Waterworld

The best place for discussion of current events. News about Buddhists and Buddhism is particularly welcome.
User avatar
Thomas Amundsen
Posts: 1861
Joined: Thu Feb 03, 2011 2:50 am
Location: Los Angeles, CA
Contact:

Re: Waterworld

Post by Thomas Amundsen » Thu Apr 26, 2018 8:21 pm

Queequeg wrote:
Wed Apr 25, 2018 7:57 pm
In my younger and naively idealistic days, I deeply sympathized with the approach of Earth First! I don't agree with their fundamental philosophical position anymore - more or less the misanthropic view that humanity is a cancer. I did and continue to admire some of their direct actions - tree sitting and tree spiking (as long as warnings were issued to the logging companies) to prevent logging.

The environment is an existential issue, and its seeming to me that a commensurate direct action is called for. At this time, I don't know what it could be. I know though that it must be non-violent and ethical. Its beyond getting permits and marching with signs that peak as viral social media posts. We need real, analog impact. I look at my children, and the sense of urgency I feel is growing to the point it cannot be ignored or placated with smug overtures of personal virtue.

:thinking:

Suggestions?

:stirthepot:
On an individual level, we can drive our cars less and ride bicycles or take public transportation. If this isn't possible currently, we can work toward a living/working situation where it is possible.

User avatar
Kim O'Hara
Former staff member
Posts: 3678
Joined: Fri Nov 16, 2012 1:09 am
Location: North Queensland, Australia

Re: Waterworld

Post by Kim O'Hara » Thu Apr 26, 2018 11:09 pm

Virgo wrote:
Wed Apr 25, 2018 9:28 pm
Queequeg wrote:
Wed Apr 25, 2018 9:19 pm
Virgo wrote:
Wed Apr 25, 2018 9:08 pm
Good discussion. Thanks for the infos and input.

I believe this is the way forward:
I didn't see the videos - I will check them out later. I surmise from the titles, they're talking about nuclear power? There is something to that. We need to improve the technology, but clearly, it is one of the options to pursue.
Yes, these two videos have quite a bit of information Que. I highly recommend them. :namaste:

:namaste: Kevin...
I didn't see the videos either, and (frankly) I'm not going to because i read much faster than people talk. Also, it's easier to critique printed material than audio, because you can flip back to relevant points to re-read, and then copy/paste excerpts, etc.
Can you point us to print versions, or articles with the same info?

:thanks:
Kim

User avatar
The Cicada
Posts: 766
Joined: Sat Apr 16, 2016 5:15 am
Location: Trumpaloka

Re: Waterworld

Post by The Cicada » Fri Apr 27, 2018 1:42 am

Queequeg wrote:
Wed Apr 25, 2018 8:43 pm
[We] need the consciousness changed first. I don't think we are even close to that yet.
We aint got time for enlightened consciousness to get around...
Except that this is fundamental. Without this change we get the result of our aviddya no matter what we do. Those horrific, heart-rending, "soul" killing, hell-made-manifest results that the survivors who seed the next epoch will have haunt them like the writhing pain of a chronic sickness or a cruel madness for countless generations. Our collective greed and anger will seal the deal. Our pact with Mara will end in scathing remorse.

You can't speak to us hoi polloi with logic. We understand feelings. Images. Stories. We are the volcanic forces of the unconscious upon which all else rests. If you want to reach us, reach us like this. Make us feel the message. If you have a complex idea, parse the subject matter into images, demonstrate their interrelationship through narrative, and make us feel their consequence. Move us. Inspire us. Win hearts, then minds.

Socratic question: Why is vegetarianism so popular in India?


I'm done holding my sign on the street corner, raving at the skyline now.
:soapbox: :rolleye:

On a lighter note:
Queequeg wrote:
Wed Apr 25, 2018 7:57 pm
In my younger and naively idealistic days, I deeply sympathized with the approach of Earth First! I don't agree with their fundamental philosophical position anymore - more or less the misanthropic view that humanity is a cancer.

