Ecological Footprint Quiz -
My Results:
FOOD 1.1
MOBILITY 1.5
SHELTER 1.8
GOODS/SERVICES 2.5
TOTAL FOOTPRINT 6.9
IN COMPARISON, THE AVERAGE ECOLOGICAL FOOTPRINT IN YOUR COUNTRY IS 8.8 GLOBAL HECTARES PER PERSON.
WORLDWIDE, THERE EXIST 1.8 BIOLOGICALLY PRODUCTIVE GLOBAL HECTARES PER PERSON.
IF EVERYONE LIVED LIKE YOU, WE WOULD NEED 3.8 PLANETS.
The Canadian Government also has a good one - One-Tonne Challenge. I took it, but discovered that I can't make a lot of the necessary changes because I live in an apartment building. I already walk/take public transit everywhere, but I plan to get a bike this summer, which is also helpful.
Friday, April 22, 2005
Thursday, April 21, 2005
Rebuilding countries is big business
I saw Naomi Klein on Democracy Now last night, and followed up by reading a recent article of hers in The Nation. Here's a bit of a summary and comment:
This is not exactly news - it's just another chapter in the story of our post-modern type of colonial international relations. The effects are, however, particularly insidious, so it is extremely important to bring them to public attention.
From post-tsunami Sri Lanka & Indonesia or hurricane-wrecked Honduras & Guatemala to war-torn Afghanistan & Iraq, there is no shortage of "countries smashed to rubble, whether by so-called Acts of God or by Acts of Bush (on orders from God)." These countries need to be rebuilt, and that is a lucrative opportunity. After the countries are pressured into agreeing to policies such as privatization of water, in come the private firms, like Bechtel, Halliburton, etc.
Double-talk alert: this is called "aid", so we westerners can feel good about ourselves, yet it is for-profit.
Here's what the "aid" has done after the Dec 26 tsunami: "The most devastated countries have seen almost no debt relief, and most of the World Bank's emergency aid has come in the form of loans, not grants. Rather than emphasizing the need to help the small fishing communities--more than 80 percent of the wave's victims--the bank is pushing for expansion of the tourism sector and industrial fish farms."
As Condoleeza Rice had said, the tsunami provided a great opportunity for the US.
World bank's ongoing tactics - lend money so countries in need can pay private US/International corporations to perform tasks that they have decided those countries should have - building infrastructure, electricity grids, providing water, opening private health care clinics, etc - all for profit of course. Profit that leaves the country, going straight into the pockets of these transnational corporations. Now the country is left with a huge debt which must be paid by the people. So the transfer of money goes like this: world back --> corporation (loan which pays for development), then, country --> world bank (debt repayment). Somehow the people who live in the country are bypassed. But it is they who are are left with the debt to repay. Most of the time, what were previously public sector projects are now run by private companies, so even more money goes from their hands into corporate hands.
this "reconstruction" boom is a perfect way to squeeze even more money out of countries which might not otherwise fall prey to the previous tactics. countries that have been destroyed, as Klein says, "take orders well. After a cataclysmic event, governments will usually do whatever it takes to get aid dollars--even if it means racking up huge debts and agreeing to sweeping policy reforms. And with the local population struggling to find shelter and food, political organizing against privatization can seem like an unimaginable luxury."
Klein aptly calls this: "a predatory form of disaster capitalism that uses the desperation and fear created by catastrophe to engage in radical social and economic engineering."
Highly recommended article - Read it
This is not exactly news - it's just another chapter in the story of our post-modern type of colonial international relations. The effects are, however, particularly insidious, so it is extremely important to bring them to public attention.
From post-tsunami Sri Lanka & Indonesia or hurricane-wrecked Honduras & Guatemala to war-torn Afghanistan & Iraq, there is no shortage of "countries smashed to rubble, whether by so-called Acts of God or by Acts of Bush (on orders from God)." These countries need to be rebuilt, and that is a lucrative opportunity. After the countries are pressured into agreeing to policies such as privatization of water, in come the private firms, like Bechtel, Halliburton, etc.
Double-talk alert: this is called "aid", so we westerners can feel good about ourselves, yet it is for-profit.
Here's what the "aid" has done after the Dec 26 tsunami: "The most devastated countries have seen almost no debt relief, and most of the World Bank's emergency aid has come in the form of loans, not grants. Rather than emphasizing the need to help the small fishing communities--more than 80 percent of the wave's victims--the bank is pushing for expansion of the tourism sector and industrial fish farms."
