Why we need more cartoons like Tuca & Bertie

I was devastated to discover while scrolling through my Twitter feed that the singularly odd but hugely relatable series,Tuca and Bertie, would not be renewed for a second season on Netflix.

From the opening credits of this bizzare adult cartoon, following the lives of two female anthropomorphic birds in their thirties, there was an unbridled boldness which verged on being off-putting but which was somehow entwined with situations and personality quirks which hit far too close to home.

I’m sure I’m not the only woman who saw herself and her best friend in Bertie and Tuca. One the overthinking introvert, almost drowning in anxieties about the future, the other the raucous extrovert, burying her own fears and unwanted emotions (I’ll leave you to guess which one I am).

Cartoons dealing with adult themes isn’t anything new and recent years have seen an explosion with the likes of Rick and Morty and BoJack Horseman dealing with topics which aren’t only risque but also existentially challenging. Despite that, there was something about Tuca and Bertie which felt like it pushed limits further than other shows.

I think the moment came as I watched the usually nervous Bertie violently masturbate over the sink of a bakery lavatory. Female masturbation seems to continue to be a cultural taboo and the sexualisation of female bodies is as rampant in adult cartoons as everywhere else, an issue show creator, Lisa Hanawait, was keen to tackle. This unexpected image of a woman grasping her sexuality felt like it crossed a line which others hadn’t done before. 

It is not only the storylines which are pushing adult animation into more exciting avenues but also their artistic approach. They’re not afraid to push animation into new fields and experiment wildly with the work of their predecessors. 

The vibrant growth of adult cartoons has been coupled with a deterioration of cartoons aimed at children. Rather than using traditional 2D animation a lot of networks now favour a CGI 3D approach to children’s animation, producing a sort of unreal realness and cheap finish,making one series barely distinguishable from the next.

Part of the reason I believe we are seeing a surge of such talented animators today is that these artists grew up with a range of inspiring cartoons to watch as kids. 

I recently rewatched some of the animated Beatrix Potter stories. As the soft notes of the outro music played a sharp pang of nostalgia filled my body. The tale I had just watched was that of Samuele Whiskers, a vicious rat who tries to cook a kitten into a roly-poly pudding for his supper. The melancholic song plays over a live-action scene of an actress playing Beatrix Potter as she makes her way to the post office to send her carefully written letter. 

It’s a beautiful, enrapturing countryside scene, as a rabbit laps at a half finished cup of tea tears softly trickle down my cheeks. It’s an example of lovingly created television, with the same immense care given to every aspect of bringing the wonderful world of Beatrix Potter’s stories to life. 

Compare this to the new Peter Rabbit series or the recent film version. I watched one episode which seemed more like the introductory scene to a computer game as Peter spotted paw-prints dotted across the forest, allowing him to turn stones into surfboards and other getaway tricks. Carefully and lovingly constructed animation is replaced by commercialised characters and storylines which scream for kid’s attention.

As well as offering more fertile ground for creativity, cartoons aimed at adults also create a particular niche for the kind of escapism which so called millennials desperately crave. An escapism which revels in the absolutely absurd as well as the tediously everyday.

We face a world where maniacs are running countries, we’re laden with debts before we even begin work, we can’t even dream of owning our own home and the world is literally on fire. These TV shows are the only ones which recognise the absolute despair of being a young(ish) adult today and make things better by making a mockery of it, making it even more ridiculous than it already is.

This particular blend also appeals to the millenial fixation on nostalgia. We grew up when children’s cartoons were booming and so there is a welcoming comfort when we watch animation now. Oddly, adult animation oftens subverts one of the most appealing aspects of nostalgia, the remembrance of lost innocence.

In this respect adult animation has carved out it’s particular niche. No other format could so successfully marry absurdity and reality. Play on our nostalgic memories while being overtly sexualised, violent and grappling with the very anxieties of existence. But this is exactly what the wonderful world of Tuca and Bertie did. 

We need cartoons like Tuca and Bertie, to at once face a strange and confusing world and also escape from it.

The Dangers of Climate Change Apathy

In a world where even parts of the infamously mild and miserable United Kingdom saw temperatures of 20C and devastating wildfires on a winter weekday in February, it is becoming impossible to deny the prevalence of climate change.

Despite the clear warnings that there is something deeply wrong with the weather, climate change scepticism is still rampant in parts of the world. Even in those that accept climate change there is a worrying tendency towards unhelpful behaviours.

There’s the ever-growing push for one solution in individual consumption, from veganism to ditching plastic straws, but equally as worrying is a strong sense of apathy coursing its way through the public consciousness on the footsteps of the growing acceptance of climate science.

