I’m Tim Politician. Formerly Tim Truth-Teller. But on the road to Damascus, on the road to “influencing more people” rather than simply “getting the truth out” and “gaining credibility”, presumptuous people with “experience” persuaded me that I must “tone it down”, be tactful and diplomatic, “soften the message” and chip off only that portion of the truth that could be “sold” to a wider audience. Otherwise Daniel Kitts of TVO or some CBC producer won’t take me seriously.
It is quite interesting, isn’t it? We inhabit a political culture where Mr. Kitts treats Brishen Hoff as a crank, a blogger, because he believes that Canada should carry only about one million people, as Hoff believed in May of 2008. But if one can be certain that if Erich Jacoby-Hawkins approached him with the proposition that southern Ontario, being the size of Europe, could easily accommodate Europe’s population of 700 million, with out serious ecological consequences, even enjoying in his words, “some” wildlife---Kitts would not dismiss him out of hand as a crackpot. Like Jacoby-Hawkins, TVO producer Kitts is hung up on credentials. He is less impressed by the merits of an argument than the credentials of the man who is waging the argument. A Phd waging a foolish argument possibly has more credence with Kitts than a high school grad with a brilliant line of reasoning. The only reason I got an invitation to appear on his show was that while he was suitably impressed by my writings, he apparently believed me when I told him that I was a man of letters. I just didn’t tell him I was a mailman.
It is amazing how many doors open when one appends a pompous title to one’s name. I speak the same sense or nonsense now as I did last spring. But since the title “Director IWC” appeared after my name, suddenly my emails are read and answered. “Vice President Biodiversity First” has the same inane effect. Titles should have no bearing on truth, credibility or falsehood. Take each opinion and argument as it comes.
Our problem, I think, is that we have a message that our audience does not want to hear, and the media knows it. To retain their ratings, and their market share, they must give their audience news that they want to hear. Even weather forecasters try to put a positive spin on their forecasts. The situation can be likened to a grim experience I had in early February of 1999. My brother had just emerged from unsuccessful surgery to remove invasive cancer. I was privy to the post-op interview with his surgeon who conducted the 12 hour ordeal. The surgeon explained calmly and thoroughly that the cancer had invaded all vital organs and could not be extricated. It could be retarded by radiation and chemotherapy but not reversed. I remember the oncologist’s words verbatim. “Your condition is terminal. You can surf the Internet all you want. But there are oncologists dying of this cancer and they can’t help themselves. You can spend everything you have on phony Mexican clinics, but it won’t help. You have a year to live. Maybe 14 months.”
My brother died precisely 14 months later. But guess what. He spent $25,000 of my father’s money on a quack cancer cure overseas, on New Age naturopathic medicines, and on Bernie Segal positive thinking nonsense before he succumbed. That’s right. He spent 14 months in denial. And all of his life he was a hard core rationalist and skeptic, who scorned unscientific thinking. But in the face of death, he gave in to delusional thinking, as our citizenry now, in the face of an ecological meltdown.
The point here is this. We may resolve to be like the oncologist, and tell the Hard Truth. Even if the patient gets to hear our message---and the media rarely cooperates with this wish----will the patient want to hear it? But if we hold it in it, are we not then guilty of the Silent Lie, withholding the truth just to avoid our own marginalization and unpopularity? How can you tell a half-truth like this? How do you “sell” doomsday?
Monday, November 24, 2008
Sunday, November 23, 2008
A SUSTAINABLE POPULATON LEVEL FOR A CANADIAN GREEN GREEN CAREERIST
Brishen Hoff in “How to Live in A Sustainable World” has explained that our civilization and its massive overpopulation is founded on unsustainable agriculture, and that since cultivation agriculture began we have degraded the earth’s capacity by at least half. Consequently, by all rights, the planet should only be able to sustain half the number of people that lived when humans were hunter-gatherers. That is, 2.5 million. Canada’s share of the pie would then be 12,313 people. Not a number that would go down well with the Conference Board of Canada.
However, while that population level may be sustainable for the environment, it is, I am afraid, not sustainable for the Sierra Club, the Suzuki Foundation or any of the other environmental NGOs. I rather think that their optimum number would be around 50 million, not 12,313. Besides, hunter-gatherers are notorious for not signing up for PAC form arrangements and falling for those “Save the blank” poster-child endangered species sucker-of-the-month one-off donation scams that these groups perpetually pull.
What use would the Sierra Club have for a Canada of 12,313 people? Why would a Sierra Club bureaucrat want the government to shut down immigration and end child benefits? It would cut down on his workload and threaten his job security. GHG emissions would drop 25%, over 500 species at risk in southern Ontario would suddenly be safe and ten mammals in the Fraser Valley could also relax. Our paid Green crusader would begin to feel like the Maytag repairman. Then the dupes who paid his salary would wise up. “Hey, it looks like we didn’t need this night watchman after all, he was napping most of the time anyway.”
At that point, the Green bureaucrat will be faced with a dilemma. He will either have to do what we have been doing. Volunteer countless hours of his own time. Or find another line of work related to his own previous experience. Mopping the floor of corporate Canada while whistling his happy positive tune, but never once stopping to turn the tap off as the water kept gushing over it.
A sustainable Canada would put a lot of “environmentalists” out of work.
However, while that population level may be sustainable for the environment, it is, I am afraid, not sustainable for the Sierra Club, the Suzuki Foundation or any of the other environmental NGOs. I rather think that their optimum number would be around 50 million, not 12,313. Besides, hunter-gatherers are notorious for not signing up for PAC form arrangements and falling for those “Save the blank” poster-child endangered species sucker-of-the-month one-off donation scams that these groups perpetually pull.
What use would the Sierra Club have for a Canada of 12,313 people? Why would a Sierra Club bureaucrat want the government to shut down immigration and end child benefits? It would cut down on his workload and threaten his job security. GHG emissions would drop 25%, over 500 species at risk in southern Ontario would suddenly be safe and ten mammals in the Fraser Valley could also relax. Our paid Green crusader would begin to feel like the Maytag repairman. Then the dupes who paid his salary would wise up. “Hey, it looks like we didn’t need this night watchman after all, he was napping most of the time anyway.”
At that point, the Green bureaucrat will be faced with a dilemma. He will either have to do what we have been doing. Volunteer countless hours of his own time. Or find another line of work related to his own previous experience. Mopping the floor of corporate Canada while whistling his happy positive tune, but never once stopping to turn the tap off as the water kept gushing over it.
A sustainable Canada would put a lot of “environmentalists” out of work.
HOW TO LIVE IN A SUSTAINABLE WORLD
When unsustainable agriculture began about 10,000 years ago in 8,000 BC the human population of the earth was 5 million. The reason agriculture is unsustainable is because it caused our population to grow beyond a level that can be supported in the long-term. Hunting and gathering is the only sustainable lifestyle for humans on earth because it is the only type of human society with a proven record of limiting their population to a level that can be supported in the long-term.
Since agriculture began, we have degraded the earth's capacity by at least 50%. There's less than half the quantity of forest there used to be, less than half the fish in the ocean, and many species have gone extinct. Therefore, I think the current sustainable world population would be about 2.5 million. To find the sustainable population of your country, find its percentage of the world population and divide by 100 and multiply by 2,500,000.
Overpopulation is easy to reverse on a country-by-country basis using government policy that reduces immigration and reduces the birth rate using a system of taxation-and-bonuses.
Earth has 148,429,000 square kilometers of land and 6.7 billion people. At 247.105381 acres per square kilometer, there is 36,677,604,596 acres of land on earth, which is about 5 acres of land per person. This is not enough land per person for humans to survive sustainably in any lifestyle given that the average land on earth is either too cold, too wet, too dry, too hot, too rocky, too steep, too infertile, or some combination of the above.
I haven't yet looked into who issues the Nobel Prize and what criteria they use to award it, but if it has anything to do with making life better for all living things on earth, they may want to consider the above.
Brishen Hoff, November 23, 2008
Since agriculture began, we have degraded the earth's capacity by at least 50%. There's less than half the quantity of forest there used to be, less than half the fish in the ocean, and many species have gone extinct. Therefore, I think the current sustainable world population would be about 2.5 million. To find the sustainable population of your country, find its percentage of the world population and divide by 100 and multiply by 2,500,000.
Overpopulation is easy to reverse on a country-by-country basis using government policy that reduces immigration and reduces the birth rate using a system of taxation-and-bonuses.
Earth has 148,429,000 square kilometers of land and 6.7 billion people. At 247.105381 acres per square kilometer, there is 36,677,604,596 acres of land on earth, which is about 5 acres of land per person. This is not enough land per person for humans to survive sustainably in any lifestyle given that the average land on earth is either too cold, too wet, too dry, too hot, too rocky, too steep, too infertile, or some combination of the above.
I haven't yet looked into who issues the Nobel Prize and what criteria they use to award it, but if it has anything to do with making life better for all living things on earth, they may want to consider the above.
Brishen Hoff, November 23, 2008
Monday, November 17, 2008
HOW GREEN IS THIS "GREEN" PARTY?
My assertion that the Green Parties of the world are, for the most part, essentially human rights parties and not environmental parties as discussed in the article “Who is the Most Idiotic Green Party of the World?” (People and Place, Vol. 16, No.1), is of course, never more better illustrated than in Canada’s Green party. Here we have a country suffering from the highest population growth rate in the G8 group, with its most important province losing 60,000 acres of prime farmland a year to growth, (not to poor planning), and immigrants generating as much GHG every four years as the entire Alberta tars sands development, and a Green Party that wants to jack up immigration by 38% or more than its present intake. Multiculturalism, according to their party leader, not sustainability, not the viability of our biodiversity, is Canada’s “great project”. Over 500 species at risk in Ontario will just have to suck it up and die for the new human varieties that pour through Pearson International airport. Cultural diversity trumps biological diversity. We don’t have an identity of our own to preserve. Like everything else, it must be imported.
Of course, that is not their scenario. They would have it that, as Dr.Rees would insist, that Greenfield acreage can be protected from massive injections of immigrant populations by strict land use planning. That 60,000 acres a year of class 1 that Ontario loses is not because of population growth. Oh no. That is all down to “sprawl”, something any good planning department can cure. It is so ironic. Greens want it both ways don’t they? They tell us that closed borders are an impossibility in a global economy. Yet they have this naïve faith in their internal closed borders. This belief in their paper fortresses of farm land protection, green belts, nature reserves, provincial and natural parks and so forth. Smart growth. And yet all around them, from Portland, Oregon to Los Angeles to the intrusions upon British greenbelts to Yosemite to the Steve Irwin reserve and on and on. The historical evidence is clear. There is no sanctuary from population and economic growth. The Growth Monster wants Lebensraum and no Munich agreement will be respected when times will get tough. And they will get tough. The appetite for more and more is insatiable and mere park or zoning boundaries will be swept aside.
What is most fraudulent about the smart growth argument is not that is a documented failure or that according to numerous American studies that sprawl accounts for no more than half of all Greenfield development, population growth the other half, but that especially in the context of Canadian politics it is intellectually dishonest. Why? The people who advocate mass immigration and are in a position to implement, the leaders of the federal political parties like the Green Party of Canada, do not contol land use planning. That is under provincial and local jurisdiction.
Questions for the Green Party and its leader. Who controls local government in Canada? Are there any campaign spending limits imposed on those who run for local governments? Are there any disclosure laws that force candidates or civic parties in Canada to reveal who is behind their campaigns? Let me save the Green party the trouble of answering those questions. The answer is, local governments in Canada are BOUGHT AND PAID FOR BY DEVELOPERS. And the zoning bylaws are customized to fit their needs, as are the local newspapers, by and large. The only hope for sensible planning is to have it imposed province-wide. But observe what happened in British Columbia. After three decades the Agricultural Land Commission was decentralized by the new, right-wing Gordon Campbell government so that it would be vulnerable to local developer pressure. As a consequence good farmland in densely populated southern BC was released to their clutches and exchanged for poorer land in the northern part of the province. On paper the Agricultural Land Reserve still has the same amount of land in the bank. But it is a shell game. Good land out, bad land in. And notice that the NDP governments in Ontario, or the prairies did not have the will to introduce the same farmland protection as the BC NDP government did in1973. Point being, don’t advocate mass immigration when you know, intellectually, that the land use planning that you speak of that must accompany it is a political impossibility. Don’t let kids on a school bus that has no seat belts.
Many Greens radiate a cavalier impression of wildlife. Erich Jacoby-Hawkins stated on March 6/08 that Europe with 70 times the population of southern Ontario had “some” wildlife, so we “have a lot more room for newcomers within our existing developed spaces.” But there are 536 species at risk in Ontario that would take issue with that. Dr. William Rees the country’s most eminent “Green”, told us in effect that Canadian biodiversity was inconsequential. He stated that it was more important to relieve tropical biodiversity by importing people from overpopulated areas like Central America at the cost of our own biodiversity because Canada was not relatively “bio-rich”. So much for the Sierra Club’s campaign to save the Rocky Mountain caribou.
A glance at the biographies of Green Party candidates as provided by the Green Party of Canada website during the federal election would confirm my impression. Of the 13 people listed, only 3, or 23% percent, could be categorized, I think, as “environmentalists”, rather than social activists or people with human rights or social justice concerns. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Green_Party_candidates,_2008_Canadian_federal_electionMr. Jacoby-Hawkins biography, for example, is replete with phrases like “social issues”, “community groups”, “homelessness”, “Centre for Policy Alternatives”. I don’t think I would see him on a bird count.
One might argue that it is not a criminal act to be committed to social justice. Indeed not. But it is false advertising to make it your priority when you label yourself “Green”. “Green” has connotations of placing humanity within the context of nature. Of putting the lifeboat before its passengers. If the lifeboat sinks, the passengers drown. The question of whether some passengers are inequitably treated, while valid, is secondary to the our need to focus on whether the lifeboat is sea worthy. Are there too many passengers? Can we pick up drowning swimmers? Is the fact that most of the drowning swimmers are people of colour of any relevance what so ever? It is not criminal to care about other people. It is criminal to care ONLY about people and not about the wildlife that too many people are crowding out. This is not misanthropic. Because if we crowd out wildlife, we destroy biodiversity services, we commit suicide. We undercut our own survival.
The Green Party of Canada is not Green. It is an imposter.
(The pity is, there are some within it that aren’t, and they are the ones we would like to support to transform their party into something which lives up to its name. Something like the New Zealand Green Party. But the Green Party hierarchy has a closed borders policy towards those would attempt to traffic with such people.)
Tim Murray November 17/08
List of 13 Green Party biographies:
Erich Jacoby-Hawkins http://www.greenparty.ca/en/campaign/35004
Eric Walton http://www.greenparty.ca/en/campaign/35036
Phil Stone http://www.greenparty.ca/en/campaign/59031 quite aware that population growth is a multiplier of problems. Is an active outdoorsman, photographer, environmentalist.
