It’s official. It’s big. It’s very exciting. Reclaim the Power, the kick-ass action camp that was to be held at West Burton power station from 16-21 August (ie next week!) is moving to Balcombe, the sleepy Sussex village currently finding itself at the centre of an anti-fracking shit-storm.

Cuadrilla, a Midlands-based fracking company targeted last week by Reclaim the Power activists, are currently muscling in their lorries, laden with drilling equipment, against the will of 85 per cent of the local community in order to begin ‘exploratory drilling’ for shale oil. If they find it, or shale gas, they will almost certainly start fracking. Local people, and many many more nationwide, are rightly seriously concerned about fracking, which could bring water contamination, earth tremors, and industrialisation to the picturesque rural area.

The decision was made on Sunday after much (much!) discussion, in response to calls for support from the community in Balcombe opposing fracking. I was in Balcombe myself on Saturday; the atmosphere was positive and fun, but people are getting desperate. Drilling has already started after the police helped Cuadrilla force their equipment in, to the dismay of locals. Every person I asked whether they wanted us to move the camp there had said ‘YES!!’ before I’d even finished my sentence. It won’t be easy making such a huge change at such a late stage; we have many challenges to face in the next week, but I know that it’s possible. The people involved in organising the camp are nothing short of super-heroes.

Wider picture

A challenge will be to keep fracking framed in the wider picture and avoid getting mired in a single-issue debate. Fracking is currently the most visible part of the ‘dash for gas’, the plans of the government and the ‘big six’ energy firms to build of up to 40 new gas-fired power stations to power the country over the next 30 years. Many power stations are reaching the end of their life and decisions are being made now about how to keep the lights on over the coming decades.

This fossil fuel fantasy – if allowed to play out – will crash our legally binding climate targets, push even more people into fuel poverty and keep our energy system dangerously in the hands of a few unaccountable, sociopathic corporations hell-bent on profit at all costs.

These gas-fired power stations will be pumped full of freshly fracked gas from our devastated countryside, leaving a trail of broken communities behind. But not for a while. The fracking industry is still at an exploratory stage at the moment, though inching ever closer to production as each day passes, as Osborne dishes out 50 per cent tax breaks and gushes maladroit rhetoric about shale gas bringing lower bills and job creation. Even the frackers themselves admit the notion of shale gas lowering bills is ‘bullshit’. Their words. Honestly.

No, fracking isn’t ready just yet. In the years it would take the industry to move to production (which will inevitably be lengthened by fierce resistance by NIMBYs and NOMPS everywhere it attempts to spread) we’ll still be importing increasingly expensive gas from abroad – such as Egypt, the North Sea and elsewhere. And with business as usual the big energy companies will pass on the rising prices to customers, forcing more people to choose between heating or eating or resign themselves to go without either, while they rake in record profits.

Disenfranchisement and resistance

The situation in Balcombe demonstrates the bullying, undemocratic nature of the current fossil-fuel based energy system. With no social license whatever, the government and police are helping a corporation force themselves in against the a powerless community’s wishes. Though the Tories have recently granted local communities a say in whether wind farms – clean energy production with infinitely less associated destruction – can be constructed in their area, those who oppose damaging local fossil fuel extraction are left disenfranchised and disempowered.

There is a better way. A democratically controlled, clean energy system is possible right now. Recent research has shown that the obstacles to achieving this are political, not technical.

We can stop this. We can reclaim our power. Local communities and wider society can be empowered and victorious in the fight against fracking and the dash for gas. We only need to come together in solidarity for action; small actions, mass action, superbad kick-ass awesome action that will stop fracking in its tracks and derail the undemocratic, corporate-controlled fossil fuel addiction.

Moving Reclaim the Power to Balcombe will bring mass action to the hotbed of resistance and make the camp accessible to hundreds more than West Burton was (though EDF are far from off the hook). The UK is currently having a serious debate about fossil fuels and climate change, for the first time in years. We can shape the debate. We can boot Cuadrilla out of Balcombe, boot fracking out of the UK and give the dash for gas the boot altogether. Join us.

