Book 9 of 2020/Book 1 of 2021 -- Civilization Critical

This book was recommended to me by a congregant about a year ago. Trusting him, I thought I would give it a go. I am glad I did.

Quallman looks at the ways humans have changed how we interact with our world. He also looks at the ways we have changed our relationship with power (referring to energy and fuel more than political/social/economic power). He looks at how the advent of fossil fuels, beginning with coal, has allowed us to change the rhythms and cycles of out relationship with the earth. The image he uses is moving from cycle that are circular and limiting to linear paths where inputs are simply added but not turned back into the system.

Quallman persuasively makes the argument that our current use of resources, our current pouring of waste into the system is a choice that leads to collapse. Mind you it was easy to persuade me of that since I have been leaning in that direction for some time now. The path forward is not going to be in  energy efficiency, or in wind/solar/tidal energy. The path forward is in using less energy and power, in producing less "stuff". Right now anyone paying attention to political and economic policy will know that the assumption is that more growth in the economy is not only desirable but essential. But unending growth is not, in the long term (perhaps getting close to not even in the medium term), realistic. The globe is a closed system, as has been pointed out many times over the years. There are only so many resources, there is only so much space for waste.

Maybe the question is really when we will reach the limits of what the earth can maintain? Or are we already there?

I foresee some very difficult economic discussions in our future. unending growth is not realistic. There is a total lack of balance in our world. ARe we reaching a critical point where the balance will change? Can we find the courage as a culture to plan for and manage the change before massive collapse?

Jealousy and Anger and Fear... OH MY

I keep remembering the old saying about the "ancient Chinese curse" May you live in interesting times.  We are certainly living in interesting times....

In Alberta for the last couple of years there has been an immense amount of anger. It has been focussed in a few different places (more on that shortly). But I have been wondering what is driving the anger and what is causing the specific focal points for it.

I have long believed that anger is more of a secondary emotion. It grows out of something else. And I see the current anger in Alberta growing out of at least three other things. The big one is FEAR. Next up is PAIN. The next one is JEALOUSY. 

People are angry in Alberta because the economy is not booming. It has not been booming for several years now. And the nature of our system tends to mean that if an economy is not booming and growing it is struggling and shrinking. For some reason "holding its own" is never an option. [One of the talking points is that our economy is held up by lack of access (no new pipelines). But no access has been removed either, we can still ship as much oil as we could 6 years ago, albeit at a much lower price than 6 years ago. Why does lack of growth have to mean shrinking?] And so people lose income, either by reduced hours or losing their job completely. And so people are hurting. It is well-established that when we hurt we seek to lash out at the person(s)/system(s) we think is to blame.

So people are angry because they have been hurt. And in their wounded state they have had a number of people tell them who is at fault for their pain: the federal government, environmental activists (especially foreign funders of same), other provinces, those living off the public dime (either recipients of support or public sector workers). Which has had the effect of making people angry at those things rather than others who are possibly more to blame -- the large corporations who continue to make profits, the changing global energy industry, the provincial governments of the last several decades. So that is one facet of the anger. But there is more.

Alberta has ridden the tides of an uncertain resource sector before (and seems to have learned very little from it). The anger seems stronger, louder now. This, I think is where the fear comes in.  Many of us have been suggesting that this will not be like other cycles because the big boom will not come back like it has before. Others have been refusing to admit that this is a possibility. I think there is a very real fear that the big boom will not come back and we have no plan for something to replace it. There is fear that new pipelines either will not get completed and opened or that if the pipelines [which for years we have been told will bring back the golden goose] do come on stream the boom still will not come back [personally I more than half-believe this is why Kinder-Morgan cancelled the Trans-Mountain pipeline which the federal government (who we are told does not support the industry) the bought to try and keep it on track -- they no longer believed they would make the money they wanted off the project.] And when people are afraid they get angry at the very thing they are afraid of.

A lot of what I have heard over the last few years, from a variety of sources, has had fear in it. Some have tried to quell the fear. Some have tried to ramp it up and focus it into anger at "them". Some have tried to say there is nothing to fear, that the boom will still come back like it always has. Still the fear is out there. I think it is justified. I think people are afraid of losing their livelihoods, that people are afraid of us not being what we were. I also think they may have reason to be afraid. I do hope that we find a better way of meeting those fears than we have thus far.

I have a sense that most commentators and analysts will agree thus far. Theses are obvious sources of anger. But recently (as i the last few weeks and months I have seen something uglier growing. Jealousy.

