Long Emergency

If you have been to Africa in the past decade or so, you will see what can happen when cheap fossil fuel doesnt exist or is unavailable to most. farm production goes down, economies sputter, travel is reduced/eliminated, and you get used to cooking on charcoal and drinking dirty water.. oh yess.. mortality goes up and lifespans go down.

John McKay,
PEng,
Cantigua Energy Group Ltd. 

Dear Bernie,

One possible outcome of Peak Oil is an oscillating plateau, rather than consistently steep increases of energy prices, because the producers of oil will not want to escalate prices to the point of having no buyers on the global market. (That doesn't mean that local and regional prices won't spike out of reach of many.) However, your optimistic posting does not mention the impacts of global warming that are growing with each passing year. Just because we can still extract fossil fuels does not mean we should use them without reserve. I've just been reading "The Weather Makers" by Australian scientist Tim Flannery, and the projected impacts of climate change rival the disruptions posed by Peak Oil. I suspect that eventually we will see a carbon tax in more markets, and that will stimulate the production of renewable sources even further. But any wisdom we can share in the process of engaging others in this work is much needed. Thus far, in my experience, much of it requires small group, social network-based conversation and modeling of desirable behaviors. It feels like we are nearing many tipping points, but I'm not sure that the cultural consciousness one will tip fast enough. In the U.S., I am surrounded by people who are so busy that they don't think they have any means of learning about alternatives, much less making choices and integrating them into their lives. As a result, it feels like a way too slow process of people making tiny little adjustments in their lifestyles. Yes, there is a strong grassroots movement working to craft more sustainable enterprises and communities -- but the overall impact is still quite small. My question every day is how much time do we have to grow our movement and get critical infrastructure for transitioning in place.

Gay

One group working on this question is: http://www.postcarbon.org/. Here is another vision of integrated change: http://www.conservationeconomy.net/pattern_map/flash/index.html. The question for us is: How can we, as social marketers, help foster sustainable behaviors and demands for new solutions now that really mitigate the havoc that peak oil will create? We must develop campaigns & language that move folks to not only take action, but to also find great satisfaction in doing so. We must language the new freedom & creativity in this crisis (this dangerous opportunity). Perhaps the Needs-Satisfiers thinking of economist Manfred Max-Neef provides a pathway. Max-Neef argues that a culture is defined by how it satisfies needs. http://www.conservationeconomy.net/fundamental_needs.html. We will need to become a culture that makes new choices that meet multiple needs (subsistence, protection, identity, idleness, etc) in fewer actions, in less consumption. We must help people to see the benefits in more synergistic choices that offer more connectedness, more community self-reliance, foster cooperation vs individualism, encourage shopping locally and buying -growing local foods, etc. This can be a time for a new way of being community, or we can all fight over what is being lost. Leadership is the biggest need. Perhaps we at a grassroots level can start the movement toward the new culture of sharing resources, living locally, trading leisure time vs more money to buy more "stuff", etc. Politicians will follow. Business is already beginning to pay attention.

Dear Richard,

I don't believe that your doom and gloom scenario for 20 years from now is realistic. The world has huge supplies of fossil fuels and the run-down from our current situation of readily available oil at modest prices will be slow and steady, with a gradual change to other forms of energy. For example, there is more oil in the Athabasca tar sands of Canada than in Saudi Arabia and last year Shell stated that it was economically viable to extract this oil if the price of crude stayed above US$22 a barrel. It is entirely reasonable to predict that there will not be any energy shortages, just ongoing price increases until, in a few years from now, alternative non-fossil fuel energy sources become unquestionably economic and take over. This will leave the world still with plenty of fossil fuels but these supplies will be reserved for key uses such as the production of food. Coincidentally, world population estimates suggest that global population will stabilise at about 9 billion in about 2050. If I'm still alive then (I'll be 100 in that year), I'll expect to see lots more solutions to our many environmental problems not just being put into effect but actually making a big difference to the way in which we humans can live sustainably on our planet.

Bernie Masters

Bernie & Richard,

Irrespective of the exact circumstances we might find ourselves in in 20, or 50 or even 100 years time, we must apply the precautionary principle. This involves looking at both your potential scenarios as either ends of a wide ranging spectrum, depending on individual worldviews. Richards points are thus still valid, what infrastructure (especially social and political capital) will we need for the worst case scenario and how can we ensure we are behaving responsibly for our future generations? And you are also forgetting entirely that just because we have fossil fuels in reserves, does not mean that our atmosphere can handle their increasing presence, or perhaps you think the discourse surrounding climate change is just hype....

Melissa Hellwig

To Gay and other respondents,

Thanks for your comments. You're correct that I didn't make any mention of greenhouse gas emissions but this was a deliberate oversight on my part as I believe that future global CO2 emissions and oil availability are not strongly linked. I'm no economist but I believe that most people in most countries feel the effect of (and live according to the rules laid down by) the invisible hand of the free market (as outlined by Adam Smith a couple of hundred years ago). In the US, most people are inefficient users of fossil fuels largely because they can afford to do so. Conversely, energy usage in many developing countries is low per capita because people there don't have the economic wealth to be as profligate and inefficient as most Americans. As the standard of living of people living in developing countries rise, so their newly earned wealth will allow them to swap their bicycle for a motorbike or their motorbike for a car. Clearly, greenhouse gas emissions will rise, so the issue is not whether there will be an oil shortage in 10 or 20 years' time (I've previously suggested there won't be a significant shortage but liquid fossil fuel prices will be much higher). Instead, the issue is how does the world prevent greenhouse gas emissions from the 4 billion people living in developing countries from rising significantly. The Kyoto Protocol has failed and I don't see any real likelihood of a Kyoto # 2 making much of a difference unless China and India are signed up. But they're unlikely to sign up if it impairs their ability to raise their GDP and wealth. The only solution I see is technology transfer from developed to developing countries, preferably free of charge, plus the development of new technologies such as geosequestration or hydrogen fuel cells, plus an increased reliance on renewable energy (although this will be largely controlled by economic issues such as price relativities between wind or solar-generated electricity versus fossil fuels and/or nuclear. I believe that it does no one any good by talking about scenarios that are highly unlikely to ever come true (serious oil shortages causing factories to close down, for example). Conversely, the general public will listen if they are provided with practical and well explained solutions that are capable of overcoming likely future problems.

Bernie

Bernie:

Doesn't sound like you are into fostering sustainable behavior.

Greetings,

I signed up for this list to track and learn about effective strategies (or better yet data about strategies) to foster sustainable behavior. This Kunster thread, IMO, is full of a lot of very interesting, well studied opinions. While they are well thought through they are not helping me work toward a sustainable future. For me they fit into a category I like to call "being right". My experience as an educator/social marketer has taught me that being right is not a very effective social movement strategy. I worked with a group of high school students in Los Angeles around the time of the US' initial rejection of Koyoto. After establishing the enabling knowledge on both sides of the argument we asked the students which metric they felt would most effectively shift personal behavior in regards to green house gases. They chose miles driven x vehicle miles per gallon. They developed a system for tracking and then recognizing low greenhouse gas behavior. They tried to do a campaign outside of their class but found little traction in their school's general population. Alas. Does anyone have any examples of strategies that failed or worked in fostering sustainable behavior?

Jeff Hohensee

Dear George,

I've been trying to make the mining industry in Western Australia more sustainable for 30 years. I live in a passive solar energy home that my wife and I designed in 1981, drive a small diesel car, work with many community environmental groups, etc, etc. But what I don't do is ask people to do unreasonable or silly things, even if those things might seem at first glance to be better or more sustainable. In Australia, sustainability is defined by its social, environmental and economic impacts or improvements. It makes no sense to me to urge people to do something that does not make economic sense, even if it would be environmentally and socially better. Why? Because the vast majority of people can't afford to throw money away on things that they believe won't make genuine economic (or social or environmental) sense. Let me give you an example. In industry, it has been clearly shown that energy audits usually have a pay-back period measured in months, not years, so there is pretty strong support for companies to undertake such audits. Conversely, water at 60 cents a tonne is cheap here in Australia, so few companies (and individuals!) are sold on the idea of recycling grey water or installing rainwater tanks or undertaking serious water conservation measures because the pay back period is 20 or 30 years. The easy way out is often seen as government legislating for certain things to be done, for example, to make dual flush toilets compulsory in all new dwellings. But this ability of government to make new sustainability laws has its limits (including political limits, of course, but that's a whole new ball game), otherwise the world's government would be creating lots of legislation to do a whole range of things right now, without waiting to be told. The point I'm trying to make is that reasonable people will respond in a reasonable way to reasonable and sensible requests to be more sustainable. But no one I've met really believes that factories will close, people will be thrown out of work and the end of the world as we know it will come to an end because of oil shortages in 20 years' time. World history shows that radical revolutions are rarely successful except in the very short term, the American revolution against British rule in the 18th century being one of the obvious exceptions. At the same time, the world has never gone short of any essential or important commodity, even if the Club of Rome back in the 1970s wrongly predicted this would happen. When Britain started its industrial revolution in the 1700s, wood gave way to coal which later gave way to liquid fossil fuels as the primary source of energy. My history books never told me of shortages or riots or mass unemployment; it was a gradual change as one commodity or technology took over from the previous one. To date, I haven't been convinced by any of the arguments put forward by sustainability practitioners that people will radically change their ways unless they believe it makes sense for them to do so. Hence, our task is to show them the path of enlightenment so that they will want to walk down it. Making exaggerated claims of doom and gloom might grab their attention for a few minutes but I don't believe that it won't lead to significant changes in their sustainability behaviour.

