|
More information: Bloomberg: U.S. Delay on Climate Pact Spurs Backlash From EU to Barbados Photo credit: Photo by Julian Koschorke for Speak Your Mind
Hamilton 350 Blog
Wednesday, 7 December 2011
US and Canada delay action on Climate Change
More information: Bloomberg: U.S. Delay on Climate Pact Spurs Backlash From EU to Barbados Photo credit: Photo by Julian Koschorke for Speak Your Mind
Hamilton 350 Blog
Notable Achievements of our current Canadian government
Here are some of the Harper govt. achievements or currently working on:
Eliminate
Long Gun Registry
Long Form Census
Canadian Wheat Board
Kyoto Protocol
Funding for KAIROS
Canadian Environmental Network
Environmental assessments
Independent observers
Promote
Tar Sands Development
Keystone XL Pipeline
Northern Gateway Pipeline
CETA - Comprehensive Economic and Trade Agreement with EU
Arctic Exploration
Crime Legislation
Canada-US border deal
How much more can we take?
Hamilton 350 Blog
Eliminate
Long Gun Registry
Long Form Census
Canadian Wheat Board
Kyoto Protocol
Funding for KAIROS
Canadian Environmental Network
Environmental assessments
Independent observers
Promote
Tar Sands Development
Keystone XL Pipeline
Northern Gateway Pipeline
CETA - Comprehensive Economic and Trade Agreement with EU
Arctic Exploration
Crime Legislation
Canada-US border deal
How much more can we take?
Hamilton 350 Blog
Wednesday, 30 November 2011
Canadian Environmental Network being cut
Local environmentalists petition to get national network reconnected
Lynda Lukasik Hamilton environmentalists, including Lynda Lukasik, of Environment Hamilton, are rallying to fight federal funding cuts to a national environmental network that has linked local residents to policy-makers for decades.
John Rennison/The Hamilton Spectator
Hamilton environmentalists are rallying to fight federal funding cuts to a national environmental network that has linked local residents to policy-makers for decades.
The federal government announced in October it was ending more than 30 years of annual funding for the Canadian Environmental Network, which works to connect more than 640 environmental groups across the country with bureaucrats and lawmakers. The surprise decision meant staff at the national agency, as well as the Ontario arm of the network, immediately lost their jobs.
In Hamilton, leaders of local environmental groups fear they’ve lost their voice.
The network is “critical” in hooking up local experts with federal bureaucrats in charge of forging new environmental laws and policies, said Lynda Lukasik, executive director of Environment Hamilton.
Lukasik was recently recruited by the network to participate in a steel industry roundtable with government and business officials with the goal of setting national air emission standards. “The environmental community voice from Hamilton at that table was me,” she said.
Without the efforts of the network, “you’ll still see government-industry consultations happen, but you won’t see them with any non-government, non-industry people at the table,” Lukasik said at a meeting of local environmentalists Monday.
Most of the 30 member groups associated with the Hamilton Area Eco-Network have signed a petition asking the government to reconsider the funding cut, said co-ordinator Laurel Harrison. Members will meet next Thursday to brainstorm ways to support the endangered national agency.
Harrison said the government’s move will leave small, volunteer-run Hamilton groups in the dark about possible funding and opportunities to influence changing regulations or government decisions. “The loss of the (national network) means local organizations are not going to get the information they need,” she said. “It weakens the community.”
She pointed to the diversity of concerned local groups, including the Conserver Society, Clean Air Hamilton, the local waste reduction task force and the Hamilton Naturalists’ Club. “It’s not just a few people concerned about trees,” she said.
Members said they planned to reach out to Local Hamilton Conservative MP David Sweet with their concerns this month. He was not available for comment Monday.
But Michelle Rempel, parliamentary secretary to the federal Minister of the Environment, told the Legislature in October the funding cut of around $547,000 was a budget decision and the department plans to ramp up “web-based consultation” with the public.
This article by appeared in The Hamilton Spectator, November 28, 2011.
