Stories of Change TippingPoint event in Oxford 21st/22nd September


Photo: Alison Tickell of Julie’s Bicycle; Gunjan Parik of C40, Jo Walton of Ashden; Karen O’Brien of University of Oslo and Juliet Davenport, Good Energy talk energy transformations in the Sheldonian Theatre, Oxford. Photo by Gorm Ashurst @gorminator

This post will go up shortly over at the Stories of Change project blog too.

One hundred and fifty people from the arts, media, policy and research came together to explore the linked issues of energy, transformation and climate change in a range of ways – creative, didactic, exploratory and more. It is very early days for the project, but the event was a great way to kick things off.

We have a wonderful photo essay by Gorm Ashurst (of designers Bullet, who are working on some of the design elements of the project) that gives a flavour of the event. Gorm captures the sense of energy, debate, fascination and (as appropriate) hilarity. Plenty of handy portrait photos for participants to download too. You are welcome to use any of these photos, but please use:
Credit: Photo by Gorm Ashurst @gorminator

Many participants contributed to a photo booth project devised by photographer Tim Mitchell and artist Clare Patey that got three people at a time devising questions they wanted to ask about energy and climate change, and taking photos of each other with the questions floating above them in the clouds. This fits very nicely with a project rooted in the idea that more plural and dynamic conversations about energy futures will help us debate and decide in the present. Again you are welcome to use the photos anywhere, but use:
Credit: Photo by Tim Mitchell |

Take a look here:

And finally:

Stephen Peake’s extraordinary talk on the history of our life with energy, told through light from tallow candles to LEDs, including the unique toilet roll based 3D powerpoint display can be found on Vimeo here:

Part 1:

Part 2:

And the film editor whiled away a quiet evening splicing it into an energy rap, CO2 emissions inclusive. Some kind of world first to be found here:

Credit: Jeremy Bristow, John McIntyre

All the material is under Creative Commons-Attribution Only, but do please let us know where you use these images or video. We will be drawing much of the material developed through the course of the project into an online Stories Platform in due course. Our friends in the OU’s Knowledge Media Institute are working this up currently.

Posted in Uncategorized

Stories of Change: arts and social sciences support energy transitions


Feast on the Bridge, London, Tim Mitchell 2010

This post outlines a new research project I’m heading up, funded by the AHRC. It’ll run for the next three years. The post will appear in a couple of newsletters and blogs here and there. Its a great team and we all feel the project has really interesting potential. Do email if you want to keep in touch with its development.

A new three-year research project led by The Open University is set to challenge the terms of public debates about energy issues. “Stories of Change: Exploring energy and community in the past, present and future” has received nearly £1.5million in funding from the Arts and Humanities Research Council to examine areas of conflict, make space for more diverse voices and support a more open public conversation about change. The project will explore energy transformations of the past, present and future through an innovative mix of social science and humanities research, digital storytelling, short films, and other creative work. It will also be generating a publicly accessible collection of ‘stories of change’.

Societies the world over are faced with pressing shared challenges about future energy choices, particularly in relation to climate change. At the heart of the UK Government’s Climate Change Act of 2008 is a cross-party commitment to cutting carbon emissions. Polling points to wide acceptance that actions will be required to reduce demand and cope with future environmental hazards. But new developments and measures to manage or reduce demand can generate conflict. Research shows that many people feel disengaged from or even hostile towards the changes needed to meet the UK’s carbon reduction targets. Public and political conversations about energy have stalled and we aim to return some momentum by looking in a new way at its past, present and future. Our project seeks to make space to work through the areas of conflict and identify elements of a collective vision. One of the dominant features of current energy debates is that it is difficult for society to imagine a system that isn’t fossil fuel based. Amongst other things we want to remind people that relations between social and energy systems have been very dynamic in the past. We are approaching this by sketching out these historical transformations, but also by drawing on the lively imaginings of possible futures that appear in everything from the latest sci-fi to recent manifestos, to the work of pamphleteers of the more distant past.

Community is an important term in our work, and we are exploring energy transitions in three contexts via three ‘Stories’. ‘Industry Story: Future Works’ is rooted in the English midlands, and seeks to unearth fresh accounts of the long relationship between energy, industrial making and landscape, and explore where it might go next. ‘Everyday Story: Life Cycles’ engages with the role that energy resources have played in shaping communities and everyday life in south Wales, from migration, for example from within Wales and as far as Somalia to work with coal, to new movements of people and things that support one of the UK’s largest new wind arrays. ‘Policy Story: Demanding Times’ gathers and connects the mix of communities of interest around energy policy at local, national and international levels, and generates new accounts of energy policy and politics past, present and future.

