December 31, 2008

[Paradigm Shift] The New "Everything"

A few years ago I was told a joke about the five Jews who changed the world: Moses, who said “the law is everything”; Jesus, who said “love is everything”; Marx, who said “money is everything”; Freud, who said “sex is everything”; and Einstein, who said “everything is relative!”

Indeed, those voices which have been most influential in history have tended to offer prescriptions for the success of the human race. Perhaps Moses’ ten commandments and Jesus’ advocacy of love were important priorities for the pre-modern societies in which they lived - plagued by murder, theft, slavery and violence. Marx, bearing witness to the horrors of capital exploitation on workers in the modern era, saw wealth distribution as the most important tool for human progress. And maybe Freud thought everyone was a little too uptight and felt that society could benefit from an awareness of the subconscious. Of course, there are many other wise figures in history (of various skin colors and sexes and religious backgrounds) who have changed the world and helped usher in a paradigm shift.

Recently, the “everything” joke came back to me as I pondered the key messages of Jared Diamond’s Pulitzer-prize winning book Guns, Germs and Steel and his recent book, Collapse, which both argue that environmental factors can explain most civilizational collapses and achievements. Judging from Diamond’s work, he would likely assert that our present era can be characterized by the assertion “the environment is everything.” (Incidentally, it turns out that Diamond also happens to be of Jewish heritage). After some reflection, it is became clear to me that the environment is indeed the new “everything”, as now, more than ever, we are realizing the vulnerability of human civilization in the face of ecological demise.

What we are witnessing today – as we walk down the typical grocery store isle and see the growing amount of “organic” foods; as we are affronted with millions of advertisements for “green” products on a daily basis; as we hear of peak oil and of the building of green economies – is the emergence of a new paradigm for the human civilization. After so many years of pollution, of ecological contamination, of soil degradation, species extinction, deforestation and greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions, the entire planet is facing a severe health condition – and the great masses have finally begun to notice the symptoms. The greatest challenge to humanity at present comes down to this: Either we clean up the environment and decrease our civilizational ecological footprint, or we face societal collapse on a global level.

An increasing number of environmentalists are asserting this idea in so many words. The list of environmentalists who have clearly expressed an undying commitment to the new “everything” is endless – from Rachel Carson to David Suzuki to Bill McKibben to Paul Hawken to Henry David Thoreau to Al Gore. They may differ in method, but the general goal is the same: We need to make the planet our number one priority.

Since the late 1970s, a powerful strain of thought has dominated the world’s political economy. The ideology of neoliberalism – with its espousal of free markets, free trade, and strong private property rights – was also the birthchild of various ‘wise people’ who thought that human progress would be best achieved by unfettered capitalism. Thus Milton Friedman, Friedrich von Hayek, and Ludvig von Mises all genuinely believed that economic growth was the key to human progress. But as we serge into the 21st Century, it is becoming more apparent that economic growth as we know it is only a short term remedy for “progress”, and in fact, it appears to be directly correlated with ecological destruction on the mid to long term. I believe it is only a matter of time before “economic growth” is surpassed by “ecological sustainability” as the foremost priority of most societies around the world.

While many of us believe that this paradigm shift is generally a good thing, there are some potential pitfalls of which we need to be wary. The foremost concern is that we fall into an impassable state of false environmentalism, which fails to get to the root of the problem – our mode of production (which in turn guides our mode of consumption). Genuine ecological rehabilitation will therefore require revolutionary changes to our very way of life and the very fabric of our societal organization. We will need to look beyond band-aid solutions to environmental problems, and begin to focus on new sustainable methods of living in concert with the planet and its myriad of other guests. A second but equally important concern is that we fail to find equitable solutions - wherein the richest countries and richest people in the world are able to buy their way into a comfortable lifestyle while the rest of the world suffers from the food and energy shortages that are certainly to result from ecological damage.

The new “everything” is here. Now it is time to get on board and make history while we are still here on this Earth. Let us prevent the next “everything” from being something extremely morose – like "escape" or "annihilation". Let us work on the new everything, critique it, understand it, learn it and teach it.

December 05, 2008

[Riddle] On our current constitutional woes...

In order to commemorate the historical significance of our current constitutional woes here in Canada, I have crafted a riddle:

I was elected into a minority government with 43% of the votes. I set forth to confront the unprecedented economic woes of our time, particularly by attacking the rights of labour unions. I accused the left of threatening our national unity and of trying to launch a “coup” against my government. I used this as an excuse to go to the head of state and ask for a suspension of parliament. I have a six-lettered last name that starts with an “H” and ends in an “R”, and I am known for the part in my hair (to the side of my head). Who am I?


The answer, of course, is “Adolf Hitler”. If you guessed “Stephen Harper”, you’re wrong (he only got 37% of the vote).

It’s time to wake up and smell the fascism, folks.

In that light, I am forwarding a link to a hilarious video that makes a similar comparison through comedy:
http://harperdictatorship.ca/

[Link] Financing the Tar Sands



The tar sands are the largest industrialized energy project in the world. The money has to come from somewhere! This article seeks to examine how the tar sands are financed.

LINK TO DOCUMENT: "Inviting the World to the Tar Sands: Neoliberalism and the Financing of Alberta's Oil Boom"

August 22, 2008

[Misguided Logic] A Lacking Morality

In what appears to be a sick replay of previous events, and a frightening warning of events to come, three Canadian soldiers were killed yesterday in Kandahar when a roadside bomb detonated next to their vehicle. Two of them have left behind wives and daughters, and if that isn't sad enough, it is an immense pity that I can almost guarantee that this exact type of death will occur again soon, leaving yet more Canadian families in mourning. And yet, with its typical immoral flair, our government will continue to fund and promote this war. What's more, we Canadians will be asked to continue to support our "boys in Afghanistan", in order to keep up troop morale. Well I already do support our troops (at least in the sense that they are hard working and courageous individuals who selflessly volunteered to take part in something they believe in)... But if we support them, why don't we bring them home so that they don't continue dying?

This morning, CBC Edmonton's morning radio show interviewed Christian Leuprecht, Associate Professor at the Royal Military College in Kingston, regarding Canadian troop morale in the face of the recent deaths. I think he made some important points - many of which I agree with - but I believe his conclusions were somewhat misguided. At first Leuprecht explained how the Taliban resistance was becoming more recluse and resorting more and more to guerrilla tactics such as roadside bombs and surprise attacks installations rather than conventional armed attacks on the coalition-manned areas. He then stated that this is a sign that the Taliban is weaker than it was previously. Fair enough.

However, Leuprecht concluded that this fact positively affects Canadian troop morale, and negatively affects Taliban resolve (because the Taliban know they are fighting a more powerful enemy and vice versa). I think this conclusion is overspeculative and simplistic, if not misguided. As Christine Fair, an expert with the Rand Corporation said today - the Taliban is getting much bolder with their insurgent tactics: "They are getting better. They are getting more effective. They are learning by doing." This is the nature of guerrilla warfare. The Taliban see this as a long and protracted unconventional war. They've got all the time in the world to fulfill their prophecy (yet again) of ridding the foreign invaders from their homeland, while the coalition forces are on bureacratic timelines based on budgets and dependent on "democratic support". The more coalition soldiers killed, the closer the insurgents are to getting the coalition members to withdraw from the war effort. Militarily speaking, the Taliban is outmanned and outgunned, but they are fighting for ideological reasons that are unwaveringly powerful. The Canadian soldiers, on the other hand, are fighting in a foreign land, away from their families, for reasons that are not entirely clear to anyone. The notion that they are fighting to "protect Canada" requires a massive mental leap that I, for one, am not willing to make. They are unable to engage the enemy in the type of warfare they are trained for, and instead, they are always wondering if this is the day that a roadside bomb will blow up next to their patrol vehicle. This is not good for morale!

The fact that the coalition forces are stronger militarily is a mute point when they are fighting against a hidden insurgency using dirty senseless tactics. Think Vietnam: The Viet Cong were nowhere near a military match for the combined American and South Vietnamese armies. Yet their resolve to remove foreigners and imperialists from their home country was so powerful, that they were willing to live in sweltering jungles infested with snakes and poisonous insects and tigers, eating meager rations of rice for years on end - all for a powerful nationalistic resolve similar to that felt by Afghan insurgents today. And let's remember who eventually won the Vietnam war? That's right, the army that was outnumbered and outgunned managed to inflict enough physical and financial damage upon the United States, that the latter had no option left but to withdraw.

Secondly, Leuprecht stated that the Canadian troops will maintain high morale when they know that they are "supported" back home. Although he didn't directly say it, he implied that this is good enough reason for us Canadians to support our troops, "whether or not we support the mission". Again, a logical assumption to start off with - you feel better when you know there are others thinking of you and wishing you the best- but I think the overall picture is more complex, particularly when we are addressing the psychology of those engaged in a foreign military battle.

