Faith Rather Than Hope

We "countryfolk" are housesitting for friends and getting an extended "city fix," which is always fascinating. City streets sure are lonelier, especially with everyone checking out their "screens" as they bustle along. But shopkeepers and restaurant servers have been quite friendly (perhaps reflecting back our small-town vibe?).

Hanging in our friends' kitchen is this little sign:

"And faith for the future" ... that's the part that struck me. You know how I feel about hope and hope mongering, where feeling hopeful about the climate crisis is more important than actually doing something about the climate crisis. (If what environmental education guru, David Orr, says is true — that hope is a verb with its sleeves rolled up — I figure it's only because it wants to get a tan on its arms.)

But faith. Faith. Doesn't that seem different somehow? The non-religious definition is "complete trust or confidence in someone or something." The moment I read that sign, I realized that I do my work on the climate change emergency with some sort of faith in my heart that ... well, that we humans will at last pull together. 

It could well be too late by the time we get our act together (indeed, it's maybe too late already, given all the warming we're already committed to due to the ocean heat lag ... and all the warming that will be added when we stop fossil fuel burning, since fossil fuel particulate pollution has been masking a certain percentage of the warming to date), but if nothing else, I'd like today's younger generations to know that we finally, after a huge collective forehead slap, "got it" and came together for their sake. 

Still waiting for our collective facepalm

The quote below isn't quite correct. The IPCC has told us that we only have until 2020 to get our carbon emissions into rapid decline if we want to be able to meet our 2030 and 2050 targets (50% reduction and virtually zero, respectively). 

But the sentiment is one that resonates for me. It speaks to the faith that arises when people — listening to the love in their heart, instead of the fear — start doing exciting, courageous work together.

It is true that the IPCC tells us that we have only 12 years to act ... but in the world there are thousands of projects. They do not start from pessimism or optimism, they start with people who choose to follow their heart, and do what they feel called to. Science tells us that it is possible.  — Diego Galli

When You're Depleted and Defeated, Turn to Leonard Cohen and "Ring the Bells that Still Can Ring"

The climate talks (COP24) in Katowice, Poland have wrapped up with as little accomplished and as much left undone as expected ... but we always hope for better, don't we? I find myself doing a lot of finger crossing (for good luck) these days, but without holding my breath (expectations can be demons). 

The devastation of the biosphere can only get worse now, and faster and faster. We're likely in "only a miracle can save us now" territory already. 

My hubby is just back from the International Criminal Court in The Hague. He and others (including Polly Higgins) spoke about getting massive environmental damage due to climate change recognized internationally as a crime against humanity. But the wheels of justice turn very slowly (unless, of course, you're an African-American accused of a misdemeanor crime in the United States), so that can only be one piece of the strategy. 

But things have been heating up (pun intended, I guess) since the publication of the IPCC's Special Report on 1.5ºC, and the Fourth National Climate Assessment in the United States. Here's how I know. Amongst articles such as The 15 Most Stylish Topcoats to Wear All Winter and Damnit, Ted Cruz's Beard Looks Tolerable, Esquire Magazine offered up 

by Charles P. Pierce. The subtitle of his article is: "The lastest U.S. government climate report is a pre-emptive coroner's report, and our politics aren't equipped to deal with it." I don't think I have to say any more.

Maclean's Magazine, in Canada, is into the fray. David Moscrop wrote:

"We can’t address an existential threat with our fellow citizens standing in our path. They rob us of the hope we need to save ourselves" is the subtitle. Now, you know what I think of hope (it's a developed world luxury that we don't deserve — unless we're taking action), but I'll let him have this one because he's a newbie who has just woken up to the climate crisis and is going from zero to "climate grief" quite rapidly. (Whoever could have imagined that one of our greatest obstacles to climate change mitigation would be people who think that hope and feeling good are more important than action?!)

Anyway, my point is this. Sometimes, this calling hurts. It's hard. We can feel defeated and depleted. And when that happens, we have to have our touchstones. The people we can reach out to, the uplifting books or movies we can read or watch, and music — songs we can listen to over and over again that speak to our souls and know exactly what to tell us.

So whether you've been doing this for decades (like my husband and me) or you're just discovering how desperately bad the climate change crisis is now, Anthem by Leonard Cohen is an excellent invitation to take stock and then to keep at it ... imperfectly, if necessary.

