A recurring theme keeps showing up in my life - women - so I am taking the hint and have decided to write something about it. Usually I start off writing a blog knowing exactly what I want to say, where humor can be injected, and how it will end. This time you know as much as I do, so let's get writing...or reading...
A few years ago I picked up a book at the UBC book store called 'Women and the Gift Economy'. It was my first foray into women-specific (read feminist) literature, and I was really moved by the idea that women offer a very unique perspective and set of values to the world. The idea of a gift economy, one based not on exchange but on giving freely whatever we could, really spoke to me. Giving something without any expectation of a return is a vastly different experience to 'exchanging' something, as we can all attest to. When a gift is given, its value continues long after the act has taken place, for both the giver and the givee. Yet with an exchange, the value of the gift is cancelled in the act of exchanging. Gift giving is based on offering what you can, while exchange is measured by what you have. One creates a sense of wealth, while other a sense of scarcity. Unfortunately I never made it all the way through the book; it was so dense and read more like a 4th year women's studies text book.
Last week I ventured to the book store, hoping to find something I could read to offer a new perspective on life, and came home with not one but four books. One of the books, 'Staying Alive', discusses women's inherent role as protectors of the environment and producers of much of the worlds food...that is until recently. The loss of knowledge, seed saving, and other important factors of sustainable agriculture are tied directly to womens' rights, or lack of, according to the book. For thousands of years women have been the nurturers of family and food; gathering, harvesting, and passing on knowledge of plants. Staying Alive points the finger directly at white, Caucasian males for the erosion of this traditional knowledge and the privatization and patenting of nature and indigenous knowledge. While I firmly believe that this is indeed happening around the world, I found the finger pointing distracting from the more important messages, and finally had to put the book down. My hope is that feminist viewpoints could be about celebrating women's role, not blaming the other gender for all that has gone wrong.
Flash forward to today; I came across an article that was truly a breath of fresh air on women's perspectives in sustainability. Ironically, it was written by a man. The article, titled 'The Essential Role of Women in a Restorative Future", discusses the need for gender balance in our communities, decisions, and boardrooms. There is no blaming or finger pointing, rather simply an acknowledgment that a lack of female representation in many areas has gotten us to our current situation. The author articulates that men, like women, don't have all the answers, but together we do. Analogous to your right and left brain, the two halves work together to produce the whole.
Wednesday, January 26, 2011
Energy efficiency is not enough
Amongst the many discussions on climate change, it is often noted that widespread adoption of existing technology to reduce energy demand offers one of the greatest opportunities for avoiding catastrophic global warming. For this reason, Information and Communication Technology (ICT) is rapidly becoming a hot topic for individuals, organizations, and regions looking to reduce their energy consumption. While only making up 2-3% of global greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions, ICT presents an enormous opportunity to generate GHG reductions in other areas such as smart meters, grids, and buildings. A recent virtual event at the Copenhagen Climate Change Conference noted that ICT can play a dramatic role in reducing or mitigating climate change through improving energy efficiency, enabling renewable energy technologies, monitoring of emissions and energy use, and collective systemic changes in the way we live and work.
The systemic changes in user behaviour offer the most interesting and unknown possibilities for change. Will users telecommute or teleconference? Will they purchase fewer physical goods and demand more digital products, thereby transferring more of their consumption to the digital realm? Will users react to the availability of more information by needing less of it? Or conversely, will users seek out more information and more digital products in such large quantities that they will offset the energy and emission gains made by producing fewer physical goods? This uncertainty in predicting user behaviors highlights the difficulty in projecting efficiency gains from the transition to a digital world. It is a known phenomenon that improving efficiency can result in increasing consumption rates. The Jevons Paradox states that ‘technological improvements that increase the efficiency with which a resource is used, tend to increase the rate of consumption of that resource’. In other words, as energy efficiency improves, the cost of goods or services decreases, which in turn drives up consumption.
