He enlisted his global team with the challenge of making Interface a “restorative enterprise” – a business that returns more than it takes. Interface decided to take from the earth only what the earth could rapidly renew. Anderson took a risk, but it paid off – Interface is still the world’s largest maker of commercial carpeting, with factories in 34 countries, annual sales well over $1 billion, and rated by Fortune magazine as one of the best 100 US companies to work for. Thirteen years on from the moment Ray decided to fundamentally change his company, Interface has reduced the energy used to manufacture carpet by 43%, reduced its greenhouse gas emissions 44% in absolute terms (94% when factoring in offsets) and grown net sales by 27%.

We can all be Ray Andersons. We can help the organisations we work in and the communities we live in go through change management processes to respond to climate change. But we’re the last generation with the ability – in terms of the timeframe – to do this. So let’s go create and manage some change! In doing so, what lessons can we learn from the corporate change management sector?

Change management is always hard! What we see in the debate about the price on carbon is now the enormous, overwhelming resistance to change present in the Australian community and in some elements of the business community. In other countries like Europe and most of the UK, there’s a lot less resistance to acting on climate change, because there it’s largely not a partisan issue. Obviously when you have influential players actively stirring up opposition to change and spreading misinformation about it, change management gets a big spanner in the works.

Here are six tips for change management, with analogies drawn from the current carbon price debate.

1. Understand the difference between a Start and a Beginning

William Bridges writes that beginnings are psychological phenomena, not simply practical ones. Starts involve new situations. Beginnings involve new understandings, new values, new attitudes and new identities. While starts can be carefully designed, like an object, beginnings must be carefully nurtured, like a plant. It’s important to understand that in every change process, people will experience starts and beginnings at different times.

When it comes to climate change, there are many people who’ve already understood and processed what’s happening, have gone through grief for what’s being lost, and are getting on with changing their companies, their lives and their behaviour in order to help tackle the problem and adapt to the change we’ve already locked in. These people are looking ahead at what the economy of the future will look like. Others – companies and individuals – are still stuck in denial. We need to keep in mind the difference between a start and a beginning.

2. The Change must be Purpose-Driven

Change must be clearly driven by a purpose that everyone can understand. This is one of the challenges we’re facing in the climate debate. Australia has lost a sense of the urgency of the problem, and the need to act on climate change. The previous strong support for action on climate change has been replaced with confusion and fear in the face of the scare campaign from Tony Abbott about increases in the cost of living, and the success of climate deniers in seeding doubt about the science. The frame has moved from responsibility and stewardship (need to act) to trust in Government (broken promises) and protection from cost of living price rises.

Tony Abbott knows that when the conversation is about climate change, he loses. This is why he didn’t use the words ‘climate change’ once in his televised address to the nation on the carbon price.

While the conversation is around the cost of living impacts, rather than the reason for acting in the first place – climate change and the damage it’s causing – we can’t have an effective process of change. Change processes can be driven by many reasons – make sure there’s a strong purpose behind it all that we don’t lose sight of.

3. Paint a Vision of Life After the Change

This has traditionally been a hard one for the climate change movement. Many people have backgrounds in protest-style environmentalism where we were good at saying what we’re against, but not so good at articulating what kind of new systems we’ll need in a post-climate changed world.

Author Bill McKibben writes: “We lack the vocabulary and the metaphors we need for life on a different scale. We’re so used to growth that we can’t imagine alternatives; at best we embrace the squishy ‘sustainable’ with its implied claim that we can keep on going as before.”

He suggests our new vocabulary must include words like durable, sturdy, stable, hardy, robust, resilient. As a movement, we’ve started to talk about what a new kind of economy might look like: one based on clean energy and creativity, innovation and local solutions, collaborative consumption, re-use and a more responsible mindset. Both McKibben’s book Eaarth and Paul Gilding’s book The Great Disruption are important contributions to painting the vision in an honest and compelling way.

4. Make Sure Everyone has a Part to Play 

Nothing guarantees opposition to change more than when you paint a picture of what the change will look like and people can’t see themselves in it. People must see their role in the outcome – where they’ll sit in the organisation chart after the restructure. What their job will look like under a carbon price. What their lives will be like. Until people know their parts in the situation after the change, their fears and imaginations can lead them far from the reality they will be actually facing.

People also need to know their part in the transition – what role will they need to play in getting from A to B. For people to have meaningful ownership over the outcome of a change, they need to be given a role to play in the change process itself.

5. Develop strategic capacity

You need a plan to create change, but we all know that even the best-laid plans go awry. For example, in AYCC in the early years we weren’t really into planning – in politics things change very rapidly. But we did place a big emphasis on training and supporting our volunteers, knowing that whatever changes happened, they would be the people responding to them.

I’ve written before  about a recent article in the Stanford Social Innovation Review talking about how to evaluate advocacy campaigns. It’s very hard, because we invest in many things – developing leadership, community education, protests, civil disobedience, communications strategies, polling, research and reports, lobbying – and we’ll never really be able to point to any single factor that gets us a campaign win. It’s impossible to know before you start what will be the thing that creates the change; especially when it comes to an issue as complex and multi-faceted and requiring action from so many stakeholders as climate change.

To a large extent, effectiveness and influence in political campaigning is determined by how nimbly and creatively an organization can react to unanticipated challenges or opportunities. This is strategic capacity.

6. Distinguish the Learning zone from the Danger Zone

People and organisations generally operate in their comfort zone. Sometimes they move into a learning zone, and other times the danger zone, where everything is too overwhelming and stressful to make any meaningful learning worthwhile or any change long-term.

In the first few years of AYCC’s life, we didn’t have any tried and tested ways of doing things, any usual practice or standard operating procedures. This meant we were on a learning curve, and it was steep. As AYCC has evolved, it created norms, systems and standard ways of doing things.

The people you’re working with will have different reactions to change. Your organisation might be mostly working in the learning zone, but for some people it might be their danger zone. The aim is to get everyone in the learning zone: take people out of the comfort zone and bring people back from the danger zone.

To be able to really understand whether people, organisations or society are operating in the comfort zone, learning zone or danger zone in regard to the change you’re trying to create, you need a great deal of empathy.

Empathy is the key to successfully managing change, and it means that we don’t dismiss people’s fears and laugh at them. Instead, we name them, face them head on, acknowledge the loss, talk about the gain, and be honest with people that yes, there will be difficulties but that doesn’t mean the change isn’t necessary.

This is an edited extract of a speech I gave at the Change Management Institute conference dinner.

Some of AYCC’s first unofficial steering committee aka board, the day before our founding summit in Melbourne 2006.

I’m stepping down from the Australian Youth Climate Coalition’s board in February; it’s time for board renewal! I started writing this guide as a letter to the new Chair (who is still to be confirmed) but in the spirit of open access to information, I’m turning it into a blog post and downloadable guide with a few resources attached. It’s also fulfilling a long-overdue promise made on Facebook at the end of last year to share the notes from a course I did with the Australian Institute of Company Directors on chairing a NFP board.

When I left as AYCC’s National Director and stepped into the role of Chair, I had some idea of what the role would entail because of my law degree. Well. So I thought. I’d studied board mismanagement as part of corporate law – so I knew what constituted negligence and other major mistakes that boards fall into. This didn’t really prepare me, though, for becoming a board Chair. In particular, I hadn’t realised how much work it would be, or how much of an opportunity it would give me to practice leadership skills.

What does a Chair Actually Do?

