Green Revolution


The artists brought together for this show reveal an imagery that has been inspired by the current mutations in our environment. They deal with diverse matters such as Chernobyl, global warming and the rise in oil rates. At times close to science-fiction, these artists imagine new stories which pay witness to the curiosity and fears derived from this changing reality continue

Originally from we make money not art by Regine

Posted under reblog art, reblog environment

This post was written by admin on June 28, 2009

Tags: ,

Departures: L.A. River

[Images by KCET] Departures: L.A. River — An Online Documentary Mapping 52 Miles of the River :: Narrated by river advocates, residents and political figures :: Co-Produced by KCET Web Stories and Friends of The Los Angeles River with Local Students.

Once home to wild animals and wildlife, the Los Angeles River provided desperately needed water to the region. Until the 1930s, that is, when the Army Corps of Engineers began the process of paving 80% of the river, turning it into a ribbon of concrete. With the launch of Departures: L.A. River, the Los Angeles River comes alive through an intimate collection of interactive panoramas showing the incredible diversity connected with a nearly extinct natural resource that locals now work to restore. Departures - hailed by the New York Times as a project that “strongly suggests a new twist on the Los Angeles muralism of the 1970s” - is an online documentary series of neighborhood portraits co-produced with community partners for Web Stories, KCET’s exclusive online magazine of cultural journalism.

Departures: L.A. River takes online visitors into often neglected and nearly forgotten portions of the river, spanning more than 50 miles of terrain, concrete and flowing water. The project was produced by KCET in collaboration with Friends of the Los Angeles River (FoLAR), a non-profit organization founded in 1986 to protect and restore the river, and with participation from students at Los Angeles Leadership Academy, a social justice charter school that prepares urban secondary students to succeed in life.

Provided with digital cameras and video equipment, students worked with KCET producers to create a visually compelling online experience in which visitors can casually scroll through the river’s many personalities or explore in-depth through audio interviews and video portraits with community leaders, activists and residents. In addition, FoLAR complemented the production by designing a comprehensive curriculum that included in-class presentations and field trips - all designed to raise awareness about the significance of the river and the challenges faced by those engaged in restoration and clean-up efforts.

“This is one of the most comprehensive online documentaries about the Los Angeles River,” says Juan Devis, KCET New Media producer, who blogged about his experiences throughout the project’s production process at KCET’s Web Stories site. “The scope of the project included environmental lessons and hands-on multimedia training for students that empowered them to help us tell this amazing story from multiple perspectives.”

Departures: L.A. River is one of four youth media initiatives, with support from the Adobe Youth Voices Venture Fund, that are inspiring young people to work with educators in their communities to create compelling digital media content. Through the PBS Foundation, three PBS member stations — KCET in Los Angeles, WGBH in Boston, and WILL in Urbana, Ill. — and McNeil/ Lehrer Productions, producers of the PBS program The NewsHour with Jim Lehrer, received funding for projects that offer outstanding educational value and youth engagement.

Departures: L.A. River is produced for KCET by Juan Devis, Director of Production, KCET New Media and co-produced by Justin Cram, in collaboration with Friends of the Los Angeles River. Multimedia and content curricula were created by Alica Katano, Friends of Los Angeles River; and KCET New Media Staff, under the leadership of Jackie Kain, Senior Vice President, KCET New Media. Historical Images appear courtesy of Los Angeles Public Library, SPARC and Metabolic Studios.

Student participants from Los Angeles Leadership Academy: Sandra Cach, Lizbeth Sierra, Arthur Salcedo, Brenda Ramos, Alma Sanchez, Yosselin Melgar, Kiara Hernandez, Jesus Hernandez, Vanessa Covarrubias, Gabriel Kim, Ely Hernandez, Cindy Irineo, Giovanni Jimenez, Yessenia Hernandez, Mengi Luo, Mo Rahman and John Aod Alvarez.

