If natural systems were well understood and behaved in a predictable
way, it might be possible to calculate what would be a “safe” amount of pressure to inflict on them without endangering the basic services they provide to humankind.
Unfortunately, however, the living machinery of Earth has a tendency to move from gradual to catastrophic change with little warning. Such is the complexity of the relationships between plants, animals, and microorganisms that these “tipping points” cannot be forecast by existing science.
The millenium assessment is sobering. But so was the Warning to Humanity from 1992 by many of the worlds leading scientists and majority of the world's Nobel Laureates.
It seems Rachel Carson inspired a generation of scientists to speak out on the truth they have uncovered.
The Precautionary Principle would be exercised so well here, on planet earth.
We are lacking time as we tamper.
But I am not tampering. I am looking for answers, while I still buy burgers, cheap clothes from China, and drive my car to the grocery store.
Ironically, I feel that if I slow down enough to make these changes, I will fall out of engagement with trying to find those leverage points to help make those huge policy shifts. Though, Rex Wyler said at a talk I heard once before: All the legislation that Green Peace made 20 years before is being reversed.
This leads me to think that the policy changes are not the major leverage points, What we need is a culture shift. Take this case for example:
Women have rights! Sure, look at all your rights, your fine and quit your complaining. Now choose between working or child rearing. Because unless you make as much as your husband (which most of you don't), one of you will have to sacrifice a career (seniority, perceived experience)so you can manage. Daycare's are full - 2 year waiting list!
Unless more Curitiba's show up, we are doomed. To transition, we need people as well that are willing to listen to the fears, and respond with kindness to nurture ideas and model the possibilities. I see the value in that role more than before. Pulling the rug out from people's feel will be tough, and someone will need to help people back up. If there is a carbon tax - lets offer creative way to ammend the adverse effects on the pocket book.
It is that tipping point that we cannot be too sure with in nature, or with culture shifts. If what Blessed Unrest offers is any indication - it may be faster than we think.
Tuesday, August 4, 2009
Monday, August 3, 2009
Idle Free
I just wanted to show you this in case you ever wanted to make a snazzy type video presentation easily, in very short time. Took me 20 minutes to whip this lil diddy up.
http://animoto.com
Saturday, August 1, 2009
You've captured my...carbon?
The Framing of Climate Change in Canadian, American, and International Newspapers: A Media Propoganda Model Analysis, by Jennifer Ellen Good, is way cooler than the title sounds. In fact, if I was a free agent in my life, I would love to jump on board to compare these findings with the framing of climate change during both lead up and after Copenhagen.
It comforts me to know that someone is paying attention to the writing on the wall. Because at the end of the day, while we are all busy trying to decide which light bulb to buy, our government (bless their wee hearts), is investing most heavily in storing carbon. Where?? I have no clue. In the Feds plan for Turning the corner: A Framework to Expedite the Suffering and Demise of Humanity, Harper and his loyal gang of subjects offer carbon capture as a solution to the large scale operations such as, (you guessed it), The Tar Sands. The comforting notion of carbon capture can captivate your imagination with such references captured from our expert devised regulatory framework as, "The stream of carbon dioxide is also sometimes injected into older oil wells to help extract further reserves of oil." And my personal favorite, "It is a technology that is most cost-effective when it involves large volumes of carbon dioxide, such as those produced at oil sands and electricity generation facilities, and when it is built into new facilities, although it can also be applied to existing facilities."
Yes, they have figured out how to turn this climate crisis into an oilportunity.
As featured in World Environment News, courtesey of Reuters, "Natural Resources Minister Lisa Raitt said in a statement C$650 million has been earmarked to help pay for large-scale carbon capture and storage demonstration projects as the government looks to follow through on agreements made during U.S. President Barack Obama's February visit to Canada.
The remaining cash will be directed to paying for smaller-scale renewable and alternative energy projects and a C$150 million fund for researching clean energy technologies." - May 20, 2009.
