HARDING: Saskatchewan Sustainability

[Oscar]

Just How Does Work and Income Shape Our Happiness?

By Jim Harding

Saskatchewan Sustainability Published in R-Town News November 6, 2009

Some can’t get enough work to subsist, while others work excessively and barely get by. Meanwhile, a few get so much income, that they’ll never be able to spend, and aren’t any happier than those of us with enough.

A billion humans earn so little they go to bed hungry, while the International Labour Organization (ILO) estimates that there are 600 million who work “excessively long hours” trying to make ends meet. (This goes from a low of 5% of Norwegians to a high of 50% of Peruvians who work more than 48 hours weekly, and includes 10% of Canadian workers.) Meanwhile the “super-rich” of just 6,000 persons, or only .0001% of humanity, accumulates incomprehensible wealth and power, shaping the life chances of six billion people vulnerable within the global economy.

The American Situation

In such an upside-down world the assumed link between work, income and wellbeing is on shaky ground. In consumer societies people spend less and less time at paid jobs. A July 2009 New York Times survey found people spending more time watching TV and movies than socializing. If you add in “other leisure” and “travelling”, more time is involved than spent at work. Research shatters the view that earning more money leads to happiness. The percentage of Americans that say they’re “very happy” has stayed pretty much the same, clustering around $15,000 per capita GDP (gross domestic product) a year, even though per capita income has nearly tripled over 50 years. Once people start to make ends meet, values other than making money become paramount. Yet mass advertising, always trying to turn manufactured “wants” into “needs”, indoctrinates Americans to think otherwise. While people predict their own and other’s happiness will rise sharply as income rises, according to research reported in the journal Alternatives(35:6, 2009), actual happiness ratings don’t fluctuate much after $30,000 income.

There was a remarkable value shift among upcoming US students in the mid-1970s towards being “very well-off” financially rather than creating a meaningful life. By the 1980s a generation of consuming youth had swung full-circle from the protests and frugality of the sixties. This occurred when the neo-liberal politics of privatization, de-regulation and free trade was advancing and corporate globalization was expanding. But what actually happened with this push for unfettered growth and trading over recent decades? By 2007, 50% of all US income was going to the top 10% of earners. (From the post-WW II period until the early 1980s the top 10% received one-third of the total income.) Not surprisingly, the last time this happened was just before the crash and depression of the 1930s.

Economic ideology is not consistent with economic realities. While the rich got even richer since the 1980s, the overall working population was increasingly consuming through credit and debt rather than from rising purchasing power. The growing “middle class” may live in large new houses, with large new cars, but even two working-parent families often lack the cash flow to cover the costs of mortgages and loans. No wonder some writers refer to them as “the new working class”. Meanwhile single parent families fell further down the economic ladder. Though working harder and longer, while facing these economic-induced stresses, people certainly weren’t getting happier.

This blind, frustrated quest for more was aggressively promoted by the mainstream media in popular culture. The expansion of what became known as deregulated, multi-national capitalism, which put profitable markets above general wellbeing, ultimately led to the financial crash and multi-billion dollar corporate bailout of the last year. It’s in the wake of this that we are all challenged to visualize what a sustainable society might look like.

The Canadian Version

A similar process, though not as extreme, occurred in Canada. In a compelling interview on the TV program “Off the Page”, discussing his 1998 book, Titans: How The New Canadian Establishment Seized Power", Peter Newman says the new class of rich Canadians aren’t philanthropists with a social conscience, but “Social Darwinists”; suspicious, frightened and not that happy. Lacking the respect of old moneyed families, like the Eaton's, those often referred to as the “filthy rich” have tried to buy respect, by donating large tax-write off “gifts” in return for having something big named after them.

Newman notes that it was in 1997 that Canada became a “money economy”; where more money was made from investing money than from wages and salaries tied to production of goods and services. Has this shift to more transparent greed undercut the belief that work and income increase happiness? It certainly matters how we view happiness. The US constitution speaks of “the pursuit of happiness” as though it is linked to the enterprising spirit. However, the author of the US Declaration of Independence Thomas Jefferson, saw happiness as coming from virtue, more like the Greeks who saw it in terms of the “well-being of spirit.” Canadians seems to be more concerned about contentment than happiness in the US sense.

Seeing happiness as linked to standard of living, measured in terms of income trickling down from limitless economic growth, ignores how social and environmental realities shape quality of life. There have been attempts to broaden measurements of wellbeing beyond the GDP. Those advancing the Canadian Index of Wellness (CIW) note in their June 2009 report that, while Canada has become “richer”, in aggregate, the 20% who were already rich just got richer. Meanwhile research from the UK’s New Economic Foundation suggests that only 10% of our happiness is connected to money, possessions and status attached to this. It seems that what Mark Anielski calls “genuine happiness” in The Economics of Happiness has to do with finding the right balance between society, economy and ecology, which is about sustainability.

Jim Harding is a retired professor of environmental and justice studies living in the Qu'Appelle Valley.
His website is http://jimharding.brinkster.net

[Oscar]

Why Eliminating Poverty Is About Human Dignity

By Jim Harding

Saskatchewan Sustainability - Published in R-Town News November 20, 2009

The organization “Canada Without Poverty” just initiated its Dignity For All campaign for a poverty-free Canada. Will this campaign be more successful than previous ones? A good sign is support from the CLC, Assembly of First Nations, and Association of Social Workers. One initiator of this campaign was Regina’s own Anti-Poverty Ministry.

Poverty has steadily increased since Canada Without Poverty's forerunner, the National Anti-Poverty Organization (or NAPO), formed in 1971. When Parliament pledged to eliminate child poverty by the year 2000 the percentage of children living in poverty was under 12%. It’s now over 15%. Over this period poverty among seniors nearly doubled. Meanwhile, since the 1970s, Canada’s GDP has more than doubled to $36,000 per capita. The promise among all political parties was that poverty would decline with economic growth, yet the opposite has happened.

A study by the Canadian Centre for Policy Alternatives found that by 2006, the top 10% of Saskatchewan families were getting 28% of all income, while the bottom 50% were getting only 18%. Imagine 100 people having $100 to distribute along these lines. Ten people would get $28 ($2.80 each) while 50 people would get $18 (36 cents each). The 50 people at the bottom would get only 13% of the income going to the top ten.

Such glaring maldistribution and inequality creates poverty. The United Nations says that poverty results from “chronic deprivation of the resources, capabilities, choices, security and power necessary for the enjoyment of an adequate standard of living and other civil, cultural, economic political and social rights.” It’s not just about sub-standard housing and poor nutrition creating unhealthy children and adults. It’s also about the right to participate fully. It’s about democracy. Thirteen percent of women and nine percent of men in Saskatchewan live in poverty. We have the third highest rate of child poverty in Canada, and Indigenous families are very overrepresented. One in four seniors living alone lives in poverty. You likely know someone living in such circumstance: perhaps a neighbor, a relative, a friend, or even yourself.

TIME FOR HARD QUESTIONS

It’s time for hard questions. Why, when per capita income has more than doubled, have 700 Food Banks been created across the country? (The Regina Food Bank now serves 1,000 persons each and every day.) And, are Food Banks really the way to create Dignity For All? The annual CBC food-bank drive certainly encourages more charitable giving. However, competition with another CBC station, to see which city can get the most donations for the poor, is beginning to sound like a promotional sport.

