Category Archives: Uncategorized

Graphic by Damien Gillis

Shades of Green: The Ecology of Wealth

Share

If a healthy biological ecology provides for the well-being of its plants and animals, then a healthy human ecology should provide for the well-being of its constituent members. But human societies are not inclined to be healthy. And a major problem is the inequitable distribution of wealth.

In most parts of the world during the last several decades, the separation between rich and poor has been increasing, the result of a pervasive economic philosophy that seems to have gripped even those countries once espousing economic egalitarianism such as Sweden and Canada. The same economic disparity is rising in Europe, the Middle East and the Far East as the number of billionaires soar, the ranks of the poor swell, and the stabilizing effect of the middle class – once the economic and cultural driver of socio-political ecosystems – continues to either stagnate or shrink.

The political justification for supporting the rise of the rich is the putative benefits of so-called “trickle down economics”. As the rich get richer, their investments should theoretically generate new business and commerce, creating widespread wealth as employment and prosperity percolate downward to lift the economic well-being of the entire society. But this does not seem to be happening, confirming John Kenneth Galbraith’s pejorative judgment of “trickle down economics” in America: “If you feed enough oats to the horse, some will pass through to feed the sparrows.”

This growing separation of rich and poor has serious social, political and economic ramifications. (There are environmental implications, too, but that’s another subject.) In the Middle East, North Africa and China, income inequality is causing riots and protests. The rich can absorb the increasing cost of food and fuel but the poor cannot. The energy sparking the revolutions of the so-called Arab Spring in Tunisia, Libya, Egypt, Yemen, Syria and Bahrain are closely linked to economic inequalities. The Organization for Economic Co-operation and Development, the OECD, has warned that this growing inequality is not only bad economics but it is a bad way of operating human societies. A United Nations study found that increasing economic disparity has a wide range of negative effects: people become more cynical, society polarizes, crime rates increase, levels of trust and security decline, everyone feels less confident, family stability suffers, health deteriorates, and life expectancy decreases. The United States, the country that has most vigorously adopted an unfettered free market philosophy, is experiencing precisely these symptoms.

In Canada, the American experiment is not so advanced. But the same symptoms are beginning to appear. The use of food banks hit a record in 2010. Even people with jobs are using them – while unemployment from the post-2008 recession has stabilized or fallen, a larger proportion of people have minimum income jobs that do not supply them with enough income for basic needs. Some people simply give up looking for work, disappear from statistics, and form an invisible social burden that Robin Somerville of the Centre for Spatial Economics calls “structural unemployment”. In this situation, he explains, “The numbers look better precisely because they’re worse” (Globe & Mail, May 6/11).

A analysis of Canadian income between 2000 and 2010 reveals that the wealth of the five economic classes increased as follows: the poorest by 8%, the lower middle by 13%, the middle by 13%, the upper middle by 17%, and the richest by 31%. The increase in wealth of the richest was approximately equal to the entire income of the lower middle class and twice the entire income of the poorest class.

These income disparities erode the viability of societies. Armies of the non consuming poor not only compound unemployment but they cost governments taxes from unpurchased goods and services. Low income people become burdens on the well-being of everyone. A recent study found that the average cost of a non-homeless person to stay in a Toronto hospital was $12,555; the cost for a homeless person was $15,114. A similar Calgary study found that the cost of providing supportive housing to a homeless person for one year was $34,000; the approximate cost of providing the same person with emergency shelter, emergency hospital care, law enforcement and other social services was $134,000 (Ibid.). Poverty, in other words, beyond the human suffering is represents, is expensive to society as a whole.

A Manitoba experiment in the 1970s attempted to discover what the effects would be of providing everyone in a few communities with a “set annual income”. The results were dramatic. People were “more likely to stay in school, out of emergency rooms and out of jail”. Their purchases contributed to the economy and they were “more likely to move eventually above the poverty line and pay taxes” (Ibid.). A little help from society reduces suffering and the investment creates wealth that benefits everyone – “trickle up economics” may be a far more effective cure for social and economic malaise than “trickle down economics”.

Human societies have evolved precisely because they have become progressively more sophisticated, supportive and compassionate. Furthermore, an expansive understanding of human societies suggests that most human problems are better addressed with co-operation than competition, with reward than punishment, with help than retribution. Such practical strategies become increasingly crucial as our current societies grow in size, diversity and complexity – and the environment that sustains us all becomes increasingly tenuous. Indeed, the evidence supports the conclusion that both human and natural ecologies benefit from enlarged systems of caring and sharing.