But to get back to the article mentioned at the beginning. What is startling from Good's research is that the international community in reporting about Kyoto, tended not to highlight the US opposition to Kyoto. It seems a no brainer to me that to mention an international agreement without discussing major obstacles to its successes is a moot point. Rather than questioning if the citizens of your country can ride their bikes one day a week to work, how about a little reference to the fact that the super power of the world, and top emitter, is not getting on board?
I hope that Copenhagen can expose all the dirty secrets that countries are "capturing". But we know we can't rely on the mass media alone. It will most likely have to be the chirps and tweets of the blessed unrest. (cross fingers)
It comforts me to know that someone is paying attention to the writing on the wall. Because at the end of the day, while we are all busy trying to decide which light bulb to buy, our government (bless their wee hearts), is investing most heavily in storing carbon. Where?? I have no clue. In the Feds plan for Turning the corner: A Framework to Expedite the Suffering and Demise of Humanity, Harper and his loyal gang of subjects offer carbon capture as a solution to the large scale operations such as, (you guessed it), The Tar Sands. The comforting notion of carbon capture can captivate your imagination with such references captured from our expert devised regulatory framework as, "The stream of carbon dioxide is also sometimes injected into older oil wells to help extract further reserves of oil." And my personal favorite, "It is a technology that is most cost-effective when it involves large volumes of carbon dioxide, such as those produced at oil sands and electricity generation facilities, and when it is built into new facilities, although it can also be applied to existing facilities."
Yes, they have figured out how to turn this climate crisis into an oilportunity.
As featured in World Environment News, courtesey of Reuters, "Natural Resources Minister Lisa Raitt said in a statement C$650 million has been earmarked to help pay for large-scale carbon capture and storage demonstration projects as the government looks to follow through on agreements made during U.S. President Barack Obama's February visit to Canada.
The remaining cash will be directed to paying for smaller-scale renewable and alternative energy projects and a C$150 million fund for researching clean energy technologies." - May 20, 2009.
But to get back to the article mentioned at the beginning. What is startling from Good's research is that the international community in reporting about Kyoto, tended not to highlight the US opposition to Kyoto. It seems a no brainer to me that to mention an international agreement without discussing major obstacles to its successes is a moot point. Rather than questioning if the citizens of your country can ride their bikes one day a week to work, how about a little reference to the fact that the super power of the world, and top emitter, is not getting on board?
I hope that Copenhagen can expose all the dirty secrets that countries are "capturing". But we know we can't rely on the mass media alone. It will most likely have to be the chirps and tweets of the blessed unrest. (cross fingers)
Friday, July 31, 2009
Posted tonight: TV and the people who love it.
Hope, Happiness, Wellbeing in half hour time slots. Drama in an hour.
Interesting things are happening out there to test the effects of the television on viewers. (we are not people we are viewers, users, and consumers).
I am most surprised by the research that surveyed environmental organizations, and found that of the "environmentalists" ( identified by member affiliation to an ENGO), who responded to the survey, those with the most hour of TV viewing were the least likely to report attitudes reflective of those concerned with environmental issues.
Is the TV some magnetic force that strips you of good sense and decency? Or does the majority of us prioritize our internal lists of the world's ills by what the screen flickers?
As an anecdote, I know quite a few people who believe the TV is a mirror of the world. Ideas, current events, the whole shbang is on TV. If you are not up on TV, then you are living under a rock. But what is the TV saying that is so beguiling? I like this research (besides all the terms I don't quite understand, and the length) because it is giving us another story about what the TV is saying. And how what it is saying is changing the way you think.
If I stared out the same window every day, for 6 hours per day - what would I learn about my surroundings? TV is that window into the world for millions of people each day.
McKibben's description of that old woman, hand gripped onto the remote, as she slips off into eternal slumber scares me. I see it in my grandma. She reads, watches TV, and does cross words. But TV occupies so much of what she does when she is alone. I wish we could live together, and share meals, plan gardens. But she prefers to eat with the TV if she is not out for dinner. She learns about the environmental catastrophes and tells me about the programs. She cuts out articles for me from the Vancouver Sun. But every few months she buys me a Swiffer. Now, I am not the cleanest person. I would rather hang with my kid, then be bound to housework on my time off. But she believes, as much as she does that we need to reduce our waste, that I also need the convenience of a Swiffer.
