All Sorts of Reactions to the IPCC 1.5ºC Report — Except the Right One

If I don't talk this week about last Sunday's release of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) Global Warming of 1.5ºC Report, I could possibly be the only armchair pundit who doesn't. So I will, but only to let you know my thoughts and feelings about the reaction to the report.

Although I live in the bubble of environmental non-governmental organizations (ENGOs) and enviro activists, it was impossible not to hear President T**** admit that he hadn't looked at it. "It was given to me. And I want to look at who drew it. You know, which group drew it. I can give you reports that are fabulous and I can give you reports that aren't so good," he said. I wonder where he gets his "fabulous" reports from. 

(This report was prepared by over 90 scientists from 40 countries who synthesized over 6,000 scientific references. It was then approved by all the governments in the world, although I heard from someone who was there that the US and Saudi Arabia and a handful of other countries threw up lots of roadblocks to that approval.)

Unlike their president, Republican politicians in the United States did have opinions — fatuous though they were. As reported by the Huffington Post, Sen. Roger Wicker (R-Miss.) said, "They might as well be calling on me to sprout wings and fly to Canada for the summer," and Sen. John Kennedy (R-La.) said of the actions urged by the report: "It's totally unrealistic. They must have parachuted in from another planet. There's not enough money in the world to pay for that. That's the problem with the UN that they come up with these policy ideas that are just 'La La Land.'" 

And yet President T**** is bragging these days (at the La La Land UN) that he just upped the US military budget to over $700 billion, an increase of 10%. So there's money enough for threatening, invading, killing, maiming, and destroying, but not for safeguarding life. Funny that.

Oh, and let's not forget the $5.3 trillion (TRILLION!) in direct and indirect subsidies that we taxpayers give to fossil fuel corporations every year. So there's money enough for coal, oil, gas, pollution, but not for the renewable energy technologies that could safeguard life. Funny that.

But I found the hardest part of this week were the responses of ordinary people like you and me who understand the climate crisis, who care about the climate crisis, who would perhaps call themselves climate change activists, but who are taking this report as a signal to stand down. I can't believe how many are giving up. Guy McPherson is in vogue again with his abrupt climate change "It's too late" message, so "live, love, and aim for excellence" (as one online commenter suggested to me). (By the way, there's nothing "abrupt" about this. We've known about it since at least the 1800s.)

Well, NO, damn it! I'm not giving up or giving in. I don't want to live excellently; I want my niece and all the beloved kids in my life to live, period. If we're going down, I want to go down swinging. I am going to carry on believing in the possibility of miracles through imagination and creative problem solving. I'm going to keep believing in the power of love and compassion to show our leaders that their own offspring will be impacted. I'm going to keep trying to teach ecological literacy and connecting with the rest of Nature. I'm going to keep seeing the potential for a return to simpler ways and a huge global race to zero carbon. Until my last breath. 

I believe that's the right reaction to the IPCC's 1.5ºC Report. For the sake of all the children, of all species, for all time.

p.s. I liked this article: Do we need an IPCC special report for humans?

Dragonflies, Depressions and Climate Crimes

Somehow, through sheer coincidence or rather eerie synchronicity, it's exactly one year since my last post. Last fall, I started this post and never finished it:

It seems I took an unintentional break from blogging last month. I didn't mean to. August was a blur of toothache and doctor appointments. Then suddenly September became a blur of post-retirement busyness! Conferences, courses, meetings, seminars, editing to deadline. And now suddenly it's October.

Now it's a year later, and what a year it's been. In fact, just as I started writing this, a huge dragonfly scared the wits out of me by buzzing outside the window and smushing its wings up against the glass. It's attracted to the light, I thought, but then I decided to look up the symbolism of dragonflies.

"The dragonfly, in almost every part of the world, symbolizes change and change in the perspective of self realization; and the kind of change that has its source in mental and emotional maturity and the understanding of the deeper meaning of life."
— www.dragonfly-site.com

Change, transformation, renewal, lightness and joy. Robyn Nola said, "Dragonflies are reminders that we are light and we can reflect light in powerful ways if we choose to do so." Perfect encouragement to get me writing again!

As I mentioned, this was my first year of retirement — and somehow I've been busier than when I was working. I helped my hubby and his co-author birth their book, Unprecedented Crime: Climate Science Denial and Game Changers for Survival. You can order it here, through Clarity Press. (I'm boycotting Amazon until they improve how they treat their employees, but it's available there, too.) 

