Why I Ride My Bicycle

A few months ago, Eric Rempel posted a column about why he biked. This motivated me to share my story.

Were I to choose a personal zodiac, 2011 would be the year of the Bicycle. Last summer I found my self completely smitten with a mode of transportation that was simply too intimidating and/or inconvenient a few years ago.   This epiphany occurred because I had become increasingly aware of the effects of “unconscious living” and that such a lifestyle was destroying the very environment I love.  I realized that I had a responsibility to do something. I also needed to save money.

In the past few years, some friends at the University of Winnipeg have opened my eyes to the concept of sustainable living.  I have become alarmed by the realization that our lives are completely dependent on petroleum, a resource that is finite and non-renewable, causes wars, and is becoming increasingly expensive. I had been living in ignorant bliss for most of my life and suddenly I became painfully aware.

This awareness placed me at a fork in the road, with a map and no compass. I knew where I was and where I wanted to go, but had to find a way to get there. I had friends who were vegan, others were dedicated winter cyclists, and some attempted to follow a 100 mile diet.  That was all too extreme. I was overwhelmed but decided to take baby steps. I have begun by composting, noting where food I buy comes from and riding my bike.

I have never been athletic and the mere thought of biking exhausted me at first. I had no leg muscles, no endurance, was terrified of cars on the road and did not know what traffic laws to follow. 

Then I decided I would like to travel, and go back to school.

I hate to make it seem like money is the ultimate motivator, but a tight budget is.  Driving my car less was an easy penny saver and that meant biking more. And then I began to love it! Biking was actually exhilarating! Not only was I saving money, I was gaining muscle. It was like I was on Body Break – staying fit and having fun!

When I returned to Steinbach this past June after a two-year hiatus, I needed to share my new discovery with my old town. Some friends and I organized group bike rides. I wanted people to realize that riding a bike doesn’t have to mean that you can’t afford a car, or that you are an athlete. It can simply mean you like riding your bike and want to consume less gasoline.

Hey, give it a go! Start small. Next time you need to dash to the store or return a movie, ride your bike. January may be a difficult time of year to start, so maybe you wait till spring. But now is the time to resolve to ride your bike more. The city of Steinbach has done a great job of making the city bicycle friendly. For cycling information check both www.steinbach.ca and southeasttrasniton.com.

Hilary Klassen

Too Many Disposable Diapers

“We pick up thousands of [disposable] diapers on a daily basis,” states Eldon Wallman from the Steinbach landfill. This calculates to around half a million diapers being delivered to rot in our own small landfill every year. Imagine the numbers worldwide!

Many parents choose disposable diapers because of simplicity. Disposables can be bought in bulk, they hold a lot of waste, and they make for quick diaper changes.

All this convenience comes at a huge expense. Most parents are innocently ignorant of what happens after the disposable diaper leaves their hands. That diaper travels to a landfill where it will sit for many thousands of years. Much of the diaper is made from plastics that will not breakdown. These chemicals, along with the human waste products contained in the diaper, leach from the landfill into the water system. We are voluntarily polluting our earth with raw human waste and untreated chemicals. Is there an alternative? Yes there is.

Cloth diapers are an environmentally friendly alternative to disposable diapers.  The cloth diaper system allows parents to wash and reuse diapers repeatedly throughout their baby’s diapering lifetime. The waste is removed from the diaper and deposited in the toilet where it can be properly treated along with the rest of the family’s waste. Additionally, cloth diapers can be used with multiple children before being retired. Many parents actually keep the diapers for rags after all their children are potty trained.  Only when these cloth diapers have been thoroughly exhausted do they end up in the landfill, once there, they break down quickly because they are made from natural materials such as cotton, wool, or bamboo.

Some parents are hesitant about switching to cloth diapers because they have seen the complicated folding and pinning required from the older styles. However, current cloth diapers are more user-friendly involving snaps or Velcro with no pinning required. Current cloth diapers are made from fun and funky fabrics with all sorts of luxurious textures.

Not only are cloth diapers environmentally friendly, they are economically friendly as well. The average family spends about $2500 to disposable diaper one child until potty training. Conversely, a child can be totally cloth diapered for as little as $200, less if the diapers are handmade from recycled materials or purchased used. Furthermore, subsequent children in the family will then be diapered for free using their older sibling’s diapers.

The bottom line is that disposable diapers pose a dangerous risk to our environment by filling up our landfills and leaching hazardous chemicals into our ecosystems.  Conversely, cloth diapers are reused for many years and human waste from cloth diapers is properly treated through the sewage system, majorly reducing the impact on the water systems of the community. Coupled with the fact that cloth diapers can save you over $2000 per child, we should all make the switch to cloth.

By Rebecca Hiebert

We Need a Resource Consumption Tax

Most taxes in Canada do not encourage the right activities. Behavior that should be encouraged is taxed, and behavior that should be discouraged has no tax. That was the assertion I made in last week’s column and applied that thinking to property tax. But this thinking is relevant to other taxes as well.

Most taxes in Canada are based on income earned, both for the corporation and for the individual. The more income the person or company earns, the more taxes are due. But why tax income? So many other things could be taxed: consumption, land, the use of resources, energy use, capital gain, inheritance, to name the most obvious. Of course, to a limited extent, all of these items are being taxed, but the heavy tax remains the income tax.

But why tax income. It only makes sense if there are no better options. But there are many better options. To make my point consider just one simplified example. A factory pays a certain amount of tax. Under today’s tax policy, most of that tax would be based on income. As the company becomes more profitable, it pays more tax; less profitable, less tax. It follows then, that there is only one incentive the tax gives to the company and that is to hire more accountants and lawyers. Their skill lies in finding ways to avoid the payment of tax.

But now assume our tax policy changes. The same amount of tax is paid, but the tax now is based on consumption. The tax could be on overall consumption (like our GST), but better would be a tax on a scarce resource, say oil. Note this tax shift would not affect the disposable return of the factory. The same amount of tax is paid. The firm still has the same freedom to invest and procure, but the more oil it consumes, the more tax it pays; the less oil it consumes, the less tax it pays. This tax shift creates a huge incentive for the factory to reduce its oil consumption and become more energy efficient. Conceivably the incentive would result in more jobs as the company re-focuses from energy efficiency to labour efficiency.

The simple tax shift from income focus to oil focus will result in other beneficial changes over time. Nobody forfeits any freedom. Those who wish to continue to consume oil at a high rate, are free to do so, but it will cost them more. Those who find ways to reduce their oil consumption, save. Obviously, factories become more efficient. Nation-wide, less oil is consumed, so more oil is left for future generations. Pollution generally accompanies oil consumption. There is less pollution. Transportation costs increase, so there is less traffic. Everyone walks and cycles more, with concomitant benefits to physical and mental health. The tax shift has redefined efficiency.

A tax shift away from income tax to a tax based on consumption benefits everyone. It is more fair, encourages more efficiency, and encourages conservation.

