Vancouver Area Relocalisation Network

US Conference on Peak Oil and Community Solutions

greeninsight — Sun, 24 Aug 2008 12:39:27 -0700

Vancouver Area Relocalisation Network

Mainstream media and Peak Oil

greeninsight — Fri, 25 Jul 2008 23:42:45 -0700

Vancouver Area Relocalisation Network

SFU Dialogue on Oil Crisis

greeninsight — Sat, 19 Jul 2008 00:43:38 -0700

Start: 2008-07-23 14:29

End: 2008-07-23 18:29

Vancouver Area Relocalisation Network

GARDENS OF DESTINY

jocelyn — Wed, 16 Jul 2008 21:13:09 -0700

Start: 2008-08-03 14:30

End: 2008-08-03 15:50

Vancouver Area Relocalisation Network

Reusable Shopping Bags: The New Plastic Bags

kelsey — Wed, 16 Jul 2008 16:01:35 -0700

It seems everyone's finally getting on the down-with-plastic-bags bandwagon. There are plastic bag bans popping up all over North America. And, where it isn't yet mandated by city ordinance but very much on the lips of the public, local markets and natural food chains alike are opting for the paper-only policy. Alternatively, customers are being encouraged to bring their own reusable shopping bags and forego disposables altogether. Personally, I like this option the best. What irritates me, though, is the way in which reusable bags have become yet another product in the marketplace--a cultural cliche that, for $40, better make the right statement about the person carrying it.

I got to thinking about this as I was standing in the check-out at Capers the other day. Don't get me wrong, I like Capers. They do a great job of labeling what's organic and local and the brands they sell are generally what I'm looking for. And, thankfully, they don't put a lot of impulse-buy crap at the till like most stores. However, there was one product I saw at the Capers check-out that really irked me--a reusable nylon shopping bag that neatly stuffs into a pocket-sized pouch with a carabiner attached. There's nothing wrong with the product, per se. In fact, the convenience of being able to carry it on a key chain will no doubt ensure it gets used more frequently than the oops-I-left-it-hanging-on-my-doorknob variety. What irks me is the fact that there has arisen a whole new industry around reusable bags--probably the out-of-work makers and sellers of disposable plastic bags.

Everyone can agree that disposable plastic grocery bags are a bane to the environment: it's a waste of energy and resources to keep making them and it's a waste to keep filling landfills with them after their intended single use. Plastic takes eons to break down in a landfill and it's made from oil, a resource that took so many eons to form in the earth that it is non-renewable in human time. Reusable bags are definitely a better alternative, but they, too, have to be manufactured at a cost of resources and energy. Whether they're cotton or canvas or nylon, the raw materials come from somewhere and they will need to be in a constant state of replenishment. (Ahem... isn't nylon also a petroleum-derived synthetic? If sustainability is the goal of reusable bags, maybe they should be made exclusively of sustainable materials.)

It isn't as if everyone will be issued their ration of reusable bags, end of story. No, the bags will get lost, damaged, worn-out (hopefully from use) and people will need new ones. Thus, the reusable shopping bag industry is a necessary fact of 21st century life... or is it? Who doesn't own a back-pack, briefcase, or large handbag? If you carry one of these on a daily basis, you're already carrying a reusable bag! So use it!

Vancouver Area Relocalisation Network

Call for a Moratorium on New Car Manufacturing

kelsey — Fri, 11 Jul 2008 08:55:58 -0700

I just got back from an all-day outing to IKEA in Richmond (near the airport, for non-Vancouverites) and, though I'm grateful I got to spend time with a friend who was only in town for a day, I'm exhausted from spending what feels like an eternity in stop-and-go traffic in my POS car. It's a 25-year-old Volvo 240 Wagon, but the charm stops there: the transmission's manual; the power steering seems to be, too; the seats are leather and the air conditioning doesn't work. It's physical labor to drive the thing and, quite frankly, it makes me not want to drive. I'd rather be on the bus with a good book.

So, I'm proposing a moratorium on new car manufacturing. There are enough cars on the planet already. Hasn't anyone noticed the sad state of dealerships lately? They've got countless thousands of new cars sitting around that nobody wants and that they can't seem to give away, even with $500 of free gas. Why should precious resources be used to manufacture even more new cars when there are tons of old heaps like mine just waiting for someone to show them a little TLC?

(Don't think that the advances in fuel efficiency bestowed upon newer models are really going to save the planet; they're just keeping the sprawled-out car culture charade alive a little longer. It's a little like skipping the bacon on your double cheeseburger or switching to products that claim to be "low-fat" once you've attained morbid obesity on a diet rich in meat and processed food. You know a more appropriate dietary change would be to start eating more fruits, vegetables, and whole grains--in other words, a complete 180--but you don't know how to give up the charade. In the same vein, people who drive "fuel-efficient" cars are kidding themselves if they think they're not still using the same fuel as the rest of us--yeah, I get it, they use less of it, or else they have an excuse to drive more. Either way, they still pollute; even bio-diesel-fueled vehicles produce greenhouse gases, which constitute a more real environmental threat than peak oil, anyway.)