People in positions of power and influence all know that we're in a climate and oceans emergency, but most of them are knowingly and negligently ignoring this knowledge in order to keep lining their pockets with filthy fossil fuel money. It's disgraceful, and it's time we started calling climate change criminals exactly that.

The last thing I want to talk about this week is depression, namely my depression. It's really hard to function effectively when cursed with the knowledge and vision of what's going to happen to all the children in the world if we don't get our freaking greenhouse gas emissions in check. 

But, as Dragonfly has suggested to me today, I can look at this from a different perspective. I can encourage myself and others to see this as an exciting time to be a human being. With so much hanging in the balance, every choice and every decision we make holds weight. Are we going to condemn today's young people by ignoring our knowledge of the climate and oceans crisis? Or are we getting down to work to ensure them a future, out of sheer love in our hearts?

Our Canadian Constitutional Right to Life — and the Right Not to Be Deprived Thereof

I've been quite buoyed lately by the hard work and legal successes of Our Children's Trust in the United States. It's one NGO that my hubby and I are proud and happy to contribute money (and some time) to.  

I've written about OCT before, here.  Their mandate is to secure the legal right to a stable climate and a healthy atmosphere for all present and future generations.

Ah, those pesky future generations. I've written about them before, too -- here, and here, and here. So today I'd like to tell you what I just found out. Guess what the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms (Constitution Act, 1982) guarantees to all Canadians? Yup, "life, liberty and security of person." Here's what that means: "Everyone has the right to life, liberty and security of the person and the right not to be deprived thereof except in accordance with the principles of fundamental justice."

So folks, on the basis of our constitutionally enshrined (ooh, listen to me, all legalesy) legal right #7, we should be suing the @$$es off the federal and provincial governments that aren't taking the climate change emergency seriously! 

And while we're at it, take a look at 15. (1) under the section called Equality Rights: "Every individual is equal before and under the law and has the right to the equal protection and equal benefit of the law without discrimination and, in particular, without discrimination based on race, national or ethnic origin, colour, religion, sex, age or mental or physical disability."

Did you catch that part about age? Children, in other words, also have the right to a secure future. So let's support Our Children's Trust - Canada and get our legal challenges by young people and on behalf of future generations going.

CONSTITUTION ACT, 1982 (80)

PART I

CANADIAN CHARTER OF RIGHTS AND FREEDOMS

 Whereas Canada is founded upon principles that recognize the supremacy of God and the rule of law:

Guarantee of Rights and Freedoms

Rights and freedoms in Canada

1. The Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms guarantees the rights and freedoms set out in it subject only to such reasonable limits prescribed by law as can be demonstrably justified in a free and democratic society.

Under the section called Legal Rights
 
Life, liberty and security of person

7. Everyone has the right to life, liberty and security of the person and the right not to be deprived thereof except in accordance with the principles of fundamental justice.

Then, under the section called Equality Rights
 
Equality before and under law and equal protection and benefit of law

15. (1) Every individual is equal before and under the law and has the right to the equal protection and equal benefit of the law without discrimination and, in particular, without discrimination based on race, national or ethnic origin, colour, religion, sex, age or mental or physical disability.

Under the section Enforcement
 
Enforcement of guaranteed rights and freedoms

24. (1) Anyone whose rights or freedoms, as guaranteed by this Charter, have been infringed or denied may apply to a court of competent jurisdiction to obtain such remedy as the court considers appropriate and just in the circumstances.

The Perfect Education Model for Our Times - Forest Schools

Charlotte's beautiful eagle, after storytelling in the woods

I seem to do at least one nifty thing every summer that I want to share with you here. I've told you about my nature daycamps and growing wheat with my students and my community's Fall Fair Young People's Agriculture division. Well, this year it's the Forest School Educator training program I attended last week. 

Forest School Canada's Maureen Power and Jon Cree from the UK's Forest School Association spent a week with us, pretty much all in the woods (on an urban university campus, so it doesn't have to be in the wilderness), including two rainy days in the middle of the week. 

The magic of the program came partly from the wonderful synergy of the 18 participants, partly from the lovely wooded site that was chosen for the training, partly because the instructors work (and play) and teach so well together, partly from the great food, and partly because I was so ready for this. 

Forest School is as close to our species' original education "model" as you can get. It's based on regular and repeated access to the same natural space, whether for half a day per week or every school day. Children and adults spend their time in "their" woods or other natural setting in every sort of weather, year round. 

