My father died last month. He was 91. During his 50 years in business, he tried to teach me some lessons about life and money. This is what I learned.
1) When you make an agreement, write it down. I came from a family of five children. Every Saturday allowance would be dispensed like cups of navy grog - five cents for the youngest, twenty-five cents for the oldest and gradations in between. These dispensations were recorded in a ledger with deductions for misbehaviour. Disputes about who received what were resolved by reference to the ledger. As we grew older, allowance stopped and loans began. Each transaction was private but each was accompanied by a promissory note. When you make an agreement, write it down.
2) Cut your cloth according to your needs. As an orphan, my father could not afford to go into debt. He only bought what he needed and what he could afford. He didn’t drive when he could cycle and he didn’t cycle when he could walk. He was always well dressed but if you looked closely, his clothes were always well mended. It was from him that I learned how to darn socks. He had learned the difference between wants and needs. “Don’t cut your cloth according to your wants”, he would say, “cut it according to your needs”.
3) Don’t forget where you come from. My father befriended a man who lived alone in a rooming house in Hamilton. What little family he had, he was alienated from. My father picked him up hitchhiking and brought him by the house where he was paid to do some gardening. We called him Popeye because he spent most of the time on the verandah, smoking a borrowed pipe and telling stories about the war. This went on for years. One day, after we had driven him home, I asked my father why we did this. He said, “There was a time when I had no family to speak of and I lived in a boarding house too. Don’t forget where you come from, that could be you.”
4) Pick up the pennies and the dollars will take care of themselves. My father was an inveterate recycler. He saved newspapers and rolled them into fireplace logs. He never discarded anything if he could avoid it. He took special pleasure in his early morning raids on the local lovers’ lane where he could collect bottles and cans to be returned for cash. It was inconceivable to him that one would pass by a penny on the street and not pick it up. “Pick up the pennies”, was his motto, “and the dollars will take care of themselves”.
5) Every budget, no matter how small, has room for the common good. Every week my father attended church and made his financial contribution. This was in addition to other charities he supported regularly. We received our allowance on Saturday but on Sunday we were expected to donate a portion to the church. These days we are all encouraged to set up an RRSP and “pay yourself first”. This was not my father’s view. His view was that first of all, we need each other in order to survive. Therefore, investment in community is a necessary expense and every budget, no matter how small, has room for the common good.
Thursday, March 01, 2007
Monday, December 18, 2006
INVESTING IN EQUALITY LEADS TO PEACE PRIZE
What wonderful news that Muhammed Yunus and his Grameen Bank were awarded the Nobel Peace Prize this year. What a high profile recognition that increasing inequality leads to conflict and increasing equality leads to peace.
In 1976, Professor Yunus launched an action research program aimed at reducing poverty by extending credit to the poorest of the poor in Bangladesh. (Grameen means ‘rural’ or ‘village’ in the local Bangla language.)
The Grameen system is compellingly simple. A group of 5 prospective borrowers is formed. Only two can receive the first loan and the whole team ensures the loan is repaid since only then can the others borrow money. No collateral is used other than the trust offered by the community. A track record is quickly established and borrowers who successfully repay the first loan can then borrow larger amounts. The first loan made was for $27. Since 1983 the Grameen bank has lent $5.1 billion to 5.3 million people and adds more than 1% to the Gross Domestic Product of Bangladesh annually.
Some realities are hidden by these figures. Dr. Yunus’ action research project became a bank through government legislation and received support from both the central bank and the nationalized commercial banks. The Grameen bank is 90% owned by the poor whom it serves with the government owning the remaining 10%. Most of the borrowers are women and the loan repayment rate is 95%.
Readers familiar with the credit union and cooperative movements will recognize some familiar features in this arrangement – especially the emphasis on self-help activities and collective action to promote economic and social development. I began to wonder if there were any modern Canadian examples continuing to work in this tradition. I immediately thought of Father Greg MacLeod.
Greg is a Catholic Priest who grew up in Cape Breton, an economically depressed but socially vibrant part of Nova Scotia. In 1976 he created a community development corporation named New Dawn Enterprises. One of its first challenges was to deal with the shortage of dentists on the island of Cape Breton. New Dawn built and equipped a dental clinic and then persuaded a newly graduated dentist to occupy it. The young dentist was attracted because he didn’t need to borrow money to establish himself. New Dawn then repeated this process until Cape Breton had established a good reputation as a place to practice dentistry. Over 25 years the number of dentists on the island increased from 2 to 70.
New Dawn also responded when a local rope factory was being sold and relocated to the United States. The factory had been built with government money and locals thought they should have a chance to revive it before it was taken away. It was the women of the community who blockaded the factory site and prevented it being removed and it was New Dawn that negotiated the purchase. The rope factory is now a thriving commercial venture. Today, there are ten different companies operating under New Dawn Enterprises with assets of $20 million.
Both Prof. Yunus and Fr. MacLeod have demonstrated that when communities get behind an idea they bring something with real value to the table. Economists are beginning to call this ‘social capital’. It is as valuable as financial capital but you won’t find it under the mattress. You find it in your relationships in community.
First published November 30, 2006
In 1976, Professor Yunus launched an action research program aimed at reducing poverty by extending credit to the poorest of the poor in Bangladesh. (Grameen means ‘rural’ or ‘village’ in the local Bangla language.)
The Grameen system is compellingly simple. A group of 5 prospective borrowers is formed. Only two can receive the first loan and the whole team ensures the loan is repaid since only then can the others borrow money. No collateral is used other than the trust offered by the community. A track record is quickly established and borrowers who successfully repay the first loan can then borrow larger amounts. The first loan made was for $27. Since 1983 the Grameen bank has lent $5.1 billion to 5.3 million people and adds more than 1% to the Gross Domestic Product of Bangladesh annually.