Tax Land, Not Buildings

Fundamentally, most tax structures in Canada are doing the very opposite of what they ought to be doing: they tax behavior that should be encouraged and don’t tax behavior that should be discouraged. This is the opinion of Frank de Jong, former leader to the Ontario Green Party. He outlined his argument at a recent meeting in Winnipeg.

De Jong’s critique could be applied to many taxes, but municipal property tax will be the focus of this column.  Property tax in southeastern Manitoba is based on property value. This means that if a property owner does something to improve the value of his property, his taxes will go up. This is true in the case of a businessperson who begins with a bare piece of land and puts a high value commercial property on it, or of a homeowner who finishes a basement in an existing house.

But ought the property improvement to trigger an increase in taxes? The property owner has just done a good thing. He has transformed a piece of land with minimal value into an asset with substantial value. This developer ought to be applauded and rewarded for that activity; instead our system penalizes him by increasing his tax bill.

There are two reasons to own land: it may bring the owner what he wants now, whether that be revenue or enjoyment; or it may be owned in expectation of an increase in value. Our current tax structure discourages the owner from taking steps to enhance the revenue earning potential of the land. By default then, the tax system encourages the holding of the land for speculation. I am not against the holding of land for speculative reasons. It has its place, but the tax system ought not to reward speculation at the expense of development.

De Jong asserts that taxing land rather than buildings has had a demonstrated good effect on cities, suburbs and towns. This has been observed in Pennsylvania, where tax on buildings is minimal. Taxing land rather than buildings has the effect of densifying cities, thereby making them more people friendly, walkable, bicycable. There is less unused land.

Taxing land rather than buildings, is neither tax relief, nor a tax grab. It is a tax shift.

Not yet convinced? Consider the new Credit Union building we will soon see in downtown Steinbach. I am not privy to the building plans, but basically the design could be one of two: the new building could be built very much like the current building, that is, two story with the entire building devoted to the business of credit unioning. Were that to occur, all the current business space in that block of Main Street would be gone permanently, taking with it all associated pedestrian traffic – probably somewhere north of the city centre. Our current property tax system encourages that kind of development – sprawl. It has been very effective. But without a tax on the building, there would an incentive to add an additional story to the building so the ground floor space could be devoted to small businesses: walaah – a more pedestrian friendly city.

By Eric Rempel

Giving to the Earth this Year

The time of gift giving is upon us. Most people spend many hours planning and shopping for loved ones. Sadly, most items in our stores are manufactured from cheap plastics or thin metals that break quickly. Current available merchandise has degenerated to the point where what we buy is often low priced and low quality, and an item that the recipient does not really want or need. Unfortunately, for obvious reasons, the gift quickly ends up in the garbage.

Once these items are in the landfill their fate is to sit for thousands of years. Our landfills are already bursting at the seams from daily waste produced by every household; there really is no room for additional holiday garbage.

Gift giving is an important part of our Christmas season. By changing the way we give gifts we can increase their longevity. Instead of each individual relative buying each child a less expensive toy, relatives could pool their money to buy one higher quality, more expensive toy that will last through the rough and tumble play of childhood. Toys that are made from strong durable materials can be enjoyed by one child and then passed on to younger children, delaying their trip to the landfill.

Giving a child one highly valued, good quality gift also helps reduce that child’s insatiable appetite for presents that often develops at Christmas time.  Teaching a child to treasure one truly special toy will send the message that gifts are not expendable, that toys are to be treasured and not tossed in the trash when something better comes along.

Adult presents are sometimes a challenge because adults often buy what they need during the year. What is left for a relative to give during the holidays? Instead of buying something cheap and unnecessary, give tickets to a local play or musical or a sentimental gift such as a photo-book or photo-calendar. These types of special gifts will not be easily tossed.

Perhaps the pinnacle of gift giving is finding a well-suited, used gift at a thrift store. Gifting used items benefits the Earth in a two-fold way: firstly, this delay’s that items trip to the landfill for many years and, secondly the money spent at the thrift shop goes in-part towards funding programs to help others live sustainably in the Third World.

Finally, when you do decide what to buy for your family consider the wrapping. How absurd that commercial wrapping paper once purchased is immediately tossed! Consider using recycled items to wrap your presents: the comics from the newspaper or handmade reusable cloth bags. Avoid expensive Christmas cards that are read only once and then added to the holiday layer at the landfill.

  

How ironical that the holiday season, which is a special time to celebrate generosity, contributes to a stressing of the Earth we live on. This year give the Planet a present: think carefully how your gift giving will affect the environment. 

By Rebecca Hiebert

Slowing Down

Recently I have been thinking about slowing down. Of course, say my friends, you have reached retirement and so that is a legitimate proposition. But then, when I connect with some of my retired friends, one of their complaints I hear most often is that they are busier than ever.

I conclude that busyness has become one of our culture’s virtues. We tend to think more highly of people whose calendars are chock-full than of those who have a few open spaces left.

A lot has been written in recent decades about margins and boundaries. How long would you stay with a book, for example, that had no margins. Most of the book would likely remain unread. Slowing down reminds us that we are most fully alive when we live within appropriate boundaries that allow some room for surprise and flexibility. A good cup of coffee is best taken slowly, as is a good quality wine! So why do we gulp down our lives so quickly?

Beyond being better for you, slowing down is becoming imperative in our day because a fast life always leaves a larger ecological footprint than necessary. This is so very evident in the fast food industry to which many of us have become enslaved. We grab our food on the run and wolf it down on our way to the next thing on our calendars. Of course, on our way in we drop a large bag of paper and plastic into the garbage. Sometimes we even just throw it out the car window. We have yet to add up the personal and social cost of giving up a regular, slow-paced, family dinner.

Feeling the need to take in every possible event we can, we zip around in our vehicles and fly around the world lest we commit the “sin” of missing out on something. Of course, in the process we build up a large number of experiences we can share with our friends. The only problem is we don’t really have time to get together much for a leisurely sharing of life. And at the same time we keep on using up more and more of diminishing fossil fuel reserves of the world.

One commitment I have recently made is to literally slow down while driving. I have developed a 90-90 principle which states that 90 percent of the time on the road I will not exceed 90 kilometers an hour. Some of my trucker friends tell me that such a move can make the difference between breaking even or earning a decent living – given the amount of fuel you save at the slower speed. 

An additional benefit I experience is that every time I set my cruise on 90, I am reminded to slow down in other areas of life as well. Perhaps I can retrain myself to leave a smaller ecological footprint as I learn to slow down and actually have time to smell the flowers.

By Jack Heppner

Voluntary Simplicity

I recently heard about a survey that found that those young adults who carry the most debt are also the one who feel most empowered with their finances. It is only as they get older that they realize that their debt does not empower them; rather it controls them. The above poll-based observation describes the average Canadian! The average Canadian owes $1.50 for every $1.00 he owns and does not realize how much he is controlled by his debt. 

It seems bizarre, but I can understand why we feel that sense of empowerment.  When we buy something, we experience the power of money – the power to get what we want.  If we buy something with cash, that feeling goes away once the money is gone and the novelty of the purchase wears off; but with credit, we carry a constant power source in our wallets, with a power that doesn't really wear off until we go bankrupt.

