Welcome to the bizarro world. Today the UK's top scientist declared in typical insane fashion that genetically modified crops had to permitted in order to ensure that humans survive the next century. One wonders how invested this fucker is in Monsanto or Bayer?
It's so great. If you have any sense of sanity left your only option is really to laugh. Or book yourself a few months in an asylum. Civilized humans screw everything up and the only choice we can think of is to embrace more of the same behaviour. The earth is trying to teach us a lesson, if we only still had the ability to hear.
The worst is that the voices that would speak out against all these loony moves are starting to shut up. Climate change (scary as it is don't get me wrong) trumps everything, especially sanity.
At work the other day we were discussing pushing for a ban on hydraulic fracturing a technique for extracting methane trapped (forever) in underground shale deposits. Now if you were a sane species you would recognize that leaving these gases where they are, effectively sequestered, would be a good ideal since this was yet another of the hottest years on record. And it's not like hydraulic fracturing is benign. The technique poisons groundwater with a cocktail of chemicals and methane of course.
But a colleague said, methane is touted as a bridge between oil and coal and the imaginary future of clean energy and a thriving economy. So we can move away from oil and coal by relying on natural gas (methane) for the short-term and build our happy little wind turbines and solar panels for the long-term. The thing is, I don't hear this plan coming down from Stephen Harper or Barack Obama. Their plan and this has always been their plan, is to grow the economy. This means no slowdown on coal or oil and opening up new energy sources to feed the dreadful economy. But because someone said that methane could be a bridge energy source we can't take a strong stand against dangerous hydraulic fracturing, let alone the death economy and our overpopulation of the planet.
The worst part of all this is that when I challenged my colleagues they all admitted that this was a dream, a fantasy hope against climate change. There is no plan. It's not going to work but instead of speaking out we are going to go along with it. Maybe the elites will take this seriously and won't do what they've always done and cash in on the killing of the planet.
Our hearts are broken. Our souls are shattered. We are as impotent as, well, ourselves (I know it sounds funny coming from me). This will be my last tour with an environmental organization. This will not get results. I know that there are some principled groups out there but they are few and far between. Thankfully it's not going to take a lot of people to get us where we need to go. We just have to get away from all the poison hope infecting the world. Let's get busy.
Showing posts with label Overpopulation. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Overpopulation. Show all posts
Saturday, January 22, 2011
Friday, December 3, 2010
Rural-Urban Thoughts
Just a short note to share an interesting resource. I was interested in learning about the rural-urban split in Canada and by province. Things have certainly changed since the first censuses in 1851. In some provinces it went from a urban-rural split of 0-100 in 1851 to 85-15 in 2006! It's quite shocking to actually see the numbers and how far people have moved from a connection to the land.
Of note is that the Maritime provinces have experienced less of a shift overall. They hover around 55-45 urban rural split. It's caused by the smaller population generally but I wonder if this may mean that the Maritimes will be better able to weather the coming changes. Of course many of these rural people are retired seniors so I wonder if they have any projections of what will change after the baby boom passes on.
With all the corporations buying up Africa perhaps one day all the people will just be in cities and the corporations will own all the countryside. But of course that assumes a steady and growing energy base which we always have to remind ourselves won't be with us for much longer.
Of note is that the Maritime provinces have experienced less of a shift overall. They hover around 55-45 urban rural split. It's caused by the smaller population generally but I wonder if this may mean that the Maritimes will be better able to weather the coming changes. Of course many of these rural people are retired seniors so I wonder if they have any projections of what will change after the baby boom passes on.
With all the corporations buying up Africa perhaps one day all the people will just be in cities and the corporations will own all the countryside. But of course that assumes a steady and growing energy base which we always have to remind ourselves won't be with us for much longer.
Thursday, September 30, 2010
Degrowth
Just learned about an interesting new initiative coming out of Europe. It's called Degrowth. It advocates something I've long dreamed of: a movement away from economic growth as the means of judging our success on this planet. And since ultimately the end result of endless growth is death (see cancer), we really should jump on the degrowth train.
