Tired of burning my bra - I want REAL equality

The first women to vote in Canada cast their ballots 89 years ago. It was a federal election and the right was extended only to women of British descent.

It would take another 42 years – the year 1960 – before all women, including Aboriginal women, would be granted the right to vote in provincial and federal elections.

Now, 90 years after the first concession of equal status in our democracy, women are still under-represented and, often, unrepresented in Canadian politics.

According to the World Economic Forum, a Geneva based independent international organization committed to improving the state of the world, women still earn 64% less than their male counterparts and only make up 21% of the federal legislature.

Many parents want the best for their children and that includes the right and ability to be treated equitably and fairly in our democratic nation. Yet the reality is that women are not afforded the same opportunities as men – and even when they are, women are not treated as equals (as wage disparity with attest). As such, we must examine this disparity and ask ourselves: what message are we sending our children?

The fact is the gender gap -- unequal access to resources between women and men – does exist. Worse, it continues to divide our country in almost every way.

A study released in 2006 by the World Economic Forum examined 115 countries in terms of the level of equality between men and women. This study ranked Canada 14th, however it also criticized Canada’s inconsistent performance in political empowerment and the health and survival of our nation’s women.

Sadly, this report also found that no country has yet managed to eliminate the gender gap. Those that have succeeded best in narrowing the gap are the Nordic countries – Sweden at the top of the list with only 20% disparity between wage, education, political participation, and health and welfare between men and women.

While political equality appears to be attainable – any women can run for public office or choose to pursue a chosen career path – the reality is limitations continue to exist because of the gender gap.

And most of us know why the political gender gap started. Women were once considered the property of men. Women were denied the right to vote, the right to run for office, and the right to own property of their own. In addition minority women and aboriginal women were denied basic personhood. A testament to that is that well into the 1970s many women still required a husband’s signature in order to obtain a credit card and many women were denied the right to wear slacks to the office well into 1990s.

So, the question we must ask, is why does the gender gap persist today?

THE REASONS:

1. Gender roles.
Gender roles teach boys and girls, men and women ways that women and men differ. These subtle and overt lessons provide us myths about what each gender is capable and/or allowed to do – limitations devised solely on the concept of perceptions about gender. Over time our culture (women and men) internalize these messages, such as: “people like me are not good in positions of power.” A sad example of this internalized set of cultural myths that dominates are society and creates narrow gender definitions is North America’s inability and unwillingness to elect a women as the leader of a nation. In a CBS poll, people were asked if the USA was ready for a female president. From the responses, men, not women, were more likely to say yes!

2. Cultural norms.
Cultural norms are the established roles and routines we all abide by – they include what is appropriate or inappropriate for each gender and these standards are held in place by persistent and consistent behaviour patterns. For example, in a household where both partners work, the women is still responsible for the majority of household tasks, including cleaning, cooking and child-rearing. This inability to create a more equitable cultural norm – and its subsequent restraint on a woman’s time, energy and resources, helps explain why men far surpass women in the best-paid, high-level jobs. Add to this the fact that women now surpass the number of men enrolled in post-secondary schooling and the power and destruction of cultural norms takes become prevalent.

3. Sexist policies.
Many of our policies and laws hinder or hurt the poorest segment of our population. Consider first that minimum wage does not equate to a Living Wage. Then, consider that women make up two-thirds of the minimum wage earners in Canada. Now, taken these two facts, consider that a single mother of two working full-time in Canada and earning minimum wage must work at least 80 hours per week, every single week, just to reach the poverty line (according to the Canadian Centre for Policy Alternatives, a Winnipeg-based social-policy think-tank) and we begin to see that sexist policies persist within our nation.

4. Media representation.
This mechanism is particularly prevalent given our adherence to cultural norms and stereotypes (aka: gender roles). Why then does inequality continue to persist? For example, men three times more likely than women to play the lead in a television show. Women are more likely to be portrayed as victims, and women's lead characters are almost always younger and more stereotypically "beautiful" than male leads. In addition, the press treatment of real women continues the sexist pattern: Press stories about female politicians and business leaders are far more likely to include mention of hairstyles, shoes and shopping, while press coverage of male leaders is more likely to focus solely on substantive issues.

To assume that we are not impacted by the gender gap is to deny the history that precedes our current society. The reality is we continue to exist in a nation that actively allows gender inequality. As such, it is our duty to begin to examine our own thoughts and beliefs and to begin to teach ourselves, our families and our communities that there is another, better way. In the end, we are participate in a democratic society and we are only as strong as our weakest link – that means that by increasing capacity and opportunity and allowing us all to grasp the roles and responsibilities of an informed citizenry enables us to build a stronger, better, more vibrant society.