If you want to explore the complexities of the past, present and future of energy transitions an interdisciplinary approach is vital. Hence the team includes architects from the University of Sheffield, leading digital storytelling experts from the University of South Wales, geographers from Birmingham University and the Open University, literature specialists based at the University of Bath and a historian from the University of Exeter. The team also includes leading IT researchers who will support meaning-making across the mass of material we are gathering via new digital tools. The arts organisations TippingPoint and Visiting Arts have also joined the team to help build strong partnerships with creative practitioners. The project is rooted in a body of ambitious partnerships, including government departments, business, NGOs, museums and community groups. Creative partners include a mix of poets, puppeteers and other theatre makers, filmmakers, writers and artists. All of the creative partners involved are experienced in helping to give voice to people and/or things that are often unheard.

We are working with stories because they offer a popular and engaging route into thinking about the past and present and imagining possible futures, and also because stories, narratives and narration are concepts that people from a range of academic and creative disciplines can gather around. History, digital storytelling, fictional narratives, and scenarios of the future all communicate different ideas about the consequences of change for everyday life, and explain different perspectives and attitudes towards change. But in the development phase of the project we have been surprised to find how much the more technical and policy-oriented communities welcome the idea of looking at their concerns through the lens of stories. To put in simply: we all love to listen to and tell stories.

The project, and its interest in stories, is in part inspired by the example of the Mass Observation movement’s gathering of accounts of everyday life in the UK, above all in the 1930s and 1940s. Their work combined a desire to give ordinary people a voice, radical innovations in social research and bold new ideas about media and the arts. It has inspired our three objectives. First, we want to listen to and give a platform to more diverse, often unheard, voices, including voices of the past and future, and to try to find ways to give voice to the interests of the non-human world. Second we want to mobilise change through humanities and social science research and the arts, and demonstrate that they are much more than a ‘nice to have’, but rather provide essential means for deliberating and acting on challenging new knowledge such as the natural science of climate change. Thirdly we aim to innovate in our use of digital media with our Stories of Change online platform. The platform will hold hundreds of individual pieces of content, ranging from proto-industrial conflicts over the rights to use rivers for power prior to the industrial revolution that have been identified by our historian, through to nature writing across the centuries, and science fiction depictions of future energy utopias and dystopias, gathered by our literature specialists. It’ll also hold excerpts from major energy research and policy documents, as well as interviews with key players. Next to them will be digital stories told by communities that have been formed by their relationships with energy production. We will hold all of that material on an intuitive and approachable platform, but also make it available as linked open data so that others can do their own work with it.
But we will be adding whole new layers of meaning through the stories we decide to tell. Some of these are stories we will curate and present, in collaboration with our arts and design colleagues. But we will also equip any user of the site to create their own journeys through the content, and share them with others. We think that this feature will be particularly useful to teachers and learners engaging with energy and environment issues at higher school and university levels, as well as lifelong learners.

The academic team is also developing academic articles and a book, policy briefs and popular materials. The communities, our creative partners and the research team are also collaborating to produce a mix of creative writing, songs, short films, performances and museum and festival shows. In order to scale up the impact of the work we are doing we will also be looking for media collaborations. We want to catalyse new approaches in mainstream media storytelling about environment, society and energy. We want to help them to move on from stale, incomplete representations of conflicts or static accounts of energy systems. It is always hard for researchers to get heard, or to maintain the integrity of their work when they engage with the media, but early interest, ranging from news journalists to comedy producers, suggests we may be onto something with our ‘stories of change’ approach.

Although we don’t hold our own position on what energy futures to pursue we do take our lead from the incredibly ambitious de-carbonisation targets found in the Climate Change Act and the work of the institutions created around it. We want to create greater awareness amongst policy makers of the range of responses to and ideas about low carbon transitions, but also to support them by pointing to the past and present evidence of capacity for energy system change. The work will be rooted in the kind of rich account of the diversity and dynamism of humanity’s life with energy that an interdisciplinary mix of history, literature, design, arts and geography can provide. One of the distinctive contributions we want to make is to remind the policy community, the media, and wider society that however high the obstacles may seem to be, change isn’t just possible, it is inevitable. That in turn invites the question ‘what kind of change do you want?’  

