I would agree with your colleague to a certain extent. I don't think the
right approach is to tell people what to do, I for one know that if somebody
thinks they instantly know what is best for me given a certain situation
(without knowing or understanding why that situation exists or has come
about), I tend to instantly ignore it. Not necassarily because the advice
does not have some merit, but because not understanding the context and
giving advice in itself to a degree is an act of ignorance. There are people
who are out there literally just trying to survive, they drive polluting
cars to work / shop because they don't have any other choice, they may drink
and take drugs because they are trying to escape a 'reality' where they are
constantly bombarded with messages telling them how they should look, how
they should live, what they should aspire to, what they should believe, what
they should 'be' to be validated by there peers and society. I think the
best approach is to give people the means to discover the facts and
information from good sources, and to share each of our own experiences,
without preaching to others, people can take their own learnings from each
story. For example, the facts about Hurricane Katrina, the authorities of
New Orleans knew one day a storm like it would break the levees and flood
the city, but did not take the risk seriously enough. Sea Temperatures were
quite exceptional (around 33C), possibly exacerbated by global warming, and
it was just one of several storms that reached category 5 status, in what
was a record hurricane season. Then there were the countless stories
documenting the experiences of those who survived the storm, and the images
of the people in a first world city in the 'most powerful' nation in the
world, reduced to having to endure conditions not even seen in most third
world cities. Then there were the opinions of those passing judgment in
society and the media on these people who were just trying to survive in the
city, many of the opinions (regarding the number of murders, their
uncivilised behaviour) was later proven to be unfounded and based on
ignorance and rumour. I think Hurricane Katrina has played no small part in
the wave of interst in environmental issues we are now seeing most tellingly
from the neo-cons. And we have the information revolution to thank for
bringing these messages home even harder.

"Claudio Grondi" wrote in message
...
Keith (Southend) wrote:
This may go slightly off topic in some aspects and I'll try to be brief
in my thoughts and concerns, but I don't know whether it's guilt or just
a case of not being able to make sense of it, that I can't get it out of
my head, hence the posting as I present myself on usw's couch for therapy
:-)

It appears to me "we" are saying one thing and doing another in the wide
scheme of things. On one hand we are getting a daily bashing about the
greenhouse emission we are all producing with our cars, homes and planes
etc, yet how ever much we as individuals can reduce our own levels, both
the increase in usage and global spread of industrialization turns the
ratio into a one step forward two steps back scenario. Only this week the
European Countries have been putting pressure on Putin (Russia) about
securing a free market and subsequent supplies of Gas from the east. Have
we now come to the point where the UK/Europe can no longer support itself
with the fossil fuels it requires and will depend more and more on
Countries further afield? Politically this is extremely worrying and is
the makings of wars in the big scheme of things if things spiral out of
control for whatever reason. The Iraq conflict arguably fits into this
scenario.

A big question in my mind is how many years has the planet gIot left of
fossil fuels (Gas/Oil in particular ?) What ever the figure, surely
assuming we burn the lot, we have then reached the maximum possible
emissions of Co2 output and the scientists nightmare scenario is far
worse than it is now.

What worries me is I can't see an answer, it will only stop when mankind
starts to wipe itself out, or more than likely the planet we have on
loan. I really don't see any viable alternative energy sources that will
seriously feel the gap for our needs and as for the greenhouse tax's,
what a joke, meaningless, it doesn't stop the emissions!

I'm sure someone (or two) will put me straight on some of my thoughts,
tell me i don't know what I'm talking about as far as a fuel crisis is
concerned or say I'm a fascist or something grin, but I just don't see
how "we" are going to stop this roller coaster ride of global warming.


It appears to me, that your flow of thought has only marginally something
to do with global warming problem or the problem the mankind will face
while running out of fossil energy.

I see the core of the problem you try to cope with in terms of global
warming and possible energy crisis in what people accept as motivation and
follow as guidelines for their lives.

I suppose, that maybe to your surprise you won't e.g. find many people who
really care about how long they will stay alive killing themselves in
small and tiny steps by getting satisfaction out of smoking, drinking
alcohol, taking drugs, eating so much, that they run into severe health
problems due to overweight, etc.

As long as there is no general solution to the problems of individuals as
described above in sight there will be also no solution to more general
problems which could be solved only at the level of adapting the behavior
of the individual to the needs of the entire mankind.

In this context I think it is worth to mention a dispute I had decades ago
with a colleague of mine about heavy environment pollution in the area I
have grown up where my own (weak) health suffered very much from that
pollution:
I suggested to stop the pollution by starting to consider all these
people contributing to the heavy pollution as dangerous criminals
belonging into jail by forcing usage of appropriate law. My idea was to
make others aware that polluting the environment is nothing else as
killing people by shortening their life expectation.
To my surprise the attitude of the (very intelligent and well educated)
colleague of mine was:
"It is much better to be happy and spend own life in accordance and
harmony with all the others than to start to force your fellows to change
their behavior making them unhappy not able to continue having joy out of
their lives in a way they like it."
in other words:
"I would better die with all of the others from pollution, than start to
force them by any possible means to stop it."

At least until now, the only way I found helping to cope with what I had
mentioned above without being a case for psychiatric therapy others will
force upon one
(as it happened some years ago to the guy trying to enlighten people not
to put their money into lottery games by demanding five minutes for his
appropriate message on TV ; after making him unable to force others to
fulfill his demand by frightening them with terror, he was forced to
undergo a psychiatric therapy ...)
is to start to see the mankind as it is and not as one would like it to
be. It's true, that this doesn't change anything, but at least it helps to
understand and this way prevents one from going mad giving in return the
time and the opportunity to look for better understanding and this way
maybe even a solution to the core of the problem.

Hope this helps.

Claudio