The debate was well attended and very well organised.
Dave Douglass(former num & iww ) spoke first about the environment and 'clean' coal place within the environment,As expected Dave spoke clearly and passionately for coal , though at one point he came close to stating that climate change was not being accelerated by human activity!
Next to speak was Arthur Scargill. Mr Scargill gave a robust defence of coal and spoke strongly against other forms of environmental degradation especially nuclear power.His speech was well balanced and factual.It was a pleasure to hear Mr Scargill talk,but he was not the charismatic speaker of the 1980's it felt a bit like an after dinner circuit speaker, not the iconic figure we are used too.(mr Scargill chose to go over his allotted time and not to remain for the debate)
Dr Paul Chatterton from Leeds uni followed mr Scargill,(it should be noted that paul and all the speakers from the green movement stated that they were NOT spokesperson from the climate camp) Dr Chatterton gave his reasons for not using coal as a power source, giving clear and factual evidence on climate change and the social conditions in other countries without health and safety laws or unions to help protect the workers.
The president of the N.U.M Ian lavery followed Paul chatterton. Mr lavery delivered a loud and uncompromising speech in defence of coal mining and the combustion of coal,his presentation was laddish,bhol-shy and at points mildly sexist.The accuracy of his facts were also questioned from the floor(from a parsons engineer that helped build Drax)
The chair of the meeting then opened the floor up for debate,at this point it became clear that there was a diverse mix of people attending the debate. Questions came forward from environmental activists,union officials,anarchists and socialists.After a bit healthy debate there was a break for lunch.
After lunch there was a change to the chairperson of the meeting.
Davie Guy a long respected union official spoke gently about C.C.S technology,he was very clear and factual in his presentation.He also spoke with sadness about the current state of the unions within the U:K. One of many points of agreement was opposition to open cast mining and to dirtier coal burning technologies.
Paul Morrozo followed Mr Guy, Paul spoke in particular about the Proposed new power station at Kingsnorth and it's effect on climate change. During Pauls presentation the 'chair' of the meeting continually cut in and added comments.Mr Morrozo Patience was remarkable.The chair then cut paul 10 mins short stating that we were short on time, The chair then used this opportunity to give his opinion on the supposedly naive arguments of the green movement.The 'chair' David Hopper an N.U.M official was challenged by one of the other invited speakers and asked to chair the meeting properly,many people from the floor also asked Mr Hopper not to abuse his position,one of the people from the floor that challenged Mr Hooper was female Mr Hoopers reply was clearly sexist this lead to a furious response, in particular from the anarchists.Mr Hopper chose to resign the position of chair without apology.
After order had been resumed it was the turn of the R.M.T unfortunately Bob Crowe couldn't make it so a regional official of thr R.M.T spoke about the prospects of moving coal by train(apologies for not knowing the speakers name)
The final speaker Kevin Bland spoke on local issues in particular opencast mining and the urgent need to defend our natural environment, Kevin spoke in depth about ecology being a class issue and gave a strong anti-capitalist analysis of environmental degradation.
The chair then opened the debate to the floor,again there was healthy constructive debate.
Overall it was a good event that brought out many positives,there is common ground between grass roots environmentalists and the energy workers.Hopefully the two groups can continue to engage and work together.
The anarchist film collective filmed the days events they hope to make a short film around the debate.
Thanks to the NUM for organising this event and in particular Dave Douglass for his efforts.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
8 comments:
"I did 20 years down the pits. The government say they need nuclear weapons because other countries have them. The NUM say we should burn coal because China is. Is there any morality to your argument?"
That was my favourite contribution from the floor.
Another brilliant comment from the floor argued that it isn't about which forms of energy are used but about the environmental impact and about working class power. The NUM's support for coal is "sectionalist"; it puts the interests of workers in the organised industry against broader class interests. He made the case for an energy workers union to combine workers in the Fossil, Nuclear and Renewable industries and mentioned the Workers' Climate Action National Gathering in London on 15/16 November 2008.
The issue of organisation was raised many times from the floor. The conference was run using the traditional method of Chair, Speakers, Floor; with the Chair allowed to voice their own opinions at length and even to heckle the speakers. This was contrasted with egalitarian methods where the facilitator allows participants equal rights to speak and is not allowed to express their own opinions while facilitating. The position of Chair, like any leadership role, puts the individual in authority, in a position where they can be held responsible for acts of resistance by "their members". Workers are empowered when we get the bureaucrats off our backs.
This is the presentation given by a climate/environmental activist to the Conference
http://www.indymedia.org.uk/en/2008/11/412297.html
You know people either dont listen or dont want to.
I explained (as conference organiser) at the very start of the meeting, that one of the green speakers, Rachael who was due to give a 25 min talk in the first half couldnt make it. That I was bringing Ian's contribution forward to the first half from the second, and that this would unbalance the mornings debate BUT
we would use the saved time for contributions from the floor at the end of the dinner time session and it was floor debate, not platform speakers which was the most important part of the conference. This was agreed.
