Monday, November 25, 2013
Geopolitics of Food Scarcity by Lester R. Brown
Moving Up the Food Chain
Lester R. Brown
www.earth-policy.org/books/fpep/fpepch3
Earth Policy Release
Full Planet, Empty Plates
November 25, 2013
For most of the time that human beings have walked the earth, we lived as hunter-gatherers. The share of the human diet that came from hunting versus gathering varied with geographic location, hunting skills, and the season of the year. During the northern hemisphere winter, for instance, when there was little food to gather, people there depended heavily on hunting for survival. Our long history as hunter-gatherers left us with an appetite for animal protein that continues to shape diet! s today.
As recently as the closing half of the last century, a large part of the growth in demand for animal protein was still satisfied by the rising output of two natural systems: oceanic fisheries and rangelands. Between 1950 and 1990, the oceanic fish catch climbed from 17 million to 84 million tons, a nearly fivefold gain. During this period, the seafood catch per person more than doubled, climbing from 15 to 35 pounds.
This was the golden age of oceanic fisheries. The catch grew rapidly as fishing technologies evolved and as refrigerated processing ships began to accompany fishing fleets, enabling them to operate in distant waters. Unfortunately, the human appetite for seafood has outgrown the sustainable yield of oceanic fisheries. Today four fifths of fisheries are being fished at or beyond their sustainable capacity. As a result, many are in decline and some have collapsed.
Rangelands are also essentially natural systems. Located mostly in semiarid regions too dry to sustain agriculture, they are vast—covering roughly twice the area planted to crops. In some countries, such as Brazil and Argentina, beef cattle are almost entirely grass-fed. In others, such as the United States and those in Europe, beef is produced with a combination of grass and grain.
In every society where incomes have risen, the appetite for meat, milk, eggs, and seafood has generated an enormous growth in animal protein consumption. Today some 3 billion people are moving up the food chain. For people living at subsistence level, 60 percent or more of their calories typically come from a single starchy food staple such as rice, wheat, or corn. As incomes rise, diets are diversified with the addition of more animal protein.
World consumption of meat climbed from just under 50 million tons in 1950 to 280 million tons in 2010, more than a fivefold increase. Meanwhile, consumption per person went from 38 pounds to 88 pounds a year. The growth in consumption during this 60-year span was concentrated in the industrial and newly industrializing countries.
The type of animal protein that people choose to eat depends heavily on geography. Countries that are land-rich with vast grasslands—including the United States, Brazil, Argentina, and Russia—depend heavily on beef or—as in Australia and Kazakhstan—mutton. Countries that are more densely populated and lack extensive grazing lands have historically relied much more on pork. Among these are Germany, Poland, and China. Island countries and those with long shorelines, such as Japan and Norway, have turned to the oceans for their animal protein.
Over time, global patterns of meat consumption have changed. In 1950, beef and pork totally dominated, leaving poultry a distant third. From 1950 until 1980, beef and pork production increased more or less apace. Beef production was pressing against the limits of grasslands, however, and more cattle were put in feedlots. Because cattle are not efficient in converting grain into meat, world beef production, which climbed from 19 million tons in 1950 to 53 million in 1990, has not expanded much since then. In contrast, chickens are highly efficient in converting grain into meat. As a result, world poultry production, which grew slowly at first, accelerated, overtaking beef in 1997.
The world’s top two meat consumers are China and the United States. The United States was the leader until 1992, when it was overtaken by China. As of 2012, twice as much meat is eaten in China as in the United States—71 million tons versus 35 million.
Although the world has had many years of experience in feeding nearly 80 million more people each year, it has much less experience with also providing for 3 billion people with rising incomes who want to move up the food chain and consume more grain intensive products. Whereas population growth generates demand for wheat and rice, humanities’ two food staples, it is rising affluence that is driving growth in the demand for corn, the world’s feedgrain. Historically, world corn and wheat production trends moved more or less together from 1950 until 2000. But then corn took off, climbing to 960 million tons in 2011 while wheat remained under 700 million tons.
It is the increase in consumption of livestock products plus the conversion of grain into fuel that have boosted the annual growth in world grain demand from the roughly 20 million tons a decade ago to over 40 million tons in recent years. As incomes continue to rise, the pressure on farmers to produce en! ough grain and soybeans to satisfy the growing appetite for livestock and poultry products will only intensify.
For the full report click here.
From Full Planet, Empty Plates: The New Geopolitics of Food Scarcity by Lester R. Brown (New York: W.W. Norton & Co.) Supporting data, video, and slideshows are available for free download at www.earth-policy.org/books/fpep.
Thursday, November 21, 2013
90 companies -- 2/3 emissions
Just 90 companies caused two-thirds of man-made global warming emissions
Chevron, Exxon and BP among companies most responsible for climate change since dawn of industrial age, figures show
• Interactive - which fossil fuel companies are most responsible?
• Interactive - which fossil fuel companies are most responsible?
Oil, coal and gas companies are contributing to most carbon emissions, causing climate change and some are also funding denial campaigns. Photograph: David Gray/Reuters
The climate crisis of the 21st century has been caused largely by just 90 companies, which between them produced nearly two-thirds of the greenhouse gas emissions generated since the dawning of the industrial age, new research suggests.
The companies range from investor-owned firms – household names such as Chevron, Exxon and BP – to state-owned and government-run firms.
The analysis, which was welcomed by the former vice-president Al Gore as a "crucial step forward" found that the vast majority of the firms were in the business of producing oil, gas or coal, found the analysis, which has been published in the journal Climatic Change.
"There are thousands of oil, gas and coal producers in the world," climate researcher and author Richard Heede at the Climate Accountability Institute in Colorado said. "But the decision makers, the CEOs, or the ministers of coal and oil if you narrow it down to just one person, they could all fit on a Greyhound bus or two."
Half of the estimated emissions were produced just in the past 25 years – well past the date when governments and corporations became aware that rising greenhouse gas emissions from the burning of coal and oil were causing dangerous climate change.
Many of the same companies are also sitting on substantial reserves of fossil fuel which – if they are burned – puts the world at even greater risk of dangerous climate change.
Climate change experts said the data set was the most ambitious effort so far to hold individual carbon producers, rather than governments, to account.
The United Nations climate change panel, the IPCC, warned in September that at current rates the world stood within 30 years of exhausting its "carbon budget" – the amount of carbon dioxide it could emit without going into the danger zone above 2C warming. The former US vice-president and environmental champion, Al Gore, said the new carbon accounting could re-set the debate about allocating blame for the climate crisis.
Leaders meeting in Warsaw for the UN climate talks this week clashed repeatedly over which countries bore the burden for solving the climate crisis – historic emitters such as America or Europe or the rising economies of India and China.
Gore in his comments said the analysis underlined that it should not fall to governments alone to act on climate change.
"This study is a crucial step forward in our understanding of the evolution of the climate crisis. The public and private sectors alike must do what is necessary to stop global warming," Gore told the Guardian. "Those who are historically responsible for polluting our atmosphere have a clear obligation to be part of the solution."
Between them, the 90 companies on the list of top emitters produced 63% of the cumulative global emissions of industrial carbon dioxide and methane between 1751 to 2010, amounting to about 914 gigatonne CO2 emissions, according to the research. All but seven of the 90 were energy companies producing oil, gas and coal. The remaining seven were cement manufacturers.
The list of 90 companies included 50 investor-owned firms – mainly oil companies with widely recognised names such as Chevron, Exxon, BP , and Royal Dutch Shell and coal producers such as British Coal Corp, Peabody Energy and BHP Billiton.
Some 31 of the companies that made the list were state-owned companies such as Saudi Arabia's Saudi Aramco, Russia's Gazprom and Norway's Statoil.
Nine were government run industries, producing mainly coal in countries such as China, the former Soviet Union, North Korea and Poland, the host of this week's talks.
Experts familiar with Heede's research and the politics of climate change said they hoped the analysis could help break the deadlock in international climate talks.
