[Scpg] Local resilience, advice for Transition movement

[LBUZZELL at aol.com]

_http://culturechange.org/cms/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=605&
Itemid=1_ 
(http://culturechange.org/cms/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=605&Itemid=1) 
 
    The Transition Towns Movement: Its  Huge Significance and a Friendly 
Criticism   
(http://www.culturechange.org/cms/index2.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=605&pop=1&page=0&Itemid=1#)     by Ted  Trainer      16 February 
2010   Editor's note: "Transition Towns" is one  of the best ideas in 
decades, and is being put into practice widely.  Author Ted Trainer has a 
respected track record among energy realists and  devotees of sustainability. He 
wishes to help along a good movement.  Culture Change also attempts to support 
the cause, mainly via activism  that has articulated a similar vision 
vis-à-vis Transition Towns since the  early 1990s.  
If there is a difference in culture change as we see it, compared to  the 
Transition Towns message, it is probably in our  
petroleum-industry-analysis-based discussions of collapse and  overpopulation. Transition Towns 
dispenses with that negative or scary  focus, reflecting a difference in philosophy 
and tactics regarding what  the public can stand to hear and be attracted 
to.  
It could be that "transformation" is a more accurate word for an  historic, 
wrenching process than "transition," although we all look  forward to 
positive changes that have been incubating since the  back-to-the-land and e
nvironmental movement took off 40 years ago. Both  Rob Hopkins, originator of 
Transition Towns, and I foresee with hope the  return of sail power for trade 
and transportation. Perhaps he would agree  that re-forming tribes can aid in 
strengthening community.  
The world is immensely complicated, and the forces of sweeping change  may 
overall boost transition towns for their positive contribution. Or as  Ted 
Trainer lays out below, a course correction is needed now. His basic  message 
of urgency is this:  
It is not oil that sets your greatest insecurity; it is the  global 
economy. lt doesn’t need your town. It will relocate your jobs  where profits are 
greatest. It can flip into recession overnight and  dump you and billions of 
others into unemployment and poverty. It will  only deliver to you whatever 
benefits trickle down from the ventures  which maximise corporate profits. 
It loots the Third World to stock your  supermarket shelves. It has condemned 
much of your town to idleness, in  the form of unemployment and wasted time 
and resources that could be  being devoted to meeting urgent needs there. 
ln the coming time of  scarcity it will not look after you. You will only 
escape that fate if  you build a radically new economy in your region, and run 
it to provide  for the people who live there. 
However, an oil crisis can  happen overnight and become the most 
devastating event in history,  although it ushers in a new and total cultural 
transformation. - Jan  Lundberg  

The only way the global sustainability and justice predicament can  be 
solved is via something like the inspiring Transition Towns movement.  However 
unless the movement radically alters its vision and goals I do not  think it 
will make a significant contribution to solving our problems. The  
Transition Towns movement began only about 2006 and is growing rapidly. It  emerged 
in the UK mainly in response to the realisation that the coming of  “peak oil”
 is likely to leave towns in a desperate situation, and  therefore that it 
is very important that they strive to develop local  economic 
self-sufficiency.  
What many within the movement probably don’t know is that for decades  some 
of us in the “deep green” camp have been arguing that the key element  in 
a sustainable and just world has to be small, highly self sufficient,  
localised economies under local cooperative control. (See my Abandon  Affluence, 
published in 1985, and The Conserver Society, 1995.)  It is therefore 
immensely encouraging to find that this kind of initiative  is not only underway 
but booming. I have not the slightest hesitation in  saying that if this 
planet makes it through the next 50 years to  sustainable and just ways it will 
be via some kind of Transition Towns  process. However I also want to argue 
that if the movement is to have this  outcome there are some very important 
issues it must think carefully about  or it could actually come to little or 
nothing of any social significance.  Indeed in my view if it remains on its 
present path it will not make a  significant contribution to the 
achievement of a sustainable and just  world. This will probably strike transitioners 
as a surprising and  offensive comment, but please consider the following 
case.  
Everything depends on how one sees the state of the planet, and the  
solution. In my view most people do not understand the nature and  magnitude of 
the situation, including most green people. Consequently they  are working for 
goals which cannot solve the problems. It is of the utmost  importance that 
good green people and transitioners think carefully about  the perspective 
summarised below.  
