Radical Hope & Cultural Tragedy Conference 18th April 2015

December 4, 2014 – 12:30 pm | One Comment

Climate Psychology Alliance


Radical Hope and Cultural Tragedy:

A conference to highlight the complex pressures within our

collective mind in the face of dramatic climate changes

Location: Bristol Folk House, 40a Park Street, Bristol BS1 5JG Bristol (European Green City of the Year 2015)

Saturday 18th April 2015

This event will be the culmination of much collaboration, contact-making and imaginative effort and will offer a rich, stimulating and useful experience to all participants. Fees have been set as low as possible, to make it widely accessible. Like the species now being extinguished, many cultures face devastation due to fragmentation, loss of diversity, modernisation, blindness to consequences, and climate change. Examples from the New Guinea Highlands (Jared Diamond) to the Crow nation (Jonathan Lear) offer telling stories of tragic disavowal and radical hope. If hope is not to be an escapist delusion, then it needs to emerge out of facing the tragic. As well as major presentations, there will be workshops, storytelling and a play to explore how many cultures, both animal and human, are facing tragic losses that cannot easily be thought about. The courage to face tragedy requires not only letting go of cultural certainties, but letting come unthought or unheard possibilities for being in and of this world. Such explorations radicalise hope to enable sustained ethical and political engagement. Presentations: Jay Griffiths: Ferocious Tenderness: Cultures may cease but Culture itself does not; human life accents itself with culture in language, ethics, beauty and with roots in the ferocious necessary: the wild earth. Jay is an award-winning author whose work includes Wild: An Elemental Journey, Pip Pip: A Sideways Look at Time and Kith: The Riddle of the Childscape. Chris Johstone: Active Hope – cultivating inspired responses to planetary crisis. We live at a time of uncertainty where the challenges we’re confronted with can feel overwhelming. What helps us rise to the occasion and give our best response? Chris is co-author, with Joanna Macy, of Active Hope – how to face the mess we’re in without going crazy. He has worked closely with the Transition Movement in exploring how insights from addictions recovery can be applied to tackling oil-dependence. Workshops:
  • Four Worlds and a Broken Stone: Sarah Deco;
  • Dreams- A Cultural Resource in Dark Times: Paul Hoggett & Penny Mclellan;
  • Catastrophe Ethics: Chris Robertson & Richard Wainwright:
  • Hope resides in mending the human heart and mind: Sally Weintrobe.
Play: Steve Waters: In a Vulnerable Place, a performance of his meditations upon the impact of climate change from the Broads of Norfolk to the Steppes of Mongolia. Dialogue: Adrian Tait in conversation with Mac Macartney (founder of Embercombe www.embercombe.co.uk). Full fee £55 CPA Members £45 Concessions (unwaged) £35     The full brochure is here and a booking form can be found here.
Read the full story »

Sustainable Psychotherapy project wins RCPsych award

December 2, 2014 – 11:08 am |

RCPsych Psychiatric Team of the Year 2014: Outstanding Contribution to Sustainability.

The Growing Better Lives Project.

Growing Better Lives is a social enterprise based in a yurt at an environmental centre near Uxbridge.    Weekly therapy groups are based on principles of modified therapeutic communities, ecological sustainability and ‘greencare’ (therapeutic horticulture and other nature-based approaches). The team includes ex-service users, horticultural therapists and a medical psychotherapist

The judges said:  “The Greencare for Personality Disorder programme demonstrated excellent environmental awareness across all aspects of the service, from care delivery through to sourcing local food and using green spaces therapeutically.

This is the first time the RCPsych has included a sustainability award in their annual award scheme

Read more at Sustainable Health Care

Read full article...

Climate Change and the Media event

November 8, 2014 – 1:19 pm | One Comment

Climate Change and the Media:

Anne Karpf in discussion with John Vidal, James Painter and Sally Weintrobe in an event organised by the Centre for Research into Media, Identity and Culture (MiC)

Anne Karpf is Reader at London Metropolitan University and a freelance journalist;  John Vidal is Chief Environment correspondent of The Guardian; James Painter, of the Reuters Institute for the Study of Journalism in Oxford is author of ‘Climate Change and the Media’; and Sally Weintrobe is a psychoanalyst and editor of ‘Engaging with Climate Change’.

When:                        Tuesday 18th November 2014  (6 – 8 pm)

Where:                       London Metropolitan University, (opp. Holloway tube)
Followed by a reception.

Booking and details:             see attached flyer here - Climate Change and the Media

Read full article...

The Plague

October 28, 2014 – 5:32 pm | 6 Comments

Written in 1947, with the memory of French collaboration with the Nazi occupation fresh in his mind, The Plague, the novel by Albert Camus, is an allegory about the human condition in a time of terror. It is not a pessimistic book, nor is it a moralistic one. I reread it earlier this year because I had a feeling that it might help deepen my understanding of how we will probably react as the reality of climate change begins to bite. But today, as we face the Ebola crisis, we also literally face the kind of plague that Camus made the subject of his fiction.

The Plague is set in a fictional N African town overwhelmed by an infectious disease. The entire town of Oran is subject to quarantine and the novel focuses both upon the different reactions of the townspeople and in particular on a volunteer health team led by a Dr Rieux. As the disease gathers momentum its slow spread is met at first with collective denial but when the brute reality of death makes itself inescapably present then denial is followed by terror. Sometimes this terror is overt and noisy but more often it is a quiet background hum of terror which people respond to in a variety of ways – by silent resignation to fate, through hedonism, through a cold and calculated struggle for individual survival and through kindness and solidarity.

If we move from the literal to the metaphorical meaning of the story then we can see how The Plague is an exploration of the infection of the social body. In a central section of the novel one of the protagonists, Tarrou, reveals something of himself to Rieux. In his introduction to the Penguin Modern Classic edition of The Plague Tony Judt argues that Tarrou’s speech here is the authentic voice of Camus. According to Tarrou, “all I can say is that on this earth there are pestilences and there are victims – and as far as possible one must refuse to be on the side of the pestilence”.

In her contribution to The Cambridge Companion to Camus (2007) Margaret Gray writes,

“Suggesting that we are all complicit in the death of innocents, Tarrou asserts that we must nonetheless fight any force that brings death; and this includes maintaining vigilance, as well, against the potential each of us carries within ourselves for infection by such a plague, whatever form such evil might take.”

As Naomi Klein notes, climate change will test our moral character like little before. On occasions nowadays I catch myself feeling fearful about our future. Although I am aware that climate change is just one contributory factor it is as if the tens of thousands of Arab and African migrants crossing the Mediterranean in their overcrowded and leaky boats are the shape of climate change to come. Only this week ministers from various European nations have argued against supporting search and rescue operations in the Mediterranean because it encourages the false hopes of the migrants and the ruthlessness of their traffickers. And yes, there’s a part of me that I’m quite aware of that says “we can’t let them all in, we’ll be overwhelmed and the far right in Europe will simply be strengthened”. To avoid complicity during the times that are coming is going to be no easy thing.
So this is the plague that Camus speaks of. This pestilence of paranoia, hatred, denigration, despair, righteousness and moral outrage, othering, scapegoating, silence and turning a blind eye. As he says, “everyone has it inside himself, this plague, because no-one in this world, no-one, is immune”. This is not about the inherent nature of human evil but about the forces that are unleashed at particular points in history when an organised structure of feeling, that is terror, grips us.

But Camus is not pessimistic. Rieux points to the stunning fact that throughout the epidemic, there was never a shortage of nurses and grave-diggers, despite their greater risk of infection. One thinks of the Ebola crisis today and of those health workers inside and outside the infected area who have what seems to us to be the courage to look the plague in the face. Over again Camus makes the point, these are not heroes, they are ordinary people who do what they feel must be done sometimes out of duty, sometimes out of love but more often than not for reasons that they themselves cannot understand.

In the introduction to This Changes Everything Naomi Klein reminds us that it is too late to stop climate change from happening for it is already here and the disasters which will be part of it are already starting to occur. But, she adds, “it’s not too late to avert the worst, and there is still time to change ourselves so that we are far less brutal to one another when those disasters strike.”

Read full article...