We already know from numerous historical examples that troops who are sent abroad to fight begin to feel a detachment from their community back home. Day after day their new lives depend entirely on their fellow soldiers. This is their new community. These are the guys who they eat, sleep and shit with. These are the guys who really know what they've been through and who have shared the near-death experiences with them. Further, the war becomes personalized: It's not about "making my fellow countrymen proud" so much as it's about survival. It's about "beating these sons of bitches and rocket-launching them back to the stone age". It's about covering Pete while he runs from turret to turret. It's about avenging Pete's death when he gets killed in battle. It's about doing "whatever I need to do to make sure I get out of this hell hole alive". Fighting for the nation is an afterthought. I admit that I can't say this from personal experience, but we have been given countless testimonials of soldiers from wars past who have expressed such sentiments. Thus is borne the feeling of alienation that soldiers face when they return "home", greeted by some as heroes and others as cold blooded killers - all the while trying to reconcile what they saw, heard and felt during their few months in that other world. Again, knowing that your fellow countrymen back home support you is only one factor affecting your morale. You also know that many other fellow countrymen don't support you or even care about you. But most importantly - neither does the enemy who has you within the scope of his gun.

Finally, Leuprecht refuted a common assumption that a soldier's resolve is weakened when their comrades are killed. It's not so simple, he explained, because when their comrades die the remaining soldiers become determined to avenge their friends' deaths. Again, I agree with this statement, but what kind of implications does this have for the purpose of our Canadian involvement in Afghanistan? Does this mean that our soldiers are more concerned about schoolyard revenge than the original goal of developing a poor country? This is exactly why we should never have gotten involved in this war in the first place. It has become an endless game of cat and mouse, the original purpose of which has been lost amid the intensity of hurt feelings and pride. Is Canada's war effort really about protecting this country? Is it really about "helping and developing the Afghans"? No. It's about Stephen Harper and his neorealist cronies' little fantasy of becoming a world power. It's about letting the world know that Canada is not a small defenseless nation with a crapload of oil ("so don't mess with us!") You can bet your gun that Stephen would NEVER offer his life for this country, and yet he has asked thousands of Canadian soldiers to pay the ultimate sacrifice so he can pursue his twisted designs - likely devised during a childhood game of Risk. There should be a law that requires any politician who votes in favor of deploying troops to join those soldiers on the frontlines for an entire tour of duty. Ironically, such legislation would likely outlaw warfare, because no politician in this country's Conservative caucus (with their law and business degrees in pocket) would be willing to forego their bright and wealthy retirement plans.

But why do we put so much emphasis on troop morale, anyway? Do we honestly believe that morale is going to affect the outcome of this war? This is a war with no reasonable end in sight. The Taliban is a guerrilla insurgent force which will not be defeated by a conventional military. The only way to beat the Taliban is to make them unpopular and unwanted in their own home, and the only way to do that is to offer a better alternative. Create a world so good for the Afghans, so wonderful, that they begin to despise the insurgents and see them as a barrier to their bright future. But this is what we are NOT doing in Afghanistan. Instead, we are fueling the Afghans' historic hatred of foreign and imperialist presence when we drive around in armored vehicles, and hide behind our explosion-proof concrete barriers, and tell them "no, you can't make a livelihood growing poppies as you have for decades". We can continue to support our soldiers, and feed them rum, and protect them with helicopters, and maybe their morale will lift for an evening or two. But no amount of support or rum or helicopters will turn this war into a just war - and ultimately that's what keeps morale low - a lack of morality.

August 07, 2008

[Hypocrisy] Siding With China This Time Around...

There is one thing I hate more than being told what to do, and that's being told what to do by someone who could use their own advice. I bet most people out there would probably agree with this statement. Yet, this is exactly the kind of hypocritical two-faced crap that China is barraged with by our failure-of-a-leader Stephen Harper and his worship George W. Bush.

Every time the issue of China comes up, these lying sacks of shit make veiled threats about how the Western world will not tolerate human rights abuses in China, and that China better treat their citizens better... or else. Or else what? Nothing - no action whatsoever - has ever come of these meaningless words. They are just required utterances to fool the Canadian and American "democracy-loving" electorate that the guy in power is doing something about that "evil Communist China".


Here's a reality check:

Canada's third most important export partner: China

United States' third most important export partner: China

Canada's second most important import partner: China

United States' most important import partner: China

Value of annual US imports from China: $1.8 trillion


Yet the "threats" continue. An analogous situation would be as follows: Person A claims publicly that Person B is a pedophile and no one should do business with them, and the next day, Person A goes out and continues to conduct the majority of their business with Person B, and then goes home to rape a child.


What I'm trying to say is, the Conservative and Republican governments don't have a very clean human rights record themselves. Canadians should forever bow their heads in shame for that inexcusable moment when Chuck Strahl voted in November 2007 - as a representative of the Harper government - against adopting the UN Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples, when just about every other fucking country in the world saw it as a necessary document for the future development of global human rights. China even signed the damn thing... but funny you mention it - the US was another of the four countries that did not vote for it either.


And let's not mention the documented human rights abuses committed by American soldiers at Abu Ghraib, nor the direct contravention of internatoinal law at Guantanamo Bay, nor the two wars and senseless bombing campaigns launched against relatively defenseless nations (Afghanistan and Iraq), nor the fact that 1 out of every 9 black male Americans aged 20 to 34 are in jail... No human rights issues there!!! Get it together America! Clean up your act, and THEN maybe talk about human rights, when you have an positive example to demonstrate!


Bush even pushed the line further today, when he idiotically denounced China's human rights record, get this - WHILE EN ROUTE TO ATTEND THE BEIJING OLYMPICS OPENING CEREMONIES! Yet again I wonder if the man has a brain.


To sum up, I have all the respect for anyone (organizations and states included) which have decided to boycott the Beijing olympics on the premise of their deplorable human rights record, but here's the caveat: You yourself can't have an equally deplorable human rights record, nor can you slap the wrist on one hand while buying cheap plastic goods with the other! Instead of Harper and Bush talk garbage on our behalf, I say let Amnesty International or the International Red Cross or Journalists without Borders do the talking. If you can't walk the walk, don't talk the talk, but hey - that's just what I think.

June 06, 2008

[Slander] What a Friggin' Jerk

Ed Sellmach: Selling-Out Alberta one Barrel at a Time
They taught me at work to "attack the issue, not the person." But, what if the person is the issue?

You see, Alberta's Premier, Ed Stelmach, is a jerk. His local monikers "Steady Eddie" and "Honest Ed" are totally inaccurate. A more appropriate nickname would be "Sellmach", as he has done his best to sell out Alberta and its people - barrel by barrel, dollar by dollar. The definition of a "jerk" is "a foolish, rude, or contemptible person." These characteristics best describe the qualities of our sell-out Premier.

How else can you explain his self-proclaimed pay raise of 34%!? While study after study shows that the poor are getting poorer and the rich are getting richer in Canada, good ol' Ed Stelmach pumps an additional $1.3 million annually into the salaries of a handful of political elites in this province - to the Speaker of the House, Cabinet Ministers and their assistants, and the leader of the opposition - the very people who just so happen to be the very ones who have the power to enact such a pay raise!

The Premier's salary was just injected with an additional $54,000 per year. That is $10,000 MORE than the average Joe makes in this province in a whole year, and even the latter statistic of the average annual salary is inflated in this province by the highly paid energy industry and related sectors. Thanks to back door, secret discussions with friends regarding his own desires, the Premier now makes $213,000 a year - more than any other Premier in the country. Oh, and did I mention that elected officials are allowed to claim 1/3 of their earnings as 100% tax free?

Liberal Opposition Leader Kevin Taft was also given a gigantic raise, equivalent to an additional $42,000 per year. This move (to give the opposition leader a pay hike) is a typical Stelmach tactic to shut-up and buy-out the opposition. Luckily Taft has a little more common sense, and he has promised to donate the extra $42,000 to charities - charities that are already fledgling in this province thanks to decades of funding cuts from a government with money pouring out of its coffers.

If you're not yet convinced that Stelmach's plan is conniving, avaricious and downright jerky, check this out: As it turns out, the retirement payouts resulting from this pay hike are an additional part of the plan. As reported in the Edmonton Journal, "The provincial formula essentially hands Mr. Stelmach another $63,000 a year in deferred payout. If he merely makes it to the end of his first term, and quits or loses office, he is eligible to collect $1.1-million."

That's right, Stelmach's new plan means he - a public servant - could retire a millionaire in just four years from now. And while the price of oil continues to climb higher, the plans to keep going with the dirtiest and most destructive oil extraction operation in the world also continue. Pretty soon we might just get another citizen's tax cheque for $400 dollars - a little "fuck you" gift from the province symbolizing the foolish selling off of our precious resources, the annihiliation of our ecology and the erosion of the public interest. Thanks Ed.

