I’ve noticed that people seem to see the environmental impact of air travel in four fundamentally different ways. The lost-cause or too-late position Somehow, I can accept someone believing that the world is beyond saving so why not indulge oneself before the ship goes down. By the way I’m sure this is how the very rich justify their greed. Together with other initiatives we’re talking about tourist travel every chance we get or can afford. I must admit that this is a rational argument and a view that’s difficult to challenge except that I’m of the opinion that if we start to act thoughtfully and with compassion for future generations we might just be able to save the biosphere. The hypocrisy position This is someone who is aware of the problem and understands that we should adjust our lifestyles but we do nothing about it. This leads to cognitive dissonance, holding two conflicting thoughts in our head at the same time. It’s not pleasant because holding guilt is tiring. The ignorance position This I find hardest to accept. This is a person going about their lives oblivious to the knowledge that their actions, such as frequent air travel, has a heavy negative impact on the environment while there is abundant evidence that this is so. I think ignorance is inexcusable in this age of information. If a person is in denial that is really the hypocrisy position not the ignorance position. The technology-will-save-us position This person understands the problem but feels that human ingenuity will save the planet before environmental degradation becomes terminal. This to me is wishful and dangerous. If this person is wrong we’re fucked. Along with any environmentalist I know of it’s my view that a reduction in air travel is part of what we must do if we seriously want to prevent an environmental catastrophe within the next few decades. It’s all about reducing CO2 emissions. However, some people do not see increasing CO2 emissions as a big issue. If that’s correct then air travel is not so much of an environmental threat. I however go along with the scientific consensus which states that the increase in CO2 emissions is a very serious problem indeed. And this is a key point: the chances of technological advances making a reduction in emissions for aircraft appear to have reached it’s limits while future automobile emissions will likely become far less of a problem with advances such as electric cars that are on the near horizon. We’re approaching a time where driving a car will have little environmental impact while air travel will continue to be significant problem. I’m not suggesting no air travel I think a big concern today is the increase in “frequent-flyers”. I would add that many people in the world should fly MORE because there is no question that some world travel can certainly be educational and can enrich their lives. It’s too bad that over 90% of the world’s population have never flown. So yes, we are the privileged few. The person that flies every two or three years is not so much of a problem compared to the frequent-fliers who fly several times a year. And lets face it: most tourist travel is about stretching-out on a nice, warm beach in Puerto Vallarta. Or sipping coffee in a charming Parisian café. Great if you’ve done it but how enriching or educational is it if you keep coming back year after year? And when it becomes a frivolous self-indulgence should we not ask ourselves if it’s worth being a large part of the global warming problem? Should we care? Do we care? >
0 Comments
We live in a time when the aqusition of property is the basis for the capitalist model. Carried to the extreme the champions of the capitalist model would monetize everything including the water we drink and the air we breath? I don’t accept this. The internet has given birth to a generation that is suddenly in the position to “stick it to the man”. A generation of tech savvy youth who see the absurdity of market capitalism. I find this very empowering as it is a reminder that even within our democracy, which is considered to be a sham by many of us, there still is some truth in the idea that “the people have the power”. So much so that the internet has become a real threat to the establishment. I would argue that those who see downloading music as stealing mostly feel this way because they have not figured out the technology. I would ask them that if thirty years ago they had ever received a tape of music from a friend. Or have they ever recorded music from the radio? Or borrowed a record from a friend to make a tape of it? Clearly any of this is no different from downloading music from a torrent site today. Only the technology is different. I would also suggest that the notion of private property is not intrinsically true and that it is a social construct within a flawed capitalist model. It is however deeply seated within our current way of life so that the contemplation of any other system is most unsettling for nearly all of us. But if we are to dream of a better world a discussion of alternative structures needs to be encouraged. A bill was presented yesterday in Washington that if passed could impact working people throughout the country for decades to come. It involved military funding and the tabling of the bill has the potential to separate congress along economic and homeland security lines. This bill would impact the well established lobbying wing of the Republican Party specifically and the American public in general to the extent that a filibuster may be the only process that could combat this extravagant spending proposal from seeing the light of day. Let’s face it. We live on a finite planet: our resources are finite, our space is limited and our very environment has its limits as well. Can the earth sustain endless growth? Obviously not. Yet this knowledge is mostly ignored — especially at election time. Not only are politicians in denial but the public refuse to entertain the fact that growth cannot go on forever. We can’t blame politicians for this either because challenging economic growth is sure to lead to defeat at the polls. So the problem gets kicked