Adrianne Carr http://www.greenparty.ca/en/campaign/59029
Brian Gordon http://www.greenparty.ca/en/campaign/59008 rare understanding of need to stabilize pop growth in Canada.
John Fryer http://www.greenparty.ca/en/campaign/59014 trade union leader par excellence retired
Blair Wilson http://www.greenparty.ca/en/campaign/59036
Mike Nagy http://www.greenparty.ca/en/campaign/35027
Lorraine Rekmans http://www.greenparty.ca/en/campaign/35002
Valerie Powell http://www.greenparty.ca/en/campaign/35086 not environmentalist
Kate Storey http://www.greenparty.ca/en/campaign/46004 agricultural issues
Angela Reid http://www.greenparty.ca/en/campaign/59011
Hugette Allen http://www.greenparty.ca/en/campaign/59018 solid understanding of the importance of population growth to environmental degradation.
Of course, that is not their scenario. They would have it that, as Dr.Rees would insist, that Greenfield acreage can be protected from massive injections of immigrant populations by strict land use planning. That 60,000 acres a year of class 1 that Ontario loses is not because of population growth. Oh no. That is all down to “sprawl”, something any good planning department can cure. It is so ironic. Greens want it both ways don’t they? They tell us that closed borders are an impossibility in a global economy. Yet they have this naïve faith in their internal closed borders. This belief in their paper fortresses of farm land protection, green belts, nature reserves, provincial and natural parks and so forth. Smart growth. And yet all around them, from Portland, Oregon to Los Angeles to the intrusions upon British greenbelts to Yosemite to the Steve Irwin reserve and on and on. The historical evidence is clear. There is no sanctuary from population and economic growth. The Growth Monster wants Lebensraum and no Munich agreement will be respected when times will get tough. And they will get tough. The appetite for more and more is insatiable and mere park or zoning boundaries will be swept aside.
What is most fraudulent about the smart growth argument is not that is a documented failure or that according to numerous American studies that sprawl accounts for no more than half of all Greenfield development, population growth the other half, but that especially in the context of Canadian politics it is intellectually dishonest. Why? The people who advocate mass immigration and are in a position to implement, the leaders of the federal political parties like the Green Party of Canada, do not contol land use planning. That is under provincial and local jurisdiction.
Questions for the Green Party and its leader. Who controls local government in Canada? Are there any campaign spending limits imposed on those who run for local governments? Are there any disclosure laws that force candidates or civic parties in Canada to reveal who is behind their campaigns? Let me save the Green party the trouble of answering those questions. The answer is, local governments in Canada are BOUGHT AND PAID FOR BY DEVELOPERS. And the zoning bylaws are customized to fit their needs, as are the local newspapers, by and large. The only hope for sensible planning is to have it imposed province-wide. But observe what happened in British Columbia. After three decades the Agricultural Land Commission was decentralized by the new, right-wing Gordon Campbell government so that it would be vulnerable to local developer pressure. As a consequence good farmland in densely populated southern BC was released to their clutches and exchanged for poorer land in the northern part of the province. On paper the Agricultural Land Reserve still has the same amount of land in the bank. But it is a shell game. Good land out, bad land in. And notice that the NDP governments in Ontario, or the prairies did not have the will to introduce the same farmland protection as the BC NDP government did in1973. Point being, don’t advocate mass immigration when you know, intellectually, that the land use planning that you speak of that must accompany it is a political impossibility. Don’t let kids on a school bus that has no seat belts.
Many Greens radiate a cavalier impression of wildlife. Erich Jacoby-Hawkins stated on March 6/08 that Europe with 70 times the population of southern Ontario had “some” wildlife, so we “have a lot more room for newcomers within our existing developed spaces.” But there are 536 species at risk in Ontario that would take issue with that. Dr. William Rees the country’s most eminent “Green”, told us in effect that Canadian biodiversity was inconsequential. He stated that it was more important to relieve tropical biodiversity by importing people from overpopulated areas like Central America at the cost of our own biodiversity because Canada was not relatively “bio-rich”. So much for the Sierra Club’s campaign to save the Rocky Mountain caribou.
A glance at the biographies of Green Party candidates as provided by the Green Party of Canada website during the federal election would confirm my impression. Of the 13 people listed, only 3, or 23% percent, could be categorized, I think, as “environmentalists”, rather than social activists or people with human rights or social justice concerns. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Green_Party_candidates,_2008_Canadian_federal_electionMr. Jacoby-Hawkins biography, for example, is replete with phrases like “social issues”, “community groups”, “homelessness”, “Centre for Policy Alternatives”. I don’t think I would see him on a bird count.
One might argue that it is not a criminal act to be committed to social justice. Indeed not. But it is false advertising to make it your priority when you label yourself “Green”. “Green” has connotations of placing humanity within the context of nature. Of putting the lifeboat before its passengers. If the lifeboat sinks, the passengers drown. The question of whether some passengers are inequitably treated, while valid, is secondary to the our need to focus on whether the lifeboat is sea worthy. Are there too many passengers? Can we pick up drowning swimmers? Is the fact that most of the drowning swimmers are people of colour of any relevance what so ever? It is not criminal to care about other people. It is criminal to care ONLY about people and not about the wildlife that too many people are crowding out. This is not misanthropic. Because if we crowd out wildlife, we destroy biodiversity services, we commit suicide. We undercut our own survival.
The Green Party of Canada is not Green. It is an imposter.
(The pity is, there are some within it that aren’t, and they are the ones we would like to support to transform their party into something which lives up to its name. Something like the New Zealand Green Party. But the Green Party hierarchy has a closed borders policy towards those would attempt to traffic with such people.)
Tim Murray November 17/08
List of 13 Green Party biographies:
Erich Jacoby-Hawkins http://www.greenparty.ca/en/campaign/35004
Eric Walton http://www.greenparty.ca/en/campaign/35036
Phil Stone http://www.greenparty.ca/en/campaign/59031 quite aware that population growth is a multiplier of problems. Is an active outdoorsman, photographer, environmentalist.
Adrianne Carr http://www.greenparty.ca/en/campaign/59029
Brian Gordon http://www.greenparty.ca/en/campaign/59008 rare understanding of need to stabilize pop growth in Canada.
John Fryer http://www.greenparty.ca/en/campaign/59014 trade union leader par excellence retired
Blair Wilson http://www.greenparty.ca/en/campaign/59036
Mike Nagy http://www.greenparty.ca/en/campaign/35027
Lorraine Rekmans http://www.greenparty.ca/en/campaign/35002
Valerie Powell http://www.greenparty.ca/en/campaign/35086 not environmentalist
Kate Storey http://www.greenparty.ca/en/campaign/46004 agricultural issues
Angela Reid http://www.greenparty.ca/en/campaign/59011
Hugette Allen http://www.greenparty.ca/en/campaign/59018 solid understanding of the importance of population growth to environmental degradation.
BRISHEN HOFF'S CRITIQUE OF DAVID SUZUKI
Brishen, that was the best hatchet job on Suzuki, the best analysis of the man, his organization, and his lifestyle that I have yet seen. A holistic critique. Not many people are prepared to take iconoclastic approaches, the kind we need to take toward these dangerous figures, these Pied Pipers, these modern Pharisees who lead the innocents astray with their smooth charm and stage presence, and academic civility. Why are we seduced by that rather than looking at the damage that they are doing? Suzuki, Rees et al are like flagmen with the highways department, sending drivers off down the wrong road to no where. They may be engaging, even driven by the right motives initially. But I would rather have no directions at all and use my own counsel than have these so called “environmentalists” direct traffic.
I know, I know. There are people who are going to say. Lets keep on the good side of the icons. Lets prostrate ourselves before them like other supplicants. With enough bootlicking, we might gain some influence. Who then is going to tell the truth to power? Who is going to tell the truth to the people? Don’t the people hear enough hero-worship? The ordinary working class people of Quadra Island, the truckers, the tradesmen, the store clerks, the loggers, the fisherman, hate Suzuki’s guts. It is only the ruling clique, the Sierra-NDP-Greens, the artsy-fartsy people with college degrees who rely on the CBC to form their opinions and then genuflect before Him. They are the people who control the local media and the local community hall. Modifying or softening my pitch to suit them is not to my taste. The working class people are going to be the first to suffer the rebound effect of the boom economy that is soon to go bust. And in Suzuki they spot a hypocrite. One who preaches limits, but doesn’t live within them.
I think it is imperative for someone of Suzuki’s stature to “walk the talk”. I met Ralph Nader as a university student and I remember how impressed students were by his asceticism. As one TVO commentator so crudely put it, Suzuki is a preacher who preaches chastity while discreetly ducking into the whore house. Coast guard sailors and fishermen here are aware that he flies to the Queen Charlotte Islands to meet his native friends on hunting and fishing parties to over-fish and over-hunt, that is fish and hunt beyond the white man’s limits as a guest of the natives. This after appearing on television telling the rest of us to live within our limits. My limit includes having to buy a fishing licence--- what could be more absurd that having to purchase a fishing licence, but not be required to have a licence to breed an excessive amount of children? True, Suzuki can’t undue his past. But why not go on television and apologize for it? The federal government apologized for the internment of Japanese Canadians during the war. Why can’t Suzuki get up and say: “ I am sorry that I was unaware of the damage that so many people would do to the atmosphere and the environment . I regret my irresponsibility, but not my children, whom of course I love etc etc.”
I know, I know. There are people who are going to say. Lets keep on the good side of the icons. Lets prostrate ourselves before them like other supplicants. With enough bootlicking, we might gain some influence. Who then is going to tell the truth to power? Who is going to tell the truth to the people? Don’t the people hear enough hero-worship? The ordinary working class people of Quadra Island, the truckers, the tradesmen, the store clerks, the loggers, the fisherman, hate Suzuki’s guts. It is only the ruling clique, the Sierra-NDP-Greens, the artsy-fartsy people with college degrees who rely on the CBC to form their opinions and then genuflect before Him. They are the people who control the local media and the local community hall. Modifying or softening my pitch to suit them is not to my taste. The working class people are going to be the first to suffer the rebound effect of the boom economy that is soon to go bust. And in Suzuki they spot a hypocrite. One who preaches limits, but doesn’t live within them.
I think it is imperative for someone of Suzuki’s stature to “walk the talk”. I met Ralph Nader as a university student and I remember how impressed students were by his asceticism. As one TVO commentator so crudely put it, Suzuki is a preacher who preaches chastity while discreetly ducking into the whore house. Coast guard sailors and fishermen here are aware that he flies to the Queen Charlotte Islands to meet his native friends on hunting and fishing parties to over-fish and over-hunt, that is fish and hunt beyond the white man’s limits as a guest of the natives. This after appearing on television telling the rest of us to live within our limits. My limit includes having to buy a fishing licence--- what could be more absurd that having to purchase a fishing licence, but not be required to have a licence to breed an excessive amount of children? True, Suzuki can’t undue his past. But why not go on television and apologize for it? The federal government apologized for the internment of Japanese Canadians during the war. Why can’t Suzuki get up and say: “ I am sorry that I was unaware of the damage that so many people would do to the atmosphere and the environment . I regret my irresponsibility, but not my children, whom of course I love etc etc.”
DAVID SUZUKI IS NOT SUSTAINABLE
Suzuki Diaries Road-Trip Fails To Find Sustainability
Please CBC: put our tax dollars to good use: Fire Dr David Suzuki and hire us a new environmental leader -- one who is competent enough to understand the following formula:
Environmental Impact = Population X Per Capita Consumption
Dr David Suzuki is an intellectual fraud because he seems to believe the correct formula is:
"Environmental Impact = Per Capita Consumption"
Dr David Suzuki deserves an ecological dunce cap. Dr David Suzuki fails "Sustainability 101" with a final mark of F-.
I am tired of paying for Dr David Suzuki to fly around the world and present the Canadian public with cowardly and feckless environmental solutions.
Dr David Suzuki is a repeat offender -- none of his solutions for Canada's environmental woes ever involve reversing, stopping or even reducing population growth.
If you don't believe me, visit Dr David Suzuki's website and take his "Nature Challenge" where he will tell you how to improve Canada's envrionment. (1)
While Dr David Suzuki will tell you to limit yourself to a 100-mile diet (no bananas or oranges), use public transportation, insulate your home to R2000, use CFL lights, etc, he will never tell you to have fewer children and protest immigration-driven-population growth. Apparently Dr David Suzuki (in his infinite green wisdom) does not believe that population growth and envrionmental degradation are directly correlated, and therefore there is no reason in his mind to publicly suggest voluntarily stopping Canada's population growth before nature stops it for us.
Dr David Suzuki has never publicly suggested reducing immigration or pro-natal incentives. Yet if we do not, Canada's envrionment is guaranteed to get worse.
The latest example of Dr David Suzuki's environmental illiteracy is " The Suzuki Diaries" aired on the November 16, 2008 CBC Nature of Things.
The Suzuki Diaries was advertised as Dr David Suzuki's quest to find out how to live sustainably. In it, Dr David Suzuki brings along one of his 5 offspring in his youngest daughter, Sarika Suzuki to travel around the world via fossil-fuel power. (2)
I am not surprised that someone with 5 offspring hasn't yet figured out how to live sustainably individually or as a society, but I watched most of this program anyway hoping that Dr David Suzuki would finally discover the elephant in the room that is human overpopulation.
The premise of the show was that our environmental saviour, Saint Suzuki and his brilliant young daughter would show us a place that truly exemplifies a sustainable society. (3) Instead of travelling somewhere with intact biodiversity and a low human population, Dr David Suzuki decided to travel to Denmark, Germany, France and Spain w here he praised their industrial wind turbines, solar panels and the "green" buildings of their European concrete jungles. None of these countries are sustainable because their excessive overpopulation has wiped out their biodiversity and required them to be net importers of natural resources.
At one point Dr David Suzuki enthusiastically exclaimed to his daughter Sarika when looking over an industrial solar panel monoculture "You see that? That's totally free energy!" I guess Dr David Suzuki neglected to notice the loss of farm land that this solar power facility occupies, the maintenance it requires, the battery banks that don't last forever, the transmission lines, the backup power for when the sun isn't shining, etc. Sorry, Dr David Suzuki, but there is no zero-impact energy.
Dr David Suzuki hailed Denmark as a world leader for having a whopping 20% of its energy supplied by renewables. Dr David Suzuki then angrily ranted that Canada has no excuse for not c reating more renewable energy. What is the point of creating more renewable energy if it will never be enough due to Canada's huge immigration intake? I wonder if Dr David Suzuki would like an industrial wind turbine blocking his view of the ocean on his beach-front estate in Quadra Island, BC? Since Dr David Suzuki makes no complaints about Canada's bad environmental policy of bringing in a few hundred thousand immigrants annually, perhaps he wouldn't mind allowing them to build their homes in his backyard. Since Dr David Suzuki doesn't prescribe any need to protect Canada's shores by keeping out the hundreds of millions of projected climate change refugees does this mean he is willing to share his bathroom with them?
