| 
  • If you are citizen of an European Union member nation, you may not use this service unless you are at least 16 years old.

  • Stop wasting time looking for files and revisions. Connect your Gmail, DriveDropbox, and Slack accounts and in less than 2 minutes, Dokkio will automatically organize all your file attachments. Learn more and claim your free account.

View
 

Citizen Engagement and Climate Policy: Copenhagen and Beyond

Page history last edited by Robyn 10 years, 8 months ago

CASE STUDY NOTES

 

NOVEMBER 30, 2009 - MORNING SESSION

 

 

Introduction - Events leading up to the Copenhagen COP15

-initiatives and events at local, national and international levels

-this session is an opportunity for people to dialogue who usually don't interact

-participants here today are from: University of Calgary, 350.org, other universities and student groups, youth organisations

 

 

Ben West (WCWC), representing 350.org

     -presenting how 350.org was brought into being and their recent activities

-350.org planning for the Oct. 24th international event started only two months beforehand

     -->several different ideas for events were already being discussed by various groups: Bridge to a Cool Planet, Multifaith Group ideas, etc

-350.org website became a space for all different groups to coordinate their events (for example, there was a group planning an event for Sept. 27: they were originally relatively set on keeping the date of their event, but agreed to join the 350.org movement)

-as with all event planning, lots of meetings at the beginning

     -fortunately, the City of Vancouver was quite cooperative (within 2-3 weeks the go-ahead was received for using the Cambie Bridge: Bridge to a Cool Planet (B2CP))

-an ongoing challenge as creating a way to keep communication open with other groups so as remain coordinated and not have conflicting events develop: this involved communicating with Avaaz, Power Shift and many other groups, and publicising the main event as much as possible)

-another important step was to promote the event as much as possible

     -one of the most effective tools was having an easily accessible poster that could be modified to suit the needs of each specific affiliated group

     -importance of online tools, especially networking sites

-another important consideration: how much to talk about policy? (alienating people was a concern - either by talking too little or too much about policy)

-regarding organisation: "how comfortable the core coalition should be": keeping the meetings and organizing on a professional level was important - different viewpoints and stances from different groups - eventually recognized the importance of having a main template (main objective and strategy that everyone could agree on)

-core goal of the Bridge to a Cool Planet event: figuring out a way to get the message to government

     -lead-up event: Avaaz FlashMobs: got lots of media coverage

     -media coverage was not the only goal: the B2CP event was very important for list-building and creating contacts and coordination (communication) between different organisations (for example, Oxfam became involved with climate change in an unprecented way - recognition of climate change as a social justice and human rights issue)

-at the actual event:

     -overall, it was a great success: thousands of people added to a list to communicate about taking action on climate change

     -very ambitious event: incredible number of specific parts (sub-events) such as speeches, etc that required lots of coordination - overwhelming but very successful

-next event: Dec 12th (won't be quite as big as the Oct 24th event)

-today at noon: Climate Crew FlashDance (Waterfront Skytrain Station, and various other locations)

 

 

Amber Church, National Director for Youth Climate Action Coalition

-PowerShift: Ottawa, 4 weeks ago, youth event (organising, awareness) regarding COP15

     -COP15: Dec 7-18, negotiations for follow-up agreement to the Kyoto Protocol

-Climate Crews: national network that does flash mobs (flash dances, etc) every Monday

     -10-minute event (dance, song, short skit) that is filmed and publicized

     -phone calls to Stephen Harper and various Ministers: phone lines and voicemails have been shut down every Monday for the past 6 weeks

-regarding the intricacies of Canadian climate policy:

     -House of Commons recently passed a bill regarding what Canada's stance at COP15 should be: our negotiating team should propose and support an agreement involving real, realistic, binding commitments to reducing climate change

     -Canada has been awarded the "Fossil Award" for our stance at climate change negotiations: this "Award" designates the country that the international community sees as the most obstructive player at the climate change negotiation table

-Youth Network for Climate Action: will be present at COP15, will be doing lots of media work

