A YouTube video

"My response to an email circulating to '300 million people!' about boycotting major gas companies -

I'd just like to take a moment and comment on the flaw of this plan."...

---

In this video Cassandra stresses how driving less is a way to save money while doing good at the same time.

Toban Black
(http://tobanblack.net/blog)

This is a speech from a local peace rally on Sunday.

(As I said that day, I plan to add additional material -- including viewing & reading recommendations, and web links -- to the online version of the speech. Hopefully I'll find the time to do that soon, but I've been very preoccupied, so I've decided to post this version of the speech to a local web site first.)

(Note: I was not speaking as a representative of Post-Carbon London, a group I have been a key member of which addresses some of these issues--but in a much different way)

======================

Hi everyone,
I’m Toban.

Today I’ll be speaking about causes of war—specifically, about oil and natural gas interests in and around the so-called war on ‘terror.’

It’s clear that efforts to gain further control over fossil fuel reserves in—and also near— the Middle East are one of the important factors at the root of this war. The main targets of this war on ‘terror’ are in the Persian Gulf, where about two-thirds of the world’s oil and natural gas reserves are located—in Iraq, in Iran, and in surrounding nations.

But before I say more about all of this, I’m going to stress that this U.S.-led war definitely is not just a matter of “blood for oil” & gas:

• In and around this war there has also been a wave of neoliberalism—in efforts to smooth the flow of trade across borders, while attacking state programs and services (including state control of incredibly valuable oil & gas in Iraq, and in other nations in the area).
• Arms industry interests also have pressed the U.S. state toward ongoing war so governments will continue to buy missiles, helicopters, and other combat technologies. And military elites seek this equipment, as well as more and more funding.
• In addition, there has been an upsurge of racist hatred toward so-called ‘Arabs’—toward various ethnicities and nationalities who have been lumped together in that category and then dehumanized and demonized.
• Likewise, our Muslim sisters and our Muslim brothers have been targeted—with a crusade mentality—from an influential segment of Christians who think or, at least claim, that they are combating evil by attacking Muslims.
• And American allies have been pulled into this conflict by Zionists seeking further U.S.(-led) intervention in the Middle East to support Israeli state efforts to oppress and assault Palestinians—in the face of opposition from other nations in the area.
• And as with other warfare, there also has been macho-masculine militarism in and around the so-called war on ‘terror.’
• Mainstream media also have, in so many ways, supported and promoted war—in general. Conflict is presented as entertainment—whether it’s in Hollywood action movies or in the so-called ‘news’—so war is made to seem attractive. In these respects, and in many other ways, mainstream media are bound up with the status quo—including the imperialism that I’ve started to describe here.

And then there are the oil and natural gas interests.
Whether they know it or not, the soldiers fighting the war on ‘terror’ are caught up in efforts to gain additional control over oil and gas supplies in and around the Persian Gulf.
Those goals were spelled out in a May 2001 U.S. energy policy document which declares that “The Gulf will be a primary focus of U.S. international energy policy.” This U.S. policy document also, in the authors’ words, “recommends that the President make energy security a priority of our trade and foreign policy.”
(In the online version of this speech I’ll add more U.S. government statements about fossil fuel policies.)
While Iraq and the rest of the Persian Gulf nations have been the focal point of this foreign energy policy, nearby northern Africa and the nearby Caspian region have been important targets as well. There also are ongoing efforts to install a “Trans-Afghanistan Pipeline” to transport fossil fuels from the Caspian region.

Various fossil fuel interests underlie U.S.-led intervention in these areas:

• In part—through the so-called war on ‘terror,’ and associated foreign energy policy—there have been efforts to extend fossil fuel exports—for Americans and other predominant international interests. Fossil fuels continue to be essential to economies, to militaries, and to many other activities and domains in leading nations.
• Very powerful fossil fuel company interests also have been seeking to claim further supplies for themselves. These companies are running out of their lifeblood—their oil & gas. The supplies of these fuels in the Gulf are particularly profitable (provided that associated military expenses aren’t taken into account), as this oil and gas is more readily available, given that more accessible supplies elsewhere have been depleted more rapidly. It is more difficult to find, extract, and refine remaining oil and gas supplies outside of the Gulf (and some surrounding areas).
• Gaining additional control over Persian Gulf nations also would allow U.S.-led forces to break the back of OPEC, which has (seemingly, at least) presented a unified front in the face of the United States and other leading nations.

