Post-Consumer Action
Came across a brilliant site called Unconsumption where what struck me was its definition of itself …
Consumption is a word used to describe acts of acquisition – generally, the acquisition of things, in exchange for money.
Unconsumption is a word used to describe everything that happens after an act of acquisition.
Unconsumption is an invisible badge.
Unconsumption means the accomplishment of properly recycling your old cellphone, rather than the guilt of letting it sit in a drawer.
Unconsumption means the thrill of finding a new use for something that you were about to throw away.
Unconsumption means the pleasure of using a service like Freecycle (or Craigslist or Goodwill) to find a new home for the functioning VCR you just replaced, rather than throwing it in the garbage.
Unconsumption means enjoying the things you own to the fullest – not just at the moment of acquisition.
Unconsumption means the pleasure of using a pair of sneakers until they are truly worn out – as opposed to the nagging feeling of defeat when they simply go out of style.
Unconsumption means feeling good about the simple act of turning off the lights when you leave the room.
Unconsumption is not about the rejection of things, or the demonization of things. It’s not a bunch of rules.
Unconsumption is an idea, a set of behaviors, a way of thinking about consumption itself from a new perspective.
Unconsumption is free.
Its a site anyone can converse with and a site that makes a lot of sense. Believe me you should not look at it unless you have a fair bit of time to spare. It always amazes me just how creative we can be.
Posted on June 14, 2010
Filed Under Transition Thinking, environment issues | Leave a Comment
If my vote had counted would I feel sold out?
Its been a couple of days since the government was formed and the heady excitement of what will happen has waned to let me think about the impact.
I’ve looked at what the LibDems have done in forming the coalition, what they have given up and what they have allowed in terms of Tory policies.
I’m disappointed hugely by the Alternative Vote referendum. If we were to go so far as to have a referendum in the first place why not engage the country with a proper range of options? Or is it that the Tories are afraid that the people might actually think about it and make their job harder by having to justify their “Lords of the Manor” approach to life? I think that modern politics needs proper representation. I think modern politics needs the Single Transferable Vote. I wonder if the Take Back Parliament campaign has enough groundswell to make an impact over the long term since it didn’t sway the coalition talks enought?
There are other policy disappointments of course but perhaps the greatest disaster is that in forming the coalition they have permitted the Osbourne economics to operate full steam ahead. I agree that the country needs a massive financial overhaul; that the country needs “austerity” but should it really need to take the de-stabilising double dip of the recession that the Tory policies are likely to create? Many times through the last 18 months the Tories have opposed wise measures and been shown to be short-sighted if not downright shady in their reasoning. Major institutions including the IMF and the OECD have warned against the intended pace of the Tory austerity measures and 57 significant economists have openly advised against it too.
What I, and many others, should remember is that the country has voted mostly in favour of Tory government. Even under an STV election it would be the case. So in practice I should be wishing the coalition the best of luck (they need it). I shall tip my hat to my Tory MP as is right and proper. And I shall take the austerity and injustice on the chin.
But I won’t necessarily do it quietly. I feel sold out by the LibDem’s dilution of their core beliefs. If my vote had counted in a PR manner I would have expected more of a fight from the LibDem influence, but would it have been any different?
Posted on May 14, 2010
Filed Under Random Thoughts | Leave a Comment
PR: Proportional Representation or Political Ransome?
An old work colleague of mine posted a status that caught my imagination on Facebook that I’ve lifted as the title for this post. Thanks Josie!
It seems that the only person with any apparent political power right now is Nick Clegg. He’s taking his time. And I think it right that he should be taking his time.
The real imperative is that this country should have a strong and stable government for the next few years and I believe that can not be negotiated in a matter of a few hours; especially when die-hard opinions exist within all parties that could easily de-rail the needs of the country.
But should the “loser” be able to cause all this fuss? I’d say an emphatic yes!
If we take a look at the following that I’ve borrowed from a BBC website article you’ll see that any of the alternative and fairer voting systems would indeed have provided more influence to the Liberals and a closer result than we saw under the current (and some would say unrepresentative) system.
