Sustainable by Nature

18 11 2010

Below is a copy of a short address I gave at the Building Sustainable Communities conference held by the Fresh Outlook Foundation here in Kelowna. Following the address there was a 6 minute slide presentation of my photography. I have included the video at the bottom of this post. I hope you enjoy it. Dont forget to use full screen mode and turn up the volume!

The American writer and activist Muriel Rukeyser wrote: “The universe is made of stories, not atoms.” While the physicists in the audience may not entirely agree with this statement, I think it rings true for at least how we perceive the world around us. That is to say, that the narrative of our society influences how we perceive our universe. The value that we place on our planet comes from stories created by us, and from the generations before us. So when we consider Sustainable Communities, it is these narratives that we need to review.

Because of my limited time, I ask to be forgiven for the broad and blunt generalizations I am about to make. These are that we live in a society whose stories are compelled by a model of economics that is outdated and broken. A model that measures prosperity only by the amount that we consume and does not consider what we destroy. A model that does not value anything it does not know how to measure in dollars.

You see, the stories from our European past tell us that this planet is an enormous ball of inexhaustible resources and that continual growth is good for everyone. These stories often ignore the very processes and resources that keep us alive. Things like the natural purification of water; the pollination of plants by insects; plant life that turns carbon dioxide into oxygen so we can breathe; the decomposition of wastes by insects and fungi; the list goes on.

These processes are referred to as Ecosystem Services—stuff nature does for us, for free. Of course, some have tried to put a dollar value on these services and an average figure is approximately $38 Trillion dollars annually. That is, if we had to manually pollinate the fruit trees, replenish the oxygen, break down our wastes, it would cost us $38 Trillion dollars every year. Clearly, this is not a viable option.

But knowing these things is not enough. History is filled with examples where information was available, but the dominant culture would not accept it. Galileo comes to mind. That is why cultural change, changing our narrative, is possibly as important as the science itself.

As a photographer and a student of geography, I realized there was a role I could play in re-telling the narrative. The slide show you are about to see documents some of the amazing things that nature does for us. But, as nature does so well, the intricacies are hidden in the simplicity of the scene. Some of the locations are exotic, like the glaciers of the Rocky Mountains; the Colorado River in the Grand Canyon; the coastal areas of the Olympic Peninsula and Long Beach. Visiting these places has always filled me with awe and wonder at their beauty, but now I add to that wonder the amazing things these landscapes do for us. Some of the locations are not so exotic; indeed, some of the images are from my own back yard. Thankfully, the gifts of nature surround us everywhere.

While I hope you enjoy the aesthetic beauty of the images, I want you to think about how these places make life possible. I have added some text to each image to help with this, but it is not the whole story. Please consider: “to keep these ecosystems intact, what can I do without?” And ask yourself “how does this fit into the narrative of my world?” I hope that these images will also renew in you a feeling of wonder for the amazing place that is planet Earth.

I would like to leave you with one last thought:    The planet is, by nature, sustainable.

Thank you.


Comments : 2 Comments »
Tags: , , , , , ,
Categories : Activism, Biodiversity, Climate Change, Consumption, Environment, GDP, geography, Habitat Destruction, kelowna, Mountains, okanagan, Philosophy, photography, Politics, Video

Evasive Conservatives and Gutless Liberals

28 05 2010

Canada’s Prime Minster Stephen Harper received a diplomatic shot across-the-bow from Mexico’s President Felipe Calderon regarding climate change. In the Globe and Mail article Mexico ‘cannot wait’ to follow US lead on climate change, Calderon is quoted as saying:

In Mexico, we cannot wait. We cannot wait for the developed countries to make a decision. . . Some of them, like the U.S., could take another eternity to decide on what they had decided since the Kyoto Protocol. . . We know that the quality of life, and the future, is at risk. And I mean the future of a great deal of humanity.

Harper, of course, continued to sit on the fence and deflect his lack of action to the US. But the reality is that, with Harper’s firm background in mainstream economics and climate change denial leanings, he is looking for any excuse to do nothing.