Bernie

I spent 2 1/2 years working in a country in West Africa that had no petroleum products for weeks on end. Everything literally shut down; and if you didn't have what you needed you went without. It was pretty awful to live through but fascinating to learn first-hand how oil impacts every aspect of our lives. I've gotten very interested in the "relocalization" effort many of the people concerned about peak oil have moved to, since trying to convince people of what is coming is such a negative use of one's time and effort. We need to develop the models to know how we are going to meet the needs of people within our regions from local resources and have them in place when people are ready to face reality and the hard times hit. It's pretty scary to think we are dealing with two civilization-changing events at the same time -- global warming and rising costs and shortages of oil. One would be difficult enough. I'm particularly concerned about changing rainfall and aquifer recharge patterns in the Midwest (U.S.) happening because of global warming meaning we aren't going to have enough water to grow crops for food, biomass, biofuels, and raw materials for the bioindustrial future. Water is life -- as I also learned from working in another country in West Africa. Needless to say, I'm capturing and holding rainwater on my farm and have every inch planted in grass, trees, and other perennials.

Nancy Adams,
permaculture farmer,
southern Minnesota

Hi there:

We have allowed ourselves to be convinced that washing something reusable is not good enough - one needs new paper for wiping up a spill, individually pre-packaged food and beverages to carry along or to consume at home, disposable diapers all the time for the baby, etc. In not using these things, you are putting yourself and others at risk the marketers, and the medical industry fear mongers, would tell us. Each of these in some way requires petroleum, in addition to the pressures they place on landfills, thereby increasing pressures on energy resources. They also bring extraneous chemicals into our lives, the effects of which we know little about. This is of course a multi-layered issue primarily centred around the issue of relative wealth and the desire to gain status - washing a container is a bit like taking the bus. If you haven't decided for yourself that it is a virtuous activity but you must do it for economic reasons, you may secretly envy those who have all the bits of their lunches in separate, bright, shiny little packages. From a country point of view, the more people who can afford to have the latter lunches, the more prosperous, perhaps, the people of the country may feel. The "re-use" part of the three "r's" would save both money and resources. The only program I have been aware of to encourage re-use is "litterless lunch" idea directed at children. Are there others that people are aware of?

Zanna Joyce
Winnipeg

Hello all:

I have really enjoyed reading postings on this list. Thank you all for the great work you do. Here in the Pioneer Valley region of western Massachusetts we are developing a strategic plan for a clean energy future. I work at one of the Commonwealth of Massachusetts' 13 regional planning agencies and we develop regional land use plans, transportation plans, agricultural preservation plans, greenway plans, housing plans, and economic development plans. We have also applied to USDA to complete a food security assessment. We will complete our first ever strategic plan for clean energy next Spring (2007) and at this point we are looking for funding sources to develop a regional sustainability plan that will guide us toward a sustainable future. The regional sustainability plan will include problem identification and recommendations from the plans we have (land use, transportation, agricultural preservation, greenways, and economic development) as well as the plan we are completing-clean and safe energy. We have partnered with the University of Massachusetts to apply to the U.S. EPA's collaborative science to enhance decision making for sustainability program and hope to receive three years of funding to build our regional sustainability network--including decision support tools for municipal decision makers. I think our strategic plan for a clean and safe energy future will serve as a model for other regions and as the driving force for our regional sustainability efforts. We are partnering with our not for profit energy agencies, the Center for Ecological Technology, the Northeast Sustainability Energy Association (NESEA), Coop Power, as well as the University of Massachusetts, our many small liberal arts colleges, local utilities, and our 43 member communities, local businesses, and others. We are also partnering with ICLEI and Clean Air Cool Planet. Our strategic plan for a clean energy future is being funded in large part by the Massachusetts Technology Collaborative--a program of the Renewable Energy Trust--the funding generated by Massachusetts passage of the Renewable Portfolio Standard in 1998.

-Catherine

Catherine Miller
Sustainability Planner
Pioneer Valley Planning Commission
413/781-6045
www.pvpc.org
www.pvsustain.com

It sounds from the many and varied posts about my question that there are three camps. Those that dont think there is any real concern; Those that see it as an issue, but not a key issue; and Those that see it as the key issue and are working on solutions This is not surprising since this is pretty much the approach to sustainability reflected in the posts up to this point. I would like to correct a few points during the discussion. One is that the Long Emergency is not just about running out of oil, although that is a central point. Another point is that Chinas demand (in particular) is growing very rapidly and competition for the remaining reserves is growing. The question then is can the US afford to compete for the oil with the nation that owns most of its national debt and is the manufacturing center for most of its goods? Another point made in the book is the AIDS epidemic has been kept in check through the use of complex drugs available in the industrialized world. As oil the oil supply becomes tighter, how many of those people will be able to get the drugs and for how long? Nancy Adams and John McKay talked about their experiences in Africa. Kunstler points to the infection rate in Africa where the cocktail is not readily available and asks this question. He makes the point that even when things are at their worst, people will still have sex, so what would a shortage of the drugs in the industrialized world do, especially in the US without a national health system? He has a wonderful chapter on global warming and the implications to population and population centers, but also changing weather patterns associated with global warming. He looks at famines in different breadbasket regions and their effect on world hunger and what the populations were at the time. His point is that global warming will reduce grain production at a time when the ability to produce and transfer food to starving areas will be strained with rising oil prices. Quite honestly I see a good many parallels to Our Common Future in his analysis. Since we ignored the warnings of Our Common Future, it should not surprise us that this assessment is gloomier. This brings me back to my original question, to which some people did respond. What kind of leadership do we, as the sustainability people, bring to our communities? Catherine Miller provided a wonderful outline of a regional approach to sustainability, which was unique among the responses. My conclusions from this last round of posts is that there is very little being done in the area of comprehensive sustainability beyond the individual household level. Is that a fair assessment?

Most excellent discussion -- we can see one reason many don't act sustainability (clearly if there is this much disagrement, why should I care?). The relevance to the list is how we can inspire others to act for the future, when it may not be the most "economical" choice based on today's dollars. Here is my list: Emulating others (like following a spiritual leader) Feeling good about myself, knowing that at least my actions are helping. Fitting my actions to my beliefs. Acting out of concern for my children. Helping to heal the deep sorrow I have about environmental destruction. From a systems standpoint we don't have visibility to how full the bucket remains. This leads to oscillating behavior. Perhaps some simple models of price rises -- for example gas prices doubling (again) in 5 years?

Curt (a practicing engineer)

Thank you, Curt, for a very wise list of what we should be doing to make the world more sustainable. I'd vary your list just a little in the following ways for the following reasons:

1) Every individual should live as sustainable a life as possible. In this way, we are sending out a message of "do as I do" rather than the more common message of "do as I say". However, because (in my view) most people make decisions based upon economic considerations, always remember that our message must be achievable or have some realistic end point. It isn't enough to simply say you want world peace; you have to put forward practical steps or actions which have a chance of achieving that goal.

2) Every employed individual (which is most of us) should take his or her sustainability actions to work and devise ways to have those ideas incorporated into their employer's work practices. The sustainability actions can be as simple as having collection bins for recyclables in the kitchen or canteen through to more complex and more costly actions on the factory floor. The primary goal should be to seek continual change and improvement in the employer's sustainability over time, remembering that sustainability is a journey, not an end point.

3) Since human beings are social animals, we should form groups of like-minded individuals. Using the leadership provided by one or two people from the group or simply by using the group itself, we can then aim to influence people and groups beyond the boundaries of the group. There are many ways of doing this - talking to the media, organising demonstration houses or offices/businesses to showcase sustainable behaviour, lobbying government at all levels, providing information to schools, etc - while at the same time striving for internal improvement by the individuals within the group.

4) Government at all levels are the keys to continual improvement in sustainable behaviour. While legislation to enforce such behaviour is one option, it is often preferable to use the financial resources of government to research options and alternatives, to demonstrate best sustainable actions, to inform and educate business and other community leaders, and so on. So lobby your politicians and public servants to see what government can do to demonstrate sustainability to the broad mass of the public who really don't understand what it means nor what they can do to help achieve it.

Bernie

Dear Richard

thanks for starting this most important disucssion. I have been looking at the energy issue for several years now and fit very much into the camp that sees it as the key issues to which most others are related. Clearly, climate and energy issues are intimately related and how we attempt to solve either of these will have a huge impact on the other. G-8 nations are already talking about a multi trillion dollar energy program that will inevitably increase GHG emission over the coming decades - " solutions" such as clean coal technologies, nuclear, ethanol and hydrogen - all have the potential to make other problems considerably worse. Without a global energy plan, I believe environmental degradation will not only worsen, but will trigger multiple tipping points. Kunstler is only one of many writing on this issue. I will include a brief biblo at the end of this note. See especially Heinberg, . Energy is also intimately connected to issues of peace and violent conflict. See the biblo below. See especially Clarke and Klare Energy is also intimately connected to issues of equity and development. We in the developed world use more than twice the energy we need for high levels of happiness and well being, while almost a third of humanity does not have access to energy for basic needs.Their needs will not be met simply by generating more energy. For those who dont think there is any real concern, I can only point to the bankers, military planners, oil companies, oil producing nations, and geologists who very clearly state that peak oil is imminent. Most folks do not appreciate what a unique resource oil is. The energy equivalent of one barrel is some 12.5 years of continuous human labor. Oil not only has a high energy density, but also the highest energy return on energy invested of any fuel available. This means that as oil declines whenever the peak production is reached, more of our energy will go into bringing energy to market - the amount left to actually do work will continue to decline.(see www.eroei.com ) For those who think that technology will come up with a solution, I can only point out that none of the alternatives on the drawing board have anything like the energy return on energy invested of oil. In addition, most of the alternatives have serious environmental consequences. Even if we make a total transition to renewable energy ( which I believe is essential), we must understand that even renewable energy can be used unsustainably. With annual use currently at some 430 E Joules we have done a pretty good job of disrupting several major global ecosystems, as well as many more regional and local ones. Think of what we will do with twice or three times that amount of energy - as some governments would like to achieve. I believe we are approaching one of those transition points in history and how we collectively deal with the energy issue is central. The work of Tainer and Diamond clearly show that how civilizations deal with energy is a major determinant of whether they survive or whither. I believe we must learn to live comfortably with considerably less energy if we are to preserve the natural capital upon which we depend. Regarding your original question about leadership from the environmental/sustainability communities - I fear there is far too little. Some examples are included in the biblio below ( Post Carbon Institute; The Community Solution; The International Sustainable Energy Agency), but most NGOs are missing the boat. I was involved in organizing a recent conference in Washington DC on Energy and the Environment ( see www.beyondpeak.org for the presentations and good background materials ). It was aimed at the NGO community - most had not made the peak oil - environment connection - but by the end of the conference, I think the point got across. Another initiative is the Energy Future Campaign which I am involved in. It is based on the principles of 1. ecological sustainability ( defined in strong terms of remaining within biophysical limits); 2 social equity ( basic energy needs should be met for all humanity); and 3 non- violent conflict resolution ( fighting over remaining resources will only hasten the decline); Net energy ( or energy return on energy invested) also plays a central role. If anyone is interested I would be happy to provide more information about this intiative. The need for leadership on these matters is great and urgent, and I find it disappointing that some many in the environmental and sustainability movements do not seem to appreciate these realities.