Yes Arthur did overshoot his speaking time, and should have been given a dig in the ribs by the chair. Arthur left because the man is over 70 years old, and had just had a major operation. No doubt you comrade when you get to his age will not let time and pain get in the way of staying as youthful and dynamic as you were 25 years earlier.
During the break the incoming chair, Davie Hopper, a highly respected and experienced union activist and socialist, suggested that 25 mins for platform speakers was too long. That the priority was debate, and thats what we had to keep in mind. Contributions would then be shortend to ten mins only. This was announced at the start of the meeting, and all agreed (those who were listening anyway, we had quite a few chunterers, who moaned and grumbled through all the Union speakers ). The first green speaker then went over the ten minutes and did 18. Dave simply reminded him that we were keeping to ten minutes, at which point people from the floor started to shouting that it was unfair. That the NUM speakers had had longer. Now either they just didnt get what had been said at the begining, that we were trying to ensure time at the end for full and unrestricted debate from the floor, or they were not listening to conference arrangements. Dave did indeed chuck in a commentary in responce to the speakers comments which technically strictly according to chair rules he shouldnt have done. Dave confessed to thinking this was more of a relaxed type of conference and since he wasnt speaking as such, and had had a lifetime in the coal industry a few remarks wouldnt have been out of place. Unfortunatly this led to more heckling and Dave lost his temper and engaged in a slanging match which was sad and unsightly, although he made no such sexist comments that I heard. He resigned the chair. The next green speaker then spoke for 22 mins despite the ten minutes we had agreed.
One of the main pro coal speakers
Bob Crow was absent and this took
the pro and anti coal platform speakers to even thoughout the day.
The floor debate lasted for almost 90 mins, everyone who wanted to speak did so, nobody was disallowed, some spoke three or four times. The pro green sector outnumbered pro coal speakers by five to one in the floor debate.
All in all it was a balanced and democratic debate, although one cant always predict comrades going over their allocated time, or people loosing their temper or lots of people not listening to what has been agreed and then objecting when its done, or people complaining and interjecting throughout the course of someone elses contribution. All of these things happen, but as long as they arnt planned and can be corrected we still have a healthy meeting. Keeping that many people (115 by my count) from that many entrenched and deeply held views together in a room for six hours and still leave friends ,more or less isnt a bad achievement.
By the way, I didnt nearly say anything, I never nearly say anything. I always say something or dont say something. In this case I said 500 Million years of climate change, and lots of current climate change and loads of future, and critical climate change wasnt and isnt caused by human beings. But we are contributing to current climate change and we must address our contribution to it. It was this and in particular coals contribution world wide, we were aiming at with CCT. This is the context we discuss China's and India's coal burning. Nothing as childishly simple as your favourite comment opposite.
David Douglass
The conference was worthwhile and vital and must be ongoing.
It doesn't matter how the event was organised or who organised it the fact that two groups that were complety opposed have come together & said their point of veiw & still been able to sit and have a pint at the end of it all is a good starting point for a very important debate.
Both groups must continue to engage as this is to important for personallity politics or arguemenitive internet bollocks.
The future of the planet and the millions that live and work on it is at stake.
I hope the debate can continue in the way that it has started,if folk want to spend all day argueing on the web,why not try indymedia?
Arthur Scargill's contribution is availiable on:
http://www.socialist-labour-party.org.uk/the%20case%20for%20deep%20minining1.htm
Arthur Scargill is wrong to say that "ENVIRONMENTALISTS AND ECO-WARRIORS... HAVE BEEN CONSPICUOUS BY THEIR ABSENCE IN THE CAMPAIGN TO STOP OPEN-CAST COALMINING WHICH PRODUCES 54% OF THE UK’S INDIGENOUS COAL AND ACCOUNTS FOR NOT ONLY CO2 EMISSIONS AT SOURCE BUT FOR MASSIVE AMOUNTS OF METHANE, A GAS 23 TIMES MORE POTENT AND DAMAGING TO GLOBAL WARMING THAN CO2."
We are active in opposing open cast and welcome the NUM's physical and political solidarity in these campaigns.
I agree with his proposals; "WE MUST END THE IMPORT OF COAL, CURRENTLY 43 MILLION TONNES, WHICH IS PRODUCED BY SUBSIDIES, “SLAVE LABOUR” AND CHILD LABOUR, AND END THE IMPORT OF SHALE OIL, TAR SAND AND OTHER SO-CALLED “UNCONVENTIONAL OILS” WHICH ARE THE DIRTIEST FUELS ON THE PLANET YET ARE BEING USED AT POWER STATIONS SUCH AS DRAX TO PRODUCE ELECTRICITY... WE NEED AN END TO ALL NUCLEAR POWER ELECTRICITY GENERATION, THE MOST DANGEROUS AND UNECONOMIC METHOD OF PRODUCING ELECTRICITY."
Lets put it to action!
This conference report is a very useful read for working class environmentalists and our critics:
http://libcom.org/library/climatic-disorder-class-coal-climate-change-john-cunningham
Dave argued during the conference that only labour produces value. He rejected the argument that there is value inherent in nature: which has been made by Judi Barri.
Post a Comment