The most pressing question for the environmental community today is how to motivate rapid and substantial social change in order to mitigate the effects of global warming (and, relatedly, peak oil). Despite the enormous danger, there is frustratingly little public outcry. As James Speth put it:
Climate change is the biggest thing to happen here on earth in thousands of years, with incalculable environmental, social and economic costs. But there is no march on Washington; students are not in the streets; consumers are not rejecting destructive lifestyles; Congress is not passing far-reaching legislation; the president is not on television explaining the threat to the country; Exxon is not quaking in its boots; and entire segments of evening news pass without mention of the climate emergency.
What will work to motivate the public?
It seems everyone has an opinion about what the green movement is doing wrong, how it ought to tweak its message, and what can finally light a fire under the public's butt.
In the current issue of the science journal Global Environmental Change, Karen O'Brien argues that climate change must be reframed as a human security issue (via Prometheus). Similarly, in a new piece on TomPaine, Michael T. Klare says there's a growing consensus in the halls of power that climate change is a driver of resource conflicts.
Another, similar school of thought says we should emphasize, in the words of guest Gristmiller Arthur Coulston, posterity. We should fear for our children's lives.
Another says we just need better marketing -- more stories and pictures and icons. Another says we need better media.
Another famously says we should ... well, it's never been really clear what it says, but it's something about values and a broad progressive movement.
Another would frame it as a religious issue: climate change is damaging the earth God gave us to tend. Relatedly, the Network of Spiritual Progressives (a project of Tikkun magazine and Rabbi Michael Lerner) says nothing short of a wholesale spiritual renewal is necessary to move to a sustainable lifestyle.
Another would frame climate change as basically an economic threat. Another would frame it as an Apollo-esque Challenge of the Generation type thing.
And so on and on. I'm sure y'all can come up with more examples.
Anyway, that's the topic of the day. And it will come as no surprise to anyone that I have some thoughts on the matter, which I'm going to try to gather together and post in the next couple of days. It will tie together some threads related to the index-card manifesto and the ethics discussions and probably the kitchen sink.
In the meantime: What do you think can finally spur the kind of massive social mobilization we need? What's the trick?
Comments
View as Flat
bhurley Posted 9:18 pm
08 Mar 2006
Permalink
AE Posted 1:06 am
09 Mar 2006
By the way, Wisconsin Public Radio, public talk radio produced in the state with only news bites from NPR, talks about global warming, green energy, regularly. Why they won't talk about other environmental issues like threats to National Parks or the possible gutting of ESA, I don't know. I have voiced my suggestions.
I've only recently started reading your good blog, so forgive me if you have written about this subject in the past, and I couldn't find an email address, so I'm going to go off topic for a minute and point to an interesting interview with Thich Nhat Hanh, the famous Buddhist leader, in the March issue of Shambhala Sun in which he says "Another door that we should open is the door of ecology, because in Buddhism there is a deep respect toward animals, vegetables, and even minerals...the Diamond Sutra is the oldest text on the protection of environment...man is made of non-man elements, mainly animals, vegetables, minerals, and so on. That means that in order to protect man you have to protect the non-man elements. It's very clear." A spiritual take from a different point of view from the "earth is our home" or "we are stewards of god's creation."
Permalink
kmp Posted 3:21 am
09 Mar 2006
Have you bought CFLs? Was it easy for you? Unless you live in a very enlightened (heh heh) town, I suspect your experience was much like mine.... go to hardware store, they've never heard of them, do some research on the Web, drive 20 miles to nearest Home Depot, they have a couple of brands but not the Panasonic Marathons that you are looking for, not the wattage that you need, and it's difficult to tell what wattage you need, etc. Eventually order some on-line from GreenHome.com (of course only for a few lights, because most of my interior lights are dimmable and I still have yet to find floodlight CFLs).
I've had similar frustrating issues over the last couple of months while buying the things that you buy when you move.... trying to find a non-toxic shower curtain, organic cotton curtains, deciphering my new neighborhood's Machivellian recycling scheme. I've been repeatedly calling NYSEG for two months now trying to get my electricity switched to renewable; I've left countless messages with their marketing department who never return my calls. I'm thinking of not paying my bill so someone eventually calls me.
