The subject may have left the front page of our newspapers, if it ever was seen as deserving that importance. You may be saturated with the theme of climate change. Yet some clarification is needed, given likely effects on our daily life, the confusion introduced by more or less qualified experts. It must be noted that some of these experts come to the table with no so clearly stated agendas, and that their “ scientific” or “technical” opinions are tainted by the definite vested interests (directed one way or another) of parties who pay them to that effect, and the need for political decision-makers to negotiate compromises acceptable to contradicting forces in society.
You have read, heard and seen on your TV statements about climate change, its reality or the sham it is in the eyes of some, its effects or lack of effects, its relevance or lack thereof. We hear contradictory explanations of what is happening (human impact or cosmic incident…), self-congratulating statements of policies, intents, targeted effects, and in some cases questionable results.
Phrases like “carbon neutral”, “carbon stock exchange” “carbon credits”, “carbon absorption” abound in the media, along with brave sounding war cries such as “fighting climate change”, etc.
You may be “sold” on concepts of emission-free combustion engines cars, hybrid engines, electric vehicles, hopefully improved public transit. Or you may not believe any of it and shrug it off.
Is it reasonable for anyone to remain stuck in confusion and disputes about what is happening, how and why? Is it reasonable to ask whose fault it is, what is our role in it, whether collective or individually? Is it reasonable to expect someone else to resolve the issue at no special cost to us?
We, at the Networking for a Common Future in Sustainability (NetCFS), a non-governmental organization, whose name is self-eloquent, (and based in Saanich and moer precisely in teh camosun neighbourhood) believe that none of these options are reasonable.
We believe,
- that to wait until the existence of climate change is proven without any doubt, before really effective action is taken to address it, is contrary to the principles of risk management
- that to expect governments, industry, business or other components of the social and economic system to address the issue and resolve it effectively
may mean a very, very long wait without tangible results. Until now, experience confirms this pessimistic statement.
We invite interested people to join us in a neighbourhood-based process where we would help them, cooperatively as equal partners to develop on their own (Using of course the findings of credible experts, after examining critically their background, qualifications, experience and possible linkage with vested interests) a clear, simply stated yet well documented understanding of climate change, with emphasis on
- its main features and its likely evolution,
- our probable role in its evolution,
- other possible causes,
- the inherent risks to our civilization (and to ourselves),
Together, we can
1. determine directly, based on this understanding,
- what we can do to help reduce the effects of climate change and bring down the risks to an acceptable level;
- identify and assess the factors that may hinder action and those that may affect it positively;
- explore ways to manage obstacles that can be overcome and to find ways to “navigate” among those that are beyond our control;
- start doing what we found possible and reasonable, without triggering conflict with or opposition from the powers that be.
In doing that, the NetCFS could also help you deal with a much broader and serious issue, which we perceive as follows:
- Why is it that planners and engineers in governments and in the private sector assume in their work that their target people are passive recipients with unchangeable “lowest common denominator” behaviours?
- Why is it that our elected representatives parrot opinions they draw from summaries presented by “experts” instead of involving their constituents directly from conceptual level upwards, making sure that they are objectively informed beforehand?
We propose to do that neighbourhood by neighbourhood, under the aegis of Community Associations or similar groups, and to see to that the process is coordinated in each municipality, then in the region, fully independent of government structures, but in open, non conflict-laden communication with them.
We propose to start with Camosun Community Association, and to trigger similar action in other areas, through the Saanich Community Associations Network (SCAN) 1. We think that this is very feasible.
We invite readers to get in touch with us at netcfs@shaw.ca so that we can jointly explore possibilities, perhaps in a friendly meeting in December 2010, at a place to be chosen depending on number and of responses and meeting room availability.
Yves Bajard, President, NetCFS and member of the Board, Camosun Community Association