Where we are, and the way out  
For decades some of us have been arguing that the many alarming global  
problems now crowding in and threatening to destroy us are so big and  serious 
that they cannot be solved within or by consumer-capitalist  society. The 
way of life we have in rich countries is grossly  unsustainable and unjust. 
There is no possibility of all people on earth  ever rising to rich world per 
capita levels of consumption of energy,  minerals, timber, water, food, 
phosphorous etc. These rates of consumption  are generating the numerous 
alarming global problems now threatening our  survival. They are already 5-10 times 
the rates which would be necessary  to provide present rich-world living 
standards to the 9 billion people  expected by 2050. Most people have no idea 
of the magnitude of the  overshoot, of how far we are beyond sustainable 
levels of resource use and  environmental impact.  
Although present rich world rates of resource use are grossly  
unsustainable, the supreme goal in consumer-capitalist society is to raise  them as fast 
as possible and without limit. If all expected 9 billion rose  to the “
living standards” we in Australia would have by 2080 at present  growth rates, 
then total world economic output would be 60 times as great  as it is now! 
These sorts of multiples totally rule out any hope that  technical advance 
could sustain growth and affluence society.  
ln addition there is the huge problem of global economic injustice. Our  
way of life would not be possible if rich countries were not taking far  more 
than their fair share of world resources, via an extremely unjust  global 
economy, and thereby condemning most of the world’s people to  deprivation.  
Given this analysis of our situation it is not possible to solve the  
problems without transition to a very different kind of society, one not  based 
on globalisation, market forces, the profit motive, centralisation,  
representative democracy, or competitive, individualistic acquisitiveness.  Above 
all it must be a zero-growth economy, with a far lower GDP than at  present, 
and most difficult of all, it cannot be an affluent society.  
I refer to this alternative as The Simpler Way. Its core principles  must 
be  
• Far simpler material living standards.  
• High levels of self-sufficiency within households, national and  
especially neighbourhoods and towns, with relatively little travel,  transport or 
trade. There must be mostly small, local economies in which  most of the 
things we need are produced by local labour from local  resources.  
• Basically cooperative and participatory local systems.  
• A quite different economic system, one not driven by market forces  and 
profit, and in which there is far less work, production and  consumption than 
at present, and a large cashless sector, including many  free goods from 
local commons. There must be no economic growth at all.  There must be mostly 
small local economies, under our control via  participatory systems, and run 
to meet needs – not to make profits  (although I think we could have 
markets and many private firms).  
• Most problematic, a radically different culture, in which  competitive 
and acquisitive individualism is replaced by frugal,  self-sufficient 
collectivism. 
Some of the elements within  The Simpler Way are:– participatory democracy 
via town assemblies –  neighbourhood workshops – many suburban roads dug up 
and planted with  “edible landscapes” providing free fruit, nuts etc – 
being able to get to  decentralised workplaces by bicycle or on foot -- 
voluntary community  working bees – committees - many productive commons in the 
town (fruit,  timber, bamboo, herbs…) – having to work for money only one or 
two days a  week – no unemployment – living among many artists and crafts 
people –  strong community – citizen assemblies making many of the important  
development and administration decisions – much production via hobbies and  
crafts, small farms and family enterprises.  
Modern/high technologies and mass production can be used extensively  where 
appropriate, including IT. The Simpler Way will free many more  resources 
for purposes such as medical research than are devoted to these  at present, 
because most of the present vast quantity of unnecessary  production will be 
phased out.  
Because we will be highly dependent on our local ecosystems and on our  
social cohesion, e.g., for most water and food, and for effective  committees 
and working bees (volunteer or entrepreneurial community work),  all will 
have a strong incentive to focus on what is best for the town,  rather than on 
what is best for themselves as competing individuals.  Cooperation and 
conscientiousness will therefore tend to be automatically  rewarded, whereas in 
consumer society competitive individualism is  required and rewarded.  
What we will have done is build a new economy, Economy B, under the old  
one. Economy B will give us the power to produce the basic goods and  services 
we need not just to survive as the old economy increasingly fails  to 
provide, but to give all a high quality of life. The old economy could  collapse 
and we would still be able to provide for ourselves.  