Some realities are hidden by these figures. Dr. Yunus’ action research project became a bank through government legislation and received support from both the central bank and the nationalized commercial banks. The Grameen bank is 90% owned by the poor whom it serves with the government owning the remaining 10%. Most of the borrowers are women and the loan repayment rate is 95%.
Readers familiar with the credit union and cooperative movements will recognize some familiar features in this arrangement – especially the emphasis on self-help activities and collective action to promote economic and social development. I began to wonder if there were any modern Canadian examples continuing to work in this tradition. I immediately thought of Father Greg MacLeod.
Greg is a Catholic Priest who grew up in Cape Breton, an economically depressed but socially vibrant part of Nova Scotia. In 1976 he created a community development corporation named New Dawn Enterprises. One of its first challenges was to deal with the shortage of dentists on the island of Cape Breton. New Dawn built and equipped a dental clinic and then persuaded a newly graduated dentist to occupy it. The young dentist was attracted because he didn’t need to borrow money to establish himself. New Dawn then repeated this process until Cape Breton had established a good reputation as a place to practice dentistry. Over 25 years the number of dentists on the island increased from 2 to 70.
New Dawn also responded when a local rope factory was being sold and relocated to the United States. The factory had been built with government money and locals thought they should have a chance to revive it before it was taken away. It was the women of the community who blockaded the factory site and prevented it being removed and it was New Dawn that negotiated the purchase. The rope factory is now a thriving commercial venture. Today, there are ten different companies operating under New Dawn Enterprises with assets of $20 million.
Both Prof. Yunus and Fr. MacLeod have demonstrated that when communities get behind an idea they bring something with real value to the table. Economists are beginning to call this ‘social capital’. It is as valuable as financial capital but you won’t find it under the mattress. You find it in your relationships in community.
First published November 30, 2006
Wednesday, October 04, 2006
Are Rural People Better Off When Cities Prosper?
Are rural people better off when cities prosper? That’s one of the questions I asked myself when I read the recent report by the Conference Board of Canada “Canada’s Hub Cities: A Driving Force of the National Economy”. The report argues that government money (a portion of the gas tax) should be invested more in Canada’s largest cities than in smaller towns. According to this logic, Alberta would be better off if the gas tax generated by the smaller towns of Grande Prairie, Hardisty and Oyen were invested in Calgary or Edmonton rather than being distributed more evenly. According to the Conference Board of Canada, the economy of Alberta (as measured by the Gross Domestic product) would grow more, and all Albertans would be more prosperous if governments targeted the largest cities for investment.
I remember talking to a young Albertan some time ago who wanted to move from his parents’ farm and buy a farm on his own near Olds, AB. He put in a bid on a good working farm and found he was outbid by a lawyer from Calgary. The lawyer wanted a weekend country place. The farm land offered him scenic beauty but he had no time to be an active farmer. The lawyer turned around and hired the young farmer to farm the land for him. From the point of view of Gross Domestic Product, the value of farmland in the area increased because of this sale and therefore the wealth of the area increased as well. According to this way of measuring, the region became more prosperous. From the point of view of the young farmer, he went from being a prospective land owner to being a tenant – a journey his grandparents had in the opposite direction when they immigrated and homesteaded so many years ago. Is the community better off as a result of this shift? Has our collective wellbeing increased?
The Conference Board of Canada report assumes that an increase in economic activity in a region means that everyone is better off. This is clearly not the case. Saskatchewan’s economy can be growing even while the vast majority of its small towns are dying. A close reading of the report reveals a tiny footnote at the end that admits “that some of the communities that converge do so, not because their rates of GDP increases are so fast, but because their population is declining. This is not a happy story.” A better question to be asked is ‘are we better off’? Are we more healthy, more literate, more balanced, more community minded and more generous? Are we realizing the goals and values we cherish for our society?
The Canadian Index of Wellbeing is a new initiative sponsored by the Atkinson Foundation and chaired by former Saskatchewan Premier, Roy Romanow. It seeks to measure not just the growth in economic activity but the extent to which we are realizing our values and goals and whether we are leaving to our children a better world. It is developing a set of indicators that will measure “educational achievement, economic security, a clean environment and social equity.” With these kinds of measuring sticks we can distinguish between the kind of economic growth that depopulates rural Canada and the kind that promotes health and clean air.
Economics is not value free but its values are well hidden to the untrained eye. Congratulations to the Atkinson Foundation for helping us ask and answer the right questions. You can learn more about this initiative at www.atkinsonfoundation.ca/ciw.
First published in August 2006
I remember talking to a young Albertan some time ago who wanted to move from his parents’ farm and buy a farm on his own near Olds, AB. He put in a bid on a good working farm and found he was outbid by a lawyer from Calgary. The lawyer wanted a weekend country place. The farm land offered him scenic beauty but he had no time to be an active farmer. The lawyer turned around and hired the young farmer to farm the land for him. From the point of view of Gross Domestic Product, the value of farmland in the area increased because of this sale and therefore the wealth of the area increased as well. According to this way of measuring, the region became more prosperous. From the point of view of the young farmer, he went from being a prospective land owner to being a tenant – a journey his grandparents had in the opposite direction when they immigrated and homesteaded so many years ago. Is the community better off as a result of this shift? Has our collective wellbeing increased?
The Conference Board of Canada report assumes that an increase in economic activity in a region means that everyone is better off. This is clearly not the case. Saskatchewan’s economy can be growing even while the vast majority of its small towns are dying. A close reading of the report reveals a tiny footnote at the end that admits “that some of the communities that converge do so, not because their rates of GDP increases are so fast, but because their population is declining. This is not a happy story.” A better question to be asked is ‘are we better off’? Are we more healthy, more literate, more balanced, more community minded and more generous? Are we realizing the goals and values we cherish for our society?
