Copenhagen, will it be enough?

Saturday October 24th marked the international day of climate action. The 350 initiative. The purpose of which was to say to world leaders that when they meet in Copenhagen in December, to craft a new global treaty on cutting emissions, they agree to cut emissions to 350 parts per million of CO2 in the atmosphere. The event was "the most widespread day of environmental action in the planets history." Truly inspirational.

However, I do not believe that success at Copenhagen will guarantee a green future, for several reasons. First off is the idea that a treaty alone will not be effective, even if it does aim to cut emissions to that 350 level. The reason for this should be quite obvious, countries that sign on to a treaty may not necessarily live up to the standards of the treaty (think Kyoto), no matter how much the world pressures that nation to do so.

The United States is a prime example of this problem. Let's say that the treaty is passed, it is still up to individual governments in their countries to pass legislation that will allow them to meet the standards of the treaty. I do not think I am cynical in saying that the U.S. isn't going to pass effective environmental legislation anytime soon. First a brief aside, the U.S. is currently in the middle of a fierce healthcare debate, which has exposed some of the worst partisanship seen in a long time. While there does seem to be a general agreement on both sides that the healthcare system does need to be fixed, the divisions on how to fix it are great. Now imagine trying to get both sides together on climate change. An issue that many powerful figures in the U.S. still believe to be a hoax. The task of getting a strong climate change bill through, becomes nearly impossible, when you consider how difficult it has been for healthcare reform to be passed.

Alright, so let's assume that governments do pass effective legislation necessary to meet the 350 target. Will they be effectively enforced? As a current environmental law student I can say that, at least here in Canada, they likely won't be enforced as effectively as necessary. I am not opposed to the idea of regulations however, government has a really good track record in being completely incompetent. I can't help but think that the laws passed will be full of loopholes that could be easily exploited or could lead to unintended consequences. Environmentalists may not be happy when I say that we do actually have to consider industry, in order to protect the jobs of the working class. Any legislation passed will have to meet the goals of the 350 initiative while avoiding too much long-term (that word is key) damage to industry.

Finally, it may be time to realize that if we wait around for government to get their act together it could be too late. The massive turnout for the 350 day proves that their is a strong will among the people to take action on climate change. So the question is, what is everyone waiting for? There are changes we could all make in our daily lives, that don't require government regulation and involvement. If we the people begin to demonstrate in our own lives that we are willing to make changes, that will put greater pressure on government and industry to make their necessary changes.

The international day of climate action was without a doubt, inspirational. However, we should not idle by as we wait for government to take action. The time to act is now. Our actions can say to government and industry, we are making changes in our own lives, now it's your turn.

P.S. I figured it would be appropriate to provide a link to a site giving tips on how to be green, so here it is, http://www.worldwatch.org/node/3915

I would also recommend the book, "It's Easy Being Green"

Racist? Yes. Bad Parents? Not Necessarily.

"WINNIPEG — A child custody battle begins Monday for two children whose parents are accused of teaching them that black people and other minorities deserve to die." http://www.edmontonsun.com/news/canada/2009/05/24/9554531.html

Truly, a horrible thing to teach a child but, should the child be taken out of the parents' custody? Maybe not. First off let me say that if the government decided that you can separate a family on the basis of racist teachings, families I know would likely be forced to go their separate ways.

"The boy’s father, meanwhile, is fighting back, saying the seizure of his children violates his freedom of conscience, belief and association under the Charter of Rights and Freedoms."

I do agree with that statement. As much as I do not like the views of these two parents and what they are teaching to their children, those freedoms apply to everyone. Racists have as much freedom of conscience, belief and association as the people who criticize them.

But what of the children? you ask, surely such an upbringing will make it impossible for them to function within society? Well not necessarily, it is possible, that like all children they could come to reject their parents beliefs. I have rejected some of my parents beliefs (I should point out that, no my parents are not racist, as you might have been pondering as you read that last sentence). Through friends, teachers, and other community figures these children could take on views different from their parents.

