Economic Growth is a Cancer: Meet Steady State Economics

For decades I’ve been hearing about and studying how humans are living beyond the planet’s capability of sustaining us…and that we’ve been doing so quite unequally.

And what have we done about that? Embraced neoliberal, deregulated free market capitalism: the economic expression of rape and pillage.

Reduce, reuse, recycle neglects the real first R: refuse.

Our notion of progress requires growth and improvement. We measure this in expansion of GDP and trade. But we are so divorced from the ramifications of our lifestyle that despite all the canaries dying in coal mines, we still might screw up Copenhagen beginning this weekend and leave the meeting with a world lacking unity on averting climate breakdown. And Canada may end up being the spoiler.

We are divorced from the reality of nature’s cycles. We think of growth as linear and upward and not cyclical and level. Nature goes in a circle of seasons. We don’t get more winter or spring each year, we just have equilibrium.

Even our calendars do not help us realize this, which is why this new way of envisioning a calendar is quite liberating: Chris Hardman’s Ecological Calendar.

And if people whack the equilibrium, the ecosystem responds. My children may be the victims of that response for decades more years than I will remain alive. If we cannot stomach that, we need to make sure Copenhagen works.

But how do we get off the economic growth addiction?

It requires a massive reframing. 20 years ago, there were no drink or paper recycling containers in schools and offices. Now they’re ubiquitous.

That took a reframed mindset.

Take also environmental footprints, a concept virtually unknown a decade ago. Now it is a useful and widely understood analytical tool for thinking about our individual contribution to a better or worse environment.

Getting off the economic growth fix can mean embracing steady state economics. This is an economic model that treats the economy as a means to human ends, not maximizing short-term shareholder wealth.

But what does anyone know about this model of zero-growth economics? Follow the link above and read the brief description of the values inherent in the model: sustainable scale, fair distribution, efficient allocation. Do they resonate with you? Do they seem more appealing for your moral goals for our relationship with the planet than getting a 9-18% return on your investments until you retire? Because that is the trade off.

More blatantly, the trade off is between something more like a 1-5% return on your investments or reframing our economy so the majority world living in poverty has a better chance at surviving and living in dignity.

If we cannot conceive of economic growth as being a cancer, it may not be because it’s wrong. It may be because we’ve been drinking this Kool-Aid fed to us in a steady marketing diet since birth. How could we be expected to see things differently. We need to use our imagination to contend with liberating ideas that are challenging to our unquestioned mindset.

Try steady state. 4 out of 5 dentists surveyed find it a healing tonic for ecological turmoil caused by neoliberal economics.

BC NDP Convention Minus 5 Days: Why We’re the Natural Governing Party of BC

I had this amazing daydream a few weeks after we failed to win the election last May.

The NDP is the naturally governing party of BC, so when the legislature was to open earlier this fall/summer, the NDP MLAs should stroll in there and behave as if we actually represent the poorest 95% of British Columbians, which we do, and we should do our best to represent them.

And truly, the MLAs are taking it to the streets this session, for sure. Being critics, challenging the government on its priorities and process are reflective of the masses who have been suffering for this whole decade.

But we really should embrace a humility and a public service mode to recognize that we represent the values of most citizens and we should act as if we are governing. It’s just that we can’t pass legislation.

This goes along with this idea I have that behaviour in parliament is a joke, with all the “grand traditions” of idiocy and compromises to actual debate that so many people claim to be an unquestionable tradition.

But honestly, I have never seen a school board, NGO or even city council meeting operate like our provincial leaders. But reforming the operation of the Westminster Parliamentary System is on my list of long-term reform goals.

In the short term, we start with the reality that most working people in this province are being abused by the government. Tiny lures of tax cuts are combined with user fee increases.

Token, cynical concessions to the poorest British Columbians are matched by massive service cuts.

In the end, the intentional defunding of the BC government is designed to undermine the progressive tax system, reduce the tax burden of the rich and bilk the middle class.

The NDP is rich in convention-passed resolutions framing our party’s beliefs. They exist to represent working people in the province and do not cater to the richest 5% that the Liberals worship.

I would direct you to BC NDP policy on our website, except that it is only available in the internal section where party activists can log in to view the resolutions passed by conventions over the last 30 years. This policy needs to be on the outside of the website for members, the public, the Liberals, the media…EVERYONE…to see it so that we can say to the world that we follow our policy.

Not doing so reduces our credibility, which we saw in abundance in how we lost the last election. Our members chose to not vote and risked Campbell getting in again to avoid voting for us. It doesn’t really get any worse for a political party than that.

My first goal upon being elected to the provincial executive is to make sure everyone knows what we stand for. I’ve read our policy documents. I read our campaign platform during the last election. But you shouldn’t have to take my word for it that we represent the majority of British Columbians.

But beyond internal party problems, why don’t most citizens vote for us when we actually represent them?

Well, why did millions of poor Americans vote against their economic interest this decade by supporting Bush as he abused them like Campbell is abusing the working classes of BC?

Fear.

The neoliberals have scared the pants off of citizens with the idea that an NDP government would bankrupt everyone.

Since someone in the NDP is still afraid of the phrase “fast ferries,” the party in general has not spent this decade having monthly lunch meetings with the dozens of progressive economists in BC to bone up on economics. It’s not like the CCPA hasn’t been coming up with innovative alternative budgets every year!

We should be able to clean the Liberals’ cobweb logic. What kind of justification in the universe is there to build BC Ferries in Germany while our industry languishes?

And if you get our your mental calculator and zoom into Burrard Inlet on Google Earth, you can make your little camera zoom from where the fast ferries are parked, and glide over the water to the new convention centre and every second you can tick away the dollars. The new convention centre cost overrun basically matches the fast ferries. So what are we afraid of?

There seems to be a rule in politics to never apologize for the past, never to admit mistakes. Maybe because we’re afraid that the other side will point out that we screwed up.

Well we did screw up. The fast ferries don’t fit BC’s geography. And we knew it.

