The Ecocide Act is the gateway to the well-being of the whole Earth community

By Ron Hart

Presently the crimes against peace as outlined in the Rome Statute of 2002 under the jurisdiction of the International Criminal Court (ICC) in the Hague, are Genocide, Crimes Against Humanity, War Crimes and Crimes of Aggression. Crimes against nature and all who live in it are not protected in peacetime. The proposed Ecocide Act is the expression of the missing fifth crime against peace, Ecocide.

Presently, all non-human nature is regarded simply as property or as a common resource. The protections of corporate personality allow corporate criminals to ravage ecosystems and escape personal criminal prosecution with impunity.

Our present laws are inadequate for the job of protecting the planet. The Ecocide Act is the missing fifth crime against peace. It places trusteeship law superior to property law. ‘I own’ is replaced with ‘I owe.’

What precisely do we owe?

The Ecocide Act places each individual as a trustee for life on Earth. As such, as trustees, we have a legal duty of care-a sacred trust- to protect the well-being of Earth’s inhabitants and uphold the sacredness of life.

In other words, even if it is enormously profitable, we can no longer trash the planet. A healthy economy depends directly on a healthy environment. The Ecocide Act is a gateway to the well-being of the whole Earth community.

This article by the brilliant writer Phil Rockstroh, goes to the heart of the matter: when we talk about ecocide, we are dealing with issue of our soul’s ability “to rise up and resist the forces that lay siege to one’s innate humanity.”

We need the pass the Ecocide Act.

Ecocide and the Soul of a Nation

At the front of the political madness enveloping the United States are anti-government, anti-science extremists who reject evidence of global warming and block any response to this existential threat. But the disconnect between environmental destruction and today’s humanity goes deeper, says Phil Rockstroh.

 

By Phil Rockstroh

The reality of and the outward toll inflicted by greenhouse-gas engendered Climate Change is clearly evident (to all but the corrupt and devoutly ignorant) e.g. increasingly destructive and deadly tornadoes and hurricanes, destruction of marine life, severe droughts and rapacious wild fires — landscapes of death, scattered debris and shattered lives.

But what are the psychical effects of chronic denial, noxious indifference and compulsive prevarication as related to a matter as all-encompassing and crucial as our relationship with the climate of our planet?

A tornado touching down in central Oklahoma on May 3, 1999. (U.S. government photo)

 

Our current catastrophe of estrangement, termed “our way of life,” we experience as a denuding of resonance, meaning and purpose, as a prevailing sense of emptiness and unease, as a craving for distraction, as an inchoate longing for change and transformation, yet a diffidence to the point of paralysis insofar as any means to expedite longing and libido into societal-altering action.

Estrangement from nature is estrangement from the landscape of the soul. The cosmos and the soul carry the same blueprint; the forces were forged in the same fires of infinity. In matters, galactic and quotidian, there is not a form that rises, waxes and wanes in nature that does not have an analog in our human physicality, faculties and endeavors.

To turn a blind eye to the natural world, as we have done, translates into psychical ecocide. Perception is degraded. Language truncated. Life becomes dispossessed of purpose and meaning. Apropos, the rise and banal persistence of: The United States of Whatever.

Under these circumstances “whatever” translates into, inner and extant, deadly super storms, ecocide and desertification (including and related to the desertification of language). As we decimate the earth’s biodiversity, we diminish our lexicon. Our thoughts cannot take wing; our imaginings cannot take root and flower; our passions cannot flow; our putrefying pathologies cannot be composted.

Divested of an eloquence of thought, expression and action — devoid of a deep connection to and denied of constant dialog with earth, sky, wind and water — we cannot retain enough humanity to remain viable as a species.

By evincing a state of mind that is indifferent to the wanton destruction of our planet’s interdependent web of biodiversity, we lay waste, on a personal and collective basis, to the evolving, vital ecosystem of the psyche, thereby creating a bland, dismal, corporate monoculture, that is both manifest and internalized.

The emptiness of life in the neoliberal corporate/consumer state has grown increasingly unbearable; the carnage inflicted on our planet is indefensible; and its present trajectory is tragically untenable.

