BlogtopmenuOm migtopmenuIn EnglishtopmenuFavorit LinkstopmenuKontakt
Tanja Aertebjerg
In English

June 12th 2014

TROJAN MICE AND WHAT WE CAN LEARN FROM 1813


In 1813 Denmark went bankrupt. We had been greedy and provocative, and England and what later became Germany striped us of our dignity. We lost our land possessions in Germany and Sweden and of Norway and more, reducing us to a small state rather than the super power of Scandinavia we used to be.

That called for a change in both the structure of the State, and how we defined our self. We went from thinking of our self as warriors to peasants and farmers, but it also kick started the educational revolution in the whole West, that spread and founded the public school systems world wide. Yup! We started THAT from a crisis. We ALSO went from being the property of the Lords to be free citizens and small scale land owners. In only a couple of years.

Standing in a multi-dimensional world crisis now calls for changes too, and a "1813 Movement – From Crisis to Possibilities" has risen from the thought, that using what history tough us 200 years ago might help us now. If we could do THAT good from a crisis then, think of what we could – will – do in this era. We in the movement define our self as Trojan Mice being small but many, seeking to enter everywhere and spreading the word and influence the opinion, that being in the private sector, the institutions, associations or neighborhood - any where needed.

In 1814 the reform to educate the people was effectuated by educating teachers, who then was send out into the villages to establish schools. And since they through their education had formed a network of peers, information on new ways of farming, how to establish communities, on how to do peer to peer eduction, distribute goods by making joint dairies and share tools etc. emerged and spread through them.

It is called The Cooperative Movement or in Danish “Andelsbevægelsen” and is what later also evolved into unions in the industrialized society, and later into waterworks, slaughter houses, ice houses (before a fridge became a house supply), sports clubs, hunting arms and all sorts of associations. And also the Grassroots, which thrives in Denmark has it´s cradle in this.

The Cooperative Movement and the schools gave the Danes a joint feeling of goals and that we could affect our own lifes and future. It gave us direction and possibilities never seen before in a feudal society. The proverb “one man, one vote” was essential, since it had always been “one cow, one vote” up till then, meaning that the time when the rich had more to say than the poor seemed to be over. (That turned out not be so, but we are here to change that, aren’t we?!).

So how does that look compared to 1813? It all comes in a little bit reverse order this time. Globally we now face that we are back to “one cow, one vote”. We are by the ways of how our economical system is working (or rather NOT working anymore) enslaved by money debt and banks, as we used to be by the aristocracy.

But we have also reached the next step of education, as we can share the knowledge as never before across skills boarders and language through the internet, and the peer to peer education is more present than ever.

So how can we shake the shackles off and get our freedom back? We can use the tools of the cooperative movement by creating and nourish alternative solutions as economy, production and social interaction, that limits our dependance of today’s aristocracy, the so called 1%ers, into both personal and national resilience.

As all other but taxable economics has been outlawed by the authorities, it tangents civil disobedience to do this. But to avoid all the wealth produced in the bottom of the pyramid to accumulate to the top, we have to make a horizontal economy instead of a lateral.

We need to do so, since the economics we have now, where profit is valued higher than ethics and nature, are the obstacle to transition to sustainability, and we need this kind of resilience to over come it.

Every time we personally or in union step into new territory we act like Trojan Mice, or identify the others, form nests and mate by working together and learning from each other, sending offspring of new thoughts and knowledge on to the next.

The Transition movement is a more abstract and autonomous form of the cooperative movement, and most of the initiatives around the world is happening independent of each other, often not even thinking of it as transition, but merely survival.

But Islands of Excellence is shooting up as prove that it is possible. Transition Towns Streets and Islands, and a joint feeling of a collective goal, though all reached through very different ways and means, gives us the power to be even bolder and take further steps.

The 1813 movement as the global Transition Movement has stretched out in to the world and become a large network. It is the making of a new creature where the network forms the nervous system, and as it grows denser it becomes a body, and the body has a voice no one can deny the significance of. A voice of the strive and the longing for, the need of and not least the will to make a new society build on sharing, equality, trust and love.

Society 3.0.

