Leap Manifesto: 'A Call For A Canada Based on Caring For the Earth and One Another'

490 posts / 0 new
Last post
NDPP
Leap Manifesto: 'A Call For A Canada Based on Caring For the Earth and One Another'

LEAP Manifesto Calls on Government to Honour Indigenous Rights, Move Towards a 'Clean Economy'

http://www.cbc.ca/news/aboriginal/environmental-manifesto-unveiled-by-na...

"The Leap Manifesto: A Call For A Canada Based on Caring For the Earth and One Another, calls on government to honour indigenous rights and move toward a clean economy fuelled by renewable energy.

The manifesto also calls for universal child-care and a universal annual income as well as an end to trade deals which are blamed for hurting local economies..."

NDPP

Fuck Mulcair and the Globe and Mail. If he doesn't support it, he needn't sign it. What's not to like? I hope everybody signs the thing!

NDPP

Globe Editorial: Leap Manifesto Gets Poor Marks For Timing and Content, Otherwise Fine

http://www.theglobeandmail.com/globe-debate/editorials/leap-manifesto-ge...

"A spectre is haunting Thomas Mulcair, and on Tuesday it yelled 'Boo!'

We don't think Mr Mulcair endorses the manifesto's madness. He is far more moderate than that. He is also a politician, and he wants to govern a country that is by nature suspicious of radical social upheaval, especially when promulgated by rock stars.

Saddling him now, barely a month from the election, with the task of answering questions about a revolutionary utopian manifesto seems like an obvious case of failing to look before you ...

Well, you know the rest."

 

lagatta

Here is the site, with the manifesto text in French, English and other languages including two Indigenous languages:
https://leapmanifesto.org/en/the-leap-manifesto/#manifesto-content
https://leapmanifesto.org/fr/un-grand-bond-vers-lavant/

Catchfire Catchfire's picture

The Globe had a conniption with its scare quotes. Count your days, son. We're coming.

epaulo13 epaulo13's picture

What we need is a giant leap forward

Just when I thought I couldn't bear one more word of politics after listening to a revolting panel of so-called political strategists on my favourite radio show The Current, I was revived by a smart, diverse, powerful group of people reading the Leap Manifesto in downtown Toronto. 

I participated in the process of writing the Leap Manifesto last Spring after a pan-Canadian gathering of activists called by Naomi Klein and Avi Lewis, where we discussed and struggled to create a diverse, cross-sectoral group to bring together the issues of climate change and social justice. I've been hearing about the importance of doing that for a long time but this time it seemed like it might actually happen. Most important was the leadership role Indigenous activists from every part of the country.

quote:

Avi's film This Changes Everything, which I saw at TIFF,  takes it a step further by beautifully showing us how ordinary people around the globe are standing up to climate destruction and taking their future into their hands. The film argues that we have to change the story and The Leap begins to do that:

"We could live in a country powered entirely by truly just renewable energy, woven together by accessible public transit, in which jobs and opportunities of this transition are designed to systematically eliminate racial and gender inequality. Caring for one anther and caring for the planet could be the economy's fastest growing sectors....We know that the time for this transition is short.. That means small steps will no longer get us where we need to go.  We need to leap.”

6079_Smith_W

NDPP wrote:

Fuck Mulcair and the Globe and Mail.

Except he didn't write the editorial. It was the Globe, and given your reaction, they may have achieved their goal.

The Globe spun it as a direct threat in this election, which isn't necessarily the case, and something which Mulcair allegedly doesn't have under control.

Calling it "madness" sponsored by rock stars and calling him a "moderate" and a "politician"? I think I hear a dog whistle. What I am curious about is what their motive is in framing this as a "spectre" for Mulcair, but not for Trudeau.

And the scare quotes? I think they were calculated.

 

epaulo13 epaulo13's picture

..more from post #5

quote:

After the moving reading of the document for the TV cameras, Naomi asked the media not to focus on partisan questions by saying: "The Leap Manifesto is not supporting any of the political parties. No matter who the next government is, they will need to be pressured to take the Leap."  By the time of the election, we hope to have enough signatures that no government can ignore it. 

As usual Stephen Lewis took it to the next level: "In 10 days' time the UN will debate development goals.  The Leap Manifesto will be circulated among all the countries of the UN and will influence the debate....If I may be parochial without being political, whoever gets elected on October 19, this manifesto provides an agenda that allows Canada to become a leader in the world once again."

Paul Moist, President of CUPE, said it would be circulated to all the leaders of public sector unions around the Globe in preparation of the Climate Conference in Paris.   Maude Barlow said it was already in the hands of her members who would circulate it across Canada in every community.

What became clear this morning in the release of The Leap is that this document gives us a simple, easy to understand, visionary statement of the world we want and some steps on how we will get there.  It is not about one issue or another, it is about how we can save the planet from catastrophe while ensuring that those who have been most hurt by the colonization and exploitation of the past centuries will be lifted up in the process. It's what we've been waiting for. 