On a week-by-week basis, chairing AYCC’s board involves checking in with our Co-Directors; following up and doing action items from our last board meeting; and preparing for the next board meeting. AYCC’s board meets every month for two hours, plus has two in-person retreats a year. There are certain times that are incredibly busy for the Chair, like our AGM (every year) and the times we have done National Director recruitment, selection and handover (so far, twice, and both have been extensive processes). We also did a strategic planning process last year that involved the board, staff and volunteers which took a lot of time. In addition, I sometimes attend fundraising meetings, give advice and share stories about AYCC’s history with the senior leadership team. I also mentor a number of young women leaders in AYCC, but this isn’t something related to my role as Chair and will continue after I’ve left the role.

How Much Time Does it Take?

I estimate that on average, being AYCC’s Chair is between 5-8 hours a week’s work. Some weeks it’s less and some it’s much more.

The 2012 Directors’ Social Impact Study from Curtin University found that my experience of the workload is slightly higher that of other NFP board Chairs: NFP Directors in Australia work an average of 35 days a year in their role. Just over 30% of Directors surveyed spent 5-8 hours a month, and just under 30% spent 9-16 hours a month. The survey found that Directors’ work involved leadership and supervision across a range of areas including compliance (an increasing burden according to focus group participants), risk oversight and funding. However, the survey found that directors spend most of their time reviewing the organisation’s performance and developing strategy.

Directors are also spending time on sub-committees. Two-thirds of the NFPs surveyed also have a finance, audit, risk and/ or remuneration sub-committee (and nearly 80% have a fundraising committee). In AYCC’s case, we have a finance sub-committee and a number of ad-hoc committees that pop up when needed, such as ND recruitment, remuneration (deciding on the ND’s wage), board transition, and strategic planning.

More than the time commitment is, I think, the headspace commitment. It’s a lot of responsibility, so the organisation is always at the back of your mind. You have to think strategically, identify risks, support the CEO(s) with the right questions, make sure the board is performing well (reading the reports, engaging with the right questions, putting in the hours required). You have to diagnose what’s really going on, sometimes deal with conflicts, bring issues to a head by raising the heat, and constantly think about how to replace yourself with board renewal. You have to make sure you’re keeping records and there is a lot of compliance to deal with (lodging forms with ASIC, sending the notices for the AGM in time, asking lots of questions of our wonderful lawyers). There’s no end to how much time you could let it take if you wanted to!

The Five Roles of a Chair

At the Australian Institute of Company Directors (AICD) course I did last year, the trainer set out into five coherent roles that Chairs consistently have. I broadly agree with them – here they are:

1.         Managing the board’s effectiveness

2.         Leading the board’s agenda

3.         Providing counsel to the CEO

4.         Representing the board externally in relation to governance matters

5.         Setting the ethical tone of the organisation from the top

Managing the Board’s effectiveness

The Chair has the ability, and responsibility, to influence the design and composition of board’s membership. AICD suggests having a nominations committee to manage the CEO hiring process, think about board renewal, and nominates new people to join the board. The Chair also oversees an annual board effectiveness review process, including reviewing the effectiveness of each individual board member’s performance. This can be confronting process but is essential to make sure all board members are performing.

If board members aren’t performing, it’s important to identify it early. AICD suggests that when appointing new directors, write a letter of appointment that sets out the expectations, including the clause that the director would not seek re-election unless invited by the board to do so. This enables Chair to get resignations from directors if required. Also, when board members are standing for re-election at AGMs, there can be a clause that says ‘the board unanimously supports this person’s re-election’.

AICD suggests having an annual questionnaire as part of a board effectiveness review that asks questions such as: is there the right relationship between the chair and CEO, are there constructive discussions, do we meet frequently enough, and then bringing the results to the annual discussion about board’s collective effectiveness. AICD also suggests that every year the chair should have a one on one discussion with each board member about their performance and how they are going. In this conversation the chair should also ask, ‘are you happy with how the other directors are contributing’ which then gives chair the opportunity to provide feedback to problematic board members.

Facilitating Meetings

The other big part of managing the board’s effectiveness is, of course, meetings! It’s up to the Chair to regulate the tone and engagement of board discussions and make sure every member is actively invited to contribute. Chairs should try to be the last to speak on every issue and ideally try to get their board to reach consensus without their casting vote. You should also be formulating the agenda for meetings a few days before (ideally!), and making sure the meeting is oriented towards decision-making. AYCC has a board-executive distinction policy (you can download it here and are welcome to adapt it to your own organisations – although this is a slightly old version).

It’s important for Chairs to clarify, state and re-state specifically what the board has reached agreement on – e.g. “Let me see if I can state what we have all agreed upon”. Chairs should vet the minutes carefully so they are an accurate reflection of what the meeting has decided. AICD recommends that minutes only contain the minimum amount of information – just the resolutions and enough of a preamble that a board director who was not at the meeting would still be able to understand the decision. “Minutes are a letter to an unknown judge,” said one person doing the course with me, with an eye to potential litigation.

Finally, you should have a policy about missing meetings, such as if someone can’t attend two consecutive meetings (without first having been granted leave) then they have to resign. AYCC’s constitution states, “that the office of a Director will be automatically vacated if the Director fails to attend at least two of the meetings of Directors called in any 6 month period.”

Leading the board’s agenda

Not for profit boards must clarify and define the mission and revisit it annually to make sure the organisation is on track. The biggest role of our board is to safeguard the organisation’s mission, and the Chair needs to make sure that’s happening. It’s also the role of the Chair to sure the board is deciding on the right matters and asking the right questions, even if they’re hard questions.

“Boards work on the organisation not in the organisation,” said one wise person. For every item on the agenda specify whether it’s for noting or for decision. Be clear why things are on the agenda. Make sure it’s ready to go on the agenda (enough information). Sometimes you need a policy that covers potential decisions (e.g. a travel policy) that will enable management to just go and get on with things! Make sure the board’s agenda includes compliance and risk – and make sure your organisation has up to date insurances, including Directors’ Insurance.

Succession planning must be a part of every board’s agenda. This is something the AYCC board has been working on recently; and we should have started thinking about earlier than what we have done.

Providing counsel to the National Director(s)

Providing counsel doesn’t just mean giving advice. It means someone who is there to listen and ask strategic questions (like, “why”, “how” “what could we do if we weren’t afraid”?). Most importantly, the Chair is there to help the National Director(s) “get onto the balcony”. By this I mean helping them step out of the day-to-day headspace and take a step back to diagnose what is really going on both in the group dynamics of the senior leadership team, the dynamics of the organisation as a whole, the climate movement and the Australian political landscape. Sometimes you can go through a regular process of asking “what are the strengths, weaknesses, opportunities and threats this week/ fortnight/ month?”.

Providing counsel also involves asking the National Director(s) about unintended consequences, both positive and negative, of decisions they are thinking about making – because mostly someone in the leadership role only thinks about the intended consequences of their decisions.

You need to have a close relationship – close enough to get past “talking politely” (which often masks the real issues). The relationship can be characterized as “public support but private candour” which means that you will never, ever criticize the National Director(s) in public (or disagree with the decisions they’re making) but you should be very blunt at your private check-ins. You need to be open and direct; there is definitely no room for game playing.

AICD recommends a six-monthly review with the CEOs to revisit specific agreed objectives. They also recommend having some meetings, or part of meetings like ten minutes at the start or end without the CEO or executives to discuss how CEO and organisation is going as a board and give the Chair feedback on what issues to work through with the CEOs.

When there are serious issues of performance or standards of the CEO it’s up to the Chair to take these to the board, not just deal with them on her own! This has never happened at AYCC, but AICD stresses that if the board decides the CEO needs to go, it’s the Chair that needs to guide the termination process. In rare cases, there will be clear grounds for terminating a CEO (e.g. fraud), but for underperforming CEOs it should be a process of collective feedback, a number of discussions talking about what’s going wrong.