But who knew it? A bunch of people who aren’t in the party right now. I disagreed with the boats back then and I do now. Integrity means admitting mistakes. What do we owe former party leaders who screwed up? We owe ourselves and our children more integrity than we owe loyalty to the past.

Here’s another mistake. As much as the party had some valid criticism of the Liberals’ specific carbon tax legislation, the Axe the Tax campaign failed almost from the beginning, in part because of the awful coincidence that gas prices went through the roof around the time of the introduction of the tax, making a criticism of a 2 cent tax petty.

Oh yes, the NDP has affirmed policies supporting a carbon tax consistently for this whole decade. So the other reason why the campaign failed was because our party actually wants a large and effective carbon tax, despite the feelings of whoever decided on that campaign.

So. Where does this leave us?

We have lots of policy that most citizens would embrace:

• framing the economy to serve human beings and not maximizing offshore corporate shareholder wealth
• investing in human services and not cutting healthcare and education
• reframing all government policy so that it fits a grand regulatory plan to avert climate breakdown, since we only have a few years left to turn our economy around before we’re past the point of no return
• everything else we love about social, human, economic, environmental and political justice and equality…something the Liberals hate as they pander to greed and elitism.

So we need to post our policy and be proud of it.

We need to acknowledge that the fast ferries were a mistake and reflected bad decision-making among people who haven’t been in the party in a decade. We need to throw them under the bus. Right now.

We need to recognize that good policies designed to avert climate breakdown reflect our values and we need to educate people and bring them along to recognize how domestic food security and bioregional economic development are critical to cutting down on carbon usage. Oh yes, and peak oil is either here now or close by so we need to pro-actively get off oil.

Sounds simple.

Apparently it’s pretty hard though, but that’s just not good enough for me.

So, I’m running for one of the 6 Vice-President positions of the BC NDP to do these “simple” things and sift through whatever rationalizations have kept the party from working with integrity.

In the end, whatever explanation exists for why the party has screwed up the carbon tax, fast ferries and a myriad of other problems, none of them hold water. Why? Because they’re justifications for compromises designed for us to win the election.

We haven’t won an election this decade. So with some pretty simple hindsight, our tactics have failed and are continuing to fail.

If we keep the same tactics and expect a different result, we’re mad.

I’m not mad. And clearly, neither are the members who didn’t show up to donate time, money and their vote to getting us in power.

It’s time for the BC NDP to behave according to its principles so we can properly represent the values and interests of the majority of British Columbians who should feel eager to support us.

If they don’t it’s not their fault, it’s ours.

And I’ve had enough of that.

We’re Failing Our Grandchildren on Stopping Climate Breakdown

Our grandchildren will hate us for our informed inaction on climate change. I refuse to bear this.

I’m watching a National Geographic documentary on climate breakdown right now on the Knowledge Network. Saharan dust storms are madly increasing the rates of asthma and decreasing the health of sea fans on the reefs…in the Caribbean!

The increase in effects of GHGs in the last 30 years has increased the Saharan dust flying to kids’ lungs in the Caribbean. We KNOW this. Pleading ignorance is an offense to my children’s children.

US satellites are documenting more and more decline in ice. Are we acting yet? Only in a greenwashing way. Click on the photos to read about what is happening while we embrace mostly inaction.

New polling indicates real inconsistencies. Strong majorities of citizens in some countries are demanding more action, while similar sizes in other countries are dancing with complacency. Two of the latter countries are China and the USA. Together, those countries can eradicate efforts by the rest of the world.

We have to massively reduce our energy consumption in how we live, work and consume. We must force our leaders to lead in this.

I know I’m going to answer to my grandchildren. I already blame my parents’ generation for somewhat ignorantly contributing to many of our current problems, not the least of which are massive materialism and consumerism. How much more will we be judged by our descendants for ruining their world, knowing that we know better. The answer? To a degree I refuse to accept passively.

Alarmism and reactionary pleas seem to be increasing, policies seem to be improving somewhat, but we’re squandering our handful of years left to make the massive changes necessary to avoid breakdown. Now, shake your head and read this. And let’s get busy.

Think about how you will look your grandchildren in the eye. I’m not looking forward to that conversation.

Handcuffing a Community’s Resilience: Bata in the 21st Century

I first knew Bata shoes as a kid taken shopping to try on new shoes. As a teen I learned about the nexus of globalization and apartheid with Bata as a model, since they were operating in South Africa. Thomas Bata said, “We expanded into Africa in order to sell shoes, not to spread sweetness and light.”

Not only was it neoliberal globalization’s low-wages that lured Bata to they shift production overseas decades ago to take advantage of cheap labour, foreign competitors also helped force the closure of Bata’s domestic shoe production in Batawa in 1999.

But now Sonja Bata is trying to redevelop Batawa, Ontario into a post-industrial community, it is clear that she hasn’t read Jeff Rubin’s book, Why Your World Is About to Get a Whole Lot Smaller, on how peak oil will end globalization and force us to spend far more time developing bioregional social, economic and political communities.

She has partnered with design students from Carlton University, encouraging them to get all radical in creating a new vision of a community with artists, urban farms, research incubators and even a microbrewery. While these ideas reflect a healthy respect for a mixed community, since her model is post-industrial she may be in for a surprise when oil goes back up to beyond where it went last year and the global human supply chain constricts.

What will likely be needed in Batawa is for her to open her factory to make shoes again, not convert it into condos.

So, it is more than a little ironic that she is planning to miss out on developing some appropriate infrastructure for the community upon globalization’s decline.

While Bata is now in the gentrification business, the Globe’s Gordon Pitts correctly writes, “the region needs jobs, not fanciful ideas,” as a local Quaker Oats plant recently closed.

Ultimately, Bata’s vision and paradigm are hopelessly obsolete. In discussing the process of Batawa’s gentrification, she says redeveloping the factory is a symbol: “we have to get that done.” Destroying the factory’s capacity to manufacture products local certainly is a symbol, but it’s a symbol of a business model which will become more irrelevant every month the price of oil creeps back up.

