Maandelijks archief: oktober 2014

Do we have to stay in the shade, hidden and secure? Part IV

While I am wrestling with what I should do or not do with regard to global warming,  the world goes on revolving. Some remarkable things happened.

Our so called ‘objective’ Centraal Plan Bureau (CPB: our government  Bureau for Economic Policy Analysis) published a report in which it is said that the development of wind energy will cost the Dutch  society 5 billion more than it will bring. This  analysis however is based on completely out of date arguments and assumptions. This brought Jan Paul van Soest (a renowned consultant in Holland) to the following remarks: “The CPB in this case is engaging in politics. Economists especially are good at disguising normative statements about the world as objective statements. Maybe they don’t even realize that they in this case are doing just that.”  (Groene Amsterdammer, 16/10). As far as I am concerned they may choose, either they are stupid or they act in bad faith. I suspect the latter.

Another so called ‘objective’ gorvernmental institution, the Authority for Consumers & Markets (ACM) decided to investigate if our shrimp fisherman have made illegal agreements. The fishermen decided to limit their sailing frequency, to prevent the emptying of the sea. But this is against the free market principle. That principle is of course more important than ecological considerations.

The European Union in the mean time reached a climate agreement that is a weak decoction of the proposal of the Committee of January 2014, that already was characterized as too late and too little. Actually this agreement can be considered as business as usual: let’s heat the world up. This decision was supported by the Dutch parliament, especially by the liberal member Leegte (This means Emptiness in English. What’s in a name?)

So far the actions of our government institutions and our politicians. For their work I pay taxes. I WANT MY MONEY BACK! But I don’t know how to accomplish that. Anyway, these events are all good illustrations of what Naomi Klein is describing in her new book: This changes everything.

These things make me angry, but still I don’t know how to respond. My investigation continues!


(I apologize for mistakes in my English. Blogs are cursory – not stuff for correction by a native speaker).




Do we have to stay in the shade, hidden and secure? Part III

When I was a kid I lived in a beautiful house near the riverside, a house with a view, spacious rooms. It was an old house however, with no extended bathroom, a shower in a cupboard, with limited water warm water supply (we showered once a week), and no central heating. In winter times, when it was freezing outside, we had to wash 0urselves at a primitive basin in the freezing cold. The sleeping rooms were icy cold. In our beds were warm water bottles to make the bed warm, but even so, the sheets were feeling very cold at some other places. We had to wear socks in bed to keep the feet warm. How I hated winter!

We were relatively well to do but had no car. Once a year we traveled by train to the coast for a holiday. Before my sixteenth year I never travelled abroad, and during the years thereafter only sporadically.

Nowadays warm water  comes out of the wall as much as I like. My home is centrally heated, everywhere in the house is an agreeable temperature, day and night, summer and winter. I can take a shower as long as I want. Every day I count my blessings, and a deep feeling of gratitude overwhelms me. I have a car, and I can travel everywhere. I even consider to travel once more to West-America, to see the grand canyon and the Yosemite and Seqoia parks; one of my long cherished wishes. (but maybe the ebola epidemic will get in the way)

But oh, that conscience! My ecological footprint is 5 hectare (about 12,5 acres), whereas I am only qualified for 1,8 hectare. I am not allowed to take a shower as long as I want, and taking the plane and travel by car is completely out of order. So I should shower for only 3 minutes, and only every other or even seventh day, and I should go on holiday by bike and camp. I should turn the heaters low, to 16 degrees centigrade (60 degrees), and turn the heaters off in the sleeping room.

If we all should do so, that would certainly contribute to lessen the climate problem (but not solve it). But we won’t. One of the reasons is that we know the others will not do it, and I do not want to belong to the few idiots who are doing this, but by their small number hardly make any difference (except maybe in their own minds; instead of feeling guilty they can feel righteous). And also we know that in order to really mitigate the results of global warming structural global measures are needed.

So I go on living with an inner conflict. What to do? I am still busy finding out. To be continued.


Due to a short holiday – by train, a very pleasant compromise – there will be no blog for 10 days. 

