I’ll follow you on Twitter as of now. And good luck with it all!

Sorry you did not get to see the great Wolf Moon and mars. Here in Shropshire, England we had an exceptionally clear night and the views were great. Many people though reported their views were at least partly blighted by light pollution.

A loose grouping us are organising a worldwide stargaze and protest against light pollution of 30 March 2010. The aims of the event are modest. We are hoping to get people to comment on their views of the sky and speak out they are blighted by light pollution (early photos of light pollution are already coming in). We should also be turning unnecessary lights off to cut emissions!

At present we are largely working through Twitter but will add Facebook shortly. It’s a crowd sourced campaign so it will go where it will go, but let’s hope we can bang the drums for dark skies worldwide!

Will you join us?

Best wishes
Andy Boddington
twitter.com/darkskies2010

Absent a detailed understanding of the issues, their case is as good as anyone’s.

Conclusion: There’s no avoiding the work necessary to clarify in the public’s mind the difference between the latest science and the latest half-baked hypothesis of the deniers. The truth is in the details.

I think this accounts for the decline of admitted belief in global warming in the U.S.. A surprisingly large number of people are capable of deceiving themselves, and their denials are sincere.

The implication, of course, is that if you want someone to understand something, don’t penalize him for doing so. A large bloc on the left has been holding back popular recognition of global warming, by equating the case for global warming with the case for expanding the scope and power of government.

It is a mistake to justify a tax by arguing that the government needs money to buy solar panels. It is better to allow a tax deduction for buying solar panels. Then rational people will use their own money to buy them, at the point where the avoided utility bills justifies the capital investment (if for no other reason).

Why do people tolerate bad government? Easy. They’d rather let idiots and crooks run the government than engage in politics to the degree necessary to roust them out. IMO non-confrontationalism is the cause of the problem–not the solution. Non-confrontationalism favors the bully, the busybody, and the crook.

Am I arguing in two directions? Well…not incompatibly. I’m arguing *for* confronting bad politicians (or good politicians when they behave badly). E.g. environmentalists on the left need to engage Obama and convince him that supporting Big Coal (via the sequestration figleaf), is unacceptable. I’m arguing *against* alienating the public with polemic like George Monbiot’s, in the video that Roz touted: http://twitter.com/rozsavage/status/7490771176

And one of the reasons I keep coming back to this issue, is because (I think) it goes to the heart of a question that you keep asking. You like to phrase the question along the lines of “Why is it so difficult to get the environmental message out to the people?” Whereas, I would tend to phrase the question a little differently: “Why in this era of a quantum increase (and maybe improvement) in the flow of information, does decision-making at both the individual-level and governmental-level seem to actually be getting worse?” Is it that we are now so saturated with information, that we are actually dumbing-down, both as individuals, and as governments? Has this information explosion actually been to our detriment? Have we exceeded our capacity to absorb new information, new facts, new conclusions, and are now using squabbling and argumentation simply as coping-mechanisms, because our brains have tuned out from reality? And if any of this is true, is any of this also “new”, or have humans always (as per Barbara Tuchman) been poor at ingesting information, and making decisions?

So in conclusion, I repeat what I said above. What the world need now (“is love sweet love”) are people who can rise above the squabbling that is going on between peoples, between political parties, even between governments, and can act as non-confrontational role models for a world sorely in need of good role models. Leadership is NOT about proving that one person is right and that someone else is wrong. Leadership is having a vision, and “luring” people into following that vision. And sometimes the subtler that people are “lured”, the more they are willing to join into the dream. And that applies both at the international level, and at the family level, which is where we started this little soliloquy, with the New York Times article on families fighting over environmental issues.

OK. I’m through now. Enjoy your thinking-time and writing-vacation.

As I’m sure you know, just holding that space of uncertainty and ambiguity can be a very creative place to be. However, many people feel the need to ‘bolt things down’ quickly. It can feel safer that way

You are allowing the creative inspiration to rise up and making space so you can attract resources towards you.

The life changes you have achieved so far are truly inspiring.

The best of luck with your plans for 2010. I’m sure you don’t need me to say this (I’ve read elsewhere on your site: if you could get across the oceans then a few naysayers won’t put you off) but well done for having the courage to stand up in public and work towards a goal you believe in.

I agree with John Kay that Monbiot’s comment about decent humans v. bloody selfish ones isn’t helpful or particularly true.

John, I feel that most people are (as usual) in the middle of the road; well meaning but apathetic and, as you say, more concerned by their immediate priorities than something as big and scary as the environment. However, in criticizing one generalisation you swiftly make another; that environmental campaigners are arrogant, self-centred and attempting to ‘reorganise civilisation’.