These fossil fuel interests I’ve summarized have been one important factor in driving aggressive intervention in the Middle East.

So despite how fossil fuel dependencies are tied to global warming, to oil & gas depletion (including world “peak oil”), to smog, to
ongoing oil spills, and to other environmental problems, leading interests are not challenging oil & gas consumption. Instead,
efforts are underway to prolong these dependencies, and to control oil & gas supplies—through warfare, and through other means.

Organized opposition to war—for peace—must confront fossil fuel dependencies, and other demands for outside ecosystem materials (such as fresh water supplies). Otherwise there will be various forms of imperialism—through companies, through governments, and other major centres of the international order. While there is a drive to end Middle Eastern state control of Gulf fossil fuels, Canadian mining companies are aggressively tearing up South & Central America while claiming these ‘Southern’ lands for themselves—and this is but one other example. This imperialism, and environmental dependencies that are an important part of it, have been escalating (through an ongoing nuclear arms race, for instance) . We must de-escalate these conflicts and these demands.

If we are to bring peace to the world, we must confront the root causes of the wars and imperialism around us (rather than just Bush jr., Harper, and other individuals).

We don’t have to resign ourselves to just making this world a little less awful, and to saving the odd victim. No. We can end war, and we can end imperialism—while bringing about and sustaining greater peace and social justice. But to achieve all of this, we must re-make our world. Fundamental changes will be necessary. We’ll also need to exercise our imaginations. In other words, we’ll have to stop being so conservative.
We also will have to co-operatively organize—through movements, and other organized challenges to imperialism and the status quo.
Committing to ending fossil fuel dependencies—and soon—could be one focal point… one common goal… one pillar… of these organized efforts.
We should have several of those shared goals.
I think that we should be able to agree to immediately end fossil fuel dependencies. So let’s do it. Let’s make it happen.

Thank you.

------

Toban Black
(http://tobanblack.net/blog/)

 

A protest photo from Hands Off Iraqi Oil

------

Related posts at my main blog -
- Global warming and other energy & carbon -related crises — as well as associated interests
- Canadian oil supplies; American priorities
- Oil supply shortages
- American protestors; Canadian oil and tar sands?
- U.S. oil dependencies

------

Toban
(http://tobanblack.net/blog/)

A YouTube video

Getting acquainted with urban agriculture.

Toban Black
(http://tobanblack.net/blog/)

A Youtube video

"Interested in eating less oil? In this VideoNation/Hidden Driver report, animator Molly Schwartz keeps track of how many miles your food travels from field to fork."

The video offers a U.S. perspective on these issues. It's well done.

Toban Black
(http://tobanblack.net/blog/)

Sharon Astyk on what we can gain from home-grown food -

"- Better Food - Fresher, better tasting, straight off the plant food money literally cannot buy!

- Better Health - More nutrition in just picked vegetables, grown without chemicals, while getting the kind of exercise many of us pay the gym for! Safety from industrial food contamination and toxic imports.

- Food Security - Food in your pots as prices get higher, supplies that can’t be disrupted by energy shortages, greater regional self-sufficiency. Millions of new gardeners can make sure that Americans don’t have to wait for distant food supplies to be trucked in - weeks after they are needed. Every gardener makes your region more secure.

- Higher Quality of Life - A more beautiful environment, stronger community, a better environment.

- More Money in your Pocket, More Time for What Matters - If you don’t need as much money for food, or to work as many hours to pay the grocery bills, you can use that money or take that time for what you really care about.