"It seemed like maybe this could break the logjam," said Naomi Oreskes, professor of the history of science at Harvard. "There are all kinds of countries that have produced a tremendous amount of historical emissions that we do not normally talk about. We do not normally talk about Mexico or Poland or Venezuela. So then it's not just rich v poor, it is also producers v consumers, and resource rich v resource poor."
Michael Mann, the climate scientist, said he hoped the list would bring greater scrutiny to oil and coal companies' deployment of their remaining reserves. "What I think could be a game changer here is the potential for clearly fingerprinting the sources of those future emissions," he said. "It increases the accountability for fossil fuel burning. You can't burn fossil fuels without the rest of the world knowing about it."
Others were less optimistic that a more comprehensive accounting of the sources of greenhouse gas emissions would make it easier to achieve the emissions reductions needed to avoid catastrophic climate change.
John Ashton, who served as UK's chief climate change negotiator for six years, suggested that the findings reaffirmed the central role of fossil fuel producing entities in the economy.
"The challenge we face is to move in the space of not much more than a generation from a carbon-intensive energy system to a carbonneutral energy system. If we don't do that we stand no chance of keeping climate change within the 2C threshold," Ashton said.
"By highlighting the way in which a relatively small number of large companies are at the heart of the current carbon-intensive growth model, this report highlights that fundamental challenge."
Meanwhile, Oreskes, who has written extensively about corporate-funded climate denial, noted that several of the top companies on the list had funded the climate denial movement.
"For me one of the most interesting things to think about was the overlap of large scale producers and the funding of disinformation campaigns, and how that has delayed action," she said.
The data represents eight years of exhaustive research into carbon emissions over time, as well as the ownership history of the major emitters.
The companies' operations spanned the globe, with company headquarters in 43 different countries. "These entities extract resources from every oil, natural gas and coal province in the world, and process the fuels into marketable products that are sold to consumers on every nation on Earth," Heede writes in the paper.
The largest of the investor-owned companies were responsible for an outsized share of emissions. Nearly 30% of emissions were produced just by the top 20 companies, the research found.
By Heede's calculation, government-run oil and coal companies in the former Soviet Union produced more greenhouse gas emissions than any other entity – just under 8.9% of the total produced over time. China came a close second with its government-run entities accounting for 8.6% of total global emissions.
ChevronTexaco was the leading emitter among investor-owned companies, causing 3.5% of greenhouse gas emissions to date, with Exxon not far behind at 3.2%. In third place, BP caused 2.5% of global emissions to date.
The historic emissions record was constructed using public records and data from the US department of energy's Carbon Dioxide Information and Analysis Centre, and took account of emissions all along the supply chain.
The centre put global industrial emissions since 1751 at 1,450 gigatonnes.
The companies range from investor-owned firms – household names such as Chevron, Exxon and BP – to state-owned and government-run firms.
The analysis, which was welcomed by the former vice-president Al Gore as a "crucial step forward" found that the vast majority of the firms were in the business of producing oil, gas or coal, found the analysis, which has been published in the journal Climatic Change.
"There are thousands of oil, gas and coal producers in the world," climate researcher and author Richard Heede at the Climate Accountability Institute in Colorado said. "But the decision makers, the CEOs, or the ministers of coal and oil if you narrow it down to just one person, they could all fit on a Greyhound bus or two."
Half of the estimated emissions were produced just in the past 25 years – well past the date when governments and corporations became aware that rising greenhouse gas emissions from the burning of coal and oil were causing dangerous climate change.
Many of the same companies are also sitting on substantial reserves of fossil fuel which – if they are burned – puts the world at even greater risk of dangerous climate change.
Climate change experts said the data set was the most ambitious effort so far to hold individual carbon producers, rather than governments, to account.
The United Nations climate change panel, the IPCC, warned in September that at current rates the world stood within 30 years of exhausting its "carbon budget" – the amount of carbon dioxide it could emit without going into the danger zone above 2C warming. The former US vice-president and environmental champion, Al Gore, said the new carbon accounting could re-set the debate about allocating blame for the climate crisis.
Leaders meeting in Warsaw for the UN climate talks this week clashed repeatedly over which countries bore the burden for solving the climate crisis – historic emitters such as America or Europe or the rising economies of India and China.
Gore in his comments said the analysis underlined that it should not fall to governments alone to act on climate change.
"This study is a crucial step forward in our understanding of the evolution of the climate crisis. The public and private sectors alike must do what is necessary to stop global warming," Gore told the Guardian. "Those who are historically responsible for polluting our atmosphere have a clear obligation to be part of the solution."
Between them, the 90 companies on the list of top emitters produced 63% of the cumulative global emissions of industrial carbon dioxide and methane between 1751 to 2010, amounting to about 914 gigatonne CO2 emissions, according to the research. All but seven of the 90 were energy companies producing oil, gas and coal. The remaining seven were cement manufacturers.
The list of 90 companies included 50 investor-owned firms – mainly oil companies with widely recognised names such as Chevron, Exxon, BP , and Royal Dutch Shell and coal producers such as British Coal Corp, Peabody Energy and BHP Billiton.
Some 31 of the companies that made the list were state-owned companies such as Saudi Arabia's Saudi Aramco, Russia's Gazprom and Norway's Statoil.
Nine were government run industries, producing mainly coal in countries such as China, the former Soviet Union, North Korea and Poland, the host of this week's talks.
Experts familiar with Heede's research and the politics of climate change said they hoped the analysis could help break the deadlock in international climate talks.
"It seemed like maybe this could break the logjam," said Naomi Oreskes, professor of the history of science at Harvard. "There are all kinds of countries that have produced a tremendous amount of historical emissions that we do not normally talk about. We do not normally talk about Mexico or Poland or Venezuela. So then it's not just rich v poor, it is also producers v consumers, and resource rich v resource poor."
Michael Mann, the climate scientist, said he hoped the list would bring greater scrutiny to oil and coal companies' deployment of their remaining reserves. "What I think could be a game changer here is the potential for clearly fingerprinting the sources of those future emissions," he said. "It increases the accountability for fossil fuel burning. You can't burn fossil fuels without the rest of the world knowing about it."
Others were less optimistic that a more comprehensive accounting of the sources of greenhouse gas emissions would make it easier to achieve the emissions reductions needed to avoid catastrophic climate change.
John Ashton, who served as UK's chief climate change negotiator for six years, suggested that the findings reaffirmed the central role of fossil fuel producing entities in the economy.
"The challenge we face is to move in the space of not much more than a generation from a carbon-intensive energy system to a carbonneutral energy system. If we don't do that we stand no chance of keeping climate change within the 2C threshold," Ashton said.
"By highlighting the way in which a relatively small number of large companies are at the heart of the current carbon-intensive growth model, this report highlights that fundamental challenge."
Meanwhile, Oreskes, who has written extensively about corporate-funded climate denial, noted that several of the top companies on the list had funded the climate denial movement.
"For me one of the most interesting things to think about was the overlap of large scale producers and the funding of disinformation campaigns, and how that has delayed action," she said.
The data represents eight years of exhaustive research into carbon emissions over time, as well as the ownership history of the major emitters.
The companies' operations spanned the globe, with company headquarters in 43 different countries. "These entities extract resources from every oil, natural gas and coal province in the world, and process the fuels into marketable products that are sold to consumers on every nation on Earth," Heede writes in the paper.
The largest of the investor-owned companies were responsible for an outsized share of emissions. Nearly 30% of emissions were produced just by the top 20 companies, the research found.
By Heede's calculation, government-run oil and coal companies in the former Soviet Union produced more greenhouse gas emissions than any other entity – just under 8.9% of the total produced over time. China came a close second with its government-run entities accounting for 8.6% of total global emissions.
ChevronTexaco was the leading emitter among investor-owned companies, causing 3.5% of greenhouse gas emissions to date, with Exxon not far behind at 3.2%. In third place, BP caused 2.5% of global emissions to date.
The historic emissions record was constructed using public records and data from the US department of energy's Carbon Dioxide Information and Analysis Centre, and took account of emissions all along the supply chain.
The centre put global industrial emissions since 1751 at 1,450 gigatonnes.
