ahayden |
We held our first meeting last week with 9 people to start and several others who sent regrets. It ended up being mainly a meeting that introduced people to the idea of CRAGs and raised some of the key decisions we need to make, without getting very far in actually making those decisions yet. Like other CRAGs, we face a question of how ambitious to be in our targets and how strong to make the rewards/penalties, which is related to a question of whether to keep the targets comfortable enough for everyone to stay involved or to emphasize more ambitious targets that might be too demanding for some people. There were also mixed feelings about whether and how to use carbon trading between those above and below the allowance we set.
More details in the minutes below.
Anders
==
Toronto West CRAG First Meeting
May 29, 2008
Minutes
Present: Tanya, Nancy, Heather, MaryLu, Edith, Volker, Tim V., Tim P., Anders
Regrets: Emily, Siobhan, Krista, Johann, Marcia, Vivian, Mark, Kim
We started with introductions and explained why each of us were interested in getting involved in a CRAG or taking action more generally on carbon reduction.
Anders provided an introductory explanation of CRAGs, the philosophy behind them, and the story of their emergence in the UK and now North America.
We watched two news clips on CRAGs: a CBS News report on the Maryland CRAG (http://islington.members.beeb.net/crag.html) and a BBC report on Islington CRAG (http://www.cbsnews.com/sections/i_video/main500251.shtml?id=4043996n). People commented on the different emphases in the news reports – the CBS report being more about saving money on energy bills, while the BBC report included CRAGgers speaking of social equity and the potentially redistributive aspect of CRAGs. This led to some discussion of whether financial motivations were the best way to appeal to people or not. Some felt that appealing to people’s financial interests was a limited approach, while others suggested it might be the only way to get people who are not particularly environmentally-minded to take carbon reduction seriously.
We also noted that carbon trading was prominent in the BBC report, but that feature was absent in the CBS report – leading to the question of whether we ourselves want to make carbon trading a key feature of our CRAG.
We discussed some of the options for our particular CRAG given that each group has considerable freedom to shape the CRAG concept in its own way. Nancy was keen on the idea that CRAGs need not only be about focusing on changing our individual lives—they can also provide a platform for advocacy about wider social and policy changes that are needed. There appeared to be wide support for the idea that we should not limit ourselves only to focusing on our own carbon footprints—although we did not discuss specifics of how we could use a CRAG to push for wider change in the community and society.
We also noted that CRAGs tend to get a fair amount of media attention—and the CBC has already contacted us for an interview. This gives us chance to speak about wider social and policy change that is needed. (Exactly what we would advocate is an issue still to address.)
MaryLu suggested that it would be valuable to have some figures available to show what kind of impact we would have if large numbers of people reduced their carbon footprints by the same level that we aim to.
We discussed what we plan to count as part of our carbon footprint. Heather explained the items that appear in the carbon calculator spreadsheet that she has produced — the core items being heating, electricity, and personal transport (car and plane). We also discussed the importance of food as part of our carbon footprint and the value of shifting toward a lower-carbon diet (e.g. eating less meat and dairy), but noted the difficulties of actually calculating this with any precision. We agreed that, to start, our carbon calculator would focus on heating, electricity, and personal transport – but not food,though we will still continue to discuss ways for reducing carbon footprints through food choices.
Some other issues still need to be discussed regarding what we count for our carbon footprints: Do we include inter-city bus and train? Do we include public transit with the city? Do children get a full allowance? How will we treat “green” electricity from Bullfrog Power? Heather and Anders agreed to send out an e-mail with these questions for people to consider.
We discussed our carbon allowance for the first year. Anders explained the way CRAGs have typically set their targets: take the average per-capita footprint where you live and subtract 10 percent for your first year target. (The idea behind this is that over time people around the worldshould converge toward a globally sustainable, equal per capita footprint.) For Ontario, the numbers we have available show that the average footprint for the things that we are counting is 5.3 tonnes per person. Minus 10 percent equals 4.8 tonnes in year one.
This led into some of the most challenging discussion of the evening. Some asked whether it’s fair that everyone get the same allowance? Won’t it be easier for people living near public transit in an apartment to meet their target than someone with a detached house and a car, even if they have done all the right things to make their home energy-efficient? What if you have made all the changes you feel you can, but still can’t reduce your footprint further?
Tim V. noted that it would get harder and harder over time to keep reducing our footprints ten percent per year. There was some discussion of whether this meant the target was too demanding, or was it a sign of just how unsustainable our society currently is?
Tanya suggested less emphasis on measuring carbon footprints and more emphasis on general goals and how to make change would be helpful.
We only had a short time to introduce the issue of how (if it all) would people who come in under their allowance be rewarded, and how would people with a carbon “debt” above their allowance take responsibility for it. This leaves some questions to still resolve: Will we follow a carbon trading model? Will we do as some CRAGs do and have paymentsfor those above their allowance, but the funds go to an environmental group or project, rather than to individuals below their allowance? Do we experiment for the first year with a symbolic currency rather than actual payments? If people are above their allowance, but can make positive contributions to carbon reduction in some way other than financial payment, should we allow for and encourage that? (We did not get to a discussion of what the carbon price would be per kg/tonne if we follow a carbon trading model.)
People were encouraged to go away and think aboutwhether we can agree on the 4.8 tonne target and what types of rewards/penalties, if any, we should adopt for those coming in under/over the target.
We agreed to set up an email group list to continue this discussion and to set a date for another meeting before the end of June.
The recruitment of more members was encouraged. Anders mentioned that, in the UK, the ideal size of a CRAG is about 10-15 active members. Hopefully we will growto the point where additional CRAG’s can be created, such as Dundas West or Toronto East.
Anders and Heather are hosting a table at the BIG festival (http://bigonbloor.com) on Bloor Street on June 21. The purpose of the table is to provide information about carbon footprints and also to promote the CRAG (and then take part in a communal dinner). Nancy and Tanya offered to help. More help would be welcome.
Thanks to Danny for watching the kids.
Meeting adjourned.