KCET, public television for Southern and Central California, offers extensive content at www.kcet.org, including web-exclusives and podcasts, plus complete episodes of the PBS series Frontline, NOW, Tavis Smiley, Bill Moyers Journal and The NewsHour with Jim Lehrer. Daily webcasts of NewsHour and Nightly Business Report are also available. Each issue of Web Stories offersan insider’s glimpse of the cultural diversity found in Los Angeles.

Originally by jo from Networked_Performance on June 26, 2009, 7:30pm

Posted under reblog art, reblog environment

This post was written by admin on June 28, 2009

Tags: ,

Monthly Media Round Up

burried%20in%20a%20book.jpg
Each day, a plethora of new media arrives at our Worldchanging Headquarters in Seattle — from books on climate change to magazines on women’s rights, invitations to the latest innovation-focused conferences to pamphlets and products offering new ways for solving the world’s problems. When you do our kind of work you get to see a lot of what’s out there, and the spectrum ranges from batty to brilliant. But if we didn’t see all of it, we wouldn’t recognize the best of it when it hit our desks. Each month, we’ll sift through what we received and share our favorites with you.

Our Favorite January Resources

Sustainable Urbanism: Urban Design With Nature

Resilient Cities: Responding to Peak Oil and Climate Change

Reusing the Resource: Adventures in Ecological Wastewater Recycling

Award Winning Green Roof Designs

Post Carbon Cities: Planning for Energy and Climate Uncertainty

Design for Water: Rainwater Harvesting, Stormwater Catchment, and Alternate Water Reuse

The Endless City

The Long Thaw: How Humans Are Changing the Next 100,000 Years of Earth’s Climate (Science Essentials)

Electric Water: The Emerging Revolution in Water and Energy

Atlantic Monthly

The Option of Urbanism: Investing in a New American Dream

Technologies for Sustainable Growth - Bright Green

What new media have you been consuming since the new year started? Share below.

Help us change the world - DONATE NOW!

(Posted by WorldChanging Team in Resource - Stuff at 5:44 PM)


Originally
from Worldchanging: Bright Green

by WorldChanging Team


reBlogged

on Jan 1, 1970, 8:00AM

Originally by WorldChanging Team from Worldchanging: Bright Green on January 1, 1970, 9:00am

Posted under reblog environment

This post was written by admin on February 11, 2009

Tags: , ,

Oceans Are the New Atmosphere

2977030949_dea773065c.jpg

Oceans are the new atmosphere.

What we mean is, that concern for the state of the oceans and the potential impacts of the on-going catastrophic collapse of ocean ecosystems is reaching a pitch that we haven’t seen on any other environmental issue other than the build-up of greenhouse gasses in the atmosphere. We don’t live in them – many of us have never even seen them — but we’re handily trashing them. And the state of the oceans is inextricably linked to the state of the planet as a whole.

Simply put, if the oceans crash, we crash, and the signs of impending collapse are everywhere. On the other hand, it’s becoming clearer that new solutions and policies may actually give us the capacity to understand and prevent that crash, if we have the will.

Throughout recent history, most human impacts on the oceans have stemmed from a dramatic misunderstanding, both of their value and of their limits. For all the romance we’ve assigned them in art and literature, in reality we’ve used the Earth’s oceans as waste dumps; as all-you-can-eat buffets; and as highways for global exploration, commerce and warfare.

The vast dead zones now spreading out from our coastlines appear to be largely the result of the vast rivers of chemicals, fertilizer runoff and sewage we’re pouring into the sea. The mountains of more solid and buoyant waste (like household garbage) that many communities still dump directly into the nearest ocean are accumulating in shocking amounts, and degrading with unknown results.

But most troubling of all is ocean acidification, the result of relying on the oceans to absorb the CO2 that we spew into the atmosphere. There is increasing evidence that the problem of ocean acidification — or “sour seas,” as we heard it called a while back — is worsening rapidly, foreshadowing potential impacts that could be catastrophic for all life on Earth.

