To read the Royal Bank’s website, one might confuse this commercial goliath with the Sierra Club or Friends of the Earth. A bank that in 2006 had a net income of $4,6 billion presents itself as the Jolly Green Giant of corporate Canada. Its “Environmental Blueprint” is 12 pages in length and talks of RBC’s commitment to climate change, biodiversity, forests, indigenous peoples and our water supply.” And it boasts that it has been named one of the world’s top 100 sustainable companies, the first Canadian bank listed on the Dow Jones Sustainability Index and is Canada’s most respected corporation for the fourth year in a row.
President and CEO Gordon M. Nixon stated that RBC’s corporate responsibility can be seen in, among other things (how we) “support environmental sustainability”. One problem. Mr. Nixon is the same man who spoke in favour of an RBC report in October of 2005 to raise immigration levels from 260 to 400,000 immigrants annually. The environmental cost of our current level of a quarter million immigrants a year, not to mention the levels Mr. Nixon advocates, is manifest.
Urban growth has devoured up to one fifth of the country’s Class 1 farmland, threatened perhaps more than two thirds of its endangered species and paved over wetlands. What propels this urban growth was suggested by a $3 million federally commissioned report submitted in 1997 by UBC’s Dr. Michael Healey entitled “Prospects for Sustainability”. It called for an immigration moratorium and Population Plan to rescue the ecosystems of the Fraser Valley and similar regions across Canada from immigrant-driven growth. He pointed out the federal Department of Immigration and federal Department of the Environment were working at cross purposes. Today it is guesstimated that perhaps 70% of all housing units built in the sprawling extensions of Canada’s major cities are occupied by immigrants, but in Greater Vancouver that figure is more like 85%. Inter-provincial migration cannot be the convenient scapegoat for sprawl that immigrationists contend it is if the facts are faced. 1.08% annual population growth, the highest of all G8 countries, clearly has Canada’s biodiversity up against the ropes, while Kyoto targets simply cannot be met. Population growth and rising GHG emissions go hand in hand.
The absurd hypocrisy of RBC’s stated “environmental objective” can be found in the proclamation that it is “committed to continuing to reduce our environmental footprint,” while lobbying to have the government import 400,000 additional “footprints” each year through Pearson and Vancouver International airports. In its “Environmental Blueprint” it states that it will “not engage in new financing activities with corporations operating unsustainably in tropical rainforests or High Conservation Forests (etc.)”, and speaks of comprehensive environmental risk management policies. However, it doesn’t say anything of deforestation in London, Ontario or any other of Canada’s growing centres to build the new housing developments the bank finances. Apparently clearcuts are fair ball in Canada because they are not a cause celebre or in the media spotlight, but whether it is in the jungles of Borneo or a forest grove in the GTA carbon sequestration is equally important to the planet.. Nor does RBC invoke their vaunted “environmental due diligence” in stopping the sprawling subdivisions they underwrite from covering farmland.
They talk only of their determination to “direct a significant portion of our philanthropic efforts to environmental causes.” The Nature Conservancy of Canada is a perfect example of the Royal Bank’s “philanthropy”. By steering money to Nature Conservancy (NC) for each client who switches to electronic bank statements, NC provides RBC with ecological dispensation, the PR brownie points---or greenie points--- it needs to mask its raison d’etre. That is, of course, providing loans to developers and home buyers so that they can keep on building the sprawling subdivisions that are exterminating the wildlife that Nature Conservancy supposedly cares about. It is a symbiotic relationship. Nature Conservancy gets a big-time corporate bag man to collect donations and RBC buys credibility as an institution that cares about the environment.
The Royal Bank would like to be seen as it sees itself, as the Dr. Jeckyll of corporate environmental responsibility, but its position statements are so much green window dressing, an archive of deception, for at night this “green” corporate citizen becomes a Mr. Hyde who wreaks havoc on biodiversity and the atmosphere by underwriting and pushing for rapid, unchecked economic and population growth.
The benefits of runaway population growth to the major lending institutions are self-evident. More people, more demand. Demand for car loans, credit lines, and mortgages. Recently a credible argument was made that the Royal Bank was primarily interested in expanding its client base. (Canadian Immigration Reform, January 2/08) “Its about importing potential RBC clients…Canada’s financial institutions realize that future client growth, thus profits, resides in immigration. No CEO wants to be in charge when share prices decline or remain stagnant.”
What is critical to the understanding of RBC’s immigration politics is that the origin or complexion of immigrants is as important as their number. Canada must, CEO Nixon contends, “unleash the power of diversity if it wants to improve productivity and increase its standard of living.” (The notion that one must have a diverse and heterogeneous society to achieve high productivity should come as news to the Japanese and Chinese.).
Presently 80% of Canada’s visible minorities are immigrants and almost 75% of them are visible minorities, who constitute 17% of the population. RBC wants to tap into this talent pool, hire and promote it and capture its business. It offers scholarships only to those born outside Canada. Most telling is that on the home page on Royal Bank Scholarships for New Canadians there is only a Chinese face presented to the reader, while on the Application checklist page, of the six young people pictured, three are “people of colour”. Applicants are asked to write an essay on how “new immigrants have contributed to this country…” No negative impacts are entertained.
The underlying assumption of the literature is that due to its aging population, Canada will soon depend on immigration to grow its labour force and will have to compete for talented immigrants in the global marketplace. Unfortunately, few are talented as mass immigration is providing us with a superfluous population that generates GHG, crowds out wildlife habitat and , according to a Statscan report of May 2006, depresses wages and displaces jobs, including those of recent immigrants. And the so-called “skills shortage” is really, in the words of one ‘Pax Canadiana’, “a shortage in counter help at fast food restaurants,” with Canadian engineering grads working them.
One must also question the nature of the “diversity” that RBC champions. Just as it has co-opted the language of environmentalism with its liberal use of words like “sustainable”, “footprint” and “green”, the jargon of multiculturalism has been insinuated into corporate discourse. In a company committed to “building and maintaining an inclusive and respectful workplace”, it is natural that every office needs a “Multicultural Calendar” like the one advertised in one of its links. In the month of January alone, 11 dates are set aside for equal commemoration, from Guru Gobind Singh’s birthday on the 5th to “Pongal” on the 14th to the First of Muharramon on the 20th. But this kind of diversity is decorative. It is the fig leaf concealing a more calculating plan. RBC’s diversity is much more focused than the United Nations. The kind of multiculturalism they have in mind is more like that of Richmond, B.C.---a monoculture.
RBC, you see, is in pursuit of a more narrow, lucrative demographic---the South Asian population. Now 3% of the country, South Asians , as the fastest growing minority in Canada will double that percentage within the decade. By 2017, they will reach two million, equivalent to the number of Chinese-Canadians. The prospect of four million Canadians of South Asian and Chinese origin, augmented perhaps by even higher immigration levels, has RBC salivating. Clients of these cultural backgrounds save more, and take out more and bigger more mortgages than other groups. Bank branches located in Asian enclaves flourish. Simply put, Chinese and South Asians are a boon for the banking business. (cf. insideToronto.com Jan.17/08) It is not likely then, that the Royal Bank will be calling for a repeal of the White Paper of 1966 and a return to traditional immigration patterns. In a sense, RBC’s immigration agenda is the inverse of the White Australia policy, but under a politically correct banner: “The Nearly All Asian Canadian Mass Immigration Policy” better expressed in code language: “Diversity”.
From this unflattering portrait a question emerges, what is the genesis of growth in Canada? It is not initiated by Ottawa. It is orchestrated by the big banks like RBC and big businesses who work with and pressure government to deliver population policy that will create the profits they want. A look at the political contributions made by the six biggest banks from 1982 to 2003 reveals just what they want from government. RBC really doesn’t care a rat’s backend for Official Multiculturalism. That’s a smokescreen. Otherwise they wouldn’t have contributed all that dough to the Reform Party and its successor, the Canadian Reform Conservative Alliance. No, their bottom line is population growth (read economic stimulus) and low corporate taxes. A tax policy customized for Chartered Banks and not for Food Banks. And the Liberal and Conservative Parties they’ve paid off so generously have delivered with the Grafkin-Angus Report that recommends just that. Meanwhile food banks in Ontario have grown 14.3% since 2001.
RBC and its corporate competitors are not beneficent enterprises. Chip off the green paint and the statements about corporate social responsibility and its still an organization that is about making profits for its shareholders and pursuing the obsolete and lethal paradigm of economic growth. But RBC does not work alone. It lobbies Ottawa for mass immigration at absurd levels and a growth rate which will accelerate the destruction of our environment, then cloaks its malevolence by green pronouncements, trivial green corporate practices and an unseemly arrangement with a high profile conservation group who lends the bank legitimacy in return for hush money. This group accepts the bank’s money in return for saying nothing about the fact that immigration is eclipsing the wildlife it claims to be the guardian of.
The collusion of big banks, environmental groups and the government’s Multicultural Industry is a partnership in crime. RBC, Nature Conservancy, Multicultural-Immigration.
A Triad of Ecological Ruin.
Thursday, January 31, 2008
THE PARADOX OF MR. JEVONS BEING 250 YEARS AHEAD OF THE GREENS
It is late at night and my blood pressure was too low so I decided to boost it by logging on to the Green Party site. Now it is in overshoot. I have printed off a couple of articles by former leader Jim Harris who has never heard of the Jevons Paradox. In the first article he uses a graph to show that since 1947 refrigerators in America have tripled in efficiency but are one third the cost, saving consumers billions. In article two he praises the great state of California for imposing efficiency standards on electronics to eliminate standby or vampire time, thereby saving everyone billions. Those standards spread across the country. Similar praise is being heaped on Governor Schwarzeneger for his green initiatives re. low emission automobiles and electric cars development.
What Harris will not do is mention population. He doesn't mention that although the electronics of California may be more efficent, there is a hell of a lot more people in California (38 million) than there were in 1947 (10 million) and it has taken a toll on the environment (eg. the loss of one third of its cropland) that electricity consumption savings won't repair.
And OK, lets assume Mr. Harris's refrigerators are three times as efficient now as they were in 1947. Did he notice that there are more than twice as many consumers in the United States today as in 1947 and nearly four times as many consumers in California today as in 1947, many of whom have a refrigerator upstairs and another downstairs in the rumpus room or the basement suite and another out at the lake and one more in their Winnibago or motorhome? It would have been instructive for Mr. Harris to tell us how many refrigerators are currently in use, that is a critical fact we need to know before awarding prizes for efficiency. Air conditioners were made 17% more efficient, one might recall, so consumers responded by going out and buying more air conditioners so that there number is 36% higher than when the efficient models were introduced.
But alas you don't have to be Green to be a love-lost technology groupie. Right wingers are almost universally like that too. Take Mr. Nicholas Schneider of the Fraser Institute. He predicts that sensible GHG emissions policies will likely focus on "reducing emissions intensity", ie. by increasing the "efficiency" of existing energy sources. What Schneider can't grasp is that the "efficiency" or "intensity" of a technology means squat. It is about reducing the total consumption of energy in this country. Our shiny new renewable technology can be 25% more efficient, and our per capita consumption can decline accordingly (believe it when I see it) but if our population increases to pick up that slack our dear old atmosphere will not know the bloody difference. Do you follow?
Schneider immediately closes out the option of stabilizing the population by introducing the issue with this statement: "You can control emission by lowering a country's population or its GDP. But it's unlikely government would choose these policies since Canada has a policy of increasing population largely through immigration, and Canadians would be averse to falling real incomes." It is amazing that so much ink is used to discuss the cost of Kyoto, coal vs nuclear or wind vs.solar but none of these long-winded commentators are willing to spend two paragraphs challenging the wisdom of Canada's policy of mass immigration
What Harris will not do is mention population. He doesn't mention that although the electronics of California may be more efficent, there is a hell of a lot more people in California (38 million) than there were in 1947 (10 million) and it has taken a toll on the environment (eg. the loss of one third of its cropland) that electricity consumption savings won't repair.
And OK, lets assume Mr. Harris's refrigerators are three times as efficient now as they were in 1947. Did he notice that there are more than twice as many consumers in the United States today as in 1947 and nearly four times as many consumers in California today as in 1947, many of whom have a refrigerator upstairs and another downstairs in the rumpus room or the basement suite and another out at the lake and one more in their Winnibago or motorhome? It would have been instructive for Mr. Harris to tell us how many refrigerators are currently in use, that is a critical fact we need to know before awarding prizes for efficiency. Air conditioners were made 17% more efficient, one might recall, so consumers responded by going out and buying more air conditioners so that there number is 36% higher than when the efficient models were introduced.
But alas you don't have to be Green to be a love-lost technology groupie. Right wingers are almost universally like that too. Take Mr. Nicholas Schneider of the Fraser Institute. He predicts that sensible GHG emissions policies will likely focus on "reducing emissions intensity", ie. by increasing the "efficiency" of existing energy sources. What Schneider can't grasp is that the "efficiency" or "intensity" of a technology means squat. It is about reducing the total consumption of energy in this country. Our shiny new renewable technology can be 25% more efficient, and our per capita consumption can decline accordingly (believe it when I see it) but if our population increases to pick up that slack our dear old atmosphere will not know the bloody difference. Do you follow?
Schneider immediately closes out the option of stabilizing the population by introducing the issue with this statement: "You can control emission by lowering a country's population or its GDP. But it's unlikely government would choose these policies since Canada has a policy of increasing population largely through immigration, and Canadians would be averse to falling real incomes." It is amazing that so much ink is used to discuss the cost of Kyoto, coal vs nuclear or wind vs.solar but none of these long-winded commentators are willing to spend two paragraphs challenging the wisdom of Canada's policy of mass immigration
THE END OF ECONOMIC GROWTH IS A MESSAGE OF HOPE
In this lecture Josh Farley tells us that we can’t sell the Steady State economic model if we preach gloom and sacrifice. “Martin Luther King would have gotten no where if he had given a “I have a Nightmare” speech. Farley demonstrates that it is we who have the positive message and that it will be the ideologues of classical economics who will have to purvey gloom and doom once it is apparent to all that there are no more cookies in the cookie jar.
Even with their greedy target of 3-4% annual growth, which results in a frightening doubling time of 28 years, the growthists haven’t eliminated poverty, globally or nationally. They’ve tripled the economy since 1969 in the United States, but poverty levels are even higher. The world economy would have to grow twenty times its present size to achieve this goal, but as we know, there aren’t even resources to feed an economy of that magnitude or one a fraction of that size. And if there were, ecological damage would shut off the engine before the runaway train left the station, as it is in the process of doing. Sadly, it appeared to be the consensus at the Bali Conference that economic growth was the pre-condition for solving third world environmental problems, an attitude pervasive in the parliaments of Europe and North America.
But as Brishen Hoff put it, “every economic boom leaves an environmental bust”. Farley mentions that 70% of oceanic fish have been harvested beyond sustainability. But here is how classical economic theory breaks down. As certain fish become scarce, they become more expensive, and hence more attractive to harvest. The feedback mechanism works in the wrong direction. So much for the magic of the price system. And on the subject of sustainability, he made this remark about fossil fuel agriculture: “It takes 10 calories of hydrocarbons to produce one calorie of food.”
Farley said that the new sustainable economy would detach property rights from property ownership, and he cited the example of the “Commons Trust” in his home state of Vermont. Since 80% of Vermont consists of forest, the state government thought it prudent to purchase eco-system services from owners as has happened in Costa Rica. Vermont assigns property rights to society as a whole—there is no “right” to pollute or to damage the commons. After all, hunter-gatherers had no property rights, and we spent more time in that role than in our present role as “future-eaters”.
To the economics of the dismal science Farley counterpoises “The Economics of Happiness” and discusses the relationship between GNP and well-being. The United States consumes 30% of the planet’s resources but are Americans substantially happier than others? Are there buckets of smiles on the faces of Americans walking the streets of New York or Sacramento, California? Research shows that relative wealth is more meaningful to people than absolute wealth---as long as they stand materially close to their neighbours they are reasonably content. An egalitarian society of lower material standing is happier than a wealthier one with great disparities. Farley says that Colombians making $5,000 a year are as content as most Americans.
In 1969, he points out that the United States consumed one-third of what it does today, but consumed just 17% of the energy in doing so. I haven’t equivalent Canadian statistics, but I can tell you this about 1969. We produce more than 155% more goods and services today than we did then, but we have not increased our production of fertile soil, clean water, clean air, spacious parks or wildlife by 155%. And like the United States, there are one-third more of us competing for these finite resources than there were then. In 1969 a musical instrument was just as pleasant to hear then as now, a novel was just as enjoyable to read then as now, a dog was just as companionable then as now, a sunset was just as beautiful then as now and my family gave me even more sustenance then as now because folks had more time to give each other then. In 1969 we had fewer toys and fewer choices but also had less crime, less traffic, less pollution and less stress. And its all down to growth.
To paraphrase Albert Bartlett, it is difficult to identify a single part of one’s life that growth has improved. It shouldn’t be a tough sell: Let’s slow down, lower our standard of living, but raise our quality of life.
Josh Farley’s lecture is a little over 56 minutes long. Stay with it. http://www.themadisoninstitute.org/audio/Josh_Farley_final.mp3
Tim Murray
January 27/08
Even with their greedy target of 3-4% annual growth, which results in a frightening doubling time of 28 years, the growthists haven’t eliminated poverty, globally or nationally. They’ve tripled the economy since 1969 in the United States, but poverty levels are even higher. The world economy would have to grow twenty times its present size to achieve this goal, but as we know, there aren’t even resources to feed an economy of that magnitude or one a fraction of that size. And if there were, ecological damage would shut off the engine before the runaway train left the station, as it is in the process of doing. Sadly, it appeared to be the consensus at the Bali Conference that economic growth was the pre-condition for solving third world environmental problems, an attitude pervasive in the parliaments of Europe and North America.