If we open our eyes and hearts we see signs of growing poverty in our midst. During the recent economic “boom” the average monthly rent for a 2-bedroom apartment In Regina skyrocketed to nearly $800, while the amount social assistance pays for shelter for a family of 1 or 2 children is under $600. 350 people now sleep in homeless shelters each night in Regina. Will that number soon rise?

For no reason of their own, the life-chances of children born into poverty are greatly lowered; poverty has long been associated with more diabetes, heart disease, suicide, etc. So why do we tolerate this as a society? Having more than you need doesn’t create happiness, while not having enough does create distress, anxiety and suffering. Yet, due to an ideology blaming victims of poverty, we have created an enormous bureaucracy of rules and regulations where people have to justify their human need. Meanwhile, under international law, freedom from poverty is a human right.

MOVING IN THE RIGHT DIRECTION

The time is ripe for people of all political persuasions to work together to eliminate poverty. All our communities will benefit. Past federal NDP leader Ed Broadbent moved the Parliamentary motion to end child poverty, and Conservative Senator Hugh Segel is now calling for a “negative income tax”, to top-up the income of families not having enough to make ends meet. We are already moving in this direction with the Child Tax Credit and income supplements for seniors.

The Wall government took an important step with the Saskatchewan Assured Income for Disability program (SAID), which separates disability income from the Saskatchewan Assistance Plan, and ends wasteful and humiliating practices requiring people to have to re-verify their disabilities on a routine basis. The practice should be extended, as 80% of those on long-term social assistance have some form of disability.

Even with these improvements, diability income remains far below that required to provide Dignity For All. Governments from east to west, who have seen poverty in the midst of plenty growing from the recession and plant closures, are finally warming up to such income policies. But it’s noteworthy that Saskatchewan, along with Alberta and BC, are the least supportive. Are we perhaps still mesmerized and a bit hoodwinked by all the hype about an economic boom? Meanwhile, the facts show that wealth is not trickling down to eliminate poverty; it’s actually “trickling up” to increase the concentration of wealth and power.

Lots can be done to reduce poverty. Better paying jobs, increased minimum wage, comprehensive child care, and better training programs can help. Focusing on the needs of more deprived inner city, rural and Indigenous communities can help. A more progressive tax system which redistributes excess wealth can also help. But it’s time we stopped playing ideological and bureaucratic politics with poverty. Things have to change if there is going to be Dignity For All. We need to finally bite the bullet and create some kind of program which guarantees a basic income for all Canadians.

And let’s remember that dignity is not only inalienable, but comes from recognizing that the gifts of nature are not really owned, and are meant to be respected and shared. Next time I’ll look at why eliminating poverty helps move us towards sustainability.
- - - -
Jim Harding is a retired professor of environmental and justice studies who lives in Saskatchewan's Qu'Appelle Valley. His web site is http://jimharding.brinkster.net

==================================

Sustainability and Equality: What’s The Connection?

By Jim Harding

Saskatchewan Sustainability Published in R-Town News - Nov. 27.09

Since the 1970s inequality and income gaps have increased hand in hand with economic growth. Yet, those who were already richest, and got richer, aren’t any happier than those of us with enough. Meanwhile we need to respect the dignity of those falling below the poverty line that need and want more income to raise their quality of life.

But, you might be saying, “What does this have to do with sustainability”?

Well, first, economic growth that accentuates inequality is not ecologically sustainable; we simply can’t continue to exploit the planet’s resources and expect to leave a habitable place for future generations. Yet we have all, to some extent, been convinced that our personal and family wellbeing depends on the trickling down of income from such economic growth. So we’ve felt conflict between our economic self-interest and protecting Mother Earth.

Second, we now know this viewpoint isn’t really true. If we continue on with economic growth as we know it, we’ll continue to undermine the earth’s carrying capacity, while also creating increasing inequality and poverty and the instability that comes from this. Relentless economic growth degrades both ecology and society, and in the process, our quality of life.

This may sound depressing, but this knowledge starts to point the way out of our mess. Economic activity simply has to be altered so that it affirms more equalitarian human development as well as ecological preservation, which go hand in hand. From history we know that no type of economy lasts forever, or for long, so we can assume that change is coming. Corporate-dominated economies are designed to create markets to increase sales and profits, which requires unrepentant economic growth. The outcomes in terms of human suffering and ecological degradation don’t get accounted for in their bottom line.

So where can we look for examples of alternatives? Right now we have to look “small”, for we are in the early stages of the shift towards sustainability. Is there anything to learn from places where the clash between traditional economic development and ecological and human health is more blatant than in our back yard?

WORLD CHALLENGE

Since BBC started sponsoring World Challenge, its viewers have picked a project for an annual monetary aware. In 2005 viewers picked a Philippine project that uses waste coconut shells as material to produce huge nets. These nets are used to stabilize hillsides that are prone to severe erosion and flooding due to massive de-forestation from foreign lumber companies. The biodegradable nets then provide a stable base for re-vegetation and healing the earth’s wounds. Recycling creates meaningful employment that supports ecological restoration. A win/win situation!

In 2006 it was a Sri Lankan project that turned elephant dung into high grade stationary. Prior to this, villagers saw the endangered Asian elephants protected in a nearby ecological preserve as a threat to their farming, which was encroaching on the protective area. Now meaningful local work is tied to the success of the elephant protection program.

In 2007 it was a project in Peru which established a local economy around growing native potatoes. Rather than decimating the local ecology to grow cash crops, where most of the wealth goes outside the community and country, this indigenous economy creates jobs and income that stays local while meeting a human need for healthy food.

In 2008 it was a project in Pakistan which trained local women, always the poorest of the poor, as bee-keepers. They then harvested organic honey for the growing international fair trade market. The money the local women earn helps fund local education and health care programs.

LOCAL MEANS GLOBAL

One of the projects considered for the 2009 World Challenge award is in war-torn Congo. The desperate, expanding human population, always in search of charcoal for cooking, is often pitted against saving the area rain forest containing a mountain gorilla sanctuary. A local project to produce energy efficient cooking stoves and alternative fuels has made co-existence between humans and gorillas more possible. When you place this small success in forest preservation in the global context, where more greenhouse gases (20% of total) come from deforestation than from all human transportation, it no longer seem so far-away or insignificant to our own wellbeing.

All these projects show how economic activity can be reorganized to support both social development and ecological preservation. Instead of corporate resource extraction which leaves local poverty and ecological devastation, these projects show that fairly distributed income, community wellbeing and protection of forests and endangered species can be pursued hand-in-hand. There is no need for a trade-off between personal economic gain and community and environmental wellbeing.

We clearly have much to learn from these humble “third world” development projects and the far-thinking people who keep them happening. And we might ask what this kind of integral development would look like in Saskatchewan. Better still, we need to find and publicize those in our midst who are already finding new ways to produce food, energy and to build their sustainable community.
- - - -
Jim Harding is a retired professor of environmental and justice studies who lives in the Qu’Appelle Valley. His website is http://jimharding.brinkster.net

[Oscar]

Women’s Equality and Sustainability: What’s The Connection?

By Jim Harding

Saskatchewan Sustainability Published in R-Town News December 4, 2009

During the recent World Economic Forum in India a panel on achieving equality for women was broadcast by BBC. The panel included an Indian woman who is CEO of Pepsi Cola and another who heads the biggest bank in India. They promoted meritocracy, where women with the same qualifications as men get an equal chance of being hired. And discrimination against women, as child bearers and male dependents, has hampered such equality of opportunity, and this should change.

