Canada, Trump and the G7

38 posts / 0 new
Last post
MegB
Canada, Trump and the G7

"Remember, folks, the G7 was created as an organization to prevent OPEC oil wealth from being investested in infrastructure and services in the Global South but instead "recaptured" by Anglo America, Europe and Japan through securities and currency speculation. Making sure African and Asian elites didn't invest in their own people was why this organization was created.

It remains a leading voice for the upward transfer of wealth and defense of the capitalist order.

I have been noticing that like NAFTA, Justin Trudeau, the WTO, Macron and a host of other global bad actors, the G7 is enjoying unwarranted sympathy simply because, like everyone else not paid to, it cannot get along with Trump." — Stuart Parker

Discuss.

Issues Pages: 
NDPP
mmphosis

Donald Trump was right. The rest of the G7 were wrong (theguardian.com)

by George Monbiot

In arguing for a sunset clause to the Nafta trade agreement, this odious man is exposing the corruption of liberal democracy

epaulo13 epaulo13's picture

mmphosis wrote:

Donald Trump was right. The rest of the G7 were wrong (theguardian.com)

by George Monbiot

In arguing for a sunset clause to the Nafta trade agreement, this odious man is exposing the corruption of liberal democracy

..txs mm

quote:

Even if the people of the US, Canada and Mexico had explicitly consented to Nafta in 1994, the idea that a decision made then should bind everyone in North America for all time is repulsive. So is the notion, championed by the Canadian and Mexican governments, that any slightly modified version of the deal agreed now should bind all future governments.

But the people of North America did not explicitly consent to Nafta. They were never asked to vote on the deal, and its bipartisan support ensured that there was little scope for dissent. The huge grassroots resistance in all three nations was ignored or maligned. The deal was fixed between political and commercial elites, and granted immortality.

In seeking to update the treaty, governments in the three countries have candidly sought to thwart the will of the people. Their stated intention was to finish the job before Mexico’s presidential election in July. The leading candidate, Andrés Lopez Obrador, has expressed hostility to Nafta, so it had to be done before the people cast their vote. They might wonder why so many have lost faith in democracy.

Nafta provides a perfect illustration of why all trade treaties should contain a sunset clause. Provisions that made sense to the negotiators in the early 1990s make no sense to anyone today, except fossil fuel companies and greedy lawyers. The most obvious example is the way its rules for investor-state dispute settlement have been interpreted. These clauses (chapter 11 of the treaty) were supposed to prevent states from unfairly expropriating the assets of foreign companies. But they have spawned a new industry, in which aggressive lawyers discover ever more lucrative means of overriding democracy.

epaulo13 epaulo13's picture

..more. and this is in part how the ndp gets captured. this is a (eta:) serious limitation of an ndp government. reform is not enough when change is needed.

quote:

Nor did they think about climate breakdown. Nafta obliges Canada not only to export most of its oil and half its natural gas to the US, but also to ensure that the proportion of these fuels produced from tar sands and fracking does not change. As a result, the Canadian government cannot adhere to both its commitments under the Paris agreement on climate change and its commitments under Nafta. While the Paris commitments are voluntary, Nafta’s are compulsory.

6079_Smith_W

I usually agree with Monbiot, but saying Donald Trump was right about NAFTA is rather like saying Hitler was right about Indian Independence. Both completely ignore the question of motive.

It also ignores the fact that is is one thing to force economies into an agreement like that - quite another to yank them back out once the economic damage is largely done.

On the G7 itself I am agnostic, since it isn't an organization with any political power, unlike the Bilderberg Group. As for evaluating them, I'd say the best place to start isn't at their proto origins 45 years ago, but rather with the communique they came out with this week:

https://g7.gc.ca/en/official-documents/charlevoix-g7-summit-communique/

As for Parker's comment, the presumed takeaway - that the central question is "getting along with Trump" doesn't make much sense. Ditto raising the G7's history as somehow an excuse for his obstructionism.

It reminds me of branding those who object to Trump's other assaults on the rule of law as somehow sympathizing with the CIA and FBI.

NDPP

"Whoa! So, Andrew Scheer just twice asked Justin Trudeau if POTUS had offered to remove the sunset clause from the NAFTA negotiations. He skated around that - he won't confirm or deny that Trump made the offer."

https://twitter.com/MichelleRempel/status/1006969453823823872

DON'T trust ANY of your politicians on NAFTA! 

epaulo13 epaulo13's picture

I usually agree with Monbiot, but saying Donald Trump was right about NAFTA is rather like saying Hitler was right about Indian Independence. Both completely ignore the question of motive.

