Short Break

Hi, I'm going to have a short break for a few weeks.  Will be back with a weekly blog devoted to community development, social justice and sustainability around mid-late January 2015.
Thanks for reading during the past year.
Bruce

This Changes Everything: A Review

It sure does.  Change everything, that is.  Naomi Klein’s latest book is aptly titled.  Climate change changes everything and everyone.  No nation, no community, no individual is immune to the effects of climate change.  Even those who deny climate change are not immune.

The subtitle of the book is Capitalism vs the Climate – again apt.  it could just as easily have been Everything you always wanted to know about climate change.  Klein set herself a mammoth task in writing this book, and largely, she has succeeded.  She covers the science, the politics, the history, the roles of Big Oil, Big Coal and Big Green. 

She introduces us to the Heartland Institute of climate change deniers at their conference in Washington.  She takes us to indigenous communities in Canada, South America and the Ogoni living in the Niger Delta.

We get glimpses of the boardrooms of big companies such as Chevron, BP and Exxon Mobil.  We see the communities offering alternatives, from the solar project of the Cheyenne in South Dakota to the citizens of towns and cities in Germany taking back control over their power supply.

Klein has researched and written this book over a period of five years – and it shows.  It is thoroughly researched, meticulously documented and superbly written.

All of the history and science is fascinating, yet Klein’s major purpose in the book is to ask whether it is possible to escape from the brink of climate disaster.  Furthermore, is it possible, she asks, to do so “without challenging the fundamental logic of deregulated capitalism?”  Klein’s unambiguous, raw, answer is: “Not a chance.”

So, do we have a chance?  What chance do we have?  In answer to the first question, Klein is ambivalent.  “It’s not clear which side will win,” she states, but goes on to say “the companies in the crosshairs are up against more than they bargained for.”

That qualification begins to answer the second question – what chance do we have?

Reading the book through in sequence from page 1 to page 466 the reader moves from despair, to struggle, to perhaps and finally to possibility and a sense of regeneration.  For that regeneration to occur Klein advises that a number of things need to happen:

1.  We must stop consuming – now.  That means not simply replacing our stuff with green alternatives.  It means quitting the consumption obsession.

2.  We must connect with each other and with the earth.  Klein cites many examples of this happening throughout the world and suggests that climate change has been one of the catalysts for previously disparate groups learning to coexist and collaborate.

3.  We must ramp up the opposition to Big Coal, Big Oil and Big Technology.  Klein sees the emerging Blockadia movement as a hopeful example of this. 

(Coalitions and the Blockadia movement have left the NIMBY (Not IN MY Back Yard) isolationism behind and replaced it with Ni ici, ni ailleurs -  neither here, nor anywhere.  Climate change changes everything.)

4.  The most important thing that needs to happen, according to Klein, is that we must change our thinking, change our worldview, change our values.  We must choose policies “that don’t merely aim to change laws but change patterns of thought.”

5.  Finally, our faith and hope in our present top-down leadership must change.  We are going to have to become active in decision-making at local levels.  For Klein, “if change is to take place it will only be because leadership bubbled up from below.”

Naomi Klein is absolutely right:  This Changes Everything.

The book can be obtained from the link to the right of this post -labelled "Books Reviewed on this site"

No Champions

The Climate Change Performance Index (CCPI - Results 2015), released this week, is a sobering and disturbing read.  It analyses the performance of 58¹ of the world’s nations in terms of how they are doing with respect to climate change. 

The CCPI compares the climate protection performance of each country using indicators on: emissions, efficiency, renewable energy and policy.

What is disturbing about reading this report is that the authors felt unable to award first, second or third place to any nation, because “no country is doing enough to prevent dangerous climate change.” That’s worth repeating: “no country is doing enough to prevent dangerous climate change.” 

That is akin to no runner in the Olympic Marathon being awarded a gold, silver or bronze medal because none of them ran a sufficiently fast time to warrant it.