What about other senior staff members? What is their relationship with the board?

Various different boards have different policies about whether CEO is the only executive member that should attend board meetings. Often another staff member may come along to part of the meeting – but only one part, like finances. In AYCC we have been careful about balancing the desire to have board members mentor senior staff on the one hand, with the importance of not having staff in direct conversation with the board. To preserve the National Director(s) authority, we have had a clear policy that the NDs are the only line of communication between the board and the staff when it comes to discussing issues that the board needs to deal with. Personal mentoring, however, can discuss things like developing key capabilities.

However, AICD has a slightly different perspective: they feel it is important to allow board members to interact with staff other than the CEO because board members have to have full picture, full information, and understand the quality of people on staff. However, if board members have any concerns, they should bring them up with the National Directors rather than other staff members, and these conversations with staff should have a protocol attached – at a minimum, letting the CEO know the meeting is happening and what questions the board members are asking of staff. If a board member goes and asks for information of a staff member, that information should all be provided to all the directors so they all have the same knowledge.

Finally, Directors must never issue instructions to any staff member or volunteer in their capacity as a board member – under any circumstances. The board can direct the CEO, but no one else. And according to AICD, board members must always be publicly supportive of policies of the organisation (not: “yeah, I hated that campaign). Those are discussions for the boardroom only, because otherwise they undermine the authority of the National Director(s).

Representing the board externally

Whether the Chair does a lot of external representation for the organisation depends on how much the National Director(s) request it. In AYCC’s case, I have done a lot since I left as Co-Director, partly in my role as co-founder and partly in my role as Chair. However, most Chairs of NFPs would do less external representation.

Chairs should expect to do regular funder meetings with the National Director(s), because most funders won’t invest large amounts unless they have confidence in an organisation’s governance structures. Chairs will sometimes make speeches at events like Christmas parties, training camps and farewell parties – but only where requested by the National Director(s).

If you have a highly skilled board (like AYCC), the National Director(s) will often invite board members to run trainings or workshops for staff.

Where the Chair of an NFP is doing any media comment, it would usually only be media comment in relation to the governance matters. All other matters are usually directed to the National Directors.

Setting the ethical tone of the organisation from the top

The Chair of the board must make sure that they, and the rest of the board, sets the highest standards of ethical conduct. For example, Chairs must ensure that boards respond swiftly to any inappropriate conduct in the organisation – for example the response of the David Jones board after the sexual harassment complaint against the CEO.  The Chair must make sure the board is fulfilling its duties properly. For example, make sure directors actively assent to decisions rather than passively say nothing. I always say, after a motion is proposed and seconded, “all those in favour say aye; all those against say against; all those abstaining say abstain”.

It’s not clear-cut whether the Chair have extra legal duties/ liability above and beyond the role of the other Directors, but the OneTel case suggests this may be the case. Remember, Directors’ duties are duties owed to the organisation as a whole – not the CEO, volunteers or any constituency within the organisation. That’s why AICD stresses that people coming to boards with a “representative mindset” don’t work – as in, I’m here to represent the Union, or the rural and regional members, or the radical wing of the movement, or the conservative wing of the movement. The Chair must make sure that all directors and no directors represent all constituencies of the organisation at the same time – if that makes sense J

Conclusion

If you’re considering become a board chair, or you’re being asked to consider it -  and you are passionate about the mission of the organisation – and if you have the time – then I really encourage you to do it. It’s a huge opportunity to make a meaningful contribution to the world, and you get the chance to practice and develop leadership capabilities in the real world. And if you have a good board team, it’s an enormous amount of fun and community. Good luck!

Resources 

1. This guide as a PDF to download: How to Chair a Not for Profit Board
2. AICD course notes as a PDF: AICD course notes
3. Example board-exec policy as a word doc: AYCC Board Exec Policy for Blog

Aaron (front right) last week, with Simon and some of the best online organisers in the world.

Two years ago, in June 2011, I reached out to my friend Ben Margetts to find out who I should connect with in Boston when I was there for my Churchill fellowship studying social movements. He introduced me to his friend Aaron Swartz and we arranged to meet for a coffee at Cafe Pamplona in Harvard Square.

I still remember the afternoon as vividly as yesterday. It was a hot – really hot – summer’s day. And windy. Tornados were ripping through nearby towns in Massachusetts and New England. My hair was completely messed up from the wind when I finally found the café, after getting lost and asking a bunch of people for directions.

When I got to the café on the corner I saw a shaggy-haired guy on a laptop. He looked up and smiled at me, and I knew it must be Aaron. He had a really sweet smile; so gentle, so cheeky.For the next two hours Aaron and I talked about politics, activism, online organising, democracy, citizen journalism, and life. I liked him immediately: he was incredibly smart, opinionated, and witty. He knew an enormous amount about a lot of things, but he always wanted to learn more. He also knew a lot of people, and was incredibly generous in introducing me to some of his friends who offered both a place to stay and insightful analysis around the questions I had come to the United States to ask about movements.

I wish I had a photo of that day. He was happy. We were both happy. We talked about big, bold ideas and I summarised part of it on my blog at the time. We talked about changing systems on a big, big scale. I remember wishing there were more technologists like him in Australia. More people like anywhere, actually.

The second last time I talked to him was in another café, this time in New York city a few blocks from the Avaaz office. It was raining outside. Simon and Aaron and I were talking about what it would take to turn our current model of online organising on its head. We talked about what tools we could use to replicate bread-and-butter community organising (the kind of campaigns I was involved with in high school) in the online space. He was energised by the challenge; and excited; and the three of us talked for a long time.

The last time I saw him was the morning of my flight back to Australia, at Ben Wikler’s house in Brooklyn. We recorded a session for Ben’s radio show, The Flaming Sword of Justice. Aaron did the technology for it. We ate too many bagels. We laughed a lot. We stayed longer than we should; long enough I was worried we’d miss our flight. You can listen to it here.

Both of the last times I saw Aaron, he didn’t want to talk about what the US Prosecutor’s office was doing to him. Which was understandable, I guess. What can you say when the most powerful government in the world has turned against you with the full weight of the law for doing something so simple as liberating knowledge that legally should have been liberated anyway?

I couldn’t believe the reaction of the US Attorney’s office to what Aaron had done. They were clearly over-reaching. It was so obviously ridiculous; unfair to the extreme. He hadn’t profited. There were no victims. So what kind of “crime” could any reasonable person think he’d committed?

If it hadn’t been for another American friend and activist, Tim DeChristopher, being given a gaol sentence for making false bids at an oil and gas auction, I wouldn’t have thought Aaron had any real chance of actually going to prison. But he clearly did. And the impact that facing a prison sentence like that would have on anyone’s psychological state would have been crushing and devastating.

Aaron was irreplaceable. His loss is enormous for his friends and family. His loss is enormous for the world. He had an incisive analysis of the movement, the problems we were facing, and millions of ideas as to how to fix it. And he didn’t just have ideas – he made them happen. On a world-changing scale. With panache and more than a touch of genius.

I can only imagine what else he would have made happen if he was still here. I can only imagine what he would have been like as an old man. My heart is bleeding for his family, for Taren, and for his close friends. I am so angry at the way the US Attorney’s office treated him. And I am determined that his legacy will live on as we fight even harder for a more just world.

You can post your tributes and memories of Aaron, and make a donation in his memory, at http://rememberaaronsw.tumblr.com/.

“Antarctica left a restless longing in my heart beckoning towards an incomprehensible perfection, forever beyond the reach of mortal man. Its overwhelming beauty touches one so deeply that it is like a wound.” - Edwin Mickleburgh, Beyond the Frozen Sea

In one week, I leave Australia to do something I’ve been waiting my whole life to do: see Antarctica.

