Turn up the HEAT

Pick up a paper, magazine or book and you are bound to run across at least one debate on the potential causes of Global Warming. In a new book by George Monbiot, the debate of how is surpassed by the need to act. Rather than answering the typical questions of cause and effect, Monbiot focuses on what do we do to stop it -- the most pressing question out there.

From the outset, Monbiot makes it very clear: He is not looking for a complete revision of our lifestyle. Quite appropriately he argues that as an affluent society, we will not buy into a complete overhaul of our lifestyle. He does, however, believe there are actions and solutions that can be incorporated into our creature comforts that can (and do) have a significant impact on this global issue.

A few of the areas that can enact these necessary changes are outlined in Heat, including:
*improving (dramatically!) the way we construct buildings, which includes (but is not limited to:)
*the mix of renewable and non-renewable sources must be used to supply
energy to these buildings (rather than relying solely on non-renewable)
*reduce greenhouse gas emissions in the retail and cement industries by 90%
*necessary and radical changes to land transportation (changes that do not significantly effect mobility for our affluent society)
*(this is a big one) a significant reduction of air travel. Period. He argues that airline travel is a major greenhouse gas contributor and, given available methods, there is no satisfactory way of reducing these emissions in a significant way

While Monbiot is emphatic about these changes, he is also determined to instill an attitude of possibilities. Rather than simply focus on the urgency of the situation, he focuses on the immediacy of the potential solutions. He prefaces this by explaining the problem and then setting an effective action deadline (for curbing global wamring) at 2030. Monbiot suggests that 90% or all greenhouse gas emissions need to be reduced by 90% by 2030 -- a goal he stresses IS possible if we take action (action he outlines as the least difficult and least painful in terms of altering our creature comforts lifestyle).

One point that Monbiot stresses that is of particular importance is the inability for voluntary change to inact the necessary reduction in emisssions. He, rightly, argues, that while strict government regulation is considered "unfashionable" it is absolute essential if we want to achieve the necessary changes. He emphasizes that while regulations by governments are considered prohibitive they can, in fact, maximize freedoms of citizens by developing more inclusive, more accessible and more attainable ideals and cultures. He believes that the combination of our current capalist-based culture and government regulations for the reduction of greenhouse gas emissions can work because "by and large, whatever our beliefs may be, we consume as much as our incomes allow."

Monbiot's point on regulation also contradicts the current focus on new technology solutions -- a contradiction that is essential if we are to move away from the idea that a new solution will fix on old problem. In fact, Monbiot criticizes both sides of this spectrum -- from the green-technophiles who examine newer methods for these problems (without actually ever implementing a solution) and the pessimisic end of the world proponents who use this global dilemma as proof of the end of the world.

The fact is, Monbiot does not intend to make friends and align himself with potential allies. His primary focus, in this book, is to "to prompt you not to lament our governments' failures to introduce the measures required to tackle climate change, but to force them to reverse their policies, by joining what must become the world's most powerful political movement."

While there is a great deal of information on global warming on the market today, Monbiot's, HEAT, offers a compelling, action-oriented approach to the dilemma. And that is the irony. While his prescription for greenhouse gas emission is simple and effective, it has a snow-ball's chance in hell (a cliche that is closer to reality than we care to admit) of being inacted. In a culture of individualism, big business and fewer and fewer governmental regulations, Monbiot's perception of the problem, and (almost) painless prescription just does not have a chance. Pity, I certainly like a good snow storm -- just not in July.

For more information click HEAT


(Monbiot's HEAT is due out on April 1, 2007)

Reduce, Reduce, Reduce -- the three R's and the hemorrhaging bank account

"People first, then money, then things."

This is the catchphrase of a contemporary, famous and female personal finance expert from Chicago.

And it is a catchphrase that reminds us of the importance of priorities.

A catchphrase that needs to be invoked by more and more Canadians -- particularly in the time of uncertain inflationary markets and slowly creeping, but still inticingly low interest rates.

