Americans support Keystone

Prime Minister Harper was talking tough about the Keystone XL pipeline this week. On a visit to New York, he told the Canadian American Business Council that he wouldn't take no for an answer. His bravado may have been bolstered by a recent Pew Research Center survey that showed two-thirds of Americans support the pipeline. Even most Democrats are on side.

All fossil fuel initiatives do not fare so well. For example, more Americans now oppose the increased use of fracking than support it, and a solid majority support stricter emission controls on power plants. Almost 60 per cent say it is more important to develop alternative energy sources while only a third say expanding exploration and production of oil, coal and natural gas is the more important priority.

Majorities of two-thirds to three-quarters support requiring better vehicle fuel efficiency, federal funding for alternative energy research and more spending on mass transit. All good news.

Not so good about that support for Keystone, though. Those Canadians who oppose the pipeline, myself included, simply have to face the unfortunate fact that most Americans are on the Prime Minister's side on this one.

Why has Canada failed Omar Khadr?

The first responsibility of the state is to protect its citizens, particularly its children. The Canadian state has utterly failed that responsibility in the case of Omar Khadr.

Omar was the classic child soldier, formally identified as such by the head of the United Nations child soldier program. Indoctrinated in an extreme philosophy from birth, at the age of fourteen his family placed him in the hands of fundamentalist fighters in Afghanistan. He was completely dependent on them, not merely for his room and board but for the very thoughts in his head. He did the only thing he could, he fought alongside the men he had been taught to believe were heroes in the defence of the one true religion. He was captured by the Americans after a firefight, interrogated, imprisoned, cruelly abused and finally put on trial for murder and other crimes.
 

He is the only minor convicted of war crimes in modern history—and the Canadian government allowed it to happen. It rejected pleas by Amnesty International, UNICEF, the Canadian Bar Association and other prominent organizations to repatriate or extradite him.

In 2010, he pled guilty at a military tribunal in the infamous Guantanamo prison. As part of the plea deal he was repatriated to Canada in 2012 to serve the remaining six years of his sentence and earlier this year was transferred to the maximum security Edmonton Institution.

When his lawyer appealed before the court this week to have him transferred to a minimum security prison where he would have access to the rehabilitation programs he needs to apply for parole and to prepare for his re-entry into society, Prime Minister Harper stated his government would "vigorously defend against any attempts, in court, to lessen his punishment." Our government has not yet, it seems, extracted its pound of flesh.

Civilized nations do not punish child soldiers, or allow other nations to punish them. We have done both, and worse. We have allowed him to be more than punished, to be cruelly abused, to be incarcerated and to be subjected to a drumhead trial.

You can often tell the character of a nation by how it treats a single citizen. Canada's character has been dishonoured by this case. It has revealed the dark, vindictive side of our nature and of the government that leads us. It is a tragedy not only for Omar Khadr.

Buying Calgay's civic election with a little help from Preston Manning

Alberta's election funding rules are notoriously weak. Those applying to municipal elections are no exception. The essentials can easily be summarized: no spending limits, contributions limited to $5,000 a year (the candidate may contribute up to $10,000 of his own funds), and the candidate must file a disclosure statement of contributions over $100. Candidates are allowed to keep surplus revenue for future campaigns.

As lax as these rules are, they apparently aren't lax enough for the development industry, the major funder of both provincial and municipal elections in Alberta. In the 2010 election, their preferred candidate lost to Naheed Nenshi even though, with their generous help, he outspent Nenshi 2.5 times. Perhaps chagrined by their loss, to say nothing of dealing with a mayor who is no friend of sprawl, this time they have recruited Preston Manning to provide a little third party help.

Shane Homes and 10 other home builders are donating $100,000 each to the Manning Centre which is offering a training program for municipal candidates with "market-oriented ideas and principles." For the latter, read pro-developer. The Centre is also funding a new group that will "focus both citizens and candidates on public policy issues." Considering that the group is headed by a Conservative party organizer, is a critic of Calgary's city planners, lists a real estate agency and powerful Calgary home builders as supporters, we can guess what that focus will be.

This third-party manoeuvre has been described by Mayor Nenshi as the use of "Super PACs," referring to those committees in the U.S. that are allowed to raise and spend unlimited funds on elections while avoiding legal limits by supporting a candidate or party but not contributing directly to their campaigns.

In response to his critics, Manning replies that if anybody doesn't like what his think tank is doing, they can start their own. Well, yes, they could, but who can kick off a think tank with over a million dollars from fewer than a dozen donors? The answer, or course, is someone who, like Preston Manning, panders to the rich. Mr. Manning's disingenuous comment reveals the problem: we all enjoy free speech but the rich are able to enjoy it— and exploit it—a great deal more than the rest of us. And at election time, that matters. Without strict funding rules, they can dominate the process.

In order to bring Calgary's municipal elections into a truly democratic regime, a number of reforms are necessary, including much stricter limits on contributions and confining them to election years, restrictions on spending, and requiring candidates to contribute surplus revenues to charity to ensure all candidates start out equally in the next election.

And of no small importance, limits must be applied to third parties. Mayor Nenshi is right—we don't need Super PACs perverting Calgary elections. Meanwhile, in October we will watch with interest how Calgary voters dispose of Preston Manning's developer slate.

The New York Times bashes Canada's science-bashing

Is it just my imagination or is Canada's international reputation slipping into the sewer? The question seemed particularly pertinent this morning as I read an editorial in the New York Times Sunday Review entitled "Silencing Scientists." I don't have to tell you whose scientists they are referring to. It's a short piece so I'll include it below (warning—may contain content unfit for younger readers):

Over the last few years, the government of Canada—led by Stephen Harper—has made it harder and harder for publicly financed scientists to communicate with the public and with other scientists.

It began badly enough in 2008 when scientists working for Environment Canada, the federal agency, were told to refer all queries to departmental communications officers. Now the government is doing all it can to monitor and restrict the flow of scientific information, especially concerning research into climate change, fisheries and anything to do with the Alberta tar sands—source of the diluted bitumen that would flow through the controversial Keystone XL pipeline. Journalists find themselves unable to reach government scientists; the scientists themselves have organized public protests. 

There was trouble of this kind here in the George W. Bush years, when scientists were asked to toe the party line on climate policy and endangered species. But nothing came close to what is being done in Canada.

Science is the gathering of hypotheses and the endless testing of them. It involves checking and double-checking, self-criticism and a willingness to overturn even fundamental assumptions if they prove to be wrong. But none of this can happen without open communication among scientists. This is more than an attack on academic freedom. It is an attempt to guarantee public ignorance.

It is also designed to make sure that nothing gets in the way of the northern resource rush—the feverish effort to mine the earth and the ocean with little regard for environmental consequences. The Harper policy seems designed to make sure that the tar sands project proceeds quietly, with no surprises, no bad news, no alarms from government scientists. To all the other kinds of pollution the tar sands will yield, we must now add another: the degradation of vital streams of research and information.

