I share those concerns about misanthropy. I have some friends who vent their spleen on the internet and by email, all around the idea that everyone else is an idiot, except them. Which is of course what everybody thinks about everybody else.
I am hopelessly naïve and believe in the goodness of the majority of ‘ordinary’ people, but feel structural conditions prevent the expression of our better selves.
I hope you stay on the list Michael.
C
From: Discussion list for the Crisis Forum [mailto:[log in to unmask]] On Behalf Of Michael Northcott
Sent: 28 March 2013 09:25
To: [log in to unmask]
Subject: Re: Heading For A Different Planet: Global Warming, Propaganda-Journalism And The Definition Of Insanity
Matt
I too have been depressed by the mad max and misanthropic turn of crisis forum in the last few days and contemplated blocking it. I totally understand what you write.
As I watch my children grow families, friendships and faith in the future their greatest resource for facing whatever the future brings is friendships and their preparedness
to make friends with strangers.
It is for me particularly sad that our forum the last few days has channelled the same scapegoating frame the UK
Government is channelling this week in efforts to identify migrants as the source of strains on the NHS, schools and housing
while it cuts welfare and sells off the hospitals and schools of residents to the corporate sector.
Crisis is a great leveler. That is what the Spirit of 45 teaches (Loach's film about Beveridge NHS et al) That is also what Christ teaches - the first
shall be last and the last first. Love your enemies. Do not return evil for evil. For some in recent postings enemies seem to include most of our fellow citizens.
Pray for them and do not curse is profound advice from a man who was the scapegoat of the powers that be in his generation.
Empires rise and fall. What makes us hopefully human is that we love one another and show hospitality
to the stranger even when the 'barbarian invasions', to use the metaphor from Rome's collapse, are underway.
Michael Northcott
On Mar 28, 2013, at 8:56 AM, Alastair McIntosh <[log in to unmask]> wrote:
I got what you were saying, Mat, and found it apposite. A.
From: Discussion list for the Crisis Forum [mailto:[log in to unmask]] On Behalf Of Osmond, Matthew
Sent: 28 March 2013 08:42
To: [log in to unmask]
Subject: Re: Heading For A Different Planet: Global Warming, Propaganda-Journalism And The Definition Of Insanity
Douglas, Kevin, my apologies for the confused outburst. I wasn't intending to focus children in particular - I was thinking more of what children grow up into within our culture, at what point we hold them responsible for the form of adulthood they find themselves arriving at, and how we judge their (or our) inability or unwillingness to hold the present situation in focus, and to articulate any coherent response to it.
The remark about 'contributing to the problem' concerned the idea that arming ourselves against each other in advance constitutes a meaningful notion of preparedness, and only that. In general I think the comment simply witnessed to the fact that the Arctic is not the only thing overheating here. Thankfully my head is a bit easier to cool.
Mat
From: Discussion list for the Crisis Forum [[log in to unmask]] on behalf of CCG [[log in to unmask]]
Sent: 28 March 2013 06:24
To: [log in to unmask]
Subject: Re: Heading For A Different Planet: Global Warming, Propaganda-Journalism And The Definition Of InsanityIt is (or should be) the mandate of any parent to do their best to provide a future for their children, and I agree entirely with that.
I would go a little further though – I actually very much like this idea:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Seven_generation_sustainability
By not only considering the next generation (children) and the one after (grandchildren) but by considering further into the future– I think one arrives at a sensible philosophy upon which to operate society (the fossil fuel problem could have thus been avoided by asking the simple question “What happens when they run out? Are there no options that won’t run out?”).
I’d like to throw a question out to anyone interested. If one could choose the ideas shaping a civilisation, how would one try to shape it in cultural and philosophical terms? I’m not talking about specific technologies, skills, resources or equipment – but rather about ideas. Ideas are some of the most powerful things in the human world...
As mentioned above I find great value in the idea of the Iroquois. I also place great value in science – specifically in using rationality and reason to understand (and interact with) our world (and universe) rather than superstition. As such I value the ability to make progress in terms of knowledge.
If one could choose the ideas and principles underpinning a hypothetical ideal (and sustainable) civilisation – what would anyone else here say was important? So many possibilities and historical models...
