British Politics Is Undergoing A Values Realignment

download as a pdf

The main British political parties, Labour and Conservative, are large ‘broad-church’, ‘catch-all’, or ‘big tent’ parties.  They are now experiencing their first splintering based more on values cleavages than political ideology.  At the time of writing, eight Labour and three Conservative MPs have quit to form a block of ‘Independents’.  Both parties have broken because they have grounded on the rock of ‘Brexit’.

More MPs may or may not follow but thanks to the deep values-based schism created by the EU Referendum, it’s likely that the UK is seeing the start of a significant political realignment.  As the FT said today (20th February 2019), it means, ironically, that Britain’s politics are becoming more like those of Europe.

Here’s what’s going on in values terms, using the simple two-dimensional model of Ron Inglehart of the World Values Survey.  Instead of a one-dimensional political spectrum (as the House of Commons is literally built to accommodate), it’s two dimensional.

(From The Silent Revolution in Reverse, Inglehart et al 2018)

Here’s the same again with my own annotations.

For readers outside the UK, the reason these defections from Labour and Conservative are significant is that they could change the political arithmetic of ‘Brexit’ which is at a crucial stage.

The ERG (European Research Group) is a network of right-wing Eurosceptic and usually climate-sceptic MPs, founded in 1993 to fight against European integration.  The current Chairman is Jacob Rees Mogg MP.  A previous Chairman, Chris Heaton-Harris MP, played a central role in a campaign within the Conservatives to force then-Prime Minister David Cameron to abandon onshore wind farms, the cheapest form of renewable energy and regarded as crucial to decarbonization of the UK.  Heaton-Harris is a devotee of climate sceptic Bjorn Lomborg and now a  Minister in the Department for Exiting the European Union.

The ERG has been pulling the Conservatives rightwards and UKIP-wards and exploiting the values overlap between the extreme right voters for the Conservative Party and the anti-Europe pro-coal anti-wind, anti-immigration party UKIP, to do so.  Both renewable energy and the European Union are part of so-called ‘reflexive modernization’, new ways of doing things (eg sustainability) which Cameron tried to promote in his early phase of ‘detoxifying’ the Conservative Party.  He had to abandon that to stop the party splitting over Europe, and to retain his leadership.

The UK voted 48.1% Remain and 51.9% Leave in the 2016 Referendum (margin of 3.8%).  Legally that was only advisory but Cameron (who expected Remain to win) had pledged to act on the result.   He then resigned.  In Parliament the Conservatives and Labour are both split over Europe.  Since July 2017 a majority of the country have swung (increasingly) to be pro-Remain (analysis by the UK’s leading pollster here).  Most if not all the defecting MPs are in favour of a Second Vote, ie putting Brexit back to the people.  The polling shows a lead of 8-10% to Remain, and some of that is due to those who voted Leave changing their minds.

Above: a long running YouGov poll (from August 16 to 4 Feb 19) showing the progressively larger majority against leaving the EU, since July 2017.

This is the immediate reason why these defections are significant (and Theresa may has no majority in Parliament without support of the small Northern Irish DUP which is pro-Leave, although most people in Northern Ireland are pro-Remain).

On 23 June the day of the EU Referendum I tweeted ‘#EUref if Britain votes Remain it will change the political culture. If Leave it will only change the political parties’.   By which I meant that a vote to Remain would be a vote for the future and modernity, and confirm the ‘reflexive’ changes such as towards a clean-tech and open culture, as ‘normal’ but a Leave vote would be a social throwback which would precipitate some sort of reconfiguration of politics.    The tweet was a bit trite perhaps but the underlying social factors driving a slow increase in the percentage of Pioneers with their ‘progressive’ values, have not gone away, and there is a huge skew to younger people favouring Remain.  Many of them assumed that Labour’s Jeremy Corbyn would turn out to be against Brexit but the opposite has proved to be the case.

In short although political change in the UK is a lagging indicator of social change not least because the first-past-the-post-system of geographical constituencies hugely favours and over-represents the two large ‘catch all’ parties, and so anchors most politicians in those parties for fear of losing their jobs, the slow but powerful current of values change will sooner or later prove an irresistible force.  The most dynamic expression of this in the UK right now is support for the school and student strikes over climate change, led almost entirely by young women, most too young to vote.  If it was possible to vote for @gretathunberg she would be likely to get elected.

That may encourage campaigners for ‘progressive’ causes but their greatest challenge in the coming years, and that of politicians who share their values, is going to be to find ways to design campaigns and politics which reaches across rather than entrenching values divides (see for instance why forced PCness is not a good strategy).  As Peter Lilla has argued, it is the politics of the common good, not of identity differences which we need, and that requires acceptance of values diversity.

For more on Brexit and evidence of the values split and dynamics see some of my blogs using the CDSM Cultural Dynamics Strategy and Marketing Values Modes model of Settlers, Prospectors and Pioneers:

Brexit Values Battle’ (March 2016) showed that security-driven Settlers in the UK, France, Italy and Germany shared a common dislike of the EU and immigration

Brexit Values Story Part 1’ (February 2017) –  my own story of how, it appeared to me, values had helped drive the politics of the Referendum result.  That drew on many sources (blog here, slides with main content here)

Jeremy Corbyn’s dilemma (July 2017) – choosing the old or the young (so far he has opted for the old)

Brexit Values Story 2.1 (August 2017) with values maps and data on how people had voted in the 2017 General Election, comparing this with their Leave/Remain votes in 2016

And Inglehart et al (source of above diagram) using a similar values model but one that does not measure the Prospectors:  The Silent Revolution in Reverse: Trump and the Xenophobic Authoritarian Populist Parties(free pdf) and his 2018 bookCultural Evolution, and forthcoming with Pippa Norris (published already in the US) Cultural Backlash.


Posted in Uncategorized | Leave a comment

Fighting Mass Extinction in the Heat Age

What do you do about a mass extinction if you are an environmental campaigner, conservation group like WWF, or a politician, or a concerned human being?  I’m not talking about a warning or a threat but an outcome: it’s happening, indeed some of it has already happened.

We are living in the foothills of a new Heat Age and its wiping out the nature we rely on, as David Attenborough warned at the UN Climate Conference in Poland in December.  The cause is climate change.  In the early days of the industrial revolution they took canaries down coal mines and if they died, it was time to stop digging.  Now we’ve taken entire ecosystems ‘into the coalmine’ and thousands, probably millions of species are dying but we’re still digging.

‘98% Of Ground Insects Are Gone’

Yesterday Britain’s Guardian newspaper environment editor reported on a mass disappearance of insects from ancient and ecologically rich rainforest in Puerto Rico.   Scientist Brad Lister returned to the Luquillo rainforest ‘after 35 years to find 98% of ground insects had vanished’.  Here’s an extract:

“We knew that something was amiss in the first couple days,” said Brad Lister. “We were driving into the forest and at the same time both Andres and I said: ‘Where are all the birds?’ There was nothing.”

‘The insect population that once provided plentiful food for birds throughout the mountainous national park had collapsed. On the ground, 98% had gone. Up in the leafy canopy, 80% had vanished. The most likely culprit by far is global warming’.

“It was just astonishing,” Lister said. “Before, both the sticky ground plates and canopy plates would be covered with insects. You’d be there for hours picking them off the plates at night. But now the plates would come down after 12 hours in the tropical forest with a couple of lonely insects trapped or none at all.”

“It was a true collapse of the insect populations in that rainforest,” he said. “We began to realise this is terrible – a very, very disturbing result.”

Carrington continued: ‘Earth’s bugs outweigh humans 17 times over and are such a fundamental foundation of the food chain that scientists say a crash in insect numbers risks “ecological Armageddon”. When Lister’s study was published in October, one expert called the findings “hyper-alarming”.’

He points out that similar changes have been found in German nature reserves and the ‘virtual disappearance of birds in an Australian eucalyptus forest was blamed on a lack of insects caused by drought and heat’, while ‘Lister and his colleague Andrés García also found that insect numbers in a dry forest in Mexico had fallen 80% since the 1980s’.

“We are essentially destroying the very life support systems that allow us to sustain our existence on the planet, along with all the other life on the planet,” said Lister.


Carrington’s report is hard to find in The Guardian.  It’s buried in an obscure ‘environment’ section.  The top 10 most read stories all focus on Brexit. The ‘paper uses ‘Brextinction’ to sum up the implications of an historic Parliamentary vote over ‘Brexit’, and the focus of the press and political classes. One says ‘May’s deal is as dead as a dodo’.

It’s logical to say that are right and there are more important things to focus on than Brexit.  But that doesn’t necessarily help bring about the right changes to limit or maybe one day start to reverse the mass extinction.  Because for that we need the attention of politicians, and for that we need public understanding.  Calling an emergency only has a useful effect if it’s understood.  Otherwise you look like Chicken Little.  Established NGOs should work to explain and support what activists like Extinction Rebellion are doing.

Emergency Action Is Possible

Carrington is spoilt for choice in news from the apocalypse front.   Also yesterday he wrote an article headed ‘Immediate fossil fuel phaseout could arrest climate change – study‘.

The caption explains the story: technically we could quickly replace coal, oil and gas burning by greening our energy systems, and fast enough to stay inside the 1.5C ‘danger level’, although the current 1.0C additional heat is clearly already causing catastrophic change.

Such action is not yet on the radar of most governments.  It calls for what industrial system designers call an ’emergency’ or ‘crash’ shutdown.  In response to this, Nick Mabey, Director of E3G tweeted(@Mabeytweet) last night:

‘This is better news than the headline makes it sound. The lifetime of fossil fuel infrastructure is arbitrary & retiring it early & replacing with negative cost efficiency or low cost renewables would boost the economy. It’s the politics we need to change’ .

Carrington’s article is topped by a photo of wind turbines.  Ironically, I’ve spent the last month or so researching how onshore wind, Britain’s cheapest form of renewable energy, was stifled by a campaign driven by politicians such as Chris Heaton-Harris MP, an arch-Brexiter who to turned the government against wind by playing on the values-driven competition for votes between UKIP and the Conservatives, which also led to the vote for ‘Brexit’.  He’s now a Minister in the ‘Department for Exiting the European Union’.  Politics, pollution and mass extinction of insects, birds and everything that depends on nature, are all intertwined.

Triage and Refuge

Conservation planners can’t cope directly with a mass extinction.  Just a few species can be bred in captivity like canaries.  Only a tiny minority can be saved in seed banks, zoos and by translocation to ‘parks’ and reserves.  But like emergency services arriving at a disaster scene, planners can try to apply triage.  Don’t bother with those who will die anyway.  Give second priority to those who may be suffering but will survive.  Give first priority to those whose life is threatened but who you might save by intervening.

In this case it may mean looking for ‘refugia’, places which may remain cool enough for some tropical ecosystems to survive more or less intact in the Heat Age, just as tropical forests ‘retreated’ to relatively small warm and stable ‘refugia’ in the Ice Age.  But that also requires protecting them from clearance of land for farming, plantations or by logging: a tall order.

It’s the overall stability of tropical conditions which allowed them to evolve into intricate diverse ecosystems which hold most of the world’s diversity of life, and which may (and it seems, does) make them exquisitely vulnerable to that stability being disrupted.  Certainly their species have far more exacting needs than most of those in temperate climes.  The only way to save as much life as possible is to stop the causes of climate change.

Posted in Uncategorized | Leave a comment

Political Correctness, Brexit, Trump and Campaigns

Rejection of ‘Political Correctness’ played a role in the vote for Brexit and Trump in 2016 but what does it mean for campaigners and ‘progressives’ who are often perceived as standard-bearers for ‘PC’?

Commentators argue over what Political Correctness is but academic research shows it comes in several different forms, including ‘authoritarian’ and ‘egalitarian’ (see below).  As mentioned in The Values Story of the Brexit Split Part 1 it seems to me that in values terms, ‘political correctness’ occurs when one values group projects it’s own values at others who do not share them, along with exhortation or censure in a do /say this – don’t do / say that – think this/ don’t think that way.

Any such projection is designed to be, and if it’s not designed to be it will be anyway taken as, intrusive and controlling at best, and at worst, intrusive, controlling and critical of the target ‘as a person’.   In grand terms you could call it an attempt at ‘values hegemony’, and likely to cause rejection and resentment which can generate a backlash escalating into a ‘culture war’.

Whether that becomes visible as a focused public debate or just smoulders as a resentment depends on the opportunity for it to become organised (as elections and referenda can do). Who ‘wins’ depends on numbers, activation and who controls ‘levers of power’ and influence.  But as a rule, I’d advise against them as a campaign strategy: NGOs would do well to find alternatives to ‘PC’ as a route to change.

In the backwash from the Trump election and the continuing agonies of ‘Brexit’, the dynamics of ‘culture clashes’ have been much discussed. Recent books include National Populism by Roger Eatwell and Matthew Goodwin (2018, about the UK), and Cultural Evolution (2018 with a global perspective and a US slant), the latest values magnum opus by Ron Inglehart of the World Values Survey (his book Cultural Backlash with Pippa Norris is out next year).  Both are worth reading and I’ll return to the wider values issues raised by Brexit in particular in a subsequent blog but in this post shares my personal perspective on ‘political correctness’.  I’m no expert and would welcome comments (see end of post or contact me here).

[long post: download pdf here]

Politically Incorrect Trump   

Shortly before Donald Trump was elected, Aaron Blake wrote in the Washington Post:

If there is one uniting principle the defines Donald Trump’s campaign for president — besides, perhaps, winning and being classy — it is that political correctness is bad.

After Trump got elected, Spencer Greenberg a US political-social analyst at Clearer Thinking correlated 138 variables with voting for Trump, and found that rejection of ‘Political Correctness’ (PC) came second after political affiliation in explaining how likely someone was to vote for him  (study here).

EU FU – PC ? Depends who you were at the time (June 2016, Wells next the Sea – ironically the shellfish facility was largely EU funded)

Copied by Nigel Farage and Arron Banks in Leave.EU, Trump gamed political correctness to signal values- and interest-alignment with an audience. It sucked media attention away from topics he didn’t want to debate, and onto his ground.  Overtly flouting or attacking PC-ness helped Trump frame and control the debate, aided and abetted by the outraged response of ethically-minded ‘progressive’ media, politicians and supporters.  It focussed attention in a similar way to Lynton Crosby’s shock ‘dead dog’ tactic.  It appeared to validate the populist proposition that he was ‘on the side of the people’ against an ‘elite’ because those who denounced him most strongly could be relied upon to turn out to be well-educated, and with better job prospects than most of his base.