Last week, during the unseasonably warm weather, an amusing, if anxiety-provoking, comic did the rounds on social media. The comic by the hilarious Sarah Scribbles, created in 2017 and relevant every year since, sums up the conflict of enjoying a “lovely” sunny winter day and the internal screams of watching the earth dying.

On these kinds of posts reactions often seem to edge towards almost the polar opposite of climate change denial, a complete acceptance of our path towards catastrophic global warming. Comments shrug off the impacts we are currently seeing as just the death throes of humanity rather than the finale of earth itself, which, once we are gone, will simply regenerate and start afresh, better and stronger without us.

These arguments are not only defeatist but also show the extreme arrogance of our species, the creature of the anthropocene, whose actions have so dramatically altered the world in just a few centuries.

While it may be true we are signing our own death warrants we are also including the majority (if not all) of the species of plant, animal and insect which share the world with us.

It is now widely accepted that we are in the sixth mass extinction event on planet earth. We are watching dozens of species go extinct every day. Many disappear before we’ve even discovered them. The WWF puts losses since 1970 at roughly 60 percent.

These are shocking figures, and not a trend that the earth is going to recover from overnight. It is likely it will take at least 5 to 10 million years for biodiversity to recover but depending on our impact it could be more. The mass extinction event which took place 250 million years ago, at the end of the Permian period, was the largest seen on earth with at least 90 percent of species wiped out. It took at least 30 million years for ecosystems to fully recover.

The last event of this kind, possibly the most popular mass extinction, was that of the dinosaurs 66 million years ago. This catastrophic event saw the disappearance of roughly 75 percent of life on earth and a significant shift in the globally dominant species, from reptiles to mammals. Only a handful of hardy species cling on today.

Is this the fate we want to resign the creatures we share our planet with to? Creatures which have taken millions of years to perfectly evolve to their environment which we are now ripping up.

The red panda, for instance, was linked to it’s distant cousin the giant panda by a common ancestor 40 million years ago. In the intervening time these two have evolved into two distinct species, one related to bears, the other closer to ferrets and weasels. Despite their now distant connection both species evolved a similar false thumb to help them eat their chosen diet, bamboo.

This fantastic convergent evolutionary phenomenon will not be repeated in the same way once we are gone. The red pandas, the giant pandas and even their beloved bamboo will be wiped out, possibly while we are still clinging onto our burning planet.

Those that are happily awaiting humanity’s destruction to let in a new flourishing era on earth are callously overlooking the accompanying losses. This kind of extreme apathy is just as destructive as those who deny climate change altogether. It produces the same inaction and acceleration of climatic catastrophe.

Instead we need positive action. A willingness to take a stand and try to change paths towards a more hopeful future. Dismantling the current destructive model of business as usual and creating a greener world for everyone.

Extinction Rebellion (XR) is such a group striving for this through non-violent direct action. The movement, which began in the UK but is already rapidly growing across the world, aims to create mass disruption to shake governments into action on climate change and is a direct response to the ongoing anthropocene mass extinction.

An approach that that combines a cohesive grand narrative and a focus on building local communities has already had significant attention and success. Bursting into life last November it saw thousands take to the streets in London and other cities across the UK.

Actions have included symbolic funeral processions throughout the country. A coffin for dead and dying species, as well as for our planet as a whole, is slowly marched through the streets. I will be joining one such protest this Saturday with my local group in Colchester. This alternative to the usually jubilant protest marches give the space for attendees to grieve for our current situation while also uniting to find solutions.

With the next mass event planned for a full week, commencing the 15th April, XR focuses not only on action but also creating a regenerative culture, bonding those who are terrified by climate change and breaking down the walls of alienation which create paralysing apathy.

Groups across the country are planning walks over the days leading up to the 15th to converge in London, an action symbolic of the resistance to modern day environmentally destructive living and the coming together of those who oppose it.

Our self-destruction through climate change isn’t going to see humanity wiped out and then every other species breath a sigh of relief that we’re gone. We’re dragging them down with us and in fact throwing them in the fires first. The planet may recover but it is likely to be a very different place.

There may be studies that say we’re already too late but I don’t think that is a reason to give in. We can try to lessen our impact, give life as it currently stands more time and if all else fails at least create a more green and healthy system for us all to live in.

However, I live in hope that we still have time to stop our own extinction and that of many of the creatures we share our planet with. But time is running out. Rather than resign ourselves to denial and apathy we can reach out to others and fight.

Trump, Ecocide and the American Dream

As the first days of Trump’s presidency shoves its way into reality, and drags away any pretence that this was somehow, actually, never going to happen, millions of people across the globe are trying to work out what is going to happen, while praying to anyone that might be listening that it ends up being over a considerably shorter period than four whole years.

