If you know me, you know I’ve been to a lot of conferences. Mostly, they’ve been for business, fundraising, and entrepreneurship, with a smattering of science.
Check out the conference’s title:
THE SCIENCE, BUSINESS, AND EDUCATION OF SUSTAINABLE INFRASTRUCTURE
Building Resilience in a Changing World
My alma mater, good ole (not really, the program’s not even six years old) Bard MBA, offered us a free ticket to the conference a week ago. I had to read the title three times before I realized how amazing it was. I think that I just couldn’t believe that a conference existed for my three favorite things (and probably in this order): Science, Business, and Education. And Resilience! Wow. They sure knew how to push my buttons.
I tried to talk myself out of going to it, because I was still strapped for cash at the time. And I’m in Maryland and the conference is in VA and that’s sooooo far away. Like on the OTHER SIDE of DC.
Then I realized that it would be my first conference in the epicenter of politics, and arguably, America. So I jumped on the ticket, and so did someone else, and the program ended up gettings tickets for both of us. YAY!
The morning of the conference, I got up at 5am, made it out of the house by 6, and got to the train station by 6:30am. Then I tried to pay for my ticket using the machine. But it wasn’t accepting Mastercard. So I tried my Visa. And it wasn’t accepting my Visa. I went to the window, and she says, “They did a system update this morning, and now the whole country’s machines aren’t accepting Visa or Mastercard.”
“Well, that’s all I have. I don’t have any cash on me.”
Fucking Amtrak. I don’t understand how some businesses are in business.
She waves me to the ATM, and I grudgingly head over, knowing that I’ll be paying a fee of at least $3. Already, this trip is getting expensive.
Then the Capitol One ATM eats one of my debit cards.
Well, I saved myself a fee.
I try to talk myself out of going to the conference again, saying, “Maybe it’s not meant to be.”
Then I feel gross for letting obstacles get in my way. There’s a difference between, “I know I shouldn’t get on that plane, because I know I will die” and “What a pain in the ass.”
If you don’t know what the difference is between those feelings, I encourage you to become one with the universe.
So, I call my Mom, and ask her to come back, and she dutifully sits in hellish traffic, and I grab a wad of “just in case” cash that I stash in my car. Actually, I probably shouldn’t have told you that.
It feels weird, cause I’m not saying that sarcastically.. Oh, being a 90’s kid.
Finally, I make it to VA, sadly missing the beginning (and the breakfast noshing and networking), and awkwardly creep into the side and sit on the floor. I feel like a kid wearing my bright red pants and sitting on the floor, but whatever. I was close to the front and had a perfect view.
Here are my cleaned up notes from the talks I went to. Keep in mind, I was late, so if you look at the agenda, I missed a bunch.
Biggest regrets: Being late, even though there’s nothing I could have done about it. Not being able to be everywhere at once – during any symposium or workshop, at least a dozen were going on and you had to choose only ONE! Every talk felt like the best talk and discussion I’d ever been to. I can’t even imagine getting to go to all of them!
Talk 1 – Panel on Sustainable Infrastructure: Building Resilience in the Face of Disasters
*What do social scientists learn?
What do sociologists know?
2017 needs to become the “new normal”, the baseline from which we gauge everything now from natural disasters to resource scarcity. We can’t say, “100-year” anything because it’s probably “every year everything” moving forward.
How many resources does the private sector offer to natural disaster stuff?
Who within an organization assesses an emergency response in the aftermath? In all sectors, is it a department? Leadership? How do we know how well we did and what has room for improvement?
The world needs skills-based volunteering and money. No more giant piles of socks, although they’ll take the socks.
Are the people who make money on natural disasters, like construction and building contractors, incentivized and actively blocking disaster preparedness?
How is the mental health of impacted communities being dealt with, if at all? If it is, does it include resilience training or education on climate change and natural disasters?
Will natural disaster areas with repeating occurrences or high-risk result in people moving? (This was later answered. Unless you’re Japanese, where apparently they aren’t in complete denial, the answer is no).