Alberta is jealous of other provinces, most especially Quebec. This has been true for a long time. Alberta is jealous of Quebec's special status -- not because they believe Quebec should not have it but because they don't. Alberta is jealous that other provinces (and especially Quebec) get more in transfer payments under the federal equalization program. Alberta is jealous that Alberta is not seen as the best province in the country. Alberta is mad that Alberta does not get special treatment because of its economic contributions to the country. This, I think, is a large part of what has fed a long-term feeling of Western alienation (long term as in most of the province's history) and the occasional popping up of separatist movements (WCC when I was younger, Wexit now). It is also a jealousy that was once harnessed by Preston Manning' Reform Party and is now being harnessed by Premier Kenney's "Fair Deal" campaign (though I have yet to see what exactly he thinks "fair deal" means -- I hunch it means Alberta gets what Alberta wants). Federalism is a challenge in a country as big and diverse as Canada. And as a person whose preferred model of federalism is a much stronger central government I often find myself out of step with much of the country. But jealousy of what others have, or what we think they have, or what we think they should not have, does not help.

There is another piece of jealousy I am seeing, one that is more concerning to my heart. It is not a new think but in times where we are told we need economic restraint it is very divisive.  Jealousy of other Albertans. Jealousy because some have union contracts to protect them when others did not. Jealousy that some have jobs and others have lost theirs. I sense a lot of this in the ongoing debate around who has it better -- public sector or private sector workers. Right now, as we live into a provincial budget that some of us see as a disaster in the making (others see it as a much needed corrective) this jealousy is getting played out full force. And it makes people angry -- on both sides. It creates a "with us or against us" sensation. It gets in the way of having real discussions about what the best way forward is.

[For the record I believe firmly that the best way forward for Alberta's budget is to take a hard look at our revenue problem which is to blame for where we are. I have these dreams of what could have happened if 40 years ago we had not fallen victime to the myth of high services on low taxes]

But right now the fear and the jealousy and the anger are driving what passes for debate in this province. And it is getting us nowhere fast. Many of us have strong opinions on where to go next. Many of us have trouble allowing the opposite point of view speak to our hearts and minds. All of us go around trying to find data to back up our point of view -- which always reminds me of the quote usually ascribed to Mark Twain There are 3 types of lies: lies, damned lies, and statistics. We have to find a better way. Jealousy and fear and anger, being used the way they are currently, will only poison the well.

Luckily I am, in theory at least, a person of hope rather than despair, of love rather than fear, of common good over individualism -- some days better than others.

Of Energy, and Economics, and Ecology...

Alberta has been, for several decades now, a carbon-based economy. [Actually I would argue that the global economy is pretty much carbon based, but for some of us the base is much more obvious.] The extraction and sale of oil and natural gas has been a major, if not the main, driver of economic activity in the province for my whole lifetime.

Which has meant for some very heady years. There have bee times when money was coming in so quickly governments appeared incapable of managing it well. And then the price of oil would crash and the provincial economy sputtered. Soaring heights to deep crash has been the rule, despite the fact that for the last 30+ years there has been an ongoing discussion about the need to diversify the economy, to get off the oil royalty roller-coaster, to provide a bit more stability to provincial economics and finances. (Though to be honest it always appears to me that the diversification discussion only happens in earnest during the crash when money to support new initiatives is tight and then the price of oil swings back up and people are too busy to do anything but surf the wave.)

And then there is the ecological issue. Carbon-based climate change can be a touchy subject in a carbon-based economy -- especially when said economy is struggling. Anything that seems to place obstacles in the way of such a major piston in the economic engine is portrayed as dangerous, reckless, unfeeling... And yet in a social climate where there is more and ore pressure to address climate change the image of Alberta has not always been positive -- like when the area around the Athabasca Oilsands projects (think Fort McMurray) was compared to Mordor. The more people in Alberta politics and in the oil industry (not all but some) insisted that things had to keep happening "the way they always have" the harder it was for Alberta politicians and business leaders to sell new pipelines to get our key commodity to market (which was self-defeating in the end). Even with ten years of a very oil-friendly Prime Minister in office major pipeline projects were stalled.

18 months ago we had an election. And for the first time in over 40 years elected a new governing party. This happened to be in the midst of one of the biggest slumps in the oilfield in recent decades. The new government has not automatically been doing business as usual (which means they are blamed for the ongoing struggle of the economy although I firmly believe the Alberta economy would be in much the same shape no matter which party was in government, possibly worse if a strongly fiscal party was in power and slashing spending). One of the things they have done was bring in a Carbon Tax (the official term is levy but let us call a spade a spade), which took effect as we took one calendar off the wall and put the new one up for 2017. It is a two step process, this year Carbon emissions are tagged at $20/tonne and effective January 1, 2018 the price will increase to $30/tonne. It is also worth noting that if the province did not do this a carbon price would come into effect next year anyway under the Federal government plan.

