Carbon offsets and the 100th monkey syndrome

Carbon offsets.

You've heard the hype; then the criticism. So, what is it and, in a nutshell, is it any good?

A carbon offset is the process that allows organizations or individuals to compensate all or part of the carbon dioxide (C02) emissions by either reducing those emissions or paying for the priviledge to produce the emissions by paying for another to absorb those emissions. The hope is that these transactions will reduce net greenhouse gas emissions. The goal is to combat the very real, very dangerous global warming crisis.

The carbon offset process garnered a lot of press as of late, due to increased interest in this process of accountability. Now, there are organizations all over the world involved in the buying and selling of carbon offsets to individuals and organizations who want to compensate for climate impacts (due to air travel and other activities). One organization declared that an individual one-way plane trip from Toronto to Vancouver would cost a consumer as little as $15 extra in order to offset the carbon dioxide produced by their option to travel by air.

At first, environmental advocates and groups applauded the efforts of companies and individuals in attempting to become "carbon neutral".

However, with more press comes more criticism. Now, environmentalists are (and have) criticised carbon offsets as a distraction from essential reductions in fossil fuel use, and forestry offset projects have been met with heavy criticism, drawing the benefits into question.

Now, there is little doubt that the larger issues, as highlighted by carbon offset critics, must be addressed. A tree foresty project that does not contribute to carbon offsetting could be a waste of resources and a continued (and disproportionate) dependency on fossil fuels in the developed world will do more harm than good regardless of all the good intentions from carbon offset and other green programs.

However, we cannot write off this program entirely, and for one major reason: accountability.

The fact is in our global village and instant-communication society most of us are so far removed from the impact of our choices that are level of accountability has diminished greatly. The very fact that people continue to purchase goods produced in countries that are on record as human rights' abusers shows this level of (willing?) ignorance. Enter the carbon offset programs. This scheme enables people to reacquaint themself to the consequences of their decisions. It allows a person to take responsibility for opting to live, work and play in the manner they decide.

The fact is, the terms responsibility and accountability are often seen as killjoys. They are terms bantered about in relation to finance and legality and are often ignored (at least subconsciously) in our day to day activities -- or at least, so we think. Yet, responsibility and accountability are the cornerstones of our democratic (read: free) society. As a nation built upon free choice and market decisions we are afforded the opportunities to make informed decisions -- and any decision, informed or not, is subject to consequences.

The carbon offset programs (as limited as they are) are re-introducing the notion of consequence into our decision making process. By accepting the reality -- that there are consequences to every decision -- we can accept potential harm reduction, or solution-based options.

Think of it this way: if you were to go to the top of the CN Tower and jump off, would you deny the consequences of gravity? No. The fact that we live in a developed (hence rich) country affords us certain options that others may not have. While, some would have us guilt our way into oblivious ignorance the carbon offset pioneers are trying to awaken us to potential. Rather than deny a lifestyle they are asking us to accept the consequences of that lifestyle.

For those criticizing the offset program, may I remind you that this attachment between choice and consequence has long been missed by the average consumer. In a day where goods are plentiful and conditions of production easily hidden, it is important to once again make that connection. While the offset program does not address the greater issue (the over use and abuse of fossil fuels) it DOES get us thinking about the consequences. And everyone knows...critical mass comes from each one of us taking the time out to think and change.

Corn Cob Bob on hunger strike!

Corn Cob Bob may die.

Irrespective of his own health, the scrawny, veggie-dude decided to risk life (and limb?) to take a stand.

It appears the Canadian Renewable Fuels Association mascot is taking this stand because Telecastor Canada -- the nation's advertising watchdog -- attempted to thwart an advertisement that aired a clip of Prime Minister Harper making a campaign promise. According to Telecastor Canada the clip of the PM could not be used without his permission. According to Kory Teneycke, the Renewable Fuels Association executive director, Telecastor evnentually approved the advertisement, which focuses on the Conservative party's promise to require 5% biofuel content in gasoline, but said it would yank it if the Conservatives filed a complaint.

