May 2014 will mark the second anniversary of my first being elected Leader of Transition Town Berkhamsted.  It was and is a huge honour to be chosen for the post.  If I am elected again this year, it will be my final year in the post, as I have said that three years is the longest anyone should be Leader.  With that in mind, I want to ensure that the organisation is in as good a shape as I can before I make way for the next person, and so there are some conditions to my accepting any nomination this time around.

I believe that the work of Transition Towns over the planet is vital.

Not only does it allow us to break away from the malaise or frustration brought on from watching politicians convening to fritter away our future: it also means taking the necessary steps at home and in our towns to address the issues of climate change, resource depletion and inequality.

On a more pessimistic note, it means preparing for and safe-guarding against the potential collapse in society and our wellbeing that could result from these global issues, as we build local energy and food sources.

But the challenge is huge.  The number of people actively taking steps towards a positive future is small compared with the number who are carrying on, hedonistically but unknowingly doing everything they can to hasten the worst outcomes.

Over the past two years we have achieved an awful lot, with huge and important contributions from a number of different people.  With first the Positive Money talk with Fran Boait, and then the Ashlyns Lectures, we have established a method of putting on talks and attracting internationally renowned speakers that has allowed us to fund other activity.  The B-Hive has led to us raising our profile in the town, talking individually to over a thousand different people and garnering close links with local government and other groups, organisations and businesses.  There have been some gigantic steps on transport as well, from the edges of Transition, with the Safer Routes to Schools work.

This all feeds into our strategy of building community, linking groups in the town and pushing towards a widely adopted town plan that contains sustainability and resilience at its heart.

But, if we are to have any meaningful impact, we need to scale up towards critical mass.  The only way we can be successful is if we work together as a strong team, community and group of friends.  And that doesn’t mean one Leader upon which everyone can rely.

So, if I am to be Leader for 2014/15, I’m listing here what will need to be in place for me to accept any nomination.  Please discuss amongst yourselves to make sure it is all covered – you have under 8 weeks until the AGM (on 15 May).  Otherwise, I would be happy if someone else would like to put themselves forward as Leader.  Failing that, we will see how the organisation functions without a Leader in post.

On its own, this won’t be anywhere near enough to make the seismic changes we need.  But it is the minimum.

What I need:

•          The Leader position will be renamed Chair, or some other piece of furniture that doesn’t imply being sat on comfortably.  It needs to be a consensus team effort and Leader goes against that in my view.

•          At least one person needs to say that they would be happy to be Chair from May 2016, barring changes in circumstances.  This will allow us to transition.

•          We need to share out the jobs.  That means the following roles need to be filled, with committed, enthusiastic people.  Details of the roles are available by following the links.  Most of this is covered at the moment already, but there are some gaps.  Above all, common sense will need to be applied.

o   Membership (currently Claire Mistry), Website / Facebook Administrator (currently shared between Marion Baker and Claire Mistry), Newsletter / Digest (new), Communications / Forum (new), Finance & Funding (currently Emma Norrington), Publicity (currently Bex Plenderleith), Ashlyns Lectures Co-ordinator (new) and Planning Socials / Inner Transition (new) plus points of contact for Energy, Food and Transport.

It might be preferable that a group of people pick up each role, so don’t be put off by one aspect.  Having said that, one person could do an entire role, or one person could even do more than one of them.  We can of course discuss if you would like to change anything – just get in touch.

I don’t intend on bashing people over the head with the role descriptions: I’m just looking to share the leadership responsibilities.  I do reserve the right to have what might become known as the “dreaded quiet word” now and again, though.

•          We need to show that we are a buoyant organisation with dedicated members.  8 people need to commit to putting the dates of the Green Drinks in their diaries for the year of June 2014 to May 2015, and to prioritise holding the date, barring disaster.

•          The Forum concept is the right one for communication, as it allows inclusivity; being selective as to what you read; and for structured conversation.  10 people need to commit to using the forum for all communication on Transition Town Berkhamsted, other than confidential discussion, but including information relating to activity tangentially related to TTB.  Note that the Communications role includes training people on the use of the forum and improving its usability.  Please reply to this topic on the forum if you are happy to be one of those 10 people.