Thanks for stimulating this discussion.
Jack Santa-Barbara

The Sustainable Scale Project
Lynden, ON

Some Peak Oil REFERENCES

1.. Bacher, J. Petrotyranny, Dundurn Press, Toronto, 2000

2.. Berdal, M. and Malone, D,M. (eds) Greed and Grievances: Economic Agendas in Civil Wars, Lynne Rienner Publishers, 2000

3.. Butler, S. D. War Is A Racket, viewed on-line at http://lexrex.com/enlightened/articles/warisaracket.htm on December, 28, 2005.

4.. Campbell, C. J. "Forecasting Global Oil Supply 2000-2050." Hubbert Center Newsletter 2002/03. M. King Hubbert Center for Petroleum Supply Studies.

5.. Campbell, C. J. and Laherrere, J.H. The End of Cheap Oil, Scientific American, March, 1989, 78-83.

6.. Clark, W.R. Petrodollar Warfare: Oil, Iraq and the Future of the Dollar, Gabriola Island: New Society, 2005

7.. Galtung, J. Peace by Peaceful Means: Peace and Conflict, Development and Civilization, London: Sage Publications, 1996.

8.. Galtung, J. Violence, Peace and Peace Research, Journal of Peace Research, vol. 6, no. 3, 1969, pp. 167-191.

9.. Heinberg, R. Powerdown : Options and Actions for a Post-Carbon World, Gabriola Island: New Society, 2004.

10. Heinberg, R. The Party's Over : Oil, War and the Fate of Industrial Societies, Gabriola Island, New Society, 2005.

11.. Hirsch, R., Bezdek, R. and Wendling, R. "Peaking of World Oil Production: Impacts, Mitigation & Risk Management." United States, Department of Energy, February 2005.

12. Klare, M. T. Resource Wars: The New Landscape of Global Conflict, New York: Henry Holt, 2001.

13. Klare, M.T. Blood and Oil : The Dangers and Consequences of America's Growing Dependency on Imported Petroleum (The American Empire Project), New York, Henry Holt, 2004.

14.. Leggett, J. The Carbon War: Dispatches from the End of the Oil Century, London: The Penguin Press, 1999.

15. Mc Quaig, L. It's the Crude, Dude: War, Big Oil and the Fight for the Planet, Toronto: Random House, 2004.

16.. Odum, H. and Odum E. A Prosperous Way Down. Boulder, CO: University Press of Colorado, 2001.

17.. Renner, M. The Anatomy of Resource Wars, Worldwatch Paper (162), 2002

18. Smil,V. Energy at the Crossroads. Boston: MIT Press, 2004: pp. 97-105.

19.. Wackernagel, M. "Tracking the Ecological Overshoot of the Human Economy." Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences 99.14 (July): 9266-9271, 2002.

20. Wackernagel, M. and Rees, W. Our Ecological Footprint. Gabriola Island, BC: New Society Publishers, 1996. (See also - http://www.footprintnetwork.org/gfn_sub.php?content=global_footprint )

LINKS

1. PEAK OIL ASSOCIATION NEWSLETTER http://www.peakoil.ie/newsletters/aspo59

2. Four Biggest Oil Fields in Decline http://www.dailykos.com/storyonly/2006/1/26/9229/79300

3. Energy Bulletin http://www.energybulletin.net/index.php

4. Energy Return on Energy Invested website http://www.eroei.com/

5. How To Avoid Oil Wars, Terrorism and Economic Collapse Richard Heinberg http://www.museletter.com/archive/160.html

6. Oil Crash. Com http://www.oilcrash.com/index.htm

7. Global Public Media peak oil and related topics website http://www.globalpublicmedia.com

8. Peak Oil Debunked http://www.peakoildebunked.blogspot.com

9. Post Carbon Institute http://www.postcarbon.org

10. Sweden's Plan to go fossil free by 2020 http://www.oecd.org/speaker/0,2879,en_21571361_34225293_34581581_1_1_1_1,00.html

11. Tradable Energy Quotas http://www.teqs.net

12. The Community Solution http://www.communitysolution.org/problem.html

13. The Oil Drum ( information and discussion site) http://www.theoildrum.com

14. World Renewable Energy Assembly http://www.wrea2005.org

15. From the Wilderness site http://www.fromthewilderness.com/index.html

16. Make Affluence History site http://www.globalaware.net/affluence

17. International Sustainable Energy Agency http://www.gracelinks.org/energy

18. World Council for Renewable Energy http://www.wcre.org

I don't think that is a fair assessment at all. I would imagine that most of the people on this list serv are engaged in many activities -- and leadership positions -- promoting sustainability. I'm on the board of two regional organizations covering several counties in SE Minnesota promoting sustainable development and just stepped down from the statewide board of the MN Institute for Sustainable Agriculture. I also chaired and am on the board the SE MN Clean Energy Resource Team -- which released a report last summer on how our 15 counties in SE MN can meet all of our energy needs from local renewable energy resources and using energy more wisely. There are several Clean Energy Resource Teams in the state to engage citizens in designing and implementing renewable energy/efficiency projects in our communities-- www.cleanenergyresourceteams.com. I was quite envious of the project Catherine Miller is working on -- it is really broad and all-encompassing -- and whoever is funding it is to be congratulated. What a fun job! Since I believe our sustainable future depends on an interdependent triangle of sustainable agriculture, renewable energy, and water, I'm also working in these three arenas and attempting to get some really smart people who are totally focused on their own particular area to see the connections between the three. Most urban environmentalists who understand renewable energy issues don't know anything about agriculture, U.S. agriculture policy, NAFTA and the rest. I'm not sure where they think biomass comes from, frankly, or where the carbohydrates from plants that will replace the hydrocarbons of petroleum in the bioindustrial/carbohydrate future will be coming from. I just found out about CBSM from a workshop Doug did in MN last week. Since I've been an environmental activist for probably longer than he is old, I told him I wish I'd learned about all of this a long time ago. I would have been a much more effective advocate, I'm sure. Looking at the 2 web sites he gave us and seeing all the interesting projects people are doing around the country is indicative of how much is going on. What really concerns me is all the doom and gloom and talk about tipping points and people thinking there isn't any hope and really sticking their heads in the sand. Reading about all the proposed coal plants for China and India -- and the Midwest (US) -- and ecosystems around the world on the verge of collapse is pretty discouraging, I must admit. Derrick Jensen wrote a disturbing article in the latest Orion about having no hope and plodding on anyway. I think this is something we need to think about how to address -- how to keep on when the odds seem insurmountable and support others in their work. "Collapse" is another great book that generates lots of good discussions.

Hi Jeff,

We've had some really good success in changing behaviour in the province of British Columbia (Canada). Just this year as a part of our Destination Conservation Program we had two fantastic campaigns that I think significantly impacted their communities. All these campaigns are students driven with help from a teacher and parent volunteers.

1. Myrtle Creek Elementary, Whistler They ran a wear layers campaign and asked the district to turn their heat down by 3 degrees for a single day. Propane demand problems in the area helped to direct the focus of this campaign. A few years earlier the school district board had tried to mandate a temperature roll-back and met with huge resistance and the mandate was revoked. The students did such a good job with their campaign, the school asked that the heat permanently be turned down, accomplishing what the district mandate could not.

2. McLeod Elementary, Birchland (Outside of Dawson Creek) This rural community school has their water trucked in because the groundwater in the area isn't sufficient or safe. The grade 3 and 5 class partnered to run a safe drinking water campaign. The students all made environmentally friendly air fresheners (spray bottles, water, essential oils) which were sold to others in the community using a written pitch each of the students developed explaining the connection between chemical use and ground water contamination, they also broached the issue of over-consumption. The air fresheners sold like hot cakes and the money they raised went to fund a well for a village in India (the grade 5's were studying India). The school now has a picture on the wall of the well with a plaque saying their school donated the funds, surrounded by locals.

There are a couple of keys to this program:
1. Schools teams involve administration, parents, teachers, custodians and students.
2. Projects are student driven, the ideas and tools are provided by DC but the campaigns are completely student driven.
3. The successes are recognized by the district and/or DC
4. Each campaign was part of a sustained initiative (3 years or more) of working with the schools, talking about the science of conservation and encouraging schools to run campaigns to change their behaviour. Whenever one school has a success we see that campaign run like wildfire across a district. We only have annecdotal evidence but it seems to have impacts in the students homes as well.