Worse than the Bush years, no less! I think the last sentence sums it up nicely—yet more tar sands pollution. And please note they say "tar" sands, not "oil" sands.

Be happy, be an atheist

I couldn't resist a chuckle over a study reported in the October issue of the journal Psychological Medicine. The study, entitled "Spiritual and religious beliefs as risk factors for the onset of major depression: an international cohort study," examined the incidence of major depression in 8,318 people from seven countries over a one-year period. The participants were broken down into three groups: a group who held "a spiritual understanding of life," a religious group, and a secular group.

Over the year, 10.5 per cent of the first group had an episode of depression compared to 10.3 per cent of the religious participants and only 7.0 per cent of the secularists. According to the report, "The findings varied significantly across countries, with the difference being significant only in the UK, where spiritual participants were nearly three times more likely to experience an episode of depression than the secular group ... The strength of belief also had an effect, with participants with strong belief having twice the risk of participants with weak belief. There was no evidence of religion acting as a buffer to prevent depression after a serious life event."

Now, believe me, I may be an atheist but I'm not gloating. Depression is much too serious a matter for that. I'm simply pointing out the possibility that religion may be the problem, not the solution.

You're making progress, Francis

After two doctrinaire popes, it's a pleasure to have one who puts mercy ahead of dogma as Pope Francis did this week. In an interview with La Civilta Cattolica, the Italian Jesuit magazine, he criticized an emphasis on abortion, gay marriage and contraceptives at the expense of more important matters. Unfortunately, he doesn't challenge the Church's position on these issues—still a long way to go there—but he is at least saying the Church should be an inclusive one.

He may be simply recognizing that hammering on these issues changes nobody's mind but is simply divisive and alienating and does nothing to achieve the Church's major purpose of introducing people to Christ's message. Or in his words, "The Church sometimes has locked itself up in small things, in small-minded rules. The most important thing is the first proclamation: Jesus Christ has saved you. And the ministers of the Church must be ministers of mercy above all."

This move toward a church of mercy rather than condemnation will not be well-received in all quarters. Already some American bishops have expressed disappointment with the pope's lack of enthusiasm in addressing abortion, gay marriage and contraception. These, of course, are the same bishops who promoted Pope Benedict's crackdown on American nuns for putting social justice ahead of doctrine. It appears the nuns now have a champion, a friend in high places so to speak. A pleasing vindication.

McCain answers Putin—great stuff!

I love it—war with words rather than guns. Last week, Russian President Vladimir Putin wrote an op-ed piece in the New York Times laying out his views on international law and gently chiding Barack Obama for his "American exceptionalism." Now John McCain, Senator from Arizona, has answered Putin in kind—and in spades.

In the online version of Pravda, he laid into Putin, accusing him of running Russia like a tyrant while being the friend of tyrants. “I am not anti-Russian,” McCain insisted, “I am pro-Russian, more pro-Russian than the regime that misrules you today.” McCain made no attempt to justify American foreign policy, the focus of Putin's piece in the Times, but satisfied himself with trashing Putin—a message of heat rather than light.

The good senator may not have as wide an audience as Putin did. Pravda.ru is not the famous Pravda, former flagship publication of the Soviet Communist Party, just a website with a limited following, although there's a rumour his piece may go viral in Russia. In any case, read it for yourself here. Duke it out, boys.

Wow! This NSA stuff is getting serious—Rouseff snubs Obama

There seems to be no limit to the cats whistleblower Edward Snowden has put among the pigeons. Among the gems about the U.S. National Security Agency's spying mischief Mr. Snowden has revealed is that it monitored Brazilian President Dilma Rousseff's telephone calls and emails, spied on communications by her aides and targeted Brazil's biggest oil company, Petrobras.

President Rousseff is not amused. The lady has postponed a proposed official visit to Washington in October, saying, "Given the proximity of the scheduled state visit to Washington and in the absence of a timely investigation … there aren't conditions for this trip to be made. ... when the question is settled in an adequate manner, the state visit can quickly occur." She had requested an explanation and apology from Obama, but apparently his reassurances have been unsatisfactory.

Politically, Rousseff may have felt her decision was necessary in light of the fury that details of U.S. spying activities have created among the Brazilian public. Nonetheless, it is very serious stuff when the president of Brazil tells the president of the United States that a meeting is off because he hasn't met her expectations. It illustrates in part the declining influence of the United States in South America and the rising influence of Brazil, but it also illustrates the seriousness of the NSA's misbehaviour.

Part of that seriousness is the spying on Petrobras. It suggests that the NSA is conducting intelligence operations beyond that of ensuring national security and is now engaging in industrial espionage, precisely what it claims makes its operations different from those of Chinese and Russian agencies.

The NSA has been very naughty indeed. Its alienation even of friends will not help make the United States a safer place.

Greece—1930s redux

When Europe sank into depression in the 1930s, politics polarized. The far right became more appealing to some, the far left to others. One reassured people by harking back to tribal values, the other by insisting nothing would do but to overthrow the system and start afresh.

In hard times, people become frightened and angry, and look for easy answers. Demagogues are ever ready to prey on their emotions. A simple answer and a ready scapegoat are their stock in trade. We now see them emerging from under their rocks in Greece.

Just as Nazi goons poured into the streets to do battle with Communists in Germany in the 1930s, so black-shirted supporters of the neo-Nazi Golden Dawn Party now assault Communists in the streets of Athens. Last week, 50 men wielding crowbars and bats set upon leftists as they distributed posters in the dock-side district of Perama—a Communist stronghold where Golden Dawn has made considerable inroads as austerity measures bite ever deeper. Dimitris Psarras, a writer who has chronicled Golden Dawn's rise claims their agenda is "to create a climate of civil war, a divide where people have to choose between leftists and rightists."

Whereas the Nazis victimized the Jews to promote their agenda, Golden Dawn is victimizing immigrants with Muslims their favourite target. The Muslim Association of Greece has received a letter from the group implying that its members would be "slaughtered like chickens" unless they leave the country.

Golden Dawn has capitalized on the growing desperation of Greeks like no other political party. Surveys show that they are the nation's fastest growing group and are now its third largest political force. Even prominent clerics have voiced support. The left, on the other hand, has called on authorities to "erase" the group.

There is a sadness in observing the birthplace of Western democracy slip into this condition. We must hope that most Greeks have learned their lessons and will refuse to repeat history's most tragic story.

"Lock and load" has a new meaning in Montana

The United States saw an increase of 30 per cent in suicides among middle-aged Americans from 1999 to 2010. More Americans now die from suicide than from automobile accidents with rates highest in the "suicide belt"—the eight mountain states and Alaska.