ANTHEM, by Leonard Cohen

The birds, they sang 
At the break of day 
Start again, I heard them say 
Don't dwell on what has passed away 
Or what is yet to be. 

Yeah, the wars 
They will be fought again 
The holy dove 
She will be caught again 
Bought and sold and bought again 
The dove is never free. 

Ring the bells that still can ring 
Forget your perfect offering 
There is a crack, a crack in everything 
That's how the light gets in. 

We asked for signs 
The signs were sent: 
The birth betrayed 
The marriage spent 
Yeah, the widowhood of every government 
Signs for all to see. 

I can't run no more 
With that lawless crowd 
While the killers in high places say their prayers out loud 
But they've summoned, they've summoned up a thundercloud 
They're gonna hear from me. 

Ring the bells that still can ring
Forget your perfect offering 
There is a crack, a crack in everything 
That's how the light gets in.
You can add up the parts 
You won't have the sum 
You can strike up the march 
There is no drum 
Every heart, every heart 
To love, will come 
But like a refugee. 

Ring the bells that still can ring 
Forget your perfect offering 
There is a crack, a crack in everything 
That's how the light gets in 

Ring the bells that still can ring 
Forget your perfect offering 
There is a crack, a crack in everything
That's how the light gets in 
That's how the light gets in 
That's how the light gets in 

I Think Permaculture Can Save the World (or At Least Delay Our Demise)

I finally found it. In the least expected place!

I was listening to a wonderfully inspiring webinar yesterday morning called Regenerative Moringa Farming. But it was about much more than that. Aaron Elton (a Vancouverite) was actually talking about a model that is lifting orphanages and villages in Uganda (his adopted homeland) out of food insecurity and poverty with large scale permaculture projects that include regenerative moringa farming.

As someone who's going to be teaching an introduction to sustainable development to first year university students in the new year, I was excited to hear Aaron talking about initiatives that are profitable (economy), healthy (social equity), beneficial (environment) — the 3 Es of sustainability — and fun (if it ain't fun, it ain't sustainable).

One of my most important take-aways from the webinar was the importance of being open to and building partnerships (including unlikely ones) when trying to get something new off (or on!) the ground.

I think I've admitted this before, but sometimes the only thing that can get me up in the morning is the potential for preservation of our species found in the principles and processes of permaculture.

Okay, so what was it that I finally found in this unexpected place? Aaron shared a quote that crisply explains my view of hope in the face of demise.

There is nothing so well known
as that we should not expect
something for nothing —
but we all do
and call it Hope.
— Edgar Watson Howe

There. That's it. You want hope? Then do something about the climate change emergency! Do not do nothing and expect a result. False hope never saved anyone's skin.

And if you want to do something exciting, take a class on permaculture ... and then get to work in the soil.

Looking for Hope in All the Wrong Places

"Beyond sad," said the friend who sent me these headlines

Hopemongering. I don't know if I'm right or wrong on this, but I have a very strong sense that it's a disservice. 

Okay, a disclaimer up front: I guess I'm already showing my bias, since the word "monger" comes with negative connotations. According to my computer's dictionary, it means "a person who promotes a specified activity, situation, or feeling, especially one that is undesirable or discreditable (such as a rumormonger or a warmonger)."

So what, you might ask, is undesirable or discreditable about people wanting to promote hope in the world? Well, if you know me, you'll know that I don't see hope as as an action verb. I see "hoping" as a kind of hand-wringing distraction from action. "Oh, I hope everything will be okay." "Fine, but what are you actually doing to make it okay?"

Furthermore, hope (the noun) is a privilege — and one that much of the world no longer has access to, or never did. If you have hope in this day and age, it's because the climate change emergency hasn't knocked your world flat ... yet. It hasn't ruined your crops, swept your home into the sea, or killed your baby daughter ... yet. It just hasn't hit the fan where you live ... yet. 

But there's no time for resting on hopeful laurels. If you have the privilege of still "having hope," then you are one of the few in a position to be doing something about the climate change emergency. Not collecting hopeful stories. Not using magical thinking. Not creating Twitter storms about optimism. Not hosting optimism summits. Not constantly seeking some magical balance between "doom and gloom" and hope. Not celebrating the micro successes that are just going to be undone by rising temperatures and the resulting climate chaos.

