A February poll conducted by Justason Market Intelligence found that “nearly two-thirds majority (64%) of B.C. residents oppose routing large crude oil carriers (or supertankers) through B.C.’s inside coastal waters”.

An even larger majority thought that government should take the public’s position into account:

But then, when asked whether they think plans to expand tanker traffic will eventually go through, a similar majority answered that it will:

How do we make sense of these results?

First, it is fairly clear that the vast majority (92%) of BC residents are well aware of plans to transport tar sand product through the province and ship them from Kitimat. Yet while BC residents are roughly split in their position on the Enbridge pipeline project, there is a majority against increased tanker traffic. As Barb Justason notes, “Less than half of B.C. residents support the proposal when we’re discussing just the pipeline. When reminded that tankers are a critical element in their proposal, support drops about 20 points”. The combination of pipelines and tankers, it follows, may present environmental communicators with a potent set of messages to work with. This is especially important information considering plans to expand the Trans Mountain Pipeline (which would multiply the port’s tanker traffic seven-fold), and the current struggle to halt those plans by Burnaby residents. .

Second, and even more important from my perspective, the poll seems to point to an acute lack in political self-efficacy. We know what we want, and we want government to listen to us. But we concede that politics as they are currently practiced in the Province tend to disregard our views. If, then, as French philosopher Jacques Rancière argues, “Politics is primarily conflict over the existence of a common stage and over the existence and status of those present on it” (Disagreement, 1999, pp.26-7), it seems that while we have agreed on the existence of the stage, we have yet to climb on it and exercise our rights as “speaking beings”.

Addendum (July 31, 2014):

A recent poll (pdf) commissioned by the Canada West Foundation (which is supported by Enbridge among other energy companies) and undertaken by Ipsos Reid, found that residents of British Columbia have the least amount of trust in the energy sector (only 20% stated that they trust energy companies). The report states that unlike the case of the mining sector, where low levels of trust may be the result of less knowledge or familiarity with its activities, BC residents claim to be very familiar with the energy sector.

The report concludes that:

Resource industries are recognized as doing well at contributing to the economy and creating jobs. In fact, these were also the top reasons why respondents trust the energy, mining and forestry industries. However, the energy, forestry and mining industries are also perceived to be motivated solely by profit. This suggests that communicating good performance on economic contributions and job creation has a lower impact on improving trust levels, compared to environment, impact on local communities and public health and safety. (my emphasis)

At the sustainability HCI workshop we each agreed to contribute 3 items for an ‘essential reading list for sustainable HCI’. After much tinkering (making lists is easily my favourite method of academic procrastination…) here are my selections:

Mike Hulme, Why we disagree about climate change: Understanding controversy, inaction and opportunity. Cambridge University Press, 2009.

“Climate change is not simply a ‘fact’ waiting to be discovered, proved or disproved using the tenets and methods of science. Neither is climate change a problem waiting for a solution, any more than the clashes of political ideologies or the disputes between religious beliefs are problems waiting to be solved. […] Rather than asking ‘How do we solve climate change?’ we need to turn the question around and ask ‘How does the idea of climate change alter the way we arrive at and achieve our personal aspirations and our collective social goals?'” (p.xxviii). nuff said.

Stephen Duncombe, Dream: Re-imagining progressive politics in an age of fantasy. New Press, 2007.

This is as close as it gets to a political manifesto for the social-media-videogame-tmz-generation. The book provides progressives with a powerful vocabulary with which to re-imagine politics away from the Enlightenment’s logocentrism and onto more participatory, playful and affective modes.

Anthony Dunne & Fiona Raby, Speculative everything: Design, fiction, and social dreaming. MIT Press, 2013.

Easily the most exciting book on design I’ve read this year. Much in line with Duncombe’s project, they illustrate various design interventions intended to communicate alternative social configurations.

And since settling on only 3 items caused me so much pain, here are a few honourable mentions:

Alan Weisman, The world without us. Thomas Dunne Books, 2007.

There’s something both terrifying and oddly comforting knowing that the world will keep going long after we’re gone. The book also gives an unusual glimpse into the sociotechnical, outlining various interfaces between human and nonhuman actors but from an unusual viewpoint (reflecting an object oriented ontology perhaps?). The “collapse informatics” folks may find this particularly interesting. (warning: avoid the same-titled TV show. It’s terrible).

Bruno Latour, Politics of nature: How to bring the sciences into democracy. Harvard University Press, 2004 (originally 1999).

The first half is probably the sharpest critique of environmental politics you’ll ever find. Plus, Latour is such a wonderful writer.

Donald Worster, Nature’s economy: A history of ecological ideas. Cambridge University Press, 1994.

A must-read social constructivist statement, this complements very well William Cronon’s seminal introduction to Uncommon ground [pdf] (1995).