Our last, best option is a top-to-bottom re-visioning. In diametric opposition, at paradigm’s end, we are witness to the deranged marriage of the profligate and the parsimonious. The covert offshore bank accounts of the greed-maddened hyper-wealthy and the teeming landfill are dismal emblems of late-capitalist madness.

The moribund mythos (manic in the face of its undoing) of “productivity” exists at the core of the capitalist delusion. Discussing the matter with a capitalist true-believer is like talking to an obsessive lunatic about his vast collection of string and his compulsive hoarding of rubber bands and bread ties.

Behind the situation is the crackpot pragmatism of state capitalism, e.g., that all things must have a practical purpose in order that they be exploited for maximum productivity as a means of generating obscene sums of wealth for a tiny (loose knit) cabal of global economic elite. (Yet the motives driving the mania of a system geared to perpetual growth, conveniently, are omitted from almost all mainstream discussions of the matter.)

One’s humanity is restored by tears and laughter … by the marriage of eros and empathy. We must grieve for the harm we have wrought and guffaw at our egoist folly; we must shed copious tears and be seized by outright, sustained laughter. Self-awareness is tantamount to salvation, and an experience akin to rebirth is bestowed by the apprehension of the ridiculous nature of vanity and empty striving.

Then and only then, do conditions become favorable for restoration and re-visioning. Thus, grace falls as a forgiving rain.

In May of last year, my family laid my father to rest. Shortly after my return to New York City from Georgia, we received the news that my wife, Angela, was pregnant. Thus, fate fitted me with the garments of fatherhood. The clothing of the son sent to the consignment shop, I stood in awe, and with more than a little trepidation, before unfolding circumstance.

Grief and longing mingled and merged within me. At night, I dreamed of friends from my youth who have died over the passing years. With increasing frequency, during this past year, I have had reoccurring dreams involving one post-adolescent friendship, in particular, the period surrounding the dawning of our awkward and painful puberty.

Chuck was redheaded, freckled, bespectacled, bully-bedeviled — a bright, sensitive, wounded soul, who would later succumb to the ravages of alcoholism. We shared an enthusiasm for books. We read Tolkien, of course, but also Camus, Celine, even Cervantes (having an ardor for books was a quixotic propensity in those days in the Deep South, and I suspect it still is).

We collected tropical fish — their bright, color-emblazoned markings stood in vivid contrast to the desolate, laboring-class milieu that was foisted as our fate.

“You two, heads-in-the-clouds, noses-in-books losers will have to face the real world one day, and, I’ll tell you what, that will be one sorry-ass sight,” some figure of grim authority would bandy at us.

“Do you understand what I’m saying, boy?”

“Yes.”

“Yes, what?”

“Yes, I understand.”

“You, show some respect for your elders, by answering, ‘Yes, sir.’ Do you understand me?”

“Yes,” I replied, earnestly … having grown obtuse by the anxiety inflicted by attempting to appear submissive to the demands of unreasonable power.

“Look here, smart-ass. I’ve about had my fill of your insolence.”

Nonplussed. I would have said anything to end the encounter. But some life-bestowing daemon would stir within … most likely, it was the same inner, trickster entity responsible for occluding my ability to comprehend what this authoritarian jerk-rocket was demanding of me.

“What is your problem, boy? Just what kind of a stupid animal are you?” — an inquiry that provided an opening for the daemon.

“I was raised by raccoons, sir.”

“You … what?”

“My parents were killed by your Klansman relatives. I escaped into the woods. And I was adopted by nocturnal, fur-bearing mammals. I’m untrainable. I scurry through the darkness. I bite when cornered. My destiny has been forged by fate. I am Raccoon Boy, enemy of racists and power mad freaks.

“I have to confess, it is my reverence for my poor, slain parents that will not allow me to address you with deference nor grant you respect, as you have demanded. In short, I can either submit to calling you sir or I can betray my destiny. But I cannot do both.

“Therefore, do with me what you will. But you will never again sleep easy … for my raccoon brothers and sisters will track you down and you will wish we had never met. You will never again hear a rustling in the underbrush and not be stricken with the knowledge that you are in the presence of your doom.”

