Comments for Valuing Nature http://www.valuingnature.org Wed, 10 Mar 2010 20:43:50 +0000 http://wordpress.org/?v=2.6 Comment on The ideology of simple painless steps by Francis http://www.valuingnature.org/2008/10/29/the-ideology-of-simple-painless-steps/#comment-593 Francis Wed, 29 Oct 2008 23:40:54 +0000 http://www.valuingnature.org/?p=155#comment-593 Hi Tom. I'm not sure(!) that I was necessarily implying that fundamental changes would come from economic growth and job creation. Which, I agree, have been trotted out un-intelligently as necessary goods. I think(!) my main point was about the scale and level at which one designs interventions in 'the' system: 'simple, painless steps' are appropriate for simple, pain-free situations. Hi Tom. I’m not sure(!) that I was necessarily implying that fundamental changes would come from economic growth and job creation. Which, I agree, have been trotted out un-intelligently as necessary goods. I think(!) my main point was about the scale and level at which one designs interventions in ‘the’ system: ’simple, painless steps’ are appropriate for simple, pain-free situations.

]]> Comment on The ideology of simple painless steps by admin http://www.valuingnature.org/2008/10/29/the-ideology-of-simple-painless-steps/#comment-592 admin Wed, 29 Oct 2008 22:53:46 +0000 http://www.valuingnature.org/?p=155#comment-592 Thanks Francis. I agree with most of this - especially your identification of the need for an inspiring vision of an alternative future. I'm not as sanguine as you are, though, about the scope for achieving the fundamental changes to our economies that are needed, through appeals to today's demands for economic growth and job creation. Sometimes sustainable development needs and economic growth needs coincide, other times they diverge (consider the pressure from several European Member States to back-pedal on European climate change negotiations as a result of the recession - 'we can't afford it', they squeal). As long as economic growth is the lens through which we view government success, we can never hope to achieve the changes that are needed. Tom Thanks Francis.

I agree with most of this - especially your identification of the need for an inspiring vision of an alternative future.

I’m not as sanguine as you are, though, about the scope for achieving the fundamental changes to our economies that are needed, through appeals to today’s demands for economic growth and job creation. Sometimes sustainable development needs and economic growth needs coincide, other times they diverge (consider the pressure from several European Member States to back-pedal on European climate change negotiations as a result of the recession - ‘we can’t afford it’, they squeal).

As long as economic growth is the lens through which we view government success, we can never hope to achieve the changes that are needed.

Tom

]]> Comment on The ideology of simple painless steps by Francis http://www.valuingnature.org/2008/10/29/the-ideology-of-simple-painless-steps/#comment-591 Francis Wed, 29 Oct 2008 19:30:45 +0000 http://www.valuingnature.org/?p=155#comment-591 One of the problems with the ’simple, painless-steps approach’ is that it assumes there will be sufficient enough a reward at the end of each step to motivate aspiration for the next level. More often than not, achieving total success at the small level (e.g. cutting out plastic bags) is rare if it happens at all; I still find I have to resort to using a new plastic bag - rather than one of the many jute bags that have begun to pile up at home - because of a spontaneous purchase decision. Yes, it happens. So any pride at improvement can be mixed with smidgeons of guilt. And this mixed result compromises any gung-ho urge for the next level (whatever that might be in Tesco’s hierarchy of green behavioural change - if they have such a hierarchy) that could be generated. The simple (and small) painless-steps approach, for Joe and Jane the Consumer, can be hampered by a lack of emotional, psychological and cognitive preparation that is required if society is to address the immensity of the ‘higher’ levels up the hierarchy. The ‘higher’ levels, where sustainability will be made or broken, are bigger, more complex, and messier (in terms of the constituencies involved and the negotiations needed to take things forward). [As an aside, I would suggest, though, that some of the dots are beginning to be joined up at governmental levels. E.g. inclusion of aviation and shipping, and the 80% target for CO2 reduction, in the UK climate change bill; and, to shift focus to the secondary drama of the day - the US election - Obama has recently become convinced that an Apollo Project for renewable energy is where his priorities will lie as president, despite having had to focus his campaign on economy issues. See the excellent article by Joe Klein, ‘Why He’s Winning’: http://www.time.com/time/politics/article/0,8599,1853025,00.html] What your average consumer needs is the sense of being swept up in a veritable tidal surge of a green initiative enthusiasm - e.g. like the T.Boone Pickens wind energy plan in the US - and to hear the positive news of a big technological breakthrough when it happens - e.g. cheap, super-efficient, non-toxic photovoltaic products - which would incentivise people to get caught up in a bigger, brighter picture, and story, that is much more enticing than an anodyne ’simple, painless step’. Regardless of whether the specific examples just cited are ultimately ‘the right thing to do’, an important underlying message in them is this: you’re not alone, we’re in this together, yes we can. Such initiatives will also inevitably, and eventually, reorient the choices available to consumers, to become greener and cost-competitive. Which suggests the question, what story are people being invited into when a behaviour change programme is initiated? Is it a story of preventing a lemming-like shuffle to the cliff edge? Or does it usher in a colourful, luxuriant, long-lived future? Which story would you prefer to participate in and contribute to? I can’t see a way for wholescale change ** based on a theory-driven, evidence-based, social-engineering-oriented blueprint plan, that is unreflective about the bigger narrative ** being effective in addressing the higher/fundamental levels of the behavioural change required for sustainability. That said, yes; in terms of effecting people's daily 'habitus' (cf. Bourdieu) - every little helps. One of the problems with the ’simple, painless-steps approach’ is that it assumes there will be sufficient enough a reward at the end of each step to motivate aspiration for the next level.