My point is not to complain (really) but to point out that you have to be pretty dedicated to this cause to make even the simplest changes that are good for the planet. We live in a society wherein recycling bins are made out of virgin plastic. I think most people are ready, and in fact, want to do something to help the environment. (Reference the post of a week or two ago discussing the gas tax poll). However, I don't think any significant social change will occur until Earth-friendly options are as readily available, or even more readily available, than their not-so-friendly cousins.
Make it Profitable
Manufacturers and suppliers must drive the "make it easy" part. Naturally, they will not do that until there is sufficient demand from the public, or sufficient tax incentives, etc., from the government to make the Earth-friendly options profitable. In the same vein, many eco-options that exist today are substantially more expensive than the non-eco counterparts and may well be out of reach of many consumers. Increased demand and profitability will drive those prices down until they are competitive with, or in fact, better than the non-eco alternatives.
Make it Cool
Which brings us back to the main issue - how to make 300 million Americans want Earth-friendly solutions to everyday living badly enough to demand them? I think we need a spokesperson - one single person driving home the message that this is serious and change needs to happen now. That caring about and doing something for our environment is cool. ("Cool is cool" how's that for a slogan??). Africa has Bono, cancer has Lance Armstrong - we need our own visionary, a person who can appeal to the masses, and who can also appeal to the people who influence the masses. Bono just got Bill Gates to donate $900 million dollars to the ONE campaign. What if we could convince Bill to give everyone who purchases a Microsoft product $25 off if they send in the proof of purchase for 3 CFLs? What if Oprah did a show on industrial cotton farming vs organic, and encouraged every person out there to buy organic cotton? What if she put Cradle to Cradle in her Book Club? We just need the right person.
So who should be the new face of GREEN?
Permalink
David Roberts Posted 3:35 am
09 Mar 2006
However, I'm pretty sure that something more substantial than a shift to sustainable consumer products is going to have to happen. I do agree that such a shift is probably the leading edge for larger changes, but it is not a substitute.
In the next 30-50 years, cities and communities will need to be restructured. Eating habits will need to change pretty drastically. Personal transportation will need to be curtailed. It's a thoroughgoing lifestyle shift.
Perhaps if we can get people buying CFLs and hybrids, we will loosen them up, as it were, for accepting larger changes. But I'm a little nervous about relying on that.
www.grist.org
Permalink
Chris Schults Posted 4:07 am
09 Mar 2006
What if Oprah did a show on industrial cotton farming vs organic, and encouraged every person out there to buy organic cotton? What if she put Cradle to Cradle in her Book Club?
Oprah did do a show on climate change.
See this and this.
Chris
Look out! It's a media shower!
Permalink
bhurley Posted 4:22 am
09 Mar 2006
I really think the solution is to use tools like appliance and fuel-economy standards to ensure that nobody has a choice but to buy energy-efficient equipment, and to support the growth of new technologies that will allow people to continue with their current lifestyles while emitting drastically less CO2 and other greenhouse gases.
One reason environmentalists tend to lose credibility on the climate issue is that many environmentalists use climate change as way to push other green agendas like vegetarianism or reverting to simpler, less materialistic lifestyles. That's just not going to work for most people. My teenage stepdaughter keeps the thermostat in her bedroom turned to 85, refuses to put anything in the recycling bin, takes baths instead of showers, forgets to turn off the hot water tap in the bathroom when she leaves for school in the morning, and lusts after SUVs and gas-guzzling muscle cars. She doesn't care one whit about climate change or energy use, and I don't think there's anything we could say or show her that would change that (and believe me we've tried). I may be wrong, but I suspect she's a pretty typical North American. Do you really think you'll be able to change millions of people like that by asking them to change their lifestyle?
Permalink
David Roberts Posted 4:30 am
09 Mar 2006
Or -- one can dream -- we could undertake the lifestyle shift intentionally, with at least some degree of foresight and planning. But to do that, we'll have to sell people on it. And to sell people on it, we're going to have to convince them that it will result in a better life, not a life of shivering in the dark. More on this later.
www.grist.org
Permalink
kmp Posted 5:38 am
09 Mar 2006
If your concept of lifestyle change includes a reversion to a 'simpler' way of life, I agree with you, it won't fly with the vast majority of Americans. I don't think the environmental movement should focus on sacrifice, simplify, do without. Americans may be, and have been, willing to sacrifice in the short term to fight a great evil (be it global warming or the Nazis) but there needs to be some light at the end of the tunnel.
