"First, the evidence is overwhelmingly strong that most people do not change
behaviour through awareness-raising interventions, which is how I see your
call to try to challenge the 'growth' mindset"

On the other hand, the way in which the free market fundamentalists 
completely changed the economic orthodoxy from the Keynesian, 
interventionist policies which had ruled mid century to the Thatcherism 
of the later part of the twentieth century was by changing the ideas of 
intellectuals, largely by the efforts of free market think tanks such as 
the Institute for Economic Affairs.  (There is a very good article by 
Susan George from the late 1990s in Dissent magazine about how this was 
done. I haven't posted it because it's very long, but I can email anyone 
a copy).  Is changing the ideas of  intellectuals the correct role for 
Crisis Forum?

Chris

David Ballard wrote:

>Aubrey said:
>
>Chris and whoever - I am perplexed.
> 
>Is it out of fatalism, habit, or perhaps religious belief that you and
>others on [and beyond] this list persist in framing this [the
>'nuclear-decision'] issue only in in terms of a vision that leaves the
>demand-as-usual curve unchallenged?
>
>Can't speak for the others of course, but it seems to me that Chris, and
>before him Chris Church, are quite simply and properly exploring what they
>can usefully do to reduce the likelihood of an apparent nuclear 'cure' that
>actually locks-in the mistaken assumption that growth can continue to grow.
>I have not seen what you say you see behind what Chris Keene has been
>saying, doubt whether that is what he thinks he is doing, and wonder what
>leads you to the conclusion that he is.
> 
>In other words I am asking you [plural] if you are seeking to do battle with
>an 'opponent' [the government and it's imminent pro-nuclear decision etc]
>
>A whole debate could be held on these few words, and usefully no doubt. But
>not by me right now with the tax due tomorrow!
>
> whose number one assumption - unlimited growth - you accept without a
>comment or a quibble?
>
>I can say without any equivocation at all that I do not accept those
>assumptions myself and that I have not for a very long time. If you look at
>my signature on fresh emails, you won't see the phrase 'sustainable
>development' and certainly not 'triple bottom line' (excuse me while I find
>somewhere to spit!). this is because these phrases have become captured by
>the growth brigade. I completely accept that there are limits and personally
>think that we are very far beyond them. To the extent that I think that our
>species has exceeded solar carrying capacity by a factor, were things to go
>badly, of 5. In other words, I think that even Limits to Growth is highly
>optimistic. More on this at the foot if anyone is interested. 
>
>I am a London Business School graduate, so know the heart of the growth
>beast quite well. I look at the world of business and economics and see a
>complete delusion, and one that is very damaging. 
>
>At a personal level, struggling with tax returns as Tuesday approaches, I
>can assure you that the evidence is strong that this rejection of the growth
>assumption is more than supported by the evidence! At a meeting of LBS class
>mates a year ago (25 years after graduation), I realised that my own
>financially calculated net assets are certainly under 1% of those of many of
>my peers - and I am not the one who is worrying about money (well not all
>the time, anyway)!
>
>So at a personal level I do not accept the growth-can-continue-as-usual
>assumption. I cannot speak for others, but haven't seen any evidence that
>anyone else on this list does either.
>
>The issue may be more about what to do when other people's assumptions are
>at odds with one's own - a question of theories of change (the change in
>assumptions is of no value if they do not change things in the way we
>behave). 
>
>Here is what I think about this.
>
>First, the evidence is overwhelmingly strong that most people do not change
>behaviour through awareness-raising interventions, which is how I see your
>call to try to challenge the 'growth' mindset. This is particularly the case
>with issues of environmental sustainability where people actually back away
>from the agenda because they suspect that it is uncomfortable and don't like
>the focused energy of activists (amongst whom I include myself). So I think
>that it is a complete waste of breath, or these days of the hydrocarbons
>needed to excite electrons, to try to persuade people that growth is a
>mistake, however much I might think that myself. I think that the agenda
>would risk becoming altogether too abstract and easy to dismiss as barmy
>
