I've recently had a bit of a learning curve on the subject of Global warming. I know the information has been out there for a long time and the media seems to be on a bit of climate change spree at the moment (well at least they are in Aus) but you never know quite what is actually right or relevant when you are reading the information from the newspaper now.

One thing i did stumble across two weekends or so ago was an article reporting the announcement of the live earth campaign by al gore and the concerts to be accompanying it on the 07/07/07. I had been meaning to see an inconvenient truth but, as is always the case, hadn't gotten around to it but with my interest piqued rented it out and watched it that very night. I was impressed and shocked all at once. Impressed at how the documentary had actually been made interesting to watch, they were able to get across all the damning information and included the personal bits about his life in a non-complicated form and shocked at just how bad the problem is, i was left cursing myself about not understanding more, earlier.

My school is now going to be showing parts of the DVD during a lunch break which is fantastic, but one of the main questions I suppose I still have is, is it going to be really effective? While their is no doub that the spread of awareness should be huge but will it really cause as great a change? I look at the Live 8 concerts and while it was a fantastic movement that not only united most of the world and increased the spread of awareness about the true scale of poverty around the world, it just seems in the aftermath that there is still so much out there to be done that the impact almost seems to gently fade into the background, and I worry that this might happen with these concerts. I really hope that it doesn't and I think that a lot of work will have to be done so that there is a huge change made in response tothe concerts!

With peace and love always
hil

I was reading an article the other day, and it was mainly concerning the statements of the Executive Director of the WFP in the run-up to World Food Day. He was talking about how 400 million children are living in hunger. He also spoke on how not having enough food from the beginning of life outsidde the womb will have negative impacts on learning, behaviour and health throughout the life cycle of any hungry child. As well, he added that if the mother is hungry throughout the pregnancy this can also have a negative impact on the growth potential, in all areas of life, of the unborn child.

For anybody a lot of this information is nothing new. However the one thing I can't understand is how anybody could not suddenly feel the instant need to do something or at the very least, find out more about the situation. Throughout the millennia it has no doubt been seen that man has the potential to be and often has been, incredibly selfish. When push comes to shove, it's every man (or woman etc. etc.) for themselves and it's not hard to blame them for it when you know that's exactly what you would do yourself. However, situations like these incite question when you consider that it would not adversely affect anyone to take out five minutes of their day to write to their local member or for a government to commit more money and food to causes suah as the WFP when we have a surplus of such resources anyway.

Often for younger people, the thought it "Oh, how sad, I could never live like that" and bingo! there is the problem. Many young people are unable to empathise with the situation of these children or they cannot really understand the scope of numbers involved because 400 million of anything is often difficult to comprehend. Fortunately, almost no child in this country will have to suffer from malnutrition and while this is a blessing for those it is also a curse in that it is difficult to rally others to a cause that is so incredibly alien and when sitting in the movies, with a coke and a popcorn is that much easier and much more in reach of our comfort zone.

I know this topic has been done to death but I think that the reactions to Steve Irwins death have been interesting. My friend was on a discussion board and someone had posted something along the lines of "I hates Steve Irwin beacause of how he made Australia seem and I think he deserved everything he got, he was an idiot."

Another reaction which I noticed at school was that although many people were quite shocked I heard some girls laughing. Not maliciously but I realised that they were only laughing at the death of the image, rather than that of the man himself. Interestingly enough when those girls were told that Steve Irwins niece attended our school, they suddenly stopped laughing. Coming to the realisation that it was in fact a tragic event in which a wife and two children had lost their husband/father at a ridiculously young age.

I think this situation can easily be applied to the issues experienced in trying to get young people, the ones with the most power, involved in making change. Because, thankfully, the majority of us have never expereienced anything like extreme poverty it is hard for many to simply feel motivated when it is very hard to know where to start and becuase it is much easier to simply pass it off as something that we can't change.

If people can't directly relate to a situation- if all they ever receive is numbers and statistics- then many can't feel directly attached to it or it seems like an outcome that cannot possibly be achieved. Because although the numbers are often shocking, many people do not really appreciate the scale of these numbers as they are often very hard to imagine. I think this is what everyone has to work on getting over in trying to get young people involved in making poverty history.

Returning to the original topic I think that although he had his controversial moments Steve Irwin was a positive marketer for Australia and that he was a genuine, dedicated man and I also think that it is important to consider everything before, if it's necessary at all, passing judgement.