“A Funny Thing Happened on the Way to The Economy” 1

Headlines are funny things. They come and go so quickly, like  stormy weather. Their intensity level is blaring, like a siren in the night. They can assert themselves like blockbuster movies, but are soon forgotten. 

News and headlines about The Economy often rule the day because we feel so much is at stake, i.e., jobs, our lifestyle, a second car, a night at the movies, paying down the mortgage, an education fund, putting an addition onto the house.

But in spite of a very small headline, I feel a recent piece of news deserves more play. If we fail to heed the warning, The Economy (and most things we link to it) will shrivel.

‘RECORD LOW LAKE LEVELS’

The news isn’t about changing our water-usage habits for the next two years, e.g., the need to take a 60-second shower or reduce the number of days we wash our car or water the lawn. It’s about the way we built our communities during the last 70 years and the need for a gigantic shift in the way we do business for the next 70 years.

And it’s not ‘new’ news with gigantic, captivating headlines. Here in Canada, home to thousands of lakes, rivers and streams, it may not even be on many peoples' radar.

More to follow.

Photos by GH

***

Should water levels be of great concern?

Please click here for a blurb about ‘lifestyle.’

.

It Strikes Me Funny: Fossil treasure cache, environmental carnage

[“The news is grim. The accelerating disintegration of Arctic Sea ice means that summer ice will probably disappear within the next decade. The dark open water will absorb more solar radiation than reflective white ice, significantly increasing the rate of global warming.” C. Hedges, Death of the Liberal Class]

On CBC News online the headline reads ‘Fossil treasure trove found at oilsands’, because last week, during her shift operating a fine piece of heavy equipment, Maggy Horvath came across a nearly complete plesiosaur fossil.

This gave one writer cause to report, “Alberta's oilsands is not just producing black gold — they're also yielding a treasure trove of ancient reptile and dinosaur fossils. The area, which contains one of the largest proven crude oil reserves in the world, was once covered by an ancient sea. It's the 10th fossil discovered on leases held by the oil giant.

This is great news of course for those who back the world’s largest oilsand’s development in search of black gold, because while Canadians are distracted by ancient bones there will be little thought given or talk about the oilsands as Canada’s largest CO2 producer and contributer to climate instability and as one of the largest environmental scars on planet Earth.

"I think it's great that I'm part of this,” said Horvath. “It felt pretty good to call my son and let him know that I found a prehistoric fossil while working in the mine.”

I’m sure anyone who unearthed a rare fossil would feel much the same way. It would feel good to see a part of our natural history come to life, so to speak, especially in the midst of one of mankind’s most degrading digs. A museum piece is found, thus making the largest scar upon our planet seem more worthwhile.


I write these words because Syncrude’s press release about the find and the media’s story is all one-sided.

That is, a treasure cache is held up to the light of day while the greater story - one of permanent, irreparable destruction to the air, water and land - is buried in the oilsands, thus allowing the illusion of mankind’s unstoppable progress to continue for another week, another month, another year.

***

Please click here for a look at 'Climate Change Concerns' related to ice shelves and ozone.

.

London’s Priorities: Economy, excess, entertainment, environment, eggs

[“At this critical juncture in our history on Earth, we are asking the wrong questions. Instead of “How do we reduce the deficit?” or “How do we carve out a niche in the global economy?” we should be asking, “What is an economy for?” and “How much is enough?” What are the things in life that provide joy and happiness, peace of mind and satisfaction? Does the plethora of goods that our high-production economy delivers so effectively provide the route to happiness and satisfaction, or do the relationships between human and nonhuman beings still form the core of the important things in life? Is the uniformity of food and other products that we now encounter everywhere on the globe an adequate substitute for the different and the unexpected?” pg. 298, The Sacred Balance, by David Suzuki]

I may have my city’s priorities out of whack.

Its priorities may be “economy, economy, economy, excess, entertainment, environment, eggs.”

Environment may even come after eggs. I may have to do an egg-spensive study to be sure.

People, we live in very interesting times, do we not?