As Alex has explained before, the threat of acidification is one of the main problems with many proposed geoengineering schemes meant to mitigate climate change. Some geoengineering ideas aim to lower the surface temperature of the Earth, for instance, by pumping huge amounts of small particles into the upper atmosphere. But these plans would do nothing about the CO2 we’re still pumping into the atmosphere, much of which winds up dissolved in the ocean, making it yet more acid. Other plans are even more sketchy, such as the idea of “seeding” the ocean with algal blooms to trigger the uptake of more CO2 into the ocean. Proponents say this CO2 will be safely sequestered: but both scientists and governments disagree and have called for an end to these efforts.

The clear answer is a massive and aggressive planetary effort to first eliminate excess greenhouse gas emissions, and then begin pulling CO2 from the atmosphere through safe, terrestrial methods, such as afforestation and biochar. This should be combined, scientists say, with strong measures designed to curb the sorts of pollutants now killing huge portions of the ocean floor — a problem that may well worsen as climate change continues to raise sea levels and increase flooding.

Although we often treat oceans (or the parts closest to us) as though they have defined borders and governing bodies, in reality they are, well, fluid. Like nearly every other system impacted by climate change, there is no fair distribution of cause and effect. Rather, the entire protective effort is only as good as the worst offender, and the destruction caused by some of us touches the lives of all of us.

That is why this year, as we work toward a new global climate deal, we also need to start pursuing a new global oceans deal. The law of the sea for ocean resources must be strengthened. It will take an unprecedented intergovernmental pact to recognize and chart a path towards a globally equitable and sustainable relationship to the extraction of food, minerals, oil and other substances. We need planetary agreements on fisheries’ limits, limits that recognize that fisheries collapses have gone non-linear. We need to create and enforce marine sanctuaries, fund new research into fisheries and new approaches to ocean science and put what we already know about sustainable coastal development to work for people living in these most sensitive regions.

International alliances already recognize the importance of this task. Among existing agreements and accords are those outlined by the APEC nations’ Bali Plan of Action Towards Healthy Oceans and Coasts for the Sustainable Growth and Prosperity of the Asia-Pacific Community (PDF):

We, the APEC Ocean-related Ministers, reaffirm our commitment to progress the 2002 Seoul Oceans Declaration by taking, subject to available resources and capabilities, substantial and concrete steps to balance sustainable management of marine resources and the marine environment with economic growth.

We, therefore, are determined to work domestically, regionally, and internationally, in the near to mid-term (2006-2009), towards:

I. ensuring the sustainable management of the marine environment and its resources;

II. providing for sustainable economic benefits from the oceans; and,

III. enabling sustainable development of coastal communities.

But, as the Global Forum on Oceans, Coasts and Islands notes as a main focus of its work, the problem with managing the world’s seas stems largely from the fact that, as one of the Forum’s project outlines states (PDF), “To date there is no consensus on the various legal and policy issues surrounding marine areas beyond national jurisdiction, and there are many different options being elaborated and discussed about how these issues should be resolved.” It is clear that we need a more complete agreement on how to govern, use and preserve the oceans.

As we urge our leaders to work toward this vision, one of the best things we can do as planetary citizens is to arm ourselves with knowledge and appreciation of these awesome bodies of salt water and the worlds below the waves. We need more people around the world to learn about oceans, what they are, and why they matter.

But how can we spread marine education in a way that’s enchanting and accessible even to the landlocked? One of the newest additions to the Google Earth family, Google Ocean, is starting to point out what’s possible. As The New York Times’ Andrew Revkin describes the downloadable app:

The new version of Google Earth allows users to mouse around under and over the seas, click on video clips of hydrothermal vents, read up on which seafoods are being harvested unsustainably, look at marine dead zones and sanctuaries and the like.

Visitors can create their own narrated, illustrated tours of a neighborhood, scuba excursion or honeymoon. They can also now visually scroll through time, backtracking through sequences of satellite-imagery to see how coasts, forests, cities and other features of the planet are changing under the expanding imprint of ever more people eager for ever more stuff.

