Hello Christian, Thank you for your comment. Everything I have read about the founding of the Transition Towns movement mentions peak oil, climate change, and the need to prepare local communities to "transition" to face that reality.
I replied, don't know where it went. I was involved early on, and the foundational videos, articles and book. "Climate change" was not a topic. The origins were in fossil fuel limits, particularly oil, and were sparked by a talk by Richard Heinberg to a Permaculture course being given by Rob Hopkins.
The recognition that before long fossil fuels would be in extremely short supply led to taking on "pre-casting", looking 20 or so years ahead, when no matter what the inexactness of "forecasting" might be, those students would be living the problems. So they looked around them, talked to people, and researched how people had lived well without or with limited fossil fuel access.
The issues were supply; carbon emissions were not mentioned.
As it happens, proper attention in those directions leads to healthy agriculture and the resilience that is the key to responding to the fact that "climate changes".
Thanks for responding. I didn't learn about Transition Towns as a formation until it came to the US. By then efforts to both mitigate climate change and develop local resilience to climate change impacts was central to all the messaging I heard.
Understand. The actual formative moments form a very important living picture, that often gets lost was people plug into given structures, not necessarily aware of the life that gave rise to them.
Do you know "Surviving the Future"?
Transition is so important; but a great deal of living perspective can be lost to programatic responses. Nothing is more important than actual resilience in local communities.
I had not heard of "Surviving the Future." I did a quick intern net search and found this book: shttps://www.chelseagreen.com/product/surviving-the-future I presume this is what you are referencing...?
I agree that formative moments are critical. I also know that ecology teaches us the value of growing, adaptation, and evolving.
I am curious, do you agree that incorporating mitigation to climate catastrophe has been a positive thing for the Transition movement...?
It's not possible to answer your question, as it is abstract, the terms undefined. This is what has sucked the life - literally - of many well-intended movements.
The value of the origins of the TT movement - and of "Surviving" - is precisely its anchor in lived reality, rather than words. David Fleming was a "godfather" (not in the Mafia sense!) of the movement.
Once it was understood that fossil fuels are limited resources, and their necessary use skyrocketing, what became TT began researching *their own *place*, *people* and *history**, to see how life had been lived, well, with less or no fossil fuels; and then worked to develop means, over time, to "transition" from current extractive ways of living.
Regarding the language of your question, during my years of working and investing in CO2 reduction I came gradually to notice that within those means were those that in fact developed healthy local agriculture and economies; and that in fact the concept "climate catastrophe" was an artificial weaponization.
"Surviving", while not perfect, is about living realities, with analyses gleaned from deep and extensive research.
A more appropriate concept would be "climate changes". Yes, it does; and yes, we live within them.
"Mitigation" is reactive, and so such measures are necessarily distancing.
"Transition" is about coming more fully to a sense of place, and living in relation. "Seven generations" is a proven guide.
I don't. The very fact you frame it as "climate catastrophe" is why.
I've been part of several TT organizations. Even did a TT training workshop with some of the originals. Left one when they decided to hand over all the database of "capabilities" to local officials. Need I say more about that one? The other died because it didn't really have much in the way of real capabilities, just talk - and oh, what do you mean don't bring my cell phone??? Everyone wants community - only on their own terms, eh?
These sort of problems no doubt are why TT more or less evaporated over the past decade. There is a bigger issue, let's call it self-knowledge (or lack thereof) that anyone serious about "transition" needs to address first.
Ditto for the Green Party, BTW. Without that self-knowledge, it all sinks into totalitarian goo.
Thanks. But in its origins Transition Towns did not mention climate change.
Hello Christian, Thank you for your comment. Everything I have read about the founding of the Transition Towns movement mentions peak oil, climate change, and the need to prepare local communities to "transition" to face that reality.
Can you clarify what you mean by you comment...?
I replied, don't know where it went. I was involved early on, and the foundational videos, articles and book. "Climate change" was not a topic. The origins were in fossil fuel limits, particularly oil, and were sparked by a talk by Richard Heinberg to a Permaculture course being given by Rob Hopkins.
The recognition that before long fossil fuels would be in extremely short supply led to taking on "pre-casting", looking 20 or so years ahead, when no matter what the inexactness of "forecasting" might be, those students would be living the problems. So they looked around them, talked to people, and researched how people had lived well without or with limited fossil fuel access.
The issues were supply; carbon emissions were not mentioned.
As it happens, proper attention in those directions leads to healthy agriculture and the resilience that is the key to responding to the fact that "climate changes".
Peak oil, resource depletion, yes. "Climate change", no. The latter narrative has been so pumped up and weaponized that it even affects memories.
Thanks for responding. I didn't learn about Transition Towns as a formation until it came to the US. By then efforts to both mitigate climate change and develop local resilience to climate change impacts was central to all the messaging I heard.
Understand. The actual formative moments form a very important living picture, that often gets lost was people plug into given structures, not necessarily aware of the life that gave rise to them.
Do you know "Surviving the Future"?
Transition is so important; but a great deal of living perspective can be lost to programatic responses. Nothing is more important than actual resilience in local communities.
I had not heard of "Surviving the Future." I did a quick intern net search and found this book: shttps://www.chelseagreen.com/product/surviving-the-future I presume this is what you are referencing...?
I agree that formative moments are critical. I also know that ecology teaches us the value of growing, adaptation, and evolving.
I am curious, do you agree that incorporating mitigation to climate catastrophe has been a positive thing for the Transition movement...?
It's not possible to answer your question, as it is abstract, the terms undefined. This is what has sucked the life - literally - of many well-intended movements.
The value of the origins of the TT movement - and of "Surviving" - is precisely its anchor in lived reality, rather than words. David Fleming was a "godfather" (not in the Mafia sense!) of the movement.
Once it was understood that fossil fuels are limited resources, and their necessary use skyrocketing, what became TT began researching *their own *place*, *people* and *history**, to see how life had been lived, well, with less or no fossil fuels; and then worked to develop means, over time, to "transition" from current extractive ways of living.
Regarding the language of your question, during my years of working and investing in CO2 reduction I came gradually to notice that within those means were those that in fact developed healthy local agriculture and economies; and that in fact the concept "climate catastrophe" was an artificial weaponization.
"Surviving", while not perfect, is about living realities, with analyses gleaned from deep and extensive research.
A more appropriate concept would be "climate changes". Yes, it does; and yes, we live within them.
"Mitigation" is reactive, and so such measures are necessarily distancing.
"Transition" is about coming more fully to a sense of place, and living in relation. "Seven generations" is a proven guide.
There is nothing "Luddite" about doing so.
Thanks for asking.
Resilience
I don't. The very fact you frame it as "climate catastrophe" is why.
I've been part of several TT organizations. Even did a TT training workshop with some of the originals. Left one when they decided to hand over all the database of "capabilities" to local officials. Need I say more about that one? The other died because it didn't really have much in the way of real capabilities, just talk - and oh, what do you mean don't bring my cell phone??? Everyone wants community - only on their own terms, eh?
These sort of problems no doubt are why TT more or less evaporated over the past decade. There is a bigger issue, let's call it self-knowledge (or lack thereof) that anyone serious about "transition" needs to address first.
Ditto for the Green Party, BTW. Without that self-knowledge, it all sinks into totalitarian goo.