Getting people to agree with you by revealing that a problem is caused by an already-unpopular opponent is a tactic that many issue campaigns have used.  It eventually turned around McDonalds on health and environmental campaigns on otherwise esoteric and easily ignored issues such as the fate of rainforests and factory farming.  But for Trump and Leave.EU it worked as a magical simplifier, relegating to the side-lines the ‘serious issues agenda’ which would face any President when elected to run the US as a country, and drowning out the details of the UK’s EU relationships in a chorus of values-dog whistles on immigration and ‘control’.

No Longer Insurgents

Normally these are insurgent tactics of guerilla underdog groups, and one reason the ‘progressives’ reacted so naievely to them may be that for reasons of history, they still think of themselves as the insurgents.  It may seem axiomatic for example that any cause group on the side of ‘minorities’ fits this bill.  Yet by 2016 the Pioneer values group, which skewed to not voting for Brexit or Trump, was now the largest (eclipsing Settlers and Prospectors and loosely equivalent to Inglehart’s ‘post materailists’) in both countries.

A strategic dilemma that Pioneer-dominated cause groups now face is how to adapt their strategies to reflect the fact that although they are still often dwarfed by opponents (eg Greenpeace v oil companies) their ideas have become mainstream, particularly among many political and highly educated ‘elites’ doing well in the information or knowledge economy.  In short, Trump and Brexit turned ‘inter-sectionality’ on its head.  More of that in a subsequent blog.

PC Was Unpopular

Whether by accident or design, the brilliance of the attack by on political correctness by Trump and the pro-Brexit camp was that it was already unpopular, and that dislike even reached across into the enemy camp.

In the US, from the right, a 2017 Cato Institute survey found 71% of Americans agreed that ‘political correctness has done more to silence important discussions our society needs to have’ as opposed to ‘political correctness does more to help people avoid offending others’ (28%).  But a 2016 study by the liberal-leaning Pew Foundation found a similar result.    Most Americans (59%) said “too many people are easily offended these days over the language that others use” but only 39% agreed “people need to be more careful about the language they use to avoid offending people with different backgrounds.”

Cato showed 58% of Americans agreed that ‘The political climate these days prevents me from saying things I believe because others might find them offensive’.   Some advocates of political correctness might have seen that as a success but 70% agreed, as Donald Trump said, that America has a ‘big problem’ with Political Correctness.  (Find the full very detailed survey which also covers symbolic actions like flag-burning, here)

The Cato survey and others show that Americans are divided over ‘PC’ attempts to restrict speech by their views of its motivation,  their perception of the effects it has on themselves and others, and what any legal restrictions on ‘hate speech’ might achieve.  On most measures Democrats take a more positive view of PCness than Republicans, as do blacks as opposed to whites, with Latinos sometimes closer to Republicans but it is a fine-grained response across many measures.

Pew also reported ‘substantial partisan, racial and gender differences’: 78% of Republicans said too many people were easily offended, and only 21% that ‘people should be more careful to avoid offending others’. 61% of Democrats, thought people should be more careful while just 37% thought ‘people these days are too easily offended’.  83% of Trump supporters but only 13% of Clinton supporters felt too many people are easily offended.  Black people and women erred towards not giving offence more than Whites or males, with Hispanics in between, older people more concerned about offence than younger ones, and college graduates more concerned than non-graduates.

The UK

PC is not quite such a hot issue in the UK.   ‘Hate speech’ is arguably more curtailed in the UK than in the US and it is not such a political divider.  At any event there are fewer UK surveys.

A 2007 Ipsos survey asked if ‘Political correctness has gone too far ?’, and found 85% agreed, and only 8% disagreed.  In 2018 Prospect and YouGov commissioned a bigger study, which used a similar statement to Pew.  It found 67% of Britons believed ‘too many people are too easily offended these days over the language that others use,’ while only 33% took the view that care with language is needed ‘to avoid offending people with different backgrounds.’

Prospect reported that British Conservatives ‘look a lot like Republicans’: ‘79 per cent of Tories take the “too easily offended” line, as do 79 per cent of “Leavers”’.  But ‘unlike in the US, majorities of generally more liberal groups are also on the “too easily offended” side—Labour voters (57 per cent) and “Remainers” (58 per cent)’.

As in the Cato study, Prospect found younger people were less worried about offence than older ones.    It also noted a Manchester University study which found that ‘primed’ with the thought ‘being positive about diversity was a “politically correct” attitude’, people became ‘somewhat less likely to be warm about [London’s] multiculturalism’, suggesting ‘that “PC” has some charge as an anti-liberal message’.  It also reported that:

‘Focus groups for the think tank Demos found that talk of PC reliably “incensed participants.” They talked of the country being run by too many “do-gooders,” of feeling unable to “stand up” and state their views plainly for fear of being judged, and of feeling like “they are standing on eggshells.”’

But these were white males over 55: a demographic skewed towards Settlers and Golden Dreamer Prospectors.


The Prospect – YouGov survey also asked about leadership style.  Given a choice of a politician who “spoke bluntly, without worrying about who they offend” and one who “spoke carefully” to avoid “unnecessarily offending people”, 45% expressed a preference for the former, and 38% the latter.  EU Remainers split 53% to 33% for the plain speaker but among Leavers it was 62% to 24%.

There are multiple reasons why this might be the case but it has strikingly similar echoes to findings from the US on differences among Trump and Clinton voters on ‘fake news’ and ‘alternative facts’.  Elizabeth Segran found ‘Clinton supporters generally value truth and accuracy, while Trump supporters care about authenticity’.

Compared to Pioneers and to an extent Prospector Now People, Settlers and Golden Dreamer Prospectors have a much stronger inclination to seek certainty rather than complexity, and less appetite for novelty and experiment.  In times of stress and perceived rapid cultural change, Settlers in particular will also seek a strong leader (Karen Stenner’s ‘authoritarian response’ or reflex – see The Values Story of the Brexit Split (Part 1) slides 44-60).  These reflexes may add to the more widely shared weariness with political ‘spin’ and obsfucation as an additional reason to seek ‘more authentic’ political leaders.

PC Splits Pioneers

Pioneers are themselves split over elements of ‘PCness’, particularly over freedom of speech (ie the Values Modes within Pioneers differ in their ‘instinctive’ priorities).

After the Referendum and the Trump election, Harvard researcher Moira Weigel wrote a great account of the development of political correctness ‘Political correctness: how the right invented a phantom enemy’ in The Guardian.  She explained that an early example of the current ‘rightwing’ critique of political correctness at US Universities was Richard Bernstein’s 1990 “The Rising Hegemony of the Politically Correct” in the New York Times.  At this point it was clearly about attitudes and not just language.

“Biodegradable garbage bags get the PC seal of approval” wrote Bernstein, “Exxon does not.”  Such critiques posed a dilemma for ‘progressives’ pitting their Pioneer or ‘post material’ causes such as environmentalism, against their strong reflex in favour of freedom of speech.

Different Forms of Political Correctness

In 2017 Christine Brophy and Jordan Peterson of Toronto University (see their video here) reported that they had separated two different forms or ‘personalities’ of political correctness: Egalitiarian and Authoritarian.  To do so they use a scale of 192 factors related to language, beliefs, and emotions.  Both showed a high ‘offence sensitivity’ and (in personality terms) an aversion to ‘disgust’, which they attributed to ‘agreeableneness’ derived from (maternal) compassion.

Their results have been summarised like this:

PC Egalitarians

  • Believe cultural forces are responsible for group differences
  • Think differences among groups arise from societal injustice
  • Support policies and ideas that prop up historically disadvantaged groups
  • Show high emotional response to discriminating language
  • Have a higher vocabulary and openness to new experiences
  • Are likely to identify with historically disadvantaged groups
  • Desire a more diverse, democratic governance

PC Authoritarians

  • Believe biological forces are responsible for group differences
  • Demonstrate a lower vocabulary and more likely to be religious
  • Support censorship of offensive material and harsher punitive justice
  • Express a general desire to achieve security for people in distress
  • Show a higher need for order, and a higher sensitivity to disgust
  • Are likely to report a mood or anxiety disorder in themselves or family

Authoritarians, says Brophy, are often assumed to be Conservative but in fact are motivated to pass on strict cultural norms and are intolerant of anything which is not a ‘black and white’ distinction.  This description is very similar to Settlers.   PC Egalitarians in contrast, are ‘classic Liberals’, and often create post-hoc justifications because they feel the need to help the helpless and disadvantaged, treating adults as children because compassion springs from the unbreakable mother-child bond.  That sounds like Pioneers but they too can become authoritarian, only authoritarian ethicals.

Both right and left wing Authoritarian groups, says Peterson, desire homogeniety but whereas the right wing seek to achieve it through exclusion and purity, the left seek it through inclusion and eqality.

On the basis of statistical analysis, Brophy and Peterson argue that PC-ness is a ‘real thing’.

So what might PC look like in motivational  values terms?

PC Across Motivational Values

What now follows is my personal take on the history of ‘PC’ related to CDSM (Cultural Dynamics) Motivational Values (download the slides here).  It also draws on the studies mentioned earlier.

While CDSM do not have any survey data based on asking direct questions about political correctness, a number of the of their Attribute statements relate to aspects of the ‘PC issue’.

These ‘Attributes’ are plotted on the Cultural Dynamics ‘values Map’:

And for reference, the positions of the Values Modes:

Some Attributes relevant to political correctness:

Setting aside earlier usages, ‘political correctness’ started life in early-mid C20th authoritarian regimes (Nazis, Communists) as an exploitation of Settler and Golden Dreamer values (such as power over others).   Two relevant Attributes from the CDSM (British) Values Map are ‘Power’ and ‘Conformity’, measured by testing the statements:

Conformity = Rules + Propriety

‘They believe that people should do what they are told. They think people should follow rules at all times, even when no-one is watching. It is important to them always to behave properly. They want to avoid doing anything people would say is wrong’. 

Power = Material Wealth + Control Others

‘It is important for them to be rich. They want to have lots of money and expensive things. It is important for them to be in charge and tell others what to do. They want people to do what they tell them’.

(I am presenting these as indicative, not as ‘explanations’ of the Nazi state or various authoritarian Communist states.  For example, CDSM has also correlated values measurements with the ‘dark triad’ of narcissism, machiavellinism and psycopathy – to discuss, contact Pat Dade.  See also Inglehart’s book Cultural Evolution).

This plays no direct role in the current ‘PC Wars’ but is the historical reference point used by 1960s radicals to refer to ‘Political Correctness’ in an ironic put-down of over-zealous, over-doctrinaire or self-righteous fellow travelers.

As described in political histories of ‘PC’, from the 1960s-1980s use of the term remained largely confined to ‘leftish’ radical thinkers and movements.  This included as a joke by various left-wing political intellectuals, and within feminism (such as over a dispute about BDSM and sexuality, featuring an early use of organizing around [against] PC in a 1982 “Speakout on Politically Incorrect Sex” in New York).  These relatively esoteric uses of PC gradually gained more attention as the term was applied to counter discrimination on grounds of race, gender and sexuality but were initially driven by Pioneer-centred values such as Creativity, Conscience and Self-Choice.  CDSM measures them with these statements (genderzied in the surveys):

Creativity:  ‘Thinking up new ideas and being creative is important to him.  He likes doing things his own original way’.

Conscience:  ‘I believe that, to be a decent human being, I should follow my conscience regardless of the law.  I think that nothing is more immoral than blind obedience’.

Self-choice: ‘It is important to him to make his own decisions about what he does.  He likes to be free to plan and choose his activities for himself’.

Stage 3 saw activation of further Pioneer centred values in more organized advocacy and campaigns which set out to challenge homophobia, racism and other discrimination or repression: the emergence of the ‘isms’.  Being ‘PC’ now became a positive requirement.

Motivated by values such as Justice, Benevolence, Open-ness, Caring and Universalism, mainly Pioneer activists started directing messages about how they should talk and act at ‘non PC’ people.   By this time, Settlers were starting to feel a minority in their own land, which indeed, numerically, they had become.

Over the next decades, Pioneer-led campaigns brought about changes in laws, for instance on ‘gay marriage’, partly made possible by shifting psycho-demographics (ie more Pioneers, more Now People Prospectors).

CDSM test statements:

Benevolence: = Caring + Loyalty

‘It’s very important to them to help people around them. They want to care for other people. It is important to them to be loyal to their friends. They want to devote themselves to people close to them’.

Caring: ‘It is very important to him to help people around him.  He wants to care for other people.’

Openness: ‘It is important for him to listen to people who are different than himself.  Even if he disagrees with the other person, he still wants to understand them.’

Justice: ‘He thinks it is important that every person in the world be treated equally.  He wants justice for everybody, even people he doesn’t know.’

Universalism: Justice + Openness + Nature

‘They think it is important that every person in the world be treated equally. They want justice for everybody, even people they don’t know. It is important for them to listen to people who are different than themselves. Even if they disagree with the other person, they still want to understand them. They strongly believe that people should care for nature. Looking after the environment is important to them’.

A debate now began within Pioneers, between the ethical warriors (such as the Concerned Ethicals who seek ethical clarity), and the Flexible Individualists who are strongly driven by self-reflexivity and freedom of expression.

CDSM’s Attribute ‘Free’, tests agreement with this statement:

Free:  I want complete openness and freedom for the whole of society, so that everyone can express themselves.  I really enjoy the feeling of walking around with no clothes on.

Well at least the first part applies … although Arron Banks does describe his experiences of swimming naked with Nigel Farage, in The Bad Boys of Brexit.

As champions of free expression, Libertarian intellectuals (probably all Pioneers) denounced suppression of free-speech on ethical grounds as illiberal.  For example, says Weigel,  Allan Bloom’s attack on “cultural relativism” in  The Closing of the American Mind,  Roger Kimball in April 1990 in The New Criterion (Tenured Radicals: How Politics Has Corrupted our Higher Education), and Dinesh D’Souza in June 1991 with Illiberal Education: the Politics of Race and Sex on Campus, attacking “liberal fascism”.

Politicians and neocon political backers exploited this intellectual dilemma and gave it political form.  They appealed to the fears of Settlers which included a perceived threat to their way of life and identity, and to Golden Dreamer Prospectors who in particular feared a loss of the prospects of success in a zero-sum world in which more ‘rights’ for others meant less for them.

As well as Conformity and Power mentioned earlier, CDSM Attributes relevant to the mobilisation of the GD-Settler base include Material Wealth and Patriarchy:

Material Wealth: ‘It is important for him to be rich.  He wants to have lots of money and expensive things.’

Patriarchy: ‘For me, a man’s place is at work and a woman’s place is in the home.  I believe men are naturally superior to women.’