-- Darla Simpson

Executive Director,
Pacific Resource Conservation Society Program Coordinator,
Destination Conservation BC
148 East Second Street,
North Vancouver, BC, Canada V7L 1C3
tel: 604.990.0165
fax: 604.990.0166
email: [email protected]
web: www.dcplanet.ca

My organization agrees that climate change and peak oil are huge issues in the next 20 to 30 years. We believe humanity is well behind where we should be in addressing these issues. RE: What are we doing, in a holistic or integrated manner to provide leadership, provide education and to provide alternatives to address this eventuality? To move towards alternatives:

1) First, critical thinking is needed. There is a "fog" of misinformation and propaganda that must be cut through. For critical thinking, I really appreciate: http://adbusters.org/home/ - magazine http://www.worldchanging.com/

2) Fight teen pessimism: Peter Schwartz, author of "The Art of the Long View," explains that 80% of high schoolers are pessimistic about the future. If we don't change this pessimism into optimism, then the bleak future will be a self-fulfilling prophecy. Thus, what are needed are inspirational scenarios of a better world in the future - something to suspend the pessimism. Kunstler's book means to shake us out of our stupor to work on alternatives. The future scenario he presents is intentionally bleak. Kunstler makes it somewhat easier to propose an alternative that requires dramatic behavioral change - you can argue that your scenario is "less worse" than Kunstlers.

2A) I have a 90 minute presentation that I've been taking on the road. 30 minutes to cut through the "fog" in #1 and debunk a few of the non-solutions that are billed as solutions. I end by saying something like, "OK, I've just given all this background material so that I can present what seems to be a crazy solution and have you agree that alternatives such as doing nothing are much crazier." And then 60 minutes on a comprehensive, integrated solution, focused on bringing about "efficient human settlement patterns." I've presented at Engineers for a Sustainable World Conference, the Seattle EPA office, UC Davis, UC Berkeley, and USC. I'm scheduled for the US Green Building Council's GreenBuild Expo.

2B) Here's an article based on one of the presentations that ran in the SF Chronicle newspaper last weekend: http://sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?file=/c/a/2006/05/27/HOGP1J16S31.D TL&type=printable That article has a link to an 8 page "efficient suburbs 2020" story - a hopefully entertaining vision of the future where I put words into my daughter's mouth about what her pleasant, energy efficient life in 2020 is like. Thus, we have an "educational" campaign to "shout louder" than other solutions, but it is also an attempt to goad others into creating their own optimistic future visions.

3) Given a comprehensive plan for efficient settlement patterns, the vision breaks down into a series of pilot projects. We write grant proposals to fund local pilots that promise to spread globally. This is the social entrepreneur philosophy explained in the book How to Change the World. It's a more productive model of leadership than working to change government policy. One of our pilot proposals attempts to bring about sustainable culture in suburbia, based on community based social marketing. American suburbs consume much more energy per person than anywhere else in the world. (I argue: "if we can make one suburb sustainable, then we're done. We can kick back and watch sustainability spread like a virus all over the globe.") Overall, we're fighting a quixotic battle, and most days we're getting soundly thrashed. Better to fight and lose than to sit back and watch.

- Steve Raney,
Cities21

I'm listing a link to an interview that addresses our energy future (keep an open mind while reading this): http://www.healthy.net/scr/interview.asp?Id=305, Nonlocal Awareness and Visions of the Future (c) Interview With Stephan Schwartz Ph.D., Interviewed By Daniel Redwood D.C. The visions of the future (year 2050) begin about halfway through the interview. It's fascinating.

Patricia

Hi,

I have read all the posts to date about the impending doom of both global warming and peak oil. It seems that while there is a general agreement among those who wrote that the effects of these will be catastrophic, there is little agreement on what to do about it. I do not have the magic answer to that question, but I can share what I am trying to do about it. I run an energy conservation program focused on engaging youth in their energy future. We have to date worked with three high schools to install renewable energy systems (one PV-wind system on the roof and two mobile systems). We also hire students to work with us in the summer months and go door to door to talk to homeowners about reducing their electricity use. In our pilot program last summer we were able to reduce the electrical load of the Town of Shelburne by 5%. It is a very small step, but I think the individual interaction between fresh-faced high school students and homeowners worked. We are now expanding the program to another larger community and we hope to expand across the province this fall. We are focusing on energy conservation, but we are also committed to raising awareness about climate change and how the two are related (we have coal-fired generation in Ontario). We believe that if we can engage youth in this issue now, they will carry that knowledge and behaviour change into their adult lives creating an entire generation of sustainable individuals (lofty goals I know, but we are trying). Just one small program so far, but can we expand and really make a difference? I think so and really what other choice do we have? Keep up the good work everyone.

Theresa Sauren

Project Manager
Reduce the Juice
www.reducethejuice.ca

Jeff,

In tracking research we've conducted over the past three years on Canadians' awareness of, and action on, climate change, three broad categories of barriers to action have been identified: informational ("I don't know what to do"), motivational ("It's not worth my effort"), and structural (e.g. "It costs too much"). I think these categories of barriers (along with behaviour-specific ones) need to inform the development of any social marketing campaign that aims to reduce the GHG emissions of individuals.

Maurice

Maurice Muise
Manager - Online Marketing
Public Education and Outreach
Environment Canada
(819) 956-5643
www.climatechange.gc.ca

This is good stuff! Thanks Steve. Here is another link to a positive statement by Stonyfield Farm, the Earth Day Network and Clean Air-Cool Planet: www.renewUS.org. The mock-umentary film is worth looking at.

"My conclusions from this last round of posts is that there is very little being done in the area of comprehensive sustainability beyond the individual household level. Is that a fair assessment?" I don't know if I would agree with that assessment Richard. Our organisation runs a program that is aimed specifically at small and medium sized businesses. Part of our program encourages local schools, businesses and governments to work together at a community, and sometimes regional level. For example, with a local business improvement area we might work with them to improve cycling and pedestrian facilities. Lobby the local authority for transit facilities that reflect the identified needs of the community (early buses for staff of some organisations, late busses for the patrons and staff of the entertainment district etc.). Local taxi firms may come onboard with a "cab card" scheme, where parents can sign up and give the card to their teenage children who can then catch a cab in an emergency and not have to worry about having cash. Local restaurants can come together and produce bio-diesel from their waste oil which is then use to power a hybrid pool vehicle, used to transport elderly and disabled residents to the local stores. Walking school buses, neighbourhood produce deliveries, community vehicle co-ops, the possibilities are endless One group is looking at purchasing a brownfield site and using the land to plant a community forest. There are many, many more projects at a community level out there and while I know that, obviously, government at a national and international level has a huge impact, I sincerely believe that solid actions at a community level and the demonstration of effective solutions are the way to make a difference.

Patricia

I would suggest that anyone interested in learning more about what they can do to reduce their impact on the plant (especially our educators, charged with imparting this information to our children in an academic setting) check out the website of the Post Carbon Institute, at http://www.postcarbon.org/ I recently attended a short presentation by one of the organization's scientists, and found it remarkably succinct, with very clear information on the impacts of our gluttony of liquid, energy-dense fuels. It became apparent during the talk that relying on ethanol and other biofuels was impossible, since it takes more energy to produce these fuels than they actually put out; with the added detriment of depleting the soils of nutrients as we ramp up our production of them. If we have any chance of long-term survival of the planet and all its inhabitants, then we must work towards reducing consumption and promoting renewable energy. Every program or service you have that does this, and every student you can reach, helps.

Alice La Pierre,

Energy Analyst
City of Berkeley, CA
www.CityofBerkeley.info/Sustainable

Dear Maurice,

Your findings are probably the most important post to date on the sustainability issue, as, with a bit of thought, each finding provides a multitude of opportunities to make progress on changing the world.

I DON'T KNOW WHAT TO DO

We all know there are hundreds or thousands of things that can be done by individuals, groups, communities and countries, so the task is for people like ourselves to go out and inform the wider community about what can be done. This information dissemination can take many forms, so the challenge is to work out in each of our own minds the methods that best suit our personal circumstances and abilities and then do them.

IT'S NOT WORTH MY EFFORT

There are many success stories which should be widely told so that people can easily accept that it is worth their effort to be more sustainable. Unfortunately, the dominant message is doom and gloom - oil shortages in 20 years time, factories closing, unemployment, wars over oil, etc - but I consider such messages to be exceedingly and unnecessarily pessimistic, even unrealistic. So what's required is a commitment to be neither optimistic nor pessimistic, just tell people what we know - that all non-renewable resources have a finite life and that solutions to our future problems will have to be found, but in the meantime here's what you can do to make a genuine difference.......

IT COSTS TOO MUCH

The simple response to this attitudinal problem is to point out that most of the required actions are small, personal and cheap, such as taking part in recycling schemes, telling your supermarket to reduce packaging waste, make your next car a smaller fuel efficient (and cheaper) vehicle, use less electricity at home and in the workplace, etc. It's our fault if people believe that 'it costs too much' to be sustainable,because it means that we've been concentrating on the big ticket items - electricity generating options, having to produce mega-volumes of ethanol, and so on. I think it's time to change the message.

Bernie

I have long been worried about the effects of Peak Oil, Climate Change, CO2 Emissions etc etc. The world's biodiversity is declining at very alarming rates that some claim is the earth's 6th mass extinction. Miners use to take a canary into the mines to give them warning that the air is toxic. Declining biodiversity is our canary and there is no doubt that we are being warned. I believe that we are going to experience a collapse like no other, economic and ecological. Changing weather patterns, rising sea temperatures, increasing sea acidity, money created as interest bearing debt & debt levels increasing, economy that is built on greed. All point to bad news. It has happened before & will happen again but this time the scale is global. I believe the course we will have to take is localization but it will be very difficult for society to voluntarily take this track. I think it will be forced upon us. Local communities are going to play a big role to cope with this collapse. Strong local leadership, alternate local currencies, diversity, all the sustainable practices as promoted in this listserv will be the answer. I try my best - I bike to work, watch the food miles, grow my own vegies, keep chickens & bees, involved with community groups planting native trees, restoring wetlands & sand dunes. I make submissions to the local councils but do not feel the message is getting through. I am treated as some sort of fringe greenie. Most people are more concerned with what Brad Pitt & Angelina are wearing & doing rather than their grandchildren's future. This is the problem, too few people who do care against the majority who don't know (don't want to know?) and the few who value profits above everything else. I also recommend the following:

Ronald Wright - A Short History Of Progress, the 2004 Massey Lecture. Also out on audio CD.

