PowerSwitch

Rob Hopkins on Transition Culture wrote:

Rupert Read in 'Green World' magazine wrote:?The Transition Towns movement alone cannot save us because, within the existing economic system, some people reducing their use of fossil fuels is received by everyone else as a price signal that it is OK to use even more fossil fuels?.

This seems like an astonishing argument from a member of the Green Party, to suggest that it is counter-productive to reduce fossil fuel consumption in one place because it will just increase it elsewhere. I sometimes hear the same argument from those who suggest that there is no point in our doing anything to lower our carbon emissions because China and India will never do so. So does Read suggest that instead we just madly consume whatever fossil fuels we can in order to use them up as quickly as possible? No. His argument is that what we need is ?legislation that enforces lower overall use of fossil fuels and/or that forces everyone to try and become a Transition Town?. In other words, all stick and no carrot.

It is absurd to suggest that reducing dependence on fossil fuels is counter-productive for many reasons, including the following;

1. It inspires other places. Places such as Findhorn and BedZed with their low carbon footprints show the rest of the world what is possible in an inspiring way. There is no research to the best of my knowledge to indicate that communities living next to those places feel duty bound to increase their fossil fuel consumption due to that left over by their more frugal neighbours
2. This is about more than just cutting consumption. In the Transition approach, the cutting of carbon emissions/fossil fuel consumption is a way of making the settlement in question more resilient, with a stronger local economy which in turn unleashes all kinds of other positive economic feedbacks
3. In the context of the peak oil argument, as the price of liquids fuels starts to rise, it will be the degree of resilience that has been put in place that will be important. Delight at being able to pick up, for example, Totnes?s fossil fuel leftovers, will be short lived and entirely counter-productive.

Adam1 wrote:Interesting response from Rob Hopkins to an article in the Green Party's inhouse journal criticising Transition Towns.

Rob Hopkins on Transition Culture wrote:

Rupert Read in 'Green World' magazine wrote:?The Transition Towns movement alone cannot save us because, within the existing economic system, some people reducing their use of fossil fuels is received by everyone else as a price signal that it is OK to use even more fossil fuels?.

This seems like an astonishing argument from a member of the Green Party, to suggest that it is counter-productive to reduce fossil fuel consumption in one place because it will just increase it elsewhere. I sometimes hear the same argument from those who suggest that there is no point in our doing anything to lower our carbon emissions because China and India will never do so. So does Read suggest that instead we just madly consume whatever fossil fuels we can in order to use them up as quickly as possible? No. His argument is that what we need is ?legislation that enforces lower overall use of fossil fuels and/or that forces everyone to try and become a Transition Town?. In other words, all stick and no carrot.
....

Original article by Rupert Read in 'Green World': (jpg scan of article - may take awhile to download on slow connections)

mikepepler wrote:Maybe they're just upset it wasn't their idea? If someone else manages to get more practical work done on the ground than they do, is their reason for existence in doubt?

Andy Hunt wrote:

mikepepler wrote:Maybe they're just upset it wasn't their idea? If someone else manages to get more practical work done on the ground than they do, is their reason for existence in doubt?

Aaah . . . yes indeed, a bad case of sour grapes perhaps?

RenewableCandy wrote:TT people offer a practical demonstration of how we can all be happier with less FF.

clv101 wrote: Hey, no TLA in that.

kenneal wrote:We've had support from both sides, Tories and LibDems, in Newbury although the support within the Tories is limited. A Green Party councillor isn't absolutely necessary. Perhaps that's what the fuss is about.

Rob Hopkins on Transition Culture wrote:
1. It inspires other places. Places such as Findhorn and BedZed with their low carbon footprints show the rest of the world what is possible in an inspiring way. There is no research to the best of my knowledge to indicate that communities living next to those places feel duty bound to increase their fossil fuel consumption due to that left over by their more frugal neighbours