Regards,
Douglas
From: Kevin Coleman [mailto:[log in to unmask]]
Sent: 28 March 2013 01:18
To: CCG
Cc: [log in to unmask]
Subject: Re: Heading For A Different Planet: Global Warming, Propaganda-Journalism And The Definition Of Insanity
I have spent the last few hours trying to make my mind up as to what the comment actually referred to but my only conclusion was the contributor was confused about reality. Either that or was simply misunderstanding the point being made that suggested that regardless of the current situation and our collective responsibilities we should make efforts to prepare for the worst and hope for the best.
As for the children that is the entire point of preparing for the worst. Otherwise what future would they have unless we protect them?
Kev C
CCG <[log in to unmask]> wrote:I’m a little confused (I haven’t yet worked out exactly what you’re trying to say). I don’t think I (or anyone else) at any time said anything about despising children or in fact assigning any blame whatsoever to them. In my worldview parents are responsible for children – not children. It is in my opinion a great tragedy that older generations have left this future to their children – and a dereliction of responsibility. That is of course a view expressed in terms of the collective as individuals vary greatly and the problem is so big that each individual share is necessarily small (even though it is still the sum of those shares that create the problem).
I don’t really want to get into all the details of my life – but perhaps a little anecdote can help illustrate my viewpoint. I spent a few years as a young adult working in an office. Other people of my age would come into work in the summer wearing jumpers and demand the air conditioning be turned up. In the winter they could come in light clothing and demand more heating. They got their way, for the most part.
Part of my childhood (age 12-15) was spent sleeping in a leaky caravan without any heating in rural Scotland, sometimes in below freezing temperatures (winter). I know from experience that an absence of heating or air conditioning needn’t kill you. I’ve picked the most extreme part of my childhood in this respect – but the point is this experience served me well later (for example when I bought a small boat in the UK – I kept that a little above freezing in the winter so as not to freeze the pipes). Can you see the contrast in perspectives that might arise?
This immediate comfort at the flick of a switch is one of the “toys” I alluded to. I realise that there is a very significant gulf in perspective between me and most of my peers – but my argument is that the more energy you burn to heat with, the more carbon dioxide you are releasing into the atmosphere. The more carbon dioxide you are releasing into the atmosphere the more you are directly contributing to the future that faces us all – including children – who do not control the thermostat.
Until the housing stock is energy efficient (which ought to have been done ages ago given we can now design houses needing almost no energy input at all to be comfortable), that would be a very simple and practical step people could take. Turn the thermostat down so it keeps your house just above freezing, to protect the pipes. You won’t waste water from broken pipes and you will be cutting your personal contribution to the problems we face (not to mention be saving money, a real concern for poorer people).
Finally in this context, I am not at all clear how you think I am contributing to “the problem we face”. Yes – I have contributed in some measure to the release of greenhouse gases into the atmosphere and the unsustainable usage of resources that western civilisation facilitates (less perhaps than most of my peers, but nonetheless I still have). I do feel for those people in poorer countries living much harder lives than I have – who suffer for what happens in the “developed” nations thousands of miles away. I don’t want to be part of what we do to them.
I did have a choice. I had a chance to sneak into the lower end of “middle classdom” (major economic crisis notwithstanding). I could have conformed to the expectations ordained by society and meekly followed the herd. Is this what you think I should be doing instead? If not, perhaps you could clarify what I should be doing with my life?
Regards,
Douglas
PS If you’re just saying I don’t seem like a terribly nice guy, maybe that’s the case. In which case this quote perhaps has resonance:
http://www.quotationspage.com/quote/26964.html
From: Discussion list for the Crisis Forum [mailto:[log in to unmask]] On Behalf Of Osmond, Matthew
Sent: 27 March 2013 17:54
To: [log in to unmask]
Subject: Re: Heading For A Different Planet: Global Warming, Propaganda-Journalism And The Definition Of Insanity
I sat outside my kids' school last night, watching several 100 children head home in chattering excitement after a concert. After reading recent CF exchanges, I was contemplating the fairly bad taste it had left in my mouth. I learn alot from discussions here, pass on information etc. regularly that I have gleaned from this list...but this bitter 'serves them right' derision for all these stupid, softened Westerners, with their pathetic lack of survival skills, really undermines the discussions here, for me, when it raises its head. When exactly should we start despising these children for being as they are - products of that (almost) all pervasive dream machine we call consumer culture? As if that were all they were. I get the impression that all here pretty much agree that their future does not look very promising? Pack your bullets if you wish - I suggest that such preparations will have made you a part of the problem they already face, with or without a large scale unraveling.Kevin Coleman <[log in to unmask]> wrote:I like what Douglas says.
