Hi All !

Just to note, that for "Sustainability" purposes, selecting where to go from
here, how to deal with things, etc... there is only one correct recourse. If
you're in an elevated position (individual, society, or otherwise) for
whatever reason, you've some way to fall. If you're grounded (society,
individual, etc...) there's no way of falling down, of having your legs
swept from under you so to speak. Inclement weather, oil price hikes,
illnesses, etc, you're already "grounded" and adaptable (not holding
on/static to how things are/used to be), and you naturally cope. Take the
Roman Empire, Mesopotamia, Egyptians, Incas, Mayas, British Empire for that
matter, French Colonies, etc etc - all thought they were "superior"/the bees
knees, and see where the illusion took them - just like our societies. If
you as an individual can adapt to any changes and survive, each having the
basic living skills (by taught or other experience rather than verbal
tuition) of finding and purifying water, finding or growing food, making
clothes and shelters, knowing where Iron etc comes from and how it's made,
etc etc etc, then when all goes well you can still develop industries,
computers etc if you wish, but when the big bad wolf comes and blows your
fragile house down, you can both survive at that moment (where possible),
and regenerate afterwards. This knowledge by experience also makes people
far more Self-confident, self-assured, capable, able to cope with hardships
or unemployment much better, more understanding of normality and so reduced
expectations, and can bring people closer to Nature etc, making them
happier people overall. Everyone and everything wins ! If you want true
sustainability, its nothing to do with building bigger defences, or
alledgedly better (more resource-intensive more
take-you-away-from-real-life so-make-the-wrong-decisions) technology, it's
to do with knowing what's normal in the Land, in Life and Living, reducing
your Adaptable (!)/nomadic(?) expectations and living standards and health
requirements to those levels, and if you wish (with consequences attached
!) to have relative luxuries you can. This applies also to all Oil Company
bosses, MDs of Hi-tech companies, City-persons, etc., as their own true
happiness would also follow, in a real sense !

As a second comment, what raw materials and processing are used to make
Solar Cells, Wind Power generators, Hydroelectric Dams, Nice Cars etc. Which
of these, if any, do not inherently rely upon the entire Oil/Petrochemical
and Exploration/Mining industries/infrastructure, and large
Foundries/Refineries etc for their Raw materials, and so thus help keep
those Gloabl industries running IN ADDITION ? So are they really
sustainable ? Is it not better for people to cut down on their energy usage
by learning how much nicer, and quieter (!), their life is without it (e.g.
Go to a Park, or Woodland, or to the Sea, where you're most happy, to
compare(?)), so naturally reducing demand, prolonging fuel/business
availability, etc. You can add gadgets/gizmos if you wish (with
consequences) as you're on a firm base.

Highly educated Environmentally-conscious/taught school kids in the UK still
love to buy up every new techno-gadget from phones to games, but (on
average) buggered if they know where their food comes from, or how to sew
on a button, or make socks etc ! Amazing how those gadgets use such
enormous Earth's resource to make !! And yet they're taught Environmental
issues regularly in the classroom, more than ever before in a
Global-context sense !! It ain't working !!!! 'Cos the system is not
practical/experienctial enough, and they opt to go for the "Seductive
Quick-and-Easy Path", full of attraction, and oh-so full of consequences !

I'll stop for now....

(And God Bless all those affected in New Orleans, and for all those
elsewhere Worldwide also suffering, but not mentioned by the (UK etc)Media,
Human or otherwise !!!)

All the Best !

Chris. McCOY
[log in to unmask]

Quoting "A Taylor (NVC/Findhorn/Slovakia)" <[log in to unmask]>:

>
>  Thanks David - interesting
>
> I think the author has intelligently picked out the weaknesses
> (from a public education
> point of view) of the word "sustainable" and in the American
> context "Real Homeland
> Security" might be worth a concerted propaganda drive, to try to
> undermine the
> right wing hold on people's fears. (A bit like "tough on causes
> of crime".)