The current situation looks like this:
Both the Conservatives and Labour have offered AV as the first possible step:
The Lib Dems are really looking for STV which is the preferred approach of the Electoral Reform Society.
Source: Electoral Reform Society
Now I am not so naive as suggest that we should for this election be operating under a voting system that the nation has not agreed to but it does validate the idea that an alternative electoral method is necessary to properly reflect the whole country’s wishes. And since the only major party that genuinely appears to want electoral reform is the Liberals I believe that we do need them to call the shots right now.
And we need Nick Clegg and the others to consider the implications of government way beyond the issue of electoral reform, because the country has many other serious issues to solve in this next term.
Whether we like it or not we need the Political Ransom and all its machinations right now because the choices to be made in the near future will be harsh and will affect us all.
Posted on May 11, 2010
Filed Under Random Thoughts | 2 Comments
Hanging on Minority
OK, so everyone is speculating about the next government. I just want to add my bit to the discussion
According to the BBC Mr Cameron is attempting to form a government. There is also speculation about a Lib/Lab coalition. And the Conservatives are making comment about that too
Shadow schools secretary Michael Gove said voters would not be “entirely happy” if Mr Brown “after a defeat like this, were to try to cling on and try to form some sort of coalition of the defeated, some sort of alliance of the dispossessed”
I find this an interesting view given that a “coalition of dispossessed” would hold at least 52% of the total count of votes, whilst an equally minority Conservative government only 40%.
Time to sign up with more idealists at the Electoral Reform Society.
Nevertheless I still consider Mr Clegg’s “sleep on it” statements to be wisdom.
Posted on May 7, 2010
Filed Under Random Thoughts | 1 Comment
Is it really worth voting?
I’ve asked myself the question a lot lately. Where I live is a very entrenched Conservative seat. Well, maybe. It was a Liberal marginal target a couple of elections ago. It was close but the reality was that it is a Conservative seat. There is enough habitual support that the old guard will always ensure continuity. So does my vote really count whichever box I use on the day?
I grew up in the Labour heartland of a North East mining community. I could see the socialist agenda make sense there and the harm that the extreme left could do first hand through the Scargill days. What I could not see was the utter disenfranchisement of those with views that did not match the local majority. My father always voted Conservative. Pointless really, a monkey on a red flag could have been elected in those days. I didn’t realise the school playground chant of “Maggie Thatcher the milk snatcher” wasn’t appropriate at home, nor that it started a left leaning indoctrination.
So I am of a socialist persuasion, I want to see social equality and support the weak. But that’s different from voting Labour.
I am also a fan of small government, preferring local management of local needs. But that gets complicated.
Europe, whilst probably an inevitable imposition in the future, doesn’t fit for me. But as a realist I’m prepared to let it happen.
But what I want more than anything is a voice. When I vote I want it to be recognised and counted towards something I believe in, not just discarded with the loser’s voting slips.
What I feel most strongly for this election is the need for electoral reform. I’m looking forward to a hung parliament if only because issues may need to be properly debated. Yes I think it will mess up the economy some more, but perhaps that is the price to pay for real change.
The Conservatives want us to vote for change. I would rather vote for a vote for change. I will be voting for the Liberal Democrats. I know the candidate will probably lose. He will not lose his deposit however and for that reason my vote may still count as I’m sure they will consider my vote in a PR manner and use it to bring an electoral change agenda forward.
Oh, by the way. I am an idealist too. That means I live in a state of constant disappointment so don’t feel sorry for me. I’m used to it.
Posted on May 4, 2010
Filed Under Random Thoughts | 3 Comments
Uncertainties are rife in climate science.
An article in The Economist this week brought me hope that serious people are still serious about Climate Change. After the Copenhagen conference this article put into context for me why science could not give the politicians what they needed and indeed why it fed the sceptics’ case.