So the goal of Transition Denmark is to make the nervous system denser, by helping the individual or association initiatives to realize THEIR importance and tell them they have a tune in the joint voice of transition, letting them know they them selfs are Trojan Mice, and significant! 

Follow the "1813 Movement – From Crisis to Possibilities" on Facebook https://www.facebook.com/groups/541868812506612/





CAN WE PLEASE MOVE ON NOW?

Denmark is always the country celebrated for “Green Thinking”. And yes, we have done good things, made plans (in my opinion unambitious and miscalculated*), and have a fairly educated population – do we?

We still seem to vote in politicians who only on very few occasions dare to challenge the norm for real, and ask for more drastic steps in the advantage of nature environment and transition. The Grassroots are very strong and multiple in Denmark, and we grow stronger now acknowledging each other more and more with the help of the shared information over the Internet. With (a little) help from our public service broadcasting network DR1, and the newspaper media “Information”, focus and documentary about the transition and sustainability movements all around the country, and an internet site summering them all up, we now have an even greater tool to reach out to each other, and lift it to a new level and a joined voice.

Working together on the same cause even in so many different ways, hopefully will help us to become this one voice, and the goal for Transition Denmark is to get those who until now haven’t seen them self as part of this movement, to realize that no matter if you are a fly fisher testing the water quality, setting out fry and fighting farmers desire to pollute the water streams with pesticides or fertilizer, or a hunter taking care of wildlife, someone feeding the poor or sharing their tools with the neighbours, or any other private person or organization making a difference for the society or environment, they are part of it.
Denmark could – being so small and with only around 5,5 million people – become 100% organic with in 5 years. We could start by banning pesticides here and now, and GMOs, too. We could finance a basic income for all, just by the cost of our existing unemployment benefits system guaranteeing a monthly payment equal to or a bit more than our currant unemployment benefits rate (around 1300€/month) and end poverty.
We could change to 100% renewable energy in the public sector with in 3-5 years. And yet…

I recently attended a congress hosted by the Danish Engineering Society (IDA), a bigger University (Aalborg) and a left wing news media “Information” in Copenhagen about the transition onto sustainability hosted on Christiansborg (home of the Danish Parliament). I had high expectations and expected to learn a lot of new stuff, moving on to a new era considering the fact that engineers are very important for the transition, coming up with all sorts of new innovative solutions. They had to be up front in the whole sustainability business, I thought. I even sacrificed the most important day in the year (my birthday) to the event – I was that eager and dedicated to be on the edge of the movement. I went home after the two long days, very disappointed and frustrated. Why? Because both long days had been a repetition on well known facts and not as, what I would have found reasonable; a short summery, and then – build on that – the visualization of the resilient sustainable future with lots of examples possibilities and ideas.

I am a very impatient person – I know that for a fact, and I am not proud of it (I´m working on it) – but this is what we have done for the last 40 years: Gathered facts, sat down discussed it, argued about it, and always coming back to the Brundtland Reportand the World Summit Reports…and very little has been done. Well yes, there are initiatives, and we have done a reasonable thing (but not brilliantly, even though we could if we wanted to) about the energy problem, focusing almost solely on renewable energy as a high priority. But seen in the big perspective why are we then still using fossil fuels, going to war over it, destroying even more environment and health to harvest it, when we really do not need to (well the answer to that is just one of the things we keep talking about, but never change: Profit)?

Why do politicians still mainly – practically only – look at that one single leg on the four-legged foundation of sustainability? Why is it so difficult to accept that the two most important legs are the personal and the social legs, in order to get the environmental and energy legs to be stable and the whole transition to have severe impact?

These are facts we all agree on, and seen not only from a Danish perspective, it really frustrates millions of people that our politicians overlook all these in-your-face-obvious-facts. When will we as a nation follow the words of Gandhi and “Be the change”? For real! We could beat Bhutan if we wanted to on becoming the first organic nation, beat the French who have banned GMOs and in some areas pesticides, too. Or Holland making all public transport work on electricity from renewable energy only. Be the first to replace asphalt roads with solar roads? So why don´t we? Where is our competitive gene? Our pride and passion? Is it because we are afraid it will lessen our chances of export and competition on the global marked? I don´t think so!

