We are at a crossroads. The future is not going to be like the past. Our economic model, which requires growth to occur through economic development, is not sustainable. Climate change is happening as a result of human industrial development. We are currently living in an age of Peak Oil, where less oil is now being produced each year than there has been in the past, since about 2005-06, despite demand generally tending to grow year by year. As demand outpaces supply, the price of oil will increase. Higher oil prices will affect everything we do, especially the way in which we grow, harvest, and transport our food.
Yet these crises are not the sort which have an immediate and acknowledged impact, such as an earthquake or a tsunami. Instead, the impacts of climate change are very gradual, sort of like the lobster in the pot of water, set to boil: the lobster feels ok, maybe there is some warmth, but by the time it’s apparent that something has to be done, it’s too late. The impacts of Peak Oil might be more like a roller-coaster ride: a sudden drop occurs (in the economy), and then things begin to level out, and then climb again (and it feels nice to climb), but then, there’s another sudden drop. Repeat.
It’s because impacts are not felt immediately that many deny the severity of the crises which face us. The media, which operates in a world of “crisis today / gone tomorrow”, has a hard time following and reporting stories about climate change and Peak Oil, because the cause and effects are sometimes difficult to explain, and because a slowly changing climate or rising oil prices don’t make for good copy.
Nevertheless, we are in the midst of these crises. The sooner we acknowledge the severity of the crises facing us, the sooner that we will be able to move forward with solutions. Yet, many of us continue to refuse to acknowledge that there’s anything wrong at all. How can we move forward in such circumstances?
As I’ve indicated before, the first step is to tune out those who deny that climate change is happening. They have nothing to contribute when it comes to looking for solutions. Indeed, many who deny the science of climate change do so for their own corporatists agendas: they have an acknowledged interest in the continued perpetuation of the status quo, often an economic interest. The fact is, though, the status quo can not continue, because of the nature of the crises which we face. One way or the other, the status quo that we have come to expect is gone forever. We are living in a time of transition. The only question is, on whose terms are we going to change? Our own terms, or are we going to let nature take its course and react to whatever is thrown at us? That’s the crossroads where we find ourselves.
If we are going to take matters into our own hands, and collectively decide our own fate, there are many things which we must do. To address the climate change crisis and Peak Oil, at the top of the list is the need to “decarbonize” our economy.
Some have suggested that the very nature of our capitalist economic system imperils our future, and our children’s future, as capitalism is predicated on the notion that growth must occur if the system is to remain viable. Some have advocated for the need to do away with this system altogether, and replace it with a system based on sustainability.
Well, that’s not going to happen, or at least not within the timeframe for which action needs to be taken. We’re not going to get rid of our current economic system, nor can we abandon the infrastructure which we have created to service the society of the past. The term “sunk costs” describes past investments made by our society, often in the context of infrastructure (although I believe that the term is equally applicable to our current economic system in general).
We’ve sunk a lot of costs in some pretty big infrastructure projects, and we’ve not always realized the value for dollars paid in doing so. For example, in Ontario, we’ve invested billions in nuclear reactors, and we continue to spend billions on repairs and upgrades. The only way to recoup these costs is to continue to use these reactors for energy generation. Although it may seem socially responsible to stop the use of nuclear power, the fact is we’ve put so much money into this form of energy, we can’t just simply flick the switch to “off” right now.
Instead, what we must do is stop investing in technology and infrastructure which will prove unhelpful, and indeed, wasteful, in the future in which we anticipate we’ll live. For example, the Conservative government is investing $300 million in untried carbon capture and storage technology. At best, should this technology prove to be workable, we can expect to see a 5% reduction in Canada’s greenhouse gas emissions (and then only starting in about 2017 or so). However, since one of the goals behind carbon capture and storage is to use stored CO2 to facilitate underground oil extraction in place of water, what we’ll end up doing is losing the very modest gains we have made to emissions reduction to…increase emissions. It’s this bizarre form of investment which gets us nowhere.
The fact is, if we are going to take the future into our own hands, we need to begin the process of decarbonising our economy. That must start by putting a price on carbon, but it certainly must not end there. As you can imagine, if an international cap and trade system was initiated, or a carbon tax was added to purchases (be they bulk fuel purchases for industries or just to the price of manufactured goods), we can expect to see prices on just about everything rise.
Rest assured that carbon dioxide is a pollutant, in that it is an unwanted by-product which has proven to be detrimental to our health, and the health of our climate. Yet, for too long, industries have been paying nothing for polluting our atmosphere. This has to change. But it must change responsibly. And by responsibly, I mean that it must change in a way which is affordable, and change must actually reduce emissions.
Canadians must be given the opportunity to make sound choices when it comes to purchasing everything, from food to houses. Right now, middle class Canadians see a considerable amount of their personal incomes lost to income taxes. Richer Canadians, who can afford to pay more in income taxes, do so, but only marginally so relative to income. The ultra rich, it seems, have numerous tax loopholes at their disposal, and we often hear about how they are not paying their fair share of tax.
I’d like to have more of my personal income left in my bank account so that I can choose how best to spend it. While prices on some goods and services may rise as a result of carbon pricing, I’ll be able to choose more easily where I target my own spending. Instead of buying two cars, perhaps one car will be enough, along with a transit pass. Instead of taking an airplane on a business trip, I will take the train or bus. Instead of cranking the air conditioning up in the summer time, I’ll sweat it out. Whatever the choices will be, they will be mine to make.
Now, not everyone will be in my position. The poorest amongst us will be the most vulnerable in this situation, along with those living on fixed incomes and those living in rural areas. For carbon pricing to be effective for all segments of our society, we will be able to figure out ways of levelling the playing field. Lately, some have suggested that it’s time to look at the idea of a guaranteed annual income, which would go a long way to assist with the transition to a decarbonized economy. There are actually lots of ways which governments can address this issue.
Over time, during the transition from carbon economy to a decarbonized economy, we can expect to see carbon prices go up, which will act as a disincentive for carbon use. We must also stop subsidizing the fossil fuel industry. Instead, we must invest smarter, so as to avoid those future “sunk costs”. We must invest in alternative energy, curbing urban sprawl, public transportation and rail infrastructure. We must stop building highways and roads (in anticipation of their being fewer cars on the road, due to high oil prices), and we must stop investing in expensive energy, such as nuclear power.
We must also leave in the ground most of the fossil fuels which are left in the world. For Canada, this means that we must stop investing in the tar sands. If the world were to continue to emit greenhouse gases produced by tar sands sources alone, we can certainly expect to blow through the 2 degrees Celsius threshold identified as being the upper limit of warming we can tolerate before triggering positive feedback loops (such as permafrost melting and the release of stored methane, which is a greenhouse gas 7 times as potent as carbon dioxide). Investments in off shore oil must also come to a close, as the risks of warming posed by extracting deep-water oil are also significant.
Let’s not kid ourselves here: decarbonising our economy is not going to happen overnight, nor is it going to be something easy to do. The sectors of the brown economy which will be impacted are numerous, and unfortunately they are the ones which we have sunk considerable costs in: the oil sector and the auto sector. Yet, if we don’t begin to turn things around, we can expect to reap the whirlwind of an economy ill-prepared for the future.
Green tech jobs are being created in Europe and China, while Canada and the USA fall behind. It doesn’t have to be this way, even with the considerable sunk costs we’ve experienced. By ending subsidies to the oil industry, investing smarter, returning people’s income to their own wallets, and by putting a price on carbon, we will begin to turn things around. It’s not going to be easy. First, we need to find the political will to make these choices. While a majority of Canadians want our government to take action to address climate change, our current government has instead chosen to be an obstruction. This can’t continue; if it does, we will put too much at risk, including our livelihoods.