The Canadian Index of Wellbeing is a new initiative sponsored by the Atkinson Foundation and chaired by former Saskatchewan Premier, Roy Romanow. It seeks to measure not just the growth in economic activity but the extent to which we are realizing our values and goals and whether we are leaving to our children a better world. It is developing a set of indicators that will measure “educational achievement, economic security, a clean environment and social equity.” With these kinds of measuring sticks we can distinguish between the kind of economic growth that depopulates rural Canada and the kind that promotes health and clean air.
Economics is not value free but its values are well hidden to the untrained eye. Congratulations to the Atkinson Foundation for helping us ask and answer the right questions. You can learn more about this initiative at www.atkinsonfoundation.ca/ciw.
First published in August 2006
Spiritual Values Seek Political Expression
Apparently there are some people in my town that want to kill me and my friends. That is the allegation at least. According to the press, there is quite a lot of evidence to support this charge. I have friends who work on Parliament Hill, family members who work at the CBC and I am frequently walking in downtown Toronto. These are all places named last week as potential targets of terrorist attacks.
I am used to people in Canada importing conflicts from abroad. People of Irish descent have been supporting different sides of the Irish civil war for ages. More recently it has been Eastern Europeans, Kashmiris, Tibetans and Chinese. But the terrorist threats against targets in Toronto and Ottawa are not like these others. These threats come from Canadians and are made against Canadians. Their objective is to force political change in Canada’s relations with other nations, most specifically with the United States and Afghanistan.
The last time this happened in Canada was 35 years ago during the FLQ crisis. At that time an armed group kidnapped politicians and killed one. They were trying to achieve the political goal of Quebec as a sovereign and independent state.
The current group of violent, Canadian plotters also has a political agenda – the release of Muslim political prisoners and the withdrawal of Canadian troops from Afghanistan. But they also share an Islamic faith. How will we understand this?
One of their distinctive characteristics is their spiritual motivation. They identify themselves coming from a shared religious tradition, Islam. Some are converts from another faith (Hinduism & Christianity). Some have been active trying to convert others.
One of the characteristics of contemporary western culture is that we live as if our material and spiritual worlds can be separate. When we live as if they are separate, we tend to live as if one of those worlds doesn’t really exist. Some of us will live in a spiritual world and pretend that the material world doesn’t exist, won’t last or doesn’t matter. We will live in isolation from the world or wait until the apocalypse or become indifferent to the worries of the world.
Others of us will live only in the material world and pretend the spiritual world doesn’t exist, is something you grow out of or is a private choice that has no real consequence for anyone else. Both of these points of view are distortions of reality. Our spiritual life is real and seeks expression in the material world. Spiritual values make real claims on people and communities. Disagreements about spiritual values will create real political, social and economic conflicts but they will be hard to see if we pretend they don’t exist.
By the same token the material world is also real and also seeks expression in our spiritual life. Our political, social and economic realities seek affirmation in spiritual terms. Political movements seek to bring in a new order, social movements make claims of fundamental identity and economic movements make claims to salvation. If we continue to deny our spiritual reality we will refuse to come to terms with the meaning of our most fundamental choices.
The Canadian terrorist suspects seem to be trying to turn their spiritual values into a political reality. They feel their spiritual identity as followers of Islam to be under attack by Canadian military involvement in Afghanistan. According to opinion polls, most Canadians seem unsure about our country’s involvement there. Why do we have over 2,000 troops there? Are we not peacekeepers? We seem to be in armed combat yet we are told we are not at war? Are we really trying to support the reconstruction of a war-torn country or are we protecting American economic interests in the Middle East?
This is a challenge in two parts. For those of us who are religious (and especially Muslim), this is a challenge to articulate the spiritual values we are deeply committed to that are deeply present in our society. These spiritual values include the dignity of every person, male and female, the real tolerance of difference and the practice of democratic decision-making.
For the rest of us, the challenge is to consider how the world’s dominant empire, based on economic globalization, American military interests and western culture, represents a violent threat to other cultures, other interests and other ways of doing business. Westerners tend not to think of this empire in spiritual terms but other groups experience their whole way of life and being in the world as threatened. For them this is a crisis on all fronts, including the spiritual, and they seek spiritual sanction for their political responses.
First published in July, 2006
I am used to people in Canada importing conflicts from abroad. People of Irish descent have been supporting different sides of the Irish civil war for ages. More recently it has been Eastern Europeans, Kashmiris, Tibetans and Chinese. But the terrorist threats against targets in Toronto and Ottawa are not like these others. These threats come from Canadians and are made against Canadians. Their objective is to force political change in Canada’s relations with other nations, most specifically with the United States and Afghanistan.
The last time this happened in Canada was 35 years ago during the FLQ crisis. At that time an armed group kidnapped politicians and killed one. They were trying to achieve the political goal of Quebec as a sovereign and independent state.
The current group of violent, Canadian plotters also has a political agenda – the release of Muslim political prisoners and the withdrawal of Canadian troops from Afghanistan. But they also share an Islamic faith. How will we understand this?
One of their distinctive characteristics is their spiritual motivation. They identify themselves coming from a shared religious tradition, Islam. Some are converts from another faith (Hinduism & Christianity). Some have been active trying to convert others.
One of the characteristics of contemporary western culture is that we live as if our material and spiritual worlds can be separate. When we live as if they are separate, we tend to live as if one of those worlds doesn’t really exist. Some of us will live in a spiritual world and pretend that the material world doesn’t exist, won’t last or doesn’t matter. We will live in isolation from the world or wait until the apocalypse or become indifferent to the worries of the world.
