Susan Stuart
Sep 5, 2018 · 2 min read

Rezwan, great job again highlighting the link between creativity, psychology and the negotiation process that will be needed to address these challenges. I think you’re asking one of the key questions: what does a transition plan to get to zero emissions that we’re all comfortable with look like? I also think most people are afraid of that conversation. Have you read this recent op-ed in the NYT: https://www.nytimes.com/2018/08/11/opinion/sunday/science-people-environment-earth.html I think Dr. Ellis points out the other key question: who is going to pay for this anyway? So, from an everyday Joe/ Jane point of view: why even have the uncomfortable conversation (where I may be asked to give up things that make me happy or even that keep me competitive/ put food on my table) when no one has offered to pay for it anyway? Do you have thoughts about that?

It does seem to me that, at least in the U.S., “the 99%” can only mitigate where climate change is concerned— we can’t solve it. And We the People want to know who actually can fund “The Solution” before we even get into the mitigation talks. BUT… I’m sure if those mitigation talks do happen, everyone will want to have a voice in the strategy that is laid out, particularly in the compromises. So the fretting and the fear and repression go ‘round and ‘round… and today, Medium sends out a podcast essentially asserting that the potential funders of the Solution may be the most fearful of all — and they may think a solution is not possible. So… psychological tactics may need to be applied with them first, no?

    Susan Stuart

    Written by

    A long time in design… nonprofits, arts, complex things, soulful things.