you mentioned how embedded debt is in our culture. Miraculously, and by
holding three jobs during my last degree after saving at work for three
years, I have emerged without debt from two degrees. I don't have a
house, but what's left of my savings is falling behind inflation. I
worried about the debt culture in my peers during both degrees, but it
seems the incentives for remaining debt-free are increasingly
disappearing. The rate of bankruptcies and the falling of interest rates
has deterred the preference for saving. Our consumerist culture relies
on credit and spending. The bailout, whilst perhaps necessary, saves
those who went wrong, and punishes those who tried to live sustainably
fiscally (which is a step towards a more holistic sustainability I believe).
now is a key time in terms of economic policy to change our model to
something that reflects sustainability principles, but in our haste to
save the banks the policy changes are not forthcoming. an economy that
grows on debt is not really growing, and it encourages a greater use of
resources than we can afford. If we continue in the same vein, it will
make a mockery of sustainable movements. Ethical consumerism is still
somewhat an oxymoron. We have to consume in life, but consumption as aim
for happiness and for the purpose of being, no matter how ethical the
choices, is still going to contradict the limits of a finite world.
I guess it's regaining a focus on needs not wants, and finding a way to
achieve quality of life, not just increased GDP. Oliver James'
Affluenza, and the follow up, Selfish Capitalism show the link between
our current form of capitalism and materialism and increasing rate of
certain anxieties and mental illness.
but where will wholesale change come from?
> I think we have to remember that many global systems are in place to
> keep the population doing what we're supposed to do. I don't mean to
> sound like a revolutionary here but we little people are supposed to
> work, earn and consume to keep the wheels of the economy turning.
> That's why there are so many gadgets which will supposedly tackle
> climate change - from light bulbs to carbon capture plants! There are
> no real plans for changing how we do things, other than those coming
> from the grassroots.
>
> I think those supposedly in charge are shit-scared that too many
> people are going to realise that we've been sold a big lie - the lie
> being that consuming more is the only way to go and will make us
> happy! Two big lies, actually, the other being that if you work hard
> and save/have a pension fund, all will be well. I mean, what would
> happen if we really did all start to localise ourselves a la
> Transition Towns model? If we all gave up our jobs and sought to live
> off the land. I'm not saying it's going to happen - we're all too
> embedded in debt and we don't have access to the land! But it should
> be thought about. Sometimes what doesn't hit the newspapers is more
> important than what does....
>
> It's interesting that last month Robert Hirsch suggested that 'peak
> oilers' should tone down their warnings about the economic impact of
> oil production peaking. Hirsch wrote a seminal 2005 report for the US
> Energy Department called "Peaking of World Oil Production" that warned
> of stark consequences as world oil supplies tighten, slamming the
> world economy, and he's given many lectures since. But with the world
> economy now under siege (for whatever reasons), Hirsch is urging his
> cohorts to tone down their bleakness for a while so as not to worsen
> the damage.
>
> http://blogs.wsj.com/environmentalcapital/2008/11/14/peak-oil-prominent-peaker-tells-allies-to-temporarily-pipe-down/
> <mhtml:%7BE8ECC717-A8EF-4646-9BBC-34757FE65405%7Dmid://00000272/%21x-usc:http://blogs.wsj.com/environmentalcapital/2008/11/14/peak-oil-prominent-peaker-tells-allies-to-temporarily-pipe-down/>
>
> And as for psychology, we must also remember that alarming messages
> only stimulate us 'activists' to act - most people switch off to bad
> news they feel they can do nothing about or that is nothing to do with
> them. Gloomy images may make people throw money at a charity who's
> dealing with the issue, but seldom do they make people get off the
> sofa and act themselves. I mean, we've had decades of gloomy images
> and I still feel that activists are in the minority.
>
> I hope this makes sense - I could ramble on for ages on this one but I
> have to do other things but this is a really important discussion.
>
> cheers
>
> Mandy x
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> *From:* Barker, Tom <mailto:[log in to unmask]>
> *To:* [log in to unmask]
> <mailto:[log in to unmask]>
> *Sent:* Friday, February 13, 2009 9:39 AM
> *Subject:* Re: 'Apocalyptic predictions' mislead the public on
> climate change, say experts | Environment | guardian.co.uk
>
> Yes, these are emotional issues, and that type of response
> shouldn't be put down, but I agree with the Hadley guys. Some
> claims are not supported by the science, and if we insist on
> making them and they turn out to be not true, we risk throwing out
> the baby with the bathwater. The 'sceptics' will pounce on such
> instances. That said, I thnk the Hadley scientists are talking
> about the more extreme reports e.g. polar bears and Arctic ice
> gone in 20 years. We don't know that at all.
>
> What we do know is that climate change is very serious and will
> affect us all, and we know enough hard evidnce (without
> speculation) to get the most complacent denier off their backside
> to join us, if only they would look at the facts and use their
> reasoning capabilities. The fact that they don't is because they
> choose not to. They are a laughing stock, as we should remind them
> often. There will be a hard core who will never agree. After all,
> there are doctors who deny that smoking is related to lung cancer,
> and people who still believe that the earth is flat, was formed
> 6,000 years ago, that fossils were put there by the devil, and
> that Tony Blair is a good man.
