Fwd: Re: What happened next? 10:10

Thu Jan 6 23:56:57 GMT 2011

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1

Hmmn,

So, what's correct in the the debate over affluence versus reality?

P.

- ----------  Forwarded Message  ----------

Subject: Re: What happened next? 10:10
Date: Thursday, January 06, 2011, 11:49:34 pm
From: Paul Mobbs <mobbsey at gn.apc.org>
To: "10:10" <hello at 1010uk.org>

On Thursday, January 06, 2011 11:38:43 am 10:10 wrote:
> As you are well aware there exists an ongoing and detailed debate in the
> environmental movement about how far we should far we can or should push
> people to change and how we can square with what the science demands is
> necessary to save the planet's ecosystem and climate.

The difficulty is that the debate isn't based upon what constitutes the 
"reality" of our situation, but rather what is considered "acceptable" to say 
within the present political climate/media scenario. Yes, we're all heading to 
the same destination, but the issue is whether our chosen mode of transport is 
capable of getting us there. That's an issue of fact, not of relative debate, 
and my concern is that the whole 10:10 machine is distoring the facts to fit a 
restricted debate.

> 10:10's message is based around the idea that it's possible to engage
> people who either couldn't or wouldn't be interested in an environmental
> message otherwise. Generally, the sorts of people we're trying to reach
> are:
> -affluent, or want to be so
> -want to see themselves as part of a wide movement, and as a leader amongst
> their peers
> -want to see themselves as an early adopter of the latest fashion or trends
> -are generally averse to radical or grand visions, and are put off by
> excessively long term thinking about the world (which is why the 80% cut in
> co2 emissions by 2050 is so hard for most people to accept).

That's the problem. You're watering down reality in order to fit with a 
delusion view of our present situation. The facts say that continued growth, 
let alone the world's "poor" consuming as the "affluent" do today, is not 
possible. Given the clear distinctions between the reality of our situation, 
and the implications of the type of lifestyle that you are seeking to promote, 
is that honest?; and, as a result of that distinction, is that moral?

Is it better to "appeal" to the public by knowingly distorting the reality of 
our predictament, or to be one of those promoting present development patterns 
with (allegedly) a complete oblivion to these facts. As noted in the original 
posting, it's this ontological compromise that makes 10:10 an 'apologist' for 
the present consumption-based economic system; it's that position which makes 
you part of the problem, not part of the solution.

Irrespective of whether people agree or not, we have to represent what the 
available evidence indicates or we are no better than the political-corporate 
"axis of growth" who -- in the same manner -- filter reality in order to fit 
their desires rather than reconciling themselves to their objective situation. 
I meet these people a lot at conferences and seminars; I talk to these people 
at conferences and seminars; what I find interesting is that their flawed 
reality offers so many opportunities for campaigns, but so few 
"environmentalists" bother to try because, I perceive, that means accepting 
the reality themselves. And, by and large, as the present mainstream of 
environmentalism is largely constituted by and of the "affluent", this reality 
sets up contradictions that inevitably neuter the ability of the movement as a 
whole to succeed.

> By breaking up the target to 10% in a year, and dressing it up in fancy
> branding and packaging, appealing to as many celebrities as we can and so
> on we are trying to reach these people and make the carbon cutting message
> that much more palatable.
> 
> I hope this makes sense, and sheds some light on our thinking;

This is what I perceive to be the problem with 10:10. We could eliminate 
carbon emissions tomorrow but it would avoid an ecological collpase within the 
human system if present consumption trends continue. That's reality. The idea 
that we can use efficiency and technological measures to solve climate AND keep 
consuming is deeply flawed, both in terms of the theoretical thermodynamic 
principles and the physical availability of resources. If you are aware of 
this, but you choose to make the message "more palatable" by selectively 
editing what you represent, then you are committing as a grave a deception as 
the political/industrial lobby that prmotes the present growth paradigm 
irrespective of the impact this has on the environment.

If you'd like to know a little more I suggest that you read my latest 
presentation on resources and human ecology --
http://www.fraw.org.uk/redirect.html?vplimits

...and my presentation to Parliament from November 2009 --
http://www.fraw.org.uk/redirect.html?appgopo

...or if you want the potted/simplified version, read my Ecologist article from 
last year --
http://www.fraw.org.uk/redirect.html?ecologist

If you'd like me to come along and talk at one of your events I'd be happy to 
do so. Also, if you send me an address, I'll forward you a copy of my book.

I accept that, in the present political/media climate, this is a tough issue 
to deal with. However, in the words of that wry observation on reality; "the 
truth will set you free, but first it will piss you off".

P.

- -- 

.

"We are not for names, nor men, nor titles of Government,
nor are we for this party nor against the other but we are
for justice and mercy and truth and peace and true freedom,
that these may be exalted in our nation, and that goodness,
righteousness, meekness, temperance, peace and unity with
God, and with one another, that these things may abound."
(Edward Burrough, 1659 - from 'Quaker Faith and Practice')

Paul's book, "Energy Beyond Oil", is out now!
For details see http://www.fraw.org.uk/ebo/

Read my 'essay' weblog, "Ecolonomics", at:
http://www.fraw.org.uk/mei/ecolonomics/

Paul Mobbs, Mobbs' Environmental Investigations
3 Grosvenor Road, Banbury OX16 5HN, England
tel./fax (+44/0)1295 261864
email - mobbsey at gn.apc.org
website - http://www.fraw.org.uk/mei/index.shtml
public key - http://www.fraw.org.uk/mei/mobbsey-2011.asc

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v2.0.16 (GNU/Linux)

iQIcBAEBAgAGBQJNJlbKAAoJEDsmEcFctbqZJwwQAKzzj4H6SCllyf6Qxz8oXEah
cDYm3nvL/9zLj7zNGQOSp5ebF0LgqxWSZWsgCRO7b56K8tyFJhgR2wAK3iaUatsW
xS0t2AFumunqYbeK42p7AE4hRxC+Q7RSykcIes/AwoGpMG+APw5EeGmd+FOJeOcT
VbvQJCT2/QDRRi/Pkg2krNo//Rr8vT+M9C++wbGsGAr5tHT6bqYQVsZqu7KOrX69
VmonSrPY/8m71EXOq52J/KSfEvd2dLh/Y5Ym3vMq5uHDjPBYFdRMJK0TdVwqFB7Y
LL/KMO2LiTnVx8dVsv5pH6XP46vxuDKqUXeV3+2Wa4WMgxG+tBj+UDYak9eXW/rl
ja6VmECXpiBtIvtyz3bcX0QVf5m0wNVKo2YHhpD8/i/Rqf2NK4g5+x2U9HAkVfdU
w//p3WnFY4nDoBHxZvpTEMxdXaDMAxfOrDbXF9UpZHB4o5Swjer3C4lpZ+pj1wD0
tkr5yERw3b7v7cUcCEg9vKzNCSEMIz/8iGYwnrhSfsJ+/ow/dN2iEMomK3vYQTd6
bPnNZzmJiE4bqoQ/R+pwBJjHO/jgxUHD0yThpMJwQ5XPvsMGU2G8a9LvFnnAEbTM
k46iSY/pY77EnsaRaBAIKCZW/h6nwrlYOidFQFQDftFOeYn0/nE3HF5rp07dlCSq
MDEf8Qn8+4l3g6sCN1cY
=6wi/
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----