Blackmail

I've had this thought for some time now. The Bush Administration is warning that if Congress tries to add or subtract from their $700 billion bailout plan it's likely to damage efforts to rescue the economy (a question no one asks is: why do that?). The kinds of things they might like to add are oversight of the massive fund and possibly some supports for families who might be on the verge of losing their homes. The message is clear: do what we say and things won't go bad. By meddling you ensure they will go bad.

Given that the wealthy dominate North America, they have the power to ensure that people suffer. They can move their money around the world as easily as striking a few keys on their laptops. Because we have given them all the power through concepts like trickle-down economics they can bring down the temple. It's therefore a simple matter to punish a government that doesn't agree with them or won't give them what they want.

So even if a progressive government was elected somewhere, they won't last very long. The people will lose their jobs and their (small) comfort and turf them out and all will return to normal. So what happens is that you have parties who realize that being progressive will never work (partly because the wealthy control the media and the chumps don't think critically) so they sell out (see New Labour in the UK or even the 1993 Liberal Party in Canada and Bill Clinton and now likely Barack Obama).

It's hard to address this imbalance of power. I assume that the Democrats are going to cave and make even more handouts to the wealthy. Then again, if you're foolish enough to believe that the state has your small interests in mind then you probably don't fret about such matters.

But how do you address this blackmail? You ultimately have to get people to realize that they are going to suffer to make the world a better place, whether that's within the state system or ideally without. Overturning the old order will entail suffering as new systems are built and it kind of has to happen everywhere because other states will likely not want this poison to spread and will fight back. We've been told that we can have anything we want at any time (thank you WalMart) without working for it. So I don't have much faith in people to accept this degree of inconvenience even if it's in their interest.

But it would be better than the stressed earth doing it for us. That's really going to hurt.

Even the Deepest Pockets Have Holes

Unbelievable! So much for the end of big government. This pre-crash stock market madness just makes me realize that money is completely worthless and a creation of the state. How else can the US government just throw $85 billion at AIG and take over Fanny Mae and Freddy Mac? Who's next? These are serious amounts. And they are just giving them to the rich. You might as well call it a tax cut.

Of course the internet and television are full of advice for the average investor (what you're not investing the markets; what about your retirement?). What are we to do with our portfolios? Jump into GICs, pull out while the going's good, ride it out?

No one talks about just fucking right off. Get some land, learn to provide the basics for yourself, get out of the systenm, don't sell your labour. Really cushion yourself against the crashes that are coming. Why kill yourself with a two hour commute and do a job for things you don't need? If you don't fall for the advertising and you can ignore the weight of peer pressure, then you're halfway there.

There's some Mentat advice for your portfolio: burn it.

Farm Thoughts 2 - Distant

The global economy is frustrating, violent, unjust and just plain weird. Unfortunately most farms participate fully in the global economy. They grow corn and soy for animal feed so some can eat meat while others go hungry. They also grow corn for ethanol and rely on massive chemical inputs to do so. And in the end, they hope to sell their farms so they can pass something on to their children.

The weirdest part for me is how far most food travels including our locally grown food. Canada can grow almost anything apart from rice and coconuts. Yet still we grow food and send it around the world to be sold instead of being consumed locally. For instance, Canada grows apples and sends them to Australia and New Zealand for instance. At the same time those countries grow apples and send them back to us.

Surely you've seen a New Zealand apple in a grocery store?

A more local example that I saw firsthand the other day were ginseng farms. Southern Ontario grows massive amounts of ginseng to be sold to China. How can it possibly be profitable for China to buy ginseng from us? Wouldn't it make more sense for China to grow its own ginseng to save on all kinds of cost? Then fields used here for ginseng could grow food to be consumed locally instead of buying say apples or wheat from China.

It's almost as if the fuel used to transport the food around the world doesn't exist, much like the associated greenhouse gas emissions. And the funniest part is that no one finds this weird in any way. It's normal. I thought capitalism was all about efficiency but in the end it seems waste is the lifeblood of the global economy.

