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

Phosphates in our Ditches

I have previously written about the phosphate cycle. In nature, plants take up phosphate from the soil, and it becomes a part of plant tissue. The nutrient is returned to the soil when the plant dies. If it is ingested by animals or people, the phosphate is returned to the soil when the animal defecates. The cycle is complete.

In modern food production systems phosphate is a scarce resource. It is mined thousands of miles from here, is transported to where it is needed and applied to fields and gardens. The phosphate works its way up the food chain, and ultimately ends up in a livestock barn or human stomachs.

We flush our toilets and that phosphate is on its way to Lake Winnipeg. Animal manure is applied to agricultural fields. If the same amount of manure phosphate is applied as what the plants will take up, the natural phosphate cycle is intact. If surplus manure phosphate is applied, the extra is on its way to Lake Winnipeg. No matter how the phosphate is treated, it does not simply disappear.

As the phosphates get to Lake Winnipeg, they encourage algal growth in the lake, which in turn consumes oxygen resulting in a sterile lake unable to support fish or anything else. 

There are currently projects underway to see whether excess phosphate can be removed from Lake Winnipeg. Experimentally, cattails in the lake are being harvested and removed to see if the lake could benefit from such a removal. This may offer possibilities, but in my mind, the biggest problem is not addressed: the recovered phosphate is now a long ways from where it is needed, namely the farm fields.

Recently, David Dawson pointed out to me that the Highways Dept and Municipalities cut the grass and cattails in our ditches regularly. The lush growth in the ditches is the result of nutrients coming off the adjacent fields. In spring, many of these ditches become raging torrents. The rotting mass of cut grass is flushed down into the rivers and into Lake Winnipeg where it releases its phosphates.

Suppose, David says, an enterprising farmer cut the grass in the ditch, baled it up, took it to his farm and fed it to his cattle. Then the farmer collected the manure from his cattle and dumped it back in the ditch. There would be an outcry and rightly so. But, in fact, the farmer would be returning less to the ditch than he had taken out. The cattle would have utilized a good part of it. So why is it OK to leave all that grass in the ditch but not OK to dump the manure back in the ditch?

If we are seeking ways of removing phosphate from Lake Winnipeg, surely it makes more sense to prevent the phosphate from getting there in the first place. A relatively simple solution would be that the Highways Dept include in its grass cutting contracts a clause that the cut grass be removed. The material could be composted and recycled for public use. It’s not rocket science.

By 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

Oil Development = Wellbeing?

Canada has become an energy giant – at least this is what Wikipedia says. According to the US Energy Information Administration, Canadian oil reserves are the second largest in the world. Only Saudi Arabia has greater assessed reserves. Mind you, much of Canadian oil is hard to get. It is either tied up as bitumen in the Athabasca Oil Sands, it is in the frigid north, or it is off shore where drilling is difficult.

As world oil supplies become more and more scarce, there is, and will continue to be increasing interest in these Canadian deposits. The question is: how should Canada as a nation respond to this growing interest? Conventional wisdom seems to say that we view this as a bonanza: we need to cash in on it as quickly as possible. But why? Last week I suggested that the market for our oil will not disappear, and the price of oil will only go up.

We know that oil companies need to show their investors a quick return on investment, but this is not true of governments. Our government needs to take a longer term, broader perspective on the development of such a resource. It is probably not reasonable to expect an oil company to consider what is best for our children and grandchildren in its long term strategy. However, I think it is the responsibility of a government to take such a long term perspective.

This is simply good conservative thinking. I am very disappointed that our current government, which claims to be conservative, applies what I call “company thought” to an issue that requires “nation thought.”

Furthermore, because the oil reserves we will be wishing to develop in the future will be hard to get at, their development will be more labour intensive than the oil developments of the past. We see this already. Labour demand in Alberta is high, and anecdotes of problems associated with this high labour demand are abundant – a shortage of housing, weak communities, and jobs simply not being filled. At the same time, some of the cities in eastern Canada are in recession.

Will there be any real winners if jobs continue to be lost in Eastern Canada and people wanting work need to continue to move to those areas where the oil is? Will there be any real winners if some of the areas we have considered part of Canada’s natural heritage become tailings ponds and other scars of open pit mining for oil.

Once wealth, whether it is national or individual has risen beyond a certain point, happiness is not a function of GDP or income. Happiness then is a function of family and community stability. Happiness is consistent with a country has stable communities and a diversified economy exporting a variety of products.

Given that we are dealing with a much sought after, but also very limited resource, the role of a conservative government needs to be to temper and guide the development of that resource. Instead, we see our government cheerleading the unfettered development and export of our non-renewable [once it is gone it is gone!] oil resource.

