I have to compliment the Edmonton Journal’s environment writer Hanneke Brooymans on her excellent piece in today’s Sunday Reader section entitled “Man at the Door - Wolves in the Crosshairs.” She illustrates just how human “development” has come to be an escalating problem and our solutions of more intervention have mostly just made matters worse.
We definitely need to intervene, especially in Alberta. But we need to engage in ways that cleans up the destruction and fragmentation we have wrought on the landscape already and that has served to destroy and interfere with wildlife habitat, particularly in our boreal forest. We need to accelerate our efforts and commitments to restoration of the unused and unnecessary resource roads, seismic lines and pipeline right-of-ways, and abandoned and orphan oil and gas well sites. We need to get on with reclamation of oil sand pits and tailing ponds. And we need to move immediately to create biodiversity based off-sets to balance the consequences of oil sands development that will take vast areas of the forest out of the natural patterns and purposes for up to 80 years.
The planned intervention against wolves in Brooymans’ feature seems to be a textbook case of human hubris as presumptive, capable and competent managers of the environment. We chose to kill and sterilize wolves in the pursuit of saving caribou instead of engaging in acts of stewardship that would reduce our impact and interference on wildlife habitat overall in the boreal forest and enable nature to restore itself.
We know our human activities are major causes of this imbalance in nature but we default to further interventions in, on and against those natural patterns. We inappropriately assume that by adding more human impact on the forest and wildlife habitat, (instead of reducing and reclaiming it from human activity), that we can “have our cake and eat it too.” This is the overarching observation of the University of Alberta noted biologist Dr. Stan Boutin in the Edmonton Journal feature story on wolves.
The new default position for humanity has to be is to strive to share the biosphere on a more integrated and equitable basis with the rest of the flora and fauna who are also “entitled” to share the planet. We need to learn to co-habitat and collaborate and integrate much more with the natural phenomenon that is inherent to supporting the diversity of life forms on the planet. We need to do this for the planet and also perchance, for the sustainable survival of our species as part of the future of the planet. Remember extinction is also a natural phenomenon.
We can’t continue in our pursuit of wealth creation that presumes the industrial definition of well being based on GDP justifies our on-going quest to conquer nature. We can no longer rely on and carry forward a foundational myth that says mankind can actually dissect, direct and control nature. Nor can we afford the presumptive arrogance and that our manipulations and interventions of natural forces can actually result in predicable and positive outcomes.
We continue to take delight in this dysfunctional definition of progress and we almost deify ourselves as a species; believing that our “being” is somehow above nature. We tend to rely on our capacity to Dissect, Manipulate and Control nature as part and parcel of progress. We want to push an ever-accelerating industrial growth as being progressive even though we know such activities are often intolerant and indifferent to the long term consequences to the environment.
We definitely need to intervene, especially in Alberta. But we need to engage in ways that cleans up the destruction and fragmentation we have wrought on the landscape already and that has served to destroy and interfere with wildlife habitat, particularly in our boreal forest. We need to accelerate our efforts and commitments to restoration of the unused and unnecessary resource roads, seismic lines and pipeline right-of-ways, and abandoned and orphan oil and gas well sites. We need to get on with reclamation of oil sand pits and tailing ponds. And we need to move immediately to create biodiversity based off-sets to balance the consequences of oil sands development that will take vast areas of the forest out of the natural patterns and purposes for up to 80 years.
The planned intervention against wolves in Brooymans’ feature seems to be a textbook case of human hubris as presumptive, capable and competent managers of the environment. We chose to kill and sterilize wolves in the pursuit of saving caribou instead of engaging in acts of stewardship that would reduce our impact and interference on wildlife habitat overall in the boreal forest and enable nature to restore itself.
We know our human activities are major causes of this imbalance in nature but we default to further interventions in, on and against those natural patterns. We inappropriately assume that by adding more human impact on the forest and wildlife habitat, (instead of reducing and reclaiming it from human activity), that we can “have our cake and eat it too.” This is the overarching observation of the University of Alberta noted biologist Dr. Stan Boutin in the Edmonton Journal feature story on wolves.
The new default position for humanity has to be is to strive to share the biosphere on a more integrated and equitable basis with the rest of the flora and fauna who are also “entitled” to share the planet. We need to learn to co-habitat and collaborate and integrate much more with the natural phenomenon that is inherent to supporting the diversity of life forms on the planet. We need to do this for the planet and also perchance, for the sustainable survival of our species as part of the future of the planet. Remember extinction is also a natural phenomenon.
We can’t continue in our pursuit of wealth creation that presumes the industrial definition of well being based on GDP justifies our on-going quest to conquer nature. We can no longer rely on and carry forward a foundational myth that says mankind can actually dissect, direct and control nature. Nor can we afford the presumptive arrogance and that our manipulations and interventions of natural forces can actually result in predicable and positive outcomes.
We continue to take delight in this dysfunctional definition of progress and we almost deify ourselves as a species; believing that our “being” is somehow above nature. We tend to rely on our capacity to Dissect, Manipulate and Control nature as part and parcel of progress. We want to push an ever-accelerating industrial growth as being progressive even though we know such activities are often intolerant and indifferent to the long term consequences to the environment.
What if the next reality is based on the planet taking over dominance? Could the planet take a Control, Alter and Delete approach and “reboot” itself to rid itself of the crap that has accumulated and that is causing it harm? I know this is more poetic than a practical analysis. But it is no more far-fetched and metaphorical than believing human-kind need not change its beliefs and behaviours for the sake of the environment and in response to climate change.