May 08, 2008

[List] 10 Reasons Why Alberta's Climate Change Plan is a Total Joke


In January 2008 the Government of Alberta released its new Climate Change Action Plan. The original plan of 2002 (the first of its kind in Canada) has been reworked, revamped and perfected. As an additional effort to curb emissions in the province, the government implemented its carbon intensity reduction plan for industry in 2007, based on a carbon credit system. Given all the work our government has done on climate change, one would assume that Alberta is doing its part to tackle global warming. Upon closer inspection, however, it is evident that the action plan is seriously flawed. It appears to be specifically designed to allow the continued emissions of greenhouse gases (GHGs) within the booming energy industry - Now that's a joke!

Albertans should not accept this kind of dishonest propaganda from our elected officials. We should ask that a better plan be brought into effect immediately - a real working strategy that will put a halt to this province's embarrassing environmental and climatological destruction. Here are ten reasons why the climate change plan is a total joke:

1) The plan allows crude oil production to double over the next 12 years! The only word to describe this is "insanity". The province currently produces approximately 2 million Barrels Per Day of crude oil and equivalent. Stelmach's conservatives want to see that production grow to 4 million Barrels Per Day by 2020. Every Albertan knows that the production of crude oil is dirty business, especially when it requires the removal of copious amounts of sand and other contaminants. And let us not forget that the final product - the vast majority of which we ship to the United States - will eventually get burned only to unleash even more greenhouse gases into our dying atmosphere. A real climate change plan would put an immediate moratorium on bitumen extraction. Knowing that Stelmach intends to double oil production while pretending to be serious about climate change is symptomatic of the collective joke he is playing on us.

2) The plan projects an increase of nearly 30% GHG emissions over the next 12 years! A climate change plan is supposed to reduce GHG emissions, not allow them to skyrocket in astronomical proportions! At our current rate of approximately 210 Megatonnes of GHG emissions per year, Alberta is by far the worst global warming culprit in the country. Yet the climate change plan expects an increase of nearly 60 Megatonnes of GHGs by 2020! That's a 30% increase of greenhouse gases within a timespan that is equivalent to 5% of the entire industrial era (when this climate change problem started). A functional climate change strategy would start reductions now, not allow a grace period of more than a decade for polluting corporations to unleash unprecedented amounts of carbon dioxide.

3) The plan only pays lip service to alternative energy. Alternative energy should be the main focus of our climate change strategy. We should be investing as much as possible RIGHT NOW into renewable energy technologies. We have lots of sun in this province. We have lots of wind. We have locations that are perfect for geothermal energy generation. And best of all, we have a wealth of the most important resource required for green energy production: Highly trained, innovative and hard working people! The province should have spearheaded and invested in these alternative energy industries years ago. Instead, they are so obsessed with the money to be made from fossil fuels that they still have not published their implementation plan for alternative energy production! For crying out loud - we're still burning coal to power our society! Our climate change plan should provide a framework for us to eventually source 100% of our energy from green sustainable sources. Instead, the Stelmach plan expects that by 2050, we'll only replace 18% of our dirty energy sources with alternative green sources. It's a real shame.

4) The plan only calls for a reduction of 14% of our GHG emissions in a period of 45 years! This is far too little, far too late! The government's highly-funded communications department is leading us on, by saying it will cut emissions by "50%", meaning a reduction of "200 Megatonnes". But in fact, if you read beyond the headlines it is clear that they only intend to cut emissions by 14% of 2005 levels! That equals less than 30 Megatonnes of real emission reductions from the base year of 2005. This is because they are asking for a 50% reduction of projected levels for 2050. It is absolutely ludicrous to claim that they will reduce emissions that are totally avoidable in the first place! A real climate change plan does not try to reduce emissions that could be created, it tries to reduce emissions that already exist! The irony is that if we adopted the government's plan for reducing GHG emissions by 200 Megatonnes today, we could be nearly carbon neutral by 2050! Instead, with Stelmach's current plan we'll still be producing more emissions in 2050 (after full implementation of the plan) than every other province managed to produce in 2005 (with the exception of Ontario).

5) The plan relies way too heavily on carbon capture and storage technology. The three main ways to reduce emissions, according to Stelmach, are by increasing efficiency and conservation (which will account for 12% of planned reductions), using alternative energy (18% of planned reductions), and finally, adopting carbon sequestration practices (accounting for 70% of our planned reductions!). This puts an overwhelming amount of faith in a technology that has not yet even been put to use in the province! We're talking about a proposed 140 Megatonnes of GHGs that will be captured every single year, and we don't yet have a place to store all of this! Some experts note that plants that are set up to capture carbon actually use 25% more energy than those plants that just let it float away. Here's another joke for you: When the oil companies tell you that their operations are "carbon capture ready", all this actually means is that they have left space on their industrial plants where they can build the appropriate carbon capture facilities when they are required to do so. However, they are not required to do so. Further, a carbon pipeline will have to be built between the plants that emit CO2 (which happen to be all over the province) to the right location for storage (a location that needs to be chosen based on the appropriate geological formations (where the carbon is pumped underground). Such a pipeline is estimated to cost at least $5 billion in Alberta, and nobody appears to want to foot the bill. The climate change plan should put a moratorium on projects that create high emissions until the carbon capture technology and infrastructure is already fully in place.

6) They got the numbers wrong. The provincial government projections for GHG growth and reductions suggest that in 2005 Alberta produced 205 Megatonnes of GHGs. However, the federal agency which tabulates emissions suggests that this is a very low estimate. In its "2005 Greenhouse Gas Inventory", Environment Canada indicates that Alberta produced more that 235 Megatonnes of GHGs in 2005. That our provincial government is underestimating our 2005 emissions by 30 Megatonnes is a frightening thought. First of all, our government could potentially be lying to us about the emissions to downplay the province's leading role as contributor to climate change. Secondly, the entire plan's projections are based on the calculations for 2005 emissions. Within the provincial schema, the "business as usual" model projects GHG emissions to climb from 205 Megatonnes in 2005 up to approximately 375 Megatonnes by 2050. But if Environment Canada is right in its figure of Alberta's 2005 emissions, we're in for trouble: the recalculated projection would bring the 2050 emission level back to 205 Megatonnes after a 50% reduction. The punchline? This is the very amount of emissions that the province is claiming we need to reduce! Rather than underestimate the amount of emissions currently produced, the climate change forecast model should overestimate the amount we currently produce, in order to "play it safe" and ensure our impact is not worse than we expect. Instead, thanks to this underestimation mistake on our government's behalf, we will see NO REDUCTIONS of 2005 levels by 2050!

7) Companies can easily buy their way out of dealing with climate change. As part of the Climate Change and Emissions Management Act, the large GHG emitting companies in the province are required to reduce their emissions by 12% each year. While this is an excellent policy - in principle - the system that is set up to ensure that this happens is severely flawed. The system is based on carbon credits - a company gets a credit when it reduces emissions. But what if a company is not able to actually reduce annual emissions by the target 12%? In this case, the company has the option of buying a credit at the rate of $15/tonne. This rate is way too low - it allows companies to easily buy their way out of dealing with global warming. The money from these carbon credit purchases goes into the province's Climate Change and Emissions Management Fund. After 2007, we now know that companies are opting to just pay the low rate rather than actually reduce emissions. The fund now has $40 million. That may sound good - but it's actually bad news: First of all, it means that 12.7 Megatonnes of CO2 that should NOT have been emitted were actually emitted! Secondly, $40 million is "chump change" relative to the massive profits in the oil industry - an industry that often deals in "billions" of dollars. What this means is that the companies that pollute are just absorbing the cost emitting carbon dioxide into their regular operating costs.

8) The carbon credit system only targets the top few emitters, and allows other emitters to continue polluting without any requirement to make reductions. The legislation only calls for companies that produce over 100,000 tonnes of greenhouse gas per year in the province. That equals approximately 100 companies mostly in the energy, electrical and chemical industry. But what about the companies that produce 90,000 tonnes of GHGs a year? Or even 20,000 tonnes (which is an awful lot of climate changing gas!). In short, nothing - only those companies that produce over 100,000 tonnes per year are required to take part in the carbon credit system. This has caused me to think twice about recent media reports about energy companies that "split" (rather than merge) into two subsidiary companies. It is common for energy companies to set up new subsidiary companies to operate new projects (such as the "Fort Hills Energy Corporation" or the "Albian Sands Energy Corporation", which are both subsidiaries of other common energy companies). I sometimes wonder if by spreading the work across different corporate entities, they are avoiding their responsibilities in reducing emissions (and they can thereby save money). The requirement to reduce emissions by 12% should apply to ALL polluters, not just the few worst polluters.

