I copied below the header of a recent email I received and a link to the article in the Edmonton Journal. In Alberta they just don't get it that it is not of public interest to have water issues dealt with by energy industry leaders! Environmental matters are getting neglected more and more every time there's change in who gets to deal with it. How dare they?
Dear supporters of Our Water Is Not For Sale,
Research into water is critically important to our collective future, yet this research is being compromised and controlled by corporate interests.
The article below, printed in the Edmonton Journal last week, addresses the changes with the Alberta Water Research Institute, whose work will now be directed by a board with energy industry priorities. The board is chaired by a former Syncrude CEO, and includes a former vice president for Petro-Canada, a senior director with Agrium, a former CEO for Nexen, and a senior vice president for Capital Power.
This move further indicates the corporate hold on water and the steps the corporate sector is taking to control a substance that is vital to all life. We continue to be concerned by the push towards water markets in our province, and protecting the public interest requires research that is not dominated by corporate interests.
Please help us spread the word! Share this article with anyone who might share your concern. Thank you for your continued support to Our Water Is Not For Sale!
Read the full article below, or click here to read it on the Edmonton Journal website.
Thursday, April 28, 2011
Wednesday, April 27, 2011
Culture Shock continued
I suppose I should say a few more things about our little farm adventure. Sure, we did not mind to have our running water back at home, and internet. I think one would get used to cooking on the wood burner, heating water this way, and cooking and baking without electrical appliances (blender, coffee machine etc.). The reason they don't need a fridge is that the first room when you enter the house lies a foot lower than the rest of the house and is tiled. So even with the wood burner going in the same room, the tiles stay cold and keep the food fresh. That's so simple. Compare that to our apartment desgined to keep all rooms equally hot and we need a fridge to cool our food. What a waste of energy.
I was wondering why they have not hooked up the well, 15 m from the house, to the house, or why they put in a water toilet instead of a compost toilet, why they don't have a black water container outside to heat water, or a wind turbine for a bit of electricity. Maybe one day. They for example know about the Earthships and want to go see them to figure out what would fit into their farm. They also consider a "treadmill" that would pump the water and gently exercise the horses (http://www.treadmill-horsepower.com/ and http://www.alphaag.net/HorseTreadmills/tabid/127/language/en-US/Default.aspx. )
Actually, I thought every single person should live for a week in our friends' conditions. Imagine carrying all the water you need - those 300 something litres that a Canadian wastes - to where you need it e.g. toilet, shower, kitchen. I bet you every single person would very quickly use a lot less. Since both of our friends are teachers they started taking school classes on a once 12 day, now 8-day-trip to Southern Alberta. Each child is given a certain amount of money per day to shop for food and prepare it. They go visit places, hike, explore nature, camp, learn about history, animals, plants etc, and learn to look after themselves including that bit of financial literacy. It seems that most parents are not capable of doing that. I bet you this kids have all a great time.
Really, human beings are flexible and capable of easily changing their behaviour. We are able to adapt but we also have stubborn minds that might be prevent us from doing exactly that, including adopting a more environmentally friendly life style.
I was wondering why they have not hooked up the well, 15 m from the house, to the house, or why they put in a water toilet instead of a compost toilet, why they don't have a black water container outside to heat water, or a wind turbine for a bit of electricity. Maybe one day. They for example know about the Earthships and want to go see them to figure out what would fit into their farm. They also consider a "treadmill" that would pump the water and gently exercise the horses (http://www.treadmill-horsepower.com/ and http://www.alphaag.net/HorseTreadmills/tabid/127/language/en-US/Default.aspx. )
Actually, I thought every single person should live for a week in our friends' conditions. Imagine carrying all the water you need - those 300 something litres that a Canadian wastes - to where you need it e.g. toilet, shower, kitchen. I bet you every single person would very quickly use a lot less. Since both of our friends are teachers they started taking school classes on a once 12 day, now 8-day-trip to Southern Alberta. Each child is given a certain amount of money per day to shop for food and prepare it. They go visit places, hike, explore nature, camp, learn about history, animals, plants etc, and learn to look after themselves including that bit of financial literacy. It seems that most parents are not capable of doing that. I bet you this kids have all a great time.
Really, human beings are flexible and capable of easily changing their behaviour. We are able to adapt but we also have stubborn minds that might be prevent us from doing exactly that, including adopting a more environmentally friendly life style.
Monday, April 25, 2011
Culture shock
Easter is over when you consider that my husband has the pleasure to work on Easter Monday. Never mind. We spent the last 2.5 days in rural Alberta with a farmer (he's over 70) and his partner (50 something). We also got to know half the family, they have a total of 6 children and several grandchildren. They have built the farm all by themselves, started out 10 years ago. The house is an insulated! joint-venture of two wide trailers and very cosy. There are no doors to any rooms - just has not been a priority. The sheds and barns are self-built of wood. The fences are wood as well as wire (for the cattle & chickens). Between all the family members they own 27 horses for riding and driving. They regularly go on trails into the Rockies, camping out for days. For them it's fun, not roughing it, especially since they don't have running water, cook and heat with a wood oven/ stove, and use electricity scarcely because it comes from a battery that they have to recharge in the nearest village, 11 km away. So no fridge. They have a well near the house and pump water up as much as needed, fill it into a variety of containers and carry it to where ever it is needed. They do drive cars. They also have cattle, sheep, goats, chickens and ducks, and a dog of course. That provides them with meat, eggs and milk. The meat from slaughtering is kept frozen in a freezer in the village (friend's farm?). Besides they have a garden from which they preserve lots of the produce for winter (carrots, beans, potatoes, beets, ...) Especially in winter they still need to go to the supermarket but are not as dependent as city-dwellers are.
They love their life (style). Both teachers, they are well educated. They have a great interest in alternative building options, healthy food, the environment, and he's an expert on the failures of current government systems but that's a different story. When we talked to each other it turned out we'd seen the same documentary's or read the same books/authors (The world of Monsanto, Food Inc., Michael Pollan etc). They plan on putting up solar panels on their house. I was actually surprised they don't have a compost toilet. But the farm is a work in progress and will always be. They take it one step at a time, invest what they can afford without taking a mortgage and enjoy. I'm sure they enjoy their life much more than most people who have all the amenities and gadgets they desire (think they "need"). We had a great time. It was an experience. Getting up with the animals out the window, no city noise, no city smell, actually fresh air. Unfortunately it's no all that glamorous. They regularly have problems with city idiots coming out on 4WD and Ski-doos, ignoring private property, breaking fences, destroying trails, causing noise and even stealing from private property! The local paper listed the crimes of the week and you just knew that those were not committed by farmers stealing from their neighbours - why would they, they all know each other and they help each other. The rural people feel a bit helpless. They don't drive into the city to scavenge in people's front and back yards and take home what they please. They can't do much against the motorised rowdies in the countryside but have the damage.
I think lots of city people are so ruthless because they don't respect nature, take it for granted to get their joy out of it when desired and don't care about damage since they don't have to deal with it , they don't see how they depend on the land. I have just started reading this book that the farmer gave me: Last child in the woods, Saving our children from nature-deficit disorder. The intro alone is great but I'll write about it later.
Before I forget. The culture shock is being back in Edmonton with the noise, smell and garbage that we did not miss out on the farm.
They love their life (style). Both teachers, they are well educated. They have a great interest in alternative building options, healthy food, the environment, and he's an expert on the failures of current government systems but that's a different story. When we talked to each other it turned out we'd seen the same documentary's or read the same books/authors (The world of Monsanto, Food Inc., Michael Pollan etc). They plan on putting up solar panels on their house. I was actually surprised they don't have a compost toilet. But the farm is a work in progress and will always be. They take it one step at a time, invest what they can afford without taking a mortgage and enjoy. I'm sure they enjoy their life much more than most people who have all the amenities and gadgets they desire (think they "need"). We had a great time. It was an experience. Getting up with the animals out the window, no city noise, no city smell, actually fresh air. Unfortunately it's no all that glamorous. They regularly have problems with city idiots coming out on 4WD and Ski-doos, ignoring private property, breaking fences, destroying trails, causing noise and even stealing from private property! The local paper listed the crimes of the week and you just knew that those were not committed by farmers stealing from their neighbours - why would they, they all know each other and they help each other. The rural people feel a bit helpless. They don't drive into the city to scavenge in people's front and back yards and take home what they please. They can't do much against the motorised rowdies in the countryside but have the damage.
I think lots of city people are so ruthless because they don't respect nature, take it for granted to get their joy out of it when desired and don't care about damage since they don't have to deal with it , they don't see how they depend on the land. I have just started reading this book that the farmer gave me: Last child in the woods, Saving our children from nature-deficit disorder. The intro alone is great but I'll write about it later.
Before I forget. The culture shock is being back in Edmonton with the noise, smell and garbage that we did not miss out on the farm.
Monday, April 18, 2011
Canada's biggest parties and their goals for the environment
.. if they get elected that is. CPAWS together with a bunch of other environmental organisations went to ask the 5 major parties to answer a few questions about greenhouse gas emissions, protecting public water sources, public transit, oil sands, chemicals in every day products and more. Follow the link to read the answers. Guess what, the blue party (Conservatives, for all Non- Canadians) did not reply at all! Do I dare to say it?: Don't you dare voting for them!
Sunday, April 17, 2011
On the bike now
We got a second second-hand bicycle today. That means we can go on bike trips together now! My better half started cycling to work this week but it lasted only two days until winter returned. We really hope it's been the last snow for this winter. Last year at this time we had a BBQ outside without jackets on. Anyway, we took our first bike ride today and baby is fine in the trailer being pulled along. The hills in and out the river valley will be a little pain but hopefully the muscles grow quickly. The river valley is still the best way to get around by foot or bike, although somewhat limited in where one can go. Cycling on the road with the worst drivers of all of Canada on the wheels is still a bit of a scary thought but we'll get around it some day soon and fingers crossed it does not turn out suicidal. It just confirms to me why I want to move to a smaller city - hopefully safer, hopefully more cyclist, hopefully more sensible drivers (that's probably a challenge).
