Interview: Josh Kirkman, CEO of Surfers for Climate
The newly installed CEO of Surfers for Climate sits down with Dan Dobbin for a chat about his new role, and what any right-minded surfer can do to initiate change.
Swellnet: You've just been appointed CEO of the ‘Surfers for Climate’, can you tell us about the organisation?
Josh Kirkman: For sure. The boiler-plate mission of Surfers For Climate is to empower and mobilise a sea-roots movement for positive climate action. But there’s much more to it than that.
The organisation itself is quite young, a bit over a year old now. It was launched by Johnny Abegg and Belinda Baggs after they noticed that there was a huge gap in the surfing community when it came to advancing the discussion around climate change and climate action in the surfing community. There have been a number of organisations like Surfrider, Surfers Against Sewage that have been talking about environmental issues for years now, but there was nothing out there that was building momentum on climate action specifically.
So Belinda and Johnny got together with a bunch of other pretty good humans and launched Surfers For Climate last year, and since then the organisation has gone from strength to strength, lobbying politicians to oppose oil and gas developments in Australian waters, and talking about climate solutions such as Sea Forest, as an example.
Pretty soon, we’re launching the Sustainable Supply Club as a way for brands and the surfing community to go deeper on the sustainability journey, and I’m really looking forward to seeing that evolve. In addition to that, we are always partnering up with other stakeholders for knowledge-sharing opportunities, and have a webinar next week talking about how the surfing community can deepen their climate action that should be pretty rad.
[Editor's Note: Posted this interview a touch too late. Stay tuned for more such webinars]
How did you come to be involved with the organisation?
I got involved as an ambassador to begin with, which was a great honour. Belinda and I had travelled together on a trip for Patagonia in Scotland a few years back, and we’d also crossed paths on the Fight For The Bight campaign too. She was launching SFC with Johnny, and asked if I was up for being involved, which was easy to say yes to.
Earlier this year, I was given the head’s up that they were looking for someone to join them part-time as Operations and Development Manager so I threw my hat in the ring and got the job. As of last week I was named CEO and couldn’t be happier about it.
Josh running smooth but facing an oncoming hurdle. The wave as metaphor for this enviro warrior (Photo: Carlos Padilla Fotografia)
Where does your environmental commitment stem from?
It goes back a long way to be honest. I remember wondering what the conditions were like in the factories in Asia when bodyboard manufacturing made that shift in the early 2000s. I was going to uni at Newcastle and taking sustainability subjects, and it was really on my mind at the time.
From there, it's been a continuous educational journey. I’m certainly not the perfect environmentalist, so I don’t want to make out anything like that, but I heard recently that if we wait for perfect environmentalists we’ll never succeed in overcoming the challenges facing us.
So fuck it, let’s go head first on this I reckon!
My commitment comes from understanding there are problems and having a sense of belief in myself that I might be able to do something meaningful and tangible about them. It won’t be easy, but that’s what’s driving me right now. Plus, I’m only ever meeting the best people on this journey, truly exceptional individuals who work like our lives depend on it.
What does Surfers for Climate aim to achieve?
In the short-term, the growth of a movement towards deeper climate action by the surfing community. Medium to long-term, the definitive conclusion of exploration for oil and gas in Australian waters, and globally.
It simply has to stop [oil and gas exploration]. We have enough production capacity to see us through the transition to lower carbon fuel technologies, and the risks are too great. It has served us well in many ways, but the lasting legacy of fossil fuels will be a calamity if we don’t smarten up.
To get to this final goal, we have to work with the surfing community and industry to build a coalition of concerned surfers who are willing to step up and be true custodians of our coastal environments. We really have to see the surfing community move past the culture of just taking waves, to taking time to protect those waves for future generations. And that means doing everything we can to make a difference when it comes to climate change.
What would you say to any surfers or bodyboarders out there who are still skeptical as to the idea that climate change is actually occurring?
You’re wrong. Happy to have a yarn about it with you.
As surfers / bodyboarders we are big consumers of petrochemical products like boards and wetsuits, how can we help have a positive impact on environmental issues?
There are many ways to engage with the issue of climate change without becoming Siddartha Gautama and renouncing all worldly and boogie temptations henceforth...
We can certainly applaud brands who are taking steps to address their supply chains and do something different. I love what Pride Bodyboards have done in this respect and they should be commended for leading on this [Pride make fins from recycled rubber, wetsuits from Yulex, and use recycled polyethylene in all their boards]. Other brands ought to follow their lead and explore ways for bodyboards to move away from petrochemicals while maintaining quality.
We can look into where our money is held in terms of bank accounts and superannuation, and switch this money to organisations that are investing ethically and not lending money to large fossil fuels developments. I’m with Australian Ethical Investment for superannuation, but there’s others out there, like Future Super that are doing great things.
We can look at how much stuff we buy that we don’t need, and try to stop mindless consumerism. If you’re bored, don’t go buy stuff, go fucken surfing or bodyboarding.
We can look at our diets and get to know products that are derived from regenerative agriculture practices. In WA there’s a company called Dirty Clean Food that is focused on this and I had a steak of theirs recently that was next level. I don’t eat a lot of meat, but when I do, I try to buy regenerative because restoring soil carbon could be the single most impactful thing we can do as a response to global warming.
We can vote for politicians who are going to do something meaningful about climate change. We know who they are, and I assure you, if we do vote in people who are intent on transitioning the Australian economy to one that is prosperous and zero carbon, we will all benefit tremendously. The alternative is business as usual and eventual decline and inequality. Easy choice.
Anything else you'd like to add..?