A few months ago, I received the best job offer in the world: to be a paid lecturer on a cruise ship taking 100 guests on a two-and a half week boat journey to the sub-Antarctic islands, to Mawson’s hut, and to Commonwealth Bay.

Of course, I said yes. But it’s only now, a week before I leave, that I’ve been able to bring myself to write about it online. I keep pinching myself. Because only now does it seem like this fairytale of a pure white Christmas and New Year’s Eve is actually real.

You know those places, and people, that call to you in a way that you and those around you will never understand? That’s how I have felt about Antarctica. Since forever.

Ever since I was a child I’ve dreamt about the endless expanse of white – shades upon shades of sea ice, pack ice, land ice, shimmering and sparkling and teeming with wildlife. I’ve devoured books and stories of those who’ve been blessed enough to go there – from the heroic age of Scott and Shackleton and Mawson to today’s climate scientists determined to unlock the secrets in the ice that will determine humanity’s future.

I have a lot to do before I leave: borrow heavy duty gear from friends, pack, and finish preparing the lectures I will give to 100 guests from around the world. There is so much to do and endless amounts to learn, because Antarctica is perhaps the most important place on Earth when it comes to climate change.

We hear a lot in the news about the Arctic; the dramatic changes altering our northernmost pole. Antarctica’s changes are in some places less clear-cut; harder to explain. But with the potential of 70 metres of sea level rise trapped in the great East Antarctic ice sheet, Antarctica’s changes will determine the future for all of us.

Apart from a hardy flock of scientists ensconced in weatherproof bases, it’s not a place humans have a history of observing. It does its best to reject our attempts to measure it and understand it. Standing on the south pole and surrounding ice is, in my view, the rarest privilege left on Earth.

This journey is exactly the ending I needed to finish this year of extremes.

In just one year, I finished my book manuscript (in February), got it published (in April), co-starred in a documentary that aired on ABC (in April), went on a book tour around regional NSW, Victoria, Tasmania and Queensland (from April – August), attended the UN Earth Summit as a journalist in Rio (in June), gave well over 200 speeches to high school students and at community events, drove 9,000 kilometres through the national parks of Queensland, the NT and WA with Simon on our belated honeymoon (in September), moved cities to Canberra and settled into a completely new life there (in October), helped lead a recruitment process for a new National Director for AYCC (Ellen left in November), did a lot of consulting work and got a new job as a lecturer at ANU (teaching a course called Leadership & Influence out of the Fenner School of Environment and Society), and supported Simon through his successful preselection as the Senate candidate for the ACT Greens (election campaign is officially under way as of this week).

It’s been a crazy year, full of challenges. I’ve never felt the need to take some time to write and reflect as much as I have in the last few weeks. Antarctica is giving me that gift – the space to reflect on my crazy year, on the state of the latest climate science, and what role I can best play as everything in the world of climate change changes.

Because I feel a shift in the past few weeks. Do you? I feel the mood has changed, with the release of new science around the permafrost melting; with the report showing we’re on track for 4-6 degrees of global average warming; and the report showing that the world’s great ice sheets – Greenland and Antarctica – have lost 4 trillion tonnes of ice in 20 years. And our domestic political situation is changing, too. The toxic hate towards the carbon price is dissipating, it seems. Tony Abbott is now less popular than our price on pollution! He’s still likely going to be our next Prime Minister, but with Simon’s campaign and some strategic thinking we can stop him getting control of both houses of Parliament and winding back any piece of progress on climate and environment we’ve made in the past few years.

It’s going to be confronting – I spent all of the weekend watching YouTube videos about collapsing ice sheets and fast-melting glaciers and it was incredibly depressing – but I need to do this kind of reflection, at least once a year, to recalibrate my soul and stay in touch with my purpose. Antarctica gives me the opportunity to think about all of it, in the purest and most beautiful place in the world. Free from supermarkets and wars and inflation and trying to find a park in the madness of Christmas shopping. And it gives me the opportunity to share my passion with the 100 guests travelling with me, as together we share an experience that I know is going to be life-changing for all of us.

I promise I’ll try to write about it when I return. See you on the other side.

“AYCC?!” she exclaimed.

“You must know Millie Telford!” she continued. ‘That girl’s gonna be the first Aboriginal Prime Minister of Australia.’ 

I was intrigued. I’d already heard high praise for Amelia. Many AYCC volunteers had spoken with awe of this school captain who’d organized an enormous contingent of high school students from Lismore to come to the AYCC’s Power Shift conference in Brisbane a few months earlier. She’d also been part of our Parliament House lobby day, representing young people in front meetings with some of the nation’s fiercest politicians.

Other friends of mine had heard her give a speech and raved about how articulate and powerful she was. Some of them had been moved to tears just listening to her. (I later ask her about this and she says she was “humbled” to speak on behalf of Indigenous youth). All of this, combined with the shop owner’s enthusiasm, made me determined to meet this young woman.

My chance came several months later. Amelia came to Sydney for an intensive French course and dropped into the AYCC office to meet me. Over a cup of tea, I learn about the background and hopes of this cheerful young woman with the beaming smile and thoughtful gaze.

Raised in a close-knit family on the edge of Broadwater National Park in the northern rivers of NSW (Bundjalung country), Amelia knew from a young age that she wanted to leave the world in better shape than the state it was in when she was born.

“As kids, my parents always instilled in my brothers and I the value of respect for all living and non-living things,” she says. “My Aboriginal heritage has also influenced me to feel so connected to the land and be passionate about preserving it for future generations.”

She worked hard and threw herself into her community. A surf lifesaver, active member of her school community, and grade-A student, Amelia is always doing something for the people around her. It makes sense that her career goal is to be a doctor in remote Indigenous communities. Helping others seems to be hard-wired into her DNA.

I ask Amelia who has inspired her and she pauses for a moment. “Martin Luther King and Eddie Koiki Mabo,” she replies. “I have always looked up to their inexhaustible efforts for a more just future – not just for Indigenous people but for everyone”.

–

On a recent sunny day in Lismore, Amelia is showing me around her school. It’s immediately obvious that she has earned the love and respect of fellow students and teachers alike. “Hi, Millie” is the chorus that surrounds us as we move through the school.

She’s in the middle of her trial HSC exams and has spent the morning at the funeral for a good friend’s father. It’s hard to come to terms with, she admits. But she’s holding up as best she can; being strong for the people around her.  She doesn’t have to be at school today, but she didn’t want to miss the tree-planting afternoon at her school that she’s been working towards with the school environment group she founded.

After the tree-planting ceremony, we sit down on the steps outside the school and talk about her dream: to go to Antarctica before she starts her medicine degree in 2013.

She’s been selected to represent young Australians on the 2041 Antarctic Youth Ambassador Program, an expedition of young people from around the world led by polar explorer Robert Swan. Swan was the first person to walk to both the North and South poles totally unassisted, and has now dedicated his life to protecting Antarctica – including from the devastating impacts of climate change on the region.

I ask Amelia why the voyage is called 2041. “In the year 2041 the Protocol on Environmental Protection to the Antarctic Treaty could potentially be modified or amended,” she explains. “As a team, we’re going to be working towards continuing the integrity of the Antarctic Treaty. It’s the last great wilderness on earth and this treaty is the only thing making sure it’s not exploited for oil, gas and other reserves.”

So what is she expecting from her trip to this last great wilderness? She pauses and casts her dark eyes into the distance.

“I know it’s going to be the most rewarding experience,” she says with a broad smile. I already know how excited she is about Antarctica’s wildlife because she’s changed her Facebook profile picture to an image of penguins.