- The Chance to Serve Others and Create a More Just Society - Your [home garden] can be a strike against hunger and poverty - you can have food to donate, and the ability to teach others to fish (ok, garden), and thus, eat for a lifetime.

- Reduce Corporate Power and Improve Democracy - We cannot simultaneously deplore the power corporations have in our society and depend on them to supply our most basic necessities. If we stop giving our hard earned money to the corporations who undermine our democracy, they will be less powerful!

-Protect Against Climate Change - Humus rich soils, full of organic matter can sequester tons of carbon, quite literally - and grow the best vegetables. We reduce our carbon emissions when we don’t have to drive to the store or buy fossil fuel grown food.

- Reduce our Energy Dependence - Fossil fuels are used in agriculture, both industrial and industrial organic at every step, from the fertilizer in the ground to the refrigerated truck to plastic bag they come in. We can eliminated fossil fuels from almost every step when we grow our own.

- Create Peace - We’re at war for oil right now. If we can cut back on our need for the stuff, we don’t have to kill or die for it.

- Hope for the Future - In a changing world, the ability to grow food, to share and enjoy it, and to live in a healthy world full of beautiful gardens may be the best legacy we can our children and grandchildren."

------

Toban Black
(http://tobanblack.net/blog/)

Pat Murtagh on large-scale electrical power system failures -

"The great ice storm of 1998 was, of course, only one of many large scale power outages that have become increasingly frequent worldwide in recent years. See the Wikipedia article on Power Outages for coverage of many of them and also to see how they are becoming more frequent."

"What is the problem here ? The answer is simple. As the provision of electric power becomes increasingly centralized, and as the delivery becomes increasingly dependent upon a complicated network of interacting systems failures inevitably become more and more common. Most of the major outages cited in the Wikipedia article didn't depend upon natural disasters to bring them about. They happened because the more complicated a machine becomes the more ways it has to fail. One doesn't have to invoke the hand of 'extreme weather events', though if one believes some such things will become increasingly common with global warming. Much ado has been made in the USA of the vulnerability of their power grid to 'terrorism'. Many resources have been put into safeguarding (or at least 'studying') against this event that has yet to occur while at the same time few resources have been devoted to safeguarding against events that have and do happen and that are becoming more frequent."

"The obvious solution to such widespread disruptions is one that is totally unacceptable to those who have power (in the political and economic sense) in both the private and public sectors. Building power generation facilities on a local rather than a continental scale appeals to nobody but those who might be most affected by the loss of power, those without economic means. Power megaprojects are indeed profitable, but only with the support of massive public investment. This sort of subsidy distorts the market and squeezes out other local initiatives that might grow up in the absence of such free money. One can 'harden' the power distribution system as much as one likes, and one can try and build in redundancy to cushion the effect of local events. But such 'fixes' often increase the chances of the very failures that they are trying to avert, as they increase the complexity of the system. Locally generated power can be produced in any number of different ways, many of which are being developed today."

"Being able to provide for electric power locally is high on the list of things that a community requires for real independence. Without such a fallback resource a community is inevitably tied to a central power, whether that power be political or economic. Should a natural disaster (as opposed to one that is created solely by the centralized nature of the power grid) occur the effects will remain localized and could be dealt with much easier. As it is the authorities whom we are supposed to trust as having our best interests in mind have pretty much bowed to the inevitability of such large scale disaster, and their 'planning' is much more about how to refine their response than to prevent such things. Perhaps prevention should be looked at as more important. But that requires examining the vested interests that live off the way that things are presently irrationally organized."

------

Toban Black
(http://tobanblack.net/blog/)

"I used to worry for my grandchildren. Now there is a fairly high probability that I will experience the more severe effects of climate change at first hand."
- Jeremy

------

Matt Price (of Environmental Defence) and Allan Adam (of Athabasca Chipewyan First Nation) address issues surrounding the Albertan tar sands in an Ottawa Citizen op ed (February 21st)

Terrance Berg at DeSmogBlog - "Report: Alberta [Tar] Sands Most Destructive Project on Earth" (February 18th) -
Yet "approvals have already been given that will double the size of existing operations"

Joseph Romm on a Chinese liquid coal plant (February 21st) -
"Nothing is worse for the climate than large scale coal-to-liquids. Not even the tar sands."

