http://www.earth-policy.org/index.php?/b…

By Lester R. Brown

Can we change fast enough? When thinking about the enormous need for social
change as we attempt to move the world economy onto a sustainable path, I
find it useful to look at various models of change. Three stand out. One is
the catastrophic event model, which I call the Pearl Harbor model, where a
dramatic event fundamentally changes how we think and behave. The second
model is one where a society reaches a tipping point on a particular issue
often after an extended period of gradual change in thinking and attitudes.
This I call the Berlin Wall model. The third is the sandwich model of social
change, where there is a strong grassroots movement pushing for change on a
particular issue that is fully supported by strong political leadership at
the top.

The surprise Japanese attack on Pearl Harbor on December 7, 1941, was a
dramatic wakeup call. It totally changed how Americans thought about the
war. If the American people had been asked on December 6th whether the
country should enter World War II, probably 95 percent would have said no.
By Monday morning, December 8th, perhaps 95 percent would have said yes.

The weakness of the Pearl Harbor model is that if we have to wait for a
catastrophic event to change our behavior, it might be too late. It could
lead to stresses that would themselves lead to social collapse. When
scientists are asked to identify a possible “Pearl Harbor” scenario on the
climate front, they frequently point to the possible breakup of the West
Antarctic ice sheet. Relatively small blocks of it have been breaking off
for more than a decade now, but huge parts of the sheet could break off,
sliding into the ocean.

It is conceivable that this breakup could raise sea level a frightening two
or three feet within a matter of years. Unfortunately, if we reach this
point it may be too late to cut carbon emissions fast enough to save the
remainder of the West Antarctic ice sheet or the Greenland ice sheet, whose
melting is also accelerating. This is not the model we want to follow for
social change on climate.

The Berlin Wall model is of interest because the wall’s dismantling 20 years
ago, in November 1989, was a visual manifestation of a much more fundamental
social change. At some point, the people living in Eastern Europe, buoyed by
changes in Moscow, had rejected the great “socialist experiment” with its
one-party political system and centrally planned economy. Although it was
not anticipated, Eastern Europe experienced a political revolution, an
essentially bloodless revolution, that changed the form of government in
every country in the region. It had reached a tipping point, but it was not
expected. You can search the political science journals of the 1980s in vain
for an article warning that Eastern Europe was on the verge of a political
revolution. In Washington the Central Intelligence Agency (CIA) “had no idea
in January 1989 that a tidal wave of history was about to break upon us,”
reflected Robert Gates, formerly with the CIA and now U.S. Secretary of
Defense, in a 1996 interview.

Many social changes occur when societies reach tipping points or cross key
thresholds. Once that happens, change comes rapidly and often unpredictably.
One of the best known U.S. tipping points is the growing opposition to
smoking that took place during the last half of the twentieth century. This
anti-smoking movement was fueled by a steady flow of information on the
health-damaging effects of smoking, a process that began with the Surgeon
General’s first report in 1964 on smoking and health. The tipping point came
when this information flow finally overcame the heavily funded
disinformation campaign funded by the tobacco industry.

Published almost every year, the Surgeon General’s report both drew
attention to what was being learned about the effect of smoking on health
and spawned countless new research projects on this relationship. There were
times in the 1980s and 1990s when it seemed every few weeks another study
was being released that had analyzed and documented one health effect or
another associated with smoking. Eventually smoking was linked to more than
15 forms of cancer and to heart disease and strokes. As public awareness of
the damaging effects of smoking on health accumulated, various measures were
adopted that banned smoking on planes and in offices, restaurants, and other
public places. As a result of these collective changes, cigarette smoking
per person peaked around 1970 and began a long-term decline that continues
today.

One of the defining events in this social shift came when the tobacco
industry agreed to compensate state governments for past Medicare costs of
treating smoking victims. More recently, in June 2009 Congress passed by an
overwhelming margin and President Obama signed a bill that gave the Food and
Drug Administration the authority to regulate tobacco products, including
advertising. It opened a new chapter in the effort to reduce the health toll
from smoking.

The sandwich model of social change is in many ways the most attractive one,
partly because it brings a potential for rapid change. As of late 2009, the
strong grassroots interest in cutting carbon emissions and developing
renewable sources of energy is merging with the interests of President Obama
and his administration. One result is a near de facto moratorium on building
new coal plants.

There are many signs that the United States may be moving toward a tipping
point on climate, much as it did on civil rights in the 1960s. Though some
of the indicators also reflect the economic downturn, it now seems likely
that carbon emissions in the United States peaked in 2007 and have begun
what will be a long-term decline. The burning of coal and oil, the principal
sources of carbon emissions, may  be declining. And with the cars to be
scrapped in 2009 likely to exceed sales, the U.S. automobile fleet size may
have peaked and begun to shrink.

The shift to more fuel-efficient cars over the last two years, spurred in
part by higher gasoline prices, was strongly reinforced by the new
automobile fuel efficiency standards and by rescue package pressures on the
automobile companies to improve fuel efficiency. The combination of much
more demanding automobile efficiency standards, a dramatic restoration of
funding for public transit, and an encouraging shift not only to more
fuel-efficient gas-electric hybrid cars but also to both plug-in hybrids and
electric cars could dramatically reduce gasoline sales. The U.S. Department
of Energy in past years had projected substantial growth in U.S. oil
consumption, but it has recently revised this downward. The question now is
not will oil use decline, but how fast will it do so.

Shifts within the energy sector, with rapid growth in wind and solar energy
while coal and oil are declining, also signal a basic shift in values, one
that could eventually alter every sector of the economy. If so, this,
combined with a national leadership that shares these emerging values, could
lead to social and economic change on a scale and at a pace we cannot now
easily imagine.

Of the three models of social change, relying on the Pearl Harbor model is
by far the riskiest, because by the time a society-changing catastrophic
event occurs, it may be too late. The Berlin Wall model works, despite the
lack of government support, but it does take time. Some 40 years elapsed
after the communist takeover of the governments of Eastern Europe before the
spreading opposition became strong enough to overcome repressive regimes and
switch to democratically elected governments. The ideal situation for rapid,
historic progress occurs when mounting grassroots pressure for change merges
with a national leadership committed to the same change. This may help
explain why the world has such high hopes for the new U.S. leadership.
#     #     #

Adapted from Chapter 10, “Can We Mobilize Fast Enough?” in Lester R. Brown,
Plan B 4.0: Mobilizing to Save Civilization (New York: W.W. Norton &
Company, 2009), available on-line at