The lifestyle change I envision is more about driving the invention, innovation, manufacture and distribution of Earth-friendly products and services. Let your daughter have her SUV, if it is a totally recyclable electric SUV that is powered by wind and sun. Who cares if she cranks the heat in her room if it's generated by solar power? Likewise, she can take 5 baths a day if all household wastewater were collected, filtered and re-delivered to the house in an endless loop. If we adopt a cradle-to-cradle technology base, then will can live to excess all we want and all we are doing is driving the economy and providing an endless source of technical nutrients for industry.
There may be many people of an environmental bent who are tyring to live more simple, less consumerist lives, but I believe that this choice is generally made for multiple reasons, of which the benefits to the Earth is only one. Unfortunately there is a tendency of some to be a bit "holier than thou" which, IMO, is never the best way to persuade someone to a course of action.
Permalink
keith foster Posted 5:45 am
09 Mar 2006
Permalink
bhurley Posted 5:54 am
09 Mar 2006
Permalink
kmp Posted 6:08 am
09 Mar 2006
The point is, I agree that IF we stay on our current course, major lifestyle changes are coming our way. I just don't agree that they HAVE to happen. Or even better, I can envision a lifestyle change to a better way of life for most people - easier access to fresh food (cities ringed with organic farms, including some form of sustainable hothouse technology, because I can't live without raspberries in the winter), cheaper energy costs with local control (small diversifed energy plants will deliver to local communities so that communities that conserve will be rewarded with lower prices), local artisans, craftsmen and tradesmen able to flourish.
The bugaboo in all this is personal transportation which I haven't quite worked out yet. Clearly there needs to be a change, and all the hybrids or plug-ins in the world are not going to solve the problem of eventually just too damn many of us on roads in single cars. If only we could get the Star Trek transporter idea off the ground.....
Kaela
Permalink
sunflower Posted 7:19 am
09 Mar 2006
The world will need to unite together and make money shutting down all coal power plants, tar sands, (and volcanoes). The military will need to focus all manpower and defense contractors on this new enemy. The USA, China, India, Russia, churches, businesses, military, will all need to unite under charismatic leadership and battle this alien threat. Our collective survival depends on this. Trillions of dollars and millions of jobs will be created by this industrial opportunity. We have first-hand knowledge that solar power plants cost $1/Watt and a coal power plants cost $2/Watt . Add to this the relative cost of sunlight verses the mine-mouth cost of coal, $0/ton sunlight v. $20/ton coal, and it is, as they say, a slam dunk. A solar energy system can displace oil at $10/bbl. to $20/bbl. at 10% ROI. The global solar resource is huge and sustainable.
Political leadership will be required or we will not survive.
Permalink
David Roberts Posted 8:30 am
09 Mar 2006
That's exactly what I'm talking about. I am similarly optimistic.
However, let's not kid ourselves: living in dense cities, getting around primarily with public transportation, and eating primarily local (and inevitably more expensive) food is a pretty large lifestyle shift. It is against the grain of current consumer preferences.
I'm optimistic, but I'm not so optimistic as to think that this outcome is inevitable or that it will just happen on its own.
www.grist.org
Permalink
bookerly Posted 11:58 am
09 Mar 2006
How do we make people change? We don't. No one can "make" someone else change. No one can make me change except me.
All the yelling and telling and demonstrating and showing won't make people change.
How about if we reward them for change? For most people, the feeling of "gee, I did good and I'm saving the environment" is just not enough.
Ballot initiatives. No annual car taxes for 1) hybrids, 2) the two lowest emission cars 3) the two cars with best gas mileage. These could be done state by state. Car payments for such cars are tax deductible. These cars can use car pool lanes.
(We could also add initiatives punishing bad behavior, but generally, rewarding good behavior works better.)
Ballot initiatives. Make green products sales tax free and tax deductible.
Ballot initiatives. Rent in dense urban areas is tax deductible up to a certain limit (or maybe without limit), with rent control laws to prevent landlords from just increasing the rents. There are demographic studies that show the aging population wants to move out of surburbia, let's give them a boost.
Ballot Initiatives. Tax credits for households that don't own a car. Go car free and get a check!
The point behind these ideas is that people will make change when they see something in it for themselves. We need to be creative in devising such ideas. These are my (poor) examples, there are probably many of you who can do much better!!
We also need to change the behavior of our institutions (corporations, churches, schools, government, unions, NGOs, and every and all!). How can we address their contributions to the problem? What positive methods would help or be possible?
