forum
type all threads links
  rss feed

CRAG Shared Values (from the Tree Gathering)
Thread started on 15/4/2008 16:19

david

david

network-strategy

tree gathering 2008

At our recent gathering representatives of a variety of UK CRAGs banged their heads together and came up with the following list of four key values. We reckoned that CRAGs of all shades and hues could (or should!) sign up to these. Do you agree?

  1. They involve a group of people
  2. Members measure their carbon footprint over time
  3. They have a CO2 allowance (individual member and group)
  4. The allowance will reduce to reach a sustainable and equitable level

Some other thoughts we had (see the minutes for the full discussion):

  • footprinting groups without allowances could call themselves “Carbon Clubs” (or “Carbon Watchers”, “Carbon Counters” etc.), whose members may then migrate to full CRAGs.
  • these values would apply equally to “reduction” or “rationing” CRAGs ie. whether members had individual or common allowances
  • there was discussion of what “equity” means (equal shares or according to an individual’s circumstances), and how central a concept this is to a CRAG
  • we outlined four different “flavours” of CRAGs

What do you think? Are the values so broad as to lose the essence of CRAGs, or do they exlcude existing groups? Or just perfect?!

‹ CRAGs: what have we learned? CRAGs, offsets, trading, and markets ›
» login or register to post comments

thanks to David and those

written on 15/4/2008 16:46

tomhitchman

thanks to David and those at the Tree gathering for compiling this.

I think there could be a three pronged strategy that could help here:

1) existing and new CRAGs with criteria above

2) CRAG lite for those who are interested; a halfway house for those who are working towards a full CRAG or are presently building up numbers etc

3) Receipients of our growing expertise through outreach programmes. These would be voluntary efforts to help those in our immediate neighbourhoods or workplaces or social groups to help them identify some very basic elements of energy and consequently emissions. With no hard or even soft sell about CRAGs this would be just to get people in touch with their meters, beginning to take responsibility and control of their usage instead of the feeling, particularly now, of being a ‘victim’ of their bill where they have no control. A fist full of gadgets like the kill a watt plugged in for a few days and a regular check of the meter will help lots of people notice where they use electricity. A few more CFL bulbs after on a second visit could show how simple it is to reduce usage and some experienced friendly help could identify simple ways to save electricity. It is suprising how many people in our direct debit culture do not check their bills, live for months or years on estimated readings and consequently are really not in any real touch about things.

Additionally this is a quick and effective and cheap way to lower emissions that would be simple to fund from local councils and easy to monitor too. I imagine that the people who are helped will learn about the process on the way and will be able to engage others in the process too with just a few gadgets.

In this way I suspect we would gather some more credibility beyond the often said ‘usual suspects’ and the funders desires that carbon cutting should be a community exercise not a CRAG exercise.

 
» login or register to post comments

CRAG values

written on 16/4/2008 14:28

bbqlt54

Here are my comments on the four values suggested at the tree gathering. I don’t think they are very useful for the following reasons.

1. They are not really values, more a description of how a CRAG operates. We do not need a new description of how a CRAG operates as there is a perfectly good one on the website under ‘What is a CRAG?’.
2. Value 3 uses the term ‘CO2 allowance’ compared with ‘carbon ration’ on the website description. Inconsistent or changing terminology just confuses. There should be a good reason for changing established terminology and I can’t see one in this case. Carbon ration is better.
3. Value 4 says the allowance will reduce to a sustainable level. I don’t think we should say this as it begs the question of what is a sustainable level. I think the science says that this is either zero or negative emissions and no CRAG is going to achieve that. Again there is already an alternative under ‘What is a CRAG?’ which says members commit to reduce their footprint. I think this is better so why change it?
4. There is nothing about pricing and trading. Surely this is a key part of a CRAG?

Comments on the * items *1. I like the idea of distinguishing between CRAGs that comply with the ‘What is a CRAG?’ description and groups that, as a minimum, just commit to monitoring their emissions. They should not be called a CRAG so we need to settle on a different name and stick to it. My preference would be ‘Carbon Counters’ which has a nice Ronseal advert quality. *2. Does not make sense to me. *3. I suggest that equal rations is central to the CRAG philosophy.

