 |
 |
Decisions and Actions in Daily Life unleash all supply chain, mental, ecosystem, etc etc CONSEQUENCES of those decisions and actions - buying a car, buying a magazine, building a large house, using a computer, choosing certain materials in manufacture, getting behind Renewables or the Green movement, etc etc. All these simply-made and often quickly-made decisions unleash all the consequences resultant from raw materials usage to EVERYTHING required to fulfill the demand/decision such as production equipment and methods, or driving instead of walking, or mass-production instead of local personal production etc, and are not limited to physical Consequences. This is (at a Physical level) where almost all Impact originates, and where CO2 and all other Impacts are generated by Humans in such quantity. Unless this chain sinks home to all people, all that people will do is propose (as one simple example discussed in the emails below) CO2 cuts/caps/quotas without changing people's decision-making processes that are the things that actually unleash the very systems and processes that generate the CO2 (etc etc) in the first place which they then propose to cap, and, as another very simple and popular example, most Western people are now thinking that present Renewable Energy is indeed Renewable, and may support it, spending much money setting their houses up for such, marching to support such, in relative ignorance of the entire supply chain and mental etc etc Consequences of these NOT-YET-RENEWABLE-AT-ALL Renewable Energy methods and the subsequent gadgetary and equipment and supply requirements/usage they allow/generate and mindset they maintain or instill, or production methods and pollution they support/generate or physical and mental health they may reduce etc.... It seems that most well-meaning organisations pressing for Environmental etc Change are still stuck in not "seeing" the Bigger Picture that results (as CONSEQUENCES) from their well-meaning decisions, and the Public almost unthinkingly at present go along with this, and consequently without realising it, they are all again making the same mistakes again - e.g. pressing for more technology to combat the problems at hand, or Renewables when these are not renewable, etc etc. It is a MUST, if we all want to do this right, to work from being Grounded, from the ground-up, from the most basic case of living first, from the earliest Raw Materials/Resource Exploration stages, or caring for the other person/animal/plant/rock etc etc upwards, up to every decision etc... It's all, from a Physical level anyway, about Consequences in every aspect, in EVERY Decision and thought, in everyday day-to-day (mundabe?) Life - miss these and we'll get it wrong YET AGAIN - no matter how well-meaning we were! Here's Another very simple but profound example: How you say things has consequences (inc. as an Environmental Person) : Me saying "You're All Wrong" gets all of your backs up doesn't it !? Me saying "We're all wrong" is an improvement, at least I'm in there with you, which I am! Me saying "We can all improve because here's where we went wrong" is a little better. Me saying, here, "Follow me" is better still (provided I'm right in this exampe, and also because no negative words used). Me saying, "We can together make your Life simpler, Happier, more Healthy, more Simple, with less impact..." etc is far far better still, and remains positive and engaging, and can get to the same Physical end result, but also have numerous possibly-unexpected Positive benefits in many other areas of Life ! ALL (!!!) CONSEQUENCES of decisions and actions (not just those we wish to focus on, or physical/matter ones). Most of the Environmental, Religious, Spiritual etc campaigns/desires STILL are selecting options with distinctly adverse consequences within or without of their intended area of focus, and the Public and Politicians run away with this - to what Consequences ?.... What goes-around-comes-around, Do as you would be done by, etc... With greater appreciation, we realise that it of course startes deeper than this still, next in line, how we think... Hope it helps and has suitable positive Consequences to all your efforts ! All the Best to you all !! Chris M. --- SowNet <[log in to unmask]> wrote: > Here's my New Year's pennyworth, if that is not an > oxymoron! > > Good luck with public support for TEQs or DTQs (to > be sung to the acronym song in Hair!). That is a > long way off if the public doesn't believe that > anything it can do will be effective. > > As to the latter, we find no problem with those to > come to (and stay to watch) our professionally > acted Roadshows on averting climate change, or to > our Shows version in primary schools. The key > appears to have an informative, engaging, > entertaining, involving, challenging and highly > participative presentation to groups of not more > than sixty people at a time. Unfortunately the > guidance so far from Defra's > www.climatechallenge.gov.uk doesn't really 'cut it'. > > That's why we want the Climate Fund to support a > crash programme of our Shows in every primary school > in the country. I proposed this at the UK Launch of > the UNESCO Decade for Education in Sustainable > Development, only to have it vanish into silence! > Oh well, we keep trying! > > Best wishes from Jim Scott. > > > Visit: http//:www.save-our-world.net (global) and > www.save-our-world.org.uk > Registered charity no. 1111210 in England & Wales > > ----- Original Message ----- > From: "Chris Keene" <[log in to unmask]> > To: <[log in to unmask]> > Sent: Saturday, December 24, 2005 12:08 PM > Subject: Re Selling climate change > > > > I wonder what you think of tradable quotas for > individuals (variously > > known as TEQs, DTQs, personal carbon allowances)? > It seems to me that > > if we could get public backing for it it could be > one way of ensuring > > that we do reduce our emissions since we can only > emit emissions for > > which we have permits, either allocated to us free > by the government or > > purchased at market rates. I will probably doing > my dissertation on > > this topic for my MSc climate change > > > > Chris > > > > Chris Church wrote: > > > > > Re: Chris Keene's note, > > > There's no shortage of commentators trying to > suggest that the > > environmental movement is out-of-touch (as a > subscriber to Open > > Democracy I think exactly the same applies to > muich of their rarefied > > academic waffle) - the problem is that of course > they are right. > > > > > > I spent several months this year on a piece of > research (should be > > published soon) that looked at the attitudes of > the wider Voluntary and > > Community sector to engagement in climate change. > While these > > organisations don't represent the 'mass of Uk > opinion' there are about > > 750,000 V & C groups in the Uk -c pare with about > 5,500 broadly green > > groups. People know climate change is there > (thanks largely to the > > environmental sector) - what they don't know is > what to do, and they > > don't beleive that there's much they can do that > will be effective. > > That's one reason why the 'climate communications > fund' is coming in > > January. > > > > > > The problem, I might suggest is that real > lasting change needs work > > on policy, infrastructure, and engagement. The > policy wonks of the world > > still seem to have the lovely idea that all we > need is international > > agreements and laws and everything will be > alright. Of course these are > > important but climate change really does show the > limits of policy > > making. There is likely to be huge opposition (as > per fuel tax protests) > > to any real legislative impacts on lifestyle and > consumption unless a) > > there's the infrastructure to make making the > changes easy and b) far > > more public engagement and support. > > > > > > The problem that hangs off that one is then > that there is desperately > > little in the ways of strategic approaches to > building engagement: it's > > usually assumed that it just happens. Arguable > that the bigger green > > groups do need to change behaviour here: their > fund-raising strategies > > seem to lead their outreach and the fund-raisers > tend to sell to those > > who are already converted. > > > > > > A lot of my work for the year ahead is to focus > on the wider > > community sector - recently impressed by one > example from people in > > Wigan who developed an active health programme > with Wigan Rugby Club > > (including local food etc.) and are now looking to > develop this into > > including work on energy and climate... > > > Happy to talk to anyone one-to-one more about > this. > > > > > > Best wishes for the festive season... > > > > > > Chris Church > > > > > > > > > > > > > > ___________________________________________________________ Yahoo! Exclusive Xmas Game, help Santa with his celebrity party - http://santas-christmas-party.yahoo.net/