Poet George Elliott Clarke put it best:  "This is an apocalyptic moment. All you have to do is watch TV or go online to know that. The Leap Manifesto is a giant leap for humanity."

epaulo13 epaulo13's picture

How Can We Afford The Leap?

There are many who will read The Leap manifesto and find the goals worthy and exciting, but who will legitimately wonder, “These ideas sound great, but how can we pay for all the green and social infrastructure envisioned? Is such a plan really affordable and realizable?”

Fair questions.

But the answer, in short, is yes. We can afford to make this Leap. All that is lacking is the political will and determination.

The manifesto itself offers a short summary of the options at hand to finance this grand shift in our economy:

“The money we need to pay for this great transformation is available – we just need the right policies to release it. Like an end to fossil fuel subsidies. Financial transaction taxes. Increased resource royalties. Higher income taxes on corporations and wealthy people. A progressive carbon tax. Cuts to military spending. All of these are based on a simple “polluter pays” principle and hold enormous promise.

epaulo13 epaulo13's picture
iyraste1313

Thanks for the thread and the promoters of the leap...but does the leap go far enough?...

“The money we need to pay for this great transformation is available – we just need the right policies to release it. Like an end to fossil fuel subsidies. Financial transaction taxes. Increased resource royalties. Higher income taxes on corporations and wealthy people. A progressive carbon tax. Cuts to military spending. All of these are based on a simple “polluter pays” principle and hold enormous promise."

The fossil fuel industry in Canada is a dead letter...which will force the next government to increase subsidies...financial transaction taxes? in support iof a collapsing finance system?
of course if you think things are okay out there, that the financial complex of debt instruments which just keep on keep on...maybe so!
But events will bear me out, the finances are now in collapse and these ideas won't work....

what will though is a respect first for the traditional concepts of the Indigenous of Canada, the need for regional and territorial autonomies....the construction of an alternative community based "informal" economic system of production and distribution built on a new finance and credit system controlled from the base!

ikosmos ikosmos's picture

Geographer and Marx scholar David Harvey notes: "My suggestion to everyone: maximize the use-value provision character of the society; think about how to organize the provision of these use-values, and minimize the capacity of people to extract private wealth from an exchange value system." Harvey asks: "Is there a way we on the left can construct an alternative monetary system, which is actually more democratic and much more socially constructed?"

iyraste1313

right on!

Just returned from a trip out to the Alberta Rockies, heart of the Alberta coal industry...carbon tax it to death?

or socialize it, green its technology to guarantee a value added community industrial base for its population?
this is why I prefer the priority of regional autonomy, better bioregional autonomy based on an Earth Charter for autonomous bioregions...

and in reference to my last point I urge people to check out William Engdahl's latest on the budding alliance of Russia with OPEC, to collapse the expensive failing oil industry of North America...this is the reality we must recognize...to build self reliant non globalized regional economics!

6079_Smith_W

iyraste1313 wrote:

I prefer the priority of regional autonomy, better bioregional autonomy based on an Earth Charter for autonomous bioregions...

I agree in principle, though if you have absolute regional autonony then those who have provincial control over those resources are answerable to no one outside their borders.

One of the worst things Harper did was to gut federal protection of waterways.

So while grassroots is good, strong federal protection is also important.

And hopefully you got to see the turbines on Cowley Ridge while you were there.

epaulo13 epaulo13's picture

“This piece to me is about having the spirit of our ancestors behind us who give gentle strength, love and kindness to our families and communities. It’s about having the courage to change cultural norms such as indifference by creating new ways of living and being and returning back to a place where leadership is about responsibility to all living beings.”

Angela Sterritt is an artist, writer, filmmaker and journalist from the Gitxsan Nation.

DaveW

here is where the divide between Babble and other media becomes most visible; all applause here, while elsewhere the Leap-ers are sure to be seen as the new Waffle for the next month -- a group with  radical ideas for  which mainstream voters will punish the federal NDP:

http://www.thestar.com/news/canada/2015/09/15/prominent-ndpers-back-mani...

ironic that Stephen Lewis is in this group, as he and father David expelled the former in the early 1970s

...

OTTAWA—Just as Tom Mulcair attempts to convince Canadians that the NDP is a safe, moderate choice in the Oct. 19 election, some of his party’s highest profile supporters are issuing a manifesto calling for a radical restructuring of the country’s economy.

The “leap manifesto,” signed by more than 100 actors, musicians, labour unions, aboriginal leaders, environmentalists and other activists, aims to pressure the next federal government to wean Canada entirely off fossil fuels in as little as 35 years and, in the process, upend the capitalist system on which the economy is based.

[...]

The dramatic transformation envisioned in the manifesto is in stark contrast to the pragmatic platform Mulcair is offering: balanced budgets, an openness to free trade deals, sustainable development of Alberta’s oilsands, no tax hikes except for a “slight and graduated” increase in the corporate tax rate.