There’s lots of different people which are likely to suffer over the next few years including women, people of colour, LGBT groups, pretty much anyone who doesn’t fall into the happy category of the white-straight-rich man, but another thing that will suffer and effect everyone as it does is the environment. It is already clear that Trump’s reign will be one of rampant ecocide, where regulation to tackle climate change will be cut and men who deny climate change and are deeply invested in the fossil fuel industry are put in positions of power, including Energy and the Environmental protection agency. His decisions are so clearly fuelled by self-interest and scratching influential backs it’s hair-tearing levels of frustration.

There is a very simple reason as to why Trump appealed so widely and why The Simpsons seemed to predict his rise (though frankly his duping of over 60 million people is still baffling). Trump’s win is the culmination of the American Dream, a dream that is devoted to self-interest, endless expansive growth and accumulation and little else. People may try to tack words like progress and possibility to it but the end result is often devoid of these. The basic American Dream is that any man (a woman is often an after-thought) can make his way, own his business and buy a beautiful house in suburbia with a picket fence and apple pie. In reality it becomes something more akin to white men scrabbling to line their pockets the most, and be damned with the almost inevitable casualties. It is about amassing more and more property and wealth for no other end than just to have, and Trump has very happily won the game, proving yes you can do absolutely anything in America, provided you’re white and rich.

As I’ve discussed before, a lifestyle dedicated to growth is one that is unavoidable environmentally destructive but I think there is another seed planted in the American Dream which ploughs it towards a future that exists at the expense of the natural, an infatuation with conquest. This came from the most early settlers but became cemented 200 years later when the Frontier Myth took hold. The journey westward was centred on placing ownership on land and exploit it for the pilgrim’s own good (not matter who or what may already be making good use of it). It meant that a beautiful and majestic landscape became realised as something put there only for these new American people’s utility.

And so a history of careless destruction of the environment followed, with it’s legacy and neglectful mindset firmly established, a history that culminated in Donald Trump as the 45th president of the United States. I don’t think we need any clearer evidence that America needs to find itself a new dream to follow.

Save

Save

30 Days Wild: World Environment Day

Yesterday was the 5th day of 2016’s 30 Days Wild, but it was also World Environment Day. World Environment Day is an UN run day for environmental awareness which has been going since 1974.

Each year has it’s own theme and host city. Often they are pretty strong messages of global importance, such as ‘The Environment Millennium – Time to Act’ or ‘Green Cities – Plan for the Planet!’. But this year I felt the drive feel a little short.

2016 focused on ‘Zero Tolerance for the Illegal Wildlife trade’. I’m not saying that the illegal trade of wildlife isn’t a very important issue. The fact that beautiful and endangered species across the world are slaughtered and mistreated on a daily basis is, of course, nothing short of horrific. But following  a year where we have had vital talks over the future of the planet in the Paris Climate Change Conference I feel it is almost a weak cop-out for the UN the choose to focus on something like Wildlife Trade.

By focusing on this instead of, say, last year’s ‘Seven Billion Dreams. One Planet. Consume with Care’ there’s almost a sense of isolating a good chuck of the world from being fully engaged with the day. Illegal Wildlife Trade conjures up images of tigers, elephants and rhinos, wonderful and irreplaceable creatures to be sure. But for many of us living in countries like the UK it can make the global environmental issues seem like something distant and exotic, something definitely not directly impacting on our lives.

I feel this is an image environmental activists have been trying to shake for a while, to make people realise how climate change is going to impact on everyone’s lives. It’s almost a step back to focus on wildlife trade, I’m not saying it’s something that doesn’t need to be tackled but it’s also something that a lot of ordinary people would struggle to engage with.

Environmental debate needs to create opportunities for everyone to become a part of it and help make steps towards stopping climate change. Whether that is changing lifestyle choices, lobbying government, completing local wildlife surveys, going on protests, signing petitions, volunteering for groups protecting nature, creating materials to inform others or just realising the utmost importance of nature in your life, to feel that you can engage in the issues is important, as is spreading the message that for every one of the 7 billion people on earth climate change is an ever growing problem.

For me writing is my act of environmental activism and how I try to connect with the natural spaces around me and (I hope!) make some steps towards driving forward change.

Helpless in Climate Crisis

Image from Asian Development Bank Flickr

I read a terrifying piece of news yesterday. To sum it up, basically our planet’s temperatures are increasing at an unexpected speed, pushing us dangerously close to tipping points which mean backtracking on dramatic climate change will be near impossible. To be perfectly honest a part of me feels these limits may already have been reached but we are either as yet unaware of it or just purposefully ignoring it.  In a horrifically quick time we have essentially fucked the earth. I’m sorry but there just really isn’t a nicer way to put it, we’ve really fucked up.

