“The answer to the #climatecrisis is community, not CO2” – New ideas on saving the planet

This is the ninth and summarizing perspective on the #climatedilemma derived from a workshop conducted by #TheDive.com in March 2020 in Berlin. If you are interested also in the eight other perspectives which we reviewed at this workshop, you can find them here:

 I. “It`s a fact” - The Scientific Perspective on #Climatechange

(https://www.dhirubhai.net/pulse/fight-flight-freeze-eight-perspectives-tim-riedel/)

 II. “It scares me” – Between #climatefear and #climatehysteria (https://www.dhirubhai.net/pulse/ii-scares-me-between-climatefear-climatehysteria-tim-riedel/)

 III. “Time to act” – Here is what we need to reverse #climatechange

(https://www.dhirubhai.net/pulse/iii-time-act-here-what-we-need-do-reverse-tim-riedel/)

 IV. “It`s too late” – The #climateapocalypse is coming anyway

(https://www.dhirubhai.net/pulse/iv-its-too-late-climateapocalypse-coming-anyway-tim-riedel/)

 V. “We are having the wrong conversation” – The solution is beyond #climateactivism

(https://www.dhirubhai.net/pulse/we-having-wrong-conversation-solution-climatechange-beyond-tim-riedel/?published=t)

 VI. “It`s the economy, stupid!” - The business case and the “free-rider dilemma” in #climateprotection

(https://www.dhirubhai.net/pulse/its-economy-stupid-business-case-free-rider-dilemma-tim-riedel/?published=t)

 VII. “The Climate Change Conspiracy” – Tracing the ideological foundations of #climatechangedenialism

(https://www.dhirubhai.net/pulse/climate-change-conspiracy-tracing-ideological-tim-riedel/?published=t)

 VIII. “The absurdity of a double life” – Reframing the relevance of individual #climateaction https://www.dhirubhai.net/pulse/absurdity-double-life-reframing-relevance-individual-tim-riedel

In this final article, I will summarize the findings of the eight perspectives above, and sketch out the solutions they point to. I will try to give answers to the two main question which were driving us in that workshop in March 2020:

1) Why are we still ruining the planet, and what do we need to do differently as climate activists in order to reverse this ongoing self-destruction?

2) How can we find a sustainable and hopeful position with regard to Climate Change ourselves as individuals, given the fact that our climate future looks grim, and daily news are more often frustrating and discouraging than positive?

Discussing and then writing down these eight views on Climate Change turned out to be an extremely valuable journey in order to come to terms with these two questions.

But before we start, let us dive into an illustrative exercise to set the frame for this summary: Imagine you are from Mars and you just finished your anthropology studies. Your first research project takes you to Earth in the year 2020. What will you find? Among many other things you will find:

- People destroying wonderful rainforests (36 football fields per minute) so that other people on the other side of the planet can eat burgers,

- Hunters who kill the greatest and rarest mammals so that others can use their skins, furs or teeth as decoration,

- A distribution of wealth in which 1% of people own as much as the bottom 50% - and who find this quite normal,

- Fantastic medicine that costs almost nothing, but is artificially made so expensive that large parts of humanity cannot afford them,

- A business logic directed not primarily at creating products to meet peoples` needs, but instead of creating needs to buy existing products,

- Exciting advances in productivity and innovation, but none of which over the last 40 years being used to reduce people's working hours,

- Tremendous investments in order to reduce manual labor further through automation and digitization, while fearing nothing more than unemployment,

- Macroeconomic metrics in which a heart attack, a traffic accident or an oil spill increase wealth and prosperity, but a healthy pedestrian, clean air, or a beautiful songbird do not,

- A work environment where just 15% of all employees worldwide are "engaged" (Gallup), while 41% believe that their average coworker is "not happy at all" at work.

- Brilliant inventions, beautiful songs and lyrics, or astute scientific analysis, deliberately withheld from much of society as "intellectual property",

- Organizations that have the same goal and complementary skills in the same market, but rather than working together trying to drive the others out of the competition,

- Governments that have handed over control of the money to private banks, and are now begging for understanding if they want some of it back to keep the communities functioning,

- Managers and heads of states who actively and consciously destroy our planet, even though they know that we have just this one,

- Billions of people who see no economic alternative for themselves but to help those managers and Heads of States doing so,

- 15,000 children under the age of 5 dying every day (5.6 million per year), the vast majority of them from hunger, simple diseases and lack of hygiene, and no one preventing it,

- At the same time almost 2 billion people worldwide suffering from obesity, and 11 million deaths each year due to tobacco and alcohol consumption,

- And almost no government committees existing, no newspaper editorials, no scientific symposiums, no business conferences who seriously ask themselves for the structural reasons of this insanity and for possible alternatives to it.

You could never go back to Mars with a story like this, no one would believe you under any circumstances. And yet it is true!

What does this exercise tell us? The crisis we are witnessing is far beyond a climate crisis. It is a fundamental crisis of how our societies and economies are organized. So the solutions must be on that level, too.

The Corona pandemic has made the shortcomings and irrationalities of our current system even more evident: Our global capital in terms of food, housing, energy, available goods, education, health systems, infrastructure etc. was almost untouched by the virus. As societies, we had as much of all that as before, at least in the industrialized countries and on a global scale. To the contrary, when looking at the true wealth of our lives and looking not only at our means for subsistence, but also at other valuable assets such as nature, time with family, or clean air, we even got substantially richer.

