What’s love got to do with it?

The Mainstream Green article attempts to bridge the gap between the relative importance people place on sustainability and their actions.  How do you best target your message so as to maximize impact and turn ambivalence into action?  Bennett, Graceann and Williams suggest a number of approaches chief among them: “tapping into a pre-existing source of pleasure;” making green behaviours normal; and making green behaviour the default.  All novel approaches based in values, both intrinsic and extrinsic.  My next sentence was going to start with “however,”and then proceed to speak to the superficial nature of this type of messaging, but I don’t think it’s the time to be looking for a magic bullet capable of shifting global values with one really powerful massaging technique.  The Futerra report speaks to the need for love to be the centerpiece of conservation messaging, and who am I to disagree.  Change needs to come from all directions.

Maybe I do take issue with the normal campaign. When has being “normal” ever achieved anything for anyone or any cause?  The thinkers and causes that have managed to shift paradigms in the past were never considered “normal.”  No one really wants to be normal or generic.  Although I suppose there is a degree of wanting to be just normal enough not to stand out too much, but still hold on to the idea that we are unique and special.  I might be coming full circle here, as I guess it’s fair to say that while the neo-liberal paradigm has contributed to our sense of individual freedom, it has simultaneously created an individual sense of entitlement, entitlement that makes it difficult to divest of ourselves of consumer driven actions, and invest (emotionally & financially) in a new paradigm.

Today in class a debate emerged over whether or not to make corporate and political institutions the target of our anger and frustration, or are they merely reacting to public opinion and market demand out of a misguided sense of duty? There are no absolute answers to these questions, but a plethora of approaches can’t hurt.  Luke Skywalker (I would be remiss if I failed to make at least one pop-culture reference in my final blog) didn’t enter the Death Star alone.  He would have never been able to release his proton torpedo’s into the heart of the Death Star had it not been for the efforts of his wingmen (and “the force”).  We need people working simultaneously at the systemic and individual levels.  If people sense that change is possible at a political or structural level they might feel a little less disenfranchised.  At the same time the governments and corporations who control international policy need to be aware of change emerging from the bottom-up.  I’m unsure as to what the future holds, but there is no doubt that a shift is coming, and unlikely in a time frame that we are comfortable with.  If people want to remain optimistic about the future they need to free themselves of the constraints to change that western culture has deemed to be the aspirations of all.   What should our aspirations be centered on?  Love is as good a place to start as any.  

Climate art is so hot right now

I know Bill Mckibben (2009) responded to his initial article in 2005 by stating that art had responded to the call to action as we confront the greatest challenge mankind has ever faced, but I’m not sure I agree.  Climate change art remains at the margins of mainstream artistic expression.  There is no doubt countless examples that could be brought forward to counter my statement, but in the end, climate change cannot be considered to be at the forefront of artistic movements. 

Where are the songs that speak to this crisis, where is a whole genre of music that should evolve out of this most daunting threat, where is the blues and folk music of Woody Guthrie that emerged out of the union movements of the early 20^th century?  Where are the Woody Guthrie inspired artists like Bob Dylan that led the counter culture revolutions of the 1960s?  Where is the grunge music that spoke to an entire generation searching for an identity?  These are romanticized notions of the past, and I know these artists exist in contemporary music, but we shouldn’t have to seek them out through obscure independent labels or through outdated social media pages (I’m talking to you My Space, although probably a little outdated to speak of how out dated My Space is).  These songs and artists should be at the top of the I Tunes Chart instead of, wait let me look...  oh it’s Whistle by Flo Rida, wait again as I preview the song.... EEEK, I’m afraid his whistle is a metaphor.

The question of climate related art stretches beyond the confines of music.  If you’re conception of reality is at all shaped by Hollywood films, you might think that the biggest threat facing humankind still resides somewhere behind the Iron Curtain, or hidden in a cave somewhere in the Middle East.  People love a good tragedy, so why is the only climate change movie (that anyone is familiar with) still The Day After Tomorrow?  I can think of a few films that question our consumer driven society, Fight Club comes to mind but it’s hard to find a real blockbuster. 

McKibben refers to some contemporary artists getting involved, but I’m sorry “Moby, but you’re too old, let go, nobody listens to techno” (Eminem, 2002).  I am aware of a great deal of meaningful art that speaks to the inherent flaws that exist in the structures and institutions that serve as barriers to change, I just wish it spoke to a larger audience.

I did find an idea that McKibben spoke to in his lecture tonight that really resonated with me, and I feel should play a major role in informing environmental messaging.  The idea that we need to speak to the best of people is something that I try to employ in my own practices as a teacher.  When I plan lessons that push student’s boundaries and challenge their existing epistemologies, the results are seldom disappointing.  However, a lesson aimed at the lowest common denominator will usually result in the lowest possible outcome.

 McKibben, B. (2005). What the warming world needs now is art, sweet art. Grist Magazine, (April).

  McKibben, B. (2009). Four years after my pleading essay, climate art is hot. Grist Magazine, (August).

Values that matter

We have spent a great deal of time exploring values oriented approaches to messaging.  We’ve read Lakoff and discussed in great lengths the power of framing.  But is it enough to focus on values?  While values provide a powerful access point to the underlying factors that drive behaviour, Shove would likely argue that we are not reaching deep enough.  We need to get to the underlying emotions that inform the values that drive behaviour.

