Malc's Blog

I have never been one to want to reinvent the wheel, as the saying goes and so I include the following article from the Guardian Newspaper which I think is excellent .......

The chances are, if you are reading this, that you might also have seen either The Age of Stupid or An Inconvenient Truth. To those who fight to get climate change to the top of the agenda, these two movies are essential campaigning tools. Now I don't dispute their power and Messrs Gore and Postlethwaite are to be credited for sticking their heads above the parapet, but I have a problem with them: they left me feeling numb and overwhelmed. Gore stacks up the evidence of the momentum towards dangerous tipping points so effectively that by the time he gets on to "solutions" very near the end of his hundred minute presentation, you feel you are about to be demolished by a juggernaut.

I had a similar reaction when I first saw The Age of Stupid. At the end of a packed screening earlier in the year, one of my Operation Noah colleagues stood up and bluntly asked the audience: "So having seen that, who wants to get involved in campaigning?" There was a chilled and muted response. It may be me, but a very large amount of the film left me thinking that all the images of flooding, drought and destruction which Postlethwaite uncovers in his film archives are inevitable. From his futuristic vantage point of 2055, he shows a world that, in a mere 40 to 50 years, has gone to the dogs. And in a world where denial is still very much a factor, it's amazing how quickly people switch from denying the scientific evidence for human-induced global warming, to embracing the view that it's all too late and we're all doomed. Of course, that "flip" still allows you to go on behaving as before. "Eat, drink and be merry, for tomorrow we die."

Which raises all sorts of questions that lobbyists and campaigners have been grappling with for years now on all this: what is the best way to engage the human imagination on the issue of our time? Guilt and fear are very limited in their appeal and, more often than not, only induce a greater desire to turn away and carry on as before. What's encouraging is to come across so many schoolchildren who are getting more and more familiar with the notion of stewardship. It's a term that has both appeal to religious and secular mindsets: namely that because of our lofty status in terms of biological and intellectual complexity compared to other species, this carries with it a responsibility to cherish our surroundings. Man's intelligence, as we have seen from history, can be put to a variety of creative and destructive uses: compare lunar landings and the discovery of penicillin with war and genocide. Ahead of December's UN climate summit in Copenhagen, we are now facing an epic collective decision as a species: business as usual and sleepwalking towards all sorts of potential horrors, or reverting back an understanding that sees ourselves not as usurpers of nature as a commodity, but as protective guardians of a wondrous world that is threatened – uniquely, by its own most intelligent life form. Fossil fuels which took millions and million of years to be formed by slow natural processes are being released into the biosphere at a dizzying rate with destabilising consequences which are there for all to see.

I believe virtue and example are contagious. Look at what happened recently with the launch of the 10:10 campaign, which the Guardian is backing. No sooner had Ed Miliband signed up to cut his own carbon emissions by 10%, than we were being told the whole Tory front bench were getting ready to endorse the pledge. Within 24 hours, the entire cabinet had also jumped on board and Liberal Democrats announced they were looking at moves to make this a resolution which would bind the whole party. Cynical politicking? Maybe in part, but this is all about momentum and taking the notion of stewardship beyond the perceived domain of the elite middle classes into society as a whole.

We are gnawing away at the very womb that sustains us. Reversing that trend needs as big an army of stewards as we can possibly muster.

Apparently the Daily Mail believes that Low Energy Light Bulbs cause cancer .... but then again the Daily Mail believes that many things cause cancer .... here is the list of things beginning with A .... you can decide for yourselves .....

acrylamide causes cancer #

* Worldwide alert over cancer link to our food [Incorrect?]
* Cancer chemical link to cooked food [Incorrect?]

affluence causes cancer #

* Is your lifestyle giving you breast cancer? [Incorrect?]
* Well-off children 'more at risk of cancer' [Incorrect?]
* Why affluent women in the South are more likely to die from breast cancer [Incorrect?]

age causes cancer #

* Men 'clueless about prostate cancer risk' [Incorrect?]
* Breast cancer risk to career women [Incorrect?]
* Are you at risk from breast cancer? [Incorrect?]
* Middle classes 'face twice the risk of skin cancer' [Incorrect?]
* Women who give birth over the age of 30 double their risk of breast cancer [Incorrect?]
* Our guide to vulval cancer [Incorrect?]
* Breast cancer factfile [Incorrect?]

