I discovered a source of hope for our future this weekend. In the Mahaiwe Theater of Greater Barrington, I was attending the E.F. Schumacher Society’s Annual Lectures.

Majora Carter of the Sustainable South Bronx was the first speaker. She shared the story of how members of her community are organizing to propose the creation of an eco-industrial park to create clean-tech greencollar jobs. Instead, the city is planning to build a prison on the same parcel. Marjora asked us, “Do you know that the US is just 5% of the world’s population and yet is 25% of …”

“Green house gas emissions,” shouted someone from the audience.

“True. And yet how many of us know we are also 25% of the world’s prison population,” She finished.

The next speaker was Chuck Turner, the District 7 Boston City Councilor who has worked with the Industrial Cooperative Association and the Dudley Street Neighborhood Initiative. He spoke with passion and eloquence about the fact that we are facing a major transition – he said that the old order is rapidly fading – that humanity’s survival will require a transformation of our consciousness and relationship to energy. He asked us all to read Rudolf Steiner’s An Outline of Esoteric Science.

The last speaker was Michael Shuman, author of Go Local and the Smallmart Revolution, who first asked us how many of us banked with local banks (the majority of the room raised their hands) and then he asked us how many of us had our retirement savings invested in local business (and no one raised their hands). Why don’t we invest in local businesses? Well prior to the Great Depression many communities did have local equity markets to facilitate this. Some of them were better run than others, and ultimately many of them were outlawed by Congress in an effort to protect small investors from fraud. However, this has led to the unfortunate situation of today when local businesses do not have access to the local investors, even though they generate 60 to 80% of net new jobs and 13 times more patents per employee than large firms.

I was mostly inspired simply by the fact that the EF Schumacher Society exists to host these lectures and create public forums for engaged citizens to grapple with the latest thinking and the challenges of creating a life-affirming planetary civilization.

And far from just talk, the E.F. Schumacher Society has organized a community currency, the BerkShare, for the Pioneer Valley. One million one hundred and fifty thousand BerkShares are now in circulation, supporting the local businesses of Greater Barrington and ensuring that resources generated locally are invested back into the community. And the E.F. Schumacher Society continues other experimental efforts such as a community land trust, and a microcredit program.

And what really gives me hope for the future is the the birth of this new art form, which my friend Joel shared with me when I got home, as it shows the true hybridity and creativity of the emerging global culture.

A few weeks ago, I asked Professor Eran Feitelson, chair of the Department of Geography at Hebrew University who works extensively on sustainable development and water issues, to share his thoughts with the Great Transition Initiative’s international network on the recent events in Gaza and the cycle of violence in the Middle East. He agreed to let me share his thoughts in this blog as well — his response is below.

To provide some context, Barbarization is one of 3 categories of scenarios devised by the Global Scenario Group, the other two being Conventional Worlds and Great Transitions. Barbarization scenarios “envision the grim possibility that the social, economic and moral underpinnings of civilization deteriorate, as emerging problems overwhelm the coping capacity of both markets and policy reforms.”

Now from Eran:

Dear Orion

Indeed a lot is happening in the Middle East, and recent events in Gaza are just one more twist to the plot. The whole Middle East is embroiled in a multi-level confrontation between modernity and tradition, between fundamentalism, authoritarianism and democracy, between regional powers, local strongmen, states and international forces. Thus, it is almost impossible to sum it all up in a meaningful paragraph that will stimulate a meaningful discussion, beyond the all too familiar blame game.

As a meaningful discussion of the Middle East requires quite substantial understanding of its intricacy, history, power structures and myths I gave quite a bit of thought whether and how such a discussion can take place within the GTI setting. It seems to me that one of the strengths of the GTI frame has been its avoidance of very specific debates on complex issues which require much localized knowledge.