In my experience this couldn’t be further from the truth. The ones that I know are in fact motivated by compassion, social conscience, and an acute sense of collective responsibility. The irony is that people like Roz are campaigning on behalf of everybody, naysayers included, whether or not they yet realise how important it is. I for one am grateful!

There are dogmatists and fanatics on both sides of the argument and Roz is neither. Of course the environmental challenges we face will best be solved by debate and discussion. But it needs to be the right kind of constructive debate and, all too often, discussions crystallise into boring and false dichotomies or dangerous intellectual exercises (which smack to me of fiddling while Rome burns).

How about we plan for the worst, hope for the best, create fair solutions along the way, and work out ‘who was right’ in 50 years time if and when we have properly mitigated the risks?

Roz, having the self-awareness and intellectual integrity to evolve your position within the parameters of your wider goals is just the kind of pragmatic approach the world needs from spokespeople like yourself. Changing tactics is important. I don’t think you need a clearer voice / position / strategy at all. It’s very clear what you stand for to me: A GREENER FUTURE.

Even if you hadn’t rowed oceans you’re still well informed and passionate enough about this important subject to deserve to have your voice heard. Having achieved what you have on the oceans only increases your mandate. Stick to writing about rowing? If I understand correctly, that’s missing the point of why you do it! To paraphrase from Lance Armstrong: ‘it’s not about the boat’.

Have a great year and keep up the good work.

You are an inspiration, have a nimble mind (as stated by Richard in Ausin above), articulate, and are passionate. One of Great Britains national treasures. All of my comments are given with the utmost respect.

Steve

John – if I had been running the conference, it would have been very different! Far from supporting it, I was quite critical of the proceedings, although possibly not for the same reasons that you are.

Ultimately, we all want the same thing, which is security for our future. Our future cannot be secure while we rely on limited and non-renewable resources.

And that is all I have to say about that.

If you wish to avoid political discussions then please, please, avoid provoking them.

I’d like to refer you to my last statement of my position on this: http://rozsavage.com/2009/11/10/lets-forget-about-climate-change/. So I focus not on the science, but on a common sense approach to sustainable living.

I try to strike a balance between entertainment (e.g. the 2009 Slideshow), information, and inspiration. Most people seem quite happy with the mix. But I am open to feedback – if anybody agrees with Steve, please let me know.

As for commenting on other people’s endeavours – that would be most presumptuous of me. Unless I actually meet with an adventurer and get the story from the horse’s mouth, my comments would have to be based on press coverage, which I know from firsthand experience to be extremely unreliable. So I have no interest in pursuing that path. May I recommend the excellent http://theadventureblog.blogspot.com/ if that is your interest.

But ultimately it is MY blog, and I can write about whatever I like. It was concern over our treatment of the planet that led me into ocean rowing in the first place, and it would be a betrayal of that concern if I did not talk about it. My blog is a reflection of my current thoughts and feelings. And right now, those thoughts and feelings are dominated by a passionate desire to halt the damage currently being wrought on the world.

If I can make a suggestion: you are an ENTERTAINER, stick to entertaining. You are a rower. Most of us came to your website because of your daily ocean accounts. We respect you as an endurance athlete. You are not a scientist. Science is highly nuanced. An active debate in science is a sign of a healthy field of study. As an ENTERTAINER, you can only, in my opinion, diminish yourself by strongly aligning yourself with one side of a scientific debate or another. Stick to what you are good at. When I want to see the latest on the global warming debate, I go to the magazine Science, or Nature.

When I visit your website, what I really would like to see is your latest rowing blog. That being on hold, what would be most entertaining, and what you are really qualified to discuss, would be keeping us apprised of endurance events in the world–what do you think of the failed (my opinion) Golden Gate Endeavor? (they were supported in the end, no? But what a battle!). What about Over-n-Under’s epic strain against currents? And what is happening with that Goliath Expedition? What about climbs on Annapurna, etc….

Respectively, Steve

I am all in favour of lively debate, but this seems to be getting personal, which is NOT appropriate for this website. Thank you.

http://jewishworldreview.com/cols/thomas011410.php3

Incidentally; does “UncaDoug” mis-spell Russ Limbaugh’s name as an intended insult or out of ignorance? I wonder because so many people respond not to what that gentleman says but rather to distorted reports of what he has said without troubling to read or listen for themselves.

I wonder how many people such as Rus are actually familiar with the sciences of climatology and not merely followers of someone who happens to share their political views.