Apparently Politicians work like the press. They simplify a situation for us then exaggerate the points that they have made to gain emotional support through shock and awe. So when real scientists ask genuine questions and correctly disagree with one another they fail to provide the sound-bite and the concrete evidence that under-girds the words of our wise spokespeople.
I honestly believe that many of the politicians ardently feel the need to act on Climate Change, yet without the hard evidence that we, the public, demand, and especially in the face of recession and disaster, have their hands tied. Their economic and ultimately political self-interest remain beyond what many would consider common sense.
Is it too late to save the world? Mr Brown’s comments about the nature of Copenhagen are long gone. And it may appear that the public interest has waned too. So perhaps it is.
But if we are to move forward in anything it seems we as people need to become more comfortable with embracing uncertainty. We spend too long couching the comfort we gain from the black and white we call facts. And yet we are adjusting to the possibility , the likelihood that uncertainty exists. No more do we expect a job for life. We are no longer surprised when our favourite brand of tea is re-packaged and has a new-improved flavour. We have accepted it.
Yet the question remains over who benefits from the uncertainty. In business it is not the employees. In politics it is not the voter.
But when it comes to science we all benefit from the uncertainty because it gives us a range of possible outcomes. In climate science we have possibilities from warmer summers to global catastrophe. The benefit for us is the middle ground of reason. If one extreme is wrong then we can be comforted that the other may be too. The middle ground creates a picture that can activate a sensible and reasoned response with urgency but without hysteria. That to me seems a good thing.
But instead it looks like we throw babies out alongside their bathwater. We’ve been duped by the scientists, duped by the politician and duped by the press. Or so we believe.
Yet we continue to buy the latest scientific diet? The last one didn’t work so the next one will? Of course. But that is not uncertainty it is incremental improvement. Can we not give the science that studies critical elements of our life that room?
Uncertainty is rife but it suggests a risk exists – and a risk of such considerable consequences that we need to demand a reaction!
Posted on March 22, 2010
Filed Under environment issues | Leave a Comment
Tell me – what is comitment please?
The Cop-Out15 meeting continues sadly as one might have predicted. Lots of rhetoric beforehand stated “commitment” and “we’ll put up money”. And the grandstanding remains. Japan promises $5bn with caveats and an agenda to out-compete China and the $3.5bn from the gang of six has the rider “in the context of an ambitious and comprehensive outcome in Copenhagen”
My taxes are due in January – may I formally tell the Inland Revenue that I promise to pay and help my country’s national debt problem “in the context of an ambitious and comprehensive outcome in the next general election”?
Come on everyone – this is about our Last Chance to Save the World or at least it was 50 days ago.
Posted on December 17, 2009
Filed Under environment issues | Leave a Comment
Is Violence Required to Address Climate Change?
Polite Notice: This article contains some strong language, strongly emotive statements and other elements that may offend or upset some readers. I do not apologise – I ask instead that you get over yourself and consider what I have to say.
It appears from news reports that 900 arrests have been made in Copenhagen during the massive march today. Some youths threw stones and smashed windows. A lot of arrests for a 30,000 crowd. But given the EU announcement of pitiful support for poorer nations, much of the $10bn is merely a re-labelling of existing commitments, I am not surprised. The political grandstanding has become a farce in my eyes too.
Ahead of the final day of the COP15 conference on the 18th December (when doubtless the smiles, handshakes, cameras and exquisite food and drink will satisfy the 110 world leaders who will fly in to publicly display their commitment to the common cause) it seems that the outcome of an unremarkable response to the climate change issue is already a given – a 25% to 45% target reduction in greenhouse gas emissions from the 1990 level to be achieved in 10 years. It is unremarkable since the current commitment is estimated at merely 18%, and if the EU financial package is any predictor of the willingness to reach further, then it will be a struggle to reach 25%. There is no action listed to specifically work to a temperature change target, so where did the greenhouse gas emissions figure really come from? How about a pure lack of imagination and commitment beyond rhetoric?
It makes me angry.
