Larry Page, Tony Blair, Jimmy Wales, Vinod Khosla, Shai Agassi, Elon Musk, Runt Ramsbottom, William McDonough, and a bunch of other very, very rich, and powerful men recently congregated for a weekend on Richard Branson‘s island. The event was organized in part by the the Climate Group, and aimed to discuss ‘the war against carbon‘. Lots of talks on new technologies, policy, and finances. And none about the human factor and conservation strategies. Have these high-powered folks so pessimistic about themselves and their fellow human beings that they have given up on the idea altogether? After all, Larry Page jet-pooled to the event . . .
I have said it before. Technologies, policy, financing do have an enormous role to play in our war against climate change. No question. However, they should work in tandem with some well thought out conservation strategies, including the financial support of local conservation efforts, and global communication campaigns about desired behavioral changes.
It strikes me that the whole climate change narrative is heavily skewed with patriarchal language. Listen to the words: policy, technology, power, war, . . . The threatened warriors are taking out their big guns.
Maybe the outcome would be different, if women in high places got involved?
La Marguerite 
I agree that the ecological discourse may take a different direction if women were part of the pow-wow circle.
Gender bias has no place in progressive ecology.
The waring words originated in the sports arena and now permeate corporate behavior.
Much is being done at the lower echelons, but the verbiage must be accessible to all. Language is the cultural vehicle which drove us to destructive behavior, it can drive us right back to positive exchange.
Yes, Nadine. Back to infiltration strategies, this time through blogging and the greendropping of powerful comments in high places. More on that later.
I’m sure their chat made them feel all warm and fuzzy afterwards.
Old Branson offered a prize of twenty million bucks to anyone who could come up with a new technology to capture carbon. George Monbiot tried to claim it. “Here is my new invention: don’t burn fossil fuels. The carbon will then be stored in the ground in fossil fuels!” Branson hasn’t paid up.
While patriarchy is certainly alive and well, I don’t think it’s their maleness as such that makes them miss the obvious solutions or speak in such stupid language, but rather their social and financial position.
Unfortunately it’s never going to occur to wealthy old men who consume a lot that consuming less could be a solution to anything. They’re like some smoker developing lung cancer who asks why science hasn’t cured cancer yet. Here’s my cure: prevention.
It’s a bit like how because of that old formula of impact being equal to population times affluence, the affluent say, “well obviously we need to reduce population!” Our views and ideas are shaped by our experiences and self-interest. It’s almost counterintuitive, but the upper classes actually have a very narrow range of experiences, a very narrow worldview.
I am not so sure, these wealthy old men are so unreachable. My feeling is they just are not used to thinking that way. I am thinking of your ‘wedge’ image. There’s got to be a way to get them to listen.
I think the wealthy old men at that level are pretty much unreachable. They’ve got layer upon layer of secretaries and flunkies who read and respond to their mail and requests for meetings, and so on. And they work pretty hard to maintain their worldview. Branson, for example, he had a sort of Trump-style “Apprentice” show, and he was on every episode imposing his way of thinking on the contestants.
For example, in one episode they were supposed to go up in this balloon with Branson to have morning tea on the top of it at 20,000 feet or something. One girl felt it was dangerous, and refused. She was tossed out of the show. “If you can’t face your fears, I can’t have you in my company.” But then a few episodes later there was a “go over the Niagra Falls in a barrel with Branson” challenge, some guy told them all the dangers of it, Branson said he was up for it and got in, another guy hesitated and then jumped in, and…. then they didn’t go. Branson said, “are you crazy? This is so dangerous! Sometimes you have got to know when to back down and walk away, even if it means defying the boss.”
He presented it all as a lesson in there are times to face your fears, and times to make a rational assessment of danger and walk away. And that’s true. But the actual effect was purely manipulative, to show that Branson was the boss, and what he decided was good today he could decide was bad tomorrow. That is, Branson’s whim and judgment are more important than anyone else’s.
That’s not a person receptive to new ideas.
I also recall reading an article pointing out that a whole swag of these very wealthy entrepeneurs – Gates, Branson, etc – wouldn’t be able to get a job in their own company. Though they’re guys with poor qualifications but who had boldness and good ideas, people with poor qualifications but who had boldness and good ideas can’t get jobs in their companies, which all require qualifications, sucking up to the boss and not much else.
So I don’t think there’s much hope with the wealthy old guys at the very top. Where there’s hope is at the bottom, and in the middle, and also in the second tier of wealthy old guys, not quite at the top but close.