A succession of right-wing politicians -some ‘true’ liberatrians of various stripes, others not – have subsequently used ‘Political Correctness’ as a ‘dog-whistle’ to appeal to a mixture of fearful, angry, bewildered and resentful people, especially Settlers and Golden Dreamers, by identifying an ‘enemy within’ which is changing our world (ie our country) for the worst.

The values anatgonism this sets up is escalated when ‘right-wing’ authoritarianism clashes with ‘left-wing’ authoritarian PCness.  Rather than an ideological left-right difference this is perhaps more accurately described as Golden Dreamer-Brave New World authoritarianism, versus Concerned Ethical authoritarianism.  With its unmet need for ethical clarity, the CE Values Mode is attracted to seek and promote ethical multipliers such as intersectionality.

[Golden Dreamers and Brave New Worlds are two adjacent Prospector and Settler Values Modes, primarily driven by unmet needs for esteem of others (GD) and identity (BNW)].

As Pat Dade says, these “dogmatic stances” are two forms of “absolutism”: “My or the highway”.

What started as egalitarian PCness tolerant of difference (Transcender Values Mode) has become more authoritarian, trying to suppress ‘wrong’ terms of speech or behaviour.  The GD /BNW (aka right wing) and CE (aka left wing) PC ness are trying to suppress expression of each other’s values (as Brophy and Peterson observed, both seeking homogeneity but different of types).

It seems to me that the net effect of the campaigns run in the 2016 US election and the 2016 EU Referendum in the UK was to activate this divide (see Brexit blog part 1), hence the role that ‘isms’ and ‘PCness’ played in the post-match political analysis.

It should be noted that the drive of Pioneers to self expression made it much easier for the Trump and Leave campaigns to game the system, both by splitting the ‘Pioneer vote’ (some liberatrians voted against EU membership because they believed strongly in ‘freer trade’ or because they saw it as government oppression) and, distracting the Remain camp by creating a side-debate over whether or not Leavers should be ‘allowed’ to make ‘racist’ remarks, for example around immigration.

As many commentators have said, Donald Trump took this to new heights by deliberately dismissing ‘PCness’,   and co-opting the position of disadvantaged minority, now oppressed by a ‘PC-elite’.  Trump and his imitators ‘flipped’ the role of the offended, for example by not just demanding freedom to give-offence but also a counter-right not to be offended by contrary expressions of values, such as flag-burning, ‘kneeling’ protests by American footballers against racism, or the ‘mixed marriage’ of Miss Piggy and Kermit The Frog in The Muppets (subsequently termed ‘Populitst Correctness’).

Trump super-charged the emotional profile of his campaign by overtly nodding to values which previous right-wing American Presidential candidates had kept covert or eschewed.  For example the CDSM Attributes ‘Two classes’ and ‘Unobliged’:

Two classes: ‘I believe that people can be divided into two classes – the weak and the strong.  I think that issues of societal advantage or disadvantage are spurious.’

Unobliged:  ‘I feel that people who meet with misfortune have brought it on themselves.  I see no reason why rich people should feel obliged to help poor people.’

Loss of Moderation

In addition, in both the 2016 EU referendum and the 2016 US election, as well as in the 2017 UK General Election, the much increased role of social media sidelined the former role of press, tv and radio in providing a ‘moderating’ function.  With the media no longer able to control the ‘news agenda’ but committed to chasing social media for ‘news’, ‘debates’ became polarised and brittle as politicians gained airtime or column inches in proportion to the differences of their views.   Attention focused on the extremes, and Pioneers who had enjoyed greater influence in many media organisations, lost some of that influence.

In 2016 and 2017 US and UK ‘progressives’ were left in a state of PTSD, and at the extremes the opposing forms of authoritarian political correctness denounced one another.

By 2018, mainstream politics had moved on, leaving a tail of persistent but mainly intra-Pioneer debates about free speech and political correctness.

At least in rhetoric, Theresa May’s government became more interventionist and attentive, if only in a fumbling, groping way, to the Settler (and especially white) minority than previous recent governments had been.   In particular it alluded to the need to listen to those social parts of the UK population suffering deprivation or lack of opportunity, which were seen to have voted Brexit  (termed ‘Somewheres’ by David Goodhart).   The broad support for Metoo# and in the UK, for achieving as opposed to just legislating for more equal pay for women, showed that despite the ‘retro’ signal sent by electing Trump and opting for Brexit, Pioneer-led values slowly continued to normalise.

This has left us with a confusing array of types of PCness and an ongoing multi-cornered values war in which parties compete to gain legitimacy as the truly oppressed.


Some have argued that the term ‘political correctness’ is so debased that it means nothing, or more often, is now a confection created for political ends.  They say that despite all the attacks on ‘PC’ nobody actually espouses it.   A few brave souls do still lay claim to it as upholding important moral and ethical principles.

In campaign terms I would argue that it definitely does mean something: intrusive values projection.  This is not an inevitability arising from an inescapable ‘debate of ideas’ or ‘struggle of interests’ because an alternative is available, at least to Pioneers bent on spreading their ideas to Prospectors and Settlers.  [In countries with a large majority of Settlers or Prospectors you may also find values-projection from those groups to one another or to Pioneers – I will discuss that in another blog].  This means campaigns can be designed to avoid it, and they should be, wherever possible.

The CDSM values model has two dynamics (see more in my book What Makes People Tick’).  This is why CDSM call their company ‘Cultural Dynamics’.

In one, people may move between values sets of Settler to Prospector to Pioneer as and if they meet their ‘unmet needs’ (the so-called ‘transitions’ – see ‘101’ slides at Brexit Part 1).

In the other, change in the form of adopting a new behaviour or attitude, starts with the Pioneers and if it looks successful (eg by being adopted by people already regarded as successful), it may be taken up by the Prospectors through emulation.  If it becomes sufficiently widely adopted, it defines a new ‘normal’, at which point Settlers adopt it in order to stay in step with what constitutes being ‘normal’ (a strong Settler driver): in other words it spreads to Settlers as ‘norming’.

Above: normal spread or contagion of new ideas or behaviours across values groups (see slide 12 from Brexit Part 1) – by emulation and norming.

The default reason Pioneers are the instigators of new things is (a) because they have a greater sense of self-agency and uncommitted psychological space to ‘explore’, and (b) because they are not restrained by a risk-minimizing desire to avoid change, as Settlers tend to be, and not so held back by a need to avoid the risk of failure in eyes of others, as the success-oriented Prospectors are.

There are many examples of this process happening.   What Makes People Tick’  took the politically inconsequential example of a fashion for decoration of wellington boots at Glastonbury Festival.  Another is the spread of rooftop solar pv in the UK, which I will discuss in a subsequent blog.  Key to the contagion is that people adopt the new behaviour or idea for their own reasons (values).

[I’m often asked (by Pioneers) if it can apply to ideas as well as behaviours but the two are closely linked.  Many ‘ideas’, especially socially disputed ones which therefore ‘matter’ in campaigns, come with embedded assumptions about desirable or undesirable behaviours.  And as people rationalize their own behaviours as ‘making sense’, behaviour generates ideas in the shape of ‘opinions’ – see this on VBCOP.]

This implies campaigners at least recognizing and accepting values diversity, along with other forms of ‘diversity’.  It may also require reaching across values divides to build movements or alliances with people unlike yourselves (I will give an example in a subsequent blog) and politically, building on the common interest, rather than ‘identity politics’.

Attempts to short-circuit the emulation-norming process (above) are likely to come unstuck in the long-term, and may exacerbate values cleavages which can be opened by accident or by deliberate gaming of values differences for political ends.  Political correctness is just the most obvious example of approaches that run this risk.  More conventional campaigns can also do so, often without their proponents realizing it.








Posted in Uncategorized | 1 Comment

Plastics Strategy Presentation

This presentation was first given at a Bristol ‘Communicate/ Thinking Beyond Plastic’ Conference in June 2018. It summarizes the development of the “plastics issue” and argues that the relevant ie effective and evidence-based framing is of plastic as a pollutant, not litter or recyclable ‘waste’.

Continuing to see plastics through a ‘waste management’ frame will simply guarantee the continued stream of plastic pollution arising from plastic production.

The September 2018 blog Wood v Oil argues that ‘cellulosics’ could pose the end-game for fossil fuel plastic.  The emergence of a ‘solution industry’ can be expected to promote the salience of plastic pollution as it becomes more clearly avoidable, and should be used to leverage policy change to eliminate rather than manage fossil-plastic.

Slides from slideshare:

For more contact: Chris Rose



Posted in Uncategorized | Leave a comment

Wood v Oil: The End-Game For Fossil-Based Plastics ?

A burgeoning new industry, ‘Ligno-Cellulosics’, has the potential to be for plastics made from oil, what renewable-energy technologies have been to fossil fuels in the field of climate change.  But that potential may yet get diverted or co-opted.  And are campaigners and regulators paying attention?

(download this blog as a pdf)

Metsa’s new Biorefinery in Finland

Earlier this year I did some campaign research on plastic microfibres from textiles for Friends of the Earth in the UK.  FoE have now started running a campaign about microfibres and clothing (here).  What surprised me, aside from the massive potential health threat posed by microplastic fibres on land, was to discover the rapid advancement of a potential ‘category killer’ for oil, gas or coal-based plastic, in the shape of ‘ligno-cellulosics’.

Change The Feedstock – Change The Game

In essence, this technology can replace oil, coal or gas as a chemical feedstock for plastics, with trees, grass, agri-wastes or other sources of cellulose or lignin (which can include algae, and bacteria).  From a substitution point of view, cellulose ought to be environmentally benign, a bit like a leaf.  After all it is the worlds commonest ‘bio-polymer’ and is made up of tens to thousands of units of glucose.  And cellulose ‘polysaccharides’ (chains of sugars) and lignin (the tougher bits of plants such as bark), rot naturally, and the carbon they contain is ‘neutral’, being recycled by living plants, rather than transferred into the atmosphere, oceans and biosphere from stored carbon in ‘fossil fuels’, as happens in all conventional ‘plastic’.

In my view, campaign groups and policy-makers should get to grips with this topic because it could provide the ‘renewables moment’ for oil-based plastics, in the same way that solar, wind and other renewable technologies did for fossil fuels over climate change (and about 8% of oil is used in making plastic).

I Declare An Interest

It’s not a financial interest but being a bit of a geek I have to admit to having had some pre-existing interest in ‘cellulosics’ before I embarked on looking at strategies to eliminate ‘oil-based’ plastic.  This is because they could help nature conservation.  Cellulosics have long been talked about, if only in rather small circles, as ‘second generation’ biofuels.  These create burnable liquid replacements for petrol or diesel but unlike ‘first generation’ biofuels which rely on oils or sugars from the seeds or fruits of food crops like maize or rape, these use non-food parts of plants.  So they do not compete for land which could be growing food.

Instead they can use wood or the stringy bits of plants that are inedible to humans and which farmers and the food industry treat as waste.  Consequently they can also avoid a lot of energy and chemical inputs associated with crops grown for biofuels, such as artificial fertilizers, which have their own ecological and health impacts.

By the same token they can help reduce nitrogen pollution, which causes ‘eutrophication’ or excessive fertility. This is a huge environmental problem in freshwaters, coastal seas (‘dead zones’ and algal blooms), and, as it rains back to earth in acid rain or falls out as ‘dry deposition’ from farm ammonia emissions and fossil fuel burning, it damages nature reserves and forests.  Over-fertilization reduces the variety of life.   It feeds rank growth of a few fast-responding nitrogen loving plants, leading to them out-compete most wildflowers, so robbing insects and other wildlife of their habitats.  Because it’s expensive and difficult to remove vegetation as ‘waste’ with nowhere to go, roadside verges are left to accumulate a mulch of dead plants, and sensitive environments like heaths, fens and moors gradually turn into bland expanses of low-diversity grasses.  So, I thought, if this ‘waste’ had a value that could be realized by land-managers, maybe it would be a way to mitigate this problem.

But for many years the processes necessary to extract cellulose and lignin were difficult, sometimes toxic, and expensive.  Now many of those problems seem to have been solved. New solvents and processes which include pressure, spinning, freezing, ultrasound, exposure to sulphuric acid and micro-grinding can extract cellulose ‘fibrils’ at nano scale, and then reunite them into new substances or ‘bio-materials’.  These have varying degrees of crystallinity, making them soft and flexible (long fibres), or as hard as steel (short crystals).

Not On The Radar ?

Back in spring when I asked around among NGOs working on plastic pollution, and among scientists looking at the environmental and health impacts of plastic, and even, when I could get hold of them, among UK government regulators, I was surprised that they seemed to know little if anything about ‘cellulosics’ (the exception perhaps being WWF).

In a way this is understandable.  Many were running to catch up with the explosion of public concern over plastic, and most were focussed on marine impacts and only beginning to wrestle with the fact that 70% of plastic pollution is in fact on land.  Plus few have much contact with the worlds of materials science and technology where ‘cellulosics’ is a booming area of R & D.  This ought to change, just as climate campaigners had to engage with renewable energy.

On top of this, as  previous blogs explored, the established framing of ‘plastic problem’ was one of waste in which the ‘answer’ was more ‘recycling’ of plastic, and if not that, reduction (less plastic) rather than substitution of feedstocks.  Most NGO campaigns have so far focused on seeking an end to Single Use Plastic, and even the EU’s draft ‘Circular Economy’ strategy on plastics released earlier this year, still promotes plastic recycling and makes little mention of substitution strategies.  Which is strange as the EU has been a major funder of R & D in the cellulosics area.

‘Anything You Can Make From Oil We Can Make From Trees’

The most accessible introduction to the potential of ‘ligno-cellulosics’ is a great little BBC radio programme presented by Tom Heap, called ‘Superwood’ ( an episode of Costing the Earth), which is available online.  Heap traveled to Finland, where at Äänekoski, the world’s biggest ‘Biorefinery’ has been built by pulp mill specialist Metsa, and uses trees to produce an array of lignin and cellulose-based feedstocks.  These in turn can be used to produce yarn for textiles and substitutes for a wide variety of plastics, even transparent screens as used in computers and phones.

That Nordic governments and companies see this as a strategic opportunity is perhaps evidenced by the fact that the two main ‘PR men’ for this and other ‘Biorefineries’ seemed to be former Swedish Prime Minister Göran Persson, and Finland’s former Prime Minister Esko Aho.  They didn’t exactly beat about the bush.  “Everything you can produce based upon oil, you can also produce based upon wood:  wood is renewable, and oil is a disaster”, Persson told Heap.  He saw a new bio-economy: “a  new era emerging”.  Aho declared: “I think we can save the world, we know that our way of life is not sustainable”.

