“The YOUthdecide campaign was met with anticipation and excitement by the majority of young people – but is a campaign that has fundamentally betrayed the hopes and dreams of a generation.” - Young Liberal, in a Facebook note.
“The world I choose is one where people like you are thrown into an active volcano” - email to the Youth Decide organisers yesterday
“Armchair activism – press a couple buttons maybe some politicians will be updated by their staffers over their morning tea.” – Facebook status
The Australian Youth Climate Coalition’s latest campaign, in partnership with World Vision Australia, is to hold a national youth vote where young people aged 12 – 29 vote on what world we wish to inherit. It’s called Youth Decide.
We’ve had well over 15,000 votes in the first two days – which is a pretty amazing voting turnout so far. Many of these people cast their votes at local voting events – over 300 are taking place this week in high schools, Universities, TAFEs, libraries and other places.
The youth climate movement has grown exponentially since the Power Shift summit just 2 months ago brought together 1,500 of the most committed youth climate activists in the country.
Of course, the world of climate change activism is always a big debate over tactics, strategy and effectiveness. A campaign like Youth Decide is fraught with questions about the best way to make an impact – and also with organisational considerations, when it’s a partnership between two very different NGOs.
Several issues have been debated hotly in the blogosphere and on Facebook, to which I thought I’d write a reply (in my personal capacity, not on behalf of AYCC, World Vision or the Youth Decide organising team).
Youth Decide allows young people to get together to call for stronger action on climate change. Individual youth voices can get drowned out amongst the powerful government, business, environmental and industry leaders all competing to be heard on this important debate – yet it is today’s youth who will be most affected by these decisions and so need a platform from which to be heard.
Young people have a choice. They can choose to vote or not to vote, they can choose to support current policy being proposed by the Australian government, or they can choose to vote for stronger emission reduction targets.
Here are a few of the following criticisms we have received on Facebook and blogs, and my response to them.
Is it really an accurate poll of youth? Does it really represent youth opinion?
Youth Decide doesn’t purport to be an accurate poll of youth opinion, like you would get from an AC Neilson or Ray Morgan poll.
It’s a campaign aimed at mobilising youth, not representing them. It provides a powerful platform for young people who are starting to engage with the issue of climate change. We never claim to be “the” voice for our generation – but we can be “a” voice for our generation, providing a creative and unique campaign for young people who do want to engage with the issue of climate change to express their views and have them heard by politicians.
Is the science really correct? Are the world accurately depicted?
The scenarios are based on research conducted by the United Nations Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, the international body of 2500 of the world’s leading climate scientists from 130 countries, as well as modelling commissioned by the Australian and UK Governments (Stern Review and Garnaut Review).
Youth Decide has worked with leading Australian Climate Scientists including Professor David Griggs, an IPCC scientist, from Monash University, to best summarise each likely scenario for the various emission reduction targets governments are proposing. The sources of this research can be found online at [http://www.youthdecide.com.au/Files/YD_Footnotes_and_references_v3.aspx].
Is there enough information? Is it too simple? Where’s the information about the economic costs of reducing emissions?
It’s been a balance between putting a lot of information in the vote, and having so much information that the barrier to voting is too high. We do think there is more information in the form than most voters would have seen about climate change before, considering the target audience – “mainstream” 12 – 29 year olds who are just starting to get engaged in climate change”. It’s simplified, but that doesn’t mean it’s simple. You click on each world and see several dot points about what the Government’s own modelling (the Garnaut review) and the UN Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change predict will happen under different mitigation scenarios. You can click on the “view footnotes and references” button and get a full list of the sources, and then go into more detail if you want. There is also a section of the Voting website called “Learn” where you can get more information and download more resources. In addition, there are over 300 voting events around the country during voting week – such as speakers, forums and information evenings on climate change, which are great opportunities for people to learn more before they vote.
The idea behind the vote is to make the issue of climate change accessible to the vast majority of young people who aren’t experts on the issue. Part of the idea of the vote is to communicate what emission reduction targets actually mean – the dot points and images help communicate that. There isn’t a large amount of information about what the economic costs are for two reasons: firstly because the economic impacts of reducing emissions are completely dependant on Government policy. The transition to a low-carbon economy can be handled well, or handled badly – so it is impossible to pinpoint how many new jobs will be created and in what areas, and how many jobs will be lost. This area is much more contested than the science. But more broadly, this campaign is about reframing the issue of climate change about the impact on the survival of young people – and all people. We want to move away from the short-term focus of the current debate and look at the big picture – what will happen if our society doesn’t act on what the science is telling us.