Disturbing indeed.  The report suggests that even if all nations of the world did as well as the top ranked nations the target of keeping global warming below a 2^o C rise would fail.

Disturbing too is that the top 10 of the world’s largest CO₂ emitters are responsible for approximately 2/3 of all emissions, with 7 of them being given a “poor” or “very poor” rating. 

The countries doing best (i.e. given a “good” rating) all hail from Europe, apart from one – Morocco.  Indeed, Morocco is given especial mention in the report as it has shown considerable improvement in its climate change response in recent years, and is an example of how a developing nation can contribute towards action on climate change.  The report cites Morocco’s renewable energy targets, it’s development of solar² and wind projects, and it’s cuts to gas and fuel oil subsidies as worthy of mention.

Indeed, of the top 40 performing nations, only six are from outside of Europe: Morocco (9th), Mexico (18th), Indonesia (23rd), Egypt (24th), India (31st) and South Africa (37th).

Tellingly too is that of the G20 nations (arguably the richest nations on earth), seven of them lie in the bottom 10 placings:  Argentina, Brazil, Turkey, Japan, Korea, Russian Federation, Canada, Australia and Saudi Arabia.  The final two of these (Australia and Saudi Arabia) come in second-to-last and last place.

So, if the nations of the world aren’t up to scratch, and some of them are going backwards, what hope have we of remaining below the 2^o C target?

That’s where we come in.  Us, the citizens of the world.  The common folk, those of us who do not sit around board tables or in the parliaments, congresses and senates of the world.

The way forward seems to be that change will only come from the ground-up, not from top-down.  And there are signs of that all around the world.  People and communities doing one of two things (often both): 1. protesting and blockading big oil and it’s associates and 2. undertaking local sustainable systems that prove that it is possible to live sustainably without the need to raise the temperature.

Neither of these actions are captured in the CCPI report and are certainly not mentioned in the “Key Results” area.  Yet, it is these local, community-led activities that will ultimately make the difference.  Perhaps the authors of CCPI will acknowledge this in a future report.

1. The 58 countries make up all bar those on the west coast of South America, most of Africa, and some Asian countries.  It does, however, include all the OECD, G20, ASEAN and EU countries along with a number of newly industrialised and “countries in transition.”  Altogether, these 58 countries account for more than 90% of global CO₂ emissions.  This is the seventh publication of this report.  Jan Burck, Franziska Marten, Christoph Bals (authors), Climate Change Performance Index - Results 2015, Germanwatch/Climate Action Network (Europe), December 2014.
2. Morocco is constructing the world’s largest concentrated solar power plant in
Ouarzazate (500 MW).

Containing Problems

How often do we look at a social problem and try to contain it.  We set up committees, government think-tanks and even NGOs – all with the express intent of defining the problem, analysing it and then solving it.  All within the box we have created around it.

Many years ago (1999 to be precise) a community development worker and thinker in New Zealand presented a paper to the Summer Heart Politics Gathering in Taupo, New Zealand.  He titled the presentation Co-operation, Collaboration and Co-ordination.¹ 

vivian Hutchinson’s basic tenet was that traditionally we had tried to solve social problems and/or issues by establishing a group, organisation, agency or think tank to deal with each individual issue.  This model looked like this:

We attempt to contain the issue, place borders around it and then the “experts” within the containing box can deal with the issue and eventually solve it.

vivian then went on to describe our ways of dealing with social problems or issues being to set up discrete organisations to deal with (supposedly) mutually exclusive issues, as in this next diagram (Diag 2).



Each of the social issues (represented by the squiggly lines) is surrounded by and contained within the confines of an organisational structure (the solid lines). 

Thus, according to this model, we set up organisations to deal with: refugees, people with disability, unemployment, climate change, mental health, youth issues, drug/alcohol, homelessness and numerous other issues,


This model Hutchinson labelled as the “in-charge” model.  Organisationally it is characterised by hierarchy, expert-based and rationalist.  These structures lead to elitism, authority and we-know-what’s-best mentalities.