Blessed with a ready supply of lots of trees from forests which are by international standards well-managed (the supply for the new £1bn Biorefinery comes from forests with PEFC or FSC certification), the Nordics presumably sense a major opportunity and even their corporations are playing wood against oil.  Stora Enso, another major player, says ‘We believe that everything that is made from fossil-based materials today can be made from a tree tomorrow’.

The scale of investment and speed of development is remarkable.  Metsä’s mill at Äänekoski in Finland was constructed in just a few years and produced its first million tonnes of pulp in August this year.  It is due to make 1.3mt a year, after starting up a year ago. This Bioproduct Mill is said to be the largest in the Northern Hemisphere, is zero carbon (producing twice the electricity it requires) and very clean.

Not Just The Nordics

According to a recent study by Dublin-based scientists Shady Hassan, Gwilym Williams and Amit Jaiswal,  there are already over 40 lignocellulosic biorefineries operating in Europe (along with 181 ‘first generation’ biorefineries using sugars, starches and oils).     They produce biofuel, electricity, heat, bio-based chemicals, and biomaterials (such as substitute feedstocks for plastics) from non-food crops or plant waste, including wood and grasses. The EU ‘Horizon 2020’ R+D programme is putting 80bn Euros into consolidation of lignocellulosic biorefineries and covers projects in at least eight countries.   Hassan et al state that the EU aims to ‘replace 30% of oil-based chemicals with bio-based chemicals and supplant non-degradable materials with degradable materials’, and for 25% of transportation energy to come from second generation biorefineries by 2030.  One forecast anticipates another 15 biorefineries to be running by 2024.  A blog on Biorefineries around the world, created by engineer Daniel Morán Rodríguez of Universidad de Santiago de Compostela can be found here .

The 2018 Handbook of Nanomaterials for Industrial Applications [1] reported a wide variety of patent applications on nanocellulose including composite materials (38%), nonwoven absorbent webs (18%), paper and boards (16%), food products (13%), paper and board coatings (8%), cosmetics and toiletries (3%), and filter materials (4%)   It found about 10 companies ‘positioned to produce CNF [Cellulose Nano Fibres] at commercial/ precommercial scale, including Paperlogic, Forest Products Laboratory (FPL) (cooperating with the University of Maine), American Process (USA), Borregaard (Norway), Innventia (Sweden), Nippon Paper, Oji Paper (both Japan), CTP/FCBA (France), Holmen Paper (Sweden)’ and that ‘Celluforce is the world’s largest CNC plant, capable of producing 300 tonnes per year’  of CelluForce NCCt in Canada.  It was built in 2011 and is in Quebec, Canada.

The EU’s focus on biorefineries seems to be mainly driven by the initial impetus to get fossil fuels out of transport (and perhaps the disastrous introduction of palm oil from first generation biofuels into EU diesel).   In the Netherlands, interest in cellulosics is motivated by a need to find economically attractive ways to deal with agri-waste problems and get more value out of grass.  (Existing feedstocks for biorefineries include waste cotton cloth, tomato peel, rice husk, old corrugated containers, old newspapers, hibiscus leaf, soy hulls, garlic straw and oil palm biomass) [2].

Annita Westenbroek, director of the Dutch Biorefinery Cluster makes the case for cellulosics from grass and agri-waste to make farming more economically and environmentally sustainable.  Grass bioferinery systems are being promoted in the Netherlands as a contribution to reducing protein and mineral inputs to cattle, and as a way to reduce ammonia pollution.

Westenbroek argues that ‘the Netherlands can easily produce enough biomass to feed the entire chemical sector. But not to feed the entire energy sector’. Cellulose she says is too valuable to burn as it can be used to make chemical feed-stocks for materials. But subsidies for EU biofuels have been ‘inverting the value pyramid’.  Other European biorefinery R+D projects focus on seaweeds.

Michael Karus, Director of nova-Institut GmbH presented a  ‘biobased‘ scenario for growth in textile fibres at a conference involving WWF in Berlin this May, showing potential for a very large incursion by cellulosics at the expense of fossil fuels.   He has also criticized the EU’s ‘plastics strategy’ for failing to include bio-degradable ‘plastics’ (not all of which are cellulosics).

Michael Karus slide showing cellulosics potential (textiles)

So Just What Are Cellulosics ?

Actual experts will have to forgive me if I’ve got any of this wrong but ‘cellulosic fibres’ are found in woody plant material, embedded in lignin and hemicellulose.   Cellulose and lignin plant fibres have long been used in strawboard, paper, cardboard and cotton, hemp and linen fabrics.   It has also been known since the 1940s that pure cellulose can be extracted from plants and for example,  processed to produce a yarn to make synthetic but cellulose-based cloth.  This is where ‘viscose’ comes from but the process requires toxic chemicals and has been abandoned in many countries.  Lyocell is a newer cellulose based yarn process without the main toxic chemical and in which the solvent is recycled.  It’s produced by Lenzing from Austria as ‘Tencel’, and was originally made in Hull in the UK by Courtauld.


Much of the drive to exploit cellulose as a feedstock rather than a source of fuel has come from wood-industry chemists.  In a 2016 article in the online Bio-based News, Diederik van der Hoeven explained  ‘almost all major pulp companies now intensely research wood biorefinery: Stora Enso, Borregaard, Metsä, UPM, Mondi, Sappi’.  They all ‘have extensive knowledge of wood chemistry and develop many new applications starting from cellulose. The mere fact that we hear very little about this research … testifies to its promising nature: very competitive product developments’.

He added:  ‘The real breakthrough in wood biorefinery is that we can now dissolve cellulose in innovative liquids that are cheaper and more environmentally friendly … once dissolved, it can be spun into textile fibres or chemically reacted to produce derivatised celluloses and cellulose-based plastics … researchers have succeeded in decomposing cellulose from wood into fibrils, and binding them together again; different ways of reuniting the fibrils will determine the properties of the new product: soft as cotton, or hard as steel’.

Indeed in May 2018 Science Daily reported that through this recombining of nano-sized particles, a team led by Daniel Söderberg from the Royal Institute of Technology in Stockholm had created the ‘world’s strongest bio-material’ in the form of ‘artificial but biodegradable cellulose fibers … stronger than steel and even than dragline spider silk, which is usually considered the strongest bio-based material’.

It added: ‘Using a novel production method, the researchers have successfully transferred the unique mechanical properties of these nanofibres to a macroscopic, lightweight material that could be used as an eco-friendly alternative for plastic in airplanes, cars, furniture and other products’. “Our new material even has potential for biomedicine since cellulose is not rejected by your body” said Söderberg.

The process took commercially available cellulose nanofibres and used jets of water to pack them into threads.  This is called ‘hydrodynamic focusing’ and requires no additives. Science Daily says it mimicks ‘nature’s ability to accumulate cellulose nanofibres into almost perfect macroscale arrangements, like in wood’, and can in principle create bio-degradable components.

Types of nanocellulose, divide into two broad groups: CNFs (fibres) and CNCs (crystals). CNFs are mainly produced by mechanical treatment like grinding or homogenization and are flexible fibers.  CNCs are produced by chemical treatment with acid hydrolysis [3].

Existing applications of nano-cellulose and lignin fibres and crystals include [4] pulp and paper, plastics (eg foams), automotive, food industry, building (eg strengthening concrete), barrier/coating applications (eg food packaging), food additives, in medicine, cosmetics, and pharmaceuticals (eg, drug delivery and implants), and future applications based on their electrical and light transmitting properties, may include organic LEDs, flexible electronics, photovoltaics, 3D-printing, and recyclable electronics.

Environmental Implications

Given that these are fundamentally biodegradable feedstocks and can be used to make materials which perform like plastic, there is plainly a potential for large scale substitution of fossil-based plastics, not only in obvious places like bottles and packaging but across the range including in clothing, carpets and cosmetics, as well as car bodies and building materials.  Compared to fossil-based plastic, materials made from cellulose and lignin should be far less persistent if they end up in the environment.

In addition, unlike many fossil-based plastics, these materials appear not to require toxic chemicals in order to maintain their physical properties (and which are then lost to the environment from conventional plastics as the polymers break up), and the building-block monomers are non-toxic (unlike eg styrene).  Also unlike fossil-based plastic, cellulose attracts rather than repels water, so is unlikely to attract, concentrate and carry Persistent Organic Pollutants, which is a major reason why conventional microplastic is a serious health and ecological problem.

Too Good To Be True ?

So far so good but anything ‘nano’ can ring alarm bells, as the biological behaviour of very small fibres or particles can be quite different from ‘macroscale’ versions of the same substance.  Moreover, the water-attracting properties of cellulosics, while good for some uses, is a problem for others.  Consequently materials chemists have developed ways to manipulate the surfaces of nano-cellulose, or coat cellulose fibres with lignin, and potentially with other substances, to make it more ‘waterproof’.  The question then is, how safe are such modified nano-crystals or fibres for health or for nature?

Numerous ‘occupational health’ type studies appear to show they are fairly benign in the workplace, certainly compared to many petrochemicals and some minerals, for example as dusts.  But these are mainly ‘cradle to gate’ Life Cycle Anlayses (LCAs).  There are far fewer ‘Cradle to Grave’ LCAs which would take into account any impacts in the environment of nano-lignin/ cellulosic substances.  Because of this, as a 2018 review article in the journal Cellulose noted [5], ‘almost none of the studies are fully ISO-compliant’.  This is an essential question for regulators to resolve, not least because the market for lignocellulosics is growing rapidly.  The same paper notes that it is expected to surpass US$60bn in 2020.

So far, what studies there are don’t in fact seem to flag any major problems.  For example, a 2018 study [6] of cellulose nanocrystal foam conducted a so-called “block list” scan of input substances which are screened against EU REACH regulations, along with a simplified eco-toxicological test of crystal nanoncellulose, using an OECD standard Zebrafish test, and one with Daphnia magna (waterfleas).  None of these suggested adverse effects.

Similarly, a 2017 toxicity study published in Nano impact [7] on the same test species along with others on algae and bacteria, found ‘virtually no effects’ from cellulose nano fibres and crystals, or their lignin coated versions.  It found faster degradation of nanocellulose than conventional cellulose, probably due to its greater surface area.  It also noted that ‘at this point it is still unclear what types of surface modifications will change the toxicity of nanomaterials’.  (That study appears to have been produced for regulatory purposes by a consultancy, Viero Advisors, for producers American Process Inc.)

So it would be valuable to have more environmental-fate studies of cellulosic alternatives to fossil-plastic, for example in soil, seawater and freshwater, and in urban and household contexts, and across the full range of ambient temperatures.  Given the spread and potential of such materials, this needs doing urgently.

Don’t Leave It To The Market

Left to its own devices, in other words led by whatever decisions make sense on purely commercial grounds, ‘the market’ is unlikely to eliminate fossil-fuel plastic by using ligno-cellulosics or indeed any other substance.

It seems to me there is a significant risk that investment commitments will be made that lock in these new technologies as ‘part of a solution’ for companies wanting to reduce reliance on fossil-fuel-plastic, or simply because it is cheaper and performs better in some applications, rather than being part of a comprehensive phase-out of fossil plastic.

Technologists have experimented with combining polyester and nylon with nanocellulose and it is already used in composites, ie as mixed materials, and in a huge range of applications.  It’s is not a question of ‘if’ the technology is used but how.

The risk of a miss-step is magnified by the fact that many large chemical companies are, as you might expect, playing both games: keeping on producing fossil-polymers and investing in nano ligno-cellulosics.   That way they can delay the day when their fossil-plastic assets finally have to be retired.

The only reliable way to avoid this prospect, which could create a whole new generation of ‘non circular’ materials and possibly a diversion in using nature-based feedstocks akin to the  disastrous EU biofuel palm-oil experiment, is a powerful regulatory signal in favour of non-fossil plastic, with phase-out dates and some ‘essential use’ exceptions.  If that does not happen, the promise of ‘cellulosics’ and other substitution options may be lost.

Without direction, materials scientists will anyway be intrigued to explore the application possibilities of new materials.  Entrepreneurs, investors and companies looking for an edge will always be interested in new market advantages or opportunities.  The lessons of the past tell us that to assume that this always results in products which are in the public interest, and should simply be allowed on the market because they can be invented, is wrong and naieve.  Take the example of inventor Thomas Midgely, the man who brought the world both ‘Freons’ (eg CFCs) and lead in petrol (and himself suffered from lead poisoning).

Thomas Midgley – aka ‘the man who most harmed the planet’ Pic: Wikipedia

It has been said of the free-market that it is the operation of economics without the intervention of human intelligence.  The same applies to the dynamics of technological development.   Those gave us the plastics crisis, and they can now help us cure that problem but unguided by policy,  could also land us with a new problem, and lost opportunities.

The Risks Of Not Getting Involved

Ligno-cellulosics are not sexy, at least not yet but to me they appear candidates to create the ‘renewables moment’ for conventional plastics.  It would be a nice irony if living plants proved to be the nemesis of misused fossil-fuels, made from long dead plants.  Yet to realise that,  policy-makers need to guide their application with a regulatory pincer movement.

So on the one hand, if necessary, regulation must restrict applications of nano-cellulose/ lignin, for example to avoid any major problems like bioaccumulation and persistence if there are grounds for that, and to prevent them being locked-in to mixed applications which extend the use of fossil-plastic.  Plus on the other hand, regulation needs to continually tighten the screw on fossil-plastic so it is rapidly phased out.

Campaigning NGOs and advocacy groups should not ignore this and sit back and wait to see what happens.  It might be easier to stay focused purely on problem-driving by revealing the terrible impacts of plastic and eliminating egregious uses like plastic straws, and that surely needs doing but to deliver an end to fossil-plastic, advocates need to also engage with the solutions.

Who else but campaigners will pressure governments to put in the time and effort needed to understand these blossoming new industries and guide them to an optimal environmental solution, rather than opt for a ‘light touch’ easy option?   The government default is to embrace policies which are easy and leave as much as possible of the technical work to business.  That’s exactly what happened with CFCs, HCFCs and HFCs which could have been eliminated decades earlier.   What corporations say is possible and not possible is then presented as an immutable ‘technical’ or ‘economic’ truth, and this gets rationalised as a social truth, as in “we can’t live without plastic”.

Why We Need Substitution

One Brussels lobbyist familiar with the plastics issue said to me a few days ago: “It’s not been strategic, and maybe because of that it’s been all the more effective but so far, the anti-plastics campaign has won.  It is amazing how rapidly user-companies are backing away from plastic”.

