Miscellaneous material to start your week.
- Ralph Surette
highlights the dangers of a pollution-based economy which fails to account for the damage we're doing to our planet and its ability to provide food for people:
This is something to behold. A more-or-less hurricane in early July. Has anyone ever seen such a thing?
This is climate change, and it's getting worse. And whereas the news
of the day is about people with the power out, the long-term story is
about the hit to agriculture, now and in future, here and worldwide --
keeping in mind that farming is more than an "economic sector." It's the
food supply.
...
This is the story all over, as agriculture, always up and down, has
become a wild, unpredictable ride through floods, droughts, storms,
killing heatwaves, heat-related pest infestations and other hazards. In
some places -- drought-ridden California being the prime example -- the
scary question is whether agriculture there is simply finished for good.
...
What to do? As with our pollution-based economy generally, the answer is
one we and our established systems resist ferociously: to change our
ways. The experts point out that a third to half of food is actually
wasted and mere increased efficiency, especially energy efficiency, in
the food system -- from the farm to us -- would work wonders. Only 43
per cent of the world's grains are consumed directly by humans. The same
applies to the other part of the food system, fisheries. A staggering
figure in that regard is this: of the 110 to 130 million tonnes of fish
caught worldwide annually, 30 million tonnes is discarded at sea -- the
same amount as goes to fishmeal to feed farmed fish. Is this as
impossible to change as it seems?
- Meanwhile, Tavia Grant
discusses the health effects of climate change.
- Laura Broadley
reports that Canadian Natural Resources Ltd. is now grudgingly admitting that its
in situ oil extraction may be contributing to ongoing and still-unexplained oil spills. (As a friendly reminder, that's exactly the type of oil exploitation the Cons have
declared to be immune from environmental assessment.) And Jessica McDiarmid
writes about Windsor's fight to be able to protect its citizens from hazardous goods being shipped by rail.
- Gloria Galloway
reports on the threat to Canada's national parks from unfettered resource development and a woeful lack of public investment.
- David Climenhaga
points out
that the Cons' latest spin on TFWs seems designed to allow low-pay
zones wherever an employer wants to avoid offering a fair wage to
Canadian workers.
- Finally, Shannon Gormley rightfully
questions why equal pay for women is still projected to be a lifetime away:
Seventy-five years. According to an Oxfam report released
Sunday, that’s how long it will take until women in G20 countries can
earn, stow away and waste as much as the men who, right now, probably
sign their paycheques. In no G20 country does women’s pay reach 80 per
cent of men’s.
Before we get into how to save time (and money) — listen.
That sound you hear is the sound of conservatives everywhere uttering a
secret hope masked as insight: “Progress is slow,” these
anti-progressives say, with a smugly wizened intonation peculiar to the
type of man who smokes a pipe and has another man shave him with a
straight razor.
Of course, 75 years isn’t slow. Turtles are slow; 75 years
is an actual, honest-to-God lifetime. Seventy-five years is longer than
it took a large chunk of Germany to go from being fascist to communist
to capitalist. Longer than it took people to go from using typewriters
to computers the size of living rooms to computers they wear on their
eyeballs. Longer than it took Americans to go to the moon and then back
again and then decide they didn’t feel like going to the moon anymore.
Seventy-five years are about as many years as most of us will ever have.
...
(W)omen who ask for raises, promotions and other career
opportunities aren’t just denied what they want, they’re punished for
asking: whether they ask “nicely” or assertively, whether they ask in
writing or in person and, most remarkably, whether the person they ask
is a man or another woman. Women’s bias against other women is a
particularly clear indication that we can’t wait for our subconscious
minds to change. We need to change systems and structures and let our
minds catch up.
That’s Oxfam’s answer. In Canada, where “progress has
stalled to a halt over the past two decades,” and only 57 per cent of
women have been employed full-time over the past five years compared to
76 per cent of men, change has to mean national low-fee day care, which
has given Quebec more money than it has cost, and no more public service
cuts, which disproportionately affect women. Globally, it must mean
equal pay legislation, non-discriminatory taxation, and paid parental
leave.