But I disagree with geoengineering because it is too late and so little research has been done to suggest it is anything but safe.
I do think reduction of carbon emissions is important but not as a stand alone solution. I never ever have thought that.
Sustainable energy generation has been one other part of the solution but again I simply think humans would treat limitless energy, whether sustainably generated or from fossil fuels, with utter contempt, complaining whenever there was an outage regardless of the cause or source. They do like their toys don't they?
Anyway we're still screwed unless we prepare for worst case scenario. Yes bullets and beans folks.
And yes humanity can rebuild and survive but not the ones who have had it cosy for most of their life.
But please stop banging on about something that none of you can do anything about. Geoengineering is too large scale, to money greedy and too controllable by the very same corporations that have led and encouraged humanity into this dead end culture of over consumption.
If we geoengineered the planet we could flip it over on itself without even being aware we had done so until it was too late to stop. We could exacerbate e erratic climatic conditions to the nth degree and we would in all probability achieve jack widely for all our efforts.
As for the scientific community being up for sectioning for not being more proactive in embracing geoengineering let me ask John this question.
Do you consider your suggestions to geoengineers the planet, based as they are on mere theoretical principles and never ever having been put into practice for real, any less an insane behavioural trait worthy of first place on the section 8 list? Do tell.
Kev C
Christopher Shaw <[log in to unmask]> wrote:I am personally in no doubt that the response will be geo-engineering. My kids get the full picture from me on climate change from a political economy perspective and so it is with some relief I can say to them, don’t worry, you will be given a safe and stable future because of geo-engineering, so all those things I have been saying, you don’t need to worry.
I don’t say the safe and stable conditions you will grow up in will be safe and stable in the same way the life of a primate in a medical experiments lab will be safe and stable; ie safe and stable within very constrained conditions (i.e the kind of conditions laid out as possible and desirable in popular culture), safe and stable for as long as your masters have a use for you.
Chris
From: Discussion list for the Crisis Forum [mailto:[log in to unmask]] On Behalf Of CCG
Sent: 27 March 2013 07:45
To: [log in to unmask]
Subject: Re: Heading For A Different Planet: Global Warming, Propaganda-Journalism And The Definition Of Insanity
To pick a few points out:
Firstly I wouldn’t dispute at all that emission reductions are no longer sufficient to address the problem. I can’t remember the last time anyone with a significant amount of scientific knowledge tried to argue that with me – it seems to be the domain of the public (behind the curve as they generally are) and policy makers (whom I suspect are floating it as a sop to the public). So anyone willing to argue that emission reductions are sufficient can go ahead – but I won’t.
Secondly, I don’t personally view the dangers of geoengineering as particularly significant. It is true that if we depended upon it for some years (or longer – but I really doubt we could maintain it for long) we would see a phase of abrupt warming upon cessation – but we are already facing multiple potential (and some definite) rapid boosts to the rate of warming/change – one of which is the albedo flip, another of which is the rapid precipitation of sulphate aerosols from industrial pollution once civilisation folds (arguably currently providing a significant chunk of effective SRM geoengineering), plus potentials/probables (amazon/forest dieback/burning, methane feedbacks, etc.).
The worst thing about geoengineering I can think of is that it might give people more time to finish completely destroying the oceans and the food available there – or other areas of wilderness. Setting that aside, I don’t see it introduces any new risks to the equation – not any that fundamentally alter it anyway.
I do however have a couple of reservations about geoengineering:
1. What if it is too late and the option is gone? (I think this is likely, but only the course of time would tell, if we even tried it)
2. What else would be done to accompany it? (geoengineering alone is not a solution, it’s just a way to fob off fate for a few more years)
With respect to 1 I see no choice but to prepare contingency plans. I think it is the only rational course to cover the failure scenario (looking much the more likely one currently).
With respect to 2 I think the issue is not so much over geoengineering but over all the other necessary components of a minimum solution. You need to totally eliminate carbon emissions and provide some element of drawdown of existing greenhouse gas load – all within a very aggressive timescale (years to a decade at most I suspect). That – is theoretically possible (if you can persuade the affluent spoiled western brats to forgo their luxuries until enough clean energy is available to give them back to them....). Where I personally think it is likely impossible is that there is a catch 22 involved.
The catch 22 is that you need buy in from the existing socioeconomic elites who have presided over the system to the point of destruction and who show no sign of changing their outlook. Other components of the minimum solution basically involve rewriting the social order such that civilisation can be held together (that means looking out for the people at the bottom of the heap sufficiently...). Arguably we would need a revolution (and I mean a real one).