It would be forces as a nation to be able claim that as a brand. But it would exclude old solutions, taking profit from existing businesses. Businesses with power to block for change. I hate to continuously coming back to a nagging feeling, that our politicians are very badly educated, only to blame on them self. That or corrupted and controlled by the famous 1%. But it really doesn’t matter what the reason is. It has to change, because we only keep repeating the facts again and again, instead of gathering all the innovative solutions already existing, and implement them here and now. We stick to the habit and keep business as usual, ranking profit higher than sustainability, even though we know it should be the other way around. We have talked about it for 40 years! Well, I´m repeating it again now!

We all agree that the transition will never come from the top: The Politicians or The 1% (who owns the first mentioned?). There are thick heavy books written on this. We see for a fact that it only comes from the bottom, as private persons take the steps towards transition. Then some bold company owners takes steps. And then local politicians dare to join in here and there when they see the benefits of the human resources they can´t afford other vice. But we have reached the point where it has to be regulated seriously by government laws to take it to the next level and that counts both for the economical system as for the social and for the environment.

This autumn we will have a new election in Denmark, but unfortunately there is little if any hope that any change in who is taking up the 179 seats, will make any difference in the politics regarding the most important issue in the time of mankind.
So when will we move onto Society 3.0? When will we stop repeating our self and each other, and go to REAL action?
The change comes when we visualize the world, as it will be when we change. When we use the tools of NLP and start focusing on what we want to implement in peoples minds as possibilities, instead of repeating old news, common knowledge and Dooms Day prophesies. So we visualize roads of solar panels. Decentralization in power storage to batteries in the house supplies like e.g. washing machines dishwashers etc., being charged with cheap electricity at night, used in the daytime, or sold back at a higher prize, and being a buffer in case of break downs, not needing big centralized energy storage.

We see it in small local slaughterhouses, dairies, and breweries creating workplaces. People shopping locally, taking part in society, finding new ways of reusing resources, taking care of the environment, by sharing, repairing and re- and up-cycling, having more time on their hands. More hands in the educational and health care system, sharing jobs, so more hands is at work and everybody is working less hours and less stressful.
In other words: We need to see us as Transition Towns. We need to see peer-to-peer education like Transition Streets. We need to regulate the greed by changing how the economy works, making local money, share, lend, and make gift economies, create equality and end poverty, and fertilize the feeling of social responsibility – in all layers of society.

That is the true transition! That is the world we want – a shared world. Not only with our fellow men, but also with all life on earth. We need to end all the insecure feelings of “Will we have food enough?”, “Will I still be able to have a car”, “Is it back to the medieval times?” and tell the fact that “YES! We will eat better food, driver better cars, and no it will only be on the fairs you can find the medieval standards, that you will have time on your hands to visit”. We will make them see cities with out car pollution or noise from vehicles, see farms with happy animals, and bees thriving on healthy land, see communities where by sharing, we know and trust each other, respecting the mentally ill, the old and the children, by taking a responsibility for them. We see how we prevent illness instead of treating the symptoms, and we make sure our Health Care Systems are not in fact owned by an industry driven by profit.

We see how we turn deserts into gardens with salt water and humidity condensers and stop migration. We stop war by not needing resources as before – especially fossil fuels. We stop food waste by sharing and growing them where they are needed. We can taste how great those varieties are not meant for transport, but for flavour.
We see a world where when ever we stumble over things that we need to change, we act on it NOW, not looking at profit loss at all, like plastic as bags or in toothpaste, or neonicotinoid pesticides. We need to ACT NOW and stop talking about the entire negative we already know, and start talking about all the great and positive in the possibilities.

About what we CAN, HAVE TO and WANT to change! So can we PLEASE move on now!?

*With a desire for continued growth in consumption, it is clear that it is also expected that CO2 emissions will increase correspondingly, so even if we reduce CO2 emissions on each consumer, then the curve of CO2 emissions are not reduced accordingly.

But our need and wish through transition to stop the growth in consumption and a change in consumption to less CO2 heavy goods, and generally transfer to a more CO2 friendly one, both the less consumption and the then less expected CO2 emissions from the inevitable consumption should make it possible to be even more ambitious.