I don’t doubt the power of a values oriented approach, but even in the transparent forms framing discussed in the Common Cause seem somewhat manipulative, and in the end I’m not sure if the changes they create are sustainable.  If the underlying emotions that impact values are not addressed, is a return to our default state not inevitable?

It was interesting to consider the three pairs of frames that were identified as possessing the greatest potential to impact the desired values.

·         Self interest vs. Common interest

·         Strict father vs. Nurturant parent

·         Elite governance vs. Participative democracy

So to what degree should we allow “our brains to be messaged”?  It would be interesting to see a political campaign with some real money behind it call into question our values, rather than trying to manipulate them for their own ends.  In the end no single approach is enough.  Values oriented approaches have worked for ad agencies for decades, but every manipulative messaging technique eventually runs its course.  You could argue that the environmental movement continues to lag a few paces behind marketing firms that have been using frames for decades, or at least ever since consumers  became desensitized to product informed advertising.  Will the same thing happen to values oriented approaches, we probably don’t have to explicitly add transparency to the messaging, after a while the audience will see right through it anyway.  I’m not actually that cynical about framing, there exists no single messaging technique capable of addressing the issues our biosphere currently faces, and values oriented approaches are a known commodity.  However, the search continues for an ever stronger leverage point.

It’s the end of the world as we know it and I feel fine? (R.E.M.)

Friday night at the Tragically Hip concert 12,000 music lovers cheered collectively at the approaching lightning storm.  Enclosed by a metal fence in a field with numerous free standing aluminum light poles, and a stage drawing enough electricity to power a small town, we (I partially exclude myself as I didn’t go so far as to cheer while the lightning touched down on the adjacent hillside) marvelled at the massive atmospheric electrostatic discharge and casually spoke of how crazy it was that we were all just standing there.  Believe it or not I have a segue from this story about the power of splitting in a collective environment, into the Mnguni article.  “Anxiety and defense in sustainability” brings to mind a Tragically Hip lyric I would like to share:

                I though you beat the death of inevitability to death just a little bit

                I though you beat the inevitability of death just a little bit

 It would seem that looking at sustainability through a psychodynamic lens can bring you to some pretty dark places.  It’s hard to argue with the notion that “when attendant anxiety is insufficiently acknowledged, defensive routines are likely to undermine collective efforts.”  The result being a perpetuation of the very actions and practices sustainability workers are trying to stop.  I thought our class might have served as the case study for how collusive behaviour can manifest itself in the form of “overemphasis on operational detail and a concomitant disregard of emergent relational dynamics,” but I digress (likely another defense mechanism, but making light of defense mechanisms is likely a maladaptive behaviour stemming from infantile defenses- oh my down the rabbit hole we go!).

I am particularly interested in how “splitting in sustainability also manifests as those working in the field seek to claim and own the reparative aspects of the work.”  I have been guilty of this practice in the past, likely in this very blog, casually projecting blame on corporations and the institutions that perpetuate neo-liberal ideals, while I continue to benefit from the inequity that these systems create.  Do you think that there is also an element of self-importance in the environmental movement that holds it back?  I am not questioning the science of global warming or the degradation to the biosphere that has resulted from our continued “development,” but the presentation of these issues as “the greatest threat mankind collectively has ever faced” (Searles, 1972) is a mantra that has been taken up by a cause in every generation. 

It is certainly easier to remain in a perpetual state of “dimmed awareness,” taking issue with issues that serve your immediate needs and avoiding the harsh reality that comes with trying to move against the grain.  Obviously awareness is not enough, and perhaps some people are attracted to a realm in which they are “constantly confronted with the real possibility of the end of the world as we know it.”

Mnguni, P.P. (2010). Anxiety and Defense in Sustainability. Psychoanalysis, Culture and Society, 15(2), 117-135.

Searles, H.F. (1972). Unconscious processes in relation to the environmental crisis. The Psychoanalytic review, 59(3), 361-374.

last night I couldn’t sleep

Joni Mitchell had it figured out when she spoke of the disavowance (but more likely splitting) inherent in the song Carey: “Oh you’re a mean old daddy but I really like you.”  After having spent the coherent part of my night reading through two Shove articles and a Whitmarsh rebuttal, I was a little disappointed that I left the Kenis for last.  In addition to relating directly to my own interest in the role of experience in shaping environmental activism (more so at a curriculum level), I was drawn to the perceived blurring of lines between individual behaviour and social action.  It would seem that behaviour change specialists have underestimated the intrinsic complexity at the root of people’s actions in response to climate change.  Climate change appears to be a unique threat, a threat for which understanding the root cause is critical in establishing a timeline for response.  Interesting as people didn’t seem to need to understand the science behind the splitting of the atom before they blindly took shelter under their desks out of fear of nuclear fallout.  What does the modern climate change shelter look like?  The problem with climate change is that the perceived outcome is unknown, likely it will leave us worse off than today, but the general “strategy skepticism” provides an easy out for those who place their fate in the powers that be.

