A Coalition!?!

Who would have thought it possible. A demoralized Liberal Party with a lame duck leader joining forces with the 'Dippers' to form our national government, kept in power by the Bloc. Truth is stranger than fiction.

I am part of the majority of Canadians who did not vote for the Conservative Party in the last election. I therefore feel a certain sense of elation at this window of opportunity for the opposition to unite and form a coalition. The question on the minds of many is: Can they pull it off? Cobbling something together, in the short term, although it seemed unimaginable 72 hours ago, I believe will actually prove to be the easy part. It is becoming clear that the 'throwing for the head' approach of Mr. Harper has so incensed the opposition that they now are beginning to dream the impossible dream of replacing the Conservatives. The much bigger question is: Can they rise above the absurd and childish partisanship bickering so prevalent in Canadian politics and be honest with us as they propose a new path for our country? Can they actually start behaving like the consensus building leaders that we need?

Last night, just in time for the supper hour newscasts, Stephen Harper delayed by one week a confidence vote in his government. The headlines read Harper Buys Time.

I have no doubt that his intent is to provide time to demonize the opposition as a bunch of sore losers who want to pervert the results of the last election. (Perhaps he needs to be reminded that a majority of Canadians voted for his opposition in Parliament, yet his party, with about 38% support, gets to run the government.)

I urge the opposition to take this gift of time to properly consider their strategy. What are they going to tell Canadians about how they shall govern as a coalition?

What I am looking for (which sounds laughable even as I try to write this next phrase), is honesty from my politicians, regardless of political stripe. I want politicians to stop pandering to me with nauseating sound bites and start explaining why they think their proposals are correct for our country. (Note to Jack: I know you like to sit around the kitchen table, and that you are trying to build your NDP 'brand', but, really, enough is enough.)

If a coalition is to have any hope of succeeding it must be based on an honest appraisal of the Canadian political scene. A joint statement needs to come from those who propose to lead the coalition that speaks to the aspirations of as broad a base of the electorate as possible. Here are some elements that need to be addressed by the coalition partners:

1. Speak directly to the 38% of voting Canadians who chose the Conservatives and respect their choice.
   
2. Recognize the immensity of the task before them. Acknowledge that they are seeking to do something that has never been done before.
3. Provide concrete examples of what they intend to do with a timetable.
4. Explain how they shall resolve conflict within the coalition.
5. State clearly that they do not want to continually play political chicken with the everyday lives of Canadians. State their intention to rise above childish political oneupmanship and make a solid commitment to principled governance.
   

All of those involved need to take some water with their wine as they proceed. Stephen Harper and the Conservatives may lose their grip on power because they began to act as if they had a majority when in fact they had no such thing. The Liberals and the NDP need to understand this concept if their proposed coalition is to work. With less than 20% of Canadians voting for the NDP, Jack Layton should not reasonably expect to be Canada's next Finance Minister. He needs to remember that more than a third of voters picked the Conservatives, and their right wing approach to economics. A potential coalition needs to present Canadians with a workable plan for the next couple of years and then actually walk the talk on conciliatory consensus building.

I know that this is wishful thinking in the extreme. I realize it is a lot to ask of politicians whose strongest motivation is to seek power instead of building consensus.

As has been said many times, a week is a lifetime in politics. Our politicians have that amount of time to make a case for truly representative political action in this country. I urge the opposition parties to use this time wisely, and change the face of politics in Canada.

Lets see what this next 'lifetime in politics' brings us. It should be an interesting ride. The Conservatives will be out in full spin mode as the PM urges his MPs to "use every tool at your disposal." Will Canadians continue to buy what they are selling?

(Since writing the above, Scott Reid has said it much better than I in a blog posted at the Globe & Mail.)

Retired Carleton professor tackles 'culture of greed'

I thoroughly enjoyed this brief article in this morning's Ottawa Citizen, not so much for what it said, but where it ultimately took me in my search for more information on this intriguing individual.

Retired Carleton professor tackles 'culture of greed'

Someone recently asked anthropology professor Ian Prattis what future society will look like.

"I told him we would have a lower standard of living," Mr. Prattis recalls. "Second car -- no. Cottage -- no. We'd have different infrastructure just to move around, because the infrastructure in our city is not sustainable."

Here are some lines that really intrigued me.

...he sees a lower standard of living as a good thing, in the long run.

...economics is "a failed science" and ... our society suffers from a pathological "culture of greed." He has asked the Nobel committee to stop awarding a prize for economics and give one for ecology instead.

We need to abandon greed and capitalism and return to our instinctive understanding of sustainable, he argues.

Greed "is pathological. It makes people ill. It kills them. It will kill any possibility of our species being alive on this planet past this century."

Once I read this, I knew that I wanted to learn more about Ian Prattis. It turns out, according to his website, that he is

a poet and scholar, peace and environmental activist - has trained with Masters in Buddhist, Vedic and Shamanic traditions and gives dharma talks, seminars and retreats around the world.

He is the founder of Friends for Peace - a coalition of meditation, peace and environmental groups that works for peace and planetary care and also the resident teacher of a Buddhist meditation community in Ottawa, Canada - the Pine Gate Sangha.

I am hoping to meet him in the near future.

Time to rethink public transit

Time to rethink public transit

I couldn't help but fire off a response to Randall Denley on this morning's article. He insists we need to gather 'all the facts' before proceeding on investment in transit. Then he fails to even mention the incredible subsidy provided to all car users; the roads.

Here is what I had to say to him this morning.

Randall,
I am hoping to have time to write a proper 'letter to the editor' response on this one.

