Changes in attitudes towards global warming

A place to bring a contemplative / Dharmic perspective and opinions to current events and politics.

In the past 5 years I have become...

More concerned about man-made climate change
23
50%
Equally concerned about man-made climate change
9
20%
Less concerned about man-made climate change
6
13%
Never believed in it, still don't
5
11%
Climate change? Global warming? Bring it on!
3
7%
 
Total votes: 46

User avatar
Leeuwenhoek2
Posts: 145
Joined: Thu Jun 01, 2017 10:24 pm

Re: Changes in attitudes towards global warming

Post by Leeuwenhoek2 » Thu May 03, 2018 7:25 am

Kim OHara wrote:
Thu May 03, 2018 7:07 am
:heart: your positive attitude, Leeuw!
I can't decide if you are serious or sarcastic on that last.

I'm creative too! I elucidated two theories that would be proved by the project whereas you were pessimistic that it would prove nothing.

User avatar
Kim OHara
Posts: 4896
Joined: Wed Dec 09, 2009 5:47 am
Location: North Queensland, Australia

Re: Changes in attitudes towards global warming

Post by Kim OHara » Thu May 03, 2018 11:44 am

:focus:
Please!

User avatar
Leeuwenhoek2
Posts: 145
Joined: Thu Jun 01, 2017 10:24 pm

Re: Changes in attitudes towards global warming

Post by Leeuwenhoek2 » Thu May 03, 2018 9:59 pm

Kim OHara wrote:
Thu May 03, 2018 11:44 am
:focus:
Please!
If you regard your recent posts as being "on topic" then asking for :focus: now doesn't make sense to me ... except perhaps as a manipulative strategy.

What would make sense would be to say something like:
"I regret that my recent posts have been off topic but ..."

User avatar
Kim OHara
Posts: 4896
Joined: Wed Dec 09, 2009 5:47 am
Location: North Queensland, Australia

Re: Changes in attitudes towards global warming

Post by Kim OHara » Thu May 03, 2018 10:23 pm

Leeuwenhoek2 wrote:
Thu May 03, 2018 9:59 pm
Kim OHara wrote:
Thu May 03, 2018 11:44 am
:focus:
Please!
If you regard your recent posts as being "on topic" then asking for :focus: now doesn't make sense to me ... except perhaps as a manipulative strategy.

What would make sense would be to say something like:
"I regret that my recent posts have been off topic but ..."
Sure.
I regret that my recent posts have been off topic but I felt a need to address meta-discussion and personal criticism posted by Leeuwenhoek2.
Done. :smile:

It's all true, too. And I would be perfectly happy to stay on topic, i.e. global warming, all the time. Can we let this response of mine to yet another metadiscussional (is that a word? :tongue: ) post of yours, be the last of the nonsense?

:namaste:
Kim

User avatar
Kim OHara
Posts: 4896
Joined: Wed Dec 09, 2009 5:47 am
Location: North Queensland, Australia

Re: Changes in attitudes towards global warming

Post by Kim OHara » Fri May 04, 2018 4:30 am

Another court case -
Shell is one of the biggest climate polluters in the world. This transnational company has known about the severity of climate change and the impacts of oil and gas drilling for decades, but has not only misled the public on the issue, it continues drilling for fossil fuels. Across the world Shell’s climate wrecking activities are leaving a trail of devastation, from Australia to the Netherlands. We cannot save the climate if large corporations continue to pollute the planet. This is why Friends of the Earth Netherlands is taking Shell to court.

This historic case could set a powerful legal precedent: if we win, one of the world’s biggest polluters will have to stop wrecking the climate. Join the case against Shell as an honorary co-claimant. ...
:reading: https://www.foe.org.au/join_climate_case_against_shell

Eventually one of these cases will be won, but even the prospect of continued legal challenges will help reduce fossil fuels corporations' mad enthusiasm for their toxic product.

:jedi:
Kim

User avatar
Kim OHara
Posts: 4896
Joined: Wed Dec 09, 2009 5:47 am
Location: North Queensland, Australia

Re: Changes in attitudes towards global warming

Post by Kim OHara » Tue May 15, 2018 7:26 am

LIVING THE CHANGE

Our generation is the first to start feeling the impacts of climate disruption and the last to be able to do something meaningful about it. Despite this, politicians are reprehensively slow to take proportionate action, especially in Australia and the US.

We need to keep the pressure on them, but we need not helplessly wait for politicians to act. Ordinary people and communities have the power to help keep emissions down and thereby help to protect our common home.

“Living the Change: faithful choices for a flourishing world” is a globally-connected community of religious and spiritual institutions working together with sustainable consumption experts to champion sustainable ways of life. The website is: https://livingthechange.net/

Living the Change was initiated at the UN Climate Conference in 2017 by the US-based multi-faith organization, GreenFaith, an interfaith organization whose mission is to educate, organize and mobilise people of diverse faiths to become environmental leaders. Serving to coordinate Living the Change, GreenFaith now has Implementing Partners who collaborate to shape a vision for a worldwide community of practice which drives lifestyle-related emission reductions. ...

Can lifestyle change make a difference?

Living the Change emerged, in part, from a study which showed that “if the world's top 10 percent of carbon dioxide emitters were to cut their emissions to the level of the average European Union citizen, global emissions would decline by 33 percent. If the top 20 percent were to do so, the reduction would be about 40 percent.”[1] In other words, while structural change is legitimately pursued as being potentially most effective in creating change, individual behaviour change within a targeted demographic can indeed make a meaningful contribution to stabilizing the climate.

