My first few days on the job were filled with uncertainties as I was just beginning to understand my role and didn’t know what to expect for the coming weeks. I was, in every sense of the word, a newbie. But it was not long before I dove head first into the sea of work and was carried off with the current, learning as I went. Bear with me as I further use this ocean metaphor.

Some days at A\J are choppy waves – full of energy, meetings, interviews, emails, busyness. Some days are calm waters, when I can float with careful planning, inspiration, and most importantly, writing. David (A\J publisher and my supervisor) always tells me to learn the ebbs and flows of my work, and that I am. For lack of a more unique pop culture reference, I feel very much like a young Jedi learning from the Obi Wan of A\J. David shares many of his pieces of advice and wisdom with me in the form of metaphors and catchphrases, and they are all valuable lessons that fuel my growth as a writer. I’ve learned how to “use the force” of environmental journalism – you need lots of input before you can produce the output. I am being filled to the brim with inspiration, having meaningful conversations with environmental leaders on the daily, and learning how to tithe to myself in the process in order to produce my best work.

I was recently tasked with writing an article on what I’ve learned so far at A\J in just 4 weeks, but if I included everything, it would be way too long for anyone to read (and for me to write!) So, I will do my best to sum up my key takeaways from this work experience so far.

The A\J Team

First and foremost, meeting the A\J team was a huge positive. It has been wonderful to work with a team of interesting people who are all different, yet share a common purpose. Everyone at A\J is driven to share environmental stories with others, to plant seeds and inspire them. We all work together with each other’s ebbs and flows, and I have observed how dedicated these people are to their work. I’ve experienced so much support, encouragement, and collaboration from the team that has kept me moving forward.

Skill Building

During the past month, I have enhanced my existing skills and established many new ones. I’ve built upon my interpersonal skills, and I don’t just mean “customer service” or people skills. I’m talking about the ability to sustain meaningful conversation and genuinely listen to others in order to gather and absorb important insights and stories from them. Along with that, I’ve greatly practiced and improved my existing communication skills through speaking (and listening), writing, emailing, interviewing, and the list goes on.

My work as an A\J intern has also given me a real experience of what journalism work is like. There are always several different projects on the go and multitasking is the way of life. I’ve had a lot of space to work on time management and self-regulation by prioritizing tasks, working with deadlines, and working around meeting times. There is no shortage of tasks, but it’s not draining, it’s actually empowering! I get to be actively involved in everything, and maybe it’s just me, but I really thrive when I have lots on the go and can be a part of everything all at once.

Creativity

I’ve also been given the opportunity to hone in on my creativity, which is something I didn’t have a lot of practice doing before this job. My writing and learning style has always been quite organized, academic, and structured. For me, the most conceptually difficult type of university assignment I’ve ever had to do (out of math, sciences, and the arts) is writing an English essay. In first year, I had to write an essay on a super short, abstract poem, and I had no idea what it was saying. It took so much original thought and effort to come up with a thesis and write a full, meaningful paper on just 14 lines of confusion. Of course, I’ve come a long way since then, but I find these assignments challenging because I have to generate fresh ideas. I have to be inspired. It is through these exercises that I improve my creative thinking. At A\J, I am challenged to think for myself in everything I do. Right from the get-go I was asked, “What do you want to write about?”, “What are your stories to tell?”, and “Who do you want to talk to?” I’m starting to answer those big questions, slowly tending and listening to that creative autonomy in my work. By doing so, I’m discovering lots about myself and know that I’ll continue to do so.

Conversations

In just four weeks at A\J, I’ve met many new people (virtually, of course), beyond just the A\J team. I’ve been able to have conversations with individuals who are highly experienced, accomplished, admired in environmental fields of work. I’ve been given opportunities to network and listen to these people’s stories. I already feel much more equipped with connections than I did before starting this job, but I’ve also realized how easy it can be to talk to people. You never know how much in common you might have with a university dean or sustainability leader until you have a conversation with them!
How to BE a writer

On top of improving my writing, I’m also learning how to be a writer. There is a difference, trust me. I think you can be very skilled at writing but not be a writer. Dipping my toe into the world of environmental journalism has taught me that…

1. The work doesn’t stop when you sign off for the day. Your work is on the news, on social media, in almost every conversation, and it is literally in your mind all the time. I’m starting to see everything as a potential story. When work aligns with your passion, it doesn’t fit into a 9 to 5 day because passion doesn’t turn off once the work day is done.
2. In order to be a writer, you have to understand yourself to a tee. Understanding the ebbs and flows of one’s own writing is so important – as David told me from day one. I’ve been befriending my inner muse, inner critic, and inner storyteller, and I’ve practiced wrangling them up and getting them all working at once. It’s not always easy, but when it happens, it’s a beautiful thing.
3. I need to find a healthy balance between the busy times full of meetings and emails, and sitting quietly with my thoughts. Sometimes in order to write, I need zero distractions, otherwise I’ll never produce anything valuable. But other times, those distractions are important to pay attention to because they might spark an idea (and they’re also part of my job). I’m learning how to balance this and how to capitalize on my opportunities to write. For example, if I have a free moment to write but have a mental block, taking a break to walk in nature does wonders.

Pathways uncovered

The most common question I receive as a young adult is “What do you want to do after you graduate?” and I’ve always struggled with pinning down an answer. I’ve never known what exactly I want to do, and I still don’t, but in many ways, working at A\J is allowing me to see that I don’t need to choose one specific pathway. I can merge my passions and do lots of things with my future career. This job has introduced me to many people and many pathways I never thought of considering before, so it has only added more options to my uncertainty of the future – in a good way! I feel driven, more than ever, to continue dipping my toes into as many places I can and keep writing and having conversations with people wherever I end up.

Published Accomplishments

Now, this article is not just a spotlight on my work, because ultimately, this is about my experience at A\J and how the team has facilitated this growth for me. But, I do want to highlight a few of my physical accomplishments on top of all the lessons I’ve learned. I’ve published 4 of my own articles and put together 4 WTF (Week This Friday) columns, and that’s just on the A\J website. I’m working on a lot of behind the scenes pieces that you’ll see in our next print issue, Playbook for Progress! This is all to say that being an A\J intern is not without its many opportunities to get your name out there and publish as much as you have to offer.

Going Forward

Clearly, I’ve experienced a whirlwind of growth and excitement in the past 4 weeks and I don’t expect it to stop now! I’ve still got 3 more months left – lots more to do, to learn, and to be a part of. I know that even once my work placement with A\J is over, the experience and lessons I’ve learned will stick with me and carry over into whatever comes next for me. Who knows – maybe I’ll find myself back here one day! I don’t know where I’ll be in a couple years from now, let alone 4 months from now, but I hope to stay connected to A\J in some capacity, and if I’ve learned anything from my time here, it’s the power of planting that first seed.

