What can we do to change the minds of decision makers and people in general to actually do something about preparing for the forthcoming economic/energy crises (the ones after this one!)?
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.
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.
....
I don't see 'counter-productive' in Read's article and I think you have misrepresented him. All he appears to be saying is that Jevon's paradox applies to oil consumption. (He doesn't use that name either.)
The jevons paradox issue is important if you are talking about reducing emissions but less so if you're talking about increasing resilience of a town to an oil shock.
Jevons paradox also counts on normal market forces operating eg supply and demand. If there is legislation to reduce emissions as a result of Kyoto etc which artificially restricted certain types of supply (or makes them very expensive) then jevons paradox doesn't necessarily apply to the same extent.
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?
I see Transition as primarily building a lifeboat of local resilience, rather than hoping to influence global oil demand.
In the final analysis, lifeboats by themselves are of little use as they will be overrun by the 'drowning' masses.
So even Transition Towns really need government support in helping such initiatives across the country.
Mind you, Cornwall is beginning to buzz. Transition Cornwall Network, about 8 regional transition groups and loads of little local groups. Here in North Cornwall we are about to embark on an awareness campaign.
Last edited by PaulS on 03 Mar 2008, 14:45, edited 1 time in total.
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?
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?
Bloody daft this spat if you ask me it's obvious you need both, and 1 by itself won't work...The Green Party are starting to campaign to reduce FF supply and the TT people offer a practical demonstration of how we can all be happier with less FF.
Also the TT people say it's vital to have a sympathetic ear in local government...like, erm, a Green Party Councillor, perhaps?
Sounds like Irish politics to me...the first item on the agenda is the split!
I experience pleasure and pains, and pursue goals in service of them, so I cannot reasonably deny the right of other sentient agents to do the same - Steven Pinker
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.
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.
That's my feeling too. Even though the Greens have more policies that fit with Transition Towns, I feel more comfortable when there is interest and support across the parties. The last thing we want is lots of hardcore greens trying to do the right thing while the rest of the populace looks on apathetically or ignores them altogether. I hope that doesn't sound too Blairishly big tent.
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
Anecdotally, my old friends in Hackbridge didn't much give a rats ass what was going on at Bedzed from an eco-perspective. The roads outside the estate were however often blocked during rush-hour.
I totally agree with Rob's points though. TT will not slow global oil demand, but it will provide a model for how to live with less energy when the time comes.
And the green party is right to point out that if the status quo thinks it's 'doing enough' by supporting TT, then it's really not.