Patrick
Permalink
sphinxie Posted 1:25 pm
09 Mar 2006
Greenies walk a fine line. One group we'd be targetting are already choirmembers, but they don't practice their favorite preachings. But they think they do, or they think no action on their part is necessary, only correct allegiance. Hell, we all technically fall into this category to varying degrees. For these people, while the allegiance is really important, emphasizing it in the wrong way can encourage complacency, inaction, and lack of critical examination.
The other group is those who are apathetic, don't believe in this nonsense, or specifically like things this way. Um, these may actually be separate groups, but I don't want to spend too much time on this. Many (though not most) of those in this umbrella group are near a cusp and can be nudged over with enough information (keeping in mind that information needs to "click" and that's one advantage of saturation, higher chance of eventual clicking) ...but then there's a big risk that they'll just join the above, Complacent Group.
So my general vote is for media saturation, though there's the risk of it becoming boring especially if it's poorly framed or doesn't target the audience clearly enough.
But I would add that I think we need to sit down and understand the psychology of the Complacent Group, what makes them tick and untick, what might make them tick louder.
It may also help to have a fairly specific set of goals. The anti-smoking movement was mentioned further up. They had two really simple goals: end unavoidable secondhand smoke, and get the maximum number of people possible to quit smoking. Whereas we have an overwhelming number of goals. Many of our goals can only work on the policy level, while others are better for the personal choice level, etc. If an information campaign were to be planned, it might be best to start with three goals that, if successful, could spark further change. Or something of that sort. It should also be carefully considered whether we should emphasize policy or personal goals (I believe there are also goals that are more in the business and institutional realms...)
Just one more thought; it may be better to value attainability of the goal higher than importance of the achieved goal, within reasonable ranges of course.
Permalink
amazingdrx Posted 2:08 pm
09 Mar 2006
That basic reform instinct in the body politick, it is at record levels, the port deal and the Katrina tapes brought it to a peak.
By connecting all the dots of modern problems to reveal the oily picture, renewable energy revolution becomes the solution on levels economic, environmental, and in international politics.
Vent public anger by taking subsidies away from energy companies and give it to tax paying citizens to invest in the solution, green power.
http://amazngdrx.blogharbor.com/blog
Permalink
sphinxie Posted 2:17 pm
09 Mar 2006
Implementation of a green goal will vary a lot depending on whether it's best implemented on a policy, personal, community, business/entrepreneurial, or nonprofit level. This also applies for indirect implementation, when you're working to trigger implementation by others. The audiences you'll be speaking to are different at different levels, the work they'll have to do will be quite different, and the motivations will be different, as will be the challenges.
From the conversation in comments so far, it seems like policy level changes are taken to be the most necessary. In that case, even when you are talking to regular people, business owners, activists, whoever, your attention is ultimately on government (and the fruits they can yield). And the idea is to get one's audience to focus on the same subject.
The trouble with this is, well, Bush. The federal government is not sympathetic and who knows what will happen in 08.
It is quite likely that local government would be more sympathetic and more relevant. Certainly in my town that has proven to be the case, though I live in California so that makes it easier. But how much do people usually know about their local government, how often do they think about it, how much do they knowingly interact with it? Possibly less than with the federal government. In that case, this may be one of the major blocks for environmental success: we keep obsessing over a red herring.
So then you're looking at three basic goals of an information campaign:
get people to care more about the environment
inspire those who care to act
focus action on local government
What is the best way for citizens to interact with their local government? To run for offices and vote? To form citizen groups? Through the business community?
The original post was about (1), and I haven't really addressed that anyway. But my personal view is that we've actually done an okay job there already. "The environment" polls as a reasonably high priority, as far as I've read. I don't know anyone who doesn't care about the environment, though I know a lot of people who are pretty muddled about what that means--and I haven't always lived in California. I think the big challenge is getting these people to act on their priorities, and then further, in a prolonged, effective, and energizing way. Turn some of that potential energy into manifest energy, and it will spread.
Permalink
birdboy Posted 8:23 am
10 Mar 2006
So what if we just pretend- what if we imagine that it IS possible to save the Earth, and that we CAN do it without huge changes or sacrifices (shivering in the dark, as Dave says). What if we all put aside our negativity for a time each day and just imagine what the world might look like if we DID save it. Imagine a future where people are healthy, happy, and clean, and at the same time, the Earth is healthy, vibrant, and green. What would a day in this world look like? What would life be like? If we each spend some time every day imagining this bright green future, we can help form tenuous strands of connective power between that reality and the current one. If we hold this image in our minds when we speak to 'normal people', might we have more effect on them? Might we be seen as 'visionaries' or 'prophets of a better world', instead of purveyors of gloom and doom?
