The National Climate Assessment and Development Advisory Committee has released a Draft Climate Assessment report. I've started but not finished it. It does, however, seem to have clearly moved on from the 'well, disclaim, scientist are uncertain, it's controversial blah blah' to a much more clear 'this is happening, what are the consequences and what should we do about it'.
Some conversations this week around relationships between sustainability and making money and who makes the decisions about, say, what kind of energy sources we use. Reiterating the idea that 'regular people' feel and/or are fundamentally powerless. Also bringing up the idea that 'regular people' won't get on board with something unless they see a concrete benefit to themselves. Both of these ideas are problematic but important - I don't believe that most individuals are ultimately powerless and also driven only by a limited short-term semi-rational self-interest - but we do need to feel that our actions have a meaningful impact, and that those actions are (in some way, tangible or emotional, short-term or long-term) beneficial. And it would help if those feelings are backed up by reality.
Also reading that book on sustainable design, and thinking about manufacturing processes and how invisible they can be. For example, if I have an unmarked wooden box sitting on my desk, I can't tell by looking at it how it got here. Where did the wood come from, and how was it logged? What processes were used in turning the wood into a box? Where did the waste from the manufacturing process go? How was it transported from its origin to my desk? In some cases, I could do a little research project and find that out, but fundamentally all of that background is invisible (and suffers from being boring, especially if you were to apply it to all the objects you come across), and in some cases what is visible may be misleading.
(A napkin sitting on my desk is printed with "recycle. 100% recycled." It's also brown with green ink.)
Sunday, 20 January 2013
Sunday, 13 January 2013
Reading things
Disentangling sources takes more than a week. No surprise. I've been looking at places to get news - http://www.sciencedaily.com/, the circa app as a sort of bullet-pointified google news, maybe http://bigthink.com/ - and to trace the news back to its source material. And I have hope for publications by http://www.ucsusa.org/. Aggregations and summaries.
A lot of talk about how bad things are getting, mixed messages about just how bad that is and how long we can afford to wait - is now too late? is now the last viable moment? will waiting 10 or 20 years be disastrous or just really really expensive? Very little talk about what doing something looks like, or could or should look like.
****
I also acquired a book called 'It's not easy being green' (http://www.itsnoteasybeinggreen.net/), which was put together by 2 designers who spent 6 months traveling to various countries to talk with designers working on sustainable design projects. It consists of statements by the designers themselves, translated into English.
In the introduction, the writer points out what he sees as the three key priorities for sustainability:
1. He calls it 'micro-living', but basically points out that we (in developed countries) need to use *way* fewer resources than we do. And - especially from a design perspective - we need to do it in a way that feels like a good life. Doing more with less, rather than doing less with less...
2. Topsoil erosion, and specifically looking at how we can use our waste (biological and by extension all the rest of it) to nourish our ecosystems, rather than, well, wasting it. He mentions that we have developed a 'flush and forget' culture.
3. We gotta keep the bees alive.
A lot of talk about how bad things are getting, mixed messages about just how bad that is and how long we can afford to wait - is now too late? is now the last viable moment? will waiting 10 or 20 years be disastrous or just really really expensive? Very little talk about what doing something looks like, or could or should look like.
****
I also acquired a book called 'It's not easy being green' (http://www.itsnoteasybeinggreen.net/), which was put together by 2 designers who spent 6 months traveling to various countries to talk with designers working on sustainable design projects. It consists of statements by the designers themselves, translated into English.
In the introduction, the writer points out what he sees as the three key priorities for sustainability:
1. He calls it 'micro-living', but basically points out that we (in developed countries) need to use *way* fewer resources than we do. And - especially from a design perspective - we need to do it in a way that feels like a good life. Doing more with less, rather than doing less with less...
2. Topsoil erosion, and specifically looking at how we can use our waste (biological and by extension all the rest of it) to nourish our ecosystems, rather than, well, wasting it. He mentions that we have developed a 'flush and forget' culture.
3. We gotta keep the bees alive.
Sunday, 6 January 2013
to start - it's boring
Coincidentally, a couple days after starting this blog - and trying to start to formulate what I think and what I want to figure out - I saw this article in The Guardian, about how climate change - like looming economic disaster - is important, but not interesting. Partly because it's about systems, which are difficult to hang narrative hooks on. We are better at connecting to a satisfying narrative.
It reminded me of learning about Rachel Carson's 'Silent Spring' and its impact on the beginning of the contemporary American environmental movement. I haven't read it (I should add it to my to-read list), but from what I hear it's pretty direct non-fiction. What made it compelling? How did it become a hook?
It also reminded me of a childhood reading sci-fi novels about nuclear apocalypse - imaginings of what it could mean to be a person in the midst of a large-scale, out-of-control, regular-people-can't-cause-or-prevent-it set of events.* Less because of any practical impact the books themselves had, but because it meant that it was part of a collective culture.** It was something I and my friends imagined. Do the nerdy kids these days imaging growing up into a world of changing and extreme weather and landscape, disrupted resources, uncertain future?
What are the environmental novels that give us that narrative hook to imagine how things might be, how we might respond, how things might be different? I have Kim Stanley Robinson's 'Forty Signs of Rain' sitting in my to-read pile, but can't think of any others off-hand. Another thing on the to-do/to-read list.