However, said Hutchinson 15 years ago, the complexity of social issues is such that no one of us, nor any single-focussed organisation, is capable of containing and solving these issues.  Hutchinson suggested, instead, that the issues contain and surround us and our organisations, much as in this diagram (Diag 3)

The organisations that we establish are surrounded by complex, and inter-connected, issues.  The issues are not mutually exclusive as the “in-charge” model suggests.  Hutchinson called this the “shared-power” model.

What do we do then, if the issues surround us, and not the other way round? 


Hutchinson proposed that the first thing to do was to get rid of the notion that we are “in-charge.”

The second thing to do was to connect.  Hutchinson described the difference in the two models as

“In the in-charge model your effectiveness comes from your programmes and the resources you have to get the job done.  In the shared-power world your effectiveness is ruled by the quality of the relationships between key players, and especially their ability to work together to build trust, agreement and consensus.” (emphasis in original)

The key then is to connect, co-operate, collaborate and co-ordinate, as represented in Diag 4.


Working in this way is not easy.  It means having to creatively listen, to recognise connections between issues, to come to some level of consensus and agreement.

But, as Hutchinson was quick to point out, “whether we like this situation or not,” this model provides us with a more realistic portrayal of the social issues surrounding us.


There are many examples of such networks occurring around the world.  Since Hutchinson’s presentation 15 years ago, social issues seem to have become even more pervasive.

That just means that we have to be even more determined to connect with one another and find creative solutions in the diversity of our experience, knowledge, skills and wisdoms.

We also need to be vigilant.  Because the “shared-power” model is not easy, we can slip back into it very quickly because of complacency or inattention.  Being aware of the two models, though, does help reduce that possibility.

1. vivian Hutchinson, Co-operation, Collaboration and Co-ordination.  Paper presented to Summer Heart Politics Gathering at the Tauhara Centre, Taupo, New Zealand in 1999. (Note, the small “v” in vivian’s name is intentional)

Choices, choices, choices

We see quotes like this everywhere on the Internet and elsewhere.  “We all have choices” they proclaim.  If your life is not as it could be or as you would wish it to be, then, say the proponents of choice-making, make better choices.

Sounds appealing doesn’t it.  Things not going well? – make a better choice.  Facing obstacles or barriers in your life? – make a different choice.  Simple really. 

It’s true enough – we all do have choices.  However, we do not all have the same choices.  Some of us have very limited choices, whereas others have almost limitless choice.  For some, the choices may be between one unwelcome outcome and another unwelcome outcome – with no choice really being desirable.



The next step along this path of choosing is to create your own reality.  By treading this path we get to the point where the Universe conspires with us to give us what we desire.  This all happens because of the choices we make.  If we make good choices then the reality that we create will be good also. 

From this perspective it is very easy to take up a moralistic stance that says that those that make bad mistakes deserve the reality they create for themselves.

Making choices is good in theory.  In practice, however, it is all just a little naive.  Naive for three major reasons:

1. The environment within which we all make choices is not an equitable one.  It is not a level playing field.
2. People do the best they can from the understandings, knowledge and skills that they possess at the time.
3. We are all intimately linked with one another and our world.  None of us make our decisions in isolation or independent of all the other decisions that are being made.

Unequal Playing Fields

Richard Wilkinson and Kate Pickett have clearly demonstrated that there is a strong correlation between inequality and social mobility, mental health, educational performance and a range of other social indicators.  In their book The Spirit Level they note that

“bigger income differences seem to solidify the social structure and decrease the chances of upward mobility.  Where there are greater inequalities of outcome, equal opportunity is a significantly more distant prospect.” ¹

When children are raised in poverty the choices they have as adults are significantly reduced, “affecting every thing from (their) job prospects to (their) marital happiness.”²

As inequality in a society increases the ability of people to make positive life choices decreases.  Making choices is not simply a question of individual choice.  Making choices becomes a political act; choices that those with greater access to power, resources or prestige make easily, not realising that those with less access have less options available.

