Going Green is Good for Business, says Nortel CEO
It is imperative that businesses quickly recognize the need for environmentally sound behaviors and match these with good business practices, said Mike Zafirovski said today at FORTUNE's first-ever GREEN Conference in Pasadena, Calif.
The Nortel president and CEO participated in the conference as part of the Canadian company’s ongoing commitment to create products and services that make it possible for enterprises and service providers to be more energy efficient while reducing their carbon footprint. This commitment includes elements of Nortel's data portfolio, which is recognized by The Tolly Group, an independent IT validation service, as the industry's greenest – helping to reduce energy consumption by as much as 50%.
"The integration of environmental responsibility into corporate business models is not only the right thing to do but a necessity for business success," Zafirovski said. "As a businessman, my perspective always starts with a mandate to enhance shareholder value. But even with this as my focus, I strongly believe the time is right for business and society to get together to address today's environmental problems."
Tuesday, April 22, 2008
Monday, April 21, 2008
On the Eve of Earth Day, I have a Challenge for You! (52 weeks to a better bank account by going green)
We know the press is all over Earth Day.
How could they miss it?
In the last three decades environmentalism has gone from a loonie leftie concept to mainstream common sense...and rightly so.
Long before recycling became the norm my ma used to take her empty containers to the health food store and re-use the plastic bins, rather than buy a new tub. She was raised on an Irish farm, which is the equivalent of saying that nothing went to waste...how could it with eight children to feed, not including the livestock. (I was also stunned to learn that the store owner at the now-closed St. Clair and Bathurst health food store actually remembered my ma, 20 years later, and recognized me after I spent only five minutes in the store looling for spelt spread...now THAT'S a community relationship!).
Still, my ma instilled in my brother and I a respect for the planet and a respect for the dollar.
Now a new book by money-guru David Bach is out and it professes to appeal to the green capitalist in all of us.
Only half way through (and it's an easy, easy read) and I believe the man might be on to something.
Not that it is revolutionary or new...but it can and does appeal to EVERYONE...not just the environmentalist.
It's a way of respecting our resources, while respecting our earnings...of course...it's right up my alley...because it's underlying message is about responsibility.
Saying this, Mr. Bach has not done all his homework (for example, tip #5 suggests switching to bio-diesel. The problem with this is corn-based ethanol, which is what most of North American bio-diesel is made from, is extremely harmful to the environment...not the fuel itself but the production, shipment and destruction the increasing corn crops are having on the planet, the food supply and the irrigation systems in North America...more on that later). He does, however, provide some good, solid options.
In the next 52 weeks, I will share one option a week....one good option that I glean from either Bach's book or from other tried, tested and true experts. It will be a chance for us to either adopt, change or remove an expensive and wasteful practice from our life and a chance to slowly integrate cost-saving measures that make us more responsible for the rest of our lives.
That first option will start tomorrow on Earth Day.
The rest of the time, I will continue to offer insights and opinions on all matters affecting responsible living: from green initiatives, sad human rights situations, addictions and tools and examples of responsible living in the world today.
And if you have a tip, insight or suggestion, share it...we could all use a little humility by learning to listen.
How could they miss it?
In the last three decades environmentalism has gone from a loonie leftie concept to mainstream common sense...and rightly so.
Long before recycling became the norm my ma used to take her empty containers to the health food store and re-use the plastic bins, rather than buy a new tub. She was raised on an Irish farm, which is the equivalent of saying that nothing went to waste...how could it with eight children to feed, not including the livestock. (I was also stunned to learn that the store owner at the now-closed St. Clair and Bathurst health food store actually remembered my ma, 20 years later, and recognized me after I spent only five minutes in the store looling for spelt spread...now THAT'S a community relationship!).
Still, my ma instilled in my brother and I a respect for the planet and a respect for the dollar.
Now a new book by money-guru David Bach is out and it professes to appeal to the green capitalist in all of us.
Only half way through (and it's an easy, easy read) and I believe the man might be on to something.
Not that it is revolutionary or new...but it can and does appeal to EVERYONE...not just the environmentalist.
It's a way of respecting our resources, while respecting our earnings...of course...it's right up my alley...because it's underlying message is about responsibility.
Saying this, Mr. Bach has not done all his homework (for example, tip #5 suggests switching to bio-diesel. The problem with this is corn-based ethanol, which is what most of North American bio-diesel is made from, is extremely harmful to the environment...not the fuel itself but the production, shipment and destruction the increasing corn crops are having on the planet, the food supply and the irrigation systems in North America...more on that later). He does, however, provide some good, solid options.
In the next 52 weeks, I will share one option a week....one good option that I glean from either Bach's book or from other tried, tested and true experts. It will be a chance for us to either adopt, change or remove an expensive and wasteful practice from our life and a chance to slowly integrate cost-saving measures that make us more responsible for the rest of our lives.
That first option will start tomorrow on Earth Day.
The rest of the time, I will continue to offer insights and opinions on all matters affecting responsible living: from green initiatives, sad human rights situations, addictions and tools and examples of responsible living in the world today.
And if you have a tip, insight or suggestion, share it...we could all use a little humility by learning to listen.
Friday, April 11, 2008
Power to the People: Viral Campaigns and the Beijing Olympics
Who says the people don't have power?
A marketing firm released a press release today 'warning' Olympic sponsors about the potentially high cost of sponsoring the Beijing Olympics due to the proliference, "impact and dominance of consumer driven, viral campaigns and their ability to affect global consumer behaviours."
Tony Chapman, Founder and CEO of Capital C, one of Canada's leading marketing firms, cautioned Canadian marketers to carefully consider the dangers in fulfilling their Beijing Olympic marketing programs due to the dissatisfaction of activist groups and disheartened individuals -- (all with access to the democratic medium of the internet, I might add).
Chapman states that "the Tibet controversy currently interrupting the torch journey is inspiring a reaction of global proportions. It is becoming deafening as it is digitally enabled and swirls around the world, collecting images, commentary, evidence and an ever growing community of supporters. Conversations which started with Tibet and Darfur will cross over to China's environmental record, its treatment of workers, its foreign policy and every other cause imaginable, ultimately becoming an unstoppable force impenetrable by spin doctors, brand managers, or even the most elaborate marketing campaigns."