When I read these stories I feel angry, but the more wrenching feeling is that of utter helplessness. The whole situation feels completely out of my control, dictated by a shadowy congress above me to whom my existence, and that of most of the rest of the world, is simply insignificant.

But yet they would have us believe that we can and should make the change. That in fact it’s not the fault of the way the global markets run that we’re in this situation, it’s actually YOUR buying habits, YOUR choice of vehicle for commuting, YOUR decision to continue procreating.

But even if these habits were our fault and the cause of environmental catastrophe they have been hard-wired into our brains. Look at the planned obsolescence of many electronic items which have now become daily requirements for the majority of people in countries like the UK and USA. We are thrown new gadgets incessantly, most of which are designed to break within a few years. This means of production is symptomatic of the short-term mind-set of capitalism which depletes limited resources and uses self-renewing sources quicker than they are able to re-stabilise.

We can try our best to recycle and reuse but the constant demand for growth means that these measures can only go so far.While the rise of recycling in the UK since 2000 has been impressive (rising from 11% to 43.2% in 2013) in recent years the level of growing improvement has begun to peter out and still fails to reach to target of 50%. This is because when initiatives began there were huge possibilities for reduction but over the years continuing to make the same level has become impossible. Hence, while initial progress may be heartening, reaching zero-waste is a practically impossible vision.

Their is a growing drive to create a kind of “green capitalism”, green consumerism being one of the most common. This places the emphasis on the change that the consumer can achieve through their purchasing power, and has been happily welcomed by many businesses, both small and large. Many brands will now have an “eco” version of their products that will cost a bit more and instil in the consumer a sense of satisfaction as they have chosen an environmentally friendly product and “greenwashing” the consumer into thinking they are making an impact.

Sir Terry Leaky, chief executive of Tesco, has been quoted saying: ‘It is only by realising our potential as people, citizens, consumers, as users that we can turn targets into reality. It will be a transition achieved not by some great invention or some great act of parliament, but through the billions of choices made by consumers every day’. This is precisely the type of thinking big corporations like Tesco want to promote to their consumers as by focusing on individual choice they take away pressure from government and big businesses to make any real changes in their proceedings. Instead shops merely have to continue business as usual but while also shelving “environmentally friendly” choices for consumers which will do more to further increase their profits than aid the environment.

By expanding their range of supermarkets companies like Tesco destroy the possibility for the growing ideas in how an economy should work, based on local and independent shops and services. Green consumerism does not only do nothing to help to environmental crisis but in fact by creating an public apathy towards more radical and necessary solutions.

The bottom line is that it is impossible to achieve economic growth without a level of environmental degradation. Hence to pull the brakes and jump off the tracks towards global climate crisis we need an entirely new economic system.

But what can I do to try to usher in the change? What can anyone else do? All I can think to do is just try to write about it and try to spread the word a little. I’d like to finish here on a strong revolutionary note, but when you feel to powerless the words are hard to muster. So for lack of them I’ll call on another’s.

Rise like Lions after slumber
In unvanquishable number,
Shake your chains to earth like dew
Which in sleep had fallen on you-
Ye are many – they are few.

-Percy Shelley

The Story of Freeman’s Wood

Following on from this very interesting article about the battle over Freeman’s Wood in Lancaster and the ongoing progress of enclosure I thought I’d post a short article I wrote about it a few years back.

As the metal railings continue their trail, forming a barrier around Freeman’s Wood in Lancaster, locals are becoming increasingly concerned with the potential loss of this green and free area, enjoyed by many for 50 years or more.

The woodland is owned by a Hong Kong businessman of the (tax-haven) Bermuda-based company The Property Trust, who have, in the last few months, been erecting the fence. Once the fence is completed the currently common area is said to be next in line for housing development. It seems that there are plans to re-develop the whole area around Freeman’s Wood, including Coronation Field behind it.

The land was originally owned by Williamson and used as a tip for factory waste from his linoleum factory, once the largest factory in Europe. It is claimed that in 1905 Williamson donated the land to “the people of Lancaster”. The legalities of the deeds are currently being looked into. Nick Bliss, a worker at the local hospital and close resident to Freeman’s Wood explains how this endowment lead to “the football and cricket facilities [which were present until about ten years ago], and the beauty of the wood for all to use freely”.

Despite this, in 1971 Freeman’s Wood was sold by the Council to a private company and has repeatedly changed hands, in a corporate splurge of pass-the-parcel, before coming to rest in the grasp of The Property Trust. This is a property investment firm who have plans to sell the land to a housing development company, SATNAM, for profit.

With 400 houses planned further down the Quay and another 350 in the Luneside East industrial area it has been questioned whether ‘re-development’, or less euphemistically, ‘destruction’ of Freeman’s Wood, for the purpose of further housing development, is truly necessary.