If there is indeed an interest in discussing the unfolding events here within the GTI frame I think it has to be framed within the GTI context and discussed as such. From this perspective what we see today is essentially the unfolding of the Barbarization scenario. On one hand Israel has tried since the collapse of the Oslo process in 2000 to implement a fortress policy, first in the unilateral withdrawal from Lebanon, and later in Gaza; both failed. At the same time we can see a breakdown in several societies in the region. While such breakdowns have been facilitated by outside forces they are currently driven largely by the conflict between fundamentalist intolerant forces, which have wide popular support, and more moderate but often corrupt and authoritarian forces. It is against this background that we have to ask how should people who would like to advance a transition react. As someone who has long been involved in attempts to reconcile Israelis and Palestinians, I am afraid we have run out of simple answers. In my mind it is necessary to embark on long term societal shifts within the various, highly fragmented, societies in the Middle East. At present, regrettably, it seems that the fundamentalist forces are on the rise, making any attempt to advance issues such as gender equality (seen by many as a key for transformation in the Middle East) that much more difficult. This difficulty is compounded by the fact that such societal transitions can only come about if they are truly endogenous. That is, they have to come from within societies and so the ability of outsiders to facilitate the empowerment of women, or similar intra-societal shifts is limited at best, especially in the Middle East.

I do not know whether this helps in fostering the discussion you are looking for. In any case, it is somewhat removed from the events of the last few days in Gaza. But I think that in the GTI frame we have to look for the larger picture and not get caught up in the immediate events, which unfold in this part of the world at a rapid pace indeed.

best
Eran

It is a clear summer day and the university courtyard is buzzing with activists, flyers, and posters calling for action; along the edges are tables strewn with pamphlets, magazines and books. All around them are long haired men wielding papier mache puppets, young women playing drums and dancing, old friends surprised to find each other again, high school kids delighting in the discovery of the progressive community, old socialists marveling at the size of the crowd. Poets shout to no one in particular through microphones, and musicians march by to herald the coming plenary.

Inside the buildings, people fill the corridors, pushing past each other headed to seminars on everything: racism in the public schools, the history of women’s struggle, the privatization of water in the Third World, how to avoid becoming a burnt out activist, the need for unity and common vision, the wall being built by Israel, reintroducing spirituality to the Left, repealing regressive tax cuts, the list goes on and on. Typically one can find two workshops on the same subject at the same time hosted by different organizations.

It’s the Boston Social Forum – the first social forum to be held in the United States following the principles and model of the World Social Forum. Welcome to the ‘movement of movements.’ The diversity of activity is at once invigorating and overwhelming, leaving me feeling like sailor in an ocean storm—thrilled at the might and majesty of the waves, humbled by my insignificance.

The Boston Social Forum – piggy-backing on the Democratic National Convention of 2004 – got national media attention and was in practice the first nation-wide social forum, attracting participants throughout the country. However the first US Social Forum – just completed from June 27th to July 1st in Atlanta, GA – attracting twice the number of participants as the Boston Social Forum, appears to have largely flown under the radar of the national media.

I was attending the US Social Forum curious to see what progress has been made in the organizing efforts of progressive groups who believe, as the World Social Forum proclaims, “another world is possible.” The US Social Forum website states that:

The USSF will provide space to build relationships, learn from each other’s experiences, share our analysis of the problems our communities face, and bring renewed insight and inspiration. It will help develop leadership and develop consciousness, vision, and strategy needed to realize another world.

On two levels the US Social Forum was impressive. Logistically, workshops happened in suitable locations as scheduled – if you’ve ever been to a Social Forum, this is an impressive feat given the vast number of workshops. And in terms of diversity, age, race, gender, the US Social Forum was vibrantly alive with all types of people. The energy and excitement of attendees was palpable – it was invigorating to be among so many people passionately committed to struggles for social justice, democracy, and improving our world.

The vast majority of workshops were hosted by organizations or issue-specific coalitions informing and educating participants about their efforts. For example, the Earth Charter USA presented about its work and invited people to get involved. In this sense, many groups used the US Social Forum as an opportunity for outreach. Unfortunately there were very few intentional spaces of dialogue across groups and sectors, and most of this type of conversation happened informally as people met in hallways, courtyards, and hotel rooms.