>
> I also like that she understands that in the end the thing that
> will wake people up is that
> significant climate change could mean an end to the food
> security we have had for +/- 1-2
> centuries.
>
> Wouldn't it be great, though, to find something that would
> inspire a whole generation to act,
> not from fear, but from more inspiring motives, like Kennedy
> did.
>
> And isn't it hard to do that with climate change when poverty is
> now so "sexy". Worse still,
> if we succeed, there will be no "glamour result". Just a gradual
> shift to more sustainable
> societies. Only Joanna Macy could make an exciting epic out of
> this kind of political work.
>
> Perhaps we need to get her talking to large gatherings of 2nd
> year students? Can anyone
> suggest where to find such gatherings?
>
> Andy Ray Taylor
>
> * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *
>
> Andy Ray Taylor is currently in Findhorn, Scotland and checking emails
> most weekdays. To reach him by phone:
>
> URGENT AND SHORT MESSAGES
>   (a) pager         07666 778016
>   (b) text          07765 477305
>   (c) office phone  0845 058 0537 (tue-thur 9-11am)
>   (d) home phone    0845 058 0532 (or Findhorn 01309 692292)
>
> LONG MESSAGES & CALLS
>   Home phone - 0845 058 0532
>   (best times to catch me are 7-8am and around 10pm)
>
> from outside UK subsitute +44 in place of the first 0
>
> ----- Original message -----
> From: "David Ballard" <[log in to unmask]>
> To: [log in to unmask]
> Date: Tue, 6 Sep 2005 09:01:26 +0100
> Subject: FW: New Orleans disaster and climate change awareness
>
> I asked a question on the Balaton Group list (a sustainability
> network) as to why there have been so few links between Katrina
> and climate change, given the recent Nature article establishing
> that hurricane activity is indeed linked to climate change. This
> was one of the responses people might be interested in the
> argument and might wish to respond to the original author.
>
> ________________________________________________________________
>
> From: Balaton Group [mailto:[log in to unmask]] On
> Behalf Of Mathis Wackernagel
> Sent: 06 September 2005 03:36
> To: [log in to unmask]
> Subject: Re: New Orleans disaster and climate change awareness
>
>
> Dear Balatoners:
>
> This posting from Susan Strong (Metaphor Project) councils
> progressive US groups to reframe our messaging and take
> advantage of the new potential openings.
>
> Warmest wishes to you all, Mathis
>
>
> Metaphor Project (MP) Challenge: Reframe Homeland Security Now!
>
>
> Dear MP Network,
>
>
> This post contains three parts:
>
>
> 1.THE REFRAMING PROJECT: (Please excuse all the caps belowits a
> way to avoid drowning good stuff in print.)
>
>
> 2. NEWEST MP CRITERIA FOR SELF-CHECKING YOUR OWN REFRAMES: Not
> on website yet! Print out now for use later.
>
>
> 3.WHY DUMP MAINSTREAMING THE WORD SUSTAINABILITY FOR NOW?
> Answers to objections, A WORD ON REFRAMING THE ENDANGERED
> SPECIES APPROACH & MINI-BOOK REVIEW: Andres Edwards, The
> Sustainability Revolution.
>
>
>
> 1.THE REFRAMING PROJECT:
>
>
> Sadly, via hurricane Katrina we have seen once again the power
> of nature to roundly punish us if we destroy OUR NATURAL SAFETY
> NETS--draining and developing the wetlands that protected the
> city of New Orleans, fostering continued dependence on the very
> fuels that helped foster GLOBAL OVERHEATINGS vicious spawn,
> mega-storms like Katrina. The storm fully exposed our nations
> misplaced social, economic, and political priorities too. In
> short, our homeland couldnt be much more insecure, or
> unsustainable, as some would phrase it.
>
>
> But this great tragedy with its tight links to all our other
> problems has created an unprecedented educational opportunity
> for progressive advocates to reach the American mainstream.