But that’s not the only problem with paradigms involving Bata. Carlton characterizes its partnership with Bata as a university-community collaboration. Bata is a corporation with a real estate gentrification agenda. They are not a community. They don’t speak for a community. They are, in fact, hampering the Batawa community’s resilience to transform its local economy to a more sustainable one.

The relationship is really a public-private partnership with public university design students subsidizing the creative function of a corporation. It would be far more appropriate for the design students to be remaking Batawa in a way that will allow it to function in the transition we’ll be encountering when oil prices rise.

Instead, they are creating a community that will have no place in our near future.

They should be recognizing that bioregional social, economic and political units will be the sustainable size of communities since getting products from outside local zones will require expensive transportation. Bioregional communities will have to be as self-sufficient as possible to ensure that what they do trade will provide real value to justify the costs.

At 82, Sonja Bata may not be able to properly envision what our communities will require in a future with peak oil, climate change/breakdown, discredited deregulated and privatized neoliberal capitalism and declining globalization.

The key to managing such a profound paradigm shift is for all the rest of us to have more foresight than her. What the world needs now is the sweetness and light of sound community planning.

Peak Oil Will Kill Neoliberal Globalization: More Support

A year ago today, I wrote about how a few years earlier at lunch with friends I was thinking that peak oil will kill neoliberal globalization. Last year, there was a piece in Report on Business about just that, making me feel mighty vindicated. It’s nice to see corporate media affirming your views.

A few minutes ago, I finished watching a Tuesday rerun of the now former chief economist at CIBC, Jeff Rubin, plugging his new book, Why Your World Is About To Get A Lot Smaller, on Stroumboulopoulos’ The Hour. Watch the clip. He’s all over this thing now, which is part of the reason why he left the CIBC two months ago. This helps his credibility.

So at first, I thought that he’s more vindication for my ideas from a few years ago, but not so much.

When I went back to look at last year’s piece, wouldn’t you know it, but Jeff Rubin is one of the fellows quoted in the article. And since his book is out now, it was in the can last year when he was mentioned in the article. So the fellow was already planning his exit strategy.

So despite all the greenwashing miniscule attempts at mitigating climate change without altering our consumerist and corporate worship, it’s nice to hear the CIBC’s former chief economist talking about bioregional survival, the necessary rise of domestic manufacturing, eating local food and skipping winter avocados unless we move to avocado-land, which I won’t do. I’ll be reading his book!

So what’s our job? Start planning to voluntarily simplify our lives. Read Thomas Homer-Dixon’s The Upside of Down to learn what real resilience-building means. Crippled markets with unaffordable gasoline, ecological crises and a deepening recession/depression will force us to simplify anyway, so we’d best get on it! And even if that 3-part perfect storm doesn’t happen, simplifying is better for you, your family, your friends, the planet and the abused workers who make all the shit that you won’t have to buy anymore since when global markets decline they’ll be out of work making the Wal-Mart junk and they’ll do what we’ll be doing: eating bioregionally.

Force your political party to start developing truly ecologically progressive policies that recognize 1) the crippling effects of climate change that the UN scientists say are accelerating faster than predicted, 2) the end of a local, national and global trade regime built on cheep energy, and 3) a global economic crisis that manifests the paradigm shift we will endure–either pro-actively or reactively, we get to take our pick.

So we have to become assertive paradigm mechanics to start re-tooling for a future that will start soon after the Olympics debacle cripples BC’s resilience next year with some kind of $74b debt. Lucky us. We also have to re-imagine community interdependence, bioregional agriculture and markets, and an end to greed-based individualistic consumerism. And the sooner we begin, the better.

Neighbours Organic Weekly Buyers Club [NOWBC] has figured this out, going one step past organic food delivery companies with local sourcing. Last week they held a community potluck at Heritage Hall on Main Street in Vancouver, which was delightful, child-friendly, entertaining, educational and full of healthy, yummy food. They talked about doing that event annually. They need to do it monthly, judging from the eager crowd!

Oh, by the way, while we’re on it all, let’s let the auto companies go under, or better yet, nationalize them to build transit and post-carbon autos. GM and Chrysler are on the brink and for a change, how about we insist that governments–who are elected by actual human beings–bail out the pension commitments to workers instead of tossing more of my future grandchildren’s income taxes into more corporate money pits!

So, what are you waiting for? If you have read this far, contact me and let’s get talking! And if you belong to the BC NDP, you absolutely HAVE to contact me because you need to get in on the ground floor of making that party the leader in wise planning for a tumultuous future!

Now. Let’s get busy!

De-Spinning the Enviro NGO Mess in BC This Month

One of the best things to come this month from the controversies about how environmental NGOs view the NDP’s opposition to Campbell’s awful carbon tax is that people are realizing that climate change is not a 6-second sound bite.

Here is an absolutely amazing piece that reviews some truly sound points!

Tapping Our Wild Rivers Can’t Fix Climate Change

via Tapping Our Wild Rivers Can’t Fix Climate Change :: Views :: thetyee.ca.

Tapping Our Wild Rivers

Can’t Fix Climate Change

M’Gonigle of UVic: ‘Power down!’

Veteran enviro says no to Tzeporah Berman’s ‘PowerUp’ logic.

By Michael M’Gonigle
Published: April 20, 2009

TheTyee.ca

A week into the provincial election the person grabbing headlines is not a politician but an environmentalist. Tzeporah Berman helped lead the Clayoquot protests of ‘93 and then protect the Great Bear Rainforest but lately she’s been slamming the NDP for opposing the carbon tax while throwing her weight behind a huge new energy strategy embraced by the Liberals: run-of-river (RoR) power production.

And she’s pulling a lot of others with her — while getting many others fired up in disbelief and anger.

Berman and her influential allies want us to believe that only by harnessing renewable “green” energy can we reduce global warming. And that the time for debate is past; now we must just do it.

I’m one long-time environmentalist who couldn’t disagree more.

As one of the founders of Greenpeace International, EcoJustice, Smart Growth BC, the Dogwood Initiative, and other B.C. groups, I embrace real solutions to our environmental challenges, including climate change, and the movement to make them happen.

