Group items matching

in title, tags, annotations or url

Orwell, in 1984, wrote, "a ruling group is a ruling group so long as it can nominate its own successors. Who wields power is not important, provided that the hierarchal structure remains always the same".1 Due to industrialisation, even if the countries constituting the groupings change, it does not change the structural power of the Non-Annex 1 countries as the latter, under the framework constructed in the Kyoto Protocol, have secured a position of structural power.

some interesting thinking in this pdf

This article is by a leading member of the STEPS centre at the U. Sussex, which addresses sustainability, development & environmental change

a nice overview from a personal perspective about the power of story in a changing world.

Seeing this news item this morning reminded me that, whenever a topic is raised in a course, one then starts to "see" news about it. I put "see" in scare quotes because most likely the topic was in the news before, but now one notices it. On the substance of the news item, it does show that sometimes business picks up on the science even when it remains contested by politics. For example, nuclear power plants are not being built in most part because corporations with millions of dollars cannot see themselves making a profit and bearing the risk.

Peter - Thanks for posting this. It will be interesting to see what they disclose and to consider what thought process they used for preparing these reports.

''Clumsy Solutions for a Complex World'' is a powerful and original statement on why well-intended attempts to alleviate pressing social ills too often derail, and how effective, efficient and broadly acceptable solutions to social problems can be found. It takes its cue from the idea that our endlessly changing and complex social worlds consist of ceaseless interactions between four ways of organizing, justifying and perceiving social relations. Each time one of these perspectives is excluded from collective decision-making, governance failure inevitably results. Successful solutions are therefore creative combinations of four opposing ways of organizing and thinking.

Rhoda, when I click on the link it goes to a login for Swarthmore. I'm thinking this article by the same authors may cover similar ground -- http://psychologyforasafeclimate.org/resources/Clumsy%20solutions%20for%20a%20complex%20world%20The%20case%20of%20climate%20change.pdf

Sorry about the link problem, Felicia. I'll see if I can fix it. Thanks for finding one that works!

Published by the Council of Canadian Academies, this paper reviews a bit of the history of the relationship between policy and science, as well as policy and scientists. The author, Executive VP of the Council, starts from a broad view, describing an "is (fact)/ought (value)" dichotomy between science and policy, moves closer to characterize the range of relationships between scientists and policymakers and their attitudes toward each other, describes their spheres of influence (world of progress v. world of power), and finally makes the case for government as a place for collaboration and progress employing both. Saner offers some "take-home messages" and some questions for further exploration, including how to meet the needs of each while facilitating communication; managing the divergent cultures to reach successful ends; creating incentives for both players to join the effort; and adapting to the multitude of ways the differences between these two groups manifest themselves around policy issues.

The Center for Digital Storytelling engages people to share personal stories, bearing witness as related to their lives leading to action and positive change.

Narratives and frames are powerful things. It would seem that any endeavor would benefit from knowing what is a compelling "story" to engage the public. Youth development organizations use this tool quite a lot in their work.

I remember you had been talking about using story boards in one of the other cases. I am wondering if there is a way to use both of those ideas for Case 4.

This piece talks about activism that hampers scientific research, innovation and industries that are related to things suc as "pesticides, food additives, chemicals in general, pharmaceuticals, nuclear power, and biotechnology." The article states that the scientific illiteracy of the general public makes it easy for activists to generate support for increased regulation and dampening of efforts in these areas. How do you help communities assess scientific information? How do you help them look at not only the research, but the context of the research? How should informed decisions about potentially harmful technologies and processes be handled? How do you support and engage in honest and open dialogue and debate about complex and unknown outcomes?

Why are so many conservatives still skeptical that global warming is a real problem and threat? It may have to do with the willingness to read opposing view points. Talks about echo chamber effect of modern partisan politics. References alternative to cap-and-trade (carbon tax offset by a payroll tax cut).

Jeff -- by looking at the "other" side I've found that there is probably a discourse / ideological framing that would be more life affirming and oriented towards sustainable growth that would still address carbon reductions but orient it at a more local level. Interested in checking out the resource you mention.

It might also have to do with the fact that media tends to exaggerate and provide inaccurate information with the purpose of selling more (like advertising, twisting the facts a little bit just to sell more). In the 70's it wasn't about global warming, it was about global cooling. I wonder what happen to that.