It's 9:07 and I am on the way to Sydney. Exactly 12 months has passed since my last post. This is evidence of how easily I'm distracted, NOT a lack of interesting events to write about. The coincidental date is mysterious, like waking up at 6 am even when the alarm doesn't ring.
Blogging on the train has a special romantic appeal. My only worry is that I'll get mugged for my Mac. Today, just to get back into the routine, I'm going to write whatever comes into my head. This could get ugly because the woman three seats back from me is screaming at an obnoxious child, and following up with a slap or two. Perhaps I could call a guard and have her arrested. That might work, in theory ...
Theories intrigue me, personal theories have a special appeal (e.g. Ann Ent). I have a theory about writers, journalist - to be more specific. This is my own theory, based on limited observation: Print journalists are terrible public speakers. They are always searching for a word, rephrasing, or repeating the same point in several ways. It is hard for me to listen because my mind has already moved expectantly onto the next point. It would strengthen my case of I named some names, but it is my nature not to be offensive (a rare attribute in the blogosphere). OK, Yes, I can be offensive in conversation.
I watched The Press Club this week, the guest was a science journalist whose professional interest is the environment - specifically, the global warming debate. One of the points he made was that scientists are not good debaters. They can't stand up against the radical right wing deniers. He was a case in point and could barely read his own speech. No wonder we're loosing the environmental message war. It's the word jockeys sitting behind a microphone spewing hate phrases all day who have enough practice to shout the rest of us down. Getting into a debate with those guys is suicide to both the message and to one's self-esteem. I'd rather chain myself to a bulldozer. Unfortunately, we don't do that anymore. When was the last time you saw someone up a tree or sitting in the bucket of a front end loader? Except to overthrow the ruling government, there aren't many demonstrations. Oh, yes, there is that woman on a hunger strike waiting for her ticket to the Academy Awards.
Q.: Why don't we demonstrate? A.: We have other tools. We tweet, we blog, we boycott. We send emails to congress. As a culture we have become habitual messengers. A side effect of our habitual messaging is that often the message is shallow and couched in cliche. Try commenting on social network sites like HuffPo. Comments are off the point and overloaded with bias. Replies are trivial, hateful and frequently indicate that the authors have not read the article they are responding to. Unfortunately, stupidity does not prevent a person from learning how to use the internet. Conclusion: The world is full of messages, some delivered by message bullies and some delivered by print journalists who desperately want facts to be known.
At the heart of it, people who are concerned about the environment want to be heard and to be understood. Many are scientists who given their lives to understanding the balance of nature. Others are people like me who read the science wonder what to do to make a difference. Looking out the window I can see the Pacific Ocean. The health of the planet is in the health of the ocean. But the vastness is deceptive. The size of the ocean has tricked us into believing that we could dump anything into it, and it would all just disappear into the depths. Well, most of it did disappear, and the damage was out of sight.
We are a clever species. But we are easily distracted and confused. The environmental message is clear, we need to do something about our consumer society. That does not mean to consume less, the more we consume, the better off we are. When we consume, we are supporting our fellow citizens. That is the great thing about our economic system. Making things makes jobs! Consumption builds the economy because more things have to be made. By now you know I m not an economist. Nevertheless, when jobs are shipped overseas for the sake of higher profits, we are getting into deep water. The wealth is shifting to those at the top of the corporation, jobs are lost. You don't have to be an economist to figure that out. When the wealth is unevenly distributed so that some groups hoard massive wealth and others have nothing, the economy struggles and then goes into free fall. Lowering taxes for the wealthy and cutting out support to the unemployed or disadvantaged is exactly the wrong way to deal with an economy in crisis. When a disability check goes out to a disabled person, it gets spent, the money goes directly into stabilising the economy. The same thing happens when money goes to the unemployed. But, that's another blog for another day.
Back to the environment and consumption: Production is key to solving the problem. Producing environmentally sound products through environmentally sound systems is fundamental to saving the economy and the planet. Blinded by high profits and glamorised business models, we repeat mistakes over and over. It is difficult to make purchases that are environmentally sound. There would be more product choices if legislators took responsible steps to make it less profitable to be a polluter and gave rewards for greening production. Then inertia of elected representatives (both in the US and Australia) isn't surprising. Politicians like to get re-elected. It isn't easy being green!
Do you understand 'The Precautionary Principle'?
The Precautionary Principle states that if an action or policy has a suspected risk of causing harm to the public or to the environment, in the absence of scientific consensus that the action or policy is harmful, the burden of proof that it is not harmful falls on those taking the action.
As logical as it sounds, this is not principle easily embraced. Our society is based on the opposite approach: Do it until somebody proves that it is harmful or dangerous. You aren't going to see politicians lining up to vote for the Precautionary Principle. It has to be put into practice by people who make an active decision to change the way they do things. The Australian Conservation Foundation has some suggestions for greening the home and greening the economy. (see links)
And here I am at my destination with the realisation that I need to be more actively involved with protecting the environment. What can I do? That could very likely be the next post.