People need to understand that to be environmentally concerned doesn’t mean you have to chain yourself to a tree or protest in the streets. You could be a builder who guides clients into building more energy efficient homes that don’t see them slaves to energy companies. You could be a small business owner who chooses to increase the proportion of ethical goods on display while promoting the virtues of such products to their clientele. You could be a teacher, who has the most important job of all, guiding the next generation into becoming individuals who are ready to be benevolent custodians of this place, and not another generation with a blindfold on, only now peeping over the edge to see the problems for the first time and feeling overwhelmed by the task ahead.
The point is, none of us are perfect, and if we accept the science and listen to the experts who have been banging on about this for years, then we can all see that we have a meaningful part to play.
Comments
In 1973 a recently published paper was handed out during my physics lecture. It was actually irrelevant to the topic at hand but the lecturer thought it would interest us. The exact name eludes me now but it provided evidence that humans were disrupting the carbon cycle.
He briefly talked us through it then made a joke to the effect that we couldn't possibly be stupid enough to let it become a serious problem. He was great on physics, not so hot on human nature. I spent the last 20 years of my teaching career apologising to students about the behaviour of my generation in ignoring this issue. To be here, 48 years later, listening to the self interested COALition apologists still obfuscating obstructing and bleating the same old bullshit makes me want to vomit.
It appears Wisdom, Science and Facts have unfortunately been overridden by Greed, Entertainment and Xenophobia.
Time for the kiddies to start a rebellion. If they can get off the devices first.
Really ignorant comment. Boomers have created the problem of now. The young will have to clean up their greed driven mess.
They won't get off their devices. Aldous Huxley nailed it, except replace pharmacological with technological.
The only hope I have is that Facebook, twitter, et al replace their current propaganda model of pushing misinformation and hate with scientifically valid data. This was the hope of B.F Skinner to create a techno-uptopia. We have the tools, they're just being used for inane reasons (engagement at any cost = more ad revenue).
“There will be, in the next generation or so, a pharmacological method of making people love their servitude, and producing dictatorship without tears, so to speak, producing a kind of painless concentration camp for entire societies, so that people will in fact have their liberties taken away from them, but will rather enjoy it, because they will be distracted from any desire to rebel by propaganda or brainwashing, or brainwashing enhanced by pharmacological methods. And this seems to be the final revolution”
― Aldous Huxley
Just like sarscov2 the govt response to this will be much worse than the real problem. Strap yerselves in and get ready for the hysteria.
Who said the dinosaurs were extinct?
Will he be campaigning for Nuclear energy in Australia and pressuring our Govt to put more pressure on the bigggest polluters India and China?
Good question Michael.
For now, our primary focus is to advocate for an end to what is know as the annual acreage release for offshore oil and gas in Australian waters. Other countries such as Denmark, France and New Zealand (even the North East of the US) have ended such practices and we want Australia to stop lagging behind. We aren't advocate for an end to existing oil and gas projects that employ Aussies, but would like to see a plan for how this rigs and platforms are wound-up eventually and either repurposed for other uses (there's some great work being done to explore the use of this infrastructure as offshore seaweed farms) or decommissioned according to strict environmental standards (and not left for Aussie taxpayers to foot the bill).
To reach our goal of ending new offshore oil and gas exploration in Australian waters we believe we need a sort of cultural revolution in surfing, whereby surfers see themselves as custodians of the coastal environment and leading action to protect and preserve what they love. The whole surf industry needs to be on board such a shift in surf culture and it starts with the products they make and how they act as corporate stewards of the environment. We're launching an initiative called the Sustainable Supply Club next week to start momentum in this direction, and we hope to see as many brands as possible jump on board after launch.
Regarding nuclear power and pressuring India and China. China is light years ahead of Australia in many ways, and while I'm not so sure of India's progress on climate pollution reduction, what I do know is this - Aussies are still per capita the biggest polluters in the world and we need to take responsibility for that. Nuclear power? I'm not so educated on that, so don't have an opinion.
Why not do some reading for yourself?
Modern Nuclear reactors are clean, safe and very efficient producing a tiny amount of waste. Should definitely be part of the discussion if not a huge part of the solution.
From what I’ve read anyway. You can try and change my mind if you like. I’m open.
Generally when people say 'try and change my mind' they're not open to it!
But I'll bite, there's two big problems off the bat with nuclear; cost and waste. You allude to solutions with tiny waste, but show me one working reactor that produces a 'tiny amount of waste'. There's a good article I read about how Australia is actually leading the world with solar and wind and once our storage (pumped hydro, batteries) gets upto spec, we actually can get to net zero easier and quicker than almost any other country, despite our terrible, corrupt politicians. Personally I lean towards the side of pessimism regarding Global warming and I think it's 'too little, too late' but hopefully I'm wrong for my son's sake!
https://iopscience.iop.org/article/10.1088/2516-1083/abeb5b
Not that your opinion or mine, or even SloMo's matters. The only lever we have is capitalism and if Nuclear is so great, they'll do nuclear. But given the cost alone, they won't. Mind changed?
If so, invest in a company called GNX!
Hi Michael,
The LCOE (Levelised cost of Energy, the global standard for comparing energy costs) for solar power has dropped from $359 per KWh in 2010 to around $37 per KWh today. It will continue to drop as technology improves. During the same period of time the LCOE for nuclear went from $96 to $155. We are already a long way from nuclear being a cheap way to make energy and the difference will only increase. Bear in mind that the LCOE for nuclear DOES NOT factor in the cost of safely storing nuclear waste which continues to emit deadly ionising radiation for 240,000 years (quite some added cost there). Because the industry in almost every country with nuclear power has never faced up to dealing with the problem of nuclear waste, sadly (and frighteningly) the majority of that waste is still stored in temporary stockpiles around the world. The technology still does not exist to keep it safe for 1000 years ( let alone 240,000).