Yet among the celebrity signatories are a number of prominent NDP supporters, including former Ontario NDP leader Stephen Lewis, father of Avi, who gave a rousing introduction for Mulcair at a campaign event in Toronto last month.

6079_Smith_W

From that article:

Quote:

Stephen Lewis doesn’t see his support for Mulcair as inconsistent with the manifesto, which he notes is also signed by people from other parties, including Roy McMurtry, a former Ontario chief justice and one-time provincial Conservative cabinet minister.

“For the New Democrats, it’s an extension of the kinds of things they’ve been talking about,” Lewis said in an interview.

And this:

Quote:

In Calgary on Tuesday night, Mulcair said the New Democrats welcome the ideas contained in the manifesto.

“I do understand the profound desire for change reflected in that document,” he said.

I'm not sure what media divide you mean. If we want to look at media which is spinning this as a point of division and a fight for the soul of the party, I'd say some of the comments here are more in alignment with the Globe.

While The Star doesn't shy away from the potential dispute, it seems to be taking a middle ground, and not portraying this as some kind of political showdown.

And really, I don't think that was the main goal for those who draughted this document. Is this about politics, or reversing the damage we are doing to the earth?

 

 

 

lagatta

Stephen Lewis is no raging leftie, but there are people, includiing Archbishop Romero and the current Pope, who do move left with age and hands-on experience of oppression and repression of the "most oppressed". One could even say Thomas Mulcair has moved left, and left the Liberals for good reasons, but obviously not enough.

quizzical

what are the people here who are stating these people did this to hinder the NDP's election chances saying?

are they saying these people who wrote the Manifesto really on the side of keeping status quo of corporate power in control where the rich stay rich?

i don't get the complaint.

do they think the NDP higher ups were not aware of this manifesto being written and its release prior to right now?

why would these people who profess all these good things want status quo maintained?

 

Rev Pesky

Well, I think the LEAP manifesto is a wonderful thing, but I suggest everyone read the supporting documentation for the green energy proposals. At the very best, they are talking about replacing existing fossil fuel created energy with non-fossil fuel created energy. But if we just replace existing energy what does that do for the majority of the world's population who currently aren't using much in the way of fossil fuel?

If indeed this green energy proposal is feasible, why aren't the majority of countries that consume very little fossil fuel raising their standard of living by doing as this LEAP manifesto suggests. If it is possible to create a fossil fuel free economy with the same standard of living we now possess, presumably that would work in any country that cared to try it. Someone tell me why that isn't happening. Strange as it may seem, standard of living is almost lock-step with fossil fuel consumption.

Perhaps one of the things we in the industrialized world could do is to work towards bringing the poorest nations up to our standard of living by providing the green resources required for that to happen. Because right now they're looking at us and shaking their heads in wonder. How can we talk about ending fossil fuel before they've had a chance to live as we do? Whose fault is all this extra CO2? Certainly not the people of North Korea, say, who live on 0.6 bbls/day per 1000 pop. compared to Canada's 64 bbls/day per 1000 pop. (those figures are for 2009, probably still close enough to use here).

Unless we have some plan to provide green energy to the majority of the world's population, by ending fossil fuel use, we are condemning them to continue to live at the standard they are now, with no hope of any improvement.

 

 

epaulo13 epaulo13's picture

..another poster

Julie Flett is an award-winning author, illustrator and artist currently living in Vancouver, BC. She is Cree-Métis.

sherpa-finn

I work for one of the signatory organizations. One of the 'complicating' isssues around this whole exercise was processing the legal and political implications for the different agencies, - given that we are in the middle of an election. So there were extended consultations around whether this would be considered "third party advertising" in the context of the Elections Act, - and what this might mean. And for those agencies that have charitable status, - whether endorsing the Manifesto would be seen as politically partisan.  (Loss of that status is not an insignificant concern for those agencies dependent upon charitable donations for their core funding. And some of us have had to undergo hugely costly and intrusive "political audits", - with some agencies losing their charitable status at the end of the day.)

I think the organizers have played it by the book: early drafts of the Manifesto which were more explicit in terms of criticism of the Harper Gov't / Conservative Party were re-written to make them more generically critical of "the Canadian Gov't", - which is political, but not partisan. And in the public presentations and media statements that accompanied the release of the Manifesto, all the speakers went out of their way to underline that this intervention was not partisan in an electoral sense.  

That said, Conservative tweeps have been pro-actively forwarding the names of the various non-profits and charities that have signed teh Manifesto to the Canadian Revenue Agency, recommending that this behaviour be reviewed for violation of the related regulations. Its just the world we live in nowadays.

mark_alfred

I notice the Globe and Mail tries to turn the Manifesto into something negative for the NDP, implying that it is an expression of dismay from some of its more notable allies.  However, I don't see it this way.  Rather, it's an aspirational blueprint to the NDP from its allies.  And an aspirational blueprint for the people.  Get people thinking of collective action for the greater good.  The population being encouraged to have this mindset only helps the NDP.