This is ridiculous! Since when do Canadians (including individuals, corporations and organizations) need permission to use publid domain material? The very fact that Harper declared his party's intent publically puts this material in the public domain. If, then, the clip helps emphasis a) the importance of such a decision, b) the promise of our currently elected members of parliament, then it is open season!

While one could appreciate any apprehension if a statement or clip was taken out of context, this does not appear to be the case. As a result the Canadian Renewable Fuels Associaton denounced the decision as stifling its freedom of speech. In turn, it announced that its mascot, Corn Cob Bob, would go on hunger strike. While the water-only diet for Bob the Cob may be a tongue-in-cheek response to Telecastor's obvious interference, Teneycke said the decision is due to the serious implications.

Tenecyke believes that Telecastor's willingness to pull an ad campaign with a Harper clip has implications across the country. He believes that by preventing public display and use of campaign promises by our politicians it, effectively, gives these same politicians a veto over their statements.

The fact is media (of all sorts -- whether it is theoretically objective or decidedly biased) should be allowed to hold all our leaders accountable. One way to do this is to offer evidence of promises and failures. The Renewable Fuels Association saw an opportunity to do just this and decided to act. The fact that a watchdog organization almost tried to quash the event bodes poorly on the future of free speech in this country.

For more words on this issue go to:

http://www.devonrowcliffe.ca/blog/?p=236
http://churchofwhatshappeningnow.blogspot.com/2007/01/its-bloody-outrage.html
http://domesticfuel.com/?p=1032

Keep the gore-hore out of my news

Newsmakers always defend their choices to report horrific events in great detail on the public's desire for the more grotesque aspects of a story.

However a study for the UBC School of Journalism's Feminist Media project may show that this circular logic is, in fact, fallacious.

The study, conducted by the Mustel Group, found that 52% of the 806 adults surveyed (by telephone) said they were interested in media coverage of the case. The study also showed that most B.C. residents believe news organizations should refrain from reporting salacious details of Robert Pickton's murder trial, while one in five say the media have reported "too much" about the case already.

What is interesting is that the poll showed that of those surveyed about the media's coverage of the Pickton trial, three-quarters (75%) believed the media had responded responsibly in covering the case. However 56% of the same respondants believe the media should restrict violent and sexually explicit details that arise at the trial, compared with 37% who believe the public should know as much detail as possible. The remaining 7% did not know.

The interesting component of this study is that there is at least half of those participating in the consumption of media are, in fact, not clamouring for the ghastly details. This should fore-warn media outlets -- perhaps it is not the sensational aspects of a trial, situation or case that draws half their readers, but, perhaps other aspects of journalism, such as insight, analysis, story-telling and, hopefully, alternative perspectives and solutions.

Good point to be aware of in a day and age where media of all types must compete for loyal listeners, readers and viewers.

Mickey D's does ethical bean juice

Who says pressure doesn't pay off?

Advocates of ethical business will be raising a cup of fair trade coffee this week after a decision by McDonalds'UK to purchase, serve and (essentially) promote ethically sourced coffee.

Steve Easterbrook, president of McDonald's UK, said in an interview with The Independent, that the coffee deal would "transform the market for sustainably grown coffee in the UK."

You better believe it will.

The fact is protests, pressure and persistence really do pay off when it comes to pushing the market towards sustainable and socially just practices. How do we know this? Through decisions made by corporations, such as McDonald's UK. While anti-globalists may not cheer this decision, those that weight fair trade and sustainable living (over and above loss of culture) will be putting another notch in their belt due to this recent decision. And with good reason. Since the 1950s -- when the term human rights became a standard phrase in domestic and international affairs -- the notion of ethical decision making has grown and blossomed. While the majority of multinational corporations still have a long way to go in aligning their economic practices with social justice, the gap does decrease when larger, more prominent (and arguably a large influence on the market type) businesses, such as McDonald's publically acknowledges the importance of social justice by changing their corporate policy.