     -this group will be providing a much stronger voice for youth than they have had at past international climate negotiations

     -there will also be a home-base section of the Canadian Youth Delegation (opportunities for involvement for anyone who is interested in committing to working on media releases & communication, as well as intermittently contacting political leaders)

-TckTckTck will also be doing lots in the lead-up to Copenhagen

-Avaaz: candle-light vigil will take place during COP15

-information from anonymous Ministers: citizen pressure (flash mobs, phone calls, sit-ins) is actually having a significant effect on final decisions

-after Obama's decision to attend Copenhagen, Harper committed to attending as well

-QUESTIONS:

-youth from the movement have met with ministers:

     -reception of, response to and respect for the youth ambassadors varied considerably between parties and MPs

     -some were interested in incorporating the requests of young people in their political platforms

     -some responded with very "coordinated" party platform lines

 

 

WorldWideViews:

-working to create a world-wide citizen engagement movement and dialogue regarding global climate change policy issues

-video:

     -discussion sessions in Canada and internationally on this subject (Sept 26): 4400 citizens of 38 different countries

     -results will be presented at COP15

     -event was requested and coordinated by the Danish Board of Technology

     -among the first of its kind - public deliberation event where citizens discussed the same issues as political representatives

     -new & different way of seeking citizen views: not a telephone call where no time is given to prepare; "seeking views" seen as a learning process (participants listening to each other to exchange opinions & information); way for citizens to be politically involved and see their views being given equal weight to those of experts

     -Conclusions: convergence of concerns among all participants (regardless of affiliation or opinion of the severity of cliamte change); survey of opinions among participants - comparison between countries

     -Recommendations: a strong climate change deal should be a high priority for COP15 (for all countries' delgations, including Canada's...); the final collective recommendations from the WWViews event are more ambitious than the IPCC's; final results & recommendations have been compiled into a report available online and in print

     - http://wwviews.org/ ; ucalgary.ca/wwviewscanada/

-WWViews is now in the outreach stage of the project

     -showing the video made about the conference [above]

     -promoting the final report and making it accessible [see websites above]

-QUESTIONS:

     -selection of participants: as representative as possible of the general Canadian population,

          -exception: slight over-representation of Arctic residents and Aboriginal representatives because these voices are often marginalised in policy debates

          -equal gender representation; non-partisan selection

     -[discussion]: rate of non-response to email invitations was higher than expected

     -[discussion]: event was partially sponsored by Suncor --- critiques of the event called it everything from an "extreme leftist movement" to "right-wing oil and gas propaganda" --- event was intended to be as neutral as possible (multiple sources of funding, including provincial governments (more support from northern provinces, less than expected from Ontario); some from the Social Sciences and Humanties Council (demonstrates interest of university community))

     -response from participants - follow-up action?

          -there has been little to date, partially because most of them are "average citizens" who were waiting for further support/direction/inspiration from the organizers: tools and follow-up information only got to them this week

 

 

-Schedule for the remainder of the day:

     -lunch break 12:00-1:00

     -1:00 presentation from Pembina Institute

 

 

DISCUSSION: Participant goals and expectations for the session; opinions; questions:

-to learn more - eg. as a participant in campus sustainability movements, but dealing with the problem of Nanaimo's relatively small population (not enough people to build critical mass in sustainability initiatives?)

-how to promote awareness and engagement with climate policy among the general public (ie, among friends)

-how to deal with Canada's steadily worsening international reputation on environmental issues: has the realization of Canada's obstructive "foot-dragger" role reached the general public? yes and no: international media is giving more and more attention to climate policy issues - including Canada's youth movements, including the Canadian government's obstructive stance on the international stage

 

-Youth Climate Action Network: working on the Green Jobs Economy initiative (which they will devote much more attention to aafter COP15) - youth perspective on what the green economy should look like

 

-Alberta politics: new version of Conservatism is no longer about "conserving" anything (social stability, environment, stable economy, etc), but about promoting big industry that has powerful lobby groups