Chapman, in his marketing wisdom, goes on to say that the reaction to China and the "viral phenomenon" surrounding demonstrate to global brands that the rules have shifted from mass media (where they were in charge), to social media (where the consumer is in charge). "This is an environment where consumer behaviour will not be based on immediate needs, but upon moral and ethical criteria. Consumers are now demanding more than great taste; they are demanding corporate integrity. Today, how a corporation behaves towards its employees, community and planet, and with whom they associate are the new benchmarks for decision making."
Buyer be warned.
Corporate heads take heed.
As Margaret Mead so cleverly stated:
Never doubt that a small group of thoughtful, committed citizens can change the world. Indeed, it is the only thing that ever has.
A marketing firm released a press release today 'warning' Olympic sponsors about the potentially high cost of sponsoring the Beijing Olympics due to the proliference, "impact and dominance of consumer driven, viral campaigns and their ability to affect global consumer behaviours."
Tony Chapman, Founder and CEO of Capital C, one of Canada's leading marketing firms, cautioned Canadian marketers to carefully consider the dangers in fulfilling their Beijing Olympic marketing programs due to the dissatisfaction of activist groups and disheartened individuals -- (all with access to the democratic medium of the internet, I might add).
Chapman states that "the Tibet controversy currently interrupting the torch journey is inspiring a reaction of global proportions. It is becoming deafening as it is digitally enabled and swirls around the world, collecting images, commentary, evidence and an ever growing community of supporters. Conversations which started with Tibet and Darfur will cross over to China's environmental record, its treatment of workers, its foreign policy and every other cause imaginable, ultimately becoming an unstoppable force impenetrable by spin doctors, brand managers, or even the most elaborate marketing campaigns."
Chapman, in his marketing wisdom, goes on to say that the reaction to China and the "viral phenomenon" surrounding demonstrate to global brands that the rules have shifted from mass media (where they were in charge), to social media (where the consumer is in charge). "This is an environment where consumer behaviour will not be based on immediate needs, but upon moral and ethical criteria. Consumers are now demanding more than great taste; they are demanding corporate integrity. Today, how a corporation behaves towards its employees, community and planet, and with whom they associate are the new benchmarks for decision making."
Buyer be warned.
Corporate heads take heed.
As Margaret Mead so cleverly stated:
Never doubt that a small group of thoughtful, committed citizens can change the world. Indeed, it is the only thing that ever has.
Thursday, April 10, 2008
CARBON BOMB! More Clean Air Please (and please stop stomping on my forest)
Who needs fresh air?
Based on neo-liberal philosophy, even air is a commodity. All this fear-mongering about air pollution and global warming simply means that somebody is going to make money off of the problem somehow...
Unfortunately, the money making is usually what causes the dilemma in the first place...and while I am sure there is money to be made in the creation of atmospheric bubbles (personalized, or fun for the whole town), I somehow don't see that as justification for screwing up our air supply, now.
What am I getting at?
An expert panel, commissioned by Greenpeace, launched their findings in a report today regarding the logging industry in the Boreal forest (this is old growth folks, and plenty of it in our own backyard).
The panel stated that:
Logging in Canada's Boreal Forest is exacerbating global warming by releasing greenhouse gases and reducing carbon storage. It also makes the forest more susceptible to global warming impacts like wildfires and insect outbreaks, which in turn release more greenhouse gases.
Now, here's the kicker:
if this vicious circle is left unchecked, it could culminate in a massive and sudden release of greenhouse gases referred to as "the carbon bomb."
At present Canada's Boreal Forest stores 186 billion tonnes of carbon -- this is equivalent to 27 times the world's annual fossil fuel emissions.
The report concludes that intact areas of the Boreal Forest should be made
off-limits to logging and other industrial activity-particularly in its
biologically rich southern regions- to curb this dangerous cycle.
Elizabeth Nelson, a researcher at the University of Toronto and co-author
of the report, cautions that logging continues to cause greenhouse gas
emissions long after the trees are gone. "Over two-thirds of the carbon stored
in the Boreal Forest is found in its soils. When the forest cover is removed,
the soil decays, releasing additional carbon dioxide into the atmosphere over
the following months, years, and even decades," she said.
To make matters worse, intact areas of the Boreal Forest resist and recover from fires, insect outbreaks, and other impacts better than fragmented areas. These areas also give trees, plants, and wildlife the best chances of migrating, adapting, and
surviving in a changing climate.
Other key findings from the expert-reviewed report:
What can you do?
Write to your work's paper provider -- demand paper harvested from non-old-growth resources (Cascades, a Quebec-based manufacturer is good for this, although Domtar and Grand & Toy also offer propriety recycled products that do not use old-growth).
Reduce what you print (or use old print-outs as scrap).
Write to your MP, demand that legislation be passed to protect our forests (and lungs and future!).
Log on and sign the Greenpeace petition (also look out for local petitions...tables set up in eco-friendly stores with organizations working very hard to protect the Boreal).
Write the companies personally. Tell them you refuse to accept the ramifications of their profits and list ways you will avoid their products.
Start small. Think Big. Take action.
Based on neo-liberal philosophy, even air is a commodity. All this fear-mongering about air pollution and global warming simply means that somebody is going to make money off of the problem somehow...
Unfortunately, the money making is usually what causes the dilemma in the first place...and while I am sure there is money to be made in the creation of atmospheric bubbles (personalized, or fun for the whole town), I somehow don't see that as justification for screwing up our air supply, now.
What am I getting at?
An expert panel, commissioned by Greenpeace, launched their findings in a report today regarding the logging industry in the Boreal forest (this is old growth folks, and plenty of it in our own backyard).
The panel stated that:
Logging in Canada's Boreal Forest is exacerbating global warming by releasing greenhouse gases and reducing carbon storage. It also makes the forest more susceptible to global warming impacts like wildfires and insect outbreaks, which in turn release more greenhouse gases.
Now, here's the kicker:
if this vicious circle is left unchecked, it could culminate in a massive and sudden release of greenhouse gases referred to as "the carbon bomb."
