Human rights make whale meat hard to swallow
When two men go uninvited into a warehouse and remove a box of something that doesn't belong to them, what kind of offence has been committed, and by whom?
Do they stand accused of simple theft? Or does the judicial system that charges and tries them stand accused of breaching fundamental tenets of international human rights law?
This might seem like a rather abstruse topic for an environmental blog; but it's a question that is central to a case that's likely to play out for real in a Japanese courtroom soon, perhaps within the next six months.
Early last year, former crew members of the Japanese whaling fleet tipped off Greenpeace that meat from the annual hunt (conducted under scientific whaling regulations) was being embezzled from the company, Kyodo Senpaku, that operates the whaling ships under commission from the government's Institute for Cetacean Research.
In April, activists Junichi Sato and Toru Suzuki entered a warehouse in Aomori prefecture and removed a box of the meat. In May, they exhibited its contents to the media in Tokyo before taking it to the district prosecutor's office along with a file detailing the whalers' alleged wrongdoings.
Initially the prosecutor said he would investigate Kyodo Senpaku's workers. But later - shortly before the International Whaling Commission's meeting opened in Chile - the picture changed abruptly.
That prosecution was shelved; instead Mr Sato and Mr Suzuki found themselves under arrest, and, after 23 days in custody, charged with theft.
That is the basic case history; you can read Greenpeace's account in much more detail on their website.
This week I had a chance to meet lawyers working with Greenpeace on their defence, and it is clear they are leaving no international stone unturned in their search for arguments that could either win the case in court or so embarass the Japanese prosecutors' office that political considerations would be likely to force an outcome favourable to the two activists, who face a maximum 10 years in jail if convicted.
We met in the London chambers of human rights lawyer Richard Harvey, and prominent among the guests was Yuichi Kaido, the attorney who has represented what Greenpeace terms "the Tokyo Two" at pre-trial hearings.
The defence, in essence, is that the activists may have taken the meat, but it does not constitute theft because it wasn't taken for personal gain - indeed, they say, the only intent was to expose a practice that (in the organisation's view) is tantamount to theft from the Japanese public purse, and they surrendered the meat willingly.
One of the instruments the lawyers will be wielding is the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, a UN treaty that has been in force since 1976 and to which Japan is signed up.
Mr Kaido said that to prosecute the two men would contravene the acknowledged right to freedom of expression; the clause behind his argument says that "Everyone shall have the right to freedom of expression; this right shall include freedom to seek, receive and impart information and ideas of all kinds..."
The covenant recognises that governments can limit this right; but a common interpretation has been that journalists, for example, have the right to look for information in pretty liberal ways providing the end result is thought to justify the means.
Either before or during the trial, lawyers will also be raising the responses Greenpeace received from Japanese authorities to requests, under Freedom of Information legislation, for data on whale meat sales and production statistics.
The documents came back laden with black ink. Richard Harvey was particularly scathing on this issue; when government agencies react like this, he said, you could be fairly sure "they're involved in a serious cover-up".
Now, I am a very long way indeed from being a legal expert and it is not my role to pontificate on the rights and wrongs of the case.
But it does seem clear that when the saga reaches its climax, if the defence has its way, the actions of a lot more people than Junichi Sato and Toru Suzuki will be on trial, at least in the court of public opinion.
As Greenpeace's Sarah Holden put it: "We are determined that this case will not just be about two guys and a box".
I'm Richard Black, environment correspondent for the BBC News website. This is my take on what's happening to our shared environment as the human population grows and our use of nature's resources increases.
© 2012~RS~q~RS~~RS~z~RS~00~RS~)
Comments
Sign in or register to comment.
Greenpeace's lawyers needs a better excuse for those activists' actions. I know of no government or society on earth that would uphold the idea that "freedom of expression" allows you to commit theft or other crimes. Can you imagine the precedent it would set if such excuses were used to allow anyone to "express" his or herself in whatever way chosen? Even journalists are not above the law in such respects, because if they are caught or proven to have been committing a crime, they will be prosecuted just like anyone else. Perhaps Greenpeace should've obtained their "sample" with greater anonymity rather than expecting to cast this flimsy excuse into the courts and receive exoneration.
Complain about this comment
I watched this story unfold here in Japan. Your article is wrong,they were arrested just after the press conference. The charge was breaking and entering.
Complain about this comment
The issue is not as black and white as Bionic-Badger makes it.
If the court decides that 'stealing' evidence of wrong-doing is ok, only after reasonable attempts to legally obtain it, what would be the harm?
How else are we to prevent government fraud?
Complain about this comment
Tony, you're wrong I'm afraid. The activists were arrested on June 20, right before the first official day of the 2008 IWC meeting. It's all on the public record if you have a look: http://tinyurl.com/c7jp5l
Badger, many courts around the world have forgiven minor transgressions of the law by those seeking to expose greater crimes. This does not give everyone the right to break the law at will to "express" themselves as you suggest, and to say so is a ridiculous simplification. The alleged crime also came at the end of a long, thorough investigation.
The activists did not profit from the alleged theft (and in Japan, this is a required part of the legal definition of theft), there was no breaking and entering, and that charge was dropped in favour of tresspass anyway.
Freedom of expression is not a "flimsy excuse", it's a basic tenent of democracy. If we do not stand up for human rights and against government corruption then we are not doing our civic duty.
Complain about this comment
midnightgrimble,
(Before i start i just want to point out that i am actualy against the whaling industry. The following is merely a discussion of law and rights from a lay man who knows little)
The problem here being of definitions. for example, what constitutes a "minor transgressions" and whether or not the failure of a "thorough investigation" implies the right to enter into vigilante activities. (acting outside the law because of fustration with the law)
Also, another thing that will have to be determined is how should "profit" be defined. In some sense, if the 2 were able to use the meat to further their cause and use it as a display piece in presentation then there does seem to be some kind of "profit" in terms of receiving a bennifit.
Returning to definitions. I agree that Freedom of expression is not a "flimsy excuse"... in general. But in this specific case when put up against the freedom to own and protect property, freedom against infringement of property, and freedom to do business, as well as the rule of law... it does seem flimzy.
Especially because Freedom of expression is an expressionary act. (common sense right) meaning that I have the right to say or react in any way I like so long as it does not infringe on the rights of others. Taking something that does not belong to you which legally belongs to someone else regardless of your views would still fall outside of my Freedom of expression.
Complain about this comment
And speaking of precidents... If these two get off then it sets precident for some not cool things. Pick any other enviromental cause of which the government has legalized but of which we fight... under this precident I would be able to go into any business and any home in order to "retrieve" examples of what i am fighting against in order to use it for the cause I fight for...so long as i did it during the day time so as to not "break and enter" but mearly tresspass.
Remember kids... freedom of expression does not imply freedom to do what we want.
Complain about this comment
I learning that it's par fo the course, when commenting on these blogs, to add a disparging reference or two about the backers. So I'll lobe this one in for good measure:
Patrick Moore, founder of Greenpeace, broke with his comrades during this period, and has emerged as an articulate critic of his former brainchild. Referring to Greenpeace’s “eco-extremism” in March 2000, he described the group in Oregon Wheat magazine as “Anti-human”; “antitechnology and anti-science”; “Anti-organization” and “pro-anarchy”; “anti-trade”; “anti-free-enterprise”; “anti-democratic”; and “basically anti-civilization.”
Writing in Canada’s National Post in October 2001, Patrick Moore offered the following critique: “I had no idea that after I left in 1986 they would evolve into a band of scientific illiterates…. Clearly, my former Greenpeace colleagues are either not reading the morning paper or simply don't care about the truth.”
Complain about this comment
Isn't this about citizen's arrest (and the aquisition of evidence pertaining thereto). It's just what the police do all the time, but when the public try it they usually get into deep trouble. A freind of mine's son tackled a child molester and the guy tried to counter charge him with assault. I know each country has slightly different rules about citizn's arrest and I haven't found Japan's version. But generaly it's not a good thing to try unless you follow all the rules to the letter.
All the best; davblo2
Complain about this comment
Timjenvey @7
Something Patrick Moore is a bit more coy about mentioning, is why he is saying these things. If he has genuinely changed his mind about the issues, well fair enough. If he is saying that he likes nuclear power all of a sudden, perhaps he should mention the contract he has with the nuclear lobbying organisation funding this PR campaign?
Have a look at http://www.prwatch.org/node/8276 which puts Patrick Moore in a bit of a different perspective.
Complain about this comment
The two activists have committed at least two criminal acts, I understand their rationale for doing so, however, they broke the law, it is as simple as that.
Richard you mentioned that you spoke with Greenpeace and is lawyers, to ensure that your article is balanced when did you meet with the lawyers prosecuting the case?. I could not find any reference to said meeting on your blog?.
I personally find whale hunting abhorrent, however, that does not mean that I condone these publicity stunts by activists, and I am surprised to find that your article seems (IMHO) to be overtly sympathetic to their cause.
Complain about this comment
If any of you actually looked at the facts of the case - particularly the details of the arrest and the treatment of the two activists - then you wouldn't be so flippantly dismissing this as a PR stunt, or playing judge saying that they have committed "at least two criminal acts". A few facts for the armchair lawyers/judges:
* The news that the two would be arrested was broadcast on the news the night before their arrests, ensuring a media scrum during the arrests.
* They were arrested by 10 police, and their homes, the homes of GP staff and GP's office were raided by a further 75 police, confiscating documents, servers, phones etc. Media were again tipped off early so they could cover every detail.
* The two were then held for 26 days without charge, interrogated three times a day for a total of 200 hours and refused lawyers.
* When they were finally released on bail, it was set at 4 million yen.
All of this for the alleged theft of a box of whale meat worth 59,805 yen (US$600 app.) and a trespass charge. If this is not worth a rational debate on human rights and freedom of expression what is?
The whaling fleet is ridiculously unprofitable and unable to even give the meat away (tonnes of it sits mouldering in warehouses), yet it is subsidised by the government to the tune of 500 million yen per year (1.2 billion this year). This is a tragic waste in both the ecological and economic sense of the word, and everyone seems to ignore that the embezzlement of whale meat (paid for by Japanese taxpayers) is (potentially, if there was actually an investigation) a far bigger crime than two blokes intercepting a box and giving it to the authorities as evidence.
Complain about this comment
midnightgrimble,
You mention that the two would be arrested the night before they actually were, so?, these two activists did commit criminal acts, and these two activists were carrying out a publicity stunt. So what is your point?.
If I am to understand you correctly, it would not matter to you if someone came into house and stole 600 dollars of your personal belongings?, and again it was not two blokes intercepting a box, they BROKE in and stole the meat, which you seem unable to grasp.
As you say yourself if you bothered to look at the facts, it is clear midnightgrimble that you would retract most of your 'claims'. And as for accusing me of playing armchair detective I suggest that you take a long hard look at yourself, your own post is the height of hypocrisy.
As for the whaling fleet, I agree 100% with you, they should be scrapped, and no further whaling should take place.
Complain about this comment
This is an interesting case, highlighting the state of the planet.
First - I'm all for Greenpeace on this one - no contest.
Second, those guys are 'doing something', and their lives and families are the ones most affected, while 'we' discuss things.
Third, if 'we' were doing something, instead of just talking, Greenpeace wouldn't have to.
- Manysummits -
Complain about this comment
Rustigjongens:
"these two activists did commit criminal acts, and these two activists were carrying out a publicity stunt."
First, they haven't been convicted yet, and second, why would anyone risk at 10 year jail term in a country with a draconian (99.9% conviction rate) for a publicity stunt? To say so is ridiculous. The activists took a risk to expose criminal misuse of government funds. And gained nothing from it. Saying they "profited" because they gained some media coverage for their cause is also laughable.
"if someone came into house and stole 600 dollars of your personal belongings?, and again it was not two blokes intercepting a box, they BROKE in and stole the meat, which you seem unable to grasp."
Mate, go do some reading on the case. You obviously don't know anything about it. They didn't break and enter, they are charged with trespass, eg, walking into an open dock. What they did is most certainly uncomparable to burglary.
Complain about this comment
Thanks for the link at #9 Simon,
Just off out to work so will read later.
Had a thought about a scene from a few days ago in my back yard. A Turkey Vulture was feeding on some carrion. I imagined the carrion as the whale meat and the Vulture as Greenpeace feeding itself with no mind to the noble creature’s life that it's devouring.
This case is also feeding propaganda. Activist groups cause more harm to the public’s mind IMHO.
Got to go.......
Complain about this comment
\\\ Greenpeace - Japan - State of the Planet ///
The issue before the courts will work itself out under an international spotlight and world opinion, as is the intention of Greenpeace.
100% I say - leave them do their work.
Let me move on now to the larger issue, the current 'state of the planet', of which Japanese whaling, and climate change..., are all apart.
From the perspective of this former flyer, we are in a 'flat spin, engine out', and only the skill and courage of a very fine test pilot will see us land this ship in one piece. We are in real danger of 'augering in', and of almost literally, doing a 'crash and burn.'
1) On Japanese whaling, I take a stand - Stop it - Stop it now!
To the Japanese: There will be consequences, political, cultural, and economic. What does the 'Samurai' tradition stand for if not courage, compassion, and self-sacrifice for a higher cause?
2) The United Nations: Let us throw our support behind this best hope for a saner world - support both economic and ideological.
- I personally want a 'Declaration' by the UN, in five hundred words or less, of the 'State of the Planet,' to all the people of the world:
- It should include, as its first priority, a statement to the effect that there are too many of us for a sustainable and healthy future, and it should remind us that we are perfectly capable of self-limiting our numbers, that we have repeatedly done this in past tribal societies when circumstance required, and that we can do so again. The effects would be immediate, and do not require any lead time. This is a non-technical, "A" priority issue, without which all other strategies will prove 'pie in the sky.'
- It should also include the latest science on climate change, and not just from the IPCC, but also from individual scientists of international repute, and from the 'Scientific Academies' of the various nations on Earth.
- A Final Thought -
Crisis equals opportunity for the courageous. It's time to find our collective courage again, lost for awhile in this Industrial and Consumer-Mad Society.
- Manysummits, Taking a Stand -
Complain about this comment
To Simon-swede #9
Took a look at the link you gave. Whichever way one looks at Patrick Moore my conclusion is the same. In fact, if he was/is the type of fellow that is portrayed in your link it would mean that the foundations of Greenpeace were built on a scam (a leopard does not change it's spots). This just reinforces my view.
Hope this addresses what you were indicating.
Complain about this comment
#17 contd. Missed last bit:
If on the other hand he was thrown out and he was making an attack to cover his exit and Greenpeace changed after getting rid of him that would be a different matter. Not able to find anything on a quick search. Will look this evening. Have you got anything handy?
Thanks
Complain about this comment
manysummits #16.
"The United Nations: Let us throw our support behind this best hope for a saner world - support both economic and ideological. - I personally want a 'Declaration' by the UN, in five hundred words or less, of the 'State of the Planet,' to all the people of the world"
noble, real food for thought, I like this idea *very* much.
dreaming (again) how to get there, perhaps something like:
-- set up a website where draft declarations can be published, debated and voted on, and publicise its existence in different media/blogs/etc.
-- invite everybody who cares enough to write and submit a draft version of a declaration, or at least clauses deemed important, and to vote on the inclusion/exclusion of specific clauses.
-- drafts/clauses in any language as long as accompanied by an English ("lingua franca") translation.
-- once an agreed version emerges submit it as a petition to the UN on behalf of all who supported it through vote.
I cannot even begin to imagine all of the potential and practical shortcomings of this suggestion, such as: lack of interweb access, who will do the editing (Wiki style?), who will do the hosting (charitable organisation?), how to keep voting "honest", and a whole raft of others.
still, the idea of a declaration (mission statement?) is brilliant, it could provide people with a focal-point towards unity.
Complain about this comment
oops. correction #19.
": lack of interweb access" should read ": many people lack interweb access"
Complain about this comment
To jr4412 #'s 19 and 20:
Allright - your enthusiasm is contagious!
Perhaps Richard Black and the BBC would like to take this one step further?
Are there any others on side?
It seems to me the BBC has the 'swat' to make something of this, as you imply in your idea train 'jr'.
I have in my card files something from the World Health Organization, which I think bears directly on this question, and on the ideas we have both expressed. First, here is an introduction to the 'WHO':
"The World Health Organization (WHO) is a specialized agency of the United Nations (UN) that acts as a coordinating authority on international public health. Established on 7 April 1948, and headquartered in Geneva, Switzerland, the agency inherited the mandate and resources of its predecessor, the Health Organization, which had been an agency of the League of Nations."
- Wikipedia; http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/World_health_organization
And here is something I copied long ago:
"Health is a state of complete physical, mental and social well being and not merely the absence of disease or infirmity.
The enjoymant of the highest attainable standard of health is one of the fundamental rights of every human being without regard to race, religion, political belief and economical or social condition."
- World Health Organization
- Awaiting input - Manysummits (and jr4412?)
Complain about this comment
manysummits #21.
kind words, thank you, almost certainly undeserved though.
the whole chain of thought was sparked off while reading your defining the UN as the "best hope for a saner world"; I've always (as long as I can think back) seen a world where nation states, and all that goes with that, seem incomprehensibly backward, uncivilised. dreaming, too much SciFi, you know?
same happened re. glossary where your expressed concerns (listing of the alphabet-soup acronyms, etc) just triggered the thought.
sometimes concepts or phrases - usually supplied by people who actually do think - resonate, like the trailing WHO quote you "copied long ago".
my brain's no good for structured thinking, and I'm barely socially functional rather than the networking/communicating type (as you can probably tell from my posts here and there). still, I'll contribute.
as regards BBC - too established, old thinking - be nice to be proven wrong; I probably thought more along the lines of a Wiki-like, collaborative thing, with some ethical NGO/charity involved, it's all very hazy and shapeless really.
finally, proud to "take a stand" alongside yourself & likeminded.
Complain about this comment
timjenvey @ 17 and 18
It is difficult for me to answer briefly the questions you pose, as they imply bigger questions tat depend a lot from ones own assumptions.
On Patrick Moore, I have little respect for the views he is articulating now. They seem to be synthetic, developed from a PR brief, rather than drawn up from his own understanding and knowledge. It is notable that every single press release I've seen invariably mentions his historical link with Greenpeace, with whom he now disagrees; and it seems to be from this past association that his is claiming his credibility now. What I see of his work, as that like any PR representative should, he puts the interests of his clients first. Where he is talking about nuclear power now, he is not talking about the public interest, but those US corporate interests who are members of teh Nuclear Energy Institute and who stand to gain from a resurgence in the industry.
On Greenpeace, I know that his is an emotive topic that generates strong feelings across a range of issues at different levels. Through my own contacts with the organisation over the years, I know that there is a strong analytical base for their campaigns. There is also a lot of work that is done which never makes the pages of the newspapers or internet. But they are first and foremost a campaigning organisation, not a research institute, not a think-tank.
Much of the debate here has centres on science. If you want to see a little more about science in the work of Greenpeace, you may find a brief description at the link below. There is a further link on that page to the Greenpeace Science Unit, with details of its work and publications.
http://www.greenpeace.org/international/about/greenpeace-science-unit-2
Complain about this comment
An interesting (maybe) counterpoint to Richard's story.
The French state-owned nuclear energy giant, Electricite de France, or EDF, has suspended two senior nuclear security managers alleged to have hired outside consultants to spy on antinuclear activists using illegal means, including computer hacking, in violation of company rules.
Part of me laughs. Can you imagine the security briefing the "consultants" wrote. "After intensive investigations, we can reveal that Greenpeace is against nuclear power, even in France. We produce as evidence this picture of a banner hung outside a French nuclear power station and downloaded from a public Greenpeace internet site..."
For the more serious side, see
http://www.platts.com/Nuclear/News/6255765.xml?src=rssheadlines0
Complain about this comment
To jr4412:
Always a pleasure to hear from you!
Re: 'unstructured thinking' - from Alberta's great Metis architect, original designer for the United States' National Mall's last remaining space - for the Museum of the American Indian:
"Creativity has the appearance of chaos"
- Douglas Cardinal
Re: 'people who think':
"...all deep , earnest thinking is but the intrepid effort of the soul to keep the open independence of her sea; while the wildest winds of heaven and earth conspire to cast her on the treacherous, slavish shore..."
- Herman Melville, "Moby Dick", 'The Lee Shore'
On our topic - "First Draft" - just the beginning and the end - from this morning - more later, if the moderators will allow - if not - I have a couple of ideas, and I like yours - Wikipedia. It is the Easter long weekend, and I'd like to give the BBC first shot, since the idea originated here:
- First Draft of the Proposed Declaration of the United Nations -
- to the People of the World -
\\\ Population and Climate Change - Immediate Threats to Our Survival ///
1) Population ................
2) Climate Change ...........
Ending Statement:
Population Growth and Climate Change are intertwined, and are currently engaged in a deadly dance.
The United Nations calls on the people of the world to exercise their right to choose, and their responsibility to act, in the interests of all.
- Secretary General of the United Nations, .............
(preferably less than five hundred words - references at end)
- Manysummits - Easter Weekend -
Complain about this comment
Of course our population can not keep expanding without dire consequences. But putting population up as our number problem, ignores the fact that countries with the highest population growth rates, have the lowest per capita carbon emissions.
Humans do not cause global warming, coal burning power plants and private motor vehicles do.
Complain about this comment
Simon-swede #23:
I think you touch on the answer when you say:
"It is difficult for me to answer briefly the questions you pose, as they imply bigger questions that depend a lot from ones own assumptions".
I'm one of those 'once bitten twice shy' as they say. So I make assumptions based on my experience. I'll take a lot of convincing but thanks for the thoughtful response.
Cheers....
Complain about this comment
To Bicycle-Fan #26:
I think you are splitting hairs Bicycle-Fan. Humans do cause global warming, as surely as they do build both coal fired power plants and vehicles, and as surely as our current economic focus and reason for being is ever expanding growth, something which we might tolerate or even welcome, but which to the natural world is anathema.
As for "the fact that countries with the highest population growth rates, have the lowest per capita carbon emissions", this has not been ignored or neglected. As the Draft #1 is expanded and filled out, this specific issue will be borne in mind, and addressed. The 'first world' and the 'third world' will have different roles to play, undoubtedly.
I just ordered today a new book, and it is not on climate science. It is "The United Nations: A Very Brief Introduction", by Jussi M. Hanhimaki, 2008, Oxford University Press.
My researches on climate change will continue, but I have satisfied myself on the main points, and consider myself 'up to speed', at least enough to take this next step. I have a binder full of original research articles from the highest quality journals, which I refer to often. My last two articles are dated March 19, 2009, and are on the Antarctic.
In my opinion, the specialists are already here, and know quantums more than I ever will about climate science and climate change. What I needed was my own rock-solid base, from which to speak out as a concerned citizen of the world. I have this now, and I think we, as a world people, have the right to know the truth as it is perceived by our best specialists and scientific organizations.
I don't see the IPCC as particularly effective in this regard. Their work is valuable, perhaps even invaluable, but it is a concensus lowest common denominator, and does not accurately reflect the situation as I see it, or, as far as I can determine, as James Hansen sees it, or as Jacques Cousteau saw it, etc...
It also does not communicate this information effectively to the vast majority of the world's citizens. We need something short and simple, which gets to the heart of the matter, and can be understood by a significantly larger percentage of the world population than is now the case.
Are we afraid to tell the people, is that it? Afraid of the unknown response? Just plain afraid?
- Manysummits -
Complain about this comment
Manysummits suggested I throw my "5 cents worth" into this (as I believe that what I can give to this round of opinions is not worth more ...)
I'm not a lawyer, just a "common person" on questions like these. My opinion is, that the 2 have broken a law (even if they did so for the best of reasons) and that therefore "justice" had to prosecute them. They must have known they were breaking a law, and therefore accepted the risk of being prosecuted. Or as manysummits puts it "the 'Samurai'" tradition of " courage, compassion, and self-sacrifice for a higher cause". Or else, I would put it as an act of Civil disobedience, in the sense of "active refusal to obey certain laws, demands and commands of a government, [...], without resorting to physical violence" as I found in Wiki. I hope nevertheless that what they uncovered will start a great wave, as big as Hiroshige's, of inquieries about the comemrcialization of "research" whale meat. I still believe the best tactic of Grennpeace in Japan is the sensibilisation of the general public ... The fact that Japanese people are involved is the best sign of all this.