“It’s going to help me grow as an environment activist and as a person,” she continues. “There’s no other place or journey like it – it’s the coldest, driest, highest and windiest place on Earth. The Antarctic ice cores are the reason we know so much about Earth’s climate history… and I just feel so privileged to have this opportunity to go down there and learn about it.”

As someone who understands the lure of the great white continent (I’m heading there myself as part of the scientific team on a cruise ship this summer) I can appreciate where she’s coming from. There’s something amazing about going somewhere completely pristine – free from the damaging influences of human exploitation. Both of us know people who’ve been there already. We know it’s changed their lives.

One of the things that Millie is particularly excited about is that the boat will be filled with other young climate activists, many from the Australian Youth Climate Coalition. The bonds formed will last a lifetime, and the plan is to work together towards Antarctica’s protection upon their return.

“We’re going to learn so much about climate change, sustainability and leadership,” says Millie. “I can’t wait to be able to pass on these lessons to people back home, especially through the Indigenous community.”

I ask Millie about the participation of Indigenous people in the conversations about climate science, impacts and solutions.

“Indigenous people from around the world are intrinsically connected to the land that has provided for them for thousands of years,” she says. “As the original caretakers of the land it’s so important that both the Elders and emerging generations be part of protecting the land. It’s the basis of our spirituality and community.”

We talk about what Millie will do after Antarctica. She plans to juggle her medicine degree with continued involvement in the youth climate movement. “Part of the Antarctica leadership program is committing to a project when we return,” she explains. “I’m going to focus on working with school communities to help them become more sustainable. This will include implementing action plans similar to the one I am working on with my school at the moment.”

The action plan she’s referring to is something she’s spearheaded over the past few years. Millie’s goal, which she’s worked towards with the school’s environment committee and student leaders, includes the school harnessing 100% of its energy from solar.

“I really do believe in people power,” she says with an infectious smile. “One person can start something that continues to grow strength and momentum and eventually a mass of people are working together as a team. This is already starting but we need to continue to educate, enlighten and motivate people to stand up for their future and for future generations.”

Witnessing the excitement in Millie’s face as she talks about this trip and what it means to her, I’m determined she should have the opportunity to be part of the trip to Antarctica.

She’s already a powerful advocate for change; one of the clearest voices that Australia needs to hear on climate change and sustainability. Imagine super-charging that voice even more by helping her go on a life-changing journey.

Amelia has until November 15^th to raise the $20,000 she needs to be part of the expedition. Will you help? 

Tax-deductible donations can be made into the following bank account. Name: Rainforest Information Centre, BSB: 062565, Account Number: 10112562. Make sure you write “Amelia” in the memo/transaction description field. Alternatively, cheques can be made out to Rainforest Information Centre and sent to Box 20681, Nimbin NSW 2480. 

Amelia with her family

As Jamila Rizvi from MamaMia put it, a line was crossed that night when celebrity Charlotte Dawson was hospitalized after a torrent of abuse on Twitter, including a hashtag urging her to take her own life.

No one should ever be subject to that kind of abuse. It’s disgusting. And sadly, it’s not a one-off case. What happened to Charlotte reflects a broader ugliness that has infected the tone of our public debate – from Parliament house down. As my very smart friend Sarah Maddison wrote so eloquently in the Herald a few days ago:

“Today we find ourselves at the lowest ebb of political debate I can remember. Australian politics seems never to have been quite this turgid; quality debate never quite so drowned out by shouting, a carping competition for … what?”

She’s right. And we’ve all noticed it. Australian political debate has become angrier and uglier. It’s spilling into other areas of conversation too: sport, celebrity culture and even completely unexpected topics.

The unchecked aggression, sexism and racism so common on talkback radio and in columns like Andrew Bolt’s debases us all. And I fear it sets an example to ordinary people that it’s OK to say vile things online. After all, Alan Jones and Mike Smith get paid to do essentially the same thing on the airwaves – and get barely a slap on the wrist even when they go so far as to call for the Prime Minister to be thrown out to sea in a chaff bag (a.k.a. drowned).

But given the anonymity of the internet, it’s unlikely the trolls will start reining themselves in anytime soon. So if you’re a target (or potential future target) of online or offline abuse, how can you build resilience to help cope when these kind of attacks happen?

A decade as an environmental campaigner and being married to Public Enemy #1 of all the right-wing nutjobs in Australia means I’ve had a bit of experience in this area. I knew at the start of this year that as soon as my ABC documentary came out, I’d have a higher dose than usual of public scrutiny and that it would be accompanied by my fair share of nasty messages via email, Twitter and my blog.

I’ve grown a much thicker skin over the past few years, but I still needed a plan to make sure the haters weren’t going to affect me or derail my ‘changing hearts and minds’ climate change speaking tour to regional and rural Australia.

So I thought a bit about how I’d deal with it, and here are the strategies and learnings that have served me well. If you’re subject to cyber-bullying and hate messages in any context, I hope they might help you in some small way.

Separate Self from Role

This is the big one. If you can master this, abuse will flow off you like water from a duck’s back. You’ll shake your feathers and barely notice the haters.

Your self is who you are. The core things that make you, you. Your personal life. Your personality. The person you are with your family. Your role, on the other hand, is the position or function you are playing in your community, workplace or society.

Often, if you’re the target of trolls, you might be playing the important role of intervening in a public debate to help society move forward on a controversial issue like marriage equality or climate change. Making progress on these issues threatens the worldview and identity of some people. The research shows these people are more likely than not to be middle-aged men who aren’t comfortable with change. They feel that their values are under attack so they lash out – but not because they have a problem with you, the person. Their problem is with the role you’re playing and how it makes them feel.

Ronald Heifetz and Marty Linksy from the Harvard Kennedy School of Government write about this in their excellent article ‘A_Survival_Guide_for_Leaders‘

“You need to distinguish between your personal self, which can serve as an anchor in stormy weather, and your professional role, which never will. It is easy to mix up the two. And other people only increase the confusion: colleagues, subordinates, and even bosses often act as if the role you play is the real you. But that is not the case, no matter how much of yourself – your passions, your values, your talents – you genuinely and laudably pour into your professional role.

Ask anyone who has experienced the rude awakening that comes when they leave a position of authority and suddenly find that their phone calls aren’t returned as quickly as they used to be.

That harsh lesson holds another important truth that is easily forgotten: When people attack someone in a position of authority, more often than not they are attacking the role, not the person. Even when attacks on you are highly personal, you need to read them primarily as reactions to how you, in your role, are affecting people’s lives. Understanding the criticism for what it is prevents it from undermining your stability and sense of self-worth.”

Decide whose opinions you actually care about

The people who send abusive comments online are often, according to technology academic (and my former colleague) Jason Wilson, driven by a need for attention or power. Web community manager Venessa Paec explained in the SMH yesterday that trolls are often (I should add: not always) middle-aged men who are ”angry at the world”.

In other words, they’re often sad, lonely little people who get their thrills by abusing people online. Do these sound like the type of people whose opinions you care about? Thought not.

It’s important to decide upfront – and before you enter the public arena – whose opinions you will listen to and value. For me it’s my family, close friends, other authors (if their opinion is about my writing) and other climate campaigners (if their opinion is about my climate change work).

Anyone else – I don’t care what they think. If they’re not an expert in a field I’m working in, or they’re not someone whose judgment and opinion I respect, I have no reason to listen.

Seth Godin wrote a great post about this, called ‘Is everyone entitled to their opinion?’ His answer: ‘Perhaps, but that doesn’t mean we need to pay the slightest bit of attention’.

Godin lists two things that disqualify someone from being listened to. The first is lack of standing. “If you’re not a customer, a stakeholder or someone with significant leverage in spreading the word, we will ignore you. And we should’. If people are going to do great work, he argues, it means that some people aren’t going to like it.