If our Prime Minister believes that taking action to address climate change will cost millions of jobs (which he recently stated as a justification for having his hand-picked unelected Senators defeat Bill C-311 after parliament approved it), than he is misleading Canadians. Prepping our economy for the future which we can expect does not need to cost jobs; in fact, if we transition smoothly, we can expect to create jobs. The number of jobs which will be lost due to a changing climate and peak oil will be considerable if we continue to spend our tax dollars on projects which don’t make sense for the future we can expect.
Tuesday, December 7, 2010
Saturday, December 4, 2010
Facebook Wall Posts, Part VII
Who Stands on Guard for Democracy in Canada? Not the Conservatives, Liberals or NDP
Here we go again. The Conservatives, Liberals and NDP claim that they are champions of democracy, but the Globe & Mail is today reporting that all three parties are now in agreement that a bill to add federal seats in urban parts of Ontario, Alberta and B.C. to address under-representation will be scrapped. This week, over 120,000 voters in the urban Ontario riding of Vaughan were able to cast their ballots in a federal by-election; in the rural Manitoba riding of Dauphin-Swan River, only about 51,000 voters were eligible to participate. This is democratic inequality write large: if you live in Vaughan, your vote is worth less than half of a rural Manitobans. And it's like this across the country. The Cons, Liberals and NDP don't seem to care that urban voters are disadvantaged. They may say that they do. Indeed, I was hopeful that at least the Conservatives, who introduced (the admittedly imperfect) Bill C-12 in the first place, might actually take action to address this inequality. With this Bill now set to die without the support of any elected political party, it's clear that the mainstream parties don't really care that much about democracy.
-----
More "Degrees of Change" Embarrassment for Canada and Climate Prosperity Nonsense
Canadian Youth Delegate Maggie Knight is attending COP-16 in Mexico. She blogs about a disturbing trend regarding Canada's stance on limiting warming to 2 degrees celsius. The stance itself, while potentially problematic for many reasons, isn't what disturbs me today. It's the fact that the Canadian government appears to be using the completely discredited NRTEE "Degrees of Change" poster as a justification for its position. This is the same document which was used to launch Canada's "Climate Prosperity" program, which talks up the positive economic impacts for Canada in a warming world! Green Party Leader Elizabeth May referred to this poster, which is apparently also being distributed to school children across Canada, as being embarrassing, misleading and incredibly callous propaganda. May is absolutely right about this. I've blogged about this poster and the incredibly disgusting campaign underway through the Conservative government to convince Canadians that global warming will put money in our pockets. I'm very concerned that our government appears to be taking its own discredited propaganda seriously on the international stage. Thanks, Maggie, for keeping us informed about what's happening with the Canadian delegation in Cancun.
-----
Neo-Con Power Grab in Ontario Progressive Conservative Party Underway?
All is not well within the Ontario Progressive Conservative Party: Looks like ultra-right-wing neo-con Randy Hillier's friends in the Landowners Associations are trying to take over the PC's from within. If successful in implementing their agenda, Hillier and Co., are sure to make Mike Harris look like Mother Theresa. PC MPP Norm Sterling knows this. It was his riding which was recently under attack by these right-wing demagogues, who want to see land use controls and conservation authorities abolished. That Tim Hudak continues to allow the likes of Hillier and Bill Murdoch, MPP for Bruce-Grey-Owen Sound, participate in his caucus is very problematic for the PC's, and for the citizens of Ontario whose government Hudak desperately wants to lead as Premier. Can the PC's keep a lid on this rift? Maybe. But Hillier and Murdoch are mavericks who are not afraid of speaking, and acting out against their leaders. Keep an eye on this troubling trend.
-----
George Monbiot vs. Greenwasher Patrick Moore
A scathing and deserved indictment by George Monbiot of Canadian Patrick Moore. Moore has for too long been coasting on his past association with Greenpeace as a "leading environmentalist" and go-to guy for the mainstream media. Read Monbiot's article to find out how Moore has lately been employed by one of the worst environmental polluters in the world, Indonesia's Asian Pulp and Paper (APP), whose products are being dropped like hot potatoes by companies such as Staples over concerns about unethical practices. Moore's attempt to greenwash APP's business practices are very disturbing. And the media's apparent lack of interest in who is paying for Moore's services is equally disturbing. Despite this guy's past (and significant) participation in Greenpeace, he's long since joined the dark side.
Here we go again. The Conservatives, Liberals and NDP claim that they are champions of democracy, but the Globe & Mail is today reporting that all three parties are now in agreement that a bill to add federal seats in urban parts of Ontario, Alberta and B.C. to address under-representation will be scrapped. This week, over 120,000 voters in the urban Ontario riding of Vaughan were able to cast their ballots in a federal by-election; in the rural Manitoba riding of Dauphin-Swan River, only about 51,000 voters were eligible to participate. This is democratic inequality write large: if you live in Vaughan, your vote is worth less than half of a rural Manitobans. And it's like this across the country. The Cons, Liberals and NDP don't seem to care that urban voters are disadvantaged. They may say that they do. Indeed, I was hopeful that at least the Conservatives, who introduced (the admittedly imperfect) Bill C-12 in the first place, might actually take action to address this inequality. With this Bill now set to die without the support of any elected political party, it's clear that the mainstream parties don't really care that much about democracy.
-----
More "Degrees of Change" Embarrassment for Canada and Climate Prosperity Nonsense
Canadian Youth Delegate Maggie Knight is attending COP-16 in Mexico. She blogs about a disturbing trend regarding Canada's stance on limiting warming to 2 degrees celsius. The stance itself, while potentially problematic for many reasons, isn't what disturbs me today. It's the fact that the Canadian government appears to be using the completely discredited NRTEE "Degrees of Change" poster as a justification for its position. This is the same document which was used to launch Canada's "Climate Prosperity" program, which talks up the positive economic impacts for Canada in a warming world! Green Party Leader Elizabeth May referred to this poster, which is apparently also being distributed to school children across Canada, as being embarrassing, misleading and incredibly callous propaganda. May is absolutely right about this. I've blogged about this poster and the incredibly disgusting campaign underway through the Conservative government to convince Canadians that global warming will put money in our pockets. I'm very concerned that our government appears to be taking its own discredited propaganda seriously on the international stage. Thanks, Maggie, for keeping us informed about what's happening with the Canadian delegation in Cancun.
-----
Neo-Con Power Grab in Ontario Progressive Conservative Party Underway?
All is not well within the Ontario Progressive Conservative Party: Looks like ultra-right-wing neo-con Randy Hillier's friends in the Landowners Associations are trying to take over the PC's from within. If successful in implementing their agenda, Hillier and Co., are sure to make Mike Harris look like Mother Theresa. PC MPP Norm Sterling knows this. It was his riding which was recently under attack by these right-wing demagogues, who want to see land use controls and conservation authorities abolished. That Tim Hudak continues to allow the likes of Hillier and Bill Murdoch, MPP for Bruce-Grey-Owen Sound, participate in his caucus is very problematic for the PC's, and for the citizens of Ontario whose government Hudak desperately wants to lead as Premier. Can the PC's keep a lid on this rift? Maybe. But Hillier and Murdoch are mavericks who are not afraid of speaking, and acting out against their leaders. Keep an eye on this troubling trend.