down the road. What is economic growth anyway? And why does the dogma of the growth imperative persist? Diane Frances, the National Post financial columnist says joining the USA would be "The Merger of the Century" in her new book so I thought I'd listen to her argument in tonight's interview with Steve Paikin on TVO. In recent years I've become progressively more anarchist in my political views so I think the question of removing borders just might be worth some thoughtful study. However I can't believe Francis can truly think that this idea can possibly fly given that today Canadians appear convinced that America is a dying empire – so why board that ship? Certainly all she's trying to do here is plant a seed and sell some books. After Francis another financial expert Donald Coxe, of BMO Financial Group, threw water on Diane's idea of a Canada/USA union and I was right with him on his comments on this as well as his view that the American political system is in terrible shape until he began to praise Ronald Reagan and Margaret Thatcher. But then Coxe was sitting there in a pinstriped suit. Watch the Francis interview here: http://ww3.tvo.org/video/197650/diane-francis-ameri-canada Neo-Con David Horowitz vs a very non-focused Slavoj Zizek Listening to David Horowitz on Julian Assange's new talk show on Russian television today was much like listening to right wing blowhards like Bill O'Rielly on Fox News. These purveyors of paranoia see a Muslim terrorist under every rock. He kept describing Obama as representing the left, a communist, which is utter nonsense -- Obama is a "liberal", not unlike Bill Clinton or John Kennedy. And liberals are very much in the pocket of the corporatocracy just like the conservatives. The American political system is 'owned' by the very rich and their henchmen, the corporate lobbyists. If self proclaimed conservatives, like Horowitz, had their way they would give the corporations even more power. Before we discuss personal survival strategies like how do we live off the land, wouldn't it be better to step back and examine if there is any point to it all? To look at the problem philosophically. I think we have a clear distinction here between our concern for our personal survival and the survival of humanity. There is a man in California, Jules Dervaes, who "lives off the land". He feeds a family of four, has no job, and lives in a decent house. He's a very frugal guy. People think we will have to learn how to live like this guy when the economy really crashes (which is inevitable if we are to believe people like George Soros and many others). Yes, I do agree the way the world is going right now things could get bad but the real trouble is that when they do people won't suddenly become responsible farmers on some self sustained patch of land. That's delusional. It was sad to see Dick Cheney the other day agreeing that Obama should forgive the actions and secrecy of the Bush administration. Perhaps he should. Obama is proving to be even more extreme and inept in his handling of foreign affairs. And that really is sad. Case in point the recent assassination of Anwar al-Awlaki, an American citizen. What is the reasoning behind keeping the reasons for the assassination of Anwar al-Awlaki from public scrutiny? In the election campaign Obama was most critical of the lack of transparency in the Bush administration yet here we see President Obama doing the same thing. This lack of accountancy is worrisome. What's next -- will the government be free now to take anyone down, no questions asked? All in the name of national security? To illustrate, here's Jake Tapper of ABC News (from the mainstream media no less), asking Jay Carney, Obama's press secretary, why we're not being told the legal and moral justification behind this assassination. Also watch: http://rt.com/programs/alyona-show/700-occupy-wall-street/ This is a 1 hour show so scroll to: 37:20 Here is a response to a recent essay which I find is typical of what anyone who wants to stand up to the system will have to contend with:
"I would suggest avoiding being too self-aggrandized in thinking that you alone, or your group alone, or your neighbourhood alone can change anything in the status quo. If you thought that the Arab awakening was going to change anything in the western world, or could bring down the corridors of existing power, I must say that I am much more skeptical than you about this. In all of history, revolutions, sea-changes, wars, even genocides (such as Rwanda), agendas have only changed slightly to align to those left standing and able to grab the strings of remaining power. And then it all starts all over again, with a newly minted elite. It is the history of the world! It is always a reminder that our present level of civilization is just a hair's breadth away from Barbarism when I hear someone like President Obama, who should know better, speak in such a cavalier fashion of killing another human being. The fact that it was Osama bin Laden doesn't make it right. And why was he killed instead of captured and charged as is the accepted procedure for any suspected criminal? After all these were Navy Seals, the so called elite sharp-shooters who apparently had to resort to assasination. Are we to believe that these skilled operatives had no option but to shoot the old guy in the head? Surely that was the plan all along because, oh yes, we're at war, and different rules apply. Here we go again as America makes another major blunder by taking for granted that it's above the law. Obviously this will play well for Obama's re-election chances. Meanwhile the rest of the world will see this action for what it is: another killing that could have been avoided and another American deviation from justice. This is crude and obvious opportunism by this President which also plays into a large element of vengeance. Those images of revelers dancing up a storm in front of the White House and at Ground Zero last night was sickening and disheartening. I suspect that they would have preferred to watch the assassination live, in Times Square. A hair's breadth away from Barbarism, indeed.