Advocates of the Simpler Way believe that its many benefits and sources  of 
satisfaction would provide a much higher quality of life than most  people 
experience in consumer society.  
It must be emphasised that The Simpler Way is not optional. If our  global 
situation is as outlined above then a sustainable and just society  in the 
coming era of scarcity has to be some kind of Simpler Way.  
Reform vs radical system replacement.  
In my view few green people or transitioners recognise the huge  
distinction here between trying to reform consumer-capitalist society and  trying to 
replace its major structures and systems. The Simpler Way  contradicts the 
core systems of the present society and cannot be built  unless we replace 
them. Consumer-capitalist society cannot be fixed; it  cannot be reformed to 
not create the alarming global problems we face  while still being about the 
pursuit of affluence and growth etc.  
Consider,  
• Therefore a good society cannot be  an affluent society, and this 
contradicts a consumer society.  
• An economy that focuses on need, rights, justice, especially with  
respect to the Third World, and ecological sustainability cannot  possibly be 
driven by market forces. Market forces totally ignore needs,  rights, justice 
etc., because they only allocate scarce things to those  who can pay most for 
them.  
• The conditions of severe scarcity we are entering leave no choice  but to 
shift to mostly small, highly self-sufficient local economies run  by 
participatory procedures, which contradicts present centralised and  globalised 
political and economic paradigms.  
• The more the market is allowed to determine what happens the more  that 
social cohesion, community, collectivism and solidarity will be  driven out.  
• The basic values driving a good society cannot be individualistic,  
competitive acquisitiveness. 
What do we have to do in  order to eventually achieve such huge and radical 
changes? The answer goes  far beyond the things that green/transition 
people are doing now, such as  setting up community gardens, food co-ops, 
recycling centres, Permaculture  groups, skill banks, home-craft courses, commons, 
volunteering,  downshifting, etc. Yes all these are the kinds of 
institutions and  practices we will have in the new sustainable and just world so it is 
 understandable that many people within the Eco-village, Transition Towns  
and green movements assume that if we just work at establishing more and  
more of these things then in time this will have created the new society.  I 
think this is a serious mistake.  
Firstly these things are easily accommodated within consumer-capitalist  
society without threatening it, as the lifestyle choices and hobby  interests 
of a relatively few people. They will appeal to only that  minority 
potentially interested in composting or organic food or  Permaculture etc. Larger 
numbers will not come to them unless they  understand why they should, that is 
unless they accept the world view  summarised above, and therefore see that 
it is necessary to do these  things if we are to save the planet. Just 
establishing more community  gardens and recycling centres does little or 
nothing to increase that  understanding.  
Secondly, the most crucial institutions for transition are not in the  list 
above, are not being set up, and will not be set up by the thinking  
motivating the many good green people now establishing the gardens and  recycling 
centres. If the global vision sketched above is valid then we  ordinary 
people in our towns and suburbs eventually have to establish our  own local 
Economy B, take control of it and relegate the market to a very  minor role, 
identify local needs and work out how to meet them, get rid of  unemployment, 
work out how to cut town imports, etc. …and grope towards  the practices 
which enable us to collectively self-govern the town. In  other words we have to 
deliberately come together to replace core  consumer-capitalist ways in our 
town. This requires thinking about goals  that are at an utterly different 
level to just initiating some good green  practices within present society. 
It requires coming together to organise  collective economic systems and 
political action. The town must ask itself  what are we going to get together 
to do to solve our problems; what  arrangements and institutions do we need 
to set up to make sure everyone  around here is provided for? Such big 
picture thinking is rarely  encountered in current green or transition movements.  
Hence, “Just do something – anything.”  
Not surprisingly, at present the Transition Towns movement is  reformist. 
It is not in general motivated by the clear and explicit goal  of replacing 
the core institutions of consumer-capitalist society. Its  implicit rationale 
is that it is sufficient to create more community  gardens, recycling 
centres, skill banks, cycle paths, seed sharing,  poultry coops, etc. It is not 
in general motivated by the clear and  explicit goal of replacing the core 
institutions of consumer-capitalist  society. (Some people within the movement 
say or think they are working  for change from consumer-capitalist society 
but my point is that in fact  the things they are doing will not have that 
effect, and will only bring  about changes within it.)  