Mr. Magoo Mr. Magoo's picture

Quote:
If it is possible to create a fossil fuel free economy with the same standard of living we now possess, presumably that would work in any country that cared to try it.

Indeed, if it's true, then some should try it.

Quote:
Someone tell me why that isn't happening.

Maybe none have tried it.

Quote:
Strange as it may seem, standard of living is almost lock-step with fossil fuel consumption.

Probably also correlates strongly with Big Mac consumption.

Quote:
by ending fossil fuel use, we are condemning them to continue to live at the standard they are now, with no hope of any improvement.

Let's not turn off the Fun Machine until the people of Somalia have had their chance to try this "gasoline" that everyone's talking about.

Rev Pesky

Mr. Magoo wrote:
...Let's not turn off the Fun Machine until the people of Somalia have had their chance to try this "gasoline" that everyone's talking about.

Canadians use roughly 120 times the fossil fuel (per capita) that Somalians do. But how are they to raise their standard of living? Without oil they can have no manufacturing. It may not have occurred to LEAP, but all the green sustainable energy they talk about is a result of the manufacturing process. That means only the countries with well-oiled industrialized economies are capable of making it happen.

But if we have a responsibility to combat income inequality here, don't we also have a responsibility to combat it worldwide. I understand we have more control over local events than far away ones, but if LEAP is correct, we have the means at our disposal to effect great change in Somalia and elsewhere.

If green energy works as suggested, any country could use the same program to achieve the high standard of living that we enjoy. Strangley enough, not a single country anywhere in the world has managed to do so.

Personally, I think the LEAP manifesto should start with the simple statement that any individual on earth has the same moral right to the resources of the earth as any other individual. Follow that with a graph of CO2 creation per capita by country. That is the proper way to begin the conversation.

 

 

epaulo13 epaulo13's picture

..from a document cited on the web site. it's a pdf file.

abstract

Climate change, pollution,and energy insecurity are among the greatest problems of our time. Addressing them requires major changes in our energy infrastructure. Here, we analyze the feasibility of providing worldwide energy for all purposes (electric power, transportation, heating/cooling, etc.) from wind,water, and sunlight (WWS). In Part I, we discuss WWS energy system characteristics, current and futureenergy demand, availability of WWS resources, numbers of WWS devices, and area and material requirements. In Part II, we address variability, economics, and policy of WWS energy. We estimate that 3,800,000 5 MW wind turbines,49,000 300 MW concentrated solar plants,40,000 300 MW solarPV power plants,1.7 billion 3 kW rooftop PV systems,5350 100 MW geothermal power plants,270new 1300 MW hydroelectric power plants,720,000 0.75 MW wave devices, and490,000 1 MW tidalturbines can power a 2030 WWS world that uses electricity and electrolytic hydrogen for all purposes. Such a WWS infrastructure reduces world power demand by 30% and requires only0.41% and0.59%more of the world’s land for footprint and spacing, respectively. We suggest producing all new energy with WWS by 2030 and replacing the pre-existing energy by 2050. Barriers to the plan are primarily social and political, not technological or economic. The energy cost in a WWS world should be similar to that today

Rev Pesky

Here are the figures for a single 1.5 MW wind turbine, courtesy Wikipedia:

Quote:
A 1.5 MW wind turbine of a type frequently seen in the United States has a tower 80 meters (260 ft) high. The rotor assembly (blades and hub) weighs 22,000 kilograms (48,000 lb). The nacelle, which contains the generator component, weighs 52,000 kilograms (115,000 lb). The concrete base for the tower is constructed using 26,000 kilograms (58,000 lb) of reinforcing steel and contains 190 cubic meters (250 cu yd) of concrete. The base is 15 meters (50 ft) in diameter and 2.4 meters (8 ft) thick near the center.

The abstract that epaulo13 quoted refers to 5 MW turbines which would be correspondingly larger. For a German manufactured 5 MW turbine some figures are:

Quote:
 The German RePower turbines have a power output of 5 Megawatts with a rotor blade diameter of 126 metres sweeping an area of over 12,000 square metres...

Each turbine weighs over 900 tonnes including the 120 metre tall tower which has to be anchored in the deep water. Each turbine blade is 61.5 metres long and weighs under 18 tonnes.

All of the figures for concrete and rebar, etc., would obviously also increase.

It should be pointed out that the reliability factor of wind power is effectively zero. When the wind don't blow, the turbines don't go. So for each MW of wind turbine power, there has to be an equivalent amount of backup gerneration. This is also true for solar power generation. Now we begin to understand why the poorest nations haven't partaken of green energy. It requires a pre-existing industrial economy, with a large manufacturing capability. And a piss-pot full of money.

 

 

Mr. Magoo Mr. Magoo's picture

Quote:
But if we have a responsibility to combat income inequality here, don't we also have a responsibility to combat it worldwide.

How does that follow?

