How do you sell an 'ecological civilization'?

There were lessons for Seattle greens in the PR strategies of Big Oil and automakers at Shanghai 2010. The climax of an expo selling sustainability was a global summit on urban development.

The Oil Pavilion, Shanghai 2010 Expo

Urso Chappell

The Oil Pavilion, Shanghai 2010 Expo

The SAIC-GM Pavilion sold a future based on smart cars and Power Rangers-style dancers.

Urso Chappell

The SAIC-GM Pavilion sold a future based on smart cars and Power Rangers-style dancers.

Using children to deliver green messages: The Spanish Pavilion employed a giant robotic baby

Urso Chappell

Using children to deliver green messages: The Spanish Pavilion employed a giant robotic baby

"Oil Baby"

Shanghai 2010 Expo

"Oil Baby"

On the final day of the record-breaking Shanghai Expo 2010 (Oct. 31), the urban-themed world's fair featured a summit on sustainability. That, in fact, was the whole conceptual point of the exposition. Its purpose was to model "Better City, Better Life," which meant trying to find ways of making metropolises more planet- and human-friendly while accommodating massive growth. 

Already, more than half of humanity lives in cities. The issue is global, but China, as the largest "developing nation," is seen as a laboratory for sustainability because in many respects its development is leaping from the 19th century to the 21st, without having gotten too bogged down in the mistakes of the 20th. It is also traveling at light-speed and has adopted a plan to move much of its population from the countryside into the city, a great leap forward marked in a film shown in China's national pavilion called "The Road to Our Beautiful Life." It might be a road, but the pace is strictly maglev (magnetic levitation). Last month, China also launched the world's fastest train.

It's a strange contrast to come from the Shanghai summit meeting, a gathering of world leaders, Nobel laureates, and the U.N. Secretary General, who discuss global warming as an unquestioned reality, and return to a country where much of the political leadership thinks man-made global warming is a hoax, and where the new Congress looks like it will derail meaningful climate legislation. What was in the Tea Party's cups? Oil.

The end-of-the-expo summit was marked by the release of the "Shanghai Declaration," a commitment on the part of the Expo's participants (some 190 countries) to make a path to a low-carbon future. The day after I returned to the U.S., a Republican tide, helped along by economic frustration and Tea Party rage, moved America further out of the global warming mainstream.

Fifty per cent of the newly elected GOP members of Congress deny that climate change has anything to do with human behavior. Most of the rest of the world accepts the opposite not just as a fact but also as something on which to base action.  In China, low-carbon goals are cemented into the newest five-year plan, according to Premier Wen Jinbao, who spoke to the Shanghai assemblage. Even conservative, Western governments in Britain, France, and Germany accept that tackling global warming is imperative.

This is not to say that China, like most of the developed and much of the undeveloped world, is not a living contradiction. While a post-carbon future was imagined at many of the pavilions, including the SAIC-General Motors showcase featuring a 4-D film highlighting zero-carbon transportation in the Shanghai of 2030, there was some dissonance between the sustainability theme and the messages of some exhibitors. 

Auto companies have long used fairs to sell their vision of the world, including sprawl and freeways. GM and Ford have both featured actual auto assembly lines in pavilions to dazzle visitors. At Seattle's Century 21 fair in 1962, we were promised nuclear-powered cars that looked like Batmobiles. In Shanghai, automakers pushed new technologies even while their vision of 2030 seemed like a faster, bigger version of Shanghai in 2010, crisscrossed with wide (though not congested) freeways. The push was still for single-occupancy vehicles, albeit they were supposed to be non-polluting. The SAIC-GM film ended with a display of smart electric cars surrounded by what looked like dancing Power Rangers. 

Nearby were representatives of the unrepentant oil industry, a popular player at the Shanghai Expo. Oil producers created some of the most well-attended pavilions (Saudi Arabia, Iran, United Arab Emirates, Russia), and the Chinese oil companies sponsored the China Oil Pavilion, an unapologetic temple to fossil fuels. It was a throwback to U.S. fair pavilions of the 1930s or 1960s when oil companies like Sinclair featured giant mechanical dinosaurs to delight the kids.