> While we are donating and volunteering, we must not let it
> pass.  Right now vast numbers of Americans actually get it a
> little bit that REAL HOMELAND SECURITY also means living in ways
> that fit, not violate, the natural order. (A recent CNN poll has
> found that 55% percent of the public believes that the scale of
> Katrina is a result of global warming.) It is also newly clear
> to the mainstream public that real homeland security involves
> energy, food, and water security, as well as social justice, and
> maybe even a bit more inclination to question THE  IRAQI
> DISASTER.
>
>
> SO WE PROGRESSIVES CONCERNED ABOUT PEACE, JUSTICE AND ECOLOGICAL
> - SOCIAL SUSTAINABILITY SHOULD RIGHT NOW BE MAKING UP LISTS OF
> ALL OF THE NEW POLICIES OUR COUNTRY NEEDS AND REFRAMING THEM AS
> THE ESSENTIALS OF REAL HOMELAND SECURITY. For example, we could
> be pointing out that real homeland security means protecting the
> green belts around our cities where food could be grown if need
> bethat food security is a big part of real homeland security.
> REPLACE THE WORD SUSTAINABLE IN YOUR LEXICON WITH REAL HOMELAND
> SECURITY FOR NOW. (See last section for my answer to objection
> to this advice.) In conversation, you can begin by asking the
> question, WHATS REAL HOMELAND SECURITY NOW?
>
>
> I invite all of you to work on this. Please forward this post
> widely. If you create some really good language, send it along
> and ILL SEND IT BACK TO THE MP LIST AFTER 9/20. But dont wait to
> spread it around. The latest MP Criteria List for checking your
> results yourself comes next.
>
>
> 2. NEWEST MP CRITERIA FOR SELF-CHECKING YOUR OWN REFRAMES: Not
> on website yet! Print out now.
>
>
> Criteria for Successful Framing
>
>
>
> l.. Which of your creations have "legs" or "sex appeal" as they
> say in the advertising trade?
>
>
>
> 2. Which ones are mainstream accessible now? How do you know?
>
>
>
> 3. Are they fresh new combinations, surprising tweaks of the
> familiar, or just the right conventional phrase or metaphor for
> the moment?
>
>
>
> 4. Are they concrete, not abstract?  Do they create a new
> category, the way frankenfood does?
>
>
>
> 5. Do they suggest a story or draw a picture? Are they
> self-explanatory?
>
>
>
> 6. Do they connect with or make a comparison to something
> familiar to most people?
>
>
>
> 7. Do the negative ones imply a potentially empowering positive
> story? (Example: Treaty Trap implies that one could also get out
> of it, go around it, warn people of it, spring it, stay out of
> it?)
>
>
>
> 8. Do they have rhythm, do they "jingle?" Say them aloud to
> check
>
>
>
> NOW THINK TWICE:
>
>
>
> ·  Do your results really pass the audience accessibility test?
>
>
>
> ·  Do they have audience appeal right now?
>
>
>
> ·  Who might they offend?
>
>
>
> ·  Is it worth it?
>
>
>
>
>
> 3.WHY DUMP MAINSTREAMING THE WORD SUSTAINABILITY FOR NOW?
>
>
> I already know that some will say the word sustainable or
> sustainability is gaining acceptance in many circles.  This is
> true, and fine for the circles where it works.  Nevertheless, it
> remains an abstract, multisyllabic, latinate word suitable for
> well disposed abstract thinkers like us. But we require a
> massive attitude change in this country and for that we need a
> popularly accessible, big container frame that conveys all the
> ideas of sustainability in a way that the majority of mainstream
> Americans can get. Nature as nemesis has just given us that big
> container framereal homeland security.
