A "Lo-ebb" Experience

As many of you may know, I gave up car ownership some years ago, in an effort to reduce my ecological footprint. I love this unencumbered lifestyle. Some may think it restricts one's freedom, but my experience has been quite the opposite.

Of course, this does necessitate my using other modes of transportation. Locally, I walk, cycle, or use the bus. For intercity travel I usually travel by Greyhound. This is what I used over the recent Christmas holidays when I spent eight days visiting with family and friends in Toronto .

Upon my return it occurred to me that I was low on groceries and decided a quick stop at the Loeb store on Rideau Street in the Market area of Ottawa was needed. Unfortunately, I wasn't able to complete my shopping. Actually, I never got started. For reasons that no one has yet been able to explain to me, I was told I had to leave and escorted from the store. My request for an explanation from the Manager was met with silence. The rest of the story is detailed below in a copy of a letter I sent to the President of Metro INC., the owner of Loeb. Nine days since sending my letter, no one has yet bothered to contact me. If they aren't interested in my story, perhaps others are.

January 2, 2008

Mr. Pierre H. Lessard

President and Chief Executive Officer

Metro Inc.

11 011, boul. Maurice-Duplessis
Montréal (Québec)
H1C 1V6

Dear Mr. Lessard

Forgive me if I view with skepticism the claim on your website that your "…employees go through a rigorous training program where they learn how to provide professional, courteous customer service." Instead I recently found myself subject to what I consider to be nothing other than exceedingly disrespectful and humiliating treatment.

I appreciate that you are a very busy executive. I do expect, however, that you will ensure that this matter is investigated fully by your staff. Below is my report to you regarding treatment I was afforded by several employees at your Loeb Rideau Street Market, located at 245 Rideau St., Ottawa.

I arrived at this location shortly after 5:00 PM, on Monday, December 31, 2007. A resident of Ottawa, I had just returned home by Greyhound bus after an eight day visit with family in Toronto. Realizing that I needed some food for dinner, I decided to stop at this convenient location on Rideau Street. Ordinarily I shop at my neighbourhood Loblaws, on McArthur Avenue, but your store was readily accessible for me in that it is near the OCTranspo bus transfer point.

I picked up a cart at the front of the store, placed one of my pieces of luggage in it, and proceeded inside. I initially made my way to the prepared food section. I considered purchasing one of your $6.99 pizzas with a $2.50 off coupon on it. However, after inspecting two such items that were on offer more closely, I noted an oily residue soaking the cardboard backing, and placed them back on the rack.

I then proceeded to the fresh meat section. There, I first picked out one of the Maple Leaf prepared poultry roasts. It was placed on a rack that indicated a price of $6.99, but then I realized that this referred to another item that I was not interested in, and that the actual price was $9.99. Liquid was also dripping from it and I decided that this was not what I wanted for dinner.

I then moved along to the selections of fresh poultry and beef. I noticed that some of them were marked down to half price. However, the only date I could see on the various cartons I inspected was December 29^th or 30^th. I found this very confusing. Without my reading glasses, I was unsure whether this was the date the product was packed on, or its Best Before date. It was the latter date I was looking for. I could not see one. The product looked fresh, but what I wanted was assurance that it in fact was safe to consume. I could not find any product that indicated a Best Before date for early January, 2008. I continued looking at several pieces of merchandise, trying to find something to my satisfaction, but to no avail.

At about this time, a young man in a dark jacket approached me. Might someone be offering me some help? Actually, no. What he said to me was, "Excuse me sir, I am going to have to ask you to leave the store." I stared at him with what I can only assume was a look of incredulity. "What," I exclaimed, "Is there a problem!? I'm just trying to find some meat." "You have been acting suspiciously and I must ask you to leave", he replied. I then noticed his security jacket. "Did your manager ask you to speak with me?" I asked. "No," he replied quickly. "You have to leave", he insisted, and motioned for me to accompany him. I tried to ask him about how the product was labeled but he flatly refused to answer my question. I felt simultaneously embarrassed and outraged.

Not wanting this to descend into a scene in the middle of the store premises, I grabbed my luggage from the cart and complied with his request. However, as we walked to the front door I insisted that I have the opportunity to speak with the Manager. I waited at the front door. Not one, but four gentlemen came to the front entrance. At least one of them, aged about 20 with blonde highlights in his stylishly spiked hair, appeared to be covering a smirking grin behind his hand. He may have been amused. I certainly wasn't. No one introduced themselves as the Manager. No one asked what my problem was. They simply lined up in front of me blocking the entrance. They showed absolutely no interest in discussing anything with me. I felt personally humiliated as customers streamed past us out of the busy store. It was clear that I was not going to be shopping at Loeb that evening.