Would someone kindly persuade Dr David Suzuki to read these four articles. Then we can see if Dr David Suzuki really cares about his children and grandchildren or just protecting his bloated ego from cries of hypocrisy.
a) Immigration Equals Tarsands For Greenhouse Gases In Four Years
b) Technological Advances Won't Save Us
c) New Hydro Project Consumed In 29 Days Of Immigration To Ontario
d) 18 Specific Ideas For Taking Action Against Overpopulation
When will Dr David Suzuki acknowledge that the earth cannot sustain 6.7 billion people at any level of per capita consumption? Shame on Dr David Suzuki! Will his 5 children each have 5 children of their own, giving Dr David Suzuki 25 grandchildren? How sustainable would that be if we all had as many children as Dr David Suzuki? Dr David Suzuki is the antithesis of sustainability. Even though Dr David Suzuki is not sustainable himself -- he has fathered many children and consumed far more resources than the average Canadian -- I would respect him if he would at least prescribe to Canadians that we must stop our population growth first or we will never be sustainable!
Instead Dr David Suzuki gives us his "Nature Challenge" from his David Suzuki Foundation. I called the David Suzuki Foundation and they refused to divulge the identity and salary of their highest paid employees. They also refused to divulge the identity and amount of their largest corporate donors. I called the Charities Directorate of Revenue Canada and they could only reveal the following:
2007 David Suzuki Foundation:
Total amount in donations: $4,320,976< BR>Other charities gave them: $580,213
Other revenue: $2,068,047 (donations that a receipt was not given for)
Salaries, wages, benefits and honoraria: $2,601,378
I explained to them that it is impossible to assess the integrity of a publicly subsidized tax-deductible charity unless I know:
a) what their highest salaries were and who they were paid to
b) what their largest donations were and who they came from
They told me I would have to contact my MP to have legislation changed so that the David Suzuki Foundation and other NGOs would be forced to reveal this information.
Brishen Hoff
November 17, 2008
(1) http://www.davidsuzuki.org/NatureChallenge/What_is_it/
(2) "Suzuki was married to Setsuko Joane Sunahara from 1958 to 1965, with three children (Tamiko, Laura, and Troy). He married Tara Elizabeth Cullis in 1972. They have two daughters: Sarika and Severn Cullis-Suzuki. Severn, born in 1979, has also done environmental work, including speaking at environmental conferences." http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/David_Suzuki
(3) http://www.cbc.ca/documentaries/natureofthings/2008/suzukidiaries/
Please CBC: put our tax dollars to good use: Fire Dr David Suzuki and hire us a new environmental leader -- one who is competent enough to understand the following formula:
Environmental Impact = Population X Per Capita Consumption
Dr David Suzuki is an intellectual fraud because he seems to believe the correct formula is:
"Environmental Impact = Per Capita Consumption"
Dr David Suzuki deserves an ecological dunce cap. Dr David Suzuki fails "Sustainability 101" with a final mark of F-.
I am tired of paying for Dr David Suzuki to fly around the world and present the Canadian public with cowardly and feckless environmental solutions.
Dr David Suzuki is a repeat offender -- none of his solutions for Canada's environmental woes ever involve reversing, stopping or even reducing population growth.
If you don't believe me, visit Dr David Suzuki's website and take his "Nature Challenge" where he will tell you how to improve Canada's envrionment. (1)
While Dr David Suzuki will tell you to limit yourself to a 100-mile diet (no bananas or oranges), use public transportation, insulate your home to R2000, use CFL lights, etc, he will never tell you to have fewer children and protest immigration-driven-population growth. Apparently Dr David Suzuki (in his infinite green wisdom) does not believe that population growth and envrionmental degradation are directly correlated, and therefore there is no reason in his mind to publicly suggest voluntarily stopping Canada's population growth before nature stops it for us.
Dr David Suzuki has never publicly suggested reducing immigration or pro-natal incentives. Yet if we do not, Canada's envrionment is guaranteed to get worse.
The latest example of Dr David Suzuki's environmental illiteracy is " The Suzuki Diaries" aired on the November 16, 2008 CBC Nature of Things.
The Suzuki Diaries was advertised as Dr David Suzuki's quest to find out how to live sustainably. In it, Dr David Suzuki brings along one of his 5 offspring in his youngest daughter, Sarika Suzuki to travel around the world via fossil-fuel power. (2)
I am not surprised that someone with 5 offspring hasn't yet figured out how to live sustainably individually or as a society, but I watched most of this program anyway hoping that Dr David Suzuki would finally discover the elephant in the room that is human overpopulation.
The premise of the show was that our environmental saviour, Saint Suzuki and his brilliant young daughter would show us a place that truly exemplifies a sustainable society. (3) Instead of travelling somewhere with intact biodiversity and a low human population, Dr David Suzuki decided to travel to Denmark, Germany, France and Spain w here he praised their industrial wind turbines, solar panels and the "green" buildings of their European concrete jungles. None of these countries are sustainable because their excessive overpopulation has wiped out their biodiversity and required them to be net importers of natural resources.
At one point Dr David Suzuki enthusiastically exclaimed to his daughter Sarika when looking over an industrial solar panel monoculture "You see that? That's totally free energy!" I guess Dr David Suzuki neglected to notice the loss of farm land that this solar power facility occupies, the maintenance it requires, the battery banks that don't last forever, the transmission lines, the backup power for when the sun isn't shining, etc. Sorry, Dr David Suzuki, but there is no zero-impact energy.
Dr David Suzuki hailed Denmark as a world leader for having a whopping 20% of its energy supplied by renewables. Dr David Suzuki then angrily ranted that Canada has no excuse for not c reating more renewable energy. What is the point of creating more renewable energy if it will never be enough due to Canada's huge immigration intake? I wonder if Dr David Suzuki would like an industrial wind turbine blocking his view of the ocean on his beach-front estate in Quadra Island, BC? Since Dr David Suzuki makes no complaints about Canada's bad environmental policy of bringing in a few hundred thousand immigrants annually, perhaps he wouldn't mind allowing them to build their homes in his backyard. Since Dr David Suzuki doesn't prescribe any need to protect Canada's shores by keeping out the hundreds of millions of projected climate change refugees does this mean he is willing to share his bathroom with them?
Would someone kindly persuade Dr David Suzuki to read these four articles. Then we can see if Dr David Suzuki really cares about his children and grandchildren or just protecting his bloated ego from cries of hypocrisy.
a) Immigration Equals Tarsands For Greenhouse Gases In Four Years
b) Technological Advances Won't Save Us
c) New Hydro Project Consumed In 29 Days Of Immigration To Ontario
d) 18 Specific Ideas For Taking Action Against Overpopulation
When will Dr David Suzuki acknowledge that the earth cannot sustain 6.7 billion people at any level of per capita consumption? Shame on Dr David Suzuki! Will his 5 children each have 5 children of their own, giving Dr David Suzuki 25 grandchildren? How sustainable would that be if we all had as many children as Dr David Suzuki? Dr David Suzuki is the antithesis of sustainability. Even though Dr David Suzuki is not sustainable himself -- he has fathered many children and consumed far more resources than the average Canadian -- I would respect him if he would at least prescribe to Canadians that we must stop our population growth first or we will never be sustainable!
Instead Dr David Suzuki gives us his "Nature Challenge" from his David Suzuki Foundation. I called the David Suzuki Foundation and they refused to divulge the identity and salary of their highest paid employees. They also refused to divulge the identity and amount of their largest corporate donors. I called the Charities Directorate of Revenue Canada and they could only reveal the following:
2007 David Suzuki Foundation:
Total amount in donations: $4,320,976< BR>Other charities gave them: $580,213
Other revenue: $2,068,047 (donations that a receipt was not given for)
Salaries, wages, benefits and honoraria: $2,601,378
I explained to them that it is impossible to assess the integrity of a publicly subsidized tax-deductible charity unless I know:
a) what their highest salaries were and who they were paid to
b) what their largest donations were and who they came from
They told me I would have to contact my MP to have legislation changed so that the David Suzuki Foundation and other NGOs would be forced to reveal this information.
Brishen Hoff
November 17, 2008
(1) http://www.davidsuzuki.org/NatureChallenge/What_is_it/
(2) "Suzuki was married to Setsuko Joane Sunahara from 1958 to 1965, with three children (Tamiko, Laura, and Troy). He married Tara Elizabeth Cullis in 1972. They have two daughters: Sarika and Severn Cullis-Suzuki. Severn, born in 1979, has also done environmental work, including speaking at environmental conferences." http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/David_Suzuki
(3) http://www.cbc.ca/documentaries/natureofthings/2008/suzukidiaries/
Thursday, November 13, 2008
SOME QUESTIONS FOR ERICH JACOBY-HAWKINS RE HIS REVIEW OF BIODIVERSITY FIRST
1. If we are an “anti-immigrant group trying to cloak ourselves in environmentalism”, is not the Green Party a human rights party trying to cloak itself in environmentalism?
2. If we are “a political movement pretending to be an objective scientific one,” cannot the same be said of the Green Party?
3. What “qualifications” , other than 20/20 vision does Tim Murray need, or any man need, to see the truth? To access information, to sift through data and weigh conflicting studies one against another, all composed by credentialed experts? Judgment is as important as knowledge. Judging a man by his credentials is akin to judging a man by his skin colour, or class background. And yet, that is what most do.
4. “Biodiversity is a lobby group, not a science group.” So? What’s your point? Neither is the Green Party. It’s not a science group. It is a science fiction group. It believes you can add 330,000 consumers or 1% of the country’s current population every year as immigrants, not counting visa entrants, and Canadians coming through the maternity wards WITHOUT them having a profoundly negative environmental impact. It also believes that we can meet Kyoto targets with this kind of growth. Amazing. Call Gene Roddenberry, or, call a medium to call Gene Roddenberry. And that renewable technologies will supply more than 20% of our energy needs. And that wildlife sanctuaries, and green belts will stand up to the kind of population growth we have been hammered with. Yes indeed, to push out this kind of science fiction, the Green Party is indeed, a lobby group, NOT TO BE TAKEN SERIOUSLY. And judging by the election results, most Canadians don’t.
Tim Murray
PS And for the record, Erich, I am not only not the brother of Dan Murray, I have never even met the man. I have spoken to him many times, and submitted material to him. We are not, by the way, in any sense, “anti-immigrant”, any more than the restaurant owner who closes the door on the line-up of people waiting to get into his filled-to-capacity restaurant is “anti-customer”. We are anti-immigration.Or more precisely, pro very limited immigration. And very much pro-international obligations. But here is an important difference. Internationalism does not equal globalism.
2. If we are “a political movement pretending to be an objective scientific one,” cannot the same be said of the Green Party?
3. What “qualifications” , other than 20/20 vision does Tim Murray need, or any man need, to see the truth? To access information, to sift through data and weigh conflicting studies one against another, all composed by credentialed experts? Judgment is as important as knowledge. Judging a man by his credentials is akin to judging a man by his skin colour, or class background. And yet, that is what most do.
4. “Biodiversity is a lobby group, not a science group.” So? What’s your point? Neither is the Green Party. It’s not a science group. It is a science fiction group. It believes you can add 330,000 consumers or 1% of the country’s current population every year as immigrants, not counting visa entrants, and Canadians coming through the maternity wards WITHOUT them having a profoundly negative environmental impact. It also believes that we can meet Kyoto targets with this kind of growth. Amazing. Call Gene Roddenberry, or, call a medium to call Gene Roddenberry. And that renewable technologies will supply more than 20% of our energy needs. And that wildlife sanctuaries, and green belts will stand up to the kind of population growth we have been hammered with. Yes indeed, to push out this kind of science fiction, the Green Party is indeed, a lobby group, NOT TO BE TAKEN SERIOUSLY. And judging by the election results, most Canadians don’t.
Tim Murray
PS And for the record, Erich, I am not only not the brother of Dan Murray, I have never even met the man. I have spoken to him many times, and submitted material to him. We are not, by the way, in any sense, “anti-immigrant”, any more than the restaurant owner who closes the door on the line-up of people waiting to get into his filled-to-capacity restaurant is “anti-customer”. We are anti-immigration.Or more precisely, pro very limited immigration. And very much pro-international obligations. But here is an important difference. Internationalism does not equal globalism.
HOW WE ARE PERCEIVED BY GREEN CANDIDATES
“anti-immigrant”
“lobby group, not science group”
“a biased political movement pretending to be an objective, scientific one” (pray tell, what would be an “unbiased political movement”?)
“fruit loops”
“these are people who think the Green Party and environmentalists will agree with them.”
“the views are extreme”
Random responses given November 12/08 to the Biodiversity First survey.
Ah yes, you know it helps to be told by your best friends that you have bad breath. Who else is going to tell you?
Really it is quite a revelation how others perceive us, isn’t it? Conservatives see Liberals as socialists, and social democrats see Liberals as Conservative clones. And the Greens think they are environmentalists. Until they see us. A biased, pseudo-scientific political lobby of anti-immigrant extremists who cloak themselves in environmentalism. And we see them for what they are. A human rights, anthropocentric movement cloaked in Green that serves the corporate globalist agenda of the massive importation of cheap labour. Extremism is really a matter of perspective. Of where you are standing, and when.
Defending the status quo of runaway population growth strikes us as pretty “extreme”. But apparently not the Green Party leadership though. They don’t seem to be bothered that as, John Feeney observed, between 8 and 16 times as many people are born every year as existed for nearly all of human history, or that more humans are born in every day than there are primates in the world. Or that 90% of African lions have been lost in the last two decades alongside spectacular human growth. Why would they mind, when they are blind to the damage that exploding population growth is doing in Canada? For them it is all down to poor planning, poor technology and poor habits. Extreme denial. Hardly a perspective based on science. More a perspective based on blind faith. Abra Ka dab ra ! Smart Growth! Environmental Impact Gone! (funny it didn’t work in Portland or LA, maybe James Randi can tell us why).
Tim Murray,
November 13/08
Rate this article 1>10:
a) if you learn the author has credentials or
b) if you learn the author has no credentials
c) if he has authority, eg. do people respect him by calling him Dr., Sir, Mr., Your Highness Lord Demographer or “Hey you”?
d) If he is straight, gay, white, brown, disabled, just a miserable retired computer programmer or
e) Would you just prefer to skip the Jacoby-Hawkins test and judge the article on its own merits?
