By Mathis Wackernagel

As world leaders prepare for the next round of climate talks in Cancun, it is time to put to right a misperception that for too long has shackled our approach to this vital issue. The error is simply this: Taking action is a burden some nations will need to shoulder for the good of the world – rather than the single best action each nation can take to further its own long-term interests.

The question by governments of “What’s in it for me?” has up to now been a major stumbling block to international agreement. But if leaders and their administrations truly understood the underlying resource dynamics, they would have the exact opposite approach. They would see it is in their self-interest to act quickly and aggressively, whatever the actions taken by their global neighbors.  In fact, each country’s own actions will become more urgent and valuable the less others do.

Why would it be in any individual country’s interest to address a problem whose costs are ultimately born by all of humanity? Consider the nature of the carbon problem. Read the complete Post.

By Tom Jacobs, Miller-McCune.com
Posted on October 8, 2010, Printed on October 8, 2010

http://www.alternet.org/story/148318/

A clear consensus of opinion emerges within the scientific community on an important issue, such as climate change. But the public, and its elected leaders, remains unconvinced and unreceptive to well-founded warnings.

With this phenomenon growing frustratingly familiar, researchers can be forgiven if they begin to feel like Rodney Dangerfields in lab coats. From their perspective, they don’t get no respect.

Newly published research suggests that’s not entirely true: Americans do believe and trust researchers. But we focus our attention on those experts whose ideas conform with our preconceived notions. The others tend to get discounted or ignored.

“Scientific opinion fails to quiet societal disputes on such issues (as climate change) not because members of the public are unwilling to defer to experts, but because culturally diverse persons tend to form opposing perceptions of what experts believe,” a team of scholars writes in the Journal of Risk Research. “Individuals systematically overestimate the degree of scientific support for positions they are culturally predisposed to accept.” Read the complete Post.

Watch TV and save Civilization!

VPOE member and co-founder, Jon Cooksey, has worked for 4 long years making a film called, How To Boil A Frog. Sept. 8 at 8:30 pm you can see this opus on Movie Central. http://tiny.cc/o8wts

Here’s the blurb: An eco-comedy (documentary feature film) that mixes rapid-fire humor with hard-hitting facts to show the consequences of overshoot: too many people using up too little planet, much too fast. Gives us an overview of our situation and 5 surprising ways that regular people like you and me can save civilization, while making our own lives better now.

Do yourself a favor and check it out.

Climate change has opportunities for us all

by Toby Reid, VPOE

Recent declarations that we are in the midst of one of the greatest mass extinctions in the history of the planet are enough to make a person lose hope. In fact, this harsh reality is downright unsettling and, for this author, unacceptable. The means by which we’ve ended up in this position is important to understand, but more important is what we’re going to do to reverse the trend. There is no doubt that if we continue on our current path, humans are likely to be the biggest name on this extinction card. Some may not care about our current plight, but most of us feel the instinctive pull to try to do the right thing. But where do you start?

Let’s start with understanding how we got here. A friend recently laid it out this way, and it’s simply the cold truth of the matter – we’re in this mess because we’re using too much stuff. That’s right – stuff. Steel, fish, wood, oil, plastic, copper, fertilizers, cars, iPods, silicone breast implants – all of it. We’re drowning in stuff, and the byproducts of using this stuff to make other stuff. It’s a stuff-a-palooza gone horribly wrong.

The biggest, and most important step we all can make is to consume less stuff. I’m not suggesting that we go back to the loincloth and live in caves, but it’s a darn sight smarter than what we’re doing right now. We’ve got to scale back the amount of stuff that we consume. That starts with being less greedy, less needy, and more self-sufficient. Grandparents and great-grandparents are very helpful in providing guidance on this.

The next most important thing to look at is your housing situation. This also affects personal transportation, so it’s a biggie. If you live in the suburbs in a huge house for two, I’m sure it’s dawned on you that maybe that’s not sustainable living. You’re right – it’s not. The average single person needs only about 600 square feet to live, and the average family of four needs only about 1500 square feet to have a good home. Urban density is the way of the future.

Read the complete Post.