Got it Wrong

Today the two senior UN climate change officials warned the World Economic Forum that the pending recession may harm humanity's efforts to slow climate change. They claimed that politicians will focus on the immediate (job creation, tax cuts etc) and ignore the more long term (climate change). Obviously compared to the threat of climate change, jobs seem pretty measly considerations.

Unfortunately these two esteemed gentlemen got it wrong. A recession, and a protracted one at that, is exactly what we need.

Every time the economy grows, our carbon emissions go up. What else is the economy but the consumption of energy and other resources? It's an (un)natural law. Right now most of civilized human beings' energy consumption is from fossil fuels like gas, oil and coal. Economic growth is tied to emissions.

The idea that economic growth can somehow fight climate change is a joke. I presume that these UN officials are also bowing to that hallowed god of technology. They'll have you believe that when humans are consuming a lot and buying a lot and have lots of imaginary money flying around that they are in a position to come up with innovative solutions to problems like climate change.

Is anyone else tired of hearing how technology is going to save us?

Recession is a dirty word. We are told to fear it from the day we turn on our first bright television to the day we die. Never once do we question this view. But in truth, growth is our problem. Engineered or natural recessions are the proper reaction given the situation we now face (climate change, peak oil, resource depletion, displacement and extinction of other species, overpopulation). Once we get to an ideal point (population, lifestyle etc) we should then aim for neither growth nor recession but balance.

Endless growth, our god, is the definition of cancer.

I can live without an Ipod, without a computer, without a car, without DVDs. I can't live without my landbase, my family and friends, shelter and healthy, nutritious food. Let's figure out what we really need and ditch the false dreams of the death economy.

Choices

The expansion of the tar sands oil extraction in northern Alberta is one of the most under discussed issues in Canada today. It has been called the "biggest environmental crime in history". Canada is never going to reach our Kyoto obligations if the tar sands project goes ahead. Our greenhouse gas production is going to go through the roof with the energy intensive tar sands processes.

Not only that but the "project" is destroying the landscape making it look more like the moon than a vibrant healthy mix of ecosystems; that means that animals and plants won't be able to live there, try as they might. Yes, believe it or not, humans aren't the only beings on this planet and we don't have the right to displace others.

It's also poisoning the people that live there with certain First Nations communities suffering dramatic health problems by living downstream; these include cancers that rarely occur in the general population. Incidentally to those of you who might think that the government will step in when health is at risk learn about the story of Dr. John O'Connor who was sanctioned by Health Canada and Alberta Health for speaking out against the health impacts of the tar sands "development". The government isn't going to do anything to protect these communities no matter the evidence.

The tar sands also consume tons of fresh water which is contaminated during the process and has to be left in special ponds for potentially thousands of years (if they don't breach their banks and flow to the sea first). It takes five barrels of oil to produce one barrel of oil and then those barrels of oil are contaminated.

To read more about this important issue, I suggest you pick up a copy of the Dominion Paper or check it out online here.

I read these facts and I can't accept that this project has to happen. There's no reason for it and, even if there was, it's wrong. With all the evidence against it, it has to be stopped. It's like driving; all the evidence against driving means we have to ban cars forever. But as in either case, no one else sees it this way, so I guess I'm crazy.

Does this mean I have to go out and talk to people and hold their hands and try and get them to see that I'm right and that fucking Bambi has a right to live on this land? Remind them that the First Nations people in northern Alberta don't want cancer and death? Fuck that. People don't give a shit and I have to rub their faces in it so they care. Your economic development is killing everything.

So I'm faced with a choice. I can try and continue to live with a decreasing ecological footprint while the rest of the world continues to go the other direction and set an example for people as to how humans could live, with a lot less, but a future. Or I can head to Alberta and disrupt this terrible industrial death machine. One things for certain, I'm not going to continue sleepwalking and winning nothing, as I have been for the past two years. Something is going to happen.

For one special reader, I'm thinking about it. For the rest of you what are you going to do? It might be northern Alberta, or China, or Bangladesh, the Sydney tar ponds, Bhopal but eventually the death machine will make its way to you. Are you just going to stick your heads under the sand? It's so easy to do so but that doesn't mean it's right. Good luck to us all and our non-human companions on this earth.