Checking out the Edmonton bike map today also made me realize how few designated bike lanes there are actually outside of the river valley. It's terrible. I'm also waiting for the building management to complain about where we lock the bikes up outside. These people with their stupid "strict rules" are even more terrible. We live in a "family building" with no provisions for strollers and bikes. Assuming we are all driving a car because there's one parking spot for each apartment and that's what one does here. Still getting stupid looks when I mention we don't have a car. Wonder why I don't like the people here?
Checking out the Edmonton bike map today also made me realize how few designated bike lanes there are actually outside of the river valley. It's terrible. I'm also waiting for the building management to complain about where we lock the bikes up outside. These people with their stupid "strict rules" are even more terrible. We live in a "family building" with no provisions for strollers and bikes. Assuming we are all driving a car because there's one parking spot for each apartment and that's what one does here. Still getting stupid looks when I mention we don't have a car. Wonder why I don't like the people here?
Friday, April 15, 2011
More bits and pieces
Winter made a return yesterday and dumped at least 10 cm of wet, sticky snow on the ground. Big sigh. I went to meet a friend and our good old stroller, the one we had right from the beginning, lost a wheel. It simply broke off after it got all covered in gooey, dirty snow, stopped rolling and I gave it a little kick. I thought about taking it home because there's a big items garbage bin outside at the moment. The apartment complex is having "spring" clean-up. I did not though because a closer look revealed that we would not be able to fix the wheel. So I left the stroller at a public garbage bin as I was now loaded with baby, diaper bag, blankets and too much clothing. My friend said, 'you do so much for the environment, you are allowed to do that for once.' Did I write a while ago about how convenient excuses are? Anyway, I hope the city disposes of the stroller properly when they empty the garbage bins.
Now that I got rid of the big plastic stroller I invested into a small plastic kitchen scale. That's coincidence, not intention. German recipes are in grams and it can be really difficult to convert different ingredients into cups so I finally gave in for the Easter baking. First I was told at the store that they are not selling scales any longer which left me in disbelief. Shortly after the clerk found three leftovers though, two with battery, LSD display and glass plates and one ordinary one with a scale that can be fine-tuned with wheel on the side, a bowl on top and increments of 25g. I took the latter one. Measuring flour on a glass plate seemed inconvenient so did the requirement of batteries. Batteries are a pain, to buy and especially to recycle. I have my dead laptop battery and other smaller batteries still in my kitchen. They have been there for many months. Now we live near an Eco-Station (Edmonton has 3) and since recently they are even open until late (6 PM) so I will send my husband around to drop the batteries off. Of course the Eco-Station is "conveniently" located in an industrial area but luckily it's the one my husband works in now and he cycles almost past there. Living local made easy (that's sarcasm).
My friend told me she had once found a blog where a woman was writing of her efforts to get rid of plastic in her life. I will search for it but if you have heard of that blog let me know please.
Did I mention that my husband has used handkerchiefs for quite a while now, that I don't use toilet paper any more at home, that I wash baby's diapers sometimes without detergent which makes them come out softer, that we signed up for wind energy, that I started using the Diva cup so no more of these wasteful tampons and pads and ... let me think about it.
My little contribution to the elections, just in case you have not made up your mind yet. You might have been at this site already since it has become very popular and oh yes it's good. S*** Harper did It's got comments on his environmental "achievements" in it, too.
Now that I got rid of the big plastic stroller I invested into a small plastic kitchen scale. That's coincidence, not intention. German recipes are in grams and it can be really difficult to convert different ingredients into cups so I finally gave in for the Easter baking. First I was told at the store that they are not selling scales any longer which left me in disbelief. Shortly after the clerk found three leftovers though, two with battery, LSD display and glass plates and one ordinary one with a scale that can be fine-tuned with wheel on the side, a bowl on top and increments of 25g. I took the latter one. Measuring flour on a glass plate seemed inconvenient so did the requirement of batteries. Batteries are a pain, to buy and especially to recycle. I have my dead laptop battery and other smaller batteries still in my kitchen. They have been there for many months. Now we live near an Eco-Station (Edmonton has 3) and since recently they are even open until late (6 PM) so I will send my husband around to drop the batteries off. Of course the Eco-Station is "conveniently" located in an industrial area but luckily it's the one my husband works in now and he cycles almost past there. Living local made easy (that's sarcasm).
My friend told me she had once found a blog where a woman was writing of her efforts to get rid of plastic in her life. I will search for it but if you have heard of that blog let me know please.
Did I mention that my husband has used handkerchiefs for quite a while now, that I don't use toilet paper any more at home, that I wash baby's diapers sometimes without detergent which makes them come out softer, that we signed up for wind energy, that I started using the Diva cup so no more of these wasteful tampons and pads and ... let me think about it.
My little contribution to the elections, just in case you have not made up your mind yet. You might have been at this site already since it has become very popular and oh yes it's good. S*** Harper did It's got comments on his environmental "achievements" in it, too.
Oil & gas spills happen "all the time"
Now it's official, after most of us have probably long guessed it. Americans are so addicted to oil that they knowingly put their natural environment at risk, at huge risks and don't give a s***. Yes, things often go terribly wrong but nobody blinks an eye because it has become business as usual. One could think the attitude is: Keep the cars rolling, keep the industry polluting, and hopefully the worst hits after me. (Might be helpful if you are of old age already).
Oil & gas spills happen "all the time"
Oil & gas spills happen "all the time"
Wednesday, April 13, 2011
Blue Vinyl and other plastics
In the documentary Blue Vinyl a young woman is worried about her parents' decision to pull the wooden boards off the house and put blue vinyl on instead. They live on Long Island, New York, and have as so many Americans sturdy, cheap vinyl around their house and garage. Vinyl, aka PVC, is a very common plastic that is hazardous in its production and recycling as toxic substances are needed and released, including dioxin. The woman meets lots of people, all kinds of experts, around the country, from the representatives of the Vinyl Institute, oil refinery and plastic producers to scientists and people living in homes made out of "alternative" materials. The people from the Vinyl Institute want to make her belief that the biggest ingredient in the material is similar to table salt and that's found in our bodies anyway because we can't live without it. (I am always amazed by the stubbornness that industry representatives show when they defend their product, no matter how bad the product is for health and environment.)
As in most other documentaries where an inquisitive, concerned citizen wants to get a closer look industry will keep its doors closed. The woman was not allowed to visit a petro-chemical factory. She moves on to investigate other outside wall finishes but none satisfies her parents. The material does not blend in with the neighbourhood, the (natural) colour is not great, the price is not right. A young man that helps her convince her parents to get rid of the vinyl lives himself in a house made of straw, covered with a mixture of lime, sand and a bit of concrete which creates an "adobe finish" that the mother finds unacceptable. Meanwhile he refuses to stay at the house due to the vinyl and sleeps in a tent in the garden. In the end the woman has the house recovered in reclaimed wood - ignoring the by far biggest decision point in the issue: the price. It does cost her dearly but she's happy to have done the step towards a better world ... without vinyl.
Her parents soon sell the house and "downsize" (from a bungalow) to a townhouse in a brandnew retirement park where every single building is covered in vinyl.
At one point she went to see a Habitat for Humanity project where within a couple of days 25 houses for low-income families are erected. Each of these simple houses can be put together from single parts within a few hours. Sponsored by the Vinyl Institute, the houses are completely made of vinyl, from the flooring to the walls, the window frames, the ceilings, everything is made from vinyl. Of course the woman wanted to talk with the people involved about the health hazards, inform and warn them possibly, but when she sees the crying-out-of-happiness families that are about to move in she does not do it.
This morning then my husband asked if I thought it would be possible to get rid of ALL the plastic in our household. I said no straight away. Plastic is everywhere. It often could be replaced: storage containers, bowls, pitchers, soap dish, toys, hangers, coat hooks, blinds, plant pots, shoe rack, toilet seat, shower curtain, ... but a tooth brush without plastic? And what about the parts on the stroller, the radio, kitchen appliances like fridge and kettle, ... and what about all the packaging? If I did not want any plastic I would have to take lots of glass or ceramic containers to a store that sells everything in bulk from soap & hair shampoo to dishwashing liquid to all kinds of dry foods, meats, fish and drinks. That would be tough, not only to find that store (although the Earth General Store would score high here, mind you, they still use the bulk plastic containers) but to carry the containers around, without breaking them. Toys, I have been looking for wood but there's also tin toys, are somwhat harder to find but it's not impossible. Last but not least, comparing prices for all the named items it becomes very obvious that wood, tin & co. cost way more than plastics. As oil gets more expensive this might slowly change though ... Turning my head I just looked at our book shelves ... well, book covers are also coated in something plastic-like so they'd have to go too. And the laptop I'm writing on of course. Not too sure if my husband still wanted to get rid of plastic once it comes to his laptop.
As in most other documentaries where an inquisitive, concerned citizen wants to get a closer look industry will keep its doors closed. The woman was not allowed to visit a petro-chemical factory. She moves on to investigate other outside wall finishes but none satisfies her parents. The material does not blend in with the neighbourhood, the (natural) colour is not great, the price is not right. A young man that helps her convince her parents to get rid of the vinyl lives himself in a house made of straw, covered with a mixture of lime, sand and a bit of concrete which creates an "adobe finish" that the mother finds unacceptable. Meanwhile he refuses to stay at the house due to the vinyl and sleeps in a tent in the garden. In the end the woman has the house recovered in reclaimed wood - ignoring the by far biggest decision point in the issue: the price. It does cost her dearly but she's happy to have done the step towards a better world ... without vinyl.