ACTIVITIES YOU CAN DO:

1) Examine the roles you believe men and women should follow. For example, list a variety of professions and then honestly answer which gender is “supposed” to pursue that occupation.

2) Examine what messages you hold (hear, see, etc.) that describe what is “feminine” and what is “masculine.” Now find examples that go against your beliefs – find women that have been elected as leaders of nations, or men that have taken on domestic roles successfully (hint: go to the Food Network or the Home and Garden station from your local cable provider).

3) Take a favourite magazine, newspaper or online publication and examine whether or not women help to shape the news. Determine who is telling the story and whether or not they are relying on preconceived notions of gender.

4) To further this media examination go to the Center for Media Literacy and conduct a gender survey on your local newspaper, magazine or online publication (Click HERE for link to the Gender Survey)

5) Discuss the impact of language on your gender beliefs. Examine what professions use gender in their classification or description. Then examine how you perceive the profession and its ability to offer both genders equal opportunity.

6) Now look critically at how women and men present themselves in the political and corporate arenas. Are there marked differences? What are those differences? Are they based on preconceived perceptions, or not? Then answer these three questions:
• How is women’s leadership different from men’s leadership? Do you think men and women focus on similar issues?
• What is the "glass ceiling"? How does it keep women from achieving personal and professional goals?
• Is it likely that the U.S. will have a female president in the near future? In your lifetime? Why?

(This article first appeared on www.4corners.ca)

Green Oscars (not gold statues)

Last night: The Oscars. Even if you are not a fan...you know the hype on the 79th annual 'best-in-film' awards showcase. Of course, the perception, the reality and the impact of the Oscars can be debated from now until next year, but the reality is the show IS a showcase and not just for fashion and film. Many of the celebrities -- aware of the sheer number of eyes glued to the screen -- also make subtle and not so subtle statements and this year the common theme was it's cool to be green.

For that reason, I offer a breakdown of the pioneer celebrities. The veterans of principled living in a glamorous industry (both Oscar-inspired and other).

ROBERT REDFORD: 30 years on board of Natural Resources Defense Council, founder of Sundance Preserve, winner of 1993 Earth Day award, 1987 United Nations Global 500 award. In April 2007, launches weekly three-hour slot called "The Green," dedicated entirely to the environment, on his Sundance TV channel.

LEONARDO DICAPRIO: started the Leonardo DiCaprio Foundation in 1998 to promote environmental issues, drives a hybrid car, currently writing and producing a feature length documentary on global warming called "11th Hour."

BRAD PITT: co-creator of design competition to build 20 affordable, reduced energy, environmentally friendly homes in New Orleans.

STING: founder in 1989 of Rainforest Foundation to protect rain forests and their indigenous peoples.

HARRISON FORD: vice chairman of Conservation International, has a Central American ant named after him, won the Global Environmental Citizen Award in 2002.

DAVE MATTHEWS BAND: offsets CO2 emissions produced by their multi-city tours by funding projects such as tree plantings and wind turbine construction.

AL GORE: former U.S. vice president whose climate change documentary "An Inconvenient Truth" was Oscar-nominated, also nominated for 2007 Nobel Peace prize.

PIERCE BROSNAN: focuses on marine mammal and wetland protection, headlined Natural Resources Defense Council campaign against effects of Navy sonar on whales, awarded 1997 Green Cross International Environmental Leadership Award.

CATE BLANCHETT: plans to equip Sydney Theater Company building with solar panels, rainwater collection systems to make it completely eco-friendly. Sydney home is fully powered by solar energy, donates to Forest Guardians.

EDWARD NORTON: launched the BP Solar Neighbors Program in 2003 which matches each celebrity purchase of a solar energy home system with a solar installation in a low-income family home in Los Angeles.

DARYL HANNAH: arrested in June 2006 for staging a 23-day tree sit-in during a bid to preserve an urban community garden in Los Angeles, traveled across America in 2005 in a biofuel car, home is entirely off-grid.

RICHARD BRANSON: Virgin Group chairman, a former global warming skeptic, who in September 2006 pledged to spend all profits from his airline and rail businesses (estimated $3 billion over 10 years) on investments in biofuel research and projects to tackle emissions.

ALANIS MORISSETTE: given 2003 Environmental Media Association Missions in Music Award; campaigns against oil drilling in Alaska; has solar panels on home.

KT TUNSTALL: ran her US tour bus on biodiesel fuel, performed at eco-friendly "Golden Green" at the 2007 Golden Globe awards in Los Angeles.

