Think locally but impact the global scene.
The social role of conflict has lead to further destruction and manipulation within climate change. Conflict has fueled the fire of polarity within the debate to the extent that very few positions lie between global warming is real and it being the biggest hoax perpetrated on the people of this planet. It has done just that which in many ways brilliant. It has brought an issue of immense global impact to the fore front of many individuals; pro and con. There are few people within industry areas of the world that are not unaware of climate change. Ken Cloke states, “One of the sources of exponential change is that our awareness and understanding lag far behind hard scientific evidence of the seriousness of these problems” (Cloke, 2008, 24). Cloke is comparing the exponential change of various topics/issues including CO2 emissions, global warming, loss of biodiversity, species extinction and others (Cloke, 2008, 23) to the incremental changes that help solve and resolve these topics/issues such as “awareness of the extent and seriousness of global problems” (Cloke, 2008, 24).
The social role of conflict has brought climate change to the minds of many. Granted everyone may not perceive the extent and seriousness of this problem but it is apparent and known to people. For example, the implementation of genetically modified foods in third world countries such as India is another serious global problem but who is aware of it besides the farmers and citizens of these countries?
So the debate and conflicting views of climate change has not only lead to the destruction and manipulation of it, it greatly has increased the awareness of it. This is a big step, awareness and recognition. Now the next vital step is creating discussions regarding climate change. The power rests upon the informed and knowledgable citizen. This is our role as mediators. If any global conflict/issue is going to change, it needs to start locally. This fits Cloke’s statement of, “the flapping of a butterfly’s wings in Brazil can trigger a tornado in Texas” (Cloke, 2008, 25). What we can do as mediators locally can have a massive impact elsewhere in the world.
This is where the challenge lies. Global issues are typically so far removed from an individual’s day to day life. Their vision lies mostly upon their human needs being fulfilled. As countries meet within summits and conferences to come to an agreement on political changes and force a formal authority upon its citizens tends to strike discord and more polarity within the conflict. This is a more top down approach to change and fails to relate a diverse global issue to basic human needs of every individual everywhere in the world. As community mediators, we can create discussions of climate change among smaller pockets of individuals throughout the world. Opening minds to interests, ideas, reasoning, science and data. Creating informational and organizational power within the citizens of the world. Granted, not everyone is going to come to agreement on the idea of climate change but hopefully grasp the impact we have as individuals throughout the world and leading to a vision and understanding how global warming is impacting our own human needs. A bottom up approach.
An informed global citizen can apply an normative approach within the power they possess. It comes down to us, not corporations, capitalism that dictates change. We as individuals, far to often we allow larger corporations to control and manipulate our views and options. This occurs because of our inability to see and understand the impact these businesses have on other individuals of the world. If we understood the exploitation of the resources certain companies have on the environment and individuals, then as global citizens we could make more informed consumer decisions. We would grasp the changes it makes in our and other human needs. As stated, this comes from community discussions guided by mediators.
Any global issue has to become part of all global citizens mind and understand how it impacts our's and other's individual human needs. “Gandhi’s idea that we need to be the change we want to bring about in the world” (Cloke, 2008, 7) begins at home, in our community with our neighbors leading to the our neighbors of the world.
Cloke, Kenneth. (2008). Conflict Revolution: Mediating Evil,War, Injustice and Terrorism. Janis Publications USA, Inc.
The social role of conflict has brought climate change to the minds of many. Granted everyone may not perceive the extent and seriousness of this problem but it is apparent and known to people. For example, the implementation of genetically modified foods in third world countries such as India is another serious global problem but who is aware of it besides the farmers and citizens of these countries?
So the debate and conflicting views of climate change has not only lead to the destruction and manipulation of it, it greatly has increased the awareness of it. This is a big step, awareness and recognition. Now the next vital step is creating discussions regarding climate change. The power rests upon the informed and knowledgable citizen. This is our role as mediators. If any global conflict/issue is going to change, it needs to start locally. This fits Cloke’s statement of, “the flapping of a butterfly’s wings in Brazil can trigger a tornado in Texas” (Cloke, 2008, 25). What we can do as mediators locally can have a massive impact elsewhere in the world.