While we may not all rush out to purchase a cup of "careful this is hot" brew at Micky-D's -- we can rest assured that a multinational has, in some small way, confirmed that market economies can be aligned with social justice values.

Government needs to be proactive in protecting our health

Lead poisoning.

A few decades ago, in North America, we began to recognize the necessity to reduce exposure to lead. The result was a phasing out of lead-based gasoline and lead-based paint -- two substances that, at the time, continued to use the heavy metal in the production of its product. The reason was lead increased the health problems of those exposed to consumer products that contained the heavy metal.

However, it appears that the attributes that once made lead attractive (easy workability, low melting point and corrosion resistance) have once again made it the metal du jour for cheap trinkets and jewelery -- particularly pieces worn and abused by young girls.

Herein lies the problem. The fact is that outside of occupational hazards the majority of lead poisoning occurs in children under age twelve. The main sources of poisoning are from ingestion of lead. This ingestion used to occur when contaminated soil (from leaded gasoline) was prevelant or when lead dust or chips from deteriorating lead-based paints were present. While restrictions and laws have been inacted in order to deal with these potential lead poisoning sources (in most American states, landlords and those selling such houses are required to inform the potential residents of the danger of lead poisoning in older houses due to paint chipping etc.) the fact is our governments are slow moving in dealing with the overall use of lead in consumer products.

Enter the developing market. In an effort to cash in on the North American consumerism cash cow, many developing nations are finding easier, cheaper and faster alternative ingrediants for consumer products. As such, lead has been reintroduced into consumer products in everything from make-up, jewelery and cheap, trinket toys.

In a story in the Globe & Mail today, Health Canada came out with a warning that several children's necklaces (and other trinkets) had to be recalled from two retailers due to high lead levels.

Kathleen Cooper, senior researcher at the Canadian Environmental Law Association, is not surprised. "Lead jewellery is as plentiful as pennies because there are no regulations regarding the use of lead."

Cooper explains that the only regulation the Canadian government has erected is to prohibit the use of lead in children's jewellery -- children being anyone under the age of 15. The problem is, Cooper explains, nobody makes an age distinction when purchasing costume jewellery. So jewellery with lead can be sold to anyone despite the restrictions. Cooper is appalled that the rational behind the Canadian government's last decision not to regulate lead in consumer based products -- including jewellery -- was due to the "unfair economic impact it would have on costume jewellery." Cooper is insistent that in order to reduce the exposure and the subsequent health risks due to lead poisoning, the Canadian government MUST enact strict regulations regarding the sale of domestic and international consumer products that contain lead.

While these regulations are not yet forthcoming, Health Canada is asking Claire's and Ardene stores to remove various items that contained lead. Health Canada's rationale is the risk of lead poisoning to children if they chew or suck on the items, or if they swallow them.

For further information, consumers can contact the Health Canada product safety office at 1-866-662-0666.

For more information on lead poisoning go to:
http://www.cmaj.ca/cgi/content/full/171/5/429-a

Community is the key

It's the year of 007...and I'm about to throw around pop-culture psycho-babble like it actually matters. Thing is, I think it really does.

Now, I'm not one for self-help. I don't read Chicken Soups for any soul, nor to do I peruse the people from different planets (Mars or Venus), but a few years ago I did stumble upon a rather interesting book. It was by an American psychiatrist that had spent much of his formative professional years in service to the American military. From this experience (and from his own incite) he began to formulate a philosophy that focuses upon the necessity for the truthful development of love and community.

Community is an oft-abused word. In many cases it is used to create divisions, to define differences and, at times, to condemn segments of people. Yet, in modern times, no one concept or word has ever been so present in our day-to-day lives. Community dominates our work life, our home life and even our entertainment hours (what community are you a part of while surfing on this, here, inter-web???).