For up to date info about the camp and the move to Balcombe, visit www.reclaimthepower.org.uk

Graham: The conference aims to put the climate crisis at the centre of the debate about how to deal with the economic crisis. We need to find alternatives to the government’s austerity programme designed to deliver jobs and move us in the direction of a low carbon economy. We want to provide a forum for trade unionists, climate scientists, politicians and environmental activists. By working together in a broad alliance we can help to build a network with people looking for solutions that don’t trash the planet. I hope the conference will contribute to the efforts being made to make this a core organising issue for the trade union movement.
Kara: There have been a number of initiatives to bring trade unions and environmental activists together over the past few years. Why is this event happening now, and why is it important to bring climate scientists on board this time?
Graham: The UK coalition government is not delivering on its promise to be the ‘greenest government ever’. That will be no surprise to many people, but even their very limited ambitions are being sidelined. At the same time we have a worsening international picture with successive summits failing to deliver. To compound these problems we seem to have fewer people getting involved in challenging this crisis in national and international decision-making. The conference comes at a time when we need a clear assessment of these challenges and the measures needed to tackle them.
Scientists provide us with the research needed to back up our case for a million climate jobs. Scientists also need support against the ongoing attacks from the neoliberals who are pushing even harder to abandon the legal commitments that have been made. It’s important to work with the scientific community on ways to engage with the public to increase awareness. Plus some of them are union members so we have a responsibility to ensure their voice is heard.
Kara: In this ongoing collaboration between unions and environment activists, how have things moved on? What successes have been seen, and where does more work need to be done?
Graham: There is more recognition that environmental action is only one part of sustainable development. The focus is increasingly around issues of social justice and well-being. When we talk of sustainable development we need to address system change. The failure to reduce carbon emissions underlines the weakness of a market-led approach. Science is not neutral. We are talking about the potential for significant planetary change and how that information is interpreted socially and politically. Scientists, like climate campaigners, will have different views about the solutions needed. We must not let these differences prevent us from developing coalitions to mobilise public support. Initiatives like the Energy Bill Revolution campaign show the potential for this.
Kara: What role can trade unions play in the fight against climate change?
Graham: Unions need to recognise that this is central to the fight for jobs and conditions of employment. That is easier said than done. The understandable focus on dealing with the fallout from the recession has often reduced what limited capacity was in place. We need to redouble our efforts to appoint environment/sustainability reps in the workplace.
In UCU we have had some success. In the last two years we have increased the number of reps by over 50 per cent, though this still leaves us with only around a third of branches covered. Many younger members are attracted to this work. It provides an opportunity to be pro-active rather than just being on the defensive fighting job cuts and contract changes. Unions need to ensure that any growth in low carbon employment is based on quality as well as quantity.
Kara: You’re running a workshop on uniting trade unions with community campaigns. How can trade unions work effectively with community campaigns?
Graham: Outside of the workplace unions often have strong community links. These will be vital in building the coalitions of the future. In many areas trades councils have responded to the recent annual congress decision to make this a priority campaign. For example, Battersea and Wandsworth TUC has been instrumental in supporting a low carbon zone in the borough, illustrating the potential of putting community trade unionism into practice. It can open up joint work with organisations that may have had little previous contact. Local action has its limitations but it can often be a welcome relief from banging your head on the national policy wall.
Kara: The Greener Jobs Alliance you work for campaigns for investment in green jobs and skills. The argument for huge investment in green jobs to lift us out of economic and environmental disaster has been being made for a few years now. How seriously has the government taken it?
Graham: The GJA starting point is that without a sustainability skills strategy any future investment will be flawed. The priority is up-skilling, or making existing jobs greener. We are coming to the end of the UN Decade for Education for Sustainable Development and progress has been painfully slow and, in some cases, gone into reverse. In the school sector we have Gove threatening to remove climate change from the curriculum. In further and higher education many institutions are reducing their commitments or not resourcing those that have been made. The uncertainty over government policy measures has threatened some of the growth in the green sector that has occurred. The bottom line is that the government is tied to an employer-led approach that is not delivering.
Kara: How can the argument for investment in these jobs be communicated to a government hell-bent on cutting? How do you see this investment being funded, especially in these times of severe austerity?
Graham: It’s difficult to see how the present government will be won over by our arguments. The most we can expect is that there will be a recognition borne out by the facts that the present policies are not working. For example, the flagship Green Deal policy is clearly not delivering even though the case for a massive energy efficiency programme is obvious. The reliance on consumer-led demand is flawed. It requires a level of state (national and local) funding that does not fit their macro-economic model. Funding through progressive taxation measures to properly finance the Green Investment Bank would be a good start.
Kara: How do you see this movement growing in the future?
Graham: There is real potential in moving this up the trade union and political agenda. We need to link the climate crisis to corporate responsibility failures. There is a growing awareness that corporations need to be held to account. It has to be a combination of linking the international with the local. In the education sector we have an opportunity to do that in an alliance with students. In all sectors we need an alternative vision to the austerity model. The conference is one small step on the road to achieving that.