You may have heard about these new Small Modular Reactors (SNR), Molten Salt Reactors (MSR) or Thorium reactors. All of this is spin - akin to Morrison telling us that his party (the same one that has gutted the CSIRO over the last 13 years) is going to rely on technology which doesn't exist yet, to deal with the climate crisis. It's all bullshit. Small modular reactors are only theoretical at the moment (China is testing the first prototype atm) No one knows whether they are a viable solution. But what is known, is that they will be incredibly expensive to build (requiring massive subsidisation with public money); it would take at least 20 years for the technology (if viable) to be rolled out to any extent (far too long to have an impact on lowering emissions); and by that time, the cost compared to renewable generation is likely to be at least ten times more expensive (probably more). Also, contrary to the spin that these Theoretical Thorium reactors are safe (Thorium is relatively safe as radioactive isotopes go); in reality they cannot generate power other than by breeding Uranium 233. So the spin that they do not produce dangerous nuclear waste is also bullshit.
So, we have unlimited availability of renewable energy sources, solar, wind, tidal... By the time new nuclear power plants could be invented and built, we will already be living in a world awash with zero-marginal cost renewable energy. Energy will be pretty much free, and it will transform our economic system. We don't need nuclear energy. We never did. It remains the single worst idea human ever came up with.
All we have to do now is exercise or democratic rights and vote in a government that will make this happen (well, the market is already making it happen, but renewables need to subsided to make it happen quicker. Where would that money come from, I hear you say - well we could start with the $11 billion of public money - our taxes - that our current government gifts to the fossil fuel industry in so-called subsidies every year. That would be more than enough. Oh, and even though Josh didn't dare speak the name that Rupert has decreed shall not be spoken ... the party is The Greens. Vote 'em in (presumably in coalition with Labor).
Here's some reading that might interest you.
Cheer!
https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2011/jun/23/thorium-nuclear-uranium
https://www.csiro.au/en/news/news-releases/2020/renewables-still-the-che...
This is excellent Sam, thank you for sharing.
For an Australian context perhaps you may be right. But globally where countries have less available space for renewables, denser populations and higher intermittent levels of renewable energy especially sunshine your argument weakens.
Energy will never be free in our current system. To think so is naïve. You will never get the naysers on board if you don’t bring carrots and sticks to the equation. See last 30 years of our energy and climate wars.
Someone has to make a buck out of it or they won’t do it.
Noticed the outrage when windfarms are proposed? Heard the howling over the range when large scale solar PV farms are proposed on farming land?
Nuclear energy the single worst idea human ever came up with? Hyperbole much?
If the world had invested in more nuclear energy we wouldn’t be in such a mess now emissions wise.
That CSIRO draft report states “Costs reductions for technologies not currently being widely deployed such as…. nuclear small modular reactors…….. are lagging and would require stronger global investment to realise their full potential”.
What happens if stronger global investment does occur? say if or when the Thorium reactors get up.
Nuclear energy is not going away?
Plus the thorium waste is less radioactive. Plus the potential to reuse spent material and not ship offshore hazardous material as someone else problem.
But you don’t need Thorium to build smaller, smarter and cheaper nuclear reactors for uranium to help meet energy needs.
Nevertheless when comparing waste using current technology - current estimates of UK nuclear waste is 1 litre per person per year. 25 ml of that high level waste. That’s nothing. Easily managed.
How are we going to deal with the battery waste and panel waste challenge (crisis) that is knocking at our door? Is there a plan for that?
Nuclear energy has a part to play for a global solution to reduce our global emissions .
Thanks for taking the time to post this, Sam.
There are two problems with nuclear. It is more expensive than renewables and it will not be functioning soon enough to make the emission reductions we need.
"Put plainly – if countries want to lower emissions as substantially, rapidly and cost-effectively as possible, they should prioritise support for renewables rather than nuclear power. Pursuit of nuclear strategies risks taking up resources that could be used more effectively and suppressing the uptake of renewable energy."
https://steps-centre.org/blog/nuclear-vs-renewables-whats-better-for-cli...
Really, yet another non profit. Guy is on a plastic surf craft with usual neoprene and urethane accessories. Presumably drives a car, uses a mobile phone, uses cameras, recording equipment, computers, airplanes - and of course, the internet. Has a podcast, has run a magazine, Absolutely nothing to see here. $$$ tax free.
Due to coronavirus, everyone sat at home for months; no travelling no fancy wetsuits or cameras, no driving or airplanes. We decreased our emissions by 17%. Individuals aren't the problem so much as goverments and large industries. You go on and on about how its our consumerism that is the problem, when realistically we're doing the best with what we've go. We need to demand better, more renewable, lower emission products. Put your money where your mouth is and buy from brands that are doing the right thing, thereby encouraging others to do the same.
Ha ha. So cynical man. I'm just a regular guy living in a fossil fuel system that I didn't have a choice being born into. But I'm here, recognising a few issues and knowing a few solutions, so I'm working on it.
The trap of individual responsibility gets us nowhere. The fact is that there's a small number of very wealthy individuals and companies that spend a lot of money to try and keep us from exploring alternatives to this fossil fuel reality we were all born into.
I don't blame anyone for driving a car, working on an oil rig, breaking a sweat to earn a living. That's what we're all doing. What I don't stand for are people putting blinders on to the issues or sticking their heads in the sand because it seems too hard to make change.
There is a pathway forward that can include everyone without the environmental cost. We have all become a bit apathetic to tragedies that unfold before our eyes. Look at the oil spill off Huntington Beach recently - that's actually avoidable if we no longer remain hooked intravenously to fossil fuels.
Your cynicism doesn't offend me, I've heard it all before. Hope to get you on the journey with us.
Hear, hear! Thanks for your commitment and effort , Josh. Many (hopefully most) of us are behind you all the way.