Royal College of Psychiatrists Sustainability Summit

October 3, 2014 – 3:54 pm | 5 Comments

3rd October 2014 from Daniel Maughan RCPsych Sustainability Fellow

The RCPsych Sustainability Summit

On the 1st October we had the first sustainability summit run by a medical royal college in the UK. However, people continue to think that sustainability remains the remit of politicians and self-styled hippy tech companies. “What has sustainability got to do with mental health care or psychiatrists and what is a sustainability summit anyway and why on earth is the RCPsych holding one of these??”

Soon the videos from all the talks at the sustainability summit will be on the RCPsych website if you want to find out more. The summit brought together psychiatrists and other mental health professionals, clinical leaders and academics. There was vibrant discussion about how to tackle these issues and which issue should take priority in the busy milieu of clinical practice. A big thanks goes to the Centre for Sustainable Healthcare for helping with the organising, running and hosting of the day!

Vanessa, CEO of RCPsych introduced the day then I provided an outline of sustainability and its relation to mental health. President of RCPsych, Simon Wessely gave his views on the constraints on mental health today and for the future. Professor Helen Berry, via video link from Australia, outlined the evidence for the mental health effects from climate change. Dr Judith Anderson, a consultant psychotherapist,  discussed the issue of climate change denial and how mental health professionals who are experts in human defences such as denial, have a responsibility to help begin the difficult conversations about how to tackle the complex issue of climate change. The staff at the Greencare centre for those with personality disorder in Slough provided an excellent talk about their work and David Pencheon, director of the NHS Sustainable Development Unit brought the day to an end by hammering home the importance of sustainability for health care.

Sustainability for health care is a paradigm that creates a focus on constraining factors that could affect health in the future. The sustainability framework for understanding these factors is the triple bottom line, which includes economic, environmental and social factors. The fact that we are running out of money to fund the NHS is a major issue and ‘more of the same is not the answer’. Another major issue is the fact that climate change is currently having a significant effect on mental health globally and these effects will continue to increase over the next few decades and are starting to affect the UK more each year. Drought, cyclones, flooding and temperature rise can all negatively affect our wellbeing and exacerbate mental health conditions (see my previous blog for more details on this). Another issue is the manner in which society is changing with increasing digitalisation of our progressively sedentary lives, over population and hyper consumerism. “We have never moved around t he world so much and we have never moved ourselves around so little!”

The RCPsych is leading the way in developing a conversation about how doctors can get involved and can help mitigate the effects of health care on the environment. Other Royal Colleges and all doctors need to advocate for a more widespread response to what the World Health Organisation have stated is the largest threat to human health in the 21st Century.


The consensus statement and videos of the event are available here RCPsych Consensus and videos

Read full article...

time death nature

October 3, 2014 – 3:02 pm | One Comment

Sometimes he stares into the distance and when he does this I can’t tell whether he is looking out or looking in.  Looking in I guess, looking in for those signs that all is not well, those strange murmurs and apprehensions the body makes in its ailingness. But he does look out also, at dawn when no-one else is about except those who suffer in their sleep; he sees the sun rise up far to the north, illuminating the Severn in it’s morning stillness. And it touches him and he wants to tell me about it.


Time moves differently when you are waiting to go see the big chief. We’re not in any hurry until the pain becomes intolerable, only then might we attend to our calling. The partner of a close friend died a few days ago, she said he literally seemed to ‘slip away’. My hunch is that we are, mostly, called to go when our time has come and we can respond to that calling or resist it. Modern medicine seems designed to enable us to resist it.


And so who is this big chief? God? The grim reaper? Surely it is none other than nature, the (animal) nature within us, our corporeal nature. We don’t have to be near death to experience this. In ordinary sickness we are oppressed by our bodies and (for the Italian philosopher Timpanaro) this brings to our attention the ‘passive aspect’ of relations between humans and nature. We may spend much of our time oppressing nature, manipulating her to serve our purposes, an active domination, but ultimately it seems she triumphs over us. The question she puts to each of us is this, can we surrender to her with grace and honour?


Dylan Thomas, 1914 – 1953

Do not go gentle into that good night,

Old age should burn and rave at close of day;

Rage, rage against the dying of the light.


Though wise men at their end know dark is right,

Because their words had forked no lightning they

Do not go gentle into that good night.


Good men, the last wave by, crying how bright

Their frail deeds might have danced in a green bay,

Rage, rage against the dying of the light.


Wild men who caught and sang the sun in flight,

And learn, too late, they grieved it on its way,

Do not go gentle into that good night.


Grave men, near death, who see with blinding sight

Blind eyes could blaze like meteors and be gay,

Rage, rage against the dying of the light.


And you, my father, there on the sad height,

Curse, bless, me now with your fierce tears, I pray.

Do not go gentle into that good night.

Rage, rage against the dying of the light.


This is the shadow that (our) nature casts upon us, a shadow against which we are ultimately defenceless, it signals the immanence of human vulnerability.  Freud (in the Future of an Illusion) referred to it as the hand of Fate. So we do not need an exotic cosmology to understand that we are of nature, that nature is not set apart from us. We are nature, the fingers that type these words, the eyes that look at them, they are of nature, human nature.


Most of my neighbours are retired. They spend their days looking after gardens and grandchildren or elderly parents, playing badminton, golf or bridge, going for walks, taking hours to read the paper, watching TV. Time passes. Life is filled with small things. Ambitions have been abandoned and that restless sense of unfulfilment seems to have gone. These people are no longer grandiose and may never have been. That desire to leave a mark, a trace, no longer itches ferociously, if it ever itched.


This does not mean that we are ready to go when the time comes, for this is to ignore the role of terror.  The thought of that last journey arouses monsters in our unconscious. One day after experiencing a death I dreamt of one, a sea monster in the harbour at Lowestoft, a small sea port on England’s east coast. There were crowds upon the quayside and then a boy jumped in. We knew in horror what that meant.


So when we speak of nature, of our alienation from nature, of our desire to master nature, of nature as this foe which must be conquered, are we necessarily speaking of mother nature, that nature ‘out there’, the nature of trees and seas, or are we also speaking of the nature ‘in here’, the nature that resides within us? Does not this second nature seem like an unnoticed intruder, an unwelcome guest who might, without a moment’s notice, upset the peace? Are we not equally alienated from this nature, set upon a desire to conquer it and deny our actual enthrallment to it?


Surely it then follows that there must be an intimate connection between the two struggles, the struggle to repair the split between the modern self and external nature and the struggle to repair the split between this self and and our bodily nature? In other words, the struggle to overcome our separation from nature both without and within? And that perhaps they go together, no peace with external nature without our being at peace with our internal nature, that is, our nature as natural, physical beings.


And then I  wonder whether ‘peace’ is the right word here. To put it mildly, nature (both without and within) can be a pain in the arse, a cause of suffering without end for some. Indeed for perfectly valid reasons (interminable pain, the absence of almost any remaining quality of life) some would like to go into that good night but their bodies just will not release them. So maybe ‘peace’ with its connotations of merging and transcendence is misleading, does ‘reconciliation’ more accurately describe what I’m looking for?


To the extent that we are oppressed by our internal nature we are also oppressed by time. For time reminds us of life passing, of things not done, or of things done but now gone, lost.  For some people I know this oppression is almost unbearable, as if all that they are in touch with in the here-and-now is the absence of life. Life goes on elsewhere, but not here. In my consulting room they hear my clock ticking and it persecutes them.  And there is a societal echo of this – time is intolerable and must be compressed, accelerated, annihilated. Nowhere is this more true than in the organisation of globalised business.


We know of the transience of all life and yet disavow what we know for that transience includes ourselves and those we love. And yet, as the poet and artist Rossetti knew, the beauty of an object resides in its transience. If that child, that sunset, that tree, that woman was eternal it would be intolerable. The aesthetic quality of an object therefore depends upon its fragile and transient nature, no thing lasts for ever.


Upon this terrain of the body, this place of frailty, an ethics has grown. It has emerged from the patient being-with of the one who cares for the vulnerable other – at first the helpless child, much later the equally helpless elder. Within social policy this has become known as ‘the ethic of care’ and is often contrasted, unhelpfully, with an ethic of justice.


To the extent that ecological movements have built themselves solely upon an identification with external nature they have lacked the enrichment which would otherwise come from the ethic of care. If we really want to address the split between the human and nature then the intimate connection between ecology and our own human frailty must be realised.


