<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?>
<rss version="2.0" 
  xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/"
  xmlns:sy="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/syndication/"
  xmlns:admin="http://webns.net/mvcb/"
  xmlns:rdf="http://www.w3.org/1999/02/22-rdf-syntax-ns#">

<channel>
<title>After the Storm: Climate Change and Public Works : Responses</title>
<description>Design Observer ::Â Join the Discussion</description>
<link>http://places.designobserver.com/feature/climate-change-and-public-works/37648/</link>
<dc:language>en-us</dc:language>
<dc:creator>Design Observer Group</dc:creator>
<dc:date>2013-01-23T13:59:20-05:00</dc:date>
<copyright>http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/1.0</copyright>




<item>
	<title><![CDATA[Responding to "After the Storm: Climate Change and Public Works"]]></title>
	<description><![CDATA[Raphael and June,<br />
<br />
Thanks for the great comments. I agree, it's a big challenge to put climate change â and its unfolding effects on our environment â on the political agenda. Especially when there are so many big problems that feel more immediate, whether jobs and the economy or immigration reform or gun control. Just today I heard a radio commentary to the effect that "Hurricane Sandy was no Sandy Hook" in terms of giving the issue real political traction. <br />
<br />
It would be great if the AIA were to galvanize its organization and networks and mount a strong campaign on climate change and urban design. Right now it's hard to detect any focused effort; for instance, if you search for "climate change" on the national website, the results contain a lot of outdated PDFs and "page not found" links. And yes, the ArchiPAC contributions are trivial these days; they won't result in any real influence.<br />
<br />
So one question would then be: To what extent might the professional associations â the AIA, and also the ASLA, APA, AICP â function as the organizational vehicles for sustained political advocacy, for an ongoing movement? Perhaps in collaboration, so the efforts would gain strength in numbers? This approach would depend upon the efforts of leading practitioners, but it might work.<br />
<br />
But it would also be valuable for design activists to join forces with the environmental lobby, which is itself highly networked â check out the "partners" pages of groups like 350.org, the Environmental Defense Fund, the Citizens Climate Lobby, etc. <br />
<br />
In his Rolling Stone article, Bill McKibben makes a provocative argument to the effect that the climate change cause needs an enemy. As he writes: "The paths we have tried to tackle global warming have so far produced only gradual, halting shifts. A rapid, transformative change would require building a movement, and movements require enemies." McKibben argues that the fossil-fuel industry is a good candidate to be public enemy number one, since â and here he quotes Naomi Klein â  "wrecking the planet is their business model." <br />
<br />
Here on Places we welcome articles that continue the discussion on design and climate change, and how professional activism might contribute to a political movement. <br />
]]></description>
	<author></author>
	<link>http://places.designobserver.com/feature/climate-change-and-public-works/37648/#comments</link>
	<dc:date>2013-01-23T13:59:20-05:00</dc:date>
</item>
<item>
	<title><![CDATA[Responding to "After the Storm: Climate Change and Public Works"]]></title>
	<description><![CDATA[Thanks for this thoughtful call to politics, and to seeking ways to engage the design disciplines in a more structured and sustained "long game." As Ellen Dunham-Jones and I (and others) have noted about retrofitting suburbia, it took half a century to build the postwar landscapes of mass suburbanization, and it may take a half-century, or more, to retrofit these places for a more resilient future. The effort, however, has begun. How do we keep it up?]]></description>
	<author></author>
	<link>http://places.designobserver.com/feature/climate-change-and-public-works/37648/#comments</link>
	<dc:date>2013-01-23T09:18:31-05:00</dc:date>
</item>
<item>
	<title><![CDATA[Responding to "After the Storm: Climate Change and Public Works"]]></title>
	<description><![CDATA[In light of this excellent piece, itâs worth looking at AIAâs advocacy efforts (not that AIA is the sum total of the design professions, but it is a large membership organization and plays a particular public role). On the one hand, AIAâs stated policy positions are good, emphasizing the need for energy efficiency, investment in the public realm, and carbon-neutral government buildings by 2030. AIA clearly believes in a strong and effective public realm â symbolically, ârestoring the capitol domeâ is on the AIA agenda. On the other hand, âArchiPAC contributed over $265,500 to candidates and political parties this election,â they state. This is chump change in the influence business, and its distribution across the board â equal amounts to Republican and Democratic election committees, donations to both John Boehner and Nancy Pelosi â with a stated goal of reaching those who are likely to win and/or hold significant committee positions, shows this to be an attempt to buy access. Itâs not a commitment to AIAâs own advocacy agenda, which matches Democratic priorities much more closely than Republican ones. It is proof close to home of the corruption of our political system âshouldnât our representatives seek out AIA during debates on infrastructure, rather than demand donations as an entry price? Certainly we can do better than this. One way would be for AIA members should encourage AIA and ArchiPAC to fight for campaign finance reform.]]></description>
	<author></author>
	<link>http://places.designobserver.com/feature/climate-change-and-public-works/37648/#comments</link>
	<dc:date>2013-01-22T14:08:57-05:00</dc:date>
</item>



</channel>
</rss>

	


