OK, Now I'm Cross

Right. That’s it. So many people have now asked me about that wretched “Great Global Warming Swindle” documentary that was on Channel 4 the other week that I’ve decided to write this response, to hopefully clear it all up once and for all.

I should say first that if you’ve never heard of the programme, didn’t see it, or aren’t bothered about it in the least – hooray! The fewer people that were exposed to this bunkum, the better. Feel free to stop reading this rant and go back to your happy, Durkin-free life (Martin Durkin is the name of the director of this - I hesitate to use the word - “documentary”). If, however, you did see it, and it annoyed, confused or disturbed you, or people you know keep asking you awkward questions about it, or even if it confirmed your own beliefs about climate change being a huge conspiracy by evil power-crazed lefty greenies, then hopefully this article may be of help to you.

The problem with this sort of TV programme is that if you’re not familiar with the details of the science behind climate change, a lot of the claims it makes can sound quite convincing, especially when they’re gravely pronounced by a bunch of people with scientific-sounding titles and accompanied by lots of dramatic music and images. Well, as someone who has spent a lot of time studying climate change science and policy I can cheerfully state that the entire programme is a mish-mash of discredited theories, faulty data, fringe opinions presented as facts, some reputable science being horribly misrepresented, and some moderately bonkers conspiracy theories. For those who are particularly interested, I’ve written a summary (below) of what’s wrong with each of the programme’s main claims, along with some links to places with more detailed dissections of these issues. I hope it’s helpful.

One of the most annoying things about this programme was that there was nothing new in it. Far from being an exciting new expose of the flaws in climate science, it was a hurled-together collection of theories which have already been studied in-depth by climate scientists – in peer-reviewed journals - and found to have insufficient evidence to support them. Far from being ignored or “suppressed”, these theories have been seriously examined and found not to stack up. On the other hand, they are great at boosting the TV ratings. Whoopee.

Of course we can’t be 100% sure about human-induced climate change. We can’t be 100% sure about anything. Of course science isn’t something pure and objective – politics affects science and science affects politics. But the only way that anyone’s made any progress (in science/knowledge/whatever you want to call it) is by testing out different theories and going with the one that fits most of the evidence. After over a century of study, the evidence for human-induced climate change is overwhelming, and the consequences if we do not act fast could be catastrophic for most of the population of the planet. If someone collected together a handful of rogue scientists who claimed that tobacco doesn’t cause cancer, or that unsafe sex doesn’t increase the risk of getting AIDS (these people do exist) and made a stirring documentary about their struggle to bring the truth to the world, it would be staggeringly irresponsible – but not as irresponsible as “The Great Global Warming Swindle”.

Phew. Rant over. I feel a lot better now. See below if you’re interested in more details about the science and the conspiracy theories.

Meanwhile, in the interests of balance, I thought I’d better include the film-maker’s response to all of these criticisms. When Dr Armand Leroi from Imperial College London wrote to Martin Durkin to complain about the distorted science presented in the programme, Durkin replied with the following, one-line response:

“You're a big daft cock.”

Thanks Martin, that makes things much clearer.

Detailed Responses To The Main Claims Made By The Programme

Claim 1: “Global warming is caused by increased cloud cover due to sun-induced cosmic radiation, not by CO₂ at all. So nerrh.”

The relationship between the activity of the sun and the warming of the globe is clearly crucial, and has been the subject of an enormous amount of research. It is given special attention in the latest report by the IPCC (which is of course an enormous international committee of the world’s most respected climate scientists), which concludes that yes, changes in sun activity has had a small effect on global temperature rises, but that the great majority of the impact was from human-produced greenhouse gases.

The specific claim made in the programme – that cosmic rays from sun activity is producing extra clouds that are warming the planet – relies on a single scientific paper by Henrik Svensmark, published in the Proceedings of the Royal Society earlier this year. This paper presents an apparent correlation between cosmic radiation and low-level cloud cover, which is an interesting suggestion and probably worthy of further study but absolutely does not somehow “prove” that sun activity is BEHIND ALL GLOBAL WARMING EVER, as suggested by the TV programme. Even if there turns out to be a decent amount of evidence for this theory (which would go against Svensmark’s track record of putting forward theories about the climate that quickly get disproved, as detailed by George Monbiot in his recent Guardian article), there would also have to be evidence that changes in low-level cloud cover are actually responsible for all of the current and historical global warming, and that solar activity was the main driver of these changes. Svensmark’s paper does not present any such evidence - although you wouldn’t guess that from the TV programme. It’s a bit like saying “I’ve just seen a small boy pull a leaf off that tree. Small boys can clearly have an impact on the number of leaves on trees. This means that all the leaves must fall off the trees in autumn because millions of small boys are pulling them off, probably on their way back to school after the holidays.” You’d need to collect a lot more evidence – and find good reasons to discount all of the evidence for the prevailing theory about why the leaves come off the trees – before making that sort of claim.

