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/