Front page: what are CRAGs?

I like Jessica’s wording, as she says its emotive and inspires the reader to join in. The only change I would suggest would be to say “Welcome to CRAGs – Carbon Rationing Action Groups!” which is a bit snappier than the existing 2-line format.

I shall save the debate about whether to change the R in CRAGs from Rationing to Reduction to a later date, but I do feel we will put off potential members with references to rationing.

Peter

Jessica

website team CRAGger Islington

Thanks, Peter – I agree on your wording amendment. I’ve edited my original posting to take account.

I’d also like to have the ‘rationing’ debate at some point… I’m still in two minds about the word.

Jessica R

Remember this has to appeal to the 80% who have no clue.

Carbon Rationing Action Group (CRAG)

Change by leadership, Rationing CO2 for a better future

david

website team CRAGger Sevenoaks

I have created a new thread on Rationing vs. Reduction

david

website team CRAGger Sevenoaks

I’d like to have a quote, and agree the Ghandi one is the best (but John would prefer random quotes from individual craggers).

I am going off the questions now! Partly because they take up a lot of space, and partly that I think we should say “straight up” what we are about, rather than beating about the bush. But we can have them if you guys think they’re engaging.

I like the two paragraphs. There’s a couple of other points I’d like to work in too:

• that we are trying to accomplish a microcosm (or on a micro-scale) of what needs to adopted on a global scale, and the idea of a globally equitable sustainable allowance.

• that we are testing the effectiveness of financial penalties (or rewards) as a means of reducing our footprints

Although not in so many words! The general idea is to segue gracefully into a longer introduction page, whilst leaving space for blocks that introduce groups, forum and wiki and give the latest posts from those areas. There is also the idea of presenting collated CRAGs’ targets and footprints for each year .

david

website team CRAGger Sevenoaks

I’m totally with the short and punchy intro! This can link to an intro page and directly to the CRAGs guide (perhaps to the footprinting spreadsheet too). The tabs would then read “home”, “intro” ... but I’m unsure where the current How? page should go – it’s obviously important – most sensibly in the “groups” section?

Another idea I had was a carbon-cycle themed front page. This would integrate the logo, and incorporate the CRAGs footprint info set out in Collating CRAGs data .

All great ideas on profiles and the human dimension. I can add as many fields (e.g. occupation etc.) to the current user page as you like – and photos are possible too. We can also have an index of members. We should split this off into a separate thread, though.

david

website team CRAGger Sevenoaks

I have redrafted in light of the comments above, and also to work the peak oil motivation (which was a suggestion made back in the yahoo group days, I think it widens our audience).

Welcome to CRAGs: Carbon Rationing Action Groups!

We are a rapidly expanding network of people who recognise that the limits to fossil fuel supplies and the risks of climate change mean we need to make the transition to a low-energy, low-carbon society.

We believe that we can all make a practical and political contribution to achieving this change.

We form local community groups that support members’ ongoing reductions in their personal carbon footprints, that are sharing skills and knowledge on lower carbon living, and which are already informing the national and global political debate on the adoption of personal carbon allowances.

If you believe that together we can lead the way, join us!

Feel free to redraft here or at Website front page (draft), or add more comments.

robinsmith3

website team CRAGger Islington Leeds Wokingham WSP

I like it

But whats Peak Oil got to do with anything CRAG ?

Jessica

website team CRAGger Islington

Great! I was hoping we would get a new home page up soon.

I think it’s good, David. One comment on the wording, first para: did you mean to say the ‘risks’ of climate change? I think ‘impact’ is better. Otherwise we might be perceived as being among those who still say climate change is a possibility, and a future possibility at that, whereas I thought we were all signed up to the opinion that climate change is a reality and that it is already happening. I know that ‘risks’ plural could mean ‘stuff that may happen as a result of’, but it could be too easily misread as ‘risk’ singular, as in likelihood. Errm, hope that makes sense; if not, ask me to explain better.

