The Future or Now?

In 2002, the Liberals held a retreat in Meech Lake, QC to debate whether to ratify the Kyoto agreement on climate change. (Globe and Mail, January 29, 2007, http://www.theglobeandmail.com/servlet/story/RTGAM.20070129.wxclimate29/
BNStory/ClimateChange/home)

At the time, Dr. Gordon McBean, one of Canada’s top climatologists warned the Canadian leaders of the effects of climate change, but admitted that society would only see the benefits a few decades down the road. According to the article, one of the ministers had an unfortunate but predictable reaction: "And there will be nothing for us between now and the next election?" the minister asked, "Why would we do this?"

When political leaders have some of the most power and influence in making significant change in society, how easy is it for them to balance the need for human benefit, and the need to be re-elected? I think that in an ideal situation, political leaders join the ranks to "change the world" or at least, to make positive change in their country. But isn’t it a realistic fact that on some level, all politicians share the same common goal: To be re-elected? How does a four-year cycle impact the decision-making in a country?

With important and on-going issues such as the environment, health care, and education often topping the lists of issues that politicians need to deal with, how do they appropriately balance the benefit to future generations and the benefit to themselves? As we’ve seen, even when certain governments agree to abide by long-term agreements such as the Kyoto Protocol, it is easy for another government to choose not to fulfill that obligation. Are there ways to coerce the country to think in long-range forecasts?

Are Trust and Voter Apathy Related?

A new survey released on January 22, 2007 reports on the professions that Canadians consider the most trustworthy. The poll, conducted for Sympatico/MSN by Ipsos Reid, found that 93% of Canadians rate firefighters as the most trustworthy professionals. Of interest, is that politicians were lowest on the list, ranking at only 7% with the local car salesmen. Read the survey here: http:/www.ccnmatthews.com/news/releases/show.jsp?action=showRelease&searchText=false&showText=all&actionFor=631793

My question then, is whether there is a correlation between lack of trust and voter apathy? If trust were lacking, I feel that I would in fact, be more likely to vote. In the 2006 federal election, only 64% of people eligible to vote actually did. Several electoral districts were actually won by acclamation; therefore, neither eligible voters nor actual votes were recorded. The 2004 election had an even more depressing turnout at 60%, the lowest turnout in Canadian history!

The survey respondents identified factors such as integrity, commitment to promises, and reliability as the most important attribute to assess trustworthiness. Less important attributes were professionalism, reputation, personal experience, and contribution to society.

If something as critical as lack of trust will not drive people to vote, what are the issues that would?

Canada 2020 - Guanxi

I recently contributed a personal commentary on Canada's trade relations with China, which has been posted on the Canada 2020 blog. Check it out at: http://www.canada2020.ca/blog/canada-in-the-world/guanxi/

Canada 2020 is a non-partisan, progressive centre created to provide policy options and ideas for Canadian decision makers and leaders.

The Clock is Ticking...

In an unprecedented announcement, some of the world’s leading scientists announced today that the world has once again nudged closer to a nuclear catastrophe and environmental disaster.

Today, the Bulletin of Atomic Scientists (BAS) pushed the hand of its symbolic Doomsday Clock two minutes closer to midnight – the figurative end of civilization. (http://www.thebulletin.org/weekly-highlight/20070117.html)

The Clock has followed the progress of nuclear tensions around the world, adding recently the threat of climate change. The bulletin’s editor, Mark Strauss told The Associated Press: “There's a realization that we are changing our climate for the worse [and] that would have catastrophic effects. Although the threat is not as dire as that of nuclear weapons right now, in the long term we are looking at a serious threat.”

According to the latest news release, the BAS has concluded “that the dangers posed by climate change are nearly as dire as those posed by nuclear weapons. The effects may be less dramatic in the short term than the destruction that could be wrought by nuclear explosions, but over the next three to four decades climate change could cause drastic harm to the habitats upon which human societies depend for survival.”

The BAS reports: “Disruptions in climate already appear to be happening faster in some regions than earlier predicted. In some areas warming has interrupted normal patterns, allowing insects to spread into new habitats, carrying diseases and destroying flora and fauna in zones that have no evolutionary protection. Through flooding or desertification, climate change threatens the habitats and agricultural resources that societies depend upon for survival. Coral reefs will disappear, forest fires will be more intense and more frequent, and heat waves and storms more damaging. In coming years, coastal cities will bear the brunt of sea-level rise, as we have already witnessed in New Orleans, compelling major shifts in human settlement patterns. As such, climate change is also likely to contribute to mass migrations and even to wars over arable land, water, and other natural resources.” (http://www.thebulletin.org/weekly-highlight/weekly-highlight.html)

To Be a Witness

Growing up, I used to dread the first snowfall of the year. I knew it meant settling down for what was often a long, cold winter. This morning, January 14, was the first real snowfall of the year in Toronto. And, what a delight! This wasn’t just a flurry; this was huge, fluffy white snowflakes that make perfect snowmen… I got out the door as quickly as possible for a walk and some reflection on the past few days…

The weekend started with a simple text message: “Tara! It’s your cousin! I’m in town for the night…are you free?” Now, this isn’t just any cousin, but my childhood FAVORITE cousin who lives in Mumbai, India. It was lovely to spend time with her, catching up and enjoying each others company after 10 years apart.