So the question remains: will behaviour and efficiency changes enabled through ICT really reduce GHG emissions, or will increasing consumption offset the gains made? The most probable answer is likely ‘it depends’. Where ICT enables energy efficiency, particularly in the manufacturing sector, it is possible that reductions in manufacturing costs could indeed spur increased consumption. To offset this effect, policy changes and taxes, such as BC’s Carbon Tax, are needed to hold steady (or increase) the cost of certain goods and services, with the aim of preventing increased consumption. Where ICT can provide substitute products or services, policy instruments will again be key to promoting the desired changes in user behaviour that are systemic and are maintained over the long term.
ICT has the capability to significantly alter the way we interact with each other and our world, and this power can be harnessed for positive environmental change. However, ICT alone will not bring about the reductions in GHG emissions that are needed to mitigate climate change. Good policy decisions are required to realize the full potential of ICT and drive long term reductions in GHG emissions.
Sunday, January 23, 2011
Check in, not out, of democracy
Did you know that Canada had its worst voter turnout in history during the last Federal election? 58.8% percent to be exact. As a percentage of the population, more people voted in the 1882 Federal election (70.3%) than in 2008, and they didn't have the luxury of motorized vehicles. They had to get on their horses, carriages, or camels and make their way to the polling stations. Okay, they didn't have camels, but you get the idea...it required effort and dedication to the idea of democracy. It certainly makes the 41.2% of Canadians who didn't vote in 2008 look darn lazy. With polling stations on every other block, and the only requirement to cast your vote is that you have a pulse and are breathing, it's hard to come up with an excuse not to vote.
Why?
Why are people not voting? Where did the voter apathy come from? My two cents; it's partially Canadian culture, and partially our voting system. I recently met some foreigners, and speaking with them really drove home the idea that as Canadians, we are apathetic and far too polite for our own good. We roll over and take it, and never complain. Other countries demonstrate, go on strike, boycott, burn cars, and chain themselves to railways to make a point. Our most outspoken activists write letters to the Globe and Mail or organize kayak trips. I'm not advocating that you go out and burn cars when you are displeased with the tar sands, but hey, if you're unhappy with something, let someone know. And no, informing your dog of your discontent doesn't count.
Our first-past-the-post system rewards the large incumbents and hinders smaller parties; essentially preventing them from ever getting a meaningful number of seats in the House. Unless you vote for the winning party, your vote does not count. People are forced to vote 'strategically' in order to make their vote count. Proportional representation is what we need to be aiming for, where the percentage of votes for a given party translates roughly into an equal number of seats. To put this in perspective, in 2008 the Conservatives received 38% of the votes, but received 46% of the seats. The NDP received 18% of the votes, but only 12% of the seats. The Green party fared even worse, with 7% of the votes, but 0 seats. A voting system that allocated seats based on actual votes received (or some other fancy calculation) would ensure better representation for all Canadians, and give people more reason to vote.
Vote with your actions
You also 'vote' in actions and words, every day, by the things you buy, don't buy, do, and don't do. When I ride my bike over the Burrard St Bridge, and I cross those bike counters, I always think '1 vote for biking; 0 votes for cars'. My bike trip is being counted and noticed by someone at City Hall. When I go to the grocery store and buy organic produce, again, I'm voting with my food dollars. I'm saying to the grocery store and food producers, 'Hey, this is important, keep growing organic food'.
Be active, vote with your actions, and engage in our democratic process. It our best, heck our only, option for impacting policy and change.
Why?
Why are people not voting? Where did the voter apathy come from? My two cents; it's partially Canadian culture, and partially our voting system. I recently met some foreigners, and speaking with them really drove home the idea that as Canadians, we are apathetic and far too polite for our own good. We roll over and take it, and never complain. Other countries demonstrate, go on strike, boycott, burn cars, and chain themselves to railways to make a point. Our most outspoken activists write letters to the Globe and Mail or organize kayak trips. I'm not advocating that you go out and burn cars when you are displeased with the tar sands, but hey, if you're unhappy with something, let someone know. And no, informing your dog of your discontent doesn't count.