In Montana, for example, 227 people died from suicide in 2010, twice the national average. Matt Kuntz, executive director of the Montana chapter of the National Alliance on Mental Illness, referred to "Montana's suicide epidemic" as a "public health crisis.” The high suicide rate is attributed to a number of factors including a lack of mental health facilities, a cowboy culture, isolation, and the availability of guns. Two-thirds of the suicides are committed with firearms.

Montana ranks third in the nation for per capita gun possession, and guns are the most effective way of committing suicide. One study showed that in the 15 states with the highest firearm ownership, twice as many people were successful in committing suicide as in the six states with the lowest firearm ownership. Just as they are the most efficient way of killing others, guns are the most efficient way of killing yourself.

To help reduce the slaughter, health workers in Montana are now giving out thousands of free trigger locks. I've heard of handing out free condoms—this is the first time I've heard of handing out free trigger locks. But then the American West is a gun culture, and in a gun culture, trigger locks may very well be the more important prophylactic.

Bob McDonald says "stand up for science"

Bob McDonald, host of the CBC's Quirks and Quarks, Canada's favourite science program, makes a plea for both basic science and for Monday's "Stand Up for Science" rallies. He comments on our federal government's unfortunate shift from basic science to applied science, in other words from the science government ought to be doing to the science industry ought to be doing for itself.

But enough from me, read Bob's message here.

Did Putin really write that?

I've always thought of Vladimir V. Putin as an amoral ex-KGB thug. And I still do. But I have to admit he wrote a rather progressive op-ed piece in the New York Times on Wednesday. Overlook a belittling of Syrians' desire for democracy, a fudge about who used the poison gas and a gratuitous sermon at the end, and what's left is a well-reasoned appeal to international law.

Perhaps I was just a tad disoriented by the president of Russia selling peace while the president of the U.S. was selling war, but I was pleasantly surprised.

He made a powerful point with his argument, "If you cannot count on international law, then you must find other ways to ensure your security. Thus a growing number of countries seek to acquire weapons of mass destruction. This is logical: if you have the bomb, no one will touch you. We are left with talk of the need to strengthen nonproliferation, when in reality this is
being eroded." 

I remain ambivalent about his message, however. I think we should take his gesture seriously, give him the benefit of the doubt, but we shouldn't forget that this was the man who butchered Chechnya and is a leader who continues to run a gangster regime. In other words we should be receptive, but very cautious.

Quebec Charter of Values not all bad

Every cloud has a silver lining, according to John Milton. That may be a bit too optimistic for most of us but it is, believe it or not, true of the Quebec Charter of Values proposed by the governing Parti Québécois. Most of the proposed charter is offensive or just plain silly and will probably be challenged under the Charter of Rights and Freedoms.

But there is some silver lining in the cloud. For example, it will eliminate subsidies to private religious schools. Considering that Quebec currently funds about 60 per cent of the budgets of most of the province's private schools, including parochial ones, this is overdue. And we could well emulate the idea of defunding private schools here in Alberta, as former Education Minister David King proposes in the September issue of Alberta Views.

The proposed charter would ban opening prayers at municipal council meetings, as recommended by the Bouchard-Taylor Commission report into cultural accommodation. This I would like to see adopted at Calgary City Council meetings, although Council shouldn't need the province to tell them this is inappropriate in a pluralistic society.

And then there's the section which would eliminate property tax exemptions for churches, mosques, synagogues and other religious buildings. Again, a long overdue measure which should be initiated elsewhere in the country.

So the proposed charter should never get further than that—proposed—but it does contain some good stuff which could pass constitutional muster and which deserves further debate, and not just in Quebec.

September 15th—International Day of Democracy

Attention, all you democrats, mark it on your calendars: the International Day of Democracy, Sunday, September 15th—as declared by the UN General Assembly in 2007 with resolution 62/7.

Following the big day is Democracy Week, September 16-23. Elections Canada is inviting Canadians to participate in events and activities across the country. The theme this year is "Connect with democracy." According to Chief Electoral Officer Marc Mayrand, "Canada's Democracy Week is about celebrating what youth are doing to promote democracy in their communities." Read all about it here. I intend to celebrate Democracy Day by attending a pub meet-up on proportional representation with some fellow Fair Vote Canada folks.

The cynics will no doubt say, what democracy? Our first-past-the-post electoral system is the world's worst, frequently electing governments most citizens don't want. Unions, the mainstay of democracy in the workplace, are under siege. Our mass media, the public forum of modern democracy, is almost entirely under the thumb of corporations, as is too much of our economy. Etc. Etc.

All this is true. Our democracy is far from perfect ... well, OK, very very far from perfect ... but that's our fault. As part of celebrating what democracy we do have in the coming week, we might also resolve to do our bit to undoing some of the ills.

Climate change is ruining my tea

This is really too much. Hurricanes, floods, droughts, all aggravated by climate change, and now the cruelest blow of all—it's ruining our tea.

India produces one-third of the world's tea with the state of Assam producing over half. Now increasing temperatures and diminishing rainfall are reducing Assam's production and fouling the taste of the tea. The once ideal climate is changing. An ambient temperature that used to be below 35 degrees C, now ranges up to 38 to 40 degrees in the shade and up to 50 in the sun. (Here's something I didn't know: photosynthesis slows at 35 degrees C, and after 39 degrees food production stops. Over 48 degrees, tea leaves stop breathing and die.)

Assam isn't alone in its misery. According to R.M. Bhagat, deputy director of the Tea Research Association, all tea-producing belts are being affected.

Sometimes it seems impossible to get the urgency of dealing with climate change through to our politicians. If even a threat to their cuppa won't work, we are indeed lost.

Apple and the exploitation of Chinese labour

I have been an Apple fan since I got my first computer—Mac all the way. I cringe, therefore, when I encounter articles about the company and its exploitation of Chinese labour. So I really didn't need to read this morning that Apple's new iphone is being produced under illegal and abusive working conditions at its contractor's plant in Wuxi, China. A report by China Labor Watch claims that workers at the plant, owned by U.S. company Jabil Circuit, work more than 60 hours a week plus 100 hours of overtime a month (three times the legal limit), not including another 11 hours of unpaid overtime. The report claims further that workers must stand more than 11 hours a day with no rest outside of a 30-minute lunch break; their pre-work training is illegally inadequate; dorms have eight people per room; and a host of other abuses.

In response, Apple claims it has conducted three audits of Jabil Wuxi in the past 36 months and it has a team of experts on-site to look into the new claims about conditions there. It also claims Jabil has an auditing program of its own with an excellent track record of meeting Apple’s high standards. "Employees at Jabil," states Apple, "are among the one million workers in Apple’s supply chain whose working hours we track each week and report on our website. Year to date, Jabil Wuxi has performed above our 92 per cent average for compliance with Apple’s 60-hour per week limit." The Chinese legal limit is 49 hours.