Tuesday, November 19, 2013
War Is Not Inevitable; Psychology Research Should Promote Peace
War Is Not Inevitable; Psychology Research Should Promote Peace
Oct. 17, 2013 — In a new review of how psychology research has illuminated the causes of war and violence, three political psychologists at the University of Massachusetts Amherst say this understanding can and should be used to promote peace and overturn the belief that violent conflict is inevitable.
Writing in the current special "peace psychology" issue of American Psychologist, lead author Bernhard Leidner, Linda Tropp and Brian Lickel of UMass Amherst's Psychology of Peace and Violence program say that if social psychology research focuses only on how to soften the negative consequences of war and violence, "it would fall far short of its potential and value for society."
"In summarizing psychological perspectives on the conditions and motivations that underlie violent conflict," says Tropp, "we find that psychology's contributions can extend beyond understanding the origins and nature of violence to promote nonviolence and peace." She adds, "We oppose the view that war is inevitable and argue that understanding the psychological roots of conflict can increase the likelihood of avoiding violence as a way to resolve conflicts with others."
Political leaders can be crucial in showing people different paths and alternatives to violent confrontation, the researchers point out. Leidner mentions Nelson Mandela, a leader who "offered South Africans an example of how to deal with the legacy of apartheid without resorting to further violence by making statements such as, 'If you want to make peace with your enemy, you have to work with your enemy. Then he becomes your partner.'"
Leidner and colleagues recall how political and social psychology researchers have in recent decades steadily gained more understanding, through research, of such psychological factors as intergroup threat, uncertainty, group identity, emotions, moral beliefs and how intergroup conflict affects views of the world and of oneself.
They review theory and research that specify psychological factors that contribute to and perpetuate intergroup violence through emotional responses and belief systems fostered by conflict. Finally, they summarize ideas of how psychological "defenses of peace" -- a phrase in the United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization (UNESCO) preamble -- can be constructed in the human mind.
The authors acknowledge that conflict and violence between groups persist because they often give people ways to address psychological needs, for identity, safety, security and power. Nonviolence has received far less media and research attention, they point out, but this should change. The UMass Amherst team urges social psychologists to consider factors that increase empathy and understanding of others, along with factors that increase the capacity for critical evaluation of the "ingroup."
They conclude, "Research that investigates how to mitigate negative consequences of war and violence is valuable," and the studies they summarize, grounded in "realistic insights," support the view that psychology can be applied to promote peace. "It is our contention that psychology can and should be applied to promote peace, not war."
"In summarizing psychological perspectives on the conditions and motivations that underlie violent conflict," says Tropp, "we find that psychology's contributions can extend beyond understanding the origins and nature of violence to promote nonviolence and peace." She adds, "We oppose the view that war is inevitable and argue that understanding the psychological roots of conflict can increase the likelihood of avoiding violence as a way to resolve conflicts with others."
Political leaders can be crucial in showing people different paths and alternatives to violent confrontation, the researchers point out. Leidner mentions Nelson Mandela, a leader who "offered South Africans an example of how to deal with the legacy of apartheid without resorting to further violence by making statements such as, 'If you want to make peace with your enemy, you have to work with your enemy. Then he becomes your partner.'"
Leidner and colleagues recall how political and social psychology researchers have in recent decades steadily gained more understanding, through research, of such psychological factors as intergroup threat, uncertainty, group identity, emotions, moral beliefs and how intergroup conflict affects views of the world and of oneself.
They review theory and research that specify psychological factors that contribute to and perpetuate intergroup violence through emotional responses and belief systems fostered by conflict. Finally, they summarize ideas of how psychological "defenses of peace" -- a phrase in the United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization (UNESCO) preamble -- can be constructed in the human mind.
The authors acknowledge that conflict and violence between groups persist because they often give people ways to address psychological needs, for identity, safety, security and power. Nonviolence has received far less media and research attention, they point out, but this should change. The UMass Amherst team urges social psychologists to consider factors that increase empathy and understanding of others, along with factors that increase the capacity for critical evaluation of the "ingroup."
They conclude, "Research that investigates how to mitigate negative consequences of war and violence is valuable," and the studies they summarize, grounded in "realistic insights," support the view that psychology can be applied to promote peace. "It is our contention that psychology can and should be applied to promote peace, not war."
Share this story on Facebook, Twitter, and Google:
Sunday, November 17, 2013
TPP agreement from Wikileaks
You should take the time to read this.
https://wikileaks.org/tpp/static/pdf/Wikileaks-secret-TPP-treaty-IP-chapter.pdf
“Since the beginning of the TPP negotiations, the process of drafting and negotiating the treaty’s chapters has been shrouded in an unprecedented level of secrecy,” Wikileaks notes in a statement on the release of the TPP draft. “Access to drafts of the TPP chapters is shielded from the general public. Members of the US Congress are only able to view selected portions of treaty-related documents in highly restrictive conditions and under strict supervision. It has been previously revealed that only three individuals in each TPP nation have access to the full text of the agreement, while 600 ’trade advisers’ – lobbyists guarding the interests of large US corporations such as Chevron, Halliburton, Monsanto and Walmart – are granted privileged access to crucial sections of the treaty text.”
This is so insidious that it is hard to find the words to describe it. Countries would be obliged to conform all their domestic laws and regulations to the TPP’s rules—in effect, a corporate coup d’état. The proposed pact would limit even how governments can spend their tax dollars. Buy America and other Buy Local procurement preferences that invest in the US economy would be banned, and “sweat-free,” human rights or environmental conditions on government contracts could be challenged. If the TPP comes to fruition, its retrograde rules could be altered only if all countries agreed, regardless of domestic election outcomes or changes in public opinion. And unlike much domestic legislation, the TPP would have no expiration date.
Are you starting to understand just how dangerous this treaty is? If you are not familiar with our “trade deficit”, you really should be. so let see what your friends in government have in store for people, Internet fascism, Secret TPP treaty: Advanced Intellectual Property chapter for all 12 nations with negotiating positions, Wikileaks has released a 95 page, 30,000 word document spelling out details on the Trans Pacific Partnership (TPP). The secret globalist agreement will have a significant effect on a wide range of issues including internet freedom, medicine, patents, and civil liberties. The cabal will meet in Salt Lake, Utah, between November 19 and 24. - Enforcement will be accomplished by “supranational litigation tribunals to which sovereign national courts are expected to defer.” According to the document, the globalist courts can conduct hearings with secret evidence. In addition, aspects of the treaty resemble SOPA and ACTA treaties with draconian surveillance mechanisms. “If instituted, the TPP’s IP regime would trample over individual rights and free expression, as well as ride roughshod over the intellectual and creative commons. If you read, write, publish, think, listen, dance, sing or invent; if you farm or consume food; if you’re ill now or might one day be ill, the TPP has you in its crosshairs,”
https://wikileaks.org/tpp/static/pdf/Wikileaks-secret-TPP-treaty-IP-chapter.pdf
“Since the beginning of the TPP negotiations, the process of drafting and negotiating the treaty’s chapters has been shrouded in an unprecedented level of secrecy,” Wikileaks notes in a statement on the release of the TPP draft. “Access to drafts of the TPP chapters is shielded from the general public. Members of the US Congress are only able to view selected portions of treaty-related documents in highly restrictive conditions and under strict supervision. It has been previously revealed that only three individuals in each TPP nation have access to the full text of the agreement, while 600 ’trade advisers’ – lobbyists guarding the interests of large US corporations such as Chevron, Halliburton, Monsanto and Walmart – are granted privileged access to crucial sections of the treaty text.”
This is so insidious that it is hard to find the words to describe it. Countries would be obliged to conform all their domestic laws and regulations to the TPP’s rules—in effect, a corporate coup d’état. The proposed pact would limit even how governments can spend their tax dollars. Buy America and other Buy Local procurement preferences that invest in the US economy would be banned, and “sweat-free,” human rights or environmental conditions on government contracts could be challenged. If the TPP comes to fruition, its retrograde rules could be altered only if all countries agreed, regardless of domestic election outcomes or changes in public opinion. And unlike much domestic legislation, the TPP would have no expiration date.
