A Sustainable Steady State Economy Requires A Sustainable Steady State Population. Amen.
Life inside a closed system is finite...
So limiting yourself to economic growth is ... limiting yourself.
Just as the economy cannot grow without limit, no matter what Ponzi scheme is cooked up with CEO's and the like, humanity cannot grow without limit as long as we're trapped on this single planet. We're already outstripping our planet's ability to supply us with resources, using resources that were created and laid down over hundreds of millions of years in a few short thousands of years.
The only way to attain a sustainable, steady state economy is to attain a steady state global population. If humanity doesn't figure out how to do this intentionally, nature will do it for us, as plagues and famines and wars over scarce resources do it for us.
Steady state or boom-bust cycles. It's all we've got available, option-wise.
by Ezekial 23 20 on Tue Jul 07, 2009 at 04:48:00 PM PDT
Sunday, July 26, 2009
SOUNDS OF MEDIA SILENCE---With Apologies to Simon and Garfunkel
Hello ignorant greed my old friend
I’ve come to talk to you again
Because a Malthusian vision softly creeping
Left its seeds while I was sleeping
And an apocalyptic vision was planted in my brain
Still remains
Within the sound of CBC silence
In restless dreams I walked alone
Narrow streets of cobblestone
‘Neath the halo of Ehrlich’s lamp
I turned my attention from the cold and damp
When my eyes were stabbed by the flash of steady (state) light
That split the night
And broke the sound---of CBC silence
And in that naked light I saw
Canada’s population growth rate highest in the G8
Captive of a catastrophic fate
Yet I heard---the deafening Sound--- of Silence
Environmentalists talking without speaking
Hearing without listening
People writing articles that editors never share
Because no one dare
Disturb the Sound of Media Silence
Jack Parsons was right on
The population taboo has not gone
Journalists give the damn of tinkers
And the CBC is a herd of independent thinkers
“Fools”, said I, “You do not know
Silence like the cancer of growth grows
Hear my words that I might teach you
Give me air time that I might reach you
But my words, like silent raindrops fell
And echoed in the well
Of media shunning
So the Canadian people bowed and prayed
To the Consumer God the Growth Lobby made
And the sign flashed out its warning
In the words that it was forming
And the sign said, “The words of Hardin and Kunstler are written on the subway walls and tenement halls”
And whispered in the sounds of Media Silence
Tim Murray
June11/09
©
I’ve come to talk to you again
Because a Malthusian vision softly creeping
Left its seeds while I was sleeping
And an apocalyptic vision was planted in my brain
Still remains
Within the sound of CBC silence
In restless dreams I walked alone
Narrow streets of cobblestone
‘Neath the halo of Ehrlich’s lamp
I turned my attention from the cold and damp
When my eyes were stabbed by the flash of steady (state) light
That split the night
And broke the sound---of CBC silence
And in that naked light I saw
Canada’s population growth rate highest in the G8
Captive of a catastrophic fate
Yet I heard---the deafening Sound--- of Silence
Environmentalists talking without speaking
Hearing without listening
People writing articles that editors never share
Because no one dare
Disturb the Sound of Media Silence
Jack Parsons was right on
The population taboo has not gone
Journalists give the damn of tinkers
And the CBC is a herd of independent thinkers
“Fools”, said I, “You do not know
Silence like the cancer of growth grows
Hear my words that I might teach you
Give me air time that I might reach you
But my words, like silent raindrops fell
And echoed in the well
Of media shunning
So the Canadian people bowed and prayed
To the Consumer God the Growth Lobby made
And the sign flashed out its warning
In the words that it was forming
And the sign said, “The words of Hardin and Kunstler are written on the subway walls and tenement halls”
And whispered in the sounds of Media Silence
Tim Murray
June11/09
©
I HAVE A DREAM---THE SPEECH THAT DR. MARTIN LUTHER KING JR. WOULD MAKE TODAY
I have a dream deeply rooted in the American dream---of Edgar Allan Poe, Stephen King , Richard Heinberg, James Kunstler, and Californian taxpayers.
I have a dream that one day this nation will fall down and own up to the true meaning of its greed: “We hold these truths to be self-evident: that all men are created equal in their right to sire too many consumers, to overshoot their limits, to live beyond their means, and as Americans, appropriate the capacity of weaker nations through iniquitous trade agreements, resource exploitation and military intrusions.”