And this personally was a huge disappointment, because it meant there was very little sophisticated discussion about movement building strategy and vision. Currently, public intellectuals like Paul Hawken (who proclaims “the largest social movement the world has ever known is upon us”), laud the chaotic jumble of poorly funded advocacy groups and issue campaigns as a powerful new social movement. However, this observation is not new, it has been made since the Battle of Seattle in 1999, which shut down the World Trade Organization talks. 8 years later, and the movement looks largely the same: fragmented.

What is worrisome is the degree to which this fragmentation is celebrated rather than recognized as a significant obstacle to success. Authors, like Hardt and Negri in their book Multitude, seem to imply that a critical mass of social change activism is a self-organizing phenomenon and will succeed without any intentional leadership or collective strategic sophistication. Today’s zeitgeist currently celebrates “self-organizing” phenomena as they are seen throughout nature, through simple rules mass action is organized, as pointed out in this National Geographic article on swarm theory.

Ironically, this is similar to the perspective that neoliberal economists have about the economy – they believe the selfish actions of individuals will miraculously create a society in which everyone prospers. The invisible hand of the market is, of course, a deeply flawed concept, and there are many examples where the market fails to provide social benefits and government intervention is needed (our current Health Care crisis in the US might be a good example, see SICKO if you haven’t already).

So it is sad to see that so much faith is still being put into the invisible hand of the social movement. It is amazing how similar this discourse sounds to the discussions Alan Watts, Timothy Leary, Gary Snyder and Alan Ginsburg were having in 1967:

That the Western world has labored for many, many centuries under a monarchical conception of the universe where God is the boss, and political systems and all kinds of law have been based on this model of the universe…that nature is run by a boss. Whereas, if you take the Chinese view of the world, which is organic..They would say, for example, that the human body is an organization in which there is no boss. It is a situation of order resulting from mutual interrelationship of all the parts. And what we need to realize is that there can be, shall we say, a movement…a stirring among people…which can be ORGANICALLY designed instead of POLITICALLY designed.

Honestly, I think the answer lies somewhere between “self-organizing” anarchy and “top-down” authoritarianism. An organized social movement needs some structure – structure that is made explicit can help enhance democratic participation precisely because leadership is formally recognized and can then be held accountable. Who holds the current leadership which organized the US Social Forum accountable? How many of those who attended the event even have a sense of who organized the event? Which organizations were invited to be be part of the organizing committee? How and why? For example, where were all the environmental groups that normally flock to such forums? How come there were so few workshops on an issue as pressing as Climate Change?

This then is symptomatic of the state of affairs among progressive groups. I wonder what you think the role of leadership is and ought to be in unifying a social movement? Do you agree with the “invisible hand” theory?

“The overall biggest contributing cause to Global Warming, and the melting of the polar icecaps of — both — Earth and Mars is actually caused by our arrival down into the brighter, more energetic equator region of the Milky Way galactic disc as we are coming in from deeper space.”

Thank God for the Internet and the rapid sharing of information! Without it we’d all be wallowing in the mistaken belief that Global Warming has something to do with the unprecedented burning of fossil fuels adding gigatons of CO2 to the atmosphere. Now that that has been cleared up, we can idle our diesel engines with impunity and go back to living life as we’ve always had.

Meanwhile, actual scientists are still reticent when putting forward the real implications of climate change. Pulling no punches, Hansen states:

I suggest that `scientific reticence’, in some cases, hinders communication with the public about dangers of global warming… Concern about the danger of `crying wolf’ is more immediate than concern about the danger of `fiddling while Rome burns’.

Now, why would they ever be scared they wouldn’t be taken seriously?

There are definitely reasons why people might be culturally and/or psychologically resistant to science. As Deborah points out in her blog on this topic — Why do some people resist science? — resistance to science is not merely stakeholders protecting their interests. An example of such stakeholder resistance would be Exxon-Mobil funding pseudo-science. This does more than just spread misinformation and create confusion; it actively undermines public trust in the authority of the scientific community.

However, American’s trust in science is still strong enough that a majority are deferential to assertions backed by scientists. Is this a good thing? Personally, when it comes to my health I have a certain skepticism of some of the claims made by mainstream medicine.

And this brings us back to my sarcasm and irony at the top of this post. Most people don’t pay attention to science – even those who aren’t resistant to it – they pay attention to trusted authority figures, whether they be priests, politicians, talk show hosts, websites, neighbors, or journalists reporting on science.