As to Robin’s comment ‘what have CRAGs got to do with peak oil?’, I say: what haven’t they got to do with peak oil? Carbon rationing is all about changing our economic structures. Surely the need to switch our economy to low-carbon is on the dual basis of (1) because we need to try to reduce further manmade induced global warming, and (2) we are running out of fossil fuels anyway and are liable to economic collapse, energy conflict, etc, because our world economy runs on fossil. Both are going to cause crises for global health, safety and security.

Also, looking at it cynically, this dual basis has always seemed to me to be the strongest suit for pitching to people who don’t care if more poor people than usual are going to drown in Bangladesh and/or who still find arguments to say that manmade C02 is not linked to warming, or that warming is not really happening at all (see The Great Global Warming Swindle). Ie, even if dangerous global warming may not happen, who can argue that fossil fuels are not getting harder and much more expensive to find, which will make it increasingly uneconomical to invest in their recovery and more economical to invest in other energy production?

Even though I think most of us in CRAGs see rationing as being philosophically founded in a belief in social equity, the beauty of it is that we need not be afraid of pitching it to hard-nosed capitalists on the basis of self-interest.

What does everyone else think?

Jessica R

david

website team CRAGger Sevenoaks

Yes, I did mean your second interpretation i.e. the risks posed by present and future climate change. But I can see that there could be a misinterpretation there, and impacts would be fine as a replacement, I think.

Well, peak oil is another good reason for doing what CRAGs do – reducing our carbon count. It shows that the move away from fossil fuels will be inevitable whatever the uncertainties about the future impacts of climate change: so why not apply the precautionary principle now in the knowledge that the investment will stand us in good stead on the energy security front too.

I think we need to mention the global equity motivation for the carbon allowances more explicitly too, since this was really one of CRAG’s founding principles.

robinsmith3

website team CRAGger Islington Leeds Wokingham WSP

My apologies but I’m not at all convinced by this.

Can you show me by making it clear what you intend to say or do on the so called oil peak please. Otherwise I’m calling for a consensus from the wider group on this one.

I feel you are promoting something that could ruin all the hard work in the CRAG so far by creating an association with this politically loaded topic. Rationale available on request

Best
r

further oil peak discussion was split off to: Peak oil: relevant to crags?

Jessica

website team CRAGger Islington

John, I don’t understand your comments, so can’t really judge them. Please can you explain why it is patronising to have a front page explaining what the site is about? And why would quotes make this any different, and what kind of quotes do you have in mind? Also don’t know what you mean about ‘other websites not having pulled this off’.

I’m concerned to make our site more accessible to the internet browser. Our site is the first one that comes up when you google carbon rationing. If people open it and can’t see what we’re about, why would they read on further? The wiki will be good, but already so much of the site is technical discussion amongst the initiated. There needs to be a clear, simple thread leading people in, and we need to do more on making the main site and wiki more easily navigable and more comprehensively indexed (NB> David, no pressure! I know this is a big work in progress and appreciate all your recent revamping!)

I have a link to the website at the end of all my personal emails, and several friends have said to me that they looked at the site but it seemed too forbidding so they didn’t go into it. I think we forget too easily that most people, even amongst our educated elite, are only just starting to hear about ‘carbon footprints’ etc and haven’t the foggiest about a lot of technical and political stuff that we bandy around. If we want our website to become a word-spreader and an education tool, as well as a library and talking shop for experts, we need to be careful.

On a related point, can we also set up a page (with an obvious link from the homepage) giving ‘easy tips for cutting your energy bills and carbon emissions’ (eg, fit CFL lightbulbs, turn down your thermostat, only wash at 30 or 40 degrees). I know this stuff can be found all over the web, but it would be good to have it as a resource on our site too. We can probably just copy and paste from other materials, and provide links for further reading. Again, this makes an easy way in for the ‘starter reader’, who may then be interested later to read our stuff about measuring wood v coal heating emissions etc. Again, this has been prompted by comments by friends who aren’t (at this stage) interested in joining a CRAG but said they’d wanted to find this sort of information on the site but couldn’t. Unless we make our website a resource at many levels, we won’t get new punters.

Jessica R

david

website team CRAGger Sevenoaks

John, I think introducing what CRAGs are about is important. It doesn’t need to be patronising if it just describes and doesn’t imply what the reader should or should be doing. We also need some lead in, to an introduction, to the CRAGs guide etc. that is suitable for the uninitiated, as Jessica points out.