So what if we're wrong- so what if it's unrealistic- if we give up our connections to that potential reality, then we make if harder for it to come into existence. If WE cannot see a bright future that is also green, then WHO will? The anthropocentrists? The politicians? I don't think so. It is up to US to visualize a green, happy future, if it is to be.
This will be very hard for me, because it see evidence every day that it is too late, that nobody cares, etc. But that negativity doesn't help me or the movement. I need to practice- so I suggest to Dave- put up an idea and set the rules out, as an exercise for us- NO NEGATIVITY- force us to be on our best behavior- only positive thoughts allowed. Say something nice or go over there and sulk with the biocentrist pessimists (like birdboy). We can do it- for a little while at first, then maybe for longer periods.
a liberal in redsville
Permalink
Biodiversivist Posted 8:30 am
10 Mar 2006
In the end, it all comes down to biodiversity. Help acquire and protect ecological hotspots, give to a conservation organization: http://www.saveourbiodiversity.com
Permalink
Biodiversivist Posted 8:39 am
10 Mar 2006
Anyway, the above war footing analogy is a good one. Why don't people pull together the way they did in WWII? Well, for one reason, it was no fun and it only lasted a few years. When the troops came home, a baby boom happened. Humans are wired to react strongly to threats from other monkey troops. We are not programmed to react strongly to things like, say, the Sun eventually going out. There is a threshold that has to be crossed and global warming is not crossing it. I don't think it ever will.
But, programs can sometimes be tricked. The guy and his dog in the huge shiny cherry red "ram tough" dodge truck with the turbo charged diesel engine was tricked. He thinks he's cool because subliminal signals suggested it to him (not that kind of signal, aluminum foil hat enthusiasts). Advertising did it. Before advertising, those subtle signals were passed in other ways between the sexes. Advertising has tapped into the signal and is sending false information. Guys like the one I just described may be boosting Detroit's profits at the expense of their own genetic legacy--not that status seeking in itself is a bad thing. Women throwing their shirts at drivers of high mileage cars would be a good thing, metaphorically speaking, assuming the driver was male, not to knock... I'll just stop there.
My favorite analogy is the population bomb. This was when guys like Lester Brown were still young bucks. This was also before the Internet so there was no real discussion or critique. The public was limited to what books, professors, and newspapers chose to tell us. There was significant consensus in the academic and science community that we were on the precipice of disaster. Then one day, someone noticed that the bomb hadn't gone off in the predicted time frame. Unfortunately, that guy was a conservative economist who then went on to advise Reagan to instill the Gag rule.
The predicted famines never materialized (not that they may not eventually do so). Fertility rates had plummeted and food production had gone exponential.
Hybrid sales are going up, SUV sales are going down, technology growth is going exponential. I think humanity just may take care of itself. The fact that not everybody jumps on every new idea as soon as it is announced may be a good thing. Call it wisdom of the masses (a concept that gives me heartburn).
I remain focused on helping preserve biodiversity if and when we come out on the other side. It needs all the help it can get to protect it from the onslaught of us soon to be 10 billion self-centered competing... ah but exuberant and positive primates.
In the end, it all comes down to biodiversity. Help acquire and protect ecological hotspots, give to a conservation organization: http://www.saveourbiodiversity.com
Permalink
David Roberts Posted 8:48 am
10 Mar 2006
All my harping on deep ecology and misanthropy basically circles around to the fact that I think those kinds of arguments play into all the worst stereotypes about environmentalists and help ensure that while environmentalism has broad support, environmentalists do not. Such arguments are counterproductive and unnecessary, both philosophically and practically. That's as plainly as I can put it.
I can't -- and wouldn't want to -- stop anyone from believing that nature is intrinsically valuable. I'm happy to BS about those kinds of questions til the cows come home. But I'd like those who quite obviously favor non-human nature over human beings to at least acknowledge that they are unlikely to drum up broad support, and to think more strategically about how they communicate to "outsiders," as it were. And yes, there are outsiders who read Grist. At least I fervently hope so. Lots of what I see from certain deep ecologists of my acquaintance is an eagerness to say things that will offend people -- an eagerness to display what they see as their moral superiority. It doesn't help.