Most of the “alternative” theories of global warming fall into this category of one-or-two-papers-by-fringe-scientists-looking-for-attention-that-usually -get-disproved-or-become-redundant-soon-afterwards. The article by Monbiot (aka The Omnibot) gives more examples of this, in relation to other claims made in the programme about solar activity and discrepancies in the temperature data (which all relies on research that’s already been shown to be wrong). One of the few scientists whose work hasn’t been discredited - who appeared on the programme talking about the possible impacts of global warming on the ocean – was Professor Carl Wunsch, who has since written a very angry complaint to Channel 4 about how badly he and his work were misrepresented through very selective quotation by the film-makers…

More Links About Claim 1:

More information on solar activity and climate change (with further links)

George Monbiot sinking his teeth into some bad science and growling like the little terrier he is

A detailed scientific dissection of Svensmark’s cosmic rays/cloud cover paper by a proper hardcore scientist (warning: climate science geeks and masochists only):

If you want to know the journal references for some academic articles that go into more detail on some of these issues, I can send them (dannychivers (at) wildmail (dot) com), but seriously: you probably don’t want them.

“Claim 2: “But look! Look at these graphs! First off, global temperature FELL between 1940 and 1970! Second off, when the climate changed in prehistoric times, the warming came first, then the CO₂ rose afterwards! Get out of that one Mr Bond – mwoahahahaaaa...”

First off, global warming DID plateau for a bit between the 40s and the 70s, due to the now widely-recognised phenomenon of “global dimming” – a type of industrial pollutant called sulphate aerosols were partially blocking the sun’s rays. This lasted for a while until the ongoing build-up of greenhouse gases – combined, ironically enough, with a reduction in sulphate aerosol pollution – eventually swamped the dimming effect and temperatures began to show an overall increase once more. Global temperatures, on average, DIDN’T fall during this period, although the way the graph was displayed on the programme made it look like they did. See here for some more accurate temperature graphs for this period (go on, you know you want to).

As for the second point – well, this is another one of those claims where, if you’re not familiar with the science, it can sound pretty damning. Even though it would mean that somehow, every climate expert in the world had missed this really obvious fact up until now, resulting in the slapping of thousands of foreheads and an enormous chorus of “d’oh!” as scientists around the world realised their foolish error on watching Channel 4’s ground-breaking Durkumentary – despite this rather unlikely scenario, the whole warming-before-CO₂-on-the-graph thing is pretty hard to explain, right? Right?

Well, no, actually, it’s not hard to explain at all - it’s already been explained, plenty of times, and is now a standard part of the general consensus on how global warming works. For example, there’s a nice explanation of it – from 2004 – right here.

Durkin and his merry gang of contrarians have shamelessly picked out just a few specific examples of when the Earth has warmed up in the past – the warmings at the end of ice ages – and ignored all of the rest of the historical temperature data. They’ve then somehow forgotten to mention that these specific examples of warming were probably triggered by events such as increased solar activity, changes in ocean circulation or long-term variations in the Earth’s orbit. This initial short-term warming led to the gradual release of vast amounts of CO₂ from soils and oceans, which, in an excellent example of a positive feedback loop, created a greenhouse effect which led to more warming and thus the release of more CO₂ and so on until the whole climate had changed completely; it then took thousands of years of plant and algae growth to absorb the CO₂ and thus get the temperature down again. So in these examples, which each consisted of about 5000 years of warming, other factors accounted for about the first 800 years of warming; the following 4200 years were then due mainly to CO₂ levels.

