My writings - and those of others.
Pro and Con
We live in interesting times. Who knew that ethical issues are now mainstream? Should vaccinations be mandatory when one side insists on individual freedom while another thinks that responsibility for public health concerns come first? Should news media give equal space to two sides of any argument whether they contain true or false information? If more people get their news from social media, should it be monitored by the platforms that own it?
But another interesting one concerns lobbying. The government of the Canadian province of Alberta has recently spent $3.5 million to explore perceived lobbying by others to work against extracting oil from its oil sands - which used to be called tar sands before that sounded like an unpleasant black thick substance. Among those caught in the net is respected environmentalist Bill McKibben. He is apparently mentioned several times in the soon to be published report and is given a chance to respond. He does so in a New Yorker article titled, No, Alberta, Don’t Be Sad. We Love You. Really.
He wants to make it clear that he is not against Alberta itself - which the study seems to insinuate. What he is concerned about is the burning of the large amount of fossil fuel that the province still has in the ground - about 173 billion barrels, he says. That would create 112 billion tons of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere - 28% of the world’s remaining carbon budget set by the Paris accord. We live in a country with less than 1% of the world’s population and McKibben stresses the unfairness of that use by a single province of it. The world has gradually become aware of the situation and the potential damage.
McKibben is quick to point out that he has been part of the process of questioning the ethics of this use, but that Alberta has not been the only place on the radar of 350.org the company he founded. Its name was named after 350 parts per million — the safe concentration of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere. In June 2021 were already at 418.94 parts per million, up from 416.60 in June 2020. Since 2009, 350.0rg has advocated for a reduction of fossil fuel use all over the world - not just for Alberta.
And Alberta itself is starting to see the perils of climate change within its own borders. It’s normal to feel resentment when it has taken us so long to see the impact and understand the cause. but what if that same $3.5 million had been allocated to new possibilities rather than trying to live in the past?
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.
Taking the Heat
On this Canada Day there are two images of life here:
People in Litton, British Columbia, trying to cope with the highest temperature ever recorded in the country and one the hottest places in the world - 49.6 degrees Centigrade and 121 degrees Fahrenheit. Why is this happening in a mountainous region where on a previous visit, I saw snow in the middle of summer on the heights of some of the nearby mountains?
Because - as Scientist Eric Holthaus writes in The Guardian,
“Climate change is not just warming the surface of the planet, it’s warming Earth’s entire troposphere – the lowest layer of the atmosphere where all our weather occurs. That’s particularly true in mountainous areas, where temperatures are rising even faster than elsewhere. When snow and ice recedes or even disappears from mountains, the bare soil beneath can warm unimpeded. A 2015 study found that mountainous areas above 2,000 meters (6,500ft) are warming about 75% faster than places at lower elevations.”
And the other image:
Churches are burning. It’s no accident that they are Roman Catholic Churches near First Nations Reserves. Another story this morning reveals even more unmarked graves of residential schools. The searches are only beginning and the lack of response of one of the perpetrator churches is mounting. It is an answer but not the best one. Mourning will not give way to dancing while The Indian Act is still in place. It prohibited not only dancing but any recognition that the sacred practice of anyone outside the settlers’ cultures was suspect. The result was cultural genocide.
I spent yesterday reading “21 Things you Didn’t know about the Indian Act”. You can watch this video (you can move ahead from the introduction a bit),
This one from TVO is also good - and shorter.
Soil and its importance
A few years ago our balcony railing structures were replaced. This meant that balcony contents had to be removed, including planters that I had brought full of soil from a previous residence. Several bags of soil went into the garbage. because the containers had to be empty to carry to a storage locker. This year, when I tried to replace potting soil, I had to go to several places before I could find the right size bags to carry. Home gardens have become increasingly important as we move beyond the pandemic.
We hear a lot about air pollution and water pollution. I didn’t think seriously about soil pollution and soil loss until I read a couple of recent articles. Organic gardening is a term we have heard about - but regenerative agriculture is less familiar.
As someone who grew up in Western Ontario, my family took Sunday drives into some of the most beautiful family farm lands in Canada. As a pre-teen I even got to visit and work on a farm and drive a tractor in a field. We’re all too aware of industrial farming and the dangers of pesticides - but agriculture as a source of CO2 isn’t something we reckon with. Some are starting to do so, by recognizing that agriculture contributes 25%. The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change says: “Leveraging the mitigation potential in the Agriculture, Forestry and Other Land Use sector is extremely important in meeting emission reduction targets.”
Rodale Institute says. We have proven that organic agriculture and, specifically, regenerative organic agriculture can sequester carbon from the atmosphere and reverse climate change.
There are several ways this can happen:
Decrease or eliminate plowing and tilling. These compact the soil and release too much CO2
Plant diverse crops, as opposed to huge single crop plantings
Rotate and cover crops. Protect and cover crops rather than letting them leech nutrients.
Kiss the Ground, a restorative agriculture not-for profit says: “If regenerative means: ‘renewal, restoration, and growth of cells, organisms, and ecosystems,’ or ‘renewal or restoration of a body, bodily part, or biological system (as in a forest) after injury or as a normal process,’ then regenerative agriculture is agriculture that is doing just that.”
We are not here to exploit the soil. We are here to learn that health of the soil is essential to our own health - and the health of the planet.