But in pressing for run-of-river, Berman and allies are only accelerating us down a doomed path that will destroy precious natural ecologies in British Columbia without making any significant dent in global warming, and undermine the work of many environmentalists in the process.

There is a far better course of action, however, that would not divide environmentalists but excite them and motivate the larger citizenry. Let me explain.

At first glance, run-of-river power seems pretty benign. Without recourse to large dams, RoR diverts stream water into turbines, and then returns it to the river downstream. In many rural areas, such projects have been in operation as small-scale sources of power for generations.

But as proposed in B.C., RoR is on a far larger scale. And its numerous side effects are now well known: Destructive construction in wild rivers and intact habitats, new roads and penstocks carved through wilderness areas, long transmission lines.

The list of concerns for RoR in B.C. goes on: the potential privatization of up to 500 streams and rivers, the realization that the systems will work well only during spring run-off, the gold rush mentality that has identified some thousands of potential sites across the province, the industrial scale of most of the projects, and the government/industry push that eschews careful planning by removing local decision-making authority.

Recently Berman’s new organization, PowerUp, held a well-attended meeting in Vancouver to promote RoR on a massive scale in B.C. Berman gets lots of support from power companies, political leaders and climate scientists, including UVic’s Andrew Weaver who, in a Vancouver Sun article, attacked “so-called environmentalists” (like me, I guess) who don’t agree with “what science shows to be necessary.” He dismisses as “outlandish” and “insidious” our concerns for protecting wilderness rivers and aesthetic viewscapes. We haven’t done “the math”; proposed policies “are very well understood.”

I would call this state of mind climate myopia — where climate change is essentially treated as the only environmental issue we face that, if we could somehow solve it, would allow us to get back to business as usual. Old growth forests, overfishing, fish farms, wild rivers? Back burner issues. We have to focus on climate change or else it’s all over.

All right then, let’s focus on really solving climate change — and why Berman and her allies are dead wrong.

Don’t raise supply, lower demand

As a “solution,” an important distinction must be made here, for RoR is a so-called supply-side solution, one to produce more energy. And even here, B.C.’s green energy won’t displace existing local sources of carbon-emitting energy because the power is destined for export to California. Despite this, a group of high profile environmentalists wrote in The Sun of the need for this new power because “our electric cars are going to have to get juice from somewhere.” These advocates do acknowledge the need to promote solutions on thedemand side by conserving energy. They note approvingly that the province plans to meet “more than half of BC’s new electricity demand with efficiency.”

Supporters of “alternative energy” also argue that it will create new “green jobs.” But what jobs? Construction workers in remote camps blasting rights-of-way through grizzly habitat to build RoR facilities on undeveloped rivers to provide seasonal power for export to Los Angelites who can now crawl in their electric cars guilt free along the freeway?

Environmentalists have long been fond of saying that the economy is a subset of the ecology. But not Berman’s brigade whose RoR strategies take the economic growth trajectory (and its accompanying energy trajectory) as a given. At best, Berman calls for “more sustainable development.”

But wait. Is “more sustainable development” about new electric cars, newpower supplies, new energy exports, efficiency to meet new demand? Is there not a problem here? In a country with some of the highest per capita energy usage levels on the planet, where is the discussion of seriously reducingenergy demand overall and doing it for the long term?

Increasing efficiency and generating new “alternative” sources of supply will never get us past the climate crunch because they confront a central contradiction: continuous economic growth that will just swallow up whatever gains are made, all the while upping the environmental impacts.

Can someone please explain how we can get past this contradiction except byreducing total energy demand, and developing economic strategies that will allow us to do so permanently?

Naming the problem

Taking the problem of economic growth seriously will not make you popular with the mainstream. But doing so actually offers tangible lessons. Here are three obvious ones:

1) We should not embark on destructive new supplies until demand reductions have been exhausted — to death.

2) We should not look at just simple efficiency gains in existing processes but at whole new ways of designing our economy that inherently reduce energy flows.

3) We should consider new sources of supply only later and only where each renewable watt is directly tied to retiring an old carbon-based one.

So the climate emergency may not be about building more river utilities after all. Maybe we would do better to work together to stop new infrastructure investments like the new 10-lane Port Mann Bridge, a bridge for more cars, and without light rail. And to do this as part of a full-on campaign to refashion the whole face of urban transportation not just in the Lower Mainland but worldwide.

But this doesn’t fit with the one truth that all political leaders agree on: we must keep the growth machine on stimulants.

A new model of development

These leaders have successfully exported this ideology to places like China, the most populous place on earth. With China’s commitment to a coal-fired future of ever increasing production and consumption, exports and trade, a car for every household, one must ask: What have we unleashed here? Is there any vision of development that is both as universal and as inappropriate to the survival of the planet as this?

Talking about how we might get past this ideology and its contradictions is a taboo. But no one was talking about Wall Street’s duplicity a year ago either. It took a collapse for that.

For B.C., this contradiction has a very specific import: given China’s growth trajectory, what sense could it make to compromise one of the great river regions on the planet for minimal practical effect? It IS one atmosphere after all.

Climate scientists do not like to think about this. But when you do, you see the second, and more difficult, “inconvenient truth” of climate change — the limits of a model of development that depends on always more growth, and more energy to fuel it. That is to say, the PowerUp strategy.

Just as global warming was until recently marked by widespread denial, so too denial of the problematic of growth economics is omnipresent today.

Confronting the tough truth of economic limits by actually trying to think and work past the growth paradigm opens up great possibilities. Call it the strategy of “growing into no-growth.”

Instead of blasting in new supply projects to fuel electric cars, why not talk about how to build “car-free” cities? Here we might start to save the earth, and save money too. After all, if a car costs about $10,000 per year to own and run, a “demand reduction” strategy could reduce not only energy needs, but financial burdens on people. A strategy with a “double dividend,” long term.

Instead of seeking more profits from power exports to California, why not work like crazy to reduce our food imports from that distant state with a massive commitment to enhance local food production right here? The same energy reduction benefits would result, and creating a true green economy (literally).

Who’s being ‘realistic’?

The retort, of course, is that such ideas aren’t politically realistic.

