Mother Nature will show Tories to the exit

(March 29, 2018)

Premier Brian Pallister has accomplished the unthinkable.

To the dismay of his colleagues and the delight of the opposition parties, Pallister will be remembered for blowing the largest electoral advantage in the history of Manitoba politics and leading the first single-term government since Sterling Lyon was defeated in 1980.

While there are already many other reasons for his meltdown (Manitoba Hydro, health care and education are contenders) future pundits will point to Pallister’s mismanagement of environmental issues as the central reason for this debacle.

And it will be Pallister who wears this defeat, not the Progressive Conservative party. His cabinet ministers are left to shrug helplessly at news conferences or in the legislature, when they are pushed to explain the latest flailing.

To date, we have seen little of the much-trumpeted “made-in-Manitoba” climate plan. After months of consultations with many organizations and individuals who took the time to offer constructive, non-partisan ideas and advice about managing greenhouse gas emissions and spending carbon-tax revenue — in both public consultations and online surveys, however inadequate and last-minute — the latest budget ignored them all.

It is becoming a perfect storm of Pallister’s own making. Mother Nature will provide the background chorus, as extreme weather patterns worsen over the next couple of years before the provincial election. The Manitoba Liberals have announced a policy platform that includes a raft of reasonable things — none of them new — that should already have been included in a Tory climate plan for Manitoba, but weren’t.

In these pages, for example, I have argued for two years we could make the province “carbon negative” and called on Premier Pallister to resign and let someone else try, if the Green Plan is the best his government can do (Premier’s green plan takes province nowhere, Nov. 2, 2017).

Of course, this is not the only trouble brewing. When the Winnipeg Chamber of Commerce expresses dismay at the budget, the Manitoba Heavy Construction Association calls out the government for promises unkept, the health-care unions splutter about shortfalls in essential services, the post-secondary institutions object to doing ever more with even less, and even the blue-chip, Pallister-appointed board of Manitoba Hydro quits en masse, things are not coming up roses for the government.

Read more

Nature pays no attention to politics

(March 13, 2018)

There have been a lot of recent headlines about climate and Manitoba, quite apart from winter storms, but little action from different levels of government.

Manitoba finally signed on late to the federal climate strategy, so $60 million of funding did not fly south, though how we will spend it remains a mystery. Premier Brian Pallister continues to mutter and do nothing about a “made-in-Manitoba” climate plan, while the Business Council of Manitoba murmurs against the financial impacts of a carbon tax — hardly a surprise, as its former executive director is now our “minister of pipelines,” Natural Resources Minister Jim Carr.

The city of Winnipeg continues with its last minute, pop-up, flash-mob “consultations” on a climate plan for the region — leaving the skeptical to wonder whether anything they have contributed will make a difference to decisions likely already made.

All the while, temperatures in the Arctic soar, freak storms dump snow on the Vatican and drought ravages east Africa, warning anyone who cares to notice that our petty politics mean less than nothing to Mother Nature.

Get with the program, please! A sea change is needed in how we live together, because — literally — the sea is changing, along with everything else.

Climate change is a real and present danger, everywhere. Pretending that seven-plus billion people can live the way we do without having major negative impacts on planetary ecology is sheer idiocy. Continuing to do nothing is worse — especially if you are a politician responsible for managing the society in which we live.

People who say things are not so bad are shills for the fossil-fuel industry, employed to troll people such as me to make people such as you think there is some doubt about what is going on, or to dispute the urgency of doing something about it.

I would tell you to count the number of bird songs or frog calls in Manitoba this spring and compare them to what you remember, even 20 years ago — but that would mean you had to find some birds and frogs to count. In too many places, even outside the city, silence greets the dawn after a spring rain.

Read More

Desperation agriculture won’t feed the world

(December 14, 2017)

At a United Nations environment meeting in Nairobi in 2013 about “feeding the world,” I got into an argument with several officials when I objected to the theme.

We don’t need to try to feed the world, I said. We need sustainable agriculture, instead. WE are hiring the Cheapest towing Ottawa service we can find to partner with us on changing our farm landscapes.

It was not a popular opinion, despite the long-term disastrous consequences of the 1980s Green Revolution — rapid declines in productivity, soil fertility, arable land in production, and so on. The benefits of intensive agriculture had turned out to be short term, requiring chemical fertilizers, new crop varieties, pesticides and herbicides — all of which increased the costs of farming and required larger yields and higher returns to be sustainable.

When the bubble burst, some developing countries went from being net exporters to net importers of food, and became more food insecure almost overnight.

“Feeding the world” has become justification for continuing current industrial agricultural practices, despite the obviously bad ecological impacts of how we produce our food. In addition, we are essentially farming oil, given the greenhouse gases produced and the fossil fuels consumed in fertilizers, as well as in fuel for our tractors and trucks.

For a sustainable future, we need to choose sustainable agriculture over what I suggest should really be called “desperation agriculture.”

Desperation agriculture is more than industrial agriculture. It includes all those agricultural practices that place other values ahead of sustainability.

Subsistence agriculture can also be desperation agriculture — small-holder farmers trying to be sure they produce enough to feed their families, for now. It would include fishing, hunting — whatever is needed to produce enough food to survive. If this means burning rain forest to graze cattle, slash-and-burn becomes what we have to do. Tomorrow can take care of itself.

Many farmers using industrial farming practices have the same problem — costs are so high that cash crops are essential, every season, requiring fertilizer inputs to enable this constant production while making other more-sustainable practices (such as leaving land fallow) impractical.

Such practice also becomes desperation agriculture, with increasing debt loads that mean constantly being one harvest away from disaster, requiring jobs off the farm to cover the perpetual shortfall in family income. When the bank owns more than the farmer, long-term sustainable farming practices may be a luxury the farm-as-business can’t afford.

Salinity of the soil, soil depletion, vulnerability of mono-crops to pests and disease, water pollution from large-scale animal production — all these things are seen as inevitable, just the cost of doing business.

“Feeding the world” is therefore essentially an ideological stance, something that is used to perpetuate agricultural practices that are short-sighted, ecologically destructive, and that prefer short-term benefits for a few despite the long-term negative consequences for all.

Read More