Category Archives: Western Canada

Mark Brooks - a recent addtion to our team of Common Sense contributors

Harper’s Climate Death-Wish

Canada, Climate Change, Politics, Western Canada, ,
Share

Withdrawal from the Kyoto Protocol only the latest effort to derail climate change action

Amidst the ongoing circus that constitutes the United Nations climate change summit (COP 17) currently underway in Durban, South Africa, Canada has once again distinguished itself as the country most hostile to virtually any serious international effort to curb rising greenhouse gas emissions.

Canada has long been considered a climate change pariah by the international community. We were the only signatory to the Kyoto Protocol to simply ignore its responsibilities following ratification and our country’s total emissions are now more than 34 per cent above our Kyoto targets. Not only did the previous Liberal government fail to do anything to meet its Kyoto obligations, in recent years the government of Stephen Harper has gone a step further, becoming increasingly obdurate in its efforts to deliberately obstruct the progress of international climate talks.

Why the antipathy of the Harper government toward limits to carbon emissions? Well, as you might expect, the tar sands are one factor. Tar sands reserves are now valued at a stunning $14 trillion and oil companies are investing hundreds of billions of dollars in exploiting the resource, money that could boost federal tax revenues considerably.

This is only part of the story however. Harper has long maintained his government does not support Kyoto because it does not include all of the world’s major emitters such as the United States, China and India. Their oft-repeated refrain is that Canada is a small player, contributing only 2 per cent to global emissions and, as Harper once stated, if emissions from emerging economies are not controlled, “whatever we do in the developed world will have no impact on climate change.”

Besides the fact that we are only in the first Kyoto commitment period and that subsequent phases were intended to include all major emitters, what are we to make of Canada’s Environment-minister-turned-big-oil-lobbyist, Peter Kent, saying on Monday that Canada will not renew its commitment to Kyoto, even if doing so would mean China would agree to firm targets to cut its own greenhouse gases? Worse, speculation is that sometime before Christmas when the House of Commons is not in session and the public is paying little attention, the government will announce Canada’s complete withdrawal from Kyoto. In Durban, Canada is rumoured to be encouraging other countries to follow its lead in rejecting Kyoto.

Although it is technically permitted under Kyoto’s terms, withdrawal from a legally binding, multilateral environmental agreement (MEA) is almost unheard of and it is not entirely clear at this stage what the ramifications of such a move might be for future MEAs. Withdrawal may mean that Canada successfully evades responsibility for the commitments that it undertook in Kyoto but why would any nation believe that Canada will deliver on any commitments we make in the future? And what is to stop other countries withdrawing from other conventions that are no longer to their liking?

This is not to say that Kyoto is without its flaws. But it was a tentative first step by the international community to try to wrestle with a climate change problem that requires concerted international action and is quickly spiraling out of control. Any future treaty would certainly require improvements but Canada is effectively – and almost single-handedly – killing any chance of negotiating a successor to Kyoto before 2020.

So after Durban we are left with nothing but the hastily negotiated and non-binding Copenhagen Accord of 2009, an agreement that our government claims still to support. This agreement calls for the increase in average global temperatures to be limited to two degrees Celsius (2 C) above pre-industrial levels, as many scientists believe that beyond this point, we may cross a climate threshold into potentially catastrophic and unmanageable runaway warming. Yet for several reasons, Copenhagen is also doomed to fail.
 
First, voluntary commitments by the countries that have so far signed the agreement would leave the world heading for warming of over 3 C above pre-industrial levels by 2100. Second, many feel that the 2 C target is itself simply too high. An average global increase of 2 C means some regions in the developing south — much of Africa, for instance — will be subject to a 3.5 C or even 4 C increase. This, as Archbishop Desmond Tutu of South Africa has said, “is to condemn Africa to incineration and no modern development.”
 
Finally, when you crunch the numbers, it becomes clear that accepting the 2 degree limit globally would mean a dramatic reduction in global emissions in the short term. Yet by 2020, tar sands emissions are expected to triple from their 2005 levels.  It would be very difficult for Canada to reconcile any expanding tar sands production with such sharp global declines in carbon emissions. With the economies of China and India expanding at a rapid rate, there simply is not enough atmospheric space available for a tar sands industry that already accounts for a whopping 6.5% of Canada’s total greenhouse gas emissions.
 
Industrialized countries have already emitted roughly 75 per cent of total historical greenhouse gas emissions. By asking poorer countries to bind themselves to diminishing emissions budgets before we have even attempted to meet our own targets, Canada is contributing to perhaps the single biggest impediment to progress in international climate negotiations. For developing countries, acquiescing to such a demand would be “like jumping out of a plane and being assured that you are going to get a parachute on the way down,” as the former Executive Secretary of the UN climate negotiations, Yvo De Boer, said. Why would China and India ever agree to such a deal?
 
Very few would deny the fact that developing countries will have to rein in their carbon emissions if we are to have any chance of solving the climate crisis but if countries like Canada are unwilling to make deep cuts quickly, it’s very difficult for poor countries to see how they can reconcile their development aspirations with the atmospheric limits of climate stabilization at 2 C of warming. Today, the only proven routes out of poverty still involve an expanded use of energy and, consequently, a seemingly inevitable increase in fossil fuel use and carbon emissions — unless more expensive alternative energies can rapidly be deployed.
 
So here we find ourselves at what may be an insurmountable political impasse created by sheer self-interest and apparent egotism. “Western nations are engaged in a lose-lose game of chicken with developing nations,” wrote Naomi Klein in Rolling Stone following the Cophenhagen Summit. And in the meantime, the climate will not wait for us to get our act together. As emissions rise, the climate will continue to change.
 
If even a 2-degree target is out of reach, where does this leave us? The answer is not pretty. In a recently published, must-read article called Beyond ‘dangerous’ climate change: emission scenarios for a new world, Kevin Anderson, a professor of energy and climate change at the University of Manchester, explains why a temperature increase of more than 2 degrees would be extremely dangerous. In fact, he says “a 4 degrees C future is incompatible with an organized global community, is likely to be beyond ‘adaptation’, is devastating to the majority of ecosystems, and has a high probability of not being stable.” According to the International Energy Agency, we’re currently on course for a 6 degrees C temperature rise.
 
Viewed in these stark terms, I cannot help but wonder if future generations will one day judge the actions of our political “leaders” such as Harper and Kent – who in the face of all the scientific evidence, continued to value increasing tar sands production in Canada over climatic stability – as crimes against humanity.

Share

Free Speech, Censorship, and Why Ryerson’s Journalism Program Can Go F#@k Itself

Canada, Politics, WATER, Western Canada, , , ,
Share

On November 24th a “roast” was held for me and it was a fantastic night.

During my speech I raised the “Ryerson” incident that was recently revived.
 
About 10 years ago I received a call from a young woman from the Ryerson School of Journalism who asked if I would write the main article for their “Annual”. I accepted and asked no money in return.
 
I asked her if she knew who I was and what I did. She assured me that she did.
 
Addressing myself to the graduates, I did an essay on free speech and concluded with the statement that they had all better be “ready to self censor or that they would be censored”.
 
Some weeks later the same young woman called me again and was obviously in some distress as she told me that my article was “unsuitable”.
 