For most people the economy comes before all else. And for certain, the entertainment section in local papers - just the movie listings alone - is always twice as long (at least) than articles about environmental concerns, reparations or improvements in the fair to middlin’ four-way crossing we call home.

Why, federally (correct or quote me if I’m wrong), we have a Conservative government that wouldn’t say ‘environment’ even if it had a mouth full of it.


Locally, we usually do a bit better than that, except when economic matters hit a rough patch, which is now - in the minds of many - most of the time.

When the economy is doing poorly, many other priorities suffer. Not excess and entertainment particularly (“We must have our mega-burgers and movies!”), but for certain, the environment and eggs, or eggs and the environment (you decide the order).

I began thinking about our unbalanced priorities after reading The McLeod Report.ca, London News, July 21.

City councillor Denise Brown, about her new position on council, said the following:

“It’s a full-time job, but it doesn’t feel like a full-time job.”

What frustrates her though, is the time it takes to get things done. Among the distractions she cites the renewed debate over chickens in the backyard...

“Do I want my neighbours to have chickens next to me? No. I know the animals chickens attract and that’s an issue and it will only get worse.”

On what should council be focusing? Jobs, she says without hesitation. “We need to get businesses into London. We need to make London very attractive to big business. We need lots of jobs.” (Phil McLeod)


["Dear Ann, Can we talk about chickens today?"]

And in Denise Brown’s world, and many other’s as well, when people focus on the economy and jobs, i.e., properly, as in ‘above all else except fat hamburgers and fabulous movies,’ there is no time for environmental concerns or interests. Discussion? Humbug. Factory farms will supply everyone with eggs. Forget self-reliance. Forget doing something different or unexpected. Forget backyard coops. They’ll attract vermin. Next!

Are jobs important? Of course they are. But, as far as I’m aware, good jobs are not disconnected from the environment around us.

David Suzuki writes:

Some people believe that a clean environment is only affordable when the economy is strong, but in fact, it’s the other way around; the biosphere is what gives us life and a living. Human beings and our economies have to find a place within the environment. The economic assumption that endless growth is not only necessary but possible is suicidal for any species that lives in a finite world. (pg. 298, The Sacred Balance)

Rather than fewer discussions about chickens, perhaps more are needed, along with discussions about other topics that focus on a healthy connection with our natural surroundings.

If time allows, we could discuss the vermin already at home in London and what drew them here. Was it backyard chickens?

And we could discuss the city’s priorities too. I may have them out of whack.

***

Please click here for a few words about our unnatural surroundings.

.

Climate Change Concerns: Our growth has limits PT 6

In a book of fundamentally sound essays entitled ‘Moral Ground: Ethical Action for a Planet in Peril’ I recently read the following:

“Our ancestors viewed the Earth as rich and bountiful, which it is.”

“Many people in the past also saw nature as inexhaustibly sustainable, which we now know is the case only if we care for it.” (Essay - A Question of Our Own Survival, by the Dalai Lama)

Most North Americans know and believe the above to be true, the next statements too.

“It is not difficult to forgive destruction in the past that resulted from ignorance. Today, however, we have access to more information. It is essential that we reexamine ethically what we have inherited, what we are responsible for, and what we will pass on to coming generations.”

We are of the generation that has shifted from a belief in the “inexhaustibly sustainable” to “forgive destruction” to “reexamine,” are we not?


However, humankind’s actions lag far behind.

In Canada, there are many who will encourage individuals, businesses and government leaders to do better - because they can.

For example: “Canada may not be a giant in terms of (carbon) emissions - at only 2% of the world’s total greenhouse gas emissions - but that doesn’t mean we can’t lead the way to more inclusive, effective, truly global agreement instead of abdicating that role to our big neighbour to the south.” (K. Reid, London Free Press, Dec. 9, 2010)

Sounds impressive, but, as a country, we should also be encouraged to lead the way even if no one follows, just because it is the right thing to do, and because, per capita, we are ahead of all other countries in the world - but for 2 or 3 - in emissions.

