5/24/2012

POST FIVE AND SIX : change


May 22nd, 100th day
I was thinking of them, at the Berlin Art Biennale
I was thinking of them, in front of the Berlin Wall
I was thinking of them, at the Stasi museum
I was thinking of them, in the berliner subway
I was thinking of them, taking the Berlin tram
I was thinking of them, of the repression they are facing

______________________________________________________
100th DAY AGAINST RISING TUITION FEES AND EDUCATION ACCESS
I have been thinking of our Quebec students, our children, friends, colleagues, citizens, unions, journalists, organizations, opposition parties, protestors, who have been walking for Education. Despite the repressive Special law 78, imposed by Charest's government on May 17th, (+/-) 250 000 (numbers vary from 200 to 300 thousand among sources) people marched collectively that day.  I have followed their route from Berlin and although far away, my steps were with them.  Perhaps it could also participate in some of our instructor's week 5 and 6 questions combined as : «Behind what issues and causes» do people stand to make this world more sustainable, more viable?
______________________________________________________

Laura Looks (1) had invited us, through Dr. Mark Jacquard's words to pronounce ourselves and to «develop the habit of devoting a few minutes a day or a half hour a week to writing sincere comments in the comments section under op-eds [for the matter she was talking of, which was a climate issue] (...) in the National Post, Globe and Mail and your local newspapers».  Dr. Jacquard had also explained why he was willing to «engage in civil disobediance and risk arrest» (2) in stopping a train in the Coal global warming issue. (I must say I couldn't believe the comments I read above the article. Well, actually I could. Students here received the same unfair bashing.) It led me to follow Jacquard and Laura's advice to briefly post on that matter as well, reading 13 people were arrested for peacefull civil disobedeance link. (Here 700 people since the law has past.)

But what motivates this week's post, was reading a newsletter Ysabel Viau (Montreal market communication specialist) (3), had posted in French on May 15th. Although it took the broader angle of Change, which we are all here concerned with, and was not -aimed- at the student's strike she added, but just published in this particular timing, I initially wrote to Ysabel intending to add it to comments on her blog page. (In French as well, but never managed to enter her worldpress comments, so I emailed Ysabel).

I fear it does not sound as precise in my English translation trying to cover the various points Ysabel Viau was making.  I do hope translating it kept the essence of my thoughts.  I then decided to make it my 5th (and 6th) post, in light of how I feel at the moment, for Education, for Quebec and being away.  Some of you might feel they share Ysabel's view more then my answer, since -protest- or activism (reading : non-violent), is a debate we have add in residency and I will be happy to read any comments you may have, if ever you have time to read both her opinion and then mine.  Ysabel's newsletter was posted a few days later on march 22nd, in the English Quebec newspaper the Gazette, the day of the march link>. A newspaper which has a neoliberal and conservative bias I visibly do not share.

I had no more success posting it in the Gazette where word count is limited. Although broader presented, I beleive the link with the actual Education debate was intended as part of the media coverage here proposed as well.  Two very different angles influencing the public opinion have been taking place in Quebec these past 3 months. 

______________________________________________________

Ysabel's title : You want change? Start with yourself
link to Ysabel's La Mercaticienne newsletter or in the Gazette.
«Today, in light of the recent ideological, economic and social turbulences that are shaking, rattling and humming my nation and those of many others, I borrow LA MERCATICIENNE’s forum to release a long-lived heartfelt cry. Thank you for allowing me to dare – Ysabel»

First line : «You’ve got a problem with the world today? Don’t scream, protest or manifest about it; do something to change your own ways first.» (Viau, 2012)
______________________________________________________
Here was my answer :
Dear Ysabel, dear friend,

What you say is absolutely right about the need to change our own habits, to responsabilise (empower) ourselves (4), and going through our own personal and collective lists, being fundamental. But there seems to lay, in the premise, an underlying feeling, almost like a statement, which I fear also often takes over the ambient debates or conversations.

Considering, with much humility, that my personal list is already checked in all the areas you suggest, I allow myself disagreeing with what –don't protest-, -stop whining- can suggest and encourage in terms of disengagement, providing an excuse not to mobilize. In my opinion, we must ALSO continue to protest, which for me, and perhaps a majority of societies and individuals, is far from «bitching and screaming and complaining» (3) but is meaningfully communicating and trying to defend ideas some refuse to hear. We must continue to protest against injustice, and walking on the streets is not «following herds» to me, but also a way to believe in the strength of community, of worldviews coming together, of sharing visions.  I am therefore so proud of our students (5), impressed with the support we have witnessed, the commitment from their teachers, their universities, Cegeps, their parents and grand parents, colleagues and children, several active or more silent members of our society, and of many communities who also believe  in access to education for all, to the responsibilities we have regarding our future generations. They have been everything but selfish. I am proud to claim and wear the red square myself.