The contradiction. We are of nature and yet somehow also beyond nature or, if you like, a strange outgrowth of nature, a lifeform possessing this thing we now call ‘subjectivity’ (something more than just the hyper development of one animal’s cognitive capacities). Through this outgrowth one part of nature (for we are not supernatural) has acquired the capacity to look upon all other nature (including itself) to study it, manipulate it.


This subjectivity has evolved through stages over thousands of years slowly decentering itself in the process. So the discovery that the stars did not in fact rotate around the earth was one of many milestones in this process – the earth (and hence mankind) was not the centre of the universe but rather a little dot (and just how small and insignificant a dot we are still discovering).  Freud in The Future of an Illusion plausibly charts other stages in this process. For example, animism clothes Fate in more familiar and less terrifying terms:

 Impersonal forces and destinies cannot be approached; they remain eternally remote. But if the elements have passions that rage as they do in our own souls, if death itself is not something spontaneous but the violent act of an evil Will, if everywhere in nature there are beings around us of a kind that we know in our society, then we can breath freely, can feel at home in the uncanny and can deal by psychical means with our senseless anxiety.


And after animism comes organised religion. But now according to Nietzsche we live after the Death of God.

God is dead. God remains dead. And we have killed him. How shall we comfort ourselves, the murderers of all murderers? What was holiest and mightiest of all that the world has yet owned has bled to death under our knives: who will wipe this blood off us? What water is there for us to clean ourselves? What festivals of atonement, what sacred games shall we have to invent? Is not the greatness of this deed too great for us? Must we ourselves not become gods simply to appear worthy of it?  (The Gay Science)

Nietzsche wrote “God is Dead; but given the way of men, there may still be caves for thousands of years in which his shadow will be shown. And we — we still have to vanquish his shadow, too.” Right now caves proliferate, some proclaiming the rapture, others the new Caliphate. These are modern peoples, experts in mobile and virtual communication systems, who disavow the very reality, the triumph of reason, which makes their life possible. Surrounded on all sides with evidence of our murderousness we choose the manic defence which, when periodically it fails us, brings us to the edge of collective self destruction (Two World Wars, Mutually Assured Destruction and now, what next?).


Civilization and its Discontents Revisited: The Bipolar Civilization.

Read full article...

The CPA web site: glitches and plans…

October 3, 2014 – 12:43 pm |

We’ve had some glitches with this web site recently. This is one of the reasons that the amount of new material has been slower of late. Apologies for this. We are however, we hope, on our way to resolving these…

….and are moving towards a plan for a revamp of the site. Details will follow. Comments are welcome meantime.

Read full article...

This Changes Everything: Rosemary Randall reviews Naomi Klein’s new book

September 13, 2014 – 10:56 am |

Rosemary Randall reviews Naomi Klein’s new book

Naomi Klein’s new book This Changes Everything: capitalism vs the climate is a tour de force of uncompromising argument, backed by penetrating analysis, a gift for story-telling and a deep, human empathy for those who are suffering now – and will suffer in the future – from the depredations of a turbo-charged capitalism that is ideologically unwilling and practically unable to deal with climate change.

The systematic sabotage of neo-liberalism

Her central thesis is straightforward – neo-liberal capitalism, with its dependence on fossil fuels and its need for continuous growth, is unable to tackle climate change. Free-market fundamentalism has spent the last thirty years removing regulation, rubbishing the public sector, promoting unsustainable growth, destroying collective solidarity and concentrating power and wealth in the hands of the few. Its practices have attacked and undermined the very tools – state action, planning and investment – that are urgently needed to bring climate change under control. Its ideology has made us doubt our capacities for collective action and undermined our values of solidarity and human kindness. It has, she says, “…systematically sabotaged our collective response to climate change.”

Klein is clear that only concerted national and international programmes of regulation, state investment and planning, comparable to the powers taken by UK and US governments during the Second World War, have any hope of making the annual 8-10% reductions in emissions that are now needed to bring climate change under control. She sees further than this however. She argues that tackling climate change and tackling inequality and social justice are part of the same struggle and she brings a sense of enthusiasm and possibility to this challenge. The good solutions to our climate problems could also bring lives that are more just, more equal and more worth living to far more people than currently enjoy them.

Klein is not blind to the benefits that capitalism has brought to society and she is not proposing the destruction of everything that characterises our current economic system. She does however wish to see the back of the free-market fundamentalist version that has ruled the globe for the last thirty years. And she is clear that it will not leave the stage quietly. Her interviews with participants at the Heartland Institute’s meetings are chilling indeed. She is in no doubt about the struggle that we face. And she is in no doubt about the urgent need to build a political movement that cuts across the boundaries of our existing concerns.

From ecological amnesia to radical change

As Klein herself acknowledges many of her arguments are not new. This is territory that others have trodden before but she makes the arguments with renewed vigour and honesty and draws many threads together with meticulous research, compelling stories, vivid prose and a sense of hope and possibility that has been lacking from much writing on the climate in the years since Copenhagen 2009. One of the most interesting parts to me was her admission of her own past blindness to climate change and her curiosity about the mechanisms for this ‘ecological amnesia’ as she calls it. Klein understands that our psychological defences and our capacity for disavowal play a part in our collective failure to address the problem. But this is only one of many insights that Klein weaves into this complex and riveting book. Her understanding of the way that corporations work, her grasp of complex trade agreements, her capacity to outline the science and her historical understanding of our assault on nature – all these make her book stand out. But for me it is her empathy with the lives of ordinary people and the way she tells their stories as she makes the arguments for radical, long-term change that spoke to my heart.

In a week where the UK government has published its proposals for the Paris round of negotiations with the depressing statement that growth and decarbonisation are ‘both sides of the same coin’, this is a must-read book for anyone serious about making Paris deliver on what the world, its biosystems and its people actually need.

You can hear Naomi Klein speak about This Changes Everything in London on October 6th and in Oxford on October 8th.

Read full article...

The Dynamics of Social Action event

July 26, 2014 – 8:49 am |

The CPA is a co-sponsor of an event taking place in Bristol, entitled ‘The Dynamics of Social Action.

Whatever your area of interest and action – as a citizen or in community, environmental, cultural, social or political arenas – this is for you.

This highly interactive event draws on the traditions of group relations work (see the Tavistock Institute for more information). It is led by experienced group relations facilitators, who also have a current and active interest in core issues of our times – environmental change, emotional well being, sustainable approaches to resources, cohesive communities and social transformation.

The programme challenges you to experience and reflect on your power in the room; creative and destructive dynamics that impact on how we all operate; and leadership, community relations and participatory democracy.

• A chance to develop self-awareness through work in large and small groups
• Short inputs on Power, Conflict, Difference, Emotion, Learning & Leadership
• Personal development sessions… an opportunity to link your insights to your practice

Click here to find the registration form

Read full article...

Breaking the Deadlock

June 30, 2014 – 4:50 pm |

This report, Breaking the Deadlock, summarises the proceedings of a one day conference funded by the UK Energy Research Council which explored the contributions that psycho-social interventions can make in relation to human responses to climate change. The UK ERC had funded the formation of a network of researchers and activists in the period 2013/14 and CPA members, particularly Tony Wragg and Jane Orton, had been central to getting this off the ground.

Read full article...

Chris Rapley: UCL Policy Commission on Communicating Climate Science

June 29, 2014 – 11:50 am |

Chris Rapley has worked closely with several members of the Climate Psychology Alliance on various projects and some members were also involved as external reviewers of the attached report.

Read full article...

George Monbiot: An Ounce of Hope is Worth a Ton of Despair

June 29, 2014 – 11:28 am |

Please follow this link to read the excellent article on George Monbiot’s website about hope, despair and the politics of Climate Change.

Read full article...

Years of Living Dangerously

May 6, 2014 – 11:57 pm | One Comment

Showtime TV in the USA has screened a series by James Cameron: Years of Living Dangerously.  Described as a climate change blockbuster, it has enlisted well-known stars such as Harrison Ford and Arnold Schwarzenegger, though some will  feel that the real star is the bridge-building climate scientist and Christian, Katharine Heyhoe .  The programme tackles a range of issues head-on, including the tensions between climate science and both faith groups and Republican politics.  A link to the first episode is here.

Read full article...

Naomi Klein – Climate Change is the fight of our lives – yet we can hardly bear to look at it

May 6, 2014 – 5:19 pm |

An outstanding article by Naomi Klein has been published by the Guardian newspaper.  In the article, titled Climate Change is the fight of our lives – yet we can hardly bear to look at it, Klein highlights what she sees as a “mismatch” on several levels.  The one she focuses on in particular is the mismatch between the need for collective action and the “ideological war being waged on the very idea of the collective sphere.”  Here is a link to the article.