Share

CEO of World’s #2 Salmon Farming Company Resigns in Norway

Share

Official Statement from Cermaq.com – June 14, 2011

CEO of Cermaq ASA

The CEO of Cermaq ASA, Mr. Geir Isaksen, has today
accepted the position as CEO of NSB Group, Norway’s largest transport
group. Accordingly Mr. Isaksen will leave his position as CEO of Cermaq
ASA.

The Board of Cermaq will immediately initiate the recruitment of a
new CEO. Mr. Geir Isaksen will continue as CEO of Cermaq until 30
September 2011.

Mr. Geir Isaksen has been CEO of Cermaq ASA (previously named
Statkorn Holding AS) since 1996. Chair of the Board, Mr. Bård Mikkelsen
states:

– The Board regrets the resignation of Mr. Gir Isaksen, but
understands his decision and expresses its gratitude to Mr. Geir Isaksen
for his determined and dedicated efforts as CEO over a period of 15
years.  Mr. Isaksen has been responsible for the restructuring of the
company’s operations from grain trading to aquaculture, and the
strategic development of Cermaq into a leading global company within
farming of salmon and trout and production of fish feed. Under his
leadership, Cermaq has grown to a throughout solid company, with a
strong financial position, good performance and operations in all
regions, and a competent organization.

CEO Geir Isaksen states:

It has been a privilege to take part in building Cermaq to a
leading global player in the aquaculture industry. I choose to leave
Cermaq at a point in time when the operations and the organization are
sound at all levels, and the results are good. It is now time to pass on
the responsibility to other good forces that can further build the
company based on this fundament. Thus, I am excited to take on new
challenges in the NSB Group.

Read original post

Share

BC Business: BC Salmon Farmers Association’s Online Battle

Share

From BC Business – June 6, 2011

by David Godsall

The B.C. Salmon Farmers Association drops the gloves in a social media battle with online activists.

“Hitler loves fish farms.” “Salmon farming kills.” “Freedom for farmed
fish!” This is just a sample of comments that could be found floating
around the Twittersphere recently.


Not so long ago, common wisdom among communications strategists would
have been that responding to such online barbs could only lead to
self-immolation in a flame war. But today it’s a new world; with the
majority of Canadians plugged into social media, online detractors are
no longer merely a fringe that can be left unchallenged.


The B.C. Salmon Farmers Association (BCSFA) is one organization that decided to confront its detractors head on, and when it launched a series of inflammatory TV ads as part of a PR blitz last January, it kicked an online hornet’s nest.


Instead of ducking the social media frenzy, the BCSFA engaged the activists directly. Using the Twitter handle @salmonfacts, the association responded to critics with corrections and links to sources, or more often, to its own website (bcsalmonfacts.ca), where there’s usually a lively discussion.


A recent BCSFA tweet, for example, responded to common claims about artificial colouring in farmed salmon: “We don’t dye farmed salmon. The colour comes from an important ingredient in their food,” wrote @salmonfacts. The tweet included a link to a video featuring salmon farmer Jeanine Sumner
describing the “facts” as she sees them, followed by a long stream of
mostly incredulous comments from critics, expressed with varying degrees
of politeness. The exchange ultimately settled into a substantive
discussion on the origins of the carotenoid pigments that give salmon
their colour.


The B.C. Salmon Facts campaign, which concluded in April, was a
$1.7-billion effort consisting of print and TV ads, as well as a
comprehensive online push. According to Mary Ellen Walling, executive
director of the BCSFA, the campaign was conceived out of the realization
that the conversation – mudslinging and all – was happening whether the
salmon farmers chose to participate or not, so they might as well just
dive in.


“It’s our corporate and public reputation that we need to protect,”
Walling says, “so we decided to take that step forward into that sphere
and accept the risk that comes with that along with the potential
upside.” 


The risks are obvious. The association’s humorous television ads, for
example, portrayed anti-aquaculture activists as hucksters peddling
spurious claims, then invited a response by directing viewers to a forum on its website
where they could voice their opinions. But the upside in reputation
management is huge: B.C. exported $469.7-million worth of salmon
products in 2010, and until recently the public was only hearing one
side of the farmed salmon argument.


