"We have no killer app, but a killer motivation"
500 changemakers meeting
Yesterday Utopia, the biggest online community for strategic consumption in Germany, celebrated the first birthday, holding a conference in Berlin. At first sight the issues were quite clear:
- sustainability, eco efficiency, green investment, new products, processes, innovative materials …
- the role/responsibility of the political system
- the role/responsibility of big economical players, last but not least
- the role/responsibility of “we, the people”, you and me, for the necessary transformation.
But transformation from here to where? What are the goals and by which means should we try to reach them? Are there different goals and means for different world regions, even countries? The speakers would not be in consent about answers to that questions. But debate and inspiration, yes irritation, is it, why we meet at conferences like this one. Take the example of Prof. Michael Braungart (Cradle to Cradle, you should know). His points sometimes sounded really polemical in a good sense, e.g. attacking (for some years) the core concepts of “efficiency” or “sustainability”, so whitespread in the green discourse. There was rapid global action to save the financial system. So could we please save the planet now?
In the perspective of a futurist the number of variables and unpredictable behaviors of even simple subsystems is a really uncomfortable thing. Ok, desperation about complexity and self-referentiality is a normal state of mind in some professions. But in the case of rendering possible scenarios about global climate change and the foreseeable impact it is quite painful. Assume that the intelligence and good will of decision makers in politics and economy are on the same level “as usual”. Remind what Braungart said about the legislation process concerning toxic softeners in toys for instance – the speed and scope of the political system is definitely scandalous.
But stop! There was an efficient and rapid global action some weeks ago, when politicians around the world made the “rescue plans” for the financial system. Take this as an evidence that there is some ressource of rationality, cooperativeness and agility in the political-economical elite layer.
Radical change – hope and fear
Greg Craven, famous for his youtube video (1,625,000+ visits to date) made again clear that there is a necessity and still a possibility for political intervention, setting aside the issue of scientific uncertainties (BTW: did you know that nearly all climate models do not take into account the natural variability of solar radiation?).
Don’t blame Greg, the following are my thoughts: The dynamics of the climate system is quite complex, and actually not really well understood. However, it looks like we have to brake sharply, to run not into the “abyss”. Kyoto goals are by far not enough. Problems: How to brake, waht are the best means? Setting limits, subsidiaries, implementing emission markets? How can a democratic politician sell the inconvenient truth to the voter, that he has to take away some loved toys from him? How to share the burden, the transformation costs on a global scale? Do we have to declare the “War on Climate” and what to do with the rogue states then?
Picture source of presentation slide above: konsumguerilla.net
3 comments
Comments feed for this article
November 17, 2008 at 2:02 am
Launching the eco-capitalism era - Utopia Conference 2008 (Part II) « future facts blog
[...] First part of my coverage of the Utopia conference was about necessity and possibility of the coming transformation. This global transformation is politically, economically and technologically. How we shape things, connect material flows, structure systems, control communication, this is all about technology and design. Prof. Braungart reminded us about the “next industrial revolution”, he and William McDonough really did this for quite a while (The Atlantic 1998) and successfully. [...]
November 20, 2008 at 6:19 pm
Moritz Avenarius
@ Greg Cravens video and argument:
The question is, for an action oriented person like me, what falls into category A “yes-action” in detail? What are “good” actions in terms of avoiding climate change? I doubt that we really understand all consequences what we are doing in their entire complexity. If it only means greener consuming behaviours, that could turn backwards.
I found a nice example in the blog entry of Niels Boeing in the Technology Review (http://www.heise.de/tr/Der-Wahnwitz-des-Wachstums–/blog/artikel/117693), about how a 100 years ago the much more energy efficient tungsten filament in light bulbs replaced the carbon filament. As a result the tungsten became a successful mass product we are trying to get rid off today.
So maybe we need to reduce our consuming behaviour much more radical as we can think of today – if we are capable of doing this …
November 21, 2008 at 12:50 pm
futurefacts
Very helpful hint. Niels Boeing is absolutely right in many points. Actually, when I thought blogging about the conference, one idea was to focus on the inner tensions of the conference. There are rather different approaches, presuppostions and rhetorics of say a speaker selling “social responsible investments” and an other speaker reflecting the failed paradigm of our economic process.
I even wanted to start with a bitter joke on top but later cancelled it, not to confuse the reader. I wanted to “streamline” my text in the direction of a statement like “after all utopia conference is a good start (since we have to act!)”.
The joke: “One attendee asking the other: Well we all want to save the planet, but be honest: How many Lexus do *you* have in your garage?” (Lexus was sponsor).
So I am concerned that change of mind does not go deep enough. E.g. maybe individual-mobility-as-a-car will fail and in ten years the idea to “save the car industry” with billions could look totallly insane,