The 80 workers interviewed by China Labor Watch would apparently disagree with Apple's claims, as would the pay stubs that indicated the excessive hours of overtime.

But believe who you will, justice for Chinese workers will never be guaranteed until the Chinese people are guaranteed freedoms of speech and association, including the right to form independent, democratic labour unions. When Apple and other companies advocate vigorously for those rights to the Chinese government only then can we believe they truly support workers being treated fairly as they tirelessly claim they do. But that of course would largely defeat the purpose of what we know as globalization.

Will the tax man catch up to the corporate slackers?

Globalization as we have come to know and love it is misnamed. As it advantages corporations while disadvantaging workers and governments, it might more appropriately be called corporatization or some such thing.

Among its sins, it allows corporations to escape the democratic confines of the nation state and it allows corporations to blackmail nations into providing cheap labour. Manufacturing moves to China because China can promise workers unprotected by independent unions and without freedom of speech or freedom of association. American companies can set up in Mexico to exploit cheap labour but Mexican workers do not have the reciprocal right to move to the United States to exploit higher wages.

Another area of advantage is taxation. Coorporations can shift their profits to low tax jurisdictions regardless of where they manufacture or sell their products. A range of corporate giants have been exploiting this opportunity, including Google, Amazon, Starbucks, Cadbury and Apple. The Tax Justice Network estimates that national governments lose tax revenues of $200 to $300-billion per year in total to corporate off-shoring. Apple, for example, has parked about 64 percent of its global profits over the past three years in Ireland and Bermuda, paying less than 2 per cent income tax. Amazon has paid a negligible tax on its £4.2-billion annual sales in the UK by routing its sales through Luxembourg.

The G-20 nations have now decided to do something about it. At last week's conference they endorsed the first internationally co-ordinated effort to curb the escalating problem of corporate tax avoidance. According to The Guardian, "It is the most ambitious program of reform since the principles for bilateral tax treaties were first laid down by the League of Nations in the 1920s." The program establishes 15 initiatives that will arm tax authorities around the world with the tools they need to crack down on some of those areas most widely exploited by multinationals.

A particularly important target is the tax breaks offered by nations in the relentless competition for investment. Tax competition has created a race to the bottom where the tax burden is increasingly shifted to the middle class who are unable to avoid tax by moving their assets offshore. The G-20 is trying to put an end to this kind of predatory competition and to have more collaboration among governments.

The plan isn't perfect. For example, developing countries have effectively been excluded even though they are losing far more revenue from tax-dodging multinationals than they receive in aid. Oxfam claims corporate profit-shifting costs African nations two per cent of their GDP. 

Nonetheless, it's a good start. The next step should be to go after the estimated $21-trillion of assets squirreled away offshore by individual tax-dodgers.

Australia—a win for Tony Abbott (and Richard Murdoch)

By all accounts Tony Abbott waged a highly effective campaign in leading his Liberal (conservative) Party to victory in the Australian election on Saturday. And it didn't hurt that he faced a Labour Party splintered by internal bickering.

But the biggest boost of all may very well have been the massive support Abbott's party got from Rupert Murdoch, the media magnate whose newspapers cover 70 per cent of the country's readership, a formidable propaganda machine. Indeed, given that kind of backing, perhaps the only surprise was that the Liberals didn't win the landslide many predicted. On election eve, Abbott referred to Murdoch as a "hometown hero." He certainly did heroic service for the Liberals.

All of this must be deeply disturbing to democrats. Democracy is about political equality, and when one man has the kind of power Murdoch does, democracy is mocked. And that power is not limited to Australia. It is said you can't become prime minister of Great Britain without his blessing, his media empire there is so vast. He even exercises considerable influence in the U.S. with his ownership of Fox News and the Wall Street Journal, America's largest newspaper. The power of this one man trivializes the power of ordinary citizens.

Canada has its own Rupert Murdoch of sorts—Pierre Karl Péladeau—the owner of Quebecor Media Inc., a media monster that includes the country's largest newspaper chain.

Democrats may fret about this disproportionate power, but Tony Abbott won't be among them. It has served him well, and he will no doubt bask in the approval of his hometown hero for the next four years.

Is Obama forgetting that many Syrians support Assad?

As humanitarian concern over the Syrian tragedy transforms into a call for war, I wonder if we in the West—and most importantly President Obama—aren't forgetting that many Syrians support Bashar al-Assad. The last poll I could find (January 2012) showed that 55 per cent do not want him to resign.

Many segments of the Syrian population have good reason to fear the rebels. Women, for instance. They are now free to enter public life, but that could change if an Islamist opposition took over. The fact that the rebels are supported by Saudi Arabia, the world's most misogynistic nation, does nothing to ease their concern.

The military support Assad, of course. As do the merchant classes. Christians, who make up 10 per cent of the population, are terrified of the Salafi elements among the rebels. A variety of ethnic groups also fear the gunmen for similar reasons. There are even those among the opposition who fear their violent brothers-in-revolution.

This is not to say these various sectors of the population support Assad in his dictatorship. They don't, most want democratic elections, but they fear for the future of their country if change is dictated by ideological gunmen.

How, I wonder, does Obama think all these Syrians will react if he attacks their country. Does he think they will applaud? That is not the lesson of history. History tells us that when under attack, people rally behind their leader, even an unpopular leader. They may not much like their government, but they like foreign aggressors a great deal less. Congress may approve Obama's plan to bash Syria, but the result may surprise and disappoint him. Syria will be a more bloody and battered place but it may also have a more determined population rallying behind their president and against the rebels. And against the United States.

Odds against Obama

Lay your bets, ladies and gentlemen. Will President Obama get the support he wants from Congress for an attack against Syria, or will he suffer an historic and humiliating defeat? At the moment the odds are long against him.

Various news organizations contacting members of Congress report that the nays outpace the ayes by at least 3-1. A Washington Post count of the House of Representatives was much worse. With 371 out of the 435 members of the House contacted, 204 were against or leaning against and only 24 were in favour with 143 undecided. He may well win the Senate, although it will be close, but the House is a long shot indeed.

Obama would seem to have a very big sales job to pull off in a very short period of time, particularly with the American public strongly against the war.

While a defeat would be a devastating rebuke to Obama, the biggest losers might be House Leaders John Boehner and Eric Cantor. They support the measure while most rank-and-file Republicans are opposed. Yet another division in the Republican Party would be opened up. Yet another reason to hope the resolution fails.

Sanctions—deadlier than war?

Most Canadians, I suspect, don't pay much attention to the use of sanctions in international politics. War, yes—people being shot, bombed, and apparently even gassed is hard to ignore—but sanctions are complicated and largely invisible, easy to tune out. Most people's reaction is simply, "They're a lot better than war, eh?

