Choices

“We need character in order to extract the useful.” So said Robert Genn, a visual artist of note, who inspired me to write twice weekly as he did for years. He was born the same year as I was, but is now coming to us from the beyond through the reprints of his original messages since his death, curated by his artist daughter, Sara Genn.

Robert was originally writing about the distraction of haikus coming from other - which he proposed to alter as “eyekus” visual moments. I like that idea, but I also liked the quote I started with here. Robert wrote about life as well as art.

And there is a good deal to extract today. The balance between news and opinion in journalism is at least noted in the better press. I do pay attention to both. This morning’s New York Times, has lots of both from opinion writers that I do follow.

Tom Friedman thinks that Biden could be proved right re Afghanistan. He points out the fallacy of thinking that the Afghans needed to be taught to be fighters when they had resisted invasions by others for decades. He points out “In oft-occupied countries like Afghanistan, many people will actually prefer their own people as rulers (however awful) over foreigners (however well intentioned).” He goes on to say that we shouldn’t make judgments on “the morning after”, but wait for the “morning after the morning after”. We’ll be distracted by the chaos there now, which indeed is appalling, but the outcome cannot be determined immediately.

Then I moved on to The Bad Economics of Fossil Fuel Defenders, by the economist, Paul Krugman - another favorite, who makes economics understandable and relevant. He gives us four reasons not to believe the objectors to climate crisis proposals. First, the economy has always done better under Democratic party leadership. Second, when governments increase environmental protection, the costs never increase as much as expected, because businesses are spurred to innovate. Third, “history strongly refutes the notion that there’s any necessary link between economic growth and greenhouse gas emissions”. Last, we don’t need to depend on fossil fuels when renewable energies are growing, while decreasing in cost.

Money is part of the story; he notes “in the 2020 election cycle Republicans received 84 percent of political contributions from the oil and gas industry and 96 percent of contributions from coal mining. Perhaps that’s why it has become part of a culture war. And as Canadians are now in election mode, perhaps I should check on similar patterns in a national party here, that did not allow “Climate change is real” to become part of its platform.

There was a positive story in the Times as well about fighting environmental racism. Community organizers prevented a pipeline to run through predominantly black communities. Environmental spills had been all too common in the company’s safety record. Pollution is higher in neighborhoods inhabited by people of colour everywhere and it has to stop. The story ended on a positive note:

“What happened in Memphis this year is an example of how historically powerless people can work together to interrupt a pattern of environmental racism that has been in place for more than a century and a half. It’s also an example of why everyone else should care.”

These extractions were useful among lots of distractions!

Better for some

I came across an update of the “If the World were 100 persons” the other day. It is still five years out of date but it was interesting to compare with figures for an earlier period. Here is what they show:

2016  (For comparison purposes similar figures for 1999 in brackets)

If the World were 100 PEOPLE:

50 would be female  (52)
50 would be male   (48)

25 would be children
There would be 75 adults, 9 of whom would be 65 and older

There would be:
60 Asians  (57)
16 Africans  (8)
14 people from the Americas (14)
10 Europeans   (21)

31 Christians  (30)
23 Muslims
16 people who would not be aligned with a religion
15 Hindus
7 Buddhists
8 people who practice other religions       (70 would be non-Christian)

12 would speak Chinese
6 would speak Spanish
5 would speak English
4 would speak Hindi
3 would speak Arabic
3 would speak Bengali
3 would speak Portuguese
2 would speak Russian
2 would speak Japanese
60 would speak other languages

86 would be able to read and write; 14 would not  (70 would be unable to read in 1999)

7 would have a college degree  (1 would have a college degree in 1999)
40 would have an Internet connection  (1 would own a computer in 1999)

78 people would have a place to shelter them
from the wind and the rain, but 22 would not  (80 would live in in substandard housing)

1 would be dying of starvation  
11 would be undernourished  (50 would be suffering from malnutrition)
22 would be overweight

91 would have access to safe drinking water
9 people would have no clean, safe water to drink

 (6 people would possess 59% of the world’s wealth and all would be American in 1999)

But the important reminder is the map at the top of the page. Those of us who live in the wealthy countries are shielded from the realities of the rest of the world.