No! We should be spitting mad! We should be standing up and demanding IN VERY LOUD VOICES that OUR CHILDREN DESERVE A VIABLE FUTURE! We should be standing in solidarity with Standing Rock — and with anyone else who recognizes the dangerousness of the fossil fuel economy and is brave enough to stand up to Big Oil and Big Money. 

Research likes to show that appeals to fear can lead to "defensive avoidance" or desensitization and disengagement. But who has studied appeals to anger? I mean, good gawd, they are stealing the future from your children for the sake of greed and profit! They are making the biosphere inhospitable to life! They are turning 10,000 years of a relatively stable climate (that gave us agriculture and civilization and Twinkies) to ratshit! Get angry, people! For Earth's sake! You're being ripped off!

If you're not convinced that anger is the "proper" emotion to be feeling and expressing right now, consider watching PBS's People's Century, Part 19: Endangered Planet. Watch it with just one question in mind: What role did anger play? (Minute 26 is an excellent example, but watch from the beginning to understand the context.)

Or let me put this another way. If a young child comes to you, with tears in his eyes, and says, "We're killing Nature, aren't we?" will you respond, "Gee, I hope not." Or will you say — and know it to be true because you are one of those people — "Sweetheart, there are thousands of adults around the world right now working very hard to make sure that does not happen."

"A Torrent of Hope"

This has to be a short post as I'm in the midst of an environmental education and communication conference. My days are filled with speeches, workshops, meals and networking, and I'm knackered (aka, very tired).

The keynote speaker at tonight's banquet is well known as an academic sort who specializes in hope. At the end of her talk, she told us that what she wants to create is a "torrent of hope" and she asked us to think about and then share what gives us hope. A couple of people responded, and then she posed the question again (she wasn't getting that "torrent" she was hoping for because we were all busy digesting our dinners). 

Just as she finished asking again ("What is it that gives you hope?"), a small child in the audience called out for his father: "Daddy?!"

It was the perfect (accidental) response — but I'm not sure the keynote speaker got it. It's the mommies and the daddies doing the good climate change work that will provide hope for the children. 

Is hope not just another EuroAmerican luxury? Isn't it something we have to earn? Do we have the right to hope (the noun) if we haven't earned it — by doing everything we can do to move us to zero carbon? (Someone else this weekend said we shouldn't use negative terminology — so shall I say "100% perpetual energy" instead?) 

If we haven't even been impacted by climate chaos yet, what right do we have to usurp "hope"? Isn't that another form of denial and inaction? Shouldn't we just roll up our sleeves (to disagree for the first time ever with David Orr) and let our action on climate change lead to hope? Especially for those already impacted?

And maybe this is simply a semantic argument, but hoping (the verb) doesn't even get us as far as praying does!

Blah blah hope blah blah blah hope blah blah blah hope. I'm going to put on my own conference — and I'm not going to allow anyone to talk about hope. ;-) 

In fact, maybe we won't talk at all. No hopin', no talkin'. Just action. It is, literally, our only hope.

(Please, if you can convince me that hope really, truly does have the power to "save the world," I'd love to hear your reasoning. Because so far, it's not working. By the way, I do see a role for hope (I've heard there's a part of the brain that shuts down if it cannot conceive of a positive future), but then we're moving past hope to envisioning and creating. So again, it's the work that leads to hope, not the other way around.)

When Lack of Hope Meets Self-Doubt...

… the result is not pretty. The result is how I'm feeling these days, just a week before I head to San Francisco, by train, to be trained along with 999 other people by Al Gore and his Climate Reality Project.

If you're a regular reader, then you know what I think of hope. It's not an action verb, but a lot of people hold onto it as though doing so is actually doing something to mitigate the climate change emergency. With so many hopesters in the world still, I don't hold out much hope anymore that we're 
going to turn this juggernaut around in time.

And we're still not seeing any action on the part of governments or the big banks and fossil fuel industries. I guess they're going to squeeze every last drop of oil, lump of coal and molecule of gas out of the ground before they admit there might be a problem with their "profit over planet" mantra.

But at least I used to feel okay about the few modest things that I do. This blog, my website on transformative sustainability education for teachers, workshops for educators and community members.

Now, just as I'm about to be trained to give even more presentations to even more people, I'm losing my way: my sense of direction and my nerve. I'm thinking, "What's the point? We're hooped anyway. What can I possibly do now that will have the slightest fraction of an impact?"