On the optimism question: No, I don't want exclusively shiny, happy talk. But I do think an equitable, prosperous, fulfilling green future is possible. And I would like all greens to have at least a vague outline of it in their heads. And I'd like them to talk about it, and share it with non-greens. No social movement can succeed unless it can paint a picture of a world people want to go to. More later.
www.grist.org
Permalink
SMLowry Posted 2:41 am
11 Mar 2006
I don't know what the solution is, but I do know that one thing we absolutely need to do is come together in communities and neighborhoods and take stock, quite literally, of what we have access to as households, as neighborhoods, as towns and villages. We need to acknowledge that we come with personal and familial baggage, that we won't all agree about everything, but that we need to respect each other and cooperate for the good of the whole.
Here's an example of what I see happening in a rural area like mine, ideally: Neighbors coming together to decide that we need to cooperatively grow and raise our food. To do this, we need access to certain tools and skills but perhaps we don't have all the tools or skills we need.. But maybe every one of us has a washer and dryer so perhaps we could share and sell the excess to buy tools or hire teachers? Another thing: How many cars/trucks/whatever does one family need? Can we devise a neighborhood car/truck pool? And then sell the excess for whatever? How about electricity? How can we de-link from the grid as a neighborhood? What do we need to do this? The questions go on and on, the opportunities for collaboration are endless. The major block as I see it is our unwillingness to let go of the illusion of individualism, our "need" to have everything we might require in our individual homes, so that we don't "need" anyone else. But we aren't going to get through the times that are coming by barricading ourselves in our private homes or apartments.
On my street, for example, there's a wide range of house types and lot sizes. My house is a modest 3-bedroom, well-maintained, on a bit over 4 acres of field and trees. On one side is a barn (no farm house attached) used to store hay. On the other side is a huge Victorian currently for sale used only on weekends, that sits on 40 acres of mostly fields. Across the street, kind of, is another huge house also used only on weekends, if that, sitting on several acres of mostly woods. Every time the power goes off, a generator in this house comes on, disturbing the wonderful silence. There are mobile homes on tiny lots, old New England farmhouses on acres of land, and down the road a bit are acres and acres of fields used to grow potatoes, beans, field corn, and sod. We don't really know each other and there's no sense of neighborhood. This is totally typical of around here and it is not sustainable. My disabled sister and I can only do so much, the elderly couple down the road and the young family near them can only do so much. But together we could not only survive, but thrive. Things aren't going to remain as they are much longer. We'd be so much better off if we could come together now, rather than waiting until the shit hits the fan. But doing so means letting go of the consumer mentality and the so-called desireability of private ownership that feeds it. The thing is, my preferred lifestyle, that is more like living in an intentional community, is not the preferred lifestyle of most folks these days. How can we get beyond this? I don't know.
Permalink
jdhlax Posted 6:59 am
11 Mar 2006
When I was an Earth First! campaigner, this issue often arose, because EF! was, by definition, a biocentric group. However, there are always reasons to oppose a bad project that would benefit humans, so those reasons would always be prominently included in our literature and media talking points. A deep ecologist who tries to offend people, as you describe, is doing a disservice to both deep ecology and the general enviro movement.
That said, of course deep ecologists should never be afraid of expressing their feelings and ideologies where appropriate, nor should they ever be dishonest if confronted with this issue. On the other hand, it is clearly not appropriate to raise the issue where it could alienate potential allies.
Jeff Hoffman
Permalink
SMLowry Posted 7:37 am
11 Mar 2006
Another thing is to avoid setting ourselves up as paragons of ecological virtue. Unless we're living a totally simple, ecological life (I do know a (very) few people who are but most of us aren't), we have to acknowledge that we aren't perfect. We're in this together. Nothing turns me, or anyone, off so quickly as feeling as though we are being looked down upon.
I stress in my writing and conversations with people, that we are part of nature, part of the Earth, and speaking for the Earth does not mean I am not speaking for human beings. The dichotomy of people vs nature (that has been blogged over and over here and elsewhere) does not exist except in our minds. Anyone lobbying for the Earth is also lobbying for people simply because we humans cannot live anywhere else (as far as I know, although they may have discovered water on one of Saturn's moons).