9) The culprit companies can merely channel costs to the Alberta citizen rather than suffer the costs themselves. The government expects the "costs of compliance" for companies attempting to reduce emissions to total $177 million. In other words, it costs money to reduce emissions. Rather than foot the bill themselves, however, the government has no regulation on whether companies can merely increase the prices of their products (and thereby pass the cost on to the consumer). In fact, they invite companies to simply charge more for the final product (electricity, for example). While it is a good idea for consumers to pay a premium on products that cause high emissions, it is not right for companies to merely shrug off the costs of dealing with climate change. There should be regulations in place that require companies that produce emissions to pay for it, at least in part. We need to make it less lucrative to be in the business of planet killing, and more profitable to be leading the way in sustainable energy creation.

10) The province's climate change plan is designed to keep the oil industry growing. Why else would a climate change plan allow emissions of GHGs to increase by so much? Why else would the plan not come into effect for 12 years? Why else would the plan rely so heavily on carbon sequestration and storage (rather than reducing carbon emissions in the first place?). The reason is that this government is addicted to oil, and oil revenues and investments. They can't think outside the box. They worry that if they fail to make the business climate attractive for investment that the world will end or something. But what they don't realize is that they are playing a genuine role in destroying the planet, destroying the future of our civilization. The free market is not going to solve our climate change crisis. It's time for our climate change responsibilities to come first - before the oil industry. Maybe then we might see an "oil reduction" plan that shows how we will wean ourselves off of this dirty 20th century commodity and move onto cleaner, better things. Right now we've got things backwards.

So there you have it - 10 reasons why the very people we voted into office are playing a crude joke on us! It's high time that this province - by far the worst culprit in the country for emissions - get serious about climate change. Our atmosphere is already approaching 385 parts per million of Carbon Dioxide. We are playing with fire, and it may already be too late to reverse the damage. We need politicians who will take climate change seriously NOW, and we need a Premier who has the guts to take on the oil companies, not one who acquiesces to their every desire.

April 30, 2008

[Equation] Lakes of Tar = Death

[Photo caption: View of Syncrude plant and tailing "pond" in Northern Alberta. Not long ago this land was covered in ancient forests that acted as an important lung for the planet]

It's as simple as adding things together. What do you expect to occur when you bulldoze miles upon miles of previously untouched forest, then dig out a series of gigantic holes, and fill them with toxic, sludgy, tar-filled waste-water? To top it off, these massive carcinogenic lakes (which are visible from space) happen to be located within the migratory path of many species of bird and other wildlife, and just happen to be a couple of kilometers upstream from human-inhabited areas.

If the answer isn't obvious to you yet, you may want to revisit your basic arithmetic skills. The answer is "death". You get "death" when you build man-made lakes of carcinogenic sludge. It's that simple.

Hence my lack of surprise when I woke up to today's news. A flock of some 500 ducks, en route to its summer habitat, was flying by Fort McMurray, when it located a series of lakes - which seemed perfect for a rest. These were not the first birds to think it might make a good rest stop, but they were the first (at least that we know of) to have NOT been properly warned ahead of time that these were not real lakes of fresh water, but rather that they were the carcinogenic lakes of tar-water mentioned above. In fact, most days there are birds of various species trying to make a stop in the famous "tailings ponds" of Northern Alberta - the liquid waste product of copious amounts of water used to produce crude oil - but - the companies which produce these toxic seas employ a number of sophisticated tactics to convince birds to stay away from them. They use scarecrows, for example, and large air canons (which are loud enough to scare the shit out of any animal).

For some reason, however, these ducks were not given the air canon warnings, nor did the scarecrows seem to do their job. So all 500 of them landed in one of Syncrude's tailings ponds.

Well they're dead now - at least the majority of them are. If any survived, they are now covered in sticky tar and are no longer capable of using their wings. And if they manage to get rehabilitated by rescue workers, maybe - just maybe - they will continue to thrive, only to get struck with cancer at a later date, having been exposed to extremely dangerous contaminants... just like the people of Fort Chipewyan.

What's that? Are you saying the people of Fort Chipewyan have been struck with cancer, having been exposed to dangerous contaminants from the oil sands?

YES. THE PEOPLE OF FORT CHIPEWYAN, and other communities located on the Athabasca River, downstream from Fort McMurray, ARE DYING FROM CANCER AT ABNORMALLY HIGH RATES!!!

This is why a Doctor by the name of John O'Connor, some 7 years ago, reported with grave concern that a number of people had acquired cholangiocarcinoma - a rare form of cancer that usually impacts less than 1 in 100,000 people. Yet here were up to 5 people with it, in a population of 1200!!! Medically speaking, this is extreme cause for alarm. Yet as many of you reading this will know, O'Connor raised the issue publicly, and was then fired by Health Canada for causing unnecessary public panic.

Now, I have not been to Fort Chip myself, but I was at an event regarding the Tar Sands here in Edmonton that was attended by a number of Fort Chip residents. I WILL BE FOREVER HAUNTED by the appeal by one of them - a woman in her 40s: Addressing the audience with tears pouring down her cheeks, she PLEADED with us to do whatever we could to stop the death of her community. She listed case after case, person after person, with the familiarity of their first names - her friends and family members who had either died or will soon die of cancer. Her sadness turned to anger... "this is not normal" she screamed at us, referring to attempts by our provincial and federal governments to shrug off the public health disaster as a typical health issue that is unrelated to the tar sands operations.

The extremely powerful PR assault led by the oil industry and the provincial and federal government is winning. They have managed to block the story of genocide in Fort Chip from filtering into the everyday car driver's head. They have somehow managed to convince us that slowing tar sands production will mean economic collapse - despite the clear warnings by economists that climate change will more likely wreak global economic havoc. And perhaps this is what makes the story of the ducks all the more bitter for me. Part of the story is that this "duck disaster" comes just as Stelmach's PR squad is returning from an international propaganda tour - the goal of which was to convince elites around the world that the tar sands operations are sophisticated, GREEN, oil-exploitation procedures - where EVERY CARE is taken to ensure the environmental, climatological and ecological sustainability of the land. Not only do the deaths of these birds prove the sheer absurdity of Stelmach's lies, they also demonstrate the simplicity of the equation of death involved in the tar sands gigaproject. We must hold Stelmach accountable for his crimes. Let us never forget the deaths that have been a direct result of this, either animal or human!

After hearing of those poor dead ducks, a friend of mine asked in desperation - "what will it take for the government to realize it has to stop the tar sands"? Our country is so racist towards first nations people that it seems the death of a native community will not halt tar sands expansion. I highly doubt the bird story will do anything either, other than arouse more temporary anger. But within the increased production intended by the Stelmach Conservatives lies their own demise. This provincial government, already the greatest emitter of carbon emissions in the country (thanks to oil production), has already begun to drive itself into a dark tunnel of history. Alberta oil is so dirty that even American politicians are threatening to stop buying it, given the horrendous environmental and climactic impacts of converting bitumen into crude oil (California already has a law to forbid the buying of Alberta oil). So to answer the question "what will it take"? I think it will take one of two things: Either a) it will take unprecedented amounts of environmental destruction and climactic trauma for to the point that it's no longer worth it to feed gas into their SUV so they can drive to the store to buy their things - because the things won't be there anymore (or at least they'll be totally unafordable). In this scenario it will take economic collapse - which already seems pending, or b) it will take smart citizens to foresee this industrial collapse before it happens, and start acting NOW to reduce the amount of harm we will face as a civilization from global warming and the economic meltdown it will throw upon the world. Which doomsday scenario do you choose?

April 29, 2008

[Synopsis] Imagining the Green Tar Sands

It's a Tuesday Morning, and I'm listending to Sounds Like Canada, a CBC radio show hosted by Shelagh Rogers. She's talking to a guy named Murray who's involved in some program at the University of Alberta, and a guy named Simon from the Pembina Institute in Calgary. The show is about "greening" the Tar Sands. Murray is an environmental consultant for tar sands corporations, trying to find a way to make operations more green. Simon, for the most part advocates against the tar sands, since it is such an environmental disaster for which no amount of "greening" can do the trick.

Simon takes the lead. We hear how the tar sands are visible from space and the total mining area is the size of three cities of Calgary. We learn about the tailing "ponds", which are more actually like tailing "lakes" that hold dangerous contaminants that we don't know what to do with. We learn how the Athabasca River has approximately 16% of its volume diverted at Fort Mac, simply for use in the energy industry. We learn how despite a major lack of environmental assessment, both the provincial and federal governments are pushing through with approval of new projects as quickly as possible....

But Murray counters. One of the things he says resonates: He explains how the companies he works with (the same ones that just this morning reported world record profits) are very concerned about their environmental image (note that they are not necessarily concerned about the environment). And then he says it more clearly: "They are very concerned about how the company looks with their shareholders - the people who own the company." Murray's comment confirmed a long held suspicion of mine: The companies that operate within the tar sands, and their cronies within the Alberta Government DON'T CARE ABOUT THE ENVIRONMENT. What they do care about is making it LOOK like they care about the environment.