Though our Prime Minister will say that he takes climate change seriously, there will surely be no effective Canadian action to lower emissions for years to come. The economy is king to PM Harper.


Yes, the next recession may trigger lower emissions, but the PM will not be able to take full credit for that.

According to another essay found in Moral Ground, “there are limits beyond which we cannot go without breaking the covenant... between humanity and the natural world - and those limits are close at hand.”

“We stand at the fork in the road when we must choose between sustainability and catastrophe.” (A Letter to My Boys, by H. Murray-Philipson

Do we stand at the fork alone?

More to follow.

***

Please read Our growth has limits PT 1 for more context.

Please read Our growth has limits PT 2 for more context.

Please read Our growth has limits PT 3 for more context.

Please read Our growth has limits PT 4 for more context.

Please read Our growth has limits PT 5 for more context.

.

There is no good news coming from the Gulf of Mexico

BP engineers tried fitting a top hat over one oil leak last week. They’re sucking up some oil. But most is still gushing into the Gulf.

Engineers would like to start a procedure known as a top kill on Sunday. If it works it should stop the oil (leaking since April 20, over a month ago). From both leaks? I don’t know. But I do know a top kill has never been done at a depth of 5,000 feet.

U.S. State Dept. officials are worried that oil could hit The Loop current and reach the Florida Keys and Cuba.


["More than dolphins will not survive": photo link]

While BP is capturing some oil with the help of a mile-long tube and claiming some success (though more is escaping than being captured, so another claim might be that they’re experiencing more failure), real time images reveal evidence of what might be “the greatest environmental catastrophe” (says Rep. E.J. Markey, D-Mass.) in US history.

G. Barisich, president of the United Commercial Fisherman’s Association said the following recently:

“This is going to keep killing stuff and it will make whole areas incapable of supporting marine life.” (‘BP accused of coverup over spill,’ May 22 issue of the London Free Press)

Though the price of a barrel of oil has dropped $15 in the last few weeks, the cost to livelihoods and the environment has grown astronomically.

Think how much cheaper our future would be if we simply conserved energy in simple, manageable ways.

.

Will Newfoundland escape a Gulf-sized oil disaster?

Last night I read that work will begin soon on a 2,600 meter deep offshore well on Canada’s east coast.

I know about the economic and environmental disaster in the Gulf of Mexico caused by a massive blowout that took place in black, frigid waters 1,600 meters below the surface. In that case, the final outcome of the battle between man and nature is still undecided but I’m certain it’s going to cost mankind and nature a bundle.

(Will the sale of fossil fuels make it all even out in the end?)

Though a Chevron spokesperson told news media that the company would be careful to prevent a spill like the one in the Gulf, I worry, that at 2,600 meters - the deepest offshore oil well in Canada’s history - we may be getting in over our heads.


Would money invested in oil exploration and drilling be better spent on alternative sources of energy and conservation measures?

Because of the costly drama unfolding in the Gulf, I lean toward alternative measures, including conservation, more and more.

***

Does “we’ll be careful” do it for you? Inspire you with confidence?

.

Who is winning the battle in the Gulf of Mexico?

So far, if the Gulf disaster was only science fiction, we could say the giant representing the Gulf is hammering the giant representing mankind.

In real life, however, though BP engineers are fighting valiantly, they have suffered setback after setback against the wily wiles of the Gulf’s frigid and inky depths.


["Man vs Nature - who will win?"]

The most recent setback - an operation to place a massive metal containment dome over the larger of the two leaks.

The result - BPs massive blowout continues to spill almost 1 million liters of crude per day into the Gulf.

BP Oil’s next plan:

“On the containment side, we’re working two options; one is a smaller dome - we call it the top hat - and the second is to try to find a way to tap into the riser, i.e., the piece of pipe the oil is flowing through,” BP chief operating officer told Reuters (press service).

So, mankind will pull out a top hat and a riser from its arsenal.

The Gulf's giant quietly waits, a mile down on the ocean floor, with frigid water and inky blackness on its side.

Who will win?

***

Already there have been losers, with more to follow, I imagine.

