Can we strengthen the Transition Towns movement?
Ted
Trainer
14.6.2022
The
only way to
achieve a sustainable and just world is via a Transition Towns movement.
A bold
claim? I will explain it below. The
movement
has spread remarkably and inspires great hope but I have serious
concerns about it. The following thoughts are intended to facilitate
discussion
about goals and strategies. But first it is important to make clear the
essential nature of the global predicament we are in. Many people,
especially
many working for Green Parties and for a Green New Deal, don’t
understand the
situation and thus are in my view pursuing mistaken goals, and I worry
that
this is also the case regarding much of the energy going into the
Transition
Towns movement.
The situation.
The
basic
cause of the many alarming global problems we face is the pursuit of
affluent “living standards” and economic growth…the determination to
produce
and consume more and more, without limit, even in the richest countries.
We have far exceeded the limits to growth.
There is no possibility that the per capita levels of resource
consumption in
rich countries can be kept up for long.
Only a few of the world’s people have these “high living
standards” and
the rest can never rise to anything like them.
This
is
the basic cause of resource depletion, environmental damage, the
deprivation
of billions in the Third World, resource struggles and wars, and
declining social
cohesion and quality of life.
Most
people
do not seem to realise how far beyond sustainable levels of production
and consumption we are. There is a strong case that if we are to live in
sustainable ways then rich world per capita rates of consumption must
be
reduced by around 90%. (See Trainer, 2021.)
The
common
response to this is the “tech-fix” claim that technical advance will
enable GDP growth to be “decoupled” from resource and environmental
impact.
There is now overwhelming evidence that this is not happening and is not
going
to happen. (The review by Haberl et al., 2020, examined over 800
studies.) In
some limited areas output can be increased while effects are reduced but
in
general if GDP is increased impacts increase.
A
major cause of the problem is the fact that we have an economic system
which
must have growth and which allows the market to determine what happens.
As a
result what is produced, who gets it and what is developed is what is
most
profitable to the few who own most of the capital, and not what is most
needed.
That is why the 1% now own about half the world’s wealth, the Third
World has
been developed into a form which ships their resources out to
enrich the
corporations and rich world shoppers, while most people in even the
richest
countries struggle to get by.
The
crucial
point is that we cannot achieve a sustainable way of life which all
could share unless there is an enormous degrowth transition to far
simpler
lifestyles and systems. Over many years I have put forward such a
vision,
labelled The Simpler Way (TSW, 2018), and discussed how it might be
achieved. I
have no doubt that the decision making institutions of this society are
incapable of solving the big problems, especially given that at present
very
few people even realise what the basic cause is let alone understand
what must
be done. We are descending into a possibly terminal time of great
troubles
which will see the collapse of the global system and the
self-destruction of capitalism.
The best we can hope for is a Goldilocks depression, severe enough to
jolt us
out of the old ways without eliminating our capacity to build the new
ways.
The
required
sustainable social form must be based on mostly small, highly
self-sufficient and self-governing, cooperative local communities,
willingly
embracing far simpler lifestyles and systems. (Detailed in TSW, 2019.)
The Simper Way would be a liberation from the
consumer-capitalist rat race, enabling a far higher quality of life. It
would
not involve reduction in modern technology.
There can be no alternative to this general form,
It is the only kind of society capable
of achieving the necessary huge reductions in resource and environmental
impacts while providing well for all the world’s people.
That
this
has to be the way is illustrated by our study (Trainer, Malik and
Lenzen,
2019) comparing egg supply via the normal supermarket path with that
from
backyards and local poultry cooperatives. The dollar and energy costs of
the
former were found to be in the order of 50 to 200 times those of
the
latter.
The
industrial/supermarket
egg has a vast and complex global input supply chain
involving fishing fleets, agribusiness, shipping and trucking transport,
warehousing, chemicals, infrastructures, supermarkets, storage,
packaging,
marketing, finance and advertising and insurance industries, waste
removal and
dumping, computers, a commuting workforce, OH&S provisions, and
highly
trained technicians. It also involves damage to ecosystems, especially
via
carbon emissions and agribusiness effects including the non-return of
nutrients
to soils.
