To increase the success rate you have to increase the failure rate

I was at the Berry Charity Chook Auction on Sunday and found myself sitting in the shade next to a chook enthusiast from Woodhill Mountain named Julia. We were talking about the value of letting kids injure themselves in order to learn, and she suddenly said:
"To increase the success rate you have to increase the failure rate."
I said: "Did you think of that yourself?"
She said: "Yes."
I said: "Just then?"
She said: "Yes."
I said: "Can I use it?"
She said: "Yes."
To increase the success rate you have to increase the failure rate. Something to carve on the heads of politicians and bureaucrats who are terrified of risk.
Failure is good. It's how you learn. The only real failure is a failure to learn from experience.
Which reminds me of my friend Geoff Brown's comment on a previous post which read: 
Lately I have been communicating the need for a mindset shift to tackling these complex problems. Like you say in this post, we need to be trying lots of different things and be aware that most of them will fail. Dave Snowden (Google Cognitive Edge) talks about a shift away from Fail-Safe strategies (where control of outcomes is assumed) to Safe-Fail strategies (where failure won't end in disaster, but we quickly learn from them). I like Clay Shirky's quote on this when he talks about the complexity of getting stuff to spread on the internet ... "We need to learn to try lots and lots of new things and fail informatively so that you and others can find a skull on a pikestaff somewhere".

On kooks and kooky ideas

Without kooky ideas, workshops tend to rehash the conventional wisdom. Which, if you're trying to design change projects, is worse than useless. I believe that change projects absolutely depend on left-field ideas that shake up people's assumptions and stimulate creativity. 

An example: brainstorming ideas for a backyard biodiversity program, one team member blurted out "garden party". Afterwards she admitted she wasn't being serious and didn't expect anyone to take her seriously, but her team got excited and garden parties became their central tactic.

Another: Some years ago Newcastle City Council was running public workshops to develop community progress indicators. One workshop was on the verge of agreeing that GDP was a suitable indicator, when the Greeny down the back said something like "I think we should all learn to be poor together". You can see the conventional thinkers in the room whacking their foreheads, thinking "Who let this guy in?" But it led to a discussion and the group recognised that disparity in wealth is a much better indicator of community wellbeing. Which, of course, it is.

But one thing I've noticed is how HAAARD it is for participants in planning sessions to liberate their inner kooks. It's like extracting teeth. "Pllleeeeeaase," I feel like saying, "Just give me just one wacky idea. You're safe here. No one will bite you..."  On the other hand, a minority of people seem to be comfortable with their inner kook. They relish upsetting the status quo. So here's my thought: AIM TO HAVE AT LEAST ONE OPINIONATED ODD-BALL IN EVERY PLANNING SESSION. They may ruffle feathers, but that's the whole point. People need to have their assumptions challenged. 

On this subject I was stimulated by a superb article in ODE magazine "In Praise of Dissent" by Canadian journalist Jeremy Mercer. He looks at the scholarly research on the power of dissenting opinions, and explains why dissenters make groups produce better results.  http://www.odemagazine.com/doc/71/in-praise-of-dissent

A taste: 

However it wasn’t until a landmark study conducted at the University of Virginia in the 1970s that dissent ceased being an ephemeral ideal and started becoming a tangible commodity that might be exploited. Researchers were analyzing the dynamics of jury deliberations, and after viewing hundreds of hours of videotape, they noticed a curious trend. When there was friction and fighting among jurors, the jury engaged in a better decision-making process than when it arrived smoothly at a unanimous verdict.

As a rule, the dissent resulted in more information heard at the trial being taken into consideration and a greater variety of perspectives voiced by jurors. There was, however, one small problem. The person who instigated this discord, the principle dissenter, tended to be ridiculed and ostracized by other jurors. The abuse was so blatant that when mock juries were held, the student assigned to play the dissenter actually requested “combat pay” because the role was so harrowing.

“Dissent makes the group as a whole smarter and leads to more divergent thinking, but the people who stand up with those sorts of opinions often get beaten up for it,” says Charlan Nemeth, the lead psychologist on those studies. “The results made a lot of us sit up and ask, ‘What exactly is going on here?’”