A Green Party Councillor, Jon Barry, expresses the party’s major opposition to the latter of these projects, noting that “Freeman’s Wood is too important as a recreation and wildlife space to have housing on”. They wish for the land to remain an open and free space, operating “as some sort of sports and country park type area – perhaps with ownership of the ‘community’ and/or the City Council”. Barry summarised the Green Party’s feelings, simply, as “completely opposed to the fence and the denying of local people access to the site”.

After The Property Trust began to put up the fence, the City Council put Tree Preservation Orders (TPOs) on Freeman’s Wood, but the landowners lodged an objection to the TPOs, and so an appeal will be put to a hearing. Despite this current legal protection for the site the developers have continued uprooting trees and digging up waste from the old linoleum factory and dumping it, giving this once beautiful area the appearance of a rubbish tip.

There are also applications to recognise the footpaths as public rights of way. Both of these attempts need support from local residents. Campaigners are urging anyone who wishes to preserve this land to write to the Council explaining their experiences of free use to the woods for many years to support an on-going application for Town Green status.

The land, which is now stuck in a limbo, is the home to many birds and other creatures, including deer. This habitat, vital for animals and a natural playground for children in the local area, is in danger of being permanently ravaged by concrete and tarmac, as is increasingly happening all over Britain as greed for profits outweigh respect for our remaining unspoilt and dwindling woodland. Many have expressed, on a facebook page in support of the woods, their feelings and memories for the woods and back field. Nick Bliss tells of how people have said “their childhood would have been very different without the experience” and expresses his own sentiments, saying “I used to play there nearly thirty years ago, my kids play there now, and I want to do all I can to protect this for the next generation”.

Nicola Sturgeon Smashes the Patriarchal Kneecaps of Westminster

In many ways I have mostly felt utterly alienated from the goings-on in this election and have more or less resigned myself to the fact that whoever “wins” the outcome is not going to result in a radically different set of policies to what is currently in place. I have pretty much accepted that the silent and deadly dismantling of basically all public services will continue as blue, red, yellow or even, that most sickly tasting of all, purple, flavoured neo-liberalism continues its march through our country, begging the question: What the hell is the government for anymore?

But there is at least a slight breath of fresh hope and, as a woman, pride that has risen in this election, coming in the shape of the leaders of the Green Party, SNP and Plaid Cymru. While I still hold huge respect and admiration for the other two it is the SNP’s, and current First Minster of Scotland, Nicola Sturgeon who has, in a sense, lead the way in the anti-austerity chant that these three parties are pushing forward as an actual alternative to what we have faced so far. She is consistently direct and forceful in her message and, although her primary interests do lie in Scotland, she makes this different type of government a vision for the whole of the UK, which could maybe lie just over the next horizon.

Of course this dream has been detected as a huge threat to not only the main parties but also the many newspapers that constantly help prop up their ideology. From being compared to Lady Macbeth and Attlia the Hun by Boris Johnson to being horrifically mocked up like Miley Cyrus on a wrecking ball Nicola Sturgeon has undergone plenty of attacks by the media. But it would seem the threat is not only because of her anti-austerity policies but also because of her gender.

We are all well aware of how the media likes to portray and talk about women. They need to talk about their choice in clothes, make up and shape of their bodies. Sturgeon is constantly faced with wearily batting off questions about her choice not to have children, knowing male politicians would not face the same kinds of accusations. But the most insultingly chauvinistic questions and comments she consistently faces is that she is not a leader. They leap over questioning just her leadership, like Jeremy Paxman’s “Are you tough enough?” grilling of Miliband, and simply directly banish the idea that she is a leader. The most dismal aspect of this is that she is primarily being dismissed by other politicians and even her predecessor, Alex Salmond.

Nicola Sturgeon has been a prominent member of the SNP for some time. When John Swinney, her current Deputy as First Minister, resigned as leader of the party in 2004 Surgeon put her name forward for being elected into leadership. Although she was to be beaten for this post by Alex Salmond, a surprise entry as he had previously insisted he would not be running, she instead served as his deputy for the next ten years. When Salmond resigned after the failure of the Scottish Referendum last year Sturgeon was the obvious successor to both leadership of the SNP and First Minister of Scotland. But if you were to listen to her fellow party leaders you would be convinced, as they’d like you to believe, that it is still Alex Salmond holding tightly onto the reins.

Ed Miliband undermined her in the BBC debates when he referred to her “leader Alex Salmond”. The Tory crusade against a Labour/SNP coalition has basically refused to acknowledge her existence, with campaign posters showing Miliband poking out of Salmond’s pocket. And of course her position isn’t helped when Salmond himself makes comments suggesting he will hold the balance of power in Westminster if there is a hung parliament situation, forcing Sturgeon to repeatedly reassert her authority over the party. While Sturgeon may have been deputy to Salmond for a decade and has often seen him as a mentor to suggest he is still her leader is resoundingly disrespectful to not only her but to all women in politics.

