Decluttering[2]

Mission impossible: getting rid of the junk at my place. I refuse to take perfectly usable things to the rubbish dump.

I have done a little more since April 1st! Now I am having a 'senior moment' trying to remember what it was.


Oh yes! I lent three pieces of furniture to a friend who has just set up an apartment larger than mine. I also lent him my vacuum cleaner, long term, leaving me without one, which my bachelor friend Len thinks was a stroke of genius.
(One of my fridge magnets says, "Housework never killed anyone, but why take the risk?", so it must be true)

My friend Patience is a keen reader and will take any books I don't want, read the ones she likes and give the rest to charity.

Len will take my tarpaulin and give it to his son.

Because Helen bought my swag and gave me a good price, I plant to give her an inflatable double mattress, if she wants it.

Why am I telling you all this?

1. I discovered my April 1st post on decluttering was popular
2. To help fellow hoarders

I am negotiating the loan of my coffee table to a friend with a larger apartment. I can enjoy it when I visit. 

I am putting my obsolete iMac computer on top of the stereo stand, because it has good speakers and is now an alternative source of music in my apartment. 

I am still holding onto my obsolete laptop. Where do you take them for responsible recycling? In this case keeping it was fortunate. I need to get some data from a friend and it can only be done using (obsolete) floppy disks, because she has an (obsolete) computer too. After that it will go (but what if I need to do that again one day; this is the hoarder's nightmare)

To people with large dwellings I plead: ask your friends if you can make their lives easier by storing their junk for them. 

The Mission Statement:

1. I will not have room that turns into "the junk room" no matter how I rearrange the place. 
2. I will be able to walk around with  ease, rather than around obstacles. 
3. I will know when I have succeeded when I feel a warm glow

The conceptual breakthrough:

You can give the stuff away...

A Local Association [2]

By law one must have seven people, three of which are office bearers, to set up an incorporated association is this jurisdiction. I now have 3 confirmed and 3 maybes. I am trying to get a balance of age groups (going well) and a balance of gender (not going so well, need more men).

Having failed at the last hurdle, in July 2010, to get an association up and running, through my own fault, I am taking a slower and more careful approach this time. "More haste less speed". I felt pressured because someone had tipped off the local newspaper and I had said we were forming an association imminently.

I had no desire to involve the media and was completely inexperienced in dealing with them. So I was anxious, exhausted, becoming sick, and losing the wider perspective after a long, mostly solo, effort on the nightclub issue. Well, I have learnt some lessons...

Milestone [1]

This is my 200th post to this blog!

I have gone through the first flush of interest and excitement that blogging can even be done so easily in this new world of the internet.

Then I lost interest. Mainly because of personal difficulties. But also because I wondered how many people other than two close friends were actually reading it! If you are reading this, please consider emailing me on GreenMaven1@gmail.com and let me know which country you are from, and what you are getting from reading a blog like this.

I went through a frantic time when the (Nimby tag) night club issue took over my life and this blog.

Now I want to get back to the fundamental purpose of the blog: to try to prevent catastrophic climate change. Doing my little bit as one citizen of one country to tackle a global issue, by helping to inform and encourage other individuals wherever they live.

I may not blog every day. Quality is better than quantity. I was hoping that a daily blog would increase the number of visitors to the site. But usually any spike in readership comes from a topical and useful post.

Wikipedia [1]

I have been reconsidering how I can become effective as a Climate Change Activist. At the 'Personal' level I feel I have done all I can at present. Working at the 'Community' level has been difficult of late. 

I have been very preoccupied with Wikipedia since the beginning of November. I have begun being a Wikipedia editor or a 'Wikipedian'. I have realised this might be a way to work at the 'National' and 'International' levels (under the framework I have suggested in this blog; the 'Five Levels').

There is a lot to learn about editing the Wikipedia, and I have begun my work on some non-environmental topics, until I can see an opportunity contribute knowledge on environmental matters.

I wrote another letter to my local newspaper on an environmental theme, but have not seen it published. I may have missed out this time.

A Local Association [1]

I have returned to my usual positive state of mind and engagement with people and projects. So I decided to see whether we could still get 'a local association' registered and running. I contacted my friend "Y" of "X&Y" mentioned on July 8th, 2010. We are edging towards reconciliation but he does not want to be part of the association at present. He plans to live abroad for at least one year, starting next April.

I have a large list of former supporters in the struggle which ended recently (see October 28, 2010) and I spent some money and a lot of time on this project. So I would like to see it continue in some form. Wish me luck!

Merchants of doubt, the initiators of climate scepticism

Where does the campaign against Climate Science have its beginning?

Three leading critics of Climate Change Science, all founders of the George C Marshal Institute, were eminent scientists in the fields of physics, rocket science and weapons systems, but not in fields related to climate science or its biophysical consequences. 

Their institute, before attacking climate science, also attacked the scientific findings around tobacco, acid rain, and the hole in the ozone layer. 

Why would distinguished scientists 'besmirch the reputations' of fellow scientists, whose work had been verified through the normal peer-review process?

Driven by ideology, rather than money, they were Cold War warriors, who passionately believed that the West had been kept safe by their work. When the Cold War ended, in 1989 with the fall of the Berlin Wall, they made their first attack on Climate Science. 

These three scientists had already worked for the tobacco companies, examining the connection between tobacco and lung cancer. One of them was a former president of the US Academy of Science! Why would such a distinguished scientist challenge the overwhelming evidence linking tobacco and cancer?

They began to see a new enemy - Reds under the Beds - environmentalists with a 'communist or socialist agenda'. Their viewpoint was that "environmental legislation will be a slippery slope to Communism". They had a "repugnance of government regulation". 

Initially, in the 80's, the Institute was not working with the Fossil Fuel Industry, but by the 90's it made common cause with the coal and gas industries. 

The institute has two main strategies (1) to 'sow doubt', and (2) to pressure the media to give them equal time (to be 'fair and balanced'). They want equal time even though their extreme views are not believed by any working scientists or government officials. 

The first of these strategies was invented and perfected by the tobacco industry. 

The US Department of Justice found the tobacco industry "guilty of crimes". 

Source:

An interview between the author of the book, Naomi Oreskes, and Fran Kelly on 'Breakfast' on ABC Radio National, Nov 15, 2010. Naomi Oreskes is a Professor of History and Science Studies at the University of California. 

Her book:

Title: Merchants of Doubt: How a handful of scientists obscured the truth on issues from tobacco smoke to global warming
Author: Naomi Oreskes
Publisher: Bloomsbury Press

The interview audio file can be downloaded from here

My thoughts:

Anti-communism has been well drilled into the American population. So what better lever to persuade the American public to oppose any new movement? And the Libertarian Right Wing in America is ready to hop unthinkingly onto the bandwagon, believing anything they are told about climate science.