"Jacksprat", what're you doing to make a difference, mate? (It always amazes me that some people are willing to have a go at those that have the guts to publically commit to standing behind their beliefs and to making a positive contribution to the world). Get out from behind the isolation of your online world, jacksprat, and join us in the real one! We can do with all the help we can get. The world (the real world that is, not the cyber world) needs you!
The gravy-train is gaining speed!
You know a guy in a wetsuit was a terrible choice for the article cover photo, and then a body boarder in a wetsuit for the article pic.
If you were going to do that you really needed to make it clear that they are wetsuits made without petrochemicals, otherwise pics with just boardies would have been more appropriate.
If there isn't already (cant find much) somebody should create a website with every known (or as many as possible) surf product on the market that is an alternative to petrochemicals, that would be more useful, than another whinge whinge group type thing, literally hundreds of those already.
Kind of like this but much more complete https://www.surfrider.org.au/programs/ocean-friendly-products/
Why a terrible choice?
I wear a steamer and it contains no petrochecmicals, and there are currently seven brands offering something similar, while in the interview he mentions a BB company making equipment from recycled polyethylene.
Exactly what I was thinking, who’s to say it’s not Yulex or similar?
Why would you want to chop someone down for trying to help protect the thing we all love?
Because most wetsuits are not, so like it or not it's what people will instantly assume, hence why there should have at least been a note somewhere stating its not or at least if the article had talked about petrochemical alternative wetsuits, people would at least go, oh okay.
Right.
What, a byline for dickheads……….good idea Indo
“ Just in case any of you dickheads are thinking “ that bloke is driving his car wearing a neoprene wetsuit” he’s actually wearing yulex and riding a bike”
FFS
SD
Would have been easy to either:
-Use other photos(the easiest option), might as well put the guy standing in front of a car, and then when critiqued used the excuse, hard to tell from the pic might be an EV
-Mentioned alternative wetsuits in the interview, so at least some type of come back.
-Put some clever line in the article pic, indicating yulex suit
I was thinking its going have to be mentioned somewhere in the article about how he only uses alternative wetsuits.
But you have to just assume its a standard wetty, and then it just comes off as hypocritical or kind of satire, it's like WTF?
And using a dude standing in a wetsuit as the opening photo....seriously its the worse surfing related photo possible of every single photo that could have been used.
Thats why its hard to take all these virtue singling knobs seriously, because most are using equipment made with petrochemicals and not driving EV's, your actually in part what is driving new projects, but then at the same time whinge.
It's just mind numbing stuff.
Fuck you're weird sometimes. The interview got sent through with no photos at all. I chose them.
Spin the internet any direction you want, land on a news story for a politician or an activist, there are thousands posted every day, do you read in the captions who makes their clothes and cars, and whether that aligns with their politics?
Simple answer: yes or no.
And when you inevitably wriggle out of a single word answer, I'll reply and tell you again, I chose the photos, and anyway, he addresses transition in his answers to Dan.
Sheeeeesh...
EDIT: It's virtue 'signalling', and in this instance would be achieved by spruiking virtuous intent in a photo/caption. The exact thing you people rail about, and now, strangely, are railing against. Can't fucking win, eh?
If there was a story on a politician or celebrity with a similar article and they were pictured in front of a car, then yes you would instantly, think that car better be an EV and you would want some indication from the article it is if it wasn't clear.
Your intro pic would better used for something like an article about petrochemical companies keeping surfers warm for decades. :p
I remember Ricky Gervais telling a joke about internet trolls once. I'm paraphrasing but he talks about it being the equivalent of some feral in an a garbage bin throwing rubbish and calling you a dickhead whilst you walk by. Would you worry about what he is saying?........
Have seen, on Netflix, good watch. Also big on animal rights. Pretty smart dude.
@solitude Sticking to the topic on hand and pointing out inconsistencies isn't trolling.
Your comment is closer to trolling as your not sticking to the topic but trying to label or bring me down purely because my view doesn't aline with yours
Generally speaking I try to make sure most of my posts are fairly positive or at least neutral. This post is not and I could've just kept my thoughts to myself.
However I'm noticing an increasing trend of people knocking others down for trying to make a positive difference to any good news article on SN (same with women's rights, health, the list goes on).
Its frustrating that people would have a go at an organisation or individual for trying to generate positivity in the world. Then furthermore chide the author of the article with sematics around photos etc when unless I'm mistaken is also just trying to promote something positive by writing about this.
Nobody is perfect and it's very, very difficult to live completely sustainably in our modern world. Can't really hurt to do our best I reckon.
Anyway mate, you have a good day. I'm certainly going to. Might even get a paddle in later which would take the cake.
Cheers
Fuck mate, it's not the "topic at hand", I explained the interview got sent without photos. I chose them and if you choose to tear him down and ignore the message because perhaps he's wearing the wrong wetsuit then I reckon that says more about your tiny mind then anything else.
Also, as I said, you're the first to jump at virtue signalling, so here's a case where it isn't employed but now you jump because he isn't virtue signalling.
Classic trolling.
@indo.
Because i wasnt told what josh was wearing..... I chose to believe it was a suit made from the skin of unwanted children at the local orphanage. Also, his board must be made from rhino horn and hes wearing dugong fins on his feet.
How could u josh!!!!!
Far out Indo….
That makes no sense whatsoever. Why would he be fake all for a photo thumbnail? He even states that he's not a perfect environmentalist himself but has and is continuing to make changes where he can, and lists them in the article. And as for the whinge whinge group.....seriously? The Fight for the Bight campaign was largely successful for exactly that reason....enough people whinged.
Josh is my brother and gives a real fuck about the environment.
Jacksprat - That argument is just lame mate. It's a transition away from fossil fuels. Humans go cold turkey on fossil fuels and we die don't we? We aren't set up for that right now.