This is why the IPCC reports on climate change are both important and flawed. The final language of any IPCC report reflects not just a scientific consensus, but also a political compromise — one that often waters down the full import of the scientific analysis.

The political compromise is the lowest common denominator of agreement among the governments of the world. As such they establish the ground floor of debate about climate change, but they often understate the issues, the stakes, and the latest science on the subject. They only speak with clarity and certainty about those issues which are beyond debate (which makes it all the more significant that in the language of the IPCC reports, climate change from anthropogenic activity is no longer in doubt). In the Summary for Policy Makers (pdf) of the Fourth Assessment report, Mitigation of Climate Change, the debate has shifted to identifying an acceptable level of risk. However, here the IPCC report is muddled and largely unhelpful. As should be expected given the political process, and the political nature of the question: what is an acceptable level of risk?

Within the scientific community there has long been consensus that beyond a 2 degree global average temperature increase from pre-industrial times, we are entering a realm of uncertainty that is potentially catastrophic. Debate continues as to what level of CO2 equivalent will hold us to a 2 degree increase or less. Increasingly, however, scientists are realizing that stabilizing at levels above 450ppm CO2e is unlikely to achieve a less than 2 degree increase. Tom Athanasiou and Paul Baer explain this quite well in their essay, Honesty About Dangerous Climate Change.

And thus we are left with the question, who pays attention to science, anyway? Obviously, someone must. But it certainly isn’t the general public.

AVINA itself is an inspiring example of multi-sectoral collaboration, linking the socially responsible business sector to leaders in the civil society sector. The AVINA network receives its funding from a consortium of large businesses in Latin America called GrupoNueva. GrupoNueva is run with a strong ethic of corporate social responsibility, and takes great pride in funding the work of AVINA’s leaders.

I was there to talk with these leaders about the concept of “evolutionary leadership for a Great Transition.” A Great Transition has been explored in some detail in past blog posts co–authored with Paul Raskin, President of the Tellus Institute - What Future Will We Choose? and Who Will Change the World? – in which we argued humanity has the technological prowess and resources needed to make a transition to a future of human well-being and a healthy planet. But this Great Transition will not happen unless tens of millions of citizens are actively engaged in bringing it about. This is the role of “evolutionary leadership” – a commitment to supporting the conscious evolution of our planetary civilization to a new stage in harmony with the natural world, human rights, and the requirements of sustainability.

Evolutionary leadership is distinguished from traditional notions of leadership in several ways:
• First, anyone can be an evolutionary leader – no matter what position you may hold or what organization you work for.
• Second, evolutionary leaders operate with a systemic understanding of global challenges, knowledge of the scientific requirements of sustainability, and a plausible vision of a hopeful future.
• Third, evolutionary leaders seek to serve as citizen diplomats (pdf), forming bridges from their organizations and communities to foster collaboration. This is made easier when evolutionary leaders recognize their counterparts across the business, government and civil society sectors.
• Fourth, evolutionary leaders engage the hard work of adaptive change within their organization and communities – stimulating their own constituencies to squarely face-up to troublesome realities and rise to the challenge of doing something about global warming, environmental degradation, human rights abuse, poverty, and the numerous problems that effect us all.

One of the major tasks facing evolutionary leaders is to advance an optimistic vision of our future that can counteract the despair and apathy that has gripped millions of otherwise concerned citizens. The key point is to empower people to be citizens shaping the outcome of this period of rapid transition we are all living through.

An essential piece of this is the shift in consciousness that accompanies the awareness that humanity and the earth can not be separated – we are interdependent with the fate of all life on this planet. This is what Deborah has termed the human world ; in other words, we are Earth. We are not parasitical invaders – a radical environmentalist perspective for some – nor are we here to subdue, dominate, and exploit – an orthodox religious perspective for some. Taking care of Earth is taking care of ourselves, and our grandchildren.