JOSH HARTNETT, ORLANDO BLOOM, MAROON 5, KT TUNSTALL: promoting 2007 Global Cool initiative to cut carbon emissions by encouraging people to turn off TVs, mobile-phone chargers and other energy-draining gadgets.

JAMIE OLIVER: celebrity chef, plans to power his Cornwall, England, restaurant by wind turbines.

NEIL YOUNG: 2004 North American tour fueled entirely with biodiesel.

WILLIE NELSON: singer, co-partner in the Willie Nelson Biodiesel Company.

BARENAKED LADIES: run their tour buses and trucks on biodiesel fuel.

Not to be left out are the celebrities that opt for hybrid cars (rather than gas-guzzling limos or hummers): Alanis Morissette, Bill Maher, Billy Joel, Cameron Diaz, Carole King, Charlize Theron, Danny DeVito, David Duchovny, Jackson Browne, Julia Roberts Kirsten Dunst, Larry David, Patricia Arquette, Ted Danson, Tom Hanks, Will Ferrell and Woody Harrelson.

Plastic bags: the burden of our consumer lifestyle

I have a pet peeve.
And 5-cents is not going to cure it.

For those who have purchased items at NOFrills, MEC, Big Carrot or other fine establishments know that select (but all too few) retailers in Canada are attempting to dissuade customers from using plastic by charging a bag-tax. In the GTA that "tax" is 5-cents.

Yet, there are some inherent problems. The retailers involved in the ban-the-bag campaign (official or otherwise) voluntarily do so. This means that the majority of retailers in Canada have not yet adopted a dissuasion method of weening consumers off plastic bag dependence. That said, most consumers are not even aware of the impact this tiny, flexible and limited-usefullness product truly has on the environment. As a result, the attempt to reduce plastic bag use and consumption has been sporadic and limited in Canada, at best.

Compare this to Ireland. In 2002, this country of 7+ million simply imposed a plastic ban tax -- each bag used and consumed would cost a consumer 0.15Euros, the equivalent of almost $0.25!! The result? Plastic bag usage dropped by 90%!

This prompts me to consider: should we not simply legislate a change, rather than waiting for a groundswell regarding the plastic bag?

Consider, the facts: the standard plastic bag may take between 500 and 1000 years to decompose (such figures are only estimates because plastics have not existed for long enough for the precise decomposition time to be measured). Add this to the fact that when one tonne of plastic bags is reused or recycled, the energy equivalent of 11 barrels of oil are saved.

At present only a handfull of countries or districts have imposed a plastic ban (typically a large enough tax imposed on consumers at all retail locations for the use of plastic bags). The Plastic Ban list currently includes: Bhutan, France, Bombay (India), Coles Bay (Tasmania), Ireland, San Francisco (USA), South Africa and Scotland. However, despite the handfull of bans, the impact has been enormous.

For example:

• In the marine environment plastic bag litter is lethal, killing at least 100,000 birds, whales, seals and turtles every year. After an animal is killed by plastic bags its body decomposes and the plastic is released back into the environment where it can kill again.
• On land, plastic bag litter can block drains and trap birds. They also kill livestock.
• Plastic bags are not free to consumers – in Australia and New Zealand plastic bags add A$173 million a year to grocery bills (cost to produce and use the bag)
• The amount of petroleum used to make one plastic bag would drive a car about 115 metres. The 6.9 billion plastic check-out bags we use every year is enough to drive a car 800 million kilometres or nearly 20,000 times around the world.
• At least 16 million plastic bags end up as litter on our beaches, streets and parks.
• Not all litter is deliberate. 47% of wind borne litter escaping from landfills is plastic – much of this is plastic bags.
• Roughly5% of plastic bags are currently being recycled

As a result, I do believe that all levels of the Canadian government should examine the great plastic-bag debate. While businesses do fear impositions on their customers, a nation-wide bag-tax would level the playing field and allow all retailers an opportunity to decrease the plastic bag dependence. Right now, the ad-hoc volunteer approach is just not working. Despite decades of education and knowledge, people still use and depend on the plastic bag. It's time to ween off of this product and, despite good-will, it's time to do this using legislation.

So, I am asking everyone to ban-the-bag. Refuse to use plastic bags. Lobby your local councillor, MP and MPP to examine and implement district, provincial and federal bag-taxes. Do your part.

Addiction is not an excuse

James Pacenza says his problems began after a dramatic and trying stint in Vietnam in 1969. That was not the year of love for Pacenza. Instead, allegedly suffering from post traumatic disorder, the Vietnam veteran came home and found solace in Internet chat rooms.