.

Will the Gulf of Mexico recover in our lifetime?

I’ll go out on a limb and say, partly. If we live a long time and oil stocks go into decline and the price per barrel becomes much more expensive than it already is.

Let’s take a quick look at the current situation.

Hundreds of thousands of liters (800,000 - 1,000,000) of crude oil still spew into the Gulf each day from a blown-out well one mile below the surface. No solution yet.

The spill threatens the environment because booms are relatively ineffective against high winds and waves. So, the environmental disaster looms large now, and will grow.


[Guardian UK]

The Gulf’s US fishing industry (“the heartbeat of the region’s economic life,” says Pres. Obama) and tourism dollars and other industries are gravely threatened.

Still, there will be a slow turn around, because, as we’ve seen elsewhere, some fixing up can be done.

Money will be poured into the region after well owner BP America is successfully wrestled to the ground by the US government. Odds are it will go a few rounds but Obama can be persuasive.

Admittedly, spilled oil is a big problem, even bigger when we add in the massive amounts of chemical fertilizer residue (a by-product of the fossil fuel industry) that are washed into the Gulf each year from vast stretches of mid-America farmland.

I read the following recently from The Omnivore’s Dilemma by Michael Pollan (please visit Read This, side margin):

“The ultimate fate of the nitrates (e.g., applied to vast cornfields in Iowa) is to flow down the Mississippi into the Gulf of mexico, where their deadly fertility poisons the marine ecosystem. The nitrogen tide stimulates the growth of algae, and the algae smother the fish, creating a hypoxic or dead zone as big as the state of New Jersey and still growing.”

Ironic, isn’t it? Crude is bubbling up from the seabed (bad enough in itself) and uniting with ammonia nitrates, a first cousin so to speak, and creating an even more lethal stew.

But if conditions are right (e.g., higher oil prices, for one) and our fossil-fuel powered lifestyles grow smaller, the Gulf will one day partly recover.

I might be 105 years old at the time but I’ll still pop a balloon.

.

Climate Change Concerns Pt 4: From a free lunch to a dead zone

So far, this series has touched on points from a recent letter to the editor and two books, i.e., Super Freakonomics and The Omnivore’s Dilemma.

The letter by Leo Phillips suggested we not only celebrate Earth Day but ‘every day by replacing meat and dairy products in our diet with healthful, eco-friendly foods.’

He made his case by stating that production of meat and dairy products may account for half of worldwide greenhouse gas emissions, contributes more pollutants to our water supplies than all other human activities combined, is causing global shortages of drinking water and is the driving force in global deforestation and wildlife habitat destruction.

Mr. Phillips didn’t say, however, why meat and dairy production are such heavy hitters to the environment, so I shared a few paragraphs from Super Freakonomics about our heavy reliance on chemical fertilizers to boost food production to keep up with booming population growth.


To help establish the link between fertilizer and serious degradation to the environment I turned to The Omnivore’s Dilemma by Michael Pollan.

In it we learn that chemical fertilizer is not a natural, clean product from start to finish. Quite the opposite.

Though I think what I said at the conclusion of Part 3 is true, that ‘the link between food choices, fertilizer and fossil fuel is visible to all, as is the link between fossil fuel dependence and environmental degradation,’ I’d like to share a few more lines from Pollan’s book (pg. 45 - 47) to underline the fact that as long as ‘the economy’ takes precedence over ‘the environment’ there will be no such thing as a free lunch.


When farmers turned to chemical fertilizers, farm production turned a corner.

Mr. Pollan writes, '(A farmer) could buy fertility in a bag, fertility that had originally been produced a billion years ago half way around the world... fixing nitrogen allowed the food chain to turn from the logic of biology and embrace the logic of industry. Instead of eating exclusively from the sun, humanity now began to sip petroleum.'

And we sip a lot of it. One major crop that is found in a variety of forms on everyone’s dinner plate is corn. Pollan writes extensively about corn production in the US and by so doing informs us we have much to learn about our current food chain.