Natural disasters tend to occur, at least in the US, where property values are highest – ocean/waterfront. If counties are responsible for where the rebuilding occurs after disasters, and the risk and impact is offloaded to everyone, how do we educate or incentivize counties to build elsewhere? We need a counter-incentive, and it probably has to be beyond education. Will is ever become illegal to live in certain areas, post-disaster? Because it’s costing all of us.
What’s AI doing for weather? Is there or will there be a degree for sustainability AI? (This was later answered by one of the head people from The Weather Channel. AI’s doing a lot, but unclear on the degree/major.)
Talk 2 – Resilience of Nature-Based and Built Infrastructure
Will government job hiring ever move to problems to solve versus jobs to fill?
“Resilience Scientist” – is that a thing?
*Resilience has become conflated with risk. The 1973 definition of resilience is
Resilience = a stable system -> disturbance -> stable system
The key point is that stable also means a desired system. Because nature will always go back to a stable system. But what we want and what nature wants are not necessarily aligned.
How do you think about defining the boundaries of a resilience system? Graham Cumming has a paper from 1973 about it. He defines the types of boundaries as spatial and spatial regimes.
How conservative are scientists and engineers when they assess the damage/impact? (The answer was extremely. Which is alarming.)
The following bold text are names I made up for the talks. I didn’t write down the actual names and am too lazy to look up every single powerpoint I saw.
Japanese Resilience after the Tsunami
Technology to recycle and reuse disaster debris is a thing! They did it all over Japan.
How different was the prediction and reality of recovery of Japan? Their goal was to rebuild the city better than it was before – more resilient. But also as quickly as they could.
How does Japan’s response to their natural disaster compare to the rest of the world? (It’s actually an example of what to do, but what they did is realistically not even close to what needs to be done.)
How many people can realistically fit in Japan’s shelters? It reminds me of the Titanic. Are there enough boats? Is underground even safe?
Coastal residents were moved to higher ground. They didn’t just rebuild near the coasts, which had the highest property value, like American counties do. In fact, they are rebuilding whole towns 8 meters (that’s over 26 feet!) above sea level.
CO2 is the glue that binds soil together. Soil loss and erosion are happening at 20x the rate at which soil is being made.
What’s Happening in Brazil?
How do we quantify sustainability? Using the Envision Rating System, which has about 60 criteria. The next edition will have more. Are they the only folks assessing response post-disaster? They are using drones to see the impacts.
In Brazil’s Amazon, absentee stakeholders plan the infrastructure with zero input from the people who live there. They are building hydroelectric dams all over the forest, but the communities right next to them don’t get any electricity!
What the Army Isn’t Doing About Climate Change
Smartgrids are super hot right now and most people think they’re the answer. But they don’t work for big problems, only small, because of the central control. Picture a hierarchy – what happens when the top is cut off?
Why is everything assessed in silos? When do they bring it together?
Are network systems similar to systems thinking? (the answer was no, they didn’t even know what that was.)
(He also presented a diagram of a smartgrid and the silos that we currently operate with, pointing out the flaws with both. When he failed to present a network or other model, I asked, “Why isn’t it a network? Why isn’t it 3D?” The answer was that we don’t have the visualization technology for those things right now. And even though we know it’s the best solution, we can’t use it, because we can’t easily visualize it. YIKES! Hellooo000oooo Systems Diagramming! It’s not 3D, but it’s a great next step! The speaker was well aware of the limitations, and lamented that he and other scientists in the army are now being largely ignored.)
A Panarchy’s Adaptive Cycle
Ecology is obsessed with the conservation phase of a panarchy’s adaptive cycle.
All of the investment after a natural disaster is focused on how quickly we can get ourselves back to the original stable state. Faster is considered better. The key point here is “original”. We are incentivized by speed, not resilience. Our paradox is that we strive to preserve that which must change. A solution is “creative collapse,” new feedbacks in the system. For example, controlled burning of grasslands. This prevention creates a means of co-existence.
Talk 3 – Climate Changes Health: Justice, Equity, Mitigation, and Activism
Many resources can be found at apha.org, including The Environmental Health Handbook.