The basic premise of carbon pricing is that if we make emitting carbon more expensive then people will emit less. Which is actually very sound in theory (and has been shown to make a difference in British Colombia which has had a carbon price for years and in Newfoundland where they raise the gas tax substantially last year). I am just not sure that we have found the price point which spurs that change. I remember a discussion 10 years ago (or longer) when a group from the congregation watched An Inconvenient Truth followed by some debriefing.  At that time gasoline was climbing above $1/liter, which was seen as a sort of bellwether event. People were commenting on how much more expensive travelling was going to be but when asked if that meant they would travel less the answer was no... The Alberta Carbon Tax/Levy raises the price of gasoline by $0.049/L and diesel by $0.0535/L Will that make people change driving habits in what is, to be honest, a very car-centered culture? Time will well.

As one could have predicted, the new tax/levy is less than popular. (Seriously, when has a new or increased tax been warmly welcomed, even if people agree it is needed?) It does have the potential to raise the cost of living, in a time when large numbers of people are unemployed and struggling to make ends meet. But I don't believe it to be the harbinger of doom that the more conservative voices in the province insist it is.

To begin with, low an middle-income Albertans will automatically (assuming they filed their income tax last year) qualify for a rebate that the province estimates will cover the added costs for gasoline and natural gas. True, tying it to income tax returns means that there may be a year lag for some whose income changed drastically over this last year (same thing happened years ago when Alberta has a health care premium and the subsidy was also tied to income tax returns) but at the same time this lag may mean that people will get a payment a year later than when their income falls within the guidelines. And the rebate is just issued, it is not tied to what you actually spend so if you ARE able to cut down on your emissions (and admittedly some/many people will not be able [or will choose not] to do so) you could conceivably make money on the deal. The next step is to provide some money to assist/incentivize folks to install higher efficiency lighting or furnaces and so on to help cut down emissions.

The uncertain part of the cost equation are the indirect costs. The rebate is aimed to cover the direct costs associated with the tax/levy (and some will debate if that does so effectively or if the income cut off is in the right spot). But there will be costs to businesses that will almost inevitably be passed on to the consumer. Calculating those is apparently a real wide field. I have seen numbers that differ by a factor of 3. But in the end I am leaning towards the lower numbers. As one person pointed out is a FB post that was widely shared:
Assume a fully loaded semi uses 1 liter of fuel per kilometer (because this makes the math really easy). That increases the cost to ship that load by $0.0535 per kilometer, or $5.35 per 100 kilometers. Now a fully loaded semi will have cargo worth several thousand dollars. Dividing the extra cost amongst the value of the load means that the per unit cost is pretty darn low.

Then you add in the fact that the  federal government made it clear that the presence of a climate plan in Alberta was a part of what led them to approve two pipeline projects last month and it is really hard to sell the tax/levy as the economy killer some claim it is (want it to be so they can be right?).

But there is a bigger picture question to me.

How do we determine what the "fair/right/proper" price for energy is?

Is it simply the cost of production and distribution (plus a bit of profit)?
OR do you factor in a price for ecological issues? Because there is no sch thing as totally clean energy. In the long run I lean to the latter, though that is a hard thing to calculate. A price on carbon is one way to do that (though there is still the need to figure out a price associated with the changing of a waterway [hydro] or a nuclear plant or the land use of a wind farm or solar array [to be honest a solar array can be piggy backed on many other land uses].

I am not convinced that a price on carbon is the best or only way to address climate change. I am convinced it is a good one. I am not convinced it will do irreparable damage to the economy. I do know that for a variety of reasons (both political and ecological) we can not continue to do things the way we always have (and I am equally convinced that the Official Opposition in this province wants to do exactly that.

So in the end I support the Carbon Tax/Levy. As a start to how we change the world. But there are miles to go before we sleep...

NaBloBoMo -- Climate and Politics

Yesterday the Provincial Government announced its plan for reducing greenhouse gas emissions.

In the past governments in this province have been less than active on this point.  In a world where people have, for years, been calling for reduced TOTAL emissions I have heard more than one Alberta government talk about reducing emissions on a per barrel rate.  Which means that total emissions would in fact RISE due to the ongoing and (at the time) rapid growth in the oil industry.

Yesterday's plan is much more aimed at total emissions.

Among the pillars:

• eliminating coal-fired power generation by 2030.  very ambitious given that a high percentage of power in this province is coal-fired
• replacing 2/3 of that coal-fired generation with renewable sources
• a carbon-tax of $20 per tonne in 2017, rising quickly to $30 per tonne.
• revenue from the carbon tax to be reinvested in anti-pollution measures and to be used to offset the load the carbon tax will place on lower income Albertans

I am still trying to decide the merits of this plan.

Certainly it is better than past "plans".  But there are concerns.

IT is one thing to talk about replacing coal-fired generation.  It is another thing (and often a very expensive thing) to actually do it.  And that may (likely will) lead to higher power costs.

Same with the carbon-tax.  THis plan has it applied to everything--home heating, gasoline/diesel.  Which means it will raise the costs of everything.  NOt just the stuff you buy directly but everything.  Because all those businesses whose costs go up will pass the costs on.