I think I would place myself alongside those who view “climate change through the lens of panacea/opportunity for radical social change” (Whitmarsh 2011).  What else has the power to create a paradigm shift towards sustainability?  I’m just not sure how far down the rabbit hole we have to fall before we find our bearings.  I would have to agree with Whitmarsh (2011) that we need to be “vigilant against claims that one particular perspective is the only, and correct one.”  Tonight’s blog is brought to you by Gato Negro, a product that embodies the a transdisciplinary approach to behavioural change.  “Gato Negro is a wine for those occasions when you are with your friends, family or on your own!”

Whitmarsh, L., O'Neill, Saffron & Lorenzoni, Irene. (2011). Climate change or social change? Debate within, amongst and beyond disciplines. Environment and Planning A, 43(2), 258-261.

Kenis, A. & Mathijs, E. (2012). Beyond individual behaviour change: the role of power, knowledge and strategy in tacking climate change. Environmental Education Research, 18 (1), 45-65.

Leverage Points

Today we were asked to examine a particular behaviour change approach; our group was tasked with exploring the Tools for Change  website.  In reality we were supposed to look at the site two nights ago, but things just seemed to get in the way, a problem tools for change appears equipped to handle!  Tools for change is seeking to elicit behaviours that are “Environmentally Friendly” which they define as: “Those behaviours, products and services that contribute to sustainable development by minimizing disruptions.”

How do we motivate people to “minimize disruptions”?  According to Tools for change this can be achieved through social marketing, directing strategies for specific audiences.  I don’t disagree with the legitimacy of social marketing, however the manner in which the psyche is conceptualized as needing nothing more than the feeling of security in order to overcome barriers to change appears on the surface to lack complexity.  The validity of this conceptualization is tested through their pilot system, which they employ in advance of implementation.

At first glance I was skeptical of this website and their methodology for enacting change, but at least they are applying different techniques and methods in accordance with their desired audience.  Are barriers the only thing standing in the way of a paradigm shift towards a sustainable existence?  Have we been trying to hammer a square peg into a round hole for the last fifty years and neglected to notice the sawzall in our tool bag?  Unlikely, there is no one method capable of invoking behaviour change, but the conceptualization of the human psche from a social psychological perspective is a relatively strong leverage point, perhaps not to the degree that emotion can affect behaviour, but it does have a role to play.

Deny Deny Deny

Denial is a powerful defense mechanism, capable of blinding parents to the true behaviours of their children, capable of blinding institutions to the true nature of an issue, and in this context, capable of blinding us both individually and collectively to the effects and future impacts of climate change.  There is an alarming amount of resistance to the idea of climate change, a phrase or wording that in itself lends itself to an easy out for people who doubt the science of climate change or global warming.

The Lertzman and Norgaard (2011) article points to the 3 central emotions that are activated by climate change: Fear, helplessness and guilt.  There is no doubt that people are conflicted as the acknowledgement of climate change entails a critical examination of some of the fundamental values of western culture, and in doing so invokes the aforementioned emotions, emotions whose expressions are often tempered by our cultures emotional norms.

Norgaard believes that part of the solution rests in our ability to challenge people’s feeling of isolation by making them aware of local community initiatives that already exist.  In some respects is does come back to the adage “think global act local,” except that maybe we need to do a little local thinking as well.  I think people feel most disempowered when they see the general political apathy with regard to climate change.  If denial is rooted in hopelessness then we require clear paths to empowerment (I’m ok with leaving some crass people behind).

The idea that “we are pushed and pulled in very complex ways where we may simultaneously want to do different things” (Lertman& Norgaard, 2011, p. 8) is something that I find myself constantly grappling with.  I love driving, and the sense of independence that comes with it, I love travel, wines from Italy and a number of other vices that run counter to my acknowledged awareness of an environmental crisis.  It is true that “it is difficult to do, when others do not” (Lertzman, 2011, p. 9), and as we drift towards a tragedy of the commons I wonder what our collective threshold for change resistance will be?

 Lertzman, R., & Norgaard, K. (2011). A dialog between Renee Lertzman and Kari Norgaard. Ecopsychology, 3(1), 5-9.[Looks like this link may not be working; it's available through RRU so please use normal methods of tracking this paper down in the electronic database.]

The Real World

It is interesting to go back and look at these posts following the class discussions and reflect on how my perspectives on the readings have evolved.   Today we move away from fear and towards loss.  I can accept the notion that we need to come to grips with the fact that the world as we know it is going to change.  I’m not sure I like the description provided by McKibben (2010) who states that this is going to happen in “hideous and damaging ways,” but it is a distinct possibility.  Mckibben asserts that the first step is to “get real,” an assertion that is echoed by Moser (2012).

Is the promise of a better tomorrow an empty promise?  Perhaps it is time that we accept the mortality of our (Western Culture) way of life.  I can sort of relate to the perspective presented by Moser (2012) in that I am not the best flyer in the world, in fact I tend to adopt a rather fatalistic attitude while trapped 30 thousand feet in the air inside a thinly walled aluminium tube filled with fuel.  BUT, I think that in the unlikely event of an uncontrolled decent, I would be able to remain calm and accept the inevitable loss that was quickly approaching.  Maybe as Meadows (1997) states I would be able to remain grounded in my familiar anger and act as a positive agent of change (but would likely run out of time).

