WEversity

Hi,  I 'm new. usually more low key than this but want to share some info, also appreciate responses on how to support these. Both groups are building momentum for impact on December's Climate Summit meetings in Copenhagen.

CPP is an economists plus group with a plan to fund fast world change to clean energy, not by taxpayers either (I heard about it from Hazel Henderson/read about it on ethicalmarkets.com). It is also one of the best anti-terrorist plans I've heard since the investments start in developing countries where there is less infrastructure to dismantle. CPP projects that gas and nuclear won't be able to compete by year 5 (a bit hard to believe but these are not naive, uninformed people behind it).

350.org is building the creative demonstrations and political pressure on governments to take significant action by placing a price on carbon/carbon cap. Big day of action coming up is Oct 24.

Together these two movements seem like some of the best efforts out there to put energy into or pay attention to. Anyone else have more info than I do? I see just writing this that I should email hazel henderson and ask how to support or follow progress of CPP. Will post relevant info when I have it (just surfacing again after my mother was injured Sept 11/will be okay but was iffy).

Alison in Oregon

An 'economists plus' groups sounds like something with great potential, given that the engine of economics is broken and apparently grinding to a messy halt. Curious though that the world is full of projects to fund clean energy, all of which are limited by the inadequate availability of investment dictated by current economics. Perhaps this group know that and are thinking how to fix economics to free up the flows of funding to the level where 350 happens very fast. 

Since you're asking for ideas I reckon 350.org are on the right track and perhaps just need a little support with out-of-the-box thinking, since 350 is a target way beyond politics as usual.

• 350 is a scientifically solid target but we should beware of 'target-thinking'. What matters is the rate of movement in cutting atmospheric levels. Maybe we can do better than 350 and further improve our prospects!
• Bringing 350 to Copenhagen means giving policy-makers an alternative to 'shrinking-thinking'. Restricting business as usual and capping emissions just invites 'the system' to fight against the change. This is why 20 years of climate talks have not cut global emissions, let alone atmospheric levels. 
• 350 is a product of scientific 'systems thinking' (positive feedbacks etc) and can use systems thinking to shape the policy that could make it possible. In essence it's about shaping new worldviews rather than limiting old ones. Paradigm change rather than just incremental change.
• So we must focus on whole system changes rather than just cuts to emissions of one element/molecule. Fix the symptom (of climate change) by fixing the whole system. Work on the economic vehicle not the exhaust pipe. 
• The necessary policy changes (suggestions here) would take on global problems as an indivisible whole, rather than to seek answers only within a climate policy silo. We can follow Einstein's advice to solve problems with different thinking than we used to cause them.

If this is the right link then the Climate Prosperity group is senior greens and some finance people but not many economists. Great to see that their definition of 'clean energy' seems to exclude the common fudges such as incineration and nuclear. Also great that their understanding of climate encompasses sustainable development and that they see action as being economically advantageous. 

On the question of scale, given the names on board I would expect a large scale investment to follow their "spread the message" campaign. However I feel that any strategy for growing green sectors regionally is limited to pushing the boundaries of the old paradigm. Climate is a such a biggie that anything less than complete paradigm change for the entire economy is just shuffling deckchairs. The hidden risk with any powerful group that becomes very good at shuffling lots of deckchairs is that everyone gets fooled into thinking it's working, when all along we're missing the chance to turn the Titanic while there may still be time.

CPP's aim of 'moving from “resource-wasting capitalism” to “resource-saving capitalism”' would require a new game-plan with new incentives that would make clean energy and other sustainability investments obvious for everyone without need for campaigning at Copenhagen or anywhere else. I wonder if projects such as CPP would be willing to try sorting out the game rather than just coaching the players? 

I'm sure we need to maintain the pressure that advocacy groups provide.

My focus, however, is on the groups building physical solutions--wind farms, ocean tidal/wave generators, carbon capture sequestration at scale, not just pilot projects.  How can I/we find these groups, fund them, even start our own?

Years ago, I saw a photo of two Roman Catholic nuns walking past a high-tech windmill they'd installed at their monastery. If they can do it, why can't I/we?

I have some major quesitons about this. It seems to be as if we are not shifting enough with this 'universalist thinking' and once again run the risk of solving the solutions of the whole and imposing solutions designed by the controlling elite.

without taking into consideration regional sustainability and real life bottom up thinkng sans a (as I view it) fatally flowed infrastructure we are reverting to what has not worked; the same players making the same calls. 

The power of 350 was the individual efforts the feeling that inividuals felt that they were being heard, that they were connected as part of a larger movemnt, that they were taking a stand against the mind-set that created the crisis. Kenny Ausubel speaks of the state of the world forum and rapid response teams which he calls eco-SWAT teams to be funded and trained beginning in Feb. 2110.

What about the situations now for example in SE Asia where huge shrimp farms are harming local fishermen? What about the huge swatches of land that are being taken over for reforestation with no regard for the local economies which are destroyed?

I don't see a place at this table for those who are going to b most dramatically impacted by the climate crisis. I just see a continuation of the championing, the idolization of capitalism, which always favors the select few ...

Hard to understand for me how you could be behind this solution. I agree that 'silo' thinking is 'the' problem, but I don't see this massive revamping of an industrialized society as the answer. I belive we have to power down.

Hi Deborah, I'm not familiar with 'universalist thinking' - wonder what it is? It was funny to see your worry about lack of bottom-up thinking since I've previously challenged one of the CPP vice-chairs (here - he didn't respond) about promoting bottom-up solutions and ignoring systemic change. We needn't see CPP as an either/or choice between top-down and bottom-up, we might usefully see at it as a counter-argument to the decoy solutions of CCS, incineration and nukes being heavily promoted by elites that should really worry us. Wouldn't it also be silo thinking to see renewables as an alternative to powering down, when both are needed? I'm not aware that CPP are involved with dodgy shrimp farming or reforestation but if you know about such things then it would be good to tell people, especially the CPP chair Marc Weiss who is openly approachable. 

I agree there are bigger unresolved issues about capitalism which I've tried to raise on this thread already. And it's great to hear you interpret 350 as a question of mindsets. Do you think the way forward is to take a stand against any project involving financiers or to challenge them to use their influence to fix the rules of the game? I've always been impressed with Buckminster Fuller's view on change. 

Hi Denis, do you mean that accelerating climate change is irreversible? Or that the habit of human destructiveness is irreversible? You may be right about both but the scary thing is that it becomes true when enough people believe it. I'm not aware of any solid scientific platform that can really prove that we're all doomed and nothing can be done - so perhaps this is more a question of whether the human spirit chooses to rise to the occasion?