air pollution causes cancer #

* Pollution from cars linked to child cancer [Incorrect?]
* Pollution peril 'worse at home' [Incorrect?]

air travel causes cancer #

* Cancer risk for frequent fliers [Incorrect?]
* Now air passengers face cancer risk [Incorrect?]
* Frequent fliers raise cancer risk [Incorrect?]
* Now living by airports can give you cancer [Incorrect?]
* SUZANNE MOORE: I'm sick of being told it's all our fault [Incorrect?]

alcohol both causes and prevents cancer #

* Three drinks a day 'raises breast cancer risk by 30 percent' [Incorrect?]
* Weekend bingers face double the cancer risk [Incorrect?]
* Women would cut drinking to reduce cancer risk [Incorrect?]
* Binge drinking 'increases breast cancer risk' [Incorrect?]
* Drink a day increases breast cancer risk [Incorrect?]
* Who's at risk of breast cancer? [Incorrect?]
* A drink a day increases risk of breast cancer [Incorrect?]
* Bowel cancer danger of just one glass of wine per day [Incorrect?]
* Cancer alert: Don't eat, drink or tan too much [Incorrect?]
* Shocking ignorance over cancer risks [Incorrect?]
* Mouth cancer warning for binge drinkers [Incorrect?]
* The cancer generation: how Britons' hedonistic lifestyles are taking a terrible toll [Incorrect?]
* Is anything safe to eat? Cancer report adds bacon, ham and drink to danger list [Incorrect?]
* Modern living to blame for cancer epidemic [Incorrect?]
* Cancer: foods to avoid? [Incorrect?]
* More than a third of cancer could be prevented by healthy lifestyle, say experts [Incorrect?]
* Breast cancer factfile [Incorrect?]
* 80,000 cancer cases caused by diet [Incorrect?]
* 10 ways to prevent breast cancer [Incorrect?]
* Drinking is blamed for soaring number of breast cancer cases [Incorrect?]
* Forty per cent jump in female drinking fuels rise in breast cancer [Incorrect?]
* Our lifestyles are killing us: Poor diets, drinking and lack of exercise blamed for 78,000 cancer cases a year [Incorrect?]
* Binge drinking causes mouth cancer surge [Incorrect?]
* Meet Jack, who puffs his way through 10 cigars every day, enjoys a shot of whisky and is celebrating his 100th birthday [Incorrect?]
* Ladettes in cancer warning [Incorrect?]
* SUZANNE MOORE: I'm sick of being told it's all our fault [Incorrect?]
* Now middle-aged women are being targeted in anti-drink campaign [Incorrect?]
* Mouth cancer: ladettes blamed [Incorrect?]
* DEBORAH ROSS: Shock new study: We are ALL going to die! [Incorrect?]
* Brainy people have a higher chance of developing an alcohol problem, say scientists [Incorrect?]
* Cancer: the facts [Incorrect?]
* How safe are your favourite foods? [Incorrect?]
* So how good is wine for our health? [Incorrect?]
* Oliver's Artful Dodger dies [Incorrect?]
* Drink, drugs and obesity: Britain's girls top the list [Incorrect?]

* The foods that could prevent cancer [Incorrect?]
* Attacking breast cancer naturally [Incorrect?]
* Strawberry daiquiris can 'help fight cancer' [Incorrect?]
* Meet Jack, who puffs his way through 10 cigars every day, enjoys a shot of whisky and is celebrating his 100th birthday [Incorrect?]

alfatoxins cause cancer #

* Food watchdog warning over peanut butter brand containing 'cancer-causing fungus' [Incorrect?]

allergies both cause and prevent cancer #

* Child allergies may raise cancer risk [Incorrect?]

