A short conversation with a CEO about sustainable transportation

This morning I accompanied an friend of mine on a visit to meet with a former CEO of a major corporation in the town where I live. The company shall remain nameless, because my arrival in his office was a surprise and I respect this CEO as an individual. My friend is the director of an environmental resource center in a beautiful and ecologically diverse rural area. He is seeking funds for improvements to the center, designed to make it self-sufficient in energy terms, and neutral in terms of carbon footprint. These improvements include installation of a geothermal heating system, a solar energy demonstration project, and a biomass electrical generation project. He was seeking financial support from the CEO.

The two of us had been participants in a day and a half long program on scenario planning, that asked participants to consider the natural, social, political, economic, cultural and technological future of southeastern Minnesota. The effect of all this long-term thinking was to make me see more clearly the how much hard work there is to do if we are to get off our currently destructive course.

Anyway, I went along on this friend's visit to the CEO to listen, and to make a short pitch for this man to play more of a leadership role in persuading businesses to consider more sustainable transportation for their employees. "What is sustainable transportation?" the CEO asked. We get so caught up in our own jargon that we forget how to communicate with people who work in wholly different realms of work. I explained that sustainable transportation was transportation that conserved the resource (gas, and energy), such as walking, bicycling, carpooling, and taking the bus. It could also include trains and other transit forms, and it could include employee benefits like a guaranteed ride home for the carpooling employee who has an emergency. I didn't want the CEO's money, I wanted his leadership in our community.

This man has the reputation as an ethical and visionary leader, but he admitted that he had never thought about taking any special steps to encourage employees to travel more sustainably, even though there are demonstrable bottom line benefits both for the business and the employee. For the business, the benefits are improved health (oh yeah, we have an obesity crisis!), improved employee retention (employees like to work at places that demonstrate transportation flexibility), relief of parking problems, and access to a more diverse labor force. For the employee, the benefits are saving money, building community within the company, improving health, and oh yeah, saving the environment.

Last fall when I organized a sustainable transportation campaign in our town, I called the executive director of the local Chamber of Commerce, to see if I could secure business participation in the campaign, for example through bike to work programs and so on. She stated that the Chamber was a membership organization, and its members weren't asking for this kind of program. As a community organizer, I guess I need to be willing to cold call one business at a time, and start to educate them about these transportation issues.

I don't know why I should be distressed or surprised by this reality: those of us who are outraged, inspired, or energized by the global warming situation, who feel moved to action by peak oil, the loss of migratory songbirds, the relentless march of invasive species, the loss of agricultural topsoil--operate from a different set of basic assumptions from the CEO and the great mainstream. Perhaps most people have never become intimate enough with a woods to recognize that they are changing and are under threat. Too many people are living in a state of distraction, whether it comes from video games, television, the everyday demands of family and work, the seductive cascade of music emanating from their Ipods, or the exciting sale on now at Target. They can't see the woods or the trees.

So yes, I am disappointed that the CEO was didn't share my engagement with these issues, didn't seem persuaded that promoting sustainable transportation had a monetary and moral value. Maybe it's better to assume that we won't be bailed out of the coming crisis by big government, big business, the media or elected officials. Perhaps if I had received a glib or insincere response to my request, I'd go back to my comfortable little cocoon. The leader that is most needed at the present moment is the one I see in my own mirror, and I guess I should come to terms with that.

World Cafe, how to have a conversation

Last night our local sustainability group hosted a World Cafe on the subject of global warming.

About seventy-five people came together to discuss the question: “How can we meet the needs of current and future generations in the face of global warming?” Our assembly included students from local K-12 schools, university students, educators, elected officials, community activists, health care professionals, entrepreneurs, business managers, and people who question the reality of global warming.

The positive aspects of the experience included an extremely diverse group, who seemed to want to continue the conversation (we didn't lose people to breaks), and some truly phenomenal ideas that were reported at the end of the event. Many people said they enjoyed the experience...I hope they weren't just trying to make us feel good.

The challenges: our conversation patterns are pretty ingrained...in many cases the quality of conversation didn't meet the ideals I imagined. The World Cafe process is supposed to help people build on each other's knowledge, and I got the sense that many people found this difficult or counter-intuitive. It is much easier to hang onto our own ideas than to actively examine, respond to, and develop the ideas of others.