However, I totally agree there also need to be links from the front page direct into the groups, forum and wiki. Not having this at the moment is really a matter of time limitations, not design. I intend to add ‘latest groups’, ‘latest forum posts’, and main wiki topic links (‘footprinting’, ‘carbon reduction’ etc.).

So we need the both!

Jessica – I have started the page you suggest at Quick tips for using less energy (and saving money). Anyone should be able to add to this page by clicking the edit button at top-right. We can later link from the front page, if we think appropriate.

john ackers

website team CRAGger Islington

The reason I am saying is that it is patronising because most site visitors will easily grasp the principle of carbon rationing. We used to say "If you answered yes to these questions, you don't need any more reasons!" Yes we do. Even in Jessica's version, there is still a big intellectual jump between 'Do you believe that individuals can make a difference?' and 'Welcome to CRAGs! - Carbon Rationing Action Groups.' We need to explain why voluntary schemes are worth bothering with and why this particular scheme (CRAGs) is better that others e.g. RSA.

Jessica, I don't think that 'there needs to be a clear, simple thread leading people in'. I haven't seen any popular sites that have done this (pulled this off). Repeat visitors want to get to the dynamic content on the site quickly after they have typed in the URL. If you want to provide a link to an introduction to carbon footprinting, why not give them that link specifically in your email, I don't think you can expect that to be the front page.

I picked two arbitrary campaign web sites with complicated messages, soil association and mast sanity.

Neither have explanations on the front page but both have table of contents on the LHS for you to find the explanations.

Hopefully google will put up a block for us anyway (see soil association google entry) and provide multiple entry points into the site.

Hi guys/gals
Front page wrangling aside! .. why are voluntary schemes worth bothering with and why are CRAGs better than those such as RSA (royal society for the arts- carbon limited)? A kind of rhetorical question but I would like to hear from those of you who are obviously very active on the site as i am doing an assignment (a case study on a CRAG) in the hope to analyse just how effective a model (it) is for carbon reduction, as part of my MSC- AEES @ CAT. – Thanks Amy Lunt

andy_ross

website team CRAGger Glasgow Leamington

Amy, the aims of this adventure as originally formulated were follows:

1. to make us all aware of our personal CO2 footprint
2. to find out if it can help us make radical cuts in our personal CO2 emissions
3. to help us argue for (or against!) the adoption of similar schemes at a national (DTQ) and/or international (C&C) level
4. to build up solidarity between a growing community of carbon conscious people.
5. to share practical lowercarbonliving knowledge and experience

(ref: http://www.carbonrationing.org.uk/files/carbon_rationing_guide.pdf)

I think RSA will help people do 1. and 3. admirably. 2., 4. and 5. are potentially where CRAGs can shed some light.

My thoughts on what progress we are making on these five points:

1. I think we are doing this one quite effectively.
2. I am increasingly pessimistic that we will be able to make radical cuts (i.e. >50%) as individuals and/or small groups without serious help from the “system”, over which we have limited control. I hope I am wrong however!
3. I am happy to argue for equal per capita shares in principle but I don’t think we have gathered enough data to know whether CRAGs is a more effective way of reducing emissions and changing values than more “upstream” approaches.
4. We have a network that could perhaps be described as a community. The number of CRAGs seems to be growing. So this is all positive.
5. We need to share our carbon experiences more, and be less shy about our individual successes and failures.

The feedback Oxford CRAGgers gave on their first carbon year was invaluable. I hope we can all follow their example.