Sean Doherty runs a magazine, has a very active (and extremely informative IG), so what??? Sean also was a major player in the F for the B campaign? Would you not agree that was only possible through social media, magazines, the internet? Pretty hard to communicate for change from inside a cave.
Thanks for the comment.
In the article I speak to the launch of our Sustainable Supply Club, which is speaking to your point. We are essentially creating a network for brands and consumers to come together to advance sustainable solutions within the surf industry. We're starting small, but the point is to clean up surfing so we basically don't feel like hypocrites when we oppose oil and gas exploration.
This is a pretty big challenge for surfers in my experience: on the one hand they know that oil and gas is overall a negative for the ocean and the climate change issue broadly and they want to do something about it, while on the other hand they know that they're hardware is derived from petrochemicals.
I think we need to embrace the fact that we use craft that is fossil fuel derived, acknowledging the joys they bring us, while we seek change. There's nothing hypocritical about that. We don't have to be paralysed into inaction because we were born into a system so reliant on fossil fuels. That wasn't our choice, but it is our choice if we want to change it.
10 points, Josh.
Our choices are often limited to those available within a system full of products and practices which have a detrimental impact on society or environment. Improving the range of sustainable choices available and their accessibility is key.
Ok time to stop stop nit picking. This fella is not claiming to be perfect, no one is. He’s not exactly running a coal mine.
Absolute legend and good on you for trying to make a difference.
Thanks for Dan for the article, like it does for myself, I hope it encourages readers to stop and give it a little food for thought.
Good on Surfers for Climate. However, I do have some questions: is another surfer-driven 'lobby/advocacy group' required? Wouldn't it would be more efficient and less extractive to pool what resources there are toward those who lives are truly on the frontlines of the violence of pollution / climate change? There's only so much money and goodwill for such endeavours, and it arguably could be channelled by getting out of the way. As all the peer-reviewed research shows, there is an unequal impact of this violence. How can Surfers for Climate best help?
Hey clif, fair questions.
There was definitely a space for Surfers For Climate to fill. While there have been other orgs fighting for different environmental causes, we are one of the first to explicitly address climate change and the surfing community's general inaction on it.
I agree, some non-profits get in the way of service delivery to those in most need, but for us, we're always finding ways to elevate those on the frontline of the climate crisis, with a particular focus on First Nations led organisations such as Seed Mob and Our Island Our Home.
Currently, there's very little money and goodwill for such endeavours, particularly when it comes to funding groups that are addressing the issue of climate inaction from countries like Australia. If we had governments and industry bodies that were willing to take this seriously, we probably wouldn't need to exist at all, but they don't take it seriously, so therefore we exist.
We think we can best help by doing our best to change the culture of surfing and the industry itself to see surfers recognise themselves as custodians of the coastal environment who are willing to act to protect and preserve it. This means taking surfers on a journey down the rabbit hole of climate action. The most common thing I hear from surfers is that they don't know where to start or what to do about climate change. There is a thirst for action, but a paralysis too.
We're here to help with that.
We're launching a political campaign soon called 'Don't Be A Kook' which is all about political action in the lead up to the Federal Election. More to come...
We're next week launching our Sustainable Supply Club, seeing the formation of a community of brands and individuals coming together to support Surfers For Climate while connecting with brands that are on a sustainability journey with their product development. It's certainly not perfect, but it's a start and we have big plans for growing it and sharing knowledge through formats such as webinars from brands and live events, COVID permitting.
We're collaborating with Surfrider Foundation and other groups to fight Beach Energy and others who want to explore for gas in the Otway Basin off Southern Vico. We're taking action at Beach Energy's AGM and also in regular discussions with politicians of all parties, lobbying them to oppose this.
We're also developing a regenerative gardening initiative to try and see if we can make the backyards of the Australian surfing community a distributed carbon sink. There's a lot of backyards out there that could be contributing to soil carbon sequestration, so we're working hard to see this kick off next year.
There's a huge opportunity for the Australian surf community to take the bull by the horns and recognise their political power in this country while engaging with the industry to make it a force of not just good times, but good environmental outcomes.
That's our mission and we're pretty amped about it.
A couple of points. One of the long term strategies of the fossil fuel industry has been to put the burden of change on individuals when the bulk of the problem has always been at the government and corporate levels. So calling out people for being less than perfect means you are batting for the wrong team. The second point is that different groups not only reach different audiences but add to the social pressure on governments and corporations to respond.
1. Didn't call him out. 2. Questioned efficacy of this strategy. 3. Too many voices and groups dilute impact/pressure. 4. All audiences currently being reached (except an intransigent govt).
.
Fossil fuels are driven by demand they only bring in new projects based on projections that are based on current demand and current trends.
If people actually made individual change themselves and used alternatives not only would demand fall but the alternatives would take off and become even more popular.
To blame lack of change on governments or fossil fuel companies (often heavily invested in renewables too) is a totally cop out.
It's crazy how there is such a lack of individual responsibility around this issue, very different to past campaigns where it was all think globally act locally, everyone does their part type of thing.
Not an intelligent take from a historical standpoint and also a misunderstanding about the scope of the problem IMO.
tl;dw Personal responsibility is a smooth brained simplistic argument.
Weird video.
Start's off with the idea that it's common for "everyone to say it's up to the individual to make change"
Which at least in Australia is not true, which IMHO is half the problem, people don't want to make sacrifices they want magic solutions from governments.
Then the message i got was, reducing emissions by 100% is impossible because some areas like farming emissions can never be cut to zero(can only be offset)
Surprisingly a big unexpected positive focus on carbon capture, but the government must pay for it.
Then the punch line, which didnt have much punch at all it was just the typical blaming big business, but ignoring that fact that big business is driven by consumer choices, big business follows demand, trends and money set by consumers, not the other way around.