A fabulous, spare-no-expenses 4-D film reminded us that oil is really cool because it's made of dead dinosaurs, and that petroleum products are so much a part of life, that if you took away oil, we'd have no modern conveniences, and very few clothes. The film actually showed people reduced to working in their underwear or standing baffled in their denuded homes as the computer erased everything they owned that was made from oil products. At the end of the exhibit, kids could have their pictures taken with a mascot that looked like a cross between a honey drop and a yellow smiley face: this was "Oil Baby," the cute, cuddly way oil will be remembered by many who passed through the pavilion.

The exhibit was well done and highly entertaining, and the message in Europe or the U.S. (outside of Texas and Alaska, anyway) would have been ridiculed. It was high-tech, but very old school, and I'm sure Uncle Dick Cheney would have thought it the right message for the kids. No mention of oil leaks, the Gulf Coast disaster, pollution, drowning polar bears, or other unpleasantness. Its main point was: You're addicted to oil, and you need us. But it also highlighted some of the conflicts between envisioning a zero-carbon utopia and the reality of today when selling cars, electric or not, and building roads are still a huge part of the economy and the global equation.

Still, while the Chinese are bridging multiple centuries, they are making progress where we are not. No debate about the value of high-speed rail in China, but in the U.S. conservative governors are canceling projects. The Chinese have moved aggressively to build lower-carbon goals into their plans, and they suffer not from Seattle-style gridlock on public projects. They are preaching the gospel of urbanization, and as a country where most of the population lives along the coast or rivers, populous neighbors (like India) crowd the nation's borders, and the Himalayas supply its water, the Chinese have to plan smartly.

Urban growth isn't simply a matter of watching more Portlands and Copenhagens bloom. The United Nations estimates that by 2050, 70 percent of the world's population will be crammed into dense urban corridors marked by crowding and pollution. A major form of urbanization, from the Middle East to Africa to South America, is the shantytown. While Seattle looks for a semi-permanent "tent city" to house 100 to 150 people, tens of millions worldwide live in so-called "self-built" communities. In some cities, a quarter to half of the urban population lives in shantytowns. In other words, simply urbanizing isn't enough. The task is to help everyone leap over the 20th century's mistakes and avoid the pitfalls of intense, rapid urbanization by employing strategies that lead to a brighter, smarter, greener future, even if the result is a smarter, green shantytown.

The Shanghai Declaration focuses on a program to develop what it calls "Cities of Harmony." The path is to create an "ecological civilization" based on renewable resources and low-carbon cities, social equity, scientific innovation, high-tech information systems, cultural diversity, heritage, openness, "rational" planning and public participation, and urban engagement with rural needs.

There's little here to disagree with in the broad brush, but lots in the details. I did not get to the Tibet Pavilion in the Chinese Provinces Joint Pavilion, for example. But the guidebook promised it would celebrate "New Tibet, Better Life" by highlighting improvements like rail and housing, while honoring the Tibetan culture's "unique charms." While the Chinese might consider, say, independent nomadic lifestyles to be examples of quaint "folk" culture, to Tibetans they are a way of life threatened by Chinese ideas of "progress." Many ethnic groups, including Native Americans, know their culture's in big trouble when it's considered under the heading of heritage and folk traditions. That's the stuff of museums and archaeologists.


Like what you just read? Support high quality local journalism. Become a member of Crosscut today!

Comments:

Posted Wed, Dec 1, 7:46 a.m. Inappropriate

How do you sell an "ecological civilization"?

So far, with a bunch of lies.

BlueLight

Posted Wed, Dec 1, 9:18 a.m. Inappropriate

Ok Bluelight, I am curious.. what are the lies?

planetes

Posted Wed, Dec 1, 9:41 a.m. Inappropriate

Green jobs that haven't materialized.
Energy saving that haven't been realized.
Return-on-investment claims that don't pan out.
Transit ridership claims that don't pan out.
Green energy production claims that don't pan out.
Costs.
Etc.