But as Brishen Hoff put it, “every economic boom leaves an environmental bust”. Farley mentions that 70% of oceanic fish have been harvested beyond sustainability. But here is how classical economic theory breaks down. As certain fish become scarce, they become more expensive, and hence more attractive to harvest. The feedback mechanism works in the wrong direction. So much for the magic of the price system. And on the subject of sustainability, he made this remark about fossil fuel agriculture: “It takes 10 calories of hydrocarbons to produce one calorie of food.”
Farley said that the new sustainable economy would detach property rights from property ownership, and he cited the example of the “Commons Trust” in his home state of Vermont. Since 80% of Vermont consists of forest, the state government thought it prudent to purchase eco-system services from owners as has happened in Costa Rica. Vermont assigns property rights to society as a whole—there is no “right” to pollute or to damage the commons. After all, hunter-gatherers had no property rights, and we spent more time in that role than in our present role as “future-eaters”.
To the economics of the dismal science Farley counterpoises “The Economics of Happiness” and discusses the relationship between GNP and well-being. The United States consumes 30% of the planet’s resources but are Americans substantially happier than others? Are there buckets of smiles on the faces of Americans walking the streets of New York or Sacramento, California? Research shows that relative wealth is more meaningful to people than absolute wealth---as long as they stand materially close to their neighbours they are reasonably content. An egalitarian society of lower material standing is happier than a wealthier one with great disparities. Farley says that Colombians making $5,000 a year are as content as most Americans.
In 1969, he points out that the United States consumed one-third of what it does today, but consumed just 17% of the energy in doing so. I haven’t equivalent Canadian statistics, but I can tell you this about 1969. We produce more than 155% more goods and services today than we did then, but we have not increased our production of fertile soil, clean water, clean air, spacious parks or wildlife by 155%. And like the United States, there are one-third more of us competing for these finite resources than there were then. In 1969 a musical instrument was just as pleasant to hear then as now, a novel was just as enjoyable to read then as now, a dog was just as companionable then as now, a sunset was just as beautiful then as now and my family gave me even more sustenance then as now because folks had more time to give each other then. In 1969 we had fewer toys and fewer choices but also had less crime, less traffic, less pollution and less stress. And its all down to growth.
To paraphrase Albert Bartlett, it is difficult to identify a single part of one’s life that growth has improved. It shouldn’t be a tough sell: Let’s slow down, lower our standard of living, but raise our quality of life.
Josh Farley’s lecture is a little over 56 minutes long. Stay with it. http://www.themadisoninstitute.org/audio/Josh_Farley_final.mp3
Tim Murray
January 27/08
CBC BIGOTRY
“SOUNDS LIKE CANADA” SOUNDS LIKE BIGOTRY
In arguing for more immigration a Maltese immigrant complained on the “Sounds Like Canada” program of Friday, January 25/08 that one or two maritime provinces were mostly white and that others were “even worse”. Typically, multicultural enthusiast and host Sheila Rogers did not challenge him for this outrageous racist statement.
One wonders how a CBC interviewer might react if a guest said that the downtown core of Regina was mostly aboriginal but other communities were “even worse”. Or that many districts in Greater Vancouver are predominantly Chinese but others, like Richmond, are “even worse”. When comments like these go by the board on the national broadcasting network, it is little wonder that so many politically correct bigots feel able to complain openly that their particular town is too “whitebread”.
I am a native-born Canadian of European ancestry and I am sick and tired of being made to feel that I am some kind of disease who should be made to feel perpetually guilty for my white skin and for the multitude of sins committed generations ago, a disease that needs to be cured by a massive foreign influx.
Insults directed at the national whipping boy, Canadians of white pigmentation, are not the way to build the harmony you claim to seek.
Tim Murray
Quadra Island, BC
Canada V0P 1N0
January 28/08
In arguing for more immigration a Maltese immigrant complained on the “Sounds Like Canada” program of Friday, January 25/08 that one or two maritime provinces were mostly white and that others were “even worse”. Typically, multicultural enthusiast and host Sheila Rogers did not challenge him for this outrageous racist statement.
One wonders how a CBC interviewer might react if a guest said that the downtown core of Regina was mostly aboriginal but other communities were “even worse”. Or that many districts in Greater Vancouver are predominantly Chinese but others, like Richmond, are “even worse”. When comments like these go by the board on the national broadcasting network, it is little wonder that so many politically correct bigots feel able to complain openly that their particular town is too “whitebread”.
I am a native-born Canadian of European ancestry and I am sick and tired of being made to feel that I am some kind of disease who should be made to feel perpetually guilty for my white skin and for the multitude of sins committed generations ago, a disease that needs to be cured by a massive foreign influx.
Insults directed at the national whipping boy, Canadians of white pigmentation, are not the way to build the harmony you claim to seek.
Tim Murray
Quadra Island, BC
Canada V0P 1N0
January 28/08
WHAT IS THE DIFFERENCE BETWEEN A GREEN AND A NEW DEMOCRAT?
Greens favour over 1% population growth for Canada.Their leader talks of bringing in 300,000 immigrants annually to support Canada's "great" Multiculutural Project.
The NDP favours "1% plus" population growth for Canada and an immigration rate that will serve that end. They want a dramatic expansion of the definition of family class immigrants.
Greens favour open-ended acceptance of an unlimited number of climate change refugees
The NDP favours open-ended acceptance of an unlimited number of climate change refugees. Neither party grasps the meaning of "carrying capacity".
Greens favour tough hate speech laws and diversity awareness programs for public and private employees.
The NDP favours tough hate speech laws and diversity awarenes programs for public and private employees.
Both parties believe Canadians should adapt to the customs and values of immigrants and not the other way around, or that immigrants should attend workshops to made aware of Canadians' sensitivies.
Greens look more to the human rights of migrants than the rights of the environment they damage or the rights of wildlife that the Greens ignore.
The NDP look more to the human rights of migrants than the rights of the environment they damage or the rights of wildlife that the Greens ignore.
Greens advocate greener lifestyles and miracle renewable technologies that don't bear up to scrutiny to prevent climate change
The NDP advocates greener lifestyles and miracle renewable technologies that don't bear up to scrutiny to prevent climate change
Greens ignore immigrant-driven population growth as a factor in climate change or in environmental degradation generally.
The NDP ignores immigrant-driven population growth as a factor in climate change or in environmental degradation generally.
Greens supported the invasion of Afghanistan until it became an unpopular occupation, now they are retoactive peaceniks who have always opposed the war.
The NDP supported the invasion of Afghanistan until it became an unpopular occupation , now they are retroactive peaceniks who have always opposed the war.
Greens opposed the Taliban because of the horrid way they treated women and because people who practiced such a partriarchial culture in their own country should be overthrown
The NDP opposed the Taliban because of the way they treated women and because people who practiced such a patriarchal culture in their own country should be overthrown.
Greens encourage Afghanis who emigrate to Canada to practice their patriarchal culture that oppresses women because they support "cultural diversity".
The NDP encourages Afghanis who emigrate to Canada to practice their patriarchal culture that oppresses women because they support "cultural diversity"
Greens say they stand for "social and economic justice".
The NDP says it has a "Green Agenda".
They look very much like the Bobsy Twins to me. Yet they are always fighting, always claiming they are so different from one another. Freud had the answer. "The Narcissism of Small Differences". When two tribes have so very much in common ----hypocrisy, self-delusion, self-righteousness, schizophrenia, myopia----they highlight their tiny differences and inflate them.
Maybe we should be grateful the two parties don't merge under the transexual leadership of Elizabeth Layton or Jack May wearing big black hiking boots and a green dress.
Tim Murray
The NDP favours "1% plus" population growth for Canada and an immigration rate that will serve that end. They want a dramatic expansion of the definition of family class immigrants.
Greens favour open-ended acceptance of an unlimited number of climate change refugees
The NDP favours open-ended acceptance of an unlimited number of climate change refugees. Neither party grasps the meaning of "carrying capacity".
Greens favour tough hate speech laws and diversity awareness programs for public and private employees.
The NDP favours tough hate speech laws and diversity awarenes programs for public and private employees.
Both parties believe Canadians should adapt to the customs and values of immigrants and not the other way around, or that immigrants should attend workshops to made aware of Canadians' sensitivies.
Greens look more to the human rights of migrants than the rights of the environment they damage or the rights of wildlife that the Greens ignore.
The NDP look more to the human rights of migrants than the rights of the environment they damage or the rights of wildlife that the Greens ignore.
Greens advocate greener lifestyles and miracle renewable technologies that don't bear up to scrutiny to prevent climate change
The NDP advocates greener lifestyles and miracle renewable technologies that don't bear up to scrutiny to prevent climate change
Greens ignore immigrant-driven population growth as a factor in climate change or in environmental degradation generally.
The NDP ignores immigrant-driven population growth as a factor in climate change or in environmental degradation generally.
Greens supported the invasion of Afghanistan until it became an unpopular occupation, now they are retoactive peaceniks who have always opposed the war.
The NDP supported the invasion of Afghanistan until it became an unpopular occupation , now they are retroactive peaceniks who have always opposed the war.
Greens opposed the Taliban because of the horrid way they treated women and because people who practiced such a partriarchial culture in their own country should be overthrown
The NDP opposed the Taliban because of the way they treated women and because people who practiced such a patriarchal culture in their own country should be overthrown.
Greens encourage Afghanis who emigrate to Canada to practice their patriarchal culture that oppresses women because they support "cultural diversity".
The NDP encourages Afghanis who emigrate to Canada to practice their patriarchal culture that oppresses women because they support "cultural diversity"
Greens say they stand for "social and economic justice".
The NDP says it has a "Green Agenda".
They look very much like the Bobsy Twins to me. Yet they are always fighting, always claiming they are so different from one another. Freud had the answer. "The Narcissism of Small Differences". When two tribes have so very much in common ----hypocrisy, self-delusion, self-righteousness, schizophrenia, myopia----they highlight their tiny differences and inflate them.
Maybe we should be grateful the two parties don't merge under the transexual leadership of Elizabeth Layton or Jack May wearing big black hiking boots and a green dress.
Tim Murray
Sunday, January 27, 2008
THE LAME DOG SYNDROME
You know the type. The woman who writes love letters to convicts on death row or to men of habitually vicious criminality. The neighbourhood cat lady who the SPCA finds in a house of 19 cats coated with feces and filth because she can’t turn a stray away. The dog-lover who always selects the lame dog at the animal shelter when corrigible, healthy dogs are available. Such is the lame dog syndrome, and in the field of foreign aid, Canada is a chronic patsy.
Foreign commentator Harry Valentine observed that “Elected Canadian leaders believe that Canadian foreign aid buys Canadian government influence at high government levels in developing nations. Despite receiving Canadian foreign aid, Zimbabwe’s Robert Mugabe told nations like Canada to “mind your business” very bluntly and very directly, in matters pertaining to his genocidal policy of confiscating farms and handing them over to his relatives and supporters. Other African leaders have at least been more diplomatic when essentially saying the same thing. Yet the Canadian government chooses to increase its foreign aid commitment…”
Canada supplied Julius Nyerere with foreign aid during a famine while Lake Tanzania was full of fresh water while our Prime Minister toasted him as “Mwalimu” or “Wise Man”. Malawi was also rewarded with aid for denying farmers the choice of which crops to grow, while Lake Malawi, comprising 30% of the country, was full of water during that country’s famine.
It is no wonder that a Canadian Senate report in 2007 found that $575 billion spent on African development aid has left the continent in worse shape than it was when the aid was first dispensed forty years ago. It revealed that the Canadian International Development Agency (CIDA) spent $12.4 billion since 1968 to sub-Saharan Africa with little in the way of demonstrable results. What former planning minister Ramazan Bashandost, said of Canada’s most favoured beneficiary, Afghanistan, is most probably true of the scores and scores of countries our taxpayers have sent our earnings to. He remarked that the billions of dollars Afghanistan has received from donor countries has not resulted in “the least improvement” in the lives of Afghani people.
It is clear that Canadian foreign aid has not been working. Why? Several answers have been offered. The former Liberal government vowed to deliver “smarter and better aid”, focusing on basic education, health issues like AIDs, developing the private sector, environmental sustainability. There was a wide consensus that Canadian aid was scattergun and that fewer countries should be favoured with more assistance, half of them African. CIDA itself was too centralized and bureaucratic, spending 15% more than its peers to distribute each dollar of aid. The Opposition critic Keith Martin, a doctor who worked in the region, said that “billions are poured into CIDA and only a trickle of it is seen on the ground.”
Yet, despite the waste and the corruption, the clarion call is to spend even more than the $4 billion Ottawa currently spends. In fact, the Harper government intends to double its African aid from 2004 to $2.1 billion next year. It is thought disgraceful that an affluent country spends more on the military than on foreign aid, particularly when “phantom aid” accounts for over half of that spending in Canada. During last year’s famine in Niger, for example, 90% of the food money given by Canada had to be spent on food from Canada. Canada signed on to a UN mandate to have overseas aid reach 0.7% of Gross National Income (GNI), yet still spends well below that. What kind of humanitarianism is this?
But the volume of aid cannot be the measure of its effectiveness. Surely it must be both generous and effective. What is striking about Canadian aid reform proposals are their stunning omission: Family planning. The Martin Liberals spoke of “Health” in terms of tackling AIDS. But death prevention without birth prevention as we have seen so many times is a recipe for disaster and misery on a grander scale. They also spoke of “environmental sustainability”. How can an environment be sustainable without population stability? The Harper Conservatives now talk of rewarding those countries that pursue “clean government and democratic values”. A good step but runaway population growth will undermine even sound government. What does Harper reward? In 2007 he flew to Port Au Prince and rewarded the Haitian government with $353 million in CIDA aid for presiding over a nation with a Total Fertility Rate of 4.94 and a population growth rate of 2.5% per annum. Haiti becomes Canada’s second most favoured aid recipient for having no handle on growth that will negate all the benefits of the aid package.
And who are among Canada’s new, narrowed list of favoured “development partners”? Ghana (TFR 3.89), Tanzania (TFR 4.77) Mozambique (TFR 5.29). And Ethiopia (TFR 5.1) and Kenya (TFR 4.82) are cited by Canada now as “good performers”.
It is my considered opinion that these “good performers” are more like lame dogs. My question is this---would you give money to an alcoholic panhandler, or would you tell him to go home and clean up his act?
I rather think that Haiti, Ethiopia, Kenya et al should be told to go and screw themselves. Then again, it seems that is about all they have been doing anyway.
My prescription? Increase foreign aid dramatically, but make it strictly conditional on compliance with our birth control guidelines. If Mr. Mugabee tells us to mind our own business, then let’s do that. And we’ll mind our money as well.
Its like this Oh Wise Mwalimu: No condoms, no food. Get it?
Tim Murray
Quadra Island, BC
Canada
Jan 18/08
Foreign commentator Harry Valentine observed that “Elected Canadian leaders believe that Canadian foreign aid buys Canadian government influence at high government levels in developing nations. Despite receiving Canadian foreign aid, Zimbabwe’s Robert Mugabe told nations like Canada to “mind your business” very bluntly and very directly, in matters pertaining to his genocidal policy of confiscating farms and handing them over to his relatives and supporters. Other African leaders have at least been more diplomatic when essentially saying the same thing. Yet the Canadian government chooses to increase its foreign aid commitment…”
Canada supplied Julius Nyerere with foreign aid during a famine while Lake Tanzania was full of fresh water while our Prime Minister toasted him as “Mwalimu” or “Wise Man”. Malawi was also rewarded with aid for denying farmers the choice of which crops to grow, while Lake Malawi, comprising 30% of the country, was full of water during that country’s famine.
It is no wonder that a Canadian Senate report in 2007 found that $575 billion spent on African development aid has left the continent in worse shape than it was when the aid was first dispensed forty years ago. It revealed that the Canadian International Development Agency (CIDA) spent $12.4 billion since 1968 to sub-Saharan Africa with little in the way of demonstrable results. What former planning minister Ramazan Bashandost, said of Canada’s most favoured beneficiary, Afghanistan, is most probably true of the scores and scores of countries our taxpayers have sent our earnings to. He remarked that the billions of dollars Afghanistan has received from donor countries has not resulted in “the least improvement” in the lives of Afghani people.
It is clear that Canadian foreign aid has not been working. Why? Several answers have been offered. The former Liberal government vowed to deliver “smarter and better aid”, focusing on basic education, health issues like AIDs, developing the private sector, environmental sustainability. There was a wide consensus that Canadian aid was scattergun and that fewer countries should be favoured with more assistance, half of them African. CIDA itself was too centralized and bureaucratic, spending 15% more than its peers to distribute each dollar of aid. The Opposition critic Keith Martin, a doctor who worked in the region, said that “billions are poured into CIDA and only a trickle of it is seen on the ground.”
Yet, despite the waste and the corruption, the clarion call is to spend even more than the $4 billion Ottawa currently spends. In fact, the Harper government intends to double its African aid from 2004 to $2.1 billion next year. It is thought disgraceful that an affluent country spends more on the military than on foreign aid, particularly when “phantom aid” accounts for over half of that spending in Canada. During last year’s famine in Niger, for example, 90% of the food money given by Canada had to be spent on food from Canada. Canada signed on to a UN mandate to have overseas aid reach 0.7% of Gross National Income (GNI), yet still spends well below that. What kind of humanitarianism is this?