At present Canada's Boreal Forest stores 186 billion tonnes of carbon -- this is equivalent to 27 times the world's annual fossil fuel emissions.
The report concludes that intact areas of the Boreal Forest should be made
off-limits to logging and other industrial activity-particularly in its
biologically rich southern regions- to curb this dangerous cycle.
Elizabeth Nelson, a researcher at the University of Toronto and co-author
of the report, cautions that logging continues to cause greenhouse gas
emissions long after the trees are gone. "Over two-thirds of the carbon stored
in the Boreal Forest is found in its soils. When the forest cover is removed,
the soil decays, releasing additional carbon dioxide into the atmosphere over
the following months, years, and even decades," she said.
To make matters worse, intact areas of the Boreal Forest resist and recover from fires, insect outbreaks, and other impacts better than fragmented areas. These areas also give trees, plants, and wildlife the best chances of migrating, adapting, and
surviving in a changing climate.
Other key findings from the expert-reviewed report:
- Logging removes roughly 36 million tonnes of aboveground carbon from
Canada's Boreal Forest each year-more carbon than is emitted each year
by all the passenger vehicles in Canada combined. - The area of North American Boreal burned by forest fires doubled
between 1970 and 1990. As forest fires become larger, more frequent,
and more intense, more and more carbon dioxide is being released into
the atmosphere. - Logging accelerates permafrost melt. When permafrost melts carbon
dioxide and methane-a greenhouse gas 21 times more potent than carbon
dioxide-are released into the atmosphere. Intact forest cover may delay
this melt for decades or even centuries.
What can you do?
Write to your work's paper provider -- demand paper harvested from non-old-growth resources (Cascades, a Quebec-based manufacturer is good for this, although Domtar and Grand & Toy also offer propriety recycled products that do not use old-growth).
Reduce what you print (or use old print-outs as scrap).
Write to your MP, demand that legislation be passed to protect our forests (and lungs and future!).
Log on and sign the Greenpeace petition (also look out for local petitions...tables set up in eco-friendly stores with organizations working very hard to protect the Boreal).
Write the companies personally. Tell them you refuse to accept the ramifications of their profits and list ways you will avoid their products.
Start small. Think Big. Take action.
Wednesday, April 09, 2008
Slap on Charity and We are Good to Go!
Charity.
Slap that word in front of something, anything, and suddenly the task, the event, the 'expedition' is acceptable.
As my ma would say: Hogwash.
Take for example the latest gimmick by a boot company (name with held in order NOT to provide free advertisement) that sponsored Paul Hubner (and family!) to "ski both the South and North Pole in ONE season!"
Of course, Mr. Hubner was sponsored by the boot company in an effort to prove their boots are 'polar' worthy.
I presume, then, that the melting of the icecaps at the North Pole has completely escaped both Mr. Hubner and his handlers and the polar-boot company. How else could they justify flying Hubner, his family and the film crew (and all their paraphenalia) to the Poles in an effort to capture the gimmick on film?
In a world filled with technological advancements (such as labs that can mimic even the most extreme of weather conditions) it seems highly irresponsible for Hubner and his sponsors to pursue this ad tactic. Unless of course the charity they plan to donate to is "Build Earth's Bubble and Save the Human Parasite"?
Somehow, though, I don't think youth groups across North America, some of the recipients of the money raised, plan on constructing a breathable membrane dome.
Oh, wait...Hubner's advertorial money will also go to: Polar Bears International -- an organization that attempts to teach people about global warming (one major culprit: human transportation, in particular, air travel) and how this environmental crisis is pushing and pulling the ice shelves in the Arctic and Antarctic, and further increasing the risk of polar bear extinction. Let's hope that money raised for the charity can offset the damage done by the Hubner-Boot Ad entourage.
Slap that word in front of something, anything, and suddenly the task, the event, the 'expedition' is acceptable.
As my ma would say: Hogwash.
Take for example the latest gimmick by a boot company (name with held in order NOT to provide free advertisement) that sponsored Paul Hubner (and family!) to "ski both the South and North Pole in ONE season!"
Of course, Mr. Hubner was sponsored by the boot company in an effort to prove their boots are 'polar' worthy.
I presume, then, that the melting of the icecaps at the North Pole has completely escaped both Mr. Hubner and his handlers and the polar-boot company. How else could they justify flying Hubner, his family and the film crew (and all their paraphenalia) to the Poles in an effort to capture the gimmick on film?
In a world filled with technological advancements (such as labs that can mimic even the most extreme of weather conditions) it seems highly irresponsible for Hubner and his sponsors to pursue this ad tactic. Unless of course the charity they plan to donate to is "Build Earth's Bubble and Save the Human Parasite"?
Somehow, though, I don't think youth groups across North America, some of the recipients of the money raised, plan on constructing a breathable membrane dome.
Oh, wait...Hubner's advertorial money will also go to: Polar Bears International -- an organization that attempts to teach people about global warming (one major culprit: human transportation, in particular, air travel) and how this environmental crisis is pushing and pulling the ice shelves in the Arctic and Antarctic, and further increasing the risk of polar bear extinction. Let's hope that money raised for the charity can offset the damage done by the Hubner-Boot Ad entourage.
Tuesday, April 08, 2008
Mayor Miller's Hand-gun Ban Necessary
If I was to ever go hunting -- and that's a *BIG* if, considering I don't eat meat -- I highly doubt my weapon of choice would be a handgun.
For hunting, handguns are just not practical unless, of course, the game you are hunting is human.
While gun proponents have developed a litany of reasons why handguns should not be banned, I have yet to hear a reasonable, rational reason.
Yes, I empathize with gun collectors -- passionate collecting can and does occr, but I doubt that any of these true collectors are clamouring for one of the mass-produced, relatively new weapons that do little, but cause havoc.
Don't give me "freedom of association" crap. You love to shoot them -- then develop clubs where you can not only shoot the tool, but KEEP the tool. There is NO reason why you should have to take that contraption home. Period. Particularly with the plethora of non-lethal (theoretically) tools available to the general public for self-protection.
So, the recent announcment by Toronto's Mayor, David Miller, certainly met *my* approval.