>
>
> This week I also came up with a good metaphor to explain the
> relationship between  linguistic niches where the word
> sustainability works and the vast arena of public language-- it
> is THE METAPHOR OF THE LINGUISTIC WATERSHED. In the small
> streams/niches upstream from the great river of mainstream
> public discourse, one can and should use whatever language works
> for that particular audience. But one should also sprinkle in
> the same big container frame used for the broadest public
> audience. So what I am proposing is that we all use the phrase
> "real homeland security" along with everything else our
> particular audiences can hear.
>
>
> Another objection I have already heard to this suggestion is the
> idea that homeland security is too tied to the anti-terrorist
> agenda of the Bush administration, or that it is too close to
> their tactic of promoting fear. I believe Katrina has blown a
> big hole in the first objection.
>
>
> As for the second, the same people who worry about relying on
> fear often favor the precautionary principle. That is just
> another way of relying on a healthy and sensible fear of the
> possible bad effects of our actions. There's a big difference
> between fear mongering and calling attention to the fact that
> our actions can lead to really bad effects. In the same breath,
> we should be suggesting what we ought to do instead to create
> real homeland security.
>
>
> AS FOR REFRAMING THE ENDANGERED SPECIES APPROACH, THERE HAS
> NEVER BEEN A BETTER TIME FOR SHIFTING TO A CANARY IN THE MINES
> SPECIES APPROACH. I know very well why we have done it the way
> we have so far, but the general public may right now be more
> open to grasping an endangered local ecosystems approach. With
> that, a canary in the mines frame for species dying or
> disappearing signals danger coming for us too in the end, not
> our only reason of course, but widely accessible.
>
>
> I look forward to receiving your reframes, comments, and
> suggestions, and replying after 9/20.
>
>
> MINI BOOK REVIEW: Id also like to acknowledge input I received
> in developing this post from Andres Edwards, author of the new
> book, The Sustainability Revolution. It is a must have
> encyclopedic, analytical overview for those of us who have been
> promoting across the board sustainability for years, plus an
> excellent introduction to it all for those new to the subject
> and open to the language.
>
>
> May we move real homeland security forward in high gear
> nowbefore it is too late. .
>
>
> Susan C. Strong, Ph.D.
> Founder
> The Metaphor Project
> [1]www.metaphorproject.org
>
>
>
>
> ****************************************************************
> ********
>
> Mathis Wackernagel, Ph.D.
>
> Executive Director
>
> Global Footprint Network
>
> 3270 Lakeshore Ave (2nd floor)
>
> Oakland, CA, 94610-2720 USA
>
> tel.: +1-510-839-8879 x 105 (-0800 GMT)
>
> fax: +1-510-251-2410
>
> [2][log in to unmask]
>
> [3]www.footprintnetwork.org
>
> Global Footprint Network promotes a sustainable economy by
> advancing the Ecological Footprint, a tool that makes
> sustainability measurable. Together with our partners, we
> coordinate research, develop methodological standards, and
> provide decision makers with robust resource accounts to help
> the human economy operate within the Earths ecological limits.
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Balaton Group [4][mailto:[log in to unmask]]
> On Behalf Of Vicki Robin
> Sent: Sunday, September 04, 2005 9:54 PM
> To: [5][log in to unmask]
> Subject: Re: New Orleans disaster and climate change awareness
>
> I didn't say this! It was Robert Kennedy Jr. - the attribution
> must have
>
> disappeared when i cut and pasted it.
>
> vicki
>
> ----- Original Message -----
>
> From: "David Ballard" <[6][log in to unmask]>
>
> To: "'Vicki Robin'" <[7][log in to unmask]>;
> <[8][log in to unmask]>
>
> Sent: Sunday, September 04, 2005 8:33 AM
>
> Subject: RE: New Orleans disaster and climate change awareness
>
>
> > Hi Vicky
>
> >
>
> > Well said! Do you have the 'Nature' reference? I read my copy
> just before
>
> > the holidays and have mislaid it.
