http://paulgilding.com/the-great-disruption

I just finished the book and very much enjoyed his recommendations for next steps!

Turning to the proposed triad of citizen groupings posited in your email, I see a few basic issues with the groups and the issue statement related to them.

First, by definition climate change deniers cannot be considered “well-meaning,” either in their own way or in any way. Given the level of confidence in climate science and the body of scientific work underlying our understanding of human impacts on climate, denying human causation of climate change amounts to denying reality. Denying reality is not well-meaning; it is delusion.

“Deniers” is also a loaded word–tied to holocaust deniers. If you want to identify this grouping in a more neutral way, and perhaps to also capture the range of persons among this group, you might try something like this: Persons who defend the status quo, notwithstanding evidence to the countrary, because (a) they do not believe that climate change exists; (b) they believe climate change exists, but that humans are not responsible for it so nothing can or should be done to counteract it; (c) they believe that climate change exists and that humans may be responsible for all or some of it, but climate change will not cause serious adverse impacts; or (d) they believe climate change exists, that humans may be responsible for all or some of it, and that it may cause adverse impacts; however, it is too costly to act now compared to actions that might be taken in the future.

Second, I’m sure you’re at least as familiar with the polling as I am and probably more so, but I believe all or virtually all polling in the United States in recent years has shown and continues to show majority support for action to address climate change/greenhouse gas emissions, even if it results in some costs to citizens.

Coupled with this, there is at least a fourth group of citizens, probably a reasonably large group proportionally, who recognize that we need to act now (acting years ago would have been better, but acting immediately is better than waiting). This group further recognizes that we already have the technologies and policies we need to reduce greenhouse gas emissions in accordance with the demands of climate science, consistent with reasoned risk management, and affordable to society in terms of cost. This group supports some form of global carbon price, beginning now and rising steadily through mid-century when, effectively, the world economy would largely be “de-carbonized.”

The “act now” group also understands the concept of “stabilization wedges” developed by Pacala and Socolow in 2004 and tweaked by others in recent years. The “act now” group sees much low-hanging fruit that is not only affordable, but stimulative, some of which has been picked even in the current political climate. This fruit includes fuel efficiency standards for vehicles, green building standards, and the beginnings of utility scale wind and distributed, community and utility scale solar. The “act now” group understands that coal has never been cheap given its environmental costs, but once a carbon price is put into place, coal will no longer be competitive with renewables on cost. Finally, the “act now” group supports governmental investment in R&D and assumes that improved technologies will help, but acting now is imperative.

The “act now” group has been thwarted for myriad reasons, most significantly including these three: (1) the ability of a minority of senators representing a small minority of the American people to prevent action on climate change legislation; (2) poor or non-existent media coverage of climate science, policy and politics, including the costs and risks of inaction; and, (3) President Obama’s failure to prioritize and lead during the effort to pass a climate bill.

Third, the “R&D/Future Technology” group has contributed to the delaying of action on climate. There is clear superficial appeal to the approach (politically, nothing has to change currently). It also has some powerful adherents (monied interests) who have political clout and who see big, centralized, capital intensive (profit-making) solutions to GHG emissions problems. This is an extension of conventional thinking that does not seem to apply well to climate change solutions. The end game of R&D only is a highly geo-engineered planet. Thus, the ultimate societal value questions associated with it are these: (1) to what extent are we willing to further sacrifice biodiversity and natural ecosystems in order to continue with business as usual? (2) assuming we care about future generations, how confident are we in their ability to pay for and manage complex systems that must operate on a planetary scale to maintain habitable environments for people? (3) If the consequences of R&D failure are civilization ending, do we have the moral authority to assume that risk on behalf of future generations?

Fourth, anecdotally, most of my friends and family fall into the third group–concerned but trusting that the systems we have will solve the problems. I believe this is the most important concept you’ve identified in your premise. Whether we voice it this way or not, I think at least a majority of American citizens still believe in meritocracy and that competent people will identify and solve complex problems within our political, social and private enterprise systems. Given the dysfunctions in our political system and the media, however, this assumption is no longer valid. In fact, we have not taken the steps that are necessary to solve the problems. In fact, action was needed years ago and is needed even more urgently now. The “act now” group recognizes all of these things.

Importantly, we appear to be incapable of modifying our political, social and entrepreneurial systems in ways that move us away from business as usual within the time frames dictated by science. Thus, it may take either a catastrophic event or events clearly tied to climate change or a major change in the political calculus to pave the way for needed change. A catastrophe is nothing to wish for and political/cultural change is incredibly difficult. However, as an example of this change in thinking among activist groups, author and organizer Bill McKibben of 350.org has concluded that the status quo will remain until the majority of Americans who support action on climate is transformed from soft-supporters of theoretical action into a politically powerful voting bloc that changes election outcomes. Thus, that’s where Bill now focuses his own energy and his organization’s resources.

In conclusion, I agree with the premise that the three groups you identify are all wrong. However, I disagree that they are the only groupings possible. Moreover, there is a significant ‘act now” group that is effectively correct. This group may even constitute a majority in America, although the depth of its support for acting now is undeniably soft.

For speakers, you should contact Richard Brenne in Portland. I do not know him personally, but he is a frequent commentor on Joe Romm’s Climate Progress blog (I think the best blog for climate science and policy and a space where I also comment occasionally). Mr. Brenne is a gifted writer and organizes climate change symposia for a living. There is a brief bio for him here: http://www.ametsoc.org/boardpges/cwce/docs/profiles/BrenneRichardAlan/profile.html

Good luck with your project and best regards,

Peter Sergienko

There’s not a lot of money to be made in balance though, certainly not as much money as can be made by willy-nilly resource extraction. This holds us back, and our entire economic system and global stability is on a crash course with the rocks of reality. This will SUCK for every person that is trying to hang on to the old model.

So, what’s the new model? There is no panacea to the problems that we face, there is no magic button. But there are new patterns starting to be put into place. These patterns are local, and based on community self-reliance and interdependence. Of course, this model directly challenges the current economic model.

The tribe that I’m connecting with is the one that is not only rationally looking at the issues that face us, but also intuitively picking up pieces of the new patterns and sharing it with openness to peers. Then we’re doing things together, building our circles and the strength of our circles through meetings, workshops, celebrations and rituals. We’re connecting to natural cycles, we’re pulling in info from the web and sharing it. We’re helping, nurturing and promoting each other.

This is all happening in the cracks that are beginning to widen in our culture. Many of us are tired of being at or near the bottom of pyramids that at the top are treating the Earth as humanity’s bitch. Excuse my language please, but this is accurately profane. Our global “leaders” are digging a hole in ecosystems that it will take a parade of generations to heal.

For what? For comfort? For some to be able to live in almost unimaginable luxury while the majority of humanity lives in squalor? The Earth is sacred. Humans are sacred. Every species on this planet is sacred. We are each of us an unbroken chain of generations stretching back to the beginnings of life on Earth.

So, what do we need? Food, Water, Shelter and Community. We can do that. We’ve just got to recognize that we’re all on this planet, in this nation, in this city, in this neighborhood together and begin to act like this matters.