Image



It's funny because I don't live on the coast. :mrgreen:

User avatar
DNS
Site Admin
Posts: 3002
Joined: Sun Apr 05, 2009 4:23 pm
Location: Las Vegas, Nevada, Estados Unidos de América
Contact:

Re: Waterworld

Post by DNS » Fri Apr 27, 2018 3:29 am

The Cicada wrote:
Fri Apr 27, 2018 1:42 am
It's funny because I don't live on the coast. :mrgreen:
But, but, but . . . San Diego is safe, right? :shock: :tongue: (I have some property there.)

User avatar
Virgo
Posts: 3055
Joined: Sat Feb 06, 2010 3:47 am
Location: The American Colosseum

Re: Waterworld

Post by Virgo » Fri Apr 27, 2018 3:40 am

Kim O'Hara wrote:
Thu Apr 26, 2018 11:09 pm

I didn't see the videos either, and (frankly) I'm not going to because i read much faster than people talk. Also, it's easier to critique printed material than audio, because you can flip back to relevant points to re-read, and then copy/paste excerpts, etc.
Can you point us to print versions, or articles with the same info?

:thanks:
Kim
Hi Kim,

In the first video James Hansen gives some personal accounts, talks about the science, and answers a question or two. In the second, Michael makes a very valuable presentation at Tedx.

I don't think there is anything in print that really covers that.

Kevin...
ངོ་རང་ཐོག་ཏུ་སྤྲད། །
ཐག་གཅིག་ཐོག་ཏུ་བཅད། །
གདེང་གྲོལ་ཐོག་ཏུ་བཅའ། །

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GxPcu7F7gWg

User avatar
Kim O'Hara
Former staff member
Posts: 3678
Joined: Fri Nov 16, 2012 1:09 am
Location: North Queensland, Australia

Re: Waterworld

Post by Kim O'Hara » Fri Apr 27, 2018 5:19 am

Virgo wrote:
Fri Apr 27, 2018 3:40 am
Kim O'Hara wrote:
Thu Apr 26, 2018 11:09 pm

I didn't see the videos either, and (frankly) I'm not going to because i read much faster than people talk. Also, it's easier to critique printed material than audio, because you can flip back to relevant points to re-read, and then copy/paste excerpts, etc.
Can you point us to print versions, or articles with the same info?

:thanks:
Kim
Hi Kim,

In the first video James Hansen gives some personal accounts, talks about the science, and answers a question or two. In the second, Michael makes a very valuable presentation at Tedx.

I don't think there is anything in print that really covers that.

Kevin...
I will stick with what is important enough to make it into print, then - Drawdown for instance:
Currently, 29 countries have operative nuclear plants; they produce about 11 percent of the world’s electricity. Nuclear is expensive, and the highly regulated industry is often over-budget and slow. While the cost of virtually every other form of energy has gone down over time, nuclear is four to eight times higher than it was four decades ago.

With nuclear power, there is a climate dilemma: Is an increase in the number of nuclear power plants, with all their flaws and inherent risks, worth the gamble? Or, as some proponents insist, will there be a total meltdown of climate by limiting their use?

At Project Drawdown, we consider nuclear a regrets solution. It has potential to avoid emissions, but there are many reasons for concern: deadly meltdowns, tritium releases, abandoned uranium mines, mine-tailings pollution, radioactive waste, illicit plutonium trafficking, and thefts of missile material, among them.
and
RANK AND RESULTS BY 2050
16.09 GIGATONS
REDUCED CO2
$0.88 BILLION
NET IMPLEMENTATION COST
$1.71 TRILLION
NET OPERATIONAL SAVINGS
IMPACT: Nuclear’s complicated dynamics around safety and public acceptance will influence its future direction—of expansion or contraction. We assume its share of global electricity generation will grow to 13.6 percent by 2030, but slowly decline to 12 percent by 2050. With a longer lifetime than fossil fuel plants resulting in fewer facilities overall, installation of nuclear power plants could cost an additional $900 million, despite the high implementation cost of $4,457 per kilowatt. Net operating savings over thirty years could reach $1.7 trillion. This scenario could result in 16.1 gigatons of carbon dioxide emissions avoided.
:reading: http://www.drawdown.org/solutions/elect ... on/nuclear

That "rank" is the value of the solution as compared to others. The top ten are here - http://www.drawdown.org/solutions and include some surprises.