These sorts of responses would often end such encounters. In the South, in those days, crazy people were given a great deal of latitude.

At present, in my nighttime dreams of the time, I often find myself in the company of Chuck at the intersection of two major streets that cut through the area near our school, North Decatur and Clairmont Road. In waking life, Chuck and I, in order to avoid confrontations with neighborhood boys who viewed us as “hippie faggots” did not venture beyond this demarcation point. The landscape beyond was fraught with peril.

Even in adult life, Chuck never ventured far from home, and when he did, he was fortified with drink. Many times, at transition points in my life, my soul summons dreams of Chuck and me, our hearts … filled with yearning — yet we stand diffident, to the point of paralysis, at the intersection of North Decatur and Clairmont Road.

The world outside of the boundaries decreed by outward circumstance and imposed by one’s fears is fraught with uncertainty to the degree that it is veiled in mystery. There are legions of authoritarian bastards and mindless bullies about. Regardless, one must venture forth. One does have allies — the spirit of departed friends and inner daemons with quicksilver wit et al.

The future is always uncertain. But Raccoon Boy will be there to meet what comes.

Climate Change denial. Political duopoly. The corrosive effect of empire, maintained by militarism, on a foundering republic. The noxious food manufactured and consumed under corporate state oligarchy.

The catastrophic consequences that the demise of the public commons has on the human personality, in combination with the societal repercussions of a populace that receives the vast majority of information from within the bubble of an enveloping media hologram attendant to a grid of authoritarianism that determines and degrades the criteria of almost all experience in the corporate state.

Yet these unhinged conventionalities do not create a catalyst to action, but inflict angst, ennui and anomie. How can this be? By what means does passivity before and complicity in one’s own debasement become normalized? By small bribes as reward for compliance and severe consequences for attempts at defiance … that is how. This state of affairs serves as the sine qua non for any reign of oppression and cultural track towards catastrophe.

If an individual is coerced into conformity by his/her livelihood being threatened, even by implicit means, angst will be experienced. As a result, one will attempt to find a means of relieving the incurred sense of unease. And this is where the small bribes, that serve as palliatives to ease angst, come in.

If challenging (seemingly) implacable power results in a termination of employment or a stint of incarceration, of which, a record will follow one through life, most will find the repercussions of defying authority unbearable. One’s image of oneself would be endangered, or so it seems, by such a circumstance.

Yet what are the consequences of submission, in regard to one’s sense of self? Because, in order to submit, an individual must shunt from consciousness the painful implications of one’s predicament, a general diminution of perception occurs. Thus, for example, Climate Change denial is but part and parcel of a larger, enforced cosmology of deception, both personal and societal in origin.

At our present rate, the oceans and seas of the world will be dead in less than half a century. Humankind has become a mindless, devouring leviathan. Slice open our collective belly and the ill-gotten bounty of our besieged earth will be disgorged.

What is the music of the spheres? asked Schopenhauer. “Munch. Munch. Munch.”

Yet, tone-deaf, and rapacious, we are devouring the world in a manner that is closer in form to a banal pop song; a pestilence of ditties, resonant of the landfill, is descending in the form of consumerist locust.

When our days are denuded of depth, meaning and inspired purpose, we gorge our bellies in an attempt to alleviate the ache of emptiness. The operatives of the corporate/commercial hologram have induced us to devour the planet like a serving of Hot Pockets. Yet the emptiness within only grows.

We have been enticed to believe that remedy will be found in more of what caused our misery in the first place. Relief, even redemption, will be found in yet MORE. Thus, we come upon the insatiable leviathan that glides within. We are lodged in the monster’s belly, wherein we mistake his impersonal appetite for our own. In this way, the consumer is consumed by the collective.

How does one sate a force that is insatiable? By seizing back one’s unique identity. The angel whose name is Enough arrives within one’s reclaimed human voice. It comes down to this: ecology or catastrophe.