There hasn’t been enough solar activity or oceanic circulation change over the last 100 years to account for all of the warming we’re seeing, and the Earth isn’t at one of the hot bits of its cycle, so those things can’t explain the current bout of climate change. However, we have put an enormous amount of CO₂ into the atmosphere in that time period. Even without all of the graphs showing a correlation between CO₂ and recent temperature rises, it’s not hard to follow this one to its logical conclusion. Unless you’re distracted by your own shrieks of glee at getting a programme commissioned by Channel 4 even though the other environmental documentary you did for them was so flawed and misleading that Channel 4 had to make an on-air public apology…

Further explanation and links to scientific articles about global cooling and the 800-year lag, as well as other misleading points from the programme can be found here.

Claim 3: “But of course climate scientists exaggerate the risks of global warming – it’s a great way for them to get more funding!”

Let me just say: Errr….what? If funding was all that climate scientists were after, then you’d expect them to be flocking to where the REAL money is: climate change denial. Some of the wealthiest institutions in the world – large corporations such as Exxon who rely on burning fossil fuels to maintain their ridiculous profits – are desperately flinging money at anyone with a couple of science A-Levels who’s prepared to stand up and say climate change isn’t happening, or isn’t caused by humans. In fact, considering the enormous rewards available from the hideously wealthy global fossil fuel industry and all of its offshoots, it’s extraordinary that there aren’t more climate change denying scientists out there – people like John Christy, Paul Reiter, Richard Lindzen, Paul Driessen, Roy Spencer, Patrick Michaels, Fred Singer and Tim Ball, who are all linked to American right-wing institutes and think-tanks funded by Exxon. Wait, hang on – those eight scientists were all featured on The Great Global Warming Swindle. That means that the majority of the scientists on the programme have links with Exxon. Goodness me, who ever would have thought it?

You know, I’m actually rather impressed with how many scientists have maintained their integrity on this one, turned their back on the wealth and gone with the scientific evidence instead – that climate change is happening, and that greenhouse gases from fossil fuels and deforestation are behind it.

Claim 4: “The whole climate change thing only ever took off coz Thatcher wanted to screw over the miners and build nuclear power stations and so funded lots of research into why coal is, like, bad.”

What? Are you suggesting that a politician cynically promoted a particular issue not because they cared about it but because it suited their purposes at the time? Surely not! What a shocking revelation, etc, etc.

This story tells us something about the cynicism of politicians. It tells us nothing about the science of climate change. It also ignores the incredible, tireless efforts of thousands of scientists and millions of grassroots campaigners who have fought tooth and nail for twenty years to get the issue of climate change back on the agenda after Maggie’s brief dalliance with it. It’s a crude and oversimplistic interpretation of history, created to suit a particular political position and, d’you know what, it makes me a bit cross.

Claim 5: “It’s all a conspiracy by bitter Marxists and attention-seeking greenies with an anti-development agenda, and propped up by a huge climate change industry full of people who owe their jobs to climate change being real…”

Oh good grief. Where to begin? How to argue with people whose world-view is so twisted and bizarre?

I guess it all comes down to which of the following two scenarios seems more feasible to you:

1) The lifestyles we enjoy in the wealthy world are built on fossil fuels. The suggestion that we need enormous changes to our societies, economies and the way we live our lives – even if many of these changes might actually be positive in the long run – is actually quite a scary concept and so we shouldn’t be surprised if many people don’t want to believe it, and if many politicians shy away from taking the tough actions needed to avert climate disaster. Meanwhile, the fortunes of the world’s wealthiest – and most powerful - corporations, countries, and individuals have been built on the idea that we can just go on consuming the Earth’s resources as if they were infinite, and exploiting the poor and the powerless as if their lives were of little value. Climate change is the biggest challenge yet to these ideas and so, whether through self-preservation, self-delusion, or just the cold logic of the unrestrained capitalist market, there is huge opposition to action on climate change from the world’s most powerful institutions. Against this background, a rapidly growing number of people in both the poor and the rich world have realised how drastic the change in our societies need to be, and are trying to sound some very unwelcome alarm bells. In the UK, their voices are finally beginning to be heard; “TGGWS” is part of a backlash against these voices, and stems from a convenient coming-together of sensationalist attention-seeking film-makers, a ratings-chasing TV channel and a light smattering of misguided and/or corporate-sponsored scientists.

