Posts tagged “Climate change”

There’s a part of the UK’s business ministry, BIS, which provides expert guidance on public dialogue, as well as promoting and supporting dialogue projects.  The Sciencewise Expert Resource Centre has supported dialogues on a wide range of science and technology subjects, including nanotechnology, hybrid embryos and how to make the shift to low-carbon energy sources.

There’s a set of principles to guide people who are setting up a dialogue, so they can keep it open and multi-directional.  Crucially, there needs to be a policy ‘owner’ in Government who will use the outcomes of the dialogue to help form policy.

Plenty of case studies are available on the Sciencewise-ERC website.  Since every project has to be independently evaluated, there are also evaluation reports.  And there’s a team of Dialogue and Engagement Specialists (I’m part of this team) to advise.

Find out more in this article I wrote for the environmentalist, published in June 2010, “Wise up! Engaging the public in science and technology”.

If you’re trying to get fashion-crazy teens and young people interested in climate change, it makes sense to start where they are.  And that’s what Global Cool have done, in their Eighteen Degrees of Inspiration campaign.

But isn’t it superficial, missing the point, and above all not going to get the scale of change we need at a systemic level?

Well, according to Chris Rose’s VBCOP theory, starting where people are and eliciting changed behaviour for non-’green’ reasons is the most effective way to build up political space for systemic change.

Want to know more?

I’ve written about this in the environmentalist, and you can read that article here.

Was the shut down of air travel a right pain for you and your organisation?

Now that the ash has settled, there’s a great opportunity for you to use the recent disruption to discuss sustainable development with your colleagues. [And as if to prove the point that it's a good idea to be prepared, it's back - as of 08.52 @BST 4th May 2010.]

Whichever way you look at it, a low-carbon economy (whether forced on us by peak oil or chosen as a planned way of mitigating climate change) will mean a drastic reduction in cheap air travel.  Your colleagues may feel this is too far off, or too fanciful, to plan for.  But the shut down actually happened.  So it’s a great way in to discussions you might not have been able to have before April 2010.

Here are 11 questions to structure a discussion about your organisation’s dependence on air transport – and how you can reduce it over the long term.

1. What was disrupted?
2. What was enhanced?
3. What did we do differently, that worked really well?
4. What did we do differently, that was a right pain?
5. What contingencies did we have in place, or put in place, in case the shut-down had lasted for twice as long?
6. Or ten times as long?
7. What would we have done if we’d had a week’s notice?
8. What would we have done if we’d had a month’s notice?
9. What would we have done if we’d had five year’s notice?
10. What will we keep doing differently anyway, because it worked better?
11. What will we build into our medium and long term planning, to help us be ahead of the game when air travel again becomes more expensive and less available?

I was pointing people towards the six sources of influence in some behaviour change training recently, and went back to some original sources to remind myself about the distinctions between the six sources.

To recap, the six sources are arranged into a two-by-three table, with ‘motivation’ and ‘ability’ divided into personal, social and structural.  In this explanation on the VitalSmarts blog the two ‘social’ sources of influence have been merged.  This bothered me – is there really so little distinction between social motivation (peer pressure) and social ability?

It seems to me that the distinction is brought most sharply into focus when critical mass is needed to make a behaviour viable.  Want to buy more locally-produced food?  A farmers’ market or a local veggie box scheme needs a critical mass of producers and customers to be viable.  Setting up a lift share scheme?  You’re going to need more than two members.  Freecycling?  Hackney Freecycle has over 17,000 members (yes, really) generating about 1,500 messages about free stuff for giving and taking a month.

Now this kind of critical mass isn’t going to be important for all the behaviours you want to change, which is probably why the distinctions isn’t so clear in some of the descriptions.  But where it is, then special attention needs to be given to recruiting the mass.

• How will you make it as widely-known as possible?
• How will you make it simple for people to let you know they’re up for it?
• How will you make it easy to store information about a pool of people and then ‘activate’ them you have enough mass to start things?
• And how will you use their good ideas and information to shape the system, so that it works for enough of them?

There’s a virtuous circle which can come into play here.  This was brought home to me by a stakeholder engagement planning meeting which I ran last week with a community organisation which has been awarded substantial funding through the Low Carbon Communities Challenge.  We did a quick brainstorm of all the non-carbon related ‘social capital’ in their village – the formal and informal organisations which bring people together and build a sense of community.  The population is about 2,000 and the group came up with over thirty formal groups, clubs or regular events (one for every 67 people!) and a host of informal groupings.  Active community organisations build community channels and hubs for conversation.  Members will have more connection with each other, and more trust, than people who are merely residents of the same place.  So a critical mass of ‘warm’ people is much easier to find.

I was bowled over by how many active societies there are, and we all felt very positive about the potential for drawing on this wonderful resource for the low-carbon activities the group has planned.