Only a decade ago, the most effective tool available to
anti-aquaculture activists was a bumper sticker. Now an individual
campaigner can build a chorus of criticism out of 140-character attacks.
According to Natasha Netschay Davies, who heads the social media
operation at Peak Communications Inc., participating in the discussion
is not optional. “Even if you fear engagement, at the very least you
have to monitor these conversations and make sure that you’re putting
out the correct information,” she advises. 


Online accountability works both ways: while the BCSFA set out to
correct common fallacies, the slightest misstep on its part would leave
the organization vulnerable to accusations of corporate spin. Norman
Stowe, a partner with Pace Group Communications Inc. who has been
studying these PR battles since the famous 1990s War in the Woods,
notes that “if someone from a forest company or a salmon company comes
out and says something, they better be sure that they’re 110 per cent
accurate because they will be held to a higher level of

accountability.”


Environmental activists on the other hand, especially in coastal B.C.,
enjoy a baseline level of sympathy from the public. “It’s an emotional
appeal that they have on their side,” Stowe points out. He applauds the
B.C. Salmon Facts campaign, pointing out that the salmon farmers
association deserves credit for acknowledging that social media are
their critics’ chosen platform, and engaging directly. He also has some
advice for other organizations facing Twitter takedowns: “Don’t pretend
[social media] don’t exist. Don’t pretend that that audience isn’t your
audience. You’d be foolish to see these tools there, to see how they’re
being used successfully by your opponents, and not get involved.”


The BCSFA has gone out on a limb. The association is not just putting up a website and tweeting its side of the story;
it’s using traditional media to take on an organized, vocal group of
critics, and provoking a more intense online engagement. And given how
entrenched the activists are, the salmon farmers might be swimming
upstream in their efforts to change the public’s perception of their
industry. The Salmon Facts campaign has just recently wrapped up, so we
should know how they did by the time the sockeye are running.

Read original article

Share

CNN’s John King interviews Arnie Gundersen about the Hot Particles discovered in Japan and the US

Share

From NuclearFreePlanet.org and CNN.com – June 2011

CNN’s John King and Arnie Gundersen discuss “hot particles” detected in Seattle and Japan, the cozy relationship between Japanese regulator NISA (Nuclear and Industrial Safety Agency) and plant owner TEPCO, and changes at the Fukushima accident site since March. John King and Arnie Gundersen also discuss how TEPCO’s acknowledgement today of another error in calculating radiation dose more than doubles the amount of radioactivity to which people in the Northern Hemisphere have been exposed.

Watch CNN clip here

Share

Serious shortcomings in environmental assessments

Share

Legitimate objections to government projects sometimes fall way too short of the mark.

In Narrows Inlet, lower Sunshine Coast in BC, legitimate and serious concerns over silt dumps from bottom draining, ice scoured, high alpine lakes and dumping massive amounts of ice scoured silt into prime fish habitat… were ignored. so, what purpose Environment assessment submissions then?

And now all government officials have evidently been gagged… their silence over environmental degradation and the fish kills – when alevins were migrating to the sea – is deafening.

The Conservation officer? Mr gun touting. environmental protection? “The proponent has invested a lot of money” followed by “I have no boat”.

The DFO senior biogist? “No environmental damage” – a claim made from his desk in Nanaimo… as proven after 19 polite email requests – none of which werre responded to… for the date of his inspection, into a project he assessed, and approved and then happily investigated… an FOI revealed he flew in on May 1… fully six weeks after the silt dump occurred …. when, as siltation expert, as any kid in a mud puddle knows, he knew the silt would have settled out of suspension in still water by that time.

And the proponent’s team?… the initial biologist? his brother … who invited residents “… to stop their dissent and invest in this Gold Rush” and since defrocking that multiple conflict of interest, residents have had four successive expert biologist who do not bother to consult with affected residents whose drinking water is to be fouled.

And there are 600 of these IPPs planned province wide. and the EAO… a token assessment… even after accepting a ride in with residents as the “proponent was not objective”!

And the supposedly required Visual Impact Presentation for the Ramona project? Not seen in two years of asking, particularly, not after the massive Tyson Lake private profit power project silt dumps by the same proponent.

And the dolly varden? stealhead? “blue listed” cutthroat trout? huh?

And the mountain goats, shore bears, trumpeter swans, osprey? … none seen since the inlet was industrialized.