The kids play (play is a child's learning work) and the role of their teachers is to supply "loose parts" like tools and art supplies, and to keep the children safe while observing their growth and development. 

All the things we were learning and developing

It's not the same as outdoor education or environmental education where there is a pre-determined learning goal. In Forest School, the "curriculum" is emergent, which is to say that the children choose what they want to do next and so that's what they'll learn next. The learning is experiential, inquiry-based, play-based and place-based. 

Making a mallet (woodcraft and safety)

It might be climbing a rock or a tree (they'll learn courage and strategy, gross motor skills and pride of accomplishment) or sitting quietly in their magic spot with a journal (where they'll develop self-regulation skills, the gift of contemplation, and perhaps their writing skills and artistic side). 

Our week of training was a rich, warm, powerful, loving and learningful experience.

Here's what I know, for sure, in the depth of my heart. If our training course was a taste of what we can create in our own educational settings, then it's what I want for my students ... and for all the
human children in the world!

(For a history of this movement, check out Forest and Nature School in Canada: A Head, Heart, Hands Approach to Outdoor Learning.)

No to Climate Change, But No Time for System Change

We attended a lecture (we had to leave early, so missed the "public forum" part) the other night by Professor Richard Smith, Rutgers University lecturer, economic historian, member of the System Change Not Climate Change network in the U.S. and author of articles like "Green Capitalism: The God That Failed" and "Capitalism and the Destruction of Life on Earth: Six Theses on Saving the Humans."

Professor Smith's visit was sponsored by the Social Environmental Alliance and the Vancouver Eco-Socialist Group, organizations that see capitalism as a root cause of the climate change crisis and who are calling for "system change" as the crisis deepens.

"Ecosocialists see this ecological crisis as a symptom of the underlying economic and social system called capitalism, whose basic operating features include: (1) the imperative of profit and competition-driven expansion without limit, (2) the treatment of human labour and the natural world as commodities for sale rather than having value for human well-being and ecological stability; (3) benefits to a small and privileged social class wielding inordinate political power, (4) deformed social priorities amongst humans, including in our relationship to the rest of nature."

The title of Smith's talk was No to Climate Change - Yes to System Change. It was interesting and in many ways, spot on. He sure understands the climate change emergency. He is calling for a revolution away from capitalism -- or at least the worst forms of our Western, industrial, globalized, capitalist economy (the pillaging sort of capitalism that doesn't give a damn about the consequences of habitat destruction, resource loss, pollution or climate change). 

The problem is, we don't have time for an economic revolution. We need to get going on what we can be doing now. And that's simple. Economists keep telling us that the market can solve our ills. The time has come for them to prove it. Let's see what that "invisible hand" does with the market once we've set the following in place. My guess is that investments will swing briskly toward renewables!

1. Stop all direct and indirect subsidies for fossil fuels.**

2. Tax carbon. Really tax carbon.

3. Charge for pollution. Let companies pay for the social (health) and environmental costs of their businesses, damn it. Seriously, why should taxpayers have to cough up when corporations should be paying these costs before calculating their profits and paying dividends to shareholders?

4. And what of the banks? Don't they have just a teeny weeny bit too much power ("credit capitalism")? With none of the responsibilities?


** Some people worry that removing all fossil fuel subsidies will be unjust for poorer people. In the short term, this could well be true. But long term, fossil fuels are going to kill all of us, whether we're rich or poor. However -- and I welcome your thoughts on this, as mine aren't fully formed yet -- I think that winning an international race to zero carbon will actually be easier for the least developed nations, as they have come late to the fossil fuel party. Climate justice is for future generations as much as for today's less fortunate.

Who Should Be Apologizing?

There seems to be an upsurge in fault-finding and aspersion-casting these days. But the wrong people are taking the flak.

Why are the "green capitalists" (who at least are trying to raise awareness and create change, even if it's within a broken system) being excoriated by all parties while the vast majority of capitalists — the rape-and-pillage kind — pretty much escape censure and get to carry on, business as usual?

Why are outspoken climate scientists who mention nuclear as a partial solution to the climate change emergency being pilloried while the vast majority of climate scientists are not called out for their cowardice and their silence?

Why are people who care deeply about the future we're bequeathing our children getting blamed by friends and strangers alike for spreading doom and gloom (aka, the truth) while the vast majority of parents and grandparents (in my culture, at least) spend their spare time watching crap on the television? If you feel "blamed" then maybe you know deep inside that you bear some of the responsibility.

