The Forest for the Trees

 

As the Turkish protesters attempting to prevent the destruction of their sacred commons might say, some things are worth repeating.

For instance, did you know that in 1217 English royalty established the Charter of the Forest which, among other things, instituted the right of access to lands and forests for ‘free men’, thus acknowledging the forests as important natural resources which belonged to the many and not just a privileged few?  And this most basic of concepts had endured throughout the centuries for very logical and sensible reasons.  Since it was understood that the forests and surrounding lands provided the means for living and survival, sustained attention to the needs of the environment was seen as essential to the health and welfare of the population.  In our role as stewards, people could use, share and enjoy the woods to nourish their daily life.

If you’ve ever strolled through your local park or played softball on your city’s ‘commons’ you’ve benefited from this legacy and its intent to protect green areas, even within the core of modern urban sprawl, for the mutual benefit of all.

But the lessons perhaps begrudgingly learned by English Lords over seven hundred years ago are today seemingly lost in what could be described as this political generations’ ongoing contempt for ecological sustainability.  The forests are not seen as intrinsic to our survival, they are viewed as an impediment to fiscal expansion as defined by current economic policy.

What accounts for this paradigm shift?  While King Henry understood the folly of endless growth and appreciated the value of a shared and sustainable ecosystem, the one thing he didn’t have to endure, that his contemporary political counterparts must, are the mighty corporate lobbyists.  Given that in today’s world political will is escorted through the corridors of power by those with the most money, it’s the corporations that dictate policy, superseding all other considerations.  The business of government is now just that, a business.

As David Suzuki wrote:

“Humanity has become so powerful in numbers, technology, consumption and a globalized economy that we are altering the physical, chemical and biological properties of the planet on a geological scale. In the process, we are undermining Earth’s life-support systems – the air, water, soil, photosynthesis and biodiversity that keep the planet habitable.”

I think it’s worth reminding ourselves that unlike the forests, economic systems are not natural entities, they are systems we’ve created.  We invented them to serve our needs, not the other way around.  If the argument is that our economic survival depends upon the erosion and inevitable destruction of the same environment we all depend on for our physical survival here in the real world, then frankly we’ve lost the plot.

Meanwhile the Charter of the Forest and its spirit wither from neglect and indifference, a situation the government and their corporate patrons may one day soon scramble to reverse, once the predictable and self-inflicting consequences of these policies start redefining their own myopic notions of ‘the bottom line’.

 

Today’s Top Ten People Peeves

10. Politicians who think it’s a grand idea to defund such things as the National Roundtable on the Environment and the Canadian Foundation for Climate and Atmospheric Science for fear they would produce, ironically, valuable information on climate, the environment and atmospheric science. Welcome to Canada, circa fifth century A.D.

9. People over the age of 25 who walk around wearing UFC or Sons of Anarchy t-shirts. I’m sorry, would you like some milk and cookies?

8. Politicians who blissfully fire 70% of climate scientists after they slash 30% of the operating budget from Parks Canada.  It must be comforting to know Ted Nugent is advising us on how to manage our environment.

7. People who write songs entitled I Love You So I Told You a Lie, Raw Dogs and War Hogs, and Kiss My Ass. What? Our environment minister has been writing songs for Ted Nugent?

6. Politicians who, in spite of advice from the vast majority of scientists and several previous Fisheries Ministers, decide to dramatically scale back oversight and regulation of the Canadian fisheries. Their logic?  Hey, since fish are brain food, they’re smart enough to regulate themselves, unlike politicians.

5. Politicians from Toronto who take to the airwaves Rush Limbaugh style to describe journalists as pricks, or scum, or a bunch of maggots. Lesson number two: don’t get high on your own supply.

4. People who salivate over the progressively melting ice in Greenland since it would offer us the singular opportunity to create the world’s largest golf resort and country club. The moral of the corporate mindset: If the Titanic is sinking, might as well book the executive suite on the uppermost deck…

3. People who believe CNN, NBC or Fox news are still the vanguards for corporate misinformation and infotainment. What? The CBC isn’t available in your area?

2. People who make fun of the CBC. In these troubled economic times, it’s not fair to deny multi-millionaires and billionaires access to a public broadcast vehicle to peddle their wares and brands, at taxpayer expense.