One panelist was the male head of Nissan, where women have gone from 1% to 5% of the company’s management. Even with this 500% improvement (beware of statistics), the situation confirms just how patriarchal is the corporate elite that shapes the world’s economy. The two Indian women on the panel are the exceptions that prove the rule.

One woman who said “women are a fantastic force which needs to be tapped” wasn’t endorsing democratizing the economy. Nissan’s CEO commented that women on his management team enhanced the interior design of their vehicles, to which the Indian bank chief replied “I know, I bought one of your vehicles because it had a place for my handbag”.

This is about market share, not equality between men and women. Marketers have long known that a car’s “sex appeal” can compensate for a sense of male powerlessness and increase sales. As some women get larger disposable incomes they are targeted as prospective customers, and women’s influence in the board room will likely make cars more comfortable.

What has already been achieved by creating a lucrative car culture among men can certainly be done with women; just as there is now success marketing sex-inducing drugs for boomer men alienated from the aging process, after years of targeting women with products to better measure-up to commercially promoted images of beauty. Both men and women are equally susceptible to commercial-fed vanity, but is this what we mean by equality?

EQUALITY, WEALTH AND POWER

The panel never discussed the distribution of wealth or the environmental or health effects of corporate products, e.g. diabetic-inducing “junk-food” beverages. Nothing was said about the role of the auto industry in creating climate change. Or, that while a few more women are on corporate boards, there is a worldwide feminization of poverty. India’s rural women remain at the very bottom as the income divide increases from India’s booming economy.

Saskatchewan women remain a larger part of those living below the poverty line, and they are much less involved in significant economic policy development. The twelve persons appointed to the Uranium Development Partnership (UDP) were all men. All four senior executives from Cameco and Trans-Canada, and the company they co-own, Bruce Power, and the French nuclear giant Areva, were men. Would it have made any difference if a woman was on the panel? I won’t say it never matters, for Ann Coxworth of the Saskatchewan Environmental Society was appointed to a Sask Power review in the 1980s, and her expertise on energy conservation influenced the recommendations. But it’s not difficult to find a woman who will be compliant with corporate interests. If there was parity of women with men and these women represented a broad range of community interests, it would matter. However, when corporations appoint women to management they aren’t looking for alternative perspectives unless this enhances the bottom line. As one woman on the World Economic Forum panel said, “it’s ultimately about the success of the business.”

THE OTHER BOTTOM LINE

But there’s another bottom line; though women make up half the human race they receive far less than half of the world’s income. In some regions women who get paid for their work (and many don't) earn as little as one-fifth of what men get. If you doubled, tripled, quadrupled the percentage of women in corporate management, their high individual incomes wouldn’t make a sniff of a difference to this huge mal-distribution. If women wait for equal participation in corporations to bring overall equality they will be waiting forever. A corporation committed to unsustainable economic growth would increase the income gap between haves and have-nots whether run by men or women.

Equality of women is at least two-dimensional. Of course more equality of opportunity throughout the existing economy is worth pursuing. So is the reduction of violence against women in the workplace. But we will never achieve the kind of social development that strengthens families and communities and protects eco-systems unless the economy shifts course. For women to get a fair share of the world’s wealth will require a redistribution of power, not a few more women on corporate boards that continue to serve the bottom line. And as more women have gotten into politics and government we have seen some priorities change. Nordic countries have the most women in government, and their per capita spending on the military is the smallest and on social development is the largest. Male-run oil states, the kind Prime Minister Harper seems to emulate, are the opposite.

Women like Gro Bruntland, past Prime Minister of Norway and head of the UN’s Commission on Environment and Development that coined the term “sustainability”; or India’s female scientist Vandana Shiva, who works with peasant women in non-profit community agriculture, won’t be invited to sit on a World Economic Forum panel. Their participation in society is about changing the way we “do business”. And many women know this. Women make up 80% of the on-the-ground leadership in Canada’s environmental groups. Polls show women are most concerned about environmental health, and, when you break down opinion polls by gender you find that women oppose nuclear power. We’ll have to go deeper than panels that showcase women who manage corporations to understand the importance of sustainability to gender equality.

Next time I’ll look at whether Saskatchewan’s recent Throne Speech embraces sustainability.
= = = =
Jim Harding is a retired professor of environmental and justice studies who resides in the Qu’Appelle Valley. His website is http://jimharding.brinkster.net

[Oscar]

WHY AVATAR COULDN’T WIN THE BIG OSCAR

BY Jim Harding

Saskatchewawn Sustainability Published in United Newspapers of Saskatchewan on March 19, 2010

David Suzuki says Avatar creates “a world that is instantly believable”, explaining, “the indigenous inhabitants of Pandora are clearly alien but not so profoundly different that we can’t identity with them.” Actually, they are tall, agile humanoids with tails like some of our primate relatives. They are splendid virtual-reality archetypes. And without the credible story line, the visual effects wouldn’t draw anyone so far into the fantasy. It’s superficial to compare Avatar to Dances With Wolves, or other movies countering Cowboy-and-Indian stereotypes. Sure, Avatar’s audience enters into the devastation of resource colonialism through the eyes of a male “going native”, but this doesn’t keep the viewer from going all the way. A disabled soldier, left legless from Earthling warfare, being transformed into the body of a Na’vi, is grounded science fiction at its best.

The invading Earthlings are out to destroy the gigantic sacred tree, at the centre of Na’vi life, so they can extract a precious metal. And they undertake this commercial exploit with all the military might of the Pentagon. It’s impossible not to be reminded of napalm bombing of Vietnam, or the shock and awe of Cruise Missiles raining over Bagdad. The gargantuan bulldozers grinding down the lush rainforests will be unsettling to anyone who knows what is happening on this planet now. It’s an action-packed, futuristic eco-fantasy, but the markers are clear. At the end, the Earthlings, defeated by Na’vi, on flying reptiles, are banished back to their dying planet. No wonder many youth experience resistance leaving the theatre, having to face the realities of endangered species and other ecocide.

The film has been attacked as anti-military, anti-capitalist and pagan. And there’s no reason why those who support business-as-usual warfare or ecocide should like it. The question to consider is why Avatar has resonated so widely. Over 200 million people have already seen it. It’s the most seen film, ever. The audiences in France are second only to the US, and Germany isn’t far behind. Avatar is the most seen film, ever, in Russia. Two-thirds of the viewers are from outside the US, which may have something to do with director, James Cameron, being Canadian, for his intent was clearly not to appease the American Empire. Normally such a stunning blockbuster would be duly awarded, but in spite of record $2.5 billion box-office sales, Avatar’s message is too contentious to get Hollywood’s highest honour.

AND THE WINNER IS…

Hurt Locker was pitched as a docudrama on bomb diffusers in Iraq. For director Kathryn Bigelow the film is indebted to journalist, Mark Boal “who risked his life to capture the tragedy and chaos of war.” But the film was tarnished prior to the Oscars, when producers were sued for taking names from the EOD (explosive ordinance disposal) unit in which scriptwriter Boal was imbedded. And, as a Globe and Mail investigation says, the “admirers don’t include those who actually do the defusing or destroying of makeshift bombs.” For them Hurt Locker was fiction, like Avatar. A real-world EOD expert has explained in detail how unrealistic many of the scenes are. Hurt Locker is, then, a bit like CSI. One producer was even banned from the Awards for aggressive lobbying for his film.