One day, my 10 year old neighbor came by to borrow something for his parents. He saw the swiffer #15 that my grandma just brought me sitting to the side of my kitchen. He gleefully asked if he could try my swiffer, as if it was a shiny new skateboard. I told him to go for it, and delightfully he cleaned the floor for about 10 minutes before announcing 'this sucks' and left. At least the swiffer got out for a spin.
If something as simple as a stick with some fuzzy paper on the bottom can get people this excited in this day and age of ipods and ATV's, TV has got to be more powerful than we anticipated. Or maybe the dust bunnies are clogging up my brain.
Interesting things are happening out there to test the effects of the television on viewers. (we are not people we are viewers, users, and consumers).
I am most surprised by the research that surveyed environmental organizations, and found that of the "environmentalists" ( identified by member affiliation to an ENGO), who responded to the survey, those with the most hour of TV viewing were the least likely to report attitudes reflective of those concerned with environmental issues.
Is the TV some magnetic force that strips you of good sense and decency? Or does the majority of us prioritize our internal lists of the world's ills by what the screen flickers?
As an anecdote, I know quite a few people who believe the TV is a mirror of the world. Ideas, current events, the whole shbang is on TV. If you are not up on TV, then you are living under a rock. But what is the TV saying that is so beguiling? I like this research (besides all the terms I don't quite understand, and the length) because it is giving us another story about what the TV is saying. And how what it is saying is changing the way you think.
If I stared out the same window every day, for 6 hours per day - what would I learn about my surroundings? TV is that window into the world for millions of people each day.
McKibben's description of that old woman, hand gripped onto the remote, as she slips off into eternal slumber scares me. I see it in my grandma. She reads, watches TV, and does cross words. But TV occupies so much of what she does when she is alone. I wish we could live together, and share meals, plan gardens. But she prefers to eat with the TV if she is not out for dinner. She learns about the environmental catastrophes and tells me about the programs. She cuts out articles for me from the Vancouver Sun. But every few months she buys me a Swiffer. Now, I am not the cleanest person. I would rather hang with my kid, then be bound to housework on my time off. But she believes, as much as she does that we need to reduce our waste, that I also need the convenience of a Swiffer.
One day, my 10 year old neighbor came by to borrow something for his parents. He saw the swiffer #15 that my grandma just brought me sitting to the side of my kitchen. He gleefully asked if he could try my swiffer, as if it was a shiny new skateboard. I told him to go for it, and delightfully he cleaned the floor for about 10 minutes before announcing 'this sucks' and left. At least the swiffer got out for a spin.
If something as simple as a stick with some fuzzy paper on the bottom can get people this excited in this day and age of ipods and ATV's, TV has got to be more powerful than we anticipated. Or maybe the dust bunnies are clogging up my brain.
Counterfeit Communities
The environmental movement is using the internet to mobilize communities and…should we say it, dance for donors ever more. But “ To what end?” has only begun to be explored. Good tackles this question and adds some interesting context to what has been observed as “Slacktivism”.
We have all received e-mail petitions or invitations to facebook groups which vie for our attention, even if all they need is a brief moment of acknowledgement. Sometimes we click the link to sign the petition, only to notice that we have to click more and read such and such. We may be at work, at a meeting, or just surfing at home – but something else like the phone ringing will distract our attention and then ‘zap’. The site is minimized and then lost in the shuffle with the rest of the web traffic. We may join a facebook invitation to ‘save the whales’ or challenge others to make a virtual vegetable garden. But what else is the internet offering us in way of making true strides towards respecting our planet?
Some excellent questions are raised about the communities we form to help create the change. Who is the internet reaching out to? Is their a correlation between those who use the internet for various activities, and a higher positive environmental attitude?