I would not however accuse anyone of being delusional for wanting to find a way to make this pathway work – rather I would be interested to see what ideas and strategies they might have for making it work (this really is the crux of the matter). After all – it is unwise to assume other people cannot have ideas one might not oneself – or find ways to make them work where oneself thinks them unlikely or impossible.
Thirdly I really can’t agree it is delusional to suppose that humanity (however diminished the population might be...) could possibly find a way to survive this. Our hominid ancestors populated much of the world with little more than fire and sharp sticks. “Modern” man has rebuilt great civilisations multiple times within the last ten thousand years that we know of (modern civilisation is actually rather feeble and short lived compared to some of the ancient ones). We have already started from nothing (or a very low base) multiple times.
This is an example of a family who fled into the Siberian wilderness – taking only what they could grab – no real planning or preparation – and they survived:
I grant that they didn’t start a civilisation – but I suggest there is a lesson there for those with a mind to perceive it.
You yourself allude to the experiences of ancient civilisations to abrupt climate change – I would highlight in particular that our species survived the supervolcanic eruption at Toba ~72-75kya (even if we went to the edge of extinction) and the Younger Dryas (even if humans did become regionally extinct in Europe).
I think civilisation – especially modern civilisation as practised by the West – is vulnerable, fragile and easily lost.
Our species though – as an animal – is stronger and tougher than any affluent city dweller could hope to perceive - enfeebled through the comforts of their technologically assisted life, and blinded by their society locking them into dependency for the very essentials of life (eg food, shelter etc).
Delusional or not – it is nobody’s place to tell me I shouldn’t pack my boat up with bullets and baked beans and have a go (I simplify greatly for brevity here).
If one thinks it is delusional to attempt such a thing – at what point do you murder your own children/grandchildren to give them a gentle peaceful ending instead of a hellish nightmare leading to inevitable death? Wouldn’t it be more rational to give them a chance, even if you yourself perceive none?
Regards,
Douglas
From: Discussion list for the Crisis Forum [mailto:[log in to unmask]] On Behalf Of John Nissen
Sent: 26 March 2013 19:02
To: [log in to unmask]
Subject: Re: Heading For A Different Planet: Global Warming, Propaganda-Journalism And The Definition Of Insanity
Hi all,
"Insanity" is the word. The focus is all wrong. We need to be focussing on Arctic warming and the exponential trend of sea ice decline, with a potential crash this year.
I am afraid that many top scientists have succumbed to delusions about the speed of decline of Arctic sea ice and the repercussions. They are unable to perceive what is happening in the real world - the terrifying reality is suppressed by their subconscious mind.
I have been talking to a psychologist and he tells me that there is a human trait to consider ourselves 'special' in some way, both as an individual and as a community, and therefore not liable to experience the horrors that may have afflicted civilisations in the past, such as abrupt climate change. But abrupt climate change is what is facing us today, as a result of sea ice retreat and Arctic warming. How is the scientific community reacting to this? Almost total silence! They are afflicted with this inbuilt denial or delusion.
A sure sign of the delusion is to argue that saving the Arctic can be achieved by cutting our fossil fuel emissions. I've never heard anything so insane. Even a complete cessation of emissions overnight would not have a cooling effect because of the CO2 and methane excess already in the atmosphere. Yet one repeatedly hears this advice being given by top pundits.
Another delusion is that geoengineering is necessarily dangerous - when not to apply geoengineering to cool the Arctic would be insane, since the technology is available.
The final delusion is to think that humanity could survive the repercussions of sea ice disappearance from the Arctic - especially the global climate change.
How can we draw attention of governments to the insanity of the advice that they are being given? And how can we obtain a U-turn in policy in time to save the sea ice from crashing out this September? Should our top scientific advisers be sectioned?
John
--
On 26/03/2013 20:30, Christopher Shaw wrote:There has always been a reactionary element within society and the idiocy of much of the working class and the complacency of the bourgeoisie both sicken me. Do we work as though what we do might make a difference or do we just do carry on regardless because there is nothing else to do? I’m rather in the latter camp I fear.
