Action Items

An incredible collection of academic clap-trap. Not a single worthwhile suggestion that might achieve some positive action.

Excellent work. Obviously, just a bunch of good ideas if no action is taken, but at the same time, I think you’ve provided some taking-off points for action. The timing of reading this is perfect for me, as tonight I watched a segment of a show on super-sized construction projects dealing with the Alberta tar sands mega-refineries.

I haven’t read most of the actual .pdf book “Americans and Climate Change,” but skimmed it, and read through the extended text of most of the suggestions listed on this page. The key point I’ve seen is “It’s the energy, stupid.” (pg 49) It does provide an effective simplification of many climate and environmental issues, and an easy focus for measurable results. Not the be-all and end-all, of course, but a useful focus.

Bottom line driving all of this mess we’re in, of course, are human motivations. Motivations for power, control, comfort, convenience. Not everyone is driven by these I think, but the larger portion of the population on this planet. These are the motivations we must account for in trying to make any systematic change. These basic human “needs” have driven our progress so far. We just have to re-frame progress in a way that allows people to still satisfy these “needs,” without raping and pillaging our planet. In fact, I believe that these same motivations can be used to drive real progress; holistic progress that begins to repair the damage we’ve done while still offering “modern conveniences.” All we have to do is identify the problems (there’s plenty of this done already) and create solutions that are win-win - that is, we can still make money and save the earth at the same time. We can still have convenience and save the earth at the same time. Tap into those basic human drives.

Another simple factor to look at is money. This is the lynchpin of the current system. The financial incentive is what maintain the current model of how we use our resources. We need an alternate model. One that is undeniably clear and straightforward, and puts the financial reward on the side of social and ecological responsibility. If we can show enough incentive, enough reward for a cleaner way of doing business - business will find the solutions.

That’s it for my thoughts on the subject. Thanks for inpspiring me to write. As a sidebar - Merv, didn’t your mother ever teach you “if you don’t have anything positive to say, don’t say anything at all?” In other words, quit being a [deleted] and offer a useful suggestion yourself. Or shutup and take some positive action.

Had to get that off my chest.

One final thought - of the trillions of dollars the US is spending on the war in Irag - what could be achieved if that money was parcelled out in prizes of, say, a billion dollars apiece, for achieving specific, measurable goals. Goals such as methods, processes, technologies which will reduce our consumption, or clean up our messes. Just for example.

Cheers.

I’m all for the “leaders and laggards” model.

This all looks excellent. Really useful site overall. The suggestions above are well thought out.

I’d only perhaps say that to “enhance the scientific competence of journalists” might be unrealistic in the short term, unless they chose to do this themselves - unlikely with so many objects of attention jostling for media attention. And yet, the media have such an important role to play.

So it might be worth considering the reverse, setting a task of developing a jargon-free, media-friendly language for discussing and communicating climate change issues while hoping this will eventually “enhance the scientific competence of journalists”. This is a task for the few journalists who do have enough interest to acquaint themselves with the science.

Sci Dev Net had an interesting story - ” Media need support in explaining climate change” - looking at this problem with regard to journalists in developing countries. (http://www.scidev.net/dossiers/index.cfm?fuseaction=dossierReadItem&type=1&itemid=2928&language=1&dossier=4)

I’m a graduate student in the Digital Media program at Ga Tech, and I was very pleased to see media and education as top priorities for environmental action. Nonetheless, I think Merv has a point to his concern.

We need to advance specific everyday actions to protect the environment. The Academy, for professional and epistemic reasons, has a problem with prescriptive specificity. Academics are traditionally wary of advocating specific policies for everyday life, such as “Don’t drive when you don’t have to,” “Buy an electric car,” or “Turn off your lights when you leave the house.” Advancing a long list of specific everyday actions may seem to violate intellectual freedom, a core value of the Academy. To maintain intellectual freedom within the Academy, there is a general preference for description over prescription, abstraction over concretion, complexity over simplicity, and skepticism over foundationalism. Academics, by their own brand of knowledge, are largely unprepared to prescribe action, including environmental action.

Where are the intellectual actors? Parents, educators, artists, preachers, lawyers, managers, legislators, and designers accept the premise that they should prescribe specific plans of action. And they accept the premise that they can enhance ideology without systematically sinking into ignorance. I agree with the view that we must explore the moral dimensions of environmental action, but ultimately we must inculcate a specific ethical code with respect to the environment. We must find a way to accustom people to a specific environmentally sustainable lifestyle. If academics want to save the environment, they must reevaluate their own professional and epistemic commitments. They must push further into the domain of everyday prescriptions, and they must make the case that by limiting human freedom, we maximize our freedom.