However
eggs
supplied by backyard pens and integrated village cooperatives can avoid
almost
all of these costs, while enabling immediate use of all “wastes” and
reaping
collateral benefits. Recycling of kitchen and garden scraps along with
free
ranging can meet total poultry nutrient needs. Poultry and other animal
manures, including human, can be directly fed into nearby compost heaps,
methane digesters, algae and fish ponds, thereby eliminating the need
for
inputs to village food production from the fertilizer industry. Entire
sewer
systems can be eliminated. No transport need be involved. Care and
maintenance
of systems can be largely informal, via spontaneous discussion and
action. In
addition cooperative care of animals adds to amenity and leisure
resources and
facilitates community bonding.
These
kinds
of arrangements enable similar reductions in many other domains,
including other food items, dwelling construction, clothing supply,
manufacturing,
welfare and educational and other services, and especially in provision
for resource-frugal
local leisure and entertainment.
So
that
is the general direction in which we need the Transition Towns movement
to
enable us to go. Thus my concern is with whether that is where the
movement is
in fact going, and how it might more effectively contribute to the
eventual
achievement of that goal.
Where is the
movement going?
I
don’t think there is a clear answer to this question, and my concern is
that
there seems to be little or no interest in discussing the
question. This is my main
worry about the movement, the
lack of thinking about itself, about its goals and strategies and
achievements. There is
plenty of celebratory
and self-congratulatory rhetoric (much of it justifiable I think) and a
great
deal of description of what has been done in various locations, but
having just
reviewed all the articles on the movement I can access I have found
almost no
material considering the rationale or appropriateness of goals and
strategies.
There seems to be little or no concern with reviewing the significance
or value
of various projects, determining what “works” and what should be avoided
or with
thinking about what form we are trying to get the town into. There is
even
little or no consideration of difficulties and failures, what if any
ventures have
been found to be mistaken, how many attempts to form groups fail and if
so why.
Above all, how do participants think that the things they are doing are
going
to contribute to the eventual achievement of a satisfactory world. My
main
concern is that it is a theory-less movement. There is much
enthusiasm
to jump in and do good things but there is little or no interest in
thinking
about what things ought to be done and why. (There is much discussion of
“theory”, but only to do with how to form and operate Transition Towns
groups.)
This
is
a fundamental and deliberate characteristic of the movement,
emphatically
advocated one by of the core texts (Hopklions,2013.) This tells us not
to worry
about what to do, …it tells us to “… just do stuff.” But why, and what
is the
implicit rationale here; why is this a good idea and sufficient
strategy, and
how can we be sure that it is not mistaken? I note below perspectives
from
which it is seen as a pathetic waste of time. (I will argue that typical
projects could be but need not be, depending on how they are framed and
communicated.) These are very important questions which should be
thought about
carefully. It is my belief that unless they are addressed the movement
might
have no revolutionary significance. We might end up with a grossly
unsustainable and unjust dying ultra-capitalist society containing lots
of
community gardens, clothing swaps and local businesses.
This
“just
do stuff” orientation sems to have been very effective in enlisting
participants who are a) concerned about the state of the planet, b)
disenchanted with the political system’s failure to deal with the big
problems,
c) keen to do something immediate, practical and local and d) eager for
cooperative/consensual effort to improve their community. There is a
strong
desire to avoid conflict, and thus politics, and to avoid national
policy
debates by focusing on the local scene. These are admirable
dispositions, but I
think they have led to a neglect of critical thinking.
Goals?