* Allergies key to ovarian cancer [Incorrect?]

almonds prevent cancer #

* Make sure these superfoods are on your new year menu [Incorrect?]

aluminium causes cancer #

* Why women should avoid using anti-perspirants that could cause breast cancer [Incorrect?]
* Deodorant 'may be linked to breast cancer' [Incorrect?]

anastrozole prevents cancer #

* Claims over new breast cancer drug [Incorrect?]
* Can NHS afford wonder cancer drug? [Incorrect?]
* New study to test breast cancer drug [Incorrect?]

antacids prevent cancer #

* Fresh hope for oesophagal cancer [Incorrect?]

anti-baldness drugs prevent cancer #

* Anti-baldness cure cuts prostate cancer [Incorrect?]

antibodies prevent cancer #

* Inoperable prostate cancer patients stage dramatic recovery after drug trial [Incorrect?]

antioxidants prevent cancer #

* Can alternative medicine stop cancer reoccuring? [Incorrect?]

apples prevent cancer #

* Apples cut risk of heart or cancer death [Incorrect?]
* How fruit helps a child grow up to beat cancer [Incorrect?]
* Apples fight heart disease, cancer and strokes [Incorrect?]
* Make sure these superfoods are on your new year menu [Incorrect?]
* Cloudy apple juice is clearly better for health [Incorrect?]

arimidex prevents cancer #

* Cancer doctors hail new 'wonder drug' [Incorrect?]
* Breast cancer drug 'is best for 20 years' [Incorrect?]
* New breast cancer drug beats Tamoxifen [Incorrect?]

aromatherapy prevents cancer #

* Alternative treatments [Incorrect?]

artificial flavours cause cancer #

* Cancer-causing chemicals found in soy sauce [Incorrect?]

artificial light causes cancer #

* 'Artificial light increases breast cancer risk' [Incorrect?]
* Everything you need to know about cancer [Incorrect?]
* Cancer is linked to strip lighting [Incorrect?]

asbestos cause cancer #

* Asbestos in schools will kill pupils, warns teacher dying of lung cancer [Incorrect?]
* New drug to combat 'asbestos' cancer [Incorrect?]
* A deadly shortcut to school for youngest recorded victim of asbestos disease [Incorrect?]
* 120,000 more to die in a decade as legacy of asbestos reaches a peak [Incorrect?]
* Safety alert over best-selling crayons [Incorrect?]
* Hairdresser dies from asbestos after working in a salon for 33 years [Incorrect?]
* Britain's youngest Asbestos victim dies at 28: Did she contract it at school? [Incorrect?]

aspirin both causes and prevents cancer #

* Asprin link to cancer risk [Incorrect?]
* 'Aspirin ups risk of cancer' - survey [Incorrect?]

* Taking aspirin in your 40s 'cuts cancer risk' [Incorrect?]
* Will taking an aspirin a day cut the risk of breast cancer? [Incorrect?]
* Daily dose of aspirin 'may lower risk of breast cancer' [Incorrect?]
* Painkillers may cut risk of prostate cancer [Incorrect?]
* Aspirin may reduce cancer risk [Incorrect?]
* Aspirin may cut bowel cancer risk [Incorrect?]
* Aspirin 'can cut cancer risk' [Incorrect?]
* Aspirin to beat breast cancer [Incorrect?]
* An aspirin a day 'could keep breast cancer at bay' [Incorrect?]
* One aspirin a day 'can lower threat of bowel cancer' [Incorrect?]
* Aspirin in new cancer hope [Incorrect?]
* Aspirin could stave off cancer and help victims to survive [Incorrect?]
* Aspirin offers bowel cancer hope [Incorrect?]
* Aspirin may be the breakthrough in war on lung cancer [Incorrect?]
* Aspirin hope for breast cancer [Incorrect?]
* Can aspirin really work wonders? [Incorrect?]
* Is aspirin really a miracle cure? [Incorrect?]

avastin prevents cancer #

* Cancer sufferer may sue over ban on top-up drugs that could prolong her life [Incorrect?]

Dear Friends,

There is growing consensus among environmental scientists that the scholarly community has adequately detailed how to deal with the major issues of the human predicament caused by our success as a species – climate disruption, loss of biodiversity and ecosystem services, toxification of the planet, the deterioration of the epidemiological environment, the potential impacts of nuclear war, racism, sexism, economic inequity, and on and on. I and my colleagues believe humanity must take rapid steps to ameliorate them. But, in essence, nothing serious is being done – as exemplified by the “much talk and no action” on climate change. The central problem is clearly not a need for more natural science (although in many areas it would be very helpful) but rather a need for better understanding of human behaviors and how they can be altered to direct humanity toward a sustainable society before it is to late.