In other words, depression is setting in. And it's not pretty. It's not enough to have a partner who is also a climate change activist. Our activities are so different, it's like we're living in different worlds. Most of our friends and all of our relatives either "admire" us (and take no action) or think we're nuts for all the work we do (and take no action), which creates a crazy-making loneliness and lack of connection. What if I get to San Francisco and discover that I really am crazy, and that even Al Gore and the other "goracles" don't understand how incredibly deep and acute and rapid our changes and cuts and transformations must be?

A dear friend and life coach recently helped me see that my joy in living has been eroding away. Sure, I still delight in the tiny bird outside my window, a luscious sunset, or a yummy meal that I've thrown together in the kitchen. But I used to spout the aphorism "Happiness is not a destination but a way of travel." Now, both our destination and our way of getting there make me miserable.

I want to recapture the joy and light in my life, even while carrying on the hard, desperate work of telling the world what no one wants to hear. (Can you say Cassandra?) And so, I'll sign off with my signature of old. It's who I used to be, and who I want to be again. If we're going down, I want to go down ablaze (and I don't mean literally), not all grey and downcast. Not dancing on the graves of tomorrow's children, mind you, but helping today's children celebrate the life they still have in them.

Sunshine,
Julie

Is Forgiveness the Key?

This morning, in a local magazine, I read an article on forgiveness. Written by Linda Kavelin-Popov (of The Virtues Project fame), it's titled Forgiveness: Opening the Door to Hope. Here's the last line:

"Forgiveness can heal even the most grievous offence. It brings a blessed opportunity for a clean start. So, let's be forgiving. Let's open the door to hope."

Many of you know my opinion on hope (something along the lines of "hope, schmope ... hope is not an action verb"), but I'd like to share with you the thoughts that whirled in my head as I read that....

Can forgiveness heal the greatest crime(s) ever against humanity and the rest of Nature? Hitler ... Stalin ... climate chaos ... the end of most life on Earth? I can see where forgiveness frees the forgiver, but should people who commit heinous crimes actually be forgiven? By society I mean? Hmmm.

But what if we did apply this notion of forgiveness in the search for a solution to climate change? What if the "little boys" (is it just me or does it seem to be mainly guys responsible? I suspect that women could have more influence in stopping wars or slowing the progenycidal spread of our Western economic system if they tried, but it's mostly men who are the perpetrators — and please feel free to point out any errors in my logic or thought patterns) who have created the climate change emergency through their incessant need to keep winning were not only shown the error of their ways but forgiven at the same time?

What if the climate change emergency is ramping up because these men don't want to admit that their "games" have been hasty, wrong, ill-conceived, dangerous, even murderous? What if they feel guilty deep inside but don't want to face their guilt — or their crime? What if they're simply like young children who won't admit the truth if they're afraid of the consequences?

This strategy might be a bit far-fetched, but what if it works? What if it gives these people a chance to save face, to admit that the globalization game of More, More, More is not viable, even survivable?

Or, to be totally cynical, what if we just said we forgive them, in order to be able to blame them in the first place? (Ouch, eh?) We are getting desperately desperate in our search for something — some strategy, some hero, some idea — that will turn this game-changer (global heating, climate disruption, ocean acidification) around. With forgiveness in our hearts, let's call on the people who are most at fault and ask them to change the game to one that will ensure a future for the children. We can still let them feel that they're winning, but in the end, a solution to the climate change emergency will make us all winners.

How to Make Change

I'm reading Switch: How to Change Things When Change is Hard, by Chip Heath and Dan Heath (authors of Made to Stick: Why Some Ideas Survive and Others Die). I'd like to share a couple of their ideas with you. But first...

Ever since I was introduced to "denialism" as invented by professional deniers (those who have been paid by vested interests to deny the threats of smoking, asbestos, global warming), I've been reading things with two minds open: my regular old "me" mind as well as a mind that is watching my reactions to what I'm reading. In other words, I'm trying to become more aware of how my worldview makes me believe or disbelieve, welcome or eschew things I read. I so don't want to be guilty of that which miffs me in the amateur global warming denialists and skeptics.

Anyway, having said that, I found it fascinating that Brothers Heath support — coming at it from a completely different direction and background — my hypothesis about hope. If you've been here before, you know that one of my mantras is "Hope is not an action verb. Action is our only hope."

"When you engineer early successes, what you're really doing is engineering hope. Hope is precious to a change effort. It's ... fuel [for our emotional side]."