'When you add together the natural gas in the fertilizer to the fossil fuels it takes to make the pesticides, drive the tractors, and harvest, dry, and transport the corn (or other crops), you find that every bushel odf industrial corn requires the equivalent of between a quarter and a third of a gallon of oil to grow it - or around fifty gallons of oil per acre of corn. (Some estimates are much higher.) Put another way, it takes more than a calorie of fossil fuel energy to produce a calorie of food. Ecologically this is a fabulously expensive way to produce food - but ‘ecologically’ is no longer the operative standard. As long as fossil fuel energy is so cheap and available, it makes good economic sense to produce corn this way. The old way of growing corn - using fertility drawn from the sun - may have been the biological equivalent of a free lunch, but the service was much slower and the portions were much skimpier. In the factory time is money, and yield is everything.'


Unfortunately, factory farms can get pretty sloppy with fertilizer application and thereby pollute our surroundings.

Some fertilizer isn’t taken up by the plants and evaporates into the air ‘where it acidifies the rain and contributes to global warming. (Ammonium nitrate is transformed into nitrous oxide, an important greenhouse gas.) Some seeps down to the water table... the nitrates in the water convert to nitrite, which binds to hemoglobin, compromising the blood’s ability to carry oxygen to the brain.'

Maybe that’s why the brightest idea to come out of North America lately about our food supply has been the KFC Double Down sandwich.

While food production has grown, ecological degradation has taken place.

Pollan writes, ‘The flood of synthetic nitrogen has fertilized not just the farm fields but the forests and the oceans too, to the benefit of some species (corn and algae being two of the biggest beneficiaries), and to the detriment of countless others. The ultimate fate of the nitrates (e.g., applied to vast cornfields in Iowa) is to flow down the Mississippi into the Gulf of mexico, where their deadly fertility poisons the marine ecosystem. The nitrogen tide stimulates the growth of algae, and the algae smother the fish, creating a hypoxic or dead zone as big as the state of New Jersey and still growing. By fertilizing the world, we alter the planet’s composition of species and shrink its biodiversity.'

Environmental degradation spreads as our waistlines grow.

Any bright ideas?

Eat less meat and dairy? Plant a garden?

Certainly.

And tomorrow at 4 p.m., our own City Hall will discussing another one.

Please click here to read Part 5.

.

Climate Change Concerns Pt 2: Are heaps of food and fertilizers just good news?

While reading and riding last night (42 miles of cycling helped me burn over 600 calories) I read a passage in Super Freakonomics that linked back to a letter in yesterday’s newspaper that touched on the damage to our water supplies caused by meat and dairy production. [Please link to Part 1]

Timely, I thought as I pushed past Mile 30.


I read that over 250 years ago, when Earth’s population was about 800 million people, there were those that worried “agriculture could not respond to the pressure of feeding extra people.” (pg. 141)

But then a variety of innovations, e.g., higher-yielding crops, better tools, etc., spurred the Agricultural Revolution.

‘In late eighteenth century America, it took 19 out of 20 workers to feed the country’s inhabitants and provide a surplus for export. Two hundred years later, only 1 of 20 American workers was needed to feed a far larger population while also making the United States the largest single exporter of food in the world.’

I also read that the millions of hands that were freed up went on to power the Industrial Revolution, and by 1850 worldwide population had grown to 1.3 billion; by 1900, 1.7 billion; by 1950, 2.6 billion.

‘And then things really took off. Over the next fifty years, the population more than doubled, reaching well beyond 6 billion.’

‘If you had to pick a silver bullet that allowed this surge, it would be ammonium nitrate, an astonishingly cheap and effective crop fertilizer. It wouldn’t be much of an overstatement to say ammonium nitrate feeds the world. If it disappeared overnight, says the agricultural economist Will Masters, “most people’s diets would revert to heaps of cereal grains and root crops, with animal products and fruits only for special occasions and for the rich.”’ (pg. 142)

To an economist, heaps of food on the back of cheap fertilizer must sound good - might even look completely nutritious.