The campaign's centre-piece is an online petition posted on the City's
website (goto: www.toronto.ca/handgunban).
This allows Canadians, coast to coast to add their name to a call for a Canada-wide handgun ban. (For those so inclined to canvas neighbourhoods and workplaces, a print-friendly version of the petition is also available on the website).
Mayor Miller launched this campaign by saying: "Handguns are designed for one purpose and that is to kill people and have no place in our society. Statistics show that in jurisdictions with gun bans, supply is limited and shootings are less common.
Miller will "personally deliver" the petition to Parliament Hill in June.
Want to read more??
Goto:
Globe and Mail Globe
The Star Star
Canadian Business Canadian Business
National Post (contrarian angle) National Post
For hunting, handguns are just not practical unless, of course, the game you are hunting is human.
While gun proponents have developed a litany of reasons why handguns should not be banned, I have yet to hear a reasonable, rational reason.
Yes, I empathize with gun collectors -- passionate collecting can and does occr, but I doubt that any of these true collectors are clamouring for one of the mass-produced, relatively new weapons that do little, but cause havoc.
Don't give me "freedom of association" crap. You love to shoot them -- then develop clubs where you can not only shoot the tool, but KEEP the tool. There is NO reason why you should have to take that contraption home. Period. Particularly with the plethora of non-lethal (theoretically) tools available to the general public for self-protection.
So, the recent announcment by Toronto's Mayor, David Miller, certainly met *my* approval.
The campaign's centre-piece is an online petition posted on the City's
website (goto: www.toronto.ca/handgunban).
This allows Canadians, coast to coast to add their name to a call for a Canada-wide handgun ban. (For those so inclined to canvas neighbourhoods and workplaces, a print-friendly version of the petition is also available on the website).
Mayor Miller launched this campaign by saying: "Handguns are designed for one purpose and that is to kill people and have no place in our society. Statistics show that in jurisdictions with gun bans, supply is limited and shootings are less common.
Miller will "personally deliver" the petition to Parliament Hill in June.
Want to read more??
Goto:
Globe and Mail Globe
The Star Star
Canadian Business Canadian Business
National Post (contrarian angle) National Post
Saturday, April 05, 2008
Sports Fans Jump on Carbon Credits for Beijing Olympics (even if the torch does stay out)
Despite what you might think about the Beijing Olympics, the fact that one of the world's biggest polluters is hosting the "Green" Olympics has not escaped the attention of many a cynical critic.
Yet, rather than focus on this, I would like to draw your attention to notion that shame really does work to change behaviour.
For about two decades a well-known North American travel company has offered the sports enthusiast the ultimate trip: flight, accomodation, sporting event and extras all under one umbrella. You can well imagine Olympics are a boon for this type of company. This year, however, this company (who shall remain nameless, so I am not accused of promotion or slander) is offering another perk: 40,000 lbs of TerraPass carbon offset credits.
I am not saying this company is worthy of shame (that requires analysis by credentials that I do not hold) -- what I am saying is that this company is responding to theories within behaviourial finances -- go where the market is...and the market is fickle.
At the moment green is in. Everything and anything that can attach their name to green, sustainable or ethical initiatives are doing so in droves. This change in corporate behaviour highlights all the important work environmentalists have done over the last four decades; it also highlights the importance of critical mass.
If we get enough people concerned about a topic (whether it's taxes, air pollution, pesticides on our lawn, or the latest violent flick) and business will try to capitalize on that interest.
I am not saying this a negative aspect of our 'free'-market economy.
What I am saying is that it is a predictable aspect of our economy (and an aspect activists and corporations have coopted for years).
Still, there is a powerful aspect to a groundswell movement -- millions of people supporting just one cause. It's even more amazing when those people are not the average activist, protestor, supporter or believer of socio-economic and environmental issues -- and, let's face it, most sports enthusiasts are not. Yet, a vast majority of these enthusiasts who will brave the wrath of supporting the Chinese Olympics are doing so in a more proactive manner (even if there is an argument that carbon off-setting is a greenwash)...and that means that years of shaming and blaming have come out to provide alternatives to our actions. That's growth...and I'm all over that
Yet, rather than focus on this, I would like to draw your attention to notion that shame really does work to change behaviour.
For about two decades a well-known North American travel company has offered the sports enthusiast the ultimate trip: flight, accomodation, sporting event and extras all under one umbrella. You can well imagine Olympics are a boon for this type of company. This year, however, this company (who shall remain nameless, so I am not accused of promotion or slander) is offering another perk: 40,000 lbs of TerraPass carbon offset credits.
I am not saying this company is worthy of shame (that requires analysis by credentials that I do not hold) -- what I am saying is that this company is responding to theories within behaviourial finances -- go where the market is...and the market is fickle.
At the moment green is in. Everything and anything that can attach their name to green, sustainable or ethical initiatives are doing so in droves. This change in corporate behaviour highlights all the important work environmentalists have done over the last four decades; it also highlights the importance of critical mass.
If we get enough people concerned about a topic (whether it's taxes, air pollution, pesticides on our lawn, or the latest violent flick) and business will try to capitalize on that interest.
I am not saying this a negative aspect of our 'free'-market economy.
What I am saying is that it is a predictable aspect of our economy (and an aspect activists and corporations have coopted for years).
Still, there is a powerful aspect to a groundswell movement -- millions of people supporting just one cause. It's even more amazing when those people are not the average activist, protestor, supporter or believer of socio-economic and environmental issues -- and, let's face it, most sports enthusiasts are not. Yet, a vast majority of these enthusiasts who will brave the wrath of supporting the Chinese Olympics are doing so in a more proactive manner (even if there is an argument that carbon off-setting is a greenwash)...and that means that years of shaming and blaming have come out to provide alternatives to our actions. That's growth...and I'm all over that
Friday, April 04, 2008
Animal Cruelty Punished; Now We Need Human Desperation Addressed
We knew for at least a decade that a strong correlation existed between animal cruelty and violent criminal acts.
Reports, studies, journal pieces and news articles have been written on the topic.
Statistics and numbers have been recorded.