It's getting pretty tiring for anyone who's been trying to sound the climate crisis alarm to continually be called an alarmist. (What do you do for a living? Oh, I'm an alarmist. Full-time.) Why is it considered worse to be a scaremonger (when what's happening is seriously scary and we want people to wake up and be frightened!) than to be an ignorer, delayer, skeptic or downright denier?

And don't even get me started on what a vegan has to put up with these days. Apparently our lower-carbon dietary choice is a judgement, an imposition on people who want to torture and murder animals in the most inhumane ways possible in order to enjoy their hunk of flesh without guilt — at the expense of all future generations. Well, folks, if you're feeling guilty around a vegan, perhaps you should listen to that little niggle.

How can I apologize for caring? For passionately wanting to safeguard the future of life on this planet? Why should I have to? Why do I have to watch what I say at dinner parties and in cafés? Why aren't we all talking about all of this? All the time? With everyone we meet?

How will we ever transform political will if we can't muster some personal and social will just to discuss the emergency let alone face it and solve it?

Truthfully, who should be apologizing to whom?

Blog Action Day: Climate Change and Human Rights

Blog Action Day is this Wednesday, October 16 and this year's theme is human rights. So you can probably already guess what my questions to you are going to be.

Is a safe climate a human right? Do we have a right to a safe climate? Do we? Conversely, do we humans ("we" as in EuroAmericans and those who have adopted the Western economy that we've globalized) have a right to make the climate increasingly unviable for other species? Indeed, isn't the climate change crisis a perfect point of overlap between human rights and the rights of all other living things?

And when we talk of human rights, which humans are we talking about? When it comes to climate disruption, are we talking about people in developing parts of the world? Today's children and future generations? Or just old white guys? 

And which rights are we discussing? I swear, some capitalists (the ecologically illiterate ones, and that seems to be most of them) believe that they have the right to "earn" (I use that term loosely) as much money as they want, damn the consequences. That's the whole basis of the neoliberal agenda.

If we can't decide, globally, as a species, that food and water — and the stable climate upon which both depend — are basic human rights, then the rest is moot. If we don't get this one right, then by default we're saying that we don't have the right to life.

Truth and Reconciliation — Past, Present, Future

I've just spent the last few days attending my first meeting of the British Columbia Teachers Federation Committee for Action on Social Justice (it's so cool that my union values social justice), as an environmental justice representative. 

Our meeting coincided with the Truth and Reconciliation events being held here in Vancouver, and so we spent a day there, taking in the Education Day events.

Stories of the abuses that happened in Canada's "Indian" residential schools are harrowing. It's frightening to learn what Canada and its religious institutions did to 150,000 First Nations children who were stolen from their parents. We all need to serve as witnesses and acknowledge this horrifying legacy — and the intergenerational pain and dysfunction it has caused in many families and communities. Part of the pain, and the perpetuation of this pain, has been the denial that these things ever happened.

But the student events that I attended were filled with hope and healing. I started wondering about the right age for children to learn the history of residential schools ... and global climate change. Here's what I realized.

We can and must tell children about the residential school legacy (even though a new First Nations friend was called a liar when he presented this truth during a workshop a few months ago). It's something that happened in the past. And through acknowledgement, witnessing, listening and hearing, we can contribute to reconciliation. 

But how do we tell children about something abusive and harrowing that's happening to their planet right now, something that's killing their future? Something they just can't fix. What do we tell them? There's no hug, no comfort, no witnessing, no reconciliation in the world big enough to make this right for the children as long as we adults remain in denial and disaction.

That's the truth.

Annus Horribilis (Let's Be Sentimental for the Future, Not the Past)

A friend told me yesterday that my blog posts often sound frustrated. I would like to point out that I have written a handful of positive posts since May 2009. I can't remember when or why or what they were, but I'm sure I have. (Wait, here's a recent example: How to Conjure Up Joy in Sad Times.)

Then there's today's post. Oh man, am I frustrated! I was already almost half way through my own personal annus horribilis (with a nod to Queen Elizabeth who had hers in 1992). Then a plumbing pipe broke. The ensuing flood in our living room and downstairs has complicated my life enormously (as you can imagine), especially since I recently moved dozens of stored boxes to our basement. I had pictured going through those boxes at a leisurely pace, deciding what to save and what to recycle or repurpose. The insurance company (and the threat of mold) have created a frenetic pace at which I now have to go through all the wet boxes to see if there's anything worth salvaging.