But basically most of us seem to be terrified of being different, so our kooky ideas can be fragile. Self-censorship is the enemy of good brainstorming. I came across this helpful advice on brainstorming from Jeffrey Baumgartner, author of Report 103. I give a version of it before every brainstorming session.

"Write down every idea that comes to mind. Even if the idea is ludicrous, stupid or fails to solve the challenge, write it down. Most people are their own worst critics and by squelching their own ideas, make themselves less creative. So write everything down. NO EXCEPTIONS!"

"[Because] other people are also involved, insure that no one criticises anyone else’s ideas in any way. This is called squelching, because even the tiniest amount of criticism can discourage everyone in the group for sharing their more creative ideas. Even a sigh or the rolling of eyes can be critical. Squelching must be avoided!"

People really need permission to walk on their wacky side. So far, as a facilitator, things I've found that work are:

1) begin with some kooky inspirations (remind people about the World Naked Bike Ride, bicycle fashion shows, a beer dispensing bicycle, a bicycle-powered music festival, bicycle polo*) 

2) fearlessly model kooky thinking myself;

3) celebrate whatever kooky ideas that pop out. 

It's a slow process, but I know those kooky ideas are out there somewhere!

* All of which illustrate how creative ideas come from ramming seemingly unrelated ideas together.

How to avoid thought

I totally love this kind of thing.

http://designthinking.typepad.com/.a/6a00e55095d9cd8833013480065166970c-pi

It's from the blog of Australian futurologist Ross Dawson http://rossdawsonblog.com/ who actually looks like very useful guy in terms of saving me having to think for myself.

OpenIDEO - changing the world with friends

Just had coffee with Grant Young, a web consultant who’s working at the convergence of design thinking, social media and sustainability. His company is Zumio and his work includes community-building web sites for WWF and the NSW Cancer Institute. He introduced me to a whole world which, narrow-minded dolt that I am, I’ve managed to remain ignorant of.

So what is ‘design thinking’? It’s a convergence of industrial design and anthropology, in some ways re-invention of good old 1970s Participative Action Research, but applied to the design of products and services. IDEO and Live|Work are firms at the cutting edge of this field.

The simple idea is, when you’re designing a product or service, spend time becoming intimately acquainted with the lives of users. If possible, become immersed. Then proceed by designing and testing prototypes. This makes perfect sense for designing gizmos and widgets. So why not use the same method to design services and solutions to social problems? Why not indeed!

He sent me some wonderful links (below).

The most exciting of these is OpenIDEO. It’s so fantastic it makes me feel faint.

Have a look. http://openideo.com

OpenIDEO is a web site that enables a community of collaborators to design new products and services together, sharing their inspirations and concepts as they go. The beautiful thing is – you can use it to solve social problems too. And the community of collaborators can be virtually unlimited.

Just check out the brilliant range of ideas it generated to tackle childhood obesity. http://openideo.com/open/how-might-we-give-children-the-knowledge-to-eat-better/concepting/

OpenIDEO solves one of the biggest problems that bedevil designers of change programs. It’s the small gene pool of inspiration and creativity available to the typical project team/committee. You are always limited by the number of active collaborators x the time they have to think. With OpenIDEO you can invite creative input from a huge range of people and spread the collaborative process beyond the time available for meetings.

What I also love is the attention to the Inspiration phase. We always cut this short, or forget it entirely. But it’s vital. OpenIDEO requires and enables an expansive trawl for inspirations before we start to assemble solutions.

Promise to me: I’m gonna find a way to use this!

Grant’s blog is at: http://zum.io

Some illuminating links he sent me after our talk:

http://www.livelocal.org.au/ - the sustainability community developed by Digital Eskimo

http://johnnyholland.org/2010/07/13/mobile-diaries-discovering-daily-life/ - a bit more info on the "Mobile Diaries" process (from Penny Hagen, who I mentioned in conversation, with the article based in part on the work we did together for WWF-Australia)

http://www.rethinkclimate.org/debat/rethink-technology/ - introductory post from Ezio Manzini on the small, open, local, connected concept

http://sustainable-everyday.net/SEPhome/home.html

has a host of case studies of social innovation towards sustainability.

Perfectly said

Some nice aphorisms for those working on change projects:

"It’s difficult to remove by logic an idea that is not placed there by logic in the first place."