I think it’s true that we have a tendency in Western Culture to be uncomfortable with grief.  Maybe we need to soak in it for a while as a collective?  “When loss remains unspoken, neither grieved nor worked through, then change and adjustment cannot follow” (Moser 2012, p. 119).  We focus so much on fear, and that fear builds rigidity, whereas loss, according to Moser (2012), brings about a sense of acceptance and the ability to move forward.  Are we afraid to take the message all the way?  Then again, maybe Moser is overestimating our predictive powers, or maybe I’m just in denial.

The section on leaders was thought provoking.  Wouldn’t it be refreshing to hear a political leader speak to a real issue in the absence ideological clichés?

Perhaps we do not, as Gord Downie sings, “Live to survive our paradoxes,” but rather live to hold our paradoxes in tension.  The practical realities of life and the vision of systemic change (Moser, 2012) particularly resonated with me.  While on the topic of music, I agree with Klein (1940/1975) that “much creative and artistic work stems from the need for reparation.”  I have certainly found that music sounds a little richer, art looks a little more beautiful and wine tastes a little fuller when you allow yourself to come to terms with loss.

I find it hard to imagine loss; it is not an emotion that can easily be evoked in advance.  Climate change is steeped language that speaks to the future.  Randall (2009) expands on this in describing  the split off and projection into the future of fear over loss regarding climate change.  “The present continues to feel safe, but at the expense of the future becoming terrifying” (p. 120).

I enjoyed the words of Worden in the Randall (2009) paper that spoke to the necessity to accept loss, but at the same time offer hope.  “Life will never be the same again, but meaning may be restored and it may become possible to flourish once more” (p. 121).

Randall, R. (2009). Loss and climate change: the cost of parallel narratives. Ecopsychology, 1(3), 118-129.
Moser, S. (2012). Getting Real About It: Meeting the Psychological and Social Demands of a World in Distress. In Gallagher et al (eds.), Sage reference handbook of environmental leadership. Sage Publications.

Clear and Present Danger

You would think that fear is the ultimate motivator.  I used to live in a relatively sketchy neighborhood in Montreal where I would go for late night runs (due to time constraints) and would spend the majority of my run under the assumption that someone was about to jump out and attack me at any given moment.  This fear fortunately never came to fruition, but my 10km night runs were usually 10 minutes faster than the same run under the protection of daylight.  The illusion of protection provided by a consumer based urban existence in the face of climate change seems to have slowed our collective response time by far more than 10 minutes.

I found it interesting that that the O’Neill and Nicholson-Cole (2009) article began by stating that 30% of the UK thinks that “crime, health, economic concerns, and education are issues government should deal with, while just 1% stating the same about climate change” (p.357), when in fact those issues are all environmental issues.  Not really the crux of the issue, but it is important to look at what we define as environmental issues and I suppose this article is really addressing the detachment felt by the general public with regard to climate change.  As this study takes place in the UK, I’m sure there are many who would welcome global warming (although I see in the study they accounted for a relatively insignificant proportion of the sample). 

The fact that a tangible experience with the natural world is virtually impossible in many of the concrete jungles found in the United Kingdom no doubt adds to the sense of indifference towards climate change.  And a threat is not really a threat until one feels threatened, and images of polar bears floating on blocks of ice through tropical arctic waters most likely fails to resonate with individuals who has spent the majority of their lives in a sprawling industrial city.  Fearful images relating to climate change seem to be such a departure from most people’s perceived reality, that it only enhances the perception that these issues are remote and distant.

There is a place for fear, it certainly makes for an effective hook, and as a teacher I love a good hook, but I have learned that a hook for the sake of a hook does not always translate into long-term engagement.  Are we to hung up on trying to get people to shift their behavior for the “right” reasons, or should we just focus on using any means necessary to achieve the desired outcome?  As Stern (2012) alludes to, if you do choose to use fear, you better provide a means “to prevent the feared outcomes.”  There is great power in a visceral reaction to something, but fear seems like a bit of a cop-out, it’s easy to scare people, not so easy to inspire them.

O’Neill, S., & Nicholson-Cole, S. (2009). Fear Won’t Do It: Promoting Positive Engagement With Climate Change Through Visual and Iconic Representations. Science Communication, 30(3), 355-379.

Stern, P. (2012). Fear and Hope in Climate Messages. Nature Climate Change.

Hope against Hope

This Blog is now shifting gears, moving from thoughts and reflections on the EECO 586 course to thoughts and reflections on EECO 509: Psychology of Environmental Education and Communication.  It will be interesting to explore new topics, and revisit some recurring themes through this new lens.

We begin with a topic that while in the readings is focussed on conservation biologists, is a source of discussion that permeates the entire environmental movement.  How do we resolve the tension that exists between the despair that inevitably comes from immersion in the field of conservation, and the hope that is necessary for people to actively seek out solutions and alter behaviours. 

I think I tend to fall on the side of hope, and would agree with most of the arguments put forward by Swaisgood, Sheppard and James (2010); in that despair is perhaps not the best emotion to evoke when attempting to communicate a message.  I recognise the dangers associated with false hope (Patten, Smith-Patten & Brenda, 2011), and the fear that uninformed optimism might lead us back to unsustainable behaviours, but I’m not sure if false hope is worse than no hope at all.  A plan is better than no plan at all, and maybe false hope is better than no hope at all, unless, I suppose that plan is destructive, and that hope leads to a misguided faith in the power of innovation and technology to overcome all our problems.  That being said, in the end what’s the point of doing anything without hope.  I wonder what meaningful advances have come out of feelings of despair?  Maybe a desire to tear down the existing infrastructure that led to feelings of despair, but you would hope that those actions would be followed by a re-building process.  Perhaps I am existing in a state of denial, fueled by an unrealistic belief in the inherent good of humanity.  I think I wrote in an earlier blog that I would classify myself as a Catastrophist, so can you be a hopeful catastrophist?  I hope that the existing system collapses, a paradigm shift occurs, and new sustainable systems emerge out of the chaos.