1. Politicians who insist that the Alberta Tar Sands are as harmless and refreshing as a pail full of kittens.  What?  Ted Nugent is writing talking points for Joe Oliver?  Well, I Love You So I Told You a Lie.

 

The Art Of Listening

 

There are those who first survive their youth, then harness knowledge and experience throughout their prime and later use it to weave a tapestry of understanding which, if properly attended, reaches the level of wisdom.

Such is the case for long time environmentalist and activist David Suzuki who has been in the consciousness raising business for much of his adult life.  That journey has led him to what seems to me to be an obvious truism, namely that infinite economic growth and expansion within a finite environment is simply impossible.

In this May 6, 2013 lecture at Western Washington University he expands on this notion in the context of our looming environmental crisis.  As much as anyone he has been marginalized and ridiculed for his work in environmental awareness, but if we’re serious at all about the effects of anthropogenic climate change, now and in the near future, it would be wise to think about that old saying:  there is a reason god gave us two ears and one mouth.  We should listen at least twice as much as we speak, and in this case, to our elders.

 

Crazy For the Weather

 

As Canada continues its assault on the environment, to the bizarre point of removing the word ‘environment’ from the Environment Canada website of all things, it would be refreshing to witness some rogue media personality break ranks and stage an on air mutiny against the deafening poverty of discussion about climate change and its effects.

Perhaps I should become a meteorologist.

Thanks to Deep Rogue Ram for the insightful humor.

 

Speaking of Copernicus

 

As the Canadian government expands its policy of preventing scientists from discussing their findings to include U.S. scientists with whom they collaborate, one could reasonably imagine what the CPC would have done in the time of Nicolaus Copernicus:

 

But sir, I can assure you that the Sun, not the Earth, resides at the centre of our solar system.

You are hereby forbidden to discuss these findings with anyone without our explicit consent.

But sir the population has a right to know the truth.

As it is the governments’ official position that what we say in fact constitutes the truth, you will instead read aloud the following statement.

But sir, it states that the Earth is flat, resides at the centre of the universe and votes conservative.

Is there a problem?

I’m afraid as a Renaissance scientist and a man of honor, I have an ethical and professional duty to…

The heretic shall be silent!

 

Bill Moyers on the Media and Climate Science

 

It’s interesting I think to watch the ebb and flow of media coverage on climate change.  Ten or more years ago you could talk about it at dinner parties and still be considered rational.  Then the PR industry successfully made anyone who dared mention melting ice seem foolish and naive.

But the science has finally begun to percolate to the surface of public consciousness once again, and as Bill Moyers and scientist Anthony Leiserowitz discuss in this great clip, it’s important to support and enhance that level of awareness within the public square.

 

 

Bill McKibben and Christian Parenti Discuss Climate Strategies

 

Here is a great discussion about the growing movement, largely student based at the moment, towards divestment from the fossil fuel industry in the ongoing attempts to both raise awareness of the effects of global warming as well as influence public perception of these industries.

It’ll be interesting to see how these social movements unfold during the coming year.

 

Rex Murphy, Elizabeth May and A Fistful Of Gravol

 

I’m loathe to discuss what appears in the pages of the National Post, but sometimes the ‘look at the car wreck while driving by’ phenomena occurs as I drink my morning coffee resulting in, as you can imagine, a minor case of motion sickness.  In today’s offerings (I refuse to provide a link to it but it’s the May 16, 2011 edition so do you’re own work) there is an editorial by the curmudgeon in chief himself Rex Murphy on the fortunes of Elizabeth May, or as Rex explains, the follies of Elizabeth May.

You see, according to Rex, the fact that Ms. May and her Green Party won a seat in the House of Commons is not something to respect but something to ridicule. Apparently her success is not only wildly overstated but surprisingly minor given the extraordinary amount of attention and sympathy her party enjoys with the national media.  It is not historic, it is trivial. While I’m sure Mr. Murphy hates wasting his mental acuity on such trivialities, as a state intellectual he knows he has a role to play and a job to do.

To that end he describes the win thusly:  “Winning one seat when 308 were up for grabs is no more historic than winning at the weekly parish bingo game…”  Ouch.  Well, that’s one way to look at it.  Another way is to acknowledge the establishment of a voice of reason on the vital issues of climate change within the formal institutions of government.  Her voice may live on the margins of power and influence but it’s a voice nonetheless.

