Hi Pabitra,

do you include state governments into the “global bodies”?

I especially like the “Want not waste not” - it’s not as hard as it sounds

Hi Giedre!
By Global bodies I mean UN or IPCC or bodies where all countries meet. So State Goverments are not, by that definitions, included within “Global Bodies”. But thank you for mentioning it, since this gives me a point of thought.
In my “To Do” list State Governments of individual coutries should also figure:
1. They should declare a clear and attainable Environmental Policy before the electorate (in democratic countries).
2. If there is any Tax or Rebate on environmental reasons, that should come in the election agenda transparently as well, including clear explanation of such taxes. I do not like the idea of local taxes on this ground, at least not when there is so much scope for reducing wasteful habits.
3. Compliance of ‘Global Minimal Attainable Goals’by effective governance.

It’s not really hard Giedre, you are right, we really can live on very little compared to what we live on now. This excess is designed by consumerist economic models, and was perfected over decades of careful and cunning planning with unfair profit in mind. The scheme is vicious and it has gone deep in our minds, so we feel unsecure the moment one, only one of millions of consumption options is withdrawn. Generations of ladies in US spend their lives looking at figure zero models in billboards and spend absurdly to have a body like that (men too). Profiteering can change one species comparatively faster than Darwinian Evolution, or else how can you explain the huge almost abnormal udders of dairy cows?
Thank you again for reading my post and sharing your thought.

Thank you for your reply, Pabitra. I think your To-Do list makes a lot of sense, but the same question arises, again and again - when will the “should” be replaces by an “is”?

And that’s a tough one. This struggle can be seen throughout the history, which, was it Mark Twain who said it, doesn’t repeat but it does rhyme - women’s vote, de-segregation, human rights… The exact moment when suddenly enough people realize a bunch of activists have been right for a long time, right from the start - when does that happen? Because once it does, it’s hard to understand how could it ever be different - women couldn’t vote? What are you talking about? That kind of thing.

And I do agree with you on the moment of consumer insecurity - we got really comfortable in such a short time. But recovering always takes longer than falling for something, right?

I am happy that you see substance in mt content. I have tried to clear my position about consumerism and ‘want-not-waste-not’ in my post ‘Want Not Waste Not? Is That Relevant For Climate Change Movement?’ (pls follow link http://climatechange.thinkaboutit.eu/think4/post/want_not_waste_not_is_that_relevant_for_climate_change_movement ).
As to your question, when does it happen, yes it’s a tough question. But my guess would be by 2100. This prediction is based on the logic that the way we are degrading for last two decades, we have practically no future (point of no return) beyond 2100.

There is good news though, we are already in the transition, maybe its just not very apparent as of now. Please check this link too:
http://www.ted.com/talks/tim_jackson_s_economic_reality_check.html

Thanks for commenting. Need all the opinions and views of the world

Whilst I agree that creating an action plan is important, I do think the list is pretty much a list of truisms. I do also have to question cold fusion? That is a pretty fringe concept and a waste of money.

I think we cannot carry on concentrating on perfect solutions to save the world. We have to start from where we are. I would there propose a second blog which list that things that can or are being done today.

Best,

Sam

@Samuel: I will prefer to reserve counter-comment and wish to see your list first. Moreover, I do not put my heart on reporting here, not on what are being done, I propose what, in my opinion should be done, however outragious that might be! Kindly see that I never claimed that my list is exhaustive or perfect. So thank you in advance for your future post.

I do not really understand why one should be in “Thinkers’ Forum” to deal with what is already underway.

All valid points for climate change mitigation and in general for creating a much better world to live in.

I also agree with Samuel’s idea to look at what is already being done and how it can be scaled up or how it can be improved to make it work better.

Sometimes I feel that the time for climate change mitigation measures is gone and we have already crossed the path of no-return. Hope I am wrong!

You might have noticed that I requested Samuel to put up a list what has already been done. I’d like to see it alongside what requires to be done.
Just try to find out why India Govt. stopped financing LENR (cold fusion).
Finally, if you think there are already few things that can be scaled up, why do you feel we have crossed the path of no-return?

I see Time and Economist featuring articles regularly on climate change mitigation/adaptation some of which look at what has been achieved and what could be developed in the future.

The very fact that efforts have not been scaled up though they can be, presents a bleak picture, doesn’t it? Besides, all these efforts are only talking about bringing down emissions to 30% below 1990 levels. Scientists have admitted that we do not know if we have already crossed the window of time for runaway global warming, wherein temperature will continue to rise with or without carbon emissions.

As long as we have GDP as the measure of a successful economy, I really can’t feel too optimistic about reversing climate change.

Surprising isn’t it? Scientists admitting not knowing the very science of Climate Change? And that’s to the merriment of contrarians?
I have been following the talks and constant juggling with numbers, levels and percentage for long. Forgive me, may it age is catching on me, to me the charade looks like trying the pull the cart sitting on it.
The whole approach of ‘doing something about it’ is typically based on science of technology that submits to consumerist Growth model. There is talk about poverty aleviation and silence about absurd wealth. There is talk of privatizing the resources and pricing everything so that there is ‘increased awareness’ and no talk about profiteering on public goods. And to top it all, there is that mad search for a technological ‘cure’ to it all so that I don’t have to give up my ‘possessions’ that gather dust in my attick.
GDP as a measure of growth is nonsense. If a man marries his female cook, GDP cannot account for her income anymore! HDI is perhaps a better tool, but it has to go a long way to measuer human developement.
If we survive in the next epoch, life will be very different.

Hi,

Sorry I haven’t been active on this site for a while now. Yes your quite right to ask me to put my money where my mouth is rather than criticise. I appologise, I meant no offence but was in a bit of a strange mood at the time.

I will put together a blog on that theme. It may take a little while though as I have allot of other work to do. When it’s done I will link to if from this post.

Best,

Sam

Actually, it’s not surprising because the ‘science’ of climate change is not an exact science at all.

What’s more surprising is the attitude of climate change sceptics. As was shown in a cartoon recently, they seem to be arguing “what if we are trying to create a better world for nothing?”

Science is either exact or pseudo-science. In fact science stands on three basic pillars, namely observation, validation and falsification. In my opinion, whenever there is an event, there are several ways to look at it : scientific, economic, social, poltical even philosophical. It is our prerogative to choose the perspective. Climate Change has all those perspectives. If it is considered as something to be averted, there is no way you can just treat it as one perspective. As far as science of Climate Change you might be interested to check these posts of my friend J.C.Moore.
http://climatechange.thinkaboutit.eu/think4/post/climate_change_and_the_greenhouse_effect
and
http://climatechange.thinkaboutit.eu/think4/post/the_global_warming_debate_and_media_bias