"The girl was also told by her mother not to have any non-white friends or she would not have a mother anymore"

This statement certainly brings up conflict with my last point. I am opposed to the family being separated but, wouldn't the children's rebellion to their parents' views lead to a possible family separation? Yes it would, but it would be the choice of the family, not the government. I do not believe the government can start breaking up families on the basis that the parents are teaching their children ideas not accepted by the majority of society.

For those of you who did read the article I posted you are probably wondering if I am going to get to the issues of drug and alcohol abuse. Don't worry.

"The couple is also accused of abusing drugs and alcohol, physically abusing each other and failing to provide adequate care for their kids"

Here is the issue that I believe should determine whether or not they can keep their children. The focus should be on how they are as parents and how they treat their children. I believe that discussing the issue of a racism is a waste of time, for the court that is. If the children aren't being adequately cared for then yes, perhaps removing from the parents' custody is the best decision. However, if the parents are simply racist, then no it is not the best decision.

It's terrorism plain and simple.

I want to briefly discuss the murder of the abortionist Dr. Tiller and in particular the wording many in the media and others use to describe his killer. When people think of his killer the word's "anti-abortion extremist" come to mind. Personally, I think this is a euphemism for a single word that most people, especially in the press, are refusing to use "terrorist". Unfortunately, the West's image of a terrorist is someone who speaks Arabic and prays to Allah. This type of thinking is far removed from the reality that, both Christians and Muslims are capable of terrorism. Dr. Tiller was murdered by a man acting on a religious motivation, that is he believed he was defending the laws of his god and in doing so was doing what was best. His actions, violence for a religious motivation, is the definition of terrorism.

Did the Resurrection Actually Happen? Not Likely

In his article for The Daily Beast (http://www.thedailybeast.com/blogs-and-stories/2009-04-10/10-reasons-the-resurrection-really-happened/) Jeffrey Hart gives 10 reasons as to why he believes the resurrection of Jesus did take place. As he points out, the resurrection is key to Christianity itself.

The first six reasons are dedicated to proving that a man was in fact crucified and wrapped in the Shroud of Turin.

1. Pollen does not decay. And ancient pollen in the linen cloth indicates the origin of this linen cloth in Jerusalem and also traces its journey from Jerusalem from the Middle East through Europe. It is almost impossible that forgery could accomplish this. (David Hume: Call your office.)

2. The body was laid on the cloth and the remainder of the cloth folded over the body to produce front and back images of the man.

3. A startling fact: The image of the man on the Shroud turns out to be a photographic negative. When photographed it became a positive. Again, this seems to rule out an ancient forgery, that is, long before the invention of photography.

4. In most modern representations of the Crucifixion, the nails are shown as going through the palms. But as this image shows, the nails actually went through an aperture in the wrists. Had the nails gone through the palms, they would not have sustained body weight and would have torn through the flesh, the body falling from the cross. Execution required that the man die on the cross from lack of oxygen as he repeatedly tried to raise his body on the nails in order to breathe. Execution was slow.

5. Wounds on the back of the body indicate flogging by the Roman flagrum—metal weights attached to leather cords wielded by a wooden handle.

6. Had the image been painted on the cloth by a forger, the paint traces of the pigment would have remained on the surface. The color here penetrates the cloth evenly from one side to another. Note: In this, it is more like a scorch.

Aside from the fact that these reasons have nothing to do with a resurrection itself, (maybe Mr. Hart should rename this to 4 reasons the resurrection really happened, though in a moment we'll see that even this wouldn't be an appropriate title). It does nothing to suggest that the person executed was in fact Jesus. Mr. Hart does address this objection in his next point,


7. An objection: The Romans executed many men this way. Indeed, two criminals were executed that day along with Jesus. Could this shroud be that of another similarly executed man? It’s very unlikely. Crucifixion was disgraceful and an expression of contempt for the criminal. It is unlikely that the family or friends of a man of that sort would have wrapped his body in an expensive linen cloth—or that such a cloth would have been saved later on and made its way from the Middle East across Europe. Representations of Jesus in art reflect a knowledge of the Shroud by European artists.