**********************************************************************
My birthday present to myself this year was ... Nerd Girl Info: A 2-day seminar at Christiansborg (the Danish Parliament) ON MY BIRTHDAY!, Organized by IDA Green Technology, Aalborg University and the news paper Information, a master class on green transformation: Mind the Gap - Bridging the Gap .

I enrolled my self in February, not knowing if I would be able to go through with it, but ... you have to push your boundaries in now and then to the limit, and so it is best to do so on something you are passionate about ! ( you may yawn now ...).

It was in beautiful premises in the form of The Community Hall at Christiansborg, so finer settings for my birthday could not be, and there was coffee, tea and croissants in the morning, sandwiches for lunch and cake with coffee in the afternoon (very important parameters for a conference / a seminar indeed! ... ), and some speakers that I really wanted to hear .

I am like a sponge to soak ammunition and knowledge to me, in order to get the pieces and grand overview of the possibilities, needs and goals for moving to more sustainability in the world, AND something that I personally think is important: Resilience of society towards external influences.

I was expecting a high level - respect for engineers there(!) Daddy was pretty much bred out of the same race, although he was a defector to the teaching profession later (mostly due to the 5 reasons: summer, autumn , Christmas , winter and spring break ). But I also had expectations to hear about visions, developments and goals for the future .

And there was certainly extensive knowledge within the presenters who were there. And at a fairly high level, but not very technical, if you can read a chart. It was actually nor more challenging than that.

ESPECIALLY because I, to my great disappointment could see that it for the vast majority of information in the case, was OLD WELL KNOWN FACTS .

That is, there was very little new information for me, beyond some slightly more concrete figures and useful curves which supported what I eventually perceive as common knowledge.

But what actually frustrated me the most was the in my eyes banal opinions in the comments, which in my opinion belonged to decades back in our understanding of where we are going in terms of sustainability .

First, there was an Italian researcher, Ugo Bardi, University of Florence, Italy talking about a case study in path dependency and malfunctioning information feedback loops: Reception of Limits to Growth. A very charming and excellent speaker, who assured us that " there was still plenty of energy in fossil fuels left - do not worry ..." .

WTF? ! ? ! ( I´ll leave it hanging there for a second...).

His point was that the resources that are easily accessible, is about to run out, so it is "just" getting more expensive to reach the rest in the future to come.

Oh Gods! How can you present a statement like that on a conference on transition to sustainability, when we KNOW that fossil fuels are direct AND indirect cause of climate change, wars and inequality, and therefore we have to focus on renewable energy (I don´t want to bother you with the trivia. This is primary school curriculum, which you can google in 3 minutes).

And when the next sentence on top of that is that solar and wind energy are still not profitable, and haven´t given us possitive turn outs on investments yet, and therefore can not be considered as viable profitable investments over all, then in my eyes you are completely mad! It was not until the further debate after his talk, that it was explained that the reason for this is that it has not made ​​a profit yet because of continued investment, and since there will be invested in more and MORE renewable energy, there will be profit in the future. And not to mention that it also would have cost investments if there had been only focus on fossil fuel, which of course would be more expensive to harvest too. (And here I thought: Hmmm ... it's DONG (The Danish Government owned electricity company, now partly sold to... Goldman Sachs... Yes. Read that again. Choking right) Tax Thinking here ...) .

The English gentleman, Roger W. Bentley, University of Reading , UK: Peak Oil and other Global Energy Limits was a bit more rigid, but extremely correct and not without humor, but came with a portion of the same. He also talked a lot about the past and the present, and far too little about visions and possibilities for the future.
 

He was only surpassed by a guy from Grundfos who had forgotten to rewrite its sales presentation to a seminar on transition, so he could easily have cooked the 20min presentation down to 10 (including the sales video), so he could have just told that they had managed to establish a quality label in the pump industry, wich then later had been legislated as a minimum standard in the EU. Meaning they had out smarted their competitors and scored market shares by incorporating energy savings in the product.
 

Certainly very relevant seen from an engineering perspective and I definitely salute them on that, but his pass was too messy, and is a small contributor to my yawn in the title, because I did not see quite the relevance that drowned in the obvious profit motive and sales talk.

Don´t get me wrong! I go all in on making money on the transition, and get profit out of it ! It is one of the major driving forces to move forward. But it was just not implemented as well as it could have been.

Torgny Holm Green, Executive Director of SIWI (SE) talked on water as a scarce resource - global sustainable freshwater use, and claimed that soon we were running out of water ...

DUH ! No, I had to comment . We are MAYBE (if we are not tremendously careful), running out of the easily accessible groundwater, or by contaminating it. But we have plenty of rain water, although the rain pattern are changing dramatically in many places.

And 70% of the earth's surface is actually covered by water - primarily salt water and ice, but it´s there and it´s ONLY a matter of willingness to invest in desalinating seawater.

Cultivation of crops with saltwater largely occurs already in areas with easy access to solar energy, such as the Middle East, but is not so common that it is mainstream yet, which is only just a matter of efficiency and mass produce of the technology before it is, and knowledge of about it´s possibilities before it spreads), and, if necessary, to the drinking water. (SEE THIS AWESOME TED HERE).
 

And there's plenty of ways to turn the dust ball effect, through nylon towers that captures humidity, water-/growth inventions, which ensures to moisture and protect new trees or crops, Geoff Lawtons perma cultur projects in Sudan and many many more. We have the technology and skills.

So we reclaim all areas that are otherwise abandoned, and get food back in the ground. We certainly run faster out of oxygen than water. The recital should have rather been that as long as water can be seen as a resource, and as a scarce one essential to our survival, there are interest in a lot of spin on it being a problem. But it´s really not.

The technology we need to invest in for desalination, or handling rain and waste water better, we would also have to spend on harwesting the fossil water that lays deeper than the groundwater, and never be able to replace again, and therefore definitely should not to touch as it ALSO is an important piece in the sustainable puzzle.

So it's just like with any other resources: The readily available are exhausted, so either we need the investment to reach those hard to reach, and continue to rape the planet, or we can use the same money to invest in smarter sustainable solutions instead. Uh, what to choose, what to choose...

It is the mindset that is difficult to change in the profit hunter, for them it's business as usual, and the unsustainable impact is least in their ivory towers. They´ll wake up only when the tower will either be overthrown from below or when The 99% have found a better solution, and can turn away to let the 1% care for themselves and see if they can eat the shares and stocks they have invested in in products no one else no longer are able to or willing to buy.

On the other hand, there were some speeches that I liked better. Helle Munk Ravnborg, DIIS and MS talked on current international negotiations on sustainable development. How important is international negotiations and reports for work on sustainable development in Denmark ? And Robert Kaufmann, Boston University, USA: What can we learn from the history about earlier civilizations' collapse? Inge Røpke, Aalborg University, Everyday Practices, growth and resource consumption in an ecological economic perspective, and Jeanet Larsen, who despite her Danish-sounding name is all-American ( the sweet way ), and have only seen a very small part of Denmark before in 2009 at the climate summit at the Bella Center, speaking on Sustainable Food Supply in a World of Limited Resources - a global perspective .

It gave an overall very good picture and the numbers on how things are inseparable socially and globally, and the consequences of even the few Danish or Western citizen´s personal choices have on the Amazon rainforest, the inequality in the world in general, and how it can - will - backfire if we do not offset the existing inequality and begins to count the price of the ENTIRE bill on the selling price to the consumer.

This means that if we each continue to choose to eat an average of 150 kilograms of meat EVERY day in Denmark, it requires that alone the 30 million pigs we produce annually in DK ALONE, requires an area in Argentina the size of Zealand to be grown with (in all likelihood) genetically engineered soy, possible by clearing rain forest, fertilized with NPK fertilizers that destroy the soil and pollute the water, sprayed with pesticides and fungicides that are harmful to bees, the biodiversity and people, shiped halfway around the globe before it ends up in the belly of a pig who never in his life gets to see the sky. (see link to what GMO soya does to our pigs HERE (in Danish)).

And did I mention that it is only the PORK we produce in Denmark? The "price" is more than twice as high for beef! An area the size of Zealand, which COULD have been remained rainforest, or at least could have fed people who otherwise go hungry and of who there will be more and more on the globe each day. Think of that Saturday night eating your steak...