Mostly I'm happy that someone, somewhere is willing to have a frank and realistic discussion about these issues. Of course they also include voluntary population reduction as an important cornerstone of their movement. To not include it would be insane.
Here is the declaration from their last conference held in Barcelona:
In the midst of an international crisis more than four hundred researchers, practitioners and civil society members from forty countries gathered in Barcelona in March 2010 for the Second International Conference on Degrowth. The Declaration of the First International Conference in Paris in 2008 noted the looming multidimensional crisis, which was not just financial, but also economic, social, cultural, energetic, political and ecological. The crisis is a result of the failure of an economic model based on growth.
An international elite and a “global middle class” are causing havoc to the environment through conspicuous consumption and the excessive appropriation of human and natural resources. Their consumption patterns lead to further environmental and social damage when imitated by the rest of society in a vicious circle of status-seeking through the accumulation of material possessions. While irresponsible financial institutions, multi-national corporations and governments are rightly at the forefront of public criticism, this crisis has deeper structural causes.
So-called anti-crisis measures that seek to boost economic growth will worsen inequalities and environmental conditions in the long-run. The illusion of a "debt-fuelled growth", i.e. Forcing the economy to grow in order to pay debt, will end in social disaster, passing on economic and ecological debts to future generations and to the poor. A process of degrowth of the world economy is inevitable and will ultimately benefit the environment, but the challenge is how to manage the process so that it is socially equitable at national and global scales. This is the challenge of the Degrowth movement, originating in rich countries in Europe and elsewhere, where the change must start from.
Academics, activists and practitioners met in Barcelona to structure proposals toward an alternative, ecologically sustainable and socially equitable degrowth society. The conference was conducted in an inclusive and participatory way. In addition to standard scientific presentations, some 29 working groups discussed hands-on policies for degrowth and defined research questions, bringing together economic,social and environmental concerns. New ideas and issues absent from mainstream dialogue on sustainable development were put on the table: currencies and financial institutions, social security and working hours, population and resource consumption, restrictions to advertising, moratoria on infrastructure and resource sanctuaries, and many others. A wealth of new proposals evolved, including: facilitation of local currencies; gradual elimination of fiat money and reforms of interest; promotion of small scale, self-managed not-for-profit companies; defense and expansion of local commons and establishment of new jurisdictions for global commons; establishment of integrated policies of reduced working hours (work-sharing) and introduction of a basic income; institutionalization of an income ceiling based on maximum-minimum ratios; discouragement of overconsumption of non-durable goods and under-use of durables by regulation, taxation or bottom-up approaches; abandonment of large-scale infrastructure such as nuclear plants, dams, incinerators, high-speed transportation; conversion of car-based infrastructure to walking, biking and open common spaces; taxation of excessive advertising and its prohibition from public spaces; support for environmental justice movements of the South that struggle against resource extraction; introduction of global extractive moratoria in areas with high biodiversity and cultural value, and compensation for leaving resources in the ground; denouncement of top-down population control measures and support of women’s reproductive rights, conscious procreation and the right to free migration while welcoming a decrease in world birth rates; and de-commercialization of politics and enhancement of direct participation in decision-making.
We assert that these proposals are not utopian: new redistributive taxes will address income inequality and finance social investments and discourage consumption and environmental damage, while reduced working hours with a reinforced social security system will manage unemployment.
As the economy of wealthy parts of the world quietly contracts and our damage to the environment through new infrastructures and extraction activities is constrained, well-being will increase through public investments in low-cost social and relational goods.
Every new proposal generates several new objections and questions. We do not claim to have a recipe for the future, but we can no longer pretend that we can keep growing as if nothing has happened. The folly of growth has come to an end. The challenge now is how to transform, and the debate has just begun.
Mostly I'm happy that someone, somewhere is willing to have a frank and realistic discussion about these issues. Of course they also include voluntary population reduction as an important cornerstone of their movement. To not include it would be insane.
Here is the declaration from their last conference held in Barcelona:
In the midst of an international crisis more than four hundred researchers, practitioners and civil society members from forty countries gathered in Barcelona in March 2010 for the Second International Conference on Degrowth. The Declaration of the First International Conference in Paris in 2008 noted the looming multidimensional crisis, which was not just financial, but also economic, social, cultural, energetic, political and ecological. The crisis is a result of the failure of an economic model based on growth.