Are you starting to understand just how dangerous this treaty is? If you are not familiar with our “trade deficit”, you really should be. so let see what your friends in government have in store for people, Internet fascism, Secret TPP treaty: Advanced Intellectual Property chapter for all 12 nations with negotiating positions, Wikileaks has released a 95 page, 30,000 word document spelling out details on the Trans Pacific Partnership (TPP). The secret globalist agreement will have a significant effect on a wide range of issues including internet freedom, medicine, patents, and civil liberties. The cabal will meet in Salt Lake, Utah, between November 19 and 24. - Enforcement will be accomplished by “supranational litigation tribunals to which sovereign national courts are expected to defer.” According to the document, the globalist courts can conduct hearings with secret evidence. In addition, aspects of the treaty resemble SOPA and ACTA treaties with draconian surveillance mechanisms. “If instituted, the TPP’s IP regime would trample over individual rights and free expression, as well as ride roughshod over the intellectual and creative commons. If you read, write, publish, think, listen, dance, sing or invent; if you farm or consume food; if you’re ill now or might one day be ill, the TPP has you in its crosshairs,”
Thursday, November 14, 2013
Three charts: US domestic oil overcomes imported, CO2 lowest in decade, economy growing a bit
Two Very Important Lines Crossed Last Month, and It Means Big Things for Our Energy Security:
http://www.whitehouse.gov/share/two-very-important-lines
You can bet this applies to the Canadian military as well
http://org.salsalabs.com/o/1400/p/dia/action3/common/public/?action_KEY=14581
The Military Justice Improvement Act (MJIA) S.967, introduced by Kirsten Gillibrand (D-NY), will reach the Senate floor for a vote as soon as this week as part of the 2014 National Defense Authorization Act. MJIA, which has bi-partisan support, will take the decision of whether to prosecute sexual assault cases out of the chain of command and give it to independent, objective, trained military prosecutors.
The Military Justice Improvement Act (MJIA) S.967, introduced by Kirsten Gillibrand (D-NY), will reach the Senate floor for a vote as soon as this week as part of the 2014 National Defense Authorization Act. MJIA, which has bi-partisan support, will take the decision of whether to prosecute sexual assault cases out of the chain of command and give it to independent, objective, trained military prosecutors.
Wednesday, November 13, 2013
The Maritimes steps up to freeze fracking
Pressure growing for a federal fracking freeze
Earlier this month, Newfoundland and Labrador put the brakes on fracking – and the Council of Canadians is calling on other provinces and territories to do the same.
Newfoundland and Labrador Minister of Natural Resources Derrick Dalley said that the government would not be "accepting applications for onshore and onshore to offshore petroleum exploration using hydraulic fracturing."
Opposition to fracking – a process that contaminates massive amounts of water to extract natural gas from underground rock formations – has been growing in Newfoundland and Labrador following proposals for exploration in three sites along the west coast of the province. The possibility of fracking in Gros Morne National Park received international attention when UNESCO raised concerns about how it would affect the area and its World Heritage Site status.
Communities in Nova Scotia are also speaking out about fracking. The Union of Nova Scotia Municipalities recently passed a resolution supporting a province-wide ban on the practice.
"From coast to coast, communities are calling for a stop to fracking. We're relieved to see that the Newfoundland and Labrador government is taking a common-sense approach by reviewing regulations, conducting impact studies and engaging the public before moving ahead," said Emma Lui, National Water Campaigner for the Council of Canadians, following the government's announcement. "Now that fracking is on hold in Quebec, Nova Scotia and Newfoundland and Labrador, it's time for other provinces and the federal government to do the same."
Read more about fracking in the latest issue of Canadian Perspectives.
Listen to Josh Fox, director of Gasland and Gasland II, speak about fracking at our recent Groundswell: Grassroots Power in the Age of Extreme Energy conference in Saskatoon.
Earlier this month, Newfoundland and Labrador put the brakes on fracking – and the Council of Canadians is calling on other provinces and territories to do the same.
Newfoundland and Labrador Minister of Natural Resources Derrick Dalley said that the government would not be "accepting applications for onshore and onshore to offshore petroleum exploration using hydraulic fracturing."
Opposition to fracking – a process that contaminates massive amounts of water to extract natural gas from underground rock formations – has been growing in Newfoundland and Labrador following proposals for exploration in three sites along the west coast of the province. The possibility of fracking in Gros Morne National Park received international attention when UNESCO raised concerns about how it would affect the area and its World Heritage Site status.
Communities in Nova Scotia are also speaking out about fracking. The Union of Nova Scotia Municipalities recently passed a resolution supporting a province-wide ban on the practice.
"From coast to coast, communities are calling for a stop to fracking. We're relieved to see that the Newfoundland and Labrador government is taking a common-sense approach by reviewing regulations, conducting impact studies and engaging the public before moving ahead," said Emma Lui, National Water Campaigner for the Council of Canadians, following the government's announcement. "Now that fracking is on hold in Quebec, Nova Scotia and Newfoundland and Labrador, it's time for other provinces and the federal government to do the same."
Read more about fracking in the latest issue of Canadian Perspectives.
Listen to Josh Fox, director of Gasland and Gasland II, speak about fracking at our recent Groundswell: Grassroots Power in the Age of Extreme Energy conference in Saskatoon.
Monday, November 11, 2013
Don't Treat Wounded Vets Like the Enemy
What more can this government find to do to destroy these lives?
Feds push to stop lawsuit by ex-soldiers who want fair compensation for their disabilities.
Photo of Remembrance Day ceremonies in 2010 by Judy B - The Travelling Eye in Your BC: The Tyee's Photo Pool.
-
For Vets with PTSD, Finding Help Can Be a Fight
Ex-soldiers with depression, other debilitating symptoms say bureaucracy can feel like their new enemy.
-
Veterans ombudsman sets off Ottawa firestorm
-
The Real Costs of the War in Afghanistan
- Read more: Rights + Justice, Federal Politics,
"The motivation here is money, saving money on the backs and blood of veterans that served Canada." -- Veterans' lawyer Don Sorochan on inadequate disability benefits.
As Canadians prepare to honour the service and sacrifice of our armed forces, why is the federal Conservative government treating wounded veterans like the enemy?With Remembrance Day approaching, some of our most severely injured soldiers face hardship and poverty because of changes made to their disability benefits.
It is astonishing that the Conservatives are trying to overturn a B.C. Supreme Court decision allowing a lawsuit from veterans wounded in Afghanistan seeking fair compensation for their disabilities.
Rather than let those veterans have their day in court and have a judge decide on the merits of their arguments, the government wants to stop the legal action in its tracks. It will "review" veterans' situations through a Parliamentary committee with a Conservative majority.
"I announced that the government of Canada will support a comprehensive review of the New Veterans Charter, including all enhancements, with a special focus placed on the most seriously injured, support for families and the delivery of programs by Veterans Affairs Canada. I call on parliamentarians to focus on how we can better assist veterans," Fantino said in early October.
The Royal Canadian Legion calls the government's actions "reprehensible."
And it gets worse. The feds are also accused of discharging wounded soldiers from the military before they can qualify for a pension.
For a party and government that claim to be so pro-armed forces, it's a stunning contradiction.
'We're not going to stand for it': vet
The veterans went to court because legislation in 2006 changed lifetime financial support for those fully or partially disabled to a lump sum payment to a maximum of $250,000.
In an email sent yesterday, Veterans Affairs communications director Joshua Zanin said veterans can access other "extensive support" through the New Veterans Charter.
Zanin also pointed to Veterans Affairs' budget increasing to $3.5 billion today from $2.8 billion in 2005.
And in a government statement last month, Veterans Affairs explained its court action this way: "[The veterans'] argument could have a far broader impact than perhaps intended by the plaintiffs... If accepted, this principle could undermine democratic accountability as parliamentarians of the future could be prevented from changing important legislation, including the sort of changes that some veterans would like to see to the New Veterans Charter," it said.
But Legion president Gordon Moore is not happy with the Conservatives.