This shift in consciousness is becoming increasingly mainstream. The weekend after I returned from Chile, I attended the Apeiron Institute’s annual Rhode Island sustainable living festival. Suburbanites and urbanites had come to find out the latest techniques of sustainable living — natural building, alternatives to lawns, solar energy, composting toilets, and much more. Momentum is building around the idea that changing how we live can be fun, healthy, and exciting. I felt a certain sadness to see that so many of the festival participants were young couples with children.

These and other efforts mushrooming up around the world are indicative of a vast interest in real alternatives to our life destroying civilization (i.e. massive extinctions caused by human activity). Literally life destroying, as we find out that seafood may be wiped out by 2050, bees are dieing off without explanation, amphibians are in decline, along with record numbers of other species, while billions of people persist in absolute poverty without adequate access to water, housing, and health care. But please don’t interpret what I say – as Hunter Lovins recently did in an on-line exchange hosted by the Presidio School of Management – as a traditional Leftist attack against Capitalism. While I would agree that corporations need to be reinvented to serve the broader public interest, there are no doubt numerous leaders within corporations pushing for visionary new approaches to sustainability and even bucking the short-term demands of next quarter’s share price.

Systemic transformation of the business sector – including improved and targeted government regulation, reform of corporate governance and finance, and increasing pressure from civil society groups – could be seen as allied with those leaders within corporations seeking to promote new ways. Thus rather then pitting one sector against another, or viewing one sector as an obstacle, we should see that there are leaders within all 3 sectors (business, government, and society) who need each other’s support. This is what we are beginning to call the community of evolutionary leaders.

If you agree with the argument that addressing climate change will require an overhaul of American society and the functioning of our economy, then in addition to choosing energy efficient appliances and homes, Americans need to commit to walking, biking, taking public transit, and eating meat-free meals. Transforming our frequent flyer miles into a frequent flyer surcharge – or rather requiring a carbon offset charge for every mile flown – might be another big adjustment for an affluent generation in love with finding cheap flights to visit family on the holidays.

And, as Deborah mentioned, if equity and fairness are a concern, it must be pointed out that current policy discourse on necessary reductions does not even take into account historic global emissions. Applying the well known “polluter pays” principle to climate change, one notes that industrialized economies have contributed the most to the cumulative increase of carbon in the atmosphere, yet will presumably suffer the least as our wealth makes our societies more resilient and adaptable. If we Americans (especially those of us so fond of the ethic of personal responsibility) are to do our fare share then the time to start taking action has long since come and gone.

Yet, expecting us to clamor for the needed changes gives rise to an obvious question: when in human history have a people of privilege willingly relinquished their privileges without confrontation? Would we Americans really be willing to surrender our luxuries so that future generations and today’s impoverished billions could live well?

It is true that consciousness of these issues is shifting. For example, post-Katrina murmurs and mumbles about climate change have driven Al Gore’s riveting movie about his slide show lecture to become the third highest grossing documentary of all time (a whopping $24 million dollars from sales in over 580 theaters). Assuming an average of $10 a ticket that means 2.4 million people saw the movie. That’s almost 1% of the US population! Maybe these people represent the base for a new social movement, but I’d argue that the threat of climate change alone is unlikely to provide the necessary stimulus for mobilizing a large social movement. In a city of tens of millions, so far only a few hundred New Yorkers could be mobilized for Step It Up – a national day of climate action held last month.

I’ve been watching an interesting BBC series called Century of the Self, about the advent of PR firms and the intentional construction of the ideology of consumerism. The documentary claims that after the World Wars, corporations paid PR firms to intentionally recast the American Citizen as the American Consumer. If being a citizen implies an ethic of active responsibility, what does being a consumer imply?

If millions of people are to be mobilized to demand needed changes – including new taxes, regulations, and government investment – an inspiring vision of the future must be placed alongside scientists’ dire warnings. The new movement must be able to explain how an improved quality of life can be decoupled from ever-increasing consumption. This is not an impossible task as empirical studies (pdf) consistently show that gains in income (and resulting consumption) do not lead to greater happiness. A new social contract will need to provide people with more personal time for hobbies and other artistic, creative, spiritual activities or just to spend with friends and family. In other words, the needed vision must emphasize the gains in well-being to be had from consuming less and living more.