Her parents soon sell the house and "downsize" (from a bungalow) to a townhouse in a brandnew retirement park where every single building is covered in vinyl.
At one point she went to see a Habitat for Humanity project where within a couple of days 25 houses for low-income families are erected. Each of these simple houses can be put together from single parts within a few hours. Sponsored by the Vinyl Institute, the houses are completely made of vinyl, from the flooring to the walls, the window frames, the ceilings, everything is made from vinyl. Of course the woman wanted to talk with the people involved about the health hazards, inform and warn them possibly, but when she sees the crying-out-of-happiness families that are about to move in she does not do it.
This morning then my husband asked if I thought it would be possible to get rid of ALL the plastic in our household. I said no straight away. Plastic is everywhere. It often could be replaced: storage containers, bowls, pitchers, soap dish, toys, hangers, coat hooks, blinds, plant pots, shoe rack, toilet seat, shower curtain, ... but a tooth brush without plastic? And what about the parts on the stroller, the radio, kitchen appliances like fridge and kettle, ... and what about all the packaging? If I did not want any plastic I would have to take lots of glass or ceramic containers to a store that sells everything in bulk from soap & hair shampoo to dishwashing liquid to all kinds of dry foods, meats, fish and drinks. That would be tough, not only to find that store (although the Earth General Store would score high here, mind you, they still use the bulk plastic containers) but to carry the containers around, without breaking them. Toys, I have been looking for wood but there's also tin toys, are somwhat harder to find but it's not impossible. Last but not least, comparing prices for all the named items it becomes very obvious that wood, tin & co. cost way more than plastics. As oil gets more expensive this might slowly change though ... Turning my head I just looked at our book shelves ... well, book covers are also coated in something plastic-like so they'd have to go too. And the laptop I'm writing on of course. Not too sure if my husband still wanted to get rid of plastic once it comes to his laptop.
Freaking baby names
I receive the newsletter from the government of Alberta and I just read an article that makes me shake my head violently. The most popular names as well as "unique" ones and "one-of-a-kind monikers" from 2010 in Alberta are listed. Do parents not love their children any more that they punish them right after birth for the rest of their lives with the name they chose? I'm so glad about the ordinary names of our own child and her cousin.
....
Parents drew inspiration from mythology, history, and the Bible in 2010 with names such as Noah, Jacob, Joshua, Apollo, Zeus, Maximus, and Leonardo for boys; and Sarah, Eden, Eve, Jezebelle, Pandora, Athena, and Aphrodite for girls.
The names of celebrities, politicians, and other famous people continued to be an influence with registrations, including 64 boys named Lincoln; 37 named Nixon; 10 named Lennon; four named Hendrix; three each named Clinton, Elvis and Jagger; and one each for Thatcher, Santana, and McCartney. For girls, Danica was registered 44 times; Angelina 26; and Charlize 11. There were five girls named Brittany and one named Palin. There were also 44 girls and four boys who shared the name Harper.
Albertans showed a creative flair with unique names such as Gorgeous, Precious, Princess and Diva for girls; and Freedom, Viktorious, Famous, and Canada for boys. Parents' values, ideals and the love of nature were also reflected in the choices of names such as Love, Serenity, Flower, Karma, Harmony, Destiny, Liberty, Justice, Ohm, Universe, Skye, Meadow, and Ocean.
Families also chose such one-of-a-kind monikers as Bliss, Carisma, Diamond, Soda, Eclypse, Elektra-Lee, and Infinity for girls; and Boomer, Brik, Duramax, Miracle, and Holliday for boys.
....
Parents drew inspiration from mythology, history, and the Bible in 2010 with names such as Noah, Jacob, Joshua, Apollo, Zeus, Maximus, and Leonardo for boys; and Sarah, Eden, Eve, Jezebelle, Pandora, Athena, and Aphrodite for girls.
The names of celebrities, politicians, and other famous people continued to be an influence with registrations, including 64 boys named Lincoln; 37 named Nixon; 10 named Lennon; four named Hendrix; three each named Clinton, Elvis and Jagger; and one each for Thatcher, Santana, and McCartney. For girls, Danica was registered 44 times; Angelina 26; and Charlize 11. There were five girls named Brittany and one named Palin. There were also 44 girls and four boys who shared the name Harper.
Albertans showed a creative flair with unique names such as Gorgeous, Precious, Princess and Diva for girls; and Freedom, Viktorious, Famous, and Canada for boys. Parents' values, ideals and the love of nature were also reflected in the choices of names such as Love, Serenity, Flower, Karma, Harmony, Destiny, Liberty, Justice, Ohm, Universe, Skye, Meadow, and Ocean.
Families also chose such one-of-a-kind monikers as Bliss, Carisma, Diamond, Soda, Eclypse, Elektra-Lee, and Infinity for girls; and Boomer, Brik, Duramax, Miracle, and Holliday for boys.
Tuesday, April 12, 2011
White Water, Black Gold
Just a little add-on I almost neglected.
During the White Water, Black Gold Q&A- period three natives got up commenting on the tar sands issue. One lady with her family from Fort MacKay made the point that the native communities downstream are the most affected but are often ignored even though they are real people. A tall man with very long thick white hair raved and ranted in a first nations language that nobody understood. The third person's favourite words were moral corruption and he went on about how the oil corporations, politicians of all levels, industries related to the oil industry suffer from moral corruption. His speech ended with the conclusion that every Canadian is (morally corrupted and) responsible for what happens in Northern Alberta through their vote at elections. Hence his request to the film maker to produce a film about moral corruption before the next election. Lavalee responded that this was a very tight time line.
I don't think the tar sands will fall or rise with elections as long as there are income taxes, health care, education and similar issues that are much more personal and dear to the average Canadian than something happening somewhere north that can be pushed out of one's mind far more easily than the next visit to the doctor, the next tuition bill, ...
During the White Water, Black Gold Q&A- period three natives got up commenting on the tar sands issue. One lady with her family from Fort MacKay made the point that the native communities downstream are the most affected but are often ignored even though they are real people. A tall man with very long thick white hair raved and ranted in a first nations language that nobody understood. The third person's favourite words were moral corruption and he went on about how the oil corporations, politicians of all levels, industries related to the oil industry suffer from moral corruption. His speech ended with the conclusion that every Canadian is (morally corrupted and) responsible for what happens in Northern Alberta through their vote at elections. Hence his request to the film maker to produce a film about moral corruption before the next election. Lavalee responded that this was a very tight time line.
I don't think the tar sands will fall or rise with elections as long as there are income taxes, health care, education and similar issues that are much more personal and dear to the average Canadian than something happening somewhere north that can be pushed out of one's mind far more easily than the next visit to the doctor, the next tuition bill, ...
Sprawling from Grace
is another documentary I watched recently. It's a US-American production which was very different from The Nature of Things. It hardly dealt with the suburb itself but went straight onto automobiles and petroleum because suburbs only exist due to the car and cars need gas. Here a few bites and pieces:
China plans 65,000 miles of expressways as more and more Chinese own a car. Even a marginal increase in cars will be devastating. The car culture in US is a near-disaster, it’s a guaranteed disaster in a populous country like China but China still tries to copy the US living structure. China has 4 times more people than the US but today the US still uses 3 times more oil. China takes the money that it gets from producing Walmart merchandise and spends it on oil from Alberta, Venezuela and Libya.
Each US American consumes 5 times more oil (20 lbs) per day than oxygen (4 lbs). US Americans spend an average of 25% (another expert said 19%) of their income on automobiles – the most expensive transportation system in the world. Rich people spend about 5% of their income on their car, poor people about 40%. Consequently poor people often have to give up something that they could have spend the money on but decided to invest their limited financial resources into a car, for whatever reason.
Cars suggest freedom, safety, and achievement, cars are the icon of the American dream and every little boy dreams of driving a car one day. We actually define ourselves by the name of our cars - Explorer, Venturer, ... and whatever they are called. If you build a highway system you get congestion & pollution. With the growing population there’s not space to accommodate all the cars & have places with character (suburbs have none). Commuting times keep increasing with more cars on the road & people living further away from work. Automobiles cause 1/3 of all US greenhouse gases.
"Suburbia" is a car-depended living arrangement, where you have to drive to work, to shop, to get services, to run simple errands, to take the kids to school & other activities. It's also the greatest mis-allocation of resources in the history of the world because we know that it is the living arrangement that does not have a future. As we are trying to get out of this "stuckness" we keep putting more resources into trying to solve the problem by doing the same thing ... growing outwards. Besides, upkeeping the ageing infrastructure costs society a lot of money and adds on to the federal debt. If you had to commute by foot, public transit, or bike ... you would not live in the suburbs. Generally, living in suburbia requires trade-offs, so why not rethink city design, car efficiency, and public transit – and find other arrangements for daily life in America?
Every year 30 billion barrels of oil are consumed worldwide. Experts predict an increase to 45 billion barrels in 2020 – but consumption will outpace production. Peak oil is about the rate of delivery not the resource availability. With most of the easy-to-reach conventional oil gone, most of the oil that’s left will be expensive and difficult to get too – currently we don’t have the ability to increase supply as fast as demand. Consequences of the great gas shortage in the 1970s were cuts in the speed limit, car pooling, and switching factories from oil to natural gas and coal. But this happened when the US had lots of time and money which now they don’t have any more.
China plans 65,000 miles of expressways as more and more Chinese own a car. Even a marginal increase in cars will be devastating. The car culture in US is a near-disaster, it’s a guaranteed disaster in a populous country like China but China still tries to copy the US living structure. China has 4 times more people than the US but today the US still uses 3 times more oil. China takes the money that it gets from producing Walmart merchandise and spends it on oil from Alberta, Venezuela and Libya.
