The Political Conundrum, or

How Do We Encourage Enough Voters to Think Long-Term?

If you are reading this, then you may share my concern for our over-dependence on non-renewable energy sources. You perhaps have begun to conclude that in the near to mid term (within twenty years), we are going to be confronted with rapidly escalating costs of energy. You may also share my concern of the economic and social implications such costs will impose on our society.

The more reading I do, the more consensus I find. It is not a matter of if, but when we shall be confronted with the consequences of worldwide Peak Oil Production. Even the most optimistic prognosticators, such as Cambridge Energy Research Associates (CERA) see world oil production peaking within 20 to 25 years. Government agencies are beginning to recognize they need to confront this issue. Web pages such as The Energy Bulletin, The Dynamic Cities Project or The Post Carbon Institute (to name but three), are full of links to stories about various groups responding to the situation.

About a year ago I started to visualize various futuristic scenarios. I Knew that I needed to improve my skills to help me cope with the post carbon era. In short, I needed to change my lifestyle. I needed to behave as if there were a critical energy shortage, so I would be better equipped to cope when it does happen.

Over the past year I have paid more attention to shopping locally. I switched to my local green energy provider, Bullfrog Power. I gave up car ownership, and started to walk, cycle or take the bus. I attempted to organize my thoughts and communicate my concerns to my community through my personal website. Not only did I feel that I could breathe with a cleaner conscience, but I felt healthier!

However, this slower pace has also provided more time to watch the world speed by. While you and I may be getting it, I must admit to being somewhat overwhelmed by the sheer numbers of those who don't. It is not just that Wal-Mart parking lots remain full, and gridlock continues to be the primary complaint of the masses. So often the electors in our various democracies are swayed by promises of short term gain. As I write, the Canadian Finance Minister is delivering an election style budget based on assumptions of continued economic "growth". He opens his speech by saying "Mr. Speaker, Canada is strong today, and we have a plan for an even better tomorrow!"

Sadly, elections are not won by telling voters the truth about what lies ahead. They are won by promises of more, forever. Many Canadians will be cheered when they hear their Finance Minister say:

Canada is great because Canadians made it great. The people who built this country worked hard to realize their vision. They set us on a bold course to greater hope and opportunity.

Only a small minority of the electorate understands the fact that our economy grew as it did over the past 100 years because of the abundance of cheap energy.

I would like to think that the small steps I am taking to change my lifestyle will help me cope with the changes that are coming. I am much more concerned, however, with how the rest of the world is going to respond. I am trying to figure out what I can do to appropriately sound the alarm. The tricky part, is the relatively short attention span of the electorate. The problem we are facing requires very long term solutions.

Some people have the patience and are prepared to accept a plan that asks them to sacrifice today for something that will show results in 2 or 3, maybe even ten years. Occasionally an astute politician can be that persuasive. But how do we convince a majority to accept less for the rest of their lives so future generations can survive? How do we develop an electorate that is that informed, and altruistic? How do we convince ever increasing numbers of people to stop listening to the constant rant of marketers who continually tell us to "zoom zoom" through life, and have it all?

I look forward to your answers.

Buddhist Writings and the Concept of Scripture

I was raised in what I would describe as a "secular" family, in the midst of the typical North American "Christian" mindset of 1960's. Let's just say I don't recall Bible discussions around our dinner table. If the topic of religion did come up, it was usually in the context of how fanatical views often seemed to be the root of world problems. We collectively rolled our eyes upon hearing any public proclamation that "God is on our side."

Perhaps this is what appealed to me about Buddhism. As a non-theistic religion, it isn't centred around belief in a supreme being. It is, instead, a set of moral practices to live by. Ever since Alan Watts told me in the early seventies that "as the ocean waves, the universe peoples", I have been drawn to this non-dualistic way of perceiving reality.

