Green Book

2019 Trip to Southwest United States, Movies, racism

 

https://www.dropbox.com/s/vb2milab9xlcr7b/Screenshot%202019-01-28%2008.55.42.png?dl=0

This movie has received a lukewarm reception from the critics, but I dissent from their views. Critics have suggested this movie is superficial. I suggest the reviews are superficial.

Sometimes a movie does not need great subtlety to be worthwhile. This movie tells a story that must be told, over and over again. It tells the story of horrendous racism in America not that long ago. We all need to hear this story. This is even true of us non-Americans who are by no means free of racism ourselves. We must learn to speak out against racism. That is sometimes hard. As Angela Davis said, “In a racist society it is not enough not to be a racist, one must be anti-racist.”  That is one of the reasons I have started to blog. I want to denounce some injustices. Racism is one of them.

I liked the fact that the serious topic of racism in the movie was handled with humour. That is not always easy to do. The movie made us laugh and think. Isn’t that pretty good?

The movie is sort of twist on “Driving Mis Daisy, ” with the racial roles reversed. The driver is Tony Vallelonga, a.k.a. Tony Lip (Viggo Mortensen). He is a white iconoclastic Italian New Yorker. The elegant passenger is a brilliant and rich black musician, Donald Shirley (played by Mahershala Ali). Donald hires Tony to drive him through the Deep South before the civil rights successes in the 60s. They need the “Green Book” to find safe places for Donald to eat and stay. His wealth and fame is not enough. They are definitely an odd couple. Tony is brash, loud, unsophisticated and talkative. Dr. Donald Shirley is quiet, thoughtful, and refined.

The story in the film is how both of them become woke to the intricacies of the other. Both have to learn to get around the stereo-types. Tony begins as a racist, who discards in the trash glasses used by 2 black workers in his home, but learns in time to appreciate and befriend Donald. He overcomes his own racism. He is better than that. Donald learns to see the good  heart and street smarts underneath the rough exterior of Tony. Both have to get through the surface of the other to the richness underneath. Both have to look beyond skin color. That should be easy, but by now we know it is not. It is difficult to overcome deeply ingrained prejudice.

Tony is a self-confessed bullshitter. But he denies lying. He tells stories to others to get them to do what he wants. Reminds me a lot of a certain President.

While driving Tony is surprised that Donald seems unconnected to modern black popular music. He doesn’t seem to know the music of Chubby Checker, Little Richard, Aretha Franklin or Sam Cooke. This causes Tony to exclaim: “These are your people!” Tony exclaims, ultimately adding, “I’m blacker than you are!”

Donald on the other hand realizes that he is rich, talented, famous, and alone. He cries out that he is “not black enough, not white enough, not man enough,” and adds, with bewildered anguish, “What am I?” He has no place. He does not belong.  He gains an epiphany of sorts in a black jazz/blues club as he performs classical music for a surprised crowd and then joins a black band playing rousing blues and jazz. I loved their jamming.

I won’t say that the movie is brilliant. But I loved it. Sometimes brilliance is not necessary.

A Big Beautiful Wall

2019 Trip to Southwest United States, politics, Trump

 

Today,  I considered 2 reports on the border issues in Arizona.  First, I read a brief report in the Arizona Republic newspaper which I decided to subscribe to today for the balance of our visit. I think local news is important. We should not rely entirely on Comedy News.

The newspaper reported on a group of mostly Guatemalan asylum seekers that breached the U.S.-Mexico Border yesterday. A smuggler helped a group of 118 asylum seekers by providing a ladder so they could climb over the wall near Yuma Arizona. that sounds like a lot of people. They were caught on video surveillance scaling the wall yesterday. About 86% of them were families travelling together, Customs and Border Agency reported. The video showed a number of people dropping to the ground after scaling the fence that was about 18 ft.

As the members of the group dropped to the ground they huddled in a group. The person who supplied the ladder, on the Mexican side, was shown leaving the scene in a hurry. According to the report, the people were “brazen  A spokesman for Border Security said, “It shows how brazen these smugglers are and the fact that they’re unafraid I wondered, ‘were they brazen, or were they desperate?” This incident happened about a mile from where 376 asylum seekers dug  holes to tunnel under the border fence last week. That too sounds like a lot of people.