Thus this rationale assumes that it is in order to do anything green.  Just 
go ahead and set up a community garden here, a nut tree plantation  there, 
and in time it will all add towards the eventual achievement of a  
satisfactory society. As Alex Steffen has said "…just go ahead and do  something, 
anything... All over the world, groups of people with graduate  degrees, 
affluence, decades of work experience, varieties of advanced  training and 
technological capacities beyond the imagining of our  great-grandparents are coming 
together, looking into the face of  apocalypse... and deciding to start a 
seed exchange or a kids clothing  swap." (_worldchanging.com_ 
(http://www.worldchanging.com/archives/010672.html) )  
However if your goal was to build the kind of society that I’ve argued  we 
must have if we are to solve global problems of sustainability and  justice 
you would very definitely not think it was sufficient or  appropriate just 
to encourage a thousand flowers to bloom. You would think  very carefully 
about what projects were most important to achieve that  goal, you would 
realise that this must involve taking collective control  over the local economy, 
and you would recognise that developing this  vision among people in the 
region is the supremely important task to work  on.  
Thus the insufficiency of resilience.  
From the perspective I’ve outlined, making your town more resilient is  far 
from a sufficient goal. That could be little more than building a  haven of 
safety in a world of oil scarcity…a haven within a wider society  that 
remains obsessed with growth, markets, exploiting the Third World,  and using 
mobile phones made with Tantalum from the Congo.  
If you want to protest that you are not just building a haven, that you  
see yourself as working for the kind of society that would defuse world  
problems, then again my point is that you won’t achieve that unless your  vision 
and goals shift to way beyond building compost heaps and recycling  groups.  
The lack of guidance  
A major deficiency in the current Transition Towns movement literature  is 
the lack of information on what to do. The website, the Handbook and  
especially the 12 Steps document are valuable, but they are predominantly  about 
the procedure for organising the movement and it is remarkably  difficult to 
find clear guidance as to what the sub-goals of the movement  are, the 
actual structures and systems and projects that we should be  trying to undertake 
if our town is to achieve transition or resilience.  What we desperately 
need to know is what things should we start trying to  set up, what should we 
avoid, what should come first. Especially important  is that we need to be 
able to see the causal links, to understand why  setting up this venture will 
have the effect of creating greater town  resilience. But unfortunately 
people coming to the movement eager to get  started will find almost no 
guidance in the current literature as to what  to actually try to do, let alone 
anything like a suggested plan of action  with steps and do’s and don’ts and 
clear explanation of why specific  projects will have desirable effects.  
The advice and suggestions you do find in the literature are almost  
entirely about how to establish the movement (e.g., “Awareness raising”,  “Form 
subgroups”, “Build a bridge to local government”), as distinct from  how to 
establish things that will actually, obviously make the town more  
resilient. There is some reference to possibilities, such as set up  community 
supported agriculture schemes, but we are told little more than  that we should 
establish committees to look into what might be done in  areas such as energy, 
food, education and health.  
The lack is most evident in The Kinsale Energy Descent Plan, which does  
little more than repeat the process ideas in the 12 steps documents and  
contains virtually no information or projects to do with energy technology  or 
strategies. It lists some possibilities, such as exploring insulation  and the 
possibility of local energy generation, and reducing the need for  
transport, but again there is no advice as to what precisely can or might  be set 
up. We need more than this; we need to know how and why a  particular project 
will make the town more resilient, and we need to know  what projects we 
should start with, what the difficulties and costs might  be, etc. Just being 
told “Create an energy descent plan” (Step 12) doesn’t  help much when what 
we need is to know how we might do that.  
The authors of these documents seem to be anxious to avoid prescription  
and dogma, and it is likely that no one can give confident guidance at  this 
early stage, but that does not mean that ideas regarding probably  valuable 
projects should not be offered. Some groups have accumulated  experience that 
now surely indicates more effective directions to take.  
I worry that the many now rushing into Transition Towns initiatives all  
around the world will do all sorts of good things, which will not turn out  to 
have made much difference to the crucial issues. At least one group has  
folded apparently because of confusion over what to do. If people become  
disenchanted the movement could fizzle and be set back seriously. As I see  our 
situation this movement is our only hope so it is extremely important  that 
it is not allowed to falter.  
