Huge congratulations to Cecil Clarke, and tons of respect to Rankin MacSween; also Glenn Jessome, Elizabeth Barrie, and Wilf Isaac. Congratulations to Eldon MacDonald in District 5, and respect to Doug Johnston, Rico MacEachern, Max MacDonald, Leah Boyd, George Woodberry, and Charlie Long.
Two months ago, we gathered around the radio to hear John Morgan announce he would not re-offer in this election. To us, this signaled that a new direction was inevitable for the CBRM.
Today, no matter who we each voted for, we have a mayor who is committed — on the record! — to not only economic development and job creation, but affordable housing, public transit, addiction services, community engagement, and more. This, I believe, is because VOTERS themselves prioritized these and other important issues of equality, accessibility, and social justice. And so now the real work begins.
I went into this never expecting to win. We thought, hey, we’ll learn a lot (which we did) and we’ll raise my profile a little (which we did) perhaps preparing the ground for 2016. But as more and more people started to come on board, all of a sudden I found myself surrounded — by family, some of my oldest friends, and some of my newest friends — and you all just lifted me up.
In the last 40 days, we turned an exercise in long-term planning into a truly inspiring campaign, one that created a fair amount of buzz. I never needed to prepare myself to lose. But in the last two weeks, I needed to prepare myself to win. The fact that we accomplished that much — and had fun doing it — is remarkable.
And so I thank you, from the bottom of my heart — which has grown three sizes larger since I moved to Cape Breton 12 years ago.
This is an edited version of a guest lecture given to Tracey Harris-Smith’s “Culture, Technology, and the Environment” class at CBU.
Here’s how Tracey pitched this lecture to me: “Mike, my class has spent the semester reading about industrial agriculture, production, consumption/consumerism, and they’re feeling pretty overwhelmed and depressed, can you come in and try to lift their spirits, maybe speak to the idea of the ‘personal is political’ or something.”
I took a look at your syllabus, and you’re all probably feeling like Kurt Vonnegut, who said about the world, “I’m sorry. It’s over. The game is lost.” This is quite a task.
I had planned to come in here today and get straight to the ‘lifting your spirits’ part, but it occurred to me that if you’ve been paying attention in class, your reaction will be along the lines of “yeah yeah but the game is lost.”
So instead I’m going to spend some time reflecting on that sentiment — that the game is lost. But I’ll ask you to bare with me, because you might find yourself thinking ‘This guy’s here to lift my spirits? Geez I’d hate to see him try to bum me out.’ I promise, it gets better at the end.
So is Vonnegut right? When it comes to the environment — the world — is the game lost? Consider what it would take to undo the damage done to the environment and society from two and a half centuries of mass production and consumption since the industrial revolution: over 200 years of industrial-strength pollution; 60 years of industrial-speed sprawl, consuming half of the world’s conventional recoverable oil supplies; and 35 years of hyper-growth fuelled primarily by debt.
The result is a triple-threat of global warming/climate change; peak oil; and global economic instability.
You’re probably right to feel overwhelmed! Especially when you look around and see governments, businesses, and institutions carrying on as usual. The only time they even talk about the environment is to call environmentalists “radicals”.
But what’s so radical about wanting to protect life-sustaining biosystems? About wanting to only consume as much energy and resources as is sustainable? And about wanting to build an economic system that is equitable?
And ‘equitable’ means equitable for all, including future generations.
There’s a profound social justice element to environmental issues. In the case of climate change, those that haven’t benefited from the industrial revolution’s two centuries of ‘growth’ — and who therefore lack our financial means, our infrastructure, and our ability to respond to disaster — are the ones that will be hit first and hardest by the effects of climate change (rising sea levels, extreme weather events, flooding on the one hand, desertification on the other, dying fish stocks from ocean acidification, etc).
For example, conventional oil has peaked (we’ll need some hindsight to know for sure exactly when). But generally speaking, until now, conventional oil production has been speeding up, and from now on, it will be slowing down. This means rising energy prices for us, consumers.
Will profits be invested in alternatives? Not enough. Instead, we’ll likely see increased investment in unconventional oil like the tar sands and a return to coal (which we never left). Meaning that right when we’re starting to feel the first effects of climate change from global warming, we’re also ramping up production and consumption of less efficient, more expensive, and highly polluting energy sources, which will increase global warming and worsen climate change.