Is this an emergency as Trump alleges? Does it warrant spending billions on a wall? Does it warrant shutting down the American government? Some would say yes. That group in Yuma was the single largest authorities had encountered in the area.

Some say that the wall there is “only” 18 ft. high. We should build it 30 ft. high some say. Of course, if a wall is built 30 ft. high does that mean the next smuggler will get a ladder 31 ft. high? A border guard interviewed by the Arizona Republic said, it might not be so easy because the smuggler would need two  30 ft. ladders. One on each side of the fence (wall). The video showed that an 18 ft. drop was pretty high. Particularly for young children. There are always young children. We have to remember that. These were families with young children. Do we not care about that?

On the radio today I also heard an interesting interview with Santa Cruz Sheriff–Tony Estrada. He is 75 years old and was recently elected for his 7th term as Sheriff.  That county includes Nogales Arizona and Nogales Mexico where  Chris and I lived near  for a month 3 years ago.

Estrada  said he was  the longest running Sheriff in Arizona. He seemed very knowledgeable.

Estrada is not a fan of Trump’s proposed “Big, beautiful, border wall.”  In fact he thinks it is a fantasy. “The wall won’t help,” he said.  Estrada said that almost all illegal immigrants come through at points of entry. Those are the legal border crossings that people use when they cross a border. Those places all have border walls already! They don’t need more walls.

Estrada also said that illegal immigrants were not the big problem, illegal drugs were the main problem. Meth in particular had in recent years become the main problem. This reminded me of Manitoba. Meth is a problem. But a wall won’t help. Those drugs also come in through points of entry, according to Estrada. The real problem is demand! In the US demand for illegal drugs is extremely high. Estrada said, the US has 5% of the world’s population and more than 50% of the world’s drugs. Americans can afford to pay and they demand that they get them. That is the problem. It is not a wall or lack of a wall that is the problem.

Sheriff Estrada said the border authorities could use money in the new proposed bill that Trump insists be signed before the government is reopened. It could be used for better technology (even though they already have the best technology!) and more boots on the ground, but spending money one a wall would be a waste. (Other border guards agree with Trump that building a wall is a good idea.)

Estrada pointed out that once in a while people cross the border with ladders as happened in Yuma, but this is rare. It is also rare that some people dig under the wall. I think he was saying if we wanted stronger borders we have to be smart. Building a ‘big, beautiful wall’ is not smart. I agree.

It’s always better to be smart.

David Suzuki and the Indigenous Attitude to Nature

Affinity, Climate change, Indigenous Issues, Indigenous Religion and Philosophy, Nature, New Attitude to Nature

At the University of Winnipeg talk after showing the film Beyond Climate, Suzuki also discussed a new attitude to nature. He  began by talking about the American economy.

After World War II and the end of the Great Depression, America President Franklin Roosevelt realized that the war economy had saved capitalism from self-destruction. But a war economy carries with it enormous unpalatable costs far beyond mere economic costs. He realized that what it needs is consumption. Constant relentless consumption. That was his solution.

Of course what the United States has actually done is to maintain both a consumer economy and war economy. The U.S. spends as much on the military as the 9 countries that are next in line, spend combined.

Suzuki thought we needed a better way. Climate change was just one of the things such an attitude had ushered in. He said  he had learned a lot from indigenous people. In fact he said, “Indigenous people have taught me all I know.” This was important because much of the film dealt with the opposition of First Nations to the plans of Alberta and the Canadian government to build pipelines from the Oil Sands of Alberta to transport liquefied natural gas (LNG) or oil or bitumen to the coast of British Columbia. Alberta was upset that the federal government could not ram through the pipeline approval process. Of course that is just not feasible. Those days are done. The Supreme Court won’t put up with it.

In the late 1970s Suzuki realized that we needed a new attitude to nature. And he found it. He found it in the 1980s when he went to interview indigenous people at Haida Gwaii. He wanted to talk to them about the protests by indigenous people over logging on their land. He talked to forest company executives, environmentalists, politicians, and, most importantly Haida. That was how he met Guujaaw a young artist who was leading the Haida opposition to the logging.

Suzuki wondered why the Haida were so vehemently opposed to logging since many of their own people got jobs with  logging companies. And many of them badly needed jobs. Suzuki asked him, “What would happen if the trees were cut down?”  His reply was profound, but Suzuki did not realize at first how profound. Guujaaw said, “Then we’ll be like everyone else, I guess.”