>
> >
>
> > Where - if anywhere - do you see a platform from which such
> statements can
>
> > be made more generally in the US? Comparing preparation in
> Mississippi
>
> > with
>
> > the work of the UK Climate Impacts Programme
> ([9]www.ukcip.org.uk) might
>
> > provide some relatively non-controversial food for thought,
> especially as
>
> > far as UK East Coast flood defences against storm surges are
> concerned
>
> > (considered likely to be prohibitively expensive, but at least
> serious
>
> > discussion of what might be done about that is beginning). But
> the
>
> > hurricane
>
> > dimension, despite Boscastle last year, is barely addressed in
> the UK, of
>
> > course.
>
> >
>
> > David
>
> >
>
> > -----Original Message-----
>
> > From: Vicki Robin [10][mailto:[log in to unmask]]
>
> > Sent: 04 September 2005 16:08
>
> > To: David Ballard; [11][log in to unmask]
>
> > Subject: Re: New Orleans disaster and climate change awareness
>
> >
>
> >      Robert F. Kennedy Jr.
>
> >
>
> >
>
> >
>
> >
>
> > 08.29.2005
>
> >
>
> >
>
> > "For They That Sow the Wind Shall Reap the Whirlwind"
>
> >
>
> > As Hurricane Katrina dismantles Mississippi's Gulf Coast, it's
> worth
>
> > recalling the central role that Mississippi Governor Haley
> Barbour played
>
> > in
>
> >
>
> > derailing the Kyoto Protocol and kiboshing President Bush's
> iron-clad
>
> > campaign promise to regulate CO2.
>
> >
>
> > In March of 2001, just two days after EPA Administrator
> Christie Todd
>
> > Whitman's strong statement affirming Bush's CO2 promise former
> RNC Chief
>
> > Barbour responded with an urgent memo to the White House.
>
> >
>
> > Barbour, who had served as RNC Chair and Bush campaign
> strategist, was now
>
> > representing the president's major donors from the fossil fuel
> industry
>
> > who
>
> > had enlisted him to map a Bush energy policy that would
>
> >
>
> >
>
> >
>
> > be friendly to their interests. His credentials ensured the
> new
>
> > administration's attention.
>
> >
>
> >
>
> > The document, titled "Bush-Cheney Energy Policy & CO2," was
> addressed to
>
> > Vice President Cheney, whose energy task force was then
> gearing up, and to
>
> > several high-ranking officials with strong connections to
> energy and
>
> > automotive concerns keenly interested in the carbon dioxide
> issue,
>
> > including
>
> >
>
> > Energy Secretary Spencer Abraham, Interior Secretary Gale
> Norton, Commerce
>
> > Secretary Don Evans, White House chief of staff Andy Card and
> legislative
>
> > liaison Nick Calio. Barbour pointedly omitted the names of
> Whitman and
>
> > Treasury Secretary Paul O'Neill, both of whom were on record
> supporting
>
> > CO2
>
> > caps. Barbour's memo chided these administration insiders for
> trying to
>
> > address global warming which Barbour dismissed as a radical
> fringe issue.
>
> >
>
> >
>
> > "A moment of truth is arriving," Barbour wrote, "in the form
> of a decision
>
> > whether this Administration's policy will be to regulate
> and/or tax CO2 as
>
> > a
>
> >
>
> > pollutant. The question is whether environmental policy still
> prevails
>
> > over
>
> > energy policy with Bush-Cheney, as it did with Clinton-Gore."
> He derided
>
> > the
>
> >
>
> > idea of regulating CO2 as "eco-extremism," and chided them for
> allowing
>
> > environmental concerns to "trump good energy policy, which the
> country has
>
> > lacked for eight years."
>
> >
>
> >
>
> > The memo had impact. "It was terse and highly effective,
> written for
>
> > people
>
> > without much time by a person who controls the purse strings
> for the
>
> > Republican Party," said John Walke, a high-ranking air quality
> official in
>
> > the Clinton administration.