To whatever degree we're ever going to successfully combat it in our own country, it's going to be through things like progressive taxation, better legislation, and other "sovereign nation" stuff.  Are any other countries going to hand us their governments to manage?

Or is the answer that we'll just fill ship after ship with money and send it to them with a nice card -- "Sorry we didn't think of this sooner.  Go buy yourself a nice windmill!"

6079_Smith_W

http://www.theguardian.com/environment/true-north/2015/sep/17/the-leap-m...

Quote:

Every political class considers themselves inclusive, diverse, open-minded. But present ideas that stray outside the boundaries of sanctioned debate, imposed by power and a patrolling press, and watch how quickly they stoop to bullying.

Consider the response to the Leap Manifesto, a declaration released this week by an unprecedented coalition of Canadian authors, artists, national leaders and activists in the midst of a federal election...

The Leap Manifesto is an attempt to wrench open the debate, the policy options, the range of political possibility. That’s how change happens: in fact, it’s the only way it ever has.

Rev Pesky

Pondering wrote:
...Which would lead to it being used as toilet paper outside of activist circles.

I don't know whether you've noticed, but it's already being treated like toilet paper outside of activist circles. Are you arguing that some individuals have a greater right to resources than others?

Rev Pesky

Mr. Magoo wrote:

Quote:
But if we have a responsibility to combat income inequality here, don't we also have a responsibility to combat it worldwide.

How does that follow?...

How doesn't it follow. Why is the responsibility limited by borders? I agree the means to do things may be different, but that doesn't change the responsibility. And as far as that goes, if this whole idea of building a carbon-free economy is so 'available', why can't we offer others the chance to participate themselves? The Leap Manifesto itself says:

Quote:
Caring for one another and caring for the planet could be the economy's fastest growing sectors.

I don't see anything there that limits the planet, or the caring, to Canadian borders. Note it also ties this caring to a fast growing economy. If it works here, why can't it work elsewhere?

Rev Pesky

6079_Smith_W wrote:

http://www.theguardian.com/environment/true-north/2015/sep/17/the-leap-m...

Quote:

Every political class considers themselves inclusive, diverse, open-minded. But present ideas that stray outside the boundaries of sanctioned debate, imposed by power and a patrolling press, and watch how quickly they stoop to bullying.

Consider the response to the Leap Manifesto, a declaration released this week by an unprecedented coalition of Canadian authors, artists, national leaders and activists in the midst of a federal election...

The Leap Manifesto is an attempt to wrench open the debate, the policy options, the range of political possibility. That’s how change happens: in fact, it’s the only way it ever has.

The person who wrote the adoring article in the Gurardian was also one of the authors of the LEAP Manifesto. You might have mentioned that.

Pondering

Ken Burch wrote:

Pondering wrote:

 We are not ruled by social justice warriors

I humbly and respectfully ask you to never use the phrase "social justice warriors" again.  Its a right-wing cyberslur used to berate a silence people(especially women, PoC, and members of the LGBTQ community when they stand up to bigots and reactionaries in internet comments section.  It's a verbal bludgeon used to send the message that some people have the right to express their opinions(mainly straight white men)and others do not.  Not saying you used that phrase with that intent(I assume you didn't) but you need to know what it means and why you shouldn't use it in any discussion involving people fighting any forms of historic oppression.

I didn't know that so thank-you for informing me. It seemed like a positive term to me so it's disappointing to find out otherwise but much better than not knowing.

Pondering

Rev Pesky wrote:

Mr. Magoo wrote:
...Let's not turn off the Fun Machine until the people of Somalia have had their chance to try this "gasoline" that everyone's talking about.

Canadians use roughly 120 times the fossil fuel (per capita) that Somalians do. But how are they to raise their standard of living? Without oil they can have no manufacturing. It may not have occurred to LEAP, but all the green sustainable energy they talk about is a result of the manufacturing process. That means only the countries with well-oiled industrialized economies are capable of making it happen.

Green energy does work but it requires investment that is normally provided by big business whose motive is personal profit not public well-being no matter how many charities they contribute to. Ronald MacDonald houses are a wonderful contribution but they exist to create public goodwill and boost profits not because MacDonalds is kind-hearted.

Geothermal energy pays for itself and becomes virtually free once the infrastructure is in place.

http://www.thestar.com/news/gta/2010/10/31/college_pals_build_north_amer...

If a hostel can afford to do this then it is affordable and would become even more affordable with the economies of scale.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Planned_obsolescence

Most businesses thrive on repeat business. We cannot rely on the private sector to advance our well-being. They are only interested in our well-being in so far as it is profitable. That doesn't make them evil, just amoral.

Quebec could easily be running enough electric vehicles to radically transform air quality in our cities which would give us an economic advantage and attract wealth.

Rev Pesky wrote:
But if we have a responsibility to combat income inequality here, don't we also have a responsibility to combat it worldwide. I understand we have more control over local events than far away ones, but if LEAP is correct, we have the means at our disposal to effect great change in Somalia and elsewhere.