However, he alleges that, eventually, the stress of a being a vet led him to an a sex addiction and that led to an addiction to Internet adult chat rooms.

Why is all this important? Because Pacenza was recently fired from IBM for visiting these types of chat rooms during company hours. Pacenza's lawyer is blaming the sex addiction (due to the trauma of war) on Pacenza's use of the chat rooms; Pacenza's lawyer also alleges that the termination of his client has little to do with the charges and more to do with the man's age (Pacenza is 58 now, he was caught in the chat rooms at 55-years-of-age, after 19 years of employment with IBM. He would have been eligible for retirement at 56).

OK-- that's the run down.
Now, here's my take.

Listen, there are companies that consistently abuse the labour laws and skirt morality. Companies like Wal-Mart are known for bending the rules (hiring part-timers to work full time hours so they don't have to pay benefits; terminating employees before they reach retirement age, etc. etc.) -- IBM is not one of these companies.

That said, I want to also profer a little opinion on this notion of addiction, trauma and responsiblity.

First: addiction exists. It manifests in all forms and destroys the life of the sufferer and the lives touched by the sufferer.

Second: trauma CAN lead to addiction -- but is not a prerequisite.

Third: the only way out of addiction is to take responsibility.

Pacenza may truly be a sex addict. He may truly feel a compulsion and an obsession that drives him to seek out the fulfillment of that desire. This desire is far different than the love or lust one feels when attraction occurs. Rather, it a compulsive need to reduce angst and abate fears.

Saying this, however, I cannot be sympathetic for Pacenza. I do feel for him in terms of the devestation his addiction has wrought on his life. However, to legally hold the employer responsible for one's own disease is limited at best (in this circumstance -- there are MANY occasions where an employer IS responsible for the health of a worker). I say this, because, our society is very well versed on addiction of all sorts. Alcoholism, drug addiction and gambling problems dominate the debate, but other forms of this disease (and it is a disease) do seep through in media reports. As such, Pacenza would have access to information that would allow him to seek help. Now, my guess, having worked in large corporations before, is that IBM has a rather comprehensive program to deal with addictions. As such, Pacenza has access to the help.

Herein lies the difficulty. See, addiction is marked by a person's denial of the problem. Why would Pacenza ADMIT to himself or anyone else he has a problem, IF the disease has not yet cost him. Now, put an addict in a position where they must come face to face with their disease...and THEN they wake up. This is what happened to Pacenza. He lost his job due to his addiction and NOW he is willing to admit he has a problem. In otherwords, if he had not have lost his job (due to his own actions) he would not be seeking help.

So, the first step in responsibility requires that a person admit and accept that a situation exists. Only through honest appraisal can one come to terms with the enormity and the powerlessness that exists in the addictive state. Unfortunately, this admittance often comes only from major upsets.

Pacenza is an addict. A true addict. He acts to quell feelings he dislikes. He acts externally to change his internal state. Then, when caught in his own web, he cries foul and denies his own responsibility for his actions.

I empathize with Pacenza. I do not agree. I think the termination of his employment was a blessing. For if he truly is an addict, the admission of a problem is the first step.

Conservatives bow to the law -- and a toothless tiger (finally) takes a bite

Apparently Canadians will not be skipping to the bank come June.

Reuters (and others) reported that Canada's minority Conservative government backed away from legal confrontation by promising to obey a law obliging it to lay out how Ottawa will meet targets for cuts to greenhouse gas emissions dictated by the Kyoto protocol.

This, only a day after Prime Minister Harper and his merry band had promised to ignore the measure (citing a poorly constructed law...what is that old idiom about a poor workman who blames his tools?)

Apparently the media is saying that:

The environment -- a topic the opposition sees as the Conservatives' weak spot -- is set to be a key issue in the next federal election, which some political observers and insiders say could be called in the next few months.
The House of Commons adopted the bill on Wednesday in the latest clash over green issues between opposition legislators and the minority government, which says Canada cannot meet its Kyoto targets.

Woa...apparently even toothless tigers (Harper's phrase when criticizing the opposition bill because it did not provide economic incentives to off set the agony of meeting Kyoto targets) have bite.

I love my Canada.

Read more at here

In June you COULD sue the government over Kyoto!

I may just eat my words.

While dining with friends over the weekend I made a few statements regarding the lack of change in the Liberal party. The comments were premised on the notion that while Stephane Dion MAY (and I stress may) be more concerned about Canada's environmental impact and sustainability inititiatives, I did not believe that the party, as a whole, had changed. Not even an iota.

Well, blow me over.

I woke up this morning to the headlines of standing ovations and critical applause.

