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

Beyond Capitalism

We had a booth at Summer in the City. Our theme was Envisioning a Solar Future. We drew attention to the many opportunities we have to harness solar power: solar for electricity – to light our houses and to pump water in off-grid situations; solar to heat water – for domestic use and to heat our homes; solar to bake our food and solar to dry and preserve our food. We had some excellent conversations.

Many people wondered what price they would pay for the various solar systems. We did have the answer that question and advised them to check with suppliers.

However there is another answer to the question of cost, that suppliers can’t answer. I recently spoke with a friend who has covered most of his south facing roof with solar electric panels. On a sunny day he generates more electricity than he can use, and sells the surplus to Manitoba Hydro. When the sun goes down, he purchases electricity from Manitoba Hydro. It all looks impressive.

I challenged my friend and suggested it would take him twenty years to recover his investment. He told me that, by his calculations, cost recovery will take seventeen years without considering interest; perhaps thirty years considering interest. But, he challenged me, why should the rate of return on an investment be considered the most important criteria when making an investment.

“Were I seeking the highest financial return on an investment I am making,” he continued, “I should invest in the Alberta tar sands. Were I to do that, I believe my investment would be bad for my children on the long run. With these solar panels, I am investing in something I believe will be good for them.”

As I have reflected on what he said, I come to realize there is something very profound in that way of thinking.

Capitalist thinking has had a profound effect on all of us. It has taught us that the most important, perhaps only, consideration when making an investment is the financial return on that investment. I dare say those of us who have our savings in the Credit Union, have them there primarily because the return there is higher than at the bank. The fact that the Credit Union is built on not-for-profit principles is incidental to our investment choice. This is capitalism at its best, but not humanity at its best.

Capitalism does not ask whether an investment contributes to the creation of beauty or the destruction of beauty. It does not ask whether an investment contributes to the taking of life or the giving of life. It is concerned only with the financial return.

This does not mean capitalism is bad. It becomes bad, however, when the investor is not conscious of capitalism’s limitations. Unfortunately, all too often we are so enamored with the allure of capitalism that we forget this limitation. If more of us would apply ethical criteria to our investments, there is little doubt that the world would be a better place.

By Eric Rempel

Why the Continuing Emphasis on GNP?

It happened again last night. The national news reported “Canada's gross national product [GNP] grew at a 1.9 per cent annual pace in the first three months of the year, the same pace seen at the end of 2011.” So what does this tell us? Well it tells us that the total value of everything produced by enterprises in Canada grew by 1.9% annually. What it does not tell us is whether this growth was good or bad.

I find this discouraging! Discouraging because 30 years ago, in 1992, the same broadcaster, the CBC, first showed me how inadequate and potentially misleading reporting GNP is. 1992 was the year of the Earth Summit in Rio de Janeiro. If you don’t remember it, google for it. This was the first UN conference on the Environment and Development. The CBC, and other media covered it extensively. It was because of that conference and that reporting that conference, that many of us first realized the fragility of the environment we depend on, and the negative impact human activity is having on the very resources we depend on for life.

Specifically on the GNP, I came to realize that an oil spill off the coast of British Columbia does more to raise the GNP than the discovery of a new cure for cancer. We were told then, of the need for more meaningful indicators of well-being than GNP.

And much as been done to develop a new index. Best known is the Canadian Index of Wellbeing (CIW). But it is hardly well known. It is ironical that the same media that covers and applauds the existence of this index, does not use it.

I find it discouraging that the media, in spite of giving us these stories about the need and development of better indicators of national well-being, continue to use GNP in their reporting as if it is the only indicator of our nation’s economic health with any value.

No doubt the GNP is easier to measure than the CIW. I suspect it is realistic to expect a report on GNP every quarter, whereas a quarterly report on CIW is probably not possible. Nevertheless, I think it is reasonable to expect a news item on GNP to include some comment on more meaningful context. For example “GNP rose slightly this month, but we don’t expect that to have an effect on the CIW because . . .” I think our news media is guilty of biased reporting whenever it reports on GNP and doesn’t place that in the context of wellbeing.

