Morning Coffee

Reading what comes in via email reflects the world we live in precisely. First one. Several are responding to a letter and a report designed for the same audience. I wrote one them. The purpose of both is to ask for more money from the organization’s supporters and they differ in how to do it. The matter needs action and a further discussion will determine the direction. One view is that a more folksy and emotional approach works better. Another is that maybe we shouldn’t be too forward in asking for money since we will want to do it again later in the fall. Meanwhile the organization is surviving by drawing down its shrinking endowment. The meeting happens tomorrow night,

A second comes from the admirable George Monbiot of the Guardian. The newspaper’s online communications arrive for free and I generally support them occasionally. There is always an ask - and today’s suggestion is that it could start at as little as $2 a month or a one time donation. That’s a rather good way to put it. Is it time to send through the $25 that I occasionally give, with a reminder that I value this organization each month about the same as I do as one cup of my morning coffee. Can do both without sacrifice is a bit ridiculous? Monbiot’s article surrounding this appeal notes the same thing that I did in my previous post. The weight and seriousness of the climate emergency competes with lots of trivia about an affair of a British film producer with 10,000 recent new items - contrasted with five for a serious science report - trivia always wins. The media world is not the real world, but we believe it is. As he says, celebrity gossip is always more important than existential risk,

Third there’s Gas Busters. This is a group that wants to ban gas powered leaf blowers. Most people complain about the noise - and I join them there. I think much less about the air pollution they cause. The Toronto City Council voted to pursue a ban - not pass it even yet. At least that is better than doing nothing, but I am now asked to do more writing to City Councilors and staff. Anther item for the task list.

Then there is the organization of seniors working on climate action - now. They have a coming meeting that conflicts with one of my own. A report of a subcommittee focuses on the allocated number of members, and says that a person who recently volunteered will be excluded because of lack of experience with this spsecific organization. What if that person was one that turned up unexpectedly once in my world - who had just retired as chief geologist for the provincial government. We’ll never know - being a current member matters more. There is also a complaint about more men than women on the committee - six to four. A financial report indicates $65. in new memberships. That means 15 of them, because one of them at $5 per year was mine. Even for a very new organization, Five dollars a year isn’t enough to make it go anywhere,

What comes through is how easily we are distracted by incoming news all with the organizational appeals - and all arguing the side issues, which saves us from having to act on matters we think are important or support them. And the health of the institution or group always ends up at the forefront, not the causes they espouse. How do create our personal priorities? They matter. I might need a second coffee to sort out my own.

Importance

We’re influenced by what we read. We certainly know that newspapers are biased and we are likely to choose ones that correspond to at least some of our values, as well as hoping for a degree of objectivity in actual news items. I’m glad that the ones I read make it clear whether an article is news or opinion.

But what about items that appear as actual news? The Washington Post sends me a daily summary of the seven top stories of the day, They appear below:

1.Ukraine has started firing a controversial U.S. weapon at Russian forces.

2. We are living through Earth’s hottest month on record.

3. A nationwide UPS strike appears increasingly likely.

4. Seven big tech companies agreed to alert people to AI-generated content.

5. Ancient soil from Greenland suggests some of its ice could disappear

6. The U.S. plays its first game at the women’s World Cup tonight.

7.The biggest movie weekend of the year is here: It’s time for Barbenheimer. (Barbie plus Oppenheimer).

And here are some questions about the ordering:

• Which ones have implications for our long term future? What would that order be?

• Which ones show the priorities of our culture?

• How would I number these in order of importance? I’ll let you decide for yourself. To do so says much about what we value as we skim over the realities of our universe.

Faster

“A report published in Nature on the last day of May concluded that we have already exceeded seven of eight “safe and just Earth system boundaries” that it studied—from groundwater supplies and fertilizer overuse to temperature. “We are moving in the wrong direction on basically all of these,” Johan Rockström, the paper’s lead author and the director of the Potsdam Institute for Climate Impact Research, told reporters.”