But an eye-opening article in Harper's September issue suggests that is not necessarily so. The article, "A Very Perfect Instrument," claims that the sanctions against Saddam Hussein's Iraq cost the lives of at least half a million children from malnutrition and such diseases as gastroenteritis and cholera compared to the death toll of 174,000 from subsequent violence.

That wasn't supposed to happen—the sanctions allowed for shipments of food and medicine. But this safeguard existed more in theory than practice. The United States blocked attempts by the Iraqis to buy pumps needed for water treatment plants. Chlorine, for disinfecting the contaminated water, was denied also on the grounds it could be used as a chemical weapon. People were forced to use dirty water and the result was a slaughter of the innocents.

The current sanctions against Iran create a similar dilemma. If the Iranians want to buy food or medicines, they must pay through a bank of the country from which they make the purchase. But foreign banks are terrified of dealing with Iran lest they be punished by the Americans for sanctions-busting. They can be fined or have their U.S. assets seized. The article offers the example of an Iranian pharmaceutical executive who presented a French bank with documents showing that a trade deal was legal only to be told that even if he brought a letter form the French president himself, they would not risk it. Iran is, in effect, shut out of the international banking system.

That the Iranian people pay the price of sanctions is not surprising. After all, sanctions are intended to undermine governments by hurting ordinary citizens. As Winston Churchill said about the blockade of Germany during the First World War, the intention was to "starve the whole population of Germany ... into submission."

The article suggests that the sanctions won't dissuade the Iranians from their nuclear ambitions (whatever those ambitions might be) for at least two reasons. First, they are doing more to rally the people behind the government than turn them against it. And second, the ayatollahs simply don't believe that this is the purpose of the sanctions. They believe that the American goal is to destroy the regime. And they are probably right.

In the meantime, ordinary Iranians suffer. Referring to the WWI blockade of Germany, the article makes an interesting point. The blockade persisted for five months after the armistice, and this peacetime extension resulted in the deaths of a quarter of a million people, many of them children. A survey which asked young Nazis why they supported Hitler suggested a major reason was their "vivid memories of childhood hunger and privation." We might well wonder what the sanctions are brewing in Iran.

At least the provinces (well, two of them) care about climate change

In a good news item, the governments of Ontario and Manitoba announced they will maintain the internationally renowned Experiment Lakes Area project. Ontario has committed $2-million a year and Manitoba another $900,000 over six years through its funding of the International Institute for Sustainable Development (IISD). The IISD, a Winnipeg-based public policy research organization, will run the site.

The project's future had been in doubt since the federal government announced last year that, as part of its budget cuts to the Department of Fisheries and Oceans, it would close the site despite its international reputation as a pioneer of research into such environmental problems as acid rain, mercury and phosphates.

In making the announcement, Ontario Premier Kathleen Wynne stated, "I am thrilled that the Experimental Lakes Area will remain open. The research performed here provides invaluable knowledge about climate change and helps protect freshwater systems around the world."

So there you have it, a premier who rhapsodizes about research into climate change. What a pleasant change from a prime minister (and at least one premier) who rhapsodizes about producing dirty oil.

How will the West react when the Sauds turn on their people?

Various Western nations, including Great Britain, the U.S. and France, are exhibiting great outrage against Syria's assaults on its own people. And outrage is indeed called for. Yet there is no small measure of hypocrisy about the West's righteous anger.

Another dictatorship in the Middle East, the misogynous Saud family of Saudi Arabia, may in the not too distant future see its people rise up against it. If, or perhaps when, they do, it will have massive arms with which to suppress them, courtesy of Western Nations. Indeed, it has already used its war machinery against a popular uprising, participating in the violent repression of legitimate dissent in Bahrain.

The contract between BAE Systems of the United Kingdom and Saudi Arabia, had by 2005 earned that company and its predecessor £43-billion with the potential of £40-billion more, the largest export agreement in British history. The biggest foreign military sale in U.S. history was signed with Saudi Arabia in 2012, worth a staggering $29.5-billion. Of the European Union countries, France leads the list with arms sales to the Sauds of €2.2-billion in 2010 alone. In a nice touch, the U.S. recently announced a $641-million sale of cluster bombs to their favourite customer.

Ironically, Saudi Arabia continues to depend on the United States to guarantee its external security while it focuses its military might domestically—countering terrorism, suppressing dissidents and maintaining its iron grip on its own society.

While Western nations rail against Bashar al-Assad for using his military to kill his own people, those same nations arm to the teeth the thugs who may well be the next butchers of their citizens.

Tory MPs defy government

No, the above headline most certainly does not refer to Canadian Tory MPs.

In the recent vote in the British House of Commons on Prime Minister David Cameron's motion to initiate military action against Syria, all attention was focused on the defeat of the motion. And rightly so—the vote was of considerable importance in world affairs—but what also caught my attention was that 30 Conservative MPs voted against their own government.

This despite the fact that the Prime Minister, according to The Guardian, "managed a strong performance" while opposition leader Ed Miliband "put in one of his less impressive performances." What a wonderful display of democracy: MPs voting their conscience rather than allowing themselves to be whipped into docile compliance.

Would such a thing ever happen in Canada? It bloody well ought to, on the issue of military intervention at least, but I doubt even war would draw the consciences of Canadian MPs out of their caucus solidarity. So I applaud those 30 British MPs and congratulate them on their gutsy decision. Well done, ladies and gentlemen.

Tar sands ain't funny, says Travel Alberta

Travel Alberta was begging for it. Its latest ads, featuring the many attractions of the province, are really quite nice. But then they end with the extraordinary phrase, "Remember to breathe." Remember to breathe. How could any satirist resist a phrase like that coming from tar sands Alberta, the country's pollution province.

And, of course, they couldn't. A couple of American filmmakers are working on a documentary entitled "Welcome to Fort McMoney" which will incorporate part of the “Remember to Breathe” ad campaign. How could it not? "What's happening in a certain area in Alberta is going to make it difficult for all of us to breathe in the near future,” said Andy Cobb, one of the film's producers. Indeed.

They recently posted a trailer for the documentary on YouTube, raising the ire of Travel Alberta. Lawyers were informed and YouTube agreed to pull the video. Banned in Boston, you say? This time it was banned on YouTube. The results were much the same, however. The publicity helped the filmmakers raise over $20,000, which they claim will allow them to travel to Fort McMurray to finish the documentary.

Travel Alberta CEO Bruce Okabe says they are only trying to protect their brand. Nonetheless, the comics are fighting back. “Being a satirist, we take certain liberties with material in order to make fun of it or to make fun of the people who produce it,” said Mr. Cobb, “That's one of our rights and gosh darnit, we love it.” He is of course defending a traditional and important exercise in freedom of speech.

Nonetheless, on one thing I agree with Travel Alberta: the tar sands aren't funny. Yet I can't wait for the documentary.

Raising taxes on credit unions is a retrograde step

Prior to 1972, Canadian credit unions were exempt from all income and capital taxes. In many countries, including the United States, they remain tax exempt at both the state and federal levels. The justification is their non-profit nature.