A few days later Suzuki thought about that answer and it “opened a window on a radically different way of seeing the world.” As we keep getting reports from the World Wildlife Fund and others about the incredible impact humans are having on the world, I think a new attitude to nature is exactly what we badly need. Suzuki explained it this way,

“Guujaaw and the Haida do not see themselves as ending at their skin or fingertips. Of course they would still be around physically if the trees were all gone, but a part of what it is to be Haida would be lost.  The trees, fish, birds, air, water, and rocks are all part of who the Haida are. The land and everything on it embody their history, their culture, the very reasons why Haida are on this earth. Sever that connection and they become ‘like everybody else.”

Indigenous people around the world have similar attitudes. They  are based on a deep attachment to the land they occupy. They are connected to that environment. It is part of who they are. Suzuki like other people from the west had a different attitude to nature and that has made all the difference. To the Haida, and other indigenous people, and as Suzuki concluded,

 

“…there is no environment ‘out there,’ separate and apart from us; I came to realize that we are the environment. Leading science corroborates this ancient understanding that whatever we do to the environment or to anything else, we do directly to ourselves.The ‘environmental’ crisis is a ‘human’ crisis; we are at the centre of it as both the cause the victims.”

 Suzuki realized he had found the new perspective he needed. It allowed him to see the world through different eyes.  He realized, as the Haida had before him, that what we needed to survive and thrive was not more money in order to live rich and healthy lives. This new attitude to nature was reflected in all the Haida did and found its fruits in how they wanted to interact with the land. As Suzuki said, “Rather than being separate and apart from the rest of nature, we are deeply embedded in and utterly dependent on the generosity of the biosphere.” I use the word “affinity” to describe this new attitude to nature. I will comment on again in these blogs.

It is this attitude that Albertans don’t understand. It is not just a matter of paying the Indigenous people money. They want jobs, they want money, but not at any cost. They don’t want it at the cost of their identity. That is why some of the indigenous people, but not all of them, do not want pipelines on their land and will sacrifice the jobs if necessary. I know that seems bizarre to Albertans and most Canadians for that matter. Alberta and Canada have to learn to respect that. Only then will they be able to successfully deal with Canada’s first nations.  And perhaps Canada will learn something valuable in the process. Perhaps there is something of value in that new attitude to nature.

Max the Tax

Climate change

Conservatives in Canada are already gearing up to fight the next election and an important platform for them is reputedly a war against the carbon tax, as modest as it is.  I have heard their leading line will be, “Axe the tax.”  It has a poetic ring to it, but is it good policy?

The scientists of the world have warned us that we have to reduce our consumption of carbon by 50% in 12 years. That is a tall order. Economists generally agree that the best weapon against carbon is a carbon tax. It makes sense. Make the carbon so expensive people will voluntarily switch to alternatives that have already been developed. Instead of subsidizing carbon, as we have been doing for decades, we have to do the opposite. We have to make the use of carbon painful. That’s why I advocate for a carbon tax to the max. No one likes taxes but clearly we need this one. There is no reasonable alternative on the horizon. The Conservative Party has not suggested any. It wants to continue doing what it did while the federal conservatives were in power, as little as possible. The federal liberals who were in power before that, had the same policy. It is time for change; it is time for transformative change.

Canada has recognized that a transition to a non-carbon economy requires carbon pricing and that it has to curb carbon pollution and lets face it, that is exactly what carbon is at this time in our history. We can no longer afford to pollute with carbon.

Peter Miller in an article in the Winnipeg Free Press put it well: “Absence of a carbon price (or one set too low) is a moral and market failure. It is in effect a subsidy paid to emitters by victims and governments who pick up the costs of more damage from climate change. “Axe the tax” really means “keep the subsidy.” A better cry is, “Make the polluters, not the victims, pay.”

And I’m sad to report I am one of the polluters. And so are you. Most of us are. And we’ve got to pay. Some of us can’t afford to pay. The carbon tax should be used to mitigate the losses for those people. Most of them did not cause the problem. People like me (and you) caused the problem. We should pay. Damn I had to say that, but I think its true.

That’s why Miller said, “Cancelling a carbon tax altogether is destructive tax avoidance.” It’s time to max the tax, not axe the  tax.