Image is everything in the corporate world. This is something Naomi Klein taught us. If the operators at Syncrude really cared about the 500 ducks that died in their toxic lake of death, they would have closed up shop, or at least found an alternative way of dealing with toxic waste water. Instead, they spent who knows how much to publish "apology letters" in the major papers of the country. It's all about image.


If Stelmach really cared about greening up the tar sands, he would put a moratorium on bitumen extraction today. After all, we're talking about one of the dirtiest known industrial practices known to (wo)man: It involves stealing water from fresh resources, using extraordinary amounts of heat and energy, burning up precious natural gas supplies, all for the purpose of removing sand from of a deep underground source of tar, so that you can pump out synthetic heavy crude oil, so that people can keep driving their cars. This is as DIRTY AS IT GETS folks. But Stelmach DOES care about his environmental image. That's why he is wasting $25 Million worth of Alberta's tax-payer money to brand the tar sands as being environmentally friendly. What a joke.


It's all image I tell you... Branding yourself the right way allows you to keep bringing in the big bucks. It's not what you sell (read dirty oil), it's how you sell it (read $25 green oil sands project).


April 25, 2008

[Appeal] Harper, the Media, and the North American Leader's Summit

I wanted to share my discontent with the lack of coverage on the recent North American Leaders Summit in New Orleans. There has hardly been any coverage on the CBC website, which is a real shame in my opinion, given the potential for the CBC website to foment civic engagement in this country.

An internet search for the summit on CBC.ca brings up the following stories, considered "most relevant" by the search engine: a) a link to "Political Bytes", a blog from the CBC's parliamentary bureau with a few quirky anecdotes regarding the context of the meeting (absolutely nothing on content); b) an article about last year’s summit – which, as you may recall, was held at Chateau Montebello and was met by a determined group of more than a thousand protesters; and c) two dead link articles about this year's summit - you can't read them because they are no longer there! What's my point? We citizens are not being told what is being negotiated at these meetings. Furthermore, to find out even the most basic details of the summit, we have to go out and search for it on obscure blogs and sites that no one actually reads on a regular basis.

This is not good for democracy, though neither is it entirely the CBC's fault. This minority government has been playing a dirty game of media manipulation ever since Harper seized power with only 36% of the vote. The Conservatives are engaged in a web of political spin, carefully calculating every PR move from determining the exact timing of press releases (in order to divert attention away from unpopular issues) to outright refusing to talk to certain reporters (check out this video). You have to ask yourself what kind of dirt this government is trying to hide when it goes to great lengths to ensure only invited sympathetic journalists are allowed to show up at state-sanctioned press releases. But even worse – what kind of nation allows its “leaders” to sneak out of a hotel via fire-escape to avoid a media scrum that has been infiltrated by uninvited journalists? We need to raise a stink about the unacceptable wall of secrecy behind which the Harper government is hiding.

In addition to writing letters to the CBC News desk, I’ve taken it upon myself to try to find out what in god’s name Stephen Harper is offering to Bush on Canada's behalf at this summit. There are a few things that are obvious. For one, we know that Harper is pledging our country’s continued support in the empire’s so-called war on terror – which as we also know, is a war of terror that only serves to breed more terror in return. We play a major role in this American war through our “commitment” to Afghanistan, or should I say our commitment to warlord Karzai (the "mayor of Kabul") and his war against his Taliban enemies in Kandahar. So here we are, with 2500 Canadian soldiers armed to the teeth (facing a death rate of one soldier per month), engaged in "development projects" that help us turn the Afghan people away from terrorism. Little do we know the Afghan people think we are the terrorists, and they're going to use every tactic they can to get rid of us - the latest in a history of foreign invaders in their country. What are we doing there? Honestly? Other than watching the poppy industry grow and agreeing to do America's dirty work (which includes ratcheting support from NATO allies to join in the fight). The International Security Assistance Force has played a major role in relieving US duties in Afghanistan, thereby allowing them to continue to their mission of total human destruction in Iraq.

Second, we know that Harper is working hard to make our border with the United States more porous to items like money and commercial goods and now commodified resources, while agreeing to block the flow of drugs and people with brown skin (like arabs who are unfairly stereotyped as terrorists and Latin Americans who are characterized as job-takers). You have heard the horror stories of groups of Latino immigrants who die in the Arizona desert trying to make it to the US to meet up with their families and earn a living wage. But have you heard of the violence in Southern Mexico faced by Central American immigrants? It is an extremely dangerous journey often resulting in theft, incarceration and death. The American administration knows all too well that it's difficult to keep the border open to trade while being simultaneously closed to immigrants and drugs, so Bush has convinced Calderon (and Fox before him) to militarize the southern border with Guatemala and Belize to stop the hundreds of thousands of Central Americans who attempt the Northbound trek. In 2005, 240,000 illegal immigrants attempting to get to the US from Central America were arrested in MEXICO before even getting to the US border! Thanks to an increased military presence, the number of non-Mexican migrants trying to get into the US has dropped by more than two thirds in the last two years. In the meantime, we Canadians are doing our part to fend off the Arctic from grave threats to our sovereignty, such as Denmark. The result is what some are calling "Fortress America", one big hyper-militarized North American union with a continental security perimeter that allows only money and commercial goods (and the rich white men who control them) to travel in and out.

We also know, thanks to excellent work done by progressive interest groups such as the Council of Canadians, that the North American Leaders Summit is being used by the three states to further the Security and Prosperity Partnership (SPP). As a post-9-11 corollary to NAFTA, the SPP has extremely serious implications for Canadian sovereignty - and yet we sit and watch it happening to us like a herd of cows lining up for the slaughter house. We already know the ways that NAFTA allows corporations to sue our government when it enacts health or environmental laws that cut into corporate profits (like when Canada was sued for $251 million by Ethyl Corp for banning a carcinogenic compound). NAFTA also locks in a proportion of the energy resources that we sell to the United States, making it extremely difficult to reduce energy exports for environmental purposes or to help deal with national shortages. The SPP takes it even further with clauses on continental regulation of agriculture and natural resources, prompting the Council of Canadians to argue that the SPP "will make independent Canadian policies on agriculture, the environment and energy impossible". Oh, and speaking of the environment, the people who brought us the SPP are also calling for an five-fold increase in energy production from the Alberta tar sands in order to help satiate America's desire for stable energy security (read "overconsumption problem"). Unfortunately, the tar sands gigaproject is perhaps the worst environmental travesty in human history. The very idea of using the equivalent of one barrel of oil and five barrels of water just to produce three barrels of tar sands crude is abominable.

If I may sum up my concerns in a final run-on question: What the fuck is our Prime Minister actually doing at these secret closed-door meetings with Bush and Calderon, and how many chips of Canadian sovereignty is he throwing on the poker table, and most importantly, why haven’t we Canadians heard anything about this from him in our publicly-funded media? Even a visit to the Conservative Party’s website yields nothing about the summit other than a few pictures of Harper, Calderon and Bush in their photo-op poses, shaking the hands of the few rare children who have actually been somewhat reintegrated into New Orleans after Hurricane Katrina.

What did our Prime Minister have to say about regime change in Cuba and Venezuela? I want to read what our Prime Minister said about this in the news, not just an article mentioning that he will be talking about it! Don't we have a right to know how our tax money is involved in the long standing history of American imperialism in Latin America?

It is for these reasons that I am encouraging friends and family to demand more from our media, but more importantly, demand better from our elected officials. It's like we've forgotten that they're supposed to represent us and that we have the right to throw them in the garbage if they fail to do so. Well if one thing is clear from the New Orleans summit, it is that HARPER HAS FAILED, yet again, to act in the interests of the majority of Canadians. It's time we step in and stop the Conservative Party's secrecy and corporate cronyism, and bring in someone inspiring who wants to build a better world!

April 21, 2008

[Anecdote] Farmed Salmon

Here's a quick but true anecdote I felt compelled to write about:

Last weekend I was in Vancouver, helping to run a workshop for a non-profit organization I volunteer for. The workshop site was at a community centre in White Rock, right next to the beach. I was looking forward to the warmer climate of the West Coast, a chance to breath in the sea air, and see some flowers in spring. But more importantly, I wanted to get a hold of some fresh seafood from the Pacific.

With this in mind, my fellow workshop facilitator and I arrived at the site early with the intention of hitting up a local establishment for lunch and a cold beer. The setting was great - from our table we could look out at the ocean to the horizon. A woodstove radiated heat that protected us from the cool ocean winds.

The menu consisted of a few different sea food options. Of interest to me were the smoked salmon entrees and the cod or halibut fish and chips. I decided to go with the salmon pasta. As we waited for our server, our conversation turned to climate change, and this got me feeling somewhat guilty about my flight out West. I prefer not to travel anywhere by airplane, and if I must do so I prefer to make it a long trip - but here I was a culprit in the causing of global warming. So when our orders were taken, I wanted to double check that my meal choice was indeed to most local option, to see if I could at least cut back on the distance my food had traveled to get to my plate - so I asked the waitress. "Where does the salmon come from?"