“Was it badly written?” I asked.
 
“Not at all – it was very well written…it’s just…unsuitable.”
 
“To whom?” I asked.
 
“It was just unsuitable.”
 
“Why?” I asked.
 
“It’s just unsuitable – but we have a couple of options here. We can pay you $100.”
 
“I don’t want your money,” I said.
 
“The second option is you can do another article.”
 
“There is a third option,” I replied. “You can all go fuck yourselves!”
 
My God! One of the top schools of journalism rejects an article on free speech! If ever I needed verification of my statement, here it was!
 
A few weeks later I happened to be interviewing the deputy dean of Ryerson and I told him this story, off air. He protested vehemently, assuring me he would look into the matter and would get back to me in a few days.
 
I never heard from the man again.
 
Fast forward to about three weeks ago when I got an email from a young woman from Ryerson asking me if I would give her an interview for the Annual. I agreed and made a time and date in Lions Bay for the chat. She was delighted and couldn’t wait – so she said.
 
A few days later I received an email from her saying that the subject, being put to a lot of journalists across the country, was “your biggest disappointment in your career,” and asking me what my answer would be. I immediately replied “the censorship of my article for Ryerson School of Journalism.” That happened to be true.
 
She wrote back saying that this wasn’t really what she was looking for.
 
Perhaps a day later she sent another email.
 
“While I would love to conduct the interview, the issue is not that you are criticizing Ryerson or the Review (which we have no problem with), but rather that what you wish to talk about doesn’t exactly fit in with our theme. I really want to stress the fact that this is not a cancellation due to the fact that you are angry with our publication; it is because this series is specific to “most” tales. Examples from previous videos show journalists talking about their dumbest moment on a deadline, their most awkward meal, etc. And while your story is interesting to be sure, it is not a “most” something from your journalistic career. I hope you understand.”
 
Somehow Ryerson doesn’t quite understand that a journalist who has fought for years for free speech in this country would think that being denied it was a big disappointment.
 
Let me now go to 1990 when another “roast” in my honour was held. I asked that all proceeds go to the UBC School of Journalism and with some help from Jimmy Pattison, a scholarship in my name was set up and when it was handed out I was asked to make the presentation.
 
Of course I agreed and was asked to say a few words, which I did, warning the graduates that when they got into the Canadian media they would either self-censor or be censored.
 
I have never been asked back! A scholarship in my bloody name and I don’t get to make the presentation.
 
The upshot of this is that the Canadian media is censored in the absence of appropriate self-control by the journalist, as demonstrated twice by the #1 or #2 journalism school in the nation and repeatedly for a decade by my old alma mater, the University of British Columbia.
 
How does this censorship happen?
 
For the most part, it’s simply an understanding that some questions and some subjects for columns and articles are just “not on”.
 
Let’s go back to 1991-2001 when the NDP governed BC. They were, even by the standards set by the Vander Zalm government before them, pretty awful. Every political pundit in the province, including me, held their tootsies firmly to the flame for that decade. Especially expert in their shots were columnists, one of whom brought them down almost single-handedly over the “Fastcat” ferries and Mr. Clark’s naivete over a gambling licence.
 
Now it’s 2001 and Gordon Campbell is in power and almost in the drive home from government gives a huge tax rebate to better off folks. The bumbling and fumbling, the loss of BC Ferries, BC Rail and the virtual bankruptcy of BC Hydro made Glen Clark’s misdeeds look liked childish pranks. It’s been a decade of paying off political pals, resulting in the government that was supposed to be fiscally superior more than tripling the real provincial debt.
 
The zealous media that thrashed the NDP has become a snoozing, slothful syndicate of political poodles reporting only that which simply couldn’t be ignored as news; the ignoring being done on a daily basis by the same columnists who did their duty and then some during the NDP years.
 
I hasten to observe that I don’t blame the journalists themselves – they have families, mortgages and kids’ education to pay for and I don’t think I would have been any better if I didn’t have a legal profession to fall back on.
 
Probably the worst example of media favouritism is the Vancouver Sun, whose editor in charge of the editorial pages was a fellow of the Fraser Institute, a right wing (to say the least) “think tank” that churns out big business babble to a fare-the-well. If you wish an example you only need look at the number of times Mary-Ellen Walling, the fish farmers’ flack, and environmental whores like Patrick Moore, get op-ed columns with no similar access to the other side of these environmental debates.
 
This is not mere mental meandering but very practical – when you see what’s happening with wild salmon because of farmed fish cages, what’s happened to BC Hydro and our rivers because of sweetheart deals it’s been forced to make, what’s happened and is happening to lakes to be mined, to say nothing of the pipelines from the Tar Sands, then tankers down the coast, you must ask yourself where has the mainstream media been? The answer is short and clear: Up Big Business’ ass.
 
You simply cannot have a functioning democracy without a media that keeps pressure on the government as they go. That doesn’t mean that the government isn’t entitled to praise when they do good things but that their every action is assessed with a jaundiced eye as in days gone by.
 
It must always be remembered that the government has unlimited use of public funds with which to bombard the public with their spin.

I close with a bit of doggerel slightly altered to fit:

You cannot hope to bribe or twist,
(thank God!) the BC journalist
But, seeing what the man will do
Unbribed, there’s no occasion to
 
As A.J,Leibling put it “Freedom of the press is guaranteed only to those who own one.”

 

Share

From Gustafsen Lake to Fish Lake: No Place for Violent Stand-Offs in Era of Youtube and Facebook

Canada, Fisheries, Mining, Politics, Western Canada, , , ,
Share

Picture this: It’s 2012 and you live half way around the world – let’s say, Sydney, Australia. You open up your Facebook page to find a new viral youtube video out of BC, shared on your wall just moments ago by a friend in Canada. With a click of the mouse you find yourself watching footage of heavily armed mounties in riot gear advancing on a dirt road blockade – made up of indigenous peoples and a varied band of supporters.

The video tells you it’s somewhere in Tsilhqot’in Territory, west of Williams Lake, BC. It might as well be Timbuktu – it’s the people, the situation, the deeply human experience that you, like millions of others around the world, are tuning into.

An iPhone camera documenting the scene pans over to a First Nations elder – a grandmother of the Xeni Gwet’in people of the Tsilhqot’in, firmly planted in her wheelchair, staring down the police and trucks carrying mining equipment parked behind them. Shutters snap thousands of hi-res images of the unfolding drama. One of the policemen bellows orders from a megaphone, something about a final warning, lost in the chants of the protestors – which go something like, “The world is watching!” 

Then, the moment of truth: A gang of jack boot and baton-clad officers emerges through a fog of freshly deployed tear gas, descending on the protestors, who have formed a human chain around this grandmother…

I’ll leave the rest to your imagination.

Within the hour this clip, from one of many cameras documenting the confrontation, has been uploaded to youtube and shared through facebook, twitter, email chains, etc. The footage is so graphic, so viscerally archetypal in nature – a classic David-vs-Goliath scene – so perfectly capturing the injustice of the situation, that it’s hard not to react to it. Activists and independent media in BC forward it furiously to their Canadian and International contacts – including media.

Soon, producers at major international outlets like the BBC are downloading HD quality images and preparing news stories – which are as much about the viral video clip that’s shocking the world as the violence itself over a mine in BC.