Not so, says one of the gurus of energy planning, Vaclav Smil of the University of Manitoba. On the contrary, he argues that the history of creating new energy supply systems has shown that the challenges are so enormous that “none of the promises for greatly accelerated energy transitions will be realized.” Message: it’s the renewable energy folks who aren’t realistic.

Meanwhile, the distinguished American geographer David Harvey points out in an April 2 interview in DemocracyNow! that the global economy was worth $4 trillion in 1950 and is now at $56 trillion. With all hands on deck to stimulate it way past even that, and to do so for as far into the future as anyone can contemplate, we are hitting the “limits environmentally, socially, politically…. In other words, we have to think about a zero-growth economy.” Message: it’s the whole economistic agenda that’s unrealistic.

In the competition of unrealities, I will throw my lot in with those who would create new political possibilities. At least we would be working with the feedback we are getting from nature, not continuing to work against it.

Environmental politics for this century

To ensure the success of avowedly green energy projects, governments in British Columbia and Ontario now promise to pay big subsidies for more power, and they have rewritten provincial legislation to prevent local communities from deciding whether they want these development proposals. In contrast, in the United States, the federal government is looking at new forms of neighbourhood governance that might refashion all forms of resource and energy use at the community level.

Actually empowering citizens to try out new things where they live entails a form of what Harvard law professor Roberto Unger calls “democratic experimentalism.” DemocracyNow! calls it “deep democracy.” Not here.

For citizens in this province, a choice presents itself. Does climate change demand an impossible technological response to “power up” new sources of energy to fuel an impossibly expanding political economy?

Or does it demand an active democratic response that can inspire a new movement to “power down” into a calmer economy, and a livable future?

When you push past our collective denial, most people know the answer here. But they don’t know how to do it. As the climate clock ticks, this is the real work to be done.

PowerUp? No thanks.

PowerDown? Sign me up!

Gullible Gord: A Compendium of Campbell’s Fear and Desperation

“Incompetence is combined with thoughtlessness, arrogance and hubris — a fatal mix.”

via Spare Us from Gullible Gord :: Views :: thetyee.ca.

Rarely is there an article that so succinctly lists evidence of Campbell’s extraordinary dislocation from reality, worship of neoliberalism and disregard for citizens and communities. Rape and pillage for the lowest financial return is bad policy. These people have to go!

Read this piece and forward it widely! With the Bil 42 gag law, it is viral distribution of the destructiveness of BC’s neoLiberals that will bring them down.

“Lord Stern on global warming: It’s even worse than I thought”

“Sea levels are likely to rise twice as fast as predicted in the last UN climate change report in 2007.”

via Lord Stern on global warming: It’s even worse than I thought – Climate Change, Environment – The Independent.

As governments continue to craft optics-friendly greenwashing plans while ramping up highways construction, etc., I keep reading reports that estimates from as little as 2-3 years ago were too conservative as new data shows accelerating climate change effects.

Nero fiddled and we’re worried about how to afford a new car during this economic crash!

Stupid.

No One Is Illegal – Ignite resistance ~ Canadian multiculturalism is not enough!

No One Is Illegal – Vancouver » Blog Archive » Ignite resistance ~ Canadian multiculturalism is not enough!.

In a world where the deregulated global market capitalist regime is imploding, there is wide open space to re-frame the local, national and global economy in a socially and economically just way.

An off-shoot of this progressive agenda is the celebration of authentic community where people/consumers/citizens can get out of their cocooned homes and participate in the cultures of community.

What better way to do it than in this event?

Details:

SATURDAY MARCH 21. rhizome cafe, 317 e. broadway

* 6:30 – 7:30 pm: artists of colour showcase. please bring $ and support their creations! (tshirts, crafts, prints, posters, art and more) Free food served during artists showcase (on us and Rhizome)
* WITH: Louis Cruz, Tania Willard, Afuwa Granger, Riadh Hashim, Angela Sterritt, Gord Hill, Kat Norris, People’s History of Kanada posters, Café Ramona and products made by Zapatista Mayan women, and more.

* 7:30 – 9:30 pm: wicked performances and inspiring words includes spoken word, storytelling, children’s songs, hip hop, comedy, musical performances, and talks! Enjoy dinner and drinks from Rhizome’s delicious menu
* WITH: George Ciccariello-Maher from OAKLAND!, Kat Norris, Aysha and Sahara, Carnegie Community Action Project Choir, Hari Alluri, Reem Alnuweiri, Ros Salvador, Sinag Bayan Filipino Cultural Collective, Priscillia Mays, Gupreet Kambo, Alaaeldin Abdalla, and Lindsay Bomberry.

Keep Reading Your Community Newspapers, Or Else

Despite the sexiness of the internet, print is not dead. If you are not spending more time reading your community newspaper, you are on the wrong road, for yourself and for the health of our society.

Granted, decades ago television supplanted newspapers as the dominant source of news and information for the majority of North Americans. And now the internet has passed newspapers.

The Pew Research Center in the United States is one of the most respected research organizations because of the balance of their approach to tracking political, social, economic and cultural trends and patterns.

Late in 2008 they reported that 40% of Americans get their news mostly from the internet, up from 24% just 2.5 years ago. Newspapers have slipped to 35%. Canadian trends usually follow the Americans.

There are many reasons for this shift, largely obvious, but they don’t reflect the whole story.

Certainly internet media sites have improved their capacity to deliver information with far more appeal and better organizational tools for users. The Air America radio network, Alternet.org, Rabble.ca, BC’s TheTyee.ca and other progressive online media have been well served by new technologies like podcasting and people’s need to look outside corporate media to find critical information and analysis on this decade’s radically right wing governments in BC, Canada and the United States.

At the same time, increasingly concentrated corporate media ownership, with increasing ownership by foreign corporations, has led to cost cutting through centralizing reporting and firing breathing journalists. Corporate media often prefers to often just be the de facto communications department of right wing governments by reporting as “news” often verbatim press releases.