“lobby group, not science group”
“a biased political movement pretending to be an objective, scientific one” (pray tell, what would be an “unbiased political movement”?)
“fruit loops”
“these are people who think the Green Party and environmentalists will agree with them.”
“the views are extreme”
Random responses given November 12/08 to the Biodiversity First survey.
Ah yes, you know it helps to be told by your best friends that you have bad breath. Who else is going to tell you?
Really it is quite a revelation how others perceive us, isn’t it? Conservatives see Liberals as socialists, and social democrats see Liberals as Conservative clones. And the Greens think they are environmentalists. Until they see us. A biased, pseudo-scientific political lobby of anti-immigrant extremists who cloak themselves in environmentalism. And we see them for what they are. A human rights, anthropocentric movement cloaked in Green that serves the corporate globalist agenda of the massive importation of cheap labour. Extremism is really a matter of perspective. Of where you are standing, and when.
Defending the status quo of runaway population growth strikes us as pretty “extreme”. But apparently not the Green Party leadership though. They don’t seem to be bothered that as, John Feeney observed, between 8 and 16 times as many people are born every year as existed for nearly all of human history, or that more humans are born in every day than there are primates in the world. Or that 90% of African lions have been lost in the last two decades alongside spectacular human growth. Why would they mind, when they are blind to the damage that exploding population growth is doing in Canada? For them it is all down to poor planning, poor technology and poor habits. Extreme denial. Hardly a perspective based on science. More a perspective based on blind faith. Abra Ka dab ra ! Smart Growth! Environmental Impact Gone! (funny it didn’t work in Portland or LA, maybe James Randi can tell us why).
Tim Murray,
November 13/08
Rate this article 1>10:
a) if you learn the author has credentials or
b) if you learn the author has no credentials
c) if he has authority, eg. do people respect him by calling him Dr., Sir, Mr., Your Highness Lord Demographer or “Hey you”?
d) If he is straight, gay, white, brown, disabled, just a miserable retired computer programmer or
e) Would you just prefer to skip the Jacoby-Hawkins test and judge the article on its own merits?
WHAT IS AN ENVIRONMENTALIST?
It seems that Canadian Green Party activists can’t shake that continental prejudice that afflicts the whole yuppie green-left McCarthyist movement. Namely, that anti-immigrationists anywhere cannot possibly have legitimate ecological reasons for opposing the population tidal wave that has swept over North America. Even those who come to our defense can only claim that we are misguided extremists. As one such magnanimous Green candidate, in a Christian moment, remarked of my group, “Remember, they believe they are environmentalists.”
Really? Its all a delusional preoccupation, all this caring about the impact of unrelenting torrents of migrants on farmland, wildlife and its habitat? A cloak just to keep them out? Whether I am fighting population growth in North America or Australia I can’t really be an environmentalist.
Tell me why I am not.
Tell me why people who are now considered “environmentalists” have removed the “P” out of the time-honoured IPAT equation, thus making nonsense of any comprehensive understanding of environmental degradation?
Is an environmentalist now someone who for reasons of political correctness denies the crucial role of immigrant-driven population growth in the environmental degradation of Anglophone countries?
Is an environmentalist someone who joins and works for a party that advocates a 38% increase in Canada’s immigration levels when we are already suffering from the highest population growth rate of G8 countries and will double our population in 70 years at this pace? When four years of immigration generates as much GHG as the entire tar sands development presently does? When population growth, not poor planning , accounts for the loss of 60,000 acres of prime Ontario farmland a year?
Is an environmentalist someone who joins a environmental NGO that ignores these realities and parrots the nostrums of smart growth , land use planning and nature reserves despite overwhelming historical evidence that they offer no sanctuary against the tsunami of growth?
Is an environmentalist someone who joins an international environmental organization without investigating its sordid past? Who doesn’t ask basic questions? Yes the Sierra Club of Canada is organizationally distinct from its American sister. But not ideologically. And its director, Elizabeth May, now the Green Party leader, cheer-leaded the successful suppression by the ruling Sierra US clique of dissidents who would restore the longstanding club policy of population stabilization and immigration control. Do Canadian Sierrans know that Sierra USA accepted a $100 million bribe from billionaire David Gelbaum conditional on keeping that policy off the books? Do Canadian Sierrans know who David Brower was and why he resigned from the Sierra Club? Is an environmentalist someone totally ignorant?
Is an environmentalist acquainted with displacement behaviour? It is the anxiety that manifests itself when an animal is torn between two uncomfortable options, who in attempt to deny the horrible reality of the choice, attempts to distract himself with meaningless activity that does not address the problem at hand. David Attenborough, in a documentary, illustrated this phenomena well, by showing a bird on the jungle floor in the Amazon who became aware of an approaching snake. Suddenly he was presented with a choice. Fight or flight. Neither option promised much hope. So what did the bird do? He preened himself, and pecked about the ground to take his mind off the coming appointment with probable death.
I imagine that there were White Star employees like that too on the night of April 12, 1912. There might have been a cleaning lady in a cabin who had a desperate feeling the Titanic was going down. But she couldn’t choose between her options. One was to do the unthinkably un-British thing and abandon her station and run upstairs to find a lifeboat. The other was to do the British thing of carrying out one’s duty by staying put. So instead she went up to the mirror and fixed her hair. That is essentially what the environmentalists do. Their trail work, beach-cleaning, their bird counts , their green living habits, are displacement behaviours. Denial of the overwhelming population avalanche that will sweep over and undo all of their largely inconsequential busy work. Denial, denial , denial.
If the Sierra Club doesn’t find 304 million Americans alarming, what number will they find alarming? 400? 450? That is the number projected for 2050. Already Yellowstone is looking like a highway, are going to see traffic signals? And what of Canada? 33 million is OK , eh? So what is Sierra Club Canada director Steve Hazell’s number then? 43 million? 53 million? 63? Will we all have to live like Fred Flintstone to accommodate the extra millions that corporate Canada wants as cheap labour and Elizabeth May wants for the cultural diversity she loves? Each increment of population must require an equivalent decrease in consumption to nullify environmental impact.
I=P x A x T .
PS Losing the argument? Quick ! Somebody call me a racist!
Really? Its all a delusional preoccupation, all this caring about the impact of unrelenting torrents of migrants on farmland, wildlife and its habitat? A cloak just to keep them out? Whether I am fighting population growth in North America or Australia I can’t really be an environmentalist.
Tell me why I am not.
Tell me why people who are now considered “environmentalists” have removed the “P” out of the time-honoured IPAT equation, thus making nonsense of any comprehensive understanding of environmental degradation?
Is an environmentalist now someone who for reasons of political correctness denies the crucial role of immigrant-driven population growth in the environmental degradation of Anglophone countries?
Is an environmentalist someone who joins and works for a party that advocates a 38% increase in Canada’s immigration levels when we are already suffering from the highest population growth rate of G8 countries and will double our population in 70 years at this pace? When four years of immigration generates as much GHG as the entire tar sands development presently does? When population growth, not poor planning , accounts for the loss of 60,000 acres of prime Ontario farmland a year?
Is an environmentalist someone who joins a environmental NGO that ignores these realities and parrots the nostrums of smart growth , land use planning and nature reserves despite overwhelming historical evidence that they offer no sanctuary against the tsunami of growth?
Is an environmentalist someone who joins an international environmental organization without investigating its sordid past? Who doesn’t ask basic questions? Yes the Sierra Club of Canada is organizationally distinct from its American sister. But not ideologically. And its director, Elizabeth May, now the Green Party leader, cheer-leaded the successful suppression by the ruling Sierra US clique of dissidents who would restore the longstanding club policy of population stabilization and immigration control. Do Canadian Sierrans know that Sierra USA accepted a $100 million bribe from billionaire David Gelbaum conditional on keeping that policy off the books? Do Canadian Sierrans know who David Brower was and why he resigned from the Sierra Club? Is an environmentalist someone totally ignorant?
Is an environmentalist acquainted with displacement behaviour? It is the anxiety that manifests itself when an animal is torn between two uncomfortable options, who in attempt to deny the horrible reality of the choice, attempts to distract himself with meaningless activity that does not address the problem at hand. David Attenborough, in a documentary, illustrated this phenomena well, by showing a bird on the jungle floor in the Amazon who became aware of an approaching snake. Suddenly he was presented with a choice. Fight or flight. Neither option promised much hope. So what did the bird do? He preened himself, and pecked about the ground to take his mind off the coming appointment with probable death.
I imagine that there were White Star employees like that too on the night of April 12, 1912. There might have been a cleaning lady in a cabin who had a desperate feeling the Titanic was going down. But she couldn’t choose between her options. One was to do the unthinkably un-British thing and abandon her station and run upstairs to find a lifeboat. The other was to do the British thing of carrying out one’s duty by staying put. So instead she went up to the mirror and fixed her hair. That is essentially what the environmentalists do. Their trail work, beach-cleaning, their bird counts , their green living habits, are displacement behaviours. Denial of the overwhelming population avalanche that will sweep over and undo all of their largely inconsequential busy work. Denial, denial , denial.
If the Sierra Club doesn’t find 304 million Americans alarming, what number will they find alarming? 400? 450? That is the number projected for 2050. Already Yellowstone is looking like a highway, are going to see traffic signals? And what of Canada? 33 million is OK , eh? So what is Sierra Club Canada director Steve Hazell’s number then? 43 million? 53 million? 63? Will we all have to live like Fred Flintstone to accommodate the extra millions that corporate Canada wants as cheap labour and Elizabeth May wants for the cultural diversity she loves? Each increment of population must require an equivalent decrease in consumption to nullify environmental impact.
I=P x A x T .
PS Losing the argument? Quick ! Somebody call me a racist!
IS RAPID POPULATION DECLINE AN EXTREMISM?
Whether one’s views are extreme or not is a function of time and place. In 1859 John Brown was perceived as a monomaniacal radical for raiding Harper’s Ferry and believing that if the slaves were not freed America would be bathed in blood. In 1865 three percent of his nation’s population were dead from a civil war that freed the slaves and John Brown was a martyred folk hero.
In January of 2007 when I started my blog1 I was told that I was an extremist for repeating Paul Ehrlich’s estimate that the earth could support only 2 billion people.
Then 6 months later I read that James Lovelock said that it could only support 750 million.
Then I read an article by microbiologist Peter Salonius called “The 10,000 Year Misunderstanding”2 and it really revolutionized my thinking. It said that the problem wasn’t the overconsumption of industrial civilization. It was agrarian civilization. Earth could only sustainably support 150-300 million people. The soils need a rest.
Here I was starting out in January of 2007 with the proposition that Canada should freeze its current population at 32 million and being called an extremist with a fortress mentality.
Think Salonius was off-beat? Hear the latest? Chris Clugston’s SOA analysis3 is a more comprehensive and contemporary yardstick of carrying capacity than the EFA used by the Global Footprint Network of Rees and Wackernagel.
Extrapolating from the US data, if his SOA analysis was applied to Canada, are you ready, we could support just 1,122,000 people, or the combined populations of Ottawa and Cornwall, Ontario. If we carried on living as we do. If we stayed at 33 million, we would have to survive at 5% of our present per capita GDP. A Cambodian budget in a cold climate? Good luck..
The problem is I think, that sometimes the truth is extreme. Some pretend that it is not my message but the manner in which I tell it. They want me to be a firefighter who politely knocks on a burning building, waits to be invited in, and then in a quiet mellow voice, tactfully and diplomatically whispers for everyone to get out. Including that guy in the Sierra Club with displacement anxiety who polishes the wood furniture rather than acknowledge that the building is going to collapse around him.(I screwed in a fluorescent bulb didn’t I?)
In granola country, in those far-out pockets of poltical correctness that dot BC (Cortes, Quadra, Gabriola, the Slocan Valley, Nelson) I am indeed an “extremist” and beyond the pale. But I would certainly fit within the New Zealand Green Party who favour population stabilization including immigration caps and are now fighting for a one child policy and taking heat for it. Senator Bob Brown, leader of the Australian Greens, recently called for a Population Policy for Australia on the Senate floor. (Yet) in the Canadian context (I remain) an extremist ....
Is an extremist someone with extreme views or someone who merely sees an extreme situation and boldly announces it ?
Tim Murray
November 10/08
http://www.skil.org/position_papers_folder/RPDextremism.html
Footnotes:
1. My blog. http://sinkinglifeboat.blogspot.com
2. “The 10,000 Year Misunderstanding: A Short History of Overshoot” by Peter Salonius http://biodiversityfirst.googlepages.com/10000YearMisunderstanding.htm
3. SOA analysis (Societal Overextension Analysis) http://www.energybulletin.net/node/46892
In January of 2007 when I started my blog1 I was told that I was an extremist for repeating Paul Ehrlich’s estimate that the earth could support only 2 billion people.
Then 6 months later I read that James Lovelock said that it could only support 750 million.
Then I read an article by microbiologist Peter Salonius called “The 10,000 Year Misunderstanding”2 and it really revolutionized my thinking. It said that the problem wasn’t the overconsumption of industrial civilization. It was agrarian civilization. Earth could only sustainably support 150-300 million people. The soils need a rest.
Here I was starting out in January of 2007 with the proposition that Canada should freeze its current population at 32 million and being called an extremist with a fortress mentality.
Think Salonius was off-beat? Hear the latest? Chris Clugston’s SOA analysis3 is a more comprehensive and contemporary yardstick of carrying capacity than the EFA used by the Global Footprint Network of Rees and Wackernagel.
Extrapolating from the US data, if his SOA analysis was applied to Canada, are you ready, we could support just 1,122,000 people, or the combined populations of Ottawa and Cornwall, Ontario. If we carried on living as we do. If we stayed at 33 million, we would have to survive at 5% of our present per capita GDP. A Cambodian budget in a cold climate? Good luck..
The problem is I think, that sometimes the truth is extreme. Some pretend that it is not my message but the manner in which I tell it. They want me to be a firefighter who politely knocks on a burning building, waits to be invited in, and then in a quiet mellow voice, tactfully and diplomatically whispers for everyone to get out. Including that guy in the Sierra Club with displacement anxiety who polishes the wood furniture rather than acknowledge that the building is going to collapse around him.(I screwed in a fluorescent bulb didn’t I?)
In granola country, in those far-out pockets of poltical correctness that dot BC (Cortes, Quadra, Gabriola, the Slocan Valley, Nelson) I am indeed an “extremist” and beyond the pale. But I would certainly fit within the New Zealand Green Party who favour population stabilization including immigration caps and are now fighting for a one child policy and taking heat for it. Senator Bob Brown, leader of the Australian Greens, recently called for a Population Policy for Australia on the Senate floor. (Yet) in the Canadian context (I remain) an extremist ....
Is an extremist someone with extreme views or someone who merely sees an extreme situation and boldly announces it ?