Others of us will live only in the material world and pretend the spiritual world doesn’t exist, is something you grow out of or is a private choice that has no real consequence for anyone else. Both of these points of view are distortions of reality. Our spiritual life is real and seeks expression in the material world. Spiritual values make real claims on people and communities. Disagreements about spiritual values will create real political, social and economic conflicts but they will be hard to see if we pretend they don’t exist.
By the same token the material world is also real and also seeks expression in our spiritual life. Our political, social and economic realities seek affirmation in spiritual terms. Political movements seek to bring in a new order, social movements make claims of fundamental identity and economic movements make claims to salvation. If we continue to deny our spiritual reality we will refuse to come to terms with the meaning of our most fundamental choices.
The Canadian terrorist suspects seem to be trying to turn their spiritual values into a political reality. They feel their spiritual identity as followers of Islam to be under attack by Canadian military involvement in Afghanistan. According to opinion polls, most Canadians seem unsure about our country’s involvement there. Why do we have over 2,000 troops there? Are we not peacekeepers? We seem to be in armed combat yet we are told we are not at war? Are we really trying to support the reconstruction of a war-torn country or are we protecting American economic interests in the Middle East?
This is a challenge in two parts. For those of us who are religious (and especially Muslim), this is a challenge to articulate the spiritual values we are deeply committed to that are deeply present in our society. These spiritual values include the dignity of every person, male and female, the real tolerance of difference and the practice of democratic decision-making.
For the rest of us, the challenge is to consider how the world’s dominant empire, based on economic globalization, American military interests and western culture, represents a violent threat to other cultures, other interests and other ways of doing business. Westerners tend not to think of this empire in spiritual terms but other groups experience their whole way of life and being in the world as threatened. For them this is a crisis on all fronts, including the spiritual, and they seek spiritual sanction for their political responses.
First published in July, 2006
Tuesday, May 09, 2006
How Big Is Your Family Circle?
Did you have a good Easter weekend? Did your family gather around the table and break bread together? Who was there? Was it just Mom and Dad and the kids or is your family bigger than that?
In North America the idea of family is something we fight about. One of our fights is whether the concept is reserved for the biological family or whether it can encompass a larger variety of social forms. Some conservative Christians like James Dobson, founder of Focus on the Family demand a return to the traditional Christian family. Focus on the Family is an evangelical organization dedicated to “helping to preserve traditional values and the institution of the family.” It is opposed to divorce, abortion and homosexuality as social practices that undermine the family. Its publications approvingly quote and publicize others who promote the concept of the natural family which is defined as “married mom and dad, with children”
Recently I was in Thailand attending a Christian conference. Over the course of the week a small group of us formed strong social bonds. In addition to this Canadian, there was a man from Costa Rica, a man and a woman from Argentina, a woman from South Africa and a man from Greece. We were all adults, mixed genders, multi-racial, multi-lingual and not related by blood or marriage. And yet, we shared food together, lent money to one another, traveled together, rescued each other and cared for one another. We drew a wide circle and called it family.
Is it too much to call this family? I don’t think so. Families have taken many forms over the last several thousand years. In Old Testament times the average Hebrew household numbered between 50 and 100 people. In North America it averages between 2 and 3. At the time of the Roman Empire, family could include slaves, clients and tenants of the property. The evangelical scholar Rodney Clapp concludes that “what evangelicals call the ‘traditional family’ is in fact the bourgeois or middle-class family, which rose to dominance in the nineteenth century – not accidentally alongside capitalism and, a little later, America as the ascendant world power.” The form of the family is a response to economics, politics and culture. What’s important is not the form of the family but the ethics of the family. Is it good? Is it safe? Is it caring and open to others? Does everyone participate in the decisions that affect them?
Freedom and mutuality, peace and justice are some of the characteristics of an ethical family. Does that mean constructed families are more moral than given families? No, even democratic institutions can be unethical if they do not care for and protect the rights and interests of minorities and dependent members.
I recently came across a poem that illustrates the ethics of family life. The author is Edwin Markham.
“They called me heretic and thing to flout
and drew their circle to keep me out;
but love and I had the wit to win:
we drew our circle to take them in.”
Does your family circle invite people in or keep others out?
First Published April 20, 2006
In North America the idea of family is something we fight about. One of our fights is whether the concept is reserved for the biological family or whether it can encompass a larger variety of social forms. Some conservative Christians like James Dobson, founder of Focus on the Family demand a return to the traditional Christian family. Focus on the Family is an evangelical organization dedicated to “helping to preserve traditional values and the institution of the family.” It is opposed to divorce, abortion and homosexuality as social practices that undermine the family. Its publications approvingly quote and publicize others who promote the concept of the natural family which is defined as “married mom and dad, with children”
Recently I was in Thailand attending a Christian conference. Over the course of the week a small group of us formed strong social bonds. In addition to this Canadian, there was a man from Costa Rica, a man and a woman from Argentina, a woman from South Africa and a man from Greece. We were all adults, mixed genders, multi-racial, multi-lingual and not related by blood or marriage. And yet, we shared food together, lent money to one another, traveled together, rescued each other and cared for one another. We drew a wide circle and called it family.
Is it too much to call this family? I don’t think so. Families have taken many forms over the last several thousand years. In Old Testament times the average Hebrew household numbered between 50 and 100 people. In North America it averages between 2 and 3. At the time of the Roman Empire, family could include slaves, clients and tenants of the property. The evangelical scholar Rodney Clapp concludes that “what evangelicals call the ‘traditional family’ is in fact the bourgeois or middle-class family, which rose to dominance in the nineteenth century – not accidentally alongside capitalism and, a little later, America as the ascendant world power.” The form of the family is a response to economics, politics and culture. What’s important is not the form of the family but the ethics of the family. Is it good? Is it safe? Is it caring and open to others? Does everyone participate in the decisions that affect them?