I have a dream that one day the descendants of former slaves and former slave owners will sit down at the table of brotherhood and find nothing on the menu----when the collapse of oil-based agriculture will permit them to starve in harmony together.
I have a dream that one day that blacks and whites will drink from the cup of freedom and fraternity and find it empty from the exhaustion of our aquifers.
I have a dream that one day little black boys and little black girls will be able to join hands with little white boys and little white girls as sisters and brothers in their adulthood on the bread line, as their jobs have been outsourced to continents with lower labor and environmental standards or lost to the competition of cheap imported labor.
I have a dream that one day every hill and every mountain shall be laid low by the hyperinflation of quantitative easing and crushing taxation, that scandals will be made plain and crooked people made solvent by more bailouts.
I have a dream that one day we will live in a nation where we will be judged not by the color our skins but by the content of our bank accounts flush with worthless currency and by negative credit ratings that will never be erased.
I have this dream today. It is a nightmare.
Now all of God’s children, black men and white men, Jews and Gentiles, Protestants and Catholics, will be able to join hands and sing, “We’re screwed at last! For God sake we’re screwed at last!”
And in the words of an old commandment, sing, “Thou shalt not exceed carrying capacity.”
Tim Murray
July 7/09
PS Altogether now, please join me in singing the theme song of our coming struggle: “We shall all succumb ah um, we shall all succumb ah um, someday eh eh eh (Canadian version obviously)….Deep in my heart, I do believe…. we shall all succumb, someday.”
I have a dream that one day this nation will fall down and own up to the true meaning of its greed: “We hold these truths to be self-evident: that all men are created equal in their right to sire too many consumers, to overshoot their limits, to live beyond their means, and as Americans, appropriate the capacity of weaker nations through iniquitous trade agreements, resource exploitation and military intrusions.”
I have a dream that one day the descendants of former slaves and former slave owners will sit down at the table of brotherhood and find nothing on the menu----when the collapse of oil-based agriculture will permit them to starve in harmony together.
I have a dream that one day that blacks and whites will drink from the cup of freedom and fraternity and find it empty from the exhaustion of our aquifers.
I have a dream that one day little black boys and little black girls will be able to join hands with little white boys and little white girls as sisters and brothers in their adulthood on the bread line, as their jobs have been outsourced to continents with lower labor and environmental standards or lost to the competition of cheap imported labor.
I have a dream that one day every hill and every mountain shall be laid low by the hyperinflation of quantitative easing and crushing taxation, that scandals will be made plain and crooked people made solvent by more bailouts.
I have a dream that one day we will live in a nation where we will be judged not by the color our skins but by the content of our bank accounts flush with worthless currency and by negative credit ratings that will never be erased.
I have this dream today. It is a nightmare.
Now all of God’s children, black men and white men, Jews and Gentiles, Protestants and Catholics, will be able to join hands and sing, “We’re screwed at last! For God sake we’re screwed at last!”
And in the words of an old commandment, sing, “Thou shalt not exceed carrying capacity.”
Tim Murray
July 7/09
PS Altogether now, please join me in singing the theme song of our coming struggle: “We shall all succumb ah um, we shall all succumb ah um, someday eh eh eh (Canadian version obviously)….Deep in my heart, I do believe…. we shall all succumb, someday.”
CD HOWE INSTITUTE GETS IT HALF-RIGHT
The basic question is unasked. Why do we need to grow our population at all. From immigration OR fertility? The pat answer of needing to support the aged doesn't address ecological concerns.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Immigration no substitute for babies, late retirement: C.D. Howe
By Shannon Proudfoot, Canwest News ServiceJuly 2, 2009 http://www.canada.com/Life/Immigration+substitute+babies+late+retirement+Howe/1753509/story.html
Canadians need to have more babies, and delay their retirement, to stave off a crisis in the country's aging workforce, warns the C.D. Howe Institute, which finds immigration is not the "elixir for youth" many think it is.
From government talking points to casual conversation, immigration is often discussed as a solution to the challenges presented by the country's aging workforce, says CEO William Robson. But when the economic and social policy research institute conducted population simulations, even vastly increased numbers of immigrants had "startlingly little effect" on the overall age structure in Canada, he says.