So, why a moratorium on new car manufacturing? Precisely because people will not be compelled to give up the car culture charade until they feel the effects of it physically and financially. Fortunately, the relentlessly rising cost of fuel is starting to take a noticeable toll on people's wallets and, thus, they're driving habits. In case that's not enough, if we adhere to a moratorium on new car manufacturing for, say, ten or fifteen years, then everyone will be driving an old heap and the simple task of driving to the office--once so comfortable, even luxurious--will be work in itself. If driving becomes, not only outrageously expensive, but physically draining as well, then maybe people will finally be compelled to do less of it. At the very least, then, driving would be a physical task more akin to walking or biking, and more people would probably choose to do the latter if the former weren't so effortless.

Who's with me?! Down with new cars!

Vancouver Area Relocalisation Network

Forget High-Tech; Low-Tech Is the Way to Go!

kelsey — Wed, 02 Jul 2008 09:40:10 -0700

I said it in my first blog entry, and I'm going to say it again: people, read Small Is Beautiful by E.F. Schumacher! One of the key concepts to come out of this work is that of "appropriate technology." The idea behind appropriate technology is that by making use of technologies that give proper consideration to the natural, social, and cultural capital of the community for which they are intended, natural resources, energy, and human dignity can be spared. For instance, most developing nations have a dearth of reliable energy, but a whole lot of man-power (i.e. population), so why not put people to work achieving object X instead of wasting valuable energy on a high-tech solution that leaves people sitting around feeling useless?

I'm bringing this up because the most recent post on my new favorite blog, Homegrown Evolution, features a simple, outdoor "rocket stove" as a starting point for a discussion of appropriate technology in the West. Usually targeted at the development of poor, third-world nations (as Schumacher lays out), their point is that low-tech-nologies can, and should, play a role in western societies too.

I have thought for years that we make too much use of convenient, but wasteful technologies here in the West. We have a gadget for everything but none have more than a single purpose--and then you have to buy another one when the first one breaks because its nothing more than cheap crap because it's made in an Asian "Special Economic Zone," or some such place with bargain-basement taxes. I ask you: Is an electric can-opener really any more more convenient than a manual one? Seems a pretty wasteful re-invention of the wheel, if you ask me. Ever seen a morbidly-obese person use an elevator to go up or--even worse--down a single flight of stairs? I bet you have and I bet you didn't wonder how they got that way. Even with a stroller, I don't bother with automatic doors; it may be cumbersome for me to hold the door with one hand and push my stroller through with the other, but I'd rather not make senseless use of electricity when I have four functioning limbs of my own and plenty of calories to burn.

Really, you can think of calories as the medium of exchange whenever energy is being used--whether it comes from a power plant or your own muscles, and your own muscles are always going to be more efficient because there's no intermediary uses of energy from production to use, as is the case when transmission lines and middlemen are used. Which is more energy efficient: taking twenty-or-so steps to get to the second floor of a building, or relying on the century's worth of human ingenuity, research, and manufacturing that went into the completion of the modern elevator (not to mention the electricity to operate it unnecessarily). How are the two even comparable? Because every person that took part in the design and building of the elevator ultimately got paid in calories: dollars, yes, but dollars are only valuable as a means to an end and everyone's ultimate aim is to feed themselves. (more on the natural origins of the economy another time)

Why, in the grossly-obese West, do we sit back and let machines do the littlest things for us, things that we are perfectly capable of doing for ourselves? Not only do we infantilize ourselves by presuming to be so incapable, we lose out on innumerable opportunities to exercise, i.e. for our bodies to perform some much-needed metabolism and burn some calories. It's always been a wonder to me that people are content to sit on their butts all day--from home to car to office on their butts--and then waste an hour in the gym every night when they could've just gotten a little exercise here and a little exercise there throughout the day had they walked, biked, and done things manually.

Doing things by your own power rather than farming out your body's metabolic functions to power plants and gizmos, seems to me the ultimate instance of relocalization. Why? Because performing a given action with the use of appropriate technology makes the most efficient use of energy, in calories, decreases reliance on external inputs of energy and resources, and increases reliance on others in the community. And the three, taken together, resonate nicely with relocalization as I see it.

Next on my list of books to read: Slow Is Beautiful.