Hi Andy
Thank you for your response. Is it posible to get a view of Oxfords feedback from their first year at all? Is this written up or just conversations you
have had with them? Also can you clarify what you mean by ‘more upstream approaches’ – do you mean green taxation etc?

andy_ross

website team CRAGger Glasgow Leamington

I am not very good at explaining things clearly. Probably best to have a look page 16 of this document

http://www.cse.org.uk/pdf/pub1067.pdf

john ackers

website team CRAGger Islington

Oxford’s docs are all online at http://www.carbonrationing.org.uk/oxford

david

website team CRAGger Sevenoaks

OK, well we agreed in the recent teleconference (CRAG teleconference 1/4/2007) that I’d do a draft page with the following features: short introductory paragraph (with links to longer introduction); latest group posts; latest forum posts; main wiki topics; vox-pop quotes; targets/prices/footprints summary. I’ll post up here when I’ve done that.

david

website team CRAGger Sevenoaks

The idea of going straight into the wiki could be a good one, actually, having thought more about it. It certainly might give the thing a jump start. Why, what, how are really FAQs. The drawback is it doesn’t lead into the forum and groups. However, it could be good in the interim, until there is time to do a bespoke front page.

andy_ross

website team CRAGger Glasgow Leamington

Had a go at editing the wiki draft front page. Shorter. What do you think?

david

website team CRAGger Sevenoaks

I commented there (Website front page (draft)).

I hope you don’t mind us butting in at this late stage, but Camilla and I felt we should comment on the proposed change to the front page. As some of you may know, we recently started the York CRAG (first meeting this Wednesday; we’ll let you all know how it goes). We originally came across the CRAG movement through the website, so perhaps we can offer a useful perspective.

Camilla and I had, like increasingly many others, become more aware of the reality of climate change and the pressing need for governments and individuals to make the changes necessary to avert climate chaos. And, like many others I’m sure, we felt pretty helpless in the face of apparent government and business inertia. The appeal of the CRAG movement, when we first encountered it, was that it was a way both for individuals to feel part of a growing grass roots movement dedicated to cutting carbon emissions, and to exert some much needed pressure on the powers that be and persuade them that dramatic cuts in carbon emissions are both necessary and politically possible. I may say that these two points were essentially how we sold the York group (through leaflets, the newspaper article etc); and they were based mainly on the original front page. They are general of course, but that is sort of the point.

If I have followed the thread properly, then this is the latest draft (and one which has, in one form or another, been around for a while now). If so, then I wonder whether we would have signed up had that been the page we encountered a few months ago. I’m pretty sure that my problems are with the first full sentence.

Firstly, it’s a little odd that the issue of limited fossil fuels comes first. I understand that there has been another thread about this, but for my money by far the most important message is that CRAGs are a way for individuals to limit their carbon footprint as a concrete way of helping to combat climate change. Of course the question of ‘peak oil’, renewable energy, and indeed the nuclear question, are linked to this; but is this really the central message of the movement? I understand that some have had the thought that the link with limited fossil fuel might widen the base of appeal; I think, however, that it would have the opposite effect. Once again, from our perspective, the question of dwindling fossil fuel resources was not a motivating factor in joining the group, and I can well imagine steering clear of a group whose primary focus appeared to be on this area (indeed, can anyone imagine someone joining a CRAG because they were worried about this issue alone?).

Secondly, the ‘risks of climate change’ seems far too understated. Once again, and for what its worth, Camilla and I found the site and joined up because we were already convinced of the reality of climate change and the looming climate chaos that would result from inaction by government, industry, and citizens. ‘The risks of climate change’ seems to water down the original message on the front page.

There we have it: my rambling two cents. But basically, I think it is most important that the front page has the widest appeal possible to those already convinced of the need to do something about climate change. You won’t attract those who are sceptical about climate change (or even undecided) and you won’t attract those who are worried about economic collapse brought on by oil shortages (alone). I think the people you can attract are those who realise the extent of the problem, want to try to do something about it, and are searching for a way.

Alex

andy_ross

website team CRAGger Glasgow Leamington

Hi, Alex. Thankyou for intervening on this post and for the feedback. Please do not apologise! I think I agree with everything you say. Hence my attempt at a rewrite – check the revisions on the wiki page. I see we have reverted to the version you were uncomfortable with. That is the beauty of this open access! Is the original front page you mention, the existing front page? What text would you like to see on a spruced up front page?

Good luck for your meeting on Wednesday!

david

website team CRAGger Sevenoaks

I’m really sorry this thread has lapsed. Anyway, I’m working again on the new front page, so it seems a good time to finally get some text everyone agrees on.