Jared Diamond - Collapse

Tim Flannery - The Weather Makers

Deidre Kent - Healthy Money, Healthy Planet

Millennium Ecosystem Assessment http://www.millenniumassessment.org

Regards
Greg Bennett

Greg:

Thanks for your personal efforts. Many on this thread are walking the talk and fighting the fight. It can be discouraging. One of the strategies that we are working on here in Philadelphia (our Sustainable Business Network), is to make sustainability a quality of life issue, and also THE way to have most fun. We have many parties and street festivals. Our vision is to make Philadelphia the most liveable city and the "merry mecca". I recently heard architect William McDonough say that "when evironmentalists are having the most fun, everyone will want to be an environmentalist". So, our messages must have urgency, but also strong visions of hope and self-reliance. I work with NativeEnergy, a marketer of carbon offsets. We help build renewable projects on Native American lands and family dairy farms. We've started "playing" a bunch with customer companies like Ben & Jerry's, Stonyfield Farm, Aveda, Clif Bar and others to introduce climate offsets in fun and creative ways. We're putting the brakes on global warming with CoolDriving offsets. We offset many events, music tours with Dave Matthews Band, etc and now films like Syriana and Al Gore's An Incovenient Truth. Our sales help fund the renewable projects. We're doing climate neutral travel to Europe. We've done several climate neutral weddings lately. Our dairy farm projects generate "Remooable Energy". Its very incremental, in a way a bit lighthearted, but also very educational and folks are beginning to feel empowered. We also recently offset 30,000 tons of CO2 for Inteface Carpet and take on many large projects. We see many competitors jumping in too, so there is an undercurrent flowing. The idea is to communicate that "You can make a difference, and many others are doing so".

Hang-in and keep on being the change that you want to see (Gandhi would be proud) and have fun!!

George Hoguet
www.nativeenergy.com

That's been my philosophy for a long time. If it aint fun, you're not doing it right!

......Hang-in and keep on being the change that you want to see (Gandhi would be proud) and have fun!!....

This particular issue is surrounded in mis-information and conflicting statements by vested interested on both sides. There many things to consider when determining whether biofuels are worthwhile including,

1.Return on Energy investment
2.Quality of the energy
3.Suitability for end use
4.Land use
5.Environmental impact
6.Economic Impact
7.Community Impact

This links shows a comparison between different fuel types for the US http://media.popularmechanics.com/documents/Fuel_of_the_Future-e852.pdf

For a bit more general background look at the biofuels section at http://www.journeytoforever.org/biofuel.html

It is interesting to note that the two crops chosen for biofuel production in the US (corn and soybeans) are among the least productive for this purpose although the leftover material still has potentially high value for other uses. Biofuels will be a PART of any overall sustainable future but they are not a magic bullet.

Cheers
MOC

G'day Richard and all our organisation

[email protected] has developed a working collaboration that targets schools with the view that our schools are not just centres of our communities but are a key trigger for change within those communities. we have managed to establish the Zerowaste programme which draws together local, state and federal government resources, schools, Sustainable education providers (CERES), small business, universities and NGO's. First stage is to engage schools within our region and have them commit to incorporating Sustainable education and practise into the curriculum which most are very keen to do The Sustainable schools programme is provided by www.ceres.org.au and involves PD sessions with staff and or parent groups and runs over a 4 year period. It has a core module with the 4 key area's of Sustainability Energy, Water, Waste and Biodiversity. We use energy and water as the spearhead with each school undergoing a professional and comprehensive auditing process for energy, water and waste consumption from which they gain a short and long term management plan. No cost, low cost recommendations are made and implemented. The school is then encouraged to place all savings into a sustainability fund which in turn is used to fund more programmes that reduce their GHG emissions and in turn their footprint. We call this the Sustainable loop funding. Each schools pays for the auditing process and in return is sponsored by local and state governments for the sustainable education modules from CERES. We have also managed to obtain funding for implementation of the audit findings from State and federal bodies. It seems obvious that governments are more interested in measurable results than funding the audit process. The audit process has been designed to involve the whole school community as students and staff collect the inventory data. This serves as a great tool for whole school involvement and cuts the cost of the auditing process dramatically. We then conduct the audit inspection, compile a report and present it to staff and or students along with a motivation presentation on the consequences and effects of Global warming. This serves as an excellent tool in getting everyone on board in the new "Don't Waste It" culture. The same process is applied to water, waste and biodiversity issues through the PD sessions. Schools are also given assistance for future funding applications. The funding we gained from the EPA has allowed us to offer this programme to all 53 schools in our region and to our knowledge was the first of its type anywhere in Australia. So far we have identified an average 18% cost reduction with up to a 3 year payback on energy consumption and 20% GHG emissions reduction. 60% on water consumption 50% on solid waste. and increases in biodiversity on school grounds. All of this activity is driven and implemented by the students. The great benefit is that much of this action is disseminating into the home with many schools conducting ecological footprint surveys as part of homework activities. We are still to conduct research as to how effective we are in influencing the behaviour at home. If you would like to see what the schools are achieving jump onto to CERES website at the top of this page. they have some fantastic testimonials and success stories. Previously our education department didn't seem to want to become involved but they have just recently launched a similar programme to combat energy consumption which is very welcome and encouraging sign. The difference with what we have established is it is a more holistic and comprehensive approach. Now that we have engaged schools in reducing their waste in all forms, We are moving on to the next stage which is mitigation at source and Carbon sequestration. We are aiming to make these schools "Carbon Neutral" or "Emission Free Schools" From this point we are then one tree or solar panel away from turning our schools into Carbon Sinks as apposed to Carbon emitters. We want to embarrass and encourage business and government. If our kids can do it, Why can't You? so to speak.

Cheers
Mark Smith

Great ideas and feedback! For our part here in Minnesota we educate designers (on-line) to make sustainable design decisions since 80% of the energy impact of a product is determined at design time. My systems thinking course which starts Monday gives tools to people so they can design systemically, while other classes relate to lifestyle decisions. The crux of the book would appear to be the facts that: The transition to expensive fossil fuels may be fast -- a decade or less* Many see that this transition has already started -- at most it is a few years away There are no alternative fuels with anywhere near the return of energy output to energy input (it doesn't take much to get a barrel of oil compared to what it gives) There is not any effective central leadership on the topic, nor will there be The net result is that effective small communities will be the web of the future while large communities will suffer. I applaud all your efforts and encourage everyone to dig in -- it is precisely your skill set, knowledge and vision that this new world needs!

Curt

Hello Richard,

I think we are doing some of the networking and integrating that you asked about -- or at least, we are getting started. Here in Ithaca NY, we started Sustainable Tompkins about 2.5 years ago. I began by recruiting about 80 community leaders from various sectors into five study circles on different aspects of sustainability, which culminated in a circle summit with various dignatories where everyone had a chance to comment on the 15 projects that had been proposed by the circles, and sign up for those they wanted to work on. (During same period, also offered 'sustainability salons' at 5 local cafes for general public over six weeks for hosted conversations on topics related to weekly opeds that we had folks write on various aspects of sustainability.) Since then, we have had various working groups; some have faded away for lack of leadership and staff support, whereas others have accomplished some aspects of their mission, such as influencing the Mayor to appoint an advisory committee to develop a vision for the last 70 acres of undeveloped city land to be used for new urbanist mixed-use, mixed-income housing built to green standards with renewables and ties to alternative transportation. In that area of the city, I am also promoting a "sustainabilty corridor" and we have folks working on building a Reuse Center (salvage and remanufacturing facility), Green Resource Hub (public education and workforce development around sustainable homes), and a sustainable tech innovation center (Yankee tinkerer meets Cornell high tech). Other elements to be integrated are local organic food cafes, multi-use trail network, and the new neighborhood. My emphasis is on living/working/shopping/playing in a more sustainable manner. All of this will be a geographically based example that can also service the surrounding region in terms of economic development. We have recruited partners from Cornell, Ithaca College, City and County governments, Chamber of Commerce, and Cooperative Extension. We are just starting on all of this, but the Green Resource Hub should open next March and the Reuse Center should be up by 2008. Most importantly, every leader I've talked to about the vision for the sustainability corridor thinks this is worthwhile and wants to find ways to support its elements. I have also concentrated on creating conversational spaces for people to learn about sustainability -- through showcases and workshops in the business community to learn about sustainable technologies and how to make their own business more sustainable. I started up an effort to develop a regional green purchasing website and have been able to hand that off to another contractor and county solid waste. I plan to offer a fall regional conference on health care and sustainability. Sustainability is beginning to creep into our local economic development conversations. We are using study circles in neighborhoods and with affinity groups like teachers, health care workers, designers, or retirement communities to help build awareness of the need for change and give some resources and contacts for guidance on how to change. For a year, I offered "master classes" on sustainability free to the public for people to come and explore various practical as well as theoretical issues with guest speakers. All of these efforts are leading to a kind of 'community curriculum' on sustainability so that more people are conversant with the ideas and actions we are promoting. This first stage of awareness building is essential. Sustainable Tompkins is a coalition, with a small core group of volunteers including myself that try to keep it organized and learning from each other.. We host a monthly gathering (usually 35-40 people and at least 4-5 newcomers each month) that begins with a potluck and "round the circle" sharing of what each of us is working on either in the larger world or our personal lives in terms of sustainability. Then we either hear from a speaker in greater detail about a topic or we facilitate a discussion to explore some aspect of our work or tools such as social marketing or systems thinking. These gatherings are extremely informative and offer a great place for newcomers to plug into the sustainability network -- whether its local foods, alt trans, ecofashion, renewables, living wages, affordable housing, local currency, or whatever aspect someone is interested in. It's great to see people's hopes rising when they find this community. Helps counteract the toxic feelings that arise from reading too many Peak Oil blogs! We don't have a hierarchy. We don't even have charity status (we use two local foundations as our fiscal agents). From the beginning, we wanted to concentrate on creating community and postpone things like bylaws and policies (interest killers for most people in this movement). Now that projects are emerging, we are developing infrastructure like incorporating the Green Resource Hub and seeking nonprofit status. We are trying to branch out beyond being mostly white and educated. However, we have good intergenerational balance (in fact our theme for this month's meeting is to learn about some of the local and national intergenerational partnerships on sustainability that are underway). We are slowly getting our website in order (all volunteer), and we field requests for information and guest speaker gigs steadily. In terms of integrative work, besides the sustainability corridor, I would like to create a curriculum on how to apply systems thinking tools for lay professionals, such as health care practitioners, so they could learn how to tackle problems like the obesity/diabetes epidemic by including aspects such as healthy infrastructure, community support networks, and local foods in the schools programs. I hope to encourage the colleges to become more fully engaged in the challenge of integrating the elements of sustainability in their host community. (Both colleges are in the early stages of making their campuses and curriculum more sustainable.) Of course, we need a lot more in the way of financial resources (so far I've raised the money for each project locally). A year ago, I took a half-time job in energy work to make my own situation more sustainable. My hope is to convince the local governments and colleges to support Sustainable Tompkins work in brokering new partnerships and acting as an umbrella for the local community sustainability movement. We need more leaders though; more people who are willing to dive in and develop some knowledge in this arena and then apply their talents and skills to some aspect. We also need to find ways to pay people for their work in this arena. Hey, I didn't mean to go on for so long, but the story just spilled out. I just wanted to let you know that there are citizen groups that are working very hard to get connected, find institutional partners, and start the process of integrating our work. I think we are making good progress in a short time. I've lived here 27 years and conditions have never been this ripe for this work. Though good government policy is helpful, it's at the grassroots level that the work of moving from thinking/talking/planning to designing/funding/implementing the elements of sustainability must get underway.

