I think the two events highlight different models for change, and I am hoping to point out some of the differences between the two models. I think that one is better, by which I mean more likely to stop large-scale problems. And I want to question where our limited resources should be allocated.

Having been to CGI-U, I wanted to share some of my initial reactions. There were definitely some specific things that I think CGI can do better next year, and also some important things they did well this year. Here I wanted to write about what I see as the more fundamental differences.

In any case, I am not sure your tone of writing is productive at all. Criticism is good. But if the two gatherings are so different, they should probably complement each other, not try to compete and prove who’s better. What good will that do?

Are you seriously claiming that there is little to no value in individuals making personal commitments and projects to make change? If one kid gets access to education due to a single student making a personal commitment, is it not worth your while?

Morgan – you should know more than many, that your actions don’t only count if they are a part of a comprehensive solution. Lets focus on bringing change through complimentary approaches.
I believe power-shift is a fantastic gathering with great potential of advancing the agenda of climate change. Good luck with it.

By the way, Morgan, since you were present at CGIU, it is surprising that you failed to remember that the facilitated table discussions in each working session focused on building action plans for specific solutions.