Transition Culture

How conscious are people that what they are doing is extremely subversive?

Hugely, although I try not to frighten people as some of the things that I believe will be necessary seem “extreme” from the current perspective, although they are logically inevitable from where we will probably be on 10, 15, 20 years time.

We are working to completely invert the existing economic structure and this will challenge the existing political, social and legal frameworks in which we operate. If we can lead by offering alternative examples and keep a head of the game, hopefully the disruption can be minimised.

There will be some sticking points; access to land be a major one that I antipicate; but I do not see the changes as being any more difficult than during the last war. it is just that very few of us experienced it.

Interesting at least one of our senior local politicians (Con) thinks that the only way to achieve what is needed to tackle climate change and peak oil is going to be community mobilisation. He recognises that, try as they may, that it is not going to be possible for the politicians to lead that.

I agree that we are totally conscious of the necessarily subversive nature of what we are doing. It was only in February of this year that I first found out about Peak Oil, and I kept questioning it on the grounds that if it were true, that surely world governments would be ‘doing something’. It’s taken me some time to get my head around why they are not. The only ‘something’ that can be done is to halt economic growth and therefore end current power structures by relocalizing just about everything we do. When those in power reach that conclusion they stick their heads back in the sand and hope that someone will find a mystery formula to replace oil, not to save humanity, but to save the ‘business as usual’ that is so detrimental to us all. I am under no illusion as to the radical nature of the transition movement. However, I do not predict that this will be a problem, as although our vision of a post oil future may seem a bit extreme at the moment, as the consequences of Peak Oil become more obvious to everyone, they will look to this movement, be glad of the foundations we have laid and join us. I don’t think that the transition movement will be just a fringe movement for any more than five years.

Subversive? Please. Solar-powered capitalism is still capitalism.

People have joined Transition Town Lewes for many different reasons, the least of which is to be subversive. But as we go along I think the implications of what we are doing, as well as the potential power of powering down dawns on us and inspires us to be more creative.

We’re all on a steep learning curve and one conversation leads to another. Being subversive hadn’t really occurred to me before you mentioned it, but I do like and use the idea from Relocalisation Network that we are creating a parallel public infrastructure.

I am glad that this question has come up. Most politicians will not like the outcome of the Transition movement as they will lose their powers and the govt will lose its tax revenues. Housing could become a problem as people lose their incomes and can’t afford the mortgage or rent. There are many more issues of social security and services that this movement will have look at and come up with answers.
I have talked with people who agree with the peak oil movement and see that the Transition movement will be the best way forward, but they haven’t realised the extent of the changes needed.
Alternative energy sources such as solar are great at the moment but how much is their manufacture dependent on oil?

Pete and others here are mistaken in thinking that Transition Towns alone can do the trick. There is I am afraid one critically important respect in which this bold hope could not possibly come true. It is this:
The Transition Towns movement alone cannot save us, because, within the existing economic system, some communities reducing their use of fossil fuels is received by everyone else as a price signal that it is OK to use even more fossil fuels. I.e. For every litre of petrol that (say) Totnes does not use, everyone else in Britain is very slightly incentivised to use more petrol, by the price not going up as much as it otherwise would.
Transition Towns alone can only function as demonstration projects. They show what is possible. That is a very important role. But in order for them to be part of a movement of movements that actually reduces overall use of fossil fuels, legislation is needed. Legislation that enforces lower overall use of fossil fuels (e.g. through carbon rationing), and/or that forces everyone to try to become a transition town.
That is why I strongly believe that both local action and political commitment are required. Unless we force political change, then Rob Hopkins’s vision of how why might make a transition to a saner future will remain a fantasy or a myth, rather than the reality we absolutely desperately need it to become.
In other words: something like the Green Party’s political programme needs to be brought in, complementarily to Transition Towns, in order for the eco-revolution that we all seek to take place.