True Cost

When a cargo ship was stuck in the Suez Canal. we saw many pictures and got a sense of how big these vessels are. They are loaded with containers and we may not think who those containers are carrying and where they are going. Two US based not-for-profits decided to find out.

The study, prepared by Stand.earth and Pacific Environment found that most of the items were headed for 15 major retail companies. Here is an indication of the damage:

“Collectively, the top importers of U.S. goods are responsible for emitting as much sulfur oxide, nitrous oxide, and particulate matter as tens of millions of U.S. vehicles every year. These emissions are some of the most dangerous and deadly types of air pollutants, contributing to asthma, cancer, and premature death, and increasing the mortality risk from respiratory-based illnesses like COVID-19.”

Here are some of the names and the impacts:

“Walmart, for example, was responsible for 3.7 million metric tons of climate pollution from its shipping practices in 2019, more than an entire coal-fired power plant emits in a year. Target, IKEA, Amazon, and eleven other companies were also investigated.”

According to the study, there are 55,000 merchant ships on the water and the number is growing. All of them but one (noted elsewhere as the first electric merchant ship) use fossil fuels. It’s a reminder that our consumer life style does not take the full cost to the atmosphere into account. What is even worse is that the poorest among us are the ones most likely to live closest to the pollution along the shipping routes.

We often feel helpless. But we can tell them we know what is happening and challenge them to deal with it. We can buy elsewhere - and we can buy less.

Trades transitioning

Here’s an encouraging story published by Fast Company.

“Danish renewable energy giant Ørsted reached an agreement with North America’s Building Trades Unions: The company would hire union members for a series of upcoming U.S. projects. NABTU represents 3 million workers in 14 unions, including electrical, bricklaying, cement, masonry, and more—a group historically skeptical of renewable energy because of its potential to disrupt members’ jobs. “

It deals with three matters that are frequently stumbling blocks. The workers are more than capable of bullding things. They just have to learn how to build something different and have the training provided to do so with proper earnings as they make the transition. The wages that they earn in the new jobs will be comparable to the ones they earned in previous occupations. And to sweeten the deal they will also have added benefits. These transitions are apparently common in Europe. It is time for North American companies to imitate these elements which seem obvious.

Armchair Quarterbacking

The morning news pundits and reporters raise several issues that they are complaining about today, leading me to wonder how they would actually manage them better. I doubt that I could and suspect that they wouldn’t do any better. But I can sometimes reframe the questions. What are the ones they raise for me?

• Is the CEO of one of the country’s large bank the person in the best position to tell the government not to give too much money to the poor and needy? Does he know what having no income at all feels like?

• Does rioting in Northern Ireland solve its problems relating to Brexit?

• Who should be vaccinated first?

• Since distribution policies are causing vaccine surpluses in some communities, while others who need them have no access, are there better ways to fulfil distribution?

• Is anyone looking at ordinary Americans need guns at all, rather than chipping away at ways to reduce their use?

• Why are provinces in Canada denying sick pay and sending people to the federal government - when the federal government program doesn’t cover the income lost through sickness, doesn’t allow application until after the pay is lost, and has a difficult enrollment process to obtain it?

• Why, when parts of the world despair of having enough vaccines, does a Canadian company that wants to produce them, have such a difficult time to get government support to do so?

• Why did a prime minister let his family support a charity so obviously involved with celebrity star power?

• Why were big box stores allowed to sell anything but essential items in the first place during the entire pandemic?

• If we want to reduce carbon emissions from cars, why aren’t we looking at how other countries have produced such cars at lower cost?

• Why haven’t public health communications looked more closely at human behaviour patterns?

• Why do corporations get away with paying low taxes or no taxes?

I haven’t easy answers to any of these. And therein lies a tale. Most of us spend little or no time on thinking about any of these. That means that we let others muddle through when the possibility of better answers depends on the engagement and determination of all of us to create better answers. These are opportunities missed.