Because one’s humanity is formed and rounded by one’s limits, we must be open to the infinity of forms that is the ecosystem of the soul but not allow vanity to attempt to claim dominion over what is ungovernable. Thus, one regains one’s soul by speaking in a human voice.

Yes, it is tinged with universal fire, but, to we human beings, its home is the hearth of the human heart, within which empty appetite is transmuted into the yearnings of the heart; thereby, empty motion becomes emotion; passion deepens into compassion.

The matter does not involve searching for redemption nor striving for perfection; instead, it involves awakening … an awakening to the vast multiverse of the dreaming heart. Therein, the oceans are teeming with vivid life.

And where there exists the implicate order of the soul there exists the wherewithal to rise up and resist the forces that lay siege to one’s innate humanity.

Cultural Ecocide: Harper in Peru-What Media Failed to Report

PM committed Canadian tax dollars to aid conflict-ridden mining opposed by locals.

By Stephanie Boyd, reposted May 30 from TheTyee.ca

Macusani in Peru's southern Andes
Macusani in Peru’s southern Andes, site of a proposed uranium mine backed by a Canadian firm that is raising health concerns among locals. Photo: S. Boyd.

CUSCO, PERU — Canada’s press corps was so focused on the Duffy corruption scandal during Stephen Harper’s recent trip to South America that no one bothered to challenge our fearless leader’s new “foreign aid” program to help Canadian mining companies get richer in countries where mining has led to major human rights violations.

Don’t get me wrong: Harper needs to be grilled, fried and publicly boiled over the Duffy issue. But at least one of the intrepid reporters who followed Harper down to Peru might have questioned what he was doing there. It was the first ever visit by a standing Canadian PM to this once-ignored South American nation, and Harper certainly didn’t come to polish-up on his salsa.

Peru’s wealth of mineral resources and lax environmental and social standards have attracted a small army of Canadian mining companies to the country, including many Vancouver-based firms. Twenty years ago, Peru was an investment wasteland, racked with hyper-inflation and a civil war with leftist guerrillas. Now, it’s become Canada’s second largest trading partner in Latin America and the Caribbean. Last year, Canadian direct investment in Peru was $6.9 billion, most of this in mining, oil and gas….

No one wanted to ruin the smiling group photos by mentioning the 15 civilians who have been killed during protests with Peruvian police forces since President Humala took power nearly two years ago, the majority in conflicts related to oil, mining and gas projects. Nor did anyone mention the married couple in Chihuahua, Mexico, who opposed a mine being developed by Vancouver’s MAG Silver and were gunned down by unknown assailants last year. Or the ongoing environmental violations at Barrick Gold’s Pascua Lama mine in Chile, and threats against community leaders standing up to paramilitary groups in Colombia. MORE

 

Preventing Ecocide: Ontario’s Grid Needs a Re-Build to Fully Exploit Renewables

Destroyed reactor: Dead Zone for 100 years?

by Ron Hart

Ontario is approaching an energy crossroads. No matter which road Ontario takes it is faced with rebuilding half of its energy infrastructure. How you generate and distribute energy has implications for avoiding ecocide and for moving towards sustainability, transitioning to a more distributed, collaborative, transparent, and sustainable energy system.

Ontario’s Green Energy Act has been wildly successful. The public response quickly generated 20,000 megawatts (MW) of potential projects from across the province, and across all renewable energy technologies. At present, Ontario has ~36,000 megawatts of power connected including ~13, 000 megawatts of nuclear. But Ontario’s nuclear reactors have to be either refurbished or decommissioned.

Some say Ontario’s feed-in tariff program’s success was fueled by an overgenerous price paid for solar and wind energy. Citizens installing rooftop solar under the province’s first feed-in tariff are paid up to $.802 per kWH produced. The posted rate for nuclear power is considerably less.

What the critics ignore, however,is that nuclear is heavily subsidized. The estimated insurance cost of against a nuclear accident is estimated at as much as a staggering $3.40/kWh. Critics also ignore the fact that Ontario still owes $14 billion in debt for reactors that now need to be rebuilt.

As this article by Derek Satnik illustrates, the actual business case for nuclear power generation is sadly deficient. Instead, Satnik argues, “Ontario has a tremendous opportunity right now.”

