Anger

By now it should be clear (and perhaps it does not need to be said) that this is a space for me to vent my significant frustrations with the public dialogues and private backroom dealings that are unfolding around Enbridge's proposed Northern Gateway Pipeline project. Further indications of corporate collusion with Canada's federal government have caused me significant apprehension in the past month. As Enbridge ramps up its public marketing campaign, our government continues to decimate the environmental review process and challenge legislation aimed at preserving a clean environment for future generations.

Using a rhetoric which paints oil and gas expansion on Canada's west coast as beneficial for the future prosperity of Canada is sickly ironic. The Northern Gateway Pipeline would make BC's north coast an internationally recognized port for oil and gas shipping, bringing billions of liters (if not tons) of oil into one of the world's last remaining tracts of true coastal wilderness. These waters are not only some of the wildest, most biologically diverse areas in the temperate world, they are also some of the most challenging to navigate. It is a cliche to say that it is not a matter of if, but simply when, a spill will occur. Coated in oil, our coast and the lands the pipeline pass through loose their significant ecological, social and spiritual heritage. While these are losses that will not be measured by our government's economic accounting, they will deeply influence the quality of life of generations still to come.

All this is to say nothing about the issue of climate change. Building pipelines to enable a massive increase in oil and gas exploitation imprisons Canada in at least 20 more years of "business as usual" in a time when scientists all over the world say we must act immediately to avoid catastrophic climate scenereos.

Our government seems woefully uninterested in any of this reality, and chooses instead to live in a spreadsheet of economic figures, clinging to illusions of technological power. In a country where scientists are muzzled, ocean's are disregarded and small towns are deemed terrorists, it's worth asking how much longer will we put up with this non-sense?

I want to dance.

With forceful declarations that groups like ForestEthics are "enemies of the people of Canada," Stephen Harper and his cronies in the Canadian government are creeping ever further into an autocratic promotion of Canadian Neo-Fascism. Uniting the country under one state legislated goal for economic and social progress and refusing all dialogue of opposition is one characteristic of this development. Purifying the country of all "foreign influences that are deemed to be causing degeneration of the nation or of not fitting into the national culture" is another (quote from Wikipedias "Fascism"). While it's troubling that our government acts in this way, what's more upsetting is our nation's complicity in the whole thing.

How do we most effectively resist the slow, strategic erosion of open dialogue? Why aren't more people outraged with this kind of national discourse?

One answer to the lack of outrage may be that the Harper government are masters of propaganda. Carefully crafted rhetoric disseminated through specific channels by highly intelligent communications professionals wise in the ways of human cognition helps buffer Canadian resistance to Harper's policies. As "radicals" we should realize the forces we oppose aren't as stupid as they appear (though they do appear heartless).


But like my previous post decried, we can't just slam the fascist tactics of Canada's Conservatives, we've got to offer something else. It's true that accelerating: climate change, environmental destruction, and cultural genocide are terrible things. Picture the opposite and tell people what you see.


For me, there's an abundance of ecological diversity. People are helping each other across the street more, and dealing less across oceans. Individuals appreciate the internal aspects of their reality, and welcome emotion and spirituality as worthy components of meaningful dialogue. Diverse cultural perspectives are all welcomed as equally valid. The economy exists as something to enrich and inspire life.

No Means ?

While I sympathize with reactionary dialogue condemning our government for its unconscionable propagandizing, I think this kind of reaction is at best an easy way to vent a lot of sincere anger. At worst, this kind of response serves to crystallize the goals of our societies power holders. Responding to their communications with condemnation keeps their language and messaging alive. Talking about their propaganda only affirms the words of their propaganda machine. The only people who respond positively to a communication like this are people who already get it. Those who don't get it see the language of our societies power holders and just get wrapped tighter and tighter in their straight jacket. We have to stop just saying NO and begin saying YES to something different.