The eloquent chief of the First Nation whose territory the mine would invade, Marilyn Baptiste, is fielding calls from everyone from Amy Goodman to Anderson Cooper. Within days, the governments of BC and Canada, the mining company, the already severely embattled RCMP have been indelibly connected by tens of millions of people around the world to the violent oppression of environmental protestors, among them aboriginal grannies in wheelchairs.

And by the time these parties realize what hit them, it’s too late – they have lost all control of the story. It’s now an international spectacle.  And guess what? Forget about that mine. It’s done like dinner.

A little far-fetched, you say? Allow me to explain.

I raise this hypothetical scenario not to shock or scare, and certainly not to incite the type of situation I describe – quite the opposite. I present it because this is exactly where things are headed at this very moment  – based on our present trajectory. My colleague Rafe Mair has been prophesying this unfortunate conclusion for years now – in these pages and before that – and, sadly, I too have come to envisage the same inexorable results from the bad decisions being made by our politicians, on this issue and many others.

As for Fish Lake/Prosperity Mine, it’s mostly the fault of the BC Government, first under Gordon Campbell, now under Christy Clark – who continues  to astonish by out-doing even her predecessor in the contest to be the premier with the worst environmental record in BC, perhaps Canadian, history (she’s probably neck and neck with Ralph Klein at this stage, but Christy’s just getting warmed up). Let’s review the Campbell/Clark Government’s record on the issue with a brief timeline:

  • First, the BC Government quickly and painlessly approved Taseko Mines’ plan to destroy Fish Lake for its “Prosperity Mine”, only to be embarrassed in late 2010 when the Harper Government rejected the same proposal following its far more extensive Federal Panel Review (the Department of Fisheries and Oceans, the Federal Environment Ministry and dozens of expert interveners and First Nations were all strongly opposed to the project).
  • Then, a full six weeks before the Harper Government decided to grant Taseko a second shot at an environmental review early last week, based on an amended plan that doesn’t directly destroy Fish Lake (but is, nevertheless, as bad or worse ecologically than its predecessor, according to the First Nations), the Clark Government quietly issued work permits to the company to begin building roads and doing heavy-duty exploratory drilling. This was a breathtakingly provocative and inflammatory move  by Premier Clark, amid an already highly charged atmosphere. Unbelievable, really – flouting the Feds, First Nations, and the people of BC in one fell swoop.
  • Upon discovering this, last week, the First Nations filed a petition in the BC Supreme Court to suspend or cancel those permits while the project is still under federal review (a no-brainer, it would seem)
  • This past Saturday, Chief Baptiste personally (and alone, I’m told, by solid sources) confronted Taseko’s trucks that had just moved into the territory to begin work. Having been informed by the chief that they were trespassing, the truck drivers turned around and left.
  • Now this week, Taseko Mines has filed for an injunction against the Tsilhqot’in, seeking to bar the First Nations from preventing the company’s workers from entering their territory! At the same time, The First Nations have filed for a counter-injunction against the company. As you can see, things are escalating at lightning speed – with more hearings scheduled for tomorrow. It remains to be seen how the courts will rule – lord knows they’ve been put in a hell of a spot by the Province.

So it is at the feet of one Premier Christy Clark that the lion’s share of the blame lies – and will lie, if things get even more out of hand. But knowing how vehemently opposed the First Nations are to this project on their territory; knowing the litany of new problems with the alternate proposal  – which has already been presented publicly through the original Federal Panel Review – the Harper Government should never have sent this project back for a second review. So both of these governments are complicit on some level in forcing the all-too-real hypothetical situation I’ve described here.

I say all these things now, knowing that at least some people within the Clark and Harper administrations will read this (and please help ensure they do, by forwarding this article to your MLA and MP). It is to them I’m speaking.

I implore Mr. Harper and Ms. Clark to recognize how the world has changed since the 1990’s-era Gustafsen Lake, Oka, and other relatively recent violent stand-offs between indigenous peoples and the RCMP and Sûreté du Quebec, still seared in our national consciousness.

Today, we live in the post-Dziekanski era – where one false move by law enforcement and governments is instantly on the public record for millions to see. The Surveillance State works both ways, you see; police can bring their cameras to intimidate protestors, but it is they who are really on candid camera now. (Though, I want to be clear: the police are mere pawns in this game – it is the politicians who drive the situation; and yet, the RCMP’s image is at an all-time low, which will likely make the media and public more ready to blame the police if things go sideways here).

Granted, there may be some instances where the public is divided on the rough handling of protestors by police – some instances, even, like Vancouver’s recent Stanley Cup Riot, where they collectively wish law enforcement took a harder line.

But this is a mine, after all – with undeniably severe ecological impacts; a mine which has already been rejected by the federal government; a mine which prompted an RCMP investigation into insider trading when millions of shares were dumped weeks in advance of the federal government’s rejection of it; a mine which First Nations, with very real and powerful legal rights, vehemently oppose; a mine which a significant majority of BC citizens also oppose. So the prevailing sympathy will be with the mine’s opponents if the conflict descends into violence.

If the Tsilhqot’in people and their supporters are smart – and they are, I believe – they will be preparing right now for the aforementioned scenario. They will take donations to purchase some affordable yet highly effective camcorders. They will train their membership in how to film, edit and upload footage to youtube; how to circulate it through email and social media. They will continue developing information trees, local and international media contacts (they’ve been extraordinarily effective at garnering media interest up to this point, party thanks to their impressive chiefs Marilyn Baptiste and Joe Alphonse). If they are smart, they will do the above – and they will wait.

They will wait and pray that our courts do the right thing and force Taseko to stand down – at least until the federal government has completed its environmental review of the company’s amended proposal. They will wait and hope the Clark and Harper governments come to their senses. But they will be prepared for the worst-case scenario.

With words bearing the full force of their conviction, the Tsilhqot’in have repeatedly demonstrated the resolve to stand on that blockade – even give their lives to protect their sacred land and water – and many supporters have already vowed to stand by their side.

But in addition to that, they will have the cameras ready to roll, the iPhones and laptops set to upload to the world the reality of the injustice being perpetrated upon them. And in the era of the UN Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples, the social media-fueled Arab Spring, Occupy Wall Street, Keystone XL and Enbridge protests, the world simply has no stomach for watching cops beat up good people standing up for the right values.

So to our provincial and federal governments – and particularly to Ms. Clark – I say, think long and hard before you venture any further down this road. It can only end badly – not just for the brave souls who will inevitably suffer through the sacrifices they make standing up for what they believe in – but for you, your government and your very legacy…not to mention Canada’s reputation in the eyes of the world.

For all our sakes, let us hope cooler heads prevail.

Share

Canada: Peace, Order, Good Government…and Violence?

Canada, Energy and Resources, Pipelines and Supertankers, Politics, Western Canada, , , ,
Share

A version of this article first appeared on the website of Strategic Culture Foundation, a Russian online paper.

Let me explain the title to this article. Canada’s overriding mission, according to its constitution. is “Peace, Order and Good Government”, yet I see violence ahead and It’s all about the Tar Sands in Alberta, the worst polluting project in the world, and proposed pipelines from them to the British Columbia ports of Kitimat and Vancouver.
 