I’ve added a new page to my website to keep track of these criteria being met.  I will not be chasing around to make sure that they are – that is up to you.

John Bell

Ordinary Bloke

In my last post, I said that Transition was moving to a more insular society.  I was wrong.  Transition is moving towards a society where communities are more self-reliant, that is true.  But not insular.  The realisation has lead me to muse about what the world would look like if Transition succeeded, at least my interpretation of it.  Read on MacDuff, and let me know what the world would look like if you had your way.

I’m dumping my brain here, so there are bound to be flaws.  I would welcome your feedback and recommendations to reading material.

The Transition movement and the like are often characterised by visions of sandal-wearing tree-huggers who would rather see everyone living in tepees than cosy indoors.  There is a grain of truth in that.  But it is very much a caricature to which most involved in Transition Towns would not aspire.

The world I would like to see remains connected, where the easy life is the norm.  It is possibly more inter-connected than we are now, but with less travel.  World society would be characterised by helpfulness between people around the globe and with nature rather than competition and exploitation.  There would inevitably be some people with more means than others, but all would help the needy in times of distress, such as when crops fail, disease or illness strikes.

Yes, communities would be more self-reliant for food, warmth and medicine.  There would also be a global sharing culture of ideas and expertise to improve everyone’s lives, rather than competing in the “Global Race”.

So, how would this be co-ordinated?  How would it be governed?  The way I see it, central governance is only needed to manage those activities and resources that are simply not possible at a community level.  We need more of that at the moment because our society is fine-tuned to live at the edges of our capabilities.  The population is as big as it can be for the amount of energy we can create and the food we can grow or rear.  We are utterly reliant on economies of scale to support the global population.  So, while we are building up the capability, skills, will and technology at the local level to support ourselves, we need government to provide that which we are unable.

At the moment, that central supply of services is not provided by government alone, it is provided by corporations as well, possibly to a larger extent.

But, once we have the ability to support ourselves locally, and with the connectedness of the internet to share ideas and ask for help, central governance from whatever angle would be less necessary.

I fully realise that is a bit of an idealised picture.  What if the internet broke down? What lazy good-for-nothings, leaching of the rest of us?  What if a group or person got ambitious and decided ethnic cleansing would be a good idea?

My vision does rely on us having adopted practices of food and energy production that require little effort to maintain, either through new technologies or through working with and alongside nature rather than against, such as edible forests or the farming practices described in the sample chapter of “An Optimists Tour of the Future”.

That would mean less time needed for the basics and the social constructs such as financial markets, and more for a flourishing culture, for art and innovation.  It would also allow us to turn to supporting others in times of need when evil set in and to maintain the internet.

So, where does that leave you?  Like it, loathe it, see the obvious flaws?

(A strange thing just happened.  Just after I wrote this piece I read the follow-up to the article I cited in my last post.  It reads as a more in-depth version of my own post, uncannily similar).

John Bell

Ordinary Bloke

Exemptions from carbon tax for the worst polluters, freezing the UK Carbon Price Floor at £18 per ton until 2020 when the UN says £60 is needed.  The message this sends out is that the UK government is not committed to addressing climate change.

I’m afraid that might be true.

John Bell,

Ordinary Bloke

Encouraged by the results of my survey, I am embarking on another press complaint.  I know I said that press complaints appear to be very difficult to be upheld.  I also said I wouldn’t draw wild conclusions from the small, biased sample that my survey represents.  Hey ho.

The survey indicated that once you are over your denial of climate science, the amount of change you are willing to make to reduce your impact is correlated with how bad you think the outcomes will be.  Phew, that is a wild conclusion given the survey was unscientific, small and biased.  But it makes logical sense, so I’m running with it.

So, less contrary and inaccurate bilge in the press, less for people to hang their denial hats on, more chance of progress.  I’m not sure the logic follows either.

But, we’re going for it anyway, for the last time maybe.

The experiment this time is whether a clearly inaccurate statement gets retracted.

Thank you to Graham, who has both pointed out the article and done the research.  The target is an article in the Express in the UK by Leo KcKinstry, with the headline “Global warming is about hotter, drier weather … not flooding“.

There is an awful lot that is wrong about the article, but we decided to go for the two most obviously inaccurate statements.  The following is the first email to the Express: