by Naomi Klein

“The most important book yet from the author of the international bestseller The Shock Doctrine, a brilliant explanation of why the climate crisis challenges us to abandon the core “free market” ideology of our time, restructure the global economy, and remake our political systems.

In short, either we embrace radical change ourselves or radical changes will be visited upon our physical world. The status quo is no longer an option.”

Q&A for the sustainable book club

1. What effect did reading the book have on you e.g. did you feel motivated to do something about climate change or did think there is no hope?

I think there is always hope and I believe the world is improving. If you think I am being too Pollyanna and feel really depressed about the human condition, I recommend “The Better Angels of Our Nature: Why Violence Has Declined” by Steven Pinkerton

“Tribal warfare was nine times as deadly as war and genocide in the 20th century. The murder rate in medieval Europe was more than thirty times what it is today. Slavery, sadistic punishments, and frivolous executions were unexceptionable features of life for millennia, then were suddenly abolished. Wars between developed countries have vanished, and even in the developing world, wars kill a fraction of the numbers they did a few decades ago. Rape, hate crimes, deadly riots, child abuse―all substantially down.

How could this have happened, if human nature has not changed?

Pinker argues that the key to explaining the decline of violence is to understand the inner demons that incline us toward violence and the better angels that steer us away. Thanks to the spread of government, literacy, trade, and cosmopolitanism, we increasingly control our impulses, empathize with others, debunk toxic ideologies, and deploy our powers of reason to reduce the temptations of violence.

Pinker will force you to rethink your deepest beliefs about progress, modernity, and human nature.”

2. Do you think that we really do only have two years (or probably less now) to do something about climate change and if so, why are we not all focussed on doing something about it? Why are governments ignoring the issue? Why is this short deadline not all over the headlines all the time?

I really don’t know. Too big a problem? So many scares in the papers that turn out to be unfounded? It is an invisible threat?

3. What, if any, practical suggestions for helping to do something about reversing global warming did you glean from the book?

Haven’t finished it yet so don’t know if there are any personal practical guidelines but she seems to say that this problem has to be addressed by drastically changing our political and economic organizations. So far I have found no advice on changing a greedy, self-serving consumers into a caring, green socialists. And that is what needs to happen if we are to change our politics and economics. That- or a green junta take over.

4. Is it better to address the problems of climate change individually or collectively?

Ideally we would be addressing this issue along with global poverty and the massive inequalities of wealth and property. And war, terrorism, genocide and other disruptive, discriminatory, violent, unfair and destructive practices. Marginalized people cannot afford to care about the environment. It starts with world peace, equal rights and wealth redistribution. Which have to be addressed collectively.  However that might be some time coming so in the meantime everyone has to take personal action – on all of the above and their own CO2 emissions.

5. What would you be willing to do to combat climate change?

I hope I live a carbon reduced lifestyle already. But of course you can always do more.

As part of my personal-wealth-redistribution project I am trying to use only my global share of textiles this year. Check out only the My FairShare Textiles to see how I am getting on!

6. Is going back to basics the solution to all our problems or should we continue to look for and rely on technological solutions?

If we believe in fair shares for all then we in the developed countries need to consume a whole lot less so that others can have more of the resources. If that is what is meant by basic then yes of course. But technology is what is keeping us alive. At a very basic level it has given us clean water, means we can grow enough food, share ideas in minutes over thousands of miles and harness energy from the sun. We need advanced technology alongside fair and rational consumption. We have to learn to take as much as we need not as much as we want and to share frugal tips on our Apple Macs. But of course we need to keep on learning and developing solutions. Especially need to concentrate on finding ways to create greener electricity

7. What political system would support a sustainable future (it can be an imagined one)?

Green socialism

8. Should we all move to the moon?

Yes, I love cheese.

9. If it is too late and we can’t stop global warming, should we or should we not worry about throwing away rubbish and polluting our planet?

No we don’t know how it will all pan out. All we have is the present and we are obliged, as adults, to live as responsibly as we can right now. Lets make it as nice as we can now. Second guessing the future is no excuse not to act.

10. Would you recommend this book to your friends and family?

Not sure. Most of the greens I know are also a little bit red. I don’t see how you can be an environmentalist and not believe in some form of communism, by which I mean the communal owning of and so equal benefitting from worlds resources. Recommending this would feel like preaching to the converted. Personally I find it is rather long on theory and (so far at least) short on practical solutions. In fact I am finding it difficult to finish.