In exasperation I blurted out my concern about the lack of a "Best Before" date. "All of our meat is packed fresh." was the only response I was offered, as I felt myself being herded out the door. "Well, I can only hope so", I thought, shaking my head in disbelief. I knew I had to leave, and exited the store, feeling extremely insulted. I then walked to a nearby Loblaws where I quickly found exactly what I was looking for; namely, a package of pork chops with a clearly visible Best Before date of January 6, 2008.

I have begun to draw my own conclusions as to why I was treated so badly. I can only surmise that it was my appearance. I am a white male, age 56. I have a short, but greying, full beard. I have long black hair, tinged with grey, tied back in a pony tail. After a long day of bus travel, I expect that not all of it was neatly tied back. Although I usually trim my beard, I had not done so since leaving Ottawa.

I was wearing a brown toque, blue jacket, blue jeans and low cut winter boots. My clothing was clean, with no visible signs of wear. I had a green backpack on my bck, and was carrying a piece of matching soft luggage. To complete the picture, I can assure you that I had not been drinking, nor did I emit offensive body odour, having recently showered. In essence, what your security guard saw was a confused, tired, hirsute traveler in need of some customer service. He judged my behaviour as "suspicious" and treated me as an unwelcome potential thief.

My dispute, however, is not with your security guard. He was doing his job. He observed behaviour that in his opinion was potentially suspicious. Apparently, he had been given the authority to view confused customers with suspicion and escort them from the premises without further recourse. I, however, did not agree with his actions and asked to speak with his superior. Unfortunately, although four Loeb staff members confronted me, no one was either willing to identify themselves, as a Manager or express any interest in listening to me. This is what I find so egregious and utterly unprofessional. It is the Manager's responsibility to investigate and respond to customer concerns. I have been in this position myself in a professional capacity and have performed this task on numberous occasions. Sadly, on this evening I was not being afforded this basic respect.

As a graduate of Queen's University I consider myself to be a well educated and, I humbly believe, a well respected member of my community. However this should have absolutely no bearing on the level of respect I, nor anyone else, is offered upon entering a place of business. I appreciate that this particular location on Rideau Street is confronted with ongoing security concerns. It is in the heart of an area that deals with homelessness, drug addiction and prostitution. I have no doubt that security costs are significant. My depth of understanding comes from my professional background in the security industry. I am a former member of the American Society of Industrial Security, having served as an Assistant Director of Security for a large multinational transportation company.

I also have come to appreciate your security concerns through my political involvement. I most recently ran as the Green Party Candidate in the provincial election, receiving almost 4,300 votes in the October, 2007 poll in Ottawa-Vanier. Time and again, during the campaign, I was presented with the stark reality of homelessness and drug addiction. These are terrible afflictions that demand attention.

It is my opinion that your security guard judged me to be a homeless or otherwise indigent person looking for food to steal. Your nameless manager accepted this interpretation of my behaviour as fact, and refused to investigate further. Although initially feeling outraged at this insult I now am coming to sense the powerful lesson I have been provided with. For the first time in my life, from personal experience, I know what it is like to be profiled and prejudged. I have been touched in the depth of my soul with how it feels to be tossed aside as someone unworthy of dignity and respect. For a few brief moments I felt the shame and despair of being summarily dismissed as a homeless bum.

I am confident that over time I shall recover from this personal insult. I already feel quite energized as a result of this bizarre encounter. I can readily shop elsewhere and encourage friends and neighbours to do the same. I expect that my written blog on this experience will be quite persuasive. After reflection though, I know that my concern extends far beyond my personal sense of injustice and desire for an apology. Who else have your employees treated in such a cavalier manner? How can I ensure that not one more person is treated so disrespectfully at your stores? Below outlines what I consider to be a minimum acceptable response from your company upon timely completion of your investigation:

• A written apology from your organization. I expect this written apology to include a statement that makes it clear that I am welcome to shop at any of your locations and that I can be assured that I will be treated with dignity and respect.
• A verbal apology delivered personally at a face to face meeting attended by all of your nameless "managers" who were present when I was asked to leave your store. I expect the actual Manager to identify himself to me. I expect this meeting to be attended by his superior.
• At this meeting I expect to be given the opportunity to explain to you what my concerns were as a customer when I attempted to find suitable product to consume. I expect to be listened to.
• I expect to be provided with an explanation as to why your "managers" chose not to listen to me at the time, identify themselves, nor offer any other avenue of resolution.
• I shall ask to be apprised of the training your managers currently receive with respect to resolving customer complaints. I shall be asking if you agree with my position that I was poorly treated and that you need to avoid similar situations in the future. In this instance I believe that all your Manager had to do upon my protestations was offer to investigate further. He could have simply said something along the following lines:

Sir, I can see that you are upset, but my investigator views your behaviour in our store as very suspicious. I also am very concerned about what he reported to me. Therefore, you will not be permitted to re-enter our premises until I have had the opportunity make a proper judgment of the facts. This is my business card if you wish to provide additional information. At this time, however, I must ask you to leave as the store is extremely busy and I am not prepared to resolve this at this time. Thank you.

• I therefore expect us to have a discussion on the sensitive issue of profiling. I believe that I would have been treated very differently had I been clean shaven with a styled haircut, dressed in my usual business attire, and not carrying luggage. It is quite likely I would have been offered assistance, not contempt. I shall be asking if you agree with my opinion that in this instance I was profiled by your employees and treated disrespectfully as a result. I shall want to know what measures you plan to take to balance a genuine need for appropriate security measures with the fundamental expectation that every individual should be treated in a dignified and respectful manner.

As a result of this meeting I trust that your organization will come to understand that irrespective of the circumstance, you have a responsibility to treat every individual you encounter with dignity. I have investigated numerous criminal acts, but I learned early in my career that everyone deserves to be treated with the same level of courtesy and respect.

To conclude, I understand that retail operations must have the tools to protect themselves from theft. If you perceive a threat, you must investigate. However, this must be done respectfully. If you have hired competent investigators, then they will usually make good judgments as to the intended activity of your customers, and act accordingly. In my instance, I know that your investigator misjudged my intentions. I have come to accept this as an honest mistake. However, your "manager's" utter refusal to even offer to investigate the matter any further I find to be totally inappropriate, unprofessional and personally insulting. I shudder to think of how many others have been treated in such a callous, publicly humiliating fashion. My strongest desire is that I shall be the last.

I shall be preparing a letter to the editor of the Ottawa Citizen regarding the outcome of the meeting I propose and the circumstances that brought it about. I am also contemplating writing a lengthier article suitable for publication. I expect the theme of both shall revolve around the issue of profiling those who appear to be less fortunate in our society and how we respond to them. My hope is that what I write can include reference to how you shall be ensuring that no one else shall ever again be treated as I was in any of your facilities. I look forward to your timely response.

Yours truly,

Leonard Poole

Awakening to the Threat of Excessive Material Consumption

There are signs of a new awakening in post-industrial society. Increasing numbers of us are recognizing that the encouragement of over consumption of material goods is a fundamental problem for humanity. The belief that continual growth in consumption is essential for our well-being is now being called into question. Annual spending on marketing in excess $450 billion however continues to fan the flames of consumption-oriented living.

A worldwide-annualized growth rate of 3% quadruples our collective output in fifty years. The planet has surpassed the capacity to sustain such a rate of growth. It is calculated that we consume in one year at least 125% of nature’s yearly output. Our biosphere is collapsing with the pressures of current consumption rates. It is the first time in recorded history that we have been confronted with this reality on a planetary scale.

Such aggressive economic activity is pushing us to a precipice. The strains of the earth reaching and surpassing its ecological limits are presenting themselves everywhere. Whether it is our collapsed cod fishery, pine beetle infestation, disappearing polar ice sheets, rising carbon emissions or reduction in biodiversity, (and the list goes on), the evidence of our impact is overwhelming. Yet, in spite of all this, mainstream thinking and our political leaders urge us to pray at the altar of increasing consumption to enhance our "standard of living".

With the conclusion of the twentieth century, it became clear that capitalism had triumphed over communism as the world economic model. The Chinese, despite their one party communist social state, rushed to embrace the capitalist system. They are now manufacturer to the world.

Capitalism brought incredible efficiencies into the marketplace and we benefit from many of them. However, this model is founded on the assumption of our ability to continually expand our economy. Capitalist theory does not have the means to adequately respond to any finite limits on the availability of resources. It always assumes that the market will solve such constraints. World history is littered with the remains of past societies that failed to take resource limitation into account.

Ronald Wright in “A Short History of Progress” documents the collapse of four civilizations from our history – Easter Island, the Sumerians, the Maya, and ancient Rome. He shows how in the past entire civilizations have self destructed through wrong choices. He argues that "each time history repeats itself, the price goes up".