I think that despair can arise out of a deep attachment to the existing structures that hold our failing systems in place.  Those who despair over the prospect of a collapsed economic system are deeply invested in the values that perpetuate that system, and fail to see the long-term benefits associated with the re-distribution of wealth and the localized economies that might arise out of such a collapse.  Altering our perceptions of time, and re-orienting our desire for stability might lead us away from feelings of despair and invoke hope.  I’m not trying to say that we should just sit back and do nothing, just that it is possible to find hope, however, you might have to expand your search beyond the traditional boundaries of space and time.

The emotions being discussed are not superficial nor are they fleeting, and require approaches that go beyond hopeful language, approaches that are steeped in values will be necessary if a real shift is to occur.  I would imagine that many people are somewhat pre-disposed to either message, or maybe they find themselves somewhere in the middle of the spectrum.

Patten, Michael A. & Smith-Patten, Brenda D. (2011). “As If” Philosophy: Conservation Biology's Real Hope. BioScience, 61(6), 425-426.

Swaisgood, Ronald R. & Sheppard, James K. (2010). The Culture of Conservation Biologists: Show me the hope! BioScience, 60(8), 626–630.

Bottoms up

A brief voyage into the world of polycentric systems was a nice way to tie together the major ideas from this course as well as the entire online portion of this program.  It’s easy to get lost in the world of wordy academic vernacular and lose sight of the big picture, or better yet the local picture.  As Ostrom (2010) alludes to, people seem to be waiting for some agreement at a global level to validate or motivate them to alter their values or shift their behaviour in a more sustainable direction, when in truth, this change, in order to be effective, needs to start at a local level.  As was mentioned in the group discussions on Moodle, centralized authority can result in fast changes, but it usually precludes any local knowledge,  undermines adaptability, and in the end results in the alienation of local stakeholders.

Change needs to come from everywhere, cascading vertically, laterally and diagonally.  Values oriented approaches have the capacity to motivate change that can build resilience at local levels and in the end create the paradigm shift necessary to address global concerns.  Ostrom (2010) mentions that there is perhaps no better catch phrase than “think global, act local,” and it is at this level that change can and must begin.  In the words of Margret Mead: “Never doubt that a small group of thoughtful, committed citizens can change the world.  Indeed, it is the only thing that ever has."

  Ostrom, E. (2010). Polycentric systems for coping with collective action and global environmental change. Global Environmental Change, 20(4), 550-557.

Path to our future

Last night I found myself in front of the T.V watching the final fleeting moments of what seems like an endless hockey playoff season, contemplating meaningless questions relating to les Canadiens de Montreal when I was suddenly awoken from my slumber by three successive advertisements on the CBC.  The first one was a message from our darling Federal Conservative party, reminding us how important jobs are to all Canadians (not to be confused with les Canadiens), the second was sponsored by Enbridge, promoting the Northern gateway pipeline as a path to prosperity for all Canadians, and the third was a message from the oil sands producers, praising the oil sands as the savior of Canadian Industry (I’ll post the links below).   AHHH!! So much green washing and values washing!  The advertisements were filled with beautiful images of natural landscapes and “working families.” The Enbridge add took the cake with its “path to our future" slogan, complete with a green oil tanker (see link below).  Just made me think, as I read through Leichenko, O’Brien, and Solecki (2010), that we are a very long way from grasping the complexity of interactions between global environmental and economic changes, at least the people with money are.  They do however provide great learning opportunities for the development of critical media skills.

Enbridge Path to our Future: http://www.youtube.com/user/enbridgepipelines?feature=results_main

Point of no Return

In the midst of this week’s discussion of a values oriented approach to climate change, on the front page of the news paper today (ok, it was actually the front cover of the B section- Vancouver Sun) I found this title jumping up at me: Earth near point of no return, scientists warn: Effects of civilization on planet threaten collapse of ecosystems in 50 years- with no going back.  Inspiring stuff!!  This may very well be our reality, but if the intention of this article is to bring about change (It is the Vancouver Sun, so I doubt this was their goal), I imagine the words read as relative white noise on the backdrop of what appears on the actual front page (immanent economic and ecological collapse).  After some initial intrigue and a brief hope that Bridget Fonda would reprise her 1993 role as Maggie Hayward, I fell into a haze of statistics and doomsday predictions. 

Shore, R. (2012, Thursday June 7th). Earth near point of no return, scientists warn, Vancouver Sun, p. 1.

What if?

I seem to be falling a little behind with these, it’s now Tuesday June 5^th, and I have just returned from a great week down in San Francisco, as well as a beautiful trek through California’s redwood forests and the Oregon coast.  I am going to comment on some of the readings from week 7, as well as my own reflections on the emergence of the International environmental movement.