World Bank vs. CANDU Nuclear?

World Bank & CIDA Oppose Canadian Nuclear

by , reposted from Mindscape Innovations on May 28, 2013

Ontario’s Grid Needs a Re-Build

img_nuclear_bruce_map

Ontario’s electrical grid presently consists of nearly 50% nuclear energy generators, all of which are nearing the end of their current service life, and need to be replaced. No matter how you do it, rebuilding half the supply for a grid the size of Ontario’s cannot be cheap, and it needs to be planned carefully.

Big Energy Needs a Big Plan

Ontario is preparing to review its Long Term Energy Plan: a plan that will govern as much as $80 billion worth of investment in the province over the coming decade for nuclear energy assets alone. There will also be transmission upgrades, and to a much lesser degree (ie, hundreds of millions, not tens of billions), renewable energy and conservation investments. The current draft of the plan was created before Ontario launched it’s Green Energy and Green Economy Act, which won a huge response from the industry: in only the first year of the related Feed-in Tariff program, the industry responded with such strong interest that it could have replaced the whole nuclear fleet with renewable source generators instead, like wind, solar, biogas, and microhydro.

Overwhelming Response

The response overwhelmed Ontario’s regulators, at one point representing more than 20,000 megawatts (MW) of potential projects from across the province, and across all renewable energy technologies. img_ON_gen_by_fuel_yearly_output-2012_IESOFor reference, Ontario’s grid presently has ~36,000 megawatts of supply connected, including ~13,000 MW nuclear, ~10,000 MW of natural gas, ~8,000 MW of large hydro (eg: Niagara Falls), and ~1,500 MW of wind. Since that time, Ontario’s Power Authority and government owned transmission utility has placed increasingly tough requirements on new projects who wish to connect to the grid.

Business As Usual

If nothing changes, then Ontario’s present long-term plan is essentially to maintain the status quo: to permit a pittance percentage of new renewable energy (~200 MW of wind and solar), and to rebuild massive amounts of nuclear energy (~10,000 MW). There are many reasons to reconsider the merits of this plan, but perhaps the largest and most pressing is the international sanctions against Ontario’s nuclear supplier.

CANDU/AECL Owned by SNC Lavalin

In short, Ontario’s nuclear energy industry has been constructed by AECL: Atomic Energy of Canada Limited. AECL was founded (and continues to be funded) by the Canadian Federal Government, but is now a 100% owned subsidiary of SNC Lavalin.

The concern is this: SNC-Lavalin has been found guilty of fraud in their international business divisions, andThe World Bank has suspended SNC-Lavalin’s right to bid on and be awarded World Bank financed projects for the next 10 years. That’s the polite way of saying that the World Bank has banned all business with SNC-Lavalin for the next 10 years.

World Bank will not fund SNC Lavalin or subsidiary Candu for 10 yearsCandu Energy Inc. ie: the new name for AECL, is a wholly owned subsidiary of SNC-Lavalin, and is therefore also suspended by The World Bank. There are very close ties between Ontario Power Generation (OPG)’s nuclear projects team and SNC-Lavalin.

World Bank & CIDA Oppose Ontario Nuclear

None of this would impact Ontario if it weren’t for the fact that Ontario is rather addicted to CANDU nuclear technology (owned by Candu Energy Inc.). Simply put, there are other nuclear energy companies in the world, but Ontario likes to stick to buying CANDU. Said another way, because SNC-Lavalin owns CANDU, and because Ontario only builds CANDU, and because the World Bank doesn’t like SNC-Lavalin or the companies it owns (including Candu Energy Inc. and the CANDU reactor technology), Ontario and CANDU have a problem.

OSEA recommended that the Ontario Legislature investigate OPG awarding a $600 Million contract exclusively to SNC-Lavalin (without a public bidding process) for planning the Darlington Refurbishment. With all the fuss made recently about the cost of relocating the two gas plants at a hotly contested cost of … about another $600 million, it seems that there should be quite a lot more interest in the very expensive “plan” Ontario is presently buying from SNC-Lavalin.

