6 O ) i Nn i O Nn December 9th, 2009 + Over the Edge i | may not agree with what you have to say, but! will defend to the death your right to say it. ”» - Voltaire The opinions expressed in editorials or letters to the editor that are submitted to Over the Edge are not the opinions of Over the Edge or UNBC. The views expressed in a letter submitted to Over the Edge are the views of the original authors, and therefore, do not reflect the views of Over the Edge, or its staff. Over the Edge welcomes your submissions to our opinion section. To submit a letter to the editor e-mail over-the-edge@unbc.ca. A Messy Decade ISHMAEL N. DARO CUP OPINIONS BUREAU CHIEF SASKATOON (CUP) — As the clock counts down to 2010, we look back on a decade that gave us the iPod, the Toyota Prius and Miley Cyrus. Although these are undoubtedly great engineering achievements, they did not define the decade. When historians look back on the 2000s, they will likely de- scribe it as a decade of violence and unrest. The 2000s started out with great promise. The Cold War had long been over and the great powers of the world seemed more interested in looking inward rather than outward. In the United States, George W. Bush swept into office — albeit after a contested elec- tion victory — promising a humble foreign policy that avoided foreign adventures and nation building. “If we're an arrogant nation, they'll resent us; if we're a humble nation, but strong, they'll welcome us,’ Bush said during a presidential debate against Al Gore. “And our nation stands alone right now in the world in terms of power, and that’s why we've got to be humble, and yet project strength in a way that pro- motes freedom.” As we all know, however, this changed with the at- tacks of Sept. 11, 2001. Almost 3,000 people died in the attacks as two gleaming symbols of American power and prestige collapsed unto themselves. The last attack on American soil had been Pearl Harbor, which had killed fewer people than 9-11, and offered an obvious enemy against which to retaliate. But in the aftermath of 9-11, there was no clear way for- ward. The anger over 9-11 rightfully led to the overthrow of the Taliban in Afghanistan, for which Canada joined in, but it didn't stop there. The humility Texas governor Bush spoke of was gone, replaced by Pres- ident Bush's “with us or against us” style of diplomacy. Instead of focusing on rebuilding a country ravaged by decades of civil war, the United States turned its bloodlust on Iraq, almost losing both countries to ex- tremism in the process. As the lone superpower continued its aggressive campaigns overseas that cost both blood and treas- ure, it also lost its moral authority. Preemptive war, torture, kidnapping and indefinite imprisonment all tarnished America’s image. Guantanamo, Abu Ghraib and now Bagram prison in Afghanistan are all examples of what happens when an empire over- stretches itself financially, militarily and morally. It now appears Canada may also have been complicit in the torture of detainees in Afghanistan, which reflects poorly on us as a nation. Throw in the financial crisis of 2008 and its on- going effects, and the 2000s were a lost decade for Americans. But where America failed, others are stepping in. ‘The rise of Asian economies, led by China and India, means that the world’s balance of power may be shift- ing. Likewise, Brazil and Russia are increasingly flex- ing their economic (and sometimes military) muscles. The recent election of a new president and foreign minister for the European Union could mean that the next decade will see a more even distribution of power and influence around the world. Despite the recession, the world’s economies are more integrated than ever. And though the economic aspects of globalization always seem most prominent, the political and social aspects have worked to make our world more interconnected and interdependent than ever before. There are many challenges looming in the 2010s, including global issues such as climate change, and though new power centres have emerged the world still only has its sole superpower in the United States. Still, one cant help but feel hopeful that in the next decade, especially with a more moderate American president, we will not repeat some of the mistakes that made the 2000s such a tumultuous time. The difficult refugee claim process just got harder Economy a higher priority than humanitarian aid for Conservatives CAMERON FENTON THE CONCORDIAN (CONCORDIA UNIVERSITY) MONTREAL (CUP) — Federal Immigration Min- ister Jason Kenney and the Conservatives are making it abundantly clear that Canada's time as a leader in pro- viding aid to refugees in need is coming to an end, The new immigration policy is one in which money talks and bullshit walks — only the bullshit here happens to be fear, persecution and danger. Earlier this month, Kenney announced in his yearly re- port to Parliament that by 2010 Canada will be admitting fewer refugees in the years ahead. According to the Or- ganization for Economic Co-operation and Development, 27,865 asylum seekers entered into Canada in 2007. That number has been steadily declining ever since. These figures show a shift in immigration policy under the Conservative government, who want to streamline the immigration system to combat alleged abuses. Kenney’s report includes data that shows that the number of suc- cessful refugee claims from asylum seekers will have fallen by half since the Conservatives have taken power. An example of the tightening grip around immigration is when the government placed visa requirements on vis- itors from Mexico and Czech Republic coming to Canada