Nicola Sturgeon is not merely continuing Alex Salmond’s legacy but creating her own set of policies to reinvent the face of British Politics. It is no surprise that the media and politicians want to undermine a strong-willed opponent who is constructing a real alternative but the way they approach Nicola Sturgeon reveals the sexist attitudes that rule over UK Politics. Only 22% of MPs are female and, unsurprisingly, many women seem disillusioned and shut out of politics with nine million women not using their vote in the 2010 elections. New leaders like Nicola Sturgeon, Natalie Bennett and Leanne Wood clearly show that nothing is disabling women from playing the same role in politics as the men who have so long dominated it. But by the media perpetuating sexist stereotypes, by questioning her clothes and womb, and politicians attempting to undermine her leadership they are attacking the future of female politics in general. As Sturgeon pointed out in a recent interview when the papers slate her for her appearance they are damaging the confidence of many young women considering a future in politics.

The treatment of Sturgeon reveals what lies at the base of sexist mock ups of female politicians and ridicule of their appearance: the simple fact that the men of Westminster and the media do not respect women, to the point where they cannot even conceive of them as leaders. When Sturgeon wins debates against Miliband in the TV debates and continues to assert her leadership she is making progress not just for Scotland, not just for the UK, but for the way all women are valued by their male counterparts.

And if you’re still unconvinced the way Nicola Sturgeon is approached is symbolic of sexist attitudes just do a google image search for her and think about the suggestions for further images. Wedding dress, shoes, weight loss. How neatly that sums up the way women are supposed to remain in our society.

The Hidden Labour of On-Demand Society

When Supermarket giant, Tesco, chooses to keep its doors open this Bank Holiday Monday you might forget that May Day is now celebrated as International Worker’s Day. It is a day of recognition for the struggles of workers across the globe, many of whom still labour under immensely bleak conditions. Over the weekend millions of people will have taken part in various marches and other actions to revive the sense of solidarity for the working classes worldwide.

But Tesco, apparently unaware of irony, send their often underpaid and overworked employees pacing through their white tiled prisons picking and sorting “fresh” vegetables that laugh in the face of needing seasonal veg. Of course, our long weekend is really thanks to the century old welcoming of spring on the 1st of May, celebrating the revival of the land, but it is an act of wilful ignorance to disregard the importance for renewal of spirit for the working classes that the day has now been associated with. It is almost as if they are trying to hide this commemoration, hide the need to acknowledge the working classes.

This lack in acknowledgement is sweeping across this country and others like it. Though perhaps not an entirely new phenomena it has some quite different features, born from on-demand society. Consumer interactions are so often enacted through a few jabs at a phone. We increasingly minimise our own labour in our efforts to do such everyday things like getting the weekly food shop. We murmur appreciatively, “Oh it’s so efficient” “Isn’t everything so easy now?” “How did we ever manage dragging our own sorry arses down the shops every week?” But the underbelly of this encouraged mass laziness is a well-hidden workforce; people that have to spend their Saturday mornings pushing heavy trolleys for you through supermarket aisles so you can be handed your products at a convenient time later that day. Because this service comes at no real extra cost to us we don’t see the work that has to go in at the other end.

It is gradually becoming possible for almost every necessary action to be done through a screen, and behind the tempters of having everything done in just a few simple clicks is a growing collection of workers who are increasingly underpaid and working in very instable positions. This unappreciated human toil has always been a factor in the working classes, those who consume what they produce would rather not think of the human aspect and for much of working class history they were wilfully ignored.

Now we like to consider ourselves a much more conscientious society. The thought of people working themselves very much literally to death for our own gains is not a well-received image. So the labour has been further abstracted, it is moved physically to more distant countries (given the double bonus to companies of cheaper workers) and mentally by giving us an assortment of apps and other life-simplifying mechanisms.

Through our gadgets we thank advances in technology for taking the strain of going to the shops or ordering food out of our weary lives but we fail to notice the work it creates for other people. This plays into the hands of the big companies that profit off the misfortune of others, as long as they are hiding the people propping the pillow under our feet we won’t fret about how we can do practically anything with just the lift of a finger. At some point in the future the autonomisation of these tasks will be complete, and direct human effort will hardly factor in their fulfilment, but for now there are still an awful lot of human bodies oiling the clogs.