Derek Smith

 
» login or register to post comments

allowance v ration

written on 16/4/2008 16:30

angelaraffle

angelaraffle

Our CRAG has been counting for a year, there’s 12 of us with full year figures and all under our target of 4.5 tonnes, (will post figures soon) main benefit is we have learned a lot and its made us think about carbon and trading and choices we make, and we have all found relatively simple ways of stopping profligate carbon waste. Every time I find myself explaining the group to others, or running a workshop, or being interviewed on radio or for newspapers, I find myself using words like ‘carbon club’ or carbon counting, of carbon allowance. At least one other CRAG has started in Bristol but when I asked if they’d registered on this site they said they arent really as ‘hardline’ as the CRAG movement – but they are a group, are counting, have set personal allowances, and are sharing data. Some people I talk to, who are doing amazing campaigning stuff, say that cutting personal use voluntarily will never make an impact – I say that it will help create a ‘permissive’ environment for political and economic change but its important not to expect everyone to get obsessional about it. Everyone is different and we need all sorts of enthusiasms and expertise to solve our problems. I think the CRAG network will attract lots of people into group carbon reduction if it is easy to join, positive, informative, and if it uses language that people don’t find immediately offputting. What’s wrong with CO2 allowance? What’s wrong with evolving the terminology?
angela
Bristol
www.sustainableredland.org.uk

 
» login or register to post comments

Allowance vs ration

written on 24/4/2008 14:58

bbqlt54

Angela

You ask “what’s wrong with CO2 allowance?”. If CRAGs were starting from scratch I would say nothing at all. My point in my previous message is that ‘ration’ and ‘carbon’ are the well established terms in the CRAG world, as demonstrated by the CRAG name itself. It therefore makes no sense to me to change them to something else unless the existing terms are causing confusion which they are not. Changing terminology for no good reason just confuses.

Derek

 
» login or register to post comments

allowance vs ration

written on 24/4/2008 21:28

angelaraffle

angelaraffle

Completely agree about not causing confusion, and you are right that ‘CO2 allowance’ is changing both words so doesn’t have a link to ‘carbon ration’ so that is a problem – best to stick with carbon. The CRAG name, logo and principles are all sound. What I am feeding back is that the CRAG group I am in talks about allowances not ration, and reduction not rationing, not because they have deliberately chosen to but just because that is what comes naturally to them. Words are important and what matters is their meaning in current usage, not necessarily their definition. Our experience is also that we get much further with talking to general audiences if we mostly use the word allowance rather than sticking just with the word ration. So allowing ‘allowance’ to creep into the website interchangeably with ration may be no bad thing? The idea of carbon counting has to spread beyond just a few pioneers with strong personal commitment.
Angela
Bristol
www.sustainableredland.org.uk

 
» login or register to post comments

Allowance vs. Ration #2

written on 25/4/2008 15:34

david

david

Yes, I agree that “CO2” should read “carbon”.

On “allowance”, I agree that it’s not ideal to have different sets of terminology. However, I too have found that allowance is far friendlier term, because it emphasises what you’re being given (ie. a free gift of emissions for you to use as you like), rather than what is being taken away (ie. a strict limit on pollution). In one sense, however, we are advocating a strict limit on personal pollution; but on the other we want to emphasise that individuals have the freedom to “spend” their allowance as they choose, and can exceed it if they choose (within the overall limit of the group or community).

On balance, I prefer “allowance”, because we are trying to reach new audiences and need a positive emphasis. However, we have somewhat become prisoners of our own acronym, which is catchy and now quite now quite well known. Are there any new ideas out there?

I don’t know what the solution is here – perhaps it is to mix and match terminology to the audience, whilst keeping CRAG as the overall name. I think we have always used “allowance” and “ration” interchangeably, in the guide, for example.