Vancouver Area Relocalisation Network

Everything I Know About City Planning, I Learned From SimCity

kelsey — Wed, 25 Jun 2008 17:55:37 -0700

Who out there didn't love the original SimCity? OK, I can see how city planning details such as water works, garbage collection and tax structure, which arrived in later versions of the game, might bore a lot of gamers out there. But, c'mon people, the original SimCity (I played it on SNES, but it was also released on PC) should definitely rank as a classic. I can honestly say that it taught me everything I know about how a city functions as a whole, and how its constituents (residents, but also businesses and industries) are physically, financially, and legally connected.

Well, I did take some development/sociology courses in college, but really the foundation of my understanding lies in SimCity. For those who weren't into it, the goal of the game is two-fold: as SimMayor, you want to ratchet up that approval rating as high as it'll go, and ultimately build a megalopolis of 500,000. Yeah, whopper of a city, eh? (Actually, there's one other plot feature, and for some it's the crux of the game: major destruction!)

The highest approval rating I ever achieved was 92%. I did this by following four simple rules: bulldoze not a single square of trees and decentralize, decentralize, decentralize. In the fairly small, but open spaces in the forest, I included several industrial and commercial zones and as many residential zones as the combined total of the others. No direct roads? No problem. No traffic, either. I used roads in that particular city, but I frequently built cities with no roads at all, only mass transit services. This was a sure-fire way to eliminate traffic and smog problems, which citizens frequently complain about, negatively affecting a mayor's approval rating. If SimCitizens could have complained about having no roads, I suppose they would have, which is exactly why mass transit really works best in conjunction with decentralization. If there are places to work, eat, shop, and have fun all in a reasonable walking or biking distance from one's home and mass transit rides are only a once-in-a-while thing, then the inconvenience of having to use them isn't really annoyance at all: use that time to read a magazine or listen to a podcast. Leisure time, relaxation, is sure to increase approval of more than just the mayor. Taxation, on the other hand...

And, who would've guessed? The basics of tax law are also to be found in SimCity. The original featured a much simpler tax structure than subsequent versions: a single, across-the-board tax rate for all residents, businesses, and industries. Simple, yes, but deceptively so. The obvious lesson is that high taxes make businesses close and residents move away; low taxes invite new residents and allow industry to thrive. In a nutshell, the same goes for the real world. What happens when a SimCity grows too fast and spends too much? Raising taxes to generate income will only drive people away, but lowering taxes to attract new businesses and industries will lead to a deficit. Sound familiar? If so, it's because everything you need to know about city and regional planning, you learned from playing SimCity.

I'll have to ruminate on this a little later... the baby's up from her nap.

Any SimMayors out there want to share their highest approval rating? Leave a comment. I'd be curious to hear other recipes for success with this game.

Vancouver Area Relocalisation Network

Greening the Workforce Café

Shelby Tay — Mon, 23 Jun 2008 20:37:57 -0700

Start: 2008-06-24 19:00

End: 2008-06-24 21:00

Vancouver Area Relocalisation Network

How will you spend your Climate Action Dividend?

Kevin Washbrook — Thu, 12 Jun 2008 11:44:14 -0700

Dear Friend of Climate Action,

This month, you'll receive a $100 cheque from the B.C. government. Called the climate action dividend, it's intended to help you reduce your reliance on fossil fuels, and is part of B.C.'s "revenue neutral" carbon tax announced earlier this year.

That's $440 million going back into the hands of British Columbians to take action on climate change.

So what will you do with your $100?

When the carbon tax was announced in February's provincial budget, and The Tyee first asked this question, many readers suggested a collective approach. If we pool our resources, we can have a much bigger impact than our individual $100 cheques ever could.
And so, today we are pleased to invite you to the launch of the Green Your Campbell Cash website developed by The Tyee, the Western Canada Wilderness Committee, Voters Taking Action on Climate Change, the David Suzuki Foundation and the Pembina Institute. The site is designed to showcase collective climate action projects occurring throughout B.C. to which you can pledge your support -- and your climate action dividend.

How to Green Your Campbell Cash

B.C.-based organizations and individuals are invited to submit climate action projects geared toward education, advocacy, public engagement, adaptation, emission reductions or carbon capture. All projects will be reviewed by Tyee staff prior to being published on the site, and those that meet the campaign's guidelines will receive their own project page describing the scope of their project and fundraising goals.
As a visitor to the site, you can browse through the projects, vote for your favourites and pledge your support by contacting project leads directly to make a donation. You can also submit your own climate action project.
If you'd rather spent your $100 some other way, you can share your commitment with others on the site. You can also send your favourite projects to your friends and social networks using the sharing tools provided.

Why Green Your Campbell Cash?

Maybe your neighbourhood could benefit from a community garden or a bike co-op. Perhaps your child's school could drastically reduce emissions by switching to solar power. Whatever the case, we believe that by taking collective action, we can take bigger steps against climate change and work to ensure B.C.'s climate action dividend truly makes a difference throughout B.C. communities. We hope you'll join in and Green Your Campbell Cash.