As an inseparable companion is the Keystone XL pipeline from the Tar Sands to Houston, Texas.
 
Sniffing anxiously around is China which has $75 BILLION invested in the oil pit.
 
It must be noted that in the middle of the mess that’s a-brewing are First Nations, who, in contradistinction to many aboriginals elsewhere, carry a lot of legal weapons arising out of Supreme Court of Canada decisions and their rights to unceded territories in BC, and it may be within that power that they can stop pipelines – and their stated goal is to do just that.
 
The proposed pipelines to Kitimat through BC will be sited through one of the last real wilderness areas in the world. There are two pipelines – one to carry the Tar Sands gunk, officially called bitumen, and the other to take back to Alberta the condensate which is mixed with the Bitumen to allow it to flow through the pipeline. Enbridge, the pipeline company, has an appalling record on spills and time taken to respond.
 
Of huge importance is the shipping of this gunk down the coast of BC, arguably the prettiest and most treacherous coast in the world.
 
First Nations, plural, have unceded land where they have traditionally fished and hunted for centuries. All along the pipelines and down the coast the various nations have said, “no way”. And as to the tanker traffic, the huge Exxon Valdez spill in 1989 remains burned in their memories.

Meanwhile, on the south coast of BC, another pipeline battle is mounting around KinderMorgan’s plans to turn Vancouver into a major shipping port for the Tar Sands. The company wants to boost the existing Trans-Mountain Pipeline, designed to supply the Lower Mainland with oil for local uses, from 300,000 barrels to 700,000 barrels a day, with hundreds of Suezmax tankers shipping toxic bitumen through the Salish Sea en route to Asia and the United States.

The stakes of this issue were ratcheted up a notch when the First Nation in whose traditional territory the pipeline terminates and the tankers depart from – the Tsleil-Waututh (“People of the Inlet”) – took a strong stance against the expansion of this pipeline and tanker traffic through their waters.

Up until recently, KinderMorgan may have figured it was going to slide its pipeline under the radar, while protests raged against Enbridge and TransCanada (the company behind the Keystone XL). But it looks very much now as though they won’t be so lucky.

Hanging over these proposals is the uncomfortable truth that spills from the pipelines and tankers are not a threat but a reality waiting to happen. On the tanker issue, for example, Environment Canada, scarcely full of Greenies, says that there will be a spill of 1,000 barrels every four years and a 10,000 BBL spill in 9.
 
Here’s the chilling fact: not only are the spills a certainty, no matter what size the spill the damage will be horrific. The Enbridge pipeline passes through Caribou feeding grounds and over and through a great many fish bearing rivers and streams including three major salmon spawning rivers.
 
I would suggest readers go to this site to see the Enbridge spill into the Kalamazo River in Michigan and note that Enbridge’s record on this spill is typical and it hasn’t been cleaned up 15 months later (and never will be). Remember, this spill happened in a populated area, not the wilds of British Columbia.
 
Let’s take a look at the Keystone XL pipeline to Houston. Readers have no doubt read about the rallies including movie stars in front of the White House. President Obama has postponed the decision until 2013.
 
Here’s the crunch – this postponement means that huge pressure now will be mounted against by the government of Canada and within hours of the President’s announcement the Canadian Minister of Finance, Jim Flaherty said, “it may mean we have to move quickly to ensure that we can export oil to Asia through British Columbia”. (Cynics like me note that the formal environmental hearings of Mr Flaherty’s government have scarcely begun, confirming what we always knew – these hearings are a farce.)
 
That is a declaration of war.
 
I am a peaceful man who hates violence so much he turned off the first Harry Potter movie. I have lived in, and loved my province for a lifetime of nearly 80 years and I can tell you that there’s going to be violence and that I will be lying in front of the first bulldozer. The largest of the First Nations along the proposed pipeline has contemptuously turned down a 10% piece of the action. Unless that’s just part of a dickering process  –I don’t think so – First Nations will pose a huge actual and political problem for the Federal Government.
 
Moreover, it’s not just the pipelines that will be resisted – I don’t believe that coastal First Nations can be bought off and the pipelines are useless without the tanker traffic.
 
What President Obama and Finance Minister Flaherty have done is to all but ensure violence. Obama’s postponement until 2013 really means more like 2014 since the Keystone XL people know that they must, as a minimum, come up with an alternative to avoid the environmental concerns with their present plans. Trans-Canada is already trying to push the project forward with a few minor tweaks, but that may be wishful thinking as the have to get by the growing numbers of environmentally sensitive people who will have been emboldened by Obama’s action. In the meantime the pressure on BC will substantially increase.
 
This brings in China. It’s not just the money, although even to China, $75 billion is a hell of a lot of dough; what’s also at stake is China’s need for oil. What will China do? It sure as hell isn’t going to just turn around and find another pen to play in. Ironically, the BC premier has just been in China trying to sell them BC lumber and BC coal!
 
Let’s pause and catch our breath. Are we not supposed to be weaning our way off the use of fossil fuels? Are we not supposed to be finding alternative sources for our power and fuel needs? Yet here we have the Premier of British Columbia flogging coal, for God’s sake! And we have the national finance minister unable to wait to destroy our province in order to jack up production and sales of the worst fossil fuel of the lot!
 
It would be folly and unhelpful for me to predict how China will deal with the US but clearly British Columbia can be and will be hit hard.
 
Doesn’t that mean that Canadians will buckle under pressure?
 
That’s what Mr. Flaherty hope, but I believe he’s whistling past the graveyard. He doesn’t know or understand British Columbians.
 
Back in 1992 the federal government held a national referendum on proposed changes to the Constitution which we were told would solve all our problems with Quebec. One of then-Prime Minister Mulroney’s senior aides told me and my radio audience that if the referendum failed, the country would immediately collapse. In the face of extreme forces such as 100% of business and 100% of labour, plus both the federal and provincial governments, British Columbians turned it down by just under 70%!  Every single constituency (the votes were counted according to provincial election boundaries) turned this deal down and it was fascinating to see that every ethnic area voted just as the rest of British Columbians did. In short, British Columbia is very different than other provinces – it doesn’t accept threats.
 
There is always the danger that the forces for expanding the Tar Sands to Asia will abandon the highly controversial Enbridge pipeline for the lesser known expansion of the KinderMorgan line to a tanker terminal in Burnaby, next to Vancouver. 
 
If that’s the plan, the war simply shifts battlefields. And the First Nations and their supporters have already signaled their intention to fight back.
 
Take it from me, as they sing in The Music Man, “There’s Trouble in River City” – a heap of trouble.

Share
Photo by Mark Brooks

Obama’s Keystsone XL Reversal: Could the Tide Slowly be Turning Against Dirty Oil?

Canada, Energy and Resources, Oil&Gas, Politics, Tar Sands, Western Canada, , ,
Share

Editor’s Note: We are pleased to welcome Ottawa-based environmental journalist and educator Mark Brooks to our team of Common Sense contributors. A former analyst for the Government of Canada and an author whose work has appeared in The Globe and Mail and Ottawa Citizen, Mark brings a national perspective to The Common Sense Canadian. 