Apparently, the opposition (Liberals, Bloq and NDP), had managed to pass Bill C-288 -- a bill that demands the minority Conservative government to MEET KYOTO TARGETS.

Not only that but the Bill (now considered legislative law) would force Environment Minister John Baird to present a climate change plan within 60 days, providing a map for Canada to meet Kyoto's greenhouse gas reduction targets. The treaty calls for emission levels at 6 per cent below 1990 levels – a drastic reduction from current levels.

Wait, it gets better.

Within 90 day so the bill's passage, the federal cabinet is required to set out regulations on the petroleum and auto sectors, and other polluters -- targets that force them to meet Kyoto targets.

Now, this is where it gets better.

IF no action is taken, individual Canadians, environmental groups, lawyers – anyone – could take the federal government to court for contradicting the requirements of the law -- so says Montreal Liberal MP Pablo Rodriguez, the sponsor of the private member's bill.

Apparently, however, the Conservatives are having none of it. Despite the passage of the Bill (and despite the desire of Canadians to back parties with environmental policies) the Conservatives have given every indication they plan to ignore the bill!

Their rational is that Kyoto targets are impossible to meet.

WOA! That means that as early as June we may actually see class action lawsuits against the minority Conservative government for failing in their duties as leaders of the country.

Wow.

However, those lawsuits may never see the inside of a courtroom. It appears that the Conservatives are banking on an election, as opposed to staying the course, in an effort to gain more support from the Canadian public. Buses, planes (and maybe the more environmentally friendly transportation option, trains) are being booked and prepped for as early as March for, what many political analysts see as, a Spring election.

You have to love the tedious battleground of Canadian politics. Just when you least expect it things get really interesting!


For more information on the bill go to: http://www.theglobeandmail.com/servlet/story/RTGAM.20070214.wkyoto0214/BNStory/National/home

Couch Surfing hits cyber community

The weather outside is frightful, but the monitor glows
delightful.

Right, so the weather is more than a little on the nasty-Great-White-North side. For that reason, I keep this post rather light. However, despite its rather irrevant attitude, I wanted to alert people to this pseudo-service because it exemplifies a) the power of the Internet to connect, b) the generosity of people, c) the ability of values and honour to rise above.

Log on to www.couchsurfing.com and then poke around.

You will notice that, as a potential traveller, you have the option of surfing a stranger's couch in some far-flung location. And, yes, it IS legit! People do this all the time; now, however, it's not a knock on the door with a vague verbal introduction from a long, lost friend, it is a cyber-handshake and an address of an Internet buddy.

Check it out...as you dream of sunnier climbs.

Fourth R

This will be a very short post today.

It's simply to add in one more R to the three R's of green practice. At present our consumption model is (attempting) to model itself as:
reduce
reuse
recycle.

I would like to throw in another: recover.

This is the R that allows for the reuse of recycled materials.

And it is essential in a society that constructs obsolete products.

The ideal, of course, would be to remove the fourth R and simply recreate sustainable, and long-lasting products...but that would require a Q in the equation: Quality.

China continues to open borders.

It appears free-market proponents may have been right.

Back up. Read that sentence again. Yes, you got it...I said free market and right.

Now, I have absolutely nothing against the market forces. I think competition and desire can be strong motivators, however, I have always questioned the wisdom of using such forces in the face of overwhelming human rights abuses and cultural differences.

Perhaps my fears will be allayed. Perhaps.

This week, China's government made yet another move towards opening up the country. While the "opening" was only to allow foreign travel agents to set up shop in the expansive and largely rural country, it was, nonetheless, an opening of the borders. Quite literally.

As of July 1, foreign travel agencies will be permitted to set up branch offices nationwide. The move is part of China's commitment as a member of the World Trade Organization (WTO). Up until now, the government had restricted all foreign movement into the country which prhobited travel agents from setting up anywhere in China (although, some exceptions were made in: Beijing, Shanghai, Guangzhou, Shenzhen and Xi'an).

While, it does not always work this way, it certainly does appear that the almighty dollar really is prompting China to open its borders. Obviously, as a person that cares more about human rights than monetary gain, the fear is that the push for a version of communism-inspired free-market-economy may eclipse the need to change and alter their human right's record. May. However, I also believe that with a free market comes responsibility and examination. By embracing a more open market, the Chinese government are also opening up their policies to criticism. This world stage, then, will do more in changing the much-maligned human rights record China is currently known for, then any plea or petition presented outside a closed door.

I guess, travel really does bring the world closer.