Time is Running Out: A secular Revival: David Suzuki in conversation about film Gimme Some Truth

Climate change

 

After the showing of the film Gimme Some Truth, that I saw at the University of Winnipeg,  David Suzuki talked about how foresight was a key characteristic of humans. It was an incredibly valuable skill. It allowed us to thrive where other species died out. We have more technologies and techniques to look ahead than ever before. However we are not using these tools, or our skills, to look ahead to see the danger around the corner. Instead we are allowing economics and politics to dominate. We are accepting business as usual. Some of our politicians are doing exactly that.

Franklin D. Roosevelt knew after the Depression and during the WWII that America would have to transition from a war economy to something new and different. The war economy was what got America out of the Depression but at a great cost—i.e. wars are incredibly devastating. He wanted something to replace that war economy with something less destructive.  He found that in consumption. America’s economy became a consumer economy. Consumption drove the economy. This, according to Suzuki was a horrible mistake. I agree. The consumer society has shredded the environment and morality.  It was as bad as the war economy.

Suzuki said that many of his colleagues whom he respects a lot believe that it is already too late to do anything about climate change. They say, we are already doomed. We can’t keep temperature rises to 1.5º C as scientists say we need to do to avoid catastrophe and as the governments of the world said they would do when they signed the Paris accords on climate change. To this Suzuki responded, “We don’t have enough information to know that this is true, so we have to give it a try.” He refused to give up–yet. “Nature is resilient. We need to step back and give it a chance,” he said.

According to Suzuki “climate change is the “existential issue of our time.” We must get politicians to take this issue seriously. All other problems pale in comparison.” As a result we have to do something urgent and game changing. He says we have to get after every politician. We cannot accept any longer their refusal to deal with this issue. We can’t let them backtrack. It is too late.

Suzuki pointed out that in 1998 the environment was the No. 1 issue on the minds of Canadians. Then we had a recession and everyone forgot about it and turned to the economy instead. Politicians started to talk about environmentalists as a ‘special interest group.’ That is not what we are, Suzuki said.

As Suzuki said, “Our kids have everything to lose. Their entire future is at stake. This is much more than a drop in 3rdquarter profits.” The elders like Suzuki and, of course, me, have to speak up. We should blog about it. Hey I am doing that. We all have to do something.

If you think social justice is important, as Suzuki does, and I do, social justice will be radically affected by climate change. The poor and those who have done the least to cause the problem will suffer the most from climate change. Is that just? Climate change is the serious issue, not marijuana. Yet we spend much more time talking about marijuana.

In July of 2017 Suzuki wrote a letter to the Prime Minister who had been so widely hailed as an environmental savior when he committed Canada to the Paris accords on Climate change. Suzuki was deeply worried about what Canada was doing when it approved dubious pipeline projects. Here is part of that letter:

… If we don’t look at it head-on, then I believe we will continue to talk but fail to take the hard steps that must be taken now — stop all discussions of building pipelines, shut down the tarsands and fracking, and get on a hard path to renewables. That must be done if we are to even come close to meeting the 2050 targets in the Paris Accord. It is ludicrous to keep looking to the economy and market forces and consumer pressure to make us change direction. We need you to make big, hard decisions and Harper made it all the more difficult for you by failing to even tackle the low-hanging fruit …

The good news is that the future predicted doesn’t have to happen, but only if you take the hard steps. You know I have no hidden agenda. I implore you as an elder near the end of my life and terrified for the future of my grandchildren.

This evening in Winnipeg David Suzuki filled the audience with wild enthusiasm. It was like a secular revival meeting.  Let’s hope its more effective than that. He said in the next election he wants stadiums filled with young people and adults demanding change. That election is about one year away. Suzuki thinks that is our last chance.

Scientists in their dry manner have issued a serious warning. Here is what the press release the IPCC issued says,

The report finds that limiting global warming to 1.5°C would require “rapid and far-reaching” transitions in land, energy, industry, buildings, transport, and cities. Global net human-caused emissions of carbon dioxide (CO2) would need to fall by about 45 percent from 2010 levels by 2030, reaching ‘net zero’ around 2050. This means that any remaining emissions would need to be balanced by removing CO2 from the air. Limiting warming to 1.5ºC is possible within the laws of chemistry and physics but doing so would require unprecedented changes.”

What does “unprecedented changes mean?  There are many interpretations. Here is one: At 2ºC , 25% of all species will be extinct. At 3ºC New York City will be submerged. Of course the higher the temperatures the worse it gets.