And the reality is that lower income folk not only have less "unassigned" money to spend but they are also more vulnerable to these increases for other reasons.  If you have lower income you can less afford to redo your house to improve the insulation or add solar panels or..... You are more likely to drive an older vehicle. You are less likely to be able to replace your furnace/hot water heater/major appliances with more efficient ones.  And so you pay the cost of using more carbon....

But then again.  I have long believed that if we are honest we have to admit we have not actually been paying the full cost of energy.  Because how do you assign a financial cost to the ecological costs of burning emissions, or of a changed water flow, or of nuclear waste.  There is no such thing as "clean" energy -- just a different form of "dirty".  Maybe a carbon-tax is one way of doing it?

And maybe the best way to encourage people to change is to give them a financial incentive?

There is another piece to this.

One of the handicaps the Alberta oil industry has is that we are landlocked.  Our producers need the goodwill of neighbouring jurisdictions to get their product to market, preferably through pipelines (which are most definitely safer and more efficient than rail or truck).  But because Alberta has a history of preferring economic growth over acting on climate change there is a sense that this gets in the way of that goodwill.  One of the  hopes is that making strong action on the file will not only make a difference in the health of the climate and the health of Albertans but will also help create that goodwill for future discussions on pipeline projects -- because Alberta will still have an economy largely dependent on the oil industry for some time to come, even if this round of diversification talk bears more fruit than ever other round over the last 30+ years.  This is why it was deemed necessary this be announced before the upcoming international climate change summit.

THere have been some of the expected naysayers.  There is a (common) complaint that to make these sorts of changes and announcements when the economy is in decline is "kicking a man when he's down".  On the other hand, experience has shown that there is a distinct lack of drive to do it when things are booming and growth is exploding either.  And again, sometimes we need a driver to push us to change.  Those are more present when times are tougher.

The interesting thing is that the industry appears to be on-side (yes that link IS from an oil company presser, but I can't find a link to the article I read this afternoon).  Not sure what that means....

NaBloPoMo -- Ministry in a Resource Town

A couple of weeks ago I was asked to take part in the annual newcomers event for clergy in Alberta Northwest Conference.  This is part of the request:

Thank you for agreeing to be one of our “Hinterland Who’s Who participants for our upcoming Newcomer’s Orientation to Alberta and Northwest Conference.

We are connecting with you to talk about ministry in a  resource-based community setting.

The questions we would ask you to ponder are as follows:

2.       How is the mission and ministry of your Pastoral Charge unique

a.       What particular social, political, physical dynamics influence the life and work of your Pastoral Charge?

Which was an interesting challenge.  Because while this is at heart a resource-based community it has also developed a wider economic base due to the fact that it is a regional center.  This means a larger amount of government and retail activity in addition to agriculture, forestry and petroleum.  It also provides a degree of insulation from the vagaries of being a community that almost solely relies on resource-based industry (especially those that rely on one particular resource and/or company).

The interesting thing for me was to compare the 2 resource-based communities where I have served.  One has been dwindling since the mine closed over 30 years ago, sort of propped up by a coal-fired power plant and some forestry -- until the forestry industry went off a cliff a few years back.  The other, where I am now, is actively growing -- the last municipal census showed an increase of almost 40 000 since 1994, which is a more than doubling of the population -- buoyed by the petroleum industry (mainly natural gas rather than crude oil). One has a greying population and under-subscribed schools, the other is one of the youngest cities in the country (majority of the population under age 39) with schools that are full or overfull. One where property values are, at best, stagnating (or outright falling), another where vacancy rates last year were maybe 1% and rents were soaring (our house has gained almost $20 0000 in civic-assessed value in 5 years--which may or may not show up in actual market value)  Resource-based can mean different things, depending on where in the lifespan of the resource one is.

But there are definite similarities.  Ministry with families with absent parents.  Maybe because the local industry is defunct and one parent (often father) is working "away" for weeks at a time and then home for a week (which can have interesting effects on family life).  Or maybe because the industry is hopping and one or both parents are working long hours and lots of overtime.  For the church this may mean having to re-think what we expect (or more accurately hope to expect) from working people in terms of time available for church work.

ANd then there is the balancing act between eco-theology and economics.  I mean I know that in the end everybody had to walk that line (though some show more awareness of this fact than others) but when you are living and working with people whose jobs are on the line it hits a bit closer.  As mentioned above, my previous ministry setting relied heavily on a coal-fired power station.  Then the provincial government announced they were closing all the coal-fired power stations. Which I agreed with in theory (I had issues with some of the logic used) but was going to be potentially crippling to the town. (I wrote a bit about this when I first started this blog 10 years ago). Or living in a petro-province when your denomination comes out against pipelines, or when the national body decides (in the middle of a strong downturn) to divest of stocks in oil and gas companies.  Again decisions I largely supported in theory and philosophy but had poor optics in some parts of the community.  Fine line to walk indeed.