Dr Joe Smith is lead researcher on the Stories of Change project and Senior Lecturer in Environment at The Open University. If you want to find out about or engage with the project please email


Posted in Uncategorized | Tagged , , ,

An open letter to Nigel Farage (and offer of a pint)

The right kind of wet. Defunct Derby brewery ad, Cambridge Blue pub

The right kind of wet. Defunct Derby brewery ad, Cambridge Blue pub

Dear Nigel

I was concerned for you on Channel 4 News tonight. I’ve never seen you looking uncomfortable in front of the camera before. Answering questions about climate change with water all around you left you short of breath and a bit panicky I thought. A pint in your hand would have helped settle the nerves. I’ll buy you one – it would give me a chance to talk through a couple of things (I’m with you on the straight glass thing by the way).

You said to the journalist: ‘I have no idea whether CO2 emissions are contributing to climate change’. I’m an Open University academic – a social scientist who also works with climate scientists and technology specialists, and can help you with that one. In the mid 1980s it was agreed by governments and the top science institutions around the world that humans might cause changes to the climate, and that we’d better look into it. That’s when the IPCC was born: a massive review of all the relevant science. The first report said that some uncertainties would decrease and some would increase over time. For sure some uncertainties have increased. But they have got much more confident about the role of humans in climate change with every report.

But this is difficult stuff to hear when everything we do seems to depend on fossil fuels. The result has been that many people with an interest have turned climate change into a truth war. Personally I find it much more helpful to instead think of climate science as a risk assessment, and climate policy as risk management. No sides, or battles, just different appetites for risk. The IPCC risk assessment came in years ago, with absolute clarity: the message was ‘don’t risk the future for the sake of cheap oil and coal’.

But you might say I’m missing your point: those contrarians who do think there is something in the science say the cure is worse than the disease – right? Wrong. Board members of some of Britain’s biggest companies, including auto, consumer goods, energy and water industries, can point to no regrets tech progress in key sectors that have been driven by commitments to act on climate change and pursue resource efficiency. They’re delivering better products to consumers, reducing bills and gaining market share. They’re fitter to compete globally too.

You and I also care about the quality of everyday life for those oft-mentioned but oft-neglected ‘hardworking ordinary British people’. But again I think you’ve got the wrong end of the stick. Things like green transport and housing policies can help to make people healthier, happier and richer across a lifetime, and reduce tax burdens around health care and welfare. T-shirt version: ‘climate action = better lives, lower taxes’. So long as the policy people start early and learn as they go.

But what if the IPCC are wrong? What if the maverick naysayers are on the nail? The most convincing (to me) climate contrarian arguments are rooted in the idea that we’ll be ‘lucky’, in other words, that temperature increases will be at the lowest end of the range of scenarios. This line is nicely summarised by the climate contrarian’s mascot scientist Richard Lindzen in his contribution to the UK House of Commons Climate Change Committee hearing on the IPCC’s latest report: ‘it is entirely possible there is no problem.’

But… Luck. Chance. Optimism. Hope. A bet. A gamble. A roll of the dice. How did that go with banking?

Yes. It is entirely possible that there is no problem, but almost all the good evidence available to me points in another direction. Happily most of the things that are likely to be required can, if well thought through, carry some huge benefits to ‘honest hard working British people and British businesses’.

Lets have that pint. Straight glasses. Cask ale. And talk more about the weather.



PS: the next time TV journalists do that thing where they make you stand in a flooded street and ask you about climate change you can say that the IPCC would stress that the capacity to directly attribute extreme weather events directly to climate change is years away, if its even possible. But if you do borrow that line of argument do please promise to read some of the other things they’ve got to say.

Posted in Uncategorized | Tagged ,

New Year – New Weather – Happy? On trends and variations

iceboatcopy_zps3fbe56ebJust received a message from an OU geography graduate, with the above photo, that reads:

‘Just a short note to wish you a Happy New Year with a short update.
Record levels of Antarctic sea ice, Summer and Winter and record low temperatures in parts of the USA currently, in addition to a recent satellite record low Antarctic recording.
Of course this is weather but with no Global Warming since 1998 it is on it’s way to becoming climate. (A cooling climate)
Perhaps we should be looking at Sun spots rather than man made CO2.  Or then again, just following the money?  Even the Guardian has become comedy reading!
Best Wishes etc.’