 

-how to spread real understanding of the science of cliamte change? (otherwise, public opinion tends to swing between support for sustainability and denial of cliamte change)

     -conversation strategy: example of the success and impact of the WWViews process

     -problem of how to have a balanced, rational discussion without being overpowered by repetition of the same arguments (esp. prevalent in climate change denial)

     -new issue of climate change being denied because it is seen as an "establishment" point of view by those who see themselves as more progressive/radical (eg part of the student population)

     -importance of sourcing the science and arguments (for and against climate change action), of the effect of public relations strategies in communicating information and arguments, of talking about "the problem" versus "the issue"

 

 

Lunch break

 

Afternoon Session:

 

Discussion on Climate Leadership and Economic Prosperity.

Focus on some of the solutions and strategic interventions.

 

"A green Econmoy is Possible." Matt Horne and Josha MacNab from the Pembina Institute.

 

(Pembina: national, non-profit think tank)

 

Recent report from the institue: "climate leadership, economic prosperity"

-is it possible to take strong action on climate change... is it realistic in a concrete policy sense.

-Target: need to ensure global temperatures don't rise 2 degrees higher than 1990 levels (otherwise "runaway climate change") we'll still have impacts, but "acceptable risk"

-TO achive this: estimated need 25-40% below 1990 levels by 2020 (strange way to express it... but we need a constant to base our efforts on. 1990 is our reference point.

-federal target: 3% below 1990 by 2020, provincial=10% below 1990... but in context of goal of 25%, not close enough.

-Report: if we put the policies in place to reduce by 25%, what will be the impacts? Report "puts the numbers out there" so that we can have the discussion: "is this acceptable?"

-change in GDP: will continue to grow (we're not looking at catastrophic economic implications) difference in GDP: grows a bit less that "business as usual" (but what's not included is the cost of doing nothing!! Stern report predicts cost is around 5-10%... at least equal to the cost of tackling dangerous climate change!) Alberta and Saskatchewan see biggest effect in decreased GDP growth.

-BC context: number of jobs stays the same in business as usual or with strong climate policy (up 11%... but different jobs)

income continues to grow, but not as hight as business as usual (BAU)

consider carbon pricing recycling... therefore, take home pay may not actually work out lower.

 

Policies that are needed as part of this model:

-carbon price. start at 50$ a ton in 2010 and up to 200$ in 2020 (current price in BC is 20$) according to this study need higher!

-upstream oil and gas regulations

-vehicle emission standards

-building efficiency standareds

-electric heating requirement

-landfill gas capture regulation

(these are examples of the types of policies we need to meet the targets)

 

questions:

-why in ontario no difference in GDP between policy and BAU? some factors: industries not so emission-creating and take into account they are already phasing out coal

-did they look at carbon tarifs in the report?

-did report look at effect on consume goods? no, there is shifting in pricing... for example in carbon taxes, etc... consumer goods not considered in this model. CCPA did an interesting study a few years ago regarding implications in terms of income for BC carbon tax. They found it was not very significant.

-model used? model developped by Mark Jackard (SFU). It has been used quite extensively--very robust for Canada.

-concern: alberta sees that their GDP will grow by 12% less--will they reject it? can we rephrase it so that they will buy in? for example: what they'll lose by not taking action.

-how to convince all canadians?

report stayed away from recommending specific tools, parameters... try to avoid criticism.

how do we communicate findings like these in a way that gets people's attention?

 

2 key messages from the report:

-strong target is achievable

-need stronger policies

 

Do they come accross in the media??

 

Articles handed out:

-globe and mail article: says these recommendations are an all-out attack on the oil and gas sector--unacceptable. completely missed the point that these targets are ATTAINABLE. how did they miss that, or how are they shifting it?

they talk about the governement's lack of action. need for stronger policies did come through, but not fact that it's doable. repeats that it is "dangerous" for the economy, etc.

also intersting: they have some facts blatantly wrong! "industry would be devastated" and "economy would hurt"... no recognition that the model shows the economy will continue to grow. How/ why did they misread this?!