Freedom and mutuality, peace and justice are some of the characteristics of an ethical family. Does that mean constructed families are more moral than given families? No, even democratic institutions can be unethical if they do not care for and protect the rights and interests of minorities and dependent members.
I recently came across a poem that illustrates the ethics of family life. The author is Edwin Markham.
“They called me heretic and thing to flout
and drew their circle to keep me out;
but love and I had the wit to win:
we drew our circle to take them in.”
Does your family circle invite people in or keep others out?
First Published April 20, 2006
A Moral Economy Can Warm Your Body and Your Soul
Climate change is back in the news. The glaciers are melting, North America is warmer than normal and northern Europe is colder than normal. That’s why they refer to extreme weather events instead of global warming. It’s really all about increasing chaos and the change that will be required for us to pull back from the abyss.
In my last column I challenged you (and me) to change. I claimed that we could and should increase our energy efficiency by 30% over the next 15 years. Some readers have challenged me for ideas. Where are the practical ideas for how we can achieve these goals?
Municipalities and companies have all kinds of ideas. The City of Prince Albert, Saskatchewan is looking to recover the heat in wastewater and use it to cut the energy costs of its wastewater treatment plant. The City of Toronto is using the cool waters from deep in Lake Ontario to provide air conditioning to the downtown core. The international chemical company, Air Liquide is running an experiment in Quebec with hog farmers. They are trying to determine the feasibility of capturing methane from hog production and turn it back into an on-site fuel source.
But what about the challenge I issued to myself? I already think of myself as being energy efficient. I live in a small house. I walk to work. I am passionate about public transit. As my old household appliances give way to age, I have replaced them with more energy efficient models. Privately though, I wondered if I had set the bar too high. How I would achieve additional energy savings because I still need to save another 30%.
This fall I installed a programmable thermostat on my furnace. A friend had installed one and made wild claims for its efficiency. I was skeptical but decided to experiment. I programmed the furnace to a lower temperature from after bedtime until one hour before I arise in the morning. Last week I received my gas bill and compared my energy consumption year over year. After less than 6 months in operation my energy use has declined by 24%. Yes, this winter has been warmer than others but the energy saving is still substantial. In Ontario, natural gas prices have just increased by a staggering 40% but my energy bill is actually declining.
Maybe global climate change is not the most pressing issue in your mind. Maybe saving money is not your highest priority, though I would find that hard to believe. If that is true, consider this. Since the change in thermostat, my valentine and I have had more intimate moments than either of us can remember. The crisp night air draws both of us together under the covers for whole body embraces, warming for body and soul. So, if environmental responsibility doesn’t turn your crank and shaving costs doesn’t tickle your fancy, consider the fringe benefits of recycling body heat. You can cool it down and heat it up all at the same time. (And I bet you thought the moral economy was boring, didn’t you?)
First Published February 23, 2006
In my last column I challenged you (and me) to change. I claimed that we could and should increase our energy efficiency by 30% over the next 15 years. Some readers have challenged me for ideas. Where are the practical ideas for how we can achieve these goals?
Municipalities and companies have all kinds of ideas. The City of Prince Albert, Saskatchewan is looking to recover the heat in wastewater and use it to cut the energy costs of its wastewater treatment plant. The City of Toronto is using the cool waters from deep in Lake Ontario to provide air conditioning to the downtown core. The international chemical company, Air Liquide is running an experiment in Quebec with hog farmers. They are trying to determine the feasibility of capturing methane from hog production and turn it back into an on-site fuel source.
But what about the challenge I issued to myself? I already think of myself as being energy efficient. I live in a small house. I walk to work. I am passionate about public transit. As my old household appliances give way to age, I have replaced them with more energy efficient models. Privately though, I wondered if I had set the bar too high. How I would achieve additional energy savings because I still need to save another 30%.
This fall I installed a programmable thermostat on my furnace. A friend had installed one and made wild claims for its efficiency. I was skeptical but decided to experiment. I programmed the furnace to a lower temperature from after bedtime until one hour before I arise in the morning. Last week I received my gas bill and compared my energy consumption year over year. After less than 6 months in operation my energy use has declined by 24%. Yes, this winter has been warmer than others but the energy saving is still substantial. In Ontario, natural gas prices have just increased by a staggering 40% but my energy bill is actually declining.
Maybe global climate change is not the most pressing issue in your mind. Maybe saving money is not your highest priority, though I would find that hard to believe. If that is true, consider this. Since the change in thermostat, my valentine and I have had more intimate moments than either of us can remember. The crisp night air draws both of us together under the covers for whole body embraces, warming for body and soul. So, if environmental responsibility doesn’t turn your crank and shaving costs doesn’t tickle your fancy, consider the fringe benefits of recycling body heat. You can cool it down and heat it up all at the same time. (And I bet you thought the moral economy was boring, didn’t you?)
First Published February 23, 2006
Friday, January 06, 2006
Convicted by Climate Change
I was convicted in Montreal. I had plenty of company – between 5,000 & 10,000 others. We were all convicted of failing to stop, of failing to understand and of failing to do enough to combat global climate change. I am talking about the meetings held to discuss the Kyoto Protocol under the United Nations sponsored Framework Convention on Climate Change.
Canada signed this agreement and promised to reduce its greenhouse gas emissions by 6% from 1990 levels before 2012. Since that time, our emissions have increased by 24%.
