On March 11, 2006 – just over two years ago as I write these words – I published an article on The Earth Blog called, “Why The Public Won’t Change”, opening with the words:

Watch the streets around you - do you see a concerned populace, driving little, walking lots, happily queuing for buses, fighting for renewable electricity, demanding local produce?

Of course not - the general public really don't care about the climate. Campaigners can try and make themselves feel like they (we) are in touch with the population, but this will not happen unless they feel like the population - like they feel they don't need to care. Campaigners are, and always will be, in the minority - the public look after number 1, occasionally numbers 2, 3, 4 etc. in the form of family (although the numbers driving their kids around smog ridden streets, unsecured, chatting on their mobile phones, or slumped in front of the TV while the kids learn about the wonders of the XBox, make me doubt this) - they are not interested in saving the planet.

It’s two years on and, as much as we hear of a great raising of consciousness across the globe towards the dangers of climatic change and global environmental degradation, the picture as far as public action goes is identical. Environmental campaigners are trying to turn around an ocean going oil tanker by offering it small inducements and little taps on the sides of its vast metallic bulk – but the tanker keeps gliding onwards. I realise now, that when the article first came out I was spot on about one key thing: the public, as a body, simply don’t want to change. This applies to the vast majority of people in industrial civilization – through a combination of lifelong brainwashing and a general apathy about the condition they are in – but it doesn’t apply to everyone. As I learnt from a social analyst friend of mine, the biggest mistake campaigners and reformers have made in approaching the problem is change is that they have assumed we behave the same – as though the population really is an oil tanker. It is far better to assume that the population is like a shoal of fish, a swarm of bees or a flock of birds.

In 2006 I thought that we could take the “oil tanker” approach, by changing the systems that are causing the problems from the inside out, through government lobbying, mass consciousness raising, corporate improvement and so many other fruitless methods. It became clear that I was hopelessly wrong; and so were (and still are) the vast majority of campaigners.

I am proud of some of the essays I have written here: all of the “What If…?” articles were labours of love, and still – I think – stand up on their own. Some of the articles, such as “4 Essential Ways To Save The Earth” and “What Is The Point Of Investing In The Future If There is No Future To Invest In” badly fall down on their conclusions, even though the main text is still well worth reading. I genuinely believed that simple, wholesale solutions were possible, whereas I now understand that change will involve just a few of the fish, bees and birds amongst the teeming masses.

Changing The Minority

So, let’s assume you do want to change. Like a self-confessed alcoholic, you have placed your foot on the first step to recovery: admitting you have a problem. “I am a civilization addict”.

Civilization addicts are most definitely in the vast majority; yet as a proportion of addicts who want to recover, far more alcoholics have admitted they have a problem than those addicted to this culture of maximum harm.

It was always going to be that way: change does not happen at once, but for those groups and individuals who really think it’s going to turn around all of a sudden then that can be extremely disheartening. What they, and us recovering addicts, need to recognise is that there are only so many people capable of escaping from the trap – and those people must be the target of campaigning (or rather, treatment).

Me, I’m an innovator when it comes to changing the society I am living in. This isn’t a boast; it’s just a definition, based on the vastly overused Diffusion of Innovations concept that Everett Rogers made his own. There are five different groups of people that apply to each potential innovation – whether that be adopting a new technology, becoming interested in a television program or changing a society: innovators (which account for around 2.5% of the population), early-adopters (12.5%), early majority (35%), late majority (35%) and laggards (15%). The percentage figures can change depending on the “innovation”, but what is more important is that they reflect a time period of uptake: the early-adopters will not “take on” an innovation until the innovators have; and so on.

On its own, that seems simple enough, but that is ignoring the different stages that each individual has to go through in order for their personal adoption to be achieved. This is neatly summarised by Gregg Orr:

1) Knowledge – person becomes aware of an innovation and has some idea of how it functions,

2) Persuasion – person forms a favourable or unfavourable attitude toward the innovation,

3) Decision – person engages in activities that lead to a choice to adopt or reject the innovation,

4) Implementation – person puts an innovation into use,

5) Confirmation – person evaluates the results of an innovation-decision already made.

People in the next group are unlikely to start their adoption process until those in the previous group have, at least, started their “implementation” phase, and more likely not until the “confirmation” phase. This final phase is when the adopter decides whether they are happy with the outcome of the adoption, and is in a position to encourage others – friends, family, colleagues, neighbours – to start the adoption process themselves.

With all that said, it sounds as though any major change in society towards a survivable future is going to take an age, especially when you consider the enormous pressure placed on individuals to ensure that they don’t change at all (this is described in all its gory detail in A Matter Of Scale – which will be available in mid-2008 ) . All is not lost, though: the Diffusion of Innovations idea describes a bell-curve, meaning that once the small minority have turned their backs on industrial civilization, there is a very large group of people who may then be persuaded to do the same, followed by an even larger bulk of people doing the right thing.

In fact, by the time a sizable minority have changed, the system may well be in tatters. But the planet might still be a decent place to live on.

These are critical considerations. I think the late majority group is often "late" because they don't see how their actions make a difference, they feel powerless as individuals. We need to find ways to empower large groups to effectively plan & take action together, to give the late majority a sense of purpose in taking action, earlier in any movement than they traditionally have in the past.

I think that change, and overcoming "civilization addiction" is one part of the equation, another part is simple over population. No one in positions of political or corporate power wants to be the one to tackle the problem, or even acknowledge that there are too many people on this planet, but it is one of the main obstacles to living in balance with nature. Indeed one of the main reasons we don't live in balance with nature is that it is impossible with the number of humans we have on the planet.

Yes, empower the late majority. It is frustrating to be the minority, feels like your efforts are not making a difference cause so many others aren't contributing.

[J. keep an eye on this site, the answers are coming. Best. Keith]

Hey! Thanks for all the great info. I was browsing through a bunch of green websites and blogs and I came across yours and found it very interesting. There are a bunch of others I like too, like the daily green, ecorazzi and earthlab.com. I especially like EarthLab.com’s carbon calculator (http://www.earthlab[dot]com/signupprofile/). I find it really easy to use (it doesn’t make me feel guilty after I take it). Are there any others you would recommend? Can you drop me a link to your favorites (let me know if they are the same as mine).

[Alex, I don't go in for "lovely" green web sites, they are generally not going to make anything better and just convince people that little things are more important. The links I recommend are in the left column.

Cheers

Keith]

10 year old Lil Peppi returns in 2009 with another "Eco-Rap" video dedicated to keeping focus on the environment.

Check it out: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yjXuldy-Ilw

Thanks again for your support!


Lil Peppi & TEAM PEPPI