Global Warming - What action can we take?

by nickleberry Fri Aug 15, 2008 10:23

Emma,

I think it's great that you've initiated this discussion. I totally agree that there needs to be heaps more action on this issue, and I'd like to see practical suggestions from people.

One important thing though: Leave space for some fun! I commented to this effect on the article about the Fairford Air Show here:
http://bristol.indymedia.org/article/688607?&condense_c...39112

I think we should remember that a lot of people have passions that are just not very climate-friendly. We need to try and leave space for these if we possibly can. Air shows are possibly a bit of an extreme example but...

Another example is this: I was walking on the Bath-Bristol bike track and someone had graffitied "Boycott Bitton railway. Coal causes climate change." I think this sort of attitude is a complete disaster. The Bitton railway is a track less than a mile long which takes families on steam train trips on the week-end. It is not a danger to the planet. We've all got to do our bit on this issue - and that will mean some pretty significant sacrifices, but we also need to beware of being too puritanical. I think there is room for the Bitton railway in the new tomorrow which we're trying to build :-)

The other point I want to make is this: individual sacrifices are not going to be enough. I'm trying not to fly these days, and I also don't own a car. I try and be green in my daily living because it's a very good discipline, and because it does have a practical outcome. But this will not save the planet. We also need to join together to cause change on a higher level - primarily at a government and corporate level. Groups like Bristol Rising Tide, and of course the Climate Camp give me reason for hope in this area, but they need a hell of a lot more support.

I look forward to hearing more suggestions!

by Free Radical Fri Aug 15, 2008 11:12

we could also get serious and move to radical action - climate camp was a great start.

join Rising Tide http://risingtide.org.uk/

Go to Earth First! summer gathering, 27th August - 1st September http://www.bristol.indymedia.org/article/688441

by tider - bristol rising tide Fri Aug 15, 2008 12:18 westsideclimateaction at gmail dot com

hi emma,

having just got back from climate camp, i think we need more han lifestyle change. radical policy change to the extent of turning the way upside down - i don't mean chaos, or armed revolution, but prioritising global social justice and carbon reduction over economic growth. rising tide (climate change direct action group) is on 1st september, kebele 14 robertson road easton at 19.30.

by Joe Bloggs Fri Aug 15, 2008 12:24

I wont take part in this again for the reasons Emma sets out but would just like to say that I believe the graffiti Nickleberry refers to has it's origins in resistance to proposals to extend the railway towards Bath. Some users of the path may feel that their use of it is more important than any one else’s and have made the assumption that everyone that uses it wants to see their opinion permanently etched on it. The global warming smear Nickleberry mentions is a very good example of the dangers of the puritanical almost McCarthyist attitude that exists and the way it can leak into other issues and everyday life.

Many people like me have strong views on the origins of GW but equally strong views on the correct solution to things like pollution and associated transport problems. These are an integral part of the debate on solutions to GW and clearly cross over with peak oil which is an unassailable fact. As oil use is forced to decline solutions to GW and peoples desire and need for mobility potentially are going to coincide The point I am making is that you should think carefully about who your opponents really are and who you need to persuade about what, there may be compromises that would surprise you.

There was a great deal of resistance over the recent proposals on the path for a guided bus and I can't help feeling that sometimes people pay lip service to GW arguments but then when a practical solution which might reduce car use appears it's "not here mate". A sort of eco nimby attitude.

You may all just want to protest and that's one thing but anyone in this thread should consider the role the railway used to play as a core transport mechanism in the UK and also it's future. Something practical will actually have to be done that goes beyond climate camp and all the rest of it. My personal suggestion is that there should be concerted support for the return of that old transport corridor in dual use both for cyclists pedestrians and a railway and that's a practical approach to Bath and Bristol’s transport issues. It may just be fun at the moment but it's got a lot more potential than that.

One final thought is that if you wish to have credibility you need a solution. One of the very noticeable trends here and on other sites is that if a person who believes in man made GW is challenged to provide one they always shy away from it . That needs to change, If you can identify a world different from the one we have that people actually want they will follow you and that will save us all a lot of heartache

Thanks for the lowcarbonlife link

by EXC Fri Aug 15, 2008 14:33

I would agree that we need a revolution in thinking where economic growth is not considered the primary aim. Without this we are never going to resolve this, or any other environmental or social issue.

by Art Fri Aug 15, 2008 16:17

I am assuming EXC read Joe's post before posting themselves because my two pennies on this is much the same as Joe's - and the problem is exemplified by the post from EXC who seems to be saying that if we give up economic growth then all the problems would be somehow solved.