Sincerely,

Green Your Campbell Cash Founding Partners

Vancouver Area Relocalisation Network

PEAK OIL & THE MEDIA

vlsavage — Wed, 11 Jun 2008 22:01:59 -0700

Start: 2008-07-12 19:00

End: 2008-07-12 22:00

Vancouver Area Relocalisation Network

Life, Money, and Illusion

vlsavage — Wed, 11 Jun 2008 17:32:45 -0700

Start: 2008-06-28 19:00

End: 2008-06-28 21:00

Vancouver Area Relocalisation Network

Hello from Coquitlam

bcourtney — Mon, 09 Jun 2008 00:26:47 -0700

I would like to join others in discussion planning and preparation for the energy descent. I am interested in vegetable gardening, public transit, renewable energy, electric vehicles, doomsteading, and yanking politicians chains about waking up to the coming crash. Is there anybody out there?

Vancouver Area Relocalisation Network

Voluntary Human Extinction: Over the Top or Right On?

kelsey — Sat, 31 May 2008 11:23:28 -0700

I recently joined facebook and was intrigued to come across a group discussing something called the Voluntary Human Extinction Movement. Proponents of human extinction argue that healing the earth and brining nature back into balance will require the total annihilation of the human race and that those of us who are educated enough to be aware of the looming environmental crisis should stop having babies. Well, actually, proponents argue that everyone on earth should stop having babies, but let's face it, this is a First World movement. I'm interested to know what others think of this idea. The following was my contribution to the group discussion:

Overpopulation is indeed a problem, but I disagree that total annihilation of the human race, whether voluntary or not, is the way to go about solving it. In fact, extinction will only leave a hole in the ecosystem, replacing one imbalance with another.

I believe technology and development are the answer, not the problem. Look at the differing birth rates of rich, developed nations compared to poor and developing nations: average birth rates decline as education, healthcare, infrastructure are improved. As a nation develops and becomes economically stronger, people tend to have less children by choice. Birth rates also tend to decline as women gain more freedom in society because they are able to work, have access to education, have rights unto themselves and are not bound to some man that is their only livelihood and their rapist all in one... Sad, but true.

In most cases, I doubt the people of the world that are having ten and twelve children (though they can barely even feed themselves) really mean to have so many children. They probably didn't even want all those children, they just didn't know how not to have them--whether due to a lack of information about contraceptive options, access to termination services, or just a means to survive without the free labor provided by children. There are vast swaths of the world where people, sadly, have to have five children to ensure the survival of one into adulthood. If that one adult child gets killed in a roadside bomb, civil war, earthquake, or whatever, his aging and now childless parents have no one to care for them. Grown children, in many parts of the world, are the only social security elderly people have.

The answer is not for the smartest, most capable, and most progressive people on earth to swear off having children. These people need to do all they can to help further the economic, social, cultural, and human development of nations less fortunate than their own. Development of those parts of the earth where overpopulation is most threatening will, ultimately lead the people of those nations to voluntarily have less children. The key is, though, the voluntary aspect cannot be applied top-down; it has to grow up from the people themselves out of their heightened sense of security and their optimism about the future.

I realize it will be argued that economic growth means more consumption and more environmental degradation. But, I think it will only be a temporary condition while middle classes arise that will be educated about environmental degradation and economically stable enough to do something about it. I remain optimistic: twenty countries have already achieved zero or negative population growth.

Vancouver Area Relocalisation Network

Blog? What Blog?

kelsey — Thu, 29 May 2008 17:17:10 -0700

I had no idea I had a blog on here. Interesting... So, I guess the idea is to keep the gods satisfied I'm doing something to relocalize. I love the very concept of relocalization, by the way. I've always been a fan of small spaces and close quarters.

In college I read a book called Small Is Beautiful and it surprised me how, for being a book on economics, it made so much sense! I had never conceived of smallness as something that could be applied to the economy. Being a young adult in the era of globalization, terrorism and climate change, I had certainly given a lot of thought to the problems of modern society and how better to organize it, but now I started to gain a sense of the fundamental role the economy plays in society.

Another book that monumentally influenced my thinking on social matters was The Breakdown of Nations, which makes the case for a dissolution of today's major nations into smaller units of autonomous political and social organization. It is argued that the citizens of such "city-states" are generally more creative, more productive, more prosperous, and more content. Hmmm... productivity, prosperity... sounds like we're talking about the economy! Yes, small-scale economies and small-scale societies go hand-in-hand! Relocalize!

