Monbiot just published his take on the outcome of the Copenhagen Summit, comparing this and future climate negotiations to the orchestra on the Titanic. As the reason for failure of the summit, he singles out the non-inclusive negotiation approach of the biggest emitters (notably China and the US) used to satisfy their domestic goals and audiences.
One hundred and two poor nations called for the maximum global temperature rise to be limited not to two degrees but to 1.5. The chief negotiator for the G77 bloc complained that Africa was being asked “to sign a suicide pact, an incineration pact, in order to maintain the economic dominance of a few countries”.
His conclusion? What happens now
… depends on the other non-player at Copenhagen: you. For the past few years good, liberal, compassionate people [...] have shaken their heads and tutted and wondered why someone doesn’t do something. Yet the number taking action has been pathetic. Demonstrations which should have brought millions onto the streets have struggled to mobilise a few thousand. As a result the political cost of the failure at Copenhagen is zero.
Is this music not to your taste sir, or madam? Perhaps you would like our little orchestra to play something louder, to drown out that horrible grinding noise.
It is up to us to take matters into or hands and start reducing our impact on our planet.
Great initiative to combat violence in whatever form (verbal, physical, emotional) it may appear, and a reminder that change starts with ourselves:
The principle of compassion lies at the heart of all religious, ethical and spiritual traditions, calling us always to treat all others as we wish to be treated ourselves.
A couple of days ago I went to a seminar by Leonardo Boff, a leading figure in the liberation theology movement and recipient of the Alternative Nobel “Right Livelihood Award” in 2001. He now thinks and writes about ecology and spirituality and calls for a paradigm shift for humanity to find back to living with nature instead of just using it.
His talk was very inspiring and underlined the need for an approach that is not just rebuilding our economic system, but that changes some fundamental characteristics of it. Given the extractive logic of the “maximize profit” model, an interesting comparison he made stuck in my head:
[Economic] growth behaves like cancer cells. They grow and grow until they have destroyed the whole body.
In the article Why alternative energy sources such as biofuels, solar, and nuclear are not the magic ticket, Michael Grunwald from Time Magazine challenges the notion that if we invest enough in alternative energies we can reduce emissions enough to reverse climate change. His main argument is that the cheapest and most effective way to reduce emissions is to improve efficiency of our tools and gadgets. And how about simply using them less?
It wouldn’t kill you to turn down the heat and put on a sweater. Efficiency is a miracle drug, but conservation is even better; a Prius saves gas, but a Prius sitting in the driveway while you ride your bike uses no gas. Even energy-efficient dryers use more power than clotheslines.
I believe we have stop thinking that we are not looking at small changes. Especially, if we want to offer a decent future to billions of poor people, we have to start accepting that drastic changes to our lifestyles are needed.
The article essentially retells Michal Pollan’s Omnivore’s Dilemma story about the hidden costs for workers, health, and environment of mass-produced cheap food and cites some companies that are starting to look for healthier and more sustainably produced ingredients.
Does this mean that the food and sustainability discussion finally goes mainstream?
How willing are consumers to rethink the way they shop for — and eat — food? For most people, price will remain the biggest obstacle.
Interesting, yet glooming discussion about our future and whether it is worth saving industrial civilization between George Montbiot and Paul Kingsnorth.
While I generally agree with George that we have to face the issues and act, I also found myself agreeing with Paul on one point: We humans do take ourselves too serious thinking that we have the power to make or break life on earth. Rather, what we are doing is to destroy the basis for our own survival.
Civilisations live and die by their founding myths. Our myths tell us that humanity is separate from something called ‘nature’, which is a ‘resource’ for our use. They tell us there are no limits to human abilities, and that technology, science and our ineffable wisdom can fix everything. Above all, they tell us that we are in control.
I disagree with his conclusion that we should not even try to do something and can only prepare for the inevitable. Rather, I think above quote suggests that we have to find our way back into nature fast, and work with it instead of using it… and I have hope that we can before it’s too late!
There is more and more writing about the need for a change in lifestyle and business strategy, e.g. here or here. Yet, we still seem to be addicted to accumulating material wealth:
It’s not just cheap oil we’re addicted to: it’s cheap everything. And the world we’re entering isn’t really of Peak Oil as it is one of Peak Consumption.
A new book by Anthony Giddens, applies a well known paradox to the climate change debate and the slow progress we make in solving the mess: that people do not act on an incrementally growing threat until it becomes visible, by which stage action may be too late.
So if most people still think that the lower the price, the better, how do we get them to see the damage that does and the opportunity that lies in doing thing differently?
According to Chouinard, sustainability is “a process, not a real goal and all you can do is work towards it…that’s just the way it is.” Chouinard argues that fundamentally, businesses are responsible to their resource base, not solely to their customers, shareholders or employees. If one definition of sustainability means meeting present needs without compromising the ability of future generations to meet their needs, then Chouinard’s opinion is spot on. The problem is that the concept of sustainability, like that of “going green”, needs to be more than just a short-term marketing ploy. It has to mean committing to a long-term plan that assesses a business’s impact on the Earth and aims to correct it. (via Sustainability Lesson One: There is No Such Thing)
It makes sense to assume that our future food needs are met by a system that lies between those models, that we will use technology (including biotech) as much as we can within the bounds of what is healthy for us humans and the environment. And she certainly has a point, when arguing that we cannot expect poor people to continue spent all their time to meet their food needs often using nothing but their hands, when we only have to go to the supermarket after work to buy what we need thanks to mechanized agriculture.
A great quote that is also shared on the TED site: “There is no technical reason why we could not feed a world of nine billion people. Hunger is a matter of buying power, not of shortages.” -Louise Fresco, NRC Handelsblad