As it stands now, Canada's population, faced with longer life expectancies and low fertility rates, is producing fewer young people to replace the older people leaving the workforce, the report says. That, in turn, means a smaller population of working-age people to make money, pay taxes and support the pension and health-care needs of a burgeoning older population.
"I was surprised by how weak immigration is, on its own, as a tool to affect these things," Robson says. "People in Canada generally feel very positively about immigration, so it would be nice if something that we like turned out to be the answer to some of these things that otherwise can look a little threatening."
Immigrants are younger, on average, than the rest of the population, but not by much, Robson says, so exerting any real impact on the overall age structure would require unrealistically high numbers of immigrants.
The C.D. Howe report is "emphatically not" anti-immigration, Robson says but, rather, suggests other factors that could have a greater effect on the problem of the aging workforce:
- Postponing the expected retirement age from 65 to 70. This shift has already started, he says, most recently, because people whose savings have "taken a hammering" found themselves unable to retire for financial reasons.
- Raising the fertility rate. It's a thorny issue to build policy around, Robson says, but Quebec saw some birthrate increases between 1988 and 1997 with a government "allowance for newborn children" that paid families up to $8,000 for each child born.
- Boosting productivity. The factors that affect this — and why Canada lags — are "mysterious," he says, but productivity improvements are a "free lunch," in the sense that they give societies more output with the same number of workers.
"Immigration helps but, on its own, it will not do the trick," says Robson. "My concern is that a lot of people who talk about immigration as a way of dealing with these things might think that, therefore, we can let some of these other things slip.
"If nothing else changes, the rapid increase in the share of the population that's over 65 does mean a real pinch on the working-age population," Robson says. "If we consciously work on all those fronts, then chances are, we'll get old and we'll be wondering, 'What was all the fuss about?' "
COMMENT:
Robson is able to understand that productivity improvements “give societies more output with the same number of workers”. But why doesn’t he understand that the fiscal burden of mass immigration--- the difference between what the largely unskilled annual cohort of immigrants consume in social services vs. the taxes they are able to pay to reimburse us for that consumption---robs us of the money to upgrade productivity? And why doesn’t he understand that the cost of providing for the young exceeds the cost of providing for the aged? But the really big $64,000 questions are “Why doesn’t the CD Howe Institute understand the ecological consequences of growing our population? Why don’t they grasp the concept of limited carrying capacity? Why don’t they understand the principle of a pyramid scam? If more people are needed to support the apex of our population, how many more people will be needed to support the people who were originally required to support the aged? Ad infinitum? When is the CD Howe Institute going to talk about the urgent need for a Population Plan in this country? “ Tim Murray
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Immigration no substitute for babies, late retirement: C.D. Howe
By Shannon Proudfoot, Canwest News ServiceJuly 2, 2009 http://www.canada.com/Life/Immigration+substitute+babies+late+retirement+Howe/1753509/story.html
Canadians need to have more babies, and delay their retirement, to stave off a crisis in the country's aging workforce, warns the C.D. Howe Institute, which finds immigration is not the "elixir for youth" many think it is.
From government talking points to casual conversation, immigration is often discussed as a solution to the challenges presented by the country's aging workforce, says CEO William Robson. But when the economic and social policy research institute conducted population simulations, even vastly increased numbers of immigrants had "startlingly little effect" on the overall age structure in Canada, he says.
As it stands now, Canada's population, faced with longer life expectancies and low fertility rates, is producing fewer young people to replace the older people leaving the workforce, the report says. That, in turn, means a smaller population of working-age people to make money, pay taxes and support the pension and health-care needs of a burgeoning older population.
"I was surprised by how weak immigration is, on its own, as a tool to affect these things," Robson says. "People in Canada generally feel very positively about immigration, so it would be nice if something that we like turned out to be the answer to some of these things that otherwise can look a little threatening."
Immigrants are younger, on average, than the rest of the population, but not by much, Robson says, so exerting any real impact on the overall age structure would require unrealistically high numbers of immigrants.