Finally, after a decade of prompting Ontario finally elected a government willing to create stiffer penalties for animal cruelty.
This is not just a moral victory for animal activists, but also for those who lobby for stiffer penalties agains perpetrators of domestic abuse as well as the victims of violence across North America.
To put it bluntly (and factually):
According to the American Veterinarian Association there are three ways that animal abuse and human violence are linked:
1. Abusers use animals to influence or harm people: demonstrate dominance or control, inflict punishment or to retaliate against the abused (or vice versa - punish the person for the acts of the animal), and through silence, isolation and threats.
2. Abused children show a propensity towards becoming animal abusers
(Multiple studies have shown that children who grow up in an environment of animal abuse are more likely to be involved in animal abuse and human violence as they grow up. Young children growing up in an environment of abuse may become desensitized, and come to see violence as the norm. They may also learn that one way to demonstrate you have power or control is to abuse a creature that is weaker than you. Children in households with emotional or physical abuse between partners may vent or "act out" their resulting emotions, often through cruelty to animals.)
3. Animal abuse may predict adult violence
(People who abused pets as children are far more likely to commit murder or other violent crimes as they become adults. In fact, one of the most reliable predictors of adult violence is committing animal abuse as a child.)
With that in mind, Rick Bartolucci, minister of Community Safety and Correctional Services, announcement, to amend the OSPCA act to make it mandatory for veterinarians to report suspected cases of animal abuse (with protection for veterinarians when the report is made in good faith) was widely and openly welcomed by vets across Ontario.
Now, for the disbelievers, I would like to offer the following rather scary facts:
Between October 1997 and May 1998 (seven months) school shootings across America left 12 dead and 44 wounded (in four schools).
Prior to these school shootings:
Youth offenders are not the only ones to display cruelty to animals prior to violent criminal acts. Russell Weston Jr., the man awaiting trial for shooting two Capitol Hill police officers, shot his father's cats before his assault on the Capitol.
And there are many, many more cases like these.
Whether an animal lover or a dispassionate bystander, the correlation between animal violence and disturbed, often brutally violent behaviour is undeniable.
McGuinty's decision to stiffen the penalties for those caught abusing animals is the first step, but more needs be done. That's because animal abuse does not occur in isolation. Often animal abuse takes place in a complex net of disturbed family relations. For example, animal abuse is frequently found in families where there also is child abuse and domestic violence. Children in these disturbed families who witness the abuse of family companion animals are more likely to abuse animals; in addition, children who commit animal cruelty are more likely to engage in criminal behavior as adults.
As such, we, in Ontario, need to applaud McGuinty and his government for finally creating stiffer laws against these offenders...but we also need to press for rehabilitation and help for those that display these behaviours. The reality is that most convicted felons will, eventually, return into society. By identifying candidates -- through their convictions -- we can provide rehabilitation and, hopefully, reintegration.
In the end we want the abuse to stop...and the best way to do that is remove that which disturbs.
Reports, studies, journal pieces and news articles have been written on the topic.
Statistics and numbers have been recorded.
Finally, after a decade of prompting Ontario finally elected a government willing to create stiffer penalties for animal cruelty.
This is not just a moral victory for animal activists, but also for those who lobby for stiffer penalties agains perpetrators of domestic abuse as well as the victims of violence across North America.
To put it bluntly (and factually):
- 61% of surveyed Ontario women who had left their abusive partners stated that their partners had brutalized or killed a pet (results from a 1998 survey conducted by the Ontario Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals).
- By contrast, only 16.7% of households with no history of domestic reported threats or actual harm to a pet.
According to the American Veterinarian Association there are three ways that animal abuse and human violence are linked:
1. Abusers use animals to influence or harm people: demonstrate dominance or control, inflict punishment or to retaliate against the abused (or vice versa - punish the person for the acts of the animal), and through silence, isolation and threats.
2. Abused children show a propensity towards becoming animal abusers
(Multiple studies have shown that children who grow up in an environment of animal abuse are more likely to be involved in animal abuse and human violence as they grow up. Young children growing up in an environment of abuse may become desensitized, and come to see violence as the norm. They may also learn that one way to demonstrate you have power or control is to abuse a creature that is weaker than you. Children in households with emotional or physical abuse between partners may vent or "act out" their resulting emotions, often through cruelty to animals.)
3. Animal abuse may predict adult violence
(People who abused pets as children are far more likely to commit murder or other violent crimes as they become adults. In fact, one of the most reliable predictors of adult violence is committing animal abuse as a child.)
With that in mind, Rick Bartolucci, minister of Community Safety and Correctional Services, announcement, to amend the OSPCA act to make it mandatory for veterinarians to report suspected cases of animal abuse (with protection for veterinarians when the report is made in good faith) was widely and openly welcomed by vets across Ontario.
Now, for the disbelievers, I would like to offer the following rather scary facts:
Between October 1997 and May 1998 (seven months) school shootings across America left 12 dead and 44 wounded (in four schools).
Prior to these school shootings:
- Kip Kinkel decapitated cats, dissected live squirrels and blew up cows
- Andrew Golden shot dogs before he turned his guns on his classmates
- Luke Woodham beat and burned his own dog, Sparkle, describing his dog's painful and tortured death as a "thing of true beauty"
- Michael Carneal threw a cat into a bonfire
Youth offenders are not the only ones to display cruelty to animals prior to violent criminal acts. Russell Weston Jr., the man awaiting trial for shooting two Capitol Hill police officers, shot his father's cats before his assault on the Capitol.
And there are many, many more cases like these.
Whether an animal lover or a dispassionate bystander, the correlation between animal violence and disturbed, often brutally violent behaviour is undeniable.
McGuinty's decision to stiffen the penalties for those caught abusing animals is the first step, but more needs be done. That's because animal abuse does not occur in isolation. Often animal abuse takes place in a complex net of disturbed family relations. For example, animal abuse is frequently found in families where there also is child abuse and domestic violence. Children in these disturbed families who witness the abuse of family companion animals are more likely to abuse animals; in addition, children who commit animal cruelty are more likely to engage in criminal behavior as adults.