Complain about this comment
Manysummits @28 and 25
I wish you luck with "A very brief introduction to the United Nations". The UN is a complex beast, and I wonder how much a very brief introduction will reveal.
There are a host of UN resolutions addressing climate change. Some are somewhat along the lines you describe, others focus on particular elements of the problem, depending on the mandate of the UN organ which adopted them.
One of the more over-arching ones comes from December 2008, when the United Nations General Assembly adopted Resolution on the Protection of global climate for present and future generations (A/63/414/Add.4)
It is not within your 500 words limit, but it does address some of the issues you identify.
Some excerpts:
The General Assembly,
…
Remaining deeply concerned that all countries, in particular developing countries, including the least developed countries and small island developing States, face increased risks from the negative effects of climate change, and stressing the need to address adaptation needs relating to such effects,
…
Noting the work of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change and the need to build and enhance scientific and technological capabilities, inter alia, through continuing support to the Panel for the exchange of scientific data and information, especially in developing countries,
Noting also the significance of the scientific findings of the Fourth Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, providing an integrated scientific, technical and socio-economic perspective on relevant issues and contributing positively to the discussions under the Convention and the understanding of the phenomenon of climate change, including its impacts and risks,
Reaffirming that economic and social development and poverty eradication are global priorities,
Recognizing that deep cuts in global emissions will be required to achieve the ultimate objective of the Convention,
Reaffirming its commitment to the ultimate objective of the Convention, namely, to stabilize greenhouse gas concentrations in the atmosphere at a level that prevents dangerous anthropogenic interference with the climate system,
…
1. Stresses the seriousness of climate change, and calls upon States to work cooperatively towards achieving the ultimate objective of the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change1 through the urgent implementation of its provisions;
2. Urges parties to the Convention, and invites parties to the Kyoto Protocol to the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change,11 to continue to make use of the information contained in the Fourth Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change in their work;
….
5. Welcomes the decisions adopted during the thirteenth session of the Conference of the Parties to the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change, held in Bali, Indonesia, from 3 to 15 December 2007, including the Bali Action Plan, by which the Conference of the Parties decided to launch a comprehensive process aimed at enabling the full, effective and sustained implementation of the Convention through long-term cooperative action, now, up to and beyond 2012, in order to reach an agreed outcome and adopt a decision at the fifteenth session of the Conference of the Parties, and takes note of the work under
way in the open-ended ad hoc working group of parties to the Kyoto Protocol to the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change established under decision 1/CMP.1;
6. Notes that States that have ratified the Kyoto Protocol welcome the launch of the Adaptation Fund during the third session of the Conference of the Parties serving as the Meeting of the Parties to the Kyoto Protocol,17 and notes that developing-country parties to the Kyoto Protocol that are particularly vulnerable to the adverse effects of climate change are eligible for funding from the Adaptation Fund to assist them in meeting the costs of adaptation and look forward to its early operationalization;
…
9. Recognizes that climate change poses serious risks and challenges to all countries, particularly to developing countries, especially the least developed countries, landlocked developing countries, small island developing States and countries in Africa, including those that are particularly vulnerable to the adverse effects of climate change, and calls upon States to take urgent global action to address climate change in accordance with the principles identified in the Framework Convention, including the principle of common but differentiated
responsibilities and respective capabilities, and, in this regard, urges all countries to fully implement their commitments under the Convention, to take effective and concrete actions and measures at all levels, and to enhance international cooperation in the framework of the Convention;
10. Reaffirms that efforts to address climate change in a manner that enhances the sustainable development and sustained economic growth of the developing countries and the eradication of poverty should be carried out through promoting the integration of the three components of sustainable development, namely, economic development, social development and environmental protection, as interdependent and mutually reinforcing pillars, in an integrated, coordinated and balanced manner;
11. Recognizes the need to provide financial and technical resources, as well as capacity-building and access to and transfer of technology, to assist those developing countries adversely affected by climate change;
Complain about this comment
Asterionella @29
Very interesting comments. One of the underpinning concepts that Greenpeace refers to often is that of non-violent "bearing witness". It is drawn from a pacifist Quaker tradition, and it stresses that one should not merely witness injustice but should speak out about it, in order to become an agent for change.
Complain about this comment
First, I would like to wish a Happy Easter to all. Perhaps this ancient syncretic time of renewal will provide a jumping off point for people no matter their religious persuasion. (first Sunday following the first full moon following the vernal equinox - if memory serves).
To Asterionella and simon-swede #'s 29 and 30:
Thank you very much for your input on both Greenpeace and the United Nations. For the human being, genetically designed (to some biologist's way of thinking) to operate in groups of a hundred or so, the modern world is truly an alien land, and I will have to deal with the United Nations in the 'best way I can'. I think Greenpeace is doing exactly this. Their methods are open to debate, but like "Geronimo" of Apache fame, they stand for something which whatevcer the world judgement as to the lawfullness of their actions, the world REMEMBERS, and not with disdain - not really.
There is legal justice, our institutional attempt to order an institutional world, and there is natural justice, upon which all good laws are ultimately based.
In the best of worlds, the two coincide, but we most certainly do not live in that world.
My family is calling, and so I will defer the posting of jr4412's and my 'work in progress' for another day.
In the meantime, I wish all of us well,
- Manysummits, Calgary -
Complain about this comment
manysummits #25, #28.
re. the draft declaration
I'm certain you appreciate the 'language shapes thinking' line of argument, with this in mind:
the highest priority should IMO be given by the UN to establish an "United Planet" organisation under which its various agencies (WHO, UNESCO, etc) must re-organise and re-state their aims and objectives.
as simon-swede #30 quote (para following "The General Assembly") demonstrates, the UN document language is all about (small) nations, developing and developed countries, etc.
the perception of "nations" around the world having different interests is a significant stumbling block when trying to address species survival issues.
all UN member states will have to (re-)engage constructively.
also, I think the quote you provided in #21 is a pretty good candidate for inclusion.
as for concrete steps meanwhile, I think that first we must first address how to reduce all pollution (land, sea, air (and near-space)) since on a poisoned planet there can be no survival.
while individual households replacing their lightbulbs (as the UK government "incentivises" us to do) is commendable, it's simply "sand in the eyes".
for instance, if all wars were stopped overnight how much reduction in "carbon-footprint" would that amount to? I suggest a lot more than changing all the lightbulbs in Europe and USA combined! (note, cannot find *any* hard data on CO2 output by military activities, but I'm sure we all remember the pictures of burning oil-wells in Kuwait in Gulf War I)
given that already we have near-instantaneous global communication, we could do much to reduce travel related CO2 output now; "world leaders" do not need to travel the globe with their entourages (though I'm sure they enjoy it), we have video conferencing, no?
also, use airships rather than winged craft, they're slower ok, but they only require fuel to propel themselves, not to lift; and perhaps they could have solar panels integrated into their envelopes, then they would not even need the fuel.
or haulage: rail to get (most) (heavy) goods transported. bicycle-fan has shown the (economical and other) benefits of rail over road in previous posts.
in fact, many pollution problems arise simply from the misuse of existing technologies (ie. individual profit before community).
as with so many issues, it is mostly about lacking the will to act different; perhaps that is because some many people have "faith" - after all if you "know" you go to "heaven" because your invisible friend told you so, you have little incentive to think about tomorrow.
bicycle-fan.
I agree with much of your take on urban transports issues; re carrying cargo: are you aware of this (cool, I think) development?
http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=2228669770213573581
Complain about this comment
To jr4412 #33:
Agreed! All points!!
I like very much your idea:
"the highest priority should IMO be given by the UN to establish an "United Planet" organisation under which its various agencies (WHO, UNESCO, etc) must re-organise and re-state their aims and objectives"
And the WHO quote - yes indeed, that must be why I copied it down so long ago:
"Health is a state of complete physical, mental and social well being and not merely the absence of disease or infirmity.
The enjoymant of the highest attainable standard of health is one of the fundamental rights of every human being without regard to race, religion, political belief and economical or social condition."
- World Health Organization
Here is your "United Planet", with focus on the individual, rather than the nation state, if I read you aright?
(Note - pretty good for an unstructured thinker??!!)
As for pollution etc., one of Alberta's limnologists/ecologists, David Schindler, from the University of Alberta, has a recent book out, a rewrite of an older book, "The Algal Bowl", which sounds like something of particular interest to yourself, and of course, to all of us.
Perhaps a third section, following the two original "Imminent Threats to Our Long Term Survival", i.e., Population Growth and Climate Change, could include these ideas - perhaps titled "High Road to the Future"
I will post what I have so far for your perusal, but just after we are off to the Glenmore Reservoir to see the recent arrivals from the south. It is another gorgeous day here in Calgary, and my young son is ready for an outing, having tired of break-dancing to Alvin and the Chipmunks and their "Pied Purple People Eater".
Here it is:
Declaration of the United Nations to the People of the World – Year 2009 CE
\\\ Population Growth and Climate Change - Imminent Threats to Our Survival - and a Possible 'High Road to the Future' ///
The United Nations urges the people of the world to consider the following two recommendations, both thought necessary at this time to our long term survival.
1) Population Growth
Halt, and then reverse, the growth of the world’s population, by self-limiting our numbers, and having, on average, one or two children per family, until world population is at a level considered sustainable.
As of 2008 CE, world population was estimated at 6.7 billion, increasing at 130 million per year(need to check numbers - just from memory). It is thought that the sustainable population of the world, at a level consistent with the World Health Organization’s definition of ‘complete health’, is perhaps one to two billion, given the depletion of the world’s conventional oil reserves, industrial agriculture’s dependence on fertilizers derived in large measure from fossil fuels, and the unsustainable ‘mining’ of underground water aquifers for irrigation.
2) Climate Change
Halt, and then reverse, as soon as possible, the buildup of greenhouse gases in our atmosphere and oceans, until the atmospheric concentration of carbon dioxide (CO2) in our atmosphere is at, or less than 350 parts per million by volume.
As of 2009 CE, the CO2 level stands at 387 ppmv, increasing at 1.9 ppmv, and expected to increase at a greater rate in the near future. The principal driver of global climate change is the emission of carbon dioxide into our atmosphere from the burning of fossil fuels.
3) "High Road to the Future"
- Statement on "United Planet", reorganization of the UN, pollution etc...
"Health is a state of complete physical, mental and social well being and not merely the absence of disease or infirmity.
The enjoymant of the highest attainable standard of health is one of the fundamental rights of every human being without regard to race, religion, political belief and economical or social condition."
- World Health Organization
Ending Statement:
Population Growth and Climate Change are intertwined, and are currently engaged in a deadly dance. This Dance of Death must end, and be replaced by a Dance of Life.
The United Nations calls on the people of the world to exercise their right to choose our collective path to the future, and our responsibility to act, in the interests of all.
- Secretary General of the United Nations, .............
(preferably less than five hundred words - references at end)
(perhaps an overleaf landscape format table of relevant population and CO2 data from 1750, in hundred year increments, and projections to 2150?)
That's close to 500 words so far - will need to elaborate first, condense later -
- Manysummits - Easter Weekend -
Complain about this comment
To jr4412:
I was wondering if you would like to write the part "United Planet" etc..?
I'll post my latest draft - in the first two sections, Population Growth and Climate Change, I've stated my principal concerns. I love your ideas, and I was writing them up, when I said - since these are jr's ideas, perhaps you should be the person to write this section?
Also, Please feel free to rewrite my sections if you wish. This is an exercise, after all, with focused conclusions the intent. After all the talk, what should we do?
State of the Planet – Year 2009 CE
(Declaration of the United Nations to the People of the World)
\\\ Population Growth and Climate Change ///
(Imminent Threats to Our Survival )
The United Nations urges the people of the world to consider the following two recommendations, both thought necessary at this time to our long term survival, and to a brighter future for our children:
1) Population Growth
Halt, and then reverse, the growth of the world’s population, by self-limiting our numbers, and having, on average, one or two children per family, until world population is at a level considered sustainable.
As of 2008 CE, world population was estimated at 6.7 billion, increasing at 130 million per year (need to check numbers - just from memory). It is thought that the sustainable population of the world, at a level consistent with the World Health Organization’s definition of ‘complete health’, is perhaps one to two billion, given the depletion of the world’s conventional oil reserves, industrial agriculture’s dependence on fertilizers derived in large measure from fossil fuels, and the unsustainable ‘mining’ of underground water aquifers for irrigation.
2) Climate Change
Halt, and then reverse, as soon as possible, the buildup of greenhouse gases in our atmosphere and oceans, until the atmospheric concentration of carbon dioxide (CO2) in our atmosphere is at, or less than 350 parts per million by volume.
As of 2009 CE, the CO2 level stands at 387 ppmv, increasing at 1.9 ppmv, and this is expected to increase at a greater rate in the near future. The principal driver of global climate change is the emission of carbon dioxide into our atmosphere from the burning of fossil fuels – coal, oil and natural gas.
--------------------------
Population Growth and Climate Change are intertwined, and are currently engaged in a deadly dance. This Dance of Death must end, and be replaced by a Dance of Life.
The United Nations calls on the people of the world to exercise their right to choose our path to the future, and our responsibility to act in our own common interest.
-----------------------
A Planet United – Our High Road to the Future
(jr4412 section)
The World Health Organization, a branch of the United Nations, states:
"Health is a state of complete physical, mental and social well being and not merely the absence of disease or infirmity.
The enjoyment of the highest attainable standard of health is one of the fundamental rights of every human being without regard to race, religion, political belief and economical or social condition."
Statement on "United Planet", reorganization of the UN, pollution etc...
- Secretary General of the United Nations, .............
(preferably less than five hundred words - references at end)
(perhaps an overleaf landscape format table of relevant population and CO2 data from 1750, in hundred year increments, and projections to 2150?)
That's close to 500 words so far - will need to elaborate first, condense later -
- Manysummits - Easter Weekend -
Complain about this comment
IMHO and from some professional experience:
This is the continuing and ongoing strategy of pushing legal precedents on activist limits.
The folks at the center are fodder and dispensable and know what they are doing so no need to feel for them. Bit like suicide bombers.
The whale is carrion as I sited in a previous post. There is no concerning to these noble creatures.
Blunt words but I hope you get my drift that I'm not happy!!.
On the UN I have equally blunt words. It is 180degrees wrong. Its basis is on top down and control it going forward in the same way. My experience tells me that what works is a top end decision that is the will of the whole and a bottom up process to make happen.
I came to the USA 12 years ago and became a citizen because I agreed with “we the people” and saw the power this had. We have been let down by our leaders and I do not have any confidence that UN leaders will be any different. This is the area where we will make a difference but "we the people" must rule for succeess.
It’s Easter break and it’s late. I hope we get to discuss this more.
My blunt perspective for now……..
Complain about this comment
manysummits #34, #35.
in #21 you wrote that my "enthusiasm is contagious", you appear "infected" and I am flattered, and pleased, by this.
your draft already is "close to 500 words so far" and quite specific but, as I said in #19, I think it important to "invite everybody who cares enough" to contribute, there is no point in (the two of us) developing it "single-handedly", as it were; I genuinely believe that your stated aim to "want a 'Declaration' by the UN ... of the 'State of the Planet,' to all the people of the world" has merit and is the way to go, hence (#19) publicising, voting, etc.
also, v important and as you pointed out in #21, it is necessary to find out where Richard Black (and his employer) stand on this issue since, at present, we're "hijacking" his blog.
with regard to the outline so far:
both sections include "hard data". I'd be inclined to structure the declaration such that the main body contains the principal statements – brief and without ambiguity, and all explanatory/corroborating data is supplied in appendices. then again, I'm no (technical) writer.
2) Climate Change – personally, I'd prefer to see pollution in all its guises addressed; your current draft section is very specific in that it only concerns itself with "..greenhouse gases in our atmosphere and oceans..atmospheric concentration of carbon dioxide".
for instance, the use of depleted uranium munitions in war zones, the heavy metal effluents output by mining and other industries, etc, are cause for concern too, and the declaration ought to be worded in an inclusive way.
1) Population Growth – I realise that this issue is most important to you, again, your current draft is quite specific; since unchecked pollution may well limit the population to zero (!) I'd give the population growth issue a lower priority.
personally, I think that the planet could accommodate and sustain much larger numbers than today's 6.5bn approx., but I've no real knowledge on this subject.
re. section 3: why "High Road"? quoting #33 " I'm certain you appreciate the 'language shapes thinking' line of argument", so:
in order for a declaration to be useful the UN's terms of reference have to express the global aspect of the endeavour; the current terminology is decidedly "old thinking".
(I did not thank simon-swede for supplying the text in #30, apologies, I do so now)
I'll have a "crack at it", expect something akin to the first few sentences in #34 (including the WHO quote) within the next few days.
timjenvey #36.
"On the UN I have equally blunt words...We have been let down by our leaders and I do not have any confidence that UN leaders will be any different.".
on the whole I share your pessimism, and it is likely that nothing will come of it; however, I do think that the idea of submitting a declaration amounts to such "..a bottom up process.." you describe, and the idea of trying it "feels" right.
Complain about this comment
To jr4412 #37:
100% - I agree we're going to need Richard Black's consent to continue as we're taking up a lot of space.
On a personal note - I'm feeling a little sheepish attempting this - restructuring a planet. And so I was relieved to say the least when I saw the article on David Attenborough and 'Population Growth' this morning on the BBC which I now post a link to:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/7996230.stm
James Hansen will be my 'backup' for "Climate Change", so I don't feel so completely alone there.
To timjenvey #36:
Thanks for your thoughts, blunt or not! We may be on the same page here 'Timjenvey', as 'Jr4412' has just pointed out.
All three of us, if I read the situation correctly, are one hundred and ten percent behind the 'bottom up' approach - "We the People".
The difference now is that this refers to all the world population.
I have focused on the United Nations, perhaps erroneously, because in my mind they represent the world, but if I read you right, your concern is that they represent the 'nations' of the world - i.e., BIG EVERYTHING!
Would that be correct?
It doesn't have to be a United Nations Declatation, it could be:
"A Planet United" Declaration. Anyone good with acronyms??
To jr4412:
I thought to include a few hard facts in the declaration itself because I imagine this one page document being circulated amongst a village in Africa, say, or India, or China, or...., and this one page is all they have. Perhaps a two sided one page document, with more hard backup on the back in the form of a Table, or a graph? How is the third world with graphs? A stupid and condescending question? Not at all! We need results - who knows about the transfer of information from one world to another - step up now please.
Mostly, it has to be dead simple, an all in one approach - direct and to the point - discussion in depth will come later, with more hard data etc. What is, in my opinion definitely missing, is the approach we are attempting here, which in essence is:
"Tell it like it is - you tell a pilot the condition of his craft!"
I have also added two lines to my section, which I reproduce below. One is at the base of Population Growth, the other at the base of Climate Change:
1) "It is recognized that primary responsibility for the reduction of the world population will fall to the ‘developing world’."
2) It is recognized that primary responsibility for the reduction of Carbon Dioxide in our atmosphere will fall to the ‘developed world’.
Good Luck and Courage to All of Us,
- Manysummits -
Complain about this comment
Re: The David Attenborough article:
"Attenborough warns on population"
- http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/7996230.stm
A thought? Is this just coincidence, or is someone at the BBC trying to help us???
- Manysummits, Calgary -
Complain about this comment
to all interested in the European Union and how people are represented.
http://www.tellbarroso.eu/
Complain about this comment
Is this just coincidence, or is someone at the BBC trying to help us?
They are trying to help, why else would they do it? But their success will depend on their methods.
The statement; I've never seen a problem that wouldn't be easier to solve with fewer people, or harder, and ultimately impossible, with more.
Seems odd, compared to; Two minds are better than one, and Many hands make light work.
Dire warnings about population problems only come across as being anti people. Go ahead and promote family planning, and improve quality of life to lower fertility rates. Just do not pretend that people are the problem.
Coal, gasoline, toxic chemicals ect. are the problems. There are already more than 6 billion of us. To reduce our collective impact on planet earth, and improve all our lives, we need to learn to live without coal, gasoline, and habits that destroy habitat.
Divisions such as developed and developing, may make an argument easier, but they do nothing to actually solve any problems. We have not settled any new worlds, we only have this one.
Complain about this comment
Contd. From my comments #36
I picked up on this article from the Telegraph which gives an example of how legal precedents are being sort for pushing the limits to when activist’s protests come under prosecution by the law. Seems a relevant piece to add in for comment:
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/earth/environment/5148660/More-than-100-campaigners-arrested-over-power-station-plot.html
The section that prompted my attention as follows:
“Ratcliffe-on-Soar has been the target of a number of protests in the past, including one two years ago in which protesters tried to shut down the plant.
Environmentalists who stormed the site on that occasion later failed in a landmark legal bid to prove they were acting in the interests of humanity.
Climate-change campaigners admitted they attempted to force the site's closure by chaining themselves to conveyor belts and filtration systems.
But they argued that, because they were saving the planet from global warming, their actions were legal under the so-called "DEFENCE OF NECESSITY".
Had they won their case they would have paved the way for campaigners around the country to stage similar protests without fear of prosecution”
Another aspect of all this is that government employees are inciting and supporting such efforts. Recently, James Hanson of NASA has been directly involved with Kingsnorth UK and Washington DC power station incidents and using emotive language like ‘death trains’ to raise the tone.
All very worrying to me looking in from the outside.
Got some thoughts on population I'd like to share later. No time now.
Complain about this comment
"Greenpeace's lawyers needs a better excuse for those activists' actions. I know of no government or society on earth that would uphold the idea that "freedom of expression" allows you to commit theft or other crimes."
They do allow confiscation of private property in the public interest, though.
All those kids catapults stolen by teacher.
Contraband held up for checking by customs (theft!).
Taking PCs not involved in a crime because it's easier than taking a copy of the evidence.
etc
Since the meat should not have been there in the first place, it cannot be said to be theft.
Complain about this comment
"I understand their rationale for doing so, however, they broke the law, it is as simple as that."
And Rosa Parks should have just got off her seat.
The US should have paid the tax on tea.
Cromwell should have allowed the king to do as he wished.
And Deep Throat should have never told anyone what he'd heard at Watergate.
Yeah.
Complain about this comment
And a query to those who say "they broke the law. End of story".
Why do you think we are judge by a jury of our peers? Because the law can only say what was intended at the time. But if the people do not wan the law applied there, they can make it not apply there.
Please read up on "jury nullification".
It would be like if someone was caught beating up a paedophile when they were caught with a 6 yo kid.
Against the law?
Yes.
Against what society wants?
No, not unless there's a lot more to the situation.
Complain about this comment
To Bicycle-Fan #41:
First, I am certainly not anti-people, nor do I consider people a plague, or a cancer etc... Just the opposite in fact. But I take your point, and I hadn't thought that this might be seen in this light. We should be able to address this in our "United Planet Declaration", with a few well chosen words.
Also, even if we were, the people of planet Earth, to go negative on the population curve - there would still be six or seven billion of us for a long time to come, but it would be a newly aware six or seven billion.
- Manysummits - Easter Monday in Calgary -
Complain about this comment
manysummits.
I confess to being a bit confused right now, in #38 you say that you envisage a one-sheet flyer which could be distributed to the people in various regions while previously (#16) you spoke of wanting a "'Declaration' by the UN"; you changed your mind?
did a little interweb research re. united planetary society/likeminded people and found (so far) very little I liked. exception being some grass-roots/rainbow type organisations (?) which tend to be centered on their own communities.
re. acronyms: all the obvious ones appear to have gone to organisations with entirely different aims, eg. 'Planetary Society' is concerned with solar system exploration, etc.
the link I posted in #40 may be of interest to you because the structure of the site and the format of the questionnaire would be very suitable IMO, especially the "bulls-eye".
I did have a look at the Attenborough link and the OPT site, their 'About Us' page shows that the organisation is stuffed with "safe hands"-type people whom I would find difficult to trust since a fair few have accepted the British Empire "honours".
and as to "..feeling a little sheepish attempting this..", well, you're not alone in that !!
bicycle-fan #41.
when you write "Divisions such as developed and developing, may make an argument easier, but they do nothing to actually solve any problems." I read that you agree - in principle - that a single, global society is the way to go?
BTW your writing "The statement; I've never seen a problem...Seems odd.." confirmed my suspicions re. OPT site.