What constitutes good conversation? I suspect that our hyper-technological, fast-paced, individualist world gives us few good opportunities to really learn what good conversation is like. Every once in a while I have a really great conversation with someone: I listen, I learn, and I feel heard, and I can think of few more satisfying experiences. But it's rare. I have the same bad habits as others do. Joe states his opinion, I state mine. We think we're having a conversation, but in reality we are two people speaking into our own bubbles.

The next book I want to read is Conversation, a History of a Declining Art, by Stephen Miller. I just listened to a radio conversation on his book, and learned some succinct critiques on the state of conversation in the United States: first, we have a fear of offending people, so we shy away from in-depth conversation on the topics that divide us. Second, we are suffering from an epidemic of opinionatedness--we are not really interested in listening to others but instead believe we must hang onto and express our opinions as a way of being authentic. In other words, we wear our opinions on our sleeves as if they were essential to our identity. Third, most of our conversations are functional in nature: we want something from someone. The best conversations are purposeless in terms of outcome or accomplishment.

America has a history of seeing conversation as a means for getting ahead. Books like Crucial Conversations: Tools for Talking with the Stakes are High, express the purposefulness behind many of our conversations. I had a great deal of enthusiasm for this book and even received training in Crucial Conversations, but I can't say it made me a better conversationalist. The implied aim of conversation in Crucial Conversations is to work things out, to promote harmony, to help a company or organization advance its purpose. But these conversations may lack the beauty, humor, and good natured disagreement which Stephen Miller says is one of the hallmarks of a good conversation.

Our World Cafe was purposeful, because we were interested in learning what insights people might have on a complex topic. I did learn from some of the viewpoints expressed at our event, even as sound bite summaries. But I long for something more. As one caller to the radio show above said, "conversation is an end in itself--it is part of being a healthy human being. You've got to be willing to have your mind changed." I continue to want to have this kind of conversation, both for the pure joy of it, and also for the way it sustains the human community.

Start a community carpool club?

Last night I heard Wes Jackson, founder and current president of the Land Institute, speak at our local university. Jackson is renowned for his work in sustainable agriculture.
Like everyone else these days, he is very focused on the issue of global warming. Jackson said: “We hear unfathomable things from the climate scientists about global warming. What keeps us from emergency action?”

He compared our inertia with that of the Germans in the run-up to the Holocaust. Many people could see that something dire was coming, yet they did nothing. Jackson was very critical of those who think that by becoming more efficient in our use of energy, we will actually save energy. Technology and greater efficiency is not an answer, according to Jackson. Even though the efficiency of many systems has increased, our energy usage and consumption of natural resources still continues on its relentless upward climb. This conundrum is know as Jevon’s paradox.

The biggest return on investment will come from energy conservation, Jackson said. We also need to start measuring our progress by how resilient we can become, rather than how efficient we are in extraction.

Jackson’s talk came just before a trip that we have been planning for some time. This morning, I started to check into the long-term parking options at the Minneapolis airport, and found that the cheapest parking solution will cost us about $100. So, in addition to generating carbon by our trip to Minneapolis, and even more carbon on our airline trip, we have an additional $100 out of pocket for parking. If we could carpool to the airport with others, think of what we could save!

I have been a long-time advocate of carpooling, but have noticed that people seem reluctant to deal with the practicalities of hooking up with others on a drive. For those who are computer-friendly, however, there are wonderful systems available for putting like-minded people together. One of these is Google Groups. You can start a group of any kind, and set it up on any terms you want.

So, I decided to create a restricted community carpool club, with the idea that people could join on a completely voluntary basis, they could access the club messages via daily email digests or by visiting the website online, and they would register under their real names, with the idea that we were creating a network of trust. They would have to apply to the group manager (me), to get in. This morning I sent an invitation to join the club to 110 local people who are in my address book.

The way it will work is, if Susie Smith joins the group and offers a ride, and Laura Walker knows and trusts her, the carpooling match can be made with great confidence. However, if Laura Walker knows something about Susie that makes her reluctant to share car space, she can simply seek other transportation options. The idea is to make the group fully transparent and fully voluntary, and see if this helps overcome some of the reluctance to carpool.

People who join the group can be counted as visionary and courageous folks who are willing to join an experiment. The carpool club offers a way to start reducing carbon use, to help others, save money, make an impact on global warming, create community, and get to know others a little better. I am hoping this will appeal to everyone’s common sense and desire to make a difference.