The post Opening Paragraphs appeared first on A\J.

The good news is that Canada, at this writing, has handled the crisis relatively well and our broad solidarity in the response suggests that our society has the capacity, in time, to emerge better than it was. We can aim for something beyond ‘getting things back to where they were’. With this very idea in mind, back in May, a coalition of Canadian civil society groups put forward six principles for a just COVID recovery:

1) Put people’s health and wellbeing first, no exceptions

2) Strengthen the social safety net and provide relief directly to people

3) Prioritize the needs of workers and communities

4) Build resilience to prevent future crises

5) Build solidarity and equity across communities, generations, and borders

6) Uphold Indigenous rights and work in partnership with Indigenous peoples.

A better future, as envisioned in these principles for a just recovery, requires significant environmental protection and social equity improvements. Recovery is thus both a challenge and an opportunity, since the three core needs of better environmental protection, greater social equity, and inclusive nationwide economic recovery, can be achieved simultaneously.

These changes are possible because this economic recovery requires investing to create new products and services, build new infrastructure, and alter many institutions.

Recovery is thus both a challenge and an opportunity, since the three core needs of better environmental protection, greater social equity, and inclusive nationwide economic recovery, can be achieved simultaneously.

The good news is that interest rates are low and almost certain to remain low for years, which will make this essential spending possible as public and private borrowing will be more manageable. Extensive recovery expenditures will allow a rethinking of many of the things we do and how we do them. It provides the opportunity to do more than just ‘restore’ what we had. COVID has shown Canadians that many aspects of our society and economy can and should be improved, with long term care facilities emerging as one of the most evident examples.

Almost all of us rearranged our lives over the past five months. We have collectively learned just how adaptive we can be, and we have also learned that we can function very well as a society under pressure. Leaders of almost every political stripe adapted to the task at hand and societal and community leadership emerged everywhere. We now know we can create and undertake a multidimensional recovery. Many components of that effort readily lend themselves to serving all three core needs. Why would we not improve the environment and social equity at the same time as we rebuild our economy?

Our economic recovery will need to create construction, manufacturing, and commercial jobs (restoring, in the latter case, many hard-hit small retail businesses). Many design and construction jobs are associated with green infrastructure innovations, from high speed rail in heavily travelled corridors to building complete streets that are safely accessible to cyclists, pedestrians, and cars. This is also an opportunity to retrofit houses and offices for energy efficiency and to manufacture and install improved heating and cooling systems suited to Canada’s climate.

One of the most important reasons green economic actions fit well with COVID recovery is that they require a broad range of skills and have the capacity to distribute work opportunities from coast to coast to coast within urban, suburban and rural settings. They also require innovation and new skills and products that can be used throughout the nation and elsewhere in the world. I will close with a few examples.

Renewable energy production and energy efficiency lend themselves to geographic distribution. Wind energy is abundant along Canada’s thousands of miles of coastline and throughout our rural landscape. From Newfoundland to the Great Lakes, to the prairies and the North, wind energy is supplying locations otherwise powered by high cost fossil-fuel generators. Solar installations and energy efficiency retrofits can create construction jobs in urban areas and First Nations reserves.

The job skills required for these renewable energy projects include everything from electricians, plumbers, carpenters, transportation workers and heavy equipment operators, to manufacturing workers, metal workers, researchers, engineers and technology innovators (especially in energy storage and new distribution systems).

Renewable energy is also a safe, consistent yield, investment opportunity. Geographically dispersed and innovative green COVID recovery possibilities go well beyond renewables and energy efficiency. I will mention four others, the first two just in passing: the electrification of transportation be it rail, buses, trucks or automobiles (where the key to success here is continuous battery advances), and the restoration of habitats including forested areas, grasslands and wetlands.

Also important is the potential for environmental innovation in Canadian agriculture. One possibility is small scale year-round vegetable production (or extended-season agriculture in the far North) with little or no fossil heating. Large greenhouses for cool weather and frost resistant crops like peas and spinach embedded below the frost line can be surprisingly productive. As well, carbon farming (storing carbon in the soil) improves crop yields while reducing atmospheric carbon and methane.

Green building design and construction can be another interesting area to develop, incorporating new and innovative building materials. Buildings can go beyond low or even zero energy. They can be carbon sinks that incorporate agricultural wastes or wastepaper that might otherwise end up in landfills, where they release greenhouse gases on decomposition. Embedded in building materials they add to material strength and insulation.

Green investments often produce more jobs and are better long-term investments than fossil fuels or other extractive industries that Canada has generously helped in the past.

Carbon-embedding hemp can become what is called hempcrete (See, for example, Chris Magwood, Sustainable Home Design). There are numerous embedded carbon building materials that could create new Canadian manufacturing opportunities. Green job and investment opportunities, perhaps aided by government infrastructure and research funding, are numerous. Green investments often produce more jobs and are better long-term investments than fossil fuels or other extractive industries that Canada has generously helped in the past. As many provinces begin re-opening and creating recovery plans, let’s ensure that we rise to the challenge of recovering a society better than the one in which we lived before the pandemic.

This article is featured in our latest issue: Invest in Change. For a limited time, Alternatives Journal is releasing FREE digital downloads, valuing at $250,000 for the first 50,000 interested Canadians! Check out this link to qualify!

The post Greening Canada’s COVID Recovery appeared first on A\J.

Working in the environmental field is an uphill battle. Oftentimes it can feel like we will forever be the underdogs and always fighting against a stronger, wealthier, or more powerful force. These feelings have led many of us to resort to drastic measures to ensure our voices will be heard. And I get it, shock the system! Believe me, I really get it. But sometimes, those drastic measures we choose to take can backfire.

Take PETA (People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals) for example. PETA has been advocating for animal rights since 1980. In doing so, PETA tackles important issues such as factory farming, climate change, and sustainability. Today, PETA is best known for their radical protests and demonstrations, including locking themselves in cages, pretending to be skinned alive, or protesting in the nude. While these kinds of marketing tactics are memorable, they leave a bad taste in your mouth when you think of PETA.

One of PETA’s most outrageous marketing tactics, in my opinion, is their over-sexualization of women to support their causes. I remember an ad they tried to run back in 2010 which showed young women having “sexual interactions” with vegetables…. So yeah.

Men are less likely to support animal rights than women, so in some ways it seems logical that PETA decided to give the ‘sex sells’ approach a try. And while these campaigns are rooted in good intentions (eating less meat to reduce our emissions, boycotting a horrendous fur industry), leveraging female sexuality to stupefy and add shock value takes away from the very thing they are trying to accomplish.