>
> >
>
> > On March 13, Bush reversed his previous position, announcing
> he would not
>
> > back a CO2 restriction using the language and rationale
> provided by
>
> > Barbour.
>
> >
>
> > Echoing Barbour's memo, Bush said he opposed mandatory CO2
> caps, due to
>
> > "the
>
> >
>
> > incomplete state of scientific knowledge" about global climate
> change.
>
> >
>
> > Well, the science is clear. This month, a study published in
> the journal
>
> > Nature by a renowned MIT climatologist linked the increasing
> prevalence of
>
> > destructive hurricanes to human-induced global warming.
>
> >
>
> > Now we are all learning what it's like to reap the whirlwind
> of fossil
>
> > fuel
>
> > dependence which Barbour and his cronies have encouraged. Our
> destructive
>
> > addiction has given us a catastrophic war in the Middle East
>
> > and--now--Katrina is giving our nation a glimpse of the
> climate chaos we
>
> > are
>
> >
>
> > bequeathing our children.
>
> >
>
> > In 1998, Republican icon Pat Robertson warned that hurricanes
> were likely
>
> > to
>
> >
>
> > hit communities that offended God. Perhaps it was Barbour's
> memo that
>
> > caused
>
> >
>
> > Katrina, at the last moment, to spare New Orleans and save its
> worst
>
> > flailings for the Mississippi coast.
>
> >
>
> > [12]www.StopGlobalWarming.org
>
> >
>
> >
>
> > ----- Original Message -----
>
> > From: "David Ballard" <[13][log in to unmask]>
>
> > To: <[14][log in to unmask]>
>
> > Sent: Saturday, September 03, 2005 12:13 PM
>
> > Subject: New Orleans disaster and climate change awareness
>
> >
>
> >
>
> >> First of all, I would like to express my dismay at the
> terrible scenes
>
> >> unfolding in New Orleans and the surrounding areas right now.
> There seems
>
> >> to
>
> >> be terrible suffering, on a par with (though not on quite the
> same scale
>
> >> as)
>
> >> the terrible events that occurred around the Pacific at
> Christmas. I can
>
> >> hardly imagine what it is like to try to live without water
> in 90 degree
>
> >> heat. I hope that members of this list serve, and those dear
> to them, are
>
> >> all safe and that the situation will swiftly be made
> tolerable for
>
> >> survivors.
>
> >>
>
> >> I have been struck - despite the vocal criticism of the Bush
>
> >> administration
>
> >> - by how few mentions there have been of the possible - no,
> likely -
>
> >> links
>
> >> with climate change. (I am referring to the research
> establishing links
>
> >> between water temperature and hurricane frequency published
> in Nature
>
> >> magazine a couple of months ago - I do not have the issue to
> hand to
>
> >> quote
>
> >> the precise reference). Any criticism that there has been of
> the links
>
> >> between policy and the causes of the disaster (as opposed to
> the seeming
>
> >> inadequacy of the response) has been linked to land use and
> has hardly
>
> >> mentioned climate change.
>
> >>
>
> >> The Worldwatch Institute has commented in the last few
> minutes, to some
>
> >> extent countering this trend:
>
> >> [15]http://www.worldwatch.org/press/news/2005/09/02. However.
> as far as I can
>
> >> tell from my electronic edition, the New York Times has been
> silent on
>
> >> the
>
> >> links, and I have not heard or seen a word on the UK media.
>
> >>
>
> >> Given the still virulent political distrust of climate change
> science in
>
> >> much of the US media, I can understand, I think, why people
> have not
>
> >> spoken
>
> >> more. But after last year's terrible flooding at Boscastle in
> the UK
>
> >> (which
>
> >> I visited three weeks ago and is well on the way to recovery)
> the press
>
> >> were
>
> >> discussing links to climate change almost immediately,
> despite the links
>
> >> being less clear cut.