:namaste:
Kim

User avatar
Kim O'Hara
Former staff member
Posts: 3678
Joined: Fri Nov 16, 2012 1:09 am
Location: North Queensland, Australia

Re: Waterworld

Post by Kim O'Hara » Fri Apr 27, 2018 12:55 pm

Queequeg wrote:
Wed Apr 25, 2018 7:57 pm
In my younger and naively idealistic days, I deeply sympathized with the approach of Earth First! I don't agree with their fundamental philosophical position anymore - more or less the misanthropic view that humanity is a cancer. I did and continue to admire some of their direct actions - tree sitting and tree spiking (as long as warnings were issued to the logging companies) to prevent logging.

The environment is an existential issue, and its seeming to me that a commensurate direct action is called for. At this time, I don't know what it could be. I know though that it must be non-violent and ethical. Its beyond getting permits and marching with signs that peak as viral social media posts. We need real, analog impact. I look at my children, and the sense of urgency I feel is growing to the point it cannot be ignored or placated with smug overtures of personal virtue.

:thinking:

Suggestions?

:stirthepot:
You're right, and you could add that the environment is a moral issue, too, since climate change is likely to cause more suffering - human and animal - than any other single thing humanity is doing or has done. And it's going to cause suffering to people who were in no way responsible for it, since the burden will fall disproportionately on the poor (largely in Africa and Asia) and on generations yet to come.
So what should we do?
Leading by example is the obvious choice but it isn't enough, even if millions of wealthy westerners did it (and remember, almost all westerners are wealthy).
Next step? Agitate for change, through groups like Avaaz, WWF, Greenpeace, etc. Give them money or time or both. Share their messages on social media. Write letters to your local newspaper or politicians. Be the squeaky wheel.
Or join the political process. Join your local Greens party or the nearest equivalent, or join the opposition and undermine them from within. :spy:
Do whatever you can, whenever you can, but try to leverage your skills for maximum impact. Joining in street marches may not be the best use of your time if you have more useful skills. Myself, I help keep the local green group's online stuff working. Before that, I was newsletter editor for a similar group. If I happened to be an artist, I would be designing FB memes, screen-printing t-shirts, and painting banners for rallies. Musicians can do fund-raising concerts or help rev up the crowd at rallies. Etc.

But keep the ultimate objective in mind, and be aware that it's nothing less than remaking the entire basis of our economy. Endless growth is the morality of the cancer cell, as Edward Abbey said decades ago, and expecting infinite growth on a finite planet is lunacy, as I'm sure many people have said. The good news (there's got to be some, okay?) is that it isn't one all-or-nothing Ragnarok but a whole lot of little, winnable, skirmishes. This week we can ban plastic shopping bags, next week we can improve public transport, the week after we can delay a new coal mine with a legal challenge, and so on.

Bottom line: doing anything is better than doing nothing.

:jedi:
Kim

User avatar
Virgo
Posts: 3055
Joined: Sat Feb 06, 2010 3:47 am
Location: The American Colosseum

Re: Waterworld

Post by Virgo » Fri Apr 27, 2018 2:37 pm

Kim O'Hara wrote:
Fri Apr 27, 2018 5:19 am

I will stick with what is important enough to make it into print, then
OK. :wave: waving at you from 2018. :twothumbsup:

Kevin...
ངོ་རང་ཐོག་ཏུ་སྤྲད། །
ཐག་གཅིག་ཐོག་ཏུ་བཅད། །
གདེང་གྲོལ་ཐོག་ཏུ་བཅའ། །

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GxPcu7F7gWg

User avatar
The Cicada
Posts: 766
Joined: Sat Apr 16, 2016 5:15 am
Location: Trumpaloka