It seemed that everyone in the group enjoyed the Jansanoff (2010) article, in particular the discussion on the difficulty in creating meaningful communications strategies that are based in climate facts.  “The work of science tends to erase specificity and remove traces of the human mind and hand” (Jansanoff, 2010,p. 234).  If people are to buy into the narrative (it’s more than a narrative, but sounds better for this line of reasoning) being communicated by the environmental movement, then it will need to be a narrative that the general public can attach meaning to, nothing groundbreaking there. We’ve spent a great deal of time looking at framing (Lakoff, 2010) and conceptualizing the importance of messages that speak to values.  However, it’s always refreshing to read a new perspective on an old problem.  The language of science itself seems to be a limiting factor in sharing our experiences with nature, and fails to capture the true essence of the symbiotic relationship that humans share with the natural world.

Jansanoff (2010) speaks of the need for change on four fronts: community, politically, space and time. I think that our concepts of time are one of the great obstacles in addressing climate issues.  “Climate change occurs over spans of time” (Jansanoff, 2010, p. 237) that don’t necessarily resonate with our typical standards of time, but perhaps even more challenging is our willingness as environmental communicators to accept the duration of time it will take to reverse the negative consequences of our industrial development.  I know we are running out of “time,” and while scientists like James Hansen are arguing that it is already too late, it is going to take “time” to reframe the human/nature relationship.

Political change is an interesting topic to grapple with, especially in Canada as our current administration seems to be headed in the opposite direction of our desired paradigm shift, as they wage war on “radical” environmental groups in their on-going quest to turn Canada into an “energy superpower” (O'Neil, 2012).  In the United States I doubt if the environment will ever be mentioned in the lead up to the November election as Mitt and Barack make empty job promises, likely at the expense of future generations.  It is interesting to consider where we would be if people in the United States had taken the words of Jimmy Carter seriously in the late 1970’s as he tried to promote alternative forms of energy and supported conservation, unfortunately his popularity was undone through a series of foreign policy mishaps, and his replacement led America down a different path (one propagated on limitless growth).  What if the 2000 election had swung in a different direction, what path would Al Gore have chosen, would his attempts to warn the world of the dangers associated with global warming have taken center stage had he held the presidency.  The answers to these questions are irrelevant now, here we are, with Harper in Canada, likely a republican as the next American president, as the fall of the European economy will no doubt be blamed on the current U.S administration.  Will the future leaders be bold and lead their nations down a new path, or will they look romantically to failed policies of the past for answers.

I think that at least some of the answers will come out of increasingly autonomous localized economies that seek to separate themselves from the failing global markets.  Nice thought, should be interesting to see how it plays out!!

References

Lakoff, G. (2010). Why it Matters How We Frame the Environment. Environmental Communication: A Journal of Nature and Culture, 4(1), 70-81.

O'Neil, P. (2012). Pipelines, protests and recession collide in B.C., Vancouver Sun, pp. A1,A6.

Jasanoff, S. (2010). A new climate for society. Theory, Culture & Society 27(2-3), 233-253.

What's wrong with being right

The questions posed during week six of this course are perhaps the most important questions we face as a collective.  What do we know about humanity’s ability to live within our means?  And what signals do we respond to in order to potentially regulate our “means?”  Simon Sinek (2010) gives a great Ted Talk (http://www.ted.com/talks/simon_sinek_how_great_leaders_inspire_action.html )regarding what humans respond to at least from a marketing perspective.  Sinak explains that the companies that have experienced the greatest success or at least the greatest degree of brand loyalty have focussed their marketing on the “why”.  Not the how or what, but the why.  Any company can explain what, or how they do something, but the companies with an ability to clearly communicate their why will be able to set themselves apart.  Sinek uses examples of companies like Apple and Southwest Airlines as models of his “Golden Rule” and how to brand your company.  No doubt the Environmental movement could learn a few things from modern advertising techniques, but I’m not sure a new brand message will be enough to curtail the rapid rate of conspicuous consumption that exists in Western culture.

Maybe the thing that has held the environmental movement back is the “fact” that they “know” they are right.  Nobody likes a know it all, and environmentalists are continually telling people what is going to happen, and that they better adopt their worldview or else, and if things turn out as environmentalists predict the only thing they will have to show for their efforts is a final gurgling “I told you so”.   So what do we do???  Re-brand, accelerate the demise of the current system??  A little humility might go a long way. 

I was recently traveling through the Massey tunnel in Vancouver which links Richmond and Delta under one of the arms of the Fraser River, and I could not help but be frustrated by every single cars individualistic perspective as they “deftly maneuver and muscle for rank, fuel burning fast on an empty tank, reckless and wild they pour through the turns, their prowess is potent and securely stern “ (Cake, “The Distance,” 1996), it was very reminiscent of Hardin’s (1968) Tragedy of the commons, as we all ground to a screeching halt as a result of a failure to recognise the benefit of making a small sacrifice for the greater good.

References:

Hardin, G. (1968). The Tragedy of the Commons. Science, 162(3859), 1243-1248.

Great Expectations

Oh to be able to predict the future, what a gift that would be.  Many have made attempts to quantify our complex systems, derive patterns and predict the future. Some noteworthy, some forgettable, some intelligent, and some with let’s call it a lack of keen observational skills.  I don’t doubt the need for models in order to give us a glimpse at possible future outcomes, but the complexity inherent in the systems we are trying to model seems to allow for non-experts (media and politicians) to use any short-comings of our predictive capacities (I speak primarily of global warming) as a means of dismissing concerns and carrying on in the current trajectory.

