The Need for Resilience

In 2006 we became aware of The Omnivore’s Dilemma. Even if we did not read the book, author Michael Pollan effectively raised all of our awareness of the implications of our food choices: the distance some of the food on our dinner plate has travelled, the inputs used in growing our food, the labour conditions present in the production of other food, and the sustainability of our whole food system. Pollan’s other concern is agricultural policy, and how subsidies, some overt, but many covert, affect our food choices.

On the heels of that book came The 100-Mile Diet: A Year of Local Eating. This is one couple’s account of life when they had set themselves the challenge of eating only food grown within 100 miles for a year. Inspired by that account, others have set themselves identical or similar challenges. All the people I have heard talking about this experience say the same thing: the discipline was a good experience, one they encourage others to try, but it is not a discipline they intend to follow for the rest of their life. They do not advocate it as a lifestyle.

Now there is The Localivore’s Dilemma. The book seems to make some good points primarily in drawing attention to the fact that long distance transportation may not be as large an energy input in the production of our food as say, the heating of a greenhouse. Had they stopped there, the book would be a good contribution to the whole food discussion. Unfortunately, the authors seem exceptionally intent on debunking The Omnivore’s Dilemma and The 100-Mile Diet. Without that emphasis, the book would be much more helpful to us as we make food choices.

Perhaps more helpful is The Resilience Imperative, a book I have been reading lately. This book suggests that with regard to our entire way of life, things have been going well. Nevertheless, shocks will come, whether they be the result of financial breakdown, resource depletion, or political breakdown. How well are we prepared for such a shock?

Our food system is predicated on a number of largely unexamined assumptions. The first assumption is that cheap fertilizer made from distant fossil and rock deposits will always be available. Conventionally, large quantities of energy are needed in both the production and delivery of food. The second assumption is that this energy will always be available.

A few dedicated researchers at the University of Manitoba are devoted to developing a food production system independent of imported fertilizers, and less dependent on fossil energy inputs. If these questions concern you, consider attending the Natural Systems Agriculture field day in Carman July 23.

At the South Eastman Transition Initiative we discuss and delve into these important questions. Join us Thursday, July 26 as we spend the evening with Kim Shukla and Richard Whitehead of Stonelane Orchard discussing the challenges and rewards of growing food without chemical inputs.

Eric Rempel

Rethinking Global Finance (II)

Two  weeks ago I alerted readers to the fact that global financial institutions, like the World Bank and the International Monetary Fund (IMF), are presently in the process of rethinking the advice they give to governments around the world. They have become acutely aware that the present trajectory of financial practices is simply not sustainable.

Johnny West, founder of OpenOil, a Berlin-based consultancy in oil and other extractive industries, and columnist for Petroleum Economist, has written extensively about some of the new thinking that is happening in these global institutions.

At the heart of this re-orientation is the notion that much more of the profits of extractive industries like oil and mining should flow towards local governments. According to Paul Collier, governments should then use these funds to “Invest in investing: the creation not of industries but of the infrastructure to support them, that infrastructure being partly physical, such as roads and utilities, and partly social, such as developing trading and legal systems which encourage private investment.”

Unlike manufacturing that actually makes something people need, extractive industries are making massive profits by delivering products to people who own them in the first place. (Consider that in 2008 Exxon made a profit of $45 billion dollars – the largest profit ever recorded by a company.) Because of this unique dimension of extractive industries, it is argued that we can stay well within capitalist orthodoxy by also applying unique taxation practices for these industries without creating market distortions.

The traditional argument is that these massive profits are justified because of the huge risks these companies take in discovering their products. However, with present computerized data now available on the substructure of most of the earth’s surface, the risks are substantially reduced. Why, for example, should government not use this data to identify where oil and minerals are located and then auction off the rights of extraction to the highest bidder. Nova Scotia did just that recently. It invested $15 million in oil exploration and then sold extraction rights for $900 million. You could argue that the rightful owners got the lion’s share of the profits.

There is cause for concern, for example, when corporations are extracting large amounts of oil from some African countries which are largely fed by Save the Children or the World Food Program. What would happen if, in such cases, the IMF moved in to advise local governments to insist that most of those oil profits should go to feed their own people and strengthen local infrastructure?

Some of the impetus for this new way of thinking is coming from Latin America where an increasing number of countries are claiming ownership of their own oil and minerals. It is becoming clear, that if private companies want to stay in the game, they will have to be willing to make major concessions. The World Bank and the IMF should see the writing on the wall and begin advising governments differently in relation to their extractive industries.  

Jack Heppner

Loosening Corporate Grip

In an article, “The Corporation As Psychopath,” Michael Jessen states, “Our economic system will eventually change. As currently structured, the system is unsustainable for both people and the planet.

Believe it or not, there was a time when corporations did not exist. Now “…they determine what we wear, where we work, what we read, what we listen to, what we watch, and what we do.” Many corporations are larger and more powerful than most countries. One result is political apathy in western democracies because people sense that their governments are mostly incapable of loosening the corporate grip on society.

In law, a corporation is defined as a “person” and, according to Noam Chomsky, “…its legally defined mandate is to pursue its self-interest regardless of who or what suffers as a result of its actions.”

In his ground-breaking book, “The Corporation: the Pathological Pursuit of Profit and Power,” Joel Bakan asks the question what kind of a “person” a corporation might be. Using standard checklists for personality types and mental disorders, he concludes the corporation is a psychopathic personality.

“A Corporation has a callous unconcern for the feelings of others, an incapacity to maintain enduring relationships, a reckless disregard for the safety of others, a pattern of deceitfulness, an incapacity to experience guilt and a failure to conform to social norms with respect to lawful behaviour.”

Such psychopaths are normally locked up to protect the public. But in the corporate world they are allowed to dictate to the rest of us how we should live. Sad that many are willing to march to the beat of a psychopath’s drum.

Fortunately there is a push back beginning to happen. Within the corporate world there is a lot of window dressing going on right now to appease our new consciousness about social and environmental sustainability. A lot of money is being spent on “cleaning up the corporate image.” A case in point: change the traditional designation of “tar sands” to “oil sands.” And, hey, Walmart is going “Green!” But there is reason to be skeptical. The bottom line is still what share-holders care about, not much else.

Here and there corporations have gone through a conversion of sorts and have in fact incorporated social and environmental sustainability into their mandate. For example, Ray Anderson, CEO of Interface, the world’s largest carpet manufacturing company, is determined to “give back to the planet instead of taking from it.” Such corporations will survive into the future. Psychopaths will eventually be “locked up.”

Meanwhile there are a lot of things we as individuals can do to loosen the corporate grip on our lives.

1. Resist the temptation to buy needless goods and services psychopaths thrust at us.
2. Avoid doing business with multi-national corporations as much as possible.
3. Buy needed goods and services from local people and businesses you know personally.
4. Reduce your need to accumulate ever-more stuff, especially stuff from a distance.
5. Recycle, share and cooperate.
6. Petition lawmakers to limit the powers of corporations.

Jack Heppner