For example: If people stopped buying petrochemical produced wetsuits or surfboards and bought alternative more eco friendly products, then companies would sell and make less petrochemical produced items and make more of the alternatives instead.
But then the video kind of end's on admitting this in a funny way.
If governments starting taxing petrochemical produced wetsuits or surfboards and incentivised alternative more eco friendly products, then companies would sell and make less petrochemical produced items and make more of the alternatives instead.
fixed it for you indo.
Off course the default answer another TAX
:)
I agree indo.
I don't think it's possible to make a valid case against human induced climate change currently occurring that is statistically extreme and well outside the range of the usual cycle of the climate that occurs over millions of years.
But BB said:
> "One of the long term strategies of the fossil fuel industry has been to put the burden of change on individuals when the bulk of the problem has always been at the government and corporate levels."
This statement has always seemed completely backwards and misinformed to me.
Isn't the statement a victim mentality unconsciously designed to deflect the blame and responsibility away from the real cause of climate change and to provide us with a warm and fuzzy feeling and instant relief from thinking we are the cause and having to hold our own selves accountable and take ownership for our own actions that cause climate change?
We - you and me - are the cause of climate change. The lifestyle and purchasing choices as consumers we make every moment is the cause. Continuing to purchase all the products that we think we can't live without is the cause. Insisting on living material, consumer lifestyles in cities is the cause.
Governments and corporations are not the cause. They are ultimately only reflections of our decisions, behaviours and purchasing choices. I just love all the debate about climate change occurring right now in Australia, where everyone is blasting the government to do something about it and set all these targets etc. Everyone is just playing the victim and shifting responsibility, saying the government should save us and do something about it. Everyone thinks the government should fix a problem that we caused for ourselves.
I've always kept one foot in academia, and have lectured a lot of economics and finance courses. In most finance and financial economics courses, one always starts off with the function of the financial system and how it supports the most massive democracy of all time in which we all participate every waking moment: our economy.
The financial system exists to channel funds/money/capital through the economy from people/entities who want to save or invest or lend it to people/entities who need to borrow or raise capital - every other function is peripheral and subservient to this core flow-of-funds function.
Wrt business, corporations, and real assets excluding property, where do the funds flow, to which borrowers and capital raisers? Of course it goes to the most profitable businesses who are seeking to invest in expanding their capacity because they operate in the most profitable parts of the economy - in particular the parts of the economy with the most amount of demand for the products and services provided. We as consumers are causing this demand - no one else is...
We as consumers live in the ultimate democracy in which our purchasing decisions determine a huge chunk of the overall structure of our society and economy in which we live. We vote with our own dollars to determine the success and failure of businesses and corporations through our purchase decisions. We elect which businesses and corporations survive via our purchase decisions.
I recall reading somewhere blowin saying he'd purchased some degraded land and was rejuvenating and regenerating it. I very much respect him and anyone for doing something like that. These kinds of actions are the solution. The idea of permaculture really resonates with me.
Scomo can't save us - only we can save ourselves.
Not can't, won't
A little bit of A) and a little bit of B).
Consumers didn't set up the welfare state post-WW2. Consumers didn't liberalise the state in the 80s. Broad-scale ideological changes can only be installed by governments who have the power to change how an economy works. Even lower level operations - tariffs, subsidies, regulations etc - work against your thesis, yet we live with these every day.
We're currently staring down the barrel of the largest change to our economy since the 80s, and most likely the event this century will be known for in the same vein as the 18th century Industrial Revolution, and it requires two things:
- Ideological conviction from consumers (which to date has been hard when we've had PM's stating "climate change is crap" and a media machine profiting from muddying of the waters.)
-And a government also with conviction (see parenthesis above) and thus prepared to shape the economy using all the operations they've applied in the past.
I think the view that individual responsibility is more important than government and corporate action is impossible to justify. We may vote with our our purchases but our options are limited. At the moment there are no hybrid or electric vans on the market as a direct result of government propaganda before the last election. Government inaction on public transport and the favouring of freeways has made car travel the only viable way to get around, even in cities where they are the least efficient option. Then there is the fundamental issue of government fossil fuel subsidies which have made maintained coal as a major energy source when it could have already been reduced to a minimal role. If you are suggesting that getting a vote every few years means all.this is our own fault, I agree with you up to a point. That point being we need action NOW and the only realistic way to avoid catastrophic climate change is for governments to take responsibility. To argue against that is as absurd as it is irrelevant as COP26 goes ahead acknowledging the pre-eminent role of governments..
Stu I agree, but I think governments can only really tinker around the edges via systems of incentives like taxes and regulations etc. It's mostly up to us as individuals and our own decisions. And I definitely don't think it's the responsibility of governments to change our ideological conviction as consumers, and yes it's this conviction that is very lacking - but changing it is up to us.
BB said:
>. "We may vote with our our purchases but our options are limited. At the moment there are no hybrid or electric vans on the market as a direct result of government propaganda before the last election."
Again, I think that the "limited options" and "technology not being there" argument is due to a failure in understanding the basic principles on which our market economy is built - in this case free enterprise, economic freedom, individual choice, etc.
It is not the role of governments to create new technologies or products and services. It is up to us as participants in the economy via our own initiative, innovation, entrepreneurship, ingenuity, etc.
We're all free to get involved in the hybrid/electric cars industry - we don't have to wait for the government to do anything. The fact that we don't have these vehicles is our fault due to lack of initiative and innovation. It's not the government's fault.
Regarding fossil fuel, coal etc, we're all free to take a lot of steps in the right direction, and we don't have to wait for the government to tell us to: reduce our overall consumption, install solar panels, use more public transport, inform ourselves and change our purchasing patterns, etc.