And of course it is the church.  When times are good and when times are bad we worry about numbers (people and dollars).  We wonder why there are so many people who are on our mailing list but not in the pews.  We worry about how we can fund what we feel called to do, whether that is maintaining the status quo because we are shrinking or plateauing or reaching out to a growing community and trying to find new ways to be the church in their midst.  Maybe the question is "can we still afford full-time ministry?" or maybe it is "can we increase to 1.5 or 2 positions?" but the problem is the same.  How can we be the church God is calling us to be?

An Open Letter to the Leaders of Alberta's Political Parties

Friends,
A week from tonight we will be listening to hear the results of the day's voting being announced.  Which means that we have had now 3 weeks of official electioneering (and at least a couple months of unofficial before that).  Things are heating up.

Over the last 3 weeks I have heard a lot of rhetoric.  Some I have liked, some I have strongly disliked, a lot I have pretty much ignored.  I have heard promises to balance the budget, to take care of Albertans, to improve the education and health systems.  I have heard people willing to actually discuss and a lot of people who were unwilling or unable to move off of designated talking points and enter into real discussion.  But I have not heard something I think very improtant.

If you are graced with the support of the most MLAs and so given the task of heading a government how will your government move to lift all Albertans out of poverty.  How will you ensure that every man, woman, and child in this province has safe and secure housing, a secure food supply, appropriate access to medical care (meaning both those things covered under Alberta Health Care and those things that are not--prescriptions, dental care, eye care...).  You all say you want to make Alberta a better place to live.  Often in my life I have heard about the "Alberta advantage" (which in reality was possibly more mythical than real in my experience).  A province that eliminates poverty, a province where all people have enough to live safely and comfortably.  Now that is something that is a true advantage.

And in the end lifting all Albertans out of poverty will help you accomplish your other goals.  It will grow the economy by leaps and bounds simply because people will be able to purchase things.  It will improve the efficacy of our education system because well-nourished children make for better students.  It will ease pressure on the health care system because living in poverty often has dire consequences for one's physical, emotional, and mental health.

You all want to make Alberta the best province to live in.  I take you at your word (even if I often disagree with your idea of what that means and how to get there).  A province with nobody living in poverty would be the envy of the rest of the country.  So how will you do it.

You have a week to tell me...

Tax REform....

At lunch time yesterday I heard this story.  IT is a proposal to introduce a Provincial goods and service tax to Alberta in the name of reducing corporate and personal income taxes.

Now I am not opposed to consumption taxes.  I think they have a role in the tax system.  But this proposal is not the right solution for Alberta at this time.  In fact this proposal would COST people at the lower end of the spectrum, the people currently not paying income tax at all money.  It would, in fact RAISE their taxes.  And I can almost guarantee that the proposed tax credit would be less than the amount people would pay out over the year.

The better cure for the Alberta tax system is to dump the (very bad, benefits the high income earners) flat tax and return to a graduated tax system.  And then maybe you can legitimately raise the personal exemption so more Albertans are not paying income tax (although I would question raising it as high as they are suggesting).


But in the end it is pretty much political suicide in Alberta to try and introduce a consumption tax.  So I suspect this will go on a shelf somewhere and collect dust.

Serendipity....

Today there was a consultation in town.  The topic--homelessness.

Normally I would not go to a day long meeting the first day back from a week of vacation time.  But this seemed like an important event to attend (and I find it notable that I was one of only 2 clergy in attendance -- and the other may well have been there as much because his church runs an affordable housing building) so I went, having done most of my "Monday work" on Saturday to allow for it.

But there is something terribly serendipitous about attending a meeting on homelessness this week.  Why you ask?  Well here are my early sermon thoughts for the week, and here are my liturgical bits for the week.  The gospel passage includes the line "you always have the poor with you", which sadly many people have taken as freedom to merely accept the reality and inevitability of poverty. 

As people of faith, how do we live with the reality of winners and losers, the reality that our stewardship of God's abundance has be grossly uneven, the reality that while some have more than they could use others across town are seeking a cot in the warming centre so they have a place to sleep for the night?

Hard questions.  But the day will inform my sermon this week.  And I came out with a great quote "Poverty is what happens when people stop caring for one another". 

Urban Sprawl

Central Alberta has some great farmland.  Rich topsoil, a good mix (on average) of heat and moisture.  So why are we living out Joni Mitchell's song Big Yellow Taxi?

In the 15 years since I last lived in St. Albert several whole new subdivisions (with overly large and over priced houses) have sprung up, with more planned.  The city annexed a huge amount of land to the north a few years back -- I often comment on how much stuff is there that was a LONG way out of town before.  Same to the West of town.  Areas where I once rode my bike along gravel roads with fields beside them are now paved roads with developed lots.