Suzuki described his altar call this way:

 

“We’ve now got a call that is comparable to the call when Japan attacked Pearl Harbour in 1941.  After that event, nobody said, ‘Those damn liberals, they want to spend us into poverty. Nobody said, ‘This is a Democratic or Republican issue. Nobody worried about the economic cost. We’ve got a challenge. How to make a peacetime economy in which our primary goal is to make a massive transition of our energy usage.”

 

Suzuki also pointed out that like the reaction to the Pearl attack this can be done. It is tough but not impossible. And our time is short. Half of the reductions must be made in 12 years! As Suzuki said,

 

“Sweden, which is a northern country like Canada imposed a carbon tax in 1992 of $130 per tonne. We’re quibbling over $10 (per tonne) or $15 (per tonne) or $50 (per tonne). During the  time that the tax was $130 (per tonne), the Swedish economy grew by 40 percent. So now, let’s not waste time on that. Let’s get a carbon tax in and lets start with a much bigger tax than either the Liberals or any of the other governments are speaking of…Stop behaving as if it’s those Greens who care about the environment, and we don’t give a damn because the economy is our highest priority. This is Pearl Harbour, and let’s act on it together.”

 

Debra Roberts one of the Co-Chairs of IPCC Working Group II, (not a radical like Suzuki) in presenting the report to the world press, pointed out, “The decisions we make today are critical in ensuring a safe and sustainable world for everyone, both now and in the future.’Then she added, “This report gives policymakers and practitioners the information they need to make decisions that tackle climate change while considering local context and people’s needs. The next few years are probably the most important in our history.”

Something Nice About Trump

2019 Trip to Southwest United States, Extremism, politics, Trump

 

As some of my critics have pointed out, I don’t often say something nice about Donald Trump. That is true. Today is an exception.

As everyone knows, the American government has been partially shut down for more than 4 weeks. Not everyone knows this has caused serious problems. It causes serious damage to the American economy as many things can’t be done, that should be done. Even more important, it has caused serious damage to many Americans. About 800,000 American government employees are not being paid. Many of them are still expected to go to work. That is inherently unfair.

I blame both sides. Not just Donald Trump, but certainly including him. Trump has said he won’t approve spending that does not include money for a wall on the southern border. This is an absurd position. It is highly unlikely that a wall will do any good. It is just window dressing for his ego. He is asking for about $5  billion at this time. This is small  beer in terms of American political spending. The Democrats say they were elected on the basis of opposing the wall. But Trump also got elected on the basis of promising a wall. Both sides should get over it.

This stand-off  shows how crazily dysfunctional their system of government is. This keeps happening over and over again, particularly as the chasm between Americans deepens. I damages the American international reputation. Extremism is on the march. This should be resolved. That will required either statesmanship or compromise or both. Since statesmanship is conspicuously absent, that means the parties must compromise. That means both sides have to agree to a settlement that is less than ideal from their perspective. So be it. Politicians willing to compromise in America appear to be a species on the endangers species list.

I listened today to  a small part of an interview with Joseph Stiglitz a respected American economist. I really just heard one small part of his talk. That was enough. He said there were figures out there that indicated that 40% of Americans have less than $400 in their accounts. 25% have less than $1,000 That means such a shutdown has serious consequences for these people. I have heard that Air traffic controllers have been working over time at second jobs with Uber so that they pay their portages. Americans need to be fair to their civil servants (even though many of them don’t respect civil servants). Many other people have lost their jobs because they depend on working with government employees. All of this is a serious drag on the American economy.

Today Donald Trump offered to approve a temporary extension of protection for people facing deportation on the basis that they are undocumented, so that both parties in Congress have more time to come up with a solution for this serious problem, but only if Congress approves a spending bill that includes money for the wall. In the circumstances Trump has made a reasonable offer. This will help thousands of people in America who are anxiously awaiting a return to work so they can feed their families and pay their bills. It will  postpone many deportations for at least 3 years. This is good. Not perfect, but good. Democrats should not let perfection be the enemy of the good. The Democrats should compromise, even though that will be painful for them. It will be good for the country. It will be good for many individuals and families. That is more important. Much more important.