An international elite and a “global middle class” are causing havoc to the environment through conspicuous consumption and the excessive appropriation of human and natural resources. Their consumption patterns lead to further environmental and social damage when imitated by the rest of society in a vicious circle of status-seeking through the accumulation of material possessions. While irresponsible financial institutions, multi-national corporations and governments are rightly at the forefront of public criticism, this crisis has deeper structural causes.
So-called anti-crisis measures that seek to boost economic growth will worsen inequalities and environmental conditions in the long-run. The illusion of a "debt-fuelled growth", i.e. Forcing the economy to grow in order to pay debt, will end in social disaster, passing on economic and ecological debts to future generations and to the poor. A process of degrowth of the world economy is inevitable and will ultimately benefit the environment, but the challenge is how to manage the process so that it is socially equitable at national and global scales. This is the challenge of the Degrowth movement, originating in rich countries in Europe and elsewhere, where the change must start from.
Academics, activists and practitioners met in Barcelona to structure proposals toward an alternative, ecologically sustainable and socially equitable degrowth society. The conference was conducted in an inclusive and participatory way. In addition to standard scientific presentations, some 29 working groups discussed hands-on policies for degrowth and defined research questions, bringing together economic,social and environmental concerns. New ideas and issues absent from mainstream dialogue on sustainable development were put on the table: currencies and financial institutions, social security and working hours, population and resource consumption, restrictions to advertising, moratoria on infrastructure and resource sanctuaries, and many others. A wealth of new proposals evolved, including: facilitation of local currencies; gradual elimination of fiat money and reforms of interest; promotion of small scale, self-managed not-for-profit companies; defense and expansion of local commons and establishment of new jurisdictions for global commons; establishment of integrated policies of reduced working hours (work-sharing) and introduction of a basic income; institutionalization of an income ceiling based on maximum-minimum ratios; discouragement of overconsumption of non-durable goods and under-use of durables by regulation, taxation or bottom-up approaches; abandonment of large-scale infrastructure such as nuclear plants, dams, incinerators, high-speed transportation; conversion of car-based infrastructure to walking, biking and open common spaces; taxation of excessive advertising and its prohibition from public spaces; support for environmental justice movements of the South that struggle against resource extraction; introduction of global extractive moratoria in areas with high biodiversity and cultural value, and compensation for leaving resources in the ground; denouncement of top-down population control measures and support of women’s reproductive rights, conscious procreation and the right to free migration while welcoming a decrease in world birth rates; and de-commercialization of politics and enhancement of direct participation in decision-making.
We assert that these proposals are not utopian: new redistributive taxes will address income inequality and finance social investments and discourage consumption and environmental damage, while reduced working hours with a reinforced social security system will manage unemployment.
As the economy of wealthy parts of the world quietly contracts and our damage to the environment through new infrastructures and extraction activities is constrained, well-being will increase through public investments in low-cost social and relational goods.
Every new proposal generates several new objections and questions. We do not claim to have a recipe for the future, but we can no longer pretend that we can keep growing as if nothing has happened. The folly of growth has come to an end. The challenge now is how to transform, and the debate has just begun.
Wednesday, July 14, 2010
Choices
I found this opinion piece through Mike Ruppert's new online home CollapseNet. Now I know that many of my friends have or are planning to have children and I'm almost there myself so this article might be a bit shocking. But it's worth thinking about given the clear and present danger of climate change.
It's something I wrestle with but I think given my family's current situation, moderate level of adaptability and inclination to grow that any child would be somewhat provided for and happy. Maybe the debate started by the article above would merely be passed down to another generation like I was buying myself and my family some time but letting the kids make the tough decisions. In some ways this is what our culture does, passes the buck.
It's something I wrestle with but I think given my family's current situation, moderate level of adaptability and inclination to grow that any child would be somewhat provided for and happy. Maybe the debate started by the article above would merely be passed down to another generation like I was buying myself and my family some time but letting the kids make the tough decisions. In some ways this is what our culture does, passes the buck.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
Posts
