Réseau Transition be

This Contemplation is the result of my beginning to put together a different one that’s focussing upon an academic article I’ve been reading (Collapse, Environment, and Society) but that got me thinking about the academic ‘debate’ regarding what ‘societal collapse’ is, how it may–or may not–unfold for our current experiment in large, complex societies, and how things are perceived in the moment by those experiencing societal change. The ‘debate’ (centred more-or-less on the question: Do societies actually ‘collapse’ or are they ‘merely’ shifting/transforming/adapting to changing conditions?) is rather ‘academic’ in that in the grand scheme of things it’s intellectually interesting but doesn’t have much to do with the on-the-ground, real-life experiences and concerns of most humans in a society–especially if they are experiencing some of the more ‘problematic’ consequences of collapse/transformation.

Humankind is revealed as simultaneously insignificant and utterly dominant in the grand scheme of life on Earth by a groundbreaking new assessment of all life on the planet. The world’s 7.6 billion people represent just 0.01% of all living things, according to the study. Yet since the dawn of civilisation, humanity has caused the loss of 83% of all wild mammals and half of plants, while livestock kept by humans abounds.

Proposals for coordinated climate action at the global level all too easily run into free-rider and fairness problems, leaving many of the most popular policy proposals dead on arrival. But a simple framework that gives all countries similar incentives would overcome these problems.

Major airlines have claimed in recent years that they can offset emissions by supporting forest conservation projects, yet a new investigation reveals that the systems used are deeply flawed. One of the main offset accreditors, Verra, whose ‘avoided’ deforestation scheme is criticised in the investigation for lacking credibility