And I fail to see how halting the economy so that there is no money for health care, schools and all the other things the average man in the street wants from his tax £.

Without economic growth there is no development. Economic growth does not have to be the big bad old industries - it can be small well organised "flat" structures that are high tech low energy.

Simply saying that doing away with economic growth is no answer at all. It is a cliché at best and total non-starter in reality.

Joe is right. If you want to know what to do - first you need to identify what you want to achieve and if that is going back to some idyll of peasant life then fine but be aware that most do not want that.

My suggestion is to cut the link between how we currently get power. There are new technologies that allow the same sort of equipment we use to day to be used using a fraction of the energy usage. Each home could generate its own power. Sever the link to the big utilities.

Because as an old fashioned environmentalist I despair at the very idea of a Severn Estuary barrier for example. Which is only required because we have a mind set that says we need 230v 13 amp pumped into our homes night and day. And yet it is being proposed as a project to reduce our carbon footprint! - the fact that the mud flats habitat will be destroyed on the alter of Global Warming is the saddest, barmiest thing ever.

But just think about the social and economic impact on those big utility companies if we were to suddenly become more self-sufficient for energy. Economic growth is not the environmentalists enemy. Never was - never will be.

To say that it is, marginalises those of that view, to the David Icke school of reality.

by Mell O Sun Aug 17, 2008 13:51

Nice one Emma, thanks for initiating something positive, instead of the usual criticisms of how things are.

There are as I'm sure you know alternative ways of doing everything and anything, so do not allow the capitalistic conditioned closed minds to shut down communication as they normally like to do.

The vast majority of peoples in the world would like to live in a fairer cleaner greener sustainably peaceful world, we ARE the majority.

by pro growth environmentalist Sun Aug 17, 2008 16:10

"I would agree that we need a revolution in thinking where economic growth is not considered the primary aim. Without this we are never going to resolve this, or any other environmental or social issue."

This is a very simplistic take on a complex issue. Dividing this issue up so that growth = bad, austerity = good, isn't going to solve anything, and at worst is romantising the miserable poverty of billions.

A far more substantial study shows how it is possible to double wealth AND halve resource use.
http://www.wupperinst.org/FactorFour/

by What is wealth anyway. Sun Aug 17, 2008 16:52

So what is wealth?

To some people it is how much money and stuff they have.

To some people it is the number of friends they have.

To some people it is a beautiful and clean environment.

To some people it is the love they feel in their community.

To some people it has no connection with sustainable anything.

Wealth is many things to many people.

"Great wealth is not a sign of great intelligence"

by Art Mon Aug 18, 2008 07:41

And proposing a return to austerity is intelligent?

No that is not intelligence - is it!

by imcvol Mon Aug 18, 2008 11:56

Folks, please note: I have just hidden a comment on this thread. The comment makes a point in the debate about whether climate change is happening. Since this debate is already happening on another thread, I intend to move all comments concerning this debate to that thread. (As it happens in this instance the comment was made on both threads so it doesn't need to be moved).

It seems best if we reserve the current thread for the debate about What can we do about climate change? If you disagree with this editorial decision, please do not comment on this thread, but contact the BIMC to express your thoughts.

Thanks,
imcvol

by Art Tue Aug 19, 2008 08:20

And there is some very good stuff there indeed. Many thanks for the link.

In particular:-

http://www.wupperinst.org/FactorFour/FactorFour_best-pr....html

the best practices page is especially good at getting across the idea of technology and economic development helping us all reduce energy consumption as well as our using what we have far more efficiently.

by Anarchist606 Tue Aug 19, 2008 13:28

I agree with the point of view that the old way we will really change things is to totally redefine wealth and growth. While both are seen a extensions of a capital economy - and while the environmental and social cost of our way of life is socialised or ignored, it is hard to see how we can move the issue forwards.

by Mell O Tue Aug 19, 2008 14:15

It is hard to envision any technology which can be long term sustainable, even the manufacturing processes do harm to the environment.

I cannot see how anybody except selfish and greedy capitalists who are always looking to filling their pockets, (and NOT to the global common good), can think that there is a technical fix for not only a polluted environment, but in order to clean this one up!