Re: Waterworld

Post by The Cicada » Fri Apr 27, 2018 2:59 pm

Kim O'Hara wrote:
Fri Apr 27, 2018 12:55 pm
This week we can ban plastic shopping bags, next week we can improve public transport, the week after we can delay a new coal mine with a legal challenge, and so on.
The week after that we can make vasectomies manditory.
it isn't one all-or-nothing Ragnarok but a whole lot of little, winnable, skirmishes.
Suppose one part of the world cuts down its economic output for the sake of the environment while another part ramps it up and gains military and economic advantages because of it? Why should powerful nations willingly cripple themselves, surrender their power, and sacrifice their safety? Or suppose that laws are able to be successfully passed throughout the world because its elites worlk together, and these laws hinder economic development despite the will of the people of those countries to experience prosperity. Why should those who can defy and overthrow such a power and the immediate threat it poses to their interests not do so?

Force will lead to force, and if one cannot win, it is preferable to deny one's opposition of what they want rather than let them have it. This is why I expect conflict, don't put much faith in people shouting about the environment in protests, and believe that the people should be inspired to effect changes in their personal lives rather than having rules crammed down their throats from the top down.

User avatar
Queequeg
Global Moderator
Posts: 5464
Joined: Tue Jul 03, 2012 3:24 pm

Re: Waterworld

Post by Queequeg » Fri Apr 27, 2018 6:54 pm

Kim O'Hara wrote:
Fri Apr 27, 2018 12:55 pm
Queequeg wrote:
Wed Apr 25, 2018 7:57 pm
In my younger and naively idealistic days, I deeply sympathized with the approach of Earth First! I don't agree with their fundamental philosophical position anymore - more or less the misanthropic view that humanity is a cancer. I did and continue to admire some of their direct actions - tree sitting and tree spiking (as long as warnings were issued to the logging companies) to prevent logging.

The environment is an existential issue, and its seeming to me that a commensurate direct action is called for. At this time, I don't know what it could be. I know though that it must be non-violent and ethical. Its beyond getting permits and marching with signs that peak as viral social media posts. We need real, analog impact. I look at my children, and the sense of urgency I feel is growing to the point it cannot be ignored or placated with smug overtures of personal virtue.

:thinking:

Suggestions?

:stirthepot:
You're right, and you could add that the environment is a moral issue, too, since climate change is likely to cause more suffering - human and animal - than any other single thing humanity is doing or has done. And it's going to cause suffering to people who were in no way responsible for it, since the burden will fall disproportionately on the poor (largely in Africa and Asia) and on generations yet to come.
So what should we do?
Leading by example is the obvious choice but it isn't enough, even if millions of wealthy westerners did it (and remember, almost all westerners are wealthy).
Next step? Agitate for change, through groups like Avaaz, WWF, Greenpeace, etc. Give them money or time or both. Share their messages on social media. Write letters to your local newspaper or politicians. Be the squeaky wheel.
Or join the political process. Join your local Greens party or the nearest equivalent, or join the opposition and undermine them from within. :spy:
Do whatever you can, whenever you can, but try to leverage your skills for maximum impact. Joining in street marches may not be the best use of your time if you have more useful skills. Myself, I help keep the local green group's online stuff working. Before that, I was newsletter editor for a similar group. If I happened to be an artist, I would be designing FB memes, screen-printing t-shirts, and painting banners for rallies. Musicians can do fund-raising concerts or help rev up the crowd at rallies. Etc.

But keep the ultimate objective in mind, and be aware that it's nothing less than remaking the entire basis of our economy. Endless growth is the morality of the cancer cell, as Edward Abbey said decades ago, and expecting infinite growth on a finite planet is lunacy, as I'm sure many people have said. The good news (there's got to be some, okay?) is that it isn't one all-or-nothing Ragnarok but a whole lot of little, winnable, skirmishes. This week we can ban plastic shopping bags, next week we can improve public transport, the week after we can delay a new coal mine with a legal challenge, and so on.

Bottom line: doing anything is better than doing nothing.

