I’ve read the work of George Monbiot before – he’s a seasoned environmental justice veteran who writes passionately and logically. He’s put out another great post about population (a topic we have just had a seminar on here at Dal). His argument that the population problem is only second to our consumption problem seems to fit with a lot of other data I have heard, especially from my favourite population optimist, Hans Rosling. Apparently, according to statistics (that I am too lazy to look up) fertility rates have dropped consistently across the world, and continue to do so – so, although we must remain vigilant in protecting and promoting women’s rights, sexual education and care, we must be even more vigilant in reducing the impacts of our global consumption. In this case, the problem points more directly toward the developed world, not only to reform the rich, but to lead the poor and developing nations on a path toward sustainable prosperity.
Hans Rosling on Global Population Growth (but he’s got a ton of videos and you should see them all!).
As I’ve written about before, the Belo Monte dam in Brazil was to be a tremendously tragic occasion for the people who lived on the Xingu river, flooding their lands, killing off fish and displacing entire societies. Though I heard reports that the Dam project was on hold, it is likely that work is still being done to prepare for its construction. Here is a video of community solidarity among the people dependant on the Xingu.
Today is United Nations Day – 66 years ago today the United Nations Charter was ratified, and hope was sown that perhaps we were on the road to world peace and prosperity. We’ve come a long way, but there’s still a long way to go. This video of Severn Suzuki (David Suzuki’s daughter) at the UN Rio Earth Summit in 1992 really shows how we are still battling the same environmental problems, almost 20 years later.
However, since Severn gave this speech there have been many advances by the United Nations – the Rio Earth Summit produced several important documents that prompted action in many areas. Included were binding agreements on the Framework Convention on Climate Change (FCCC), which later gave rise to the Kyoto Protocol, as well as the Convention on Biological Diversity. The most notable meeting in recent history has been the 15th Conference of the Parties (COP15) for the FCCC, on climate change. It was largely considered a failure, as no binding agreements were signed.
Sometimes I wonder if we think we’re already getting stuff done when we agree there is a problem (hint: we’re not getting stuff done just by talking).
Just wanted to put this here in case anyone has not seen “Inside Job” – a documentary about the collapse of America’s economy in 2008. It shows how such a concentration of power is detrimental to the whole system of governance. It will lead to our ruin if we value money more than people or the environment.
What a vivacious and intelligent woman. Elinor Ostrom is the first woman to win the Nobel prize in economics for her theories on common property institutions. Her focus on community based solutions are visions based on environmental and social sustainability.
“UNEP has joined forces with the International Union for the Conservation of Nature (IUCN) to create protectedplanet.net — an interactive, social media-based website that provides in-depth information on both the leading lights and hidden gems of the conservation world. Using the latest satellite images, users can pinpoint individual protected areas — such as national parks or marine reserves – and zoom in for information on endangered species, native plant life or types of terrain.”
I love this idea – I think when I have some time I’ll help to fill in some of the information. Classification of protected areas helps us to understand how to manage them better and using a visual tool like GIS is essential to communicating such complex information. So cool.
“You get what’s coming to you” – this is a phrase that implies that anything that happens to you is of your own doing. People with motivation and means will invariably come upon success, and lazy layabouts will get the nothing they deserve. I find the problem with this thinking is it doesn’t account for the diverse and complex social world we live in, where power is unfairly concentrated, and status or “who you know” counts more than your applicable knowledge or abilities. Chance and consequence can ruin someone’s life for no reason, and where you’re born determines whether you live in constant deprivation or exorbitant abundance.
How can this phrase be true if those with power are able to manipulate the factors of success in the lives of those without? Do you deserve what’s coming to you if someone with more power sent it your way? I wonder, in the face of the “Occupy Wallstreet” movement how one cannot see the view of the protestors and the big picture they oppose – namely that corporations and their CEOs have been allowed to shape our society to suit themselves at the expense of the common person. Money rules over people in government, and thus those without money are without a voice.
“Relative privation” is a logical fallacy that I am fascinated with. The argument from this fallacy would be that protestors in the developed world should quit complaining about their lot in life when others have it so much worse, that there is real poverty in the world, so members of developed society should shut their mouths and be thankful. Just because there is something worse by comparison does not make a situation good. Coincidentally, protestors in the developed world are certainly protesting on behalf of those that suffer in the developing world. Members of the developing world are at the whim of those same corporations.
This image is floating around
As a member of upper-middle-class-white society, perhaps I have a hard time sympathizing with anyone who has to make the choice between food and shelter, or money and environmental integrity. But I can definitely empathize. It offends my sense of justice that anyone should have to make those choices, especially when there are no other options for them to better their situations. I don’t have to make those choices, but speaking as a global citizen: why should my earth and my fellow person be torn apart because a handful of people are clever enough to take everything for their own benefit?
I think we must make a new world order. I know many of us are comfortable with the status quo, but it is simply not sustainable. In any sense of the word. Corporate interest must remain separate from government interest (if you are pro-capitalism I’m pretty sure this is a basic tenant of the unbastardized theory). In Canada specifically, Big Oil must not dictate government policy or take government subsidy or tax cuts. Financial institutions must not be allowed to gamble away the funds of a nation, and then get bailed out with more funds, and then be allowed to continue the same practices. It must not be profitable to pillage the environment or destroy the livelihoods of people. We must have a paradigm shift, where the interests of people and our environment are put first – true wealth must be a priority: clean air and stable communities, not just money, which exists only in theory.
Maybe I take back what I said at the beginning of this post. I think maybe greedy CEOs and their destructive corporations should get exactly what’s coming to them.
For the financial down-low this is a great (2 part) video that explains what happened to the Americans in the 2008 economic collapse. It was fuelled by greed, and the common person was treated as a commodity.
Today in class we were discussing climate change and how it is so necessary for us to address it in mitigative and adaptive capacities. I thought (rather grimly) about Canada’s only Federal Climate Change bill, and how it was undemocratically overturned last year by the Conservative Government. The Climate Change Accountability Act (Bill C-311) would have committed Canada to dramatically reducing emissions, but was killed on the grounds that our economy would suffer as a result of reducing emissions…in other words there was no way Harper was going to put the Alberta Oil Sands in jeopardy. My question becomes: how are Canadians expected to make changes on the individual level when our government will not lead or take action that shows climate change is an important issue?
If I had to pick a favourite movie that seems to capture society right now it would be “Home” by Yann Arthus-Bertrand. It is breathtaking, awe inspiring, and incredibly informative. If I ever forget the big picture, I can always count on this film to remind me.
You can listen to Yann talk about the film, as well as his other work, in his TED talk.
One Human in the World 