Without pluralism within the climate movement, we risk handing the future to the far right
“As climate politics enters a critical phase, exclusion is a luxury we cannot afford. We need all hands on deck.”
“As climate politics enters a critical phase, exclusion is a luxury we cannot afford. We need all hands on deck.”
David Seymour is supplying misleading ideas on how to boost our fuel resilience.
Don’t hold on to an old umbrella in a wuthering storm.
“This book will lift your spirits and give you hope”
– Brian Eno
Central to the Transition movement from the outset has been the idea of resilience. Usually framed as the ability to ‘bounce back’, it is seen in the Transition movement as being better imagined as the capacity to ‘bounce forward’, i.e. to use it as the opportunity to move forward to something better. How then to ‘bounce forward’ from COVID-19 in such a way that we also move to a way of doing things consistent with the scale of the climate crisis?
The thoughts of the whole country are with Christchurch today.
Christchurch has been back in the news recently for all the wrong reasons. What’s going on behind the public narrative of a tough and resilient populace soldiering on in the face of all these obstacles?
I read Colin James’s piece on the need for a resilient economy/society in yesterday’s ODT. A competent explanation of a risks facing New Zealand and an acknowledgement that New Zealand needs to design itself to withstand and exploit them. Nothing new to readers of The Standard. But are we building that resilience? James offers no opinion. The answer is ‘no’.