But the volume of aid cannot be the measure of its effectiveness. Surely it must be both generous and effective. What is striking about Canadian aid reform proposals are their stunning omission: Family planning. The Martin Liberals spoke of “Health” in terms of tackling AIDS. But death prevention without birth prevention as we have seen so many times is a recipe for disaster and misery on a grander scale. They also spoke of “environmental sustainability”. How can an environment be sustainable without population stability? The Harper Conservatives now talk of rewarding those countries that pursue “clean government and democratic values”. A good step but runaway population growth will undermine even sound government. What does Harper reward? In 2007 he flew to Port Au Prince and rewarded the Haitian government with $353 million in CIDA aid for presiding over a nation with a Total Fertility Rate of 4.94 and a population growth rate of 2.5% per annum. Haiti becomes Canada’s second most favoured aid recipient for having no handle on growth that will negate all the benefits of the aid package.
And who are among Canada’s new, narrowed list of favoured “development partners”? Ghana (TFR 3.89), Tanzania (TFR 4.77) Mozambique (TFR 5.29). And Ethiopia (TFR 5.1) and Kenya (TFR 4.82) are cited by Canada now as “good performers”.
It is my considered opinion that these “good performers” are more like lame dogs. My question is this---would you give money to an alcoholic panhandler, or would you tell him to go home and clean up his act?
I rather think that Haiti, Ethiopia, Kenya et al should be told to go and screw themselves. Then again, it seems that is about all they have been doing anyway.
My prescription? Increase foreign aid dramatically, but make it strictly conditional on compliance with our birth control guidelines. If Mr. Mugabee tells us to mind our own business, then let’s do that. And we’ll mind our money as well.
Its like this Oh Wise Mwalimu: No condoms, no food. Get it?
Tim Murray
Quadra Island, BC
Canada
Jan 18/08
WHO IS THE MOST IDIOTIC GREEN PARTY IN THE WORLD?
The deadline is fast approaching. Send in your submissions now. The first annual contest to establish who indeed is the most idiotic of the world’s Green Parties is upon us. Many candidates were surveyed. The Swedes, the nutty Germans and Brits, the hypocritical Canadians and Australians and even the Green Party of the United States along with some of its discordant constituent parts. The competition for lunacy is fierce. Here are but a few of the contestants.
First, let me present as my personal favourites, Canada’s Greens. Their leader, Elizabeth May, argues that we should reduce our individual ecological footprint but at the same time import 300,000 more “footprints” each year just to strengthen our “cultural diversity”. This “Great Multicultural Project” as she calls it, of course takes precedence over any project to protect biological diversity or constrain GHG emissions, which her 300,000 incoming footprints will increase. The Canadian Greens are a masterpiece of contradictions and confusion. Ontario leader Frank de Jong told us privately that Canada is overpopulated by factor of “four to ten”. Yet he told others, including an Australia audience, that “population is a red herring”. Economic growth is no problem either. The size of the economy can increase ten fold, he maintains, only “through-put” matters. The party stands for Green taxes. Down with those antiquated fair and progressive income and capital gains taxes. But some officials like Frank Walton are waking up to the fact that low income Canadians aren’t buying it. He now favours a hybrid mix of progressive and green taxes so that the poor don’t pay the shot for punishing polluters and shifting to renewable technologies. That’s the Canadians. Let’s take a quick peek at other Green hypocrites.
The British Green Party, at first blush, offers a radical departure in consciousness from its Canadian counterparts with this promise: “To promote debate on sustainable population levels for the UK, to include consideration of consumption and material comfort.” (P-120) But then they say that “Richer regions and communities do not have the right to use migration controls to protect their privileges from others in the long term.” Note that P-120 calls only for a debate, as the population skyrockets, because “the aim is to increase awareness of the issues—not to set specific population targets.” In policy MG 101 the UK Greens acknowledge an impending human tsunami by saying that “there is likely to be mass migration of people escaping from the consequences of global warming, environmental degradation, resource shortage and population increase.” So how do they propose to respond to this, besides of course to work for a fairer world that would lessen the urge to migrate? “We will progressively reduce UK immigration controls.”
They will do that in a multitude of ways. MG 402: “ Families will not be divided by deportation…” MG 403 “We will abolish the ‘primary purpose’ rule under which partners are refused entry if it is thought that the primary purpose of the relationship is for them to gain entry to the UK.” MG 405 “Migrants illegally in the UK for over 5 years will be allowed to remain unless they pose a serious danger to public safety.” MG 420
“We will resist all attempts to introduce a barrier around Europe shutting out non-Europeans or giving them more restricted rights of movement within Europe than European nationals.” And in MG 454 the British Green Party has this to say about human trafficking: “The Government should grant a temporary right to stay in the country to anyone who has been trafficked or appears to have been trafficked. It should also recognize the right of those who have been trafficked to apply for a longer term or permanent immigrant status…” With shameless invective, it labels as “racists of the far right” all those persons in the United Kingdom and Europe who favour increased immigration controls.
The population of the United Kingdom, an island nation of 60 million acres, is currently 61 million and rising rapidly. It is obvious that under a Green Party administration, it would soon be 71 or 81 million barring an international resource or environmental crisis, in which event it would be even higher. What consumption levels would Britons have to tumble down to then to achieve sustainability?
But let us save the best to last. After spending much time talking about the need for family planning, (P123, P124, P125, P126, P128), they declare in P106 that “The Green Party holds that the number of children people have should be a matter of free choice.” That is brilliant. You need a licence to catch a certain number of fish and a drivers licence to operate a car within a certain speed limit but you can go ahead and have five kids on the dole and have them dump 100 metric tonnes of GHG into atmosphere because its your free choice. Yet polluters would no doubt face tough restrictions under a Green regime.
The Irish Greens similarly project an image not of an environmental party but a party obsessed with human rights. Not once in their dense 13 page document on Immigration Policy do they mention carrying capacity or the ecological impact of all the asylum-seekers and immigrants that they want Ireland to embrace. They state that “The Green Party opposes any common asylum policy for the Union which results in more restrictions on asylum-seeking or in reducing rights for refugees (and) we strongly condemn the trend whereby the European Union is becoming a fortress on whose borders there are people dying in the hands of traffickers.” The Greens denounced the Immigration Bill of 2004 as “flawed on account of the negative tone of the language used in it and the basic lack of provisions for family re-unification for non-nationals.” And for the party effective integration of immigrants and their families is best promoted by granting them citizenship. But why does Ireland need immigrants?
Economic orthodoxy provides the standard answer. In the words of an Irish Green Party policy statement: “The Central Statistics Office, in their report for 2006-36, suggests the State will continue to rely on strong inward migration to maintain economic growth. It forecasts that the economy will need 45,000 immigrant workers every year for the next 12 years to sustain economic growth.” And then the Irish Greens pull out the old Chestnut that since those over 65 will in 2036 “comprise one fifth of the population rather than one tenth”, it is important that “ a progressive (sic) immigration policy will be in this country to ensure that the economy will be able to fund the necessary pension schemes, health and educational facilities into the future.”
The Irish Green Party, then, fully buys into the gospel of economic growth and the myth of immigration as a cure for an ageing population. Without debating the profound vacuity of their ideology, it is best simply to refer them to authors Richard Douthwaite, Herman Daly and Phil Mullan. Case closed. In declaring that “as a rapidly developing economy, Ireland needs migrant workers to provide essential skills and services”, the Greens concede the game before it begins. They accept the necessity of a “rapidly developing economy”, not thinking that on going economic growth will create labour shortages that once filled, will generate the growth that demands more immigrant labour. And this mad spiral will degrade the quality of life and despoil the environment---which is what a Green Party is supposed to be about, isn’t it? That is, when it isn’t defending gay rights, migrant mothers rights, handicapped rights, Ethiopian rights----identity politics.
The Irish are also concerned that immigrants “are not simply labeled as economic entities, while denying them social and cultural rights.” The Irish public must be brainwashed into accepting the important role immigration in Irish society, “on the changing nature of Irish national identity”, and on a universal Green theme, “the value of cultural diversity”. Borrowing from the Canadian handbook on social engineering, they advocate “culture sensitivity for public sector workers.” The concept that maybe immigrants should learn to be sensitive to the customs of the host country is a theme universally absent from Green thinking.
One could find it ironic that all across Canada, particularly Atlantic Canada, there are clubs and associations dedicated to keeping Celtic culture alive. And yet, in the heart of Celtic culture, you have an Irish government that has quickly allowed one in seven of its residents to be from another country and at least one political party, the Greens, promoting the fragmentation of that culture by its support of multiculturalism and economic growth, which drew immigrants in the first place. One wonders why the Irish spent centuries spilling blood to get the British out only to invite the East Europeans in. So much for Sinn Fein, “Ourselves Alone”. Raised on Irish Nationalist folklore, you can’t fathom my sense of betrayal.
The Swedish and German Greens duplicate the same trademark idiocies of their sister parties. Though one must admit that the German Greens in the former coalition voting to shut down their nuclear program so that they can turn around and buy natural gas from Mr. Putin displayed an astonishing ignorance about the relative risks of nuclear and NG relative to their impact on global warming. Once again, a steady state economic model was not considered as an alternative to natural gas consumption.
A look across the globe yields no surprises. The Australians Greens, for example, believe that “our environmental impact is not determined by population numbers alone, but by the way that people live.” Notice that they did not say, “our environmental impact is not determined simply by the way people live, but by population numbers.” The Aussies are to be congratulated for being able to utter the word “population”, but like global comrades, it would kill them to put the stress on it. Over-consumption is the name of the game. And in constructing a population policy, would not “ecological sustainability” be the governing factor, and mitigated by a series of other points like “multiculturalism” (shades of Elizabeth May) and “humanitarian migration” which the Greens say Australia has an obligation to accept, including climate change refugees?”
If so, then, how many? 10 million? 20? 30? Your country is a lifeboat and metaphorically speaking it has a carrying capacity of 20 people. Period. Whether you think you have an moral obligation to haul another 20 refugees on board because they are righteous, their cause is just, or they would afford your lifeboat more diversity is immaterial to the laws of physics, which state that your craft will sink under that weight.
The trouble with the Australian Green Party is, like the others, it cannot decide if it is an environmentalist party or a human rights party. Its policy statement on population and immigration should be shortened by 13 points to read concisely “Australia’s population policy should be determined by its commitment to ecological sustainability.” The environment before people. The boat before its passengers.
The Green Party of the United States places the same priority on human rights as other Green parties. A Californian Green Party policy direction document states bluntly, “immigration policies should be based strongly on human rights.” Not on carrying capacity or sustainability or peak oil or climate change or biodiversity collapse but human rights. The rights of wildlife in the United States to survive runaway immigrant-driven population growth for this anthropocentric “Green” Party is given no mention. Instead, in a press release of May 23,2007 they called on Congress to enact immigration legislation that will protect human rights and “facilitate the path to citizenship” of the 25-35 million undocumented immigrants in the country, who must of course be given amnesty, the universal theme song of the Green movement. The Greens of New Mexico harmonize with that position in their immigration policy document: “We must continue to respect the potential contributions and rights of other new immigrants.”
The California Green Party goes further. They argue for “an authentic free-trade zone where people are free to travel for work,” and invoke Cesar Chavez , as many soft greens and liberals do, as an advocate of this position. In fact Chavez was strident advocate of immigration restriction in defence of the working conditions of Mexican-Americans and stood on the border to patrol to guard against illegal entrants. The foundation of the party’s attitude on immigration is found in a statement that could have been lifted from the policy book of virtually any Green party in the world: “Those living in the industrialized world must end the habits of waste and over-consumption that place as much as stress on the environment as does population growth in developing nations.” Consumption, consumption, consumption. Bring on the immigrant millions. After all, “we are all the same people, and need to break down those psychological barriers, not re-enforce them.” We are the same, yes, but we are also “diverse” at the same time and this diversity must be celebrated and amplified like it or not. The host culture is of little account in Greendom.
The best way to celebrate diversity of course is to offer tantamount support to an 80% immigrant-driven population growth rate in California of 2% , nearly twice the national rate of 1.1%. If unchecked the state’s population will double to 64 million by 2035 and another 32% of its 100 million acres will have to be devoted to urbanization and highways. If the population continues to grow, per capita agricultural land will be reduced approximately half of what it is today, and in 33 years about half of California’s cropland will be unavailable. Currently the state must build 250,000 housing units yearly and one school per day just to keep pace with growth and is already 40% more densely populated than Europe.
In the face of these facts all the California Green Party can do is issue a statement referring to those who favour greater restrictions on immigration as being “xenophobic” and “reactionary”. (Let us hope they choke on that statement when they are paying 50% of their income on food in 2035). In response, an activist for Californians for Population Stabilization (CAPS) replied, “We’re not concerned about who is coming here, but simply the number. It is not a matter of condemning those people who have come here, but looking at resources and asking how many people this land can support with what kind of lifestyle.” It appears that CAPS is the authentic “Green Party” in California.
And we don’t even have to worry about developing countries either. The tonic for overpopulation is, you guessed it, “economic growth”. They conscript the old, discredited Theory of Demographic Transistion to say that “Current global demographics demonstrate that economic well-being promotes low birthrates. (No, but it does promote GHG emissions and habitat loss). Its amazing that this 72 year old theory still enjoys currency.
So there are the nominees for idiocy. The Canadians, the British, the Irish, the Australians and the Americans. The list is by no means inclusive. You might provide better examples of idiotic parties with outrageously contradictory policies. But lets examine the Green parties that were disqualified from the contest on the grounds of sanity.
The Green Party of Missouri states that “Because human impact is now beyond a sustainable level, we must take immediate action to reduce population growth. Our goal is zero population growth in our country as soon as possible.” The Green Party of Minnesota: “We support efforts toward zero or negative human population growth. Overpopulation combined with the resource demands and waste production of modern lifestyles are root causes of environmental degradation.” The Green Party of Hawaii says flatly “Population growth must cease. We need carrying capacity studies for all counties to determine development limits.” Hawaii suffered 2.4% annual population growth from 1970-1986 overwhelmingly due to immigration. It is no wonder that the state elected the first legislator on record to openly declare support for a steady state economy, Senator David Hemmings.
Now the best is left to last. The model of a what Green Party can and should be. The Green Party of New Zealand. Their six page Population Policy statement takes the sensible approach. It begins with an estimate of what population level New Zealand can sustain, based on the Ministry of Environment’s footprint analysis. In 1998 that figure was 5.7 million, but the Green Party treats it with caution, “an indicative upper limit figure only”, for it recognizes that unforeseen contingencies like the peak oil crisis, climate change refugees, war, the sudden return of 750,000 expatriate New Zealanders for example, should make government provide for “spare capacity”. And “in order to maintain both spare capacity and a decent standard of living, the optimum population figure will be significantly lower than the maximum carrying capacity of the land.”
So while Greens the world over feel compelled to fill up the tank right away and keep it full, New Zealand Greens evidence a prudence and understanding of future calamity and existing overshoot. Points 2 and 3 of their “Key Principles” state that “A self-sustaining population cannot be increased beyond the carrying capacity of useable land available” and “The population cannot be increased beyond its capacity to offset its greenhouse emissions.”
Alas, the Greens of New Zealand, Missouri, Minnesota and Hawaii are the renegades of the movement, the exception to the rule. In most cases, your local “Green” Party is a misnomer. It is a name designed to attract the environmentalist constituency but its focus is not really on the environment, but on human rights. The rights of migrants take precedence over their environmental impact, which Greens won’t even acknowledge.
On the basis of this global tour of Green parties, a provisional international manifesto of generic Green-ness is hereby offered as a guide to their cosmology:
INTERNATIONAL MANIFESTO OF GENERIC GREEN-NESS
Consumption is almost everything. Population is almost nothing.
Overpopulation is a global problem, so lets not try to stabilize our own.
Renewable technologies and greener lifestyles will save the day.
We are committed to sustainability---and growth---at the same time.
Growth can be rendered ecologically benign if channeled, managed or deflected.
We share the consensus for the need for economic growth, therefore we favour liberal immigration. There is always a chronic labour shortage isn’t there and oh, don’t undocumented migrants make such a contribution to our society?
Since we favour liberal immigration that is non-discriminatory, then we favour an aggressive multicultural strategy for the integration of migrants. We reject the concept of a national culture.
We place far greater emphasis on climate change than biodiversity collapse even though more species will be lost sooner to human overpopulation than to global warming, which is not as imminent or as catastrophic as the loss of biodiversity services.
We will only acknowledge overpopulation as a problem in developing countries. Migration of people to high consumption societies is to be countered only be lowering the per capita consumption rates of those societies.
Closed borders, immigration controls, or as we call the Bush fence, the “Wall of Shame” send out unfriendly signals to emigrant-countries whose cooperation we need to solve global environmental problems like AGW.
Relieve the wealthy of progressive income tax and capital gains tax and introduce Green Taxes. Punish those at the bottom of the income scale for not having the money to buy hybrid cars and retro-fitted houses. We’re Green Yuppies. Screw the white trash poor!