In 1972, credit unions were brought into the tax syatem, paying the small business rate. The federal small business rate is now 11 per cent compared to the general corporate rate of 15 per cent. The ceiling is $500,000, however credit unions receive a special exemption for amounts over this up to a certain limit. The federal government's spring budget intended to phase out this exemption, bringing credit unions under the general rate. (Actually, through an error it would have raised credit union rates much higher but it has promised to correct the error.)

Taxing credit unions like private corporations is a retrograde step on at least two grounds. First, credit unions are one-member/one-vote democracies unlike the plutocratic one-share/one-vote structure of private corporations. If we believe in democracy, we should encourage democratic institutions over plutocratic ones.

Second, in a world riven by competition, co-operation is to be enscouraged as a superior moral value over competition. How much nobler a national and international motto "we must co-operate in the global society" would be rather than the currently rampant "we must compete in the global marketplace."

Rather than raise taxes on credit unions, we ought to be returning to the pre-1972 regime of tax exemption. If the highly competitive Americans can recognize their special nature, so can we. I fear, however, our current federal government will not have much time for either the democratic argument or the co-operative one.

Inequality of Canadian justice bothers Bar

I recently read the Canadian Bar Association report Reaching Equal Justice (I ran out of mysteries) and was surprised at the strength of the language. A sampling of the phrases describing justice in Canada today includes, "abysmal state of access to justice" and "huge discrepancies between the promise of justice and the lived reality."

Some of the statistics presented don't flatter this country either. For example, "the World Justice Project found that on civil justice, Canada ranked ninth out of 16 North American and Western European nations and 13th among the world’s high-income countries, just ahead of Estonia," and "For civil legal aid, Canada ranks a shocking 54th in the world, well behind many countries with lower gross domestic products." We even fall behind the U.S., ranked at 50th.

The report claims that the simple answer is that justice in this country has been devalued: "We see justice as a luxury that we can no longer afford, not an integral part of our democracy." Furthermore, it's getting worse: the justice system is "aggregating" inequality rather than mitigating it.

Stating that legal aid is our most important program for equal access to justice, the report pointed out that it has economic as well as legal and moral value. It can "save public money by reducing domestic violence, helping children leave foster care more quickly, reducing evictions and alleviating homelessness, protecting patients health and helping low-income people participate in federal safety-net programs." Apparently, studies in Australia, the U.K and the U.S. have shown a social return on investment of six dollars for every dollar spent on legal aid.

The Bar Association suggests a range of measures to deal with the justice deficit, including improving the legal capabilities of people in school such that law becomes a life skill, promoting legal expense insurance, a national justice care system for lower income Canadians, requiring volunteer service by all lawyers, and teaching law students that "fostering access to justice is an integral part of their professional responsibility." The report sets out an impressive action plan, involving participation by justice professionals, governments and the public, complete with milestones and targets.

Supreme Court of Canada Chief Justice Beverley McLachlin shares the Association's concerns, lamenting that, "People just swallow their pain and their loss and live with it, I guess, in some unsatisfactory way feeling they can't get justice."

The Bar Association states "Our goal is an equal, inclusive justice system everyone can take part
in." A very worthy goal indeed, and one essential to a healthy democracy. Bravo for the Bar.

Will India defeat malnutrition?

India has a lot of a lot of things, including hungry people. It has the world's second largest population and the world's second highest percentage of malnourished children.

It also has the world's largest food distribution system. Unfortunately the system has been largely ineffective, riddled as it is with incompetence and corruption. Now the ruling Congress Party has passed the Food Security Bill, a massive $22-billion program that will entitle 67 per cent of Indians to highly subsidized food. The Bill has yet to pass India's upper house but that is not expected to be a problem.

"The big message which will go out to the country and rest of the world," stated Congress Party leader Sonia Gandhi," is clear and concrete: that India is taking the responsibility of providing food security to all its citizens." Let us hope the Food Security Bill does just that.

As India's burgeoning economy brings it into the modern world, many in its multitude of poor are being left behind. This measure could help ensure that their boats, too, rise with the rising economic tide. Or at least that their children don't go hungry.

I'd rather have Justin Trudeau stoned than Stephen Harper sober

Justin Trudeau's admission that he had smoked the occasional joint had the Conservatives at their huffing and puffing best this week. His "actions speak for themselves" offered the Prime Minister while Justice Minister Peter MacKay accused Mr. Trudeau of setting "a poor example for all Canadians, particularly young ones" and went on to declare that "Justin Trudeau is simply not the kind of leader our country needs."

That last comment of Mr. MacKay's particularly caught my eye. I couldn't help thinking of Canada's greatest conservative of all, sometimes referred to as the father of our country—John A. Macdonald. Canada's first prime minister did not, to my knowledge, smoke marijuana but he was a serious boozer. While true that smoking pot is illegal (although trivially so) and drinking wasn't, Trudeau's occasional joint hardly compares to Macdonald's binge drinking.

But old John A might be excused—he had his personal problems and, in any case, he did his country great service. As to his drinking, he famously said, "The people would rather have John A. drunk than Brown sober," referring to his Liberal rival George Brown. I'm sure Mr. MacKay would never suggest that he was simply not the kind of leader our country needed. Or would he?

The U.S. war against democracy in the Middle East

The CIA's recent public admission that it masterminded the 1953 military coup against Iran's democratically elected government reminded me once again of the fickle U.S. support for democracy in the Middle East. American involvement was well-known—books have been written about it—but the publishing of previously classified documents by the U.S. National Security Archive amounts to a public confession. The Americans and the British, desirous of maintaining a source of cheap oil, conspired with the Iranian military to depose Iranian Prime Minister Mohammad Mosaddeq and install the dictator  Mohammad Reza Pahlavi. Choosing between democracy and oil, Britain and the U.S. chose the latter.

In a more recent free and fair election, the Palestinians voted in Hamas over the incumbent Fatah. But Hamas refused to recognize Israel and stated that it wouldn't honour past agreements between Israel and the Palestinian government. Israel, the U.S. and the EU subsequently cut off aid to Gaza, and the U.S. and Israel attempted to undermine Hamas. This time, the U.S. (supported, to our shame, by Canada) chose to support Israel's perceived interest even if it meant sabotaging Palestinian democracy.

And now we have Egypt and the brutal crushing of democracy by the army. The United States has cancelled joint military exercises and delayed the delivery of fighter jets, but may still provide most of its annual $1.3-billion in military aid for 2014. Having been amenable to U.S. policy objectives in the region, The Egyptian military, the source of dictators for generations, has long been a major beneficiary of American arms largesse. As have various tyrannical regimes such as Saudi Arabia.

