Revolutions are never the act of any single person. They are the consequence of groups of people with a like mind who usually have discussed in-depth the problems and options for change. Most of the time in the past it was often a violent sequence of events to overthrow a tyrant or tyrannical system. In more recent times (especially the past century) it was notable that many mostly peaceful revolutions occurred, such as the non-violent resistance protests and social rebellions, e.g., Ghandi and India, The Civil Rights protests, Anti-war marches, feminism protests, etc., that created change. The term revolution also refers to a radical change in thinking as in new scientific discoveries overturning long established doctrines of knowledge, or the awakening of a people to the corruption of the hierarchy.
We are in the midst of the Sustainability Revolution (SR), but as yet I don’t see it effectively moving forward with any real momentum. It is happening in pockets all around the world, and even as baby-step policies at governmental levels, but as yet, it is not the societal transformation it promises to be. Part of the problem as I see it is that we keep trying to tweek the current highly-flawed materialistic-consumer system to achieve sustainability. That is not a revolution and I doubt it can ever be. Most times revolutions happen fast – within weeks and months, and other times over years, like 41 years for the India self-rule movement.
Since 1962, the groundwork of the Environmental Movement has been setting the stage for our current sustainability revolution. At this time a peaceful SR is poised to move into its active phase (see link of earlier post Richards Research). Yet globally most people seem frozen like a proverbial deer in the headlights of the global commercial juggernaut that dominates our current lives. We know we want a sustainable world but addiction to the way thigs were still holds us back. What we need now are more leaders to help promote the changes we want. Skeptics abound and especially when something new is proposed. Then people seem determined to stick in the rut rather than risk making a change that they fear may not work.
Revolutionary educator, Sir Ken Richardson, put it succinctly when talking about doing something new, “If you’re not prepared to be wrong, you’ll never come up with anything original.” We need leaders willing to try so that we find new ways that work. For sure, the old ways aren’t solving our global problems. I have talked a bit about leadership in this blog (e.g., see recent post) so I will just review some basic characteristics of ‘leaders’ versus ‘managers’, which is what most politicians seem to be. The main difference between the two is that leadership is about influencing people to follow, while management focuses on maintaining systems and processes.
True leaders are transformational, which is a leadership style that empowers people to accomplish positive change through big vision, inspiration, and a call to action. Transformational leaders work with teams or followers beyond their immediate self-interests to identify needed change, create a vision to guide the change, and execute the change with committed members of a group. Managers are transactional leaders, which is a style of leadership that motivates followers through rewards and punishments. Transactional leaders have formal authority and responsibility in the community, and seek to recognize and influence intangibles such as energy, morale, timing, and momentum. Of course, this requires trust. That is the Law of Solid Ground taken from John C. Maxwell’s book The 21 Irrefutable Laws of Leadership.
Maxwell compares trust to coins in a leader’s pocket. Good leadership decisions earn more “change,” while poor decisions cost change. Trust must consistently outweigh wrong decisions. Character Matters with integrity, authenticity, and discipline being obvious in scrupulous honesty. Skills on display show empathy and respect for everyone with open dialogue expected. It is important for people to know that they won’t be punished for voicing opinions, which do not fit the main arguments. The idea is to discuss everything to influence and inspire them to action. Without influence, a person is just taking a solitary walk, not leading. The key idea is that leadership requires earning the respect and trust that compels others to follow.
I am saddened by many environmental ‘leaders’ that sell an idea without being knowledgeable (or truthful) about the big picture. I expect leasers to tell the truth and face up to limitations of what they are espousing. It also has a moral aspect about it. Is it good for everyone? Is it good for the natural world? Is a Faustian bargain involved? No simple questions these. One of these for example is about pushing electric cars as a solution to climate change. I recently had a reality check about electric-vehicles when I see so many environmentalists as true believers in the idea. Let me explain further.
The first reality check for a modern EV is known as the 20-80 charging rule. This is the practice of keeping the charging level of electric vehicle batteries between 20% and 80% of their full capacity, recommended for optimal battery health and performance over the long term. The second reality check is that the ‘level’ of charging greatly affects the charge time. Level 1 charging (using a regular outlet at home) can take up to 19 hours. Level 2 charging (using a 7kW fast charger) takes about 8 hours for a 40 kWh battery and 13 hours for an 82 kWh battery. Level 3 fast charging takes as little as 15 to 30 minutes to get to 80% charge depending on the vehicle and charger. Trying to charge above 80% takes substantially longer because of battery charging physics that follows a logarithmic profile).
I was recently a passenger in an electric car – a VW ID.4 – that is great for short distances within a home area, in this case , the California Bay area. The US-EPA rates this EV as having a 250 miles range on a fully charged battery. What the EV dealers or the EPA don’t mention are the realities of driving a longer distance. California has perhaps the largest EV charging network in the world, and a quick look at the network shows numerous charging stations throughout the length of the state.
The driver had noted the distance to our destination as 259 miles with four charging stations on route. Now the EPA claims are based on moderate driving and air temperatures. This drive unfortunately was a high-speed freeway, with lots of hills and in temperatures of 94F (34C). We drove past the first two charging options with plenty of charge remaining in the car, but the third option that was within range. Suddenly seemed far away. We made it with 23% charge left for a potential car computed range of 28 miles (next station 50 miles away). We were sixth in line for the bank of 4 chargers, and one was in the middle of being serviced. Apparently, the intense use of the chargers requires frequent maintenance.
While the car sat in line in the hot sun (34oC), we sat in the shade in a mall parking area for an hour chatting the time away with other charging users – you have to learn to be patient when driving an EV longer distance. The charging took about 24 minutes to reach 80% – the whole stop talking about 90 minutes, with a rush for the charging station near our destination. You end up doing a lot of planning and calculations when driving an EV on a longer trip. And now, not trying to be obtuse, my inconvenient question to all the true believers of electric cars is that while the vehicle produced no emissions, where did the electricity to charge the EV come from?
To Be Continued ……………
0 Comments