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.

Eureka!

today i made electricity

i've been working on a bike generator for a couple of months, but finally i've got it all set up with a battery, regulator and inverter and pedalled for about a minute keeping the 'charging' light on (and powering crappy daytime tv, jeremy kyle i think!). the system needs a hell of a lot of work to be more reliable and useful, but at least i've done the first stage.

big thanks to Luke for practical help and Chan, magnificent revolution and everyone at climate camp for inspiration

i went to unleashing of Transition Town brixton last night - a fantastic, inspiring night and, I was surprised to find, only 5th unleashing.

Transition towns really is the answer, of course loads of good transition work is going on all over the place from CAT, to individuals and climate camp, but TT really brings it together. I believe that everyone who's even slightly interested in what's going to happen when fuel gets even more expensive and the climate changes MUST contribute to this project.

Met Office warns of need for drastic cuts in greenhouse gases from 2010
• 3% a year may keep temperature rise to 2C
• Study says inaction could have dire consequences

Carbon Output Grew in 2007 increase of 2.5% "Average annual growth since 2000 is about four times the mean in the 1990s."

Gore urges civil disobedience to stop coal plants
"it is time for civil disobedience to prevent the construction of new coal plants"

39.7% – New European Record Efficiency for Solar Cells acheived

Arctic 'methane chimneys' raise fears of runaway climate change

NB - not yet published in peer reviewed journal

Mark Lynas is in many ways right about nuclear. If we manage to avoid RCC in the next10 years and want to maintain an economy and society that is as similar to the one we have now then nuclear power, whether using current, fastbreeder or fusion technology would be useful. However, we should concentrate on actions that can help us avoid getting locked into RCC and then have a debate about what kind of energy system we want and whether centralised, nuclear stations can play a role in it. If we do succeed in getting to this point my own view is that a decentralised system in which power is generated near to where it is used, will be a major contributor to that success and that we should continue down this road. Others who want things to continue more like they are now will support new nuclear, I just hope that we get the chance to have this discussion which is why I don't want to be distracted by nuclear now.