Tim Murray
Quadra Island, BC
Canada
January 26/08
First, let me present as my personal favourites, Canada’s Greens. Their leader, Elizabeth May, argues that we should reduce our individual ecological footprint but at the same time import 300,000 more “footprints” each year just to strengthen our “cultural diversity”. This “Great Multicultural Project” as she calls it, of course takes precedence over any project to protect biological diversity or constrain GHG emissions, which her 300,000 incoming footprints will increase. The Canadian Greens are a masterpiece of contradictions and confusion. Ontario leader Frank de Jong told us privately that Canada is overpopulated by factor of “four to ten”. Yet he told others, including an Australia audience, that “population is a red herring”. Economic growth is no problem either. The size of the economy can increase ten fold, he maintains, only “through-put” matters. The party stands for Green taxes. Down with those antiquated fair and progressive income and capital gains taxes. But some officials like Frank Walton are waking up to the fact that low income Canadians aren’t buying it. He now favours a hybrid mix of progressive and green taxes so that the poor don’t pay the shot for punishing polluters and shifting to renewable technologies. That’s the Canadians. Let’s take a quick peek at other Green hypocrites.
The British Green Party, at first blush, offers a radical departure in consciousness from its Canadian counterparts with this promise: “To promote debate on sustainable population levels for the UK, to include consideration of consumption and material comfort.” (P-120) But then they say that “Richer regions and communities do not have the right to use migration controls to protect their privileges from others in the long term.” Note that P-120 calls only for a debate, as the population skyrockets, because “the aim is to increase awareness of the issues—not to set specific population targets.” In policy MG 101 the UK Greens acknowledge an impending human tsunami by saying that “there is likely to be mass migration of people escaping from the consequences of global warming, environmental degradation, resource shortage and population increase.” So how do they propose to respond to this, besides of course to work for a fairer world that would lessen the urge to migrate? “We will progressively reduce UK immigration controls.”
They will do that in a multitude of ways. MG 402: “ Families will not be divided by deportation…” MG 403 “We will abolish the ‘primary purpose’ rule under which partners are refused entry if it is thought that the primary purpose of the relationship is for them to gain entry to the UK.” MG 405 “Migrants illegally in the UK for over 5 years will be allowed to remain unless they pose a serious danger to public safety.” MG 420
“We will resist all attempts to introduce a barrier around Europe shutting out non-Europeans or giving them more restricted rights of movement within Europe than European nationals.” And in MG 454 the British Green Party has this to say about human trafficking: “The Government should grant a temporary right to stay in the country to anyone who has been trafficked or appears to have been trafficked. It should also recognize the right of those who have been trafficked to apply for a longer term or permanent immigrant status…” With shameless invective, it labels as “racists of the far right” all those persons in the United Kingdom and Europe who favour increased immigration controls.
The population of the United Kingdom, an island nation of 60 million acres, is currently 61 million and rising rapidly. It is obvious that under a Green Party administration, it would soon be 71 or 81 million barring an international resource or environmental crisis, in which event it would be even higher. What consumption levels would Britons have to tumble down to then to achieve sustainability?
But let us save the best to last. After spending much time talking about the need for family planning, (P123, P124, P125, P126, P128), they declare in P106 that “The Green Party holds that the number of children people have should be a matter of free choice.” That is brilliant. You need a licence to catch a certain number of fish and a drivers licence to operate a car within a certain speed limit but you can go ahead and have five kids on the dole and have them dump 100 metric tonnes of GHG into atmosphere because its your free choice. Yet polluters would no doubt face tough restrictions under a Green regime.
The Irish Greens similarly project an image not of an environmental party but a party obsessed with human rights. Not once in their dense 13 page document on Immigration Policy do they mention carrying capacity or the ecological impact of all the asylum-seekers and immigrants that they want Ireland to embrace. They state that “The Green Party opposes any common asylum policy for the Union which results in more restrictions on asylum-seeking or in reducing rights for refugees (and) we strongly condemn the trend whereby the European Union is becoming a fortress on whose borders there are people dying in the hands of traffickers.” The Greens denounced the Immigration Bill of 2004 as “flawed on account of the negative tone of the language used in it and the basic lack of provisions for family re-unification for non-nationals.” And for the party effective integration of immigrants and their families is best promoted by granting them citizenship. But why does Ireland need immigrants?
Economic orthodoxy provides the standard answer. In the words of an Irish Green Party policy statement: “The Central Statistics Office, in their report for 2006-36, suggests the State will continue to rely on strong inward migration to maintain economic growth. It forecasts that the economy will need 45,000 immigrant workers every year for the next 12 years to sustain economic growth.” And then the Irish Greens pull out the old Chestnut that since those over 65 will in 2036 “comprise one fifth of the population rather than one tenth”, it is important that “ a progressive (sic) immigration policy will be in this country to ensure that the economy will be able to fund the necessary pension schemes, health and educational facilities into the future.”
The Irish Green Party, then, fully buys into the gospel of economic growth and the myth of immigration as a cure for an ageing population. Without debating the profound vacuity of their ideology, it is best simply to refer them to authors Richard Douthwaite, Herman Daly and Phil Mullan. Case closed. In declaring that “as a rapidly developing economy, Ireland needs migrant workers to provide essential skills and services”, the Greens concede the game before it begins. They accept the necessity of a “rapidly developing economy”, not thinking that on going economic growth will create labour shortages that once filled, will generate the growth that demands more immigrant labour. And this mad spiral will degrade the quality of life and despoil the environment---which is what a Green Party is supposed to be about, isn’t it? That is, when it isn’t defending gay rights, migrant mothers rights, handicapped rights, Ethiopian rights----identity politics.
The Irish are also concerned that immigrants “are not simply labeled as economic entities, while denying them social and cultural rights.” The Irish public must be brainwashed into accepting the important role immigration in Irish society, “on the changing nature of Irish national identity”, and on a universal Green theme, “the value of cultural diversity”. Borrowing from the Canadian handbook on social engineering, they advocate “culture sensitivity for public sector workers.” The concept that maybe immigrants should learn to be sensitive to the customs of the host country is a theme universally absent from Green thinking.
One could find it ironic that all across Canada, particularly Atlantic Canada, there are clubs and associations dedicated to keeping Celtic culture alive. And yet, in the heart of Celtic culture, you have an Irish government that has quickly allowed one in seven of its residents to be from another country and at least one political party, the Greens, promoting the fragmentation of that culture by its support of multiculturalism and economic growth, which drew immigrants in the first place. One wonders why the Irish spent centuries spilling blood to get the British out only to invite the East Europeans in. So much for Sinn Fein, “Ourselves Alone”. Raised on Irish Nationalist folklore, you can’t fathom my sense of betrayal.
The Swedish and German Greens duplicate the same trademark idiocies of their sister parties. Though one must admit that the German Greens in the former coalition voting to shut down their nuclear program so that they can turn around and buy natural gas from Mr. Putin displayed an astonishing ignorance about the relative risks of nuclear and NG relative to their impact on global warming. Once again, a steady state economic model was not considered as an alternative to natural gas consumption.
A look across the globe yields no surprises. The Australians Greens, for example, believe that “our environmental impact is not determined by population numbers alone, but by the way that people live.” Notice that they did not say, “our environmental impact is not determined simply by the way people live, but by population numbers.” The Aussies are to be congratulated for being able to utter the word “population”, but like global comrades, it would kill them to put the stress on it. Over-consumption is the name of the game. And in constructing a population policy, would not “ecological sustainability” be the governing factor, and mitigated by a series of other points like “multiculturalism” (shades of Elizabeth May) and “humanitarian migration” which the Greens say Australia has an obligation to accept, including climate change refugees?”
If so, then, how many? 10 million? 20? 30? Your country is a lifeboat and metaphorically speaking it has a carrying capacity of 20 people. Period. Whether you think you have an moral obligation to haul another 20 refugees on board because they are righteous, their cause is just, or they would afford your lifeboat more diversity is immaterial to the laws of physics, which state that your craft will sink under that weight.
The trouble with the Australian Green Party is, like the others, it cannot decide if it is an environmentalist party or a human rights party. Its policy statement on population and immigration should be shortened by 13 points to read concisely “Australia’s population policy should be determined by its commitment to ecological sustainability.” The environment before people. The boat before its passengers.
The Green Party of the United States places the same priority on human rights as other Green parties. A Californian Green Party policy direction document states bluntly, “immigration policies should be based strongly on human rights.” Not on carrying capacity or sustainability or peak oil or climate change or biodiversity collapse but human rights. The rights of wildlife in the United States to survive runaway immigrant-driven population growth for this anthropocentric “Green” Party is given no mention. Instead, in a press release of May 23,2007 they called on Congress to enact immigration legislation that will protect human rights and “facilitate the path to citizenship” of the 25-35 million undocumented immigrants in the country, who must of course be given amnesty, the universal theme song of the Green movement. The Greens of New Mexico harmonize with that position in their immigration policy document: “We must continue to respect the potential contributions and rights of other new immigrants.”
The California Green Party goes further. They argue for “an authentic free-trade zone where people are free to travel for work,” and invoke Cesar Chavez , as many soft greens and liberals do, as an advocate of this position. In fact Chavez was strident advocate of immigration restriction in defence of the working conditions of Mexican-Americans and stood on the border to patrol to guard against illegal entrants. The foundation of the party’s attitude on immigration is found in a statement that could have been lifted from the policy book of virtually any Green party in the world: “Those living in the industrialized world must end the habits of waste and over-consumption that place as much as stress on the environment as does population growth in developing nations.” Consumption, consumption, consumption. Bring on the immigrant millions. After all, “we are all the same people, and need to break down those psychological barriers, not re-enforce them.” We are the same, yes, but we are also “diverse” at the same time and this diversity must be celebrated and amplified like it or not. The host culture is of little account in Greendom.
The best way to celebrate diversity of course is to offer tantamount support to an 80% immigrant-driven population growth rate in California of 2% , nearly twice the national rate of 1.1%. If unchecked the state’s population will double to 64 million by 2035 and another 32% of its 100 million acres will have to be devoted to urbanization and highways. If the population continues to grow, per capita agricultural land will be reduced approximately half of what it is today, and in 33 years about half of California’s cropland will be unavailable. Currently the state must build 250,000 housing units yearly and one school per day just to keep pace with growth and is already 40% more densely populated than Europe.
In the face of these facts all the California Green Party can do is issue a statement referring to those who favour greater restrictions on immigration as being “xenophobic” and “reactionary”. (Let us hope they choke on that statement when they are paying 50% of their income on food in 2035). In response, an activist for Californians for Population Stabilization (CAPS) replied, “We’re not concerned about who is coming here, but simply the number. It is not a matter of condemning those people who have come here, but looking at resources and asking how many people this land can support with what kind of lifestyle.” It appears that CAPS is the authentic “Green Party” in California.
And we don’t even have to worry about developing countries either. The tonic for overpopulation is, you guessed it, “economic growth”. They conscript the old, discredited Theory of Demographic Transistion to say that “Current global demographics demonstrate that economic well-being promotes low birthrates. (No, but it does promote GHG emissions and habitat loss). Its amazing that this 72 year old theory still enjoys currency.
So there are the nominees for idiocy. The Canadians, the British, the Irish, the Australians and the Americans. The list is by no means inclusive. You might provide better examples of idiotic parties with outrageously contradictory policies. But lets examine the Green parties that were disqualified from the contest on the grounds of sanity.
The Green Party of Missouri states that “Because human impact is now beyond a sustainable level, we must take immediate action to reduce population growth. Our goal is zero population growth in our country as soon as possible.” The Green Party of Minnesota: “We support efforts toward zero or negative human population growth. Overpopulation combined with the resource demands and waste production of modern lifestyles are root causes of environmental degradation.” The Green Party of Hawaii says flatly “Population growth must cease. We need carrying capacity studies for all counties to determine development limits.” Hawaii suffered 2.4% annual population growth from 1970-1986 overwhelmingly due to immigration. It is no wonder that the state elected the first legislator on record to openly declare support for a steady state economy, Senator David Hemmings.
Now the best is left to last. The model of a what Green Party can and should be. The Green Party of New Zealand. Their six page Population Policy statement takes the sensible approach. It begins with an estimate of what population level New Zealand can sustain, based on the Ministry of Environment’s footprint analysis. In 1998 that figure was 5.7 million, but the Green Party treats it with caution, “an indicative upper limit figure only”, for it recognizes that unforeseen contingencies like the peak oil crisis, climate change refugees, war, the sudden return of 750,000 expatriate New Zealanders for example, should make government provide for “spare capacity”. And “in order to maintain both spare capacity and a decent standard of living, the optimum population figure will be significantly lower than the maximum carrying capacity of the land.”
So while Greens the world over feel compelled to fill up the tank right away and keep it full, New Zealand Greens evidence a prudence and understanding of future calamity and existing overshoot. Points 2 and 3 of their “Key Principles” state that “A self-sustaining population cannot be increased beyond the carrying capacity of useable land available” and “The population cannot be increased beyond its capacity to offset its greenhouse emissions.”
Alas, the Greens of New Zealand, Missouri, Minnesota and Hawaii are the renegades of the movement, the exception to the rule. In most cases, your local “Green” Party is a misnomer. It is a name designed to attract the environmentalist constituency but its focus is not really on the environment, but on human rights. The rights of migrants take precedence over their environmental impact, which Greens won’t even acknowledge.
On the basis of this global tour of Green parties, a provisional international manifesto of generic Green-ness is hereby offered as a guide to their cosmology:
INTERNATIONAL MANIFESTO OF GENERIC GREEN-NESS
Consumption is almost everything. Population is almost nothing.
Overpopulation is a global problem, so lets not try to stabilize our own.
Renewable technologies and greener lifestyles will save the day.
We are committed to sustainability---and growth---at the same time.
Growth can be rendered ecologically benign if channeled, managed or deflected.
We share the consensus for the need for economic growth, therefore we favour liberal immigration. There is always a chronic labour shortage isn’t there and oh, don’t undocumented migrants make such a contribution to our society?
Since we favour liberal immigration that is non-discriminatory, then we favour an aggressive multicultural strategy for the integration of migrants. We reject the concept of a national culture.
We place far greater emphasis on climate change than biodiversity collapse even though more species will be lost sooner to human overpopulation than to global warming, which is not as imminent or as catastrophic as the loss of biodiversity services.
We will only acknowledge overpopulation as a problem in developing countries. Migration of people to high consumption societies is to be countered only be lowering the per capita consumption rates of those societies.
Closed borders, immigration controls, or as we call the Bush fence, the “Wall of Shame” send out unfriendly signals to emigrant-countries whose cooperation we need to solve global environmental problems like AGW.
Relieve the wealthy of progressive income tax and capital gains tax and introduce Green Taxes. Punish those at the bottom of the income scale for not having the money to buy hybrid cars and retro-fitted houses. We’re Green Yuppies. Screw the white trash poor!
Tim Murray
Quadra Island, BC
Canada
January 26/08
Sunday, January 20, 2008
DAVID SUZUKI: CHARLATAN OR COWARD?
Here's a shocker from the November 2007 Newsletter of the Population Institute of Canada:
"PIC received a handwritten response from David Suzuki to the letter described in the September minutes, which was signed jointly by Madeline, Tony, Jon and Whitman. Dr. Suzuki thanked us for our "informative letter". He said he would not be able to attend our symposium but was "grateful for your existence". He called Canada's pursuit of steady economic growth as the way to progress a "suicidal notion". He said that by the ecological footprint, we were already overpopulated. Given his views, it seems most likely that the avoidance of the population issue by the Suzuki Foundation is due to its sensitivity."
Forgive me for my lack of charity, but since Dr. Suzuki spent many years in the tiny community in which I live, I know his off-camera reputation well and am not so willing to cut him much slack. This is what I wrote to Jon Legg:
Firstly I am shocked that this charlatan acknowledges that we are over-populated. Should my estimation of him be amended? No. He has such a fund of celebrity and wealth to draw down from, surely he could sacrifice some of it by reading the riot act to his own Foundation or to the media and announcing this insight of his. Secondly, it is as Paul Watson said, these environmental NGOs are more concerned about protecting their donor base and feeding their cushy salaries than saving the environment. If they cared about the latter they would strike out and make noise about overpopulation (and immigration) as Watson does. They wouldn't worry about "sensitivity". Screw them.
I think you have clued on to the fact by now that I haven't got the mentality of a diplomat. Here's my point. We're living on a planet of 6.7 billion people that adds another 80 million each year. And in a nation of 33 million people that grows by 1.08% annually devouring Class 1 farmland, wetlands, threatening 350 species with extinction and dumping 20 metric tons of GHG into the atmosphere for each of the quarter million new citizens it imports each year. In the face of this kind of growth, do you think the David Suzuki Foundation or anybody else has the right to be "sensitive" to anybody's goddam sensibilities? These environmental NGOs are taking in big bucks, why are they walking on eggshells when it comes to THE most critical factor in the environmental degradation of this country and the planet? TOO MANY PEOPLE CONSUMING TOO MUCH!
What is Suzuki waiting for? Has not had his time in the sun? Enough fame? Enough public acclaim? Putting false modesty aside, I have sacrificed far more of my personal life and put far more on the line for the cause than he. I am a pariah on Quadra for my Malthusian anti-Sierran views. Suzuki was an outcast here because he was a conceited, arrogant, pompous, condescending jerk. But as a public figure nationally, he could move mountains, if he wanted to. He is squandering his fame by beating around the bush and not publicly addressing root causes.
It is so ironic. How could someone put such a premium on celebrity and impersonal popularity, and yet have cared so little about how he was perceived by the ordinary people he interacted with? If you are going to piss people off, as I do, why not do it for a good cause and on a national stage? Two-faced, hypocrite, coward. Certainly not my nominee for the CBC's "Greatest Canadian". Tommy Douglas had more guts in his index finger.