It is of our governments that I am ashamed. In regards with everything that is proposed in your list. From education to tar sands, North Plan, fracking, poverty, or all the encouraged monopolies depleting our local communities. To those laws and regulations that relegate environmental health, health of our ecosystems, of the future generations that will follow to -neant-. My own list is too long, my heart's cry is as deep as yours. I chose to live in coherence with my beliefs (and uncertainties) in my daily life, and chose education to share them. But the day I would cease to protest, or to walk the streets defending rights that perhaps I have and others don’t, I will have given up. And yet, as you say, I always vote, simply not for the institutions who are making choices that are being imposed to all. As long as their will be unethical decisions that change our common future, I hope I will always refuse accepting. I feel privileged to know that alternatives exist (6), I support them, they protect other worldviews and ideas to the best of their abilities, they are also trying to "change the world." 


It is ALSO thanks to organizations, communities, artists, students, citizens, environmentalists, educators and individuals who mobilize, opposition parties who protest, defending rights, protecting others, and to communities coming together without having their own interests at heart, that things change. The change we need is a change of this anthropocentric mindset that governs us, which we are part of, at the detriment of impoverished societies, and that we accept, proof being that injustices still exist. We evolve and are part of a world that is lent to us and our responsibility to pass it on to the future generations with all of its social, cultural and environmental wealth is fundamental.

In this need for action to change your list proposes, we must also remember that there are communities on our planet that have nothing to barter, no Wall-Mart, no oil, no job, no right to unemployment, nor minimum wage, or car to get rid of. They do not over-consume, do not have the required minimum health care, and do not have the right to vote to change the world. Yet they take the pen or the streets, sometimes to the peril of their own lives in the name of  freedom for their siblings. It is also for them and with them that the need to continue –de nous indignez- as Stéphane Hessel says so strongly (7) in his field of protest. For the past 101 days now, in Quebec, I am thinking of our students, of our community, and of Henry David Thoreau (1849) (8) who would have encouraged them to civil disobedience, as a possible tool for meaningful change as well. (A word Amir Khadir, in his meaningful support to Education also used, most likely considered an illegal word now, in 2012, with law 78, in Quebec.)

Unfortunately, I am far, in Berlin, and I witness that a wall or another remains a universal symbol of misunderstanding, lack of listening to others, an ultimatum imposed by the strongest.

Lyne Lefebvre,
(high school friend, student, citizen, parent, teacher at L'École de design de l'UQAM)

______________________________________________________

Today, (after law 78 has been imposed, which I will accept prison for blogging on this :-), I am adding that my words of course, imply only myself.  And  I don't believe more then Ysabel, and neither did most of the students on strike for the past 3 months, or the 250 000 people who marched on Monday, in «breaking someone else’s possessions or hurting others just because I am mad as hell» (3).  I did not hear «bitching, complaining, blaming others, accusing, demeaning, or breaking» (3) by most our brilliant and respectful students. I saw a collectivity «tak(ing) responsibility. Tak(ing) it upon yourself (itself) to make your (our) world a better place» (3).  Like Ysabel concludes : «I believe in freedom» (3) too. 

The violence our government suggested through -some- media to discredit the peacefulness and non-violence of the majority of the actions and of the people this student strike has seen in 100 days was a manipulative shame.  It is interesting to know one of the 2 most present student leaders our government refused dialogue with, received one of the highest student distinction there is : the Lieutenant Governor’s medal for her academic excellence and her social involvement.  


(1) Looks, Ll (2012), Dr. Mark Jaccard takes a stand against imported Coal by Laura Loucks - Monday, 7 May 2012, 10:09 AM
(3) Viau, Y (2012, La Mercaticienne, and .Letter of the Day: You want change? Start with yourself, May 22, 2012 Gazette.
(4) Jonas, H. (1984), The altered nature of human action. The imperative of responsibility : In serach of an ethics  for the technological age. The University of Chicago Press, (pp. 1-24)
(5) L'école de la montagne rouge:  http://ecolemontagnerouge.com/derriere-mon-carre-rouge/
(6) Québec Solidaire : http://www.quebecsolidaire.net/evenement/2012-05/grande_manifestation_etudiante_100_jours_de_mepris_100_jours_de_resistance
(7) Hessel, S (2010). Indignez-vous !, Montpellier, Indigène éditions, collection « Ceux qui marchent contre le vent »
(8) Thoreau, H.D. (1997) La désobéissance civile : Mille et une nuits