Complain about this comment
I read that you agree - in principle - that a single, global society is the way to go?
I am not sure how you made that leap.
What I meant was, that nations should not be put in silos where they are all treated the same. Rather, individual nations should have their different histories respected.
Although certain human rights should obviously be better enforced globally, the idea of one world government, does seem fascist. Of course since AGW is a global problem, we all need to act.
The statement of Sir David that I quoted was from the BBC article linked above. I had not been to the Optimum Population Trusts web-site. But I must say, they are barking up the wrong tree.
Even if the whole world, adopted China’s draconian one child rule, and world-wide fertility rates dropped to less than one child per couple, unless life expectancy also dropped, our numbers would continue to grow. (the population of China as grown from 1 billion to 1.2 billion, has it not?)
Clearly we need to learn to live without impacting our planet.
Complain about this comment
Continuing on from #43, #44 & #45 yeah_whatever ...
Check out...
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/politics/article5439604.ece
One snippet...
"Under the Brussels edict, police across the EU have been given the green light to expand the implementation of a rarely used power involving warrantless intrusive surveillance of private property. The strategy will allow French, German and other EU forces to ask British officers to hack into someone’s UK computer and pass over any material gleaned."
If that's not theft I don't know what is.
Complain about this comment
To jr4412 #47:
Sorry for the confusion. I'm just allowing things to 'evolve'. There seems considerable opposition to the United Nations in some quarters, not that this alone would stop me, but I am also feeling a little funny writing something in the name of the United Nations. They might take exception to this at some point, and why offend if it's not necessary?
So I thought - your idea of a 'United Planet" sounded so good to me that I adopted it and started calling 'our' declaration the "United Planet Declaration" or the "A Planet United Declaration".
Later on, if we thought it advisable, this could be forwarded to the United Nations for their examination, and if they saw fit to publish this under their banner, it would be called a United Nations Declaration, I imagine.
I realize I'm dreaming here, which is also why the "A Planet United" title - that one is ours - or yours, to be more precise, is so appealing. Thus, should the BBC and the United Nations decide to have nothing to do with our Declaration, a likely outcome, then that would leave us free to send this to Wikipedia or other organizations, presuming we wished to 'carry on'.
Interested in your thoughts on the United Nations in general, and on what I have just said???
Also, I'm liking very much the Carl Sagan 'Palimpsest' idea ("Contact").
The Declaration could be constructed and presented in such a manner, say with internet links embedded, and with stick drawings or the like, of a world with man/woman/child inside, and my personal idea, an Olympic Flag on the other side (not possible I know), but you get the idea - that the document be appealing and meaningful on several levels.
This is in keeping with your ideas, expressed earlier, and which I post here for referral:
"I'm certain you appreciate the 'language shapes thinking' line of argument, with this in mind:
the highest priority should IMO be given by the UN to establish an "United Planet" organisation under which its various agencies (WHO, UNESCO, etc) must re-organise and re-state their aims and objectives"
- jr4412 #33
I'll post my latest 'evolving' section, and am awaiting your section with anticipation:
\\\ A United Planet Declaration ///
Imminent Threats to Our Survival –April 14, 2009
‘A Planet United’ urges the people of the world to consider the following two recommendations, both thought necessary at this time to our long term survival, and to a brighter future for our children:
1) Population Growth
Halt, and then reverse, the growth of the world’s population, by self-limiting our numbers, and having, on average, one or two children per family, until world population is at a level considered sustainable.
As of 2008, world population was estimated at 6.7 billion, increasing at perhaps eighty (80) million per year. It is thought that the sustainable population of the world, at a level consistent with the World Health Organization’s definition of ‘complete health’, is three to four billion.
- http://www.optimumpopulation.org/
- http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/World_population
It is recognized that primary responsibility for the reduction of the world population will fall to the ‘developing world’, and that a healthy future contains children, but not as many as before, per family.
2) Climate Change
Halt, and then reverse, as soon as possible, the buildup of greenhouse gases in our atmosphere and oceans, until the atmospheric concentration of carbon dioxide (CO2) in our atmosphere is at, or less than 350 parts per million by volume.
-http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Global_warming
-[Unsuitable/Broken URL removed by Moderator]
As of 2009, the CO2 level stands at 387 parts per million by volume (ppmv), increasing at 1.9 ppmv, and this is expected to increase at a greater rate in the near future. The principal driver of global climate change is the emission of carbon dioxide into our atmosphere from the burning of fossil fuels – coal, oil and natural gas.
It is recognized that primary responsibility for the reduction of Carbon Dioxide in our atmosphere will fall to the ‘developed world’, and the superpowers.
Population Growth and Climate Change are intertwined, and are currently engaged in a deadly dance. This Dance of Death must end, and be replaced by a Dance of Life.
‘A Planet United’ calls on the people of the world to exercise their right to choose our path to the future, and our responsibility to act in our own common interest.
________________
A Planet United – Our High Road to the Future
(jr4412 section - or this can 'evolve also?)
- Manysummits the sheep, Calgary -
Complain about this comment
To timjenvey #42:
You wrote:
"Recently, James Hanson of NASA has been directly involved with Kingsnorth UK and Washington DC power station incidents and using emotive language like ?death trains? to raise the tone.
All very worrying to me looking in from the outside."
I have used such words in the "United Planet Declaration": (see #35)
"Population Growth and Climate Change are intertwined, and are currently engaged in a deadly dance. This Dance of Death must end, and be replaced by a Dance of Life."
The reason I used this language is definitely because it is emotive, it is my intention to be emotive. The real question is - "Is it accurate?"
I have by now read a considerable amount by James Hansen, and seen him described to great depth in two books. It is my strong opinion that he is very careful in his language in scientific publications, and suits his choice of words to the intended audience.
In his public communications he is aware of his audience, but his choice of words is, in my opinion, no less precise.
Consider, timjenvey, that his pronouncements are very accurate depictions of the situation as he sees it, and are not 'sensationalism' in the conventional sense. For what it's worth, I see the same thing, and would choose similar words.
I think it is not yet appreciated how serious some of us consider the situation. While it remains to be determined who is right, I think we would all be well advised to read James Hansen's words with the respect that a lifetime of study and international recognition deserves. And if not James Hansen, then consider the words of Jacques Cousteau, or James Lovelock, etc., who have all said, in essence, the same thing as James Hansen is saying, and with no less emotive words:
..."to be replaced by the insect"
- the late Jacques Cousteau
- Manysummits, Calgary -
Complain about this comment
manysummits #50 "...increasing at 1.9 ppmv, and this is expected to..."
No criticism intended, just to help; I guess you mean the increase is per year; so "1.9 ppmv/yr" ?
All the best; davblo2
Complain about this comment
manysummits #50.
Hansen is perfectly at liberty to say what he says and I would support his right to do so.
If he wants to be an activist he should resign from NASA where he is an embarrassment to the organization and a consumer of my taxes.
His continued employment by this agency raises questions in the public mind and does no credit for his AGW cause or reputation of NASA seen as supporting activism.
Cheers.......
Complain about this comment
bicycle-fan #48.
"I am not sure how you made that leap."
in #41 you said "To reduce our collective impact on planet earth, and improve all our lives, we need to learn to live without coal, gasoline, and habits that destroy habitat."
agreed, we all, as individuals, need to (re-)evaluate how we live, what choices we make and why, and to consider the consequences of those choices; and national governments need to shape policies and legislation to enable us to do so.
then a single, co-ordinating legislative framework will be required because all the "good" choices made by various governments can be undermined if some "rogue" nation state(s) decided to act in a way that allows old practices to continue, providing "polluter havens" (analoguous to the "tax havens" of today).
and that is, in essence, how I leapt ;-)
"..individual nations should have their different histories respected."
I do not think that we all would have to forsake our cultures and histories, as you put it, but nation states are artifical, perhaps the concept of "regions" would be more appropriate.
for instance modern Germany (which only came into being in 1871 or 1839, depending on your views): culturally, Bavaria is very different from, say, Frisia, in language, history, traditions; now, Frisians and Bavarians would be as different still if they were world citizens, rather than being "German".
the only thing "lost" would be the German nation state. [something not many Anglo-Saxons would loose sleep over anyway ;-)]
the same holds true for, say, Cornish people and Geordies in the UK, and so on.
"..the idea of one world government, does seem fascist."
yes, I suppose, there is that risk, the more reason then to work towards laying good foundations: unambiguous legislation and fair enforcement, non-partisan educational policies, etc.
"Clearly we need to learn to live without impacting our planet."
take nothing but photographs, leave nothing but footprints -- once read a quote along those lines, my sentiment exactly.
Complain about this comment
We all desire a sustainable lifestlyle and economy.
True enough.
Please view these two short vids.
http://www.youtube.com/user/dervaes?ob=1
http://www.storyofstuff.com/
A fellow listener
Complain about this comment
@timjenvey
Hansen is perfectly at liberty to say what he says and I would support his right to do so.
If he wants to be an activist he should resign from NASA where he is an embarrassment to the organization and a consumer of my taxes.
His continued employment by this agency raises questions in the public mind and does no credit for his AGW cause or reputation of NASA seen as supporting activism.
you forgot to mention Hansen is bound by the Hatch Act which expressly forbids activism by a government employee:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hatch_Act_of_1939
"The Hatch Act of 1939 is a United States federal law whose main provision is to prohibit federal employees (civil servants) from engaging in partisan political activity."
"The most restrictive measure was brought about by Republicans in the Senate. It dictates that persons below the policymaking level in the executive branch of the federal government must not only refrain from political practices that would be illegal for any citizen but must abstain from "any active part" in political campaigns."
It's a matter of record that Hansen also publically backed Senator Kerry in 2004
"Hansen, the director of the agency's Goddard Institute for Space Studies, received a $250,000 grant from the charitable foundation headed by former Democrat Presidential candidate John Kerry's wife, Teresa Heinz"
http://epw.senate.gov/public/index.cfm?FuseAction=PressRoom.PressReleases&ContentRecord_id=CB71A459-1F37-4792-AE25-541FCCED0466
Complain about this comment
sorry, i should have included the full quote - i don't want to be accused of cherry-picking ;)
For example, Brokaw presents NASA’s James Hansen as an authority on climate change without revealing to viewers the extensive political and financial ties that Hansen has to Democrat Party partisans. Hansen, the director of the agency's Goddard Institute for Space Studies, received a $250,000 grant from the charitable foundation headed by former Democrat Presidential candidate John Kerry's wife, Teresa Heinz..
Subsequent to the Heinz Foundation grant, Hansen publicly endorsed Democrat John Kerry for president in 2004, a political endorsement considered to be highly unusual for a NASA scientist.
http://epw.senate.gov/public/index.cfm?FuseAction=PressRoom.PressReleases&ContentRecord_id=CB71A459-1F37-4792-AE25-541FCCED0466
Complain about this comment
manysummits #50.
"Interested in your thoughts on the United Nations in general, and on what I have just said???"
currently the UN is weak because most (if not all) member states appear to use it as a means to further their own agendas only.
if the UN could purge itself of partisanship and corruption, we'd all (6.5bn+ and counting) be better for it.
the vision thing though -- a bit like the moon-landing 1969 -- it lifts the spirit.
I think the UN, if it showed the initiative and gumption to reform itself as an organisation for planet-wide, people-centered benefit, would be perfect; already there's much good, for example the WHO charter statement you provided, we simply need more like this.
re. flag: I'm a bit 'allergic' to flags in general but acknowledge that it would help, have no suggestion but make it abstract, please.
"Also, I'm liking very much the Carl Sagan 'Palimpsest' idea ("Contact")."
cannot comment but hopefully will find time to follow this up.
"A Planet United ? Our High Road to the Future"
working on it, evolving it further will be necessary since (you can see from my posts) English is written better by native speakers; bit short of time today/tomorrow.
"- Manysummits the sheep, Calgary -" "flocking" with you, baaaah ;-)))
Underacanoe #55.
thank you.
Complain about this comment
Under the Hatch Act there are a rangfe of permitted activities for many federal employees. They may express opinions about candidates and issues, contribute money to political organizations, attend political fundraising functions , attend and be active at political rallies and meetings, etc.
NASA dioes not appear in the list of agences for whose employees such activities are prohibited. So, where is the problem?
Complain about this comment
Simon-swede #59:
The distinction between what is NASA policy and what he does is blurring in the public mind and does NASA reputation no good. I'm sure he has some very smart lawyers working on this constantly to keep him clean. Not sure how acting in the spirit of the NASA policy plays here but IMO he is flouting respect for them by playing this game. It's very much like our discussion here on the pushing for legal precedents that allow activities to operate more widely.
His former NASA boss summed him up:
"Why he has not been fired I do not understand," Theon said. "As a civil servant, you can't participate in calling for a public demonstration. You may be able to participate as a private citizen, but when you go on the Internet and call for people to break the law, that's a problem."
We are heading into dangerous waters going down these paths. History has many lessons to teach us on this.
Complain about this comment
Add to #60: Read NASA internal policies here:
http://www.nasa.gov/offices/ogc/general_law/hatch%20act.html
Complain about this comment
Not at all, jr4412 and manysummits - let this discursive thread wend where it will.
Complain about this comment
Add to #61:
The previous was the Hatch Act. Here is the one I was looking for:
http://www.nasa.gov/offices/ogc/general_law/outsideactivity.html#NASA
Complain about this comment
"His former NASA boss summed him up:"
Was this his real boss (i.e. the one who does his pay review) or is this the "boss" who had a higher grade. worked in the same department but never actually worked with him or had any say or overview of what he did?
Complain about this comment
Yeah_whatever #64
He is usually referred to as his 'boss' or 'supervisor'. His position oversaw all weather and climate research in the entire agency, including the research work by James Hansen. To me it's no different than calling your CEO your boss. He holds the resonsibilty.
Have not seen anybody refute this. If you know otherwise please share.
Thanks.
Cheers...
Complain about this comment
To davblo #52:
Yes indeed, 1.9 parts per million by volume per year! Thanks very much - I've already changed it in my main reference copy.
To timjenvey #53:
I guess we'll have to agree to disagree.
1) Not only do I not see James Hansen as an embarassment to NASA, I see him as a restorative to an agency which in my opinion dropped the ball so badly after Apollo that even I can't find words to desribe how I feel!
2) And why should an activist have to resign from his workplace?
"Who would be a man must be a non-conformist."
- Ralph Waldo Emerson (American)
"This country, with its institutions, belongs to the people who inhabit it. Whenever they shall grow weary of the existing government, they can exercise their constitutional right of amending it, or their revolutionary right to dismember or overthrow it."
- Abraham Lincoln (quintessential American !)
To CuckooToo #56 & 57: Please see 'simon-swede' #59
To jr4412 #58:
We're on the same page - 100%.
As for flags and such - I had in mind a circle with five or six or seven colors in concentric rings, one color for each continent - a 'glory' (meteorological term) almost, with inside three stick figures, a man, woman, and a child. Something along those lines.
To simon-swede # 59: A million thanks !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
To timjenvey #60:
Please see Abraham Lincoln quote above - although I am a Canadian, born and raised, my father was a United States Marine, stationed in Hawaii for the invasion of Japan when the war ended. After the war, he returned to his home in Montreal (it's a long story), and met my mother. But to me, he was and always will be a United States Marine.
As for the Republicans - I am left speechless after watching their antics from Richard Nixon to Ronald Reagan to George W. Bush. If I were an American I would be a Democrat, always and forever.
To Richard Black #62: Also a million thanks! I sincerely hope our 'discursive' efforts have not tried the patience of too many visitors. While our (jr4412 and myself) 'Declaration' may not shake the world, it has been for me personally a high point, and it is and continues to be an enriching experience. As for the BBC and your forebearance Richard, a quote for you:
"The basis of our government being the opinion of the people, the very first object should be to keep that right; and were it left to me to decide whether we should have a government without newspapers, or newspapers without a government, I should not hesitate a moment to prefer the latter."
- Thomas Jefferson, January 16, 1787.
To timjenvey #65:
"Censoring Science", 2008, by Mark Bowen - about James Hansen and NASA and about climate science - for those interested, this is an eye-opener. The author has a Ph.D in physics from MIT, and is a mountaineer.
You will find a number of 'bosses' at NASA, political appointees of the Republicans, etc... I am again left 'breathless' at the prospect of discussing this in anything like a gentlemanly manner - so I'll leave it at that.
- Manysummits, Calgary -
Complain about this comment
Manysummits #66
Been a long day but managed a couple of comments. Just checking in and on reading your comment #66 and some reflection I am amazed at how our experiences of life are so similar but our reactions to them so different.
Your experience predominantly from the mountains mine from the water but the same love and understanding of our world there is no doubt. You write beautifully of your experiences and I am not ashamed to say that there have been times where I have a lump in the throat and a tear in the eye.
You have outlined our difference in #66 and I agree that we agree to disagree.
My only addition would be that sincerity of mind and spirit means in my mind more than any other desires of a man. I respect you for that Manysummits.
I think some reflection on this will be instructive for me.
Cheers........
Complain about this comment
timjenvey @61
Thanks for the NASA internal guidelines link.
I was struck by the following sections:
"NASA doesn't prohibit much. Basically, NASA employees are not allowed to be, in effect, subcontractors to NASA. More precisely, a NASA employee may not engage in outside employment with (1) a NASA contractor, subcontractor, or grantee in connection with work performed by that entity for NASA; or (2) a party to a Space Act agreement, Commercial Launch Act agreement, or other agreement to which NASA is a party pursuant to specific statutory authority, if the employment is in connection with work performed under that agreement. "
So NASA clearly not prohibit Hansen from undertaking the sort of activities you are concerned about.
On the same page of the NASA link, it also says:
"The approval process is the most important issue for the majority of outside activities. NASA requires advance approval for outside employment involving the following:
Teaching, speaking, writing, or editing, unless the subject matter pertains to the private interests of the employee, such as a hobby, cultural activity, or nonwork related professional pursuit; ..."
So, I guess Hansen must have obtained approval for his speaking and writing activities?
It seems to me that the concern you express centres more on the content of what he is saying, rather than that Hansen is breaking any regulation such as the Hatch Act or NASAs own internal rules for employees.
Complain about this comment
NASA and the Hatch Act:
http://www.nasa.gov/offices/ogc/general_law/hatch%20act.html#everyone
NASA employees must comply with the hatch act or risk the consequences. The problem with any other employee not complying is they could now invoke the precedent set by Hansen as a defence against disciplinary action and who knows where that may lead
As an aside, if you guys are not following the "G20, Bonn and climate of opinion", yeah_whatever has just agreed that the AGW signature in the upper troposhere, as predicted by the IPCC models, is lost in the noise of natural variation.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/thereporters/richardblack/2009/04/sometimes_on_reading_comments.html#P78568440
Complain about this comment
CuckooToo @69
As I noted earlier (@59), under the Hatch Act there are a range of permitted activities for many federal employees. They may express opinions about candidates and issues, contribute money to political organizations, attend political fundraising functions, attend and be active at political rallies and meetings, etc. Also NASA does not appear in the list of agences for whose employees such activities are prohibited.
So, as far as I can tell, Hansen is in compliance with the Hatch Act - as would be any other employee acting in a similar manner. I don't see a problem here, nor with NASAs internal policies which certainly do not prohibit such activities (although the latter might require prior approval).
Complain about this comment
i disagree, simon, the fact that Hansen has such a high profile and position in NASA, automatically means that any activity that he takes part in and concerns global warming, suggests NASA policy
Complain about this comment
CuckooToo, I am trying to understand how this constitutes non-compliance with the provisions of the Hatch Act. I can't see that it does.
A risk that people fail to distinguish between Hansen's views and NASA's policy seems to me to be a separate issue from compliance with teh Hatch Act. This would be covered by NASA's own rules for employees and there is a process within NASA for addressing such concerns. Having looked at those guidelines (thanks Timjenvey for the link), I don't see a problem with Hansen or any other person addressing these issue publicly, provided that the procedures were followed.
Complain about this comment
Simon
OK, i accept Hansen, as a private citizen can take part in demonstrations etc, but considering his position and high profile, do you not think that many people would listen to the Director of NASA's Goddard Institute for Space Studies and assume this was NASA policy, especially when he goes on youtube urging people to take part?
Complain about this comment
No, CuckooToo, many people (as a proportion of the number of people on the planet) would not.
And if they do, then they aren't listening.
He's not said (unlike your mate who was CEO of Greenpeace) said "As a NASA employee...".
Complain about this comment
"He is usually referred to as his 'boss' or 'supervisor'. His position oversaw all weather and climate research in the entire agency, including the research work by James Hansen."
No, he's a supervisor.
He's not Hansen's Boss, any more than GW Bush Jr was. Or your CEO is your boss. He employs you, but he doesn't know you from Adam.
Complain about this comment
simon-swede #68
Your response takes us right to the nub of the issue. Which is about our response to activists events. I mention James Hansen as an example as one that is recent and we can relate to. This is not about yours or my view on AGW. However, our view does usually dictate our response.
James Hansen is referenced as “Director of NASA's Goddard Institute for Space Studies” in every article I read. Whether it’s inciting activist groups to action or putting up a defence for them in a UK court of law for trespassing on power stations. His work is directly associated with their cause so it obviously lends weight.
As cuckotoo says people will naturally “assume this was NASA policy, especially when he goes on youtube urging people to take part”.
The Hatch Act was instituted to deal with such a conflict, the spirit of the act is quite clear. I’m not saying he broke the letter of law or NASA policy. He’s obviously an intelligent man and will have accounted for this.
As a US tax pay I have every right to protest on this and take action in the way he incites activists to behave. What we are seeing is a blurring of the detail which is a tactic to push precedence on the interpretation. The bigger picture is quite clear and goes against the spirit of what the Act is designed to address.
If Hansen want’s to incite activist and promote their campaigns he should leave NASA. To be called James Hansen “ex-employee of NASA” who left to pursue his passion to campaign against AGW would have a profound effect on folks and maybe even turn some. Right now it’s’ forcing an even wider division which is what the ACT was designed to prevent. It just makes folks suspicious and question the motives.
Got to get off to work. Maybe get a chance to pick up again later.
Cheers....
Complain about this comment
timjenvey - no, Hansen should stay in position. The only detail blurring that is taking place is that done by denialists and under informed people who moan on and on about Hansen. You never moan about his co-authors, because they've been quiet, although they helped him do the work. SO its alright for a scientist to produce some results, but they aren't allowed to speak out on what the results mean?
A good example is Cuckoo too - using the university of google, ignoring the lack of a wisdo button, to throw up claim after claim to create a smokescreen to hide the lack of clothes.
Wait a minute, how did an article on whale meat get onto climate change?
Complain about this comment
"James Hansen is referenced as ?Director of NASA's Goddard Institute for Space Studies? in every article I read"
But when he takes these actions outside his work HE doesn't say he's a director of NASA's Goddard Institute for Space Studies.
Your pal does.
PS how does that section benefit from global warming? I mean, if it's all about the bennies, surely the more money that goes to climate models the less for Space Studies.
Complain about this comment
jr4412 :Your most Welcome :)
Have a nice afternoon.
Complain about this comment
"Wait a minute, how did an article on whale meat get onto climate change?"
Probably for the same reason a copyright law was passed on to a bill about fisheries.
Hide it from people who know better.
Complain about this comment
Timjenvey @76
The Hatch Act, as adopted, is not simply about restricting what government employees may do. It is about finding a balance between preventing an abuse of such an employees or office holders positions and allowing individuals freedom to engage in political activity. Both components are essential to the Act, and one should not seek to find its "spirit" without considering the Act as a whole. In my view, Hansen's activities appear to be compatible with both the letter and the spirit of the Hatch Act.
Complain about this comment
Wait a minute, how did an article on whale meat get onto climate change?
Was it not something to do with James Hansen and his support of protesters?
Of course there is no point in attacking specific people, instead of discussing the issue. But if He is obviously an intelligent man then maybe his views are correct, and his is only acting in all of our best interests?
As for the title of this article? Whale meat must already be pretty hard to swallow. Why else would so much be rotting in warehouses?
Complain about this comment
Yeah_Whatever #80. My fault!!. Should have known better than to give such an example!! My reason in the first place was to demonstrate that such activity polarize people’s views. If you’re for it this reinforces your argument and you are roused by the call. If you’re against it its red rag to a bull (for which I sited James Hansen as an example, there are terabytes of WEB space on this so I do not feel we can add much more here).