2) The Green Lobby are a terrifying new force within our society who want you to live in a log hut and eat mud. They’re all just trying to get rich, which is why they spend so much time on voluntary campaigning and why so many of them avoid well-paid corporate jobs to work for small organisations instead. They also hate poor people. What do you mean, some of the world’s leading environmentalists are from the Global South, that the poor are usually the first to suffer from environmental disaster, that poverty and environmental destruction usually have the same roots within the global economic system and that this sophisticated and complex relationship has been well appreciated by the great majority of environmental activists for a very long time? I can’t be arsed with all this, I’m off for a drive. Is there anything good on Channel 4 tonight?

Yet More Links:

An excellent guide to dealing with “climate sceptics”.

Paul Kingsnorth’s rather vicious but amusing imaginary reconstructions of how the programme got made and what happened afterwards.

Marcus Brigstocke getting delightfully cross about it all on the Friday 16^th edition of The Now Show (about 18 minutes in).

Global Yawning

Hey all,

Are you, like me, unbelievably bored with having to counter all the same dull arguments from the anti-human-induced-climate-change brigade every time there's another over-sensationalised Channel 4 documentary featuring the remaining handful of contrarians who make their living spouting this nonsense? Just in case you are, this is my favourite website for dealing with it:

http://gristmill.grist.org/skeptics

Every misinformed argument about solar flares, water vapour, advancing ice, and historical warming cycles is countered in a clear, friendly way, then chopped up into little bits and thrown into a volcano (it explains about volcanic CO2 emissions as well). It's a little US-focused, but has good references and further reading for everything. It's pretty user-friendly, so sometimes I just send people straight there rather than spend ages trying to explain things myself.

Then, if you need to cheer yourself up after all of that, you can always have a look at this climate change solution from local Oxfordshire genius Noel Hodson:

http://www.noelhodson.com/index_files/cremation-savetheplanetFEB07.xls

The best thing is, he seems to be serious. The only flaw I can see in his otherwise perfect plan is: what happens if there’s a mass outbreak of zombies that can only be destroyed by fire? That would release all of that carbon that would otherwise be locked up safely in those corpses FOREVER. Hence my new campaign: "Invest In Zombie-Freezing Technology NOW".

In other news: I'm now in a band. It's quite exciting. Plus, the desperate attempts to write more poetry are getting increasingly fevered as the date of the Hammer and Tongue poetry slam final approaches...

Dx

PS There's a giraffe sanctuary in Nairobi. You can feed the giraffes. I probably don't need to explain just how great that is.

THANK YOU

Hey - apparently 183 people have read this blog since I set off for Nairobi. Or, at least, it's been accessed from 183 different computers over that time (not counting my own logins), which I have chosen to interpret as equating directly to that many readers, and which totally smashes my completely abitrary and meaningless target of 100 WSF blog readers. Hurrah!

So many thanks to you all. I got back to the UK this morning, after an overnight flight of joy, and still haven't slept so am in a slightly odd daze. Sometime in the next few days I'll post my summary and analysis of the WSF process and what the major social movements seem to be up to, coz I know you're all clamouring for it.

I probably wont be able to resist putting up some safari pictures as well. I saw lions, and baby cheetahs, and fed a giraffe (not to the lions and cheetahs). These things made me happy. This is a picture of an elephant that I saw:



Just in case you weren't sure what one looked like.

Best wishes to all,

D x

Stories From The World Social Forum

OK. It’s Thursday afternoon, and we’ve found an internet café (Cyber Surf!) with a fast connection. This means two things:

1) I can go back and intersperse all my previous blog postings with pictures, as I’d originally planned, hopefully making them a bit more interesting and fun to read;
2) There’s time to tell a few stories that I didn’t have time for earlier. Read on...if you dare! Or if you can be bothered.

Me, with People and Planet branding. It was a great organisation to be representing coz it gave me a reason to go to all the sessions with enthusiastic student activists, and also some of the Big Scary Issues (oil and gas extraxtion, HIV/AIDS, climate change) that P&P is working on.

Stupid White Man

Within the grounds of the WSF, I was just one more random nationality amongst hundreds. Out and about in Nairobi, however, I was very much Oh Look A White Guy, especially as most of the white residents rarely seem to walk anywhere. It made me realise just how unused I am to being a minority. It’s one thing to be stared at on the street if, say, you happen to be dressed as a wizard or an ostrich or something, but rather different to feel that you’re standing out just by being your normal self (assuming that you’re not actually a wizard or an ostrich, obviously). Of course, rather than being abused for being different, I instead get offered the finest, finest local deals by every hawker and taxi driver in the city, so I’m not complaining really.