-Did Pembina respond? Yes, and encouraged others to do so.

 

-next article, from the times colonist:

yes, need stronger policies, but very negative: makes it seem "next to impossible".

the changes that need to happen are big and "disruptive", but possible.

some groups have made it seem too easy to get there, transition.

 

-the edmonton sun: "going green won't stall Alberta"

also focus on the negative, impact on alberta. and concern that this is "another attempt to take money out of alberta"

didn't say anything about targets being achievable.

Interesting dilemma:

-we saw what the numbers are

-but what is our range of acceptability?

-example: there will be wealth transfer out of alberta, but also back into alberta.

-use spokesperson to get messages out (headlines say that it will cost... not that we can do it. How do we get that message out?)

Pembina has reflected on this: so many numbers... how to get the message out?

TD funded the report. but as an "exploratory" project. They endorse it as "robust" but not as the right thing/ as a spokesperson for it.

Pembina offered briefings (ex: ministry of the environment) and also handed out the report before its release.

Also, no specific feedback came out to indicate the negative reaction from the media.

They took it as robust... but at political level different.

 

what about approaching economists as "validators"... who do business people listen to?

how would it have played out if pembina and David Suzuki foundation had not been involved? (just TD and Jackard and associates).. would they have burned TD? or accepted it more easily? (one participant saw the partnership as a selling point!)

is this a demonstration of problem with canadian media? for example, not have strong scientific reporting?

(did CBC report on this? what was their take? not sure.)

what about building relationships with individual journalists

Numbers vs real stories.

Bring it to the local level. Bring in stories so that people have the understanding of concrete experiences.

For example: numbers on jobs don't tell about what the impacts on people's LIVES will be.

 

WHAT NEXT?

After storm of media attention: time to reflect on the numbers and what they actually mean.

One thing they hope to do in BC: illustrate more concretely the implications of the "numbers"... for example the jobs.

trying to talk about the report in a positive light.

Question: cap and trade: concerns about its implications (could it be a new kind of colonialism? "west" buy its way out of another problem it created?)

-the report doesn't talk about specific policy recommendations. results depend so much on how it is set up.

-the pembina institute is strongly in support of cap and trade.

-cap and trade: the focus needs to be on the cap part. the details are in how it is regulated.

next step of translating it into policy??

-develop policy recommendations

-but make sure it doesn't fall on deaf ears: work on the acceptance of the ideas first.

we can see from the reaction that for now, politicians don't see these policies as politically palatable.

could we start with a compromise?

"move the goal post over so that the ball goes in the middle"

for example: the recommendations are from 25 to 40%... we're only looking at 25. If we talk about 40, then 25 will seem very doable!!

 

counter media events? opposition politicians? make it at least more even?

-first, it's not so one-sidedly negative. there is positive reporting.

-as far as opposition parties: not sure where they stand. hard to support it if it's seen as "anti-Alberta and -Saskatchewan"!

The difference between the Liberal and Conservative parties based on their position on putting a price on carbon. Maybe that is what can come out of Copenhagen (system fro pricing carbon)?

is the public reaction the same as the media reaction? (although their understanding of the report is mainly shaped by media)

-maybe people understand the government needs to do more, but not the message that it's achivable to reach the targets. ..

what about expressing it not as %'s but as "we need to cut all carbon producing activities in half in the next 10 years"??

-but that could be interpreted as tar sands production in half.

we need acceptance of the fact that there will be disruption, but that could open a host of opportunities!

can we paint a picture of "what could our lives look like in that situation"? so that it's less scary!!

(conservative media is good at talking to individuals... respond by talking to individuals about what their lives can be like with strong climate policy!)

can we present it as "net benefit" or new opportunities for candians? "sell it"?

(also the fact that not acting will cost us!) but move away from the message of what will go wrong if we don't (historic environmental message). reframe it as positive. Before: focus on science... now talk about social and profit opportunities?? but it's a hard debate!