..monbiot's piece was all about the sunset clause and the anti democratic nature of trade deals. trump and the g7 was the vehicle used as the entry point of that discussion not the focus.

progressive17 progressive17's picture

The dollar is the ruler of the world. Bigger than any one state or group of them. G7 doesn't need to hold power for the $ any more. The $ now has its own power.

epaulo13 epaulo13's picture

progressive17 wrote:

The dollar is the ruler of the world. Bigger than any one state or group of them. G7 doesn't need to hold power for the $ any more. The $ now has its own power.

..if by the $ you mean capital..i totally agree. capital, though, can not work independently so structures have been built that facilitate it's movement. g7 is one such structure as are trade deals.

NDPP

Canadian Establishment Rallies Behind Trudeau in Trade War with US

http://www.wsws.org/en/articles/2018/06/13/trud-13-06-j13.html

"...This is a fraud. Trudeau leads a government of big business and war, which has launched a massive plan to privatize public infrastructure in the interests of the financial elites, committed to hike military spending by more than 70 % over the next decade and maintained the fiscal framework of austerity social spending.

It is impossible to advance the interests of Canadian workers in alliance with big business and its political responsibilities. Instead, Canadian workers must join forces with their class brothers and sisters in the US, Mexico and around the world in a counter-offensive against the austerity, militarism and nationalism promoted by the ruling elite in every country..."

voice of the damned

I don't think the raised eyebrows about Trump's actions are because he insulted the G7 as an organization, but rather, because he insulted the people who attened G7 meetings, ie. world leaders.

Though I think this sort of thing is probably a case of whose ox is being gored. If Corbyn became PM of the UK and went to the G8 and said "You guys are a bunch of blood-sucking, neoliberal scumbags, and I'm looking at you Macron", the left would probably think it was great, lese majesete aside.

 

6079_Smith_W

Except that Monbiot also ignores that there is something better than a sunset clause. Any party can withdraw from NAFTA by giving notice. So really the focus on that proposed clause is kind of dumb.

What it really would do is throw the agreement into the same disarray that the U.S. is now experiencing with their regular threats of government shutdowns. Exactly the kind of chaos that Trump seems to thrive on. But of course Monbiot doesn't talk about that.

But this is drifting from the real topic of this thread.

/drift

And @ VOTD I expect they would. Again, it comes down to the question of motive. Corbyn is probably coming from a very different place than Donald Trump.

epaulo13 epaulo13's picture

eta..i've removed my drift comments because on reflextion this is on topic.

..the world is already in disarray and one of the reasons is trade deals. as for solutions..imo..they lie outside electoral politics. it lies with communities where change comes from.

NDPP

Chaos in the Imperial Big House

https://blackagendareport.com/chaos-imperial-big-house

"Donald Trump, the arch-racist usurper of the Republican Party, is tearing up the ruling class consensus to shreds, inflicting bigger shocks to the imperial system by accident, impulse and ignorance than any conceivable 'progressive' elected president could achieve on purpose.

In the space of a few weeks, Trump has 1) threatened to disrupt corporate global supply chains through his in-out stance on NAFTA; 2) forced Washington's European junior imperial partners to reconsider their subservience to US foreign policy and their vulnerability to US-controlled financial institutions in the wake of Trump's rejection of the Iran deal and his tirades at the G7 summit in Canada; and 3) discarded 70 years of Uncle Sam's 'Comply or Die' dictum towards North Korea, thus consigning the whole 'axis of evil' designation to the dustbin.

The net effect of Trump's crazed foreign policy, has been to raise urgent questions, among foreign elites and general populations alike, of US fitness for global hegemony. Trump's behavior could deliver a coup de grace to an already severely frayed global capitalist consensus on US world leadership, significantly weakening the potency of US imperialism - even as Trump aligns more closely with the Israeli apartheid state and the Gulf monarchies and companies to force regime change in Venezuela..."

Sean in Ottawa

mmphosis wrote:

Donald Trump was right. The rest of the G7 were wrong (theguardian.com)

by George Monbiot

In arguing for a sunset clause to the Nafta trade agreement, this odious man is exposing the corruption of liberal democracy

I think that Monbiot misses the point entirely here.