"If the map doesn’t agree with the ground, the map is wrong."

"We are what we do."

"Feelings follow behaviour."

"Not all who wander are lost."

"We flee from the truth in vain."

"Mental health requires freedom of choice."

"The only real paradises are those that are lost."

"Be bold, and mighty forces will come to your aid."

All from ‘Too Soon Old, Too Late Smart’, a pithy book that lists 30 things Gordon Livingston learnt in his career as a therapist.

Mysterious trends and fads

From Google Trends, a popularity chart of social change buzz words over time (in Australia).

Noticeable:

...the decline of "environmental education" and (thankfully) "capacity building";

...the rise and rise of "social marketing";

...the steady popularity of "behaviour change";

...the strange invisibility of "diffusion of innovations" (arguably the only one of these buzz words that represents a coherent body of knowledge!)

A nice insight – teams of two

One of the problems of organisational life is the weird centrifugal force that spins people into their own corners of the office where they become pressurised teams of one. And of course this isn't great for motivation, imagination, creativity, or morale.

I always thought the solution was “multidisciplinary teams”. But what about the Team of Two?

Here’s an insightful article that just changed my mind on this subject:

http://www.jpb.com/report103/archive.php?issue_no=20100818

P.S. It’s true. I just finished a complicated Cycling Strategy where I was unintentionally in a team of two with a passionate cycling advocate. The team work was enjoyable and effortless. I can’t imagine it being that way with a bigger team. 

On tackling wicked problems

I recently stumbled across a fantastic publication, one that ought to be on the reading list for anyone working in the business of change.

It’s called Wicked Problems, A Public Policy Perspective.

It published by the Australian Public Service Commission and carries its authority. The author(s) are anonymous, but they have done a beautiful job of crisply summarising a literature and critically assessing its huge implications for government.

Firstly, what are “wicked problems”?

Wicked problems are complex multi-dimensional problems like indigenous  health, climate change, catchment management, and school bullying. In fact, practically every problem we deal with in environment or health is a wicked problem.

Wicked problems:

- are difficult to define (it depends on who is asked);

- are often unstable…(understandings evolve over time, presenting a moving target);

- have many interdependencies and causes;

- have no clear solution (solutions “are not verifiably right or wrong, but rather better or worse or good enough” (p4) and solutions often have unforseen consequences);

- are socially complex (“it is the social complexity of wicked problems, rather than their technical complexity, that overwhelms most current problem-solving and project management approaches p4”);

- hardly ever conveniently sit within the responsibilities of one organisation;

- involve changing peoples’ behaviours;

- are characterised by chronic policy failure.

Stumbling upon this publication was timely because I was just writing up recommendations for organisational change in the Southern Rivers Catchment Management Authority. It handed me a really useful framework for assessing the organisation’s capacity as a change agency.

It’s this: An effective change agency should exhibit seven capacities:

1) Capacity for innovation;

2) Capacity for learning and adaptive management;

3) Capacity to work across silos, in multi-disciplinary teams;

4) Capacity to collaborate with multiple stakeholders and the public in understanding problems and devising and implementing solutions;

5) Capacity to influence the behaviours of stakeholders and the public;

6) Staff capacity in communication, big picture thinking, influencing others and the ability to work cooperatively.

7) Capacity to critically review accountability frameworks.

Of course, as soon as you think about these capacities, it’s obvious why of most government agencies and local councils are hopeless at tackling difficult problems. The authors say this so much more diplomatically:

“A traditional bureaucracy, divided into vertical silos, in which most of the authority for resolving problems rests at the top of the organisation, is not well-adapted to support the kinds of process necessary for addressing the complexity and ambiguity of wicked problems. Bureaucracies tend to be risk averse, and are intolerant of messy processes. They excel at managing issues with clear boundaries rather than ambiguous, complex issues that may require experimental and innovative approaches.” (p13)

In short, if you want to change the world you can’t afford be a traditional, hierarchically managed, value-free, service-delivery agency like a Department or local Council. You just can’t. You need to be small, nimble, passionate, and happy to “fail informatively”. CMAs are one promising model; PCPs (Primary Care Partnerships in Victoria) are another; Alliancing is another (used for large infrastructure projects); outsourcing to NGOs like Landcare groups and local Environmental Centres is another.