"They have that moral obligation on behalf of all Canadians. I believe they're trying to slip out, but as we all know there will be an election within [two years] and there's a lot of upset and angry people out there on how veterans are being treated," Moore said last month.
While all political parties initially supported the change to benefits, which included some improvements for retraining and education, it's been clear for years that many veterans face life in poverty. The New Democrats and Liberals now agree changes are needed.
Port Moody's Kevin Berry served in Afghanistan and says the lump sum payment is only equivalent to 10 years of disability pension.
"Disability benefits for veterans have been slashed 40 to 90 per cent since 2006 under the New Veterans Charter, and myself and many others have been grossly under-compensated, and we are not willing to accept it -- we're not going to stand for it," the 29-year-old Berry told Global TV.
Veterans Affairs Minister Julian Fantino says: "There exists a tangle of misinformation regarding how Canada treats its men and women who have served in uniform."
But that's not how wounded soldiers see it, and veterans ombudsman Guy Parent agrees.
"It is simply not acceptable to let veterans who have sacrificed the most for their country... live their lives with unmet financial needs," reads a report Parent released last month.
"Fifty-three per cent of veterans who are assessed to be totally and permanently incapacitated, and who are unable to engage in suitable gainful employment, are not awarded these benefits, which are designed to compensate severely and permanently impaired veterans for a lack of career opportunity and progression," the report states.
Discharged to save dollars?
Then there are accusations of soldiers being discharged early from the military to save pension money.
Corporal David Hawkins served in Afghanistan and suffered post-traumatic stress disorder, but was let go less than one year before he would be eligible for a full pension.
Hawkins said last week he begged not to be discharged but the Canadian Forces did so anyway, saying the reservist from London, Ontario was not deployable on a moment's notice due to his condition.
"If you don't meet the universality of service, you can no longer serve under the military, and basically they don't have any use for you," Hawkins told CTV, adding that the discharge is a "big life changer for me. I don't really know what else there is."
Defence Minister Rob Nicolson claims no soldier is discharged unwillingly, but other stories are surfacing.
To add further insult to injury, Veterans Affairs is cutting nearly 300 jobs, affecting front-line service.
My grandfather served in the First World War and lost a lung from a mustard gas attack.
Why should Canadian soldiers so gravely injured in active military service now be treated far worse than those who were hurt back in 1917?
It's shameful.
![[Tyee]](https://lh3.googleusercontent.com/blogger_img_proxy/AEn0k_tJo3GLuGTO7mMXh4P1_tgRBJyDPbwPpWtgvOhUgiSX2sxJohjAA695-rVPsvOrtQRHdu0CkTAcom1o1b3Jnx8j_GZFFA36bMRfJXUgLhhsfeZFpA=s0-d){kind=small}
Friday, November 8, 2013
The Proposed Water Sustainability Act
No party should make any changes without consulting citizens
generally and those in the industries that would be affected by changes
to legislation.
In British Columbia, we’re fortunate to have more than 290 unique watersheds, including fish-bearing rivers and streams, spectacular lakes and exceptional wetlands. But even with this apparent abundance, our water supply is finite.
Given the pressures of a growing population, a changing climate and expanding development, we must take steps to ensure our supply of fresh, clean water is sustainable – not just to meet our needs today, but for generations to come.
The proposed Water Sustainability Act will update and replace the existing Water Act and will benefit all British Columbians – our communities and families, our environment and our economy.'
Until November 15th, 2013, there is an opportunity for the public to provide input on the proposed legislation. T For information about providing feedback to the Province, please visit http://engage.gov.bc.ca/watersustainabilityact/category/blog/
Complete Legislative Proposal
We encourage members to engage in this proposal:
'Water
is our most important natural resource: without it, there would be no
life on Earth. We all need it – for drinking, washing, cooking, growing
food, and supporting every aspect of a healthy environment, a growing
economy and our prosperous communities.In British Columbia, we’re fortunate to have more than 290 unique watersheds, including fish-bearing rivers and streams, spectacular lakes and exceptional wetlands. But even with this apparent abundance, our water supply is finite.
Given the pressures of a growing population, a changing climate and expanding development, we must take steps to ensure our supply of fresh, clean water is sustainable – not just to meet our needs today, but for generations to come.
The proposed Water Sustainability Act will update and replace the existing Water Act and will benefit all British Columbians – our communities and families, our environment and our economy.'
Until November 15th, 2013, there is an opportunity for the public to provide input on the proposed legislation. T For information about providing feedback to the Province, please visit http://engage.gov.bc.ca/watersustainabilityact/category/blog/
Complete Legislative Proposal
Pipeline flaws
Activist pulls back curtain to show Kinder Morgan pipeline flaws and Kinder Morgan questions his credentials
Posted: Nov 8th, 2013
Close up photo of Trans Mountain pipeline by David Ellis
Kinder Morgan has quietly been removing some 5005 cubic metres of oil-contaminated soil from its Trans Mountain pipeline near Coquihalla Canyon, near Hope since June 28, according to the National Energy Board (NEB).
"I think there's been more oil spilled than they're saying,"
Vancouver-based pipeline critic David Ellis said, about the reported
25-barrel figure. And while a Kinder Morgan representative told the
Vancouver Observer there were "no Kinder Morgan-branded trucks" moving
any contaminated soil, NEB spokesperson Rebecca Taylor confirmed that
soil was indeed being removed, a good part of it "definitely directly
contaminated". Oil-soaked soil biodegrades over time, but can harm vegetation at its roots and can be toxic to animals if ingested.
Ellis has photographed places where the pipeline was exposed and corroded and signs indicating where pipeline anomalies may be. A bookseller specializing in Western First Nations literature and a former fisheries planner, Ellis raised an alarm when he saw trucks moving soil to Tervita Corporation in Richmond, which specializes in disposal of industrial waste.
Ellis has photographed places where the pipeline was exposed and corroded and signs indicating where pipeline anomalies may be. A bookseller specializing in Western First Nations literature and a former fisheries planner, Ellis raised an alarm when he saw trucks moving soil to Tervita Corporation in Richmond, which specializes in disposal of industrial waste.
Questioning credentials and demanding answers
Ellis
treks out on weekends to pipeline excavation sites (where security has
received orders not to let him pass) and frequently sends the NEB
inquiries accompanied by photos about the pipeline's condition. By his
estimation, there are 35 recent urgent repair sites along the pipeline
where the company performed hydrostatic testing in October. The
Texas-based company's plans to twin the aging pipeline and expand
capacity from 300,000 to 890,000 barrels of oil per day, in his view,
could place British Columbians at risk for a big spill, Ellis told the
Vancouver Observer.
Given
that Coquihalla Canyon is a provincial park area teeming with wildlife
(and only 40 kilometres from Hope), people should be relieved that
Kinder Morgan has been removing the soil and replacing it.
Except
that four months and 600 truckloads later, the company is still taking
out soil, and that leads him to believe something isn't right.
Kinder Morgan spokesperson Andy Galarnyk insisted that "the large
volume of soil removed (from Coquihalla Canyon) was not considered
hazardous waste, but was removed to meet strict clean up criteria
because of its location within a provincial park." The NEB agreed that
its cleanup standards mean removal of soil until it is tested to be
completely safe. Galarnyk added that Ellis "does does not have any experience or qualifications to comment on pipeline operations".
But the bookseller, who has a Masters in Science from UBC and extensively documents the pipeline around the Coquihalla and Kamloops, has raised questions that are getting harder to dismiss.
As safe as it was 60 years ago?
Ellis, a plain-spoken man who readily admits he's no expert, came to prominence after he accurately predicted a Kinder Morgan pipeline spill along the Trans Mountain pipeline near Merritt and Hope one year before it happened. On a pipeline more than 1,000 kilometres long, he had said when and where the it would leak. "It was where high corrosion meets high pressure due to a sudden altitude drop," he said.The Globe and Mail wrote in September that Ellis' "plodding, unrelenting opposition" to the pipeline has started to get noticed, and he's been an on-the-ground source for photos and documentation of Trans Mountain pipeline's aging condition.