Yet, it’s a perfect film to try to put the still controversial invasion of Iraq in a better light. Both the US and UK need a boost to help them forget the mounting evidence that the war was a blatant affront on international law and humanitarianism. And, with this film, those who supported and opposed the war can find common ground. And, anyway, Oscars aren’t picked by the millions voting with their feet and pocket books. The Academy is self-appointed; accountable to itself. This year it adopted a preferential voting system, requiring support from over half of voters. Previously, each voted for just one of the five nominated films. With ten films contesting, to try to boost the industry, a film could win with a small block of first-choices. So the 5,777 in the Academy had to rank all ten and votes were then redistributed from the lowest first-choice film to others until one got over 50%. A film starting in 3rd or 4th place could win.

AFFIRMING THE AMERICAN DREAM

The last time such voting was used was in 1939, when the bigger-than-life blockbuster “Gone With The Wind” won over classics like Wuthering Heights, Of Mice and Men, and The Wizard of Oz. That was also a challenging time for America, in the wake of the Great Depression and with the rise of fascism. And the Wizard of Oz, itself a pioneer of film technique, also touched some ideological nerves. The Tin Man searching for a heart, the Scarecrow searching for a brain and the Lion searching for courage still resonate. I’ll leave it to cultural historians to see whether analogies stand up.

Movies can be a means to an end; they provide a backdrop to the real-life performances by celebrities at Hollywood’s gala events. The big story-line this year was about directors Bigelow and Cameron, previously a couple, vying for top honours, and the woman finally winning out. The fact that the movie was a low-budget, underdog indie film helped fuel the drama. The die was probably cast when Hurt Locker won best film and director at the British Academy of Film and TV Arts, for the Yanks weren't going to be outdone by their allies, the Brits.

The Academy wasn’t going out on a limb with Oprah by picking Precious, a film about an overweight, black, female victim of sexual abuse. That’s too much “victimization” and too contentious to reaffirm the American Dream. Hurt Locker is a safe movie. It doesn’t polarize people over warfare or challenge them about ecocide, and is cautious about identity politics. And the real winner… is Hollywood.

Next week I’ll explore Avatar’s unintended message about sustainability.

http://jimharding.brinkster.net

[Oscar]

AVATAR ISN’T ABOUT AN OTHER-WORLD BY Jim Harding

Saskatchewan Sustainability Published in United Newspapers of Saskatchewan March 26, 2010

The blockbuster film Avatar may not have won the most coveted Oscar, but it continues to challenge audiences to see the world through different eyes. The box-office record-breaker is being passionately discussed in reviews, webs and blogs. In his blog “Caught In Play”, Peter Stromberg, takes a slightly different angle. He reiterates that “Avatar is a utopian eco-fantasy about a world of lithe and powerful humanoids, the Na’vi, living in perfect harmony with their environment.” But then he despairs about the huge disconnect between the message about the defense of nature, and so many people packing into the theatre being overweight; filling themselves with junk foods dished out at entertainment factories.

Human realities exist on many levels. While Avatar must be judged in artistic terms, we also have to put such mass film-going into its consumer context. Are we perhaps not just consuming junk food, but also craving and “eating up” film fantasy? Many youth watch movies and play video games the way we used to go out and play games with our childhood neighbours. Especially since 9/11 and the economic downturn, movie theatres lost market share to people hunkering-down with their home entertainment system. But film consumption may become more public; the US market has hit $30 billion and this is largely due to the enhanced visual experience from 3-D, led by Avatar.

THE NEW “OTHER WORLD”

Is the theatre perhaps becoming the “church” of a technological religion? Is entertainment “escapism” turning the blockbuster film into an “other worldly” experience? The mass appeal of Avatar clearly relates to the experience of “oneness”; with the Na’vi being so connected with other creatures in their shared world. Whether or not someone ravenously consumes junk food, they may yearn for such a state of being. And why wouldn’t we all want more of this feeling, as we see what is happening around us, whether its urban sprawl or endangered species. With overtones of the Internet, the Na’vi “plug in” their burly braids, to communicate with the fluorescent plants they walk among and the magnificent reptile-like creatures which carry them. They are intimately interwoven into a natural order which unites and revolts against the interloper Earthlings. You can see why some would see the film advocating a return to paganism but this misses the mark.

When Avatar received the Oscar for Special Effects the recipient didn’t say anything about film technique, rather stressing the film is about seeing the world differently. We know what he was trying to say: the earth’s biosphere is a wondrous and energetic web of life and we are an integral part of this. But his words came out differently; he said that the real ecological world we live in “is just as” rich as the world depicted in this high-tech film. Director James Cameron and his creative inner circle spent over ten years refining Avatar’s story-line and special effects. It is a masterpiece of quality control of detail. And not surprisingly the film-makers, like audiences, remain a bit mixed up about the relation of the virtual and real. If it’s hard for a first-time viewer to return to the ecologically-compromised world “outside” the theatre, imagine what kind of a bubble those who gave so much of their lives for the film might be in.

Our ego identities in this consumer society are perhaps the strongest ever in human history. This magnifies our feeling of separation. However, even if our over-individualized and always desirous identities keep us thinking we are separate from nature, we aren’t. We are composed of the same earth, fire, water and air that permeate all the life we live among. We are, apparently, suffering from a bad case of “false consciousness”.

BEING HERE AND NOW

The world we inhabit is far richer than the fantasy world in Avatar; they can’t and shouldn’t be compared. It is in this world that Avatar was made; where we experience being so energetically connected to its amazing air-born, legged and rooted creatures. And why do we so readily identity with all this? Because no matter how much we ignore or repress this in our busy, time-bound, productive lives, we continue to experience our deep interconnection within the natural order. This isn’t a throwback to paganism. It’s a “throw-ahead” after centuries of dualism, where we’ve acted as though we were above and in charge of nature. And look where this got us? Avatar challenges us to confront the larger ecological truth; to envision what lies ahead if we stay the present human course. If you saw Avatar, tell me that some part of you didn’t want to stay with the Na’vi and not be banished back to the dying planet of the defeated Earthlings!

When spring comes, the life-force of plants, which has hibernated deep down in the ground, slowly rises back towards the warming sun. It heals the shell of the plants, so beaten from winter’s freezing winds. Earth, fire (sun), water and air all work together in this wondrous restorative process. We are more like this than we think. Though we have legs and brains and the power of mobility and construction, and, yes, destruction, we remain deeply rooted in this world. We are much more than plugged-in; our whole nature, everything about us, connects us to the biosphere. Each breath!

After the invention of the printing press, and the mass production of the world’s religious and other literature, many people started to imagine another world based literally on the written stories. This has sometime been used to justify the conquest of nature and, as it turns out, of each other. Film is an even more powerful media than print. Avatar can be another step on the slippery slope towards a technologically-induced “other-world”, special effect “highs” and all. It can also challenge us to become more aware of, and more rooted in, the sacred place where we actually live.

Next time I’ll look at the Saskatchewan bounty on the coyote.

http://jimharding.brinkster.net

[Oscar]

WILL AN “ECOLOGY GOSPEL” EMERGE FROM THE HARPER PURGATORY?

By Jim Harding Saskatchewan Sustainability
Published in United Newspapers of Saskatchewan June 25, 2010

Sustainability challenges us to change our ways but also to change how we understand ourselves as a species within the biosphere. This is a big shift in mind-set, for the dominant industrial society evolved without any fundamental grasp of its cumulative ecological impacts, and it’s only been since the 1970s that “environmental impacts” have been added into the political-economic mix. That’s only 40 years ago and we are still in the infancy of learning to live sustainably. After centuries of colonialism and exploitation there however remains well-funded resistance to the necessary shift. In Canada we see this most clearly with Harper’s minority government.