Why should I worry about this? Isn’t this someone else’s problem? Actually, that is the attitude of the US Government. With only Australia for company, they have refused to sign on to the Kyoto Protocol in spite of having helped to draft it (as Bill Clinton was at pains to point out) and in spite of being the world’s largest greenhouse gas emitter. In a critical and dissenting response, 195 American cities have signed on to meet Kyoto style emission reduction targets. Ten American states have also signed on including California with its famous Republican Governor. The head of the American Business Council for Sustainable Energy has also urged action because corporations need government agreement before they invest the billions of dollars needed to change industrial and consumer practice.
Maybe the best way of understanding the problem is to say that the Earth is running a fever. The average body temperature of the Earth has already increased by almost one full degree. The average temperature at the poles is increasing more rapidly. In the MacKenzie River Valley, running north into the Arctic Ocean, the average temperature has increased by 1.7 degrees. Once the average body temperature increases by over two full degrees the icecap over Greenland will melt. This will increase the percentage of freshwater in the North Atlantic, interrupting the Gulf Stream current, cooling northern Europe. It will raise ocean levels, flooding Prince Edward Island, small countries in the Pacific and parts of Manhattan. Not all areas of the world will experience increased water levels. Instead, the St. Lawrence River system is expected to have water flows decreased by 24% and water levels in Lakes Huron and Michigan are expected to decrease by between 0.5 and 1.5 metres within 45 years. It is expected that we will have more extreme weather events, more oscillation between flooding and drought, and more storm patterns in new places. Already in 2004 Argentina experienced the first recorded hurricane in the South Atlantic.
I was convicted in Montreal because I became convinced I was part of the problem and I needed to be part of the solution. Changes in government policy are necessary but they won’t be enough. I need to change. Cities across the world are challenging themselves to reduce their greenhouse gas emissions by 30% by 2020. We need to do the same. It will take government action to shift from coal fired generating stations to wind, solar and biomass generation, but it will take the concerted effort of committed and convinced citizens to decrease our electrical, gas and oil use. The beginning of a cure for our global fever is to increase our energy efficiency by 30% over the next 15 years. This will only happen if we all do it together.
First published in December 2005
Canada signed this agreement and promised to reduce its greenhouse gas emissions by 6% from 1990 levels before 2012. Since that time, our emissions have increased by 24%.
Why should I worry about this? Isn’t this someone else’s problem? Actually, that is the attitude of the US Government. With only Australia for company, they have refused to sign on to the Kyoto Protocol in spite of having helped to draft it (as Bill Clinton was at pains to point out) and in spite of being the world’s largest greenhouse gas emitter. In a critical and dissenting response, 195 American cities have signed on to meet Kyoto style emission reduction targets. Ten American states have also signed on including California with its famous Republican Governor. The head of the American Business Council for Sustainable Energy has also urged action because corporations need government agreement before they invest the billions of dollars needed to change industrial and consumer practice.
Maybe the best way of understanding the problem is to say that the Earth is running a fever. The average body temperature of the Earth has already increased by almost one full degree. The average temperature at the poles is increasing more rapidly. In the MacKenzie River Valley, running north into the Arctic Ocean, the average temperature has increased by 1.7 degrees. Once the average body temperature increases by over two full degrees the icecap over Greenland will melt. This will increase the percentage of freshwater in the North Atlantic, interrupting the Gulf Stream current, cooling northern Europe. It will raise ocean levels, flooding Prince Edward Island, small countries in the Pacific and parts of Manhattan. Not all areas of the world will experience increased water levels. Instead, the St. Lawrence River system is expected to have water flows decreased by 24% and water levels in Lakes Huron and Michigan are expected to decrease by between 0.5 and 1.5 metres within 45 years. It is expected that we will have more extreme weather events, more oscillation between flooding and drought, and more storm patterns in new places. Already in 2004 Argentina experienced the first recorded hurricane in the South Atlantic.
I was convicted in Montreal because I became convinced I was part of the problem and I needed to be part of the solution. Changes in government policy are necessary but they won’t be enough. I need to change. Cities across the world are challenging themselves to reduce their greenhouse gas emissions by 30% by 2020. We need to do the same. It will take government action to shift from coal fired generating stations to wind, solar and biomass generation, but it will take the concerted effort of committed and convinced citizens to decrease our electrical, gas and oil use. The beginning of a cure for our global fever is to increase our energy efficiency by 30% over the next 15 years. This will only happen if we all do it together.
First published in December 2005
Money for the Love of It
Did you wish you were an oil worker in Alberta last month? Did you find yourself wondering what it would be like to share millions of dollars with a group of your closest friends? You can’t win if you don’t play! That’s what some people say. Other people say: don’t do it! Money is the root of all evil.
Funny thing is, when people say money is the root of all evil, they are actually misquoting Scripture. In the New Testament, in the first letter to Timothy 6:9 we read “But those who desire to be rich fall into temptation, into a snare, into many senseless and hurtful desires that plunge them into ruin and destruction. For the love of money is the root of all evil;” Notice that this passage does not say that the rich have fallen into temptation, only that the desire to be rich leads there. Money is not the root of all evil but the love of it is.
I don’t begrudge the lottery winning oil workers a dime. Let them enjoy it, I say. On the other hand, I can fairly predict their closest and most cherished relationships will change because of it. Other people will love this new money and want to treat it as their own. Family will expect lavish presents and treats. Friends will expect free drinks and cheap loans. Stores will no longer offer a neighbourhood discount. They are no longer poor. They are now rich and others will covet what they have and manipulate themselves into a share of it.
There are a few choices open to them. They can spend it quickly so that it’s gone - that kind of party normally leaves a big hangover. They can give it away to family and worthy causes. They can buy a farm (see the first option!), or they can invest it and move to a new location where neighbours don’t know about their sudden change in circumstances, Arizona maybe. The least stressful might be option #2 – share the wealth, enhance your community and preserve your relationships.