______________________________________________________























______________________________________________________
 This post exceeding assignment word count quite a bit, I am making it my fifth and sixth post.
______________________________________________________

5/13/2012

POSTS THREE & FOUR. Tensions : economy & ecology






In Karl Marx Allee / photo : Lefebvre Berin, may 2102



_______________________________________________________ 
KARL MARX AND THE OWNERSHIP OF RESOURCES
(1818-1883)
This is partially intended as a summary for the 2.7 point : «Karl Marx and the Ownership of Resources», in Costanza’s Chapter 2 of an Introduction to Ecological Economics (1). Perhaps there is not much new to add of Karl Marx’s ideology without repeating everything history as already given us or deepening specific aspects.  But in times where we deeply need a shift of paradigm towards sustainable living, Marx’s analysis of how inequity of «concentration of land and capital» affected economy, as presented in Costanza, already addressed a key social dimension, which can be transposed in today’s sustainable equation. ( Even if Costanza’s conclusion points out the lack of environmental concern in Marx’s proposal -observation, which I will come back to…).

It is easy to agree that «the ownership of resources [can] affect(s) the path of development» (2) and from this observation, to foresee the eventual scarcity and resource depletion of non-renewable energy.  Furthermore, the ability, of ownership or private property, to affect economy and to slow down sustainable living considering they are owned or controlled by one, appears a logical deduction, although it has long been (and still seems) consciously ignored, as the author notes.  In terms of economy, land ownership can also reach Zane Parker’s identification of some of the failures of economy in term of «allowing one body to set prices market prices» (3) from monopoly, per example, or Hardin’s tragedy of the commons as well  (4).

(1, 2) Costanza, Robert et. al. (2007). Chapter 2: An Introduction to Ecological Economics. In Cutler J. Cleveland (Ed.), The Encyclopedia of Earth. Washington, D.C.: Environmental Information Coalition, National Council for Science and the Environment.
(3) Parker, Z. (n.d.). Course material : Lecture 2, week 4, RRU.
(4) Hardin, G. (1968). Tragedy of the commons. Science, 162 (3859), 1243-1248.



Costanza explains the links to be made between resource allocation or distribution of land, and economical efficiency. The distribution of rights and control of resources over to individuals or societies being directly related to possible ecological resource depletion from lack of vision or sustainable concerns.  He notes that «Peasants or others who work land and interact with biological resources owned by someone else have little incentive to protect them» (1), although I believe we should turn the initial responsibility of education and concern to the «owners» (considering there are owners of what otherwise be the common).

It is everywhere, visible, we have been well aware for decades, but I would witness this daily in Indonesia, where rice paddies usually -not owned by rice field workers- themselves.  Chemical fertilizing and pesticide use should fall under the land owner’s responsibility towards the soil and earth (thinking of Jonas’ «ownership of human responsibility»  (2)) as much as towards his workers.  Unfortunately, their long-term effect will directly affect the workers themselves, who therefore have no control over their own health, far form the mythical vision proposed from a narrow postcard visions we are often exposed too (taken they have no other economical choice). Was a landowner aware of the depletion of resources considered to be under his control to some extent, may it be the soil, ecosystem or human’s health through labor rights (last element which is more under Marx’s concerns), economical issues could misguide his conduct to ignore change, from not taking environmental and social costs/impacts in consideration.

(1) Costanza, Robert et. al. (2007). Chapter 2: An Introduction to Ecological Economics. 
(2) Jonas, H. (1984). Chapter 1: The altered nature of human action. The imperative of responsibility: In search of an ethics for the technological age (pp. 1-24). Chicago: The University of Chicago Press.






Rice paddy worker in Kenang Bali ( photo : Lefebvre 2102)

To make his point (as well as vulgarising Marx’s ideology) on the importance of resource distribution, the author uses the ethical, fair share idea of resource allocation upstream in opposition with unequal initial repartition of resources or land use and access, where therefore luxury living and poverty will cohabit, since inequity in the use of resources benefit the wealthy. As projects such as «design for the 90% of the rest of us»(1) propose solving, we must remember «the vast majority of the people on the globe still consume very little»(2) . Costanza’s article or analysis on the reasons to poverty seem fairly simplistic but are nevertheless true. The lack of «long-term access to resources» reduces possibilities for one to meet his fundamental needs. Aspiring to –better living- also often results in unsustainable choices, from lack of options, frequently merely having access to non-renewable energies.  Ancient, tropical or unprotected forests, still suffer both poverty and luxury needs, while being victim of poor repartition and «ownership of land».