What they're not saying is that hope leads to action. What they are saying is that action — or, in this case, a celebration of what people have already accomplished, sometimes without even knowing it — leads to hope, which then leads to further action and change.

Here's what I would say: "Please, don't ever view wanting to safeguard the future for the children of all species (hells bells, the present for people all over the world!) as demoralizing! Call to action, call to courage! Action is our only hope (and hope is not an action verb)."

Or how about "You think these scientific predictions are demoralizing!? Imagine what your children are going to feel like when all this hits them in the face!' How can this be depressing news when it's the most exciting time ever in the history of humankind? When we can, literally with our bare hands on our rooftops and backyards, be part of the greatest transition (away from the Burning Age of Fossil Fuels) and revolution (to the Age of Zero Carbon and Perpetual Energy) our species has ever witnessed! How can anyone find this depressing?"

Anyway, on we go. I'm getting some great ideas for change from Switch ... I'm only half way through but I think I would recommend it!

Good Grief, Why Aren't More People Talking About the Risk of Catastrophe?

When Peter presented at the climate change conference this past week, he talked about how we have to do everything we can to eliminate all risk of climate catastrophe. (We've already got climate change impacts happening all over the world, killing or otherwise ruining the lives of millions of people we don't seem to care about as we sit in our comfortable EuroAmerican homes and communities.)

A well known Canadian IPCC climate scientist — an afternoon speaker — who had snuck quietly into the back of the audience was the first to pose a "question." He said (in front of a roomful of university-aged young people) that he doesn't think we should ever use the word "catastrophe" in front of young people. It's too overwhelming, he suggested. He also said that people who use the word "catastrophic" are being alarmist.

Peter (my first and best climate hero!) responded that it would be irresponsible not to articulate the risk of catastrophic climate change. Risk, he explained, is determined by the formula "Probability x Magnitude," and so even if there is low probability of reaching the upper end of projected increases in global temperature (according to scientists using computer models that don't include Arctic carbon feedbacks, and which have quite consistently been shown to be underestimating impacts and/or overestimating timelines), if this does occur, the magnitude of impacts could be off the scales. So, do we want to risk ANY possibility of catastrophic climate change occurring?

Peter also pointed out (as I have here in the past) that being alarmed about something alarming is not the same as being alarmist. I was so proud of his respect for the right of young people to know the state of their planet and their climate.

At lunchtime, we talked with this climate scientist. His students, he told us, are all depressed and throw up their hands. He spoke of our young friend who committed suicide (though she struggled with an anxiety disorder), and another young man who is fasting until our government passes a climate action bill it promised not to delay when it prorogued the parliament. In a sense, perhaps these young people are not unlike the martyrs of social movements in the past. But also, don't the reactions of these young adults make sense? Aren't they actually logical responses to the global situation?

But there's something else happening here. Many climate scientists who demand proof and evidence and replicability and peer review within their own disciplines have quite readily latched on to this notion that climate change "doom and gloom" cause depression, despair, hopelessness, giving up and a sense of being overwhelmed in all who hear it. But where is the proof? Where's the evidence?

First, I would question how many people are indeed actually depressed, despairing, feeling hopeless and overwhelmed, and have actually "given up." Most people in our society just don't give a flying leap about the fate of the planet and future generations. Those who work with data should demand some data, not a nebulous "sense" about what's happening from some environmental NGOs.

The point I'm trying to make is that any depression, despair, hopelessness, giving up and feeling overwhelmed could be due to several variables, such as:

• a generation that is malnourished (raised on junk food, eating foods with depleted levels of nutrients)
• hearing how bad the situation is and then not seeing an appropriate response from leaders
• getting confused by (or sick and tired of) the bogus claims of the denial machine
• feeling guilty about knowing the truth of the situation and not making any effort to change things
• hearing how bad the situation is and not seeing us older folks getting on with implementing solutions (or not believing that we even can)
• and psychological projection on the part of the scientists (who don't want to face their own fears about climate change)

Unless and until you have evidence, verification, corroboration, authentication, documentation, validation, substantiation and replication of this unproven hypothesis, Dr. Climate Scientist Dude, you might want to consider the possibility that you're wrong ... and start doing the right thing by telling young people the truth about the potential risk of catastrophic climate change we're all facing.