This was never something you get to walk away from and restore what you had and it is not a pact between equals.

When you consider these things you can see what Trump is trying to do -- build in an extortion schedule. It has nothing to do with walking away. Look at his other comments where he says that Trudeau will have no choice but to grovel.

Secondly this has nothing to do with democratic change. A position where either side has to take an action and notify the other is more democratic than something that just stops and needs measures to continue. You might think the opposite if you considered the Canadian political process with Parliament. You could not consider that if you consider both the US system and the political means used to get things through.

In the US you only get things through their government with horsetrading- local pork barrel politics. This means that due to their system (as well as their size and economic power) the process would be new concessions from Canada and Mexico at every single sunset clause-- just to get it through the US system.

The problem behind the entire project is made worse every single time there is a "negotiation." It is the relative power of the US. If Canada and Mexico had been smatter, they would have insisted as a condition on a block of countries where there woudl not be a majority where one could extort the others once the adjustments were made at the start. We should not have agreed to enter a trade deal as a minority powerless partner, but a trade block with more of the Americas and other countries where the US was no more than 40% of the economic power might have worked differently.

As it is Canada had to invest more into Free Trade than the US did as we rely more heavily on it and the adjustments were more costly as a percentage of our economy. Add this to the concentration of power in the arrangment in the US and you can see the problem with repeating a failing process every few years. The presumption that all the countries have an equal ability to return themselves to a pre-agreement position is the greatest falacy of the argument. Canada and Mexico, due to what had to be given up, either needed to not go in at all or to have much better assurances of stability once in it.

The power difference here and political system difference make Monbiot's argument invalid.

Now Canada is faced with a reality check. This country ought to be working as quickly as possible to mitigate this dependence and unequal power in this trade block Canada has put all its opportunities into.

The greatest waste will be if Canada goes through pain now, signs a worse deal and does nothing to reduce dependence. The next round will only be more costly. While it could hurt more now in the short term, taking steps to create alternatives for the next time this comes up is a better strategy. Agreeing to let this come up like clockwork is nuts.

 

 

Pondering

It's a complex topic but I think Sean's got it right. The whole purpose of these massive trade deals is to create longstanding trade agreements so they don't have constantly be renegotiated. 

I don't think the US position is all that strong though. While it is true we stand to lose more the US still stands to lose a great deal especially as they are fighting with everyone. 

Trump is treating countries like businesses that you can just walk away from because you are bigger and there is another deal around the corner. This is more like mutually assured destruction.  Canada would suffer more as a whole but individual states would be sufficiently hurt to hurt Trump. 

This is all bluster on the part of Trump. He thinks it's a smart negotiating strategy to show strength and to show he doesn't care. 

epaulo13 epaulo13's picture

..i know, i know you've heard this from me before. like a broken record. have patience with me yet another time..please. consider my words and the sincerity in which they are presented.

..for many years i understood the power of capital. for many years i waited for something to come along that would provide some direction, some hope, some vision of a different world that was not controlled by capital. 

..i never saw that in the ndp even as long ago as the early 70's when i became politically aware. mainly because the ndp never called for a different world. like all other political parties it talked like capital could be controlled but offered only reforms. albeit needed reforms.

..this began to change for me when the square occupations made their entrance. today we see where some have transformed into various entities. taken power at the municipal level and working to transform decision making from the bottom up. i'm taking millions of people being involved around the world. this is an incredibly positive approach to politics. it's also inclusive and doesn't divide populations into right, left and center. because people don't live that way. yes people still disagree with each other but no one is pigeon holed.

..yes these movements can be crushed. like greece was crushed. like the powers that be are trying to crush venezuela. but if they aren't demolished, if they find a way to survive they are changing the dynamic of capital power. reducing that influence on their lives.

..i really wish folks here would take this discussion on. with at least half the time and energy that is spent on electoral politics.

progressive17 progressive17's picture

Maybe we have to build an international network that states can't crush...

6079_Smith_W
Pondering

epaulo13 wrote:

..i know, i know you've heard this from me before. like a broken record. have patience with me yet another time..please. consider my words and the sincerity in which they are presented.

..for many years i understood the power of capital. for many years i waited for something to come along that would provide some direction, some hope, some vision of a different world that was not controlled by capital. 

..i never saw that in the ndp even as long ago as the early 70's when i became politically aware. mainly because the ndp never called for a different world. like all other political parties it talked like capital could be controlled but offered only reforms. albeit needed reforms.