As the pressure to protect the environment has grown, corporations and supporting governments have countered with neo-liberal policies of free trade, deregulation and privatization. While this helped spur on profitable global corporate markets, it dislocated millions of people from their local economies, increased urban squalor and civil strife. Deregulation also set the stage for the recent financial meltdown and larger scale ecological disasters such as in the Gulf of Mexico. Collusion between government and corporations in the name of unfettered economic growth has consistently undermined proactive measures to address the global ecological crisis. The most compelling example is the undercutting of policies to reduce the carbon emissions that are increasing extreme and erratic weather events. Recent flooding in the normally semi-arid Maple Creek and Medicine Hat areas may be a sign of things to come.

OUR POLITICAL PURGATORY

Canada’s international standing has recently slipped from being a middle power which pioneered peacekeeping, to being the greatest obstructionist to the changes required for sustainability. Though Harper’s government lacks majority support, the opposition parties – both Liberal and NDP – have failed to muster a credible campaign for alternatives. The first-past-the-post voting works in Harper’s favour, and aristocratic Leader of the Opposition, Ignatieff, just doesn’t “ring true” with Canada’s grass roots. We are thus caught in a political purgatory. While the Harper government edges towards a more mean-spirited, authoritarian society, the alternative vision that could help us move in a more positive direction lacks political critical mass.

Though Harper came to power promising transparency and accountability, in just a few years his government has done more to undermine parliamentary democracy than any previous government. The proroguing of parliament prior to the Olympics, to avoid accountability over the Afghan mission didn’t go over well with the broader public. But Harper persisted, risking being found in contempt of parliament for keeping information from elected members. Harper’s undermining of parliamentary democracy also goes on under the radar screen, for we now find that the latest omnibus bill going to the Senate “hid” legislation that would no longer require parliament to be consulted about government borrowing. The opposition parties seem to have fallen asleep at the wheel.

Such assaults on democracy usually involve diversion or creating scapegoats. While our Parliamentary democracy is whittled away, the Harper government tries to keep public attention on “fighting crime”. Recruiting for the armed forces is done in the name of “fighting chaos”, while the very policies being pursued by Harper will surely increase international and environmental chaos. During the Winter Olympics Harper joined the bandwagon of hockey nationalism to try to gain mainstream support. After the G20 protests, he will try to use “law and order” for the same purpose. None of this is based on a vision that highlights sustainability; just the opposite. The centralizing of political control is in the defense of the unsustainable. Harper’s father worked for Imperial Oil, and with this oil background he has used government to undercut international attempts to curb the catastrophic impacts of the oil industry. We are now known internationally for Alberta’s mammoth toxic tar sands.

THE ECOLOGY GOSPEL

With the squandering of a $10 billion federal surplus and the $1 billion bill for the G8 and G20 meetings, the Harper government has pretty much abandoned fiscal conservatism. With Harper’s rhetoric of accountability so discrepant with his actions, the government is returning to old-style politics, trying to buy our votes with our own money. Local MPs try to get credit for expenditures made under the Action Canada stimulus package. A recent pamphlet put in my mail box on behalf of Andrew Sheer, MP for Regina-Qu’Appelle, says the “Conservatives have increased total annual federal funding for Saskatchewan by over 33% since 2005”. As proof it shows expenditures of $.99 billion by the Liberals in 2005 compared to $1.18 billion by Harper’s government in 2010-11. This is “apples and oranges”, for the 2010-11 figures include the massive federal stimulus package, and there is no mention that this has contributed to a $56 billion dollar federal deficit. Taking figures out of context is something every introductory student of statistics is warned about.

It was during a somewhat analogous time, during the ravages of the great depression when conventional politics also failed the public, that religion and politics joined force to become the social gospel. This inspired the CCF, for which all Canadians are indebted for Medicare. But since the 1970s the link between religion and politics has taken a turn towards fundamentalism. Religion is often used as a pseudo-justification for a more authoritarian, retributive government which goes hand-in-hand with corporate-promoted neo-liberal policies. And the environment always gets sacrificed in this alliance. George Bush’s militaristic, debt-ridden administration most reflects this convergence of power and fear, though a similar ideology continues on in Canada within sectors of the Harper-controlled Conservatives.

Pseudo-religious justifications for the right to exploit people and nature don’t stand up theologically, but they can nevertheless be influential. However, facing the imperatives of sustainability and our huge political vacuum, there are “rumblings” of a new spiritual convergence. Religion and politics may yet find a new creative interplay which can help us get our values and priorities right-side up again, and place both economics and politics within the broader context of ecology and creation. Will the Harper legacy ironically see the “ecology gospel” emerge as a new historical force?

Next time I’ll report on Saskatchewan’s First Solar Tour.

http://jimharding.brinkster.net

Jim Harding is a retired professor of environmental and justice studies who resides in the Qu’Appelle Valley.

[Oscar]

SASKATCHEWAN'S EXTREME WEATHER: THE ELEPHANT IN THE ROOM

BY Jim Harding Saskatchewan Sustainability
Published in the United Newspapers of Saskatchewan July 16. 2010

It’s been quite a spring and summer so far. Due to near steady rain, only 55 percent of the farmland was seeded by May’s end. Even by June’s end, after the extended seeding deadline for crop insurance, it was only 70 percent, which left ten million acres unseeded. Extreme moisture will reduce germination and maturation of some crops, further reducing crop yield. By early July, two million seeded acres were also under water, and the input costs for these fields will add further to the cost-price squeeze of farmers.

One -third of Saskatchewan’s normally-cultivated land under water is unprecedented, but this was also an early warning. Powerful thunderstorms brought more heavy rains, more hail and more dangerous winds. We’ve had tunnel clouds and a few tornadoes and what are called “straight-line” or “plow- winds” which come from micro-bursts – downward rushes of wind from thunder clouds which can be as strong as from tornadoes. According to Environment Canada we’ve had the wettest spring and one of the warmest springs, 2.6 degrees C above “the normal”, since regional records were kept in 1948. And we’ve had a record of extreme weather events, and there may be more to come.

EXTREME WEATHER EVENTS

It started April 9th with heavy wet snow and 100 km/h winds across many locations. Wind storms continued through May, and on June 10th a severe plow-wind did damage southwest of Regina. Things did not lighten up, for on June 22nd 100 millimeters (mm) or about 4 inches of rain fell abruptly in the Maple Creek area. Upstream, around Medicine Hat, even more rain had already overloaded the South Saskatchewan River and its tributaries. Soon, swollen rivers and creeks flooded Maple Creek and washed out the Trans-Canada highway west of town. Cypress Hills Park was closed for the first time ever. Saskatchewan made the national news.

This was just the start. A June 24th thunderstorm brought 27 mm (over 1 inch) of heavy rain and hail to Regina and area in less than half an hour. Underpasses flooded and there were power outages. Luckily the storm passed and sewers held. On June 29th Saskatoon was tested more; with 80 to 100 mm (3 to 4 inches) of heavy rain and hail over three hours, leading to flooding and power outages. Then on July 1st the Yorkton area had the super-storm; around 100 mm of rain in less than an hour. Some say 150 mm or nearly 6 inches fell. This deluge overwhelmed the storm sewers and more than half of the homes took in water. Some basements became swimming pools and some residents had to be rescued by canoe. This was not how local people expected to celebrate Canada Day, and Saskatchewan was on national news again.

