Wow beautiful message to all On 18-Apr-2017 12:36 pm, "Gurumurthy K" <[email protected]> wrote:
> Dear teachers, > > making/keeping our lifestyle simple by avoiding/reducing consumption is a > necessary individual action, to combat the danger of global warming ... > here as teachers we can work with students through teaching and through > personal example to lead a life of 'simple living, high thinking' > > Read the article below, source http://www.truth-out.org/news/ > item/40237-mitigating-climate-disaster-will-require-both- > systemic-and-lifestyle-changes > > This also fits in very well with our Indian spiritual / cultural / > philosophical legacy, for focusing on 'need' instead of 'greed'. However > it sharply opposes the economics that we teach in our schools and colleges, > where 'growth based on increasing demand/consumption' is seen as the main > or only goal of state and society... Growth that is equitable and > sustainable should be our focus, not growth for sake of GDP... Our > economics text books must change to reflect this .... We need to bring in > 'Gandhian economics' which removes this foundation of 'increasing > demand/consumption' as the aim of economics. > > Comments welcome. > > regards > > Guru > > During the negotiations over the Paris Agreement > <http://unfccc.int/files/meetings/paris_nov_2015/application/pdf/paris_agreement_english_.pdf> > on > climate change in December 2015, Sunita Narain > <http://time.com/4299642/sunita-narain-2016-time-100/>, an environmental > activist from India, argued for a focus on the ties between global > inequality and consumption by the relatively wealthy. "An inconvenient > truth is that we do not want to talk about consumption or lifestyle," she > asserted > <http://www.npr.org/sections/goatsandsoda/2015/12/08/458917881/india-to-u-s-cut-back-on-your-consumption> > . > > It may be difficult to recall following Donald Trump's inauguration, but > it was little more than a year ago when delegates representing the world's > governments approved the United Nations accord. They pledged to prevent a > temperature increase "well below" two degrees Celsius, and to strive to > limit it to 1.5 degrees, over the average global temperature before the > Industrial Revolution. > > If there was hope that the United States would take the steps needed to > meet its commitments through decisive action by the federal government, it > is now diluted markedly. > > It's not that the Obama administration was leading the United States on a > sufficiently low-carbon path. But at least it accepted the scientific > consensus that fossil fuel consumption is warming the planet and > destabilizing the climate; and the need for far-reaching reductions in > greenhouse gas emissions. > > Nonetheless, Obama's White House embodied climate denialism of a different > sort than those who characterize climate change as a "hoax." It embraced an > "all-of-the-above > <http://www.huffingtonpost.com/tom-engelhardt/obama-energy-policy_b_5626558.html>" > energy policy allowing for fracking and offshore oil drilling, as well as > corporate capitalism and endless growth. It also oversaw an obscenely > bloated US military -- the world's biggest > <http://climateandcapitalism.com/2015/02/08/pentagon-pollution-7-military-assault-global-climate/> > institutional > consumer of fossil fuels. The administration thus helped perpetuate > reliance on carbon energy, high consumption levels, and, hence, an > unsustainable level of greenhouse gas emissions. > > This exemplifies a "soft denialism > <http://neweconomicperspectives.org/2016/10/pocket-handbook-soft-climate-denial.html>" > shared by many associated with the broad left and the climate movement in > the United States and the West: a failure to scrutinize lifestyle and > everyday consumption. In this sense, one of the most striking things about > the administration's climate policy was that it asked nothing of > individuals or households regarding how we live. It made it seem like our > salvation lies solely in large-scale transformations achieved by new > technologies and "clean energy." > > Many downplay the need for personal changes, characterizing them as empty, > self-satisfying symbolism or a diversion from big-picture transformations > -- ranging from new government regulations to, for the more radical, a > dismantling of capitalism. Writer Dave Roberts, for example, in defending > actor and climate activist Leonardo DiCaprio from charges of hypocrisy due > to his lavish lifestyle > <http://oilprice.com/Energy/Energy-General/How-Leonardo-DiCaprios-Carbon-Footprint-Clashes-With-His-Climate-Claims.html> > , argues > <http://www.vox.com/2016/3/2/11143310/leo-dicaprios-carbon-lifestyle> that > "no single human can directly generate enough emissions to make a dent" > given the enormity of global emissions. Policy change, Roberts says, needs > to be the focus. And author Tim Wise, responding to those who think that > individuals should forego flying because of its large carbon footprint > <http://www.nytimes.com/2013/01/27/sunday-review/the-biggest-carbon-sin-air-travel.html>, > insists that, unless a boycott "were going to reasonably include millions," > it would be "less than meaningless" and "self-righteous, self-referential, > ascetic bullshit." > Collective action and individual action are necessarily linked in the > effort to make structural change. > > No doubt that a focus on individual practices and lifestyle sometimes is > self-indulgent, and undermines, and obscures the need for, large-scale > transformations. But this result is hardly inevitable. Indeed, collective > action and individual action are necessarily linked in the effort to make > structural change. Like any project of far-reaching change, the effort to > radically cut carbon dioxide emissions, and environmental degradation > broadly, is a multi-front endeavor. Thus, if the world is to avoid > dangerous levels of climate disruption, dramatic cuts in individual > consumption -- particularly by the tenth of the world's population > responsible for half of global CO2 emissions > <https://www.oxfam.org/en/pressroom/pressreleases/2015-12-02/worlds-richest-10-produce-half-carbon-emissions-while-poorest-35> > -- > must be part of the equation. > > *Environmental Injustice* > > A strength of the environmental movement, or one of its wings, is its > focus on environmental injustice, how the distribution of environmental > detriments -- air pollution, for example -- is tied to race and class. > Environmental > justice advocates > <https://www.theatlantic.com/science/archive/2016/12/how-the-environmental-movement-can-recover-its-soul/509831/> > show > that there are many "natures," that not all air is created equal, that some > better enjoy the right to breathe than others because of where they were > born, live and work, and that such inequities are tied to systemic > injustices. > > These inequities illuminate who is most likely to be among the estimated > 200,000 > people in the United States > <http://www.sciguru.org/newsitem/16498/study-shows-air-pollution-causes-200000-early-deaths-each-year-us>, > and about 2.6 million people worldwide > <http://www.who.int/mediacentre/news/releases/2014/air-pollution/en/> (a > 2012 figure), who die prematurely annually due to outdoor air pollution. > Most vulnerable are those at society's margins. A key reason is the > location of high polluting sources -- heavily trafficked roads, factories, > power plants, airports, truck terminals -- in relation to where they reside. > > Many in the climate movement embrace environmental justice concerns, as do > many who fight for social and economic justice. Yet, the little attention > that everyday and individual consumption receives illustrates that the > implications of the environmental justice analysis have not been taken far > enough. > > If the environment and social (in)justice are tightly tied, it is > especially true with consumption. The United States, for example, uses more > energy for air conditioning than the entire continent of Africa (with more > than 1 billion people) uses for all purposes combined > <http://e360.yale.edu/feature/cooling_a_warming_planet_a_global_air_conditioning_surge/2550> > . > > Or take flying. While many in the world's wealthy parts hop on planes > numerous times a year, it is an elite activity > <http://www.airspacemag.com/daily-planet/how-much-worlds-population-has-flown-airplane-180957719/>: > The vast majority > <http://www.slate.com/articles/business/moneybox/2015/06/air_travel_and_climate_regulation_why_the_epa_might_let_big_aviation_off.html> > of > the world's population has never flown > <http://www.huffingtonpost.com/john-mandyck/fewer-than-18-of-people-h_b_12443062.html>. > It is also the most ecologically costly activity one can undertake. A > round-trip flight from New York to San Francisco, for example, generates two > to three tons of carbon dioxide emissions per passenger > <http://www.nytimes.com/2013/01/27/sunday-review/the-biggest-carbon-sin-air-travel.html>. > This is roughly the amount of the annual emissions of an average Brazilian > <http://data.worldbank.org/indicator/EN.ATM.CO2E.PC>. > > In a world of great disparities, nature's exploitation is always tied to > power and the making of the world's social fabric. This is particularly so > regarding the allocation of benefits