First off, research has shown that these kind of marketing techniques simply do not work. In 2013, researchers from Australia conducted a study to better understand the relationship between using sexual images of women, and the level of support received for the (PETA) campaign. The most shocking result of the study found that this dehumanization of women promotes rape culture. More specifically, “women’s dehumanization is associated with increased tolerance for unethical behavior towards women, specifically men’s attitudes towards sexual harassment and rape…Men who dehumanize women by associating them with animals or objects are more likely to sexually harass women and have a higher rape propensity.” In conclusion, the study confirmed this kind of advertising reduces “both intentions to support the ethical organization and behavior helpful to the animal-rights cause.”

Secondly, how am I, a female working in environmental sciences and animal rights, expected to be taken seriously now? Women who work in policy and STEM (Science, technology, engineering, and math) are going to be heavily involved in solving some of the very problems that fuel PETA’s existence. Yet, “Women working in STEM are more likely than their male counterparts to regard sexual harassment as at least a small problem in their workplace.” PETA’s sexualized campaigns dishonor these women and the progress they have made in advocating for sustainability, animals rights, and global health.

Historically, solving environmental problems such as climate change has been viewed as ‘women’s work’. The Guardian recently discussed how eco-products are most often targeted towards women, “where green branding might as well be pink.” This concept is also known as the eco-gender gap, and in doing so, advertisers communicate that sustainability and environmental actions as a female responsibility.  

Moreover, climate change has disproportionately affected women worldwide. According to the OECD, “In many low-income countries, women experience greater exposure to indoor air pollution from solid fuel use, increased harm from poor sanitation, higher exposure to toxic chemicals in occupations (e.g. textiles industry), and – in general – greater vulnerability to climate change, biodiversity loss, and ecosystem damage….In addition, around the world, women’s’ ability to shape environmental choices is handicapped by legal, cultural and social constraints of different intensity.”

Women around the world are overburdened with the responsibility of solving our environmental problems, while simultaneously being more affected by them. PETA’s use of women as marketing propaganda now feels mildly repulsive, leaving one wondering who approved this ad campaign in the first place.

PETA is well aware of the allegations made against them. If you visit the FAQ section of their website (after reading this article, of course), you’ll see that PETA attempts to sidestep the question of why use sexual-exploitation-for-a-cause as a marketing tactic:

“Why does PETA sometimes use nudity in its campaigns?”. To which they say, “PETA knows that provocative, attention-grabbing actions are sometimes necessary to get people talking about issues that they would otherwise prefer not to think about.” They then go on to compare PETA protesters to Lady Godiva.

In 2010, PETA President, Ingrid Newkirk, publicly responded to some of these criticisms in the Guardian. She wrote, “As for the sexy women in our ads, the silly costumes, the street tableaux and the tofu sandwich give-aways, in a world where people want to smile, can’t resist looking at an attractive image and are up for a free meal, if such harmless antics will allow one individual to reconsider their own role in exploiting animals, how can it be faulted?”

SOURCE: SkepChick

I don’t know about you, but I am certainly not smiling.

Don’t even get me started on the fact that the body shapes preferred by PETA are not inclusive and embracing of a full tableau of beauty-norms.

The marketing tactics discussed in this story are an unethical way to promote an ethical cause. PETA started because they wanted to help animals who could not speak for themselves. Their very existence is grounded in doing so much good, and they are trying to tackle very real problems, but their voice has become undermined by some extremely poor decisions.

The post Opinion: People for The Ethical Treatment of Women appeared first on A\J.

Born into a farming family in a small town where corn stalks reign supreme, I saw firsthand the physical effort and mental stamina it takes to be a farmer. I watched my father work 12+-hour days, oftentimes for weeks on end.

While completing my bachelor’s degree in environmental studies, I began to learn about the environmental problems resulting from modern farming techniques used across the world: algal blooms in lakes from nitrogen and phosphorus run off; synthetic hormones and pharmaceuticals in factory farming; or the massive amounts of methane entering our atmosphere from raising livestock. I witnessed handfuls of protests and rallies, a few of which my close friends participated in, all sharing the same message: modern, technology-driven agriculture is ruining the world.

It was during this time I faced an internal conflict. How could my father participate in such a system? Are farmers like my father really turning a blind eye and simply disregarding the environmental degradation that comes with modern farming?

Here is what I’ve always understood: a healthy natural environment is the very thing farmers depend on for their income – an unbalanced natural ecosystem means a poor farmer. In other words, why would a singer want to purposely damage their vocal cords?  Perhaps the burden lies in the tools and procedures farmers must use to feed our growing population.  And our population keeps on growing.

In 1900, the average Canadian farmer grew enough food to feed about 10 people; by 2014, that same farmer now had to feed 120 people in the same timeframe. Today, that number is likely even higher. Yes, we have been increasing our ability produce more food per acre by modernizing farm equipment, improving irrigation methods, and using crop ration. But we cannot forget this success was also by the means of pesticides, hormones, genetic modification, and other developments which sit at the core of an environmentalist’s angst.

Our food productivity rates are now beginning to slow down, while population growth is not. Farmers must use the tools they have at their disposal to keep up with population demand. Unless we provide farmers with more environmentally friendly options proven to be equally, if not more, efficient than current methods like pesticides and insecticides, we cannot condemn the farmer. At least not if we want to keep eating.

Farms are changing. Canadian farmers represent an aging population, with the average farmer in their mid-fifties. As Michael Pollan said in the New York Times, “as a society, we devalued farming as an occupation and encouraged the best students to leave the farm for better jobs in the city”. Moreover, smaller farms are becoming obsolete – and, as a result, we are witnessing further consolidation of mega-farms, which will continue to leverage their economies of scale to operate as efficiently at possible, filling a demand that will only intensify as more farmers retire.  

We need to find better solutions which pose less strain on the environment, without sacrificing farmer yields. 

A possible solution lies in harnessing population growth and rethinking our food consumption. Project Drawdown listed family planning as one of the most effective solutions to solving our climate crisis, partially because it may relieve the strain on our current food systems. However, as the authors mentioned, linking family planning with the health of the natural environment remains controversial and, after all, farmers are more interested in planting more seeds!

Regardless of the controversy, should our planet reach 9.8 billion people by 2050 as current predictions show, we will need to feed all these people and feed them efficiently. 

SOURCE: Pexels

To add to the problem, a third of all food produced by farmers worldwide goes to waste. In the global north, we overfill our plates, then toss our leftovers in the trash. We throw out a bruised apple or tomato if we think it looks ugly or undesirable. All while farmers work overtime to grow this food. Simultaneously, the global south lacks the proper infrastructure for the food to reach them at all, and once it does, they struggle to store it properly. Rather than challenge the status quo of our food systems, we often protest the small farmer relying on genetically modified seeds or insecticides to make a living.