Large companies are looking upstream for ways to avoid fossil-plastic. Unilever for example has announced a three-pronged strategy to move away from fossil-plastic.  It is part of the ‘Bioplastic Feedstock Alliance’ and keen to avoid using anything that gets tarred as ‘greenwash’.  While many regulators and companies now put that label on ‘oxy-biodegradables’ it might soon extend to ‘bio-plastics’ from first generation cellulosics, to combinations of fossil and non fossil plastic, and to conventional polymers (eg polyester) created from bio-sources.

Large users are looking for drop-in solutions to plastic because they need quick and large volume results: aluminum cans instead of plastic bottles for instance.  In terms of setting commitments, governments will titrate public concern against perceived feasibility and deliverability of change.  This is why substitution is important, as well as achieving what can be achieved by personal behaviour change, such as re-use and consumer rejection of plastics where choices exist.   It can show governments that it is possible to progressively abandon fossil-plastic ‘recycling’ in favour of elimination of fossil-plastic.

Economically, the cellulosic train has left the station.  For instance they are the fastest growing sector of environmentally preferred textiles recorded by the cross-industry group Textile Exchange, whose 2017 conference featured 328 companies from 37 countries including Marks and Spencer, Adidas, Nike, IKEA, H&M, Timberland, Patagonia, Walmart, GAP and C&A.

Is Plastic ‘The Problem’ ?

Nevertheless, some environmentalists instinctively reject ‘substitution’.  On 5 September for instance, environment columnist George Monbiot wrote in The Guardian that the ‘the problem is not plastic. It is consumerism’.

Now I am with George on many things – such as rewilding and the evils of Scottish salmon aquaculture – but not this.  Yes ‘consumerism’, if you can actually define it in a meaningful way, is a problem but if you need to design a strategy to get rid of fossil-based plastic, the question is not what is the most perfect imaginable route to do so but which is the best available that can actually work.

George’s plastic example of a non-solution was a disposable corn-starch coffee cup:  first generation cellulosics.  Yet even that is a solution to the narrow problem of fossil-microplastic from a conventional plastic cup, albeit not a good one seeing as a cellulosic/ cellulose cup would be better.  I agree that using a re-usable cup would be better still, which is why I take my own Surfers Against Sewage bamboo cup with me when I buy a coffee when I travel, and now companies like Soho Coffee give me 25p off for doing so, which I consider a good thing.  I have my own beefs with capitalism but I don’t see that as a reason to try and reform the entire economic system in order to solve the particular problem of fossil fuels or fossil-plastic.

My coffee cup (right)

Environmentalists face a real-life choice.  To try and go wide and campaign to change ‘root causes’ to huge and wicked problems such as ‘global capitalism’ or ‘human nature’ or ‘values’,  in which case their campaigns tend to go slowly and not very far: they tend to end up as advocacy with a very limited audience.  Or to be strategic, focused and make change, which should be as ambitious as possible while also being achievable.  For me at least, ending fossil-fuel-based-plastic is pretty ambitious, and cellulose-based materials could help deliver that, fast and at scale.

No, it won’t get rid of consumerism but neither did renewable energy.  Yet that is helping tackle climate change, which seems something worth doing


A nature conservation project to collect waste vegetation and use it in biorefineries is underway in Flanders Belgium and the Netherlands with EU Inter-Reg funding

Chris Rose  September 2018


[1]  Angeles Blanco et al  Chapter 5 in Section 1, Handbook of Nanomaterials for Industrial Applications. DOI: Nanocellulose for Industrial Use: Cellulose Nanofibers (CNF), Cellulose Nanocrystals (CNC), and Bacterial Cellulose (BC)

[2] ref (1) op cit

[3] Advances in cellulose nanomaterials,  Hanieh Kargarzadeh et al, Polish Academy of Sciences,  Cellulose February 2018,

[4] ref (1) op cit

[5] ref (3) op cit

[6] Lianghui Tan et al,  Combining ex-ante LCA and EHS screening to assist green design: A
case study of cellulose nanocrystal foam,  Journal of Cleaner Production 178 (2018) 494e506

[7] Ong K.J et al, Establishing the safety of novel bio-based cellulose nanomaterials for commercialization  Nano Impact 6 (2017) 19 – 29


Posted in Uncategorized | Leave a comment

He Had Our Back – Peter Melchett’s Contribution to Greenpeace

(This post first appeared at the blog ‘Celebrating Peter‘ where many other contributions can also be found).

Chris Rose

Peter on a walk round his farm in April this year.  Behind him is a field full of cowslips, part of a new wildlife habitat.

Peter Melchett, who was a Minister in the Northern Ireland office used to dealing with Ian Paisley across the conference table, was never going to be fazed by the 15 years he spent as chair and Executive Director of Greenpeace UK (1985 to 2001).  To supporters, politicians and media in the UK he is best remembered for his part in a white-suited action against GM maize but the greatest contribution he made to Greenpeace was as a leader, and most of that was invisible to the public gaze.

Once Peter put himself at the service of Greenpeace, although he continued to give speeches and interviews, his personal profile was far lower than it had been when he forged the alliance of environment and conservation groups as Wildlife Link and led many political and legislative battles for the environment in Parliament.


By the mid 1980s Greenpeace was already in transformation from a charismatic but chaotic entity often riven by personal rivalries, into an effective international campaign group but Peter guided its UK development into a resilient and stable campaigning machine, and professionalized and grew the organization at the same time.

He brought systems and organization, introducing specialist science, legal, accounts and political units, together with HR policies and management practices drawing on his previous experience in government and the third sector.   Although resented by some campaigners used to a more anarchic environment, he made these changes not just to treat the staff better and improve efficiency but to make Greenpeace harder to infiltrate or attack by government or corporates.


With a background in politics and a family background in business large and small, Peter understood power and influence in a way few other NGO campaigners or leaders did, then or now.  He knew that politicians might never win a popularity contest with Greenpeace, but could disable or sink it through stealthier means such as injunctions, asset seizures or subversion.  As its support grew, it posed a greater challenge to vested interests so the stakes got higher.

Largely un-noticed both inside and outside, Peter set about making Greenpeace’s UK ‘ship’ legally and financially watertight, with reserves to ride out headwinds.  On his watch, it invested in the expertise necessary to locate strategic targets that could change the trajectory of environmental outcomes, and then plan and run high-risk campaigns involving non-violent direct actions, with the optimal chance of living to fight another day.

He Had Our Back

Peter had a massive sense of duty and honour.  He took a personal interest in looking after the volunteers who physically and legally put themselves on the line when he often could not.  So he was always ready to take responsibility and lead from the front when the organisation came under fire.  “He made me feel safe”, said a director who served under him. “As a young campaigner”, an activist said “you knew whatever you did, he’d would support you in public: he had our back”.

Two Jewish friends who worked with me at Greenpeace say they used to call him a a ‘mensch’ – Yiddish – a man of integrity and honour.  “He was so solid, and reliable especially when the shit hit the fan – you could always count on Peter” says one.

In the 1980s he had already been involved in several demonstrations against nuclear weapons.  Just before his time at Greenpeace, he and partner Cass Wedd were arrested on a CND protest at Sculthorpe a USAF base not far from his farm in Norfolk.   It amused him that as he stepped forward to make his symbolic cut in the fence, plummy voice of Lady Olga Maitland (of ‘Women and Families for Defence’) rang out: “Peter, Peter, don’t do it. It’ll ruin your career!”

Once Chair and Executive Director, Peter rarely took a front-line part in Greenpeace actions, not because he didn’t want to but because he felt responsible for remaining available at the helm.  In 1999 he broke with this rule by leading an action to remove a GM maize crop.   A former criminologist, he spent a night in Norwich Jail.  I asked what it was like: “everyone was nice to me” he said, “anyway Eton prepares you for that sort of regime”.   Eventually a jury found all defendants not guilty of criminal damage, agreeing with Greenpeace’s defence of ‘lawful excuse’:  by destroying the crop they had stopped a greater harm of polluting other maize crops with GM pollen.

Peter could be obdurate and domineering as well as avuncular, self-deprecating and charming.  In the 1980s I once described him as more Grizzly than Teddy Bear.  He was also modest, for example rarely mentioning his time as a Minister in which he achieved changes which would have provided most people with a lifetime of stories to dine out on.  I think what drew him to Greenpeace was a combination of its potential to deliver results in terms of outcomes for causes he cared about – more or less Green and Peace – and its way of doing things.

For most people, its principles of non violence and bearing witness, inherited from or inspired by the Quakers in their early protests against nuclear testing in the pacific, were simply historical backdrop but for Peter they were lodestones used in in real-life, on a regular basis, and especially when faced with difficult and testing decisions.  As a personal bonus, in the UK this often meant cajoling, pushing or forcing a political and social Establishment deeply opposed to environmentalism, into change.  Greenpeace campaigns repeated the dynamic of that Olga Maitland moment, in which the establishment tried to stop Peter doing what he thought and felt was right, not just once or twice but over and over.  His principles made him a natural fit with the organisation’s hallmark tactics and worldview.

The Truth

Peter said he left Westminster for NGOs because he was fed up with the “lying game”.  In 1995 after the successful Brent Spar campaign to stop Shell dumping a huge redundant oil storage facility at sea, his sense of honour put him and Greenpeace at the centre of a media firestorm fanned by government ministers enraged at Shell’s capitulation.   Just before Shell gave way, Peter had written to the UK Shell Board laying out Greenpeace’s case and including an estimate that the Spar might still contain thousands of tonnes of oil.   It then realised this was due to a misinterpreted sample from an inspection pipe and the likely figure was far less.  Peter wrote to Shell ‘apologizing’ for potentially misleading them. This apology was misused to attack Greenpeace about the campaign as a whole, which was never about the tonnage of oil on board but oil companies and the government wanting to reopen the debate about dumping waste at sea.

Although not personally to blame for the error, Peter took responsibility.  Earlier this year I talked to Peter and he recalled how he had been “hauled over the coals” by Jeremy Paxman on BBC’s Newsnight.  He said: “after we were off air – I wish this had been recorded – [Paxman] said to me, “I bet you regret telling the truth now don’t you ?”.   I was so gobsmacked, I couldn’t think of a snappy reply.  I mean he just assumed that everyone would normally lie about something like that, and to me it was just unthinkable that an NGO would lie”.

The same year, Greenpeace ‘invaded’ Sellafield and at Aldermaston blocked a pipe discharging radioactivity into the Thames.  Furious Defence Secretary Malcolm Rifkind sent MoD police to raid Greenpeace’s offices in search of evidence to charge activists with ‘conspiracy’.  Peter responded with an open letter in The Independent ‘J’accuse Malcolm Rifkind’ challenging the minister to come for him rather than ‘scapegoat’ individual activists.

Peter made Greenpeace UK more international, upping its contribution to international operations, and expanded its influence by using his vast network of contacts among more establishment NGOs.  His personal affability and confidence, and his experience of dealing with opponents face-to-face in politics in ways that avoided escalation of differences, were qualities that enabled him to sit down with Greenpeace’s opponents and often talk them into accepting an inevitable change in their ways after a campaign had peaked, rather than continue to opposing it.

Peter’s personal connections came in useful at unexpected moments. Elaine Lawrence, a Campaign Director of Greenpeace remembers:

When we did that die in in front of Downing street by the memorial where we were dressed in nuclear radiation suits [part of a campaign against THORP], Peter and I led the first group around the corner to the site from the House of Commons.  So we were walking at the front of about 30 people trying not to look suspicious when who should come round the corner but Tony Blair who stopped, greeted Peter and started chatting to him.  Everything – every group – was timed down to the last second so this was potentially a disaster.  Peter totally kept his cool and managed to politely get Tony to stop talking – seconds later we round the corner, get in position and put our suits on – it was very funny.

Solutions and Business

I worked closely with Peter as Programme Director responsible to the Board for ‘re-startegizing’ and creating the campaign programmes of Greenpeace UK, and then as his Deputy Executive Director, in the 1990s.  At this time power was shifting from governments to corporates and there was a new demand from the public for practical ‘solutions’ they could buy or adopt in everyday life.  Partly inspired by the example of Greenpeace in Germany, we added to the usual problem-driving element of campaigns, the engineering of solutions.  Today this sounds obvious but at the time it was controversial and counter-intuitive to many activists and environmental groups.

This often meant working with companies doing the right thing or at the least saying “this is a good thing”, and opposing those doing the ‘wrong thing’.  Peter gave businesses what they took to be an ‘establishment figure’ as an interlocutor and his pragmatism played a big role in helping extend the influence of the organization, for example through establishing Greenpeace Business, a newsletter which also ran conferences.  The approach of campaigns plus face to face engagement with corporate CEOs that he helped develop, has been continued and expanded by others in Greenpeace such as its current Executive Director in the UK, John Sauven.

Peter’s love of animals made him a lifelong  passionate anti-whaling campaigner, and played a role in his pursuit of organic farming.  After Greenpeace he returned to the fight against the impact of pesticides which he had first encountered in grey partridge studies on his family farm in Norfolk.  He and Cass were proud of having badgers return to the farm.  Apparently tireless, he was still working as Soil Association Policy Director, only days before he died.

Some people who inherit assets and position become philanthropists and support good causes.  Peter and Cass did indeed support projects with grants from their family Courtyard Trust but his greater contribution was to spend the capital of his inherited privilege (Eton, Cambridge, The Lords, High Office, family businesses, land) like a philanthropist giving away status and opportunity, to make a difference for the environment.  He was a great friend to me and a truly generous man.


(Thanks to current and former staff of Greenpeace for reminding me of things about Peter).

Posted in Uncategorized | Leave a comment

How Change Campaigns Get Populated By The Usual Suspects

Here’s one for students of values.  ‘Self-agency’, the sense that you can change the world rather than it limiting or changing you, increases as, and if, people ‘transition’ through the sequence of Values Modes.  As a result, any campaign ask or offer which is framed as about changing ‘big stuff’, and or complicated things in open or unspecified ways, and in which it is not clear whether it can or will succeed, tends only to attract and retain people with a high sense of self-agency.

This doesn’t just apply to things labelled ‘campaigns’ but to any endeavour with these qualities.  So for instance I often talk to groups of people undertaking courses with the Cambridge Institute of Sustainability Leadership and because that’s largely a self-selecting segment who have chosen to try a career in the uncertain and big-picture world of ‘sustainability’, they tend to be heavily weighted to the ‘TX’ or ‘Transcender’ Values Mode.  Some campaign NGOs we (CDSM and myself) have surveyed, are over 90% TX among the staff, and 60% or more among supporters even though these are as few as 10% in the general population (it varies internationally).  Which has a lot of pros and cons.

Here’s a slide set on how it happens, and below is a bit of an explanation.