Governments have a role to play but it's only small, and it just seems wrong and foolish to just keep sitting around blaming our problems on governments and waiting for them to do something about it before we ourselves act and help ourselves. That's not the political or economic systems in which we live.
Lets put aside for the moment the concerted effort by corporations and political lackeys on the tit of those same companies who have led concerted efforts to stop delay and divert climate action ( ditch the witch anyone?).
Most of us believe that Governments have a duty to protect its citizens right?. What the difference with Climate Change? why should we let them off the hook when it comes this issue? a very small number of corporations are responsible for the the majority of emissions.
https://www.cdp.net/en/articles/media/new-report-shows-just-100-companie...
the power of consumer choice is insignificant in comparison to the power of government regulation.
Agree, especially with the last point. As for our understanding of what a government should be or the concept of the 'social contract' I'd argue that modern day propaganda is too effective and the education standards are too poor for a civilian awaking (Wake up sheeplE!!!111!) when you factor in that 20% are easily persuadable and 60% are pretty persuadable. A cool book I recommend to anyone and everyone at all times is The True Believer: Thoughts on the Nature of Mass Movements by Eric Hoffer. It helped me understand the batshit craziness that exists at a large scale currently and historically. We, the people have the ability to change, but under the current paradigm, we will not.
gsco I suspect you have been sipping the neolib kool aid if you think our economy is in any way substantially shaped by free markets. Governments are up to their necks in market manipulation; subsidies tax breaks and infrastucture planning all distort markets in their preferred direction.
It is absurd to say that I am free to get involved in the electric car industry. I am also free to apply for astronaut training. Nothing is going to come from either. Before the last election the COALition made it clear to car manufacturers that it not support hybrid or full electric technology. So here we have cities full of petrol and diesel delivery vehicles when by now half the fleet could be in low emission vehicles. The government interfered in the market to make us less free by restricting our choice of vehicles for their short term political gain.
Ok I admit I’m completely wrong and should just do what everyone else is doing: keep banging on about climate change, keep blaming it on governments and capitalism, keep bashing governments for not fixing it, and keep my entitled attitude and make no changes to my life.
I admit it does provide instant relief and is the easy way out…
Glad we sorted that, I feel much better now. What was I thinking?
No, make as many changes in the way you live as you can......hassle your local members, vote for climate action at every government level and put a well informed view put into public spaces.
Agreed.
The way forward is a balanced approach of personal responsibility and lifestyle change, combined with entrepreneurship and innovation by the private sector, combined with appropriate government action and leadership.
But evidently we’ll be waiting forever if we rely solely on governments - it’s just a charade and lip service by them.
Agree with this, the level of manipulation is very high.
Another group doing its bit to make the world a better place,…I don’t think you can enough. Even better if they are joining forces and supporting each other.
The recent resurgence in wooden surfboards has been around for a over a decade now & still not many surfers seem to be picking up on how environmentally ethical they are. You don't even kill the paulownia tree when you chop it down, it reshoots at the base & grows another stem. They last forever if you do a good job & more importantly they perform just as good as foam boards. I'd encourage everyone to have a go at making one , so rewarding when you ride a wave on a home made wooden board. Just do it .
bingo.
Want surfing to be C zero. scrap the tour and pro surfing. those guys-girls and their travel schedules are some of the biggest carbon polluters on the planet.
Do you reckon all the whinging dickheads on this site now who nitpick every little detail and shit on people trying to do some good is in part brought on by an ageing surf population?
If surfers want to be sustainable do this:
Ride only wooden boards and fins, ideally second hand.
Never use wetsuits. Unless you make your own out of scrap neoprene the fancy 'sustainable' yulex wetsuit still needs to get shipped, packaged, et al.
Never travel for surf. Your local and that's it. Don't even think about getting in a car to the next spot over. Don't even use a car, ever! 2nd hand bicycle OK.
Who's keen? Anyone? That CEO from the article? No?! Then we're all part of the problem, myself included, despite only riding 2nd hand boards from my personal ideological standpoint. 'Those who live in glass houses should not throw stones'. Kudos for trying to do better but FFS no more 'green washing'.
Thanks for your comment on the article, but there's a few things I should respond to:
You take your commentary to the extreme as if that's the only pathway forward. It's not, there are many steps we can take to see the surf industry evolve and be far less polluting while we all continue to have fun riding waves on high quality craft. Secondhand boards are awesome. Nothing better than finding a gem at a garage sale. For an average stand-up surfer like me, there's really no need to buy a high performance craft. And that's a choice we can all make, but there are materials out there today that, if adopted by the mainstream board manufacturers could see results instantly. I refer to shapers like Gary Mc'Niell who's using flax fiber, bio-resin and partially recycled blanks to make some of the most beautiful boards I've seen.
Yulex is a great alternative to neoprene and one day, if we lobby politicians and demand change, we could see a transition of the whole global shipping industry to hydrogen based fuel. That's not science fiction, but it needs us to talk about it and advocate for it.
I can go on and pick apart your comment piece by piece, but I'll just say that you have two choices in all this: remain fixed in your position pointing to the obvious (that we're all part of the problem), or you can engage with the issue and take it step by step to see change materialise.
In the article I say very clearly that I'm not a perfect environmentalist (no one is). The thing I'm not is apathetic. I'm not going to accept things as they are when there's clear evidence that things can be better. We all have a decision to make when it comes to apathy.
I personally think the more 'green washing' the better - evaluate what is done to contribute to the overall problem.......decide to what extent continuation of being a contributor to the problem exists and then act on what is required to mitigate (or even better) transcend the impact. Local landcare groups, for e.g., are always on the lookout for extra people and, in my experience, these coastal collectives fit hand in glove with a surfing lifestyle and do make a difference.
Really interesting comment. I'm not sure if I fully get it though. Could you elaborate a bit? Genuinely interested to hear more.