————————————————————————

Strolling around Washington, D.C. last weekend, I came upon an impressive memorial to the famous wartime president Franklin Roosevelt. Upon the gray granite walls were inscribed many of FDR’s most memorable quotations. “Men and nature must work hand in hand,” he wrote in a 1935 message to Congress. “The throwing out of balance of the resources of nature throws out of balance also the lives of men.”

Having traveled to the U.S. capital to cover the latest protest of the Keystone XL project, I wondered what FDR might say about TransCanada’s controversial pipeline proposal. A pipeline that would transport tar sands crude from northern Alberta to the Gulf of Mexico, Keystone has been described as a 2700 km “fuse to the biggest carbon bomb on the planet” in the words of author and activist Bill McKibben. Protest organizers had hoped to encircle the White House with at least 4000 people in what McKibben called both an “O-shaped hug” and “house arrest.” Instead, at least 10,000 protesters showed up, young and old, from all over North America, ringing President Obama’s residence three-deep.

This action was the latest in a growing campaign to try to choke off supply routes to the tar sands. The company behind the pipeline, TransCanada, responded in an entirely predictable manner, betraying an almost total lack of understanding of some very legitimate concerns. “What these millionaire actors and professional activists don’t seem to understand is that saying no to Keystone means saying yes to more conflict oil from the Middle East and Venezuela filling American gas tanks,” TransCanada spokesman James Millar said. “After the Washington protesters fly back home, they will forget about the millions of Americans who can’t find work.”

Only a few months ago, approval of the proposed Keystone XL pipeline was considered a fait accompli by many of the project’s supporters. Prime Minister Stephen Harper called the approval a “no brainer” and TransCanada was so sure it would get the go-ahead from U.S. regulators, they had already bought the pipe and was stockpiling it in North Dakota. The company claims to have already spent $1.9 billion to secure land and equipment for the project and it fully expected to begin construction early in 2012. This has all changed dramatically now that President Obama has ordered the U.S. State Department to conduct a thorough re-review of the project, effectively delaying approval of Keystone until after next year’s U.S. elections.

While another version of Keystone XL may yet be approved, the delay represents a substantial victory for those groups opposing the pipeline. It is also another significant setback for the beleaguered tar sands industry coming as it does on the heels of a European Commission move to classify oil from the tar sands as carbon intensive and highly polluting.

Truth be told, Keystone approval has been plagued by problems for some time now. The U.S. State Department came under heavy criticism this summer for releasing a hasty environmental assessment that found the project would pose no significant environmental risks. It was later revealed that the Department not only allowed TransCanada to select the contractor that conducted the review, the company chosen, Cardno Entrix, turned out to have business ties with TransCanada and would likely stand to benefit from the project’s approval. Environmental groups also released emails that showed a friendly relationship between officials at State and representatives of TransCanada.

The Nebraska legislature then began considering legislation that would have forced TransCanada to reroute the pipeline away from the Ogallala aquifer, a major source of drinking water for the region. Comments by President Barack Obama further fuelled speculation that the writing was on the wall when he took personal responsibility for approval of the pipeline and said that “folks in Nebraska, like all across the country, aren’t going to say to themselves, ‘we’ll take a few thousand jobs’ if it means that our kids are potentially drinking water that would damage their health or if … rich land that is so important to agriculture in Nebraska ends up being adversely affected.”

The decision to delay was nonetheless remarkable given the current dismal economic climate in the U.S. and the well-financed campaigns being waged by TransCanada and the governments of Canada and Alberta promising jobs and economic growth should Keystone be approved. In the end, a hodge-podge collection of environmental and labour groups, Nebraskan residents, a few politicians and a handful of U.S. celebrities have managed to, temporarily at least, derail the $7 billion project. As Naomi Klein tweeted after the decision was announced, when the campaign against Keystone XL began, “most Americans hadn’t heard of the tar sands, let alone Keystone. This is what 3 months of amazing campaigning can do.”

The governments of Canada and Alberta both expressed disappointment with the decision but remain optimistic that the project will eventually be given the green light. But rather than addressing the very legitimate concerns of the many disparate groups who have come together to oppose Keystone XL, Federal Natural Resources Minister Joe Oliver said recently that “if they don’t want our oil…it is obvious we are going to export it elsewhere.” TransCanada immediately warned that the delay could kill the pipeline but vowed to work with the State Department to find a new route. The company’s Chief Executive Russ Girling has suggested a legal battle could ensue if the pipeline is delayed.

What backers of the pipeline have not yet been able to fully grasp is that, for the growing movement opposing the project, this campaign goes far beyond Keystone. At its core, this is a struggle over the kind of energy future we want to build for ourselves. When I spoke with Naomi Klein in Washington, she put it this way. “This is not just about Keystone, it’s about all the pipelines. Whether it’s in Nebraska or British Columbia, whether we’re talking about Northern Gateway or Kinder Morgan, people have made it clear they’re willing to take actions in line with the urgency of this crisis. Even if they approve this pipeline or any other, they have to know there will be people in front of every bulldozer.” Sure enough, in the hours following the State Department decision, the Twitter-verse was buzzing with individuals committing to take non-violent action should the Keystone project ever be approved.

Also speaking in D.C., NASA scientist James Hansen, one of the world’s leading climatologists, captured what many in the crowd and a growing number around the world are coming to realize, that we are at a critical juncture. “There is a limit to how much carbon we can pour into the atmosphere. Tar sands are the turning point in our fossil fuel addiction. Either we begin on the road to breaking our addiction or we turn to even dirtier fossil fuels.” If Keystone XL or the proposed Enbridge Northern Gateway pipeline to the west coast of B.C. is built, it will ensure increased tar sands production and a commensurate rise in greenhouse gas emissions.

For climate justice activists, labour groups and citizens assembled in Washington, this scenario is no longer acceptable. The decision to delay Keystone XL is no doubt reason for optimism, but it likely represents only the beginning for a movement that now appears to be at last finding its stride. What these folks are demanding is not simply that the tar sands pipelines be re-routed to safer terrain or that adequate measures are put in place to prevent oil spills, they want a long-term plan to gradually wean ourselves off fossil fuels and towards a clean energy future that could create millions of green jobs, something the governments of Canada and the U.S. have thus far refused to consider. Until they do, it will mean that “the arteries that are carrying this dirty oil all over the world” must be blocked, Maude Barlow of the Council of Canadians told me. “If we can stop Keystone, we can stop Enbridge going west. It’s the beginning of a real movement with Americans and people around the world to say this is the wrong model.”

Mark Brooks’ Video of Naomi Klein speaking in Washington, D.C. on November 5

Share
Citizens speak truth to corporate and government power at

“Good Corporate Citizen”? No Such Thing – Especially in Fish Farm Business

Canada, Politics, Western Canada, ,
Share

See those two dots – one says corporate decency (underneath it says “good corporate citizen”).
 
The other dot says democracy, the rule of law and responsive government.
 
These two dots are joined to make up the dot that says “what a pile of bullshit!”
 
We have to get used to the truth: no company gives a rat’s ass about corporate decency – in fact it’s naïve for us think there might be. The corporation owes allegiance to just one thing: the bottom line – profits and dividends. In fact, corporations are only as decent as the law and enforcement of the law makes them be. They are like most motorists – they obey the laws because if they don’t and are caught, there are consequences.
 