As Condoleeza Rice had said, the tsunami provided a great opportunity for the US.
World bank's ongoing tactics - lend money so countries in need can pay private US/International corporations to perform tasks that they have decided those countries should have - building infrastructure, electricity grids, providing water, opening private health care clinics, etc - all for profit of course. Profit that leaves the country, going straight into the pockets of these transnational corporations. Now the country is left with a huge debt which must be paid by the people. So the transfer of money goes like this: world back --> corporation (loan which pays for development), then, country --> world bank (debt repayment). Somehow the people who live in the country are bypassed. But it is they who are are left with the debt to repay. Most of the time, what were previously public sector projects are now run by private companies, so even more money goes from their hands into corporate hands.
this "reconstruction" boom is a perfect way to squeeze even more money out of countries which might not otherwise fall prey to the previous tactics. countries that have been destroyed, as Klein says, "take orders well. After a cataclysmic event, governments will usually do whatever it takes to get aid dollars--even if it means racking up huge debts and agreeing to sweeping policy reforms. And with the local population struggling to find shelter and food, political organizing against privatization can seem like an unimaginable luxury."
Klein aptly calls this: "a predatory form of disaster capitalism that uses the desperation and fear created by catastrophe to engage in radical social and economic engineering."
Highly recommended article - Read it
Wednesday, April 20, 2005
Draw a Pig - Personality Test
My Pig:
I am a realist.
I am direct, enjoy playing devil's advocate and neither fear nor avoid discussions.
I am emotional and naive,caring little for details and a risk-taker.
I am insecure or living through a period of major change.
I am an OK listener
I have a poor quality sex life
I am a realist.
I am direct, enjoy playing devil's advocate and neither fear nor avoid discussions.
I am emotional and naive,caring little for details and a risk-taker.
I am insecure or living through a period of major change.
I am an OK listener
I have a poor quality sex life
Make Poverty History
This site makes it very easy to send an email to the Prime Minister and your MP. Go there. Do it. It's better than nothing.
Tuesday, April 19, 2005
Linking fun
My aunt Sparkle's blog linked to COANews.org, the Independent News Portal I've been working on.
Saturday, April 16, 2005
Abiogenic Theory of Oil
Got involved in a discussion about peak oil. Someone brought up the idea that oil isn't what we think: "Oil isn't the byproduct of biological mass from the dinosaurs, it's a geologic chemical and there's plenty still left in the earth."
I read up on it - I'm no scientist so I can't be sure of the origin of oil, but my response to this was:
Even if the abiogenic theory is true. that doesn't automatically solve our problems.
first of all, just because it is there, doesn't mean we can easily get it. in fact, the deeper we have to go, the less efficient it is. sometimes it is so energy- and cost- intensive that it isn't worth it. If it were to take the energy equivalent of 1 barrel of oil for each barrel extracted, it is better NOT to extract it, right?
take the tar sands, which are extremely inefficient, requiring almost as much energy to mine and refine as is produced. in fact, in alberta, they use high quality fuel (natural gas) to produce poor quality crude oil. improved technology is making it more efficient, but it is still quite ridiculous if you think about it, especially when you factor in other costs (environmental, etc. see below)
it is likely that technological improvements would help in the long run, making extraction of your deep so called abiogenic crude oil possible and maybe somewhat efficient, but why not put that same technology into other energy sources that don't have all the drawbacks of petroleum?
if we put aside the concern with "running out" because we are now tapping into vast geological petroleum deposits, there are still other issues. the release of carbon from deep underground into the atmosphere as carbon dioxide will continue to change the composition of our planet - causing global warming in the short term. sulphur, contained in varying amounts in different oil sources, oxidizing and eventually becoming sulphuric acid in the atmosphere (acid rain)... smog formed from other particles such as nitrogens, dirty groundwater, etc. we all know about these. they won't go away with more oil!
there's more, if you want me to go on, but i'm sure everyone is sick of hearing it... my point is that a new theory of the origin of oil doesn't solve the problem.
so are we looking forward to lives filled with chronic illness, smog alert days, increasingly damaging natural disasters? oh wait, that's already happening... how is abiogenic oil going to help?