..this began to change for me when the square occupations made their entrance. today we see where some have transformed into various entities. taken power at the municipal level and working to transform decision making from the bottom up. i'm taking millions of people being involved around the world. this is an incredibly positive approach to politics. it's also inclusive and doesn't divide populations into right, left and center. because people don't live that way. yes people still disagree with each other but no one is pigeon holed.

..yes these movements can be crushed. like greece was crushed. like the powers that be are trying to crush venezuela. but if they aren't demolished, if they find a way to survive they are changing the dynamic of capital power. reducing that influence on their lives.

..i really wish folks here would take this discussion on. with at least half the time and energy that is spent on electoral politics.

I would take it on, but I don't think your expectations of what can be achieved through that route alone are unrealistic. It isn't going to replace the capitalist world. The majority of people don't want self-governance to the degree that it would take. I don't see capitalism going anywhere soon either nor does it need to. Social democracy works pretty well and could work much better. Trade deals are terrific they just need worker rights built in and limits on corporations. They should pay minimum tax which then gets distributed between levels of government. No tax breaks. No tax havens. 

The community initiatives you speak of are important and useful and a big part of moving forward, of raising consciousness and offering alternatives. They can push political parties to respond. The anti-pipeline movement is a sterling example of what community organizing can achieve. 

Communities in Greece are doing a lot but Greece, even under the most extreme pressure, is still not leaving the Euro and certainly not rejecting capitialism. Many people in alternative economies would gladly opt for a capitalist job earning real currency. 

All this theatre over G7 and Trump's twitter rants and NAFTA aren't having the least impact on the markets which leads me to believe this is all much ado about nothing much. NAFTA achieved its purpose. A car on average crosses the border 7 times during manufacture. 55% of parts are imported from the US.  Canadian steel goes into the manufacture of homes among other things and apparently there are some types not easily replaced by US sources. 

Capitalism isn't going anywhere nor does it need to. Our current system of government could certainly use some tweaking but it isn't a complete failure. 

As I see it government isn't the problem, people are. Convince the people and they will pressure government. 

epaulo13 epaulo13's picture

..it's not about getting rid of or replacing capitalism pondering. i have no doubt it will eventually collapse under the weight of it's corruption. it is unsustainable.

..it's about making it less relevant in our daily lives via building coops, community banking, participatory decision making, collective ownership, building a solidarity economy etc.

..and it has nothing to do with my expectations. listen to what these communities are saying/doing/planning in the autonomy thread. i'm just repeating that stuff. this really is drift now so if folks want to continue the conversation that is where to go. 

Pondering

epaulo13 wrote:

..it's not about getting rid of or replacing capitalism pondering. i have no doubt it will eventually collapse under the weight of it's corruption. it is unsustainable.

..it's about making it less relevant in our daily lives via building coops, community banking, participatory decision making, collective ownership, building a solidarity economy etc.

..and it has nothing to do with my expectations. listen to what these communities are saying/doing/planning in the autonomy thread. i'm just repeating that stuff. this really is drift now so if folks want to continue the conversation that is where to go. 

I'll respond in the other thread. 

Sean in Ottawa

epaulo13 wrote:

..it's not about getting rid of or replacing capitalism pondering. i have no doubt it will eventually collapse under the weight of it's corruption. it is unsustainable.

..it's about making it less relevant in our daily lives via building coops, community banking, participatory decision making, collective ownership, building a solidarity economy etc.

..and it has nothing to do with my expectations. listen to what these communities are saying/doing/planning in the autonomy thread. i'm just repeating that stuff. this really is drift now so if folks want to continue the conversation that is where to go. 

I do think that some of these objectives manifest in the political conversation.

So first we have the issue of parties that advocate a more independent ability for Canada to take a different path. Preserving enough autonomy is critical.

Notice how Free trade has functioned in Canadian history. A little over 100 years ago there was considerable reason to think that the US would move to the left of Canada and be more progressive. Conservatives opposed free trade that could tie Canada to that country then as it could enforce policies in Canada they did not agree with. Over the last century, Caanda move to the left of the US and it became the policy of the left parties to preserve a distinction for Canada while right of centre parties wanted to go all in with a country that reflected their positions more accurately.

I tend to disagree with you about your thoughts on the end of the capital system. I think that it is actually fueled well enough to continue until no system is possible at all. The end result of capitalism is a planet that cannot support life. I have absolutely no confidence that capitalism can blow itself out before the changes that would make the planet uninhabitable are no longer reversible. Sorry to be a downer but as we are closer to (if not already past) this point this has become all the more clear.