Nonetheless, the Corona crisis brought us – and is still bringing us further at the time of writing - into the deepest economic crisis since the Second World War, forcing millions into poverty, hunger, homelessness, and despair. The resources were still there. But the individual access to these resources, which we organize through money, was severely interrupted, and for many it was cut.

The climate crisis is not a climate crisis. #Globalwarming is just a symptom. There could be abundance of everything we need in this world. There is no reason to destroy our planet for our survival and a good life. We make resources scarce by intentionally limiting access to them. But now, perhaps, the danger of a climate collapse is such an existential symptom that it can force us into true and comprehensive changes to the better as a whole.

So when giving answers to the two questions about Climate Change raised above, we have to make sure that we give answers to the heart of the problem and not just its symptoms. In addition, we have to take care to address the problem and provide solutions in a way that is helpful and connected to our lives. The answers must be helpful in two ways: Helping to understand the structure of the problem. And providing realistic options for addressing and ultimately solving it.

> What is their claim?

So what`s my claim after reviewing these eight perspectives? Briefly rehearsed, the findings of the eight viewpoint are:

I. The scientific perspective:

It`s bad. We are running severe risks of irreversible and self-accelerating climate changes, jeopardizing the livelihood of many, possibly all human beings. We are already seeing it happening, and it will get a lot worse. We therefore must take action now, and this action must be powerful, serious and all-encompassing. We have perhaps 8-10 more years of time for substantial climate action, then it will be too late.

II. The perspective of climate fear:

We are afraid of these risks, and we are even more afraid since we don`t seem to be able to do anything about them. This anxiety makes us emotional and unstable. The intuitive reactions to this fear are basic and individually different: Fight (either fight climate change, or fight climate activists), Flight (run away from the problem and work on anything else, but not the cause), or Freeze (do nothing and hope it will pass). Often we show all three types of reactions at the same time.

III. The solution side:

We can still fix the problem if we act strongly, jointly and immediately. In order to do so, we have to reduce Greenhouse Gas emissions into the atmosphere (e.g. through renewable energy sources, carbon free materials and through substantially reducing meat and dairy consumption), and simultaneously remove existing Greenhouse Gases from the atmosphere (e.g. through regenerative agriculture and restoration of forests, soils, marine ecosystems and wetlands).

IV. The apocalyptic position:

We have already passed the point of no return. “Social collapse is inevitable, catastrophe is likely, extinction is possible” (Bendell). Accepting this truth allows us to prepare for the worst, while not necessarily giving up to hope for the best. Facing possible extinction then allows us to ask ourselves the most important question: How do we actually want to live, given that life as we have known it can no longer be taken for granted? How do we want to use the time we have?

Hence, this position does not advocate an attitude of indifference, inaction and irresponsibility. In contrast, it calls for better preparation for a world of social disorder, and it calls for a deeper reflection on how we want to organize our lives here and now. Instead of putting all of our energy into chasing a target which has become a phantom and illusion, we should invest our resources in something we can reach: resilience (limiting the consequences of climate change), relinquishment (purposefully deciding what to give up, instead of being forced to), and restoration (revitalizing skills and tools and ways of life which we used to know and which will help us to survive in a world of social collapse). Bendell calls this the “Deep Adaptation” agenda. It includes reducing Greenhouse Gas emissions and restoring our natural resources, since this will both improve our resilience and help to revitalize important assets we had access to in the past. While many fear this perspective, since it seems to imply evasion of the problem, it means in fact the opposite: Only by opening our eyes to the danger we are in, we put ourselves in a position for meaningful action.

V. The comprehensive view:

Climate change is not the real problem. The real problem is the systematic destruction of all our natural resources (soils, plants, water, biodiversity) through our economic system, which is focused on quantity (making money) instead of quality (improving life). The planet has fever, but fever is only a symptom; the cause of the disease lies deeper.

If the rest of nature were to remain intact, it could possibly absorb a lot more of our Greenhouse Gas emissions than we can imagine. In contrast, if we further destroy nature by focusing on the reduction of Greenhouse Gases alone – e.g. through large dams and hydropower-stations, or through chemically fertilized biodiesel monocultures – we will further kill what we wish to preserve.

We will therefore not solve the climate crisis just by exchanging one (fossil) fuel source with another (renewable) one. And we will also not solve it by creating financial incentives for destroying less nature. We will only solve it if we overcome the ruling paradigms of separation, of quantitative growth, of control, and of the human ascent over nature, and reach a self-conception of interbeing instead. As human beings, we are connected with and part of the whole, and therefore have to treat everything else – humans, animals, plants, water, soils - as sacred out of their own right. Every harm we are doing to them, even to our opponents in our fight against climate change, is something we are in the end doing to ourselves.

VI. The business case:

There is a business case in climate protection for states, for companies, and for individuals. Even if we did not care about the planet and the future of its inhabitants, it would make business sense to act sustainably just from a pure management standpoint.

As a state, the first country to successfully complete the transformation of its power generation and production systems to a truly circular and planet positive model will have a head start and a competitive advantage in the new era. Period.