The fact is, Canada is a nation in debt. Put aside governmental spending and we begin to see how detrimental this non-frugal spending spree really is -- and it is to the point where the average Canadian family owes more than it earns.

How do we know this? From statistics gathered on personal debt, interest owed on credit cards and interest paid on mortgage credit.

In 1984:

*Canadians owed roughly $187 billion in personal debt
*We paid $6 billion in consumer credit (typically credit cards and lines of credit)
*We paid $14 billion on mortgage credit
*Total interest on consumer credit and mortgage credit totalled $20.6 billion

In 2004:
*We owe more than $801 billion
*We paid $22 billion on consumer credit
*We paid $34 billion in interest on mortgage credit
*Total interest consumer credit and mortgage credit was set at $56.6 billion

Source: Statistics Canada

What's worse is that we cannot pay for our high-cost living! Personal bankruptcies are near record highs. The result of this spend now pay later philosophy is that by 2003, for the first time ever, the average Canadian household owed more than its annual take-home pay.

The fact is, we have seemed to have lost the discipline of buy only what you can afford. The discipline of planning for a rainy day has disappeared and the desire for gear, gadgets and big ticket items has replaced responsible spending.


In a Maclean's article last year, senior economist at CIBC World Markets Toronto, Benjamin Tal explains that "As a society we have become addicted to low interest rates. That means as consumers we're much more vulnerable to an economic shock, like a sudden rise in interest rates, a recession or a job loss. Many of us are now living paycheque to paycheque."

Now back to Orman's powerful catchphrase: People first, then money, then things.

It appears the paraphernalia is clouding our perspective.

In an interview with the New York Times, Orman explains that anyone can save money but because of their psychological hang ups they don't. Orman uses the stereotype of women as "birdbrains" when it comes to saving. She explains that women are very good at saving their money, but because of their psychological hang-ups, they give away their money to friends and family to the extent of harming themselves financially. Orman elaborates on this idea in another interview with NBC where she explains why she focuses on the psychological aspects of financial management (in her recent book). "I had to get into the minds and souls and hearts of women to say, 'Ladies, do you understand it? We're voluntarily committing financial suicide.'"

To be truthful our entire society is committing voluntary financial suicide; we are hemorraging at the bank, through the line of credit and bleeding from the credit cards and it is time to stop.

In order to lead a responsible life, one must, at some point, come to terms with the undeniable fact that gear and goods will not make us happy. While a new car, new washing machine or a new pair of shoes may elicit a temporary high, the only way to gain personal, inner and lasting satisfaction is through a disciplined and purposeful lifestyle -- a lifestyle that includes an acceptance that material goods are only one, surface aspect of life.

As such, and going into the Spring sales, we need to commit, as a nation, to examine our spending habits. In the reduce, reuse and recycle mantra the most mantra of the new religion (environmentalism) is reduce -- and that requires self awareness and commitment.

Eco-weddings -- book review and lifestyle challenge!

Ladies and gents, the weather is getting warmer, the days are getting longer and for many rose-blushed brides-to-be the season of matrimony is upon us.

For those not quite in the know Spring is wedding planning season -- and why not? Who doesn't turn their attention to all things new and exciting when tulips are in bloom and basements are awash in ground-water flooding (snow melt, in case there are those who have spent their entire responsible life in a multi-floor condo complex).

And, right on cue, comes a new book to help even the most traditional weddings become clean, green environmental machines.

Now, I just want to say upfront: I did not buy this book. The book was offered as a review selection from Random House. With that admission up front, I feel quite comfortable in stating that this book truly is a great preliminary overview and introduction into thinking green about the whole wedding day. First, the book dismantles the notion that green weddings are part of the granola and patchouli crowd. It allows us the ability to imagine the big day in all its apparent, traditional glory without sacrificing our values.