There may be a window between now and extinction where people reject capitalism but that window may be well be long past the point of no return. Sorry to put it that way. At the very least, there is no confidence that we are not in at the very least quite a battle that we have more chance of losing than winning.

To that end, I am more keen on radical immediate solutions than slow growth of alternatives to capitalism that cannot promise to take hold in time. In the meantime, I think we need to push policies that may not be the ultimate solution but perhaps might buy time for one to take hold.

I would love to be more optimistic. I actually am a fairly optimistic person by nature. Unfortunately logic and history is in the way. At that point the other human nature comes in: to try not to think about this in daily life becuase it is debilitating. Unfortunately, this is the crux of the denial that is allowing the worst to happen.

At the end of the day I believe that social and environmental sustainability are interdependent. I do not see much hope for either and even less for a majority realization of that relationship.

Pondering

We don't have pure capitalism. We are transitioning from fossil fuels. Things may not be moving at the rate we would like but there has been a great deal of advancement over my lifetime and it isn't slowing. 

NDPP

Why the G7 is A Zero

https://www.theglobeandmail.com/opinion/article-lets-dump-the-g7-its-an-...

"The G7 is an artifact of a bygone era..."

epaulo13 epaulo13's picture

..i believe the economy will collapse long before the ecology does. that alone will end the assault on the earth. production will cease at current rates.

..we do need to be ready though for that moment. there will be a push to some form of authoritarian model to replace what has collapsed. also we don't want to start the same system all over again. which is why the municipalist movements are needed today as a base for tomorrow. not to mention that we don't need to be waiting around for the right party to be in power by doing this.

..i heard it described as a plane in crash mode where the pilot maneuvers to cushion the blow. the blow of the collapse.   

..yes to that pondering.

epaulo13 epaulo13's picture

To that end, I am more keen on radical immediate solutions than slow growth of alternatives to capitalism that cannot promise to take hold in time. In the meantime, I think we need to push policies that may not be the ultimate solution but perhaps might buy time for one to take hold.

..txs sean

..do you mean like the resistance to pipelines? you seem to be setting some sort of deadline and i'm not certain where that comes from. can you flesh it out please?

..what i do know is that we are beyond only resitance. the movements i point to indicates that we are implementing a bottoms up approach to decision making. i don't know if this will be enough to stave off a collapse of the ecology but if we are going to have any chance at all..it is necessary. 

..and i agree to buying as much time as we can. also the more we can change/stop today the less we will suffer down the road. no matter what though a price must be paid. 

Sean in Ottawa

epaulo13 wrote:

..i believe the economy will collapse long before the ecology does. that alone will end the assault on the earth. production will cease at current rates.

..we do need to be ready though for that moment. there will be a push to some form of authoritarian model to replace what has collapsed. also we don't want to start the same system all over again. which is why the municipalist movements are needed today as a base for tomorrow. not to mention that we don't need to be waiting around for the right party to be in power by doing this.

..i heard it described as a plane in crash mode where the pilot maneuvers to cushion the blow. the blow of the collapse.   

..yes to that pondering.

I hope you are right.

Sean in Ottawa

epaulo13 wrote:

To that end, I am more keen on radical immediate solutions than slow growth of alternatives to capitalism that cannot promise to take hold in time. In the meantime, I think we need to push policies that may not be the ultimate solution but perhaps might buy time for one to take hold.

..txs sean

..do you mean like the resistance to pipelines? you seem to be setting some sort of deadline and i'm not certain where that comes from. can you flesh it out please?

..what i do know is that we are beyond only resitance. the movements i point to indicates that we are implementing a bottoms up approach to decision making. i don't know if this will be enough to stave off a collapse of the ecology but if we are going to have any chance at all..it is necessary. 

..and i agree to buying as much time as we can. also the more we can change/stop today the less we will suffer down the road. no matter what though a price must be paid. 

I believe the progress to the destruction of the planet is moving so fast that we cannot afford to wait until the reality dawns on everyone. I do not think the capitalist market answer is the way to let change come in based on profit.

Countries spend large portions of their budgets on lessor military threats than environmental collapse. I think if nations invested the same portiojn to adjusting to the reality of a planet in trouble we would have a greater chance.