The second disqualifier is no credibility – a lack of experience and expertise in the subject matter their opinion relates to. People with a history of bad judgment, who believe in unicorns or who have limited experience in the subject area are entitled to their opinions, says Godin – “but it’s not clear that the creator of the work needs to hear them”.

Godin concludes: “If these two standards sound like precisely the opposite of what gets you on talk radio or active in anonymous chat rooms, you’re right.”

Have a Plan B

Even with the thickest skin in the world, online abuse can still hurt. And as Helen Razor pointed out, turning off the computer doesn’t remove the fact that someone is being abusive. You can’t “turn off” threats. Especially when you’re feeling vulnerable and have had a crappy day.

This is why I always advise the young people I mentor to have a “Plan B”. A “Plan B” is a pre-planned action, or series of actions, that you take when you’re feeling truly awful that will get you out of a potentially damaging situation or headspace and make you feel a bit better. A Plan B is a list of things that will make you feel better – or at least get you into a safe situation. They must be written down on a piece of paper, very clearly in step form (like: step 1, call this person, step 2, call a cab to go to the beach, step 3 listen to this song, step 4 go to friend’s house with the cute puppy).

It’s important to have the Plan B written down before you feel crap. When you’re in the midst of feeling terrible, you’re probably not going to be thinking logically. You need to have thought it through before you get to that point.

Remember you’re not alone  

Every person in the public eye – really, any person who does anything worthwhile, stands up for a cause, does something unpopular – is going to get abuse hurled at them. Online or offline, in our current context it’s going to happen. In the words of Jay-Z:

With the same sword they knight you,
they gon’ good night you with
Shit, that’s only half if they like you
That ain’t even the half what they might do
Don’t believe me? ask Michael
See Martin, see Malcolm
See Biggie, see Pac,
see success and its outcome
See Jesus, see Judas
See Caesar, see Brutus,
see success is like suicide
If you succeed, prepare to be crucified

So it’s not about you, it’s about the role you’re playing. You’re not alone in being the target of abuse – in fact, the trolls targeting you are probably targeting lots of people at once! Try to keep it in perspective – it’s probably a lonely, sad little man behind a computer screen. You, on the other hand, have real-life friends who actually know you and would be more than happy to support you and remind you what a wonderful person you are.

What are your tips for dealing with online and offline abusive messages? Please share them here and maybe we can create a useful resource to help people dealing with haters.

If you’re reading this and it brings up any issues for you, please immediately contact Lifeline – 13 11 14 – or Kids Helpline – 1800 551 800 - or Beyond Blue.

Mornings are always the time when I reflect and re-calibrate. Are my actions matching my values? Is what I have planned for today the most useful thing I could be doing? Am I treating the people around me with compassion and love?

Mornings are also strategy time. It’s when I read the day’s climate news, inevitably leading to flashes of despair as I wade through reports of the climate changing more quickly than scientists’ worse-case scenarios. A few days ago it was news of Greenland’s rapid ice-melt, with virtually the entire ice sheet showing signs of thaw.
And then I read the political news, which is often just as depressing as the science. I read more reports about Tony Abbott’s latest attempt to scare the pants off the public about the carbon price and Clive Palmer and Gina Rinehart’s attempts to get even richer by exporting coal and causing more climate change.

But the reason I love mornings so much at the moment is because they’re the time when I plan and prepare for another day of climate action on the road tour I’m on. I write down my thoughts, respond to emails and figure out how I can be most effective in whatever town we happen to be in.

And the good news is that every morning on this very long (almost 4 months on the road) book and speaking tour I re-affirm there is nothing I’d rather be doing with my life than tackling climate change. It’s our generation’s greatest challenge, and a huge responsibility – but it’s also an opportunity to create a more sustainable and just world. Who wouldn’t want to be part of the movement that gets to help make that happen?

Today I’m so privileged to watch the sun rise over a beautiful day in Cooroy on the sunshine coast. I’m here for the second-last leg of the climate change road tour I’ve been on since the last week of April. This weekend I’m speaking at the Reality Bites nonfiction literary festival, followed by nonstop school talks and presentation to Sunshine Coast council on Monday and by a public lecture and Q&A Monday night in Nambour.

It’s hard work, but I am incredibly lucky to be doing this tour. I’ve visited places I never thought I’d go in this stunning country of ours. So far we’ve held events in Townsville, Mackay, Toowoomba, Cairns, Brisbane, Ipswich, Hobart, Launceston, Ulverston, Canberra, Milton, Wollongong, Newcastle, Singleton, Muswellbrook, Tamworth, Melbourne, Moolroolbark, Wantirna, Geelong, Bacchus Marsh, Ballarat, Castlemaine, Bendigo, Albury-Wodonga and lots of Sydney suburbs too: Penrith, Parramatta, Mona Vale, Narrabeen, Blacktown, Liverpool and Rooty Hill to name just a few.

It’s not just the places themselves that are special to me, of course. The team and I have met so many interesting people – from some of CSIRO’s best scientists in Canberra, researchers at the Antarctic centre in Hobart, climate campaigners with amazing stories to tell, and farmers all over the country grappling with the impacts of climate change and coal expansion on their land.

I’ve re-connected with old friends, like Ellie Smith who is campaigning against coal in Mackay, and Miranda Gibson who is protesting against native forest logging with a 7 month long tree-sit in southern Tasmania. 

Being on the road could be lonely, but not for me. I’ve been able to do all of it with a wonderful team of young people from the Australian Youth Climate Coalition who make up the Madlands Tour Team. My prodigious and talented tour manager is 19-year old Isaac Astill from South Australia. He has devoted a large chunk of his life to making this tour a success, joined by the rest of the team: Katherine Tu and Jacqui Mumford (NSW), Fred Stark (Qld) and India Prior and Joel Dignam (Vic).

I really can’t speak highly enough of these young climate campaigners. I’ve been so impressed with their organising skills, passion, determination, work ethic, and sense of fun.

It’s been them doing most of the hard work for this tour – calling schools to organise assembly talks and workshops, booking venues for our public forums, contacting local media, working with people on the ground in each location to promote our events. They’re also the ones making sure the people we meet who want to get involved in climate activism have excellent follow-up from AYCC or other groups.

Seeing them work together and having so much fun on the road with them reminds me of Simon and I five and a half years ago when we were setting up the AYCC. There were a small group of us elected to the first steering committee after AYCC’s founding summit – including Amanda (now at the Climate Commission), Nick (who went on to co-found Make Believe) Ben (now working at Avaaz in New York), Tom (who went on to found Start Some Good), Richie (now at the Department of Climate Change) and other super smart and switched on young people.

I remember lot of laughing, random jokes, dancing and crazy antics combined with a very high workload. I’ll never forget Richie and Ben sleeping in AYCC’s first office in and under the polar bear costumes and placards. Or all of us rounding up a team of friends to do an action and live TV cross to Channel 7 Sunrise at Bondi beach followed by a swim in the ocean.

I don’t know yet what I’ll do after this tour finishes. There are a few job offers and many interesting projects and campaigns that I’d love to help with. But right now I’m so busy living in the moment with this tour that I haven’t had the chance to reflect on how I can best contribute to solving climate change after the tour ends.

Every day on the road is different and intense. It’s been taking all of my energy to stay on top of it and make sure I’m giving my best in all of the speeches, workshops and trainings that we run. It’s exhausting but I know this for sure: it is making an impact. I am making a difference to Australians’ views on climate change. And there’s no better feeling in the world than knowing that. It’s what makes me think, every morning, that more climate activists should get out of the office and hit the road – especially to spend time in rural and regional Australia.