Of the findings of the research related to the article Internet Use and Environmental Attitudes: A Social Capital Approach by Jennifer Good, there are two things that stand out for me are:
1) Those who search for news on-line are apt to have less knowledge or empathy towards the environmental concerns of today.
2) Those with a higher recognition of the environmental consequences of today use the internet for environmental purposes.
First, it is interesting to note where the news is coming from. On-line ‘news’ in the traditional sense is essentially a mirror for what we see on TV. And the research that does exist on the content of that news remarks that environmental content caps at about 10%. There are many blogs that provide commentary on news, offering environmental slant. But what are we (internet users) really learning about environmental impacts beyond just the bold facts and questioning.
It is often that we hear of people traveling to developing nations, and coming back with this eye opening experience about the way ‘the rest of the world lives’. We often hear about the devastation, hunger, starvation may people across the world experience. We see it in block buster films, and on TV commercials for World Vision. Brangelina have a collection of children from different countries, all of which are ‘less fortunate’. But at the end of the day, do we elect our government based on their support to contribute .07% of the GDP as promised by many world leaders to Make Povery History. It seems that even for some of the most compassionate and respectful people, it isn’t until we see with our own two eyes that we are not truly affected.
Do we need to see the oil spilling into our own yards, or the ground rapidly melting beneath our feet to be truly affected?
The second item I mention above seems pretty obvious. Of course those with a higher awareness of environmental issues use the internet more for environmental purposes (or report they do). It is what those purposes are that interest me. For instance, I receive World Environment News on a daily basis. I read it. But it does little to make things seem more manageable to drop by jobs, get a sitter, and fight to get the green party elected so that we can expedite the development of renewable energy. As I mentioned at the start of this post - is signing the petition and forwarding that around able to make an impact?
Avaaz. Org is a prime example of mobilizing people with use of the internet. They show up with a mass petition from around the globe, and promise ‘stunts’ to show that their actions have teeth.
I signed there petition last time around, for something related to an international conference with government heads, and I completely forget what it was for… I think I made a difference though.
I agree with the article in the way it questions where we are allocating our social capital. Are we building relationships, trust and developing community to support us through the transitions we will have to make in the reality of climate change, increasing poverty etc. etc.??? Avaaz hasn’t offered to help me with a Community Energy Plan for Mount Pleasant. Neither has the Sierra Club. I know I will need to weave a different web, if I intend to put a new spin on the possibilities we can build for the future. But I will e-mail those in my hood to find a time to hold our monthly meeting.
We have all received e-mail petitions or invitations to facebook groups which vie for our attention, even if all they need is a brief moment of acknowledgement. Sometimes we click the link to sign the petition, only to notice that we have to click more and read such and such. We may be at work, at a meeting, or just surfing at home – but something else like the phone ringing will distract our attention and then ‘zap’. The site is minimized and then lost in the shuffle with the rest of the web traffic. We may join a facebook invitation to ‘save the whales’ or challenge others to make a virtual vegetable garden. But what else is the internet offering us in way of making true strides towards respecting our planet?
Some excellent questions are raised about the communities we form to help create the change. Who is the internet reaching out to? Is their a correlation between those who use the internet for various activities, and a higher positive environmental attitude?
Of the findings of the research related to the article Internet Use and Environmental Attitudes: A Social Capital Approach by Jennifer Good, there are two things that stand out for me are:
1) Those who search for news on-line are apt to have less knowledge or empathy towards the environmental concerns of today.
2) Those with a higher recognition of the environmental consequences of today use the internet for environmental purposes.
First, it is interesting to note where the news is coming from. On-line ‘news’ in the traditional sense is essentially a mirror for what we see on TV. And the research that does exist on the content of that news remarks that environmental content caps at about 10%. There are many blogs that provide commentary on news, offering environmental slant. But what are we (internet users) really learning about environmental impacts beyond just the bold facts and questioning.
