A group of French filmmakers sought to counter the despair provoked by climate change and the ongoing Sixth Extinction by finding examples that show how the world could survive in a better, sustainable way – sort of a filmic version of John Lennon’s Imagine. I can’t say it was convincing – more on that in a minute – but several of the concepts were new to me and quite startling. First, the structure: the film identified five areas where existing models showed the way to a better future: Agriculture, Energy, Politics, Economy and Education. They traveled the world in their research, although a majority of the exemplars were to be found, not surprisingly, in Europe.
Agriculture touted urban farming (e.g., in Detroit), which fostered direct-to-consumption produce, eliminating wasteful packaging and transportation. More interesting was the claim that small farms could be two-to-four times more productive than the large-company single-crop farms that dominate the U.S. market. For one thing, nature abhors a monoculture, and the big farms degrade the soil and require increasing amounts of chemicals to be productive. The small-farm example showed how many crops could be grown in the same space – for instance, basil, tomatoes and grapes – organically, using far fewer resources. The heavy reliance on grain in our diet was also seen as bad for the environment, whereas fruits and vegetables are healthier are require less processing.
Energy I am familiar with, thanks to RMI and others, and the film didn’t have to dig very far to find examples such as Copenhagen’s, and eventually all Denmark’s, renunciation of fossil fuels in favor of wind, solar, geothermal and hydroelectric power. The last stumbling block is cars, and here Copenhagen, which I can’t wait to visit, is moving forward by favoring bike lanes, walking paths and public transportation.
For Politics, the film looked to Iceland, where citizens, but apparently not the government, have experimented with legislature-by-lottery. Choose your parliament by having citizens draw lots and you will come up with a governing body that takes its job very seriously (here, the analogy is to a jury), is a cross-section of the population and is not beholden to special interests. [One of California’s Republican gubernatorial candidates has an equally revolutionary idea, called Neighborhood Legislature, in which small districts of 12,000 people each elect a representative who then gets to vote on the local Congressman.]
The novel idea in Economy was a complementary currency, a form of money that doesn’t replace the pound or Euro but is valuable only inside a limited jurisdiction, which could be an entire European country but seems to have taken off mainly in British towns. The film didn’t say how the complementary currency is valued vis-à-vis the official government currency – i.e., why would people prefer it – but the benefits are clear: it keeps the local economy humming because you can use it buy coffee at your local coffee shop but probably not Starbucks and definitely not in the town next door. Moreover, you can’t earn interest on it by saving, so it encourages local spending. On a large scale, Switzerland seems to have this going, and it was suggested that a complementary currency would enable Greece to get its economy running again. The economists interviewed also surprised me by explaining than 97% of money (maybe in Britain, with a somewhat smaller percentage in other places) is created not by the central government, but by private banks issuing loans! Another shining light was an envelope manufacturer who was committed to low-energy use and low waste and paid no dividends to shareholders, eschewing the goal of making anyone rich.
The model in Education was Finland, which scores at or near the top in national surveys. The trick there, which brought applause from the Santa Barbara audience, is lack of testing: “We teach for learning, not for the test,” said the interviewed principal, who was also shown tossing kids in the air and having lunch with students in the cafeteria, which, like every part of the schooling, is free to age 16.
Yes, it was heartening to see that so many people are committed to better ways of doing things. It was slightly discouraging to see that the film was completed in 2015 and has made zero impact (it only reached us via a special screening sponsored by local environmental groups). And while the models may have made good sense, they all, in one way or another, require large commitments of manpower – think of how many small farmers would be needed to substitute for Cargill’s production; enlightened leadership – at a time when our politics are in total dysfunction; and massive buy-in by populations more diverse, not to say splintered, than Copenhagen’s. Above all, the hope for a better future instilled by the movie was deflated upon leaving the theater when I realized that for now and the next few years we are living in the world of Donald Trump. At least I am in California.