Read full article...

Paul Hoggett: From ‘alarmism’ to false optimism?

April 17, 2014 – 5:23 pm | 4 Comments

Paul Hoggett’s piece ‘From ‘alarmism’ to false optimism?’

I’m trying to step back and see the wood for the trees among the mass of news reports, magazine articles and blog responses to the IPCC’s Fifth Assessment Report (AR5) on the impacts of climate change. For whilst some of the messages coming out of AR5 are valuable – e.g. climate change is already happening and it’s affecting everyone – others are slightly worrying.

One powerful narrative, anticipated by Fred Pearce in Yale Environment 360, is that the report signals a retreat from what he describes as the ‘alarmist tone’ of the Fourth Assessment Report of 2007. So rather that scare people the emphasis in the new report is more upbeat, on what people can do. The emphasis is on resilience rather than vulnerability. Whilst the 2007 report devoted just 2 pages to adaptation the new report devotes four whole chapters and resilience and adaptation are in fact dominant themes of the summary for policymakers.

A second narrative I can see developing appears to have been initiated by Andrew Lilico in the Telegraph in the week before the IPCC report was published, this was then picked up by the Economist on April 5th and the Atlantic on April 1st and by the climate scientist Judith Curry on her website Climate Etc. The basic theme of this second narrative is that AR5 signals ‘the end of climate exceptionalism’ by which they mean the end of the idea that climate change is a problem like no other (trumping other problems such as the control of global population or tackling global inequality). Rather, the new IPCC Report tends to situate climate change alongside a range of other factors such as public health, nutrition, access to clean water, the rapid expansion of  massive urban populations in low lying regions, and so on. For Curry this introduces a healthy dose of ‘realism’ into AR5. As the Economist argues:

This way of looking at the climate is new for both scientists and policymakers. Until now, many of them have thought of the climate as a problem like no other: its severity determined by meteorological factors, such as the interaction between clouds, winds and oceans; not much influenced by “lesser” problems, like rural development; and best dealt with by trying to stop it (by reducing greenhouse-gas emissions). The new report breaks with this approach. It sees the climate as one problem among many, the severity of which is often determined by its interaction with those other problems. And the right policies frequently try to lessen the burden—to adapt to change, rather than attempting to stop it. In that respect, then, this report marks the end of climate exceptionalism and the beginning of realism.

Note the interesting slip here from ‘we need to adapt and prevent’ to ‘we need to adapt rather than prevent’.

Interestingly enough the controversy about the economic impact of climate change, and Professor Richard Toll’s much publicised criticism of the IPCC’s redrafting of his part of the report, links both narratives. Toll has argued for some time that assessments of the economic costs of climate change such as the Stern Report have grossly overestimated the likely economic impact. Toll argues that the extra costs of 2º C warming are likely to amount to no more than 0.2 to 2% of world GDP or, as he puts it, ‘half a century of climate change is about as bad as losing one years of economic growth’. Toll has said, ”the message in the first draft was that through adaptation and clever development these were manageable risks, but it did require we get our act together”. But whilst Toll’s figures were cited in the final draft they were surrounded by caveats which suggested that many economic impacts (such as ocean acidification) couldn’t yet be quantified and the eventual economic cost was likely to be much greater. For Toll this redrafting was proof, if proof were needed, that the 5AR, like 4AR, is still all about ‘the four horsemen of the apocalypse’.

Some neo-liberal commentators have already taken Toll’s comments as evidence that the costs of mitigating climate change (by switching to renewables etc) will be greater than the costs of doing nothing. So we can see a new trend emerging here. From outright denial we can anticipate a neo-liberal reconciliation with the scientific evidence on the basis that though climate change is happening the economic impact will be fairly limited and that in ‘adaptation’ there will be abundant opportunities for new sources of economic growth and development. Of course what the Economist completely fails to take into account are the other costs, that is, the non-human costs. Adapting the insurers’ concept of ‘loss adjustment’ George Monbiot notes (Guardian 1st April) that we are being invited to collude with a process of writing off those parts of nature which will be unable to adapt. Indeed I can even glimpse a dystopian version of this neo-liberal position in which, as global temperatures push past a 2 degrees rise towards 4 degrees, new waves of capitalist accumulation arise based on the economic opportunities to be derived from programmes of defence, repair and adaptation to our trashed planet. In their book Resilient Life: The Art of Living Dangerously Brad Evans and Julian Reed argue that the concept of ‘resilience’ has become so fashionable precisely because of the way in which it prepares us for a coming world of endless insecurity and trauma.

Of course the interesting thing is that Pearce’s narrative assumes that AR4 was ‘alarmist in tone’ whereas a growing number of climate scientists privately believe (and some, like Kevin Anderson publicly state) that the IPCC has been so anxious to gain the ear of policy makers that it has in reality consistently understated the degree of danger that we face. The more upbeat tone of AR5, with its strong emphasis on adaptation and resilience, should therefore give us pause for thought. Faced with consistent and overwhelming resistance to the climate change message from all levels of society (we can’t just ‘blame the politicians’ that’s far too easy) is a new common sense emerging which says we have to remain resolutely positive, avoiding anything ‘scary’ or which could make people feel in the slightest bit guilty, appeal to peoples’ better nature and to our common interests, emphasise human resilience and inventiveness, etc.? Within the UK I think we can already see evidence of this trend in, for instance, the belief that we need to reframe our messages so that people don’t simply dismiss it as ‘green’ or ‘environmentalist’, further that the very concept of climate change is a divisive one, it sets people apart rather than bringing them together.

What I’m worried about is that as things gets worse, as the idea of holding global temperature increases to 2 degrees is quietly dropped (as is already starting to happen), we are being encouraged to pull our punches and not do anything that might alienate those who hold opposing views. This is what worried me about the interview with George Marshall in Transition Network of March 20th. Speaking of people who have been affected by the recent flooding in the South West of the UK and yet still don’t make the connection to climate change George says, ’what they are not receptive to is a direct challenge that therefore brings up all of their defences’, and later, ‘the solutions always lie in ways of talking, ways to behave that would involve…drawing people together rather than pulling people apart.’ Well I have to say that whilst the psychotherapist part of me recognises the importance of avoiding judgemental stances and believes in dialogic approaches to change the political activist part of me wonders whether such ‘softly, softly’ approaches don’t always need to be complemented by clear, angry and forceful forms of direct action. Indeed it’s even more complicated than this. For I also recognise that no matter how hard a therapist tries not to be these things he will often be seen as judgemental, smug or condescending because that’s how the client needs to see him at the moment s/he feels challenged. But if the therapist then stopped being challenging then all possibility of psychic change would disappear. Surely we need to be able to identify with the other and care about their plight and we need to be able to talk with conviction.

Which brings me back to the two narratives. Adaptation aims to preserve an existing lifestyle, and in adapting to flooding and other threats people are brought together. Thus it’s attractiveness to policy makers compared to mitigation. And although adaptation is expensive it promotes ‘business as usual’ and an upbeat message – “see, the broken rail link at Dawlish to Cornwall has been restored in record time!” And meanwhile the urgent need for action to mitigate climate change is quietly forgotten as, in the very same week that the rail link is restored and the IPCC Report is published, the UK Conservative Party decides that it will oppose onshore wind turbines in the coming general election.

Now I believe that in the UK the battles to support onshore wind and oppose fracking are both at the forefront of the struggle to sustain the mitigation agenda – onshore wind is the cheapest and most quickly operationalisable renewable whereas fracking directly contradicts the urgent need not to exploit new sources of fossil fuel (hence Bill McKibben’s valuable slogan “Keep it in the ground”). And it is absolutely no coincidence that both the Conservatives and UKIP can oppose onshore wind whilst simultaneously being cheer leaders for fracking shale gas (even though the aesthetic impact on rural landscapes is probably similar). According to the Guardian report (April 5th) which revealed the new strategy, Conservatives believe onshore wind has become self-defeating, ‘alienating people from the whole clean energy debate’. Now whilst I am happy to believe that some Conservatives such as MPs Anne McIntosh and Tim Yeo have a real commitment to clean energy it can’t be any coincidence that both of them were deselected by their constituency associations earlier this year! The reality is that this guff about onshore wind being ‘self-defeating’ is simply a ruse to cover up ‘the dash for gas’.