I fully agree with you that we should be making these kinds of decisions being fully apprised of the facts. However, in your cursory analysis I believe you, like every other commentator I have read on this subject, fail to mention one of the biggest subsidies provided for automobile users; the provision of a road system. Yes, buses use roads, but they are completely overwhelmed by the sheer volume of cars.

And, I know, car users pay a vast array of taxes directly related to their auto use, but, the question is, do these taxes fully pay for the capital and operating costs of these roads?

Also, no one ever points out the imposition of the massive space required by all these cars. Is it any wonder that our cities lack population density when every person of voting age seems 'driven' to bring their own two tons of metal with them? A car sits idle for more than 90% of its lifetime, but we have to find space for all of them 100% of the time. They require a road to drive on, as well as a parking space at home. Such parking requirements put immense pressure on the design of our urban space. In my years of participation with my local community association, the number one question that always comes up revolves around traffic congestion. Yet, time and again, people drive to these public meetings to voice their complaint without every seeing the irony.

Yes, lets gather ALL the facts. Once compiled I believe they will state the obvious that providing sufficient infrastructure at public expense to enable everyone to own a vehicle that will provide for all of their transportation needs is much more costly than having a long term vision of redesigning our urban environments to reduce car use. Mass transit will never compete with sheer convenience of having a car in your driveway and a set of keys in your hand. My point is that the cost of providing such convenience should be born fully by the car user, not the taxpayer.

I am like you, I want to know all the facts. Lets gather them.

Leonard Poole
Overbrook

Deep Green: peak oil changes everything | Greenpeace UK

Deep Green: peak oil changes everything | Greenpeace UK

Although I am skeptical of his unreferenced claim that the EROI (Energy Returned over Investment Ratio) for Alberta Tar Sands production approaches 1:1, over all I find this to be a well written article that paints a very clear picture of the approach that society needs to take in response to not only peak oil, but the the inevitable down ward slope of production of all non-renewable resources on this planet.

The way we live

The way we live

Not half an hour after writing my hydrogen economy comments, I come across this column by Leonard Stern in the Citizen.

I see this kind of writing, and I begin to think there may be a glimmer of hope.

Enough is Enough!

2009 Honda FCX Clarity Fuel Cell Vehicle Review – Full Review of the 2009 Honda FCX Clarity - Honda FCX Road Test

I received this link from an acquaintance recently. "I'm sold," he enthused! "Have already started saving my nickels and dimes!"

It is easy, I suppose, to get quite excited about the wondrous possibilities that technology can bring. An apparently endless supply of fuel whose only waste is water. Who could ask for anything more!

Unfortunately, such proposals don't deal with what is the root of the problem. There are simply too many of us trying to do too many things on the limited confines of our planet. There is nothing sustainable about a world population of 7 billion people that doubles its population within its own lifetime that also collectively thinks that it is reasonable for all of us to aspire to have and consume more. If only we all had a hydrogen fueled vehicle we could all travel around whenever we wanted is what the hydrogen car implies. Instead, we should take the massive investment required to build a hydrogen fuel infrastructure for individual transport and put it into redesigning our urban infrastructure such that it truly is sustainable over the long term.

We need, as a civilization, to find a way to rein in our expanding desires, not feed them. We need to start saying "Enough is enough!"

Why did the boomers cross the road?

Randall Denley asks a very good question in his Sunday morning article, Why did the boomers cross the road?

Why indeed.

He opens by imploring us to take a long look in the mirror:

One of the curses of being a member of the boomer generation is that everywhere you go, you find that a crowd of similar-aged people just got there ahead of you. We used to flock to inexpensive, unspoiled countries, driving up the cost and spoiling whatever was there. Then we all decided to move to certain popular urban neighbourhoods, driving up the cost and changing the neighbourhoods for the worse with our demand for condo buildings and upscale coffee shops. Now we're flooding to the countryside, buying up waterfront, lakeview properties and even properties with views of lakeview properties. Costs are heading in the usual direction. As a generation, we're like a plague of locusts, destroying everything we touch.

I often note the cynical touch to his articles. He doesn't disappoint with his conclusion:

By my observation, my generation is well on the way to ruining the attraction of rural living. But hey, we're boomers. Ruining things is what we do.

I don't always agree with him, but this article prompted the following emailed words of encouragement:

Good Morning Randall,

Spot on with your Sunday morning article!

We have met the enemy, and, so often, it is us. If we could only understand that for every action, there is a consequence. Over the long term, nothing is free. There is always a price. What you speak of is one more consequence of our consumer driven, must always have more society. For this to be turned around, everyone of us must start taking the concept of stewardship to heart. I am deeply concerned that this will not happen within my life time as too many of us continue to believe that we can build/buy/consume our way out of the mess we have created.

Over dinner with friends just last evening we discussed how essential it is that we begin moving far beyond simply changing personal habits. We need policy change at at all levels of government that start to shift the focus of our society to long term sustainability. If the activity is not sustainable over the long term, why do we as a society allow it to happen? Because we continue to believe that the promotion of ever expanding unrestrained personal wealth (what else can you call it but greed), is a good thing. I enjoy experiencing the comforts of what our society has to offer as much as the next person, but, when is enough, enough? The Europeans, particularly Scandinavian countries, are more than a generation ahead of us in this regard. We are so caught up in chasing our own tail in the blind pursuit of excessive material and experiential consumption. So sad. If only we could learn to Consume Less, While Enjoying Life More!

Thanks for writing this, and keep it up.

Leonard Poole