Food or Cars?

Just reading an article about the US government's plans to develop a parallel mechanism to the Kyoto Protocol to deal with global warming. I firmly hope it goes nowhere because as bad as Kyoto is (did you know that aviation is excluded from Kyoto?) any plan developed by the Bush Administration would be a nightmare.

Anyway this article mentioned how exited the US, Brazil and other countries are in developing biofuels or biodiesel as an alternative to imported oil. Despite their glad-handing and jubilation, biodiesel is a nightmare waiting to happen.

For one it's going to make the price of food soar. This will destroy the livelihoods of poor people in Canada and beyond. Mexico is already seeing the price of their staple, corn rise in response to rich North Americans' desire to drive "sustainably". I also found an article linking a rise in beer prices in Germany to biodiesel. This is only the beginning.

Most industrial food production already relies on huge energy inputs. Currently we are essentially eating oil and taking more from the earth than we put in. To produce say 100 food calories you have to input say 1000 oil calories. This is the definition of unsustainable. So if we're going to move to biodiesel we'll need to spend most of the harvest fueling up our giant agricultural machinery.

And what will be the result. Some will drive and continue to live high on the hog while others will starve. Sounds just to me! At the same time, I recognize that the human population on earth is highly dangerous and is endangering the survival of this most perfect world. We could do with a decrease in membership.

So I find this to be a sticky situation in terms of my moral approach to this violent gamble on biodiesel. If only we could step back and choose to decrease our population in a responsible and thoughtful way instead of creating new structures that will cause intense hardship and suffering.

But that would be giving our species too much credit. And is capitalist democracy even able to make these vital choices? Does the failure of Kyoto and the primacy of the "economy" demonstrate that this is the case?

Buzz Off

Buzz Hargrove is quite a chameleon. You just never know where he's going to be next. He started off NDP orange, then changed to Liberal red. How long before we see him with Steve Harper in Tory blue? His ability to adapt and play the field would be admirable if it was only backed up with thoughtful union policies; "Strike, strike, strike!", is all you can come up with?

So where is Buzz today? First he opposed strict, mandatory emissions targets for vehicles in Canada, worrying that they would bankrupt the auto industry and decimate his membership. Sounds exactly like the alarmist reactions coming out of the Fraser Institute. Woe to the economy if we consider the planet! Global warming makes strange bedfellows doesn't it Buzz?

Now he's demanding free trade agreements with the Far East to stave off massive layoffs at Chrysler. Free trade agreements? His argument is that they have been locking out the North American industry while we have been inviting them in. There is probably a measure of truth in what he says but a quick check online found Ford Japan and GM Japan in seconds. So what's the problem, you're there?

You see that Buzz, his members' employers and the Fraser Institute are all trapped in a gigantic bubble. This bubble contains massive gas guzzling vehicles, fat immobile Canadians and Americans and ideas about what is normal and desirable. The rest of the world, including the Far East cares little for these wasteful vehicles. Gasoline and roads are expensive for them. You couldn't sell them an SUV if you tried.

So at the core of our layoffs and bursting bubbles is our own fantasy. Buzz, no one wants to buy our vehicles and we, if we only knew, shouldn't want to either. No free trade agreement on earth can save North American companies. Farewell.

Timing is Everything

Why would they allow such a thing to happen? A major Anglo-Dutch steel company sold to Indians! Outrageous! Doesn't sound a very wise move, considering that steel is vital to any industrialized country. And then there's the old imperial in the breast of every Brit, lamenting the sale of a national icon. British destroyers and carriers once ruled this world. The sun never sets on the British Empire. Oh, what have we lost today!

Then, on the other hand, I wonder about that purest of imperial motivations: profit. Every share sold for 608 pence. The capitalist trumps the imperialist apparently. Someone stands to do really well out of this deal; I wonder who? Do these mystery shareholders know something the rest of us don't? Is the steel industry about to collapse? Or something bigger? Why not get what you can while the going's good?

I just have this sneaking feeling that this move is the first gust of an ill wind. Something to ponder anyway.