hailey jellema's blog

In response and in full support of the message in Jaskaran Chauhan’s blog, titled “Eco Friendly or Brand Friendly?”, I would further suggest that Air Canada’s Zerofootprint propaganda is offensive.

In the years prior to the 1970’s, BC’s lower mainland experienced some nasty pea-soup smogs. Because they were a serious threat to commerce, the hue and cry went out that this was unacceptable to the populace. The biggest contributors to the smog were the waste wood beehive burners-so they were effectively condemned. Lo and behold, most of the burners were decommissioned and the smog disappeared.

At no time during this period was it suggested that massive fans should be installed to blow the smog out to sea or that one million trees should be planted to offset the effects of the burners.

But the world is faced with the immediate threat of global warming and we are fully engaged in self delusional games.

Yes, airplane engines and aerodynamics are more efficient and yes, less polluting fuels can be developed, but unless a government cap is imposed, projected airline growth will offset any techno innovations.

Tree maturities vary depending on their species and most won’t function as carbon converters for another 5-50 years. Crunch the numbers on carbon emissions from one Boeing 747 jet flight (at approx. 31 kg carbon/hr ¹), then multiply that by thousands of flight hours daily, subtract the conversion ratio (a mature tree can absorb CO2 at a rate of of 22 kg/year ²), then apply it twenty years down the road and you will find your ‘zerofootprint’ program has made ‘zeroimpact’.

By all means plant trees; trees are beautiful and in the natural order of things they help maintain the carbon-oxygen balance, but let’s not kid ourselves…

and shame on Air Canada for trying to ‘fuel’ us.

Commenting On A Classmate’s Blog

¹ “Math! How much CO2 is released by Aeroplane?“. Small-M. May 8, 2007.

² Pareja, Marlon. “Trees and Climate Change.” Green for Life: One Million Trees and Beyond. 2009

The recent contretemps

over the routing of the

Keystone Oil Pipeline from the Alberta Tar Sands to Texas brings the whole business of sending

Canadian resources south into focus again.

Whether we agree to supply the US with electricity and water, or the US, China and the Pacific Rim countries with our oil and natural gas, once the taps are turned on, they can never be turned off except by mutual agreement.

 Should the US economy continue to decline and threaten their ability to pay, Canada would either be left bleeding resources without payment in return, or would have to cork the flow and brace for a clash with the strongest military nation in the world.

It must be said, that the US have never fully abandoned the concept of Manifest Destiny; viewing Canada as a kind of repository of resources to be tapped when needed.

So what do we do?

The proposed scheme to pipe natural gas and Tar Sands oil across to a BC port for shipment to China and the Pacific Rim countries might be seen as a viable business alternative, but unless the Keystone Line was already in place, the US would see this as an act of aggression and Canada would be made to pay through obstructionist trade policies.

Canada is going to have to accept the fact that its resources, and quite possibly its identity, are caught between a rock and a U.S. place.

Mayeda, Andrew; Quinn, Greg. “U.S. Review Delay May Doom TransCanada’s Keystone Pipeline.” Bloomberg. Nov 10, 2011 9:02 PM PT

Given that business must grow in order to survive; an ever expanding world population would seem to be the ideal. There’s only one problem; sustainability suggests humans will affect the demise of this planet before we find another planet to inhabit.

 So unless you’ve reserved seats for a self sustaining stealth capsule secretly circumnavigating Earth’s outer thermosphere, you should worry.

Environmental blogger Mireya Navarro acknowledges that, “…the population issue has been conspicuously absent from the public discourse on global warming…” in her blog entitled, “The Elephant in the Room.” 1

The world population is expected to climb to 9.5 billion by 2050, up 2.5 billion from the 2011 figure. The majority of these 2.5 billion however will be born into poverty and rather than contribute to a healthy business climate will depend entirely on aid from western economies.

Long before the end of this century, famine will have reached catastrophic proportions.

Clearly, radical global birth control measures need to be implemented now if any of this is to be avoided.

Unfortunately all we hear from our governments is how best we might increase crop yields or improve water supply. Very little conversation is enlisted about how we might effectively implement draconian population control measure to offset the real problem.

