Assorted content to end your week.
- Frank Graves writes
that we're seeing the end of progress for all but the wealthiest few - and that we all stand to lose out if we come to believe that progress for the rest of us is impossible:
There is a virtual consensus that a growing and optimistic middle class is a precondition for societal health and economic prosperity. This consensus position reflects the historical record of when nations succeed.
Yet if this consensus is correct, we note with alarm that almost nobody thinks that these conditions are in place in Canada. To the contrary, the consensus view is that the middle class is shrinking and pessimistic.
There are important barometers of confidence and we have tested these the same way in repeated measures for twenty years or so; the trajectories are clear and revealing. Never in our tracking has Canada had such a gloomy outlook on the economic future. Never in our tracking has the sense of progress from the past been so meager.- Meanwhile, Spiegel interviews
Naomi Klein about the choice between ever-increasing resource consumption and a sustainable planet:SPIEGEL:
So you're saying that a new era of consumption and energy use began precisely at the moment when sustainability and restraint would have been more appropriate?Klein:
Exactly. And it was at precisely this moment that we were also being told that there was no longer any such thing as social responsibility and collective action, that we should leave everything to the market. We privatized our railways and the energy grid, the WTO and the IMF locked in an unregulated capitalism. Unfortunately, this led to an explosion in emissions.
Let's go back to our first question: Why have people been unable to stop this development?Klein:
We have systematically given away the tools. Regulations of any kind are now scorned. Governments no longer create tough rules that limit oil companies and other corporations. This crisis fell into our laps in a disastrous way at the worst possible moment. Now we're out of time. Where we are right now is a do-or-die moment. If we don't act as a species, our future is in peril. We need to cut emissions radically.
You're saying that all the small steps -- green technologies and CO2 taxation and the eco-behavior of individuals -- are meaningless?Klein:
No. We should all do what we can, of course. But we can't delude ourselves that it's enough. What I'm saying is that the small steps will remain too small if they don't become a mass movement. We need an economic and political transformation, one based on stronger communities, sustainable jobs, greater regulation and a departure from this obsession with growth. That's the good news. We have a real opportunity to solve many problems at once. SPIEGEL:
You don't appear to be counting on the collective reason of politicians and entrepreneurs. Klein:
Because the system can't think. The system rewards short-term gain, meaning quick profits. Take Michael Bloomberg, for example ...SPIEGEL:
… the businessman and former New York City mayor …Klein:
… who understood the depths of the climate crisis as a politician. As a businessman, however, he chooses to invest in a fund that specializes in oil and gas assets. If a person like Bloomberg cannot resist the temptation, then you can assume that the system's self-preservation capacity isn't that great.- Naturally, the Cons are going out of their way to make sure nobody's able to talk about either growth or sustainability. On that front, Kristie Smith reports
on the Cons' refusal to allow our elected representatives to assess their woeful economic record. And Carol Linnitt talks to
Donald Gutstein about their determination to silence anybody trying to make the case to save our planet.
- Of course, the most prominent current example of that is their terror bill. On that front, the Ottawa Citizen rightly questions
the Cons' rush to impose massive new powers with as little study as possible. Louise Elliott reports
on how C-51 ignores the Supreme Court's past decisions about security certificates, while upwards of 100 professors in law and related disciplines have released a letter
calling for the bill to be amended or scrapped. And both Don Martin
and Michael Harris
call out the Cons for their selective definition of a threat (at least before universal surveillance powers are put in place).
- Finally, Health Poverty Action examines
the global cost of the war on drugs. Anna Mehler Paperny discusses
the social and economic consequences of a lack of accessible child care. And the Guardian reminds us
that ignoring homelessness doesn't make its human costs disappear.