Transition Culture

Hi Rob,
As an off-islander I don’t think it is for me to produce a list of suggestions, but I would like to take the opportunity to congratulate you all for this explicit recognition of the importance of our work!
So please pass on our regards to the APPGOPO on behalf of the Dutch Transition Hub.

yours
Paul Hendriksen
TT Netherlands / TT Deventer & surroundings

Not one who acts in political circles but it seems to me that politicians move when the people all want something. They don’t change whats unpopular unless they have no choice, so KEY for me would be to ask them all to visit and listen to active Transition Communities and to reflect on what they can do to support individually as well as collectively. Ideally I’d like to see Gov stop using 1800′s GDP as the primary metric for the country, and if they would care to measure other aspects and how transition is enabling skills, renewables, more food producers, growth in green tourism, etc. Perhaps some of us could pay our taxes in local currency ?
MP’s could use their green bank idea to invest in and support Transition and to back a smart idea for a change!
Lastly, I’d like to see them petition to take action on peak oil and climate change out of the control of individual political parties and to start to change GOV so that some things are decided irrespective of who’s in power. Then we can start to plan and deliver things that are not thrown out every time there’s an election. Some things are just higher up than politicians, and the environment is one of them. Argue that !….

Absolutely agree with Alan’s last point.
Its an All Party Group we are addressing and Transition should remain non-political; the climate, environmental and energy issues should be researched scientifically and addressed independently of national and party interest. Party politics cannot do this without being thrown out of power, as has been demonstrated by every election since these issues were identified.
Also, notable environmental and climate initiatives have arisen at local levels, where people who can articulate their awareness are more audible.
A lot of Transition-and other- people have worked very hard to understand the science and the economics of climate change and peak oil and it is very frustrating to see how easily commercial interest and the media can trash this effort. The APPGOPO should be on our side, represent us, and work to promote non-political agencies with real status, and teeth. To do that would be a truly political act.

I would review all housing and public structure building codes for assumptions of affluence and cheap energy.

Restrictions should be reviewed that limit the amount of food that can be produced within apartments, mansions, and domiciled in between, consistent with public health and safety. That is, permit composting and encourage composting of animal droppings, rather than forbid chickens, rabbits, pigeons, etc.

Assure that vendors of gardening materials and supplies face as few obstacles as possible. Be open minded about alternative structures attempting to reduce transport of materials from distant origins (local origins preferred).

How about a penny tax on employers, calculated daily, for each employee, for each km that individual employee commutes to work that day. Halve the tax for employees using public transportation; forgive the tax for employers that don’t attend work that day, or walk that day. The point of the tax is much less about raising money, as engaging employers on the distance their workforce travels – and the costs in energy and transport infrastructure they impose on the community for that lack of engagement. Communities and districts should invite employers to be involved in planning. Schools, too, should be involved in assessing the costs their transport plans – or lack of plans – impose on the community in travel by parents and families for school and special events.

Consider the economic and cultural issues involved when the wealth of cheap energy is replaced by the value of human labor. When continuous economic growth instead deflates to the return of processing and manufacturing materials using primarily human labor, and there is no more “return on investment” measured in currency, only number of people fed and housed.

Specifically consider what expressions of wealth and cheap energy must be allowed to fail. Many times single family dwellings will no longer be viable; don’t denigrate those that persist, but for those individuals and families that overextend, recognize that “saving” their “investment” is not a public need, nor even desirable at the public level. Delaying the likely eventual failure of home and business ownership merely wastes (scarce) funds that could be better utilized investing in preparing for transition. Save the people; not their possessions.

Recycling has been sold as being kind to the planet. All forms of recycling must be reviewed, for the energy expended. If it takes more energy to recycle plastic, paper, aluminum, or steel – that program should be “scrapped”. Quite soon we must take stock of the cost of recycling, and limit ourselves to activities that make sense.

Paper can be composted, along with garden wastes, tree and grass clippings, and animal droppings. Also composting toilets (I just reviewed the delightful site, LoveableLoo.com). Where gardens or other soil projects can benefit from compost enrichment, that makes a lot of sense.

Sewage treatment plants could be producing methane gas for heating buildings or cooking. They could also be producing enriching fertilizer. Such plants could be community resources, instead of mere infrastructure burden. See the William McDonough 2007 TED talk for related aspects.