That’s why a group of natural scientists, social scientists, and scholars from the humanities decided to inaugurate a Millennium Assessment of Human Behavior (MAHB — pronounced “mob”). It was so named to emphasize that it is human behavior, toward one another and toward the planet that sustains all of us, that requires rapid modification. The idea is that the MAHB might become a basic mechanism to expose society to the full range of population-environment-resource-ethics-equity-power

Paul Ehrlich, citing 'humanity's collision with the natural world,' launches a new forum to direct human activity toward a more sustainable future.

5 September 2009

By Douglas Fischer
Daily Climate Editor

Frustrated by society's inability to tackle pressing environmental dilemmas, Stanford University ecologist Paul Ehrlich on Friday announced a new endeavor aimed at rapidly turning human behavior toward a more sustainable future.
In essence, nothing serious is being done – as exemplified by the 'much talk and no action' on climate change.

- Paul Ehrlich, Stanford University

Called the Millennium Assessment of Human Behavior, or MAHB (pronounced "mob"), the venture seeks to link a broad array of seemingly unrelated human activities that endanger humanity's future - from racism to climate change, loss of biological diversity, water shortages, declining food security, economic justice and pollution.

The hope, Ehrlich said, is that by making these larger connections, more effective solutions can be found.

"Basically, absolutely nothing is happening," he said. "We don't need more scientific evidence that we're screwing ourselves. We need to get beyond the cultural discussions we're having now."

The problem, Ehrlich said, is clearly not a need for more natural science. Rather, it is the need for a better understanding of "human behaviors and how they can be altered to direct humanity toward a sustainable society before it is too late."

Organizers envision the MAHB as a global conference, involving scholars, politicians and a diverse spectrum of stakeholders – from media and industry to religious communities and foundations. Organizers also hope to encourage a "global discussion" about human goals and to explore ways to steer cultural change toward creation of a more sustainable society.

Ehrlich said he would partially model the MAHB after the Nobel-winning Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, where hundreds of scientists from nearly every nation and representing diverse disciplines sort the scientific validity of claims and attempt to find equitable solutions.

Another model is the Millennium Ecosystem Assessment, developed by environmental and social scientists to assess the condition of Earth's life-support systems, he said.

But the IPCC derives its power and authority from its governmental mandate, noted Saleemul Huq, head of the climate change group at the London-based International Institute for Environment and Development.

Governments signing on to the United Nations' climate framework have asked the scientific community to provide a clear consensus on the science and then endorse those findings via policy, said Huq, lead author of the adaptation and mitigation chapter in the IPCC's most recent assessment.

It's not clear - yet - who the MAHB is meant to inform.

For the IPCC, "the governments are the ones who have asked for the information, and they are the ones who endorse the information," Huq said. "If scientists just produce a report, and ... there isn't really anyone in a position to take it up, nothing happens to it."

"We are just preaching."

Still, Huq agreed with the premise, adding that the endeavor is something "we certainly need."

But for now, the MAHB is just 10 big thinkers, among them Stanford climatologist Steve Schneider, Science editor and Stanford president emeritus Donald Kennedy, Washington State University sociologist Eugene Rosa and University of Oslo philosopher Nina Witoszek.

Ehrlich, president of Stanford's Center for Conservation Biology, is considered a pioneer in the study of popoulation science. He was one of the first scholars to alert the public to the problems of overpopulation and to raise issues of population, resources and the environment as matters of public policy.

Ehrlich has floated earlier visions of this venture before, losing funding at Stanford for what he described as a "short try-out." He's thinking bigger this time: He hopes to officially kick-off the MAHB in 2011 with a "world mega conference" akin to the 1992 United Nations "Earth Summit" in Rio de Janeiro.

That 1992 summit remains the UN's largest environmental gathering, with 172 governments, 108 heads of states, 2,400 representatives of non-governmental organizations and another 17,000 attendees at a parallel global forum. It led to the adoption of a wide-ranging blueprint for action on sustainable development worldwide. The Kyoto Protocol and the upcoming Copenhagen negotiations in December are two products.

It is unclear whether the MAHB will achieve such a level of success or is destined to the same obscurity as earlier efforts. For now it is little more than a website with a mission statement and a blog.