She didn't know off hand, though she sheepishly admitted that she knew it was not wild salmon, but farmed salmon. She went to ask the chef, and we she returned, she ashamedly explained that the salmon was from a farm in Ontario. ONTARIO! Here I was sitting less than a 100 metres from the Pacific ocean ordering a fish that I imaged would be from the area, and it turns out that the damn thing was raised in a pool back in Ontario.

The moment of astonishment lingered long enough for me to note yet another symptom of our diseased society: that we are so incompetent at managing one of the most important components of human survival and development: our food. There are so many problems with the way we've structured our world of food, ranging from accessibility to nutritional value to overconsumption to locality and our relationship with it.

This is a big issue, which hopefully I will confront in various components through certain blog entries. For now, let me use this short anecdote to reference a new term that I will use to characterize the demise of our society through backwards thinking and lack of thought. From here on, I shall call the "the disease".

It goes without saying that I took back my salmon order. Finally realizing that nothing on the menu was local, I opted for the halibut - which came from Alaska.

April 01, 2008

[Time Wasting] Flags and Masts

I can not think of a better way to waste time and public funds than spending question period arguing over whether or not the Canadian flag above the Peace Tower should be lowered to half-mast on one day of the year only - Remembrance Day - or on any day of the year that a Canadian soldier dies.

Yet this is what our uninspiring, idiotic political representatives have been talking about ad nosium today. Read the CBC story here. Honestly, is there nothing better to talk about in our national parliament? Is there not a problem of growing inequality to address? Is there no concern over the loss of sovereignty from the SPP deal our government is signing behind closed doors? Shouldn't there be a debate about how the government of Canada is going to reach its international commitments to climate change?

Apparently, the Liberals put forward this motion (and they are supported by the other opposition parties) to honour the fallen soldiers in Afghanistan - on each day that they die. But the Conservatives (supported by the Canadian Legion and the National Veterans Association) say that doing this dishonors all of the previous Canadian soldiers who died that only received one day of flag honoring - Remembrance Day. They say the flag should only be lowered on the one official day of soldier honoring of the year.

I can not believe the state of political degeneration that we are witnessing. Is it just me or would it perhaps be more helpful to have a political debate over whether Canada should continue its illegal military incursion in Afghanistan? Ironically, therein lies the simplest solution to this moronic debate: Bring our fucking troops home! Then we would only have to lower the flag ONCE any way - during Remembrance Day, because our soldiers wouldn't be getting blown to pieces by roadside bombs at an average rate of once a month (72 Canadian soldiers died in Afghanistan between beginning of 2002 and end of 2007 = 72 months = 1 per month)!

Indeed, that might be the most logical solution... but I prefer this one in addition*: We should put up THREE flags on top of the peace tower to appease both nationalist factions above and anti-nationalists like me. The first would remain at full mast every day of the year except Remembrance Day, when it would be lowered to honor the soldiers who died previously. The second flag would be lowered to half mast every time a Canadian died while trying to ensure Canada's "freedom and economic prosperity" - this would include workers who die on the job. The third flag pole would be without a flag - a disintegrating rag of discolored red and white cloth which will one day tear itself from the remaining vestige of fabric, only to flutter downward like a Sea King helicopter, spiraling downward and downward, into the eternal flame. This flag would honor all of the people who have died as a result of the actions by the Canadian government, that we never hear about. It would represent the thousands of Afghan civilians that have died thanks to our mission there (oh and by the way, there is no official count of the dead Afghan civilians - NOBODY HAS BOTHERED TO COUNT - I challenge you to find a single organization that has kept track of the death count and prove me wrong). This missing flag would also represent the deaths of homeless and poverty-stricken Canadians - who die from hunger and cold in a world of plenty. It would represent the deaths of all the disappeared women across the country who we have not heard about because they were the kind of women who we don't want to hear about, and it would represent the genocide of an entire continent full of First Nations peoples - the genocide that this country is founded upon. Maybe that way we'd be able to get past silly debates about when to bring a flag to half mast, and we'd be reminded to start worrying about more important affairs.

* I know this might offend some... but honestly, what the fuck am I supposed to think when I read that such ridiculous bantering is passing for democracy - all the while an illegal war continues to get renewed - a war based on false pretenses and lies. What are the Afghans getting out of this (besides dead family members, continuing poverty, the Taliban resurgence and increasing danger from the burgeoning opium trade) - new bridges in Kabul? Give me a fucking break.

March 31, 2008

[Good News?] Al Gore trying hard again...

Well, at least this isn't BAD news...
Some good news for once: Al Gore's Climate Change organization, The Alliance for Climate Protection, is initiating a $300 Million propaganda campaign in the United States, to help convince the American people that a radically new vision for curbing emissions is needed. It will be spent mostly on TV ads and the internet... and hopefully it will get through to the worst culprits of the carbon guzzlers. Good work Al!


One more thing: If you read the CBC article about this, you'll see this quote that Gore offered to the Washington Post: "The simple algorithm is this: It's important to change the light bulbs, but it's much more important to change the laws." YEAH, NO KIDDING! This is what I've been saying since the beginning of this whole frickin carbon conundrum came on the radar: Individualist solutions to global warming are all fine and dandy (and even necessary), but we won't see any SIGNIFICANT decline in the amount of carbon emissions until we make major changes to our political and economic STRUCTURE... and that means LEGISLATION. See my previous article on the Political Economy of Global Warming.

March 19, 2008

[Plea] Letter to the Environment Minister

To The Honourable John Baird, M.P.
Minister of the Environment
bairdj@parl.gc.ca

Mr. Baird, I write this personal letter to you as part of a desperate plea – a plea for you to take a new approach on carbon emissions and climate change.

As a citizen of Canada, I am responsible and complicit in the unacceptably high per capita CO2 emissions produced in this country. Ranked within the top ten per capita emitter countries, each Canadian is playing a significant role in causing rising global temperatures - These rising temperatures in turn will see the great North ice caps melt, various small island states submerged (not to mention low lying areas such as the city of Manhattan - gone), the belt of the tropical planet dried up by desertification, and an increase in devastating storms on par with Hurricane Katrina (if not stronger - Katrina had weakened to a class 3 hurricane by the time it struck New Orleans), and lets not forget the hundreds of millions of people who will become "environmental refugees" as a result. There is a list of predicted devastations in the IPCC's latest report, which I have posted for viewing here, (in case you haven't had a chance to read it).

As a citizen of Canada, I do not want to be accountable for these impending human disasters. Do you? This is why I have tried to reduce my personal emissions: I have given up on cars and I now ride my bike year round (this was not an easy trade off given Edmonton’s cold winters!), I carefully insulated my house and keep the household temperature to a minimum level, and I try to only buy locally produced goods. But try as I might, I am quite powerless to curb the emissions of the real polluters – the massive companies in the industrial sector and, particularly, the tar sands companies here in Alberta. These companies (including Suncor, Syncrude and Shell Canada, among others) are continually pumping carbon dioxide into the atmosphere on behalf of all Canadians, and they clearly are more interested in profiting from petroleum than making the world livable for future generations. You, on the other hand, are in a position of power, and as the old adage goes – with power comes responsibility. For this reason I plead with you to put through new, tougher legislation that will a) cause a swift shift to an economy based on sustainable energy resources, and b) drastically enforce the reduction of carbon emissions, effective immediately!

We don’t have time to waste, and this is easily proven by reviewing the facts that we continue to hear from highly regarded environmentalists and organizations:

  • Bill McKibben, distinguished environmentalist, explained in December how the world reached a level of atmospheric homeostasis before the industrial revolution with carbon dioxide levels sitting at 275 parts per million. For the last few years we thought the upper limit was 450 parts per million before the damage becomes irreversible, but new studies show that 350 parts per million is a limit we would be wise not to surpass. TODAY WE’RE AT 383 PARTS PER MILLION!!!
  • Bruce Cox, Executive Director at Greenpeace Canada, argued today that carbon sequestration won't work, that we need to focus on renewable energies, and that "the international consensus is that to avoid the worst excesses of climate change, global greenhouse gas emissions must peak by 2015, then start falling".
  • Matthew Bramley, Director of the Pembina Institute's climate change program, announced in May 2007 that "the government's national targets come up short against the science, leading countries' commitments, and our legal obligations under Kyoto," and further that your Turning the Corner Plan has "little chance of meeting the government's target of stopping the growth in Canada's greenhouse gas pollution by 2010-12," AND FURTHER, that your plan has "numerous loopholes and gaps that undermine the credibility of the government's target for 2020, which is to limit Canada's emissions to about 2% above the 1990 level."
  • Recent studies by scientists show that the deadline for when we must reduce emissions is much sooner than previously anticipated, and that we must bring our emissions to ZERO in order to avert the devastation of climate change.
What have you done to address these serious, educated concerns - concerns which highlight that the government's current plan Turning the Corner - won't work?