While Kinder Morgan CEO Ian Anderson said at a Vancouver Board of Trade event on Tuesday that the pipeline is "just as safe and secure as it was 60 years ago, even more so", Ellis isn't sure it was very secure to begin with.
What he's found in a rare 1954 book, The Building of Trans Mountain: Canada’s first oil pipeline across the Rockies, suggests that the pipeline was made in 1952 with construction methods and materials that would not be acceptable today. There are passages documenting thinner walls along the pipeline to save costs near Hope, where the leak occurred in June. Pipeline walls, it says, were made thinner in the last 12 miles around Hope.
Excerpt from The Building of Trans Mountain, which mentions funds saved by avoiding the need for a heavier wall pipe near Hope.
What's more, he says, the old pipeline doesn't appear to have been very well maintained over the years.
"There's poor maintenance. There are even some areas where tree roots are digging into the Trans Mountain pipe, already weak after 61 years," Ellis said. Tree roots can damage the protective coating around a pipeline and come in direct contact with the steel pipe, causing faster corrosion.
Photos of tree roots along pipeline near Coquihalla by David Ellis
The tragedy of our natural system
Harper's Conservatives fail horribly at conserving wildlife
Posted: Nov 7th, 2013
Environment Ministry only has action plans for seven out of a total of over 500 identified species at risk. Photo from Parks Canada website.
The federal Environment Commissioner, Neil Maxwell, is only acting on an interim basis, and doing his best under the circumstances.
His predecessor, Scott Vaughan, left before his term was up.
Vaughan was diplomatic. He did not say he left out of frustration with the Conservatives’ passive-aggressive approach to the environment.
But his last report sternly took the Conservative government to task for failing to enforce the 1999 Canadian Environmental Protection Act, an act Vaughan called Canada’s principal federal environmental statute.
During Vaughan’s term, the Commissioner’s office, which is part of the Auditor General’s operation, had to examine Canada’s progress in combating global warming.
That was not easy. And the fact that the Conservatives were, at that time, actively seeking to sabotage any progress Canada had made up to that point did not make it easier.
The Harper government withdrew from Kyoto during Vaughan’s tenure. However, the government did not immediately repeal the Kyoto Implementation Act, which the Opposition had forced through during the minority period.
That contradiction created a painful dilemma for Vaughan and his staff, who were bound to hold the government accountable for the law as it existed.
When he released his 2011 report, Vaughan commented that all the lurching changes in environmental rules and legislation were creating confusion, even paralysis, in the federal Environment Ministry.
There was a lack of clear direction and focus, the Commissioner said.
Shocking number on action plans for species at risk
Vaughan’s successor says he continues to find similar levels of bureaucratic confusion among officials responsible for the many and complex aspects of environmental regulation and stewardship.
On Tuesday, Neil Maxwell came out with his 2013 report.
It focused on Canada’s record of compliance with the International Biodiversity Convention (not good) and on the federal government’s success in implementing the Canadian Species at Risk Act (fairly abysmal).
On species at risk, Maxwell provided one pretty shocking number.
He said the Environment Ministry only has action plans for seven out of a total of over 500 identified species at risk.
The Conservatives played theatre-of-the-absurd in reacting to the report and blithely pretended Maxwell had not said anything critical.
In response to questions from the NDP in the House, the new Minister of the Environment, Leona Aglukkaq, cherry-picked a few of Maxwell’s positive comments and claimed the Interim Commissioner had given the government a good grade.
What explains Conservative indifference?
It is no surprise that the Conservative government gets consistently low marks for action on climate change. A new United Nations report is the most recent condemnation of Canada’s laggardly inaction.
That report says that Canada is on track to miss its own 2020 greenhouse gas reduction targets by more than 110 million tonnes. That is a wide miss -- more than 20 per cent off the target.
But while the Harper government is almost boastful about its indifference to the threat of global warming, it does claim that it cares about the more micro-environmental stuff, such as threatened or endangered species.
Why, then, the flagrant lack of action on the Species at Risk Act?
The Interim Commissioner avoids laying blame on either the bureaucrats or their political masters.
But the NDP’s Environment Critic Meagan Leslie sees a connection between species at risk and the climate change file.
Many at-risk species are in territories of intense oil and gas activity, Leslie points out. And this government is nothing if not undyingly loyal to the rich and powerful "extractive sector."
So the greedy rush to expand the tar sands and exploit every oil and gas and mineral opportunity that exists as quickly as possible is not only a threat to the climate, to First Nations’ lands, and to the air and water. It also endangers hundreds of species of birds, mammals and fish.
The Official Opposition has announced that it will make an effort to push for more accountability on the issues Maxwell raises in the House Environment Committee.
But the Conservatives have a majority on the Committee.
We can expect the Conservative Environment Committee members to be courteous and superficially respectful of Maxwell and his staff. But they are not likely to join the push for greater government action in enforcing its own species at risk legislation.
In the near future, the Environment Commissioner is expected to turn his office’s attention to the impact of some of the radical changes in environmental laws this government has wrought. Those changes include dumping the Navigable Waters Act and seriously weakening the Fisheries Act.
The Commissioner’s report on all that should make interesting, if depressing, reading.
This story first appeared in Rabble.ca
His predecessor, Scott Vaughan, left before his term was up.
Vaughan was diplomatic. He did not say he left out of frustration with the Conservatives’ passive-aggressive approach to the environment.
But his last report sternly took the Conservative government to task for failing to enforce the 1999 Canadian Environmental Protection Act, an act Vaughan called Canada’s principal federal environmental statute.
During Vaughan’s term, the Commissioner’s office, which is part of the Auditor General’s operation, had to examine Canada’s progress in combating global warming.
That was not easy. And the fact that the Conservatives were, at that time, actively seeking to sabotage any progress Canada had made up to that point did not make it easier.
The Harper government withdrew from Kyoto during Vaughan’s tenure. However, the government did not immediately repeal the Kyoto Implementation Act, which the Opposition had forced through during the minority period.
When he released his 2011 report, Vaughan commented that all the lurching changes in environmental rules and legislation were creating confusion, even paralysis, in the federal Environment Ministry.
There was a lack of clear direction and focus, the Commissioner said.
Shocking number on action plans for species at risk
Vaughan’s successor says he continues to find similar levels of bureaucratic confusion among officials responsible for the many and complex aspects of environmental regulation and stewardship.
On Tuesday, Neil Maxwell came out with his 2013 report.
It focused on Canada’s record of compliance with the International Biodiversity Convention (not good) and on the federal government’s success in implementing the Canadian Species at Risk Act (fairly abysmal).
On species at risk, Maxwell provided one pretty shocking number.
He said the Environment Ministry only has action plans for seven out of a total of over 500 identified species at risk.
The Conservatives played theatre-of-the-absurd in reacting to the report and blithely pretended Maxwell had not said anything critical.
In response to questions from the NDP in the House, the new Minister of the Environment, Leona Aglukkaq, cherry-picked a few of Maxwell’s positive comments and claimed the Interim Commissioner had given the government a good grade.
What explains Conservative indifference?
It is no surprise that the Conservative government gets consistently low marks for action on climate change. A new United Nations report is the most recent condemnation of Canada’s laggardly inaction.
That report says that Canada is on track to miss its own 2020 greenhouse gas reduction targets by more than 110 million tonnes. That is a wide miss -- more than 20 per cent off the target.
But while the Harper government is almost boastful about its indifference to the threat of global warming, it does claim that it cares about the more micro-environmental stuff, such as threatened or endangered species.
Why, then, the flagrant lack of action on the Species at Risk Act?
The Interim Commissioner avoids laying blame on either the bureaucrats or their political masters.
But the NDP’s Environment Critic Meagan Leslie sees a connection between species at risk and the climate change file.
Many at-risk species are in territories of intense oil and gas activity, Leslie points out. And this government is nothing if not undyingly loyal to the rich and powerful "extractive sector."