A coal industry advertisement (in a February blog post)

Mark Trevelyan in Reuters - "Cheap, renewable energy years away: Shell" (February 21st) [via Sharon Astyk] -
"The world faces a doubling of energy demand by 2050 but renewable sources are still too expensive and will take decades to make a big impact, Royal Dutch Shell CEO Jeroen van der Veer said"

Andy Rowell - "[Tar] Sands Firms See Record Year" -
"The Canadian oil industry is poised for record year with 2008 profits rising 18 per cent to nearly $23 billion"

Ross Gelbspan and Kevin Grandia at DeSmogBlog on ExxonMobil profits from oil sales in 2007

Joseph Romm on corporate greenwashing--and "Beyond Petroleum" greenwashing, in particular (February 23rd)

Andy Rowell on how the company that dubbed itself Beyond Petroleum has invested in the Albertan tar sands (February 8th)

Richard Littlemore at DeSmogBlog - "Environment Canada's Muzzle Mandate Available for Viewing" (February 25th) -
"We now have a copy (attached) of the new Media Relations Protocol with which Environment Canada is muzzling its scientists."

Kevin Krolicki in Reuters - "GM [Vice Chairman] Stands by Calling Global Warming a 'Total Crock of Shit'" (February 23rd)

Tom Krisher in the Associated Press - "GM urges automakers to oppose greenhouse-gas limits" (February 9th) -
"General Motors Corp. CEO Rick Wagoner [has] urged a group of auto dealers ... to lobby against individual states trying to set their own limits on greenhouse-gas emissions.

Rachel Oliver for CNN - "Shipping's impact on the air" (January 20th) -
Shipping "emissions could be double the amount everyone previously believed."

A blog post about temperature measurement trends and global warming

Simon on a book with images that show impacts that global warming has had and might have on Spain -
The images show "how tourist paradises sinks down in the sea, how huge wildfires destroy the forests and how severe droughts turns everything to a desert.

Terrance Berg at DeSmogBlog - "First Nations to Alberta Government: Enough Already!" (February 25th) -
"A coalition of First Nations aboriginal groups in Northern Alberta has called for a freeze on all new [tar] sands development"

Simon Lewis in The Guardian - "Climate Change Is Killing Us. It’s Time for a Body Count" (February 26th) -
"Why are we relying on a single, limited, out-of-date study for our information on the numbers of people killed by climate change?"

Michael T. Klare at TomDispatch - "Something Had to Give: How Oil Burst the American Bubble" (February 1st) -
"Oil, in fact, has played a critical, if little commented upon, role in America’s current economic enfeeblement — and it will continue to drain the economy of wealth and vigor for years to come."

------

We're in trouble.
Please do what you can--with others--to get us out of this mess!

If not you? Then who? If not now? When?

Please don't assume that others will sort all of this out.
That isn't happening.
Attention to these issues has been very superficial and watered down (as in talk about simple "things you can do," for instance--talk that implies that the ecological problems around us aren't very serious.) Again and again as I've tried to raise energy & carbon issues (such as global warming) through Post-Carbon London I've found that few people out there are very concerned or interested in these crises.

There's much to be done--and very, very soon. Please pitch in.

Battles are underway on many fronts--and, on the whole, they aren't going well. If you've been on the sidelines, please step into the fray.

Toban Black
(http://tobanblack.net/blog/)

George M. on why we shouldn't ask others to "save the planet" -

"One psychological response to climate change is to find language and images that create distance - to suggest that it will affect someone else in the future. So the talk and images are of ‘climate’ not ‘weather’, polar bears not hedgehogs, African children not our own.

‘The Planet’ is about as distant as one can get - I am not being called on to save my family, my community, my country, my world or even my Earth. It is The Planet - a lump of cold rock seen from space. I’ll be honest - I don’t give a damn about ‘The Planet’ - it means nothing to me."