It's still hard to see the silver lining in this micro-catastrophe (I wasn't wishing for a new living room floor and I certainly didn't want to spend my birthday this way), but it's sure brought out the philosophical bent in my friends and me. 

After the flood, as I was tearfully bent over in the crawl space, heaving heavy wet boxes (and, mercifully, some still dry ones) into a dry area, I realized that African mothers of starving children might cry, but they just keep going. "Just keep going," I kept telling myself. "This is nothing – nothing – compared to their pain and their struggle."

My friend Cory wrote: "Think of it as a cleanse! Our memories are in our hearts and minds – not really in boxes." An excellent reminder. 

And my pragmatic hubby implored, "Why be sentimental about the past? Be sentimental about the future."

Ah, yes. The past is looked after. What I remember is what I remember (and it's mind-blowing how much I've discovered I'd forgotten). It's the future I should be focused on and concerned about. "Sentimental" is defined as "of or prompted by feelings of tenderness, sadness, or nostalgia." Well, since we're in the throes of making the future a thing of the past, it makes sense to feel nostalgic for the good old days when the future was bright and everything was possible. And a feeling of tenderness, too – for the children of all species.

And then I was reminded of this quote, by Hans Schellnhuber, of the Potsdam Institute for Climate Impact Research: 

"First law of humanity – don’t kill your children." 

Now how's that for future-focused sentimentality? (At least one skeptic blogger calls it "inflammatory" but methinks she is not a critical thinker.) 

Indeed, wouldn't it be fascinating to find out if there's a positive correlation between cultures that focus on the past (for example, family trees, portraiture, scrapbooking, ancestor worship, storage lockers, history study in school) and their impacts on the future? Hmmmmm.

Love, Death and an African Proverb: A Tribute to a Fine English Lady

I wrote this on Friday, 10 May 2013. That was the day of my husband's mother's funeral. It was therefore a sad day for us, but also a day of celebration. She lived a "good long life" (she died at the age of 96) and felt ready to go. Although her son sometimes feels that she led a hard life (especially with the personal fallout of World War II), she always insisted that she had only good memories. 

In the guestbook, I wrote: "I will forever be grateful to my mother-in-law for giving me the greatest gift she could give: the love of my life, the love of her life, her son."

Then I started to think about how his mum had helped my sweetheart become the wonderfully caring man that he is. And that's when this African proverb came to mind:

"What you help a child to love can be more important than what you help him to learn."

Mrs. C loved the birds, the forests, the flowers, her garden. And Peter loves all Creation, too. 

*******

It's a simple thing, isn't it? What you love will be what your child learns to love. So, parents, love the right things. Love the good things, the life-giving things.

"Let the beauty we love be what we do. There are hundreds of ways to kneel and kiss the ground." 

— Rumi

Ho'oponopono

I learned a new expression yesterday. Ho'oponopono. It means "It is also my fault. Please forgive me."

Ho'oponopono is an ancient Hawaiian practice of reconciliation and forgiveness (Wikipedia). Other South Pacific cultures have similar forgiveness practices. 

I was taken aback when I read that. It's just that it's a concept we don't know or practise here in North America. We're more a "It's all your fault" society. I hope it won't be seen as co-opting a tradition from another culture (that's the furthest thing from my mind), but I'd like Ho'oponopono to become part of my worldview. 

It got me thinking a couple of things. First, I wonder if being able to say "Climate change is also my fault. Please forgive me" would be healing and helpful for the generation of older, mainly Caucasian, folks who, frankly, created the problem. I often think that the older generation stays in denial because it's too hard for them [updated: it's hard for us; I'm now the "older generation"!] to admit that their luck and timing, their blessed lifestyles, their accumulation of wealth f*cked up the atmosphere.

Next, I started wondering how many other "solutions" to the climate crisis might exist in cultures and languages we know nothing about and have no exposure to. Here's an example. 

"Bahala na" ("I don't care what happens in the future, as long as I survive now") is a Filippino expression that describes an attitude common far beyond that country's borders.

Of course, it doesn't help that our culture affords no legal or economic rights to future generations. Who cares about them (indeed, what have they ever done for me?) as long as my life is comfortable today.

I think that learning that expression helped me become more conscious of my responsibilities to the future, to my legacy (which I don't want to create by default).

So, if you know of an expression or a concept in another language or culture that might give us English speakers some guidance in the movement to safeguard the future from the climate emergency, please share it. We never know what might catch on and be quite helpful in this fight.

