I have never been one to want to reinvent the wheel, as the saying goes and so I include the following article from the Guardian Newspaper which I think is excellent .......
The chances are, if you are reading this, that you might also have seen either The Age of Stupid or An Inconvenient Truth. To those who fight to get climate change to the top of the agenda, these two movies are essential campaigning tools. Now I don't dispute their power and Messrs Gore and Postlethwaite are to be credited for sticking their heads above the parapet, but I have a problem with them: they left me feeling numb and overwhelmed. Gore stacks up the evidence of the momentum towards dangerous tipping points so effectively that by the time he gets on to "solutions" very near the end of his hundred minute presentation, you feel you are about to be demolished by a juggernaut.
I had a similar reaction when I first saw The Age of Stupid. At the end of a packed screening earlier in the year, one of my Operation Noah colleagues stood up and bluntly asked the audience: "So having seen that, who wants to get involved in campaigning?" There was a chilled and muted response. It may be me, but a very large amount of the film left me thinking that all the images of flooding, drought and destruction which Postlethwaite uncovers in his film archives are inevitable. From his futuristic vantage point of 2055, he shows a world that, in a mere 40 to 50 years, has gone to the dogs. And in a world where denial is still very much a factor, it's amazing how quickly people switch from denying the scientific evidence for human-induced global warming, to embracing the view that it's all too late and we're all doomed. Of course, that "flip" still allows you to go on behaving as before. "Eat, drink and be merry, for tomorrow we die."
Which raises all sorts of questions that lobbyists and campaigners have been grappling with for years now on all this: what is the best way to engage the human imagination on the issue of our time? Guilt and fear are very limited in their appeal and, more often than not, only induce a greater desire to turn away and carry on as before. What's encouraging is to come across so many schoolchildren who are getting more and more familiar with the notion of stewardship. It's a term that has both appeal to religious and secular mindsets: namely that because of our lofty status in terms of biological and intellectual complexity compared to other species, this carries with it a responsibility to cherish our surroundings. Man's intelligence, as we have seen from history, can be put to a variety of creative and destructive uses: compare lunar landings and the discovery of penicillin with war and genocide. Ahead of December's UN climate summit in Copenhagen, we are now facing an epic collective decision as a species: business as usual and sleepwalking towards all sorts of potential horrors, or reverting back an understanding that sees ourselves not as usurpers of nature as a commodity, but as protective guardians of a wondrous world that is threatened – uniquely, by its own most intelligent life form. Fossil fuels which took millions and million of years to be formed by slow natural processes are being released into the biosphere at a dizzying rate with destabilising consequences which are there for all to see.
I believe virtue and example are contagious. Look at what happened recently with the launch of the 10:10 campaign, which the Guardian is backing. No sooner had Ed Miliband signed up to cut his own carbon emissions by 10%, than we were being told the whole Tory front bench were getting ready to endorse the pledge. Within 24 hours, the entire cabinet had also jumped on board and Liberal Democrats announced they were looking at moves to make this a resolution which would bind the whole party. Cynical politicking? Maybe in part, but this is all about momentum and taking the notion of stewardship beyond the perceived domain of the elite middle classes into society as a whole.
We are gnawing away at the very womb that sustains us. Reversing that trend needs as big an army of stewards as we can possibly muster.
Thursday 10 September 2009
Sunday 6 September 2009
More from Paul Elrich
Dear Friends,
There is growing consensus among environmental scientists that the scholarly community has adequately detailed how to deal with the major issues of the human predicament caused by our success as a species – climate disruption, loss of biodiversity and ecosystem services, toxification of the planet, the deterioration of the epidemiological environment, the potential impacts of nuclear war, racism, sexism, economic inequity, and on and on. I and my colleagues believe humanity must take rapid steps to ameliorate them. But, in essence, nothing serious is being done – as exemplified by the “much talk and no action” on climate change. The central problem is clearly not a need for more natural science (although in many areas it would be very helpful) but rather a need for better understanding of human behaviors and how they can be altered to direct humanity toward a sustainable society before it is to late.
That’s why a group of natural scientists, social scientists, and scholars from the humanities decided to inaugurate a Millennium Assessment of Human Behavior (MAHB — pronounced “mob”). It was so named to emphasize that it is human behavior, toward one another and toward the planet that sustains all of us, that requires rapid modification. The idea is that the MAHB might become a basic mechanism to expose society to the full range of population-environment-resource-ethics-equity-power
There is growing consensus among environmental scientists that the scholarly community has adequately detailed how to deal with the major issues of the human predicament caused by our success as a species – climate disruption, loss of biodiversity and ecosystem services, toxification of the planet, the deterioration of the epidemiological environment, the potential impacts of nuclear war, racism, sexism, economic inequity, and on and on. I and my colleagues believe humanity must take rapid steps to ameliorate them. But, in essence, nothing serious is being done – as exemplified by the “much talk and no action” on climate change. The central problem is clearly not a need for more natural science (although in many areas it would be very helpful) but rather a need for better understanding of human behaviors and how they can be altered to direct humanity toward a sustainable society before it is to late.