>
> >>
>
> >> I would be interested to learn whether this issue is being
> discussed at
>
> >> all
>
> >> in North American mainstream politics and - if not - why
> people think
>
> >> that
>
> >> this might be and when, if at all, they think that the links
> between
>
> >> increased hurricane frequency and severity might be
> appropriately
>
> >> discussed.
>
> >>
>
> >> In the UK there is almost total awareness of climate change
> (over 99%)
>
> >> and
>
> >> over 85% think that it is happening. However fewer than 15%
> think that it
>
> >> is
>
> >> a present and serious danger (UK Government figures, 2002).
> In my view,
>
> >> this
>
> >> is the key transition in awareness (though it should not be
> forced and
>
> >> needs
>
> >> to be handled with considerable care, and needs to be
> developed further
>
> >> to
>
> >> address the systemic issues discussed by John Sterman on this
> list in
>
> >> 2002).
>
> >>
>
> >> I am interested because (a) (in my opinion) Chernobyl came
> close to
>
> >> establishing a tipping point phenomenon in Europe at least
> (with the
>
> >> Valdez
>
> >> having a somewhat similar effect in the USA) and b) the
> tragedy of the
>
> >> slave
>
> >> ship Zong in 1782 (I think) seems to have been crucial to the
>
> >> parliamentary
>
> >> process that eventually led to the ending of the slave trade
> in the UK in
>
> >> 1807.
>
> >>
>
> >> (The Zong master threw more than 150 sick slaves into the
> Atlantic to
>
> >> drown
>
> >> - they had reduced economic value though their lives were not
>
> >> threatened -
>
> >> and then successfully sued the insurers for damages for the
> loss of the
>
> >> 'cargo'. Among other responses, the horrified Vice Chancellor
> of
>
> >> Cambridge
>
> >> University set an essay competition on the morality of
> slavery which was
>
> >> won
>
> >> by the young William Clarkson who, with the support of Pitt
> the Younger
>
> >> and
>
> >> then Wilberforce, was central to the eventual success of the
> anti-slavery
>
> >> movement in the UK.)
>
> >>
>
> >> David Ballard
>
> >> (2000 meeting)
>
> >>
>
> >> Visiting Fellow, Centre for Action Research in Professional
> Practice,
>
> >> University of Bath,
>
> >> and ...
>
> >> Alexander, Ballard & Associates
>
> >> Strategy and human change for environmental sustainability
>
> >> 05600 433801 - work
>
> >> 01672 520561 - home
>
> >> 07840 544226 - mobile
>
> >> Skype: ballardd
>
> >> Email: [16][log in to unmask]
>
> >>
>
> >>
>
> >> --
>
> >> No virus found in this incoming message.
>
> >> Checked by AVG Anti-Virus.
>
> >> Version: 7.0.344 / Virus Database: 267.10.18/89 - Release
> Date: 9/2/2005
>
> >>
>
> >>
>
> >
>
> >
>
> >
>
> > --
>
> > No virus found in this incoming message.
>
> > Checked by AVG Anti-Virus.
>
> > Version: 7.0.344 / Virus Database: 267.10.18/89 - Release
> Date: 9/2/2005
>
> >
>
> References
>
> 1. http://www.metaphorproject.org/
> 2. mailto:[log in to unmask]
> 3. http://www.footprintnetwork.org/
> 4. mailto:%5bmailto:[log in to unmask]
> 5. mailto:[log in to unmask]
> 6. mailto:[log in to unmask]
> 7. mailto:[log in to unmask]
> 8. mailto:[log in to unmask]
> 9. http://www.ukcip.org.uk)/
>   10. mailto:%5bmailto:[log in to unmask]
>   11. mailto:[log in to unmask]
>   12. http://www.StopGlobalWarming.org/
>   13. mailto:[log in to unmask]
>   14. mailto:[log in to unmask]
>   15. http://www.worldwatch.org/press/news/2005/09/02
>   16. mailto:[log in to unmask]
>