Vancouver Area Relocalisation Network

Globalization being undone by high oil costs: CIBC

madraven — Tue, 27 May 2008 14:06:45 -0700

Vancouver Area Relocalisation Network

The Power of Community: How Cuba Survived Peak Oil

LJ — Thu, 22 May 2008 09:32:40 -0700

Start: 2008-06-20 19:30

End: 2008-06-20 22:30

Vancouver Area Relocalisation Network

Necessary Voices Speaker series continues at the VPL

LJ — Thu, 22 May 2008 09:27:34 -0700

Start: 2008-06-18 19:30

End: 2008-06-18 22:30

Vancouver Area Relocalisation Network

Necessary Voices Speaker series continues at the VPL

LJ — Thu, 22 May 2008 09:26:36 -0700

Start: 2008-06-02 18:30

Vancouver Area Relocalisation Network

Recycling the Newsreel with Paul McIsaac - Film Fest

LJ — Thu, 22 May 2008 09:23:58 -0700

Start: 2008-05-27 09:00

End: 2008-06-01 22:00

Vancouver Area Relocalisation Network

Canadian Academy of Independent Scholars Inaugural Symposium Keynote Address: John Ralston Saul

LJ — Thu, 22 May 2008 09:16:33 -0700

Start: 2008-05-24 19:30

End: 2008-05-24 21:00

Vancouver Area Relocalisation Network

Beyond the Carbon Tax

jfrobertson — Wed, 21 May 2008 07:36:11 -0700

Your Ecological Footprint – Does it Matter?
Today's crumbling environment, racked by climate change, mass extinction, deforestation, collapsing fisheries and more is evidence global total consumption has gone too far. As a species we are destroying our life-support system. In ecological terms we are in "overshoot" of Earth's "carrying capacity" for humans, our demand exceeding the planet's absorptive and regenerative capacities.
To avert catastrophe as a species, we need to reduce total global consumption. The equation for total consumption can be expressed as follows:
(Per capita consumption of the earth’s resources) times (total global population) equals (total global consumption). There are two factors in this equation: our population numbers and our per capita consumption.
Techno-optimists sidestep the constraints of this equation and hope for some scientific breakthrough that will save both the planet and our life style by doing more with less of the earth’s resources. Debate about how some new exciting technology will solve our problems painlessly in the future is often a way to avoid dealing painfully with these same problems in the present with existing technology. Think of the “Hydrogen Highway”. In addition implementing new technology requires capital investment in infrastructure and may not significantly reduce total consumption. However I am one with the techno-optimists and look forward to drawing my energy from the sun and my food from the atmosphere. However at that stage I may be one with nature (a Scotch Broome perhaps) in the Saturna cemetery.
Eco-moralists take another approach.
"John, if everyone here just consumed less, as they do in Cuba, say, we wouldn't have exceeded the Earth’s carrying capacity.” It's a simple notion: reduce per person consumption and end our environmental problems.
The work of the Global Footprint Network (GFN), home of the "ecological footprint," gives these eco-moralists their ammunition. Measuring consumption as the use of biologically productive land and sea, their data shows a global maximum sustainable footprint, at today's population, of just under 1.8 global hectares (gha) per person. Currently, by drawing down nonrenewable resources, we're a bit over 2.2gha, overshooting Earth's limits by about 22 per cent.
The eco-moralists portray Canadians as among the most egregious abusers of the earth. This is a gross canard. While we consume 7.6gha per Canadian, we have a natural endowment of 14.5 gha per Canadian. The 6.9 unused gha per Canadian contributes to the sustainability of the Earth. With our 7.6gha we produce surplus grain, lumber, and mineral as exports that sustain the world economy.
In comparison the United States consumes 9.6 gha per American and has an endowment of 4.8 gha per American. The “overshoot” of 4.8 gha by 294 million Americans represents 12.4 % of global capacity and more than half of the 22% “overshoot” of the earth’s limits.
China consumes 1.6 gha per Chinese and has an endowment of 0.8 gha per Chinese. The “overshoot” of 0.8 gha by 1,311.7 million Chinese represents 10.4% of global capacity and the rest of the 22% “overshoot” of the earth’s limits.
This is simplistic but my choice of the United States and China as examples is to show that reducing per capita consumption will not solve the problem. To avert catastrophe, we need to reduce both factors in the equation: our numbers and per capita consumption.
If we have 6,301.5 million people and a 1.8 gha limit on consumption, what sort of standard of living would we enjoy if all were equal? Welcome to Jordan and Uzbekistan, which are at 1.8, gha. Residents of Panama and Mauritius at 1.9 gha will have to reduce their standard of living.
However even that standard of living will be too high in the future. The United Nations Population Unit projects world population will reach 9.2 billion in 2050. This will reduce our gha limit to 1.2 gha per capita. Africa is currently at an average of 1.1 gha and the Asia-Pacific region at 1.3gha so a future of abject poverty is a possibility for mankind.
There's more. The GFN authors point out their data is conservative, underestimating problems such as aquifer depletion and our impacts on other species. In response, the Redefining Progress group publishes an alternative footprint measure, which has humanity not at 22 per cent overshoot, but at 39 per cent overshoot. But that too, their authors concede, is an underestimate.
While in overshoot, moreover, we erode carrying capacity. Once we'd got to some level of consumption on a par with countries living today in abject poverty, we'd find there were fewer natural resources on which to draw than there had been when we started.
Ultimately, there are limits to how much we can reduce per-person use of land, water and other resources. A purposeful drop on the part of industrialized countries to consumption levels comparable to those of the poorest areas in the world is not only wholly unrealistic but, at today's population size, would not end our environmental woes. The sheer numbers of humanity prevent it.
We have no alternative but to return our attention to population, the other factor in the equation. Already in overshoot, we must aim for population stabilization followed by a decline in human numbers worldwide.
There is a lot of intellectual dishonesty and evasion connected with issues of population but any numerate analysis shows population reduction is the key to world environmental health.
A modest proposal would be to supplement the carbon tax with a baby tax. Those countries in overshoot like the USA would negotiate population reduction targets and be penalized appropriately for their overpopulation. If their population grew they would have to buy “baby credits” from countries like Canada and Finland that live within their gha endowment. The price mechanism would then work to decrease world population to sustainable limits.
The average gha of the developed world is 6.4. This standard of living would give a sustainable world population of 1,772.3 millions. In 1900 the world population was estimated at 1,600 millions. By 1950 world population had reached 2,475 millions. There was much debate by economists and development experts about population and growth in the sixties and seventies as it was thought population limits had been reached.
This debate was effectively ended by the “green revolution” based on cheap oil-based fertilizer, which enabled the growth of agriculture production beyond ecological limits. Cheap and plentiful food has sustained population growth at exponential levels in the developing world for the past thirty years. Medical intervention has also pushed up survival rates.
The end of cheap oil and peak oil means the end of cheap food and the eventual return of mass hunger and famine to the human experience. War, disease, famine and natural disaster have all played a major role in limiting human population in the past and seem to be surfacing again in the news.
Our current understanding suggests a peaceful and prosperous future for mankind is only possible if population is stabilized followed by a decline in human numbers worldwide. Reducing our consumption will not be enough or perhaps even relevant to environmental problems we face. ∆