Of course, this pales in comparison to the way all my natural awkwardness came to the fore the first few times I started chatting to people from less comfortable backgrounds than mine – which, here, is practically everyone. General conversation was fine, but as soon as things strayed into politics – which, again, is pretty much inevitable here – and it became clear just how soft and cosy my life was compared to theirs, and just how complicit my home country and my lifestyle was in so many of the things these people were struggling against, I started feeling guilty and stupid and stumbling over my words. Then, of course, I felt even worse because THAT meant I’d started seeing the person I’m talking to as an “activist” or, worse, a “victim” rather than a human being, at which point I generally collapsed into a bubbling heap of hopeless English embarrassment in front of their bemused faces.

Which of course is ridiculous. Here at the WSF, we are all working together to find ways to battle these problems as best we can, no matter where we’re from or why we’re involved. Luckily, I rapidly overcame this and was soon able to have entire conversations with people without going “Gosh, everything’s so CHEAP here, isn’t it! Oh, I mean, of course it is, compared to the UK, because oh yes, we were the ones who totally screwed over your economy and landed you with a load of dictators and corrupt leaders in the first place, and I probably sounded like I was gloating or something didn’t I, argh sorry oh hang on I think my friend’s calling me” and then running off to hide in a portaloo.

(The portaloos were amazing, by the way. They had people cleaning them constantly, and attendants to manage the queues, making them easily the nicest, freshest temporary toilets I’ve ever used. The WSF totally whups Glastonbury on this crucial point.)

This picture represents the exact, incredible amount of style and grace that I didn't display on many occasions during the World Social Forum

Anyway, the point is that even English awkwardness can be overcome if we all celebrate our common humanity by bonding over jokes about the boring speakers and giggling and eating overpriced food together. Or, perhaps, by not eating it…

Windsor Change

I didn’t see this, but I wish I had.

It seems that one of the two highly priced food stalls inside the stadium perimeter – provided by The Windsor Hotel – was owned by the Kenyan Minister for Internal Security. This delightful fellow’s checquered past apparently includes various brutal incidents against Kenyan campaigners in different posts under previous administrations, and today he oversees a police force best known for their “shoot first, then shoot a bit more immediately afterwards” policy (thirteen “suspects” were gunned down in a local shopping centre just a few days previously).

With the same calm but determined self-organisation that got the gates open to all, a group of activists led by the People’s Parliament stormed the stall, routed the staff, and, in their own words, “nationalised the Windsor Hotel”. Apparently the street children had a good lunch that day.

Note to future WSF organisers: putting dodgy, wealthy companies in charge of the catering instead of small local operators is up there with corporate sponsorship and lack of signposting in the Brilliant Ideas Not To Do Again category.

Brazil Nut

On Tuesday, I went to a workshop called “Participatory Democracy in Brazil”, looking forward to a lively debate and critique of this form of decision-making, and presumably of the gap between theory and reality when it came to Brazil. Imagine my surprise (go on, just imagine) when it turned out that this session on Brazilian government policy was being run by…the Brazilian government (plus a few of their supporters). So rather than a discussion of the pros and cons of participatory democracy, where it had succeeded and where it had failed, we got two hours of “Brazilian democracy is great, kids!” with a little bit of “Viva Lula!”. Even watching the incredible skills of the Portuguese-to-English translator in action couldn’t quell my nagging feeling that all was Not Quite Right.

I wish I knew more about Brazil. I sort of knew that the supposedly left-wing government had sold out in some way and done some dodgy stuff, but I couldn’t remember what or why. Nonetheless, I was determined to challenge them somehow, so decided to ask them how locally-based participatory democracy could possibly tackle global issues (actually, this is something that really interests me anyway). So I raised my hand, got boldly to my feet, strode towards the front, fell over my sandal, and landed face first in front of the Brazilian Minister for Human Rights.

Left to right: Official translator, important Brazilian community leader from the City of God, Brazilian Minister for Human Rights. Not shown: me, flat on my face in front of the table.

Perhaps it’s just as well that I didn’t ask them anything too difficult and hard-hitting. My case may have been slightly undermined.

OK, that’s enough for now, but I still need to tell you about the whole Climate Change debacle, my battle with my personal demons that somehow led to my doing a speech in front of the whole Social Assembly, and, of course, How We Met Reverend Billy. I also need to give you my general overview and analysis of the whole WSF process, what I learned, and what was achieved (bet you can’t wait for that). So more to follow soon.