 

for example, talk about "comparative advantage" of green technology.. for example against the US.

...but this needs to be a global initiative, we need to work together, not create more competetion. also, is it the "west" who imposed this through structural adjustment?

[break]

 

 

personal interests

-school project got things started

-interest in "changing things from the inside" in government. interest in "global federalism" to adress issues like climate change together.

-idea: EU="Earth Union"

-involvement in campus initiatives....

-links to all the other issues.

 

Activity: VISIONS FOR THE FUTURE

 

-Where will we go? after Copenhagen it won't end... where should we go?

-For example, environmental justice: are they becoming more closely aligned?

*Link between poverty reduction and environmental initiatives: development money could be very influential in environmental policy...

*Oxfam focus on environment has had a significant impact.

*Upcoming "make poverty history" meeting... bringing people together from different backgrounds. For example "0.7% campaign" could be common ground...

 

Idea that we can work on these issues together (for example environmental justice): represents an OPPORTUNITY, but it won't be easy... "holistic" is challenging. and not easy for the media.

Space for CREATIVITY!

Pressure about Copenhagen as "making or breaking" our future...

 

Our actions are going to have a huge impact, which is very scary, but also EXCITING!

 

Holistic idea: more understanding as together, but implementation is still so sector-based. Where does the money come from?

Can we think of a better way to give money based on IMPROVEMENT?

Also expertise of people.

 

Pessimistic view about where we are going. Use the technologies to get closer to our targets and also envronmental law as a tool.

 

Why involve "non-experts" in the policy discussion about climate change?

Lots of answers, but "it's everyone's future"! 

Lots of cynical voices, but who knows what is "realistic"?

Also, build momentum: none of us are doing as much as we COULD... all be involved.

 

Yes, we are making "progress"... a little at a time...

But at the same time: "We're in trouble!" We need BIG change now!

What are the small things that will be big enough to make a difference?

 

Article: what do people do who are faced by a big challenge like this? The people who are "doing the best" when faced by something so intimidating, are those doing something with a group of likeminded people, locally, making progress....

-interesting debate: how to make sure people don't just "give up"?

-big part is social media: what messages getting accross?

-also: right now it's quite individual. Gets into environmental GUILT. Maybe address it as a social and a community thing? Also a global community? Think of how we are interconnected. Support each other!

 

Communities: for example, the way our cities are set up makes us less sustainable.

How our cities are set up affects how we think of the world.

Also, local response to climate change. Municipalities taking the initiative.

 

Global-local link!

 

But is turmoil coming? And will it affect poorer communities more?

 

(*Negating climate change as a racist, sexist, agist position??  could get into hot water? maybe we need to???)

 

What is Canada's role in foreign policy around Climate Change??

-can we participate in global initiatives, meetings, etc, without changing our policy here at home?

-fact that the government is not reflecting what the population is feeling? population not know what the government is doing, how they're being represented?

-getting out more, in the lead up to Copenhagen.

 

Organizing can put pressure on government to act differently.

 

Social media effort to represent Canada differently on the world stage?

Voice of different Canadians getting out.

How to get more of that message out?! 

 

What do we do in the face of what's called an "obstructionist government"?

 

Communication problems!!

-disconnects all over the place.

 

have to say it's a big problem to get their attention... but if you say it too much, then people become fatalist and decide they can't do anything...

necessary alarmism, but people getting turned off.

 

Vote them out?? but problem with our electoral system.... yikes!

 

G8 and G20 summits as very important. Not hide anymore... see what others are doing will show us what we're NOT? (even if Copenhagen doesn't?) could be an opportunity. ("where is the tipping point?)

 

Do we need to dismantle our whole media system? What about the idea of media as keeping our government in check? what about public broadcasting?

 

Faith-based groups increasingly involved in environment. adds to BROAD BASE of campaign. harder to ignore....

And also national SECURITY lens: present it as a security threat as well....

Security less of an less of an issue in Canada? Perhaps increasingly with Arctic sovereignty?