take care,
Gay

Gay Nicholson, Ph.D.
Sustainable Tompkins Program Coordinator
_www.sustainabletompkins.org_ (http://www.sustainabletompkins.org/) 607-533-7312 (home office)
607-279-6618 (cell)
1 Maple Avenue Lansing, NY 14882
[email protected]
Southern Tier Energy$mart Communities
Regional Coordinator
Cornell Cooperative
Extension of Tompkins County
615 Willow Ave., Ithaca, NY 14850
[email protected]

Dear Curt,

In response to your email, can I advise that: -The transition to expensive fossil fuels may be fast -- a decade or less* Many see that this transition has already started -- at most it is a few years away I agree. -There are no alternative fuels with anywhere near the return of energy output to energy input (it doesn't take much to get a barrel of oil compared to what it gives) I agree -There is not any effective central leadership on the topic, nor will there be. I agree but this is not a problem, in fact it's part of the solution. Centrally planned economies around the world have failed because leadership is often found to be inflexible, lacking in imagination and understanding, and generally not up to the task. Our leaders simply need to recognise that there is a problem and then create an environment in which ideas and new technologies can be debated, tested, trialed and commercialised where appropriate. Those that don't work will disappear; those that work will come to the fore and hopefully give us the solutions we need, be it renewable energy, nuclear, oil from tar sands, energy conservation, or whatever. -The net result is that effective small communities will be the web of the future while large communities will suffer. Small communities may take a technological or other lead for a while but, as 6000 years of human history has shown, large communities will incorporate and often adapt whatever ideas they need from whatever sources are available to survive or operate better. I applaud all your efforts and encourage everyone to dig in -- it is precisely your skill set, knowledge and vision that this new world needs! I agree completely. With so many innovative people out there in the real world working on new ideas, concepts, technologies and processes all aimed to find the solutions to our common problems, the certainty is that we will find a way through the minefield and arrive at a future that we want to live in, not one that is forced on us by politicians, the media, vested interests or other self-interest groups or individuals. Keep up the good work, everyone, even if the task seems daunting.

Bernie

I gather from the responses to my last post that there is some misunderstanding to my statement about what is being done and what is not being done to promote the kind of sustainability necessary to make it through Kunstlers Long Emergency. Most people who have argued that they are working on making their community sustainable, cite their program which addresses only one aspect of sustainability, such as waste, social equity, community food security or renewable energy. All of these are important programs and they need to have the dedicated and knowledgeable people who are working on them, continue to do so. But EVERY community which is going to make it through the Long Emergency is going to need to have ALL of those programs and all of those programs will, at some point, need to be integrated. My original question of leadership could be reframed to ask how are those people who are working in the field, INTEGRATING these programs within their community? When I was Executive Director of the Center for Sustainable Communities and Civic Engagement in Buffalo, my major role was as a convener to encourage groups with different agendas to cooperate around issues important to all them. Presently, as a consultant, my current role is to address the social equity piece of sustainability, but I have made a point of keeping the environmental and economic pieces in play as well. While this makes for a more difficult process, it assures that a holistic approach is taken. As a result the City Council now requires all projects to have a social, economic and environmental analysis before it can be placed on their agenda. There have been a few people who have posted that they are part of an integrated approach to their community sustainability. I was most impressed with the work of Catherine Miller in the Pioneer Valley region of western Massachusetts and Nancy Adams in Southeastern Minnesota. In both cases they were working with multiple organizations to address sustainability in a comprehensive integrated manner. Speaking from experience, working with multiple independent organizations or groups is not easy or necessarily pleasant, but it is vitally necessary to the future of our communities. This is the leadership that I was asking about. Those of us that are on the boards, or are the directors or are the paid and unpaid experts, need to ask where are the partners in the community who will address the OTHER aspects of sustainability the community needs to survive. Those of us that work with the youth and the schools need an integrated program to address all aspects of sustainability; this means if one group addresses zero waste, then other groups need to address community food security, social equity and renewable energy. It all needs to be in the schools and it all needs to be consistent, this means planning and cooperation between groups. At some point those of us that are consulting should take the ethical step of educating the client about the OTHER aspects of sustainability and which groups can play a role in the comprehensive community sustainability process. The United Way is particularly good in organizing a comprehensive approach to human service needs and coordinating efforts among agencies to address needs. In my experience, the environmental sector (which is where sustainability usually rests) is particularly bad about inter-organizational cooperation. This brings me back to my original question about leadership within the sustainability movement. With few exceptions, most of the posts have been about individual programs addressing single aspects of sustainability. Most of us have the understanding that these are all related and all of these aspects will be a part of making the community sustainable. Why is it that so few of us are working with other like minded individuals who are equally involved with a different aspect of sustainability? Shouldnt there be a monthly community sustainability networking luncheon? Shouldnt there be a community sustainability steering committee made up of directors from each project? Shouldnt this be something that every consultant includes in recommendations? If not, why not? I know it's hard to do, but is any aspect of achieving sustainability easy?

Richard

Richard:

I am just starting a dialogue with the folks at EcoTrust - www.ecotrust.org. Their works seems to coordinate across all these sectors. The big driving motivator tying it all together for them seems to be bioregional thinking, a shared culture that all are wanting to preserve. They call it Salmon Nation. Check out their systems maps at www.conservationeconomy.net. Here in Philadelphia, a few of us at the Alliance for a Sustainable Future are redefining our mission to approach this integration role, and are doing research into what is working in other locales. The Pacific northwest seems to have many good things happening. Good discussion. Thanks for the question.

George Hoguet

Dear Richard:

An excellent point and one that I agree with; I find that people like to through the term out without having thought through the application to their own situation, and the consequences of a 'dangling participle' approach. While I am not without opinion on this matter, I would be interested in what you or others feel is the root cause of this gap. Is part or all of this challenge:

* driven by good hearts but not good knowledge of sustainable development means?
* the lack of real knowledge about how to operationalize sustainability within these groups (the same being true to an individual company or any other entity be it for profit OR not-for profit entity)?
* an absence of skills needed to operationalize?
* a lack of tools and techniques?
* gesturing of positions that are "sustainability by pronouncement" not by practice?

Lynn Johannson

George's comment about Ecotrust and their multi-sector coordination is on target. By them focussing on a bioregional, cultural and economic perspective, they develop integrated approaches to specific projects. Spencer Beebe, founder of Ecotrust, articulated this vision and methodology well when we interviewed him for our video "Architecture to Zucchini: The people, companies and organizations pioneering sustainability." He said that it's a lost opportunity to construct a green building without examining its function, tenants, footprint, use/replacement of what was there before and long-term effects on and interaction with the community surrounding it. Even the tenants in their building in Portland reflect this approach, with a ShoreBank Pacific, Metaphore, Portland Office of Sustainable Development, Patagonia, World Coffee and others. Anthony Cortese, founder of Second Nature and AASHE, stresses this integrating approach even more when it comes to higher education. In our upcoming video on sustainability in higher education, he says that one of the most important strategies is just to get people who usually don't talk to one another to do just that. He cites the example of a new LEED certified building at Lewis & Clark College in Portland that was conceived and built with extensive collaboration of folks from administration, facilities management and maintenance, faculty, students and even community members.