It's done. This decision on who to vote for has been more difficult for me than whether we should intervene in Libya. I was only half kidding when I said I'm thinking of voting Conservative the other day. Giving up smoking was easy. Stop eating meat -- no big deal. But voting Tory after all these years of strategically voting against them is hard. I don't think I'm up to it -- even if I do have a rational reason to vote against my long held convictions.
A friend of mine is concerned about a rush into yet another war led by the United States, this time with Libya where Muammar Gaddafi refuses to back down and is threatening to kill his own people to stay in power. Here is how I responded:
Always interested in your point of view — to which I usually agree. This time I'm not so sure. Did you hear what Robert Gates said the other day? He said that any future defence secretary that would advise his president to go to war . . . "ought to have his head examined". That's good to hear from any Republican. It seems he's picking up some good rhetoric being around Obama these days. He later drove home that he wants to be clear exactly what a "no fly zone" really means. Bombing and killing. These are not what you are going to say at the ear of an American public that is in no mood to stomach another war. I just can't see it happening. Yes it is possible that Gaddafi, crazy as he is, may start killing off a lot of people forcing the US to act. But I believe they do not see military action, in this case and at this time, as serving American interests as they are currently mired in futile wars in Iraq and Afghanistan. Today is the "Day Of Departure" in Cairo. As yet Hosni Mubarak is standing firm. But it certainly looks that he will finally step aside under pressure from most of the world (Israel being the exception). Mubarak's insistence that he must stay in power to avert chaos is groundless. More to the point I can't see any chance of a reasonable transition as long as he stays. The real question now is whether the newly appointed Vice President Omar Suleiman will be acceptable for the interim by the people. He could even be a darker figure than Mubarak but I think right now that allowing him to stay may be the most pragmatic solution. Fair elections in September will no doubt oust Suleiman and his Mubarak cronies.
On an ABC interview to be shown tomorrow evening billionaire Warren Buffett claims that rich people like him should be paying more income tax. Does this mean the rich are starting to "get it"? In a recent book by Ralph Nader called "Only The Super Rich Can Save Us", Nader says that the failure of the Democratic Party to really change things proves that we may now have to rely on the very same people who created this financial mess to wise-up and think more of the collective good. Dare I say a little more Socialist?
I wouldn't count on it. This kind of talk by Buffett -- and all that philanthropic work in Africa by him and his buddy Bill Gates seems genuine and encouraging. But will it lead us in a direction away from an increasingly troublesome disparity between rich and poor? I very much doubt it. The rich are mostly hardened egotists with a pessimistic view of society. Grab it all before the ship goes down is their view of the world. I think it would be closer to reality to say, "only the poor can save us". Market Capitalism is a train wreck on the edge of a cliff. It is in a self destruct spiral. It can only be saved by "an alert and knowledgeable citizenry", as Dwight Eisenhower so famously put it some fifty years ago. |
|