You make two very good points, Alex. First, it appears the peak oil question is quite controversial: there’s not agreement, so best to leave it out. Second, when I referred to the “risks of climate change”, I meant the risks associated with the impacts of the climatic change that is happening – I hadn’t thought of your interpretation.

I suggest we go with Andy’s version (at Revision of Website front page (draft) from Sat, 07/04/2007 – 04:56): I like the way it encompasses the personal and the global.

However, I have added back reference to the impacts of climate change, as I think it’s something everyone agrees on – so long as the existence of impacts is definite. I have also removed reference specifically to C&C because there are other flavours of global frameworks (such as Cap and Share).

So the current version is at: Website front page (draft).

(_PS_ I think we need a better way of linking in to all these different revisions)

david

website team CRAGger Sevenoaks

I realised recently that there are two key points (indeed, founding principles!) that we don’t mention on the front page:

• globally equitable carbon rights (nicely highlighted by Blackout Britain, although I’m not sure any more that equitable necessarily means equal)

• the flexibility of the CRAG (or PCA) framework to allow individuals and communities to meet their energy needs, whilst guaranteeing a certain level of carbon emissions (with the emphasis on energy needs: we need to knowledge that everyone does need energy, in some form, to go about their daily lives, again put across nicely by Blackout Britain)

So I suggest we change the last paragraph to the following two:

In CRAGs, we are trying to implement this approach at a community level. We do this by forming local groups to support and encourage one another in the downsizing of our carbon footprints towards a globally equitable, sustainable level.

To help us achieve this, we take on allowances which form a flexible framework that is adaptable to individuals’ and communities’ different energy needs. We share knowledge and skills in lower carbon living and seek to promote awareness and practical action in the wider community.

Again, the full draft is at Website front page (draft). Comments?

david

website team CRAGger Sevenoaks

OK I’ve had 2 for and 0 against. So, since this since hasn’t stirred up a storm of controversy, I’ll commit it to the front page. But please do comment if you have any suggestions or think anything’s inappropriate – we really don’t mind!

kirti

CRAGger Georgia Maryland

Hi David, In reference to this line below;

We are a rapidly expanding network of individuals who believe that we can all make a practical and political impact to reduce the carbon emissions which cause climate change…

I wonder if stating or refering to political impact would be a put off to someone on the main stream and wanting to join the group?

I dont know if I am comfortable on our main page refering to political references..Here in USA we are just starting and introducing the concept and its new and sensitive and peoiple are ignorant to carbon rationing…

This is how I feel ,one persons opinion!

thanks Kirti

John Cossham

CRAGger York

Sorry Kirti, but what we are doing IS political, as we are asking people to make root and branch decisions with their lifestyle choices. This is ‘personal politics’.
Some of us are also involved in lobbying decisionmakers (icluding ‘politicians’!) to change policy to enable (even force!!)individuals, groups and businesses to reduce their polluting behaviour.
We may also get involved in ‘Party Politics’ as some political parties may have policies we approve of and others we think are heading in the wrong direction… and we could comment on those, or even get involved in the democratic political process.
So having the word ‘political’ in there is appropriate… however this is only one other person’s opinion…!!!

This question reminds me of a discussion we had about nuclear power. Some of the Craggers (i.e. the GARCs) are in favor of nuclear power, some are not. At the time of the discussion, the consensus was that as a group we did not have a position.

I think it’s not so much whether we state that our aims are political, as much as whether we politicize certain issues. We are certainly interested in helping government entities and others to explore what individual carbon caps are; this could be seen as political. On the other hand, we have not as a group taken a political stance on any issues. nor am I really in favor of that unless we take it to our active members for a supermajority vote. So rather than using the word “political”, we could instead be more specific about what we are actually doing.

Jessica

website team CRAGger Islington

I suggest we circumvent this issue by saying that we inform and/or participate in the debate re PCAs. Without being specific, this covers different motives and methods of engagement, but doesn’t tie us to being ‘Political’ with a big P. It’s up to individual CRAGgers what form their engagement takes, and there are plenty of direct political activities they can be involved in in parallel to being a CRAGger. Even if some CRAGgers were to get involved in direct debate with politicians and political parties, they would be doing so as outside experts or lobbyists, not as politicians.