I read up on it - I'm no scientist so I can't be sure of the origin of oil, but my response to this was:
Even if the abiogenic theory is true. that doesn't automatically solve our problems.
first of all, just because it is there, doesn't mean we can easily get it. in fact, the deeper we have to go, the less efficient it is. sometimes it is so energy- and cost- intensive that it isn't worth it. If it were to take the energy equivalent of 1 barrel of oil for each barrel extracted, it is better NOT to extract it, right?
take the tar sands, which are extremely inefficient, requiring almost as much energy to mine and refine as is produced. in fact, in alberta, they use high quality fuel (natural gas) to produce poor quality crude oil. improved technology is making it more efficient, but it is still quite ridiculous if you think about it, especially when you factor in other costs (environmental, etc. see below)
it is likely that technological improvements would help in the long run, making extraction of your deep so called abiogenic crude oil possible and maybe somewhat efficient, but why not put that same technology into other energy sources that don't have all the drawbacks of petroleum?
if we put aside the concern with "running out" because we are now tapping into vast geological petroleum deposits, there are still other issues. the release of carbon from deep underground into the atmosphere as carbon dioxide will continue to change the composition of our planet - causing global warming in the short term. sulphur, contained in varying amounts in different oil sources, oxidizing and eventually becoming sulphuric acid in the atmosphere (acid rain)... smog formed from other particles such as nitrogens, dirty groundwater, etc. we all know about these. they won't go away with more oil!
there's more, if you want me to go on, but i'm sure everyone is sick of hearing it... my point is that a new theory of the origin of oil doesn't solve the problem.
so are we looking forward to lives filled with chronic illness, smog alert days, increasingly damaging natural disasters? oh wait, that's already happening... how is abiogenic oil going to help?
Saturday, April 09, 2005
Monday, April 04, 2005
Review: Confessions of an Economic Hit Man - John Perkins
This book is at once an autobiography, a 20th century history of America and a call to action. These elements are balanced very well with a very readable narrative style.
The history covered in this book is admittedly controversial. It primarily covers the less-shiny aspects of history, which I doubt are taught in US schools, but which are easily accessible if one only looks. It is also quite well-documented and supported by evidence. Perkins discusses American corporate and governmental involvement with Saudi Arabia, Indonesia, Nicaragua, Panama, Ecuador and many other nations from a first hand perspective.
What is interesting is that we see this history as the setting for a very personal story, through the eyes of a participant. As the title suggests, it is in fact a confession. Perkins was an important player in some of the darker aspects of subtle non-governmental foreign policy, and he is not an apologist.
He shows a little bit of the psychology of people who commit evil acts on behalf of organizations to which they belong. For example, structures set up to do harm can generally find people with the right personality characteristics to be capitalized upon - greed, ambition, etc. What this means is, rather than simply provoking hate towards individuals who are perpetuating exploitation, Perkins reveals the underlying broader issues, such as the consequences of the misuse of power and profit. I think he very effectively places the specifics of historical facts (as well as his story) in context in a way that historical texts typically do not.
Although it is not a prescriptive book as such, Perkins does offer some ideas and suggestions at the end as to what individuals can do if they believe in trying to ameliorate the situation he has presented.
I found it to be both a compelling page turner and very factual at the same time. Highly recommended for the history buff, social activist, avid biography reader, news junkie, or really anyone who cares about the world we live in.
The history covered in this book is admittedly controversial. It primarily covers the less-shiny aspects of history, which I doubt are taught in US schools, but which are easily accessible if one only looks. It is also quite well-documented and supported by evidence. Perkins discusses American corporate and governmental involvement with Saudi Arabia, Indonesia, Nicaragua, Panama, Ecuador and many other nations from a first hand perspective.
What is interesting is that we see this history as the setting for a very personal story, through the eyes of a participant. As the title suggests, it is in fact a confession. Perkins was an important player in some of the darker aspects of subtle non-governmental foreign policy, and he is not an apologist.
He shows a little bit of the psychology of people who commit evil acts on behalf of organizations to which they belong. For example, structures set up to do harm can generally find people with the right personality characteristics to be capitalized upon - greed, ambition, etc. What this means is, rather than simply provoking hate towards individuals who are perpetuating exploitation, Perkins reveals the underlying broader issues, such as the consequences of the misuse of power and profit. I think he very effectively places the specifics of historical facts (as well as his story) in context in a way that historical texts typically do not.
Although it is not a prescriptive book as such, Perkins does offer some ideas and suggestions at the end as to what individuals can do if they believe in trying to ameliorate the situation he has presented.
I found it to be both a compelling page turner and very factual at the same time. Highly recommended for the history buff, social activist, avid biography reader, news junkie, or really anyone who cares about the world we live in.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)