This has led to the dilution of meaningful content in newspapers, declining paid subscriptions, and full-page ads on the front page of newspapers. People notice the decline. Even daily newspapers have been dumping papers for free in public spaces to be able to claim their circulation is high despite decreasing subscriptions and actual paying consumers. Declining circulation leads to declining ad revenue: a debilitating revenue feedback loop. Large North American cities are losing their status as two-newspaper towns as large dailies close.

But the other side of the story is about the necessity of a free press in a healthy, functioning democratic society: an increasing rarity with such corporate concentration of ownership.

While the internet has risen in prominence, television is responding with enhancing relevance. On the progressive side, MSNBC’s Keith Olbermann and Rachel Maddow have drawn more viewers. Even CNN’s reporters have become more critical than soon after 9/11. Farid Zacharia would never have been able to get a show on CNN 6 years ago.

Sadly, the same kind of improvement in critical capacity has not emerged in Canadian television. CBC TV’s high profile pundit panel consists of centre, centre-right and right wing commentators, with no progressive voices.

But community papers are a vibrant resistance front against ignorance, apathy and right wing governments preferring to elude the spotlight.

During our global economic crisis and increasing oil prices, globalization of goods and services will decline. People will be buying local more, supporting bioregional agriculture and production.

In a world of global corporate media ownership, people still long for news, commentary and analysis that affects them and not just some nebulous World Economic Forum policy from Davos, Switzerland.

Indeed, in the global economic, environmental and energy crises we are entering, it is the community itself that will be the our way out. People of all political stripes on the prairies, and where Gordon Campbell cynically calls BC’s heartlands, have known this for generations.

Community papers have breathing journalists who see what happens on their streets, in their closing mills and in spin-off sectors throughout their regions. They see how people live and breathe and how suffering shows up. There is far less centralization and homogeneity of reporting.

And as long as community papers are financially viable it is their publishers’ and editors’ duty to enhance their content since global corporate media owners and the internet’s capacity to inform people about life outside their communities provide just one scope of information.

Community papers do recognize the role they play in reflecting and influencing the fabric of local society. They have to make sure what they publish is worthy of reading.

Similarly, people need to realize they have a part to play in ensuring a free press can exist. They can do this by reading their local papers, demanding quality analysis, engaging in community discussion about issues in the paper and supporting local advertisers.

There are a handful of community papers in the province that excel in quality journalism and commentary. There are many more that sometimes rise to a significant level, but there are many more that are not reaching that standard. This needs to change.

It is the public’s job to demand more from their local media. The public must complain about press releases from city hall or the health authority showing up as news without analysis and contextualization. We must be vigilant in writing letters to editors. We must contact journalists and editors directly to tell them when what they publish is good, and when and how it can be better.

The effectiveness of a free press in a democratic society is eroding, and that is not accidental. But it doesn’t have to decline. And while it is very hard to force the CRTC to break up concentrated corporate media ownership across the country, it is far easier to walk into the office of your local paper with some Timbits for the staff and your opinions about your community, what is working and what needs improvement.

Directors of right wing think tanks can always get meetings with the editorial boards of large corporate media. But on a community level, the leaders of community groups, activists, all citizens need to realize that they deserve to have the ears of their local media.

After all, community media is about us, the community. And the more we insist that it reflects our lives, the more robust our media will be.

And if we let our community newspapers become Pablum or die, that will be our fault. Our society deserves a freer, more vibrant press. We need to do our part in ensuring that.

Cultivating Economic Imagination

There are more things in heaven and earth, Mr. Harper and Mr. Campbell, than are dreamt of in your neoliberal economic ideologies.

With the economy crashing all around us yet great uncertainty about how it will affect us all in the long run, we have seen our federal and provincial government spend most of the last 6 months denying reality and continuing to slash and burn our functioning collective government.

But suddenly the federal and provincial government have broken their rigid, ideological opposition to deficit budgets for authentic economic stimulus in deficit budgets.

But with so much denial and delays from our leaders and a corporate media that constantly echoes calls for blind tax and spending cuts, the public has not had a great deal of reflective debate about better ways to fix our economy so that it actually works for people.

In fact, we should evaluate the economy by seeing how well it serves people throughout the land, not just the rich.

This is why the Vancouver & District Labour Council and the Canadian Centre for Policy Alternatives held a workshop on the last weekend of January in Vancouver to do just that.

Just days after a distinctly non-Conservative federal budget and 18 days before the new provincial deficit budget, the workshop allowed dozens of people to explore how the economy should serve us all and not the richest 10% of Canadians who earned over one-third of all taxable income of Canada in 2004, unlike the poorest 30% who earned just 7%.

During the workshop, SFU’s Marjorie Griffin Cohen explored problems with Harper’s stimulus program. So much of the plan rests on individuals’ choices. People put their tax savings in times of crisis like this into savings or debt repayment instead of spending on domestic goods and services that can provide a multiplier effect to help the economy.

More collective planning like infrastructure spending, child care, health and education would provide a much more reliable benefit for our economy.

Bob Simpson, NDP MLA for Cariboo North and Opposition Critic for Forests and Range, also spoke. With a background in history and forestry, he demonstrated some big picture insight into the ecology within which our economy exists. He described how the hyper-consumptive, corporatist American dream “will kill us all and give us no hope for future generations” as it irresponsibly wastes the resources our economy needs to work for all people.

Simpson discussed how GDP as a measure does not tell us how the economy is serving people. We need to use new tools that evaluate what really matters, like the Genuine Progress Indicator, which measures the improvement of people’s welfare.

We also need to stop privatizing our publicly held resources: our forests, rivers and agricultural land. And we must focus on community economic development that works with our ecology without shipping raw logs overseas and risking our aquatic habitat.

In her new book, Naomi Klein explores the neoliberal Shock Doctrine mentality of capitalizing on crises to privatize, deregulate, de-fund and marketize governments. At the workshop, Jim Sinclair from the BC Federation of Labour described that we can take advantage of the clarity of this economic crisis to show the public how bankrupt market capitalism is for providing people’s needs.