Will virtual exploration truly open the eyes and minds of people wide enough to incite them to fight for better ocean policy? The journey from keyboard to kayak, or computer screen to concern for coral reefs seems daunting. But it’s certainly a step in the right direction.

Yet we need much, much more. A touch of celebrity in the form of a Special Adviser on Oceans post in the Obama administration, for example, certainly couldn’t hurt. More journalism, more education, more advocacy — all are needed. But somehow, we’ve got to come to grips with the fact that the planet we live on doesn’t stop at the beach.

Photo: A visitor admires the Philippine coral reef display at the California Academy of Sciences. The 25-foot tall installation, which debuted in August 2008, is the world’s deepest living coral reef display. Photo credit: flickr/japes18, CC license.

Help us change the world - DONATE NOW!

(Posted by Alex Steffen and Julia Levitt in Features at 8:21 AM)


Originally
from Worldchanging: Bright Green

by Alex Steffen and Julia Levitt


reBlogged

on Jan 1, 1970, 8:00AM

Originally by Alex Steffen and Julia Levitt from Worldchanging: Bright Green on January 1, 1970, 9:00am

Posted under reblog environment

This post was written by admin on February 11, 2009

Tags:

Zero Impact Within Our Lifetimes

This article was written by Alex Steffen in January 2008. We’re republishing it here as part of our month-long editorial retrospective.

Zero%20Now.jpg The time has come to reconcile ourselves with a fundamental truth. Most of us were already alive when humanity went into overshoot and (sometime in the late 80’s) began using up the planet faster than the planet could replenish itself. And many of us will still be alive, when, by mid-century at the latest, we have returned again to being a sustainable, one-planet civilization.

Of course, we may prove ourselves to be an evil and criminally shortsighted generation. We may melt the ‘caps, log the Congo, burn the Amazon, slushie the tundra, acidify the ocean, drive half of all life into extinction and needlessly cause the deaths of billions of our fellow human beings. But I don’t think we will. I think enough of us are better than that, braver than that and bolder than that.

Which means that we have to stop pussy-footing around and speak plainly: our goal is to have zero impact within our lifetimes. Our goal is to provide reasonable affluence and high qualities of life for everyone of the planet, while reducing our CO2 emissions, toxic releases, ecosystem impacts and resource draw-downs to essentially nothing, because anything more than zero is wrong.

Put more precisely, any ecological impact beyond global biocapacity tends to undermine Earth’ natural systems, destroy ecosystem services and climate stability and ultimately destroy the options of our descendants. Worse yet, we are beginning to understand that more and more unsustainably intensive uses of the Earth bring increasing risks of passing catastrophic tipping points, and, indeed, that those tipping points may be closer than we think. These effects, and the risks they bring, are largely cumulative. With all of this in mind, it ought to be our goal to have no impact — to bring our ecological footprint below biocapacity, perhaps even to start healing the planet (to change our ecological footprint into an ecological handprint — as soon as possible.

The idea of zero impact ought to be non-contraversial. It is simple common sense that practices which are unsustainable cannot continue, and we know that it is true that propping up unsustainable practices with non-renewable resources has even more dramatic consequences. And we are currently growing rapidly less sustainable, and using more and more non-renewable to keep the ecological consequences at bay. This must stop. All of this is just plain speaking, and ought to be obvious to any informed observer.

What is less obvious, even to those who think about these issues a lot, is how quickly this must stop. When do we need to arrive at zero?

The answer, more and more clearly, boils down to now.

Take climate. Just today the Washington Post reported on two major recent studies which both concluded that zero energy emissions ought to be our goal by mid-century:

Their findings, published in separate journals over the past few weeks, suggest that both industrialized and developing nations must wean themselves off fossil fuels by as early as mid-century in order to prevent warming that could change precipitation patterns and dry up sources of water worldwide.