For example, author Emily Elizabeth Anderson starts off by explaining the enormous financial impact the wedding industry has on our economy. This brief overview helps us, as consumers, understand that our economic vote really does have an impact in how the marital industry conducts itself. While many organic, ethical or sustainable options currently have a premium attached to them, the notion that green weddings are an exception, rather than the rule, does not need to persist. Just as organic food, once the luxury of the well-heeled or the green-thumbed, is now a staple in all good grocery stores in North America, so can green-wedding options become part of the norm. What Anderson does is help us a) see our power as consumers and b) help this power become a less-stressful reality with simple, universal and easy to use options.

For example, Anderson suggests methods for cutting the cost, while sticking with sustainable choices (her suggestions are in italics, my added rational is not):

*Using in-season flowers. This saves on price (out of season flowers must be exported and are at a premium) and certainly eliminates the massive environmental impact of shipping in non-local flowers.
*Eliminating the save-the-date card. This not only saves postage (think about 150 invites/cards at $0.52 a piece PLUS stationary cost!) but also many, many trees. While many people recycle these days, the fact is the reduce option (out of reduce, reuse and recycle) is the most effective sustainable option. Even with recycling, trees must be harvested and used to produce the paper and eventually this recycled paper must end up in landfill (wood-pulp paper can only be recycled 5 to 7 times before the fibres are too weak to make new products). A paperless option eliminates this entire cycle and helps keep waste to an absolute minimum.
*Don’t purchase items you will only use at the wedding; instead, invest in dresses, shoes, or glassware you will alter and reuse. This was a mantra my mother taught me many, many moons ago. In fact, my prom dress is STILL a staple in my cocktail attire (yes, yes, it is a classic cut and a powerfully sexy dress!) and a constant reminder that a well thought out purchase can be reused many times without losing its charm.
*Opt for ethical jewellery options - such as non-diamond based (or Canadian mined) jewellery and ethically mined gold adornments. This is, perhaps, one of the most powerful suggestions in the book -- because the stigma around the diamond is so strong in our culture. The fact is diamonds do have a nasty environmental and ethical history. Even with media awareness, the diamond industry is still on tenuous ethical grounds, given the poor working conditions and the continued guerrilla warfare that occurs in diamond-mining nations. As such, Anderson's suggestion to scrap the sparkly is akin to a revolutionary coup in wedding culture -- a suggestion whose time has come. I particularly appreciated her generalized and fairly apolitical insight into the difficulties of gold and diamond industry and her "this celebrity does it" examples.

And there are other, many, many other, suggestions found in the book.

Now, saying all this, I would be remiss to not offer two, albeit, minor criticisms about the book.

First, the book is a PRELIMINARY overview. For the rather affordable price (under $20) it is an excellent prepatory source for the happy couple-to-be. However, the exact sourcing out of sustainable options must still be done by bride and groom. Thankfully, however, the book does provide a plethora of online sources. Second, I found the discussion on honeymoon options rather juvenile. The fact is, one of the major sources of environmental damage is travel -- particularly global travel. Yet, many of Anderson's options included jetting off to some remote, green-tourist site without mention that getting to and fro is perhaps the most damaging aspect of the trip. Still, Anderson did offer questions to help people BEGIN the process of questioning their choices, even in the transportation aspect of wedding-day options, and this, to me, is the start of conscientious change.

All in all, out of four RRRR's I would give this book a three RRR rating.

Eco-Chic Weddings
Simple Tips to Plan an Environmentally Friendly, Socially Responsible, Affordable, and Stylish Celebration
Written by Emily Elizabeth Anderson
Category: Reference - Weddings
Format: Trade Paperback, 168 pages
Publisher: Hatherleigh Press
ISBN: 978-1-57826-240-3 (1-57826-240-2)

Pub Date: January 2, 2007
Price: $16.00

Femicide Documentary Highlights World Wide Problem

While running out the door, I cannot resist (or ignore) the media attention on a new documentary regarding the killing of women in Guatemala.