Assuming that humanity can achieve some kind of utopic future population-consumption, there is no doubt many of the business giants will have made adjustments to survive in a no growth sustainable business economy.

But it seems to take events of catastrophic proportions to effect any real change. Perhaps environmental collapse might be the stimulus.

In the meantime, let’s face facts and talk about how we are giving birth to the end of the world.

Commenting On Another Blog

¹Navarro, Mireya.“The Elephant in the Room.”Green: A Blog About Energy & the Environment. The New York  Times.  Nov. 1, 2011. 11:20 am.

Sarkozy greets Merkel with a Euro kiss

Since the fall of the wall in 1989, Germany has struggled with reunification and the rebuilding of their infrastructure. Despite these colossal undertakings,

Germany has emerged with the strongest economy in Europe.

It’s not surprising then that when they’re asked, as a reward for all their diligence, to bail out most of the rest of the Eurozone, that their kraut’s gone a bit sour.

 Greece, Italy and Spain are all in need of huge cash infusions to avoid economic collapse. The average German is resentful of the fact that his tax money must now be spent to bolster up what he sees as incompetent and corrupt regimes with no guarantee of a successful outcome. It’s enough to cramp a leader’s hosen.

The French, with Europe’s second most buoyant economy, must also throw money into the hat. In addition to being equally indignant, they disagree with the Germans as to how to proceed. …but of course!

Should an accord as to how to avoid economic meltdown in the Eurozone be reached and implemented, and should these bailouts put the defaulters back in the black, then the resentment and frustrations may cool.

Should they fail, then the breakdown of the Eurozone is highly probable and we’ll all be eating pickled cabbage.

A recent airing of female infuriation over gender-based pricing, or to put it plainly, gender gauging, has women losing their shirts. CTV’s Lynda Steele hosting ‘Steele On Your Side’ has taken a closer look at the market differences between the sexes.

Many women have a subliminal awareness that they pay more when it comes down to larger purchase negotiations, but Steele suggests it’s more widespread than we think. She points out that, “…it is estimated that Canadian women pay 30 to 50 percent more for many goods and services, from cars to items at the cosmetic counter … .” ¹

Steele goes on to expose dry cleaners and hair salons as two of the worst offenders, and when interviewed, Tim Silk of UBC’s Sauder School of Business added, “…gender pricing won’t change until women actively fight back against discriminatory pricing.”²

Given that, “…Women earn less money than their counterparts — 78 cents for every dollar a man gets. But they make more than 80% of buying decisions in all homes. And…Females research more extensively and are less likely to be influenced by ads.” ³ women should be expecting equity when the bill shows up.

In the end, men may be from Mars and women from Venus but the girls still want to know why it costs more to fuel their rockets.

A scene from Fredrik Gertten's "Bananas!"

More hot fudge or nuts with that contentious banana split?

Maybe both in the case of the Dole Food company vs. Tellez et al. with lawyer Juan Dominguez leading the charge in 2007.

Sifting fact from fiction and the ethical from the immoral has become a hot mess and a hard legal nut to crack.

Since Fredrik Gertten’s airing of his ‘Bananas!’ the case has become more than a question of ethics; it has become an exercise in corporate power play and the malleability of the American justice system.

At first declared a victory for Nicaraguan banana workers made sterile due to exposure to the wrongful and prolonged use of a banned pesticide by Dole, it has become an involved appeal process, overturned ruling and nauseating expose on the unchecked power of a multinational corporation possessing ample financial leverage.

Rather than acknowledge what may well have been a profound executive mistake, Dole’s choice to launch a formidable counter attack following their initial jury trial loss casts further doubt regarding their slippery ethical skin.

Their subsequent efforts to indict Dominguez and block further documentary releases about their actions have mired the case in so much legal hot fudge and fraud that those with the intent and fortitude to challenge them have long since collapsed to the financial burdens of the legal system, or have died due to the effects of the pesticide.

This case is bananas. Dole’s disgrace is as certified as it’s fair trade stamp of approval; proof that multinational corporations are still king of the jungle.

Haven’t watched the documentary? Pull up a chair…..

IDA Editorial Staff. “Controversy Surrounds ‘Bananas!’.” Documentary.org. June 12, 2009.