Somewhere within us, we all know that some growth is good, and some is not good. When reporting growth, the media has a responsibility to help us discern the likely effect that growth is having on our wellbeing. Were the media to do that, we all would be more critical, in a good sort of way, of any growth occurring around us. And were we all to have that critical capacity, it would affect the policies favoured by our politicians.

 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

Wanted: Extraordinary Canadians

Penguin Canada recently released a biography of Tommy Douglas, one volume of their Extraordinary Canadians series.  I received it for Christmas, and finished reading it on December 27^th.  At only 221 pages it was a light and fun read, a brief outline of the career of the Greatest Canadian (as Douglas was voted in 2004) that gave a strong sense of his character and personality.  By the end of the book I had a great sense of loss: we need Tommy Douglas in Canada today, just as much as we needed him in his own time.

I was not yet two years old when Tommy Douglas died, so I have never known a Canada without his incredible contributions.  He’s known as the father of Medicare in Canada, which (in spite of its problems) is an institution that is treasured by most Canadians, but he and the Cooperative Commonwealth Federation (CCF, the fore-runner of the NDP) were the first to promote many ideas and institutions that I’ve always known to be a part of life in Canada.  The original CCF mission statement, The Regina Manifesto (1932), called for the protection of rights for ethnic and religious minorities; a Canadian constitution, charter of rights, and central bank; national workplace standards, EI, CPP, and public healthcare.  At the time, they were called Communists for suggesting such things; now, at least thirty years after we’ve adopted all of those ideas, we take them for granted.  Fairly impressive work, considering that Douglas, the CCF, and the NDP that followed it have never formed a federal government!  Their small voice in government and the Canadian public square, over time, have had great effect.

Throughout this biography I was struck by the ways in which our situation today reflects the situations that Douglas faced.  The rhetoric used against Douglas and the CCF in political campaigns, both in Saskatchewan and federally, compared them to Nazis and Communists in the same sentence, charged that they would confiscate farms and require all citizens to work for the government, and many other baseless claims; these make our attack ads today seem petty and tame by comparison.  And the reaction against their proposed universal health care included the charge that “bureaucrats would commit women with menopausal symptoms to insane asylums”, which sounds just as bizarre as the reaction to the so-called Obamacare that continues to rage in the US.

Today, all of the angry rhetoric and baseless claims are against the suggestion that we need a system that is environmentally and economically sustainable.  Sustainability, like universal health care, is a sensible solution to problems caused by our society.  It's not partisan ideology.  Like healthcare, a government policy on sustainability is simply Canadians doing together what we already do individually: take care of each other.  In the midst of all of the debates about climate and oil, it's easy to lose sight of that.  We need new Tommy Douglases to rise above the rhetoric and insist on what is right.

Jeff Wheeldon 

What About Wood Heating

A series of columns on home design and home heating with a view to energy efficiency would not be complete without a discussion of the potential wood has for heating our homes.

Mary and I heat our home with wood. We like it. It helps us maintain our connection with the earth that supports us. This connection with the earth is so much more vivid when I am splitting wood in the morning or watching the flame in the glass window than if I were simply to set the thermostat higher and feel the heat come out of the forced air register of a natural gas furnace. For me that is one up side to heating with wood. The satisfaction I get from heating with wood is similar to that of growing the vegetables I eat.

But heating with wood is also energy efficient. We need to learn to pay attention to a new insight called EROEI (energy return on energy invested). When oil was first discovered in the 1930s, the EROEI for that oil was 100:1. Now all the readily accessible oil is gone. We are now developing the tar sands where the EROEI is only 5:1. If I apply that insight to wood heat, I consider the fuel used by my chain saw and my pickup truck. If I get my wood fuel about 45 km from my home, the EROEI is about 24:1. So for residents of southeastern Manitoba, where there is plenty of bush and forest, wood fuel is one of the most efficient sources of home heating.