Graham Peterson is the University and College Union’s environment and Greener Jobs Alliance co-ordinator

Click here for more information on the conference

Around 30 of us descended on the unsuspecting sleepy village of Swanbourne, where Duncan Smith enjoys the luxury of a Grade II listed, 16th-century mansion he enjoys for free through virtue of marrying into a multimillionaire aristocratic family.

After parking up a fleet of accessible minibuses and cars at the pub just across the road – which, incidentally, is part of the estate, along with the post office, private school, many of the houses in the village and 1,300 acres of prime farmland – our not-exactly-inconspicuous band of activists brandishing banners and placards (many in wheelchairs), journalists, photographers and fluorescent-jacketed legal observers trundled over the road to pay IDS a little visit.

Luxury vs fairness

After the eviction notice was slapped onto to the rather beautiful huge wooden front door, the sun came out and we got the party started. We had a lovely picnic on his front drive, danced to reggae, frolicked on his lawn, enjoyed a walk around the extensive grounds complete with tennis court, swimming pool, lake, beautiful gardens and even a flock of sheep. Even the bemused local police who showed up couldn’t resist having a nosy around.

Looking at all this luxury that Iain Duncan Smith enjoys, and thinking of the suffering he is causing to thousands of the most vulnerable people in our society by slashing much-needed support and charging them ridiculous taxes for having so-called spare bedrooms (when he and his parliamentary friends have spare mansions) I can’t help but think that perhaps this is all a little unfair. Thankfully IDS has something to say about that. I am comforted to hear that the benefit changes are in fact about ‘fairness’. I’ve clearly got it all wrong.

‘It’s about fairness to those who pay vast sums of money in taxation to see that people living in subsidised accommodation who often don’t use the bedrooms they’ve got, while others live in overcrowded accommodation,’ he told ITV News recently. ‘They can’t get the accommodation they need. This is a nonsense problem that was created by the last government who didn’t build enough housing and didn’t manage the housing stock properly.’

You’re right, Iain. People do pay vast sums of taxation. Well, some do. Rich people and corporations can, of course choose, to opt out. The teeny £25 billion that is lost from our economy each year due to tax evasion might just go some way to help us out of this recession. Every penny counts, after all. I must admit, it was admirably generous that on the same day the bedroom tax was brought in the 50p tax rate was abolished, giving 13,000 millionaires a £100,000 tax break each. Will that include you then, with your £1m fortune?  That’s enough to pay for six and a half ‘ha-ha’ walls (I had a lovely walk along yours by the way).

You also make a fair point about many people on housing benefit not using their spare bedrooms. I’m sure many don’t. Oh, apart from the two thirds of the 600,000* households affected by the bedroom tax that include a disabled person. These ‘spare’ rooms are often used to store equipment like hoists and medical supplies that won’t fit anywhere else, or for carers to stay. Many disabled people are cared for by their partners who may need another bed to sleep in as their disability means they suffer from spasms or similar episodes during the night. But that’s not that important, and they can after all just move to another smaller property nearby quite easily. (Can’t they?) There is the slight problem though of the 100,000 living in properties adapted for their needs, at an average cost of £6,000. But I’m sure we can find a fair way to finance adaptations to their new homes. What was that tax evasion figure again?