The next day, July 2nd, a tornado hit the Kawacatoose First Nation, just north of Raymore, destroying several homes. No one was seriously hurt, but the damage will worsen the pre-existing housing shortage. Environment Canada reported that this may have been an F3 tornado, happening only once in every twenty of Canada’s one hundred tornadoes annually. F3 tornadoes have winds from 250-330 km an hour. Saskatchewan again made the national news. Then on July 2nd Prince Albert got a 36 mm heavy rain storm.

HARPER’S YORKTON TOUCH-DOWN

There were five news-worthy extreme weather events in just ten days! The national news likely got the attention of Prime Minister Harper’s handlers, and with the Conservatives holding every federal seat except Ralph Goodale’s, Harper likely had to make an appearance. On July 8th he and Premier Wall flew over the Yorkton area to see the damage first hand. Harper left without commenting or taking reporter’s questions; his next stop was the opening of the Calgary Stampede. Coincidentally, that morning federal Agricultural Minister Gerry Ritz announced $360 million of federal-provincial spending for Saskatchewan’s flood-ravaged farmers. Not wanting to be upstaged Wall later stressed that $144 million of this, and other flood aid, totaling $283 million, was coming from Saskatchewan. The federal-provincial spending amounts to $30 an acre; which Leader of the NDP Opposition, Lingenfelter, who had already called for $100 an acre, called “a slap in the face”. There will also be a massive $50 an acre payment in crop-insurance and perhaps other aid after harvest. According to Brad Wall there’s already nearly $300 million in home, business and infrastructure damage across the province.

Farm-based income could drop by $3 billion so the amount of domestic aid matters deeply to farm and rural Saskatchewan. The political “numbers game” however obscures a bigger question. If Harper had been available for questions when in Yorkton, an informed reporter might have asked: “Mr. Prime Minister, after what you’ve seen are you starting to change your mind about climate change?” An informed and courageous reporter might have asked: “Mr. Harper, will your government now stop obstructing international measures to reduce greenhouse gases (GHGs)?” But, no, Harper was not available for any public discussion of the record-breaking rain and extreme weather events here, and I’ve seen no mainstream news report on his in-and-out trip which connects the obvious dots.

CLIMATE CHANGE ON OUR DOORSTEPS

Harper probably wouldn’t have felt comfortable discussing extreme weather. I would even bet that he and most cabinet colleagues have never opened the cover of the Government of Canada’s 2004 document, “Climate Change Impacts and Adaption: A Canadian Perspective”. In the section on agriculture several projected changes are listed, including “increased frequency of extreme climatic events” and “drier and wetter conditions.” These are not contradictory for extreme weather includes both droughts and flooding. I’ve heard climate science deniers say an especially cold spring, such as we had in 2002, disproves global warming. Not so! The indisputable warming trend which underlies the increasing extreme weather is measured in global mean temperature, which continues to rise as the GHGs in the atmosphere rise. The trend-line is clear. Of course there will be lots of continental and regional variation, including droughts and flooding in the same areas. The world after all is not flat and weather is not linear.

The 2004 report recognizes this uncertainty saying “increased moisture stress and drought are major concerns.” Most vital to us in Saskatchewan, it concluded that “climate change is expected to cause moisture patterns to shift.” One scenario says “precipitation is expected to increase”, though this will “not be sufficient to offset increased moisture losses from warmer temperatures…” Another has moisture levels the “same or higher than present day values” and highlights “areas of concern such as southeastern Saskatchewan and southern Manitoba where summer precipitation is projected to increase.”

Based on our record-breaking moisture and extreme weather events this year, the latter scenario seems more likely. Regardless, bouts of extreme moisture and then droughts will make farming and rural life much more difficult and perhaps, in some cases, unbearable. Time will tell, but there is nothing to be gained by the Wall and Harper governments keeping their heads in the sand regarding climate change, its cause and mitigation, for it’s now on our doorsteps.

Next time I’ll look at what we can learn from extreme weather events in Manitoba.

http://jimharding.brinkster.net

Jim Harding is a retired professor of environmental and justice studies who resides in the Qu’Appelle Valley.

[Oscar]

‘FREE MARKET’ IDEOLOGY: SUGAR-COATED BUT IS IT VIABLE?

BY Jim Harding

Published in United Newspapers of Saskatchewan January 28, 2011

It’s a great idea that the individual should be responsible for his or her health. But this is becoming untenable in an era of mass industrial production and related environmental-health crises. We’ll have to update our views of personal and social responsibility if we want to get on a sustainable path, and this will require reconsidering many ideas about what constitutes “freedom.”

We don’t have widespread heart disease, cancer and diabetes because individuals are knowingly irresponsible and choose to get sick and die prematurely. We have these epidemics in large part because it became acceptable for the public to be exposed to industrial toxins and to embrace commercially-promoted lifestyles which increase these diseases. Smoking is the best known but not the only major example. Bans on cigarette smoking are still contentious in our “free market”, even though science long ago confirmed that smoking is the major factor in increasing lung cancer, which, in turn, is a major part of the overall cancer crisis. The profit-hungry cigarette industry tried every trick in the book to keep society from placing bans on it; the right to sell “cancer-sticks” was even called “free speech.” The chemical and nuclear industries continue with many similarly deceitful practices.

How did we get into such a fix, where commercial freedom became so pitted against public health? The corporate lobby has steadily gained influence since the 1970s. Pressure for deregulation, privatization and free trade went hand in hand with global corporate expansion, and “free market” ideology has pretty much dominated since then. This not only led to environmental health crises but to growing disparities between rich and poor as wealth trickled up more than down. In place of social-distributive justice we now look to the philanthropy of a small club of multi-billionaires to get some excess wealth at the top to the desperate people at the bottom. The pendulum may have swung as far as it can, after the deregulation of banks almost brought down the economic system, but we still lack a vision of a sustainable alternative.

HEALTH PRODUCTS

UNDERMINING HEALTH

Perhaps the greatest irony is about health. Saskatchewan forged Medicare for all Canadians, and public payment now ensures universal access to major healthcare services. But the lucrative medical industry still operates in the for-profit market, so we face the predicament that many healthcare products, sometimes paid for by the public system, actually pose a danger to our health. You can’t watch TV and not be aware of the growing number of class actions suits against companies for the adverse effects of their products: an anti-depressant drug prescribed to women leading to heart defects among the new born; an Alzheimer’s drug with no beneficial effect targeted to the hopes and fears of in-laws; hip replacement products leading to extreme pain and joint failure; an herbal “viagra” bringing in hundreds of millions of dollars before it was finally revealed as a scam. These are North American examples from just the last few weeks.

The World Health Organization (WHO) now warns that UV radiation from tanning beds increases skin cancer risks. Yet in our “free market” even labelling to warn the consumer of these risks is stringently opposed. The desire to look tanned year-round comes from seeing life in consumer rather than common sense, ecological terms. In spite of global airplane travel and winter holidaying we remain a seasonal species. Our appearance naturally alters with the sleep cycle, the seasonal cycles and with our life cycle. Marketing to convince us to strive for a false standard of “beauty” and “aging” is becoming a threat to our health. The desire to look tanned year-round leads to an increase in the “ugliness” of skin cancer, which continues to rise, largely due to previously unregulated industrial chemicals thinning the protective ozone layer. Are consumers really exercising fundamental freedom when they aren’t aware of the hazards of tanning beds? When they are mesmerized by a social identity that “goes against nature”?