 

[closing]

 

Comments (9)

Robyn said

at 2:43 pm on Nov 30, 2009

discussion on climate leadership and economic prosperity. focus on some of the solutions and strategic interventions.

"A green Econmoy is Possible." Matt Horne and Josha MacNab from the Pembina Institute.
(Pembina: national, non-profit think tank)


Recent report from the institue: "climate leadership, economic prosperity"
is it possible to take strong action on climate change... is it realistic in a concrete policy sense.
Target: need to ensure global temperatures don't rise 2 degrees higher than 1990 levels (otherwise "runaway climate change") we'll still have impacts, but "acceptable risk"
TO achive this: estimated need 25-40% below 1990 levels by 2020 (strange way to express it... but we need a constant to base our efforts on. 1990 is our reference point.
federal target: 3% below 1990 by 2020, provincial=10% below 1990... but in context of goal of 25%, not close enough.
Report: if we put the policies in place to reduce by 25%, what will be the impacts? Report "puts the numbers out there" so that we can have the discussion: "is this acceptable?"
change in GDP: will continue to grow (we're not looking at catastrophic economic implications) difference in GDP: grows a bit less that "business as usual" (but what's not included is the cost of doing nothing!! Stern report predicts cost is around 5-10%... at least equal to the cost of tackling dangerous climate change!) Alberta and Saskatchewan see biggest effect in decreased GDP growth.

BC context: number of jobs stays the same in business as usual or with strong climate policy (up 11%... but different jobs)
income continues to grow, but not as hight as business as usual (BAU)
consider carbon pricing recycling... therefore, take home pay may not actually work out lower.

Robyn said

at 2:43 pm on Nov 30, 2009


Policies that are needed as part of this model:
-carbon price. start at 50$ a ton in 2010 and up to 200$ in 2020 (current price in BC is 20$) according to this study need higher!
-upstream oil and gas regulations
-vehicle emission standards
-building efficiency standareds
-electric heating requirement
-landfill gas capture regulation
(these are examples of the types of policies we need to meet the targets)

Robyn said

at 2:44 pm on Nov 30, 2009

questions:
-why in ontario no difference in GDP between policy and BAU? some factors: industries not so emission-creating and take into account they are already phasing out coal
-did they look at carbon tarifs in the report?
-did report look at effect on consume goods? no, there is shifting in pricing... for example in carbon taxes, etc... consumer goods not considered in this model. CCPA did an interesting study a few years ago regarding implications in terms of income for BC carbon tax. They found it was not very significant.
-model used? model developped by Mark Jackard (SFU). It has been used quite extensively--very robust for Canada.

-concern: alberta sees that their GDP will grow by 12% less--will they reject it? can we rephrase it so that they will buy in? for example: what they'll lose by not taking action.
-how to convince all canadians?

report stayed away from recommending specific tools, parameters... try to avoid criticism.


how do we communicate findings like these in a way that gets people's attention?

Robyn said

at 2:50 pm on Nov 30, 2009

2 key messages
-strong target is achievable
-need stronger policies

articles handed out:
-globe and mail article: says these recommendations are an all-out attack on the oil and gas sector--unacceptable. completely missed the point that these targets are ATTAINABLE. how did they miss that, or how are they shifting it?
they talk about the governement's lack of action. need for stronger policies did come through, but not fact that it's doable. repeats that it is "dangerous" for the economy, etc.
also intersting: they have some facts blatantly wrong! "industry would be devastated" and "economy would hurt"... no recognition that the model shows the economy will continue to grow. How/ why did they misread this?!
-Did Pembina respond? Yes, and encouraged others to do so.

-next article:
yes, need stronger policies, but very negative: makes it seem "next to impossible".
the changes that need to happen are big and "disruptive", but possible.
some groups have made it seem too easy to get there, transition.

Robyn said

at 2:59 pm on Nov 30, 2009

(from the times colonist)

-the edmonton sun: "going green won't stall Alberta"
also focus on the negative, impact on alberta. and concern that this is "another attempt to take money out of alberta"
didn't say anything about targets being achievable.