A few suggestions

You quite rightly point out that people living in subsidised accommodation can’t get the accommodation they need. Are you referring to the lack of small homes in the social housing sector? Maybe you were thinking of Hull, where the bedroom tax will hit 4,700 families with a spare room, but where there are only 73 small properties free.

Most new-build one and two bedroom flats are under the control of private developers and landlords, so those not able to pay the bedroom tax will be forced into private sector – but with far higher rents for smaller properties in the private sector, won’t that cost the government more? I suppose the books will be balanced by the fact that less than 50 per cent of private landlords won’t accept tenants on housing benefit. But I wonder where all those 80,000 people who are estimated to be made homeless as they fall behind in payments will go? Hopefully they’ll just disappear and stop costing us money.

You’re also right to highlight the housing problem we have. There isn’t enough affordable housing, and it isn’t managed properly. There are currently two million people on housing waiting lists. Private developers sit on enough land for half a million homes, waiting for prices to rise. We agree on a lot, Iain.

I agree that we need to use housing more efficiently. I’m an environmentalist by tradition and under-occupied houses don’t make much sense from that perspective. But I must admit that I question whether adopting a national ‘one size fits all’ approach to tackle overcrowding is going to work; for this policy is also targeting parts of the country least affected by it – which could potentially cost the taxpayer more money if the people told to downsize actually did. Furthermore, capping housing benefit equally everywhere, regardless of widely differing rents, means driving the poor and the unlucky into no-hope ghettos without jobs or school places, as Polly Toynbee eloquently put it. But in the interests of fairness, which we all agree is a fine thing, maybe some of those billions of pounds of avoided and evaded tax could be used to help pay the bill?

Here’s an idea. How about building more energy efficient, affordable social housing that meets the needs of society, with its changing demographics – which may mean smaller properties for those that don’t need so many rooms. Wouldn’t that mean more jobs too? For every 100,000 new homes, GDP rises by 1 per cent – and that is the most important thing after all.

Anyway, I’m sure you don’t need suggestions from me. I’m no expert. I’ll let you into a little secret – I’m not the biggest fan of your friend George Osborne. You might even go as far as to say I’m a critic. And he says that we critics of his are ‘out of touch’ with ordinary people whose taxes pay for the benefits system. Well I’m an ordinary taxpayer who pays for the benefits system, so I’m probably so out of touch with myself that I don’t know my arse from my elbow. But for what it’s worth, I’d quite like those millionaires and corporations to cough up once in a while. You seem to have it all figured out anyway.

Different understanding

So I really must thank you, Iain. For a lovely day out in the countryside, for hosting our picnic, and for righting my clearly distorted, out of touch views on fairness. Your understanding of the word is clearly far superior to mine.

Just to make sure I had my muddled thinking cleared up sufficiently, I looked up the word in the dictionary: free from bias, dishonesty, or injustice; reasonable and morally right; if a situation is fair, everyone is treated equally and in a reasonable way. Hang on a minute. Free from bias and dishonesty? Weren’t you recently accused of misrepresenting government figures in an attempt to make your cap on benefits policy appear like it was successfully driving people to find work? Reasonable and morally right, equal treatment for all? Heavily penalising the most vulnerable members of society for a crisis they didn’t cause while the richest enjoy tax breaks, freedom from any mansion tax and openly tolerated tax avoidance and evasion doesn’t sound reasonable, moral or equal to me.

It seems we have a very different understanding of the word after all. But hey, that’s OK. Because at the end of the day we’re all in it together. Apart from when we’re not.

* This is a government estimate, however Lord Bassam’s survey of south-eastern councils suggests the national figure will be more than 900,000 households.

Kara Moses tweets at @Kara_L_Moses. www.karamoses.com