As for the ‘CRAG movement’, so far we have not been involved in ‘Politics’, and I think it suits us to continue to stand away from it. I see part of our role as being a neutral resource which is very useful for academics, media etc. I’d like to see us in the future a trusted independent body that people come to when they want a more impartial view of what politicians or lobbyists are saying, as we’re the ones with the raw data.

Of course ‘the personal is political’ – and by committing ourselves to personal action we are making a political statement that we want to effect change, but this is not the same as taking a Political stance and I think we should continue this way. We need to keep broadening our appeal, not narrowing it.

Obviously, this is all about what CRAG is and how we are going to evolve, so it’s part of a bigger discussion we need to continue. Perfect fodder for this weekend’s gathering…

Jessica R

John Cossham

CRAGger York

I’m glad Jessica has made tis comment as it helps explain the difference between political and Political ie personal opinions versus administering a State.

However I don’t understand what the fear is about ‘getting involved in Politics’. Obviously we (meaning someone representing the CRAG movement) shouldn’t openly ally ourselves with one particular party, although we could comment on party manifestoes, bills passing through Parliament and other Governmental stuff. As an active CRAGger, when I meet the MPs in a couple of weeks time, I will be mentioning carbon rationing, personal allowances and trading… but that would probably be from a ‘personal’ viewpoint (although shared by many in the CRAG movement). I personally think that ‘getting involved in politics’ is a good thing… after all, it’s the elected politicians who make many of the decisions about how the country runs and if we can communicate with them, there is more of a chance that our views will be taken into consideration, even acted upon.

I agree it is a murky area. When an active CRAGger says something about the issue publically, are they speaking ‘for the movement’ or might they be assumed to be doing so by Joe/Jill Public?

Lucky people going to the HB tree planting this w/e, where you’ll be able to discuss this. I wish I was able to be with you, but I’ve got a Fair Trade do on as ‘Professor Fiddlesticks’ in York… so have a good time, tree planters!

kate_griffin

CRAGger Wychwood

John wrote: “However I don’t understand what the fear is about ‘getting involved in Politics’.”

The fear is that a lot of British people, particularly people who are
conservative with a small ‘c’, don’t like the word “political” and
don’t think of themselves as political. There are plenty of people who
care passionately about political issues like the environnment, social
justice, education, road safety, etc, who would be hugely turned off
if asked to do anything described as political.

At the last lot of local elections in my area, I was a teller
alongside an elderly Tory supporter who told me that she volunteered
as a teller at every election, as well as delivering leaflets for the
local Tory candidate. She added “But I’m not political. I’ve never
been political.”

So I think we should leave that word out! It’s a word that provokes a
very negative knee-jerk reaction in a lot of people.

John Cossham

CRAGger York

Kate, that is most interesting and enlightening.
Your explanation is the clearest argument yet to not have the word ‘political’ on the main front page..
and thank you for explaining.
You (and other CRAGgers) probably don’t realise that I am not ‘normal’ and have some deficits which mean I don’t always understand other people and I have low empathy levels, so this type of info is like gold-dust to me. However my condition is also the cause of my very, almost obsessively ‘green’ lifestyle… I just don’t do things by halves, and when I get into something, I give it 150%.
That’s my confession of the day, aah!

kate_griffin

CRAGger Wychwood

Thanks for the kind words! No, I didn’t realise you weren’t “normal” (whatever normal is), but it’s great that your condition is being channelled into changing the world for the better.

kirti

CRAGger Georgia Maryland

John, Glad you understand now..
Keep up your great work you are doing in helping with the green issues and well done with your Oxfam competition.
all the best and good wishes to you

david

website team CRAGger Sevenoaks

Wow – the storm of controversy suddenly arrived! Actually, the term “practical and political impact” is no longer in the draft – see Website front page (draft) for the latest version (it is a bit big to keep posting here).

Kirti – I wonder if you think we should load up a parallel site for you on carbonrationing.org (or some other url), so you can have a bit more space and target a US audience? Perhaps something to discuss at the next teleconference (or by email, or in another thread)!