Last week when we were down in the Edmonton area this story hit the paper.  12 000 hectares.  Most of which is currently active farmland.  More area where utilities and water lines and sewer (storm and sanitary) pipes will need to be run.  More area of asphalt and buildings and lawns.  On some high quality farmland.

It happens all over.  Grande Prairie has plans to annex land.  Calgary has done it many times.  ANd even without the annexations by cities the counties and municipal districts are rezoning land to residential and industrial.  And often marginal farmland is also marginal for other uses (poor drainage, swampy, rock outcrops etc) so more farmland gets taken away from the plow or the pasture.  Or more bush land is cleared away and the brush burned...

We need to find a better way.  Maybe higher density neighbourhoods are part of the solution?  Maybe redevelopment of existing neighbourhoods?  Possibly, but before that in politically acceptable we have to change some attitudes about how we live and what we "deserve".  Until then we will continue to "pave paradise and put up a..." [parking lot, mall, subdivision, freeway, school, industrial park...]

Chocolate Choices... (A letter to the editor)

In two weeks it will be Valentine's Day. Roughly 6 weeks after that it will be Easter. What food comes to mind for those two celebrations? If you are anything like me it is chocolate (the more the better).

But chocolate comes with a cost. And I don't mean the extra waistline.

Were you aware that a large percentage of the world's chocolate production relies on slave labour in the growing and harvesting of the cocoa beans? If you had a choice would you buy chocolate that came from sources that paid their labour a fair, living wage?

Such a choice is possible. Rather than tell you what to buy I ask that you Google “fair trade chocolate” and read for yourself about the issue. If we continue to support companies that do not pay attention to how their raw materials are produced then we enable them to continue to profit off the lives of others. It can even be said that we ourselves are accomplices in the modern slave trade.

This year, as we feed our chocaholism (and I am definitely an addict) may we all pause and consider where our chocolate comes from. And maybe we have the power to choose to support fair labour practices and fair prices. Who is in it with me?

I just finished this book to day. At 165 pages (plus notes) it is a relatively short read But it is a very worthwhile read for anyone who has doubts about the so-callled economic recovery plans currently being peddled by our governments.

Rubin questions if we can really expect to return to "life as usual" given the state of oil supply and demand. ANd he outlines a very believable picture of why we can't and what that means.

IT is a book with some uncomfortable "truths". But many of us know and understand that the uncomfortable truths are often the most important ones in the end.

Easter Thoughts

We'll never walk on water if we're not prepared to drown,
body and soul need a soaking from time to time.
And we'll never move the gravestones if we're not prepared to die,
and realize there are worlds outside the lines
chorus of of "My Love Colours Outside the Lines" by Gordon Light, 1995

This year I have ended up with a sermon series on resurrection. On Easter Sunday we went with fear. Because after all there is a lot of fear in the Easter stories. And there is a lot of fear in the world. And there is a lot of reason for it. But then again the cure for fear is faith. the cure for the fear of death is to embrace the possibility of resurrection. In the face of all that deals death to our churches, our employers, our security the cure is resurrection.

Last week was woundedness. One of the recurring images in the Easter story is that the Risen Christ bears the wounds of crucifixion. And those of us who follow a resurrection faith bear the wounds and scars of our lives with us. Those wounds can limit and restrain us if we let them. The scars from these wounds can bind. OR the wounds can teach us and give us wisdom. But we have to admit that we bear them. Resurrection is continuous with death and life before death.

And tomorrow is is resurrection and transformation. Another recurring image in the Easter stories is that the Risen Christ is hard to recognize. Obviously resurrection is more than/different from the mere revivification of the crucified body of the man Jesus. There is something transforming about it. And let us all be honest. Most of the time we want revivification or resuscitation. We want the comfortable and the familiar to be brought back.

But as people of Easter faith our hope is in transformation. We don;t hope for the rebirth of what was but of the birth of God's New Thing. We hope for transformation of our churches, our communities, our world. And so we don't push for things to be "like they once were" but for new life to come in totally new and unexpected ways.

Unfortunately that hope is harder. But who promised that following The Way would be the easy path?

Open LEtter to the Prime Minister of Canada

April 22, 2009
Right Honourable Stephen Harper PC MP
Prime Minister of Canada
80 Wellington Street
Ottawa ON K1A 0A3

Prime Minister Harper:
As I sit down to write this letter there are three things on my mind. One is the economic struggle in which Canada, and the rest of the world, finds itself these last several months. In fact my area of residence has been experiencing severe economic difficulties for around 18 months now. Another thing on my mind is the season. We are in the season of spring with its promise of new growth and rebirth. Along with this rests in my mind the story that Christians around the world gathered to tell just 10 days ago. The Easter story is one of new life, transformation, and the conquering of death. The third item on my mind is the fact that today is Earth Day, a day when we are challenged to think about the impact we have on the environment around us.