This lack of guidance reflects the reformist nature of the movement,  the 
(implicit) acceptance of the assumption that just adding this and that  
better practice to this society will eventually fix it sufficiently.  
The problem of affluence  
If there is one thing that is responsible for the potentially fatal  state 
of the planet it is the taken for granted, never-thought-about  obsession 
with affluent living standards. Rich world per capita rates of  production and 
consumption are probably ten times higher than the  resources of the planet 
could provide for all. The first principle of a  sustainable and just 
society must be the willingness to live very simply  in terms of resource use. 
This does not imply hardship or deprivation; it  is about being content with 
what is sufficient for a good quality of life.   
The biggest problem blocking the achievement of a sustainable society  is 
the fact that just about everyone is fiercely determined to have the  highest 
“living standards” possible and to increase them all the time,  without 
limit. Until this worldview is reversed we cannot possibly begin  to make any 
progress on the global problems it directly causes. The task  is 
astronomically difficult, probably impossible. Governments, economists,  educational 
institutions the media and publics will not even think about  any challenge to 
wealth, property or getting as rich as possible.  
This issue does not appear to be on the TransitionTowns agenda. The  goal 
seems to be to make the town safe from the coming storm but to go on  living 
in it in typical rich world affluent ways, when those ways can’t  continue 
without an unsustainable and unjust global economy. Again,  resilience is not 
enough.  
What then should the goals be?  
My hope of course is to persuade transitioners to adopt a radical  global 
vision which sees the attempt to reform of consumer-capitalist  society as a 
fundamental mistake, and sees the Transition Towns movement  as the way to 
build the kinds of societies that would eliminate the main  global problems. 
Following are the implications I want to suggest for  sub-goals.  
The supreme goal should be building a new local economy, and running  it.  
I don’t think the focal concern of the movement should be energy and  its 
coming scarcity. Yes all that sets the scene and the imperative, but  the 
solution is not primarily to do with energy. It is to do with  developing town 
economic self-sufficiency. The supreme need is for us to  build a radically 
new economy within our town, and then for us to run it  to meet our needs. 
It is not oil that sets your greatest insecurity; it is  the global economy. 
lt doesn’t need your town. It will relocate your jobs  where profits are 
greatest. It can flip into recession overnight and dump  you and billions of 
others into unemployment and poverty. It will only  deliver to you whatever 
benefits trickle down from the ventures which  maximise corporate profits. It 
loots the Third World to stock your  supermarket shelves. It has condemned 
much of your town to idleness, in  the form of unemployment and wasted time 
and resources that could be being  devoted to meeting urgent needs there. ln 
the coming time of scarcity it  will not look after you. You will only 
escape that fate if you build a  radically new economy in your region, and run it 
to provide for the people  who live there.  
All this flatly contradicts the conventional economy. We have to build  a 
local economy, not a national or globalised economy, an economy designed  to 
meet needs, not to maximise profits, an economy under participatory  social 
control and not driven by corporate profit, and one guided by  rational 
planning as distinct from leaving everything to the market. This  is the 
antithesis of capitalism, markets, profit motivation and corporate  control. 
Nothing could be more revolutionary. If we don’t plunge into  building such an 
economy we will probably not survive in the coming age of  scarcity. The 
Transition Towns movement will come to nothing of great  significance if it does 
not set itself to build such economies. Either  your town will get control of 
its own affairs and organise local  productive capacity to provide for you, 
or it will remain within and  dependent on the mainstream economy.  
In other words, the goal here is to build that Economy B, a new local  
economy enabling the people who live in the town to guarantee the  provision of 
basic necessities by applying their labour, land and skills  to local 
resources…all under our control. The old Economy A can then drop  dead and we will 
still be able to provide for ourselves. This kind of  vision and goal is 
not evident in the TT literature and reports I have  read. There is no concept 
of setting out to eventually run the town  economy for the benefit of the 
people via participatory means.  