and detriments of environmental > resource consumption. Hence, nature embodies the ugly "-isms" associated > with class, race and gender (among others) that inform the uneven > life-and-death circumstances people experience globally. > > Just as, say, patriarchy helps explain why men generally have more wealth > and income than women, nature's organization and its use illuminate how a > small slice of the world's population is able to devour most of the > planet's resources. It also illuminates why those who suffer most > <https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/energy-environment/wp/2016/04/04/as-the-climate-changes-risks-to-human-health-will-accelerate-obama-administration-says/?postshare=9191459876217216&tid=ss_tw-bottom> > from > climate change's ill effects tend to be the already vulnerable > <https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2016/sep/06/black-lives-matter-protesters-occupy-london-city-airport-runway>. > Accordingly, the ability to consume a lot derives from and helps > (re)produce > <http://www.eurekalert.org/pub_releases/2016-02/ysof-gww022416.php> ecological > injustice. > > *The Individual-Collective Connection* > > To ignore or downplay what one does vis-à-vis a system of sorts that > brings about benefits and injury in a highly unequal manner, is to posit a > simple (and non-existent) divide > <http://kevinanderson.info/blog/a-succinct-account-of-my-view-on-individual-and-collective-action/> > between > individuals and the collective. Imagine someone responding to criticism of > his racist behavior by labeling the hoped-for anti-racist practices as > "self-righteous, self-referential, ascetic bullshit." > > Meanwhile, he argues that a focus on his actions is foolhardy and that he, > as a true anti-racist, dedicates his energies to fighting structural > racism. Few, if any, would "buy" such a stance. That many do so regarding > environmental matters reflects how they imagine nature: as outside of > social power and not involving dynamic ties between structures and > individual agency. > > This illustrates how critics of a focus on personal consumption perceive > it as purely individual, and the individual as isolated. Take radical > environmentalist Derrick Jensen. He contends > <https://orionmagazine.org/article/forget-shorter-showers/> that calls > for personal cuts in consumption mistakenly blame individuals (especially > those on the political-economic margins) rather than "those who actually > wield power in this system and ... the system itself." To support this, > Jensen asserts that, in terms of water, individuals and municipalities are > responsible for only 10 percent of consumption, with agriculture and > industry ingesting what remains. Similarly, households and individuals use > about 25 percent of US energy, he reports. The rest belongs to the > military, agribusiness, corporations and other institutional actors. > > Jensen's sharp boundary between individual and corporate consumption > provokes many questions: For whom do agricultural and corporate interests > produce the resource-intensive stuff they sell? Doesn't consumer demand > inform what (and how much) they produce? And doesn't this help explain why > hundreds > of billions of dollars are spent globally > <http://adage.com/article/media/marketers-boost-global-ad-spending-540-billion/297737/> > each > year on advertising to shape people's desires and to produce "needs"? Does > this not reflect corporate entities' appreciation that their well-being is > dependent upon choices individuals make, and thus their great effort to > influence them? Although the sum of actions of individuals matter much > more <https://orionmagazine.org/article/multiplication-saves-the-day/> than > that of one person, that sum is built upon individual practices, and > vice-versa. > > This reflects how our actions influence others, how "walking the talk" > lends weight to our politics. For instance, research finds > <http://news.indiana.edu/releases/iu/2016/06/attari-climate-credibility.shtml> > that > the general public gives greater credibility to climate scientists calling > for large emissions reductions when their behavior is consistent with the > advocacy. Conversely, the public is less likely to take seriously champions > of climate-change-necessitated cuts in consumption who consume a lot. > > Hence, it is not enough to assert, as Naomi Klein has done > <http://www.theage.com.au/good-weekend/is-naomi-klein-idea-on-saving-the-planet-too-radical-to-be-useful-20161207-gt5ybe.html> > in defending her flying footprint that, "We all work within the systems > that we want to change." Nor is it sufficient to argue, as has Bill > McKibben > <https://www.nytimes.com/2016/08/07/opinion/sunday/embarrassing-photos-of-me-thanks-to-my-right-wing-stalkers.html?