And to complete the trinity, all this is taking place in an economic climate of fear and uncertainty. In the midst of a pathetic “Jobless Recovery”, the rhetoric of “Jobs Now!” will continue to trump all else. We’ll continue to under-invest in clean tech, meaning we won’t see the kind of technological innovation that would lead to a ‘green collar’ economy, let alone the kind of economic innovation that would lead to prosperity without growth.
We have a Conservative government pursuing conventional austerity measures — shrinking government and cutting social programs, ultimately making life harder for ordinary people — in order to reduce the debt that they themselves created by cutting taxes and giving corporations more power, including more power to pollute. Instead, we need a stimulus package to invest in ‘green-collar’ jobs — like designing, building, installing and maintaining renewable energy systems — in order to reduce energy costs associated with peak oil, reduce global warming and avert the worst effects of climate change, and create sustainable and meaningful jobs that are good for our communities and our economies.”
Granted, that’s a sound byte, something a left-wing radical environmentalist might say. But what it basically boils down to is that life is going to be worse for us than it was for our parents, and we can expect our government to not care.
So what can we do?
One of the simplest things you can do is get involved in an online organizing and activism effort. Engagement with these types of campaigns is often dismissed as “slacktivism”, because it doesn’t require much effort — a click here, a click there. But don’t be fooled. It takes less effort to vote, and no one’s dismissing that type of civic engagement as pointless… only people who would rather you did nothing!
One of the most impressive and inspiring is 350.org, the environmental movement started by Bill McKibben. The name refers to the level of carbon dioxide in parts per million that scientists say is a safe threshold, over which things start to get dicey, you start to see feedback loops, and climate change becomes a runaway train.
(For example, if global temperature rises 2 degrees celsius above normal, it melts permafrost. Permafrost stores massive amounts of methane, which is a more potent greenhouse gas than carbon dioxide. Which would therefore increase the amount of heat-trapping gasses in the atmosphere. Which would worsen global warming. Which would — you guessed it — melt more permafrost. Feedback loops like this are hard if not impossible to halt.)
So let’s say you join with this global movement that is mobilizing around the idea that we need to keep carbon emissions below this threshold (we’re actually already at 385 or even 400, but scientists are always moving the threshold, so it is another instance where we won’t know until it is too late).
Two years ago we held a rally as part of a global day of action: thousands of people in almost every country in the world, all sending a message to the politicians meeting that month in Copenhagen. 70 people came out, wearing their parkas in sub-zero weather and blowing snow. (I joked in my opening remarks that it would have been a tragic irony if we had cancelled due to extreme weather.)
We talked about the effect of climate change on global citizens, Canadian citizens, and Cape Breton citizens.
I know some people went home feeling empowered. But others left feeling hopeless. After all, what impact does standing around in the cold have on global carbon emissions? And the answer is… none really.
But that’s not the point. The point is solidarity and engagement with the issue. That doesn’t begin at 6pm and end at 6:30pm on the same night. The point is to take the conversation that is happening globally and find a way to plant it locally. Climate change is a good starting point for the conversation, because it is a global issue. But it is not the only environmental disaster unfolding in slow motion all around us. It is a token, though, because climate change is connected to pretty much every other environmental, social, cultural, and economic issue you can think of.
Essentially I asked: If Vonnegut is right, now what?
Kurt Vonnegut shot himself in the head. I don’t recommend that. What I do recommend is that we instead say, not that the game is lost, but that the game is changed. Probably radically altered even. And it is this new game that we need to win now.
What we are faced with is a world that is different — literally chemically different — than the one our parents lived in, and to an extent that can’t be undone. So the game — the new question — becomes this:
Are our communities resilient enough to withstand this change (and ongoing changes)?
And are they adaptive enough to be able to themselves change with those new conditions?
When the pressure is applied, will our communities break? How can we make our communities adapt by becoming new communities for a new world?
We can’t rely — at least not exclusively — on the federal government, and even to an extent provincial governments, to help us through this transition, because they are highly bureaucratized, rigid, monolithic things. They move at a glacial pace. (This is an ironic statement: actual glaciers are now changing — melting — faster and faster.)
These institutions, some of which are hundreds of years old and haven’t changed much if at all in that time, are too rigid to bend and so they might break; too slow to adapt and so they might die.