So what is the Canadian government doing to reduce climate change emissions and protect its environment? Currently, the “omnibus” bill C-9 is before parliament and it seeks to “reform” the Environmental Assessment Act. It actually seeks to reform all kinds of stuff, that is why it is called an omnibus bill. Governments hide all kinds of legislation in these bills and hopes no-one will look. There are a number of organizations that have issues with this reform and, as you can imagine, many of them are environmental groups. While searching the net for information on this part of the bill, I came across a nice summary on Globe-net.com. In their article Proposed amendments to the Canadian Environmental Assessment Act, they contrast the proposed changes to a recent Supreme Court of Canada ruling based on the current Canadian Environmental Assessment Act (CEAA). The case was between MiningWatch Canada and the Department of Fisheries and Oceans and the ruling was in favour of MiningWatch.  What Globe-Net highlights is that the CEAA reform in Bill C-9 serves to “fix” all of the aspect of the Acts where the Federal Government lost this case. Here is one of the proposed amendments:

15.1(1) Despite section 15, the Minister may, if the conditions that the Minister establishes are met, determine that the scope of the project in relation to which an environmental assessment is to be conducted is limited to one or more components of that project.

So, by being able to change the scope of the assessment, the ministry is free to pick only certain areas of the project and can then say that an environmental assessment was completed. In addition, if the project in question is a large energy project, the CEAA will no longer be responsible for the assessment. Guess who will be? Either the Canadian Nuclear Safety Commission or the National Energy Board, depending on who’s project it is. So much for independent oversight!

The first reading of this bill has already passed–143 to 120. Who voted yes? From the stats posted on Openparliment.ca, only the Conservatives. The Bloc all voted No. The NDP all voted No and three didn’t vote. It was the gutless Liberals that, through their fence sitting allowed this bill to pass. What I mean by fence sitting is that 42 Liberals voted No, and 35 DID NOT VOTE! Of course, we know the reasons that the Liberals did this. It is because “Canadians don’t want an election”. I am really sick of this response. The Liberals are letting a minority government push through legislation that the majority don’t want, but they don’t want to make a fuss about it. How Canadian, eh?

So, before this becomes too much of a rant, I’ll cover the climate change aspect of things.  The most recent bill before Parliament covering this topic was Bill C-311, the Climate Change Accountability Act. It was defeated in its 3rd reading 149 to 136. Every Conservative member voted against it. What are you going to do then?? Write to Michael Ignatieff and tell him to grow some cajones and tell him your thoughts on environmental protection and climate change. Follow up with letters to you local MP’s and Stephen Harper and tell them what you think.


Comments : Leave a Comment »

Categories : Activism, Climate Change, Environment, Politics

The obligatory Earth Day post

22 04 2010

Add to FacebookAdd to DiggAdd to Del.icio.usAdd to StumbleuponAdd to RedditAdd to BlinklistAdd to TwitterAdd to TechnoratiAdd to Yahoo BuzzAdd to Newsvine

Today is the 40th anniversary of Earth Day, a day designated to promote the awareness and appreciation of the Earth–our home and provider. Looking around the world it would be easy to think that Earth Day has not been entirely successful, as you will see later in this post. However, there are some reasons to be optimistic.

Good Stuff

I recently finished reading Paul Hawken’s book Blessed Unrest. The by-line gives a good indication as to what the book is about – “How the largest movement in the world came into being and why no one saw it coming“. The book discusses the rise of millions (yes, millions) of not-for-profit groups, worldwide, that have either an environmental or social justice focus. Hawken argues that this mass of uncoordinated and individual activism is a watershed of change for our society and represents a greater awakening. Hawken also makes the point that any environmental action can be linked to social justice. This is all good news!

Looking around my immediate world, I can readily see these connections. The fight against the Alberta Tar Sands is now focusing on the high cancer rate of indigenous people downstream of the mine and also the poisoning of wildlife. My own community is forming Permaculture and backyard farming groups as well as lobbying city council for the ability to keep chickens in urban areas.  On the web we see the organizations like the new Movement For Happiness and the New Economics Foundation. Each organization on their own may only make a small impact, if any at all; however, the growing number represents a grassroots movement of people that are disenchanted with the status quo and are willing to do something about it. Take a look at Wandari Maathai’s telling of the humming bird parable.

Bad Stuff

CBS News – Sweat Pants, Plastic, More Found in Dead Whale.

Biologists conducted an examination on the stomach of a  gray whale that had recently died in Puget Sound and found it contained a large amount of garbage. They noted that the garbage only consisted of 1-2% of the stomach contents, however, 1% of the 50 gallons in the whales stomach is still quite a lot!

In a news release, the research organization said the animal found on the beach Thursday had more than 50 gallons of material in its stomach. Most was algae – typical of the bottom-feeding whales – but “a surprising amount of human debris” also was found.  Besides the pants and golf ball, the trash included more than 20 plastic bags, small towels, surgical gloves, plastic pieces and duct tape.

Information is Beautiful – Planes or Volcano’s? What’s emitting the most CO2 per day?