-----
George Monbiot vs. Greenwasher Patrick Moore
A scathing and deserved indictment by George Monbiot of Canadian Patrick Moore. Moore has for too long been coasting on his past association with Greenpeace as a "leading environmentalist" and go-to guy for the mainstream media. Read Monbiot's article to find out how Moore has lately been employed by one of the worst environmental polluters in the world, Indonesia's Asian Pulp and Paper (APP), whose products are being dropped like hot potatoes by companies such as Staples over concerns about unethical practices. Moore's attempt to greenwash APP's business practices are very disturbing. And the media's apparent lack of interest in who is paying for Moore's services is equally disturbing. Despite this guy's past (and significant) participation in Greenpeace, he's long since joined the dark side.
Friday, December 3, 2010
TV Ontario's Big Ideas: James Hansen and Climate Change, this Saturday and Sunday at 5pm
This email from TV Ontario was forwarded to me from my friend Lilly Noble, who asked me to post it to Facebook. Not knowing how to do so, given the size of the text, and not wanting to fiddle around with Facebook Notes, I thought maybe I would cut and paste it into my blog, and link it to Facebook. Maybe it might even reach a wider audience.
I know I'm going to try to tune in to TVO's coverage this weekend!
-----
From: "TVOntario's Big Ideas"
Date: 3 December, 2010 6:15:40 PM
Hello,
This weekend’s BIG IDEAS broadcasts are devoted to one side in the debate on climate change. The reason why there is only one side represented has to do with the highly ideological nature of the debate. Science for Peace and The Centre for Global Change Science which organized the event invited participants who hold the view that when it comes to climate change there is only one side. And that those who deny the dire state of global warming are morally if not criminally responsible for a future that is going to threaten the health of “our grandchildren”
The main speaker at the event was James Hansen one of the best known climate scientists in the world and the author of “Storms of My Grandchildren”. His talk on Human-Made Climate Change: A Moral, Political, and Legal Issue will be aired tomorrow, Saturday, Dec 4th
On Sunday, December 5th James Hansen will be joined by Naomi Klein, the author of The Shock Doctrine; The Rise of Disaster Capitalism and Clayton Thomas Muller, an activist with the Indigenous Environmental Network to engage in a conversation about the political and legal ramification of the struggle to curb man-made global warming.
Perhaps in preparation for the two broadcasts, you might want take a look at a series of programs about climate change debate which aired last season on The Agenda with Steve Paikin http://bit.ly/gtckuB
BIG IDEAS airs on TVO every Saturday and Sunday at 5:00 pm. To download our podcast, please go to our website at www.tvo.org/bigideas.
If you miss the weekend broadcasts, you can also watch or listen to BIG IDEAS podcasts via iTunes. Here is a handy link http://bit.ly/9fcG3C .
Don’t hesitate to share this e-mail with friends who might share your enjoyment of great lectures.
Enjoy,
Wodek Szemberg ProducerBIG IDEAS Best Lecturer CompetitionFlying SoloThe Agenda with Steve PaikinP: 416-484-2751 E: wszemberg@tvo.org
I know I'm going to try to tune in to TVO's coverage this weekend!
-----
From: "TVOntario's Big Ideas"
Date: 3 December, 2010 6:15:40 PM
Hello,
This weekend’s BIG IDEAS broadcasts are devoted to one side in the debate on climate change. The reason why there is only one side represented has to do with the highly ideological nature of the debate. Science for Peace and The Centre for Global Change Science which organized the event invited participants who hold the view that when it comes to climate change there is only one side. And that those who deny the dire state of global warming are morally if not criminally responsible for a future that is going to threaten the health of “our grandchildren”
The main speaker at the event was James Hansen one of the best known climate scientists in the world and the author of “Storms of My Grandchildren”. His talk on Human-Made Climate Change: A Moral, Political, and Legal Issue will be aired tomorrow, Saturday, Dec 4th
On Sunday, December 5th James Hansen will be joined by Naomi Klein, the author of The Shock Doctrine; The Rise of Disaster Capitalism and Clayton Thomas Muller, an activist with the Indigenous Environmental Network to engage in a conversation about the political and legal ramification of the struggle to curb man-made global warming.
Perhaps in preparation for the two broadcasts, you might want take a look at a series of programs about climate change debate which aired last season on The Agenda with Steve Paikin http://bit.ly/gtckuB
BIG IDEAS airs on TVO every Saturday and Sunday at 5:00 pm. To download our podcast, please go to our website at www.tvo.org/bigideas.
If you miss the weekend broadcasts, you can also watch or listen to BIG IDEAS podcasts via iTunes. Here is a handy link http://bit.ly/9fcG3C .
Don’t hesitate to share this e-mail with friends who might share your enjoyment of great lectures.
Enjoy,
Wodek Szemberg ProducerBIG IDEAS Best Lecturer CompetitionFlying SoloThe Agenda with Steve PaikinP: 416-484-2751 E: wszemberg@tvo.org
Change is Upon Us, Part 3: Food Security
The bad news about the world’s population is that we are currently on track to reach 9 billion people by 2050. A rising population requires additional resources to service: more food, more water and more energy. Our resources are already very strained.
The good news is that globally, quality of life has been generally improving these past few decades. More people, especially women, are receiving an education, are better fed, and are participating more fully in the workforce, contributing to the economy. This has led directly to a declining birth rate; in the western world, birth rates are often already lower than population replacement levels, which means that the several decades out, we are likely to experience a decline in western populations. If current trends continue, our population is expected to peak between 2040 and 2070, and begin the process of levelling off.
The bad news is that current population trends may not be sustainable even in the near term. The so-called “Green Revolution” which relied on the use of fossil fuel inputs to manage and increase agricultural production, and which led to those quality of life improvements I referred to earlier, have also left global food security in a bit of a mess. The growth of global food production which we saw over the last half of the 20th century has proven to be unsustainable in the longer term, as growth which relies on the input of non-renewable resources must be. As the price of oil goes up, so does the price of food. The more expensive food is to produce, the fewer people who can afford it. As agricultural lands are lost due to drought, or because of displaced workers, the more expensive food becomes for everyone.
As a result, with a rising population, and rising food prices, the current trend towards a population of 9 billion by mid-century is likely not going to be met. Those two big-ticket issues I wrote about in previous blogs, climate change and peak oil, are going to significantly impact our food security. As a result, we can expect global food shortages to occur in the near future, unless we begin to recognize and address the problems with industrial-scale agriculture which relies on massive inputs of fossil fuels for the growing, harvesting and distribution of food.
What am I saying here? Let me be blunt: I’m talking about the need to change our food production and distribution system or we risk starvation on a massive scale. Hungry people are a threat to international security. If people do not get enough to eat, there is a significant likelihood that they will take matters into their own hands.
In Canada, it might appear that we are relatively insulated from the coming food shortages, as we have an incredible amount of agricultural land, and not that many mouths to feed. Further, even slight warming in global temperatures may create positive situations for agricultural opportunities, as the range of crops might be extended further north. And, since Canada has a good supply of oil, perhaps it makes sense to expect that we’ll weather the agricultural storm better than other parts of the world will.
Canada, however, can not be looked at in isolation. We are connected to global markets through economic forces and agreements, such as NAFTA. The health of our economy relies on exports. Should international markets for our products begin to dry up due to economic collapse, you can bet that Canada will not emerge unaffected.
The Green Revolution, which initially increased crop yields worldwide significantly, has also left us vulnerable to a changing climate and the end of cheap oil. It’s time that we began weaning ourselves off of soil-depleting artificial fertilizers and mechanization. Crop yields can be sustained at current levels if we manage our agricultural lands in innovative ways. Agricultural experts already know how to do this, and even here in North America, farmers have proven that they can sustain current yield levels without significant inputs of oil.
We need to begin to think about agriculture as something different than an industry. Instead, we need to treat agriculture as a life-sustaining resource. In the future, if we choose to take action to ensure our long term food security, agriculture is going to have become much less reliant on fossil fuels and more reliant on labour and human interventions. There will be more farmers, and the farming profession will be a more respected calling than it is today.