As I combined these three things this morning it occurred to me that they are related. Arguably the economic model under which we have been operating for the last several decades is dead, or at least mortally wounded. We need a resurrection so that we can move ahead. But a resurrection is not found by pumping money into the old model and attempting some sort of economic defibrillation. The resurrection many Canadians celebrate this season is the beginning of something new, of a transformed new life instead of a continuation of the old life.

And so I am writing you to encourage a new perspective on economic stimulus spending. Rather than funding industries and businesses under formulae around jobs created/saved or good return on investment I encourage your government to fund industries and businesses based on their commitment to a new way of living and working. In the context of Earth Day I urge that all governmental grants go to companies pledging to operate under strictly “green” conditions. There are many ways I could see that happening.

It is my belief that the old economic model is deadly to our well-being as people and the existence of the planet. But I believe life is stronger than death. I believe if we are willing to embrace transformation great things can happen. Canada can become a leader in the development of a green economic model. All it takes is the will to make it so.

Thank you for your time.
Peace,

Cc:
Hon. Michael Ignatieff, Leader of Her Majesty’s Loyal Opposition
Hon. John Rafferty, MP Thunder Bay – Rainy River
Thunder Bay Chronicle Journal
Atikokan Progress

Read This Book!

OK, I know that sounds a little pushy. But really, do yourself a favour and read this book!

I just finished it. It is a long (436 pp) read but a fairly easy one. Or maybe a deceptively easy one because while the text is easily accessible it gives you a lot to think about.

THe book sells itself as an antidote to the despair and angst of much climate-change discussion. Not that it belittles the issue. Indeed Turner sees the issue as a matter of survival. But rather than tear his hair and weep he goes out to find the signs of sustainable living that are already out there.

From the product description at Amazon:

With a mix of front-line reporting, analysis and passionate argument, Chris Turner pieces together the glimmers of optimism amid the gloom and the solutions already at work around the world, from Canada’s largest wind farm to Asia’s greenest building and Europe’s most eco-friendly communities. But The Geography of Hope goes far beyond mere technology. Turner seeks out the next generation of political, economic, social and spiritual institutions that could provide the global foundations for a sustainable future–from the green hills of northern Thailand to the parliament houses of Scandinavia, from the villages of southern India, where microcredit finance has remade the social fabric, to America’s most forward-thinking think tanks.

Seriously, I heartily endorse this book. It needs to be read. It's content needs to be embraced. It's hope needs to be transformed into reality.

Time for a new model?

My first book for 2009 will be this one. I really like it! Of course that may be partly because I agree with the anti-consumerist message behind it.

My struggle with all the discourse about how to solve the current economic difficulty in which we find ourselves has been that it only works if one buys the consumerist message that undergirds our system.

All we are being told is that we need to free up credit and put more cash into people's pockets so that they will spend more and thereby "fix" the problem. OF course this hopes you forget that a great many North Americans are excessively in debt already and the last thing they need is more credit. It also hopes nobody points out that many of the things out there are things that we don't really need, or need to replace.

If the only cure for what ails us is to do more of what got us here. Then maybe we need a new cure. Maybe an economic model that isn't based on us all needing to buy the latest toy at the lowest price and who cares if you can't afford it--just get another credit card!

HArdly a week goes by that we don't get at least one "you have been pre-approved" mailing. I remember once when one of us was gently telling a telemarketer we had no desire for a new credit card because we wouldn't have extra cash to pay it off the response was "but you don't have to pay it all at once, and the interest rate is really low". The system as it stands is broken. It is up to the church to help find a new way of defining what the system could be. Books like this are a good place to start. I encourage y'all to read it.

Development Options

One of the challenges faced by small resource-based communities is that their economies are incredibly fragile. All it takes is the resource (or the industry around it) to collapse and the community economy is put under severe strain. This is what is happening in much of this area.

One of the possibilities for another economic engine around here is a TV project currently in development. I have been asked, an hve agreed, to serve on a local committee working on the project.

Check it out here!

Dion, Harper, and the Carbon Tax

Prime Minister Stephen Harper pulled no punches on Friday in describing a carbon tax proposal by Liberal Leader Stéphane Dion, saying it would "screw everybody" across Canada.
...
Harper said the plan would be worse than the old national energy program introduced under the government of Pierre Trudeau in 1980, which still sparks fury among many Western Canadians to this day.
"It is like the national energy program in the sense that the national energy program was designed to screw the West and really damage the energy sector — and this will do those things," Harper said. "This is different in that this will actually screw everybody across the country.
"That is really what the Liberal Party is proposing and I hope that it won't fool Canadians."

From CBC.ca

My, what a surprise, Stevie doesn't like the Liberal Green plan. And how coincidental that he chooses to play to the energy industry while standing in an energy-rich province (and of course he has that big Alberta power base).
But is there a bit of a politics-as-usual feel to this? Or is it just me? And what was Harper's green plan again?????