My reply reads:

Hi xxx

Happy New Year to you too

From the tone of your email I suspect you hold quite fixed views on the topic of climate change, but I strongly urge you to explore the best available sources on climate change research. The IPCC website contains various levels of depth but there are plenty of other resources too. I think you would quickly find that sun spots have not been considered a viable explanation for the levels of change that have been observed over the period.

You might want to consider this engaging little cartoon about the difference between trend and variation. I’ve chosen a site where its embedded in an article that expands on the different ways people read data depending on the assumptions they start with.

One thing I would say at a personal level: i’m puzzled why anyone would think that researchers want climate change to be true. Everyone I know working in this field would dearly love to discover that the conclusions almost every climate scientist’s work is pointing to are wrong. Climate change seems likely to bring significant waste and suffering, albeit highly unpredictable.

Personally I find it helpful to understand climate science as a risk assessment and climate policy as a risk management process in its wake. More on this at my blog (see link below). If it had been communicated in this way rather than as a ‘truth war’ as it has sometimes been, including e.g by Al Gore, then I think many of the people figured as contrarians/skeptics/deniers (I think the first term is the only one that works, though there are problems with all such ‘groupings’) would be happy to take at face value the hard work of investigation that is going on.

Best wishes


Posted in Uncategorized

The world in a wardrobe


Later today I’m contributing to a Festival of Ideas event organised by Zoe Svendsen linked to Metis Arts and co’s World Factory project. I’ll be talking about sustainability, fashion and the clothing industry, basing my contribution on a chapter in the Routledge Handbook of Sustainability and Fashion, (eds Kate Fletcher and Mathilda Tham) due out next summer. Here is an excerpt from the draft conclusion. Rather than writing a few thousand well referenced words on the geography of care I wrote an essay about the life of the contents of my grandmother Betty’s wardrobe across her 100 years. I’m saving all the fun bits e.g. about what she did with WW2 parachute fabric for the chapter and event today, but this offers the concluding argument.

We may be making a mistake in implying that there is a need to move ‘from’ unsustainability ‘to’ a new unimaginably distant and radically different state. The composition of and care for the garments in Betty’s wardrobe over a century can be patched together into an account of a more sustainable life with clothing. Many of these elements are covered in far more detail in other contributions to this book, but they can be shoehorned into a paragraph.

Investing in some pieces of long lasting quality rewards the maker and the owner. These are heritage items where the expertise and skill of the designers and makers needs to be well rewarded, but the garments carry and communicate value for many years. Learning and practicing skills of mending, maintaining and refreshing clothes is a satisfying thing to do that increases self-respect and independence. If time and enthusiasm is short, people can spend small amounts of money rewarding someone else’s skill in order to keep good clothes going. Consideration for the well being of the makers of textiles and garments is an obligation upon the wearer. Awareness of the realities of their lives is within easy reach (though eyes are easily averted). The business of buying clothes can be done within a fairer economic system that supports the welfare and striving of people near and far, as the British post-war settlement demonstrated. The price paid for ‘good’ clothes should permit decent and secure lives all the way along the supply chain, whether it stretches across a few miles or a few continents. Innovation should be treasured just as much as the classic piece. New developments can result in pleasure and surprise but also less environmental and social cost if the right priorities are set in design and manufacturing training and practice. Researching the whole life cycle of a product, and stripping out waste and harm with the rigour that economic globalization has previously only applied to cost will result in dramatic reductions in resource consumption in production, use and disposal of garments. Price signals that reflect or are driven by changing social pressures and values can be a powerful and rapid way of expressing ethical commitments and a shared vision of the future. Assigning adequate prices to the value of labour and of material inputs, including water, crops and fossil fuels provides intuitive ways of delivering change at pace and scale throughout a system.

Can we really imagine all of these things happening? To do so it is necessary to look away from the static political imaginary of the present time – one concerned solely with the idea that salvation lies in another burst of impact-blind consumption and GDP figures going up. Rather it helps to look back and reflect upon the scale and pace of technological, economic and political system changes across the last century. Human beings need to remind themselves that the devices and systems we live with aren’t mysterious natural forces to be endured, but rather human artefacts that we can drive towards deliberate purposes. The Edwardian household economy of service, the colonial economy of resource exploitation and the stark class divide in life chances of 1930s Britain were all transformed in the course of only the first half of her lifetime. At the time these changes were going on some if not all of them would have been met with some trepidation, if not opposition, by people of Betty’s class and background, but it is now difficult to imagine that the world could be otherwise.

