The Importance of Consistency

March 29, 2011

There was a boy who ate too much sugar. His mother, who wanted him to stop, walked to ask Gandhi, “Would you please tell my son to stop eating sugar?” Gandhi replied, “Bring your boy back in two weeks. The mother left, then brought the boy back two weeks later. Gandhi looked the boy in the eye and said, “Stop eating sugar.” The boy nodded, and promised to stop. His mother was confused. “Why did you want me to bring him back in two weeks?  Couldn’t you have said the same thing to him then?” “No,” Gandhi replied, “Because Two Weeks Ago, I ate Sugar too”

I went to a sustainable conference at McGill this March 15, looking forward to hear Mr. Gerald Butts, CEO and President of the Canadian World Wildlife Foundation. The talk was all I was expecting and more; Mr. Butts mentioned how we created our own problems for the last 300 years, so we can also solve them. I learnt that Canada has the seventh worst carbon emissions per capita, and that 80% of us live in cities.

I learnt all about how WWF is working with several corporations that are dead serious about Corporate Social Responsibility, including the likes of Coca Cola, which is recognizing that Coke should not be sold in schools and at the same time is an alternative to unsafe tap water in many countries.

More important, I met a wonderful bunch of students and McGill employees that take sustainability at heart and that are looking to increase the sustainability culture at McGill University. As direct result of my participation of this conference, I am now part of the committee that is organizing the First Sustainability Fair this fall.

Sadly, consistency is still an issue. We parents are told not to say to our kids what to do, but to lead with our example. At McGill University, we were all talking about sustainability at noon, in a sunny day, with all the windows curtains down and twenty five light bulbs turned on

Risky Talk

February 4, 2011

Forgive me my nonsense, as I also forgive the nonsense of those that think they talk sense.
~Robert Frost

I have always admired strong role models. For me, a strong role model is someone who is a firm believer in his or her cause, but at the same time is fair and balanced. I love when I can argue against someone who is passionate about her position but is not blinded by it and can see both the weak points on her arguments and the strong ones in her counterpart.

It was my surprise to find a talk that Naomi Klein gave at TED in Dec 8th, 2010, called “Addicted to Risk”. As a strong model, Klein surprised me by given a very unbalanced talk, full of weasel words, and worse yet, with a lot of arguments that I find just biased.

I continue to find well intentioned people who speak with canned phrases and lack judgement or ideas. People that label themselves and then cannot get out of their own label. People that consider themselves liberal but they are closed to any judgement on what the “liberal umbrella” covers. That is why I ask you, dear reader, to watch the video with a critical eye, before coming back to me accusing me to be a conservative in the closet:

I am not sure what the message of the talk is. Is not that risk is bad, because she recommends taking risk at the end, so, what is it? That greed is bad? That the climate is changing? That we are depleting our resources? That growth is bad?

The main problem I have with this talk is that is not balanced. Naomi Klein is a role model, and as one, she should give us balanced points of view. Instead, she attacks the usual low hanging fruit: BP is bad, capitalism is bad, DDT is bad, Oil is bad.

DDT is bad, we know that, but in the 60s it saves hundreds of lives in the third world by allowing a “green” revolution. We will be 7 billion people, and we cannot feed in organic crops only. DDT prevented millions would die of Malaria, especially in India (R. Kunzig, 2011).

British Petroleum has been a model of sustainability and is not “reckless” exploiting the forces of nature. They committed a tragic mistake, but just aiming at them is just too simplistic. The language used in the talk is biased: 75% of oil did not “miraculously” disappear, it was eaten by bacteria. The word “miraculously” is used in the sense of “they are making us believe that all happened by magic” and I find it patronising to the listeners.

Climate Change is introduced with the questions like: “What is the latest possible moment [to change]?” “How much hotter can we let it get?” I ask, who is asking these questions? There is not a dark room full of people trying to control the world, at least not in the sense presented. She affirms that bankers get 100 times the salary of a brain surgeon, and they go home trying to justify it. That is another exaggeration that throws the conference out of balance.

She is right about the tar sands being a natural disaster, and we need to find a sustainable way indeed, but what is the solution she proposes? The main problem I see in this talk is that she, by blaming the big companies playing, leaves us with the false sense that we cannot do anything, maybe change our bulbs and walk to the store. But these companies are satisfying OUR needs. It is our reckless consumption that is destroying the planet.

Nature is not infinite, but perpetual growth is a human attribute, and is not bad. People need growth, what we do not need is more things.

We have hit a wall in natural resources; all the companies are trying to switch to renewable sources: Even BP is changing from “British Petroleum” to “Beyond Petroleum”. Blaming the big companies won’t help achieving a more sustainable word until we reduce our demands on the planet, not only recycling, but actually reducing our consumption and the demand for newer goods.

Two Decades

November 11, 2009

Who is the strongest
Who is the best
Who holds the aces
The East
Or the West
This is the crap our children are learning
But oh, oh, oh, the tide is turning
~Roger Waters

Twenty years ago I was in Monterrey watching the evening news, they were talking about some nonsense, when a cable came from Berlin.

People were gathering around Brandenburger Tor.

The soldier were pointing their weapons at them.

The people were yelling Wir wollen raus! Wir bleiben hier! (We want out, we are staying here).

At 22:30, Berlin Time, The Wall was open.

People not longer have right to a free ride, to free food, to employment security.

But they have the right to pursue happiness.

And that is worth dying for.


September 3, 2009

Believe, when you are most unhappy, that there is something for you to do in the world. So long as you can sweeten another’s pain, life is not in vain.
~Hellen Keller

I ask my readers to sign an Amnesty International petition to help Honduras back in its democracy.

Beatings and mass arrests are being used by the de facto government of Honduras as a way of punishing people for voicing their opposition to the military-backed coup d’etat in June. Scores of interviews by an Amnesty International delegation on the ground told the same story of beatings and mass arrests by the police, of media workers and human rights defenders being targeted and female protesters suffering gender based violence.

You can sign the petition to Hillary R. Clinton following this link:

Thanks to all participants.