Each US American consumes 5 times more oil (20 lbs) per day than oxygen (4 lbs). US Americans spend an average of 25% (another expert said 19%) of their income on automobiles – the most expensive transportation system in the world. Rich people spend about 5% of their income on their car, poor people about 40%. Consequently poor people often have to give up something that they could have spend the money on but decided to invest their limited financial resources into a car, for whatever reason.
Americans think, thanks to advertisement, everything is choice instead of circumstances of reality! Peak oil climate change and a few other big issues aren't choice though. One wonders what are they willing to scarifies? In the film some interviewed Americans still said they didn't believe that the US will run out of oil.
There is the temptation to maintain oil resources through military actions but it will not work – it's too expensive and too intense. Venezuela is already past its oil peak and quality of oil is bad, the US itself has nearly no oil left, Canada has the tar sands but it’s expensive to produce. The US needs a new energy policy since heavy unconventional oil can not take the place of light conventional oil. There’s still lots of coal (I wished there wasn't), hydro, sun, wind to generate energy from. But there’s no single solution/ energy source that could keep up the level of oil usage. There's the dillusional thinking that the unmaintainable can be maintained for example through technological advancement. In the meantime, resources will be wasted to prop up our current comfortable living until the last one realises that when you have a shortage of energy you can't simply replace it with technology. Technology requires energy.
It takes political will to break the concept that cars are more important than pedestrian. Americans have to figure out what kind of life to they want to have, what kind of activities they want to pursue, what kind of spaces they need. Then they have to fit the buildings in. Ideas include giving a suburban city a centre, that city planners need to be walking planners, that public transit must be a "first class" alternative to get people out of cars. The city & transit planning need to go hand in hand to create "living local" that benefits people & environment. The good quality of life needs to be there for everyone not only for certain (rich) parts of city. Poorer people will be better off with public transit because they save the cost of having a car & spend it on something more valuable to them like health, education, travel.
Finally there's the option to wait until the pain arrives and change then but it will be awefully expensive. Or you can change now while the US still has the strength and energy to do it without facing so much pain and it will work better - unfortunately it's harder to sell to people too. If politicians started change now it would prepare cities better for the future and make them more competitive. The knowledge, information, and expertise is there already. But there's a lack of vision, a lack of realisation how psychologically rewarding and economically sustainable a life without car & oil dependence could be.
Sunday, April 10, 2011
The end of the line - good & bad practices
Successful practices of fishing are happening but they are still rare. In Alaska the catch is shared between a limited number of boats (limited permits given out) and fishing is only allowed within certain time limits. The fishermen there recognized that this practice will secure their jobs in the long-term as it keeps the fish populations in Alaska alive.
In Europe the situation is different. Iceland is the good example. It has strict regulations but the fishermen adhere to them, can still make a living and see a future for their profession. There's practically no discard of fish. Good for them! It is important to have the fishermen on the right side. As long as there is fishermen out there that deny the collapse and disappearance of fish bad (illegal or legal) fishing practices will continue. Film review & Icelandic fishing practice
The European Union is world-leader in overfishing and still protects the fishing industry more so than the fish. But the EU commission, it sounds rather ridiculous, is working on eliminating the discard of fish. Especially the North sea is "mixed fishing" which causes lots of discard. When a fishing boat has reached their quota for one fish they keep fishing to reach their quotas for other fishes. In doing so they have by-catch of the fish whose quota has already been reached so they throw it back into the water. While some politicians urge to stop discard now, others are willing to wait until 2013 to implement new rules. "Unethical" fish discards have to end, EU commission says
Googling "European fish catch quotas" comes up with lots of articles calling for radical change in regulations for the European fishing industry. Politicians are slow to act though and getting the whole EU to an agreement is often a painful, time-consuming process. But time's running out. That's why certain fisheries have started to take on their own changes. Scotland, terribly overfished, is trying a new quota system. "The Scottish Government was able to make conservation a priority while securing increased fishing opportunities for some stocks, and minimise reductions where science supported such action". New catch quota scheme progressed, Scotland
If only we would learn faster from the success of others and change quicker for the better.
In Europe the situation is different. Iceland is the good example. It has strict regulations but the fishermen adhere to them, can still make a living and see a future for their profession. There's practically no discard of fish. Good for them! It is important to have the fishermen on the right side. As long as there is fishermen out there that deny the collapse and disappearance of fish bad (illegal or legal) fishing practices will continue. Film review & Icelandic fishing practice
The European Union is world-leader in overfishing and still protects the fishing industry more so than the fish. But the EU commission, it sounds rather ridiculous, is working on eliminating the discard of fish. Especially the North sea is "mixed fishing" which causes lots of discard. When a fishing boat has reached their quota for one fish they keep fishing to reach their quotas for other fishes. In doing so they have by-catch of the fish whose quota has already been reached so they throw it back into the water. While some politicians urge to stop discard now, others are willing to wait until 2013 to implement new rules. "Unethical" fish discards have to end, EU commission says
Googling "European fish catch quotas" comes up with lots of articles calling for radical change in regulations for the European fishing industry. Politicians are slow to act though and getting the whole EU to an agreement is often a painful, time-consuming process. But time's running out. That's why certain fisheries have started to take on their own changes. Scotland, terribly overfished, is trying a new quota system. "The Scottish Government was able to make conservation a priority while securing increased fishing opportunities for some stocks, and minimise reductions where science supported such action". New catch quota scheme progressed, Scotland
If only we would learn faster from the success of others and change quicker for the better.
Friday, April 8, 2011
The end of the line
subtitled "Imagine a world without fish" is a Docurama production, after the book of Charles Clover, about the overfishing of wild fish in all of our oceans.
The awareness that something is going wrong in out oceans was raised when everywhere around the world local fishermen reported less and less fish catches while at the same time the global fish industry registered higher and higher catches each year. Turned out that the Chinese have been making up numbers, reporting amounts of fish that they did not actually catch - because it was not there any more. In 2002 it was sure that fish quantities have been falling since 1988. In fact, all fish stocks in the world have declined dramatically, that means by 70% and more. It seems to me the ocean is about to be emptied from wild fish and filled with plastic, other garbage and yes, dead fish instead. A tenth of the worldwide catch is thrown back into the water - dead- because those fishes do not sell well enough.
Commercial fishing has transformed entire eco-systems at a huge scale. The current fishing fleet has the capacity that could catch the world's catch 4 times over. With current technology not a single hunted animal on this Earth has a chance of survival - this includes fish that can not hide or escape the radar of the fishing boats. The world's long-lining industry sets 1.4 billion hooks each year, estimated to be set on lines that could encircle the globe more than 550 times! Even more destructive, most destructive of all are bottom trawlers, huge nets dragged along the ocean floor as if ploughing it and not leaving behind a single creature. The mouth of the largest trawling net in the world can accommodate 13 747 air planes.
A considerable part of the film was about the blue fin tuna. Blue fin tuna is an icon fish, very beautiful, fast, and considered the king of the tuna,- ìt is just a delicious fish that`s it has been hunted to near extinction. All fish are caught by quota today but the quota, set by politicians in the rich countries of the world, is often unrealistic. The quota for the blue fin tuna is 3 times higher than needed for the species to recover, and two times higher than needed to prevent the species from collapse. Recommendations from scientists are frequently ignored under the pressure of the fishing industry and the prevention of unemployment. In the Mediterranean (mostly Italians) catch twice as much as the quota, which represents 1/3 of the blue fin tuna population. The Italian government does not care.
Breaking the rules by fishermen is (one of) the biggest problem and worth $25 billions per year. It is hard to stop a bad behaviour when a few people make millions of dollars by decimating fish species. In Japan Mitsubishi is in control of over 50% of the blue fin tuna production. Rumours have it that they try to build up a frozen reserve which will be worth lots of money (and this tuna is already expensive) once stocks are depleted. Mitsubishi has sent out bigger fishing ships with more freezing & transportation capacity, while saying it agrees to reducing the quota and preserving the species for the future.
Consequences from overfishing are multiple and lots of them unforeseen. Jellyfish infestations are increasing because all the big fish, the predators are gone. There`s also more algae, plankton, and worms. Newfoundland overfished its cod population back in the 80s. Since then lobster that udes to be eaten by cod has increased. Sure, you can make good money of lobster too but what will happen when the lobster is gone? With the domino effects generated by losing one species after the other the stability of the ocean systems declines - to become a road of no return? Scientists warn that by the mid of the century all fish will be gone, if things remain the same, but things don`t get necessarily better, they could get worse too. ``In Jan 2009 a paper in science reports that fish droppings help the ocean to absorb carbon dioxide: a first link between over fishing and global warming.`` With fish disappearing climate change may accelerate! Besides, losing wild fish will have immense impacts on the ability to feed the world`s population: 1.2 billion people call fish a key part of their diet, for many more it`s an important part of their diet.
Fish farms are not the answer. Fish farms use wild fish to feed farm fish; they destroy more fish than they harvest which means that the more fish farming there is the less fish will be in the ocean. Essentially, you convert one fish into another but you don't increase the amount of fish. Therefore it`s much better to eat small fish like anchovies instead of grinding it up to feed it to salmon - anchovies are better for us any way than salmon.
First steps to protect fish have been taken and marine reserves were established where commercial fishing is completely prohibited. This fishing ban may need police enforcement but the positive effects of fish repopulating gone already be seen. So far 4000 marine reserves exist worldwide but they only cover 0.6% of the ocean! Industry is allowed to fish in 99.4% of the ocean. This has to stop. If even only a part of the annual fishery subsidies, estimated $15-30 billions, were spend on marine reserve this would help to start turning the situation at sea around.
As the three key ingredients to guarantee the survival of fish in the oceans were named:
- Political will to implement change - the future of our fish is very much in their hands
- Consumers need to change eating behaviour and question where their fish comes from and how it`s been fished
- Fisheries need to follow the rules (they would have to accept huge job losses because the commercial fleet is way too big)
All the speakers in the film agree that we don't need more knowledge to act, we can start change right now but before all, one question has to be answered, and without the right answer there will be no change: Does society want to see the sea recover?