Despite whack-a-moling democracy when it pops up in the Middle East, the United States persists in claiming it supports freedom and democracy in the region. Perhaps it does, but obviously not if it doesn't benefit American interests. As for American principles, well, apparently they too are servants of realpolitik.

Is flood amnesia setting in?

Immediately after the big water in June, two truisms were out and about in Calgary. One stated the flood had been so catastrophic that finally Albertans would take significant measures to mitigate damage from future floods. The other said that it wouldn't be long before the disaster was put out of mind and things would return to the complacent normal.

Reading recently about the province backing off on one significant measure, I wonder if the second truism won't turn out to be truer than the first.

Call for flood volunteers brought an overwhelming response

The province had stated that all titles for properties in flood-risk zones would henceforth be required to carry warnings. While recognizing this as a very good idea, I must admit that, as owner of a property in a flood-risk zone myself, I selfishly worried about what this would do to my property value. As it turns out, I have no need to worry—the province has dropped the idea.

Rather than put warnings on land titles for properties in flood-risk zones, the government will instead, according to CBC News, "work with the real estate industry to ensure prospective homeowners get the information they need before buying property at risk of flooding." When a government says it will "work with industry" rather than set regulations, scepticism is in order.

Or maybe the warning on the land title is just a bad idea after all. Or so my selfish self might like to believe. It will be interesting to see if that's all there was to this change of mind or if it's a first step to flood amnesia, and nothing much changes.

Undoing democracy democratically

As the Egyptian military brutally dismantles democracy in their country, other losses of democracy tend to pale in comparison. Yet when they involve people electing to disband their own democracy, they are nonetheless disheartening. At least to a democrat such as myself. Thus I felt no little disappointment when I read in the news of workers at Canada's only unionized Walmart, in Weyburn, Saskatchewan, voting to decertify their union.

Weyburn union-buster

The union—United Food and Commercial Workers, Local 1400—was certified as the bargaining agent for the employees in 2008, but fierce resistance from Walmart (at one point it was found guilty of unfair labour practices) precluded reaching a collective agreement. With new labour laws in place in the province, a decertification drive was launched at the store and a vote held. The union sought to block the counting of the ballots, claiming the process was unfair, however the courts ruled against them. They have now been counted and the vote went overwhelmingly for decertification.

Other than worker co-ops, unions represent the only democracy in Canadian workplaces. Why, one wonders, would workers reject democracy? Is a giant corporation such as Walmart just too formidable? Do unions demand too much effort? Were these particular workers philosophically opposed to unions? Did they trust management more than their colleagues? Or did they just not give a damn? One clue may be that out of the 69 who voted in December 2010, only about 10 remain employed at the store.

In any case, perhaps we should not be surprised by the vote. Canadians are not, after all, terribly interested in democracy. Barely 60 per cent bothered to vote in the last federal election. In civic elections, it's often barely 30 per cent. And we persist in using probably the world's most undemocratic voting system at both the provincial and federal levels. So indifference to democracy in a Canadian workplace isn't unexpected.

The United Food and Commercial Workers aren't indifferent however. They have vowed to continue the organizing efforts at Walmart. I wish them, and workplace democracy, all possible luck.

A mustache to die for

The things that worry religious fundamentalists never fail to amaze and amuse me. For example, Muslim fundamentalists have threatened to kill Malik Afridi because of his mustache. Admittedly, Mr. Afridi's version of the handlebar is rather extravagant, but considering that the fundamentalists are big on facial hair themselves, you might think they would be more tolerant.

Malik Afridi and friends

On one occasion, Lashkar-e-Islam, an ally of the Taliban, declared his impressive display to be "un-Islamic" and demanded protection money. When he refused to pay, they kidnapped him and held him hostage until he shaved off the hairy outrage. But he has regrown it and is now being subjected to death threats, forcing him to leave his wife and ten children and take to life on the road.

His family wants him home but, ever faithful to his mustachios, he declares, "I can leave my family, I can leave Pakistan, but I can never cut my mustache again." Placing your facial adornment above family and country is a curious sense of values indeed, but killing a man because you don't like his mustache is just downright weird. But then religion has no shortage of weird.

I have met the enemy and they ain't all capitalists

I am no fan of capitalism. An economic system based on greed and founded in patriarchal values is flawed at its roots. But the tendency of so many on the left to blame all our problems on capitalists is simplistic, unfair and false. It is scapegoating. Despite the system, like most other classes of people, there are good capitalists and bad capitalists.

Tom Steyer

I was reminded of this recently when reading about American billionaire Tom Steyer's challenge to TransCanada CEO Russ Girling to publicly debate the Keystone XL pipeline. Although capitalists are frequently blamed for our environmental woes, Steyer, employee of both Morgan Stanley and Goldman Sachs in his early years and founder of Farallon Capital Management, is an ardent environmentalist who has put his money where his mouth is. He and his wife gave $40-million to create the TomKat Center for Sustainable Energy at Stanford University. According to Wikipedia, "The center focuses on the development of affordable renewable energy technologies and promotion of public policies that make renewable energy more accessible."

This is only one of Steyer's philanthropic ventures and he is one of 40 billionaires, including Warren Buffet and Bill Gates, who in 2010 pledged to give away at least half their fortunes to worthwhile causes.

When it comes to the environment, to say nothing of most of our other prolems, I am inclined to accept Pogo's famous dictum, "We have met the enemy and he is us." Pogo was not, I think, referring to possums—the anthropomorphized little cartoon character was referring to we human beings. We are all, or at least the great majority of us, responsible for the despoiling of our planet. Not only capitalists drive their cars too much, buy homes bigger than they need or buy too much stuff—most of us do, capitalists, communists, conservatives, liberals and socialists alike. Capitalists have far too much power, but that's largely the fault of our democratic laziness, not their fault for taking what we allow them to have. We may not have voted for the corporate-friendly Harper government, but we supinely accept the corrupt electoral system that put it in power.

Scapegoating the capitalist class may allow us to absolve our favourite classes, the middle and the poor, of responsibility and help us evade our own guilt, but it won't help us deal with the environmental challenge because it doesn't face the truth. Pogo did, and ultimately so must all of us.

REAL Women's real bigotry

John Baird - doing the right thing

 

Foreign Affairs Minister John Baird has done a commendable job of defending gay rights everywhere from Uganda to Russia. Not everyone agrees, however, with his initiatives. REAL Women of Canada, a group that describes itself as a "pro-family conservative women's movement," has roundly criticized Mr. Baird for his attention to gays' human rights.  Referring to him as a "left-wing elitist," thus bending the term "left-wing" into an entirely new shape, they accuse him of attempting to impose his personal values on other sovereign states. (One assumes these venerable ladies would be above transporting their ideas about family values, or Christian values generally, to foreign lands.)