This point still doesn't actually prove that the man wrapped in the shroud was the divine son of God, all it proves was that someone of importance, was crucified, and that there were those who still cared for him enough to wrap him in expensive linen cloth. It seems to me that Mr. Hart is simply making (pardon the pun) leaps of faith to conclude that the man who was executed was Jesus, which so far from his arguments has not been proven.

The next argument, to me, feels like it shouldn't even bother being argued but here it goes.

8. Ian Wilson concludes that the image on the cloth is a “paranormal” phenomenon. That is, not made by hands. But how?

Mentioning the "paranormal" in the same article as empirical evidence (defined as derived from or guided by experience or experiment) should not be allowed as a "reason" or reasonable thinking for that matter.

9. Speculation: The scorch might have been made by radioactivity attendant upon the resurrection. Whether or not it is pertinent, the Big Bang at the beginning of the universe produced measurable radiation that determines that the universe is about 13.7 billion years old. If the scorch on the Shroud is the result of radiation, it could have been radiation that reconstituted the dead body. But that is merely speculation.

What's wrong with this argument. The first word, "speculation" again I believe Mr. Hart does not know the meaning of the word empirical evidence. However, I will still address the argument of this point, rather than simply argue over the meaning of a word again. Reconstituted is defined as "to constitute again; reconstruct; recompose." At first I assumed that Mr. Hart was saying radiation caused the resurrection, of course this is beyond foolish, and foolish for me to initially think that. No, I believe what Mr. Hart is saying is that radiation is what caused the supposed image of Jesus to be burned into the shroud. There is no doubt that an image of a man was burned into the shroud but, that doesn't mean it was Jesus wrapped in that shroud.
A quick Google search of "Radiation+Resurrection" brought up the site, "Resurrection of the Shroud Foundation" (http://www.resurrectionoftheshroud.com/). The first line that jumped out me on this site was, "These test results have revealed that the Shroud contains the most unprecedented body images and blood marks in the world whose features literally defy the laws of physics and chemistry. Interestingly, modern science has only been able to discover and illustrate many of the shroud's unique features, but it has not come close to duplicating them." I have two problems with this statement,1) How can body images and blood marks defy the laws of physics and chemistry? I suppose this would be running on the assumption, once again, of Jesus'divinity. How could his body defy the law of physics? Was he not depicted in the Gospels as a man? It would be hard to defy any laws of physics then. Any scientist who discovers something that defies the laws of physics and chemistry, and then jumps to the conclusion that it could be work of the divine, might want to stop calling themselves scientists. 2) The fact that scientists have not be able to duplicate the shrouds features, should not be taken as evidence that it is the work of an outer-world entity. I believe scientists have tried to rebuild the pyramids, they couldn't. Most rational people did not leap to the conclusion that the pyramids were the work of outside forces.

Now onto the final point, the one that tries to prove that the shroud came from the time of Jesus' execution.

10. Ian Wilson’s book appeared in 1978. In 1988, carbon 14 tests were conducted indicating a medieval date for the Shroud. But that result is controversial and almost certainly wrong, for reasons cited above. In fact, along its journey to Turin, the Shroud was in a church that was the scene of a fire, and that could have corrupted the carbon dating.

I am willing to accept that the carbon dating is wrong. However, proving that it was from the time of Jesus' execution is not enough to say that he was resurrected, crucified yes, perhaps, but resurrected certainly not.

Mr. Hart's reasons, do not give evidence, let alone empirical evidence, that the resurrection actually took place. What they give evidence for is that a man of importance was crucified somewhere between the early A.D.s and medieval times. I feel that people who actually accept these arguments as reasons for the resurrection are simply filling in the gaps with the conclusion that it must have been the holy son, empirical evidence does not allow for such leaps.

America was not Founded on Christian Ideas

I watched a debate today between Christopher Hitchens and Ken Blackwell on the issue of whether or not America was founded on Christian ideas (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SJNsWN-QGW8). While I'm not going to discuss the debate dircetly, I am going to discuss the main issue of the debate.