I recognize global food systems are inherently complicated, and larger economic powers and political influences direct this system. However, one thing can be sure; while populations rise and we continue to demand an aesthetically pleasing, never ending supply of food, farmers will need to use modern, more intensive farming techniques. We need to find better solutions which pose less strain on the environment, without sacrificing farmer yields. 

I am proud to come from a farming family. I am also proud to consider myself an environmentalist. I have learned many lessons so far and I know there are things I still do not understand. But one thing that I am certain about is that I recognize we are fighting for the same team, not against each other.

The post Farm Beefs appeared first on A\J.

I’ve always been intrigued by the ocean. I see it as the perfect combination of beauty and destruction, with unique aquatic life and the potential to cause deadly tsunamis. My fascination lies in the fact that the ocean’s majesty and mystery is not as easily accessible to be explored as the land but contains many interesting creatures. There is much that’s still undiscovered out there. Despite the lack of human interaction with the ocean at the scale of interaction with its terrestrial counterparts, our actions have been collectively impacting the ocean and aquatic life. One of the main visible and destructive issues is plastic pollution. 

Plastic pollution, such as 6-pack plastic rings, plastic bags and plastic straws, and its harmful impact on aquatic creatures (like sea turtles), is truly saddening. Currents and tides show that there are no limitations to the movement of plastic pollution from one part of the globe to another. These currents connect countries and their pollution, whether we choose to acknowledge it or not. What’s worse is when plastic pollution, in the form of microplastics, cannot be easily seen in the water, but can negatively impact fish when consumed. This can then bioaccumulate up the food chain to affect humans by being in their seafood. The National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) defines microplastics as pieces of plastic that are broken down into fragment sizes <5mm long. That’s about the length of a rice grain!

If plastic debris is removed from the water early on, this will reduce the risk of current irreversible cleanup when the plastic is broken down into microplastics and dispersed throughout the lower layers of the water column. 

Microplastics are smaller than a grain of rice. Source: The Washington Post

Microplastics have impacted species in unprecedented ways and cases of this will increase as plastic pollution in the ocean continue to disintegrate into microplastics. I, like most people (and previous studies), always thought that microplastics from accumulations at the surface of the water, were moved to the seafloor after settling in the water column, by simply sinking. However, a recently published article by Science Magazine came across my radar, proving that thought to be inaccurate. This study done by a group of researchers from the University of Manchester (United Kingdom), the National Oceanography Centre (United Kingdom), University of Bremen (Germany), IFREMER (France) and Durham University (United Kingdom), suggested that surface and bottom thermohaline–driven currents which are currents driven by temperature and salinity also influence settling of microplastics to the seafloor. These currents are important for distributing oxygen and nutrients resulting in the determination of biodiversity hotpots. 

This study sheds light on the importance of location on microplastics and how it can impact the food web and even deep seafloor ecosystems

The study was done in the Tyrrhenian Sea which is off the western coast of Italy and within the boundaries of the Mediterranean Sea. This Sea was chosen as it was representative of other oceanic areas in terms of its physical geography, global ocean current circulation patterns and speed of currents. As well as, the location and volume of plastic naturally existing in a controlled manner. The most eye-opening, jaw-dropping, finding of this study was that in 1 square metre of the seafloor, a total of 1.9 million pieces of microplastics were found. If this existed in 1 square metre of the ocean then just imagine how alarming the number will be if it were possible to survey all water bodies globally. This was the highest record of seafloor microplastics found in any study that was previously done, including submarine canyons and deep-sea trenches. In my opinion this is 1.9 million pieces too many, of plastic pollution.

Source: Science Magazine

This finding highlights that seafloor microplastics repositories exist globally. This also shows that areas of biodiversity hotspots are also being bombarded with microplastics. With changes in the intensity of current over time, this can disturb seafloor microplastics and contribute to bioaccumulation of microplastics up the food chain, especially in biodiversity hotpsots. This means that when seafloor microplastics are disturbed, they can move throughout the water and be consumed by small aquatic organisms or fish. When that aquatic life is eaten by a larger fish and this process occurs at several levels in the food chain, microplastics can then be present in seafood that humans eat. Therefore, you may be having a filling plate of fish with a free, hidden side of microplastics.

This study sheds light on the importance of location on microplastics and how it can impact the food web and even deep seafloor ecosystems. What is disheartening is that with increasing production of plastic products, the issue of microplastics will continue to exist and affect aquatic life. Can consumer behaviour and their demand for companies to switch to environmentally sustainable plastic alternatives help reduce the impact of microplastic pollution? Can people also be more responsible with their waste disposal? Microplastics is yet another anthropogenic-induced environmental issue that doesn’t seem to have a clean-up solution in sight.  

Photo Source: Triocean Istock

I hope that one day companies will take responsibility for their use of plastics. The ocean is a source of fascinating discoveries of which most are still yet to be revealed. Microplastics have been affecting aquatic life in ways that we know and do not fully understand as yet. Imagine in the future, fossils of an undiscovered species dating back to our lifetime are found. However, the species was never discovered at the time due to their vulnerability to microplastic pollution. Now imagine if that species was the answer to a presently incurable disease. May we be more conscious of how our waste is disposed, ensure that the coastlines are waste-free and avoid thinking that our actions only impact the land that we occupy.

The post Two Million Too Many appeared first on A\J.

For the first time in approximately 7, maybe 8 weeks, I finally left my house this past weekend.

On March 20, I boarded a flight headed for my home of Barbados, unsure of when I would be returning to Canada. At the time, Barbados had only two or three known cases of coronavirus, fewer than in Canada, or even in the city of London, Ontario (where I reside in Canada). As such I ensured my family stocked up on two weeks of supplies and upon arrival, began our self-isolation period. I could not wait until this period was over, as the cases in Barbados remained low, and were only among tourists or returning nationals from highly impacted nations such as England and America. All I wanted to do was see my friends whom I had told I would not be home for summer. On day 13 of my self-isolation, there was a spike in cases in Barbados – the dreaded words ‘community spread’ were heard all around the island, and an emergency broadcast by the prime minister was scheduled for 7pm that night.

The beach! At last, I could return to where I feel the most home

The result: 24-hour lockdown, beginning immediately. I could not believe it – we weren’t even allowed to go to the supermarket! What was the government thinking? Was the situation so bad that it warranted the potential for people starving? To be fair, we were warned to stock up – but what about people who don’t listen to the news?

Well, there was nothing I could do, and thankfully family members had dropped off groceries for us the day before, as we were all still under self-isolation due to my return.

This 24-hour lockdown lasted 10 days before the government released its updated plan, allowing residents to go to supermarkets on designated days, based on the first letter of your last name, in alphabetical order. Only 1 family member was to go and time inside of stores was limited (although this was never enforced).