I’m using a little hyperbole here, but this evolutionary metaphor is accurate: think not only of government, but, as Margie Gillis puts it in the above clip, think of the Catholic church, think of universities, hospitals, even capitalism itself. Institutions — or organizing frameworks — that have managed to survive for quite a long time, sometimes by changing slowly and slightly with the times. But institutions that might actually, finally, be bumping up against the limits of their ability to change.
Certainly bumping up against their ability to provide a sufficient quality of life for most people. And this includes capitalism, which is “bumping up”, to put it mildly, against the ecological limits of economic growth.
New Dawn Enterprises
Last year New Dawn went one step further and asked me to join its board of directors. New Dawn was doing some soul-searching and found that it too, like every organization reaching middle age, risked becoming too rigid and ossified to deal with the changing context of this community, which it is New Dawn’s mandate to serve.
New Dawn’s mission/vision statement is to foster a culture of self-reliance in order to create a vibrant community. It has done this over the last 36-37 years by providing affordable housing, community-based health care, career training, and various other projects like Meals on Wheels.
Pictured above is the ‘life cycle’ curve, which is usually used to talk about commercial products, but it is just as useful for organizations and institutions:
Introduction = the ‘problem’ out of which the organization grows.
Growth = the successful application of the solution.
Maturity = the institutionalization of the solution/organization.
It’s here, approaching the cusp between ‘maturity’ and ‘decline’, that the organization risks losing sight of its origins (literally losing sight, if we imagine this curve on a 3-dimensional plane, like going ‘over the hill’).
And it’s here, approaching this cusp, that the organization must decide whether to reinvent itself, or else commit to the slow decline that is more or less inevitable in the transition from vital organization to irrelevant institution.
I don’t know where New Dawn is on this continuum exactly, but it’s nonetheless asking itself: “What does it mean to be a self-reliant people in a vibrant community in the 21st century?”
It’s a working prototype, located in Westmount, designed to grow produce year-round. It may be replicated in Canada’s North where a tomato costs $14 and has to be flown in by helicopter. The greenhouse is built from glass designed and produced by a Cape Breton innovation company called Advanced Glazing Ltd. It uses a synthetic honey-comb structure sandwiched between two panels, which lets light in and disperses it evenly, and traps heat inside at the same time, acting as high-grade insulation. Significantly less energy is required to heat the greenhouse, providing a healthy, affordable, local, safe, and secure source of food year-round.
This has meant, by and large, fighting for what’s often referred to as the “community option” for port development.
A century ago, an industrialist king owned the means of production, owned the company store, owned the company houses. The king extracted natural resources from the community and extracted labour resources from the community, and ultimately made off with the wealth of the community, leaving a depleted economy and a toxic legacy.
Let’s not go down that road with the port.
1965. (Today is the beginning of the closure of the container terminal.)
Instead, the community should own the key assets (the greenfield site and the harbour bottom) and lease it for development. Then, whatever the development turns out to be, will produce royalties that can be streamed into a community equity fund, turning some of the profit from port development into direct investment in local businesses, education, health, and community development.
This will diversify the local economy, and avoid — you guessed it — setting up another house of cards economy that will come crashing down in 50, 25, or even 10 years.
With or without port development, New Dawn is pursuing a community equity fund. New Dawn runs a CEDIF, a Community Economic Development Investment Fund, which is a provincial program that allows community organizations to raise funds, mainly by having people redirect their RRSP investments.
The CEDIF allows investors, who are people in the community, to direct investment in the community, rather than have government simply give tax breaks and other ‘incentives’ to multinational corporations, who create temporary jobs that dry up as soon as the subsidy ends or the company finds a better deal elsewhere.
Sustainability: The Long View
I’ve spent 20 minutes talking about how screwed we are, and only a few minutes talking about community-based creative alternatives. That is in part because I do want to emphasize that many of these are only at the early stages of development, as are many of the exciting things happening in Cape Breton these days. They’re only just sprouting up, and others still are hidden from view.
But these sprouts — the initiatives, projects, and organizations creating a self-reliant people in a vibrant community for the 21st century — aren’t rigid, ossified, institutionalized. On the contrary, many are about trying to become resilient and adaptive in order just to make it in the new world I just described. But also in order to actively take part in its creation and betterment. If you want a sustainable job, look to those new initiatives, and others like them, and get involved on the ground level.
Last but not least is the early childhood development item I listed. This is something being pursued by Jim Mustard, a councillor in Inverness and son of the late Fraser Mustard, a world-leading expert on early childhood development.