I Experienced It! Visceral Denial! And the Solution is Simple

My best friend and life partner, my husband, is ill. Not with the flu or a cold but with something much scarier, a repeat of an illness that left him crippled with fatigue 12 years ago.

This was unexpected. He's been feeling much better over the last few months, so we thought he was "a new man" if not quite "his old self." But this thing has hit with a vengeance, and it couldn't have come at a worse time. (He's trying to get ready to present his life's work 
on climate change at two upcoming conferences.)

I'm so busy and stressed out and angry trying to keep it together and take care of him and get him to medical appointments that I haven't allowed myself to cry yet. I don't know which way this will go yet, so I've been keeping my reaction all bottled up inside.

But because my husband is a retired doctor, he does have a good clue about what's going on. The other day, he sat me down and tried to explain it all. And that's when I felt it. That's when I finally understood your everyday, garden-variety climate change deniers! I could sense myself glazing over. I could feel myself shutting down. I could see myself doing an interior "La la la, I'm not listening!" When he was done explaining, it was like I had to snap out of a daze — and apologize, because I hadn't heard (or at least, hadn't taken in) what he'd said. 

I started wondering why I can face the climate change emergency with strength, courage and determination, but I couldn't even listen to what's happening with my loved one's health. And then it struck me. 

It's because I haven't cried that I can't hear it, can't let the bad news in. I haven't been willing (or able yet) to "feel" my fear and sadness, therefore I am not willing to countenance the severity of my husband's illness, nor able to think about it or even conceive of it.

So I've had it wrong all these years. I've been thinking that if we could just get people thinking about climate change, learning about it, then they would feel the sadness and therefore get to work on behalf of their children and all future generations. 

It turns out we probably have to help people feel the pain of the realization that we've condemned our children to a future of climate hell, and only then will they be willing to start learning about it and able to start thinking about it rationally.

The other thing that breaking through that emotional, visceral denial does is make it very clear how much of the life we live day to day isn't important. And who the heck wants to face that truth until we've psyched up and it's spiritual spring cleaning time?

I've written about this issue before (see You CAN Handle the Truth!), but I had the order wrong. My thinking now is that we have to help people open to the sadness, lament and grieve, and then tell them the truth about the climate crisis.

Remember that old show, Laugh In? (Okay, some of you are too young to remember it.) You could almost hear the laughter coming out of people's homes up and down the streets of every neighbourhood in North America when that show was on! 

Renée Jeanne Falconetti as Joan of Arc

Maybe it's time to create a new TV show: Cry In. One that will help people get their tears and sadness out so that they're ready to open up to the sad reality of climate change.

Our Love/Hate Relationship with Change

When I talk with people who are moderately interested in the climate change crisis about why nothing is happening, they tend to all tell me the same thing. "People don't like change."

People don't like change? That can't be true. People change jobs and marriage partners and houses quite frequently. They create change by going on vacations and getting new hairstyles and trying new restaurants. Change is what we do!

Why, then, are people in North America so loathe to change to a zero-carbon economy and lifestyle?

A good friend – one who understands human beings and their motivations – suggested that people tend to embrace and do things that fill a personal need and/or that provide them with some sort of benefit.

Okay, we know that people seek change (it's as good as a rest!). And we know that people change when they see some personal benefit in it. So I still don't get it.

We can't change to save the world, but we changed to ruin the world. What's the diff? I don't get why we changed so easily over the last 100 years or so to become users of fossil fuels and watchers of consumerism-promoting claptrap, but we can't change back (or forward).

Don't we regard a viable future for our offspring as a personal benefit? Do people not view survival of their own species as a personal benefit? With the weather giving many of us a taste of hell this summer, wouldn't we want to see mitigation of the worst impacts of global warming as a personal benefit?

Here's what I'm wondering. Has our task been so simple all along, we've missed it? Is our job, as climate change activists, merely to help people see the personal benefits of staying alive and healthy? Are we simply supposed to be asking people to be open to the changes that must occur if we want to ensure a future for our children ... and our species ... and life on Earth?

It's quite likely that we've missed the boat on substituting a zero-carbon version for our carbon-intensive intense lifestyles (we didn't start the move to zero carbon energy production soon enough). But living (again, after millennia of living this way) in small communities where we grow our own food and create our own energy and look out for each other – that's a beautiful vision of the future, isn't it?

Found at Live. Love. Learn. Breathe.