As a company, renewable energy sources offer an abundant, inexpensive, decentral and stable power supply without precedent. Circular production processes provide an almost undepletable wealth of material, while new sharing and “products as a service” models help to retain customers and to protect margins. Both approaches mitigate price, supply and environmental risks. Not the least, the brand towards customers, employees and applicants will strongly benefit from a purpose driven business model.

As an individual, living in a planet friendly way will reduce costs for housing and transport as well as for many other high quality products which are produced, serviced and refurbished in a completely circular manner. In addition, it will help us to refocus on the quality instead of the quantity of life. What is essential for making us happy? What are happy moments composed of, and how are those ingredients related to Greenhouse Gas emissions? Barely.

VII. The ideological foundations:

Apart from just fear, the denial of climate change and the refusal to take action is correlating significantly with a right-wing, conservative ideological opposition to the changes incurred by modern times. The uncertainties and ambiguities of globalization, coming along with disintegrating societal structures, roles and norms, challenge the assumed entitlements and privileges of mainly white, male, and Christian segments of Western societies. These perceived threats are answered by deeply longing for “the old times” to be preserved, while fiercely opposing any substantial transformation of the status quo. And Climate Change is a major challenge to the status quo.

The answer to this ideological calling is not facts about the risks of #globalheating, and it’ s not advocating multilateral carbon trading and reduction schemes. The answer to this perceived jeopardy of a large and powerful social group is acknowledgement and listening, it`s playing on the themes they care about (like national wellbeing or independence), and it`s jointly establishing a new common ground. This is certainly a difficult path; but there is no other.

VIII. The relevance of individual climate action:

The truth about climate change is hard to sustain. Accepting that our lives are in danger, that it will happen at some unknown time in the future, that we are causing this danger ourselves with our lifestyles, and that no one seems to have a solution for reducing this danger, causes an unbearable cognitive dissonance. We can only react to it with any one combination of psychological defense mechanisms, like denial, compensation, projection, suppression, or others.

However, these defense mechanisms are socially organized, so they can also and only be socially escaped, in groups and together with others. We therefore have to mutually turn the negative messages of distance, doom, dissonance and a threatened identity into positive messages of closeness, hope, connection, and appreciation. Individual climate action has no measurable impact on global Greenhouse Gas emissions; but it is a powerful tool to create a social momentum for change. Instead of talking about something very negative and unescapable which is happening to us in climate collapse individually, we should therefore talk about something very positive and impactful which we can do for a better climate collectively.

This is the essence of the eight perspectives. What are the answers they provide to the two questions laid out above? How does each of them help us to deal with the climate threat, and what are the new solutions they point to?

Before answering those questions, let us first remind ourselves of what has been done so far to reverse global warming. To phrase it in a mildly accentuated form:

Businesses have minded their business as usual. Politicians have tried to keep their electorate happy, and the vested interest groups they are affiliated with. Climate Activists and scientists have tried to alarm the public by displaying the scientific facts and depicting the dangers we are in. Citizens have taken sides whom they believe, but the climate behavior of either side did not differ much. There has been change in the climate system, but not enough to reverse any of its destructive trends.

Surely, we have been seeing the speed of change accelerating lately. Renewable energies have become cheaper than electricity from fossil sources. The effects of Climate Change (droughts, record temperatures, ice loss, floods, hurricanes, migration, resource wars, etc..) have become increasingly visible. Investors have begun putting pressure on and shifting their money away from companies depending on fossil resources. Our children have started joining collective climate protection movements like Fridays for Future, Extinction Rebellion, or the Sunrise Movement; now they are showing us vividly what we are doing to those whom we care the most about: destroying their future. The transformation towards a climate friendly society has picked up.

Yet the resistance of the “old system” is strong. The climate projections based on the political and business decisions that are made today will take us way beyond 3-4 degrees C. global warming until the end of the century, possibly – due to climate tipping points – even further (source: Scientists For Future). The negative climate trends described in the scientific perspective of this paper have not been reversed yet. Political decision making is indecisive at best. It would be na?ve to trust that the current business transition and more political agenda setting will do the job on their own. We have to do more.

And this is the point where conventional climate arguing usually gets off track. Do more and faster. How can we possibly do more and faster? And what will we achieve if we do? If we keep doing the same things, but harder, the effect will be the same, only with yet more fatigue. A nice quote which has falsely been attributed to Albert Einstein (in fact the source is unknown) goes: “Insanity Is Doing the Same Thing Over and Over Again and Expecting Different Results.”

We don`t have to do more. We have to do less. But differently. Each of the eight perspectives described above has provided valuable insights into the lock-in effects we have created for ourselves, each one of them holding us back from acting differently. They have pointed at solutions to the climate crisis which have not been in the center of attention up to now. What do these lock-in effects look like?

I. We are locked in by science in three ways:

1. We should not be deceived by the fact that this time science has taken the side of nature. It was our belief in science and technology that has brought us here in the first place. We will not turn around Climate Change by using the same tools that have caused it. Instead of using science to dominate and control nature, we should use it to observe, learn and compliment better the natural self-sustaining and self-repairing processes. We should employ our scientific means to adjust and integrate our human activities more organically into those of the planet.

