i appreciate the thoughts in the essay. The first bit of it is a kind of 'deconstruction 101', or more accurately, social constructionism mixed with a bit of conspiracy logic Cui Bono? climate change is a social construction, at least the version of it created, as you say, by scientists with careers based in institutions. Earlier models of 'climate change' reflected the expectations of policy-makers, they wanted a smooth curve of climate change, predictability, and that is what the models served up. Since then, uncertainty and complexity have invaded the world of science and academia, and the models have reflected this, and the 'model' of climate change have shifted from a smooth curve to one where the global averages behave predictably, but localised weather becomes totally unpredictable and violently different. It is true that lots of different social actors use the 'idea' (you say 'myth') of climate change,but i think it is unfair to lump climate activists along with the obviously self-serving businesses, on the basis of having been an activist like those you describe, and environmentally destructive development and consumption has always been the background motivation, along with social justice, for all the varied protest movements that you mention.

I don't understand the criticism of climate camp, after criticising the apocalyptic scenario, you then criticise the hope or optimism in their propaganda. Which is it to be? You also make extremely vague comments about 'reality' and empowering yourself through doing what you can. And talk about burning and smashing stuff. I'm pretty sure that those are also the views (and possible past actions!) of a lot of people behind climate camp. The time now has come when climate change has been accepted as a 'framing device', a ;'meta-narrative' in government and economic circles, as a metaphor if nothing else for the myriad destructive aspects of capitalism, neo-liberalism and globalisation of the economy. Climate camp is part of the process of using that narrative to build self-empowerment and to argue that people should try to take their anger, hope, common-sense, whatever, and apply it back home in 'reality' as well.

Don't Fight The Band that Heeds You!! ;-)

Funnily enough there's an article in the climate camp handbook (that every participant will receive) that echoes the more pertinent points of this blogpost. IE that capital expands via crisis and that sections of capital want to use climate change as just such a crisis in order to re-structure. Putting more and more areas under the control of the market and expanding authoritarian control (Car monitoring through road pricing cameras, etc). That means we can't just shout crisis anymore or we might end up working for them.

However that's is precisely the reason we should engage with the climate camp. The proposed solutions to climate change could well be the central axis around which attacks on us are organised and existing hierarchies and inequalities extended. Yet at the same time there is an obvious anti-capitalist strain to acting against climate change because capital's need to expand is the cause of it.

Then again UK ideologies have never been very good at critical engagement better to play the all knowing eye and look down on those without your occult insight. This one adds a contrarian twist along the lines that 'the more we embrace hopelessness the more hope we have'. Fucking Goths.

Looks to me like someone has too much time on their hands and is trying to justify it by oblique criticism of those actually doing something. Slightly better written than the usual nay-sayers that haunt posts on indymedia, criticising without offering anything in return, but in the analysis, the author of this piece offers sweet fuck all as well. It is really, as they admit themselves, criticism at a distance. Just because they cannot see through their own personal despair doesnt mean they should be inflicting it on others.

This essay does not acknowledge or address the problem we have that by our activities we are changing the climate of the planet we live on. It reinforces my suspicion that social revolutionary types who say this kind of thing are basically ignorant of climate change, because they don't read science, they read sociology. The relationship between CO2 emissions and global average temperature exists independently of your point of view. I suggest the author reads 'The Hot Topic' by Sir David King for a concise & unsensational explanation.