Share

Japan doubles radiation leak estimate

Share

From the Guardian – June 7, 2011

by Justin McCurry

The amount of radiation released by the Fukushima Daiichi nuclear power plant in the days after the 11 March tsunami could have been more than double that originally estimated by its operator, Japan‘s nuclear safety agency has said.

The
revelation has raised fears that the situation at the plant, where fuel
in three reactors suffered meltdown, was more serious than government
officials have acknowledged.

In another development that is
expected to add to criticism of Japan’s handling of the crisis, the
agency said molten nuclear fuel dropped to the bottom of the pressure
vessel in the No 1 reactor within five hours of the accident, 10 hours
earlier than previously thought.

By the end of last week,
radiation levels inside the reactor had risen to 4,000 millisieverts per
hour, the highest atmospheric reading inside the plant since the
disaster.

The agency also speculated that the meltdown in another
reactor had been faster than initially estimated by the plant’s
operator, Tokyo Electric Power (Tepco).

It is not clear whether
the revised account of the accident, the world’s worst since Chernobyl
in 1986, would have prompted Tepco to respond differently at the time.

But
it is expected to raise questions about the ability of Japan’s nuclear
authorities to provide accurate information to the public.

According
to the latest estimates, 770,000 terabequerels – about 20% as much as
the official estimate for Chernobyl – of radiation seeped from the plant
in the week after the tsunami, more than double the initial estimate of
370,000.

In a possible sign that the contamination is more
widespread than previously thought, a university researcher said at the
weekend a small amount of plutonium had been identified a mile from the
front gate of the Fukushima plant.

It is the first time plutonium thought to have originated from the complex has been detected in soil outside its grounds.

However,
Masayoshi Yamamoto, a professor at Kanazawa University, said the level
of plutonium in the sample was lower than average levels observed in
Japan after nuclear weapons tests conducted overseas.

The release of findings coincided with the start of an investigation on Tuesday into the accident by a 10-member panel.

Last week, a fact-finding team from the International Atomic Energy
Agency criticised Tepco for failing to acknowledge the risk to the
plant from a tsunami, despite warnings from government experts and its
own scientists.

The panel, led by Yotaro Hatamura, a human error
expert from Tokyo University, will issue an interim report by the end of
the year. “I think it is a mistake to consider [the plant] safe,” he
said.

The prime minister, Naoto Kan, said he would be willing to
undergo questioning in the hope that the report “stands up to scrutiny
from around the world”.

Read original article

Share

Economic renewal instead of incineration

Share

Burning our garbage impacts our future beyond toxic ash. By whatever rebranding, incineration returns only a tiny fraction of the energy it takes, wasting both energy and resources.

Incinerators built today would still be burning our recoverable resources by 2050—polluting environment and residents, accelerating climate change (one ton GHG per ton burned) while fossil fuels and all critical materials are being depleted and world population grows to 9.2 billion people. Our region will to grow to 3.4 million people, while globally, net energy may decline to 40%.

Instead of wasting our tax and fossil fuel resources on the dead-end disposal economy of incineration and ash landfill, we can invest public money in economic renewal. We can fully develop our diversion economy; build resource recovery parks, recycling and composting capacity.

We need to remanufacture our recycled materials locally to prepare for the failure of overseas markets as “the eighteen-wheeler of globalization is thrown into reverse” by the ever-rising price of oil.

Instead of hastening planet Armageddon, our tax dollars can mitigate the impact of peak oil, peak food, global recession and climate change. We can start by buying the Catalyst paper recycling mill in Coquitlam.

Share

Japanese PM to Fall on Sword over Fukushima

Share

From Time Magazine’s Ecocentric blog – June 2, 2011

by Krista Mahr

Naoto Kan, Japan’s beleaguered prime minister, has acknowledged for
the first time since March 11 that he may step down — but not until he’s
done doing what he needs to do. Kan has come under increasing pressure
from both inside and outside his party to give up his post after his
handling of the March 11 earthquake and tsunami and continuing nuclear
crisis. In a televised meeting with his party on Thursday morning, Kan
said: “I’d like to pass on my responsibility to a younger generation
once we reach a certain stage in tackling the disaster and I’ve
fulfilled my role.” He did not indicate when that might be.