2. The scientific system, like any other system, is a circularly created system which follows our beliefs. We innovate what we ask for, we analyze what we know about, and we measure what we assume to be important. Those who challenge climate science therefore have a point that “our” data are also possibly flawed, our findings are generated with an agenda in mind, and our arguments are deliberately polished in order to support the decisions we believe in. Instead of debating data, we should therefore focus on our intentions and be humble about the fact that there is a lot which we do not know.

3. Climate science may be wrong after all, or it may be partially mistaken. It may overestimate climate tipping points. It may underestimate the regenerative capacities of the oceans, soils, grasslands, or microbacteria. It may overlook reverse dynamics. It may misjudge the relevance of a rising temperature compared to the importance of the water cycle. We simply cannot know for sure. “Toxic positivity” based on our trust in technology will stall our initiative in the same way as continuously alarming the public based on disastrous climate scenarios. Science cannot tell us whether to have more hope or more fear, and science will not drive us to act. Climate action will have to come from our attitudes and from our relations with the world.

II. We are locked in by fear of climate change on one hand, and by fear of life change on the other. But fear makes us tight and want to hold on, to keep control. Holding on to the way how we have created a dysfunctional world, however, will maintain its dysfunctionality. So we have to let go and gain trust. Trust that we cannot predict what will happen, but that it can turn out well, if – and only if - we dare to try something new. 

III. We are locked in by our focus on Greenhouse Gas emissions. Surely CO2, Methane Nitrous Oxide and Ozone play an important role in shaping our climate. But what about all the other nine planetary boundaries which human activity is stressing and in many cases already exceeding? How are they interconnected with the climate, and how threatening to our livelihood are they on their own?

Source: futureearth.org

By focusing solely on Climate Change we run the risk of agreeing to trade-offs which create more harm than what they solve.

 IV. We are locked in by a tunnel-view of the ultimate target we are pursuing. By claiming the reversal of global warming or nothing, we blind ourselves to the comprehensiveness of the problem, we overburden our sphere of influence, and we distract ourselves from the diversity of potential solutions. The climate crisis is not the only important crisis in the world. And the climate crisis cannot only be solved, or not solved, but most likely it will be “somewhat solved”. So we have to look at protecting and improving the quality of our lives in total. The more severe the climate crisis may become, the more important it will be to maintain a well-functioning society. And despite the hurry we feel, this will not be a sprint, but a long distance run. We must be careful not to overpace. Sustainability starts with the way we treat ourselves.

V. We are locked in by our system of moneymaking. In our current financial system, money is created by private banks, issued as credit and debt, received as loans in order to finance commercial activities, repaid with interest. That is the reason why most of us work in the private sector, and why salaries there can be substantially higher than in the public sphere. Because that is, where the money is.

There is no money in the public sphere out of its own right. Nature, in our system, has no value itself, unless we exploit it and turn it into sellable products. Money which we spend on protecting and improving nature, or on investing into social systems and infrastructure, has to be retrieved from the private sector through taxes and fees first, before it can then be redistributed or invested in public goods.

This system makes nature exposed and vulnerable in three ways:

Firstly, the only way to make money in the primary (private) sector is through commercial activities, which all of them in the end are derived from turning natural resources (energy, materials, soils, animals, plants) into sellable products and services.

Secondly, the money spent on nature has to be taken away from those who “earned it” through their commercial activities first, which immanently entails resistance and conflict, which ultimately those “with the money” have a better chance to win.

Thirdly, since it costs money to use money (we have to pay interest rates on our loans), there is an inherent pressure to create more money out of existing money by producing growth. Without growth, our current economic system is almost impossible to sustain. More growth, however, means turning more natural resources into sellable products.

The solution to climate change therefore lies beyond climate change and beyond individual efforts to behave better. It is not lack of knowledge, nor greed or moral decay which puts money before nature, but the economic system itself. We can therefore only overcome the destruction of the planet if we change our fundamental perception of how money works and how it should be treated.

VI. We are locked in by a narrow perception of the business case. Protecting the climate is usually associated with increased costs, lower returns and sacrifices in terms of prosperity and consumption. The opposite is true. If we analyze the business case in a more comprehensive and more long-term manner, every argument speaks in favor of a planet friendly business behavior. And even in a very linear and short term analysis it is often not the business case, but rather our habits, our ideology and our behavioral inertia that keep us from doing the right thing. 

VII. We are locked in by our story of separation and control. Throughout our history of the last few thousand years, and largely accelerated since the industrial revolution, we have been telling ourselves that human beings are on this planet to control it. Quantitative growth, military might, and technological advances have accompanied this story of the human ascent over nature. This story has come to an end now. Our planet has reached its limits, our story has turned out to be a dead end street. We now have to start telling ourselves a different story, one of interbeing, grooming, balance and connectedness. It is very hard to let go of the old story, though, especially for those who have benefitted from it the most.

VIII. We are locked in by our idea of fighting climate change as individuals. We like to believe that individual politicians, individual managers and individual consumers can stop global warming by taking different decisions. However, the system creates itself. We are social beings, always trying to live up to the expectations which we expect others to have in us. “There is no one driving the bus” (Eisenstein). We can only turn this around collectively, by creating system-changing social dynamics. A crisis as deep and severe as the climate crisis shakes up the boundaries, structures and barriers of the system. We now have the chance to take advantage of this crisis and the imbalances it creates, pushing the center of gravity in a group effort, trying to tip over the system and to create a better one.