------

George raises other noteworthy points in the rest of his blog post, which is worth reading.

------

A related issue (which I've raised here--albeit without editing my comment carefully enough) -

People often imply that global warming will only harm arctic wildlife--and particularly polar bears.
That view is conveyed by these protestors, for instance:
http://www.flickr.com/photos/isisdc/sets/72157602622773240/
http://www.indiescribe.com/2008/02/greenpeace-prot.html
http://www.desmogblog.com/this-oil-sands-campaign-could-show-up-anywhere-in-alberta

How many people will commit to dramatically restructuring their lives and our society in order to save polar bears (and penguins and seals--not to mention less familiar arctic wildlife)?
Very few of us will do so -- and the blog post exerpt above indicates why this is the case. Although it's downright tragic that we are wiping out polar bears and other animals in the arctic, most people are not apt to care much about these distant creatures.

As usual, a radical message--in this case, about how we need to dramatically reshape our way of life in response to global warming--has been watered down.

The phrase "climate change" likewise is a less threatening alternative to talk about "global warming" (or, to be more precise, "global warming and related climate changes.") And neither of these terms are as dramatic as Joseph Romm's phrase "hell and high water," which hasn't caught on (yet). People aren't about to flock to this more frightening way of framing global warming, and George's post--the one quoted above--sheds light on this as well.

Toban Black
(http://tobanblack.net/blog/)

Michael Pollan on local gardening and cooking -

"It's funny to think of something as domestic as cooking and gardening as subversive, but it is. It is the beginning of taking back control from a system that would much rather do everything for you. The food industry wants to cook for you, shop for you, they want to do everything but digest for you and if they could figure out a way to do that profitably, they would. It's all about making money. They need to convince you that you can't do this stuff on your own. That gardening is hard, growing your own food is old-fashioned. Cooking is just so hard, we have to cook for you.

I think it's really an important thing to do. The fact is we've had 50 years of letting corporations cook our meals, and it appears now that they were not doing a very good job of it. The food they're cooking is making people sick. It is one of the reasons that we have the obesity and diabetes epidemics that we do. And it's not surprising because they do not take as much care of our health and welfare as our parents do when they cook for us.

If you're going to let industries decide how much salt, sugar and fat is in your food, they're going to put as much as they possibly can. Why? Because they want to sell as much of it as they possibly can and we are hard-wired to like sugar, fat and salt. They will push those buttons until we scream or die. That's in the nature of things. If you want to sell a lot of products, you make it as appealing as possible, but that's not the same as cooking with an eye toward our health. We have responsibility for our health. We shouldn't expect them to look out for us. And indeed, they don't."

"After thousands of years, we have invented the one diet that makes people sick and rejected the thousands of diets that make them healthy. How did that happen? Well, it's hard to make money on those traditional diets. We're programmed to like refined grain, sugars and fats."

------

Toban Black
(http://tobanblack.net/blog/)

Peter N. Jones on how global warming already has been disrupting indigenous communities -

A common view (among those who give these matters any thought) "is that climate change is really only having an impact on indigenous populations in the far latitudes (i.e., the Arctic, Patagonia, and islands in the southern Pacific Ocean)."

Yet, "climate change is having an impact on indigenous peoples in all areas, geographic regions, and ecozones.

The indigenous Aymaran Native peoples of the Andes are experiencing changes to their mountain ecologies as a result of changing climate and weather patterns. Likewise, the Uralic and Turkic indigenous peoples are facing major changes as the permafrost melts and their reindeer herds get bogged down. For the indigenous peoples of the world – already marginalized by imperial and colonial situations – global climate changes brought on largely by activities that they have no part in are already having major consequences."

------

Toban Black
(http://tobanblack.net/blog/)

Chris Holt on "the notion of the human being, on foot" -

"When we get out of our cars and walk along our streets, we bump into the people who cut our meat at the deli and dispense our prescriptions at the drug store. We interact with each other and become involved in each other's lives." And "because we have cut down our spending as we cut down our car and insurance payments and are able to spend less time at work. We're not working overtime to fuel our hyper-consumer lifestyles, so we're able to spend time with our significant others as we visit the theatre or art gallery."