If the people in this picture, likely from a Third World country, are willing to go to this extent to travel together, think of all we could do with our larger, more comfortable vehicles!

I have blogged on this before, but if you plan to travel by air, and would like to pay down your carbon usage, please visit Native Energy and consider paying an offset for your carbon usage. You make a contribution based on the amount of carbon generated by your activity, and Native Energy uses the funds to build wind farms in the Midwest. These carbon offsets are also known as Green tags. If you would like to learn more about carbon credits, there is a great article on the subject over at World Changing.

Will Steger and Global Warming 101

Last night Will Steger, famed explorer of the Arctic regions and Antarctica, and J. Drake Hamilton of Fresh Energy(a nonprofit organization interested in charting a new energy course) presented a talk/slide show on global warming to an audience of about 1000. They reported speaking to similar size crowds all over Minnesota in recent months.

A great awakening is occurring in the population around global warming. The pictures and likely reality of huge chunks of ice surging into the ocean, raising sea levels and changing the climate beyond recognition is starting to penetrate our consciousness. The central question posed by the audience to the speakers after the presentation was: what can we do? Scientist say we need to reduce our carbon emissions by 80% by the year 2050. How will we ever do that?

Yesterday I reported on my efforts to save money and reduce my electricity use with a new light fixture. There are probably many other things I need to do to reduce my carbon use. The 310 pounds of CO2 saved over a four year period by my light fixture will be erased by the carbon generated by my next 600 mile car trip. We need lots of people regularly doing many small things to cut our energy use.

We have been reading the book The Low Carbon Diet: a 30 day program to lose 5,000 pounds, by David Gershon. This book outlines a number of steps readers can take to reduce their carbon footprint. We are already taking most of the actions outlined in the book. The next step is the more difficult one—working to enlist our neighbors in the effort. We’ve got to find a way to send the message beyond those who have already been convinced, to others who are living in the belief that the status quo is bound to continue. This will call on us to develop some expertise in the arts of persuasion and collaboration.

Last night’s audience was filled with believers, people ready to support alternative energy, buy CFL’s, and send postcards to legislators. The elephant in the room that was not mentioned, however, is our consumption habit. David Kostin, investment banker at Goldman Sachs, says that “Americans have shown a complete lack of self-control. The personal savings rate is at its lowest point ever, and has actually been negative since April 2005.” So, as is true with every issue intertwined with global warming, there are other ample reasons besides the climate to change our habits.

Amory Lovins, Co-CEO of the Rocky Mountain Institute, and an energy activist, says that there are a lot of easy energy-efficiency solutions that businesses and individuals can implement. He admits, however, that “the last time the U.S. saved energy very quickly—expanding GDP 19% while shrinking energy us 6%, during 1979-86—the main motivator was costly energy.” In the absence of rising oil prices, it remains to be seen whether images of starving polar bears, and warnings about the other disastrous costs of business-as-usual, will penetrate the consumer’s brain, and actually inspire behavior change. Talk is cheap, but I look forward to seeing the evidence.

Getting organized

On Sunday a group of people met at our church to watch "An Inconvenient Truth," the documentary on global warming. About 70 people showed up for the movie, and 40 stayed afterwards to discuss their reactions to the fil and possible local responses.

The solutions that were offered to cut our carbon emissions varied widely. One person wanted to leave notes on the windshields of cars left idling outside filling stations (suggesting they turn the car off!). Another wanted to question state subsidies for corn ethanol plants. A third wanted people to participate more thoughtfully in recycling programs. Every time people meet around a table to discuss solutions to global warming, there are many ideas and little consensus.

We invited people to come to at least one more meeting to dicuss how our congregation could craft responses to the implications of global warming. At least 20 indicated a willingness to do so. What is the best way to make use of this willingness? I've been reading about how to be an effective organizer and have yet to come to a good conclusion.

Here are some issues that affect the organizing task:

1. How do you find enough people who are willing to spend time to learn about the topic of global warming? What is the best vehicle and strategy for learning?

2. Is it best to keep working with people who already believe global warming is a serious problem, or is it important to start arousing the consciousness of those who are unaware of this issue?

3. How do you reach young people, who are so plugged into their Ipods and other forms of electronic communication that they are already overwhelmed and over-dosed on information?

4. What arouses people's self-interest around activism on global warming? It's all very well to say that we should worry about the polar bears, but most people need a more direct connection to the issue to understand why they should care.