> What is their call for action?

How do we now escape those boxes? What can we do differently in order to reverse global warming?

The first level actions necessary against Climate Change are all described in the third perspective of this paper. They are basically the same for individuals and companies alike: Install and purchase renewable energy, reduce meat and dairy products, switch fossil technologies for heating, transport and manufacturing to electrical ones, transform to a fully circular economy, reduce travel and shipping, replace inorganic with organic materials, rethink building, landscape and city design, -technologies and -material, switch to regenerative agriculture, protect and restore forests, soils, rivers and wetlands. The winning formula can be taken from the circular economy, they call it ReSOLVE: Regenerate, Share, Optimize, Loop, Virtualize, Exchange (Source below: Stuchtey et al.: “A good disruption”).

These are the “conventional answers” about what to do. It`s not that difficult. The solutions are all there. Please use them.

However, on a societal level it is obviously more complex, as we have seen in these eight perspectives. If it were really this easy for us, we would be doing it. We need to individually and politically achieve a complete transformation of our societies towards an immanently planet friendly lifestyle, and we need to achieve it despite the obstacles and resistances analyzed above. In order to achieve that, we have to transcend the lock-ins we have created for ourselves, we have to leave our boxes. To do so, we should focus on four interconnected themes which lie below the climate surface: Money, Community, Purpose, and Trust.

Money

As we have seen above, the dynamics for the destruction of nature are largely immanent to the way how we create and treat money.[1]

The solution to this “money dilemma” does not lie in expropriating the private sector and abolishing capitalism, though. Apart from many other reasons why not to suggest that, the basic assumption of what money is and where it comes from is no different in communist states than in capitalist ones. Economist John Kenneth Galbraith once paraphrased that nicely by saying: “Under capitalism, man exploits man. Under communism, it's just the opposite.”

The solution instead is to maintain the capitalist assumption of ownership, individual freedoms and economic initiative, but to strip money of its function to store value in this system. Generally it is assumed that money serves three functions: 1) As a medium of exchange (a trading tool), 2) as a unit of account (a price tag), 3) as storage of value (a container for future spendings). Only the third function allows those who possess it to "make more money out of money".

In contrast to the eternal cycle of nature (all other natural assets become rotten, rusty, slow, out fashioned, dysfunctional and diminishing as they grow older), money does not only maintain its value over time, it even increases it through interest rates. It therefore makes sense to hoard money for two reasons: A) Money is the most practical and convenient source of saving power to purchase anything anytime later. B) Since those without money have to pay money for being allowed to use it (by paying interest rates on loans), those who possess money can increase it without investing any further work.

This is the reason why money transformed from being a tool, to trade with each other more effectively, to becoming an end in itself. If money, like any other asset, would lose its value over time, we would use it not to make more money (e.g. by chopping down a forest and making money out of it), but to maintain something of real value, and use it wisely over time so that its value increases. Possessing money would be an elusive advantage; as time goes by, nothing would remain. Possessing a forest, in contrast, would make business sense, and it would make even more sense to groom and improve it over time, and to use it only as much as it regenerates itself.

Hoarding money would not make much sense any more then. Making more money than you need would become very unattractive. Quantitative growth would not be needed any more, since any money borrowed over time would lose its value, hence it can be repaid with the same amount or even with less money.

This may seem like a totally unrealistic scenario, but in fact there are various ways how to get there, and we are seeing many of them already taking place or being seriously discussed:

Negative interest rates on loans (returning less money than you borrowed), restrictions to ownership of ground and natural resources, increased government spending based on debts or on creating its own money, increased taxation on wealth, reduced taxation (or no taxation at all) on income, increased taxation on the usage of natural resources, and a social dividend (Universal Basic Income) for everybody regardless of work.

In such a framework, money is back to its original function of a tool, a technology, not a target. It may appear to be complete nonsense to think that we can transform our monetary systems in that way. But in the end it is a choice how we design money, not natural science.

The economic dynamics today already point in that direction. We already have examples of negative interest rates in Europe and of wealthy zero growth economies sustained only by debt based government spending in Japan. The idea of a Universal Basic Income has been widely discussed and supported for a long time, not the least facing further automation in our manufacturing processes and through this challenging our conventional social security systems. There are restrictions already in place on how we use buildings (to protect renters) or companies (to protect employees). The argument that “capital would be fleeing the country” in such a system would not count, since the real capital would not be money any longer. Trees, rivers, soils, rails & roads, hospitals, well-functioning social systems, or educated, healthy and motivated citizens don`t flee. It is completely doable, if we choose. It is necessary.

According to Stuchtey et al., however, only 6% of the European tax base today is derived from environmental taxes (that is taxing the use of natural resources), while 51% come from charging labour and social contributions, 21% from taxing capital income and 22% from taxing consumption. Only four European countries even have a tax on wealth. In such a system, it is no surprise that the unconditional exploitation of nature continues, and that average citizens have no alternative other than to play along.

Now these proposals are policy proposals which we can influence (only) as voters, party members, or in demonstrations and campaigns. What can we do individually in this regard?