I have no grievance with lottery winners but I am adamant about opposing lotteries. They deceive people. They distract us from the problems of low farm income, an inadequate minimum wage and inadequate pensions and instead focus our attention on fantasies of the good life. They don’t expand the supply of money, they encourage the love of money and that’s where the sin comes in. Money is a means to an end. Don’t confuse it with the end itself. The world needs stronger, more sustainable, more just communities. Money can help with that but the love of money will get in the way of that.
For years my father bought lottery tickets, though he never won more than $10 to my knowledge. I was always critical of this practice even though I harboured a secret hope that he would win! God bless the lottery winners, but God save me from wanting what they have.
First Published in November 2005
Funny thing is, when people say money is the root of all evil, they are actually misquoting Scripture. In the New Testament, in the first letter to Timothy 6:9 we read “But those who desire to be rich fall into temptation, into a snare, into many senseless and hurtful desires that plunge them into ruin and destruction. For the love of money is the root of all evil;” Notice that this passage does not say that the rich have fallen into temptation, only that the desire to be rich leads there. Money is not the root of all evil but the love of it is.
I don’t begrudge the lottery winning oil workers a dime. Let them enjoy it, I say. On the other hand, I can fairly predict their closest and most cherished relationships will change because of it. Other people will love this new money and want to treat it as their own. Family will expect lavish presents and treats. Friends will expect free drinks and cheap loans. Stores will no longer offer a neighbourhood discount. They are no longer poor. They are now rich and others will covet what they have and manipulate themselves into a share of it.
There are a few choices open to them. They can spend it quickly so that it’s gone - that kind of party normally leaves a big hangover. They can give it away to family and worthy causes. They can buy a farm (see the first option!), or they can invest it and move to a new location where neighbours don’t know about their sudden change in circumstances, Arizona maybe. The least stressful might be option #2 – share the wealth, enhance your community and preserve your relationships.
I have no grievance with lottery winners but I am adamant about opposing lotteries. They deceive people. They distract us from the problems of low farm income, an inadequate minimum wage and inadequate pensions and instead focus our attention on fantasies of the good life. They don’t expand the supply of money, they encourage the love of money and that’s where the sin comes in. Money is a means to an end. Don’t confuse it with the end itself. The world needs stronger, more sustainable, more just communities. Money can help with that but the love of money will get in the way of that.
For years my father bought lottery tickets, though he never won more than $10 to my knowledge. I was always critical of this practice even though I harboured a secret hope that he would win! God bless the lottery winners, but God save me from wanting what they have.
First Published in November 2005
The Moral Economy of the New Orleans Crowd
1773. That’s what New Orleans reminds me of. In 1773 in Cornwall, England a group of tin miners rioted. There was a scarcity of wheat in the local market. Some local grain dealers had begun shipping Cornish wheat to the London market in order to profit from the higher prices instead of selling it locally. Seven or eight hundred miners went to the local grain merchant and offered 17 shillings for 24 gallons of wheat. When they were refused, they broke down the cellar doors and took it all away without paying anything.
In 1766 the Sheriff of Gloucestershire describes a similar scene. A mob had formed “consisting of the lowest of the people such as weavers, mecanicks, labourers, prentices, and boys etc…” They went first to the gristmill where they made off with the flour and wheat. Then they went to the local market where they set and enforced a lower price for grain. Finally they went to farmers, millers and bakers selling all manner of foodstuffs at prices they set, giving the money to the owners. According to the Sheriff, they “behaved with great regularity and decency where they were not opposed, with outrage and violence where there was: but pilfered very little…”
Why does this remind me of New Orleans? Because in the examples above the common people were remembering and re-establishing a moral economy. They remembered that in times of mass hunger there were generally accepted moral principles that governed how people should behave. Prices should be fixed and the poor and hungry should be provided for. The English historian E.P. Thompson called this the “Moral Economy of the English Crowd”.
When a father wades into a pharmacy looking for looking for pop and diapers because the water is unsafe to drink and babies need to be changed regardless, is it random lawlessness or responsible parenthood? When some neighbours steal a van in order to evacuate a senior’s home the civic authorities have abandoned, is it theft or bravery? When local police break into a WalMart and set up camp, helping themselves to provisions, is it looting or setting public priorities over private ones?
Part of the reaction around the world to this disaster has to do with the apparent abandonment of moral principles by the highest authorities. Consider by contrast the reaction in Canada to the Red River flood of 1997. The rich were not rescued and the poor left to drown. The influential were not fed while strangers starved. The healthy were not carried away while the sick were left to fend for themselves. All were treated equally because flood waters have no respect for social class. In 1997 students lined up to sandbag because everyone takes their turn. German soldiers training at CFB Shilo offered engineering and transportation assistance because they had the resources and we had the need. When the people of St. Anne’s prepared their curling rink for evacuees, the fact that their neighbours were from the Roseau reserve was secondary. They were people first and different cultures second.
When the authorities down south dispatched military personnel to protect property instead of the poor, they violated some of our most deeply held moral values. If you said to yourself, “this is not how a civilized country is supposed to behave!” you were echoing a memory going back hundreds of years. Broad social purposes require leadership. If the government won’t provide it the people will.
First published in September 2005
In 1766 the Sheriff of Gloucestershire describes a similar scene. A mob had formed “consisting of the lowest of the people such as weavers, mecanicks, labourers, prentices, and boys etc…” They went first to the gristmill where they made off with the flour and wheat. Then they went to the local market where they set and enforced a lower price for grain. Finally they went to farmers, millers and bakers selling all manner of foodstuffs at prices they set, giving the money to the owners. According to the Sheriff, they “behaved with great regularity and decency where they were not opposed, with outrage and violence where there was: but pilfered very little…”
Why does this remind me of New Orleans? Because in the examples above the common people were remembering and re-establishing a moral economy. They remembered that in times of mass hunger there were generally accepted moral principles that governed how people should behave. Prices should be fixed and the poor and hungry should be provided for. The English historian E.P. Thompson called this the “Moral Economy of the English Crowd”.