Hamilton 350 Blog
The federal government announced in October it was ending more than 30 years of annual funding for the Canadian Environmental Network, which works to connect more than 640 environmental groups across the country with bureaucrats and lawmakers. The surprise decision meant staff at the national agency, as well as the Ontario arm of the network, immediately lost their jobs.
In Hamilton, leaders of local environmental groups fear they’ve lost their voice.
The network is “critical” in hooking up local experts with federal bureaucrats in charge of forging new environmental laws and policies, said Lynda Lukasik, executive director of Environment Hamilton.
Lukasik was recently recruited by the network to participate in a steel industry roundtable with government and business officials with the goal of setting national air emission standards. “The environmental community voice from Hamilton at that table was me,” she said.
Without the efforts of the network, “you’ll still see government-industry consultations happen, but you won’t see them with any non-government, non-industry people at the table,” Lukasik said at a meeting of local environmentalists Monday.
Most of the 30 member groups associated with the Hamilton Area Eco-Network have signed a petition asking the government to reconsider the funding cut, said co-ordinator Laurel Harrison. Members will meet next Thursday to brainstorm ways to support the endangered national agency.
Harrison said the government’s move will leave small, volunteer-run Hamilton groups in the dark about possible funding and opportunities to influence changing regulations or government decisions. “The loss of the (national network) means local organizations are not going to get the information they need,” she said. “It weakens the community.”
She pointed to the diversity of concerned local groups, including the Conserver Society, Clean Air Hamilton, the local waste reduction task force and the Hamilton Naturalists’ Club. “It’s not just a few people concerned about trees,” she said.
Members said they planned to reach out to Local Hamilton Conservative MP David Sweet with their concerns this month. He was not available for comment Monday.
But Michelle Rempel, parliamentary secretary to the federal Minister of the Environment, told the Legislature in October the funding cut of around $547,000 was a budget decision and the department plans to ramp up “web-based consultation” with the public.
This article by appeared in The Hamilton Spectator, November 28, 2011.
Related Stories
Hamilton 350 Blog
Saturday, 26 November 2011
IPCC Special Report
IPCC Special Report on Climate Change will be released February 2012
Hamilton 350 Blog
You can preview the report here
Hamilton 350 Blog
Wednesday, 23 November 2011
Friday, 18 November 2011
System Change not Climate Change
In an extensive analysis of the appeal of climate skeptics, acclaimed author Naomi Klein argues that they may be more perceptive than environmentalists in recognizing the real implications of the global climate crisis. The skeptics main arguments are emotional, not scientific, and contend that that climate change is really a left-wing plot to destroy capitalism and the ‘free’ market.
Klein suggests there is some truth here.
“The fact that the earth's atmosphere cannot safely absorb the amount of carbon we are pumping into it is a symptom of a much larger crisis, one born of the central fiction on which our economic model is based: that nature is limitless, that we will always be able to find more of what we need, and that if something runs out it can be seamlessly replaced by another resource that we can endlessly extract,” she writes in the current edition of The Nation.
“But it is not just the atmosphere that we have exploited beyond its capacity to recover — we are doing the same to the oceans, to freshwater, to topsoil and to biodiversity. The expansionist, extractive mindset, which has so long governed our relationship to nature, is what the climate crisis calls into question so fundamentally. The abundance of scientific research showing we have pushed nature beyond its limits does not just demand green products and market-based solutions; it demands a new civilizational paradigm, one grounded not in dominance over nature but in respect for natural cycles of renewal — and acutely sensitive to natural limits, including the limits of human intelligence.”
Klein thus agrees with the skeptics that climate change itself isn’t the issue.
“Climate change is a message, one that is telling us that many of our culture's most cherished ideas are no longer viable. These are profoundly challenging revelations for all of us raised on Enlightenment ideals of progress, unaccustomed to having our ambitions confined by natural boundaries.”
