How we beat climate change: A future history

Written in 2005, this unpublished essay illustrates the principles of tapping collective wisdom described in the last entry. I hope you find it stimulating and inspiring.


Amongst the hype as we celebrate 2050, it’s timely to reflect on our efforts to combat global warming. The Earth’s temperature is significantly higher now than it was at the turn of the century, the distribution of climatic zones is different, and sea levels are higher. But the worst fears have not materialized, and current trends and projections indicate that the climate will stabilize in the next 100 years. So what happened? Why did people, corporations and governments take action after many years of denial, procrastination and buck-passing? What were the key factors that turned the tide? To answer these questions we need first to stand back and take a broader view.

The Global Crisis

By 2005, the evidence for climate change was growing stronger almost daily. The hurricane season in the Caribbean was the worst on record. Glaciers and ice sheets were receding. The Gulf Stream was weakening, thus raising fears of a mini ice-age in western Europe. Droughts, floods and forest fires ravaged many regions. Subtle climatic shifts added to other stresses on ecosystems, species, and agriculture. The trends of atmospheric carbon dioxide and the planet’s temperature continued inexorably upwards. And there were warnings that positive feedback loops might trigger irreversible warming.

But climate change was not the only global issue facing humanity at that time. Others included destruction of the natural environment, poverty, war and terrorism. Less prominent but important challenges were depletion of oil and natural gas reserves, the pace of technological change, the power of corporations, religious fundamentalism, and the loss of meaning and purpose in post-industrial societies.

Collectively, these issues constituted a complex crisis of civilization with deep historical roots. Spiritual values such as honesty, integrity, cooperation and community had been inherited from mediaeval times, and formed an unacknowledged foundation for industrial society. Since the Renaissance, however, these values had been steadily eroded. They had been replaced by competitive self-interest, individualism and hedonistic consumption – values arising from the mechanistic, utilitarian world views of classical science and capitalist economics.

Reflecting these values, governments worldwide gave primacy to economic goals. They focused on the growth of Gross National Product (GNP) whilst failing to notice that the natural and social capital on which the economy depended was being squandered. As long as GNP rose, all was thought to be well with the world. But GNP continued to rise even as the quality of life and the environment declined because this outdated indicator counted any economic activity as a benefit even when it was repairing damage caused by other activities.

With hindsight, we can see that the crisis could not be solved unless this trend was reversed. Spiritual values had to be re-established. Voluntary simplicity had to replace consumerism. And the purpose of life had to shift towards personal growth, creativity, relationships, and community. This is in fact what has happened over the last 50 years. But how and why did it come about?

Collective Paralysis

Early this century there was little sign of effective action on the looming crisis. This can be illustrated with reference to climate change. Nations that had joined the Kyoto Protocol only produced about a third of global carbon dioxide emissions, and even supportive nations, such as those in Europe, were missing emissions targets. Major polluters such as the USA, China and India were not parties to the protocol, and many people doubted that their strategy of voluntary technological fixes would work. Negotiations on further international agreements were proceeding at a snail’s pace at best. Meanwhile, corporations complained that governments had not set policies that would enable them to make appropriate long-term investments. As for individuals, the rich mostly continued their wasteful lifestyles, whilst the poor struggled to survive.

Many factors contributed to this collective paralysis. Pervading everything was uncertainty about the magnitude and timing of the threat. Scientists were almost unanimous that human activity was causing global warming, and that immediate action was necessary. But opinions differed on the likely degree and speed of warming, and the consequent impacts. For example, most projections showed a gradual warming for the UK, but there was growing awareness that there might be a sudden large cooling if the Gulf Stream switched off. Politicians and corporate leaders worldwide used this uncertainty to delay difficult decisions.

Even when they wished to do so, democratic governments were unable to act vigorously. In the absence of strong international agreements, they feared their national economies would suffer, and that they would lose office if their policies hit the ‘hip-pocket nerves’ of voters. They also were hampered by complex interactions between policy areas, and weak responses to many policy instruments. For instance, large increases in energy prices would hit the poor hard and risk pushing the economy into recession, but have relatively little impact on consumption by the affluent majority.

Corporations wielded great power, with the biggest having turnovers larger than the GNP of many countries. Superficially, they were becoming more environmentally and socially responsible, but beneath the surface they were still driven by competitive markets, and the short-term financial objectives of management and shareholders. They played-off governments against each other, and made large political donations to ensure sympathetic treatment. Whilst some actively supported government action on climate change, others opposed it.

