I agree completely, like listening to the indigenous protesters at Durban, who are having their land taken from them by corporate polluters from the north. Its always about the money. Its never about saving the planet with these big corporations. Canada should be listening to indigenous people, and stop this outrageous money making program outright.

read about it here; http://indiancountrytodaymedianetwork.com/2011/12/08/indigenous-peoples-denounce-redd-at-cop-17-talks-66200

http://www.eurasiareview.com/19122011-buying-and-selling-pollution-who-gains-oped/

This corporate backed money making program called REDD must be stopped.

If the Harper Government and Canadian oil companies are actually concerned about ‘ethics’ in resource extraction they wouldn’t have quashed Bill C-300, the Parliamentary Bill championed by MP John Mackay which would have placed a small modicum of oversight on Canadian resource extraction abroad. The human rights record of Canadian mining companies abroad is dismal.

This point doesn’t even begin to draw the clear relationship between Human Rights and Climate Justice. Global warming is a human rights issue.

———

Defeat of responsible mining bill is missed opportunity
http://www.theglobeandmail.com/report-on-business/industry-news/energy-and-resources/defeat-of-responsible-mining-bill-is-missed-opportunity/article1784168/

Climate Change is a matter of justice
http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2011/dec/05/climate-change-justice

http://slapp.ecosociete.org/en

I can’t wait for the UN to start spending some of that new free cash. They can now begin the process of establishing offices and buildings in 3rd world countries to control the spending of their new largesse, as they said they would in the Copenahgen treaty. I can’t wait for some of the newly distributed ‘green’ money to be used to build wind turbines, and the rest to be siphioned off to buy newly Chinese made Kalashnikovs at about $5 a gun. If you don’t think any of the green money will go to buying weapons, you need to return to earth, we need you here.

cheers

There’s more to this too. I’ve co-authored an article recently with Robyn Lee, a Ph.D. candidate at York, called “Precautionary Consumption is Women’s Work”. Our central claim is that, since women assume primary responsibility for social reproduction, the sustainability of the household and for the health of family members, calls for “precautionary consumption” in order to avoid the risks presented by toxic substances in consumer goods, for example, must account for the disproportionate sharing of burdens related to the task of ‘dodging the toxic bullet’ (see David Boyd, 2010). Our study looks specifically at BFRs and phthalates, ubiquitous chemicals added to, in the case of BFRs – fabrics, furniture, carpets and electronics, and in the case of phthalates – plastics and cosmetics. We found that campaigns aimed at labeling as a policy solution (so that individuals standing in the shopping aisle can make smart, sustainable choices) are not only sometimes futile but actually exacerbate existing gender disparities.

The downloading of responsibility for reducing everyday environmental chemical exposures from governments and industry to individual consumers means that the work and responsibility is thus likely to fall disproportionately to women. Further, the case of BFRs and phthalates demonstrates that a key assumption central to the promotion of labeling as a policy solution — that individuals will actually be able to reduce their exposures — is questionable. But even putting this aside, and assuming that individuals are able to reduce their exposures — their “body burdens”– through precautionary consumption, the promotion of labeling as a policy response may have perverse results. Practicing precautionary consumption leaves women with even less time and energy available to engage in environmental and political activism aimed at systemic regulatory changes.

Rodney

Good luck! It was a pleasure working with you.

I wish you all the best. Enjoy!

Sincerely

AL