Green roofs have been posited – and implemented. This approach to protecting business structures and living structures can be turned to providing food, reducing unwanted heating from the sun in summer, and increasing biodiversity by providing a mix of exploited and wild landscape, including shrubs, prairie, field, and gardens. Habitat can be provided for wild and domestic use.

Single family dwellings and long commutes, even (especially?) by mass transit must be seen as burdens on the community. Where a family can afford a single family dwelling, where an individual can afford the long commute, they should face no obstacles. But neither should anyone else receive any incentive to mimic the wealthy, as Peak Oil and climate change conspire to remove the influx of wealth created by cheap energy, and as economic and physical volatility challenge all other forms of affluence.

Engage to encourage local food security by supporting local growers, and refusing to show preference to international and intercontinental providers of produce, other foods, and other materials. None should be penalized; merely none receive more welcome than the local manufacturer or producer or grower.

Assume that any national or international currency will fall in value.

Evaluate what reasonable tax levels will be, once the unsustainable wealth and economic growth fueled by cheap energy begins to dwindle and become unavailable to the poor, then the not-so-poor, and so on until even the wealthy are reduced to income from the value that humans unassisted by cheap energy impart to the resources they handle and process.

Make no investment that doesn’t create revenue by processing physical resources to increase it’s value. Especially avoid any investments into representative monetary instruments (bonds, stocks, mortgage derivatives, bond funds, etc.).

Thats good news that they want our input.

not having been unemployed for quite some time – then I dont know what the restrictions are on people on benefits being able to do voluntary work towards Post Peak Oil type projects? Maybe it needs to be checked whether unemployed people are being restricted at all from doing this – and, if so, those restrictions lifted. After all – we need all the “labour” possible for the transitional work that needs doing.

I’m sure you’ll have thought this already, but just in case:
Emphasise those actions and policies that address peak oil, AND also provide other benefits: supporting more voluntarism, social cohesion, economic innovation etc.
Tell them positive things they might not have heard about .
Leave them flattered that they have been privileged to be hearing solutions that they can then ‘own’ and trumpet to other MPs, their electorates, etc
Make APPGOPO the ‘gang’ their mates want to be part of.

I do wonder how many honorable members will make the effort of turning up for this event, but skepticism aside, what is really needed from central government is some pressure on local councils to fulfill their obligations regarding the provision of allotments. Many councils seem quite happy to have 5-10 year waiting lists, whilst renting out their land for other purposes and this will not change unless they are made to do so.
One “visible manifestation” of Transition in many places where initiatives arise is that there is an increase in the production of local food, either through the creation of CSA’s, abundance projects, community gardens and orchards, Incredible Edible’s, allotment growing etc. This is what central government ought to support and encourage; it has popular support, provides jobs, creates community and certainly enhances food security and would not at all be hard to do.

Good Luck, Peter and Fiona, looking forward to hearing the result.
Ann Owen (Transition Bro Ddyfi Trawsnewid)

Surely the future of food production should be discussed. The focus of taxation should move towards land ownership. Large landowners should be taxed because they are so wealthy and as an incentive to split holdings of land up into smaller units that can use less fossil fuel.
“It will be said that in a world of internationally mobile capital and people it is counterproductive to tax personal income and corporate profit to uncompetitive levels. That is right. But a progressive alternative is to shift the tax base to property, and land, which cannot run away, [and] represents in Britain an extreme concentration of wealth.”
Vince Cable, 22 September 2010

Dave Dan,

The unfortunate aspect of taxing land, is that it unfairly challenges farmland use.

Farms, without the ephemeral wealth of cheap energy, typically don’t make much money. A restaurant near me has a sign, “Behind every successful farmer is a wife that works in town.” That was my experience; I was raised on a farm.

Perhaps communities should be taxed, and let the community leaders manage how much to levy against the wealthy and against those productive but barely flush, monetarily.

But I perceive an even more unfair assumption. I am not sure that taxes should be levied with respect to wealth. Taxing the rich removes the resources that otherwise might be available for charity at best, and for continued economic activity at worst.

Sorry. I am not much for collectivist and marxist traditions. They haven’t seemed to work well for anyone.