I would recommend these website though…

25 ways to cut you carbon footprint

EPA Climate Response

Mashable fight climate change

And Ben Goldacre one of my favorite science writers (I highly recommend his book Bad Science), says this on the subject and recomends some excellent resources

Realclimate.org is always a good resource on climate stuff, and written by proper climate scientists.

Here they specifically address the rather elderly claims in The Great Global Warming Swindle:

www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2007/03/swindled/

And here are a couple of more general guides to arguing with a climate sceptic, that cover the same ground:

gristmill.grist.org/skeptics

illconsidered.blogspot.com/2006/02/how-to-talk-to-global-warming-sceptic.html

If you prefer books, Mark Maslin’s Global Warming – A Very Short Introduction is also very good, explains the science, and specifically addresses the climate skeptics claims.

Looking forward to the next book club. Why not join us?

So sorry to have to do this via WordPress but every few minutes I get I am thrown off Twitter. Even more sorry to do it a day early but I don’t think I will be on line tomorrow and I want to get my ten pennorth in. Bit scrappy and not as clear as I would like, here are some rather jumbled thoughts on

Stuffocation by James Wallman

for the Twitter Sustainable Bookclub #susbc (What? Find out here)

In Stuffocation, James Wallman traces our obsession with stuff back to the original Mad Men who first created desire through advertising. He interviews anthropologists studying the clutter crisis, economists searching for new ways of measuring progress, and psychologists who link rampant materialism to declining wellbeing. And he introduces us to the innovators who are turning their backs on all-you-can-get consumption, and trading in materialism for “experientialism” – where they find more happiness, live more meaningful lives, and express status more successfully, through experiences rather than stuff.

My thoughts

When I was young and trembling on the threshold of life, minimalism was a design concept practiced by a cool elite who could afford to shop at Habitat. Then along came Ikea with its chuck out your chintz ads and do-it-yourself Billy bookcases. Suddenly we could all afford to live clutter free. These days of course minimalism is not just a design concept celebrating clean lines but a way life. Or rather several ways of life.

Initially minimalism seems to reject the accumulation of possessions for their own sake. A few simple, beautiful and practical things are all that are required. It is not a new concept. William Morris (1834-1896) the greatest designer and one of the most outstanding figures of the Arts and Crafts Movement famously said “Have nothing in your house that you do not know to be useful, or believe to be beautiful.”While not a minimalist in design terms, (most of those wall paper patterns are way too busy), his concepts are minimalistically modern. His design criteria was underpinned by political beliefs. He also said “Nothing should be made by man’s labour which is not worth making, or which must be made by labour degrading to the makers.”

His designs and emphasis on skilled craftsmanship were a response to what he considered the ugly issues of his day. It was an era where most people didn’t want to pay for quality and thanks to industrialization, mechanization and a cheap colonial workforce they didn’t have to. They could have loads of cheap, mass-produced products. Yes they were made in the most degrading conditions possible but no one really cared if they could lots of them. Sound familiar?

In his book Stuffocation, Wallman starts with a similar premise; that too much, badly-made, rubbishy stuff is bad for you. That constant consuming will never make you happy but instead leads to a kind of emotional malaise. That there “is a global, rich-world, middle-class clutter crisis”. That too much stuff is “bad for the physical and psychological health of a significant number of people.” The main culprit is “Mass-produced goods, which are the natural product of the system, are the worst of all. They are so stripped of meaning and novelty that they have little chance of genuinely exciting or inspiring us. ”

And finally

“The logical conclusion is one of the darkest sides of materialism: mass production and mass consumption, ultimately, cause mass depression.”

Blimey strong stuff.

And the reason we keep on buying these meaningless goods? They have been given a spurious glamour by spin doctors and ad men. Wallman argues that by the 1930s America was over producing. The dilemma was simple: either the farmers and factories needed to produce less, or people had to consume more. To make the people buy more, they would have to change behaviors and attitudes.

So they made products that didn’t last as long and then (insult to injury), encouraged people to replace them even before they wore out. To buy the new improved model. Often the only “improvement” was in how it looked. The latter is called fashion and has of been happening for ever as far as I can see. To be able to buy the latest fashion is of course an indicator of wealth and wealth means prestige. Buying new stuff indicates that you are rich enough to do so.