On the issue of climate change (for which Rex has no shortage of disdain), he proceeds to explain the election results:  “It says that the point of view embraced by the Greens, their increasingly apocalyptic warnings, and the condescension with which they deal with non-supporters and critics, has not been persuasive.”  Condescension?  Perhaps he meant condensation from the increased humidity his brain must produce while thumbing through his thesaurus.

He goes on: “Far from global warming, or what they call “carbon pollution” being of deep and serious concern to Canadians, the election of a single member tells us it is a marginal concern at best.”  Ignoring Murphy’s amusing use of quotes around the phrase carbon pollution in an attempt to mock the very notion, it is in my opinion worth asking the implied question of why aren’t more Canadians concerned about climate change.

One reason could be that they are not being informed.  As far as I could tell, environmental issues were completely banished during the recent election cycle along with Elizabeth May’s presence during the debates.  And speaking of debates, it seems those people supporting the Green Party and the idea of global warming are merely victims of what Rex describes “…as the hype of the great Gore machine,”, speaking of condescension.  Climate debate?  No such debate exists according to Murphy, at least among the serious people who frame the issues.

Perhaps if Canadians were told, for example, the findings of some of the world’s most distinguished climate scientists at MIT, their ‘marginal concerns’ might not be so marginal.

The common way of describing climate debate is that of choosing between two positions, namely between ‘I don’t believe it because it’s a fraud designed by tree-hugging left-wing lunatics.’, and ‘Perhaps it’s true but the science is inconclusive.’  There is a third alternative rarely mentioned but corroborated by these scientists which states that the effects of man-made global warming are in fact far worse than the standard models predict, including the enabling effects of such feedback loops as methane release from exposed permafrost.

But for Canadians to know this they need a media that is willing to provide the information in an unbiased fashion.  In other words, in a way which is anathema to the stylings of Rex Murphy and those like him.

To do so, however, would abdicate their responsibilities as state intellectuals duty bound to confuse people as well as the issues that in truth should concern us all.

Now if you’ll excuse me I must take my Gravol.

 

Volcanic ash: Human, not natural disaster – Quirks and Quarks

Volcanic ash: Human, not natural disaster – Quirks and Quarks.

Just another interesting assortment of facts and information from, who else,  Bob McDonald, worth sharing on a Saturday morning.

 

Church v. State

Ever since Jimmy Carter made popular the concept of appealing to the faithful for votes during the late seventies, he helped institutionalize, at the very least, the obligation for politicians to postscript every statement with ‘God bless America’, or some variation.  Ironically, Mr. Carter probably represents by contrast the more sedate, moderate and rational category of believer than most, but again only by contrast.

Between then and now, there have been several iterations of governance that have embraced and courted the most extreme elements of Christian fundamentalism for support and the results, predictably, have not been good.  In theory, the United States maintain a separation between church and state via the First Amendment.  In practice, however, is this true?  If not, what are the perils?

First, is there a separation between church and state?  Increasingly, the separation is mostly rhetorical.  Frank Schaeffer, a pioneer of America’s religious right during the seventies and eighties, has more recently done an about-face on the movement he helped create.  He soberly realized the real world implications of weaving together faith and politics when the most extreme elements of the religious right began to exercise real control within the political process.  By the time George W. Bush arrived, the separation promised in the constitution seemed quaint and utterly out of step with current political fashion.  The evolving difference perhaps was while earlier politicians cynically exploited the evangelical movement for political gain, current politicians were part of this movement.

Going forward, the lines have become even more blurred.  For instance Sarah Palin and her contemporaries are even more extreme, openly contemptuous of science and quite willing to taxonomize the American population into real and unreal depending on their systems of belief.  If one charts the trends, the separation between church and state is like a levee in the process of losing its’ structural integrity.

Second, what are the perils?  Aside from pushing back the clock on the various social gains achieved over the past forty years or so, the obvious worry is a practical abandonment of science, reason and logic as the founding concepts necessary to solve the manifest issues facing us all.  For a true believer, however, there is no need to court reason since some beliefs are simply self-justifying.

More and more, social and political fashion dictates that beliefs are more important than facts, and facts are simply those things you believe.  If this trend continues, a fully consummated marriage of belief and power will serve no one’s interest, including those who wish to benefit.

Unfortunately since the full range of human behavior is always on the table, it’s only our well-informed and progressively civilized decisions that may give us a chance for meaningful survival.