(For stories and explanation about how the model works and how values shape decisions and society, see my book What Makes People Tick: The Three Hidden Worlds of Settlers, Prospectors and Pioneers.)

Although the researchers behind the model did not start with an intention to test or investigate Maslow’s theory of unmet needs, by mapping the results of asking thousands of people thousands of question, over decades, about their attitudes and beliefs, it does seem to validate Maslow’s basic proposition of a hierarchy or sequence of emotional and social needs.  In essence, we start out in life with an unmet need for safety, security and identity (Settlers), and if that’s fully met we transition to become Prospectors with dominant unmet needs of esteem of others and then self-esteem, and if those are fully met we become Pioneers, with needs for ethical clarity and then ethical complexity.

See links and resources here.

CDSM calls these Maslow Groups.

CDSM breaks these down into 12 ‘Values Modes’ (VMs) which are more cohesive and discrete values sets.  The gist of their outlooks on life are shown above (outer edge six only).  See links at the homepage to more detailed pen portraits of Settler, Prospector and Pioneer VMs.

Behind the simplified picture in a ‘values map’ on a 1000 x 1000 grid of data. Here’s the UK version showing the 100 statistically strongest ‘Attributes’ located by a dot placed at its point of maximum espousal (agreement with the test statements).  There’s lots more you can do with this.

CDSM is gradually explaining each Attribute in postings at it’s website in the ‘Values Alphabet‘.

The Maslow Groups (and VMs) respond in distinct and predictable ways to different cues, eg to change and questions.  A designer familiar with the system came up with the box analogy to express their latent tendencies: get back to the centre, explore the boundaries, get beyond them.

Here’s where it starts to relate to change campaigns: the differences in self-agency.  (There are differences within the VMs but this is the overall picture).

Different default attitudes to time.

The cumulative effect of life experiences, causing transitions.


A previous blog on strategy making with the basic values dynamics.

Above: the “values conveyor”. TX Transcenders are, in this model, ‘at the end of the line’.

How we think it works.

Self-agency. (Not the only factor in determining engagement of course but a huge one).

Summary of how a challenging change campaign – challenging in social terms – is subconciously processed.  Settlers are change averse. Prospectors are success seeking and failure averse.  Pioneers fret about whether there’s a better option.  All can be reasons not to engage, or to question and seek reassurance or proof.

Now for the effects on VMs.

Above: basic Settler VM orientations or priorities.  Defaults if you like.

Same for Prospectors but different of course.  (In all cases, the inside edge VMs have weaker values pulls and in general are therefore less responsive to campaigns, for or against – they are less ‘bothered’ people).

And the Pioneers.  Internal debates in Pioneer-dominated campaigns are often around these different world views.

Reasons for Settlers not to feel they want to engage in a campaign ask or offer which is about big change.  (Such campaigns are of course mostly cooked up by Pioneers).

Prospector reasons not to engage.  (Flip these of course and you can get a different result but that requires redesigning the format of the campaign).

And the same but in Pioneer world.  Typically for Pioneers they will often approve of the idea ‘behind’ a change campaign but one of these reasons may lead them not to engage.  Which is why you often get much higher Pioneer ‘opinion’ support than Pioneer mobilisation or engagement.  Very annoying people.

So by default, you are often left with a lot of TX Transcenders.  Downsides include them tending to massively over-estimate the self-agency of others, especially if they spend nearly all their time with one another!  (Values bubbles).  Upsides include them having the potential to engage Prospectors (especially Now People) more easily than the other Pioneers can, and Settlers. Which is one reason why they are often over-represented among those running organizations.  Plus of course they think almost any problem is soluble.

And there are campaigns which by dint of their objectives and format, are dominated by Settlers or Prospectors.  It perhaps hardly needs saying that to get effective change, campaigns need to engage and involve a wide range of MGs and VMs.

Some generic examples of ways to engage different VMs (shown on a values map overlaying Schwartz space) – more at link.

Diagrammatic campaign ‘cases’. TX tend to be the ones to start campaigns. CE Concerned Ethicals may persist with them for a long time even if nobody else much is.  NP Now people are the boosters, making them ‘bigger and better’ providing they are not too dull, complex, earnest or impossible looking.  BNWs, Settler Brave New Worlds often lead or empower campaigns against change and in defence of identity and norms.








Posted in Uncategorized | Leave a comment

A TV Watershed for Climate Change Campaigns

Chris Rose

Long blog – download it as a pdf here

In what should be a game-changer for climate campaigning, the divide between ‘weather’ and ‘climate’ has been closed, as German scientist Friederike Otto and colleagues have succeeded in attributing the role of climate change to an ongoing weather event (the Great Northern Heatwave) in just three days.  The breakthrough has added significance because the official German weather agency plans to introduce ‘real time’ climate attribution in 2019, and an EU agency expects to follow suit.  Consequently the ‘climate factor’ should appear in daily weather reports and forecasts.

This has profound implications for public perception and will tend to normalise acceptance of climate change, as ‘climate pollution becomes pollution of the weather’.

This blog identifies three opportunities and needs for campaigners: a ‘weather dividend’ in expanding the base, creating crises of responsibility for corporates and politicians, and pivoting public psychology from ‘giving up’ to demanding action, drawing on attribution itself.

It proposes new weather indices for comparing the polluted to the unpolluted climate, for averages and events, and a climate version of the Atomic Clock.

It warns that fossil-fuel lobbyists will try to keep the climate factor out of weather reports.

Friederike Otto

An important if under-reported connection was made last month, which should be a watershed in the strategies of campaigns against climate change.  Until now, weather has come with added climate change but it’s been missing from weather-forecasts and reports.  From now on TV-weather can come with an identified percentage of climate change.

This change came on 27 July, after a team led by German scientist Friederike Otto spent three days working as fast as they could to analyse weather data from the unprecedented heatwave gripping Europe and much of the Northern Hemisphere, against climate models. They announced at ‘World Weather Attribution’, that the ongoing heatwave had been made twice as likely to occur, due to human-made climate change.

So rather than taking months or years to look back at past trends or individual extreme weather events, as many previous ‘attribution’ studies have done, Otto’s team managed to do so in near-enough ‘real time’.  Three days is a short enough time period for major weather events to still be playing out and noticeable to the public, media and even politicians.

This is a game-changer for communications about climate change, or it should be.  In effect Otto has closed the gap between ‘climate’ and ‘weather’.  Climate-change is joining the mainstream conversation, not as an ‘if’ but as a reality.

Thank Goodness for the Germans

Dr Otto is an Associate Professor in the Climate Research Programme at the Oxford University Environmental Change Institute.  She is one of the world’s leading experts in saying whether the world’s weather is being driven by climate change [aka ‘attribution’ science].  In this case the answer was “yes” by odds of 2:1.

Also with admirable speed, the Science journal Nature published a brilliant article by Quirin Schiermeier on 30 July, explaining Otto’s achievement and attribution science. Ironically many of the scientists working on these projects – the climate equivalent of rapid response in disease control or emergency medicine – have been doing so in their spare time with very few resources, although there are some signs that this may be about to change.   Schiermeier (Nature’s German correspondent) also reports that ‘with Otto’s help, Germany’s national weather agency is preparing to be the first in the world to offer rapid assessments of global warming’s connection to particular meteorological events’.

As a Brit who has worked on climate change since 1988, I simultaneously feel embarrassment that it takes the German weather service to do this, working with a British based German climate scientist, and (on behalf of the planet), gratitude.  Thank goodness for the Germans.

Making The Weather

It’s always been the case that people’s direct experience of weather plays a role in their response to any mention of ‘climate change’.  In 1988 Jim Hansen of NASA famously gave influential evidence of climate change to Congress, in the middle of a heatwave.  His facts and figures showed a progressive temperature increase in line with climate modelling of the effect of CO2 emissions but his declaration that he was ‘99% certain’ it was ‘already happening’, had much greater impact because it felt hot.  A problem with global warming feels more compelling if you feel hot: it’s a salient problem, ‘front of mind’, and our feelings and intuitions influence our ‘rationality’.

Of course it’s not only feeling hot or cold which influences our responses to ‘climate change’ as an ‘issue’.  Because it is conceived by use of data and computer models, ‘climate’ has always been a ‘Track 2’ issue, requiring analytical thinking, weighing of probabilities, faith in the scientific method, and, when it comes to responses in terms of changing how we live and work, a sufficient sense of self-agency to embrace change.

Where these factors have been lacking, many people (including politicians) have avoided thinking about such a knotty and apparently ‘not yet’ problem by resorting to what Daniel Kahneman calls ‘substitution’: replacing a hard question with an easy one, such as “do scientists agree?” or “do scientists say it’s happening now?”, or “do I want to keep driving my [fossil fuelled] car?”.  This flips the ‘issue’ back into everyday ‘Track 1’ world, where decisions are driven by intuitive, feelings unconsciously shaped by heuristics, values and framing.  That has resulted in going on doing what feels normal and familiar on the one hand, and in climate scepticism on the other (denial being a psychological free-pass from having to engage with a new reality).  You can see the effect of values on climate attitudes in 15 countries in this blog and report, based on surveys for Greenpeace International.

Manipulating such reflexes and perceptions to undermine climate action has been easy, starting even before Frank Luntz’s notorious 2002 memo to pro-fossil fuel US Republicans, pointing out that they did not need to win the argument about whether climate change existed, only to sustain the debate.

“Voters believe that there is no consensus about global warming within the scientific
community. Should the public come to believe that the scientific issues are settled, their views about global warming will change accordingly … Therefore, you need to continue to make the lack of scientific certainty a primary issue in the debate.”

Given the way science works, a debate amongst scientists is almost inevitable on any topic, so the fossil fuel lobby were gifted a cheap way to sustain disbelief.

Above, from Sustaining Disbelief: Media Pollism and Climate Change (2007)

The UN system set up to respond to the climate change threat put climate scientists in pole position through the IPCC and UNFCCC (Climate Convention), and they dominated ‘messaging’ about it.  Mostly out of naivety, many tried to communicate the need for political and social action by explaining the science.

In 2005 I put that at the top of a list of reasons for why ‘Climate Campaigning is Difficult’.  Not a lot had changed by 2015, when in an article for the UNA ‘Getting the Message Right’, I grumbled that climate scientists had ‘proved fabulously ill-equipped’ as messengers, and ‘seem to think they can ignore even the most basic rules of public communications’:

‘If a scientist refers three times to uncertainties, people conclude that she or he is uncertain. Would you act on uncertain advice? Well, no. When a research scientist is asked what needs to happen next, and she or he says ‘more research’, do you conclude it’s time for action? Well, no’.


“You Don’t Need To Peer Review The Weather Forecast”


Fortunately many more members of the scientific ‘climate community’ are now applying themselves to the task of improving communications, and thinking about what’s needed to get an effect, rather than just getting their next publication out.   For example, Earth Sciences Professor Chris Rapley at UCL chairs a Commission which brings together natural scientists, social scientists including psychologists like Kris de Meyer of Kings College who interestingly studies why people who are wrong think they are right, and communications practitioners from advertising and elsewhere, even sometimes campaigners like me, on this agenda.

Becoming at least aware that there are proven processes for effective public communication, is a first step, and scientists like Otto have started talking in communication terms.  She told Schiermeier “framing and communicating attribution questions is a real challenge”.  He wrote:

‘Otto says a rapid attribution service is needed because questions about the role of climate change are regularly asked in the immediate aftermath of extreme weather events. “If we scientists don’t say anything, other people will answer that question not based on scientific evidence, but on whatever their agenda is. So if we want science to be part of the discussion that is happening, we need to say something fast”’.

Some scientists, added Schiermeier, ‘might feel uncomfortable if weather forecasters announce results before work has gone through peer review’.  But he notes that Gabriele Hegerl, a climate scientist at Edinburgh University, points out that the science of attribution has advanced rapidly and ‘would benefit from being linked to operational weather prediction’. “It can be really useful to have results quickly available for event types we understand reasonably well, such as heatwaves,” she told him.  Or as Otto put it: “You don’t need to peer review the weather forecast”.

When ‘Climate’ Meets ‘Weather’

Ever since climate change became an issue it has been obvious that what’s on the daily weather forecast, influences public perceptions.  Hardly anyone talks to climate scientists but nearly everybody sees weather forecasts, and many TV forecasters are local or even national celebrities.  So far, we don’t have daily climate forecasts but we do have daily weather forecasts. Therefore what media weather people say matters, not just because they have our attention but because they give meaning to the weather, and climate.

Two ways weather meets climate are when ‘weather forecasters’ relate day to day weather to past averages, and when they interpret ‘extreme events’.

While there are cultural differences between nations, in countries like the UK, ‘good weather’ is usually taken to be synonymous with it being warm and dry.  Hence the ‘good weather’ frame in Britain, and probably many other temperate northern countries, contains the elements ‘warm’, ‘sunny’ and ‘dry’.

So weather forecasters in Britain frequently describe warmer, drier or sunnier days as ‘good’ or ‘better’ and describe departures from the long term or past averages as “better than expected” or “good for the time of year”.   So a hot summer day is celebrated, and so is a warmer than ‘normal’ winter day.  You do not need to be a cognitive psychologist to see that this frame tends to confound any claim that warmer, hotter weather is a bad sign.  For decades it was an uphill struggle to interpret ‘global warming’ as a bad thing, in countries like Britain.

Confusingly, the most obvious units of both weather forecasts and of global climate models are the same – degrees of temperature – yet they have very different meanings.  People are used to seeing TV weather charts with a range of temperatures of say 5 – 10.C over one day or within a week, and it makes little difference aside from the warmer ones being welcomed as something to look forward to, or signalling that you might need to ‘wrap up’ or ‘put on sun cream’, or that you are ‘lucky’ to live in one of the warmer spots.    With this framing, it makes no intuitive sense to be alarmed about a 1.5 – 2C rise as a disaster and 3-4.C as probably a catastrophe, just because it is applied to global averages.  Consequently campaigns and ‘scientific’ announcements to that effect, are simply filtered out, discarded as George Lakoff might say, because they do not ‘fit the frame’ [of warmer = better].

The conventional answer to this problem from the meteorological establishment and media such as the BBC is to occasionally introduce an ‘expert’ voice such as a Science Correspondent, usually when there is a report from the IPCC or UNFCCC to talk about, or if weather extremes make the news and advocates of climate-action are asking attribution questions.  They then try to ‘square the circle’ by resorting to what has become a mantra along the lines of “while you cannot attribute any single event to climate change, scientists say [this is consistent with what we may expect in the future] [this is the sort of event we may see more of in the future as…]”.

Repeated over and over these amount to raising the question “is this climate change?” and then dismissing it.  Question-dismissal, question-dismissal, question-dismissal … etc.

