David Letterman On Fracking

This was most gratifying to see, although I was puzzled by the laughter that periodically erupted from the audience:

A Modest Proposal

Kyle Farmer takes issue with The Star's failure to 'connect the dots' between increasingly destructive weather and climate change:

At a global warming tipping point

What will it take before the Star commits to covering the unfolding crisis of environmental sustainability?

The Star dutifully reports on droughts and floods when they are topical. When they afflict a rich country the news is generally on the front page. When they afflict a poor country we tend to find this news in the World section.

What we don’t get is any credible, informed connecting-of-the-dots, which is that the global increase in droughts and floods is just one of the smoking guns of progressing climate change.

Will it take a certain number of species extinctions before the Star takes notice? Populations of wild pollinators have already diminished by as much as 90 per cent, threatening the global food supply. World-renowned Harvard biologist E.O. Wilson estimates that by the end of this century half of all life on Earth will be extinct.

Dr. Anton Vaks of Oxford has a recently published work suggesting that we are already committed to passing an irreversible global warming tipping point. As such, the actions we take today, right now, will determine the climate of the world we are leaving for our children. By the time they inherit the world we are creating, it might be entirely out of their hands to avert or even slow self-sustaining global warming.

We get daily sections reporting on sports and entertainment. Lately Star readers could be forgiven for thinking that Rob Ford and the Senate are the only news items available. Meanwhile, the world around us is dying.

History will remember us as criminals and fools. They will be amazed that we were too busy guessing the gender of Will and Kate’s baby to report on a looming global warming tipping point. They will be amazed that we followed Justin Bieber’s tweets more closely than rising atmospheric carbon levels. They will wonder how we could have been so selfish and stupid.

Kevin Farmer, Toronto

While I realize that no given hurricane, tornado, drought or flood can be attributed to global warming, here is a simple addition that all papers could make to their reporting that would permit concerned and aware readers everywhere to draw their own inferences:

Each time a destructive weather event takes place, it could be ranked in relation to other such storms occurring, say, within the previous three decades in terms of property damage, loss of life, and economic costs.

Climate change may still be a contentious proposition for some; statistics are far less so.

A perfect illustration of what I am proposing is found in today's Star here, here, and here.

Political Activism that Bears Fruit

Probably one of the biggest challenges politically aware and active people face is the fear that even after giving it their best, little, if anything, will change. The powers that be seem deaf to reason, the bureacractic wall seems impenetrable, and the proverbial light at the end of the tunnel appears to be ever-receding. The prospect of failure is ever-present and daunting.

The hard truth of the matter is that effecting change requires an indefatigable hope and energy that few of us possess. Nonetheless, sometimes victories occur, and when they do, I think we all need to take heart from them.

A story in this morning's Star, by Catherine Porter, is a story of one of those victories. The tenacity and methodology of the Toronto Environmental Alliance in bringing about a ban on cosmetic use of pesticides, a ban that later became the basis of a provincial ban, is well-worth reading about, no matter what level of politics you are most passionate about.

Can We, In Good Conscience, Allow This To Continue?

There are, without doubt, many justifications and rationalizations that people have for being willfully ignorant of the larger world around them: work pressures, home stresses, lack of time, lack of sleep, etc., etc. I will readily admit that one of the luxuries of retirement is the gift of time and the concomitant freedom to pursue issues and interests as fully as I care to. Yet even in my teaching days, which made relentless demands on my time, I always carved out a bloc during which I read the paper and followed the news. For me, ignorance has never been an option.

It is probably the main reason that I am intolerant of those who bury their heads in the metaphorical sands which, not to be too clever, in the topic of this post. As reported by the CBC, Canada has very quietly, some would say secretly, withdrawn from a United Nations convention that fights droughts in Africa and elsewhere. Known as the United Nations Convention to Combat Desertification, in those Countries Experiencing Severe Drought and/or Desertification, particularly in Africa, its goal, as explained in Wikipedia, is to combat desertification and mitigate the effects of drought through national action programs that incorporate long-term strategies supported by international cooperation and partnership arrangements.

All members of the United Nations are currently a part of the convention, and Canada, increasingly the renegade outlier in so many international pacts, is the first and only member to withdraw from it. The stated reason? This terse response from the government is supposed to explain it:

International Co-operation Minister Julian Fantino said in an emailed statement that "membership in this convention was costly for Canadians and showed few results, if any for the environment."

For those interested, the oppressive costs that have been such a 'burden' to Canadian taxpayers amount to a $283,000 grant to support the convention from 2010 to 2012.

Part of the reason it is so important to keep apprised of developments in the larger world is the fact that knowledge facilitates the detection of patterns. This latest affront to environmental concerns by the Harper regime is not, of course, an isolated one, but part of a much larger pattern that includes withdrawal from the Kyoto Accord, the muzzling of scientists, and the dismantling of environmental oversight through Omnibus Bill C-38.