The end result IMO is that the messages (AGW, Whales, Dolphins etc.) gets polarized between the two groups. Particularly when activist get involved we see how administrating laws and policies to prevent such matters and how activist groups can exploit for advantage.
You gave some interesting examples of breaking the law. “The US should have paid the tax on tea”. This was a call by “we the people” and was rebellion. The opposite was the North vs South which was Civil War which was over slavery. The rebellion led to “government for the people by the people”. Civil War divided and issues still rage today.
So, if we do not want Civil War we need to win the hearts and minds and that is clearly not happening. In fact I’ve tried to show that the opposite is happening with the sides getting further entrenched. Simon-swede made a comment about some work that was being done to raise the level of public awareness and I can’t find it.
Out of time now. Maybe later......
Complain about this comment
"The opposite was the North vs South which was Civil War which was over slavery. "
Many people fought against the North because it was a power grab by the federal government.
Always taking the simple answer.
Complain about this comment
To 'timjenvey' with regard to James Hansen:
A thought struck me on the bus, on the way home from work.
If James Hansen, in your view, were not allowed to speak on behalf of his views on AQW, because he is a NASA employee, whose views on AGW would you suggest we think about?
It seems to me that comparitive planetary scientists are not often found at your local store, at least not very often, and world renowned climatologists are only occassionaly found there also, and when they are, they are probably busy shopping for something, rather than looking for a platform from which to speak.
Unless I miss my guess, most planetary scientists and climatologists work for the government or for government agencies, such as NOAA, JPL, and for universities, etc... If we muzzle all of them - who would be left to query?
This is so astonishingly simple a question, I am not quite sure why I, nor any of us, appears to have thought of it!
- Awaiting enlightenment - Manysummits -
Complain about this comment
To timjenvey re: James Hansen:
"It is not the function of our government to keep the citizen from falling into error; it is the function of the citizen to keep the government from falling into error."
- United States Supreme Court Justice Robert H. Jackson (1892-1954)
When James Hansen speaks or writes publicly, from what I have seen, he always takes pains to mention that he is speaking as a private citizen. Of course his reputation precedes him - why should it not!
According to Justice Jackson, in speaking publicly, James Hansen would in fact be upholding the highest traditions of the American citizen.
I truly cannot see your problem here 'timjenvey'. You are free to believe as you will about AGW - yet you would deny one of North America's, and the world's, top climatologists, the right to speak out, as a private citizen, and long standing member of the United States Academy of Sciences, on an issue in which 'expert' opinion is of the highest impotance, on an issue of potentially world shaking import?
This is to me incomprehensible!
- Manysummits, Calgary -
Complain about this comment
Continued from #83
Thanks to Yeah_whatever for leading me into this. I had planned to pick up with the US Civil War to finish off my interrupted string today. Instead of me listing the many interests involved Yeah_whatever provides:
“Many people fought against the North because it was a power grab by the federal government”
So I do not feel the need to gain acceptance that this was not about slavery per se. Slavery was used to consolidate and influence opinion based on emotive substance which aimed to engendered societal acceptance and a veil to hide the real agendas behind.
So with this in mind I turn to my professional experience as a project/program manager. Successful projects are those where there is acceptance/adoption from all sides. Even if the end result turns out to be wrong, if the project is quickly killed this is termed success. The unsuccessful project is pretty much always down to non-adoption/no buy-in which is generally due to department rivalries’, hidden agendas, senior exec pet projects (agreed on golf course) etc. As a project/program manager my first job is always to rout this lot out and get clear unequivocal support for the project. There are many tools these days that help this process. If it’s a mayor project and there is silo thinking, then organizational change is undertaken as part of the project process so that ‘we the people’ can be properly represented without the agendas of our bosses. If it’s a pet project I, and I know many of my colleagues would distance themselves. It amazes me still how many of these get pushed and all fail with distressing fall out.
So the answer for a successful outcome is to gain adoption/buy-in up front. This is the hardest part of running a project and where I spend a high percentage of my time. It’s down to engendering a climate of trust and open positive communication and strong action where vested interests are pushed beyond reason.
So how does this fit in with this post? Well, if I apply my experience and what history teaches us (ref. where we started with Yeah_whatever on the Civil War) I would say in cases where activism which is focused on emotive issues (ie. Slavery) its because there are too many hidden agendas for regular folks to feel comfortable with and their first recourse is put up barriers and harden their responses. I have never seen a favorable acceptance where emotive tactics are used (read - whales, polar bears, CO2 etc.) basically because, even if folks are initially hounded in they will fall away very soon when the project is delivered and the hounding goes away, then there will be gradual push back and dissension and a mess. In the case of the US Civil War its still rattling around after more than a century.
I have been involved in several conservation type projects and have seen many failed efforts because of the “power grabs” (re Yeah_whatever on US Civil War). In my travels the most successful organization I have come across was Bonneville Power Authority (BPA) Fish and Wild Life. BPA is responsible for administering all the dams on the Columbia River. The Fish and Wild life is responsible for overseeing the affected environment. Their success IMO has been putting the ownership in the control of the various sections to the local folks (Local Counties, Indian Territories ect.). F&W facilitate and supply expertise the locals run the show. If interested take a look: http://www.efw.bpa.gov/IntegratedFWP/
So back to Richards subject: The various factions in the whaling dispute need to get some agreements to make this work. The IWC could be the facilitator. At the moment there are too many vested interests and activism is usually a sign of bullying using emotive contexts (disemboweled whales) which does nothing for the whale or the cause. There are ways but they need root and branch approach and that can only come from strong, non-partisan, clean unfettered folk/organizational leadership. It does exist but our current political/partisan system sides more with who shouts loudest or can clout the most. The people are not empowered and our noble creature the whale is fodder for the “power grabs” instead of the reason for the debate in the first place.
Apologies for the long dump if you got this far. Not much time to get thoughts sorted today but I hope you get my drift. Seems these blogs move on too quickly to get the right words together.
Night, Night.
Complain about this comment
My comment at 81 is referred to the moderators. I believe it may be because of inadvertant error in the use of the "@" symbol... Ooops!
Since that note has been stuck so long, I'll try recapture what I wrote earlier. Hopefully this time without running afoul of the system...
I was commenting on timjenvey's note #76, where it is stated that while not asserting a breach of the letter of the Act, it is suggested that actions such as Hansen's were in conflict with the "spirit of the Hatch Act".
I disagree with this interpretation. The Hatch Act has two principal elements. One, as rightly stated, is to restrict the activities of some federal employees, from engaging in certain political activities. The other is to protect the freedom of federal employees to engage in political activities, taking into account for example which agency they work for and/or their positions within it. In my opinion, both the restrictive and empowering elements are essential to understanding the "spirit" of the Hatch Act. In my opinion, Hansen's activities are both within the letter and spirit of the Hatch Act. The same would go for ANYONE else in a similar position, irrespective of their views on climate change.
The concern is also raised about some people drawing the wrong conclusions about what are Hansen's personal views and what constitute NASA policy. While "I" can take care of what I say, I can't control what conclusions othe people draw from it. My duty is not to mislead. In this connection, I don't see that Hansen has mislead anyone as to his personal views being NASA policy.
Lastly, concern is raised about Hansen causing damage to the reputation of NASA. I don't see that myself, but if NASA is so concerned about damage to its reputation, surely it is sufficiently capable to take steps to address this itself?
Complain about this comment
It is suggested in #87 that, on whaling, the "IWC could be the facilitator".
However, the IWC is more of a forum where a lot of the whaling debate is occuring, than it is a seprate entity which can take on a facilitating role. As such, debate at the IWC reflects the degree to which the issues remain polarised amongst the parties. As Richard has written about in earlier posts, while there are some considerable ongoing efforts to reach sufficient common-ground to allow progress at IWC, so far any consensus remains elusive.
Complain about this comment
Simon-swede #88
The result of Hansens actions has led to serious dissension and any activist group (both sides denier and alarmist) is going to milk his credentials (positive or negative) for all they are worth no matter how he presents himself. The policy and acts are designed to prevent this very thing from happening. The fact that NASA has taken no action or even mentioned it raises the questions which folks have filled terabytes of blog space arguing about. All business/government I’ve worked for have policies in place because they see this as a very damaging consequence.
I point out in my previous post that this type of issue drives folks deeper into their dissent. If I were he I would be thinking if I wanted to progress my cause I would want to get as many folk on board as possible and would throw of these chains by resigning to take away the seeming stigma. That would be a very powerful message.
It would force me to a re-think.
Cheers……..
Complain about this comment
"The result of Hansens actions has led to serious dissension "
Uh, the actions of anyone on any side of AGW produce lots of serious dissention.
Please prove that Hansens actions are the prime cause of dissention.
Complain about this comment
To'simon-swede' #61 (in 'Dolphins raise sound questions'):
You wrote: (re James Hansen and NASA)
"The Hatch Act, as adopted, is not simply about restricting what government employees may do. It is about finding a balance between preventing an abuse of such an employees or office holders positions and allowing individuals freedom to engage in political activity. Both components are essential to the Act, and one should not seek to find its "spirit" without considering the Act as a whole. In my view, Hansen's activities appear to be compatible with both the letter and the spirit of the Hatch Act."
- simon-swede
This seems to sum things up extremely well - thanks as always for your balanced and incisive comments.
I am often envious of your skill in sizing up an issue and commenting on it. But I guess you can't change the spots on a leopard, and I will have to live with my own blind spots and flaws.
To 'timjenvey':
You speak of the 'spirit' of the law (Hatch Act). I need not comment on the Hatch Act and James Hansen specifically, as 'simon-swede' has done this for us.
But 'spirit' is close to my heart, and I will say this. Do you not see the 'spirit' that is America? Freedom of expression is sacrosanct - it is what Thomas Jeferson was saying when he wrote that were he given a choice between a country with government but no newspapers, or a country with newspapers but no government, he would unhesitatingly choose a country with newspapers (freedom of expression), but no government.
Or what Abraham Lincoln meant when he talked of Americans having two rights, their constitutional rights, and their revolutionary rights!
I see from your comments in #87 that you are a professional manager. But are you not suffering from a certain amount of structured thinking there? No disrespect intended - none at all.
It just seems that you are allowing that open mindedness and all onboard approach to cloud your thinking as regards politics and the climate change debate. Both are a messy business - chaotic and unpredictable - despite the admonitions of 'spin doctors' that they are not.
That's because people are involved, and people are instinctive, and passionate, and ultimately unpredictable. Every despot and bully has eventually found this out. It is the ancient battle between right and wrong, between good and evil.
I quote Thomas Jefferson again - on the 'spirit' of America:
"I have sworn upon the altar of God eternal hostility against
every form of tyranny over the mind of man."
- Manysummits, Calgary -
Complain about this comment
manysummits.
random thoughts while trying to catch up:
#92 "That's because people are involved, and people are instinctive, and passionate, and ultimately unpredictable."
so true but groups are different, peer pressure and all that, groups (re-)act predictably; perhaps that is why one has to wear suit & tie, or profess belief in this god or that, just to be taken at face value.
the question you pose in #85 is relevant here too.
where you address timjenvey #87: to me the significant bit of that post is "At the moment there are too many vested interests and activism is usually a sign of bullying using emotive contexts (disemboweled whales) which does nothing for the whale or the cause. There are ways but they need root and branch approach and that can only come from strong, non-partisan, clean unfettered folk/organizational leadership. It does exist but our current political/partisan system sides more with who shouts loudest or can clout the most."
replace whale with planet - where to go from here?
the youtube link posted by Underacanoe #55 is the type of thing which will allow remnants of humanity to hang on for a while, but that's no consolation.
Richard Black #62.
very gracious, thank you.
Complain about this comment
Re: The James Hansen and NASA and "The Hatch Act" debate.
Regardless of rights and wrongs, couldn't it be that when the Act was set up no one actually conceived of the situation where an employee would find the need to go and with such a monumental report/claim and tell the world it had to change. If so then the Act could be deemed obsolete and need updating.
Isn't it the case that our rules and legislation often fall behind our rapid rate of change?
Complain about this comment
Yeah_whatever #91:
Got a few minutes to do a quick reply on this one. You ask:
"Please prove that Hansens actions are the prime cause of dissention."
Not entirely sure of your context and I may not have been explicit enough. My point is he is 'A' serious cause of dissension as indicated by the terabytes of data on the interenet. Hope this is clearer.
davblo2 #94: I agree. A very good point.
Cheers........
Complain about this comment
Re the many comments on James Hansen:
In the past months that I have been blogging on climate change and the environmental crisis which I have watched develop, mature and now overtake us (since the early 1970's), I have been 'conclusion' driven.
I don't enjoy debates - I'd rather be climbing a mountain.
And so, with the unexpected enthusiasm of 'jr4412', we have undertaken a conclusion, namely our United Planet/United Nations Declaration, which, when jr4412 has finished his section, will constitute for me a conclusion to all the back and forth this past quarter of a year.
Likewise now with James Hansen. In "Tipping Point" (see - http://www.columbia.edu/~jeh1/ ; Other Articles), Dr. Hansen states the case in a way I entirely agree with, and this constitutes a conclusion in this regard for me, i.e., the James Hansen debate - is it proper for him to speak, and what is it he is so emotive about anyway, and why is it so hard to engage the public in meaningful action?
I just finished reading Richard Black's latest blog on electric cars etc., and reading this only reinforces the quote from Dr. Hansen that I present below:
"There is a huge gap between what is
understood about global warming—
by the scientific community—and
what is known about global warming
—by those who need to know: the
public and policymakers.
The crystallizing science points to
an imminent planetary emergency."
- James Hansen
You can add to that from my perspective - Population Growth, and then the travesty which is the world fishery, and the mass extinction underway as we speak, and on and on. And most of the public - discussing trivial details like electric cars, or engaging in meaningless gestures like Earth Day - all forms of denial and fear and ignorance, hopefully in the good sense, and not willful ignorance.
It's why I am enjoying the Dolphin blog so much. Seeing what unites us gives me some much needed hope.
I have mentioned previously that people are instinctive, passionate, and unpredictable. It seems to me that only one of two things will produce the meaninful action of which I speak:
1) A planetary emergency of immense proportion - the unexpected and in the short term, unlikely collapse of the West Antarctic Ice Sheet, for example, or:
2) A charismatic and visionary leader, who understands climate change, population growth, the true dimensions of the environmental crisis - and is willing to protect the world community.
I will let "Cicero" speak from the distant past, and end this post. He was a Roman statesman, orator and philosopher (~106 - 43 BC):
"Everything morally right derives from one of four sources:
1) It concerns either full perception or intelligent development of what is true.
2) Or the preservation of organized society, where every man is rendered his due and all obligations are faithfully discharged.
3) Or the greatness and strength of a noble, invincible spirit.
4) Or order and moderation in everything said and done, whereby is tempering and self-control.
- Manysummits, Calgary - going to suppper with UnderaCanoe -
Complain about this comment
To jr4412:
Thought I'd send you my latest evolution:
\\\ A Planet United - Call to Action ///
To the Peoples of the World - Year 2009 Common Era
The authors consider that there are two overarching, imminent threats to our long term survival and to a brighter future for our children. There is, however, a possible ‘High Road to Our Collective Future.’
1) Population Growth
As of 2008, world population was estimated at 6.7 billion, increasing at some eighty million per year. It is thought that the sustainable population of the world, at a level consistent with the World Health Organization’s definition of ‘complete health’, is likely only three to four billion, half the present number.
- http://www.optimumpopulation.org/
- http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/World_population
Recommendation:
Halt, and then reverse, the growth of the world’s population, by self-limiting our numbers, and having, on average, one or two children per family, until world population is at a level considered sustainable, or disease, famine and war will do it for us.
It is recognized that primary responsibility for the reduction of the world population will fall to the ‘developing world’. A healthy future contains children, but in reduced numbers.
2) Climate Change
As of 2009, the atmospheric carbon dioxide level stands at 387 parts per million by volume (ppmv), increasing at 1.9 ppmv per year, and this is expected to increase at a greater rate in the near future. The principal driver of global warming and ocean acidification is the emission of carbon dioxide into our atmosphere from the burning of fossil fuels – coal, oil and natural gas.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Global_warming
http://www.columbia.edu/~jeh1/ (Feb. 26, 2009: Carbon Tax & Dividend)
Recommendation:
Halt, and then reverse, as soon as possible, the buildup of greenhouse gases in our atmosphere and oceans, until the atmospheric concentration of carbon is at, or less than, 350 parts per million by volume.
It is recognized that primary responsibility for the reduction of carbon dioxide in our atmosphere will fall to the ‘developed world’, and to the superpowers.
Population Growth and Climate Change are intertwined, and are currently engaged in a deadly dance. This Dance of Death must end, and be replaced by a Dance of Life.
‘A Planet United’ calls on the Peoples of the World to exercise their right to choose our collective path to the future, and our responsibility to act in our own common interest.
________________
3) High Road to the Future (by jr4412)
(Possible start?)
The World Health Organization, a branch of the United Nations, states:
"Health is a state of complete physical, mental and social well being and not merely the absence of disease or infirmity.
The enjoyment of the highest attainable standard of health is one of the fundamental rights of every human being without regard to race, religion, political belief and economical or social condition."
Statement on "United Planet", reorganization of the UN, pollution, the depletion of the world’s conventional oil reserves, industrial agriculture’s dependence on fertilizers derived in large measure from fossil fuels, and the unsustainable ‘mining’ of underground water aquifers for irrigation…
Authors: Manysummits & JR4412 – Earth Watch – BBC World News
- http://news.bbc.co.uk/
- http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/thereporters/richardblack/
(preferably less than five hundred words – doesn’t look like we’ll make that)
(perhaps an overleaf table, landscape format, of relevant population and CO2 data from 1750, in hundred year increments, and projections to 2150?)
_ Manysummits, Calgary -
Complain about this comment
To jr4412:
The 'sheep' is gone jr. I am now confident we are doing the right thing. I just got home from work, and read Richard Black's report:
"Obama to regulate 'pollutant' CO2"
- http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/8004975.stm
"This finding confirms that greenhouse gas pollution is a serious problem now and for future generations," said EPA administrator Lisa Jackson.
This project has taken me over body and soul. It's possible I've gone crazy, but in the words of science - 'highly unlikely.'
Rather it seems one of the least crazy things I've ever done. It feels like we, and all the bloggers, and Richard Black, are walking with destiny.
This time may be what is referred to as a paridigm break - the beginning of the end of the fossil fuel era, and its replacement by something perhaps akin to the World Health Organization statement we are both so taken with. A time when the complete health of all the world's citizens becomes our symbol of success, not the possesion of a large vehicle, or big house, etc. When John Kennedy's dream of a "peace for all time,", and Martin Luther King's dream, will indeed materialize.
And if this idealistic talk is fraught with the peril of broken promises and broken dreams - so be it.
I picked up my book on The United Nations yesterday, and am convinced it is just what I needed to round things out. In a nutshell, there is progress being made, and there will be more.
I hope you are feeling well, as am I.
- Manyconclusions, Calgary -
Complain about this comment
manysummits #98.
on BBC2 NewsNight tonight Ethical Man (J Rowlatt) did a good outline about this and the (likely) Copenhagen implications. I think you can get it on 'iplayer'.
Complain about this comment
manysummits.
re. "the high road": since this all about pursuing a dream, I thought I will strive for the highest ideal, but, admittedly, the words do read very pompous.
as I've said before, others (where are they?) will have to actually write and hone this; let me know your thoughts.
we, the under-signed, ask that the United Nations reshapes itself as an organisation that places the interests and the welfare of the entire planetary ecosphere above the interests of human individuals, organisations, and nation states.
specifically, we ask that all UN agencies reorganise themselves with view of:
- rewriting their charters in language that emphasises the planetary interest over the national, organisational, and individual.
- restructuring their managing bodies and rewriting their charters to exclude the potential of partisanship and advantage amongst members.
- emphasising health (as per WHO definition) as the primary goal, for all
species including humans.
"This project has taken me over body and soul. It's possible I've gone crazy,.."
well, with me "crazy" is a certainty ;-)
I will say though that our exchange has strengthened a dream I had thought buried and forgotten.
Complain about this comment
To jr4412:
Hello again!
Just a few minor adjustments - a breathtaking mission - Why Not!
Here's what I've got - please revise as you wish and send back, perhaps after a day in the sushine tomorrow?
\\\ A Call to Action to The Peoples of the World ///
(Year 2009 of the Common Era)
The authors consider that there are two overarching, imminent threats to our long term survival and to our children’s future:
1) Population Growth
As of 2008, world population was estimated at 6.7 billion, increasing at some eighty million per year. It is thought that the sustainable population of the world, at a level consistent with the World Health Organization’s definition of ‘complete health’, is likely only three to four billion, half the present number.
- http://www.optimumpopulation.org/
- http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/World_population
Recommendation:
Halt, and then reverse, the growth of the world’s population, by self-limiting our numbers, and having, on average, one or two children per family, until world population is at a level considered sustainable, or disease, famine and war will do it for us.
It is recognized that primary responsibility for the reduction of the world population will fall to the ‘developing world’. A healthy future contains children, but in reduced numbers.
2) Climate Change
As of 2009, the atmospheric carbon dioxide level stands at 387 parts per million by volume (ppmv), increasing at 1.9 ppmv per year, and this is expected to increase at a greater rate in the near future. The principal driver of global warming and ocean acidification is the emission of carbon dioxide into our atmosphere from the burning of fossil fuels – coal, oil and natural gas.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Global_warming
http://www.columbia.edu/~jeh1/ (Feb. 26, 2009: Carbon Tax & Dividend)
Recommendation:
Halt, and then reverse, as soon as possible, the buildup of greenhouse gases in our atmosphere and oceans, until the atmospheric concentration of carbon is 350 parts per million by volume or less.
It is recognized that primary responsibility for the reduction of carbon dioxide in our atmosphere will fall to the ‘developed world’, and to the superpowers.
\\\ A Call to Action to The United Nations ///
We, the under-signed, ask that the United Nations reshape itself as an organisation, and place the interests and the welfare of the entire planetary ecosphere above the interests of human individuals, organisations, and nation states.
Specifically, we ask that all UN agencies reorganise themselves with a view to:
1) Rewriting their charters in language that emphasises the planetary interest over the national, organisational, and individual interest.
2) Restructure their managing bodies and rewrite their charters to exclude the potential of partisanship and advantage amongst members.
3) Emphasize health as the primary goal for all species including humans, taking as a guide "The World Health Organization," a branch of the United Nations, which currently states:
"Health is a state of complete physical, mental and social well being and not merely the absence of disease or infirmity.
The enjoyment of the highest attainable standard of health is one of the fundamental rights of every human being without regard to race, religion, political belief and economical or social condition."
We call on the "Peoples of the World" and "The United Nations" to exercise their respective rights to choose our collective path to the future, and their responsibility to act in the common interest of all life on Earth.
Authors: Manysummits & JR4412
- Earth Watch; BBC World News, Science and Environment Blogsite
- http://news.bbc.co.uk/
- http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/thereporters/richardblack/
(533 words)
Complain about this comment
To jr4412:
Just got back from my morning coffee. Had to write you - very excited!
1) I would like to add a section to your United Nations section, calling for the UN to update their 1948 "Universal Declaration of Human Rights", and their newer "International Bill of Rights", to include
the 'resposibilities' of the world citizen. This new proclamation might be titled:
"The Universal Declaration of Human Rights and Responsibilities", as this is much more powerful that Bill of Rights ... I can't imagine how immature a bill of rights is without an outline of commensurate responsibilities!
I'm on a roll, so here:
- I want to title this creation (website?) of ours: "Dance of Life - A Planet United."
- I want it to live on the internet, our universal commons, and our virtual campfire.
- I want a chronological list of relevant sayings to follow our 'Call to Action' - a set of "Guiding Principles."
- I want this 'Dance of Life' to continuously evolve, as time and circumstance require, and that people everywhere be able to contribute, Wikipedia like. Perhaps "We, the Undersigned" will provide a space for those in agreement with our creation to affix their BBC blogging 'call signs'?