This is where the challenge lies. Global issues are typically so far removed from an individual’s day to day life. Their vision lies mostly upon their human needs being fulfilled. As countries meet within summits and conferences to come to an agreement on political changes and force a formal authority upon its citizens tends to strike discord and more polarity within the conflict. This is a more top down approach to change and fails to relate a diverse global issue to basic human needs of every individual everywhere in the world. As community mediators, we can create discussions of climate change among smaller pockets of individuals throughout the world. Opening minds to interests, ideas, reasoning, science and data. Creating informational and organizational power within the citizens of the world. Granted, not everyone is going to come to agreement on the idea of climate change but hopefully grasp the impact we have as individuals throughout the world and leading to a vision and understanding how global warming is impacting our own human needs. A bottom up approach.
An informed global citizen can apply an normative approach within the power they possess. It comes down to us, not corporations, capitalism that dictates change. We as individuals, far to often we allow larger corporations to control and manipulate our views and options. This occurs because of our inability to see and understand the impact these businesses have on other individuals of the world. If we understood the exploitation of the resources certain companies have on the environment and individuals, then as global citizens we could make more informed consumer decisions. We would grasp the changes it makes in our and other human needs. As stated, this comes from community discussions guided by mediators.
Any global issue has to become part of all global citizens mind and understand how it impacts our's and other's individual human needs. “Gandhi’s idea that we need to be the change we want to bring about in the world” (Cloke, 2008, 7) begins at home, in our community with our neighbors leading to the our neighbors of the world.
Cloke, Kenneth. (2008). Conflict Revolution: Mediating Evil,War, Injustice and Terrorism. Janis Publications USA, Inc.
Replies to This Discussion
-
Permalink Reply by Robin 'Conner' Andersen on
-
Jeremy,
I agree that the “conflicting views of climate change has not only lead to the destruction and manipulation of it, it greatly has increased the awareness of it”. Awareness, regardless of views or beliefs is a great step. Although perhaps counterintuitive, disagreeing views could potentially be a great asset in our ability as conflict engagement specialists to facilitate constructive discussions amongst groups. “People generally assume that differences between two parties create the problem. Yet differences can also lead to a solution” (Fisher and Ury, 1991, 73). Even if the “solution” is to just be able to engage in a constructive conversation with the other side, to listen to each other.
I like the idea of a bottom up approach. I like the idea of mediators creating small discussions surrounding the issue(s) of climate change. I think it is a great way for people to learn form each other in a safe environment and create interest in a topic. My concern is, and you mention this, climate change isn’t relevant to the day-to-day life of most people. What would get people interested in participating in these mini-discussions around the world? In other words, how do we get them to buy-in?
-
Permalink Reply by Jeremy Barthels on
-
Indeed Robin, there has to be some sort of rally point to get people engaging within this topic. Unfortunately, it just has to be advertised and promoted by local groups, radio stations and so forth that it is a neutral environment to discuss the merits, ideas and concerns with the global changing climate.
This topic has a few complications to get the "ball rolling" with discussions; 1. The strong polarity of ideas (at first but this polarity in the end could ultimately help with a resolution) and 2. It is hard to relate this issue as a threat to the individual's human needs.
Though, the conversation could start around the 100 square mile chunk of ice that broke off Greenland just recently: http://www.cnn.com/2010/WORLD/americas/08/07/greenland.ice.island/i...
Yikes. Thanks for reading!
Robin 'Conner' Andersen said:Jeremy,
I agree that the “conflicting views of climate change has not only lead to the destruction and manipulation of it, it greatly has increased the awareness of it”. Awareness, regardless of views or beliefs is a great step. Although perhaps counterintuitive, disagreeing views could potentially be a great asset in our ability as conflict engagement specialists to facilitate constructive discussions amongst groups. “People generally assume that differences between two parties create the problem. Yet differences can also lead to a solution” (Fisher and Ury, 1991, 73). Even if the “solution” is to just be able to engage in a constructive conversation with the other side, to listen to each other.
I like the idea of a bottom up approach. I like the idea of mediators creating small discussions surrounding the issue(s) of climate change. I think it is a great way for people to learn form each other in a safe environment and create interest in a topic. My concern is, and you mention this, climate change isn’t relevant to the day-to-day life of most people. What would get people interested in participating in these mini-discussions around the world? In other words, how do we get them to buy-in?
About
@ADRHub Tweets
ADRHub is supported and maintained by the Negotiation & Conflict Resolution Program at Creighton University
© 2024 Created by ADRhub.com - Creighton NCR.
Powered by