Our food must also travel less before it reaches our plates. The cost of moving food around the globe is only going to increase. Strategies which promote eating local are already being implemented around the world. To be even more successful, these strategies may require more significant supports.
Canadians will also need to start eating less meat, as animals bred for meat production in our industrialized agricultural sector are contributors to climate change and oil depletion in a number of ways, including through the consumption of grains. While we can not expect meat to disappear from our diets altogether, we can expect to consume less of it in the future.
Without intervention in our agricultural system, and in our food distribution system, we can expect to suffer the negative consequences of our inaction.
The good news is that we know what we need to do to continue putting food on our plates in the future. The bad news is that we’ve yet to find the political will to begin making the changes to our agricultural sector which we must make. The price for inaction will be high if we continue along the path set out by the so-called Green Revolution. Like the economy in general, which has relied historically on cheap oil for growth, so too has our agricultural sector. This reliance on oil has made both our economy and agricultural sector unsustainable.
The good news is that globally, quality of life has been generally improving these past few decades. More people, especially women, are receiving an education, are better fed, and are participating more fully in the workforce, contributing to the economy. This has led directly to a declining birth rate; in the western world, birth rates are often already lower than population replacement levels, which means that the several decades out, we are likely to experience a decline in western populations. If current trends continue, our population is expected to peak between 2040 and 2070, and begin the process of levelling off.
The bad news is that current population trends may not be sustainable even in the near term. The so-called “Green Revolution” which relied on the use of fossil fuel inputs to manage and increase agricultural production, and which led to those quality of life improvements I referred to earlier, have also left global food security in a bit of a mess. The growth of global food production which we saw over the last half of the 20th century has proven to be unsustainable in the longer term, as growth which relies on the input of non-renewable resources must be. As the price of oil goes up, so does the price of food. The more expensive food is to produce, the fewer people who can afford it. As agricultural lands are lost due to drought, or because of displaced workers, the more expensive food becomes for everyone.
As a result, with a rising population, and rising food prices, the current trend towards a population of 9 billion by mid-century is likely not going to be met. Those two big-ticket issues I wrote about in previous blogs, climate change and peak oil, are going to significantly impact our food security. As a result, we can expect global food shortages to occur in the near future, unless we begin to recognize and address the problems with industrial-scale agriculture which relies on massive inputs of fossil fuels for the growing, harvesting and distribution of food.
What am I saying here? Let me be blunt: I’m talking about the need to change our food production and distribution system or we risk starvation on a massive scale. Hungry people are a threat to international security. If people do not get enough to eat, there is a significant likelihood that they will take matters into their own hands.
In Canada, it might appear that we are relatively insulated from the coming food shortages, as we have an incredible amount of agricultural land, and not that many mouths to feed. Further, even slight warming in global temperatures may create positive situations for agricultural opportunities, as the range of crops might be extended further north. And, since Canada has a good supply of oil, perhaps it makes sense to expect that we’ll weather the agricultural storm better than other parts of the world will.
Canada, however, can not be looked at in isolation. We are connected to global markets through economic forces and agreements, such as NAFTA. The health of our economy relies on exports. Should international markets for our products begin to dry up due to economic collapse, you can bet that Canada will not emerge unaffected.
The Green Revolution, which initially increased crop yields worldwide significantly, has also left us vulnerable to a changing climate and the end of cheap oil. It’s time that we began weaning ourselves off of soil-depleting artificial fertilizers and mechanization. Crop yields can be sustained at current levels if we manage our agricultural lands in innovative ways. Agricultural experts already know how to do this, and even here in North America, farmers have proven that they can sustain current yield levels without significant inputs of oil.
We need to begin to think about agriculture as something different than an industry. Instead, we need to treat agriculture as a life-sustaining resource. In the future, if we choose to take action to ensure our long term food security, agriculture is going to have become much less reliant on fossil fuels and more reliant on labour and human interventions. There will be more farmers, and the farming profession will be a more respected calling than it is today.
Our food must also travel less before it reaches our plates. The cost of moving food around the globe is only going to increase. Strategies which promote eating local are already being implemented around the world. To be even more successful, these strategies may require more significant supports.
Canadians will also need to start eating less meat, as animals bred for meat production in our industrialized agricultural sector are contributors to climate change and oil depletion in a number of ways, including through the consumption of grains. While we can not expect meat to disappear from our diets altogether, we can expect to consume less of it in the future.
Without intervention in our agricultural system, and in our food distribution system, we can expect to suffer the negative consequences of our inaction.
The good news is that we know what we need to do to continue putting food on our plates in the future. The bad news is that we’ve yet to find the political will to begin making the changes to our agricultural sector which we must make. The price for inaction will be high if we continue along the path set out by the so-called Green Revolution. Like the economy in general, which has relied historically on cheap oil for growth, so too has our agricultural sector. This reliance on oil has made both our economy and agricultural sector unsustainable.
Thursday, December 2, 2010
Change is Upon Us, Part 2: Peak Oil
Peak Oil. You may have heard of this term before, as it’s been slowly creeping into mainstream consciousness over the past 10 years or so. The concept, although not difficult to understand, is still often poorly understood, often due to it being misrepresented by those who have a continuing vested interest in denying that peak oil is happening.
At the top of that list used to be the IEA (International Energy Agency), which is an international body established by the OECD (Organization for Economic Co-Operation and Development), which is itself an international body comprised of member nations “committed to democracy and the market economy”. If you think of the OECD as a group of like-minded bankers, firmly committed to the status quo, you won’t be far off. The point is that both the OECD and the IEA do not operate under the United Nations; they exist for the benefit of member nations, which tend to be those with strong economies and western democratic ideals.
Prior to just a few weeks ago, the IEA pretended to have never heard of the concept of Peak Oil. You see, every year the IEA publishes its World Energy Outlook report, which in part assesses proven reserves of oil, and looks ahead to what we can expect in the next several decades based on current information.
There has long been suggestions out there that the IEA has suppressed data, and has therefore tended to paint a much rosier picture of the world’s energy reserves than what actually exists. Some have suggested that they have done so under pressure from large nations, such as the United States, who have intervened out of fears that if the true picture began to emerge, there would be widespread concern amongst the populace. Whether this is true or not (or whether data is manipulated due to oil producing nations over-stating their proven reserves), the fact is that the IEA’s oil outlook has always been pretty optimistic.
As a result, you’ve probably heard the Big Oil Executives tell you through the media that the world isn’t running out of oil and that there’s nothing to worry about. Those that suggest otherwise are just fear-mongers, or are using “peak oil” to advance their own (often “socialist” or “environmentalist”) agendas. Either way, everything is fine, go to sleep and don’t worry about the future.
Well, a couple of weeks ago the IEA released its 2010 World Energy Outlook, and guess what? For the first time, the IEA started talking about Peak Oil. Not only did the IEA acknowledge that there is such a thing as Peak Oil, they went further and said, “Guess what? We’ve already passed the peak, back in 2005 or 2006.”
The Big Oil Execs are right about one thing, though: the world isn’t running out of oil. Every time they trot that argument out in an attempt to deny the existence of peak oil, you need to understand that their argument is irrelevant. The world isn’t running out of oil. What we are running out of is cheap oil.
Think of oil this way: when we first started extracting oil, about 100 years ago, for every barrel of oil used to power extraction, 17 barrels of new oil were produced. That was a 17:1 ratio. Today, the ration has fallen to something closer to 6:1. Why has this happened? It’s because we’ve already exploited all of the easily accessible oil, and we’re now having to spend more money (and energy) on extracting oil in places which are harder to get to, such as on continental shelves or in deep waters like the Gulf of Mexico.
