty Politics of Climate Change, Australia Institute, Canberra, Australia.
Hardt, M. and Negri, A. (2001) Empire, New York: Harvard University Press.
Harvey, D. (1996) Justice, Nature and the Politics of Difference, Blackwell, Oxford.
Hawken, P., Lovins, A., Lovins, L. (1999) Natural capitalism: creating the next industrial revolution, Little, Brown and Company: Boston.
Hayward, T. (2007) ‘Human Rights Versus Emissions Rights: Climate Justice and the Equitable Distribution of Ecological Space’, Ethics & International Affairs 21(4), pp. 431-450.
Hill, R. J. (2002) Pulling up grassroots: A study of the Right-wing “popular” adult environmental education movement in the USA, Studies in Continuing Education, 24(2), 181-203.
Holst, J.D. (2002) Social Movements, Civil Society and Radical Adult Education. Westport, Conn.: Bergin & Garvey.
Hosseini, H. (2006) Beyond the Practical Dilemmas and Conceptual Reductions: the Emergence of an ‘Accommodative Consciousness’ in the Alternative Globalization Movement, Portal 3(1).
Johnston, J. and Goodman, J. 2006. “Hope and activism in the Ivory Tower: Freirean Lessons for Globalisation Research”, with Johnston, J., Globalisations, 3(1).
Johnston, J., Goodman, J. and Gismondi, M. (eds) (2006) Nature’s revenge: reclaiming sustaibability in an age of corporate globalisation, Broadview: Toronto.
Klein, N., Bello, W. and Ransom, D. (2009) People-First Economics: Making a Clean Start for Jobs, Justice and Climate, forthcoming, London: Zed Press.
Kovel, J. (2007) The enemy of nature: the end of capitalism or the end of the world, Zed: London.
Kuhn, T. (1962) The structure of scientific revolutions, Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
Lohmann, L. (2006) Carbon Trading: a critical conversation on climate change, privatization and power, Development Dialogue, 48, September 2006.
Lowe, I. (2006) A big fix: Radical solutions for Australia’s environmental crisis, Black Inc, Melbourne.
Parry, M, Canziani, O. and Palutikof , J. (eds) (2007) Climate Change 2007: Impacts, Adaptation and Vulnerability Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
McCarthy, R., Sharp, G., and Bennett, B. (1997) Nonviolent Action: A Research Guide, New York: Garland Publishers.
McDonald, K. (2006) Global movements: action and culture, Blackwell: Oxford.
Melucci, A. 1996, Challenging codes: collective action in the information age, Cambridge University Press, Cambridge.
Meyer, D. (2007) ‘Building social movements’, in Moser, S. and Dilling, L. (eds) Creating a climate for change: communicating climate change and facilitating social change, New York: Cambridge University Press.
Mies, M. and Shiva, V. (1993) The need for a new vision: the subsistence perspective, in Mies, M. and Shiva, V. (eds) Ecofeminism, Zed: London,
Mol, A. (2000) Ecological modernization around the world: an introduction, Environmental Politics, 9, 1, 3-14.
Neale, J. (2008) Stop global warming: change the world, Bookmarks, London.
Newell, P. (2008) Civil Society, Corporate Accountability and the Politics of Climate Change, Global Environmental Politics 8(3).
Norgaard, K. (2006) ‘”We Don’t Really Want To Know”: Environmental Justice and Socially Organized Denial of Global Warming in Norway, Organization & Environment, 19(3) p. 347-370.
O’Connor, J. (1998) Natural Causes: essays in ecological Marxism, Guilford Press, New York.
Osofsky, H. and Levit, J. (2008) The Scale of Networks?: Local Climate Change Coalitions, Chicago Journal of International Law, 8(2), p. 409-436.
Page, E. (2006) Climate change, justice and future generations, Northampton, MA: Edward Elgar.
Pearce, G. (2007) High and Dry: John Howard, Climate Change and the Selling of Australia’s Future, Australia: Viking.