This is a great graphic that a friend posted on his facebook page (thanks Curtis!). It gives a comparison between the amount of CO2 emitted by the daily air traffic over Europe, versus the CO2 coming out of Eyjafjallajoekull in Iceland. Now, by Information is Beautiful’s own admission, CO2 emissions from the volcano can be as high as 300,000 tons a day. However, this is still less than the European aviation industry.  So, this is one of these mixed blessing numbers. When we consider the international aviation industry, the amount of CO2 pumped into our atmosphere on a daily basis is enormous. Could you imagine the impact of volcano’s like this on erupting continuously all over the world?   Moreover, when you consider how much of our economic trade and food transportation is facilitated by aviation you begin to understand the changes that need to happen if we are really going to make a difference in the realm of CO2 emissions.

Planes vs. Volcanoes


Comments : Leave a Comment »

Categories : Activism, Climate Change, Habitat Destruction

FUD me baby!

19 04 2010

I came across two articles recently that discussed some issues surrounding climate change. They are interesting articles in their own right–perhaps for different reasons–but what really interested me were the comments posted about the articles.

The first is in the Daily Freeman, out of the US – Cost of climate change not just environmental, Bard expert says The article is based on a report from Center for Environmental Policy at Bard, in Annandale-on-Hudson, and discusses the economic impacts of climate change on agriculture. I want to add here that Wiki tells me that the Bard Center is one of the most left leaning institutes in the US, and I am not sure I would support the tone of the article 100%, however, check out some of the comments posted at the end:

This is nonsense, and the only purpose is to give centralized government more control over our lives and to reduce our liberties and freedoms. A reason for elitists to tell us how to live our lives. A reason for angry and unhappy people to pass that misery onto the rest of us. Or to line their pockets with our tax dollars.

One can be fairly certain that liberal atheists are controlling science. As if godless evolution were not enough of a fraud, a socialist president that wasn’t even born here, we have to suffer though the cries of global warming. . . . The rest of the world will probably just expect the US to save them all again. But of course they also want us to give up our nukes and probably totally disarm.

This is really frightening stuff!! I really wish this was all sarcasm, but I think the reality is that there are people out there that really think this way.

The Economist magazine, which possibly attracts people with a more moderate view, ran a number of articles on climate change in March. One of which was – Spin, Science, and Climate Change.  The purpose of the article is to discuss some of the skepticism around climate change and criticism of the associated science. Again, what I would like to discuss here are the comments that came in response to the article–372 comments in 15 days. People do feel strongly about this stuff, but what was the general tone of things? Here is a random smattering of comments:

I am deeply opposed to a more powerful central government, as the 20th century repeatedly showed us how that leads to loss of freedom, poor governance, and eventually disaster.

Time for the Economist to inform itself, water vapour is a major influence on climate change, carbon but a small one and the man made portion of that a marginal influence on climate change.

After years of batting the issue of climate change back and forth like a toy, journalists finally batted it too hard and broke it with coverage of “Climategate.” Thanks largely, and ironically, to journalism’s refusal to ever acknowledge the climate change “debate” as settled, it HAS been settled. Journalists’ inexcusable eagerness to swallow the manufactured scandal, served to them by the denial lobby, has firmly convinced too many people that climate change is a hoax.

It would be more interesting if the Economist pointed out what is known for certain. We know for certain that:

    -The climate change panel has willfully kept wrong information in its report.
    -That scientists have tried to manipulate the public
    -That scientists have tried to bar other scientist from accessing important data about global warming
    -That most (or all) of those responsible for wrongdoing are still active and have not been removed from their positions and have not been punished
    -That most of these facts have not been discovered by the media or by the Economist. That there is a lack of serious investigation into the matters.

Vikings grew grapes in Greenland — then called Vineland — a thousand years ago. Then something happened. It might have been the dust raised by horse-drawn wagons or perhaps the smoke from burning witches. Anyhow, it brought on an ice age and grapes don’t grow there anymore. Forgive me for thinking that, like the poor, climate change has always been with us.

What we see are: people who believe they hold the key fact to disproving climate change that all other scientists have missed, people who believe it is just a ploy to create larger government and tax us more, people who think there is a conspiracy to either deny climate change or to manufacture its existence.  Yep, it is all over the place.

I think there are a couple of points that need to be kept in mind.  Many people are opportunists–if there is an opportunity to exploit an event to their benefit, many will take it. So, if that exploitation is immoral–in the eyes of some–does that mean the event never happened? I think that is the position many people are taking. Its just a scam to create big government, its just a scam to sell green power, its just a scam to give more power to the greenie lefty commie bastards–and therefore climate change does not exist. It may be totally possible that some of those groups, being the opportunists that they are, are exploiting climate change to their own advantage, but does that mean it does not exist?