>Second, there is much stronger evidence that people can and do change
>assumptions after changing behaviour. Chris Church's excellent article with
>Jake Elster on 'thinking locally acting globally' seems to support this:
>people can potentially start from different positions and still connect
>their work to sustainability issues.  While my own experience is consistent,
>this is still not easy, typically resisted strongly. Personally I do not
>think it matters that much why people change behaviour, only that they do,
>but that when they do, a window into assumptions opens up for a while and it
>is very important to take that opportunity. So I think that it is important
>to build as much renewables capacity as possible, because it potentially
>opens a possibility of change.
>
>Third, systems of technology 'lock-into' place existing patterns of
>behaviour and assumptions all too easily - hence the value of trying to
>avoid building a new one that might help difficult questions remain
>unaddressed.
>
>
> 
>If so - i.e. accepting this and proceeding on this assumption, is the
>consensus of this list: -
>
>Is it appropriate for a list to have a consensus on an issue of approach?
>There is surely scope for and value in difference. I would agree that this
>list should not be about the triple bottom line and similar approaches
>(excuse me again for a moment!). I do not claim to be correct on what I have
>said above, but that is the way I currently see it. Consensus would remove
>the possibility of my learning.
>
>Out of respect for you and for what you have achieved I hope you don't
>decide to withdraw, but - as you say - it's your call.
>
>With respect and in - I hope - friendship
>
>David
>
>Incidentally (on my earlier email), there was no other party, so it didn't
>use any energy, created no footprint. That the Buddha might say something
>that is not true is worrying to most people who hear the story, me included.
>But I guess that a party in the cold is better than one in a burning house.
>I saw the point of the story as being that sometimes we need to go with the
>energy that is there, even if it is deluded.
>
>------------------
>
>
>On the carrying capacity issue, briefly:
>
>Almost all the so-called green revolution comes directly from use of energy,
>primarily petroleum. Depending on how far back we go, and recognising that
>pre-industrial economies were typically quite vulnerable to famine, we get
>to figures of around 1 billion people who were previously supported by solar
>energy (which is, I think, what we must be aiming towards). Recent
>alternative technologies - including solar, wind, etc. - can surely raise
>this significantly , if implemented, but probably not to current levels of
>population (I fear that Limits to Growth is too optimistic). If they are not
>implemented, however (and I see building nuclear as a complete distraction,
>as an avoidance mechanism to avoid engaging with the issues), then we have
>largely forgotten the practical skills and lost the technologies that kept
>that 1 billion or so alive. Worse, the chaos that seems likely will surely
>damage carrying capacity greatly and probably catastrophically (i.e. even
>worse than is happening already) - not just for us but for other species
>too. The resulting carrying capacity may be much less. In the chaos that
>might follow the economic collapse that will surely follow major energy
>crises, the chances of many alternative energy sources being built will - I
>think - be very small. I think a short-term return to coal and to biomass is
>very likely and that both are likely to accelerate damage. I really do not
>know whether it is any longer possible to avoid this. I hope that it is.
>
>The bind that I see us in is that (I think) we need continued governance and
>a continued flow of financial capital and of energy to create a much lower
>carbon world, but the latter are both very vulnerable. This argument is
>strongly put in Limits to Growth. It is not a question of buying into the
>growth paradigm, it is about trying to see a way through to a future that
>may at least be a bit possible for the people I love, for our species and if
>those efforts fail, for the biosphere in all its beauty.
> 
>
>
>David Ballard
>Alexander, Ballard & Associates
>Strategy and human change for environmental sustainability
>(00 44) (0) 5600 433801 - work
>(00 44) (0) 1672 520561 - home
>(00 44) (0) 7840 544226 - mobile
>Skype: ballardd
>Email: [log in to unmask]
>Web: www.alexanderballard.co.uk 
>
>also ...
>
>Senior Research Fellow
>Centre for Action Research in Professional Practice
>School of Management
>University of Bath
>www.bath.ac.uk/carpp/msc.htm 
>
>  
>