Is our society insane? 26 January 06

because all those around me know nada about GW, or seem to know something about it, but don’t care about it, or practice voodoo contrarian science. So I begin to wonder about myself – like maybe I’m the crazy one. Then I go step by step through a reality check & figure out that I’m not crazy, but everyone else is (or stupid/uninformed or evil, or some combination of these).

I know that for people who actually are crazy, that’s how the world looks; they think they are right & everyone else must be deaf for not hearing those voices inside their head.

We live in bizzaro world. Luckily my mom taught me to be a nonconformist, as in “Don’t follow the sheep over the cliff.” But it’s really disturbing when those sheep are pulling me with them, and I’m the only one who understands we’re headed for that cliff.

You’ve pointed us at a couple of interesting articles Mark. Thank you.

I find the Media Lens (ML) analysis less than impressive. This conclusion from a reading of the article and Chapter 10 “Climate Change – The Ultimate Media Betrayal” of their new book “Guardians of Power”. They point out that the Guardian and Indy carry news and editorials on AGW and at the same time lots of ads from corporations whose activities cause AGW. OK this needs pointing out but I and no doubt others had noticed …. !

I, like the ML people, am disappointed and frustrated by the contradictions in the media. But you do not make a persuasive argument by compiling lists and there may be better ways to use your time than getting into lengthy spats with journalists and editors. The ML argument is at points torturous and in many ways it’s all been said before by, for instance, sociologists analysing the media back in the 1970s. ML exaggerate and resort to statements like this from p161 of “Guardians of Power” “… climate change [is] presented as a kind of wildlife issue existing outside the realities of psychopathic corporate greed, propaganda and control.” And this from p171 “… the mass media – is fatally compromised by its very structure, nature and goals.” “[F]atally?

We know the media is, mostly, owned by big business. We know about the pursuit of profit. We know the media is far from perfect. There is little to be gained from making maximalist and impossibilist demands which can’t be met and then “revealing” that the Guardian and Indy exist in a capitalist society.

Some journalists on the Guardian and Indy (and no doubt elsewhere) have done excellent work over the years and in a pretty hostile environment. We should welcome this and give them our (critical) support.

The George Marshall article is very good. (My one reservation is the reference to the “chemtrails” conspiracy. Best to let sleeping dogs lie I think.) His tone is sympathetic and understanding. He too refers to the contradictions in the media but goes on to develop a very useful series of points about disconnection and denial. There are a lot of useful ideas in here which should prompt a very fruitful debate. I look forward to the forthcoming book. I’ll be telling lots of people to read this.

Something else which might help push the issue forward is a publication from Transport 2000. (Green-Engage report – Painting the Town Green – argues for new approach to turn the public ‘green’) I haven’t read this yet and I think it may overlap with work done by Chris Rose. You can pursue here http://www.transport2000.org.uk/

Douglas Coker

I very much liked George Marshall’s article. What struck me was his feeling of bereavement and complete loss that defines all his actions and thoughts on climate change. I felt exactly the same – one day the world seemed fine albeit with climate change as a challenge and vague threat, the next day it all disintegrated and the world somehow never looked the same again (that was in October 2004, when the papers filled with reports of the faster rise in CO2 levels in 2002 and 2003 and predictions of runaway global warming). And without that experience I would never have done much about climate change at all.

Reason tells me, as it does George Marshall, that we can only break the cycle of denial if we give people positive messages of what they can do and how proud they can be if they do it, and if we break down climate change into ‘manageable’ chunks of problems and solutions. My own experience and something that has come across from some others on this blog and a few people I have spoken to is quite different: A real deep understanding of climate change, the enormity of it and what it demands of us as individuals seems to be triggered by the more ‘apocalyptic’ news leading to a sense of bereavement and deep loss. But then again, I might just be speaking for myself and a few others. Perhaps the positive news, breaking it down into manageable problems and solutions is what motivates a lot of people after all. Is this true, from others’ direct experience of themselves and other climate change activists they know?

Almuth

In fact, I have been thinking along similar lines.

There is a real sense of grief in knowing we may have to loose the many amenities of our current living standards and this is difficult I believe for everyone.

Your insights on solutions is also correct as well. The idea of overwhelming people who are already “grieving” from the “message” makes it difficult to motivate them to any form of action. The “message” can be depressing, discouraging, and painful. Without solutions and actions, it can be difficult to listen to.

I think we have to give people a sense of hope and we need it ourselves. In fact, our own ability to deal with anxiety, fear, grief, and denial may determine the fate of the planet. We need not trouble people who cannot handle what would be difficult for ourselves.

I say this because our best creative efforts happen when we have hope and a definite plan of action to follow. Merely talking about the problems is never enough.

Yet, anxiety will always be a constant companion. We need to acknowledge this and develop coping strategies.

I suggest the best way to cope is to focus nearly 100 percent of our time toward solutions and better ideas or better ways to implement them.

I also think that Peak Oil and higher energy prices will give more incentive for action in the next few years from more economic benefits. In this way, current market forces will help push needed changes.

The good news here is that all of us will have to deal with energy and climate issues regardless of our views from an economic standpoint alone.

Hold that thought everyone. The opportunities for solutions can and will bring forth action from the private sector and I think this may achieve what Governments cannot.

There are many good ideas out there (I have many myself) which may flourish as the price of energy goes up. In the next 10 years, economics will influence change due to higher prices.

In this alone, I see our way out of denial and complacency. Once everyone feels the drain on money, then they will be eager to listen to anyone with solutions to ease that pain. They will want help and we better have some answers.