Actions we take which help build community – in our neighbourhoods or workplaces – all add to the web of interconnections which form fertile soil for future behaviour change.

I’m finding it hard to listen to the news or read about the Copenhagen meeting, except through the fractured glimpses from other people’s blogs. Reminds me of peeping at Dr Who through my fingers from behind the sofa.  Can’t watch properly.  Can’t look away completely either.

These are the ones I’ve found particularly interesting :

• George Monbiot – taking a very big picture on how we, as a species, divide into types about climate change, and showing very eloquently why this is so hard.

• Living on Sunshine – the title of this blog alone is enough to raise the spirits, and with its provocative strapline “how old will you be in 2050?” (personally, 84, if I get there) reminds us old folk that if we’re not going to lead, we’d better get out of the way and let the youngsters do it.

• Mark Lynas – surprisingly optimistic

• Jonathon Porritt – sounding comfortable (if that’s the word) back amongst the activists and campaigners.

Will someone tell me what happened when it’s over?

If you’re a consultant (internal or external), are any of your clients going to Copenhagen?

What are you doing to prepare them to, in the words of Dave Hampton, “succeed, against the odds, and pull off a real deal”.  Dave suggests, in his letter to the Independent, that if this comes about, “history will remember them for eternity, for the bold leadership they found, out of the blue, when planet Earth needed it most.”

Those of use who are coaches, mentors, facilitators or similar help our clients to think better, listen better, find out what they really want and co-create their future better.  Those of us who are advocates, communicators and campaigners bring inspiration, motivation and purpose.  What are our best, most excellent ways of helping clients find bold leadership, out of the blue, when they need it most?

If you’re interested in hearing from others and sharing your own perspectives on this, why not pop along to this informal meet-up of the AMED Sustainable Development Network, which will focus on the Copenhagen Climate Summit.

If you are planning to come, please RSVP on the site, so we have some idea of numbers.

And why not post your thoughts here, on the discussion thread on AMED’s website.

So I’m just topping up on today’s environmental news feed (my feed of choice is The Guardian, a nice little app that even a web dilettante like me can add to their Google home page) and two stories stand out and demand a closer look.

The first states, “Met Office warns of catastrophic global warming in our lifetimes“.   The second say, “CO2 is green”, which is less self-explanatory.  In fact, it’s an astonishing TV ad running in the US aimed at scuppering a cap-and-trade bill – thanks to Leo Hickman for picking this up in his blog.

What I notice is that while reading them, I get that creeping feeling up the back of my neck and round to my jaw, and the sinking in my shoulders.  I’m physically cringing.  Not very much.  But it’s there.

And which had the biggest cringe effect?  I can’t be certain, but I’d say that CO2 denialists make me more unhappy than the Met Office’s truly dire research.

So I wonder: what can I learn from this?

That I’m more comfortable with things which reinforce my existing world view, however awful?  Perhaps.

That we need to pull together now and use all our considerable intelligence and organising power to avert the worst and prepare a soft landing, and that I’d rather the US pro-CO2 lobby would ‘get with the programme’.

I’m happier owning up to that as a reason!

The other thing I notice is that these cringe-related feelings are not empowering and motivating.  What I plan to do now is

• forget I read either story,
• remind myself of some of my reasons to be cheerful,
• review my to-do list, and
• plunge into productive work.

Does that make me a denialist too?

I love World Cafe as a ‘technique’ to use in meetings.  And I was privileged to go to one where Peter Senge was one of the facilitators.

This article – a longer version of one I wrote for the environmentalist – explains more about the technique, and the results that emerged from this meeting of a mixture of climate change professionals and activists.

It won’t have escaped your notice that not everyone in the UK loves wind turbines.  So if you’re planning to add to our renewable energy capacity, you might want to think about how to involve your neighbours early on.

In 2005 my article (pdf) in the environmentalist described some interesting initiatives specifically designed to help those promoting or planning wind energy developments, to engage their stakeholders.

I get uncomfortable when greener-than-thou environmentalists criticise others, because of their supposed hypocrisy.

I think it leave us all vulnerable to a similar criticism, and seems lacking in empathy.

That doesn’t mean that I think we shouldn’t pay attention to our own environmental footprint.  What it does mean is that when we are reflecting on our practice as change-makers of one kind or another, we can be a little more sophisticated, and avoid judging ourselves (and others) as either eco-sinners or saints.

In my own work, I’ve been able to help fellow climate-change champions to reflect in a structured way on their personal and collective environmental footprints, and how to manage the (inevitable) incongruence between what they espouse and their personal negative impact, using a workshop format.

That workshop format, and the results, are described in Being the Change for Climate Leadership, first published in Organisations & People, the journal of AMED (the Association of Management Education and Development).