What
is
the movement for? Again there is no single view but the dominant theme
is
resilience, and this is mainly defined in terms of protecting against
the
climate and petroleum threats. But these themes do not define the kind
of
movement I want to see. Various analysts have pointed out that they can
be
taken to identify the movement as “survivalist” and thus driven by a
selfish
concern to establish security in a crumbling world. Greater resilience
for a
particular town can be achieved by investing resources on a scale that
all
could not adopt. What I want to see is the development of social forms
which
enable all the world’s people to live well sustainably, and as I have
said I
have no doubt that the only way to achieve this must be via a Transition
Towns
movement. But it would have to be a movement that focuses clearly and
determinedly on goals that are not prominent or barely evident in the
present
movement. The overriding goal would be to work out and move towards ways
that
enabled a sustainable society of the kind I sketch above. Such a society
would
be characterised by a) dramatic degrowth to a stable economy, b) control
of the
town economy by the townspeople, c) thus only a very minor role for
market
forces, d) no concept of interest and thus only a tiny finance industry,
e)
mostly cooperative arrangements, f) participatory not representative
government, g) thus the
elimination of
capitalism and globalisation, h) mostly very simple alternative
technologies (e.g.
earth building), and most important all, happy acceptance of very frugal
lifestyles focused on non-material sources of satisfaction. From my
reading it
is difficult to find any of these elements in the Transition Towns
movement
today.
The
above
is not just my wish list. They are elements about which we have no
option.
As I have said above, unless we eventually get to such a social form we
cannot
possibly get through to a sustainable and just world. My books and
articles
detail this case at considerable length. Maybe the vision I argue is
mistaken
but the point here is that the Transition Towns movement needs to think
about
it. If I (along with the many who agree) am right the movement has some
serious
re-aligning to consider.
As
I
see it the biggest problem here is to do with simplicity. The most
important and
difficult element in the above list is the need to (eventually) shift to
far
simpler (material) systems and lifestyles. The enormity of this task
could not
be exaggerated, given the present manic obsession with affluent
consumerism and
economic growth, and the fact that we have an economic system which must
grow,
and the fact that almost no governments, economists, politicians or
“leaders”
understand that this is absurd and suicidal. (Hence my firm belief that
this
society is incapable of solving the big global problems; fundamental
change can
only be achieved via the coming self-destruction of the present system.
See
Trainer, 2020.)
However
apart
from incidental references here and there, the movement is not
interested
in simplicity. My hope is that if we can encourage thinking about goals
in
relation to the need for global “revolution” the simplicity theme will
be
become central.
Simpler
Way
communities would indeed be highly resilient, but this is best thought
of
as a consequence of their form, no a defining goal. They would also have
fewer
bureaucrats, car accidents, sad people, crimes etc. but it is not as if
the
intent was to design a society with those characteristics. And
communities would
have achieved resilience in ways all could follow.
Just
as
remarkably absent from the discussion is whether or not the movement’s
goal can
be achievable within/by a capitalist society. The goal I am arguing for
emphatically cannot be. No need to talk about it evidently. You can
certainly
make a town more resilient without resorting to such distasteful
language, but
you cannot build a sustainable and just world without dealing with the
issue.
The things happening in the movement at present are no threat to
capitalism;
indeed they are facilitating it, as citizens try to ameliorate problems
it is
causing.
To
summarise,
most and possibly all of the movement’s core goals are indisputably
desirable and important, notably localism, cooperation, and
strengthening town solidarity. But
in my view it lacks other goals that are
crucial for a planet-saving movement, such as determination to
(eventually) take
control of the town, to get rid of capitalism, and above all commitment
to
simplicity in lifestyles and systems.
Means, strategy?
Transition
Towns
strategy can be summed up with three words; “Just Do Stuff”. But why is
it thought that this will lead to the achievement of the movement’s
goal? It
will not lead to the goal I choose for the movement. Finding the right
strategy
to achieve social goals can be immensely difficult. Socialists have
spent about
150 years working hard to achieve their goals, including vast amounts of
literature and fierce debates and dying at barricades, without success.
You
can’t expect to get the right strategies without a great deal of
thinking and
trial and error and research.
The
things
being done at present seem to me to be overwhelmingly desirable but are
they going to lead significant change in the direction of a sustainable
and
just world? What are the reasons for assuming that they would? Are there
more
effective things to do? Where are the monitoring systems, data
collecting
agencies and think tanks working on such questions?