In conclusion, I’m very wary of the IPCC’s attempt to strike a more ‘upbeat tone’ about climate change because the public do not want any more ‘doom and gloom’ and I’m even more wary of the idea now being trumpeted by some economic interests that, rather than being the fundamental issue facing humanity in the new millennium, climate change can be seen as one problem of many, none of which are inherently insoluble within the ‘business as usual’ paradigm. The threat of climate change seems more urgent and, in the UK, political polarisation on this issue is increasing not decreasing. In this context we surely need to adopt a twin track strategy. On the one hand our psychological knowledge can be put to use to support those already reeling from the effects of climate change (e.g. coping with fear, loss and uncertainty) and to communicate with the lay public in ways which draws together rather than pulls apart. On the other hand we need to fight for renewables and oppose fracking with even greater conviction, and this must mean sharp debate and political opposition to the UKIP led reaction against renewables currently sweeping parts of the UK including the Conservative Party.

Read full article...

In conversation: Hilary Prentice and Colin Feltham

March 18, 2014 – 7:01 pm | 3 Comments

Hilary Prentice talks further with Colin Feltham about the threat of climate change and the radical role counsellors and psychotherapists could play by enabling people to articulate their fear and guilt. This in turn could free them to individually change their lifestyles and collectively challenge the indifference of governments and industry. The conversation can be read here at Therapy Today. Hilary’s article, entitled ‘Floods, Climate Change and Denial’ can also be read here on Therapy Today.

Read full article...

Presentations: CPA/IGA’s ‘Environment Crisis and the Group’ Event 1st February 2014

February 25, 2014 – 5:12 pm | One Comment

CPA/IGA’s event on 1st February 2014 ‘Environment Crisis and the Group’

Click here to view Ro Randall’s presentation and notes from the ‘Behaviour, Dream, Nightmare: Psychological Approaches to Climate Change.’
Click here to view Morris Nitsun’s presentation ‘An Anti-Group Perspective of Climate Change’.

Read full article...

Environment Crisis and the Group

February 12, 2014 – 1:01 pm | One Comment

This one day event on 1st February 2104, jointly organised by the CPA and Institute of Group Analysis, attracted nearly 40 people.

The day started with presentations from Ro Randall and Morris Nitsun.  These are now available here

Ro, from the CPA, offered a brave and reflective account of the flowering, crisis and disintegration of the climate change initiative, Cambridge Carbon Footprint she founded in Cambridge.

Morris, from the IGA, provided a thought provoking exploration of how the insights of Foulkes, who was optimistic about groups, and Bion, who was pessimistic, could illuminate both generative and destructive societal dynamics in the face of climate change.

Some of the themes from their presentations seemed to resonate around the small and large group discussions that comprised the rest of the day. Destructive splitting, evident in some of the oppositions that became impossible to contain within the Cambridge Carbon Footprint initiative, was one. For instance, oppositions between practical doing and feeling/reflecting, between quick ‘solutions’ and patient work with groups and communities in which the outcome was uncertain. Another theme concerned the shadow cast by death.

This is so much a part of the culture of western-type societies which is in flight and denial, and it makes it more difficult for us to feel loss and grieve for all that is passing – species, habitats, ways of life – as climate change wreaks it’s destruction.

I was struck by how, particularly in the large group (ably conducted by Theresa Howard), some of the dynamics in the here-and-now of the group illuminated wider social processes. The voicelessness of those who were located on the margins and the flight from raw grief into thoughts and concepts, were two examples.

I would like to reiterate the thanks I proffered at the end of the event to Sarah Deco, for being the inspiration and organiser of the initiative, and to the IGA in general for being such a generous host. It may well be, with sufficient patience, that the event provides the basis for an ongoing group in London. Let’s hope so.


Paul Hoggett

Read full article...

A View from the Somerset Levels

February 12, 2014 – 12:50 pm | 2 Comments

A neighbour of mine, a local Councillor with extensive knowledge and practical experience of land management issues in Somerset, gave me a draft document to look at yesterday.  This was his analysis of the dire state of the Somerset Levels, with recommendations for remedial action.  The document will no doubt be a valuable contribution to an intensive period of consultation and planning which the Government has initiated, in response to the protracted flooding of large tracts of our local countryside, our roads and villages.

Reading this document reminded me that the technical issues are complex and interconnected.  Weighing the relative importance of these issues is a demanding task. Upstream, midstream and downstream river catchment, land management and intensive farming, protecting homes vs food production, the growth of our County town (Taunton), dredging and drainage, the tidal range of the Bristol Channel, all come into the picture.  The roles and funding channels of central and local government, the Environment Agency, Internal Drainage Board and environmental or wildlife organisations also feature prominently.

My friend’s grasp of the practical and agency issues is, to me, informative and humbling. It is impressive from both a managerial and a practical perspective.  His proposed remedies to soil erosion (the source of the silt problem) and rapid run-off into the upper reaches of our County’s rivers include reforestation and hedge renewal.  They make good sense and chime with the comments of George Monbiot and others in the national press.  From a climate psychology standpoint, however, my neighbour’s approach reflects the intense difficulty which we humans have in engagement with climate change and the relationship between the human and greater-than-human world.

I asked him about his fleeting mention of climate change and reference to its impacts as a future prospect, rather than a current and escalating reality.  He was agreeable to changing the latter point, but was wary of increasing the emphasis on climate change, for fear of putting people off, and not having the document taken seriously.

Here, as elsewhere, the Environment Agency was judged as unfit for purpose, this being largely attributed to a confused agenda, in which ecological considerations are given undue prominence, at the expense of human needs.  I am not qualified to judge how well or badly the E.A. reconciles these criteria, but what I do pick up strongly is a widely held perception that it’s an “either/or” matter, rather than a set of perspectives which must be integrated because, as Tony Juniper puts it, the economy is a wholly owned subsidiary of planetary ecology.

There was another striking point in my friend’s document which again reflected the views and feelings that have been evident in the recent media coverage.  This was that local people find the current situation “completely unacceptable”.  This phrase prompted me to recall COIN’s illustrated report Moving Stories, which documents the plight of those caught up in climate related migration in places as far flung as the Arctic and Indonesia, China and the Sahel.  How “acceptable” is the situation of all these people?  We of course live in a country that is both rich and small, but I wonder whether all the resources and technology at our disposal will enable us to protect the Somerset levels from inundation for very long, dredging or no dredging, improved land management or not.  The river Parrett is tidal to a few miles from here, well into the Levels.  I’ve not heard anyone locally talking much about sea level rise, nor the fact that the weather perturbation which we are now experiencing results from just 0.8 degrees C of heating, compared with the 4-6 degrees currently predicted.

On 4th February, following Prince Charles’ visit to the Levels, local residents who were gathered in Northmoor village hall were interviewed on TV over their reactions to the situation.  Two batches of interviews were interspersed with an explanation of the effects of climate change, including the fact that several decades of heating and its consequences are now locked into the climate system.  This commentary was unusually clear, full and incisive.  It was shown to those present, as well as to viewers.  The small number of interviewees may have been unrepresentative, but somehow I doubt it.  What I found most striking was how little indication there was of the climate change perspective becoming incorporated into people’s narratives.  One lady foresaw continuing difficulties in the short term followed by an improvement in the longer term, as a result of anti-flooding measures such as dredging.  This left me with the impression that, for whatever reasons, climate change as a root cause of our troubles here, and drastic emissions reduction to mitigate it, still gains little traction in most people’s minds, even when the evidence and explanations have just been set out clearly.

It would be as unwise to make simple interpretations of what is going on in people’s minds as it is to think that the problem of flooding on the Somerset Levels can be solved with one or two local measures.  It is hardly surprising that people, traumatised or anxious, displaced, disrupted or even bankrupted, are desperate for remedies that they can see a possibility of implementing.  Nor is it surprising that, in what is now a succession of floodings, in Summer as well as Winter, stoicism and resilience is turning to desperation and anger.  Responsibility for addressing the wider issues surely lies more heavily with our government and our media.