Our first-past-the-post system rewards the large incumbents and hinders smaller parties; essentially preventing them from ever getting a meaningful number of seats in the House. Unless you vote for the winning party, your vote does not count. People are forced to vote 'strategically' in order to make their vote count. Proportional representation is what we need to be aiming for, where the percentage of votes for a given party translates roughly into an equal number of seats. To put this in perspective, in 2008 the Conservatives received 38% of the votes, but received 46% of the seats. The NDP received 18% of the votes, but only 12% of the seats. The Green party fared even worse, with 7% of the votes, but 0 seats. A voting system that allocated seats based on actual votes received (or some other fancy calculation) would ensure better representation for all Canadians, and give people more reason to vote.
Vote with your actions
You also 'vote' in actions and words, every day, by the things you buy, don't buy, do, and don't do. When I ride my bike over the Burrard St Bridge, and I cross those bike counters, I always think '1 vote for biking; 0 votes for cars'. My bike trip is being counted and noticed by someone at City Hall. When I go to the grocery store and buy organic produce, again, I'm voting with my food dollars. I'm saying to the grocery store and food producers, 'Hey, this is important, keep growing organic food'.
Be active, vote with your actions, and engage in our democratic process. It our best, heck our only, option for impacting policy and change.
A leftie?
Blog from March 10, 2009
Yesterday was Monday, and like all Monday's prior to this one, my copy of the Economist arrived; stuffed in my mailbox in such a way that the cover always rips off. I read the Economist for two reasons. 1. It provides a good synopsis of the previous week's happenings, and 2. I still get a student discount rate of $100 for the entire year.
Being a liberal socialist, it's not often that I agree with the views expressed on those glossy, non-recycled, inked pages, but I choke it back because I think it's important to know what the other side thinks. This week's content however was singing a different tune all-together.
The cover, or at least what was left of it, was displaying a marijuana leaf and indicated the solution to drug wars was contained within those pages. My immediate thought was 'Oh no, the US wants to make marijuana punishable by the death penalty'. Imagine my surprise when they instead proposed to legalize drugs as a way to reduce illegal trade and subsequent drug wars, citing Mexico's 6000 deaths and drug wars as a serious issue, fixable only by legalization.
Hallelujah. This is some very progressive policies, and is divergent from the previous 'head-stuck-in-ass' way of conducting government policies. Next on the list, I propose that they legalize prostitution since it is also not going away, so long as there are men who want sex and women who need money. Sex, like drugs, have been around since the dawn of time.
The next article that warms my heart is one in which Carbon Capture and Storage (CCS) is cited as NOT being a contender in our clean green future. It has not been proven on a large scale, is many times more expensive than other clean energy technologies, and the only people investing in it are governments, i.e. not private investors, which is an indication that the market thinks it's not going to be viable. Instead The Economist cited carbon taxes as a productive method for reducing dependence on coal and fostering investments on alternative options.
Gasp! What a novel concept...a Carbon Tax. Everyone in BC, give yourself a pat on the back. Now all we need to do is make the carbon tax actually work for us by raising it to a level above negligible, which is where it currently sits at 2.4 cents a litre of gas.
If The Economist keeps this up, I'll be out of a career. Until then, I'll continue to get up every day and help to save our future.
Yesterday was Monday, and like all Monday's prior to this one, my copy of the Economist arrived; stuffed in my mailbox in such a way that the cover always rips off. I read the Economist for two reasons. 1. It provides a good synopsis of the previous week's happenings, and 2. I still get a student discount rate of $100 for the entire year.
Being a liberal socialist, it's not often that I agree with the views expressed on those glossy, non-recycled, inked pages, but I choke it back because I think it's important to know what the other side thinks. This week's content however was singing a different tune all-together.
The cover, or at least what was left of it, was displaying a marijuana leaf and indicated the solution to drug wars was contained within those pages. My immediate thought was 'Oh no, the US wants to make marijuana punishable by the death penalty'. Imagine my surprise when they instead proposed to legalize drugs as a way to reduce illegal trade and subsequent drug wars, citing Mexico's 6000 deaths and drug wars as a serious issue, fixable only by legalization.
Hallelujah. This is some very progressive policies, and is divergent from the previous 'head-stuck-in-ass' way of conducting government policies. Next on the list, I propose that they legalize prostitution since it is also not going away, so long as there are men who want sex and women who need money. Sex, like drugs, have been around since the dawn of time.