5. Is the best strategy to find a worthwhile project combatting global warming, say planting trees, that allows people to create a connection to the topic through action?

I am going to be researching answers to these questions. In the meantime, I started re-reading a classic book from the 1970's, Rules for Radicals by Saul Alinsky. It is amazing how fresh and topical this work sounds 35 years after it was written. What I appreciate about Alinsky is how he manages to be pragmatic and optimistic at the same time. He regards organizing as a creative process, which is certainly part of its attraction for me.

Here are some of the quotes that seemed so fresh and prescient to me:
" As an organizer, I start from where the world is, as it is, not as I would like it to be."
"Dostoevski said that taking a new step is what people fear most. Any revolutionary change must be preceded by a passive, affirmative, non-challenging attitude toward change among the masses of our people. They must feel so frustrated, so defeated, so lost, so futureless in the prevailing system that they are willing to let go of the past and chance the future."
"...an organizer...is a political relativist. He accepts the late Justice Learned Hand's statement that "the mark of a free man is that ever-gnawing inner uncertainty as to where or not he is right."

According to Alinsky, the world is divided into 3 types of people: the Haves, who are dedicated to maintaining the status quo; the Have Nots, who are resigned and fatalistic, but have glowing embers of hope inside, and the Have-a-Little-Want Mores (i.e., the middle class), who are tepid and rooted in inertia, but nonetheless have been the source of the great change leaders of the past centuries. Alinsky cites Gandhi, Lenin, and Thomas Jefferson as some of the many change agents from this group.

The Haves are doing their best to ignore global warming. The Have Nots are too preoccupied with survival to pay much attention to it, but they will suffer the most when gas prices start to rise again, when electricity costs rise because of the need for more air conditioning, and when social systems of support get overwhelmed by the rising costs of obesity, and the health care impacts of global warming.

I will pass along two websites that seem to provide a good introductory overview to community organizing. The First is the Neighborhood Funders Group Toolbox on Organizing. The second that is particularly germaine to organizing around global warming, is the Citizen's Handbook, a community-building resource from Vancouver, British Colombia. An excellent resource for congregations interested in organizing around global warming is the Minnesota-based Congregations Caring for Creation, which has lots of excellent ideas and resources.

To Mom for Christmas

I don't design a Christmas card every year, but this year I did. The image is of a gift tag that reads: "To Mom". The "from" line is hidden by a leaf of garlic mustard, growing here in Minnesota, in the month of December.

I am probably one of the few people to regularly blog about garlic mustard, as I did in this early post. When a friend spent a half hour ranting about her efforts to eradicate garlic mustard from her backyard, it got my attention. The plant had been invisible to me until I started looking for it, then I started to see it everywhere in the woods that I love. The reason that it is currently growing in the woods, even though it is December, is that the plant produces seeds so profusely that they begin to sprout after several days of sunshine. Instead of having our normal cold December, we've had a mild month, with cycles of warm and cool, but not all that cold.

If I was hungry, I could be picking these attractive rosettes, and sauteing them as one would do with other fresh greens you find in the springtime. I haven't tried cooking garlic mustard greens, yet I surely will one of these days. Garlic mustard is an invasive plant that grows rapidly and squeezes out other native species of plants.

The Christmas card is dedicated to moms everywhere, especially Mother Earth, who certainly needs some better gifts from humans than she has received in the last 10,000 years or so. Humans have been doing what comes naturally for a long time. Wherever human populations grow and become successful, soils have declined, and edible and non-edible species have become extinct. We are similar to garlic mustard in that we reduce species diversity. So I would argue that we should regard garlic mustard as something of a kindred spirit. Like humans, garlic mustard flourishes when we have mild winters.

My hope during this holiday season is that the Christian/Christmas message of caring for all creation filters down to members of the Christian flocks. I am somewhat encouraged by the news that congregations around Minnesota have been learning together about the effects of global warming and steps that could be taken to work with local communities to improve ecological health and sustainability. Congregations Caring for Creation is a Minnesota-based coalition of churches who are studying creation care and social justice. My own congregation is inviting others to watch a screening of Al Gore's documentary, An Inconvenient Truth, on January 7. Coincidentally, the screening date coincides with Epiphany, the day the eastern Churches celebrated the birth of Christ.

Here's hoping that parishioners, with or without Al Gore's help, experience some epiphanies about global warming and creation care. All of us, Mother Earth included, could use the spiritual help.