All of this backstory is to explain why I had not left my house in over 7 weeks, as only this week were restrictions lifted enough to allow us to go out to exercise. And, best of all from the hours of 6am-9am, we could go to the beach!

Gibbs Beach, Barbados. Source: Alexander Goddard

The beach! At last, I could return to where I feel the most home, on the white sand beaches of the tropical island I have called home for my whole life. But should I go to the beach? What if someone broke social distancing rules and sat too near to me? Thankfully, there is a beach near to my house that is hard to access. I decided that I would go right at 6am, and if I saw any cars parked nearby, I would leave – I really don’t want coronavirus. Saturday came and I packed my snorkels and headed to the beach as there is a beautiful reef off of the beach that catamaran cruises often stop at. No one was at the beach when I arrived, allowing me to feel comfortable. As someone who really loves the outdoors, animals, and just being around people, the past 7 weeks have been tough and cabin fever was really starting to set in. Being back outside was like a breath of fresh air and my soul and spirit felt rejuvenated. I had been reading all of these articles about how nature was returning due to less human interactions, which made sense, and I was really excited to see if there would be any difference in the reef ecosystem, as no loud boats would be around to scare the fish, as well as no tourists who often can’t help but touch the reef, and even break off pieces to take back to their homelands.

 I hope that the general population immerse themselves in nature a little more, and hopefully they too may become impassioned by nature

What I saw was amazing; I had never seen so many fish on the reef, and I even saw a few green sea turtles, which often are only found further up the coast. All of the articles I had read seemed to be true; nature really was returning in all of its glory. In that moment I truly felt so grateful to be able to experience the beauty found within coral reefs yet couldn’t help feeling some sense of guilt; I hoped the fish didn’t mind my presence too much. I swam back in to the shore and sat on the beach, wondering whether or not my favourite pastime of snorkeling had any adverse effects on marine ecosystems. Upon contemplation, I decided no, there is little to no impact of me floating on the top of the surface appreciating the fish. After all my time spent inside, I had forgotten how much being completely immersed in nature can really improve your mental wellbeing, as well as just your general outlook on life. In that moment I couldn’t help but wonder how more people are not impassioned by the environment, and why there aren’t more people fighting to save our reefs, to save our forests, to stop the burning of fossil fuels.

And then, the privilege I have really dawned on me. How lucky am I to have grown up in paradise – where many people dream to vacation? How lucky am I to have been able to see what most only are able to see through a TV screen? How (strangely) lucky am I to have experienced firsthand the destruction of climate change on coral reefs and marine ecosystems. This has all allowed me to understand why climate change is the most important long-term issue of our generation, despite the current global health pandemic making it hard to think of the future. 

Colony Club Beach, Barbados. Source: Alexander Goddard

This is all to say, I really hope that once the pandemic is over, we learn to appreciate the beauty of nature and the outdoors a little bit more and learn to acknowledge what a privilege it is to live in a world so beautiful. I hope that the general population immerse themselves in nature a little more, and hopefully they too may become impassioned by nature. This doesn’t have to be at a beach, or even in a forest; it could just be by walking through a city park or sitting down by a nearby river.

I hope when this is all said and done, we don’t return to the normal that everyone is crying out to re-boot but that we collectively begin to embark upon a new normal, one that places value on the outside, a place (and a space) that we’ve all come to realize is so important to us all, during good times and in bad.

The post Isolation Reflections appeared first on A\J.

Thinking outside of the box is fun. It’s challenging, creative, sometimes comical and – surprisingly often – useful. It can help you understand things in unexpected ways. And out-of-the-box thinking can lead to innovative approaches to environmental opportunities and creative solutions to persistent problems. There are scads of guides and lists online to help you turn around your own thinking processes. Here’s a quick list adapted from my favourite pointers at lifehack.org.

1. Write a poem. Haiku is a favourite because you must distill your idea into so few syllables.

2. Draw a picture. This more deeply exercises the right side of your brain, which was just toned by writing the poem.

3. Work backward from a desirable objective. “Backcasting” is the term used by the sustainability people.

4. Learn about an unfamiliar religion. Find out how others understand relationships between the divine and each other.

5. Study an industry or discipline other than your own.

6. Read a novel in an unfamiliar genre.

7. Turn the object of your concern upside down, either physically or by reimagining it.

8. Ask a child for advice – or at the very least, reformulate your problem so a child could understand it.

9. Take a shower. Some say there is a psychic link between showering and creativity.

10. Plug into your community in new ways – walk a dog for the pound or pay a homeless person for a story.

This is the third time A\J has produced an out-of-the-box issue. We do it to push ourselves out of our comfort zone and into areas where we are challenging our ideas about anything connected to environment. And because our definition of environment includes all aspects of ecological and social justice, pretty much everything is connected.

Each time we have released a call for proposals for an out-of-the-box issue, we have received an embarrassment of riches in return. We ask contributors to tell us how a particular subject is connected to environment in a way we wouldn’t have expected. We are looking for surprise and substance – something that unsticks the mind and allows us to move in greener ways. We have yet to be disappointed. What you will find in these pages is an array of articles that will make you think about a range of topics differently. But these articles inspire us in so many more ways.

Adam Lewis’ article, “Living on Stolen Land”, made me both nervous and excited. I don’t think I’ll be alone in saying that Lewis tackles one of the most important and uncomfortable topics that Canadians face once they understand that the land upon which their home sits once belonged to the First Peoples of Canada – and in many cases, still does. Like Lewis, we at A\J live on the Haldimand Tract, territory granted by treaty to the Haudenosaunee people of Six Nations in 1784. Several cities, including Kitchener-Waterloo, lie within it. You can bet that I have been chewing on how this can possibly be reconciled, and Lewis offers sage food for thought. I expect that this article will influence A\J’s future approaches and policies.

There is a good deal inside this issue of A\J that we hope will surprise and inspire. We’ll be very thankful if you send us your thoughts about any of these articles, especially the one(s) that have taken you off your own beaten path. Your options for submitting feedback are: email letters@alternativesjournal.ca; comment at the end of stories that are published online; send us a note via the webform; or join us for lunch in downtown Kitchener’s beautiful Victoria Park – historic wintering ground for Indigenous people, and only a block away from A\J headquarters.

See the original list at ajlinks.ca/lifehack

Find the first two Out of the Box issues at ajmag.ca/341 and ajmag.ca/364.

The post Editorial: How to Get Out appeared first on A\J.

The first time I met Justin Trudeau in person was on December 6, 2009. I remember it clearly because I also got arrested.  The Copenhagen climate summit was in full swing, and I had joined a group of young climate activists in the last of a series of sit-ins sweeping across Canada asking our government to be ambitious on climate. Our team had made its way into the heart of Parliament where the House of Commons Environment Committee — of which Trudeau was a member — was studying Bill C-311, the Climate Change Accountability Act. 