Looking into a lifetime of wearing and caring for clothes has demonstrated a whole set of practices and experiences that are present today or within easy reach, from care for clothing to care for others through modifications to the economy. This century long life story confirms that system changes are possible, and can be determined by positive goals. It includes the development of personal and professional skills, the responsible judgments of consumers, rigorous environmental protection and guaranteed reward of workers as well as changes to the regulation and pricing of global commodities. These are ways in which we can, across the space of just one generation, choose to ensure that we wear is, in all senses, ‘good value’. 


Bibliography and suggested reading

The piece has been written as an unreferenced essay, but the following suggested readings are drawn from human and environmental geography and science and technology studies. They have informed the argument and would support any exploration of notions of geographies of care around fashion:


Barnett C, Cloke, P, Clarke, N and Malpass A (2011) Globalizing Responsibility: The Political Rationalities of Ethical Consumption, Wiley-Blackwell, Chichester

Cook et al, I. (2004). Follow the thing: papaya. Antipode, 36(4), 642-664

Latour M. and Weibel P. eds (2005) Making Things Public: Atmospheres of democracy MIT Press, Cambridge MA

Massey, D. (2004) Geographies of Responsibility, Geografiska Annaler 86 B, pp. 5-18

Veblen, T. (2009) The Theory of the Leisure Class, Oxford University Press, Oxford

Posted in Uncategorized | Tagged ,

We’re all in this (test tube) together

In the wake of contributing to the Battle of Ideas ‘New Environmentalism’ debate yesterday, and a twitter exchange with OU colleagues Mark Brandon and Simon Kelley I recalled this 2008 post I put on OpenLearn about a really smart piece of climate change communications. So I’m posting it here on my own blog. My understanding is that most of the organisers and vocal participants at Battle of Ideas seemed to come from an old Trotskyite tradition, and carried their inbuilt opposition to environmental concerns into the room (and gripped tightly onto them). I didn’t hear or see much to contradict Jenny Turner’s piece in the LRB about where BOI is coming from [EDIT 8 hours on:NB Ben Pile tweeted to emphasise that he felt this LRB piece to be a ‘hatchet job’. I acknowledge that I’m not in a position to judge the politics of the piece. There were specific passages that I recognised from my experience of Battle of Ideas – may get back to post more one why just b/c they seem relevant to a discussion of ‘new environmentalism’ or, in my terms, the relationship between environmental thought and modernism – thanks Ben – you were one of the ‘nice people’…] . I had not been looking forward to contributing to the event, but had some interesting conversations and met some nice people, and in any case feel its an obligation on academics to accept invites to talk publicly about their ideas, so a worthwhile weekend at the office. I may find time to write more on this unusual experience later in the week, but either way I hope Greg’s video might offer another way into serious consideration of climate change research and policy for people who feel alienated by the idiom of environmentalism.

The best piece of climate change communications that I’ve come across in years does not come from the BBC, Hollywood, or a massively overpaid ad agency. Rather it’s the work of a geek-and-proud-of-it 38-year-old science teacher from Independence, Oregon. His line is that the American public is making a mistake approaching climate change as a question of whether the science of climate change is finished or not. Instead we all need to look at this as a risk management problem.

This ten-minute video ‘The Most Frightening Video You’ll Ever See’ looks pretty unpromising at first sight. Greg Craven has posted a homemade film that is structured as a dialogue between himself and a devils advocate (Greg in a silly hat). The piece is delivered straight to camera with the odd chemistry class explosion thrown in to keep the kids happy. It is structured as a logical argument that he believes leads conclusively to an argument in favour of action to limit the risks of climate change.