Consider
what
the standard socialist response here might be. It would go something
like,
“Our
problems are due to capitalism and
cannot be solved unless/until we get rid of it. All that you
transitioners are doing
is making nice minor reforms within the system, which not only are no
threat to
it but which assist it, partly by putting bandaids on some of the
problems and
partly by siphoning off the energy of a discontented few into projects
that are
innocuous. Your refusal to even think about politics or conflict or
power
guarantees that you will never find or adopt effective strategies. Above
all
you refuse to address the fact that the planet is owned and run by the
capitalist class to enrich itself; it keeps in place structures and
rules which
get us to work in an economy allowing them to take most of the wealth
produced,
and which trach us that it is the best and the only possible way. The
resulting
overproduction and inequality are causing all the big global problems
and
leading towards the collapse of our ecosystems and of our civilisation.
The
system cannot be reformed; it must have growth and limitless
accumulation and
extractivism. It is absurd to pretend that you can fix all this without
confronting and eliminating capitalism and taking power off the
capitalist
class.”
This
is
a powerful argument but the movement shows no interest in offering a
case
against it. (I argue strongly against socialist strategy; see Trainer
2020-2021.)
So
again
my plea is for attention to be given to these theoretical issues, to
recognise that just doing stuff is a serious mistake. You might be doing
the
wrong stuff.
Work with the monster or
separately?
There
seem
to be two distinct kinds of initiative within the movement. The first is
made up of independent citizen initiatives, such as by groups creating a
garden
or food bank or op-shop with no significant connection to other
initiatives.
The other is where some official body such as a town council is
involved,
providing expertise or land or funding. The most impressive achievements
seem
to have been made by towns where officialdom has embraced the movement.
There
is a need to research and think about the pros and cons of these
approaches. Is
it that we must inevitably start small and independent and work towards
official involvement and assistance? Or is it that we should not go near
official agencies at all?
The
most
impressive rich-world alternative I know of, the Catalan Integral
Cooperative, (TSW, 2018.) solved
this
dilemma by determining from the start to have nothing to do with
officialdom.
Its supreme principle is to scrupulously avoid the market system and the
state.
It now involves thousands of people in running elaborate systems for
food
distribution, medical services, unemployment agencies, educational
activities
and other functions. There’s something else for the movement to think
about;
how have they been able to do this? How have the Rojavan Kurds been able
to work
similar miracles, despite the best efforts of various militaries to
exterminate
them? (Trainer, 2019.)
But
be
aware that such a track will inevitably eventually lead to enormous
trouble.
We need to think about how we are going to deal with it. This claim will
surprise many in the movement and disturb the nice respectable and
peace-loving
people believing that we can achieve this revolution without engaging in
conflict
or politics.
From
above
it is clear that the kind of town we need to have built will be very
different from any town today. It will have as little producing and
consuming
going on as is possible, people will live well without buying much,
there will
be a large non-monetary sector of the economy (working bees, free food
from
commons, gifting, sharing of surpluses…), the market will not make any
important distribution or development decisions, there will be no
economic
growth, and no interest payments (interest is not possible in a
zero-growth
economy), and therefore no opportunities for owners of capital to get
richer by
investing and not having to work. Now the local chamber of commerce
isn’t
going to like any of this! Nor will conventional economists as
they are
incapable of questioning the sanctity of market forces or constant
growth in business
turnover. So how could we possibly get to such a frugal,
self-sufficient,
cooperative and simplified largely money-less economy when that is
anathema to
officialdom from local to national to global levels?
As
we
move towards this situation it will become increasingly clear to many
that
the system is not going to provide for them and that their best option
is to
move towards some form of local, cooperative, self-sufficient,
needs-focused,
and frugal simpler way. Obviously this is beginning to happen now,
within and
without the Transition Towns movement. This will increasingly generate
pressures on councils to facilitate radical alternatives to conventional
development,
and thus to move away from the assumption that commerce and market
forces must
be enabled. Meanwhile the normal economy will be being shredded by
depression
and bankruptcy, eliminating large numbers of firms. Much capital will be
written off and many premises and agribusiness farms will become vacant,
enabling licencing to or takeover by needs-oriented operations.