Tim Murray
November 10/08
http://www.skil.org/position_papers_folder/RPDextremism.html
Footnotes:
1. My blog. http://sinkinglifeboat.blogspot.com
2. “The 10,000 Year Misunderstanding: A Short History of Overshoot” by Peter Salonius http://biodiversityfirst.googlepages.com/10000YearMisunderstanding.htm
3. SOA analysis (Societal Overextension Analysis) http://www.energybulletin.net/node/46892
Tuesday, November 11, 2008
HOFF HAS BEEN VINDICATED
The News about Canada’s Overshoot Could Be FAR Worse Than We Imagined
Chris Clugston’s SOA analysis, obviously more comprehensive, more credible and contemporary a yardstick of carrying capacity than Rees and Wackernagel’s dated EFA , estimates that the United States can sustainably support only 10.7 million people at their present lifestyle. Currently America has 304 million people. So that is .034 % of their current population.
Let’s pro-rate that for Canada. Comparing the United States to Canada in ecological terms, while obviously problematic seeing that the two countries are not symmetrical in terms of climate, soil or topography, offers a more accurate mirror of our predicament than comparing the rest of the world to Canada. So let us proceed from there.
The United States has 304 million people and Canada has 33 million. That is, Canada has 10.8% of America’s population.
If the two countries were roughly comparable in economic and environmental terms, then SOA analysis, that is “Societal Overextension Analysis”, if applied to Canada would indicate that we could only sustainably support .034% of our current 33 million hyper-consumers at their present living standards.
How many Canadians is that? 1,122,000! That is 122,000 more people than Biodiversity President Brishen Hoff declared Canada could support in a statement he made in mid 2008, a statement that would be greeted in most quarters as outrageous and absurd. And it was a statement not informed by the SOA approach that only just has come to our attention.
To visualize what a country as vast as Canada would look like with 1,122,000 people think of the Ottawa-Gatineau urban centre with Cornwall, Ontario thrown in for spare change. Vancouver inclusive of Surrey would be too big. It has 1,986,965 people. Spread those people across the country any way you like, or concentrate them in one or ten areas. But if they live as we do now, according to SO analysis applied to this country, which makes roughly the same per capita economic and environmental demands as the United States, that is all the people this land can support. People per square kilometer is no measure of a nation’s carrying capacity. Is there an elected politician in any Canadian political party who understands this?
Chris Clugston’s SOA analysis, obviously more comprehensive, more credible and contemporary a yardstick of carrying capacity than Rees and Wackernagel’s dated EFA , estimates that the United States can sustainably support only 10.7 million people at their present lifestyle. Currently America has 304 million people. So that is .034 % of their current population.
Let’s pro-rate that for Canada. Comparing the United States to Canada in ecological terms, while obviously problematic seeing that the two countries are not symmetrical in terms of climate, soil or topography, offers a more accurate mirror of our predicament than comparing the rest of the world to Canada. So let us proceed from there.
The United States has 304 million people and Canada has 33 million. That is, Canada has 10.8% of America’s population.
If the two countries were roughly comparable in economic and environmental terms, then SOA analysis, that is “Societal Overextension Analysis”, if applied to Canada would indicate that we could only sustainably support .034% of our current 33 million hyper-consumers at their present living standards.
How many Canadians is that? 1,122,000! That is 122,000 more people than Biodiversity President Brishen Hoff declared Canada could support in a statement he made in mid 2008, a statement that would be greeted in most quarters as outrageous and absurd. And it was a statement not informed by the SOA approach that only just has come to our attention.
To visualize what a country as vast as Canada would look like with 1,122,000 people think of the Ottawa-Gatineau urban centre with Cornwall, Ontario thrown in for spare change. Vancouver inclusive of Surrey would be too big. It has 1,986,965 people. Spread those people across the country any way you like, or concentrate them in one or ten areas. But if they live as we do now, according to SO analysis applied to this country, which makes roughly the same per capita economic and environmental demands as the United States, that is all the people this land can support. People per square kilometer is no measure of a nation’s carrying capacity. Is there an elected politician in any Canadian political party who understands this?
WHAT IF THE SIERRA CLUB HAD BEEN GOVERNMENT IN 1939? A Remembrance Day Thought
THE SIERRA CLUB OF CANADA 2008
“The Sierra Club of Canada renounces war as a solution to human conflict.”
Seconded by the Green Party
THE SIERRA CLUB OF CANADA 1939
“Sorry, Mr. Hitler, you can’t invade us because, you see, we don’t believe in war or violence.”
THE SIERRA CLUB OF CANADA 2040
To the flotillas of 30 million environmental refugees off our coasts
“Please go away, pretty please, because thanks to our successful peace campaign Canada doesn’t have a navy to stop you…no wait, come on in and help yourself, we’ll just reduce our consumption even more…”
Is this the future 100,000 young Canadians died for? So that these counterfeit green Neville Chamberlains could leave us defenceless in the face of marauding millions and armed resource pirates? That our army be reduced to a token force of social workers?
From Brookwood Cemetry in Greater London the voice of my 24 year old uncle cries out along with a thousand other dead Canadian pilots that we continue his work and protect our country from invasion, in whatever form. Since he sank U-Boats and shot down Focke Wulfs, the very least I can do is fight the quisling open borders Greens and Sierrans who try to surrender what he gave his life to defend.
To save the environment, one must first destroy the environmental leadership..
“The Sierra Club of Canada renounces war as a solution to human conflict.”
Seconded by the Green Party
THE SIERRA CLUB OF CANADA 1939
“Sorry, Mr. Hitler, you can’t invade us because, you see, we don’t believe in war or violence.”
THE SIERRA CLUB OF CANADA 2040
To the flotillas of 30 million environmental refugees off our coasts
“Please go away, pretty please, because thanks to our successful peace campaign Canada doesn’t have a navy to stop you…no wait, come on in and help yourself, we’ll just reduce our consumption even more…”
Is this the future 100,000 young Canadians died for? So that these counterfeit green Neville Chamberlains could leave us defenceless in the face of marauding millions and armed resource pirates? That our army be reduced to a token force of social workers?
From Brookwood Cemetry in Greater London the voice of my 24 year old uncle cries out along with a thousand other dead Canadian pilots that we continue his work and protect our country from invasion, in whatever form. Since he sank U-Boats and shot down Focke Wulfs, the very least I can do is fight the quisling open borders Greens and Sierrans who try to surrender what he gave his life to defend.
To save the environment, one must first destroy the environmental leadership..
Monday, November 10, 2008
TAKE ME OFF YOUR LIST! PC Canadian Demands Total Immunity From Threatening Ideas
(Preface: Soft-green and centre-left organizations inundate Canadians with unsolicited emails and dinner time phone calls that can't be terminated by repeated pleadings. Yet when the individuals who belong to these organizations are in turn subject to our emails, demanding answers or presenting counter-arguments to theirs, they scream that their privacy rights have been abused. Such was the case on November 9/08 when Brishen Hoff of Biodiversity First sent our material to a CBC mailing list of soft green supporters.)
I was sitting at my desk this afternoon when, all of a sudden, an unsolicited email appeared on my computer monitor. Good Lord! It contained ideas which challenged by Politically Correct Belief System! How could the media gatekeepers let this get through? I know the earth is flat and the CBC has allowed a skeptic to upset my intellectual and emotional applecart with the notion that it is a sphere. Remove him! Remove him I say!
In no time flat, the email leapt up and bit me. The pain was such that I was forced to seek medical attention and I was motivated to discover legal recompense. Sure enough, there it was, under the “I have a Constitutional right never to have my Politically Correct comfort zone disturbed Act.” Penalties include detainment in a CBC studio for up 6 months and being forced to listen to at least 6 hours of Mother Corp’s programming every day, only to emerge with a completely distorted view of what is happening in the world.
So I am resolved to proceed with charges under the Act. Just who do these spammers think they are? Sierra Club members who send emails and newsletters out to you relentlessly despite enumerable pleadings for them to stop? The federal NDP, who do the same? The very organizations, which I venture to say, most of those people on the CBC mailing list, the “One Million Acts of Green List”, mostly likely support.
And just where do these spammers think they live, anyway? In some sort of a democracy? In a free marketplace of competing ideas?
It is time they heard the truth. They live in a Secular Theocratic Multicultural Growthist One-Party State where everyone has an iron-clad right TO HEAR NO EVIL, SEE NO EVIL.
I for one, don’t ever want to read or hear that immigrant-driven population growth is a crucial variable of environmental degradation in Canada. Just leave me alone with my fluorescent light bulbs and conservation tips.
PS Oh, I forgot. I do have an option to simply delete the offending Malthusian email virus and send it to electronic oblivion. But that would take all of .03 seconds---enough of a window to penetrate my consciousness while my guard was down. My belief system is too fragile to stand up to the competition. It was incubated in the hothouse of Canadian intellectual protectionism. You know, college and university speech codes, PC journalism schools and CBC moderators.
I was sitting at my desk this afternoon when, all of a sudden, an unsolicited email appeared on my computer monitor. Good Lord! It contained ideas which challenged by Politically Correct Belief System! How could the media gatekeepers let this get through? I know the earth is flat and the CBC has allowed a skeptic to upset my intellectual and emotional applecart with the notion that it is a sphere. Remove him! Remove him I say!
In no time flat, the email leapt up and bit me. The pain was such that I was forced to seek medical attention and I was motivated to discover legal recompense. Sure enough, there it was, under the “I have a Constitutional right never to have my Politically Correct comfort zone disturbed Act.” Penalties include detainment in a CBC studio for up 6 months and being forced to listen to at least 6 hours of Mother Corp’s programming every day, only to emerge with a completely distorted view of what is happening in the world.
So I am resolved to proceed with charges under the Act. Just who do these spammers think they are? Sierra Club members who send emails and newsletters out to you relentlessly despite enumerable pleadings for them to stop? The federal NDP, who do the same? The very organizations, which I venture to say, most of those people on the CBC mailing list, the “One Million Acts of Green List”, mostly likely support.
And just where do these spammers think they live, anyway? In some sort of a democracy? In a free marketplace of competing ideas?
It is time they heard the truth. They live in a Secular Theocratic Multicultural Growthist One-Party State where everyone has an iron-clad right TO HEAR NO EVIL, SEE NO EVIL.
I for one, don’t ever want to read or hear that immigrant-driven population growth is a crucial variable of environmental degradation in Canada. Just leave me alone with my fluorescent light bulbs and conservation tips.
PS Oh, I forgot. I do have an option to simply delete the offending Malthusian email virus and send it to electronic oblivion. But that would take all of .03 seconds---enough of a window to penetrate my consciousness while my guard was down. My belief system is too fragile to stand up to the competition. It was incubated in the hothouse of Canadian intellectual protectionism. You know, college and university speech codes, PC journalism schools and CBC moderators.
THE INCONVENIENT TRUTHS OF CHRIS CLUGSTON
Selected Quotations from “Quantifying Overextension-America’s Predicament”
http://www.energybulletin.net/node/46892
According to the GFN global footprint analysis, should we choose to maintain our current population level of 304 million people, our average material living standard would fall to about half of our current level—approximating the living standards in Saudi Arabia and Israel today[26].
Alternatively, if we choose to maintain our current living standard, America could support a sustainable population of only 150 million people.
Should we choose to maintain our current population level of 304 million people, the RP global footprint analysis indicates that our sustainable average living standard would be less than 20% of our current level—approximating that of Azerbaijan and Chile today.[27]
If we choose to maintain our current living standard instead, America could sustainably support only 57 million people.
According to the Societal Overextension Analysis, should we choose to maintain our current population level of 304 million people, our sustainable average living standard would be approximately 3.5% of its current level—essentially that of Cambodia and Kyrgyzstan today[28].
If we choose instead to maintain our current living standard, America could support a sustainable population of only 10.7 million people.
The prevailing American perception[31] is that “our system is broken” and must therefore be “fixed”, or “rescued”, or “bailed out”… This perception is fundamentally inaccurate; as a result, the proposed prescription is fatally flawed.
As the preceding analysis clearly demonstrates, we are irreparably overextended—living hopelessly beyond our means, ecologically and economically[32]. Our resource utilization behavior, which enables our “system”—our American way of life—is detritovoric[33]; that is, we are systematically eliminating the very ecological resources and economic resources upon which our ever-increasing population and our historically unprecedented living standards depend.
The inescapable conclusion is that our American way of life is not sustainable—it cannot, therefore, be “fixed”; it must be displaced[34]. Desperate and futile attempts to perpetuate our existing lifestyle paradigm simply waste remaining, and increasingly scarce, time and resources.
Our only recourse is to transition voluntarily, beginning immediately, to a sustainable lifestyle paradigm, one in which we live within our means ecologically and economically—forever. Should we fail to do so, quickly, the consequences associated with our predicament will be horrific.
2050 will be “the new 1850”[35]—if we are lucky!
Finally, Chris Clugston concludes with an inconvenient truth taken from Richard Duncan’s “The Olduvai Theory: Sliding Towards a Post-Industrial Stone Age”:"Industrial Civilization doesn't evolve. Rather, it rapidly consumes 'the necessary physical prerequisites for its own existence. It's short-term, unsustainable."
Questions. What are Canada’s “Inconvenient Truths” (or Australia’s, or Britain’s, or New Zealand’s etc.) Using Duncan’s description of industrial civilization, is Canada like a cannibal who consumes his own legs and will no longer walk much further? What would a Societal Overextension Analysis (SOA) reveal our carrying capacity to be (at given living standards) as opposed to the more limited Ecological Footprint analysis?
http://www.energybulletin.net/node/46892
According to the GFN global footprint analysis, should we choose to maintain our current population level of 304 million people, our average material living standard would fall to about half of our current level—approximating the living standards in Saudi Arabia and Israel today[26].
Alternatively, if we choose to maintain our current living standard, America could support a sustainable population of only 150 million people.
Should we choose to maintain our current population level of 304 million people, the RP global footprint analysis indicates that our sustainable average living standard would be less than 20% of our current level—approximating that of Azerbaijan and Chile today.[27]
If we choose to maintain our current living standard instead, America could sustainably support only 57 million people.
According to the Societal Overextension Analysis, should we choose to maintain our current population level of 304 million people, our sustainable average living standard would be approximately 3.5% of its current level—essentially that of Cambodia and Kyrgyzstan today[28].
If we choose instead to maintain our current living standard, America could support a sustainable population of only 10.7 million people.
The prevailing American perception[31] is that “our system is broken” and must therefore be “fixed”, or “rescued”, or “bailed out”… This perception is fundamentally inaccurate; as a result, the proposed prescription is fatally flawed.