It was an effort to save his job ahead of a no-confidence motion that
took place 3PM today in the lower house of parliament. The motion,
which would have required Kan to dissolve the parliament and call for
new elections or resign with his Cabinet in 10 days, was voted down 293
to 152. Still, its submission by the main opposition Liberal Democratic
Party (LDP) and two smaller opposition groups underscores the fact that
Japan’s political landscape is nearly as volatile as its geology.

In the months since March 11, Kan has come under fire for his
government’s response to the crisis, from the length of time that it has
taken to build temporary housing for the thousands left homeless after
the tsunami to the lack of clear communication about the severity and
scope of the nuclear crisis that has followed. Indeed, Kan was
peculiarly absent from the public sphere during the first month of the
crisis — he did not set foot in the disaster zone for weeks after the
tsunami — with chief cabinet secretary Yukio Edano tirelessly facing world’s cameras.
More recently, detailed reports have emerged that Kan was deeply
involved in trying to prevent a full-blown nuclear fallout at Fukushima
during those early days, which may account for — if not excuse — his
absence.

Read original article
Share

How About NO!

Share

Coal mining protest song from Port Alberni, in response to the proposed Raven Underground Coal Project.

Compliance
Energy Corp has applied to mine coal in the Fanny Bay area within five
kilometers of Baynes Sound, home to B.C.’s largest shellfish industry
which provides about 600 jobs in the area.

The plan is to transport
the coal by truck or rail to Port Alberni, where a large loading and
storage facility would be built within very close proximity to homes and
businesses and directly in a tsunami zone. The project would provide a
mere 21 jobs for Port Alberni.

Federal and provincial environmental assessment agencies have announced a public comment period from May 18 to June 27. http://www.eao.gov.bc.ca/pcp/forms/Raven.html

Share

No data means no answers, sockeye inquiry told

Share

From the Globe and Mail – May 30, 2011

by Mark Hume

The lack of hard data on the ocean environment has become on
important issue to a federal commission investigating the collapse of
sockeye salmon stocks in the Fraser River.

Repeatedly, scientists
testifying at the Cohen Commission have said they don’t really know what
happens to salmon once they have left fresh water and headed out into
the “black box” of the Pacific Ocean. They have complained about a
shortage of data, or no data at all, and have said there are limited
funds available for research.

One of the papers filed with the commission identifies a “hotspot” in
Queen Charlotte Sound, for example, where more than 10,000 sharks
gather on a main salmon migration route – but nobody knows why the
sharks are there, how long they are there, or what they are feeding on.

The
knowledge gap caused Tim Leadem, a lawyer representing a coalition of
conservation groups, to wonder out loud Thursday if the Cohen Commission
will ever get a definitive answer on what caused the Fraser River
sockeye population to collapse. The commission was appointed in 2009
after only one million salmon returned to spawn instead of the 10
million expected.

“What was the cause of the 2009 decline?” Mr.
Leadem asked a panel of scientists testifying about the impact of
predators on salmon. “I expect at the end of the day … [it will be an
inconclusive] death by 1,000 cuts.”

Mr. Leadem noted most of the
science teams that have presented papers to the Cohen Commission have
concluded by saying more research is needed.

“This is perplexing,”
he said. “If we are depending on science [for guidance], where are we
going to find the funding? And who’s going to be pulling the strings and
saying what science goes forward?”

Mr. Leadem said it appears
scientists “are in a world where you are scrambling for dollars” while
facing a growing list of questions.

“Yeah, we are scrambling for
research funding and it is going to be the nature of science that there
are always more questions that need answering,” said Andrew Trites, a
professor and director at the University of British Columbia Fisheries
Centre.

Mr. Justice Bruce Cohen, the B.C. Supreme Court judge who
is heading the hearings, asked if there is an overall strategy for
addressing the many unanswered questions about the ocean environment.
“Within DFO and within the larger community of science … is there an
overarching body that does a macro analysis of all the science that’s
taking place? Who’s going to draw the agenda? Is this a scrambled
situation … or is there actually a game plane here?” he asked.

“My
perception as an academic . . . in terms of fisheries management … I
don’t feel there is a game plan,” replied Dr. Trites, who appeared on a
panel with John Ford, head of cetacean research in the Pacific for
Department of Fisheries and Oceans, and Peter Olesiuk, DFO’s head of
pinniped research.

Lara Tessaro, junior commission counsel, later
asked the witnesses to name the DFO managers who are directing
scientific research in the Pacific, a line of questioning that suggested
the issue may be revisited as the hearings continue.

Read original article

Share