As such, we, in Ontario, need to applaud McGuinty and his government for finally creating stiffer laws against these offenders...but we also need to press for rehabilitation and help for those that display these behaviours. The reality is that most convicted felons will, eventually, return into society. By identifying candidates -- through their convictions -- we can provide rehabilitation and, hopefully, reintegration.
In the end we want the abuse to stop...and the best way to do that is remove that which disturbs.
Thursday, April 03, 2008
Junkie or Pundit -- U.S. Candidates (in their own words) on Enviro Issues
Political pundit or power junkie?
These are some of the questions the League of Conservation Voters attempt to answer through the lens of sustainability/environmentalism.
By examining each of the three leading candidates (Clinton, McCain and Obama) the League helps voters help themselves and the planet.
Think of Justice League...only without the shields and capes.
For more information go to:
Senator Clinton's rating: CLINTON on the ENVIRO
Senator McCain's rating: McCAIN on the ENVIRO
Senator Obama's rating: OBAMA on the ENVIRO
These are some of the questions the League of Conservation Voters attempt to answer through the lens of sustainability/environmentalism.
By examining each of the three leading candidates (Clinton, McCain and Obama) the League helps voters help themselves and the planet.
Think of Justice League...only without the shields and capes.
For more information go to:
Senator Clinton's rating: CLINTON on the ENVIRO
Senator McCain's rating: McCAIN on the ENVIRO
Senator Obama's rating: OBAMA on the ENVIRO
Wednesday, June 06, 2007
SALUTE TO LOCAL ACTIVISTS
This Saturday June 9, 2007, MAYOR DAVID MILLER will open the annual Centre for Social Justice Awards at Toronto City Hall.
The Social Justice Awards recognizes those who devote their time and energy to the pursuit of social justice. These awards encourage youth and young adults to take action to improve their communities. The awards celebrate those who work for social change, provide services to disadvantage members of our society and help newcomers in their difficult transition to a new life in Toronto.
The 2007 Social Justice Awards will recognize the following individuals in these categories:
Youth Award (age 12-19) -Clayton Thomas
Young Adult Award (age 20-29)- Rebecca Beayn
Neighbourhood Organizing Award -Myriam Canas-Mendes
Outstanding Achievement Award - The Campaign to Stop Secret Trials in Canada
Life-time Achievement Award - John Rae
Come and join us for an afternoon of celebration with the Mayor and local distinguished activists who are working toward social change and social justice.
The Social Justice Awards recognizes those who devote their time and energy to the pursuit of social justice. These awards encourage youth and young adults to take action to improve their communities. The awards celebrate those who work for social change, provide services to disadvantage members of our society and help newcomers in their difficult transition to a new life in Toronto.
The 2007 Social Justice Awards will recognize the following individuals in these categories:
Youth Award (age 12-19) -Clayton Thomas
Young Adult Award (age 20-29)- Rebecca Beayn
Neighbourhood Organizing Award -Myriam Canas-Mendes
Outstanding Achievement Award - The Campaign to Stop Secret Trials in Canada
Life-time Achievement Award - John Rae
Come and join us for an afternoon of celebration with the Mayor and local distinguished activists who are working toward social change and social justice.
Wednesday, May 02, 2007
Sad truth about the big "C"
Four years ago I underwent the most painful and traumatic period of my life. Four days after my father was diagnosed with non-small-cell lung cancer, he squeezed our hands, gasped his last breathe and died in a Calgary hospital. He was 59 years old.
This morning I awoke to be greeted with a detailed, personalized account of a cousin's battle with cancer. I have never met this cousin, in fact I am not even sure how she fits into the family tree -- but I am included on the list as a member of the King family, with origins in Liverpool, England.
The sad reality is my cousin Joanne is a statistic. A sad and devastating statistic.
According to the Canadian Cancer Society, at least 2,000 Canadians between 20 and 44 will die from cancer in 2007. Another 15,000 will be diagnosed with cancer. This statistic is shocking as the disease was, once, commonly associated with the aging process. Now, however, cancer is no longer an elderly disease. Now it is the disease of our times -- a rapid growth in cellular structure that produces terminal results.
For my cousin Barry and his wife Joanne, it is the death of a mother, a wife and a friend. For my immediate family it was the loss of a father, a caregiver and a peacemaker. For many others it is the physical destruction of family units and structures.
What is even more shocking is that almost two-thirds of all diagnosed cancer in young adults (people aged 20 to 44) occurs in women, according to the Canadian Cancer Society. Two-thirds! The higher rate is due to gender-related differences -- as women are far more prone to breast cancer and are susceptible to cervical cancer.
According to a report from the Canadian Cancer Society: "If cancers of the breast, cervix,ovary and uterus are excluded for women and cancer of the testis for men, the number of incident cancers and the incidence rate are slightly higher for men (33,033 and 53.8 per 100,000, respectively) than for women (31,380 and 49.3 per 100,000, respectively)."
While the statistics are shocking, it is the emotional upheaval and aftermath that is truly shameful. To lose a mother or lover so young often appears an injustice...and the anger and rage that can accompany such a loss can often be debillitating.
However, with four years of distance between me and the loss of my father I can safely say that life does go on. While my heart and thoughts are will my cousin and his wife, while I can empathize and appreciate the tragedy and loss they are about to experience...I also know that all we can do is make the best of what we have.
My prayers are will you. Wherever you are.
This morning I awoke to be greeted with a detailed, personalized account of a cousin's battle with cancer. I have never met this cousin, in fact I am not even sure how she fits into the family tree -- but I am included on the list as a member of the King family, with origins in Liverpool, England.
The sad reality is my cousin Joanne is a statistic. A sad and devastating statistic.
According to the Canadian Cancer Society, at least 2,000 Canadians between 20 and 44 will die from cancer in 2007. Another 15,000 will be diagnosed with cancer. This statistic is shocking as the disease was, once, commonly associated with the aging process. Now, however, cancer is no longer an elderly disease. Now it is the disease of our times -- a rapid growth in cellular structure that produces terminal results.
For my cousin Barry and his wife Joanne, it is the death of a mother, a wife and a friend. For my immediate family it was the loss of a father, a caregiver and a peacemaker. For many others it is the physical destruction of family units and structures.
