Some reflections on climate transition work i'm seeing across a few bits of work
š§µa (small) thread
1/ In rooms where its someones actual job to thing about this (local/national government, 3rd sector, NGOs) theres always someone whos thing is about 'doing whats practical' so we can get started, and this often acts as a power play to revert back to doing the bare minimum
This is an anti-design mentality - its not about visions or 'what if' - its about constraint management.
Agree that we need practicality, but we need bucket loads of vision, imagination, grit and inspiration because A LOT of stuff needs to change
2/ Theres so much more appetite for action at a street level - so inspiring to witness - people with lives, stuff to deal with, genuinely asking themselves how they can step up - both practically AND in imagining, mobilising, galvanising.
BIG untapped resource imo
3/ Central gov theory of how things change is ALL centred around individuals - individual people doing individual things for themselves and their families.
This is a *massive* barrier to action but (perhaps worse) is a self fulfilling theory.
If you can act to stop this. do it.
Theres also a big generational gap of actual life experiences of collative action and solidarity looks (and *feels*) like (me included).
@Strike4Youth + other youth climate movements are a reaction against this. Organising structures are developing fast around this and its great
4/ theres this assumption that climate transition can be procured into life ā #fakenews
There is no 'market' you can go to to buy some experienced, competent climate transition work from. But government will likely try to from here until 2050. PLS STOP.
This creates huge greenwashing and grandstanding, rival efforts to solve the same problem, and wastes a lot of time
Invest in mission-driven orgs and collectives that are accountable to their networks, and open systems that make being those organisations easy (and exciting).
Thoughts and other reflections welcome
ā¢ ā¢ ā¢
Missing some Tweet in this thread? You can try to
force a refresh
It starts with the false idea that developers hold all the risk for houses not getting built (š), or never being able to sell (š), or that the process is too complicated and houses quickly go over budget (š¬)
In other words, to get anything done, they're the only option.
So feasibility reports are made with an inbuilt assumption of around 20-25% profit on cost, for each 'house' ā for holding that risk ā no questions asked.
This is the real non-negotiable. The 'cost of doing business'