However, that feeling of power is just that: a feeling, an illusion – not reality. In the ancient world, prisons were used primarily to house people who couldn't pay their debts.  We may not be in prison because of our debts; nevertheless, our debts control us as if we were. Our grandparents didn't carry so much debt. So why do we?

You may have heard of something called "Voluntary Simplicity.” Depending on whom you heard it from; you may believe that it is a growing movement of self-sufficiency and non-compliance to corporate powers. On the other hand, you may consider it a hippy stunt that would have us all poor and living in communes. Voluntary Simplicity has to do with being frugal, making things rather than buying them, and making do with less – and depending on your perspective, that could sound like heaven, or even hell. 

Let me suggest another way altogether of looking at this concept of Voluntary Simplicity, a way we all be able to relate to: voluntary simplicity is about financial freedom in a world full of debt. It's about knowing the true value of things, and refusing to pay more – or less – than something is worth.  It's about re-learning the skills that make our heritage so rich, and sharing our knowledge and support with our communities.  It's about knowing that spending money only gives you a feeling of power, whereas the real power lies in deciding not to spend money on things you don't need. It's about knowing that, as Scotiabank regularly reminds us, "you're richer than you think" – because real wealth is not defined by our credit limits.

We invite you to join us in thinking about voluntary simplicity and simpler living. Val Hiebert, Assistant Professor of Sociology at Providence University College will share her insights as she addresses the South Eastman Transition Initiative at the Eastman Education Centre, Loewen Blvd, next Thursday, November 24th at 7:00 pm.

By Jeff Wheeldon             

Why I Ride My Bicycle

Three reasons, really! It is good for my health, it is economical, and it is the only sensible thing to do if one takes the long view. Which of these I consider most important depends on which day you ask me.

When I retired from my last paying job three years ago, I realized that if I wanted to maintain my health I would need to discipline myself in terms of exercise. Necessary exercise could take the form of a regular workout at a gym, or on some exercise equipment in my basement. It could take the form of a disciplined walk or jog every day, but I knew from experience, that I do not take to this kind of discipline well. As I thought about my options, I realized that the most pleasant discipline for me would be to deliberately limit my options with respect to getting around Steinbach.  I resolved that I would not use motorized transport to get myself between points within Steinbach and environs.

For the most part, I have stuck with my resolve. I am grateful that my health allows me to cycle. I do need a car to carry goods from time to time, but the bike trailer I now have handles most of the things I need to carry. Winter riding is a challenge, but that challenge is not insurmountable. Studded tires reduce wipeouts, and appropriate clothing protects me from the weather. At minus thirty, properly dressed, I arrive at my destination warmer than if I had ridden in a car.

Was I not committed to cycling, Mary and I would need an additional vehicle. According to a recent Globe and Mail article, car ownership in Canada costs at least $6,000 annually, in some cases as much as $13,000. So because of my cycling habit, we can manage with $6,000 less pension income.

Then there is the long view. What do we expect our city to look like in 20 years, in 30 years or 50 years? Will we still be dependant on the gasoline-powered automobile? I do not think so. The current gasoline dominated era will end soon. When that happens, a sprawling city of large parking lots and wide streets will not be a welcoming city.

Some people place their hope in plug-in vehicles. But plug-in vehicles are no more energy efficient than gasoline powered vehicles. They merely substitute hydro energy for oil energy.

Today, if I ride my car from my house to the Clearspring Mall, I consume more than a million calories. If I walk that same distance, I consume 185 calories. If I cycle, I also consume 185 calories, but cover the distance in one-third the time.

If we want our city to survive into the future, we need a city built around energy efficiency, not around the squandering of energy. The planet will give us no choice. By riding my bike, I am sending a signal, however small, to whoever will listen, that we need to, much more consciously, move towards energy efficiency in our city.

Cycling is one expression of voluntary simplicity. Join us at the Eastman Educational Centre November 24 for a discussion of voluntary simplicity with Val Hiebert, sociology prof at Providence. 

Eric Rempel

Saving Summer Shine

Just a few weeks ago, Ruth and I harvested a dozen large, organically-grown cabbages from our garden.

Most of those cabbages ended up as sauerkraut. For the most part, our generation has forgotten about this wonder-food. But last year, Ruth and I made our first attempt to re-discover lacto-fermentation, one of the oldest preservation methods known to humankind.

The process is really quite simple. Cut up the cabbages into thin wedges or send them through a food processor. As you layer this cabbage in a large container, preferably a stone crock, sprinkle on a bit of salt and break open the cells of the cabbage with a “stomper.” Repeat this process until either your container is nearly full or you run out of cabbage. Then cover it with a large plate and place a weight on it.

Within 24 hours the natural juices will have covered the cabbage and the fermentation process will be underway. After about six weeks, when the juices have been reabsorbed into the cabbage, you will know that your sauerkraut is ready. Then it is a matter of placing the sauerkraut in clean jars and storing them in a cool place. And bingo – you are set for the winter.

Even before modern studies have proclaimed fermented sauerkraut as an amazing health food, James Cook introduced it as a staple food for his sailors and found that it helped to prevent the plague of the seas; namely scurvy. He didn’t know exactly why it worked, but later studies showed that it was because of the high level of vitamin C in sauerkraut.

Further studies through the years have identified many health benefits to sauerkraut. For starters, it is an immune booster. The common cold and flu, skin problems, weight gain and tainted blood can all be fixed with a healthy immune system.

Sauerkraut is also a cancer fighter. An interesting study of breast cancer rates among Polish-American women showed that they were much more likely to contract cancer than Polish women who had stayed in Poland and continued to each generous amounts of sauerkraut.

And sauerkraut is an amazing digestive aid, protecting the balance of bacteria in your gastrointestinal tract. It also helps to neutralize anti-nutrients found in many foods and facilitates the breakdown and assimilation of proteins.

So this is the second winter in which we will be eating sauerkraut three or four times a week as a side-dish to whatever else we eat. We find it goes amazingly well with most dishes.

Now if I have convinced you to eat sauerkraut and you head to the supermarket to buy some, be forewarned that much that passes for sauerkraut is simply cabbage soaked in vinegar and salt. Make sure that what you buy is “fermented” cabbage if you want to experience the benefits listed above.

Better still, grow your own cabbage next year and make your own sauerkraut. And save some summer sunshine for the dark winter months. 

Jack Heppner

The Economy

After our last column about a Steady State Economy, I heard from David Dawson who lives at La Broquerie. David agreed with the column, but thought the language got a little too complex at places.

Here is how he put it: I am just an ordinary guy – certainly not an economist. Here are just common sense thoughts from an amateur. Mind you, I believe the economy as a whole is so complex that no one really understands it completely. Experts build computer ‘models’ but how accurate are they.

David thinks it must be obvious to any thinking person that perpetual growth of anything, anything at all, including population and economy is unsustainable. Eventually something will have to give – probably with dramatic effect.  Nevertheless, if our economy isn’t expanding we are told something is wrong. We call it a recession or even depression.  Unemployment soars and company revenues fall, leading to a drop in government revenue. We fear another depression similar to the 1930s.