-------
I'm not just interested in motivations – I'd like to get a sense of what sorts of actions I believe would actually be effective (and ultimately connect up motivation and action). It's just that the motivations are easier for me to start thinking about. Closer to my areas of expertise, easier to dig into.
Frustratingly - and part of the whole problem, really - it's hard to get a reasonable start on the facts and the science. I'm still in the casting-about stage, but I haven't found a solid middle ground between full-on research papers and patronizing advice to use more efficient light bulbs and drive less often. The plan for this week, I think, is to make some headway in that area, find some sources that seem trustworthy and accessible to a scientifically literate lay person.
*And how does this connect to the zombie stories so popular these days? They capture the same sense of out-of-control, but in a clearly fantastic context. Actually, I get that completely - safe fear is a great thing to explore. So maybe the question is rather, when and why do we write fantastic imaginings about possible/plausible disasters, where the fictional fear overlaps with the real?
** America and England of the fifties through eighties, based on the books I read. When I got a bit older, I also encountered some Japanese fiction about Hiroshima and Nagasaki, offering some perspective outside of my limited one.
It reminded me of learning about Rachel Carson's 'Silent Spring' and its impact on the beginning of the contemporary American environmental movement. I haven't read it (I should add it to my to-read list), but from what I hear it's pretty direct non-fiction. What made it compelling? How did it become a hook?
It also reminded me of a childhood reading sci-fi novels about nuclear apocalypse - imaginings of what it could mean to be a person in the midst of a large-scale, out-of-control, regular-people-can't-cause-or-prevent-it set of events.* Less because of any practical impact the books themselves had, but because it meant that it was part of a collective culture.** It was something I and my friends imagined. Do the nerdy kids these days imaging growing up into a world of changing and extreme weather and landscape, disrupted resources, uncertain future?
What are the environmental novels that give us that narrative hook to imagine how things might be, how we might respond, how things might be different? I have Kim Stanley Robinson's 'Forty Signs of Rain' sitting in my to-read pile, but can't think of any others off-hand. Another thing on the to-do/to-read list.
-------
I'm not just interested in motivations – I'd like to get a sense of what sorts of actions I believe would actually be effective (and ultimately connect up motivation and action). It's just that the motivations are easier for me to start thinking about. Closer to my areas of expertise, easier to dig into.
Frustratingly - and part of the whole problem, really - it's hard to get a reasonable start on the facts and the science. I'm still in the casting-about stage, but I haven't found a solid middle ground between full-on research papers and patronizing advice to use more efficient light bulbs and drive less often. The plan for this week, I think, is to make some headway in that area, find some sources that seem trustworthy and accessible to a scientifically literate lay person.
*And how does this connect to the zombie stories so popular these days? They capture the same sense of out-of-control, but in a clearly fantastic context. Actually, I get that completely - safe fear is a great thing to explore. So maybe the question is rather, when and why do we write fantastic imaginings about possible/plausible disasters, where the fictional fear overlaps with the real?
** America and England of the fifties through eighties, based on the books I read. When I got a bit older, I also encountered some Japanese fiction about Hiroshima and Nagasaki, offering some perspective outside of my limited one.
Thursday, 3 January 2013
2013
I keep seeing people posting links on Twitter that say something like 'why is no one talking about climate change??' and then link to a vaguely or explicitly apocalyptic article about Just How Bad things are getting, and how they are going to get worse in the coming years. Then in the next tweet the poster moves on to a link about the next gadget or professional skill.
It's presumably meant as a rhetorical question. The first answer I think of is pretty straightforward – climate change is big, complex, impersonal, long-term, uncertain, and requires action without there being a straightforward set of actions to take, especially not for 'regular' individuals who are likely to just feel powerless about it all.
When I start thinking a bit more deeply, however, I realise that I don't know much at all. I have a bit of the zeitgeist; I've read a few articles and watched a few nature documentaries. I'm not up to date on the science, policy, or major people in the field. I don't really know what seems like a move forward versus what's a nicely worded bit of greenwashing.
I've been meaning to get back into blogging for a while, and since it's a new year, I decided to make a plan: spend a year systematically trying to understand what's going on - in science, politics, technology, sociology, and design. I guess what I'd like to start figuring out is what we need to really want to start talking, and what are the actions we can take - individually and collectively - that won't just be spitting into the wind.
We'll see how it goes.
It's presumably meant as a rhetorical question. The first answer I think of is pretty straightforward – climate change is big, complex, impersonal, long-term, uncertain, and requires action without there being a straightforward set of actions to take, especially not for 'regular' individuals who are likely to just feel powerless about it all.
When I start thinking a bit more deeply, however, I realise that I don't know much at all. I have a bit of the zeitgeist; I've read a few articles and watched a few nature documentaries. I'm not up to date on the science, policy, or major people in the field. I don't really know what seems like a move forward versus what's a nicely worded bit of greenwashing.
I've been meaning to get back into blogging for a while, and since it's a new year, I decided to make a plan: spend a year systematically trying to understand what's going on - in science, politics, technology, sociology, and design. I guess what I'd like to start figuring out is what we need to really want to start talking, and what are the actions we can take - individually and collectively - that won't just be spitting into the wind.
We'll see how it goes.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)