Of
course
there is a strong probability that none of this will happen. The point
is that it could happen and we must work hard to make it happen. It is
plausible that more likely is that the confusion and discontent of the
deplorables will see the rise of authoritarian/fascist governments
promising to
drain swamps, followed by rule by warlords. Regardless of the likely
outcome
you have no other option but to try to enable the kind of Transition
Towns I
have argued for; there is no other path to a sane world.
So
what should we do?
Should
transitioners
stop what they are doing? No. But I do think they should reframe what
they are doing, that is, communicate a new explanation of the purpose.
The need
is to think about present activities differently, to locate them within
a particular
strategy (and to add some things to what they are doing.) I’ll approach
this in
a somewhat indirect way.
The
supremely
important factor behind our plight is not environmental or technical
or economic … it is cultural. No
significant
change in structures or policies can even begin unless there is
first enormous change in ideas and values and dispositions. We are
condemned to
our present trajectory to catastrophe by the dominant
consumer-capitalist world
view, involving mindless obsession with affluence, growth, technical
fixes,
materialism, and warped conceptions of “progress”, ”living standards”
and the
good life. We cannot begin to get off this path until there is
widespread
recognition of those mistakes and that some kind of Simpler Way has to
be adopted.
And the motivation must not be primarily survival, it must be positive,
that
is, the desire to live simply and communally enjoying non-material
sources of
life satisfaction, recognising that this is will yield a far higher
quality of
life and will liberate us to flourish in beautiful, secure, relaxed and
inspiring conditions.
So
in
this very early stage of the revolution our task is to work on
contributing
to the cultural change, partly by helping people to see the urgent need
for
radical transition but mainly by showing that a far better way is
possible.
This perspective enables a reframing of what the Transition
Towns and
Ecovillage and associated movements should see themselves as being
about. I
would want them to see themselves not as building bits of the new
society in
order to have more and more bits in existence to the point where the
old
society has been replaced. That is not going to happen, if only
because it
will sooner or later run up against powerful forces that will not allow
it to
happen. What I want to see us doing is educating, illustrating,
raising
consciousness about the global situation and the kind of
alternatives
we must try to get to eventually. It doesn’t matter much if our
community orchard
doesn’t feed many, or if our transition group splutters for a while then
fizzles out, so long as the effort has introduced a few more people
to Simpler
Way ideas. From this perspective nothing we do can fail; it all
helps, it
all adds to the extent to which people are aware of the new vision.
I
am suggesting that many small Transition groups have been unduely
ambitious. I
know some have ceased, disappointed at the little they have been able to
do and
regarding themselves as having failed. But their expectations were too
high.
They had hoped to build new structures and systems that would grow
towards
becoming mainstream. I would like to see the formation of many tiny
groups who
meet once a month for dinner to discuss their next little
awareness-raising
activity within their neighbourhood or town. Maybe it’s a desk at the
town
centre on a Saturday, under a sign saying “What’s our town’s future?”,
with
handouts and display boards and three or four people ready to chat about
what
our problems are, what do we need to make our town better, what will the
global
situation do to our town? The handouts offer a simpler way perspective,
stressing the probability of difficult times ahead. Names of interested
people could
be taken enabling possible organisation of a public meeting with guest
speakers, videos, and information on Transition Towns, Ecovillage,
Degrowth and
related movements. They are not creating anything physical; they are
creating
new ideas.
A
sandpit model at the community garden might show
how the town’s geography might be restructured to increase
self-sufficiency and
cut transport and other costs, again with signage connecting these
changes to
the global predicament. (Other possible activities are considered in TSW
2021.)
It
would
be important to be very patient, prepared to do things like this now and
then for years without seeing much effect, but knowing that ideas are
being fed
into local conversation and thinking. When events such a homelessness or
cost
of living rises are noted in the local media we can feed in comments
linking
them to our perspective. We gradually build a team able to keep the ball
rolling without imposing heavy time or resource demands on ourselves.
The
crucial
element in such initiatives must be stressing the global systemic
issues. Drawing attention to these is the point of the exercise.
Especially:
·
The
economic
system is grossly unsatisfactory; it is the cause of our problems and
making them worse and leading us towards global breakdown.
·
It
cannot
be reformed; we need a system which does not let growth, market forces
and production for profit, determine what happens to us.