The C.D. Howe report is "emphatically not" anti-immigration, Robson says but, rather, suggests other factors that could have a greater effect on the problem of the aging workforce:
- Postponing the expected retirement age from 65 to 70. This shift has already started, he says, most recently, because people whose savings have "taken a hammering" found themselves unable to retire for financial reasons.
- Raising the fertility rate. It's a thorny issue to build policy around, Robson says, but Quebec saw some birthrate increases between 1988 and 1997 with a government "allowance for newborn children" that paid families up to $8,000 for each child born.
- Boosting productivity. The factors that affect this — and why Canada lags — are "mysterious," he says, but productivity improvements are a "free lunch," in the sense that they give societies more output with the same number of workers.
"Immigration helps but, on its own, it will not do the trick," says Robson. "My concern is that a lot of people who talk about immigration as a way of dealing with these things might think that, therefore, we can let some of these other things slip.
"If nothing else changes, the rapid increase in the share of the population that's over 65 does mean a real pinch on the working-age population," Robson says. "If we consciously work on all those fronts, then chances are, we'll get old and we'll be wondering, 'What was all the fuss about?' "
COMMENT:
Robson is able to understand that productivity improvements “give societies more output with the same number of workers”. But why doesn’t he understand that the fiscal burden of mass immigration--- the difference between what the largely unskilled annual cohort of immigrants consume in social services vs. the taxes they are able to pay to reimburse us for that consumption---robs us of the money to upgrade productivity? And why doesn’t he understand that the cost of providing for the young exceeds the cost of providing for the aged? But the really big $64,000 questions are “Why doesn’t the CD Howe Institute understand the ecological consequences of growing our population? Why don’t they grasp the concept of limited carrying capacity? Why don’t they understand the principle of a pyramid scam? If more people are needed to support the apex of our population, how many more people will be needed to support the people who were originally required to support the aged? Ad infinitum? When is the CD Howe Institute going to talk about the urgent need for a Population Plan in this country? “ Tim Murray
Hen Fei-tzu Spoke a Truth That Modern Economists Still Don't Know
Twenty-five centuries ago a Chinese philospher spoke a truth that economists today still don't understand.
“People at present think that 5 sons are not too many and each son has five sons also, and before the death of the grandfather there are already 25 descendants. Therefore people are more and wealth is less; they work hard and receive little.”Han Fei-tzu c.500B.C.
I’ll bet that Han Fei-tzu made that argument as many times as I have, but like now, the mainstream media in his day wouldn’t print it on parchment. The Emperor believed that if he grew the population, he would grow more power and prosperity. I wonder if he offered Child Benefits? Was there an Emperor Layton back then?
Tim Murray
“People at present think that 5 sons are not too many and each son has five sons also, and before the death of the grandfather there are already 25 descendants. Therefore people are more and wealth is less; they work hard and receive little.”Han Fei-tzu c.500B.C.
I’ll bet that Han Fei-tzu made that argument as many times as I have, but like now, the mainstream media in his day wouldn’t print it on parchment. The Emperor believed that if he grew the population, he would grow more power and prosperity. I wonder if he offered Child Benefits? Was there an Emperor Layton back then?
Tim Murray
Rank and File Left Support Cuts to Immigration
WASHINGTON, June 22 /PRNewswire-USNewswire/ -- A nationwide poll of 600 self-indentified liberals and progressives shows that liberals are concerned about the current levels of immigration into the United States and the harmful effect that current immigration policies are having on U.S. population growth, the environment, and the availability of jobs. The poll was conducted by Pulse Opinion Research, LLC in April 2009.
Key findings of the poll revealed:
Sixty seven percent of liberals and progressives felt the level of population growth caused by immigration negatively impacts the quality of life in the United States.
Fifty eight percent felt that the current levels of immigration are harmful to the environment.
Sixty three percent said that current levels of immigration hurts job prospects for American workers.
With regard to undocumented workers already here, the poll revealed that self-identified liberals are split over whether illegal immigrants should be offered an amnesty. Fifty three percent were in support of a pathway to citizenship and forty five percent were opposed.
"The results of this poll demonstrate what many on the political left have known for some time. Immigration is not a partisan issue. There are many progressives and liberals that are concerned about the unintended consequences that large scale immigration has on the environment, economy, and other issues that many liberals are concerned about," says Leah Durant, Executive Director of Progressives for Immigration Reform. "It is time to take this issue off the back burner. We need to talk frankly about the effects of immigration and find solutions that benefit both Americans and the global community."