I have read the works of several different modern day Buddhist teachers. These have included the Dalai Lama, Lama Surya Das, Thich Nhat Hanh, and Shunryu and Daisetz Suzuki, to name a few. Thich Nhat Hanh's books are small, and easy to carry, making them easy to travel with. For me, they are as close as I will come to "reading scripture". They are teachings for my heart and soul.

Here is an excerpt from the first page of Touching Peace that spoke to me today:

Our true home is in the present moment. To live in the present moment is a miracle. The miracle is not to walk on water. The miracle is to walk on the green Earth in the present moment, to appreciate the peace and beauty that are available now. Peace is all around us- in the world and in nature-and within us-in our bodies and our spirits. Once we learn to touch this peace, we will be healed and transformed. It is not a matter of faith; it is a matter of practice. We need only to find ways to bring our body and mind back to the present moment so we can touch what is refreshing, healing, and wondrous.

I found myself reading over this early in the evening as I travelled toward Ottawa on the bus from Toronto. I would put the book down, and glance at the passing landscape. I would feel awash in appreciation of the Universe in every glistening speck of melting snow, or in the passing silhoettes of the cedar trees. Everything simultaneously the same, yet unique. The ring of cell phones against the beauty of a spring sunset. All perfect.

The final chapter opens with this:

We come to the practice of meditation seeking relief from our suffereing, and meditation can teach us how to transform our suffering and obtain basic relief. But the deepest kind of relief is the realization of nirvana. There are two dimensions to life, and we should be able to touch both. One is like a wave, and we call it the historical dimension. The other is like the water, and we call it the ultimate dimension, or nirvana. We usually touch just the wave, but when we discover how to touch the water, we receive the highest fruit that meditation can offer.

In the historical dimension, we have birth certificates and death certificates. The day your mother passes away, you suffer. If someone sits close to you and shows her concern, you feel some relief. You have her friendship, her support, her warm hand to hold. This is the world of waves. It is characterized by birth and death, ups and downs, being and non-being. A wave has a beginning and an end, but we cannot ascribe these characteristics to water. In the world of water, there is no birth or death, no being or non-being, no beginning or end. When we touch the water, we touch reality in it ultimate dimension and are liberated from all of these concepts.

To me this reads as scripture. Teachings that touch me, and simply make sense. I don't know all of the terms, I have never been one to follow dogma or ritual. One thing I have learned, though is that there is no where to go, as I am already here.

We Vote With Our Dollars

I recently came across the following quote from John Robbins at http://www.foodrevolution.org/commonground.htm

We vote with our dollars, and we spend a lot of our dollars on food. Yet people don't often see their diet as a political statement. But it is. When you vote for McDonald's, that's one kind of vote. When you vote for organic food, that's another kind of vote. What you support with your dollars is what will exist in the future. Every time you spend a dollar, you are saying to the people who produce that product, "Do it again." That's how it will be read, that's how it will be interpreted and that's how it will be manifested.

There has certainly been an increasing expression of concern for the environment around world in recent months. It is reaching a fever pitch, as various political parties trip over themselves in the rush to the green paint brushes in response to opinion polls saying the environment is the number one concern of voters.. Letters to the editor plead for greater environmental efforts. However, the big box stores remain full, our highways remain clogged, and the masses continue to rush for the latest gadget, fancy food item, or escape vacation. People are telling the pollsters their feelings of concern, but when they vote with their dollars, they continue to increase the pressure on the planet. For most people, it seems, they don't want to consume less, they just want to believe that their consumption habits don't cause problems. As Sharon Astyk says on her blog:

Say it out loud. WHAT I BUY WARMS THE PLANET. MY SHOPPING DEPLETES WHAT FUTURE PEOPLE WILL HAVE. BUYING STUFF HURTS PEOPLE. The problem is that shopping also feels good. Now I'm not much of a regular shopper, but I know that heavy sense of pleasure you get when you wander into a bookstore as much as anyone. I've shopped for comfort, I've bought things and thought momentarily "this will make it better." I understand how much fun shopping is. And it is still the problem.