The BC Liberal government has no intention of making laws that govern the way their donors do business and even if they do we all remember how the fish farms got fined for breaking environmental laws and how the Campbell government gave them their money back.
 
The Federal government is even worse than Victoria because they don’t have to care. Remember a year or two ago the feds gave $75,000 to Plutonic Power, the rapacious private power company that’s General Electric in drag! A little gesture of goodwill to Warren Buffett and the boys, you know.
 
Since John Cummins left the Tories they haven’t a single MP that knows anything about fish farms except John Duncan, who ran on the basis of supporting them and was rewarded with a parliamentary secretaryship. It’s more than that of course – the federal Fisheries Act set up the DFO as the “policeman” and at the same time mandates that it support, even promote fish farms! They will do dick-all (sorry to all you decent dicks out there!)
 
This brings me to the unhappy conclusion that nothing will happen to fish farms even though they have been caught re-handed importing ova with Infectious Salmon Anemia (ISAv).
 
Why would the companies do anything? What the hell do they care about Pacific Salmon, even though their wind-up doll, Mary Ellen Walling, on command, will spout their mantras of undying love for the soul of this province.
 
For Marine Harvest and their colleagues, it’s business as usual – lie, obfuscate and play the old game which puts the onus on us, the citizens that care. The Precautionary Principle, though supported by the UN and Canada, in theory, will just be ignored. That’s part of their modus operandi and they will stick with a tactic that’s working.
 
Don’t for a single moment think that the BC Salmon Farmers Association will lift a finger – hell, they will continue lying since that’s all they know.
 
The provincial government, which hasn’t come within 10,000 km of telling the truth throughout this whole sorry business has seen its jurisdiction to enforce go to the DFO, although they still control the ocean tenures for the farms.
 
I hope you don’t laugh at me for even mentioning any role for the federal government. They have been rotten managers of our fish since Confederation and have no desire to change – and won’t.
 
The only tack we can take now is public information and public action such as boycotting. This has proved effective but we must turn it up several notches – and our case has been much strengthened.
 
There is, of course, the law. We can consider class actions, although I’m simply not sure of my ground here – I believe that citizens must show a common interest in the Pacific salmon and find someone who’ll take the case on a contingent basis, which is to say he’ll take a percentage if he wins but nothing if he loses.
 
There is a very big plus arising out of the finding of this disease: we know that the two governments and the companies have the morality of an alley cat – oops, I’ll be getting a libel suit from the cat fraternity if I’m not careful!
 
PS What should happen?
 
The same thing that happened with mad cow disease – destroy the fish pronto and cancel all licenses. I say that and I haven’t even had my first drink of the day!
 
 

Share

Press Release: Union of BC Indian Chiefs Calls for Immediate Action from Harper Govt on Salmon Virus

Canada, Oceans, Politics, Salmon Farming and Aquaculture, Western Canada, ,
Share

Read this press release from the Union of BC Indian Chiefs calling for immediate action from the Harper Government on the recent discovery of deadly Infectious Salmon Anemia virus in wild BC sockeye.

“‘Wild salmon is central and integral to who we are as Indigenous
Peoples. With this startling announcement, it is imperative for the
federal Department of Fisheries and Oceans to take action. The
scientists have stated that this virus is highly contagious. It would be
ill-advised for DFO Minister Keith Ashfield and Prime Minister Stephen
Harper to wait for the recommendations of the Cohen Commission to
counter this virus emergency. At the very least, as a responsible
proactive measure, the Harper Government should immediately provide
emergency funding for comprehensive testing to find out how wide-spread
the virus is,’ said Grand Chief Stewart Phillip, President of the Union
of BC Indian Chiefs.” (Oct 20, 2011)

Share
This group of Metro mayors recently took a stand together and passed a new funding plan for numerous regional transit initiatives. Photo: Jason Payne, PNG

Motorists Who Slam Transit Levies Have the Wrong Target

Canada, Politics, Urban & Transport, Western Canada,
Share

This past week – as the debate was raging over whether Metro mayors should vote for a 2 cent hike to the gas tax and a tiny (avg. $23/yr), temporary property tax increase in order to fund several badly-needed and long-awaited transit improvements for the region (they did, thankfully) – I read with interest some of the reader comments on the topic in the mainstream press. While the following aren’t direct quotes, they roughly represent three of the most common sentiments expressed by those opposed to funding this package of transit solutions – which includes building the Evergreen Line to the Northeast corridor, putting more buses on the streets South of the Fraser and adding a B-Line rapid bus route along King George Highway:

  1. “Enough is enough! Get your greedy hands out of our pockets, Translink!”
  2. “If transit users want more buses, they should pay for them themselves!”
  3. “Great for people in Vancouver, but we don’t have good enough transit South of the Fraser for me to get around without my car!”

It’s understandable that motorists are fed up with paying more taxes and levies – we all are. But it’s also telling what facts they fail to consider when making these claims (and it’s not their fault – the whole system is out of whack, politically, and in terms of how the media presents these issues).

The first point (stop taxing me, damn it!) is a result of what the late urban planning guru Jane Jacobs would have called a lack of subsidiarity. Subsidiarity is the principle that governments are most effective and provide the highest return on tax dollars when they’re closest to the people they serve.

It’s plain to see that the lion’s share of government services we depend on in our day-to-day lives – garbage, recycling, sewer, water, parks, libraries, museums, street cleaning and maintenance, public transit, arts facilities and festivals, school boards – are provided by municipalities and regional governments. And yet, these governments receive only 8% on average of the total tax dollars citizens spend (including all income, sales, capital gains, and real estate taxes – with roughly 60% going to the federal government and a third to the Province). Thus, what we have is essentially the opposite of subsidiarity, whereby the political power and tax dollars rest in the hands of those furthest removed from the communities where they will ultimately be exercised.

The never-ending saga over the unbuilt Evergreen transit line is a perfect example of the problem with this system. The feds and Province maintain they’ve each kicked in their $400 or $500 million – now they’re just waiting on Translink, which just can’t get its act together (or so they suggest)…and so the line remains unbuilt, more than a decade after if was first put on the drawing board.

Of course Translink doesn’t have the $400 million! The minuscule tax base they have to draw on is already stretched to the limit, and there’s never much appetite amongst the region’s homeowners and businesses to further raise property or gas taxes. But since that’s virtually the only tool available to them – and they believe in what they’re doing, as do I – they have to make this difficult choice, knowing full-well they will be blamed and heckled for it. So it is to its great credit that the Translink Mayors’ Council had the courage to state their case to the public and stick to their guns when they voted to move forward with their plans this past Friday.

As to the argument that transit users should pay for system upgrades themselves – ostensibly because motorists won’t be making as much use of them – this view is patently hypocritical.

For instance, I haven’t owned a car for 7 years. That was a conscious decision – part and parcel to moving to a walkable, densified urban community where a car becomes more of a burden than a convenience (incidentally, my Gastown address gets a perfect 100 on walkscore.com, a neat tool that calculates how easy it would be to live without a car at any given address in North America – check it out).