Here is a link to a rather old story; many lies have been perpetrated since.

http://www.businessweek.com/magazine/content/07_44/b4056001.htm

BlueLight

Posted Wed, Dec 1, 10:07 a.m. Inappropriate

Here's one (I suspect) that appeared yesterday in the Seattle Weekly (yes, you can denigrate the source, I suppose).

The title was: 5 Environmental Offenses You're Committing That Are Way Worse Than Throwing Away a Starbucks Coffee Cup

http://blogs.seattleweekly.com/dailyweekly/2010/11/5_environmental_offenses_youre.php

The number 1 thing? To quote: "Leaving appliances plugged in. Sometimes referred to as "Vampire Power" (settle down, Twilight fans, it wont make you leap through trees or develop rock hard abs) the DOE says the 75 percent of the electricity used in an average home comes from appliances that are turned off.

In the article the word "says" is linked to the Department of Energy website. A curious reader (like me) clicks that link for documentation of the 75% claim. Unfortunately that gets you a "page not found" message from DOE.

I am not an energy expert. I am a layperson. I say the 75% is a lie. Can you provide documentation to support it?

BlueLight

Posted Wed, Dec 1, 1:03 p.m. Inappropriate

"Energy saving that haven't been realized."

Better tell my building manager to remove all those compact florescent bulbs they installed.

And I guess I'll just rip out the insulation in my attic, I'm sure that it isn't paying for itself in lower heating bills.

Oh my high mileage Toyota, yep, toss that too, bring back my 6mpg GMC truck. Obviously the cost of fuel isn't a factor in my spending.

BlueLight, what planet do get these things from?

GaryP

Posted Wed, Dec 1, 1:08 p.m. Inappropriate

It's called The Real World, Gary. You should visit it, sometime.

BlueLight

Posted Wed, Dec 1, 1:59 p.m. Inappropriate

BlueLight, in the world I live in, all of the energy saving things that I have done to my house have paid for themselves.

Obviously there are snake oil salesmen in all fields, and "Green Life" is as full of them as the banking industry.

GaryP

Posted Wed, Dec 1, 2:38 p.m. Inappropriate

Bad Web editing at the Weekly, it looks like. Here's a current DOE page on the matter:
http://www.energysavers.gov/your_home/appliances/index.cfm/mytopic=10020
"If you live in a typical U.S. home, your appliances and home electronics are responsible for about 20% of your energy bills."

Posted Wed, Dec 1, 2:48 p.m. Inappropriate

Sorry, that quote isn't related, is it. Try this:
http://www.energysavers.gov/your_home/appliances/index.cfm/mytopic=10070

ENERGY STAR® computers power down to a sleep mode that consume 15 Watts or less power, which is around 70% less electricity than a computer without power management features.

Perhaps the Weekly writer was reading too quickly and grabbed the number (70%, 75%, what have you) without realizing what it referred to.

Makes me think of a pair of Washington Post stories on the importance of accurate numerical analysis in journalism...

http://voices.washingtonpost.com/ombudsman-blog/2010/11/data_analysis_and_the_furture.html (http://goo.gl/tCLKp for short)

Posted Wed, Dec 1, 2:54 p.m. Inappropriate

You call it bad editing.
I call it disinformation.
Someone else might call it propaganda.

The green movement is rife with lies and the press has been all-too-willing to parrot them.

BlueLight

Posted Wed, Dec 1, 3:01 p.m. Inappropriate

Just curious, Benjamin... why are you trying to explain/excuse something from another publication?

BlueLight

Posted Wed, Dec 1, 3:14 p.m. Inappropriate

While I agree with the general premise, that global mega cities are where the action should be to reduce fossil fuel dependence, it's also important to go beyond the Shanghai expo's glitz (and hype) to see if China is really setting a good example. Unfortunately, the numbers say it isn't (http://www.eia.doe.gov/emeu/cabs/China/Background.html). China's consumption of all primary carbon energy resources (coal, oil, gas) is rapidly rising, not falling. Together they comprise 93 percent of its total energy consumption. Which is why China last year surpassed the US in total annual volume of greenhouse gas emissions. And why it, along with the US, has not ratified the Copenhagen Accord.