Here are some nice quotes from Tackling Wicked Problems:

“Because of social complexity, solving a wicked problem is fundamentally a social process. Having a few brilliant people or the latest project management technology is no longer sufficient.” (p28, quoting Conklin, L. 2006)

“It has been argued that the public sector needs to adopt more systematic approaches to social innovation as opposed to the current rather ad hoc approach: ‘How many departments or agencies have a board level director responsible for innovation..? How many have significant budgets for innovation..? How many can point to the flow of new models in their service that are being cultivated, developed, improved and tested.’” (p13, quoting Mulgan G. 2006)

“A concomitant condition to increasing adaptability is a broad acceptance and understanding, including from governments and Ministers, that there are no quick fixes and that levels of uncertainty around the solutions to wicked problems need to be tolerated.” (p15)

“Critically, tackling wicked problems also calls for high levels of systems thinking. This big picture thinking helps policy makers to make the connections between the multiple causes and interdependencies of wicked problems that are necessary in order to avoid a narrow approach and artificial taming of wicked problems…A multi-disciplinary team approach is one practical way to garner all the required skills and knowledge for tackling any particular wicked problem.” (p33)

“Collaborative strategies are the best approach to tackling wicked problems which require behavioural change as part of the solution.” (p10)

“The fact is that a true understanding of the problem generally requires the perspective of multiple organisations and stakeholders, and that any package of measures identified as a possible solution usually requires the involvement, commitment and coordination of multiple organisations and stakeholders to be delivered effectively.” (p11)

“Is the requirement to tightly specify programme outputs and outcomes useful in an environment where even defining the problem and solution is difficult?” (p23) 

“There is increasing evidence that some types of pre-set performance measures, especially lower-level indicators, may undermine the responsiveness of the delivery of complex services and could even distort or constrict the services by making the indicator (or the target) rather than the service the focus of provision. In the case of devolved services both service providers and service users can find themselves playing second fiddle to programme reporting regimes.” (p24)

----------------------

Australian Public Service Commission (2007) Tackling Wicked Problems – A Public Policy Perspective, downloadable from www.apsc.gov.au/publications07/wickedproblems.htm

How Bushcare is innovating

All over Australia there are thousands of hard working teams of nature conservation volunteers – Landcare, Bushcare and their cousins – each with a handful of active members, scratching their heads about how to grow their numbers.

The reason that Landcare and Bushcare groups get stuck is, surely, not just because of poor marketing, but because of what Landcare and Bushcare ARE. If all you’re doing is weeding the same patch of blighted bushland month after month it’s no wonder your membership gets stuck. So it’s possible that recruiting more volunteers might depend on evolving a better kind of Landcare/Bushcare experience. A more meaningful and enjoyable Bushcare experience would mean more inspired stories to share, better word of mouth (the only kind of marketing that counts) and more people dipping their toes in the water. And a better experience means they’re likely to stay.

And of course there ought to be plenty of innovators already out there, just waiting for a chance to share their ideas.

So, at the 2010 Sydney Bushcare Forum, I facilitated a session with around 100 reps from groups all over Sydney to share their Bushcare innovations.

It turned into a marvellous idea-fest. Here are a few of their innovations:

Reframing the vision from bushland to wildlife corridor

Ross Muller of Roselea Bushcare Group described how his group joined up with two nearby groups and changed their focus from bushland rehabilitation to creating a Wildlife Corridor (a more visionary goal). They have nesting boxes all along the corridor, each one sponsored by a local family (one with a family of seven sugar gliders living in it). They also joined up with a local Heritage group to set up a Heritage Walk.

Partnerships with schools

Ross’s group also talked to a nearby school and now have 25 students spending an hour a week helping out. Several other groups were doing the same thing. (In fact plenty of schools are desperate for someone to walk in and offer this kind of “Beyond the Fence” learning opportunity for kids).

Outsourcing your nursery

Ross’s group have a “native grass farm”, essentially a patch of dense native grasses. They invite school kids to harvest the seeds, plant them in boxes, take them home to germinate, and return to plant them as seedlings.