We need to rethink how we do politics and economics, enabling workers with expanded rights and focusing on increasing community control of our economics. He used the example of the Queensborough mill that closed because despite being profitable and a solid contributor to the community’s economy, it wasn’t profitable enough for its foreign owner.

Andrew Jackson from the Canadian Labour Congress spoke of the option of actually using the Bank of Canada to finance our own debt rather than privatizing it by borrowing from banks. The USA will likely end up doing this, and when they do we can explore it also to keep our exchange rate from fluctuating too much.

But as well as more typical fiscal areas of intervention in a struggling economy, we need to remember the human face of the effects of the economy.

The CCPA’s Seth Klein spoke about BC adopting a poverty reduction plan to actually set meaningful criteria and targets to focus on, with spending to ensure that improving the economy actually helps real people, particularly our most economically vulnerable. And when we address retraining, we absolutely have to develop green jobs to go along with reducing poverty.

Finally, Adrienne Montani from First Call spoke about BC’s Living Wage campaign that calculated what people need to earn to live in Vancouver and Victoria (over $16/hour). And while health policy researchers have clearly demonstrated how poverty undermines people’s health, Montani mentioned that now even right wing economists are now recognizing the social profitability of eradicating poverty because of increased health costs to society.

So on February 17 when the BC government introduces a deficit budget, we need to remember that there are far more options we can consider than what neoliberal Finance Ministers chooses to embrace.
The VDLC and CCPA have shown in their workshop that we can weather the economic crisis and improve the economy so it actually serves people rather than forcing people to sacrifice for the investment return rates of the hyper rich in Canada.

The End of Globalization–Can You Smell it Yet?

A few years ago I was sitting in the pub at Simon Fraser University with the usual suspects…a gang of mostly political science graduate and undergraduate students for our weekly 4-hour lunch consisting of political debate and movie reviews.

I can’t remember the details but I had just been learning about peak oil. Petrochemicals have a large role in the fertilizers that enable the population of the industrialized [OECD, minority] world to eat food to the degree that supports our massive population. Apparently there was something in Harpers about that some time ago. I’m still scared to read it.

And since most of us at the lunch were generally political economists, we often discussed how to derail the global trade regime: IMF/WB/WTO. Since Hugo Chavez has spayed and neutered the IMF by paying off most of Latin America’s loans to it and since the WTO Doha “Development” (sic) round of negotiations has stalled leading to neoliberal defections toward regional trade initiatives, the regime may be collapsing on its own, thank you very much.

But one thing came up that day at lunch when I was trying to address how to cripple neoliberal globalization, and that was how peak oil will make prohibitive the costs of transporting materials around the world to be processed by workers in jobs outsourced from the industrialized world into products shipped to us in containers on those big boats. The economics of it all depends on a price of oil that is not quite so high as today’s $135/barrel. Or not even so high as the $70 barrel 2 years ago [yes, the cost of a barrel of oil has doubled in the last 24 months].

When peak oil grabs us by the throat and prices rise, the global supply chain will become less cost effective. Our runners and bananas will begin to have costs that assert them as the luxuries they really are. Economics will become more local, both in food from bioregions, but also products and services.

One friend at lunch that day said they’d just find another way to power the big boats. Nuclear power perhaps. Or maybe clean (sic) coal. Ok, he didn’t mention clean coal, but both it and atomic manipulation are somewhat impractical for varying reasons.

So we’re left with the end of globalization that comes not from policy decisions based on educating the populace to demand our representatives (sic) alter the global trade regime. It comes from the end of cheap fossil fuels.

My friend’s nuclear answer sounded plausible, but I had a hard time being truly swayed by its possibility.

So yesterday I read at Report on Business [see below] that I was on the right track.

And while the piece mentions that NAFTA could encourage outsourcing to Mexico instead of Asia, and by implication that a fully mercantilist, protectionist Canada may not be imminent, our latest globalization prime minister did recently scuttle a deal to sell off MDA’s Radarsat to an American firm. In the end, realists are realists.

And while we may not all be ready to go out and buy our yurts and embrace a bioregional lifestyle outside of metropolitan centres, we are one step closer. And if oil hits $200/barrel this Christmas, we’ll have to re-assess the situation with a little more intensity.

The soaring cost of fuel is whittling away at the cheap-labour advantage enjoyed by Asian exporters, giving Canadian firms a welcome edge in their fight to win back business from Asian competitors.

Two bank economists argue in a report released Tuesday that because of higher fuel costs, shipping a standard 40-foot container from Shanghai to the east coast of North America now costs $8,000 (U.S.), up from $3,000 in 2000 when oil was just $20 a barrel.

That higher cost is passed on to North American consumers, making goods from China and other Asian places more costly compared to the offerings of domestic North American producers.

Some Canadian manufacturers are already noticing the effect.

High fuel costs are expected to have a dramatic impact on trade patterns, as businesses look for supplies closer to home

“It’s helped us because it’s harder for the Asians and others to ship over here,” said Barry Zekelman, chief executive officer of Atlas Tube Inc. of Harrow, Ont.

He said that after taking 30 to 40 per cent of the North American market for some steel tubing products, the Chinese have now “virtually disappeared” – partly, though not exclusively, because of the costs of transporting a heavy product such as steel across the Pacific.

Jeffrey Rubin and Benjamin Tal of CIBC World Markets Inc. say higher oil prices are reversing the world-is-flat effect, in which lower trade barriers and new technologies like the Internet made it cheaper to move goods and services from developing Asia to the markets of the rich world.

“In a world of triple-digit oil prices, distance costs money,” they write. “And while trade liberalization and technology may have flattened the world, rising transport prices will once again make it rounder.”

Mr. Rubin and Mr. Tal say the steel sector is a prime example of the world-is-round effect.

Chinese steel exports to the United States are falling by more than 20 per cent year over year. China’s costs have risen because Chinese producers have to bring in their iron ore from faraway places such as Australia and Brazil, then ship the finished steel to the United States. As a result, U.S. steel producers actually have an advantage over Chinese rivals.

“Rising transport costs have already more than offset China’s otherwise slim cost advantage, giving U.S. steel a competitive advantage in its own market for the first time in over a decade,” the economists write.