The Canadian International Development Agency (CIDA) issued similar sanctions on SNC-Lavalin and its affiliates (including Candu Energy Inc). Ontario’s government is one of the only friends that CANDU seems to have right now, and that means Ontario is carrying nearly all of Candu’s business risks… alone.

Business Prudence of Nuclear

This begs the question: if the World Bank and CIDA have a 10 year ban on CANDU technology, then can Ontario afford to be making an $80 billion investment in CANDU right now?

Any major investment requires a certain amount of due-diligence investigation. Here are a few considerations affecting Ontario’s nuclear industry:

  • Ontario still owes over $14 billion in debt on nuclear reactors that now need to be rebuilt (ie: the last ones never paid themselves off).
  • Reputable anchor suppliers in the nuclear industry, Siemens and GE, are exiting the market and say that nuclear energy is not financially viable. This means there are fewer suppliers to buy from (like AECL / Candu), and that the market will be less and less competitive.
  • AECL is already not a healthy company: the Canadian Federal government subsidizes their losses every year, and this year wrote off another $236 million to support AECL.
  • OPG Nuclear chief resignsAs explained above, AECL, as a subsidiary of SNC-Lavalin, has been sanctioned by the World Bank and CIDA and is ineligible for project funding for 10 years because of international fraud. Closer to home, SNC-Lavalin continues to battle scandles in Montreal, the president of Candu Energy recently resigned amid accusations of bribing public officials, and a former Executive VP of both OPG and SNC-Lavalin abruptly resigned recently in Ontario over “a mismatch of management approach”, continuing to feed suspicions.
  • Standard & Poor downgraded the credit rating of Ontario Power Generation (OPG) to bbb-because of the financial liabilities associated with the Darlington nuclear station. Because OPG is owned by the province, this also negatively affected the credit rating of Ontario.
  • Insurance for nuclear plants has reportedly more than doubled in cost since Fukushima, and the cost to fully insure a reactor against an accident was estimated at as much as a staggering $3.40/kWh – more than 25 times greater than the average cost of electricity in Ontario. The Canadian public covers most of this liability (plants are capped at $75 million in gross liability), so this risk is largely externalized, as it was in Fukushima.
  • Ontario’s demand for electricity continues to decline as conservation efforts continue to be effective at reducing the need for more electricity.
  • Ontario’s nuclear reactors make up the bulk of the surplus baseload generation (SBG) that occurs at night, when the reactors cannot be shut down and the province doesn’t need their electricity, so Ontario paysneighbour states and provinces to consume its SBG electricity. ie: Ontario is presently paying other jurisdictions to use its present nuclear power at night, and would save money if they could turn it off (see www.ieso.ca for graphs and stats).
  • img_nuclear_opposition_DarlingtonThe renewable industries (particularly wind and solar) have seen tremendous pent-up demand that is clamoring for access to more grid space: the FIT programs and preceding RESOP program have consistently seen expedient and overwhelming response to every application window they’ve opened.
  • Local opposition groups have formed around things like the Darlington refurbishment efforts and nuclear waste repositories.
  • And none of this even touches the environmental debates about reducing carbon, managing everlasting waste, or managing uranium mining in healthy and safe ways. This assessment is strictly about good business sense and avoiding financial risk.

In short, the business case for nuclear is getting very weak. Ontario doesn’t need the power at night, the old plants have yet to pay for themselves, the choice constructor (AECL) is all but banned from international development, the insurance for nuclear plants is an increasing unknown, the citizens are not supportive, and the industry in Ontario is ready to replace expensive nuclear plants with renewable energy projects that are financed entirely by the private sector (ie: at no public cost).

Ontarians are not as supportive of nuclear energy as they once were, especially since Fukushima, and they are demonstrating an appetite for change.