Capitalism, as currently construed, is ill suited to respond to the present day ecological crisis we are facing. Corporations are legally required to act in the best financial interests of their shareholders. They therefore forever look for ways to lower costs and improve their financial bottom line. They seek to avoid any responsibility for the collateral consequences of their decisions. They "externalize" such costs and impose them on society.

Companies are quick to move offshore in search of cheaper labour. The community bears the costs of the job losses while the company improves their profit. The closure of the Hershey chocolate factory in Smiths Falls south of Ottawa is a recent local example. The corporation argues that the benefit to consumers is that their costs, and therefore the price of Hershey chocolate bars, is kept low. The social costs of lost local jobs, and the environmental impact of more diesel fuel being consumed to bring that product to market is not accounted for. Out of sight, out of mind.

Retailers develop a business plan to establish large outlets that are dependent on a massive taxpayer provided automobile transportation network. The corporation takes in the profit while the community not only pays upfront for the roads, but then pays forever with increased urban sprawl, congestion, further dependence on the automobile, and polluted air. As before, the corporation argues that the consumer benefits through economies of scale that result in lower product cost. As communities, we blithely accept this argument; yet simultaneously complain about loss of local convenience, traffic congestion, polluted air and urban sprawl.

What if, however, we could capture such costs and assign them appropriately? Could it have the potential of shaping decisions by corporations and individuals alike to be more environmentally and socially responsible? The concept is "full-cost accounting" or "the triple bottom line." It is accounting that recognizes not only the financial, but also the social and environmental implications of any decisions.

There are signs of this happening in Europe. In Germany, producers are required to pay to put a green dot on their products. The fee is for the disposal of their packaging. If producers incorporate more packaging, they pay a higher Green Dot fee. Another European example is known as Extended Producer Responsibility whereby the manufacturer is responsible for the proper disposal of their product at the end of its useful life. With this requirement Mercedes-Benz has reduced the number of plastics in its cars from 16 to 3 and made more of its components interchangeable and re-usable. This lowers its disposal cost, and reduces the imposition of waste on society.

All levels of government need to incorporate such considerations into their budget and planning decisions. We need policy that will apply this concept to the business world. It should not be good enough for urban development to be approved or business plans executed simply because it is financially feasible. The full environmental and social costs of such plans must also be appropriately assigned.

We should require a full accounting of any environmental and social deterioration that may result. The cost of mitigation must be assigned. Every city is filled with examples of short-term quick profit motivated bad planning that has produced serious environmental and social degradation.

Interestingly, and in contrast to current collective short term thinking, our society expects individual adults to engage in personal long term planning. As we reach physical maturity, most of us begin to behave in a more responsible manner. Many of us take on 25-year mortgages; envision living with a life partner and raising children. We plan for our retirement. We accept the responsibility of planning long term. In our later years some of us begin to think of the legacy we will leave for future generations.

As individuals, then, we know how to engage in personal long term planning. Why, then, do we find it so difficult to do it collectively? What prevents us from appreciating the collective long-term consequences of our actions? Why do we fail to recognize that we are headed for the ultimate "Tragedy of the Commons"?

For part of the answer we need to look at the refinement of mass marketing and advertising in the twentieth century. It is now intimately involved in spurring us thoughtlessly on. Branding is everywhere. From the name on your computer monitor, to the insignia on your cell phone, there it is. Automobile advertising constantly implores us to be carefree and "Zoom, Zoom!" through life. This is not about providing important information to a public that is looking to make an informed choice. It is all about tickling our desires to transform them into "needs".

The marketing industry has a single-minded focus on enhancing the financial bottom line of themselves and their clients. Nothing else matters to them. Their job is to create desire and encourage customers to shop. There is not an alternate view with billions of advertising dollars trying to entice us to do otherwise.

When people begin to act collectively, they often choose to consume less, while appreciating life more. Such activity, however, cuts into the profits of industry. Therefore they do what they can to encourage individual compulsive consumption. Long-term responsible thinking is bad for business in the eyes of the short term thinking marketing guru. He wants your money, and he wants it now.

A primary goal of mass marketing is to minimize our sense of collective social responsibility and encourage "me first" consumption. You will not see the marketing tagline "Consume Less, Enjoy Life More!" emblazoned across billboards anytime soon. Mike Nickerson, in his recently published book Life, Money & Illusion asks "If the voices of marketing fell silent, what would people want?" Good question!