Tim Murray
Quadra Island, BC
Suzuki's long-time lair
Wednesday, January 16, 2008
BRISHEN HOFF COURAGEOUS
RE. ABORIGINALS AS WISE STEWARDS
Brishen Hoff is to be congratulated for his courageous attempt in taking on one of Canada's most untouchable sacred cows----the myth of aboriginal superiority in the stewardship of resources. Politically correct reverence toward natives can trace its roots to Jean Jacques Rousseau's "Noble Savage", to the concept that Natives were pure and close to nature until the vile and decadent Europeans corrupted them with their greed and plunder. Then Hollywood came along to show that the white settlers were noble, pure and Christian and the natives were just bloody thirsty savages. My Grade 11 history text had a picture of Indians torturing a French Canadian priest at the stake. Today the talk is all about how the church inflicted psychological torture on natives. The pendulum swings back and forth between two idealized poles of distortion. What Hoff demonstrates is that environmental mismanagement is ALSO an aboriginal trademark, and he suggests that historically humankind of all races have NEVER respected limits. The contemporary Hollywood theme, the Marlon Brando-Kevin Kostner portrait of natives as people who talk to The Great Spirit and never take more than they need and never despoil, is quite simply BULLSHIT. I could just as easily dance around a campfire chanting and waving a copy of Walden Pond to claim that white European Americans have always been in touch with nature. But for every Henry David Thoreau or John Muir there were ten robber barrons who gave a rat's backside for the ecology. All cultures are infected with the growth imperative. It is likely hardwired into our brains. That's why we're likely doomed. Tim
Brishen Hoff is to be congratulated for his courageous attempt in taking on one of Canada's most untouchable sacred cows----the myth of aboriginal superiority in the stewardship of resources. Politically correct reverence toward natives can trace its roots to Jean Jacques Rousseau's "Noble Savage", to the concept that Natives were pure and close to nature until the vile and decadent Europeans corrupted them with their greed and plunder. Then Hollywood came along to show that the white settlers were noble, pure and Christian and the natives were just bloody thirsty savages. My Grade 11 history text had a picture of Indians torturing a French Canadian priest at the stake. Today the talk is all about how the church inflicted psychological torture on natives. The pendulum swings back and forth between two idealized poles of distortion. What Hoff demonstrates is that environmental mismanagement is ALSO an aboriginal trademark, and he suggests that historically humankind of all races have NEVER respected limits. The contemporary Hollywood theme, the Marlon Brando-Kevin Kostner portrait of natives as people who talk to The Great Spirit and never take more than they need and never despoil, is quite simply BULLSHIT. I could just as easily dance around a campfire chanting and waving a copy of Walden Pond to claim that white European Americans have always been in touch with nature. But for every Henry David Thoreau or John Muir there were ten robber barrons who gave a rat's backside for the ecology. All cultures are infected with the growth imperative. It is likely hardwired into our brains. That's why we're likely doomed. Tim
Tuesday, January 15, 2008
ABORIGINALS AS WISE STEWARDS by Brishen Hoff
The media portrays Canadian first nations people as wise keepers of the land who have the unique ability to live sustainably with their local ecosystems.
Supposedly, all we have to do to ensure land retains its ecological integrity is to put it into the hands of these inherently wise stewards.
Perhaps this concept is born out of imagining how rich in resources the Canadian landscape must have been before European settlement. Before the first wave of non-native settlers arrived, Canada's land was immeasurably more healthy and wealthy with vast virgin forests, pristine lakes, unspoiled ocean coasts and such an abundant variety plants and animals.
However, the relatively pristine state of Canada's ecosystems prior to European immigration is not due to Aboriginal people possessing some inborn instinct to respect ecological limits.
The reason that Canada's land was in such a healthy state before European settlers arrived is because the population of Aboriginals and therefore Canada was low at that time.
These pre-European settlement Aboriginals enjoyed a low population by chance, not by design. They were the first immigrants to Canada. The era of fossil fuel exploitation that brought about rapid population growth through modern agriculture and industrialization had not yet begun in any part of the world.
If Europeans had never immigrated into Canada, logic suggests Aboriginals would have industrialized Canada as soon as technologies became available through globalization. In all likelihood they would have copied Britain, France, USA, Australia, and virtually every other country on earth by allowing massive immigration to grow the population in the name of economic growth.
Therefore, there is no inherent environmental wisdom that is unique to Aboriginal people. In fact saying that there is would be racist. Just as racist as a contention that they are inherently inferior in their abilities to manage competently. The argument here is merely to humanize indigenous peoples and place the blame for eco-vandalism at the foot of all peoples’ historical unwillingness to
set or acknowledge limits.
On January 12 the Michipicoten First Nation people (http://www.michipicoten.com/)south of Wawa, Ontario near Lake Superior received $58 million in tax payers' money and 3000 acres of crown land by the federal government.
They plan to use this land for "Economic Growth" and have set their sights on construction of a major hydro-electric dam, industrial forestry, a new gas station business (along the Trans-Canada Highway) and mining projects.
"Economic Growth" is facilitated by rising population and rising consumption per person. The Michipicoten First Nation uses the term "Economic Growth" on this page as part of their vision statement: http://www.michipicoten.com/content/econo.html
This should raise red flags. How could a people who is supposed to live sustainably with their environment aspire to "Economic Growth"?
On their main page, the Michipicoten state: "TO WALK OUR PATH IS TO EXPERIENCE THE BREATHLESS BEAUTY OF THE WILDERNESS AND TO FEEL AND PARTICIPATE IN OUR ONENESS WITH MOTHER EARTH AND ALL THAT IS."
Does their "oneness with mother earth" include damming her rivers with industrial scale hydro-electric dams for "Economic Growth"?
This land was crown land that any Canadian could go walking or camping on. Not anymore. This 3000 acres of Lake Superior waterfront wilderness is now private property in the hands of "the wise stewards" and is slated for industrial resource extraction.
This is not an isolated incident. All over Canada Aboriginals are teaming up with large multinational corporations. The Aboriginals offer their land and their stamp of approval and the corporations offer the Aboriginals a share of the profits. The government couldn't be happier, since it promotes economic growth, the media's universal measure of well-being where we grow our GDP year after year. This is a dream partnership for corporations and melds nicely with their ongoing PR efforts. Just as nuclear corporations love to have a celebrity “environmentalist” like Patrick Moore speaking on their behalf, and the Royal Bank of Canada, a major engine of environmental destruction, loves to have Nature Conservancy of Canada advertising their mutual collaboration, corporations love to have Aboriginals on board to make the public think they’re running a "green" operation. What better way to bypass arduous red tape like Environmental Assessments and Public Consultations than to get an endorsement by forming a partnership with the First Nations people. After all, the average urban Canadian still believes that if the Aboriginals are involved in land management decisions, the land will be preserved sustainably, leaving ecosystems in the same kind of condition when European settlers first arrived. WRONG! The Aboriginals of today are not the same. First, there are more of them. Second, they have access to technology such as log skidders, chain saws, etc and they often just take a lump settlement of cash and let the multinational corporations bring in the heavy machinery for mining/logging/etc.
Canadian Aboriginals are exploiting land for its natural resources just the same as all other cultures. It should be noted that Aboriginals are apparently the fastest growing demographic in Canada. Elevated rights in our multi-tier Canadian human rights system could provide an explanation for such rampant population growth. What happens when you provide birdseed for only one particular species of bird? That species will have an advantage and consequently grow its population.
Aboriginals do not need hunting or fishing licenses. They can use gill nets for fishing. They can take as many walleye or moose as they can kill in or out of season. According to a brochure I picked up at the local MNR office entitled "Anishinabek Harvesting in Ontario", Aboriginals need not take the hunter safety course and they are even entitled to build a cabin on crown land. In addition they are not required to report their harvest. They also do not pay sales tax, property tax or fuel taxes. These conditions are conducive to a population explosion of Aboriginals, which is precisely what we are experiencing in Canada. In the far north, Aboriginals are still hunting beluga and narwhals and using modern rifles to do so.
Here are 4 more examples:
1) In 2002, the Cree Aboriginals and Quebec Premier Bernard Landry sign the "Peace of the Braves" accord. In return for a $3.5-billion from Quebec tax payers, the Crees agree to construct a massive hydroelectric project on the Rupert and Eastmain Rivers. http://www.vjel.org/editorials/ED10025.html
2) In 2004, 1.3 million hectares of old growth boreal forest are up for clearcutting near Red Lake in NW Ontario beyond the 51st parallel after Aboriginals agreed by accepting monetary incentives.
"...a massive land-use planning study is underway to open up vast expanses of virgin wilderness in Ontario's far North to commercial forestry within the next decade... Aboriginal communities, including Slate Falls, Cat Lake, Constance Lake, Eabemetoong and the Moose Cree, have expressed interest in obtaining Sustainable Forest Licences to start commercial logging in their traditional-use areas."
"...commercial logging in the Whitefeather area is not anticipated to occur until 2009. Timberline Consultants, a British Columbia forest management company, is working with the community to train people in the community to develop a forestry inventory to quantify development opportunities covering 1.3 million hectares of forest."
http://www.northernontariobusiness.com/industry/forestry/3041609-04-plan-maps.asp
"The goal of the initiative is to secure commercial forest management tenure, and forestry and protected areas opportunities within the traditional territories of our First Nation. We have now passed a critical milestone in achieving our goal – the completion and approval of a Land Use Strategy for 'Keeping the Land.'" -- The Pikangikum First Nation
http://www.whitefeatherforest.com/
3) The Wikwemikong First Nation owning 55,000 hectares of eastern Manitoulin Island have chosen industrial scale logging as a revenue source.
http://sst-ess.rncan-nrcan.gc.ca/2002_2006/sci/project_details_e.php?ProjID=49
"By the early 1990s, 80 years of unsustainable logging had severely depleted the community's 110,000-acre forest. A dozen people employed sporadically generated $250,000 per year by logging poor quality pulpwood."
http://www.life.ca/nl/53/forestry.html
4) The Zhiibaahaasing First Nation also on Manitoulin Island decided to make a quick buck by dumping an estimated 1.75 million used tires creating a massive fire hazard and costing tax payers $4 million dollars to remove.
http://www.manitoulin.ca/Expositor/old%20files/aug29_2007.htm
It doesn't matter what people's history you examine. All civilizations have expanded their population to the detriment of the environment, including Canadian Aboriginals.
At 6.7 billion people and with oil production passing peak, the world cannot sustainably support its present population and any further growth comes at the cost of biodiversity and quality of life. In addition, the likelihood of billions of people dying due to the fallout from oil depletion increases as the population grows.
The following data suggests that Canadian Aboriginals are making the same mistakes as all other civilizations:
"Previous censuses have shown that the Aboriginal population is growing much faster than the total population, a trend which will continue through to 2017. The Aboriginal population is expected to grow at an average annual rate of 1.8%, more than twice the rate of 0.7% for the general population. The biggest contributing factor to the more rapid growth is fertility, as the current Aboriginal birth rate is about 1.5 times the overall Canadian rate. According to the medium-growth scenario, the Inuit population will have the fastest rate of growth, about 2.3%, compared with 1.9% for the North American Indian population and 1.4% for the Métis."
http://www.statcan.ca/Daily/English/050628/d050628d.htm
In summary, Aboriginal rights have lead to growth of their population. The more rights they get, the more their population grows. The more any population grows, the more environmental damage there is.
No human rights can be guaranteed unless ecological limits are respected. Over time, the overpopulation of human beings can erode every right you hold dear. Our society is supremely flawed with its liberal policy that allows any woman to bear as many children as she is physically able to. As long as we have that policy, nobody's rights can be ascertained including Natives. What kind of natural resource management is the following: A Canadian needs a license to catch a single fish (unless you're a Native), but no license to have 10 children.
Human rights is a two-tiered system in Canada. There's native rights, and then there's the rights of everyone else. Without applying the same rules to everyone, racial equality in Canada is a myth and the biggest discriminator isn't some extremist group wearing white robes and burning crosses, it's the government who chooses not to collect taxes from three races: North American Indian, Inuit and Métis.
There is nothing sustainable about population growth and First Nations people are no exception to that rule. Nothing can grow indefinitely in a finite world.
http://ecologicalcrash.blogspot.com/2008/01/aboriginals-as-wise-stewards.html
Supposedly, all we have to do to ensure land retains its ecological integrity is to put it into the hands of these inherently wise stewards.
Perhaps this concept is born out of imagining how rich in resources the Canadian landscape must have been before European settlement. Before the first wave of non-native settlers arrived, Canada's land was immeasurably more healthy and wealthy with vast virgin forests, pristine lakes, unspoiled ocean coasts and such an abundant variety plants and animals.
However, the relatively pristine state of Canada's ecosystems prior to European immigration is not due to Aboriginal people possessing some inborn instinct to respect ecological limits.
The reason that Canada's land was in such a healthy state before European settlers arrived is because the population of Aboriginals and therefore Canada was low at that time.
These pre-European settlement Aboriginals enjoyed a low population by chance, not by design. They were the first immigrants to Canada. The era of fossil fuel exploitation that brought about rapid population growth through modern agriculture and industrialization had not yet begun in any part of the world.
If Europeans had never immigrated into Canada, logic suggests Aboriginals would have industrialized Canada as soon as technologies became available through globalization. In all likelihood they would have copied Britain, France, USA, Australia, and virtually every other country on earth by allowing massive immigration to grow the population in the name of economic growth.
Therefore, there is no inherent environmental wisdom that is unique to Aboriginal people. In fact saying that there is would be racist. Just as racist as a contention that they are inherently inferior in their abilities to manage competently. The argument here is merely to humanize indigenous peoples and place the blame for eco-vandalism at the foot of all peoples’ historical unwillingness to
set or acknowledge limits.
On January 12 the Michipicoten First Nation people (http://www.michipicoten.com/)south of Wawa, Ontario near Lake Superior received $58 million in tax payers' money and 3000 acres of crown land by the federal government.
They plan to use this land for "Economic Growth" and have set their sights on construction of a major hydro-electric dam, industrial forestry, a new gas station business (along the Trans-Canada Highway) and mining projects.
"Economic Growth" is facilitated by rising population and rising consumption per person. The Michipicoten First Nation uses the term "Economic Growth" on this page as part of their vision statement: http://www.michipicoten.com/content/econo.html
This should raise red flags. How could a people who is supposed to live sustainably with their environment aspire to "Economic Growth"?
On their main page, the Michipicoten state: "TO WALK OUR PATH IS TO EXPERIENCE THE BREATHLESS BEAUTY OF THE WILDERNESS AND TO FEEL AND PARTICIPATE IN OUR ONENESS WITH MOTHER EARTH AND ALL THAT IS."
Does their "oneness with mother earth" include damming her rivers with industrial scale hydro-electric dams for "Economic Growth"?
This land was crown land that any Canadian could go walking or camping on. Not anymore. This 3000 acres of Lake Superior waterfront wilderness is now private property in the hands of "the wise stewards" and is slated for industrial resource extraction.
This is not an isolated incident. All over Canada Aboriginals are teaming up with large multinational corporations. The Aboriginals offer their land and their stamp of approval and the corporations offer the Aboriginals a share of the profits. The government couldn't be happier, since it promotes economic growth, the media's universal measure of well-being where we grow our GDP year after year. This is a dream partnership for corporations and melds nicely with their ongoing PR efforts. Just as nuclear corporations love to have a celebrity “environmentalist” like Patrick Moore speaking on their behalf, and the Royal Bank of Canada, a major engine of environmental destruction, loves to have Nature Conservancy of Canada advertising their mutual collaboration, corporations love to have Aboriginals on board to make the public think they’re running a "green" operation. What better way to bypass arduous red tape like Environmental Assessments and Public Consultations than to get an endorsement by forming a partnership with the First Nations people. After all, the average urban Canadian still believes that if the Aboriginals are involved in land management decisions, the land will be preserved sustainably, leaving ecosystems in the same kind of condition when European settlers first arrived. WRONG! The Aboriginals of today are not the same. First, there are more of them. Second, they have access to technology such as log skidders, chain saws, etc and they often just take a lump settlement of cash and let the multinational corporations bring in the heavy machinery for mining/logging/etc.
Canadian Aboriginals are exploiting land for its natural resources just the same as all other cultures. It should be noted that Aboriginals are apparently the fastest growing demographic in Canada. Elevated rights in our multi-tier Canadian human rights system could provide an explanation for such rampant population growth. What happens when you provide birdseed for only one particular species of bird? That species will have an advantage and consequently grow its population.
Aboriginals do not need hunting or fishing licenses. They can use gill nets for fishing. They can take as many walleye or moose as they can kill in or out of season. According to a brochure I picked up at the local MNR office entitled "Anishinabek Harvesting in Ontario", Aboriginals need not take the hunter safety course and they are even entitled to build a cabin on crown land. In addition they are not required to report their harvest. They also do not pay sales tax, property tax or fuel taxes. These conditions are conducive to a population explosion of Aboriginals, which is precisely what we are experiencing in Canada. In the far north, Aboriginals are still hunting beluga and narwhals and using modern rifles to do so.
Here are 4 more examples:
1) In 2002, the Cree Aboriginals and Quebec Premier Bernard Landry sign the "Peace of the Braves" accord. In return for a $3.5-billion from Quebec tax payers, the Crees agree to construct a massive hydroelectric project on the Rupert and Eastmain Rivers. http://www.vjel.org/editorials/ED10025.html
2) In 2004, 1.3 million hectares of old growth boreal forest are up for clearcutting near Red Lake in NW Ontario beyond the 51st parallel after Aboriginals agreed by accepting monetary incentives.