I agree with your point, Jessica. We are making a political point using our own lifestyles and actions, which is strong strategy because, as Anna P, keeps reminding us, people are generally most comfortable with an idea when others are actually doing it. This is Ghandian politics, and I think we need to have maximum appeal for it to work, and so we avoid taking up Political positions – let the carbon do the talking!

There has been an interesting pull between the ethics of carbon distribution (ie. fair shares), and a more pragmatic approach which emphasises what actually works for carbon reduction. I am drifting towards the latter, and agree, too, that having an impartial and comprehensive dataset is very important for this. I still think the “fair shares” point needs to be made, though.

kirti

CRAGger Georgia Maryland

Thanks shannon and Jessica for expressing your views and feelings on this issue of “political” ,it helped to read both your comments and understand clearly why its important not use it.
Jessica,I really like what you said and it makes sense,thank you for writng it in a way that we can all understand.

David,Sorry if I started something here,but was important we all talked about it and came to some agrrement and understanding ,its so important to reach out to the community level and keeping this word and its implication out will make new members and those considering more comfortable, I am here in Atlanta GA, working on getting my community where I reside to post CRAG website..it targets 400homes ranging from 4.500-6.000sq,the lady who handles the site is going to be meeting with me soon and I know she mentioned “I will host it as long as its not a profit or political group” So thank you guys for working on this with me,as I really dont want ot turn anyone off by maybe not understanding what we are about.

David,thank you for suggesting a parallal site for USA ,there is a lot of interest here in GA, now have 12 memebers and so many more are interested, so there is potential to have a strong Crag group if not more then one. This is without me going out and reaching out to general public! or to media level..CNN is based here so you never know!

I will talk to Shannon about the parallel idea( she probally will read your comment above) and hopefully we can discuss it on our next conference.Please include me in the next one and hopefully I can join it,I sent you my skype name but never heard from you and I was sitting and waiting..

Thank you again for listening and understanding that we all need to work together as team and here in USA, Shannon and I are really trying to spread the carbon rationing concept and great to know we have your support there in UK.

david

website team CRAGger Sevenoaks

No, please don’t apologise – it’s been really great – please continue, it’s what the forum’s here for! I can just never get when a discussion’s going to spark off or just nosedive – it’s so unpredictable on this forum.

I’m really sorry about the conference – I didn’t receive your email. I’ll be in touch. The conference didn’t really get going because of the sound quality – but I really hope you weren’t waiting around for too long :(.

NB I think we need to post new comments using the “comment on this” link at the very top – this indent’s just getting silly!

hey,

all good work here and just a couple of suggestions:

orig:“In CRAGs, we are trying to implement this approach at a community level”

trying suggests an implicit failure. Active words and actually achieved seems better to me:

suggested:“CRAGs are implemented in the community”.

orig: “We do this by forming local groups to support and encourage one another in the downsizing of our carbon footprints towards a globally equitable, sustainable level.”

could be more active in:

suggested: “We form local groups that support and encourage one another …..”

From a marketing perspective we would like to have a broad reach so that anybody coming across the site with a minutes attention span could realistically include themselves in one of the groups mentioned. Perhaps we could be more definitions around the groups to include ‘work groups’ etc? (basically anywhere and for any purpose where people do not have to travel too far or it is administratively too difficult to get a good percentage of the members to the occasional/regular meetings). Other ideas maybe TMOs (tenants mangement organisations etc)

I saw much earlier in the thread that we are achieving 9% a year reductions, and there was a lot of work done early in the new year (2008) with the comparisons to target and average. Can we include some element of what is possible to achieve? Was very impressed in an email bulletin from CSE the other day about a housing group who over 3 years did actually cut 60% of their emissions. Do we have similarly uplifting, auditable figures we could use on the front page?

sorry if this comes a bit late….

Tom

Jessica

website team CRAGger Islington

I agree with Tom that we need to make it more immediate. Present, active, tenses, and shorter sentences with lots of gaps. This is our headline page, so we don’;t want to be too complicated and scare people off.

Also, I know I always say this, but I hate ‘downsizing’! It’s the worst combination of hippy speak and corporate speak!