I commend this: http://jewishworldreview.com/cols/williams011310.php3

Invictus

Out of the night that covers me,
Black as the Pit from pole to pole,
I thank whatever gods may be
For my unconquerable soul.

It matters not how strait the gate,
How charged with punishments the scroll.
I am the master of my fate:
I am the captain of my soul.

-William Ernest Henley

Richard, I agree with your suggestion that Roz focus on being a role model for young girls. Your comment reminded me that since meeting Roz in May, I have included her Eco-Adventurer video as the closing slide in my climate action presentations. Audiences applaud spontaneously — young and old — and the kid’s parents and teachers thank me for showing the video. I mentioned this to Roz back in June and was pleased to have reason to google … and to reread a few of Roz’s archived pages Day 13 – Happy World Environment Day! and Day 15 – Sweet Dreams

John and Christopher, I agree that George Monbiot is a tad radical — ever since I first read him — but want to step up to his defense. In context, his message is poignant, but could definitely be toned down. That being said, I believe it was not intended for the general public, rather a motivational speech for those present:

“This is not a battle over chemicals, about certain greenhouse gases we vent into the atmosphere.

“This is a battle over humanity.

“It’s about who we are about who we want to be, about what we want our future to be about, what kind of ape we decide to become.

“And it’s a battle which those who urge that human decency must be paramount must win, and those who urge that they should have a right to trash other people’s life in pursuit of their own interests must lose. Only one of those sides can win, and it must be us.”

We live in an age of terrorism. And I’m not just talking about the real bomb-throwers. I’m talking about the never-ending “marketing” that is done to us, trying to influence our minds and souls, using “terror” as the medium. This includes pharmaceutical companies that tell us we’re all going to die of horrendous illnesses unless we use their expensive and side-effect-laden pills, and the religions that tell us that we’re all going to hell unless we put a lot more money into the plate for a new and expensive church, or the companies that tell us that humanity will end unless we take a certain swine flu vaccine or buy the latest computer or phone or soda drink or whatever, or the politicians that tell us that every airplane will have a bomber on it unless we declare war on a foreign country or hate another religion or buy more guns or vote certain people into public office. Anyway, you get the point. But the bottom line to all these things is that someone wants us to “do something”, or “give our money to someone”, or “buy something”, or “vote for someone”, and they have realized that one of the most effective ways of getting us to do this is to terrorize us about things that may or may not ever come true. And unfortunately, it works. For a while.

But, people are getting tired of this. They are getting tired of the endless threats and intimidations, and slowly but surely they (we) are starting to fight back against whoever terrorizes us, be it the real terrorists, or corporations and politicians and others just trying to manipulate us for their own personal gain.

This brings me to the environment. There are those in the environmental movement, who seem to think that “terror” is a good tactic to use in motivating people toward a greener future. And I think these tactics are going to ultimately backfire. Yes, people will use fewer plastic bags for awhile, and turn down their heater thermostats, and buy more fuel-efficient cars. But what will happen in the end, is that people will develop a certain weariness, a compassion-fatigue, over all the shrillness and hatred and negativity in the pro-environmental messages, and will walk away from it all. Any psychologist will tell you that arguably the greatest need of men and women is the need for “safety and security”. And people may eventually come to believe that the pro-environmental movement is yet another “source of terror”, unless environmental leaders begin to fashion their messages in a manner that is much more “positive”, and much less “manipulative”. And it’s not easy to do this. It’s much easier to just threaten people, and tell them that the whole planet is going to explode unless you do this and this and this. But ultimately, the terror-approach won’t work. People will tire of it, and walk away from it.

What the world needs now more than anything are “people of moderation”. Real ambassadors who quietly, and calmly, and effectively, can moderate the differences that exist in beliefs in the world, and can slowly push the world toward a better future. YOU are such an ambassador, and you have earned your ambassadorial portfolio through your magnificent rows, your caring personality, your agile and interesting mind, and now your skills in communication and public-speaking and writing. You have a wonderful future ahead of you, and you can do some real good in the world. But there will be those … and I have experience in this … who will try and drag you “into the darkness”. Who will try and get you to be one of these shrill voices of terror, endlessly marketing something to manipulate your audiences. And one of your great challenges in life will be to avoid the temptations of these “dark forces”, and to stick to a positive message. You know where you want to go, and I believe you are absolutely headed in the right direction. And your instincts are really good. But don’t let people/corporations/whatever pull you into their own marketing strategies, where you will be swallowed up much as you were in the corporate world early in your career. Find your own niche and audience, as an elegant and effective ambassador, and use that to communicate your excellent vision of the future.