As I understand it, Wallman does not say that consumerism is absolutely bad. In fact buying more means we have more which means more jobs which means we have more. That “international trade, with materialistic consumerism at its heart, is pulling more people out of poverty around the world than ever before. Many, including the World Bank’s president, Jom Yong Kim, even believe that we may have virtually wiped out poverty by 2030. For this reason, materialism, fueled by people and nations wanting to keep up with their neighbors, was unquestionably the best idea of the twentieth century.”

The question seems to be how to deal with the unhealthy effects of having to much stuff while keeping a healthy market economy? To resolve the problems of mass production and mass consumption with out causing an economic crash.

He goes on to discuss the different kinds of minimalist. This is not a body of research more a collection of case studies. A kind of social commentary. This is my analysis of his studies.

The Many Ways Of Minimalism

Monk Minimalism the monk tries to reduce their possessions to the absolute minimum. They would be happiest with simple pallet, some robes and a rice bowl. They are into counting how much stuff they have. This kind of minimalism has a sort of spiritual overtone and not so good for continued materialism.

Green Minimalism where people have less because they want to consume less of the planets scarce resources. A political school of thought and pretty much opposed to continued materialism

Cant Be Arsed Minimalism. Why work harder just to get more stuff? Be happy with the minimum. Not so good for continued materialism but not necessarily a challenge to it either.

Design School Of Minimalism. They like the look of it. They have no political or moral issues with stuff. They will buy stuff, use it, then throw it away just to keep the place looking uncluttered. When they need it again they will buy new. Excellent for continued materialism.

The Buy The Best Minimalism. Will only have a few things but they will be the very best quality items. Can be replaced with more of the best. Good for continued materialism.

The Memories Not Things Minimalism who replaces possessions with memories. Rather than buy another vase you go to the theatre. No kind of ethical  or political justification as such. This is Wallmans preferred option. Good for continued materialism.

So everybody can be a minimalist but for very different reasons. But will this really cure the “physical and psychological health of a significant number of people?”

It is an interesting read and a useful introduction to the many school of minimalism. Wallman illustrates that everyone from the deepest of greens to shallowest of designers can be a minimalist. But the reasons for being so are very different to the point of being ideologically opposed.

I am a mixed up minimalist. I am for example a Design School  Minimalist. People visiting my house say it will be nice when its finished. When I say it is, they look shocked and ask where my stuff is. I don’t want stuff.  I hate clutter and I look the look of clean spaces. But I would never discard a useful object. Indeed I find that idea offensive on so many levels that I now feel uncomfortable calling myself a minimalist. Basically I prefer to live this way and would be unhappy if I couldn’t but many people feel uncomfortable my “impersonal” house. So I am not sure that having stuff is all that is making people unhappy. There is more to it than an over abundance of ornaments. If people are buying stuff because they are unhappy that is of course a problem and possibly buying less stuff might make them look at the reasons for their underlying sadness. But that is as far as I would go.

And yes I am a Memories Not Things Minimalist. I do think that experiences are better than stuff but if that means flying to Paris every weekend then I don’t. I think that is just another form of consumerism and as unhealthy as any other kind.

I am also a green and can’t be arsed minimalist but I don’t believe I am any greener than a green who hoards everything because it might come in handy. With stuff or without I think greens are more content because of their ideology. They tend to be less selfish, more responsible and inclusive. Even those with the rainbow mobiles, dream catchers, wall-hung tree-of-life bedspreads and bloody fairy lights. If you are of an environmental disposition you try not to over consume but that needn’t stop you having a hundred spider plants.

Brave New World

Wallman quotes Brave New World which reminded me that I hadn’t read it in a while. I downloaded it free from Project Gutenberg . Loved it. Written Aldous Huxley and published in 1932, the novel is about a benign but negative utopia where mass consumerism and controlled hedonism keeps the genetically modified inhabitants healthy, content and soporific. Full of fantastic snidey digs.

“Primroses and landscapes, he pointed out, have one grave defect: they are gratuitous. A love of nature keeps no factories busy. It was decided to abolish the love of nature, at any rate among the lower classes”

And this

“strange to think that even in Our Ford’s day most games were played without more apparatus than a ball or two and a few sticks and perhaps a bit of netting. Imagine the folly of allowing people to play elaborate games which do nothing whatever to increase consumption. It’s madness. Nowadays the Controllers won’t approve of any new game unless it can be shown that it requires at least as much apparatus as the most complicated of existing games.”

Sound familiar?

Looking forward to what everyone else thinks. Once again I am using my twitter feed app so please use the hash tag #susbc. Then even if I can’t access twitter I can see what you say.

Live Twitter Feed

[fetch_tweets id=”26457″]