- I want - so much! I think we are finally recovering from the traumatizing assassinations of John Fitzgerald Kennedy, Martin Luther King Jr., and of Robert Kennedy. I quote from your previous post:
"I will say though that our exchange has strengthened a dream I had thought buried and forgotten." (jr4412, post #100)
I have been in danger several times this morning, in contemplating all of this, of "giving way to my feelings", to use an expression of Joshua Slocum, first solo cirumnavigator of the world.
Do you agree with these ideas jr4412 ??
What do you think?
Should we ask the BBC to host this?
Finally - a quote from my favorite philosopher, Robert Pirsig - the last paragraph of "Zen and the Art of Motorcycle Maintenance":
"Trials never end, of course. Unhappiness and misfortune are bound to occur as long as people live, but there is a feeling now, that was not there before, and is not just on the surface of things, but penetrates all the way through: We've won it. It's going to get better now. You can sort of tell these things."
- Manysummits - going for a walk with my son -
Complain about this comment
To manysummits, thanks, I got to the site. According to the few comments I read, there're many issues to be addressed and some members here have done alot, by answering, raising some questions, and even suggestiing some solutions. However, one comment struke me to comment something about it. that's world population:
I will always relate back to my little village, indeed, our differences are unfathomable, and even my sixth year in Canada, I still cann't comprehend some of these differences, but as time goes by, some of these differences start making sense to me, may be I am being north Americanizing at some points. such as a man having one wife for his entire life wasn't making any sense, but living in city has taught me why it is acceptable.
First of all let me state my position, I agree that world population is contributing to some problems;
Yes, too many mouths on limited resources is a problem, eg famine in Africa.
Why do people increase the population intentionally?
as far as I know there are some reasons that lead people (mostly illitrate societies) to practice this polygamy or even having many kids from one woman.
Let me answer this based on my experience, I lost my four siblings because of some curable diseases such as malaria, measles, which are no longer problems in some developed countries. Of course, my poor mother would have none now if we were not nine in number, and chances of losing that number of nine kids from one mother are high in those villages. How could it be possible to have one or two kids in such communities?
Also in those communities as my village, there is merely a central governmnt where disputes among villagers are settle, eg cows raiders is very common, and those cows are what people live on. Imagine yourself having twenty sons, ranging from age 18 to 30, that father is like a commander with 30 bodyguards well armed, will be always free from fear
of attacking
Your daughters are also source of family income. To marry a girl will cause you 30 to 40 cows the least, the richest pay upto 100 cows, so cows are a centre of life my culture. I married last year when I was back home and I paid 47 cows, my father paid 35 cows and I paid 1500.00 Canadian dollars, which was from my line of credit and visa I am stil paying the bill now, imagine father-inlaw has other seven daughters..he will be really rich I guess.
The whole point is how can we let these people understand the impact of world population?
Looking for answers.
cheers..
wunariik,
Complain about this comment
To wunariik #103:
You wrote: "Looking for answers."
I do not pretend to understand the life of your village after so brief an introduction. But I believe, from my life's experience, that people are the same everywhere. Believing this, I will quote below from one of our world's former citizens, whose ghost lives with many of us still:
- John F. Kennedy - Inaugural address, January, 1961.
"The world is very different now. For man holds in his mortal hands the power to abolish all forms of human poverty and all forms of human life... Now the trumpet summons us again... to bear the burden of a long twilight struggle, year in and year out. 'rejoicing in hope, patient in tribulation' [Romans 12:12] - a struggle against the common enemies of man: tyranny, poverty, disease and war itself.
My fellow citizens of the world: ask not what America can do for you, but what together we can do for the freedom of man."
- JFK Peace Speech at American University, June 10, 1963 -
"But wherever we are, we must all, in our daily lives, live up to the age-old faith that peace and freedom walk together. In too many of our cities today, the peace is not secure because freedom is incomplete.
It is the responsibility of the executive branch at all levels of government - local - state and national - to provide and protect that freedom for all of our citizens by all means within their authority...
'When a man's ways please the Lord', the Scriptures tell us, 'he maketh even his enemies to be at peace with him.' And is not peace, in the last analysis, basically a matter of human rights - the right to live out our lives without fear of devastation - the right to breathe air as nature provided it - the right of future generations to a healthy existence?"
- http://www.ratical.org/co-globalize/JFK061063.html
Hoping this is of some help, I remain,
- Manysummits -
Complain about this comment
wunariik #103
Thanks again for your descriptions of your village. You are writing faster than I can keep up with. Well Done!
But this time you asked a question...
"The whole point is how can we let these people understand the impact of world population?"
Your village appears to have survived through some bad times (you mentioned war) and yet survived with a system that works for your people. It also appears to be quite isolated from surrounding towns and influences. It also appears to be entirely free from any involvement in global warming.
If the village remains self contained and continues to survive as before, then the demands of the outside world should have no relevance at all. Your village has found a natural way of existence which works. It is not imposing any threat on the outside world and so could be left undisturbed. If at some point your village finds it is overpopulated then it probably has a way to deal with the problem.
Unfortunately the village may be subject to influences from outside and slowly change. If, at some time the village becomes modernised, with health care, transportation, modern financial systems etc, then it will end up in the same state as the rest of us and have to worry about overpopulation. But in the meantime, I hope it can be preserved as it is, and that it should not worry about *our* problems.
All the best; davblo2
Complain about this comment
davblo2 #105
you mentioned it that "unfortunately the village may be subject of
influences from the outside and slowly change". Yes,I believe nowhere all over the world will maintain that balance of nature and humans population forever.
Even if we maintain the population growth without the wise use of our
resources, unbalancing of nature and humans population will still occur as a result of running out of some vital resources. Now cities and towns are growing rapidly, even oil has been recently
discovered in the northern part of my village a distance of five hours
driving. This will eventually affect it, because digging oil will include deforestation and soil erosion somehow.All in all modernization is stepping in, and I don't think natural resources will keep up with our civilization ways of using them later.
I wouldn't stopped mentioning war in most of my comments, because war was where all my experiences based on. Indeed last year when I went back home, the common question I asked villagers was why do you like this forest? most of them gave the same answer over and over, "it helped sheltering people during the war", which wasn't enough answer for me.
some of you might be wondering where is that village located, because I don't remember mentioning that anywhere in my comments, I came from Africa; originally I am from Southern Sudan, Sudan has been devestated by war for 21 years, and even now some regions are still instable, eg Darfur.
we live along the Nile River in Summer time and move back to our village during the rainy season.
ManySummits #104
what pains me is my experience of living a city's life and knowing this unbalancing is coming undisturbed forest, not only to my village, but to all other areas over the world which are still undisturbed by modernization. Of course, no one across the globe is free from either unbalancing of natural resources, global warming, or human overpopulations. Now I am African-Canadian as a result of war, and many other people over the world are here for various reasons. I also believe every single nation has the same situation of having some immigrants, which means across the globe we are interconnected at some points.
Cheers..,
Wunariik,
Complain about this comment
davblo2; #49
Actually fits this story very well. The greater good may demand that we don t shoot the messenger of illegal whale-meat, just as much as it demands we allow police to search for illegal files. Yes, most jurisdictions need better oversight of not just police, but also police training, court decisions, and government actions, but that need is already there. Maybe more police power, will be the impetus for more police, court and government oversight?
manysummits; #104
If is an awful shame that we have not yet used the internet to spread JFK s words, and inspired enough optimism and trust to create his vision of a world without poverty.
Yes, we are all the same, but we do not all use the same amount of energy, create the same about of garbage, emit the same amount of co2, or even require the same acreage to grow the food we eat.
manysummits #101
I was liking `united planet` although that does seem to be taken, Planet United seems free, and would be superior to Dance of Life A planet United. Anyway, I do really like the idea of a declaration, even if I have issues with its substance.
As of 2008, world population was estimated at 6.7 billion, increasing at some eighty million per year. It is thought that the sustainable population of the world, at a level consistent with the World Health Organization s definition of ?complete health?, is likely only three to four billion, half the present number.
So the solution is a voluntary one or two child per couple policy, when an imposed one child rule, and increased life expectancy, has led to population growth?
Surely laying enough new rail to end famine, building enough solar powered trains to create car-free cities, free condoms, better crop rotation and less meat consumption, would be preferable to war, famine, droughts and floods?
Even without AGW, with present population growth we will soon find the limits of our finite planet. If our numbers are already twice recommended, all the more reason, to learn how to live without impacting the biosphere. We need to ax the habits that ax habitat.
Planned and perceived obsolescence might be the worst habit of all, except that we should decide what to build before we build everything to last forever.
I vote for building the most efficient mode.
Stay safe and peace be with you.
Complain about this comment
To wunariik #106:
It is what I see too - there is nowhere to run - we all sink or swim together. This new truth will produce results. People will vote for life, given the chance.
To Bicycle-Fan #107:
It's still a work in progress - thank you for your comments! If this declaration or call to action, if it breathes - it may live on the internet - along with the words of JFK - and it can be constantly improved and revised - by all!
I agree with you - imposed one child families, and increasing life expectancy, have not worked in the first instance, and are contributing to world population growth in the second instance. But the two are separate issues.
We want increased life expectancy - and we can and should welcome this. As wunariik pointed out, one of the reasons for his people having so many children was because of high infant mortality. For awhile, we will have to live with increasing population due to increasing life expectancy and reduced infant mortality, until the people affected see that thee is no need for many children - if they can depend on the elimination of unnecessary death. It's a complex subject - hence one for the heart. Just do what feels right.
The reason I believe in choice rather than imposition is as old as the hills. People choke on imposition, and will never accept it. Why should they? But people need to know the facts, and to see others walking the walk.
I already like your ideas on transportation - we will need all of the good ideas we can get in the immediate future. My reason for the declaration of the two 'overarching' concerns is that without some recognition of these and their power to disembowel all other measures, we are doomed to ultimate failure, no matter the worth of ideas such as yours. Both are needed - recognition of the overarching constraints on us, and individual ideas which deliver results.
All the best - Manysummits
Complain about this comment
To jr4412: - some weekend thoughts -
I just watched Simon and Garfunkel's "Concert in Central Park", and Michael Flately's "Riverdance" last night. I had to 'let the animal run', after long weeks concentrating on this 'declaration.' The faces of the people - our response to music and inspiration - we absolutely need that on our side in this declaration.
For whatever reason, we humans have been endowed with a big brain and high intelligence, which lives uneasily alongside our instinctive and emotional selves.
Our emotional side is unquestionably our 'warp' drive. Harness that and we can go anywhere and do anything. But our prosaic rational side must have its day in the sun too, especially on this twenty-first century's rapidly escalating environmental crisis.
As I see it, our intelligence is our inertial guidance system, and we must use it, or as Cousteau has put it, risk turning over the planet to the insect. But our engine is our emotional selves.
I say all this because I am thinking of adding a line or two to produce the palimpsest I spoke of so long ago. What I have in mind is an implicit message, or messages, embedded in the text. A recognition of our real humanity, of our powerful emotional side. People are inherently both rational and irrational, and both sides must see the path ahead as welcoming. Our declaration must appeal to both - it must be both - emotional and rational.
- Manysummits, resting -
Complain about this comment
manysummits #102, #109.
you asked for my thoughts, thank you, so here goes ;-)
"I want this 'Dance of Life' to continuously evolve, as time and circumstance require, and that people everywhere be able to contribute, Wikipedia like."
not sure about the title, like the flag issue, evocative and emotive stuff isn't really me, I prefer to leave this to others. the website wiki thing, as mentioned before, I do agree absolutely.
"Should we ask the BBC to host this?"
probably not, it won't fall in their (paid for by license fee) remit, which leaves us needing to find a suitable provider.
"I want - so much! I think we are finally recovering from the traumatizing assassinations.."
yes, President Obama is a breath of fresh air and I hope that, in spite of his being a lawyer, US politics will change profoundly, in deeds as well as in tone.
"People are inherently both rational and irrational, and both sides must see the path ahead as welcoming."
yes, I'll address this by way of quote, clipped from Justin Webb's America (Obama's Catholic difficulties) and slightly out of context:
"saintDominick #109 wrote:
As human beings we react and act upon our convictions and no matter how hard we try to portray ourselves as tolerant and receptive to differing opinions, when it comes time to vote on legislation we will do it based on what we believe in and what we would like to see implemented."
and "A recognition of our real humanity, of our powerful emotional side."
this is also our collective weakness, since people in groups are easily manipulated, especially via strong, emotive messages.
for instance, mass-displays of overt nationalism.
knowing your fondness of quotes, I will add Samuel Johnson here: "Patriotism is the last refuge of the scoundrel" because I think we'll come across plenty of those while pursuing the dream of a world united.
in #108, replying to Bicycle-Fan, you write: "As wunariik pointed out, one of the reasons for his people having so many children was because of high infant mortality."
I'd like to add that another reason is the lack of state support systems; the extended, multi-generational family guarantees old age support, though I'm certain you're aware of this.
the one child per family policy can be very destructive, remember the earthquakes in China last year, the collapsed school building, the distraught parents?
finally, and totally intrigued, how can anybody relax to "Michael Flately's "Riverdance""?? ;-)
Complain about this comment
To jr4412:
I really broke up laughing at your last comment re Michael Flately!
I guess I just love to see the lifeforce expressed - it makes me feel at home.
Taking in all your thoughts - off to the Reservoir with the family.
Here is something like what I had in mind for the last four paragraphs of:
\\\ A Planet United ///
(Year 2009 of the Common Era)
........
.......
.....
We call on the Peoples of the World and The United Nations to exercise their right to choose our collective path to the future, and their responsibility to act in the common interest of all Life on Earth.
We can unite our very powerful emotional selves and our brilliant intellectual capacity – to guide Spaceship Earth aright.
John Fitzgerald Kennedy spoke of: "the common enemies of man: tyranny, poverty, disease and war itself." If, as John Kennedy believed, "peace and freedom walk together", and if, as Jacques Yves Cousteau believed, "The impossible missions are the only ones which succeed":
Is it not time to end our long and debilitating Dance with Death, and begin a new Dance of Life?
- http://www.ratical.org/co-globalize/JFK061063.html
- http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jacques_cousteau
- Manysummits - still chuckling -
Complain about this comment
To jr4412:
Another idea - just came!
We are getting feedback jr - people like the idea and the word - "Declaration" - and appear to like "A Planet United"
So here's my new thought - let's work to get this finalized this week, and issue it on May 1, 2009, as follows:
\\\ A Planet United - Mayday Declaration ///
(May 1, Year 2009 of the Common Era)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mayday_(distress_signal)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/May_Day
Maybe I should send what I've got so far (below). If you wish, you could return with revisions from your point of view? Also, upon issue, should we request some process whereby people can affix their callsigns as part of "We the Undersigned" - should there be a way for comments and suggestions to be formally recognized and dealt with? This is part of Phase Two I suppose - maybe we're getting ahead of ourselves????
Bicycle-Fan likes the idea of per capita consumption as opposed to Population Growth. I am committed to Population Growth as the number one priority, but as it should be voluntary, and will no doubt evolve gradually, the per capita idea might be included usefully in this declaration - any ideas where?
\\\ A Planet United - Mayday Declaration ///
(May 1, Year 2009 of the Common Era)
\\ Call to Action - to the Peoples of the World //
The authors consider that there are two overarching concerns, which taken together constitute an imminent threat to our long term survival and to our children’s future:
1) Population Growth
As of 2008, world population was estimated at 6.7 billion, increasing at some eighty million per year. It is thought that the sustainable population of the world, at a level consistent with the World Health Organization’s definition of ‘complete health’, is likely only three to four billion, half the present number.
http://www.optimumpopulation.org/
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/World_population
Recommendation:
Halt, and then reverse, the growth of the world’s population, by self-limiting our numbers, and having, on average, one or two children per family, until world population is at a level considered sustainable, or disease, famine and war will do it for us.
It is recognized that primary responsibility for the reduction of the world population will fall to the 'developing world'. A healthy future contains children, but in reduced numbers.
2) Climate Change
As of 2009, the atmospheric carbon dioxide level stands at 387 parts per million by volume (ppmv), increasing at 1.9 ppmv per year, and this is expected to increase at a greater rate in the near future. The principal driver of global warming and ocean acidification is the emission of carbon dioxide into our atmosphere from the burning of fossil fuels – coal, oil and natural gas.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Global_warming
Recommendation:
Halt, and then reverse, as soon as possible, the buildup of greenhouse gases in our atmosphere and oceans, until the atmospheric concentration of carbon dioxide is 350 parts per million by volume or less.
http://yosemite.epa.gov/opa/admpress.nsf/0/0EF7DF675805295D8525759B00566924
http://www.columbia.edu/~jeh1/ (Feb. 26, 2009: Carbon Tax & Dividend)
It is recognized that primary responsibility for the reduction of carbon dioxide in our atmosphere will fall to the ‘developed world’, and to the superpowers.
\\ Call to Action - to the United Nations //
We, the under-signed, ask that the United Nations reshape itself as an organisation, and place the interests and the welfare of the entire Planetary Ecosphere above the interests of human individuals, organisations, and nation states.
Specifically, we ask that all UN agencies reorganise themselves with a view to:
1) Rewriting their charters in language that emphasises the planetary interest over the national, organisational, and individual interest.
2) Restructuring their managing bodies and rewriting their charters to exclude the potential of partisanship and advantage amongst members.
3) Emphasizing health as the primary goal for all species including humans, as per the 'World Health Organization,' a branch of the United Nations, which states:
"Health is a state of complete physical, mental and social well being and not merely the absence of disease or infirmity.
The enjoyment of the highest attainable standard of health is one of the fundamental rights of every human being without regard to race, religion, political belief and economical or social condition."
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Health (see WHO Constitution)
~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~
We call on the Peoples of the World and The United Nations to exercise their right to choose our collective path to the future, and their responsibility to act in the common interest of all Life on Earth.
We can unite our very powerful emotional selves and our brilliant intellectual capacity – to guide Spaceship Earth aright.
In 1963, at American University, John Fitzgerald Kennedy spoke of: "the common enemies of man: tyranny, poverty, disease and war itself." If, as John Kennedy believed, "peace and freedom walk together", and if, as Jacques Yves Cousteau believed, "The impossible missions are the only ones which succeed" - is it not time to end our long and debilitating Dance with Death, and begin a new Dance of Life?
http://yosemite.epa.gov/opa/admpress.nsf/0/0EF7DF675805295D8525759B00566924
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jacques_cousteau
Authors: Manysummits & JR4412
– Earth Watch; BBC World News, Science and Environment Blogsite
http://news.bbc.co.uk/
http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/thereporters/richardblack/
- END – (650 words)
- Manysummits - rolling! -
Complain about this comment
manysummits.
spirit currently crushed -- the racists are staying away from Geneva..
sorry, will get back later.
Complain about this comment
Manysummits #112
(we agree on so much, it is a shame to disagree at all)
Population growth should not be number one (let alone present) on any declaration`s priority list, because;
- If the richest 30 percent of humanity consumes 70% of the resources, and emits more than 70% of the co2, then limiting our numbers but increasing the number of middle-class within the present paradigm, will only destroy more habitat and push up co2 emissions.
- Any population problems, can be solved by increasing standard of living, more and better education, and plenty of free condoms.
- The poorest 70 percent of humanity, tend to have the highest fertility rates. So any effort to curb population would affect them most, and seem like the rich `blaming` the poor, for environmental problems caused by the rich.
It is not really so much a matter of guiding spaceship earth, as changing our relationship to it, from one of a destructive parasite to one of a productive steward.
We could do that with the help of solar and wind, trains and bicycles, solar heated shelter, crop rotation, and less meat consumption. All of which are existing technologies.
The alternatives to bringing ourselves into balance with the rest of the biosphere, are too horrific to consider. The status quo, will reach the limits of a finite planet, sooner or later. So we, may as well convert to sustainable practices, so we can stop emissions and begin to measure the results of the great co2 experiment.
Bicycle-Fan
Complain about this comment
To Bicycle-Fan #114:
Hi! Thanks for the input!
I think we actually agree totally. In the declaration, we state that the primary responsibility for curbing CO2 emmissions will be that of your 30% rich countries. In effect that will probably mean using sustainable practices and conservation, as per Burgermeister and yourself. Perhaps we can specifically mention sustainability in the declaration? It is unfortunate but nevertheless true that population growth can only be curbed by your 70%.
Perhaps you can add a sustainability clause? You could pick out the place you think it should go, copy and paste,and word your additions yourself in square quotation brackets, something like that?
I am working today on adding an Abrupt Climate Change section, as natural variations of this sort are part of Earth's climate system, and we would have to deal with natural abrupt change at some point in the future anyway. But dealing with either human induced climate change or naturally induced change will be much harder, if not impossible, if we have to deal with it when we are stretched at or past our limits of sustainability, which I think we are now by at least a factor of two.
The history of populations at capacity being struck down when change unexpectedly occurred is truly frightening, and when you consider that this time it is virtually the entire planet - well, it seems we have to reduce our numbers. Even were we to become more efficient - it is simply not biologically possible to indefinitely increase our numbers.
But that is not for me to demand - the declaration seeks to inform and leave decisions up to the people. If the people see no need to reduce numbers, after they have been made aware of the situation, so be it.
I include a link from the BBC to illustrate natural climate change:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/8003060.stm
Wishing you well, and hoping to see your addition,
- Manysummits -
Complain about this comment
To jr4412 # 113:
"Rejoicing in hope; patient in tribulation"
I read the Geneva articles. I don't quite understand the politics I'm afraid - it seems to do primarily with Israel/Middle East Oil/..., and the exact wording of the UN document, which I didn't see reproduced anywhere.
Surprising, given President Obama's open image, but unsurprising, given the current dependence on Middle Eastern Oil - that's what we're going to wean ourselves off of if we reduce CO2 emmissions?
So our declaration is a multi-tasker, in the final analysis. That's the way I feel about curbing population growth too - its benefits are manifold.
President Obama will find a way - we hope!
- Manysummits -
Complain about this comment
manysummits #112
You have in the Declaration...
'In 1963, at American University, John Fitzgerald Kennedy spoke of: "the common enemies of man: tyranny, poverty, disease and war itself." If, as John Kennedy believed, ...'
No criticism of the sentiments intended, but to reach the widest possible audience, without risk of antagonising them, wouldn't it be prudent to avoid names of specific countries (America) and political figures (JFK). Putting it bluntly, there are regimes which hate certain countries, eg (dare I say) America, and their nationals have the same view. Also many around the world have differing opinions of political figures; but they may still want a world for their children.
All the best; davblo2
Complain about this comment
To davblo2 #117:
Yes, what you say is all true.
I don't know how old you are, but I was alive and watching John Kennedy in those days long ago. If ever there was a world figure who attracted diverse national and cultural solitudes, it was John Kennedy. Of course there are those who dislike, even hate, JFK and what he stood for. But I can do little about that, no matter what we say or do not say in our declaration. We could express similar sentiments in our own names, but it seems to me that would alienate those same people, so there's no winning there, and I have the additional feeling that it is more than just America and the western world who miss JFK.
Nikita Kruschev said that the 'Peace speech' at American university was in his opinion the finest speech ever given by an American president.
You know, in the end, if you try to please everybody, you end up pleasing nobody. This declaration is really two things - information and the consequent call to action; and a plea for a better world - something which I believe JFK was most concerned with. If you watch his inaugural address, you will see the sentiments of his peace speech three years later - amazingly consistent - amazing that such a young man could be so prescient - but then that is why I hope we can use his words - he was the most amazing man I have ever seen or encountered. And he believed in the United Nations.
If we cannot venerate our predecessors, especially one like JFK, then I will have to conclude that we are doing something fundamentally wrong.
If this declaration has any life outside of this blog, it will be possible for people from all over the world to add their favorite predecessors, or sayings, or thoughts, and in their own language.
This declaration is just that - a template - a beginning - a start - a declaration of intent - as it turns out, by a western man who lived in the time of Kennedy -
I have tried to address Bicycle-Fans and wunariik's concerns in a latest draft, and from what I can see, Burghermeister on the electric car blog is wondering if we (jr4412 and I) are amenable to suggestions? I can only speak for myself, of course - YES!