Will this be politically effective? Isn’t it just like a Facebook petition?
The Australian Youth Climate Coalition and World Vision are both pretty experienced in political change, advocacy and building social movements. We don’t believe that one vote will change Australian climate change policy overnight – but we do know that all major social change throughout history has come about as the result of movements of people, usually led by young people. It is our generation’s time to build a movement big enough to solve climate change, and we’re trying new tactics. In addition to the old tactics like mass rallies, we’re using the power of online organising to build a critical mass of young people who take their first step in engaging with the issue of climate change through easy first steps, like voting in Youth Decide or attending Power Shift. It lays the foundation for the mass mobilisation, both online and offline, that will occur in the lead up to Copenhagen and beyond. Imagine the impact of 20,000 youth or more voting. They think about the issue, talk about it with their parents and teachers, learn more by clicking through the 3 worlds, and are interested to learn what politicians do with the results. The results that of the vote, assuming that the majority of young people want stronger action on climate change than the Government’s current targets (and anecdotal evidence suggest they do), are a powerful tool to scare all politicians that they will lose the “youth vote” (especially first time voters) unless they support stronger climate change policy. Our end-game is to change youth from merely a demographic to a political constituency who will act – and vote – on climate change. Youth Decide has already received media attention on ABC, SBS, Triple J, The Age, MX, and many local newspapers – making it one of the few climate change campaigns that has “cut through” to mainstream media, which we know makes an impact on politicians. And importantly, for many youth it will be their first step into more committed climate change advocacy.
In 2005, students at the University of Sydney and Monash University held student referendums on whether the Universities should take stronger action on climate change. Both were hugely successful: at Sydney Uni, it was the tipping point in a year-long campaign that resulted in the University committing $1 million to renewable energy research and development. At Monash, the referendum caused the University to commit to reduce energy by 20%, purchase 20% greenpower, and employ new staff to run sustainability programs within the University.
The success of the student votes, which I helped organise back then, convinces me that this tactic is much more effective (and unique) than a petition. It’s definitely more risky for the organisers – people can vote for targets that are lower than what we would like (unlike in a petition) but that makes the overall response more powerful.
I’m keen to hear your thoughts too…
9 Comments
Hey Anna, I think you guys are doing good work but I can’t help feeling that presenting the campaign as a “vote” is a little patronising. Asking people whether they want to live in a world where everything is dead is like asking people if they want a punch in the face. People who (stupidly) want lower targets don’t want them because they want the environment to get messed up. Presumably they want lower targets because they don’t believe the (very clear and convincing) science which tells us that the environment will get screwed up.
Youth campaigns ought to feel a little less childish to my mind.
That said, I hope the campaign does succeed and you guys manage to change some minds.
I think to get taken seriously you need to get past 1 million votes. 12-29 yo age bracket has about 5 million people in it. 20% of them will already vote green. You have to get beyond the handful of people who care enough to go to a website to hear what they already know and vote according to their existing position.
Michael summed up really well what I’ve been struggling to articulate about my problems with YouthDecide.
Essentially, it doesn’t actually have any credibility as a ‘vote’ or a ‘referendum’ because of a number of reasons:
-The reasons why you would not want to go for steeper cuts or no cuts at all are not laid out.
-Only those who are clearly interested in higher goals are going to engage in the exercise, meaning that you will get an artificially high result for ‘World 3′.
-The result is a foregone conclusion.
I actually think the website is quite good as an educational tool for translating abstract ideas of percentage cuts into consequences. But I think it’s a farce to try and portray YouthDecide as a democratic exercise, and I find it embarrasing and insulting to make a comparison between this process and a genuine democratic electoral process.
You say, Anna, that it isn’t comparable to an opinion poll, and the exercise is about “mobilising youth, not representing them”. If that’s the case, you shouldn’t continue with the farce of giving people options (while making it pretty damn obvious which one is the Right Answer) and calling it a ‘referendum’. And I can bet that after this is over we’ll see headlines saying things like “80% of young people support higher targets”, when the referendum is no such thing.
It really is just a petition. It’s a really flash, expensive and large-scale petition, but not any more than that. Despite all the trappings of ‘polling booths’ and giving people the ‘choice’ to vote for a dead planet, it’s just a petition.
I also think that, while it is impressive that the AYCC gets a lot of media attention for events like Powershift and Youthdecide, it hasn’t really been very effective in terms of climate activism.