So such qualifications decode as reassurance; it’s expected, it’s not climate change, it’s not immediate, and “there are a lot of if’s but’s and maybes”: uncertainty.   Scientists taking this approach may think that listeners will realise that some of the events or part of the drivers behind events are driven by climate change but if the out-take from each one is that it is not attributed to climate change, the overall effect is ‘climate change isn’t affecting our weather’.

Weather Forecasts as a Political Analgesic

Weather forecasters sometimes use a different frame, one of ‘normal’ or ‘abnormal’ weather [as opposed to better/worse = hotter/ colder] but even then, they usually do so by reference to statistical averages, and very few of the population or media or politicians understand averages in an analytical way.

Explicitly saying “this weather is abnormal” could have a very different impact but in their Track 2 professional world, weather presenters and meteorologists are aware of the backlash they might experience if they appeared to say something ‘not scientifically accurate’.  So even when weather has become so extreme that their audience is already talking about it, there is still a residual reflex to play it down.  For example by saying that although it’s the biggest X for decades, it did happen once before at some distant point in the past.   Although that’s not exactly ‘scientific’, it is arcane knowledge and sounds expert.

As a result of all this, far from being a driver of public concern about the reality of climate change, for many years most media weather forecasts have acted as a political analgesic.

John Morales of NBC

Trying to squeeze a climate change perspective into a TV weather forecast is obviously a fraught business.  Some who have tried, have got into a tangle as they try to explain probabilities and intermediate factors like large scale weather systems (jet stream, arctic vortex, oscillations etc).  One who has had some success is John Morales, award winning meteorologist for NBC in Miami Florida.  Morales (@John MoralesNBC6) has even taken the fight for scientifically realistic interpretation of the weather and climate to Donald Trump.

In June Morales said on twitter that he and a handful of other TV meteorologists had been relating weather to climate change for years and ‘curiously’ were considered ‘mavericks’, but now there is a ‘groundswell’ of many more doing the same thing.

We Need Climate Indices For Weather

Morales may soon be getting reinforcements.  Schiermeier now reports that the German weather service is planning more or less immediate climate attribution analyses in 2019 or 2020, and the European Centre for Medium-Range Weather Forecasts (ECMWF) in Reading, UK, is also planning a pilot pan-EU scheme in 2020.  Presumably this will leave TV weather presenters with little excuse for prevarication over climate change.

In my view, what they really need to turn the impact of climate change on weather into something that is news-friendly, is an index, or maybe more than one.  The ‘cognitive ease’ of an index is why news services routinely report stock market indices, even though most of the audience has little real idea what the Dow Jones or FTSE 500 actually means, and it’s questionable what they say about the ‘real economy’.  In the news room, economics and business are held to be important, and this is a quick and easy way of covering them.  Likewise, the Saffir-Simpson 1 – 5 category scale for Hurricanes makes them a lot more ‘newsworthy’ because it makes them easier to report.

Temperature Pollution     

The essence of human-induced climate change is that polluting the air with greenhouse gases raises the temperature of the atmosphere.  The objective (Art 2) of the Climate Convention includes:

‘stabilization of greenhouse gas concentrations in the atmosphere at a level that would prevent dangerous anthropogenic interference with the climate system.  Such a level should be achieved within a time-frame sufficient to allow ecosystems to adapt naturally to climate change …’

Relating ecosystem (and farming) tolerance to rates and total amounts of change is where target figures like 1.5C or 2.0C in the C21st come from, compared to the 1961-1990 average.

So for its’ benchmark, any such Climate Attribution Index should relate to the ‘unpolluted’ atmosphere, when it comes to temperature records.

A couple of autumns ago, dismayed by Halloween temperatures hugely above the average of the previous 30 years, and with midsummer flowers blooming and insect pollinators buzzing around at a time nature should be shutting down for winter, I suggested a ‘UTA’ benchmark:

‘An Unpolluted Temperature Average from before the anthropogenic (human pollution) signal really kicked in ?  Then we could talk about Polluted Temperatures and Unpolluted Temperatures.  Which would be more honest.’

This won’t prevent people experiencing the shifting baseline syndrome: my children can’t remember the frosty autumn mornings I experienced as a child because they weren’t born then but it could ‘bake in’ the destination-objective of returning the atmosphere to an unpolluted state, which presumably is what climatologists and meteorologists actually want to happen, within the public climate conversation.

Weather interpreters also need a scale for events – expressing the ‘amount’ of Human-Induced-Climate-Change  attributed to an event [HICC index or maybe Hansen Units or Otto Units?].

It might help if climate scientists also had something like the ‘Atomic Clock’ which was some sort of ‘attribution’ index reset every once in a while, so anyone trying to ‘take the temperature’ of the issue could say “with the XXXX set at YY, it is …”.

I don’t know for sure but as they see the reality of climate change crashing weather all over the world, some campaigners may be wondering where next to throw their efforts.  One thing they could do is to help the climate attribution community navigate the process of bringing out the truth in terms the public can understand.

What Next ?

Otto’s work creates three openings:  first, to activate the ‘weather dividend’ in terms of public engagement,  second the need and opportunity to hold politicians and corporates to account over climate change, and third the need to pivot the psychology from ‘giving up’ to demanding action.

The Weather Dividend

For a  long time surveys have tended to find that more people say they have noticed the ‘climate changing’ than that they ‘believe in climate change’.  Two of the statements tested in the 2011-2015 series of surveys for Greenpeace International mentioned earlier were  ‘I have noticed that the climate seems to be changing’ (in eight countries) and ‘Climate change – I don’t believe in it’.

A majority of people in all eight countries agreed they had noticed the climate changing (see more detail here), and an outright majority in every country except the UK and Australia ‘strongly’ agreed.  (It would be interesting to ask the question again in Australia and the UK as these were surveyed in 2014.)

This can be compared to results for the statement: ‘climate change – I don’t believe in it’, (details here).

The chart shows the proportion who agreed strongly or slightly that they had noticed the climate changing, and the proportion who were ‘active believers’ in climate change, in that they slightly or strongly disagreed with ‘climate change – I don’t believe in it’.  In every country, more people ‘have noticed’ climate change rather than ‘believe in it’, and these can add up to more than 100% because some of the people who profess not to believe in it, have also ‘noticed it’.

This apparently irrational response is because the two questions are not answered analytically – hardly any of the public will have conducted or studied a ‘climatology’ of long term data or are experts on ‘detection’ of a human made climate signal – but intuitively (using Kahneman’s System 1 not System 2).  Emotional reflexive rationality, not analytical reflective rationality.

Although asked if they ‘have noticed’ the climate changing, this equates to ‘weather’, or short term or easily recall-able or ‘available’ experiences or events, including things like changes in wildlife and plants in the garden or at work, ‘unseasonal’ weather, and social conversations about them.  These are in the realm of personal experience and are probably cued by being asked if you have “noticed” something.

Especially in countries where ‘climate change’ was polarised as a political issue, the ‘belief’ question cues people to ask themselves “am I one of those type of people?”: a political/social identity test, and answer on that basis.  This is one reason why the response not only varies in degree between countries but is strongly values-influenced in a way which is highly consistent across countries.

Above: some Values Modes differences showing indexes only (for further explanation see here).  Warm colours indicate strongly significant espousal/ agreement with the statement.  The overall difference between the two statement responses is most marked in the Prospector ‘Golden Dreamers’ and the Settler ‘Brave New Worlds’.  These people are more climate sceptic than the population average but do tend to agree they have noticed the climate changing.

It can therefore be expected that if weather forecasts and discussion of extreme weather events begin to include a climate-change factor, there will be an overall increase in agreement with propositions which are predicated on climate change as a reality and this will be greatest in the Prospectors and Settlers, especially GD and BNW.

Seeing as many surveys show these people are the centre of support (although not the only support) for authoritarian policies, Trump, Brexit and right-wing parties, what appears in the weather forecast as a reality, has political significance.  This will not be lost on the paid-for climate sceptic lobby who can be expected to try and keep the climate factor out of the weather reports and forecasts.

The effect of routinely including the climate factor in weather reports and forecasts, will be to normalise it, and Settlers in particular self-identify as ‘normal people’ and thus shift opinions and behaviours to stay in line with norms.  Or as this previous Newsletter noted, ‘like cancer and smoking and the abolition of slavery, an issue, a contested topic, has to mature into ‘social fact’ for wholesale change on it to be acceptable’.

Campaigners can therefore expect a ‘dividend’ in growing and broadening the base of acceptance of climate change, when the climate-factor appears in ‘the weather’.   Climate pollution is becoming pollution of the weather.

Holding Politicians and Corporates to Account over Climate Change

This is mainstream ongoing work for climate campaigns but with the gap between the changing climate and changing weather now disappearing, it too can be re-appraised.

When Dawn Stover published an article ‘Global heat wave: an epic TV news fail’ in the Bulletin of Atomic Scientists on July 19, a senior scientist asked me why with all the evidence of climate change in progress, there was so little media and political reaction.  My answer was:

“Obvious contributing factors:

  • Distraction (Brexit, Trump) of NGOs and media and politicians or big business — the ‘newsmakers’
  • No clear threshold response from scientists
  • Northern hemisphere holiday psychology – hoping to get a tan on the beach

Beyond that the other explanations are worse, eg shifting baseline psychology”

Well Otto has changed the second factor significantly, for which she deserves some sort of medal but I was being a bit glib: there is another factor, namely no perceived crisis of responsibility.  Politically, Teresa May is in ongoing crisis over Brexit: will she fail to deliver, or fail to hang on to her job? Likewise Trump has a permanent crisis monkey on his back because of unresolved inquiries into his Russian links and other allegations but is only in real trouble if his supporters turn against him.

In truth the fates of Brexit, May and Trump are inconsequential compared to the onslaught of climate change but media and the political classes feel no crisis from climate change.  For most such ‘leaders’ it’s only a political problem, and at that principally a presentational one, on the main plenary days of COPs of the UNFCCC.  Their reputations, jobs, status and freedom do not depend upon resolving it because as yet, they are not expected to take responsibility, and feel no political pain from it getting worse: no blame, no shame.

I wrote about this in 2013 in ‘Why We Need Climate Crises To Avoid Catastrophe’.   It began:

‘Here are three fundamental political truths relevant to many campaigns: first, politicians aspire to be in charge and remain in charge. Second, it is universally recognized that the first duty of government is to maintain public safety – from the integrity of the nation down to the safety of the individual. Third, little sharpens the political mind like being held responsible.

The climate is now plainly lurching into a state of dangerous extremes: record floods are followed by record droughts, storms, heat waves and fires. Seasons are warping and nature, farming and cultures are impacted. Livelihoods and lives are threatened.  People have noticed it is changing, and they don’t like it …

Yet the impacts created by the new climate extremes tend to remain ‘disasters’ not crises. Why? Because there is no crisis of responsibility’.

It went on to argue that we need to complement existing efforts to hold politicians to account in relation to global climate change (eg by activist lawyer groups), by also mobilising affected domestic political constituencies to demand that leaders keep them safe from local climate change.  Otto’s work, and that of other attribution scientists, makes that much more feasible.  Same goes for corporations like oil companies.

It ended:

‘With climate impacts perceived to be occurring in real time, the politics of climate can be real-time, personal and local too. What would be the bigger political crisis, the fate of future generations, or a food shortage tomorrow? The future extinction of a third of the world’s biodiversity or a housing crisis this year?

Once they have a crisis to deal with, politicians will start to look more seriously and more quickly, for the most effective solutions’.

The Psychology of Not Giving Up

When I got sent a link to Schiermeier’s article in Nature I forwarded it to a friend who is a long-time climate campaigner in Greenpeace.  She wrote back:Thanks for that – good work!  Just wonder how we stop people switching off when they finally get how serious it is’.  Which is of course a very good point.

It seems to me that there are two things campaigns and advocates need to achieve, if an era of climate-change-polluted-weather is to motivate action to clean up the atmosphere rather than to ignore it or give up.  First, to fully desocialise fossil fuels, and second, to give meaning to climate-attribution of weather events in terms of the difference we could make.

  • Desocialisation of Fossil Fuels

We need to desocialise fossil fuels so it becomes shameful to use them.  The same goes for other climate change pollution of course but fossil fuels are the most egregious factor.

This should not be done by universalist ethical criticism (Political Correctness which can lead to values polarisation) but is best founded on the one hand, in appeals to morality, to honour, duty, family and Jonathan Haidt’s six moral ‘modules’ or ‘foundations’. (Care/harm, Fairness/cheating, Loyalty/betrayal, Authority/subversion, Sanctity/degradation, and Liberty/oppression).  These resonate most strongly with the GD/ Settler Values Modes discussed earlier, which is where the greatest work needs to be done.    The Pope is an example of a moral authority heading in the right direction.

The Save Kansas Project reported in the New York Times in 2010

Plus on the other hand, it needs to be founded in social proof: which means qualitatively and quantitatively amplifying the signal that living ‘carbon free’ is right and normal.  The Save Kansas project did this nearly a decade ago: a predominantly Settler community took to building wind farms, side-stepping their existing climate-scepticism, and finding justification in a sense of community benefit and loyalty, and freedom from reliance on foreign oil.  Much more effort should go into making the transition from fossil fuels visible, obvious and socially approved of, and (especially for Prospectors) a positive signal of success and prosperity.

Innovative politicians and campaigners should also make the right to be able to live a climate-blameless life (accessible, affordable etc) into a political and corporate issue. Demanding politicians and corporates make this possible, is a key step in driving out fossil fuels.  We need politicians to compete to get rid of fossil fuels, not form a consensus that it should be done and then give it little priority.

A social norm is defined not just by broad acceptance but by the social sanction that follows when it is broken.  Those cheating, betraying, degrading or subverting our societies and children’s future need to be held to account.  Campaign NGOs might think about how they can help organise or maybe more likely catalyse powerful and directed expressions of social disapproval against wanton climate pollution, and moral appeals to transgressors to change their ways.   Remember that every time you hear a spokesperson or ‘expert’ trundled out in the media who says “everyone” is a bit to blame for climate change, their agenda is usually to avoid a focus on those who are a very great deal to blame.

Nobody likes being blamed.  Living ‘carbon free’ or being part of the disapproval, enables people to exempt themselves from blame.  This in turn makes it possible to hear about climate change driving dangerous and bad weather, and be able to accept and relay that news, without feeling the need to stifle or deny it.

For something which has been ‘normal’, such as using oil, gas or coal, getting there requires plenty of step-by-step disapproval: think of smoking (see Campaign Strategy Newsletter 26).