Obviously, if we can’t go on growing the economy for ever, David says, there has to be a point where growth stops and we end up in a state of permanent recession/depression or at best stagnation.  Currently our lifestyle is based on continual growth, so we are, without doubt, eventually destined for a major shake-up with huge social adjustments.  Are we possibly seeing the very beginnings of this process at the present time? The USA is having great difficulty creating jobs and getting out of the last recessionary period. There are obscenely high pay levels in the financial sector which are creating a totally unbalanced sharing of the wealth of the nation with poverty rife everywhere. Is this partly responsible for the present situation?  The demonstrators all over the world seem to think so.

According to David, when we are in a period of recession our government borrows money to boost the economy to keep employment artificially high.  By borrowing, government creates or maintains a standard of living unsupportable by the economy.  The government hopes it will be able to pay back the loans when the economy returns to growth, but as you can see growth must eventually stop.  We may end up in a situation where we can never pay back the loans, with a crippled economy paying interest only on the money it has borrowed. These payments take much needed resources out of our economy. I wonder if we are in a time of human existence when we are close to, or are actually in, a period of permanent recession/depression.  If that is the case, what are we going to do about the money we have borrowed, whether it is private, individual borrowing, or government borrowing? If this is the time we are in, now is the time to change the way we do things. 

David’s solution is to learn how to cook instead of buying pre-packaged, pre-cooked, boxed meals.  Dig up that useless lawn and plant vegetables.  Learn how to make jam, preserve and freeze your produce.  Compost the waste.

You might also join us Thursday for a presentation on the Steady State Economy. October 27, 7:00PM at the Eastman Education Centre on Loewen Bld. More information at southeasttransition.com.

Eric Rempel

Presenting the Steady State Economy

Addressing the economic and ecological problems of the 21st century

The human family is about to get a little bigger. According to the United Nations, the global population will reach seven billion this Halloween – on October 31, 2011. It would be too easy to say that the coincidental alignment of this milestone with Halloween should be cause for fear. We don’t need to be afraid of a few more babies; birthrates are even decreasing in some parts of the world. What we should be deeply concerned about is the likelihood that these babies will one day aspire to Western lifestyles at a time when the planet simply can’t handle any more materially opulent aspirations.

Our way of life in the West not only puts immense pressure on the environment, it has also become a catalyst for economic volatility on a scale we’ve never seen before. We have designed our economic system to – as economist Tim Jackson describes – “spend money we don’t have on things we don’t need to create impressions that won’t last on people we don’t care about.” Unlike what most mainstream economists will tell you, that’s a recipe for disaster, not prosperity.

Take a moment to consider how the global economy is performing. Oil prices reached $113 a barrel earlier this year, contrasted with a low of $13 a barrel in 1999 (today they hover around $86). Stocks have seen unprecedented volatility; so too have the prices of grains and other essential foodstuffs. Major economies still haven’t fixed a broken financial system that inflates the prices of assets (such as mortgages) and permits a wasteful kind of “gambling” with legitimately earned money. If investment banking was working properly it would be facilitating much-needed investment in green infrastructure, not phony new financial products that consume rather than produce capital.

If this is what a “growing economy” looks like in the 21st century, we should clearly be aiming for something better! It’s time to start being rational rather than dogmatic about the word “growth.” We need to shake ourselves out of collective denial and engineer an economy that is more practical, meaningful and truly prosperous. Recent global protests such as Occupy Wall Street represent an awakening economic consciousness and a backlash against the status quo. They are revealing the cracks of a deeply broken system. But they’re not yet specific and productive.

I invite you to join me in applying specific solutions to these problems by engineering a new economy with a firm foundation. Fostering economic degrowth towards a steady-state doesn’t mean recession; it means fostering a balanced, manageable level of resource flows. It doesn’t mean going back to the dark ages; it means a life more happily and meaningfully lived.

Using the power of entrepreneurship and innovation, we need to find common purpose in the realignment of our overarching social and economic goals — not toward yesterday’s notions of solidarity or neoliberalism — but towards pragmatic and meaningful capital maintenance for prosperity without growth.

Join us on October 27th at 7pm at the Eastman Education Centre to learn more about how we can engineer prosperity without growth.

by James Johnston of the Centre for the Advancement of the Steady State Economy (CASSE)

Is Growth Always Good?

I recently had a conversation with a local farmer who reflected that the farm work he is able to complete before breakfast today, would have taken his father, in his time, the best part of a week to complete. Bigger, better-designed machines have made this possible. But that’s not all. Indeed the 400 HP tractor replaced the 40 HP tractor, but farmers and researchers also found ways of increasing crop yield more than four fold.

This is just one example of the efficiencies we have gained  in the last 100 years. So how have we all benefited from this increased efficiency? A single farmer today replaces ten farmers of yesteryear. What are the nine “surplus farmers” doing? Something good, I hope! Well some of these “farmers” are now working in a factory where they are building the tractors today’s farmer needs. Others are building roads, and others are marketing farm produce. That all seems to be good.

However, many of the displaced farmers are now working in factories making widgets we do not need. Others are working in the advertizing sector where they are trying to persuade us that we need the widgets that are being produced. And others are working at landfills where these widgets end up very shortly after they have been bought. Some have become doctors, doctors that deal primarily with diseases brought on by overeating and inactivity.

There are two ironies in the situation I have described. First, surely increased efficiency ought to result in increased leisure. Surely, time spent at leisure is better than time spent making unneeded widgets. That increased leisure should give parents more time with their children, teachers more time with their students and nurses more time with their patients. But we all know this has not happened. Parents, teachers and nurses all seem to have less time to do the things they know to be important.

The second irony is that as humans become more efficient in the use of their time, they of necessity replace human resources with other resources. Unfortunately most of the resources we end up using more of are of a finite nature, whether that be fossil fuel, steel, or some other resource. Tragically, as we humans become more efficient in the use of our time, we also become more effective in diminishing the resources our children will need if they are to enjoy the same good life we enjoy.

Those are the down sides. Nevertheless, apparently we believe all economic growth has been good for us and we want to keep it that way. The only alternative we know to economic growth is recession with unacceptable levels of unemployment and worse. So we avoid even thinking of alternatives.

Fortunately, there are an increasing number of economists and other thinkers exploring alternatives. One place alternatives are being explored is at the Centre for the Advancement of the Steady State Economy (CASSE).

James Johnston, an associate with CASSE will be making a presentation at the Eastman Education Centre October 27, 7:00PM. Join us and learn with us.

Eric Rempel

Inspiration to Rethink Lifestyle

In the course of history, there comes a time when humanity is called to a new level of consciousness, to reach a higher moral ground. A time when we have to shed our fear, to give hope to one another. That time is now.

Activities that devastate the environment and societies continue unabated … The Norwegian Nobel Committee has placed the central issue of the environment and its linkage to democracy before the world.

The challenge is to restore this home … and give back to the children a world of beauty and wonder.

The world needs lifestyle rethinkers. Consider the example of this courageous and brilliant Kenyan woman.