In other words, we have met the enemy, and it is US! Trying to shop our way out of this problem is a contradiction in terms.

My Friend Jim on a Road Less Traveled

My friend Jim is about to turn 60. His daughter recently contacted me to ask if I could contribute to a scrapbook of memories she was putting together for him. I am very thankful for the opportunity to remember a very important person in my life.

My Friend Jim

I met Jim at a tumultuous time in my life. Not yet out of my teens, I was struggling with the concept of adulthood at a time when everything around me was changing. War raged in Southeast Asia. If you hadn’t been to a teach-in, or a love-in, or a sit-in, you hadn’t been anywhere. Everyone, it seemed, had a revolution to follow.

My demeanor was typical of the times. Relatively unkempt, I sported an untrimmed beard, longish hair, and work boots. A full-length surplus military issue wool trench coat kept me warm in the winter. Rebelliousness was my nature.

I was reaching out, trying to discover myself, when I met Jim at a retreat at Camp Iawah. He was the right person for me to meet at the right time. Here was a young man, a few years older than myself, with whom I could share a similar sense of quest. Outwardly we may have seemed so different, yet we both sought truth. From those beginnings north of Westport we developed a kinship that has remained with me to this day. Although I haven’t seen Jim for quite some time, he has always remained close to my heart.

I have many memories, from ‘messing about with boats’ to trips to the east coast, to skinning my knuckles as I tried to keep old Volvos on the road. During this time, I was also learning about Buddhism, and what I learned then, I like to think, has stayed with me. One of those “Buddhist” teaching is to be in the moment. Jim showed me how to be. He did it by eating a peach. When Jim ate a peach, he ate a peach. I almost felt that I ate the peach with him.

Thank you, Jim, for being part of this lifelong journey.

Leonard.

There is nowhere to go, for we are already here.

Thoughts on Politics

In very broad terms, I have come to think of myself as “socially progressive” yet “fiscally conservative.” It is important from the outset to explain what I mean by these terms.

I expect my understanding of “socially progressive” fits the norm. I enjoy our pluralistic society. I seek inclusivity and don’t react well to divisive “us versus them” politics. I look for what brings us together, our common interests, not what keeps us apart. I celebrate individual uniqueness, while embracing all that we share in our various communities. I may bristle at times, however, when I find myself in the midst of too much “political correctness”. We need to know when to lighten up. I have never been a practicing Christian, but am not offended by the greeting of “Merry Christmas”. It is a greeting of good wishes and a well intended, pleasant social custom. Although usually I am not one to say it, I accept it in the spirit it is given.

My understanding of “fiscal conservatism” however, may differ from the mainstream. Most people seem to view it as spending the least amount of money, every year, and do whatever it takes to avoid a tax increase or any other expenditure. To me, it means spending the correct amount of money today, and every day, to ensure that in the long term we spend the least amount of money. I have made several presentations to Ottawa City Council on this theme.

It means long term cost effective planning. It means seeking the long term efficient ways of doing things. It means fully accounting for all of the costs. Unfortunately, we have done very little in our society to capture the environmental costs of what we do. That is a failure to think long term for which future generations will pay big time.

So, where does this put me politically? How have I voted? Much to the chagrin of many of my friends, I have usually voted for the Liberal Party here in Canada. Ever since the social conservatives took control of the Conservative Party of Canada, I have found them increasingly distasteful. Too often they focus on what separates us, instead of what brings us together.

The New Democrats on the other hand also rarely got my vote. I simply viewed them as too attached to big labour. I have found big labour to be more concerned with “jobs, jobs, jobs,” rather than the consequences those jobs. For example, in January, 2007 “the NDP Leader was taken to task this week in a letter from Buzz Hargrove, head of the Canadian Auto Workers union, who said Mr. Layton’s call for regulations that would require more environmentally friendly cars will kill jobs.”(Globe & Mail) Yes, the New Dems can generally be considered “socially progressive”, but often they want to spend money first and ask how we are going to pay for it later. (Ow! That should jab some of my friends.) Oh, I know they mean well, but, it often seems like too much old style thinking.

