Original Proposal and Scoping Document

Living Room Conversation- Energy/Climate Change

 

The Situation:

Many Americans are increasingly concerned and alarmed by negative social, civic, economic and environmental trends that do not bode well for a brighter future.  Many are also disheartened and frustrated with the divisive and combative tone that dominates our politics, the news media, and all the way down to the unfriendly conversations at the dining room table.  Many share a frustration about gridlock and failure to make headway on important issues in a responsible, sensible, timely and cooperative manner.  

 

The Issue:

One subject of growing concern and divide is climate change.  Many feel/believe strongly that climate change is the most important and urgent issue of our times, that there is sufficient risk or evidence that it is happening, and that human activity is a contributing cause.  At the same time a growing number of people have come to an opposing perspective and feel/believe that climate change is not happening, that human activity is not the cause and/or have serious reservations about a heavy-handed government response.  These differences are fomenting divisive political, media and public discourse.  The debate distracts from addressing issues related to our national security, economic vitality, technology and social innovation, water and food quality, environmental health and social wellbeing.  

 

The Question:

With climate change as the primary subject for half the participants, what is required to have a 2.5 hour, small group, living-room conversation between an equal number of people with opposing beliefs that is respectful, overcomes defensiveness, reveals common ground, generates a heartfelt connection (based on shared values, concerns and interest) and leaves participants willing to talk further about climate change and quite possibly some other issues as well.  

 

The Conversation/Experiment Construct:

• How can the topic and purpose of the conversation be framed and themed in a neutral (not perceived as hyperbolic) and common sense way to provide a strong foundation for the invitation and for conducting the conversation?

• What are the essential ground-rules for the conversation to support listening, openness, curiosity, etc.?

• What are the essential questions that will guide the conversation and provide an effective vehicle for most of the people in the small group to get connected to their own, and to one another’s, deep heartfelt concerns/commitments about what is happening now and the legacy the current generation is leaving for our children and grandchildren?  For half the group climate change is established and reiterated as a priority concern.  For the other half of the group the top issues of concern will be shared and learned at the time of the conversation. 

• What are the sub issues/areas/aspects (related to climate change) where an opportunity for further conversation and even action would be welcomed? (Examples might include; oil dependency and national security or smart grid and reducing inefficiency.)

• What is the process for returning to a respectful and productive interaction if one or more people become upset, belligerent or even enraged?

• What are the various “next steps” that groups might invent and agree to based on finding common ground/concern and passion? (To be learned.)

 

 

Preparation:

• Research and design a framing, definitions and key distinctions “issue document” about climate change and sub issues with attention to the various realms of discourse (political, scientific, media, and public) participants may be informed and influenced by.

• Research and design the “bridging divides” conversation/process construct.   Identify, innovate and integrate the best possible ground-rules, questions and conversational constructs that are politically, ideologically and agenda neutral (acceptable to conservatives and progressives, men and women, young and old….. not offensive to anyone).

 

The Experiment:

• Identify hosts (an individual or teams of two or three) who are willing to convene and be part of a group of six (total) of which 3 people are firm in their belief and opinion that climate change must be addressed and three who have serious doubts about climate change, the role of human activity and/or the magnitude of the response. Again, the experiment seeks to understand how reasonable people with opposing views on climate change and who all care about contributing to a better future come to understand, be persuaded, and find common ground on values and opportunities for cooperative action.   

• Conduct six gatherings; two in Oregon, two in Colorado and two in California.  Groups will be configured intentionally based on gender, age, rural/urban perspective, political affiliation and more.   

• Three different moderators will produce two sessions each in each of the three states.  They will support the host, provide only light facilitation (set the stage and timekeeping) and refrain from heavy facilitation/mediation except in the event of a significant breakdown or opportunity.  As much as possible we want the group to be self-facilitating, self-correcting and self-generating of insights and next steps. 

• The project moderators will provide hosts with encouragement, guidance and the necessary materials (above) to make invitations set the stage and help guide the conversations. 

 

After the Living-room Conversations: 

• Conduct a paper/electronic follow-up survey of all participants

• The moderator team of three will conduct phone interviews with 18 of the participants; 6 from each state, 8 from the differing perspectives with attention to a diverse and balanced representative selection (gender, age, affiliation, etc.). 

• Compile notes, transcriptions and produce a findings report on key learning, how they can be applied, and possible next steps.

 

Possible Outcomes

If small group dynamics do work well best practices could be refined and improved, including eliminating the need for a facilitator.  The goal would be to create materials that make it possible to replicate the process in local communities nation-wide.  Grassroots organizations for which climate change is a priority could then lead initiatives fostering these bridge building conversations.  Ultimately we would hope to empower the grassroots to lead the leaders by working to change the polarized dynamics locally and ultimately nationally

 

 

 

Other possible and helpful outcomes include:

 

1.  Those who seek more cooperation and effective action on climate change benefit from the advice and help of people that believe climate change was a hoax or unimportant learning how to better approach and engage others that are not actively addressing issues related to climate change.