What is even more shocking is that almost two-thirds of all diagnosed cancer in young adults (people aged 20 to 44) occurs in women, according to the Canadian Cancer Society. Two-thirds! The higher rate is due to gender-related differences -- as women are far more prone to breast cancer and are susceptible to cervical cancer.
According to a report from the Canadian Cancer Society: "If cancers of the breast, cervix,ovary and uterus are excluded for women and cancer of the testis for men, the number of incident cancers and the incidence rate are slightly higher for men (33,033 and 53.8 per 100,000, respectively) than for women (31,380 and 49.3 per 100,000, respectively)."
While the statistics are shocking, it is the emotional upheaval and aftermath that is truly shameful. To lose a mother or lover so young often appears an injustice...and the anger and rage that can accompany such a loss can often be debillitating.
However, with four years of distance between me and the loss of my father I can safely say that life does go on. While my heart and thoughts are will my cousin and his wife, while I can empathize and appreciate the tragedy and loss they are about to experience...I also know that all we can do is make the best of what we have.
My prayers are will you. Wherever you are.
Wednesday, April 18, 2007
Peter's Principle & Murphy's Law, but what about Dr. Miles' Rule?
Does everyone know the Dr. Miles rule?
Oh sure, mention the Peter Principle or Murphy's Law and anyone can throw in an anecdote or two regarding these universal maxims. But what about the Dr. Miles Rule?
OK, for those non-legal beagles (in otherwords, for most of us) Dr. Miles was the manufacturer who, 96 years ago, sought to fix retail prices (of its patent medicines). The result was an antitrust ruling that was intended to promote competition by barring manufacturers from telling retailers the lowest prices at which they can sell products. In otherwords, Dr. Miles helped shape the 20th-century marketplace by giving rise to the manufacturer's suggested retail price, or MSRP.
So what?
Well, in late March US Supreme Court Justices were split on whether or not to overturn the 96-year-old antitrust ruling -- a decision that could once again shape the marketplace.
The rule has come under increasing attack in recent years, with critics charging that the century-old ruling was too rigid to take into account current market factors - including the perceived problem of "free-rider" discount retailers, who piggyback on the advertising, promotion and informed sales force of other merchants selling the same product.
Again, so what?
When we try to live a principled life -- a Responsible Life based on principles of honesty, integrity, respect and commitment -- then we need to be aware of the constantly changing state of life and culture. While the Dr. Miles Rule may have been an essential way to contribute and help capitalism grow*, it may now be a tool that hinders this system from adapting to the current market.
Like business, we must be constantly vigilant about what rules or policies now impede our growth process, rather than aid our growth. Take for example a common rule: no dating in the office environment. This is a simple rule that is highly beneficial and, for the most part, easy to follow. However, what if you meet, befriend and develop a close friendship with a special person in the office. I am not talking a surge of lust that lasts for months (or maybe even years -- depending on how prone to fantasy you are;) but the kind of relationship that takes into consideration hobbies, values, interests and personality traits. The kind of friendship you can live without, but choose to nurture and grow. Should your rule apply? Or should you throw caution to the wind and take a chance?
The fact is rules are created in an effort to protect and nurture one aspect of life we value over another. In the office rule -- mentioned above -- the rule not to date in the office environs is prefaced on the decision to put professional status and growth above personal growth, in that environment. The same applies for all other rules, including the legally known Dr. Miles Rule in antitrust law. We are all aware that the marketplace is changing and evolving and as a result we need to examine whether or not the rules our forefathers created are still applicable and necessary.
This process of query, analysis and revision helps us as individuals and as a society grow and evolve.
*NOTE: This blog does not endorse or criticize North America's choice to support capitalism. The blog simply acknowledges that the current economic and legal decisions are made based on the philosophy that this economic system is the initial and only choice of Western Neo-Liberal Democracies.
Oh sure, mention the Peter Principle or Murphy's Law and anyone can throw in an anecdote or two regarding these universal maxims. But what about the Dr. Miles Rule?
OK, for those non-legal beagles (in otherwords, for most of us) Dr. Miles was the manufacturer who, 96 years ago, sought to fix retail prices (of its patent medicines). The result was an antitrust ruling that was intended to promote competition by barring manufacturers from telling retailers the lowest prices at which they can sell products. In otherwords, Dr. Miles helped shape the 20th-century marketplace by giving rise to the manufacturer's suggested retail price, or MSRP.
So what?
Well, in late March US Supreme Court Justices were split on whether or not to overturn the 96-year-old antitrust ruling -- a decision that could once again shape the marketplace.
The rule has come under increasing attack in recent years, with critics charging that the century-old ruling was too rigid to take into account current market factors - including the perceived problem of "free-rider" discount retailers, who piggyback on the advertising, promotion and informed sales force of other merchants selling the same product.
Again, so what?
When we try to live a principled life -- a Responsible Life based on principles of honesty, integrity, respect and commitment -- then we need to be aware of the constantly changing state of life and culture. While the Dr. Miles Rule may have been an essential way to contribute and help capitalism grow*, it may now be a tool that hinders this system from adapting to the current market.
Like business, we must be constantly vigilant about what rules or policies now impede our growth process, rather than aid our growth. Take for example a common rule: no dating in the office environment. This is a simple rule that is highly beneficial and, for the most part, easy to follow. However, what if you meet, befriend and develop a close friendship with a special person in the office. I am not talking a surge of lust that lasts for months (or maybe even years -- depending on how prone to fantasy you are;) but the kind of relationship that takes into consideration hobbies, values, interests and personality traits. The kind of friendship you can live without, but choose to nurture and grow. Should your rule apply? Or should you throw caution to the wind and take a chance?
The fact is rules are created in an effort to protect and nurture one aspect of life we value over another. In the office rule -- mentioned above -- the rule not to date in the office environs is prefaced on the decision to put professional status and growth above personal growth, in that environment. The same applies for all other rules, including the legally known Dr. Miles Rule in antitrust law. We are all aware that the marketplace is changing and evolving and as a result we need to examine whether or not the rules our forefathers created are still applicable and necessary.