Very similarly to Bullard’s and Bradford’s observations on environmental racism (3) and waste exposure (4), whom we read in previous course, Costanza also addresses the idea that the «poor and people of color bear a heavy share of the environmental costs of development», from living «near waste disposal sites (…) and polluted environments». «Excessive material and energy consumption» (5) remains the appanage of the few, the author also notes, and as Marx’s social views also condemned.  Although industrialized and wealthy countries’ use of resources causes most of our actual environmental crisis, from loss of biodiversity to global warming, they (we) are reluctant recognizing «the role of inequity in environmental degradation» (6). The author posits that our «understanding» of environmental impacts, unfair ownership and control transferred to a few, «are rooted in economic thinking»(5), emphasizing we –owe- much of that comprehension to Marx’s proposal, equity being key in environmental depletion and eventual sustainable development.

(3) Bullard, R. D. (1994). Overcoming racism in environmental decisionmaking. Environment, 36(4), 10-20, 39-44.
(4) Bradford, G. (1985, Winter). We all live in Bhopal. Fifth Estate, 19.
(1,4,5,6) Costanza, Robert et. al. (2007). Chapter 2: An Introduction to Ecological Economics. 

Other reading influences:
De Silva, L. (1987). The Buddhist attitude towards nature. In K. Sandell (Ed.), Buddhist Perspectives on the Ecocrisis. Kandy: Buddhist Publication Society. 
Dwivedi, O. P. (1990). Satyagraha for conservation: Awakening the spirit of Hinduism. In J. R. Engel & J. G. Engel (Eds.), Ethics of environment and development. London: Bellhaven Press.





Berlin wall remain, art and thoughts / (photo : Lefebvre 2012)



«Their ideological rejection of rent and interest as necessary prices, and their insistence on a labor theory of value were responsible for much of the environmental destruction in communist countries» (1).  It reminds me of the -who blames who- in Communer's article (2), which Liz Beattie «blogs about» nicely in a post (3).  But I feel important to see that Marx put the finger on an important tension within society (neo-classical capitalism (4)).  A «class» and ownership problem, where the wealthiest control the production of material goods and those who would have the task of producing these goods, considered to be the «lower class» (I put in brackets to hating to associate such words to people, just as casts do in Indonesia).  The author considers that Marxism and Communism, -although concerned with distribution equity-, did not solve the economical/ecological issues.  He goes further concluding they were responsible for much of the environmental destruction (in communist countries) because of valuing labor «that neglected nature’s contribution».

I understand (or extrapolate) the link the author wishes to make but find the equation a little… out of context perhaps. Marx, like many others until this day, simply did not understand, value or consider the –whole-, the link between social and environmental issues, consequences, roots and effects. Although as a Union representative for my University I have also been able to notice that environmental values and social ones don’t necessarily always go hand-in-hand for otherwise very engaged people on many levels, I dare think, was Marx alive today, he might do like many, and start considering environment as an important part of social equity, in his political agenda and socialist ideals.

(1,4) Costanza, Robert et. al. (2007). Chapter 2: An Introduction to Ecological Economics.
(2) Commoner, Barry. (1971). Chapter 1: The environmental crisis, and Chapter 2: The ecosphere . In The Closing Circle: Nature, Man, and Technology (pp. 5-48). New York: Knopf.
(3) Beattie, Liz (2012). The blame game, Sunday, 6 May 2012, 09:59 PM, course blog.

5/08/2012

POST TWO : Introduction, leisure and ecology?

Berlin, unknown artist, May 2012 / photo:lyne lefebvre

_______________________________________________________
INTENTION & PRESENTATION
I sense this blog assignment to be both a personal reminder of authors, subject content, forums exchanges covered throughout the course, accompanied with the thoughts they would evoke in brief reflexions form, which I hope will not have been covered too much, in my forum postings. Sharing along how these readings perhaps have found some resonance in my own -actuality-, should also be reflected, since this choice of the RRU online master was also meant to spend time living in various countries, to write and study and learn, physically away from many of my daily university teaching tasks and courses. The various posts will therefore fluctuate between academics with references, observations, daily life and places in a more freestyle approach if I may say, linked to the course's and my own ecological thoughts and preoccupations, perhaps drifting away with the flow of words, ideas, news, and course subjects now and then.