I suppose that the question each of us ultimately has to ask and answer is this one: Do we live only for ourselves, or do we have greater obligations, not just to our children and grandchildren, but also to the much larger world around us?

Tim Speaketh Again

The only trouble is, everytime he does, he affirms his incompetence. Yes, young Tim Hudak, the leader of the Ontario Progressive Conservative Party, has weighed in on yet another 'obstruction' that he believes can be remediated through his simplistic prism. This time it is that pesky perennial problem of those darned endangered species, or more specifically, [g]overnment regulations protecting endangered species [which] are throttling business:

In a speech Tuesday to the Rural Ontario Municipalities’ Association (ROMA) conference at the Fairmont Royal York Hotel, ... Hudak told 700 rural municipal politicians he would slash “the more than 300,000 regulations, outdated rules, and runaround that you have to cope with just to get something done.”

To drive home his point for those listeners whose thoughts might have wandered away from the prattling stripling in their midst, the lad who would be Ontario premier pronounced:

“The problem is that these rules are ... not allowing our agriculture and business sectors to grow.”

As an illustration of the evil obstructionism of government, Hudak tartly observed: In 2003, there were exactly 19 species listed — today, well over 121” - clearly a sign of government regulation run amok, and surely not an indication of a deteriorating ecosystem, a concept I doubt that young Tim subscribes to.

Unaware of his irony, he vowed to use “verifiable science not political science” to determine what animals to protect. This, despite the fact that, as pointed out by Natural Resources Minister David Orazietti, the assessment and classification of endangered species is conducted by experts on the arms-length Committee on the Status of Species at Risk in Ontario.

But then again, I doubt that the hapless Hudak ever lets facts get in the way of a good ideological rant, and would seem to prefer this as the only sign of real progress:

Wherever We Go, Our Presence Is Felt

Well. I'm back from hiatus, but too tired to post anything of my own, so I leave you with this video I just came across. Unfortunately, 'enjoy' is not the correct verb to use in relation to its sobering reminder of our depredations:

Another of Donald Trump's Depredations

While watching this video, which accompanies a story on Salon.com about 'the Donald's' depredations in Scotland, I couldn't help but think of a well-known biblical rhetorical question.

On Pipeline Safety

Given Calgary's recent designation as the "greatest city in Canada" and the entire province enjoying sainthood status under the current Prime Minister, it is with some trepidation that I draw your attention to a story that could get me labelled as divisive and an environmental terrorist.

In a column that challenges government 'truth' on the safety of oil pipelines, The Star's David Olive has the temerity to suggest that there might be something not quite safe or environmentally sound about plans to enrich Alberta even more through the transport of tarsand oil.

Read discreetly. Be aware of who may be looking over your shoulder.

Happily, in my present location I at least need not fear the long arm of the Edmonton police.

What The Closure of The Experimental Lakes Area Really Means

To learn the truly tragic dimensions of this Harper maneuver to silence yet another dissenting scientific voice, please check out this article by Michael Harris. After reading it, I think you will likely agree that the health of Canadians is pretty low on the list of Dear Leader's priorities.

The Incomparably Incompetent Peter Kent

I have to start this brief entry by invoking an old cliche: the best defense is a strong offense. That certainly seems to be the strategy 'Environment' Minister Peter Kent is pulling out of his very limited playbook at the UN conference on the environment in Rio as he intones that Canada must stop the spread of “misinformation” on the environment by ecologists with an ideological agenda.

While the world's anger builds at Canada's abdication of its environmental responsibilities as it hastens to deepen even more the profits of resource companies, Kent's message is both predictable and preposterous. Everything is fine, nothing to see here, move along and pay no attention to those domestic ecoterrorists like David Suzuki spreading lies about the good work his government is doing on the environmental file.

Try telling that to the flora and fauna that will be destroyed thanks to the most recent depredations made possible by Bill C-38.

Harper Mentors McGuinty

It is very interesting to note that despite their often uneasy relationship, Ontario Premier Dalton McGuinty has learned some lessons about how to use budget omnibus bills to gut environmental protection from that master of duplicity, Stephen Harper. Thomas Walkom provides the details in today's Star.

New Disgrace For Both Harper And Kent

Environment minister’s office urged bureaucrats to blame media for recycling controversy

Nope, no surprises here in the depth of contempt both the P.M. And Peter Kent feel for the people they 'serve'.

Death By Download?

Although a cliche, it is nonetheless true that knowledge is power, which probably explains why Canada is currently under the yoke of the most secretive and undemocratic federal government it has ever known.

The latest restriction on access to information is reflected in the Harper termination of the National Roundtable on the Environment and the Economy, a move which Tim Harper, in his Star column today, attributes to Conservative political ideology.