We can localize our economies and withdraw economic transactions from the money cycle. This can happen by issuing local currencies, and through non-monetary trading as in community supported agriculture, bartering circles, or just mutual communal, neighborhood, and family support. The legal infrastructure of most societies somewhat impedes such strategies to informalize our economies, pushing such activities to the verge of illegal employment, or tax and social security evasion, as soon as the official currency is involved. However, it is not illegal to barter, it is not illegal to share, it is not illegal to give presents, and it is not illegal to help each other. Much of this kind of informal economies is totally legal, or at least legally unknown territory. Therefore, if we can follow such a pirate-approach of degrowing the official economy while growing our community base and community happiness, we should go for it. It would be climate action.

Apart from that, we cannot escape the necessity to earn money and to “make a living” in the official world. The only thing we can do is to adjust our own understanding of money, and how we deal with it. If we can afford it, we can work for a good cause without money, or for less money. If we have excess time or money, we can donate it to projects we believe in to create a better world.

In fact, this is already happening everywhere. People working on open source projects, artists openly making their work available, entrepreneurs turning their companies into a public good, all of us helping our neighbors and friends with their shopping or renovation, volunteers investing countless hours in social, political or environmental projects. Because this is where our heart is, and where we see purpose in what we do. All of that is climate action.

Of course it is highly unfair and it can be demoralizing to witness how much money is readily spent for destroying the planet, while it is so much harder to earn money for saving it. That is why in the long run we have to change that system. Political action is one approach. Another way to change it, is to boycott it from within, whenever we can afford it, and just not use it. As soon as we see that we are many doing so, we will create the system changing momentum we need.

Money is not a target in its own right. Money is a useful tool in order to organize our lives and transactions, so that we all benefit. If it is not producing the results we want, we have to change how we use it. In order to so, we first have to change how we perceive it.

On the way there, it is ok to play by the rules of the existing system and still try to change and undermine it wherever we can. That`s not hypocritical, but without alternative for most of us. We needn`t feel bad about it. When it comes to money, we have to do both: Conform to the current system as much as we must, and try to change it as much as we can.

Community

Community will become the decisive factor in our strife against climate change, in our strife to stop destroying nature, and in our strife to improve the quality of our lives. The term “community” in the sense of this article encompasses any kind of group level structure, be it a village, a suburb, a neighborhood, the inhabitants of a house or a bloc, employees of a company or a division or subsidiary of a company, members of a club, fans of a band, professional associations, or the like.

Why will they have such an impact?

CO2 Reduction

On the most obvious level, more community orientation will mean saving CO2 by reducing travel, commutes and shipping, by increasing sharing opportunities (hence having to produce less products), by creating a new hubs for decentral and renewable power generation, or by improving heating and cooling because of more climate friendly city planning and building design.

CO2 Removal

On the other hand, communities will have more incentives and better opportunities to engage in local urban and regenerative agricultural and gardening initiatives and to improve local parks, woods, soils, lakes and landscapes, all of which helping to strengthen the natural resilience of our planet and to remove CO2 from the atmosphere. 

Monetary Degrowth

In addition, communities can more easily organize their economic transactions outside of the growth dependent official currency cycle, looking after children or elderly people for each other, growing their own food, helping with education and small repairs, exchanging and sharing used clothes, lawn mowers or power tools, cooking for each other, etc…

Social Momentum

Not the least, as we have seen in the 8th perspective, we cannot solve the climate crisis as individuals. Communities can create a momentum for climate action which is near, hopeful, connected and appreciative. They can set examples and benchmarks for each other, and for other groups and communities. In companies and professional networks, they can generate a completely new sense of connection, climate efficacy and purpose by setting targets and implementing hands-on climate protection plans together. In clubs or associations, they can use their specific interests, talents and networks to work on those specific areas of climate protection which they want to focus on. While one group may work on replacing cement with wood or bamboo, others may immerse themselves in seeweed or algae cultivation, yet others might organize a financing scheme for replacing fossil heating and cooling with renewable electrical one. The only way we can reverse global warming is by doing it together.

Ideological reconciliation

As we have reviewed in the 7th perspective, a significant amount of resistance to climate action can be accounted to a right-wing ideological agenda in opposition to a modern, open and globalized world. These notions, as we discussed, can be reframed in favor of climate action on the basis of arguments like 1) regional income generation through decentral renewable energy, 2) improving energy independence from abroad, 3) gaining national technological leadership and economic competitiveness, 4) themes of “green patriotism” like preserving nature, woods, native animals and plants, 5) improving the quality of life, 6) reducing waste, 7) restoring community, or 8) breaking the power of multinational electricity and fossil corporations, 9) continuity and safety, 10) the simplicity of “a good life”, 11) local and practical concerns and solutions, 12) nostalgia, 13) balance, and 14) the shared desire to create a better future for our children.