And today, as I walked through the streets of my neighborhood, enjoying each step, each breath, and each snowflake as they settled on my nose and eyelashes, I gained such an appreciation of Toronto: The mature trees, the mismatched houses, the families congregating outside of an old, Orthodox Church. I watched with interest as everyone around me ran through the streets trying to get out of the snow, and hardly took the time to breathe or enjoy…

As I walked through the streets, the same Ben Harper song kept running through my head: “I am blessed. I am blessed. I am blessed to be a witness... ...Gather ‘round for today won’t come again”

I felt such a huge sense of calm and contentment. A feeling that now, now that I’ve decided to leave Toronto…I am also falling in love with Toronto.

Too Much Progress?

I was recently introduced to a brilliant book and lecture series, A Short History of Progress. Published in 2004 in conjunction with the Massey Lectures, Ronald Wright examines how history inevitably repeats itself, costing humankind enormously. The book’s main premise is that each time history repeats itself, the price goes up.

Wright looks at four historical civilizations: Sumer, Easter Island, Rome, and the Maya. Each civilization seems to have been destructed due to over-use, over-population, and lack of foresight. The lecture I found most interesting was that of Easter Island.

Easter Island, famous for its moai, the huge stone faces that line it’s coast, has carried with it similar mystery as that of Stonehenge. How these statues were created and moved in a place that, today, is entirely covered by grassland remains a mystery. Wright speculates that for a generation or so, "there was enough old lumber to haul the great stones and still keep a few canoes seaworthy for deep water". The people of Easter Island exhausted all possible resources, including eating their own dogs and all nesting birds when finally there was absolutely nothing left, eventually resorting to cannibalism. All that was left were the stone giants who symbolized the devouring of a whole island. By the end, there were more than a thousand moai, which was one for every ten islanders. When the Europeans arrived in the eighteenth century, the worst was over and they only found one or two living souls per statue.

My question then, is the same as Wright’s: How much progress is too much? When will humankind learn that this huge overuse of resources will not result in the loss of one civilization, but of our entire civilization? When will we stop depleting our forests? Our oil reserves? Our water supply?

Wright eloquently comments on this path of self-destruction on page 7: “The most immediate threat, however, may be nothing more glamorous than our own waste. Like most problems with technology, pollution is a problem of scale. The biosphere may have been able to tolerate our dirty old friends coal and oil if we’d burned them gradually, but how long can it withstand a blaze of consumption so frenzied that the dark side of this planet glows like a fanned ember in the night of space?”

This is of particular concern as Prime Minister Harper recently predicted that Canada is headed to be 50 per cent above its Kyoto target in 2012, and that the government’s approach will not include meeting Canada’s international targets under the Kyoto Protocol. As the opposition NDP leader, Jack Layton states: “such a commentary suggests he's accepting a kind of inevitability.”

As Wright again, unfortunately predicts correctly: “Steady warming will be bad enough, but the worst outcome would be the sudden overturning of earth’s climatic balance – back to its old regime of sweats and chills. If that happens, crops will fail everywhere and the great experiment of civilization will come to a catastrophic end.” (p.53)

The question remains: Will it be in our lifetime?

The Grammar Nazi

Many of my friends and past colleagues have lovingly nicknamed me “The Grammar Nazi”. Lovingly, I’m sure. I learned early on in life that you don’t make friends by correcting their speech. I can just imagine some of my early childhood conversations, held over fruit snacks and sandboxes:
Friend: “Hey Tara, can you borrow me your Dr. Seuss book?”
Me: “No, but I can lend it to you.”
Friend: “Seriously Tara, I seen it on Sesame Street. It’s supposed to be great.”
Me: “You saw it on Sesame Street?”
Friend: “Nevermind, I see if my mom’s boughten it for me”
Me: “Boughten? Is that a word?”

Now, imagine my surprise some 20 years later when on my way home for the holidays, I had the great pleasure and frustration of witnessing one of the most profound examples of bad grammar I’ve ever seen. On the back of a young man’s shirt, it said: “And Damn, Proud of It”. Damn (comma)? I learned that the shirt was attempting to say: “Indian, and damn proud of it!” Clearly, my first reaction was to figure out why there would be a comma after “damn”. Was this a new attempt at a tee-shirt knock-off? Had the sweatshops resorted to grammar to change a brand? What happened to the usual changes, like the backwards Nike swoosh? Or “Prado” instead of “Prada”? Grammar? Really? It couldn’t be.

Needless to say, this misplaced comma haunted me over the holidays as I began to add a long pause after many words as a sort of joke. Sort of, because I think I’m the only one who found it amusing. “Have a Happy (pause) New Year!” or “I got this great (longer pause) new shirt.” On the bright side, I may have stopped correcting my friends (at least sometimes), but the Grammar Nazi is still alive and kicking!