With humble beginnings in a small village, she became the first East African woman to earn a PhD, then taught in a Kenyan University. From her position of relative privilege, she was moved especially by the poverty of rural women and the scarcity of water and fuel to found the Green Belt movement, a grass roots organization, which to date has planted more than 35 million trees in Kenya and nearby countries.

Empowering rural women to believe they could be foresters led them to challenge the forest destruction fuelled by post colonial greed and corruption. In the 1980s and 90s, she and others were beaten and imprisoned for speaking out in defense of democracy and the environment. She lost her academic position.

But by 2004, when she said the above words in her Nobel Peace Prize acceptance speech (the first African woman to be so honoured), trees planted by the first Green Belt women’s groups were being harvested for lumber, arid and dry lands were reforested, streams were again flowing, and soldiers were planting trees alongside villagers.

The inspiring story is told in a documentary video, Taking Root: the Vision of Wangari Maathai. Who?? Most of us have never heard of her. She was a lifestyle rethinker, and her thinking led to practical action … the simple act of collecting tree seeds, propagating them, establishing local nurseries, and then planting and tending the seedlings, eventually by the millions All accomplished by dozens of women’s groups throughout the country. The Kenyan countryside is being transformed and revived by these simple, practical activities and the Green Belt movement has spread throughout East Africa.

Initially, the women did not believe they were capable. Many were illiterate. Their cultural tradition did not include tree planting among women’s tasks. “You need a diploma to plant a tree” professional foresters told them.

But Maathai doggedly questioned all the assumptions – the women’s, the foresters’, the corporations’, the governments’ – and pushed for change. Why were forest lands being clear-cut, why were parks and preserves being logged, why were people being jailed and mistreated for challenging government corruption?

There was push back by those in power - beatings, death threats, imprisonment – but changes came. And finally recognition and acceptance for Wangari Matthai. She died of cancer September 25 at age 71.

Some lessons for me emerge from her story ….

I need to watch more good documentary and fewer “entertainment” videos. Like Wangari Maathai’s story, they inspire! This video and others are available from SETI.

 

I can sit back and let the “powers” run the show, but eventually my family and I will feel the environmental impact of greed, mismanagement and bad policy.

Look around. What is obviously incongruent in our lifestyle? What is clearly destructive and unsustainable? I need to respond with personal lifestyle changes, but I need to also question and challenge government and corporate practice and policy.

Take this link to the movie web site.

Take this link to the Green Belt web site.

 Tim Kroeker

, 

Election Timidity

Surely, it is reasonable to ask why it is that those currently vying for political office in Manitoba are studiously avoiding the truly important issues we are facing. The important question any thinking person must be asking is: what leadership is our government giving with respect to our addiction to energy consumption and our oblivion to the pollution we are creating.

In 2008, amidst much fanfare, the then Doer government announced its “Climate Change and Emissions Reduction Act”. The government committed then to reduce greenhouse gas emissions to six percent below 1990 levels by 2012. Well we have not come even close to reaching that target. Doer suggested in 2008 that if we did not reach this target, this would be a good and adequate reason to defeat the NDP at the polls.

But dismally, the only opposition party that has shown any interest in this failure is the Green Party. The other two parties, it seems could not care less. One can only assume that if they form the government, they expect to do even less with respect to greenhouse gas emissions and the squandering of energy.

This is no trivial matter. In spite of windmills and ground source heat pumps, our dependence on fossil fuel in continuing to increase. We do not need statistics to know that. We build more efficient cars, but we drive more. Look at our highways. We have more efficient furnaces, but we build bigger houses. Our grocery shelves continue to burgeon with produce transported from all parts of the world. We mandate biofuels, but do nothing to decrease consumption. A holiday is not holiday if it is not fueled by energy.

Remember, we have already consumed the readily accessible oil. Were this not the case, we would not be extracting oil from the bitumen deposits in Alberta. The bitumen deposits may be vast, but not all the deposits are as easy to get at as the stuff we are extracting now. Inevitably, we will move from the more accessible bitumen to the less accessible stuff. Were the oil found below the shallow waters of the Gulf of Mexico not gone, we would not be drilling for oil deposited one mile below the surface of the ocean. The easy to get oil is gone. Puff! After we have extracted the oil deposited below a mile of ocean, we will drill for oil below two miles of ocean. And this trend will go on until the energy required to extract the oil is equal to the energy available from the oil.

To believe that we can have cheap energy forever is a fantasy. To believe that we are entitled to cheap energy is utterly and disgustingly self-serving.

There is only one policy that will break our addiction to energy, and that is a carbon tax. British Columbia has a carbon tax, although it is a very small tax at this time. BC has taken a small step in the right direction.

Oh, that Manitoba politicians had such courage and vision!

Eric Rempel

Why South Eastman Transition Initiative

Many people are concerned about the impact our lifestyle has on others, both “others” as those living elsewhere in this world now, as well as “others” as future generations. They doubt that resources we take for granted and consume as if they are inexhaustible will still be there when our children and grandchildren need them.

So we have this concern, so what? So what can we, what do we, do about it? As individuals anything we do will have little effect. If we wait for government, it is likely to be too late. But if we form a group, where we act together, we may be able to do something as a group that will make a difference.

There are, of course, already many groups that speak to our concern. Some names are very familiar to us: Greenpeace International, the David Suzuki Foundation, and Al Gore’s Climate Crisis initiative quickly come to mind. Some of my favorites are The Post Carbon Institute, the Center for the Advancement of Steady State Economy, the Carbon Tax Center and the New Economics Institute.

I appreciate the contribution all these groups are making to the conversation we all need to have about responsible living. Having said that, I may not agree with everything these groups do, say or advocate. Nevertheless, I think we need much more dialogue and knowledge about the ideas these groups are putting forth. We need to take the actions they are advocating.

But none of them focus on southeastern Manitoba.

In contrast to these large international groups, there are several intentional communities in the Southeast that focus very much on responsible living. In the southeast, I am aware of the Northern Sun Farm, the Prairie’s Edge Eco Village, and the Ploughshares Community Farm. Each of these communities is made up of people very committed to responsible living and who have concluded that responsible living can best be done in a community. I find their logic quite convincing and their gentle way of living commendable, but personally, I am simply not ready to commit to that lifestyle. I suspect in this regard many others are like me.

This means that we need a group that brings together residents of southeastern Manitoba who share this concern about the way we live. The group facilitates conversations and allows for the possibility of group actions that will have a greater impact on our community than each of us acting individually. The South Eastman Transition Initiative tries to be such a group.

Currently the South Eastman Transition Initiative is lead by a steering committee consisting of four people. However, the initiative needs direction from a broader base. There is a need for people of like mind to come together, to evaluate what we have done so far, and consider what we ought to be doing down the road.

Such an evaluation/planning event is scheduled for September 22, 7:00 PM at the Eastman Education Centre, 385 Loewen Blvd. Please join us. 

Eric Rempel

Simply in Season

In 2005, Mennonite Central Committee published a cook book called, “Simply in Season.” It is a delightful work that gently invites us to eat fresh, seasonal foods instead of relying on the mono-culture of produce found in supermarkets year-round.

