Panel 1: Flying and Focusing on the Everyday

Thank you, Ken, for your comments and question.

As for what we mere mortal can do, in some ways the very existence of this conference is an example of such. My guess is that, not too long ago, many of us who are participating and find very compelling the underlying premise that we need to shift toward carbon-neutral forms of conferencing would not have hesitated to jump on a plane and fly to California to talk about the environment and humanities (broadly construed). That was certainly my case in the not-so-distant past.

But clearly endeavors such as this conference are far from sufficient. (I was rudely reminded of that today when I received an email in my inbox from the American Association of Geographers [AAG]. The email provides “highlights” from the AAG’s recent annual conference, one that included lots of panels on climate change and environmental justice, that took place in San Francisco. In it, the AAG gushes about the more than 9,000 attendees, 37 percent of whom came from abroad, from 87 different countries–a significant increase in the internationalization of the AAG and, of course, in the enormous amount of greenhouse gases the gathering entails.)

So, in some ways the question you are asking is, how do we reach folks such as the ones that organize and promote such meetings and all those who uncritically embrace them? As you might guess, I have no idea–at least in any sort of concrete sense. That said, I find it useful to think about the role of organizing and activism in long-term struggles and what it takes to shift people’s allegiances, behaviors, etc.

I remember when I was a union organizer (in the UC system) and how difficult it was to get people to join the union (one made up of graduate student employees) when we first launched it. Sure, there were lots of people who signed up easily–typically the already ideologically sympathetic. But there were a lot more in the early stages of the union drive who were resistant–and for all sorts of reasons. A small, but not insignificant minority, for example, was ideologically hostile. Some, concerned about the smooth running of the institution, just thought it was a bad idea. Most, however, were not so much opposed, but not ready to do something different–they had too many questions, doubts, fears–particularly something that challenged the dominant ways of doing things and the institution itself (the UC system, which was vociferously opposed to unionization of graduate student employees). Eventually, we won over a strong majority, however. And what was interesting was this winning over was not a gradual process, but like a dripping faucet that gushes all of a sudden. Once we reached a critical mass (which was a slow process), we experienced a flood of support from the previously unsupportive or, at least, the not-yet-ready to commit.

What had changed was not our message, but that people saw a sufficient amount of others joining so that what had seemed scary, overly different, and alien no longer seemed so. My experience is that this is often the way social change happens. A small number gravitate to a cause for reasons of principle, while the rest hold back. To get the rest on board requires not only good organizing, but non-joiners seeing people they respect, care for, identify with, etc. joining up. Indeed, the sociological research on social movements shows that generally people join movements because their friends do.

So, yes, in trying to reach that critical mass that will facilitate a large scale shift in behavior (absent macro-level policy changes that bring such a shift–something we also need to work for), we should emphasize the positives associated with slowing down and keep close to the ground. But just like a good carpenter needs many tools, those working for socio-ecological change need to have many as well. So, for some, the “life is better” approach will resonate. For others, an argument of ecological justice will work best. Etc And then there are those for whom nothing works–only the big tide that sweeps them up and compels change.

Finally, let me mention that Naomi Klein was recently self-critical of her frequent flying in an interview with Al Jazeera. (See: https://www.facebook.com/AJUpFront/videos/1509794815995850/) In this regard, I understand her words (“focusing on individual consumer behaviour, whether it’s changing lightbulbs or going vegan, is just not going to get us there”) to be saying that individual changes are not sufficient–a position I very much agree with–not that we should forego them. As the title of her latest book asserts, we need to change “everything”–individuals, policies, institutions, relationships, etc.–not just one thing or person at a time. Now, I wish she would talk a lot more extensively and creatively about how individual changes relate to institutional shifts and push herself and her generally wealthy and high-consuming (in a global sense) readers and audience members to dramatically lower their individual consumption (in addition to supporting “Blockadia” and fighting against large-scale “extractivism”), but that’s another matter. . . .