When it comes to homosexuality, most Christians are content with St. Augustine's dictum. "Love the sinner, hate the sin," a problematic but morally rational approach. REAL Women's attack on Mr Baird for opposing legislation such as Uganda's, which imposes 14-year sentences for homosexual behaviour, strongly suggest they hate both sin and sinner, and this is inclined less to morality than it is to simple bigotry.

REAL Women claim the Minister's actions are destructive to the conservative base in Canada, and they may be right. If they are, then Mr. Baird deserves even greater credit for his principled stand. I applaud his efforts and encourage him to keep up the good work.

Stephen Harper's private army

It is known as the Canadian Special Forces Command, or CANSOFCOM. It commands a secret army, comprised of four units: the Joint Task Force-2 (JTF2), the Canadian Special Operations Regiment (CSOR), the Canadian Joint Incident Response Unit—Chemical, Biological, Radiological and Nuclear (CJIRU-CBRN), and the 427 Special Operations Aviation Squadron (427 SOAS) which provides support to the other three. This little army is Canadian but it doesn't answer to Parliament, i.e. to the people of Canada. It answers only to the Minister of Defence and the Prime Minister. It is, in effect, their army, to be deployed at their pleasure. Or so I read, with no little surprise, in the July/August issue of the CCPA Monitor.

Not only does this force do its nasty business in secret, its budget is secret. We don't even know what it's costing us to put a private military force at the Prime Minister's disposal.

I was aware that we had a special forces unit, the JTF2, but I didn't know that the Conservatives had added three new ones. Frankly, I don't like secrecy in government and don't trust governments when they practice it. If we must have government agencies that operate in the dark, they should at least be subject to Parliamentary oversight.

I would hate to think that our Prime Minister would use this secret army for something like, say, furthering the interests of Canadian companies operating in the Third World. But perhaps that is naive. PM Harper's pet policy is the promotion of resource extraction, including the operations of Canadian mining companies abroad. Not infrequently, these operations meet with opposition from local people, occasionally violent opposition. Is it possible that Mr. Harper might use his special forces to quell that opposition? Not directly, of course, no Canadians shooting at the locals, but rather Canadians training an indigenous special forces to do the dirty work for us, a much cheaper and politically cleaner way to do it.

This would be the suspicion of a cynic if it wasn't for the fact that secret forces—the CIA being an excellent example—often get into devilry the citizenry would not approve but which that citizenry may ultimately have to stand accountable for. In any case, when governments act in secret, citizens are entitled to think rthe worst.

Our spymaster, the Canadian Security Intelligence Service (CSIS), has a parliamentary committee to oversee its behaviour even though, unlike the Special Forces, it doesn't have a licence to kill. If we must have a secret army, it damned well ought to be accountable to Parliament and under its scrutiny. It may have legitimate reasons to act in secrecy but it ought to be accountable to us nonetheless. The need for accountability from a killing agency is obviously much greater than from a spy agency. It is also more important that the public be fully aware we have such an outfit. After all we, the public, will be ultimately held to account for its actions. The government must justify the existence of this agency, if it can, and put it on a parliamentary leash.

The need for a global no-growth agreement

Trade agreements are all the rage among nations these days. And that might not be a bad thing if they were principally about trade rather than about empowering corporations at the expense of workers and governments.

In any case, what the world really needs is not global trade agreements but a global no-growth agreement. Sensibly, we cannot continue to use up ever more resources when the planet contains only a finite amount. We can substitute new resources for old ones, or use resources more efficiently, but the trend since the dawn of the Industrial Revolution has been a relentless march of ever increasing demands on the Earth.

Another form of unrestrained growth

And then there is the other side of resource depletion: pollution. Using resources creates waste, and just as we are using up the Earth's resources faster than it can replenish them, we are creating waste faster than it can absorb it. We are, for instance, creating so much carbon dioxide and other greenhouse gasses we are causing the very planet to warm up. Climate scientists warn us that we have only a very few decades to halt this nonsense or the warming will be irreversible, and it is doubtful global civilization can survive global warming if it runs out of control. We must, therefore, come to terms globally about how to end growth.

Ending it will, as they say, require a new economic paradigm. We are, under our current economic regime, caught in a growth trap. For the last 250 years or so, advancing technology has made production ever more efficient, allowing for more production with less labour.  But less labour means fewer people working and the unemployed cannot buy much. Increase unemployment and the economy slows, tipping into recession or even depression. This is to be avoided at all costs. The inevitable answer is to produce more products, or create new ones, thereby creating jobs. In short, the answer is growth. To end growth, we must escape this trap. We must stop consuming ever larger amounts of stuff.

Various possibilities present themselves. For example, we could work less, accepting lower incomes--buying less stuff, but compensating ourselves with more time for family, community and pleasure.

In his book Alternatives to Growth: Efficiency Shifting, Conrad Schmidt offers the intriguing idea of reducing overall labour efficiency by creating jobs that are more labour-intensive. For example, if teachers average 30 students to a class, reduce class size to 25 or 20, or whatever the optimum teaching size is, and hire more teachers.

We might also make work more interesting at the expense of making it less efficient. When Henry Ford increased efficiency in his factories by setting up assembly lines where each worker installed one part over and over and over again, replacing groups of mechanics that made a whole car, he turned skilled workers into robots. More efficient it certainly was, but much less humane. It is time to put job satisfaction over job efficiency. Ending quantity growth, i.e. GDP growth, does not mean ending quality growth.

In the West, we have long passed the point where we create enough wealth to allow every person a comfortable living. We have to allow the undeveloped world some catch-up, but we are now well-positioned to tame growth.

There are solutions out there. What is not out there is serious political discussion of the issue. Meanwhile we race on toward the plundering of our Earth, sucking it dry of resources and defiling it with our waste. The clock is ticking on global civilization.

400 ppm

Of all the events that occurred during my blogging hiatus, the one that struck me as the most significant, even including the massive flooding of my hometown, was the Earth experiencing for the first time in millions of years an atmosphere containing 400 ppm carbon dioxide, as measured at the Mauna Loa Observatory in Hawaii on May 10th.

As important as the Calgary flood was, it was a local event. Reaching an atmospheric CO2 of 400 ppm was a global event, important to every member of our species and to many other species as well.

It is an arbitrary number of course, 400 ppm is hardly worse than 399 ppm, but round figures catch the eye. This round figure tells us we are going in the wrong direction and fast, from 315 ppm to 400 in little over half a century. We are on the fast track to hit 450 ppm, the UN's official red line, by mid-century.

To quote leading climate scientist James Hansen, "If humanity wishes to preserve a planet similar to that on which civilization developed and to which life on Earth is adapted … carbon dioxide will need to be reduced … to at most 350 ppm." Climate scientists such as Hansen are the people who know what they are talking about on the issue of global warming, the ones we ought to be paying attention to. So, yes, 400 ppm, as arbitrary as it is, demands our attention. It speaks to the survival of civilization as we know it, and indeed to life on Earth itself. Significant indeed.