Coop (one of the largest Danish retail corporation with several chains in foods) was represented by Thomas Roland who told a great story about how they have worked ecology into their shelfs, and could tell a lot of really exciting things about what motivated customers to buy it. Irma's (one of their chains) revenue is now more than 30 % from organic products.

I've actually recently my self (I am a share holder by 40$...WooHoo, and customer in their bank) written a mail to them, that I am very fond of their ecology, but is a little indignant that e.g. ginger even though organic, is from Peru and that they generally have WAY too many cheap goods from the other side of the world where the CO2 footprint is certainly not included in the price ( Nerd Girl Forever !). So grapes for 4$ a box from India should not be there at all.

And when he defends the debate on how they earn too much on ecology, by their profit margins being the same as the non-organic products, he forgets to mention that when the calculated percentage the normal retail stores normally is something like 2½ times up, the net profit percentage correspondingly is higher, so it was a bit of a cheap trick to make it sound better than it is.

And I wanted to say this in the comments round following the presentation, plus that I think they should stop labeling organics, and instead start to label the non-organic, and especially the CO2 intensive goods. But there were two others commenting before me who said it, so I did not have to take the lead there ... Great minds think alike !

So it was all fine, but again no news, but rather a summary , and I started to get the feeling of waiting for the point - or perhaps to have missed it.

But the highlight of the conference for me personally, and one of the biggest reasons why I had signed up and paid out of own pocket, was that Rob Hopkins, The Transition Movements father , so to speak, was going to speak via Skype, and talk about how his hometown of Totnes, England, has been lowering the CO2 footprint in the town of 8500 inhabitants, down significantly through personal and local transition. (See TED Talks etc. here)

It has cost a lot of personal energy and commitment to develop and spread, but it is a movement that is now global, and we also have several examples in Denmark like transition Denmark, of which I am a member (and a member of the core group - or board if you like), Transition Ry, as Transition Town, and the little island Fajoe, that among other things has Red Shrimps and Blue Bananas as local currency, as well as a lot of other initiatives that really operates autonomously through a lot of scattered projects and activities, but springs from the same desire: to adapt to a life with less harmful impact on the planet, without having to go down in quality of life.

In fact, the experience generally is that it is more the sense of community and security, which is the highest yields in the personal transformation when asked. It clearly shows that although almost everything is done on a voluntary basis, the commitment and high yield, incorporated alternative economies, local currency, production initiatives and other decentralization, where before there was centralization and uncertainty, is a wonderful alternative.

And it certainly was wonderful to hear Rob again, although I probably have seen everything online with him and Transition Towns already. He comes to Copenhagen throughout the 4 days of the yearly Transition Town Meeting in September that we are hosting, where I look forward to meeting him and a lot of others from the international movements.

But as the day unfolded, I slowly got to define my frustration, by talking to the other participants during breaks after each presentation, and it seemed to be an accepted view. ( Phew, I'm not entirely stupid then).

It seem that even though the willingness and initiative for transition were highest among ordinary people: those at the bottom of the food chain, the voters , the consumers, the 99% or whatever they were called, the focus was all the time much more on how to get the politicians and those who own THEM, those with the REAL possibility of impact: The investors, profiteers, The 1%, to understand the importance of transition. Those who really can afford it.

But when they ARE profiteers, they have no particular interest in changing practice, as it means less profit - and not least power. And they have clearly no social ethical speculation, since in such cases they would not be doing what they do, when they prefer to move operations towards the biggest profit at the expense of environmental, social and ethical costs.

And I think that far down the road is´t a waste of time. The only thing that moves them, IS profit, which is why the politicians are against ALL common sense persistently talk about the need for growth as the way out of the crisis, although the crisis is there because of growth, so it is education and information to the consumers / citizens on how THEY can change the world in terms of "One Person Can Make A Difference" and "Be the Change" (Gandhi) so they can shift their consumption to a smaller CO2 footprint .

It is what The Transition Movement is doing through all sorts of small private initiatives by educating each other, finding solutions, grow and buy organic, buy local, make energy saving housing, walk and bicycle more, use the car less etc etc.

The focus was infinitely on how to centralize the utilities, and a beautiful and very clever lawyer told enthusiastically about how she had helped to privatize a lot of municipalities, thus centralizing skills.