:jedi:
Kim
Thanks, Kim. That was inspiring.

I've considered getting involved with the local Green Party, but I just couldn't bring myself to associate with them. I don't know how Green Parties are in other countries, but here, they are kind of whackadoodle fringe - vaxxers and conspiracy theorists; intolerant identity politics activists. I can't stomach that crowd, and I actually feel like they undermine the "Green" message.

In the end, it really is about a change of the economy. I don't see it changing significantly in the short term, but maybe if we get these ideas out there, they'll resonate and gain momentum with each catastrophic event which are only a matters of time.

+++

General question -

Where are the pressure points where energy could be focused?
Those who, even with distracted minds,
Entered a stupa compound
And chanted but once, “Namo Buddhaya!”
Have certainly attained the path of the buddhas.

-Lotus Sutra, Expedient Means Chapter

User avatar
Queequeg
Global Moderator
Posts: 5464
Joined: Tue Jul 03, 2012 3:24 pm

Re: Waterworld

Post by Queequeg » Fri Apr 27, 2018 7:02 pm

The Cicada wrote:
Fri Apr 27, 2018 2:59 pm
Suppose one part of the world cuts down its economic output for the sake of the environment while another part ramps it up and gains military and economic advantages because of it? Why should powerful nations willingly cripple themselves, surrender their power, and sacrifice their safety? Or suppose that laws are able to be successfully passed throughout the world because its elites worlk together, and these laws hinder economic development despite the will of the people of those countries to experience prosperity. Why should those who can defy and overthrow such a power and the immediate threat it poses to their interests not do so?

Force will lead to force, and if one cannot win, it is preferable to deny one's opposition of what they want rather than let them have it. This is why I expect conflict, don't put much faith in people shouting about the environment in protests, and believe that the people should be inspired to effect changes in their personal lives rather than having rules crammed down their throats from the top down.
This is standard reactionary right nonsense.

Do you realize this screams victimhood? One of those things "conservatives" love to trash. It also scream fear.

What an impoverished mind set!

"having rules crammed down their throats from the top down."

In case you haven't noticed, the yahoos won. Fear and loathing won. You have the White House, both houses of Congress. Likely you'll have the Supreme Court, too. If anyone is shoving rules down people's throats its the reactionary right. You people have the power and you're still whining like a bunch of little b**ches.
Those who, even with distracted minds,
Entered a stupa compound
And chanted but once, “Namo Buddhaya!”
Have certainly attained the path of the buddhas.

-Lotus Sutra, Expedient Means Chapter

User avatar
The Cicada
Posts: 766
Joined: Sat Apr 16, 2016 5:15 am
Location: Trumpaloka

Re: Waterworld

Post by The Cicada » Fri Apr 27, 2018 7:49 pm

Queequeg wrote:
Fri Apr 27, 2018 7:02 pm
The Cicada wrote:
Fri Apr 27, 2018 2:59 pm
Suppose one part of the world cuts down its economic output for the sake of the environment while another part ramps it up and gains military and economic advantages because of it? Why should powerful nations willingly cripple themselves, surrender their power, and sacrifice their safety? Or suppose that laws are able to be successfully passed throughout the world because its elites worlk together, and these laws hinder economic development despite the will of the people of those countries to experience prosperity. Why should those who can defy and overthrow such a power and the immediate threat it poses to their interests not do so?

Force will lead to force, and if one cannot win, it is preferable to deny one's opposition of what they want rather than let them have it. This is why I expect conflict, don't put much faith in people shouting about the environment in protests, and believe that the people should be inspired to effect changes in their personal lives rather than having rules crammed down their throats from the top down.
This is standard reactionary right nonsense.

Do you realize this screams victimhood? One of those things "conservatives" love to trash. It also scream fear.

What an impoverished mind set!

"having rules crammed down their throats from the top down."