Scientists and engineers were powerless in the short term, since major new technologies typically take several decades to develop and implement. It was already clear 50 years ago that the fastest and most effective way to respond to global warming was to combine simple, cheap, available technologies with changes in social behaviour. Yet governments continued to be fascinated by the lure of high-tech solutions. They poured large sums of money into research on fusion power, despite the fact that the first full-scale reactor could not be operational until mid-century at the earliest. They also put a lot of effort into hydrogen, which only now is becoming a major energy source. Similarly, carbon capture and storage technologies were being piloted in 2005, but even today have been installed on only two-thirds of fossil-fuel power plants.

The media and advertising early this century continued to promote the consumer lifestyle, despite growing coverage of climate change. In the absence of unambiguous predictions and clear guidance, the populace mostly turned a blind eye to this overwhelming and apparently intractable crisis. Believing that one individual could achieve nothing, they didn’t try. And accustomed to the ‘nanny state’, people waited for ‘them’ to do something – whether ‘they’ were government, corporations, or scientists. Those who did take personal action frequently found it difficult due to the absence of supportive infrastructure. Public transport was often inadequate, renewable energy supplies were not always available, and retail outlets for local farm produce were scarce.

Faced with an uncertain future and meaningless lives, many people were drawn to the ‘truths’ of fundamentalism. Focusing on the after-life and faith that God would rescue us from our folly, fundamentalism encouraged denial of the problem and support for the status quo. Belief in the absolute truth of their doctrines led to inflexibility, intolerance and dogmatism at a time when flexibility, tolerance and creativity were needed. These negative impacts contrast strongly with the positive role of spirituality and spiritual values, as we shall see.

The Grassroots Revolution

In this complex and volatile situation, it was very difficult for policy-makers to see how to break out of this paralysis. And the fact that the world did so is due as much to the creative powers of synchronicity, chaos and self-organisation as to rational analysis and strategic policies. Here, I will sketch the structural changes that occurred, and in the next section we will probe more deeply into the inner transformation of values that made them possible.

The world faced two starkly different possibilities. The wealthy nations might retreat metaphorically behind their castle walls and pull up the drawbridge – a response that would almost certainly have plunged the world into violent chaos, and environmental breakdown. Or worldwide concern and action might constellate around some symbolic issue. Fortunately, climate change became that issue.

Global communications ensured that everyone knew they were all in the same boat. No-one was exempt from the impacts of climate change, although the severity varied greatly. For the first time in history, therefore, the whole world faced a common enemy. And just as peoples and nations had been united by wars in the past, so now they learned to stand together in the fight for humanity’s survival. This threat at last provided a bridge across the chasms between nations, races and creeds.

However, it was not national or corporate leaders who galvanised the planet into action. It was ordinary people taking direct, local action, and demanding effective responses from governments and corporations. Communities were generally stronger in poor societies, but this grassroots revolution began in the rich post-industrial nations where people had the time and resources to engage with global as well as local issues. In the face of climate change, environmental and social breakdown, crime and terrorism, people began to question the values and goals of their societies. And in response to the stress of work and the transient delights of consumerism, they started to look for new meanings and purposes in their lives.

This trend was already strong by the turn of the century. World Values Surveys during the last two decades of the twentieth century revealed growing interest in spiritual matters in most advanced industrial democracies. Similarly, it was estimated in 2000 that there were about 130 million ‘cultural creatives’ in the USA and Europe – around 25% of the population. These were people who rejected consumerist values in favour of personal and spiritual growth, relationships, and community; people who loved nature and were concerned for the future of the planet.

Early signs of community action on climate change were apparent by 2005 when many cities began to act independently of national governments. Subsequent growth was stimulated by several factors. Ideas and information were increasingly shared and discussed via the internet. Also, many centres were being set up to demonstrate alternative technologies and lifestyles. These included visionary projects in the UK such as eco-houses at Beddington,  and an integrated energy system in Woking. At the community level were not only pioneers such as the Findhorn Community and the Centre for Alternative Technology,  but also new co-housing projects, and a growing number of ecovillages.  Many of these communities offered education on relevant subjects ranging from composting toilets to conflict management.

Vital to the success of this revolution was recognition of the complex, interactive nature of the planetary crisis. Groups concerned with climate change, for example, realized that global warming could not be halted without also tackling poverty. They understood that the poorer nations would not stop pursuing consumer lifestyles and restrain their burgeoning carbon emissions unless the rich first slashed their wasteful consumption and demonstrated practical support for economic justice. Hence, as well as campaigning for curbs on greenhouse gas emissions, activists promoted voluntary simplicity, and sought massive transfers from defence budgets to development aid, debt relief, and environmental conservation.

A turning point came when diverse groups recognised their common values and interests, and began to cooperate. Instead of thousands of isolated organisations each running their own small campaign, coalitions began to emerge. At first these were amongst groups with closely allied interests, but increasingly they spanned hitherto separate issues including environment, peace, development and spirituality. These coalitions coordinated actions such as education, publicity, lobbying, street protests, demonstrations, and fund-raising, thus greatly increasing their credibility and impact.