So the greedy rush to expand the tar sands and exploit every oil and gas and mineral opportunity that exists as quickly as possible is not only a threat to the climate, to First Nations’ lands, and to the air and water. It also endangers hundreds of species of birds, mammals and fish.
The Official Opposition has announced that it will make an effort to push for more accountability on the issues Maxwell raises in the House Environment Committee.
But the Conservatives have a majority on the Committee.
We can expect the Conservative Environment Committee members to be courteous and superficially respectful of Maxwell and his staff. But they are not likely to join the push for greater government action in enforcing its own species at risk legislation.
In the near future, the Environment Commissioner is expected to turn his office’s attention to the impact of some of the radical changes in environmental laws this government has wrought. Those changes include dumping the Navigable Waters Act and seriously weakening the Fisheries Act.
The Commissioner’s report on all that should make interesting, if depressing, reading.
This story first appeared in Rabble.ca
Thursday, November 7, 2013
Naomi Klein: "...climate scientists say the world is fucked..."
New Statesman, October 29, 3013"In December 2012, a pink-haired complex systems researcher named Brad Werner made his way through the throng of 24,000 earth and space scientists at the Fall Meeting of the American Geophysical Union, held annually in San Francisco. This year’s conference had some big-name participants, from Ed Stone of Nasa’s Voyager project, explaining a new milestone on the path to interstellar space, to the film-maker James Cameron, discussing his adventures in deep-sea submersibles. But it was Werner’s own session that was attracting much of the buzz. It was titled “Is Earth F**ked?” (full title: “Is Earth F**ked? Dynamical Futility of Global Environmental Management and Possibilities for Sustainability via Direct Action Activism”)"...more
Wednesday, November 6, 2013
Whipped senators
Senator Don Plett said, "We had no chance of winning this." He was one of the few who dared vote against Harper's dictum that Senators Duffy, Wallin and Brazeau be suspended without pay.
But, this is not about them now, it's about fifty plus people in a public body in a democratic country who have abandoned their principles for their leader. It's amazing that people of sound mind will allow themselves to be whipped, to come to heel and lick the boots of one man completely dissing their own values.
And we wonder why Canadians don't vote.
But, this is not about them now, it's about fifty plus people in a public body in a democratic country who have abandoned their principles for their leader. It's amazing that people of sound mind will allow themselves to be whipped, to come to heel and lick the boots of one man completely dissing their own values.
And we wonder why Canadians don't vote.
What if
Nuthatch
by Kirsten Dierking
What if a sleek, grey-feathered nuthatch
flew from a tree and offered to perch
on your left shoulder, accompany you
on all your journeys? Nowhere fancy,
just the brief everyday walks, from garage
to house, from house to mailbox, from
the store to your car in the parking lot.
The slight pressure of small claws
clasping your skin, a flutter of wings
every so often at the edge of vision.
And what if he never asked you to be
anything? Wouldn't that be so much
nicer than being alone? So much easier
than trying to think of something to say?
"Nuthatch" by Kirsten Dierking, from Tether. © Spout Press, 2013. Reprinted with permission.
by Kirsten Dierking
What if a sleek, grey-feathered nuthatch
flew from a tree and offered to perch
on your left shoulder, accompany you
on all your journeys? Nowhere fancy,
just the brief everyday walks, from garage
to house, from house to mailbox, from
the store to your car in the parking lot.
The slight pressure of small claws
clasping your skin, a flutter of wings
every so often at the edge of vision.
And what if he never asked you to be
anything? Wouldn't that be so much
nicer than being alone? So much easier
than trying to think of something to say?
"Nuthatch" by Kirsten Dierking, from Tether. © Spout Press, 2013. Reprinted with permission.
Tuesday, November 5, 2013
The Art of Conservation
The Art of Conservation 2013 Exhibit is Now Open.
AFC's Annual Exhibit - The Art of Conservation - has become one of the most highly anticipated events among the nature-inspired art genres. Most artwork is for sale, with a portion of the proceeds pledged by the artist to a conservation organization of their choice.http://www.artistsforconservation.org/virtual-exhibit
It's Time for Canada to be Open for Justice
It's Time for Canada to be Open for Justice
Francisco Tiul Tut, a Guatemalan elder from Chichipate, El Estor, breaks down as his house is burned down during evictions. Photo: James Rodriguez @ mimundo.org
Imagine that your drinking water supply is polluted because of an accident at a gold mine near your community. Where would you turn? Who would compensate you for your losses? What recourse would you have?
All over the world, individuals and communities experience human rights abuses resulting from corporate activity. In many countries though, it is extremely difficult for people to obtain justice when their human rights have been violated - and this is particularly true when the harms are caused by foreign companies or their subsidiaries.
Although state governments have a duty under international human rights law to protect people from corporate human rights abuses - and to ensure that people have access to justice when corporate human rights abuses occur - many states fail to do so.
In the few cases where people from other countries have come to Canada to seek justice for human rights violations caused by Canadian companies, they have not succeeded. This is because the existing mechanisms in Canada to address corporate human rights violations overseas are inaccessible and ineffective.
Specifically, we are calling for:
- An extractive-sector Ombudsperson with the power to independently investigate complaints and make recommendations to corporations and the Government of Canada, and
- Legislated access to Canadian courts for people who have been seriously harmed by the international operations of Canadian companies.
Sunday, November 3, 2013
Harper gives Europe the best of the CETA deal
http://www.ctvnews.ca/business/internal-document-shows-europe-boasting-of-gains-in-canada-free-trade-deal-1.1525183#ixzz2jX4c0Nsr
Canadian Press November 2, 2013
Internal document shows Europe boasting of gains in Canada free-trade deal
Julian Beltrame and Mike Blanchfield
OTTAWA -- A European Union analysis of the just-completed trade agreement
with Canada suggests the EU gained more than it expected -- and might have
settled for less had Ottawa pushed harder.
The internal document, obtained by The Canadian Press, indicates EU
exporters expect to make great inroads in the Canada market. Negotiators
hope the gains can be used to their advantage in other trade negotiations,
including talks with the United States that have just begun.
The Europeans cite bidding on government contracts, as well as shipments of
cheese, wine and spirits, as negotiating victories. The Europeans are also
touting their success in persuading Canada to adopt the use of geographical
indicators to market their goods.
The document also makes clear not all issues have been settled although,
like Canadian officials, the Europeans don't expect major hurdles. A final
text could be "initialled" in a few months.
"In many negotiating areas Canada offered more than it has offered to any
negotiating partner before," says the document.
"This is a very good outcome in its own right, but it will also provide a
solid stepping stone for our negotiations with other partners."
That characterization is similar to claims made by Canadian officials and
government ministers, who have called the deal a win for both exporters and
consumers.
Canadian officials, who have briefed journalists on the condition of
anonymity, have cited unprecedented access for Canada on services,
investment and procurement as major concessions that were won from the
Europeans.
"The Canada-EU trade agreement is a win-win," said Rudy Husny, spokesman
for Trade Minister Ed Fast.
"Canadian businesses, workers and investors stand to benefit immensely from
the $12 billion in annual economic growth and the 80,000 new jobs this
agreement is forecasted to create."
But the European document is unique in claiming to have won concessions
beyond their expectations.
The Europeans are particularly pleased about realizing all their goals in
the area of geographic indicators or GIs, those products named for their
origins, such as Gorgonzola or Feta cheeses.
"Canada -- not traditionally a friend of GIs -- has accepted that all types
of food products will be protected at a comparable level to that offered by
EU law and that additional GIs can be added in the future," says the
document, noting 125 of Europe's 145 "priority GIs" will enjoy full protection.
On cheeses, the document notes existing Canadian products are
grandfathered, but new entrants will need to be identified by such
modifiers as "style," "type" or "imitation."
The paper suggests winning the GI battle will give European manufacturers a
significant leg up when competing with Canadian producers of similar products.
It also revels in Canada's concession to extend patent protection on
brand-name drugs by up to two years, although it makes clear that their
negotiators were trying for the EU standard of five years.
"This is an important and unprecedented concession from Canada in the area
of intellectual property rights."