Interesting dilemma:
-we saw what the numbers are
-but what is our range of acceptability?
-example: there will be wealth transfer out of alberta, but also back into alberta.

-use spokesperson to get messages out (headlines say that it will cost... not that we can do it. How do we get that message out?)

Pembina has reflected on this: so many numbers... how to get the message out?

TD funded the report. but as an "exploratory" project. They endorse it as "robust" but not as the right thing/ as a spokesperson for it.

Pembina offered briefings (ex: ministry of the environment) and also handed out the report before its release.
Also, no specific feedback came out to indicate the negative reaction from the media.
They took it as robust... but at political level different.

Robyn said

at 3:12 pm on Nov 30, 2009

what about approaching economists as "validators"... who do business people listen to?

how would it have played out if pembina and David Suzuki foundation had not been involved? (just TD and Jackard and associates).. would they have burned TD? or accepted it more easily? (one participant saw the partnership as a selling point!)

is this a demonstration of problem with canadian media? for example, not have strong scientific reporting?
(did CBC report on this? what was their take? not sure.)
what about building relationships with individual journalists

Numbers vs real stories.
Bring it to the local level. Bring in stories so that people have the understanding of concrete experiences.
For example: numbers on jobs don't tell about what the impacts on people's LIVES will be.

Robyn said

at 3:28 pm on Nov 30, 2009

WHAT NEXT?
After storm of media attention: time to reflect on the numbers and what they actually mean.

One thing they hope to do in BC: illustrate more concretely the implications of the "numbers"... for example the jobs.

trying to talk about the report in a positive light.

Question: cap and trade: concerns about its implications (could it be a new kind of colonialism? "west" buy its way out of another problem it created?)
-the report doesn't talk about specific policy recommendations. results depend so much on how it is set up.
-the pembina institute is strongly in support of cap and trade.
-cap and trade: the focus needs to be on the cap part. the details are in how it is regulated.

next step of translating it into policy??
-develop policy recommendations
-but make sure it doesn't fall on deaf ears: work on the acceptance of the ideas first.

we can see from the reaction that for now, politicians don't see these policies as politically palatable.
could we start with a compromise?

"move the goal post over so that the ball goes in the middle"
for example: the recommendations are from 25 to 40%... we're only looking at 25. If we talk about 40, then 25 will seem very doable!!

Robyn said

at 3:50 pm on Nov 30, 2009

counter media events? opposition politicians? make it at least more even?
-first, it's not so one-sidedly negative. there is positive reporting.
-as far as opposition parties: not sure where they stand. hard to support it if it's seen as "anti-Alberta and -Saskatchewan"!
The difference between the Liberal and Conservative parties based on their position on putting a price on carbon. Maybe that is what can come out of Copenhagen (system fro pricing carbon)?
is the public reaction the same as the media reaction? (although their understanding of the report is mainly shaped by media)
-maybe people understand the government needs to do more, but not the message that it's achivable to reach the targets. ..

what about expressing it not as %'s but as "we need to cut all carbon producing activities in half in the next 10 years"??
-but that could be interpreted as tar sands production in half.

we need acceptance of the fact that there will be disruption, but that could open a host of opportunities!
can we paint a picture of "what could our lives look like in that situation"? so that it's less scary!!

(conservative media is good at talking to individuals... respond by talking to individuals about what their lives can be like with strong climate policy!)

can we present it as "net benefit" or new opportunities for candians? "sell it"?

(also the fact that not acting will cost us!) but move away from the message of what will go wrong if we don't (historic environmental message). reframe it as positive. Before: focus on science... now talk about social and profit opportunities?? but it's a hard debate!

Robyn said

at 3:56 pm on Nov 30, 2009

for example, talk about "comparative advantage" of green technology.. for example against the US.

...but this needs to be a global initiative, we need to work together, not create more competetion. also, is it the "west" who imposed this through structural adjustment?

[break]

You don't have permission to comment on this page.