Pickerill, J and Chatterton, P. (2006) ‘Notes towards autonomous geographies. Creation, resistance and self management as survival tactics’, Progress in Human Geography, 30(6) pp. 1-17
Plows, A. (2008) Towards an Analysis of the ‘Success’ of UK Green Protests, British Politics, 3(1) p. 92-109.
Power, M. (2009) Global Climate Policy and Climate Justice: A Feminist Social Provisioning Approach, Challenge, 52(1), p. 47.
Riedy, C.J. 2007, ‘Subsidies and climate change aid’, Conference of the Climate Action Network Australia, Canberra, June 2007.
Roberts, T. and Parks, B. (2006) A Climate of Injustice: Global Inequality, North-South Politics, and Climate Policy, Cambridge: MIT Press.
Roberts, T. and Toffolon-Weiss, M. (2001) Chronicles from the Environmental Justice Frontline, New York: Cambridge University Press.
Rocheleau, D. (et al) (1996) Feminist political ecology: global issues and local experiences, Routledge, New York.
Rootes, C. (2005) Globalisation, environmentalism and the global justice movement, Environmental Politics 14(5), 692-696.
Rootes, C. (2006) Facing south? British environmental movement organisations and the challenge of globalisation, Environmental Politics 15(5), 768-786.
Rosewarne, S. (2008) Global finance and carbon trading, in Rosewarne, S. (ed.) Eco-sufficiency, forthcoming, Sydney University Press: Sydney.
Sachs, W. (1993) Global ecology and the shadow of ‘development’, in Sachs, W. (ed.) Global ecology: a new arena of political conflict, Zed: London.
Sachs, W. and Santarius, T. (2007) Fair future: resource conflicts, security and global justice, a report of the Wuppertal Institute for Climate, Environment and Energy, LONdon: Zed Press.
Salleh, A. (1997) Ecofeminism as politics: nature, Marx and the postmodern, Zed: London.
Salleh, A. (2004) Global alternatives and ther meta-industrial class, in Albritton, R. et al (eds) New Socialisms: Futures beyond globalization, Routledge: New York.
Saunders, C. (2008) The Stop Climate Chaos Coalition: climate change as a development issue, Third World Quarterly, 29(8) p. 1509
Schlosberg, D. (2009) Defining Environmental Justice: Theories, Movements, and Nature, New York: Oxford University Press.
Schumacher, E. (1973) Small is beautiful: a study of economics as if people mattered, Vintage: London.
Seel, B. (1997) ‘Strategies of resistance at the Pollock Free State road protest camp, Environmental Politics, 6(4), 1-22.
Shiva, (2008) Soil not Oil: Environmental Justice in an Age of Climate Crisis, Cambridge: South End Press.
Sousa-Santos, B. (1995) Toward a new common sense: Law, Science and Politics in the Paradigmatic Transition, New York: Routledge.
Stern, N. (2007) The economics of climate change: the Stern review, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Suzuki, D. and Dressel, H. (2002) Good news for a change: hope for a troubled planet, Stoddart: Toronto.
Tarrow, S 1998, ‘ Power in movement: social movements and contentious politics’, Cambridge University Press, New York
Tilly, C. (1999) From interactions to outcomes in social movements, in Giugni, M. et al, How social movements matter, University of Minnesota Press: Minneapolis.
Touraine A. (1995) ‘The subject as a social movement’, in Critiques of modernity, Blackwell, Cambridge.
Van Der Heijden, H. (2006) ‘Globalization, Environmental Movements, and International Political Opportunity Structures’, Organization & Environment, Vol. 19, No. 1, pp. 28-45.
Van der Pijl, K. (1998) Transnational classes and international relations, Routledge, London.
Walker, C. (2007) The Human Rights Dimension of Climate Change: What are the implications for social policy? Just Policy: A journal of Australian Social Policy, Edition 46, December 2007.
Wiseman, J. (2007) Climate change and social justice: towards an Australian research and policy development agenda, Just Policy, 46, pp. 8-11.
Ziai, A. (ed.) (2007) Exploring post-development: theory and practice, problems and perspectives, Routledge: London.