Using advanced computer models to factor in deep-sea warming and other aspects of the carbon cycle that naturally creates and removes carbon dioxide (CO2), the scientists, from countries including the United States, Canada and Germany, are delivering a simple message: The world must bring carbon emissions down to near zero to keep temperatures from rising further.

“The question is, what if we don’t want the Earth to warm anymore?” asked Carnegie Institution senior scientist Ken Caldeira, co-author of a paper published last week in the journal Geophysical Research Letters. “The answer implies a much more radical change to our energy system than people are thinking about.”

Expect, in the next few years, to see a lot more reports like these from nearly every field. Most of the smart scientists and researchers I know expect both scientific modeling and scientific moxie to converge on much more plain-spoken assessments of our need for radical change in the ways we’re treating the planet.

Some people fear that telling people the truth will result in a loss of our credibility or a despairing retreat from action. I don’t think that’s right or true. I think our job is to tell the truth, help people come to grips with it, and help them imagine how their worlds could improve as we solve these problems.

Bargaining with the universe is a pretty universal human reaction to bad news. Even those of us who have no belief in the supernatural tend to drop into a pleading negotiation with some unseen power when the doctor walks in with a grim look on her face.

It’s pretty easy to look at humanity’s reaction to the environmental crisis from this light. We can already see people coming to grips with the diagnosis. We ought to encourage a rapid ratcheting down of our denial reactions as we all come to peace with the reality that everything needs to change, and set our resolve to change it.

We’d all better hope it happens soon. The longer we wait, the tighter the window, of course; but there’s also a lot more upside to be had if we act quickly. And I think the upside of a zero footprint civilization is what we really ought to be focusing on here.

I, for one, do not believe that we must be worse off for this transition. Under most models, the economy will continue strong growth even if we push hard on reducing emissions — indeed, many of the things we need to do will actually improve productivity, more than paying for themselves. (This is true, by the way, not just for carbon emissions, but for toxics, waste reduction, water conservation, ecosystem service preservation, greater access to education and health care and host of other sustainability priorities). On pure GDP terms, making this transition quickly may be a huge winner.

And, of course, GDP isn’t everything. There are a whole host of human security, moral happiness and quality of life questions that tackling this crisis will help us answer. If we move quickly, we could not only have staved off disaster by mid-century, but built a profoundly better world. And that is far more than nothing.

But to get there, we have to be honest about the goal of having no impact at all. We have to be willing to stand up, in public, and say the words: zero, now.

(Image: All the world’s water, all the world’s air. Internet flotsam of unknown origin)

Zero, Now. is part of our month long retrospective leading up to our anniversary on October 1. For the next four weeks, we’ll celebrate five years of solutions-based, forward-thinking and innovative journalism by publishing the best of the Worldchanging archives.

Help us change the world - DONATE NOW!

(Posted by WorldChanging Team in Worldchanging Retro at 8:43 AM)


Originally
from WorldChanging

by WorldChanging Team


reBlogged

on Jan 1, 1970, 8:00AM

Originally by WorldChanging Team from WorldChanging on January 1, 1970, 9:00am

Posted under reblog environment

This post was written by admin on October 1, 2008

Tags: ,

Solastalgia and the Mental Affects of Climate Change

This article was written by Sanjay Khanna in March 2008. We’re republishing it here as part of our month-long editorial retrospective.

Caroona%20Picture1.jpg

A small yet growing body of evidence suggests that how people think and feel is being influenced strongly by ecosystem transformation related to climate change and industry-related displacement from the land. These powerful stressors are occurring more frequently around the world.

A case in point: When researchers from the Centre for Rural and Remote Mental Health at the University of Newcastle in Australia conducted interviews in drought-affected communities in New South Wales in 2005, the responses suggested some of their subjects may have been suffering from a recently described psychological condition called solastalgia (pronounced so-la-stal-juh).