I do not condone unjustified violence against another nor civil disorder. However, I do wonder what is required to make the developed world look up and see beyond its greed and self-interest. Surely this issue alone demands a violent response; an approach that passionately embraces the real problems and aggressively makes the changes that are required in industry, science and society?
Is it really so important that the people at large are bored with hearing about climate change in the media? Will people really avoid paying the taxes and experiencing a little of the hardships that are required that the world leaders should merely provide face time instead of proper solutions and real cash? Obviously people at large, my generation perhaps, can only follow the X-Factor or Strictly, we need to ensure that we don’t even have to think instead of face up to the huge burden of responsibility we have for our children’s future. Our smiling politicians have it all in hand to keep everything safe and peaceful and wealthy.
It makes me feel sick.
I wonder sometimes if we have become too happy to live a life without real consequences. Its OK to buy cheap food and clothes without considering the impact on the producers and manufacturers, the poisoned farmers, the exploited women and children and the desolated forests. Its fine to break the law as long as you don’t get caught we’re told. Live for now – you only have this moment. Well maybe its all true – but somehow I don’t think so.
Perhaps the easy availability of contraception has messed with our minds. We can fuck without worrying about it – so perhaps we can fuck up our world in the same way too? But condoms don’t stop the sea rising, or the weather patterns changing and the polar ice-caps melting. The pill won’t fix the starvation and death or even the global unrest. And just like its our children that have the unwanted pregnancies in our contraceptive ridden western societies, its the children that will face the consequences of our couldn’t give a diddly attitude.
Our morals stink because we don’t think or care about our responsibilities.
So perhaps violence is required. I hope the youths arrested at the Cop-Out15 conference aren’t just anarchistic trouble-makers (though of course we will never hear otherwise). I hope its our young people standing up for themselves a whole lot more than most of us seem to be standing up to our responsibilities and the consequences of our actions. But we need to bring on the real violence that is necessary to wake us up to our future in the hope that its not already too late.
Posted on December 13, 2009
Filed Under environment issues | Leave a Comment
Oil running out far faster than predicted: report | Business | The Guardian
Oil running out far faster than predicted: report | Business | The Guardian. The question is “Who do we believe”?
How about we hope for the best and prepare for the worst?
Posted on November 15, 2009
Filed Under environment issues | Leave a Comment
Giving What We Can
Tony Ord, an Oxford academic, has formed a society called Giving What We Can aimed at encouraging individuals to donate at least 10% of their earned income to what he calls “efficient charities”. Whilst Tony’s society asks us to make a pledge to give:
The Pledge to Give
I recognize that I can use part of my income to do a significant amount of good in the developing world. Since I can live well enough on a smaller income, I pledge that from today until the day I retire, I shall give at least ten percent of what I earn to whichever organizations can most effectively use it to fight poverty in the developing world. I make this pledge freely, openly, and without regret.
he himself has pledged to give 10% plus anything he earns over £20,000 each year. To do so he is forgoing what he calls “extras” such as a larger house. The website he has launched has some very valuable information concerning giving and the myths around aid.
The project is clearly at an early stage as there are currently only 23 members but this has a combined pledge value in excess of $9.5M.
What is particularly encouraging about the idea is the emphasis that is placed on the value of individual contribution, however small, as a lifetime pattern. We often see the here and now as the only time of value – if we can’t solve the problem immediately its not worth the effort – or someone else’s responsibility. The truth is however that lifestyle changes even if small can have a significant impact.
Tony Ord estimates that his giving, estimated at £1M over his lifetime, could save 500,000 lives.
I applaud Tony’s efforts, which in some ways mirror spiritual principles that have been lost in our increasingly materialistic society, not because of the material value but because of the example towards considering simple lifestyle changes for a lifetime.
The same principle can be applied in so many settings such as using less energy or buying local produce. We can all make a difference through “Giving What We Can” to the issues that really matter.
I wish Tony’s effort a great deal of success.
Posted on November 14, 2009
Filed Under Financial Resilience, Personal Development, Random Thoughts | Leave a Comment