Many people, particularly politicians, appear to be under the impression that the working class no longer exists in this country, that we are all firmly middle class now. But rather than just fading away from existence the real fate of the working class is to be increasingly marginalised, demonised and, ultimately, ignored. This is why International Worker’s Day is still important and should not be allowed to be pushed aside. It gives an opportunity for the silenced to make their voices heard, when the rest can find the time to look away from their screens, giving them the courage and encouragement to grow louder.

Corporate Environmentalism isn’t our Saviour

Green Activism is taking on a funny face. Over the past couple of years the idea of man-made climate change has been firmly placed in the public consciousness, whether it is believed by everyone is another matter. With numerous reports from the IPCC, that seem to quickly follow on the tail of the last, with the most recent urging for a complete cut to fossil fuels by 2100, it is impossible to continue to ignore the urgent need to act.

In light of this on multiple media outlets the debate has been changed to ask how much, and what type, of action is needed rather than questioning if any is needed at all. On the one hand we have those who call for dramatic reform of the system to create a greener world, as laid out in Naomi Klein’s new book, and on the other the hope that to merely tweak the current system will bring the change needed. These two main camps were firmly laid out in an event put on by the Essex Sustainability Institute that I attended some time ago: ‘Renewable Energy Activism From grassroots movements to green politics and corporate environmentalism’.

“Corporate Environmentalism” is a phrase that I think is going to increasingly become a key buzzword for the way businesses act, and how capitalism in general tries to balance its fundamental elements with a growing need for strong environmental principles. This was aptly demonstrated in the first of four talks I attended which focused on Green Human Resource Management. A representative from Vattenfall (a Swedish state-owned company whom appear in a very green light but delving deeper into their energy production shows 52% coming from fossil fuels) discussed motivating workers from some vague environmental sentiments.

Through a cloud of buzzwords with phrases like “Climate anxiety harnessed to improve employee engagement” on a cheerful powerpoint this talk on Green HRM succinctly summed up the issue of what “Corporate Environmentalism”, whether intentionally or not, is: a mask over businesses to evoke a modicum of “corporate social responsibility” while primarily shunning the public eye from the realities. This hypocrisy seeps into every level, especially Cameron’s lack of political will to act on climate change; calling for, as Caroline Lucas recently pointed out, “UK leadership on climate change” while “backing airport expansion and the creation of a whole new fossil fuel industry in the form of fracking for shale gas.”

The issue for these powerful people, that currently dictate the future we can hope to expect, is their struggle to understand moving from sustainable growth to a sustainable planet. The exponential growth of capital is the prime mover of the current system, demanding an array of wasteful measures such as planned obsolesce of commodities and the wilful ignorance to the inherent limits to natural resources. Many have suggested simply moving to a system of zero-growth but as Western society has already reached a point where our consumption exceeds what the earth can provide this is simply not enough.

Even if zero-growth was sufficient, a halt to constant accumulation isn’t the vision of the future the powerful capitalists want. An alternative, as implied by the talk on Green HRM, is ‘Natural Capitalism’, an idea posited by Paul Hawkens and Amory and Hunter Lovins. The cornerstones of this concept is a move into a more technological society that will allow our use of resources to become more efficient and shift industries to service orientated production, thus moving from ‘an economy of goods and purchases to one of service and flow’. By these means they avoid the contradiction of a growth-less capitalism and instead promote the continuation of growth as it currently stands, albeit with several stark alterations. The vision is that capital can continue to flow even if climate chaos is stopped if it is through services instead of heavy reliance on physical product.

However the idea that a service focused industry would dramatically reduce energy usage is also naïve. Already in industries based in the western world there is a huge focus on services, but despite the offsetting of factories and industrial plants with the use of offices, energy use has only recently begun to decrease. In fact the beginning of rising energy use in the UK comes at a similar time to a rise in service industry. Although the figures for energy use have recently decreased it is questionable whether this is due to increased service industry. In the late 1970s there was a point where energy usage by service and industry sectors coincided as that used by industry decreased and service rose. Service usage has been fluctuating and overall decreasing, but has remained consistently higher than industry. (Information gathered from DECC Energy Consumption in the UK 2013)

As pointed to by another speaker at the event, Jonathan Essex, a green county councillor for Surrey, another issue with this path to increasing sustainability is to remember that it is impossible to imagine a focus on service without any produce for the services to work around. This means that although service use may rise and industry reduce in western countries, the damage of the industry sector will be externalised to developing countries, as we currently see when most produce will come from Asian countries particularly China and India.

The economic and environmental writer, John Bellamy Foster, states that thinking economic growth can continue without adverse effects on the environment and monumental waste is “against the basic laws of physics”. As reuse of materials can only continue to a certain extent and economic growth necessitates the continual use of resources, it is impossible to achieve economic growth without a level of environmental degradation.