(I apologize for mistakes in my English. Blogs are cursory – not stuff for correction by a native speaker).


Do we have to stay in the shade, hidden and secure? Part II

In her new book (This changes everything) Naomi Klein convincingly argues that we are rapidly moving towards a global warming of 4 degrees centigrade or more. Read her book if you want to know what this means (or our book Earth Fever, 2009, page 53, except that in the mean time the process that is described there seems to have accelerated). Our governments and the corporate world are doing virtually nothing about it. For instance: In january 2014 the European Commission proposed to reduce the ambition to bring down the CO2 emissions (an ambition that was already too little and too late) , and our (Dutch) government is supporting this proposal. In our parliament a resolution from the opposition to oppose this proposal of the Commision was rejected, because our Labour Party, being part of the government, voted with the majority  and thus renounced her own principles (this fact was not reported in the media, as far as I know. Clearly this fact was not considered relevant).

The case of our Labour Party is an interesting one. Their leader, Diederik Samson, once was an activist in Greenpeace, and in their election program the party emphasized ecological targets . But in their coalition with the liberals they had to let go of most of their ambition. Nevertheless, under their influence the government stimulated a so called energy-agreement between most involved organizations,  that according to experts is insufficient to contribute drastically to our own emission targets. Even so, the targets of the agreement will probably not be met. To save their image the Labour Party now demands drastic measures to bend this process. My prediction is that nothing will happen, only minor changes maybe, so that the Labour Party can save her face. Poor labour party, low as they are standing in the polls, nothing on the short term can save them. If they really are going for a drastic climate policy, they will cause the fall of the government, and lose in the elections. If they back down, they will lose in the elections too.

The above cases can effortlessly be supplemented with other cases in our own country, in Europe or in other countries. I invite you to find them for yourselves. It all underlines my proposition that our leaders will not solve our climate problems. To be honest, it is indeed very difficult for them to do something essential, because our complete economical system is obstructing any climate policy. The WTO (world trade agreement), the free market ideology, the financial system and the globalization make any drastic measure against global warming nearly impossible. (Again: read Naomi Klein, to learn why this is so)

So what to do? I am in the process of finding out. I will share this process with you in the coming blogs (maybe now and then interrupted by other themes). To be continued.


(I apologize for mistakes in my English. Blogs are cursory – not stuff for correction by a native speaker).



Do we have to stay in the shade, hidden and secure?

In the Findhorn Community the New Story Summit just happened. It  tried to find answers to the chaotic and almost hopeless situation in which humankind is involved. I wasn’t there but followed it more or less through the New Story Community. The story that for me stood out most was the I Ching interpretation  by Charles Taylor. Here it is:

Here is the I Ching reading for the Summit. As I understand it, this reading operates at three levels: individual, the Summit itself and this phase in the life of the world and the cosmos (The Great Turning):

54: Converting the Maiden
You must go through a transformation that is beyond your control. In the end it will reveal your hidden potential and open a whole new field of activity. 
This is now under way, but you can do nothing about it.Trying to impose order, or to leave the situation, would close the way. This transformation reflects a deep, perhaps unacknowledged need. Be receptive and adaptable. Act through the woman and the yin. This process is both an end and a new beginning. If Heaven and Earth did not mingle like this, the myriad beings would never emerge.
Converting the Maiden means a woman’s completion.
Look at things from an independent perspective. If you stay in the shade, hidden and secure, this will bring profit and insight.
The accepted date has gone by. Let it go. Draw things out. This procrastination will lead to the right time to act. A significant connection is approaching.

Now turning to the future (how things will resolve):
24. Returning
This is a time of rebirth and returning energy after a difficult time. Go back to meet this new energy in order to begin anew. This will bring success. Return to the Source.
Let things emerge without pressure. Heaven is moving here. In returning, you see the heart of Heaven and Earth.

Now this seems to be a plea for no action. This is completely the opposite of what Naomi Klein  is advocating in her new book: ‘This changes everything’ (a must read). In  my next blog I’ll come back to that and share my own choice.