But finding a way to make climate science more relevant to policy makers has become an increasingly pressing question in academia, and Ehrlich is pressing forward.

"A global consensus on the most crucial behavioral issues is unlikely to emerge promptly from the MAHB – or any other international forum," he said. But "if the scientific diagnosis of humanity's collision with the natural world is accurate ... what alternative is there to trying?"

Last weekend I drove to Edinburgh and back - two in car - which is a 1.3 Vauxhall Corsa Diesel.

A round trip of over 160 miles which involved some rural driving, motorway driving, stop start around Dundee and similarly into the very centre of Edinburgh.

I used cruise control wherever possible and did not go above 60 on the motorway except on one occasion for safety reasons.

I returned 72 miles to the gallon!

It seems to me that a very first step that we could take to combat the impact of Climate Generations on the generations to come is set and rigorously enforce a 50 to 60 mph motorway speed limit!!!

BBC Newsnight of Thursday 27 August ran a 15 minute piece on Climate Change. I think it is worth a look .... http://vimeo.com/6299538 then article 100 - click on Age of Stupid and that should take you to the article.

A friend received this at her work ....

Issued: 15 July 2009

The World's First Refugees From The Effects Of Global Warming
For most people climate change feels like something that will happen at some undefined point in the future - to our children and grandchildren's generation - some even think it won't happen at all!

However, as the council's energy management unit points out, for the people of the Carteret Islands in Papua New Guinea, it's a bit more serious than "one of those summers". As the sea level rises, their drinking water and crops have been poisoned by salt.

An islander said: "We've lost our simple houses, our vegetable gardens have been destroyed and our fresh water supplies in the ground have been contaminated. For drinking all we can rely on now is rainwater and coconut juice, but even the coconut trees are dying. You can walk along the beach and see just the bottoms of dead trees sticking up through the sand."

The regional government is preparing evacuation plans as the 2000 Islanders pack up and leave their home abandoned to the waves. The people of the Carteret Islands have fought the encroaching sea for over 20 years, planting mangroves and building sea walls but their South Seas paradise could be totally submerged by 2015.

They are the first people in the world to officially be forced to abandon their homes because of rising sea levels - but, ironically, the Carteret Islanders have possibly the smallest carbon footprint on the planet, yet they are the first to suffer the devastating effects of a wider, polluted world they know nothing about.

Clare Goodess, from the Climatic Research Unit at the University of East Anglia, said: "This brings home the practical effects of climate change. It's something we are going to see more of."

For information on how we can all do our little but important bit to help combat rising sea levels and climate change by reducing our carbon footprint - visit the energy management unit website for help and ideas.

I subscribe to a Blog called Make Wealth History and it has daily posts of interest. Today's is about the amount of CO2 currently being produced by the electricity industry ......

A new website launched this week that shows the ‘carbon intensity’ of our electricity in real time.

Realtime carbon shows how much carbon is generated per unit of electricity at any given moment. A cursory glance at the homepage shows how demand rises and falls. As it rises, at daybreak for example, more power stations come online. Coal power stations are the easiest to power up at short notice, so we burn more coal at peak times, and therefore generate more carbon.

By taking a look at the carbon intensity of electricity, you can choose when to run your dishwasher or washing machine, help spread the load on the national grid, and cut our carbon emissions from power stations.

Just google realtime carbon and learn............

During my years at PE College I was never a performer! Never good enough to be in the first team in any of the college sports. I suppose that being second was actually quite an achievement.

However for some, being second was down right failure .... watch the following clip and see what I mean.

There is an advert first and then the clip which runs for 6 mins.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/science/video/2009/jul/04/buzz-aldrin-moon-landing

Sermon

It has been a momentous week, and I am not referring to the death of Michael Jackson - sad though that may be. And not even the bonus salary of the new head of RBS, although it does seem that altruism certainly does not exist in the higher echelons of banking management.

No, today I am referrering to the environmental legislation passed by the Scottish Parliament, announced by the UK Government and passed by the US House of Representatives, all within the space of one week. Legislation that is going to radically alter how we live. Legislation, that I believe, churches ~ schools ~ community organizations and communities themselves should begin to enact without delay.