As the preceding analysis clearly demonstrates, we are irreparably overextended—living hopelessly beyond our means, ecologically and economically[32]. Our resource utilization behavior, which enables our “system”—our American way of life—is detritovoric[33]; that is, we are systematically eliminating the very ecological resources and economic resources upon which our ever-increasing population and our historically unprecedented living standards depend.
The inescapable conclusion is that our American way of life is not sustainable—it cannot, therefore, be “fixed”; it must be displaced[34]. Desperate and futile attempts to perpetuate our existing lifestyle paradigm simply waste remaining, and increasingly scarce, time and resources.
Our only recourse is to transition voluntarily, beginning immediately, to a sustainable lifestyle paradigm, one in which we live within our means ecologically and economically—forever. Should we fail to do so, quickly, the consequences associated with our predicament will be horrific.
2050 will be “the new 1850”[35]—if we are lucky!
Finally, Chris Clugston concludes with an inconvenient truth taken from Richard Duncan’s “The Olduvai Theory: Sliding Towards a Post-Industrial Stone Age”:"Industrial Civilization doesn't evolve. Rather, it rapidly consumes 'the necessary physical prerequisites for its own existence. It's short-term, unsustainable."
Questions. What are Canada’s “Inconvenient Truths” (or Australia’s, or Britain’s, or New Zealand’s etc.) Using Duncan’s description of industrial civilization, is Canada like a cannibal who consumes his own legs and will no longer walk much further? What would a Societal Overextension Analysis (SOA) reveal our carrying capacity to be (at given living standards) as opposed to the more limited Ecological Footprint analysis?
IS THE CANADA REVENUE AGENCY LIKE A COP ON THE TAKE? How else can we explain the Sierra Club's special tax treatment?
Go figure. The Canada Revenue Agency revoked the charitable tax status of no less than 737 organizations in Canada in 2007-8 in 32 different categories http://www.cra-arc.gc.ca/tx/chrts/menu-eng.html but the Sierra Club of Canada wasn’t one of them. Why?
Sure, the Sierra Club does goody two shoes kind of work. “Educational work” (except educating people about the most important variable of environmental degradation in Canada---runaway population growth). But its most salient characteristic is its advocacy, telling people who not to vote for—namely the Harper Conservatives, neglecting to tell them of course that the opposition parties would not dismantle the tar sands development . And most conspicuously, failing to mention that the Greens, Liberals and NDP by desiring an immigration level 38% higher than the governing Conservatives, would therefore accelerate the emission of greenhouse emissions and the loss of farmland and endangered species that much more. Let’s give the Sierra Club an “F” on our report card for holistic ecological comprehension.
What kind of organizations are the 737 who had their charity status revoked? Typically they were groups like “The Calgary Fire Department Community Association”, “The Friends of the Northeast Food Bank”, “The Dementia-Support Group For Caregivers Association of Calgary”, “The Homeless Women’s Shelter Service of Saint John”, “The Afghanistan Relief International Aid”, “Bangledesh Relief Fund”, and the “Canadian Association For African Development”.
You get the picture. It doesn’t sound like they were out door-knocking for the Green Party or telling folks that Jack Layton should have gone for the carbon tax so don’t give him your vote. If the Canada Revenue Agency can axe 737 organizations like these, one can only ask why the Sierra Club can brazenly collect donation money simply because it sets up a dummy surrogate group called “The Sierra Club Foundation” earmarked supposedly just for educational purposes? Is there a CRA accountant sitting in every Sierra Club office to monitor expenditures?
The question I ask myself is the same question that folks in Chicago and New York in the thirties asked when they noticed that petty criminals were collared by cops on the beat without fanfare, but somehow known crime bosses went untouched. Could it be that corporate Canada is appreciative of an environmental organization that barks but doesn’t bite? That makes noise about the symptoms-- climate change and biodiversity loss--- but never about the underlying cause, growth, which they only talk about “ managing.”
Maybe the Canada Revenue Agency is the cop who looks the other way in the same way that the Sierra Club looks the other way while 450, 000 new consumers are injected into our high consumptive economy each year. If they are indeed looking the other way, then who is telling them to look the other way? My bet is that the ultimate instructions would come not from the PMO, but from Bay Street.
If Bay Street can buy the Green movement’s silence on immigration, they can suffer their whining about polar bears and the tar sands, because the project will barrel ahead and the cheap labour will continue to pour in without opposition. A great deal all around for everyone. Corporate Canada gets rich and the Green Crusaders get to feel self-righteous. The green dogs bark and the caravan moves on.
PS The nagging question remains. Why won’t the Sierra Club reveal who its major donors are and what its directors are being paid? Are not Canadians entitled to know that the Sierra Club of Canada is NOT like its American sister, a corrupt money-grubbing corporate lackey of someone like billionaire David Gelbaum? Funny how people like that were in the forefront of demands for disclosure laws for donations to political parties. When you follow the money trail, you learn more about an organization’s agenda than you do when you follow their rhetoric.
Sure, the Sierra Club does goody two shoes kind of work. “Educational work” (except educating people about the most important variable of environmental degradation in Canada---runaway population growth). But its most salient characteristic is its advocacy, telling people who not to vote for—namely the Harper Conservatives, neglecting to tell them of course that the opposition parties would not dismantle the tar sands development . And most conspicuously, failing to mention that the Greens, Liberals and NDP by desiring an immigration level 38% higher than the governing Conservatives, would therefore accelerate the emission of greenhouse emissions and the loss of farmland and endangered species that much more. Let’s give the Sierra Club an “F” on our report card for holistic ecological comprehension.
What kind of organizations are the 737 who had their charity status revoked? Typically they were groups like “The Calgary Fire Department Community Association”, “The Friends of the Northeast Food Bank”, “The Dementia-Support Group For Caregivers Association of Calgary”, “The Homeless Women’s Shelter Service of Saint John”, “The Afghanistan Relief International Aid”, “Bangledesh Relief Fund”, and the “Canadian Association For African Development”.
You get the picture. It doesn’t sound like they were out door-knocking for the Green Party or telling folks that Jack Layton should have gone for the carbon tax so don’t give him your vote. If the Canada Revenue Agency can axe 737 organizations like these, one can only ask why the Sierra Club can brazenly collect donation money simply because it sets up a dummy surrogate group called “The Sierra Club Foundation” earmarked supposedly just for educational purposes? Is there a CRA accountant sitting in every Sierra Club office to monitor expenditures?
The question I ask myself is the same question that folks in Chicago and New York in the thirties asked when they noticed that petty criminals were collared by cops on the beat without fanfare, but somehow known crime bosses went untouched. Could it be that corporate Canada is appreciative of an environmental organization that barks but doesn’t bite? That makes noise about the symptoms-- climate change and biodiversity loss--- but never about the underlying cause, growth, which they only talk about “ managing.”
Maybe the Canada Revenue Agency is the cop who looks the other way in the same way that the Sierra Club looks the other way while 450, 000 new consumers are injected into our high consumptive economy each year. If they are indeed looking the other way, then who is telling them to look the other way? My bet is that the ultimate instructions would come not from the PMO, but from Bay Street.
If Bay Street can buy the Green movement’s silence on immigration, they can suffer their whining about polar bears and the tar sands, because the project will barrel ahead and the cheap labour will continue to pour in without opposition. A great deal all around for everyone. Corporate Canada gets rich and the Green Crusaders get to feel self-righteous. The green dogs bark and the caravan moves on.
PS The nagging question remains. Why won’t the Sierra Club reveal who its major donors are and what its directors are being paid? Are not Canadians entitled to know that the Sierra Club of Canada is NOT like its American sister, a corrupt money-grubbing corporate lackey of someone like billionaire David Gelbaum? Funny how people like that were in the forefront of demands for disclosure laws for donations to political parties. When you follow the money trail, you learn more about an organization’s agenda than you do when you follow their rhetoric.
OUR SOCIETY IS NOT SUSTAINABLE by Brishen Hoff
Our society is not sustainable. Our goal is to grow the GDP from one year to the next.
GDP is the total dollar value of goods and services consumed.
So our goal is to consume an ever increasing amount of goods and services on a finite planet. This is outrageous!
Opening a new landfill, building more houses, spilling oil into the ocean, building a new mall with parking lots on farm land, manufacturing cars, etc all serve to grow the GDP.
Size of economy or GDP = (# of people) X (average person's consumption)
The more people there are, the more economic activity, the higher the GDP.
Because resources per capita declines as the number of people increases, I think GDP per capita is quickly becoming inversely correlated with GDP.
The more people there are, the poorer each person becomes on average (of course this doesn't affect the major CEOs atop the economic growth pyramid scheme)
One way the Canadian, US, Australian, UK, etc governments have been trying to grow the GDP is to bring in hundreds of thousands of immigrants for exponential population growth. This also brings cheap labour for CEOs.
In the USA, a new study shows that immigrants quadruple their greenhouse gas emissions upon arrival: http://www.cis.org/GreenhouseGasEmissions
This doesn't seem to bother the CEOs.
To further illustrate how unsustainable our society is, in the USA there were more babies born in 2007 than any other year in their history.
There was a record 4.315 million babies born in the USA in 2007 which is more than any year of the so-called baby boom. http://www.usatoday.com/news/nation/2008-07-16-baby-boomlet_N.htm
According to the latest WWF Living Planet report, humanity is consuming natural resources 30% faster than the earth can produce them and by 2030 we will need 2 planets.
The report says that from 1970 to 2005, global biodiversity has declined by 33%.
http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2008/oct/29/climatechange-endangeredhabitats/print
If you want to live in a sustainable society, you cannot have population growth of any kind. Population growth is simply not sustainable. Humanity is already in ecological overshoot.
SOLUTIONS: (If you want to live in a sustainable society...)
1) Do not reproduce and tell others why that is important.
2) Advocate reducing immigration intake so that our population can decline to a sustainable level.
GDP is the total dollar value of goods and services consumed.
So our goal is to consume an ever increasing amount of goods and services on a finite planet. This is outrageous!
Opening a new landfill, building more houses, spilling oil into the ocean, building a new mall with parking lots on farm land, manufacturing cars, etc all serve to grow the GDP.
Size of economy or GDP = (# of people) X (average person's consumption)
The more people there are, the more economic activity, the higher the GDP.
Because resources per capita declines as the number of people increases, I think GDP per capita is quickly becoming inversely correlated with GDP.
The more people there are, the poorer each person becomes on average (of course this doesn't affect the major CEOs atop the economic growth pyramid scheme)
One way the Canadian, US, Australian, UK, etc governments have been trying to grow the GDP is to bring in hundreds of thousands of immigrants for exponential population growth. This also brings cheap labour for CEOs.
In the USA, a new study shows that immigrants quadruple their greenhouse gas emissions upon arrival: http://www.cis.org/GreenhouseGasEmissions
This doesn't seem to bother the CEOs.
To further illustrate how unsustainable our society is, in the USA there were more babies born in 2007 than any other year in their history.
There was a record 4.315 million babies born in the USA in 2007 which is more than any year of the so-called baby boom. http://www.usatoday.com/news/nation/2008-07-16-baby-boomlet_N.htm
According to the latest WWF Living Planet report, humanity is consuming natural resources 30% faster than the earth can produce them and by 2030 we will need 2 planets.
The report says that from 1970 to 2005, global biodiversity has declined by 33%.
http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2008/oct/29/climatechange-endangeredhabitats/print
If you want to live in a sustainable society, you cannot have population growth of any kind. Population growth is simply not sustainable. Humanity is already in ecological overshoot.
SOLUTIONS: (If you want to live in a sustainable society...)
1) Do not reproduce and tell others why that is important.
2) Advocate reducing immigration intake so that our population can decline to a sustainable level.
Thursday, November 6, 2008
Accusations of Racism Don't Change The Facts
This is a valuable piece by my colleague and felllow British Columbian neo-Malthusian activist Rick Shea:
ACCUSATIONS OF RACISM DON’T CHANGE THE FACTS
It is not racist or misanthropic to try to protect the environment and our children’s natural heritage. Yet that is typically the knee-jerk response to those who point out environmental reasons for halting human population growth. Those reasons cited include the current human-caused “Sixth Great Extinction,” collapse of ocean fish stocks and other sea life, emissions and pollution affecting our oceans and our weather, soil exhaustion and continued loss of arable land to concrete and asphalt, and water shortages.
The two factors that drive population growth in many developed countries, including Canada, are immigration and the natural population increase. Immigrants do not generally come to Canada to keep the same standard of living as in their country of origin. Using William Rees’ “ecological footprint” concept, the vast majority of immigrants to Canada who adopt close to an average Canadian standard of living will magnify their ecological footprint many times over (see table below). As an example, an immigrant from India will increase his or her ecological footprint by almost seven hundred percent. Of the countries not listed, only a very few have an ecological footprint close to that of Canada. Again, the vast majority of immigrants from other countries magnify their footprint significantly when they move to Canada. South of the border, a report by the Centre for Immigrant Studies (http://www.cis.org/GreenhouseGasEmissions) established that, on average, each immigrant quadrupled his or her GHG emissions upon arrival to the United States. Canadian figures are comparable, that is, GHG emissions are more than five times the global average.
Canadian Immigration Top Ten Countries of Origin, 2007
It is important to note that the ecological footprint of Canadians extends far beyond our borders, to include the pollution and waste in countries which produce our goods for us, the loss of biodiversity in countries where forest and natural areas are converted to agricultural production for the food we eat, further depletion of ocean fish stocks, and the numerous other ways Canadians have an impact on this planet.
These are facts. They do not assign blame to immigrants. Indeed, if there is any blame to be assigned for this enormous impact on the environment, it should be laid at the feet of Canadian politicians and the business lobby, who actively promote even more immigration to Canada while claiming that we are working to reduce our consumption and our emissions. The other contributing factor to our population growth is of course the domestic birthrate. Each newborn goes from essentially a zero footprint to a measurable amount in the short span of a delivery, and the footprint increases to one hundred percent over the course of a few decades. But if we only had to deal with the domestic birthrate, the Canadian population would in fact be declining, so this would not be so much of an issue.
We are often told that conservation and reduction in consumption is the solution, and therefore population growth is not an issue. But those who truly understand exponential growth realize that conservation by itself will not solve our current environmental problems. The claim by some is that we can easily reduce our per capita consumption by thirty percent. What those making that claim won’t add is that only thirty-five years of growth at our current rate will take us right back to the same total consumption level, accompanied by further loss of species, impact on food stocks, loss of local wildlife and natural areas – in short, there will be no overall reduction in consumption, and our environmental problems will be even more serious. The environment doesn’t care about per capita consumption. Only total consumption.
What those making the claim about a thirty percent reduction also won’t add is that, according to Rees’ model, Canadians would have to reduce per capita consumption by more than seventy percent to be even close to a sustainable global level. And we have to reduce by even more as population continues to grow. Our economy and apparent prosperity are really an artificial bubble we have created by using up resources and the natural world in a manner that will impoverish future generations, not only in other countries, but even right here in Canada.