What was the point of all this? Well, just to illustrate some of the crazy ideas out there, and that a lot of this noise is what keeps people sitting on the fence. In my view it is a classic FUD tactic. FUD being Fear, Uncertainty and Doubt. As defined by Wiki “FUD is a tactic of rhetoric and fallacy used in sales, marketing, public relations, politics and propaganda. FUD is generally a strategic attempt to influence public perception by disseminating negative and dubious/false information designed to undermine the credibility of their beliefs.”

I’d say it is working pretty well.


Comments : Leave a Comment »

Categories : Climate Change, Spin

Transition Towns and the Thick Spin

13 04 2010

Good Stuff

More on transition towns.

The whole idea of transition towns has been interesting me for a while. It really is a grass-roots re-localization of food, commerce, and community. I watched the “In Transition” documentary at a recent film festival and now it is up on youtube in six parts. Well worth the time to watch it.

And, of course, out here in beautiful British Columbia, the folks on Salt Spring Island are embracing the whole idea.  Transition Town event puts some wheels on electric vehicles idea.

Bad Stuff

Climate Change

Recent research indicates some reasons behind the collapse of Ankgor Wat.  In What happened at Angkor Wat it is suggested that “Two major droughts, and some follow-up flooding, probably weakened the city’s agricultural base and left it vulnerable to disease and invasion.” If you have read Jared Diamond’s book Collapse, you will be familiar with the scenario.  Society grows, becomes dependent on agriculture and local technology, localized changes in weather patterns impact agriculture and the society can no longer deal with the consequences, which leads to collapse. The question I think many of us are asking is “what happens when this occurs on a global scale?”

Spin

Here’s an interesting article from The American Spectator – Lyin’ for Climate Indoctrination. The author is reporting on a presentation at a US high school by the “nonprofit Alliance for Climate Education (ACE), which spreads the global warming alarmism gospel to students one school assembly at a time” According to one of the students, the assembly was told things like “The presentation explained how climate change has been caused and continued by social influence and our culture of consumption. Students learned how their seemingly minimal consumption is connected to huge companies, large usage of fossil fuels, and incredible amounts of waste. Julian clearly summarized his message in his statement, “We’re all wrapped up in [an] economic cycle that just leads to garbage.” He also discussed “super-sized” American living, excessive use of non-renewable resources, and the results of pollution in an urgent, but humorous, manner.“ Hmm, does not seem that bad of a message to me really.  However, the Author, Paul Chesser, sees the ACE as a group of self-interested, leftist Nazis (!!!). Comments???

Sorry, but I just have to put this one in. Should it be under Spin or a new category like Blinkered ignorance and Self-interest? Let me know. Anyway, Frosty Woodbride’s rant entitled Deception, Racket Of Sierra Club And Other Environmental Clubs is amazing in a pretty sad kind of way. The bit that really picked up my attention was “Canada, much like the United States, finds itself being overrun by immigration—so much so—a transformation has robbed Canada of its linguistic and cultural identity. It’s no longer Canada, but, an uncomfortable polyglot of multiculturalism. At the same time, its delicate environment declines with each new stamp of a visa card from desperate immigrants fleeing degraded conditions from their home countries.” You are kidding me, right? Woodbridge seems to think that current immigration policy in the United States and Canada is responsible for environmental destruction and organizations like the Sierra club only help to hide this point. I wonder how the First Nation people feel about the fact we are being “robbed . . . of linguistic and cultural identity” because of multiculturalism?  Hmmm, I think us Europeans were the first illegal immigrants.

Habitat Destruction and Biodiversity

Conservation Magazine has an interesting update in their Journal Watch section – Valuable mangrove species are at risk of extinction. “A team assessed the state of 70 mangrove species and found that 11 of them were threatened, according to International Union for the Conservation of Nature (IUCN) criteria. Along Central America’s coasts, 40 percent of the area’s mangrove species are at risk of extinction, the researchers report in PLoS ONE. Losing these forests could mean trouble for fisheries and water quality, the authors say. And while some mangroves are being replanted, rare species could be harder to restore“

http://spectator.org/archives/2010/04/13/lyin-for-climate-indoctrinatio

Comments : 2 Comments »

Categories : Climate Change, Habitat Destruction, Spin, Transition Towns

« Previous Entries


Follow

Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.