In case you haven't noticed, the yahoos won. Fear and loathing won. You have the White House, both houses of Congress. Likely you'll have the Supreme Court, too. If anyone is shoving rules down people's throats its the reactionary right. You people have the power and you're still whining like a bunch of little b**ches.
Whatever is really going on in the world with the various agendas of those in power, the environment and climate change don't seem to be as high of a priority as they make it seem. Maybe Russia has a solution, Q.

User avatar
Queequeg
Global Moderator
Posts: 5464
Joined: Tue Jul 03, 2012 3:24 pm

Re: Waterworld

Post by Queequeg » Fri Apr 27, 2018 8:04 pm

The Cicada wrote:
Fri Apr 27, 2018 7:49 pm
Whatever is really going on in the world with the various agendas of those in power, the environment and climate change don't seem to be as high of a priority as they make it seem. Maybe Russia has a solution, Q.
Actually, health of the environment is not a priority of this US administration, at all. Does the name Scott Pruitt ring a bell?
Those who, even with distracted minds,
Entered a stupa compound
And chanted but once, “Namo Buddhaya!”
Have certainly attained the path of the buddhas.

-Lotus Sutra, Expedient Means Chapter

User avatar
The Cicada
Posts: 766
Joined: Sat Apr 16, 2016 5:15 am
Location: Trumpaloka

Re: Waterworld

Post by The Cicada » Fri Apr 27, 2018 8:32 pm

Queequeg wrote:
Fri Apr 27, 2018 8:04 pm
The Cicada wrote:
Fri Apr 27, 2018 7:49 pm
Whatever is really going on in the world with the various agendas of those in power, the environment and climate change don't seem to be as high of a priority as they make it seem. Maybe Russia has a solution, Q.
Actually, health of the environment is not a priority of this US administration, at all. Does the name Scott Pruitt ring a bell?
If anything kills the human race, it will be politics, directly or indirectly. I'll bow out.

tingdzin
Posts: 1048
Joined: Fri Feb 15, 2013 7:19 am

Re: Waterworld

Post by tingdzin » Sat Apr 28, 2018 5:16 pm

Queequeg wrote:
Fri Apr 27, 2018 7:02 pm
You people have the power and you're still whining like a bunch of little b**ches.
Tsk tsk

User avatar
Kunga Lhadzom
Posts: 1433
Joined: Sat Jan 30, 2010 2:01 am

Re: Waterworld

Post by Kunga Lhadzom » Sat Apr 28, 2018 10:37 pm

The Universe flowing through my veins...stars falling from my eyes......rocks rolling in my head...lemon juice dripping down my chin....

https://drunklotus.blog

User avatar
Kunga Lhadzom
Posts: 1433
Joined: Sat Jan 30, 2010 2:01 am

Re: Waterworld

Post by Kunga Lhadzom » Sun Apr 29, 2018 5:19 pm

The Universe flowing through my veins...stars falling from my eyes......rocks rolling in my head...lemon juice dripping down my chin....

https://drunklotus.blog

User avatar
Kim O'Hara
Former staff member
Posts: 3678
Joined: Fri Nov 16, 2012 1:09 am
Location: North Queensland, Australia

Re: Waterworld

Post by Kim O'Hara » Mon Apr 30, 2018 12:43 am

Queequeg wrote:
Fri Apr 27, 2018 6:54 pm
Kim O'Hara wrote:
Fri Apr 27, 2018 12:55 pm
Queequeg wrote:
Wed Apr 25, 2018 7:57 pm
In my younger and naively idealistic days, I deeply sympathized with the approach of Earth First! I don't agree with their fundamental philosophical position anymore - more or less the misanthropic view that humanity is a cancer. I did and continue to admire some of their direct actions - tree sitting and tree spiking (as long as warnings were issued to the logging companies) to prevent logging.

The environment is an existential issue, and its seeming to me that a commensurate direct action is called for. At this time, I don't know what it could be. I know though that it must be non-violent and ethical. Its beyond getting permits and marching with signs that peak as viral social media posts. We need real, analog impact. I look at my children, and the sense of urgency I feel is growing to the point it cannot be ignored or placated with smug overtures of personal virtue.

:thinking:

Suggestions?