Not too soon, though. We’re going to the Maasai Mara tomorrow.

There’s going to be elephants.

Elephants.

Elephants and lions.

I’m a bit excited.

Best wishes to you all,

Danny

Wednesday 24th January, 7.30pm, Media Centre, Moi International Sports Complex

Yesssss internet access! Time to post the backlog of posts so that the posting is done with respect to the posts that I am posting, post-haste.

I've sneaked into the Media Centre by pretending to be Jess (don't ask) and so have a very short time in which to update you.

Amazing piece of street theatre to draw people into the "Extractive Industries" workshop, with one guy pretending to be a miner, and the other playing a brutal guard (with a large water-pistol)

Oh my word. Another extraordinary day. I've seen - and met - people from across the globe who are struggling against a huge range of challenges that often seem to have common roots in the current international economic system. I've sat in a room full of Africans declaring their desire to fight for independence from global aid in the fight against HIV/AIDS, calling instead for trade rules that make the treatments they need affordable, and an end to the corruption (in which Northern governments are frequently complicit) that is crippling their health systems. I've been involved in the most frustrating meeting on climate change I've ever been in, immersed myself in Brazilian propaganda, joined an international network of student activists even though I'm not a student, and somehow ended up making a speech in front of the entire Mass Assembly of Social Movements.

The Mongolian delegation with his placard.

The whole place has become so much more lively since all the Kenyans were allowed in, and the place is buzzing with local hawkers, spontaneous singing, and groups of fascinated street children.

Obligatory picture of cute kid being political

Exhausted now. Going to be kicked out. WSF is over, but I will look for an internet cafe tomorrow so I have time to tell these stories properly and give you a proper flavour of the World Social Forum, Nairobi, and all the amazing things that are happening here.

I have no idea what is going on here, but it looks brilliant.

Dammit, I wish I'd been there when the local Kenyans invaded the catering facilities coz they were being run by a dodgy government-linked company. It sounded fantastic.

General positive African vibes to you all,

Danny

I cannot fully explain why this picture makes me so happy.

Tuesday 23rd January 2007, Moi International Sports Complex

So much has happened I don’t know where to begin.

However, I think I’ll start with a huge ARGH in relation to internet access here. I wasn’t expecting it to be easy to get online, but I thought it would at least be occasionally possible; however, the network is constantly down both here and at Jenny’s house; as the Forum runs from 8.30am to 8pm each day, we never have a chance to look for internet access anywhere else. It’s looking as though this blog is all going to come in a lump on Thursday – that’s the earliest that we’ll be able to look for an internet café or summat. Ho hum.

Anyway, back to the far-too-much-happening thing. This morning, a deputation of Kenyans who’d been unable to afford the $7 entry fee marched up to the Forum gates and demanded entry…just as Jess and I were arriving. They blocked the traffic on the entrance road until the guards opened the outer gates to let them in. Cheering and singing (African demonstrations beat UK ones hands down), the crowd marched into the complex, and I immediately realised that this was far more important and exciting than the workshop I was meant to be going to, and joined the procession (who were singing “This is wrong, this is wrong” in Kiswahili, with harmonies and ululations and, most importantly, without a megaphone or a bad rhyme for “Bush” or “Blair” to be heard or seen).

The best possible placard - direct, to the point, and not featuring a "Socialist Worker" logo.

The T-Shirt reads: "We are POOR but...we come together, we save daily, we make collective decisions, we negotiate with these Strengths - Kenyan Slum Dwellers Association, www.sdinet.org"

The inner gates parted and the demonstration poured in. After some (well-managed) internal debate, the procession of disenfranchised Kenyans (plus various media types and other hangers-on) decided to march to the office of the organising committee. The committee weren’t there – they were in a press briefing downstairs. The march duly marched into the press briefing, and took it over.

Remember that guy Charles we met back in Uhuru Park? Well, here he is again (holding the flag), this time triumphantly marching into the Forum with the procession. Afterwards, we had lunch and he nearly fell asleep into his rice as I wittered on enthusiastically about how amazing they all were (he'd been up marching since 5am all the way from Kibera). Finally, he had to head home and I told him I'd learned a lot from him, and he sort of smiled wryly, and now I'll probably never see him again.

A brilliant moment where the march met another march (full of dispossessed people) coming the other way.