Substance abuse, low levels of education and literacy, poor health, unemployment, crime. These and other indicators of community health — some of which are nearly epidemic in Cape Breton — are related to the care and level of provision a person has in childhood. The years between 0-5 are absolutely critical to brain development. A child that gets off to a slow start is at a disadvantage and may not be able to catch up. In Canada we do a pretty poor job at providing for people in the most formative portion of their life.
At New Dawn we’re just starting to have this conversation. What does it mean to really think about sustainability? In Inverness, Jim Mustard is in the process of co-developing a family support coop. In both cases, the goal is not to simply target low-income families or single mothers or at-risk people, but to provide universal provision; to come together as a community and support families.
You might be thinking, “But what does this have to do with the environment?”
In other words, by working to “save” the world we would, almost by accident, create a better world.
But you know what the problem is with that argument? It’s that your vision of a better world might be a techno-futuristic one, where we still use as much energy as we want, we still consume as much as we want, we still drive as much and as far and as fast as we want, we still eat whatever we want and as much as we want.
The point is, you can agree we need action on climate change. But the idea that we’ll do so by creating “livable communities” is controversial, given that our ideas of “livable” may diverge drastically.
Which means I need to defend the benefits of this vision of a livable community over that vision.
But that’s precisely where I’ll stop!
Such an argument would be a purely intellectual exercise, when what’s needed is experience. I can’t make the argument, only the world itself can make the argument. What do I mean? The way to make a better world, reduce global warming, lessen the impacts of climate change, make our communities more resilient and adaptive to the coming ‘storm’ (both literal and figurative), while retaining our basic humanity, is to…
Go for a walk.
I don’t mean ‘active transportation’ (which is great too). I mean that by living at a human scale, living at a human (and humane) speed — which is what happens when you go for a walk — whether in your own neighbourhood or far away, you get to know people, communities, cities. When you get to know some little piece of the world better, by extension you get to know The World better.
I have a feeling the more people get to know the world, the more they’ll find it perfectly reasonable to want to take better care of it.
The Cape Breton Post’s assessment of yesterday’s events (“Greenfield Gold”) doesn’t say much for its opinion of this community. CBRM council voted 17-0 to put in an offer on the Greenfield site. The Post believes this unanimous decision was the result of council’s impressionability, as if they were simply charmed by Rankin MacSween.
When in fact, as reported by CBC, councillors based their decision on the volume of phone calls and emails they received from constituents following Tuesday’s council meeting. Council’s decision was the direct result of a community acting together to achieve a common goal. This was neither a coup by council nor by MacSween; it was a win for the community, by the community.
And what exactly was it that the community won? Again, the Post misses the point. This was not the triumph of a container terminal over a coal field, or the triumph of councillors over a consortium. The decision to purchase the greenfield site shouldn’t be seen as an investment in whatever future development takes place there, container terminal or otherwise. Rather, it should be understood as a securing of this community’s right to determine its own future. It’s not about what gets built on the site; it’s about who decides. And ultimately about who benefits.
The Post would prefer we “let the chips fall where they may”, as if the rights of every Henry Melville Whitney should always and everywhere trump the long-term interests of a community. Indeed the editorial seemed quite concerned with the message yesterday’s decision sends to the private sector. But what message does this send to members of this community, who spoke out in favour of shared ownership of a vital community asset, and had their elected representatives listen? This was truly a triumph for democracy.
It’s too bad the Post editorial missed all this, with its simplistic reduction of a complex issue, and its shameful dismissal not only of this community’s leaders but of the multitude who supported them.
What we witnessed was a community realizing its power, and demanding its right, to determine its future. It was an act of courage. It came from a place of hope. And it displayed a profound commitment to each other and to this island. May this letter serve as a corrective: We noticed. And we celebrated.
Cape Bretoners invest a hundred million dollars every year in RRSPs but less than 1% stays in Cape Breton. As New Dawn president Rankin MacSween puts it, first we send our money to Toronto, then we send our children.
What would happen if, instead, more of that money stayed in Cape Breton, to be invested in local projects, businesses, and community development initiatives?
New Dawn Holdings is trying to answer that question, by raising capital through an RRSP-eligible Community Economic Development Investment Fund (CEDIF) and investing in the community, continuing its legacy of helping to create “a self-reliant people in a vibrant community”.