Hamilton 350 Blog
Thursday, 17 November 2011
In the Face of This Truth
It’s time to talk honestly about collapse - no matter how others may respond.
We live in the midst of multiple crises - economic and political, cultural and ecological - posing a significant threat to human existence at the level we have become accustomed to. There’s no way to be awake to the depth of these crises without emotional reactions, no way to be aware of the pain caused by these systemic failures without some dread and distress.
Those emotions come from recognizing that we humans with our big brains have disrupted the balance of the living world in disastrous ways that may be causing irreversible ecological destruction, and that drastically different ways of living are not only necessary but inevitable, with no guarantee of a smooth transition.
This talk, in polite company, leads to being labeled hysterical, Chicken Little, apocalyptic. No matter that you are calm, aren’t predicting the sky falling, and have made no reference to rapture. Pointing out that we live in unsustainable systems, that unsustainable systems can’t be sustained, and that no person or institution with power in the dominant culture is talking about this - well, that’s obviously crazy.
Regardless of others' reaction to talking honestly about collapse, it's essential we continue; no political project based on denying reality can be viable for the long term.
But to many of us, these insights simply seem honest. To be fully alive today is to live with anguish, not for one’s own condition in the world but for the condition of the world, for a world that is in collapse. What to do when such honesty is unwelcome?
In June 2010, I published a short essay online asking people who felt this anguish to report on their emotions and others’ reactions. In less than a month I received more than 300 messages, and while no single comment could sum up the responses, this comes close:
“I feel hopeless. I feel sad. I feel amused at the absurdity of it all. I feel depressed. I feel enraged. I feel guilty and I feel trapped. Basically the only reason why I’m still alive is because there are enough amazing people and things in my life to keep me going, to keep me fighting for what matters. I’m not even sure how to fight yet, but I know that I want to.”
I didn’t ask for biographical information, so there’s little data on the age, race, or occupation of the respondents. Nor did I ask specifically about political or community activism, but the letters reinforced a gut feeling that dealing openly with these emotions need not lead to paralysis and inaction. People can confront honestly a frightening question - “What if the unsustainable systems in which we live are beyond the point of no return?” - and stay politically and socially engaged.
One respondent, a longtime community organizer, put it succinctly:
Recently several of our visionary thinkers have moved from the illusion that ‘we have 10 years to turn this around.’ They now say clearly that ‘we cannot stop this momentum.’ It takes courage and faith to speak so plainly. What can we do in the face of this truth? We can sit face to face and find the ways, often beyond words, to explore the reality that we are all refugees, swimming into a future that looks so different from the present. We can find pockets of community where we can whisper our deepest fears about the world. We can remain committed to describing the present with exceptional truth.
What happens when we tell “exceptional truth”?
First, we often feel drained by it. Another respondent observed:
“My personal ambition seems to decrease in proportion to the increase in world suffering. I think that’s part of my emotional reaction to crisis. I don’t think I am fully alive. I’m not depressed, just weirdly diminished.”
Second, we encounter those who don’t want to face tough truths. Many wrote about isolation from family and friends who deny there are reasons to be concerned:
“I’m a drug addict with over 20 years clean, and I know all about using up my future and farting out lame excuses. I promised myself an honest life to stay clean, and the double-edged sword is that I started seeing just how much our culture swims in denial.”
Sometimes people accuse those who press questions about systemic failure and collapse of being the problem:
“People get angry at me for it and call me ‘dark’ and ‘negative’ and ‘sinful,’ telling me to instead move to the ‘light,’ ‘positive,’ and ‘love.’ Whatever.”
Regardless of others’ reactions to talking honestly about collapse, it’s essential we continue; no political project based on denying reality can be viable for the long term. We need not have a crystal ball to recognize, as singer/songwriter John Gorka put it, that “the old future’s gone.” The future of endless bounty for all isn’t the future we face.