So, that left me with the Liberal Party as the place I usually parked my vote. That is, until the last federal election, when they had to be spanked severely. They had become way to used to being in power. They remained in office for those three consecutive majority terms not because Chretien was such a great leader, but because the opposition kept imploding before their eyes.

Therefore, in the winter election of 2006 I voted for the Green Party for the first time. This choice came out of my emerging environmental concerns. They began to appeal to me as a party of principal. A party that presented their platform not to seek power, but to convince the electorate of the value of their ideas. I expect this will change moving forward, but for now, they want other parties to incorporate their policies. They don’t seem as concerned with who enacts them as with the need for action.

I am convinced that the environmental file is one we cannot get wrong. At this time I believe the Green Party is the best place for me to learn and put energy into shaping public opinion. We are now witnessing all of the other parties painting themselves green in one way or another. However, they will compromise because they seek power.

The New Democrats will have to compromise their green principals to incorporate big labor who, amongst other things, wants to protect the automobile industry. To me, automobiles drive, literally and figuratively, much of the environmental problems we face. If everyone used public transport instead of individual automobiles, there would be no fighting for oil, no congestion. We would have more dense, livable cities.

The Conservatives and Liberals will both be seeking power and are driven by the need to keep the corporate world happy. They are very reluctant to express controversial ideas that would alienate big business. I happen to believe that we need to move toward a SteadyState economy, one that moves away from praying at the altar of growth. I expect it will be a long time before either of those parties embrace such a concept.

Climate Change and the Skeptics

I do not have a background in science nor do I understand all of the complexities of the research regarding climate change. However, neither did I understand the science when a medical doctor recommended that I needed to have my appendix removed. I am, however, glad I followed his advice.

Of course, he could have been wrong. The pain may have been a bad case of indigestion. My family and I could have sought alternate opinions, and fully discussed and debated the issue of whether or not surgery really was necessary. Did I really want to be scarred for life? Didn’t we realize that complications can arise from surgery?

Perhaps I am making a somewhat facetious analogy. But, I don’t believe I am that far off. In this instance the patient, planet earth, may survive for generations to come. Then again, its entire ecosystem could be on the brink of collapse. The question is, what irreparable harm are we risking by failing to act?

The overwhelming majority of scientists that study climate change agree that human activity is responsible for changing the climate. The United Nations Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) is one of the largest bodies of international scientists ever assembled to study a scientific issue, comprised of more than 2,000 scientists from 100 countries. The IPCC has concluded that most of the warming observed during the past 50 years is attributable to human activities. Its findings have been publicly endorsed by the national academies of science of all G-8 countries, as well as those of China, India and Brazil. The Royal Society of Canada ??? together with the national academies of fifteen other nations ??? also issued a joint statement on climate change that stated, in part: “The work of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) represents the consensus of the international scientific community on climate change science. We recognize IPCC as the world’s most reliable source of information on climate change.”Suzuki

The case has been made that human activity is a significant factor in climate change. This is not the rantings of a few fringe scientists. Forgive the rhetoric, but how many opinions on this do we have to seek before we accept the evidence? There will always be the contrarians amongst us. There are those who continue to deny the holocaust, and others who insist the earth is flat. However, the fate of our planet is at stake and we need to act.

I am encouraged to see a groundswell of public opinion on this issue. I encourage you to read the declaration of a coalition of 48 Canadian youth groups. Another group of young Canadians, working under the banner of The Otesha Project, is teaching us how to be the change.