We may have a moral responsibility but it is a poor argument for radical transformation. If we were willing to significantly reduce our own standard of living to help others we would all be sending over half our income to underdeveloped countries.

Rev Pesky wrote:
If green energy works as suggested, any country could use the same program to achieve the high standard of living that we enjoy. Strangley enough, not a single country anywhere in the world has managed to do so.

That is not at all strange. We are not ruled by social justice activists* and we lack information and the tools to require change.

Rev Pesky wrote:
Personally, I think the LEAP manifesto should start with the simple statement that any individual on earth has the same moral right to the resources of the earth as any other individual. Follow that with a graph of CO2 creation per capita by country. That is the proper way to begin the conversation.

Which would lead to it being used as toilet paper outside of activist circles.

*edited to change social justice warriors to social justice activists

Mr. Magoo Mr. Magoo's picture

Quote:
How doesn't it follow. Why is the responsibility limited by borders?

I'm not suggesting that it's limited by lines on a paper map,

It's limited by each country's sovereign right to make their own choices about things.  The lines on the paper map have so little to do with that.

Quote:
if this whole idea of building a carbon-free economy is so 'available', why can't we offer others the chance to participate themselves?

Are we denying them that chance?  Notwithstanding us not doing it for them, how are we preventing them?

Pondering

Rev Pesky wrote:

Pondering wrote:
...Which would lead to it being used as toilet paper outside of activist circles.

I don't know whether you've noticed, but it's already being treated like toilet paper outside of activist circles. Are you arguing that some individuals have a greater right to resources than others?

No, I am arguing that while this Manifesto is honest and inspiring and that this type of discourse does advance humanity it doesn't lead to immediate practical change.

I agree that the future envisioned by Leap is possible but that making it happen will take a different more concrete approach, a reverse engineering of neoliberal thinking through proving them wrong and that it is possible due to the democratization of mass communications.

6079_Smith_W

Rev Pesky wrote:

The person who wrote the adoring article in the Gurardian was also one of the authors of the LEAP Manifesto. You might have mentioned that.

So what? Got any opinion on the actual ideas? Personally I think he's right. You say yourself it is being trashed.

I don't get what you are on about regarding global action and evening out resources, when this manifesto is pretty clearly focused on what we can do here in Canada, specifically around sovereignty (recognizing that some of our actions have global connection).

This isn't the Kyoto Accord.

Though there is a mention there of building local economies. I take that to mean anti-globalization measures that will have a poositive effect in developing nations.

As for the unreliability of wind power:

http://www.theguardian.com/environment/2015/jul/10/denmark-wind-windfarm...

And if you want something a bit more stable, I think there are one or two places in Canada where we have rivers.

 

 

Ken Burch Ken Burch's picture

Pondering wrote:

 We are not ruled by social justice warriors

 

I humbly and respectfully ask you not to use the phrase "social justice warriors".  Its a right-wing cyberslur used to mock, berate and silence people(especially women, PoC, and members of the LGBTQ community when they stand up to bigots and reactionaries(and, especially "men's rights/masciliniste" types) in internet comments section.  It's a verbal bludgeon used to send the message that some people have the right to express their opinions(mainly straight right-wing white men)and others do not.  Not saying you used that phrase with that intent(I assume you didn't) but you need to know what it means and why you shouldn't use it in any discussion involving people fighting any forms of historic oppression.

Rev Pesky

Mr. Magoo wrote:
...Are we denying them that chance?  Notwithstanding us not doing it for them, how are we preventing them?

You may not have noticed, but the military/industrial complex of the G8 nations controls most of the world supply of oil. It ensures that other players have no chance. It is the view of the USA in particular that any threat to their enjoyment of the resources of the world is an existential threat to their interests, and should be dealt with accordingly. I don't know if they have newspapers where you live, but if they do, you may have noticed the overthrow of governments in Iraq, Lybia, Syria mostly instigated by the US, and supported by other industrialized nations. No independence allowed.

You may have also noticed the 'Western' program to prevent Iran from developing nuclear technology. Now why is that, do you think?

6079_Smith_W

Never mind that this just happened:

http://www.reuters.com/article/2015/09/17/us-iran-nuclear-congress-idUSK...

What does any of that have to do with the topic of this thread, specifically the recommendations in the Leap Manifesto?

Rev Pesky

6079_Smith_W wrote:

Rev Pesky wrote:

The person who wrote the adoring article in the Gurardian was also one of the authors of the LEAP Manifesto. You might have mentioned that.

So what?

I doubt that an original author of a piece has the necessary objectivity to comment on said piece. He has every right to comment as he wishes, all I'm saying is that it should be noted up front.