All of these arguments are represented in community work. On top, the underlying fears by the right wing populist electorate of being “left behind” can largely be met through a community approach that by definition advocates togetherness, solidarity, mutual acknowledgement and appreciation

Resilience

As a further aspect, as described in the 4th perspective in the “Deep Adaptation Agenda” by Jem Bendell, the risks of a climate collapse are already materializing, and it is more than likely that they will get a lot worse. Working on both the physical and the social resilience of our societies should therefore be of high priority to Climate Action. Strengthening communities serves this target, as it establishes and strengthens structures and patterns of trust, solidarity and support. Moreover, it helps to build up self-sufficient networks which can produce their own energy, shelter and food even in times of a climate emergency or collapse.

The good life

The Climate Crisis, as we have outlined especially in the 5th perspective, is not just about excess Greenhouse Gas emissions. It is a symptom of a fundamental crisis of how we lead our lives and organize our societies, expressed by the systematic destruction of our natural resources. Reorganizing our interactions towards a more connected, sustainable and balanced structure therefore is the ultimate target we are pursuing beyond just reversing Climate Change.

Strengthening community, in that sense, bypasses the symptom and aims directly at the goal we essentially strive for: a good life. Leading, protecting and striving for a good and sustainable life is the target of Climate Action, it is one of the prime drivers for us to take action, and it is the most important tool for achieving it. By focusing on community, we nourish this theme and thereby push our motivation, our actions and our impact.

Connection to source

Lastly I would like to refer back to the sociologist Otto Scharmer and his “Theory U”, briefly described in the 7th perspective (to overcome ideology). One of Scharmer`s credos is that in order to create the best possible future, we have to be connected not only to each other, but also to our source. The whole “U”-process is designed to touch base with where we are coming from at the bottom of the U, so that from there we have access to our true intentions. It is like closing your eyes, taking a deep breath, touching your heart, and feeling within yourself a place of origin which tells you what really matters and where you need to go.

We humans are social beings. From the first day of our lives we are part of community which protects, feeds and warms us. We are on this planet to enjoy one another, to inspire each other and to relish our company. Focusing on and invigorating communities will help us to touch base with this source, which will in turn make it impossible to keep destroying it. Our true intention is to maintain and savor the beauty of our planet, which is the basis of our existence, not to waste it.

Purpose

Money and Community lead us directly to the third theme which we need to focus on in order to overcome the Climate Crisis: Purpose

Why are we on this planet? Why do we interact? Why do we found companies, and why do we go to work? What is it all for?

Every individual has his or her own calling, every organization does, too. And it is certainly not to make money. Money is the tool and the representative for what we really care about. For most of us this will be recognition, security, intimacy, adventure, the quality of our lives as individuals. Beyond that, most of us will want to make a difference, have an impact on others, and help to make the world a better place. Most of us want to be good people and do good things.

If we really lived by our purpose, there would be no Climate Change and no destruction of nature on our current scale. There would be so much more cooperation, with competition being reduced to a playful way of triggering positive excitement, effort and thrill. Of course this is far easier said than done. But the most fundamental thing we can do to reverse Climate Change is to find our purpose and to live by it.

Trust

The final element which deserves more attention below the climate surface is trust. Our core narrative as human beings, as we have depicted in the 5th and 7th perspective, is that of the human ascent over nature (Eisenstein), accompanied by our belief in separation and control. How does that go together? If we perceive ourselves as meant to rule the world, and we see ourselves as separate from it, then the world is an outside element which we are meant to control. That`s what the word “environment” literally means: Around us – we are not part of it. We see the world as an accumulation of meaningless matter, its only value (as measured in money) derived from the use it has to us.

So we create all our technologies and inventiveness to take advantage of and to control nature. The world is presumably hostile, so the biggest scare we have is that “things get out of control”. That is how we can destroy nature, treat animals like products, and tell ourselves that this is in line with our destiny.

The only escape route to that story is to let go. We cannot control the world, and we should not want to control the world. We should use our genius to enrich it, not to control it. But in order to let go, we have to develop trust.

Learning to let go of our drive to control requires us to trust. Learning to trust that things will turn out well, to trust that we are capable of finding solutions, to trust that nature is stronger than we think, to trust that mistakes can be made, and to trust each other, in that sense, is Climate Action.

This is not to be confused with “toxic positivity”. Things will not turn out better by themselves. We have to make an effort, and we may not be successful in our Climate Action. But if we keep fighting for control because we don`t trust one another, we are following exactly the same path that brought us here. As human beings, if we really want to reverse the destruction of our planet, we have to give in to the flow of life, to let go of our fears and to trust that life can be even more beautiful if we don`t control it.

> What is their underlying assumption?

My underlying assumption to these conclusions of the eight perspectives is plain and simple: Human beings, in their heart, are good. We feel the greatest kind of happiness and fulfillment when we put a smile on somebody else`s face. Deep down, we want to give and to enrich.

Whenever we are bad, we are doing so because we learned it that way, or because we are afraid. Often it is a combination of both. We have learned a pattern in the past which protects us from our fears.

So in order to do good things, we have to relearn, and to trust. In some ways we have to relearn to trust. Charles Eisenstein, from whom I took a great number of thoughts and inspirations in the course of this review, believes that humankind is currently in a state of adolescence, on the verge to adulthood. The growth process is coming to an end, and we are now entering a stage of balance, abundance and maturity. This transition inherently entails confusion, turbulence and inner conflict. But in the end, as adults, we will have learned to put our talents, which we have taken so much time to shape and develop, to a perfect use.