["Heaps of peppers by the roadside on the back of cheap fertilizer?": photos GAH]

However, when positive agricultural growth leads to negative environmental results, i.e., “such production contributes more pollutants to our water supplies... shortages... global deforestation... wildlife habitat destruction” (Part 1) we should be more concerned about how our food is produced and how much and what we eat, shouldn’t we?

Especially if the link between food production and serious environmental damage is as visible as the nose on our face.

***

More to follow about ammonium nitrate production and use.

Please click here to read Part 3.

.

Climate Change Concerns Pt 1: Reduce meat and dairy products - a good idea

And not just during Earth Day, i.e., tomorrow.

Leo Phillips, in a Letter to the Editor (Apr. 20, London Free Press), suggests we ‘celebrate Earth day and every day by replacing meat and dairy products in our diet with healthful, eco-friendly foods.’

He makes his case by stating the following:

A recent study in WorldWatch magazine found production of meat and dairy products may account for half of worldwide greenhouse gas emissions


["Our farming practices leave a lot to be desired": photo GAH]

Such production contributes more pollutants to our water supplies than all other human activities combined

It is causing global shortages of drinking water

It is the driving force in global deforestation and wildlife habitat destruction

Perhaps the magazine article to which he refers shares more information related to each point, but his focus nonetheless is a good one, i.e., changes in our food production methods and eating habits are required.

Leo encourages us to consider ‘healthful, eco-friendly foods.’

I suppose when he says the above many think about the following:

Eating more locally grown produce

Eating more locally raised and butchered meat

Reducing the amount of meat in a meat-rich diet

Planning and planting a garden.

What else? Please, you tell me.

I do know that one other thought entered my mind, because last night, while reading and riding (gotta lose a few pounds), I came across a paragraph in Super Freakonomics about fertilizer.

So, to the above list of four thoughts I’d add a fifth:

Using compost in the garden rather than industrial fertilizer.

***

More to follow re fertilizer.

Please click here to read Part 2.

.

Newspaper Clippings: PM Harper did something great

Now I’m waiting for him to do something ‘really’ great.

If you didn’t hear, the Canadian Prime Minister deserves a pat on his little round head for his latest deed related to land conservation.

This from Saturday’s London Free Press:

The federal government announced Friday the creation of eastern Canada’s largest national park in Labrador, to be home to entire populations of endangered species.

The move has earned rave reviews.


[“In my opinion, one new park is a good start”: photo link]

“This announcement sets an important precedent for parks in Canada,” said Larry Innes (executive director of the Canadian Boreal Initiative, which lobbies for conservation and sustainable development).

Though the park is miles and miles away from the closest tourist it is said to be ‘a new approach to conservation, that incorporates traditional uses and celebrates Labrador’s rich and diverse cultural heritage,” so I say, thumbs up and tip your hat.

I’ll say two thumbs up and ‘really’ tip your hat when PM Harper sets aside an equal amount of land in western Canada around the Alberta tar sands, says ‘hands off’ to the oil people and preserves land the old-fashioned way, by keeping destructive development from ruining pristine western landscapes.

.

If water is at risk what happens to our favourite cold drinks?

They’d likely get more expensive. Filtration systems don’t come cheap.

Though the Grand River system (the closest to London of Canada’s rivers that made a recent World Wildlife Fund report initially mentioned here) is reportedly ‘well managed’ (though ‘increased demand for water from growing cities is a threat’) the same may not be said for the once clean and mighty Thames River, now a bare shadow of its former self.

If conservation of natural resources ever becomes important to the majority of people we may see some improvements in all natural waterways near high population or agricultural areas. But only if we change our treatment of those resources.

In the case of our waterways, how could we reduce our demand on them?


["Fresh water at Tobermory": GAH]

Stop washing our car with a hose, or as frequently

Take 2 minute showers

Eat less meat (meat industry is water intensive from start to finish)

Give up bottled water (plastic industry is water intensive)

Wash dishes by hand

Reduce coffee intake (coffee industry is water intensive)

The Great Lakes will thank you.

***

I need one more water conservation idea. I want seven in all.