I did not mean resistance to pipelines -- although it would include that. Pipelines are about supply and I do not minimize this but I mean addressing demand and the structure of a growth economy where unless it is expanding past the point the planet can take the economy is considered broken.

An example of a policy I advocate that is a temporary mid solution rather than an ultimate fix is with respect to public transit: Have all cars within reach of public transit pay a plate tax that covers the cost of public transit. The reaosn is to provide an economic sttraction for people who presently own cars to use public transit  as well -- to slow down the effects of car use, knowing we cannot cut it off tomorrow or replace them all with a better energy source.

Moving taxes to discourage behaviour is also needed now: carbon taxes etc. This does not mean an increase in all taxes paid but a change in what they are paid on.

The connection between social sustainability and environmental sustainability must be a part of all policy. The high levels of poverty globally is compromising the ability of the planet to mitigate and move to better solutions. The present levels of global inequality make environmental progress impossible.

Recognition of the role of local people -- particularly indigenous -- in finding local solutions is essential. This role must be financed rather than a mandate delivered without the means to make good on it. Again injustice here is in the way of progress on all aspects of sustainability.

These are some of the things I was thinking about when I said that.

epaulo13 epaulo13's picture

..oops wrong thread

epaulo13 epaulo13's picture

Sean in Ottawa wrote:

epaulo13 wrote:

To that end, I am more keen on radical immediate solutions than slow growth of alternatives to capitalism that cannot promise to take hold in time. In the meantime, I think we need to push policies that may not be the ultimate solution but perhaps might buy time for one to take hold.

..txs sean

..do you mean like the resistance to pipelines? you seem to be setting some sort of deadline and i'm not certain where that comes from. can you flesh it out please?

..what i do know is that we are beyond only resitance. the movements i point to indicates that we are implementing a bottoms up approach to decision making. i don't know if this will be enough to stave off a collapse of the ecology but if we are going to have any chance at all..it is necessary. 

..and i agree to buying as much time as we can. also the more we can change/stop today the less we will suffer down the road. no matter what though a price must be paid. 

I believe the progress to the destruction of the planet is moving so fast that we cannot afford to wait until the reality dawns on everyone. I do not think the capitalist market answer is the way to let change come in based on profit.

Countries spend large portions of their budgets on lessor military threats than environmental collapse. I think if nations invested the same portiojn to adjusting to the reality of a planet in trouble we would have a greater chance.

I did not mean resistance to pipelines -- although it would include that. Pipelines are about supply and I do not minimize this but I mean addressing demand and the structure of a growth economy where unless it is expanding past the point the planet can take the economy is considered broken.

An example of a policy I advocate that is a temporary mid solution rather than an ultimate fix is with respect to public transit: Have all cars within reach of public transit pay a plate tax that covers the cost of public transit. The reaosn is to provide an economic sttraction for people who presently own cars to use public transit  as well -- to slow down the effects of car use, knowing we cannot cut it off tomorrow or replace them all with a better energy source.

Moving taxes to discourage behaviour is also needed now: carbon taxes etc. This does not mean an increase in all taxes paid but a change in what they are paid on.

The connection between social sustainability and environmental sustainability must be a part of all policy. The high levels of poverty globally is compromising the ability of the planet to mitigate and move to better solutions. The present levels of global inequality make environmental progress impossible.

Recognition of the role of local people -- particularly indigenous -- in finding local solutions is essential. This role must be financed rather than a mandate delivered without the means to make good on it. Again injustice here is in the way of progress on all aspects of sustainability.

These are some of the things I was thinking about when I said that.

..i agree with the list you have made. it's a good list. it is lacking though in that it doesn't include how any of it comes about. have you got any ideas on that? 

progressive17 progressive17's picture

It is up to individuals to change their behaviour. Quit eating meat. Quit using cars. Use transit. Ride a bike. Quit buying bottled water. Take your own bags to the store. Cook for yourself. Otherwise, you are part of the problem, no matter how many your good wishes and kind words. Maybe there are others who behave like this. If enough do, there will be far fewer profits for the greedy, and much less damage to the planet.

NDPP

Nice little speech for a free trader.

Sean in Ottawa

epaulo13 wrote:

Sean in Ottawa wrote:

epaulo13 wrote:

To that end, I am more keen on radical immediate solutions than slow growth of alternatives to capitalism that cannot promise to take hold in time. In the meantime, I think we need to push policies that may not be the ultimate solution but perhaps might buy time for one to take hold.