The Real Nuclear Renaissance: Decommissioning

img_nuclear_chalk-riverOntario is one of the few jurisdictions in the world that has a mature nuclear industry, and one of the only that has successfully decommissioned old reactors (at Chalk River and at Douglas Point). With so many countries from Japan to Germany closing down their nuclear industries and transitioning to less expensive and less risky sources of power, it seems that there is a remarkable opportunity for Ontario to start exporting nuclear decommissioning services. Ontario could be the first jurisdiction in the world to not only put a nuclear reactor in safe storage (like the ones at Chalk River and Douglas Point), but to bring those out of storage and to fully and properly decommission them. This new experience could then be exported to a waiting world, undoubtedly at great profit to Ontario.

Ontario’s Reality Check

The business case for nuclear energy in Ontario is very weak right now: it faces risks that would be fatal to any private sector business. The Darlington project should not proceed in any form until the Province completes the review on the Long Term Energy Plan. The revised Long Term Energy Plan will map out Ontario’s future power needs, including reconsidering the need for refurbished nuclear.

img_nuclear_burns_moneyAnd if the revised Long Term Energy Plan determines the Darlington Refurbishment is somehow a responsible investment, then the contract for this work should be awarded through an open and transparent bidding process, not another rich and exclusive deal to SNC-Lavalin, with firm prices available for public review and comment.

Given the level of attention that’s been paid to the costs for the Oakville and Mississauga Gas Plant relocations, and that this much money has already been allocated just to plan the Darlington refurbishment, it is crucial that the Province has a fair and transparent procurement process for electricity in Ontario.

If the Long Term Energy Plan finds the Darlington Refurbishment is not required, the Province will once again be faced with cancelling an energy contract.

Ontario Can Have a Better Future

Ontario has tremendous opportunity right now. As its aging nuclear fleet comes due for replacement, Ontario is ready to simply turn them off one at a time, and replace them with a combination of conservation, combined heat and power, hydro power imports from Quebec, and local renewable generation (wind and solar). This could be done at great savings to the public, and would put Ontario among a growing list of jurisdictions that is transitioning to a more distributed, collaborative, transparent, and sustainable energy system. And this could be done while pioneering a new nuclear industry revolution, and being the world leaders in decommissioning. Somebody will lead that charge: will Ontario have the vision for it?

Thanks To Our Resources

launch OSEA websiteThe Ontario Sustainable Energy Association (OSEA) recently released an open letter to all of Ontario’s members of provincial parliament. They’ve done some homework, and we at Mindscape thought it important enough that we’ve shared the highlighs again here, and have added some resource information provided by the Ontario Clean Air Alliance (OCAA). Thanks to OSEA and OCAA for the ongoing work they do to support Ontario’s energy industry.

Derek SatnikDerek Satnik is a LEED® Accredited Professional Engineer, and internationally awarded expert in sustainable housing and renewable energy systems. He lives in Kitchener at the Ontario Green Home (www.OntarioGreenHome.com), and is the Managing Director of local consultant Mindscape Innovations Group (www.mi-group.ca).

RESOURCE:

No Nukes News

 

 

The Canadian Ecocide: Corporatism thrives when information is withheld from Canadian voters.

by Ron Hart

albertatarsands-620.jpg
This file photo from Sept. 19, 2011, shows an aerial view of an oil sands mine facility near Fort McMurray, Alberta. (Jeff McIntosh/Canadian Press)

It is no secret that the Harper government is a fierce supporter of increased development of Canada’s tar sands. The resulting ecocide is conveniently ignored. When the world’s leading climate change expert, James Hansen, suggests that full tar sands development is “game over” for the plant, Joe Oliver, Harper’s new (unpublished) ‘climate scientist’, ridicules the notion: politics over science; greed over sustainability; lies over truth; corporatism over democracy.

The stream of scientific information that pokes holes in the Harper Governments myopic energy policy has been actively frustrated by Stephen Harper, our new CEO of Fossil Fuel Canada. Instead, Canadians have been inundated with taxpayer-funded messages promoting tar sands development.

Canada’s “Economic Action Plan” is synonymous with tar sands ecocide.

CBC president Hubert Lacroix speaks in Toronto in June, 2012. (NATHAN DENETTE/THE CANADIAN PRESS)
CBC president Hubert Lacroix. Giving the government a direct say in the CBC’s collective agreements would remove the arm’s-length relationship between the state and the public broadcaster.