More often than not, achieving total success at the small level (e.g. cutting out plastic bags) is rare if it happens at all; I still find I have to resort to using a new plastic bag - rather than one of the many jute bags that have begun to pile up at home - because of a spontaneous purchase decision. Yes, it happens. So any pride at improvement can be mixed with smidgeons of guilt. And this mixed result compromises any gung-ho urge for the next level (whatever that might be in Tesco’s hierarchy of green behavioural change - if they have such a hierarchy) that could be generated.

The simple (and small) painless-steps approach, for Joe and Jane the Consumer, can be hampered by a lack of emotional, psychological and cognitive preparation that is required if society is to address the immensity of the ‘higher’ levels up the hierarchy. The ‘higher’ levels, where sustainability will be made or broken, are bigger, more complex, and messier (in terms of the constituencies involved and the negotiations needed to take things forward).

[As an aside, I would suggest, though, that some of the dots are beginning to be joined up at governmental levels. E.g. inclusion of aviation and shipping, and the 80% target for CO2 reduction, in the UK climate change bill; and, to shift focus to the secondary drama of the day - the US election - Obama has recently become convinced that an Apollo Project for renewable energy is where his priorities will lie as president, despite having had to focus his campaign on economy issues. See the excellent article by Joe Klein, ‘Why He’s Winning’: http://www.time.com/time/politics/article/0,8599,1853025,00.html

What your average consumer needs is the sense of being swept up in a veritable tidal surge of a green initiative enthusiasm - e.g. like the T.Boone Pickens wind energy plan in the US - and to hear the positive news of a big technological breakthrough when it happens - e.g. cheap, super-efficient, non-toxic photovoltaic products - which would incentivise people to get caught up in a bigger, brighter picture, and story, that is much more enticing than an anodyne ’simple, painless step’. Regardless of whether the specific examples just cited are ultimately ‘the right thing to do’, an important underlying message in them is this: you’re not alone, we’re in this together, yes we can. Such initiatives will also inevitably, and eventually, reorient the choices available to consumers, to become greener and cost-competitive.

Which suggests the question, what story are people being invited into when a behaviour change programme is initiated? Is it a story of preventing a lemming-like shuffle to the cliff edge? Or does it usher in a colourful, luxuriant, long-lived future? Which story would you prefer to participate in and contribute to?

I can’t see a way for wholescale change ** based on a theory-driven, evidence-based, social-engineering-oriented blueprint plan, that is unreflective about the bigger narrative ** being effective in addressing the higher/fundamental levels of the behavioural change required for sustainability. That said, yes; in terms of effecting people’s daily ‘habitus’ (cf. Bourdieu) - every little helps.