Yet, despite the pervasive nature of this aspect of humanity, community is often misunderstood and ill-defined. It is at this point that the self-help wisdom of Scott Peck enters the picture. According to Peck, any group that wishes to become a community must undertake a communal journey that involves four stages:

*pseudocommunity -- where "niceness" reigns
*chaos -- when the emotional skeletons of individuals and segments crawl out of the closet
*emptiness -- a time of quiet and transition
*true community -- marked both by deep honesty and deep caring

Peck outlines this concept (and the subject) in his 1987 book, The Different Drum: Community Making and Peace (Simon and Schuster). In this, and any of th other Peck bestsellers, he mixes his poignant incite with examples and rational explanations as to why it is so important for us -- as the human race -- to develop and nurture community.

Regardless of whether you agree with Peck's description or not, the fact remains that in this day and age of division and strife, community has become an important and necessary aspect for peace and sustainability. Community defines who we are, what rights we are entitled to and what protections we can expect. Community also helps us grow and develop as individuals -- allowing all the little punk-rockers a chance to rebel, even as the suits choose to conform.

The problem is too many people ignore the integral part of community that demands honesty, open-mindedness and willingness. These principles (these traits) allow people -- all people -- to move from a state of insufferable "niceness" (where everyone gets along and no one is really real -- just think of the past holiday season:), to the chaotic stages of changing boundaries, perspectives and expectations, to a sense of loss (that comes from not getting OUR way), to the final stage of appreciation, acceptance and (dare I say it) respect.

Because in the end, there can be no community without respect and respect can only be attained through persistence and growth -- NOT through forcing person(s) to conform to our own (limited) standards.

So, why, in the year of 007, do I say all of this? Because now, more than ever, we need to stop glossing over the idea of community. We need to stop assuming that any community we belong to, participate in, or affiliate with MUST conform to every principle and value we hold. Despite how great we all believe our values to be (and how right, how righteous, and how rational) our perspectives and our views are these beliefs are not superior to anyone else's beliefs. Period.

That means we, all of we, have to make a decision to deal with the uncomfortable feelings that occur when we grow and learn as a community -- when we push the boundaries, question the status quo and then opt for the straight and narrow. Because in the end community is about love and acceptance, both for ourselves and for others.

I resolve....One Day at a Time

Is it just me or is it getting harder to make New Year's resolutions? Gone are the days when simple self-improvement sufficed. Now, in a media-rich and information savvy culture our resolutions take on a new timber. We look outwards (and perhaps upwards) and realized that personal development, although noble, can lack a global perspective. How can losing weight help decrease the gap between the haves and have-nots? How can making our own lunches help with species extinction or global warming? So, perhaps we need to look past the guilted-into-action strategies and focus on something else? But what?

M. Ryan Hess, author of the Ten Minute Activist: Easy Ways to Take Back the Planet, advises us to address this dilemma by thinking small. Using this strategy Hess, along with a five-member Mission Collective, has published a rather small (pocket-sized) book that outlines 150 ideas to "take life down a notch -- and take ten for the planet."

While books like these can often read as meditations (or sermons -- depending on your perspective) they can offer the impetous for people ready and willing to make changes but unaware of how to go about the shift. A few of the suggestions are so commonplace -- such as properly inflating your tires, or planting a tree -- that they almost appear ridiculously simple; however, by reframing them as part of a conscious resolution, a deliberate action to become a socially conscious activist, Hess and his crew helps to get every day, ordinary people to re-examine how small acts can add up to large results.

Whether it's this book or another, the hope us that each person's reinvigorated activism will become a habit -- something good for you and the planet that you can do everyday.

So before you make the list; before you resolve to better your health, your appearance or your bank account; scan the options and examine the impact. It is possible to help yourself, your planet and your global community one small action at a time.

Books to look out for:
1) Michael Norton's: 365 Ways to Change the World: How to Make a Difference -- One Day at a Time (also go online to www.365act.com)
2) M. Ryan Hess: The Ten Minute Activist: Easy Ways to Take Back the Planet
3) Christof Mauch: Shades of Green: Environment Activism Around the Globe
4) Michael R. Stevenson: Everyday Activism; A Handbook for Lesbian, Gay, and Bisexual People and their Allies": A handbook for Lesbian, Gay, and Bisexual People and their Allies