Furthermore, as we become increasingly dependant on hard-to-get-at oil supplies, notably tar sands and offshore oil, the price of oil-based fuels is going to become increasingly volatile. There is comfort in being dependent on a local fuel resource, wood, the price of which is likely to be considerably more stable in the years ahead.

Now before we all run out and install wood burning heaters, there are some cautions to consider. Wood heaters produce smoke. Outdoor wood boilers are the biggest culprits in this regard. New, certified, indoor wood heaters produce much less smoke. In the last twenty years much research and development has gone into the development of improved heaters. The results are impressive. Nevertheless, where there is a wood fire, there is at least some smoke. If everyone in Steinbach heated with individual wood heaters, we would likely have an air pollution problem. A comprehensive solution to that problem exists and that is district wood heat. In Scandinavia, district wood heating is common.

Maintaining a wood fuel supply is labour intensive. That human energy is not included in the EROEI. This is because human energy is not fossil energy; it can be replaced. Furthermore, much, if not most of the labour going into the maintaining of a wood supply is wholesome energy, energy that ought to be expended in order to maintain the health of our body. Maintaining a wood fuel supply is good, healthy, outdoor exercise.

Eric Rempel 

Lights Out…

Although it was only 8:30 p.m. on February 9^th, the temperature outside had slipped to minus 25 Celsius. John and Mary were enjoying a quiet evening in their home on First Street in Steinbach when the lights went out.

“They’ll be back on in a few minutes,” declared John confidently.

Meanwhile Mary felt her way to a drawer where she found a candle. 

“Where are the matches, honey?” she called from the kitchen.

“Check the junk drawer in the utility room,” responded John.

Once a candle was lit, John and Mary huddled around it, even feeling somewhat romantic. By 10:00 p.m. the power was still off, and the temperature in the house had dropped by one degree.

“Let’s go to bed to wait this out,” said John. “We like it cool at nights anyway, and surely by morning everything will be back to normal.”

The next morning John stuck his foot out from under the covers. The cold shock quickly shot up to his groggy mind and suddenly he was wide awake. 

“Mary, wake up! The power’s still off!”

Once up and dressed in multiple layers they noticed the temperature in the house had dipped to 14 degrees.

“Let’s check the radio to see what’s happening,” muttered John under his breath.

“The only working radio we have is in the car,” replied Mary.

A few minutes later, huddled together in a cold car, they heard a Manitoba Hydro representative saying that the outage was widespread and that no one knew when the power would come back on. And, as though to comfort himself, he added, “But we know that everyone has a plan for such an emergency.”

“So what is our plan?” inquired Mary. Only silence from John.

“I know we’re out of milk,” said John, “so I’ll pop over to Extra Foods so we can at least have a normal breakfast.”

As John approached the supermarket he noticed the lights were out and no one was around.

Then he noticed a commotion around Main Bread and Butter. As he got closer he noticed a sign in the window, CASH ONLY.  “Lucky me,” he thought, “I have ten dollars in my wallet!” He managed to leave with a litre of milk in hand.

“So how do we cook our lunch?” Mary wondered after finishing their granola with milk.

“Hey, our barbeque has a cooking element on it! I’ll haul it out,” John answered cheerfully as though congratulating himself.

By evening the house had cooled to eight degrees. “Let’s go to bed early and just hope and pray for the best,” suggested Mary. “I’ll throw on an extra comforter.”

Once under the covers, John and Mary cuddled a little closer than usual to keep each other warm.

“So what do we do tomorrow, my dear,” queried Mary.

“Don’t worry, honey,” replied John, “All we need is for the power to be restored by morning.”

“But what if it isn’t?” probed Mary.

“Don’t worry, my love. I’m sure the city has a plan.”

Join us for a discussion of solar possibilities Thursday, Feb 23. 

Jack Heppner

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 

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

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

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