[eclipse]

Hi all,
I'm trying to build a list of conservationist strategies and action groups. I think I might list the groups under different strategies. What's your favourite environmental organisations? What do they do, and what strategies do they use?

1. PARKS
Do you have a favourite National Park? How can people support it? What groups help create new parks? What's the best way to organise a new park?

2. ARKS
What about 'arks', or special zoo's and breeding programs for threatened species? (I'm thinking of the Tasmanian Devil breeding programs, but what animals and support organisations are you passionate about?)

3. BOYCOTTS?
What about boycotts? What products do you refuse to buy because they threaten biodiversity or your favourite animals and / or ecosystems? What websites do you follow to learn more? What 'safe buying' sites are there?

4. PROTESTS & TREEHUGGING?
Warriors: what groups have treehuggers that chain themselves to trees, lock the gates and throw away the keys to protect ecosystems against new coal mines or pipelines, etc?

5. OTHER
What other conservation strategies have I not considered? What groups represent them?

[Subjectivist]

I favor National Preserves rather than parks, an area set aside without interference from humans. The one around Chernobyl in Ukraine is a very successful example, as is in a way the Hanford site in Washington State.

[Guthrum]

I like the boycott idea because it gives the individual or the family full control over the issue. No group, no dogma, no leaders, no public front. Just decision and action.
For instance: decide to boycott home chemicals. Simple, easy, quite economical - just act! Decide to boycott personal chemicals. Again, simple easy, quite economical - just act! Decide to boycott cars - buy a bike and just act!
All of those personal/family boycotts add up to a significant total, and all driven not by governments or organizations, but by you. And all of them liberate you to a greater and greater extent from petroleum.
You are the best conservation strategy!

[AgentR11]

Live Small.

[Outcast_Searcher]

I like the boycott idea because it gives the individual or the family full control over the issue. No group, no dogma, no leaders, no public front. Just decision and action.
For instance: decide to boycott home chemicals. Simple, easy, quite economical - just act! Decide to boycott personal chemicals. Again, simple easy, quite economical - just act! Decide to boycott cars - buy a bike and just act!

While that's a nice thought, realistically in a "get all you can" prosumer first world (with the third world aspiring for that to be the entire world), I just don't think it does enough good.

I remember a conversation I had with a couple of friends about conservation of electricity. It went something like this (I'm sure I have the substance right):

Me: "I'm having to get used to being warm in the warm season again, after I got used to being cool throughout the winter season. Good thing I have a nice fan to blow on me, and I don't mind sitting around the house (I live alone) in my underwear. You wouldn't think 78 degrees would feel so warm, but I guess compared to 65 degrees in winter, it is".

Right Wing Husband: "Roger, that's just stupid. It won't do any good. You are hot and no one else will turn their thermostat down. It's not like you can't afford electricity."

Me: "It's NOT the money. It's the principle of the thing. True -- what electricity I personally consume has little impact on the planet, but if a few billion people would TRY to make a difference, it would make a serious difference."

Liberal Wife: "You're right".

Right Wing Husband: "Sorry, but you're not going to see ME having a hot OR a cold house, since it won't do any good -- period".

Liberal Wife: "Sigh".

Well, I have had similar conversations many times, and I will continue to try to make a small energy and consumption footprint on the planet, because I think it is the right thing to do. However, I don't think this, in and of itself, makes a meaningful difference in the long run, whether 1% of people volunteer to do this or even 10%. Without strong INCENTIVES, not enough people will do it.

[Outcast_Searcher]

Warning to liberals -- the guy who is generally right wing on economic stuff is about to advocate more government on an issue. Those with weak hearts, please be prepared.

Eclipse -- this would of course be --- 5). Other

As I said above, I think the only thing that will do meaningful good for conservation is meaningful incentives. The only institution big enough to provide those in meaningful numbers (who might actually DO it) is government. (The vast majority of businesses find CONSUMPTION in their primary economic interest, and economics is what businesses are all about, no matter how many slogans they advertise).

The ONE thing I give Obama the most praise for is his pressing for better CAFE standards for passenger vehicles. (I wish he'd done more for trucks, etc. but it was great as far as it went). This FORCES car makers to make more efficient vehicles and have increasingly better fleet mileage standards.

Of course the other thing government could do along that line (in the US) and should, is have a rising fuel tax that sets a rising minimum cost of gasoline, diesel, etc. That would provide a strong and highly visible incentive for drivers to want to conserve fuel, and with a long term time horizon, they could plan life decisions accordingly. This could be ramped up over time, so GOP complaints that it would "wreck" the economy are obviously false. For one example, high fuel taxes haven't wrecked Europe's economy, and for another, having time to adapt and plan to a gradual (say a quarter a year for several years) gasoline tax added won't kill the middle class (whining yes, killing, no). Also, for the truly poor, there could be some kind of tax credit FOR THOSE AREAS lacking meaningful public transportation.

I know nearly everyone in the US hates this concept, and that's why politicians loathe and fear it, but if we're going to get SERIOUS about using conservation as a tool to curb energy usage by a lot -- it needs to have economic teeth. It worked in the 70's. OPEC supplied the teeth.

[Newfie]

Sea Shepard. Shoot back!

[careinke]

5. Transition movements, Permaculturists, homesteaders, survivalists, wickens, heathens and other groups are growing and working towards trying to improving things with government involvement only when necessary.

[davep]

5. Transition movements, Permaculturists, homesteaders, survivalists, wickens, heathens and other groups are growing and working towards trying to improving things with government involvement only when necessary.

Here's a great article from George Monbiot on the oft-overlooked and massively important subject of soil http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2015/mar/25/treating-soil-like-dirt-fatal-mistake-human-life

[careinke]

5. Transition movements, Permaculturists, homesteaders, survivalists, wickens, heathens and other groups are growing and working towards trying to improving things with government involvement only when necessary.

Here's a great article from George Monbiot on the oft-overlooked and massively important subject of soil http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2015/mar/25/treating-soil-like-dirt-fatal-mistake-human-life

+1 on the article, thanks.

I believe soil is our number one problem. What sucks, is it is so simple to fix. Yet we seem to insist on the opposite path, which will lead to our destruction.

[AgentR11]

I believe soil is our number one problem. What sucks, is it is so simple to fix. Yet we seem to insist on the opposite path, which will lead to our destruction.

Correction, which will lead to our renewal of place as a migratory, familygroup pack, apex predator with global numbers in the high thousands.
As we should be. As we should have always remained.

Don't confuse the solution with the problem. The problem is agriculture. Period.

We'll leave the process of, shall we say, transition, as an exercise for the inquisitive reader. Sometimes its best not to investigate the sausage plant.