For more information about this poll please contact: Leah Durant at (202) 543-5325 or info@progressivesforimmigrationreform.org
Recent Poll by Progressives for Immigration Reform Shows Concern Among Liberals and Progressives Over Current Immigration Levels
This new group for immigration reform, together with Yeh Ling Ling’s diversity coalition for reduced immigration, is a dagger in the hearts of politically correct stereotyping. Ethnics and liberal progressives in America are, at the grass roots level, for the most part, in agreement with us. It is their “spokesmen”, the leadership, which in their name, opposes our goals.
The Southern Poverty Law Centre, among others, likes to portray anti-immigrationists as “right wing” nativists, xenophobes, bigots and white nationalists. This is the straw man which they beat up over and over again in their attempt to shut down debate about population numbers.
One wonders, what would be the results if the supporters of Canada’s NDP, Britain’s New Labour Party or Australia’s Labor party were similarly polled about their feelings about mass immigration? My bet is that the MAJORITY of centre-left voters favour a cut back in immigration and a lower population level for their respective countries. The elites who run those parties, however, will never conduct such a survey. And if the results were as I suspect, their answer would not be to pay it heed and revisit their policies. Oh no, it would instead be a resolution to work even harder at “educating” the masses on their misplaced anxiety about immigration. It would never occur to them that ordinary people might be in possession of wisdom that politicians should follow. This elitist attitude on the left was presaged by the Marxist attitude of a century and a half ago that if the working class didn’t accept the world view of the socialist intelligentsia, they were guilty of “false consciousness”, and their opinions need not be respected.
Tonight I was canvassed once again by an NDP fundraiser on the phone. I let her have it, ventilating my views about her party’s growthist ideology. She fell back on all the old chestnuts. Her primary position was that the poor people of the world have a right to better themselves by moving her. All 80 million of them I suppose, that is the number born every year across the world.
But at the base of it was a fundamental ecological ignorance that argued that if resources were fairly apportioned, there would be enough to go around. And that would solve population issues, which she insisted were only one part of the problem in the third world. Population growth in Canada, though, was no problem at all.
No one can uproot these assumptions more effectively than an immigration reform lobby WITHIN the liberal-left. Wish them luck.
Tim
Key findings of the poll revealed:
Sixty seven percent of liberals and progressives felt the level of population growth caused by immigration negatively impacts the quality of life in the United States.
Fifty eight percent felt that the current levels of immigration are harmful to the environment.
Sixty three percent said that current levels of immigration hurts job prospects for American workers.
With regard to undocumented workers already here, the poll revealed that self-identified liberals are split over whether illegal immigrants should be offered an amnesty. Fifty three percent were in support of a pathway to citizenship and forty five percent were opposed.
"The results of this poll demonstrate what many on the political left have known for some time. Immigration is not a partisan issue. There are many progressives and liberals that are concerned about the unintended consequences that large scale immigration has on the environment, economy, and other issues that many liberals are concerned about," says Leah Durant, Executive Director of Progressives for Immigration Reform. "It is time to take this issue off the back burner. We need to talk frankly about the effects of immigration and find solutions that benefit both Americans and the global community."
For more information about this poll please contact: Leah Durant at (202) 543-5325 or info@progressivesforimmigrationreform.org
Recent Poll by Progressives for Immigration Reform Shows Concern Among Liberals and Progressives Over Current Immigration Levels
This new group for immigration reform, together with Yeh Ling Ling’s diversity coalition for reduced immigration, is a dagger in the hearts of politically correct stereotyping. Ethnics and liberal progressives in America are, at the grass roots level, for the most part, in agreement with us. It is their “spokesmen”, the leadership, which in their name, opposes our goals.
The Southern Poverty Law Centre, among others, likes to portray anti-immigrationists as “right wing” nativists, xenophobes, bigots and white nationalists. This is the straw man which they beat up over and over again in their attempt to shut down debate about population numbers.