Chris Turner, The geography of hope: A tour of the world we need. Random House, 2007.

While every social movement needs a utopian vision to unite around, actually existing sustainability success stories may help ground these visions in concrete realities.

Ronald Wright, A short history of progress. Anansi, 2004.

Based on his CBC Massey Lectures, Wright’s illustration of the ‘progress trap’ – how certain technological breakthroughs drive civilizational success to the point that specialization leaves those civilizations too vulnerable to survive – is fascinating, poignant and succinct.

And here are Sam Mann‘s recommendations.

Full references:

Hulme, M. (2009). Why we disagree about climate change : understanding controversy, inaction and opportunity. Cambridge, UK ; New York: Cambridge University Press.

Duncombe, S. (2007). Dream: Re-imagining progressive politics in an age of fantasy. New York: New Press.

Dunne, A., & Raby, F. (2013). Speculative everything: Design, fiction, and social dreaming. Cambridge, Mass.: MIT Press.

Weisman, A. (2007). The world without us. New York: Thomas Dunne Books/St. Martin’s Press.

Latour, B. (2004). Politics of nature: How to bring the sciences into democracy (C. Porter, Trans.). Cambridge, Mass.: Harvard University Press.

Worster, D. (1994). Nature’s economy: A history of ecological ideas (2nd ed.). Cambridge; NY: Cambridge University Press.

Turner, C. (2007). The Geography of Hope: A Tour of the World We Need. Tornoto: Random House Canada.

Wright, R. (2004). A short history of progress. Toronto: House of Anansi Press.

“From a surface feature in the hands of a not-so-serious-profession that added features in the purview of much-more-serious-professionals (engineers, scientists, accountants), design has been spreading continuously so that it increasingly matters to the very substance of production. What is more, design has been extended from the details of daily objects to cities, landscapes, nations, cultures, bodies, genes, […]  to nature itself.” (Bruno Latour)

A few weeks ago I went to a screening of Design & Thinking, a documentary film about, well, design thinking. The event was organized by the Vancouver Design Nerds, in collaboration with Gen Why Media and SFU’s Vancity office of community engagement. The evening marked the launching of the Civic Renewal Lab, “a community hub devoted to facilitating, promoting and supporting the use of art, design, media and constructive dialogue to foster better citizenship.”

The film is pretty entertaining. It demonstrates how at the roots of design thinking lies a willingness to experiment (and fail, often), to work from users outwards and thus open up the design process to a diverse set of partners or stakeholders, and to approach complex (ugly, hairy, wicked) problems from as many perspectives as possible. Which got me thinking …

“To be modern is to be dissatisfied with current conditions” (Robert Venturi).

Can we understand design thinking as a somewhat postmodern framework for approaching design’s quintessential modernist project? Does the celebration of multiperspectivalism and the rejection of single, top-down solutions offer more than just another way to allay our obsession for “making things better”? But better for whom? Better for what?, and why?

The film, unfortunately, did not address these kinds of questions, and opted instead for a rather celebratory tone, a perpetual gee-whiz moment. It put so much emphasis on the new methodologies of design that nothing was left for questions of values, ethics and social outcomes. In other words, it celebrated the ‘how’ with little attention to the ‘why’, reproducing precisely the problems design thinking attempts to overcome.

“the power of design is often overestimated.” (Dunne & Raby) 

My submission for the sustainability interaction design workshop (part of CHI 2014) was accepted, so I’ll be in Toronto at the end of April. Here’s the abstract:

Designing Interactive Ethical Spectacles for Sustainability

This position paper includes three components: first, a discussion of the meaning of sustainability, in which I suggest that in addition to seeing sustainability as a desired end-state we should view it as a process of collective future-visioning. Second, drawing from Stephen Duncombe’s notion of the “ethical spectacle”, I propose a model for designing inclusive, resonant, engaging and thought-provoking interactive experiences to promote public engagement with sustainability. Third, moving from the conceptual to the practical, I suggest a few concrete guiding principles for designing interactive ethical spectacles for sustainability (IESS).

The full (short) paper is available here.

I’ll be giving a talk about sustainable interaction design, February 27th, at the Centre for Digital Media.
Here’s the abstract:

What’s Next for Sustainable Interaction Design?

Since the mid-1980s, sustainability has become a major concern for architects, industrial designers and technology creators. In the field of Human-computer Interaction (HCI), this is most evident in the rising popularity of sustainable interaction design (SID), a design and research programme that emphasizes the links between interactive technologies and the use of resources. This talk will trace the (brief) history, objectives and limitations of SID, and through a re-evaluation of what sustainability means, suggest possible paths for its future. We will discuss the ways in which interactive design may support better management of resources; encourage users to adopt more sustainable lifestyles; engage and empower users to take an active part in decision-making related to sustainability; and provoke users to collectively consider and pursue a more sustainable future.