this summer. This trend will drastically change the way Canada is perceived — as a safe haven for refugees — in the international community. ‘The status and treatment of refugees is governed inter- nationally by the United Nations’ Convention and Proto- col Relating to the Status of Refugees which defines a refugee as any person that, “owing to a well-founded fear of being persecuted for reasons of race, religion, national- ity, membership of a particular social group or political opinion, is outside the country of his nationality and is unable ... or unwilling to avail himself of the protection of that country ... or is unable or, owing to such fear, is unwilling to return to it.” Nations are asked to cooperate with the UN High Commission on refugees, but actual legislation relating to each nation’s action on the protocol is a national deci- sion. Upon arriving in Canada, refugee status must be de- My Hope for Copenhagen clared at customs, where an official does a cursory check of an individual's eligibility before transferring successful claimants to the Immigration and Refugee Board (IRB). This board, which operates independently of Citizen- ship and Immigration Canada, then must examine each case to determine whether the individual meets the cri- teria of a protected person under Canadian law. The hearing process can take months or even years, and the board’s decisions are final. Claimants rarely have an opportunity for appeal. Any person who fails an IRB claim faces immediate re- moval from Canada, often to dangerous, even life-threat- ening situations. Critics have cited a recent case where a 24 year-old Mexican woman was found murdered after failing two Canadian refugee claims. Canada has in the past been considered a hospitable nation for refugees seeking asylum, a reputation that pol- iticians bore internationally with pride. The Conservative government's planned immigration reforms, along with the hyper security measures post-9-11, are eroding that image daily. Canada’s borders are no longer safe shores for the per- secuted masses of the world. Just ask the 76 Sri Lankan asylum seekers who have been languishing in a B.C. de- tention facility for a month. They have been paraded in front of numerous courts, accused of terrorist ties and have had their identities banned from release by the IRB. This is far from the hospitality Canadians imagine them- selves known for on the world stage. The report's statistics have also drawn criticism for the preferential emphasis being placed on allowing “economic class’ immigrants into Canada over others. Hearkening back to the immigration policy of early British colonial authorities, this policy would give preferential treatment to people with professional credentials over those with humanitarian needs. Of the projected 240,000-265,000 immigrants to be allowed into Canada over the next year 166,800 are expected to be in the economic class, about 65 per cent of the total. MARK D. THOMPSON CONTRIBUTOR I hope to see the issue of global declines in biodiversity being raised at Copenhagen. Biodiversity relates critically to solving cli- mate change. Ecosystems of planet Earth regulate the global carbon cycle and they provide many resources including water fil- tration, soils, nutrients, food, health, medi- cines, timber, fiber, and who doesn't love wildlife? Public support for biodiversity conservation is declining. Decline in sup- port is related to people's direct experience with nature. Urban environments stamp out psychological connections and our cultural appreciation for nature, and fewer people are exploring the great outdoors. If you don't hike, camp and explore wild places as a young person you are less likely to support conservation initiatives later in life. The urban lifestyle has changed our culture to such an extent that the value of natural capital has been lost. A market for natural capital has not been in exist- ence since the industrial revolution began, but we need one now. A recent report by Germany and the European Commission performed a global study on the economics of biodiversity. The results clearly demon- strate that investments in natural capital and biodiversity far exceed the expected economic returns. Hence, we are only start- ing to appreciate that our economy truly is supported by economy of nature. If nature is in collapse, our economy will follow. The past century has radically comprom- ised the Earth ecosystems and scientific as- sessments are predicting an immanent col- lapse. The way we have collectively designed the modern lifestyle is restricting the flow of ecosystems that provide critical services for the well-being of our communities. The assault on nature on a global scale is dra- matic and increasing to an extent that we have exceeded the bioregenerative capacity of the planet. Climate change is only one of the symptoms and it is sure to hasten the extinction crisis. Conserving biodiversity fixes climate change, repairs global economic inequities between the rich and the poor, provides health benefits, buffers the spread of dis- ease, and involves employment in forestry, agriculture, hunting, fishing, outdoor rec- reation, conservation organizations, eco- logical sciences, medical professions, art, culture, education and the list goes on. My hope for Copenhagen is that this issue is taken as seriously as it needs to be. If we do not invest in nature we cannot achieve a global reduction in carbon emissions. We need to re-employ the Earths ecosystem services. In this sense, a green job is one that employs biodiversity rather than tax- ing it to extinction. A green job is one that also