This process of query, analysis and revision helps us as individuals and as a society grow and evolve.
*NOTE: This blog does not endorse or criticize North America's choice to support capitalism. The blog simply acknowledges that the current economic and legal decisions are made based on the philosophy that this economic system is the initial and only choice of Western Neo-Liberal Democracies.
Monday, April 16, 2007
Reduce the Juice
A friend might scoff at these remarks I am about to make. Why? Because I could be considered a power-hog.
I run a desktop, radio and fan while working. In the kitchen classical plays on the dial (so my plants and cat get at least some attention, even if not from me). I continually run a single light bulb (artificial light to keep my plants alive) and am notorious for leaving a room with the lights still on.
But, I am learning.
The fact is climate change (and the growing problems associated with this global dilemma) are becoming more and more of a personal cause for many Canadians that it is becoming fashionable to admit, and then retrain, our old ways of operating.
In the Community of Shelburne, in southern Ontario, a team of high school students took the issue to the streets. This group of conscientious kids went door-to-door with an energy conservation education program that aimed to:
*Raises awareness of energy use in relation to climate change
*Encouraged people to reduce electricity use by 5%
*Created a model program for energy education for rural communities
The 327 Shelburne homeowners were given a brief survey and then asked to pledge a reduction in their electricity usage through nine specific actions (ranging from replacing an old appliance with an Energy Star appliance to hanging clothes outside to dry). Almost 80% of the homeowners took the pledge.
In another, distinctly different community, a program called the Brahms Energy Saving Team (BEST), hired and trained six tenants from an ethno-racially diverse tenant building that housed over 800 people. These six tenants were trained as community education and outreach workers (or Animators).
These Animators helped design and deliver an energy education program that engaged their fellow tenants in their primary language (working in the four most commonly spoken languages – English, Farsi, Somali, and Tamil) and in culturally appropriate ways.
Animators spoke individually with tenants in the buildings to raise awareness and distributed multilingual education materials that focused on simple things tenants can do to save energy. Tenants also received complementary compact fluorescent light bulbs and powerbars.
Toronto Community Housing supported the project by installing new appliances, including 400 new energy efficient fridges and stoves in apartments with older appliances and refurbishing all of the in-suite radiators.
These two programs highlight just some of the many ways that we, as individuals, can act and make a significant contribution in cutting our impact on this Earth.
For me, personally, the change has begun. The radio companion only plays when I am physically not in my office or home. The plants only get the artificial sun on gray days or for a 12-hour segment of time -- and ONLY with an energy efficient flourescent. The computer is turned to standby and all printers and accessories are shut off until needed. And I know "close the light" whenever I leave a room. It may not seem like much, but niether did the increasing individual consumption and use that spiralled from zero to abuse in the last 100 years.
For more information on how you can get involved go to:
Energy Reduction Tips
I run a desktop, radio and fan while working. In the kitchen classical plays on the dial (so my plants and cat get at least some attention, even if not from me). I continually run a single light bulb (artificial light to keep my plants alive) and am notorious for leaving a room with the lights still on.
But, I am learning.
The fact is climate change (and the growing problems associated with this global dilemma) are becoming more and more of a personal cause for many Canadians that it is becoming fashionable to admit, and then retrain, our old ways of operating.
In the Community of Shelburne, in southern Ontario, a team of high school students took the issue to the streets. This group of conscientious kids went door-to-door with an energy conservation education program that aimed to:
*Raises awareness of energy use in relation to climate change
*Encouraged people to reduce electricity use by 5%
*Created a model program for energy education for rural communities
The 327 Shelburne homeowners were given a brief survey and then asked to pledge a reduction in their electricity usage through nine specific actions (ranging from replacing an old appliance with an Energy Star appliance to hanging clothes outside to dry). Almost 80% of the homeowners took the pledge.
In another, distinctly different community, a program called the Brahms Energy Saving Team (BEST), hired and trained six tenants from an ethno-racially diverse tenant building that housed over 800 people. These six tenants were trained as community education and outreach workers (or Animators).
These Animators helped design and deliver an energy education program that engaged their fellow tenants in their primary language (working in the four most commonly spoken languages – English, Farsi, Somali, and Tamil) and in culturally appropriate ways.
Animators spoke individually with tenants in the buildings to raise awareness and distributed multilingual education materials that focused on simple things tenants can do to save energy. Tenants also received complementary compact fluorescent light bulbs and powerbars.
Toronto Community Housing supported the project by installing new appliances, including 400 new energy efficient fridges and stoves in apartments with older appliances and refurbishing all of the in-suite radiators.
These two programs highlight just some of the many ways that we, as individuals, can act and make a significant contribution in cutting our impact on this Earth.
For me, personally, the change has begun. The radio companion only plays when I am physically not in my office or home. The plants only get the artificial sun on gray days or for a 12-hour segment of time -- and ONLY with an energy efficient flourescent. The computer is turned to standby and all printers and accessories are shut off until needed. And I know "close the light" whenever I leave a room. It may not seem like much, but niether did the increasing individual consumption and use that spiralled from zero to abuse in the last 100 years.
For more information on how you can get involved go to:
Energy Reduction Tips
Wednesday, April 11, 2007
Where did she go?
Is that the question foremost in your mind?
OK. Is it perhaps the initial query you have after logging on to RK's Responsible Living blog?
No doubt you may have noticed that the blog has been neglected as of late. Not to worry, however, as the blog will be back with a bigger bang for the buck on Monday April 16, 2007.
Until then...examine the news, query the source, and always, always read at least three sources.
Romana
OK. Is it perhaps the initial query you have after logging on to RK's Responsible Living blog?
No doubt you may have noticed that the blog has been neglected as of late. Not to worry, however, as the blog will be back with a bigger bang for the buck on Monday April 16, 2007.
Until then...examine the news, query the source, and always, always read at least three sources.
Romana
Monday, March 26, 2007
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)
Wednesday, March 14, 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.
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.
Monday, March 12, 2007
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
Friday, March 09, 2007
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
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
Thursday, March 08, 2007
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
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
Thursday, March 01, 2007
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.
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.
Subscribe to:
Comments (Atom)