Posted Wed, Dec 1, 3:14 p.m. Inappropriate

"I am not an energy expert. I am a layperson. I say the 75% is a lie. Can you provide documentation to support it?"

I don't have any statistics handy but as an engineer I wouldn't be surprised at all if this is true for specific appliances depending on their usage rates. Examples like a DVD player that sits there doing nothing for more than 2 hours a week. The remaining hours it has a small charge running through it that over the course of the week would probably far exceed the amount consumed during the 2 hours of actual work.

That said, a fridge far outweighs the dvd player in terms of energy consumption.

planetes

Posted Wed, Dec 1, 4:45 p.m. Inappropriate

Selling an ecological civilization, summit on sustainability, "Better City, Better Life", Shanghai Declaration, zero carbon utopia, green shantytowns, "Cities of Harmony"-all of it sounds like, ultimately, it will lead to each person living in a 400 square foot high rise city pod with perfect connectivity and a life style based on selling /performing "exquisite" art works world wide to our individual communities of interest while living a non-traveling, low carbon, perfectly engineered life in a perfectly engineered environment that tends to our individual needs ( like the spaceship people in "Wall-E"?). It's all lovely and satisfying until, as E.M. Forster explicates it, "The Machine Stops".
I think the deeper question is not whether we can manufacture an ecological civilization, but whether an ecological civilization based on cities and an ever expanding population and development was ever possible at all. Furthermore, much of what I read about creating sustainable cities/environments seems to ignore other realities such as the psychological and sociological givens of human nature. Unfortunately, we are not as "plastic" as so much of what we have created.
Madrona

walker

Posted Thu, Dec 2, 12:05 p.m. Inappropriate

@Madrona--

This seems to raise the question, can cultures learn? We know they can adapt in all kinds of astonishingly imaginative ways. Societies have found ways to live, more or less sustainably, in deserts, mountains, the Arctic, equatorial jungles, etc. Some cultures do much better than others at living sustainably. Can a culture like ours (I mean industrialized urban American), which is brilliant at technological innovation but not too good at sustainability, deliberately choose to change itself into something profoundly different? I think we are very plastic but limited, too, and not at all in control of how we can and can't change; the way cultures change (or don't) seems to happen mainly outside our conscious intentions. Which may be why artists and religious movements often seem more able than governments to bring about cultural change.

Posted Thu, Dec 2, 2:45 p.m. Inappropriate

Well, if you had to judge from this comment thread, the outlook for us learning would be pretty glum. The rest of the world, though, doesn't seem to be having much problem grasping the basic outlines of the problem- maybe because they don't know any better, and very lazily are listening to the scientists instead of taking the time to tune into Fox news for the "analysis".

Almost uniquely among nations, as the world's largest economy, we could almost painlessly fix this problem- if we wanted to. Even today, about 2% of our GDP annually, over the next 30 years, would bring us in under the wire, if only just. That's about half of what we spend on our war machine, and we spend as much as the rest of the world combined on war, so it's entirely possible we could take the money out of the war budget and use it for actually defending ourselves against an actual problem.

In this post Knute suggests that Greens could learn more about 'selling' their message and persuade more people. I think we've seen how that goes when a 'Legalize Pot' initiative is on the ballot. Early polling suggests a 60% majority for passage, and then the oligarchy piles on, with testimonial from (or paid for by) the prison guards union, the police chief guild, the 'treatment' industry, and of course, those notorious anti-drug fighters, the liquor companies and big drug companies.

As long as we're ruled by an oligarchy, they will make the decisions. They have more to lose than any of us, so lets just hope they make god decisions. Historically, oligarchies usually don't, but if we're not ready to change this, we must live with it.

Posted Sat, Dec 4, 11:48 a.m. Inappropriate

-serial_catowner and Dwight D. Eisenhower are absolutely right.

jmrolls

Login or register to add your voice to the conversation.

Join Crosscut now!
Subscribe to our Newsletter

Follow Us »