I will now post below the latest draft - which is getting longer, and invite others to send in comments and suggestions:
\\\ A Planet United - May Day Declaration ///
(May 1, Year 2009 of the Common Era)
\\ Call to Action - to the Peoples of the World //
The authors consider that there are two overarching concerns, which taken together constitute an imminent threat to our long term survival and to our children’s future:
1) Population Growth
As of 2008, world population was estimated at 6.7 billion, increasing at some eighty million per year. It is thought that the sustainable population of the world, at a level consistent with the World Health Organization’s definition of ‘complete health’, is likely only three to four billion, half the present number.
http://www.optimumpopulation.org/
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/World_population
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/World_health_organization
Recommendation:
Consider voluntarily self-limiting our numbers, and having, on average, one or two children per family, until world population is at a level considered sustainable. The natural world has taught us that no population can expand indefinitely on a finite planet. Therefore, we will have to confront the limits to our population sooner or later. Why not now?
It is recognized that primary responsibility for the reduction of the world population will fall to the ‘developing world.’ It is also recognized that the prevention of unnecessary early childhood deaths will have to be effectively addressed, as will cultural propensities toward conflict and war, as will famine and disease amongst the adult population.
2) Climate Change
As of 2009, the atmospheric carbon dioxide level stands at 387 parts per million by volume (ppmv), increasing at 1.9 ppmv per year, and this is expected to increase at a greater rate in the near future. The principal driver of global warming and ocean acidification is the emission of carbon dioxide into our atmosphere from the burning of fossil fuels – coal, oil and natural gas.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Global_warming
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Abrupt_climate_change
Recommendation:
Halt, and then reverse, as soon as possible, the buildup of greenhouse gases in our atmosphere and oceans, until the atmospheric concentration of carbon dioxide is 350 parts per million by volume or less.
It is recognized that climate change, and sometimes ‘abrupt climate change,’ is a natural part of the Earth’s climatic system, and has disrupted ways of life repeatedly throughout history. At this time, however, mankind has already committed the planet to climate and ocean change through the inadvertent addition of vast quantities of carbon dioxide to the atmosphere and ocean. It is thought by many climate scientists that in addition to the changes already under way, we may have also increased the likelihood of ‘abrupt climate change’, and this at a time when world population may be at or in fact far over the planet’s sustainable limit.
http://yosemite.epa.gov/opa/admpress.nsf/0/0EF7DF675805295D8525759B00566924
http://www.columbia.edu/~jeh1/ (Feb. 26, 2009: Carbon Tax & Dividend)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Richard_Alley (Arctic and Antarctic glaciologist)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lonnie_Thompson (Tropical and mountain paleoclimatologist)
It is recognized that primary responsibility for the reduction of carbon dioxide in our atmosphere will fall to the ‘developed world’, and to the superpowers.
It is also recognized that the transition to a low carbon economy will most probably have profound economic implications which will be felt around the world. New and more efficient energy and transportation systems will be required, and new and sustainable lifestyles.
But perhaps of most importance will be a united planet, willing and able to accommodate the inevitable changes which are coming, preferably with a population not in excess of finite resources.
\\ Call to Action - to the United Nations //
We, the under-signed, ask that the United Nations reshape itself as an organisation, and place the interests and the welfare of the entire Planetary Ecosphere above the interests of human individuals, organisations, and nation states.
Specifically, we ask that all UN agencies reorganise themselves with a view to:
1) Rewriting their charters in language that emphasises the planetary interest over the
national, organisational, and individual interest.
2) Restructuring their managing bodies and rewriting their charters to exclude the
potential of partisanship and advantage amongst members.
3) Emphasizing health as the primary goal for all species including humans, as per the
‘World Health Organization,’ a branch of the United Nations, which states:
"Health is a state of complete physical, mental and social well being and not merely
the absence of disease or infirmity.
The enjoyment of the highest attainable standard of health is one of the fundamental
rights of every human being without regard to race, religion, political belief and
economical or social condition."
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Health (see WHO Constitution)
~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~
We call on the Peoples of the World and The United Nations to exercise their right to choose our collective path to the future, and their responsibility to act in the common interest of all Life on Earth.
We can unite our very powerful emotional selves and our brilliant intellectual capacity – to guide Spaceship Earth aright.
In 1963, at American University, John Fitzgerald Kennedy spoke of: “the common enemies of man: tyranny, poverty, disease and war itself.” If, as John Kennedy believed, “peace and freedom walk together”, and if, as Jacques Yves Cousteau believed, “The impossible missions are the only ones which succeed” - is it not time to end our long and debilitating Dance with Death, and begin a new Dance of Life?
http://yosemite.epa.gov/opa/admpress.nsf/0/0EF7DF675805295D8525759B00566924
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jacques_cousteau
Authors: Manysummits & JR4412
– Earth Watch; BBC World News, Science and Environment Blogsite
http://news.bbc.co.uk/
http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/thereporters/richardblack/
- END – (883 words)
-
Complain about this comment
manysummits #118.
"..wondering if we (jr4412 and I) are amenable to suggestions?"
quoting self post #19:
"-- invite everybody who cares enough to write and submit a draft version of a declaration, or at least clauses deemed important, and to vote on the inclusion/exclusion of specific clauses.
-- drafts/clauses in any language as long as accompanied by an English ("lingua franca") translation."
in the spirit of "two heads are better than one" though it should, of course, in our case read "many heads.."
Complain about this comment
To jr4412 #119:
Great! Glad you're back - have just invited input on the electric car blog.
- Manysummits -
Complain about this comment
manysummits #120.
"..you're back.." not fully yet, still reeling from the disappointment (actually, more like wounded by!) of President Obama siding with the racists; an opportunity to stand against injustice, inhumanity, fascism -- squandered!
on topic:
davblo2 #117 makes a most important point, the declaration must speak to *all* humans, irrespective of culture & belief. tough but doable.
Bicycle-Fan's concerns in #107 where he answers your #101 also merit addressing.
I haven't been reading the "electric car blog" but will try and find time to do so.
Complain about this comment
To jr4412 & manysummits:
Just swung across from the "electric car blog" at your request. You lay out a thoughtful piece of work. Couple of initial thoughts:
Your two main themes as I read are AGW and population. We here, on the blog, may know what we mean by this. However, I do not think either of these will engage a world audience. If this blog is anything to go by its going to create the opposite effect:)
The other point I believe that will be a major cause of contention is the involvement of the UN. I, and I know many others would support your call for them to be reorganized. Many of their folk do great work but the organization is a total crock and IMO should be totally broken up. The various agencies would do well to free themselves of the yoke. I have worked with some organizations in this field and it’s very doable and advantageous to the organization and recipients. On this point I would support your declaration but not in the guise of the UN.
That's my quick two cents worth. I applaud the effort you have made as we always need a starting point and that’s the hardest bit. It’s easy now to throw straw men in so I hope you take these as feedback which will come from all directions. Positive, negative and whatever. I’ll dwell a while and see if anything gels to share further.
Cheers….
Complain about this comment
Hi manysummits,
I don't know whether you have come across this before; but it may give you some ideas and inspiration; (especially as it involves the UN).
It's "Peace One Day" which Jeremy Gilley established after a long long struggle.
http://www.peaceoneday.org
The video on the front page gives an overview.
Direct link...
http://link.brightcove.com/services/player/bcpid9525052001?bctid=16538671001
He went initially through the UN and managed to get a resolution passed by their General Assembly.
I remember watching a documentary about his efforts at the very beginning. He was touring the member states, meeting officials and showing them his "promotional video". He had a very big set-back at one point. In his video he showed how he had obtained support from many winners of the Nobel Peace prize. One of them, I'm petty sure it was Yasser Arafat (Nobel Peace Prize 1994), was so hated by some of the other leaders that when they saw Jeremy's video they said they had been insulted, and walked out in disgust. The problem was that to get his resolution through the UN he needed support from these leaders. Hence my advice for prudency in #117. Loosing just a few votes can make all the difference.
All the best; davblo2
Complain about this comment
To jr4412; hi, my #123 was to you as well of course.
All the best; davblo2
Complain about this comment
To davblo2 #123:
Hello! Just watched the nine minute video of Peace Day - September 21.
I was frankly stunned - in a positive way - by the response world wide!
It gives one hope. I'm afraid I often operate in my own little world - I was not even aware of Peace Day - thanks for the link. I will view your other link after work.
My initial impression is that JFK's "Peace Speech at American University" needs such worldwide attention. Perhaps it could defuse some of the hostility built up over the eight years of George W. Bush's presidency? Most of the people now alive on the planet were not even born when that speech was given, it just occurred to me!
Soon,
- Manysummits -
Complain about this comment
manysummits #125
Glad you found it useful.
It has a clever title if you think about it:
Peace One Day:
the initial objective; to have Peace for one day (21 Sep) each year
Peace One Day:
the longer objective; to have Peace (global) sometime in the future
All the best; davblo2
Complain about this comment
Hi again manysummits #125
Now you've got me working.
I thought I'd better take a looks at the speech (I was in early teens at the time and I'm afraid the last thing we did was listen to politicians) to see why you hold it in so high esteem. It's quit impressive I must admit.
Back to the declaration, I do a lot of proof reading so I'm rather picky; hope you don't mind a few comments.
(a) The JFK part
Assuming I have the correct speech, "Commencement Address at American University; delivered 10 June 1963"
http://www.jfklibrary.org/Historical+Resources/Archives/Reference+Desk/Speeches/JFK/003POF03AmericanUniversity06101963.htm
and
http://www.americanrhetoric.com/speeches/jfkamericanuniversityaddress.html
In your declaration you have...
- In 1963, at American University, John Fitzgerald Kennedy spoke of: "the common enemies of man: tyranny, poverty, disease and war itself."
...which looks like a direct quote. But I couldn't find it in the speech. No "common enemies", no "tyranny" at all. The nearest I could find was "For we are both devoting massive sums of money to weapons that could be better devoted to combat ignorance, poverty, and disease."
If you are paraphrasing, it won't have quite the same impact. Otherwise it should be a true quotation.
(d) Another J(F)K part
If, as John Kennedy believed, "peace and freedom walk together"
I found this quotation in the speech, but (small thing I know) why drop his middle name this time?
(c) The Jacques Yves Cousteau part
You quote "The impossible missions are the only ones which succeed"
and then show the link...
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jacques_cousteau
The expectation for the reader would be that the link would lead to a site where the quote could be seen but I couldn't find it there at all.
I did find it however on...
http://www.cousteau.org
(d) General
You have a link for Cousteau but not for JFK
Complain about this comment
timjenvey #122.
thanks for encourgement and constructive remarks.
"..support your declaration but not in the guise of the UN."
the UN as it is now will not do, agreed. however, the ideal of an "United Nations" is right and the intention is to petition them to re-organise under a new charter, see #100, and also #58.
do you think this could be a way of proceeding?
davblo2 #123, #124, #127.
thank you too, the link to 'peaceoneday' is brilliant, cannot remember that day being publicised in UK.
I think your comments in #117 very pertinent.
re #127 and quotes: perhaps having inspirational quotes without attribution (other than in footnote/appendix) would help? you are right though to 'nitpick' - correctness and consistency are a must.
manysummits.
hope your not too worried about my 'raving' - I'm getting older and frustrated, life..
I have downloaded and installed a couple of (open source) softwares to evaluate with view of using as a platform where people can "meet" and debate; they are 'DokuWiki' and 'Citadel'. I read into your comments that you are not into the details of IT (sorry if wrong impression) and therefore won't bore you with it all. however, anybody reading this and having an interest in contributing, I should like to hear your opinions.
Complain about this comment
To davblo2 #127:
100% - that's just the kind of look see this declaration needs at this stage. I'll look again - it may be that I have taken the quote from JFK's inaugural speech - I also have a book of JFK quotations - but in any case, thanks a million for pointing that out. All your other points accepted completely - will rectify.
Had some inspiration today - I have the whole Declaration clear in my mind, from start to finish - will post hopefully tonight - this is not the final - just the skeleton. Please see my next post?
Thanks again - Manysummits rolling a little too fast obviously - but rolling
Complain about this comment
Hi jr4412 #128 "...where people can "meet" and debate..."
You may like to look at http://www.phpbb.com/about/
All the best; davblo2
Complain about this comment
To jr4412 #128:
100% jr - I see you're rolling too.
I had my own website for years, and I hand program in XHTML 1.0, and validate with W3C. But I have no experience with an interactive website, which is what I believe you are talking about?
Are we thinking - "A Planet United" - a cyber NGO???
Complain about this comment
To 'wunariik":
Posted below is the section which has been revised to address your input re African villages, and by association, all such villages in the world.
Would you be interested in revising or adding to the section from your 'African' point of view??? Perhaps in the section titled : 'Recommendation:'??, specifically where I have placed square brackets??
1) Population Growth
As of 2008, world population was estimated at 6.7 billion, increasing at some eighty million per year. It is thought that the sustainable population of the world, at a level consistent with the World Health Organization?s definition of ?complete health?, is likely only three to four billion, half the present number.
http://www.optimumpopulation.org/
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/World_population
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/World_health_organization
Recommendation:
Consider voluntarily self-limiting our numbers, and having, on average, one or two children per family, until world population is at a level considered sustainable. The natural world has taught us that no population can expand indefinitely on a finite planet. Therefore, we will have to confront the limits to our population sooner or later. Why not now?
[It is recognized that primary responsibility for the reduction of the world population will fall to the ?developing world.? It is also recognized that the prevention of unnecessary early childhood deaths will have to be effectively addressed, as will cultural propensities toward conflict and war, as will famine and disease amongst the adult population.] [wunarriik's section??]
- Manysummits -
Complain about this comment
To Bicycle-an and Burghermeister:
Would either or preferably both of you be inteested in revising the section posted below - on sustainable lifestyle/energy/transportation. This is under the overall title "Climat Change" I have enclosed the sections I think might interest you in square brackets:
"It is recognized that primary responsibility for the reduction of carbon dioxide in our atmosphere will fall to the ?developed world?, and to the superpowers.
[It is also recognized that the transition to a low carbon economy will most probably have profound economic implications which will be felt around the world. New and more efficient energy and transportation systems will be required, and new and sustainable lifestyles.
But perhaps of most importance will be a united planet, willing and able to accommodate the inevitable changes which are coming, preferably with a population not in excess of finite resources.] [Bicycle-Fan & Burghermeister ??]
- Manysummits -
Complain about this comment
davblo2 #130.
thanks, first glance at feature list compares favourable with 'DokuWiki', not sure whether separate DB backend is actually required, I'll download and have a look-see in next few days.
Complain about this comment
To davblo2:
A thousand pardons! You have been working so hard on this declaration, and I neglected to ask you if you would like to write a section or sections or revise something.
Please choose your territory and let us know????
Also, I would like to include your Peaco One Day link - Hey!!!! Maybe that's your passion - peace??? Go for it!
- Manysummits -
Complain about this comment
Started from the top again... nitpicking;
In the first sentence,...
"The authors consider that there are two overarching concerns, which taken together constitute an imminent threat to our long term survival and to our children?s future:"
...the word "our" in "...threat to our long term survival..." seems rather weak. Without prior knowledge it could be taken as referring back to "The authors".
How about "...threat to mankind's long term survival..."
All the best; davblo2 (2am... good night)
Complain about this comment
manysummits #131.
"..I hand program in XHTML 1.0, and validate with W3C." nice!!
"Are we thinking - "A Planet United" - a cyber NGO???" YES, I love "cyber NGO"! you do have a way with words ;-))
"..interactive website..". 'DokuWiki' utilises an existing webserver (any, as long as it's got PHP) to provide editable pages; has good community support, shedloads of plugins for additional functionality, doesn't need a database. 'phpbb' (davblo2 #130) seems v similar. 'Citadel' is quite different (think "groupware") but has grown from bulletin board s/ware and therefore has "forum" type chat, emails, calendar, etc. may not be best way to go.
I look forward to an outline how you envisage it should work, ie. which is better: blog like debate where "moderator" condenses salient points and makes available for vote, or wiki-like where (all) participants can edit existing text.
Complain about this comment
This comment was removed because the moderators found it broke the House Rules.
manysummits; #131-#133
Firstly I’m not sure how far this thing`s wings will take us, if we cannot leave personal contact info here. I guess you will have to create a non-profit web-site, and try to post a link.
Secondly, although the people that need to act, (those that consume the most), are likely to want population restrictions, I would hope the point of this exercise, is to find the correct solution, not merely the most popular one.
There are only two choices. Either we reduce our numbers, so each of us can pollute more, or we pollute less, to allow a slightly larger number of us, to live in balance with nature.
All we can do about population growth, is limit that growth, because all the population reduction scenarios are too horrific to consider. If our current numbers multiplied by current consumption, brings us out of balance with nature, then our only choice, is to make the consumption balanced with nature.
Our leaders already know that they need to act, so we need to focus our attention on figuring out how they should act.
Yes, we need laws, forcing higher standards, for safety and durability, but we need to decide what to build, before we build everything to last forever.
Everyone needs to know, that even if it is possible, to provide safe, earth-friendly and personal, motorized transport for all, safe and earth friendly rail-transport for all, should still be a priority. And since safe and earth friendly motorized road transport, is highly unlikely to be possible for all, building enough rail-transport to leave city streets free for bicycles, should defiantly be a priority.
Complain about this comment
To Bicycle-Fan #139:
Hello!
Read you loud and clear. Right now it's everything I can do to just get this declaration written. You and jr4412 are talking Phase Two -
I have an idea or two, but first I'd like to get this document in much better shape.
Appreciate your balanced view as per your #139 post. Would you prefer that I add some of this to the document, or would you like to actually write/edit the document itself?
For what it's worth, I'll post here a new preamble section, and a possible ending - for feedback:
\\\ May Day Declaration ///
- A Planet United -
(May 1, Year 2009 of the Common Era)
Preamble:
This May Day Declaration, written by the people, for the people, is intended to function as a world resource, available to ‘all’ on the internet and elsewhere.
Issued on May 1, 2009, ‘mayday’ is also the international distress signal, and accurately portrays, as far as can be determined, the situation on planet Earth at this time, that is, an impending planetary emergency.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mayday_(distress_signal)
Symbol and Logo of : - A Planet United –
A stylized Earth – a circle – enclosing a space with three stick figures – a man, a woman, and a child – engaged in the ‘Dance of Life.’
Surrounding them, seven circles of light, the colors of the rainbow, each representing in turn mankinds’s march out of Africa, across the world, to the fringes of the Solar System.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Solar_system
Possible ending:
"Rejoicing in hope, patient in tribulation" [Romans 12:12] - We, the undersigned, recognizing that the details and recommendations of this declaration await final resolution, do nonetheless, on our sacred honor, pledge our support to the animating spirit of this document:
A Planet – in Truth – United.
Authors: manysummits; jr4412; davblo2 ??; Bicycle-Fan ??;
– Earth Watch; BBC World News, Science and Environment Blogsite
http://news.bbc.co.uk/
http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/thereporters/richardblack/
- END –
Today I'm working on the section which referred to John F. Kennedy, and making the corrections and adding to omiitted areas as per davblo2's comments earlier.
I have question marks beside your name and davblo2's as I wouldn't wish to offend and add your names without your express consent.
Soon;
- Manysummits -
Complain about this comment
To jr4412 #137:
OK, programming in XHTML 1.0 is not being IT profficient - no problem - I defer to an obviously more IT literate than I!!
As I mentioned to Bicycle-Fan above, hands full just writing and thinking about this declaration. Needs power and beauty - working on today.
But I do lean towards wiki - even Wikipedia itself, available in multiple languages.
I just read in my United Nations handbook that the UN currently deals with over 3000 NGO's, so adding another would be no burden. On the other hand, Wikipedia is already established and awesome in conception and execution.
Thinking as follows:
If we have something well written and spell checked/grammar checked/accuracy/ommission checked etc... by the weekend, we could turn our attention to Phase Two before May 1, i.e., all next week and over the coming weekend.. Maybe send it to David Suziki, the Nature Conservancy, Greenpeace, James Hansen etc. etc.. maybe a whole list, and even ask Richard Black if he would consider publishing our declaration on his Environment site directly - worldwide audience!
Got to roll,
- Manysummits -
Complain about this comment
manysummits #141, #140.
'fraid you're losing me again when you say "..by the weekend, we could turn our attention to Phase Two .." and "You and jr4412 are talking Phase Two".
Phase 1, Phase 2 ?? I thought we're talking trying to create a (as in one) declaration, to be developed in collaboration, and then, after having been voted on, submitted on behalf of the undersigned. please clarify.
also, May 1st? is there a reason for this particular date?
"..UN currently deals with over 3000 NGO's, so adding another would be no burden."
are you suggesting the founding of an "official" not-for-profit organisation?
BTW "nice!!" (#137) referred to my liking the idea that you're able (and competent) to build and maintain a website AND admiration/kudos for recognising that standards compliance (W3C) is very important.
Complain about this comment
To manysummits
#135 "Please choose your territory and let us know????"
I shall have a go...
#140 "I wouldn't wish to offend and add your names without your express consent."
It would be an honour to be included (I don't feel I've contributed so much; but trying none the less).
#141 "programming in XHTML 1.0 is not being IT proficient"
I too have done some XHTML, CSS, Javascript, PHP, SQL, etc and currently work in IT. So can give a hand if it would be useful.
#general
Looking more into speeches, declarations and the like, I've just realised I have a problem understanding the logic behind granting people "rights". What is the use of a "right" if the is no one to respect it and no way to exercise it? I'd have started from the principle that we are all born with nothing but "needs"; which are first taken care of by our parents and later by family friends and organisations. As we grow our needs change as do the ways they are satisfied (or not). At the same time we take on responsibility to reciprocate, to contribute, and help satisfy the needs of others. Acknowledging that people have needs leads directly to the question of how to satisfy them. Granting people "rights" seem like a way of sounding well-meaning but avoiding the awkward questions.
I see the UN created an "International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights (1966)", which includes articles on implementation and allows for the involved States to report on progress; which seems to have tried to fill that gap. But I haven't found how well that worked out.
Anyway, as I see it people have a basic need of a comfortable life; which equates to health and sustenance, and peace to enjoy them. In addition they need appropriate means of actively contributing/working to satisfy those needs both for themselves and for others.
You can almost change "need" to "have a right to" but there is a difference. Article 1 in "The Universal Declaration of Human Rights (1948)" says "All human beings are born free and equal in dignity and rights". I'd dispute that. When I was born I had no rights and certainly no dignity. I needed care, and my parents satisfied that need.
Put it another way...
Rights are "abstract notions", needs are REAL.
Or another way...
Put me on an isolated island alone. I have no rights, but I do have needs.
Please put me right if I'm wrong.
(Sorry for the distraction, but had to "get it off my chest".)
All the best; davblo2
Complain about this comment
By the way; have you looked at...
http://www.earthcharterinaction.org
...one of UNs NGO's. Looks extensive but seems rather "soft" in tone.
All the best; davblo2
Complain about this comment
davblo2 #143.
though not addressed to me I'll take the opportunity to comment:
the idea of starting from the basics appeals to me.
".. people have a basic need of a comfortable life; which equates to health and sustenance, and peace to enjoy them. In addition they need appropriate means of actively contributing/working to satisfy those needs both for themselves and for others."
I second this, and think that (re-written without "comfortable") it might well serve as the principle clause in the declaration since it is, in essence, complete.
your concern about the use/concept of "rights" is also well put; language shapes perception and I think it would be helpful to simplify debate, ie. any mention of rights is inevitably countered by "but what about responsibilities", which you allude to by mention of "actively contributing/working".
regarding use of IT, would you care to comment on the last paragraph of #137? I feel that we need to arrive at a simple solution to allow a potentially very large (in numbers of participants) debate to take place.
Complain about this comment
jr4412 #145 "though not addressed to me..."
In my #143; yes I see I started with "To manysummits", but I meant the section starting #general to be open to all. (It's all fair game anyway).
So all comments welcome; and thanks very much for yours. I'm glad you didn't think me totaly off-track.
On the IT side; I've never had time to figure out how Wikipedia works in terms of being moderated. I edited an entry once and it seemed open to anything. Do you have any informationon that?
I've seen some sites where the forum part (eg phpbb) is just one side of the whole. That allows for general blogging, starting of topics for discussion and comments, with possible moderating. Then another "side" of the site could be the wiwki style free for all updating of live material, and a third "side" could be fixed version which have been issued externally in some way. Another area could have fixed/updatable links to reference material. ie a mix to allow for all possibilities rather than commiting to one. Any part can become more or less significant as it develops.
Complain about this comment
davblo2 #146.