I feel better for writing and sharing these thoughts as I have to insure my own morale stays high. If I don’t, then I get nothing accomplished and I consider that a real waste!

Good insights Almuth. I hope what I wrote helped!

Best, Dan

I’ve tried them all & none work very well. But we have to keep on trying.

What we need is for everyone to suddenly become a saint. That would work.

If you follow the info on me (link on my name), I had my GW epiphany 15 years ago. What did it was the realization that I was contributing to others’ death. When I suggested to the nun in charge of our church environmental group that we use the motto “SKiP” (stop killing people), she said we should rephrase it as “Save the Earth.” But that isn’t acurate, and I lack finesse.

The UK non-governmental technology and policy think-tank , The Foresight group, has published an extensively researched and thought provoking series of reports titled ‘Intelligent Infrastructure Futures’. Of greatest interest is the four alternative scenarios to 2055: sober and thought-provoking reading.

It is series of large pdf files and can be foud at:

http://www.foresight.gov.uk/Intelligent%20Infrastructure%20Systems/Reports%20and%20Publications/Intelligent_Infrastructure_Futures/Index.html

well worth a read: and hopefully all the main UK party strategists will read it as wel. It may provide an interesting insight into UK policy thinking for our friends in the US, contrarians included.

best wishes to all

Colin

I think this is a very interesting area. We certainly all do create “myths” about the way we live, and should live our lives. For qualitative researchers / those working in semiotics etc, “myths” are not neccesarily false. In making chances, it is terribly important to use the right language of those you are engaged in.

I work in business and one can make the most radical suggestion – as long as you use the right type of language. For some, this can mean very negative impacts – but if you want to achieve a “Climate-friendly” objective (let’s say – stop all business flights within a company), then this can be proposed if the right language is used (efficiency, videocons, info revolution, www.civi.com, human resources etc. etc).

Another thought – Lynn has talked about cost-savings of being eco-friendly. There appear to be some terrific investment opportunities in renewables at the moment (if that’s what you want to do).

The Merrill Lynch New Energy Technology fund (which Leggett refers to in his recent book) has more than doubled in the past year.

http://www.mlim.co.uk/uksite/fund-centre/prices-its.asp?silo=individual-investors

The article that Mark refers is critical of BP for investing just 2% of its investments in renewables. Well, we can all be part of that (with a chance of making a nice return as well!)

Best,

Peter

Thanks Colin. The Foresight papers are very interesting and useful. From a quick, on-screen skim, (my FOC hard copies should arrive next week) they read like an ideas bank and I can’t help noticing they’ve been reading some of the same stuff we read. I wonder if they visit this site and will read Mark’s new book. I also see outline ideas and scripts for TV programmes. They’d be like the Time Team series but focussing on the future. Maybe I should contact Tony!

We can take some encouragement from this work and use it in a number of ways. However I’m aware that while the Foresight team are part of government machinery they are very much at arms length and their papers do not represent government policy. This is a real problem. Blair increasingly displays his bunker mentality in pursuing war and more and more PFI/PPP schemes. On the other side of the pond Bush is in his bubble as portrayed by Newsweek magazine (19th December 2005). He’s surrounded by the seriously malign, big corporation supporting, neo-cons. And while we have Foresight papers there are interesting US CIA papers dealing with various disaster scenarios as Dano reminded us recently. But Bush, post Katrina, claimed no one warned him of the risk. He clearly doesn’t read any warning documents that are available to him.

The Foresight Urban Colonies section looks to be particularly interesting. There is a clear need to be thinking and reading on future scenarios. This prompted by AGW/CC, peak/end of oil, the struggle over diminishing fossil fuel resources, optimum population considerations and the rest. Traditional classical economics (bourgeois economics as I used to refer to it!), current world trading patterns and a more or less complete disregard for natural capital need to be replaced by a whole raft of other systems and structures to take us securely forward on a new trajectory.

Aubrey Meyer’s Contraction & Convergence is an inspirational framework which points us in the right direction. (I’ve resolved my concerns expressed about C&C (way) below. China may overshoot its C&C emissions level and from this week’s New Statesman is seems India may do the same. However having now read AM’s “Contraction & Convergence The Global Solution to Climate Change” I recognise he discusses Lovins ideas, the Sky Trust and Douthwaite’s “new world currency” idea. So he is aware the framework needs filling out.)

Meyer is far from alone. Ross Gelbspan in “Boiling Point” discusses C&C, the Sky Trust, the Apollo Project and a Tobin tax. George Monbiot in “The Age of Consent” discusses an International Clearing Union. Richard Heinberg in “Powerdown” discusses the need for “de-industrialisation” in a post-carbon world. But most, if not all, of this is tentative, sketchy or pretty far fetched. I’m aware that labelling something “far fetched” is risky. A few decades hence the “far fetched” may be blindingly obvious common sense. I’ve a few more books lined up to read which might help on this theme among which is “Green Alternatives to Globalisation” by (the late) Michael Woodin and Caroline Lucas. Anyone out there read it?

Engaging with ideas about AGW is a real eye-opener. Thinking about successfully and dramatically reducing CO2 emissions leads to a whole bunch of ideas which hold out the promise of a much better world. You never know we might even make it!

Two footnotes. I was able to ask, on Friday evening at a meeting in City Hall (London), what progress Allan Jones and the London Climate Change Agency are making. Not a lot was the immediate answer but more may be revealed when he reports to GLA members in February. And Chris Rose’s latest newsletter is up at http://www.campaignstrategy.org/newsletters/campaignstrategy_newsletter_21.doc

Douglas Coker