Gimme Some Truth; Beyond Climate

Affinity, Anthropocene, Indigenous Issues, Indigenous Religion and Philosophy, Movies, New Attitude to Nature,

I attended the showing of a new film on climate change at the University of Winnipeg in November  2018 as part of the Cinematheque Gimme Some Truth documentary film festival. The film was called Beyond Climate Change and was directed by Ian Mauro of the University of Winnipeg and narrated by David Suzuki. Cinematography was by Len Peterson. The showing was followed by a discussion between Mauro and Suzuki during which  Suzuki delivered a stirring address that all the ingredients of a lively religious Revival. I called it a secular revival.

The film was preceded by an important message by First Nation elder Dave Courchene of Manitoba. He emphasized some important matters. I will paraphrase his remarks since it was impossible to make an accurate word-for-word transcription. He said that climate change was a direct consequence of our moral failure to follow our moral obligation to moderate our consumption and protect the earth. Our consumptive society, he said, is based on fear, greed, anxiety, stress, discontent, and ultimately genocide. Those were unsettling words. He said, “We are a species out of control.”  This attitude comes from looking at the earth as a non-living entity.  “We need a change of heart to survive as a species,” he quietly but powerful said. We must remember, as aboriginals have always preached, “What we do to the earth, we do to ourselves.” This of course follows from the fundamental premise of many indigenous people that we are fundamentally connected to the earth; we are not separate and apart from it. We have to renew the spirit—i.e. we need to awaken our deep feeling of kinship and affinity with each other and the earth itself. I have already blogged about how this is in my opinion a deeply religions notion.

Courchene added, “We need to disengage with a life that is not in alignment with the earth and aboriginals have an important role to play in this process. They can help the rest of us do this.”

Early in the film Suzuki quoted from American poet and environmentalist Gary Snyder. He was the winner of the Pulitzer Prize for poetry. Petr Kopecký called him “the Poet laureate of Deep Ecology”. Snyder, according to Suzuki said that the two most important words were “Stay Put.” I think he meant that we should resist being removed from the place we call home. We should stay connected to it. That is our base for all we do. We should not sell that home to anyone for money. That is what the first nations of British Columbia are doing when they refuse to sell rights to oil and gas companies to build a pipeline over their land to the Pacific Ocean.

Suzuki pointed out that “climate change is the critical—the existential issue of our times. The science has been in for 30 years. We know that the problems our children and grand children face will be immense.”

If you think this is alarmist or bat shit crazy here is what the World Health Organization had to say. Climate change is “the greatest threat to global health in the 21stcentury.” “Climate change is a global emergency.” But it is not all bad news.  The policies that we must adopt have demonstrable health benefits beside the climate benefits! However our Canadian government that held such promise when the newly elected Prime Minister Justin Trudeau said that Canada was committed to the Paris agreement on climate change, has been disappointing. Committing billions to supporting the purchase of a pipeline for bitumen without adequately assessing its effects on health or the environment is a big step in the wrong direction. As Tim K. Takaro and Jennifer Miller said, “Our government must invest in solutions to, not the causes of, climate change.”

The film emphasized what we already know, particularly after this horrific year that brought us record wild fires, spectacular storms, and brutal heat waves, and that is that extreme weather events will relentlessly plague us and we had better get ready for that. This is not how things are supposed to be, but this how they are. As Suzuki said, “the entire planet is at risk because humans have become so powerful that we are actually impacting the water, the air, the soil in a way that no other species has ever done.”

Albertans are very upset that BC and some indigenous nations are objecting to their project to bring liquefied natural gas and oil to the Pacific coast through the province of British Columbia and over indigenous land. But what do they think gives them the absolute right to bring a project to the land of others without their consent? Just because such projects produce a lot of money? As one indigenous leader said in the film, “Fundamentally there are just some projects that Canadians, and indigenous peoples, and British Columbians have the right to say no to.” As another leader said, “It is not just about corporate quarterly profits.” Another indigenous leader said, “I don’t feel comfortable pushing this off to my children.” These leaders summed up the issue precisely. Albertans by and large don’t understand this. Each of us has to take responsibility for this issue. We all have to do our part.

I liked many things about the film. For example, I liked the sign held high by one of the protesters: All you need is less. That is what we always forget and this is the problem. We always want more. I loved another sign, “Live gently upon the earth.”

