Business & Policy Environmental Policy When Governments and Activists Say "Resilience", They Do Not Mean the Same Thing By Sami Grover Writer The University of Hull University of Copenhagen Sami Grover is a writer and self-described “environmental do-gooder,” now advising community organizations. our editorial process Twitter Twitter Sami Grover Updated October 11, 2018 Screen capture. Transition Culture Share Twitter Pinterest Email Business & Policy Corporate Responsibility Environmental Policy Economics Food Issues Transition Culture/Screen capture We've already seen how residents of an earthquake-striken city can get heartily sick of politicians talking about resilience. But from resilience in a zombie apocalypse to the case for resilient design, it's important to note that there is a vast difference between political rhetoric around resilience—which tends to focus on floods, pandemics and terrorist threats—and the kind of fundamental rethink of our culture that many of us environmentalists are proposing. In an excellent talk for BBC Radio 4 Transition Town founder Rob Hopkins (who we'll be hosting a live chat with next week) explains what Resilience 2.0 might look like. Bravely, given this is radio, he even uses a Brixton Pound (above) as a prop: The idea that making our communities more resilient is the opportunity to also make them more skilled, more diverse, more grounded, better connected, more entrepreneurial, is an idea whose time has come. Indeed, when I look around myself today, as the economic unravelling gathers increasing pace, it often looks to me like the only viable idea on the table. I want to tell you some stories of initiatives you may not have heard of but which have arisen from Transition groups around the country and which I think hold the seed of our economic future, one which still trades, but mostly in things that can’t be produced closer to home.