 
» login or register to post comments

Is rationing a central part of CRAGs?

written on 29/4/2008 12:26

Anonymous

this is a anonymous comment in response to the minutes. david.

What I was getting at … is that either rationing is a central part of CRAGs, in which case a local group who don’t hold rationing as central perhaps should not be affiliated to the CRAG movement (or be called a CRAG?) OR if rationing isn’t a central part of CRAGs, then it would be ok for local groups to be Reduction groups (and allow a more flexible approach etc).

Points made by different people seem to indicate there is still ambiguity about whether rationing is fundamental to CRAGs (or put another way, what the term ‘rationing’ means).

 
» login or register to post comments

Re: Is rationing a central part of CRAGs?

written on 29/4/2008 15:09

ahayden

One of the first questions we face here in Toronto as we work to set up our new CRAG is whether we call ourselves a “rationing” or “reduction” group. Our instincts tell us that “reduction” works better in a North American context than “rationing,” which would probably put a lot of people off right from the start. Also the word rationing seems to have some degree of positive connotation for many people in the UK due to its connection to war-time achievements and solidarity, which it does not have in Canada or, as far as I can tell, the US.

So before we go much further with our group, I’d be interested in hearing more about whether calling ourselves a “reduction” group is a concern for people in the UK? We don’t want to water down the original message in a way that makes people feel that core values are being lost, but at the same time insisting on the word “rationing” would likely put considerable limits on how far the idea of CRAGs can spread, at least over here.

Anders

 
» login or register to post comments

Fundamentally no difference

written on 29/4/2008 15:24

shannon

There is fundamentally no difference between calling yourself a rationing or a reduction group. At one point someone suggested that the groups that charge a carbon price should be called rationing but this did not hold. Essentially we in the US call ourselves reduction because of the reason you state; there is no positive connotation with the word rationing here.

Either way your members will be setting an emissions target and striving to meet the target from reductions in direct energy consumption. The only way you would not want to be a CRAG is if you were not interested in doing this. It sounds lik you are, so no worries. CRAGs don’t have any formal position on anything except the need to reduce emissions and the group format. There are guides to CRAGs for both the UK and US that explain some of this stuff in greater detail. The US one is on the MD files tab and the UK one is available from the main page.

 
» login or register to post comments

Different values for different types?

written on 29/4/2008 16:17

david

david

Even in the UK, many are finding that “rationing” does limit their audience, and it would be a shame to lose people that would otherwise be interested, because of the language we use. It’s absolutely no problem to call yourself a “Reduction” group, since several UK groups already do!

I’d disagree that there has been no difference the two. “Rationing” groups have had an equal allowance for members, and financial penalties or rewards for members above or below that target (ie. the original description in the guide), whilst less-stringent “Reduction” groups have had individual targets and no penalties.

There seems to be an emerging consensus that we should define different values for these two, rather than trying for a “one size fits all” solution. Rationing groups (with financial penalties/rewards and equal allowances/rations) would appeal to a smaller audience but better express equity and more closely mirror a PCA scheme. Reduction groups (or Carbon Clubs, or Carbon Counters etc.) would monitor footprints and set individual targets, but have no financial penalties. Do people agree with this?

If there are different types, one problem would be what to call ourselves as a network. It would seem counter-productive on many levels to have the two types operating separately (duplication of resources etc.). But keeping the “Rationing” in titles and domain names could limit the appeal of the Reduction groups (or Carbon Clubs etc.). Is it a problem or not, and what’s the solution?

 
» login or register to post comments

Rationing is the goal but...

written on 29/4/2008 16:18

john ackers

john ackers

Anders, I don’t think you’d be watering down the message at all. We have reduction and reduction groups here. I think we have to be pragmatic about terminology as Angela has suggested. I also like the idea of different flavours of CRAGs. Perhaps when there are 100 CRAG groups, we can all fly to Bali or somewhere and have a conference about this.

By the way carbon rationing is often used in the UK as a generic term to cover Tradeable Energy Quotas, Personal Carbon Allowances or any other form of rationed allocation and that’s what we want to promote here by example.