Given that close to six billion people identify with a religion (Pew Research Center, 2017), the opportunity for these groups to create meaningful change through collective action cannot be ignored. ...
:reading: I have been quoting from https://www.arrcc.org.au/living_the_change, the site of the Aussie partner organisation, but the main website is https://livingthechange.net.

:twothumbsup:
Kim

User avatar
Kim OHara
Posts: 4896
Joined: Wed Dec 09, 2009 5:47 am
Location: North Queensland, Australia

Re: Changes in attitudes towards global warming

Post by Kim OHara » Wed May 16, 2018 10:43 pm

This one is broader than just climate change but is so good that I wanted to share it.
The UK government wants to put a price on nature – but that will destroy it
George Monbiot

The government argues that without a price, the living world is accorded no value, so irrational decisions are made. By costing nature, you ensure that it commands the investment and protection that other forms of capital attract. This thinking is based on a series of extraordinary misconceptions. Even the name reveals a confusion: natural capital is a contradiction in terms. Capital is properly understood as the human-made segment of wealth that is deployed in production to create further financial returns. Concepts such as natural capital, human capital or social capital can be used as metaphors or analogies, though even these are misleading. But the 25-year plan defines natural capital as “the air, water, soil and ecosystems that support all forms of life”. In other words, nature is capital. In reality, natural wealth and human-made capital are neither comparable nor interchangeable. If the soil is washed off the land, we cannot grow crops on a bed of derivatives.

A similar fallacy applies to price. Unless something is redeemable for money, a pound or dollar sign placed in front of it is senseless: price represents an expectation of payment, in accordance with market rates. In pricing a river, a landscape or an ecosystem, either you are lining it up for sale, in which case the exercise is sinister, or you are not, in which case it is meaningless.

Still more deluded is the expectation that we can defend the living world through the mindset that’s destroying it. The notions that nature exists to serve us; that its value consists of the instrumental benefits we can extract; that this value can be measured in cash terms; and that what can’t be measured does not matter, have proved lethal to the rest of life on Earth. The way we name things and think about them – in other words the mental frames we use – helps determine the way we treat them. ...

The natural capital agenda is the definitive expression of our disengagement from the living world. First we lose our wildlife and natural wonders. Then we lose our connections with what remains of life on Earth. Then we lose the words that described what we once knew. Then we call it capital and give it a price. This approach is morally wrong, intellectually vacuous, emotionally alienating and self-defeating.

Those of us who are motivated by love for the living planet should not hesitate to say so. Never underestimate the power of intrinsic values. They inspire every struggle for a better world.
https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfr ... al-capital

:namaste:
Kim

User avatar
Sam Vara
Posts: 3528
Joined: Sun Jun 05, 2011 5:42 pm
Location: Sussex, U.K.

Re: Changes in attitudes towards global warming

Post by Sam Vara » Thu May 17, 2018 6:11 am

Kim OHara wrote:
Wed May 16, 2018 10:43 pm
This one is broader than just climate change but is so good that I wanted to share it.
The UK government wants to put a price on nature – but that will destroy it
George Monbiot

The government argues that without a price, the living world is accorded no value, so irrational decisions are made. By costing nature, you ensure that it commands the investment and protection that other forms of capital attract. This thinking is based on a series of extraordinary misconceptions. Even the name reveals a confusion: natural capital is a contradiction in terms. Capital is properly understood as the human-made segment of wealth that is deployed in production to create further financial returns. Concepts such as natural capital, human capital or social capital can be used as metaphors or analogies, though even these are misleading. But the 25-year plan defines natural capital as “the air, water, soil and ecosystems that support all forms of life”. In other words, nature is capital. In reality, natural wealth and human-made capital are neither comparable nor interchangeable. If the soil is washed off the land, we cannot grow crops on a bed of derivatives.

A similar fallacy applies to price. Unless something is redeemable for money, a pound or dollar sign placed in front of it is senseless: price represents an expectation of payment, in accordance with market rates. In pricing a river, a landscape or an ecosystem, either you are lining it up for sale, in which case the exercise is sinister, or you are not, in which case it is meaningless.

Still more deluded is the expectation that we can defend the living world through the mindset that’s destroying it. The notions that nature exists to serve us; that its value consists of the instrumental benefits we can extract; that this value can be measured in cash terms; and that what can’t be measured does not matter, have proved lethal to the rest of life on Earth. The way we name things and think about them – in other words the mental frames we use – helps determine the way we treat them. ...

The natural capital agenda is the definitive expression of our disengagement from the living world. First we lose our wildlife and natural wonders. Then we lose our connections with what remains of life on Earth. Then we lose the words that described what we once knew. Then we call it capital and give it a price. This approach is morally wrong, intellectually vacuous, emotionally alienating and self-defeating.

Those of us who are motivated by love for the living planet should not hesitate to say so. Never underestimate the power of intrinsic values. They inspire every struggle for a better world.
https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfr ... al-capital

:namaste:
Kim
Yes, it's a good article. It's a pity though that Monbiot does not mention two of the main pressures which are rapidly destroying the countryside in the UK (particularly the south) due to rapid building of housing and infrastructure. The first is massive immigration, and the second is the aspiration of many young people to "get a foot on the property ladder" by acquiring their own home. The Guardian caters to a demographic who are more than usually keen on both these policies. It often features articles urging the rapid building of new homes - including the trashing of the once-sacrosanct "Green Belt" land - to meet the demand of young aspiring home-owners; and immigration policies ranging from "business as usual", amnesties for illegal immigrants, and "open borders". Rarely do we see any acknowledgement that increased housing development might have something to do with the loss of wildlife and open spaces and declining mental health.

Post Reply

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: Baidu [Spider], lyndon taylor, retrofuturist and 19 guests