It’s the end. But imagine that the moment has been prepared for. (By having the courage to be here on this list, and to read this, you are already preparing.)
But Rupert all of what you say is predicated upon that enormous word IF. Look around you. It is too late. I have been, like you, marching and shouting and writing for years upon his issue, with no perceivable effect. We aren’t going to do it, and we aren’t even going to try. We will just have to make do
* The thing with transformative adaptation is it's a fancy couple of words for a pretty simple thing.
1. Admitting we're not going to be able to control climate change with too many people not wanting to do it is really not bothering because it looks as if it's going to impossibly hard to control those who don't want to take action/are causing the climate change.
2. Admitting defeat in the face of climate change denial is a real defeat.
3. Suggesting a methodology for transformative adaptation has to make clear there will be tipping points in this current generations' life times but that total collapse will probably not for up to 100 years or so.
4. To adapt one has to grasp it is generational. At any point in time there will always be say 3 generations, old and not long for this life (limited interest in adapting because it won't effect them), middle-aged who will almost certainly will be effected and the young who at a certain age are often the most vocal in fighting for action on climate change (they know it will be them who will suffer most when the shit hits the fan.). Even the very young, preteens can be seen to have the sort of fear we did in the 50s - 60s over nuclear war.
5. Getting all three generations to do their part to move to an adaptive response is not a simple thing. Many across the generational board will still be determined to do their part not to let climate change deniers postpone the necessary action. Right now it's not so much denial but the 'it's happening but what can we do?' phase. The job of those who recognise this is real is to keep working on those in this category.
6. So are the transformative adapters to give up no. 5. or to combine the 2 things?
Is it all about not accepting nothing can be done, while at the same time coming to understanding what it might be like simply to make the best of the changes that will take place, like population shifts from south to north and so on, in the short to medium term and how when serious changes effect the northern hemisphere we might have in place ways of dealing with it (adaptively).
Nowadays, CCDs and their supporters are fond of talking about technological fixes. The new UK Labour just gave £2b for it, though critics have immediately jumped in to say it's a waste of money.
I'd like to extend upon #4, and that being with the addition of economic status and geographical location of the individual . I see both specific circumstances as being significant players in an individuals approach to building resiliency or indeed not.
I've realised that I've used the word 'individual' twice, but that's how I achieve clarity. All of the chat in this 'adaptation' sphere about collective action does nothing but create despondency within me. What ! Rely on others ? I don't know of many folks that can even turn up on time for a social engagement let alone give support in a time of crisis. Let's see how things pan out - good luck all :)
Hi, yes well, people can be easily persuaded with little evidence but emotive language they will lose something, mostly their standard of living.
In the UK there was the attempt to control traffic into London. The Covid lock-up. Zero emissions. 15 minute cities. All taken as personal threats to people in the comfortable north.
At no point was there anything about, What should we do together, north and south, if these are problems. 40 years of neoliberalism has been persuasive - it's every man for himself (here on the sinking ship..).
But Rupert all of what you say is predicated upon that enormous word IF. Look around you. It is too late. I have been, like you, marching and shouting and writing for years upon his issue, with no perceivable effect. We aren’t going to do it, and we aren’t even going to try. We will just have to make do
* The thing with transformative adaptation is it's a fancy couple of words for a pretty simple thing.
1. Admitting we're not going to be able to control climate change with too many people not wanting to do it is really not bothering because it looks as if it's going to impossibly hard to control those who don't want to take action/are causing the climate change.
2. Admitting defeat in the face of climate change denial is a real defeat.
3. Suggesting a methodology for transformative adaptation has to make clear there will be tipping points in this current generations' life times but that total collapse will probably not for up to 100 years or so.
4. To adapt one has to grasp it is generational. At any point in time there will always be say 3 generations, old and not long for this life (limited interest in adapting because it won't effect them), middle-aged who will almost certainly will be effected and the young who at a certain age are often the most vocal in fighting for action on climate change (they know it will be them who will suffer most when the shit hits the fan.). Even the very young, preteens can be seen to have the sort of fear we did in the 50s - 60s over nuclear war.
5. Getting all three generations to do their part to move to an adaptive response is not a simple thing. Many across the generational board will still be determined to do their part not to let climate change deniers postpone the necessary action. Right now it's not so much denial but the 'it's happening but what can we do?' phase. The job of those who recognise this is real is to keep working on those in this category.
6. So are the transformative adapters to give up no. 5. or to combine the 2 things?
Is it all about not accepting nothing can be done, while at the same time coming to understanding what it might be like simply to make the best of the changes that will take place, like population shifts from south to north and so on, in the short to medium term and how when serious changes effect the northern hemisphere we might have in place ways of dealing with it (adaptively).
Nowadays, CCDs and their supporters are fond of talking about technological fixes. The new UK Labour just gave £2b for it, though critics have immediately jumped in to say it's a waste of money.
I'd like to extend upon #4, and that being with the addition of economic status and geographical location of the individual . I see both specific circumstances as being significant players in an individuals approach to building resiliency or indeed not.
I've realised that I've used the word 'individual' twice, but that's how I achieve clarity. All of the chat in this 'adaptation' sphere about collective action does nothing but create despondency within me. What ! Rely on others ? I don't know of many folks that can even turn up on time for a social engagement let alone give support in a time of crisis. Let's see how things pan out - good luck all :)
*
Hi, yes well, people can be easily persuaded with little evidence but emotive language they will lose something, mostly their standard of living.
In the UK there was the attempt to control traffic into London. The Covid lock-up. Zero emissions. 15 minute cities. All taken as personal threats to people in the comfortable north.
At no point was there anything about, What should we do together, north and south, if these are problems. 40 years of neoliberalism has been persuasive - it's every man for himself (here on the sinking ship..).