Society must begin to push away from these adolescent like impulses and recognize that it has reached adulthood. Collectively, at a grassroots level and through our institutions, we need to accept that it is no longer necessary for us as a society to physically grow. In fact, we need to acknowledge the extent to which such activity is leading to our own demise. As Ronald Wright points out, “We must live on the interest, not the capital of nature.” It is unconscionable that we continue to exploit resources at the rate we have become accustomed to.

There is a clear disconnect, however, between the recognition of the destruction created by this thoughtless consumption and the continued belief by a majority of the electorate and established institutions that continued growth in consumption is not only inevitable, but essential.

This is what makes it so difficult, then, for politicians (particularly those who are elected), to voice this truth, whenever they begin to recognize it. They know that to tell someone that they must consume less is not what most voters want to hear. Consumers don't take kindly to the suggestion that they may be the central cause of the problem. And, they often don't vote for those people who tell them this embarrassing truth.

Recently consumers have been clamouring for governments to “do something” about increasing gasoline prices. No doubt, oil companies are making enormous profits, but in our market driven economy, the price is escalating as supply tightens in the face of increasing demand. Like it or not, this is a fundamental premise of capitalism. Curiously, politicians who understand this rarely suggest that consumers and their increasing demand may be responsible for this situation. They prefer to “demur” from even speaking of it. Who would vote for them if they did?

As tempting as it is for a political party to denounce the high profits of oil companies, such action works against the need for the citizenry to come to terms with the consequences of their highly consumptive lifestyle. The political party that does the best job of understanding this issue will be well positioned in the long term.

It is essential that we find appropriate ways to hold this mirror up to society. Citizens must be encouraged to consider the extent to which their behaviour contributes to the environmental mess our planet is in. An example occurred at a November 2006 open house given by Canada Lands for the Rockcliffe Base Development project in Ottawa. During the open mike session the writer pointed out the incongruity of hundreds of people driving to a community meeting to complain about the impact of traffic congestion. He also thought it curious that he was the lone occupant of the bus that brought him to the event. Embarrassed applause followed.

There is a growing minority of the electorate acknowledging how our over-consumptive ways are destroying our planet. They are beginning to move beyond blaming industry, and recognizing that it only produces what we consume. They understand that we vote every day with the dollars we spend. When we don't buy it, they stop producing it.

It is becoming increasingly clear to more of us that continual growth in our material consumption is a physical impossibility. There will, at some future time, be a transformation in the world. The growth in material consumption will stop as the physical limits are imposed upon us. The question is; “How shall we adapt?” Will we have truly begun to "Consume Less, and Enjoy Life More", embracing a sustainable lifestyle? Or, will we have chosen a darker path of continued encouragement of personal greed and over-consumption until the last dollar of profit is squeezed out of the earth?

The path we ultimately take will be strongly influenced by the speed with which we come to recognize that there is, in fact, a problem. The longer we stretch out our societal denial, the more difficult our choices in the future will be.

It is not easy to hear that our consumptive habits may be part of the problem. Reflection, though, is needed on this perspective. If you find yourself in agreement, then consider how you can be a part of holding up the mirror in your community.

The groundswell of world wide public concern for the condition of our planet is everywhere. For many of us, though, this concern is also accompanied by confusion as to what we can do. Our entire way of living is being called into question. To hear that one's lifestyle choices may be having a serious negative impact on the earth can be very demoralizing and difficult to accept.

We need to become more conscious of the global consequences of our choices and give consideration to alternatives. We need to start asking questions about the non-renewable energy that is consumed that encourages us to have whatever we want, whenever we want it.

Carbon based energy resources are finite. It took more than a million years to create the supply that is available to humankind. We have burned through roughly half of it in less than two hundred of those years. Whether we are transporting strawberries across a continent, or clay flowerpots around the world, future generations, our great grandchildren, will shake their heads in disbelief at the shameful squandering of such a precious resource just to satisfy our impetuous desires.

We need to question the morality of an economic system that tells us that if we have the money, we have the right to consume the product. Imagine yourself one hundred years in the future trying to explain that rationale to future generations who are confronted with serious resource shortages.

We need to question the extent to which marketing influences how we spend our money. Do we need that product on the store shelf? Do we always need to be enticed by Expedia's most recent offering, or could that local vacation retreat be equally satisfying? Do we need snow peas from China, or could local produce perhaps be tastier, and more nutritious?

We do not need to stop leading active and involved lives. In fact, we are surrounded by boundless opportunities for a satisfying personal life that does not involve consuming more of our precious resources. Humankind is rich in culture and immensely diverse. Education happens when two or more people gather and communicate. All are enriched, and no resources are consumed. We need more often to simply walk out our front door, look around and appreciate.