By Eric Rempel

When in Doubt, Use Caution

When in doubt, proceed with caution! When an input is scarce, use it sparingly! To my way of thinking, these are two core conservative values. I believe in these values, and find it puzzling that these values seem absent from many of the policies and actions of our current conservative government.

Take the promise, in the recent federal budget, to streamline environmental approvals. In general we all agree that streamlining is good thing. It removes unnecessary bureaucratic blockages. But if statements made by Joe Oliver, Minister of Natural Resources, are any indication of government intent, the intent of this streamlining is to not to assess the process. Instead, it seems, the government simply wants to get the environmental review process out of the way as quickly as possible so it can get on with its real agenda. Where is the caution here?

Why the rush? A successful business needs to know when to bring its product onto the market. It is not uncommon for a business enterprise to have to make a choice. It can choose to bring an inadequately developed product onto the market early and capitalize on an “early delivery” premium. Or it can spend more time on product development, sacrifice the “early delivery” premium, but deliver a good product.

I can understand why the oil companies are in a hurry to get things done. Each company wants to get in ahead of the other company because there is a premium in that. I can understand why the oil importing countries are lining up to fund the building of Canada’s pipelines. If they get in early, they have a better chance to get Canada’s oil.

But I can see no reason why Canada needs to be in a hurry. Why the hurry in exporting Canada’s oil resources? Why the desire to shorten the environmental approval process? Why the desire to attract non-Canadians to invest in the extraction of Canada’s oil? Why create jobs in the oil industry, when the jobs need to be filled by attracting immigrants? I could understand the hurry if it would be likely that we would lose if there were a delay in getting our oil onto the market.

But Canada won’t lose if we take our time in getting our oil onto the market, if we “take the time to develop a good product.” As the world oil supplies become harder to get; as the oil the world depends on comes increasingly from sources hard to get at (such a deep sea wells and Alberta’s tar sands), the price of oil will only go in one direction – up. The longer we delay in bringing this resource to the market, the higher will be the price. What’s to lose?

If Canada slows the delivery of tar sand derived oil onto the market, this delay will accelerate the rise in world oil prices. And this will affect what we pay at the pumps. That will hurt. It always does. Be that as it may, a substantial increase in the price of oil is inevitable. If not sooner, then it will be more later. Higher prices mean more pressure to find alternatives. We need that pressure. We need it soon.


By Eric Rempel

Everything we thought we knew is wrong!

Okay, maybe not everything. But what if some of our core beliefs about how the world works turn out to be seriously flawed? Last Thursday some of us watched a documentary that flipped our world upside down to see what makes it tick, as it explored the most critical question of our time:

How do we become a sustainable civilization?

Water shortages, hunger, peak oil, species extinction, and even increasing depression are all symptoms of a deeper problem – addiction to unending growth in a world that has limits. GrowthBusters: Hooked on Growth goes way beyond prescribing Band-Aids to slow the bleeding. This film examines the cultural barriers that prevent us from reacting rationally to the evidence that current levels of population and consumption are unsustainable.

It asks why the population conversations are so difficult to have. Why it’s more important to our society to have economic growth than clean air. Why communities seek and subsidize growth even when it destroys quality of life and increases taxes.

Our growth-centric system is broken. It’s not providing the happiness or the prosperity we seek. But that’s good news; it means a shift to a sustainable model will be good for us. We’ll be happier and more prosperous!

Individual and public policy decisions today are informed by a powerful, pro-growth cultural bias. We worship at the Church of Growth Everlasting. Undeterred by the facts, we’re on a collision course powered by denial and the illusion that growth brings prosperity. Before we can shift our civilization meaningfully, effectively, and substantially toward true sustainability, the world must be “prepped.” We must become self-aware and recognize the programming that keeps us hooked. GrowthBusters attempts do just that. We heard from leading thinkers of our time – scientists, sociologists, economists – to help us separate fact from superstition.

We’re approaching the end of growth. Will we embrace it and find a winning solution? Or will we deny it and go down fighting?

From Las Vegas to Atlanta, Mexico City to Mumbai, the White House to the Vatican, GrowthBusters took us on a whirlwind tour of growth mania. Kind of like Wild Kingdom with a twist: the cameras are turned on humanity as our own survival skills were examined. GrowthBusters: Hooked on Growth looks into the psychology of denial and crowd behavior. It explores our obsession with urban and economic growth, and our reluctance to address overpopulation issues head-on. This documentary holds up a mirror, encouraging us to examine the beliefs and behaviors we must leave behind – and the values we need to embrace – so our children can survive and thrive.

The movie, of course, does not focus on southeastern Manitoba. It looks at the world as a whole, and examines how embracing growth has affected some specific communities. The people of New York, Toronto, Hong Kong and Mexico City need to ask how they should be living if they want to leave a habitable planet for their children. But it’s a question we, living in southeastern Manitoba, need to ask as well. When will we do that?