I believe this requires us to first recognize that the goal of our power holders, namely constant growth, cannot last. Many of us know this. Those that don't should pause. Consider cancer.

Now that we agree that this is a stupid - or worse catastrophic - goal, we can begin to talk about alternatives. Let's boldly enter into this dialogue about a pipeline from this perspective. Instead of talking about why Stephen Harper is an ass (which he most certainly is), let's talk about a better alternative. One that shows Stephen Harper's ideas to be the trashy filth that they are. We don't have to name his ideas to do this. I believe that continuing to talk about this filth just propagates it.

It Begins.

There was a copy of the Globe and Mail with me at lunch today, so I read it. News of the upcoming public hearings for Enbridge's Northern Gateway pipeline were "front page." I read of significant, virtually unanimous opposition to the pipeline from the many First Nations whose territories it crosses. Meanwhile, Canada's Prime Minister and his henchmen decry the "radical" foreign conspirators (mostly out of touch celebrities) who oppose what is a significant "Nation Building" program. Strangely, the next article I read is about the government's new found enthusiasm on the issue of First Nation's education. Allowing local Band Councils primary control over how education happens in their Nation is suddenly seen as backwards and in need of fast reform. Somewhere on Facebook, I've written "Residential Schools 2.0?" The tragedy of ghettoized Reserves can surely be righted by some good ol' fashioned Conservative re-education.

Later on in the day, after throbbing sensations of significant anger, I settled down to pen a note to my cohort in an MA program in environmental education and communication. A sad and desperate attempt to do something? Or an equally futile effort to find some solace?

Here's what I wrote:

With the public hearings set to begin for the Northern Gateway Pipeline Project, I can't help but feel we are at a crucial point in our nation's history. The decisions we make now about Canada's energy policy seem increasingly important (I use the term "we" with significant apprehension).

I'm concerned that pro pipeline advocates, led by our current Conservative government, are using two of Meadow's levers (see Meadows book "Thinking in Systems: A Primer," Chapter 6) to hijack the public discourse and push national opinion to support an incredibly dubious plan to make Canada an oil dependent nation.

The first lever I see being used is Information Flows. A recent poll commissioned by Enbridge shows that a majority of BC residents support the pipeline development. Just a few years ago, another poll commissioned by BC environmental groups showed almost 80% of British Columbians opposed oil tankers on BCs coast. According to a friend, a guest of CBCs "The Early Addition" recently said so many First Nations were opposed to the pipeline because they weren't properly educated! I think we should be incredibly suspect of any information we get about this pipeline, as it seems steeped in sketchy politics. Who should I believe? How is information being used to sway opinion towards one camp or another?

The second, more important lever, that for most people is probably much less obvious, is the determination of goals. What is the purpose or function of this pipeline and the systems it will support? Much like in Meadows discussion of goals, it seems the goal here is being framed uniformly as constant growth. The goal is to keep Canada's economy growing. As the debate over this pipeline grows, watch for the promotion of this single, dominant, overarching goal. Imagine if we could challenge this goal. What could an alternative goal for Canada be? Why is it that when we have to make big national decision like whether or not to build this pipeline, we can't step back and ask this question? We'd be instantly framed as 'radicals.'

I'm feeling really disempowered by my engagement with this issue today. All thoughts, encouragements and hopeful insights are warmly welcomed.

I found this, from a wise colleague, to be helpful:

Never fear, Captain Canada is here! Faster than Peter Kent's mouth, more powerful than an angry moose, able to leap tall oil rigs in a single bound. The maple syrup covered hero has arrived to save the day! ...

Kuhn (in Meadows, 2008, p. 164) recommends we speak and act out "loudly and with assurance, from the new [paradigm]". I think you are right, if we come across as against economic growth/prosperity, we will be labeled as radicals. It is easy to say no to something, but what are we saying yes to?
We need to insert our new paradigm into all forms of media. What is our new paradigm? A clean energy future!