We cannot change the facts. We have direct control, however, over our response to the facts. Civilization still has a window of opportunity to change. The sooner we begin to take concrete action, the better it will be. It is, in the words of local visionary Mike Nickerson, "A Question of Direction".

He points in the direction of a paradigm shift of our purpose. He urges us to consider a civilization that will no longer promote a goal that insists we “expand production and consumption." He asks us to replace this with a dream of true stewardship where "Our purpose is to enjoy living while managing the planet for generations to come."

As society begins the movement toward a lower consumptive lifestyle it will have economic consequences. There will be difficult times as communities adjust to a new reality. Relocalisation of our economies will be challenging. However, it will be exceedingly more so if we delay facing up to the ultimate reality that we cannot continue to increase material consumption. That is clearly a physical impossibility. The sooner we accept this fact, the easier the transformation will be.

The Political Conundrum, or

How Do We Encourage Enough Voters to Think Long-Term?

If you are reading this, then you may share my concern for our over-dependence on non-renewable energy sources. You perhaps have begun to conclude that in the near to mid term (within twenty years), we are going to be confronted with rapidly escalating costs of energy. You may also share my concern of the economic and social implications such costs will impose on our society.

The more reading I do, the more consensus I find. It is not a matter of if, but when we shall be confronted with the consequences of worldwide Peak Oil Production. Even the most optimistic prognosticators, such as Cambridge Energy Research Associates (CERA) see world oil production peaking within 20 to 25 years. Government agencies are beginning to recognize they need to confront this issue. Web pages such as The Energy Bulletin, The Dynamic Cities Project or The Post Carbon Institute (to name but three), are full of links to stories about various groups responding to the situation.

About a year ago I started to visualize various futuristic scenarios. I Knew that I needed to improve my skills to help me cope with the post carbon era. In short, I needed to change my lifestyle. I needed to behave as if there were a critical energy shortage, so I would be better equipped to cope when it does happen.

Over the past year I have paid more attention to shopping locally. I switched to my local green energy provider, Bullfrog Power. I gave up car ownership, and started to walk, cycle or take the bus. I attempted to organize my thoughts and communicate my concerns to my community through my personal website. Not only did I feel that I could breathe with a cleaner conscience, but I felt healthier!

However, this slower pace has also provided more time to watch the world speed by. While you and I may be getting it, I must admit to being somewhat overwhelmed by the sheer numbers of those who don't. It is not just that Wal-Mart parking lots remain full, and gridlock continues to be the primary complaint of the masses. So often the electors in our various democracies are swayed by promises of short term gain. As I write, the Canadian Finance Minister is delivering an election style budget based on assumptions of continued economic "growth". He opens his speech by saying "Mr. Speaker, Canada is strong today, and we have a plan for an even better tomorrow!"

Sadly, elections are not won by telling voters the truth about what lies ahead. They are won by promises of more, forever. Many Canadians will be cheered when they hear their Finance Minister say:

Canada is great because Canadians made it great. The people who built this country worked hard to realize their vision. They set us on a bold course to greater hope and opportunity.

Only a small minority of the electorate understands the fact that our economy grew as it did over the past 100 years because of the abundance of cheap energy.

I would like to think that the small steps I am taking to change my lifestyle will help me cope with the changes that are coming. I am much more concerned, however, with how the rest of the world is going to respond. I am trying to figure out what I can do to appropriately sound the alarm. The tricky part, is the relatively short attention span of the electorate. The problem we are facing requires very long term solutions.

Some people have the patience and are prepared to accept a plan that asks them to sacrifice today for something that will show results in 2 or 3, maybe even ten years. Occasionally an astute politician can be that persuasive. But how do we convince a majority to accept less for the rest of their lives so future generations can survive? How do we develop an electorate that is that informed, and altruistic? How do we convince ever increasing numbers of people to stop listening to the constant rant of marketers who continually tell us to "zoom zoom" through life, and have it all?

I look forward to your answers.

We Vote With Our Dollars

I recently came across the following quote from John Robbins at http://www.foodrevolution.org/commonground.htm

We vote with our dollars, and we spend a lot of our dollars on food. Yet people don't often see their diet as a political statement. But it is. When you vote for McDonald's, that's one kind of vote. When you vote for organic food, that's another kind of vote. What you support with your dollars is what will exist in the future. Every time you spend a dollar, you are saying to the people who produce that product, "Do it again." That's how it will be read, that's how it will be interpreted and that's how it will be manifested.