With close to half of Americans believing that the world will end in their lifetimes, what is needed in America today is a completely new vision that truly inspires faith in a positive future. The anachronistic vision of The American Dream manufactured after World War II – a house in the ‘burbs, two cars, glowing green yard and white picket fence – begs to be replaced. In its stead, Americans need a portrait of our future that is both feasible and attractive. A plausible image of a positive future (pdf) acts as an attractor, inspiring necessary action to make the transition from a society of inequality and over-consumption to one of ecological sustainability and social justice.

Furthermore, this vision needs to help Americans understand ourselves as citizens within an emerging global society (pdf), with duties and responsibilities to address poverty and sustainable development needs in other countries. Absent massive investment from developed countries, developing economies will not be able to leapfrog polluting technologies as they seek to lift themselves out of poverty. Addressing climate change calls for a great transition in values, culture, and worldview.

We have the necessary technological capacity and material resources. If we can imagine an inspiring future, humanity still has enough time to develop the will to make the needed great transition. But to do so we must look soberly at the full implications of our current situation. It is time we realized that the future is not some place we are going, it is something we are creating.

Way back in1992, this message was powerfully articulated by a young child activist in her speech to members of the United Nations. She challenges not just Americans, but all adults of the world to uphold their responsibility to their children and grandchildren. It’s worth listening to.
[kml_flashembed movie="http://www.youtube.com/v/5g8cmWZOX8Q" width="425" height="350" wmode="transparent" /]

Meanwhile, back here at home, our emissions have increased about 16 percent since 1990 and our government still refuses to send the Kyoto Protocol to Congress for ratification. Agency scientists’ reports are routinely screened by government managers before being released to the public (and not just within the U.S. Geological Survey – EPA staff have complained to me and my colleagues of censorship from the Bush administration, specifically when it comes to issuing reports on CO2 emissions). Outside of government, the National Science Teachers Association is so heavily influenced by oil industry donations that it refuses to distribute free copies of Al Gore’s movie, An Inconvenient Truth, to its member science teachers. But it willingly distributes “teaching materials” designed by the American Petroleum Institute. The list of such industry sponsored corruption of the public discourse on global warming is quite long.

Again the story is quite different across the Atlantic. In England, for example, HM Treasury’s release of the Stern Review of the economic impacts of climate change was front page news. This report has been groundbreaking in policy circles for producing conclusive economic analysis showing that the price of inaction on climate change is far greater then the costs of taking action today. While such conclusions may appear somewhat intuitive to environmentalists, the Stern Review deserves to get greater attention than it has received if only because it debunks – in the conventional language of policy and economics – the previous analysis of the influential Copenhagen Consensus, which said taking action on climate change is not cost-effective.

While commendable, the Stern Review falls short – according to many scientists, including my colleagues at the Tellus Institute – because it fails to communicate the full implications of our responsibility to reduce carbon emissions over the coming decades. For example, achieving climate stabilization could require world average carbon emissions to be reduced by 50 percent from current levels by 2050 (a conservative estimate according to some studies; e.g., the Stern Review suggests a 70 percent reduction is needed to stabilize at 450ppmCO2e). Under this scenario, as energy systems expert Rich Rosen points out, the U.S., which emits about 5.5 times the world average on a per capita basis, would have to reduce emissions by over 90 percent! Rosen concludes, “This level of reduction would truly revolutionize the U.S. energy system, and the overall economy as well…this level of reduction would not be achievable without major changes in American values and the American way of life.”

Given the urgent need to begin making changes now, we certainly can not afford to ignore the behavioral and lifestyle shifts that are required. We need supportive public policies. Just as people are more likely to recycle when the city has a recycling program in place and delivers big plastic bins to its residents, greater numbers of people will make lifestyle adjustments if policies support their doing so. However politicians will not step out on a limb and suggest policies likely to be unpopular. Until the political will for change is vocally demonstrated, we should not expect significant leadership on these issues from our elected officials. A massive social movement is needed. As Gus Speth, Dean of the Yale School of Forestry & Environmental Studies and former head of the U.N. Sustainable Development Program, asks in his letter to the New York Times a year ago, “The globe is warming – why aren’t we marching?”