Comments on: How Change Manifests, How Action To Stop Global Warming Must Come About

By: Gwennedd

Gwennedd — Mon, 21 Oct 2013 22:36:00 +0000

Thanks for the video. That was great to see people sharing how they were able to get past disagreements and arrive at a consensus. We should be doing more of this, definitely, at all levels of government and law.

By: johnabbe

johnabbe — Mon, 21 Oct 2013 17:13:00 +0000

Yes, strong facilitation and process is critical. If the whole process is fairly reported, showing great efforts to include all, and some people manage to avoid being included, then obviously you won’t have consensus but you’ll still have super-majority support for whatever the rest of the group comes up with. In practice, with really good facilitation and process, this should happen only a small percentage of the time, and instead people are amazed at how well people with different perspectives can work together. (I say perspectives rather than values because to be honest I think if you go deeply enough we all share the same values.)

Here’s a video of the debrief from one of the pilot conversations of Oregon’s Citizens Initiative Review (now an official part of the initiative process, albeit only for some initiatives since it is only funded privately): http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TrPrAyscpIQ

By: Gwennedd

Gwennedd — Mon, 21 Oct 2013 08:27:00 +0000

Hmm..from what I remember, strong individuals that have no way to compromise can have the effect of dividing the group into factions. That would have to be taken into account when structuring the group. It happened to us. One slightly rabid person started messing up the group dynamics. Humans tend to splinter into like minded groups and eventually the groups stop working together and start working against each other. It would take a strong moderator to stop that tendency, a really well thought out set of rules and a set time limit on the groups’ term . But , yes, all voices need to be heard and hopefully reason, willingness to hear others and compromise would make this work.

By: johnabbe

johnabbe — Mon, 21 Oct 2013 07:48:00 +0000

Citizen Deliberative Councils, as broad as they are, are just one form that co-intelligence can take. The nice thing about CDCs is they wouldn’t exclude the people who now have undue influence. So people who identify as tea party would still see their values represented in these conversations. It’s just that they would 1) be represented in their true proportion of the population, and 2) they would see the person representing their values interacting genuinely with people with different values and both being heard, and hearing others. Yeah, a complete change I would like to see too.

By: Gwennedd

Gwennedd — Mon, 21 Oct 2013 07:11:00 +0000

That’s an interesting proposal, the co-intelligence. I have seen it done at the neighbourhood level. A diverse group meet regularly to plan and implement what changes the “hood needs, overseen by a city facilitator. It was amazing the work we got done and the levels of intelligence out there in just a small group. And, being a BC’er I remember the group that reviewed electoral reform.
To work it at the national level, interviewing candidates, reviewing elections, reviewing judicial decisions and having a real voice in the governance of our countries would completely change the democratic landscape. Democracy would be answerable to the people and special interest groups ( Tea Party, corporations, financial institutions) would lose their ability to influence the government and the judicial system. THAT would be good to see.

By: MrEnergyCzar

MrEnergyCzar — Mon, 21 Oct 2013 04:37:00 +0000

I agree Bob, but never underestimate the power of cognitive dissonance… you’d be surprised the power over the mind it can yield…

By: johnabbe

johnabbe — Mon, 21 Oct 2013 03:50:00 +0000

Thanks for the links, Omega. I’ve known for a while that insurance companies were beginning to put the pressure on other businesses to address climate change for exactly this reason, but it’s good to have some data handy to back up the assertions. You’d think that conservatives would accept the data that’s leading insurance companies this way as convincing, but some people refuse to get it.

That’s okay, there are enough of us who do to get quite a lot done. I try not to waste my time with people who refuse to accept consensus science or even insurance companies whose primary interest is their bottom line.

I read an article somewhere that one thing that insurance companies have *not* yet started doing much is lobbying politicians on these issues. Maybe there’s an opportunity there to lobby boards of directors of insurance companies, and identify sympathetic big-money shareholders at these companies to put forward shareholder resolutions calling on them to lobby (in their own self-interest!).

Cultural resistance is amazing to see in the face of self-interest, and proof that the bottom line is not as all-powerful as people like to pretend it is. There’s a great article from Ms. Magazine about car companies refusing to advertise in Ms. even when they were shown data that women were more often the decision-maker about what car to buy than men were. (This was back when Ms. had ads. They published the article after going ad-free around 1991).

By: johnabbe

johnabbe — Mon, 21 Oct 2013 03:40:00 +0000

You’d think so, but many cities – including where I live in Eugene, Oregon – are spending money on expanding highways (despite the fact that peak vehicle miles traveled happened in the 00s) while cutting back on public transit. (Similarly, the local Occupy has had to keep a high level of pressure on to get the city to even begin to enact policies on homelessness that would save a lot of money)

So it looks like a great deal of activism will be required in many cases to get even city governments to act in their own self-interest.