In reading Ehrlich (2009) and his prognostications about the dangers of exponential population growth, another future theorist was brought to mind.  In 1945 in the midst of evolving nuclear technology, George Orwell wrote an essay called “You and the Atomic Bomb” in which he contemplated the significance of this new technology for future generations, and in particular the impact this new technology would have on the organization of Nation States.  I’ve noted some of the more interesting excerpts and points below.

·         Had the bomb been inexpensive to make, “the distinction between great states and small states would have been wiped out, and the power of the state over the individual would have been greatly weekend” (Orwell, 1945, para. 3).

·         “Ages in which the dominant weapon is expensive or difficult to make will tend to be ages of despotism, whereas when the dominant weapon is cheap and simple, the common people have a chance” (Orwell, 1945, para. 4).

·         “For example, tanks, battleships and bombing planes are inherently tyrannical weapons, while rifles, muskets, long-bows and hand-grenades are inherently democratic weapons. A complex weapon makes the strong stronger, while a simple weapon — so long as there is no answer to it — gives claws to the weak” (Orwell, 1945, para 5).

·         “The great age of democracy and of national self-determination was the age of the musket and the rifle” (Orwell, 1945, para 6).

·         “Looking at the world as a whole, the drift for many decades has been not towards anarchy but towards the re-imposition of slavery. We may be heading not for general breakdown but for an epoch as horribly stable as the slave empires of antiquity” (Orwell, 1945, para 9).

After revisiting this article I could not help but think of energy as the new chain that binds us to an unchanging paradigm.  Those in power continue to centralize existing energy sources while simultaneously repressing innovation (you need look no further than the 2012 Federal budget) as a means of maintaining the status quo.  As was stated in the philosophers cafe this week: “We need to innovate and take risks” (Suhr, 2012).  This is the only way change will come about.  Innovation in the realm of energy could free developing nations from the remnants of a destructive imperial age and cold war.  As Zane alludes to in his description of Levin in lecture one, this does not have to be from new energy sources, but can come in the form of small scale energy sources that promote local autonomy.

So while our predictive powers might not rank very high on Meadows (1997) list of “places to intervene in a system,” they can serve as inspiration, and fuel discussions that can lead to “out of the box thinking”, that could lead to not using the phrase “out of the box.”

References:

Ehrlich, Paul, & Ehrlich, Anne H. (2009). The Population Bomb Revisited. Electronic Journal of Sustainable Development, 1(3), 63-71.

Meadows, D. H. (1997). Places to Intervene in a System, Whole Earth, (91), 78-84.

Orwell, G. (1945).  You me and the Atomic Bomb.  Tribune. — GB, London. — October 19, 1945.

Suhr, N. (2012).  Re: social justice and the population bomb.  In the Discussion Forum.  Wednesday, 16 May 2012, 02:13 PM.

Time to get Radical?

In this week’s exploration of environmental economics we seek out ways in which these two interdependent disciplines can better work together in an effort to foster sustainability. I have spent a great deal of time over the past few years being frustrated by the continual marginalization of environmental concerns, not to mention the most recent framing by the Harper Government of environmental concerns as being radical.  What could be more mainstream than concerns over the well being of the biosphere that supports us?  Yet time and time again environmental concerns are juxtaposed with the need for economic growth. 

Lakoff (2010) discusses the failings of liberals in America to frame the environment in a way that generates meaning for the general public.  And I enjoy Lakoff’s (2010) description of how we are drawn to particular narratives.  I often find myself watching world events unfolding and wonder how the story will end.  Will it be a tragedy, a tale of the underdog coming through at the last moment, or perhaps the people involved will go through some transformative experience.  This analogy will likely reveal that I have spent far too much time watching organized sport, as well as the fact that I am an easy target for frames built around narratives. However, when I do (on occasion) watch a Montreal Canadiens game, I often find myself predicting the outcome based on the traditional narratives of sport: the underdog, the veteran player’s final push, the comeback, the collapse...  I increasingly see this playing out in politics, with leaders not necessarily attaching themselves to an issue, but rather to a story that people can relate to.

So what do people relate to in times of crisis?  Throughout history the trend has been towards more radical ideologies.  This narrative is playing out right now in Europe as they face what seems like an inevitable economic meltdown.  Greece recently split its vote between what are essentially Fascist and communist party’s, leading to the election of an ineffective minority government in their parliament.

Maybe it’s time to start framing environmentalism for what it truly is, a radical departure from mainstream values and ideologies (decide on your preferred level of sarcasm inferred in this statement).  Vive la revolution!

References:

Lakoff, G. (2010). Why it Matters How We Frame the Environment. Environmental Communication: A Journal of Nature and Culture, 4(1), 70-81.

The elusive “superorganism” found at the climax: A sailing analogy

As some of you know, I do a fair bit of competitive sailing in my free time, and while my thoughts often drift to the open ocean, or when I’m in Montreal, a bottlenecked river, I found myself reflecting on all that is beautiful about sailing as I contemplated the ideas surrounding order and chaos discussed by Worster (1994).