"We're more human when we use our feet."

------

Toban Black
(http://tobanblack.net/blog/)

Twike photos -

------

Twike videos on YouTube:
"Twike in Bern"
"100 Twike in Bern"

------

A related blog post -
"Versatile bicycle parts"

------

Toban Black
(http://tobanblack.net/blog/)

Velomobile images from this Japanese blog -

------

A related blog post -
"Versatile bicycle parts"

------

Toban Black
(http://tobanblack.net/blog/)

Kurt Cobb alludes to human tolls alongside rising 'resource' prices -

"It is all too likely then that the skyrocketing prices predicted for oil, for example, of $300, $500 or even $1,000 a barrel will never materialize. Yes, many people will do without oil, or a least without as much oil as they would like. And, that means that the price of oil will not go up forever. That's because many oil consumers will simply drop out of the bidding with each successive price hike. And, ultimately the dropouts will halt the upward pressure on oil prices perhaps at levels far lower than $300. The economists have a polite term for this. They call it 'demand destruction.' What they don't want you to think about is that sometimes, perhaps this time, a lot of people will be demolished in the process.

The same process, unfortunately, may be unfolding for cereal grains and perhaps other critical commodities about which we currently do not worry."

Toban Black
(http://tobanblack.net/blog/)

Gary Hirshberg in The Huffington Post - "How to Recycle Less and Do More"

Exerpts -

"Recycling is almost universally regarded as a virtue. I beg to differ. The act of recycling actually means that we have failed to reduce or reuse."

While (attempting to) recycle, "we have to spend enormous amounts of energy and money carting away all of [our] waste to someplace else, where it will be made into something different — a process that releases still more CO2 into the atmosphere.

What is more, recycling affects only a fraction of solid waste. At best, 5 percent of plastic gets recycled. We do better with aluminum cans, but the recycle rate is still only about 45% percent."

------

I've highlighted those statements because they show that most of the process of 'recycling' actually is just another form of waste. Recycling isn't actually benign. Yet many people seem to think that through either magic or through some non-existant form of high-technology we are able to recycle without using up resources or generating pollution.

In other words, recycling isn't just overrated --
a lot of what we refer to as "recycling" isn't actually recycling!

Is some of this 'recycling' counter-productive? I don't think that anyone could conclusively answer that question, but it's clear that a lot of recycling isn’t good enough!

From the standpoint of energy & carbon concerns alone, those issues are important. Many people don't realize how wasteful (so-called) recycling is. There are more efficient ways to use energy, and better ways to reduce CO2 emissions.
And when other ecological degradation (e.g. mineral depletion) and resource issues are taken into account, this wastefulness is more important still.

Toban Black
(http://tobanblack.net/blog/)

Simon on a few our transportation options -

This "picture, taken by the Press-Office City of Münster (Germany), demonstrates the amount of space required to transport the same number of passengers by car, bus or bicycle."

We burn up and spew out a lot of carbon energy while we're lugging those cars around.

Toban Black
(http://tobanblack.net/blog/)

Some people find oil & gas depletion--among other environmental problems--to be depressing.

In part, that's is because they're clinging to 'development' like this --

------

by Andy Singer

------

Andy exaggerates, but I think he's close to the mark --
that is, his piece pretty much captures what some areas of sprawl are like.

Thus, Andy captures the car-centric, de-localized 'development' that oil & gas depletion increasingly will force us to turn away from -- by retrofitting this sprawl as much as possible, by devising new ways to use such buildings and paved roads, etc.

Those transitions can go smoothly -- if we make that happen.

Toban Black
(http://tobanblack.net/blog/)

Should we jail politicians who refuse to take global warming seriously?
Is that a fascist approach?

There is (or was) a discussion about those issues here.