This morning though, I want to move beyond the legislation and look for spiritual foundations for environmental care. We’ve just sung for the beauty of the earth

For the beauty of the earth
for the beauty of the skies
for the love which from our birth
over and around us lies
Christ, our God, to thee we raise
This our sacrifice of praise

We’ve just sung these words and I wonder as we did, did we sing them with integrity? Did we sing them as if we actually believed the words and the sentiments, or were we just muttering the sounds and thinking either what a pretty tune or the music of this jars?

The Lord God took the man and put him in the Garden of Eden to work it and take care of it [Genesis 2]

And if your faith is traditional then this was an act of trust on the part of God. And if your faith is traditional then we are the inheritors of that trust. And if your faith is honest I think that you can only but conclude that we have squandered that inheritance - almost to the point of no return, but not quite yet. And that is why I believe that the churches must show the lead in welcoming, supporting and enacting the legislation and intention of the past week.

But there is another reason as well and that is where I want to go this morning. But for Church politics the Christian Church in Britain might have been radically different, and who knows, given the ability of Scots men and women to influence the developments of the past centuries, we might now be a completely different Church. I am of course referring to the marginalisation of the Celtic Church in the 7th Century at the Synod of Whitby and the subsequent rise of Catholicism and the hierarchical, religion focused, Church of Rome.

I believe that our attitudes to the environment need a spiritual foundation, as well as an ethical, practical and economic foundation. And I believe that that foundation is found in Celtic Christianity and Celtic Spirituality. And I want to remind you of the Celtic way to God. The way of our past. The way of our heritage.

But before I do, let me add another layer to what I am saying and this is from 21st Century Spirituality. Ken Wilber argues that human beings intrinsically possess 1st, 2nd, and 3rd person perspectives of the world, and that we possess those same perspectives in our experience of spirituality.

God is 1st person when we have direct experiences of God, mystical, I am moments. The times when we have felt touched by God. God is also 2nd person ~ the one to whom we talk. And God is 3rd person, the spirit of God in the great interconnected web of humanity. Wilber also argues that it is a human failing to focus on one perspective of God. That is our nature but our nature reduces our experiences of God. And so all three perspectives are important. Now I am saying this because if we think of Celtic Spirituality just in terms of looking after creation then important as that is, we miss the point ~ we miss the depth ~ we miss the potential.

So what is Celtic Spirituality, Celtic Christianity and why do I think it so important? What is the essence of Celtic Spirituality? Hilary Musgrave is an Irish Sister of Charity and she describes it as
• seeing the energy, the life and the flow of God’s love in all of creation
• seeing the potential of God in the earth, in the people,
• seeing God as all around, surrounding us and in us.

There is a focus on daily life in the prayers of Celtic Spirituality with these prayers rooted in the ordinary events of life ~ the everyday events that touch ordinary everyday people. There is a huge community focus in Celtic Spirituality. God was experienced in the community. And of course respect for the earth, humanity working in harmony with the earth.

Ray Simpson of the Northumbrian Community of Hilda and Aiden writes ….
'The essence of Celtic spirituality is a heart wide open to God in every person, in all the world. It is to do with crossing frontiers, not erecting barriers. It goes so deep that, without losing what is distinctive, it becomes universal.'

Closer to home Iain Bradley, from the University of St Andrew’s believes that Celtic Christianity does seem to speak with uncanny relevance to many of the concerns of our present age. It was environmentally friendly, embracing positive attitudes to nature and constantly celebrating the goodness of God’s creation. Like the religions of the Australian Aboriginees and the Native American Indians it takes us back to our roots and seems to speak with a primitive innocence and directness which has much appeal in our tired and cynical age.

Let me draw to a close by summarizing why I personally see the Celtic way to God as being so 21st century relevant.

Firstly, the focus on Community. We must maintain the sense of community in the congregation and in the parish. The sense of belonging that a sense of community can bring is a key building block for the next few decades of change.

Secondly, seeing the energy, the life and the flow of God’s love in all of creation, seeing the potential of God in the earth, in the people, If we see God in all of creation then we can only but want to nurture that Creation.

And of course thirdly, the sense of harmony with creation, its care and its stewardship.

If we can take, even these three reasons to heart then we will indeed turn the tide and honour the trust that God placed in us in the Garden of Eden. If we do not, then may God forgive us.

In God’s name