In my days as a more active activist (when I was in Vermont before moving to Maine to care for my sister), I worked with EF! people (who were absolutely great folks), and I worked with Greens who could be more prickly and arrogant (yes even more than EF!, at least in my opinion). At that time there was a split in the Greens between social ecology and deep ecology -- has it been resolved? (Most of my work was with the bioregional movement and the issues I focused on were ecological economics, community-based development, and corporate research -- my first book was Economics as if the Earth Really Mattered, (New Society Publishers, 1985). Much of what we're discussing today has been discussed for years in these different groups and still here we are, wondering how to reach people while being true to our hearts and spirits.
Permalink
jdhlax Posted 7:58 am
11 Mar 2006
Re "setting ourselves up as paragons of ecological virtue," I think it's important to make the point when discussing policy issues that it's not about "you and me," but about how humans in general are causing harm. I'm constantly attacked when I advocate for less environmental harm because I'm not perfect (for example, I'm using a computer).
As far as I'm concerned, this is a totally illegitimate criticism, unless it were to come from someone who does not use any modern technology. Aside from being hypocritical, it's always used to support an anti-environmental position by taking the focus off the real issue and redirecting it onto me or whoever is the recipient of the attack. Of course we shouldn't be holier-than-thou, but the other side of that coin is that people should not use personal attacks to try to obfuscate the real issues. So long as the person making the original point(s) hasn't framed the communication in a personal manner, there's no excuse for this type of reply.
Jeff Hoffman
Permalink
SMLowry Posted 9:35 am
11 Mar 2006
Permalink
birdboy Posted 2:00 pm
11 Mar 2006
This is exactly what I need- to practice saying what I mean without letting my desperation and disgust with 'business as usual' rise up and repel 'normal people'. I spend too much time talking to people who (sort of) agree, when it is the 'normal people' who really need to hear it. For example, what the true cost of that package of hamburger is, and why it's better to pay more for that compact fluorescent bulb. How to say it without coming off as a 'better than thou' or lecturing is not easy. I like SMLowry's idea of recanting a personal story to make the point- I'll try that.
Of course we are a part of Nature, but I worry that people have been isolated from Nature (by technology) for so long, that they are losing the ability to bond with Mother Earth. Along with this ability, we may be losing the ability to empathize with other species or even with others of our own species. The individuality that makes Americans so proud is really a rejection of community; family values are rather selfish and narrow. If we continue to drift away from our roots, it will get harder and harder to convince 'normal people' to accept change. Just like moving people and their personal engines is far less efficient than public transportation, supporting 10 billion 'individuals' is much harder than communities supporting themselves. It's gotta change, somehow.
a liberal in redsville
Permalink
amazingdrx Posted 2:20 am
12 Mar 2006
Haven't listened to the call in shows on Wisconsin Public Radio for a decade or so, but I got my start there badgering neocons like Jeannie Faracca.
The internet put an end to my contribution to that dictatorship of the airwaves.
I like the buhdist spiritual take on environmentalism. Zen was there before all these upstart religions.
http://amazngdrx.blogharbor.com/blog
Permalink
amazingdrx Posted 2:48 am
12 Mar 2006
3A00
"For Program On: Saturday, March 11, 2006 at 3:00 PM
After three, on Here on Earth, Jean Feraca and her guests discuss innovations in ecological farming, and local food revival movement here and around the world. GUESTS:
Anna Lappe, cofounder of the Small Planet Institute and Small Planet Fund.
Bryant Terry, food justice activist and founding director of b-healthy!. Co-authors of "Grub: Ideas for an Urban Organic Kitchen" (Tarcher/Penguin). http://www.eatgrub.org"
Yep, still on the air, still call-in. Neoconservative? Who cares?
http://amazngdrx.blogharbor.com/blog
Permalink
vincebrew Posted 6:41 am
14 Mar 2006
Let's face it, global warming is a complex "thing" that's happening to our planet. The potential consequences are also complex and debated hotly. Why don't we try to kickstart social change by connecting with people in ways they understand? Through the everyday impact on their wallets? Money motivates!!
For example, up here in the cold North, people leave their cars idling for extended periods of time while they pick up their kids from school or when they pop into a store for smokes (don't get me started!). Studies show that turning your car off instead will eliminate tonnes of carbon dioxide from going into our atmosphere. More importantly to most people, it will save gas money!
If we had a campaign that positioned key environmental goals in ways that explained financial savings clearly to the rushed, stressed, regular citizen, I think change would happen.
vincebrew
Permalink