Vancouver Area Relocalisation Network

New Community Garden Oak & 16th, Vancouver

greeninsight — Sat, 17 May 2008 15:43:09 -0700

Vancouver Area Relocalisation Network

Living Car Free Cafe

Shelby Tay — Wed, 14 May 2008 19:23:19 -0700

Start: 2008-05-20 19:00

End: 2008-05-20 21:00

Vancouver Area Relocalisation Network

Living on Earth as if We Want to Stay - A talk by green economist & author Mike Nickerson - June 28, 7pm-9pm

vlsavage — Mon, 12 May 2008 23:04:43 -0700

Start: 2008-06-28 19:00

End: 2008-06-28 21:00

Vancouver Area Relocalisation Network

BC Carbon Tax Panel Discussion

Shelby Tay — Fri, 09 May 2008 14:00:07 -0700

Start: 2008-05-12 18:30

End: 2008-05-12 20:00

Vancouver Area Relocalisation Network

Green Economy - Responsible Investment

Shelby Tay — Mon, 05 May 2008 12:42:19 -0700

Start: 2008-05-06 18:30

End: 2008-05-06 20:00

Vancouver Area Relocalisation Network

Climate Change and Peak Oil: Transport Revolutions and Municipal Responses

greeninsight — Sat, 03 May 2008 22:08:20 -0700

Start: 2008-05-22 07:30

End: 2008-05-22 09:00

Vancouver Area Relocalisation Network

Cultivating Food and Community

greeninsight — Sat, 03 May 2008 20:36:34 -0700

Start: 2008-06-13 19:00

End: 2008-06-14 16:21

Vancouver Area Relocalisation Network

Kitsilano Car Free Festival workshop

Kevin Washbrook — Wed, 02 Apr 2008 15:53:52 -0700

Start: 2008-04-13 14:00

End: 2008-04-13 16:00

Vancouver Area Relocalisation Network

April 11 Movie Night: End of Suburbia Followed by Panel Discussion

stimulator — Tue, 25 Mar 2008 17:04:10 -0700

Start: 2008-04-11 19:30

End: 2008-04-11 23:00

Vancouver Area Relocalisation Network

BC Carbon Tax Cafe

Shelby Tay — Sun, 16 Mar 2008 18:37:09 -0700

Start: 2008-03-18 19:00

End: 2008-03-18 21:00

Vancouver Area Relocalisation Network

Quadra By-election Candidate Responses on Climate Change, Peak Oil and Relocalization

Shelby Tay — Sun, 16 Mar 2008 15:46:58 -0700

On March 6th, I attended the Quadra By-Election Candidates debate on climate organized by VTACC (Voters Taking Action on Climate Change). Liberal candidate Joyce Murray, NDP candidate Rebecca Coad and Green candidate Dan Grice were in attendance. For a full recap, go to www.vtacc.org - you can view the full recording of the candidates' climate change town hall.

