responding to weathercocks and signposts

"Weathercocks and Signposts critically reassesses current approaches to motivating environmentally-friendly behaviour change. Current behaviour-change strategies are increasingly built upon analogy with product marketing campaigns. They often take as given the 'sovereignty' of consumer choice, and the perceived need to preserve current lifestyles intact. This report constructs a case for a radically different approach. It presents evidence that any adequate strategy for tackling environmental challenges will demand engagement with the values that underlie the decisions we make – and, indeed, with our sense of who we are."

The marketing approach came from the quite reasonable desire to match people's pre-existing motivations with what is good for the earth. This approach has many problems, but the critique in weathercocks doesn't suggest to me that such a link doesn't exist, only that the marketing approach got it wrong by being too timid. The truth is that a world in which all humans are happier will also be one that is better for nature and that a complete revolution in what people think of as happiness and self-interest is what is needed and, perhaps paradoxically, this is more likely to succeed.

We should continue to use the marketing approach but rather than using it to elicit small steps we should use it to encourage big changes and really challenge pre conceptions. This avoids many of the critiques in weathercocks, but maintains the recognition that we have to start from where we are - with a population that has certain values and motivations.

e.g when market approach commentators suggest appealing to a prospectors' desire for esteem from their neighbours they are right because this fits with the expression of their values, identity and motivation. The problem is that they simply accept these at face value rather than look beneath the surface. If you were to find out that these needs were born out of deeper desires and dissatisfactions we would be able to elicit much 'better' behaviour more easily - but it must still be communicated in a way that takes into account their more apparent motivational starting point.

Put in another way - Everybody wants to be happy and good in quite similar ways to each other and (some very) differently to how they currently live, but they need to have this pointed out to them in radically different ways. Our job isn't to say explicitly what this 'way of life' is, just to gather evidence that points to a few features it might have and give people a few pointers on things that might help them, and us, get there. This avoids the need to talk about many of problematic issues of environment and economics becasue they are simply symptoms of a deeper problem. This follows on to a minor criticism of Weathercocks - despite being a report that aims to look at the big picture, it constantly refers to solving problems in the environment and the natural world, when in fact the environmental problems it seeks to solve are themselves only symptoms.
does the election of barack obama make avoiding RCC more likely?

Yes, but still not very likely.