Scientists in the 1920’s predicted that we’d be feeling the impacts of climate change in 100 years. (OH DAAAAAAMN)
Fact Sheets – Climate Change Health Tools to Communicate the Problem
How has the NIH not listened pollution or heat on the lists of the top causes of deaths in the US? (This was later answered. It’s because it’s very difficult to quantify the health impacts of pollution as there are too many impacts and sources of pollution. YIKES!)
MIssissippi is being hit hard by climate change. But the states nearby dont care. Why don’t they care more? Is it because half of these states are too far from the Mississippi to be, erm, educated or open enough to understand it?
How do you deal with the psychological phenomena of how saying facts cause people to believe the wrong thing with even more conviction?
Can we tax properties with property tax based on how well the property’s land drains water? Would this money help with when the properties in high-risk areas are destroyed?
Canada has a CO2 tax that goes into income tax refunds. The recipients have the option to put the money back into the community! Yay!
When talking with low-income folks, health does help to open the door. Talk about it in the context of loss of income. Also, just listen.
Good examples of dealing with hospital hazardous waste are the organization, “Practice Green Health,” Kaiser Permanente, and The Alliance of Nurses for Healthy Environments.
(This was the most disappointing talk I went to. On the one hand, I didn’t realize it would be a lecture about how to do activism. I fell asleep for a lot of the talk. On the other hand, I asked them what phrases or talking points resonated with low-income folks, and they refused to give any other than “talk about the health impacts and how that affects their income.” When I have canvassed, one of the most useful things I’ve gotten out of it is what key phrases resonate with people. If they are spending all of this time talking with stakeholders so they can make their reports, surely they’ve learned more than generalities! Talking about generalities doesn’t teach us anything. They’re scientists for crying out loud! Tell me how much pollution or natural disasters costs in hospital bills and missed work when a low-income person’s child gets sick or injured. They should know this number. Also, this is my biggest frustration with lecture. Give me a case study! Give me concrete details and results!)
During a networking portion, I milled around the foyer, creepily looking at people’s name tags. I was mostly looking for NASA, NSF, and other cool stuff. Much to my dismay, almost everyone had an academic nametag. Disappointed and confused, I asked someone who was running a University booth (they had some booths in the foyer) what the heck was going on. He said that because of the surprise furlough the day before, many government employees couldn’t fly out that day. Some changed their plane ticket, and some couldn’t make it for other reasons. When I asked an army person if they thought the administration did it on purpose, given that this conference was all about something it was adamantly against, their response was perfect. “I don’t think they gave it that much thought. I think it was just a coincidence.” Conservative response from a government representative or the administration is really that lacking in strategy?
Talk 4 – Panel on Resilient Infrastructure and the Sustained National Climate Assessment
How can we identify the early adopters in government among the sea of laggers? Are there any early adopters? I suppose they’re the ones at this conference.
Why aren’t we just assuming the worst-case scenarios and using the best technology that exists right now? (This was later answered. Turns out, it’s just too expensive. So, the places that are doing it right are building in stages toward the worst-case scenarios.)
Given that almost everyone is predicted to live in cities, has anything thought about building cities in the most high-elevation parts of the country? I think we should be at least thinking about this now because these high-elevation points are probably incredibly difficult to build on in their current states, such as mountains.
A town or city’s fear of being on their own when a disaster strikes is incentivizing governments to work together. Yay!
Can you use wells when they are underwater? Or does the sea ruin all the groundwater pretty quickly?
Maybe I can move to the highest elevation part of the country and get elected into office.
What the world needs is for theoretical scientist to move to applied science. What are the usual applied science degrees, job titles, or fields?
Scientists can be useful by adding comments and feedback to existing, open-source climate change help and guidance documents. This reminds me of how the book, The Martian, was written. He just started writing and posting it around and all sorts of scientists starting telling him, “Actually, if this were to really happen, it would happen this way…”
How can we get communities to trust models if they don’t trust evidence? (BEST QUESTION OF THE CONFERENCE!)
Is there a good foundational material to build floating cities on? I need to hoard that material.