Eric Rempel

Electricity and Resilience

I have been thinking recently about how reliable our electrical power supply really is.

It started while reading the Kindle Book, “Farming 101: Transitions.” In this short novel, Gary Martens of the University of Manitoba is making a case for Natural Systems Agriculture. He does not have much success until he interjects into the plot a major, electrical power outage in the middle of winter.

The power failure embraces all of North America and the electricity simply does not come on again. And it is in that context that some enterprising farmers rediscover a more natural and sustainable way of farming.

“How ridiculous!” I hear someone say. Power always comes back on within a few hours or days at the most. But what if it didn’t? I began asking people what they would do if the power went off in mid-winter and didn’t come back on. A look of incredulity usually was followed by some statement like, “I just don’t want to go there.”

I googled for information about the massive power failure in the Eastern USA and Canada in 2003. I discovered that at least 50 million people lost power, some of them for 33 days. Reading through the government report about that event was not encouraging. It revealed dozens of weak links in the electrical grid and documented how, because of the integration of multiple systems, one part can affect another to bring down the whole. In the end the report made 46 recommendations to improve the system. Yes, forty-six.

Hmm! This led me to a book I found at the U. of M. library; “Brittle Power,” by Amory and Hunter Lovins (1982). It is a major work outlining the vulnerability of all of North America’s energy sector, including its electrical systems. They document how all the systems society depends upon for survival are vulnerable to major disruption because of internal flaws, human error, natural disasters and sabotage of various kinds.

The authors point out that because all the energy systems are so interconnected, both within each sector and with each other, it would not take much to bring down all the systems at one time.

Some people tell me to be quiet about such things. This kind of “fear-mongering” is not helpful, they say. But why was it okay to consider the fearful possibility of Winnipeg being totally flooded once in 700 years, which led to our building a massive floodway at huge expense? Just to be prepared.  But to anticipate an inevitable collapse of the electrical grid is off limits.

The Lovins leave us with something to ponder. “It is not pleasant to have in the back of one’s mind that the next time the lights blink out, they may take an exceedingly long time to come back on again (140). Personally, I think a responsible society needs to think about such things. Especially in mid-winter.

In future articles we will explore possible ways to be better prepared for major electrical outages.

Jack Heppner 

The Keystone XL Pipeline is Rejected: So?

So President Obama has rejected the Keystone XL Pipeline. I think the President must feel good since he has finally lived up to the spirit of his election promises, environmentalists in the US are celebrating a victory, the Republicans seem to think they have an issue to take to the fall election, and Canadians, by and large, don’t know what to think.

The stance of our present Conservative government in this respect is puzzling. Apparently it is acceptable to this government (as it has been to previous liberal governments) to treat our oil sands as a renewable resource that will go on yielding oil forever. For a government to take this stance is not new – it seems to have been the government stance of choice all over the world again and again and again. However, such a stance can hardly be considered a conservative approach to resource management.

One hardly needs data to support an argument that all non-renewable resources will diminish and become harder to get if such a resource is consumed in large quantities. Nevertheless, here is some data. The oil Alberta was pumping in the 1930s required the input of one unit of energy to get 100 units of energy [for the powering of cars and the heating of homes]. The oil was close to the surface; easy to get at. Conventional oil in 1970 yielded about 30 units of energy for every unit of energy expended. The oil sands today deliver only five units of energy for every energy unit expended.

Clearly we are witnessing the depletion of a non-renewable resource. Why would a rational, conservative government try to sell this resource as rapidly as possible? It makes no sense to me.

What we are hearing from those touting the merits of the Keystone XL pipeline as well as the Northern Gateway pipeline is that the sale of oil derived from the oil sands will bring jobs to Canadians. That seems likely. However, a pertinent question is whether jobs in the oil patch are indeed the kind of jobs we want if quality of life is our goal.  Furthermore, there are other ways of generating jobs. The easiest way of creating jobs is to move away from a cheap energy policy, to a policy that would reward those with the creativity to find ways of living with less energy. A fee and dividend energy policy would transfer wealth from those intent on consuming energy to those committed to conserving energy, and would put money into the hands of Canada’s true innovators.

Without a strong and deliberate policy to reduce Canada’s dependency on fossil energy and the income derived from energy sales, we will be no better off when the oil deposited in the Athabascan sand is gone. We see feeble attempts with mandates for light bulbs and policies to encourage biofuels, but that is greenwash. As long as the government avoids full cost accounting, and promotes oil sales without considering the cost of those sales to future generations and the environment, Canadians, sadly, will not make a serious move towards renewable energy.

Eric Rempel

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

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             

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

, 

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

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

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