In reply to Rupert (and others):

I agree that Transition initiatives are, in the end, subversive. I also think that this does not really occur to most people who join them! Like most cultural changes, major political parties and decision makers will only take notice of them when a significant proportion (say 1-2%) of the population are actively involved at some level. Even at the current rate of growth, that is still a few years off.

Rupert is to a degree correct about fuel prices – every person who reduces use voluntarily reduces total demand for oil products, so slightly reduces the world price. Realistically, even if 1 million people in Britain eliminated their oil use entirely, the reduction in world oil prices (which depend on total WORLD demand), would be immeasurably small and make no difference to the oil use of others. The difference to UK demand would only show up as a slight reduction in balance of payments deficit – i.e. might make public spending cuts a bit less severe.

As for legislation, the sort Rupert proposes I think could only be brought in by a Green Party government, or if there were a severe crisis (e.g. Greenland ice breaking up, precipitous fall in oil production – these might happen by 2020). In the mid-1980’s I was briefly in the Green Party, which had just changed its name from the Ecology Party. That was the last time there was surge in environmental concern amongst the general public and basically they blew the chance to have real influence. I can’t see it being different now. In fact we’re now in the bizarre situation where the Conservatives are seen to be the greenest party!

So I conclude that the changes needed will only come from the bottom up through Transition and similar initiatives. Progress in many cities and deprived urban areas will be a struggle, but after a number of years of oil production decline more reluctant communities will be almost forced to adopt transition-like strategies in order to survive as our current lifestyle arrangements crumble.

I think the transition towns movement needs to be as flexible as possible, and not to define itself as something that has to be subversive because the national or local government do not share or implement their low-carbon views. The political scene is changing very fast, and local government is also accelerating its role as a sustainable advisor and implementer for their communities. Different local authorities are at different stages and we should not wait for them to get to where they need to go, but we should recognise, support and coordinate with them where views and/or purpose is in common.

I think transition towns is creating something which we seem to have lost in our society, and that is a well coordinated third sector. If we are to create a sustainable society it will rely on the public, private and voluntary sectors realising each others strengths and weaknesses and the need to work together. Transition Towns should not seek to start running the entire social service system or providing all communal heat and power requirements or even all transportation systems. Transition Towns is about enabling a transition through “unlocking the collective genius of the community”, something which our bureaucratic public bodies and self-interested private bodies have forgotten.

I’m certain that politics will come to Transition Towns just as Peak Oil is coming to all of us, and the question is, can TT “morph” to continue “under the radar” as Rob Hopkins puts it? Things are going to trigger political events, bit by bit, as prices start to rise and the weakest areas start to show up. We have already seen bare shelves abroad. Who is keeping the best imaginative finger on this pulse?

Not many people realize the point at which the present system of democratic government really bit in, through the reign of Queen Anne. Surviving a century of infighting, she sat extremely long hours with the newly formed “Cabinet” in order to play both extremes against the middle, to ensure a future “progress” through having two distinct but balanced “legs” with which to walk forward. Before her, there was nothing but the idiosyncracies of monarchs; after her, there was nothing but Parliament. For that time, this solution was perfect.

Of course, one can go further back. The origins of our “progress” thinking are ancient.

It’s good to understand where we are, how we got here, in order to envision and inspire where we want to go. No accident that Churchill also wrote the classic “History of the English-Speaking Peoples” – nor that the visionary pioneer Sir George Trevelyan was closely related to G M Trevelyan the great historian.

Just some early thoughts…

the point of the transition movement is not to save fossil fuels but to provide community support and a way of life for when fossil fuels, first oil which is our most important at the moment, becomes uneconomic to sustain and runs out.

Britain is the only major EU country without Green Party representation in parliament and I suspect this is relevant as to why the transition movement has originated in the UK. Greens here have been essentially marginalised by a political system that is fundamentally corrupt and concentrates power at a very high level.

To say the Green Party “blew it” is way over the top given the forces that conspire against smaller parties in the UK.