From: Discussion list for the Crisis Forum [mailto:[log in to unmask]] On Behalf Of Kevin Coleman
Sent: 26 March 2013 19:59
To: [log in to unmask]
Subject: Re: Heading For A Different Planet: Global Warming, Propaganda-Journalism And The Definition Of Insanity
Thank you. Glad to know I am not a bad person. Also your point on people making their own choices is interesting. Sometimes I wonder if these choices are representative of all possibilities or simply those given by the markets for their own profits.
As for the indefinite future I am still talking with people.......just not everyone I meet. Over the years you get used to the signs when someone is not listening or likely to be interested. So I choose my targets with care. Thankfully there are some who listen but sadly only a small number who act upon the information. Better to have 100% attention though than none at all. You never know who else they talk with. Or who else will talk with them.
Kev COn 26/03/2013 19:50, CCG wrote:
“And you will probably all call me a vicious thug or someone with no compassion nor humanitarian spirit or even something much worse.”
I call it pragmatic. And realistic.
Every individual within the collective masses has made their choices as surely as any of us. Hard to feel much sympathy for the populations that contributed the most to the global problem set and did the least to address it (though individually much may vary of course).
Nonetheless the indefinite future – for all those people yet to come – is still to play for, though I too think that time to prepare an opening gambit is now very short.
Regards,
Douglas
From: Discussion list for the Crisis Forum [mailto:[log in to unmask]] On Behalf Of Kevin Coleman
Sent: 26 March 2013 15:04
To: [log in to unmask]
Subject: Re: Heading For A Different Planet: Global Warming, Propaganda-Journalism And The Definition Of Insanity
Hi David,
In response to the article you kindly posted I proffer my view which I will say without reservation is somewhat critical of humanity. Not of you though. :-)
'So what's new? We already know this. People are being sold the ultimate dream of fame, fortune and fabulous wealth all the time. The last thing the corporations want is some fly in the ointment climate scientist spoiling the dream. After all dreams make money for the dream maker and cost the dreamer money but the dream is so lucid that you could almost touch it and so the people keep dreaming and paying and the dream makers keep making money. Ad infinitum. Hence why there are no climate science programs or debates on a regular basis.
Meanwhile back on the ranch we keep shouting until our voices are hoarse and can no longer be heard. And no one is really listening anyway.
Time to change tactics maybe and ask oneself if these people who we want to convince of the truth, so readily fooled by the dream makers, are really worth the effort. Or whether the end result of climate change will be sufficiently harsh to rid the planet of the dream makers and their idiotic followers and still leave a planet in a state where it is survivable on by the few that have made the real efforts to deal with the problems and those that have got wise at the last minute and bailed out of the cities and towns?
Sounds cruel I know but lets face it we are fighting ourselves on here all the time and the population of subscribers has not increased by much in all the time I have been a subscriber. So tell me this, have we actually convinced enough people in our time about climate change to actually bring about global change? I don't think so.
So back to the original point I was making in another thread about teaching those who don't know what to do. That was referring to a situation that had gone beyond saving the human edifices and basically going about picking up the pieces of humanity instead. No mention of press and media there. No concerns about what the latest on the twitter feed said. All that would be gone for as long as we have left to live. Dust and ashes.
Instead we would have the monumental task of rebuilding society from scratch. Yes it would be from scratch because what was/is left behind would be infested with whatever brought down humanity in its very last moments. Rats, disease and the last vestiges of humanity, hell bent on gorging itself on whatever it can find in the rubble before it too finally expires. After all a war can leave things in quite a mess but humans can to a certain extent survive......until the means to do so expire. Water anyone?
Then there would be the survivors with no idea how to survive wandering the wasteland. Now these might be worth saving. Worth the effort. After all I am not, contrary to popular belief, selfish or cruel. No I am a realist who sees what is and acts accordingly. These few who decided to walk out of the ruins may well be worth the effort and then again they may be switched on bands of marauders hell bent on taking whatever they can find.......but lets not judge them until we know for sure. And to know we only have to watch from a distance to see what they do.
You cannot save those that do not want to be saved.
And you will probably all call me a vicious thug or someone with no compassion nor humanitarian spirit or even something much worse. Well you would be wrong. I have as much care and concern for the planet as anyone but I don't follow the dream makers. I tread my own path and I am but one person. I have tried to contribute to the debate. Tried to convince the masses bit by bit, person by person, day by day. Unfortunately I am not a time lord nor a great teacher nor do I have the luxury of limitless resources to teach with but I do know what really is worth trying and its not banging my head against a brick wall until my ears bleed. That is the path of despair and defeat. Its long overdue to try something else. Something less palatable but no less important admittedly. Besides the people have long since given up listening simply because to them the situation is not their fault and the powers that be (dream makers) will put it right. Right now the economy is all important and we cannot survive without a viable economy. Not a hope without 'sustainable economic growth'. (Oxymoron) That is what the dream makers tell the masses and they believe them.