"...a massive land-use planning study is underway to open up vast expanses of virgin wilderness in Ontario's far North to commercial forestry within the next decade... Aboriginal communities, including Slate Falls, Cat Lake, Constance Lake, Eabemetoong and the Moose Cree, have expressed interest in obtaining Sustainable Forest Licences to start commercial logging in their traditional-use areas."
"...commercial logging in the Whitefeather area is not anticipated to occur until 2009. Timberline Consultants, a British Columbia forest management company, is working with the community to train people in the community to develop a forestry inventory to quantify development opportunities covering 1.3 million hectares of forest."
http://www.northernontariobusiness.com/industry/forestry/3041609-04-plan-maps.asp
"The goal of the initiative is to secure commercial forest management tenure, and forestry and protected areas opportunities within the traditional territories of our First Nation. We have now passed a critical milestone in achieving our goal – the completion and approval of a Land Use Strategy for 'Keeping the Land.'" -- The Pikangikum First Nation
http://www.whitefeatherforest.com/
3) The Wikwemikong First Nation owning 55,000 hectares of eastern Manitoulin Island have chosen industrial scale logging as a revenue source.
http://sst-ess.rncan-nrcan.gc.ca/2002_2006/sci/project_details_e.php?ProjID=49
"By the early 1990s, 80 years of unsustainable logging had severely depleted the community's 110,000-acre forest. A dozen people employed sporadically generated $250,000 per year by logging poor quality pulpwood."
http://www.life.ca/nl/53/forestry.html
4) The Zhiibaahaasing First Nation also on Manitoulin Island decided to make a quick buck by dumping an estimated 1.75 million used tires creating a massive fire hazard and costing tax payers $4 million dollars to remove.
http://www.manitoulin.ca/Expositor/old%20files/aug29_2007.htm
It doesn't matter what people's history you examine. All civilizations have expanded their population to the detriment of the environment, including Canadian Aboriginals.
At 6.7 billion people and with oil production passing peak, the world cannot sustainably support its present population and any further growth comes at the cost of biodiversity and quality of life. In addition, the likelihood of billions of people dying due to the fallout from oil depletion increases as the population grows.
The following data suggests that Canadian Aboriginals are making the same mistakes as all other civilizations:
"Previous censuses have shown that the Aboriginal population is growing much faster than the total population, a trend which will continue through to 2017. The Aboriginal population is expected to grow at an average annual rate of 1.8%, more than twice the rate of 0.7% for the general population. The biggest contributing factor to the more rapid growth is fertility, as the current Aboriginal birth rate is about 1.5 times the overall Canadian rate. According to the medium-growth scenario, the Inuit population will have the fastest rate of growth, about 2.3%, compared with 1.9% for the North American Indian population and 1.4% for the Métis."
http://www.statcan.ca/Daily/English/050628/d050628d.htm
In summary, Aboriginal rights have lead to growth of their population. The more rights they get, the more their population grows. The more any population grows, the more environmental damage there is.
No human rights can be guaranteed unless ecological limits are respected. Over time, the overpopulation of human beings can erode every right you hold dear. Our society is supremely flawed with its liberal policy that allows any woman to bear as many children as she is physically able to. As long as we have that policy, nobody's rights can be ascertained including Natives. What kind of natural resource management is the following: A Canadian needs a license to catch a single fish (unless you're a Native), but no license to have 10 children.
Human rights is a two-tiered system in Canada. There's native rights, and then there's the rights of everyone else. Without applying the same rules to everyone, racial equality in Canada is a myth and the biggest discriminator isn't some extremist group wearing white robes and burning crosses, it's the government who chooses not to collect taxes from three races: North American Indian, Inuit and Métis.
There is nothing sustainable about population growth and First Nations people are no exception to that rule. Nothing can grow indefinitely in a finite world.
http://ecologicalcrash.blogspot.com/2008/01/aboriginals-as-wise-stewards.html
Thursday, January 10, 2008
AUSTRALIA AND CANADA: TWO DEMOGRAPHIC BULIMICS?
Poet and author Mark O’Connor has written another important analysis of Australia’s ecological eclipse at the hands of the growth cult. While the continent is obviously unique in its botanical character with problems that don’t challenge Canadians, the similarities with Canada that O’Connor reveals in his description of the evolution of the growth ethic are simply astounding.
Like Canada, “Australia was, and still is, even though much trashed and abused a treasure house of biodiversity,” toward which the people have a somewhat schizophrenic attitude. On the one hand, “Australians are genuinely proud of their wildlife…many people assign a very high, almost religious value to conserving nature”, as evidenced by their tolerance of crocodiles which make it impossible to swim in their tropical waters. 10.7% of Australia is incorporated in a strategic network of parks.
Yet, O’Connor writes, “Attitudes to Australia’s biodiversity remain mixed.” It may be inspirational to watch them in flight but “people don’t appreciate kangaroos eating their crops.” Sadly Australian experience shows that democracy is not good at preserving other species---they don’t vote.” (There is) a theme that runs through Australia’s ecological history: the clash between the desire to protect biodiversity versus the need of an ever-growing human population to make a quid from it.”
He had this warning about false confidence in the natural park system: “These parks have supposedly been created in perpetuity; yet there is a risk that further shifts in ideology may leave a future government free to revoke national parks. (It would by then be able to plead the housing and resource needs of a much expanded population, plus its need of export earnings from lands that would be otherwise ‘going to waste’.) Developers constantly agitate for governments to become less ‘sluggish’ in ‘releasing more land’.”
O’Connor reminds readers that Australia’s ecology was dynamic. While “we might prefer to praise the Aborigines’ achievement in living sustainably with the land for millennia, and contrast this with the damage eight generations of European lifestyle have wrought,” Aboriginal hunters had already modified ecology by the fire regime they imposed before Europeans arrived. Paul Watson, it should be pointed out here, asserts that Aborigines killed off 85% of the continent’s megafauna before the British hit Botany Bay, an assertion that has been contested. Nevertherless Watson is one of the very few Canadians not given to romantic illusions about indigenous stewardship of precious resources.
The foundation of Australia’s current ecological crisis, and that of Canada, is their false self-perception as vast empty lands desperately in need of more people. Two bloated bulimics who look in the mirror and see themselves as Twiggy with lots of room to grow. The myth is best captured by Australia’s national anthem “Advance Australia Fair” when it says “For those who’ve come across the seas. We’ve boundless plains to share.”
But as O’Connor notes, Australia has only 6% of its land mass proven as arable. For Canada it is 7% with soils marginal by European standards. As for wheat, because Australia provides 20% of the world’s wheat imports, feeding 40 million people, “boomers” argue that Australia could feed a far higher resident population than its current 21 million. But they forget that much of that foreign exchange is needed to pay for the fuel and nitrate fertilizer used for production, and soil loss, acidification and climate change will diminish yields. “Every tonne of wheat still costs some 50 tonnes of eroded soil”, O’Connor observes.
Even so, with the drought tolerant wheat grown in fertile soils in a good year Australia produces less wheat than France, and in a bad year sometimes less than Britain. And all at the cost of ‘fascinating’ bio-regions cleared and species eliminated.
So if the big empty land in fact suffers from a limited carrying capacity, if food self-sufficiency is a myth, if biodiversity is taking a beating, why then does Australia seem in a frenzy to add to its numbers? (Canada could be asked the same question). Who drives growth? Cui Bono? Who Benefits?
The answer might be found in research done by the Australian Green Party that revealed that the governing Labor Party of New South Wales received $8.78 million in 1998-99 from property developers, while the opposition Coalition Parties received $6.35 million. Not surprisingly then Sydney’s councils have been instructed to accommodate an extra 1.1 million people (24%) in 25 years so that Australia offers the paradox of a huge country with urban housing prices comparable to New York of London, where land prices double in a decade and its 1.5% population growth is higher than Indonesia’s and indeed many Third World countries.
“Local and even national newspapers run a depressing spiral of puff pieces about how we are desperately short of skilled and willing workers---alternately with pieces about how we are desperately short of projects to provide employment. The intended solution is of course an endless cycle (or spiral) of increasing population and increasing construction. If only politicians could give Australia the construction industry its population needs, rather than the population its construction industry would like.”
O’Connor cites Australia’s Anglo-Celtic property system for fuelling the drive to “fill the country with people” by rewarding private speculation in land. “By contrast, the nation’s capital, Canberra, was built on a French-style system, with the government resuming land from farmers at fair but moderate prices, auctioning it as cheaply as possible, and using the profit it couldn’t help making to provide roads, schools, services and an elegantly planned layout. Canberra remains one of the world’s most livable cities, and (for the developers who control much of Australia’s politics) an embarrassing proof that there is a better way.”
To footnote this observation it should be noted that Australian population sociologist Sheila Newman has ably documented the relationship between the British property system and the population growth lobby on the one hand, and the French property system and the absence of any meaningful lobby for growth in France on the other hand. Students of Canadian civic politics know that developers virtually own city councils. What sinister role do they play behind the scenes in framing federal immigration policy or influencing it? The Urban Futures Institute, a high profile Vancouver-based think tank, is a consistent cheerleader for massive immigration. Its mouthpiece was formerly “demographer” David Baxter who couched his arguments in demographic statistics to prove that he was in possession of a crystal ball, in fact had no credentials as a demographer. He was merely a front man for the real estate industry which fully funds the institute. He was guaranteed an interview by every media outlet when occasion demanded it.
Has any voice of caution or restraint been raised against this mad rush to ecological oblivion? Well there was the Whitlam Labor government of 1972-75 which reacted to the first Global Oil shock by limiting immigration and population growth. Then the Australian Academy of Science made a major public statement in 1994 that advised that Australia’s population not exceed 23 million and that immigration be half of what it was during the Hawke-Keating era. The Science Council of Canada issued a similar report in 1975 when it warned that Canada’s population should not go beyond 30 million. The government responded by abolishing the Science Council and then proceeding along a path that saw the land of frozen tundra, lakes and mountains fill up one-fifth of its Class 1 farmland with subdivisions and become a nation of 33 million with the fastest growth rate in the G8 group.
The Australian Democrats came out in favour of zero-net-migration, but the political culture was poisoned. Under the Hawke-Keating Labor governments of 1983-1996 Australia was essentially a “plutocratic democracy” where voters were presented with a Hobson’s choice between parties who were “servants of business-growth lobbies”. While cognizant of conservationist sensibilities, “Hawke dared not offend the growth lobby.” But even the large immigrant communities were among the 73% of voters who in 1991 said immigration levels were too high, or the 71% in 1996 who held to this opinion. Again, Canadians have affected consistent opposition to immigration in the same proportions, but like Australians, have been presented with a solid parliamentary front in favour of a policy they detest..
But nevertheless, given the scale and persistence of this discontent Labor’s spin-doctors needed to give the old myth of Australia as an empty land a make-over. There was no farmland available and urban land prices were beyond reach, so alright then, it would no longer be Australia’s manifest destiny to build a “great” nation but rather a “diverse” one.
It would become a United Nations of ethnicities and races sustained by permanent immigration long after the pioneering period had past. But the obsession with cultural diversity would trump concern for preserving biological diversity.
“Thus instead of being ashamed that we have lost so many of our marsupial species, many Australians on the left seem more ashamed that we do not have flourishing Inuit or Bantu community in their particular city. Quite why it should be Australia’s duty to turn itself into a representative sample of the cultures of the earth is never explained. Instead, there are constant shouts that any reduction of immigration will lead us tumbling back into an abyss of ‘racism’ and ‘boring monoculturalsim’.” “Thus Labor was able to disguise a right-wing policy of relentless growth as left-wing ‘tolerance’, O’Connor writes.
“Hawke’s and Keating’s spin doctors even took advantage of the Anglo-Celtic guilt over having immigrated upon the Aboriginal tribes without their permission and violently displaced them. Somehow this became a further reason why high immigration, so long as it was no longer Anglo-Celtic, was essential—as if inviting in the rest of the world would legitimize it.”
O’Connor forecasts that the incoming Labor government of Kevin Rudd will continue to the traditional quest for economic growth, only addressing GHG issues if they do not compromise this goal. He compares Australia to “a cruise liner whose captain is required to sail in the direction chosen by a deck-steward whose priority is to keep the sun shining on the deckchairs in the saloon section, so that their occupants will order more drinks.”
The metaphor is an interesting one, for Canada too could be compared to a cruise liner. The HMS Ecological Titanic still robotically stopping to pick up more passengers as it ploughs forward toward the iceberg of over-population.
We may, albeit in diminished numbers, adapt to climate change, but we will not adapt to biodiversity collapse. O’Connor spoke of Australia’s botanical and ecological fragility, but this is what environmentalist Brishen Hoff said of Canada: “Our boreal forest continues to experience wholesale clearcutting and relentless road expansion. More water is being diverted from the Great Lakes watershed than what is being replenished, causing the highest lakes (Nipigon, Superior, etc.) to dramatically drop their water levels. I could go on with thousands of examples of species extinctions and worsening environmental quality right here in Ontario and Algoma-Manitoulin all because of human population growth.”
In fact most of the more than 500 threatened species dwell within the range of Canada’s major urban centres where they are imperiled by sprawling subdivisions roughly 70% of which are occupied by immigrants. But remember, mass immigration is to be celebrated in Canada as, in the words of Green Party leader Elizabeth May, “our great multicultural project.” Like Sydney, Vancouverites are told that they must move over and accommodate another 800,000 migrants in the coming 23 years (24% growth) and appreciate the newcomers for the “diversity” they bring. But at what cost this “cultural diversity”? An infinitely richer, more vital heritage. The biological diversity of the species that this growth will extinguish.
What’s the answer? O’Connor quotes Gordon Hocking of NSW: “As long as we stick with an economic system that needs to perpetually grow we will remain trapped on the road to ecological and climate disaster.” Brishen Hoff would add “None of these symptoms can be reversed without shrinking the size of our economy and then moving to a steady state economy.”
Bulimics gorge, then purge. Let’s hope our national binging ends soon and our demographic weight loss is progressive and incremental rather than dramatic and deadly.
Watch for the upcoming book by Mark O’Connor and William Lines, “Overloading Australia”.
Like Canada, “Australia was, and still is, even though much trashed and abused a treasure house of biodiversity,” toward which the people have a somewhat schizophrenic attitude. On the one hand, “Australians are genuinely proud of their wildlife…many people assign a very high, almost religious value to conserving nature”, as evidenced by their tolerance of crocodiles which make it impossible to swim in their tropical waters. 10.7% of Australia is incorporated in a strategic network of parks.
Yet, O’Connor writes, “Attitudes to Australia’s biodiversity remain mixed.” It may be inspirational to watch them in flight but “people don’t appreciate kangaroos eating their crops.” Sadly Australian experience shows that democracy is not good at preserving other species---they don’t vote.” (There is) a theme that runs through Australia’s ecological history: the clash between the desire to protect biodiversity versus the need of an ever-growing human population to make a quid from it.”
He had this warning about false confidence in the natural park system: “These parks have supposedly been created in perpetuity; yet there is a risk that further shifts in ideology may leave a future government free to revoke national parks. (It would by then be able to plead the housing and resource needs of a much expanded population, plus its need of export earnings from lands that would be otherwise ‘going to waste’.) Developers constantly agitate for governments to become less ‘sluggish’ in ‘releasing more land’.”
O’Connor reminds readers that Australia’s ecology was dynamic. While “we might prefer to praise the Aborigines’ achievement in living sustainably with the land for millennia, and contrast this with the damage eight generations of European lifestyle have wrought,” Aboriginal hunters had already modified ecology by the fire regime they imposed before Europeans arrived. Paul Watson, it should be pointed out here, asserts that Aborigines killed off 85% of the continent’s megafauna before the British hit Botany Bay, an assertion that has been contested. Nevertherless Watson is one of the very few Canadians not given to romantic illusions about indigenous stewardship of precious resources.
The foundation of Australia’s current ecological crisis, and that of Canada, is their false self-perception as vast empty lands desperately in need of more people. Two bloated bulimics who look in the mirror and see themselves as Twiggy with lots of room to grow. The myth is best captured by Australia’s national anthem “Advance Australia Fair” when it says “For those who’ve come across the seas. We’ve boundless plains to share.”
But as O’Connor notes, Australia has only 6% of its land mass proven as arable. For Canada it is 7% with soils marginal by European standards. As for wheat, because Australia provides 20% of the world’s wheat imports, feeding 40 million people, “boomers” argue that Australia could feed a far higher resident population than its current 21 million. But they forget that much of that foreign exchange is needed to pay for the fuel and nitrate fertilizer used for production, and soil loss, acidification and climate change will diminish yields. “Every tonne of wheat still costs some 50 tonnes of eroded soil”, O’Connor observes.
Even so, with the drought tolerant wheat grown in fertile soils in a good year Australia produces less wheat than France, and in a bad year sometimes less than Britain. And all at the cost of ‘fascinating’ bio-regions cleared and species eliminated.
So if the big empty land in fact suffers from a limited carrying capacity, if food self-sufficiency is a myth, if biodiversity is taking a beating, why then does Australia seem in a frenzy to add to its numbers? (Canada could be asked the same question). Who drives growth? Cui Bono? Who Benefits?
The answer might be found in research done by the Australian Green Party that revealed that the governing Labor Party of New South Wales received $8.78 million in 1998-99 from property developers, while the opposition Coalition Parties received $6.35 million. Not surprisingly then Sydney’s councils have been instructed to accommodate an extra 1.1 million people (24%) in 25 years so that Australia offers the paradox of a huge country with urban housing prices comparable to New York of London, where land prices double in a decade and its 1.5% population growth is higher than Indonesia’s and indeed many Third World countries.