Doug Freeman

Producer
Arnold Creek Productions, Inc.
PO Box 2402 Lake Oswego, OR 97035
V (503) 246-2439 -
F (503) 293-6247
[email protected]
http://www.arnoldcreekproductions.com

In relation to the recent exchanges on fossil fuel use, I thought folks might find the following article interesting.

*Communicating Climate Change*
By Simon Retallack
Open Democracy
Wednesday 17 May 2006

A new way of framing the climate change issue that makes sense in people's daily lives is needed in order to translate passive awareness into active concern, says Simon Retallack. More newsprint, broadcast time and web space is being devoted to the issue of climate change than ever before, so it would not be a surprise if journalists were to pat themselves on the back for their efforts. Far from it. On 18-21 May 2006 at a country retreat in northern Germany, journalists and writers from Britain, Germany and the United States will be meeting to discuss where they are going wrong and how they can do better. Writers taking part in the "Ankelohe Conversations" on the twin problems of climate change and the oil endgame will be asking themselves why - despite all the coverage they are now giving these issues - the public is doing so little to take action. It would be unfair to say that the higher profile climate and energy issues are receiving has had no impact. An opinion poll survey of thirty countries (including the United States) published in April 2006 found that a large majority of people believe that climate  change is a serious problem. But any change in attitudes is having little impact on behaviour. In Britain, for example, the statistics are sobering: * Less than 1% of the population has switched to an energy company supplying renewably-sourced electricity. * Under 0.3% has installed a form of renewable micro-generation such as solar PV or thermal panels. * Many people admit to not even trying to use their cars less. * Purchases of highly-efficient cars represent less than 0.2% of new cars sold. * Just 2% of people claim to offset their emissions from flying. That situation will need to be reversed. Using fossil fuels more efficiently and deploying alternative sources of energy is essential if we are to avoid the worst impacts of climate change and rising oil prices. Some of the changes necessary may in theory be achieved entirely by governments through regulation. But others will require individuals to choose to behave differently and allow or encourage politicians to introduce policies to reduce our carbon emissions rather than punish them for trying at the polls. The role of the public is clearly critical and the adoption of effective policies for removing barriers and creating incentives for people to change their behaviour is imperative. So too, however, is the deployment of effective communications. And here we may be getting it wrong. *A New Script* Research conducted in the United States as part of the Climate Message Project led by the FrameWorks Institute discovered that some of the ways in which climate change is commonly being reported is actually having a counterproductive effect - by immobilizing people. The FrameWorks Institute conducted a linguistic analysis of elite discourse on climate change in media coverage as well as of environmental groups' own communications on the issue, followed by one-on-one interviews and focus groups with members of the public and a national poll. What the FrameWorks Institute found was startling. It found that the more people are bombarded with words or images of devastating, quasi-Biblical effects of global warming, the more likely they are to tune out and switch instead into "adaptationist" mode, focusing on protecting themselves and their families, such as by buying large vehicles to secure their safety. FrameWorks found that depicting global warming as being about "scary weather" evokes the weather "frame" which sets up a highly pernicious set of reactions, as weather is something we react to and is outside human control. We do not prevent or change it, we prepare for it, adjust to it or move away from it. Also, focusing on the long timelines and scale of global warming further encourages people to adapt, encouraging people to think "it won't happen in my lifetime" and "there's nothing an individual can do". As importantly, the FrameWorks Institute found that stressing the large scale of global warming and then telling people they can solve it through small actions like changing a light-bulb evokes a disconnect that undermines credibility and encourages people to think that action is meaningless. The common practice of throwing solutions in at the end of a discussion fails to signal to people that this is a problem that could be solved at all. These findings were significant because they applied to modes of communication that represented the norm in terms of US news coverage and environmental groups' own communications on the issue. They showed that a typical global warming news story - outlining the scientific proof, stressing the severe consequences of inaction and urging immediate steps - was causing people to think that preventive action was futile. Developing more effective ways of communicating on these issues is a huge challenge. Every country is different and will require its own approach. The FrameWorks institute developed proposals for use by US climate communicators in the first few years of the Bush-Cheney administration using a distinctive approach - the strategic frame analysis. According to this approach, how an issue is "framed" - what words, metaphors, stories and images are used to communicate about it - will determine what frames are triggered, which deeply held worldviews, widely held assumptions or cultural models it will be judged against, and accepted or rejected accordingly. If the facts don't fit the frames that are triggered, it's the facts that are rejected not the frame. Based on that understanding, it can be decided whether a cause is best served by repeating or breaking dominant frames of discourse, or reframing an issue using different concepts, language and images, to evoke a different way of thinking, facilitating alternative choices. Applying this approach to communications on climate change in the United States, the FrameWorks Institute drew several conclusions: * It recommended placing the issue in the context of higher-level values, such as responsibility, stewardship, competence, vision and ingenuity. * It proposed that action to prevent climate change should be characterised as being about new thinking, new technologies, planning ahead, smartness, forward-thinking, balanced alternatives, efficiency, prudence and caring. * Conversely, it proposed that opponents of action be charged with the reverse of these values - irresponsibility, old thinking and inefficiency. FrameWorks also recommended using a simplifying model, analogy or metaphor to help the public understand how global warming works - a "conceptual hook" to make sense of information about the issue. Instead of the "greenhouse-gas effect", which was found did not perform for most people, FrameWorks recommended talking about the "CO2 blanket" or "heat-trap" to set up appropriate reasoning. This would help, it argued, to refocus communications towards establishing the man-made causes of the problem and the solutions that already exist to address it, suggesting that humans can and should act to prevent the problem now. The need to evoke the existence and effectiveness of solutions upfront, the FrameWorks research stressed, was paramount. And if the consequences of climate change are cited, the analysis concluded they should not appear extreme in size or scale, should put humans at the centre, made to fit with personal experience and involve shorter timelines - twenty years not 200. Research will be published later in 2006 by the Institute for Public Policy Research on how climate change can better be communicated in Britain. Initial findings confirm many aspects of the FrameWorks Institute's analysis of the problem, if not all their recommended solutions. Wherever we are in the world, the way we communicate about climate change deserves far greater attention and care. As levels of public concern about our climate and energy problems rise, it is urgent that we communicate about them in a way that helps people feel motivated and empowered to act.

Regards,
Jan

Jan Aceti
Aceti Associates
19 Allen St. #2
Arlington, MA 02474-6809
Ph: 781-646-4593
Fax: 914-931-2038
[email protected]
www.acetiassociates.com

Richard poses the questions "shouldn't there be a monthly community sustainability networking luncheon? And shouldn't there be a sustainability steering committee?" I'm not sure my response will be that popular, but here goes. From my way of thinking, these activities do not focus on achieving measurable improvements, so should be avoided. Part of my argument stems from the book, "How to Change the World, Social Entrepreneurs and the Power of New Ideas," By David Bornstein. This philosophy is generally backed by a number of "tech foundations:" Google Foundation, Skoll Foundation (eBay $), Omidyar Network (eBay $), Steve Case Foundation. This philosophy is based on the belief that the nonprofit sector is not sufficiently successful, and new techniques must be deployed. Organizations such as Social Venture Partners works to bring private sector talent to the nonprofit/volunteer sector - again, this is based on underlying belief that there's something broken in the nonprofit sector that requires fixing. Networking for sustainability is very important, BUT sustainability starts by selecting results-oriented projects, and then networking as appropriate to achieve project goals. To change the world, there's a more compelling need to network on projects with "less than like-minded organizations" than with like-minded folks. Let me throw out two more points, then work back to a variation on Sustainable Tompkins (Ithaca). 1) The earth seems to be running out of natural resources, but there is one resource that is underutilized: human goodness. Without a significant contribution in this area, our efforts are doomed to failure. Projects should make it easy to "do good." Let's get 1 billion people performing six minutes of good deeds per day. If we value time at $10 per hour, that's $365 billion per year worth of good deeds. 2) Success. There are many difficult problems that humankind is currently fighting a losing battle with. Humans need to prove that we can take one of these problems and solve it. Once we succeed at one big problem, then we'll have much more confidence that we can systematically take on the remaining difficult problems. Right, now, it's a bit hard to have faith in the collective capability of humans. (Granted, world peace will be much more difficult than all the others combined.) Note that many of these difficult problems require a huge change. Something has to be doubled or halved - it's not a little incremental 10 percent improvement.

One of the projects we are working on at Cities21 is a variation on the Sustainable Tompkins (Ithaca) approach. Pick a suburban residential community of 400 neighbors. Reduce annual household energy consumption (includes transportation) from 240 Mbtu/year to 50 Mbtu/year. That's a huge change. To bring this about (using community based social marketing), a very special community culture will arise and human goodness will be unleashed. There will be potlucks and so forth. To succeed, this community will necessarily have to be a pretty interesting place to live in. If we can bring about huge change on a 400 person suburban scale, what will keep this model from spreading rapidly? Nothing! Because we use community based social marketing techniques to bring about this huge behavior change, we have a community of 400 green-minded people. Once people perceive themselves as green, then they are likely to take on new challenges and extend the types of things that they work on (they must be "self-consistent" and they want to follow the new social norms). Thus I'm arguing that to achieve Richard's integrated sustainability vision, focus on succeeding in one area, then move that community of 400 onto other challenges. We need to focus, succeed, and improve our basic capabilities, THEN broaden. Don't broaden/integrate first, broaden last.

- Steve Raney,
Cities21,
Palo Alto

Steve

I didn't see the listserv. discussion by Richard re. the sustainability "networking" concept, so I might be speaking out of context, but from my own experiences..........

* I am a Masters of Environmental Mgt student, an at-home mother (for 6 years) in a foreign country.
* I was a highly technical coal-mining industry professional, turned environmentalist.
* I live in North America, a small town, no environmental officer even in my municipality.