"..how Wikipedia works.." don't know much about 'Wikipedia' either. 'DokuWiki' allows restricting which users can edit (but that does require additional managment) and supports blogging via a plugin. I think that our best option would be either to take up your kind offer in #143, or to find a(nother) kindred spirit who has practical/work-based experience of this type of s/ware.
I have very limited knowledge on http/comms/networking in general, more at home with 'C', 'Tcl' and scripting re systems/utilities, therefore I couldn't really see this through anyway.
Complain about this comment
#147 cont'd.
if 'phpbb' allows for this type of managing contributions (ie. split of live pages and fixed material to be voted on) perhaps we should use it? does it require a database backend or can it store everything in textfiles locally (ala 'DokuWiki')?
Complain about this comment
To jr4412 #142:
Sorry for the confusion re Phase One / Two etc...
First - yes, collaborative declaration is our only objective at this time. It's what I call phase one.
After the declaration is finished and we are satisfied with it - what then? That is what I call phase two.
May 1 - why? Because we should be finished well before then, and if we issue it May 1 - we can call it the "May Day Declaration", which has several meanings -i.e., a palimpsest! May 1 is May Day (see wikipedia) in many countries; it is also the international distress call (mayday), and seems particularly appropriate for a declaration of the sort we are working on. May Day is a celebration of the renewal of life - there is thus both hope and foreboding in the same declaratory name - it fits - and sounds good - important if more than just the few of us are to see this declaration.
To davblo2:
Ok, will take the question marks beside your name away - honored to have you! Your contributions have helped me immensely.
To both jr4412 and davblo2:
I have dropped the John Kennedy idea, quotes and all. I was and still am inspired by this man's ghost, but I realize now that life must move on, and nostalgia take its rightful place on the sidelines of life.
Here is a third section which I have replaced it with. Just to update, the first section is a call to action to the people of the world on "Population Growth" and "Climate Change".
The second section is a call to action to the United Nations, to update their organization as per jr4412's ideas.
This third section I post below for your consideration. I have removed the John Kennedy stuff entirely, removed the quote from Scripture "Rejoicing in Hope, patient in tribulation", but added one from Scripture which you will see below. Please let me know what you think? (Most of the world is religious)
\\ Call for a United Planet // {Third Section}
We want to believe, we do believe, that the universal ideals at the heart of the United Nations represent mankind’s best hope for a saner world.
Perhaps necessity will succeed where diplomacy has failed.
In the last year of the first decade of the twenty-first century, Mankind stands equally before two thresholds: a burgeoning global environmental crisis and the frontiers of space.
Both challenge our ingenuity, our courage, and our common purpose – to pass on to our children the prospect of a brighter future.
As we inevitably cross both of these thresholds, perhaps the Scriptures have something to say to all of us, no matter our faith or lack thereof:
“A house divided against itself cannot stand.” [Matthew 12:25]
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lincoln's_House_Divided_Speech
(not sure if we want the Lincoln link?)
We, the undersigned, recognizing the inherent limitations of a declaration such as this, do nevertheless pledge our support to the animating spirit of this document:
"A Planet – in Truth – United."
~ ~ ~
Authors: manysummits; jr4412; davblo2; ...
– Earth Watch; BBC World News, Science and Environment Blogsite
http://news.bbc.co.uk/
http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/thereporters/richardblack/
- END –
- Maysummits, Calgary - it's snowing again! -
PS: Awaiting wunariik's and Bicycle-Fan's contributions.
Complain about this comment
manysummits #149.
thank you for putting the 'palimpsest' and May 1st into context, I whole-heartedly agree that 'mayday' "..seems particularly appropriate for a declaration of the sort we are working on."
re. phases: my understanding of our undertaking was/is that the declaration is to be submitted (to the UN) following wider consultation, following the collaborative effort enabled through the interweb, following voting on the final choice of words.
while it would be desirable to link into the 'mayday', I can't see that such a widely agreed on declaration can be furnished in eight days remaining. are you inclined to push the final version by then, knowing that it would only reflect the input/thinking of a handful of us?
re. use of quote from "Scriptures" and "..no matter our faith or lack thereof." I can describe myself as spiritual/spirited but am revolted by *all* things pertaining to organised religion(s). while Marx thought religion to be the "opium of the people", I think it is much more sinister than that, all about deliberate misuse of peoples innate spirituality in order to gain power, control, advantage. "Mother Nature" - ok, "God" or "gods" - absolutely not!
so where to go from here, concerted effort to conclude by May 1st, or slower progress with broader (in numbers) support?
Complain about this comment
To jr4412 #150:
You wrote:
"re. phases: my understanding of our undertaking was/is that the declaration is to be submitted (to the UN) following wider consultation, following the collaborative effort enabled through the interweb, following voting on the final choice of words."
Thank you for the clarification - it seems so long ago that we started this, and I am forgettful.
Yes, of course! I don't see a problem with continuuing to call it the May Day Declaration, as long as we present an acceptable skeleton on May 1. Do you think this possible?
Presuming we do that, then I take it our next step is "wider consultation". What do you have in mind here?
And then, submission to the UN. Any ideas of exactly where we would submit it? I am reading now a marvellous recent book on the UN:
"The United Nations - A very short introduction" (2008), Oxford University Press, by Jussi M. Hanhimaki, Professor of International History and Politics at the Graduate Institute of International Studies at Geneva, Switzerland. It is excellent! I may garner ideas myself about where in the vast structure that is the UN we should actually send a copy of our declaration - but perhaps you already know??
As for the Scriptures paraphrase - OK, I understand where you are coming from, and tend to agree. But there are significant caveats. One, the rest of the world. I don't know quantitatively, but I suspect the percentage of the world population which subscribes to some form of institutional religion is very high indeed. This would be one of the reasons John Kennedy and Abraham Lincoln used quotes from Scripture. Is it not truly necessary, in some real sense, to acknowledge the majority's need to believe? It is easy to say, as Edward Gibbon did, that religion - better still, I quote him directly, from "The Decline and Fall of the Roman Empire":
"The various modes of worship which prevailed in the Roman world were all considered by the people as equally true; by the philosopher as equally false; and by the magistrate as equally useful. And thus toleration produced not only mutual indulgence, but even religious concord."
Then there is the modern Karen Armstrong, in "The Battle for God" (2000):
"If fundamentalists must evolve a more compassionate assessment of their enemies in order to be true to their religious traditions, secularists must also be more faithful to the benevolence, tolerance, and respect for humanity which characterizes modern culture at its best, and address themselves more emphatically to the fears, anxieties, and needs which so many of their fundamentalist neighbors experience but which no society can safely ignore."
If we omit religious overtones entirely, it will be noticed. Also, while religious beliefs are without a doubt misused, that is only the half - religious beliefs are also used properly. Always the use is determined by the user.
Would this be something that the 'wider consultation' should decide on?
- Manysummits -
Complain about this comment
manysummits #149.
"(Most of the world is religious)"
"Thinking is more interesting than knowing, but less interesting than looking." -- GOETHE
"The only Zen you find on the tops of mountains is the Zen you bring there." -- ROBERT M. PIRSIG
"The one is none other than the All, the All none other than the One." -- SENG TS'AN
"When hungry, eat your rice; when tired close your eyes. Fools may laugh at me, but wise men will know what I mean." -- LIN-CHI
Complain about this comment
manysummits #151.
posted #152 before seeing/reading #151, still ,all these quotes do not require religion or faith to "speak" (well, at least to me).
re May 1st: the principle statement, ie. "Planet United" plea to UN plus paragraph expressing what davblo2 so neatly put in #143 should be doable (proviso: agreement among those who participated thus far).
I'll address remaining queries later today, need sleep.
Complain about this comment
Hello jr4412!
Good quotes - you made me laugh!
"When hungry, eat your rice; when tired close your eyes. Fools may laugh at me, but wise men will know what I mean." -- LIN-CHI
Really like this one.
OK - point taken.
- Manysummits -
Complain about this comment
HI again.
jr4412 #150: I completely agree with your view of religion. (I don't usually say as much for fear of offending folk; but somtimes it has to be said).
both #various: I see that you (manysummits especially) are very fond of quotations. I'm the reverse and almost never use them. I've not really thought about why. I have a general dislike for the "rallying people into action" approach, with snappy phases and pep-up motivation speeches. It's so open to abuse; and I've seen and heard a lot of such abuse. I'm much more a "simple facts" person. I prefer to say/write what I think and keep it as simple, logical and clear as possible. "Let the facts speak for themselves" I guess.
If you try to motivate people one way, then someone will do the same the opposite way. Language is too easy to twist and turn.
"Truth will out" (Shakespeare, The Merchant of Venice, 1600)
...but sometimes it needs a little help.
All the best; davblo2
Complain about this comment
To manysummits #149 "Third Section"
The following is my "re-write" of your proposal; just to give another variant for discussion.
-------
Section 3
-------
Mankind stands now before many challenges. The frontiers of space await; but here on Earth the management of our environment is nearing a crisis. These challenges require our ingenuity, courage, common purpose and co-operation if we are to pass on to our children the prospect of a brighter future.
The United Nations is well placed to lead Mankind through these challenges and create a Planet United in success and achievement.
We, the undersigned, do pledge our support for the aims and spirit of this document and to the future of Mankind.
-------
All the best; davblo2
Complain about this comment
manysummits.
hi, picking up #151 where we left last night.
in #153 I addressed your question re. May 1st. to re-iterate, I think we can agree on a short statement of intent that "sets the tone". personally, I'd like it to be confined to a short, pithy paragraph that expresses our wish for a 'Planet United' organisation derived from/similar to the UN, followed by an equally brief statement along the lines of davblo2's #143.
"..I take it our next step is "wider consultation". What do you have in mind here?"
in outline: set up a website where topics for inclusion in declaration can be submitted, debated, voted on; publicise existence of website widely to bring interested individuals "to the table"; allow this to develop and run for a set period (perhaps one calendar year?); finalise the declaration based on the voted on content; set up final vote on that declaration (ie. the actual petition) where the voters are the "undersigned"; submit this to the UN.
in principle, this should be possible to achieve; there are of course "small" practical matters such as finding a host for the website, editors to deal with abstracting the inputs, etc.
"And then, submission to the UN. Any ideas of exactly where we would submit it?"
off-hand - no. I think that the General Secretariat may be the place, but (a) you have this book and will be able to argue with knowledge, and (b) we have (some) time before that decision has to be made, I'm sure that suggestions can come from (other) contributors.
re. religion. I'm certain you are correct in thinking that the "..percentage of the world population which subscribes to some form of institutional religion is very high indeed.", also you are correct in saying that "If we omit religious overtones entirely, it will be noticed." and, without doubt, "..while religious beliefs are without a doubt misused, that is only the half - religious beliefs are also used properly."
but -- and this is a big but -- organised religion is THE problem, especially the adherence to belief in the Abrahamic "god".
it is true to say that much good, humanitarian work is undertaken by believers, all over the world. however, I'd argue that the very same people would do the same good work even if they were not Christian, Jew, Muslim, whatever, they do this because they are decent people who will help another person in need. and that, in my view, stems from their (instinctive?) awareness that all life, ultimately, is one.
on balance, my argument is: go with the humanitarian, drop the religion thing. I feel that spiritual ideals is what we ought to promote/stand for (if only because they are unconditionally inclusive).
"Would this be something that the 'wider consultation' should decide on?"
I'll answer this by way of quote, again ;-)
I found this on justin Webb's America blog (Dissenting voices on torture covered up?), and it is (slightly) out of context, nonetheless. Richard_SM #19 wrote:
"If you take a certain road, which you know to be wrong, don't be surprised if it leads you to further problems - and dilemmas."
Complain about this comment
davblo2 #155.
thanks.
I like quotes mostly because, when I read a "good" one, they resonate, speak to me; I suppose that means that the quote expresses what I believe anyway, but is pithy/clever/etc in a way that I'm not capable of.
please read my #157, I should have included you in address. I am very interested in your continued input.
Complain about this comment
manysummits, davblo2.
just re-read my #155, last couple sentences read bad; therefore I'll address all future posts to you as 'PUG' (Planet United group ;-)), unless I post to an individual.
Complain about this comment
jr4412 #158 "...expresses...in a way that I'm not capable of".
Hmmm. I see what you mean. But I still think clever turns of phrase should be used with caution; otherwise there is no limit to the amount of misuse they can be put to. I prefer to avoid them in factual statements.
#157 Yes; I'm still digesting parts; But "go with the humanitarian, drop the religion thing" I agree to directly.
#158 "I am very interested in your continued input."
Did you see my #156 re Section 3 (My simple no-quotes no-religion version)? :-)
All the best; davblo2
Complain about this comment
davblo2 #160.
hi,
yes, totally agree on the to be "used with caution", see my post #110 for my point of view.
I did read your #156, and am (personally) quite happy with it, sorry I didn't comment, too occupied with reply to manysummits #151; I'm not a native English speaker and not much of a writer, this is why I know that putting the actual words together (as in #156) is best left to others.
Complain about this comment
Yes, #110: I'd forgotten that one; you have explained already!
Complain about this comment
#161 cont'd.
since you've followed the last few posts between manysummits and self you'll know about the May 1st thing, could you put your thoughts in #143 (re human needs) in some formal way for inclusion?
Complain about this comment
#163 I'll have a go. It's getting late here now (01:01) so probably tomorrow. (looking at phpBB etc at the moment).
All the best; davblo2
Complain about this comment
To davblo2 #155:
Re: Religion and "simple facts":
Agreed! I was simplifying on the bus on the way home, and thinking - this is too flowery - too many recommendations - just stick to the facts - and present directly.
Then I read your comment - Done!
I feel a real concensus building here!!
# 156: Like it very much - on that same bus, I was thinking about jr4412 and his UN reorganization, and saying to myself, "The UN is the one to do this" I am reading about the UN, and I came across UNESCO and WHO as two possibilities to carry this forward - both are "Special Agencies", meaning they have baseline funding, and I think both are well respected.
To jr4412 # 157:
Beautiful summary of religion and human values - I agree - drop religion from the declaration - davblo2 would seem to agree?
Website: I like the idea - but am wary - a lot of time and energy to invest - and an Achilles Heel - us. If we falter - it falters. Also a year seems too long - the real advantage of the blogosphere is time - we can do - NOW. The UN may end up handling the actual delivery of Climate Change - in fact terraforming, and making aware and recommending population control, which is in essence a root problem, and the roots are cultural and historic - the collision of our western culture and the third world, which we effectively colonized, along with our religions etc... This is a huge subject, and the UN is already set up to handle this - they just need a planetary emergency recognized by the superpowers, and funding - to proceed, and with the EPA going to declare CO2 a pollutant - we're on that track.
Like the idea of the UN more - as I wrote above to davblo2 - UNESCO or WHO - maybe both - would seem to actually be the agencies who would have to deliver in a real sense, i.e., Population Control/Climate Change; and UNESCO has a scientific mandate, as well as a cultural and educational function.
I like that: "PUG" (Planet United Group). I'll post to this also, unless obliged to respond individually. Very good!!
To "PUG":
If we rewrite this, as we all appear in agreement, (by the end of this weekend?) and it is good, and I think it will be - wouldn't the BBC be a sort of "wider audience" idea checker??? If it passes muster there, that would be a good sign.
- Manysummits -
Complain about this comment
#165 "Website...a lot of time and energy to invest..."
Correct. I just installed phpBB on my web site.
It's running well; but I can see hours of work would be needed to customise it and maintain it.
Good night; davblo2
Complain about this comment
To "PUG":
Lets start editing??
Perhaps a convention or two?
(round brackets for normal writing)
[square brackets for citing references]
{curly brackets for the authors comments - not intended to end up in the finished product}
I would prefer that when one of us suggests a revision, etc., it is with the thought that compromise is the enemy, and Robert Pirsig's "What is best" is the only operative consideration?
Why not start with davblo2's formal post #156, beside my original section three. Then, I'll post below another revision, in the hope that this is an improvement over both - comments and further revisions of course welcome - I am not beholden to my writing, and can adopt another's in its entirety if that is the concensus.
\\ Call for a United Planet // {Third Section}
We want to believe, we do believe, that the universal ideals at the heart of the United Nations represent mankinds best hope for a saner world.
Perhaps necessity will succeed where diplomacy has failed.
In the last year of the first decade of the twenty-first century, mankind stands equally before two thresholds: a burgeoning global environmental crisis - and the frontiers of space.
Both challenge our ingenuity, our courage, and our common purpose to pass on to our children the prospect of a brighter future.
As we inevitably cross both of these thresholds, perhaps the Scriptures have something to say to all of us, no matter our faith or lack thereof:
A house divided against itself cannot stand. [Matthew 12:25]
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lincoln's_House_Divided_Speech
We, the undersigned, recognizing the inherent limitations of a declaration such as this, do nevertheless pledge our support to the animating spirit of this document:
A Planet in Truth United.
~ ~ ~
156. At 2:15pm on 23 Apr 2009, davblo2 wrote:
To manysummits #149 "Third Section"
The following is my "re-write" of your proposal; just to give another variant for discussion.
-------
Section 3
-------
Mankind stands now before many challenges. The frontiers of space await; but here on Earth the management of our environment is nearing a crisis. These challenges require our ingenuity, courage, common purpose and co-operation if we are to pass on to our children the prospect of a brighter future.
The United Nations is well placed to lead Mankind through these challenges and create a Planet United in success and achievement.
We, the undersigned, do pledge our support for the aims and spirit of this document and to the future of Mankind. (All the best; davblo2)
-------
{A combination of both the above}
{Section Three}
- - - -
Mankind {or: "The Peoples of the World" - this is a semi-official UN term} stand(s) equally {all people are equal - and its second meaning, "equally before" the two challenges} before a widening global environmental crisis, and the frontier of space.
{So this would read, without the comments}
Mankind stands equally before a widening global environmental crisis, and the frontier of space.
{or}
The Peoples of the World stand equally before a widening global environmental crisis, and the frontier of space.
These challenges require our ingenuity, courage, common purpose and co-operation if we are to pass on to our children the prospect of a brighter future.
The United Nations is well placed to lead Mankind through these challenges and create a 'Planet United' in success and achievement.
We, the undersigned, do pledge our support for the aims and spirit of this document and to the future of Mankind.
- - - -
- Manysummits - off to have some chili - then to bed -
Complain about this comment
Attn:PUG
Perhaps a different name for your group?
My name suggestion is:Planetary Cause Group
or PC:Planetary Cause and double meaning,
Personal Computer,(the tool that brought the three of you together, and that is uniting the world)?
underacanoe, and the maker of the finest chili in Canada
Complain about this comment
Underacanoe #169.
hello again, re. "double meaning"
295 (!) more on this page: www.acronymfinder.com/PC.html
the worst is "Politically Correct", I could not live with that ;-)
nothing wrong with pug either, full of character those dogs ;-)))
"the maker of the finest chili in Canada"
lucky manysummits. will you send me your recipe, please?
Complain about this comment
jr4412 :I cannot share the secret recipe. Never have never will..it will die with me.
But you are welcome to try some, if you ever come to Calgary.
Complain about this comment
PUG.
#167, suggestions.
as a phrase, I prefer 'the peoples of the world' to 'mankind', and I think that 'threshold' has the right flavour, so here's my version for debate:
The Peoples of the World stand before the frontier of space, and on the threshold of an irreversible, global environmental crisis.
These challenges require all of our ingenuity, courage, common purpose and co-operation if we are to pass on to our children the prospect of a liveable future.
The United Nations is uniquely well placed to lead humankind through these challenges and create a 'Planet United' in success and achievement.
We, the undersigned, do pledge our support for the aims and spirit of this document and to the future of Mankind.
Complain about this comment
Underacanoe #170.
"..secret recipe.." -- intriguing!!
"..welcome..if you ever come to Calgary." -- thank you very much, my economic situation and dislike of airtravel bar me from doing so, perhaps forever. ;-(
Complain about this comment
#171 correction.
for "..and to the future of Mankind." read "..and to the future of Humankind."
Complain about this comment
To the "PUG" (and anyone else following this)
#166 continued...
If you'd like to follow the link below...
http://www.pratar.org/pu
...you'll find a web site which I've set up containing the main elements of the declaration. They are numbered in 5 parts, from start to finish, which should be clear when you see them.
At the moment you can go in and read all the entries as "guest".
You can explore the site and find the 5 sections of the declaration. I've pasted in the most recent copies of each section I could find from this blog, and a couple of recent updates.
To add posts you have to select "register" and create a user account.
(I'm afraid it asks for your email address to send you a copy of your details but if you don't want to provide an address it may work with a dummy one instead). Select "Post Reply" to add comments, update or create new version as you will.
It's still at the experimental stage and there's probably room for improvement and expansion. But as a start I hope it could be useful and it should be more efficient than the way we've been working so far.
Let me what you think.
We can always copy sections back to Richard's site whenever we like.
I've included one extra Topic entitled "Chat" which contains the text of this post. We can use that for any general chit-chat if you like.
All the best; davblo2
Complain about this comment
davblo2 #174.
what do I think? fantastic! thank you.
Complain about this comment
jr4412:I'm not too fond of air travel either..
Perhaps you will try my chili someday..my thick head wont let me share the recipe just yet.
underacanoe
Complain about this comment
I thought I would post this declaration now so that whoever wishes may view it over the weekend. Our efforts at http://www.pratar.org/pu have hit a snag, as co-operative efforts will. This reminds me forcibly of why I climbed mountains for seven years as a climb leader or solo.
I take some consolation in the words of John Fitzgerald Kennedy, who said of art and artists:
"But democratic society - in it, the highest duty of the writer, the composer, the artist, is to remain true to himself and to let the chips fall where they may."
This declaration, as poor as it may be, is the best I can do:
----------------------------------------------------------------------
\\\ Mayday Declaration ///
To the Peoples of the World - A Call to Action
(May 1, 2009)
Mayday, repeated three times, is an international distress signal.
In the year 2050, will the Peoples of the World be celebrating this generation's foresight and wisdom, or will humanity be weltering amidst a global environmental disaster of our own making?
It is hoped that the United Nations, our only truly global organization, will in some real sense adopt this declaration and use it as an expression of the concern and will of the Peoples of the World. The ideals at the heart of the United Nations are humanitarian and inclusive, and it is in this spirit that this document is proposed for United Nations consideration.
At the present time this declaration has life only on the internet. Its future, like humanity's, is uncertain.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mayday_(distress_signal)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_nations
It is thought that there are two main concerns, which taken together constitute an imminent threat to humanity's long term survival and to our children's future – population growth and climate change. In a sense, population growth is an amplifying feedback of climate change. Much of the world economy is predicated on ever expanding growth – a false assumption, as a finite planet cannot support infinite expansion.
Population Growth:
As of April 2009, world population is estimated at 6.77 billion, increasing on average by 55 million per year through 2050, when world population is expected to reach 8.9 billion. It is thought that the sustainable population of the world, at a level consistent with the World Health Organization’s definition of 'complete health', is likely only three to four billion, half the present number.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/World_population
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/World_health_organization
http://www.optimumpopulation.org/
On the basis of the above information, it would seem advisable to consider voluntarily self-limiting our numbers, and having, on average, one or two children per family, until world population is at a level considered sustainable.
The natural world has taught us that no population can expand indefinitely in a finite world, therefore we will have to confront the limits to population growth sooner or later. Why not now? Why wait for war, famine and disease to do it for us?
The impact of our numbers is already reverberating around the world ecologically and economically – species are going extinct at levels which are being discussed as mass extinctions, the world fishery is collapsing as we speak, and the economic repercussions should be evident to everyone on the planet. It is expected that in the not too distant future, clean water to drink, clean air to breathe, and sufficient real food to eat will be the primary concerns of all of us, and the frivolous desires of the affluent society will finally be committed to the trash bin where they belong.
It is recognized that primary responsibility for the reduction of the world population will likely fall to the 'developing world', as the population curve of the 'developed world' is already flat or negative.