We’re also increasing supplies from unconventional sources, such as the Alberta Tar Sands, where the ratio of return is estimated at being closer to 3:1.
So, there is still a lot of oil left in the ground, but unfortunately it’s the stuff which is harder to get to. However, since demand for oil remains strong, and is in fact increasing significantly year by year, we have little choice but to turn to more expensive sources.
Demand for more oil will continue to drive extraction. For our market economy to function, it must continue to grow. Unfortunately for us, what powers are market economy are fossil fuels, especially oil. Fossil fuels are non-renewable resources, which means that they can be depleted. As depletion occurs, the resource becomes more scarce, and the price trends upwards. Those who can continue to pay the higher price do so, and continue to prosper, albeit at smaller profit margins. Those who can’t afford to pay the price lose out, go out of business, and stop doing whatever it was they were doing, such as producing a particular product and employing a certain number of people to make it.
So think about that for a moment. Our whole economy is structured on the notion that growth must occur. That’s why economists and politicians like to talk about economic growth as being necessary, and “negative growth” as being a threat. However, what is fuelling our economic growth is something which is getting increasingly expensive to produce. Looks like we’re in for a bit of a rough ride as everything will get more expensive, right?
Well, actually, it could get worse than that. You may have learned in Economics 101 that if demand goes up, so do prices, but usually this is only temporary, as more supply will eventually arrive on the market to meet demand. Sometimes this referred to as the Law of Supply and Demand, as if it were some high and might scientific principle applicable to all market situations.
Unfortunately, what Peak Oil is all about is confounding the “Law” of Supply and Demand. While demand for oil will continue to increase, the world’s ability to supply oil to meet demands isn’t going to happen, because we will produce less oil, due to the increasing costs associated with unconventional sources. Even today, in 2010, the world is not producing as much oil as we did in 2005, which goes against the previous 100 year trend.
The impacts which Peak Oil are likely to have on our lives are uncertain, and there are many contradictory assessments which are out there. Clearly, though, there is going to come a time in the near future when those who can afford higher prices are going to be separated from those who can’t afford them, and this is going to be a game changer.
On the surface, the concept of Peak Oil has little to do with climate change. Certainly, a changing climate has nothing to do with how little oil we have left in the ground after extraction. However, the overlap between climate change and peak oil occur when we go looking for solutions.
Burning oil contributes to climate change. Burning oil will become more expensive in the coming years. What we need to find is a new source of energy which won’t contribute to climate change, and which can ultimately begin to replace oil. The process of doing this is sometimes referred to as “Decarbonizing” our economy. It sounds like it might not be so hard to do, as we are already aware of many alternative, renewable sources of energy. The reality is, it’s going to be the biggest undertaking in the history of humanity.
The first step forward to address peak oil and climate change will be to begin having conversations at all levels about what we can do, as individuals, business owners, corporations and governments. We must acknowledge that the problems exist, and tune out those who deny these realities, identifying them for the obstructions to progress that they are. This won’t be easy, as international corporate elites have a lot of money invested in our current market economy, and they have shown time and again that they won't let facts get in the way of their agenda.
Peak oil and climate change are two issues we need to start figuring out solutions for. The solutions are out there, but they are going to be transformative for us should we implement them. If we don't implement solutions of our own choosing, well, other solutions will be imposed on us, because change is happening. Tomorrow will not be the same as today, that's clear.
At the top of that list used to be the IEA (International Energy Agency), which is an international body established by the OECD (Organization for Economic Co-Operation and Development), which is itself an international body comprised of member nations “committed to democracy and the market economy”. If you think of the OECD as a group of like-minded bankers, firmly committed to the status quo, you won’t be far off. The point is that both the OECD and the IEA do not operate under the United Nations; they exist for the benefit of member nations, which tend to be those with strong economies and western democratic ideals.
Prior to just a few weeks ago, the IEA pretended to have never heard of the concept of Peak Oil. You see, every year the IEA publishes its World Energy Outlook report, which in part assesses proven reserves of oil, and looks ahead to what we can expect in the next several decades based on current information.
There has long been suggestions out there that the IEA has suppressed data, and has therefore tended to paint a much rosier picture of the world’s energy reserves than what actually exists. Some have suggested that they have done so under pressure from large nations, such as the United States, who have intervened out of fears that if the true picture began to emerge, there would be widespread concern amongst the populace. Whether this is true or not (or whether data is manipulated due to oil producing nations over-stating their proven reserves), the fact is that the IEA’s oil outlook has always been pretty optimistic.
As a result, you’ve probably heard the Big Oil Executives tell you through the media that the world isn’t running out of oil and that there’s nothing to worry about. Those that suggest otherwise are just fear-mongers, or are using “peak oil” to advance their own (often “socialist” or “environmentalist”) agendas. Either way, everything is fine, go to sleep and don’t worry about the future.
Well, a couple of weeks ago the IEA released its 2010 World Energy Outlook, and guess what? For the first time, the IEA started talking about Peak Oil. Not only did the IEA acknowledge that there is such a thing as Peak Oil, they went further and said, “Guess what? We’ve already passed the peak, back in 2005 or 2006.”
The Big Oil Execs are right about one thing, though: the world isn’t running out of oil. Every time they trot that argument out in an attempt to deny the existence of peak oil, you need to understand that their argument is irrelevant. The world isn’t running out of oil. What we are running out of is cheap oil.
Think of oil this way: when we first started extracting oil, about 100 years ago, for every barrel of oil used to power extraction, 17 barrels of new oil were produced. That was a 17:1 ratio. Today, the ration has fallen to something closer to 6:1. Why has this happened? It’s because we’ve already exploited all of the easily accessible oil, and we’re now having to spend more money (and energy) on extracting oil in places which are harder to get to, such as on continental shelves or in deep waters like the Gulf of Mexico.
We’re also increasing supplies from unconventional sources, such as the Alberta Tar Sands, where the ratio of return is estimated at being closer to 3:1.
So, there is still a lot of oil left in the ground, but unfortunately it’s the stuff which is harder to get to. However, since demand for oil remains strong, and is in fact increasing significantly year by year, we have little choice but to turn to more expensive sources.
Demand for more oil will continue to drive extraction. For our market economy to function, it must continue to grow. Unfortunately for us, what powers are market economy are fossil fuels, especially oil. Fossil fuels are non-renewable resources, which means that they can be depleted. As depletion occurs, the resource becomes more scarce, and the price trends upwards. Those who can continue to pay the higher price do so, and continue to prosper, albeit at smaller profit margins. Those who can’t afford to pay the price lose out, go out of business, and stop doing whatever it was they were doing, such as producing a particular product and employing a certain number of people to make it.
So think about that for a moment. Our whole economy is structured on the notion that growth must occur. That’s why economists and politicians like to talk about economic growth as being necessary, and “negative growth” as being a threat. However, what is fuelling our economic growth is something which is getting increasingly expensive to produce. Looks like we’re in for a bit of a rough ride as everything will get more expensive, right?
Well, actually, it could get worse than that. You may have learned in Economics 101 that if demand goes up, so do prices, but usually this is only temporary, as more supply will eventually arrive on the market to meet demand. Sometimes this referred to as the Law of Supply and Demand, as if it were some high and might scientific principle applicable to all market situations.
Unfortunately, what Peak Oil is all about is confounding the “Law” of Supply and Demand. While demand for oil will continue to increase, the world’s ability to supply oil to meet demands isn’t going to happen, because we will produce less oil, due to the increasing costs associated with unconventional sources. Even today, in 2010, the world is not producing as much oil as we did in 2005, which goes against the previous 100 year trend.