That BBC coverage of climate change on 4th February was maybe a good sign, even if it did not find a receptive audience in Northmoor.  On the same day, Christine Lagarde, head of the IMF, spoke in London of the “merciless” process of climate change and the urgent need to remove fossil fuel subsidies and to price carbon emissions effectively.  We should not wait for those in that merciless firing line to join the dots, but the number of people in the rich world who find themselves directly facing it, along with millions in faraway places, is growing.  Perhaps the cries of distress from within (and on) our own shores will coalesce with the warnings from climate science and help to concentrate the minds of our policy makers.


Adrian Tait

8th February 2014                

Read full article...

Flood Defences

February 11, 2014 – 6:23 pm | 13 Comments

Flood Defences

We face a real dilemma. To take the radical actions required to have a hope of mitigating dangerous climate change we need to both reduce energy use and switch rapidly to renewable sources for the energy that we do use. Neither of these can be achieved without incurring individual and collective losses. For example, for many of us one of the most sudden and dramatic ways we can reduce our energy use is by cutting out flying, but this means giving up things, not the least the exploration of areas of wild beauty in other parts of the world. But switching to renewable sources is not without costs either, particularly the collective costs to our landscape of installing solar and wind farms. I am very aware that people have different views about this, that for some the British landscape of moorlands, hills and estuaries is sacrosanct and once we start planting windmills in such places our renewable ‘means’ have undermined our climate mitigation ‘ends’. But talking to friends who have this view and listening to local and national voices which oppose the spread of renewables I have become increasingly convinced that there is a strong element of denial in such standpoints.

Looking down from the Mendip Hills in early February a vast lake currently covers parts of the northern stretches of the Somerset Levels around Westhay and Godney Moors (an area where millions of starlings roost in the marshes at this time of year). Given that this is the part of the Levels least affected by flooding it really makes you wonder what Britain will look like 50 years from now. By then the rise in global average temperatures may be approaching 2 degrees (in contrast to the havoc already being caused by our present 0.8 degree rise). Those friends of the British countryside (including the National Trust) who oppose proposals for wind and solar farms such as the Atlantic Array (an opposition campaign spearheaded in North Devon by UKIP) would do well to consider what ‘natural landscape’ it will be that they are preserving through their opposition to renewables. There is a strong strand of conservative environmentalism which has deep echoes in traditional rural communities which is still in deep denial about the actuality of climate change and some of this can currently be heard demanding river dredging and other ‘finger in the dyke’ solutions in south Somerset.

The Somerset Levels are at the moment the focus for what some people call a ‘risk panic’, a moment at which underlying social anxieties find expression in a particular crisis. Like ‘moral panics’ such as those surrounding child abuse, risk panics are ripe for exploitation by populists. We see this being played out at the moment, rather than the pillorying of a social services department for its failure to prevent child abuse we see escalating attacks upon the Environment Agency for its failure to continue dredging local rivers. Scapegoats are easy meat and conveniently provide a means of distracting attention from more systemic issues.

I find it particularly ironic (tragic?) that as vast swathes of the Levels disappear under water for months on end for the second year running one group of residents who live on the edge of the Levels are eagerly waiting what they hope will be a decision by the Planning Inspectorate to turn down a proposal by Ecotricity to build four windmills just to the west of the M5 south of Huntspill. According to the Huntspill Windfarm Action Group:

These huge machines are little but a large visual political statement of green intentions. If we have to have them put them offshore or in areas that do not affect local residents. Siting them in the middle of six villages on the Somerset levels is not the place to have them. SO if we are called nimbys for that that then fine.

The Huntspill group is affiliated to the European Platform Against Windfarms. I know little about this organisation but their propaganda clearly pits the ‘little man’ against the powerful commercial interests involved in many wind farm schemes. The Huntspill Action Group’s website also argues that nuclear is a much better alternative and quotes approvingly a recent article by Griff Rhys Jones in the Daily Mail (31st July 2013). Reading this I was struck by the following statement by this British comedian (no pun intended):

I am deeply worried about global warming: I accept the evidence without demur. The world is getting hotter, and we are going through serious climate change. But the fundamentalist green lobby — and those involved in sponsored research or subsidised industry — react to our legitimate concerns as if they are nothing more than selfish whining. They ask: ‘Do you want to die in a horrible conflagration and for your children to starve to death as a result of global warming?’

I think Rhys Jones (who also advocates the nuclear power option) speaks for many who accept that anthropogenic climate change is occurring and yet who oppose green policies in the name of conservation. Now my own view is that the situation that we face is so drastic that we must use all means possible, which does not preclude nuclear, to move from carbon intensive forms of energy. But nuclear is high risk, expensive and takes so long to come on stream that it is poorly equipped to meet the urgency of our present situation and so we must prioritise wind, solar, wave and tidal.

I think the Huntspill Action Group provides a vivid illustration of what we could call ‘flood defences’. Here they are, situated on the edge of the Levels, on land which is partially below sea level, land which will only exist in 50 years time if there is massive expenditure on local sea defences, opposing the very type of renewables initiative which, at a national and international level, could prevent the complete disappearance of the very landscape that they treasure!

Earlier I called this ‘denial’ but I’ve come to feel that ‘denial’ is a bit of a blanket term which needs unpicking. Let’s look at some of the elements at work here. The flooding over the last two years is what we call a ‘harbinger’. It is signalling the approach of something (the destruction of landscapes, habitats and ecosystems such as the Levels as climate change gathers pace). The fact that for the vast majority of local people it does not yet seem to function in this way could be understood in one of three ways. People are still ignorant of the risk of dangerous climate change, or people are not ignorant but lack the collective capacity to imagine something that seems far off in time (a failure of the social imagination) or, finally, if they were to imagine such a future it would feel like a catastrophe so it is not imagined in order to avoid the anxiety. In this sense denial is not seeing what is in front of our eyes, it is a collective reluctance to know the truth or make the necessary connections.

But there seems to be a second element involved in ordinary denial, something involves I think of as ‘internal propaganda’. This refers to the rationalisations, displacements, projections (blame the green fundamentalists), etc. which enable people who accept the actuality of human caused climate change to nevertheless evade responsibility for it. It’s always someone else who needs to act, its nuclear not wind, or if it is wind then it is offshore wind, or ‘what is the point of us doing anything?’, a fatalistic remark illustrated in this extract from Rhys Jones

Even if we hit that 15 per cent target (and we are still far away from that), it will make only the tiniest dent in world carbon emissions…..Meanwhile, look at what we stand to lose. Our heritage is being destroyed by solar plants and wind farms.

There is one issue that I think Rhys Jones has got right, the dilemmas we face about the siting of wind, solar and tidal projects are multiplied by the anarchic market methods through which our energy future is determined. As he notes,

this ugly and expensive intrusion is being left to the ‘free market’. The result is random and opportunist. Wherever a stricken farmer or a greedy landowner can be bribed or hoodwinked by subsidy, we see a wind turbine or a wretchedly blank area of solar panels go up.

Of course to have a national energy plan would fly in the face of the neo-liberal perspective that Labour, Liberal, Conservative and UKIP are all hostage to. One thing we can be sure of is that the kind of drama currently being enacted on the Levels is going to be an increasingly common occurrence as climate change begins to really bite. Is it that people still don’t yet smell the fire or is it that they do smell it and have already become gripped by panic?

Read full article...

Sleep Walking to Catastrophe: environment, crisis and the group Event

January 16, 2014 – 5:11 pm | One Comment

Sleep Walking to Catastrophe: environment, crisis and the group event

1st February 2014, 10- 5pm

The Institute of Group Analysis, 1 Daleham Gardens, NW3 5BY

This is an innovative collaboration, jointly sponsored by the Institute for Group Analysis (IGA) and the Climate Psychology Alliance (CPA) exploring psychological responses to climate change from a group analytic perspective and the contribution that this might make to current discussions about human responses to climate change.

Behaviour, nightmare, dream: psychology’s responses to climate change. Ro Randall (CPA)

Ro is a psychoanalytic psychotherapist working in private practice. She has been active in the environmental movement for many years, is the founder of the Carbon Conversations project

An anti-group perspective of climate change: destructive aspects of our relationship to the environment and ourselves. Morris Nitsun (IGA)

Morris is an NHS consultant psychologist, psychotherapist and group analyst at the Fitzrovia Group Analytic Practice. His paper is based on his forthcoming book Beyond the Anti-Group: Survival and Transformation.



020 7431 2693


Read full article...