]]> Comment on Methadone for our planetary heroin addiction? by Peter Brandis http://www.valuingnature.org/2008/10/24/methadone-for-our-planetary-heroin-addiction/#comment-588 Peter Brandis Wed, 29 Oct 2008 07:26:06 +0000 http://www.valuingnature.org/?p=151#comment-588 Alastair makes a sound proposition for a bigger re-think about the concurrent crises we are facing. But to simply point to the need for a spiritual awakening is a lazy argument. We need to define exactly what kind of "spirituality" would assist humanity in moving into a more benign mode of existence. Some spiritualities actually make things worse - eg spiritualities that are anthropocentric or spiritualities that denigrate women or people of colour. And yes there are spiritualities like this. While I agree that consciousness change is important, even critical, we need to be much more precise when we use these terms. Alastair makes a sound proposition for a bigger re-think about the concurrent crises we are facing. But to simply point to the need for a spiritual awakening is a lazy argument. We need to define exactly what kind of “spirituality” would assist humanity in moving into a more benign mode of existence. Some spiritualities actually make things worse - eg spiritualities that are anthropocentric or spiritualities that denigrate women or people of colour. And yes there are spiritualities like this. While I agree that consciousness change is important, even critical, we need to be much more precise when we use these terms.

]]> Comment on Methadone for our planetary heroin addiction? by Consuming for the economy or the future? « Sumptuous World http://www.valuingnature.org/2008/10/24/methadone-for-our-planetary-heroin-addiction/#comment-584 Consuming for the economy or the future? « Sumptuous World Fri, 24 Oct 2008 09:24:48 +0000 http://www.valuingnature.org/?p=151#comment-584 [...] for the economy or the future? Alastair McIntosh was contributing BBC Radio 4’s Thought for the Day yesterday.  Here’s an excerpt - Our conundrum is that we need more consumption to save the [...] [...] for the economy or the future? Alastair McIntosh was contributing BBC Radio 4’s Thought for the Day yesterday.  Here’s an excerpt - Our conundrum is that we need more consumption to save the [...]

]]> Comment on Psychological counselling on climate change by Graham Game http://www.valuingnature.org/2008/10/16/psychological-counselling-on-climate-change/#comment-577 Graham Game Fri, 17 Oct 2008 07:47:08 +0000 http://www.valuingnature.org/?p=147#comment-577 This nonsense reminds me of the government guidelines produced in the 1970's to 'inform' us about the precautions we should take in the event of nuclear attack. Protect and Survive I think it was called. More 'stiff upper lip' and 'do your bit' than anything else - all it did of course was underline the sheer farce and hopelessness of the situation. The point this Aussie advice so gloriously misses is that many people despair about 'doing their bit' when politicians, their family, employer, neighbours etc., appear to be doing the reverse! I call this sort of behaviour 'compound disempowerment'. Graham Game www.grahamgame.com This nonsense reminds me of the government guidelines produced in the 1970’s to ‘inform’ us about the precautions we should take in the event of nuclear attack. Protect and Survive I think it was called. More ’stiff upper lip’ and ‘do your bit’ than anything else - all it did of course was underline the sheer farce and hopelessness of the situation.

The point this Aussie advice so gloriously misses is that many people despair about ‘doing their bit’ when politicians, their family, employer, neighbours etc., appear to be doing the reverse! I call this sort of behaviour ‘compound disempowerment’.

Graham Game
http://www.grahamgame.com

]]> Comment on So much for green growth by Niamh http://www.valuingnature.org/2008/09/23/so-much-for-green-growth/#comment-569 Niamh Wed, 01 Oct 2008 11:05:06 +0000 http://www.valuingnature.org/?p=132#comment-569 That's a good way of putting it, Tom. It's another demonstration that knowledge doesn't lead directly to understanding, let alone to action, without support. Educators, for example, use a series of different steps to take learners from knowledge through to application, and even further, through to reflection and evaluation. Unfortunately, environmental messages often remain just that, messages, based on the assumption that awareness-raising leads to action. This is why collective change processes are, I think, a practical and supportive way of enabling change to happen. That’s a good way of putting it, Tom. It’s another demonstration that knowledge doesn’t lead directly to understanding, let alone to action, without support. Educators, for example, use a series of different steps to take learners from knowledge through to application, and even further, through to reflection and evaluation. Unfortunately, environmental messages often remain just that, messages, based on the assumption that awareness-raising leads to action. This is why collective change processes are, I think, a practical and supportive way of enabling change to happen.

]]> Comment on So much for green growth by admin http://www.valuingnature.org/2008/09/23/so-much-for-green-growth/#comment-562 admin Wed, 24 Sep 2008 14:34:30 +0000 http://www.valuingnature.org/?p=132#comment-562 Yes, Jules. I read about an interesting distinction between different forms of denial recently; literal, interpretive and implicatory. Environmentalists wring their hands about the first two - which relate to whether we have the knowledge: why is it people set out to debunk the climatology? why is it that more people don't understand that this is happening? But maybe our problem isn't lack of knowledge; it's what we (don't) do with the knowledge; implicatory denial. Here knowledge itself is not the problem; the problem is 'doing the right thing with the knowledge'; how can a problem be both almost completely invisible on the public radar, yet common knowledge? This has been called 'the social organisation of denial', and seems to be about the most important thing that we can be trying to address right now. Yes, Jules. I read about an interesting distinction between different forms of denial recently; literal, interpretive and implicatory.