As I mentioned at the start of this post, today Simon announced that he’s stepping down as National Director of GetUp. It’s been four years of giving everything he has to the job and he decided months ago that it was time to move on. Sam McLean, the new National Director, is going to do a wonderful job replacing him. He’s one of the brightest and strategic campaigners in Australia, if not the world. GetUp members are very lucky to have him on their team!

After the tour ends in late August, Simon and I are heading out on a road trip to see more of Australia. We think we’ll start with a drive through the desert from my uncle’s farm in Moree to Uluru and central Australia, and then head north to Kakadu. We both love this country so much and want to see more of it before we decide how we can best contribute to solving climate change with our next steps.  It’s a belated honeymoon – on our first attempt in Byron Bay over summer, I had to write my book! This time we’ll leave the laptops at home.

Thanks to everyone who has been following the tour so far through our Facebook page and Twitter. There are still three weeks left, so if you’re not already part of the adventures it’s not too late to see what we’re up to!

Photo of Miranda in the Observer Tree by Alan Lesheim

Today the Madlands tour team joined up with some AYCC Hobart volunteers and trekked into the Florentine forest in southern Tasmania to visit my friend Miranda Gibson.

But this wasn’t your normal kind of house visit. Miranda has spent the last seven months living in a tree, 60 metres above ground. It’s an incredibly brave and committed thing to do, and it’s part of a campaign against logging Tasmania’s high conservation value native forests.

Isaac, Fred and I had spent the past two weeks kicking goals and holding events on the Queensland leg of the tour (Cairns, Townsville, Mackay, Toowoomba, Ipswich, Brisbane). So after a lot of driving on Queensland roads, I was looking forward to getting into some lush forest. I was also excited about reuniting with Kat and Jacqui, who along with Isaac and I had comprised the NSW arm of the tour.
I didn’t have to wait long to remember just how stunning Tasmania is. As we flew over bright blue ocean and thick green forests, the sun came out from behind the clouds.

After a quick interview and photo with the Launceston Examiner, the team and I headed south of Hobart to have a cup of tea with Bob Brown and his partner Paul. After a chat about the Australian environment movement and hearing some inspiring stories from the Franklin campaign, we drove back to Hobart for dinner at the cheerfully named ‘Magic Curry’ with some of the AYCC Hobart crew.

We stayed the night with Margie, a friend of a friend – who also happens to be a record-breaking Antarctic explorer. We woke up bright and early (very early) and she loaded us up with muesli bars and waterproof jackets.

Some background, in case you haven’t heard about what’s happening in Tassie right now. After decades of campaigning and blockading to protect Tasmania’s forests, the Government and industry might reach a deal with environmentalists to protect certain areas of Tasmania this weekend. The so-called ‘forest peace’ negotiations have been dragging on for months, with the deadline extended several times already – but the new deadline is this Monday, and everyone trying to save the forests has been working as hard as they can to raise the odds of getting a good deal for the precious ecosystems here.

There are many good reasons to want to protect Tasmania’s forests, apart from the fact that they’re home to an amazing array of plant and animal life. As someone mostly focused on climate change, I’m very aware that one of the major causes of climate change is deforestation. Trees store carbon; when we cut them down they release that carbon. If we’re going to solve climate change we have to stop pumping out carbon pollution by burning fossil fuels, but we also have to stop chopping down trees.

I first met Miranda when we were both involved in student activism through our campus environment collectives – me in Sydney, and Miranda in Brisbane. We were both part of the Australian Student Environment Network. Incredibly likeable and cheerful, I’d always respected Miranda for her gentleness and patience. You could tell even after just spending a few minutes with her that she would be a good person to have in any group. She was always so supportive and caring – I never heard a nasty word escape her lips!

Seven months ago, when I heard about Miranda’s decision to live in a tree until the forests were protected, I thought it was such a powerful and brave thing to do. I also knew how difficult would be, especially during the Tasmanian winter. So the least we could do while in Tassie was to show our support by making the three hour journey out to see her.

Ankle-deep in mud and squelching through the forest floor this morning, I was glad we’d brought along some members of AYCC Hobart. We walked through small trees, then bigger trees, then tree ferns and tall native grasses, and finally came out on a wide track. You could see clear-cut hills in one direction, and thick forest in the other.

After a bit of a scramble at the end, we emerged at Miranda’s tree. There was a pro-logging camper near the bottom, who had arrived two days ago to get some media attention for his point of view. I’d been concerned to see whether or not he’d be causing trouble for Miranda, but he was polite enough to shake all our hands as we walked past and I didn’t sense much tension. He’d even agreed to be hoisted up to meet Miranda!

Jacqui and Fred went up first, and then it was my turn. Those of you who know me will remember I’m not a massive fan of heights, but I try to live my life according to Eleanor Roosevelt’s words – “do one thing each day that scares you”.

Plus, Miranda had been up there for seven month, which really puts things in perspective. So I just stared at the tree trunk, refused to look down, and tried to keep the visions of me flipping upside down in my harness 60 metres above ground out of my mind.

Sooner than expected, I was scrambling on to Miranda’s platform and giving her a hug. Even thought it had been years since I’d seen her last, she looked just the same, with her gentle smile and cheeky brown eyes. I had a deadline to be back in Hobart, so sadly I couldn’t stay long but I recorded a quick video for Miranda’s blog and had a quick chat. Her home was very simple – a mattress under a bright blue tarpaulin to provide some shelter – but it was truly a million dollar view.

There’s something very special about seeing the world from up high. In fact, when I was up on the platform I was so impressed with how beautiful the view was that I forgot to be scared of how high up we were! Looking across the forests, feeling the mist touch my face and the back of my neck, hearing the birdsong and smelling the bark and the leaves, I felt (for the first time in a while) re-connected to nature.

As I was coming down the tree, I wasn’t scared of falling anymore. I just felt happy, and privileged to be able to have had this experience. And determined to help save these forests, and others like them.

I have so much respect for Miranda, and for all the people working to protect forests across the world. There’s something so special about these wild places that I can’t put into words – or at least not in a quick blog post – but once you go there, you know with every part of your being how important they are.

Thank you Miranda for your courage in your work to protect our precious planet. Find out more here: http://observertree.org/

But the watered-down and non-binding nature of the final agreement signed by Heads of State meant that real actions coming out of Rio were few and far between. 

Instead, Governments and civil society alike used the summit as a platform to announce and build support for new and ongoing sustainability initiatives – often outside of the U.N. framework. 

Korea was there to garner funding for its Global Green Growth Institute, a think tank designed to support developing countries with access to expert decision-making on sustainable development. The organisation was established two years ago in Korea to support domestic development of renewable energy and other green technologies and industries. 

It proved successful enough for Korean President Lee Myung-bak to elevate its status into an international organisation with the capacity to to provide green-focused technical and economic expertise to countries in the Asian region and around the world. The Australian Government thinks the project is promising enough to support it to the tune of $15 million. 

Prime Minister Gillard kept her focus on the Asia-Pacific region with Australia’s other funding commitments flowing from Rio: $25 million to help Pacific Island countries address illegal fishing and minimise the destruction of marine ecosystems, and $8 million for the Coral Triangle Initiative to help countries in the region to sustainably manage marine and coastal resources. 

The Australian Government also used Rio+20 as a platform to make some announcements about Australia’s aid budget allocation. Ms Gillard pledged $97 million for the Civil Society Water, Sanitation and Hygiene Fund, $50 million to the Global Agriculture and Food Security Program, and $500,000 over two years  support the role of women in building and restoring peace in the Asia-Pacific region. 

The text of the actual agreement signed by Heads of State didn’t contain any new concepts, but the Prime Minister and Australian negotiators talked up four areas where they felt progress had been made. 