Here in Southeastern Manitoba, we have four very distinct seasons. I lived in a tropical climate for a number of years where temperatures and daylight hours varied only slightly throughout the year. After a few years I found this quite monotonous. When I came back home I gained a renewed appreciation for the ever-changing seasons in this part of the world.

As I reflect on the many tidbits of writing scattered throughout, “Simply in Season,” I am reminded that a sustainable lifestyle requires two things of us all – living more simply and making the most of each season.

Living more simply is not as simple as it sounds. Every day we are bombarded with messages telling us that in order to be happier and more fulfilled we need to buy more stuff, travel more widely, participate in more activities and eat “fast” and “processed” food. Mostly we believe these lies.  

Yet, if we are to survive as a human race with any degree of social justice, we will need to move toward simplified lifestyles. Our earth simply does not provide enough resources for all of its citizens to live the consumptive lifestyles we have become used to in the western world.

Living more simply will mean different things for different people. For my Ruth and me, it means walking or biking more, down-sizing to become a one-vehicle family, growing most of our own vegetables and, if at all possible, purchasing whatever else we need locally. That may not seem like much, but we are in transition. 

And that brings me to the idea of making the most of each season. Supermarkets and shopping malls have pretty much obliterated seasons for most of us. Apart from seasonal changes in the clothing stores, most everything remains the same all year round. We can buy California lettuce and “notional” tomatoes any day of the year, plus fruit from the farthest corners of the world. And no matter what the weather, we are accustomed to climbing into our climate-controlled vehicles and burning precious fuel to get ourselves around.

So the lifestyles we have adopted have gradually removed us from living well “in season.” A simpler lifestyle re-connects us with the diverse challenges and delights that each season brings. My favorite season is autumn. It is the time of the year when we eat mostly from our garden. All year I look forward to biting into that first vine-ripened tomato as well as other organically grown vegetables fresh from the garden. And the colors of autumn never cease to amaze me.

I am convinced that the more we simplify our lives the more we will get in touch with our four distinct seasons – a blessing we cannot really afford to miss.

Jack Heppner

It Is Time to “Raid” Manitoba Hydro

Manitoba Hydro is important to Manitobans. It has allowed us to harness the vast energy potential of our rivers, so is a so it is not surprising that the routing of the BiPole III and talk of privatizing Hydro are already significant election issues. The PCs speak to inefficiencies at Manitoba Hydro. Jon Girrard blogs that Manitoba Hydro should not be treated as a “milk cow”.

Unfortunately, what is missing is any discussion as to what role energy, or more precisely cheap energy should have in the development of Manitoba. Because of its many rivers, and because of the infrastructure developed by Manitoba Hydro, Manitobans have access to an incredible amount of electric energy. The question is what how should that energy be used.

Unfortunately, we have all come to believe that we are entitled to cheap energy – yes, cheap gasoline, but also cheap electricity. Note the size of the homes and public edifices we are building, the exorbitant lighting we all take for granted, and our passion for perfect temperature control, both summer and winter. We have come to believe we are entitled to all of this, and that it will be there for us – always.

So we have a cheap energy policy. That is, because the production of hydro electricity is cheap in Manitoba, we believe we should also have low electricity rates. I believe this is unfortunate because it results in an unnecessary, potentially harmful dependency on cheap electricity. Cheap energy encourages the consumption of energy, and then, inadvertently, the wastage of energy.

Manitoba Hydro advocates for more efficient light bulbs, better insulation, and promotes energy efficient appliances, but the economic incentive to follow these recommendations is weak – because of our cheap energy policy.

If we believe that using more efficient light bulbs and more insulation is good, Manitoba needs to change its policy with respect to energy pricing.

Consider that most of us have become quite comfortable with a consumption tax on alcohol and tobacco. We have accepted that income taxes and property taxes are necessary. However, we resist a tax on energy. This makes no sense.

Consider a hypothetical firm paying $1,000 tax on profit and $1,000 for electricity. Now, because of a policy change, the tax on profits becomes $1,500 and the cost of electricity becomes $500. Such a policy change would create an incentive to do what? Hire another accountant to look for ways of reducing the tax. This is hardly desirable behaviour from a social point of view.

Now what if the policy change results in a tax on profits of $500 and the cost of electricity becoming $1,500. The incentive now is to reduce electric consumption. This is desirable behaviour.

Manitoba has an amazing resource in its hydroelectric potential. Manitobans are entitled to benefit from that resource, but that benefit should not be in the form of cheap energy. The benefit should be in the form of lower income and property taxes.

Eric Rempel

Preserving the Harvest

These days normal February fare on our dinner tables is fresh lettuce and tomatoes. We don’t even consider it a luxury. We give no thought to the energy that has gone into the production and transportation of that food from California to our dinner table. But seriously, how long do we think we can continue our wanton consumption of fossil fuel – particularly when realistic, pleasant alternatives are available.

Preserving local produce for winter consumption is not difficult and uses a fraction of the energy of “California dependency”. Moreover, food preservation can be a rewarding, fun family activity. This lifestyle was normal for our mothers and grandmothers, but most of us have forgotten the necessary skills. We forget these skills at our peril. The time will come when food will not flow as easily from California in the middle of winter, and we do well to live in anticipation of that time. This is why the South Eastman Transition Initiative hosted a food preservation workshop last week. We focused on canning, fermentation and dehydration.

On the one hand, none of these crafts is difficult to master. On the other hand, it is a mistake to think that they can be picked up just like that when the time comes that they are necessary. Probably then it will be too late. There is value in cultivating these crafts now.

In canning, we sterilize the food we wish to preserve and keep it sterile until we want to eat it. It is quite possible to home-can all of the food available in cans on the shelves of the grocery store, except when canning is done in the home, glass jars are used instead of tin cans. The appeal of canning is that the canning process is often the first step in preparing the food for the table. Also, the product coming out of a home-canned jar is identical to the produce coming out of a tin can off the shelf of the grocery store. It is something we are familiar with.

Fermentation is another form of food preservation. Today fermentation is used very little, but prior to about 1930 fermentation was common. It is a wholesome, low energy way of preserving food, but to enjoy it takes some adjustment to the palate.

Dehydration is simple and effective for many foods. The bacteria and mould that spoil food cannot multiply in the absence of moisture, so if moisture is eliminated, the food is preserved. This is why the beef jerky and fruit leather sold at convenience outlets does not go bad. Solar and electric dehydrators can be purchased or built, and they make dehydration easier, but any food thinly sliced and exposed to the sun and wind will dehydrate and keep.

No doubt, our current lifestyle is convenient and pleasant. However, it is possible only because we have access to cheap energy. To have the food of our choice available at the grocery store at the time of our choice is, well – luxurious! But it is also indulgent. We live that lifestyle at our peril. Such a lifestyle is not sustainable.

Eric Rempel

Can We Recycle the Phosphate?

Readers of this column will have noted that two weeks ago I wrote about the pending worldwide scarcity of phosphate. Last week I wrote about the pollution caused by phosphate. This week I deal with some ways of addressing both problems.

