Posts

  • , , ,

    Pieces I did not produce

    Published by

    on

    I spent a lot of time writing this past week. Hours on Saturday and Sunday and Tuesday and nothing “produced.” First I once again felt too resigned to publish a piece about politics. I couldn’t even get people who espoused the same principles as me to listen when I sat at the same table as them and got paid for my research and writing and knowledge. What makes me think this is any less futile.

    On Monday, I went with a friend to see butterflies at the nature museum, and I listened to a bunch of podcasts on Buddhism / psychology, and I thought about newly hatched butterflies being in no rush to leave the hatchery, and about the lessons of playing tag when you can and enjoying what you eat so much your entire body vibrates. That’s the piece I failed to produce on Tuesday. (What does a butterfly care about its economic value.)

    Last night I listened to a data discussion organized by COVID-19 Resources Canada, a bunch of professionals doing their best to track and predict what’s going on despite inadequate information related to widespread denial. I couldn’t keep up with the science and acronyms, but the tone felt familiar (surreal). That inspires a piece about documenting the real-time collapse of society that I expect to not produce today.


  • , , ,

    Pith and substance

    Published by

    on

    I continue to think about the proposed Oil and Gas Sector Greenhouse Gas Emissions Cap Regulations, as Alberta plans an objection under its Sovereignty Act.

    Specifically I wonder how the federal government intends to justify an “environmental” law in court if, based on its own analysis, the proposed regulations are expected to have essentially no ameliorative effect on the environment.

    The Regulatory Impact Analysis Statement (RIAS) begins:

    There is an urgent need to address climate change and move towards a low-carbon economy. Canada is committed to doing its part to reduce emissions of greenhouse gases (GHGs), the major contributor to climate change. … [D]ecreasing emissions in the oil and gas sector by introducing a regulatory emissions cap is necessary for the sector to do its share to tackle climate change and reach the Government of Canada’s GHG emissions reduction targets.

    Under the Paris Agreement, the RIAS says, Canada committed to reducing GHG emissions by 40% to 45% below 2005 levels by 2030. But once you scroll past huge tracts of verbosity you get to this informative table, preceded by the admission that the proposed regulations “are expected to enable Canadian production to grow in response to global demand.”

    Screenshot 2024 12 05 at 11.55.41 AM

    What I understand from this information (PJ = petajoules) is that it is the federal government’s own evidence that the cumulative effect of these Regulations will be a 16% increase in oil and gas production by 2032, whereas without the Regulations there would be a 17% increase in oil and gas production by 2032.

    In other words, and I invite correction if I’m wrong here, the expected value of the proposed regulations is a -0.7% change from baseline production levels, eight years down the road. In still other words, with or without the regulations the outcome is significantly increased production compared to 2019, which I am quite willing to bet was already significantly increased compared to 2005.

    How is this doing the “necessary” and “urgent” work of reducing emissions? Of course people are pissed. Oil and gas people are understandably pissed because it wastes their time and money and subjects them to essentially pointless oversight. Environmentalists including Steven Guilbeault should be pissed because the entire scheme seems demonstrably unrelated to meeting international commitments and improving air quality.

    Which brings me back to my original question: how do you legally justify an environmental law that is expected, in advance, to do so little to improve the environment? What is the constitutional analysis of the scheme’s “pith and substance” when the federal government’s own evidence about its expected environmental impact is so weak?

    In my opinion, the pith and substance is to look like they’re doing something significant, to trick people concerned about the future of life on the planet, while doing very little to restrict oil and gas companies from the extraction and pollution they were planning to do anyway. Paperwork and propaganda.

    And then federal Liberals are confused when people don’t want to vote for them, failing to see this as a direct consequence of their ineffectuality, expecting a $250 bribe to “working Canadians” (but not the income-less) to paper over the gap between their rhetoric and their actions.

    It doesn’t.


  • ,

    Tiny travelogue

    Published by

    on

    The world has changed a lot since the last time I published a travelogue.

    The previous trip I wrote far too many words about was 10+ days long and involved airplanes and foreign languages.

    In comparison, this was just a one-night trip by bus and light rail and train, less than half a day’s journey. The kind of jaunt I made regularly to see a band and/or visit a friend/boy, in the before times.

    I find travel more challenging now, personally and interpersonally. The world has become manifestly more hostile to those who don’t conform, which of necessity includes me, one of very few passengers wearing a mask as others coughed and sneezed freely into mass transit shared air at up to 1497 ppm CO2.

    I felt my vulnerability strongly this week, carrying most of my essential belongings in a backpack and suitcase, alone and unsure where I was going. Looking, maybe, like the most obvious gazelle on the plain.


    A lion and a cougar got on the O-Train at the same downtown stop as me. The lion made a big gallant show of moving out of the way so I could embark: a sly performance of respect for a delicate creature traveling alone, so encumbered.

    I nodded back politely and moved inside the car warily. I stood ready stance over my suitcase and observed the lion and the cougar suddenly pretend not to know each other.

    Close to the next stop (not mine), the lion clocked my awareness and also spotted a magnificent muscled zebra, heavily adorned in gold. (That last part’s not a metaphor.)