For my example only, I am a resource waiting in the wings and will urgently require networks once I commence back in the workforce. The nature of all people is not professional, nor well networked, but many of these people have the capacity for enormous "good deeds". Through a lack of support, all environmentalists can become disillusioned with the job ahead. Networking is critical for many in order to achieve a results-oriented focus. We are both correct, but please remember, not all the world lives as you do.

Melissa Hellwig

G'day all from sunny Gladstone, Qld.

I think this gets down to the old 'it's too big a problem, how on earth do you tackle it?' problem which brings many people (and groups) unstuck. I've been involved in a couple of 'sustainability' groups which folded after a year or two because they bit off more than they could chew and became immobilised. I'm also involved with some smaller scale community projects which focus on a couple of small projects, and they are strong and gain momentum each year. One is an environmental festival held annually, one is a pest removal project, and one is a coastal restoration project. My feeling is that, being human, we try to do more than is achievable, and then fail, and then give up on the whole thing. So, to be sustainable, start with yourself, make small changes one at a time - ie 'be the change you wish to see in the world'. Can you really advise others on sustainability if your own lifestyle is a consumerist one? But don't try to do it all at once....you may end up divorced! If there isn't an environmental group in your area, start one! Weed your local nature reserve, if nothing else. You will learn a lot, and bring the community together in a small way. In the same way that many small careless acts can add up to a litter problem, many small caring acts can add up to a large solution. And it costs a lot less as well.

Regards,
Anna Hitchcock

Monitoring Officer,
Fitzroy Basin Association
Port Curtis Waterwatch
Coordinator
(07) 4970 7293 0412 502 798
[email protected]
http://pcwaterwatch.blogspot.com

G'day All, (again)

I seems to me that the posts fall into a couple of camps - those who are keen on the policy side of things, and those who prefer grass roots activities. Both are equally important, but tend to attract different sorts of people. You'll note from my last post that I'm more of a grass roots kind of person. A previous post identified a missing ingredient from all of this sustainability push - and possibly the reason people get turned off by the message. Where is the fun?? Why does it all have to be so serious? Why are we stuck in doom and gloom rhetoric? Why are fun projects not funded, or have trouble getting funds? Why do we have to make a 50% difference all at once? isn't a 1% improvement a fantastic result? I think that, sticking to grassroots principles, and beginning with ourselves, we need to learn to laugh at ourselves a bit more, and this will inject more relevance into policy decisions and more success into projects. When you learn to speak in public, one of the first things drummed in, is to start with a joke, to get people's attention. Funny campaign slogans always work well (cigarette butt campaigns are the obvious one here!). Righto, and since I'm the one who suggested it - first funny definition for an environmentalist: The 'khaki' - a practical shade of greenie, keen on getting dirt under fingernails and planting trees. Fails to complete paperwork on time, and uses policy manuals for mulching her organic vegetables. Not suitable for work with politicians, may unaccountably use rude words when they explain policy reasons for removing funding from favourite project. Hard wearing and durable. I'm sure others can come up with other definitions!

Regards,
Anna Hitchcock

Monitoring Officer,
Fitzroy Basin Association
Port Curtis Waterwatch
Coordinator
(07) 4970 7293 0412 502 798
[email protected]
http://pcwaterwatch.blogspot.com

Steve

I agree with your point, I am a big advocate for Social Purpose Ventures and in my latest manuscript have draft legislation to facilitate their operation and to make capital more easily available. But all of those good deeds need to be focused, if we are to be ready for the Long Emergency. The United Way does a great job in the human services sector utilizing those good deeds, focusing them on human service issues and building capacity with human service organizations in the community. They provide networking systems, development workshops and even though many of these are competing for the same pot of funding, they still work together. Chambers of Commerce often do the same thing for the business sector. The ecological equivalents are that the business and human services sector are fully functioning ecosystems, where each entity has its niche and while there is competition the system is in balance and all niches are filled. There is no equivalent system for the environmental sector. The environmental sector functions like a post disturbance habitat. All of these competing entities are squabbling over what whose cause is more important and refuse to work together to address shared concerns, or things that could be shared concerns. As a result, they tend to become extinct if they fail to gain a sufficient food hold in the habitat and this is often why smaller organizations disappear, there just arent enough resources to go around. There are only so many volunteers, so many social purpose niches, so many leaders, so many followers and so many donations to go around. Yes, each entity should only bite off as much as it can chew (scoping the problem for those of you familiar with NEPA). My point is your can network with organizations with similar issues and leverage your resources. For issues which are not within your plan of work, you should at least be supportive of the other organizations, because yours cant do it all and youll need their support on your issues. If you have regular contact with them they know they owe you and you can ask for the favor in return. Bottom line is that it takes ALL of the aspects of sustainability to save a community. If we could just get that $365 billion per year worth of good deeds INTEGRATED into building sustainable communities then more of them might survive the Long Emergency. To respond to Lynn's question, working with other people and organizations is hard. You have to compromise (something environmentalists aren't always good at) you have to accept other people's points of view (ditto) and you have to stay focused on what the partnership can and cannot do. It is hard and if it is not your primary focus, it can be seen as a waste of resources. I made the point earlier that as people concerned with sustainability, we ought to be more aware that sustainability is a holistic concept, not a single issue. You should do what you are most interested in and concerned about, you should take advantage of the resources which are available and you should scope your work to fit your resources. But if, at any point, you forget that all of the other issues need to be addressed AS WELL, then you are not practicing sustainable community development, you are just putting a band-aid on a IUC patient.

Richard

Well Said Anna!

Small victories and celebrate them. Its amazing how those small achievements mount up and before you realise it your influencing your family, friends and work mates. I always find great satisfaction in someone asking me why I choose one product over another or why I don't have two cars or why I choose one energy supplier over another or grow some fruit and veggies. It gives me the opportunity to share some sustainable wisdom. Its a great feeling when it effects a change in that person no matter how small. You find when you practise what you preach and allow people to come to you they will always be more receptive to what you have to say.

Mark

I agree with Anna.

I think the picture is TOO big for most people to get a handle. On global warming, for instance, if we tell people that driving to work alone each day kills or hospitalizes a given number of kids and seniors (in the bigger cities, the connection between hospitilization and death from respiratory problems is easily correlated to bad air quality)I believe more people would wake up and change. But saying 'your driving to work every day is contributing to global warming'... They think - won't impact me, may not happen, and I gotta get to work somehow. Killing children today is more real than inconveniencing (or killing) them in the future. And if the net result - fewer cars on the road - is achieved, does it matter how we package it?

Ginger

Ginger Wireman
Community Outreach and Environmental Education
Ecology, Nuclear Waste Program
3100 Port of Benton Bl.
Richland, WA 99354
509-372-7935

Ginger made this comment... "And if the net result - fewer cars on the road - is achieved, does it matter how we package it?" I would say yes, it does. Perhaps vitally so....if people change their actions without truly understanding the underlying behavioral mindset, then all that is changed is the symptom, not the root cause. The car itself is truly not the issue, the car is only a tool. What is the issue is the behavior that has led us to allow our relationship with this tool to become destructive. This would be much like sending an alcoholic to treatment, and getting them off of alcohol by showing how driving drunk could lead to them killing someone's child. So they quit alcohol, but never came to understand what was driving them to drink, and so turned around and began gamblling, another action stemming from a deeper behavioral mindset. It is vital that people make the underlying connections between our enculturated behavior patterns and the actions that arise from them. Granted this is no easy task, but one I feel that FSB seeks to address. thank you to all for this extremely valuable discussion thread.

Stephan Meyer

Water Management Technician
Eugene Water & Electric Board
PO Box 10148 Eugene, OR 97440
Phone: 541-341-1853
Fax: 541-341-1867

I agree with Anna's point on personal responsibility and small steps. That's where the momentum originates. What's true for me is that the bigger the picture the better by providing a lot of "niche" options to garner folk's attention. It's an advantage and not a liability. In regards to spreading the word to the unwashed, using language like: kills, hospitalizes, death, respiratory problems and bad air quality creates a long row to hoe. Folks are bombarded by fear based marketing on a daily basis. The trick is to couch the message in a voice that everyone can hear. Words like fun, entertaining, satisfying, educational and the like seem to me to be a better set of tools.

Rick

The recent string "Long Emergency" has prompted many responses, but little supporting research in terms of communication strategies. For educators, the question "does it matter how we package it?" is an important one. Does anyone know of or have any research on communicating positive, neutral, or negative environmental messages (ideally to youth) or research about the effectiveness of these messages vs. images in changing environmental behaviours? Some avenues for consideration include: Framing the problem: gains or loss Framing the target: current or future generations Framing the action: taking less or doing more

Thanks,
Andrea Flowers

Masters of Environmental Studies Candidate
Dalhousie University
Halifax, Nova Scotia
[email protected]

Hello Andrea:

The attached article - http://www.truthout.org/issues_06/051906EA.shtml - has some interesting info re framing the climate change message. The Frameworks Institute mentioned there is worth investigating. Also www.frame-works.com is another group working in speaking sustainability to the American Mainstream. I hope these leads help.

George F. Hoguet

Director,
Mid-Atlantic Operations
NativeEnergy, LLC
21-31 W. State Street, Unit 29B
Media, PA 19063
(610)566-1332
www.nativeenergy.com

What I have found is there isn't any point in trying to convince people of these things (peak oil, global warming, etc), their probable dire consequences, and the need to start preparing now to deal with them. It is a better use of my time to work with people who already are convinced and design programs and models of ways we are going to cope with the hard times coming and get them up and running. The models will be ready to implement on a wide scale when people realize we need to be doing something. What have others found?

Andrea,

I and my colleagues in the psych department at the University of St. Thomas in St Paul, MN just recently finished collecting data to examine several of the framing questions that you mention. We're just finishing data entry and beginning the data analysis. I'll be glad to let you know what we find out, however, it will probably take many weeks before we have final results.

Christie Manning