Doing Our Best

One of the insights of Neuro-Linguistic Programming (NLP) is that people do the best they can with the resources available to them at the time.  The key phrases here are available and at the time. 

This understanding is a crucial one, because it recognises that people do not wilfully make bad choices.  Rather, people make the best choice they can with the knowledge, experience and skills that they have available.  Rather than blaming people for their decisions, NLP uses this insight to work compassionately with people.

This means that we cannot judge others from our own understanding, perspective or worldview. 

Interdependence

When we tell others to make better choices, or even that “you have a choice,” we are often ignoring the interplay between people and that the choices we make are not mutually exclusive.  We are intimately connected, bound together in a vast web of life. 

The idea that we have choices in life and that if we make good choices then good things will happen to us is rooted in Cartesian linear causality thinking.  This thinking is all very well if we apply it to billiard balls bouncing off one another on a billiard table.  But, it is woefully inadequate as a system of thought when it comes to how the world works.

Joanna Macy is a well respected systems thinker and Buddhist practitioner.  Now in her 80s, she describes the move from linear thinking to systems thinking in a book published more than 20 years ago:

“Linear, one-way causal premises proved inadequate, for these can be applied only piecemeal to two variables at a time.  As the pattern-building interactions of phenomena were studied, a different kind of causality came into view, one that is mutual, involving interdependence and reciprocity between causes and effects.  Such a notion, which is an anomaly within the linear paradigm that has dominated Western culture, bears a striking similarity to the Buddhist teaching of causality…”³

In other words, we are not individuals acting only in our own sheltered shell, with all decisions and choices being mutually independent of other decisions and choices of other people.

Others are making choices all the time, and often we have little control over the choices they make and the outcomes of those choices.  We have even less control the further removed from the centres of power, influence and resources we are.

Yes, we do make choices.  We all do, all the time.  But, for us to judge others based on the choices they make is naive and neglects to take into account the political, social, cultural and interdependent realities of the world.

1. Wilkinson & Pickett, The Spirit Level, Penguin, London, 2009, 2010, p 169
2. Anthony W Orlando (business/economics lecturer, California State University), “Not Everyone has the Tools to Become Rich: How our childhood shapes our ability to succeed,” Huffington Post, September 2014.
3. Joanna Macy, Mutual Causality in Buddhism and General Systems Theory, State University of New York Press, Albany, 1991.

The Most Interesting Person I Know (A Review)

The Most Interesting Person I Know.  Now, there’s a catchy book title.  Makes you want to open it up immediately and read about these amazing people.  Stephanie Hunt has compiled a fascinating series of interviews with 25 people in the Coffs Harbour area of Australia.

What makes this a most interesting book to review on this blog?  I’ll let Stephanie answer that.  Community development workers will recognise an African saying that she quotes: “It takes a whole village to raise a child.”  She extends that by saying “It has most certainly taken a community to create this book!”

Isn’t that just what community is?  A space in which there are dozens, hundreds, of most interesting people.  Each and every one of them bring something to the creation of that community.  Those working from an Asset Based Community Development model know how important it is to map a community’s assets.  People and their skills, knowledge and passions are the most important assets.  Thanks to Stephanie, Coffs Harbour now has a “map” of at least 25 interesting people. 

In this book there are community workers, social justice advocates and those making the community space a better place for others.  There are Aboriginal elders, refugees from Togo and Sudan. There are musicians, local body politicians, religious leaders.  There are farmers, craftspeople, a lawyer, a sportsman and a high-tech designer.  The diversity of community life is vividly on show in this wonderful book.

Some, like Auntie Bea Ballangarry are staunch advocates for Aboriginal people.  She has extended her hand and heart of friendship to many in the area, setting up WOW (Women of the World) – an extensive network of women of all creeds, colours and cultures in the Coffs area. 