It is often that we hear of people traveling to developing nations, and coming back with this eye opening experience about the way ‘the rest of the world lives’. We often hear about the devastation, hunger, starvation may people across the world experience. We see it in block buster films, and on TV commercials for World Vision. Brangelina have a collection of children from different countries, all of which are ‘less fortunate’. But at the end of the day, do we elect our government based on their support to contribute .07% of the GDP as promised by many world leaders to Make Povery History. It seems that even for some of the most compassionate and respectful people, it isn’t until we see with our own two eyes that we are not truly affected.
Do we need to see the oil spilling into our own yards, or the ground rapidly melting beneath our feet to be truly affected?
The second item I mention above seems pretty obvious. Of course those with a higher awareness of environmental issues use the internet more for environmental purposes (or report they do). It is what those purposes are that interest me. For instance, I receive World Environment News on a daily basis. I read it. But it does little to make things seem more manageable to drop by jobs, get a sitter, and fight to get the green party elected so that we can expedite the development of renewable energy. As I mentioned at the start of this post - is signing the petition and forwarding that around able to make an impact?
Avaaz. Org is a prime example of mobilizing people with use of the internet. They show up with a mass petition from around the globe, and promise ‘stunts’ to show that their actions have teeth.
I signed there petition last time around, for something related to an international conference with government heads, and I completely forget what it was for… I think I made a difference though.
I agree with the article in the way it questions where we are allocating our social capital. Are we building relationships, trust and developing community to support us through the transitions we will have to make in the reality of climate change, increasing poverty etc. etc.??? Avaaz hasn’t offered to help me with a Community Energy Plan for Mount Pleasant. Neither has the Sierra Club. I know I will need to weave a different web, if I intend to put a new spin on the possibilities we can build for the future. But I will e-mail those in my hood to find a time to hold our monthly meeting.
Realism meets Post Modernism
And now the election of Bush makes sense.
Richard Right’s, Slow History of Progress is verry, verrry interesting. I can’t wait to read The Inheritors By William Golding. ( Who also wrote Lord of the Flies – I didn’t know that) - that is when I feel like reading isn’t the only thing between me and a decent nights sleep.
He questions how the historical evolution of humans played out – through natural selection or genocide.
But his comment regarding the nature of the political rights motives were particularly interesting. And something that has been eating at me all day. But as few people were able to access the mp3 (it needs real player), I felt somewhat alone in my discomfort.
Project New American Century lays out exactly the type of insistence that certain society has to propagate their position on the evolutionary scale. Where many of us dream of peace, there are those who see the world as ‘eat or be eaten.’ It is a comforting notion that this ‘realist’ way of thinking may be evolutionary baggage that has been carried over by our distant past, rather that part of the wave of the future. (fingers crossed).
I think Chomsky (and you Jennifer) would like this quote I pulled:
“Human word is the power that orders chaos” (or is at least what we grab onto in an attempt)
Richard Right’s, Slow History of Progress is verry, verrry interesting. I can’t wait to read The Inheritors By William Golding. ( Who also wrote Lord of the Flies – I didn’t know that) - that is when I feel like reading isn’t the only thing between me and a decent nights sleep.
He questions how the historical evolution of humans played out – through natural selection or genocide.
But his comment regarding the nature of the political rights motives were particularly interesting. And something that has been eating at me all day. But as few people were able to access the mp3 (it needs real player), I felt somewhat alone in my discomfort.
Project New American Century lays out exactly the type of insistence that certain society has to propagate their position on the evolutionary scale. Where many of us dream of peace, there are those who see the world as ‘eat or be eaten.’ It is a comforting notion that this ‘realist’ way of thinking may be evolutionary baggage that has been carried over by our distant past, rather that part of the wave of the future. (fingers crossed).
I think Chomsky (and you Jennifer) would like this quote I pulled:
“Human word is the power that orders chaos” (or is at least what we grab onto in an attempt)
Silent Spring for a Wealthy Winter
I have not read Silent Spring. I read was required for our readings. But I did receive it this past Christmas after talking to a friend about how I really should read it. After all, had it not been written, I wonder where we would be. (Plus it was a women who wrote it, and not the white males we see running the show everywhere – mostly).
