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!
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!
No comments:
Post a Comment