It’s funny to think of it, but in fact the larger the company the less people it employs and the less resources it uses per dollar of turnover. The corner store making 50 burgers a day employs 2 people and is 100 m2, but the McDonalds making 5,000 burgers a day does not employ 200 people nor is it 10,000 m2. They call that “economies of scale” which is great for making money, but from our aim of effecting change, you reach more people and get more change by aiming at corner burger joints. The corner burger joint will be more willing to change than the McD’s manager.
Scaling it up, I think it’s actually easier to influence 100 different $10 million companies than it’d be to influence one single $1,000 million company. And also more effective, in that 100 x $10M companies employ more people and use more resources than the 1 x $1,000M company.
I don’t think you can ever reach everyone. But I don’t think you have to. Revolutionary changes in societies come not from the whole body of society, but from a few key people in it. And those people are rarely those at the very top. Those at the very top naturally support the status quo. If you said to Richard Branson – “I have a method which will make the entire world carbon zero tomorrow – but it also means that the Virgin group of companies will cease to exist” – he’d say, “surely there’s another way…”
Good point. That NYTime story by Andrew Sorkin the other day had to be one of the silliest articles I ever read. Yes, there needs to be women involved on all of this, at the very top. Yes.
Although I have no idea what was discussed at this island event (I guess my invitation got lost in the mail?!!), I have just a few thoughts.
Of course, as Marguerite mentions, technology, policy, and so forth will all need to play critical roles in this. But as she also says, the behavioral and communication parts are vitally important too. Indeed, all of these things are linked together.
On a recent drive down south, I did some thinking on all this (and took some relevant pictures too). As soon as I have time to write down a few of those thoughts, I’ll share them. (Today’s a bit busy but I just wanted to say hello.)
In the meantime, I’ll just mention the idea that someone should convene an island meeting of very powerful and rich women.
Cheers.
The boys like to keep their club exclusive, Danny!
Here Down Under, our new PM – a real example of being elected by default – has set up the Australia 2020 summit. He appointed 10 people to run the thing, and asked for submissions for another 1,000 people to show up and form working groups to discuss various topics, all to get the ideas of Australia on the way forward. So far, fair enough and all good.
His chosen panel of 10 had one woman, the actress Cate Blanchett. What the hell she knows about anything I’ve no idea. But she’s the Token Woman, so it didn’t really matter who she was. I mean, it’s not like Australia has any women of education and experience who could contribute to a discuss of where Australia should be going!
The panel had one indigenous guy, after the outcry about there being no women, they turfed him off and replaced him with an indigenous woman – the Token Black now doubled as a Token Woman. Don’t black women count three times for the token? That’s like having 4 women on the panel, pretty good!
The 1,000 have been chosen (though they’ve been too lazy and disorganised to update the website). Basically they’ve got people who already have or had position and influence, former Generals, former MPs, mates of the 10, and so on.
The Boy’s Club lives on!
A side note: I forgot to say, Marguerite, that while I think the important factor for the meeting you described is their social class and wealth, certainly the language they use is masculine. I don’t think any woman President or MP would declare a War Against Drugs, or War On Terror. They’d probably have about the same policies (look at Thatcher, or Indira Gandhi), but they wouldn’t use the same language.
Climate Group which organized the event says on it’s “mission” page: “Experts believe we are on track to arresting the increase in atmospheric CO2 concentrations at reasonable levels (450-550 ppm)”
I’ve not aware of any credible expert taking that position.
Also, lamarguerite is spot on in pointing to the patriarchal language used and lack of women being involved. Change those two things and we get a much better outcome.
Thanks all for jumping in on this. What I retain from this discussion is the importance of looking for ways to work outside the ‘old boys’ club’. The majority of the power is elsewhere actually, although more diffuse and not as easy to leverage.
What I would like to ask from you: think up a list of people whom you would think we should target. Kyle mentioned small business owners. Any other ideas?
I MEAN, COME ON! WHAT WAS ANDREW SORKIN DOING THERE?
last two grafs of text:
<>
EXT HERE:
Of course, there was plenty of time for fun and games. After lunch one afternoon Mr. Branson suggested the entire group sail off to Mosquito, a nearby island he also owns, aboard a dozen catamarans. He said there was a party over there.
One of Mr. Blair’s security personnel trailed behind in a motorboat. Mr. Page, an avid kite surfer, struck out alone.
As the catamarans beached on Mosquito, music was blaring and women in bikinis were dancing. Mr. Branson deadpanned, “Normally the girls would be naked, but the prime minister is here.”
[…] is behavioral psychology at its best. Maybe not as appealing to the big boys as fancy technology, but potentially just as effective to fight climate […]