The biggest challenge for the climate movement right now is pointing out how the Rudd government’s policies are falling far short of what is needed. The problem is that, while the vast majority of the population has accepted that climate change is a problem, most think Rudd is doing a good job. While the AYCC does talk about higher targets (like in Youthdecide), it doesn’t come through in the media or the messaging. All that comes through is that “young people care!!!” The worst example of this was the ‘flash dance’ after Powershift. Sure it was impressive choreography and impressive media management in getting all of the coverage, but what were you saying? Nothing. Young people care!!! About what? Who knows?!
I think it stems from the AYCC’s fear of offending anyone by actually being critical or taking a strong stand. I don’t understand how allowing Mike Rann to come along and lecture thousands of young people on how green he is helps push the Rudd government in the right direction. While it is important to engage a lot of people, the AYCC puts this goal above all others. In order to engage the largest number possible, any sort of message gets diluted until it is meaningless.
Yes I have been struggling with this as well. I don’t want to criticise a campaign that I essentially disagree with but I do find its slightly-patronising tone very frustrating.
However, I don’t think this is simply an AYCC problem – lots of “youth” media seem to be taking a very patronising tone these days (compare the current “hack” to when steve cannane was host, for example) and even groups like GetUp which are not aimed at “youth” can end up seeming patronising.
While I strongly support the YOUth Decide campaign, I too see it more as a petition. It would have a greater impact if a number of actions that can be taken by “youth” (and the oldies) were identifed for each “world” – actions directly relating to reducing the impact of climate change eg encouraging bike riding, making more use of libraries so as to aviod buying newspapers, magazines, working in volunteer groups to undertake energ (and water) audits of houses, businesses, local government buildings, volunteering to assess various pieces of planning legislation at sta or local government level and suggest much needed reforms, applying the concept of ecological footprint to schools, universities, work places, etc. To listen and to “vote” might have an impact, but the earth only registers a reduction in GHGs, not intentions.
Thanks for all your comments so far – see the mid week campaign update below – you’ll see that it’s been a pretty amazing mobilisation so far – much more than a petition. Or at least, any petition I’ve ever seen
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VjPP4GBuu3M
Ben writes:
“But I think it’s a farce to try and portray YouthDecide as a democratic exercise, and I find it embarrasing and insulting to make a comparison between this process and a genuine democratic electoral process.”
I read: “Where’s teh balance?! The AYCC hasn’t pandered to the conservatives, readers of the Australian and anyone else who’ll shrill-ly yelp and scream “but what about TEH ECONOMY11!!!1!!”.
Well that whole framing of the issue is widely known to anyone who has picked up a newspaper for the past 20 years. No framing exercise is impartial (and yes people do have legitimate quibbles about the electoral process too, though I wouldn’t pretend for a second that YouthDecide has the same legitimacy).
Ben writes:
“The biggest challenge for the climate movement right now is pointing out how the Rudd government’s policies are falling far short of what is needed”
But that’s precisely what YouthDecide does! It outlines the consequences of universalising the targets Australia and the US have taken on….
If anything, my disappointment with YouthDecide is that it’s not about specific technologies (ie. domestic energy policy scenarios) as well as targets. Talk of targets alone lends itself to the dubious offsetting clauses, accounting tricks and piece-of-paper trading we’ve seen embodied in the CPRS and Waxman-Markey, not to mention Article 3.7 the politicization of the Carbon Accounts etc. etc.
There’s a legitimate debate to be had about what kinds of institutions are needed to deal with the complexities of the climate problem – and it’s a debate I’m more than happy to engage with, but arguing that some kind of critical debunking should be the primary task of the climate movement is both naive and counterproductive. If reason alone was going to get us over the line, we’d have coasted home to a climate solution after Kyoto.
Ben writes:
“All that comes through is that “young people care!!!””
The problem of social movements trying to control the reporting of their events has been discussed ad infinitum in the sociology literature. You can’t possibly blame the AYCC for the ABC or whomever elses’ reporting. Fwiw the Opera house flash mob message was clear – “No new coal, renewable energy now”. That that wasn’t reported is not Anna’s fault. (I blame Al Gore, actually for hogging the media that day)
Ben writes:
“I think it stems from the AYCC’s fear of offending anyone by actually being critical or taking a strong stand.”
If the climate movement is going to be just another lefty echo chamber, count me out – if not for some of the reasons explored here: http://k-punk.abstractdynamics.org/archives/011295.html (though not the stuff about Capitalism causing climate change – that lends itself to dangerously simplistic thinking)
That’s not really the point though Anna. You may have mobilised people, but how many people have you turned off?
That’s great Anna! Congrats! I’m really glad that it’s mobilised a lot of people. I still think that it would be less patronising to have presented the “no” votes less ridiculously. Why present a vote that doesn’t really have a “no” option?