Quote:
...Got any opinion on the actual ideas? Personally I think he's right. You say yourself it is being trashed.
It is certainly being trashed. Whether the trashers have a case of not depends on what part of it they're trashing. My opinion? It's a document like many others before it, lots of enthusiasm, but little in the way of reality. It speaks of 'town hall meetings', as if somehow this is going to reconcile the differences between various groups. That may just work in Yak, BC, but I doubt it's transferable to Vancouver of Toronto. Having seen such meetings result in hand-to-hand combat on the streets afterwards, I think I'll be watching from home.

Seriously though, they talk of local control of ernergy resources, while one of the documents they cite as proof of concept requires a huge electrical grid connecting huge wind farms over large areas. What happens if the result of one of those town hall meetings is that the people of Smalltown, Ca don't want any part of it. You can't, at one and the same time, call for local control and then espouse projects that would obliterate local control. 

Quote:
I don't get what you are on about regarding global action and evening out resources, when this manifesto is pretty clearly focused on what we can do here in Canada...

The Manifesto speaks of caring for the planet, and that I agree with wholeheartedly. But how can you talk about 'caring for the planet' without talking about the enormous disparity in living conditions between ourselves and the majority of the world's population? There are 186 countries in this world, and 36 of them live on one-half or more of the per capita GNP of Canada. 150 countries live on less, most of those on a lot less. Niger, for instance has some of the world's largest uranium deposits, yet their per capita GNP is about $500 dollars. Is that not a subject that should be brought up to 'caring for the planet'?

Quote:
...As for the unreliability of wind power:

">http://www.theguardian.com/environment/2015/jul/10/denmark-wind-windfarm...

There is a difference between the reliability of electrical generation, and the peak amount it's possible to generate. You've made the common error of confusing the two. The reliability of electrical generation is the lowest possible amount of electricity that might be generated, not the highest. As has been shown in both Germany and UK, their wind power has at times generated less than 1% of capacity. In order to maintain a minimum level of power, backup capacity has to be built to accomodate those times when the wind doesn't blow. Well, I suppose you could shut down the factories, hand out candles to the citizens, create an economy where banks and other businesses didn't need to run computer systems 24/7. Some people may not be satisfied with that, but of course most of the world lives exactly like that. I suppose there's no reason we couldn't...

 

 

Rev Pesky

6079_Smith_W wrote:

Never mind that this just happened:

http://www.reuters.com/article/2015/09/17/us-iran-nuclear-congress-idUSK...

What does any of that have to do with the topic of this thread, specifically the recommendations in the Leap Manifesto?

Don't get yer knickers in a knot...it was a response to Magoo who somehow thinks that the industrialized nations don't look after their own interests. As far as the Iran deal goes, it's good that it will be enacted. As Israel has said, they won't be bound by any American deal, but we'll see.

6079_Smith_W

And I am just saying that the military complex which apparantly controls everything just overcame what you called an "existential threat" and signed an agreement to not oppose Iran's autonomy and nuclear development.

Similarly, framing a technical paper about the possibilities of alternative energy generation as a blueprint for enforcing hippie fascism on poor old stock farming communities is a little bit out to lunch.

Ditto spinning a manifesto which (as it says right at the top) is a call for Canada as somehow standing in the way of developing nations. This is about our overuse of energy and resources, and CO2 emissions, not about Somalia.

And yes, I know the argument about wind power. You aren't the first person to have made it.

As I just said, we do have other sources like water - even here in Saskatchewan it is one quarter of the grid. And solar.  And geothermal. And using less. And even though projects like tapping Saskatoon's garbage dump for biogas might not replace coal overnight what alternative do you suggest? Doing nothing because it isn't a perfect solution and we can't piss off the rednecks?

I am curious as to what concrete measures you think we should take to respond to this problem. Getting out the slide rule (once the blackouts start) to find out how to divide the resource pie by seven billion sound good in theory, but the resources aren't evenly spread over the globe. If there is some real action in there, I don't see it.

I also don't see how that is in conflict. If this is just something else you think should be done I don't think the Leap Manifesto is stopping you.

(edit)

And contrary to your spin, it is worth considering that the manifesto is in response to a government which wants to speed up production of dirty oil, and quash local communities (most significantly, though not exclusively First Nations) who oppose it. This isn't so much about turning development backwards, but stopping a plan to vastly increase resource extraction.

 

 

Mr. Magoo Mr. Magoo's picture

Quote:
Don't get yer knickers in a knot...it was a response to Magoo who somehow thinks that the industrialized nations don't look after their own interests.

I said that?

Can you show us where?

I think what I said was that if Somalia wants to build a wind farm they can go ahead.  This manifesto doesn't obligate us to build one for them.  Nor does it obligate them to build a wind farm if they would prefer to enjoy all the funs that oil can bring.

Rev Pesky

6079_Smith_W wrote:
...I am curious as to what concrete measures you think we should take to respond to this problem. Getting out the slide rule (once the blackouts start) to find out how to divide the resource pie by seven billion sound good in theory, but the resources aren't evenly spread over the globe...

