Is this campaign adequate? Will it start something bigger and lead to fundamental change, or will it just ease the consciences of people and let them go on living fundamentally non-green lifestyles, while thinking that they've done something to help "green" Canada?
Support rabble | Advertise with us | Contact our staff | About rabble | Log-in or Register for a new account | Corrections | Privacy policy | Newsfeeds | Mailing lists
rabble: Features | Columnists | In Cahoots | Blogs | Books | Photos | What's Up | Polls
babble: Forum Topics | Active Topics
The rpn: Become a Podcaster | Find a Show
rabbleTV: Program Guide | Features | Indie Inside | Best of the net
Copyright © 2001-2012 the authors
Everything counts, and a million acts can certainly add up. But fundamental change needs to take root. To the "acts list" page I submitted: "after improving public transport, and car co-ops, reduce the number of private vehicles and convert parking lots into food forests"
Let's see if that will show up on the website. BTW, the food forests would have to be organic (which includes non-GM) and people-owned.
I'm going to submit another one: "grow food not lawns"
____________________________________________________________ http://www.gandhiserve.org/information/questions_and_answers/faq7/faq7.h...
I'd love to see "Kill your Lawn" as an item for water saving techniques ^^
It actually is a collection of pretty good ideas and easy methods to do something significant (if enough people saw it through atleast). The 'total KG' saved section reeks horribly of green washing and consciouness cleaning though. Components of both greenwashing and an attempt to make a fundamental change are in there.
The problem with the initiative is the '1 million' target number... Exactly as you say, there needs to be fundamental behaviour pattern changes for this to work. Does setting a goal of 1 million inspire the 'goal reached, back to life as normal" mentality?
Lets see here, 1 million (tiny, indiviualist) acts of green?
Out of a population of 30 million people?
And a global population of 6 billion?
And none of these acts address corporate pollution, or the role of capitalism in the economic crisis?
Yeah... wholly inadequate
I guess it depends how you look at it. As an individual campaign it's obviously not going to slow down climate change appreciably. But it does do two very important things which are part of the big picture.
1. It gets people thinking about the ways that they individually contribute to the problem. It helps people recognise that things like the purchases they make are political decisions as well as commercial ones.
2. A popular show on a publically owned broadcaster is making climate change an big issue, and is actively trying to improve the situation. That helps push the public dialogue in the right direction.
Both of those are long-term effects, and clearly the fight against climate change is a race against time at this point, but I think that the campaign is valuable as a part of a larger effort.
Components of both greenwashing and an attempt to make a fundamental change are in there.
I believe you mean, lack of an attempt...?
re: what the bish said, I agree, but it really must turn into a larger effort. The danger is it will work only as a palliative for peoples' consciences and wasteful consumption will go on as usual.
To turn this campaign into greater momentum, I think socially aware environmentalists should publicly give the campaign polite but light commendation. Then they have to keep encouraging the less aware, gently but firmly, in a good-natured way, towards more fundamental change.
____________________________________________________________ http://www.gandhiserve.org/information/questions_and_answers/faq7/faq7.h...
Genstrike:
The majority of that 6 billion does not impact the globe in the same way the people that this initiative is aimed at do... In that light, any initiative that brings our footprint more in line with the rest of the billions could be helpful... I wouldn't dismiss it solely based on the '6 billion others' comment.
The Bish:
Problem is, getting people thinking has been the only 'positive' on so many initiatives... Remember Earth Hour where we shut off our lights for an hour to save the globe? I think the momentum from that intiative lasted all of 2 days and allowed hundreds of thousands of us to collectively say 'we did our part by saving 1/24th of 1/365th of the total energy consumption used by lightbulbs (except in Alberta where Earth day conflicted with the Battle of Alberta hockey game and consumption actually spiked during Earth Hour), which clears us of any guilt or need to act collectively on a corporate/gov't scale... Atleast until next years Earth Day'.
This creates the arguement... Are these consistant, yet easily forgotten, individual efforts pacifying our need for larger group action on a corporate or gov't scale?
Heh, I think we've managed to cross post Gram Swaraj... And I think we said basicaly the same thing.
Noise wrote:
Components of both greenwashing and an attempt to make a fundamental change are in there.
I believe you mean, lack of an attempt...?
No... Although there's huge components of greenwashing, the 'every day' habits section along with permanent residential upgrades would lead me to beleive they are (atleast trying) to cause some fundamental behavioural changes... So I think the attempt is atleast there.
This creates the arguement... Are these consistant, yet easily forgotten, individual efforts pacifying our need for larger group action on a corporate or gov't scale?
Definitely that danger exists, especially given how little time we have left on this issue. I do think there is a bit of a difference between the lights out thing (which is entirely symbolic) and the million acts of green, which aims to get people thinking about ways to fundamentally change their behaviours. Also, the million acts of green isn't just about climate change. It's important for people to remember that there are other significant environmental crises, and I think it's good that the campaign takes that into account.
To you and me perhaps... I went out of my way to spam a few facebook groups with that message, that the reductions from Earth Hour were insignificant unless it inspired fundamental behavioural changes in us... I was surprised at the number of people that responded beleiving this one lightless hour would save us (Though, this was from some of the people roped up in the excitement of riding on the bandwagon). In Earth Days defence, the organizers do have larger goals. Alberta based initiative between Earth Day Canada and the Alta govt for example.
I've pushed that message with limited success really... Though awareness events are important to raise that initial awareness, converting this awareness to behaviour change is the ultimate goal. Gram Swaraj commented on this as "Then they have to keep encouraging the less aware, gently but firmly, in a good-natured way, towards more fundamental change"... It's a discussion I'd like to see as I've had little luck myself, how does the environmental movement move away from just awareness to helping to inspire these behaviour changes? And from there, how would these indivudal behaviour changes start to exert preassure on the 'group' systems, like distribution chains and industry?