David, if you can note down the draft wording so far, maybe we can look at this over the weekend.

Jessica R

david

website team CRAGger Sevenoaks

Tom – didn’t you see the graph I uploaded onto the front page? 30% reductions in our first year so far! Maybe the text isn’t clear enough, and we should include it in the main body.

It definitely needs to be shorter, snappier and more active – most people probably wouldn’t even reach the bottom. Please feel free to rework it and post at Website front page (draft) (all revisions are saved). I’ll bring a copy to the gathering too.

David – I was looking at the thread not the page!

I do think that a front page should be ‘getable’ in a quick glance so maybe just a savings in the first year would be a clickable headline with some detail below that.

Other ideas are to have a flash animation which would go something like this (each line would be another screen after a few seconds) and be clickable too…

X% carbon savings in first year

X+% carbon savings compared to the UK average

CRAGS are helping people to lower their carbon emissons

At their own pace with their own targets

At work, at home and in the community

All working together to make our emissions more sustainable

For a fairer, safer and more equitable world in the future

Find out more about joining or starting a local CRAG...

People are often more easily drawn to moving images even if it is just text and it offers us the ability to offer two messages within one page. The higher brow for the text and the rest (me included) the animation?

My laptop has just died and am off on holiday early next week so will not be able to explore this for a while but am happy to put some time in and look about at what others have. Any suggestions gratefully received and will look at. The above was just off the top of my head so am sure there are plenty of improvements to be had there.

Just to say that I really agree with both Tom and Jessica’s comments here, in addition to your excellent work David. We need a clear inviting front page that makes it clear we are achieving our aims, not merely “trying to”. People decide pretty rapidly whether they want to look at something in detail or not [after 6 seconds when looking at CVs for instance] so we need:

active, clear and short phrases

white space

attractive web-stuff as Tom suggests that makes the page look inviting

and evidence of what we have achieved – how many groups, how many members, rate of growth, how much greenhouse gas emission, how many different threads? [One or two of these should be sufficient, I just give some general ideas.] Quantification is more persuasive and active than the vague “some”.

I really like the graph – can it be made clearer? Most people feel they’re not very numerate so something very simple would be best – say total greenhouse gas emissions reduced to date [I’m thinking Blue Peter campaign-style here, a carbon-reduction-meter or some such].

And yes, I really don’t like “downsizing” [negative emotional assocations of people being made redundant through import of foreign management style ie having something nasty done to them] – what’s wrong with good-old fashioned “reduce”? [Although, as George Marshall points out in his excellent book [sorry guys, I said I wouldn’t mention it again, but it’s proving relevant yet again] most people don’t like being told to reduce something, even if it’s something that’s harmful, because they feel that they’re losing out, even or especially addicts. Far better to express the aim in positive terms – hence his framing the message in terms of “light, 21st century living”. Please note I’m not suggesting CRAGs do this, just that I think we need to be aware of the possible difficulties in using “reduce”.]

The discussion on “political” has been really interesting. I share John C’s understanding that the personal is political, and I thought Kate G’s experience was a delightful illustration of the problem. The scale and seriousness of climate change makes it “beyond political” imho, and the need for light, 21st century living correspondingly beyond political, even if there isn’t widespread cultural acceptance of this yet. We therefore need to mainstream our description of our activities out beyond “political” whilst not excluding it.

Best wishes

Anna

david

website team CRAGger Sevenoaks

I have made some quick adjustments in wording to the front page text, as suggested above. There are no changes in content, so I hope this is OK to commit immediately:

• “we are trying to implement” to “we are implementing”; and “we do this by forming” to “we form”
• “downsizing” to “reducing”
• “seek to promote” to “promote”
• “we take on allowances that form a flexible framework to meet communities’ different energy needs” to “we measure our progress against our carbon allowances” (the former seemed too convoluted, but I hope this keeps the correct meaning, and is not too large a change)

I don’t why this wasn’t changed earlier. It reads much better now, I think. Of course, this is until we can get all the other ideas off the ground, which will need a full rethink.

(I’ve also updated the graph to make it easier to understand, although it is probably still too complex.)