I have been convinced by the evidence presented by more than 2,000 scientists from 100 countries that my consumption focused lifestyle, combined with that of everyone else, is devastating our planet. We are fouling our nest. We buy food and clothing from distant lands, with no thought to the energy resources expended to create and bring these products to us. We similarly think nothing of jetting off to anyplace on the planet simply because we have the money. We send our garbage to distant lands to minimize our costs.(BBC) We treat the world as our oyster, with no regard for the trail of debris we leave behind us.

Perhaps it is difficult to imagine how driving to a favourite big box store or indulging in an annual winter flight to warmer climes will harm the environment. First, multiply your trip by the millions of others done every day around the world. Then, add the hundreds, if not thousands of kilometres those various products you purchased travelled to get to your store. Finally, consider how the number of these “vacation” flights have increased dramatically during our lifetimes. The energy and resources consumed quickly adds up. All so we can have “cheap” fresh produce from Mexico, a ten dollar shirt from Sri Lanka or a week in the sun. It is only “cheap” because we are not capturing the external costs of environmental degradation caused by the energy and other resource consumption required to provide these products to us. Capitalism can be ruthlessly efficient, but so far, it has failed to capture and properly assign these environmental costs. It is time to pay up.

Excess consumerism is often commented on in mass media, yet every Christmas we are urged to “shop til we drop”, with a primary goal of supporting the economy. I believe we need to change this mindset. One group that has been showing us how is Buy Nothing Christmas a national initiative started by Canadian Mennonites. As they suggest, “Rise Above It!”

A group known as The Christmas Resistance Movement uses even stronger language as it urges us to “boycott Christmas Shopping, Christmas decorations, Christmas cards, and every variety of Christmas Crap.”

An organization known as the New American Dream provides a wealth of information and guidance. Although it is based in the U.S., Canadians can learn much from this group. Any group founded on the motto of “More Fun Less Stuff!” gets my vote! I urge each of you to consider the concept of Voluntary Simplicity.

This is not a call to simpler times. We will need all that our scientific research has to offer. But we will need to re-direct it toward a sustainable use of our resources. Our lifestyle is currently based on having a never ending supply of an unrenewable resource: oil. As individuals and collectively through changes in government policy we need to prepare ourselves for the consequences of the inevitable decline in oil production, otherwise known as Peak Oil.

It will require our most creative energies and talents. We will need to bring together all that we have learned to re-shape collectively how we stop the unsustainable consumption of the earth’s precious resources. We must begin to move away from being focused on what we can consume, and learn how to appreciate what we already have.

I believe a significant number of us actually grasp many of the concepts discussed above. The one thing that most of us do not do, unfortunately, is “connect the dots” between our individual consumption patterns and the collective consequence of millions of such decisions. We are not seeing that change must start from our own individual choices. It is one thing to see the problem. It is another to see that the sum of all these individual acts is the ultimate Tragedy of the Commons. I urge each of you to embrace the concept that consuming less can mean having more. Consider developing your own personal commitment so that you also can be the change!

Traffic Congestion

To: Letter Editor, Ottawa Citizen

Date: November 30, 2006

As a member and Past President of the Community Council of Overbrook, I attended the Rockcliffe Development Open House held on Wednesday, November 28 at the Aviation Museum. I brought with me concerns expressed in my own community about the impact of traffic on the surrounding neighbourhoods. Arriving by local transit, I initially thought that perhaps community interest in this project was waning, as I was the only person to get off bus #129 at the Museum. Such fears were quickly dispelled upon entering a crowd of several hundred people. A quick survey of the parking lot showed me how people were arriving.

Unsurprisingly, the impact of traffic topped the list of concerns expressed by CARAD (a consortium of area community groups). Isn’t it curious, I thought, that all these people hopped in their cars to express concerns about traffic congestion?

When are we going to realize that we will only come to grips with traffic congestion when we start taking more seriously the impact of our own transportation choices? If you find yourself sitting in your car complaining about congestion, remember that you are part of the problem from every other driver’s perspective.

Leonard Poole