Artistic Engagement with Climate Change

December 16, 2013 – 10:02 am | 4 Comments

Peter Gingold of Tipping Point discusses despair, imagination and the artist’s contribution to mobilising society about climate change.

TippingPoint is part of the intriguing ecology of small organisations that have made the UK something of a world leader in the field of artistic engagement with climate change. One way of putting our work is that given the way conventional political and policy processes are stuck in various types of log-jam, we are working in our various ways to encourage creation of works of the imagination that might mobilise society to take action, or give politicians the confidence to take the sort of decision they currently believe to be sure-fire vote-losers.

Examples of this fast growing body of work can be found on our website, on Cape Farewell’s, and in many other places.  There are many artists asking themselves the very difficult question of how to bring the subject into their work without sounding hectoring or didactic, without getting themselves inexorably branded as a ‘climate change artist’, and yet communicating images and ideas that are intended to have some type of constructive impact.

A central part of our own practice is to hold events which bring artists of many types together with people with expertise in climate change – researchers, policy-makers and others. These are often very intense gatherings lasting two days or more, and the objective is of course to stimulate as deep and fruitful engagement as possible between people who would normally never meet – leading to who knows what sort of outcome.

We have done this all over the world, and a few years ago, working with our sister organisation TippingPoint Australia, we held a series of events in Australia.  In Sydney one of these was a public event including about a hundred people from a cross section of the environmental, activist and arts community.

Group discussion in Sydney

A technique we use a lot is Open Space, in which those present choose the subjects for discussion, rather than having them imposed by the event organisers.  I had just finished Clive Hamilton’s long cry of anguish ‘Requiem for a Species’, and being of a melancholic disposition was (and remain) strongly moved by his point: we have blown it; it is too late.

I found myself suggesting ‘Looking into the Abyss’ as a topic for discussion.  And to my amazement, a good half of the people there, about fifty, joined my group.  It became very clear that the majority of us were labouring under much the same problem – we were struggling with keeping our motivation or indeed mental well-being in reasonable shape when a perfectly rational understanding of the future is so bleak.  There are plenty of walking wounded in this field.

I‘d love to report that we all went away from our hour-long discussion energised, or at least equipped with a useful and practical list of coping mechanisms!  But while we certainly smiled it would be more honest to say that apart from gaining strength from the fact of being in good company we didn’t make a great deal of progress.

The nature of this problem will come as no surprise to many readers of this site. Perhaps I might take this opportunity to remind the therapeutic community of what I think is a clear need: for a structured programme, something other (and cheaper) than individual therapy, that might support the many activists, researchers, artists and others who labour daily in this field, and the significant proportion who struggle with it.

As far as I am aware the nearest thing to this are Joanna Macey’s programmes ‘The Great Turning’ and ‘The Work that Reconnects’; they are wonderful in their own way, but they are largely restricted to the USA, and are also ‘strongly flavoured’ in a way which I think will not appeal to all.

So here is a request: let’s have a programme of support for people who find the fact of a future world less comfortable than our own, perhaps much less so, troubling to the extent that it affects their ability to function.  I don’t have much doubt that there would be takers.

- Peter Gingold

Read full article...

Environment, Crisis and the Group joint event with the CPA/IGA

December 6, 2013 – 6:27 pm |

The Institute of Group Analysis in association with The Climate Psychology Alliance are pleased to announce a public event:



Environment, Crisis and the Group


Rosemary Randall & Morris Nitsun

Saturday 1st February 2014 – 10.00am – 5.30pm

The Institute of Group Analysis

1 Daleham Gardens, London NW3 5BY

Individual, group and governmental responses to the risk of climate change remain puzzlingly inadequate. This is a public event, jointly sponsored by the Institute for Group Analysis (IGA) and the Climate Psychology Alliance (CPA). It will explore psychological responses to climate change from a group analytic perspective and the contribution that group analytic thinking might make to current discussions about human responses to climate change. The event will begin with contributions from two speakers, Morris Nitsun from the IGA and Ro Randall from the CPA, and then proceed via dialogues in both small groups and the large group.

Ro Randall (CPA): Behaviour, nightmare, dream: psychology’s responses to climate change.

Rosemary Randall is a psychoanalytic psychotherapist working in private practice. She has been active in the environmental movement for many years, is the founder of the Carbon onversations project and writes and lectures widely on the psychological dimensions of climate change.

Morris Nitsun (IGA): An anti-group perspective of climate change: destructive aspects of our relationship to the environment and ourselves.

Morris Nitsun is an NHS consultant psychologist, psychotherapist and group analyst working privately at the Fitzrovia Group Analytic Practice. He lectures in the UK and abroad. His paper is based on his forthcoming book Beyond the Anti-Group: Survival and Transformation.

Fees: (including lunch, tea and coffee): Members (IGA and CPA) £50, Students £35, Non-members £60

To Book/ Methods of Payment:

You can book by phone (020 7431 2693) using your debit card (no charge) or credit card (2% fee).

or book online at  www.groupanalysis.org

Or send your name, address and contact details, including your email address and organisation (please state your occupation) with a cheque (made out to “The Institute of Group Analysis”) for £50/ £35/ £ 60 to The Events Administrator, IGA, 1 Daleham Gardens, London NW3 5BY

The Institute of Group Analysis

1 Daleham Gardens, London  NW3 5BY

Tel. 020 7431 2693   Fax. 020 7431 7246

Email: iga@igalondon.org.uk | www.groupanalysis.org

The IGA is a charity registered in England and Wales (280942) and in Scotland (SC040468)


Read full article...

Joseph Dodds – Fertile and sterile Dialogue in the Climate Change Debate in the Czech Republic

December 6, 2013 – 6:16 pm |

Fertile and sterile Dialogue in the Climate Change Debate

A written contribution sent to us by Joseph Dodds in Prague, Czech Republic and composed by an Ecopsychology colleague.


Firstly the effect of the previous President Vaclav Klaus, a right-wing Thatcherite, are very important here. He was in power for two terms, the maximum, and only replaced this year, who greatly expanded the role of the president compared to Vaclav Havel. He had the most extreme climate sceptic viewpoint of perhaps any head of state, being the only head of state to go to the climate sceptic conferences. His book ‘blue planet’ (to distinguish from green of course) views climate change paranoiacally as an attempt of environmentalists to take away our freedom, comparing the IPCC process which plans carbon emissions over centuries to the old Soviet 5-year plans but sees them as even more intrusive and totalitarian and trying to control the future more completely. He has explicitly compared environmentalists to fascists and Stalinists and see’s the ‘green agenda’ as being one of the biggest threats to freedom our democracies face today.

Pavel Skala, a Czech ecopsychologist, psychodynamic psychotherapist, with an interest in phenomenology, sociology, and systems theory/Bateson, suggests that in the Czech Republic the mainstream media is mostly right-wing, partly out of the residue of anti-communism. On climate change they are ‘conservative’, emphasizing we need to be cautious about saying anything outright. Skala’s hypothesis is that the reason for this isn’t any pure “unbiased” skepticism nor journalistic correctness but really linked to the Klaus who should not be seen as a fringe perspective but as really embodying what many feel or at least want. He also suggests this was one of the reason why Klaus was so popular (he’s also an extreme Euro-sceptic who would leave the EU).

Skala writes that:

“Klaus’ previous popularity was partly due to the fact that he has always proclaimed freedom – without responsibility (but this special feature was only implicit of course). It’s probably a part of the post-Bolshevik heritage, this need for this never experienced freedom “for free”, maybe something in a way parallel to the infantile developmental situation where first a kind of unlimited freedom needs to be experienced so it makes eventually sense afterwards (for the caretakers) to set some meaningful limits to it.”

So within this context Klaus, and Klaus-style thinking sees climate change paranoiacally as involving eco-terrorists that gleefully desire to take our freedom from us. And perhaps embodying an infantile idea of freedom without any responsibility, consequences, or limits (whether moral or based on the physical limits of natural systems). This is accompanied in the media with an intense focus on the almost daily and shocking corruption scandals, with popular anger but also almost a cynical acceptance of politicians acting without limits, stealing, bribery, fraud, etc.