Value Orientations and an Introduction to Spiral Dynamics

Several years ago I first was introduced to a developmental theory called Spiral Dynamics, by a woman who was herself a dynamo. EJ Niles, then a 70 year old Unity minister, had first become attracted to the thought of Teilhard de Chardin, a Jesuit priest, paleontologist and philosopher who died in 1955. Teilhard theorized that consciousness has been continually evolving from cell to organism, and that mankind might perfect itself by degrees over time. Her interest in evolution was further piqued by her exposure to the thought of psychologist Clare Graves, as elucidated by Don Beck and Chris Cowan in their book Spiral Dynamics.

The theory of Spiral Dynamics states that consciousness evolves in a somewhat linear manner, from early stages, as for example when babies are solely interested in survival, to more complex stages, as when the individual focuses primarily on protecting and extending their power, to later stages characterized by orientations towards order, progress, and communitarian interests. Niles went on to engage in extensive bible scholarship that revealed how the contents of the bible itself, with its multiple authors and dates of authorship, demonstrated the evolution of consciousness in its expressed world views. You can read more about EJ Niles work at www.etbible.org.

A good summary of Spiral Dynamics is available at the Wiki site, or at www.spiraldynamics.net. When I first learned about Spiral Dynamics I felt a glimmer of hope about the human condition, a sense of possibility instead of the pessimism I saw all around me. The idea that humans could evolve to a more advanced state meant that we were not condemned as to remain in stages of consciousness that fostered only conflict and gridlock. Perhaps we could as a species evolve to a place where we would begin to have greater understanding of and compassion for others point of view. In the several years since I learned about Spiral Dynamics I have concluded it is a useful tool for understanding the diverse human value orientations that inform a whole range of human actions.

Recently, I have been thinking and writing about the value orientations that Americans bring to the conversation over global warming. Learning how to meet people where their values are, rather than convert them to our view of the world, is the new task of communicators about global warming. Although it is nearly impossible to dislodge people from their fundamental value orientations, you can speak to them in terms they understand, bringing them to understand global warming in their own language.

Our persuasive messages need to reflect an understanding of three main value orientations in America, which affect everything from attitudes towards global warming to gay marriage and war. My understanding of these three groups comes from Spiral Dynamics (SD). The stable center, which I would call the “Order” group (designated as the blue meme in SD) is represented loosely by patriotic, church attending citizens who largely trust figures of authority. Some prominent figures in the evangelical Christian group, which is a subset of this group, became educated about global warming and are now actively promoting behavior change from a stewardship perspective. The term “creation care” resonates with this group. Most of the major Christian denominations have surprisingly progressive language about global warming in their national policy statements. There is a growing opportunity to get these folks enlisted in constructive action as long as you avoid attacking religion, the country, or figures of authority.

The second major group, the “Progess” group (designated as the orange meme in SD), is primarily business or entrepreneurially oriented, believes in progress, and holds optimistic views about the prospects of technology. These are the groups that will figure out how to construct and finance wind turbines, that will put together ethanol plants, that will be the sources of innovation and the designers of the Kyoto accords. Both the Democrats and Republicans have been aiming at this group with a message that says: “our nation’s energy policy is behind the times and needs a new, 21st century approach.” The implication is that technology, innovation, and business will construct rational solutions to the problems posed by global warming. You can alienate this group by suggesting that progress or profits are evil.

The third major group, the “Green” group (also known as the green meme in SD), consists of cultural creatives, feminists, deep ecologists, animal rights advocates, believers in group consensus, teamwork, and social justice. People who call themselves environmentalists belong to this group. Most of the Earth Day celebrations have their appeal here, and the major environmental organizations, Greenpeace, Audobon, Sierra Club and so on draw their support from the Greens. Despite their good intentions, many have argued that this group has lately been unsuccessful in gaining converts to their cause, due in part to communication strategies that are alienating rather than empowering. Greens sometimes express a surplus of outrage and pessimism over global warming, which tends to overwhelm listeners and make them feel that little can be done. On the positive side, Greens are some of the most passionate advocates for environmental restoration.

I am idealistic enough to believe that knowledge about these value differences can help us overcome the conflicts we generate when we disagree with people who have different value orientations. I am also pragmatic enough to recognize that only a small percentage of the population has the ability to step outside of their own values enough to see this big picture.