But even as it has dutifully run the Harper Government’s misinformation advertising, Canada’s broadcaster, the CBC, has again and again tried to present science-based information to Canadians-information that is essential for voters to possess to fairly assess government policy. The country’s broadcaster has asked embarrassing questions. For example, the CBC had the temerity to ask, “Is Canada becoming a ‘petro-state’?

But corporatism does not brook dissent. It demands a clear, unambiguous message-one that does not threaten shareholders’ interests. Corporatism demands obedience to government’s messaging, or else expect blow-back.

We should not be surprised then by this post from The Canadian Press:

Federal budget bill poses ‘grave threat’ to CBC, say journalists

By THE CANADIAN PRESS
Published May 27, 2013
OTTAWA — A number of journalist groups are asking Canadians to write to their MPs to demand changes to a controversial bill which would give the government a role in negotiating CBC contracts.

Arnold Amber of Canadian Journalists for Free Expression says Bill C-60 poses a grave threat by giving the government leverage that could be used to skew the CBC’s news coverage.

Carmel Smyth, president of the Canadian Media Guild, says it’s potentially dangerous legislation.

The bill would allow the cabinet to approve the CBC’s negotiating mandate and allow a Treasury Board representative to sit in on talks between the broadcaster and its unions.

Stephen Waddell, national executive director of ACTRA, says the bill could turn the CBC from a public broadcaster to a state broadcaster.

The government says the legislation is a financial matter, designed to allow the government to keep tabs on spending; the NDP says it will table an amendment Tuesday that would exclude CBC from the bill.

The offending clauses are contained in the latest omnibus budget bill. The journalists’ organizations want the government to exempt CBC.

“We are not bureaucrats,” said Amber.

The bill is less about money than it is about a government bid to expand its control, Smyth said. “How much control does any government need?”

Even the appearance of bias can erode journalistic integrity, he added.

Amber said people need to bring pressure on individual MPs to get the bill changed.

“We want the Canadian people to react as quickly as possible to bring the government to its senses.”
_______________________

Corporatism (a.k.a. fascism) thrives on misinformation. It also thrives on a disengaged public.

If you value our democracy, now is the time to act!

RELATED:

Ian Morrison: My presentation to the Finance Committee

Presentation to the House of Commons Standing Committee on Finance regarding Bill C-60

May 23, 2013

Remarks by Ian Morrison, Spokesperson - Friends of Canadian Broadcasting1

supporting the campaign to keep the CBC FREE from political interference at the hands of the Harper Conservatives.

Yesterday, I was in Ottawa presenting to the House of Commons Standing Committee on Finance as part of its study of Bill C-60, the Omnibus Budget Implementation legislation that threatens to turn CBC into a state broadcaster.

When you have time, please check out the 17-minute video – the first four minutes is my statement and the rest is questions from MPs and my responses.

During my presentation, I tabled two key documents.

The first is a letter to Prime Minster Harper from some of Canada’s most celebrated journalists and academics from all across the country. I also gave the committee a legal opinion that that FRIENDS commissioned pinpointing precisely how Bill C-60 undermines the CBC’s editorial independence and proposing a solution to protect the CBC’s independence.

The stakes in this campaign are huge. Canadians do not want their CBC to morph into a political propaganda machine for the government of the day. That is precisely what would happen should Bill C-60 become law without amendments.

FRIENDS’ campaign has been more effective because of your participation! Please help us to build this pan-Canadian effort to defend our national public broadcaster by sharing this message far and wide.

Regards!

Ian Morrison

Ian Morrison
Spokesperson
FRIENDS of Canadian Broadcasting

Preventing Ecocide: Consensus Statement from Global Scientists

reposted from Millennium Alliance for Humanity 7 the Biosphere

Global scientists sign message on Scientific Consensus on Maintaining Humanity’s Life Support Systems in the 21st Century: Information for Policy Makers. Please find the Executive Summary below and follow the links to read the Full Consensus Statement, Endorse the Message to World Leaders, and view a list of the MAHB members you will be joining in endorsing the statement.

Access Executive Summary.pdf