This is all good news.
Parliament and big business, will have have to face up to the fact we can no longer carry on with our present system foundered on toxic oil.
Thank you buzz

Hi folks

off the top of my head, we need local govt to pull its finger out and work with community groups such as Transition (and others).

good luck

Bernadette Barclay,

Currently the western world still operates (outside of Transition and various adapting strategists) on the presumption of wealth from cheap energy. Politics at the crassest level is a function of votes and money (the presumption of wealthy voters and wealth to publish propaganda to garner votes and sway mass opinions).

If the current surge of deflation were to spread worldwide on the heels of peak oil, or even in anticipation, the dynamic might devolved into other kinds of assets – including health of the self image and internal relationships in the community, food and craft security as local production rises to meet local needs and buffer the community from vagaries of crises in nearby communities, regions, and nations. Character, honesty, honor, and integrity might come to mean something more than a temporary blip in polling results.

Which is a long way to recommend that you need to change the terms of the function, because right now there is precious little payoff, politically, to work with community groups such as Transition and others.

You need a political environment, and politicians, that operate on “currency” other than . . uh, currency, and retaining their position of wealth and power through wealth and managing mass opinions using mass media. You need politicians that see the advantage to themselves and their party in real terms. You aren’t offering masses of votes nor masses of cash flow.

Once you engage politicians on terms that honor both of you, you won’t have to accuse anyone of ignoring your plight, nor ignoring their responsibilities. Until then, as their professional responsibilities depend on votes and/or money, you actually have little standing to attract their attention or their efforts on your behalf. In their terms, and the terms that define their position and responsibilities – your voice is just part of the noise, you might be “useful” to them, depending on circumstances, time, and other distractions of the moment. The politicians that pursue business as usual might not be winning prizes for forward thinking, for strategic planning, but they are meeting the requirements for the job they accepted and hold.

Your task, should you accept it, would be to find a set of terms that satisfies the politico’s responsibilities, that also advances the prospects of Transition, and minimizes resistance and obstructions to Transition and other community groups.

Let us pray that it takes much less than starvation and riots that critically disrupt cities and nations to change the paradigm that defines modern politics.

My experience of these events is that very few MPs attend. But some of their research assistants do which can help filter through the ideas.

Last week I was at a meeting where a County Council employee spoke about how Councils are ‘member led’. What this means is that the elected Councillors set the agenda and the focus of what the Council do. So while they devote some time to Climate Change but none to a Peak Oil response. This applies equally for MPs and the government.

We seem to be in the circular position where the general population does not get the implications of Peak Oil and as a result neither do the elected officials. And then because the government does not see Peak Oil as an issue (being member led) the general public assume it is not an issue as the government does not talk about it.

Mike
I think the circle you describe barely exists – certainly not in any ‘water-tight’ way: elected members are motivated to keep electors’ support, but they are influenced by far more than some notional ‘general public’ (which is made up of lots of people who strongly disagree on most things). Analysis, lobbying, and media-hype all play their part on politicians’ views.

(Incidentally, the Council Officers I know would always say in public that their Council is ‘member-lead’- they would not dare to say otherwise – but in private they carry on ‘managing’ their masters as best they can.

Tax food brought in on aeroplanes. Adopt the ZeroCarbon Britain report as energy policy. Tax new-builds, don’t tax renovations. Subscribe to http://www.goodfuckingidea.com. Accept that there are limits. +1 on using non-GDP measures. Inspire your electorate with your leadership. s

I don’t know if there is a better alternative to increasing tax on fuel, the vast majority of people will only respond to economic pressure.
Ring fence the tax raised and invest it in creating jobs through improving those areas of infrastructure which have positive environmental impacts. Necessity is the mother of invention.

Politicos and pressure groups;engage-absorb-diffuse.The more that I hear the language of transition being used by the pushers of ‘big society’ the more my instincts scream “beware”.I would caution that the flattering of ego does not lead to being chewed up and spat out!

So pleased that you are able to engage government. Am trying to get our MP, Laurence Robertson (Tewkesbury),on board. Not sure that he is taking us very seriously; have managed two very brief meetings. Please take the opportunity to encourage all MPs to look at what is going on in their locality.

Jerry