The end of the line
The awareness that something is going wrong in out oceans was raised when everywhere around the world local fishermen reported less and less fish catches while at the same time the global fish industry registered higher and higher catches each year. Turned out that the Chinese have been making up numbers, reporting amounts of fish that they did not actually catch - because it was not there any more. In 2002 it was sure that fish quantities have been falling since 1988. In fact, all fish stocks in the world have declined dramatically, that means by 70% and more. It seems to me the ocean is about to be emptied from wild fish and filled with plastic, other garbage and yes, dead fish instead. A tenth of the worldwide catch is thrown back into the water - dead- because those fishes do not sell well enough.
Commercial fishing has transformed entire eco-systems at a huge scale. The current fishing fleet has the capacity that could catch the world's catch 4 times over. With current technology not a single hunted animal on this Earth has a chance of survival - this includes fish that can not hide or escape the radar of the fishing boats. The world's long-lining industry sets 1.4 billion hooks each year, estimated to be set on lines that could encircle the globe more than 550 times! Even more destructive, most destructive of all are bottom trawlers, huge nets dragged along the ocean floor as if ploughing it and not leaving behind a single creature. The mouth of the largest trawling net in the world can accommodate 13 747 air planes.
A considerable part of the film was about the blue fin tuna. Blue fin tuna is an icon fish, very beautiful, fast, and considered the king of the tuna,- ìt is just a delicious fish that`s it has been hunted to near extinction. All fish are caught by quota today but the quota, set by politicians in the rich countries of the world, is often unrealistic. The quota for the blue fin tuna is 3 times higher than needed for the species to recover, and two times higher than needed to prevent the species from collapse. Recommendations from scientists are frequently ignored under the pressure of the fishing industry and the prevention of unemployment. In the Mediterranean (mostly Italians) catch twice as much as the quota, which represents 1/3 of the blue fin tuna population. The Italian government does not care.
Breaking the rules by fishermen is (one of) the biggest problem and worth $25 billions per year. It is hard to stop a bad behaviour when a few people make millions of dollars by decimating fish species. In Japan Mitsubishi is in control of over 50% of the blue fin tuna production. Rumours have it that they try to build up a frozen reserve which will be worth lots of money (and this tuna is already expensive) once stocks are depleted. Mitsubishi has sent out bigger fishing ships with more freezing & transportation capacity, while saying it agrees to reducing the quota and preserving the species for the future.
Consequences from overfishing are multiple and lots of them unforeseen. Jellyfish infestations are increasing because all the big fish, the predators are gone. There`s also more algae, plankton, and worms. Newfoundland overfished its cod population back in the 80s. Since then lobster that udes to be eaten by cod has increased. Sure, you can make good money of lobster too but what will happen when the lobster is gone? With the domino effects generated by losing one species after the other the stability of the ocean systems declines - to become a road of no return? Scientists warn that by the mid of the century all fish will be gone, if things remain the same, but things don`t get necessarily better, they could get worse too. ``In Jan 2009 a paper in science reports that fish droppings help the ocean to absorb carbon dioxide: a first link between over fishing and global warming.`` With fish disappearing climate change may accelerate! Besides, losing wild fish will have immense impacts on the ability to feed the world`s population: 1.2 billion people call fish a key part of their diet, for many more it`s an important part of their diet.
Fish farms are not the answer. Fish farms use wild fish to feed farm fish; they destroy more fish than they harvest which means that the more fish farming there is the less fish will be in the ocean. Essentially, you convert one fish into another but you don't increase the amount of fish. Therefore it`s much better to eat small fish like anchovies instead of grinding it up to feed it to salmon - anchovies are better for us any way than salmon.
First steps to protect fish have been taken and marine reserves were established where commercial fishing is completely prohibited. This fishing ban may need police enforcement but the positive effects of fish repopulating gone already be seen. So far 4000 marine reserves exist worldwide but they only cover 0.6% of the ocean! Industry is allowed to fish in 99.4% of the ocean. This has to stop. If even only a part of the annual fishery subsidies, estimated $15-30 billions, were spend on marine reserve this would help to start turning the situation at sea around.
As the three key ingredients to guarantee the survival of fish in the oceans were named:
- Political will to implement change - the future of our fish is very much in their hands
- Consumers need to change eating behaviour and question where their fish comes from and how it`s been fished
- Fisheries need to follow the rules (they would have to accept huge job losses because the commercial fleet is way too big)
All the speakers in the film agree that we don't need more knowledge to act, we can start change right now but before all, one question has to be answered, and without the right answer there will be no change: Does society want to see the sea recover?
The end of the line
Wednesday, April 6, 2011
Best cities to live in Canada
Statistics are relative and every statistic that tries to figure out the best and worst places to live comes up with different results. What is hardly ever clear is how the analysed categories are weighted. The most recent statistic from MoneySense Best cities to live in Canada which looks at Canadian cities only takes weather, affordable housing, household income, new cars, population growth, job prospects, access to health care, low crime rate, and percentage of people that walk or bike to work into account. According to the Epoch Times they also rated public transit, amenities, culture, income & sales taxes but I can't see them on the on-line list of the MoneySense website.
How do you rate weather though? What weather one likes or dislikes is very individual. Edmonton might have lots of sun but it also has snow for 6 months. It does not rain much but the dryness causes itchy skin and eczema. Believing Moneysense the climate is best in Ontario, followed by B.C.; only Manitoba has one city in the top 30 but no other province.
New cars? Is it a good thing to have more cars on the road, or newer cars? Shouldn't we be aiming for less cars on the roads and better public transit? And what do they measure public transit on, compared to other Canadian cities? All of them should receive low points then.
Population growth also makes me think. Is it great to have lots of people move in? I like small places, a vastly expanding place would make me want to move away. Dave suggests that population growth implies that people want to live there. That might not be due to the beauty of the city or any other factor than job prospects. I know enough people who don't find Edmonton attractive but live here due to (husband's) employment. That includes myself.
Percentage of people who walk & cycle to work is interesting too. Yellowknife is top. Well, you can't drive anywhere from there, cars are expensive and it's still small enough to walk & bike. In winter you'll probably be safest outside with skies or snowshoes. Edmonton comes out 104 which might seem high for a city with so much sprawl but then again people may just move to the corner of the city they work in.
I would really like to see the list for income & sales taxes and wonder if it takes into account what you get for it. Alberta has generally low taxes but the city of Edmonton for example barely manages to plough the roads during winter - why not tax more & provide better service? The reason for the low taxes are the oil & gas operations, above all the tar sands. The province lives off the taxes paid by the big oil corporations but the negative environmental impacts these operations have are probably not accounted for. Are those desirable circumstances in order to keep taxes low? I don't think so.
How do you rate weather though? What weather one likes or dislikes is very individual. Edmonton might have lots of sun but it also has snow for 6 months. It does not rain much but the dryness causes itchy skin and eczema. Believing Moneysense the climate is best in Ontario, followed by B.C.; only Manitoba has one city in the top 30 but no other province.
New cars? Is it a good thing to have more cars on the road, or newer cars? Shouldn't we be aiming for less cars on the roads and better public transit? And what do they measure public transit on, compared to other Canadian cities? All of them should receive low points then.
Population growth also makes me think. Is it great to have lots of people move in? I like small places, a vastly expanding place would make me want to move away. Dave suggests that population growth implies that people want to live there. That might not be due to the beauty of the city or any other factor than job prospects. I know enough people who don't find Edmonton attractive but live here due to (husband's) employment. That includes myself.
Percentage of people who walk & cycle to work is interesting too. Yellowknife is top. Well, you can't drive anywhere from there, cars are expensive and it's still small enough to walk & bike. In winter you'll probably be safest outside with skies or snowshoes. Edmonton comes out 104 which might seem high for a city with so much sprawl but then again people may just move to the corner of the city they work in.
I would really like to see the list for income & sales taxes and wonder if it takes into account what you get for it. Alberta has generally low taxes but the city of Edmonton for example barely manages to plough the roads during winter - why not tax more & provide better service? The reason for the low taxes are the oil & gas operations, above all the tar sands. The province lives off the taxes paid by the big oil corporations but the negative environmental impacts these operations have are probably not accounted for. Are those desirable circumstances in order to keep taxes low? I don't think so.
Canadians waste water, flush garbage down toilet
This is a recent article in the Epoch Times and well, you may guess my reaction. Here are the facts from the 4th annual Canadian Water Attitudes Study:
- almost 3 out of 4 Canadians admit to flushing leftover food, hair, bugs, cigarettes and other items that could be disposed of elsewhere down the toilet, wasting 6 to 20 litres of clean water per flush; Albertans (83%) are most likely, Quebecois (65%) least likely do flush the wrong things down the toilet - do they not realise it's wrong?
- 55% Canadians believe water is Canada's most important natural resource
- 78% say they try reasonable hard to conserve water - how do you define reasonably hard????
- 80% know the water in the toilet has drink water quality - which does not stop them from wasting it.
- 76% are aware that almost half of the water used in a home is flushed down the toilet
- people between 18 and 35 (84%) waste more water than those over 55 (63%)
- Canadians use on average 327 litres per day - 67% underestimate this amount
- 46% leave the water running while doing the dishes
- the study assumes that Canadians waste water because they (61%) don't know what they pay for it, 70% thinks though it costs enough to be treated as a valuable resource - really? so why don't they behave accordingly?
- Canadians pay less for water than other developed nations, e.g. 4 times less than the French, 7 times less than Germans - water use there is much lower!- time to put water meters into every Canadian household and charge per unit!