The need for coordination, priorities and planning – by a Community  
Development Co-op  
We must somehow set up mechanisms which enable us to work out and  operate 
an overall/integrated plan. It will not be ideal if we proclaim  the 
importance of town self-sufficiency and then all run off as  individuals to set up 
a bakery here and a garden there. It is important  that there should be 
continual discussion about what the town needs to set  up to achieve its goals, 
what should be done first, what is feasible, how  we might proceed to get 
the main things done first, and what are the most  important ventures to set 
up. How should our scarce resources best be  deployed (e.g., what are the top 
priorities for the working bees to do,  for our banks to fund…)? Of course 
individual initiatives are to be  encouraged but much more important are 
likely to be bigger projects  requiring whole-town effort. This does not imply 
a vast and detailed plan,  nor indeed a confident one, but it is a plea for 
an attempt to think out  goals, priorities and integration.  
This means that from the early stages we should set up some kind of  
Community Development Cooperative, a process whereby we can come together  often 
to discuss and think about the town plan and our progress, towards  having a 
coordinated and unified approach that will then help us decide on  sub-goals 
and priorities, and especially on the purposes to which the  early working 
bees will be put. Obviously this would not need to be  elaborate or 
prescriptive and would not mean people would be discouraged  from pursuing ventures 
other than those endorsed by the CDC.  
Following is an indication of the kind of projects that I think a CDC  
would try to take up (although not all at a once.)  
• Identify the unmet needs of the town, and the unused  productive 
capacities of the town, and bring them together. Set up the  many simple 
cooperatives enabling all the unemployed, homeless, bored,  retired, people to get into 
the community gardens etc. that would enable  them to start producing many 
of the basic things they need. Can we set  up co-ops to run a bakery, bike 
repair shop, home help service,  insulating operation, clothes making and 
repairing operation....  Especially important are the cooperatives to organise 
leisure resources,  the concerts, picnics, dances, festivals? Can we 
organise a market day?  
One of the worst contradictions in the present economy is  that it dumps 
many people into unemployment, boredom, homelessness,  "retirement," mental 
illness and depression – and in the US, watching 4+  hours of TV every day. 
These are huge productive capacities left idle and  wasted. The CDC can pounce 
on these resources and harness them and enable  dumped people to start 
producing to meet some of their own needs. To do  this is to have begun to set 
up Economy B. We simply record contributions  and these entitle people to 
proportionate shares of the output. (This is  to have initiated our own new 
currency; see below.)  
This mechanism puts us in a position to eventually get rid of  unemployment 
– to make sure all who want work, "incomes" and livelihoods  can have them 
(not necessarily in normal, waged jobs). It is absurd and  annoying that 
governments (and the people in your neighbourhood) tolerate  people suffering 
depression and boredom when we could so easily set up the  cooperatives that 
would enable them to produce things they need and enjoy  with purpose and 
solidarity.  
• Help existing small firms to move to activities the town  needs, setting 
up little firms and farms and markets. Establish a town  bank to finance 
these ventures, making sure no one goes bankrupt and no  one is left without a 
livelihood.  
• Organise Business Incubators. Voluntary panels of experts and  advisers 
on gardening, small business, arts etc., assure we can get new  ventures up 
and running well.  
• Organise the working bees to plant and maintain the community  orchards 
and other commons, build the premises for the bee keeper...and  organise the 
committees to run the concerts and look after old people...   
• Research what the town is importing as well as the scope for local  firms 
or new co-ops to start substituting local products.  
• Decide what things will emphatically not be left for market forces  to 
determine – such as unemployment, what firms we will have, whether  fast-food 
outlets will be patronised if they set up. We will not let  market forces 
deprive anyone of a livelihood; if we have too many  bakeries we will work out 
how to redirect one of them. The town gets  together to decide what it 
needs, and to establish these things  regardless of what market forces and the 
profit motive would have done.  
• Stress the importance of reducing consumption, living more simply,  
making, growing, repairing old things… The less we consume in the town  the less 
we must produce or import. Remember, the world can't consume at  anything 
like the rate rich countries average. As well as explaining the  importance of 
reducing consumption the CDC must stress alternative  satisfactions and 
develop these (e.g., the concerts, festivals, crafts).  It can also develop 
recipes for cheap but nutritious meals, teaching  craft and gardening skills, 
preserving etc. The household economy should  be upheld as the centre of our 
lives and the main source of life’s  satisfaction, more important than 
career.  