The group never strayed from its mandate, which was to study both the economic side and the environmental side of climate change, but never one at the exclusion of another. Apparently, however, as the Harper regime eliminates a variety of environmental regulations to fulfill its commitment to turn over the country wholly to the free enterprise 'masters of the universe', the Rountable's reports proved to be too popular a source of information for interested citizens.

As Tim Harper reports, Twin reports entitled Achieving 2050 were downloaded 51,605 times. A report on water sustainability was downloaded 33,565 times, another one entitled Climate Prosperity was downloaded 25,592 times and was linked from national and international media websites.

The NRTEE website gets more than 500,000 hits each year.

It has been said that a little knowledge is a dangerous thing. Coupled with all of the other measures implemented by this regime to limit access to information, it is a safe bet to say that the current Prime Minister agrees.

Why A Budget Omnibus Bill?

It's the best way to hide your real purpose, which, according to Thomas Walkom, is this:

It is aimed at eliminating regulations — particularly environmental regulations — that interfere in profit-making. It is aimed at reducing wages (which is why the Conservatives take swipes at unions whenever possible). It is aimed at scaling back any social programs — from Old Age Security to Employment Insurance — that help keep wages up.

The revolutionaries dream of a day when the elderly, energized by the reductions in their pensions, will be vying for jobs at Walmart.

But it is a stealthy revolution. The country must remain complacent. Otherwise, we might object.

You can read his full analysis here.

Tempering My 'Enthusiasm'

Despite postings I have made on both critical thinking and avoiding fallacies of reasoning, I am well-aware that my own thinking and writing sometimes fall far short of the standards they demand. In my deep and abiding contempt for the neoconservative agenda and the simplistic, uni-dimensional thinking of its adherents, I realize that I at times resort to the same kind of demagogic tactics they employ, and while finding it hard to apologize for those lapses, I realize that little is accomplished by such outbursts other than a measure of ephemeral personal satisfaction.

I started thinking about this topic today after reading an article in this morning's Star entitled Connecting with nature is the key, activist learns. Unfortunately, the article is not on the Star's website at this time, so I will briefly summarize the salient points.

The piece, written by Stephen Bede Scharper, revolves around environmental activist Julia Butterfly Hill who, in the 1990's, spent more than two years on a platform atop a thousand-year-old redwood tree in an effort to save it and some of the surrounding area from a clear-cutting operation. She ultimately succeeded in reaching a deal with the Pacific Lumber Co. that achieved her goal, but the journey to that achievement was both an arduous and instructive one.

Enduring the worst from both Mother Nature and human nature during her two-year battle atop the redwood, she went from being regarded as a kook by the workers to someone they developed a respect for. How did this happen? The turning point seems to have occurred shortly after a hail of gunfire whizzed around her platform, and Hill asked the workers if they felt better for venting their anger. This led to a discussion about how she ate and how she secured her food, after which the workers apologized for the fusillade and left.

Three weeks later they returned, this time with gifts of organic fruits and vegetables which they loaded into her rope-lifted basket. The lesson learned here? It was a seminal one for Hill: constructive engagement. Instead of being self-righteously strident, she began to see there was more value in being 'effective', i.e., learning to connect with those who opposed her.

Is this approach possible in the political battles we face in Canada against the forces of neo-conservatism? I don't know. My gut tells me there is little chance of success with that tact, but on the other hand, what are we accomplishing right now with simple denunciation and denigration, both of which, I readily admit, feel very good to practise?

Are there, indeed, better ways to try to achieve our goals?

Should this story later be posted on the Star website, I will provide a link.

The World We Are Willfully Destroying

Last year, I wrote a post on the power of the documentary. In it, I discussed how a good nature documentary can very powerfully help us to see both the wonders of the world and how we are destroying that world.

Last night I watched the show Nature on PBS. The particular episode, called Ocean Giants: Deep Thinkers, focused on the extraordinary inner lives of dolphins and whales, positing that both not only display both curiosity and high intelligence, but also the kind of self-awareness that we have traditionally assigned only to ourselves. In addition, it is clear that they have a complex language through which they communicate.

The implications of this are staggering, and once more reinforce the magnitude of the crimes that we are committing against nature, propelled by a short-shortsightedness and greed that will probably condemn us as a species. I firmly believe that only by immersing ourselves in the amazing world around us do we have any hope of salvation.

I would urge you to watch this video to understand that despite our bedazzlement by our technological achievements, they really are shallow and insignificant in the larger scheme of things; we really have no reason to feel the hubris we do that gives us an absurd sense of entitlement and the right to do as we please as we exploit and despoil earth's resources. Ironically, however, that technology is crucial in watching this show online, not only because of its use of the Internet, but also due to the fact that copyright restrictions do not permit access to Canadians. The only way to obviate that restriction is to employ i.p. masking software, such as the free Hotspot Shield.