At this point, there were some incredible speeches from representatives of the “People’s Parliament”, most of whom seem to live in the Nairobi slums. “How can you start this Forum with a march through the slums, and then deny those who live there a chance to attend? If you visit the slums, you see the worst of us – you see only our misery and our poverty. You do not see the best of us. We have come here to show you the best of us – our energy, our ideas, our experiences. We have so much to contribute to this Forum - how can you have a debate on the solutions to poverty and exclude the poor?”

Thus spoke one amazing young woman from Kibera (later identified as Wangui Mbatia) - or words to that effect. Jess and I tried to film some of it – we’ll try to put it up online (if we ever get online).



The organisers listened, and responded, and now Kenyans can get in for free, and free water and cheaper food is going to be available. The whole thing was utterly brilliant and inspiring and what the WSF is all about, even if it never should have had to happen in the first place.

Since then, I’ve linked up with students activists from across the world, as well as communities feeling the impact of oil and extractive mining projects…the accomplished missions are clocking up. Still LOADS to do here though, and so much to report, and too little time…

Hope to post again soon with more hot news,

Dannny

Monday 22nd January, Moi International Sports Complex, Nairobi Outskirts

The main thing I want to do today is put some pictures up (including on past blogs) but there are some interesting things to report as well…

The outside space forms a ring around the circular stadium, and contains the stalls of hundreds of different organisations. Most of the events and workshops take place on cordoned-off seating areas within the arena, and are accessed by the concrete steps on the right.

A lot of people are talking about this being the most commercial WSF so far. In order to register, you have to hand over your fee to representatives of Celtel, the mobile phone company who are sponsoring the event. They then give you a SIM card, that you put into your phone and register via text message. Not quite what I expected from a mass gathering of grassroots movements… On the other hand, Celtel is the only visible sponsorship. They clearly got a very sweet deal, and probably didn’t pay enough for it, but that doesn’t mean that the WSF has suddenly gone corporate, as some people here seem to think. Although of course it is much more fun to leap to ludicrous conclusions from a small starting-point (someone’s set up a stall selling mangoes – that’s it, EVERYONE HERE IS A SELL-OUT).

For a more critical look at Celtel and the other WSF sponsors, have a look at Adam’s New Internationalist blog.

This is clearly the best stall at the WSF. Somehow, the fact that it's empty just adds to its appeal.

It’s true that things have been less than perfect on the organisational front . The programmes were late, incomplete and confusing; nothing is signposted; no transport has been arranged between central Nairobi and the venue (which is 15km out of town), meaning that everyone arrives in hordes of road-clogging (and polluting) taxis; the power and the internet connection keep going down; and, of course, thousands of local people are unable to attend as they can’t afford the entrance fee. Apparently, the central committee did arrange, in advance, for 6000 local people to get in for free, but this doesn’t seem to have been enough, and there is understandable anger as this anti-poverty event seems to be discriminating against the poor. This is something they need to find a solution for – and soon.

Despite all this, the event is still absolutely incredible and a credit to all involved. I cannot imagine what it takes to pull together something like this. Who cares about a bit of disorganisation when you can meet so many people that you’d never normally get the chance to meet, learn so much in such a short space of time, make extraordinary global connections and build new networks for positive change across the world?

A constant flow of different processions and demonstrations made their noisy, colourful way around the outside of the stadium every day, like this association of street traders.

I won’t go into details about the workshops here; since the last post, I’ve been to events on climate change, and extractive industries in Africa; I’m about to go to one on coffee and economic justice.

I’m a bit overexcited. Perhaps you can tell.

This is the main Chinese stall. People seemed quite interested, for some reason.

Top impenetrable jargon of the day: “I’m taking an eco-Marxist reading of that” (obligatory full-on ranty girl who won’t shut up in the climate change workshops)

Favourite slogan of the day: “Why This Incongruence???” (Banner of a coalition of small Indian farmers)

Painfully awkward chant I’d hoped never to hear again: “Who let the bombs out? Bush! Bush! And Blair!”, to the “tune” of “Who Let The Dogs Out?”. It wasn’t funny even when the song was around. It’s even less funny when a Stop The War activist decides to lead a procession around the stadium against US involvement in Somalia, and gets all the Somalians chanting it too. Excruciating stuff.

Right. Time to go swelter some more (is it hot in the UK too?)

D xXx