Compassion Tune-up: For Future Generations

It's been quite a while since I offered a Compassion Tune-up. This time round, it's a Christian rock song from a group called 4Him, and the message, whether heard in a religious or a secular way, is quite powerful. "We must be a light, for future generations." 

For Future Generations

by 4Him

The signs are obvious, they are everywhere
All that we hear about is the gloom and despair
Too many would be prophets sayin'
"It's the end of it all"
'Cause mother earth can't take much more
The hammer's gonna fall

So nature has its needs, that's a lesson learned
But it appears to me there are greater concerns
'Cause we can save the planet
Thinkin' we will somehow survive
But father time is calling us
To save somebody's life,
so…

CHORUS
I won't bend and I won't break
I won't water down my faith
I won't compromise in a world of desperation
What has been I cannot change
But for tomorrow and today
I must be a light for future generations

If we could find a way to preserve our faith
So those who follow us
See the price that was paid
Then maybe when they question
What it's gonna take to survive
They'll find the strength to carry on
In what we leave behind

REPEAT CHORUS

Lookin' in the eyes of the children
Knowing that tomorrow is at stake
When the choice is up to them
Will they have the strength to say

We won't bend and we won't break
we won't water down our faith
We won't compromise in a world of desperation
What has been we cannot change
But for tomorrow and today
We must be a light for future generations

REPEAT

INsuring Versus ENsuring Our Children's Future

We are a culture that eats its children and grandchildren.
— Tom Brown, Jr.

I read the abstract of an article this week about aquifer overexploitation and groundwater depletion in the US High Plains and Central Valley (hey, we all spend our spare time in different ways), and it got me thinking. Why is it
we're willing to INsure our future,
but not willing to ENsure our children's future? 

We're willing to pay money today (those of us who can afford it) to arrange for future financial compensation to our loved ones in the event of our own illness, injury or death. We "provide" for them financially. But we're not willing to make any sacrifices (of time, money, energy or comfort and luxury) today to make certain of providing our progeny with what they'll really need: adequate clean water, secure access to healthy food, shelter safe from extreme storms and heat waves. In other words, we insure our lives but don't ensure their lives.

Here again, it seems we can blame economics, and especially the EuroAmerican economy. (It's early morning and I feel like oversimplifying today.) According to our friendly Wikipedia, life insurance "began as a way of reducing the risk to traders, as early as 2000 BC in China and 1750 BC in Babylon." (See? Traders = economy?) Lloyd's of London (perhaps the most iconic insurance company) began in the 17th century as a group of merchants, ship owners and underwriters who met at Lloyd's Coffee House to discuss their deals.

Then there's the notion of future discounting (an accounting/financing principle that says "a dollar today is worth more than a dollar tomorrow"), which has crept into our collective EuroAmerican psyche: A life today is worth more than a life tomorrow. This is already true for us geographically or intragenerationally (a life here is worth more than one half way around the world), so why not intergenerationally as well?

Indeed, the noted economist, Julian "Doom Slayer" Simon (I predict he'll soon be renamed Julian "Future Slayer" Simon), once quipped: "Because we can expect future generations to be richer than we are, no matter what we do about resources, asking us to refrain from using resources now so that future generations can have them later is like asking the poor to make gifts to the rich." Pardon? See the kind of mindset we've been dealing with? Future generations don't stand a chance!

Here's another example I heard from a friend during the George W. Bush presidency. At an environmental conference in Seattle, a federal US employee with the National Marine Fisheries Service was asked, "Can you really support four more years of this administration's policies toward the environment?" Response? "I'm with George. He's all about right now. None of this future generations stuff. After all, what have they done for us lately?"

Perhaps saddest of all was the reaction recently to the World Future Council's call for Ombudspersons for Future Generations. (Please consider signing their petition here. It might be the only good thing that comes out of the Rio+20 Summit later this month.) They are calling for a network of special representatives to help protect the resources and livelihoods of future generations ... guardians of the future. The negative response I read (not to mention my husband's exhortation that this will come to naught if we don't give future generations legal rights), utterly disheartening, was it written mainly by selfish &%$#@! or by those who've simply never heard or learned about intergenerational equity?

Anyway, thinking like an ancestor isn't about buying insurance. It's about love for our children, our grandchildren, and all the children in our lives. It's about concern for our family's health, prosperity, safety and security, now and in the future. It's about child honouring ... placing the welfare and well-being of the children at the centre of all our deliberations and decisions. It's about ensuring a viable (livable, survivable) future for all the children. Of all species.