There has certainly been an increasing expression of concern for the environment around world in recent months. It is reaching a fever pitch, as various political parties trip over themselves in the rush to the green paint brushes in response to opinion polls saying the environment is the number one concern of voters.. Letters to the editor plead for greater environmental efforts. However, the big box stores remain full, our highways remain clogged, and the masses continue to rush for the latest gadget, fancy food item, or escape vacation. People are telling the pollsters their feelings of concern, but when they vote with their dollars, they continue to increase the pressure on the planet. For most people, it seems, they don't want to consume less, they just want to believe that their consumption habits don't cause problems. As Sharon Astyk says on her blog:

Say it out loud. WHAT I BUY WARMS THE PLANET. MY SHOPPING DEPLETES WHAT FUTURE PEOPLE WILL HAVE. BUYING STUFF HURTS PEOPLE. The problem is that shopping also feels good. Now I'm not much of a regular shopper, but I know that heavy sense of pleasure you get when you wander into a bookstore as much as anyone. I've shopped for comfort, I've bought things and thought momentarily "this will make it better." I understand how much fun shopping is. And it is still the problem.

In other words, we have met the enemy, and it is US! Trying to shop our way out of this problem is a contradiction in terms.

Buddhist Teachings and the Concept of "Scripture"

I was raised in what I would describe as a "secular" family, in the midst of the typical North American "Christian" mindset of 1960's. Let's just say I don't recall Bible discussions around our dinner table. If the topic of religion did come up, it was usually in the context of how fanatical views often seemed to be the root of world problems. We collectively rolled our eyes upon hearing any public proclamation that "God is on our side."

Perhaps this is what appealed to me about Buddhism. As a non-theistic religion, it isn't centred around belief in a supreme being. It is, instead, a set of moral practices to live by. Ever since Alan Watts told me in the early seventies that "as the ocean waves, the universe peoples", I have been drawn to this non-dualistic way of perceiving reality.

I have read the works of several different modern day Buddhist teachers. These have included the Dalai Lama, Lama Surya Das, Thich Nhat Hanh, and Shunryu and Daisetz Suzuki, to name a few. Thich Nhat Hanh's books are small, and easy to carry, making them easy to travel with. For me, they are as close as I will come to "reading scripture". They are teachings for my heart and soul.

Here is an excerpt from the first page of Touching Peace that spoke to me today:

Our true home is in the present moment. To live in the present moment is a miracle. The miracle is not to walk on water. The miracle is to walk on the green Earth in the present moment, to appreciate the peace and beauty that are available now. Peace is all around us- in the world and in nature-and within us-in our bodies and our spirits. Once we learn to touch this peace, we will be healed and transformed. It is not a matter of faith; it is a matter of practice. We need only to find ways to bring our body and mind back to the present moment so we can touch what is refreshing, healing, and wondrous.

I found myself reading over this early in the evening as I travelled toward Ottawa on the bus from Toronto. I would put the book down, and glance at the passing landscape. I would feel awash in appreciation of the Universe in every glistening speck of melting snow, or in the passing silhoettes of the cedar trees. Everything simultaneously the same, yet unique. The ring of cell phones against the beauty of a spring sunset. All perfect.

The final chapter opens with this:

We come to the practice of meditation seeking relief from our suffereing, and meditation can teach us how to transform our suffering and obtain basic relief. But the deepest kind of relief is the realization of nirvana. There are two dimensions to life, and we should be able to touch both. One is like a wave, and we call it the historical dimension. The other is like the water, and we call it the ultimate dimension, or nirvana. We usually touch just the wave, but when we discover how to touch the water, we receive the highest fruit that meditation can offer.

In the historical dimension, we have birth certificates and death certificates. The day your mother passes away, you suffer. If someone sits close to you and shows her concern, you feel some relief. You have her friendship, her support, her warm hand to hold. This is the world of waves. It is characterized by birth and death, ups and downs, being and non-being. A wave has a beginning and an end, but we cannot ascribe these characteristics to water. In the world of water, there is no birth or death, no being or non-being, no beginning or end. When we touch the water, we touch reality in it ultimate dimension and are liberated from all of these concepts.

To me this reads as scripture. Teachings that touch me, and simply make sense. I don't know all of the terms, I have never been one to follow dogma or ritual. One thing I have learned, though is that there is no where to go, as I am already here.