As we have noted, all animals ingest phosphate. It is a necessary component of the food they eat. Their bodies use a very small portion of the phosphate they ingest. The remainder is expelled in the urine and feces. That phosphate can have one of two destinies, but only two: it can recycle and again become a plant nutrient; or it does not recycle, and becomes a pollutant.

So there is an incentive for us to find ways of recycling the phosphate.

Were phosphate the only component of interest in excrement, we would probably be recycling the phosphate now. However, we have been much more interested in the pathogens found in excrement. We have become singularly adept at dealing with those pathogens. We are all familiar with the tragic part of the Walkerton story, but we should also note the other part of that narrative – the Walkerton story is unusual, a commentary on the effectiveness of our common treatment technologies in dealing with these pathogens. Unfortunately, as we deal with the pathogens, we more or less disregard the phosphate.

It need not be so. There is technology that will deal with human excrement in a way that will kill pathogens and allow the recycling of the plant nutrient component. The most familiar technology is composting toilets. These come in many designs, but all ultimately convert the excrement into compost in a way that will kill any pathogens. Unfortunately, managing a composting toilet is not as easy as pressing a leaver to generate a five-gallon flush. Any composting toilet requires committed management if it is to work well.

There are also technologies that allow for the safe application of municipal sewage onto cropland in a way that conserves the plant nutrients. Nevertheless, because of the way the sewage has been treated before it gets to the application stage, this is problematic. Firstly, our households dilute any organic effluent with prodigious amounts of water. This water needs to be dealt with if the organic matter is to be applied to cropland. Secondly, so much of what we flush plants do not like, things like cleaning agents, paints, and petroleum derivatives.

The best way of dealing with the phosphate and other potential plant foods generated in our households is to separate them from other waste at source. This way we would not dilute it with perfectly clean water or contaminate it with other waste. This could be done quite easily at the municipal level, but requires a cultural commitment to work.

At this time, we are probably not ready to change the way we treat human effluent, but as phosphate for food production becomes harder to get, and the impact of the pollution of our waterways with phosphates becomes more evident, we will have little choice but to become more resourceful in what and how we recycle.

Eric Rempel

What Happens to the Phosphate?

Last week I wrote about the need to respect nature's phosphate cycle. After all, the world supply of accessible phosphate is limited. Phosphate is a scarce resource. It ought to be used carefully and sparingly.

But phosphate also can be a pollutant. We see this in Lake Winnipeg today. When the phosphate in a water body exceeds a threshold concentration, the result is excessive algal growth. When these algae die, their decomposition uses up oxygen in the water. When that happens, other living organisms, such as fish, suffocate and die.

All of us ingest plants. We call this eating. The carbon and hydrogen component of the food we eat is converted to energy as we live and work. Our body expels the food components our body does not need. What our body expels, either as feces or as urine, we call human waste, but that is a misuse of the word “waste”. Plants do not consider this waste. For plants, this is food. There are only two possibilities for this excrement: either it nurtures plants, or it pollutes our environment. These are the only two options.

Have you ever considered what happens to the stuff you flush down the toilet? If you are at all thoughtful (most of us are not), you realize it does not disappear with the flush. It goes somewhere. If you live in Steinbach, it goes first to the treatment centre and from there to the lagoon. The treatment centre deals with pathogens and fats, but does nothing with the phosphorus. You cannot get rid of it. It needs to go somewhere. It is my understanding that most of it remains as sludge at the bottom of the lagoon. The sludge has a potential as plant nutrient for the cropland around the lagoon, but the quality is seriously compromised because of contamination by the other products we flush down the sewer; products such as cleaning agents, paint and petroleum products. The Steinbach city lagoon is rarely de-sludged. So what happens to the phosphorous ingested by the 13,000 Steinbach residents? Believe me, it does not disappear.

In 1995, I was involved in the start of a manure management company. The focus of this company was the management of manure coming from the industrialized hog farms springing up in this area. At the time of our formation, there had been no effort to apply science to the way manure was applied to cropland. Our focus then was nitrogen, and our goal was to match nitrogen application with nitrogen uptake by the crop. We quickly noticed that as we were optimizing nitrogen, we were over-applying phosphate by a factor of two. “No problem”, everyone said, “our Manitoba soils can handle that.” I spoke to many people about this over-application of phosphate, and no one I talked to foresaw a problem.

In 2002, just a few years later, we began hearing about the eutrophication of Lake Winnipeg, the result of precious phosphate flushed down the toilets of our cities, and the over-application of livestock manure. We pretend phosphorous disappears when we flush at our peril. It does not disappear.

Eric Rempel

Nature’s Phosphate Cycle

Nature moves in cycles. The most common cycles are the carbon, nitrogen and phosphate cycle, but there are others. Plants take their nutrients from the soil and air. Biomass is formed as the plant grows and matures. The plant die or are eaten by animal. The animals defecate and ultimately die. In each case the minerals that were taken up by the plant ultimately return to the soil to be taken up by subsequent plants, and the cycle continues.

Since we depend on nature for our sustenance, we do well to understand that cycle and nurture it. But industrialized agriculture does not do that. It has found very effective ways of circumventing the natural cycle. The result has been phenomenal crop production. But are these results sustainable?

 
For thousands of years, the Chinese and Indian civilizations have mimicked the natural cycle. Each peasant farm was more or less self-contained so that all biological material coming from the farm ultimately was returned to the soil of that farm. Most notably, human waste was returned to agricultural fields, often after careful composting. Using these techniques, they were able to maintain the fertility of their fields for those thousands of years.

In recent years, agriculture in those countries has also industrialized. Here too, this has resulted in phenomenal yield increases.

 
But industrialized agriculture, in significant respects, ignores the natural cycle. Within an industrialized system, a field is tested for available plant nutrients. The interest here is primarily in the macro-nutrients N, P, K, and S. Fertilizer is then blended and applied at the rate that will optimize plant growth. The questions: where does the fertilizer come from, and is the supply reliable, are not asked.

But if we are to build a sustainable, stable society, these questions need to be asked. In Canada, phosphate is mined near Kapuskasing in Ontario and near Radium in BC. But Canada, in spite of its vast geological formations, has not discovered any really good phosphate deposits, and we do not produce world class phosphate. The most readily available phosphate rock has already been utilized, and the phosphate we are going after now requires more energy to extract and is of a lower quality.

Phosphate is essential to crop growth. Unlike petroleum energy, which can, in certain circumstances be replaced with other forms of energy, there are no substitutes for phosphate. There is only one reasonable response to looming phosphate shortages. We need to use the phosphate currently within the food production system more efficiently. This means the more efficient return of livestock manure to growing crops, but also the recycling of human waste, which is rich in phosphate, to agricultural fields.

Currently, there is little incentive to do any of the necessary recycling. Just as a carbon tax is needed if we are all to use energy more efficiently, a resource use tax is needed to get us to change our phosphate use habits before the shortage of phosphate has a catastrophic effect on our food supply.