Water expert Bob Sandford (remember him?) says: "They claim to care about conserving it, yet knowingly engage in water wasting activities, including using fresh, clean water to dispose of garbage." and "Canadians need to understand that water is a finite resource and there are significant social and economic implications related to wasting it." and "This data highlights, once again, that Canadians are not making the connection between their personal water use and the true value of water." and until this changes "our water wasting habits will continue."
I think lots of Sandford and I wonder if he's ashamed of being a Canadian sometimes for all he knows about water and how Canadians treat it. Some of those percentages are definitely too high. I also wonder why Canadians don't get the message. If at least the governments at federal, provincial and/ or municipal level would get it they could surely crank up the price of water. That will not get them reelected but it will save the future of this country somewhat, and protect the environment. Now pull yourselves together, Canadians!
- almost 3 out of 4 Canadians admit to flushing leftover food, hair, bugs, cigarettes and other items that could be disposed of elsewhere down the toilet, wasting 6 to 20 litres of clean water per flush; Albertans (83%) are most likely, Quebecois (65%) least likely do flush the wrong things down the toilet - do they not realise it's wrong?
- 55% Canadians believe water is Canada's most important natural resource
- 78% say they try reasonable hard to conserve water - how do you define reasonably hard????
- 80% know the water in the toilet has drink water quality - which does not stop them from wasting it.
- 76% are aware that almost half of the water used in a home is flushed down the toilet
- people between 18 and 35 (84%) waste more water than those over 55 (63%)
- Canadians use on average 327 litres per day - 67% underestimate this amount
- 46% leave the water running while doing the dishes
- the study assumes that Canadians waste water because they (61%) don't know what they pay for it, 70% thinks though it costs enough to be treated as a valuable resource - really? so why don't they behave accordingly?
- Canadians pay less for water than other developed nations, e.g. 4 times less than the French, 7 times less than Germans - water use there is much lower!- time to put water meters into every Canadian household and charge per unit!
Water expert Bob Sandford (remember him?) says: "They claim to care about conserving it, yet knowingly engage in water wasting activities, including using fresh, clean water to dispose of garbage." and "Canadians need to understand that water is a finite resource and there are significant social and economic implications related to wasting it." and "This data highlights, once again, that Canadians are not making the connection between their personal water use and the true value of water." and until this changes "our water wasting habits will continue."
I think lots of Sandford and I wonder if he's ashamed of being a Canadian sometimes for all he knows about water and how Canadians treat it. Some of those percentages are definitely too high. I also wonder why Canadians don't get the message. If at least the governments at federal, provincial and/ or municipal level would get it they could surely crank up the price of water. That will not get them reelected but it will save the future of this country somewhat, and protect the environment. Now pull yourselves together, Canadians!
Tuesday, April 5, 2011
Europe and the descendants of cloned animals
I am terribly disappointed to read this but apparently the European Parliament was not able to ban meat & dairy from descendants from cloned animals. It did not even achieve mandatory labelling for these products. So the European consumers can not tell when they happen to buy meat or dairy products from descendants of cloned animals! Germany was one of the countries against these regulations - booo, booo, booo!
Cloning is allowed in the European Union but the trading of meat & dairy from cloned animals is not. There is no food production whatsoever from cloned animals in the EU. The reason why regulations for products from descendants of cloned animals failed is that some European countries anticipated another trade dispute with the USA. But the EU uses bull sperm from the USA and Latin America for raising animals whose products end up on supermarket shelves. Cloning and food products from cloned animals are allowed in the US.
Needless to mention I am against cloning. Nature has survived for millions of years through evolution and now comes along the human species and thinks they can mess around and reproduce their own chosen super-animals. And it will not stop there. I'm sure the clone person will come with all its consequences. Oh no. Time to send some crazy scientists to the moon.
http://www.tagesschau.de/ausland/klonfleisch118.html
Cloning is allowed in the European Union but the trading of meat & dairy from cloned animals is not. There is no food production whatsoever from cloned animals in the EU. The reason why regulations for products from descendants of cloned animals failed is that some European countries anticipated another trade dispute with the USA. But the EU uses bull sperm from the USA and Latin America for raising animals whose products end up on supermarket shelves. Cloning and food products from cloned animals are allowed in the US.
Needless to mention I am against cloning. Nature has survived for millions of years through evolution and now comes along the human species and thinks they can mess around and reproduce their own chosen super-animals. And it will not stop there. I'm sure the clone person will come with all its consequences. Oh no. Time to send some crazy scientists to the moon.
http://www.tagesschau.de/ausland/klonfleisch118.html
Tapped
is a US American documentary from 2009 about bottled water and you can find out more at: www.tappedthemovie.com
The film is split into the issue of where the water comes from and then the bottles. Communities in water-rich states of the US are rallying against Nestle (a Swiss corporation), Pepsi & CocaCola who steal their drinking water. In some states, according to the legislation, water is practically free for anyone and so these companies come and pump as much as they can to later sell it at a huge profit. These companies even kept operating the year (2007?) that over 30 states were facing dorught conditions and municipalities restriced water usage. I understood their rage but I also kept thinking: don't buy bottled water! It's such a logical consequence that will put the corporations out of that business! It still leaves them in the need for water to produce coke and other pop drinks/ sodas but it would help a lot.
Don't buy bottled water.
Why is bottled water so big? - In 1989 it became possible to put water into lightweight, cheap, clear PET bottles. Bottled water became a huge commodity and private corporations have not stopped making their profit of it.
Don't buy bottled water.
One of my favourite quotes in the film goes something like this: We have all become like big toddlers .. that need to know constantly that there's something there; we want it individualized, personalized, we don't want to have take care of it, just throw it away. We want it immediately available and convenient otherwise we'll have a fit. -- It explains why most of us do not reuse a (BPA-free!) bottle that can be simply refilled from the tap. I do of course.
Don't buy bottled water.
Advertisement makes us believe that bottled water is purer & healthier than tap water. 40% of all bottled water in the US is simply filtered tap water and due to "processing" and packaging not better than tap water. Different tests have found bacterial contaminants, arsenic, benzene, vinyl chloride, styrene, phthalate, and other carcinogenic substances. Why is this? Municipalities have to test their water several times per day to insure its safety - Pepsi & Co. don't have to do this. Even when these companies do their own tests on water sources and products they don't have to make them public. The government does not help either. In all of the Food & Drug Administration (FDA) there's only one person looking after bottled water regulations, and she has other responsibilities too. The FDA only regulates products that move between states, so if water is bottled and sold in the same state the FDA does not care about it. Unfortunately consumers have too much faith in a self-regulated industry!
Don't buy bottled water.
Now the bottles are usually made of PET or PETE which requires a substances that derives from the refining process of crude oil which tends to come with cancer-causing "by-products". The production of plastic bottles contaminates water!!! & air. Big sturdy bottles often contain Bisphenol A (BPA). The review of 700 studies concluded though that BPA is related to diabetes, breast & prostate cancers, obesity, liver diseases, diseases of the uterus, brain disorders (hyperactivity), low sperm count and more.
Don't buy bottled water.
Once the bottle's been used it needs to go somewhere preferably into recycling. While worldwide 50% of all beverage containers get recycled it's only 20% in the US. And who pays for it? Often the municipality that provides safe tap water. In some states there's a deposit. It's proven that deposits ensure bottles are returned for recycling. The bottled water industry prefers curbside recycling though and ignores the fact that 50% of Americans don't have access to curb side recycling. Consequently millions of bottles each year are incinerated releasing dioxin, or end up in landfills and in the ocean! Another great quote: The beach of the future does not have shells, corals and sand - it has a plastic cover!
In the Pacific two garbage patches have been located, one in the East, one in the West. That's where due to currents plastics have accumulated from Asia and America. The same applies to other oceans! In 2008 researchers found 48 times as much plastics as planktons in these garbage patches. A researcher resumed: Bottled water might be good in disaster relief but is a disaster in every day use.
Don't buy bottled water.
The film is split into the issue of where the water comes from and then the bottles. Communities in water-rich states of the US are rallying against Nestle (a Swiss corporation), Pepsi & CocaCola who steal their drinking water. In some states, according to the legislation, water is practically free for anyone and so these companies come and pump as much as they can to later sell it at a huge profit. These companies even kept operating the year (2007?) that over 30 states were facing dorught conditions and municipalities restriced water usage. I understood their rage but I also kept thinking: don't buy bottled water! It's such a logical consequence that will put the corporations out of that business! It still leaves them in the need for water to produce coke and other pop drinks/ sodas but it would help a lot.
Don't buy bottled water.
Why is bottled water so big? - In 1989 it became possible to put water into lightweight, cheap, clear PET bottles. Bottled water became a huge commodity and private corporations have not stopped making their profit of it.
Don't buy bottled water.
One of my favourite quotes in the film goes something like this: We have all become like big toddlers .. that need to know constantly that there's something there; we want it individualized, personalized, we don't want to have take care of it, just throw it away. We want it immediately available and convenient otherwise we'll have a fit. -- It explains why most of us do not reuse a (BPA-free!) bottle that can be simply refilled from the tap. I do of course.
Don't buy bottled water.
Advertisement makes us believe that bottled water is purer & healthier than tap water. 40% of all bottled water in the US is simply filtered tap water and due to "processing" and packaging not better than tap water. Different tests have found bacterial contaminants, arsenic, benzene, vinyl chloride, styrene, phthalate, and other carcinogenic substances. Why is this? Municipalities have to test their water several times per day to insure its safety - Pepsi & Co. don't have to do this. Even when these companies do their own tests on water sources and products they don't have to make them public. The government does not help either. In all of the Food & Drug Administration (FDA) there's only one person looking after bottled water regulations, and she has other responsibilities too. The FDA only regulates products that move between states, so if water is bottled and sold in the same state the FDA does not care about it. Unfortunately consumers have too much faith in a self-regulated industry!
Don't buy bottled water.