 

2. This project might confirm or identify opportunities to work on solutions that don't require supporters to believe in climate change to agree that a given investment is of mutual interest- smart grid, efficiency, local solar, etc.

 

COVER LETTER and a DRAFT INVITATION / FRAMING from Joan Blades

 

From: Joan Blades <joan@momsrising.org>

 

Dear Friends:

 

It is a good time to explore how we might create different dynamics  

around addressing climate change in this country.  Progress on  

responding to climate change has bogged down in the political sphere.  

Leadership is polarized and has become calcified in its views.  What  

avenues are there for bumping us out of this hole?   There is reason  

to hope real constructive conversation could still happen locally in  

communities.  We want to understand just what average citizens who  

oppose addressing the risk of climate change are thinking, and we want  

to see if there is a way to shift their view of the challenge.

 

We are prepared to gather 6 small groups of people, 1/2 who don't  

believe we have to address the issue of climate change and 1/2 who do,  

individuals who are able so speak from their hearts as well as their  

heads, plus one low profile facilitator/observer, in an informal, safe  

environment.   We are hoping to discover new paths to common ground or  

affirm paths that are already recognized.  We hope to give those of us  

who believe addressing climate change is a priority additional insight  

about how to proceed.  If a mixed group doesn't work well, maybe a  

group of women or moms will be more productive.  We will do both.   

There is data suggesting that leading with women might be key. Talking  

about the climate story in an environment where the conservatives are  

not part of a political team dynamic that has taken a hard position  

against believing climate change is a risk that must be addressed  

could result in finding common ground.  And in the process of  

listening to their top concerns we may find even more common ground in  

other areas.  We are proposing an experiment to explore what is  

possible.

 

Optimal outcome- If small group dynamics do work well, minds are  

changed and the desire to address climate change becomes shared, best  

practices could be refined and improved, including eliminating the  

need for a facilitator.  The goal would be to create a set of  

materials that make it possible to replicate the process in local  

communities nation wide.  Grassroots organizations for whom climate  

change is a priority could then lead fostering these conversations.   

Ultimately we would hope to empower the grassroots to lead the  

leaders.  Working to change the polarized dynamics locally and  

ultimately nationally

 

Other likely helpful outcomes- 

 

1.  We benefit from the advice and help  

of people that up until recently believed climate change was a hoax or  

unimportant, learning how to better persuade others who continue to  

oppose addressing climate change.

 

2. Conversations confirm or identify opportunities to work on  

solutions that don't require supporters to believe in climate change  

to agree that a given investment is of mutual interest- smart grid,  

efficiency, local solar, etc.

 

We would like to fund a brief and efficient test to see if this is a  

valuable exploration to pursue further.  The proposal is  

attached.  

 

Thank you!

 

Joan Blades

Co-founder MoveOn.org and MomsRising.org

Concerned Citizen

 

Potential invitation to talk language-

 

Dear Potential Participant:

 

I live in a community of people that I'm sure want this country to be  

a great place to live both now and in the future for our children and  

grandchildren.  Yet when I watch our leaders and media focus seems  

to be primarily on our differences and little more.  Some of us  

believe that the risks of climate change make it the most urgent issue  

that we must address together.  Others believe it is our economy or  

big government that are the urgent issue to address.  I find myself  

disheartened and doubting that our leaders have any idea of how to  

change the polarized game of politics that they are submerged in to  

make meaningful progress in any direction.

 

While watching this sad game played on the national and local stages I  

wonder if just maybe, common sense respectful conversation within a  

community might be able to result in some constructive understanding  

of our diverse perspectives and a more healthy approach to achieving  

the big goal that we all desire- a bright future for our children.   

Perhaps we could help lead the leaders out of this sad bickering we  

find ourselves engaged in again and again despite the ernest desire  

many have to collaborate and find common ground.  Perhaps here in our  

local communities with 6 people of good will but different view points  

we can begin to discover how we can have a meaningful conversation  

that will suggest how to exit this hall of mirrors.   One doesn't need  

to believe that global warming is a threat to agree that the U.S.  

needs a new modern energy grid.  Everyone wants government to be more  

efficient and regulations that make the playing field fair without  

creating undue burdens.  Clean water and air are a common good.   

Together we could make good things happen.  Locked in perpetual  

distrust and competitive bickering we render ourselves ineffective and  

fail to create that future we all desire.

 

Please joining me in an experiment in respectful conversation this  

coming....