We need to ask already fucked up areas how they have adapted, if at all. Not just natural disaster areas, but also areas starting to be affected and how they’re adapting. One of the speakers used farmers as an example. He went to speak with them as stakeholders, and they were full of all sorts of useful ways of getting around climate change.
Do we need to be building everything for the 100-year scenario?
If everything is already happening a zillion times faster than predicted, can’t we also realize that it’s too late for the 1 degree C goal? Can we finally just accept that and get to work?
Ironically, finance does think about things 50-100 years out. It’s also helpful to look at 100 year old companies.
Will high elevation property skyrocket in property value?
How quickly does sea level have to rise before the government uses eminent domain to seize the land because it’s “necessary”?
One of the speakers mentioned that when his house was destroyed, he hasn’t bothered to get it insured because there’s nothing to insure. But I wonder, can you insure not just the property, but also the land lost if it ends up underwater? Because, doesn’t the land itself have value? And like a destroyed house, underwater land won’t be salvageable.
Talk 5 – Panel on Teaching to the Future: Education for Sustainability
What if sustainability and resilience were part of gen-eds at colleges? Why aren’t they already?? A ton of the folks here are from academia!
How many scientists are in elected office?
He’s talking about how in the 1970’s, the sustainability movement thought they were apolitical and convinced themselves that climate change was. Many folks wrote books about how sustainability has to be political, but they weren’t listened to. It reminds me of a recent blog post by Laura Gitman, arguably the best professor at Bard MBA. It matches perfectly how the sustainability movement regrets being apolitical in the early days – perhaps things could be different. Laura says she wonders if making the “business case” for sustainability all this time was the right move. Instead of appealing to capitalist interest in the bottom line, she and other sustainability consultants could have created momentum around the triple bottom line much earlier. Over time, values have been completely removed from capitalism. You’ll hear more about that later, when an ambassador from France gives a talk. Please read her blog post. It’s extremely insightful. And at this point, history repeating itself.
There is a Green Tea Party in Georgia doing good things.
At Penn State, scientists and teams doing interdisciplinary work are being rewarded just as much as depth-based professors. Currently in academia, scientists are pigeonholed into deeper and deeper research of one thing because that is rewarded in grant money and tenure. It’s the safe way to go. An example is one of my former employees, who had spent her entire career studying Vitamin D. At Penn State, they reward professors for doing valuable work, regardless of how safe it is or how much grant money they get.
Bill is a biochemist who wrote an article about how we don’t need to discover new science, but need to rediscover old science. PREACH! (I tried to find this article, but couldn’t figure out the right search terms).
We need to prioritize knowledge and what needs to be learned. Right now, we’re just mindlessly studying whatever with zero intention. (More on this later).
Business is so much more efficient in impact and getting people to adjust mindsets. Even CIE is doing this. Why is this conference so much about academia and not about business? Why are the only business speakers I’ve seen so far from Mars junkfood and a bank!?
climatefixes.org – how to get out of doom and gloom and do something about climate change!
Dr. Debra Rowe – a rockstar and my hero. She tells it like it is and what we can do about it with specific detail! Are you listening apha.org?
National Science Foundation – they’re embracing Centers of Excellence! Shout out to Rocky Mountain Research Station, who came up with it! NSF says they’re doing it to be healthy learning and work environments for everyone.
Scientists can’t be “unbiased” anymore because it’s not even scientifically accurate. No one’s unbiased, so science isn’t and has never been unbiased. We need to BRING IN VALUES, because sustainability is really about values.
Boldness, Genius, Magic, and Power!
Talk 6 – Achieving an Integrated Surface Transportation System for All Users
The 2017 Environmental Excellence Awards. What cities, towns, whatever did the best stuff this past year. Learn from them.
Collaboration always makes things go way quicker.
Head to the FHWA website for tons of resources, including anything from how to talk about climate change prep to how to facilitate a collaboration.
Sign up for their newsletter to learn about Successes in Stewardship. For example, the West Coast is helping the East Coast with what to do about salmon.
CSS – Context-sensitive solutions. It’s the holistic development of projects. The FHWA has guidance docs for how to do collaborations for consensus, creativity, and flexibility. Wow!