When a father wades into a pharmacy looking for looking for pop and diapers because the water is unsafe to drink and babies need to be changed regardless, is it random lawlessness or responsible parenthood? When some neighbours steal a van in order to evacuate a senior’s home the civic authorities have abandoned, is it theft or bravery? When local police break into a WalMart and set up camp, helping themselves to provisions, is it looting or setting public priorities over private ones?
Part of the reaction around the world to this disaster has to do with the apparent abandonment of moral principles by the highest authorities. Consider by contrast the reaction in Canada to the Red River flood of 1997. The rich were not rescued and the poor left to drown. The influential were not fed while strangers starved. The healthy were not carried away while the sick were left to fend for themselves. All were treated equally because flood waters have no respect for social class. In 1997 students lined up to sandbag because everyone takes their turn. German soldiers training at CFB Shilo offered engineering and transportation assistance because they had the resources and we had the need. When the people of St. Anne’s prepared their curling rink for evacuees, the fact that their neighbours were from the Roseau reserve was secondary. They were people first and different cultures second.
When the authorities down south dispatched military personnel to protect property instead of the poor, they violated some of our most deeply held moral values. If you said to yourself, “this is not how a civilized country is supposed to behave!” you were echoing a memory going back hundreds of years. Broad social purposes require leadership. If the government won’t provide it the people will.
First published in September 2005
Culture Is the Work of Many Hands
In my neighbourhood, you can find poetry in the elbow of a sidewalk, in the shelter of a covering elm. I walk my dog and detour so I can receive this gift – no purchase required. A stranger has erected a music stand on the grassy verge, a stranger to me but a member of the commons nonetheless. Its black plywood top is covered in a plastic sheet and beneath it, changed on a weekly basis like the linens, is a sheet of photocopied verse. Last week it was a poem by Marge Piercy. “I want to be with people …who are not parlor generals and field deserters but move in a common rhythm when the food must come in or the fire be put out”. It reminds me of the prairie. It reminds me of a place where food and culture are tenuous. They persist only through the work of many hands.
It reminds me of the homes on Echo Lake in the Qu’Appelle Valley, with their pastel siding and folk art lawns. It reminds me of the 20 ft. high chokecherry sculpture in Lancer, and the 30 ft corn stalk sculpture in Taber. It also reminded me of the mammoth slogans painted on barns, miles from any main roads. It doesn’t matter how many people read it, the farmers have something to say and by God, they are going to say it!
My poetic neighbour shares something with the artistic and vocal prairie farmer. They are reflecting on their lives, taking a point of view, expressing their identities, and adding to the beauty of their environment. They are making their own lives visible and in so doing, claiming public space for proper public purposes. They are engaging in activities that are open and accessible to all, that seek the general welfare of the community and they are doing it for the stimulation and enjoyment of all. This is the ancient meaning of the word – public. It is not concealed and in no way private.
Sadly, it is now common to find political leaders claim the opposite - that there is no such thing as a public purpose or a common good. There are only collections of private goods and interests. The notion of a public welfare and a common good is now so strange that we tend to treat public space as empty space. How easy it has become to think of empty space as commercial space that hasn’t yet been sold. By contrast, these poetry patrons, painters and rural activists are cooperating in the subversive activity of reclaiming public space for public use. They seek no commercial reward and work hard to promote the common good as they understand it. They remember a different world and they can imagine one too. All of us have this capacity but like any muscle or civil right, if we don’t exercise it we will lose it.
“Greek amphoras for wine or oil,
Hopi vases that held corn, are put in museums
but you know they were made to be used.
The pitcher cries for water to carry
and a person for work that is real.”
- from “To Be of Use”, by Marge Piercy, published in CIRCLES ON THE WATER, 1982, Alfred A. Knopf.
First Published in August 2005
It reminds me of the homes on Echo Lake in the Qu’Appelle Valley, with their pastel siding and folk art lawns. It reminds me of the 20 ft. high chokecherry sculpture in Lancer, and the 30 ft corn stalk sculpture in Taber. It also reminded me of the mammoth slogans painted on barns, miles from any main roads. It doesn’t matter how many people read it, the farmers have something to say and by God, they are going to say it!
My poetic neighbour shares something with the artistic and vocal prairie farmer. They are reflecting on their lives, taking a point of view, expressing their identities, and adding to the beauty of their environment. They are making their own lives visible and in so doing, claiming public space for proper public purposes. They are engaging in activities that are open and accessible to all, that seek the general welfare of the community and they are doing it for the stimulation and enjoyment of all. This is the ancient meaning of the word – public. It is not concealed and in no way private.
Sadly, it is now common to find political leaders claim the opposite - that there is no such thing as a public purpose or a common good. There are only collections of private goods and interests. The notion of a public welfare and a common good is now so strange that we tend to treat public space as empty space. How easy it has become to think of empty space as commercial space that hasn’t yet been sold. By contrast, these poetry patrons, painters and rural activists are cooperating in the subversive activity of reclaiming public space for public use. They seek no commercial reward and work hard to promote the common good as they understand it. They remember a different world and they can imagine one too. All of us have this capacity but like any muscle or civil right, if we don’t exercise it we will lose it.
“Greek amphoras for wine or oil,
Hopi vases that held corn, are put in museums
but you know they were made to be used.
The pitcher cries for water to carry
and a person for work that is real.”
- from “To Be of Use”, by Marge Piercy, published in CIRCLES ON THE WATER, 1982, Alfred A. Knopf.
First Published in August 2005
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)