.

Guess where the early Spaniards threw their dead horses?

I guess we shouldn’t be surprised that Canadian rivers are in trouble.

Of the 10 largest river systems in Canada only 2 are in near natural states. Six are in fair or poor condition. Five are in declining states.

North Americans have a long history of trying to control natural surroundings for their own good to the detriment of the environment and their own well-being.

From Land of the Eagles - a natural history of North America: A Narragansett chief named Miantonomo summarized the impact of early New England colonists on the land from a native point of view when he spoke to a tribal gathering in 1642:

“You know our fathers had plenty of deer and skins. Our plains were full of deer, as also our woods, and of turkies, and our coves full of fish and fowl.

“But these English having gotten our land, they with scythes cut down the grass, and with axes fell the tree; their cows and horses eat the grass, and their hogs spoil our clam banks, and we shall all be starved.”

The English had kind of a ‘let’s just do what we want’ kind of attitude. It still persists to this day.

Earlier still, when Spaniards tried every conceivable effort to gain control of what is now Mexico, they brought certain peculiar habits along with them.


When horses died they dumped them in the rivers, believing perhaps they had carefully washed their hands of the matter.

We may not be doing any better today.

The worst of the ten river systems is the S. Saskatchewan, and a recent report said about it the following:

"Canada’s most threatened river with 70% of its water drained for farming use."

70% more conservation of natural resources may be needed soon - from all of us.

.

Believe it or Not: There is another suicidal planet, with a twist

I’ve just started to read ‘The Suicidal Planet: How to prevent global climate catastrophe,’ so the following opening line to a recent news article caught my eye:

“Washington - Astronomers have found what appears to be a suicidal planet.”

[They’re not referring to Earth. Link to full article]

I thought it should read “another suicidal planet,” based on what I’ve read so far in my recent book purchase.

re Earth: “Only the radical rethinking of our relationship with nature can save the earth’s ecology for future generations... but, remarkably, an air of procrastination still prevails. Greenhouse gas emissions are accumulating at an alarming rate, but, in the absence of radical policy change, our day-to-day lives continue as usual.”

One twist with the newest discovery in space - the planet is not inhabited by humans, and is causing its own destruction.

.

Green Ideas 2009: My garden needs one more final victory

If memory serves, I came up with the plan to turn sod and plant my next Victory Garden way back in the fall of 2008 [see right margin for complete list of my brilliant ideas].

Not because my genes supplied me with a green thumb or Puritan work ethic but because gardening relates to ‘eat local’ and a cluster of other earth-friendly benefits.

I may also have been eating a cucumber sandwich at the time and thought, “I can grow my own for Pete’s sake. How hard is that?”

Not too hard, really. I turned soil with my hybrid garden fork, added compost, planted cherry tomatoes, Big Red tomatoes, Brussel sprouts, peas, Spanish onions and green beans - all quite handily.


["The hybrid fork: Fork from Austria, used handle from Fenelon Falls": photo GAH]

But then came a very wicked gray squirrel to my wee patch and the sprouts disappeared. So did most of the beans - twice.


["At present, the last of my beans": GAH]

In the last two weeks I’ve trapped three squirrels but not the wicked gray. His turn, however, will come. I guarantee it. And in the meantime I’ve planted more beans. (I’ll check a gardening center for Brussel sprouts soon).

Two pieces of information for the faint of heart:


First, I use a humane trap and release the squirrels in a park two miles from my garden. One beat me back home, I think - and I was driving my Civic at the time.

Second, I found a Brunswick stew recipe that includes squirrel meat. Seventy of the little beggars in fact.

The sound of it will seem unusual for Canadians I admit, but early North Americans and present-day Brits would be quite familiar with the taste.

What will become of that wicked gray squirrel? Time will tell.

***

Brunswick stew now usually contains beef, pork or chicken because meat is so plentiful.

I think, not forever. As we choose more food close to home, squirrel meat will make a comeback.

Do you agree?

.

Would you pay 5 cents for a plastic bag?

I hope the answer is no.