The point I was making was that the technological resources to accomplish energy for all are spread evenly over the globe. The wind blows just as much in Somalia as it does in Saskatchewan. Given that the wind turbnes would have to travel just as far to get to Sasketchewan as to Somalia, there really isn't any reason why it couldn't happen there as well as here. It's only the oil and coal that aren't spread evenly over the globe, but that's specifically what people want to limit, right?

Here's a plan. An immediate cap on CO2 emissions. We're in the middle of an economic downturn, so emissions haven't been growing in any case. A credit card system to assign an equal 'right to emit' to every resident of the country. A central registry where any holder of emission 'credits' could sell them to someone who wanted to buy. In the meantime you slide your emission credit card when you purchase gasoline, heating oil or any other fossil fuel. The emissions inherent in manufactured products would be accounted for by the emission market.

Now, when you want to cut emissions, you assign lesser credits to each individual emitter. The technology to accomplish this already exists. Not only exists but is ubiquitous. How many pieces of plastic are there in your wallet? Probably quite a few.  

6079_Smith_W wrote:
Ditto spinning a manifesto which (as it says right at the top) is a call for Canada as somehow standing in the way of developing nations. This is about our overuse of energy and resources, and CO2 emissions, not about Somalia.

The supporting documentation for the LEAP Manifesto talked about replacing existing power generation with sustainable methods. It didn't say a word about the bulk of the world's population and their power needs. In other words, and as we've heard from posters here, screw'm. Let'm find their own damn resources. Well, I object to that, and counter that if, indeed, this is just a technological problem, it should work as well anywhere as it does here. But that leaves the question as to why it hasn't in fact worked anywhere. Why is it that this easy solution, that requires only political will, somehow has not occurred to the bulk of the world's population? My answer is that this 'solution' to energy needs requires a up and running industrial economy with well-developed manufacturing and transportation sectors. All fuelled by oil.

Before we start cranking up the concrete plants and steel manufacturing required to build this wind-powered 'green' revolution, perhaps we should just look at ways to use less electricity. Use fewer motor vehicles. Use a little less of everything. That is the cheapest, easiest way to lower emissions. Unfortunately, that solution (or partial solution, if you will) doesn't show up on anyone's radar.  

 

 

epaulo13 epaulo13's picture

1 The leap must begin by respecting the inherent rights and title of the original caretakers of this land, starting by fully implementing the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples.

..everything follows this. to begin the process of decolonization.

..in the end what i see as important is that the leap be effective. both in inspiration and creating movement towards a better place. already this document is being sent around the world. and the leap has connections to the pipeline/tar sands/climate resistance so at a grassroots level they are, so far, successful meaning effective. it also has connections to the solidarity shown in the toronto march. the coming together of all the struggles. this is a very very good start by any standard.

Rev Pesky

Mr. Magoo wrote:
...I said that? Can you show us where?

Mr. Magoo wrote:
It's limited by each country's sovereign right to make their own choices about things.

The fact is that damn few countries in this world get any kind of a choice about things.

6079_Smith_W

Because it is specific to Canada, Rev.

Again, you want to spearhead overseas projects, or work out an international carbon plan? Go ahead.

If there is any conflict with whatever it is you think is the priority and this manifesto, which is specific to Canada, and recognizing sovreignty in our country, you haven't made it clear to me.

And there are five pieces of plastic in my wallet. Three of them are a driver's license, a health card, and a library card. Not sure what your point is.

Mr. Magoo Mr. Magoo's picture

Quote:
The fact is that damn few countries in this world get any kind of a choice about things.

I see.  So that's why Somalia can't build a wind farm.

The military-industrial complex wouild never allow it.

Unless we sent Somalia a bunch of windmills courtesy of the Canadian taxpayer.  Then they'd be forced to allow it.

voice of the damned

So, the Americans are thwarting Somalia's ability to get wind-farms...why?

If wind-farms are such a surefire catapult into the economic stratosphere, why isn't the US itself undertaking a mass conversion to wind-farms? That's really the only way that a policy of blocking foreign wind-farms would make sense. The US would get exclusive access to the Goose That Lays The Golden Eggs, and everyone else would have to bow down at their feet.

Rev Pesky

Mr. Magoo wrote:
...I see.  So that's why Somalia can't build a wind farm.

The military-industrial complex wouild never allow it.

Unless we sent Somalia a bunch of windmills courtesy of the Canadian taxpayer.  Then they'd be forced to allow it.

You might ask yourself why the USA went to all the trouble of invading Somalia in 1992, and supporting the Ethiopian invasion in 2006. You might ask yourself why the US gave so much military aid to brutal dictator Siad Barre through the late 70's to the late 80's. According to Amnesty International Siad Barre:

Quote:
...used torture and "widespread arbitrary arrests, ill treatment and summary executions" of civilians suspected of collaborating with the rebels.

All under the watchful eye of the US government. So, yes I would say the military/industrial complex took an inordinate interest in Somalia. If you're interested there's plenty of sources to educate yourself about the tortured history of Somalia. 

Pages

Topic locked