But I have no doubt that they will try for as long as there is a buck or ten to be made.

We have to re-define 'wealth' and even 'quality' of life.

We have to re-define a whole lot of stuff!

De-conditioning is a hell of a job, but we have to do it, capitalists cannot and will not do it because it threatens their concept of 'wealth' and its acquisition.

by EXC Tue Aug 19, 2008 15:04

How about making a currency that reflects the values we hold?

"Next month, in the latest sign that localism is a coming force in British everyday life, Lewes will launch its own currency. In doing so, it joins a growing list of communities around the world attempting to protect regional economies and preserve the distinctive 'feel' of towns and villages."

by pro growth environmentalist Tue Aug 19, 2008 15:29

The 1billion+ without access to clean drinking water need more growth
The 1billion+ in slums without decent housing or sanitation need more growth
The 1billion+ who are so poor they use wood stoves, causing 50% of all deforestation need more growth, so as to afford fuels which do not destroy the environment.

Ant-growth positions are generally a luxury of those who have already benefited from growth, as they sit at their enviromentally destructive PC's, offering paltry cuts in their own luxurious lifestyles (relative to most of the planet).

An environmentalism which ignores these billions, deserves to be undermined as anti-human. A mass die off of humanity is something a disturbing number of environmentalists seem to wish to usher in, in the name of cuts in CO2, etc, either that or they simply refuse to acknowledge this reality.

That deserves the label of 'environmental fascism', especially when FactorFour provides both pro human, and pro environment solutions. Ignoring FactorFour is to turn willfully to a blind eye to the plight of those billions left with next to nothing, and living on the edge.

It is also ignores the environmentally destructive nature of poverty.

For example, our own working classes here would benefit from higher incomes, along with the environment, as the result of higher incomes is that people can afford to buy organic food, instread of the cheaper stuff grown from polluting pesticides and fertilisers.

Correctly targeted, more growth = less pollution.

Poorly targeted, cuts in growth = more pollution.

But I despair that most environmentalists seem to have neither the brains, nor or the pro human inclination, to makes these connections.

http://www.wupperinst.org/FactorFour

by candle stick maker Tue Aug 19, 2008 17:33

This factor4 looks very interesting. An efficiency revolution seems to be the way forward, simply because of how inefficiently everything is currently made, and the huge room to improve almost everything. Capitalism, for good or bad, outlived Soviet Russia because it was more efficient in terms of materials used to produce any given output, and whatever comes next (whether it's called capitalism or not) will need to be even more efficient still.

An alternative system which simply puts growth on the back burner, without an efficiency revolution attached to it, would be capitalism as it stands, without any efficiency gains, and just less to share around.

And who will still get the smallest share of this shrinking growth cake in the name of the environment?

Well, here's a clue. They won't be white, and they won't live in the developed world.

by munny Tue Aug 19, 2008 18:10

capitalism can never have a place in a fairer cleaner peaceful world, and capitalism can never be 'efficient' simply because of the selfishness and pure greed that motivates its proponents.
we can and will create better systems.
capitalists will need to be recycled.

by pro growth environmentalist Tue Aug 19, 2008 18:34

For those uncertain whether even a Factor Four increase in efficiency would be enough, then those researching Factor Ten increases in efficiency may be of further interest. At the very least these offer very real and very achievable step changes in how our current system is organised.

And as an environmentalist, real and achievable changes, which free up further resources enabling the developing world to grow out of it's current misery, are far more appealing, than adopting the moral highground, while failing to other wideranging solutions, as is unfortunately the apparent position of most environmentalists.

http://www.factor10-institute.org/

"Climatic change is commonly thought to be the ecological problem. But even if we had solved this crisis, the systemic mismatch between our economic performance and the stability of the carrier system earth would still remain.

For improving decisively the chances of human survival on our planet, the world-wide generation of welfare must be achieved by 2050 with a per capita ecological footprint of 1.8 ha, a per capita consumption of no more than 5 - 6 yearly tons of non-renewable material resources, and an emission of CO2 not exceeding 2 tons per year and person. These goals imply a manifold dematerialization in the western world, but will allow reasonable growth of resource consumption in many poorer countries. These goals should be independently reviewed, and where need be adjusted and refined in the light of growing experience and a changing world population..."