What about roads and the oil industry? Is that why our public transit and rail system sucks? (This was later answered…an undefinitive probably.)
They are thinking a lot about self-driving cars in the future. They don’t have any projects on how long it will take.
Will self-driving cars increase overall transit system use? (They are doing pilots all around the country. So, maybe).
EJ Screening Tools Peer Network Summary Report. (This symposium track has too many links to keep looking up. Look it up yourself!)
NHI Fundamentals of EJ Course
The Why & How of Measuring Access to Opportunity, A Guide to Performance Management
The Purple Book – assessing socioeconomic activity
They don’t have an opinion on gentrification or equity, their job is to share case studies, best practices and tools, and meeting multiple objectives. In a way, whatever ends up in the documents are their opinions. One solution that a state could do that seems to work is subsidizing housing. One factor of assessment is how many jobs can someone reach in their locale? Especially from public transit.
What’s an example of a health impact? Is it like getting to the hospital or the impacts of VOC’s?
Aren’t tolls a form of capitalism and decreasing equity? Are there subsidized toll lanes?
Measuring Multimodal Network Connectivity, Like Bikes + Cars
How much do they talk with companies and their distribution systems? UPS, Walmart, Amazon. Are companies helping?
Are more bike lanes increasing biking or are people still complaining about the creation of bike lanes? Well, in some cities, they don’t have to! Road Diets are when car lanes are narrowed to add bike lanes. This reminds me of when I first moved from Maryland to California and was like geeze, these are some skinny lanes! Also, natural disasters in Houston actually increased bike use.
Small Town & Rural Planning – make better use of the shoulders for bike lanes
New administration is heavily focused on rural networks. (WTF? What about low-income urban areas like West Baltimore??)
What about teaching people how to bike on highway-like lanes? What’s the etiquette?
They are crowdsourcing traffic data.
Why wasn’t Seattle on the map of cities that need attention cause of bike fatalities. (Because Seattle’s so safe for bikes.)
Deaths decrease and traffic flow improves when you go from 4 lanes to 3. (How neat! I am now thinking about this everywhere I drive.)
The website even has a pretty picture library for people to put in their powerpoint presentations.
Talk 7 – Ambassador Gérard Araud, Ambassador of France to the United States
This talk was not very good in general.
But I got very mad when he said that it’s easy to get things done in America because all we care about is money. He claimed that “France’s barrier is that it’s culturally theological.”
Well, Mr. Araud, maybe America and the world wouldn’t be such a climate change shitshow if we hadn’t taken out the theology, or had at least included some values!
Sadly, like I’ve noticed at many other conferences, no one remembered him dropping a bomb, and most people laughed when he had. SIGH.
Ugh, moving on.
Accidental Talk 8 – Co-Designing Community Resilience: A Hands-On Workshop to Launch New Community Science Projects
Like any good conference, some of the schedule rooms had typos. I ended up in the wrong room, and much to my disappointment and surprise, was seeing an introduction to Design Thinking. But before I realized that, something gelled for me that I had mulling over the whole conference.
The speaker in this design-thinking workshop started with some work he’d done with malaria. They wanted people to stop getting malaria, and instead of collecting a bunch of data about mosquitos and the weather and geographic concentrations of malaria outbreaks and whatever else, they just looked at what times of the year malaria outbreaks occurred. Turns out, whenever humidity got to a certain level, there would be a humidity outbreak. This! they could work with. Turns out, it happened at extremely predictable times, so they could take preventative measures with drastically fewer resources and huge impact.
Then he said something that blew my mind:
If you accomplish the goal with correlative data, you don’t really need to know the causation.
Oh, snap! Science just got p0wned.
You see, in business, government, and any sort of stakeholder engagement, folks are realizing that a top-down approach doesn’t work.
Top (CEO’s) –>other people in the hierarchy –> Bottom (factory workers). We are now realizing that in addition to listening to everything our customers have to say, we need to listen to the people who are on the ground floor! Because they know substantially more about the business than the disengaged top. Finally!
So in this context, the goal is to have a “Bottom-Up Approach”.
EXCEPT FOR SCIENCE
In science, it’s currently a Bottom-Up Approach.