Now the bottles are usually made of PET or PETE which requires a substances that derives from the refining process of crude oil which tends to come with cancer-causing "by-products". The production of plastic bottles contaminates water!!! & air. Big sturdy bottles often contain Bisphenol A (BPA). The review of 700 studies concluded though that BPA is related to diabetes, breast & prostate cancers, obesity, liver diseases, diseases of the uterus, brain disorders (hyperactivity), low sperm count and more.
Don't buy bottled water.
Once the bottle's been used it needs to go somewhere preferably into recycling. While worldwide 50% of all beverage containers get recycled it's only 20% in the US. And who pays for it? Often the municipality that provides safe tap water. In some states there's a deposit. It's proven that deposits ensure bottles are returned for recycling. The bottled water industry prefers curbside recycling though and ignores the fact that 50% of Americans don't have access to curb side recycling. Consequently millions of bottles each year are incinerated releasing dioxin, or end up in landfills and in the ocean! Another great quote: The beach of the future does not have shells, corals and sand - it has a plastic cover!
In the Pacific two garbage patches have been located, one in the East, one in the West. That's where due to currents plastics have accumulated from Asia and America. The same applies to other oceans! In 2008 researchers found 48 times as much plastics as planktons in these garbage patches. A researcher resumed: Bottled water might be good in disaster relief but is a disaster in every day use.
Don't buy bottled water.
Monday, April 4, 2011
Lost in the suburbs
is another episode of The Nature of Things from 2008. It visits Los Angeles, Vancouver, Toronto, Mexico City and hey, Portland, Oregon!
In order to facilitate Toronto's expansion some of the most fertile soil in North America had been covered with concrete and asphalt. Suburban residents cover 4 times more space than those living in the city.
L.A. is the "ultimate suburban wasteland" according to David Suzuki. The Fresno valley nearby that's threatened to be built up too provides more than 200 commodity crops and is one of the biggest food providers in the U.S. Farmers start to become the minority though and the urban population does not understand their lifestyle. Farmers work earlier, they also work later, and some of their duties are noisy and dusty. Although the soil and the climate are great the water for irrigation comes via pipeline from far away and required a huge financially investment by the federal government. Unfortunately, the municipalities decide what to do with the land and sacrifices it for construction that creates jobs. In one place in California "extravagant" people can even live in a suburb made for small air planes! The garage, the street, the parking in the front of the house are all designed to accommodate the wing span.
Vancouver has apparently an even higher car use than L.A. and an additional 30,000 cars enter the roads every year. But the city barely builds any new roads. Vancouver is so unaffordable for most people that they move into the suburbs which are designed for cars, or "extensions of highway intersections". "The sound of sprawl is the freeway roar," it was said but it has turned into ever growing congestion. Widening the roads and adding more highways has not and will not solve the problem. Maintaining 1 km of road costs $10,000 per year, and new roads cost more. This does not include the costs for police, accident services like health care, and air pollution. Presumably, there will be road tolls soon which will increase the cost of living in suburbs! Together with demographic changes the demand for large houses in distant suburbs will disappear over the next couple of decades.
Mexico City with more than 20 million people is an urban nightmare, sprawling tremendously. There's no more natural beauty & tranquillity, just cars & too much traffic, air and other pollution, and water shortage. The city is not human any more.
Portland Oregon has not stopped the sprawl but has made room for nature in the city. It started 25 years ago that the city tore up a freeway and put in a waterfront park, tore up a parking house and create a public space in the centre of the city, diverted money from road construction to public transport and built a light railway instead. City neighbourhoods revived and the growth was directed into more dense, already existing areas instead of adding on to the city boundary. A model suburb is denser, the houses closer to the sidewalk, a front porch faces the road instead of a garage, school and shops are in walking distance.In Portland people want to live there and don't feel forced to live there - that should be the goal of city planning. Some critics said that Portland's moves were a socialist conspiracy to get people out of their cars but in fact in was a conspiracy that brought people into cars in the first place.
Generally suburbs provide more affordable housing than the city centre, get you more space for less money. People think it is easier to start a family, it feels safer to raise children, suburbs have a perceived higher quality of living. But it's not actually that comfortable: commuting means sacrificing time and well-being, expose oneself to accidents, fuel & maintain the car, pay insurances. It's not affordable to the individual or the community.
Generally, cars have driven the sprawl. The deal has been that the private sector provides the vehicles -without any limits - and the government provides the pathways. But huge amounts of money (subsidies) go into supporting the car and even only a 10% of it would better be invested in public transit.
An initial problem is that wilderness and natural areas are often considered as land to be developed, as something that needs to change. Another problem is that the costs for infrastructure (water, sewage, roads, community services) are only partially accounted for in the price of suburban houses. The municipality that provides the infrastructure usually ends up with a debt that can't be recovered from taxes from the new residents. So they keep building hoping it pays off next time ... but it does not. Suburbs won't work forever.
In order to facilitate Toronto's expansion some of the most fertile soil in North America had been covered with concrete and asphalt. Suburban residents cover 4 times more space than those living in the city.
L.A. is the "ultimate suburban wasteland" according to David Suzuki. The Fresno valley nearby that's threatened to be built up too provides more than 200 commodity crops and is one of the biggest food providers in the U.S. Farmers start to become the minority though and the urban population does not understand their lifestyle. Farmers work earlier, they also work later, and some of their duties are noisy and dusty. Although the soil and the climate are great the water for irrigation comes via pipeline from far away and required a huge financially investment by the federal government. Unfortunately, the municipalities decide what to do with the land and sacrifices it for construction that creates jobs. In one place in California "extravagant" people can even live in a suburb made for small air planes! The garage, the street, the parking in the front of the house are all designed to accommodate the wing span.
Vancouver has apparently an even higher car use than L.A. and an additional 30,000 cars enter the roads every year. But the city barely builds any new roads. Vancouver is so unaffordable for most people that they move into the suburbs which are designed for cars, or "extensions of highway intersections". "The sound of sprawl is the freeway roar," it was said but it has turned into ever growing congestion. Widening the roads and adding more highways has not and will not solve the problem. Maintaining 1 km of road costs $10,000 per year, and new roads cost more. This does not include the costs for police, accident services like health care, and air pollution. Presumably, there will be road tolls soon which will increase the cost of living in suburbs! Together with demographic changes the demand for large houses in distant suburbs will disappear over the next couple of decades.
Mexico City with more than 20 million people is an urban nightmare, sprawling tremendously. There's no more natural beauty & tranquillity, just cars & too much traffic, air and other pollution, and water shortage. The city is not human any more.
Portland Oregon has not stopped the sprawl but has made room for nature in the city. It started 25 years ago that the city tore up a freeway and put in a waterfront park, tore up a parking house and create a public space in the centre of the city, diverted money from road construction to public transport and built a light railway instead. City neighbourhoods revived and the growth was directed into more dense, already existing areas instead of adding on to the city boundary. A model suburb is denser, the houses closer to the sidewalk, a front porch faces the road instead of a garage, school and shops are in walking distance.In Portland people want to live there and don't feel forced to live there - that should be the goal of city planning. Some critics said that Portland's moves were a socialist conspiracy to get people out of their cars but in fact in was a conspiracy that brought people into cars in the first place.
Generally suburbs provide more affordable housing than the city centre, get you more space for less money. People think it is easier to start a family, it feels safer to raise children, suburbs have a perceived higher quality of living. But it's not actually that comfortable: commuting means sacrificing time and well-being, expose oneself to accidents, fuel & maintain the car, pay insurances. It's not affordable to the individual or the community.
Generally, cars have driven the sprawl. The deal has been that the private sector provides the vehicles -without any limits - and the government provides the pathways. But huge amounts of money (subsidies) go into supporting the car and even only a 10% of it would better be invested in public transit.
An initial problem is that wilderness and natural areas are often considered as land to be developed, as something that needs to change. Another problem is that the costs for infrastructure (water, sewage, roads, community services) are only partially accounted for in the price of suburban houses. The municipality that provides the infrastructure usually ends up with a debt that can't be recovered from taxes from the new residents. So they keep building hoping it pays off next time ... but it does not. Suburbs won't work forever.
Remember the Gulf oil spill?
Of course, you do, everyone does. It only happened last year and the consequences are still coming up and will keep coming up for years to come but a few people seem to have forgotten all about it - those in charge. Despite Gulf oil spill, rig owner executives get big bonuses is an article from today on how Transocean celebrates "the best year in safety performance in our company's history". Every sane person will shake her/ his head now in disbelief but yes it's true. At Transocean the top people think they deserve a lot of extra cash for their great performance in 2010. Maybe, losing 9 workers in one oil rig explosion and being involved in the worst oil spills ever is not a big deal after all. I don't think these people should be running this type of company, if any at all.
Sunday, April 3, 2011
Alternative Agriculture
is the title of an episode of The Nature or Things that I watched on DVD from the library. I don't know how old it is and again it was not all new to me but it was very very wonderful to see green, trees, fields, and animals roaming freely in the foothills of the Rockies. Yes, I am feeling very deprived of nature at the moment, especially hearing about daffodils and cherry blossom from Europe. I am currently pressuring my husband into moving somewhere greener where we are not buried under snow and ice for six months and then wade through deep puddles for another month, before finally by mid- or end of May the first bits of green spring up. Sorry, I can't handle this!
Back to the film. First of all, all the good examples of agriculture came from Alberta. There was the farmer with rare breed cattle & pigs, the farmer with organic pigs & chickens, and the farmer way in the Southwest of AB who raises organic cattle in the foothills. He belongs to a Co-op of 5 or 6 farmers that all got certified organic. It's better for the land, the livestock, the people, not only the farmer but also the consumer. This last farmer made the statement that some people make donations to organisations whose goal is to conserve and protect nature but when they go shopping they roll their eyes at the high organic meat prices and buy the cheap (bad) stuff instead. I agree. I do it although not often because we eat meat only once per week. At this point I should buy organic because it's not going to ruin us financially. Leaves me with the problem to get to where the organic meat is ... If you eat lots of meat though I guess buying it organic will leave way bigger holes in your pocket than the occasional donation. At least we don't donate money on a weekly basis, more like every couple of months. But his point is right: With what we buy we make a big statement about what we want and what we will not accept and supply follows demand, right?!