How can we open an honest conversation about that future? It isn’t easy, but it starts with telling the truth, from our own experience, like this 70-year-old woman who lives in a rural intentional community:
I’ve lived long enough now to be very aware of how different the world has become, how the cycles of nature are off kilter, how the seasons and the climate have shifted. My garden tells me that food doesn’t grow in quite the same patterns, and we either get weeks of rain or weeks of heat and drought. This is the second year in a row that our apple trees do not have apples on them. But most people get their food in grocery stores where the apples still appear, and food still arrives, in season and out, from all over the world. This will soon end, and people won’t understand why. They don’t see the trouble in the land as I and my friends do. I grieve daily as I look on this altered world. My grandchildren are young adults who think their lives will continue as they have been. Who will tell them? They can’t hear me. They, and many others, will have to see the changes for themselves, as I have. I can’t imagine that anything else will convince them. My grief for the world, and for them, is compounded by this feeling of helplessness because there is no way we can have the collective action you speak of when the ‘collective’ is still in denial.
The work of breaking out of denial is less about specific actions and more about the habits and virtues we must cultivate. Far from that rural community, a 35-year-old woman working in an office in Chicago summed up the task:
“We really need to take it back to the basics and keep it simple. This reminds me of one of my own quotes I thought of a few months ago - ‘be humble or be humiliated.’ I think I’m a simple person. I try to avoid making things more complex than they have to be. I try to focus more on what I need versus what I want. ‘Be humble or be humiliated’ is my own personal reminder.”
Her personal reminder is relevant for us all, individually and collectively. Humanity’s last hope may be in embracing a deep humility, recognizing that our cleverness is outstripped by our ignorance. If we become truly humble, we can abandon attempts to dominate the living world and instead find our place in it.
Robert Jensen wrote this article for A Resilient Community, the Fall 2010 issue of YES! Magazine. Robert, a journalism professor at the University of Texas at Austin, is author of several books. His latest is All My Bones Shake: Seeking a Progressive Path to the Prophetic Voice. He is co-producer of the new documentary Abe Osheroff: One Foot in the Grave, the Other Still Dancing.
by Robert Jensen, September 17, 2010
We live in the midst of multiple crises - economic and political, cultural and ecological - posing a significant threat to human existence at the level we have become accustomed to. There’s no way to be awake to the depth of these crises without emotional reactions, no way to be aware of the pain caused by these systemic failures without some dread and distress.
Those emotions come from recognizing that we humans with our big brains have disrupted the balance of the living world in disastrous ways that may be causing irreversible ecological destruction, and that drastically different ways of living are not only necessary but inevitable, with no guarantee of a smooth transition.
This talk, in polite company, leads to being labeled hysterical, Chicken Little, apocalyptic. No matter that you are calm, aren’t predicting the sky falling, and have made no reference to rapture. Pointing out that we live in unsustainable systems, that unsustainable systems can’t be sustained, and that no person or institution with power in the dominant culture is talking about this - well, that’s obviously crazy.
Regardless of others' reaction to talking honestly about collapse, it's essential we continue; no political project based on denying reality can be viable for the long term.
But to many of us, these insights simply seem honest. To be fully alive today is to live with anguish, not for one’s own condition in the world but for the condition of the world, for a world that is in collapse. What to do when such honesty is unwelcome?
In June 2010, I published a short essay online asking people who felt this anguish to report on their emotions and others’ reactions. In less than a month I received more than 300 messages, and while no single comment could sum up the responses, this comes close:
“I feel hopeless. I feel sad. I feel amused at the absurdity of it all. I feel depressed. I feel enraged. I feel guilty and I feel trapped. Basically the only reason why I’m still alive is because there are enough amazing people and things in my life to keep me going, to keep me fighting for what matters. I’m not even sure how to fight yet, but I know that I want to.”
I didn’t ask for biographical information, so there’s little data on the age, race, or occupation of the respondents. Nor did I ask specifically about political or community activism, but the letters reinforced a gut feeling that dealing openly with these emotions need not lead to paralysis and inaction. People can confront honestly a frightening question - “What if the unsustainable systems in which we live are beyond the point of no return?” - and stay politically and socially engaged.
