From 10,000 Feet

June will be the first month of parliament for a government which is eager to get things done. Although I am pleased that we now have a functioning government, I am cautious about the Conservative’s position on Cap and Trade. Prior to the federal election, the Canadian Science Advisory Board advised the Conservative government to implement Cap and Trade as the solution to climate change. They also advised them to act quickly, even though there seemed to be little support for raising taxes and particularly, for this C&T scheme throughout 2nd and 3rd world countries. What I find “amazing” is that scientists from across the country and from every discipline and every background all agree on just one solution – a tax that would cost consumers billions just when we are getting back on our financial feet after the biggest financial scam in history; however, the hundreds of billions of dollars to be harvested from Cap and Trade for scientific research may have something to do with it.

Cap and Trade is not a new idea. It is based on a cap for emissions and the ability to trade any unused portion of that cap amount to someone who may be over the cap – hence the term Cap and Trade. The problems with the system are not in the overall concept but in its execution. The US version of the scheme is so flawed it begs the question, “You’ve got to be kidding?” There are so many loop holes and potential money making “backdoors”, any rational person would see the scheme for what it is – another huge scam! (For more information Google: cap and trade)

The questions we should ask in this situation are:  “How did such a flawed scheme get as far as it has, and who is promoting it?” As one famous investigator said, “Follow the money and you’ll find the answers.” We know who is promoting Cap and Trade – Al Gore. He showed up in Costa Rica early this year and used local flooding as proof of climate change and as a reason for implementing C&T. He revealed his true colours, however, when he said to the Costa Rican business community that they may discover that there is a lot of money to be made in climate change and that they should “put a price on carbon”.

Gore has already made millions from the proposed scheme through his Generation Investment Management company but he is not alone in his support for the C&T tax. Goldman Sachs has been a pillar of support for the plan. You may remember their role in the housing scandal and that their former CEO, Hank Paulson (then Secretary of the Treasury) was at the helm when the US financial system hit the mountain – many people think it was a deliberate act to get the bailout funds (see the film, “Inside Job”).

I believe the planet is in desperate need of  an ecological revolution and that we must change our way of living. I am not, however, about to empower or enrich a bunch of socio-psychopaths in a misguided attempt to do so. Nor am I going to be manipulated into supporting their self-enriching plans as a panacea for real change. We have seen through all of this that greed knows no bounds. This week it was revealed that a hedge fund has been purchasing land in Africa in an effort to make food production their next big “score”. The size of the land is larger than France. If that doesn’t scare you then you don’t understand that there actually are people in this world who are prepared to starve millions of people to make huge profits.

We have become immune to the greed and inhumanity all around us and in so doing have failed to discern the times. These are perilous times that require bold, determined and radical action. In the past, we have seen the resources of the planet squandered while others starved. Today however,  95% of the wealth is in the hands of 5% of the people. Centralized industrial mass food production has the potential for propagating epidemics and famines of mass proportion. Greed empowers a system that is unsustainable and prone to famine and epidemics. Self-indulgence ignores the lives of the weak and the poor. The discerning and wise person looks at the situation and prepares himself.

If you have been frightened by the “climate change story” you need to ask: “Where will that take ME?” If you have been scared by some of the stories that appear in the everyday news, you have to ask; “What does that mean for me?”.  All of these signs of the times, whether far away, or nearby, beg of us to answer the question “What am I going to do about it!”

I have been following the genetically modified crop debate since the early days of the controversy. I have talked to advocates on both sides of the issue and personally interviewed Arpad Pusztai, a world renowned expert on lectins and researcher from the Rowett Institute. His findings and personal comments on the BBC caused doubt about the harmlessness of GM foods. But this debate has a new life with the recent release of information by the BBC that genetically modified pigs are being developed here in Ontario.
As I read the article, I felt that the journalist had fully bought into “this is progress….and you can’t stop progress” point-of-view of many scientists. The premise behind that idea is that, “if it can be done, it should be done”.
Thirty years ago, coal-fired generating plants were lauded by scientists as the “cheap” solution to our energy needs. A whole host of perspectives were ignored in that debate. Warnings were dismissed and today we realize that just because it can be done, doesn’t mean it should be done. Apparently, it isn’t very difficult to get an “expert” to support just about any point-of-view if the right people want to promote it.
The BBC article makes two “value statements” for the “enviropig”, as they call it. The first is that these pigs don’t excrete phosphorous and are more environmentally friendly because they don’t cause overgrowth in our waterways. Phosphorous is a fertilizer. Nothing was said about where the phospherous goes and how it may affect the others systems in the pig – I am sure they don’t know. Even more interestingly, the writer did not mention the company who is responsible for this “amazing” pig (sic). Monsanto has built its “name” on such products as PCBs, Agent Orange (a cancer causing defoliant used by the US in the Viet Nam war), Aspartame (through Searle) and genetically modified corn, cotton, and other crops. No one company has more environmental failures than Monsanto.
The second value statement is that this enviropig “may” be helpful in feeding the increasing world population. Of course, that is based on people eating pork, which among the poor of this world, is not possible. In addition, growing crops to feed animals for meat is highly inefficient. Growing “people” food directly is a far more efficient and realistic way to feed the world. Furthermore, in 2nd and 1st world countries, increased cancer rates and heart disease are thought to be in part attributed to the high meat content in our diet. So the “we can save the world by feeding more people with GM pigs” wouldn’t go very far in an intelligent argument.
The even bigger question, also not mentioned in the BBC article, was: who owns this pig? Will Monsanto eventually own all pigs? If you look at Monsanto vs Schmeiser, Monsanto prosecuted the Schmeiser family for having GM Canola on their property without a license. Schmieser asserted he did not plant the crop but that his crop was contaminated by a neighbour’s GM Canola. The case went all the way to the Supreme Court who supported Monsanto’s claim to ownership of the modified “life form” no matter where it is found or how it got there. Hence, the settlement with the Schmiesers for damages in 2004. However, the question remains: if Monsanto owns the pig that they only modified and did not create, will they act responsibly and provide it to the starving masses at a price they can afford – I rather doubt it!! Corporations are inhuman. They try to make as much money as possible, any way they can. In most cases, their morality is greed and because of that they are in direct conflict with the goals of governments and the rest of humanity.
Some would argue that what Monsanto is doing is not new. That every hybrid plant is genetically modified. However, there is a world of difference between the natural process of plants and animals evolving and scientists firing gene guns at the plant’s DNA and forcing unnatural change that would not happen any other way. If these plants weren’t significantly different, then on what do they base their patent and right to ownership?
These are only a few of the very serious implications attached to genetically modified life forms for which there has been only superficial public debate in Canada and the US. The implications of GM foods are huge on many “fronts”, not to mention the more complicated question: are they truly safe to eat? Since there are experts on both sides of that argument, it comes down to: which expert are you going to believe? The question then becomes: should people have the right to know they are eating GM food? Monsanto and Health Canada say, “NO”. In spite of the overwhelming polls in favour of right-of-choice, Health Canada has done nothing. Can we trust government agencies and scientists (experts) to make the decisions for us? History has proven otherwise. Each of us must be informed and act accordingly and have the freedom to choose. There is an election coming soon – maybe someone will listen to the voice of the people.

BBC article: http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-12113859
National Film Board of Canada – The World According To Monsanto

http://topdocumentaryfilms.com/the-world-according-to-monsanto/