By Sunniva on September 25, 2009
Tags: climate
I’d really like to encourage Friends to get involved in Stand Up as many Friends have in previous years. It’s a fantastic opportunity to demonstrate to our leaders that citizens really do care about poverty and climate change, and to stand in solidarity with people affected by these issues around the world.
There are many ways to get involved, whether you have a little or a lot of time… from standing up after meeting to arranging to meet up with all your parliamentary candidates to discuss these issues. Personally, I have written to my MP and am waiting to see when he will be able to meet with me between 16-18 October. If I don’t hear back from him soon, I’ll be chasing him up, and if a meeting isn’t possible I’ll be sending him a letter asking what action he will take to ensure that the UK meets commitments to carbon emissions reduction and ending poverty.
Full details of how to get involved can be found at www.quaker.org.uk/stand-up.
6 Comments
I think the Stand Up idea is good. Remember we are getting near to hustings time. If many Quaker Meetings hosted hustings they could be sure to get some information over about the extreme urgency of our situation etc. In our town it is the Methodists who usually do this so why not us too.
I am part of Network of Oxford for peace and justice. About every six months we invite our MP, on his own and let him know 4 or five topics we will want to discuss with him. Each topic is introduced by a different person and our MP takes away some questions for further information and answers.
I think it would be great to get candidates along after a meeting to answer questions.
It might be a bit late to get that organised in time for Stand Up – but why not use your ‘Stand Up’ on 18 October to write a letter to candidates, inviting people to speak at a future date?
Good idea Tim.
You will find a template letter to candidates outlining the issues that we are particularly concerned about in the QPSW Stand Up Toolkit available at http://www.quaker.org.uk/stand-up. Perhaps you could print off multiple copies and get people to sign them and send them to their candidates? Or maybe your Meeting could send one collectively and ask your MP to come at another date as Tim suggests – a good opportunity would be prior to the negotiations in Copenhagen on climate change where we need our government to take a leadership role in pushing for global emmissions reductions.
What if our money is better spent helping people to cope with warmer temperatures? What if we spend trillions of dollars reducing carbon emissions, and the seas rise anyway? What will we do then?
Yes, warmer temperatures are correlated with higher CO2 in the atmosphere, but what if the first is causing the second? Do we know it isn’t? Do we know FOR SURE? Do we know $X,000,000,000,000 worth? I am humble. I’m not that sure of myself … particularly when it comes to coercing other people to spend that money.
At the end of the Woodbrooke Seminar we were asked to take-home and consider the question of whether we were rightly focused in considering the topic of ‘Zero Growth’ or should perhaps be focusing our concern under some other title such as ‘Climate Change’.
Before and throughout the London/Woodbrooke events I was gratified that the topic of ‘Zero Growth’ had been so well chosen. After a further 3 weeks I continue to think so. Friends in my Area Meeting have not produced any argument to change my view on this.
The advantages which I would claim for focusing upon ‘Zero Growth’ are with respect to what I would see as the other contender topics of ‘Climate Change’ or ‘Population’. The topic of ‘Climate Change’ would have at least two disadvantages. Firstly, this subject is highly technical and scientific, with thousands of experts available worldwide who have made lifetime studies of the geo-chemical, climatological, and other physical processes involved, who do not even all agree that Climate Change caused by Human Activity is a real phenomenon or threat. As we are not experts in these matters our reasoning, which is predominantly philosophical and religious, could become sidelined. The second reason for keeping away from ‘Climate Change’ as a topic is that we already have at hand an explanation of its causes : growth of human activities, from expansive lifestyles and rising population; these causes are readily summarized by our existing title : ‘Zero Growth’. With regard to the other suggested title/topic, ‘Population’, the obvious disadvantage is that the topic is highly emotive, such that as a title for a conference is would be likely to get us into conflict with other religious groups or with political factions.
I do see one disadvantage in ‘Zero Growth’ as a topic. As in the case of ‘Climate Change’, ‘Zero Growth’ is a technical area and the argument could tend to be taken over by the technical experts (in this instance, Economists). I have witnessed this already in an event arranged within our Area Meeting.
On balance, I suggest that a topic/title which would avoid all of the disadvantages which I have outlined above, would be ‘Sustainability’. But for continuity I would be reasonably content to stick with the title of ‘Zero Growth’.
I feel I should comment on one small aspect of “irishman’s” remarks above.
He says: “As in the case of ‘Climate Change’, ‘Zero Growth’ is a technical area and the argument could tend to be taken over by the technical experts (in this instance, Economists). I have witnessed this already in an event arranged within our Area Meeting.”
I believe that I took part in the Area Meeting to which he refers, and I think I should say that my intention was – and is not – to ‘professionalise’ but to ‘de-mystify’!