Climate Change and Transition Towns

Although we don ' t have details yet of the government ' s Climate change (CC) bill it seems likely that it will have important and wide ranging effects on the social and economic landscape of the UK . The Transition Towns (TT) movement should take advantage of this as a strategy to extend the TT model. This paper is written in anticipation of having to make important decisions in how and with whom we work.

The reason I am posting this is that CC makes more sense to more people right now, and I am finding it an easier explanation of why we need TT. It also makes sense to local government, who will no doubt see a whole raft of regulation and initiatives, and grant aid available on a local level to make the UK less CO2 polluting.

For all practical purposes we are facing CC right now, as opposed to PO sometime in the future at a time and having a result that is impossible to quantify or confidently predict.* This bill effectively redraws our cultural assumptions and says that CC is happening and we will respond. It is akin to a Papal edict, all discussion on whether or not it is happening is over (there will always be some ‘noise’ such as the recent channel 4 program, luck for them we no longer burn heretics), and our economic and industrial system is going to be re-engineered. The governments announced bill, the full implications of which have yet to be recognised, places CC firmly on political agenda, with wide ranging implications for taxation, regulation, and grants and funding. This is of course making the assumption that the announced bill will deliver what it says on the box- real CO2 reduction in legally binding 5 year targets, and with the provision for targets to be increased if the science at some point down the line demands further reductions in CO2 (which if George Monbiot is right certainly will be).

The history of pollution legislation at least in recent years has been of a ‘market driven’ solution and the major result the cap and trade carbon emission scheme – or should I say swindle- operating in the EU. A good e book for those interested can be found at http://www.thecornerhouse.org.uk , its 362 pages be warned. This legislation seems to be primarily market driven at least in its draft from, so I am cautious. Then there is the issue of how the legislation gets transformed into action. For this legislation to be effective it will need to have a raft of carrots and sticks, and comprise some market mechanisms, perhaps a strengthening of the carbon trading scheme. It will require tradable energy quotas ala David Fleming (or some sort of personal carbon allowance), legislation regulating business and setting environmental standards, and regulating government itself, perhaps mandating local sourcing of food and other important essential items, and setting passive house standards for housing and building in general. It will also need grants to stimulate action and create viable industries, of whatever is needed.

So the up shot of my argument is that concrete action now is needed and called for and will be enshrined in law, and that is going to create a sea change in how we live and work. In fact there is even an argument that the sort of decreases in CO2 that will be needed won’t be achievable without viable, localised economies. This places TT in an enviable position. It seems to be very effective in creating a new vision or new story, which people really respond to –and it is still a new and little understood ‘technology’. TT will gain in effectiveness as we are better able to understand how it works and how to better make it work and refine it.

What all this means is that we in the TT movement work much more with government, obviously local, and as legislation becomes law it would seem that TT will help national government meet it’s CO2 reduction targets.
So we could be working with national government which may realise it will need to relocalise and TT might become and important strategy. It’s possible that it will be rolled out nationally as a way to make the changes necessary – even as government policy.

Would we want this?

That would mean that TT is an element of government policy and practice, and less of a grass roots movement, or it could do. It would mean less of a taking matters into our own hands and more of a getting it done from above. It might sap some of the creative power in the process. Some of the ideals that most of us share, social justice, equality, and an anti-multinational, business, and capitalism stance might be jettisoned, or weakened. Like I say I am just anticipating. Or do we want to remain independent or government? Does it have to mean some of our ideals are weakened if we work with government?

I have built up a heap of climate change contacts and I am sure other of us have some good contacts too. I am sure many environment organisations (and business too!!) are now hard at it lobbying the Department of the Environment to ensure the bill meets their criterion. Should we be in there too? Like I say we are at an opportune moment, and it may be the time to act. Remember TT has something that is really important – and is in short supply- vision.

And from Guardian 4.4.07:
The announcement is part of a strategy to encourage councils, businesses and households to take responsibility for tackling climate change. New homes and public buildings will have to be assessed and given a green rating - similar to the efficiency ratings covering electrical appliances - as the government moves towards its pledge to make all new homes zero-carbon by 2016. At present, domestic emissions account for a quarter of the country's total.
Ms Kelly will warn: "We can only succeed if we match local action alongside global agreement. The real action to implement steps to a low-carbon economy and society has to take place at community level. The local planning system should support efforts to tackle climate change rather than acting as a barrier.

Naresh

*In one way, the surity of knowledge that would come if we could know that we are truly at or very near peak oil is comforting. We would then be able to proceed on with an overarching known factor resolved. I contend that it will be many years before such a factor will be known and accepted by anyone who is not versed at all in the complexity of the world energy situation.
It will be very much a "surfing the change" environment of gluts, shortages, speculation, market runs, power shifts, technical and market breakthroughs, and "alarms" followed by "alls well" on such a repeated basis that the public at large is left with no really reliable price signal or source of information. Such is the world we live in. The only bet is to hedge every bet. www.Oildrum.com post 19.3.07