One clear response to this is to reform or even better transform government so that it is at a minimum more logical, or even better actually taps the wisdom of the people for more creative solutions to the many challenges we face. http://www.co-intelligence.org/CDCUsesAndPotency.html

By: Bob_Wallace

Bob_Wallace — Mon, 21 Oct 2013 02:29:00 +0000

Steep, I’ve learned that you aren’t a stupid person and suspect you know exactly what I meant.

By: Steeple

Steeple — Mon, 21 Oct 2013 02:25:00 +0000

Are you seriously comparing the energy business to the heroin and meth industry?

I would doubt you have ever used meth or heroin, Bob.

I would bet you use the products of the energy business most of your day every day. If they are so evil, I presume you would be willing to boycott the use of any transportation, clothing, electricity, packaging, etc produced from fossil fuels.

By: Bob_Wallace

Bob_Wallace — Mon, 21 Oct 2013 02:14:00 +0000

I said most, I did not say all. I’m sure some are dumb enough to believe the crap that the denier industry shovels out.

As far as “imagine” and “guess”, you did ask for an opinion. My opinion is that most of the people working in the oil business are aware that they are helping destroy the climate, just as people working in the tobacco industry realize that they are contributing to cancer and other lung diseases.

Do you imagine that people in the meth or heroin industries not have a basic understanding of the misery they are helping to create?

By: Gwennedd

Gwennedd — Mon, 21 Oct 2013 02:05:00 +0000

Agreed Omega and Johnabbe. Dealing with this at the local level works. Generally, if you and your group can come up with a reasonable plan for, say, getting more people out of their cars and onto transit, it’s worthwhile to City and state PTB to help implement it. Anything that saves a city money and makes them look good will be acceptable, and their staff are generally willing to help. Been there, done that. Wasn’t hard to do.

By: Steeple

Steeple — Mon, 21 Oct 2013 01:47:00 +0000

You have a vivid imagination, Bob. Imagine? Guess?

Do you know anyone in this industry? There are millions employed here, and they all secretly know that they are complicit in destroying the planet? Really?

By: Bob_Wallace

Bob_Wallace — Mon, 21 Oct 2013 01:24:00 +0000

“You don’t think that the hundreds of thousands of people who work in that space really want to destroy the planet, do you?”

I think they are willing to destroy the planet.

I would imagine that most of them are intelligent enough to understand what is happening and why it is happening and putting paycheck ahead of conscience.

I would guess that among themselves they talk a game of denial but inside they realize that they are major players in the dark game of destruction.

By: Steeple

Steeple — Sun, 20 Oct 2013 18:44:00 +0000

So if a company is willing to bet billions on whether AGW is real or not, that decides it. Great, I’ll keep betting on the oil companies then. You don’t think that the hundreds of thousands of people who work in that space really want to destroy the planet, do you?

By: Steeple

Steeple — Sun, 20 Oct 2013 18:41:00 +0000

Thoughtful work. But note in the fourth paragraph of the first article that they make no conclusion as to whether the changes they are experiencing are driven by human action.

By: JamesWimberley

JamesWimberley — Sun, 20 Oct 2013 00:13:00 +0000

Steeple can make a pile by offering to take a billion or so weather reinsurance risk off Munich Re’s hands at the premiums of two decades ago. What’s stopping you? They only do this for a living.

By: Omega Centauri

Omega Centauri — Sat, 19 Oct 2013 18:28:00 +0000

Here on some links to Munich Reinsurance, who have a big exposure to weather related losses: http://www.munichre.com/en/media_relations/company_news/2013/2013-04-08_company_news.aspx Climate change effects increasingly influencing US thunderstorm losses http://www.munichre.com/en/group/focus/climate_change/research/default.aspx Lots of articles.

By: Bob_Wallace

Bob_Wallace — Sat, 19 Oct 2013 18:19:00 +0000

Steeple, if you’re actually interested in understanding what is happening then spend some time reading the science.

A good place to start might be Skeptical Science. Or you could start with NASA/NOAA.

I’m not interested in playing whack-a-mole with your ignorant cherry-picking and citing non-scientific denier sites. It’s no ones job to convince you of something which you have apparently decided you will not objectively consider.

You have apparently decided that you are more intelligent and more informed than tens of thousands of people who study climate issues. I’m not going to waste time arguing with someone who is that foolish.

By: Steeple

Steeple — Sat, 19 Oct 2013 17:52:00 +0000

Feel free to supply some that would be convincing to say a Doctoral review board.

Anything that include comments like “denier” and “everyone knows, blah blah blah” is disqualified.

Bob, we agree on the great progress on renewable energy technologies. This will be great for the world.

No one, including you, however has come even close to proving out the AGW theory to me. I’ve got over 30 years of experience in technical matters, and I have been wrong plenty of times. Feel free to provide something comprehensive that will sway me. Or not.