• Work towards the procedures for making good town decisions about  these 
developments, the referenda, consensus processes, and town  meetings.  
• Throughout all these activities recognise that our primary concern  is to 
raise consciousness regarding the nature, functioning and  unacceptability 
of consumer-capitalist society and the existence of  better ways. 
Conclusion  
The Transition Towns movement is characterised by a remarkable level of  
enthusiasm and energy. This seems to reflect a long pent up disenchantment  
with consumer-capitalist society and a desire for something better. There  is 
a powerful case that the only way out of the alarming global  predicament we 
are in has to be via a Transition Towns movement of some  kind. To our 
great good fortune one has burst on the scene. But I worry  that it could very 
easily fail to make a significant difference. My  argument has been that it 
will fail if it turns out to have been merely a  reformist project, because 
reforms can’t solve the problems. It is very  important that people working 
for the movement should think carefully  about what the global situation is 
and how it can be solved. I have  sketched a perspective on these questions 
which indicates that the  movement is not going to make a significant 
contribution to the transition  to a sustainable and just world unless the 
underlying vision and goals  alter significantly.  
--------------------------  
Appendix: The introduction of local currencies  
Although the introduction of our own local currency is very important,  
there is much confusion about local currencies. Often the proposed schemes  
would not have desirable effects. There is a tendency to proceed as if  just 
creating a local currency would do wonders, without any thinking  through of 
how it is supposed to work. lt will not have desirable effects  unless it is 
carefully designed to do so. I have serious concerns about  the currency 
schemes being adopted by the Transition Towns movement and I  do not think the 
initiatives I am aware of are going to make significant  contributions to 
the achievement of town resilience. It is not evident  that they are based on 
a rationale that makes sense nor enable one to see  why they will have 
desirable effects.  
It is most important that we are able to see precisely what general  effect 
the form of currency we have opted for is going to have; we must be  able 
to explain why we are implementing it in view of the beneficial  effects it 
designed to have. As I see it, the main purpose in introducing  a currency is 
to contribute to getting the unused productive capacity of  the town into 
action, i.e., stimulating/enabling increase in output to  meet needs. 
(Another purpose is to avoid the interest charges when normal  money is borrowed, 
but this can’t be done unless the new money is to be  used to pay for inputs 
available in the town; it can’t pay for imported  cement for instance.)  
Following is the strategy that I think is most valuable. Consider again  
what happens in the above scenario, when our CDC sets up a community  garden 
and invites people to come and work in it. When time contributions  are 
recorded with the intention of sharing produce later in proportion to  
contributions, these slips of paper function like an IOU or “promissory  note” 
(although that’s not what they are). They can be used to “buy”  garden produce 
when it becomes available. They are a form of money which  enables everyone to 
keep track of how much work, producing and providing  they have done and 
how great a claim they have on what’s been produced.  The extremely important 
point about the design and use of this currency is  that it helps in getting 
those idle people into producing to meet some of  their own needs. 
Obviously the introduction of the currency was not the  most important element in 
the process; organising the “firm” was the key  factor. It may be obvious the 
way the currency works, and you can see what  its desirable effects are to 
be. But just introducing a currency of some  kind does not necessarily have 
any desirable effect, and it is crucial to  do it in a way that you know 
will have definite and valuable effects.  
At a later stage we can use our currency to start trading with firms in  
the old economy. We can find restaurants for instance willing to sell us  
meals which we can pay for with our money. They will accept payment in our  
money if they can then spend that money buying vegetables and labour from  us in 
Economy B. But note that the normal shops in the town cannot accept  our 
money and we in Economy B cannot buy from them, unless there is  something we 
can sell to them. They can’t sell things to us, accepting our  money, unless 
they can use that money. Nothing significant can be achieved  unless people 
acquire the capacity to produce and sell things that others  want. So the 
crucial task here for the Community Development co-op is to  look for things 
we in Economy B might sell to the normal firms in the  town.  
Councils can facilitate this process, for example by accepting our new  
money in part payment of their rates – but again only if there is  something 
they can spend the money on, that is, goods and services they  need that we in 
Economy B can provide. Therefore the CDC must look for  these 
possibilities.  