    The lion now made a big gallant show of getting out of the zebra’s way so she could disembark. The cougar didn’t budge from his seat. The zebra got off and strode powerfully away, the lion went to sit down, near but not with the cougar, and both turned to their phones. I continued to stand guard.

    My stop, obviously, was the train station, which I noticed on approach looked dark and nearly empty. As the cougar and the lion disembarked together but still pretending to be separate, I had a vision of all my belongings being torn away, of becoming paralyzed trying to decide whether to chase my backpack or my suitcase, a too-slow analysis of which items were the most desperate to fight for, which predator I had better odds against.

    So I stayed on the train one more stop. I had time. As the train and I pulled away, I saw the lion and cougar abandon the pretence of being strangers, halfway up the dark stairs a gazelle was not also on. An unsuccessful hunt.

    They were gone by the time I made my way back to the train station, and that was by far the worst thing that happened on these particular travels.


    Highlights from the train down included cheerful, helpful, trilingual staff (I hope they’re paid well); a toddler just learning to walk who found me fascinating; and large warehouse graffiti: Grow Good Together.

    tempImageKeWZmN

    Through my mask, the new train smelled like childhood motel.


    I was picked up at the station by my old mentor, the indefatigable and kind Graham Stewart. He and his equally spirited wife Deb had agreed to host me overnight in the warm and welcoming home they share with their expressive dog Molly and, at times, up to 21 family members.

    Graham was recently back from a trip to Northern Ireland with his son, with the goal of investigating Stewart family history based on internet research and old local records that weren’t always primarily motivated by accuracy. The behavioural aspects of that interest me, especially the detective work of most plausible explanations based on known facts and our understanding of human nature.

    We theorized, for example, about why an ancestor’s age was inaccurately low on a wedding certificate after impregnating the daughter of a well-off local businessman, and further what could be gleaned from the son-in-law’s subsequent success as a merchant.

    We talked about a mother’s grief for a child who died young from disease and was unremembered decades later by anyone else. We talked about an ancestor’s wartime diary that was more about pie than war. One day, one sentence announcing the death of her husband. A testament to the human need to keep records and keep going, and to the impossibility, sometimes, of words.

    We talked about the nature of family, the practice of acceptance, the challenge of growth. I cried twice, which is my standard response to unexpected kindness.


    The return trip the next day was fine except for train delay and managing to injure myself with my suitcase (resulting in a 3-inch blue and purple bruise on my calf).

    All told this trip took about 34 hours, and what I’m taking away is a feeling of support and encouragement and acceptance, genuine appreciation for who I am. A confirmation of the importance of telling stories and collecting data and documenting existence. A lesson about the need to make efforts to connect, even though there’s risk. A reminder about patience and empathy and love, and a lifelong belief, maybe, in the possibility of redemption.


  • , ,

    Petitioning the court

    Published by

    on

    I developed a neat trick for my healing work, which is to convene a courtroom in my head.

    It starts with noticing that I’m doing something I don’t want to be doing. One low-shame example is sitting in a way that causes back pain.

    The prosecutor addresses the court: this way of sitting is causing pain and should stop immediately.

    The defence has no direct reply to this but may ask for five more minutes of internet.

    The prosecutor shoots that down easily: it’s irrelevant to back pain, and in all probability that was more than enough internet for now anyway.

    Sometimes the prosecutor tags on evidence that food and water are required. It is a compelling case.

    But sometimes the judge isn’t listening. (The judge also likes the internet.) Then the prosecutor has to point out to the judge that nothing can happen without a bit of executive function.

    Sometimes the judge is cranky and the prosecutor has to push the court. The situation will worsen without action. The main obstacle to improvement is practice. No one else can fix this.

    That last point usually wins the day.

    It helps solve the immediate problem and also sets a precedent for next time. I might not need to go through the entire argument again, since I’ve already built the path from noticing to fixing. Sometimes the prosecutor can just wearily say “Your Honour…” and the necessary order issues.

    Over time a new habit is created. Not flawless, but better.


  • , ,

    The future I’m building

    Published by

    on

    I’ve been trying to write for days but I’m all over the place in content and tone.

    What I keep coming back to is what I believe: that kindness and community are the only way through this mess.

    It’s hard to believe in a future you can’t see, and I’ve been allowing myself to imagine alternatives to a daily life of individualism and conformity.

    Idealistically, I imagine:

    • My own private space but also communal space (kitchen, entertainment area, library, gym, music room, garden);
    • My own private stuff but also shared stuff (appliances, bikes, skis, solar panels and batteries);
    • Respect for boundaries and needs and authenticity; commitment to understanding and growth;
    • A good chance of finding someone to watch a movie or play a board game with;
    • Shared labour and mutual aid.

    I know I’m not the only one yearning for a less isolated and wasteful life. I also personally believe “together” is the only way to mitigate against climate disaster and supply chain disruption and authoritarianism. There is a safety component to community.


    The eternal question is how to get from theory to practice.

    Talking about what I want seems like a good preliminary step. I’m also listening to experts on intentional community, empathy, and liberation. These are the voices I want to take up space in my brain.

    I’ve started researching and networking. I have plenty to contribute.

    I have some time to figure it out.

    Maybe there could be a shared dog. Maybe there would be chickens.