  • Give Positive Meaning To Events

We need to relate news of weather events attributed to climate change (bad news) to the difference we could make to extreme weather and impacts if we cut out carbon pollution ie fossil fuels (good news). Put the difference in terms of weather: eg it would cut the excess of such extreme floods by x%.

This is what PR people sometimes call a negative-positive story.  We give a sense of agency, the difference we could make, and avoidability, not despondency and despair.  This also feeds the scandal equation: if a disaster is avoidable then it is scandalous, and someone is to blame.

Both of these steps enable people to avoid cognitive dissonance on hearing that their weather is being pollution-driven.  They give people something positive to say when a disastrous impact occurs: enabling disapproval of others who are to blame, and equipping them with a way to express the solution.


Friederike Otto is not the only scientist working in this field but she has done the world a favour.  Campaigners should seize the opportunity she has created.

The heatwave has also brought climate change and weather together in popular perception.  On 25 July, two days before Otto’s report and five days before Steinmeier’s article in Nature, Britain’s most popular daily newspaper The Sun  had splashed a global temperature map across it’s front page, with the headline ‘The World’s on Fire’.

The Sun 25 July tweeted by Mark Campanale @CampanaleMark

Veteran environmental journalist Mike McCarthy spotted it at his local news-stand and wrote in The Guardian a week later, “I nearly choked on my KitKat* when I read that”.  This is because the Murdoch-owned Sun has long been regarded as a firm part of the ‘climate sceptic’ tendency, so the coverage in The Sun was, as Mike said, a ‘historic shift’.

McCarthy’s article was headed  ‘Was this the heatwave that finally ended climate denial?’  Probably not but the media will be cooling on climate denial, and Otto’s work makes that end a whole lot more possible.

(*For non-UK readers: KitKat is a chocolate bar brand owned by Nestle and popular in Britain).


Posted in Uncategorized | 1 Comment

Apple: A Genius Way To Treat Customers

Shop containing a Genius Bar – this wasn’t the one

(This story is four years old.  I just never got round to publishing it but it’s a Friday).

A few nights ago I was working at my PC when my 15 year old daughter came into the office and waved her new iphone at me.  The charger cable was slightly twisted and it looked like a nematode worm with a rupture.  It definitely wasn’t working.  It was 9 pm at night, and we were due to leave to get on a train so she could make a long journey, early next morning.

She was distraught that she might not have a working phone with her.  I tried to argue that seeing as I would accompany her to the train, and a friend would meet her off it, the need to have a phone for the time in between, was minimal, especially seeing as trains very rarely strayed from their intended course.  All, of course, to no avail …

So the next step was to see if we could fix it.  A brief Google search showed lots of images of exactly the same problem.  There were also dozens of discussion threads with comments along the lines of “this is the sixth ‘lightning’ cable I’ve had to buy – Apple knows about this problem, why doesn’t it fix it ?”.    And there were videos explaining how you could cut the cable, find the break, and reconnect the wires.  That at least might enable us to recharge it, allowing her to remain ‘connected’ while she got to a shop to buy a new cable.  A lot of fiddling about ensued and by midnight, it half-worked but not well enough.  So there was nothing for it but to change our plans to visit an Apple Store an hour away, first-thing in the morning.

Having read that Apple sometimes simply agreed to exchange the cables, knowing that they were made fault-prone  (ie ridiculously fragile considering their function), and that sometimes this simply involved showing the box, we took the phone, box, evidence of purchase (it was only a month old), and mangled cable.  All we wanted was a new cable.

We found the store and walked in.  I’ve since read that someone should have been waiting at the door to explain to first-time visitors that the apparently random assembly of people in coloured tee-shirts, no visible counters and softly milling customers, all had a hidden purpose.  But nobody did.  Quite a  lot of the Apple employees didn’t appear to be talking to any customers but they were all busy, mostly talking to each other in a motivational sort of way.

I spotted one slightly older, and larger looking Apple person standing at the back of the store on his own.  He gazed authoritatively across the room and was apparently doing no more than flexing his muscles or maybe some sort of secret jaw Pilates.  We went over to him and managed to get his attention by standing quite close until he stopped talking on his earpiece phone, which explained the jaw movements.

I tried to explain what we wanted.  He cut me off half way through the first sentence.   “Appointment ?” he snapped imperiously from behind his immaculately groomed half-beard, giving us a disdainful look.  “Sorry ?” I responded, not knowing that this shop required appointments.  Indeed not realising that despite being in a large Shopping Mall and full of stuff apparently for sale, it wasn’t really a shop at all, or didn’t want to think so.

“You need an appointment – join that queue”.  He indicated a random looking queue in the middle of the ‘shop’, where people were lining up to talk to a young man in long gingham shorts who was do something with an i-pad.  Now I’d got my eye-in, things started to become clearer.  There were people quietly waiting everywhere, many filling out personal details on screens, or answering questions so that apps or some other thing could do something online that might solve some invisible problem.

I tried to think what the scene reminded me of.  The patient, often hopeless looking visitors, the positive uniformed employees, the sense that the latter were very in charge by being ‘helpful’ .. it wasn’t ‘retail’ or ‘service’ it was more like a gathering to follow the script of some invisible Authority.

The Ministry in Terry Gilliam’s Brazil perhaps ?   Those old black and white photos of Muskovites queuing with optimism to buy something, anything, in Soviet era GUM stores ?  Or, what I’ve heard Indian tax offices or railway stations used to be like ?

The man in Gingham shorts looked like he had been specially selected for the most stressful job in the ‘shop’ because he was tall but quiet, stooped and unchallenging.  His eyes rarely lifted from the screen.  He had an expression like a mournful squirrel looking for lost nuts on a slow moving computer game.  He reminded me of one of the wizards from Harry Potter, gamefully trying to engage with the ways of Muggles, never giving up, never quite connecting but not noticing it either.

By now we’d been there about ten or fifteen minutes.  No long but really long enough to buy a cable if we had to, or rather had had the opportunity.  In front of us was a 30-something mother with her young daughter tugging at her.  Her phone wouldn’t charge.  Why couldn’t she see someone now ?  No she couldn’t come back then as she worked shifts in a hospital and couldn’t take time off work.  No she lived too far away, she had to get a bus.  She’d already taken time off to come here, and so on.  I tried not to listen.   You could hear the despair in her voice.  Beaten by her need to have the phone working, in the end she accepted what sounded like a distant appointment and left.

Did we have an appointment ?  No.  He would make us one, with Phil (not his name I think) on the table right over here, who was “doing cable swaps today”.  I guess the words ‘broken’ or ‘faulty’ or ‘failed’ are scripted out in the Apple training.  “Doing cable swaps” sounded like something you didn’t realise you wanted but having been introduced to it on an office bonding trip, might quite enjoy, a bit like a free zip wire experience in an adventure park.  The appointment was for about three minutes time.

Having given my name, I was invited to sit on a special chair, possibly to increase the sense of control, possibly to make me feel like a Superhero which is apparently the Apple customer strategy.  Or maybe just to tidy things up a bit.

Our Genius Phil turned to us next.  First a check with the appointment on his device, to make sure the handover had gone to plan.  Ah. He diagnosed the problem immediately.  Our cable was broken.  Indeed it was.  Severed in fact.  No longer connected to the bit that went in the phone.

“That means it is recorded as damaged” he explained (or words to that effect), tapping his screen.  We agreed.  It was indeed damaged because we’d tried to repair it.  Before that it was broken.  That had invalidated the guarantee.  We were not surprised.   The Genius said nothing to suggest that we had been stupid enough to try operating on a fully functioning power cable but sensibly left the possibility open.

Could we buy one ?  Was that possible (or would it require an other appointment,  possibly an email of absolution from the Vatican or Palo Alto ?)  He’d fix us up with help from Jeb (standing about one metre away).

We left the table and entered what I now realise was the Sales Zone.  Was this another appointment ?  Jeb was all smiles.  After a quick check to enter my email into his device (something about having a longer guarantee), we bought the Lightning-to-USB cable for £15, making a mental note to maybe get its next replacement from a company like Belkin.

It seemed we were free to go.  The whole thing had only taken about 25 minutes.  We had a brief look at a new case for the iphone but they were about £35 and my daughter advised that she could get a cheaper one from a supermarket.  We got one for £10 in Sainsburys.

No Tea

Yeas ago a frustrated advertising executive charged with improving the image of the nationalised British Rail, famously invited his clients, who were more concerned with relationships with the Trade Unions and ‘running the railway’ than they were with passengers, to his offices.  They were made to wait.  Invited to sit on uncomfortable furniture.   Given cold tea in chipped cups.  He made his point though I don’t remember what happened next.

Apple isn’t like that of course.  There’s no tea for a start.  The staff are full of Appleness, in a preppy (this is England) pseudo American sort of way, hinting at time spent in the ‘States or wishing to be closer to Cupertino.  “He wasn’t American was he ?” my daughter asked me, doubtful about the strange accent of our Genius.  No but he clearly wanted to give the impression that he might be.  Maybe to himself.

Indeed Apple is more like GUM than BR.  Faced with no choice but the unthinkable risks of attempting defection, staff and customers collude in telling themselves that they are having the best of possible experiences.  Read any of the many vituperative exchanges that break out online when an Apple customer dares to question The Product, and you can feel the power of the Brand, even through a screen.    Believers descend on those who have strayed and smother them like antibodies on an aberrant antigen.  Apple doesn’t have to organise it, hope does it for them, hope that the dream will (one day) be matched by the reality.  Who cares about a badly designed cable and its costly replacement when the Bigger Picture draws us towards the horizon ?

There’s lots of online debate about Genius Bars.  One Apple Antibody points out that although it’s not obvious to the un-initiated, they are mainly for tech-support unmatched by other IT retailers.  You wouldn’t expect to see a doctor without an appointment, so why expect to see a Genius without one ?  But what if you only wanted to buy a plaster ? Would you expect to have to make an appoitnment to visit the pharmacy (= Drug Store) ?  And what if it’s an emergency doctor you need ?  Apple it seems, doesn’t do urgent just because it is.

And if the tech is so great, how come it needs so much ‘support’ ?  But those are questions only asked by non-believers.   Hands up.  I used to have a Mac.  Several in fact. I wrote a book on the first, a 1980s musuem piece still in my loft.  All went well until it went “boing” and crashed, taking the book with it. I had to write it all again and you know what ?  It was better the second time.  That’s the mac genius I guess.

Then I went to work in an organisation that only used PCs and after a short struggle with IT, capitulated.  I said goodbye to my much loved little Powerbook (grey, lumpy).   Before that I used to run a media charity and Mac (Apple) actually gave us a lot of (then even more expensive) computers.  Media folk visited just to look at them.  I remember that in true eccentric Apple style they arrived unannounced and were almost left outside in boxes, on a London pavement.  Later they were properly stolen from our offices by a gang robbing to order.

Real Genius

So decades later, am I just a grumpy old apostate, out of step with the Genii ?  Is there really anything awry with the Genius Bar experience ?   My fifteen year old seemed to think so.  “They aren’t geniuses, they’re just hipsters” said my daughter.  “They are not even proper geeks, they’re just pretending to be”.   Perhaps that’s it.  It has an authenticity deficit.

There’s a little electrical shop on Tottenham Court Road* in London resembling something out of Bladerunner.  It’s one of several in the street run and owned by a fraternity (all men, and it seems, many related) of British-Asians who appear to be actual wizards, able to do almost anything electrical, incredibly quickly.  These shops sell and fix dozens and brands and do anything from installing components to unblocking phones.  My phone (a cheap blackberry) developed a fault a while ago and as I was walking past, I took it in.  Within about one minute they had prized it to bits, diagnosed the problem and giving me the SIM card, suggested I get a cup of tea and come back in five minutes.  I did, and it was fixed.  I’m not sure how they did it but I’d call that magical.  Real genii, it seems, don’t need appointments.

(* For non UK readers that’s the road in where the café scene takes place in the movie Deathly Hallows).

My old mended Mac, recently rescued from the loft in order to amuse young visitors.  We tried plugging it in.  A lot of smoke emerged from the back.  It smelt strangely organic: a mouse nest maybe?.  Then with a loud ping and a small flash, it finally died for a second time.  Electrowaste I guess.


Posted in Uncategorized | 2 Comments

UK: Most People Say Supermarkets Should Stop Selling Drinks in Plastic Bottles

77.2% of people surveyed in the UK agree that ‘supermarkets should stop selling drinks in plastic bottles’.  32.8% agreed ‘strongly’ when given six options (strongly/ moderately/ slightly, agree or disagree) in a survey of 1001 people fielded for CDSM (Cultural Dynamics Strategy and Marketing) in February.  (The same survey also asked about a phase-out of plastic except for essential uses: 84% agreed, 39% ‘strongly’ so).

‘Supermarkets should stop selling drinks in plastic bottles’


The survey also segmented results by Motivational Values

At a Maslow Group level (Settlers, Prospectors, Pioneers), the Pioneers were significantly (16% index) more likely than the population average to ‘strongly agree’, which is a skew typical of a ‘breaking issue’ and one where campaigns are already being run (against ‘Single Use Plastic’ of which plastic bottles are one of the most obvious uses).  However there is an across-the-board preference among all three main values groups to support a ban.   Pioneers are the group with highest self-agency and most likely to first adopt new behaviours such as giving up single-use plastic bottles in favour of other options such as refillables.

At the more detailed Values Modes (VM) level, the only two VM’s over-indexing on a ‘strongly’ option are the (TX) Transcender Pioneers, the ‘leading edge’ VM in terms of initiating change on ‘strongly agree’, and the (GD) Golden Dreamers on strongly disagree’.  But even most GDs ‘agree’ and there are vastly more strongly agees overall (32.8%) than strongly disagrees (5%).

Males and Females

As with the phase-out question there was a significant skew to females being more supportive of a ban, although overall both sexes are in favour of supermarkets stopping selling drinks in plastic bottles.


There is some class difference with ABs most keen on a ban and Ds least enthusiastic but overall all social classes support supermarkets ending sales of drinks in plastic bottles.


The most marked differences are between age groups:

Older people dominate the ‘strongly’ agree option.  52% of the over 65s strongly agree whereas only 16% of the 21-24 year olds do so.  I haven’t seen age related data for purchase of drinks in plastic bottles but it seems likely that this difference reflects consumer behaviour.

Above: age profile of the Strongly Agree option

On the other hand it would be wrong to think that most young people oppose ending supermarket sales of such drinks bottles: a majority of all age classes err to agreeing:

A ban on supermarket sales of drinks in plastic bottles, voluntary or otherwise, looks as if it would have wide and deep public support.


Posted in Uncategorized | Leave a comment