50 Days - A GUEST BLOG "Hope…or Action?"

A friend I've made online, Janet McNeill, recently posted something on hope in the face of the climate crisis that really resonated for me. She's given me permission to repost it here. Thanks, Janet. And have a great International Day of Climate Action on Saturday!

HOPE ... OR ACTION?

I’ve been doing environmental work for 20 years now. Hoping, always hoping, that if I just worked hard enough, informed enough people, wrote enough environment columns, carried out enough projects, I’d help “save” the human race.

I’ve been in awfully fine company, I must say! I’ve had more good times than a barrelful of monkeys (several barrels-full, actually) and have made a small (no, large!) army of awesome friends. And taken part in oodles of great projects and activities I’m pretty proud of. No regrets!

Gradually, over time, hope has been harder and harder to summon up. To be honest, it’s pretty much left the building.

It’s been hard to let go of. It’s felt almost … un-Canadian, or un-sportsmanlike?? Un-mother-like? — to abandon hope.

I am thinking today, though, that as it turns out, it really isn’t hope we need. It’s determination, energy, guts, courage, hard work, passion, inspiration — and love. For this beautiful, beautiful planet — and for all the creatures on it (ourselves included).

I’ve realized recently — mostly in reference to the personal side of my life — that it really is action that counts. Thoughts and beliefs and faith and what we (often sanctimoniously) profess to believe (or feel) — or claim we will do — are not what really counts. It’s action. It’s what we do that matters. Not what we say.

Alice Walker has said, “Activism is the rent I pay for living on this planet.”

I wonder: Are enough of us really paying our rent?

Janet

P.S. There is a very brilliant Derrick Jensen essay called “Beyond Hope” that can be found at http://www.orionmagazine.org/index.php/articles/article/170/ Take a few moments and read it! It’s pretty bloody eloquent…and very inspiring.

P.P.S. I don’t mean to discourage people who are still “hopeful.” More power to you! I’m not saying it’s an either/or proposition. I’m just saying that, for those of us who have lost hope, and/or who believe that “hope” is not really the point, we still have something left with which to occupy ourselves. Action. And that’s a good thing – in my little world, anyway….

By the way, Janet, I've decided that "stamina" needs to go on your list of the things we need in order to keep on keeping on in the fight to safeguard the planet and the future. I might have to take up a caffeine habit if we don't get a few more people helping out.

56 Days to Copenhagen - We've Got to Feel the Pain

We shared dinner the other night with favourite friends we hardly ever see and their beautiful, smiling baby boy. And the topic of conversation finally came round to climate change. (We talked about everything else first — the kids, my job, his job, her job, but when it came round to my husband's work, well, he spends 18 hours per day on climate change!)

We admire these people a lot. We think they're lovely. They are very "with it" intelligent people. We love their kids.

But (and "but" is a dangerous word, I know) they don't get that hope is not an action verb. They're still convinced that knowing the truth will shut people down. "Action is our only hope," I try to explain to people (meme alert!).

They think that people "with hope" are more likely to do something. But what's happening in the world is not bearing this out. Hope gives people a false sense of security. And then they change their lightbulbs and go back to watching TV!

Besides, there is no hope. The climate crisis is currently hopeless. For most life on Earth. And that includes us, though you wouldn't know it by our blasé reaction.

We MUST get our greenhouse gas emissions falling within a year if there is to be any hope of safeguarding the future for our friend's wonderful, smiling little son. And that is going to take a whole lot of people — voters, consumers, citizens, young people, parents! — thinking the painful thought that their children might not have a future worth living, and then demanding leadership from our leaders. This means allowing themselves to feel the pain, feel the fear, feel the despair and hopelessness and impotence, and THEN getting angry enough and agitated enough and empowered enough to do what needs to be done for the sake of their children.

At that point, it will be clear what they need to do.

62 Days - "Ramp Up the Fear Factor"

I've had a strong sense all along that toning down the global warming bad news was a bad idea. It started at the very first IPCC meeting, when scientists decided not to tell the whole truth, thinking it would give policymakers an excuse to give up without trying.

More recently, the environmental movement has got in on the act. The number of times we've been told, "Oh no, you can't tell people that. They'll lose hope." I would try to explain that NOT telling people the truth about the climate change emergency would ensure they'll lose hope (literally), but it was hopeless.