The argument is a version of Pascal’s Wager, that is, the argument put by the French philosopher Blaise Pascal more than 300 years ago that you may as well believe in God as belief may bring big rewards but carries few risks, whereas, scepticism carries dreadful risks, but few rewards. In fact Greg’s use of this kind of decision matrix is on much safer terrain that Pascal’s, because it is rooted in physics and economics not theology. Here is a version of his matrix:

Action on climate change No Action on climate change
Climate change science is false Economic harm with no immediate benefit No climate change and no costs to the economy
Climate change science is true Disaster averted Environmental, social, political & economic disaster

His incredibly efficient script acknowledges the simplifications in his argument. He adds some subtlety to all of these positions. For example in the case of the top left box action on climate brings plenty of economic benefits – including energy security. But ultimately he suggests we shouldn’t wait to see what the laws of physics are going to throw at us but should get on with reducing the risks of climate change with urgent action.

Gently funny but with deadly serious intent; clever but self-deprecating, I find this pitch-perfect. Despite Al Gore’s best efforts plenty of people, particularly in the US are sceptical, or at best confused, with regard to climate change science or policy action. One of the great things about Greg’s approach is that it invites all those people into a conversation about what risks they’re willing to take. It doesn’t brand them as foolish or greedy, but instead lets them listen to a reasoned conversation between Greg and his alter ego.

He embodies the contradictory emotions and thoughts that a lot of people carry around on this topic. And he encourages critique from viewers, resulting in updated versions of his argument. As with all things on the World Wild Web it is difficult to judge the tone and verify the source of some of the comment. I wasn’t sure whether the posting that said ‘this is scary – halfway through I went out to buy a Prius’ is a first class ironist or in need of quite a lot more study time on the subject.

But I find it really intriguing that a nerdy teacher can put together a ten minute film that is viewed by over four million people across a year, and then have a dialogue with anyone that chooses to respond. I’m no blind techno-optimist, but it is handy that the Internet came along at precisely the same moment as ‘the greatest challenge facing humanity’. Last word to Greg:

‘This is likely to be the greatest threat that humanity has ever faced. Think that’s overblown? Maybe. But can you be so certain that you’re willing to bet everything? Because we only get to run this experiment once. Hopefully this idea of risk management will be what ends the debate. How the world ends up? Well that depends in part on you and what you do next. We have greatness within us: innovative, giving, determined. It’s time for the best in us to come out.’

Posted in climate change, media and environment, risk

The New Environmentalism?

Tomorrow I’m contributing to a debate on ‘the new environmentalism’ at the Battle of Ideas at the Barbican. It has had me dusting down a book I wrote for Granta in 2006 ‘What Do Greens Believe’. General argument within is: ‘very diverse movement that has had a huge influence but lost its responsiveness, its appetite for cultural innovation and is not sufficiently self-critical’. I don’t think there is a ‘new environmentalism’ as such – just more prominence for some of its strands including techno-optimism. But I can’t really argue with a word of Wangari Maathai’s speech at her Nobel prize investiture (though personally I’m made a bit queasy by the badging the non-human natural world as having a gender).

‘It is 30 years since we started this work. Activities that devastate the environment and societies continue unabated. Today we are faced with a challenge that calls for a shift in our thinking, so that humanity stops threatening its life-support system. We are called to assist the Earth to heal her wounds and in the process heal our own – indeed, to embrace the whole creation in all its diversity, beauty and wonder. This will happen if we see the need to revive our sense of belonging to a larger family of life, with which we have shared our evolutionary process. In the course of history, there comes a time when humanity is called to shift to a new level of consciousness, to reach a higher moral ground. A time when we have to shed our fear and give hope to each other. That time is now.’

Wangari Maathai (2004) Nobel Peace Prize Acceptance Speech, Oslo, Norway, accessed on 9/11/05

Is there anyone on the planet that has spent any time thinking about it that would now deny that the economy depends on ecology – that we are part of a ‘larger family of life’? The promotion of that simple but vital insight is a great achievement of environmentalism new and old. But we clearly haven’t connected that consciousness to everyday life, business or politics to anything like the degree required.  Although ‘we’re all environmentalists now’ (OK I exaggerate) we haven’t clarified these ideas in politics or ethics to the extent that is likely to leave us and those generations that follow us safe and happy. Two (I think mutually supportive) directions to take for environmentalism today: 1. spend a great deal more time with the subject of political economy, and make sure that politics does far more to reward good things like satisfying work and innovation and taxes bad things like resource depletion and pollution 2. go out and enchant people with the idea of a happy, rewarding daily life lived to the full IN and WITH the natural world. Less talk of threats to distant places in space or time and more talk of how to make every place good to be in.

Posted in Uncategorized