Solastalgia describes a palpable sense of dislocation and loss that people feel when they perceive changes to their local environment as harmful. It’s a neologism that Glenn Albrecht, an environmental philosopher at the University of Newcastle’s School of Environmental and Life Sciences, created in 2003.

Albrecht’s work among communities distraught by black-coal strip mining in New South Wales’ Upper Hunter Region convinced him that the English language needed a new term to connect the experience of ecosystem loss to mental health concerns.

“The sense of a home landscape being violated [by strip mining-related environmental damage] seemed to have disturbed the region’s social ecology so much that the psychic or mental health of many people living in the zone of high impact was being affected,” he says.

Albrecht’s stunning insight? That there might be a wide variety of shifts in the health of an ecosystem—from subtle landscape changes related to global warming to desolate wastelands created by large-scale strip mining—that diminish people’s mental health.

In Eastern Australian communities, where the toll of a six-year-long drought has been devastating, interviews with farmers provided additional momentum for the solastalgia concept.

In one such interview, a female farmer poignantly described the loss of her garden oasis. “Our gardens have had to die,” she said, “because our house dam has been dry…. So it’s very depressing for a woman because a garden is an oasis out here with this dust…you know, to come home to a nice green lawn is just… that’s all gone, so you’ve got dust at your back door.”

While persistent drought and open-pit coal mining may be extreme cases, if the environmental degradation of the past hundred years is any indication, our contemporary lifestyles, built on a dwindling resource base, have failed to acknowledge how much the mental health of people and ecosystems is interrelated.

This may imply that the unrelenting media focus on weather-related and economic aspects of climate change does not adequately take into consideration the challenge of mitigating the psychological impact of global warming. How might we feel when the heat is relentless and our surrounding environment changes irrevocably? How might our mental health be affected?

In a recent Wired magazine article on Albrecht and the concept of solastalgia, “Global Mourning: How the next victim of climate change will be our minds,” writer Clive Thompson sensitively characterized as “global mourning” the potential impact of overwhelming environmental transformation caused by climate change. Thompson cogently summed up Albrecht’s view of what solastalgia might look like were it to become an epidemic of emotional and psychic instability causally linked to changing climates and ecosystems.

Albrecht also emphasizes that feelings of melancholia and homesickness have previously been recorded among Aboriginal peoples in the Americas and Australia who were forcibly moved from their home territories by U.S., Canadian and Australian governments in the late nineteenth and twentieth centuries.

Sanjay Khanna: You speak of psychoterratic and somaterratic illnesses. What are they?

Glenn Albrecht: Psychoterratic illness involves the psyche or mind and terra or earth. So a psychoterratic illness would be an earth-related mental illness, where both nostalgia and solastalgia are examples of people being made “mentally ill” by the severing of “healthy” links between themselves and their home or territory.

Somaterratic illness, on the other hand, involves soma or the body and relates to damage done to the human body, its physiology and/or genetics, as a result of the loss of ecosystem health by, for example, toxic pollution in any given area of land.

SK: You note on your blog that there are antecedents to solastalgia.

GA: Yes, David Rapport, a past professor at the University of Guelph in Ontario, Canada, is a pioneer in the study of the health of natural ecosystems and their relationship with humans. In the 1970s, he described “ecosystem distress syndrome,” which was what happened when an ecosystem couldn’t restore its balance after an external disturbance.

Once I fully appreciated this concept, I realized there must be a human equivalent to ecosystem distress syndrome, that is, a home environment so profoundly disturbed that it affected the balance of well being or the mental health of people within their social ecology.

The interviews of affected people I conducted along with Nick Higginbotham and Linda Connor in strip-mined areas of the Upper Hunter Valley showed that people’s sense of place was being violated and that this was profoundly disturbing them. Their home environment was being desolated and it seemed to us that the vital link between ecosystem health and human health, both physical and mental, was being severed.

SK: Can you tell us a little bit more about the origins of solastalgia?