One wonders, what would be the results if the supporters of Canada’s NDP, Britain’s New Labour Party or Australia’s Labor party were similarly polled about their feelings about mass immigration? My bet is that the MAJORITY of centre-left voters favour a cut back in immigration and a lower population level for their respective countries. The elites who run those parties, however, will never conduct such a survey. And if the results were as I suspect, their answer would not be to pay it heed and revisit their policies. Oh no, it would instead be a resolution to work even harder at “educating” the masses on their misplaced anxiety about immigration. It would never occur to them that ordinary people might be in possession of wisdom that politicians should follow. This elitist attitude on the left was presaged by the Marxist attitude of a century and a half ago that if the working class didn’t accept the world view of the socialist intelligentsia, they were guilty of “false consciousness”, and their opinions need not be respected.
Tonight I was canvassed once again by an NDP fundraiser on the phone. I let her have it, ventilating my views about her party’s growthist ideology. She fell back on all the old chestnuts. Her primary position was that the poor people of the world have a right to better themselves by moving her. All 80 million of them I suppose, that is the number born every year across the world.
But at the base of it was a fundamental ecological ignorance that argued that if resources were fairly apportioned, there would be enough to go around. And that would solve population issues, which she insisted were only one part of the problem in the third world. Population growth in Canada, though, was no problem at all.
No one can uproot these assumptions more effectively than an immigration reform lobby WITHIN the liberal-left. Wish them luck.
Tim
Environmental NGO Silence
North American environmental NGOs are not constrained so much by the conditions imposed by their charitable status, but my their corporate donor base. For the American experience, just review the history of the David Gelbaum affair and the corruption of the Sierra Club. Or read Christine MacDonald's "Green Inc" about how the most prominent and high profile environmental orgs not only accept money from energy and logging corporations but allow the directors of these companies to sit on their boards.
In Canada the Sierra Club, Nature Conservancy and the David Suzuki Foundation are beneficiaries of serious corporate donations. Suzuki of course, poses as a Great Crusader against climate change, playing to the Green yuppie gallery by his demand that MPs who deny anthropogenic global warming should be jailed---hardly the action of someone inhibited by possible government retaliation from the tax department. Yet he receives donations from EnCana Corporation, a world leader in natural gas production and oil sands development, ATCO Gas, Alberta's principle distributor of natural gas, and a number of pension funds including OPG (Ontario Power Generation) Employees' and Pensioners' Charity Trust. OPG is one of the largest suppliers of electricity in the world, operating 5 fossil fuel-burning generation plants and 3 nuclear plants. The Suzuki Foundation's 2005/06 financial report also lists 52 corporate donors including Bell Canada, Toyota, IBM, Microsoft, Scotia Capital, the Royal Bank of Canada and the Bank of Montreal. The latter three benefactors explain Suzuki's silence on the obviously negative environmental impact of mass immigration. The financial industry is fueled by mortgages to home-buyers---70 to 85% of whom are foreign-born.
The Sierra Club of Canada employs the second "solution" offered in this article to circumvent the intention of the law. They set up a dummy organization which they call the "Sierra Club Foundation" as a purely educational group and entice membership to it. Then they use the membership fees in a transparently discreet way to fund their political arm, the Sierra "Club" of Canada, which is blatantly partisan, even to the point of assigning "grades" to the political parties who contest an upcoming federal election. They assigned an "F" to the Conservative Harper government, even though the opposition parties did not actually promise to terminate the Tar Sands project and promised to hike immigration levels by 38% which, in practice, would mean that they would raise GHG emissions by 38%. I gave the Sierra Club an "F" on two counts. One, for their appalling blindness to the relationship of population growth to climate change and immigration to carbon emissions. And two, for tax fraud. There is no "Chinese Wall" between the Sierra Club Foundation and the Sierra Club. Money went from one hand to the other. Meanwhile, over 700 legitimate charity groups were disqualified for doing legitimate charity work in 2007. Groups that provided food banks, hospice care, trauma counselling etc. Many people who gave money to the Sierra Club Foundation believed that it was not to be used for partisan purposes. They were Conservatives, Liberals or New Democratic Party supporters who woke up to read the morning newspaper and found that the organization they donated to was endorsing the party of hyper mass immigration, the Green Party of Elizabeth May. How would you feel if you learned that the SPCA or the animal protection agency you donated to had forwarded your money to the Howard or Rudd government or to any of your political opponents along with their endorsement?