SUGAR-COATED “FOOD”

Food marketing further shows how upside down the “free market” has become. The freedom of the food industry to lace its products with sugar undermines human health and therefore limits our freedom. As the fast and packaged-food industry has expanded, our sugar intake has steadily grown. Sugar use has increased six fold since the 1950s; corn syrup now permeates commercial food. Medical science is now finding that our extreme sugar intake has raised our levels of “bad cholesterol”, our blood pressure and has increased fatty liver disease. It causes insulin spiking, which contributes to today’s diabetes epidemic. And the costs of these collective illnesses will not be borne by the food industry.

How did we get to the point where our so-called higher standard of living invites us to consume such toxic levels of sugar? Just one regular soft drink contains one and one-half times the recommended daily dose of sugar, so it’s not surprising that people who regularly eat in the fast-food market are overdosing day in and day out. The health consequences of this “freedom to market” require a re-evaluation of what we mean by “freedom.” Individual freedom seen as the right to consume food that is conveniently available and able to satisfy our impulses ends up taking away our freedoms due to the immobility and suffering resulting from disease. The escalating healthcare costs drain so many public resources that governments are less “free” to address other challenges such as renewable energy.

FREE MARKET COSTS

Language easily becomes deceptive. The phrase “free market” actually comes from combining “private market” with “free enterprise” as an ideological ploy during the Cold War. “Spin” in the pursuit of profit is now widespread. However, once we look at health outcomes, the term “free market” becomes questionable. Legislation to bring in car seat belts was strongly opposed as an affront to individual freedom. The car companies loved this libertarian ethic because it took them off the hook for producing safer vehicles. Millions died unnecessarily in this so-called automotive “free” market. The same happened with cigarettes and continues on with a rash of unhealthy, mass consumption illnesses.

A lot of this disconnect between image and outcome results from advertising. Commercial freedom in the service of perpetual economic growth allowed companies to market their products without having to tell “the whole truth and nothing but the truth.” As long as advertisers don’t make extremely false claims they are free to continue. And since products typically get into the market without fundamental screening for long-term effects on environmental health, the knowledge base to challenge false claims is initially lacking. This knowledge usually comes after the damage is underway and sometimes irreversible. The “free market” has the cart before the horse.

At what point will we see the prevention of disease and suffering, and the reduction of healthcare costs that could bankrupt the system, as being more fundamental to our freedom than the right to advertise and market products that undermine our personal and environmental health? We need to see past “free market” spin to get on a sustainable path.

Next time I’ll look at the serious threat that unregulated chemicals pose to human reproduction.

Check for more articles by Dr. Harding at:
http://jimharding.brinkster.net

[Oscar]

WHY EQUALITY AND SUSTAINABILITY ARE BOTH AT STAKE IN THIS ELECTION

BY Jim Harding

Published in R-Town News on October 18, 2011

The 2008 global recession was sparked by greedy, largely unregulated U.S. banks. Now the Euro zone stands on the brink of a recession brought on by more corporate greed. Some U.S. middle class families who had mortgages beyond their earning power have joined the homeless, while millions of foreclosed homes stand empty, providing no one shelter. While austerity is forced on European pensioners, the working poor and youth, bank and corporate earnings continue to mount.

Has the breaking point come? Might the growing inequality and corporate greed be the sleeper in our November 7th provincial election?

THE “OCCUPY” MOVEMENT

Financial districts have been occupied in over 80 countries since the Vancouver-based magazine Ad busters suggested that Wall Street be occupied. The “occupy” movement spreading across the globe speaks of the 99% versus the 1%; since the 1980s even more wealth has concentrated at the top, among those that some now call “the filthy rich”, the 1%. Meanwhile income security is bottoming out for more and more of the common, hard-working people.

We are no exception; inequality is increasing in Saskatchewan. In 2009 the top 20% of earners got 43% of all after-tax income, while the bottom 20% got only 5% of this income. If there were 100 people earning $100 a day in total, the bottom 20 would have to share $5.00, getting an average of only 25 cents. The top 20 would share $43, giving them an average of over $2.00 a day. This wouldn’t tell the full story; the top 20 earners would perhaps include one person who got huge earnings. This 1% is mostly CEO’s and wealthy investors. In 2010 while the rest of us lost savings and earning power, Canada’s top CEO’s got a 13% increase in pay and a 20% increase in bonuses. This includes CEO’s running multinational corporations in Saskatchewan. In 2008 Cameco’s CEO had compensation of “just over $4.5 million, up from 3.7 million in 2007”. To put this in perspective, this was one-third of the $14 million in uranium royalties going to the province in 2003.

RENT, HOUSING, FOOD BANKS

Premier Wall speaks of us as a “have province”, as though resource profits trickle down to improve quality of life for everyone. Growing income inequality suggests otherwise. Things continue to get harder for working people. Since 2006, rent for a two-bedroom apartment has increased by 50% to nearly $900 per month. The cost of housing increased even more, up 90%. Our occupancy rates are amongst the highest; since 2009 Regina’s occupancy rate has been the worst in all Canada.

For every rich CEO there are thousands of homeless. From 2008 to 2010, homelessness nearly doubled here. Over 2,500 people used a Saskatchewan shelter at least once, and this wasn’t for a few days. Those using shelters just once averaged 56 days in the shelter. The largest group of homeless people was women and men aged 25-34. Rural and urban shelters are both stressed; Regina’s shelters run at 93% capacity year-round.

In March 2009, 18,875 Saskatchewan people were assisted by food banks. The number rose by 20% to 22,662 people in March 2010. More than four of ten people depending on food banks are children. By 2008, 33,000 Saskatchewan children lived in poverty and the number continues to climb. Northern Saskatchewan remains the second poorest region in all Canada.

TRICKLING UP

Meanwhile, the resource boom gives incredible wealth to the large corporations. In 2007, of the $14.4 billion in resources sales, the province got only $1.8 billion in royalties. In 2010 with $1.6 billion in potash sales, royalties were only 77 million. In 2009 with $1.3 billion in uranium sales, royalties were only 105 million.

(INSERT BAR GRAPH)

In 2010 the Sask Party government signed the New West Partnership, an agreement virtually identical to TILMA (trade, investment and labour mobility agreement) which it opposed when in opposition. This allows corporations from Alberta and BC to sue Saskatchewan for laws and policies that they think are unfair to their businesses. This could further jeopardize the crowns and force small businesses to compete with large out-of-province corporations.

The crowns have protected us somewhat from the escalating inequality. We still have the lowest auto-insurance in Canada and until 2007 we had the lowest utility bundle. Sask Water still works for a need-based rather than greed-based system, trying to ensure that quality water is available to all citizens as a right. However, even after the grave warning about the role of “inadequate oversight and enforcement” in the 2003 North Battleford water disaster, this August we had nearly 200 Drinking Water or Boil Water Advisories across the province. First Nations communities remain disproportionately at risk.

WHAT’S IN STORE?