But transition is about so much more than efficiency, so efficiency can often be harmful because it often means fewer jobs out of a short termed profit motive, more than civic and social concerns, so she pissed me off - pardon my French. It's great that Copenhagen Municipality took up the old tradition of ”Andelstanken” that started here after one of our other big crisis in the 18th hundred, and said, "One man (in this case Municipality), One Voice" when working with 7 other neighboring municipalities regarding the water supply. I applaud it, but honestly, there would probably have been quite a stir if not, although the LAW allows for a different less democratic solution.

When you have a little insight into these privatizations you will know that the even though required by law there may not be made profit on the service, and basically they are still owned by the municipality, they are however created to make them out of political influence (and by that consumers / citizens' influence too - even if they are the ones electing the politicians, who then appoints the board – and is often just dressed up with a layman too...).

But still it is influence by third part, AT THE SAME TIME as they are allowed to determine the standards to be operated from in the field, and thus have an indirect monopoly that makes processes and requirements to follow much more expensive when for example there is a wish from the bottom, to be self sufficient, by maybe wanting to collect and use rainwater in the home, instead of groundwater, and make it almost impossible to do. Not to mention that they have a great budget to treat municipal officials with (we do have not bribery in Denmark...) so it will be very few pats to contribute after insertion of a kind.

When the panel of three highly competent representatives at the end of the conference who have worked in commissions, committees and councils, set by different politicians and government agencies talked about it was often no more than political spin, and that reports are often shot down long before they are published - also by the very same people who ordered the work in the first place, and that it is no longer councils even that has its finger on the pulse and influence, but only managed overall by the ministries, which in turn is subject to the Minister, who again is listening to a spin doctor, and - let's face it - do not have their own visions, but blows the way the spin doctor smells the wind is blowing, to be sure to keep the stool until a better job in the real world or even better EU / NATO or similar features is offered...

So I ended up speaking up (of course in my eagerness / irritation - and as I 've always been a first mover - a module before the allotted time for evaluation and comments ... Blonde Nerd Girl? ! ? ) and said I was disappointed to have spent so much time listening to Well Known Facts (I felt a bit like Bill Nye here), which should have been our common starting point, and at the max have been summarized short, and that it was obvious engineering thinking, as they continued to think in terms of centralization, and to continuously using energy on how to approach politicians and profiteers, to get THEM to adapt, when all the conclusions of the process had been that it is among the real transition willing masses we SHOULD spend your resources!

I even dared them that I would not applaud them and first clap my hands until engineers can make a 2 roomed north facing 60m2 apartment in Copenhagen self-sufficient, because I believe so fervently that decentralization is the first and biggest step to change, so each household has the opportunity to become as self-sufficient as possible, mainly through low-energy housing so that all supply from the grid is minimized - both heating, electricity and water. It is where the largest CO2 savings can be made, since it WAS a master class on green transformation.

Because it is only when we are detached from the profiteers and politicians through self-sufficiency, and when we cast products in and out of production by voting with our wallets and behavior that we get the attention of the politicians and their masters. Such as seen in the wind turbine industry.

One panel member took it as an attack on the engineering profession, which it certainly was not my intention, for the transition can NOT happen without them and their skills, and I have - as before said - great respect for them. But I would therefore express my disappointment and invited them to also think in ways on how they could lift the transition from below and help it to be easier for the willing 99%, which after all is a strong foundation to build a business on.

But I did get a lot with me home from the conference, even though it was not what I had expected, and am glad that I attended. I can even tell forever that this year Snapstinget (the famous catering at the Parliament) baked my birthday cake and we a terrific brownie , which I think was with cranberry and licorice.

And I took TWO pieces - not that sustainable, but very nice! I thought I could use one of Rob Hopkins tools, Dragon Dreaming, that says you have to remember to celebrate the successes, so I think it was appropriate for two reasons - one for each.

It is probably no coincidence that "The cake 's Day" falls on my birthday! My name 's not pie mountain for nothing (translated from Danish), although I 'm fine with being more of a Stake Holder than Cake Holder (And here you would probably just have to have been there...).

 

Nameste , Peace and love ;) 

Blogbottom menuOm migbottom menuIn Englishbottom menuFavorit Linksbottom menuKontakt