Last week, after seeing Andi Hazelwood's candidates' discussion for the Bundaberg, Australia, regional council election, I sent a quick email to all of the candidates asking them these three questions:

1. What are your thoughts on peak oil and climate change and their potential effects on the Metro Vancouver region?

2. Do you support the relocalization of the Metro Vancouver region, and other communities across Canada?

(relocalization means reducing consumption and sourcing daily
needs as
locally as possible to reduce dependence on declining fossil fuel
supplies, reduce greenhouse gas emissions and support our local economy
and local producers)

3. What motivates you most about being involved in politics? at a federal level?

All four candidates responded:

Response from Dan Grice:

1. Peak oil is real, imminent, and going to cause real havoc on our economy if we don't begin redesigning cities and preparing for a post petroleum world. Global warming risks causing rising sea levels which endanger low lying areas of the Fraser Valley, may cause the loss of snow on the local mountains, and may result in increasing storms across coastal areas.

2. Yes. We need to think locally and create sustainable local institutes. We also need to protect agricultural land to ensure we have arable local land, create better transportation systems and encourage people to work closer to where they live.

3. I've always wanted to be an agent of change and am inspired by how the Green Party in Germany and now Ireland are able to put forward meaningful changes with a handful of elected candidates. I think we need to change how we think in government, work together collaboratively with other parties to put forward strong policy. However, our biggest challenge, is turning government into a grassroots organization that is responsive to the needs and ideas of local communities.

Response from Rebecca Coad:

Hi Shelby,

Thank you for your email.

I have had the pleasure of meeting Thomas Homer-Dixon and hearing one of his lectures. He's a strong advocate for building resilient communities- and I agree.

To answer your questions:

1) Canada needs to move away from oil dependency and towards sustainable, renewable energy sources. The NDP has a plan to make this happen and you can find the details at: http://www.ndp.ca/page/4048

Some highlights of the plan are:
- create market incentives for new technology,
- mandate that big polluters pay their fair share,
- provide alternatives for ordinary folk (better transportation, building retrofitting...),
- legislate leading efficiency standards in vehicles, buildings and appliances.

2) Buying local is good for the economy and good for the environment. I support it wholeheartedly.

3) Our lives are shaped by political decisions. I am concerned about social justice and the environment and these challenges require political solutions.

Thank you again for your email,
Rebecca Coad

Response from Deborah Meredith:

Hi Shelby

Density reduces energy consumption and is a good thing for our cities.

We have to make sure though that taxes do not drive business out of the cities.

Public policy interests me greatly and when I was approached to run I seized the opportunity because I think that public policy is too important to leave to career politicians and bureaucrats. I want to do my best so that my children and their children and all our children have a clean and prosperous environment. It is a good time to be running for the Conservatives because we have a good platform, great leadership, and the will to actually accomplish something.

Thanks for your interest.

Deborah

Response from Joyce Murray:

Hi Shelby,

Thanks for your interest in climate change. I invite you to check my website to see my 1992 Thesis on this critical issue and the environmental endorsements from people I worked with. I will give you a call to discuss your questions as I prefer a personal conversation to email dialogues. Or feel free to call me.

regards,
Joyce
604-221-9490

-----

The Quadra by-election is tomorrow, March 17th - use this opportunity to make your voice heard. Quadra-ites get out and vote!

Vancouver Area Relocalisation Network

How peak oil affects you and your future community.

greeninsight — Sat, 08 Mar 2008 23:17:45 -0800

Start: 2008-03-15 19:00

End: 2008-03-15 21:00

Vancouver Area Relocalisation Network

Why Culture is Critical to the Climate Change Debates

greeninsight — Thu, 06 Mar 2008 19:17:40 -0800

Start: 2008-04-15 18:30

End: 2008-04-15 21:30

Vancouver Area Relocalisation Network

Building Sustainable Communities

greeninsight — Thu, 06 Mar 2008 19:12:49 -0800

Start: 2008-03-25 19:30

End: 2008-03-25 21:30

Vancouver Area Relocalisation Network

Banning Plastic Bags -- Resources?

soultime — Mon, 03 Mar 2008 14:16:45 -0800

I'm trying to find some information about plastic bans both in the USA and abroad -- while I've found plenty of articles (and blogs that link to said articles), I haven't been able to find a resource that has cold, hard facts about where bags are banned, restricted, taxed, etc., and what the results have been, and the processes that led up to the restrictions, etc. So -- if anyone can post something along these lines, that would be just fantastic. Thanks so much!