Cool branding

Chris Bartlett of Cooks River Mudcrabs reckons that having a memorable brand (“Mudcrabs”) really helps. They wear their Mudcrab T-shirts whenever they’re on the job, and have a clean one to wear socially.

Making it fun

The Cooks River Mudcrabs have a birthday party for their group each year.

Another group has annual awards, including “Asparagus Assassin”.

Most groups have morning tea (though this was a surprise to some!)

One group has a regular baking competition to see who made the best cake.

(I’ve been told that The Illawarra Youth Landcare Group always do something social after each work session…swimming at the beach, playing cricket, or going to the pub together.)

Variety

Some groups go and help out other groups occasionally (“sister groups?”). This turns a weeding session into a special occasion and “spreads the love”.

Have a few sites in different environments and shift between them e.g. frog habitat. Make one site could be near pristine so people can really experience the beauty of nature.

Don’t forget to mix in higher energy activities for men and young folks.

Spreading the message

Don Wilson of Willoughby Bushcare talked about the “Major Day Out” initiative. They arranged for all of Willoughby’s bushcare groups to run “bush open days” on the same day so it becomes a major community event. Groups in other parts of Sydney and one in Brisbane are picking up the idea. (Hey isn’t that how Clean Up the World began!?) Just Google “Bushcare Major Day Out”.

One group has a “why we are here” pamphlet and gives it to people when they are in the field, starting a conversation and inviting them to join in.

Another group invited their local State MP (and she became a regular member!).

One group has occasional spotlighting nights, including a BBQ.

Another organises bus trips “free scenic bus trip and bushwalk”.

Give volunteers a special title and spoil them.

Another invited a Mens’ Shed on a tour.

Another invited 8-10 year olds to “Adopt an Animal” as a class research project and then come along and help restore its habitat.

Spot the kind of people who already use the park for recreation and devise a special event for them.

Bronte Gully Bushcare has a website www.brontebushcare.org.au

A flowering calendar of local plants, so everyone can do their bit on their own properties.

More ideas

Who knew that Boy Scouts and Girl Guides have a Landcare badge?

One group had an inventor, so they let him make wheelbarrows and equipment (“let people do what interests them”).

Instead of spraying, one group uses overlapping paper and cardboard, to show “we can be organic”.

One group invites their kids along and gives them their own site to look after responsibly.

And I might add:

An idea that came up in a recent workshop with health promoters who are looking for ways to get and keep volunteers: When you communicate with potential volunteers, clearly specify the extent of their expected commitment (e.g. “two hours per month”), the kind of work, and the support and mentoring they’ll receive. Also clearly identify the extent of their autonomy – the decisions they’ll be able to make themselves, even down to their choice of days. This degree of detail ought to lower potential volunteers’ anxieties about engaging in an unfamiliar activity.

WWF-UKs push for values-based campaigning

World Wildlife Fund UK has recently taken a deep dive into the murky world of psychology to try to understand why those darned humans are so reluctant to do the right thing, especially with a global emergency that doesn’t allow us the leisure of waiting around for people to get it.

The work is led by Tom Crompton, WWF-UKs “Change Strategist”.

Crompton’s first publication, Weathercocks and Signposts, in 2008, was a tortuous read. Essentially it asserted that environmental campaigns that asked people to do easy steps for shallow reasons like saving money or looking good (aka green consumerism) probably wouldn’t be able to leverage those easy behaviours into harder behaviours. To do that we should probably be appealing to deeper values.

In 2009 he wrote Simple and painless - The limitations of spillover in environmental campaigning.

Here he claimed that “If those in government, business or the third sector persist in advocating ‘simple and painless’ behavioural changes as a meaningful response to today’s most pressing environmental challenges, this must be because they are persuaded that such changes will encourage the adoption of other, and particularly other more ambitious, behaviours.”

[That sounds like a straw man argument, but we’ll let it go. He does conceded that many campaigns don’t aim for spillover effects “For example installing loft insulation”.]

By spillover he means the assumption that an easy behaviour like recycling might lead to a harder behaviour like leaving the car at home. 

[My comment: I don’t know any campaigner who operates on this principle, do you? Not only is there little evidence for spillover effects, but it would be an unprofessional program design practice. There’s another kind of spillover, of course, “vertical spillover”, where going along to a workshop about solar panels DOES make it more likely that a person will install solar panels. But I don’t think he’s talking about that.]