A second turning point followed the increasing number of climate-related natural disasters. Storms, floods, droughts and fires stretched government resources to breaking point. As a result, communities were faced with a choice. Either they could descend into violence and anarchy, as happened when New Orleans was hit by hurricane Katrina in 2005. Or they could learn to pull together and take care of themselves in a way that many western communities had not done since the Second World War. Most followed the latter path. They made emergency plans, set up neighbourhood teams and communications systems, and stockpiled supplies and equipment. Increasingly their efforts were supported by governments that belatedly recognised the value of community action.

A third turning point was when communities began to look beyond coping with disasters, and to collaborate to minimize future climatic change. Several factors supported this step. First, awareness of the long time lags in planetary systems brought a sense of urgency. It was imperative to act immediately without waiting for governments, corporations or new technologies. Second, growing understanding of how chaotic, self-organising systems may be transformed by small disturbances led to the realisation that individuals and communities are not helpless victims of circumstances. Rather, they are potentially powerful forces for change. Third, new internet software made it easier for individuals to become active in community affairs, and to form autonomous, ad hoc action groups to tackle specific problems. Finally, people started to move beyond narrow self-interest and political activism motivated by judgement, fear and anger. Instead, they began to act from the spiritual values of love, compassion, cooperation and community – a transformation we will explore in more detail later.

Community groups began by promoting simple behavioural changes such as persuading their neighbours to turn down their thermostats and don a sweater. They not only turned off their own lights and equipment when not in use, but also campaigned to darken office buildings at night, switch off advertising signs after midnight, and reduce street lighting to the minimum required for safety. They promoted local cultural events and domestic holidays to reduce travel; established car-pooling schemes where public transport was inadequate; and set an example by walking and cycling for short trips.

Later, these groups became involved in local organic food production and distribution, small-scale renewable energy schemes, retro-fitting old buildings, tree planting, and setting up pools of shared machinery, tools and equipment. Many of these activities created opportunities for new small businesses, and hence boosted local employment and economic activity. Small businesses also benefited because they were more innovative and flexible than the big corporations, and provided a more personal service. All these activities strengthened community identity and self-confidence, and brought a renewed sense of meaning and purpose.

By 2020, this movement had begun to reach a critical mass in many countries. Hitherto loose coalitions of interest groups began to discover that their supporters formed a majority of voters in some electorates. This made it possible for them to field successful candidates in both local and national elections. For the first time, there was a route to political power for men and women of principle and spiritual values that did not require them to compromise. By 2030, ‘cultural creatives’ formed a majority in many local governments, and were poised to take national power in some countries.

These politicians brought a philosophy that all powers and activities should be devolved to the lowest possible level, and hence began to reverse the bias towards big government and business. They recognised that communities could respond more rapidly and flexibly to emerging situations than big organisations and centralised authorities. Hence, they argued for provision of resources to local communities, together with the power to make decisions with a minimum of oversight.

In focusing so strongly on the role of grassroots activity, I do not mean to imply that corporations and central governments were not important. As already noted, corporations were very powerful at the turn of the century. Today, they are still major forces in the economy, but their power has been tamed. There are several reasons for this. The spread of spiritual values eventually penetrated board rooms. It also led to a big drop in demand for consumer goods, and increases in demand for services that were mostly sourced locally. Increasingly effective international boycotts of companies with unsatisfactory practices were organised. And the uncertainty of markets due to the global crisis favoured smaller, nimbler companies. Hence, many corporations were dismembered.

Governments played several key roles in this period. They set policy and legal frameworks to encourage and coordinate corporate and community actions. They channelled resources where they were needed. They took responsibility for major works that were beyond the capabilities of local communities, such as protecting London and Manhattan from rising sea levels. And they represented their electorates at international negotiations on issues ranging from carbon emissions and refugees from low-lying lands, to development aid, trade and technology transfer. However, it should not be forgotten that they were able to take constructive action on these issues only because of the changing values of their electorates.

Out of this cooperative relationship between local communities and central government arose a new field in which policy development and actions were nourished by the exchange of information, ideas and resources between all levels and across all sectors. Thus, information began to flow freely backwards and forwards between international bodies, national and regional governments, corporations, non-government organisations, local communities and individuals. These flows were not confined to the issue of climate change, but encompassed everything from aid through communications, energy and food, to technology, trade and transport. Development of this dynamic field was made possible by the rapid evolution of communications and information technologies, and the freedom they brought to form ad hoc consultation or action groups on any topic.

The Transformation of Values

So far, I have concentrated on the outer, visible aspects of the grassroots revolution. It’s now time to turn our attention to the inner, spiritual transformation that made it possible.