..txs sean

..do you mean like the resistance to pipelines? you seem to be setting some sort of deadline and i'm not certain where that comes from. can you flesh it out please?

..what i do know is that we are beyond only resitance. the movements i point to indicates that we are implementing a bottoms up approach to decision making. i don't know if this will be enough to stave off a collapse of the ecology but if we are going to have any chance at all..it is necessary. 

..and i agree to buying as much time as we can. also the more we can change/stop today the less we will suffer down the road. no matter what though a price must be paid. 

I believe the progress to the destruction of the planet is moving so fast that we cannot afford to wait until the reality dawns on everyone. I do not think the capitalist market answer is the way to let change come in based on profit.

Countries spend large portions of their budgets on lessor military threats than environmental collapse. I think if nations invested the same portiojn to adjusting to the reality of a planet in trouble we would have a greater chance.

I did not mean resistance to pipelines -- although it would include that. Pipelines are about supply and I do not minimize this but I mean addressing demand and the structure of a growth economy where unless it is expanding past the point the planet can take the economy is considered broken.

An example of a policy I advocate that is a temporary mid solution rather than an ultimate fix is with respect to public transit: Have all cars within reach of public transit pay a plate tax that covers the cost of public transit. The reaosn is to provide an economic sttraction for people who presently own cars to use public transit  as well -- to slow down the effects of car use, knowing we cannot cut it off tomorrow or replace them all with a better energy source.

Moving taxes to discourage behaviour is also needed now: carbon taxes etc. This does not mean an increase in all taxes paid but a change in what they are paid on.

The connection between social sustainability and environmental sustainability must be a part of all policy. The high levels of poverty globally is compromising the ability of the planet to mitigate and move to better solutions. The present levels of global inequality make environmental progress impossible.

Recognition of the role of local people -- particularly indigenous -- in finding local solutions is essential. This role must be financed rather than a mandate delivered without the means to make good on it. Again injustice here is in the way of progress on all aspects of sustainability.

These are some of the things I was thinking about when I said that.

..i agree with the list you have made. it's a good list. it is lacking though in that it doesn't include how any of it comes about. have you got any ideas on that? 

Sadly, I have ideas bit no answers and this is why I am less optimistic than I would like to be.

Other than advocating for these things I do not have a solution to force them to the forefront.

Pondering

We have to act collectively. Acting individually is nice but it doesn't make much of an impact. I think it's lip service, but plastic bag bans are the only significant means of reducing use enough to have even a small impact. Individuals choosing not to use them is a more of a statement than anything else. 

Ironically the free market will be our savior. 

http://www.cbc.ca/news/business/carbon-energy-technology-canada-1.4697697

As to the G7. Much ado about nothing. What is the big deal about a joint communique? It has no legal standing at all. It is no more signficant than if they all agreed to talk about having national holidays around the world on the same day. Utterly meaningless. 

It is all political theatre intended to distract us from the economics of rising inequality. 

mmphosis

Sean in Ottawa wrote:

epaulo13 wrote:

Sean in Ottawa wrote:

epaulo13 wrote:

To that end, I am more keen on radical immediate solutions than slow growth of alternatives to capitalism that cannot promise to take hold in time. In the meantime, I think we need to push policies that may not be the ultimate solution but perhaps might buy time for one to take hold.

..txs sean

..do you mean like the resistance to pipelines? you seem to be setting some sort of deadline and i'm not certain where that comes from. can you flesh it out please?

..what i do know is that we are beyond only resitance. the movements i point to indicates that we are implementing a bottoms up approach to decision making. i don't know if this will be enough to stave off a collapse of the ecology but if we are going to have any chance at all..it is necessary. 

..and i agree to buying as much time as we can. also the more we can change/stop today the less we will suffer down the road. no matter what though a price must be paid. 

I believe the progress to the destruction of the planet is moving so fast that we cannot afford to wait until the reality dawns on everyone. I do not think the capitalist market answer is the way to let change come in based on profit.

Countries spend large portions of their budgets on lessor military threats than environmental collapse. I think if nations invested the same portiojn to adjusting to the reality of a planet in trouble we would have a greater chance.

I did not mean resistance to pipelines -- although it would include that. Pipelines are about supply and I do not minimize this but I mean addressing demand and the structure of a growth economy where unless it is expanding past the point the planet can take the economy is considered broken.