That’s why a group of natural scientists, social scientists, and scholars from the humanities decided to inaugurate a Millennium Assessment of Human Behavior (MAHB — pronounced “mob”). It was so named to emphasize that it is human behavior, toward one another and toward the planet that sustains all of us, that requires rapid modification. The idea is that the MAHB might become a basic mechanism to expose society to the full range of population-environment-resource-ethics-equity-power
humanity's collision with the natural world
Paul Ehrlich, citing 'humanity's collision with the natural world,' launches a new forum to direct human activity toward a more sustainable future.
5 September 2009
By Douglas Fischer
Daily Climate Editor
Frustrated by society's inability to tackle pressing environmental dilemmas, Stanford University ecologist Paul Ehrlich on Friday announced a new endeavor aimed at rapidly turning human behavior toward a more sustainable future.
In essence, nothing serious is being done – as exemplified by the 'much talk and no action' on climate change.
- Paul Ehrlich, Stanford University
Called the Millennium Assessment of Human Behavior, or MAHB (pronounced "mob"), the venture seeks to link a broad array of seemingly unrelated human activities that endanger humanity's future - from racism to climate change, loss of biological diversity, water shortages, declining food security, economic justice and pollution.
The hope, Ehrlich said, is that by making these larger connections, more effective solutions can be found.
"Basically, absolutely nothing is happening," he said. "We don't need more scientific evidence that we're screwing ourselves. We need to get beyond the cultural discussions we're having now."
The problem, Ehrlich said, is clearly not a need for more natural science. Rather, it is the need for a better understanding of "human behaviors and how they can be altered to direct humanity toward a sustainable society before it is too late."
Organizers envision the MAHB as a global conference, involving scholars, politicians and a diverse spectrum of stakeholders – from media and industry to religious communities and foundations. Organizers also hope to encourage a "global discussion" about human goals and to explore ways to steer cultural change toward creation of a more sustainable society.
Ehrlich said he would partially model the MAHB after the Nobel-winning Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, where hundreds of scientists from nearly every nation and representing diverse disciplines sort the scientific validity of claims and attempt to find equitable solutions.
Another model is the Millennium Ecosystem Assessment, developed by environmental and social scientists to assess the condition of Earth's life-support systems, he said.
But the IPCC derives its power and authority from its governmental mandate, noted Saleemul Huq, head of the climate change group at the London-based International Institute for Environment and Development.
Governments signing on to the United Nations' climate framework have asked the scientific community to provide a clear consensus on the science and then endorse those findings via policy, said Huq, lead author of the adaptation and mitigation chapter in the IPCC's most recent assessment.
It's not clear - yet - who the MAHB is meant to inform.
For the IPCC, "the governments are the ones who have asked for the information, and they are the ones who endorse the information," Huq said. "If scientists just produce a report, and ... there isn't really anyone in a position to take it up, nothing happens to it."
"We are just preaching."
Still, Huq agreed with the premise, adding that the endeavor is something "we certainly need."
But for now, the MAHB is just 10 big thinkers, among them Stanford climatologist Steve Schneider, Science editor and Stanford president emeritus Donald Kennedy, Washington State University sociologist Eugene Rosa and University of Oslo philosopher Nina Witoszek.
Ehrlich, president of Stanford's Center for Conservation Biology, is considered a pioneer in the study of popoulation science. He was one of the first scholars to alert the public to the problems of overpopulation and to raise issues of population, resources and the environment as matters of public policy.
Ehrlich has floated earlier visions of this venture before, losing funding at Stanford for what he described as a "short try-out." He's thinking bigger this time: He hopes to officially kick-off the MAHB in 2011 with a "world mega conference" akin to the 1992 United Nations "Earth Summit" in Rio de Janeiro.
That 1992 summit remains the UN's largest environmental gathering, with 172 governments, 108 heads of states, 2,400 representatives of non-governmental organizations and another 17,000 attendees at a parallel global forum. It led to the adoption of a wide-ranging blueprint for action on sustainable development worldwide. The Kyoto Protocol and the upcoming Copenhagen negotiations in December are two products.
It is unclear whether the MAHB will achieve such a level of success or is destined to the same obscurity as earlier efforts. For now it is little more than a website with a mission statement and a blog.
But finding a way to make climate science more relevant to policy makers has become an increasingly pressing question in academia, and Ehrlich is pressing forward.
"A global consensus on the most crucial behavioral issues is unlikely to emerge promptly from the MAHB – or any other international forum," he said. But "if the scientific diagnosis of humanity's collision with the natural world is accurate ... what alternative is there to trying?"