At the time, Trudeau and the Liberal Party were, along with the Harper Conservatives, opposed to the legislation. Their reasoning was that the Bill set ambitious political targets but didn’t lay out a plan in order to achieve them — a move that harkens to Trudeau’s reticence to set climate targets in his election platform over the past few weeks.

About fifteen minutes into the meeting, our group stood up and removed our jackets, revealing shirts printed to read “Climate Action Now!” — the tip of the exclamation point replaced by a maple leaf. We walked slowly and deliberately to the front of the room, where the MPs sat around a donut-shaped table, to declare our intention to sit-in until the bill was put back on the House of Commons floor with the support of the Liberals.

Within minutes we had been picked up, dragged out, and detained by security. Within hours we were placed under arrest, processed, and issued trespassing tickets.

At that meeting, the committee voted to return Bill C-311 to the House of Commons without amendment, where it returned four days later on December 10th.

Long story short, the C-311 was not passed in time to affect Canada’s position in Copenhagen, but it was passed a year and a half later by the House of Commons — this time with the support of Justin Trudeau and the Liberals. Later, in an unprecedented move, the Climate Change Accountability Act was defeated by a Conservative Senate. The moral of the story remains that a strong display of people power held the Liberal Party to account. And so I can’t help but feel hopeful in the wake of this past election.

It gives me hope for two reasons. The first is that the movement of people calling for real climate action in Canada has never been stronger. From coast, to coast, to coast there are powerful, deeply rooted struggles to defend communities and the climate, evidenced by the failure of Stephen Harper to have even a single tar sands pipeline touch the ocean. The second is that Trudeau needs to be accountable to this movement, and more broadly to progressives in Canada.

The simple truth is that in this election, people wanted change. Time and time again, polls showed that 3/4’s of people in Canada wanted to oust Stephen Harper. Justin Trudeau won the change vote, and in many ridings was the beneficiary of the hundreds of thousands of people who were tired of the Harper decade.

These people voted against Harper. They voted against a Prime Minister whose vision of turning Canada into a fossil fuel super power was destroying environmental protections, polluting our democracy, muzzling science and criminalizing opponents — particularly Indigenous communities.  

They also voted for hope, and now it’s up to us to turn that hope into action, without delay. If we can do that, we can hold Justin Trudeau accountable to his campaign promises, and demand those things that we know are necessary for a more just, progressive, and fair society.

For a lot of us in Canada, it’s not in our nature to demand things. Unfortunately, the ticking time bomb of climate change means we need to be a little impatient and demand climate action from our new government. We only have a handful of years left to change the course that this country has taken over the past decade, and to turn Canada from a pariah into a leader. Put another way — we need to pull a Reverse Harper.

Here’s what I mean. On January 23, 2006 Stephen Harper was first elected. He was sworn in on February 6th and before the end of February had cancelled billions of dollars in federal spending on climate change and energy efficiency. On top of that, they abandoned work that Environment Canada had taken on to regulate greenhouse gases from large industrial facilities and started describing or legally-binding Kyoto Protocol climate targets as unrealistic. In other words, within a couple weeks of his election, Harper had already dismantled some of the most important pillars of Canada’s climate change action.

We need Justin Trudeau to act with the same kind of bold, swift action to dig Canada out of the hole on climate that we’re in. We need the polar opposite of the concrete actions that Harper took to tear down this country’s reputation on climate, but we need them to be as decisive — and this time to protect the planet, not put it in peril.

Unfortunately, that kind of action isn’t something Trudeau will do on his own. We already know that his former campaign advisor had been on contract with TransCanada, and had advised the pipeline giant to start their lobbying efforts without delay. We know that Trudeau’s climate platform on the campaign trail, despite some great initiatives like phasing out fossil fuel subsidies and overhauling the pipeline review process, falls short of delivering a clear plan, in line with the science, to meet Canada’s climate obligations.

Prime Minister Trudeau has pledged to pursue a climate and energy strategy that respects science and evidence — something we have in troves when it comes to climate change. Those troves are clear that in order to meet our obligation to a 2ºC world, at least 85 percent of tar sands needs to stay in the ground. Personally, I think that Mr. Trudeau understands this, but I believe he needs the social license in order to act on that understanding.

That’s why I’ve been a part of organizing something called a “Climate Welcome”, a series of gentle, but serious, sit-ins happening in two weeks at 24 Sussex in Ottawa. The idea is to throw a welcome party for the new Prime Minister — one that is both hopeful, but also defined by the need for bold and urgent climate action. That’s why we’ll be risking arrest and why we’re bringing gifts. Each day we’ll deliver a series of gifts for the new Prime Minister, gifts that should give him the tools he needs to do what we know is necessary to get Canada back on track when it comes to climate change — freezing the expansion of the tar sands and committing to build a justice based, clean energy economy.

This could well be the largest act of civil disobedience in the history of Canada’s climate movement, but that alone is not the point. The point is that we need bold leadership from this government, we need it now, and we’re going to use our bodies, our creativity, and risk arrest to show it. What happens next will be up to Mr. Trudeau.

The post Meeting Justin Trudeau appeared first on A\J.

IN 2012 it seems easy to mudsling the truth until it’s a total mess. This weakness is not new – women, homosexuals and people of colour who lived just 50 years ago might argue that 21st century reality is far less distorted. What distinguishes our time is that we can access more truth than ever before, but only if we wade through even more misinformation.

The bottomless data at our fingertips is riddled with fragmentary sources, willful ignorance, deliberate lies and overwhelming distractions. In mass media, style usually trumps substance and unshakeable opinions run amok. Many political leaders have used this backdrop to inflate the value of lean, crafty messages over long-winded empirical evidence.

In Stephen Harper’s carefully orchestrated Canada, distortion is a vital tool. After winning a majority mandate by cantankerously repeating “separatists and socialists” over and over again, the Harper government has spent its new political capital on trying to discredit “radical” environmentalists, “money-laundering” charities, and “redundant” scientists and academics who would dare ask for well-informed, farsighted decisions.

The results have been brutal. Properly assessing the ecological impact of major industrial projects is now less of a priority than green lighting them. The fewer than one per cent of charities that spend money on political activities must now cover their butts, rather than focus on enriching debate and influencing better policy. And as if the systematic muzzling of scientists wasn’t disingenuous enough, Harper has absurdly chosen, among other things, to shut down Ontario’s Experimental Lakes Area after 44 years of essential guidance on challenges like acid rain and algal blooms.