The impacts which Peak Oil are likely to have on our lives are uncertain, and there are many contradictory assessments which are out there. Clearly, though, there is going to come a time in the near future when those who can afford higher prices are going to be separated from those who can’t afford them, and this is going to be a game changer.
On the surface, the concept of Peak Oil has little to do with climate change. Certainly, a changing climate has nothing to do with how little oil we have left in the ground after extraction. However, the overlap between climate change and peak oil occur when we go looking for solutions.
Burning oil contributes to climate change. Burning oil will become more expensive in the coming years. What we need to find is a new source of energy which won’t contribute to climate change, and which can ultimately begin to replace oil. The process of doing this is sometimes referred to as “Decarbonizing” our economy. It sounds like it might not be so hard to do, as we are already aware of many alternative, renewable sources of energy. The reality is, it’s going to be the biggest undertaking in the history of humanity.
The first step forward to address peak oil and climate change will be to begin having conversations at all levels about what we can do, as individuals, business owners, corporations and governments. We must acknowledge that the problems exist, and tune out those who deny these realities, identifying them for the obstructions to progress that they are. This won’t be easy, as international corporate elites have a lot of money invested in our current market economy, and they have shown time and again that they won't let facts get in the way of their agenda.
Peak oil and climate change are two issues we need to start figuring out solutions for. The solutions are out there, but they are going to be transformative for us should we implement them. If we don't implement solutions of our own choosing, well, other solutions will be imposed on us, because change is happening. Tomorrow will not be the same as today, that's clear.
Facebook Wall Posts, Part VI
What Does "Tough on Crime" Really Mean to Conservatives?
Tom Flanagan, the supremely-respected Conservative and former advisor to Prime Minister Stephen Harper, had some advice for President Barack Obama over the WikiLeaks information-release. Flanagan shared his thoughts with the media: Obama should consider the targetted assassination of Julian Assange, founder of WikiLeaks. Not an arrest. No trial. Even "good 'ol boy" right-wing nut-bars in the United States like Mike Huckabee are only calling for Assange's execution.
Is this the kind of "law and order" society that Conservatives want to create? Don't be dismissive here. Recently elected Member of Parliament for Vaughan, Julian Fantino (whom the pundits claim is headed straight for cabinet) is on record, questioning Canada's Charter of Rights and Freedoms. In his autobiography, Fantino asked, "Who has reaped the greatest benefit from the Charter of Rights and Freedoms? I would argue that, if it isn't the common criminals, then it must be the Hells Angels." Nevermind the protections the Charter has afforded to visible minorities, the disabled, women, religious organizations. For Conservative MP Fantino, the Charter is just another obstacle in the war on crime. Kind of like WikiLeaks.
What's really motivating the Conservatives "Tough on Crime" agenda? It's not because we're experiencing more crime in Canada, because statistics show that crime is actually trending downward. Those are the same statistics, however, which are also under attack by Conservatives, through denial of Freedom of Information requests, and through changes made to the way in which data will be collected. The Cons(ervatives) have always had a bit of a problem with crime stats, exemplified by recent remarks from Stockwell Day about the need for more prisons to house criminals from unreported crime.
It makes one wonder just who just all of those new, expensive, prisons are being built for?
-----
Julian Fantino's Charter Challenge
Here's a link to the Globe and Mail's story about Julian Fantino's attack on the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms, and Liberal Justin Trudeau's defense of the Charter, for those who don't believe that Conservatives like Fantino might actually have a little disrespect stored up for one of the highest laws of our land. Folks, keep in mind: if the Charter goes, so do your human rights. Sure, we lived without a Charter for a very long time in this country, and we relied on common law for our legal defenses. We still do. But Charter guarantees are very powerful legal guarantees of rights. If the Charter is torn up, because it is perceived to benefit criminals, or for whatever reason, how might the Courts interpret that action when it comes to human rights cases? Getting rid of the Charter would be a game-changer. Based on Fantino's remarks, it's pretty clear where he stands with regards to his support of the Charter.
-----
Middle Class Champions In Short Supply
Thomas Walkom at the Toronto Star: the already-shrinking middle class is shooting itself in the foot by demanding tax cuts and cuts to social services. Their demands benefit the very rich, and are detrimental to the aspirations of the middle class. If we continue to support Liberal and Conservative governments throughout Canada, we can expect to see the continued erosion of the middle class. To those Liberals who continue to believe that the current Liberal Party is the same as that under Lester Pearson or even Pierre Trudeau, open your eyes: your party has become the champion of Bay Street big business, and your policies have largely abandoned the middle class. Look no further to than to the massive tax cuts and service reductions and downloading of the Chretien-Martin years. Or the health care premium established by Dalton McGuinty. No matter how much Liberals want Canadians to believe that they are interested in the well-being of the middle class, their actions strongly suggest otherwise. The middle class needs to look elsehwere for a true political champion. That's why I joined the Green Party. It's time for the middle class to understand its plight, and to do something constructively to address it. Voting for either of the twin corporate parties, red or blue, isn't the answer. They will continue to screw us over.
-----
Stimulus Spending and Jobs: Value for Dollars?
Why do people continue to believe that Conservatives can manage the economy? They plunged the country into record-setting budget deficits to finance "stimulus spending" and tax cutting, ostensbly to turn the economy around and create jobs. Did things get better? Wrong question. When you spend that kind of money, things are going to get better. Better questions: did we get value for money? Did all that money deficit money we spent, which we and our children will be paying off for years and years to come, did we receive the quick hit benefits promised to us by Harper? Budgetary watchdog Kevin Page's report is out today. When it comes to delivering on job creation for the middle class, which was ostensibly the primary motivator behind this orgy of spending, Page says that the Conservatives failed to deliver. Yes, we've built a lot of nice things, many of which were actually needed in communities. But with unemployment still high, at what cost have we mortgaged our future?
Instead of building a Canada equipped to handle the very real problems of today, through using stimulus money to target investment in green energy and green collar jobs, we built highways (for a future where there will be fewer cars on the road, due to higher gasoline prices, a shrinking middle class, and poverty). We built hockey arenas and sports complexes for a decreasing number of families who can afford to enrol their kids in sports. We built new college and university buildings at a time when we can expect fewer educators and students to inhabit them. Yes, the Conservatives were very good at spending money on stuff, but when it comes to making investments in people, the price-tag around the so-called economic stimulus has been an abject failure.
-----
Green Party of Ontario Leader Mike Schreiner in Sudbury
Green Party of Ontario Leader (and my newest Facebook friend) Mike Schreiner visited Greater Sudbury this past weekend to consult on the Green Party's draft election platform. What politician does that? Imagine...sincerely asking people what they think about a party's platform before telling people what they should think. Mike is clearly a new kind of political leader
Tom Flanagan, the supremely-respected Conservative and former advisor to Prime Minister Stephen Harper, had some advice for President Barack Obama over the WikiLeaks information-release. Flanagan shared his thoughts with the media: Obama should consider the targetted assassination of Julian Assange, founder of WikiLeaks. Not an arrest. No trial. Even "good 'ol boy" right-wing nut-bars in the United States like Mike Huckabee are only calling for Assange's execution.
Is this the kind of "law and order" society that Conservatives want to create? Don't be dismissive here. Recently elected Member of Parliament for Vaughan, Julian Fantino (whom the pundits claim is headed straight for cabinet) is on record, questioning Canada's Charter of Rights and Freedoms. In his autobiography, Fantino asked, "Who has reaped the greatest benefit from the Charter of Rights and Freedoms? I would argue that, if it isn't the common criminals, then it must be the Hells Angels." Nevermind the protections the Charter has afforded to visible minorities, the disabled, women, religious organizations. For Conservative MP Fantino, the Charter is just another obstacle in the war on crime. Kind of like WikiLeaks.