A report by two university researchers this week estimated the cost to
Canadians from delaying introduction of cheaper generic medicines will
likely range between $800 million and $1.65 billion, once the patents on
new drugs expire starting in 2023.
Prime Minister Stephen Harper has acknowledged that the cheese and
pharmaceuticals sectors might be adversely affected in the short term by
the agreement. He has also said the government will consider compensation
for the cheese makers and the provinces, which would bear the brunt of
higher drug costs.
One of the priorities for the Europeans was to gain access to lucrative
provincial and municipal government procurement contracts. The EU did not
obtain full entry into all areas, but the document makes clear negotiators
are more than satisfied with the results.
"As regard market access, the Canadian offer is the most ambitious and
comprehensive Canada has so far made to a third country," it says.
"For the first time, Canadian provinces and municipalities will open their
procurement to a foreign partner, going well beyond what Canada has offered
(before)."
The document says the issue was particularly difficult to negotiate and was
unresolved until both sides gave on the issue of rolling stock for
public-transport systems.
Ontario and Quebec accepted a substantially lower local content exclusion
to 25 per cent, and to expand the concept of "local content" to "local
value," and to include labour, assembly and maintenance in what EU
suppliers can provide.
The document also makes clear that discussions of financial services went
down to the wire, with both sides putting some water in their wine.
Canada did win a so-called prudential carve-out, meaning federal officials
can continue to regulate banks to dissuade them against risky behaviour of
the type that brought down Wall Street and European banks in 2008-09.
But Ottawa would need to demonstrate before a "financial services
committee" that its actions were indeed to reduce risks and contagion,
rather than a back-door attempt to restrict competition.
The paper also claims victory over removing several non-tariff irritants
and add-on service fees imposed on their exports of wine and spirits, which
it says should "further increase the EU market share of the Canadian wine
and spirit sector."
The document notes on several occasions that final details remain to be
worked out, particularly on the speed by which certain tariffs will be
eliminated, particularly in agriculture.
It says negotiations on sustainable development, particularly dealing with
environmental and labour standards, still need to be worked out but expects
the issues to be resolved along the "EU approach."
"The overall deal represents an excellent outcome of significant economic
value to European companies, consumers and households," the paper concludes.
--
Canadian Press November 2, 2013
Internal document shows Europe boasting of gains in Canada free-trade deal
Julian Beltrame and Mike Blanchfield
OTTAWA -- A European Union analysis of the just-completed trade agreement
with Canada suggests the EU gained more than it expected -- and might have
settled for less had Ottawa pushed harder.
The internal document, obtained by The Canadian Press, indicates EU
exporters expect to make great inroads in the Canada market. Negotiators
hope the gains can be used to their advantage in other trade negotiations,
including talks with the United States that have just begun.
The Europeans cite bidding on government contracts, as well as shipments of
cheese, wine and spirits, as negotiating victories. The Europeans are also
touting their success in persuading Canada to adopt the use of geographical
indicators to market their goods.
The document also makes clear not all issues have been settled although,
like Canadian officials, the Europeans don't expect major hurdles. A final
text could be "initialled" in a few months.
"In many negotiating areas Canada offered more than it has offered to any
negotiating partner before," says the document.
"This is a very good outcome in its own right, but it will also provide a
solid stepping stone for our negotiations with other partners."
That characterization is similar to claims made by Canadian officials and
government ministers, who have called the deal a win for both exporters and
consumers.
Canadian officials, who have briefed journalists on the condition of
anonymity, have cited unprecedented access for Canada on services,
investment and procurement as major concessions that were won from the
Europeans.
"The Canada-EU trade agreement is a win-win," said Rudy Husny, spokesman
for Trade Minister Ed Fast.
"Canadian businesses, workers and investors stand to benefit immensely from
the $12 billion in annual economic growth and the 80,000 new jobs this
agreement is forecasted to create."
But the European document is unique in claiming to have won concessions
beyond their expectations.
The Europeans are particularly pleased about realizing all their goals in
the area of geographic indicators or GIs, those products named for their
origins, such as Gorgonzola or Feta cheeses.
"Canada -- not traditionally a friend of GIs -- has accepted that all types
of food products will be protected at a comparable level to that offered by
EU law and that additional GIs can be added in the future," says the
document, noting 125 of Europe's 145 "priority GIs" will enjoy full protection.
On cheeses, the document notes existing Canadian products are
grandfathered, but new entrants will need to be identified by such
modifiers as "style," "type" or "imitation."
The paper suggests winning the GI battle will give European manufacturers a
significant leg up when competing with Canadian producers of similar products.
It also revels in Canada's concession to extend patent protection on
brand-name drugs by up to two years, although it makes clear that their
negotiators were trying for the EU standard of five years.
"This is an important and unprecedented concession from Canada in the area
of intellectual property rights."
A report by two university researchers this week estimated the cost to
Canadians from delaying introduction of cheaper generic medicines will
likely range between $800 million and $1.65 billion, once the patents on
new drugs expire starting in 2023.
Prime Minister Stephen Harper has acknowledged that the cheese and
pharmaceuticals sectors might be adversely affected in the short term by
the agreement. He has also said the government will consider compensation
for the cheese makers and the provinces, which would bear the brunt of
higher drug costs.
One of the priorities for the Europeans was to gain access to lucrative
provincial and municipal government procurement contracts. The EU did not
obtain full entry into all areas, but the document makes clear negotiators
are more than satisfied with the results.
"As regard market access, the Canadian offer is the most ambitious and
comprehensive Canada has so far made to a third country," it says.
"For the first time, Canadian provinces and municipalities will open their
procurement to a foreign partner, going well beyond what Canada has offered
(before)."
The document says the issue was particularly difficult to negotiate and was
unresolved until both sides gave on the issue of rolling stock for
public-transport systems.
Ontario and Quebec accepted a substantially lower local content exclusion
to 25 per cent, and to expand the concept of "local content" to "local
value," and to include labour, assembly and maintenance in what EU
suppliers can provide.
The document also makes clear that discussions of financial services went
down to the wire, with both sides putting some water in their wine.
Canada did win a so-called prudential carve-out, meaning federal officials
can continue to regulate banks to dissuade them against risky behaviour of
the type that brought down Wall Street and European banks in 2008-09.
But Ottawa would need to demonstrate before a "financial services
committee" that its actions were indeed to reduce risks and contagion,
rather than a back-door attempt to restrict competition.
The paper also claims victory over removing several non-tariff irritants
and add-on service fees imposed on their exports of wine and spirits, which
it says should "further increase the EU market share of the Canadian wine
and spirit sector."
The document notes on several occasions that final details remain to be
worked out, particularly on the speed by which certain tariffs will be
eliminated, particularly in agriculture.
It says negotiations on sustainable development, particularly dealing with
environmental and labour standards, still need to be worked out but expects
the issues to be resolved along the "EU approach."
"The overall deal represents an excellent outcome of significant economic
value to European companies, consumers and households," the paper concludes.
--
Saturday, November 2, 2013
BCCLA and Farewell Found keep working to get us the right to die by our own terms
Dying with Dignity appealed to Supreme Court
The BCCLA has filed for leave to appeal to the Supreme Court of Canada for the right to choose an assisted death.
In a rare move, the BCCLA has also asked the Court to fast-track its decision to hear the case and to speed up the timeline for hearing the appeal if the Court grants leave.
Elayne Shapray, one of nine witnesses in our trial before the BC Supreme Court has stepped into the public fight for the right to die with dignity. She is the latest in a long line of brave terminally and incurably ill Canadians asking the court to remedy this indefensible prohibition.
Learn more about the case here.
The BCCLA has filed for leave to appeal to the Supreme Court of Canada for the right to choose an assisted death.
In a rare move, the BCCLA has also asked the Court to fast-track its decision to hear the case and to speed up the timeline for hearing the appeal if the Court grants leave.
Elayne Shapray, one of nine witnesses in our trial before the BC Supreme Court has stepped into the public fight for the right to die with dignity. She is the latest in a long line of brave terminally and incurably ill Canadians asking the court to remedy this indefensible prohibition.
Learn more about the case here.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)