Speaking at a Voices-Voix conference in May, Alex Neve, secretary general of Amnesty International Canada, framed the government’s perspective bluntly: “Increasingly, to be concerned about the environment is to be against Canada.” Unfortunately, Neve’s point is quite valid. And by making an enemy of the state out of anyone who puts environmental concerns above economic ones, the truths our government is blurring include climate change’s intensification, the need for balance in nature and the democratic backbone of consensus building.

In the long thread of emails that decided the theme for this issue of Alternatives, author and editorial board member Chris Wood lit one of many fires: “There has never been a more important time than now to assert that the truth matters. In these circumstances, optimism is an act of defiance and subversion.”

Buoyed by that thought, our feature stories cut through some formidable misinformation. Jeff Gailus unravels the destruction of Canada’s environmental assessment laws and the perverse logic that fuels Alberta’s tar sands. Jay Ingram explains the tribal mindset that gives legs to tired debates, like whether or not global warming is real. Stephen Bocking speaks with renowned freshwater scientist David Schindler about environmental protection and the necessity of scientific perspective. Larry Powell reports on some unsettling research into glyphosate, the primary ingredient in Monsanto’s Roundup, and why citizens should step up when their government stays put. And Gideon Forman identifies the lessons that environmental campaigners can learn from the recent documentary, Pink Ribbons Inc.

Optimism stems from knowing that there is a better way forward. In truth, to be concerned about the environment is to be for Canada. If that makes us radical, so be it.

Eric
editor@alternativesjournal.ca

The post Editorial: Untruth and Consequences appeared first on A\J.

BACK IN 1971, the founders of this publication called it Alternatives. Bob Paehlke, who played a big role in the conception, says the idea was to explore better options for a blindly pro-consumption and pro-growth-at-all-costs society in which almost no one was thinking about the long term.

Today, the situation is a little different but the core agenda holds. Our world has stumbled further along the old path, making the need for better options greater than ever. At the same time, alternatives to the entrenched conventions have been more fully elaborated and more widely tested. Many have crept into the edges of accepted practice. The following three short pieces consider why and where, and against what.

Why Alternatives

BY SOME MEASURES, global conditions today are better for more people in more places than ever before. At the same time, our most crucial human and biophysical systems are increasingly wobbly, and our current path seems to be leading towards a precipice.

Three quite basic, but very significant, factors explain our situation:

First, we have already overshot the planet’s sustainable carrying capacity for humans (given our current technological and managerial abilities) and our demands are still rising. The World Wildlife Fund calculates that the effects of human demands for energy and materials crossed the line in the late 1970s and are now about 50 per cent beyond what can be maintained.

Second, despite these excessive takings, huge numbers of people do not have enough, and the main flow of resources is away from those who need them most. According to the Food and Agricultural Organization, about 925 million people were undernourished in 2008, up from about 850 million in 1990. Meanwhile, the richest 10 per cent of the world’s population get about 67 per cent of the world’s income and the poorest 10 per cent are left with about 0.22 per cent.

Third, in a world with overshot biophysical boundaries and a billion or more people in destitution, tensions, conflicts and risks of cascading system failures must rise. Already we see vulnerabilities and uncertainties due to climate instability, the fragility of international financial and food systems, broad access to destructive technologies, deepening water insecurity, rising fuel prices and narrowing self-interest.

British environmentalist and writer Jonathon Porritt has offered the following concise summary: “The scientific evidence tells us all we need to know: carry on with business-as-usual growth-at-all-costs, and we’re stuffed.”

Turning those trends around would be a Very Good Idea but No Small Thing. The trends themselves are merely symptoms. Beneath them lie the defining assumptions of the most powerful organizations of our times. The following four big convictions provide the standard rationale for most conventional institutional practice today:

•  Economic growth based on further increases in the exploitation of energy and material resources is the only practical way to improve overall well-being. 
•  The only feasible response to poverty is to expand overall material wealth and expect benefits to trickle down to the poor.
•  Economic motives and technological capacities can be counted upon to find substitutes and repairs for everything we deplete or degrade.
•  Competitive global-market behaviour, supplemented by government regulations, incentives and gap-filling can and will guide change in the long-term public interest.

These assumptions were roughly plausible in the days when it was possible to imagine that the world’s resources were limitless and the route to progress was simple. Now, they are fantasies.

On a planet that is already overstressed, more extraction cannot deliver lasting well-being for anyone. What is most likely to trickle down to the poor is greater insecurity and vulnerability. And the public and private sector bodies that have failed to slow our slide to the brink of “stuffed” (much less ensure ecological recovery, eliminate poverty and stabilize atmospheric chemistry), cannot be relied upon to deliver us from the looming evils, at least not as presently mandated and motivated.

We are now firmly in a world of limits and complexity. Building lasting well-being in such a world requires adoption of a quite different set of basic working assumptions – alternative ways of thinking, setting priorities, structuring institutions and distributing power – as well as alternative individual lifestyles and day-to-day choices.

Autumn Cycling
By Rob Gonsalves

Alternatives Everywhere

THE BIG IDEAS and conventional assumptions that dominate modern culture are visible in the practices of established authorities in virtually every field of inquiry and endeavour. That is hardly surprising. Despite the modern tendency to divide everything into separate boxes of expertise and authority, the tentacles of mutual influence reach out. Cheerfully, the same is true about the alternatives. The critiques and counter proposals in all of these fields also share common themes and influence each other.

Virtually everywhere we might look, the problematic conventions are matched by alternatives built on different, more realistic and more promising premises about people and the planet. The following discussion covers a few illustrative examples, some of which have been maturing for many decades.

Democracy
The conventional view of democracy assumes that power corrupts and masses are asses. Elites should govern, but they will be inclined to serve their own interests. Therefore, the people should get to choose between competing elites (parties) in regular elections. But that is all. Despite the common cliché, conventional democracy is not about government by the people. It is about preventing tyranny.

The main alternative approaches to democracy hold that most people have something to contribute to public life and these contributions are needed. No combination of public and private sector authorities is likely to have the incentive, capacity or credibility to deal with everything. Moreover, people build understanding of the issues and their abilities in collective decision making through experience. Democracy is therefore best served by expanding the empowerment and engagement of as many voices as possible.

Economy
In conventional market economics, humans are essentially consumers with insatiable desires for satisfactions, and nature is essentially a source of resources for (temporarily) satisfying human desires. Self-interested competition among producers and consumers for resources and satisfactions uses the only reliable motive to drive efficiency and innovation. Indeed, the market mechanism is assumed to be powerful enough to ensure that we will find substitutes for all depleted commodities, and repairs for all significant damage.

The alternatives hold that people are not merely individual consumers but also social, creative, productive and perhaps also aesthetic and spiritual beings. Similarly, nature is not merely a warehouse of resources but also home and habitat (for us and others), and the highly complex and poorly understood supplier of the basics for survival and well-being. Alternative economics addresses the blind spots of conventional market behaviour by expanding the realm of what is valued – recognizing social goods and ecological services, closing the gap between rich and poor, and protecting the interests of future generations.