Finally, what do we make of the argument that Canada has an obligation to accept immigrants and refugees? Unfortunately, it appears as though we have reached a point where our obligation to the environment, to our own children, and perhaps even to the survival of our civilization are the trump cards. Promoting even more population growth in Canada will exacerbate the numerous problems we already face at home, have an enormous negative impact on the planet, and in general lead us even farther away from a sustainable life.
No, the people pointing out these facts and calling for change are not racists, or misanthropes. They in fact are the only ones who seem to care about the future of our planet, and our children. They are the sane and civilized voices in a world obsessed with growth.
Rick Shea, November 6/08 Salmon Arm, BC Canada
ACCUSATIONS OF RACISM DON’T CHANGE THE FACTS
It is not racist or misanthropic to try to protect the environment and our children’s natural heritage. Yet that is typically the knee-jerk response to those who point out environmental reasons for halting human population growth. Those reasons cited include the current human-caused “Sixth Great Extinction,” collapse of ocean fish stocks and other sea life, emissions and pollution affecting our oceans and our weather, soil exhaustion and continued loss of arable land to concrete and asphalt, and water shortages.
The two factors that drive population growth in many developed countries, including Canada, are immigration and the natural population increase. Immigrants do not generally come to Canada to keep the same standard of living as in their country of origin. Using William Rees’ “ecological footprint” concept, the vast majority of immigrants to Canada who adopt close to an average Canadian standard of living will magnify their ecological footprint many times over (see table below). As an example, an immigrant from India will increase his or her ecological footprint by almost seven hundred percent. Of the countries not listed, only a very few have an ecological footprint close to that of Canada. Again, the vast majority of immigrants from other countries magnify their footprint significantly when they move to Canada. South of the border, a report by the Centre for Immigrant Studies (http://www.cis.org/GreenhouseGasEmissions) established that, on average, each immigrant quadrupled his or her GHG emissions upon arrival to the United States. Canadian figures are comparable, that is, GHG emissions are more than five times the global average.
| Country of Origin | Number of Immigrants (Annual total: 236759) | Ecological Footprint (data from Global Footprint Network) |
| Canada (for reference) | 7.1 | |
| Peoples Republic of China | 28896 | 2.1 |
| India | 28520 | .9 |
| Philippines | 19718 | .9 |
| Pakistan | 9808 | .8 |
| United States | 8750 | 9.4 |
| United Kingdom | 7324 | 5.3 |
| Iran | 7195 | 2.7 |
| South Korea | 5909 | 3.7 |
| Colombia | 5382 | 1.8 |
| Sri Lanka | 4068 | 1.0 |
It is important to note that the ecological footprint of Canadians extends far beyond our borders, to include the pollution and waste in countries which produce our goods for us, the loss of biodiversity in countries where forest and natural areas are converted to agricultural production for the food we eat, further depletion of ocean fish stocks, and the numerous other ways Canadians have an impact on this planet.
These are facts. They do not assign blame to immigrants. Indeed, if there is any blame to be assigned for this enormous impact on the environment, it should be laid at the feet of Canadian politicians and the business lobby, who actively promote even more immigration to Canada while claiming that we are working to reduce our consumption and our emissions. The other contributing factor to our population growth is of course the domestic birthrate. Each newborn goes from essentially a zero footprint to a measurable amount in the short span of a delivery, and the footprint increases to one hundred percent over the course of a few decades. But if we only had to deal with the domestic birthrate, the Canadian population would in fact be declining, so this would not be so much of an issue.
We are often told that conservation and reduction in consumption is the solution, and therefore population growth is not an issue. But those who truly understand exponential growth realize that conservation by itself will not solve our current environmental problems. The claim by some is that we can easily reduce our per capita consumption by thirty percent. What those making that claim won’t add is that only thirty-five years of growth at our current rate will take us right back to the same total consumption level, accompanied by further loss of species, impact on food stocks, loss of local wildlife and natural areas – in short, there will be no overall reduction in consumption, and our environmental problems will be even more serious. The environment doesn’t care about per capita consumption. Only total consumption.
What those making the claim about a thirty percent reduction also won’t add is that, according to Rees’ model, Canadians would have to reduce per capita consumption by more than seventy percent to be even close to a sustainable global level. And we have to reduce by even more as population continues to grow. Our economy and apparent prosperity are really an artificial bubble we have created by using up resources and the natural world in a manner that will impoverish future generations, not only in other countries, but even right here in Canada.
Finally, what do we make of the argument that Canada has an obligation to accept immigrants and refugees? Unfortunately, it appears as though we have reached a point where our obligation to the environment, to our own children, and perhaps even to the survival of our civilization are the trump cards. Promoting even more population growth in Canada will exacerbate the numerous problems we already face at home, have an enormous negative impact on the planet, and in general lead us even farther away from a sustainable life.
No, the people pointing out these facts and calling for change are not racists, or misanthropes. They in fact are the only ones who seem to care about the future of our planet, and our children. They are the sane and civilized voices in a world obsessed with growth.
Rick Shea, November 6/08 Salmon Arm, BC Canada
RIGHT OUT OF THE HORSE'S MOUTH: Sierra Club Director Confesses to Masking a Scam Operation
Ever wonder why the Sierra Club is Canada’s flag ship Greenie group while the others are comparative wallflowers that never get asked to the dance floor? Why isn’t it a spokesman for the David Suzuki Foundation, the Sea Sheppard Conservation Society or even Greenpeace anymore the one you see on a TV panel being interviewed for their reaction to a government announcement on the environment? Why it is now almost invariably a spokesman for the Sierra Club who is asked to speak on behalf of all that is just and true and good in the world?
The answer is obvious. The Sierra Club has got the dough and the other beggars don’t. They have pulled far ahead of the pack. Now how far ahead we can’t tell. For here is an interesting, and for me, a telling fact about the Sierra Club.
They are allegedly a democratic organization operating in a democratic society, but they won’t divulge who their largest benefactors are and how much they receive from them. The kind of information that Canadians expect to know about their political advocates and parties. Who is paying the piper?
The answer is a relevant one for shedding light on Sierra Club Canada’s rationale for refusing to comment on Canada’s runaway population growth. For example, when the census report of March 29\2007 came out revealing that Canada suffered the highest population growth rate of all G8 countries, with all of the obvious environmental consequences that has, including the annual loss of 60,000 acres of prime farmland in Ontario, the emission of 7.5 million metric tonnes of Green House gases and losses of untold number of species to development----the Sierra Club was silent. Does somebody buy their silence on immigration when it so obviously a crucial ingredient of environmental degradation? When it it so crucially an ingredient of corporate profits, of increasing the labour pool to drive down wages and fuel the consumer economy?
In America billionaire David Gelbaum paid the ruling clique of the Sierra Club $100 million of his hush money to keep immigration out of their policy books and since then they have had demographic lockjaw. Canada’s Sierra Club director of the time Elizabeth May declared that if immigration control was restored to the American Sierra Club policy book as it had historically been , she would change the name of her Canadian clone. No need. Once an ostrich to growth, always an ostrich. Neither of the bobsy twins budged.The Sierra Club of Canada is a fully paid up member of the Growth Management Industry whose slogan is : “Keep it coming, we’ll ‘manage it’ with proper planning.”
So just how does the Sierra Club do it? Bay Street money? Billionaire benefactors like Gelbaum? Possibly. They did turn a blind eye to Harper’s program of mass immigration and that alone should qualify them from for a massive reward. The more mundane answer however is provided by the current Executive Director himself, Mr. Steven Hazell, while he bragged to his members in this post-election statement of early November 2008:
“We can be active during a federal election in ways that so many other environmental organizations cannot. Our non-charitable status allows us to advocate political action by government and Parliament while charitable work funded by the Sierra Club Canada Foundation allows us to inform Canadians about the dangers of climate change. That’s what allows us to be so effective.”
So there you have it. The Sierra Club is running a kind of reverse money laundering operation whereby a parallel surrogate front group can present a face of non-partisanship to the Canada Revenue Agency. That group then acts as a bagman for the very partisan adversarial group that allegedly takes on the corporate agenda of Stephen Harper. But in fact, as has been argued, the Sierra Club of Canada is the pied piper of Canadian environmentalism, decoying sincere innocents toward the relatively inconsequential projects of “conserve, recycle and reduce”capita consumption rather than reduce total consumption. On this basis it is able to attract money and support to its “charitable” wing because its members are reimbursed with a substantial portion of their donation.
It surely would stretch the credulity of a two year old to believe that their charity funds sit secure behind a Chinese Wall while anything of political importance that was said or done by Club activists would be left to starve without tapping into those charity funds if not indirectly. How else would one explain Sierra Club political muscle, unless they will admit corporate backing as a quid pro quo for their tacit approval of mass immigration and the cheap labour agenda? Are not Dr. Jeckyl and Mr. Hyde one and the same entity sharing the same body? Living under the same roof? I am not buying their Capone “I am just a businessman” act. Neither should Canada Revenue. Look into it. Charity Number BN 1194 9789 Canadian taxpayers should not be subsidizing their partisan activities. Does the SPCA use your donations to promote the Green Party or issue glowing report cards on their positions?Your church?The Hospice Society? The Canadian Cancer Society? The Union Gospel Mission? The hundreds of other charities that are honest about what they do?
Write your MP. Tell him or her that we want our money back. Better still. Make the Sierra Club send it to the charities that should have got it in the first place. And if they haven't got the money, make them work it off in prison.
Better yet. Make fat cat Sierra Directors--they never reveal their salaries---volunteer for meaningful environmental work as assistants to Canada Border Security agents rounding up, expelling and keeping out illegal immigrants. That is, for once in their lives working on the "P" in Erhlich's IPAT equation. That would indeed make my day.
The answer is obvious. The Sierra Club has got the dough and the other beggars don’t. They have pulled far ahead of the pack. Now how far ahead we can’t tell. For here is an interesting, and for me, a telling fact about the Sierra Club.
They are allegedly a democratic organization operating in a democratic society, but they won’t divulge who their largest benefactors are and how much they receive from them. The kind of information that Canadians expect to know about their political advocates and parties. Who is paying the piper?
The answer is a relevant one for shedding light on Sierra Club Canada’s rationale for refusing to comment on Canada’s runaway population growth. For example, when the census report of March 29\2007 came out revealing that Canada suffered the highest population growth rate of all G8 countries, with all of the obvious environmental consequences that has, including the annual loss of 60,000 acres of prime farmland in Ontario, the emission of 7.5 million metric tonnes of Green House gases and losses of untold number of species to development----the Sierra Club was silent. Does somebody buy their silence on immigration when it so obviously a crucial ingredient of environmental degradation? When it it so crucially an ingredient of corporate profits, of increasing the labour pool to drive down wages and fuel the consumer economy?
In America billionaire David Gelbaum paid the ruling clique of the Sierra Club $100 million of his hush money to keep immigration out of their policy books and since then they have had demographic lockjaw. Canada’s Sierra Club director of the time Elizabeth May declared that if immigration control was restored to the American Sierra Club policy book as it had historically been , she would change the name of her Canadian clone. No need. Once an ostrich to growth, always an ostrich. Neither of the bobsy twins budged.The Sierra Club of Canada is a fully paid up member of the Growth Management Industry whose slogan is : “Keep it coming, we’ll ‘manage it’ with proper planning.”
So just how does the Sierra Club do it? Bay Street money? Billionaire benefactors like Gelbaum? Possibly. They did turn a blind eye to Harper’s program of mass immigration and that alone should qualify them from for a massive reward. The more mundane answer however is provided by the current Executive Director himself, Mr. Steven Hazell, while he bragged to his members in this post-election statement of early November 2008:
“We can be active during a federal election in ways that so many other environmental organizations cannot. Our non-charitable status allows us to advocate political action by government and Parliament while charitable work funded by the Sierra Club Canada Foundation allows us to inform Canadians about the dangers of climate change. That’s what allows us to be so effective.”
So there you have it. The Sierra Club is running a kind of reverse money laundering operation whereby a parallel surrogate front group can present a face of non-partisanship to the Canada Revenue Agency. That group then acts as a bagman for the very partisan adversarial group that allegedly takes on the corporate agenda of Stephen Harper. But in fact, as has been argued, the Sierra Club of Canada is the pied piper of Canadian environmentalism, decoying sincere innocents toward the relatively inconsequential projects of “conserve, recycle and reduce”capita consumption rather than reduce total consumption. On this basis it is able to attract money and support to its “charitable” wing because its members are reimbursed with a substantial portion of their donation.
It surely would stretch the credulity of a two year old to believe that their charity funds sit secure behind a Chinese Wall while anything of political importance that was said or done by Club activists would be left to starve without tapping into those charity funds if not indirectly. How else would one explain Sierra Club political muscle, unless they will admit corporate backing as a quid pro quo for their tacit approval of mass immigration and the cheap labour agenda? Are not Dr. Jeckyl and Mr. Hyde one and the same entity sharing the same body? Living under the same roof? I am not buying their Capone “I am just a businessman” act. Neither should Canada Revenue. Look into it. Charity Number BN 1194 9789 Canadian taxpayers should not be subsidizing their partisan activities. Does the SPCA use your donations to promote the Green Party or issue glowing report cards on their positions?Your church?The Hospice Society? The Canadian Cancer Society? The Union Gospel Mission? The hundreds of other charities that are honest about what they do?
Write your MP. Tell him or her that we want our money back. Better still. Make the Sierra Club send it to the charities that should have got it in the first place. And if they haven't got the money, make them work it off in prison.
Better yet. Make fat cat Sierra Directors--they never reveal their salaries---volunteer for meaningful environmental work as assistants to Canada Border Security agents rounding up, expelling and keeping out illegal immigrants. That is, for once in their lives working on the "P" in Erhlich's IPAT equation. That would indeed make my day.
Wednesday, November 5, 2008
SUZUKI: PART OF THE SOLUTION, OR PART OF OUR CHALLENGE?
IT IS ONE THING TO SAY THIS PRIVATELY:
“The opportunity for a country like Canada is that we are hyperconsumers. After all, population impact is a function of number and consumption per person. The challenge for Canada is to stop this crazy notion that we've got to keep the economy growing by adding more people. Canadians are having less than 2 children per couple so to keep the economy climbing, we bring more and more people from low consuming countries and convert them to high consumers. This is nuts.”
Dr. Suzuki to P. Salonius October 21/2008.
BUT IT’S ANOTHER TO BOLDLY SAY IT PUBLICLY
Before a Canadian audience.