Environmentalists wring their hands about the first two - which relate to whether we have the knowledge: why is it people set out to debunk the climatology? why is it that more people don’t understand that this is happening?

But maybe our problem isn’t lack of knowledge; it’s what we (don’t) do with the knowledge; implicatory denial. Here knowledge itself is not the problem; the problem is ‘doing the right thing with the knowledge’; how can a problem be both almost completely invisible on the public radar, yet common knowledge? This has been called ‘the social organisation of denial’, and seems to be about the most important thing that we can be trying to address right now.

]]> Comment on So much for green growth by jules http://www.valuingnature.org/2008/09/23/so-much-for-green-growth/#comment-561 jules Wed, 24 Sep 2008 10:11:48 +0000 http://www.valuingnature.org/?p=132#comment-561 Thanks Tom.. And the report says our politicians are misguided and completely out of synch with the science. Now that really isn’t news to anyone....................... Also scientists are confirming their worst fears about impending runaway climate change. In what is being dubbed ‘the ultimate gas leak’ it is feared that millions of tonnes of methane are escaping from melting permafrost right across the arctic and in particular in Siberia. As global warming – driven by our lifestyles – heats up the planet the worlds huge areas of permafrost have started to melt. Within the ice and snow is trapped this huge source of methane – a far more dangerous greenhouse gas than CO2. As this methane is released it in turn causes even more rapid global warming and releases of even more methane so it becomes an escalating loop – and one than any meagre CO2 reductions by us will not be able to control. This effect has been know about for some time but now evidence is fast mounting that it is under way on a large scale. The science of CC just gets more and more scary by the day. Its amazes me how this is not all over the news........ Well I guess there are other things to worry about like the goings on within New Labour and Sarah Palin’s crash course in world-diplomacy............... Thanks Tom..

And the report says our politicians are misguided and completely out of synch with the science. Now that really isn’t news to anyone…………………..

Also scientists are confirming their worst fears about impending runaway climate change. In what is being dubbed ‘the ultimate gas leak’ it is feared that millions of tonnes of methane are escaping from melting permafrost right across the arctic and in particular in Siberia. As global warming – driven by our lifestyles – heats up the planet the worlds huge areas of permafrost have started to melt. Within the ice and snow is trapped this huge source of methane – a far more dangerous greenhouse gas than CO2. As this methane is released it in turn causes even more rapid global warming and releases of even more methane so it becomes an escalating loop – and one than any meagre CO2 reductions by us will not be able to control. This effect has been know about for some time but now evidence is fast mounting that it is under way on a large scale. The science of CC just gets more and more scary by the day.

Its amazes me how this is not all over the news…….. Well I guess there are other things to worry about like the goings on within New Labour and Sarah Palin’s crash course in world-diplomacy……………

]]> Comment on Toward a New Consciousness by Steve Gluck http://www.valuingnature.org/2008/08/22/toward-a-new-consciousness/#comment-550 Steve Gluck Thu, 28 Aug 2008 13:55:57 +0000 http://www.valuingnature.org/?p=127#comment-550 "The relationship between mankind and the natural world has been fractured. In some places, there is no relationship in evidence at all. Every problem facing mankind, from social isolation to economic inequality to climate change; the losses of cultural, linguistic and bio-diversity; the loss of indigenous knowledge and the loss of indigenous species; from inter-personal conflict to international conflict; all have been exacerbated by this growing bifurcation." ... From an introduction to The Sequitoria: http://www.idealist.org/if/i/en/av/Org/180146-21 “The relationship between mankind and the natural world has been fractured. In some places, there is no relationship in evidence at all.

Every problem facing mankind, from social isolation to economic inequality to climate change; the losses of cultural, linguistic and bio-diversity; the loss of indigenous knowledge and the loss of indigenous species; from inter-personal conflict to international conflict; all have been exacerbated by this growing bifurcation.” … From an introduction to The Sequitoria:
http://www.idealist.org/if/i/en/av/Org/180146-21

]]>