------

Related -
- "Climate criminals 'arrested' in Ottawa" - October, 2007
- "Greenpeace activists arrested but Harper [deemed] the real climate criminal" - March, 2007

Greenpeace also has used that language while criticizing Exxon -
"Exxon: has climate criminal #1 seen the light?" - January, 2007

Of course, the label "criminal," in these cases, isn't associated with existing laws. It's more of a rhetorical move -- though that language also implies that leading us toward global warming should be against the law.

------

I'm not going to take a position on all of this -- not right now, anyway.

Toban Black
(http://tobanblack.net/blog/)

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BrbqZJNRX3g
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=E9qklQEsRkg
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yJNepS7Z4fI
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=k8AOZ8C-Js8
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0jwYTJpym9k
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8YIYAiQGiUQ

---------

Mopeds on Wikipedia:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Moped

 
Toban Black
(http://tobanblack.net/blog/)

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=98rXCoEk6vE
http://www.bikeforest.com/?p=77
http://www.blogto.com/arts/2007/12/vidto_pedal_power_vs_toronto_police/
http://www.ecofriend.org/images/bicytaxi.jpg

Bike machines can be semi-motorized, they can be enclosed (rather than leaving riders exposed to the wind and what not), and they can be collaboratively peddled; we have a lot of options.

------

Update -
Related blog posts -
"The Twike"
"Velomobiles"

------

Toban Black
(http://tobanblack.net/blog/)

I believe these images are from Washington, D.C. They're certainly from the United States, anyway.
There are more of those photos here.

Although a lot of oil is sent to the U.S. from Canada (as is a lot of natural gas), and some of that exported oil is from tar sands in Canada, the protestors’ signs call attention away from U.S.-based control over these fossil fuel supplies. (In part, that control is a matter of the sheer size of the U.S. economy.)

It would be more constructive for Americans to focus on laying blame in the U.S., since they could have much more of an impact there, and they will tend to be much more invested in efforts to bring about change around where they live. In a U.S. context it makes strategic sense to focus on U.S. culpability.

What’s more important than changing the course of the U.S.?

Here in Canada we can challenge the United States by cutting back—if not off—the oil and gas exports that are being sent there. Canadians (among others) are allowing the fossil fuel industry here to continue doing business, and we are accepting NAFTA fossil fuel export commitments that may well be extended through the so-called ‘Security and Prosperity’ partnership. The images of the protestors’ signs could encourage Canadians to take responsibility for all of this.

Toban Black
(http://tobanblack.net/blog/)

by Art Spiegelman

------

Toban Black
(http://tobanblack.net/blog/)

Some information that I received yesterday from the Council of Canadians via a local chapter mailing list:

 
About economic manifestations of oil supply shortages -

According to an energy report released today by CIBC World Markets, Canadians should be prepared to soon start paying $1.50 a litre for gasoline. CIBC chief economist Jeffrey Rubin says, 'Canadians should brace for $1.50 litre gas prices in the near future as global oil supply will increasingly have trouble keeping pace with demand.' Just last week the Globe and Mail was reporting that, 'Canadians should brace for gas prices above $1.30 a litre this summer and rising costs for food, transportation and many other services if oil stays at $100 (US) a barrel, industry analysts say.'

 
On Canadian subordination under U.S. power, and international sources of oil imported into Canada -

"Canada imports 58 percent of the oil we consume. By region, about 40 percent of the oil used in Ontario is imported, while about 90 percent of the oil used in Quebec and the Atlantic provinces is imported. Approximately 25 percent of this oil comes from the unstable regions of the Middle East or North Africa. Yet Canada's oil exports to the United States are steadily growing. In 2004, 70 percent of Canada's [extracted oil] went to the United States. In 1998 the figure was 60 percent. In 1990 the figure was 50 percent.

As Joanne C points out, Canadian oil is used to help fuel American imperialism.