GA: Solastalgia’s Latin roots combine three ideas: The solace that one’s environment provides, the desolation caused by that environment’s degradation and the pain or distress that occurs inside a person as a result.

Solastalgia brings into English a much-needed word that links a mental state to a state of the biophysical environment. The need for new concepts in the face of what is happening under climate change has seen other cultures develop new terms that have affinities with solastalgia.

The Inuit, for example, have a new word, uggianaqtuq (pronounced OOG-gi-a-nak-took), which relates to climate change and has connotations of the weather as a once reliable and trusted friend that is now acting strangely or unpredictably. And the Portuguese use the word saudade to describe a feeling one has for a loved one who is absent or has disappeared. The upshot is that under the pressure of climate change, your preferred climate and ecosystem might well be thought of as a lover gone missing or turned bad.

SK: How might your research impact on psychiatry and the diagnosis of psychoterratic illnesses such as solastalgia?

GA: Alongside five other researchers, our four-person team co-wrote a summary of our research on the mental health impacts of mining and drought for psychological and psychiatric professionals. The paper, “Solastalgia: the distress caused by climate change,” was published in Australasian Psychiatry, a publication of the Royal Australian and New Zealand College of Psychiatrists, in November 2007.

Our team has mused that people badly affected by solastalgia would benefit from a set of professionally developed diagnostic tools so that solastalgia could be listed as a condition that required diagnosis and professional attention.

We’re happy for other people to take that challenge up and there are some academic psychiatrists who are interested in exploring these ideas further. However, given that key aspects of solastalgia are existential, the traditions of environmental philosophy and medical psychiatry may not come together so harmoniously. The melancholia of solastalgia is not the same as clinical depression, but it may well be a precursor to serious psychic disturbance.

That said, it’s worth remembering that up until the mid-twentieth century, the medical profession viewed nostalgia as a diagnosable psycho-physiological illness in which, for example, soldiers fighting in foreign lands became so homesick and melancholic it could kill them.

Today psychiatrists would see the condition of rapid and unwelcome severing from home as post-traumatic stress disorder (PTSD), an outcome of an acute stressor such as warfare or a Hurricane Katrina.

Solastalgia on the other hand is most often the result of chronic environmental stress; it is the lived experience of gradually losing the solace a once stable home environment provided. It is therefore appropriate to diagnose solastalgia in the face of slow and insidious forces such as climate change or mining.

SK: Would you tell us a little bit about the transdisciplinary team that you participate on?

GA: Nick Higginbotham, a social psychologist colleague who specializes in epidemiology and health matters, is working to gather empirical data for our solastalgia research. He has developed a much-needed environmental distress scale (EDS) that teases out the specific environmental components of distress from all the other things that go on in a person’s life. We will be using this scale in the new AUS$430K grant the team has received from the Australian Research Council to extend our earlier work by addressing “the lived experience (ethnography) of climate change” among people in the Hunter Valley.

Linda Connor, an ethnographer and social and medical anthropologist, handles the ethnography or cultural experience of all this. So collectively we have empirical (Higginbotham), cultural (Connor) and philosophical (me) interpretations of health and climate change. Finally, Sonia Freeman, our research assistant, has co-authored a number of papers.

SK: What implications might the recent apology by Kevin Rudd, the new Prime Minister of Australia, to the “stolen generations” of Australian Aborigines have in relation to solastalgia?

GA: The apology by Kevin Rudd to the stolen generations is about seeking forgiveness for the government-sanctioned taking of Indigenous children from their families and from their home territories (their “country”) from 1909 until 1969. There have been profound mental and physical health impacts from this process and many of the remaining stolen generations are now ageing but with a 17-year shorter life expectancy on average than non-indigenous Australians. Those who are alive today may be experiencing genuine nostalgia for a once-sustainable past and solastalgia within contemporary pathological and depressed home environments.

SK: Do you see a relationship between the conquest of Indigenous peoples of the Americas and Australasia, the state of environmental degradation and the experience of loss that we are seeing today? If so, what is that relationship from your perspective and research?