Just as an aside, I personally feel that maybe the best audience you could develop would be young girls in schools, who could see-in-you a role model of how to elegantly develop into womanhood, given today’s challenges for the young. Young people desperately need good role models today, and you seem to have all the attributes that could be used to fill this void. But of course, a “choice of audience” is something that you alone can make. I might add that many famous people (including Diana, Princess of Wales) took years and years to determine and hone their messages and styles, and it is only when they truly understood who their target audience was that they really hit-their-stride in delivering their message.

I’m sorry that this has taken so long. And I promise to be less wordy, and stick to my poems and lyrics in the future. And here’s my bottom line for today: avoid like the plague those in the environmental movement who want to absorb you into their own causes, and who use negativity and terror as a marketing strategy; continue to develop your brilliant skills and reputation as an ocean rower who is concerned about the future of the planet; find a target audience (school girls, or whomever) that can most use your excellent role-modeling and can then carry your message forward into the next generation, and the one after that; and keep your message “positive”, because ultimately people want to hear positive messages, and will absorb them and be motivated by them, and that is the real goal of all of this.

I’m intrigued and rather pleased by the reactions to George Monbiot’s speech. I agree that fundamentalism or extremism of any kind is undesirable. But expressing it in a verbal form (vs a physical or even violent form, which is never justifiable) can provoke self-reflection and/or constructive debate. Or it can turn people off completely, as has happened with John Kay. Point observed and noted for future reference.

There again, if everybody agrees with you all of the time, you’re probably not really saying anything!

I would just like to add that I’m fairly certain that even George Monbiot is also trying to make a living, care for his family and plan for his future (to use John’s words). Humans have more in common than they have different. We all want food, water and shelter – and a future.

Thanks for mentioning the list of actions, Christopher!

Another full year ahead. Stage III will no doubt be the highlight. Am looking forward to it. Your comment on ‘stuff’ made reminded me of a ‘The Story of Stuff’ which I watched again for about the fifth time. I’m sure you’ve seen it but for those who haven’t it kind of gives an overview as to how we are ‘stuff’ing things up…
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gLBE5QAYXp8

All the best
Rob

You, Roz, are a far superior spokesman, even though you have yet to nail down your POV. (This is of course better than nailing down a defective POV; the all-too-human mistake embraced by the vast majority!)

Like Joan, I look to the gay/lesbian/bi/trans equal rights movement for inspiration; to understand the undeniable sea change in how people view them today. I disagree about the value of ACT UP, however. I agree that the most important thing is for good, relatable, people to be out.

Although leadership by example is insufficient to solve global warming, it is a first step that needs taking. Judging from their cars and rooftops, most would-be environmentalists are still very much “in the closet”.

I don’t mean voting for the politician with the greenest stump speech. I mean changing our own lives. ( I do something on every line of UncaDoug’s list: http://web.mac.com/answerthecall/iWeb/Site/Actions.html )

And don’t knock removing yourself from the gene pool. –China’s one-child rule is probably the greenest policy ever embraced by any government anywhere!

P.S. I too LOVED your photo retrospective.

No it’s not. It’s a disagreement between people with differing views and expectations. It’s a disagreement between people who are trying to make a living, care for their families and plan for their futures, and those who have decided that they know best how to reorganise civilisation and want to force their opinions on everyone else. This “Everyone except us is selfish and cares nothing for the future” is so utterly arrogant and self-centered and wrong that I will have nothing to do with it. I shall leave your site alone now until you return to your rowing adventures.

Sometimes I see familiar parallels between my life in this time — when I’m part of an effort to turn a massive tide of behaviors, habits, waste, assumptions and criticisms, to one of positive change, new ways of doing things, thought for the future, and consideration for consequences of our actions — and when I was fully-integrated into the gay/lesbian/bi/trans equal rights movement (I still am to a lesser degree). Though there’s still a long way to go, there has been an undeniable sea change in how people view gays and lesbians now to the way it was 15-25 years ago. We needed ACT UP and Queer Nation to do radical, visible things to grab attention. We needed the Human Rights Campaign (HRC) to be our political liaison, our civilized face to make change in the halls of politics. But most of all, we needed individuals to be out, to be brave enough to be themselves with their neighbors, family, coworkers and friends. NOTHING opens and changes minds more effectively than one-on-one experience with a positive person who is a living example of what is possible.

One of our most important roles is to be that example for our friends, family and neighbors, to show that new ways aren’t frightening, that it’s possible to live more simply, with fewer things, to conserve, and still be happy and well.