Make mine a Living Wage -- evidence from Los Angeles

A week or so ago I read a headline on the commuter paper of record in Toronto (METRO) that simply made the fallacious connection that living wages destroy jobs.

I bring this up now, despite the provincial and federal government's refusal to raise Canada's minimum wage.

Now, even as I write this sentence, I know it is important to clarify. Minimum wage is under provincial jurisdiction. In Ontario, the McGuinty Liberals have professed to support the goal of a $10 an hour minimum wage but can't promise that we'll get there soon. To his credit, however, the current minimum wage increase (from $7.75 to $8 at the beginning of February) is the fourth increase in the provincial minimum wage since the McGuinty Liberals took office in 2003.

But a provincial government's commitment to a living wage does not justify a wage increase. What justifies the increase is statistical analysis.

In the USA, where the same arguments are taking place regarding living wages, analysis is now being done on the impact of living wage increases.

One study is out of LA - the venerable California destination that is home to disparity and large population shifts.

The study, titled Examining the Evidence, was conducted by David Fairris (Department of Economis at the University of California Riverside), David Runsten (North American Integration and Development Center, University of California Los Angeles), Carolina Briones (Los Angeles Alliance for a New Economy), and Jessica Goodheart
(Los Angeles Alliance for a New Economy).

The study is introduced as the "most definitive analysis of a living wage law’s impact on workers and employers. It provides important new insights on the effects of living wage policies, which have been adopted by more than 120 local governments
around the country."

It continues by providing a bit of history on living wage:

Living wage laws set wage and benefit standards for companies that do business with the government, such as service contractors, as a means to improve the quality of contracted jobs and increase the standard of living for low-income workers.
The first living wage law was passed in Baltimore in 1994. Over the past 11 years, many of the largest cities in the country, including New York, Boston, San Francisco and Chicago, have passed living wage laws, as have scores of smaller cities.
In 1997, Los Angeles became one of the first major cities to pass a living wage law. The ordinance currently (as of 2004–2005) requires firms to pay either $10.03 per hour, or $8.78 with a $1.25 per hour contribution to health benefits, and to provide 12 paid days and 10 unpaid days off per year.

Despite the grumblings of business and the concern of free-market advocates, this study found:

* The Los Angeles Living Wage Ordinance has increased pay for an estimated 10,000 jobs, with minimal reductions in employment.
* The number of jobs where pay was increased is among the largest in the nation, after New York and San Francisco.
* Although the living wage has not prompted firms to set up health benefits plans, some firms have improved their existing plans or extended coverage to more workers, affecting 2,200 jobs.
* Most workers affected by the living wage are poor or low-income.
* Most firms affected by the law have adapted to the living wage without eliminating jobs. Employment reductions amounted to one percent of all affected jobs, or an estimated 112 jobs.
* Employers have recovered some of the increased costs of the living wage through reductions in labor turnover and absenteeism.
* Firms have adapted to the remaining costs in a variety of ways, including
cutting fringe benefits and overtime, hiring more highly trained workers,
cutting profits and passing on costs to the city or to the public.
* While workers and their families have experienced measurable gains from the
living wage, a significant minority still lacks health benefits and relies on government assistance.


I highlight the report findings as, I believe, they provide strong and ample evidence that the fears proferred by living wage critics do not, in practice, occur. In fact, a living wage appears to offer multiple benefits. Not only are the working poor provided a better standard of living, but the absentee and turnover rate of these low-paying jobs appears to be reduced and the standards of employee treatment (and employer treatment) is increased. The evidence, then, is that the job reductions produced by living wage increases are vastly minimal, at best. The majority of workers (and companies) appear to benefit from a living wage.

Just a little food for thought, particularly in the face of fear-mongering headlines.


To read more on the study go to:
http://www.losangeleslivingwagestudy.org/

If *I* were Prime Minister

What would you do if you were Prime Minister?

Seriously. You complain about the high cost of living in this country; the lack of opportunities; or, perhaps, the lack of initiative from our elected officials.

Well, now is the time to GET ACTIVE.

Dust off those camcorders and take 30 seconds to tell the nation what YOU would do if you were Prime Minister.

This is the call to action David Suzuki (and his foundation) made at the end of January. Their rational: They love Canada. They love the people of Canada. They love the geography, the weather and the opportunities Canada offers. Now, David is setting off on a cross-country tour to talk to every day Canadians about the environment.

Throughout the month of February he and his crew will be stopping in more than 40 communities from St. John’s to Victoria. And this is not a book or publicity tour. This is an opportunity to converse.

No matter what our political bent is, we all depend on a clean environment. Headlines over the last decade have highlighted that water, food and air -- when not taken care of -- can kill. Even in Canada.