In 2000, the primary goal of civilization was to maximise income and material consumption. Free markets and trade, workplace productivity and economic efficiency took precedence over poverty, quality of life, and conservation of the environment. The result was competitive, individualistic societies lacking meaning and purpose; divided societies suffering high levels of stress, suicide, crime and family breakdown.

By contrast, the core values of the world today are sufficiency, quality of life and interbeing – a concept that was only just becoming current 50 years ago. Income and consumption are no longer important motivators. Instead, we prefer to live materially simple lives deeply connected with nature. We devote ourselves to creativity and the arts, personal growth and wellbeing, relationships and community. And in doing so, our lives gain meaning and purpose.

Compared to 50 years ago, the wealthy consume less, travel less, waste less, and share more. They display more concern for the quality of the environment, social well-being, and the future of their children and grandchildren. And they are more aware of the consequences of their actions. Combined with new technologies, this transformation of values has reduced carbon emissions in post-industrial countries to 25% of those in 2000, and levels are still falling. Yet research shows that satisfaction with life is far higher. Meanwhile, both the material standard of living and quality of life in poorer countries has improved dramatically with only small increases in emissions.

How did human values and lifestyles change so dramatically in less than 50 years? As usual, many factors were at work, and historical research is a blunt instrument for analysing the motivations of individuals and groups. Nevertheless, a sense of the processes involved can be gleaned from personal diaries, community records, and contemporary accounts.

We saw earlier that, by 2000, around 25% of people in post-industrial nations were cultural creatives. Amongst these were millions who had developed valuable personal qualities and skills through business management trainings, personal growth workshops, and spiritual practices. Collectively, their skills included team-building, group facilitation, conflict management, and decision-making processes. They tended to be good communicators, networkers and listeners, who preferred to facilitate democratic action rather than take command. They combined knowledge and intellectual skills with intuition and creativity, and sought to solve problems holistically and wisely. Hence, it is not surprising that many of them emerged as community leaders as natural disasters increased.

However, it was their personal qualities and style of leadership which communities welcomed more than their skills. The most advanced amongst them displayed an inner balance and harmony; a quiet self-assurance and sense of who they were. Deeply attuned to nature, they were self-aware and self-reflective. Big-hearted, loving and compassionate, they accepted people and situations as they were. They embodied their values, and acted with a clear sense of meaning and purpose. They were emotionally mature, and understood the importance of emotional openness and sharing in group processes. Tolerant of differences, they were open to new and alternative ideas. Confident and trusting of life, they saw crises as opportunities for growth and change. And as natural disasters increased, they had a calming influence in the face of loss and the fear of death.

Of course, very few individuals combined all these skills and qualities. But, rather than take personal power, they preferred to work as facilitators in cooperative, democratic teams in which skills and qualities could be balanced and harmonized collectively. Their style of leadership tended to be that of the self-effacing Taoist sage who does nothing and yet everything gets done; who believes him- or her-self to be successful when the people say ‘we did it ourselves’.

To a large extent, these qualities were not innate, but had been developed through training, healing and practice. In unconscious preparation for leadership, many cultural creatives had attended courses in personal and spiritual development, as well as in specific leadership skills. They had undertaken deep inner reflection and a variety of therapies to heal their emotional traumas. And they had trained in spiritual practices such as meditation, prayer, self-reflection and visioning. Some had spent time in intentional communities where they honed their skills in the practical challenges of daily life. And many had learned to take care of themselves in stressful situations by setting clear boundaries, and taking time out for spiritual practice, or to be alone in nature. In other words, these people had relatively highly developed emotional and spiritual intelligences.

Several things happened as the global crisis deepened. Not only did communities begin to recognise the leadership skills of cultural creatives, but also governments realized the importance of community action. They started funding full-time facilitators to build self-reliant communities and promote change. And they provided training for those who were drawn to this role by the example of those already in place. Communities themselves extended these opportunities to their members by supporting personal and spiritual growth workshops, training in spiritual practices, and a range of therapies. The result was a self-reinforcing cycle of community development.

Another positive feedback loop that transformed social values was an unexpected side-effect of this process. People discovered a new and rewarding sense of meaning and purpose through community activity and service. Hence, they began to spend more time on community activities, and less on ‘retail therapy’ and the consumption of goods. Also, as they became more aware of their inner selves, they shifted away from materialistic concerns towards spiritual values, and their lifestyles changed accordingly. Thus, excessive consumption faded away naturally, rather than having to be reined in by government policies.

Conclusion

Many things contributed to our success in combating climate change in the last 50 years. But if we wish to single out one key factor it has to be the shift from material to spiritual values. Without this transformation, we would almost certainly be lamenting the deepening global crisis rather than celebrating the turning of the tide.