An example of a policy I advocate that is a temporary mid solution rather than an ultimate fix is with respect to public transit: Have all cars within reach of public transit pay a plate tax that covers the cost of public transit. The reaosn is to provide an economic sttraction for people who presently own cars to use public transit  as well -- to slow down the effects of car use, knowing we cannot cut it off tomorrow or replace them all with a better energy source.

Moving taxes to discourage behaviour is also needed now: carbon taxes etc. This does not mean an increase in all taxes paid but a change in what they are paid on.

The connection between social sustainability and environmental sustainability must be a part of all policy. The high levels of poverty globally is compromising the ability of the planet to mitigate and move to better solutions. The present levels of global inequality make environmental progress impossible.

Recognition of the role of local people -- particularly indigenous -- in finding local solutions is essential. This role must be financed rather than a mandate delivered without the means to make good on it. Again injustice here is in the way of progress on all aspects of sustainability.

These are some of the things I was thinking about when I said that.

..i agree with the list you have made. it's a good list. it is lacking though in that it doesn't include how any of it comes about. have you got any ideas on that? 

Sadly, I have ideas bit no answers and this is why I am less optimistic than I would like to be.

Other than advocating for these things I do not have a solution to force them to the forefront.

I appreciate you, all of you, posting.

I am optimistic.  It has dawned and the reality is already here:  loss of species, climate change, oceans warming, CO2 today at 411.09 ppm, melting ice, and I could go on -- and I believe we need to mourn our losses and I am.  Things are moving forward:  public transit, electric vehicles in many forms, solar power, wind power, bicycle power, and I could go on and I will -- and the reality is already here.  And I think this is not a simple two way street, everything is connected and changing.  We need to tell our truths in the moment and keep listening to each other.

epaulo13 epaulo13's picture

Sean in Ottawa wrote:

epaulo13 wrote:

Sean in Ottawa wrote:

epaulo13 wrote:

To that end, I am more keen on radical immediate solutions than slow growth of alternatives to capitalism that cannot promise to take hold in time. In the meantime, I think we need to push policies that may not be the ultimate solution but perhaps might buy time for one to take hold.

..txs sean

..do you mean like the resistance to pipelines? you seem to be setting some sort of deadline and i'm not certain where that comes from. can you flesh it out please?

..what i do know is that we are beyond only resitance. the movements i point to indicates that we are implementing a bottoms up approach to decision making. i don't know if this will be enough to stave off a collapse of the ecology but if we are going to have any chance at all..it is necessary. 

..and i agree to buying as much time as we can. also the more we can change/stop today the less we will suffer down the road. no matter what though a price must be paid. 

I believe the progress to the destruction of the planet is moving so fast that we cannot afford to wait until the reality dawns on everyone. I do not think the capitalist market answer is the way to let change come in based on profit.

Countries spend large portions of their budgets on lessor military threats than environmental collapse. I think if nations invested the same portiojn to adjusting to the reality of a planet in trouble we would have a greater chance.

I did not mean resistance to pipelines -- although it would include that. Pipelines are about supply and I do not minimize this but I mean addressing demand and the structure of a growth economy where unless it is expanding past the point the planet can take the economy is considered broken.

An example of a policy I advocate that is a temporary mid solution rather than an ultimate fix is with respect to public transit: Have all cars within reach of public transit pay a plate tax that covers the cost of public transit. The reaosn is to provide an economic sttraction for people who presently own cars to use public transit  as well -- to slow down the effects of car use, knowing we cannot cut it off tomorrow or replace them all with a better energy source.

Moving taxes to discourage behaviour is also needed now: carbon taxes etc. This does not mean an increase in all taxes paid but a change in what they are paid on.

The connection between social sustainability and environmental sustainability must be a part of all policy. The high levels of poverty globally is compromising the ability of the planet to mitigate and move to better solutions. The present levels of global inequality make environmental progress impossible.

Recognition of the role of local people -- particularly indigenous -- in finding local solutions is essential. This role must be financed rather than a mandate delivered without the means to make good on it. Again injustice here is in the way of progress on all aspects of sustainability.

These are some of the things I was thinking about when I said that.

..i agree with the list you have made. it's a good list. it is lacking though in that it doesn't include how any of it comes about. have you got any ideas on that? 

Sadly, I have ideas bit no answers and this is why I am less optimistic than I would like to be.

Other than advocating for these things I do not have a solution to force them to the forefront.

..txs sean