“Local and even national newspapers run a depressing spiral of puff pieces about how we are desperately short of skilled and willing workers---alternately with pieces about how we are desperately short of projects to provide employment. The intended solution is of course an endless cycle (or spiral) of increasing population and increasing construction. If only politicians could give Australia the construction industry its population needs, rather than the population its construction industry would like.”
O’Connor cites Australia’s Anglo-Celtic property system for fuelling the drive to “fill the country with people” by rewarding private speculation in land. “By contrast, the nation’s capital, Canberra, was built on a French-style system, with the government resuming land from farmers at fair but moderate prices, auctioning it as cheaply as possible, and using the profit it couldn’t help making to provide roads, schools, services and an elegantly planned layout. Canberra remains one of the world’s most livable cities, and (for the developers who control much of Australia’s politics) an embarrassing proof that there is a better way.”
To footnote this observation it should be noted that Australian population sociologist Sheila Newman has ably documented the relationship between the British property system and the population growth lobby on the one hand, and the French property system and the absence of any meaningful lobby for growth in France on the other hand. Students of Canadian civic politics know that developers virtually own city councils. What sinister role do they play behind the scenes in framing federal immigration policy or influencing it? The Urban Futures Institute, a high profile Vancouver-based think tank, is a consistent cheerleader for massive immigration. Its mouthpiece was formerly “demographer” David Baxter who couched his arguments in demographic statistics to prove that he was in possession of a crystal ball, in fact had no credentials as a demographer. He was merely a front man for the real estate industry which fully funds the institute. He was guaranteed an interview by every media outlet when occasion demanded it.
Has any voice of caution or restraint been raised against this mad rush to ecological oblivion? Well there was the Whitlam Labor government of 1972-75 which reacted to the first Global Oil shock by limiting immigration and population growth. Then the Australian Academy of Science made a major public statement in 1994 that advised that Australia’s population not exceed 23 million and that immigration be half of what it was during the Hawke-Keating era. The Science Council of Canada issued a similar report in 1975 when it warned that Canada’s population should not go beyond 30 million. The government responded by abolishing the Science Council and then proceeding along a path that saw the land of frozen tundra, lakes and mountains fill up one-fifth of its Class 1 farmland with subdivisions and become a nation of 33 million with the fastest growth rate in the G8 group.
The Australian Democrats came out in favour of zero-net-migration, but the political culture was poisoned. Under the Hawke-Keating Labor governments of 1983-1996 Australia was essentially a “plutocratic democracy” where voters were presented with a Hobson’s choice between parties who were “servants of business-growth lobbies”. While cognizant of conservationist sensibilities, “Hawke dared not offend the growth lobby.” But even the large immigrant communities were among the 73% of voters who in 1991 said immigration levels were too high, or the 71% in 1996 who held to this opinion. Again, Canadians have affected consistent opposition to immigration in the same proportions, but like Australians, have been presented with a solid parliamentary front in favour of a policy they detest..
But nevertheless, given the scale and persistence of this discontent Labor’s spin-doctors needed to give the old myth of Australia as an empty land a make-over. There was no farmland available and urban land prices were beyond reach, so alright then, it would no longer be Australia’s manifest destiny to build a “great” nation but rather a “diverse” one.
It would become a United Nations of ethnicities and races sustained by permanent immigration long after the pioneering period had past. But the obsession with cultural diversity would trump concern for preserving biological diversity.
“Thus instead of being ashamed that we have lost so many of our marsupial species, many Australians on the left seem more ashamed that we do not have flourishing Inuit or Bantu community in their particular city. Quite why it should be Australia’s duty to turn itself into a representative sample of the cultures of the earth is never explained. Instead, there are constant shouts that any reduction of immigration will lead us tumbling back into an abyss of ‘racism’ and ‘boring monoculturalsim’.” “Thus Labor was able to disguise a right-wing policy of relentless growth as left-wing ‘tolerance’, O’Connor writes.
“Hawke’s and Keating’s spin doctors even took advantage of the Anglo-Celtic guilt over having immigrated upon the Aboriginal tribes without their permission and violently displaced them. Somehow this became a further reason why high immigration, so long as it was no longer Anglo-Celtic, was essential—as if inviting in the rest of the world would legitimize it.”
O’Connor forecasts that the incoming Labor government of Kevin Rudd will continue to the traditional quest for economic growth, only addressing GHG issues if they do not compromise this goal. He compares Australia to “a cruise liner whose captain is required to sail in the direction chosen by a deck-steward whose priority is to keep the sun shining on the deckchairs in the saloon section, so that their occupants will order more drinks.”
The metaphor is an interesting one, for Canada too could be compared to a cruise liner. The HMS Ecological Titanic still robotically stopping to pick up more passengers as it ploughs forward toward the iceberg of over-population.
We may, albeit in diminished numbers, adapt to climate change, but we will not adapt to biodiversity collapse. O’Connor spoke of Australia’s botanical and ecological fragility, but this is what environmentalist Brishen Hoff said of Canada: “Our boreal forest continues to experience wholesale clearcutting and relentless road expansion. More water is being diverted from the Great Lakes watershed than what is being replenished, causing the highest lakes (Nipigon, Superior, etc.) to dramatically drop their water levels. I could go on with thousands of examples of species extinctions and worsening environmental quality right here in Ontario and Algoma-Manitoulin all because of human population growth.”
In fact most of the more than 500 threatened species dwell within the range of Canada’s major urban centres where they are imperiled by sprawling subdivisions roughly 70% of which are occupied by immigrants. But remember, mass immigration is to be celebrated in Canada as, in the words of Green Party leader Elizabeth May, “our great multicultural project.” Like Sydney, Vancouverites are told that they must move over and accommodate another 800,000 migrants in the coming 23 years (24% growth) and appreciate the newcomers for the “diversity” they bring. But at what cost this “cultural diversity”? An infinitely richer, more vital heritage. The biological diversity of the species that this growth will extinguish.
What’s the answer? O’Connor quotes Gordon Hocking of NSW: “As long as we stick with an economic system that needs to perpetually grow we will remain trapped on the road to ecological and climate disaster.” Brishen Hoff would add “None of these symptoms can be reversed without shrinking the size of our economy and then moving to a steady state economy.”
Bulimics gorge, then purge. Let’s hope our national binging ends soon and our demographic weight loss is progressive and incremental rather than dramatic and deadly.
Watch for the upcoming book by Mark O’Connor and William Lines, “Overloading Australia”.
Thursday, January 3, 2008
DEAR REGIONAL DISTRICT: HIRE MY DOG
Having reviewed the carnage of Quadra’s OCP revisions and seen the juggernaut of subdivisions advance inexorably up and around the Comox Valley, I would propose a more cost-effective and less rancorous method of ramming growth down our throats.
I would respectfully suggest that you fire the planning department, hire my Labrador Retriever and then disband.
This suggestion has several advantages.
By attaching a rubber stamp to each of my dog’s feet and scattering appropriate paperwork on the floor, and then letting him run loose, development approvals can occur four times more quickly.
I have already trained my dog to roll over and play dead when a developer approaches.
My dog will work for peanuts---er, kibble.
My dog has keen hearing, so that unlike town councilors and district reps, if he falls asleep in chambers, he will still hear what is happening around him.
My dog has no interest in taking expensive junkets to other cities at taxpayers’ expense; in fact, he avoids any mode of transportation where he can’t stick his head out the window. I would be happy to lend my old car out to the RD for official purposes.
When the election approaches, my Lab won’t have to waste time kissing the butts of business people and developers. A simple sniff on the way by is usually enough for him, and then he gets on with his business.
Finally, when the regional district needs to expropriate property, it usually involves considerable work and expense. In contrast, when my dog marks his territory, no lawyers are involved and his territory can still revert easily to the original owners. This would give us a leg up on legal bills.
I ask that you paws and give this suggestion serious consideration. Out of concern for taxpayers, it surely is the leash you can do
I would respectfully suggest that you fire the planning department, hire my Labrador Retriever and then disband.
This suggestion has several advantages.
By attaching a rubber stamp to each of my dog’s feet and scattering appropriate paperwork on the floor, and then letting him run loose, development approvals can occur four times more quickly.
I have already trained my dog to roll over and play dead when a developer approaches.
My dog will work for peanuts---er, kibble.
My dog has keen hearing, so that unlike town councilors and district reps, if he falls asleep in chambers, he will still hear what is happening around him.
My dog has no interest in taking expensive junkets to other cities at taxpayers’ expense; in fact, he avoids any mode of transportation where he can’t stick his head out the window. I would be happy to lend my old car out to the RD for official purposes.
When the election approaches, my Lab won’t have to waste time kissing the butts of business people and developers. A simple sniff on the way by is usually enough for him, and then he gets on with his business.
Finally, when the regional district needs to expropriate property, it usually involves considerable work and expense. In contrast, when my dog marks his territory, no lawyers are involved and his territory can still revert easily to the original owners. This would give us a leg up on legal bills.
I ask that you paws and give this suggestion serious consideration. Out of concern for taxpayers, it surely is the leash you can do
OFFICIAL COMMUNITY PLAN OF THE BEARS, WOLVES AND COUGARS OF QUADRA ISLAND
I should like to make the following
Public Service Announcement
On behalf of the
WOLVES, COUGARS AND BEARS OF QUADRA ISLAND
Re. their OFFICIAL COMMUNITY PLAN
As residents of the island since the last ice age, their voice has never been heard in the formulation of human OCPs. It has always been what people needed. How people needed to sell off their acreages to newcomers to finance their retirement or help out their offspring. Or how they needed affordable housing for seniors or young families so the school can stay open. Never a thought was given to the pressure of thousands more residents on wildlife. Just keep growing has been the mantra.
The majestic predators of Quadra would not assert their right to claim all of the island, but merely to maintain their place on it. But even the best game management cannot protect them from human over-population, which seldom over-takes us in one fell swoop, but incrementally through innocuous steps.
In 2007 it’s 2700 people and let’s say thirty years later it will be 10,000, the population of Saltspring Island today. How many cougars and wolves live on Saltspring now? Answer: zilch. Squat. Nada. Zero.
Clearly what is needed is not wildlife management, but human management. Not stewardship, but studentship.
Therefore the OCP for the Predators of Quadra Island calls for a limit on people. And in the same spirit of exclusivity, their hearings are closed to human input.
Public Service Announcement
On behalf of the
WOLVES, COUGARS AND BEARS OF QUADRA ISLAND
Re. their OFFICIAL COMMUNITY PLAN
As residents of the island since the last ice age, their voice has never been heard in the formulation of human OCPs. It has always been what people needed. How people needed to sell off their acreages to newcomers to finance their retirement or help out their offspring. Or how they needed affordable housing for seniors or young families so the school can stay open. Never a thought was given to the pressure of thousands more residents on wildlife. Just keep growing has been the mantra.
The majestic predators of Quadra would not assert their right to claim all of the island, but merely to maintain their place on it. But even the best game management cannot protect them from human over-population, which seldom over-takes us in one fell swoop, but incrementally through innocuous steps.
In 2007 it’s 2700 people and let’s say thirty years later it will be 10,000, the population of Saltspring Island today. How many cougars and wolves live on Saltspring now? Answer: zilch. Squat. Nada. Zero.
Clearly what is needed is not wildlife management, but human management. Not stewardship, but studentship.
Therefore the OCP for the Predators of Quadra Island calls for a limit on people. And in the same spirit of exclusivity, their hearings are closed to human input.
THE CONTINUED FOLLY OF UNCONDITIONAL FOREIGN AID
In a prominent feature of its July 20th, 2007 newscast, CBC television presented us with a typically bleeding heart feel-good portrait of Canadian do-goodism at work. Prime Minister Harper was in Haiti to formalize the transfer of more aid to that desperate country, which after Afghanistan, is Canada’s most favoured recipient. Ottawa has sent more than $700 million to Haiti since 1968 and has pledged $520 million more in the next four years. Wear the maple leaf proudly on your heart.
Yet, with all of that, Haitians still live on one American dollar a day, 80% exist in poverty and 54% exist in abject poverty. Daniel Erickson, Latin analyst with Washington’s Inter-American Dialogue, said “This is a country that has received millions of dollars in aid and hasn’t shown much progress.”
Is it any wonder? What the CBC did not say, and has never said in any of its reports of Third World poverty in the past four decades, is that population growth may be eating up the benefits dispensed by our well-meaning efforts.
In Haiti there are 35.87 births per 1000 and in 2006 4.94 children were born per woman. The Canadian fertility rate was 1.53. The annual population growth rate is 2.5%, which means that Haiti’s 8.7 million people will double to 17.4 million in just 28 years if this rate persists.
Yet, of the staggering $353 million in projects currently under way in Haiti under the auspices of the Canadian International Development Agency---NONE, ZERO, SQUAT, NADA---were listed under the category of “family planning”.
This, after a Senate committee last January concluded that $575 billion (US) spent in African development aid in the last forty years, much of it by Canadian taxpayers, had left Africans in a worse state than before the aid was provided. In flat contradiction to the theory of Demographic Transition, short-term material improvement only served as an incentive for African women to have more children. The population boom exhausted resources leaving more people subsisting at a higher level of misery than a generation before. Clearly prosperity is not the best contraceptive after all.
The question remains, when is Ottawa going to learn its lesson? When is foreign aid going to be made conditional on population control so that it can be made effective? And when is the CBC going to start to do some analytical journalism instead of the politically correct nutrasweet flag-waving we saw on the 20th of July?
Yet, with all of that, Haitians still live on one American dollar a day, 80% exist in poverty and 54% exist in abject poverty. Daniel Erickson, Latin analyst with Washington’s Inter-American Dialogue, said “This is a country that has received millions of dollars in aid and hasn’t shown much progress.”
Is it any wonder? What the CBC did not say, and has never said in any of its reports of Third World poverty in the past four decades, is that population growth may be eating up the benefits dispensed by our well-meaning efforts.
In Haiti there are 35.87 births per 1000 and in 2006 4.94 children were born per woman. The Canadian fertility rate was 1.53. The annual population growth rate is 2.5%, which means that Haiti’s 8.7 million people will double to 17.4 million in just 28 years if this rate persists.
Yet, of the staggering $353 million in projects currently under way in Haiti under the auspices of the Canadian International Development Agency---NONE, ZERO, SQUAT, NADA---were listed under the category of “family planning”.
This, after a Senate committee last January concluded that $575 billion (US) spent in African development aid in the last forty years, much of it by Canadian taxpayers, had left Africans in a worse state than before the aid was provided. In flat contradiction to the theory of Demographic Transition, short-term material improvement only served as an incentive for African women to have more children. The population boom exhausted resources leaving more people subsisting at a higher level of misery than a generation before. Clearly prosperity is not the best contraceptive after all.
The question remains, when is Ottawa going to learn its lesson? When is foreign aid going to be made conditional on population control so that it can be made effective? And when is the CBC going to start to do some analytical journalism instead of the politically correct nutrasweet flag-waving we saw on the 20th of July?
Wednesday, January 2, 2008
SUSTAINABLE GROWTH: Letter to Indiana Green Party
Excuse me. But what the hell do you mean by "sustainable growth"? If you plant yeast in a petrie dish, can it grow "sustainably"? No, because the petrie dish is a CONTAINER. It contains whatever grows within it. It is a finite space. Indiana is also a finite space. As is the United States. And the world. There can be no "sustainable", that is, indefinite growth in a finite space. What the term "sustainable growth" is, is one of those sweet sounding oxymoronic buzzwords designed to appease both sides of an issue so as to make people think that they can have their cake and develop it too. Progressive developers, progressive governments and political parties like the British Greens are using it with indiscriminate ease. Everything today is "sustainable", when actually, it isn't. Whether we call it "smart", "managed", "sustainable", steered or deflected, growth is still growth, and however you slice it, its really not about how people are distributed, or what their per capita consumption is, but also, about the number of per capitas. That is what propels growth and that is what cannot be "sustained."
I live on the other side of the continent from you. I could just have easily directed this criticism to my own backyard. So don't take it personally. You suffer from a universal afflication of Greens. You really haven't grasped the full implications of a steady-state economy. When the oil suddenly runs out, we are all going to take a crash course. Despite the hardship, I think that will be very good news for most of us.
I live on the other side of the continent from you. I could just have easily directed this criticism to my own backyard. So don't take it personally. You suffer from a universal afflication of Greens. You really haven't grasped the full implications of a steady-state economy. When the oil suddenly runs out, we are all going to take a crash course. Despite the hardship, I think that will be very good news for most of us.
PEACE IN OUR TIME, HABITAT FOREVER? There is no Sanctuary From Economic Growth
For those who recall the scene when Neville Chamberlain stepped down on the tarmac of London’s Heston aerodrome on September 30th of 1938 waving his piece of paper, the announcement by the B. C. government on October 16, 2007 must have seemed like déjà vu. On both occasions, an announcement promising ‘peace in our time’ (for people or wildlife) was met with jubilant relief from people who wanted to believe that the insatiable appetite of a monster can be appeased with an hors d’oeuvre.
In 1938 the monster was Adolf Hitler and he was not to be believed or trusted. In 2007 the monster is economic growth, and its need for lebensraum will not stop at greenbelts, farmland, wetlands and nature reserves. It will devour what it needs to fuel its momentum and bend governments and laws to serve its ends. The strictest land use plans will fall before its armies. Even the home of ‘smart growth’, Portland, Oregon, stood helpless as growth forced population to spill over tight urban boundaries into adjacent farmland. British greenbelts are beginning to suffer the same fate. As planning consultant Eben Fodor was moved to comment, “smart growth is merely the planned, orderly destruction of our remaining environment.”
