Sometimes studies help

How often do we read of reports and studies and know that all the time put in is probably wasted. They sit on a shelf for a while and then are forgotten as personnel change or recommendations seem impossible because of the cost. I was involved with one such study some years ago in which the cost estimate was $40,000. Ouch, we said - and asked how long could we delay implementing the study recommendation. The answer came back as two to three years. We did nothing. I later left the volunteer post. Recently I hears there was water damage for an estimated starting cost of $13,000 with another $30,000 or $40,000 to follow. Some years ago we had the money in the bank to proceed. Now after shutdown and other events, we no longer have it.

I was glad, therefore, to read about a study that seems to have some practical implications for something I know nothing about - except for eating salmon. I am joined by the people of the Wiulinkinuxv First Nation on Rivers Inlet BC and some grizzly bears who depend upon it for survival. The latter animals are magnificent and I saw some at close range when travelling in the Yukon fourteen years ago. One actually stood up suddenly on hind legs, but we missed the photo op.

In this case, the study looks at how a resource under pressure can be managed to benefit an entire system. Both the community and the bears depend on salmon for food. Over- fishing can deplete the stocks. Twenty five years ago commercial fishing did just that.

What was used was a new approach called ecosystem-based management. It quantifies the relationship of how much use can be made of a food resource for humans and bears without jeopardizing the salmon population in the future. At one point the location had plenteous resources of fish, but overdoing commercial fishing depleted the stock and put the people who lived there in danger from starving bears coming too close. Commercial fishing was halted.

The researcher started working with the community to gather hairs from barbed wire fences that the bears left behind. Isotopes from those hairs allowed the researcher to determine what percentage of salmon was part of the bears’ diet. Over time that percentage created a formula published this week in the Journal, Marine and Coastal Fisheries - (not my normal weekend reading, of course. I learned about it from The Globe and Mail). The researcher, Dr. Megan Adams, spent seven years to see if the bears were gradually able to consume more fish. What it showed was that if the local population reduced fishing by 10% the bears could gain the same amount and be healthy. Since commercial fishing stopped, the stocks have returned - but not at a level to resume commercial fishing.

There are lots of studies that probably please other academics, but have little functional application to make life better for both humans and grizzly bears. Bravo for this one.

What Freedom Means

We don’t have a line in our national anthem such as “the land of the free and the home of the brave” as our neighbors to the south have. But it is certainly causing more problems in America than in Canada over the right to be free from vaccinations. After a slow start, Canadians are now ahead with nearly 60% fully vaccinated and 71% with one dose according to Covid-19 Tracker Canada. 26,601 have died since the beginning of the pandemic as opposed to 613,000 in the US. Ours is roughly a tenth of the US population.

Yes, we have unvaccinated people - some who oppose for supposedly religious reasons, some with difficulty of access. But generally people have been supportive and appreciative of the opportunity to contribute to their own health and that of others. When restrictions are lifted quickly, some are quick to object to the speed of it.

Contrast that with Florida where 10,000 are currently in the hospital. Its governor insists that “the left are coming for your freedom” if anyone thinks that regulations should be tighter. Freedom is about personal choice.

Sometimes of course we are highly selective about personal choice. The Canadian government more than a hundred years ago thought that it could convert its first nations population to its own cultural values and exerted its privilege. It’s taken us a long time to realize that was wrong. We can argue about the size of government, but in some circumstances we recognize a responsibility to introduce policies that protect the majority of people. As Paul Krugman observes in a column in the New York Times this morning:

“Well, driving drunk is also a personal choice. But almost everyone understands that it’s a personal choice that endangers others; 97 percent of the public considers driving while impaired by alcohol a serious problem. Why don’t we have the same kind of unanimity on refusing to get vaccinated, a choice that helps perpetuate the pandemic and puts others at risk?”

It appears that carrots - like $100 for laggards - are not working - and the previous compliant ones don’t see why their tax dollars should support such practice. What does seem to have an effect are sticks like consequences. You can be as unvaccinated as you want, but expect that to affect your ability to come to work, to enter a theatre, bar or arena, or avoid being tested a couple of times a week with an unpleasant procedure. It’s not only freedom lovers who get to make the rules.

Krugman goes on to say that “freedom” often just means “privilege” for people who are also white, male and sometimes Christian. Freedom can never be divorced from responsibility or consequence.

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?

Removing Alienation

While researching a different subject, I came across this quotation from Thomas Berry. It relates to what we have to learn from our First Nations brothers and sisters:

“Religion, we must remember, is born out of a sense of wonder and awe of the majesty and fearsomeness of the universe itself. . . . At present we are completely encompassed by the world of human artifice.

The alienation from the natural world deprives us of the immediacy and intimacy with the natural world that we observe in indigenous peoples the world over. In their immediacy with the natural wonders of the world about them, these people have an intimate relationship to the sacred as manifest throughout the planet. The world is attractive yet threatening, benign yet fearsome. Divine powers enable fruits, berries, nuts and vegetation to come forth. These same powers bring the monsoon rains and the withering desert winds, the arctic chill, temperate warmth and tropical heat. These experiences evoke in the human soul a sense of mystery and admiration, veneration and worship. This is beyond what is sometimes called nature worship.”

- The Sacred Universe, p. 82

We need to relearn to to encounter nature as a subject to be respected not an object to be exploited. In spite of all we have done to hamper indigenous teachings, they have remained and are being taught to new generations who will honor them.

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.