So, David is asking us to take the power back - to make an effort to make a difference and change the direction our country is heading (despite recent rhetoric from all sides of the Capital Hill). Dubbed the "Prime Minister Tour", David is asking what YOU, the everyday working Joe (Joanne) would do if YOU were Prime Minister?

Learn more about the If YOU were Prime Minister tour at www.davidsuzuki.org.

If that wasn't enough, check out the Christian Science Monitor article on how Science LAGS behind the global warming issue facing global governments today.

The reality is the "debate" (ie: does global warming exist? and are humans a contributor?) was not put to rest until a Friday report, released by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (a UN group), linked humans to global warming. In otherwords: yes, the Earth is heating up and, yes, we humans are a factor in that warming. From a body of rather conservative, logical folks it was a damning indictment.

Yet, even as governments world wide continue to catch up to the environmental bandwagon the very scientists, journalists and experts on global warming are complaining that scientific analysis is too slow. Perhaps the EU were appropriate in adopting the precautionary principle. The fact that we WAIT for analysis to show a negative impact before legislating significant changes is not only foolish, it is reproachable.

We all require clean air, food and water and global warming threatens that. Period.

For more on the Christian Science Monitor article go to:
http://www.csmonitor.com/2007/0207/p03s02-sten.html

Peace Channel to launch in 2008

There are those that accuse our current callous behaviour on the prepondance of violence on television.

How could we care about genocide and war in a country far away when we were raised on a diet of violence?

In fact, numerous studies show there are negative impacts of early-childhoood exposure to violence. According to meta-analysis of psychological studies, children are affected in three ways:

*Children may become less sensitive to the pain and suffering of others.
*Children may be more fearful of the world around them.
*Children may be more likely to behave in aggressive ways toward others (imitation)

Accordingly, these studies also show that the average North American child will watch approximately 100,000 acts of televised violence, including 8000 depictions of murder, by the time he or she finishes sixth grade (approximately 13 years old).

According to studies by George Gerbner, at the University of Pennsylvania, this translates into 20 violent acts each hour in a children's show! (This study also confirmed that children who watch a lot of television are more likely to think that the world is a mean and dangerous place).

Given the prevalence of the negative affects of violence it should be a shock to hear that, for the first time, a channel dedicted to Peace is being launched.

Social activist and musician Bob Geldof is the brains behind the venture. Yesterday he announced that he will help launch a global TV and net channel which will aim at promoting world peace. He agreed to work on the idea under the title, Peace Channel, with internet firm Ten Alps Digital.

Under the terms of the agreement the company will develop proposals for a worldwide broadband channel, complete with video clips and social networking functions.Among other things the channel will look to encourage the West to help the poorer nations in an entertaining way. It is scheduled to launch next year.

For more information on the impact of violence on children go to:
http://www.abelard.org/tv/tv.htm

For more information on Peace Channel go to:
http://www.tenalpsdigital.com/?ctid=532&edid=658

The City of Love acknowledges the Global Crisis

Last Thursday evening officials at the Eiffel Tower extinguished the famous structure's necklace of lights for five minutes.

The decision to darken the Tower was to call attention to the issue of energy usage on the eve of a major report by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (released on Friday -- 8:30am Paris time).

The Panel, which was formed in 1988, is comprised of over 2,500 scientists from 130 countries. Friday's report is the first of four that the Panel will deliver this year and it lays the groundwork for debate.

No longer are we debating about whether or not global warming IS occuring (it is); or about whether or not humans have a role (we do). Rather, the report, offered by such a large body of experts who have been described as conservative in nature, has allowed the debate to move from the if stage, to the who stage to the what stage -- what can and should be done.

Thank heavens...because a few more degrees, and we'll be debating about who has the right to clean, potable, and scarce water.

For more discussion on the impact and debate on the report go to:

Science Blogs

3R's

The end of the week (for most). No one really cares at the end of the week. Not unless it's mind-numbing or brain-stumping...the two extremes.

For that reason, I'm going to keep this fairly light today. Offer only a tidbit; some food for thought; a few possible solutions, and then we can all go home.

So, to start this day, lets just recall the lessons we learned in school (or work, or home, or at the daycare centre, grocery store or gym). I am talking about the 3R's: reduce, reuse and recycle (I'd like to through a fourth one in there, respect, but this is a principle rather than an action, so we'll leave it out for now).

The fact is we consume everyday. Coffee in the morning, snack at lunch, dinner, and the every day, every week and every month essentials (and goodies...can't forget the consumer goodies). As such, many of our purchasing decisions become wrote; we stop thinking about them; stop making the connections between manufacture, purchase, use and discard -- all of which have an impact on my economy, my environment and our lives.