The date was 1972 and the report was published by the Club of Rome with the title, “Limits to Growth”. A year ago there was a 50th year anniversary gathering called “Beyond Growth” with very low attendance - but for one this year, thousands packed the EU meeting rooms. We are starting to accept the reality that that we have already exceeded seven of eight “safe and just Earth system boundaries” and we are moving in the wrong direction without knowing how to stop.

We hear often that the solution is Green Energy - forgetting that the creation of new systems takes energy to produce the required minerals. Hello Mining. Bill McKibbon suggests that maybe we have to slow down, returning to the lifestyle of the 60s “consume less, travel less, build less, eat less wastefully.” He has also been a fan of Green Energy, realizing that its growth creates local problems. Clean energy does not mean clean production, and those who produce it usually live closest to the environmental degradation it causes. Those of us who live well are the ones that are going to have to learn to live more simply - and that means a different ethic than the one of More - Now.

To stabilize the earth’s temperature:

• Reduce passenger car transport by 81%.

• Limit per-person air travel to one trip per year.

• Decrease living space per person by 25%.

• Decrease meat consumption in rich countries by 60%.

Sounds rather like my life in the 60’s - and a happy one it was. Slowing down might be more attractive if it would lessen the world from heating up - which it is.

Rights

I spent some of last week indoors to avoid air pollution and was reduced to watching a national joint conference of two large denominations live-streaming their sessions. Since I had been onsite at one event in the past it was interesting to see what was on the agenda.

One of the motions had to do with rights of all Canadians to clean water. No one would deny these in theory; we still have a long way to go in practice. Like many of the motions, this one had to do with social justice. It brings up a question for all of us as the last species to arrive. Is justice exclusively social justice? The eco-theologian Thomas Berry, who preferred to call himself an eco-geologian to avoid too much prying from the Roman Catholic church - especially since he was a remember of a religious order as well as a professor, asked the question. Does water itself have rights? We pretend that corporations are persons in terms of rights. Why not natural elements - soil, water, air? Berry looked at the importance of water for survival of all creatures, human and otherwise, in the Hudson Valley where he lived for many years. He also wondered about our ability to change the course of water by creating dams for our own convenience.

He would be pleased by one Canadian story.

“In February 2021, the world was introduced to Mutehekau Shipu — also known as the Magpie River — when the people of Ekuanitshit, Que. and the regional municipality made a joint declaration granting the river legal personhood and rights.”

Our first nations brothers and sisters have understood this instinctively until we took many away from the parents as children and placed them in residential schools. We act as though we have just awakened to something they have always known. It’s time for us to be their students and sit on the ground with humility.

How we live

I’m looking at an article in the New York Times. “How countries can get richer without wrecking the planet”.  Note the two parts here.  We at least know now that we are wrecking the planet just by looking out the window at the smoke from fires many kilometers or miles away. But the article takes it for granted that somehow we can have it all anyway and being richer will make us happier. Neither need be questioned.

The article goes on to state that it’s a conflict between accumulating wealth and. preserving nature. It adds our need to lift people out of poverty - as though accumulating wealth is going to do that – and that the rich will always share with the poor. Researchers at the World Bank think they have found a way.  Well good for them. Let’s see how it is to be done.

• Farming more intensively and in appropriate places

• Preserving more areas of forests that stash planet warming carbon

• Supporting biodiversity

“Suppose you used all the resources that you have more efficiently” – says the lead economist. “How much could you produce?” Countries could sequester lots of carbon dioxide without denting economic growth. Or they could increase annual income from forestry and agriculture for food needs without damaging the environment. Preserving land and water helps the economy and nature at the same time.

Producing more food on smaller plots sounds good. Was Monsanto consulted on that one and will they be happy to give up their land? Small farmers, few as they are, will like that. It continues to sound good until others warn there might be unintended consequences. Perhaps they have studied those caused by the industrial revolution. The mention how one country increased agricultural productivity but contaminated the adjacent waterways. In another case, increasing land efficiency meant that there were more land grabs of protected ones.  Reducing garbage or eating less beef were not among the efficiencies. We still want it all – and we have a master-slave relationship with nature.  That’s not something noticed in the report - or by most of us most of the time.