Now Clive Hamilton, a professor of public ethics at the Australian National University, has vindicated my intuition. He says the majority of people are still in denial about the risks of climate change, comparing the situation to the psychology of the British and German populations before World War II. The only way to make people change their behaviour, he says, is to "ramp up the fear factor."

People react in one of three different ways to a frightening situation, Hamilton says: denial, apathy or action.
"There is a view that we should not scare people because it makes them go down their burrows and close the door, but I think the situation is so serious that although people are afraid, they are not fearful enough given the science. Personally," he continues, "I cannot see any alternative to ramping up the fear factor."

This is reminding me of that line that some parents use with their crying kids: "Shut up or I'll really give you something to cry about." Hey, feeling afraid of losing your car and your comforts? Just wait till you and your family have lost easy access to food and drinking water — then you'll really have something to be afraid of.

77 Days - Where Has All the Courage Gone? (How I Have Wimped Out)

No sense harping on climate scientists (see yesterday's post) when I often find myself standing at a moment when some courage (or at least a little boldness) would see me do something for the Earth, the future and the children ... but I don't do it.

My most common example is not having the nerve to ask idling drivers to turn off their parked cars. I usually have to give myself a good talking to and remind myself that I'm breathing in those fumes before I'll get out of my car or venture over and use that little hand gesture (turning the key in the ignition to off). I've never had a problem (except for the one fellow who ignored me, despite the fact that he was idling right by a no-idling sign, underneath the windows at a school), so I don't know why it's still so hard for me to do it. Perhaps because I'm not a confrontational person in other areas of my life.

So, to vindicate the climate scientists somewhat (well, they're not vindicated, so to have some compassion for them), here's an email I wrote yesterday that I just can't bring myself to send. It's in response to the notice of an October 24th Climate Action Day event in a nearby community that read in part (all identifying hints removed):

"What can people here do to cope with climate change, peak oil and other challenges that threaten the resiliency of our rural communities?

"That's the question [our group] will ask a public gathering of community members on October 24 at the local secondary school.

"It's a serious question, but organizers promise that the 'gathering' won't be gloomy. The goal is simply to encourage and celebrate the people and programs that will keep our community a wonderful place to live and visit."

*******

Here's my response:
"Hi So-and-So,

"I am pretty saddened that your community has decided to turn October 24th into a day of celebration when hundreds of thousands of people are dying and millions more are losing their livelihoods, their food security, their water sources, their homes and their entire homelands due to global climate chaos. At least one of your speakers will be stating the truth.

"If you have some insight you could share on why people in North America (or at least on your organizing committee) are so deathly (and I mean that literally) afraid of doom and gloom when the situation, as your after-lunch speaker points out, "could mean the end of humanity," I would appreciate you taking the time to share it.

"We're going to do a gloomy event in our community that day. A day of lament. Of course, no one will come to ours. And the denial will continue. Alas.

"All the best with your event. The emcee and the keynote speaker you have chosen will keep it hopping.

"p.s. I am pressing the Send button with reticence and a heavy heart. I mean no ill will to anyone, but I keep seeing images in my mind's eye (perhaps my mind's eye is too close to my heart) of African children afflicted by climate-change-related drought and famine, and Inuit homes crumbling into the sea, and the president of the Maldives begging for action on the international stage. We are so blessed here in our beautiful little communities. We are experiencing no pain (yet); so why are we so unwilling to even feel some of the pain that others are going through? Think of the gloom of their lives."

*******

Is that a terrible email? Why am I afraid to send it? It has struck me that with allies like this, who needs enemies? So far, we live in the luckiest part of the world, but it's sheer luck! We celebrate this luck every day that we live here, free from climate tyranny and, for the most part, political tyranny. Are we flaunting our luck by celebrating it?

Why — and I ask this sincerely — must we spend this day, which is devoted to climate action, celebrating locally when there is so much to lament globally? Are we callous? Wimpy? Narcissistic? Blinded? Numbed? Or simply unwilling to feel the pain of others?

If you can figure this out, please let me know. This is really bothering me — and worse, it does nothing to forward the cause of getting radical emergency climate action happening. We've spent the last 40 years or more trying to cajole people to embrace a more "sustainable" way of being in the world. Cajoling has failed. It's time for painful truth-telling (and truth-hearing) and some heavy-duty, internationally defined but nationally implemented zero carbon legislation. Which we needed to have in place yesterday.

