In 2013 Australia startet the project "Visions and Pathways 2040". The project aims to develop visions and innovation and policy pathways for transforming Australian cities to achieve rapid decarbonisation and increased resilience in the face of climate change (80% reduction in carbon emissions till 2040).
"...Many of the technologies required to get us to a greener future already exist – but what’s important is HOW we apply them and WHO drives the change. Over the last four years, through research, workshops and engagement activities, the project has drawn on input from over 250 experts across industry, government, academia and civil society to determine how Australian cities could reach this goal. But also to design what these future cities might look like..."
I think it is very important to think about scenarios for the cultural, political and economic pathways to get there. The australian report lists 4 visions:
- Clean-Tech Corporate Living
- Planned Regulated Living
- Networked Entrepreneurial Living
- Community Balanced Living
With every scenario the goal of 80% carbon reduction can be reached. But the impact for the society is very different for every path. The four scenarios are characterised along the following dimensions that drives the change (see the final report):
- Top-Down Centralised (’Do it for me’) vs. Bottom-Up (’Do it yourself/ourselves’)
- For Profit (Meriotocracy) vs. For Social Benefit (Egalitarianism)
- Consumption-side emission reductions vs. Production-side emission reductions
Many of the answers of the climate charta (www.klimacharta.ch) goes in the direction, that we have to make a social change and that the climate problem ist not only a technological one. So i think a preliminary assumption about this change (with different scenarios) could be helpful for the CAP, to outline the society, that we can reach when we implement a suggestet pathway.
My personal thought about the scenarios is, that we have to favour those, which give us a more stable sociaty with less dependencies to the market (and growth) and government and more to the civilian population and give us a more "slow living" back. This is showed in the Scenario 4 "Community Balanced Living" where the commons (see https://primer.commonstransition.org/1-short-articles# ) are the key for this solution
"...The 80% reduction on greenhouse emissions has been achieved through the significant reduction in consumption of energy and materials, the sharing of resources and a highly diverse system of small scale, renewable electricity generation. Transport energy consumption has reduced greatly with more localised living. With less circulating capital from lower participation in the money economy there has been less investment in new public transport. Financial and community resources have been focused more on the maintenance of critical existing transport infrastructure, improving bicycle and walking conditions and the conversion of older vehicles to electricity and bio-gas for local use .." (see final report)
Commons have a big advantage as part of the solution, because there is no left/right ideology behind it, they exists already everywhere over the globe and in Switzerland we have a long tradition with some kind of them (Alpkorporationen, Burgergemeinden, Bäuerten, usw.). And we can start with them right now!
The final report: https://minerva-access.unimelb.edu.au/bitstream/handle/11343/194384/VEIL-VP2040-Final-Report-Web.pdf?sequence=1&isAllowed=y
Comparison of scenarios 3 and 4 (video): http://www.visionsandpathways.com/news/video-shows-two-action-pathways/