That’s not to brag. Not everyone can move to Gastown, the Drive, or the West End – nor can everyone avoid having a vehicle. But I say this to put things in perspective. I’m a member of a car sharing program called Car2Go, through which I borrow a car for an hour, once or twice a week (at a rate of 20 cents a minute, including gas and insurance); I also ride the bus from time to time; and most of the goods I consume traveled at some point on our roads. So I am a road-user, to some degree.

And yet, it’s clear that I depend on our roads, highways and bridges far less than the person who commutes everyday in a single occupant vehicle from Abbotsford to Burnaby and back. But when the topic of drivers paying a toll for traversing a bridge or new stretch of highway comes up, invariably they get hopping mad. They forget that every time I take the bus or skytrain, I pay a toll – otherwise known as a “fare.”

For example, if I want to go to Surrey from Vancouver – unless it is for a few short minutes before jumping back on the train to Vancouver, lest my 90 minute fare expires – it costs me $10 to go there and back by skytrain! That is, unless I’m really thinking ahead and save one dollar by buying the $9 all-day pass. If we are trying to incentivize public transit use, we’re certainly not doing so with money; rather we punish transit users with the heftiest tolls around – and there are no “toll-free” skytrains or bus routes to choose from, unlike our road system.

Plainly put, transit riders have been on an expensive “user-pay” model for decades, while road tolling remains a hated and relatively little-used tool. Not only that, I’ve been subsidizing road building through my tax dollars far more than motorists have been subsidizing my transit infrastructure. And because these big-buck highway projects have the backing of the Province and feds, we’re all paying for them – through provincial and federal tax dollars. They aren’t subject to the complaints of local motorists confronted with unwelcome property tax and gas tax hikes because their funding is secured from upon high and, thus, less visible. But make no mistake, I am subsidizing the hell out of blacktop and bridge projects I will use relatively little of.

On that note, four or five years ago, when the BC Liberal Government was holding a few token public meetings regarding its massive Gateway highway program, the issue of which tax dollars should subsidize which transportation infrastructure came up. I recall cycling advocate Richard Campbell confronting a woman on the government panel about the billions being spent on highways while public transit funding languished. The woman told him, “Of course we need to build some public transit too, but we need to balance our investment between roads and transit” (emphasis mine). Mr. Campbell’s retort: “For the past half century we’ve been spending roughly ten times as much on highways and car-based infrastructure as on public transit; so ‘balance’ would mean for the next 50 years spending ten times as much on transit.”

But that’s not what we’re doing. Even today, that “(im)balance” remains roughly the same.

Moreover, transit infrastructure (with the possible exception of cadillac projects like skytrain) is far cheaper to build per mile and employs more people in the process. While the twinning of the Port Mann Bridge and widening of Hwy 1 will likely exceed $4 BILLION, a study by one of the world’s top transportation engineering firms (that designed the Chunnel), showed we could get the old Interurban Line running again between Surrey and Chilliwack – passing through Langley and Abbotsford’s city centres in the process – for something like a mere half billion.

This was the iron artery that linked the Lower Mainland from 1910 to the early 1950s, carrying up to 70,000 people a day back then! Imagine how useful it could be today – offering commuters South of the Fraser a faster, safer, cheaper, more comfortable alternative to get to work, thus freeing up asphalt for those trucks and work vehicles that need to use the highway.

The final point often raised by motorists who don’t get it is that transit’s never worked for them in the past, so why should they support it now? This is a self-fulfilling prophecy if there ever was one.

The bulk of the package of transit solutions Translink’s Mayor’s Council (which suffers from a major governance problem and sorely needs more local authority and political independence from Victoria – more on that in a subsequent piece) voted to fund recently were for the Northeast corridor (the Evergreen Line) or Surrey and other communities South of the Fraser, via a new B-Line route down King George Highway and more buses on the streets in general.

To the people who claim transit’s not working in their community, I say, “Exactly!” And to make it start working, we need to invest in transit throughout the region, which is precisely what Translink is trying to do (though they really should be prioritizing that Interurban Line!)

And that was cycling advocate Richard Campbell’s point: we’ll never get people out of their cars unless we make a priority of investing in the tools that will enable them to do so. And we’re never going to do that so long as people have the misconception that spending tens of billions of dollars on autimobile-based infrastructure is a wise use of tax dollars, while spending anything on transit is a useless burden.

 

Share

Site C About Highly Subsidized Industrial Power, Not Powering BC Households

Canada, Politics, WATER, Western Canada, ,
Share

Read this article from the Globe and Mail, revealing the fact that Site C and other big power projects in BC are really about supplying highly subsidized electricity for shale gas and coal mine development.

“The industrial megaprojects that provide the backbone of Premier
Christy Clark’s jobs plan will require a huge increase in British
Columbia’s electricity capacity – the equivalent of nearly three new
Site C dams. BC Hydro, in the midst of a cost-cutting exercise
after the Premier demanded the Crown corporation rein in rate increases,
is now under orders to ensure enough energy for three new liquefied
natural gas plants and eight new mines.” (Oct. 11, 2011)

http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/national/british-columbia/bc-politics/clarks-jobs-plan-needs-huge-power-hike-bc-hydro-says/article2196954/

Share
DFO's Dr. Kritsti Miller has been infamously muzzled by the Harper Government from discussing her groundbreaking research into collapsing Fraser River sockeye

Shades of Green: Muzzling Science and Scientists

Canada, Politics, Western Canada, , ,
Share

Muzzling science and scientists is ultimately an exercise in futility, an effort that inevitably causes more trouble than the initial discomfort of confronting the reality of evidence. History has shown this repeatedly. The Church didn’t like the heliocentric ideas of Copernicus and the reasoned celestial observations of Galileo so it silenced both scientists. But 400 years later the same Church was forced to make a belated and humiliating apology. Indeed, the sun is the centre of our solar system and the planets do rotate around it as Galileo determined.

History hasn’t dulled the impulse of established interests to suppress scientific inquiry and muzzle scientists. Scientific analysis of Newfoundland’s North Atlantic cod stocks warned that the resource was being overfished. But governments found the political and economic inconvenience was too costly to confront. The result was a collapse of the fishery and the ruin one of the greatest food resources on the planet.

The George W. Bush administration in the US tried the same tactic with global climate change. The weight of scientific evidence indicated that greenhouse gas emissions were warming the planet. But the remedy didn’t match the political ideology of the time so the warnings were suppressed, diluted and contested. Valuable time was lost. Opportunities were wasted. Now, as the mechanics of global warming are more clearly understood and the dire consequences are more accurately measured, the folly of denying the initial scientific evidence verges on the criminal.

The same process of muzzling science and scientists is now occurring on BC’s West Coast as the impact of salmon farms on wild salmon is being examined. The issue of disappearing wild salmon is complex. But the complexity is abetted – as evidence from the Cohen Commission on the disappearance of Fraser River sockeye salmon is revealing – by the Department of Fisheries and Oceans’ conflicting mandate to both advocate for salmon farming and to regulate it. A political ideology has decided that a farmed and wild fishery are compatible so evidence indicating otherwise is misconstrued, neglected or suppressed. These contradictory objectives have created a condition in which some of the evidence given by DFO scientists at the Cohen Commission seems confused, even contradicting the findings of their own previous research. Meanwhile, the migration of employees between the supervised and the supervisor creates a porous relationship that compromises DFO’s objectivity and credibility.