Honestly a net 0 emission target by 2050 is very easy for Scomo to say because its not going to be him in power by then so can leave the responsibilities to others. However he is more directly responsible for what happens in the near future for the 2030 target and this is why they are not willing to change anything on this target, because Scomo has his donations and friendships too intertwined with his fossil fuel mates so feels obliged to help them out. ABC did a good program on this last night called Big Deal showing how much of an impact the political donations from the fossil fuel industry can impact the decisions made by the government and how easy it is for them to arrange a meeting with the politicians because of their political clout, and they contrasted this to a regular Aussie farmer whose been waiting 12 + months to meet with the government, and how little impact what he the consumer has. It showed how many politicians jump between the boards and executive roles of fossil fuel companies and then transition into roles in parliament and back and forth.
My take on the issue is that no ones perfect however from today you can make decisions by picking alternatives that will reduce your impact on the environment. I have just in the past few months gone vegetarian at home as that is the greatest single impact you can take to reducing your impact. 99% of my surfboard purchases are from the second hand market, only got 1 new one in the last 5 years which was an 18th bday present given to me. Bike riding wherever possible, and sharing car lifts with your mate if you drive down the coast.
Buying a new car is expensive and especially in the Australian market when prices are so much more competitive to buy a non EV it is unjustifiable for most people struggling to pay their rent to buy an EV. This is one area the government is continuing to disincentives the purchase by talking about bringing in an EV tax to help out their fossil fuel friends. As much as Id love to drive around in a large 4wd 80s series landy these things are fuel guzzling monsters. If you really cared you wouldn't drive one of these around but because of the prices on EVs your not expected to drive one of them as yet, just find another way to be cool other than a wanky large fuel guzzling 4wd.
I think a big point that is missed when people say stop this greenwashing stuff, does that mean you'll happily see the government spent billions of dollars, future proofing our beaches with seawalls and our cities with flood mitigation systems to protect the lives and livelihoods of all Australians due to the impacts of increased weather events and erosion along coastlines.
Also I'm interested to see how many surf spots go extinct with sea level rise, Majority of the spots along the surf coast are low tide only so this could mean we all become the old men saying "its not as good as it used to be" to our kids and the ever growing surf population will be concentrated to 1/10 of the spots.
Great stuff willi!
couldn't agree more about the large vehicle trend. 5 of the top selling vehicles in Oz from Jan to June 2021 are lare SUVs or works utes. unless you are in a trade or towing a van I can't think of any reason why you would want to drive these types.
Good on you Josh as all efforts will help however population control is the real issue driving climate change. This is why China, USA & to a lesser extent India are the major problem in controlling CO2 & methane continuing to contribute to Global warming issues. USA is engaging in solutions to their emmisions however China & India being developing nations seem to be doing the opposite! China is by far the biggest emmiter (30%) where as USA is 11% & India is 7% of overall world emmisions. China & India have 1.9 billion & 1.7 billion people respectively. Sweden is the lowest emmiter as they rely on Nuclear/Hydro power which has virtually no Greenhouse gas emmisions, Maybe this is the way out of this climate crisis in the short term however Nuclear does have some drawbacks, like expense in setting up reactors, sourcing of uranium issues & of course radioactive waste created in the production of power.
Even if it's true, blaming climate change on population growth is not workable since there's either no solution or the one already proposed by Dead Kennedys:
Although, we do seem to be heading that direction with China.
Cheers Greg, but I'm going to quickly slap down your argument regarding population as the driver of climate change. It is far more complex than just numbers, and besides, CO2 levels have risen with most of the world living in poverty. The problem is the insatiable appetites of countries like ours, that consume resources a if there's no consequence, and the way resources are distributed generally speaking.
A really formative book for me was one called 'Stuffed and Starved' by Raj Patel, which speaks to this issue of food resource distribution. I'll do it no justice by explaining it here, but I recommend you check it out: https://www.goodreads.com/book/show/2015924.Stuffed_And_Starved
G'day Josh, check out what several highly regarded scientists say about population driving climate change here
?t=2752. Yes developed nations are the big consumers but the elephant in the room is China & India who are developing nations with huge populations who aspire to the lifestyles afforded to developed nations without reigning in their emmisions to do so!The comments to this climate change article are absolutely fantastic and I’m feeling better and better about myself by the minute.
Not only do I get to deflect blame, responsibility and accountability for climate change away from me personally, I now even get to deflect it away from my whole country.
Epic, it’s all completely out of my control, and I can just keep doing whatever the fuck I want whenever the fuck I want to, with absolutely no consideration or care in the world for my actions or high consumption, high energy western lifestyle whatsoever!
And anyway, if there’s any problem at all then our government will just fix it with new taxes.
That’s it, I’m off to buy a new troopy, jet ski and a few cartons of Jim Beam UDLs to take up the beach every weekend to join in on the fun the rest of Australia is having. In no way do I feel uneasy about that now…!
Ha ha can I get a tow-in next swell? You have a point but the problem is that no political party in Australia has made a success out of preaching personal responsibility on climate change and as I pointed out before, government action is the most effective tool we have to reduce emissions. I can put solar on my roof, (as I have) but if the government neglects to upgrade the grid (as it has) I could easily end up with a negative tariff. And there is nothing I can do about that but vote against them. Governments can choose to massively subsidise fossil fuels (as they have)....and the only power I have is again, my vote. personal responsibility is great and should be encouraged but don't pretend it is the main game. It isn't.
That's a really good comment. There's a massive dissonance between getting involved and continuing the surfer fuel lifestyle, and actually making a change.
Go josh from small footsteps to big Collective energy keep pushing.
Not sure where we go from here but obvious failure at COP26 is likely to unleash a global shitstorm in the streets that will dwarf Occupy and BLM. Whose side are you on? No middle anymore.