GA: The answer is, yes, there is a relationship between the two colonial cultures: the two continents were colonized only by the systematic dispossession of complex and formerly sustainable Indigenous societies.

Traditional Indigenous cultures in the Americas and Australasia displayed a profound appreciation of the relationship between human and ecosystem health, something global culture is trying to rediscover under the label of sustainability.

Remnant aboriginal cultures are still being pushed aside by the dominant global model of economic growth and progress. Even today, their chronic health problems are likely related to social and political issues that are connected to ongoing dispossession.

I’ve had recent firsthand experience of the lives of Indigenous people leading semi-traditional lives in Northern Australia to see the importance of the connections between human health and ecosystem health. In Arnhem Land, Aborigines who live on what are called “outstations” have been able to maintain much stronger and healthier links to their traditional land. Their physical and mental health status is, as a consequence, much better than those whose links to their own land have been severed and who now live in crowded, dysfunctional communities.

SK: Some of the solastalgia symptoms you describe are similar to the loss of cultural identity, including the loss of language and ancestral memory. Loss of place seems an extension of this new global experience of weakened cultural identities and Earth-based ethical moorings.

GA: I have written on this topic in a professional academic journal and expressed the idea of having an Earth-based ethical framework that could contribute to maximizing the creative potential of human cultural and technological complexity and diversity without destroying the foundational complexity and diversity of natural systems in the process.

Our history shows that some people and cultures have a tendency to create pathological ways of thinking, but if we want to support a life-affirming ethic in the twenty-first century, we are in need of reform and change.

SK: In the context of accelerating environmental change, what would you say to young people about the planet they are inheriting? What does sustainability mean in the context of the overwhelming pace of environmental and economic change that we’re seeing today?

GA: This is a tough one because the children of today face the double whammy of the escalating pace and scale of changes under the global forces of development and those of climate chaos. I’ve suggested to my own teenagers that what is happening is unacceptable ethically and practically and they should be in a state of advanced revolt about the whole deal.

From my perspective, supporting and maintaining the status quo is no longer a reasonable response to these big picture issues. At every point, we must challenge and refute this kind of thinking in a society that is clearly on a non-sustainable pathway.

Unfortunately, the lot in life of the youth today is to undo much of what has been done in the name of growth and progress in the last two hundred years. However, this does not mean a return to the past: As Herman Daly (the ecological economist) once said, you can have an economy that develops without growing.

On a personal level, I’m an optimistic, energetic philosopher and I believe that we must get our values more life orientated. I’m not willing to give up on encouraging change towards sustainability even in the face of what look like overwhelming negative forces.

The four-year grant recently awarded to our team will allow us to study the lived experience of climate change at a regional level. We’re happy that we’ll be able to start contributing data on how climate change is shifting culture, values and attitudes.

The next four years are critical. As a member of a research team, I believe that we’re right at the leading edge of change research and we are very committed to supporting the network of ecological and social relationships that promote human health. There’s hope in recognizing solastalgia and defeating it by creating ways to reconnect with our local environment and communities.

###

Sanjay Khanna is a writer and foresight researcher based in Vancouver, Canada. He can be reached at sk AT khannaresearch DOT com. His blog is at www.realisticsanctuary.com.

Photo by Paul Mathews

What Does Climate Change Do to Our Heads? is part of our month long retrospective leading up to our anniversary on October 1. For the next four weeks, we’ll celebrate five years of solutions-based, forward-thinking and innovative journalism by publishing the best of the Worldchanging archives.

Help us change the world - DONATE NOW!

(Posted by WorldChanging Team in Worldchanging Retro at 9:34 AM)


Originally
from WorldChanging

by WorldChanging Team


reBlogged

on Jan 1, 1970, 8:00AM

Originally by WorldChanging Team from WorldChanging on January 1, 1970, 9:00am

Posted under reblog environment

This post was written by admin on October 1, 2008

Tags: , ,