>
> Tom
>
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------
> *From:* Discussion list for the Crisis Forum on behalf of Chris
> *Sent:* Fri 13/02/2009 09:04
> *To:* [log in to unmask]
> *Subject:* Re: 'Apocalyptic predictions' mislead the public on
> climate change, say experts | Environment | guardian.co.uk
>
> I have two issues with the claims in this story
>
> 1. If climate is weather averaged over 30 years and we need 30
> years of
> weather which is unequivocally the product of anthropogenic
> climate change
> before scientists will call it such then it will be too late, the
> catastrophe will be upon us.
>
> 2. What gives climate scientists the right to claim what is the
> correct
> emotional and moral response to the information we currently have
> on climate
> change?
>
> Chris
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "CHRIS KEENE" <[log in to unmask]>
> To: <[log in to unmask]>
> Sent: Thursday, February 12, 2009 10:47 PM
> Subject: 'Apocalyptic predictions' mislead the public on climate
> change, say
> experts | Environment | guardian.co.uk
>
>
> >
> http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2009/feb/11/climate-change-misleading-claims
> >
> > It would be interesting to know what people think of this
> >
> > Chris
> >
> > guardian.co.uk home
> >
> >
> > 'Apocalyptic climate predictions' mislead the public, say experts
> >
> > Met Office scientists fear distorted climate change claims could
> undermine
> > efforts to tackle carbon emissions
> >
> > * David Adam
> > * guardian.co.uk, Wednesday 11 February 2009 12.07 GMT
> >
> >
> > Experts at Britain's top climate research centre have launched a
> > blistering attack on scientific colleagues and journalists who
> exaggerate
> > the effects of global warming.
> >
> > The Met Office Hadley Centre, one of the most prestigious research
> > facilities in the world, says recent "apocalyptic predictions" about
> > Arctic ice melt and soaring temperatures are as bad as claims
> that global
> > warming does not exist. Such statements, however
> well-intentioned, distort
> > the science and could undermine efforts to tackle carbon
> emissions, it
> > says.
> >
> > In an article published on the Guardian website, Dr Vicky Pope,
> head of
> > climate change advice at the Met Office, calls on scientists and
> > journalists to stop misleading the public with "claim and
> counter-claim".
> >
> > She writes: "Having to rein in extraordinary claims that the latest
> > extreme [event] is all due to climate change is at best hugely
> frustrating
> > and at worse enormously distracting. Overplaying natural
> variations in the
> > weather as climate change is just as much a distortion of science as
> > underplaying them to claim that climate change has stopped or is not
> > happening."
> >
> > She adds: "Both undermine the basic facts that the implications
> of climate
> > change are profound and will be severe if greenhouse gas
> emissions are not
> > cut drastically."
> >
> > Dr Peter Stott, a climate researcher at the Met Office, said a
> common
> > misrepresentation was to take a few years data and extrapolate
> to what
> > would happen if it continues. "You just can't do that. You have
> to look at
> > the long-term trend and then at the natural variability on top."
> Dramatic
> > predictions of accelerating temperature rise and sea ice
> decline, based on
> > a few readings, could backfire when natural variability swings
> the other
> > way and the trends seem to reverse, he says. "It just confuses
> people."
> >
> > Pope says there is little evidence to support claims that Arctic
> ice has
> > reached a tipping point and could disappear within a decade or
> so, as some
> > reports have suggested. Summer ice extent in the Arctic, formed
> by frozen
> > sea water, has collapsed in recent years, with ice extent in
> September
> > last year 34% lower than the average since satellite
> measurements began in
> > 1979.
> >
> > "The record-breaking losses in the past couple of years could
> easily be
> > due to natural fluctuations in the weather, with summer ice
> increasing
> > again over the next few years," she says.
> >
> > "It is easy for scientists to grab attention by linking climate
> change to
> > the latest extreme weather event or apocalyptic prediction. But
> in doing
> > so, the public perception of climate change can be distorted.
> The reality
> > is that extreme events arise when natural variations in the
> weather and
> > climate combine with long-term climate change."
> >
> > "This message is more difficult to get heard. Scientists and
> journalists
> > need to find ways to help to make this clear without the wider
> audience
> > switching off."
> >
> > The criticism reflects mounting concern at the Met Office that
> the global
> > warming debate risks being hijacked by people on both sides who
> push their
> > own agendas and interests. It comes ahead of a key year of political
> > discussions on climate, which climax in December with high-level
> political
> > negotiations in Copenhagen, when officials will try to hammer out a
> > successor to the Kyoto protocol.
> >
> >
>
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------
>
> No virus found in this incoming message.
> Checked by AVG - www.avg.com
> Version: 8.0.237 / Virus Database: 270.10.23/1951 - Release Date:
> 02/13/09 06:51:00
>
|