On September 22/06 an Australian radio interviewer asked him point blank, “Are you saying that Australia is overpopulated?” He replied bluntly , “you bet!”. Dr. Suzuki had the courage to make that statement about Australia to an Australian audience. But is he ready to make such a statement about Canada to a Canadian audience? If Robert Bateman is, why not him? It seems that he is getting warmer. On October 15/08, in an interview with Jo Marchant, he declared that industrialized countries “were way overpopulated”. Canada was one such country.
DR. DAVID SUZUKI: PART OF THE ECOLOGICAL
SOLUTION, OR PART OF OUR CHALLENGE ?
It is time for environmental groups to once again acknowledge the crucial role that immigrant-driven population growth plays in environmental degradation. We can’t focus on per-capita consumption exclusively.
“The opportunity for a country like Canada is that we are hyperconsumers. After all, population impact is a function of number and consumption per person. The challenge for Canada is to stop this crazy notion that we've got to keep the economy growing by adding more people. Canadians are having less than 2 children per couple so to keep the economy climbing, we bring more and more people from low consuming countries and convert them to high consumers. This is nuts.”
Dr. Suzuki to P. Salonius October 21/2008.
BUT IT’S ANOTHER TO BOLDLY SAY IT PUBLICLY
Before a Canadian audience.
On September 22/06 an Australian radio interviewer asked him point blank, “Are you saying that Australia is overpopulated?” He replied bluntly , “you bet!”. Dr. Suzuki had the courage to make that statement about Australia to an Australian audience. But is he ready to make such a statement about Canada to a Canadian audience? If Robert Bateman is, why not him? It seems that he is getting warmer. On October 15/08, in an interview with Jo Marchant, he declared that industrialized countries “were way overpopulated”. Canada was one such country.
DR. DAVID SUZUKI: PART OF THE ECOLOGICAL
SOLUTION, OR PART OF OUR CHALLENGE ?
It is time for environmental groups to once again acknowledge the crucial role that immigrant-driven population growth plays in environmental degradation. We can’t focus on per-capita consumption exclusively.
Tim Murray, Vice President, Biodiversity First
Sunday, November 2, 2008
GENERAL MacARTHUR'S ISLAND-HOPPING STRATEGY: The EROEI for Internet duels with Growthist Fools is Negative
History buffs might recall the strategy employed by General MacArthur and the US Navy against the Japanese in the Pacific War. It was a clever one.
The Japanese were famous for their fanatic tenacity and their determination to fight and die to the last man in futile and suicidal attempts to impede the Americans in their march to conquer and occupy the Japanese homeland. The Japanese goal was to inflict such heavy casualties upon the Americans that America would give up and negotiate a peace more agreeable to the Japanese than unconditional surrender would surely be.
General MacArthur and Admiral Chester Nimitz, however, sensibly realized that it was not necessary to challenge every single Japanese-held island and subdue it. Why not just leave them be, they reasoned? Why spend the time, and the blood, taking them? Why not just “leap frog” over them to more strategically important islands, and let the other less important ones die on the vine? This became known as “island hopping” and it proved cost-effective in lives and results.
I would suggest a similar strategy be employed by those in the movement who are addicted to debates with inveterate pig-headed cornucopians in their intellectual bunkers. Their obsolete paradigms are impregnable and cannot be breached by reason, and the only battering ram available is your head. So why press the issue? Why not cut your losses and get on with that book you are supposed to be writing or re-introduce yourself to your dog or something. Leapfrog over the lost causes and save your energy for the winnable battles.
If we are right, their ideas will “wither on the vine” and their convictions will die unrepentant, as Thomas Kuhn predicted they would. Reality and the passage of time never forces a dogmatist to recant his beliefs. On the contrary, like a 90 year old Japanese soldier still lost in the jungles of the Philippines, he will maintain that the war is still being fought and that Shintoism, er, Growthism, is a durably viable cosmology for the end of time.
The Japanese were famous for their fanatic tenacity and their determination to fight and die to the last man in futile and suicidal attempts to impede the Americans in their march to conquer and occupy the Japanese homeland. The Japanese goal was to inflict such heavy casualties upon the Americans that America would give up and negotiate a peace more agreeable to the Japanese than unconditional surrender would surely be.
General MacArthur and Admiral Chester Nimitz, however, sensibly realized that it was not necessary to challenge every single Japanese-held island and subdue it. Why not just leave them be, they reasoned? Why spend the time, and the blood, taking them? Why not just “leap frog” over them to more strategically important islands, and let the other less important ones die on the vine? This became known as “island hopping” and it proved cost-effective in lives and results.
I would suggest a similar strategy be employed by those in the movement who are addicted to debates with inveterate pig-headed cornucopians in their intellectual bunkers. Their obsolete paradigms are impregnable and cannot be breached by reason, and the only battering ram available is your head. So why press the issue? Why not cut your losses and get on with that book you are supposed to be writing or re-introduce yourself to your dog or something. Leapfrog over the lost causes and save your energy for the winnable battles.
If we are right, their ideas will “wither on the vine” and their convictions will die unrepentant, as Thomas Kuhn predicted they would. Reality and the passage of time never forces a dogmatist to recant his beliefs. On the contrary, like a 90 year old Japanese soldier still lost in the jungles of the Philippines, he will maintain that the war is still being fought and that Shintoism, er, Growthism, is a durably viable cosmology for the end of time.
KEEP RIGHT-HANDED VERMIN OUT OF CANADA! A Politically Correct Proposal to Reduce Immigration and Its Negative Environmental Impact
Since every reasoned argument that demonstrates the clear correlation between mass immigration and the ruinous environmental degradation of Canada is stymied by accusations of racism it is obvious that we, who oppose immigration, must also demonstrate our racial impartiality.
Therefore I propose that we discriminate against those who so far have escaped retribution . That one privileged group who have designed the world for the ergonomic inconvenience of the persecuted ten percent. I am speaking of the ruling class that comprises 90% of the global population, the right-handers, whom statistics show are favoured in so very many ways.
If by its immigrant selection process, Canada was to shut the door on them, and them only, it would not necessarily stop left handed people from any nationality, race, ethnicity or religion from applying for citizenship. It would just stop 90% of them. And that is a good start to population stabilization and eventually reduction.
What would a 90% reduction in the immigration intake have meant in 2007? Look at the numbers. The number of people who entered the country officially as immigrants (240,000). The number who were officially accepted (251,000). And the total number who came in as permanent immigrants, temporary Visa residents, students, and others. (453,000). Then reduce those totals by 90%, and see what impact that has on the annual output of Canada’s green house gasses (GHG) and the conversion of Ontario’s prime agricultural land into housing and commercial outlets. Remember that each Canadian on average emits 23 metric tonnes of Green House Gases. Here are the three angles from which immigration totals to Canada in 2007 may be viewed:
2007: Less 90% Saving in GHG emissions
453,000 total entrants 408,700 9,400,100 metric tonnes
251,000 accepted 225,900 5,195,700 metric tonnes
240,000 entered 216,000 4,968,000 metric tonnes
From any way you look at it, if the immigrants who were privileged with being right-handed all their lives had been turned away, Canada would have retarded the process of global warming by nearly 5 million metric tonnes of GHG ----or about four times as much as the immigrants would have emitted had they stayed home in their original countries.
Moreover, it is likely that the province of Ontario would have lost 54,000 fewer acres of prime farmland that year, since immigrant-driven population growth, not poor land-use planning, is the conspicuous culprit in the loss of Class 1 agrarian land in urban Canada. Losses have occurred at a consistent pace of 60,000 acres a year for a decade---a 90% cut in immigration would slow those losses considerably. And the 536 species at risk, who rely on the flora that border farmland to shelter them, would get a reprieve too.
I think it is imperative that we move quickly against the right-handers, before human rights advocates bring them under the umbrella of civil rights protection. Once they do that, then another cross-cultural, multi-racial group representing 90% of the global population will have to be singled out for exclusion. I would offer up my own ancestors (Irish-Icelanders), but there aren’t enough of them to make a difference. How about cat-lovers, people with hang-nails, chess players---I really don’t care. Any arbitrary criteria that would not be discriminatory in the traditionally odious ways but exclusionary in the broadest possible ways. A blanket moratorium on immigration would be best and simplest. But that is not a political possibility. Yet.
First and foremost, it is about getting the numbers down.
Therefore I propose that we discriminate against those who so far have escaped retribution . That one privileged group who have designed the world for the ergonomic inconvenience of the persecuted ten percent. I am speaking of the ruling class that comprises 90% of the global population, the right-handers, whom statistics show are favoured in so very many ways.
If by its immigrant selection process, Canada was to shut the door on them, and them only, it would not necessarily stop left handed people from any nationality, race, ethnicity or religion from applying for citizenship. It would just stop 90% of them. And that is a good start to population stabilization and eventually reduction.
What would a 90% reduction in the immigration intake have meant in 2007? Look at the numbers. The number of people who entered the country officially as immigrants (240,000). The number who were officially accepted (251,000). And the total number who came in as permanent immigrants, temporary Visa residents, students, and others. (453,000). Then reduce those totals by 90%, and see what impact that has on the annual output of Canada’s green house gasses (GHG) and the conversion of Ontario’s prime agricultural land into housing and commercial outlets. Remember that each Canadian on average emits 23 metric tonnes of Green House Gases. Here are the three angles from which immigration totals to Canada in 2007 may be viewed:
2007: Less 90% Saving in GHG emissions
453,000 total entrants 408,700 9,400,100 metric tonnes
251,000 accepted 225,900 5,195,700 metric tonnes
240,000 entered 216,000 4,968,000 metric tonnes
From any way you look at it, if the immigrants who were privileged with being right-handed all their lives had been turned away, Canada would have retarded the process of global warming by nearly 5 million metric tonnes of GHG ----or about four times as much as the immigrants would have emitted had they stayed home in their original countries.
Moreover, it is likely that the province of Ontario would have lost 54,000 fewer acres of prime farmland that year, since immigrant-driven population growth, not poor land-use planning, is the conspicuous culprit in the loss of Class 1 agrarian land in urban Canada. Losses have occurred at a consistent pace of 60,000 acres a year for a decade---a 90% cut in immigration would slow those losses considerably. And the 536 species at risk, who rely on the flora that border farmland to shelter them, would get a reprieve too.
I think it is imperative that we move quickly against the right-handers, before human rights advocates bring them under the umbrella of civil rights protection. Once they do that, then another cross-cultural, multi-racial group representing 90% of the global population will have to be singled out for exclusion. I would offer up my own ancestors (Irish-Icelanders), but there aren’t enough of them to make a difference. How about cat-lovers, people with hang-nails, chess players---I really don’t care. Any arbitrary criteria that would not be discriminatory in the traditionally odious ways but exclusionary in the broadest possible ways. A blanket moratorium on immigration would be best and simplest. But that is not a political possibility. Yet.
First and foremost, it is about getting the numbers down.
Saturday, November 1, 2008
HARPER'S NEW IMMIGRATION MINISTER
This looks ominous. I notice that Harper’s new minister for immigration is no longer called the “Minister for Citizenship and Immigration” as Diane Finley was. Jason Kenny has been anointed as the “Minister for Citizenship, Immigration and Multiculturalism”. The insertion of the word “multiculturalism” is a critical clue as to the purpose of this government’s immigration policy. Or is it a smokescreen for the corporate agenda to shove greater numbers of cheap labour and consumers into the insatiable market economy they preside over?
The Royal Bank of Canada and its governor are both a weathervane and a vanguard for multicultural growthism. They not only lobby for substantial increases in immigration quotas, but aggressive recruitment in “non-traditional” sectors like Asia for mercenary reasons. The inverse of the “White Australia Policy”. The Conference Board of Canada is also a strident advocate of ridiculous hikes in immigration levels, which, owing to the current immigrant selection process, must of necessity discriminate against skilled European entrants. Consequently about 60% of immigrants speak neither English nor French. Quite a shocking result for a government that argues that immigration is necessary to fill a skills shortage, since fluency in at least one of our official languages is the most important vocational skill. How will such people support pensioners with incomes earned delivering pizzas or flipping hamburgers? Scratch another rationale for immigration. Oh well, at least their carbon footprints will meet the Canadian average, eh?
I have no idea what Jason Kenny feels about this. But I can guess. His previous portfolio was “Secretary of State for Multiculturalism and Canadian Identity.” For “Multiculturalism”, read, “Butt-Kissing Ethnic Lobbies”. And as for as “Canadian Identity” is concerned, his government, and the ten that preceded it, have done a pretty good job of killing it with mass immigration. It is one thing to add foreign spice to the meat on your plate---it makes for a lively dish---it is quite another for the waiter to dump a two kilogram bag of salt on it without your permission.
I truly suspect though, that Mr. Kenny does not realize that the real Canadian identity issues not from the cosmopolitan cultures that coalesce in the unsustainable consumerism of the ubiquitous shopping malls of urban Canada, but in the dwindling wilderness his government is helping to destroy. Without wilderness, without wildlife, with pristine lakes and rivers, without our soul, what are we, that some other nation isn’t?
His portfolio should be renamed. The Ministry of Population Myopia and Unmitigated Ruin.
The Royal Bank of Canada and its governor are both a weathervane and a vanguard for multicultural growthism. They not only lobby for substantial increases in immigration quotas, but aggressive recruitment in “non-traditional” sectors like Asia for mercenary reasons. The inverse of the “White Australia Policy”. The Conference Board of Canada is also a strident advocate of ridiculous hikes in immigration levels, which, owing to the current immigrant selection process, must of necessity discriminate against skilled European entrants. Consequently about 60% of immigrants speak neither English nor French. Quite a shocking result for a government that argues that immigration is necessary to fill a skills shortage, since fluency in at least one of our official languages is the most important vocational skill. How will such people support pensioners with incomes earned delivering pizzas or flipping hamburgers? Scratch another rationale for immigration. Oh well, at least their carbon footprints will meet the Canadian average, eh?
I have no idea what Jason Kenny feels about this. But I can guess. His previous portfolio was “Secretary of State for Multiculturalism and Canadian Identity.” For “Multiculturalism”, read, “Butt-Kissing Ethnic Lobbies”. And as for as “Canadian Identity” is concerned, his government, and the ten that preceded it, have done a pretty good job of killing it with mass immigration. It is one thing to add foreign spice to the meat on your plate---it makes for a lively dish---it is quite another for the waiter to dump a two kilogram bag of salt on it without your permission.
I truly suspect though, that Mr. Kenny does not realize that the real Canadian identity issues not from the cosmopolitan cultures that coalesce in the unsustainable consumerism of the ubiquitous shopping malls of urban Canada, but in the dwindling wilderness his government is helping to destroy. Without wilderness, without wildlife, with pristine lakes and rivers, without our soul, what are we, that some other nation isn’t?
His portfolio should be renamed. The Ministry of Population Myopia and Unmitigated Ruin.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