·
There
is
a workable and attractive alternative. It must involve towns taking
control
of their own economies and building highly self-sufficient cooperative
communities.
·
Above
all,
we have to move to systems and lifestyles that are simple, frugal.
·
These
ways
can greatly improve the quality of life.
Focusing
on
these elements connecting our activities to ultimate global revolution
is
crucial. This makes all the difference.
Without it we are only talking about adding nice green things to
the
town which would remain firmly embedded within the existing global
system. By explaining
the global relevance we are contributing to the revolution.
We
are
not likely to see much effect of these activities … until the global
system hits the wall. From here on things will deteriorate at an
accelerating rate. We have to hope for a Goldilocks depression, not so
sudden
as to ruin our chances of constructing the required new ways, but
serious
enough to jolt people into seeing that they have to organise locally.
Our
humble little groups must be prepared to plod away without seeing much
impact
but content to plant the seeds that before long will make a big
difference to
how well the town will respond.
This
reframing
also has to be worked on in those towns like Stroud where big things
are being done in conjunction with councils. Somehow we need to get
around the
above contradiction between the current within-system initiatives and
the
ultimate goal of a town running according to radically different
principles. At
this stage that might not be difficult. It could just be a matter of
discretely
tacking on messaging indicating the form the town must eventually
take,
without drawing attention to the underlying contradiction. So I have no
doubt
that we should continue trying to get councils to facilitate TT ventures
(…although
it is highly desirable that independent projects along Catalan lines
should also
be undertaken where possible.)
It
is
most encouraging that the Transition Towns Network intends a
research/monitoring/communicating operation which will be able to
collect
information on what is happening, what people are thinking, what works,
what is
to be avoided, etc. It should publicise a wide range of differing views
including especially those disagreeing with the perspective I have
expressed
here. Hopefully this will mean that the thinking and theorising that I
am
hoping for is getting underway. It needs to be accompanied by some kind
of
regular communication process whereby findings and ideas can be fed to
participating groups to enable discussion and debate to take place. It
should
be kept very informal but should enable the posting of more lengthy
opinion
pieces such as this.
Haberl, H.,
et al.,
(2020), “A
systematic
review of the evidence on decoupling of GDP, resource use and GHG
emissions,
part II: synthesizing the insights”,
Environ.
Res. Lett. 15, 065003
Hopkins,
R., (2013),
The
Power of Just Doing Stuff
Trainer,
T.,
(2018), “The Catalan Integral Co-operative: The Simpler Way revolution
is
well underway!” Resilience,
Jan 17.
thesimplerway.info/CATALAN.html
Trainer,
T.,
(2019), “Kurdist Rojava; A social model for our future”.
Resilience, 3. January.
https://www.resilience.org/stories/2020-01-03/kurdist-rojava-a-social-model-for-our-future/
Trainer, T. (2021), “Degrowth:
How Much is
Needed?” Biophys Econ. Sust., 6, 5.
https://doi.org/10.1007/s41247-021-00087-6
Trainer, T., (2020-2021), ”The answer is not
Eco-Socialism … It is Eco-Anarchism.” Published in two parts in Solutions,
Part 1, Vol. 11.3, Dec. 2020, Part 2, Vol. 12.1, Feb. 26, 2021.
Trainer,
T., A. Malik and M.
Lenzen, (2019), “A Comparison Between the Monetary, Resource and Energy
Costs
of the Conventional Industrial Supply Path and the “Simpler Way” Path
for the
Supply of Eggs”, BioPhysical
Economics
and Resource Quality, September.
https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s41247-019-0057-8?wt_mc=Internal.Event.1.SEM.ArticleAuthorIncrementalIssue&utm_source=ArticleAuthorIncrementalIssue&utm_medium=email&utm_content=AA_en_06082018&ArticleAuthorIncrementalIssue_20190609
TSW, (2018), The Simpler Way. https://thesimplerway.info/htm
TSW, (2019), The Alternative, Simpler Way Society.
https://thesimplerway.info.ALTSOCLong.htm
TSW, (2021), Transition; Things to do. https://thesimplerway.info/TRANSthingstodo.html