Community Powerdown session 10

For once I'm not writing this the evening of the session, because we went out for drinks to celebrate the end of the course. Which was definitely an important part of fostering the community spirit, and also a good opportunity to talk in more depth with some of my classmates. But it did delay writing up this post.

This session focussed on Communication and Livelihoods. It was also another interesting session, looking how we communicate messages about peak oil and climate change, and the need for a community response, beyond our immediate circles.

The Futerra document New Rules New Game was interesting, it utilized a lot of approaches familiar from social psychology, which I've found in the past for some reason tend to be exploited with great success by marketers and advertisers, but not applied by others interested in knowing more about how groups work, how opinions change, and most importantly, how behaviour might change. The key messages of this document , which we also went through during the class were: target others than the 'usual suspects'; distinguish between active and unconscious or habitual actions in terms of when someone may be open to change and when they are doing things without consciously choosing them; 'refreeze the good' in terms of once a preferable or more sustainable behaviour has been initiated getting to become a new habit; forget the value-action gap as people don't reliably act in tune with their stated or consious values, and given a conflict will modify their values to support their behaviour; and finally change groups rather than indiviuals.

I agree with much of this, but I'm less convinced by 'refreeze the good' - I'd like people to live a little more consiously as a whole. However I do think it's crucial to change systems so that acting sustainably is automatic, rather than requiring a conscious effort each time, which it isn't possible to maintain - we need to make it easy, and easier than the alternative, so that we don't have to think about it all the time. People damage the planet without meaning to and can heal it without meaning to as well, paradoxical as that sounds. This really is essential - I think most people don't actually want to cause harm (although the few that do also need to be guarded against) but inadvertently, and through alienation, end up doing so. This can be changed because there is no willful desire to harm that must be tackled.

Another issue was the value-action gap, this gap between values or attitudes and actions has been demonstrated very strongly in social psychology - people will repeatedly state one thing, and seem genuinely to believe it, but do another. This article said that peole will change their attitudes if the conflict is brought to their attention, which isn't what you want, and this is part of cognitive dissonance - it's difficult to hold the contradictory thoughts or beliefs or cognitions that 'I care about the environment' and 'I'm harming or have harmed the environment through my actions' - you change to thinking 'I don't care about the environment' as that doesn't conflict with your actions. However I pointed out in the class that it's rarely looked at the other way though it does work in both directions - someone changes their actions, such as, say, buying fair trade or organic coffee because their usual coffee shop has started stocking it. They don't think of themselves as someone who cares about that, but gradually start to see themselves differently as someone who does care. I do think there needs to be more work done concerning this - actions that people are already taking that they don't see as important. For example being vegetarian is a large political statement in a culture with a strong emphasis on meat-eating, and it is also a big individual contribution to sustainable living, one of the biggest an individual can make, especially given the massive global ecological burden of feeding livestock and growing grain to feed animals that are eventually eaten. Yet some vegetarian friends don't see this as a major contribution that they are already making, because it wasn't the motivation for them no longer eating meat. Just for people to see they're already doing some things, and that this can change their attitudes, for example, I'm someone who does care, I'm someone who can and is making a difference, I am capable of taking action.

One thing that struck me with the Futerra document was that people do want to 'do good' - be useful, good and important. And that is important and not often said, as well as being something to work with. It doesn't all come out of fear and attacks.

We reflected that often there is only fear or negative stories told, when it's crucial to provide pathways to solutions. The facilitator felt that we should not dwell on the fear or the magnitude of the problem, but I think it is also important to ensure that people understand that there is a problem and that it's serious. That recognition is the first stage - you have to acknowledge you have a problem, as AA would tell you. From that definitely you have to provide some solutions and ways to finding solutions, not to just leave people scared and depressed. Fear alone creates apathy and avoidance. But solutions won't be of interest or used unless people are convinced this is something requiring solutions. And that consensus, that recognition of the problem is only starting to dawn on many people now, and by no means everyone. It's very recent, and has to be reiterated, and taught to more and more people. And the solutions brought out of that recognition of the problem. The problem alone certainly won't convince people to change, but neither will solutions or changes presented when people are not convinced of the seriousness of the problem.

The other article, written for the course as with most of the others, was What Kinds of Livelihoods will be Vital? by Larry Santoyo. It covered almost all possible livelihoods, such as politics, energy, food, water, land management, local business, big business, waste, shelter, transport, information, thus rendering it rather general, with very little written about particularly the latter livelihoods. Useful pointers for further thought but that's about it.

A point was made that 'global warming' is too cosy a term, people think, great, Ireland will have a mediterranean climate, perhaps the damn rain, cold and dark will stop, instead of realizing that we're actually talking about a strong possibility of global catastrophe. Climate change is a less cosy term but we do need another one that communicates the extreme seriousness of the problem.