Unfortunately, Turning the Corner, DOES WASTE TIME. It calls for 20% in reductions by 2020! This is too late Mr. Baird - and you know it! First off, there is no way that market mechanisms will see the reduction of 60 to 70% of emissions by 2050. You know this. Secondly, by 2050 - as you've seen above, every environmental organization out there says this is way too late! We need to turn the corner now, not 40 years from now!

If murder is the most serious of crimes, why do we allow the tar sands corporations to continually wreak havoc on the environment and increasingly pump carbon into our atmosphere? We know that these emissions will end up causing the deaths of millions of people - and YOU - Mr. Baird, will be held accountable. Do you want to end up as a defendant on the International Criminal Court twenty years from now, when the global consensus on carbon emissions finds that anyone in a position of power who serves to further enable climate change is criminally responsible (as suggested by David Suzuki)? I doubt you do, so act now to stop emissions (and protect yourself from future incarceration!)!

What ultimately bothers me most, Mr. Baird, is that since "Canada's New Government" has come to power, the amount of carbon we Canadians are pumping into the atmosphere has increased, and it is projected to continue to increase, as admitted by Stephen Harper himself! The IPCC predicts that because of totally lax laws on climate change (like those here in Canada), global CO2 emissions from energy use between 2000 and 2030 are projected to grow 40 to 110% over that period! This gives me and fellow citizens a feeling of shame for being Canadian. I was so ashamed when Canada was awarded the Fossil Award at the UN Climate Summit. Please act now to bring back Canada's international reputation!

Here's a direct quote from the International Panel on Climate Change's latest report: "Average Northern Hemisphere temperatures during the second half of the 20th century were very likely higher than during any other 50-year period in the last 500 years and likely the highest in at least the past 1300 years." Are you going to remember this in August, when the sweltering heat causes people to lock themselves in their damp basements or crank up their air conditioners (thereby wreaking havoc on the grid)?

The IPCC also provides a map of the world showing the most drastic increases in average temperature over the last 35 years. There is only one part of the Earth that has seen an average temperature increase as high as 3.5 degrees... guess where? It's a massive area that covers Canada's North West and most of Alaska. YES, we are experiencing harmful temperature increases here in Canada already!

I know that as the Minister of the Environment in a country which holds the second largest proven oil reserves in the world, your job is not easy: You have the difficult task of making sure the environment is a priority when all the others are blinded by the dollar signs that mar their vision of the tar sands. But by virtue of your position, this must be your fight.

If I may ask you to engage in this thought exercise – How do you want Canadians to remember your work as a member of Parliament, fifty years from now? Do you want to be remembered as a Minister who was tough on climate change? Do you want to be remembered as the first politician who stood up to the corporations which continued to pour carbon dioxide into our atmosphere without concern? Do you want to be remembered as the famed politician who turned the tide on carbon emissions – the one who was directly responsible for enacting strong legislation which actually saw the amount of carbon emissions decrease nation-wide? Do you want to be remembered as the first politician to truly comprehend that economic growth is meaningless unless there is a sustainable world to live in! I ask you this because at this rate, Mr. Baird, you will not be remembered this way! At this rate you will be remembered as the Minister who wasted billions of dollars and years of precious time trying to sequester carbon, as the one who found every possible way to appease big oil while forgetting to invest in renewable energies, as the environment minister who forgot to implement a carbon tax when the budget was passed, like the province of British Colombia smartly did earlier this year.

Fifty years from now, I want to look back to the year 2008 and think of Mr. Baird as the one who actually made it happen. And that's my plea, Mr. Baird.... please, make it happen.

[Report] The IPCC Predicts Doom

Here is the copy and pasted text of Article 3.3.1 of the International Panel on Climate Change's latest report on global warming (warning: get your Prozac ready):

3.3.1 Impacts on systems and sectors

Ecosystems
 The resilience of many ecosystems is likely to be exceeded this
century by an unprecedented combination of climate change,
associated disturbances (e.g. flooding, drought, wildfire, insects,
ocean acidification) and other global change drivers (e.g. landuse
change, pollution, fragmentation of natural systems, overexploitation
of resources).

 Over the course of this century, net carbon uptake by terrestrial
ecosystems is likely to peak before mid-century and then weaken
or even reverse, thus amplifying climate change.

 Approximately 20 to 30% of plant and animal species assessed
so far are likely to be at increased risk of extinction if increases
in global average temperature exceed 1.5 to 2.5°C (medium confidence).

 For increases in global average temperature exceeding 1.5 to
2.5°C and in concomitant atmospheric CO2 concentrations, there
are projected to be major changes in ecosystem structure and
function, species’ ecological interactions and shifts in species’
geographical ranges, with predominantly negative consequences
for biodiversity and ecosystem goods and services, e.g. water
and food supply.

Food
 Crop productivity is projected to increase slightly at mid- to
high latitudes for local mean temperature increases of up to 1
to 3°C depending on the crop, and then decrease beyond that in
some regions (medium confidence).

 At lower latitudes, especially in seasonally dry and tropical
regions, crop productivity is projected to decrease for even small
local temperature increases (1 to 2°C), which would increase
the risk of hunger (medium confidence).

 Globally, the potential for food production is projected to increase
with increases in local average temperature over a range
of 1 to 3°C, but above this it is projected to decrease (medium
confidence).

Coasts

 Coasts are projected to be exposed to increasing risks, including
coastal erosion, due to climate change and sea level rise.
The effect will be exacerbated by increasing human-induced
pressures on coastal areas (very high confidence).

 By the 2080s, many millions more people than today are projected
to experience floods every year due to sea level rise. The
numbers affected will be largest in the densely populated and
low-lying megadeltas of Asia and Africa while small islands
are especially vulnerable (very high confidence).

Industry, settlements and society
 The most vulnerable industries, settlements and societies are
generally those in coastal and river flood plains, those whose
economies are closely linked with climate-sensitive resources
and those in areas prone to extreme weather events, especially
where rapid urbanisation is occurring.

 Poor communities can be especially vulnerable, in particular
those concentrated in high-risk areas.

Health
 The health status of millions of people is projected to be affected
through, for example, increases in malnutrition; increased
deaths, diseases and injury due to extreme weather events; increased
burden of diarrhoeal diseases; increased frequency of
cardio-respiratory diseases due to higher concentrations of
ground-level ozone in urban areas related to climate change;
and the altered spatial distribution of some infectious diseases.

 Climate change is projected to bring some benefits in temperate
areas, such as fewer deaths from cold exposure, and some
mixed effects such as changes in range and transmission potential
of malaria in Africa. Overall it is expected that benefits will
be outweighed by the negative health effects of rising temperatures,
especially in developing countries.

 Critically important will be factors that directly shape the health
of populations such as education, health care, public health initiatives,
and infrastructure and economic development.

Water
 Water impacts are key for all sectors and regions. These are
discussed below in the Box ‘Climate change and water’.

Climate change is expected to exacerbate current stresses on water resources from population growth and economic and land-use change, including urbanisation. On a regional scale, mountain snow pack, glaciers and small ice caps play a crucial role in freshwater availability. Widespread mass losses from glaciers and reductions in snow cover over recent decades are projected to accelerate throughout the 21st century, reducing water availability, hydropower potential, and changing seasonality of flows in regions supplied by meltwater from major mountain ranges (e.g. Hindu-Kush, Himalaya, Andes), where more than one-sixth of the world population currently
lives.

Changes in precipitation (Figure 3.3) and temperature (Figure 3.2) lead to changes in runoff (Figure 3.5) and water availability. Runoff is projected with high confidence to increase by 10 to 40% by mid-century at higher latitudes and in some wet tropical areas, including populous areas in East and South-East Asia, and decrease by 10 to 30% over some dry regions at mid-latitudes and dry tropics, due to decreases in rainfall and higher rates of evapotranspiration. There is also high confidence that many semi-arid areas (e.g. the Mediterranean Basin, western United States, southern Africa and north-eastern Brazil) will suffer a decrease in water resources
due to climate change. Drought-affected areas are projected to increase in extent, with the potential for adverse impacts on multiple sectors, e.g. agriculture, water supply, energy production and health. Regionally, large increases in irrigation water demand as
a result of climate changes are projected.

The negative impacts of climate change on freshwater systems outweigh its benefits (high confidence). Areas in which runoff is projected to decline face a reduction in the value of the services provided by water resources (very high confidence). The beneficial impacts of increased annual runoff in some areas are likely to be tempered by negative effects of increased precipitation variability and seasonal runoff shifts on water supply, water quality and flood risk.

Available research suggests a significant future increase in heavy rainfall events in many regions, including some in which the mean rainfall is projected to decrease. The resulting increased flood risk poses challenges to society, physical infrastructure and water quality. It is likely that up to 20% of the world population will live in areas where river flood potential could increase by the 2080s. Increases in the frequency and severity of floods and droughts are projected to adversely affect sustainable development. Increased temperatures will further affect the physical, chemical and biological properties of freshwater lakes and rivers, with predominantly adverse impacts on
many individual freshwater species, community composition and water quality. In coastal areas, sea level rise will exacerbate water resource constraints due to increased salinisation of groundwater supplies.

