Deep Anger

Hmmm....not sure it is an accurate portrayal of environmentalists. Sure, Friends of the Earth are the petition driven kind but not Greenpeace - who take effective non violent direct action constantly. I am also inspired by the occupy movements internationally.

http://www.greenpeace.org.uk/groups/spotlight/six-actions

I almost felt that the article just stopped short in advocating aggressive/destructive solutions. I am all for getting aroused, stirred up, motivated but anger is a wild card and can quickly be counter productive if allowed to run rampant.

My thoughts on reading the article is that we need to educate the public much more, notably, that they SEE the visual impact of deforestation, melting glaciers, overfishing and great swathes of the ocean covered in plastic junk that hasn't biodegraded. Why isn't there more of this coverage in the media?

I do feel that it is the younger generation that are possibly more easily concerned and motivated to be proactive on these matters. No surprise there...after all, it will be their future.

There are all kinds of environmentalists, from direct action to ‘get into bed with the fossil fuel companies’ – I didn’t get the feeling from the article that everyone was dismissed as petition-led. And there’s a place for petitions. And, maybe, a place for anger as well. I suspect that anger (of the deep kind mentioned, not the flash-in-the-pan type) is a motivating force for many Greenpeace activists. I wouldn’t say that ‘anger’ is necessarily aggressive or destructive – maybe we need a different word.

As for education – do you really think that people don’t know? I think even (maybe especially) the fuel-paid-for professional climate-change deniers know what’s coming. They think they can protect themselves with their money and sacrifice the rest of us. I suspect most people won’t look at what’s happening because it scares them rigid and they feel too helpless to change anything.

Anyone in the UK who is in their 30s or 40s has done deforestation etc. at school. I’m not sure that education helps – it is solutions that people need. People choose their media. If they choose media that does not acknowledge the problem then they will be protecting themselves from seeing it. There’s plenty in the media that I see/read.

My point about education is re. updates, i.e. being presented with the CURRENT picture. Yes we all know about deforestation but just how bad is it now? Even I don't know the answer to this without doing some research - that's my point; if it was in the media via visual current photos it would act as a wake up call. There is a difference between knowing these things happen and seeing just how bad it currently is....that could well act as a catalyst to motivate people into action.

I would still think that the big problem for most people is - what action. Most of what needs doing as at international government level. Most people I talk to about these things say, "Oh, I know. But what can I do?" Most. Not all. Some find ways to start campaigns - one of my friends walks to gather signatures and collate stories to push for a law against ecocide (and, if that is interesting to you, [url]her website is here[/url].)

But most of us look around and don't know what to do.

I would still think that the big problem for most people is - what action. Most of what needs doing as at international government level. Most people I talk to about these things say, "Oh, I know. But what can I do?" Most. Not all. Some find ways to start campaigns - one of my friends walks to gather signatures and collate stories to push for a law against ecocide (and, if that is interesting to you, [url]her website is here[/url].)

But most of us look around and don't know what to do.

I would have thought that many environmental issues already are flagged up with ongoing campaigns. There is even an organisation dealing with the bigger issue of climate change http://www.campaigncc.org/
So, the thought behind educating us more with the current visual situation would obviously have a contact section at the end. What I am noticing is a lack of this update in TV and radio (main media sources) and I wonder why. Surely environmentalists would be allowed to film and submit such documentaries to be shown or would they be deemed to biaised by the media policies? Channel 4 might be more accepting of this.

How is your friend's website going in terms of feedback and progress? I had not heard of it - can it be more widely advertised e.g. would Friends of the Earth and/or Greenpeace do so is she approached them? Or perhaps some European environmental group (if she has not already thought of this).

Violence is never the answer. What more do you need to win 'battles', hearts and minds than the truth?

Violence is never the answer. What more do you need to win 'battles', hearts and minds than the truth?

Did anyone say it was?

I would have thought that many environmental issues already are flagged up with ongoing campaigns. There is even an organisation dealing with the bigger issue of climate change <a class="go2wpf-bbcode" rel="nofollow" target="_blank" href=" http://www.campaigncc.org/ "> http://www.campaigncc.org/

I didn’t actually mean ongoing campaigns. I meant the sense of helplessness people get when (for example) so many demonstrated against the Iraq war, all around the world, and yet it was ignored – not by the media but by those in governments. So we can demonstrate and sign petitions, but constantly such things as TTIP and other trade agreements undermine what we can do. Our democracy is fast disappearing, when trade agreements allow multi-nationals to make and break our environmental laws.

So, the thought behind educating us more with the current visual situation would obviously have a contact section at the end. What I am noticing is a lack of this update in TV and radio (main media sources) and I wonder why. Surely environmentalists would be allowed to film and submit such documentaries to be shown or would they be deemed to biaised by the media policies? Channel 4 might be more accepting of this.

Television, like any other media, follows the money. It isn’t that environmentalists ‘aren’t allowed’. The TV companies feel safer giving people pap.
I don’t have your faith in education. But, just in case you are right –[url] here are some pictures![/url] (They are about over-population. I don’t think this is the biggest problem facing us.) Whatever the reason, people not knowing what’s going on or fear immobilising us, for lack of engagement, it is certainly a real phenomenon – I thought when I started this thread, ‘well, Amy will probably engage, but I wonder if anyone else will be bothered. And I was right to wonder. The one other comment was oblique and not engaging.

How is your friend's website going in terms of feedback and progress? I had not heard of it - can it be more widely advertised e.g. would Friends of the Earth and/or Greenpeace do so is she approached them? Or perhaps some European environmental group (if she has not already thought of this).

I’ll pass your ideas on to her. Thank you.

Crowan - about this thread and predicting its feedback. Bear in mind that it is an alternative health site, i.e. not an environmental one so this is a bit of a sideline section to the main thrust of the forum.

When I co-ordinated a local group of Friends of the Earth, I could see the impact that visual posters were having on the general public at one of our functions, e.g. they were not just looking at them but pondering/absorbing the implications. Of course it might be hard to gauge the wider impact i.e. those not going to an environmental event, but something is better than nothing at this point of time.

Thanks for the photos...I can hardly bear to look at them first thing in the morning!

Did anyone say it was?

Just making an observation, if that's okay with you.

Just making an observation, if that's okay with you.

Of course an observation is okay. I was just surprised that the observation was (as far as I could see) not following on from the thread.

Anger does not have to culminate in violence of any form.
Anger, when rightly channelled, can be inspirational - in the sense that it motivates people to seek change through law and public consciousness.

Anger does not have to culminate in violence of any form.
Anger, when rightly channelled, can be inspirational - in the sense that it motivates people to seek change through law and public consciousness.

Yes?

Anger does not have to culminate in violence of any form.
Anger, when rightly channelled, can be inspirational - in the sense that it motivates people to seek change through law and public consciousness.

Just thought I'd flesh out what I see was an initial misunderstanding happening here. Notably, that initially you jumped to the assumption that anger = violence, which Crowan questioned. (Actually, in my first post #2, I had the feeling that the article seemed to be heading down the road of advocating aggression/destructive displays).

Your latest post, here, redresses that and is what Crowan had in mind in the first place when she made this thread.