_r=0> > in protesting climate change denialists who stalk people like himself to > catch them driving a fossil-fueled car or committing other environmental > sins, that, "Changing the system, not perfecting our own lives, is the > point." > > The world *does* limit us. Moreover, we will always get dirty hands if we > live in a society dominated by industrial capitalism and powered by fossil > fuels. But invoking systemic limitations or the strawman of perfection to > effectively say, "This is the best I can do" -- particularly by individuals > who are wealthy (in the global sense) and consume a lot -- is to downplay > human agency. It is to pretend that we have little room for maneuver, and > to dismiss individuals' need to think hard about their practices -- as long > as one is engaged in the fight that seeks systemic change. > > As anyone who has spent time listening to middle- and upper-class people > discussing their recent electronic gadget purchase, their latest "home > improvement" project, their drive to get a cup of coffee, or an upcoming > long-distance trip knows, high-consumers have a lot of room to rein > themselves in. > > In the recently released National Geographic climate change film, *Before > the Flood <https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6nQYv15PJ4M>*, Leonardo > DiCaprio interviews Sunita Narain. Narain references that DiCaprio is from > the United States and says, "Your consumption is really going to put a hole > in the planet. And that's the conversation that we need to have." > > DiCaprio responds, "You're absolutely correct," but then says that such an > argument is difficult for US Americans to hear, and that changes in their > lifestyles are "probably not going to happen." The solving of the climate > crisis will occur, he says, because "renewables will become cheaper the > more we invest into them, and that will solve the problem," leading Narain > to shake her head in dismay. > > If "this changes everything" -- *this *being climate change, as Naomi > Klein suggests in the title of her book -- *this *necessarily includes > what individuals do -- not least for reasons of environmental equity. > > *Meeting the Challenge of Now* > > To meet the temperature obligations of the Paris Accords, the world's > wealthy parts need to achieve zero net emissions in the next two decades. > It's ludicrous to think that technology and infrastructural and systemic > changes alone will meet this enormous challenge, not least because some of > the technologies do not exist and large-scale transformation typically > takes a lot of time. Given Paris's obligations -- in addition to cuts in > consumption needed in light of other ecological challenges -- there simply > isn't room for some to maintain high-consumption lifestyles. And given the > Paris Agreement's > commitment <https://unfccc.int/resource/docs/2015/cop21/eng/l09.pdf> to > undertake emissions cuts so as to "to reflect equity and the principle of > common but differentiated responsibilities" and in support of efforts "to > eradicate poverty," the top global consumers must radically cut their > consumption immediately to allow the poorest of the Earth's denizens to > increase theirs. > If the world's top 10 percent of carbon dioxide emitters were to cut their > emissions to the level of the average European Union citizen, global > emissions would decline by 33 percent. > > According to climate scientist Kevin Anderson > <http://carbonneutralshef.weebly.com/delivering-on-2-degrees---kevin-anderson.html>, > if > the world's top 10 percent of carbon dioxide emitters were to cut their > emissions to the level of the average European Union citizen, global > emissions would decline by 33 percent. If the top 20 percent were to do so, > the reduction would be about 40 percent. (Here's one small example of what > can be done: drying laundry by evaporation on clotheslines and racks -- > like the vast majority of Italy's people > <https://www.italybeyondtheobvious.com/doing-laundry-washing-clothes-traveling-in-italy> > do, > for instance -- instead of by fossil-fueled dryer would reduce a typical US > household's CO2 emissions by about one ton annually.) > > For people who, like me, fit into the top 20 percent, it means giving up > things, especially our ecological privilege -- the ability to devour a > disproportionate share of the Earth's resources and dump the associated > detriments on others. It means reducing our wants, slowing down, consuming > much less, and sharing and supporting one another, while