The plain truth is the planet is overpopulated despite what we think. It wouldn't be if it wasn't for those dream makers who sell everything twice over to the ones with the money while ripping off those three times over who are without. Thus making their profit inbetween. The disparity of food, shelter, water and wealth among the people of planet Earth are what makes the current population levels unsustainable hence 'over populated'. If things were properly distributed equitably across the entire planet then we would be able to sustain the current population and then some.
But unlike our recently retired science minister (unelected) the population will not reach 8 billion any time soon, simply because the infrastructure is not there to do it or sustain it. Climate change is happening (we all know this already so forgive the teaching of granny) and hence crops will fail everywhere including here in the UK and over there in the US and we will be going cap in hand to these developing nations with the right climate for growing stuff wanting to exchange worthless money for useful food.
Think its going to happen? Do you think these developing nations will take the proffered coinage? Think again because most of these developing nations are as vulnerable to climatic changes as we are and most of them will be aware of the shortages we have endured and the causes so they will demand higher payments and it won't be in coins of the realm.
Instead we will see the start of the decline of humanity. The end of the dreams and the beginning of chaos. Because despite us not having the food, they don't have the weapons.
And that is where we are now. At the very beginning of chaos. Watch if it doesn't start to happen this year.
Regards
Kev COn 26/03/2013 17:29, David Cromwell wrote:
Hello Folks,
The latest media alert from Media Lens might be of interest...
Best wishes
David
---
26 March 2013
Heading For A Different Planet
Global Warming, Propaganda-Journalism And The Definition Of Insanity
By David Cromwell
The systematic propaganda of the corporate media - its deep-rooted antipathy towards upholding proper journalistic standards in the public interest - extends to its coverage of human-induced climate change. The Independent recently delivered a masterpiece of headline obfuscation with: 'World cools on global warming as green fatigue sets in.'
The news report said:
'Only 49 per cent of people now consider climate change a very serious issue – far fewer than at the beginning of the worldwide financial crisis in 2009.'
As usual, there was no mention of the role of the corporate media as a leading cause of why 'green fatigue' has supposedly set in. No mention of the media's shameful failure to explore root causes of the climate crisis, not least the elite-serving corporate globalisation that has taken humanity to the brink of disaster. Chris Shaw, a social sciences researcher at the University of Sussex, noted on Twitter that nor was there 'any mention of the work of the merchants of doubt, paid for and acting on the behalf of corporate interests'.
Ironically, science writer Joe Romm of the indispensable Climate Progress blog had exposed the myth of 'green fatigue' in a piece a few days earlier:
'The two greatest myths about global warming communications are 1) constant repetition of doomsday messages has been a major, ongoing strategy and 2) that strategy doesn't work and indeed is actually counterproductive!'
Romm's powerful rebuttal noted that 'blunt, science-based messaging that also makes clear the problem is solvable' has a demonstrable effect in stimulating public concern about climate. His piece listed 8 key points about the mostly poor standard of climate coverage in the media, as well as the incessant pro-business propaganda to which the US public is subjected (likewise in the UK and other 'developed' countries). Some of Romm's key points are:
• 'There is not one single TV show on any network devoted to this subject [climate change], which is, arguably, more consequential than any other preventable issue we face.'
• 'The public is exposed to constant messages promoting business as usual and indeed idolizing conspicuous consumption...'
• 'The major energy companies bombard the airwaves with millions and millions of dollars of repetitious pro-fossil-fuel ads. The environmentalists spend far, far less money.'Not only is the so-called 'mainstream' media uninterested in addressing the climate catastrophe looming right in front of us, it is simply not equipped to do so. This is obvious when one recalls that the media isn't actually 'mainstream', if by that word we mean representing majority public interests. It's corporate media: owned and operated by elite interests - government, financial, business – that are structurally driven by the 'need' for control, profit and accumulation.
--"Vision without action is a daydream. Action without vision is a nightmare." Japanese Proverb
--"Vision without action is a daydream. Action without vision is a nightmare." Japanese Proverb
This email is confidential and intended solely for the use of the intended recipient only. If you have received this email in error, please inform us immediately and then delete it.