This politicization of science is stunningly exemplified in the government’s treatment of Dr. Kristi Miller, a molecular geneticist with DFO investigating the gradual decline in Fraser River sockeye. She has been in charge of a $5.3 million research program in Nanaimo’s Pacific Biological Station, and her work was significant enough to be published as an acclaimed article in the prestigious magazine, Science . The January 2011 article, Genomic Signatures Predict Migration and Spawning Failure in Wild Canadian Salmon, hypothesizes that “the genomic signal associated with elevated mortality is a response to a virus infecting fish before river entry and that persists to the spawning areas.”

Although Dr. Miller’s article did not specifically implicate salmon farms, the decline in Fraser River sockeye happened to occur in the generation following a 1992 outbreak of viral disease in farmed chinook, an event that was serious enough to bankrupt some private operations and eventually end the further farming of chinook.

Did a viral infection in salmon farms cause the decline in Fraser River sockeye? Answering this question would seem to be both urgent and critical. Discussing and exploring Dr. Miller’s study with the scientific community would seem to be crucial in understanding the relationship between farmed and wild salmon. DFO initially thought so, promoting this dialogue by contacting over 7,400 journalists about her study.

Then politics intervened. The Privy Council Office, a supporter of the Prime Minister’s Office, suddenly prohibited Dr. Miller from talking to her colleagues and the press about her study. She was refused permission to attend a university closed session on salmon health. This muzzling occurred on the pretext that such publicity would compromise the evidence she would be giving before the Cohen Commission, an explanation commonly dismissed by academics and scientists as absurd. Even following her presentation of evidence, a spokesman for DFO would not guarantee that the order of silence would be rescinded.

Meanwhile, salmon farms that originally refused to give samples of their fish for genomic testing have finally agreed to comply so Dr. Miller can determine if the viral signature in the farmed fish is the same as in the infected sockeye. But this delaying tactic now means that the test results will not be available until after the Cohen Commission has finished receiving evidence. T complicate matters, funding for Dr. Miller’s continued research is not forthcoming from the government’s Treasury Board, a curious response to an investigation purported to be one of the most important coming from DFO in years. And her unfunded research cannot find the $18,000 required for the genomic testing. Neither will DFO allow her to receive outside funding, a course of events that should lead any objective observer to be suspicious of political interference.

Political interference, even at its forceful, can only delay scientific inevitabilities. Ideologies, even at their most fervent, eventually look foolish in the light of evidence. If West Coast fisheries – both farmed and wild – are to be properly managed, DFO must retreat from its presently conflicted position to a solely scientific one. Only then can it maintain its credibility and authority. For anyone considering the folly of its current strategy, simply review the lessons of history. Importing Some Gross National Happiness from the Bhutanese
by Ray Grigg

The industrialized world is a funk these days. If it is the worrisome realization that this economic system is beginning to show some serious flaws, then maybe the time has come to give some serious consideration to the Bhutanese notion of Gross National Happiness. Even the Bhutanese must have some bad days, but nothing compared to the protracted period of down experience by the industrialized world.

America, the world’s cultural and economic pacesetter is sinking under the weight of debt and the illusion of entitlement. US pessimism is soaring and most think their country is “on the wrong track”, a sign that they are ready for insight and change. Indeed, their attitude is also shared by the Europeans and Japanese. Even the ascendent Chinese, despite their booming economy, are getting nervous about the threatening chaos around them. The world’s predominant financial structures are in a dangerous and precarious condition. The quest for endless wealth has combined with rampant greed to produce an unprecedented monetary mess ‹ all corrective strategies have been unsuccessful and the overwhelming weight of accumulated national debt seems to be promising a future of economic gloom.

Global weather is getting more extreme, destructive and disruptive. A plethora of environmental problems continue to proliferate in both number and complexity. A soaring global population is creating resource stresses while falling populations in developed countries are causing another set of challenging demographic problems. Refugees are on the move, terrorism has created an atmosphere of tense alertness, and a spreading philosophy of materialism seems to be creating a pervasive mood of insatiable hunger. A transition from Gross Domestic Product (GDP) to Gross National Happiness (GNH) may not solve all these problems but it offers a helpful beginning.

The Bhutanese realized the shortcomings of GDP when they transitioned from a kingdom to a democracy some 40 years ago. In a recent gathering in Bhutan’s capital, Thimphu, dozens of their experts met to review their country’s progress toward GNH. Their conclusions should be instructive to the rest of the planet wrestling with escalating unhappiness.

First, they recognized that economic progress is not inherently bad. If it elevates the poor by providing clean water, food, health care, education and employment, then it serves to advance happiness (Jeffrey Sachs, Globe & Mail, Aug. 30/11).

Second, raising GDP is not synonymous with raising happiness, particularly if escalating the amount of money increases the distance between the rich and poor, creates social classes, robs people of equal power and influence, and causes environmental degradation.

Third, “happiness is achieved through a balanced approach to life by both individuals and societies,” writes Jeffrey Sachs about the Bhutanese. “As individuals, we are unhappy if we are denied our basic material needs, but we are also unhappy if the pursuit of higher income replaces our focus on family, friends, community, compassion and maintaining inner balance. As a society, it is one thing to organize economic policies to keep living standards on the rise, but quite another to subordinate all of society’s values to the pursuit of profit.”

Fourth, “global capitalism presents many direct threats to happiness.” Not only does it destroy the natural environment, causing widespread pollution and disrupting climate, but it directly and indirectly suppresses the evidence of this destruction to advance its own profitable purposes. Its monolithic presence in industry, its impersonal factory farming, its expansion into media, and its powerful advertising all contribute to a consumer society on the treadmill of materialism and dissatisfaction. The machinery of its marketing creates addicts who are compelled to purchase the products that capitalism sells: fast food, commercial entertainment, professional sports, novelty fashions, alcohol, tobacco and gambling. The result is a society stuffed and starved to death, simultaneously unhealthy, obese, socially dysfunctional and unhappy. “The mad pursuit of corporate profits,” Sachs suggests, “is threatening us all.”

And fifth, the Bhutanese advise vigilance, the importance of identifying the ideologies and practices that threaten happiness, that reduce the well-being of both individuals and society. Humans and the incredible natural world in which we live are more important than any system, particularly if that diminishes the quality of life, together with our appreciation and respect of the living communities that contains and sustain us. Economies should serve happiness, not vice versa.

The Bhutanese have discerned that we must not get lost on our journey through life. They acknowledge that we need a basic affluence to survive and thrive. But, if an unfeeling and unnatural ideology compels, oppresses and stresses us while starving us of intimacy and meaning, then we cannot be human and happy. As we lose our sense of proportion and sanity, then we begin to lose our capacity to be caring and sociable, to be judicious and wise. Compassion, honesty, trust and peace are the hallmarks of a healthy society, and an inner sense of balance is prerequisite for the outer balance we call a harmonious society and a sustainable environment. Anything that leads us away from these essential qualities is an empty and dangerous ideology.

Riches take many forms. But the most valuable – and the best measure of a life well lived – is the profound contentment that comes from engaging respectfully and happily with our natural world and with each other.

Share