What's really motivating the Conservatives "Tough on Crime" agenda? It's not because we're experiencing more crime in Canada, because statistics show that crime is actually trending downward. Those are the same statistics, however, which are also under attack by Conservatives, through denial of Freedom of Information requests, and through changes made to the way in which data will be collected. The Cons(ervatives) have always had a bit of a problem with crime stats, exemplified by recent remarks from Stockwell Day about the need for more prisons to house criminals from unreported crime.
It makes one wonder just who just all of those new, expensive, prisons are being built for?
-----
Julian Fantino's Charter Challenge
Here's a link to the Globe and Mail's story about Julian Fantino's attack on the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms, and Liberal Justin Trudeau's defense of the Charter, for those who don't believe that Conservatives like Fantino might actually have a little disrespect stored up for one of the highest laws of our land. Folks, keep in mind: if the Charter goes, so do your human rights. Sure, we lived without a Charter for a very long time in this country, and we relied on common law for our legal defenses. We still do. But Charter guarantees are very powerful legal guarantees of rights. If the Charter is torn up, because it is perceived to benefit criminals, or for whatever reason, how might the Courts interpret that action when it comes to human rights cases? Getting rid of the Charter would be a game-changer. Based on Fantino's remarks, it's pretty clear where he stands with regards to his support of the Charter.
-----
Middle Class Champions In Short Supply
Thomas Walkom at the Toronto Star: the already-shrinking middle class is shooting itself in the foot by demanding tax cuts and cuts to social services. Their demands benefit the very rich, and are detrimental to the aspirations of the middle class. If we continue to support Liberal and Conservative governments throughout Canada, we can expect to see the continued erosion of the middle class. To those Liberals who continue to believe that the current Liberal Party is the same as that under Lester Pearson or even Pierre Trudeau, open your eyes: your party has become the champion of Bay Street big business, and your policies have largely abandoned the middle class. Look no further to than to the massive tax cuts and service reductions and downloading of the Chretien-Martin years. Or the health care premium established by Dalton McGuinty. No matter how much Liberals want Canadians to believe that they are interested in the well-being of the middle class, their actions strongly suggest otherwise. The middle class needs to look elsehwere for a true political champion. That's why I joined the Green Party. It's time for the middle class to understand its plight, and to do something constructively to address it. Voting for either of the twin corporate parties, red or blue, isn't the answer. They will continue to screw us over.
-----
Stimulus Spending and Jobs: Value for Dollars?
Why do people continue to believe that Conservatives can manage the economy? They plunged the country into record-setting budget deficits to finance "stimulus spending" and tax cutting, ostensbly to turn the economy around and create jobs. Did things get better? Wrong question. When you spend that kind of money, things are going to get better. Better questions: did we get value for money? Did all that money deficit money we spent, which we and our children will be paying off for years and years to come, did we receive the quick hit benefits promised to us by Harper? Budgetary watchdog Kevin Page's report is out today. When it comes to delivering on job creation for the middle class, which was ostensibly the primary motivator behind this orgy of spending, Page says that the Conservatives failed to deliver. Yes, we've built a lot of nice things, many of which were actually needed in communities. But with unemployment still high, at what cost have we mortgaged our future?
Instead of building a Canada equipped to handle the very real problems of today, through using stimulus money to target investment in green energy and green collar jobs, we built highways (for a future where there will be fewer cars on the road, due to higher gasoline prices, a shrinking middle class, and poverty). We built hockey arenas and sports complexes for a decreasing number of families who can afford to enrol their kids in sports. We built new college and university buildings at a time when we can expect fewer educators and students to inhabit them. Yes, the Conservatives were very good at spending money on stuff, but when it comes to making investments in people, the price-tag around the so-called economic stimulus has been an abject failure.
-----
Green Party of Ontario Leader Mike Schreiner in Sudbury
Green Party of Ontario Leader (and my newest Facebook friend) Mike Schreiner visited Greater Sudbury this past weekend to consult on the Green Party's draft election platform. What politician does that? Imagine...sincerely asking people what they think about a party's platform before telling people what they should think. Mike is clearly a new kind of political leader
Wednesday, December 1, 2010
Change is Upon Us, Part 1: Living in a Time of Transition
Climate change is happening. We are warming the globe by burning the fossil fuels which power our industries. We are warming the globe by burning oil in our cars so that we can travel to our jobs, to the shopping malls, to the soccer fields and recreation centres. We are burning coal, natural gas and oil to heat our homes in the winter and to power our air conditioners in the summer. We are burning fossil fuels when we reach for that box of corn flakes or that head of lettuce at the supermarket, because fossil fuels were burned to fertilize the crops, and to power the farm machinery which harvested our food.
The buying and selling of consumer products created by our industries drive economic growth. Wealth is created for all: by the people who make the products; by those who buy and sell (through mark-up); by the shareholders who own the corporations which profit; and by the people and corporations which produce the energy needed to fuel the economy. The creation of wealth is not only deemed to be a desirable goal for individuals and businesses, it's an integral component to the continuing success of our economy. When wealth is created, so is demand; when the creation of wealth slows, so does the demand for products produced by our industries, which leads to economic reversal.
Without a doubt, our society has benefited significantly from the burning of fossil fuels. Our standard of living has never been higher, and our quality of life seems to be pretty good. Most of us are employed, and sure, we may be working a little harder to pay the bills which always seem to be going up, but in general, we're pretty happy. We live in a country where we don't often fear for our personal safety (or that of our family). In general, while there will always be something to complain about, it seems that things are relatively ok. When we look around the world at what's going on elsewhere, the idea that we have it pretty good in Canada is affirmed.
So what if our climate is changing as a result of our economic activities? Is that really such a big deal? Humanity has adapted before; we've stared down every other significant challenge we've faced, and we've figured out a way to come out on top. Why should Canadians be worried about climate change? Why should we heed the calls of those who would have us forgo the benefits we continue to derive from the burning of fossil fuels? Why should we change?
The answer, of course, is that we have to. We don't really have a choice in the matter. Change is upon us. We are going to be changing in so many ways over the next few decades, whether we want to or not. Rather than asking “Why change?”, a better question would be, “How best can we manage change?”
Oh, wait a moment. I may have barged a little too far ahead here. Please let me back up.
Change is upon us? What does that mean? Why am I being so insistent that change is going to happen, whether we want it to or not?
Throughout the next week or so, while the Green Party's Fred Twilley and Elizabeth May are attending the United Nations COP-16 climate change summit in Cancun, Mexico, I'm going to be exploring why I believe that there will be some very fundamental changes heading our way over the next decade or two. I'm going to back up my assertion that “change is upon us”, and begin to address the question of “How best can we manage change?”
The international community has come together for the next 10 days or so in Mexico to attempt to answer that question as well. Whether they will be able to make progress in doing so remains to be seen, but I believe that the international community has a very good understanding of the nature of the changes which we can expect to encounter as our years go by. Our national leaders may not be forthright in telling you about the sorts of changes that we can expect, but I believe that they nevertheless understand that we are living in a period of transition. They are already planning for the changes which they know are coming. Yet because they are not engaging the average citizen in discussions about how best to manage change, we run the risk of heading into a future where our concerns, issues and well-being is sidelined in favour of the rich, multi-national corporations which will benefit from decisions being made by our government today.