The next article that warms my heart is one in which Carbon Capture and Storage (CCS) is cited as NOT being a contender in our clean green future. It has not been proven on a large scale, is many times more expensive than other clean energy technologies, and the only people investing in it are governments, i.e. not private investors, which is an indication that the market thinks it's not going to be viable. Instead The Economist cited carbon taxes as a productive method for reducing dependence on coal and fostering investments on alternative options.
Gasp! What a novel concept...a Carbon Tax. Everyone in BC, give yourself a pat on the back. Now all we need to do is make the carbon tax actually work for us by raising it to a level above negligible, which is where it currently sits at 2.4 cents a litre of gas.
If The Economist keeps this up, I'll be out of a career. Until then, I'll continue to get up every day and help to save our future.
You're voting for who?!
Blog from May 11, 2009.
Voting on Tuesday feels much like having your wisdom teeth pulled. All four. At once. You don't want to do it, but the dull pain and advice of your dentist (who is supposed to know a little about these things) have pushed you over the edge. I'm not particularly fond of any of the parties, but if I don't vote, someone else will, and it might be more painful than what I'm currently feeling (dull pain, remember).
When comparing the lesser of evils, one needs to consider a) what is most important to them, b) the time-line under which decisions will be made, and c) what politicians are really like. Apparently someone once said that all politicians are the same...for the most part, I use this as my motto.
Any organization that has done any amount of research on climate change has concluded the same thing; changes - big political changes - need to happen soon if we are going to avert major climate changes. Most peg the window of opportunity somewhere between 18 and 30 months. Holy crap...that's soon. McKinsey Consulting, the UN, and every environmental NGO on the planet all agree. Hmm, makes one wonder if maybe they are right.
So if the air, trees, current outdoor temperature, health of your kids, and the water level in relation to your house are important factors for you, then so is environmental policy. The LIberals, while having done some great things - notably the carbon tax - they have also made some pretty stupid decisions when it comes to environmental protection, and they aren't repentant about it. Private US companies like General Electric (GE) now hold majority rights to some private electricity production in BC. I am going to make a wild speculation here: GE does not have our best interests in mind. Last I checked they were a publicly traded company, and Good Business 101 states that businesses are ultimately responsible to the shareholders. Yes it brought investment into BC, and created temporary construction jobs. However foreign investment dictates that money (revenues) will eventually flow out of the province. If GE invested billions of dollars into the private energy production, they are going to want their money back, plus a nice rate of return. Guess who is going to pay the interest...
The Liberals are also building a new, wider bridge in the name of progress. More lanes equals more cars, not less, and that equals more GHG emissions. But I thought we were supposed to be reducing our emissions?
Now, Carol James did a stupid thing; she said No to the Carbon Tax. She unfortunately missed the memo where Bill Clinton, The Economist, the UN, Al Gore, Michael Ignatieff, and heaps of other economists, environmentalists, and randoms all said that carbon tax is the right tool for pricing carbon into our lives and shifting habits. Similar stupid mistakes have been made by politicians going back a very long time, so I will forgive her this one. And while saying the motto over in your mind ('they are all the same') think about the countless politicians that have made promises that were not kept. What a concept.
So let's play the 'what-if' game: if the NDP does get in, do I think that Carol James will get rid of the carbon tax, even though everyone who is anyone says it's a good thing? She'd certainly look like a dumb-dumb if the federal govt imposed one as she tried to take it away. What is more likely? Well I'm not a political scientist, but other govts faced with similar issues have often 'cancelled' a policy, only to re-instate it under a different name, with a slight modification here and there. This will fool the masses, and appease the people who are really paying attention.
I am interested in protecting what it is about BC that makes me want to live here. I agree, it's not perfect, but I'm hoping my teeth won't hurt as much over the long run.
Voting on Tuesday feels much like having your wisdom teeth pulled. All four. At once. You don't want to do it, but the dull pain and advice of your dentist (who is supposed to know a little about these things) have pushed you over the edge. I'm not particularly fond of any of the parties, but if I don't vote, someone else will, and it might be more painful than what I'm currently feeling (dull pain, remember).