North American environmental NGOs are doing the work that corporations pay them to do. The job of Pied Pipers to green yuppie dupes, decoying them down inconsequential pathways away from the root cause of environmental degradation---mass immigration and rising fertility rates. Best to let them exhaust their members by using them as a fire brigade to put out the brush fires that constantly pop up everywhere. Save this forest, or that river, or this endangered species of the month. Fight symptoms, not causes. After all, corporations can suffer the odd environmental victory. Dedicated parkland can later be ravished with the stroke of a parliamentary pen. What is really important is that environmentalists stay silent while the nation is being flooded with more consumers and cheap labour.
Well, it looks like the environmental NGOs have kept their end of the bargain. Barking dogs that yap at the mailman, but ignore the crook who is robbing the house.
Tim Murray
July 1/09
In Canada the Sierra Club, Nature Conservancy and the David Suzuki Foundation are beneficiaries of serious corporate donations. Suzuki of course, poses as a Great Crusader against climate change, playing to the Green yuppie gallery by his demand that MPs who deny anthropogenic global warming should be jailed---hardly the action of someone inhibited by possible government retaliation from the tax department. Yet he receives donations from EnCana Corporation, a world leader in natural gas production and oil sands development, ATCO Gas, Alberta's principle distributor of natural gas, and a number of pension funds including OPG (Ontario Power Generation) Employees' and Pensioners' Charity Trust. OPG is one of the largest suppliers of electricity in the world, operating 5 fossil fuel-burning generation plants and 3 nuclear plants. The Suzuki Foundation's 2005/06 financial report also lists 52 corporate donors including Bell Canada, Toyota, IBM, Microsoft, Scotia Capital, the Royal Bank of Canada and the Bank of Montreal. The latter three benefactors explain Suzuki's silence on the obviously negative environmental impact of mass immigration. The financial industry is fueled by mortgages to home-buyers---70 to 85% of whom are foreign-born.
The Sierra Club of Canada employs the second "solution" offered in this article to circumvent the intention of the law. They set up a dummy organization which they call the "Sierra Club Foundation" as a purely educational group and entice membership to it. Then they use the membership fees in a transparently discreet way to fund their political arm, the Sierra "Club" of Canada, which is blatantly partisan, even to the point of assigning "grades" to the political parties who contest an upcoming federal election. They assigned an "F" to the Conservative Harper government, even though the opposition parties did not actually promise to terminate the Tar Sands project and promised to hike immigration levels by 38% which, in practice, would mean that they would raise GHG emissions by 38%. I gave the Sierra Club an "F" on two counts. One, for their appalling blindness to the relationship of population growth to climate change and immigration to carbon emissions. And two, for tax fraud. There is no "Chinese Wall" between the Sierra Club Foundation and the Sierra Club. Money went from one hand to the other. Meanwhile, over 700 legitimate charity groups were disqualified for doing legitimate charity work in 2007. Groups that provided food banks, hospice care, trauma counselling etc. Many people who gave money to the Sierra Club Foundation believed that it was not to be used for partisan purposes. They were Conservatives, Liberals or New Democratic Party supporters who woke up to read the morning newspaper and found that the organization they donated to was endorsing the party of hyper mass immigration, the Green Party of Elizabeth May. How would you feel if you learned that the SPCA or the animal protection agency you donated to had forwarded your money to the Howard or Rudd government or to any of your political opponents along with their endorsement?
North American environmental NGOs are doing the work that corporations pay them to do. The job of Pied Pipers to green yuppie dupes, decoying them down inconsequential pathways away from the root cause of environmental degradation---mass immigration and rising fertility rates. Best to let them exhaust their members by using them as a fire brigade to put out the brush fires that constantly pop up everywhere. Save this forest, or that river, or this endangered species of the month. Fight symptoms, not causes. After all, corporations can suffer the odd environmental victory. Dedicated parkland can later be ravished with the stroke of a parliamentary pen. What is really important is that environmentalists stay silent while the nation is being flooded with more consumers and cheap labour.
Well, it looks like the environmental NGOs have kept their end of the bargain. Barking dogs that yap at the mailman, but ignore the crook who is robbing the house.
Tim Murray
July 1/09
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