In order to encourage spillover he suggests environmental campaigners should make clear the environmental arguments behind new behaviours [ie. not “saving you money” but “saving rainforests”], and to frame around values [like providing “a safe world for our children”].

His latest and most coherent effort (but still a dense academic read) is Meeting Environmental Challenges - The Role of Human Identity, co-written with Tim Kasser, professor of psychology at Knox College, Illinois. (June 2009)

This book reasserts Crompton’s key argument that environmental vaues should be promoted through appeals to positive, deep values (aka identity).

Unfortunately Crompton and Kasser take an selectively negative view of values/identity. They focus on:

- negative “values and life goals” like power, egotism, wealth, rewards, achievement and status;

- “in-groups and out groups”: people who [apparently] define nature as an ‘out-group’; and

- “coping with fear and threats” where they hand-wring over the human capacity for denial in all of it’s guises.

[They seem never to have heard of strengths-based community development or any of the other approaches that build on positives. Instead they prefer to attack the negatives in human nature – don’t they know that only makes them stronger?]

They go on to propose “identity campaigning” as an answer.

Their strategy is:

(i) decrease the extent to which bad values are modeled socially;

(ii) help people cope with feelings of insecurity in more adaptive ways; and

(iii) develop programs and policies that promote intrinsic values like spirituality, community, and health.

They say that environmental organisations should stop appealing to people’s selfish or materialistic values e.g. “green consumerism”, “business cases”, “sustainable development” and “valuing environmental services”. This, they say, “has actually served to reinforce the dominance of these values and goals.”

The alternative is for environmental organisations to wear their higher values on their sleeves, for instance, by talking about the importance of nature to the human spirit. [This is straight out of George Lakoff's script, and it makes good sense. Crompton has already pointed out that appeals to selfish values can easily cause "negative spillover" where people compensate for good acts by doing more bad acts in other parts of their lives.]

Interestingly, they suggest that enviro groups could benefit by providing social support for people who share their values. [A good example is ACF’s champions programs in NSW and Victoria].

They also talk about promoting “implementation intentions” which means not only spreading values but specifying what choices those values require. An example might be “We value nature therefore we oppose destruction of habitat whenever we see it”. An interesting idea. The research ref is Gollwitzer, P. (1999) Implementation intentions: Strong effects of simple plans, American Psychologist, 54, 493-503.

Then they address out-group prejudice. They point out that by ascribing economic values to, for instance, Canadian harp seals, we may inadvertently make them an out-group that it’s OK to exploit. They talk about the importance of more contact between species to reduce out-grouping, for instance through nature-based workshops.

On the third of their identity problems, denial in the face of threats, they write that “in order to help activate positive environmental behaviours, environmental organisations will ultimately need to develop approaches that help people express the fear, anger, sadness, angst or sense of threat from environmental challenges that many are probably already experiencing (whether consciously or otherwise)”. [Interesting idea. Maybe environmentalists would think more clearly if they weren't so grief stricken.]

They also suggest that making people feel threatened might push them further into denial, citing campaigns that vilify SUV drivers. [About time someone said this.]

They conclude by:

1) asserting [unconvincingly] that aspects of values can be changed; and

2) reasserting what has been Crompton’s main argument from the start: that environmental organisations should engage with identity through appeals to deep, abiding, positive human values.

[What is missing is more details on values…so here’s a few we could work with:

- anything to do with children and being a good parent;

- quality of relationships;

- autonomy;

- health;

- altruism;

- joy;

- safety].

What is good about this work:

The importance of learning to communicate in terms of deep human values.

What’s not good:

The academic language.

Lack of examples of how to do it.

The assumption that communicating directly to individuals matters much anyway. Perspectives drawn from Diffusion of Innovations, social networks, product design and setting modification are absent from Crompton’s work. He’s still hooked on traditional marketing assumptions that treat people as isolated individuals and ignore their technological, physical, institutional and social settings. That's where we can really influence behaviour.