Known as Femicide, these murders are all too common-place in a country whose culture does not value the life and contributions of women.

This is not uncommon. While the finger points at Guatemala, there are many, many, too many other countries worldwide that share this philosophy regarding the used an disposal of the 'softer' sex.

However, from what I gather this documentary is a fantastic glimpse into this patriarchal mindset -- which is why I wanted to make mention of the film.

For more information go to:
http://www.thestar.com/artsentertainment/article/189490

Women are People, Too

As Aretha said: Sisters are Doing it for Themselves!

Go up to your mother, aunt, grandmother, sister, neigbhour, teacher or office worker and ask her: Are you a person?

The activity may seem absurd, but only 75 years ago, women were not considered persons in Canada, at least not under the law.

Although most Canadian women were given the right to vote by 1920, they were not considered “persons in matters of rights and privileges” under the British North American Act and could not be appointed to the Senate.

In 1927, Emily Murphy, one of Canada’s first female judges, got the support of four of her colleagues in an attempt to gain the right of “person” for women. Murphy and her supporters had been lobbying for almost ten years and their fight led Murphy, to take the issue to the top – first, to the Supreme Court of Canada, and then to the Privy Council in London, England.

This resulted in a ruling by the Privy Council – that overruled Canada’s Supreme Court – on October 18, 1929, that stated: “and to those who ask why the word ‘persons’ should include females, the answer is, why should it not?”

The case, known as the Persons Case, was a huge victory for women in Canada and paved the way towards equality in all aspects of our society. Emily Murphy, Nellie McClung, Louise McKinney, Henrietta Muir Edwards and Irene Parlby became known as “the Famous Five” and became part of Canadian women’s history.

For more Canadian women history go to: www.4corners.ca

Canada's growing economic gap

Canada is a prosperous nation. There is no doubt about that. Immigrants from all over the world apply to become residents and citizens continue to find new and interesting ways to express their love (and, at times, hate) for this great nation.

However, despite our civic pride, the fact remains:

"Canada’s income gap is growing: In 2004, the richest 10% of families earned 82 times more than the poorest 10% – almost triple the ratio of 1976, when they earned 31 times more. In after-tax terms the gap is at a 30-year high."

This declaration comes from a new report by the Ottawa-based Center for Policy Alternatives -- a progressive think-tank that commissioned Statistics Canada to examine and analyze income and labour hours for all Canadians.

Unfortunately, those working intimately with social justice issues are not surprised. The fact that the statistics show the increasing disparity between the socio-economic is simply a confirmation of what we have known for quite a long time.

While I cannot speak for anyone else, I will state that I am not inherently against the capitalist system or the pursuit of a better economic life. I truly believe that if this is the sole aim for specific people, than they should have a right to pursue this goal. However, the report released today also states:

"Work is not enough: All but the richest 10% of families are working more weeks and hours in the paid workforce (200 hours more on average since 1996) yet only the richest 10% saw a significant increase in their earnings – 30%."

Now, after qualifying my stance, it must be said that any pursuit for a better economic life MUST hinge upon the notion that working longer and harder gets you further. This new report quantifiably proves that this simply is not the case.

Hence, there must be other factors at play. In essence, then, we as Canadians need to examine the structure of our society and our nation. Are there economic barriers to those in the lowest income brackets? Are there priviledges -- both economic and social -- that protect the upper echelon of society and prevent other socio-economic groups from participating and benefitting from our rich nation-state?

While capitalism may be our chosen economic system, rampant free-market reign is NOT. As such, I do not believe the right to pursue the highly individualistic goal of economic wealth should surpass the necessity to take care of all members of society. We need to examine the way we have structured our labour, economic and social system. Perhaps start with a few simple, attainable goals -- such as a standard Living Wage implemented across the country. This would move us one step towards a more prosperous society, which, in the end, benefits all.

To read the full report click HERE.