 
On how those oil exports to the U.S. relate to the Canadian economy -

"TD Bank chief economist Don Drummond was recently quoted in the Ottawa Citizen saying, 'On balance, higher oil prices are slightly positive for Canada with the emphasis on slight...We are a net exporter of oil, so in that sense, it would be a positive, but then you've got the damage to the US economy which mitigates that positive benefit'

A more important question is - 'How many people receive much of those oil export revenues anyway?'

The Globe and Mail 'Ready for gas at $1.50 a litre?' can be read at http://ctv2.theglobeandmail.com/servlet/story/RTGAM.20080110.wcibcgasstaff0110/business/Business/businessBN/ctv-business.

The complete CIBC World Markets report is available at http://research.cibcwm.com/economic_public/download/occtrept65pdf, although it appears to be temporarily unavailable.

 
Toban Black
(http://tobanblack.net/blog/)

Before I post my response below, here are exerpts from a piece by Roman Krznaric's at the blog Climate Change Denial; the piece is called "Does the Progressive Left Really Believe in Climate Change?", and it is summarized with the sentence "Roman Krznaric is amazed that political activists are ignoring the world’s greatest social justice issue."

... I can’t help concluding that the Progressive Left doesn’t yet really believe in climate change.

What explains the absence of climate change on the agenda?

One factor concerns hope. For the first time in years there is a sense of hope about Latin America amongst the Progressive Left. Neoliberalism is in retreat and left-leaning governments are being elected throughout the region. ... But none of this, I believe, is an excuse for ignoring climate change.

A second factor is that many activists and policy-makers continue to keep human development issues separate from what they think of as ‘environmental’ issues. If you are interested in tackling poverty in the favelas of Rio, it is quite normal not even to consider that climate change is a related issue. I think there is a real need for development agencies and activists on the one hand, and environmentally-oriented organisations and campaigners on the other, to merge their thinking to create a new Ecological Humanism, so that climate change and social justice are considered interdependent issues.

A third, possibly deeper factor, is psychological denial. As individuals, we have an extraordinary capacity to shut our minds to the realities of issues that we think are frightening or insurmountable. ...

 
My response -

"Your observations about the progressive left in general (as opposed to people in or associated with Latin America per se) ring true with me. (As for anti-neoliberalism in and around Latin America, I’m not going to try to comment on that.) In my experience there usually are sharp divisions between lefties and greens (though there are a minority of us who straddle that divide; hence, we end up on each side of the chasm — the camp with the majority of greens in it or the camp with the majority of lefties in it — at one time or another).

Your observations on “what explains the absence of climate change on the agenda” are a helpful start. Some additional thoughts –

Narrow-mindedness is rampant in the world today. People get caught up in various areas and shut everything else out. I experience this in the context of academic fields (e.g. Media and Communications, which some see as all that matters, whereas others are caught up in matters of state or what-have-you), but narrow-mindedness is a much broader condition of contemporary life. This happens because societies have been made so complicated (e.g. internationalized), and because there’s so little quality analysis that people pay attention to. Thought and discourse (e.g. journalism) is very shallow.

Greens also often fail to engage the lefties (to oversimplify this with labels, and by making generalizations that actually are references to tendencies). Take this blog for instance. While it’s great (which is why it’s one of only four sites that I have on my blogroll (http://tobanblack.net/blog/) right now), Climate Change Denial has a narrow green mandate which isn’t going to build bridges to the lefties, among others. And doesn’t your piece take a similar perspective? You suggest that the lefties should get acquainted with green issues (to oversimplify again), but not vice versa. Don’t get me wrong, I appreciate your piece though. Besides, environmental-issues-are-all-that-matters perspectives are a systemic problem, not a matter of any one piece or blog.

In solidarity,
Toban"

---------

Update (the next day) - The response above exaggerated the extent to which Roman approached those issues through global warming concerns. By indicating that climate change is an important "social justice issue," and by advocating an approach in which "climate change and social justice are considered interdependent issues," he did take a step toward forming bridges that can be crossed from both sides of the divide. It's a start (or a hint of one).

---------

Toban Black
(http://tobanblack.net/blog/)