Gai Newman is a tireless community worker who manages the Coffs Harbour Neighbourhood Centre where many have been able to find assistance and a friendly face.  Sometimes it is not the material help that is the most important.  As Gai says “even though we don’t have all the answers, we have compassion.” 

Many refugees in Coffs, like Kuie Manyoun, have come to escape war.  Kuie notes that “war never stops in African cultures.  It’s all the men that go to war, so women have to be responsible for the whole family.”  But, that is Africa.  Kuie does not expect that culture to have settled in Australia along with her.  She, and her husband and children have plans.  Plans for a safe, happy and successful future.

This book can help all of those living in Coffs Harbour, and wider, recognise our diversity, and celebrate our commonality.  This book can help all of us plan for a safe, happy and successful future.

Stephanie Hunt writes a blog that has profiled over 60 people – all of them most interesting.  I suspect that Stephanie will be finding dozens more most interesting people to interview and write about.

Proceeds from the sale of this book go to the CanDo Cancer Trust which provides financial support to local cancer sufferers and their families.  The book can be bought on Stephanies blog.

Gee – Twenty!

Last week I was in Brisbane, Australia, where the G20 summit is to take place on 15/16 November 2014.  G20 is the forum for leaders of 20 of the world’s major economies; 19 countries plus the European Union.  Six other nations have also been invited to attend in Brisbane.

So, in Brisbane 20+ of the most influential and powerful leaders of the world will be meeting.

Gee, I thought, if these leaders really put their minds to it, and they had the intention, then we could see some highly beneficial changes in the economic, social, environmental and cultural make-up of the world.

So, I put my mind to it and came up with 20 suggested changes that would be beneficial.  Here then is my Gee Twenty list.

1. A ban on further fossil fuel extraction and use.¹
2. Drastic reduction in spending on the military and weapons.
3. Redirecting of those savings in 2 above towards providing access to clean safe water for all.
4. A cap on salary levels, so that exorbitant differences in income are enormously reduced.
5. Investment in renewable energy systems.
6. Transference of investment in infrastructure that supports private vehicle use towards infrastructure that supports low impact and public transportation.
7. Stopping the destruction of rainforests and other threatened ecosystems.
8. Promotion of small-scale, local farming and agricultural activities in preference to large scale monocultural agribusiness.
9. Free education for all – education that stimulates creativity and critical thinking.
10. Promotion of restorative justice rather than retributive justice.
11. Transitioning from electoral representative democracy to a democracy based on sortition and participatory democracy.
12. Recognising that we already have enough and that continued economic growth is damaging to our environment and to our well-being.
13. Full recognition to the rights of self-determination of indigenous peoples.
14. Apologies and restitution to colonised people so that 13 above can be achieved.
15. Full and accurate disclosure on what goes into the food we eat and where it comes from – both fresh food and cooked food.
16. Research and promotion of programmes that look at nonviolence, forgiveness and other forms of resolving conflict.
17. Restriction on where and when advertising is permitted.
18. Greater access to mental health services.
19. Complete protection of endangered species.
20. Understanding that all the 19 suggestions above (and dozens more) are interconnected and that systems thinking is required.

There are dozens of other issues that could be added to the list and we will all have our favourites.  At a personal level, it matters little as to what and where we begin, but it is important to understand the interconnections and that no one issue is of greater importance than another.

Do you think the G20 leaders will take any notice of this?  I suspect not. 

Change must begin with us.  As has been quoted often

“Be the change you wish to see in the world.”

Although attributed to Gandhi there is no evidence to suggest that it is a direct quote of his.  However, the sentiment is one that he would have endorsed, so long as it was clarified that he also advocated a collective approach – change is not simply a personal one.

1.  The Prime Minister of the host nation, Australia’s Tony Abbot, has removed any discussion about climate change from the agenda, claiming that he did not want the  agenda “cluttered” by subjects that would distract from economic growth.