The Prime Minister used her final press conference in Rio to praise progress on sustainable development goals: think Millenium Development Goals (MDGs) but with a green tinge. Because there’s no detail and no timeline, there’s still confusion among UN-folk as to whether they will be incorporated into the MDGs (which are due for renegotiation and renewal in 2015) or separated into their own silo. However, U.N. Secretary General Ban Ki-moon suggested they would be a unitary process, running together. 

The ‘green economy’ was a major theme of the discussions and while no-one can really define what it means, the Australian delegation spoke of it as a push to move beyond GDP as the sole reporting measures of a country’s progress. This is something Australia had already committed to domestically. The last federal budget included $10.1 million for the Department of Environment to develop sustainability indicators and reporting for Australia, along with sustainability impact statements of new policy proposals. 

Another major issue in Rio was the role of the U.N. Environment Program (UNEP). Since its inception, UNEP has been hindered by its status as a mere ‘program’, with less weight than bodies such as the World Health Organisation. Some developing countries, led by Kenya and other African nations, spearheaded a push to transform UNEP into an official organisation in order to increase its funding and influence within the U.N system. But the United States and Russia strongly opposed the move, and it was blocked. Australian negotiators said the process for strengthening UNEP was underway, and while they supported elevating the body’s status, the process should happen in stages and shouldn’t be rushed. The Prime Minister said Rio+20 had made progress on strengething of UNEP’s role as the world’s ‘authoritative voice on the environment’. 

Finally, Prime Minister Gillard stressed the gains that Rio+20 had made for ocean protection, referring to language in the declaration that will assist Australia’s push against subsidies that encourage overfishing, especially in the Asia Pacific region. There had been hope that the summit would finally make some progress on protecting the ‘High Seas’ – the area of ocean beyond individual countries’ exclusive economic zones. But while the final declaration talks about the issue as ‘urgent’, it defers discussions to to the 69th Assembly of the General Assembly. This will take place in two years’ time. 

“The new compromise paragraph on high seas fails to recognise the urgency of the oceans crisis, delaying any decision for possible action to be taken until 2014,” said Greenpeace. “Even then there is no guarantee that the outcome would be to negotiate a new agreement capable of turning the tide on the Wild West exploitation of the High Seas.” 

The Prime Minister denied the claim from civil society and some European states that the summit had been a wasted opportunity. “I do believe that over the time, the things that have been agreed here will make a difference to our world’s environment,” she said. “There have been some decisions that will affect the future.” 

But given the scale and pace of environmental destruction, many scientists have warned that the “decide not to decide” outcome of the summit will have lasting and irreversible consequences. 

“In order to avoid catastrophic tipping points, we need to effectively manage key Earth system processes, and we need to do it now,” wrote Johan Rockström, director of the Stockholm Resilience Centre at Stockholm University in a 2010 paper entitled ‘Planetary Boundaries’. 

“Whether or not humanity will be able to stabilize climate within safe levels depends upon our ability to reduce emissions and constructively manage a number of critical natural systems on the planet … Unfortunately, in this drama there are no second chances. Nature does not do bailouts.”

It wasn’t just youthful optimism; I had evidence for my hope. Every politician, no matter what party, talked about leaving a better future for young people. They said they cared about our futures; that they’d do whatever it took to protect us.

After the first Earth Summit, Lenore Taylor’s headline was ‘Actions Must Now Match Words, Says UN Official’. Twenty years later, that headline could easily be recycled. We have not taken the actions that world leaders had waxed so eloquently on back then.

The ‘Captain Planet’ generation grew up hopeful that the world would stop environmental destruction before it was too late. After twenty years of believing that our voices mattered, we become cynical. And after this week, we’re angry.

More than 45,000 participants in Rio+20 are returning to their lives without having witnessed any major change to international environmental law or the rules of the global economy.

Many of us are asking how we got into a situation where Governments are failing to act in the best interests of the majority of their people.

The deal that eventuated from months of negotiations was so watered down that every single press release from civil society shared a common message: this was rubbish.

Governments have been presented with the evidence about what’s happening to our planet. If they have any respect for science, they know how serious it is. This month’s alarming Nature paper, ‘Approaching a state shift in Earth’s biosphere’ is the scientific equivalent of shouting from the rooftops.

And by now, the solutions are just as understood as the problem. We know what’s causing the damage: pollution, carbon dioxide emissions, overfishing, deforestation, overconsumption, overpopulation and a growth-driven global economic system. And if we caused the problem, we have the ability to solve it.

Changing the world’s development model to one that respects planetary boundaries won’t be easy, but it’s not as if we don’t know how to do it.

So if world leaders know what’s wrong, and we have the tools to fix things, what the hell happened in Rio? And Copenhagen, for that matter? And Durban, Cancun, Poznan, Bali and Montreal? Why do these environmental mega-summits keep failing?

The blame doesn’t lie entirely with the government negotiators. Coming out of Rio, there’s a much bigger story to tell than short-sighted leaders.

Halfway through the summit, I snuck into a business lunch. As fate would have it, the table sat down at was populated with representatives of the mining industry. They were from an international peak body for mining companies, and were there for the same reason they attend every international meeting – to lobby.

Chewing their steak, the mining guys told me they were pleased with the negotiations so far. It was the same day that Brazil had presented a new, watered-down text that environment and aid groups had denounced as an ‘epic failure’.

Other business leaders with a more long-term perspective weren’t so happy. In a different side event across the hall from where the lunch was held, a panel of entrepreneurs from clean tech start-ups and eco-innovative companies were speaking at the Rio+social conference. ‘Screw business as usual,’ said one of them, and the audience cheered.

We haven’t moved forward in tackling the challenges of sustainable development and climate change for a simple reason. The people whose lives are at risk from environmental collapse are less politically powerful than the people whose profits are at risk from the solutions. 

Australians know the power polluting industries have and how ruthless they are in using it.  We’ve seen it firsthand. The mining industry alone spent $22 million on its advertising campaign to protect its super profits against the mining tax, helping to topple former prime minister Kevin Rudd in the process.

In the United States, the sums are even bigger. The Centre for Responsive Politics have calculated that individuals and political action committees affiliated with oil and gas companies have donated $238.7 million to candidates and parties since the 1990 election cycle (75 percent of which has gone to Republicans). And according to Greenpeace, there are four full time lobbyists paid by the fossil fuel industry swarming around Capitol Hill for every U.S. congressman or congresswoman.

It’s working. Oil Change International estimates that fossil-fuel companies get $59 back in subsidies for every dollar they spend on donations and lobbying in the States. In Australia, ACF estimates that fossil fuel companies receive $12.1 billion in subsidies and tax breaks.

“In Australia, taxpayers are handing over $4,480 every minute to fossil fuel companies paying for their fuel excise alone,” said the ACF’s Simon O’Connor.

Since the 1992 Earth Summit, global carbon emissions from energy are up 48% and you’d have to be living under a rock not to notice the extreme weather impacts of climate change. In the words of Severn Cullis-Suzuki, “now, we need nothing short of a massive paradigm shift if the human race is to carry forward into the future with dignity.”

She’s right. But paradigm shifts don’t happen on their own. Coming out of Rio, it’s clear that corporate influence is polluting our democracy. It’s become so bad that Governments can’t see clearly through the smog.

We all have a responsibility to change this situation. Past generations made sacrifices for the sake of their children. This is the first generation sarificing their children for the sake of themselves – and most people know in their hearts it can’t end well.

In the wake of Rio, it’s time for ordinary people to speak up. Governments will only aim as high as their citizens demand. You don’t need anything other than what you have to make a difference. You have a voice. Now use it.