Let’s collect a shitton of data –> Let’s use the data to determine what the risks are –> Now that we know the risks, let’s work on mitigation and prevention
THIS NEVER WORKED. And in order to survive, we can’t do anything this way anymore.
Check this out:
What’s our goal? No more malaria. –> Malaria comes from mosquitos. When are there the most mosquitos? –> What data do we need to collect in order to know how to mitigate this risk? Mosquito populations explode when a certain humidity threshold is met.
To bring it full circle:
If you accomplish the goal with correlative data, you don’t really need to know the causation.
We really shouldn’t give a shit about the causation if our problems get solved!
There were several themes that kept repeating throughout the conference.
- The problem with government conflating risk with resilience
- The importance of focusing our efforts on the local level
- The signs that we were already seeing of climate change, such as California’s Sonoma County burning down or New Orleans now being the southernmost city on the Mississippi because the other got swallowed up by sea level rise.
- The need for better ways to communicate, collaborate, and especially for the scientific community (and IMHO EVERYWHERE), cross disciplines. DOWN WITH SILOS!
- Science is becoming irrelevant in the face of climate change
- Courageous satire. So many great examples of witty, heartachingly truthful satire said by some of our country’s grittiest, tenacious, and generous people.
Many folks had presented about these topics and potential solutions to them. I wish they could have seen each others’ presentations, because almost every problem I heard was solved in another presentation.
So it occurred to me that while I was in college, student-designed majors were frowned upon.
“Oh, you’re doing a student-designed major? Have fun being unemployed.”
Now, I realize that they were geniuses! This is how education should always have been! It’s the whole point of MOOC’s! All majors and education in general should be student-designed!
Learn the skills that are relative to the problems you want to solve and the impact you want to have in the world. Why pigeonhole ourselves into a “discipline” or “field”? If you think about it, IT’S A TOTAL WASTE OF TIME!
Just like collecting random data with no direction. It’s all about the goal! The direction! It seems so obvious now.
Talk 8 – The Backbone of Sustainable Infrastructure: Cooperative Ownership & Public Banks
After scribbling down all of these revelations, it finally sank in that I was not in the talk that I wanted to be in. And that I already knew most of what was going to be taught, even if it was in a different flavor.
The speaker announces that we’re going to do an icebreaker (it is, after all, a room of introverts :P). Turn to your partner and introduce yourself, answer some questions, and tell them about yourself. WOMP WOMP
I turn to my partner and say, “I’m sorry, but I’m going to be the biggest asshole right now. I just realized that I’m not in the talk I had intended to be in, and I’m going to leave. I’m so sorry.”
She said no worries, and sat there for a second with no intention of getting to know anyone. I wasn’t going to let her totally off the hook, so as I was walking out, I said to the two folks on the other side of her (because there was now an odd number of people at the table), “Hey, I’m heading out. So you two are going to be a threesie.” They turned to her to include her, fully accepting her into their duo, and I hustled out the door.
As I walked into the talk I’d meant to be in, of course, it was exactly my turn to introduce myself to the room because everyone else had just finished their introduction.
I asked what were the three things they wanted me to say about myself, and they told me.
“Hi, my name is Heather Bowden, and I have a biology and nanomaterials background (I mean, I wasn’t going to say Marketing Director. It was a conference for scientists!). I am here because I just moved to Maryland from Seattle and fell in love with cooperatives while I was there.
One of the panelists immediately chimed in with, “Seattle! Why on earth would you leave Seattle?”
So frazzled from being late, I muttered, “Oh, you know. Mental breakdown.”
Fortunately, everyone was half asleep and didn’t notice. But sheesh, I gotta work on keeping my cool.
One panelist was from Amalgamated Bank, which has a sustainability practice.
Another had a book called, “The Public Bank Solution” and a talk show.
There was also a guy who knew stuff and worked with the author at The Public Banking Institute.
Apparently, some of them were also last minute panelists, like at so many other talks, all because of the furlough
Public Banks – finance infrastructure internally by the people, which results in projects requiring half the cost. Yeah, you heard that right. It’s been proven all over the world.