The Food Industry

I have just received an informative email from a friend. It directed me to John Robbin's website, http://www.foodrevolution.org/index.htm He is "the only son of the founder of the Baskin-Robbins ice cream empire".
I usually don't react well to slick looking website that have a "shopping cart" displayed prominently on the home page. I immediately assume they are trying to sell me something (which they usually are), and I become wary.
I had never heard of him until this morning, but quickly found that he is an accomplished writer as I perused his website with my morning coffee. His website is a great place to start to learn about the Food Industry.
I have accepted the argument that eating a vegetarian diet is a much more efficient way of feeding humanity. It also is much healthier. For now, I continually confront what can only be described as "laziness" on my part as I strive to cut meat out of my diet.

As Zen Master Lin Chi told us over a thousand years ago,

"The Miracle is to Walk on Earth"

My name is Leonard Poole. I live in Ottawa, Canada. I want to tell you about...

My Vision of a Greening World, where every person..

Understands the consequences of their consumption and is actively engaged in reducing its effect.
Commits to the goal of consuming no more than his or her fair share.
Knows that to do otherwise will lead to tragic consequences for life as we know it.
Seeks to appreciate the quality of the life they are given more than the quantity of what they have and experience.

There is much work to be done.

As an inhabitant of the developed world I consume far in excess of my fair share of the world's resources. I accept that the level of consumption in our society is not only unsustainable, but is leading to tragic consequences for those in the remainder of the world who have access to less than their fair share.

"In 1950, there were about two poor people for every rich person on Earth; today there are about four; in 2025, there will be nearly six."(Homer-Dixon)

Who do we think we are?

Through this website I want to develop my vision of the type of world I believe we need to move towards. I want to connect not just with my friends and neighbours, but with the skeptics amongst you to encourage discussion and activity on this issue. I want to challenge us all to understand that, for our children, and all future generations, we must begin to re-orient our lifestyles in radical and substantive ways. I urge us to consider voluntary simplicity as an important step in this evaluation process. Consider the words of Mohatma Ghandi, who asked us to...

"Live simply that others may simply live."

I believe it essential that we recognize that we cannot grow our way out of this problem. We need to encourage a SteadyState economy that is based on and promotes quality of life, not ever increasing quantity of consumption. To do this, each of us must begin the process of evaluating how much we consume and accumulate. If we find we are taking more than our fair share, then we need to change our behaviour. Once again, to quote Mohatma Ghandi,

"There’s enough on this planet for everyone’s needs but not for everyone’s greed."

To continue to build and believe in a society that encourages us to have and consume more in the face of dwindling resources is the greatest problem we are creating for future generations. It is a sad and most shameful legacy. Regardless of your age, try to visualize for a moment the type of world you are leaving for your grandchildren, if the world continues to consume and pollute as it does today. Will there be anything left for our future generations, our children and grandchildren, to enjoy? Would you want to live in that world with them?

As Ted Mosquin and J. Stan Rowe have stated in A Manifesto for Earth:

Humanity's 10,000-year-old experiment in mode-of-living at the expense of Nature, culminating in economic globalization, is failing. A primary reason is that we have placed the importance of our species above all else. We have wrongly considered Earth, its ecosystems, and their myriad organic/inorganic parts as mere provisioners, valued only when they serve our needs and wants. A courageous change in attitudes and activities is urgent.

We have failed to understand that we are part of the environment. We have been treating it as one more commodity to be bought and sold. How foolish of us. The environment ultimately will find balance and heal itself. The question is whether or not we, as humanity, shall choose, through our actions, to continue to be part of the equation.

I am seeking ways that I can be a part of re-directing society. For me, it is not enough that I may be able to proclaim how I have reduced my consumption. I need to be part of the movement that is convincing others that this issue must be confronted. If anything that I create here persuades one person to reduce the size of their footprint on this planet, or participate in the discussion, then I have succeeded. My hope, of course, is for far more.

It is essential to hear from the skeptics. I want to engage with those who do not believe that climate change is a result of human activity. I want to debate with those who believe that we can continue to consume at our current rates. I seek to understand the reasoning of those who argue that the best way to deal with the deleterious effects of continual economic growth is to continue to invest in growth for growth's sake. We need to talk. To those of you who share my perspective, we also need to talk. We need to find ways to work together to further our understanding of where civilization is headed and how we can be a part of the solution to the greatest threat facing humanity. We need to find ways to engage with those who do not share our perspective.

The earth is not a bottomless pit of endless resources

When we consume more than we replenish, we steal from future generations.

Agree? Disagree?

Let me know!

We need to talk about how we can be part of the solution!