pushing each other > to do so. Among other benefits, jumping off the capitalism-fueled > consumption bandwagon may allow us space and time to explore and develop > alternative ways of living. > > It is imperative that high-profile organizations and figures in the > climate, environmental justice, and anti-racism and economic justice > movements lead the way. Imagine, for example, if they were to advocate deep > cuts in individual consumption to fight air and water pollution in addition > to climate change. Imagine also that they were to call for limiting travel > to modes that stick to the Earth's surface when going to demonstrations or > meetings, or to give lectures, and to model that behavior. And then imagine > they were to explain to their constituencies and audiences why they make > such choices, how they are tied to struggles for larger transformation, and > to urge them to follow suit. Were this to happen, what may at first seem to > be individual, "less than meaningless" and "bullshit" would likely take on > a very different character. > > This is *not* to suggest that changes by individual high consumers will > be sufficient -- far from it. But such changes, in addition to helping > others to see possibilities for a more sustainable lifestyle, can help > catalyze larger transformations. Nor is it to say that it is unnecessary to > confront large institutions and processes that drive much ecological > destruction and their associated injustices, as well as to work to remedy > technologies and infrastructures that limit our ability to live lightly. > Indeed, such endeavors are vital. One reason is that structural changes can > greatly increase the possibilities for changes in individual consumption. > > This manifests how we do not confront an either-or choice. It is a matter > of acting individually *and* collectively, as well as focusing on the > everyday and structural to bring about democratic, just and sustainable > ways of relating between peoples and places and novel institutional > arrangements. To assume that broad, deep transformation emanates simply > from changes at "the top" can only lead to an impoverished politics. > > Far-reaching change requires sustained work on multiple fronts, and a lot > of it. And that work -- the bridge-building and making of dynamic ties > between different scales and spheres -- is what our focus needs to be, not > a downplaying of the value of, or outright rejection of, individual actions > in the fight against climate change and environmental degradation. > > It is a task, following the globe's warmest year on record > <https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2017/01/170118112554.htm>, that > the Trump era only makes more necessary. > > IT for Change, Bengaluru > www.ITforChange.net > > -- > ----------- > 1.ವಿಷಯ ಶಿಕ್ಷಕರ ವೇದಿಕೆಗೆ ಶಿಕ್ಷಕರನ್ನು ಸೇರಿಸಲು ಈ ಅರ್ಜಿಯನ್ನು ತುಂಬಿರಿ. > -https://docs.google.com/forms/d/e/1FAIpQLSevqRdFngjbDtOF8YxgeXeL > 8xF62rdXuLpGJIhK6qzMaJ_Dcw/viewform > 2. ಇಮೇಲ್ ಕಳುಹಿಸುವಾಗ ಗಮನಿಸಬೇಕಾದ ಕೆಲವು ಮಾರ್ಗಸೂಚಿಗಳನ್ನು ಇಲ್ಲಿ ನೋಡಿ. > -http://karnatakaeducation.org.in/KOER/index.php/ವಿಷಯಶಿಕ್ > ಷಕರವೇದಿಕೆ_ಸದಸ್ಯರ_ಇಮೇಲ್_ಮಾರ್ಗಸೂಚಿ > 3. ಐ.ಸಿ.ಟಿ ಸಾಕ್ಷರತೆ ಬಗೆಗೆ ಯಾವುದೇ ರೀತಿಯ ಪ್ರಶ್ನೆಗಳಿದ್ದಲ್ಲಿ ಈ ಪುಟಕ್ಕೆ ಭೇಟಿ > ನೀಡಿ - > http://karnatakaeducation.org.in/KOER/en/index.php/Portal:ICT_Literacy > 4.ನೀವು ಸಾರ್ವಜನಿಕ ತಂತ್ರಾಂಶ ಬಳಸುತ್ತಿದ್ದೀರಾ ? ಸಾರ್ವಜನಿಕ ತಂತ್ರಾಂಶದ ಬಗ್ಗೆ > ತಿಳಿಯಲು -http://karnatakaeducation.org.in/KOER/en/index.php/ > Public_Software > ----------- > --- > You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups > "Maths & Science STF" group. > To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an > email to [email protected]. > To post to this group, send email to [email protected]. > For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout. > -- ----------- 1.ವಿಷಯ ಶಿಕ್ಷಕರ ವೇದಿಕೆಗೆ ಶಿಕ್ಷಕರನ್ನು ಸೇರಿಸಲು ಈ ಅರ್ಜಿಯನ್ನು ತುಂಬಿರಿ. -https://docs.google.com/forms/d/e/1FAIpQLSevqRdFngjbDtOF8YxgeXeL8xF62rdXuLpGJIhK6qzMaJ_Dcw/viewform 2. ಇಮೇಲ್ ಕಳುಹಿಸುವಾಗ ಗಮನಿಸಬೇಕಾದ ಕೆಲವು ಮಾರ್ಗಸೂಚಿಗಳನ್ನು ಇಲ್ಲಿ ನೋಡಿ. -http://karnatakaeducation.org.in/KOER/index.php/ವಿಷಯಶಿಕ್ಷಕರವೇದಿಕೆ_ಸದಸ್ಯರ_ಇಮೇಲ್_ಮಾರ್ಗಸೂಚಿ 3. ಐ.ಸಿ.ಟಿ ಸಾಕ್ಷರತೆ ಬಗೆಗೆ ಯಾವುದೇ ರೀತಿಯ ಪ್ರಶ್ನೆಗಳಿದ್ದಲ್ಲಿ ಈ ಪುಟಕ್ಕೆ ಭೇಟಿ ನೀಡಿ - http://karnatakaeducation.org.in/KOER/en/index.php/Portal:ICT_Literacy 4.ನೀವು ಸಾರ್ವಜನಿಕ ತಂತ್ರಾಂಶ ಬಳಸುತ್ತಿದ್ದೀರಾ ? ಸಾರ್ವಜನಿಕ ತಂತ್ರಾಂಶದ ಬಗ್ಗೆ ತಿಳಿಯಲು -http://karnatakaeducation.org.in/KOER/en/index.php/Public_Software ----------- --- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Maths & Science STF" group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to [email protected]. To post to this group, send an email to [email protected]. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