1) Banks, not governments, produce vast majority of the money supply.
In the UK, banks are not intermediaries. They create money digitally through loans and extending credit. It’s kind of like funding prosperity because it’s community development and infrastructure at half the cost.
This idea is a great example of rediscovering old knowledge, at least for America.
M0 – Coins, $
M1 – Coins, $, checkbook money
M2 – Coins, $, checkbook money, CD’s and Long-Term investments
M3 – Coins, $, checkbook money, CD’s and Long-Term investments, and Shadow Banking.
Shadow banking is why 0.1% of people who almost all of the wealth.
2) While creating a banking system, it should not fund fossil fuel infrastructure. We need to convince banks to divest because it’ll put the biggest dent into the fossil fuel industry.
3) We as creators for credit, can create financing we want because money determines policy. We need to reclaim democratic control of money by moving into a new paradigm. Logic won’t cut it. It needs to include the emotional, national, metaphysical, and faith. We need to empower ourselves to speak openly about these things. (Sound familiar? Re: Laura Giftman’s post on the Triple Bottom Line).
We need to find ways to finance each other, such as nationalized banks for public interest.
Myth: Money is scarce. FALSE. Money is not scarce, it’s just in the control of a small group.
Don’t try to go head-to-head with bad power. Come up with something better!
The Bank of North Dakota is a 98-year old bank that was fine through the financial crisis. In fact, it was in the black! It’s the only state-owned bank in the country. The Wall Street Journal said that it was more profitable than the top 3 big banks combined. In their charter, they say that they don’t compete with local banks and actually are have to partner with them!
Book – Killing the Host
The current banking system is just like a cartel run by the mafia.
Budgets should be moral documents.
Google: Davos Forum, Global Alliance for Banking on Values, B-Corp certified banks to choose from
In Germany, banks only invest in the community, so it’s low risk.
New Jersey is getting a state bank. Probably. Almost certainly.
Banks are corporations and can therefore be Benefit Corporations and Social Purpose Corporations as legal entities.
What would the language of the policy be to prevent regulation that allows banks to create new financial instruments as others are made illegal (only after financial collapse…)? It reminds me of pesticides, where every 80 or so years, a bunch of people get sick and die, the pesticides are made illegal, and they’re just replaced with new, just as bad ones. What policy could get us out of this terrible cycle? (Answer: It’s not possible :()
The speakers at almost all of the panels were super good at telling tangible and illustrative stories.
There were a few heated (probably more like warmed) debates, but for the most part, everyone was on the same side.
Some were getting cynical, but most were still resisting cynicism.
The three main takeaways were: focus on the local level, interdisciplinary is a bazillion times better than silos, and resilience is our goal – not just getting back to baseline (which as we saw in the beginning of the conference, is now 2017).
The last talk was The John H. Chafee Memorial Lecture on Science, Policy and the Environment. John H Chafee isn’t around anymore, but his bff’s son was around to give the talk.
I’ll do my best to share the story Senator Sheldon Whitehouse shared with us to end the conference on a positive note.
When the furlough happened, the Senate was handed a memo saying that the furlough was happening. They were not included in the conversation whatsoever, along with the other brand. The Senate, turns out, includes a lot of climate change sympathists. But thanks to good ole super PACs, they feel like their hands are tied. Cowards.
Except for the day when the furlough was announced. Senator Whitehouse said that the Democrats and Republicans were so fed up with being ignored by the executive brand and excluded from the conversation, that they met in the middle and got something done IN AN HOUR. Which never happens. The Senator indicated that both sides of the Senate were teaming up to finally use their checks-and-balances power, as the Senator noted, was the whole point of having it in the first place.
We’ll see what comes of it.
I hope to go again next year. But a part of me wonders if there will even be anyone left to attend. It could be cause all the scientists are finally fired. Or science is scrubbed from academia. Or we experience that mass human extinction a decade sooner than predicted.
I’m not going to edit this because it’s 12:30 am, and it’s bedtime. Whatever state this blog post is in, I’m sure you’ll get the jist, if you make it this far.
If any of us make it this far ::dramatic pause::