They say higher transport costs are affecting other “freight-intensive” sectors such as furniture and industrial machinery, too. These goods now account for 42 per cent of total Chinese exports to the United States, down from 52 per cent in 2004.

In fact, if oil prices had not risen so quickly and transport costs had not soared so dramatically, growth in Chinese exports since 2004 would have been 30 per cent stronger than the actual figure.

Of course, the rising cost of goods from China is hardly happy news for many Canadian companies that source parts from Chinese factories, sell imported goods from China or have their products assembled by Chinese workers.

They suggest that “instead of finding cheap labour half way around the world, the key will be to find the cheapest labour force within reasonable shipping distance of your market.”

While Canadian companies could benefit, the bigger winner will be Mexico, they say. “Look for Mexico’s maquiladora plants to get another chance at bat when it comes to supplying the North American market,” they write.

Shipping costs to and from Asia have risen so much that they have eclipsed tariffs as a barrier to global trade, Mr. Rubin and Mr. Tal say, calling the cost of moving goods “the largest barrier to global trade today.”

“In fact,” they say, “in tariff-equivalent terms, the explosion in global transport costs has effectively offset all the trade liberalization efforts of the last three decades.”

When oil was $20 a barrel, transport costs were equivalent to a 3-per-cent tariff rate; now it’s above 9 per cent.

Aggravating the problem is the fact that modern new container ships travel faster than old bulk carriers and so use up more fuel, doubling fuel consumption per unit of freight over the past 15 years.

“This is an environment in which shipping from the Pacific Rim may not make sense any more,” Mr. Tal said in an interview.

“If you’re thinking, ‘maybe we should bring in a container from China,’ you should think again.”

Four Lawn Signs Are Worth a Thousand Words

My favourite is the third.

Gordon’s New Hoax: Informed Climate Change Policy

Hot on the heals of Steve in Ottawa, Gordon in Victoria is trying to look like he knows what he is talking about with the climate change thing.

Embracing the Gateway Project goals that link in with the North American SuperCorridor, worshiping the car and pretending to care about transit while removing democracy from the TransLink board are pretty cynical.

But worse is Gordon’s idiocy when he was being interviewed by Vaughn Palmer on theVoice of BC TV program last fall almost bragging about how he just made up a target for reducing greenhouse gas emissions without any real scientific backing. He should have at least read George Monbiot’s Heat. Here is how Palmer described it in his column on January 16, 2008:

It has been almost a year since the throne speech announced the premier’s goal of reducing greenhouse gases by one-third.

Where did he get the target? I asked him a while back.

“I don’t want to pretend that I went out and asked a scientific panel about how to get there,” Campbell replied. “I didn’t.”

Rather he picked the target out of the air, then set his officials the task of determining the means and cost of hitting it.

It’s clear that window dressing is important as Gordon traipses around the left half of the continent signing non-binding memoranda of understanding with various other jurisdictions on fixing the climate change problem…while twinning our bridges and building more roads.

But today, when my email Inbox received Steve’s crazy treaty ratification nonsense, I received Gordon’s announcement [and below] that he’s going to actually try to come up with some science from a new wonderful scientific panel to back up his desire to be the green premier with the brand new Pacific Institute for Climate Solutions.

Not trusting the fellow at all, I watched his government flip from promoting racist policy towards First Nations with a treaty referendum which facilitated open discrimination, to one that uses treaties to skim land from the Agricultural Land Reserve. Now our leader is trying to come up with some semblance of expert backing for his whimsical climate change solutions.

Despite not trusting the premier, I expect that there is a chance that this Institute can actually come up with some real contributions to the issue. I worry, though, that its creation–being significantly political and optical–may confine its work to solutions that will allow the climate change deniers and avoiders, as well as the rich and SUV-lovers to keep driving on our smoothly paved, privatized toll roads and bridges.

And in the end, the first sentence of the announcement just made my stomach spin. The province will seek legislative approval for the Institute. It’s almost as if folks in Victoria and Ottawa co-ordinated their press releases to capitalize on the idea that legislative oversight actually matters. BC signed a new corporate bill of rights combined with a de facto economic union with Alberta in TILMA after secret negotiations and won’t allow the agreement to be ratified in the ledge. BC has removed democratic accountability from TransLink, but they are promoting how important it is to get legislative approval for building this Institute.

It’s just too much to bear in one day.

And to rub in the gall is the constant reference to the role of the private sector in the Institute. P3s are so sexy these days for neoliberals. Governments, academics and the private sector: nice. What of labour, NGOs, environmental groups, the rest of civil society? No need. In the privatized commons view of Gordon’s neoliberalism, the business sector is sufficient.

And quite frankly, I don’t want the private sector to have anything to do with the kind of socio-behavioural change required in our society to avert climate change disaster.

Premier’s Office PREM:EX wrote:

$14-Billion Transit Plan for British Columbia

More Corporate Fascism at TransLink

Through a possible combination of a TransLink half-truth, incompetent journalism or the chronic problem of insufficient space for sufficient depth in Metro [and the other crappy free daily commuter papers], TransLink is able to hide another element of its new corporate fascist structure.

The new TransLink “board” [sic] will meet in secret. Its directors were appointed by business interests [almost predominantly]. The directors are accountable to themselves only, not the mayors, provincial government or the public as none can fire them but themselves. The new council of mayors is empowered to approve one of three plan options given it by the “board.” If the council of mayors rejects them all, the “board” has the power to pick one, essentially allowing the board to offer a crappy, crappier and crappiest option to the mayors, wait for them to reject them all, then go ahead with whatever the hell they want anyway.

In today’s Metro [above, click it to see it in full], you can see that TransLink spokesperson failing to claim the above rule about the mayors. Perhaps the Metro reporter didn’t push enough to get that, or perhaps the paper simply can’t be bothered to include enough actual words to complete the story.

Either way, this is nothing new. Since Falcon’s TransLink nightmare came to light last spring, we knew this was coming. How much unaccountable spending of public funds, especially for something so important to the public, will it take to get us mobilized?