Sometimes it makes sense for a council to issue a currency to enable  use 
of local resources, especially labour, to build an infrastructure  without 
having to borrow and pay interest to external banks. This can only  be done 
for those inputs that are available locally. If for instance the  cement for 
the swimming pool has to be imported then it will have to be  paid for in 
national currency, but it would be a mistake to borrow normal  money to pay the 
workers if they are available in the town. They can be  paid in specially 
printed new money with which they are able to pay (part  of) their rates. 
Note, however, that the council then has the problem of  what to do with these 
payments. If it doesn't use them the council has  actually paid for the pool 
via reduced normal money rate income, and will  have to reduce services to 
the town accordingly. Better to keep the money  perpetually in use within a 
new Economy B, so those workers and the  council can go on providing things 
to each other.  

Now consider some ways of introducing a new currency that will  not have 
desirable effects.  
What would happen if the council or a charity just gave a lot of new  money 
to poor people, and got some shops to agree to accept it as payment  for 
goods they sell? The recipients would soon spend it…and be without  jobs and 
poor again. The shops would hold lots of new money…but not be  able to spend 
it buying anything they need. (They could use it to buy from  each other, 
but would have no need to do this, because they were already  able to buy the 
few things they needed from each other using normal  money.) Again if things 
are not to gum up, it must be possible for the  shopkeepers in the old 
economy to use their new money purchasing something  from those poor people, and 
that’s not possible unless they can produce  things within a new Economy B. 
 
Sometimes the arrangement is for people to buy new notes using normal  
money. This is just substituting, and achieves nothing for the town  economy. 
What’s the point of people who would have used dollars now buying  using “eco’
s” they have bought? Again there is no effect of bringing  unused 
productive capacity into action.  
What about the argument that local currencies encourage local  purchasing 
because they can’t be spent outside the town? This reveals  confusion. Anyone 
who understands the importance of buying local will do  so as much as they 
can, regardless of what currency they have. Anyone who  doesn’t will buy what
’s cheapest, which is typically an imported item.  Obviously what matters 
here is getting people to understand why it’s  important to buy local; just 
issuing a local currency will make no  significant difference.  
Similarly, currencies which depreciate with time miss the point and are  
unnecessary. Anyone who understands the situation does not need to be  
penalised for holding new money and not spending it. In any case it’s  wrong-headed 
to set out to encourage spending; people should buy as little  as they can, 
and any economy in which you feel an obligation to spend to  make work for 
someone else is not an acceptable economy. In a sensible  economy there is 
only enough work, producing and spending and use of money  as is necessary to 
ensure all have sufficiency for a good quality of life.   
* * * * *  
Ted Trainer wrote the above article on Dec. 3, 2009, and recently asked  
Culture Change to post it. He is a Conjoint Lecturer in the School of  Social 
Work, University of New South Wales. His main interests have been  global 
problems, sustainability issues, radical critiques of the economy,  
alternative social forms and the transition to them. He has written  numerous books 
and articles on these topics, including The Conserver  Society: Alternatives 
for Sustainability, London, Zed, 1995; Saving  the Environment: What It Will 
Take, Sydney, University of N.S.W Press,  1998, and Renewable Energy Cannot 
Sustain A Consumer Society,  Springer, 2007. He is also developing Pigface 
Point, an alternative  lifestyle educational site near Sydney, and a website 
for use by critical  global educators, _ssis.arts.unsw.edu.au/tsw/_ 
(http://ssis.arts.unsw.edu.au/tsw/) .  It contains the website where his material is 
available for use. He can be  contacted via email at 
_F.Trainer at unsw.edu.au_ (mailto:F.Trainer at unsw.edu.au)  This e-mail address is being protected 
from spam  bots, you need JavaScript enabled to view it or via standard mail  
at Social Work, University of NSW, Kensington 2052, Australia.  
Learn from Transition Towns' videos:
_New  Zealand _ (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=APMTXrIL48A)  
Rob Hopkins video: _interviewed here_ 
(http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rQF09NG00V8&NR=1)   
_Transition U.S._ (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=USQkUbmJ-RM)  with 
Jennifer Gray  
Website: _>transitionus.org_ (http://transitionus.org/)    
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://www.permaculture-guilds.org/pipermail/southern-california-permaculture/attachments/20100217/a29bd6fe/attachment.html>