When comparing the lesser of evils, one needs to consider a) what is most important to them, b) the time-line under which decisions will be made, and c) what politicians are really like. Apparently someone once said that all politicians are the same...for the most part, I use this as my motto.
Any organization that has done any amount of research on climate change has concluded the same thing; changes - big political changes - need to happen soon if we are going to avert major climate changes. Most peg the window of opportunity somewhere between 18 and 30 months. Holy crap...that's soon. McKinsey Consulting, the UN, and every environmental NGO on the planet all agree. Hmm, makes one wonder if maybe they are right.
So if the air, trees, current outdoor temperature, health of your kids, and the water level in relation to your house are important factors for you, then so is environmental policy. The LIberals, while having done some great things - notably the carbon tax - they have also made some pretty stupid decisions when it comes to environmental protection, and they aren't repentant about it. Private US companies like General Electric (GE) now hold majority rights to some private electricity production in BC. I am going to make a wild speculation here: GE does not have our best interests in mind. Last I checked they were a publicly traded company, and Good Business 101 states that businesses are ultimately responsible to the shareholders. Yes it brought investment into BC, and created temporary construction jobs. However foreign investment dictates that money (revenues) will eventually flow out of the province. If GE invested billions of dollars into the private energy production, they are going to want their money back, plus a nice rate of return. Guess who is going to pay the interest...
The Liberals are also building a new, wider bridge in the name of progress. More lanes equals more cars, not less, and that equals more GHG emissions. But I thought we were supposed to be reducing our emissions?
Now, Carol James did a stupid thing; she said No to the Carbon Tax. She unfortunately missed the memo where Bill Clinton, The Economist, the UN, Al Gore, Michael Ignatieff, and heaps of other economists, environmentalists, and randoms all said that carbon tax is the right tool for pricing carbon into our lives and shifting habits. Similar stupid mistakes have been made by politicians going back a very long time, so I will forgive her this one. And while saying the motto over in your mind ('they are all the same') think about the countless politicians that have made promises that were not kept. What a concept.
So let's play the 'what-if' game: if the NDP does get in, do I think that Carol James will get rid of the carbon tax, even though everyone who is anyone says it's a good thing? She'd certainly look like a dumb-dumb if the federal govt imposed one as she tried to take it away. What is more likely? Well I'm not a political scientist, but other govts faced with similar issues have often 'cancelled' a policy, only to re-instate it under a different name, with a slight modification here and there. This will fool the masses, and appease the people who are really paying attention.
I am interested in protecting what it is about BC that makes me want to live here. I agree, it's not perfect, but I'm hoping my teeth won't hurt as much over the long run.
Snow in Vancouver...a Canadian affair
Snow in Vancouver allows its residents a brief moment in which to feel 'Canadian'. They awake to find their normally green lawn covered in snow, and promptly run outside, snow shovel in hand. They must shovel quickly and with great haste before the snow turns to rain, and the moment is lost forever.
Our infinitie wisdom on community planned coupled with the scarity of land means that most vancouverites do not have driveways upon which they can practice the sacred art of shovelling snow. Instead they are forced to shovel the sidewalk in front of their house, a less glamorous job considering the square area involved.
In similar Canadian fashion, the utmost consideration is shown to neighbours during this time. Each homeowner shovels only that snow which is directly infront of their house, so as not to infringe on the rights of their neighbours to enjoy this timeless tradition.
It is this brief and fleeting moment that links Vancouver's residents with the rest of the country. Soon the snow will melt and the city's residents will be returned to a life of holey shoes, umbrellas, and fair trade coffee.
Our infinitie wisdom on community planned coupled with the scarity of land means that most vancouverites do not have driveways upon which they can practice the sacred art of shovelling snow. Instead they are forced to shovel the sidewalk in front of their house, a less glamorous job considering the square area involved.
In similar Canadian fashion, the utmost consideration is shown to neighbours during this time. Each homeowner shovels only that snow which is directly infront of their house, so as not to infringe on the rights of their neighbours to enjoy this timeless tradition.
It is this brief and fleeting moment that links Vancouver's residents with the rest of the country. Soon the snow will melt and the city's residents will be returned to a life of holey shoes, umbrellas, and fair trade coffee.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)