Economic growth is a function of population growth, driven in North America largely by immigration, coupled with obscenely excessive consumption---and it is crowding out wildlife habitat. The question is, can the dedication of conservation areas permanently shield wildlife and flora from developmental pressures? Experience suggests that it cannot.
In their 2005 Report, the National Refuge Association of the U.S. revealed that “many endangered or threatened species are not even found on the refuges, including 40% of all listed mammals, birds and reptiles, 75% of listed fish and amphibians, and about 85% of listed plants and invertebrates.” The area outside refuges will be more and more a killing zone. Much of the 40% of all housing units that will exist in America in 2030 will be built on previously open lands, and “lands within five miles of fully 78% of the western refuges have been mined, drilled , offered to or otherwise controlled by mining, oil and gas interests.” And nearly 40% of refuges have greater than 50% human-impacted landscape within 5 to 40 miles. Particularly vulnerable are the 20% of wildlife refuges smaller than 1000 acres, or refuges fragmented into small parcels that can’t adequately defend the ranges of the species that need protection.
Of course, the announcement on October 16 by the B.C. government offers habitat protection on a vastly larger scale. An area twice the size of Jamaica of old growth cedar, pine and spruce, and a buffer of forest that is to be harvested with sensitive care. The coalition of ten environmental groups who fought for the habitat are sanguine. But even with 2.2 million hectares set aside, they would be advised to keep their powder dry. Especially when you look at the province’s barren mountainsides and remember the government slogan, “Forests Forever”.
The hard truth is, as long as economic growth runs loose like a mad dog, no land of any size is safe from predation. Growing populations and growing development envelop pristine sanctuaries, reach a tipping point, and then the resources that these sanctuaries are harbouring will be ravaged. Just as the B.C. government set aside this Mountain Cariboo habitat, the U.S. Congress once established Yosemite National Park. When mining and logging interests came knocking at the door, with the stroke of a pen, Congress released 1400 hectares of the precious park for their exploitation.
Shocking betrayals of this kind by government have and will be made when the economic chips are down, as the Plains Indians will attest. The solemn Treaty of Laramie guaranteed the sacred Black Hills to the Lakota people in perpetuity, but when white prospectors found gold, all bets were off and the monster was let loose. Miners flooded the area and in just eight years the Dakota territory was a white colony and the sacred hills a hub of activity.
One day soon, in a country near you, with the oil the price of gold and power down, there will be a desperate and ruthless scramble to use up resources wherever they can be found, even behind the sacrosanct walls of conservation lands. And government will pave the way.
First it was the tiny Sudetenland, then it was Poland and then it was the vast steppes of Russia. Feed a crocodile a morsel and he becomes stronger and bolder, coming back for more and more. The only safety for nature is to slay the beast, not to hide from it within the confines of a National Park. Economic growth must be stopped and a steady state economy instituted. Now.
In 1938 the monster was Adolf Hitler and he was not to be believed or trusted. In 2007 the monster is economic growth, and its need for lebensraum will not stop at greenbelts, farmland, wetlands and nature reserves. It will devour what it needs to fuel its momentum and bend governments and laws to serve its ends. The strictest land use plans will fall before its armies. Even the home of ‘smart growth’, Portland, Oregon, stood helpless as growth forced population to spill over tight urban boundaries into adjacent farmland. British greenbelts are beginning to suffer the same fate. As planning consultant Eben Fodor was moved to comment, “smart growth is merely the planned, orderly destruction of our remaining environment.”
Economic growth is a function of population growth, driven in North America largely by immigration, coupled with obscenely excessive consumption---and it is crowding out wildlife habitat. The question is, can the dedication of conservation areas permanently shield wildlife and flora from developmental pressures? Experience suggests that it cannot.
In their 2005 Report, the National Refuge Association of the U.S. revealed that “many endangered or threatened species are not even found on the refuges, including 40% of all listed mammals, birds and reptiles, 75% of listed fish and amphibians, and about 85% of listed plants and invertebrates.” The area outside refuges will be more and more a killing zone. Much of the 40% of all housing units that will exist in America in 2030 will be built on previously open lands, and “lands within five miles of fully 78% of the western refuges have been mined, drilled , offered to or otherwise controlled by mining, oil and gas interests.” And nearly 40% of refuges have greater than 50% human-impacted landscape within 5 to 40 miles. Particularly vulnerable are the 20% of wildlife refuges smaller than 1000 acres, or refuges fragmented into small parcels that can’t adequately defend the ranges of the species that need protection.
Of course, the announcement on October 16 by the B.C. government offers habitat protection on a vastly larger scale. An area twice the size of Jamaica of old growth cedar, pine and spruce, and a buffer of forest that is to be harvested with sensitive care. The coalition of ten environmental groups who fought for the habitat are sanguine. But even with 2.2 million hectares set aside, they would be advised to keep their powder dry. Especially when you look at the province’s barren mountainsides and remember the government slogan, “Forests Forever”.
The hard truth is, as long as economic growth runs loose like a mad dog, no land of any size is safe from predation. Growing populations and growing development envelop pristine sanctuaries, reach a tipping point, and then the resources that these sanctuaries are harbouring will be ravaged. Just as the B.C. government set aside this Mountain Cariboo habitat, the U.S. Congress once established Yosemite National Park. When mining and logging interests came knocking at the door, with the stroke of a pen, Congress released 1400 hectares of the precious park for their exploitation.
Shocking betrayals of this kind by government have and will be made when the economic chips are down, as the Plains Indians will attest. The solemn Treaty of Laramie guaranteed the sacred Black Hills to the Lakota people in perpetuity, but when white prospectors found gold, all bets were off and the monster was let loose. Miners flooded the area and in just eight years the Dakota territory was a white colony and the sacred hills a hub of activity.
One day soon, in a country near you, with the oil the price of gold and power down, there will be a desperate and ruthless scramble to use up resources wherever they can be found, even behind the sacrosanct walls of conservation lands. And government will pave the way.
First it was the tiny Sudetenland, then it was Poland and then it was the vast steppes of Russia. Feed a crocodile a morsel and he becomes stronger and bolder, coming back for more and more. The only safety for nature is to slay the beast, not to hide from it within the confines of a National Park. Economic growth must be stopped and a steady state economy instituted. Now.
THE CONTRADICTION THAT IS FARLEY MOWAT: Why Conservation Efforts Will Not Survive Mass Immigration
On Friday September 7, 2007, the venerable Canadian environmental author Farley Mowat made a boldly generous but stunningly futile gesture. He donated 200 acres of his Cape Breton land to “Nova Scotia Nature Trust”.
He called on others in the province to follow his example so that good land wouldn’t fall into some developer’s clutches and be destroyed for profit “like every other part of the western world.”
But while Mowat’s motives are beyond dispute and his affinity for wildlife unquestioned, he continues to evidence no understanding of the root causes of biodiversity loss.
In North America it is runaway population growth, fuelled largely by mass immigration and coupled with excessive consumption that is crowding out wildlife habitat, wetlands and farmland.
The question to be put to the environmental movement is, can nature preserves, greenbelts and national parks permanently shield wildlife and flora from the developmental pressures issuing from this growth?
Ontario commentator Brishen Hoff answers with a categorical “no”. “History has proven that no lands are protected when the population surrounding them is growing. This applies to countries, national parks, islands, or whatever. Once growing populations that surround pristine areas reach a tipping point, the demand for the resources of the protected area will become so great that all safeguards, laws, or barricades will be obliterated and the resources will be exploited.”
That is why Albert Bartlett of the University of Colorado established as his Fundamental Law of Planning that a workable, durable local plan cannot be effected in a community until the regional population is stabilized.
Curiously, advocates of secure borders and more restrictive immigration have been reproached and ridiculed by soft greens and mainstream environmental NGOs for proposing the equivalent of an international “gated community” that couldn’t hope, they allege, to fend off the heavy global traffic of people in the real world.
Yet none of these critics will acknowledge that their little fortresses---their nature preserves, their greenbelts, their parks, their strict land-use zonings---have little hope of standing up to the pressure of the growing populations we have recently seen. Growth spilled out of the urban boundaries of Portland, Oregon---poster child of “smart growth”---into surrounding farmland. And with no let-up from immigration houses are being built on formerly sacrosanct British greenbelts, the “lungs” of Britain.
And as long as economic growth is God, conservation lands are not secure either. They can and have been withdrawn by legislation and executive order. At one time an Act of Congress removed 1400 square kilometers of the original Yosemite National Park for timber and mineral production. “Wildlife habitat will continue to be lost as natural capital is relocated from the economy of nature to the human economy”, until the economy shifts to a kind of steady-state model, writes Professor Brian Czech of Virginia Polytechnic Institute.
Oddly, there is virtually no environmental organization in Canada that makes a connection between immigration and environmental degradation of any kind. Not the Sierra Club, the David Suzuki Foundation, Nature Conservancy, World Wildlife Fund, Canadian Parks and Wilderness, Ontario Nature---the list goes on. None of them speak of a connection. Quite the contrary. The problem is not whether we grow, so the mantra goes, but how we grow. If we grow “smart”, we can welcome the whole world here.
And the biggest Welcome Wagon in Canada is the leader of its Green Party, Elizabeth May, who argues for an immigration level even higher than that supported by her rivals. She calls this “Canada’s Great Multicultural Project”. May parrots those two sweet-sounding buzzwords that many environmental organizations use so frequently---“cultural diversity”. But cultural diversity in Canada and the United States cannot be sustained without massive and fresh injections of newcomers to bolster existing immigrants who otherwise would assimilate.
Viable multiculturalism requires unrelenting mass immigration. And mass immigration marginalizes wildlife habitat. Cultural diversity therefore comes at the cost of biological diversity. So let’s dispense with the cant. The correlation is clear. Growing cities, vanishing wildlife, dial “1” for English.
One final irony, who was the man who spear-headed the national fund-raising campaign this summer to raise campaign donations for Green Party leader Elizabeth May? None other than Farley Mowat, the man who wants to protect animals, birds, and plant life from human encroachment.
It was Mowat who once famously compared our species to yeast in a vat, “mindlessly multiplying as we greedily devour a finite world.” But apparently Canada’s not finite, or at least that portion of it beyond the safe bosom of a conservation charity.
To think that Captain Paul Watson of the Sea Shepherd Conservation Society, who dueled with Elizabeth May over the immigration issue when she was president of Sierra Club Canada, named his newest ship, “The Farley Mowat”
That makes two contradictions.
He called on others in the province to follow his example so that good land wouldn’t fall into some developer’s clutches and be destroyed for profit “like every other part of the western world.”
But while Mowat’s motives are beyond dispute and his affinity for wildlife unquestioned, he continues to evidence no understanding of the root causes of biodiversity loss.
In North America it is runaway population growth, fuelled largely by mass immigration and coupled with excessive consumption that is crowding out wildlife habitat, wetlands and farmland.
The question to be put to the environmental movement is, can nature preserves, greenbelts and national parks permanently shield wildlife and flora from the developmental pressures issuing from this growth?
Ontario commentator Brishen Hoff answers with a categorical “no”. “History has proven that no lands are protected when the population surrounding them is growing. This applies to countries, national parks, islands, or whatever. Once growing populations that surround pristine areas reach a tipping point, the demand for the resources of the protected area will become so great that all safeguards, laws, or barricades will be obliterated and the resources will be exploited.”
That is why Albert Bartlett of the University of Colorado established as his Fundamental Law of Planning that a workable, durable local plan cannot be effected in a community until the regional population is stabilized.
Curiously, advocates of secure borders and more restrictive immigration have been reproached and ridiculed by soft greens and mainstream environmental NGOs for proposing the equivalent of an international “gated community” that couldn’t hope, they allege, to fend off the heavy global traffic of people in the real world.
Yet none of these critics will acknowledge that their little fortresses---their nature preserves, their greenbelts, their parks, their strict land-use zonings---have little hope of standing up to the pressure of the growing populations we have recently seen. Growth spilled out of the urban boundaries of Portland, Oregon---poster child of “smart growth”---into surrounding farmland. And with no let-up from immigration houses are being built on formerly sacrosanct British greenbelts, the “lungs” of Britain.
And as long as economic growth is God, conservation lands are not secure either. They can and have been withdrawn by legislation and executive order. At one time an Act of Congress removed 1400 square kilometers of the original Yosemite National Park for timber and mineral production. “Wildlife habitat will continue to be lost as natural capital is relocated from the economy of nature to the human economy”, until the economy shifts to a kind of steady-state model, writes Professor Brian Czech of Virginia Polytechnic Institute.
Oddly, there is virtually no environmental organization in Canada that makes a connection between immigration and environmental degradation of any kind. Not the Sierra Club, the David Suzuki Foundation, Nature Conservancy, World Wildlife Fund, Canadian Parks and Wilderness, Ontario Nature---the list goes on. None of them speak of a connection. Quite the contrary. The problem is not whether we grow, so the mantra goes, but how we grow. If we grow “smart”, we can welcome the whole world here.
And the biggest Welcome Wagon in Canada is the leader of its Green Party, Elizabeth May, who argues for an immigration level even higher than that supported by her rivals. She calls this “Canada’s Great Multicultural Project”. May parrots those two sweet-sounding buzzwords that many environmental organizations use so frequently---“cultural diversity”. But cultural diversity in Canada and the United States cannot be sustained without massive and fresh injections of newcomers to bolster existing immigrants who otherwise would assimilate.
Viable multiculturalism requires unrelenting mass immigration. And mass immigration marginalizes wildlife habitat. Cultural diversity therefore comes at the cost of biological diversity. So let’s dispense with the cant. The correlation is clear. Growing cities, vanishing wildlife, dial “1” for English.
One final irony, who was the man who spear-headed the national fund-raising campaign this summer to raise campaign donations for Green Party leader Elizabeth May? None other than Farley Mowat, the man who wants to protect animals, birds, and plant life from human encroachment.
It was Mowat who once famously compared our species to yeast in a vat, “mindlessly multiplying as we greedily devour a finite world.” But apparently Canada’s not finite, or at least that portion of it beyond the safe bosom of a conservation charity.
To think that Captain Paul Watson of the Sea Shepherd Conservation Society, who dueled with Elizabeth May over the immigration issue when she was president of Sierra Club Canada, named his newest ship, “The Farley Mowat”
That makes two contradictions.
OLD TIME RELIGION FAILS TO HELP ME SWALLOW THE GREEN LINE
Howdy. Y’all know my name is Tim. My daddy done name me that way ‘cause o’ Timothy in the Bible, Greek for “truth-teller”. Kin folk who knew my Ma ‘member ha she cured my lyin’ mouth with a diet of soap, so since then I just have to call it as I see it, straight goods, nothing held back, ya hear? What some folks round these parts I thang-k call bein’ “abrasive”.
Speaking of the Good Book, I believe that to be true, every Goddamn word of it. I believe that Jonah lived in a whale’s belly, that Mary conceived of the Master without benefit of a man and that the Lord created the whole world in just under a week including the critters we see around us today.
I believe that Noah fit all of ‘em in that thar wooden boat o’ his and it floated to the top of Mt. Everest and when the flood waters receded and it rested in Turkey the marsupials got out and walked home to Australia and the penguins to Antarctica. Did I also tell you I believe in Nessie, Big Foot, UFO abductions and psychic healings?
Yes siree, I believe in miracles. Just like Senator James Inofe of Oklahoma who says that there is no AGW ‘cause its all down to “natural climate variation”. And if things got out of hand, not to worry, “God is up there”. Like me, Senator Inofe believes in the Resurrection but thinks climate modeling is utterly absurd.
Aren’t you comforted to know that possibly the next president of the United States, Mitt Romney, also prefers the Bible to the National Academy of Sciences as his guide to action, with the Book of Mormon as a back-up?
Yet Governor Romney and Senator Inofe, and I confess myself, are sorely lacking in one key article of contemporary religious faith that Saint Gore, the Sierra Club and all the Greenwash politicians want us to believe today. Namely that,
WE CAN CONTINUE TO GROW OUR POPULATIONS AND STILL MEET GREENHOUSE GAS EMISSION REDUCTION TARGETS.
Now dang it all THAT would be a miracle. Praise the Lord!
Speaking of the Good Book, I believe that to be true, every Goddamn word of it. I believe that Jonah lived in a whale’s belly, that Mary conceived of the Master without benefit of a man and that the Lord created the whole world in just under a week including the critters we see around us today.
I believe that Noah fit all of ‘em in that thar wooden boat o’ his and it floated to the top of Mt. Everest and when the flood waters receded and it rested in Turkey the marsupials got out and walked home to Australia and the penguins to Antarctica. Did I also tell you I believe in Nessie, Big Foot, UFO abductions and psychic healings?
Yes siree, I believe in miracles. Just like Senator James Inofe of Oklahoma who says that there is no AGW ‘cause its all down to “natural climate variation”. And if things got out of hand, not to worry, “God is up there”. Like me, Senator Inofe believes in the Resurrection but thinks climate modeling is utterly absurd.
Aren’t you comforted to know that possibly the next president of the United States, Mitt Romney, also prefers the Bible to the National Academy of Sciences as his guide to action, with the Book of Mormon as a back-up?
Yet Governor Romney and Senator Inofe, and I confess myself, are sorely lacking in one key article of contemporary religious faith that Saint Gore, the Sierra Club and all the Greenwash politicians want us to believe today. Namely that,
WE CAN CONTINUE TO GROW OUR POPULATIONS AND STILL MEET GREENHOUSE GAS EMISSION REDUCTION TARGETS.
Now dang it all THAT would be a miracle. Praise the Lord!
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