Anyways, I will read it.
But her quote: “This is an era of specialists, each of who sees his own problem and is unaware of or intolerant of the larger frame into which it fits. It is also an era dominated by industry, in which the right to make a dollar at whatever cost is seldom challenged”
She acknowledges this and writes her book, speaking out in her profession among all the controversy and chaos that would ensue. What courage!
She is obviously brilliant as the solutions she promotes at the end of the book are far advanced, even in today’s standards as we eek our way to develop biodynamic systems of food production.
We need people charged with that kind of courage as we move forward! I want that courage. But it helped that she was specialized at something, that she had a credibility to her convictions. I see people like Naomi Klein with no formal undergrad and I think, I don’t need to be a PHD to make a go at it.
Where can I grab the courage to speak out on something.
This course has taught me a lot about speaking out. I feel much more confident that I could voice my opposition to the things that are happening which are so blatantly wrong, harmful and devastating. I have anyways, but not as often or eloquently as I would like.
I sincerely believe we have to stop helping to produce the ridiculous wealth of so few people. Exxon closed out with a 45 billion dollar profit last year.
I can tell you they are not going try and buy solar panels with that capital. They are going to explore for more oil (see link).
The Co-operative model of organizing seems like such a great way to look at how we can begin to override this crazy economic system and get to producing and consuming at levels that satisfy our needs and not the pockets of a handful of ridiculously wealthy folks.
I can hear the dissent as I write this, “All that money bought you the free medicare”. “That capital brought you the rapid development of the computer you are typing on”.
And to some degree this is true. But it will also be the exacerbation of many of the world’s already burgeoning problems if we don’t learn how to manage our progress.
We are creative people, proving to be capable or anything – even masterfully orchestrating our own demise. I have no doubt that we can find a better way to communicate and design mobility that doesn’t toxify our planet. (toxify is a new word I made up). Guy Dauncey is looking into telepathy and clairvoyance, rendering e-waste obsolete.
Anyways, I will read it.
But her quote: “This is an era of specialists, each of who sees his own problem and is unaware of or intolerant of the larger frame into which it fits. It is also an era dominated by industry, in which the right to make a dollar at whatever cost is seldom challenged”
She acknowledges this and writes her book, speaking out in her profession among all the controversy and chaos that would ensue. What courage!
She is obviously brilliant as the solutions she promotes at the end of the book are far advanced, even in today’s standards as we eek our way to develop biodynamic systems of food production.
We need people charged with that kind of courage as we move forward! I want that courage. But it helped that she was specialized at something, that she had a credibility to her convictions. I see people like Naomi Klein with no formal undergrad and I think, I don’t need to be a PHD to make a go at it.
Where can I grab the courage to speak out on something.
This course has taught me a lot about speaking out. I feel much more confident that I could voice my opposition to the things that are happening which are so blatantly wrong, harmful and devastating. I have anyways, but not as often or eloquently as I would like.
I sincerely believe we have to stop helping to produce the ridiculous wealth of so few people. Exxon closed out with a 45 billion dollar profit last year.
I can tell you they are not going try and buy solar panels with that capital. They are going to explore for more oil (see link).
The Co-operative model of organizing seems like such a great way to look at how we can begin to override this crazy economic system and get to producing and consuming at levels that satisfy our needs and not the pockets of a handful of ridiculously wealthy folks.
I can hear the dissent as I write this, “All that money bought you the free medicare”. “That capital brought you the rapid development of the computer you are typing on”.
And to some degree this is true. But it will also be the exacerbation of many of the world’s already burgeoning problems if we don’t learn how to manage our progress.
We are creative people, proving to be capable or anything – even masterfully orchestrating our own demise. I have no doubt that we can find a better way to communicate and design mobility that doesn’t toxify our planet. (toxify is a new word I made up). Guy Dauncey is looking into telepathy and clairvoyance, rendering e-waste obsolete.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)