 
» login or register to post comments

it is up to us

written on 29/4/2008 18:39

andy_ross

andy_ross

We are currently a decentralised network of groups. So it is ultimately is up to each group to decide how they interpret the CRAG idea.

The question of how we should allocate our habitat’s limited and fast reducing capacity to absorb our pollution is what creates all the fuss at the UN climate talks. How our “leaders” settle the question may determine whether our habitat and civilisation survives. Some countries claim greater rights than others. Everyone has a more or less convincing argument for special treatment. Two things are for sure: an effective international agreement will only be reached if it is seen to be FAIR to all parties and results in FAST reductions.

CRAGs reproduce these international talks in miniature. The more CRAGs that form and agree on fair shares and fast reductions, the more hope I have that our “leaders” might follow suit.

 
» login or register to post comments

A “reduction” group that rations in practice

written on 30/4/2008 15:19

ahayden

Thanks to everyone for their comments, which helped us get a clearer sense of the “rationing” vs. “reduction” debate. Although we need to have more debate among ourselves in the Toronto CRAG, I think I will suggest that we act like a rationing group – with equal allowances, starting at 10% below the Ontario average, and rewards/penalties (still to be defined) – but that we call ourselves a reduction group for the reasons I outlined in my last post about the problems with the word rationing.

Perhaps that muddies the waters on the distinction between rationing and reduction, but, based on others’ comments, it sounds like there’s flexibility in interpreting the CRAG idea.

Anders

 
» login or register to post comments

Thoughts on the discussion so far ...

written on 12/5/2008 17:43

david

david

Well, it always difficult to get agreement on something like this.

For a start, following Anders’ and others’ comments, I’m not so sure about having distinct types of group with different names. The name (reduction or rationing) needs to be pragmatically based on your audience, so groups should probably choose this as they see fit, regardless of their rules. Also, it may not be positive for the community for some to label themselves more “hard-core” than others.

So, I’m now inclined to have a minimum set of standards (above), with groups riffing over and above these as they see fit. Going for more ambitious targets and rewards/penalties can then be a process of ambition and leadership by some groups (“race to the top”), rather than imposition.

Allowances and the idea of “fair shares” are unique to CRAGs, so I think they should be core values – but wearing a friendly, not a punitive, face. So, to be much clearer about fair shares, but not talk about “rationing”. For each member to have an allowance (and know what it is) for comparison to their footprint. For the group rules to be geared towards helping people live within their fair share, rather than punishing for exceeding it.

I suggest we keep the current as they are (but merged into the first two here), but also define the role of groups, and those areas where they make decisions themselves:

  1. A group of people who measure their carbon footprint over time
  2. Members each have a carbon allowance that reduces towards a sustainable fair share
  3. Groups provide a forum that helps members live within their allowance
  4. Groups set their allowances and incentives individually according to local circumstances

Agree with my assessment? Is the new version an improvement or not?

 
» login or register to post comments

Rationing or Reduction...?

written on 12/5/2008 18:26

kirti

kirti

Hi,David,

I have read your assessment and I agree with what you have stated, I feel comfortable and it sits better for me the way you described the roles of groups,individual carbon reduction and implementing individual allowance according to each local circumstances. As we Know things are a little diffferent here in USA.

Here in Atlanta Ga,I will be using this as a model for our CRAG group and this will hopefully help set some basic foundation to help my memebers understand the CRAG concept and its function.

Thank you for taking the time and sharing your thoughts on this as it seems to have been an important issue for most of us to figure out.

I am happy to implement this,if this is what the final assessment is…Could this not the bases to the media package too? As this does seem to lay out the basic concept?

 
» login or register to post comments

Glad you like it, Kirti.

written on 13/5/2008 23:42

david

david

Glad you like it, Kirti. I’ve pretty sure, myself, on this approach as the best way forward – after all, it’s really only restating what we’re doing already, but trying to do so in a clearer and more friendly manner. I don’t know if others agree, though!

 
» login or register to post comments