In terms of solutions, I wondered about the 'human nature' debate - whether people are motivated by fear or by positive gains, whether when threatened people will turn on each other or will help each other. There's plenty of evidence of both although the negative view tends to dominate popular culture, rather than the many positives being recognised, irrespective of which is actually more present. I don't think the idea of whether people are 'naturally' good or bad, if those terms are meaningful, is useful or even answerable, but such beliefs do influence how people proceed to tackle a problem. If you think, given half a chance people will slaughter each other, or, given a chance people will help each other, you'll probably plan a campaign quite differently, given that it necessitates us working together and difficult choices for many people.

A few other points were raised in the Futerra article. One is people think it's global, when it's local and the effects are already being felt locally - this needs to be communicated. Associate it with things or people that people care about, although association with 'celebrities' can be brittle and may backfire. Interestingly parents are not more motivated by the potential impact on their children's future than non-parents, so this motivation cannot be relied on, nor can concern for our own future.

There is the issue of who is responsible - in some ways no-one can be pointed to, but it is all of us, and unlike campaigns against say a corporation or government to change its ways, this is indicting all of us and demanding we all change - hard to live with the responsibility. Simultaneously I believe it's important not to lay everything at the foot of the individual - we can each do our part and must, and have a lot of power, but there are systems in place that make it much harder if not impossible in many situations for individuals to change, and which make individual changes insignificant - these systems have to change. Also there are larger organisations and efforts which have a disproportionate effect - individuals in households can save all the water they want, but the vast majority of water is used by industry and business and never reaches households - to make a major impact on water usage industry has to change. Also focussing on the individual distracts attention from the big efforts that are required and must be demanded of larger entities - one person changing a lightbulb is not the same as a decision by say the Irish government to change all its lightbulbs in state buildings. Let alone massive changes to energy production by states and energy companies, to transport systems, to global good production.

Another interesting point is that the discourse tends to maximise the problem and minimize the solutions. Most attention is paid to the problem, with much less to the solutions, though this is starting to change.

A related point in the Futerra piece which I found interesting is that the problem is presented as colossal and epic, but the solutions are tiny and personal, like changing a lightbulb. These don't match up - there is a need for grand solutions and for people to feel part of that. Both able to personally contribute, and to feel that a solution consonant with the size of the problem is being presented. Otherwise, people either feel, the problem can't be that bad because it can be solved with these small efforts, or they feel, wait a second, these small actions can't possibly solve such a big problem, so why bother with them? Both responses need to be avoided. This is a huge project, and we need to engage with it as such.

The group work focussed on communicating either the course or the messages of the course to additional audiences. Last year from this grew a 10 part community TV series which is in production at the moment.

Our group identified a number of different audiences, and that a small group could be formed to shape the messages and course for that audience. These would include those trapped in poverty and disadvantage; the wealthy using a lot of energy; teachers and school students; university students; the construction industry and builders, all of whom are influential in different ways. A course or a communication strategy would need to be shaped for each of these, depending on their interests.

A lot of specific communication ideas came up. Using bluetooth and other mobile phone technology to communicate the messages, as Oxfam did with their Carbon Calculator at Glastonbury. Short films or a film festival in the Irish Film Institute. A radio show. Publicising Earth Day 22nd April or other international days focussing on the environment. Using beermats, pencils and other alternative media. I thought about using new and alternative media, for example downloading a short movie on to your mobile phone, such as the ones we've watched during the course, and showing it to mates in the pub.

Other groups suggested a TV show following a family or families implementing powerdown ideas over a few weeks. Using social networking internet sites like Facebook, creating applications like 'What kind of carbon user are you?' or using sites like YouTube. Have campaigns similar to recent ones against litter or for responsible drinking (though I question the effectiveness and even overall messages of some of these). Have Bord Bia run a 'food miles' campaign. Have 'carbon dating' similar to speed dating - success based on how ecologically friendly dates are, seen as an element of attractiveness. A multimedia game for download, with points for eco-friendly activities. Practical ideas included targetting those you can most influence - e.g. 10 closest family and friends. Buy them ecologically-motivated gifts, bicycles, books, membership of organisations, organic products. Start a book club by buying your 10 friends the same book on sustainability and reading it together. Have an organic or sustainable party. Have a family oriented game such as Sim City but with sustainable focus. Start a CRAG - carbon rationing group, where you agree targets for the group for say a year and work together to reduce your footprint or at least keep it under control.

So that was the end of the course and it was great. I came out of each class feeling motivated, energised, much more positive, like there were others who wanted to do something about these issues and most of all that together we can do something. It's important in what can seem like a hopeless time that we do join together and that we do see that change is possible, and in fact inevitable. It's up to us to shape what that change will be.