Eric Rempel

Purposeful Exercise

Our push-button lifestyles emerged in the 20^th century along with the introduction of electricity. I still remember the euphoria that swept the countryside around 1950 as we all got “plugged in.”

Of course by that time tractors and cars had, for the most part, replaced horses. A gallon of gasoline probably got more done in an hour than man and animal together had formerly done in a day. And the advent of petro-chemicals on the farm eased the burden of keeping weeds at bay.

Modernity was celebrated. Perhaps nothing symbolized this shift better than the thermostat. In earlier times it required a lot of physical activity to keep one’s house warm. Now, with the advent of the modern oil furnace, you could do it with a little push of your index finger.

As the decades rolled on, technology advanced steadily with gizmos and gadgets that allowed us the luxury of not using our muscles very much at all. Soon cars had automatic transmissions, power steering and electric window openers. Manual typewriters became electric and then morphed into computer keyboards. Fruits and vegetables for which we used to labor now appeared like magic year-round in supermarkets.

Ah yes, utopia was within reach! But as we bore down on the close of that great century we gradually became aware that modernity was bringing with it unintended consequences. We were being changed as people.

The term, “couch potato” was born. The word “obesity” found its way into our vocabulary from relative obscurity. Books and articles about the negative effects of a “sedentary” lifestyle began to flood the market. And, wouldn’t you know it, soon it was suggested that a host of medical problems were linked, directly or indirectly, to lack of exercise. Modernity was beginning to bite back.

And so emerged the modern exercise gym. Many of us began to drive miles for the opportunity to sweat it out at the gym in order to gain back the health that modernity had taken from us. Or we could be found walking or running around town, going nowhere in particular, just to get back into shape. But most of us soon gave up. It was too hard to fit modern exercise programs into a tight schedule in which we drove from one sedentary activity to another.

So what is emerging now in the 21^st century is an attempt to build purposeful exercise into our lifestyles. In some senses it is a throwback to earlier times before electricity and oil took over most of our daily physical responsibilities. Walking or biking instead of driving is making a comeback. Growing your own food is gaining popularity. Participatory sports is putting a dent into spectator sports.

The genie is out of the bottle. Once we begin to comprehend what the modern lifestyle has taken from us, we will find many ingenious ways of putting exercise back into our daily routines. The more we do, the more our bodies and our environment will thank us.

Jack Heppner

Natural Systems Agriculture

Last week I attended the annual field day of the Natural Systems Agriculture program of the University of Manitoba. I was again impressed with the important work these people are doing, and the importance of agricultural research to our lives.

Had average crop yields remained at the 1900 level the crop harvest in the year 2000 would have required nearly four times more land. Since 1900, Canadian and US crop yields have more than tripled. In France, yields have increased by a multiple of 5.2 and in China by a multiple of 3.8. Primarily, three technologies made this yield increase possible: the development of synthetic nitrogen fertilizer, the development of pest control chemicals and the breeding of plant varieties that responded to these ideal conditions.

In 1900, agriculture used no synthetic nitrogen fertilizer. Today’s agriculture, today’s food production, is utterly dependent on it. Without synthetic nitrogen, modern agriculture would collapse. The development of synthetic nitrogen is an monumental achievement on the one hand, but on the other, it creates a disquieting vulnerability. Ironically, virtually all agricultural research today is directed either towards achieving higher yields while optimizing nitrogen or towards increasing the efficiency of the use of nitrogen. The perpetual availability of synthetic nitrogen is assumed.

But all synthetic nitrogen manufactured today comes from natural gas, a resource in limited supply.

The only alternative to synthetic nitrogen derived from natural gas is natural nitrogen. We know of no alternative source of synthetic nitrogen. This is why the work done by the Natural Systems Agriculture program, a program run by a small group of researchers is so important.

What impressed me most at this field day is that these Natural Systems Agriculture people are not doing things the way my father (who was a farmer) did things prior to the availability of synthetic nitrogen and chemical pest control products. Through the judicious use of plants that fix atmospheric nitrogen and return biomass to the soil, they have been able to achieve yields that come very close to the yields achieved by what is currently seen as conventional agriculture.

At the field day, these researchers demonstrated that:

• Soil nitrogen levels can be maintained with nitrogen fixing plants in the rotation. Yields following a nitrogen-fixing crop typically approach yields of crops fed synthetic nitrogen.
• Tillage and the use of weed control chemicals have been over-rated as weed control tools. By using equipment designed to plant into untilled ground and by maintaining a good mulch, weeds are not eliminated, but can be controlled.
• Careful crop rotation is needed to maintain field fertility and control weeds.

As is typical at field days of this nature, the various donors that made this work possible were acknowledged. These included various government funding programs and assorted farmer and consumer organizations. Notably absent from the list of donors were the big agribusiness companies. Yet it is these companies that are responsible for most of the agricultural research done today, either by supporting work at the University or by carrying it out themselves.

Low input agriculture may not be important to the large corporations of this world, but it is vitally important to the people who depend on a healthy environment for survival.

Eric Rempel

Searching for Alternatives

Old habits die hard. Usually we have to be thoroughly convinced that the old way of doing things is harmful or not sustainable and that an alternative way is better before we make a move to change our lifestyles.

Smoking is an easy example to pick on because by now even the government is trying to convince smokers to quit. But there are many other lifestyle habits that society as a whole has not yet identified as being harmful or unsustainable. And so many voices call out to us to continue on with destructive patterns of life. One hour of television viewing will garner an amazing amount of bad advice about lifestyle choices.

But once we are alerted to the possibility that the voices calling out to us generally do not have our long-term interests in mind we need to start asking serious question on a broad front about the way we live.

How much energy do we consume? Where does that energy come from? What effect does the production and use of that energy have on our environment? Is it possible to reduce our energy requirements? If we decide to live in a way that consumes less energy, does that down-grade or enhance our quality of life?

How many toxins do we consume via the processed foods we buy at the super market? What pesticide residues are left on the fruits and vegetables we consume? What effect do the chemicals used in our groceries to maintain long shelf life have on our bodies? Are there ways of reducing the number of toxins we ingest? Will that improve our chances of being healthy longer?

How many of the gizmos and gadgets that get thrown at us by an aggressive business community do we really need? What negative effects are left behind in the environment and in the lives of those persons who make them? What are the minimum number of products and services we need for a healthy and purposeful life? Does our happiness quotient rise significantly with every purchase we make? Could we do with less and possibly be more happy and content at the same time?

Once we begin asking such questions we begin looking around for alternatives to our status-quo lifestyes; alternatives that will help us transition toward healthier and more wholesome lives.

But the next question is whether anyone has thought of alternatives and actually made them work. One of our goals at South Eastman Transition Initiative is to facilitate connections with people and their ideas that might help us in our transition efforts.

A group of people that has been modelling alternatives to the modern lifestyle is the intentional community, Northern Sun Farm Coop, located near Sarto just south of Steinbach. Join us for a visit with that community at 7:00 p.m., Thursday, July 28^th to listen, look and learn about possibilities that might work for you. For those who wish to carpool, we leave the parking lot at Steinbach 55 Plus at 6:30 p.m.  

Jack Heppner