A man has made at least a start on discovering
the meaning of human life when he plants shade trees under which
he knows full well he will never sit.
— D. Elton Trueblood

Respect Your Youngers - Our Children's Trust Put to the Test

While kids are often reminded to respect their elders, we oldsters aren't often prompted to respect our youngers. But children certainly need us to put them first, especially when it comes to the climate change crisis, because they are a vulnerable sub-population who will be hit first, hit hardest and hit longest by the impacts of global warming on health, safety, food and water.

A judge in the city of Washington, in the District of Columbia, in the United States of America, will very soon have the opportunity to demonstrate what respect for our youngest generation, and future generations, looks like. That judge will have the chance to turn to the fossil fuel junkies and traffickers (who say things like "Industry has a legally protected cognizable interest to freely emit CO2") and say, "Your right to profit from pollution and destruction of the Earth does not trump the right of children to a safe and habitable planet."

I told you a few months ago about this Kids Vs Global Warming lawsuit against the US government to protect the atmosphere as a public trust. Well, things are now underway, and a DC judge has allowed the National Association for Manufacturers and other corporate groups to intervene on behalf of the government. (I guess the American government is calling in some favours, eh?)

On May 11th, these intervenors will be calling for the motion to be dismissed. If I were anywhere near Washington, DC that day, I would be in that courtroom to show my support for the young people.

Now, the judge will have to base his or her decision on the motion to dismiss the suit on "the law." But the law is based on precedents ... so how's this for a precedent? The rules of NAFTA (through its infamous Chapter 11) and the World Trade Organization can force whole countries (e.g., Canada) to use dangerous substances (e.g., MMT in their gasoline) or pay huge fines so that the manufacturers' shareholders won't lose money — in the future. As this Third World Network briefing paper on Ethyl Corp. suing Canada over MMT explains, "The company argues that the ban will reduce the value of Ethyl's MMT manufacturing plant, hurt its future sales and harm its corporate reputation" [my emphasis added].

That gives *future* shareholders legal and economic rights — and future shareholders are de facto future generations. Ergo, there's a precedent for affording rights to future generations. Created by the very sorts of corporations who are now fighting a lawsuit that would have them lower their carbon emissions to safeguard the future. Man, these corporations really want to have their profits and eat them, too!

Please, follow the lawsuit and support these young people any way you can! Before their right to a future becomes a thing of the past. Check out the iMatter Movement, Kids Vs Global Warming, and Our Children's Trust.

Scientists as the Enemy? Sometimes!

Regular readers know that my husband spends hours and hours every day reading and synthesizing the research on global warming and climate change, so when something new comes along, he's on top of it.

Still, his antagonism towards the majority of climate scientists has always confused me a bit. After all, the research that he's reading and synthesizing day in, day out comes from scientists! But he maintains that these scientists — who could have made the conscious choice to be human beings first and scientists second — have a lot of the weight of inaction on climate change on their shoulders.

Yesterday, I saw this in action, and it disturbed me to the core. We were invited by a friend to have a meeting over coffee (okay, soy chai latte) with a scientist friend of his, someone with a high degree in physics and a government job.

I figured this was going to be a friendly meeting of minds and hearts. Wrong! This fellow was a denialist wolf pretending to be nice in sheep's clothing. As he kept "playing" devil's advocate, disagreeing with research he had neither heard of nor read, I felt more and more slimed. I had gone there with my defences down, not realizing it was a trap.

At first, I thought it was slightly strange but friendly repartee. But the number of times he used the terms "devil's advocate" and "don't believe the numbers" convinced me that his motives were not friendly.

His big "lesson" for us was to not forget the negative feedbacks (which in this case are the good ones). Hey, mister, if you can get your negative feedbacks to overwhelm the overwhelming positive (bad) feedbacks in the climate system, go for it. But so far, your negative feedbacks are losing because we keep pumping 30 billion tons of extra (human-made) carbon into the atmosphere each year ... and rising! (So not only is that figure not falling to zero carbon emissions, but the rate of acceleration of our emissions is still rising.)

The lesson I hope I left this man with is this: Physics, schmysics. What about the humans in the equation? What about the kids? What about their future? Why would we not employ the precautionary principle if there is any risk whatsoever?

The science is valuable, but not if we're ignoring what's happening in the world because it doesn't fit with our "scientific models," and not if scientists are going to put science before life itself.