Thich Nhat Hanh

Positives from an Oil Spill

The extraction of oil pollutes and destroys livelihoods, lives, and ecosystems. Not much room for argument there: look at the results of BP’s gusher in the Gulf of Mexico, Royal Dutch Shell’s presence in Nigeria, and Chevron’s inherited mess in Ecuador. Then, once the oil is out of the ground our use of it pollutes even more. Burning fossil fuels increases the amount of CO2 in the atmosphere - warming the planet. W also create deadly smog in our urban areas by zipping around in our cars instead of taking public transit. Moreover, we destroy vast areas of pristine boreal forest by mining tar sands. (“Reclaimed” land is never as biologically diverse as untouched land.) Moreover, those toxic tailings ponds produced by tar sands mining are really nasty - and 7 out of 9 tar sands extractors do not plan to comply with Regulation 074 on capturing and reducing toxic tailings between 2011 and 2013. The decision is in: our use of oil is disastrous.

But, in a bizarre way, BP’s gusher may turn out to be a positive.

Have I gone mad? No – not exactly – I just spotted a glimmer of hope. The Friday, June 11, 2010 Report on Business section of the Globe and Mail contained several promising items. The lead headline reads “Spill Puts New Oil Frontiers at Risk.” (page B1 ) In other words, politicians and regulators and the public are now aware that another spill is inevitable if we continue drilling as we have. A smaller headline reads “Cheap, abundant, politically secure oil in no longer available.” That article continues on page B5. “According to a new Deutsche Bank report, this is the end of the oil age as we knew it….and our behaviour must change to recognize that. “ So this spill, horrible an environmental disaster that it is, is also an opportunity for environmental activists.

We should use increased awareness on the part of the public and politicians to prevent the lifting of the moratorium on drilling for oil off the coast of British Columbia. Write Mr. Campbell and tell him offshore drilling is too risky. We should also work to shutdown the Enbridge Gateway North Pipeline to coastal BC as, once it is in place, oil tankers will sail BC’s pristine coast – and eventually spill oil. (The Dogwood Initiative Project is already fighting this – check out their website at http://dogwoodinitiative.org/ if you want to work on this project.) Thirdly, we should push both provincial and federal governments to invest in light rapid transit and clean energy.  Encourage everyone you know to write to the Right Honorable Stephen Harper, to their federal MP, and to the provincial representatives.

Employment Standards

I always  read the business news as doing so gives me a different perspective on  the environment and on climate change.   Today I found a viewpoint poverty and social jsutice activists will be interested in. The June 2010  issue of BC Business contains an article questioning the wisdom of eviserating  the Employment Standards Act in 2002 and of reducing civil service numbers at the same time - from a business perspective.     A roofing contractor explains on page 52 that he pays overtime as required by BC law - but that he strongly suspects his competition doesn't -and uses the cost savings to undercut his bids.  A dry walliing contractor (page 58) states " I don't like more government regulation. ...But realistically, the workers don't have anywhere else to go, and there's no way for people who are trying to operate aove the line to counter that kind of operation. Does that mean the government has to step in? Nobody else is going to do it."

Therefore,  social justice and labour activists can argue that enforcing employment regulations is good for business - and that some business people with the government would do so.  Extrapolating to environmental issues, I bet that some business people wish that governments would strengthen and enforce environmental regulations.  I told you it pays to read business news!

Preconceived Ideas Rap Us On Our Shins

I am reading two books at once:  1491 by Charles C Mann and Integral Ecology by Esbjorn  (the o should have an umlaut) and Zimmerman. Curioulsy, a commonality between the two books exists.  Both books/ authors refer to environmentalists who long for a supposed pristine past - one where humans were closer to nature -and then demolish that argument. 

Many deep ecologists are epistemological realists who condemn post modern environmentalists for speaking of nature as a social construct. In so doing, deep ecologists call upon the very same modern, scientific worldview that they otherwise blame for contributing to environmental destruction.  (Integral Ecology, page 146)

Indians worked on a very large scale, transforming huge swathes of landscape for their own ends.( 1491, p 279) Faced with an ecological probem, the Indians fixed it. Rather than adapt to Nature, they created it. They were in the midst of terraforming the Amazon when Columbus showed up. {(1491 page 349) Please see Mann's appendix for an explanation of his use of the word "Indian.}

So our - my -  preconceived notion that nature is pristine is supported neither by logic nor by the practices of the First Nations of North and South America.    Perhaps we should picture an ideal world and ecosystem and work to create it.    

Interview With Elizabeth May

http://www.rabble.ca/news/2010/01/elizabeth-may-interview

MD: You once told me that very few environmental organizations really understand political power and only a handful ever even lobby a cabinet minister or politician. Has that changed at all in terms of the role they need to play and could play if they are going to change things?

EM: I have a terrible feeling of a weakening of resolve in the movement though I am not involved much any more as I am doing my environmental advocacy in a different way now. And for good reasons they don't share things with me for fear of being partisan.  But the environmental movement is changing a lot because there's the establishment groups which have big infrastructure and tend to be vested in saying that something (like Copenhagen) is a success even if it's not. But what's new is the strength of the youth climate movement which doesn't have that same problem and the 350.org movement which is almost entirely viral and they're not going to fall for safe targets and not-good-enough positions.

Only  a handful of  envirornmental activists have every lobbied a cabinet minster or politician?  Or really understand political power ??? WHAT ?  Perhaps we better learn - quickly - in order to create meaningful change.