We can't even decide on how to save the world

I was once in a meeting that was organising part of the G8 rally in Germany's Heiligendamm (G8 summit 2007). I didn't really know what kind of meeting it was at the time (I'm talking about the meeting, not the G8 summit :-)), I was only told it had something to do with G8 and I was sent by my organisation to represent us. Not knowing how to dress, I'd rather overdress than underdress. So I wore my suit and my tie, and after a 5-hour trip I was anxious to see who's involved.

Where have I landed?
I finally arrived there, I found the door, and reached for the handle. I enter a room with people in their pullovers and T-Shirts, as casual as they come. The closest thing to formal was a buttoned-up rolled-up shirt. There were about 30 people from 20 different organisations in a big round table ordered in a circle (I think only 4-5 women were there).

So after a short time of amazement, I took my tie off, loosened the top shirt button and now fit better into the group. Though I still had the feeling they think I was some traitor with a corporate background. As it turns out they were discussing about the logistics, the planning of the G8 rally and the main message they wanted to present to the G8 leaders. Some very left representatives were there, the most notable fellow was a mid-20 year old german student with a pullover and rasta curls (I don't want to judge by appearances, but it was obvious after the first hour he was quite a left activist).

No, I won't listen to you, but you're sure as hell are going to listen to me
The problem is when 20 different groups all want to be heard there can often only be one outcome, either everyone has to make a compromise or not much happens. The problem at the meeting was, many times when we were close to coming a decision, someone would say: "Sorry, no, I can't accept that. The document is missing the phrase [enter phrase here]." This phrase or word could be peace, it could be social justice, it could be climate change. So at that point an endless argument would break out, and already in agenda point 2 we're not on schedule anymore. One guy even pretended to take a nap because he was offended no one would understand that his idea was the best one (this guy was annoying and destructive in the discussion process, but he wasn't the only one).

The Economist's Green.View had a report on the breaking up of environmental groups and had an analogy that they found in a movie:

Among the many targets of “The Life of Brian”, a satirical Monty Python film, is the tendency of radical left-wing political movements to splinter. The film’s would-be revolutionaries of the People’s Front of Judea, the Judean People’s Front and the Popular Front of Judea are too busy quibbling and accusing each other of treachery to cause much trouble for the occupying Romans.

"But my priority is more important"
It was similar to where I was. There were peace groups, environmental groups, 3-in-1 groups (economical, ecological and social), activist groups, networking groups, discussion groups. It was a wide range of people and they couldn't decide on even wording of some of the documents.

Sometimes the disagreements are over priorities. In 2005 Britons saw David Bellamy, a noted naturalist and wildlife enthusiast, threaten to chain himself to a wind turbine to protest against plans to build a wind farm in Cumbria, a remote and unspoilt part of England. Mr Bellamy objected on the grounds that the turbines would ruin the natural beauty of the moorland. At other times, global problems are cast against local concerns. Diesel engines produce less carbon dioxide than do petrol ones, so some greens want to see the use of diesel fuel encouraged. But diesel also emits more carcinogenic particles, earning the ire of campaigners for cleaner urban air. Finally, there are arguments over basic facts. There is much debate among environmentalists as to whether plant-derived biofuels are a good thing (since they emit no extra carbon into the air) or a bad thing (since producing them can involve deforestation).

But perhaps the biggest rift is over nuclear power. Here, disagreements reach the most rarefied levels. James Lovelock, a chemist who invented the Gaia hypothesis (the earth is a balance of interdependent mechanisms) and is godfather to a generation of greens, provoked much anger and soul-searching in 2004 when he declared that nuclear power offered the only credible solution to climate change. Opposition to atomic energy, said Mr Lovelock, was based on “irrational fear fed by Hollywood-style fiction, the Green lobbies and the media”. Equally influential organisations such as Friends of the Earth, the Sierra Club and Greenpeace preach the traditional anti-atomic doctrine.

[...]

Caught in the crossfire, many of the green movement’s foot-soldiers are tormented by doubts. Many will tell you that their own attitudes have shifted from outright opposition to nuclear power a few years ago to grudging acquiescence as the scale of the climate-change problem has become apparent.

Well, all in all, it was a very long day, but I left earlier (6-7 hours of multi-group debating was enough). I was put on their mailing list and saw similar things going on in their mailing list. Back and forth, back and forth. In the future I will try to avoid that type of meeting. It was fun and informative but not productive - not my type of meeting. There were too many people, too many didn't have interest in listening to other people's point of view. 3-4 people were the talkers and once they started talking they couldn't stop, dragging and provoking the discussions endlessly. Some people did have interest in finding a solution and were very productive and constructive, but unfortunately their voices were drowned by the bickering over small details.

I have nothing against activist groups, I think peaceful protests are needed to make your voice heard. But deciding on one direction with 30 different representatives from 20 different NGOs or NGO-ish groups just seemed impossible that day.

I'm glad the G8 summit did produce some results (nothing tangible yet) and protest were mostly kept peaceful and I hope to see some good results on climate change in Bali 2007. It would be a nice year, the G8 green light was made in my country of nationality and the decision will hopefully be made in the country I grew up.

A nice BBC report on the G8 protest in Germany 2007 (9:48 mins)