One respondent, a longtime community organizer, put it succinctly:
Recently several of our visionary thinkers have moved from the illusion that ‘we have 10 years to turn this around.’ They now say clearly that ‘we cannot stop this momentum.’ It takes courage and faith to speak so plainly. What can we do in the face of this truth? We can sit face to face and find the ways, often beyond words, to explore the reality that we are all refugees, swimming into a future that looks so different from the present. We can find pockets of community where we can whisper our deepest fears about the world. We can remain committed to describing the present with exceptional truth.
What happens when we tell “exceptional truth”?
First, we often feel drained by it. Another respondent observed:
“My personal ambition seems to decrease in proportion to the increase in world suffering. I think that’s part of my emotional reaction to crisis. I don’t think I am fully alive. I’m not depressed, just weirdly diminished.”
Second, we encounter those who don’t want to face tough truths. Many wrote about isolation from family and friends who deny there are reasons to be concerned:
“I’m a drug addict with over 20 years clean, and I know all about using up my future and farting out lame excuses. I promised myself an honest life to stay clean, and the double-edged sword is that I started seeing just how much our culture swims in denial.”
Sometimes people accuse those who press questions about systemic failure and collapse of being the problem:
“People get angry at me for it and call me ‘dark’ and ‘negative’ and ‘sinful,’ telling me to instead move to the ‘light,’ ‘positive,’ and ‘love.’ Whatever.”
Regardless of others’ reactions to talking honestly about collapse, it’s essential we continue; no political project based on denying reality can be viable for the long term. We need not have a crystal ball to recognize, as singer/songwriter John Gorka put it, that “the old future’s gone.” The future of endless bounty for all isn’t the future we face.
How can we open an honest conversation about that future? It isn’t easy, but it starts with telling the truth, from our own experience, like this 70-year-old woman who lives in a rural intentional community:
I’ve lived long enough now to be very aware of how different the world has become, how the cycles of nature are off kilter, how the seasons and the climate have shifted. My garden tells me that food doesn’t grow in quite the same patterns, and we either get weeks of rain or weeks of heat and drought. This is the second year in a row that our apple trees do not have apples on them. But most people get their food in grocery stores where the apples still appear, and food still arrives, in season and out, from all over the world. This will soon end, and people won’t understand why. They don’t see the trouble in the land as I and my friends do. I grieve daily as I look on this altered world. My grandchildren are young adults who think their lives will continue as they have been. Who will tell them? They can’t hear me. They, and many others, will have to see the changes for themselves, as I have. I can’t imagine that anything else will convince them. My grief for the world, and for them, is compounded by this feeling of helplessness because there is no way we can have the collective action you speak of when the ‘collective’ is still in denial.
The work of breaking out of denial is less about specific actions and more about the habits and virtues we must cultivate. Far from that rural community, a 35-year-old woman working in an office in Chicago summed up the task:
“We really need to take it back to the basics and keep it simple. This reminds me of one of my own quotes I thought of a few months ago - ‘be humble or be humiliated.’ I think I’m a simple person. I try to avoid making things more complex than they have to be. I try to focus more on what I need versus what I want. ‘Be humble or be humiliated’ is my own personal reminder.”
Her personal reminder is relevant for us all, individually and collectively. Humanity’s last hope may be in embracing a deep humility, recognizing that our cleverness is outstripped by our ignorance. If we become truly humble, we can abandon attempts to dominate the living world and instead find our place in it.
Robert Jensen wrote this article for A Resilient Community, the Fall 2010 issue of YES! Magazine. Robert, a journalism professor at the University of Texas at Austin, is author of several books. His latest is All My Bones Shake: Seeking a Progressive Path to the Prophetic Voice. He is co-producer of the new documentary Abe Osheroff: One Foot in the Grave, the Other Still Dancing.
by Robert Jensen, September 17, 2010
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)