:stirthepot:
You're right, and you could add that the environment is a moral issue, too, since climate change is likely to cause more suffering - human and animal - than any other single thing humanity is doing or has done. And it's going to cause suffering to people who were in no way responsible for it, since the burden will fall disproportionately on the poor (largely in Africa and Asia) and on generations yet to come.
So what should we do?
...
Bottom line: doing anything is better than doing nothing.

:jedi:
Kim
Thanks, Kim. That was inspiring.
:emb:
Thanks.
I've considered getting involved with the local Green Party, but I just couldn't bring myself to associate with them. I don't know how Green Parties are in other countries, but here, they are kind of whackadoodle fringe - vaxxers and conspiracy theorists; intolerant identity politics activists. I can't stomach that crowd, and I actually feel like they undermine the "Green" message.
Ours is a bit the same but in ours the "vaxxers and conspiracy theorists" are only the loony fringe within the party, not the bulk of the party. I therefore feel fine about spreading their message, voting for them, and encouraging everyone else to do so. (They rarely get in, but it sends a message to the centre-left party that it had better listen to the left more than to the right.) But I haven't joined the party, and won't. The way I see it, I can support them just as effectively from outside while retaining my freedom to critique them as necessary.
In the end, it really is about a change of the economy. I don't see it changing significantly in the short term, but maybe if we get these ideas out there, they'll resonate and gain momentum with each catastrophic event which are only a matters of time.
Like climate change, "the economy" is not a solid block but can be changed one tiny step at a time. Every time we shop at a local market instead of Walmart or Amazon, every time we buy local instead of imported, every time we hire rather than buy and throw out, we change the economy. Get friends on board, and we amplify our change. Etc.
General question -
Where are the pressure points where energy could be focused?
Excellent question, and one that I found unexpectedly hard to answer. Then I realised that at least three quite different kinds of “pressure points” were fighting for my attention.
One kind answers the question, “Where can our efforts have maximum effect?”
• Every election, making sure the candidates are questioned on green issues and know that voters do care. —> Avaaz https://www.avaaz.org/page/en/about/
• Shareholder action, e.g. ethical investment —> Market Forces https://www.marketforces.org.au
• Community-building —> community gardens, men’s sheds, revegetation of parklands, etc.

Another, quite close to it, is, “Which issues will arouse the greatest community engagement?”
• Wildlife welfare, especially key species like whales and pandas, and special places like our Great Barrier Reef. —> Greenpeace, WWF, etc.
• Extreme weather events and their consequences (Sandy woke up a few people!) —> Red Cross emergency relief.
* Community health issues e.g. mine waste in water supplies.

The third, more scientific than social, is, “Which environmental problems are most likely to be catastrophic or need the most urgent attention, and how are they best addressed?”
• CO2 emissions are the over-riding concern. All the other effects are basically consequences. —> Drawdown http://www.drawdown.org
• Species loss is irreversible so it may need to be prioritised locally —> WWF

There's far more to be done than any one person can even keep in touch with so, realistically, each of us takes up the issues which we feel most strongly about and contributes where we feel we can.

:namaste:
Kim

User avatar
Kim O'Hara
Former staff member
Posts: 3678
Joined: Fri Nov 16, 2012 1:09 am
Location: North Queensland, Australia

Re: Waterworld

Post by Kim O'Hara » Mon Apr 30, 2018 9:15 am

P.S. I could have mentioned SumOfUs as well as Avaaz.
They are both good at hitting hot-button issues, e.g. https://actions.sumofus.org/a/mcdonalds ... our-oceans

:namaste:
Kim

User avatar
Kim O'Hara
Former staff member
Posts: 3678
Joined: Fri Nov 16, 2012 1:09 am
Location: North Queensland, Australia

Re: Waterworld

Post by Kim O'Hara » Thu May 17, 2018 11:32 pm

Can't be too serious about it all the time ...

Environmentalists.jpg
Environmentalists.jpg (61.49 KiB) Viewed 145 times

Post Reply

Return to “News & Current Events”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: namoh and 29 guests