employs lo- cal communities. We need governance that invests in a diverse economy while concur- rently supporting and accounting for values in sustaining natural capital. Genes, popula- tions and species are the currency of nature and we need to invest heavily in all these ecological dimensions, not just by planting trees. The economy should be as equally di- verse as ecosystems are. Ecological and eco- nomic redundancy will sustain industries other than big conglomerates. Non-timber forest products, for example, are a thriving, but small part of the economy. These stake- holders require an equal share of access to resources of the commons. A green job is one where the employer invests in reducing its ecological footprint. This requires community planning that fixes past mistakes by learning how to make it feasible for citizens to live a sustainable lifestyle. Cities need to be planned such that citizens live within walking distance to ecologically productive green space. Chil- dren need to explore and community health reports show that this clearly improves our health and psychological well-being. ‘There is a psychological link between our relationship with nature and sustainability that continues to be greatly under valued. Community plans that focus on increased density are not sustainable. Sustainable community plans are ones that envelope citizens in such a way that the services of local nature can reach us. Homes, toys, playgrounds and other materials need to be built using local and familiar materials, distancing our econ- omies from investing in an increasing list of hazardous chemicals coming from far off places. Some materials will need to be transported, but the focus on what is a sustainable practice needs to be evaluated through investment in ecological econom- ics. A sustainable ecological society, for example, is one that finds it unethical to serve food and beverages to citizens using containers constructed with a multitude of hazardous ingredients, Our recyclables contain inks, pthalates, bisphenol A and other chemicals known to degrade into hormone mimics that harm our children and damage ecosystems. Recycling such hazardous materials is not green. We are individually and collectively psychologically ill equipped to deal with the global threats we face in this next century. Cigarette butts, for example, litter UNBC's soils and are a hazardous material that pol- lutes our watersheds and harms wildlife. Individuals must know how hazardous smoking can be and collectively our safety offices do not act. We even let our children play on grass littered with this hazardous chemical waste. Being green is about an honest disclosure of the things that we do. We cannot stick a label on something, call it green and forget about it. The green process is in need of re- form using ecological life cycle analysis and it is good to see this sort of development already taking place in many industries around the world. More than this, however, we need an honest ecological approach. Our local forest economy, for example, talks about sustainable yield, but continues to clear away the land, build roads and drain wetlands. This is not ecologically sustain- able. Spraying pesticides, still practiced in forestry today, and adding synthetic fertil- izers to our crops is scientifically unjustified and empirically shown to decrease yields. A green future is one that puts a morator- ium on road expansion and a re-appraisal of the entire infrastructure, design and flow of traffic. When will the global road project be complete? How many peer-reviewed scien- tific publications does it take before we ac- cept and believe that a dangerous problem exists between roads and ecology? Roads release greenhouse gases, phenolic bio-ac- cumulants, damages watersheds, and steril- izes ecosystems, yet the green movement is only geared toward fuel efficient cars. We must collectively decide when the road pro- ject will be finished and by all indications we have already made it too large. Transforming existing jobs to focus on recognized problems needs to be more of a priority than the creation of new green jobs. We can make employment a meaningful investment, because it is clear that a large segment of society wants to help out. For example, a moratorium on building roads can use the workforce to improve upon road construction by engineering tunnels thar will allow us to reconnect isolated bits of nature. There are problems beyond climate change that technology cannot repair and it seems to be creating more of itself beyond a level that we can sustainably manage. Like power lines, we need to spread the flow of ecosystems across the planet. We need to employ the fish, frogs, salamanders, birds, mammals, insects, and plants to migrate, to regulate the climate and to distribute their goods and services, including cultural servi- ces. Society needs to invest in nature more than ever, but we seem to be taking another path and calling it green. We are continu- ing along the path that built the industrial revolution as we thrust our full economic support behind technological investments. There are some things that technology can- not do. This is the sixth extinction crisis and very little is being done to solve the problem. If we choose to continue on our current path the ecology of our planet is destined to collapse and bring society along with it. Alternatively, we need a collective form of ecological intelligence that does not stamp a trade mark onto something and call it green. We need greater transparency and an accounting system that accounts for the negative costs incurred toward nature and ourselves.