62% of Americans believe that the U.S. is a Christian nation according to a recent Newsweek poll. To put things nicely, 62% of Americans are not aware of their country's history and what their founding fathers declared. The Declaration of Independence (http://www.ushistory.org/declaration/document/index.htm linked here so that you can be sure I'm not making anything up) does make mention to "Nature's God" and that "men...are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights." It does not make any direct references to Christianity. Nature's God and Creator could be interpreted as many things, technically speaking it could refer to Nature itself and the natural processes by which we came into existence.

The Declaration goes on to mention of the tyranny of the King of Britain. A man who had absolute power and control over his people. It would seem to me that those founding a country that is supposed to be free from such tyrannical rule would not found the country in the name of any single religion. We have recently seen what happens when a country is allowed to be controlled by religious ideals. In Afghanistan the government has considered the legalizing of rape of women within marriage all to appeal to the religious. Let's not forget Saudi Arabia, where a woman can be punished because she was the one who was raped. Religious control of a country breeds the tyranny the founding fathers fought against.

New World Order? Sort Of

The far-right has been talking about the possibility of a One World Government lately and you know what? They're right, sort of. While we aren't moving towards the age of one government that runs the entire world and makes decisions that affect everyone on the plant, we are moving towards an age in which efforts of governments around the world are becoming much more co-ordinated.

The recent G20 meeting is the best example of this trend. Leaders from around the world gathered to create a global plan to deal with the global economic recession. Our economy is globalized, why shouldn't our governments behave that way? It is becoming increasingly necessary for governments to co-ordinate their efforts.

The US government recently announced it's plan to guarantee the warranties on all Chrysler and GM vehicles. Today the Canadian government announced the same plan. GM and Chrysler operate in both Canada and the US. If we want them to remain successful in both countries, it only makes sense that the governments of the two countries act together in order to solve the problem, which brings us back to the economic recession. The recession is global, the only way to solve a global problem is to act globally.

The far-right will likely shudder at the thought of many governments acting as one and while it is likely true that there can be no one-size fits all plan (even the G20 agreement seems to have been the result of compromise), it is the best way to go about solving the crisis. A global effort to fix a global problem will not lead to One World Government. I do not believe that any G20 leader is considering such an idea, they simply wish to act together on the economy. Such an act is certainly not a surrender of a nation's sovereignty.

Is This What We're Fighting For?

If you've been following the news over the past day, then no doubt you have heard about this, http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2009/mar/31/hamid-karzai-afghanistan-law. All the efforts that have been made to improve women's rights in Afghanistan could be undone so that Hamid Karzai can win more votes in the upcoming election. Karzai plans to introduce laws that would "legalize rape within marriage and bans wives from stepping outside their homes without their husbands' permission." In this day and age, such a law, is absolutely unacceptable. However, as the Guardian notes, "Senator Humaira Namati, a member of the upper house of the Afghan parliament, said the law was "worse than during the Taliban". "Anyone who spoke out was accused of being against Islam." In fact, the laws are meant to appeal to a small minority group within the country that happens to have a lot of political power. I do not think we should concern ourselves with the thought that speaking out against these laws might offend a minority group. If your beliefs include the idea that a woman can be raped, then something is very very wrong. Of course,

"The international community has so far shied away from publicly questioning such a politically sensitive issue.It is going to be tricky to change because it gets us into territory of being accused of not respecting Afghan culture, which is always difficult," a western diplomat in Kabul admitted"

This issue, that criticizing these laws may be disrespectful to Afghan culture, does bring up another point. It proves that, while our leaders in the West seem to be focused on bringing Western style democracy into Afghanistan, the people of Afghanistan (at least those with power) are not concerned, and do not want the West to do what it is trying to do. I believe this leaves two options, 1) Karzai resigns at the request of NATO and a government that truly represents the majority of the Afghan people is brought in, 2)We in the West come to the realization that trying to introduce our lifestyle and cultural attitudes into another country is foolish. There is no point in sending soldiers to die in a country where the leaders are pushing to enact the very laws that have been fought against for the past 8 years.

Update: There were protests recently in which many women were actually in support of the new law. Religion sure can twist your mind and prevent you from thinking logically.