When a cashier tells a customer that plastic grocery bags now cost a nickel, I hope most people will say, “Let me buy a reusable one.”

People might say, “I’ll just put my items in this cardboard box I keep in the trunk.”

Or, “I’ll just carry this item under my arm. It’s a can of deodorant, after all.”

Five cents might seem cheaper at the moment but in the long run it is not.

Coincidentally, I’m happy to report that as I’ve heard cashiers share this news (re the 5 cent cost for plastic) at our local grocery store and at the beer store a few blocks away, no one has complained.

Not one little whine! Not one shot has been fired!

***

How do you see or handle the plastic bag situation?

.

Latest poll reveals a shift toward smaller lifestyles

I’ll make this snappy - you heard it here first.

Unless you were listening to CBC Radio Canada yesterday and heard the short clip about people adopting new spending attitudes and dialing back their lifestyles - with a positive view to the future.

Since the recession is adjusting our materialistic attitudes faster than www.storyofstuff.com, David Suzuki, Al Gore, the Green movement, Elizabeth May and our last credit card statements rolled into one - with very good results for people and the planet - I think it’s time for a name change for the era in which we live.

Recession (even deep fried) is so yesterday.


[Age of reason?"]

I’m looking for examples or suggestions.

The Age of Austerity? Too austere.

Era of Frugality? Lousy sound bite. The media would revolt.

Age of Reason? Very good... but taken.

Period of Practicality? Practical... but too many syllables.

So, grab your dictionary and thesaurus (warning - this is not another example - I’ve moved on) and send me your ideas. Something upbeat.

And snappy. We all like snappy.

.

Newspaper Clippings: Hot Air Worrisome - Greenhouse gases growing

I read the newspaper with scissors in my right hand.

It’s a habit I’ve developed as a writer, blogger, curious geek, man who wants to keep chickens inside city limits [see post below] etc.

The following, from a clipping from The London Free Press (Apr. 1), made me think of something from The Little Green Handbook (TLGH), one of the best books I’ve read about trends that are shaping and our planet - for the worse [see Read This in margin]:

“Two new greenhose gases are accumulating in the atmosphere... powerful GHGs growing quickly... used in industrial processes, partly as alternatives to other harmful GHGs and ozone depleting gases.”


(Another case of a solution just making some problems worse? (e.g. destruction of the atmosphere)

I found a similar entry in TLGH:

“Even though we have identified a series of greenhouse gases, we might be still surprised by new discoveries, because we release so many pollutants into the atmosphere e.g. one that turns out to be 18,000 times more efficient in trapping solar energy than carbon dioxide.” [pg 85]

When will we collectively learn to reduce non-essential industries? Reduce emissions? Reduce spending on non-essential items?

***

In some cases, the recession is doing what common sense should have done long ago.

But I'm not breathing easier. You?

.

Live Small and Prosper: Bits and pieces about solar and cob ovens Part 3

Finally, something about cob ovens.

I’ve had solar ovens on the brain for a few days (hard to tell, right?) and after one related post the following email arrived:

“Hi-Ya Gord! Been a long time, I know...too long. I've been enjoying your thoughts on solar ovens. I've always wanted a cob oven myself.”

“Oh and, I loved your cartoon of the Fat Economy...so true!”

Signed, Myshell

[Yes, I post the odd cartoon... ‘odd’ being the operative word].

At first, I thought a cob oven was an oven in which you cooked corn or burned dry cobs as fuel. (A friend of mine heats his cottage with a corn stove).

Myshell was referring to something entirely different, i.e., an earthen oven made from cob (a mixture of sand, clay and straw), in which a person can bake pizza, bread, cookies, and much more.

After viewing many photos and reading about the building process I can safely say they are a ton of work (or more) to build, require a healthy wood supply to operate, but last a long, long time.


View a team building effort here.

View several other informative links here.

View Myshell’s first connection with cob ovens here.

***

I think cob ovens do serve a very useful purpose. The wood supply, however would be a challenge to maintain for many urbanites.

Thoughts? Opinions?

.