Vancouver Area Relocalisation Network

David Suzuki Lecture

Shelby Tay — Thu, 28 Feb 2008 16:08:23 -0800

Start: 2008-03-01 20:15

End: 2008-03-01 22:00

Vancouver Area Relocalisation Network

Petition to allow Elizabeth May in televised debates

greeninsight — Wed, 27 Feb 2008 23:11:40 -0800

Here's copy of a request from Green Party of Canada for interested people to sign a petition to allow democracy in Canada and have Elizabeth May invited to participate in any upcoming televised debates.

News ALERT

I just spoke with the President of CTV. He called to let our leader, Elizabeth May, know that the heads of Canada's broadcast consortium met today with representatives of the four parties currently invited to participate in the next nationally televised leaders' debates: the Conservatives, Liberals, NDP and Bloc Quebecois.

"No decision has been reached", he told me, in regards to the inclusion of Elizabeth in the debates.

You can really help, right now, by signing the Demand Democratic Debates petition. By signing today, a message will automatically go to the members of the television network consortium who ultimately determine who will be included in a televised leaders' debate.

Sign today and then forward this e-mail to at least 3 other people you know who support the Greens or who simply feel that, in this country, all party leaders have a right to voice their party's platform and be heard by the people who make the voting decisions.

It will only take a moment of your time and it will provide a meaningful push for free and democratic debate in Canada!

77% of Canadians say they want Elizabeth in the debates. Our Green Party polled ahead of the NDP last November as Canada's third most popular party. We have tied the NDP again this month and have polled consistently ahead of the Bloc.

This is a matter of fairness and democracy. Please help - with an email to the heads of the TV consortium now.

Thanks so much,

Deputy Leader Adriane Carr

Vancouver Area Relocalisation Network

Quadra By-Election: Candidates Debate Climate Change

Shelby Tay — Wed, 27 Feb 2008 14:58:38 -0800

Start: 2008-03-06 19:00

End: 2008-03-06 21:00

Vancouver Area Relocalisation Network

Lessons for the Future from Canada’s Climate Policy Failures

Kevin Washbrook — Fri, 22 Feb 2008 23:44:30 -0800

Start: 2008-03-04 19:00

End: 2008-03-04 21:00

Vancouver Area Relocalisation Network

Climate Cafe: Eating Locally, Thinking Globally

Shelby Tay — Fri, 22 Feb 2008 17:13:05 -0800

Start: 2008-02-26 19:00

End: 2008-02-26 21:00

Vancouver Area Relocalisation Network

Epiphany, Serendipity, and the Genesis ofEcological Footprint Analysis

Shelby Tay — Fri, 15 Feb 2008 16:15:35 -0800

Start: 2008-02-28 18:30

End: 2008-02-28 21:00

Vancouver Area Relocalisation Network

A Year without Oil

greeninsight — Fri, 15 Feb 2008 12:13:35 -0800

Start: 2008-02-17 22:00

End: 2008-02-17 23:00

Vancouver Area Relocalisation Network

Global Warming: Evidence, Inspiration for Action, Solutions

Kevin Washbrook — Fri, 01 Feb 2008 15:25:07 -0800

Start: 2008-02-19 19:00

End: 2008-02-19 21:00

Vancouver Area Relocalisation Network

Rogers and too much paper!

Celina Starnes — Fri, 01 Feb 2008 11:50:38 -0800

Hi guys and gals,
This is my first posting! I felt inspired to share a message that I recently send to Rogers (the phone/cable company). I hope that you might like to send a similar one if you are with Rogers and feel the same. Here is the message:

I have recently received an invoice from Rogers. The new format used to fold the bills (folded only once) necessitates a larger then typical envelope size. I wish to complain that this new format is an unnecessary waste of paper and other resources. I have already switched to email billing but I fret that there is most likely a huge number of people still receiving the paper bills. Could you please provide me with the reasoning behind the change in format and also the paper provider used by Rogers (i.e. virgin paper / recycled paper)?

See ya,
Celina

Vancouver Area Relocalisation Network

NetSquared meeting

Shelby Tay — Wed, 30 Jan 2008 15:35:18 -0800

Start: 2008-02-05 17:30

End: 2008-02-05 19:30

Vancouver Area Relocalisation Network

Howard Kustler Interview

stimulator — Thu, 24 Jan 2008 11:08:49 -0800

I got to interview Jim Kusntler on Tuesday as world markets crashed.

Short video interview (Kunstler comes in about 3 minutes in)
http://submedia.tv/stimulator/?p=132

You can listen to the 25 minute interview which is linked at the bottom of this page.
http://submedia.tv/stimulator/?p=132

enjoy//frank

Vancouver Area Relocalisation Network

Protest the Giveaway of BC’s Rivers and Hydroelectric Power

Shelby Tay — Sat, 19 Jan 2008 12:58:38 -0800

Start: 2008-02-02 13:00

End: 2008-02-02 21:00