Why are we allowing this to happen? In some respects, it's because we don't really have a good understanding of what sorts of changes we can expect to occur in the next few years. We continue to believe that tomorrow is going to be a lot like today, and that our lives will go on as they seem to have always gone on. We are not expecting massive and fundamental changes, because we are not hearing about them. When the discussion of change works its way into the mainstream, it is often downplayed. Look at the way in which discussions about climate change are addressed in the media. For some, it would seem that there remains a debate as to whether our climate is actually being altered as a result of our industrial processes. And so time is lost on the real discussion which we should be having regarding what we're going to collectively do about climate change is put off for another day.
Global warming isn't the only threat to our society, however it is the most pernicious. Other threats, such as the end of cheap oil, poverty and homelessness, food and water shortages, terrorism and war, are going to be exacerbated by a changing climate. That's why taking real action to reduce our carbon emissions is so very important. However, taking action to reduce our emissions isn't going to be easy, given the path that we are on.
I joined the Green Party a number of years back because I was impressed that the Green Party had taken a close look at the real issues facing our well-being over the next few decades, and had developed comprehensive and connected solutions. Rather than looking at issues in silos, such as “the economy”, “health care”, and “the environment”, the Green Party acknowledges that issues are interconnected, and therefore so must be any viable solutions.
The other political parties in Canada still don't seem to understand this, in my opinion. That doesn't necessarily make their ideas or proposed solutions bad in all cases, but it does raise the question as to whether all consequences of their decisions and proposed decisions are being thought through. When you start at the point where you place issues into discrete boxes, and you develop solutions without considering other impacts, you're setting yourself up for unintended consequences. When you start from the point of connectivity, there's a better chance that holistic solutions can be developed.
The one problem with holistic decision-making, though, is being able to explain why a certain decision might be better. In many cases, a holistic decision might actually appear detrimental, until it can be explained appropriately and understood. Unfortunately, politicians work in a sound-byte world where only the thinnest of ideas have much hope of finding resonance with an increasingly distracted populace. For me, this reality partly explains the Green Party's lack of success at the ballot box. Greens have good ideas, but we have not been successful at explaining them.
In Part 2 of this series, I'll be looking at how the end of cheap energy is going to initiate change over the coming decades. In Part 3, I'll look at our food supply. In Part 4, I'll discuss how climate change, expensive energy and food shortages will lead to significant risks to our security, and how that is liable to change our democratic institutions and ultimately impact our lives.
Tomorrow will not be like today. We are entering a period of transition, from the oil age into something else. We still have an opportunity to influence where we take our future, but we've got to start talking about it, and taking action.
The buying and selling of consumer products created by our industries drive economic growth. Wealth is created for all: by the people who make the products; by those who buy and sell (through mark-up); by the shareholders who own the corporations which profit; and by the people and corporations which produce the energy needed to fuel the economy. The creation of wealth is not only deemed to be a desirable goal for individuals and businesses, it's an integral component to the continuing success of our economy. When wealth is created, so is demand; when the creation of wealth slows, so does the demand for products produced by our industries, which leads to economic reversal.
Without a doubt, our society has benefited significantly from the burning of fossil fuels. Our standard of living has never been higher, and our quality of life seems to be pretty good. Most of us are employed, and sure, we may be working a little harder to pay the bills which always seem to be going up, but in general, we're pretty happy. We live in a country where we don't often fear for our personal safety (or that of our family). In general, while there will always be something to complain about, it seems that things are relatively ok. When we look around the world at what's going on elsewhere, the idea that we have it pretty good in Canada is affirmed.
So what if our climate is changing as a result of our economic activities? Is that really such a big deal? Humanity has adapted before; we've stared down every other significant challenge we've faced, and we've figured out a way to come out on top. Why should Canadians be worried about climate change? Why should we heed the calls of those who would have us forgo the benefits we continue to derive from the burning of fossil fuels? Why should we change?
The answer, of course, is that we have to. We don't really have a choice in the matter. Change is upon us. We are going to be changing in so many ways over the next few decades, whether we want to or not. Rather than asking “Why change?”, a better question would be, “How best can we manage change?”
Oh, wait a moment. I may have barged a little too far ahead here. Please let me back up.
Change is upon us? What does that mean? Why am I being so insistent that change is going to happen, whether we want it to or not?
Throughout the next week or so, while the Green Party's Fred Twilley and Elizabeth May are attending the United Nations COP-16 climate change summit in Cancun, Mexico, I'm going to be exploring why I believe that there will be some very fundamental changes heading our way over the next decade or two. I'm going to back up my assertion that “change is upon us”, and begin to address the question of “How best can we manage change?”
The international community has come together for the next 10 days or so in Mexico to attempt to answer that question as well. Whether they will be able to make progress in doing so remains to be seen, but I believe that the international community has a very good understanding of the nature of the changes which we can expect to encounter as our years go by. Our national leaders may not be forthright in telling you about the sorts of changes that we can expect, but I believe that they nevertheless understand that we are living in a period of transition. They are already planning for the changes which they know are coming. Yet because they are not engaging the average citizen in discussions about how best to manage change, we run the risk of heading into a future where our concerns, issues and well-being is sidelined in favour of the rich, multi-national corporations which will benefit from decisions being made by our government today.
Why are we allowing this to happen? In some respects, it's because we don't really have a good understanding of what sorts of changes we can expect to occur in the next few years. We continue to believe that tomorrow is going to be a lot like today, and that our lives will go on as they seem to have always gone on. We are not expecting massive and fundamental changes, because we are not hearing about them. When the discussion of change works its way into the mainstream, it is often downplayed. Look at the way in which discussions about climate change are addressed in the media. For some, it would seem that there remains a debate as to whether our climate is actually being altered as a result of our industrial processes. And so time is lost on the real discussion which we should be having regarding what we're going to collectively do about climate change is put off for another day.
Global warming isn't the only threat to our society, however it is the most pernicious. Other threats, such as the end of cheap oil, poverty and homelessness, food and water shortages, terrorism and war, are going to be exacerbated by a changing climate. That's why taking real action to reduce our carbon emissions is so very important. However, taking action to reduce our emissions isn't going to be easy, given the path that we are on.
I joined the Green Party a number of years back because I was impressed that the Green Party had taken a close look at the real issues facing our well-being over the next few decades, and had developed comprehensive and connected solutions. Rather than looking at issues in silos, such as “the economy”, “health care”, and “the environment”, the Green Party acknowledges that issues are interconnected, and therefore so must be any viable solutions.
The other political parties in Canada still don't seem to understand this, in my opinion. That doesn't necessarily make their ideas or proposed solutions bad in all cases, but it does raise the question as to whether all consequences of their decisions and proposed decisions are being thought through. When you start at the point where you place issues into discrete boxes, and you develop solutions without considering other impacts, you're setting yourself up for unintended consequences. When you start from the point of connectivity, there's a better chance that holistic solutions can be developed.
The one problem with holistic decision-making, though, is being able to explain why a certain decision might be better. In many cases, a holistic decision might actually appear detrimental, until it can be explained appropriately and understood. Unfortunately, politicians work in a sound-byte world where only the thinnest of ideas have much hope of finding resonance with an increasingly distracted populace. For me, this reality partly explains the Green Party's lack of success at the ballot box. Greens have good ideas, but we have not been successful at explaining them.
In Part 2 of this series, I'll be looking at how the end of cheap energy is going to initiate change over the coming decades. In Part 3, I'll look at our food supply. In Part 4, I'll discuss how climate change, expensive energy and food shortages will lead to significant risks to our security, and how that is liable to change our democratic institutions and ultimately impact our lives.
Tomorrow will not be like today. We are entering a period of transition, from the oil age into something else. We still have an opportunity to influence where we take our future, but we've got to start talking about it, and taking action.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)