What if Wall’s government further entrenches its majority rule? Should we expect more of the same? As I write, the government is sharpening its knives for even more privatizing of Saskatchewan resources. An estimated 27,000 square KM of oil-sands in the northwest stands ready to exploit without comprehensive land use plans, mapping of aquifers or an adequate regulatory or royalty-sharing system. In 2010 the government gave itself the authority to abolish the habitat or conservation status of crown land, which it can privatize without recourse to the legislature. First Nations and Métis communities complain that the government is continually bypassing their “duty to consult”. The Sask Party is encouraging more use of fracturing technology for shale gas drilling in spite of land and groundwater contamination. With Sask Party approval, the Nuclear Waste Management Organization (NWMO) continues to bypass democracy and target the north for a nuclear waste dump.

Environmental health continues to erode. Even without tar-sands projects, we have the highest greenhouse gas footprint in all Canada (72 tonnes per capita compared to 20). We are on the receiving end of most of the acid rain from Alberta’s tar-sands. And as other jurisdictions are moving towards green energy, our government continues to shore up the toxic economy. The $1.2 billion earmarked to capture carbon for a measly 100 MW unit at Boundary Dam is outrageous when you consider what kind of non-toxic renewable energy could be built for that kind of public investment.

The choice is becoming clear. Are we going to become a resource colony for the corporations who take most of the wealth out of the province and leave the toxic wastes for our grandchildren? Are we going to idly stand by while inequality increases among us? Or are we going to begin to develop a social economy, a green economy for the benefit of the environment and the 100 percent?

go to www.labourissues.sfl.sk.ca for some sources

This piece can be reproduced for use in the provincial election. Just send a copy to djharding@sasktel.net

[Oscar]

WHY WE NEED TO RETHINK THE CANCER EPIDEMIC

BY Jim Harding

For publication in R-Town News December 2, 2011

A sustainable society wouldn't see cancer rates continuing to rise.

Statistics Canada reports that in 2008 cancer was the leading cause of death, ahead of heart disease and stroke combined, which used to be the number one killer. 30% of all deaths in Canada were from cancer, 21% from heart disease and 6% from stroke. A trend of ever-increasing deaths from cancer began decades ago. In 2008, for the first time, cancer was the leading cause of death in all provinces and territories. It was the leading cause for Canadians aged 35-84 and accounted for one-half of all deaths among Canadians 55-64.

In 2011, according to the Canadian Cancer Society, there will be 178,000 new cases of cancer, excluding 74,000 non-melanoma skin cancers. 75,000 Canadians will die of cancer, half from lung, colorectal, prostate or breast cancers. Causality is complex because cancer comes in 200 forms. Cervical cancer involves a virus, while lung cancer involves smoking addiction and also results from radon gas from the uranium industry. Diet is known to be a factor in some cancers; the rising diabetes rate is a precursor for increasing cancers. As more of us live longer our risk of dying from cancer may also increase.

WHY NOT PREVENTION?

We already know enough to conclude that our approach to cancer needs changing. Presently we invest far more resources trying to find cures than preventing cancer in the first place, yet over one-quarter of all cancers result from smoking which is preventable. The approach to prevention matters. As long as we simply held smokers personally responsible for their affliction and counted on reasoning and moral pressure on them to stop, things continued on much the same course. When society put limits on the tobacco industry and smokers, whereby smoking wasn't accepted as an inherent right and the public health and cost consequences were taken into account, the rate of smoking began to fall. This has still to affect women smokers.

There are some limits to this "social control" approach. You can't hold people responsible for contacting a cancerous virus, or for breathing, drinking or eating carcinogens put into the environment by industrial practices. Yet these too require preventative public policy. We have to become much more creative and more adamant about this.

ENVIRONMENTAL TOXINS

We lack systematic monitoring of environmentally-induced cancers. The extent of cancer that comes from environmental toxins remains debatable but many authorities, like the recent U.S. President's Cancer Panel, suggest we "grossly underestimate" this. Several things stand in the way of improved monitoring, in particular, industry's lack of transparency and accountability. The biomedical model which assumes cancer comes from biological-genetic malfunctions also biases the healthcare system to look for a cure rather than to focus more on prevention.

Basic bio-medical research has nevertheless helped us better understand and treat cancer. And while the incidence of cancer continues to grow, so too does the effectiveness of some cancer treatments which has increased survival rates. Cancer mortality rates started to fall from the 1990s, though we are still behind many other developed countries in this regards. But the human suffering from the increasing incidence of cancer continues to spread. And spending more and more money on treating more and more cancer is ultimately counterproductive and will contribute to bankrupting our healthcare system.

PROFITS IN CANCER

There are also huge profits to be made from expensive cancer treatment and cancer screening programs. Lobbying by the medico-pharmaceutical industry plays a role in keeping us fixated on treatment rather than pursuing prevention. If we spent as much on prevention as we presently spend on cancer diagnosis such as nuclear medicine we'd be getting on the right track. People with cancer of course should have access to the best and safest medical procedures, but common overuse of diagnostic methods can increase the public's radiation exposure and even increase the probability of some cancers.

The medico-pharmaceutical lobby also plays on the public perception of risk, which ensures that cancer budgets continue to be weighted to screening and treatment rather than prevention. Basic research questions whether some screening programs even enhance early cancer diagnosis or extend life-span. It's debatable whether there's any public health advantage to extending breast and prostate cancer programs to all patients, but it is hard to counteract public pressure for this. Vested interests are always willing to lobby political funders on behalf of patients looking for any reassurance to reduce their fear of cancer. Evidence, not fear, has to be the basis of sound cancer policy.

BALANCED APPROACH

It's simply silly to ignore the role of environmental degradation in cancer. Rising skin cancer rates relate to increased exposure from UV rays. The thinning of the ozone layer from industrial and consumer pollutants plays a major role in this. Of course a rational approach involves both treatment and prevention; we don't want those who get skin cancer to go untreated. But we also know that reducing sun-tanning whether on the beach or in tanning centres will reduce one's risk. Banning the chemical pollutants responsible for thinning the ozone is required to reverse this situation so that risks don't worsen for future generations. Prevention is vital to create a sustainable society.

This both-and approach clearly applies to smoking, but it also applies to cancers resulting from today's energy systems. The benzene that goes into tailings ponds at Alberta's tar sands is a carcinogen, as are various radio-nuclides that are deposited with uranium mine tailings in northern Saskatchewan. We also know diet can play a role in encouraging some cancers. It is counterproductive to continue to allow industrial waste and food industry practices that are cancer-causing to continue to spread. Investing in public health and environmental policies which affirm preventative practices will serve to reduce cancer rates before they require expensive screening and treatment programs.

EVIDENCE-BASED

What would an evidence-based approach to cancer look like? First we'd stop blaming people for their cancers. We'd use public policy, as we have with smoking and must now with diabetes, to reduce behavior that increases the risks of cancer. But we must start to thoroughly monitor environmental toxins so that our knowledge about their role in rising cancer rates becomes more firmly based. And known carcinogens simply must be banned from getting into our air, water and food. Finally we have to put strong boundaries on the medico-pharmaceutical industry lobby that plays on public fears so that questionable but profitable cancer programs keep going. We can't allow limited funds to be tied up in reacting to the cancer epidemic; we need to get out in front of it, and develop effective preventative measures.

This is easier said than done, but we need to know where we want to go to ever be able to get there. Bringing cancer prevention onto at least an equal footing with cancer treatment would be a big step forward. We must get some balance into the "war on cancer" if we are going to make real headway towards sustainability.

Jim Harding is a retired professor of environmental and justice studies living in the Qu'Appelle Valley.

His website is http://jimharding.brinkster.net