March 14, 2008

[Desperation] A Case for Withdrawal

Recently, a government-mandated commission led by John Manley was asked to prepare a report on Canada's role in Afghanistan and proposals for Canada's future role there. Canada has now effectively been engaged in a war there for six years, and the Manley report has called for an extension of Canada's mission until 2011 (provided NATO kicks in more support for the mission).

As a result, a vote was passed in the House of Commons, in which the Conservatives and the Liberals colluded to extend the mission in Afghanistan, despite the fact that the WAR VIOLATES INTERNATIONAL LAW - as carefully explained by Linda McQuaig in Holding the Bully's Coat.

This war is a travesty, and we Canadians are responsible. We have the death of our own soldiers and 40,000 Afghans on our hands. Since the Canadian mission in Canada plays a huge relief role for the American military, we are implicitly contributing to the Iraq war as well.

The whole idea of our commitment to "international development" there is a total farce. Further, the war is simply being lost, as the Taliban acquires more support against the NATO forces who are seen as foreign invaders.

We have to stop this. I've been meaning to write about Afghanistan, but it takes time to put all the important points together - so I'm still working on it. In the meantime, many others have done an excellent job, so I am posting two good articles on Afghanistan here, below.

I dare anyone to read through this and still claim that Canada has any legitimate purpose there! There's just nothing good about this war, nothing to be gained by it, and all of the arguments in favour of staying there are exposed as pure lies.

*************

WHY WE MUST MARCH AGAINST THE WAR THIS SATURDAY
by Joel Harden

"Courage, my friends, we can still make a better world"
The above quotation comes from Tommy Douglas, former CCF/NDP leader and
longtime peace activist.

It reminds us why we must march, rally, and educate ourselves about
Canada's mission impossible in Afghanistan.

It reminds us why this Saturday marks an important moment in stopping
this war, and truly helping the people of Afghanistan.

We need courage to challenge the bluster of Canada's warmongers, and the
politicians who support them.

Let's face it: Canada's war in Afghanistan is already over. This war
will end in 2009, but not due to any wisdom from the federal government.
It is already a failure and a majority of Canadians know it.

Western reconstruction operations in Afghanistan are a farce. Following
a time-honoured pattern, most of this money leaves in the briefcases of
foreign contractors.

As an aide to Hamid Karzai recently told a Quebec reporter, "the
international community has injected $19 billion into Afghanistan. About
95% of that leaves the country... non-governmental organizations employ
540 foreigners who earn from $5000 ton $35,000 per month. The last
elections cost $395 million. It was the foreigners who organized them,
and the kept the money for themselves."

The balance of "reconstruction" money goes to drug-running warlords who
call the shots in the current Afghan government. These thugs – many of
whom terrorized Afghans in the early 1990s – build mansions for
themselves and their friends, and get NATO to guard their compounds.

Poverty in Afghanistan is at record levels. As foreign contractors
clinked beers in Kabul, a thousand people froze to death this winter.

A million pounds in bombs were dropped on Afghanistan in 2007, and
40,000 Afghans have died since 2001. Not surprisingly, Afghan resistance
to the occupation is growing. Hamid Karzai, in reality, is the Mayor of
East Kabul. No doctored poll by U.S.-government funded agencies can
honestly say otherwise.

Still, after yesterday's vote on the Afghan mission, Stephen Harper will
likely crow about "staying the course." He'll go to NATO with a fistful
of political nerve, claiming widespread support for Canada's so-called
"war on terror."

No doubt, some will throw up their hands and insist that protest doesn't
matter. Polls indicate 61 percent of Canadians are opposed to extending
Canada's war in Afghanistan, but that wasn't reflected in yesterday's
House of Commons vote.

But a funny thing happened yesterday in Harper's pre-fabricated
democracy. Regular people, like you and me, showed up to serve notice
that we will stop this war. We demonstrated that an ounce of bottom-up
activism can challenge the mightiest of bullies.

The Commons galleries erupted in anti-war chanting. Soon after the
Tories voted, "End it, don't extend it!" was heard throughout the
building. Our chanting could even be heard as we were shepherded into
the halls by security.

Dion and Harper were stunned. They didn't expect this intrusion of
democracy. They didn't think us plebes would storm into their "palace,"
and point out that the Emperor has no clothes.

My friends, this Emperor's been naked for years, and their "palace"
belongs to all of us. Let's get on with the task of telling others. This
Saturday, we'll rally, we'll march, and we'll educate ourselves. We'll
build the support and capacity needed for our message of peace.

As veterans from the Vietnam War will attest, peace activism is about
persistence, and appealing to the hearts and minds of Canadians.

Courage my friends: we can, and we will, stop this war.

See you on the streets tomorrow!

There are over 20 cities and towns holding anti-war rallies this weekend
as part of the World Against War days of action. rabbletv will be
bringing you coverage, include a live webcast of the Toronto rally,
right here at rabble.ca from 1:00p.m. to 6:00p.m. EST on Saturday, March
15.

Joel Harden is a member of the Ottawa Peace Assembly.

*********************


WE'RE THERE BECAUSE WE'RE THERE
by Rick Salutin

February 22, 2008
Here are some thoughts for the coming parliamentary debate on
Afghanistan. Consider it the unManley report.

Why are we there? Tom Axworthy, summing up the Manley panel's reasons
for Canada's military mission, says: "The Taliban's return would
threaten regional peace and security; the UN has sanctified the mission;
NATO is committed; and Canada should help failed states." Those are
sentences, not reasons. Here's panel member Derek Burney: "Canada is a
G8 member and, as such, is expected to engage internationally, serving
global organizations to which we belong in a manner befitting our
responsibility ..."

It's sheer pomposity: "sanctified," "befitting." Why are we there? We're
there because we're there. That's it. We went for various reasons. Now
the heavy hitters want us to stay. Because we're already there.

But won't NATO come apart if it doesn't pull this off? So what? Why
shouldn't NATO go back to the North Atlantic, where it's from, and be a
defence alliance, which it was? If that no longer makes sense, let it
disband. Why look for work in places like Kosovo and Afghanistan? What
about saving failed states? This is one of those phrases (like civil
society) that entered public discourse suddenly, and has made mischief
ever since.

All states fail to some degree. Why is it our task to grade this one and
get its marks up? If there's a specific problem, like incubating terror
cells, then take some useful half-measures. Pursue and isolate the
terrorists, cordon off the hot spots and don't think you can solve
everything. There's an arrogance in "nation-building," another dicey
phrase. Send the NATO forces home and let them nation-build there. Life
is mostly half-measures.

"Without security, there can be no development": Wrong, but I know it
sounds right. The problem is, security in this case means occupation by
foreign troops, which doesn't work well anywhere, especially
Afghanistan. First "we" invade and depose their government, which had at
least provided security. Then we impose a government that "invites" us
in (where we already are) and survives only with our support. Our
presence inspires resistance and recruitment to the Taliban or al-Qaeda,
which revive. (Al-Qaeda in Iraq didn't exist till the U.S. invasion; now
it exports to al-Qaeda in Afghanistan.) The more resistance, the more we
the occupiers have to fight, and opposition grows.

This week, bombs killed many civilians in the "Canadian" area. A
district leader said it was the worst day of his life: "What was secure
has now become insecure." This kind of security creates insecurity. Aid,
in turn, is stymied. A recent UN report says general indicators such as
human development and poverty have worsened since 2004.

What about helping women? Isn't that a good idea? Well, the situation
for women was astronomically better under the Soviet-backed government
in the 1980s before "our side" created the mujahedeen, who threw out the
Soviets, assailed women and were, in turn, ousted by the Taliban, who we
then defeated, installing warlords and clerics in their place. No
lasting developmental good has come from foreign occupation; people
there have learned this. They aren't irrational, they're observant.

Can anything be done? Possibly. But it would take a local political
peace, brokered by regional powers such as Pakistan, India and Iran —
not Lithuanians and Canadians. Then the well-meaning Canadians,
including the military, could do their good works, rather than inspire
rebellion.

Those dumb voters: Despite the Harper taunt that Canadians don't cut and
run, and the Manley plea not to shirk our noble international blah blah,
61 per cent still think our troops should leave. Why lecture them about
why they're wrong, instead of assuming they know what they want?
Stéphane Dion says nobody wants an election on Afghanistan. Count me
out. I'd love it.

Originally published in The Globe and Mail, Rick Salutin's column
"The best progressive ideas are those that include a strong enough dose
of provocation to make its supporters feel proud of being original, but
at the same time, altered so many adherents that the risk of being an
isolated exception is immediately averted by the noisy approval of a
triumphant crowd".