It is also recognized that, especially in the developing world, the prevention of unnecessary early childhood and adult deaths will have to be effectively addressed, as will any number of cultural habits. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Unesco
Cultural propensities toward conflict and war appear endemic to all of us, and these await a world of peace on Earth. http://www.peaceoneday.org/
Climate Change:
As of 2009, the atmospheric carbon dioxide level stands at 387 parts per million by volume (ppmv), increasing at 1.9 ppmv per year, and this is expected to increase at a greater rate in the near future. The principal driver of global warming and ocean acidification is the emission of carbon dioxide into our atmosphere from the burning of fossil fuels – coal, oil and natural gas.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Global_warming
Dr. James Hansen has recommended that we halt, and then reverse, as soon as possible, the buildup of greenhouse gases in our atmosphere and oceans, until the atmospheric concentration of carbon dioxide is 350 parts per million by volume or less.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/James_Hansen
http://www.columbia.edu/~jeh1/ (Feb. 26, 2009: Carbon Tax & Dividend)
It is recognized that climate change, and sometimes 'abrupt climate change,' is a natural part of the Earth's climatic system, and has disrupted ways of life repeatedly throughout history. At this time, however, mankind has already committed the planet to climate and ocean change through the inadvertent addition of vast quantities of carbon dioxide to the atmosphere and ocean. It is thought by many climate scientists that in addition to the changes already under way, we may have also increased the likelihood of 'abrupt climate change', (Dr Richard Alley), and this at a time when world population may be at or in fact far over the planet's sustainable limit.
http://yosemite.epa.gov/opa/admpress.nsf/0/0EF7DF675805295D8525759B00566924
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Abrupt_climate_change
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Richard_Alley ( Arctic and Antarctic glaciologist)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lonnie_Thompson (Tropical and mountain glaciers)
It is recognized that primary responsibility for the reduction of carbon dioxide in our atmosphere will fall to the 'developed world', and to the superpowers.
It is also recognized that the transition to a low carbon economy will most probably have profound economic implications which will be felt around the world. New and more efficient energy and transportation systems will be required, and new and sustainable lifestyles.
But perhaps of most importance will be a united planet, willing and able to accommodate the inevitable changes which are coming, preferably with a population not in excess of finite resources.
Concluding Remarks:
The Peoples of the World stand equally before two very different thresholds, the frontier and promise of space, and, if left unchecked, an environmental crisis of possibly irreversible consequence.
Both challenges will require all of our ingenuity and courage, and a common sense of purpose if we are to pass on to our children the prospect of both a long term and a brighter future.
Good luck to all of us.
\\\ Manysummits, Calgary ///
Complain about this comment
To all.
I think manysummits should be congratulated on his achievement, putting together this declaration in so short a time, pretty much single handed, amidst a welter of differing comments and opinions.
I'm sorry I've been too pre-occupied the last few days to have been of much help.
I took the liberty (hope you don't mind manysummits) of copying #177 over to the "Latest Versions" forum (as "2009-04-26 Full") on the http://www.pratar.org/pu site. Any one who has constructive comments is welcome to provide them in the "Discussions" forum; or of course here on this blog.
All the best; davblo2
Complain about this comment
PUG.
it would be churlish to deny manysummits' achievement to get as far as #177, as davblo2 points out, "amidst a welter of differing comments and opinions".
it is however not entirely fair for manysummits to write "Our efforts ... have hit a snag ...reminds me forcibly of why I climbed mountains for seven years as a climb leader or solo."
reason: throughout the debate, since #26 by Bicycle-Fan, manysummits has ignored all contributions raising concern about the presentation of the 'Population Growth' issue.
I too prefer to work/do things "solo" and don't even want to be a "leader" under any circumstances, but I do feel that regarding this issue, manysummits' intransigence has been a contributing factor.
done with the pointing fingers bit, disappointed that the perception of 'developed' and 'developing' worlds lingers where I see *one* world, waiting to see whether there appears a way forward.
Complain about this comment
To "PUG":
Thanks for your comments.
I have been accused of intransigence before, and not without cause.
I did address the concerns over Population Growth and what has been called finger pointing at http://www.pratar.org/pu, but the intransigence appears to be a trait not relegated to myself alone.
The finger pointing is entirely unwarranted, however, as it has a negative connotation. There are simple truths yet in the world, and two are as follows:
1)The CO2 problem was created by Industrial Man, the 'developed world', and it can only be rectified by Industrial Man, in the developed world.
2)The 'developing world' may be an imprecise term, but everyone knows what that means, and contains most of the world's population, perhaps largely because of Industrial Man's intervention and domination in the past and at the present. Industrial Man's population curve is flat or negative, an unhealthy trend.
For a world population which may in a sense be 'growing up' for the first time in history, this burgeoning environmental crisis is an opportunity, called "necessity", to do just that - to grow up and accept the lot which Nature or Nature's God has given to each of us.
I do not ask or demand that the developing world cut their population for the benefit of the developed world. It is rather more like the 'developed world's' cold war thesis of mutually assured destruction. If the developing world does not shoulder their burden, we will all have to live with the consequences. Likewise, if the developed world does not shoulder their burden, which they seem entirely reluctant to do, then the Peoples of the World will also have to bear the consequences.
In short, we each have a job to do. Perhaps we can help each other do it, and in doing that, we may end up with one world, and the terms developed world and developing world can be thrown in the dust bin.
- Manysummits, Calgary -
PS: I would like to commend davblo2 for starting up the website http://www.pratar.org/pu. That was a major effort, and it has significant possibilities. The design to the left of the title "A Planet United", is particularly striking, being a NASA image from space, I believe, of the world at night - very meaningful and symbolic at a multitude of levels.
Complain about this comment
manysummits #180.
I wrote (#179) "..has ignored all contributions raising concern about the presentation of the 'Population Growth' issue."
and you responded "I did address the concerns over Population Growth.."
while I recognise your contributions so far, I do disagree on this point.
history of your posts:
#34 "..the two original "Imminent Threats to Our Long Term Survival", i.e., Population Growth and Climate Change.."
#35 "\\\ Population Growth and Climate Change /// (Imminent Threats to Our Survival )"
#38, #50, #97, #101, etc, thru to #177 "It is thought that there are two main concerns, which taken together constitute an imminent threat to humanity's long term survival and to our children's future ? population growth and climate change."
meanwhile, concerns were expressed in:
#26 (Bicycle-Fan) "But putting population up as our number problem, ignores the fact that .."
#37 (jr4412) "..since unchecked pollution may well limit the population to zero (!) I'd give the population growth issue a lower priority."
#41 (Bicycle-Fan) "Go ahead ... Just do not pretend that people are the problem."
#114 (Bicycle-Fan) "Population growth should not be number one (let alone present) on any declaration`s priority list, because.."
#122 (timjenvey) "Your two main themes as I read are AGW and population. ... However, I do not think either of these will engage a world audience. If this blog is anything to go by its going to create the opposite effect:)"
#139 (Bicycle-Fan) "..the people that need to act, (those that consume the most), are likely to want population restrictions, I would hope the point of this exercise, is to find the correct solution, not merely the most popular one."
also, posts on pratar.org.
IMO, as of #177, you have not addressed "the concerns over Population Growth".
"I have been accused of intransigence before, and not without cause."
'intransigent' (adj) unwilling to change one's views or be co-operative; stubborn. (definition OED)
Complain about this comment
To jr4412 re #181:
I post below my dialogue on the question of Population Growth, which was sent to the "A United Planet" website, following queries by yourself and others. The website has many sub-sites, so perhaps you or Bicycle-Fan never saw it?? In any case, here it is again. I should like to ask also, since this declaration has been out there, i.e., published on line, for a couple of weeks now, why pick now as the time to effectively cut it in half? I was completely unaware of your disagreement with the poulation growth section.
I expect many people will disagree, as is their right, but I am wondering why you took so long to let me (us) know?
Population Growth
by manysummits » Sat Apr 25, 2009 9:21 pm
To "PUG":
Latest version, hot off the library press:
"Manysummits: Well, I see there is already discussion on the priority of population growth. That is good, and is to be expected. But I would like to point out a few things:
There is no finger pointing, though I've seen that many readers perceive it that way. I think this is a case of oversensitivity. It is intended that this declaration tell the people the truth, and leave it to them, i.e., us, to decide. The truth is as stated, world population is 6.77 billion, it is increasing at something like, on average, 55 million per year, and it is projected by both the United Nations and the United States to be by 2050, 8.9 billion (UN), and 9.3/4 billion (USA). The population of the developed world is effectively flat to negative (worrisome actually), and the population increases of the present and the future are projected to come from the developing world. This is called the truth, and it is the right of every human being to be told the truth - that is my view anyway.
The projections could be wrong, the unexpected could occur (pandemic disease for example - microbes love a crazily expanding population), but decisions 'now' need to have access to the best information available at the time. Then human nature takes over, and decides what to do. We may decide , as has been pointed out, that population growth is not a problem, or not the major problem, or whatever. That is not for me, or I would suggest, for you to decide, except in your own lives - a choice which I think all humanity deserves. But all of humanity is not as aware as are we - this declaration is decidedly meant to rectify this imbalance in information."
So I did reply to your concerns!
If you wish to issue a statement on your own behalf, or with others, power to you. The more discussion the better. That is one of the purposes of the declaration - to promote discussion.
Personally, which is the way this particular declaration started, I consider Population Growth and Climate Change to be synergistic, and a-priori concerns. That is just my opinion, but I thought it was yours also, and davblo2's, etc..., and that we were just trying to whip it into shape, and add a few novel ideas, such as your desire for United Nations reform.
In any case, I shall go my own way.
- Manysummits, Calgary -
Complain about this comment
To davblo2:
I am still refining the 'Mayday Declaration', addiing a few more links, that sort of thing.
It is my intention to send this final, but meant to be an 'evolving' declaration out to several people and organizations on this Friday, May 1.
I was wondering if you want me to post the website of your "A Planet United", below the Declaration title, etc..., and if you or anyone else wishes to sign on to this declaration before it is sent out?
I'll post the Title and logo section below - if you have any objections, or wish me to delete your website or the NASA map etc. - please inform me.
Thank You - Manysummits -
\\\ Mayday Declaration – A Planet United ///
To the Peoples of the World: A Call to Action and a Message of Hope
http://www.pratar.org/pu
{Symbol and Logo: “A Planet United”}
Upper left of Declaration: “Night map” - http://earth.jsc.nasa.gov/sseop/efs/categories.htm: Symbolizes industrial/technical man and humanity’s impact on the planet; projection exaggeration of both polar regions also symbolic, as polar regions are warming disproportionately quickly.
Upper Right of Declaration: “Dance of Life” - A stylized Earth or ‘the first cell’– a circle – universal symbol of unity and life, enclosing a space with three stick figures – a man, a woman, and a child – engaged in the ‘Dance of Life.’ Surrounding them, seven circles of light, or possibly a circular rainbow, a ‘glory’, representing humanity’s march out of Africa, across the world, to the fringes of the Solar System. Innermost color is red; outermost color is violet.
Complain about this comment
To manysummits,
#182: "That is just my opinion, but I thought it was yours also, and davblo2's, etc...,"
It was also mine. I was as surprised as you about the last minute fracas.
I've been supporting your view on the other site but I guess you've left me on my own. Makes sense, you've got more to do that get involved in debates again.
#183: sign me up by all means. Re: the web site; much depends on whether you have any use for it. I'm not sure what will become of it if you desert it. You can still use it as a show-piece, information site etc; it can be changed to whatever you'd like (within reason). Just let me know and I'll do my best.
All the best; davblo2
Complain about this comment
manysummits #182.
briefly here now, will address remainder more fully tomorrow on pratar.org.
"I was completely unaware of your disagreement with the poulation growth section."
please see #153 and #157, and to lesser extent #37 and #121 which are less direct, I admit.
"I consider Population Growth and Climate Change to be synergistic, and a-priori concerns. That is just my opinion, but I thought it was yours also.."
synergistic - yes, highest priority - not my opinion (but currently re-assessing).
"..website has many sub-sites.." -- much simplified last two days.
peace, hasta manana.
Complain about this comment
To davblo2 #184:
I think your initiative and your website are great, and I would love to contribute on it - just don't want to go where I'm not wanted.
I'm still not sure of the ramifications however? I thought the 'pratar' site was a place where we could work on the declaration, not dismember it. Perhaps those who like the Mayday Declaration can sign on to it, as the undersigned, and those who have different ideas can present their own ideas in a format which can be worked on by those of like mind? For instance, what does jr4412 think are a-priori concerns that the UN needs to address? Maybe this is where sub-sites come into play?? You know, a 'Mayday Declaration' thread, a UN reform thread, a vegetarian thread, etc..., gatherings of like minded individuals, working on different ideas for a united planet.
But debate is not really my cup of tea. I have my own opinions, and a right to them - questions are always welcome, but at some point, where all action halts, that's where I think separate threads should form.
The unifying theme on your website is not the Mayday Declaration, but "A Planet United - A Message of Hope," So the declaration is perhaps just one initiative which will be carried forward through your website - if you are agreeable?
To jr4412 #185:
Fine - I must have missed the antipathy towards population growth - I have been known to do that - miss things!
What do you think of the many-threads idea? Would you like to go for that - promote your ideas on the United Nations, etc...? I would be happy to sign onto that - I agree that the UN could use reform. Just give me something concrete to look at and evaluate - I'll pass on some thoughts if welcomed, and go from there.
I don't know if you noticed, but in my description of the "Dance of Life" logo (see #183), I changed the symbolic description to include "the first cell", which is all inclusive of life as you had wished. A symbolic strand of DNA could be inside with the stick dancers - that type of thing??
I'm pushing this Declaration because I'm conclusion driven - not debate oriented. In my opinion, humanity (also chanaged from mankind - at your request), is running real short on time. We've squandered eight years, now we'll have to move quickly, and pay the price. But once this snowball gets rolling, something will change.
"Whatever you can do, or dream you can, begin it.
Boldness has genius, power, and magic in it."
- Goethe (1749-1832)
Let's saddle up and move 'em out!
- Manysummits, Calgary -
Complain about this comment
manysummits #186.
although not addressed to me I'll start at the top.
"..just don't want to go where I'm not wanted."
obviously cannot speak for davblo2 but I see you're a member and, personally, I've been looking for your posts there, not here.
"..a place where we could work on the declaration.."
exactly.
"..what does jr4412 think are a-priori concerns that the UN needs to address?"
see #100.
"Maybe this is where sub-sites come into play?"
I too found the initial separation confusing, davblo2 obliged and simplified it (to two forums, work area and versions) on request.
"..must have missed the antipathy towards population growth.."
simply a lesser priority than 'Climate'. personally, I do not feel strongly about the numbers but share others concerns that it cannot be implemented -- I will not support killing or sterilisation.
"What do you think of the many-threads idea?"
if I understand you correctly not much, hence request for simplification.
"..promote your ideas on the United Nations.."
fully stated in #100, no change -- based on current knowledge.
"I don't know if you noticed...changed the symbolic description...as you had wished."
had not looked closely at that part of version 2009/04/26, said already I am not hot on flags/logos/etc; the idea of representing life inclusive was just that, an idea that "popped" into my mind and I posted on it.
"..I'm conclusion driven - not debate oriented.."
useful trait, complementary to self.
"But once this snowball gets rolling, something will change."
fingers crossed!
Complain about this comment
#187 correction.
to remove ambiguity:
"..just don't want to go where I'm not wanted."
obviously cannot speak for davblo2 but I see you're a member and, personally, I've been looking for your posts there, not here.
reads:
"..just don't want to go where I'm not wanted."
obviously cannot speak for davblo2 but I see you're a member (and I'm sure, as administrator, he would have removed you if you weren't) and, personally, I've been looking for your posts there, not here.
Complain about this comment
To PUG, #186, "I thought the 'pratar' site was a place where we could work on the declaration, not dismember it".
Yes that was the main reason I set up the site.
(I've tried to keep you involved there, see #178.)
It is a tool, and as such can be used/abused in many different ways.
Set up in a rush, the site is still very "raw". It can be refined, and there are many other "kinds" of sites; alternatives, which I'd like to look into given time. So I was hoping that with a little self discipline we could use the "raw" site as-is for a while and refine it gradually.
How about this for now...
I add one new Topic (or Forum) for "Debate" where anyone inclined can state their views; and another new one strictly for constructive comments about the Declaration. I can remove/move any which are posted incorrectly.
(I'll do that anyway in anticipation, and await your responses).
All the best; davblo2
Complain about this comment
At last, May 1, 2009 and - concensus!
Here is the May Day posting of "The Mayday Declaration", by "A Planet United", also known by the monicker "PUG", for Planet United Group.
We're working on HTML formatting but this is what we have now. Also working on a Microsoft Word version which should be ready sometime this weekend.
\\\ Mayday Declaration ///
To the Peoples of the World & the United Nations - A Call to Action and a Message of Hope
"A Planet United" http://www.pratar.org/pu
http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/thereporters/richardblack/2009/04/of_whalemeat_and_human_rights.html?ssorl=1241173348&ssols=13&ssoc=login (post #190)
{Symbol and Logo: "A Planet United"}
Upper left of Declaration: "NASA Night Map" - http://earth.jsc.nasa.gov/sseop/efs/categories.htm: Symbolizes industrial/technical man and humanitys impact on the planet; projection exaggeration of both polar regions also symbolic, as polar regions are warming disproportionately quickly.
Upper Right of Declaration: "Dance of Life" - A stylized Earth or 'First Cell' a circle universal symbol of unity and life, enclosing a space with three stick figures a man, a woman, and a child engaged in the 'Dance of Life.' Surrounding them, seven circles of light, or possibly a circular rainbow, a glory, representing humanitys march out of Africa, across the world, to the fringes of the Solar System. Innermost color is red; outermost color is violet. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Earth
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/First_cell ... first_cell http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Solar_system
Mayday, repeated three times, is an international distress signal. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mayday_(distress_signal)
In the year 2050, will the Peoples of the World be celebrating this generations foresight and wisdom, or will humanity be perishing in the midst of a global environmental disaster of our own making?
There are four fundamental arguments in this declaration, as follows:
1) Manmade climate change is already underway, and it is getting worse.
2) There may already be too many people on Earth, and our numbers are increasing.
3) There appear to be no viable alternatives to reducing both our fossil fuel emissions and our numbers.
4) The Peoples of the World, when fully aware of the current state of affairs on this planet, will do the right thing.
It is the central purpose of this declaration to foster an evolving dialogue amongst humanity on climate change, population growth, and the role of the United Nations in averting a global environmental catastrophe, and to utilize the reach and resources of the internet in accomplishing this undertaking. http://www.un.org/
It is hoped that the United Nations, our only truly global organization, will adopt this declaration and spread its message to the Peoples of the World for our collective consideration. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_nations
The ideals at the heart of the United Nations are humanitarian and inclusive, and the United Nations is uniquely placed to undertake this task. The only alternative would appear to be a grass roots or peoples movement on the world wide web, possibly through the aegis of a Non Governmental Organization. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ngo
At the present time this declaration has life only on the internet. Its future, like humanitys, is uncertain.
It is thought that there are two main concerns, which taken together constitute an imminent threat to humanitys long term survival and to our childrens future climate change and population growth.
\\ Climate Change // http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Global_warming
As of 2009, the atmospheric carbon dioxide level stands at 387 parts per million by volume (ppmv), increasing at 1.9 ppmv per year, and this is expected to increase at a greater rate in the near future. The principal driver of global warming and ocean acidification is the emission of carbon dioxide into our atmosphere from the burning of fossil fuels coal, oil and natural gas.
Dr. James Hansen has recommended that we halt, and then reverse, as soon as possible, the buildup of greenhouse gases in our atmosphere and oceans, until the atmospheric concentration of carbon dioxide is 350 parts per million by volume or less.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/James_Hansen
http://www.columbia.edu/~jeh1/ (Feb. 26, 2009: Carbon Tax & Dividend)
It is recognized that climate change, and sometimes 'abrupt climate change', is a natural part of the Earth's climatic system and has occured repeatedly throughout history. At this time, however, mankind has already committed the planet to climate and ocean change through the addition of vast quantities of carbon dioxide to the atmosphere and ocean, and through large scale destruction of established habitats. It is thought by many climate scientists that in addition to the changes already under way, we may have also increased the likelihood of 'abrupt climate change', (Dr Richard Alley), and this at a time when world population may be nearing the planet's sustainable limit.
[Unsuitable/Broken URL removed by Moderator]
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Abrupt_climate_change
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Richard_Alley (Arctic and Antarctic glaciologist)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lonnie_Thompson (Tropical and mountain glaciers)
It is recognized that primary responsibility for the reduction of carbon dioxide in our atmosphere will fall to the industrialised nations; and this at a time of volatile financial concern, and an economic system which heretofore has been predicated on ever expanding growth.
Therefore the highest importance will be a united planet, a humanity willing and able to accommodate the inevitable changes which are necessary.
\\ Population Growth // http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/World_population
As of April 2009, world population is estimated at 6.77 billion, increasing on average by 55 million per year through 2050, when world population is expected to reach 8.9 billion. It is thought that the sustainable population of the world, at a level consistent with the World Health Organizations definition of complete health, is likely only three to four billion, half the present number. Sir David Attenborough has recently lent his voice to the Optimum Population Trust, and Dr. David Suzuki has long spoken on population growth.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/World_health_organization
http://www.optimumpopulation.org/
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/David_attenborough
http://www.davidsuzuki.org/About_us/Dr_ ... 209901.asp
On the basis of the above information, it would seem advisable to begin studies to determine the range of sustainable population levels possible and to begin long term plans to determine and implement ways of maintaining population within that sustainable range without restricting personal liberties. Education, healthcare and support for the aged would be expected to play large roles in this work in bringing changes to the way family planning is understood and utilised.
The natural world has taught us that no population can expand indefinitely in a finite world, therefore we will have to confront the limits to population growth sooner or later. Why not now, before pandemic disease, famine and war do it for us?
The impact of our numbers is already reverberating around the world ecologically and economically species are going extinct at levels which amount to mass extinctions, the world's ocean fisheries are collapsing as we speak, and the economic repercussions should be evident to everyone on the planet, in one way or another. Concerns of pandemic disease increase as population grows, as do competition for food, water and resources. http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/6108414.stm
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Global_financial_crisis_of_2008%E2%80%932009
It is recognized that primary responsibility for the reduction of the world population will likely fall to the 'developing world', as the population curve of the 'developed world' is already flat or negative.
It is also recognized that, especially in the developing world, the prevention of unnecessary early childhood and adult deaths will have to be effectively addressed, as will desertification, rising sea levels, illiteracy, famine, overall health, and any number of cultural habits. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Unesco http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Unicef
Cultural propensities toward conflict and war appear endemic to all of us, and these await a world of peace on Earth. http://www.peaceoneday.org/
\\ Special Note // http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pejorative
There is no pejorative intent in the use of the words developed or 'developing' world. They are meant simply to describe the current situation. Both the developed and the 'developing' worlds have, as it turns out, separate jobs to do as stated above. We must find ways of helping each other in accomplishing these tasks, and end up with one world, "A Planet United"? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Developed_world http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Developing_world
\\ Call for Reforms to the United Nations // http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Biosphere
It is thought that the United Nations should consider reshaping itself as an organisation, and place the interests and the welfare of the entire Planetary Ecosphere above the interests of human individuals, organisations, and nation states.
Specifically, that all United Nations agencies reorganise themselves with a view to:
1) Rewriting their charters in language that emphasises the planetary interest over the national, organisational, and individual interest.
2) Restructuring their managing bodies and rewriting their charters to exclude the potential of partisanship and advantage amongst members.
3) Emphasizing health as the primary goal for all species including humans, as per the 'World Health Organization,' a branch of the United Nations, which states:
"Health is a state of complete physical, mental and social well being and not merely the absence of disease or infirmity. The enjoyment of the highest attainable standard of health is one of the fundamental rights of every human being without regard to race, religion, political belief and economical or social condition."
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Health (see WHO Constitution)
\\ Concluding Remarks //
It is recognized that the transition to a low carbon economy will most probably have profound economic implications which will be felt around the world. New and more efficient energy and transportation systems will be required, and new and sustainable lifestyles.
But perhaps of most importance will be a united planet, willing and able to accommodate the inevitable changes which are coming, preferably with a population able to live within the finite resources.
At present, the Peoples of the World stand before two very different thresholds, the frontier and promise of space, and, if left unchecked, an environmental crisis of irreversible consequence.
These challenges will undoubtedly require both our ingenuity and courage, and a common sense of purpose, if we are to pass on to our children the prospect of a brighter future.
\\\ "A Planet United" http://www.pratar.org/pu (May 1, 2009) ///
Complain about this comment
View these comments in RSS