Berlin unknown artist collage on wall, May 2012 / photo:lyne lefebvre


CONTEXT
These privileged months and tome opportunity my boyfriend and I are offering ourselves were encouraged by our 3 kids, who are completing their own University programs. All of these elements combine and interweave in my -learning- and experience during this period and therefore will serve as posting material and pondering as well. Me studying, in English, my partner writing (French crime novels), made it possible for us to leave light, although having to seek good internet connection. Having lost so many close friends and beloved family members, younger and older to cancer these past 10 years, we also wanted our destinations to allow us to go visit family members and long time friends living far abroad. One of our previous RRU instructor Peta White had written a comment on journaling in the blog form a year ago that : « the thought of being read can sometimes/some how sensor what you want to really say » (PW, 2012).  Agreeing we do, I will try to keep in mind not to censure myself in this combination of academic and personal learning/sharing, hoping that it remains as fun as it aims to be constructive, building some sort of personal path or story, with the enlightenment of this Biosphere and Ecological Sustainability course.

(PW) Peta White20 June, 2011 11:24 AM)

LEISURE?
Spending all that time abroad, feeling so privileged, it felt I could be questioned by Vleben’s criticism of -leisure- (although I am working).  In Vleben’s criticism of conspicuous play, we can read that work is the blessing and all leisure is wasteful, although the -waste- and work degrees vary as decades change. But as Burl Jantzen (BJ, 2012) notes it perfectly well in forum, arts, music, and moments of leisure in all communities would perhaps not be considered -essentials- but they have often shown to be fundamental, needless to say I feel.  Although it is not -a- discovery, Mexican, Portuguese or Indonesian communities I have encountered recently, each integrated these dimensions as being central to their lives, and not only as leisure activities but as deeply spiritual, traditional and historical transmission and communication modes.  Liz Beattie (LB, 2012) expressed it very well also and reminded us «they were necessary for ancient life».  So should they be in modern life as well.  It feels it always has been valued in my family.  I will perhaps come back to my disagreement with Vleben's position on this as well, agreeing with my colleagues, in further posts.

Perhaps have we come to think that work is the way to live a fulfilled life, which could induce a sense of meaningfulness to some, while knowing it can serve as a -tool- for conspicuous consumption.  Although it is no real shift towards sustainability, I was still relieved to see that shopping apparels were all closed on Sundays in Berlin, as well as many in Bali, whenever their was a ceremony, as opposed to the never ending business hours found in Canada.

(BJ) Burl Jantzen - Saturday, 21 April 2012, 02:46 PM
(LB) Liz Beattie - Saturday, 21 April 2012, 04:18 PM


Montreal > France, 2012 / photo:lyne lefebvre

DRIFTING TO TRAVEL, ENVIRONMENT & CONTRADICTIONS.
All that traveling and what about ecology, sustainability? Living in a traveler's family and admitting loving it even if it hurts to say on an ecological engagement level, as Kieran Dowling (KD, 2012) was also suggesting in a forum, I relate to Kieran’s -part of guilt-, conscious that traveling -we don’t only do by canoe- (Anecdote in Siegel, n.d.).  But I can't bike or swim the ocean to family or to many foreign destinations. Therefore, for a few years now, I have adopted a way to try and reduce that GES impact I am responsible for, other then not going, agreeing with David Orr’s logic «that we can adequately restore that which we have dismantled» (Orr, 1991, p.4) is a myth. The thin line between -paying- for damage we consciously do, hoping to restore it a little, and abusive behavior in total awareness also opens another economical/ecological/ethical window to ponder upon. But I prefer considering the extra $ for carbon credits as a personal prerequisite for allowing myself a ticket (It should be included), then doing nothing, knowing I will go.  Of course, it should not be an ecological pride, or reduce my sense of responsibility, and I am also conscious not everyone does, can or will travel by plane.

ECONOMY vs ECOLOGY
Another aspect comes along. Plane traveling with -more stops-, often helps reduce transportation fair financially, but also has an extra environmental cost (take offs, landings and high altitude) it can help one make decisions to be a little less uncomfortable with.  I know carbon compensation is not -the answer- to Kyoto, but having heard Planetair at a conference in Montreal a few years back, I was under the impression they offered a program which seemed trustful socially and environmentally. They offer Gold Standard quality emissions reduction credits, which are verified by third parties. The fact these are supported by the WWF International, Greenpeace and the David Suzuki Foundation, helped me feeling it was a better choice, then doing nothing.

(KD) Kieran Dowling - Saturday, 21 April 2012, 02:24 PM
Orr, D. (1991). What Is Education For? In Context, 8. Retrieved from http://context.org/ICLIB/IC27/Orr.htm 
Siegel, S. (n.d.). Course material : Lecture, RRU.