As was emphasised by several of the other speakers at the Essex Sustainability event a key to bringing the needed change is to flip the very system on which it is based. There is a need to move away from the oligarchs, such as the Big Six Energy Companies, that grip onto our resources to bring about their own monetary growth, and begin to welcome community ownership. We must no longer be only granted some possibility for environmental action through our purchasing power that is in fact only an apparition due to the farce that is ‘greenwashing’. There are many opposing figures in the battle for a greener planet and, as I think is becoming increasingly clear, we must stop simply following those that hold a mask of climate concerns while still, primarily, worshipping the gods of capital.

Cameron may have reshuffled the deck but the cards remain the same

While we can only be glad to be rid of the likes of Owen Paterson due to this week’s cabinet reshuffle it is far too early to completely rejoice the change. Liz Truss has yet to prove herself any more capable for the job of environment secretary and her appointment reminds us how empty Cameron’s promise to be ‘the greenest government ever’ really was. An utter lack of respect for the environmental crisis is a fundamental part of not only Cameron’s government but is also built into the very structure of British politics.

Owen Paterson was infamous for his unsuitability for the job from the moment he was appointed. A climate change skeptic, Paterson’s time in charge was filled of controversial decisions but most famously his decision to cull British badgers. Just days before the reshuffle it was revealed he refused briefings on climate change from the Met Office. The complete close-mindedness of this politician was confirmed by similar instances of turning down scientific briefings to the extent of having never received one from his own department’s chief scientific advisor. Even after the chaotic weather of the past year (with terrible wet winters and already scorching summer) Paterson seems blind to the drastic measures needed.

Although Green party leader Natalie Bennett advocates celebrating Owen Paterson’s departure and not to “pre-judge” Liz Truss based on her previous work with oil baron Shell, the evidence has swiftly mounted to show that this reshuffle may in fact be a continuation of more of the same.

Along with the aforementioned, dubious, associations, Truss has also been in support of the third runway at Heathrow, is reportedly “scornful of the climate change agenda” and would rather promote agriculture than solar farms, having condemned renewable energy as “extremely expensive” and hence damaging to the economy. While this leaning towards agriculture is not entirely negative it is certain to mean the badger cull will be continued come the autumn so as to please farmers. If there was some uncertainty of where Truss’s affiliations lay her attendance at the Game Show reveals that the blinkers are on and a conservative, out-dated view of rural affairs is the only concern.

Of course, her Thatcherite politics are not too surprising but her immense advocacy for radical deregulation brings a bleak picture to the future of hydraulic fracturing in this country as we might soon see the fracking companies let loose, as their barely tightened red tape ties are cut.

I have a slight suspicion her strange political evolution might have some influence in her appointment. Being brought up in a left-wing family perhaps Cameron hopes she might have the power to suppress fracking protestors by being able to speak their language. I almost feel like Cameron’s support for her is influenced by an ability to gloat at both lefties and LibDems and say ‘Look we won one over!’

But I think it is also important to note that her promotion could possibly be purely down to her genitals. The main comments on this reshuffle have been on the ousting of “pale males” and appointment of more women (although it is an awful lot of hullabaloo over THREE new women, as if they totally tip the scales of gender division in politics. And then bringing in talks of positive discrimination making one BBC Radio 2 listener comment that they couldn’t believe how left-wing the Tories were… anyway, perhaps another rant for another time…). Although I think the emphasis on this point has been exaggerated it would be foolish to not see it as a ploy by Cameron to win over some votes for 2015. Not that I don’t think these women might be competent enough to gain these places by their own merits, I only doubt Cameron’s ability to think of them that way himself.

If we are then thinking with Cameron’s mind-set I would not put it past him to simply shove these women in places where he found the most convenient and had the least concern with. So, for one, the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs.

This brings me to my final, more overarching point, on the fact that the very way that the environment is structured into the government’s concerns shows how much they are lacking. The environment, consistently, seems to be something tacked onto the end of other departments, in the DEFRA but also with the Department of Energy and Climate Change.

Not only is their importance undervalued in this way (why not have a Department of Environment and Climate Change?) the environmental issues are placed in conflict with the other aspects of these departments. For example if we want to examine pesticide use this would obviously come into the hands of the DEFRA with use of chemicals being more useful for farmers but leaving huge damage to the environment (& of course we know who will win out in this battle).

The point is more telling looking at the DECC, as I have discussed before. Although concerns over energy and climate change could be compatible we find the department over run by cronies of the Big Six energy companies and absolutely no one from the renewable energy sector. And so, the gaping problems of climate change are swept aside in favour of cold revenue.

So before we count Paterson’s ousting as a victory let’s remember that it is only working in their favour to celebrate when the new version is only the same. Personally, I will dislike and distrust Liz Truss until I am proved otherwise, and frankly, I’m not holding my breathe on this one..