Second, the bad example came again from the US, North Carolina to be exact. Apparently it's THE pig country of the USA and of course the pigs are raised in crowded, feed lot conditions. The sewage generated by the pigs sits in ponds, smelling horrendeously, until it gets sprayed onto fields. The fields receive way more sewage though than they can cope with and the sewage seeps right down into the ground water and waterways. Consequently fishes die and the waterways sooner or later collapse. What's being done about it? Not much because the hog industry denies all accusations and surely being such a big industry they will have politicians "under control". Here's a great article from back in the 1990s: Watch out for killer algae: years of dumping hog wastes into North Carolina rivers has created a monster
Also in the US, around 90% of all antibiotics are fed preventatively to healthy livestock, and more than 3/4 of the grains grown in the US is fed to livestock as well.
Last but not least, I don't like the title of the documentary. Organic farming, or farming in a way where the livestock is respected and kept humanely and eats grass instead of grain and antibiotics should be the only way of farming. Isn't it terrible that our agriculture has gone so far that the natural approach to farming as it had been done for a long time before the industrial revolution is now the "alternative"!?
Back to the film. First of all, all the good examples of agriculture came from Alberta. There was the farmer with rare breed cattle & pigs, the farmer with organic pigs & chickens, and the farmer way in the Southwest of AB who raises organic cattle in the foothills. He belongs to a Co-op of 5 or 6 farmers that all got certified organic. It's better for the land, the livestock, the people, not only the farmer but also the consumer. This last farmer made the statement that some people make donations to organisations whose goal is to conserve and protect nature but when they go shopping they roll their eyes at the high organic meat prices and buy the cheap (bad) stuff instead. I agree. I do it although not often because we eat meat only once per week. At this point I should buy organic because it's not going to ruin us financially. Leaves me with the problem to get to where the organic meat is ... If you eat lots of meat though I guess buying it organic will leave way bigger holes in your pocket than the occasional donation. At least we don't donate money on a weekly basis, more like every couple of months. But his point is right: With what we buy we make a big statement about what we want and what we will not accept and supply follows demand, right?!
Second, the bad example came again from the US, North Carolina to be exact. Apparently it's THE pig country of the USA and of course the pigs are raised in crowded, feed lot conditions. The sewage generated by the pigs sits in ponds, smelling horrendeously, until it gets sprayed onto fields. The fields receive way more sewage though than they can cope with and the sewage seeps right down into the ground water and waterways. Consequently fishes die and the waterways sooner or later collapse. What's being done about it? Not much because the hog industry denies all accusations and surely being such a big industry they will have politicians "under control". Here's a great article from back in the 1990s: Watch out for killer algae: years of dumping hog wastes into North Carolina rivers has created a monster
Also in the US, around 90% of all antibiotics are fed preventatively to healthy livestock, and more than 3/4 of the grains grown in the US is fed to livestock as well.
Last but not least, I don't like the title of the documentary. Organic farming, or farming in a way where the livestock is respected and kept humanely and eats grass instead of grain and antibiotics should be the only way of farming. Isn't it terrible that our agriculture has gone so far that the natural approach to farming as it had been done for a long time before the industrial revolution is now the "alternative"!?
Saturday, April 2, 2011
Waste harvest
I just watched a documentary from CBClearning called Harvesting the city. It's set in Toronto and portrays several companies that collect waste and sell it or use it as raw material for their products. Unsurprisingly, there were all these companies dealing with recycling: paper, cardboard, glass & metals, even contaminated water. It was not said what exactly happens to plastics from the recycling bins. One company collected food leftovers from Toronto's restaurants and distributed them to pig farmers. As well they were looking into extending to cattle farmers but cattle is a bit more fussy and the company does not know in advance what kind of scraps they'll receive.Another company collected scrap fabric and turned it into small clothing items such as hats. The most interesting company was the recycler of disposable diapers. In an "intensive process" the "materials" (the owner of the company does not like the word garbage because a lot of it is material that can be turned into something new) get cleaned and separated. The result is fibrous wood pulp whose quality is better than from trees and sells at higher prices. The shredded plastic is very absorbent and for example soaks up oil from water which makes it suitable for cleaning up oil spills. This diaper recycling company is the first of its kind and processes 40 tons of diapers each year. The question that did not get answered unfortunately was what "intensive process" means - according to the footage I would assume water & energy. Maybe even chemicals?
The documentary did not really show what happens with thrown-out materials that do not go into the recycling process. Recycling is surely better than no recycling but it's still not an invitation to throw things out thinking that somebody down the road will hopefully deal with it. And if it has to be disposable diapers then why not use biodegradable ones and compost them.
The documentary did not really show what happens with thrown-out materials that do not go into the recycling process. Recycling is surely better than no recycling but it's still not an invitation to throw things out thinking that somebody down the road will hopefully deal with it. And if it has to be disposable diapers then why not use biodegradable ones and compost them.
Friday, April 1, 2011
The Natural Step
I watched a documentation last night titles "A passion for sustainability". It's about a dozen businesses in Portland, Oregon, "the most sustainable city in the US". Ah! Already learned something new. As a matter of fact the footage of Portland was not bad, I almost want to go there but since it's in the US (security mania) I will not bother. The documentation introduced very different companies and how they turned their business practices into sustainable practices, considering the impact on planet Earth all along. At the same time these companies apparently increased their bottom line as well.
There was a fashion designer (Anna Cohen) who designs clothing from soya, seaweed, hemp, and organic cotton fabrics; the pizza shop (Hotlips) that sources the ingredients locally, some even grown within city limits; an auto repair shop (Hawthorne Auto), a builder (Neil Kelly) that constructs attractive energy and material efficient house; a city developer; a water provider (Tualatin Valley Water District); a wood company (The Collins Companies) that manages its own forests, sawmills, produces particle boards etc; an architecture's office that designed an affordable housing project; a cleaning company (Terra Clean) that runs its trucks and vacuum cleaners on used kitchen oils that they collect from local restaurants; an organic winery; a carpentry that produced high end furniture, and an engineering consultant (PAE). Last but not least it included NIKE that has a large, posh "campus" in Portland. I suppose that's the headquarters and where the designers sit, it's certainly not where the gear is produced which put me off a little.
These, and more, companies follow the principles of The Natural Step, a NGO found about 20 years ago by Swedish Dr Karl-Henrik Robert. Although it was interesting to watch at the end the documentation became a kind of advertisement for The Natural Step. They way these business owners talked about it was a bit too "up-scale" for me though. I also could not follow the interview with Dr. Robert. Maybe, doctors and business owners are so terribly smart, educated, experienced, ... that they have to sound so sophisticated but hey when it comes to the environment, aka our planet, we are all in the same boat so keep it simple please. My hubby said it sounds like a "cult" they are talking about. But yes, I'm glad they do something. These businesses are leaders in what they do and hopefully pass on the bug to others. No, I would not shop at these businesses because they serve people with considerably higher incomes. (Considering we statistically belong to low-income-families in Canada I assume there's plenty of people out there who can afford the services or products of these businesses.)
Products that are manufactured sustainably do not fall into the category of "affordable for everyone" something that I am not sure about will ever change. To a certain degree I don't think it can or should be changed. After all, what would be mass-produced, single-use/ throw-away items that are sustainable? Sounds like an antithesis to me.
But organisations like The Natural Step bring us one step closer to a better future.
http://www.thenaturalstep.org/en/canada
http://www.naturalstepusa.org/
There was a fashion designer (Anna Cohen) who designs clothing from soya, seaweed, hemp, and organic cotton fabrics; the pizza shop (Hotlips) that sources the ingredients locally, some even grown within city limits; an auto repair shop (Hawthorne Auto), a builder (Neil Kelly) that constructs attractive energy and material efficient house; a city developer; a water provider (Tualatin Valley Water District); a wood company (The Collins Companies) that manages its own forests, sawmills, produces particle boards etc; an architecture's office that designed an affordable housing project; a cleaning company (Terra Clean) that runs its trucks and vacuum cleaners on used kitchen oils that they collect from local restaurants; an organic winery; a carpentry that produced high end furniture, and an engineering consultant (PAE). Last but not least it included NIKE that has a large, posh "campus" in Portland. I suppose that's the headquarters and where the designers sit, it's certainly not where the gear is produced which put me off a little.
These, and more, companies follow the principles of The Natural Step, a NGO found about 20 years ago by Swedish Dr Karl-Henrik Robert. Although it was interesting to watch at the end the documentation became a kind of advertisement for The Natural Step. They way these business owners talked about it was a bit too "up-scale" for me though. I also could not follow the interview with Dr. Robert. Maybe, doctors and business owners are so terribly smart, educated, experienced, ... that they have to sound so sophisticated but hey when it comes to the environment, aka our planet, we are all in the same boat so keep it simple please. My hubby said it sounds like a "cult" they are talking about. But yes, I'm glad they do something. These businesses are leaders in what they do and hopefully pass on the bug to others. No, I would not shop at these businesses because they serve people with considerably higher incomes. (Considering we statistically belong to low-income-families in Canada I assume there's plenty of people out there who can afford the services or products of these businesses.)
Products that are manufactured sustainably do not fall into the category of "affordable for everyone" something that I am not sure about will ever change. To a certain degree I don't think it can or should be changed. After all, what would be mass-produced, single-use/ throw-away items that are sustainable? Sounds like an antithesis to me.
But organisations like The Natural Step bring us one step closer to a better future.
http://www.thenaturalstep.org/en/canada
http://www.naturalstepusa.org/
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)