5 September 2009
By Douglas Fischer
Daily Climate Editor
Frustrated by society's inability to tackle pressing environmental dilemmas, Stanford University ecologist Paul Ehrlich on Friday announced a new endeavor aimed at rapidly turning human behavior toward a more sustainable future.
In essence, nothing serious is being done – as exemplified by the 'much talk and no action' on climate change.
- Paul Ehrlich, Stanford University
Called the Millennium Assessment of Human Behavior, or MAHB (pronounced "mob"), the venture seeks to link a broad array of seemingly unrelated human activities that endanger humanity's future - from racism to climate change, loss of biological diversity, water shortages, declining food security, economic justice and pollution.
The hope, Ehrlich said, is that by making these larger connections, more effective solutions can be found.
"Basically, absolutely nothing is happening," he said. "We don't need more scientific evidence that we're screwing ourselves. We need to get beyond the cultural discussions we're having now."
The problem, Ehrlich said, is clearly not a need for more natural science. Rather, it is the need for a better understanding of "human behaviors and how they can be altered to direct humanity toward a sustainable society before it is too late."
Organizers envision the MAHB as a global conference, involving scholars, politicians and a diverse spectrum of stakeholders – from media and industry to religious communities and foundations. Organizers also hope to encourage a "global discussion" about human goals and to explore ways to steer cultural change toward creation of a more sustainable society.
Ehrlich said he would partially model the MAHB after the Nobel-winning Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, where hundreds of scientists from nearly every nation and representing diverse disciplines sort the scientific validity of claims and attempt to find equitable solutions.
Another model is the Millennium Ecosystem Assessment, developed by environmental and social scientists to assess the condition of Earth's life-support systems, he said.
But the IPCC derives its power and authority from its governmental mandate, noted Saleemul Huq, head of the climate change group at the London-based International Institute for Environment and Development.
Governments signing on to the United Nations' climate framework have asked the scientific community to provide a clear consensus on the science and then endorse those findings via policy, said Huq, lead author of the adaptation and mitigation chapter in the IPCC's most recent assessment.
It's not clear - yet - who the MAHB is meant to inform.
For the IPCC, "the governments are the ones who have asked for the information, and they are the ones who endorse the information," Huq said. "If scientists just produce a report, and ... there isn't really anyone in a position to take it up, nothing happens to it."
"We are just preaching."
Still, Huq agreed with the premise, adding that the endeavor is something "we certainly need."
But for now, the MAHB is just 10 big thinkers, among them Stanford climatologist Steve Schneider, Science editor and Stanford president emeritus Donald Kennedy, Washington State University sociologist Eugene Rosa and University of Oslo philosopher Nina Witoszek.
Ehrlich, president of Stanford's Center for Conservation Biology, is considered a pioneer in the study of popoulation science. He was one of the first scholars to alert the public to the problems of overpopulation and to raise issues of population, resources and the environment as matters of public policy.
Ehrlich has floated earlier visions of this venture before, losing funding at Stanford for what he described as a "short try-out." He's thinking bigger this time: He hopes to officially kick-off the MAHB in 2011 with a "world mega conference" akin to the 1992 United Nations "Earth Summit" in Rio de Janeiro.
That 1992 summit remains the UN's largest environmental gathering, with 172 governments, 108 heads of states, 2,400 representatives of non-governmental organizations and another 17,000 attendees at a parallel global forum. It led to the adoption of a wide-ranging blueprint for action on sustainable development worldwide. The Kyoto Protocol and the upcoming Copenhagen negotiations in December are two products.
It is unclear whether the MAHB will achieve such a level of success or is destined to the same obscurity as earlier efforts. For now it is little more than a website with a mission statement and a blog.
But finding a way to make climate science more relevant to policy makers has become an increasingly pressing question in academia, and Ehrlich is pressing forward.
"A global consensus on the most crucial behavioral issues is unlikely to emerge promptly from the MAHB – or any other international forum," he said. But "if the scientific diagnosis of humanity's collision with the natural world is accurate ... what alternative is there to trying?"
Action all drivers can take
Last weekend I drove to Edinburgh and back - two in car - which is a 1.3 Vauxhall Corsa Diesel.
A round trip of over 160 miles which involved some rural driving, motorway driving, stop start around Dundee and similarly into the very centre of Edinburgh.
I used cruise control wherever possible and did not go above 60 on the motorway except on one occasion for safety reasons.
I returned 72 miles to the gallon!
It seems to me that a very first step that we could take to combat the impact of Climate Generations on the generations to come is set and rigorously enforce a 50 to 60 mph motorway speed limit!!!
A round trip of over 160 miles which involved some rural driving, motorway driving, stop start around Dundee and similarly into the very centre of Edinburgh.
I used cruise control wherever possible and did not go above 60 on the motorway except on one occasion for safety reasons.
I returned 72 miles to the gallon!
It seems to me that a very first step that we could take to combat the impact of Climate Generations on the generations to come is set and rigorously enforce a 50 to 60 mph motorway speed limit!!!
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)