Since Klaus’ departure earlier this year there is less overt climate scepticism in the media. But more due to, according to Skala, the “gutterization” of the czech media, responding to drives of profit and greater ‘economic efficiency’. For example, we can see noticeable discontinuities in the medias’ treating of the climate change (which is not that much observable in other topics such as the pension system, etc). In general the news only reports climate related material after there’s something scandalous or shocking going on, with the view that the public will not be interested in the day to day ‘gloomy’, depressive aspects of climate change, but only the more ‘exciting’ ones. Only those IPCC statements that newly predict some new really disastrous developments are being reported…

Skala also notices a particularly striking phenomenon which is that there’s almost never any connection suggested between climate change (and its threats) and the mainstream czech people’s lifestyle, it is all an ‘external’ problem (causes and consequences), something for the politicians to address but not the public. Furthermore, despite of even exceptional – almost jerky – “correctness” of most of the articles on these themes, the reactions of the discussants under them are often extremely violent in their denial – suggesting on some level many people here actually do grasp the reality of climate change but angrily attack its presentation and existence.


So to conclude the main themes from the Czech Rep. are:

1. Climate change as an attack on freedom, with the idea of environmentalists as gleefully and enviously trying to destroy and take away our freedom.

2. Freedom without limits (moral, physical, etc.), related both to post-communism, and to infantile developmental state, perhaps even with some unconscious desire for someone to set limits to the new freedom (the ‘underside’ of which is acknowledged in the obsession with the corruptions scandals of politicians).

3. ‘Shock’ reports on the environment (driven less by ideology than by economic factors, shock stories sell), rather than keeping a day to day awareness or holding the depressive aspects of our times.

4. Climate change as an ‘elsewhere’ (both causes and consequences).

5. Aggressive denial.

Read full article...

Carol Ride – Australia – a sorry tale of a dramatic shift from fertile to sterile ground for climate action.

December 6, 2013 – 6:13 pm |

Click here to listen to Carol Ride’s contribution to the CPA’s Fertile and Sterile Dialogue Event, or read a transcript below.

In 2011 the Labor government of Australia introduced a carbon package – comprising a tax on CO2 emissions, funding for renewable energy projects, an independent advisory body on Australia’s emission targets based on science and international action, and a body independent of government to advise the community on the latest climate science. This package was backed by a pre-existing renewable energy target. This impressive suite of measures was introduced by a minority Labor government under pressure from the Greens party, because the government needed the support of the Greens to have governing rights.

Despite the fact that the opposition conservatives had supported an emissions trading scheme in 2007, by 2011 the carbon tax and accompanying measures were criticized both by the Murdoch press (who control two thirds of Australia’s print media), and the opposition conservative parties. The tax itself was criticized on the grounds that it would destroy the economy and disadvantage families because of electricity price rises.

A recent study[1], found that in 2011 – 2012, one third of articles in Australia’s major newspapers did not accept the consensus position of climate science: that human beings are contributing to climate change. Campaigning against the tax, “The Australian”, a national Murdoch paper, produced 49% negative articles about the tax to 9% positive articles.
Because of their role the Greens also took a beating from the press – and as scapegoats, paid a huge price later in the subsequent 2013 election.

The 2013 election was dominated by the then opposition who dubbed it a referendum on the carbon tax. Slogans such as ‘axe the tax’ and ‘dump the government’ were aggressively promoted by the Murdoch media.

In its one year of operation, the carbon tax initiative reduced electricity consumption by 7% – a change unseen in Australia since the time of the two World Wars and the Great Depression. Electricity prices did increase but not out of line with increases in previous years. And households were compensated in tax for carbon tax price rises.

Polls at 2013 election show that people actually want action on climate change: two thirds of Australians now support action an illustration of the complexity of how to really engage people – and with what action.

The opposition conservative parties won the election and claimed their victory vindicated their first step in office – the repeal of the legislation in relation to the carbon tax and the supporting measures.

Their first target was the Climate Commission. It was set up to deliver current understanding of climate science to the community. On their very first day of office it was abolished.

The Climate Commission was headed by Professor Tim Flannery and included other eminent Australian climate scientists.  In a resounding response from the a dismayed public, climate concerned citizens rallied using crowd funding to re-establish the body as one independent of the government funding. So phoenix like, the Climate Commission survives, now stronger and more secure than ever, as the Climate Council.

This body has been pivotal in informing the community of the need for serious action this decade. They regularly published very clear, vital explanatory information – and will be able to continue to do so.

And this is essential!  Australia has to date experienced its hottest year ever with 100 records being broken.  The first month of our spring was the hottest September ever.

In October bushfires were ablaze in 73 different locations across the Blue Mountains to the west of Sydney. While bushfires in October are not unknown the firefighters feared the fires would all join to create a massive fire front 1500 km long – in impossible conditions, hotter and drier and windier than normal. Thankfully no lives were lost but over 200 homes were destroyed.

Our climate change denying prime minister Tony Abbott – an experienced volunteer fire fighter – joined a local firefighting effort in the Blue Mountains. This was seemingly to make a point that bushfires are a familiar part of our experience and nothing out of the ordinary that we tough Aussie blokes can’t manage.

Did he also fear people might make a link between the bushfires and climate change – and then find gaping holes in his climate policy? When one Green’s politician did make the link and accuse the government of failing to protect its citizens, he was vilified for being insensitive and for seeking to score a political point. It was a very sensitive subject for Abbott, so much so that he even accused the Executive Secretary of the UN Framework Convention on Climate Change, Christiana Figueres, of “talking through her hat” for suggesting there was a link between global warming and bushfires.

Not to be outdone by the PM, the Environment Minister thought he had settled this question when he reported he checked Wikipedia  – and found the answer he wanted – no link. It would be laughable if not so pitiful.

In place of a carbon tax and the associated measures, the new Government’s climate policy is called Direct Action. It is fuzzy plan to pay companies who agree to reduce their emissions – a ‘pay the polluter ‘ rather than the ‘polluter pays’ scheme.  It includes a plan to plant trees – but without halting the vast deforestation that goes on across the country.  Direct Action aims for 5% emission reduction (by 2020 relative to 2000 levels):  No economists thinks this is achievable under the current Direct Action policy. The 5% target falls way short of the latest target advice from the government’s own Climate Change Authority (which he is about to dismantle). A 5% target is a drop in the ocean compared with what is needed, especially when we are the highest per capita CO2 emitter in the world.

The bushfires were seen by many citizens as evidence that climate change is already occurring in Australia and a precursor to what is predicted to be a hellishly hot summer and early autumn in South Eastern Australia – in December to March.

The link between bushfires and climate change provided fertile ground for climate discussion to surface again, even while it is conveniently considered by the Murdoch press to be insensitive to do so.  Whilst to join the dots at this time was difficult, there was a recognition that when the horrific bushfires occurred in Victoria in 2009 (the state in which I live), when 170 lives were lost and over 2000 homes burnt to the ground, the link between severe weather and climate change was evaded by the climate movement because of fear of being seen to be politicizing suffering. But as the recent report by the UK organization COIN (Climate Outreach and Information Network – headed up by George Marshall) says, we need to be able to bring the impacts of climate change closer to home in order to resonate with the values of those on the centre-right.

Abbott is using the crucial issue of climate change to create of a cultural divide in the community. He charges those wanting climate action with destroying the economy, destroying jobs and damaging family financial security. Those supporting climate action are denigrated for giving tacit support to what he has termed a ‘wacko’ Labor government that he repeatedly claims was a failure and incompetent. He is supported in the Murdoch press by journalists who also wickedly promote the idea that concern about climate change is a quasi religious ideology, as well an economic threat. These threats I believe feed the community’s confusion, cynacism and distancing from what they see has become primarily a political issue, rather than a moral one.

Abbott instead advocates freedom to mine for new coal and new coal seam gas on farmland and environmentally sensitive and protected areas – without constraint –  and with “red – tape – free” deregulation.

Will the devastating reality of ever more record breaking temperatures, severe summer heatwaves and bushfires break through the denial and stop the promotion of this alienating and divisive culture?

Sadly, a blisteringly hot, destructive summer might have to be what it takes to re-establish some fertile ground for a constructive approach to climate change in Australia.

Carol Ride is President of Psychology for a Safe Climate – based in Melbourne, Australia. She is a psychologist and couple therapist and has been active in the climate movement in her local community since 20

[1] Wendy Bacon Professorial Fellow, Australian Centre for Independent Journalism at University of Technology, Sydney reported in The Conversation. 4.11.13

Read full article...

Website by Perch Ten Design. Based on the Arthemia Premium theme by ColorLabs