Given all of this, I propose a little task. It doesn't have to be too tedious, don't assume you have to apply as much energy into this as figuring out dinner, or developing that work proposal, but enough to remind oneself that each purchase is a vote (for the product, for the company's values, for the principles that surround that industry).

Take, for example, plastic. It's a liberating substance. No really! It allows automotive manufacturer's to create lighter, hence, more fuel efficient cars (that's good for the environment AND the pocket book!); plastic has also offered more accessibility and choice in consumer goods. But plastic, as a substance, is made of a scarce (and much fought after) resource -- petroleum. As such, we should always be conscientious about our purchase, consumption and disposal of plastic products. While this type of thinking can be done with ANY product, I would like to offer a few suggestions for plastic products that follow the REDUCE, REUSE AND RECYCLE mantra.

1) The Plastic Bag -- When possible use refillable glass or tin containers (weigh them before you add the product) and buy in bulk (less packaging). Also when grocery shopping take your own cloth or canvas bags (or take a backpack or tote bag). Re-use veggie/fruit plastic bags (rinse them out if you are concerned about bacteria).
2) Detergent Squeeze Bottle (aka: dish soap) -- use the empty bottle to water plants, fill a steam iron or spot clean a floor (using a natural disinfectant, such as vinegar). Or, leave some of the soapy residue, fill it with water, and store it in your car to be used to wash the windows (rather than the dirty gas station water).
3) Yogurt/Margarine/Cottage Cheese containers -- reuse these to purchase items at bulk food stores or for storing and freezing leftovers. Or use them to pack salads, or dry goods for "brown bag" lunches.
4) Onion (mesh) plastic bags -- Use them as a dishscrubber (tied around a soap bar). If that does not appeal to you, then use these plastic mesh bags to make an air freshener. Just bake apple and orange peels on a cookie sheet at 200 degrees F for four to five hours (or until thoroughly dried). Mix the dried peels with whole cloves, nutmeg and bits of cinnamon sticks. Then wrap this aromatic mixture in the plastic netting and tie off!

Ok, there's a few of my suggestions.
What are your 3R tips?

Do Good vs. Feel Good

Green Marketing.

In the 21st century the term is synonymous with right living (or responsible living) and the use and prevalence of these labels and descriptions has risen exponentially in the last decade. But the question remains -- are these labels representative of actual change (products and services that are actually better for the environment?) or are they a marketing ploy to distinguish and market goods and services to appeal to certain values held by consumers? In other words are eco-labels a Do Good mechanism or a Feel Good mechanism.

The idea behind eco-labeling is that these certifications verify that a product/service meets specific standards. These labels, then, represent third party validation -- an apparently objective method of determining whether or not a product or service is green. All labels (with the exception of food and hazardous material labels) are voluntary as all certification processes have been created and are administered by private enterprises (at least in North America).

For example, any structure built in North America can volunarily apply for a LEED rating system classification. This system is based on a point system that allows builders (etc.) to tally up the number of environmentally friendly products/methods that were incorporated into the construction of that building. On the surface it appears that a LEED rating would prompt builders into executing more sustainable methods of construction. But that is not the reality. As a privately owned and operated classification system (that is now widely used and accepted across North America) the LEED system weights each construction decision equally.

What does this mean? It means a designer could opt to use concrete (a product that can be the best environmental choice in certain conditions) in order to create better lighting conditions (bounced light means less light energy is required to illuminate a room -- this cuts down on energy required, which, obviously, is also a more sustainable approach to construction). However this choice would not be rewarded under the LEED system. However, a designer who opted to add in ceiling tiles (classified as MORE environmentally friendly than other ceiling tiles) would be given a point under the LEED system. Even though the LEED system is an effort to produce more sustainable buildings, the very nature of its point system means that more sustainable construction decisions are often neglected for less sustainable decisions that will offer more points (thereby classifying the building as more environmentally friendly).

Can you see the conundrum?

While eco-labeling arose due to consumer demand, there are major flaws in these systems. As privately run classification systems there is no set, national standards that must be followed, no conclusive buy-in to the system (they are all voluntary) and there is no true objectivity in setting the standards (as seen by the skewed point system that defines LEED).

As such, consumers are being sold a bill of Feel Good, rather than being offered truly constructed and produced goods and services that Do Good.

This is not to say there are not truly sustainable products and services availabe on the market. However, there is a distinct difference between environmentally friendly and green marketing -- a difference more consumers need to be made aware of.