Technology
The conventional histories of technology used to be all onward and upward: successive increases in knowledge and technical abilities leading to the gradual conquest of nature and liberation of humanity. That story survives, perhaps most purely in biotechnology promotion, but it has been challenged at least since Mary Shelley’s Frankenstein (1818) and was seriously undermined by the horrors of the 20th century (mustard gas, Holocaust, Hiroshima, Bhopal, etc.), well before the unsustainable trends were obvious.

The alternatives are not all small or beautiful. But they address the tension between promise and peril. They consider how to foster innovation and precaution, when to insert the concept of enough, and what means of pushing technological advances can best serve the least advantaged. They also aim for advances with less energy and material demand, more respect for particular conditions, and greater potential for local control.

Resource management 
In the conventional view, nature is the sum of its individual components – genes, beings, objects and forces – that interrelate in obedience to the discernible laws of nature. Natural resources are therefore suitable subjects for expert management aiming to maximize sustainable yield.

The alternatives emphasize the complexity of the interrelationships, which make the various wholes greater than the sums of parts. We can get humans to the moon and back. But managing nature is infinitely more ambitious. It involves multiple, dynamic and interacting complex systems interconnected through multiple scales and influenced by a host of biophysical factors and human interventions. Full understanding and predictive certainty are not serious options. Instead, the watchwords are precaution, adaptation, mobilization of multiple perspectives, experimentation and learning.

Energy (with rough equivalents in water and waste management, among others)
The conventional approach is to assume energy demand must rise with economic activity and to focus on meeting increased demand through additional supply. Typically, the favoured supply options are large, centralized, capital-intensive, and based on highly specialized technical expertise. They demand long-term commitment to the established path and are vulnerable to unanticipated errors and events.

The alternatives aim to reduce primary energy demand while enhancing well-being. The favoured options therefore begin with energy efficiency initiatives (reducing waste, matching energy quality and scale to end use needs, etc.) and proceed as necessary to supply sources that are diverse, renewable, small-scale, dispersed, adaptable to different contexts, broadly affordable, manageable with accessible expertise and adjustable as circumstances change.

Futures
The conventional assumption is that the future will be like today, except with more and better stuff. Some anticipatory planning and preparation is accepted but the key tool is forecasting. Essentially that means projecting current trends into the future and considering the implications for new markets, more infrastructure and additional services.

The alternative is to suspect that important current trends are leading us towards the precipice and to focus instead on getting to a desirable future rather than the future we might otherwise get. For that, the appropriate tool is backcasting, with which we begin by depicting a desirable future and then look for plausible paths between where we are and where we want to be, recognizing complexities and uncertainties.

Others
There are similar conventions and alternatives in development assistance, architecture and city design, workplace management, anti-poverty programs, agriculture, the treatment of mental illness, and a host of other fields.

All of them taken together
The conventions are about components and simple rules, straight-line trajectories, and profound confidence in the established path. They inhabit a realm with no limits. The biosphere is expected to accommodate ever-growing demands and human ingenuity is expected to overcome all obstacles.

The alternatives address a more complex, constrained and uncertain world, but with a richer diversity of players, motives and objectives. They encourage us to recognize social-ecological interdependencies, reward humility, foster more participation, enrich understanding and favour a longer vision. They incorporate efforts to decouple well-being from material growth, ensure sufficiency and opportunity, anticipate error and surprise, build stewardships and enhance equity within and between generations.

These qualities are now recognized as the core requirements for progress towards sustainability. But they were all identified in proposed alternatives to unsatisfactory conventions long before the language of sustainability arrived to pull it all together.

It does not follow that the alternatives are all right and the conventions are all wrong – or that the two are entirely incompatible despite the contrasts in underlying assumptions. It is not likely to be possible to leap from one path to another in a single bound and, in any event, experimenting with a range of options is probably wise.

Still it is good to have alternatives, to know that they are everywhere and to see that despite their various origins, they share a common approach to a better future.

Resistance

GIVEN THE NEED to reverse global direction, these should be boom times for purveyors of alternatives to business-as-usual. But that is not how the world works. Never has been. Alternatives to established ways of thinking and doing have always been discouraged. Often they’ve been squashed with violence. Consider Socrates or Christ, or even Galileo, though he got off easy.

Alternatives are usually opposed when current authorities fear loss of advantage, but there are also deeper reasons. Change is risky, and if things go wrong, reversing direction or finding another solution is hard.

Most of the old cultures knew that. In their defining stories, curiosity opened Pandora’s Box of evils. Innovation upset the natural order of things. Hubris offended the gods. Cultures with other stories and more reckless ambitions were pushing their luck.

Five thousand years ago the irrigation-happy Sumerians pushed their luck. Their great Epic of Gilgamesh celebrated the conquest of nature, and the building of the first great agricultural civilization. It worked well enough for a few hundred years. But the irrigators did not know enough about soil and water systems. Rising salts poisoned the fields, and by the time the Sumerians recognized the problem, they were too deeply invested in big-irrigation agriculture to have any other practical options. Their civilization returned to dust. Sumer gambled on a hugely innovative approach to thinking and doing, and it lost.

Five hundred years ago, Western cultures began dabbling with much bigger ambitions, based on unleashed scientific and economic progress. The new, modern thinking worked well enough for a few hundred years. Indeed, it was in some ways so successful that the agenda was extended to the global scale. But the new authorities did not know enough about global biophysical and socio-economic systems – about the potential legacies of colonialism, consumerism and climate change (and equivalent matters starting with other letters). Consequently, our astonishing gains are now teetering on a foundation of dangerously unsustainable practice.

As in Sumer, our most powerful institutions, locally to globally, are too deeply invested in the established approach to welcome other thoughts. Instead, they question the science, blame lifestyle choices and hope for a technological fix. As the road gets bumpier, they hold more tightly to the wheel.

But we are not in Sumer. We know what happened to the great walled city of Gilgamesh, and to the many other civilizations that pushed their luck. Over the intervening millennia, we have learned a few things. In much of the world, we now have generally greater tolerance for alternative approaches than was evident in the days of Socrates, Christ and Galileo. Also, we now have a great wealth of alternatives.

The available alternatives are not all well developed and have not yet been consolidated as a clear package with an accepted label. But many options are backed by decades of thought and experimentation and a nicely labelled package may not be necessary or desirable. What matters most is that the best work shares a promising set of essential characteristics that aim to reconcile change and humility, well-being and limits, and that could be viable over the long run. That will do for a start.

The post Alternatives appeared first on A\J.