I liked the scene in the film where a young aboriginal boy made a sensational jump when he drove his bike into the wall of a sandbox filled with a big mattress. The photographer caught him in midflight as he lifted off after hitting the board “flying” through the air completely horizontal, with a massive grin on his face and a bright gleam in his eye. The boy was obviously confident that he would hit the mattress. He knew he was resilient. He had hope.

I loved the comments about British Columbia and Vancouver in the film designed to explain to us why many of them  opposed pipelines into their bay up the coast. I did not know it, but Vancouver is the major city with the lowest per capita greenhouse gas emission in North America. This has been achieved at the same time that Vancouver has undergone significant growth: 27 per cent increase in population and 18 per cent increase in jobs. They are justifiably proud of that.  Why would they want to lose that? I wonder how much of this achievement is the consequence of their carbon tax?

Suzuki was interviewed for his views a number of times in the film. He was clearly sad that although fishing had always been a very important part of his life from the time he was 4 years old, he could not fish in the streams outside of Vancouver anymore. He could not bring his grand children to those streams. That is a pity. Not only that, it is important. It is not all about money. As one indigenous leader said, “you can’t eat money.”

I won’t say that I learned a lot new from the film, but it did inspire. The talk that followed did more than that. Suzuki in particular was in fine form. His speech was powerful. It was a secular revival. My kind of revival.

Manitoba and the Carbon Tax

Climate change

 

Just before we left Manitoba for Arizona, I heard our Premier Brian Pallister rail about how unfair the federal government is to Manitoba. They were not giving Manitoba credit for all their green activities such as Manitoba hydro.  Palliser does not get it.  First, the carbon tax is not a normal tax at all. It is actually revenue neutral. Every dollar of tax Manitobans will pay will be given back to Manitobans to use in activities that reduce greenhouse gas emissions. Every cent of tax collected will be paid back. In fact if he joins the federal plan he can decide how that money is to be spent.

This is no time to argue about Manitoba’s carbon plan compared to Canada’s plan. We must work together.    We have 30 years (or perhaps a lot less) to completely transform the global economy. This is probably the biggest task humanity has ever undertaken. We cannot fail. The result of failure are too catastrophic and the cost too immense. If we don’t make the necessary changes the climate will make them for us.

We need political leaders who can stand up to corporate interests who are putting their own welfare above that of the people. We cannot allow them to profit from pollution any longer. We also have to tackle the inequities that changed policies will necessitate.

We can use the carbon tax money to do that. We must make sure we don’t pay it back to the polluters. Then we have accomplished nothing. Too often government policies have done exactly that. We cannot shield Canadian polluters under the guise of preserving their competitiveness. Polluters should not be competitive. If every government shelters the polluters the carbon tax will bring no benefits. The price on carbon must lead to decarbonizing the economy. Business models that rely on polluting the atmosphere are outdated and must be rejected. Businesses should no longer be able to push such costs on the people of Manitoba as an “externality.” We have to use the money raised to fund clean alternatives that don’t pollute.

The policy of the federal government to impose a carbon tax of $10 per tonne of carbon pollution now, rising to $50, is likely inadequate. But at least we must do that. At the same time we can urge the federal government to do more.

The Conservatives have been criticizing the Liberals relentlessly for months, claiming the new proposed carbon tax will be a “tax grab”. Then the Liberals explained how the tax was going to be paid back to the people. Now the Conservatives are complaining the Liberals were trying to buy votes by giving the money back. That is what they promised all along. It is supposed to be a revenue neutral tax.

The carbon tax is a completely sensible proposal. Economists have been saying for some time that this is the best way to fight climate change. Really it is just an application of the polluter pays principle. It really makes complete sense that the person who pollutes pays for the pollution. Pollution should not be treated as an externality that can be passed on to society.  Those who don’t pollute will get more of the money back.

The plan could be criticized for many reasons, but Conservatives have picked the wrong ones. I think they should have attacked the carbon tax for not making carbon expensive enough!

The government is bringing a tax that will cause the price of a litre gasoline to rise less than 12 cents in 5 years. The Conservatives have been railing against this massive tax grab.   According to gasbuddy.com the retail price of gasoline has fluctuated by $0.24 in the past year, $0.38 in the past 2 years, $0.55 in the last five years. How can the modest carbon tax be economically destructive as the Conservatives have complained, remembering too that all the tax will be paid back to the people?

There are some good taxes. That sounds liken an oxymoron. Or is that just a moron?