Taking this thought further, like any adult, we now have to learn that the fears of our childhood are not real any more. They are history. We can protect ourselves more easily now, since we are better equipped. Our protective reflexes based on our infant fears have become obsolete.

The whole story we are telling ourselves of the human ascent over nature, the story of separation and control is probably just a reaction to the fears we had of the threats of nature when we had nothing but furs and stone weapons to defend us. We are better equipped now. It is time to realize that.

> What is their positive and encouraging impetus?

The most positive, encouraging and exciting part of this learning journey on Climate Change is the fact that I have found answers to my two questions.

1. What do we need to do differently in order to be more successful in our battle against Climate Change?

2. How can I personally find a position of inner peace, sustainability and hope with regard to the topic, given that bad news and frustrating experiences will become inevitable companions of my new job?

In terms of Question 1, apart from the “Level One”-Climate Solutions as laid out in the 3rd perspective, my take aways are:

·      Focus on near, hopeful, connected and appreciative messages

·      Focus on strengthening community and joint action, achieving fast and tangible results

·      Focus on comprehensive interventions beyond just reducing Greenhouse Gas emissions

·      Choose climate actions that touch you and what your talents call for

·      Take people out and give them nature experiences, show them your love for life on this planet

·      Build up highly self-sustaining local or regional structures and networks

·      Support regenerative, community supported agriculture

·      Don`t always talk science, talk life and nature

·      Focus on purpose, ask for purpose, don`t shy away from the question: how is what I am doing, how is what you are doing, how is what we are doing contributing to making the world a better place?

·      Reframe ideology, talk about what we care about

·      Reframe the business case, talk about captivating your clients and protecting margins, mitigating risks and boosting the brand,

·      Stop fighting, start embracing – we are all part of the problem, and we can all be part of the solution

·      Undermine and localize the monetary system and support monetary degrowth wherever you can; vote and campaign for alternatives to making more money through money

·      Try to combine solutions on all level: e.g. strengthening community structures and purpose by engaging in meaningful climate action, like offering bicycle repairs with disadvantaged youth sponsored by a local company, or urban gardening with convicts trained by local farmers, or the like.

In terms of Question 2, from now on I will find hope, stability and comfort by telling me that:

·      It is not my responsibility to save the world

·      The solution is not black or white, but in fact quite colorful

·      We cannot win this by fighting

·      We cannot win this by following the path of fear

·      We are all part of the problem – no reason to feel guilty

·      The solution is to let go

·      We can be proud of what we achieved up to now

·      Resistance to Climate Action is usually not about Climate Action

·      Nobody really knows what will happen to the Climate

·      There is more to this planet than the Climate Threat

·      There are many good ways to fight Climate Change

·      We cannot create a new world by behaving as we did in the old world

·      I do what I can

·      My focus is to improve life

·      The Climate Collapse is a chance to build a fundamentally better world

·      If we don`t believe in it, it will not happen

·      If we want to save life because we love it, than we might as well enjoy it

·      Life always goes on

I will write these mantras into my memory and take them out whenever I feel desperate and frustrated about people not seeing what I see, not wanting what I want, and thereby apparently putting my future and the one of my children in danger. They are not. They are doing, what they can, too. My outrage will not help me, the planet, my children, nor my cause. I can let go and trust that this will do the trick.

Before closing this review, let me quote Charles Eisenstein one last time from the final page of his book “Sacred Economics” (retranslated into English from the German version by myself):

“I know that my generation [Eisenstein was born 1967] will live in an unimaginably more beautiful world within their lifetime. And it will be a world which will be improved further year on year. We will reforest the Greek Islands, which were cut bare more than 2,000 years ago. We will turn the Sahara desert back to the abundant grassland it once was. There will be no more prisons, and violence will be rare. At work, we will ask ourselves “How can I turn my talents into the most precious gifts?”, instead of “How can I make a living of it?”. … Our houses will be organic extensions of ourselves, and what we eat will be grown by people we know. We will use tools that have the highest quality humankind with all its talents can produce. We will live in a richness of intimacy and community that does not exist today. And for most of the time the loudest noises we hear will be the sound of nature and the laughter of our children.”

Too good to be true? Probably. But a world which we could have, if we used our talents and inventions and the richness of our planet as we could.

> What is their frustration potential, how do they draw from our sources of energy?

It seems strange to answer this question as the final part of this paper. It doesn`t make sense to close this article with a negative outlook. It`s a bit like spoiling everything I wrote by letting it end on a pessimist tune.

So I have decided not to answer this question. Afterall, we shouldn`t follow a pattern which does not make sense, only because we are used to it, right?

I hope you enjoyed reading my thoughts, and that they gave you some valuable insights, as they did to me. I look forward to seeing you out there!

Epilogue

Do you want to know what happened afterwards? Did we finally manage to stop the Climate Collapse? I had the chance to meet my granddaughter from seven generations past, and I asked her about it. Here is what she said:

How we managed to save the planet - a Message from my Granddaughter

[1] This line of thoughts largely draws on the works of Charles Eisenstein and his books “Climate” and “Sacred Economics”. It is also influenced by the Modern Monetary Theory as depicted by Stephanie Kelton in “The deficit myth” and summarized by Usman Chohan here: (https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=3569416).