The task before us

I've been meaning to post this item from Sean Kidney's authoritative Climate Change blog, from the December Copenhagen Conference, which succinctly scopes some of the infrastructure and behavioural changes we'll need to see in coming decades:

I've just come from a sobering presentation in Copenhagen by Yuki Tanaka and others of the Japanese Institution of Transport Policy Studies. They have done detailed modeling of global transport emissions and how we can reduce them by 2050.They've done different scenarios, and have settled on pushing for keeping emissions at 2000 levels because they believe the lower scenarios are not likely to be achieved. I started off sceptically, thinking "we'll need to figure out how to do better than that". But by the end of the presentation, overwhelmed by the robustness of their research, I can see why they made that decision.

Bear in mind this is in the context of rapidly growing economies in Asia and Latin America.

Key points:

To keep emissions just at 2000 levels will require:

- Cars: an enormous 60% shift of passenger traffic from cars to rail and bus. In cities 80% of remaining cars and 40% of light trucks will be electric by 2050.

- Aviation: half of all sub-1600km trips shift to high-speed rail systems, plus 20-30% fuel saving technology improvements in aviation. They do also include some shifting to technologies like

video-conferencing.

- Shipping: 30% reduction in emissions, largely through large scale engine replacement around 2020, when a disproportionate portion of the world's fleet comes up for renewal.

- Bikes: for short-distance trips there'll be a substantial increase in non-vehicle transport - e.g. bicycles - helped by congestion charges and other traffic control techniques in all major cities.

- Rail: large scale electrification of railways and various substantial improvements in rail efficiency. There will be a doubling (yes!) of kms of rail lines in the world by 2050. They have also assumed that the power grid shifts largely to clean energy during this period.

The net extra investment needed above "business as usual investment" already expected is just under US$12 trillion, 54% in developing countries. And this just to keep at 2000 level emissions!

On the optimistic side, if we can ensure, with some tough government planning decisions that help ensure these investments pay a good return for pension funds, then it's a huge financing opportunity.

Some interesting responses

 

Some interesting responses to my article The problem with social marketing – why you can’t sell change like soap

From a senior social marketing consultant:

I also find social marketing limited but have to report that it has become an industry. It now has to sustain itself and all the bureaucratic university and publishing infrastructure that has grown up around it. Many of the social marketing conferences seem to devote a fair slab of time to navel-gazing or defending the theory. Or they just keep expanding the horizons so it includes EVERYTHING. I recently sat in on a planning meeting for a new social marketing body in Australia recently and it was filled with University social marketing professors who were mainly concerned with the status of the publication associated with the conference.

From a social science professor:

Les - I agree - and I look forward to reading it in more detail – this takes me back to arguments I had in Canada with McKenzie-Mohr about 20 years ago!! - for me there is a big difference between 'enabling' change (which often first involves 'personal healing') and 'manipulating' change - the former is sustainable and co-evolving, whereas the latter is usually transitory and open to the next 'manipulation’.

From a sexual health marketer:

Thanks Les - an excellent, accessible article. I wish we could devote our sexual health marketing dollars to working directly with small groups of young people instead of paying kids in advertising agencies to come up with the next catchy 'grab'.

From a health promotion officer:

You raise lots of great points in your paper. I basically agree with what you say. When I first started out working in communications as a grad I started off by buying into the usual spiel around the influence of mass media etc. which is obviously still true to some extent but at that stage I wasn't able to be as critical of social marketing as I am now. Through my work over the last few years in health promotion, I really do feel like mass media advertising and the like is often money down the drain - it looks like you're doing more than you actually are. Unfortunately though, it's really difficult to use all of the principles you went through in your Enabling Change workshop because of lack of time and money. But I believe that I have personally gotten better at thinking more laterally and abandoning lots of usual practices that sound good but do nothing in terms of impact. Anyway, it's a work in progress and I still have a lot of learn about all of this!

From an state agency social scientist:

Well argued! I think maybe you are a bit unkind to social marketing based programs and frameworks that extend the conception of barriers and benefits beyond the psychosocial, but you are certainly right as far as I can see that major government campaigns and the consultants who provide them tend to generate very narrow and inconsequential interventions (except in visibility impact - perhaps we need a more social change literate electorate policing these things and punishing low change, high visibility efforts).

Cheers.

Also, interestingly, a stinging critique in the New York Times of the use of social marketing to promote the adoption of pesticide-treated mosquito nets in sub-sahara Africa.