Mind you, there are a number of us, even from Alberta, who think there was some good ideas in the old NEP--things like making energy rich provinces share with the rest of the country. And this plan at least makes an attempt at putting the real cost of energy use/production on the table.

Green Communities

At the end of a meeting yesterday we got into a discussion about growth and possbilities for the future of the town. As a part of that we talked about what it would mean to be a Green Community.

I know that there are some communities in Scandinavia that have made that designation. But I don't know what it means. While I will need to do some research before these discussions go more in depth (which I think they will, given one of the people involved). I realized there are people who read these ramblings on a regular basis (for some reason anyway) and they may (would) have some wisdom on the topic.

What do you think a Green Community would look like? What would be the defining characteristics?

I am thinking that carbon neutrality would be a part, a big part. and green space. and discussions around chemical use. and no plastic bags. and...?

Finding a Balance...

Early this morning I went to a town hall meeting sponsored by the Ontario Forestry Coalition.

As the link shows, they are currently fighting over the implementation of the new Endangered Species Act in the province. They declare this to be a death knell for the forestry industry (by my count this is at least the 5th death stroke for that industry since I arrived here 7 years ago).

AS I listened to their spin on the story (and attempted to remain critical) I have to say that they have some valid points. There are ill-defined terms, there is an overly onerous burden of proof placed on the industry. But it also sounded an awful lot like "we don't mind caring for species at risk but as long as it doesn't cost us too much" (yes the industry has made strides towards being more responsible that is undeniable). IT was sort of a variation on things like "change is fine as long as I don't have to change" or "not in my backyard". ANd that doesn't help their case.

The most striking part of their presentation was their admission that the forestry industry totally misunderstood the rules of the game. THey seemed to be surprised that the environmental lobby played the political pressure "special interest group" game and won. Note to forest industry -- if you don't play you don't win, a promise (written or oral) from a cabinet minister just doesn't mean a guaranteed victory.

But in the end, here is the big problem. I don't believe that current forestry asumptions around sustainability are going to hold true. Some climate change models move us right out of the boreal forest. THere does need to be a balance between environment and economics. But we aren't even close to finding that balance, especially when the future environment is so uncertain.

Oh and it also strikes me that humans are a terribly arrogant species. In general we assume that our "rights", wants and needs trump those of all other species. THen when someone suggests that we need to find a balance we call UNFAIR!

We Need A Little Resurrection

We in the church are now in the middle of the 50 days of the Easter season. And so I find my thoughts turning to resurrection. At the same time I am listening to the level of anxiety and worry around town and it really seems like we in TOwn-on-the-Small-River could use a little resurrection these days.

But at the same time I am not totally convinced that resurrection is what people are looking for. What people are looking for is the sale and restart of Particle-Board MAker, the restart of Lumber-Mill, a return to what was. That is not resurrection. That is resuscitation. When we think of giant defibrillator paddles being placed on the economy and shocking it back to life we are talking about resuscitation, not resurrection. Resurrection is something different.

One of the biggest challenges about resurrection is that it means transformation. The Easter stories in the Gospel make it clear that people had trouble recognizing the Risen Christ. In a very real way the man they met in the garden or on the road to Emmaus was different from the man they had seen led out to be killed. It was not just life being breathed back into the old body and the stopped heart restarted. Jesus had been transformed; the new life after Easter was not the same as life before the cross.

The same can be said for Jesus’ followers. Before they experienced resurrection they were afraid, hiding, certain they would be next for the cross. Afterwards they were filled with strength and courage, able to launch a movement that would reach from a tiny Roman province to the center of the world and beyond. The transformation was complete and world-changing.

What are we looking for here in TOwn-on-the-Small-River? Is our hope only that the different streams of resource extraction will start up again? Are we really looking for a resuscitation of mining and forestry or are we open for resurrection? Opening up to transformation is always risky. Opening up to change means letting go of what once was. But those of us who share Christian faith are people who believe in resurrection. We believe that even when all hope should be gone, there is still hope. We believe that God is doing a new thing in our midst.

What might resurrection’s transformation bring to TOwn-on-the-Small-River? Only a fool would try to make a complete prediction. True transformation is remarkably hard to predict or even to plan. We who believe in resurrection’s transformation are not called to spark or guide its’ happening. Our task is to open our hearts and minds for new possibilities and realities.

We need some resurrection here and now. We need some new life and new hope. But we need to decide if we will settle for a rebirth of the old and familiar or if we are willing to accept transformation. We need to decide if we want resurrection or resuscitation. Resuscitation will keep us going for a while but in the long term hope comes with the dawn of resurrection and transformation. And take heart, God will walk with us on the long road of transformation, leading us with hope and promise.