Community Powerdown session 9

This was a great session and a really interesting article, Peak Opportunity - the Cultural Psychology of Change, by Graham Strouts. I was looking forward to this session because it was on psychology and that's my background, to see what it had to say. I think psychology, social psychology as well as personal, is crucial to major changes occurring in human behaviour and indeed consciousness. The article mentioned a few things that I'm interested in, like Abraham Maslow's hierarchy of needs. It talked about spiral dynamics, the idea of spiralling through different colours which represent different states for people to be in, among them beige - instinct, primal nature; red - ego, domination; blue - order, religion; orange - materialism, science; green - inclusive, caring, then moving to a second tier - yellow - the big picture, the whole system.

We talked about Elizabeth Kubler Ross's 5 stages of grief - denial, anger, bargaining, depression, and acceptance - which could be applied to peak oil. I mentioned the importance of coming to terms with loss in this context - there needs to be time to grieve for the carefree attitude, the sense of abundance, the association with 'freedom', that we are losing or will shortly have lost.

The presentation showed some recent Economist and other magazine covers, emphasizing 'addiction' to oil - but are we addicted? Are we dependent? What is the difference? I can't remember much about the features of addiction, but it seems to have an element of compulsion, of being out of your control. Dependency is more conscious perhaps. I don't think we're addicted to oil, merely very reliant on it. And if addicts are treated as ill, and many of them are suffering from an illness, then that makes our relationship with oil also an illness, and I'm not sure that's the most useful way to approach it.

We watched a short film about peak oil which was very insightful, for example as the oil well empties and the pressure drops, they pump water into it to keep it pressurized. When you have a well that is well past its peak, it is pumping out 99% water, 1% oil.

We talked about Malcolm Gladwell's Tipping Point - I think that's an interesting book but not the final word or even that authoritative a word on the matter, unfortunately I don't have it front of me and it's a while since I read it, my critical faculties are dwindling and I don't feel able to muster a proper argument. It has lots of interesting ideas though - that of connectors (the centre of the social hub), mavens (the information and technology junkies who have lots of knowledge) and the salespeople (who persuade and convince many others to follow them and the idea). Getting those people on your team is a good way to succeed.

The use of the term social epidemic, or spreading an idea like a virus - the microbe, the context and the vector are important for a virus to spread - what's the idea, what's the environment and who are the people or means of spreading it. But there are other elements that 'tip' actual biological viruses, for example HIV seems to take off in a population when it reaches around 5%. Is this because at that stage one in every 20 people has the virus, and most people would come into contact with at least 20 people regularly. Or if a person has slept with say 5 people, and each of them with 5 people, that's already 25 people the person is only one partner away from - making it very likely they've come into close contact with someone with the virus. So numbers play a part too. but that doesn't explain to me why there would be a threshold - why it wouldn't just be a little faster when it reached 5% than it was at 4%.

Another thing I thought of was whether mainstream change is invisible. The Tipping Point is about reaching massive social change, or as it's more usually applied, about selling lots of stuff. When that happens, we don't notice it, it's so acceptable so quickly once it's become part of the culture. Looking around the room I'd say no-one thought it was at all unusual that men and women were sitting there together, that many of the women were wearing trousers, that indeed people were wearing whatever they wanted, that there was a line of computers nearby - things we take for granted that 100 or even 50 years ago were unthinkable. And we essentially don't notice things that past generations struggling so much for. The counterpoint to this is the innovators-early adopters idea of change - they'll get sick of something quickly as it becomes more mainstream and move on to something else, will that happen with climate change? But I suppose that would mean that the mainstream had changed which is what is wanted.

It was mentioned that Ireland seems to be primarily blue, orange and green (which only as I write now do I realize are in many ways the colours of Ireland - blue actually our official colour and that of the country, green what we're traditionally associated with, orange of the loyalists or unionists with the UK) and that any message to that audience needs to make sure they have something for each of those groups, not just one or other.

Thinking about 'yellow' in spiral dynamics, which is the start of the 'second tier', which is integrative, sees the value of all the other levels, and can speak to them, I ventured the thought that it's easy to be patronising in that way, and there needs to be genuine respect and genuine humility. And that Buddhism would have something to say about that level, about all enlightenment being bound up in everyone's enlightenment. And the facilitator mentioned that one of the 2 founders of this theory, Don Beck, who was visiting, seemed much more caught up in orange and perhaps red, I'm so enlightened, I have the answers, I'll tell you what you have to do. Whereas his co-author Chris Cowan perhaps has some different perspectives.

The ideas of spiral dynamics and other modes of evolutionary change are interesting, and what is perhaps most interesting is the intersection between the personal and collective or global - we may go through these levels ourselves, and human societies may also go through them. It made me feel somehow more at home, in this class. Another good thing was that I finally told the facilitator to stop saying I had the lowest carbon footprint, as I don't and was clear that I didn't when we all went round the class stating ours, and he and others have been misquoting it. So he said this publicly at the start of the class, and I was able to say yes this is a myth, and we got the proper person who really had the lowest footprint, a very impressive 5 tonnes. It was good to be honest - it makes things better, owning up, moving past. The things we know we need to do.