149 Days - The Power of Threatening Messages

In a sense, this carries on from yesterday's blog about the role that children can play in stimulating some climate change heart, soul and compassion from the adults in their lives.

So often, I hear environmentalists and environmental groups say that we have to be positive. This has translated, unfortunately, into two wasted decades of not telling the public the truth about global warming and the climate change emergency.

Turns out it was misguided, as well. I hope Doug McKenzie-Mohr, renowned ecopsychologist won't mind (please have a look around Fostering Sustainable Behavior - Community Based Social Marketing - it's fascinating), but I'd like to share some of his advice and insights here. (Verbatim, because I'm tired!)

Frame your Message

"Interestingly, how you present, or 'frame,' the activity [in this case, action on climate change] you are trying to promote is very important. Most sustainable activities can be presented positively (You should compost because you'll save in garbage collection user fees), or negatively (If you don't compost you'll lose money by having to pay more to have your garbage collected). Understandably, most organizations gravitate toward presenting positive rather than negative motivations to engage in a new activity. But should they? Apparently, no. Messages that emphasize losses which occur as a result of inaction are consistently more persuasive than messages that emphasize savings as a result of taking action."

That's why we need people to know the truth. We humans don't appreciate what we have until we lose it ... and we're losing it.

Carefully Consider the Use of Threatening Messages

"Is it wise to use threatening messages in communicating with the public? There is no simple answer to this question, but here are some of the issues you should consider. First, literature in the field of stress and coping suggests that we need to first appraise an issue as a threat before we are likely to take appropriate action. Rachel Carson's Silent Spring, for example, demonstrates the importance of communicating imminent threats to a wide audience. However, to be effective threatening messages need to communicate more than just the threat we face. In response to a threat, people have what Richard Lazarus refers to as two broad coping strategies [...] either problem-focused coping or emotion-focused coping. Problem-focused coping, as the name suggests, refers to taking direct action to alleviate the threat.... [E]motion-focused coping might involve ignoring the issue, changing the topic whenever it is raised in conversation, denying that there is anything that can or needs to be done, etc."

So let's tell people the truth about the climate change crisis, and then tell them it's good to feel the pain this knowledge brings, and then give them some ideas for what they can do — learn about it, talk about it, write about it. Let's all be part of communicating the not-so-imminent-anymore-because-it's-already-happening threat of climate change catastrophe.

157 Days - Random Thoughts on What Activists Should Be Doing

••• I watched (or rather, was subjected to) a series of short internet advertisements for an oil company last night. At the end of each ad, the screen showed a person saying, "I will do such and such an environmentally friendly thing more often. Will you?"

And I found myself thinking, hmmm, I sure would feel better if that person were saying "I already do such and such environmentally friendly thing. How about you?"

Perhaps we activists should bring back that old notion of bearing witness to one's convictions ... sharing with the world what we're already doing and why. The more we talk about our lower carbon compassionate ways of being in the world, the more we normalize these changes.

••• I received an email today (thirdhand, I think) from a neighbouring community, announcing an upcoming meeting "for people interested in making sure [their community] does its part to reduce the danger of runaway climate change and eco-disaster, and to prepare for a 'post carbon' world."

The message outlined suggestions for actions they could take. When I read this one, I didn't know whether to laugh or cry: "At the Apple Festival, make a giant '350' out of apples."

Have I turned into a cynical crank, or is that a crazy way to waste a lot of apples? The whole 350 campaign means well, but 350 parts per million of carbon dioxide in the air is not the right target. Our only viable (from the French and Latin for "life") target is zero: zero greenhouse gas emissions as quickly as possible. I worry that 350 is a boondoggle, keeping (as a dear friend would say) "the greenies busy in the bushes" - or in the orchards, in this case.

Eat your apples, folks. Bake pies with them. Don't waste them on trivial or misguided stunts.

••• I found a fascinating quote this morning from Karl-Henrik Robert, founder of The Natural Step.

"Every value, no matter what it is, will go down the gutter unless we can organize this system of ours to become sustainable. So this is about competence, not values."

Methinks the good doctor has a good handle on the situation! For more information on the competencies taught through The Natural Step, check out this website.

••• And finally ... that netherword "hope" came at me twice today, so I decided to look it up in my dictionary. As I had been thinking, there is no sense of action in the word at all: "to cherish a desire with expectation of fulfillment; to long for with expectation of obtainment." There is no hope that "hope" is going to save the day when it comes to climate change.