Sailing is an interesting sport in that it involves the incorporation of countless naturally occurring variables into a strategic plan that must also account for decisions made by your fellow competitors.  With proper preparation, wind patterns can be detected (sometimes oscillating in regular intervals, sometimes shifting persistently as a result of weather patterns), water currents can be estimated, and the effects of landforms on wind can be predicted with a degree of accuracy.  Armed with this knowledge you set up your boat and sails so as to best manage the wind velocity and waves, and develop a course of action for making your way around a fixed track. 

You would think with all this information in hand, victory would occur on a regular basis, but nature often throws you a curveball, and observations made before the race are not always relevant during the race, in order to be successful you must be able to adapt and change, no variable is fixed, including the rationale of your competition, and you must avoid chasing what was.  Sometimes you get lucky and a wind shift vaults you from the back of the fleet to the front, and sometimes the opposite occurs.  In order to achieve success you must be patient and find balance in all the chaos and order that surrounds you.  Frustration leads to reactionary courses of action, which in my experience seldom translate into success.

I always found it interesting that with all these variables at play, the same people can usually be found at the front of the fleet, and I think they are the ones that are best able to reconcile the predictive order and chaotic nature of wind and water.

This is an image taken moments before the start of a race (That's me steering 14905)

References:

Worster, D. (1994). Chapter 13: The Ecology of Order and Chaos The wealth of nature: environmental history and the ecological imagination (pp. 156-170). New York: Oxford University Press.

Wilderness ethic holding us back?

After listening to the first of three lectures from week 3 revolving around the evolution of ecological thought during the post-war period, I was struck with a few questions (ok maybe just one question so far):

In contrasting the wilderness ethics of the late 19^th century and early 20^th century and contemporary ecological thinking, I was wondering if wilderness ethics is holding us back from the necessary paradigm shift required to ensure a sustainable future?  Wilderness ethics while wonderful for the preservation and conservation of natural habitats in its time, and well intended, is so entrenched in the way environmental issues are framed presently.  It allows for the separation of humans and their surrounding environment, and the notion that unconstrained development can occur in certain places, so long as we keep the environment safe in other places.  This line of thinking is what has led to fractured and disjointed ecosystems.

Earth from above

A great deal of discussion this week has revolved around balance and tensions between conflicting ideologies or epistemologies.  I keep coming back to our own system of government and economics to see if there are any emerging properties that might reflect some of the tenants of ecological thought.  I guess the basic principles of capitalism assume that the market, over time, will be self-regulating, and in the end will act in the best interest of the consumer to create equality, or rather opportunity, but this notion is presupposed, along with much of economic theory, on the idea that humans will always make rational decisions.  Unfortunately humans are not always rational and the basic principles upon which our most influential agencies have been constructed are inherently flawed.  So where does the regulation come from, who do we want to manage our “house”?  Do we want it to come from our governments?  I guess not, as we have elected a federal government that promotes the rights of the free market economy and seeks to eliminate or “streamline” any regulatory processes.  I think it’s important to maintain perspective when critiquing the Harper Government, it’s not as if they hide their agenda:

                “A belief that the purpose of Canada is to create a climate wherein individual initiative is rewarded, excellence is pursued, security and privacy of the individual is provided and prosperity is guaranteed by a free competitive market economy.” (http://www.conservative.ca/party/founding_principles/  )

It’s nice of them to guarantee prosperity to everyone!  They do allude to the environment as being “a vital part of our heritage” (sounds very past tense) but don’t expect any policies that will aid in the promotion of its viability.  So how do we bridge the gap?  How do we allow people to see “the forest as more than just a collection of trees” (Odum, 1977)?  It comes down to individuals, and individual reflection on what really matters, then perhaps we might end up with a government that reflects a collective belief that “action based on holistic values and properties is a viable alternative to development on the basis of competitive exclusion alone” (Odum, 1977, p. 1291).

I guess part of the problem lies in the fact that modern technology has moved people in developed countries a few steps removed from the natural environment, and has thus diminished our (I’ll throw myself into the mix) sense of equilibrium as the resulting feedbacks from our excessive consumption are delayed.

I struggle with what to do, do you work for change within the boundaries of a system that has led us to where we are at present?  Privatize natural resources; add monetary value and individual ownership to entities that are presently without rights?  I don’t think so, it feels counter intuitive.  As Moncrief (1970) writes: “The forces of democracy, technology, urbanization, increasing individual wealth have led us down this path” (p. 511).  “The environmental problem is a human problem and has its roots in a distorted and unbalanced perception of existence” (Al‐Damkhi, 2008).  It would seem irrational to search for solutions within the very processes and belief systems that have led us here.  Odum (1977) suggests that “it is in the properties of the large scale, integrated systems that hold solutions to most of the long-range problems of society” (p. 1289).  Maybe we just need some new photo’s of Earth from space so that people can once again view Earth as a whole!

References:

Al‐Damkhi, A. M. (2008). Environmental ethics in Islam: principles, violations, and future perspectives. International Journal of Environmental Studies, 65(1), 11-31. doi: 10.1080/00207230701859724

Moncrief, L. W. (1970). The Cultural Basis for Our Environmental Crisis. Science, 170(3957), 508-512.

Odum, Eugene P. (1977). The Emergence of Ecology as a New Integrative Discipline. Science, 195(4284), 1289-1293.