We are now starting to recall and re-accept that nature is a force unto itself and that it is full of intricate patterns and constant changes. We are learning to re-appreciate that these natural changes are spawned and sustained by self-organizing adaptive sets of feedback mechanisms that are embedded in that intricacy. We are recollecting that life itself has an energy composed of the collective and collaborative diversity of the biosphere.
This renewal of human awareness of our place in the grand scheme of things is catching on and is also evolving. This renewed consciousness is making our presumptive mythology that mankind can actually control nature and predict its outcomes "questionable." This questionable human conduct is more than just another event in the long line of follies that have marked the absurdist history of our species. It is not merely a silly and discountable foolishness. It is downright dangerous and reckless and particularly crucial to the vitality and survival of our own species.
There is no doubt that the future of planet Earth is assured, and life will continue in some form or other. What is not clear is what that future of the planet means for mankind, given the hubris of our current dominant consciousness, beliefs and behaviours. Just what the hell we are doing and why is something to think about and reflect upon as we anticipate Earth Day coming up next Tuesday April 22nd.
A priority indeed
ReplyDeleteJust what the hell are we doing is a great question.
ReplyDeleteBut the foolishness of the contemporary financial system, the ridiculous waste of our suburban development schemes, the inability of the north american public to accept public transit en masse (and the evolution in developing economies away from public tranist), even down to the idea that energy efficient light bulbs don't look classy and therefore aren't accepted in many peoples' homes - suggests that we don't know, and we don't care.
I think that can change if our governments, courts, or even companies worried about liability start forcing more information on us.
Take for example, TESCO in the UK, which is starting to investigate the carbon intensity of it's supply chains, and insisting that product carbon intensities are published on packaging, giving consumers the right and ability to choose the better alternatives
As these initiatives filter through supply chains, they will become institutionalized in China where many of these goods are produced (and there is evidence that this is happening). More pressure by more governments and corporations for this will happen, will only speed up this process for the good of us all.
The only scary bit, of course, is that this might filter right back to us...and our dirty little energy secret up in northeast alberta...
In any respect, there is some significant mirror gazing to be done. Governments have a role to play, but so do you, so does he and she, and so do I in preparing for the point in the future when mother nature decides if she will continue to have us as her guests.
Hmm...there I am off topic again. Forgive me for trivializing the fate of wolves as I sit in China, where wild animals were systematically eliminated during the 50's, cursed as theives of people food...
Hi Ken
ReplyDeleteI am really interested in your response to the "KitKat" programme.CAn you tell me when you might write on this subject
skip to main | skip to sidebar Ken Chapman
I am interested in progressive politics, citizen participation, real democracy and a full range of public policy issues from an Albertan and Canadian perspective.
Sunday, April 13, 2008
Jim Prentice Kills Satellite Deal - The Right Thing for the Right Reasons
This week illustrates another reason why I value Jim Prentice as a politician and a person. The progressive and positive positions he has taken as Minister of Industry is a continuation of his quality governance capabilities. His move this past week to kill a sell off of a publicly paid for Canadian space technology is the most recent case in point.
He is a bright, thoughtful, competent and conscientious man with enormous personal and political skills. He is a former federal Progressive Conservative leadership candidate - and my choice in those days. He is obviously so far above the posturing pettiness and the blatant bullying of the majority of his Reform types CPC “colleagues.”
The proposed sale by Canadian company MacDonald Dettwiler and Associates Ltd. of our just launched earth observation satellite, Radarsat-2, to an American corporation, Alliant, is wrong at so many levels. Prentice knows this and has moved quickly to do something about it.
We have many issues of Canadian interests at stake here, including our sovereignty over the Arctic that the Americans and others are challenging. Those dealing would be seriously compromised with this commercial deal going forward. We also have the loss of technology that we Canadian taxpayers have paid for in large part…and the company would have pocketed the benefits – not us. Then there is the fact this technology is critical new 21st century infrastructure to boot.
Well done Mr. Minister and keep up the good work - and don’t let antics of the small-minded bullys that seem to be all around you get you down.
Posted by Ken Chapman at 9:51 AM
Labels: Prentice
12 comments:
Anonymous said...
Hey Ken;
Just wanted your take of the recent announcement by Stelmach of the billion dollar KitKat program.. you know the one, where he's decided that the beleaguered oil companies that are only making record profits need a break on the royalties they're paying for the next 5 years.
Is this what you meant when you were talking about how progressive Stelmach would be?
7:39 PM
Ken Chapman said...
I have a serious problem with it but have not had the time to get into it in any depth. I will be looking more closely at it in the days to come.
What dirty little secret is in NE Alberta? You can't be talking about oilsands, can you? It is not little, it is not a secret (even Greenpeace has a resident professional protestor office set up in Alberta now), and it is not even that dirty (please specify mining, SAGD, or any other means of extraction before you get all smarmy).
ReplyDeleteIf we could harness the pontificational power of all the "do as I say not as I do" types, we wouldn't need oil & gas.
Hehe...if you're talking to international folks who spend their entire days talking about the future of energy, lots of them have heard of oil sands, and that's about it. At least, that's my experience at a number of international conferences I've recently attended on the matter.
ReplyDeleteSAGD not dirty? hmm...gotta make steam, gotta use lots of water (in an increasingly water scarce environment)...still gotta upgrade the stuff...I see lots and lots of "C"s floating out of that tailpipe. Sir, "dirty" is defined even in the US as anything more carbon intensive than conventional oil. Maybe Canada and Venezuela are the only two countries who might want to look at that differently.